The Silence of Jesus at the Bar of Pilate.

"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 answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly."-Matt. xxvii. 12-14.

HE predictions which we find in the Old Testament in relation to the Messiah, seem to have been all fulfilled; and it is not easy to bring them and the life of Jesus Christ into juxtaposition, and resist the conclusion that He was the promised Saviour. It was predicted that He would be "without form

or comeliness"; and He had none of that beauty which "draws the carnal eye." It was predicted that the element of suffering would penetrate and darken his life, and if ever man was, He was "acquainted with grief." It was predicted that He would be "despised and rejected of men," and it is matter of history that "his own received him not." The Jews took Him, and with wicked hands crucified and slew him; and it was foretold that they would.

VOL. XXII.

K

Centuries before He came, Isaiah taught that He would be "cut off out of the land of the living." It was predicted that He "would make his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death." How improbable, considering his deep poverty! Yet it happened. According to Matthew, the Evangelist, "a rich man of Arimathea," having begged the body of Jesus from Pilate, "wrapped it in a clean linen cloth," and where did he bury it? He "laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock." May we not affirm that omniscience alone could have foreseen an occurrence so minute and unlikely? It was predicted that toward the close of his beneficent career, He would not so much as open his mouth in certain circumstances, and this prediction, like all the rest, was literally verified. Is proof required? It lies before us in the text: "And when he was accused," &c. He was tried by the Sanhedrim, and found guilty of death. He was also brought before Herod's judgment-seat, and Herod put many questions to Him, but no answer was forthcoming. It is supposed that there were two reasons for his silence before the Idumæan Herod (1) Herod was not his proper judge; and (2) He did not conduct himself with becoming gravity. Whether or not, Jesus at Herod's bar was influenced by the reasons which we have mentioned, Luke distinctly states that Herod with all his questioning got nothing out of Him. He was brought, too, before the judgment-seat of Pilate, and, as the trial went on before Him, Jesus every now and then "retired into the great empire of silence." It is noteworthy that before Pilate He was not absolutely silent. He appears to have replied to most of Pilate's queries, and to have given him, in the capacity of judge, all the information that was really necessary to a right decision in the case; and the fact that He spoke when He conceived that there was occasion, shows that his silence was not exactly premeditated. There was no obstinacy about it. In prospect of the trial He did not rashly or cunningly resolve that He would not in any way commit Himself by speaking. His silence was spontaneous,

natural, and on that account all the more impressive and suggestive. His enemies were eager to accuse Him, and get him condemned to death; and hence their manner must have contrasted strikingly with his, for to their violence He opposed calmness, and to their vehement talk He opposed silence. He was interested in the proceedings. How could He be indifferent? He heard all that the chief priests and elders had to lay against Him, but He did not attempt to answer their monstrous accusations. One would have thought that He would have been forward to defend Himself; but no. He was silent; and why was He silent? Did his silence arise from inability to speak? Of course not. He was by profession a religious teacher. He was a practised speaker. For three years He did little else but speak; and so well did He speak that He excited the wonder of all who heard Him. The grand end for which He came into the world was to "bear witness to the truth;" and his heart was in his work. He was not constitutionally taciturn. He was social and communicative, and was equally at home addressing a multitude, and conversing with a single person. He let no opportunity of speaking a word for God, and on behalf of souls, escape; so that had He chosen He could easily have answered his accusers. Although He was the prisoner at the bar, He was neither excited nor overcome by his feelings. He seems all through to have been thoroughly self-possessed; and it is not said that He who wept at the grave of Lazarus shed any tears. His silence was simple, and as voluntary as it was simple. If it had had the appearance of being forced, Pilate would not have "greatly marvelled" at it. However it is to be accounted for, it did not arise from inability to speak. Nor did it arise from the want of opportunity. He was not ordered or warned to hold his tongue. The Roman governor, who would fain have acquitted Him, was anxious that He should rebut the charges preferred against Him. Amazed, and perhaps slightly annoyed at his profound silence, and

sublime self-control, he urged Him to speak, but he urged in vain. Not even to please the judge would He break the silence which He had evidently imposed on Himself. How singular his silence! There is something mysterious about it, and the more that we reflect on it, taking all things into account, the more are we struck with it. We have an instinctive feeling that situated as He was we should have acted differently. We should at least have endeavoured to defend ourselves. We are not satisfied with knowing the fact that He was silent. We want to be put in possession of the philosophy of it. Why, then, was He silent? On this point the Evangelists shed no light. They merely record the fact, and it should not be overlooked that they give prominence to it. Inasmuch as it was predicted that He would be "dumb as a sheep before her shearers," it was requisite that his biographers should take particular notice of it, and they do. When He was before the Sanhedrim He was more or less silent. When before Herod He uttered not a word; and when He was brought before Pontius Pilate, his silence astonished the Roman Procurator of Judæa; but in the Gospel we are not furnished with an explanation of his silence. We are thus, in the search for its philosophy, thrown entirely upon our own resources, and, fortunately, the assignment of reasons for it is not a matter of difficulty. In seeking to account for it, we would observe-

I. THAT AT THOSE TIMES WHEN HE BECAME SILENT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO SPEAK. It was plain to Pilate that his accusers were actuated by envy and malice; and who knows not that these passions are apt to cause deviations from the truth? Pilate could not fail to see that, feeling as they did towards Jesus, his accusers could not be trusted fairly to interpret either his words or his acts. It is no wonder, therefore, that He should have attached little or no importance to their accusations. The animus, or spirit, which they could not hide, was amply sufficient to nullify their charges against

Him; and it is manifest that they made no impression upon either Him or Pilate. After the latter had heard all that the chief priests and elders had to say against Him, he felt constrained to acknowledge that they had not made good a solitary charge. He, as judge, declared that in his opinion there was no fault in Him, and with this view Herod coincided. Assertions there were plenty, and there was no lack of bad constructions and inferences; but satisfactory legal proof there was none that He was in any sense a political offender. What had He done to indicate that He was a revolutionary demagogue ? Nothing was easier than to allege that He aspired to the throne of Judæa; that He advised the withholdment of tribute from Cæsar, and that He suggested rebellion; but nothing harder than to lead proof. 'Tis true that He gave out that He was king of Israel; but He at the same time taught that "his kingdom was not of this world." All He meant was that He was the Messiah; and his appearance as He stood before Pilate was evidence enough that an earthly kingdom was not with Him an object of ambition. Attention might have been paid to their accusations could they have shown that He had organised his followers, drilled them, provided them with arms and ammunition, but this they could not do. All who knew anything of Jesus were aware that He repudiated force, and none knew this better than the twelve. When the disciples James and John wanted to command fire from heaven upon a certain village of the Samaritans, their Master did not encourage them; on the contrary He sharply rebuked them by telling them that they did not know what manner of spirit they were of. When Peter drew his sword on the night of the betrayal in his defence, He bade him put up his sword, and gave the High Priest's servant back his ear. When the people in their enthusiasm were bent on making Him their king, He stole away from them, and did not re-appear till their fit of enthusiasm had passed off. The proof, consequently, lay all on the other side. In the establishment of his kingdom his sole