XI.

WHAT was the charge on which the Jews condemned Christ to death ?*

FAMILIAR as this question may at first seem, the answer is not so obvious as might be supposed. By a careful perusal of the trial of our Lord as described by the several Evangelists, it will be found that the charges were two, of a nature quite distinct, and preferred with a most appropriate reference to the tribunals before which they were made.

Thus the first hearing was before "the Chief Priests and all the Council," a Jewish and ecclesiastical court; accordingly, Christ was then accused of blasphemy. "I adjure thee, by the living God, tell me whether thou be the Son of God," said Caiaphas to him, in the hope of convicting him out of his own mouth. When Jesus in his reply answered that he was, "then the high-priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy;

*The following argument was suggested to me by reading "Wilson's Illustration of the method of Explaining the New Testament by the Early Opinions of Jews and Christians concerning Christ."

what further need have we of witnesses? behold now ye have heard his blasphemy." (Matt. xxvi. 65.)

Shortly after, he is taken before Pilate, the Roman governor, and here the charge of blasphemy is altogether suppressed, and that of sedition substituted. "And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate : and they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying, that he himself is Christ, a king." (Luke, xxiii. 2.) And on this plea it is that they press his conviction, reminding Pilate, that if he let him go, he was not Cæsar's friend.

This difference in the nature of the accusation, according to the quality and character of the judges, is not forced upon our notice by the Evangelists, as though they were anxious to give an air of probability to their narrative. by such circumspection and attention to propriety on the contrary, it is touched upon in so cursory and unemphatic a manner, as to be easily overlooked; and, I venture to say, that it is actually overlooked by most readers of the Gospels. Indeed, how perfectly agreeable to the temper of the times, and of the parties concerned, such a proceeding was, can

scarcely be perceived at first sight. The coincidence, therefore, will appear more striking if we examine it somewhat more closely. A charge of blasphemy was, of all others, the best fitted to detach the multitude from the cause of Christ; and it is only by a proper regard to this circumstance, that we can obtain the true key to the conflicting sentiments of the people towards him; one while hailing him, as they do, with rapture, and then again striving to put him to death.

Thus when Jesus walked in Solomon's porch, the Jews came round about him and said unto him, "If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.―Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not." He then goes on to speak of the works which testified of him, and adds, in conclusion, "I and my Father are one." The effect of which words was instantly this, that the Jews (i. e. the people) took up stones to stone him, "for blasphemy, and because, being a man, he made himself God." (John, x. 33.) Again, in the sixth chapter of St. John, we read of five thousand men, who, having witnessed his miracles, actually acknowledged him as "that prophet that should come into the world," nay, even wished to take him by force and make him a

king yet the very next day, when Christ said to these same people, "This is that bread which came down from heaven," they murmured at him, doubtless considering him to lay claim to divinity; for he replies, "Doth this offend you? what and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" Expressions, at which such serious offence was taken, that "from that time many of his disciples went back, and walked with him no more." So that it is not in these days only that men forsake Christ from a reluctance to acknowledge (as he demands of them) his godhead. And again-when Jesus cured the impotent man on the Sabbath day, and in defending himself for having so done, said, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," we are told, "therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John, v. 18.) So, on another occasion, when Jesus had been speaking with much severity in the temple, we find him unmolested, till he adds, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." (John, viii. 58.) But no sooner had he so said, than " they took up stones to cast at him." In like manner, (to

66

come to the last scene of his mortal life,) when he entered Jerusalem he had the people in his favor; for the chief priests and scribes "feared them :" yet, very shortly after, the tide was so turned against him, that the same people asked Barabbas rather than Jesus. And why? As Messiah they were anxious to receive him, which was the character in which he had entered Jerusalem-but they rejected him as the "Son of God," which was the character in which he stood before them at his trial facts which, taken in a doctrinal view, are of no small value, proving, as they do, that the Jews believed Christ to lay claim to divinity, however they might dispute or deny the right. It is consistent, therefore, with the whole tenor of the Gospel history, that the enemies of Christ, to gain their end with the Jews, should have actually accused him of blasphemy, as they are represented to have done, and should have succeeded. Nor is it less consistent with that history, that they should have actually waved the charge of blasphemy, when they brought him before a Roman magistrate, and substituted that of sedition in its stead; for the Roman governors, it is well known, were very indifferent about religious disputes-they had the tolera