* JAN 26 1900 *

Division. J:^0^'^^--^ Section ..tjIi^X J- Oo

No, _^ _..._, .

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

THE

TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

A LEGAL MONOGRAPH

BY

A. TAYLOR INNES

ADVOCATE

EDINBURGH

T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET

1899

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED FOR

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH

LONDON*. SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED

NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNEB'S SONS

TORONTO : FLEMING H. RBVELL COMPANY

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

Men have too much forsjotten that the central event in history assumed the form of a judicial trial.

The j)rodigious influence of the life and per- sonality of Jesus of Nazareth is admitted by all. But His tragical death, early and passion- ately accepted by Christianity as the significant fact of His career, has become more than any other incident the starting-point of modern history — His tomb, as Lamartine put it, was the crrave of the old world and the cradle of the new. Yet that memorable transaction was the execution of a capital sentence, proceeding upon a twofold criminal trial — upon one pro- cess conducted under Hebrew and one under Roman law.

In its forensic aspect, as in some others, it is peculiar — perhaps unique. There have been many judicial tragedies recorded in history.

2 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

Capital trials, like those of Socrates, of Charles of England, and of Mary of Scotland, have al- ways had a fascination for men. And this trial has impressed and attracted the world more than any or all of these. But these pages recall to general readers — what scholars have long known — that it has in addition a purely legal interest which no one of them possesses. By common consent of lawyers, the most august of all jurisprudences is that of ancient Kome. But perhaps the most peculiar of all juris- prudences, and in the eyes of Christendom the most venerable as well as peculiar, is that of the Jewish Commonwealth. And whenever these two famous and diverse systems happen for a moment to intersect each other, the investigation, from a legal point of view, of the transaction in which they meet is necessarily interesting. But when the two systems meet in the most striking and influential event that has ever happened, its investigation at once becomes not only interesting, but important. It becomes, undoubtedly, the most interesting isolated problem which historical jurisprudence can present.

And the problem is not only interesting, but difficult. For questions such as the following

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST 3

fire at once raised : —Wore there two trials, or only one? Was the second a mere review of the first, or was the first a mere preliminary to the second ?

Farther, were the forms, in the one case of Hebrew, in the other of Roman, law observed, or attempted to be observed ? And was there in either case an attempt, with or without form, to attain substantial justice ?

Again, were the charges preferred before the Hebrew and Roman tribunals the same, or nearly so? What was the crime for which the accused died ?

Lastly, as to the decision. Was it in either case right in form, and attained hy steps in conformity with the process which was binding (or was observed) at the time ? And was it right in substance, i.e. was it, if not just, at least legal — in conformity with the Hebrew law, or the Roman law, as those laws then stood?

These questions of law proceed of course upon an assumed or ascertained history of fact. The history is abundantly familiar ; and, fortunately, there is no special necessity that we should commence this inquiry by an ex- amination of the sources. Men are not agreed

4 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

how far back they can exactly trace the three Gospels on the one hand, or the Fourth Gospel of John on the other. But the detail, veri- similitude, and authoritative calm of all these documents, impress the reader with a sense of close proximity to the life narrated — proximity, at least, on the part of the original oral nar- rators. And they have no competitors. A few words in Tacitus, a disputed sentence or two in Josephus, occasional execrations scattered throughout the Talmud, — these and such as these are the outside references to a career which burned itself in detail into the hearts of a generation of surviving disciples, and thence into the imagination of the world. To some readers it will appear a singular advantage that, so far as the documents bear on this special legal question, there is no reference to miracle. In none of the four records of the trial is there (after the first arrest) any touch of the super- natural in that sense of the word. The whole narrative of external fact might have been told of any morning's work of the Sanhedrin, of any forenoon condemnation by the Procurator. We may not indeed stretch this too far. The judicial narrative, unbroken by actual portent or marvel, maintains in each Gospel the same

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST 5

tone of supernatural consciousness which in previous pages, apparently without surprise or break or sense of effort, passes into actual ex- ternal miracle. Yet it remains true that in the fragment of fourfold history with which we at present deal, there is nothing which the most determined enemy of the supernatural needs to question. In truth, the incidents of the trial are most natural and probable, and, in so far as the traditions ao-ree, there seems no excuse for doubting the history.

Of course the four do not agree in all details, here or elsewhere. The variations in the utter- ances reported by different Gospels warn readers to expect a similar independence in narration of facts. And sometimes this cuts deep into the history, as in the matter of chronology. A doubt exists even as to the numl_)er of years during which the prophetic ministry lasted which this trial was now to close. A similar question has been raised as to the hours occupied by the trao'ic execution which followed on this very day. Neither of these points, however, directly concerns the legal side of the trial. We do not need to solve even the still more famous and ancient problem, whether the death took place on the 14th or the 15th day of

6 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

Nisan — the day before, or the day after, the Passover. For, whatever day it was, no one doubts that such a death, proceeding upon a Roman sentence, actually took place on the Friday of that week. Nor is it doubted by any- one ; or that the Roman sentence and execution followed upon an arrest which happened on the immediately preceding night — so that the Hebrew judicial proceedings, whatever these were, must have been interposed between the previous sunset and that morning session in the Praetorium. The chronological difficulties, even when they are outside of the actual trial, will no doubt ultimately affect the relative value of our sources. Yet it must be remembered that even if one of the Gospels were shown to be irreconcilable with the others, and with history — say, in a chronological matter contempor- aneous with that of which we here treat — it does not by any means at once follow that its narrative of the trial itself may not have high historic value. Each tradition or narration, and each part of it, must be looked at upon its own merits ; and when criticism has settled the weight of apostolic or contemporary authority which belongs to each, the resulting stereoscope (at present somewliat blurred in the superim-

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST 7

position) will finally take solid shape. Mean- time a lawyer, who is not himself also a critic, may remark that the mere independence of two or more narratives by no means tends to suggest doubt as to the story they convey. And while their variations, in so far as these affect the legal question before us, will call for careful consideration, we shall find that the basis of fact is on the whole satisfactory.

I give on a following page the fourfold nar- rative of the Hebrew, as subsequently of the Koman, trial. And to allow readers closer access to the original, I take the English from the Revised Version.

THE HEBREW TRIAL

"Thou, if Thou wast He, who at midnight came By the star-light, naming a dubious name! And if, too heavy with sleep, too rash With fear— 0 Thou, if that martyr-gash Fell on Thee coming to take Thine own. And we gave the Cross, when we owed the Throne."

Robert Browning's "Holy-Cross Day."

10

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

THE FOUR NARRATIVES.

Matthew

And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. . . . Then they came and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. ... In that hour said Jesns to the multitudes. Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me ? I sat daily teaching in the temple, and ye took me not. . . . And they that had taken Jesus led him away to the hmise of Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. . . . Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death ; and they found it not, though many false wit- nesses came. But afterward came two, and said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith

Mark

And straightway, while he yet spake, Cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. . . . And they laid hands on him, and took him. . . . And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves to seize me ? 1 was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not : but this is done that tlie scriptures might be fulfilled. . . . And they led Jesus away to the high priest : and there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes, . . . Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death ; and found it not. For many bare false wit- ness against him, and their witness agreed not together. And there stood up certain, and bare false wit- ness against him, saying. We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. And not even so did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying,

THE HEBREW TRIAL

11

THE FOUR NARRATIVES.

Luke

Wliile he yet spake, behold, u multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. . . . And Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, which were come against him, Are ye come out, as against a rohl^er, with swords and staves ? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched not forth your hands against me : but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. And they seized him, and led him OAt'uy, and brought him into the high priest's house. . . . And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Pro- phesy : who is it that struck thee ? And many other things spake they against liim, reviling him. And as soon xs it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes ; and they led him away into their council, saying, If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said unto them. If I tell ye, ye will not be- lieve: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Sou of man be seated at the right

John

Jud:vs then, having received the band of soldiers, and officers from the cliief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. ... So the band and the chief captain and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him, and led him to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest. ... The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching. Jesus answered him, T have spoken openly to the world ; I ever taught in syna- gogues, and in the temple, where all the Jev.-s come together ; and in secret spake I nothing. Why askest thou me ? ask them that have heard me, what I spake unto them : behold, these know the things which I said. And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with liis hand, saying, Auswercst

12

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

THE FOUR NARRATIVES.

Matthew

unto him, Thou hast said : neverthe- less I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy ; v^rhat further need have we of witnesses ? behold, now ye have heard the blas- phemy : what think ye ? They answered and said, He is worthy of death. Then did they spit in his face and buffet him ; and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying. Prophesy unto us, tliou Christ: who is he that struck thee ? . . . Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death : and they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate the governor.

Mark

Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee ? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith imto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am : and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, Wliat further need have we of witnesses ? Ye have heard the blasphemy ; what think ye ? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say imto him, Prophesy : and the officers received him with blows of their hands, . . . And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate.

THE HEBREW TRIAL

13

THE FOUR NARRATIVES.

Luke

hand of the power of God. Aud they all said, Art thou then the Sou of God ? Aud he said uuto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What further need have we of wit- ness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth. And the whole conipauy of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate.

John

thou the liigh priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil : but if well, why smitest thou me ? Annas there- fore sent him bound uuto Caiaphas the high priest. . . . They le:>d Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace (Pra-toriuui) : and it was early.

THE HEBREW TRIAL

All modern readers know that the Hebrew com- monwealth, and the institutions which regulated it, w^ere pervaded by a deep sentiment of justice and law. But all are not aware of the extent to which that sentiment, and its characteristic maxim, " Thou shalt do no unrighteousness in judgment," were developed in the later history of the people. In the more ancient part of the traditions of the Fathers, we read, "When a judge decides not according to truth, he makes the majesty of God to depart from Israel. But if he judges according to truth, were it only for one hour, it is as if he established the whole world, for it is in judgment that the Divine presence in Israel has its habitation." It was a few years ago pointed out to English readers that that whole vast later literature of the Jews which we call the Talmud is " emphatically a Corpus Juris — a cyclopaedia of all law," which may best be judged by analogy and comparison with other legal codes, more especially w^ith that of Rome and its commentaries. It con-

14

THE HEBREW TRIAL 15

tains many otiicr things, but this is its basis. And what is more important for us to notice, is that this legal basis is the older part. The whole Talmud consists of forty folios — a mass of discussion, illustration, and commentary. But the central part of it, which is comprised in twelve volumes, is called the Mishna, ic. the Tradition. iVnd the Mishna is nearly wholly law.^ The name was indeed of old translated as the second or oral law — the SevTepcoat^ — a detailed traditional commentary on the written law of Moses, to which it professed complete subjection, while practically superseding it as a code.' Mr. Deutsch, in striving to give English readers an idea of the multiplicity and confusion of the Talmud, likens it to Hansard : " The Parliamentary dis- cussions or episodes answering to the Gemara

^ The quotations in this volume are made from the edition of tlie Mishna by Surenhusius (Amsterdam, 1G72) ; and especially from the chapter or tractate De SynedriiSj in the fourth of its twelve volumes. I accept the Latin translation of the editor, and have only occasionally verified a word of the Hebrew original.

- The Mishna {iJe Synedriis, x. 3) lays down the startling principle, " Gravius peccatur circa verba scribarum, quam verba legis." As an enthusiastic and admiring translator paraphrases it, " He who teaches against the Pentateuch is not condemned to death, for all men know the Bible. But if he teaches against the doctors, he is condemned " (Rabbinowicz, Legislation Criminelle du l^almud, Paris).

16 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

or general commentary, while the Bills or Acts are called the Mishna." The distinction of course is, that in Hansard the legislative Acts are the result and termination of the discus- sions, while in the Talmud the Mishna or law is the older portion and the starting-point. Accordingly, while portions of the general Tal- mud commentary did not come into existence for many centuries after the introduction of Christianity, the compilation of the whole Mishna, or central portion, was begun by Kabbi Judah, somewhere about 200 a.d. But the Rabbi founded his own views in it on those of the earlier and famous Rabbi Meir, and goes back for his traditions through the two Gama- liels to his own direct ancestor, Hillel, con- temporary of Jesus, and himself a gatherer of the past. And while the oral law had thus been transmitted from mouth to mouth for centuries, two of its treatises are known to have been gathered together a hundred years before Rabbi Judah proceeded to compile the whole. So, when it was at last compiled, it was ap- parently as an oral law which had been growing in use and authority ever since the return of the nation from Babylon — as a '' brief abstract of about eight hundred years' legal production."

THE HEBREW TRIAL 17

Hence modern Jewish writers have referred to it without hesitation as including the code of criminal law in existence at the date of the high-priestship of Annas and Caiaphas. Of course this cannot be matter of demonstration in the case of all portions of a book which was not finally reduced to writing until centuries had passed. But the evidence shows that the development of the Mishna in the direction of precaution against legal injustice or negli- gence was exceptionally early and strong. Its earliest period coincided with the time of " the Men of the Great Synagogue," stretching from the Return from the Captivity to about 220 B.C. Their work has been summed up in the lead- ing aphorism of the Pirke Avoth, which runs, " Be cautious and slow in judgment, send forth many disciples, and make a fence round the laivJ' ^ And this age, which in- culcated caution in judicial action before all other things, was succeeded by the so-called age of " the Sanhedrin," which for the next four hundred years worked out that caution in detail. In nothing is the Mishna more express than

1 Mishna, Capita Patrum, i. 1. The same order of precedence is observed in the chief saying of their great representative, Simon the Just : " On three things stands the worki — on laii\ on worship, and on charity " {Caj}. Patrum. i. 2).

2

18 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

in the contrast recognised at an early time between civil and criminal proceedings — ^judg- ments "of money" and judgments "of the life." Even with regard to the former, its rules strike the modern legal mind as leaning to the side of pedantic caution. But with re- gard to criminal, and especially to capital, cases, there can be no doubt that long before the time of Jesus the value set by the law upon the life of a Hebrew citizen had led to extra- ordinary precautions. What have been called the four great rules of their criminal juris- prudence— " strictness in the accusation, pub- licity in the discussion, full freedom granted to the accused, and assurance against all dangers or errors of testimony " ^ — are carried out even in the Mishna in minute and scrupulous rules, leaning almost ostentatiously in every point to the side of the accused. And they ruled most of all in the case of a trial for life. Indeed, so far does this go, that modern Jews have been disposed to represent capital punishment as abhorrent to the whole genius of Hebrew juris- prudence. We read in the oral law the saying of Eleazar the son of Azarias, that "the San- hedrin, which so often as once in seven years

^ Salvador, List de Mo'ise, i. 365.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 19

condemns a man to death, is a slaughter-house." ^ And more startling still, when we remember the Hebrew dread of all anthropomorphism in speaking of the Divine, is that terrible sentence of Rabbi Meir : '' What doth God say (if one may speak of God after the manner of men) when a malefoctor suffers the ano-uish due to his crime ? He says. My head and my limhs are ^^ameri. And if He so speaks of the suffering even of the guilty, what must He utter when the rig-liteous is condemned ? " ^ And so, to save the innocent blood, to hedge round and shelter the sacred house of life, rule after rule was laid down in successive lines of circumvallation, and presumptions in favour of the accused were accumulated, until a false conviction became almost impossible.

Were the rules observed — was the law obeyed — in the trial of Jesus of Nazareth ?

The question whether the Hebrew trial was according to their own rules of law has perhaps not been exhaustively considered by any one writer, though it has been touched upon by many. The most celebrated discussion upon it was raised by a learned Spanish Jew, ^I.

^ Mishn.'x, treatise Makhoth. - Mislina, De Si/nedriisj vi. 5.

20 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

Salvador, who in 1822, in the first edition of a work since twice republished under the title of Histoire des Institutions cle Moise,^ gave two careful chapters on the penal law of the later Jews and on their administration of justice, and followed them up by a dissertation to show that the Jugement de Jesus was according to law. He admitted the facts as stated in the Gospels, and founded on the law as stated in the Mishna ; and from these sources professed to prove that while the result may have been unfortunate if Jesus was really the Messiah, the process fol- lowed and the result arrived at wxre alike necessary, if the tribunal adhered to its own law. Salvador was answered in a brilliant treatise by a distinguished member of the French bar, M. Dupin (aine). He, however (like an able American writer, Mr. Greenleaf), devoted himself rather to the substantial in- justice of the trial than to its form, according to the jurisprudence concerned ; and in the third edition of his Institutions, published in 1862, Salvador maintains and reprints the whole positions originally laid down. His argument, however, falls short of its conclusion on the

^ The third edition, in two volumes (Michel Levy Freres, Paris), is that here quoted.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 21

most essential points, so obviously, that to make it the basis of discussion would be one- sided and unfair. I propose, therefore, to treat tlie question independently, in so far as one who has no pretensions to Hebrew learning can deal with ascertainable fact on the basis of admitted law and underlying justice.

On a Thursday night in that month of March, the Thursday towards the end of the Passover Week, unquestionably took place the arrest — the first step before most modern trials. The ques- tion has been raised whether the arrest was legal. There is no reason to doubt that it was by author- ity of the High Priest ; and the addition of a Roman speira to the officers of the temple must have been procured by Jewish authority. But was arrest before trial at all a lawful pro- ceedino- bv Jewish law, no matter under how high an authority ? It seems not to have Ijeen so, unless resistance or escape was apprehended. In this case no escape was intended, but resist- ance, though not intended, was possible, and tlie lawfulness of the mere arrest need not therefore be questioned. What is more im- portant is what immediately followed the cap- ture, for this raises the question whether, in the intention of the Cixptors, the arrest at night-

22 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

fall was to be the preface to a regular trial. Had that been their intention, their legal course was plain. It was that followed a little later by the captors of Peter and John, who " put them in ward until the next day, because it was now eventide." It was to be otherwise here.

