From Gethsemane the bound and captive Christ was haled before the Jewish rulers. John alone informs us that the Lord was taken first to Annas, who sent Him, still bound, to Caiaphas, the high priest. No details of the interview with Annas are of record; and the bringing of Jesus before him at all was as truly irregular and illegal, according to Hebrew law, as were all the subsequent proceedings of that night.

At the palace of Caiaphas, the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the people were assembled, in a meeting of the Sanhedrin, all eagerly awaiting the result of the expedition led by Judas. When Jesus, the object of their bitter hatred and their predetermined victim, was brought in, a bound Prisoner, He was immediately put upon trial in contravention of the law. From the account given in the fourth Gospel we infer that the Prisoner was first subjected to an interrogative examination by the high priest in person. That functionary, whether Annas or Ciaaphas is a matter of inference, inquired of Jesus concerning His disciples and His doctrines.

The Hebrew code provided that the accusing witnesses in any cause before the court should define their charge against the accused. This was a lawful objection against denying to a prisoner on trial his right to be confronted by his accusers. It was received with open disdain; and one of the officers who stood by, hoping perhaps to curry favor with his superiors, actually struck Jesus a vicious blow.

Law and justice had been dethroned that night. "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" If what Jesus had said was evil, why did not the assailant accuse Him? If He had spoken well, what right had a police officer to judge, condemn, and punish, and that too in the presence of the high priest? Any sitting of the Sanhedrin at night, and more particularly for the consideration of a capital charge, was directly in violation of Jewish law. Whether "all the council" means a legal quorum, which would be twenty-three or more, or a full attendance of the seventy-two Sanhedrists, is

In the Sanhedrin, every member was a judge; the judicial body was to hear the testimony, and, according to that testimony and nought else, render a decision on every case duly presented. The accusers were required to appear in person; and they were to receive a preliminary warning against bearing false witness. Every defendant was to be regarded and treated as innocent until convicted in due course. But in the so-called trial of Jesus, the judges not only sought witnesses, but specifically tried to find false witnesses. Though many false witnesses came, yet there was no "witness" or testimony against the Prisoner, for the suborned perjurers failed to agree among themselves.

The lack of two hostile witnesses who would tell the same falsehoods was a serious hindrance. But, "at the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days"

Others, however, testified: "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 so, as Mark observes, even in this particular their "witness" or testimony did not agree. Surely in a case at bar, such discrepancy as appears between "I am able to" and "I will," as alleged utterances of the accused, is of vital importance. Yet this semblance of formal accusation was the sole basis of a charge against Christ up to this stage of the trial.

But the inspired writer is particular to explain that Jesus "spake of the temple of his body," and not at all of those buildings reared by man. One may reasonably inquire as to what serious import could be attached to even such a declaration as the perjured witnesses claimed to have heard from the lips of Christ. The veneration with which the Jews professed to regard the Holy House, however wantonly they profaned its precincts, offers a partial but insufficient answer. The plan of the conspiring rulers appears to have been that of convicting Christ on a charge of sedition. The vaguely defined shadow of legal accusation produced by the dark and inconsistent testimony of the false witnesses, was enough to embolden the iniquitous court.

Caiaphas, rising from his seat to give dramatic emphasis to his question, demanded of Jesus: "Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?" There was nothing to answer. No consistent or valid testimony had been presented against Him; therefore He stood in dignified silence. "And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." The fact of a distinct specification of "the Christ" and "the Son ofGod" is significant, in that it implies the Jewish expectation of a Messiah, but does not acknowledge that He was to be distinctively of divine origin.

Nothing that had gone before can be construed as a proper foundation for this inquiry. The charge of sedition was about to be superseded by one of greater enormity—that of blasphemy. "Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you: Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" It was an unqualified avowal of divine parentage, and inherent Godship. "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."

The judges in Israel, comprizing the high priest, the chief priests, the scribes and elders of the people, unlawfully assembled, decreed that the Son of God was deserving of death, on no evidence save that of His own acknowledgment. By express provision the Jewish code forbade the conviction, specifically on a capital charge, of any person on his own confession, unless that was amply supported by the testimony of trustworthy witnesses. As in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus had voluntarily surrendered Himself, so before the judges did He personally and voluntarily furnish the evidence upon which they unrighteously declared Him deserving ofDeath.

