one's own, or invading the powers pertaining exclusively to him ; an offence, of which the case of Moses, before cited, is a prominent instance, both in its circumstances and in its punishment. Whether a false god was acknowledged or the true one denied, and whether the denial was in express terms, or by implication, in assuming to do, by underived power, and in one's own name, that which God only could perform, the offence was essentially the same. And in such horror was it held by the Israelites, that in token of it every one was obliged, by an early and universal custom, to rend his garments, whenever it was committed or related in his presence. This sentiment was deeply felt by the whole people, as a part of their religion.

Such being the general scope and spirit of the law, it would seem to have been easy to prove that Jesus had repeatedly incurred its penalties. He had performed many miracles, but never in any other name than his own. In his own name, and without the recognition of any higher power, he had miraculously healed the sick, restored sight to the blind and strength to the lame, cast out devils, rebuked the winds, calmed the sea, and raised the dead. In his own name, also, and with no allusion to the Omniscient, no "Thus saith the Lord," he had prophesied of things to come. He had by his own authority forgiven sins, and promised, by his own power, not only to raise the dead, but to resume his own life, after he should, as he predicted, be put to death. Finally, he had expressly claimed for himself a divine origin and character, and the power to judge

* This was judicially and solemnly done by the members of the Sanhedrim, rising from their seats, when the crime was testified to. Only one witness was permitted to repeat the words; the others simply stating that they heard the same which he had related. The practice is thus described in the Mishna: "Exactis omnibus, interrogant vetustissimum testium, dicendo,-Edissere, quodcumque audivisti expresse. Tum ille hoc refert. Judices autem stant erecti, vestesque discerpunt, non resarciendas. Dein secundus tertiusque ait,-Ego idem, quod ille, audivi." Mishna, Pars 4. Tractat. de Synedriis, cap. 7, § 5. Upon which, Cocceius remarks:-" Assurgunt reverentiæ causâ. Mos discendarum vestium probatur ex 2do Regum, xviii. 37. Hinc nata est regula,-Qui blasphemiam audit, vel ab ipso auctore vel ex alio, tenetur restem discerpere. Ratio est, ut semper ob oculos et animum versetur mæroris aut indignationis mnemosynon." Coccej. in loc. § 11, 12. The custom is fully explained, with particular reference to the high priest at the trial of Jesus, by Hedenus, De Scissione Vestium, 38, 42. (In Ugolini Thesauro, tom. xxix. fol. 1025, &c.)

both the quick and the dead. * Considered as a man, he had usurped the attributes of God. That he was not arrested at an earlier period, is to be attributed to his great popularity, and the astounding effect of his miracles. His whole career had been resplendent with beneficence to the thousands who surrounded him. His eloquence surpassed all that had been uttered by man. The people were amazed, bewildered, and fascinated, by the resistless power of his life. It was not until his last triumphal visit to Jerusalem, after he had openly raised Lazarus from the dead, when the chief priests and elders perceived that "the world was gone after him," that they were stricken with dismay and apprehension for their safety, and under this panic resolved upon the perilous measure of his destruction.

The only safe method in which this could be accomplished, was under the sanction of a legal trial and sentence. Jesus, therefore, upon his apprehension, was first brought before the great tribunal of the Sanhedrim, and charged with the crime of blasphemy. What were the specifications under this general charge, or whether any were necessary, we are not informed. But that this was the offence charged, is manifest both from the evidence adduced and from the judgment of conviction. Such was the estimation in which he was held, that it was with great difficulty that witnesses could be found to testify against him; and the two who at last were procured, testified falsely, in applying his words to the temple of Solomon, which he spake of the temple of his body. When, upon the occasion of his

That the Jews understood Jesus to make himself equal with God, is maintained by Mr. Salvador, himself a Jew, in his Histoire des Institutions de Moïse et du Peuple Hébreu, Liv. iv. ch. 3, p. 81, of which chapter a translation is given at the end of this article. Mr. Noah, also a Jew, seems to be of opinion, that Jesus was brought to trial under the law in Deut. xiii. 1-11. See his Discourse on the Restoration of the Jews, p. 19. But whether he was charged with a blasphemous usurpation of the attributes of Deity, or with sedition, in inciting the people to serve another god, meaning himself, the difference is of no importance; the essence of the offence in both cases being the same.

+ Matt. xxvi. 60-65. This view of the nature of the offence with which Jesus was charged, is confirmed by the learned jurist, Chr. Thomasius, in his Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, § 11, 12, and by the authors whom he there cites. Dissert. Thomasii. vol. 1, p. 5.