An examination by night followed the arrest. Jesus was first led by His armed escort to the presence of Annas, by far the most influential member of the Sanhedrin. For in that body there now sat no less than five of his sons, all of whom either had held, or were in a few years to hold, the supreme dignity of High Priest. The old man had exercised that great office twenty years before, and had, in the absence of the Eoman governor,^ stretched his powers, as one of his sons afterwards did, perhaps to the extent of carrying out capital sentences. At all events, the indignant Procurator had insisted on his removal from office ; but though Annas gave a formal consent, he merely transferred the chair of the great Council to the younger members of his family.^ It was now held by his energetic

1 Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor. See Josepliiis, Antiq. xviii. 2. 1, and xx. 9. 1.

2 " Like flies on a sore," was the comment of the Emperor Tiberius on the rapid succession in which one high priest after another alighted upon Jerusalem during his reign.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 23

son-in-law, Caiaphas, the aged head of the house remaining, in tlie estimation of orthodox Jews, the de jure High Priest. By Annas Jesus was sent bound to Caiaphas, perhaps only to another department of the sacerdotal palace. But before one or other of these princes of the Church the accused was certainly subjected to a preliminary investigation before any witnesses were called.

It is extremely difficult to decide whether this examination by '' the High Priest," re- corded by John alone, was made by Annas or by Caiaphas^ — so diftieult that it is fortunate that scarcely any legal question turns upon the point." The chief result of our decision of it will be its bearing on the proceedings which followed, the same night. For if the examina- tion detailed by John took place before Annas, it was separated by an interval of place, and also of time, from the subsequent proceedings before Caiaphas. In that case it is more pro- bable that the examination of witnesses, the

^ It depends partly on whttbei" the word aTrfVrfiXfi', in John xviii. 24, means "sent" or "had sent." See a full discussion of it in AndrcNv's Life of our Lord.

- Dupin objects tliat Annas was not a magistrate, and certainly that would add to the irreji^ularity of interrogating the accused. But by Hebrew law the magistrate could not interrogate, while in France he does.

24 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

confession, and condemnation which took place before the younger and titular High Priest were somewhat later in the night, or even towards morning, and followed the form and order of a regular public trial. If, on the other hand, Annas at once sent on the prisoner to Caiaphas, and if the examination recorded was by the latter, it may have been immediately followed by the production of witnesses, and by the ad- juration and condemnation ; and in this case it is likely that a considerable interval succeeded these proceedings before a formal or public meeting of Council in the morning confirmed the informal condemnation of the night.

But the main point with regard to the High Priest's examination is independent of the ques- tion who the examiner was. It appears in any case to have been wholly illegal. In some countries — in France, for example, and in Scot- land^— the accused is led before a magistrate, and subjected to private official interrogatories before he is remitted to his public trial. In others, and in the Hebrew law, it is not so. It

1 In Scotland tlie additional anomaly lias existed, that the private and official examination may afterwards (in the option of the prosecution) be produced against the accused at his public trial, while it cannot be then used in his favour (see Tlie Journal of Comimrative Legislation for March 1899).

THE HEBREW TRIAL 25

was there the riglit of the accused to be free from all such private or personal investigation until he was brought for trial before his congre- gated brethren.^ This rule of publicity seems to have been derived from principles both as to judges and witnesses. " Be not a sole judge," w^as one of the most famous aphorisms, " for there is no sole judge but One."- Still more clear w^as it, not from the Mishna only, but from the Pentateuch, that there w^as to be no such thino; as a sole witness ; and that the " two or three witnesses " at whose mouth every matter must be established must appear publicly to give their testimony.^ Their deposition w^as the beginning of every proceeding ; and until it was publicly given against a man, he was held to be in the judgment of law not merely innocent, but unaccused.

It is this principle wdiich gives the fullest explanation of the answers of Jesus of Nazareth to the midnight questions of the High Priest. The ecclesiastical magistrate, probably sitting

* " Un principe perpetuellement reproduit dans les ecritures liebraiques, resume dej^ les deux conditions de publicite et de liberte. On ne soumettait pas Vhomme accuse i\ des interroga- toires occultes, ou dans son trouble I'innocent peut fournir des annes mortels centre lui " (Salvador's Imt. i. 36G).

2 Mishna, PirUAvoth, iv. 8.

3 DeuL. xix. 15-18.

26 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

alone, and certainly sitting privately and during the night, and before as yet any witnesses were called, asked Jesus of His disciples and of His doctrine.

"Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world ; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.^ Why askest thou me f ash them that have heard me, what I have said unto them : behold, they know what I said."

It was in every word the voice of pure Hebrew justice, founding upon the broad prin- ciple of their judicial procedure, and recalHng an unjust judge to tho, first duty of his great office. But as one who studied that nation in older times observed, " When a vile man is exalted, the wicked walk on every side " around him ; and when the accused had thus claimed his rights, one of the officers of court — a class

1 These words recall a very curious provision of tlie Mislma {De Sijnedriis, vii. 10) as to the Mesith, or private " seductor— i.e. laicus seducens laicum " — a phrase which is, no doubt, trans- lated in the Gospel words, " deceiver of the people." In the case of such a one, who says privately, " Let us go after other gods,'' the rule as to laying no snares for the accused was for once sus- pended. The person attempted to be seduced might profess to acquiesce, and so hide other witnesses to overhear the Mesith, and testify against him.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 27

usually specially alive to the observance of form, and of that alone — " struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou tlie High Priest so ? " The reply of Jesus is exceedingly striking, fn it He again resolutely took His stand on the platform of the legal rifi^hts of a Hebrew — a around from which He afterwards rose to a higher, but which He cer- tainly never abandoned : "If I liave spoken evil, bear witness of the evil : but if well, why smitest thou me ? "

The words are, no doul)t, a protest for freedom of speech and liberty to the accused. But they appeal again to the same principle of the Hebrew law — that by which witnesses took upon themselves the whole burden and responsi- bility, and especially the whole initiative, of every accusation, even as they were obliged to appear at the close, and with their own hands to hurl the stones. x\.nd the renewed protest was so far effectual. For now the witnesses came forward, or, at least, tliey were summoned to bear their testimony ; and only when they came forward can a formal trial, according to Hebrew law, be said to have commenced.

But did not all this take place b}' night ? And was a trial by night legal ?

28 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

On the question of fact whether the trial took place by night or in the morning, it will be found on turning back to their narratives that the four Evangelists give a confused ac- count of what took place. Matthew and Mark, omitting the seemingly private interrogation of which we have already spoken, distinctly narrate a double and very striking trial by night — first by witnesses, and then by an at- tempt to obtain a confession ; but all before the High Priest, the scribes, and the elders, to whom Mark adds, "all the chief priests." Their narrative reads as if the first part of this trial might have taken place almost as soon as the prisoner was brought from the Mount of Olives. At all events, in their narrative it took place by night, while in the morning there was a second and separate "consultation" of a similar, but seemingly larger and more authoritative, meet- ting.^ John, on the other hand, narrates the interrogation by the High Priest, the transfer from Annas to Caiaphas, and the delivery to Pilate in the morning, but does not allude to any trial before the Council. These two repre-

^ Bynseus {De Morte Christi) holds a twofold trial in the morning. But the view (recently repeated by Dr. Farrar) that Luke narrates a different scene from that given in nearly the same words by the early Evangelists is scarcely tenable.

THE HEBPvEW TRIAL 29

sentations, thougli not contradictory, are un- satisfactory and inconsistent ; and the tradition of Luke, which differs from both, completes the confusion, but helps us to a result. He omits the earlier part of the alleged trial— the interro- cration of witnesses ; but narrates the confession and condemnation as at one meeting of the Council, which took place "as soon as it was day," and after which the whole company led Him to Pilate.

Putting all these representations together, there is no difficulty in arriving at the order of the historical transactions, though there will always be insuperable difficulty to those who insist on the exact accuracy of the narrators on the one hand, or on the legal regularity of the proceedings on the other. The visit to Annas and the transfer to Caiaphas came first, with the interrogation of the accused l)y one or other of the High Priests. About this earlier hour certainly took place the denial of Peter, related by all the Evangelists, while some time must have been consumed in sending for witnesses, and summoning either the whole Council or some members. That the whole Council did not meet at night is unquestionable : that a certain number of them were present by

30 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

night with Caiaphas is equally clear. Assuming that there was a final and formal meeting of the whole Sanhedrin at its usual morning hour, it is barely possible that the vivid scene of the adjuration, confession, and sentence took place before it. But it is much more likely on the evidence that it took place earlier, when a con- siderable number, quite enough to be popularly called a Council, were already assembled. And, in any case, it is certain that there was a still earlier transaction — the examination of wit- nesses and the deliberation on their evidence — and that this must have taken place some time during the night. It will always remain doubtful whether this midnight testimony took place before a considerable meeting of the Council or its committee on the one hand, or before Caia- phas and a few of his friends on the other. Nor is it of much consequence. The confusion of representation is quite natural. For, according to all the rules of Hebrew law, such a transac- tion in the night was absolutely illegal, incapable of being validly transacted in either form, and incapable of being reported so as to produce an impression of justice upon the minds of the people.

The detailed law is laid down in a passage

THE HEBREW TRIAL 31

of the Mislma/ which contrasts capital trials with questions of money. It is so striking that the whole paragraph may be quoted, though it is with the concluding words that we have now to deal : —

" Money trials and trials for life have the same rules of inquiry and investigation. But they differ in procedure, in the following points : — The former require only three, the latter three-and-t"\venty judges. In the former it matters not on -which side the judges speak who give the first opinions : in the latter, those who are in favour of acquittal must speak first. In the former, a majority of one is always enough : in the latter, a majority of one is enough to acquit, but it requires a majority of two to condemn. In the former, a decision may be quashed on review (for error), no matter which way it has gone : in the latter, a condemnation may be quashed, but not an acquittal. In the former, disciples of the law present in the court may speak (as assessors) on either side : in the latter, they may speak in favour of the accused, but not against him. In the former, a judge who has indicated his opinion, no matter on which side, may change his mind : in the latter, he who has given his voice for guilt may change his mind, but not he who has given his voice for acquittal. The former {money trials) are commenced ojilj/ in the day- lime, hut may he concluded after 7nr/htfall : the latter {capital trials) are commenced only in the daytime, and must also he concluded durin/j the day. The former may he concluded hy acquittal or condemnation on the day on ivhich they have hegun : the latter may he concluded on that day if there is a sentence of acquittal, hut must he postponed to a second, day if there is to he a condemna-

* Mishna, De Synedriis, iv. I.

32 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

Hon. And for this reason ca^ntal trials are not held on the day before a Sabbath or a feast-day. ^^

The crucifixion of Jesus took place, as has scarcely ever been doubted, on the Friday, the day before a Sabbath which was also " an high day " ; and this meeting of the Council took place on the same Friday morning.^ Such a meeting on such a day was forbidden. If indeed it only met to register an acquittal, it was lawful. But if the court was unable at once to acquit, it was bound to adjourn for at least twelve hours before meeting for final judgment, and such a final meeting could not be on the Sabbath. The necessity of the adjournment of a capital trial to secure the rights of the accused is shown very clearly by the detailed regulations of the Mishna ^ : —

"If a man is found innocent, the court absolves him. But if not, his judgment is put off to the following day. Meantime the judges meet together, and, eating little meat, and drinking no wine during that whole day, they confer

1 We thus escape, in our present investigation, the extremely difficult and famous questions whether the Friday was the 14th or 15th Nisan, and on which day of that week the Passover was eaten. If the Friday was the 15th, it was the Passover or Feast-day, when it seems to have been unlawful to judge at all. Mishna, Moed Katon, v. 2.

- Mishna, De Synedriis, v. 5, and vi. 1 .

THE HEBREW TRIAL 33

upon the cause. ^ On the following morning they return into court" and vote over again, -with the like precautions as before. . . . "If judgment is at last pronounced, they bring out the man sentenced, to stone liim. The place of punishment is to be ai)art from the place of judg- ment (for it is said in Leviticus xxiv. 14, 'Bring the blasphemer without the camp'). In the meantime an officer is to stand at the door of the court with a hand- kerchief in his hand ; another, mounted on horseback, follows the procession so far, but halts at the farthest point M'here he can see the man witli the handkerchief. [The judges remain sitting], and if anyone offers himself to prove that the condemned man is innocent, he at the door waves the handkerchief, and the horseman instantly gallops after the condemned and recalls him for his defence." -

These regulations, taken not from the com- mentary on the oral law, but from the Mishna itself, may have existed in full detail during the high - priesthood of Caiaphas. There is no reason to doubt that at least the general rule, which prescribes adjourning the trial from daylight to daylight, bound the judges of Jesus of Nazareth. In no case was such a rule so absolutely necessary to justice, as where the accused, arrested after nightfall, had been put upon liis trial by daybreak,

^ " Beatus judex qui fermcntat judicium suuui " (Gemara on Mishiia, l)e Sijaedriis^ c. 1).

- A striking commentary on this graphic law will occur to English readers who remember the interposition of Daniel in the History of Susanna, verses 4G, 40.

34 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

without the least opportunity of summoning witnesses for his defence. But what the Gemara describes as the atrocity of thus anti- cipating the day of death of the accused/ was exceeded in open injustice by the earlier out- rage of commencing, and probably substantially concluding, the real trial under cloud of night. That would have been an intolerable scandal even in the case of an ordinary civil suit. Such a suit could only be called and com- menced during the day, though upon occasion it might be prolonged after the shadows had fallen until a verdict were returned.^ But a grave criminal case — certainly a capital case of crime — was always to be begun, and re- sumed or continued, and finished, only in the light of day. And that, of all criminal cases, a trial in which a son of Israel, acknowledged to be mighty in deed and word before all the people, was to be judged for his life — that such a trial should be begun and finished and sentence formally pronounced, between mid- night and morning, was a violence done to

1 " Proferre diem morti damnati nefas est " (Mishna, T)e Syne- driis, iv. 1. Note 8, by Cocceius).

2 Even this is forbidden by another text in the treatise Nidah, and the jurists have had to settle tlie question of their relative authoritv.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 35

the forms and rules of Hebrew law as well as to the piiuciplcs of justice.^

Yet there can be no doubt that at some untimely hour, between Thursday night and Friday morning, the form, and somewhat more than the form, of a trial by Hebrew law did take place. The judges, unjust as they were, were men trained in that law of minute scruples and mighty sanctions ; and we may be sure that they would have felt it impos- sible to dispense with process and form altoo'ether. The last words we cauoht from Jesus were His demand for open accusation and trial: "Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me." And we shall hear no further utterance until the close. For when this demand for public justice was met by a nocturnal trial, the accused declined to take part in it. Meantime much was going on. The members of the Council present sought for witness against Jesus. Matthew says they

^ The circumstance tliat this luige blot is ignored by Salvador makes it very unnecessary to notice in detail his defence ol" other parts of the supposed formal judicial proceeding. lie narrates the trial and condemnation as taking place before a full meeting of the Sanhedriu, and adds (vol. i. 391) : " Le conseil se rassembla de nouveau dans la matinee du lendemain uii da surlendemain^ comme la jurisprudence I'exigeait, pour coufirmer la sentence ou I'annuler," This is mere invention of the facts.

36 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

sought for false witness. But even the former was a scandalous indecorum. Hebrew judges, as we have seen, were eminently counsel for the accused. And one of the strangest sights the world has ever seen must have been the adjuration or solemn address to the witnesses who came to speak against the life of Jesus, by the magistrate who had — no doubt wdth perfect sincerity — held it expedient that one man should die for the people. In our Courts an oath means a solemn undertaking by the witness, in the presence of Grod and the magistrate, to tell the truth. In the Hebrew Courts it was an adjuration by the magis- trate of the witness as standing in God's presence. That form of adjuration or solemn appeal still exists in the body of the law.^ It was the duty of the High Priest to pro- nounce it to each witness in a capital case, and so to put them on oath. Who can measure the force of its utterance on this occasion by the sacred Judge of Israel upon the men who, while words such as these uttered, were forced to gaze into the face of Ilim whose life it guarded ?

^ Mishna, De Synedriis, iv. 5. " Intro vocatis terrorem incu- tiunt testibus " (ii. 6).

THE nEBREW TRIAL 37

"Forget not, 0 witness, that it is one thing to give evidence in a trial as to money, and another in a trial for life. In a money suit, if thy witnes.s-bearing shall do wrong, money may repair that wrong. But in this trial for Hfc, if thou sinnest, tho y)lood of the accused, and iho blood of liis soed to the end of time, shall ho imputed unto thee . . . Therefore was Adam created one man and alone, to teach thee, that if any witness shall destroy one soul out of Israel, he is held by the Scripture to be as if he had destroyed the world ; and he who saves one such soul to be as if he had saved the world. ... For a man, from one signet -ring, may strike olf many impres- sions, and all of them shall be exactly alike. But He, the King of the kings of kings, He the Holy and the lilessed, has struck otl' from His type of the first man the forms of all men that shall live; yet so, that no one human being is wholly alike to any other. Wherefore let us think and believe that the whole world is created for a man [such as he whose life hangs on thy words]."

