VII. knowledges Daniel*, then universally admitted to refer to the CHAP. reign of the Messiah. His words may be thus para- — phrased: -"Ye shall know me for that mighty King Jesus acdescribed by the prophet; ye shall know me when himself the my great, eternal, and imperishable kingdom shall Messiah. be established on the ruins of your Theocracy." the High The secret joy of the High Priest, though per- Conduct of haps his devout horror was not altogether insincere, Priest. was disguised by the tone and gesture of religious indignation which he assumed. He rent his clothes; an act considered indecorous, almost indecent, in the High Priest, unless justified by an outrage against the established religion so flagrant and offensive as this declaration of Jesus. † He pronounced his speech (strangely indeed did its lofty tone contrast with the appearance of the prisoner) to be direct and treasonable blasphemy. The whole court, either sharing in the indignation, or hurried away by the vehement gesture and commanding influence, of the High Priest, hastily passed the fatal sentence, and declared Jesus guilty of the capital crime. sulted by The insolent soldiery (as he was withdrawn Jesus infrom the court) had now full licence, and perhaps the sol more than the licence, of their superiors to indulge diery. the brutality of their own dispositions. They began *The allusion to this prophecy (Dan. vii. 13, 14.) is manifest. + They who judge a blasphemer, first bid the witness to speak out plainly what he hath heard; and when he speaks it, the judges, standing on their feet, rend their garments, and do not sew them up VOL. I. again. Sanhed. i. 7. 10., and Babyl. The High Priest was forbidden VII. Denial of to spit on his face-in the East the most degrading insult; they blind-folded him, and struck him with the palms of their hands, and, in their miserable merriment, commanded him to display his prophetic knowledge, by detecting the hand that was raised against him.* The dismay, the despair, which had seized upon his adherents, is most strongly exemplified by the denial of Peter. The zealous disciple, after he had obtained admittance into the hall, stood warming himself, in the cool of the dawning morning, probably by a kind of brazier.† He was first accosted by a female servant, who charged him with being an accomplice of the prisoner: Peter denied the charge with vehemence, and retired to the portico or porch in front of the palace. A second time, another female renewed the accusation : with still more angry protestations Peter disclaimed all connection with his master; and once, but unregarded, the cock crew. An hour afterwards, probably about this time, after the formal condemnation, the charge was renewed by a relation of the man whose ear he had cut off. His harsh Galilean pronunciation had betrayed him as coming from that province; but Peter now resolutely confirmed his denial with an oath. It was the usual time of the second cock-crowing, and again it was distinctly heard. Jesus, who was probably at that time in the outer hall or porch in the midst of the in * Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.; Mark, xiv. 65.; Luke, xxii. 63. 65. + Matt. xxvi. 58. 69. 75.; Mark, xiv. 54. 66. 72.; Luke, xxii. 5462.; John, xviii. 15, 16. VII. sulting soldiery, turned his face towards Peter, CHAP. who, overwhelmed with shame and distress, hastily retreated from the sight of his deserted master, and wept the bitter tears of self-reproach and humiliation. and But, although the Sanhedrin had thus passed their sentence, there remained a serious obstacle before it could be carried into execution. On the contested point, whether the Jews, under the Roman government, possessed the power of life death*, it is not easy to state the question with brevity and distinctness. Notwithstanding the apparently clear and distinct recognition of the Sanhedrin, that they had not authority to put any man to death; notwithstanding the remarkable concurrence of Rabbinical tradition with this declaration, which asserts that the nation had been deprived of the power of life and death forty years before the destruction of the city, many of the most learned writers, some indeed of the ablest of the fathers §, from arguments arising out of the practice of Roman provincial jurisprudence, and from later facts in the The question is discussed in all the commentators. See Lardner, Credib., i. 2.; Basnage, B. v. c. 2.; Biscoe on the Acts, c. 6.; note to Law's Theory, 147. ; but above all Krebs, Observat. in Nov. Test., 64-155.; Rosenmüller and Kuinoël, in loc. ↑ John, xviii. 31. talia ab Israele. There is, however, § Among the ancients, Chrysos- Traditio est quadraginta annos ante excidium templi, ablatum fuisse jus vitæ et mortis. Hieros. Sanhed., fol. 18. 1. Ib. fol. 242. Quadraginta annis ante vastatum templum, ablata sunt judicia capi Question of the right of the Sanhedrin to inflict ca pita pun ishment. VII. CHAP. Evangelic history and that of the Jews, have supposed, that even if, as is doubtful, they were deprived of this power in civil, they retained it in religious, cases. Some have added, that even in the latter, the ratification of the sentence by the Roman governor, or the permission to carry it into execution, was necessary. According to this view, the object of the Sanhedrin was to bring the case before Pilate as a civil charge; since the assumption of a royal title and authority implied a design to cast off the Roman yoke. Or, if they retained the right of capital punishment in religious cases, it was contrary to usage, in the proceedings of the Sanhedrin, as sacred as law itself, to order an execution on the day of preparation for the Passover.* As then they dared not violate that usage, and as delay was in every way dangerous, either from the fickleness of the people, who having been momentarily wrought up to a pitch of deadly animosity against Jesus, might again, by some act of power or goodness on his part, be carried away back to his side; or, in case of tumult, from the unsolicited intervention of the Romans; their plainest course was to obtain, if possible, the immediate support and assistance of the government. Real relation of the Sanhedrin vernment. In my own opinion, formed upon the study of the cotemporary Jewish history, the of the power to the go- Sanhedrin, at this period of political change and confusion, on this, as well as on other points, was * Cyril and Augustine, with whom Kuinoël is inclined to agree, interpret the words of St. John, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," by subjoining, "on the day of the Passover." VII. altogether undefined. Under the Asmonean princes, CHAP. the sovereign, uniting the civil and religious supremacy, the High-Priesthood with the royal power, exercised, with the Sanhedrin as his council, the highest political and civil jurisdiction. Herod, whose authority depended on the protection of Rome, and was maintained by his wealth, and in part by foreign mercenaries, although he might leave to the Sanhedrin, as the supreme tribunal, the judicial power, and in ordinary religious cases might admit their unlimited jurisdiction; yet no doubt watched and controlled their proceedings with the jealousy of an Asiatic despot, and practically, if not formally, subjected all their decrees to his revision: at least he would not have permitted any encroachment on his own supreme authority. In fact, according to the general tradition of the Jews, he at one time put the whole Sanhedrin to death: and since, as his life advanced, his tyranny became more watchful and suspicious, he was more likely to diminish than increase the powers of the national tribunal. In the short interval of little more than thirty years, which had elapsed since the death of Herod, nearly ten had been occupied by the reign of Archelaus. On his deposal, the Sanhedrin had probably extended or resumed its original functions, but still the supreme civil authority rested in the Roman Procurator. All the commotions excited by the turbulent adventurers who infested the country, or by Judas the Galilean and his adherents, would fall under the cognisance of the civil governor, and |