The action of the high priest in rending his garments was a dramatic affectation of pious horror at the blasphemy with which his ears had been assailed. There is no indication that the vote of the judges was taken and recorded in the precise and orderly manner required by the law. In strict accuracy we cannot say that the Sanhedrists sentenced Christ to death, inasmuch as the power to authoritatively pronounce capital sentences had been taken from the Jewish council by Roman decree. Jesus stood convicted of the most heinous offense known in Jewry. However unjustly, He had been pronounced guilty of blasphemy by the supreme tribunal of the nation.

The high-priestly court, however, decided that Jesus was worthy of death, and so certified when they handed Him over to Pilate. In their excess of malignant hate, Israel's judges abandoned their Lord to the wanton will of the attendant varlets, who heaped upon Him every indignity their brutish instincts could suggest. They spurted their foul spittle into His face, and then, having blindfolded Him, amused themselves by smiting Him again and again, saying the while: "Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?" The miscreant crowd mocked Him, and railed upon Him with jeers and taunts, and branded themselves as blasp

The law and practise of the time required that any person found guilty of a capital offense, after due trial before a Jewish tribunal, should be given a second trial. A bare majority was sufficient for acquittal, but more than a majority was required for conviction. If all the judges voted for conviction on a capital charge the verdict was not to stand and the accused had to be set at liberty.

Under this rule in Hebrew jurisprudence the verdict against Jesus, rendered at the illegal night session, was void. Luke, who records no details of the night trial of Jesus, is the only Gospel-writer to give place to a circumstantial report of the morning session. Between the two sittings on consecutive days the judges were required to fast and pray, and to give the case on trial calm and earnest consideration.

Some Biblical scholars have construed the expression, "led him into their council," as signifying that Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin in the appointed meeting-place of the court. But against this we have the statement of John that they led Jesus directly from Caiaphas to the Roman hall of judgment. It is probable, that at this early daylight session, the irregular proceedings of the dark hours were approved, and the details of further procedure decided upon. They "took counsel against Jesus to put him to death"; nevertheless they went through the form of a second trial, the issue of which was greatly facilitated by the Prisoner's voluntary affirmations.

The judges stand without semblance of justification for calling upon the Accused to testify. They should have examined anew the witnesses against Him. Neither did the question imply nor the answer furnish cause for condemnation. The whole nation was looking for the Messiah; and if Jesus claimed to be He, the only proper judicial action would be that of inquiring into the merit of the claim. Jehovah was convicted of blasphemy against Jehovah.

The only mortal Being to whom the awful crime of blasphemy, in claiming divine attributes and powers, was impossible, stood before the judges of Israel condemned as a blasphemer. "And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate"

Peter and at least one other disciple followed afar off; and, after the armed guard had entered the palace of the high priest with their Prisoner, Peter "went in, and sat with the servants to see the end" That other disciple was in all probability John, as may be inferred from the fact that he is mentioned only in the fourth Gospel, the author of which characteristically refers to himself anonymously. Peter was restless; his conscience and the fear of identification as one of the Lord's disciples troubled him.

He left the crowd and sought partial seclusion in the porch. Another maid spied him out, and said to those nearby: "This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth"; to which accusation Peter replied with an oath: "I do not know the man" Some of the men around the fire charged him with being a disciple of Jesus, and referred to his Galilean dialect as evidence that he was at least a fellow countryman with the high priest's Prisoner. But, most threatening of all, a kinsman of Malchus, whose ear Peter had slashed with the sword, asked peremptorily: "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?"

Then Peter went so far in the course of falsehood upon which he had entered as to curse and swear, and to vehemently declare for the third time, "I know not the man" As the last profane falsehood left his lips, the clear notes of a crowing cock broke upon his ears, and the remembrance of his Lord's prediction welled up in his mind. Trembling in wretched realization of his perfidious cowardice, he turned from the crowd and met the gaze of the suffering Christ, who from the midst of the insolent mob looked into the face of His boastful, yet loving but weak apostle. Hastening from the palace, Peter went out into the night, weeping bitterly. As his later life att

The united acclaim of the Sanhedrists, that Jesus was deserving of death, would be ineffective until sanctioned by the emperor's deputy. Pontius Pilate was the governor, or more properly, procurator, of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Pilate maintained his official residence at Cæsarea, but it was his custom to be present in Jerusalem at the times of the great Hebrew feasts.

