THE TRIAL OF JESUS CHRIST


     It may seem to you, at first glance, that the subject of
this address is not strictly appropriate to a Masonic gathering. 
We have heard much of Masonic Charity, and our minds have been
tuned to that idea, but Masonry could live without particularly
teaching charity as it might rely upon natural impulse which
prompts men of generous natures to extend aid to those in want. 
On the other hand, Justice is one of the basic principles of our
institution, within which true charity is embraced, upon which
the idea of fraternity is built, and without which there can be
no true brotherhood.  Consequently, it behooves the Mason to
think much on the subject of Justice, the rendering to every man
his just due without distinction, and to learn where he can, just
principles that he may practice them.  Where is there a better
field for his contemplation and study than the most famous crim-
inal trial in the history of the world, where all the diverse
passions of humanity were loosed, the trial of Jesus Christ?  And
in presenting it to you, I desire to present the subject, stripp-
ed of religious aspects, as a legal study, and in line with the
duty of Masons to seriously consider the Masonic principle of
Justice. 

     Heretofore, our consideration of the trial of Christ has
always been tinged with religious coloring.  We have been taught
and have learned to look upon the tragedy as an unspeakable out-
rage committed upon the Savior of Mankind, the Son of GOD.  Its
human side has been seldom, if ever presented to us.  The divine
character of Christ has always been pre-eminent in our minds and
we have viewed the scene either in a humanitarian way, with hor-
ror at the cruelty and vicious hatred of the persecutors of one
who harmed no man and did only good, or in a religious way, as
the voluntary sacrifice by GOD of his own SON for the redemption
of the world.

     For a few minutes, I want to consider this tragedy with you
from a different viewpoint, from its legal rather than its human-
itarian or religious side.  We are not now considering Christ as
divine, but as human.  The trial is not that of the Son of GOD,
but of Jesus the man, the carpenter, and the son of the car-
penter, of Nazareth.  He is the prisoner at the bar, entitled to
the protection only of those laws provided for the protection of
any person accused of crime, subject to the punishment provided
for the breach of the law, and, in all respects, having the same
rights and only the same rights as has any accused inhabitant of
the country.  The justice or the injustice of the execution and
the motives of those who condemned him are entirely beside the
question except in so far as they may be pertinent to the legal
phase of the controversy.  Our purpose is merely to discover
whether the accused man Jesus was lawfully condemned in accor-
dance with the settled legal principles of the times and land.


                                2


     The proposition before us may be summed up in two questions: 
1.  Was Christ guilty of a breach of the law?  2. If he was, was
he regularly convicted and executed in accordance with the provi-
sions of the law?  As a partial answer to the first question and
to bring the viewpoint sharply to our minds, let me say that when
Jesus said he was the Son of GOD, he was guilty of blasphemy
under the laws then in force and if he had been regularly tried
and convicted of that offence and executed by the legally provid-
ed punishment of stoning to death, there could be no legal excep-
tion to the execution, whatever one might think of its justice or
propriety.

     Judea, at this time, was a Roman province or dependency.  As
Judea was an enlightened land, Rome, with that splendid ad-
ministrative ability which fostered self-government so long as
there was constant recognition of Roman supreme sovereignty,
permitted her to enforce practically entirely her own system of
laws, through the instrumentality of her own courts and to in-
flict her punishments, except where the sentence was death, in
which case Roman sanction was required, possibly to pronounce,
certainly to execute, the sentence.  Both the Jewish and Roman
legal systems were admirable and, in many respects, persons ac-
cused and tried before their courts were much more fully protect-
ed from unjust sentence than under our modern systems, although
the punishment of the guilty was more generally assured.  And
Jesus was tried, not by a mob as we sometimes think, but before
two courts of proper jurisdiction and under both the Jewish and
Roman systems of law whose enlightened provisions are even now
being gradually incorporated into Anglo Saxon jurisprudence, from
which they had been for centuries barred by the autocratic and
evil theories of the Feudal system.

     In order that we may intelligently pursue the inquiry, let
us briefly state the principal provisions of the law relating to
the trial of criminal cases in Judea, the bare enumeration of
which will satisfy you, I think, that the present day system is
not immeasurably superior to the past in all respects.

     The trial of the major offenses was had before the Sanhed-
rin, a court of general jurisdiction, composed of 71 rulers,
priests, scribes and scholars, and having a general place of
meeting in the Temple.  The presiding officer was usually, but
not always, the High Priest.  Upon extraordinary occasions, the
Sanhedrin could meet in the palace of the High Priest.  In a
capital case, that is one in which the death penalty could be
inflicted, twenty-one members were required to be present.  No
Jewish court could conduct judicial proceedings on a feast day
and, in a capital case, the court could not sit at night.

