reserved to the time of their great feasts, that the execution might be the more public": and it is true the Mishna does say, that the stubborn elder, who refused to obey the decrees of the great sanhedrim, was to be kept in custody till one of the three great feasts, and during the feast to be put to death, that all the people might hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously. I might possibly have said that this was a singular case, and an exception to a general rule, were it not that the Jewish masters from a parity of reason conclude the same thing of three other cases, which are those of the rebellious son, the enticer to idolatry, and the false witness. And these are the only malefactors, mentioned by Jewish writers, who were to be reserved to one of the three great feasts to be then punishedy. However, it seems not probable to me that even these criminals were to be executed on the principal feast-days, which were well nigh as strictly observed as their sabbaths; but on Moedkaton2, some lesser holydays, such as in their festival weeks came between the first and the last days of the solemnitya. For the first and the last days were by divine appointment to be kept like their sabbaths, and no servile work was to be done thereinb. But be that as it will, it is certain our Saviour was not accused of any of those four crimes.

The day on which our Lord was put to death was the first day of the passover week, and the fifteenth day of the month. It was unlawful therefore for them to try him on the fourteenth, or to put him to death on the fifteenth, and the next day was the sabbath. So that they must have reserved him in custody to the seventeenth, which was the first day of the week, before they could have tried him, and to the eighteenth before they could have executed him, had they proceeded according to their own rules. But such delays no doubt they esteemed dangerous, and therefore pushed for his immediate

execution in another way. What we read of their hearing witnesses, and pronouncing him guilty, I take to have been extra-judicial. It was not done with a view to put him to death by their own laws, and therefore they wholly neglected the rules usually observed by them in all capital causes. Had they followed those rules, they must not have sat at the high priest's housed, but in the temple, in the room Gazithe: nor must they have heard his cause by nightf: nor must they have tried him on the day before so great a festival. But, designing this as a mere extra-judicial affair, they had no regard to rules; and having determined to take away his life as soon as possible, they would not keep him in custody to the first day of the week, when they might have sat in judgment on him; but were fully bent upon delivering him up to the Roman governor, and trying their interest with him to have him immediately executed. The manifest reason of this was their fear of the people, lest they should arise, and attempt a rescues. For this reason they had once resolved not to apprehend him at the feasth; but having so fair an opportunity put into their hands by Judas, they departed from that resolution. However, the same reason prevailed with them to push on his execution with all possible speed; and to this end, I am persuaded, they placed their own creatures and dependants in great numbers near the prætorium, who were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified.

It is pretended that it was the duty of the municipal magistrates to apprehend and imprison malefactors, to give them a hearing, and take cognisance of their crimes, to examine witnesses, and other legal proofs; and if they found them guilty, to condemn them as worthy of punishment, with this view, that they should send them to the president of the province loaded with this previous judgment and condemnation of theirs and although the president was obliged to hear the whole cause over again, yet it is supposed he paid a favourable regard to the representation of these magistrates, and

generally concurred with them in his sentence. Now because it is said in the Gospels that our Saviour was first examined and condemned in the Jewish council, then delivered by them to the Roman governor, who again tried and condemned him, it is taken for granted that this is a case parallel with the former, and founded upon the same part of the Roman lawk. But the whole of this is without any foundation. What is said of the municipal magistrates is not proved by the law alleged and if it were, how does it thence follow that in our Saviour's time the magistrates of provinces were bound to do the same with them? Why is it not first shewn that the municipia and provinces were in those early days governed by the same laws? This I take to be beyond the power of man. Notwithstanding, in the present dispute, this is always taken for a thing certain, and arguments are founded upon it. But were we to allow this also, it will appear evident to any one, who examines the history of our Saviour's trial, that there is little similitude between the two cases.

The previous trial and condemnation before the supposed municipal magistrates were for the same crimes contained in the eulogium or accusation sent to the Roman governor, for which very crimes the malefactor was tried over again by the governor. But in our Saviour's case the crimes were quite different". Whilst our Lord is before the Jewish council, he is accused of having said that "he would destroy the temple, and build it again in three days":" and at length, being questioned upon oath by the high priest, is, from the answer he made, condemned for blasphemy. But not a word is said before them of his sedition or treason. On the other hand,

I.