The Son of Man, whose life was surrounded by the law with this tremendous sanction, stood silent before those witnesses ; and, what- ever was the reason, the narrative records that their testimony against him failed. Let us therefore refer now to the Hebrew law of evidence. The Talmud divides all oral evi- dence into —

1. A vain testimony.

2. A standing testimony.

3. An ''equal" or adequate testimony; or

38 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

(perhaps) the testimony of them that agree

together ^ {Icrr} fiaprvpta).

The evidence of the earlier witnesses who on that night were examined seems to have been set aside as l)clonging to the first class ; for a " vain testimony " was not even accepted pro- visionally— was not retained until afterwards confirmed. A "standing testimony," on the other hand, was admitted in the meantime and provisionally, but not held valid until confirmed by others. To this intermediate rank attained the evidence of that witness who at length came forward to speak to the early utterance of Jesus about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple. And when fol- low^ing him another came, the question w^as at once raised whether the testimony of both did not amount to the third and complete order of evidence, known as " the testimony of them that agree together." " But not even so," says Mark, using the exact technical term — "not even so did their witness agree together." '" This may undoubtedly have been

^ Mislina, D& Synedriis, v. 3, 4. And see Lightfoot's Hor. Heh.j Mark xiv. 56.

2 Unless Mark, when he says their testimonies were ovk Ja-m, means that they were not "adequate," rather than not *' accordant."

THE HEP.REW TRIAL 39

;i mere discrepancy in their narration of facts. That discrepancy cannot have been great, accordiniz to our modern ideas. For Mark Cfives the evidence of both in one indiscrimi- natinir sentence. And Matthew does the same in another sentence, slightly different. Neither of them makes any explicit distinction between what the two witnesses said. Let us suppose that the discrepancy between the two (alleged by Mark) amounted only to this, that the one said, in Matthew's phrase, " I am able to destroy the temple of God," and the other, " I %vill destroy this temple." It is by no means clear that even such a difiference as this might not have been sufficient to nullify their testimony. For in a Hebrew^ criminal trial " the least discordance between the evidence of the witnesses was held to destroy its value " ; ^ and this rule, like others, was pushed to that childish extreme which we now call Judaical. A mere verbal distinction may have some- times been a fiital objection in the mind of even such a judge as Caiaphas. But the evidence of men who are not reported to have said anything extreme against the accused, but whom the Evangelists, departing from tlieir

o 1 Salvador's Institiitiom^, i. 1373.

40 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

usual reserve, distinctly call "false witnesses,"^ was probably reckless and inaccurate, and so discordant upon the face of it. It is just possible, indeed, that the variation between the reports of the two Evangelists covers not a mere verbal distinction, but a substantial and serious difficulty, of great importance for the conduct of the case.

For at this point we are confronted by one of the most important questions in the whole inquiry. What was the crime for which Jesus was all this time being tried ? What was the charge, what the indictment, upon which He stood before the Council ? Up to this point we have had no intimation on that subject. In modern times that would be an extraordinary state of matters. To try a man, especially for his life, without specifying beforehand the crime on which he is to be tried, is justly held to be an outrage. Some of the greatest events in English constitutional history turn on the illegality of "general warrants" — the illegality, that is, not of trying a man without specifying his crime — the most arbitrary of our kings did not venture

^ There were gradations among false witnesses as among true — especially as they were consciously or unconsciously false. See Lightfoot on the Talmudic and technical meaning of the word, Hor. Heh., on Matt. xxvi. 60.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 41

to do that — but of even committii^g^ him for trial, without specifying his accusation in the warrant of committal. But we must not judge Jewish law, or indeed early law of any nation, by our modern rules. Hebrew law, as we have seen, gave a peculiarly important position to the witnesses. I believe we shall not fully realize that position unless we remember that, at least in the earlier days of that law, the evidence of the leading witnesses constituted the charge. There w^as no other charge : no more formal indictment. Until they spoke, and spoke in the public assembly, the prisoner was scarcely an accused man. When they spoke, and the evidence of the two ao-reed tosjether, it formed the legal charge, libel, or indictment, as well as the evidence for its truth. This, to us para- doxical, but really simple and natural origin of a Hebrew criminal process, is nowhere better illustrated than in that ancient cause celebre of Naboth the Jezreelite.

" They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him ; and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the

42 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRLST

king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died."

The essential points of a Hebrew trial for life are here given with admirable terseness.^ But in the case of Naboth the false witnesses suborned by the Sidonian queen are represented as using the technical word, or nomen juris , of blasphemy. In the trial of Jesus the only witnesses distinctly spoken to reported a par- ticular utterance of the accused. What crime was this utterance intended by the accusers, or the judges, to infer ?

There are two distinct meanings which may have been innuendoed. According to one of them, the words, " I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands," may have been represented as the voice of one come to attack the existing institutions — to " destroy the law and the prophets." We have a most important commentary on this in the parallel accusation of Stephen a few months later : " We have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall cliange the customs which Moses delivered us." But, accord-

^ See also Joseplius' account of the trial of Zacharias the son of Banich : De Bello Judaico, iv. 5, 4.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 43

iiig to another view, the same reported utterance — especially in the modified form of Matthew, " I am able to destroy the temple of God " — may have been intended as a charge of arrogating superliumaii power. 80 His original auditors felt it. " Forty-and-six years was this temple in ])uildinQ- and wilt thou rear it aoain in three days ? " The two charges, it will be observed, though very distinct, are not inconsistent. jNIay He not have been charged both with attempting to change the national institutions and with pretensions to miraculous power ?

The difficulty in this twofold supposition is that we have been seeking; in these charo-es for the 07ie crime upon which Jesus was finally condemned. But if we look more narrowly at the supposed difficulty, we may find what we have been seeking. Jesus was finally condemned for " blasphemy," because He made Himself the Messiah and the Son of God, making thus higher personal claims than even the witnesses aojainst Him liad sus^i^ested. That was the crime, therefore, towards which one of the intended accusations — that as to superlmman power — may be held to have pointed. But what of the other, the attack upon Jewish institu- tions ? The unexpected but satisfactory answer

44 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

is, that such a charge may have fallen under precisely the same legal category, or nomen juris — that of blasphemy. This might be sug- gested to us even by the witnesses against Stephen, who describe as '' blasphemous words " the deliberate utterances of the deacon as to the passing away of the holy place and the law. But I believe that it will be found there is no Hebrew category of crime under w^hich the attempt to supersede the old institutions could so naturally come, as that which is here denoted by the term blasphemy. The witnesses, there- fore, may have had this accusation somewhat in view from the beginning. The judges almost certainly had. And it is not too soon to devote a few sentences to the question what a legal word so important for our inquiry properly includes.

Blasphemy is not mere profanity. It is pro- fanity which, as the name imports, strikes directly against God.^ This is the original sense of the word, and it is that to which we have returned in modern days. But throughout the countries of Europe ruled by civil and canon law, blasphemy has long since taken on a

1 The Hebrew phrase n"' DC' 2p1 seems to carry the same im- plication of offence and insult.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 45

secondary and constructive meaning. It stands in their law-books at the head of the enumera- tion of crimes as "Treason against the Deity,*' taking precedence even of treason against the State. And this crimen Icesce hiajestatis divincB, like the crime of treason against earthly rulers, has often, under the head of constructive treason, taken m-eat and danoerous latitude.^ Now whether it is a necessary thing for ordinary nations and jurisprudences to have in their statute-book such a crime as treason against God at all, we need not inquire. One thing is certain. In the Hebrew commonwealth and under Hebrew law it was necessary. For that commonwealth was in theory a pure theocracy, and all its priests, prophets, judges, and kings were then held to have ])een the mere courtiers and ministers of the invisible King, whose word was Israel's constitution and law. In such a constitution, blasphemy, or the verbal renuncia- tion of God, was in the proper sense high treason ; and any attempt to subvert the great institutions of His aovernment was constructive treason. By what name was such constructive treason

* The canon law detinition of blasphemy puts its original meaning last, and puts first that it is ascribing to God " iiuod I Hi uon cunvciiit.''

46 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

known and tried ? I think it was probably blasphemy. Neither the crime of the " false prophet" of the true God, nor that of "the idolater" or seducer to the w^orship of strange gods, seems to have attained to the generality and eminence of the word Blasphemy in Jewdsh law. That some such word w^as used in the age of Caiaphas to designate constructive treasons — attempts against the Divine system of religion — is certain. That it had become the proper iiomen juris for all such attempts I have not seen conclusively proved ; but it seems highly probable.

We cannot therefore hold, as has sometimes been done, that these witnesses brought forward a special and isolated charge with regard to the temple, and that on the failure of it the Council passed unfairly to other and disconnected counts. The special charge was at least in the line of the whole procedure contemplated.^ For unless we are to become wdiolly unhistorical in our legal criticism, w^e must believe that the general course of this night's proceedings was prearranged by the leading members of the Sanhedrin, and that they, and not the witnesses, really con-

^ Exactlj' as the charge against Stephen was in the line of his subsec[iient and sudden condemnation.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 47

ducted the prosecution. The evidence is over- whehning ^ that at repeated meetings of what the Fourth Gospel even calls a Council, and what may have been formal meetings of the acting committee of that body, the suppression, and if need be the death, of Jesus had been previously i-esolved upon. And in these pre- liminary proceedings it was not merely His acts as a prophet or as an o^Dposer of existing institutions that were deliberated upon. His claim to be the Christ, and even (as his nearer followers had already acknowledged Him to be) the Son of God — whatever that mysterious claim might mean — had during the second part of His career 2 pressed heavily upon the Hebrew con- science, especially in Jerusalem. The decision alleged in the Fourth Gospel, ''That if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue," does not indeed formally negative that claim. It may only, as Neander holds, have reserved it for the judgment of the one competent tribunal, the great Council of the nation ; wliile it forbade all private persons, whatevei- their individual views,

' Joliii vii. '2j, 30, 4";, viii. 40, ix. 2-2, \i. 47, 57 ; Malt. xxi. 23, 46 ; Luke xx. 20 ; Matt. xxvi. 3 et seq.

- Too little studied in the ablest popular treatises of this ceuturv, cjf. in lioth Rcnau's Jesus and Ilccc Ho)iw.

48 THE TEIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

from in the meantime publicly anticipating the solemn verdict. But it combines with innumer- able other parts of the history to show the agitating questions which pressed on the minds of the judges as they listened to witness after witness in that early dawn.

The evidence, all agree, w^as not found suffi- cient— perhaps not found "relevant"^ — so as to infer a conviction upon it alone. The rule of law in such a case was clear, that the accused must be at once liberated. It was not done. And even had the inculpatory evidence been found sufficient, the next step, according to the rules of the court, was to call witnesses for the defence.^ Such a proposal would of course have been a mockery in a trial at such an hour. But even that was not done. What was actually done was an attempt to cross-examine the accused. '^ Answerest thou nothing ? What is it w^hich these witness against thee ? " are the exact w^ords of the High Priest repeated in two of the narratives. But He " held his peace, and answered nothinii^." The interrooation, too, was unlawful. But I am not able to represent this

^ Wliicli of these is the meaning of the Hebrew word trans- lated la-T] fxaprvpia — an even testimony ?

- There seems to have been no advocate for the defence, known as Baal-rib, or Dominus Litis. — Friedlieb, Archceol. 87.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 49

silence as caused by indignation at the errors of the accusers, or the unfairness of the judges. That the ordinary rights of every accused Hebrew had been present to the mind of Jesus we have already seen. But that He had any expectation of escaping, or even any desire at this stage to do so, there is no evidence what- ever. All the narratives combine to show that He had for some time been consciously moving on to a tragical and tremendous close of His brief career. His utterances in anticipation of it during the previous Tveeks, and especially on the preceding day, have held the world spell- bound in each succeeding generation. A similar height of self-possession marks Him at this final hour. The inaccurate or malicious recollections of what He had said three years or three weeks before were nothing now to Him. He had not come to Jerusalem to perish by a mistake ; and if we are to fill that silence with thoughts at all, wx may suppose that they had reference to the scene that now surrounded Him. For there, at last, were o;atliered l)efore Him tlie children of the House of Israel, represented in their supreme Council and great assembly. To this people He had always held Himself sent and com- missioned. Now at last they have met ; and

50 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

all the ages of Israel's past rise in the mind of Him who stands to be judged — or to judge.

At what hour the great concluding scene, so vividly described by three of the Evangelists, took place, it is impossible to say.^ Plainly enough, the private and public examinations of the witnesses must have occupied a considerable time, and whether or not these had been attended by " all the Council," or a portion of its members, it is quite certain that by this time — at the point where these examinations were discontinued — a large number of the " great Sanhedrin " was met. The members of that body numbered seventy-one ; the " little San- hedrin," which was probably a committee or cabinet formed out of the larger, numbered only twenty-three.^ It is very possible that the smaller body may have been summoned at a somewhat earlier hour by Caiaphas, and it may be that no other ever assembled. Still the

1 " Tliey say their phylacteries," says the Talmud (Berachotli, i. 2), " from the first daylight to the third hour," at which last time the " Lesser Sanhedrin " could meet, while the greater sat only " after the daily morning sacrifice " {Maimonides on ch. De Synedriis, iii.). Luke seems to fix the first daylight as tlie time when they actually did " lead him into their council " — the Arraignment.

2 Mishna, De Synedriis, i. 6. The quorum of the Sanhedrin was twenty-three.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 51

narratives rather suggest that the great Council, which alone could at this time try a man for his life, and which alone could at any time judge a prophet,^ was also called. Let us concede to the lanf^uaceof the Evangelists that so much of the law was properly observed. We must, in that case, imagine the Council as sitting in the hall Gazith, half within and half without the holy place. ^ The seats were placed in a circle, and half of the seventy sat on the right and half on the left of the President or Nasi, who on this occasion was the High Priest Caiaphas. At his one hand sat the "Father of the Court," at the other the " Sa<^e." Two scribes waited at the table to record the sentence; two officers guarded the prisoner, who stood in front of the President. Amoncr the semicircular crowd of judges, Caia- phas and his friends, highest in rank and in Koman favour, represented also the great Sad- ducean element. The Sadducees, as rationalists, had no particular enmity to Jesus, over and above their general distaste for the introduction of the Divine as an element in human affairs. But, as the aristocratic and official party, they

1 " Tribus, pseudo-proplieta, sacerdos magnus, non nisi a sep- tuaginta et uniiis judicum consessu judicantur" (Mishna, De Synedrils, i. 5).

- But see Lightfoot and others.

52 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHEIST

were most keenly alive to the disorganisation which that element often produces, and were always disposed to suppress it before it had got to a dangerous length. The previous appeal of the High Priest to the salus po])uli as overriding all individual claims of right — ^' Ye know noth- ing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not" — was one full of reason. His plan seems to have been founded on a just and sound view of the temper of his own nation and of the Roman authorities, — a clear- sighted and comprehensive view, omitting no element that ought to be taken into account, except the existence of God and His nearness to men. But in the working out of that plan a certain exasperation must by this time have mingled with the calm determination to get rid of a saintly fellow-citizen. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were an equally large part of the Coun- cil, and their patriotic and religious feelings had originally been far more appealed to by the preach- ing of Jesus. But the inward struggle which had preceded their rejection of His claims had caused that rejection to be followed, according to the ordinary laws of human nature, by a growing hostility, which by this time was almost hatred.

THE HEBREW TRIAL 53

It was they, the zealots of the Council, who no doubt took the initiative in the extraordinary and tumultuous scene which closed the sitting. During: the later examination of witnesses Jesus had been silent ; but the thought of His Messianic or Divine claim pressed upon His judges with overw^helming force, and broke out at last into passionate utterance. The discrep- ancy between the Evangelists here merely reveals to us all the actors in the scene. *' Art thou the Christ ? tell us," they cried ; and the irrepressible exclamations of the judicial crowTJ described in one Gospel were only put an end to by the solemn adjuration of their Presi- dent, recorded in anotlier. To the eager and hostile questions of the Council, Jesus answered at first in a twofold utterance : " If I tell you, ye will not believe." Was He thinking sadly of their forgotten duty to weigh His word, and of a result to Himself, or to them ? But He adds, " And if I also ask you," as He had done perhaps only a few days before in the temple, when they had demanded His authority, " if I, instead, put my questions to you, ye will not answer me," and ye will not release your prisoner. It w^as true ; but the Council \vas long past being turned from its purpose by the reference

54 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

which these words again have, as I think, to judicial fairness and the order of justice. They saw in His face the lis^ht of that more than earthly claim which His lips only for a few moments delayed to make ; and with a mixture of terrible and hateful emotions, starting to their feet, then said they all, " Art thou then the Son of God ? " But above that crowd of aged and angry faces was now seen rising the High Priest of Israel, and all voices sunk away as the chief magistrate and judge of the sacred nation demanded, in the name of God w^hose office he bore, an answer to his most solemn adjuration, " I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ! " It w^as the question for which men had waited so long ; and now the answer came. " I am," the Christ, the Son of God ; and, turning to the crowd who sat in their places of power around him, he added, " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of powder, and coming in the clouds of heaven." It was the critical moment for the elect people. When a king declared himself in Israel, the manner w^as that he stood in the temple by a pillar, and the people of the land receiving him rejoiced wdth hosanna and song.