     A person accused of crime could be arrested only after a
formal accusation setting out the crime of which he was accused,
                                3


unless he were taken in the actual commission of crime.  If ar-
rested at night, he must be kept in ward until the next day.

     In all cases, the accused was presumed to be innocent until
proved guilty.  He could be tried and condemned only if he were
present.  He could not be called upon to testify nor could he be
made a witness against himself.  The charge must be proved by
other witnesses.  Counsel must be appointed for his defense. 
Evidence in his favor was to be freely admitted.

     No one could be convicted upon the testimony of a single
witness.  At least two must testify in the presence of the ac-
cused and must agree together.  Their testimony was required to
be scrutinized carefully and technically and, in case of slight
disagreement between them, it was insufficient to convict.  The
oath administrated to the witness was an adjuration "by the liv-
ing GOD." This was the most solemn oath a Jew could take and,
when so adjured, he was bound to answer and to tell the truth. 
It was the duty of the presiding officer of the court to call the
attention of the witnesses to the value of life and to warn them
not to forget anything they knew in the prisoner's favor.

     In minor cases, counsel on both sides were permitted to make
an argument.  In capital cases, only counsel for the accused was
heard.

     After the testimony was in, the votes of the younger members
of the court were taken first, that they might not be influenced
by their older associates.  A judge who had voted for conviction
could change his vote at any time.  One who had once spoken for
acquittal could not change his vote to conviction.  In capital
cases, a majority of at least two was required to convict.  A
verdict of acquittal could be given at once.  A verdict of guilty
could not be pronounced until a day after the conclusion of the
trial.  That day was to be spent by those judges who favored
conviction in fasting, prayer and religious meditation.  If a
verdict of acquittal was not reached on the day the trial ended,
the court was imperatively obligated to adjourn to permit the
full day of fasting and prayer.

     Upon conviction, the condemned man was led away to be ston-
ed, but the court remained in session.  An officer stood at the
door with a signal flag.  Another followed the prisoner to the
further point from which he could see the signal.  If any new
witnesses came to prove the innocence of the accused the signal
flag was waved, and the execution of the sentence was stayed
until the new witnesses had been heard and judgment again pro-
nounced.

     The spirit of the Jewish law was well illustrated in the
precise and technical rules protecting those accused of crime.  
                                4


It was a common saying that the "Sanhedrin was to save life, not
to destroy life." It was under such a system that the Sanhedrin
purported to conduct the trial of Jesus and by that system the
regularity of the procedure is to be tested.

     With this brief resume of the important legal principles
involved in the present discussion, let us take up the various
incidents in the trial of Christ and examine their legality.

                          I. THE COURT

     No enlightened system of jurisprudence has ever sanctioned
the participation of a partisan judge in a case, of a judge in-
terested in the outcome of the suit.  Under the Mosaic law the
judges were admonished: "Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou
shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift." The theory was
that the judgment was GOD'S.  The courts were merely the human
agents appointed to state the judgement.  The Sanhedrin, the
Supreme Court of the Jews, was especially considered to be above
partisan feelings and its judgments were deemed to be the nearest
approach to exact justice attainable through human wisdom and
divine revelation to man.  The enlightened rules and laws of
Judea could have no possible place for a partial or biased tribu-
nal. 

     But the record reads:

     "After two days was the Feast of the passover, and of the
unleavened bread, and the chief priests and the scribes sought
how they might take him and put him to death." 

     "Then assembled together the chief priests and the scribes
and the elders of the people unto the palace of the High Priest,
who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus
by subtlety and kill him."

     This record shows, not a merely general enmity or personal
hatred toward Jesus, but a direct interest on the part of the
judges, a conspiracy by them to accuse Christ and to have him
executed, and their subsequent conduct shows that the manner of
carrying out such conspiracy was by a trial in which they were
the judges.  Consequently, it is my contention that the court
which first tried Christ was unlawfully constituted because it
was composed of judges who had pronounced the judgment death
against him in advance of trial and who were actually conspiring
to encompass his execution.





                                5


                         II. THE ARREST

     On the first day of the feast of the unleavened bread or the
Passover, Jesus and his disciples celebrated the feast in the
institution of what we now call the Lord's Supper.  After the
feast, and in the evening, he went with his disciples into the
garden of Gethsemane to pray.  He saw his end approaching and he
spent his few remaining hours in communion with his GOD.  Three
times he went apart from his disciples and three times he return-
ed to find them sleeping.  The third time he came out, Judas
arrived, with a multitude from the chief priests and elders of
the people, and betrayed him with a kiss.  This multitude was
composed of Roman soldiers, Temple guards and some of the members
of the Sanhedrin.  And they laid hands on him and took him.      