Early on Friday morning the Sanhedrin led Jesus, bound, to the judgment hall of Pontius Pilate. But with strict scrupulosity they refrained from entering the hall lest they become defiled. In deference to their scruples Pilate came out from the palace and asked: "What accusation bring ye against this man?"

The question, though strictly proper and judicially necessary, surprized and disappointed the priestly rulers. With poorly concealed chagrin, their spokesman, probably Caiaphas, answered: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee" Pilate's turn to feel or at least to feign umbrage, and he replied in effect: Oh, very well; if you don't care to present the charge in proper order, take ye him, and judge him according to your law; don't trouble me with the matter. But the Jews rejoined: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."

John the apostle intimates in this last remark a determination on the part of the Jews to have Jesus put to death not only by Roman sanction but by Roman executioners. Had Pilate approved the death sentence and handed the Prisoner over to the Jews for its infliction, Jesus would have been stoned, in accordance with the Hebrew penalty for blasphemy. The Lord had plainly foretold that His death would be by crucifixion, which was a Roman method of execution, but one never practised by the Jews.

It is important to note that no accusation of blasphemy was made to Pilate; had such been presented, the governor, thoroughly pagan in heart and mind, would probably have dismissed the charge as unworthy of a hearing. Rome with her many gods, whose number was being steadily increased by current heathen deification of mortals, knew no such offense as blasphemy in the Jewish sense. The accusing Sanhedrists hesitated not to substitute for blasphemy, which was the greatest crime known to the Hebrew code, the charge of high treason.

Pilate was surprized at the submissive yet majestic demeanor of Jesus. The charge, however, was a serious one; men who claimed title to kingship might prove dangerous to Rome. Pilate, plainly without animosity or prejudice against Jesus, asked: "Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?"

The Lord's counter-question, as Pilate's rejoinder shows, meant, and was understood to mean, as we might state it: Do you ask this in the Roman and literal sense—as to whether I am a king of an earthly kingdom—or with the Jewish and more spiritual meaning? A direct answer "Yes" would have been true in the Messianic sense, but untrue in the worldly signification. "No" could have been inversely construed as true or untrue.

"I find in him no fault at all" was the verdict. Their thirst for the blood of the Holy One had developed into mania. Wildly and fiercely they shrieked: "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place" The mention of Galilee suggested to Pilate a new course of procedure.

Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. He ruled as a Roman vassal, and professed to be orthodox in the observances of Judaism. He had come up to Jerusalem, in state, to keep the feast of the Passover. He it was who, in fulfilment of an unholy vow inspired by a woman's voluptuous blandishments, had ordered the murder of John the Baptist.

Herod was pleased to have Jesus sent to him by Pilate. Herod began to question the Prisoner; but Jesus remained silent. The chief priests and scribes vehemently voiced their accusations; but not a word was uttered by the Lord. Herod had superstitiously thought to be the reincarnation of his murdered victim, John the Baptist. He saw the far-famed Prophet of Galilee in bonds before him, attended by a Roman guard, and accompanied by ecclesiastical officials.

Herod is the only character in history to whom Jesus is known to have applied a personal epithet of contempt. "Go ye and tell that fox" He once said to certain Pharisees who had come to Him with the story that Herod intended to kill Him. He and his men-at-arms made sport of the suffering Christ, "set him at nought and mocked him," then in travesty they "arrayed him in a gorgeous robe and sent him again to Pilate"

Herod had found nothing in Jesus to warrant condemnation. Pilate's desire to save Jesus from death was just and genuine. His intention of scourging the Prisoner, whose innocence he had affirmed and reaffirmed, was an infamous concession to Jewish prejudice. The Roman procurator, finding that he could not evade further consideration of the case, "called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people," and "said," "I will therefore chastise him, and release him"

He knew that the charge of sedition and treason was without foundation. It was the custom for the governor at the Passover season to pardon and release any one condemned prisoner whom the people might name. This man stood convicted of the very charge on which Pilate specifically and Herod by implication had pronounced Jesus innocent, and Barabbas was a murderer in addition.

Pilate thought to pacify the priests and people by releasing Jesus as the subject of Passover leniency. This would be a tacit recognition of Christ's conviction before the ecclesiastical court, and practically an endorsement of the death sentence, superseded by official pardon. So, when Pilate reiterated the question: "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?" assembled Israel cried "Barabbas" Pilate, surprized, disappointed, and angered, then asked: "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done?