THE HEBREW TRIAL ^^

with palm-branch and with trumpet. And if this was the manner of a king, how should the King-Messiah be received when He claimed to be the Son of the Highest ? But when a man blasphemed the name of God, the ordinance in Israel was that everyone who heard it should rend his garment from the top downwards— rend it into two parts which might again never ])e sewn into one. And scarcely had Jesus witnessed His confession before those many witnesses, when the High Priest, standing in his place, rent his clothes, saying, " He hath spoken blasphemy ; what further need have we of witnesses ? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy, What think ye ? " And they answered and said, " He is IsH Maveth— a man of death." . . . ''Then they all condemned him to be worthy of death." So passed that great condemnation. There are very few points with regard to it which remain to be noticed. One relates to the lawfulness of the High Priest's adjuration, and to the judicial use of the confession of the accused.^ Nothing can be clearer than the

iThe adjuration was of course equivalent to putting the accused upon oath, and indeed seems to have been the usual way in which that was done . See Selden's chapter " De Juramentis in his book on Sanhedrins, and the other treatises on the same subject in vol. xxvi. of Ugolinus' Thesaurus.

56 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

Talmudists on this. " Our law," says Maimon- ides, "condemns no one to death upon his own confession." " It is a fundamental principle with us," says Bartenora, " that no one can damage himself by what he says in judgment." ^ Putting the question to the accused, and found- ing a condemnation on his answer, was therefore the last violation of formal justice.

But what as to its substance ? The question had been put, and the answer had been given. Assuming that the claim thus made by Jesus had come in some lawful form before the San- hedrin, were they shut up to this condemnation ? In answerino; this we have first to remember the distinctions already taken Ijctween blasphemy, in its simple meaning of profanity or insult to God, and blasphemy as equivalent to treason, overt or constructive, against the theocracy. In the former sense there was no case here. The words of the great accused were full of filial reverence for the Father.^ We have there- fore to go on to the latter sense, and to face the

^ Mishna, De Synedriis, vi. 2, note. So Cocceius : " Ita tenent Magistri, neininem ex propria confessione aut proj)liette vaticinio ease neci dandum." And even Salvador : " Notre loi ne con- damne jamais siir le simple aveu de raccuse."

^ Of blasphemy in this proper sense, the cautious rule oi" the Mishna must be understood : " Nemo tenetur blasphemus, nisi expressit nomen " {De Synedriis, vii. 5).

TTTK HEBREW TRIAL 57

grave question, Was it liigh treason in a Jew to claim to be the Messias, the Son of r4od { Most certainly it was — unless it v:as true. And if blasphemy was the propei* word by which to designate so tremendously audacious a claim, then was such a false claim also blasphemous. But what if it were true ? In such a case the falsehood was of the essence of the crime, and had to be proved or assumed before the judicial conclusion could be reached. 1'lie mere claim to be the Messiah was no crime. '* Art thou the Christ ? " was asked continually, of John, of Jesus, of every reformer, and of every prophet ; though an answer in the affirmative was held to be the most daring claim that human lips could frame. What relation indeed the Messiah of the Jews was supposed to have to their unseen King, and how far the dignity, not unknown to that age, of " Son of God," could freely be applied to the expected Christ, are questions on which vast learning has been expended. AVe shall equally err if we suppose that these words had in their ears all the meaning with which subsequent theology has invested them, or if we forget that the purpose and bearing of the accused gave them, on this last as on previous occasions, a unique and Divine significance. I>ut the two-

58 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

fold claim of the Messiah ship and the Sonship — made seemingly in response to the grouping of the two ideas (x4rt thou '' the Christ, the Son of God?") by the High Priest himself — could, never release a Hebrew tribunal from the duty of weighing a claim to Messiahship. The proper response of an unbelieving judge, like Caiaphas, when his adjuration was answered by confession, was, "What sign shewest thou then, that we may see and believe thee ? " And when, instead, he rent his clothes, with the w^ords, " What need ye further witnesses ? " it was either the pre- concerted plan by which to terminate the whole semblance of judicial procedure, or, perhaps, a sudden inspiration of evil, spoken a second time not wholly of himself, in a moment when the cold, hard, cruel thoughts, which had so long smouldered in the unjust judge, blazed up at the touch of confronting Kighteousness into final and murderous paroxysm.

We pass next to the Roman tribunal. But our conclusion on the question of Hebrew law must be this : that a process begun, continued, and apparently finished, in the course of one night ; commencing with witnesses against the accused who were sought for by the judges, but whose evidence was not sustained even by

THE HEBREW TRIAL 59

tlicm ; contiuued by interrogatories which Hebrew law does not sanction, and ending with a de- mand for confession which its doctors expressly forbid ; all followed, twenty-four hours too soon, by a sentence which described a claim to be the Fulfiller of the hopes of Israel as blasphemy, — that such a process had neither the form nor the fairness of a judicial trial. But though it wanted judicial fairness and form, it may nevertheless have been a real and important transaction. There is no reason to think that the Council missed the fact that Jesus claimed to be their King, though they deeply misunderstood the nature of Ilis kingdom. And there is every reason to believe that their condemnation truly expressed the rejection of His claim by the nation itself.

TIBERIUS AS PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. (Found at Capri.)

THE ROMAN TRIAL

Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem

Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus est.

Tacitus.

OuTOL •n-ak'Tcs airlva^ni Tuty ^oyiidruv KaiVapo? Trpd-TTOuat, PaaiXea XeyoKTCS Irepov elvai, 'ir^aoGk'.

Luke.

61

62

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

THE FOUR NARRATIVES.

Matthew

Now when morning was come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death : and they bound him, and led him away, and de- livered him up to Pilate the governor. . . , Now Jesus stood before the governor : and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews ? And Jesus said unto him. Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee ? And he gave him no answer, not even to one word ; insomuch that the governor mar- velled greatly. Now at the feast the governor was wont to release unto the multitude one prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you ? Barabbas, or Jesus, which is called Christ ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up. And while he was sitting on the judgment - seat, his wife sent unto him, saying. Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man : for I have suflfered many things this day in a dream because of him. Now the chief priests and the elders per-

Mark

And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate. And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews ? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest. And the chief priests accused him of many things. And Pilate again asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing ? behold how many things they accuse thee of. But Jesus no more answered any- thing ; insomuch that Pilate mar- veiled. Now at the feast he used to release imto them one prisoner, whom they asked of him. And there was one called Barabbas, lying bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder. And the multi- tude went up and began to ask him to do as he was wont to do unto them. And Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that 1 release unto you the King of the Jews ? For he perceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up. But the chief priests stirred up the multi- tude, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews ? And they cried out again, Crucify him.

THE ROMAN TPJAL

63

THE FOUR NARRATIVES.

Luke

And the whole company of them rose up and brought him before Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man per- verting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Ciesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Tliou say est. And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man. But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teacliing throughout all Judiea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place. But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a Galilean. And when he knew that he was of Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him unto Herod, who him- self also was at Jerusalem in these days. Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad : for he was of a long time desirous to see him, because he had heard concerning him ; and he hoped to see some miracle done by him. And lie questioned him in many words ; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests and the scribes stootl, vehemently uecus.ing him. And Herod with his soldiers set him at nought, and mocked him, and array- ing him in gorgeous apparel., sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and

John

They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace : and it was early ; and they themselves entered not into the palace, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. Pilate therefore went out unto them, and saith. What accusa- tion Itring ye against this man ? They answered and said unto him, If this man were not an evil-doer, we should not hare delivered him up unto thee. Pilate therefore said unto tKem, Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law. Tlie Jews sai<l unto him. It is not lawful for us to put any man to death : that the word of Jesus might be ful- filled, which he spake, signifying wliat manner of death he should die. Pilate therefore entered again into the palace, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? Pilate answered. Am I a Jew ? Thine own nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me : what hast thou done ? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world : if my kiugdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not bo delivered to the Jews : but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him. Art thou a king then ? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that 1

64

THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

THE FOUR NARRATIVES.

Matthew

suaded the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. But the governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you ? And they said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What then shall I do unto Jesus which is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified. And lie said. Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, saying, Let him be crucified. So when Pilate saw that he prevailed nothing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man : see ye to it. And all the people answered and said. His blood he on us, and on our children. Then released he unto them Barabbas : but Jesus he scourged and delivered to be crucified.

Mark

And Pilate said unto them. Why. what evil hath he done ? But they cried out exceedingly. Crucify him. And Pilate, wishing to content the multitude, released unto them Bar- abbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

THE ROMAN TRIAL

65

THE FOUR NARRATIVES.

Luke

Pilate became friends with each other that very day ; for before they were at enmity between themselves. And Pilate called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said unto them, Ye brought unto me this man, as one that per-

^ _^ verteth the people : and behold, J, haVhtg- -examined him before you, found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him : no, nor yet Herod : for he sent him back unto us ; and behold, nothing worthy of deatli hath been done by

^^_.,-Wili7"I will therefore chastise him, and release him. But they cried out all together, saying. Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas : one who for a certain insurrection made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison. And Pilate spake unto them again, desiring to release Jesus. But they shouted, saying. Crucify, crucify him. And he said unto them the third time. Why, what evil hath this man done ? I have found no cause of death in him : I will therefore chastise him and release him. But they were instant with loud voices, asking that he might be crucified. And their voices prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that what they asked for should be done.

John

am a king. To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, "What is truth ? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no crime in him. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover : '''will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the JewsL-'lTiey cried out therefore again, saying. Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barab- bas was a robber. Then Pilate there- fore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple garment ; and they came unto him, and said. Hail, King of the Jews ! and they struck him with their hands. And Pilate went out again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find no crime in him. Jesus there- fore came out, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple garment. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold, the man ! When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying. Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them. Take him yourselves, and crucify him : for I find no crime in him. Tlie Jews answered him, We have a

66 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHPJST

THE FOUR NARRATIVES.

John

law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. "When Pilate therefore heard this saying, he was the more afraid ; and he entered into the palace again, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto nie? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee 1 Jesus answered him. Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above : therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin. Upon this

Pilate sought to release him: but

the Jews cried out, saying, If thou

release this mau, thou art not Caesar's

friend : every one that maketh him- self a king speaketh against Cresar.

When Pilate therefore heard these

words, he brought Jesus out, and

sat down on the judgment-seat at a

place called The Pavement, but in

Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was

the preparation of the passover: it

was about the sixth hour. And he

saith unto the Jews, Behold, your

King ! They therefore cried out,

Away ^vith him, away with him,

crucify him. Pilate saith unto them.

Shall I crucify your King? The

chief priests answered. We have no

king but Cffisar. Then therefore he

delivered him unto them to be cruci- fied.

THE ROMAN TRIAL

The trial uf their ^lessiali by tlie Sanliedrin, liad it stood alone, would have no doubt been the most interesting judicial transaction in his- tory. The law of ]\Ioses, perpetuated though modified by Christianity, has perlmps been more influential than any other code of the world. Yet that law has had one rival — in the mighty jurisprudence of Rome. "The written reason of the Roman law has been silently or studiously transfused " into all our modern life, and lawyers of every nation look back with filial reverence to the great jurisconsults of the great age of the Imperial Republic. But between the two influ- ences there is one important point of contrast. In the Hel)rew commonwealth law was the product of religion. It was received, as Christen- dom has been content to receive it, as a Divine rule. There is no evidence whatever that the Jew- ish race was remarkable for an innate passion for justice, or for any such " tendency to righteous- ness " as might have originally led it to relio-ion.

G8 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

Their whole history and literature indicate, on the contrary, that it was the intense sense of the Divine which moulded the nation originally, and which afterwards led to a widespread though imperfect cultivation of the ars boni et aequi. Even that Rabbinic cultivation, as we have seen, was marred by continual exaggerations and arti- fices which reveal the original inaptitude of the race for the highest judicial excellence. Accord- ingly, down to the time with which we are deal- ino;, it remained a small, isolated Asiatic tribe, filled throus^h and throuQ-h with national and religious prejudices. It is not to such a source that men look for a model of the administration of equal laws. But there have been races in the world who reflected, as there are races who do reflect, in an eminent degree, that deep sense of righteousness which lies at the root of all law\ And of all such races, ancient and modern, the greatest was that which at this time ruled over Palestine and over the world. When the sceptre departed from Judah, it passed into the strong, smiting hands of Rome ; and already all the nations had begun to exchange their terror of Rome's warlike might for that admiration of its administrative wisdom which has grown upon the world ever since. And already, too, that

THE ROxMAN TRIAL 69

admiration was mingled with eonfideucc and trust. Those Eastern races felt, what we two thousand years after can historically trace, that the better part of the unequalled authority of Roman law was due to the stern, hard virtues of the early race and early Republic. It was dimly recognised then, and it is clearly traceable now% that that influence and authority sprang from an instinct of righteousness enforced by praetor and proconsul in every subject land, long before Ulpian or Gains had written it out into im- mortal law.

Pontius Pilate was at this time the representa- tive of Rome in Judaea — the governor, as he is called in the Gospels. But it will be found instructive to note more carefully what his exact position was. He was the Procurator desayns : the procurator, deput}', or attorney of Tiberius in that province. And he was no 2^^'ocurator Jlscalis,^ with functions equivalent to those of Qusestor. Pilate's was no such subordinate or financial office. He w\is a procurator cic^n po- testate ; a governor with civil, criminal, and military jurisdiction ; subordinated no doubt in

^ The name is still used in Scotlantl, having had there origin- ally its ohi .sense of "the deputy of a i)rovincial judge appointed l>v him to look after monev matters."

70 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

rank to the adjacent Governor of Syria, but directly responsible to his great master at Eome. And what was the relation of the Emperor himself to the inhabitants of Jud^a and to the world ? The answer is important. The Emperor was neither more nor less than the representative of Rome. In modern times men associate the im- perial title with absolutism, and a more than royal power. To Romans, even in the days of Tiberius, the name of a king w^as intolerable, and absolutism, except under republican forms, distasteful. Accordingly, when Augustus be- came the undisputed chief of the Republic, and determined so to continue, he remained nominally a mere private nobleman or citizen. The saviour of society did not dare to attack the constitution of the State. He effected his object in another way. He gathered into his own hands the whole powers and functions, and accumulated upon his own head the whole honours and privileges, which the State had for centuries distributed among its great magistrates and representatives. He became perpetual Princeps Senatus, or leader of the legislative house. He became perpetual PontifexMaximuSjOrchief of the national religion. He became perpetual Tribune, or guardian of the people, with his person thereby made sacred and

THE ROMAN TRIAL 71

inviolable. He became perpetual* Consul, (jv supreme magistrate over the whole Roman world, with the control of its revenues, the disposal of its armies, and the execution of its laws. And lastly, he became perpetual Imperator, or military chief, to whom every legionary throughout the world took the .sacvamentum^ and whose sword swept the globe from Gibraltar to the Indus and the Baltic. And yet in all he was a simple citizen — a mere magistrate of the Republic. Only, in this one man was now visibly accumulated and concentrated all that for centuries had broadened and expanded under the magnificent abstraction of Rome. Tiberius, therefore, the first inheritor of this constitution of Caesar Augustus, was in the strictest sense the representative of that great city that ruled over the kings of the earth. And the Roman knio-ht who now o-overned in Judiea was his representative in his pul)lic capa- city. For Augustus, as is well known, had divided tlic provinces into two classes. To the more peaceful and central he allowed the Senate to send proconsuls, while even over these he reserved his own consular and military power. But some provinces, like Juda3a, lie retained in his own hands as their proconsul or governor. Strictlv and constitutionallv, the c»overnor of

72 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

the Jewish nation, at the time of which we write, was not Pilate at Csesarea or Vitellius at Antioch, but Tiberius at Rome. He was the Proconsul or Governor of Judaea under the still-existing Kepublic — a Republic now almost identified with himself And Pilate, whom the Jews popularly- called their governor, w^as strictly the procurator of the great Proconsul, holding civil and military authority by delegation from him in whom was now embodied the boundless authority of Rome. Such was the tribunal before which the Council of the Sanhedrin is now to lead a prisoner.

Pilate sat in his Preetorium on the morninof of that " preparation-day," to transact business and administer justice as usual. In wdiat spot in Jerusalem his judgment-seat was on this occasion set up, cannot certainly be known. It may have been wdthin the fortress and under the tow^er of Antonia, the visible symbol of Roman predomi- nance which frowned beside the temple. Much more probably it w^as " Herod's Pnetorium," that magnificent palace to the north of the temple which Josephus describes, and which had been recently built by the Idumean kings. Their former palace was also still in existence, and the visit of the Roman procurator and the Tetrarch of Galilee to the same feast, w^hilc it raises the

THE ROMAN TRIAL 73

question which of them occupied the new and more splendid residence, suggests the inevitable rivalry and possible "enmity" of their relation. If we suppose that Pilate, like Florus, asserted his right to occupy the new palace, we may remember that its white marble semicircle en- closed an open Place which had looked out on the sacred city, and w^as almost as public as the space between Antonia and the temple. In the open space in front of this or any other Prse- torium the movable Bema or tribunal could at once be set up. But on this morning Pilate was still sitting w^ithin the judgment-hall. Outside WMS the roar of the Eastern city awakening on a Passover dawn ; within, the clash of Roman steel, the altars of the Roman gods, and perhaps the sculptured frown of the distant demigod Tiberius. Into that heathen chamber the priests and doctors of the separated nation would not enter during their sacred week ; and the Roman, with his Roman smile, graciously removed their difficulty by coming with his soldier-lictors to the gate. But his first words there, as his eyes fell upon the prisoner who stood with his hands bound before him, were : *' What accusation bring ye against this man i " We recognise instantly the spontaneous voice of Roman jus-

74 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

tice. It was no doubt meant to suocyest his own authority and power of review, and in that respect we must presently consider it. But it was before everything else the instinctive utter- ance of a judge, and it at once recalls that memorable dictum of Pilate's successor in the same seat : " It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, until that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerninof the crime laid against him." So ever spoke the worst of the Roman governors — and neither Pilate nor Festus was among the best — out of the mere instinct and tradition of justice which clung to their great office among the treacherous tribes around. The chief priests and scribes on this occasion avoided the demand to know the accusation. "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him to thee." The insolent evasion of his question was not likely to propitiate Pilate, who instantly puts the matter on its true footing by the calm but some- what contemptuous reply, " Take ye him, and judge him according to your law." Sullenly came the answer, "It is not lawful for us (it is not permissible — ovk e^eaTtv) to put any man to death." The answer revealed (what the word

THE ROMAN TRIAL 75

"malefactor" had perhaps ah-eacly implied, and what may have been involved in their bringing their prisoner to Pilate at all) that it was a capital charge which they had come to make. But it closed this important opening dialogue. The conversation just narrated is only found in the Gospel of John ; and it is remarkable that a narrative supposed to be much later than the others should record words which not only have the strongest internal evidence of truth, but to which subsequent investigation has given im- mensely increased historical value.