* Huber. Dissert. l. 1. c. 4. §. 2, 3, 4. p. 19, 20, 21. Lard. Cred. vol. P.97. 144. L. 6. ff. de Custod. et Exhib. Reorum. This law makes not out the thing for which it is brought, unless it be first shewn that the Irenarchs there mentioned were duumviri, or municipal magistrates, which I am persuaded will be a difficult task.

m Huber, through his whole Dissertation, takes it for granted that the state of the Roman government, with regard to the provinces, was

the same in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius as it was after the law of Antoninus Caracalla, p. 18, 19. He quotes the poet Ausonius as describing the magistrates of municipia without the power of inflicting death. This poet lived at the latter end of the fourth century, above a hundred and fifty years after the whole Roman empire was taken into the citizenship of Rome, and there was no longer any distinction between municipia and other cities.

Vid. Grot. in Matt. xxvii. II. • Mark xiv. 58. Matt. xxvi. 61.

Jewish magistrates
Indeed, when they

"

when he is brought before Pilate, the accuse him of sedition and treason P. found that Pilate cleared him of those crimes, they added, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God." But this was so far from moving Pilate to condemn him, that it rather inclined him to release him 9: and it is certain that what the Jews called blasphemy was esteemed no crime among the Romans, and an accusation of this kind at a Roman tribunal must have been without effect. What prevailed with Pilate at length to give him up to their importunate solicitations was that saying of theirs, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend;" which plainly implied a threatening that they would accuse him to Cæsar of remissness in his duty. The argument they use with Pilate is in brief this: "Though you, sir, judge not this man guilty of the sedition and treason laid to his charge, yet we know him to be deserving of death by our law; and if you will not gratify our desire in punishing him with death, we shall accuse you to Tiberius Cæsar as greatly negligent in suppressing sedition :" and it is well known that Tiberius was of a suspicious, jealous nature, and very ready to hearken to such complaints. This was an argument Pilate could not withstand; therefore yielded to their importunity, and condemned him as guilty of the sedition and treason they had accused him ofs, which appeared by the title he put over his head.

SECT. IV.

An answer to two other arguments taken from the New

Testament.

A SECOND argument is taken from those words of Pilate to our Saviour, "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and power to release theet?" Which words are said clearly and expressly to declare that Pilate was the only and supreme judge, and that there was no other magistrate to

› Luke xxiv. 1-5. particularly, that it was unlawful to pay tribute to Cæsar.

9 John xix. 7—12.

Vid. Grot. in Joan. xix. 13.
Vid. Huber. Diss. 1. 1. c. 3. §.

3. p. 16.

John xix. 10.

whom it was granted by law to determine this capital cause, by pronouncing sentence of absolution or condemnation ".

That Pilate was supreme judge under the emperor, and under the governor of Syria, not in this case only, but in every other case which happened within the province of Judæa, I readily grant; but I cannot perceive the least intimation that he was the only judge. If the Jewish magistrates had tried our Saviour with an intention to execute him themselves, there is not the least doubt but Pilate could have sent a prohibition, stopped their proceedings, called the cause before himself, and released him. But it cannot follow from hence that they had no power to condemn and execute malefactors when the governor did not think fit to interpose. Inferior courts may certainly be said to have a power, though they are under the control of superior ones. It is well known that the Romans punished offenders in federate cities*, and that the presidents of provinces exercised authority over kings themselves: does it hence follow that these had not jus gladii, the power of trying and executing criminals?

There is another passage in the New Testament which I find interpreted this way; and that is in the case of the woman taken in adultery. The Jews say to our Lord, "Moses in the law commanded, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" It is added, "This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him":" to accuse him before the Roman governor, if he determined that she ought to be stoned; because, if the Jews were prohibited the execution of their own laws in capital cases, this might be interpreted an exciting them to rebellion: and if he determined that she ought not to be stoned, to accuse him of derogating from the law of Moses, and thereby lessen his credit among the people".

This, it must be owned, when persons are prepossessed with the notion that the Romans had deprived the Jews of the power of inflicting capital punishments, seems an interpretation natural enough. But here is not one word said upon

u Huber. Dissert. 1. 1. c. 3. §. 4. p. 16. Vid. Lardner's Cred. vol. 1. p. 83.

* L. 7. ff. de Captiv.

y Jos. Antiq. 1. 19. c. 8.

* John viii. 5, 6.

a Grot. in Joan. viii. 6. Lard. Cred. vol. 1. p. 68, 69, 70.