The Roman governor was sorely troubled and inwardly afraid. To add to his perplexity he received a warning message from his wife. Those who know not God are characteristically superstitious. Pilate feared to think what dread portent his wife's dream might presage. But, finding that he could not prevail, he called for water and washed his hands. Then rose that awful self-condemnatory cry of the covenant people: "His blood be on us and on our children"

Pilate released Barabbas, and gave Jesus into the custody of the soldiers to be scourged. The instrument of punishment was a whip of many thongs, loaded with metal and edged with jagged pieces of bone. In accordance with the brutal customs of the time, Jesus, weak and bleeding from the fearful scourging He had had, was given over to the half-savage soldiers for their amusement. He was no ordinary victim, so the whole band came together in the Pretorium, or great hall of the palace, to take part in the diabolical sport. They stripped Jesus of His outer raiment, and placed upon Him a purple robe.

Then with a sense of fiendish realism they platted a crown of thorns, and placed it about the Sufferer's brows. A reed was put into His right hand as a royal scepter; and, as they bowed in a mockery of homage, they saluted Him with: "Hail, King of the Jews!" Snatching away the reed or rod, they brutally smote Him with it upon the head, driving the cruel thorns into His quivering flesh. They slapped Him with their hands, and spat upon Him in vile and vicious abandonment. Pilate had probably been a silent observer of this barbarous scene. He stopped it, and determined to make another attempt to touch the springs of

Pilate seems to have counted on the pitiful sight of the scourged and bleeding Christ to soften the hearts of the maddened Jews. Think of the awful fact—a heathen, a pagan, who knew not God, pleading with the priests and people of Israel for the life of their Lord and King! When, unmoved by the sight, the chief priests and officers cried with increasing vindictiveness, "crucify him, crucify him," Pilate pronounced the fatal sentence.

"Whence art thou?" Pilate asked Jesus. The inquiry was as to whether Jesus was human or superhuman. A direct avowal of the Lord's divinity would have frightened but could not have enlightened the heathen ruler; therefore Jesus gave no answer. Pilate was further surprized, and perhaps somewhat offended at this seeming disregard of his authority. He demanded an explanation, saying: "Speakest thou not unto me? knowst thou not that I have power to crucify thee?"

The positions were reversed; Christ was the Judge, and Pilate the subject of His decision. Though not found guiltless, the Roman was pronounced less culpable than he or those who had forced Jesus into his power, and who had demanded of him an unrighteous committal. The governor, though having pronounced sentence, yet sought means of releasing the submissive Sufferer. His first evidence of wavering was greeted by the Jews with the cry, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend"

He was resentful against those Jews who had dared to intimate that he was no friend of Cæsar, and whose intimation might lead to an embassy of complaint being sent to Rome. Pointing to Jesus, he exclaimed with unveiled sarcasm: "Behold your King!" But the Jews answered in threatening and ominous shouts: "Away with him,. away with him, crucify him." In stinging reminder of their national subjugation, Pilate asked with yet more cutting irony, "Shall I crucify your King?" And the chief priests cried aloud: "We have no king but CæSar." Even so was it and was to be. The people who had by covenant accepted Jehovah as their King

He was the emperor's representative, the imperial procurator with power to crucify or to save; officially he was an autocrat. Why did Pilate waver, hesitate, vacillate, and at length yield contrary to his conscience and his will? Because, after all, he was more slave than freeman. He was in servitude to his past. He knew that should complaint be made of him at Rome, his corruption and cruelties, his extortions and the unjustifiable slaughter he had caused would all be brought against him. When Judas Iscariot saw how terribly effective had been the outcome of his treachery, he became wildly remorseful.

When Christ's trial before the Jewish authorities, with its associated humiliation and cruelty, the traitor had seen the seriousness of his action. Rushing into the presence of the chief priests and elders, while the final preparations for the crucifixion of the Lord were in progress, he implored the priestly rulers to take back the accursed wage they had paid him. "I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood," he said. But the rulers in Israel repulsed him with disgust. "What is that to us?" they asked.

they sneered, "see thou to that" He had served their purpose; they had paid him his price; they wished never to look upon his face again. They flung him back into the haunted blackness of his maddened conscience. Still clutching the bag of silver, the all too real remembrancer of his frightful sin, he rushed into the temple, penetrating even to the precincts of priestly reservation, and dashed the silver pieces upon the floor of the sanctuary. Then, under the goading impulse of his master, the devil, to whom he had become a bond-slave, body and soul, he went out and hanged himself.