For at this point of the story comes in the question of conflict oi jurisdiction. Why did the Jews oo to Pilate at all? We have seen that their Council condemned Jesus to be " guilty of death." Had they no right to pass such a sentence ? or, having the right to pass it, had they merely no power to execute it? How far did the authority of the governor trench upon, or supersede, tlic authority of the Sanhedrin ? Which of them had the jus viLr aut necis ? What was the relation of the two powers, the Jewish and the Roman, to each otlier at this time ?

This broad historical (juestion lies at the root of the views which may be taken of the legal

76 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

point — views which liave sometimes been ex- tremely contrasted. In the controversy between Salvador and Dupin, the former (true in this to the sad claim of some of his nation of old, " His blood be on us ") urged that the Sanhedrin had full authority to try even for capital crimes, and that their sentence of death required only the countersign or endorsement of the Roman governor. His opponent held that the Jewdsh court had no right to try for grave, or at least capital, crimes at all ; that their whole procedure was a usurpation ; and that the only real or competent trial was that which we are about to consider. I have no intention of going into the great mass of historical investigation which has been accumulated on this confessedly difficult point. There seems no one consideration which is quite conclusive upon it. Thus it would be rash to ascribe to the assertion of the Talmud, that " forty years before the destruction of the temple the judgment of capital causes was taken away from Israel," the praise of exact chronological accuracy. Yet it is very striking as showing the time about which the doctors of the Jewish law were willincr to hold that their power of life and death (no doubt already re- stricted or suspended under the despotism of

THE ROMAN TRIAL / 7

Ilcrod) had finally passed away. But on the general subject of the relation of the two powers in that acre there are some considerations which reasoners on either side do not seem to have always kept in view, but which are important. 1. There w^as no concordat on this subject betW'Cen the Romans and the Jews. The latter were the conquered nation ; their jurisdiction, including the powxr of life and death, was wrested from them de facto, and they were olJioed to submit. But de jure they never did. To them, at least to the great mass of the nation, the Sanhedrin was still the national authority, especially in accusations relating to religious matters. 2. On the Roman side, the matter was of course precisely the reverse. Their view of the jurisdiction of subject races generally, and of the Jew^s in particular, w^as, I suspect, that it was just so much as they chose to leave them. In most cases that formed a very large field. The Roman governor sanc- tioned, or even himself administered, the old law of the region ; but the policy of the ruling power w^as to concede to local self-government as much as possible. The concession was of course all the larger where there w\as no disposi- tion on the part of the province to provoke a

78 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST ,

contest. Ill Roman law as in Roman campaigns, in questions of jurisdiction as in cjuestions of politics, the maxim of the haughty and wise rulers of the world was parcere subjectis et dehellare su^ierhos. 3. It is evident that a large latitude was allowed on this subject to the great Roman officers — proconsuls or pro- curators— who administered la liaute justice. The Republic and the Emperor permitted, and indeed demanded, that they should stretch or relax their authority as the particular case or exigency required. In ordinary matters brought before their tribunals, the rule on which they acted is perfectly expressed, a few years after this, by Annaeus Gallio, the humane proconsul of Achaia, and brother of the philosopher Seneca : "If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, 0 ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you : but if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it ; I will be no judge of such matters." But while they drove such questions from the judg- ment-seat, so long as they did not affect the rights of the sovereign power, the least hint that one of these words or names or questions of another law could prejudice the supreme power of Rome was enough to authorise the governor

TTTK ROMAN TRIAL 79

to plunge lii.s axe into the oftcnding part of the ])ody politic with prompt and savage severity.

These general considerations should never be forgotten in reading the scattered and often inconsistent historical notices on the subject. They show that the extreme views, which critics in our own time have maintained, were probably held even then by the opposing powers wdiose jurisdictions were in poise. But the balance of evidence is very strong that, at this time, all questions of life and death in Judsea were by Roman law and practice reserved for the final decision of the Roman governor. In such cases the Jews had, at the most, only the cognitio causae : they could try the cause, but not sen- tence the accused. Nor can there be much doubt that the governor's final power in these cases w\as not a merely ministerial right of endorsement and execntio ; it was also a power of re-cognitio, or review, in so far at least as he chose to exercise it. Whether this reserva- tion to the governor was such as to deprive the Jewish courts of their rights as tribunals of first instance — whether any previous trial of a capital cause before the Sanhedrin was neces- sarily a usurpation — is another and a more difficult question. With regard to ordinary

so THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

civil crimes — robberies or assassinations — the Jewish rulers may have been content not to interfere further than to bring the perpetrators to the Eoman tribunal for judgment. The Koman judges, on the other hand, may have been quite willing to send to the cross without much inquiry any ordinary malefactors against whom the authorities of the country, having already inquired into the case, were willing to appear as accusers. But, obviously, a more serious question arose when the alleged crime was a religious one — a claim, as prophet or Messiah, to change the ecclesiastical institutions. In such a case the Sanhedrin itself no doubt maintained, as the Jews generally did on its behalf, an exclusive right to judge in the first instance ; and its tendency would be very strong to deny any re-cognitio by the Eoman power, and either not to call in that powder at all, or to limit it to a mere right of countersign. What view the Eoman governor might take, in the very unusual case of such a charge being brought to his tribunal, was another matter.

But in truth, w^hile the dialogue-narrative of the Fourth Gospel admirably illustrates the historical relations of the parties at the time, the history as it actually occurred supersedes

THE ROMAN TRIAL 81

the necessity for referrino^ to these more i;eiieral rehitions. Wliether it was leoitimate or not for the Jews to condemn for a capital crime, on this occasion tliey did so. Whether it was legitimate or not for Pilate to try over again an accused whom they had condemned, on this occasion he did so. There were certainly two trials. xVnd the dialogue already narrated ex- presses w^itli the most admirable terseness the struggle which w^e should have expected be- tween the effort of the Jews to get a mere countersign of their sentence, and the deter- mination of Pilate to assume liis full judicial responsibility, whether of first instance or of revision. The reluctance of the Jews on the present occasion was no doubt prompted, not so much by their usual ecclesiastical independence as by their dread lest inquiry by Pilate should prevent his carrying out their scheme. But as matters actually turned out, the collision which the Procurator s first words provoked had the effect of binding him [)ublicly, before the men of both nations who surrounded liis judg- ment-seat, to deal with tliis capital case in his judicial capacity. It was henceforth no mere matter of administration, no incident of sum- mary police jurisdiction or military court-mar-

82 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

tial. It was a deliberate judgment of life and death by the supreme civil ruler, who had inter- posed his jurisdiction between an accused man and the chief authorities of the subject nation.

The Accusatio7i demanded by Pilate neces- sarily followed, now that he had insisted on being judge in the cause. We have this given with considerable formality in the Gospel of Luke ; and though it is omitted in the three others, the first question of Pilate to Jesus, which they all record, implies a previous charge. Luke gives it thus : " We found this man per- verting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King." Had the accusation retained the form in which it was brought before the Sanhedrin — had it been a merely religious or ecclesiastical crime wdiich was now named — a different ques- tion would have arisen. Had the chief priests, when they " began to accuse " Jesus, said at once what they passionately exclaimed at a later stage of the cause, " We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God," it may be doubtful what Pilate would have done. He was author- ised as governor to administer their law, or to preside over and control its administration ;

THE ROMAN TRIAL 83

and wliilc Lis leaning would be, like that of Gallic, to consider this question a matter of words, he might have been induced to see that these words covered grave consequences to the State. But such difficulties Avere avoided by the deliberate change made by the accusers in the form of the accusation — or perhaps, by their revertincr to that accusation which had l)een orioinallv intended, and for which the ecclesi- astical procedure of the night before was a pretext or preliminary. If we accept this sentence of Luke as equivalent to the nominis delatio of the Roman law, or to the affidavit of the prosecutor-witness of the Hebrew law alreadv considered— and it has resemblances to l)oth — it throws a Hood of light before as well as behind. The charge of " perverting " (Sm- (npe(f)ovTa), including perhaps '-revolutionising" as well as "seducing" the nation, was fairly true, and was distinctly included in the Jewish procedure of the night before. No doubt to Roman ears it was ambiguous, but the am- bicruitv recalls that very real doubt which had governed his mind who said, " If we let him alone, all men will believe on him, and the Romans will come and take away our place and our nation." The culminating charge, that

84 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

Jesus called Himself " Christ a King," was also true, and had just been acknowledged to be true, though scarcely in the sense in which the accusers desired that the ears of the governor should receive it. But if Ave are to take Luke's narrative, we must believe that the charge was not left in this ambiguous and ineffective form. The managers of the impeachment had no doubt not intended to make a deliberately untrue statement before the heathen judgment -seat. They wished, at as small an expense of false- hood as possible, to throw upon the foreign power the odium of a prophet's death. But the prompt utterances of Pilate seem to have forced them into the villainy they would rather have avoided, and between the more ambiguous charges of seducing the nation and claiming a royal Messiahsliip they add, by way of illustra- tion, ''forbidding to give tribute to Caesar." It was a sheer falsehood, and some of the accusers must have known it to be the converse of the fact as recently ascertained. But it was a suggestion which, as they must also have known, would give the most deadly significance to the other vaguer and truer heads of tlie in- dictment, and would make it impossible for the governor to waive the capital charge.

TIIK TIOMAX TRTAT. 85

I^'or there is no mistake as to vvliat the crime liere imputed is. It is mcfjestrfs — the greatest crime kno^^•n in Rom on law, the greatest crime conceivable hy the Roman imagination — an attack upon the sovereignty or supreme majesty of the Roman State/ In the early days of the Republic the name 2^^'^'duellio was applied to treason and rebellion, and the citizen condemned l)y the people for that crime was interdicted from fire and water, or hanged upon an arbor infelix. As the rule of the city spread over the world, treason came to be known as an attack upon its majesty ; and various laws were passed to define this crime and the treatment of it, the chief enactment beino- the Lex Julia. Ac- cordino' to this law, everv accusation of treason against a Roman citizen must be made by a written libel. A Jewish provincial had of course no such protection. lie stood before the Pro- curator of the Ciesar, with no defence against the summary exercise of absolute power but the plea of justice.

^ " Crimen adversus populum Romauum vel adversus securi- tatem ejus " (Ulpian, Dig. xlviii. 4. 1). Tlie origin of the name is plain. Cicero defines majestas as " magnitude Populi l^omani," and the full name of the crime is " crimen lasa^ aut imminuta' maje^statis." It is very adequately expressed by our word treason.

86 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

We come now to the Defence. All the narra- tives bear that Pilate put the same question to Jesus, in the same words, " Art thou the King of the Jews ? " but that, on His answering in the affirmative, the Roman came to the para- doxical conclusion that there was " no fault in him." The Fourth Gospel contains the ex- planatory conversation which these facts almost necessarily imply. The statement of Jesus is unusually impressive. It is couched, no doubt, in that involved, allusive, and aphoristic style of utterance which we find in this Gospel from end to end. But we must remember that all the biographies represent this very style as occasionally used by Jesus, and as characteristic of Him in critical circumstances. It comes out in all the histories when He touches on the esoteric " mysteries of the kingdom " He preached, or where His own claims are brought in question ; and it manifestly grew more and more His manner of utterance towards the close of His career. We hold, therefore, that a statement which, though only recorded in the latest Gospel, must according to all the others have been substantially made, and which as reported is at once startlingly ori- ginal and intensely characteristic, has every

THE ROMAN TRIAL 87

internal evidence of l)eing historical. This dialogue took place in the Praetorium, where Jesus may have possibly been detained while the question of jurisdiction was settled with His accusers. (It rather appears, however, that He must have been present while the accusation was made ; the two first Evangelists state that either then or at a later stage His silence ex- torted the marvel of the governor, who said, '' Het'^rest thou not how many things they witness against thee ? ") He now, however, brings his prisoner within, and puts the sudden question, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus' answer, " Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me ? " does not seem to have been a request to know what had been uttered by the Jcavs in His absence. The words evidently have a deeper reference. They are equivalent to, In what sense dost thou use the expression ? "If thou sayest it of thyself, in the sense in which a Roman would naturally use the word, then I am not the King of the Jews. But if others told thee this of me, if thou art using the words of Hebrew prophecy, or of the world's hope," that may need further explanation. Pilate strives to reply as a Roman should, "Am I a Jew ? Thine own

88 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

nation and the chief priests have delivered thee to me : what hast thou done ? " It was throwing back, and not unfairly, the burden of explanation upon the accused. So He who had kept silence before the midnight San- hedrin, and who made no answer even now to their dissimulated accusation, at once frankly answered the heathen magistrate, who desired himself to know the truth of the case : " My kingdom is not of this w^orld : if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight : . . . but now is my kingdom not from hence."

In considering words so memorable we must avoid as much as possible the theological and ecclesiastical, and look only from tlie historical, and in particular the forensic and judicial, point of view. Whatever else these words import, they are in substance, and almost in form, a defence. If they imply a confession of kingship, they express an avoidance of the parucular kind of kingship charged. They do not set up a plea in bar of the jurisdiction. Tiiey seem to acknowledge that a kingdom of this world would be a legitimate object of attack by the deputy of Csesar, but they deny that the kingship of Jesus could be so described. The most important commentary on the words is of course the recent

THE ROMAN TTlTAL 89

and famous scene of the tribute money, where Jesus, beino- demanded as a Jewish patriot and prophet, *' Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, i)V no r' answered, "Show me a penny," and, havino- asked the si«j;nificant (luestion as to Cesar's image and superscription engraved upon it, closed the discussion with the words, " Render therefore unto Caesar the thhigs that are Ciesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The two incidents, in common with the whole of the history, make it certain that it was no part of His plan of kingdom, as it was no part of the plan of Christianity liistorically, to attack the Roman power. But this critical utterance to Pilate (like that former one) seems to go farther. On the face of it, it indicates that there was no necessary collision l)etween the kingdom which Jesus was prepared to assert as His own, and that oTcat "kino-dom of this world" which His judge represented. An actual collision there too probably might be. But the words are meaningless unless they are taken as asserting separate spheres within whicli it was possible for each power to confine itself, and by confining themselves within which it was possible for them to escape collision. Only one of these kingdoms is described, and it is defined generally as " of

90 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

this world," the definition beino' illustrated bv the suggestion that in every such kingdom the monarch may suitably be defended by the armed force of his subjects. The other is as yet only defined by the negation of these characteristics.

Pilate, as the result indicates, was already impressed by the statement, and perhaps con- vinced by it of the innocence of the accused of all conspiracy against Eome. And yet Jesus still spoke of a kingdom — a kingdom too in tliis world, though not of it ^ — and His words of renunciation were more roval than all the Eoman had ever listened to of o-reatness. AVith true judicial tact, the governor lays his finger on the exact point which required to be brought from negative implication into express statement. " Art thou a king then ? " he asked the prisoner wdiose kingdom was not of this world. And as before, to the adjuration of God's High Priest, so now, to the representative of all the greatness of earth, the answer came back, making a crisis in the world's history, " Thou sayest it : I am a king." He who spoke so to a Eoman governor knew that He was oflering Himself to the cross, and that the next few hours might close that

^ " My kingdom is not of this ivorld." The word u.^ed is Kotr/iof, not aloov.

THE ROMAN TRIAL

91

fateful life. And the thougbt was in His mind when he deliberately added, "To this end was I born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I might bear witness unto the truth.' Whatever else is included in words so great, this "witness to the truth" certainly embraces the testimony which a moment before had been aiven by the speaker Himself— by Him "who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good con- fession" to the existence of a kingdom, true and real though not of this kosmos. But this supreme utterance struck a deeper note than even the assertion of a spiritual and separate kingdom. It proclaimed that which is the basis of all human veracity and virtue, but which in those later ages was becoming strange to Roman ears— the existence of an eternal world of truth outside of man— a universal Divine system of things, high above all local or national tra- ditio^ii, and indeed above all human beliefs and desires. Over that objective truth men have no power: their highest privilege is to recognise and to confess it. And those do recognise it who have already a certain kin- ship and relation to that central truth- who are " of the truth." For the last words to his judge of Him who now claimed to be both the

92 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

witness and the King of that greater world were, "He that is of the truth heareth my voice."

