TEE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST. 



63 



Governor of Judea under the still-existing re- 

 public, a republic now almost identified with 

 himself. And Pilate, whom the Jews popularly 

 called their governor, was strictly the procurator 

 of the great proconsul, holding civil and military 

 authority by delegation from him in whom was 

 now concentrated the boundless authority of 

 Rome. Such was the tribunal before which the 

 council of the Sanhedrim is now to lead a pris- 

 oner. 



Pilate sat in his praetorium on the morning of 

 that " preparation-day," to transact business and 

 administer justice as usual. In what spot in 

 Jerusalem his judgment-seat was on this occasion 

 set up, cannot certainly be known. It may have 

 been within the fortress and under the tower of 

 Antonia, the visible symbol of Roman predomi- 

 nance which frowned beside the temple. Much 

 more probably it was " Herod's praetorium," that 

 magnificent palace to the north of the temple 

 which Josephus describes, and which had been 

 recently built by the Idumean kings. Their for- 

 mer palace was also still in existence, and the 

 visit of the Roman procurator and the Tetrarch 

 of Galilee to the same feast, while it raises the 

 question which of them occupied the new and 

 more splendid residence, suggests the inevitable 

 rivalry and possible " enmity " of their relation. 

 If we suppose that Pilate, like Floras, asserted 

 his right to occupy the new palace, we may re- 

 member that its white marble semicircle in- 

 closed an open place which looked out on the 

 sacred city, and was almost as public as the 

 space between Antonia and the temple. In the 

 open space in front of this or any other praeto- 

 rium the movable Bema or tribunal could at once 

 be set up. But on this morning Pilate was still 

 sitting in the judgment-hall. Outside was the 

 roar of the Eastern city awakening on a passovcr 

 dawn ; within, the clash of Roman steel, the al- 

 tars of the Roman gods, and perhaps the sculpt- 

 ured frown of the distant demigod Tiberius. 

 Into that heathen chamber the priests and doc- 

 tors of the separated nation would not enter 

 during their sacred week ; and the Roman, with 

 his Roman smile, willingly removed their diffi- 

 culty by coming with his soldier-lictors to the 

 gate. But his first words there, as his eyes fell 

 upon the prisoner, who stood with his hands 

 bound before him, were, " What accusation bring 

 ye against this man ? " We recognize instantly 

 the spontaneous voice of Roman justice. It was 

 no doubt meant to suggest his own authority and 

 power of review, and in that respect we must 

 presently consider it. But it was before every- 



thing else the instinctive utterance of a judge, 

 and it at once recalls that singularly noble dic- 

 tum of Pilate's successor in the same seat, " It is 

 not the manner of the Romans to deliver any 

 man to die, until that he which is accused have the 

 accusers face to face, and have license to answer 

 for himsef concerning the crime laid against him." 

 So ever spoke the worst of the Roman governors 

 — and neither Pilate nor Festus was among the 

 best — out of the mere instinct and tradition of 

 justice which clung to their great office among 

 the treacherous tribes around. The chief priests 

 and scribes on this occasion avoided the demand 

 to know the accusation. " If he were not a male- 

 factor, we would not have delivered him to thee." 

 The insolent evasion of his question was not likely 

 to propitiate Pilate, who instantly puts the mat- 

 ter on its true footing by the calm but somewhat 

 contemptuous reply, " Take ye him, and judge 

 him according to your law." Sullenly came the 

 answer, " It is not lawful for us (it is not permis- 

 sible — ovk e|e<TTii/) to put any man to death." 

 The answer revealed (what the word "malefac- 

 tor " had perhaps already implied, and what may 

 have been involved in their bringing their pris- 

 oner to Pilate at all) that it was a capital charge 

 which they had come to make. But it closed 

 this important opening dialogue. The conversa- 

 tion just narrated is only found in the Gospel of 

 John ; and it is remarkable that a narrative ap- 

 parently very much later than the others should 

 record words which not only have the strongest 

 internal evidence of truth, but to which subse- 

 quent investigation has given immensely increased 

 historical value. 



For at this point of the story comes in the 

 question of conflict of jurisdiction. Why did the 

 Jews go to Pilate at all ? We have seen that 

 their council condemned Jesus " to be guilty of 

 death." Had they no right to pass such a sen- 

 tence ? or, having the right to pass it, had they 

 merely no power to execute it ? How far did the 

 authority of the governor trench upon, or super- 

 sede, the authority of the Sanhedrim ? Which 

 of them had the jus vitce aut nccis ? What was 

 the relation of the two powers, the Jewish and 

 the Roman, to each other at this time ? This 

 broad historical question lies at the root of the 

 views which may be taken of the legal point — 

 views which have sometimes been extremely con- 

 trasted. In the controversy between Salvador 

 and Dupin, the former (true in this to the sad 

 claim of some of his nation of old, " His blood 

 be on us ") urged that the Sanhedrim had full 

 authority to try even for capital crimes, and that 



