The National tribune. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1877-1917, 1889-05-23

mention this arraignment. The reports of SIS
Matthew, Mark and Luke were written about
81 years after the events occurred. The first
two wrote in Rome, while ST. Luke issued his
book from Achaia, in Greece There is no con-
tradict0n in the several reports. They differ
as would be expected in the instance of three
honest witnesses. Exactness of the accounts
would lead to suspicion as suggesting collision
2 Time.
The arraignment took place March Is, A. D.
80, Friday morning, from, say, 8 o'clock to 6
o'clock, 1850 years ago. Notice an incident
occurring toward the close of the trial men
toned in st. Matt. % 10 the cock crew"
Christ was in his Bath year. He was crucifed
on the same day, lingering on the cross from
9 a. m. to 3 p. m. The proceedings before the
Sanhedrim during the night hours were not
legal and the morning session was required to
give effectiveness to measures which had prae-
tically been decided upon not far after the
midnight before.
8. Place.
The trial of Christ took place in Jerusalem.
1t was IN the court of the palace or private
mansion of Caiaphas the high priest. (St.
Matt, 26 81 The Sanhedrim generally held
its sessions on the outside of the western wall
of the Temple, north of the gate Parbar. The
place was called Gazith. Hastiness called for
some irregularity as to locality; as one now in
a special emergency seeks judge at his private
residence, being toe impatient or too pressed
to wait for office hours. 1t is possible also that
the palace, rather than the council chamber
proper, was sought by reason of their concern
not to make any unnecessary stir OF publicity
about the arrest and trial of Christ, they well
knowing that many of the common people
were in sympathy with him.
d. Tie Court Court .G:@sd Jury.
Christ was arraigned before the Sanhedrim.
1t was the final court of the Jewish nation. 1t
numbered II persons, being composed of a high
priest ex-high priest, rulers of synagogs, and
other leading men of Jewish nationality. We
know by name four of the members, to wit,
Caiaphas, Annas, Nicodemus, and Joseph of
Aramathea. The last two were friends of
Christ From the fact st. Mark IA /: 64) states
all who were present condemned Jesus, we
know that Nicodemus and Joseph were absent.
Being known or suspected as adherents OF
Christ, they may not have beer appraised OF
the meeting. (See st. Luke, % 81; ST. John,
z 80, 81; 10 (: 39) The high priest serving
was the President of the Council. 1t had spe-
eial supervision in all ecclesastic matters, and
possessed the power of capital punishment
After their subsection to the Romans the right
to execute offenders was, however, taken from
the Sanhedrim. 1t seems the Council was in
some way suggested to the Jews during their
captivity in Babylon, for the Sanhedrim was
not organized until some little time after their
return. The first mention Of the Council is
supposed to be in 2 Mac, l 10. The Judge in
the case Of Christs ecclesiastic trial was Gaia
phas, the jury the 20 members of the San
hedrim. We notice that at his trial Christ
had no advocate.
s. Prisoner
It seems sacrilegious to speak Of Christ as q
felon, culprit, fellow. (St Matt, 90 61) II
is only the lower orders of even heathen ma.
tons which presume to whip their gods Won,
derful is it to see the Son of God under arrest
treated impertinently, denied the right Of even
a fair trial, subjected to insults which would
enrage real criminal and offend a dog. With.
out record against him of single unkindnes:
or injustice and without any charge of crime
against him, he was treated as only became a
violator of most sacred law.
6. Prosecutors.
We find from ST. Matt, 26: 3-5, that the &C
cusers of Christ were certain chief priests
scribes and elders. Many of them were mem.
bers of the Sanhedrim, the very body that tried
and condemned Christ. The court aud Jury
were from the start opposed to Jesus and theil
verdict against him foregone fact Theil
attitude of animosity resulted largely from
jealousy and prejudice. AS leaders of the PEG
pie religiously they hated one who seemed
more popular and successful than they proved
themselves to be.
Z. The Charge
The Sanhedrim dealt specially with ecclesi
astic matters. Tie Roman courts dealt witt
treason, sedition and the like. The accusation
against Christ with which the council cOulC
deal was blasphemy. 1t is the speaking in suci
way as to harm God in the opinion of men
causing them not to respect him so highly, tt
obey him so reverently. 1t is also the assump
ton on the part of any man of prerogativei
belonging alone to Deity. For man to CLAIM
to be the son of some prominent person wher
in fact he is not so related, would be an insul
and gross'wrong. To claim intimacy with some
renowned person. and assert you have great in
fluence with him, would be an outrage. Bias
phemy was by the Mosaic law punishable with
death. The Jews, however, having been sub
jected to Roman rule, were denied the right o
inhieting capital punishment. Hence, though
they had succeeded in honestly proving Chris
guilty of blasphemy, they could not have pu
him to death without their sentence was ap
proved by the Roman Governor. We find tina
it was necessary for them, before an order coulC
| be issued for the execution, to bring Christ be
fore the Roman representative on a charge
affecting not religious propriety but civil obi
cation. The two specifications of the charge o
blasphemy made against Christ were as follows
l. He claimed that if they destroyed the Temple
uO MOulu Icuul1u III Hibhin tHISc NdyS. Ii udA
taken centuries to put the structure into shape
aud repairs had been going on for 46 years. X
assume to rebuild it in three days was to CLAIM
superhuman power; was in reality to make one
self equal to God. 2. "Jesus said, am anC
We shall see the Son of man sitting on the RICH
hand of power, and coming in the clouds o
Heaven" (St. Mark, IA g.
s. Witnesses.
The Mosaic law requires that no man b
found guilty on any charge unless two wit
nesses appear whose testimony agrees. (Deu
10: 15) They must not contradict each other
and they mnst both give evidence on the sami
| points. There were men at the time of Christ
| trial who stood ready TO swear against him, bu
| the Sanhedrim found none for some time who's
evidence did not prove contradictory. Know
| ing they could not prove Christ guilty of an,
wicked charge, they sought for witnesses VIII,
were so corrupt as to be willing to swear t
| falsehood. But it is very difficult to secur
such evidence from evil witnesses as will tally
| The Sanhedrim found said difficulty, and yer,
| likely were forced to do as in the case Of 81
| Stephen. (Acts, 6 H. At length two person
swore to what were practically the same facts
and which if true, as professedly understood
by the Sanhedrim, were blasphemies
8. The Trial
| Matters proceeded. Evidence, so-called, wa
received No fair chance was given to Chris
to explain. (St. Luke, %: 6S.) The case wa
| avidantlv nreiudae He was ohlipad RI N