Jo. xviii. 33. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and Jerusalem. called Jesus, which reason these trials were never to begin the day before the The day on which our Lord was put to death was the first 2. Pilate says to our Lord, "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and power to release thee?" which words are said expressly to declare, that Pilate was the supreme and only judge who was invested with the power of pronouncing sentence of absolution or condemnation. Ans. It is granted, that Pilate was supreme judge under the Emperor, and Governor of Syria, in this and every other case, within the province of Judea, but this does not prove that he was the only judge; nor does it from hence follow that the Jews had not the privilege of trying and executing their own criminals. 3. Again, the Jews say to Christ, "Moses in the law commanded that such should be stoned; but how sayest thou?" It is added, “This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him;" which is interpreted, if he had determined, the woman taken in adultery should be stoned, according to the Mosaic law, they designed to accuse him to the Roman Governor; because, if the Jews were prohibited from the use of their own laws, this act might have been considered as seditious: if, on the contrary, he had decided that she ought not to be stoned, they would have accused him of derogating from the law of Moses, and have thereby lessened his influence among the people. Ans. This is taking for granted the point to be proved, with And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor Jerusalem. asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? out one word being said in its confirmation. It is probable the Many more arguments are adduced by Biscoe in support of Again, it is related that Peter and the other apostles were brought before the council, (Acts v. 27.) who, it is expressly said, "took counsel to slay them," (Acts v. 33.) and would doubtless have put their design into execution, had they not been dissuaded from it by Gamaliel. Is it probable that St. Luke, who mentions all these proceedings, should not have once intimated that they exceeded their power in so doing, if the Romans had prohibited them from exercising their own punishments? But, on the contrary, we find the High Priest and the elders asserting their authority in open court, in the presence of the Roman Governor himself, who was seated as a judge, without any reproof on his part. Tertullus declares to Felix, in the case of St. Paul, whom "we took and would have judged according to our law." (Acts xxiv. 6.) If the exercise of their law had been taken from them, what possible construction could have been put upon such a declaration, but open rebellion against the Roman states? and could any magistrate have suffered it to pass unnoticed? St. Paul himself acknowleges the power of the Jewish council, (Acts xxiii. 3.) and it is evident from the accusation that his was a capital cause. It may be further observed, in support of this opinion, that the four evangelists are unanimous that the Jews attempted to prosecute our Saviour for the capital crime of sabbath-breaking, that they might put him to death, Matt. xii. 10. Luke vi. 7. John v. 9, 10. 16.; and Mark, chap. ii. 3.says, "They watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbbath-day, that they might accuse him;" but evidently not before the Roman Governor, for it would have been difficult to have convinced him that the performance of a wonderful and beneficent action on Jo. xviii. 34. Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, Jerusalem. or did others tell it thee of me? the sabbath-day was worthy of death. Who then can doubt that If the Jews had not sought to take away the life of Christ After the resurrection of Lazarus, we read the Chief Priests and Pharisees gathered a council, and determined to put our Saviour to death. (John xi. 47.53.) And a short time afterwards we are told, the Chief Priests consulted how they might put Lazarus also to death. (John xii. 10.) But what gives additional weight to this argument, is the fear of the people, so frequently expressed. Matthew (xxi. 46.) says, when the Chief Priests and Pharisees sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude; (also Matt. xxvi. 4, 5.) Mark xi. 18. also relates, the Scribes and Chief Priests sought how they might destroy him, for they feared him, because all the people were astonished at his doctrine; and again, they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people. (Mark xii. 12.) See also Luke xix. 47, 48. xx. 19. and xxii. 2. If the Jews had meditated the destruction of our Saviour by any private hand, or in any extra-judicial manner, or if they had intended to use their influence with the Governor, to prevail upon him to pronounce a sentence of condemnation, if sufficient evidence was wanting to establish his crime, why had the Chief Priests and Pharisees so much reason to fear the people? The instigators and actors in these cases might perhaps have had some reason to fear; but to suppose that the whole body of Jewish magistrates should be so affected, when the discovery was so improbable, seems wholly incredible. Who could force the assassin to acknowledge his guilt, when the magistrates of course would not? It must, therefore, be an act of the great council of the Jewish nation, and not any secret means of destruction, which is referred to, in those places of the Gospels, where this general fear is expressed; for we read, the Chief Priests, the Scribes, and the elders were afraid of the people. They were afraid to put Jesus to death, in the same manner, and for the same reason, that Herod was afraid to put John the Bap Jo. xviii. 35. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? thine own nation and Jerusalem. the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? tist to death," they feared the multitude." (Matt. xiv. 5.) And They would have executed him by their own laws, had it not The Talmudists mention many instances, proving that the power of inflicting capital punishments was retained by the Jews: the Gemara expressly asserts that the four capital punishments inflicted by the Jewish council or magistracy, were in use during the forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem; though, according to the Talmudists, they were much interrupted. But even this was owing, as Josephus has shewn, to the corruption and mal-administration of the Roman Governors; who were induced by bribes, or the share of plunder, to use their influence to protect criminals from those punishments denounced against them by the Jewish laws. Even Felix himself employed robbers to murder Jonathan, the High Priest, for having reproved him for injustice; and after this time murders were not only frequent, but committed with impunity. The corrup tion of this Governor is hinted at Acts, xxiv. 26. Josephus also asserts, that Albinus dismissed all malefactors for money; and that Gessius Florus was sharer with such in their unlawful gains. Josephus never alludes to the supposed loss of their power by the Jews; on the contrary, he observes, that the Sadducees are cruel above all the Jews in matters of judicature (b), and at that time they had been fifty years under the Roman power. Josephus asserts also, that in cases of dispute concerning the Mosaic laws and institutions, the power of inflicting capital punishment was left to the High Priest (c). In speaking of the Essenes, Josephus expressly affirms, that if any one speaks evil of any of their legislators, he is punished with death (d). Such is a brief abstract of the reasoning of Mr. Biscoe on this subject, which appears satisfactorily to refute the principal arguments of Lardner on the other side of the question. I had indeed maintained the opposite and more general opinion. Lightfoot, in his Talmudical Exercitations, after a long discussion on the question whether the Jews at this time retained the power of life and death, remarks, that it is the received Jo. xviii. 36. Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if Jerusalem. my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants opinion, that the Romans divested the council of their autho- "The Talmudists excellently well clear the matter, and the Because כיון דחזו דנפישי לחו רוצחין ולא יכלו למידן,reason was this they saw murderers so much increase, that they could not judge And again it is said in another Talmudical tradition, "Since "The slothfulness of the council destroyed its own authority, the law slept while wickedness was in the height of its revels; and primitive justice was so out of countenance, that as to uncertain murders they made no search, and against certain ones they framed no judgment. The Sanhedrim, from mere inac-. tivity, or a foolish tenderness towards an Israelite, as a seed of Abraham, so far neglected to punish bloodshed, and other crimes, that wickedness grew so untractable, that the authority of the council trembled for fear of it, and dared not kill the killers. In this sense that saying must be understood, 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,' for it is evident, when they make this assertion, they do not deal fairly with Pilate; for their authority of judging had not been taken from them by the Romans, but lost by themselves, and despised by the people. Under these circumstances it was only exercised when there was no danger to be apprehended. They were happy enough to use it when they had the opportunity of judging, persecuting, and torturing poor men and Christians; and they would certainly have condemned our Saviour to death, had they not feared the people, and if Providence had not otherwise determined it." Lightfoot mentions many other circumstances which took place after Judea had long been subject to the Roman yoke, |