scourging the money-changers out of the temple, the Jews demanded by what authority he did this, Jesus replied, alluding to his own person, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."* But though the witnesses swore falsely in testifying that he spake of the Jewish temple, yet his words, in either sense, amounted to a claim of the power of working miracles, and so brought him within the law. The high priest, however, still desirous of new evidence, which might justify his condemnation in the eyes of the people, proceeded to interrogate Jesus concerning his character and mission. "I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest 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? They answered and said, He is guilty of death." + We may suppose the multitude standing without the hall of judgment, able, through its avenues and windows, to see, but not to hear, all that was transacting within. It became important, therefore, to obtain some reason upon which the high priest might rend his clothes in their sight, thus giving to the people, by this expressive and awful sign, the highest evidence of blasphemy, uttered by Jesus in the presence of that august assembly. This act turned the tide of popular indignation against him, whose name, but a short time before, had been the theme of their loudest hosannas. There was now no need to go into the past transactions of his ministry, for matter of accusation. His friends might claim for him on that score all that the warmest gratitude and love could inspire; and all this could be safely conceded. But here, his accusers might say, was a new and shocking crime, just perpetrated in the presence of the most sacred tribunal; a crime so shocking, and so boldly committed, that the high priest rent his clothes with horror, in the very judgment seat, in the presence of all the members

John ii. 13-22.

+ Matt. xxvi, 63-66.

of the Sanhedrim, who, with one accord, upon that evidence alone, immediately convicted the offender and sentenced him to death.

If we regard Jesus simply as a Jewish citizen, and with no higher character, this conviction seems substantially right in point of law, though the trial were not legal in all its forms. For, whether the accusation were founded on the first or second commands in the decalogue, or on the law, laid down in the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, or on that in the eighteenth chapter and twentieth verse, he had violated them all, by assuming to himself powers belonging alone to Jehovah. And even if he were recognized as a prophet of the Lord, he was still obnoxious to punishment, under the decision in the case of Moses and Aaron, before cited. It is not easy to perceive on what ground his conduct could have been defended before any tribunal, unless upon that of his superhuman character. No lawyer, it is conceived, would think of placing his defence upon any other basis.

The great object of exciting the people against Jesus being thus successfully accomplished, the next step was to obtain legal authority to put him to death. For though the Sanhedrim had condemned him, they had not the power to pass a capital sentence; this being a right which had passed from the Jews by the conquest of their country, and now belonged to the Romans alone. They were merely citizens of a Roman province; they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercise of their religion, and many other things relating to their police and municipal regulations; but they had not the power of life and death. This was a principal attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans always took care to reserve to themselves in order to be able to reach those individuals who might become impatient of the yoke, whatever else might be neglected. Apud quos (Romanos), vis imperii valet; inania transmittuntur. * The jurisdiction of capital cases belonged

* Tacit. Annal. xv. 31. See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, p. 57-59, (Amer. Ed.) Chr. Thomasius, Dissertatio de injusto Pilati judicio, § 12, 60. The want of this power was admitted by the Jews, in their reply to Pilate, when he required them to

ordinarily to the governor general or Præses of a province, the Procurator having for his principal duty only the charge of the revenue and the cognizance of revenue causes. But the right of taking cognizance of capital crimes was, in some cases, given to certain Procurators, who were sent into small provinces, to fill the places of governors, (Vice Præsides,) as clearly appears from the Roman laws. The government of all Syria was at this time under a governor general, or Præses; of which Judea was one of the lesser dependencies, under the charge of Pilate as Vice Præses, with capital jurisdiction.*

It could not be expected that Pilate would trouble himself

judge Jesus according to their own law, and they replied, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John xviii. 31.

This point has been held in different ways by learned men. Some are of opinion that the Sanhedrim had power to inflict death for offences touching religion, though not for political offences; and that it was with reference to the charge of treason that they said to Pilate what has just been cited from St. John. They say that, though the Sanhedrim had convicted Jesus of blasphemy, yet they dared not execute that sentence, for fear of a sedition of the people :-that they therefore craftily determined to throw on Pilate the odium of his destruction, by accusing him of treason; and hence, after condemning him, they consulted further, as stated in Matt. xxvii. 1, 2. Mark xv. 1, how to effect this design :-that when Pilate found no fault in him, and directed them to take and crucify him, some replied, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die," (John xix. 7,) to intimate to Pilate that Jesus was guilty of death by the Jewish law also, as well as the Roman, and that therefore he would not lose any popularity by condemning him. See Zorrius, Hist. Fisci Judaici, ch. 2, § 2, (in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 26, col. 1001-1003.) The same view is taken by Deylingius, De Judæorum Jure Gladii, § 10, 11, 12, (in Ugolin. Thesaur. tom. 29, col. 1189-1192.) But he concludes that in all capital cases, there was an appeal from the Sanhedrim to the Prætor; and that without the approval of the latter, the sentence of the Sanhedrim could not be executed. Ibid. § 15, col. 1196. Molinæus understood the Jewish law in the same manner. See his Harmony of the Gospels, note on John xviii. 31. C. Molinæi Opera, tom. 5, pp. 603, 604. But this opinion is refuted by what is said by M. Dupin, Trial, &c., § 8, and by Thomasius, above cited.

* See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, pp. 55-62. His authorities are Loiseau, Godefroy, and Cujas, the two latter of whom he cites as follows:-" Procurator Cæsaris fungens vice præsidis potest cognoscere de causis criminalibus. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd law of the code, Ubi causæ fiscales, &c. And he cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, Ad. leg. fab. de plag., and the 2nd law of the Code, De Ponis.-Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur vice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris vice præsidis in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13."