As they deemed it unlawful to add the attainted coin to the sacred treasury, they bought with it a certain clay-yard, once the property of a potter, and the very place in which Judas had made of himself a suicide. This tract of ground they set apart as a burial place for aliens, strangers, and pagans. The body of Judas, the betrayer of the Christ, was probably the first to be there interred. And that field was called "Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood."

He enjoyed all the dignity of the office, and all its influence also, since he was able to promote to it those most closely connected with him. His influence with the Romans he owed to the religious views which he professed, to his open partisanship of the foreigner, and to his enormous wealth. We have seen what immense revenues the family of Annas must have derived from the Temple booths, and how nefarious and unpopular was the traffic. The names of those bold, licentious, unscrupulous, degenerate sons of Aaron were spoken with whispered curses. Without referring to Christ's interference with that Temple-traffic, which, if His authority had prevailed, would of course have been fatal to it, we can understand how antit

Even the fact of Christ's being first brought to him is only mentioned in the fourth Gospel. As the disciples had all forsaken Him and fled, we can understand that they were in ignorance of what actually passed. "—Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah ; vol. 2, pp. 547-8.

High Priest Ananias, displeased at Paul's remarks, ordered someone who stood by to smite him on the mouth. Paul broke forth in angry protest: "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" Afterward he apologized, saying that he knew not that it was the high priest who had given the command that he be smitten. High Priests and Elders must not be confused with the same designations as applied to holders of the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. See Articles of Faith , xxiii, II, and Note 1 following the same lecture.

The high priest of the Jews was the presiding priest; he had to be of Aaronic descent to be a priest at all. The elders, as the name indicates, were men of mature years and experience, who were appointed to act as magistrates in the towns. The duties of Jewish high priests and elders combined both ecclesiastical and secular functions; indeed both offices had come to be in large measure political perquisites. The term "elder" as commonly used among the Jews in the days of Jesus had no closer relation to eldership in the Melchizedek Priesthood than had the title "scribe". See "Elder" in Smith's Bible Dictionary .

From the departure of Moses to the coming of Christ, the organized theocracy of Israel was that of the Lesser or Aaronic Priesthood. The office of priest was confined to the lineage of Aaron, and the lesser offices of teacher and deacon, which were combined in the Levitical order. See "Orders and Offices in the Priesthood" by the author in The Articles of Faith , xi:13-24. 4. Illegalities of the Jewish Trial of Jesus.

Lemann, Jesus before the Sanhedrin; Benny,   Criminal Code of the Jews; and Walter M. Chandler, of the New York Bar, The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's Standpoint. Edersheim (vol. 2, pp. 556-8) contends that the night arraignment of Jesus in the house of Caiaphas was not a trial before theSanhedrin, and notes the irregularities and illegalities of the procedure. With ample citations in corroboration of the legal requirements specified, the author says: "But besides, the trial and sentence of Jesus would have outraged every principle of Jewish criminal law and procedure"

Such causes could only be tried, and capital sentence pronounced, in the regular meeting-place of the Sanhedrin. No process could take place on Sabbaths or feast-days, or even on the eves of them, although this would not have nullified proceedings. In capital causes there was a very elaborate system of warning, and cautioning witnesses.

But although Christ was not tried and sentenced in a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin, there can, alas! be no question that His condemnation and death were the work of theSanhedrin. The purpose in quoting the foregoing is to show on acknowledged and eminent authority, some of the illegalities of the night trial of Jesus, which, as shown by the above, and by the scriptural record, was conducted by the high priest and "the council" in admittedly irregular and unlawful manner. We bear in mind that the resolution to sacrifice Christ had for some time been taken. The enormity of the proceeding is, if possible, deeper and blacker than ever.

