The sun., 1897-01-24

them and teaches and acts contrsriwise TO them,
such . one is said to deserve death. But 10.
serves death only when. heing an orda!net ,.s.
or teacher. ordained by the sanhedrim. Lo CT,
upon his own judgment. In contredictlrn 10
theirs. while they. tho sanbedristS, are hn'dlp,
their sessions IN the square stone hail n tn,
Mount Morlah Temple. 1.-The was only studen,
not yet n doctor or rabbi. not yet oria ned
and legally authorized to teach publicly hr:.
nsverthsle,s, he did toaoh. he was nst tpni.h.
able. Even IL he were an ordained teacher and
he tauaht but only by way OF theory. and .pt
for practice. he was not punishable. Again, ~
he taught in raiiction TO the sanhedrl.ts
and they were not In their oficia' place. he wss
not punishable. What now was The prncedur.
in tie case Of rebeilious sage who satisfied the
highly technical dehnition7 He aud h,,
accusers had to appear before three succeuys
courts, When all the three had d., ided
that he was wrong he went home; II. after.
ward. he continued to teach in open rebellion.
but only theoretically. and not for practice he
could not be punished; II he taught with q View
to practice. he was taken TO Jerusalem. before
the highest court, and there detained until the
rext holiday. when capital punishment vas ia-
nlcted. What more conclusive proof -v~a -
adduced that tho rabbinicai criminal code wa,
exceptionally diatory. avowediy reluctant 10
inlet punishment and eager to give defend
ant all possible chances Of escspef
Nv.
This being the character Of the rabb,nicsl l.s.
isiation. can we. asks Mr.. Flucgel. accept asa
historical fact that such . court. under such 4
code OF laws. capItally condemned . priva,.
man Of spotless character. o pious Es.sne no or.
dained teacher. though . popular preacher. no,
for arf bu1 far nj tsr n nd dnct ctri,
might be construable as heresy: for mere my,-
tical words which could bear any and every in.
terpretation without witnesses or warning; on
. hoiidayf Can We believe that the victim wa,
surprised, arrested. naltreated. arr.igned
and unanimously condemned. upon bis own
avowaL delivered to the Roman Governor cor.
demned again and executed. all on one and the
same dsyf Here t 10 pointed out that, II the
condemnation BY the high priests court was
"ubanimous." that fact alone rendered the
verdict null and void and acquitted the pri.-
ober. The claim OF unanimity is a striking
proof that there was no regular Sanhedrin IN
session on the occasion. AmonF the many rules
In favor Of the defendant under the rabbinicAl
criminal code was the provision that "a unAui-
nous condemnation is equivalent TO absolute
acouittal." For then the law suspected partisan
prejudice ana judicial murder. There Is said,
however. N have been no dissenting voice In the
case Of Jesus. The court. then. By which Jesu.
WAS tried was no Sanhedrim he was condemned
By packed jury. by political lynch Law. The
truth Is. as We have said there was in Judea a,
tho time no criminal court The high pries,
and his friends possessed no authority 10 try
criminal causes The sanhedrim had no
criminal SoTis1leiion any longer. Even when
they had had Jurisdiction. they never sat IN
judgment on the eve OF q holiday or on holiday,
They never punished opinions. but criminal
deeds. Jesus had committed no such deed. He
was. perhaps, an heresiarch. but there was no
Hebrew Law criminally furnishing possible or
actual heresy. Jesus was no idoiAter. nor
did he incite to idolatry. He plainly
and publicly professed the Goo and the
ethics OF Moses and the prophets. II hs
believed himself 70 be the Messiah. that may
have been . political or mystical error, no, .
punishable crime Jesus was no ordained pub
lie preacher. He. therefore. could not be treat
cd a. . - rebellious sage" His Messiah hopes
and claims could not be legally proven nor dis
proven: they were too vague and ideal for .
court OF Judgment The question Of the high
priest Art thou the son OF G cd - had no legal
pith or point Every Israslite could have Az
swered: "Yes, Am. for We all are sons Of
God" Moreover. as We have said, the hish
priest had no risht 10 put the question. In He
brew 5urisprudence defendant had TO Be con.
demned By his act, and by eyewitnesses. not ey
his own avowal OF seif-aecusation. A free and
fair examination was prescribed; no torture, No
tricky interrozatories. no threats or blows were
allowed. IL oil the Judges declared him guilty
the law sbsolved him ipso fdeto.
To sum MP this Hebrew sa~ants Wow OF the
life and death Of Jesus the real eist OF tho
accusation was not heresy. but q political
offence. He was guilty OF distur bing the peace,
the slumbers of men high In oftee. the estAb-
lish hAd al ~.
riches. nor their dignity. nor their pretended
piety. He aimed At ethical. social and political
innovation. Above all. by his claim OF Messiah
ship. he was believed to be an asplrAnt TO An
actual crown. As such. he had attracted the
attention OF the Herodians and of the Roman
procuratnr; hence he had to die. ThA, q
regular court condemned him the aut nor OF thi,
hook declines TO believe. For. rs We have seen.
there was neither court nor crime nor crim,.
mai. nor witnesses. nor regular accusation. All
that can have occurred IL that the high ocic.Al,
in Jerusalem srraiened him a. q dang,rou,
social ana political ag'tAtor. and this WAS crime
enough for suspicious Roman Governor II
was As king of the Jews" that Jesus died.
Thus was the tdblld over his eros. inscribed.
Under precisely the same dee lgnatioa, manya
Claimant OF politica. pnwsr died before ard
AFTER him. Lone a'terwArd. inderd, when the
dead Jesus proved to be stronger than m,sa,y
Rome, she claimed Him as hers. made Of HIN
an enemy Of His people. and gut the bian. Of
His death At their doors. While Jesus had en-.
phatically declared His Kingdom not to be Of
this world. and hal proclaimed His willingness
to render unto Cesar what was Cse.ar's and 70
God whH, was Gods, Rome ultimately aid
claim to all that was Gods as we'll as al that
WAS Crsar's and assumed the dominion OF tho
world 10 the name or God and the Messiah.