the morning, but that was not for the pur pose of condemnation, but for the purpose of conselling how they might put him to death. Matthew says, " When the morning was come, all the Chief Priests and elders of the people took counsel againt Jesus, to put him to death." Upon this subject Luke says nothing, contenting himself by relating it all as one occurrence. John also is silent as to the time, and also the condemnation, but he does say, " Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the Hall of Judgment, and it was early." But this was when they took him to Pilate, as was Luke's account. We think therefore that the inference and previous statements, coupled with the requirements of the law, indicate that Matthew and Mark give a more detailed account of the trial, and that the Sanhedrim held two meetings, one in the night when they condemned, and one in the morning when they sought to devise a plan for carrying out the sentence. But if we say that the court was held in the day time, the vice of the condemnation upon the same day of the hearing is not cured, and the sentence becomes void for want of juris diction in the court to pronounce it when they did and as they did. Aside from all this, it was forbidden by the law to hold court for the trial of offences upon the eve of a festival, or upon the day of a national festival. And the time when Christ was ar rested, and the day of his condemnation and execution was upon the eve of the Feast of the Passover. Here, then, we have a court held at a time and place in direct violation of law, pronouncing a summary sentence not authorized by law. Instead therefore of a trial before a properly constituted tribunal, we find one wholly unauthorized, whose judg ments were of no more validity in law than the headstrong impulse of a mob. But of the trial. What has become of the carefully organized tribunal to assert inno cence and not find guilt? Where are the careful examinations and investigations of witnesses by the judges? Matthew and Mark give answer. They sought for false
witnesses to put him to death. Where was the lingering mind of the judge that he said not to the witness, " If thou speakest not the truth, God will demand of thee an ac count, as he demanded of Cain an account of the blood of Abel "? Swallowed up in the blindness of human passion. Mr. Salvador says Caiaphas, the High Priest, whose dignity compels him to defend the letter of the law, observed that Jesus excited dissensions, both political and religious, which would furnish an excuse to the Romans for overwhelming Judaea, and that the interests of the whole nation must outweight those of a single in dividual; he therefore constitutes himself the accuser of Jesus. We by no means admit this statement, except for present purposes. But taking it now as true, what must we think of the judge, and of the argument which justifies it, when we find the accuser, who had already pronounced guilt, sitting in judgment to try the accused? Relation and interest with the Jews excluded the judge even in money matters, and yet we find Caiaphas the accuser; and the associate judges, each of whom had consulted with the accuser, and each of whom had coun selled how they might take Jesus by subtlety and kill him, associated as a court to try him. What of the evidence? The witnesses had failed; and for their failure had been substi tuted a gross infraction of law and morals, — Jesus was called upon to criminate himself. "I adjure thee by the Living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God," — thus placing him in a posi tion where an answer in the affirmative was at once to admit what they were seeking to obtain, if in the negative, to deny his divine mission and teachings. No tribunal insti tuted by the Jews ever authorized such testimony, any more than modern Christian tribunals. This position was exactly stated by Jesus when he said in reply, "I spake openly to the world : I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said