I, "The Hebrew Trial"), the record of fact in the case, and the Hebrew criminal law bearing thereon are exhaustively considered. Then follows an elaborate "Brief", in which the following points are set forth in order. The Arrest of Jesus was illegal, since it was effected by night, and through the treachery of Judas, an accomplice, both of which features were expressly forbidden in the Jewish law of that day. The private examination of Jesus before Annas or Caiaphas was illegal "; for (1) it was made by night; (2) the hearing of any cause by a'sole judge' was expressly forbidden; (3) as quoted from Salvador, 'A principle perpetually

'The Sanhedrin did not and could not originate charges; it only investigated those brought before it'—Edersheim, vol. I, p. 309. 'The evidence of the leading witnesses constituted the charge. There was no other charge; no more formal indictment' 'The only prosecutors known to Talmudic criminal jurisprudence are the witnesses to the crime. Their duty is to bring the matter to the cognizance of the court, and to bear witness against the criminal' 'In capital cases they are the legal executioners also. Of an official accuser or prosecutor there is nowhere any trace in the laws of the ancient Hebrews'

Point 4: The proceedings of the Sanhedrin against Jesus were illegal because they were conducted at night. 'Let a capital offense be tried during the day, but suspend it at night,'—Mishna, Sanhedrion 4:1. 'No session of the court could take place before the offering of the morning sacrifice,'—Talmud, Jer. San. 1:19. 'Since the morning. sacrifice was offered at the dawn of day, it was hardly possible for the San.hedrin to assemble until the hour after that time,' Mendelsohn, p. 112. 'Criminal cases can be acted upon by the various courts during daytime only, by the Lesser. Sanhed

The trial of Jesus was illegal because it was conducted on the day preceding a Jewish Sabbath; also on the first day of unleavened bread and the eve of the Passover. 'No court of justice in Israel was permitted to hold sessions on the Sabbath or any of the seven Biblical holidays' 'A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day' '—Rabbi Wise, 'Martyrdom of Jesus', p. 67.

Point 8: The sentence of condemnation pronounced against Jesus by the Sanhedrin was illegal because it was founded upon His uncorroborated confession. 'We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses,'—Maimonides, 4:2.

'A simultaneous and unanimous verdict of guilt rendered on the day of the trial has the effect of an acquittal' 'If none of the judges defend the culprit, i.e., all pronounce him guilty, having no defender in the court, the verdict of guilty was invalid' 'After leaving the hall Gazith no sentence of death can be passed upon any one soever' 'Let the judges each in his turn absolve or condemn'

'The members of the Sanhedrin were seated in the form of a semicircle, at the extremity of which a secretary was placed' One of these secretaries recorded the votes in favor of the accused, the other those against him. 'In ordinary cases the judges voted according to seniority, the oldest commencing; in a capital case the reverse order was followed. 'Nor under any circumstances was a man known to be at enmity with the accused person permitted to occupy a position among the judges'

'The judges shall weigh the matter in the sincerity of their conscience' —Mishna, San. 4:5. 'The primary object of the Hebrew judicial system was to render the conviction of an innocent person impossible' —Benny, p. 56. "The pages of human history present no stronger case of judicial murder than the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, for the simple reason that all forms of law were outraged and trampled under foot in the proceedings instituted against Him" —Edersheim (vol. 5)

The Mishna tells us that, after the solemn washing of hands of the elders and their disclaimer of guilt, priests responded with this prayer: 'Forgive it to thy people Israel' But here, in answer to Pilate's words, came back that deep, hoarse cry: 'His blood be upon us,' and—God help us!—'on our children' Some thirty years later, and on that very spot, was judgment pronounced against some of the best in Jerusalem. Among the 3,600 victims of the governor's fury, of whom not a few were scourged and crucified right over against the Pretorium, were many of the noblest of the citizens of Jerusalem.

And still have these wanderers seemed to bear, from century to century, and from land to land, that burden of blood; and still does it seem to weigh 'on us and on our children'." 6. "We Have no King but Cæsar." —"With this cry Judaism was, in the person of its representatives, guilty of denial of God, of blasphemy, of apostasy. It committed suicide" 7. The Underlying Cause of Pilate's Surrender to the Jewish Demands. —Pilate knew what was right but lacked the moral courage to do it. He was afraid of the Jews, and more afraid of hostile influence at Rome. It was the policy of Rome to be gracious and

Pontius Pilate had violated this liberal policy from the early days of his procuratorship. In utter disregard of the Hebrew antipathy against images and heathen insignia, he had the legionaries enter Jerusalem at night, carrying their eagles and standards decorated with the effigy of the emperor. To the Jews this act was a defilement of the Holy City. In vast multitudes they gathered at Cæsarea, and petitioned the procurator that the standards and other images be removed from Jerusalem. For five days the people demanded and Pilate refused. He threatened a general slaughter, and was amazed to see the people offer themselves as victims of the sword rather than relinquish their demands. Pilate

