crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away."

Who took Jesus and led him away? "They." Who were "they"? The chief priests and scribes. Who crucified Jesus? The chief priests and scribes, assisted by the Roman soldiers, with the reluctant consent of the Roman governor who had symbolically washed his hands of the blood of the accused, and the responsibility of which they assumed, before God, when they said, let "His blood be on us, and our children."

He was then led away, an innocent and just man, to be crucified, and we are reminded of a remarkable statement made, in this document, six hundred years before: "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation." (Isa. 53, 8.)

The last point to be discussed in connection with the trial is this: Was Jesus' crucifixion an execution of the law, justifiable homicide, or plain murder? Which? It must have been one of the three. It could not have been an execution of the law because Pilate acquitted him. It could not have been justifiable homicide because He was a Man of peace and offered to harm no one. It was, therefore, a plain case of murder. We must distinguish between

power to do things and authority to do them. They had the power but not the authority to execute an innocent person, and the difference between them is the difference between a legal execution of a guilty person and the murdering of an innocent one. A plain statement of the case appears to be, that Jesus was lynched by the chief priests and scribes, under the protection of the Roman soldiers, with the assent of Pilate, the Roman governor, who was too weak morally to do what he knew to be just.

The chief priests and scribes said, let "His blood be upon us, and our children," and Jesus said, as He hung on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The events which have transpired since that time can testify for themselves whether or not that prayer was answered. The principle of res judicata cannot apply to this case.

DIVISION VIII.

PROOF OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

We have been asked many times if the proof of the resurrection of Jesus was as complete and convincing, from a legal standpoint, as that afforded by the record of the other events in His life narrated in the Gospel. To this question we must answer, Yes. The proof is to be found in the same record, supplied by the same witnesses, as that upon which we must rely to sustain our belief in those other events noted.

The veracity of the witnesses has been discussed already, and we must analyze their testimony to determine to what they have testified on this point, applying to it the rules of evidence governing it. To this end, we will again take for our authority Professor Simon Greenleaf, previously referred to, who has furnished us such rules, and who states them in his first volume on the law of evidence as follows:

"The word Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which an alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved. This term, and the word proof, are often used

indifferently, as synonymously with each other; but the latter is applied by the most accurate logicians, to the effect of evidence, and not to the medium by which truth is established. None but mathematical truth is susceptible of the high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error, and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. Matters of fact are proven by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained from intuition or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. The most that can be affirmed of such things is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved."

The question before us, then, is not whether there is a possibility that the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus may not be true, but

whether there is a sufficient probability of its truth; that is, are the facts of the resurrection shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. If they are, then it follows that they may be said to be proved.

In the first place, it must be evident that that there could have been no resurrection without His previous death. The burden of proof, then, rests upon us to show from the record that Jesus died previous to His resurrection. We have discussed already his trial and crucifixion. The first point to be determined then, is, did Jesus die as a result of His crucifixion?

In this connection, it may as well be stated here, that it has been claimed by some who dispute the allegation that Jesus rose from the dead, that He did not die on the cross but that he merely swooned, was taken down by friends, revived by them, spirited away from the sepulcher and Roman soldiers to a place of safety and there succored until He recovered from His injuries. Since the latter is a theory proposed by these persons, it may be well to state theory to show by a preponderance of the eviden of proof rests upon those who propose the here, that under the rules of evidence, the bur