''Piktc answered, What is truth?" The bkmk response, half-sarcastie, half-despairing, wholly sceptical, will claim notice at a later stage. In the meantime we follow the course of the judge, who, thus waiving the personal question presented to him,^ goes on to deal with the accusation and the accused. The narratives all bear that Pilate reached and expressed the conclusion that the crime charged had not been proved — that indeed he found in the accused "no crime at all." And the last Gospel dis- tinctly refers the first public utterance of this conviction to the exact point in the conversation and defence at which we have just arrived. It was the only defence which the accused is at any time stated to have offered; and Pilate

1 The apocryphal " Acts of Pilate," after giving this conversation with much accuracy, adds a few sentences which, while they rather vulgarise the previous utterances, indicate a special application of the words of Jesus which may have occurred to the mind of the governor as he passed from their higher suggestions to announce his judgment in the cause :

" Pilate saith unto him, What is truth ? Jesus said. Truth is from heaven. Pilate said, Therefore truth is not on earth. Jesus said to Pilate, Believe that truth is on earth among those who, when they have the power of judgment, are governed by truth and form right judgment."

THE ROMAN TRIAL

iKnv went straight out from the Pra^torium, and announced his verdict, perhaps from the judgment-seat. Yet was this utterance, as it turned out, onl}' the first step in that__cUniUl}yard. course of weakness the workl knows so well : a course which, beginning with indecision and comphiisance, passed through all the phases of alternate bluster and subserviency ; persuasion, evasion, protest, and compromise ; superstitious dread, conscientious reluctance, cautious dupli- city, and slieer moral cowardice at last ; until this Roman remains photographed for ever as the perfect feature of the unjust judge, deciding " ao'ainst his better knowledcre, not deceived." Upon some of the points in the Evangelic narrative we need not dwell. The graphic in- cident of the judge catching at an allusicm to Galilee, and, on ascertaining that the man was a Galilean, sending him to Herod, may be just noticed in passing. The word used is uveTrefiylrev (remisit), which seems the exact technical term for restoring an accused to his proper juris- diction, as here in sending Ilim from a forum ayyprchen^ionis to a Jorum oric/inis. Herod's declinature was prudent as well as courteous, when we remember the terms of the accusation. A man, even a provincial, accused of majestas,

94 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

'' stood at Caesar's judgment-seat, where he ought to be judged"; and the Idumean ''fox" may have dreaded the lion's paw, while very willing to exchange courtesies with the lion's deputy. The second appearance at the tribunal of the governor shows a distinct accession of weakness on the part of the judge, and of pressure upon him by the accusers. His wife's ^ morning message troubles his conscience, but does not purify his heart. Pilate is now willing to " chastise him and let him go," i.e. to mangle an innocent man with the savage Roman scourge. The Jewish accusers refuse the compromise ; and Pilate, characteristically, seems to have left them under the impression that he had finally sent Him to the cross, while he still intended to make a postponed appeal to their compassion. But before taking his first step in actual guilt, the judge washes his hands with the memorably vain words, " I am innocent of the blood of this just person : see ye to it." After the scourging, the three Evangelists record nothing but the insults of the fierce soldiery to one who was given up to them as a Jewish traitor to their

^ There is a curious historical question whether the wives of governors were at this time permitted to go down to the province with their husbands, which turns out in favour of Claudia Procula's legitimate presence in Judaea,

THH ROMAN TRIAL 0 5

Emperor. But the later Evangelist interposes a series of incidents which are, now as before, noted with the finest characterisation and the most delicate verisimilitude. lie alone records the " Behold the man ! " with which the struggling Procurator, whose "faith unfaithful" still made him " falsely true," sought to move the multi- tude. He alone records the response, " AVe have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God " — an utterance in exact accordance with that narrative of the Hebrew trial which is given by all the Synoptics, Init which John has omitted. It is he who notices the unexpected l)ut most natural effect of this claim upon the governor, whom the former utterances of the Kins; " come into the world " had deeply impressed. " Whence art thou ? " he almost tremulously demands. But from the first moment of his vacillation Jesus had given him no answer. Pilate, accordingly, at the very time when he is described as inwardly "more afraid," flashes (nit in that insolent tone which less discriminating secular historians regard as the only one characteristic of him, " Speakest thou not unto me ^ knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and power to crucify thee ? " Jesus breaks the silence

96 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

by a final word of answer, which is of high importance for our subject : " Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above : therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin." Some writers who hold that Pilate alone had "jurisdiction" in this case, and that the proceedings of the Sanhedrin were a usurpation, have appealed to this text, as containing in its first clause an acknowledgment of the exclusive right of the Eoman tribunal, and in its last a denunciation of the illegality, as well as treachery, of Caiaphas. This is un- warranted, and in the circumstances grotesque. Yet, while we notice here first of all the extreme consideration and almost tenderness with which the suflferer judges His judge,^ we must confess that the words, " Thy power {e^ovala) is given thee from above," do relate themselves to the previous acknowledgment of a " kingdom of this world," a kosmos in which men are to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's ; while they add to that former acknowledgment the explicit idea (afterwards enforced hy the apostles) that this earthly kingdom with its earthly aims is also from above. The powers that be are ordained of God ; Pilate, who knew this not,

^ "Judex judicantium " (Goesius).

TTTK ROMAN TRIAL 97

was al)usiiig a great and legitimate office partly through a heathen's ignorance ; and in so far he was less guilty than the false accusers who sat in Moses' seat. It was not strange that words so noble should have prompted one last cftort on the judge's })art to save himself from his weakness. But it was too late. The Jewish hierarchs had now taken the full measure of the man, and their final aroument was one fitted

o

to l)i'ai' down in Jiim all of conscience that remained. '"If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend : whosoever maketli himself a king speaketh against Caesar."

Few utterances are more valuable historically than this last general statement. To feel the full force of it we must recall how, as already explained, the Caesar had gathered up in himself all the public offices of the Repul)lic, so that treason against the State and treason ao-ainst him had become almost the same.^ The old Roman watchfulness to crush out attempts

^ Ulpiaii, in the great age of Roman Law, an age somewhat later than that of Tiberius, exphiins that the crime of " majestas " was next to that of sacrilege. In truth, when the Caesar had become Divus, not only by apotheosis after death, but by the servile worship of a world while he was yet upon the throne, treason and sacrilege were not so much associated as united. And so the test proposed to later Christians by the tribunals often was, to adore the deity of Cie.sar.

7

98 THE TRIAL OF .TERUS CHRIST

ao^ainst Eome was now intensified bv beinsf absorbed into the jealous personal suspicion of a despot. It was no anti-climax when the shrewd Jewish politicians, instead of saying, "Whoso- ever maketh himself a king speaketh against the majesty of the State," preferred to say, " Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Csesar." Long before this period of the reign of Tiberius the latter had become the deadlier form of the crime. Some of the accusers must have remembered the early days of the dynasty, when Julius and Octavius per- petrated their own successful lese-majeste, and the nation of the Jews, adhering to them in the great convulsion, merited the name which came afterwards to be known as the title of honour, of " Caesar's friends." For some time thereafter, indeed, Palestine w^as on the footing of a " client- state" under Csesar ; since 6 a.d. it had been absolutely Caesar's province. And the leading Jews must have been aware that while the first Emperor had extended the law of treason to punish libels against his own person, Tiberius, still more watchful in his jealousy, used the leges majestatis continually against all who failed in respect to the majesty of Caesar, even if they did not speak against him (dprikeyeLv) in the sense of

THE ROMAN TRIAL 99

fiivoui'ing counter claims by themselves or others. The great historian records how, even before the date when Pilate was sent to Judaea, when the provinces appeared before Tiberius with com- plaints against their proconsuls, they took care to throw in along with the usual accusations of rapacity the added charge of treason — " Addito majestatis crimine, quod turn omnium accusa- tionum complementum erat ! " ^ To Pilate, as a personal dependant on the favour of the Emperor (a favour seemingly originally procured through Sejanus, who, if not already hurled from power, was by this time tottering to his fall), all this must have been continually and urgently present, the more as he had already earned the hatred of his province, and dreaded its revenge. His fears were not groundless. Tiberius was still upon the throne when, a few years after, Pilate was superseded, and ambassadors from Palestine, relying on the hereditary attachment of the nation to the imperial house, were sent to Kome to witness against the recalled and degraded governor. The shadow of that distant day paralysed Pilate on this morning. What if he were to be accused before C?esar of spoliation and bloodshed, and, too well knowing himself to

^ Tacitus, AitiKihs, iii. 30.

100 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

be guilty of those wrongs, should read also in the sunken eyes of his judge that other charge, the complement and the crown of every lesser crime ? He who had so long persisted against all other arguments now succumbed at once before the well-chosen words : "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend : whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against C^Bsar." lie ascended the tribunal, from which alone a final sentence could be legally pronounced by a Eoman judge — in the present case, apparently, a portable seat carried out from the Prsetorium and placed in front upon a Uthostr6t07i or tes- selated pavement. Yet even here he relieved his bitter feelings by the words to the accusers, " Shall I crucify your King ? " But on the chief priests making the historical answer, "We have no king but Csesar," the judge turned to Him who had claimed another kingdom, and, in such words as " Ibis ad crucem," delivered him to be crucified.

"Was Pilate right in crucifying Christ?" The question was put in the last generation in a book of extraordinary ability, which opens with the most powerful attack in our language on what has been known in modern times as the right of " liberty of conscience." If you deny

THE ROMAN TRIAL 101

that rii;lit, argued John Stuart Mill and others, you must approve of Marcus Aurelius and the other persecutors of Christianity — nay, you must go farther, and find *' a principle which will justify Pontius Pihate." Sir James F. Stephen accepted the challenge ; and his argument, while it in the first place raises the question. Did Pilate do right as a judge and as a man ? will lead us on to the ^irther question, What was the law under which this judge ought to have acted 'I

" Was Pilate right in crucifying Christ ? i reply, Pilate's paramount duty was to preserve the peace in Palestine, to form the best judg- ment he could as to the means required for that purpose, and to act upon it when it is formed. Therefore, if and in so fiir as he believed in good faith and on reasonable grounds that what he did was necessary for the preservation of the peace of Palestine, he was right." ^

1. The suggestion which is here made, that Pilate m;iy have "believed in good faith that what he did was necessary for the preservation of the peace of Palestine," is purely gratuitous. Whether that would have justified him in con- demning a man he believed to be innocent, we

1 Libertij, Equalitij, Fmternitii (by Jiuues Fitzjames Stephtu, (,).C.), p. 87.

102 THE TPJAL OF JESUS CHRIST

may touch upon hereafter. But in the mean- time there is not the slightest ground for the suggestion itself. The narratives are uniform in asserting his expressed conviction of his prisoner's innocence, his knowledge that Jesus had been delivered '' for envy," his scoffing incredulity in speaking to the Jews of their King, and his final yielding, as a judge, to those vand& voces jwpuli against wdiich his own law warned him, and yielding to them too, only when his personal and private interests were at last menaced. Now, the Christian narratives which have handed this down are, strange to say, in no respect hostile to Pilate. Jewish and other writers who expressly treat of the character of this governor give us his portrait as rapacious, cruel, and unjust. The Christian historians give no por- trait, and have occasion to refer to him incident- ally only where his actions are fitted to excite the keenest exasperation. Yet the few historical side touches of the Evang;elists restore for us the man within the governor, with a delicacy, and even tenderness, which make the accusing por- trait of Philo and Josephus look like a hard, revengeful daub.^ Is there, in the Tito or Buls-

^ My view of liis true character scarcely varies from that so tersely given by Dr. Ellicott : "A thorough and complete type

THE ROMAN TRIAL 103

trodc of modern deliiieatioii, anything more true to nature, more provocative of sudden sympathy from men who know the pressure of public life, than that morning's mental history of the sixth procurator of Judiea, as given by the friends of the man whom lie crucified I The character of Pilate and the motives foi* his vacillation are only too intelligible. But that at any point of this vacillation he came to believe that his sen- tence w^as called for to preserve the peace of the province, is an unhistorial suggestion.

'2. Had the history run at all in the direction suggested, there are various situations which might be figured. That the judge, even if he were not a military governor with nieimin wi- perium delegated from Eome, should slay a man wlio was overtly and in intent seditious, raises no question. Neither ^Ir. Mill, nor any other advocate of liberty, questions the duty of Government to preserve the peace. That a governor, sitting or not sitting as a judge, should deliver to death a man whom he believed to

of the later-Roman man of the world : stern, but not relentless ; shrewd and world-worn, prompt and practical, haughtily just, and yet, as the early writers correctly perceived, self-seeking and cowardly ; able to perceive what was right, but without moral strength to follow it out" (Historical Ledurc!^, 6th cd. ]\ .350). Compare with Philo, in his letter on the Eniba-^sy lu Caius.

104 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

have no intentions against the peace, because he was in point of fact dangerous to it, might raise a serious question.^ In particuhir, it raises the distinction between the judicial and the adminis- trative. What PiLite as administrator of the province might do in the way of deporting or even kilhng an innocent man for the sake of its peace, is one question. What he might do sitting as a judge and inquiring whether there

1 " If this slioiild ajDpear harsh [the assertion that Pilate's duty was simply to maintain the Roman power] I would appeal again to Indian experience. Suppose that some great religious reformer — say, for instance, someone claiming to be the Guru of the Sikhs, or the Imam in whose advent many Mohammedans devoutly believe — were to make his appearance in the Punjab or the North-West Provinces. Suppose that there was good reason to believe — and nothing is more probable — that 'whatever might be the 'preacher's oivn loersonal intentions^ his preaching was calculated to disturb the public peace and produce mutiny and rebellion ; and suppose, farther (though the supposition is one Avhich it is hardly possible to make even in imagination), that a British officer, instead of doing whatever might be necessary, or execut- ing whatever orders he might receive, for the maintenance of British authority, were to consider whether he ought not to become a disciple of the Guru or Imam ; — what course would we take towards him ? He would be instantly dismissed with ignominy from the service which he would disgrace ; and if he acted up to his convictions, and preferred his religion to his (}ueen and country, he would be hanged as a rebel and a traitor "' (Lihertij, Eguality, Fraternity^ jd. 94).

Of course a true parallel would rather be : Suppose that tlie Guru or Imam were delivered to a British officer by his co- religionists on a charge of erecting a national system against the English Raj, and refusing to pay an English tax ; that the officer, on personal exauiination, came to be satisfied that the man was

THE ROMAN TRIAL 105

was *' fault ill this man toucliiiio* tliosc tilings whereof ye accuse him," is another matter ; and it is the one with which we have to deal. The distinction, kept sacred in all jurisprudences, niiuht well be confused in the minds of Eng-lish lawyers by the powerful but provincial theory of Utility which they have been taught, but the spread of which from the professor's chair to

iniK^ceiit and the charge was false ; that, to pacify the other priests, he proposed an intermediate punishment of one in whom lie found no fault ; that under great pressure Ijrought against him to act contrary to his view he vacillated half a day ; and that at last, on heing threatened with a complaint to his oflicial superiors which might endanger his place or promotion, he ordered his prisoner to torture or to death. Suppose all this, and sui)2)ose tliat the story came out fully on his arrival in London, in how many drawing-rooms would he he received ?

But take it even that the case were not so bad. Assume that a British officer thought himself compelled to order for execution a native preacher whose " personal intentions " were not in the least hostile or seditious, because his preaching might in j)oint of fact be, or had in point of fact been, dangerous to the p]nglish ]>ower, and because the example would have a good effect. This is about the best case made for Pilate. If done judicially, it M'ould be a judicial murder. If done administratively, what ought it to be called ^ I believe there are few who would hold that mere " consideration " by a British otUcer, whether or not he should do such au act, would infer ignominy or disgrace to the service. I believe, on the contrary, that few British officers who considered it would, as the result, think themselves compelled or even entitled to do it. As to the farther question of becoming personally a disciple of a " higher form of morals " than any previously known (the immediate peace of the region being first ciired for), there does not seem any other difficulty than what is dealt with in the text, on page 104.

106 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

the judgment-seat will, I think, be prevented both by the scientific traditions of Europe and by the moral sense of mankind. In saying so, I do not forget the story of the English judge who told a prisoner, " I sentence you to die, not at all because you have robbed this house, but in order that other people may not rob other houses in future." That judge, if he existed and pronounced such a sentence, simply committed murder. But in the case with which we here deal we have not to do with such unjudicial motives for action. It was Caiaphas, not Pilate, who thought it expedient that one man should die for the people. And neither the one nor the other grounded the expediency on any immediately apprehended outbreak or on any danger to the peace. There was indeed no such immediate danger. How far there might be ultimate danger to the Roman State from the spread of convictions and the acceptance of claims like those of Jesus, was another matter, and it was the really important one. The true question, as the critic of the Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity watchword soon discerns, is between the universal supremacy of a Government whose claims extended to something much higher than keeping the peace on the one hand, and the

THE ROMAN TRIAL 107

claims of a kingdom not of this world on the other.

3. Accordingly, the final defence made for the Roman governor — the only one which can be of any weight in consistency with the history, and the only one also which bears on the great question of liljcrty of conscience or repression of opinion — -is contained in the following pas- sage of very general theory, illustrated in the quotation in my note on pages 101, 102 : —

" Pilate's duty was to maintain peace and order in Judcea, and to maintain the Roman power. It is surely im])ossible to contend seriously that it was his duty, or that it could he the duty of anyone in his position, to recognise in the person brought to his judgment-seat, I do not say God incarnate, hut the teacher and preacher of a higher form of morals and a more enduring form of social order than that of which he was himself the reju'esentative. To a man in Pilate's position, the morals and the social order which he represents arc for all jiractical purposes absolute standards " (p. 93).