Anticipating the public protest of the people, he had caused Roman soldiers to disguise themselves as Jews; and with weapons concealed to mingle with the crowds. At a given signal these assassins plied their weapons and great numbers of defenceless Jews were killed or wounded. On another occasion, Pilate had grossly offended the people by setting up in his official residence at Jerusalem, shields that had been dedicated to Tiberius. A petition signed by the ecclesiastical officials of the nation, and by others of influence, including four Herodian princes, was sent to the emperor, who reprimanded Pilate and directed that the shields be removed from Jerusalem to Cæsarea. These outrages on national feeling, and many minor acts

He realized that his tenure was insecure, and he dreaded exposure. Such wrongs had he wrought that when he would have done good, he was deterred through cowardly fear of the accusing past. German philosophers were among the earliest to assert that the man had been judged in unrighteousness. His real character was of brighter tint than that in which it had been painted.

Some critics hold that of all the Twelve Judas was the one most thoroughly convinced of our Lord's divinity in the flesh. We are not the invested judges of Judas nor of any other; but we are competent to frame and hold opinions as to the actions of any. In the light of the revealed word it appears that Judas Iscariot had given himself up to the cause of Satan while ostensibly serving the Christ in an exalted capacity. Such a surrender to evil powers could be accomplished only through sin. The nature and extent of the man's transgressions through the years are not told us. He had received the testimony that Jesus was the Son of God; and in the full light of that conviction he turned against his

Modern revelation is no less explicit than ancient in declaring that the path of sin is that of spiritual darkness leading to certain destruction. For his trained and skilful servants, Satan will provide opportunities of service commensurate with their evil ability. Whatever the opinion of modern critics as to the good character of Judas, we have the testimony of John, who for nearly three years had been in close companionship with him, that the man was a thief. Jesus referred to him as a devil (6:70), and as "the son of perdition" (17:12). See in this connection Doc. and Cov. 76:41-48.

The evil proclivities of Judas Iscariot were known to Christ. As the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God was foreknown and foretold so the circumstances of the betrayal were foreseen. His was the opportunity and privilege common to the Twelve, to live in the light of the Lord's immediate presence, and to receive from the source divine the revelation of God's purposes. It would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of the revealed word to say that the wretched IsCariot was in the least degree deprived of freedom or agency in the course he followed to so execrable an end.

Judas Iscariot was no victim of circumstances, no insensate tool guided by a superhuman power, except as he by personal volition gave himself up to Satan, and accepted a wage in the devil's employ. Had Judas been true to the right, other means than his perfidy would have operated to bring the Lamb to the slaughter. His ordination to the apostleship placed him in possession of opportunity and privilege above that of the uncalled and unordained. With such blessed possibility of achievement in the service of God came corresponding capability to fall. A trusted and exalted officer of the government can commit acts of treachery and treason such as are impossible to the citizen who has never learned the secrets of State.

According to the first, Judas hanged himself; the second states that he fell headlong, "and all his bowels gushed out" If both records be accurate, the wretched man probably hanged himself, and afterward fell, possibly through the breaking of the cord or the branch to which it was attached. Matthew says the Jewish rulers purchased the "field of blood"; the writer of the Acts quotes Peter as saying that Judas bought the field with the money he had received from the priests. As the ground was bought with money that had belonged to Iscariot, and as this money had never been formally taken back by the temple officials, the field bought therewith belonged technically to the estate of Judas.

The Lord has given a partial but awful account through a revelation dated February 16, 1832. They are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity. Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father—having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels. They are the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power. The end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows. Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof.

The common text of John 18:22, says that the man "struck Jesus with the palm of his hand," that is to say slapped Him. The marginal reading of the revised version is "with a rod" There is lack of agreement on this point in the early Mss. Note the accusation reported to Pilate that Jesus was guilty of "perverting the nation," Luke 23:2.

Luke 22:66-71. Mark 15:1; compare Matt. 27:1, 2; John 18:28. Luke 23:11. Revised version reads, "arraying him in gorgeous apparel" John 1:35, 40; 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20, 24.

Clarke ("Commentaries") and many other writers assume that the robe was white, that being the usual color of dress amongst the Jewish nobility. Matthew says "scarlet," Mark and John say "purple." Compare Luke 18:32. "Ecce Homo."