Whether this was the theory of Rcmian law, we may afterwards see. But it is here pre- sented as the universal and true theory, against which it is difficult to contend seriously. It may be so. This, at all events, is not the place to deal directly with it, farther than by re- cording a fundamental and implacable oi)posi-

108 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

tion.^ But it is exactly the place to point out that this was the theory which the defence of the accused seems directed to meet. The doctrine of the powerful book from which we quote is that '* sceptical arguments in favour of moderation about religion are the only conclusive ones." To suggest such arguments to the governor, or at least to leave his mind to the sceptical poise of the average educated Koman of the day, might have seemed the prudent part in a pro- phet accused of treason. His words take directly the opposite course. Their assertion of a king- dom— a higher and ruling " form of morals and social order " — set up in the earth, but in a different plane and hosnios from the secular power of Eome, might of itself have implied the proclamation of a duty to recognise that kingdom. But when its assertion was backed by an immediate appeal to the truth, as that

^ It is the same theory, conversely and mutatis mutandis, with Ultramontanisin, and that not merely because in both the indivi- dual conscience is cruslied under authority. " It appears to me," says our author, " that the Ultramontane view of the relation between Church and State is the true one" (p. 109), because, as is explained, Ultramontanes correctly hold that of the two powers one must be supreme, and the other must obey ; and that there is no real distinction of a spiritual and a secular province in human life. The individual may thus have to obey the State even against his own religious convictions, but he and the State alike must obev the Church.

THE ROMAN TRIAL 109

whicli men are l)orn into the world to con- fess, the defence plainly resolved into a claim that this truth, and not any social order or traditional belief, should be the " final and abso- lute standard." And the last words addressed to Pilate clench " the duty of anyone in his position to recognise the teacher " of that higher order and extra-mundane truth ; for " everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice."

And even if we prefer to disbelieve this con- versation, we cannot escape from the fact that this was precisely the attitude taken up his- torically by Christianity. It did not claim merely to be one higher form of morals or religion among others. It claimed to be the true religion — in the sense of being both uni- versal and obligatory. And the Empire, whicli would have been content to io-nore it while it presented itself as simply a higher form of morals or even of social order, could not ignore it when it appeared as the universal and obli- gatory form. "When it claimed to be the truth, Rome first answered, " What is truth ? " and when it insisted on the rioht of truth to be obeyed, Rome answered again with persecution. And Christianity responded by the constant reiteration of the duty of every member of

110 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

the State, whether an official or not, to recosf- nise this truth, to bear witness to it, and, if need be, to die for it. Hence the immense interest which has always attached to Pilate's answering inquiry. It was the utterance of one who was neither a philosopher nor a states- man, but simply a typical Roman gentleman, in a position where he represented his State. And precisely because it was so, his question, "What is truth ? " lays bare the hinge upon which the mighty Roman world was then smoothly re- volving towards the abyss. The Republic, we must never forget, was destined ere long to dis- believe— many of its leading spirits had come to disbelieve already — in its own morals and social order. The fact is certain, but the pathos of it has too seldom been acknowledo^ed. Asfain and again in the past we have mused and mourned over Greece, and its search of truth intellectual — its keen and fruitless search, never ending, ever beginning, across wastes of doubt and seas of speculation lighted by uncertain stars. But to-day let us for once remember that greater race, the greatest this earth has known ; called and trained through long cen- turies to the work of governing a world, and when at last that mighty inheritance came into

THE ROMAN TllTAl. Ill

its liands, stnckeii with inward paralysis for want of a motive and a hope. Too well has our own poet drawn the picture —

" In his cool hall, with haggard eyes, The Roman noble lay ; He drove abroad, in furious guise, Along the Appian "Way ;

" He made a feast, drank fierce and fast. And crowned his hair with Howers : No easier and no quicker passed The impracticable hours."

And so tliere crept upon men that moral languor and satiety of life which underlay the wlioh^ time of the Empire, and which often, even in the presence of a noble and protesting stoicism, hardened into cruel apathy or reckless despair. But have w^e always reflected how^ certainly this cynical moral mood of the dominant race was the result of the new circumstances into which it was thrown ? In early days the Koman believed in himself, in his gods, in his institu- tions, and, above all, in his State. It was for him tlieatmim satis magnum — his standard, his rule, his ris^hteousness. And so he was rioht- eous, in his stern, relentless way. But now the world had grown wider. And what had sufficed for virtue in former times did not suffice for virtue now. A provincial belief, a national

112 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

religion, was too narrow for a world : it neces- sarily collapsed, and left the lords of earth, with strong hands and empty hearts, sceptical as to truth, and so lapsing from righteousness.

That this had hecome largely the result, even in the reign of Tiberius, is admitted. And it was plainly a position of matters very unfortu- nate for the application of the general rule sug- gested. That Pilate or Pliny, or any Roman official, should have to refuse a higher order of morals which his conscience approved, simply because his State believed in a lower, was hard enoug^h. But that such an official should have to refuse that higher morality or religion, when both he and his State were ceasing to believe in the lower, was harder still. And that in such circumstances a judge should have to use system- atic persecution against the confessedly higher convictions, simply to prevent their making head against a legal standard of faith which he or others had begun to disbelieve, was the most unfortunate thing of all. There is pro- bably nothing wliich so excites the loathing of mankind as when the State persecutes for a faith which it has already begun to lose. And yet, obviously, that is precisely the time when dishonest persecution is most likely to happen,

THE ROMAN TRIAL 113

and on the theory with which we are dealing it is what ought to happen. Pilate was quite prepared to act upon this theory, for in point of fact he acted from a lower motive still — his private interest. But let us suppose that he had risen so far as to desire only to do what was right, and let us suppose also that the law he administered demanded the persecution of all convictions hostile to the religion of Rome. It is fair that we also should answer tlie (piestion. What oug-ht he in this case to have done '. What in such circumstances was the " duty of a man in Pilate's position " ? I answer that his duty was (having first cared for the immediate peace of his district) to refuse to represent that law, and to resign his position rather than out- rage a principle of conscience, which lies deeper than all social superstructures of either the Church or the State.

But this brings us to the final cjuestion : What, in point of fact, was the law of Pome in the matter of the irial of Jesus Cliiist ?

Its i"uu(hiiHcntal principle was that llic publie law of the imperial State had the right to per- mit or to forbid the exercise of the religion of private men. \\\ its cxeirise of this right, it

114 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

was no doubt generally cautious and wise, at least in its dealings with polytheistic States. It is well known that the policy of Eome as a conquering power towards the religions of sub- ject peoples was one of toleration. But that meant little more than toleration of existing religions in their local seats, or, at the farthest, in the race to which such a religion properly belonged. Because the worship of Serapis or Isis was tolerated on the Nile, as a monotheistic worship was in Judsea, it by no means followed that either of them was permitted on the banks of the Tiber. In order to be so, it required to be expressly authorised by Rome — to become a religio licita. And even when it was toler- ated throughout the Empire, as the Jewish religion at this time was, — at least in the East, — exclusive devotion to it was tolerated only in natives of the country from which it came, and was at no time permitted to Roman citizens. For them, all over the world the old religion Avas imperative ; and for all others, the religion of the Tiber, though not imperative, was dominant. The concessions made to the provinces for their religions were strictly concessions, not con- cordats. Accordingly, the concession was gene- rally limited by the idea, Cujus regio, ejus

THE ROMAN TRIAL 115

rclirjiu. Outside the region or province where the local cult ruled — and, in the case of Jews, outside the Jewish race — it was denied the rights of publicity and of proselytism, and was restricted to a passive and a private existence. These general considerations explain some of the variations in the Roman treatment of the Jewish and Christian faiths. The old Jewish religion had the paradoxical quality of being national or local on the one hand, while on the other it claimed to be exclusive truth. The union of the two qualities went far to explain that hostility to the human race which the Romans were fond of ascribing to it. A faitli which attacked that of all otlier men, without invitin^x them to share in it, invited this mis- constru(*tion. But its very want of aggressive- ness saved it from collisions. When Christianity appeared, a different problem had to be dealt with. Here was a faith which not only claimed to ])o tlie absolute trutli, but which refused to be (ionfined within local limits. It was essentially proselytising, and therefore essentially public ; and it demanded universal individual accept- ance— acceptance by the Roman as by the Greek and the Jew. What was the answer of Roman law? " Non licet ease vos" — a refusal

116 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

of leave to exist. It was not always put in force. ''The substance of what the Eomans did was to treat Christianity by fits and starts as a crime." 1 That occasional persecution was not founded upon any specialities in the nature of Christianity, or excited by any great dislike to it as a form of worship or belief It was persecuted generally as a form of seditious or in- novating atheism, or as opposition to the estab- lished and tolerated institutions. This principle was expressed in the words said to be taken from the Twelve Tables : " Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos ; sed ne advenas, nisi publice adscitos, privatim colunto." And the principle was supported by later "leges" or authori- tative utterances, as when Marcus Aurelius de- nounced banishment against all who troubled the light minds of men by inducing a dread of the Divine. The opposition to Christianity on such grounds was set in motion and regulated by some of the greatest and wisest, and even, in a sense, most tolerant emperors. Trajan and the Antonines were wise and large-hearted monarchs. There was little in Christianity to repel, and there was much in it to attract such men. They were not bigots, and those around

1 Lihertif, Equality, Fraternity, p. 90.

THE ROMAN TRIAL 117

them were generally sceptics. They did not Ijclieve in absolute or univei'sal truth in matters of religion, hut they did believe in the sover- eignty and supremacy of the Roman State. The conscijucnce was, tliat wliile they protected in Egypt and Palestine and Italy all rcligioiies licitcE which would live side by side with each other, and claim no universal dominion, they from time to time bent the whole force of the State aixainst the one reli^'ion which said, "For this cause are men born, that they should bear witness unto the truth," and "Every one that is of the truth heareth his voice." There is no way of explaining the history except by acknow- ledging that the constitutional law uf Home reserved to the State the rio-ht on the one hand to approve and licence, an<l on the other to repress and forbid while unlicensed, the ex- pression of new religious convictions, the public existence of a new faith. And this prerogative was held to form part of the majestas or supremacy of the State.

It was so in the days of Tiberius as truly as in the Terre^ir juridiqite of Domitian. Pilate, as his deputy, seems to have been convinced that the claim of Jesus to be " Christ a King " was not a claim to temporal sovereignty. lie

118 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

accepted in some sense His own assurance that it was a kingdom not of this world. Yet this meant, at the least, that His kingdom was a relio:ion which He was about to found. It meant more. A religion which takes the form of a kingdom, with a king and his non- combatant servants, however little " of this kosmos " it may be, must be not only religion, but a Church. A universal religion, starting with individual faith, but adding immediately an obligation to love the brethren and to pro- selytise, is already (according to the Protestant definition) a Church, needing no visil)le centre and no earthly head. The defence of Jesus gave at least as much prominence to the Church idea as His disciples did during the early ages ; and in His case as in theirs it gave additional seriousness to the charge of treason. A great student of history who has left us has perhaps gone too far in holdino; that the Roman laws against unlicensed association or combination were the unhappy root of all the persecutions,^

^ " La seule chose ii laquelle Tenipire Rotiiain ait declare la guerre, en fait de religion, c'est la tlieocratie. Son principe etait celui de I'etat laique ; il n'admettait pas qu'une religion efit des consequences civiles ou politiques a aucun degre ; il n'admettait surtout aiicune association dans I'etat en dehors de I'etat. Ce dernier point est essentiel ; il est, a vrai dire, la racine de toutes les persecutions. La loi sur les confreries, bien

TJfK ROMAN TRIAL 119

too far even in holding that they were tlie in- strument hy which alJ these persecutions were carried on. Those hiws were the branches rather tlian the root, but they were in living union with the root. There can 1)C no doubt that the laws regulating collegia, and repressing all unlicensed associations, had from the be- ginning a close connection wuth the majestas of the State, and especially with its right to institute and enforce relif>:ion.^ The two thino-s worked together, and they did so in theory and practice. A claim of Jesus merely to found a universal religion might no doubt, in practice, have come into collision with the law of Rome. But His claim to found it as a kinodom, thou oh not of this world — " une association dans I'etat en dehors de I'etat, " as it is happily expressed — seems to me to have been essentially incon- sistent with the puljlic princi})le of that law. Christianity, in short, was incompatible with the Roman public law, and that not merely because

plus (|ue I'intolerance religieuse, fut la tause fatale do.s violences • [iii deslionorerent les ivgiie.s des iiieillour.s youverains " (Renan's Les Aiiotres, p. 351).

^ " La pretexte de religion on d'accomplissement de vcriix en commun est prcvii et t'ormellement indiquc parnii les circon- stances qui donnent a une reunion le caractere de di'lit ; et ce di'lit n'utait autre que celui de lese-majestr, au moins pour I'individu qui avait provoipie la reunion " (p. 3(J2).

120 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHPJST

its contents were different from those of the old religion of Rome, but because its claim to universal individual acceptance and public confession conflicted with the unlimited and unbalanced sovereignty of the Roman State. Christianity appealed to the individual con- science, and in order to its even taking root in the world demanded liberty of conscience. But the Roman law, while it sometimes permitted in practice a large amount of contemptuous toleration, was at all times opposed to rights of conscience — opposed to them even in theory. And on these very points, on which the Roman State was afterwards to come into conflict with Christianity, it now came into conflict with the Author of Christianity. It does not perhaps follow that Pilate, as its administrator, was bound at once to condemn Jesus. As Trajan explains in his famous letter to the Governor of Bithynia,^ it was the duty of the higher

1 Pliny liad reported liis own scruples in punishing capitally those who were merely accused of having been Christians, but not of any underlying crime. But he added : " Those who persevered in calling themselves Christians, when thrice in- terrogated and threatened, I ordered for execution, having no doubt that whatever the name might mean, this pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy deserved punishment." The Emperor ap- proved his course, remarking that no fixed rule could be laid down for all cases. " Do not hunt out the Christians ; but if they are brought to you and convicted, they must be punished.

THK ROMAN TRIAL 121

mao'istrate to use a oertain discretion in (lealinc: with those who had transo-rcssed the law on religion. And Pilate, who had satisfied himself of the non-existence of any immediate con- spirac}' on the part of the new faith, does not seem to have adverted to the future and funda- mental conflict betw^een it and the law he repre- sented. It is clear, indeed, that he believed Jesus to be both just and harmless ; and, so believing, he sinned in corruptly swaying from his first judgment, and betrayed the innocent blood. Yet had he adverted to the claim of his City to regulate religious opinion and con- science, and compared it deliberately with the counter claims of the prophet before him, or had he sent on his prisoner to answ^er for Him- self at the imperial tribunal, it seems certain that in either case the trial would still have l)een followed by the tragedy which the world knows so well. Even the gentle Pliny, under the express orders of the magnanimous Trajan, devoted to the axe or the cross those wdiose obstinate refusal to recant and obey made them unworthy of the leniency of Rome. And the

Vet even so, if anyone denies he is now a Christian, and proves it by praying openly to our gods, let his repentance be met by pardon for the ([uestionable past."

122 THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST

"obstinacy" of . generations of His followers during the first three centuries found prece- dent and justification in His who now stood to bear witness to the same truth. For in point of fact, wdien Pilate ultimately sent Jesus to the cross, it was as claiming to be a King, and on the original charge of acting adversus majestatem 'p^P^^^^ Romani. The judgment was legal, though the unjust judge did not believe in it. For whatever Csesar's deputy may have thought, the claim of Jesus was truly inconsistent with the claim of the State which Ci^sar represented ; and the world must judge between the two.

I have recalled the most famous of all trials from a legal and almost formal point of view. I have said nothing of its more memorable and characteristic aspects, — how the authoritative love which had originally arrested the eyes of disciples now^ deepened into an intenser glow, and a j)^i'sonality, which had attracted in peaceful days only a few fellow-countrymen towered at the close over suffering and shame so as henceforth to draw all men to Him. We have omitted even what might seem nearer to our subject, — how the righteousness, negatived

CONCLUSION 12?,

l>y a coiidemiiatiori to the cross, shone out in that darkness till it became to subsequent generations not merely a centre uf admiration, but the star of the world's hope.

Yet, in considering so great a transaction in this external and forensic way, we have come to some conclusions. We have found that it was a double trial, conducted with a certain reijard to the forms of the two most famous jurisprudences of the world. In ])oth trials the judges were unjust, and the trial was unfair; yet in both, the right issue was substantiall}' raised. Even the form which that issue took was, in a sense, the same in both. Jesus Christ was arraioned on a doul)le charo-e of treason ; the treason in the Theocratic court being a (constructive) speaking against (Jod, while in the Imperial court it was a (constructive) speaking against Caesar. But under these tor- tuous traditions of a twofold law the rt-al historical question was twice-over reached, and the true claim of the accused was made truly known. He died because in the ecclesiastical council He claimed to be the Son of God and the Messiah of Israel, and because before the world- wide tribunal He claimed to be Christ a King.

KOINBimGH : PRINTED BY MORRISON AND OIBR MMITF.D

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

THE LAW OF CREEDS IN SCOTLAND.

' Most valuable and interesting book.' — Edinbxirgh Jiencw. ' It must become the text-book of tlie subject among the members of the author's profossion, as well as ecclesiastical reformers, statesmen, and politicians of all schools.' — North Brifish Review.

' It might not, perhaps, be too high praise to apply to him Milton's panegyric on Sir Harry A'^ane the A'ounger —

"The bouiiils of either sword to thee we owe.'"

Jour /ml of Jurisprudence.

Messrs. W. liLACKWOOD & SONS.

CHURCH AND STATE:

A HISTORICAL HANDBOOK.

Price .js. Second Edition.

* There are handbooks and handbooks. This is an eminently successful attempt to trace the chronological order in which the relations between Church and State have been unfolded, with the i)oints of collision, contact, junction, or intersection in history of the two societies. ... In the field of the historical relations of Clunvh and State we do not know its superior.' — Guardian.

* No clergyman, no one interested in the Church and its relation to its State, could spend three shillings to better purpose than in purchasing this really admirable compendium.' — Literarij Churchman.

' In this learned and impartial digest — a jtiece of work without a parallel in our literature — the entire map of European civilisation is unrolled, from the intiodiiction of Christianity (U)wii to th(> present dav.' — Critical R'viciv.

' "We have said enough to show the extraordinary value and interest of the work. Every one who deals with publie questions will find it indispensable.' — Method id 'Times.

:^Iessrs. T. & T. (JLAKK, EDINBURGH.

WORKS BEARING ON THE

LIFE AND PERSON OF CHRIST,

PUBLISHED BY

T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.

Andreics (Rev. S. J.) — 2%e Life of Our Lord upon the Earth : Considered in its Historical, Chronological, and Geographical Re- lations. New Edition, thoroughly revised. The only Authorised Edition in this Country. Demy 8vo, 9s.

Bru^e (A. B., D.D.) — The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the Synoptical Gospels. Sixth Edition, post 8vo, 7s. 6d.

* A remarkable book.' — Saturday/ Review.

Bruce {A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve. Fifth Edition, 8vo, lOs. 6d.

' A volume which can never lose its charm either for the preacher or for the ordinary Christian reader.' — London Quarterly Review.

Bruce {A. B., D.D.) — The Humiliation of Christ Fourth Edition, 8vo, lOs. 6d. ' This noble theological treatise.' — Evangelical Maga.zine.

Caspari (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduction to THE Life of Christ. 8vo, 7s. 6d. *No Bible student should fail to make this treatise his constant friend and companion.' — Bell's Weekly Messenger.

Gaspers {A.) — The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. Qd.

Dorner (Professoi') — History of the Development of the Doctrine of THE Person of Christ. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d.

Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History: A Compendium of Critical Livestigations in support of the Four Gospels. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Hall {Rev. Newman, D.D.) — The Lord's Prayer: A Practical Meditation. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.

• The author's thoughts are sharply cut, and are like crystals in their clearness and power.' — British Quarterly Revieio.

Hall (Rev. Newman, D.D.) — Geihsemane : Leaves of Healing from the Garden of Grief. Crown 8vo, 4s. ' Richly laden with consolation for the afflicted children of God ; and from the first page to the last it does not strike one false note.' — Christian Leader.

Krummacher (Dr. F. IF.) — The Suffering Saviour. Croivn 8vo, 7s. 6d.

' To the devout and earnest Christian the volume will be a treasure indeed.' — Wesley an Times.

Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of Oar Lord Jesus Christ. Edited, with additional Notes, by Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D. Second Edition, in Four Vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 28s.

Lehmann (Pastor E.) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. Svo, os. 6d.

' There is in these lectures a tender sympathy, and a spiritual devoutness and simplicity, which gives to them a real charm.' — Literary World.

Lilley (J. P., B.D.) — The Lord's Supper : Its Origin, Nature, and Use. Crown 8vo, .^s. ' We know no better modern book more suggestive and helpful.' — Freeman.

[Continued on next page.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Kaville (Ernest) — TJic Christ. Seven Lectures. Translated by Rev. T. J. Dkspkes. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6J. ' Ministers who wish for suggestions and guidance as to the manner in which they can treat of the pressingly important subject which is considered by M. Naville, should take pains to acquaint themselves with this volume.' — Christian World.

Nicoll {IF. E., LL.D.) — The Incarnate Saviour: A Life of Jesus Christ. New Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6J. 'It commands my warm sympathy and admiration.' — Camm Liddon.

Ross {C.J M.A.) — Our Father'' s Kingdom: Lectures on the Lord's Prayer. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.

Sahnond {Principal) — The Life of Christ. Lille Class Primers. Paper covers, 6d. ; cloth, 8d.

* A scholarly and beautiful presentation of the story of the Four Gospels.' — Stniday School Chronicle.

Scrymgeour {IVm.) — Lessons on the Life of Christ. Bible Class Handbooks, 2s. 6d. ' A thoroughly satisfactory help to teacher and scholar.' — British Messenger.

Stalker {Jas., D.D.) — A Life of Christ. Bible Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. ; large type Edition, handsomely bound, 3s. 6d.

* As a succinct, suggestive, beautifully written exhibition of the life of our Lord, we are acquainted with nothing that can compare with it.' — Christian World.

Steinmeyer {Dr. F. L.) — The Miracles of Our Lord : Fxamined in their Relation to Modern Criticism. 8vo, 7s. 6d. 'Will take its place among the best recent volumes of Christian evidence.' — Standard.

Steinmeyer {Dr. F. L.)—The History of the Passion and Resurrection OF Our Lord, in the Light of Modern Criticism. Svo, 10s. 6d. 'Will well repay earnest study.' — Weekli/ Review.

Sficr {Dr. Rudolph) — Oii the JFoi'ds of the Lord Jesus. Eight vols. 8vo (or the Eight vols, bound in Four), £2, 2s. net. Separate volumes may be liad, price 10s. 6d. ' The whole work is a treasury of thoughtful exposition.' — Guardian.

Ulhnann {Dr. Carl) — The Sinlessncss of Jesus: An Evidence foi- Christianity. Third Edition, crown Svo, 6s. ' Ullmann has studied the sinlessness of Christ more profoundly, and written on it more beautifully, than any other theologian.' — Faurar's Life oj Christ.

Weiss {Dr. Bcrnhard)—The Life of Christ. Three vols. Svo, 3ls. U.

* From tlie thoroughness of the discussion and clearness of the writer, we anticipate a very valuable addition to the Great Biography.' — Frennan.

JFendt {Prof H H)—The Teaching of Jesus. Two vols. Svn, 2ls.

'A brilliant and satisfactory exposition of the teaching of Christ." — J-Jxjwsilor.

The Voice from the Cross : A Series of Sermons on Our Lord's Passion by Eminent Living Preachers of Germany. Edited and trans- lated by Wm. Macintosh, M.A., F.S.8. Crown 8vo, 5s. ' It is certain to be welcomed with devout gratitude by every evangelical

Christian in Britain.' — Christian Leader.

T. and T. Clark's Ptiblications

DR. STALKER'S WORKS.

In Croimi 8vo, Large Type Edition, 35. 6d, ; Cheaper Edition, Is. 6d.,

1. THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST. By Rev. James Stalker, D.D.

'No work since "Ecce Homo" lias at all approached this in succinct, clear-cut, and incifiive criticism on Christ as He appeared to those who believed on Him.' — Literary World.

' A vivid, picturesque style is the one thing which never grows old or loses its charm. The notes have been carefully revised and brought up to date, the best literature which has appeared since its first issue being skilfully noted. This new edition should be got and placed beside the old. It is one of the few books of which we may afford to have two copies.' — The Exposi- tory Times.

' Even with all our modern works on this exhaustless theme, from Neander to Farrar and Geikie, there is none which occupies the ground of Dr. Stalker's. . . . We question whether any one popular work so impressively and adequately represents Jesus to the mind.' — Christian.

Uniform with the above in Sixe and Price, 2. THE LIFE OF PAUL By Rev. J. Stalker, D.D.

' Surpassingly excellent. . . . Dr. Stalker gives a masterly miniature, and thousands will see more of Paul in it than in the life-sized portraits. ... He has the gift of vivid writing; he sketches and colours with words; he does more, he vivifies persons and scenes by his inspiring sentences. Those who wish to pursue the subjects of study suggested by the noble career of Paul, will here find amjDle guidance for their more thorough research. We have not seen a handbook more completely to our mind.' — C. If. Spijrqkon in Su-ord and Trowel.

* A gem of sacred biography. '—Christian Leader.

' We cannot speak too highly of the way in which our author has handled his material. . , . Dr. Stalker, as in his "Life of Christ," becomes thoroughly original in his treatment, and we have a feeling that wliat we are reading is not only new, but true.' — Ecclesiastical Uaxetle.

T. and T. Claries PiMications.

In Two Vols, demy 8i;o, price 18s. net,

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY;

OR,

niSTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE TEACHING OF JESUS AND

OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY ACCORDING TO

THE NEW TESTAMENT SOURCES.

By Dr. WILLIBALD BEYSCHLAG,

PROFESSOR OF TUEOLOGY AT HALLE.

'A fresh, indepcinlent, critical exposition of the teachings of the New Testament well worthy of study.' — Scotsman.

' Dr. Beyschlag has achieved so large a measure of success as to have furnished one of the best guides to an understanding of the New Testament.

.... These pages teem with suggestions In the belief that it will

stimulate thought and prove of mmh service to ministers and all students of the sacred text it expounds, we heartily commend it to our readers.' — Methodist Recorder.

' In many respects a masterly treatise, and in this admirable translation, for which Mr. Bucnanan deserves all praise, is sure to be widely read in this country.' — Glasgow Herald.

In Two large Vols. 8vo, Second Edition, price 18s. net,

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY.

THE RELIGION OF REVELATION IN ITS PRE-CHRISTIAN STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.

By Prof. HEEMANN SCHULTZ, D.D., Gottingen.

AUTHORISED ENGLISH TRANSLATION. By Prof. J. A. PATERSON, D.D.

* Professor Paterson has executed the translation with as much skill as care. . . . Readers may rely on his having given the meaning of the original with the utmost accuracy.' — Froni the Author's Preface to the Translation.

'The book will be read with pleasure, and, it need not be said, with profit, not only l)y professional students, but by all intelligent persons who have an interest in "the Old Testament. . . . Though externally popular and of .singular literary finish, tlie author's work within is a laborious and able study of the whole subject.'— Professor A. B. Davidson, D.D.

' A standard work on this subject may be said to be indispensable to every theologian and minister. The book to get, beyond all doubt, is this one by Schultz, which Messrs. Clark have just given to us in English. It is one of the most interesting and readable books we nave had in our hands for a long time.' —Professor A. B. Bruce, D.D.

9

T. and T. Clark's FuUications.

The most important contribution yet made to biblical theology.' — Expositor.

In Two Volumes 8vo, 21s.,

THE TEACHING OF JESUS.

By HANS HINRICH WENDT, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, JENA.

Translated by Eev. JOHN WILSON, M.A.

COPYRIGHT BY ARRANGEMENT WITH THE AUTHOR.

' Our advice is to all students and clergy to buy this book. Tx-eat it as a spiritual unfolding of our Lord's teaching, trusting it as far as it goes, and thanking God for so bright a ray of spiritual sunshine out of what has so often been a murky cloud.' — Church Bells.

'Every section opens out for us fresh views of the great and wondrous depths of the teaching of Jesus, and gives us the persuasion that there is in that teaching fresh worlds yet to be discovered. We are grateful to Dr. Wendt for the great work he has done.' — The Thinker.

' Dr. Wendt's work is of the utmost importance for the study of the Gospels, both with regard to the origin of them and to their doctrinal contents. It is a work of distinguished learning, of great originality, and of profound thought. The second part (now translated into English), which sets forth the contents of the doctrine of Jesus, is the most important contribution yet made to biblical theology, and the method and results of Dr. Wendt deserve the closest attention. . . . No greater contribution to the study of biblical theology has been made in our time. A brilliant and satisfactory exposition of the teaching of Christ.' — Prof. J. Iverach, D.D., in The Expositor.

' Dr. Wendt has produced a remarkably fresh and suggestive work, deserving to be ranked among the most important contributions to biblical theology. . . . There is hardly a page which is not suggestive ; and, apart from the general value of its conclusions, there are numerous specimens of ingenious exegesis thrown out with more or less confidence as to particular passages.' — Prof. W. P. Dickson, D.D., in The Critical Review.

'In introducing Professor Wendt's work to English readers, the publishers have done a service to theology in this country second only, if indeed second, to that rendered by the issue of Professor Driver's famous " Introduction.'" — Literary World.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

^t\a Volumes of tlje * gibk Class Hantibooli .Scries/

EDITED BY

Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D., and ALEX. WHYTE, D.D Just published, in crown 8vo (with Map), price 2s.,

FROM THE EXILE TO THE ADVENT.

By the Rev. WM. FAIRWEATHER, M.A., Kirkcaldy.

Summary of Contents. — Book I. The Exile and the Return, B.C. 588-538. II. The Persian Period, B.C. 537-333. III. The Greek Period, B.C. 333-167. IV. The Macca- bean Period; or, the Period of Freedom, B.C. 167-135. V. The Asmonean Dynasty, B.C. 135-63. VI. The Roman Period, B.C. 63-4.

' There never was so much interest felt in the period between Malachi and Matthew as now. And Mr. Fairweather has made himself master of the literature and of the spirit of this time. His book is as fine an introduction as one is likely to find for many a day.' — Expositoi-y Times.

In crown 8vo, price 2s.,

THE LAST OF THE PROPHETS:

A STUDY OF THE LIFE, TEACHING, AND CHARACTER OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.

By the Rev. J. FEATHER, Croydon.

'Gives a clear, condensed, and scholarly sketch of our Lord's fore- runner.'— BritUh Weekly.

* A charming nionogi'a[>li. He has succeeded in writing an account of the Baptist, which is scholarly without being scholastic. He has made excellent use of a wide circle of authorities, and his book may be taken as containing the soul and substance of the best modern opinions on the ministry of John.' — Chrisfimi World.

' Mr. Feather writes in a clear ami attractive style, and no pains have been spared to furnish a truly helpful study of our Lord's forerunner. Bible-class teachers will tind a capital series of well-planned lessons in this handbook.' — Methodist Su7iday School Record.

T. and T. ClarJvS Puhlications.

In dem}^ 8vo, price 12^;. 8d. uec,

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.

I.—THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.

By Professor F. GODET, D.D., NUuchatel.

* Anything that comes from Dr. Godet is sure to receive a cordial Avelcome in Great Britain, and our familiarity with his eloquent and luminous commen- taries prepares us to appreciate very highly a work in which the venerable Swiss thus gathers up the harvest of a lifetime.' — Prof. ADENEYin The Critical Review.

' In every particular it is fully abreast of the times. For the purposes of the hard-working preacher there is no book on St. Paul's Epistles quite equal to this. For the student, it must always lie in a place that his hand can reach. It is delightful reading.' — Methodist Times.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR. In crown 8vo, Third, and Cheaper, Edition, price 4s.,

DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

TRANSLATED BY THE

Hon. and Rev. Canon LYTTELTON, M.A.,

RECTOR OB' HAGLEY.

' There is trenchant argument and resistless logic in these lectures ; but withal, there is cultured imagination aud felicitous eloquence, which carry home the appeals to the heart as well as the head.' — Sword and Trowel.

In post 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,

ST. PAUL'S CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. By ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN THE FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW ;

AUTHOR OF ' APOLOGETICS ", OR, CHRISTIANITY DEFENSIVELY STATED,'

'the KINGDOM OF GOD,' 'THE TRAINING OF THE TWELVE,'

'the HUMILIATION OF CHRIST,' ETC.

Summary and Contents :— I. The Sources. II. St. Paul's Religious History. III. The Epistle to the Galatians. IV. Corinthians. V. Romans — Its Aim. VI. The Train of Thought. VII. The Doctrine of Sin. VIII. The Righteousness of God. IX. The Death of Christ. X. Adoption. XI. Without and Within. XII. The Moral Energy of Faith. XIII. The Holy Spirit. XIV. The Flesh as a Hindrance to Holiness. XV, The Likeness of Sinful Flesh. XVI. The Law. XVII. The Election of Israel. XVIII. Christ. XIX. The Christian Life. XX. The Church. XXI. The Last Things. Supplementary Note.— The Teaching of St. Paul compared with the Teach- ing of our Lord in the Synoptical Gospels.

'' Dr. Bruce's skill as an expositor, his scholarship, his candour, what we may call his mental detachment, are well known ; and all these qualities lend interest to this new study of a very old theme. Those who are most familiar with St. Paul's writings will be among the first to recognise the interest aud value of this work.' — Methodist Recorder.

Date Due
\/		j
	flji««««<v .'■.'-		!
	1
^Wi iiiiiiiiiBi}
^^wstmrn	^
			1
f)

r .ViV/

'mm

BS2425 .6.158

The trial of Jesus Christ; a legal

.n\j""^°" Theological Seminary-Speer Library

u<^m^%

' ^-^ hU-U-U'U it

^! ''( ''I ■''' JT '!'* ^~ -^ ^ t''^ '^'^

Zj--j.j> *.' ^'f.^'-. •£'■ Si' . .^'^. -^ "^

. -flilf ^i 4f -11 4f4|f|.^

iM-v

■^f^ -i'i -^^^-^^

|^-4I.'

		'fi'^f
	■n	41-4^
u	•4^	-4i#f
U:		Mm

• ' 4^ '^*v U ' M M ^ i^ M ^'^ ■ f^

i 1 > ■■■

ft-|i

^■.%:-At

H''^

n^^

4iM4{''k< ^t

U'M-m