     A short time before this, Jesus had publicly come up from
Galilee.  He had entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, attended by a
great concourse of his followers.  He had openly taught in the
temple and confounded the scribes.  Consequently, there was ample
opportunity for a formal accusation against him and his arrest in
the day time.  He was not, at the time of his arrest, engaged in
the commission of any criminal act.  He was not even teaching his
gospel.  He had been engaged in prayer.  Under no provision of
the Hebrew law was there legal authority for his arrest without a
formal accusation being first made against him.  Jesus knew his
arrest was unlawful and he reminded the members of the Sanhedrin
present of their breach of the law when he uttered that gentle
rebuke.

     "Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves
for to take me?  I sat daily with you teaching in the temple and
ye laid no hold on me."

     I do not contend that the illegality of arrest was suffi-
cient to prevent Jesus' being brought to trial.  It would not
result in an illegal judgement if the subsequent proceedings were
in accordance with the law.  But it is important as indicating
the length to which the Sanhedrin went in furtherance of their
conspiracy and as being added proof of the disqualification of
the judges for interest and bias.

               III. THE TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN

     Saint John says, "They led Jesus away to Annas first, for he
was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the High Priest."  The record
is not very clear at this point.  Some sort of an examination
seems to have been conducted by the High Priest Caiaphas, either
privately or in the presence of Annas, but as the examination was
not fruitful, it is of no particular consequence.


                                6


     Jesus was then taken to the house of the High Priest, where
the chief priests and the scribes and the elders were assembled. 
Whether this was an extraordinary occasion warranting a trial in
the Palace of the High Priest is subject to grave differences of
opinion and therefore will not be dwelt upon.  You will bear in
mind, however, that this was in the night-time, when no trial
could legally be had of a capital offence, and at the time of the
Feast of the Passover, when no criminal trial of any kind could
be conducted.  Under the Hebrew law, the whole of the proceedings
of the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin were invalid, as much
so as if a court in this state should try and convict a person of
crime on Sunday.  The judgement would be void.

     Nevertheless, Jesus was arraigned at the bar of the San-
hedrin for trial.  No formal accusation was even then made again-
st him.  But in order to preserve the semblance of a trial, wit-
nesses were presented.  The record reads:  "The chief priests and
elders sought false witnesses to put Jesus to death."  They found
none because, although there were many false witnesses, they did
not agree together.  It was necessary, in order to convict, that
there be two witnesses agreeing in all respects in their tes-
timony.  Two witnesses were finally found.  Matthew's version of
their testimony is that Jesus had said "I am able to destroy the
temple of GOD and to build it in three days."  Mark differs in
the language used and narrates it as "I will destroy this temple
made with hands and in three days I will build another without
hands."  Both of the Evangelists say the witnesses were false
witnesses and Mark further says they did not agree together.

     St. Mark's claim of disagreement between the witnesses is
not, according to the record, entitled to any legal weight.  The
record affirmatively shows that the witnesses agreed upon
Christ's statement.  The only disagreement appearing in the re-
cord is that between Matthew and Mark as to what the testimony
was.

     Nor is there support in the record for the designation of
the two as false witnesses.  The testimony they gave was not
strictly accurate, it is true, because what Christ had said was
"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."  But
he was then speaking in the temple at Jerusalem, which was the
Hebrew temple of GOD.  And it is not to be expected that the Jews
understood that he "spake of the temple of his body" in making
the remark, as it is apparent his own disciples did not so under-
stand his words until after he had risen from the dead.  The
version given by the witnesses, particularly as narrated by Mat-
thew, was substantially a correct rendition of the meaning which
would ordinarily be gathered from the words used and the place in
which they were said.  Substantial accuracy is all that can be
expected of a witness narrating what was said by another at a
previous time.
                                7


     The record does not show that the witnesses were cautioned
to forget no testimony favorable to the accused, warned of the
sanctity of life, or that they took the oath.  As these were cus-
tomary details in the trial of all criminal offenses, it is prob-
able there would be a presumption that they were fully observed. 
It appears, however, that no counsel had been appointed for Jesus
and the judges were seeking witnesses against him instead of in
his behalf, as was their legal duty.

     After this testimony, the High Priest demanded of Jesus:
"Answereth thou nothing?  What is it which these witness against
thee?"  And Jesus held his peace.  If this demand was a call upon
him to testify against himself, it was illegal as no accused
person could be so called upon.  If it was an announcement by the
High Priest, who presided over the court, that the prosecution
had finished and the defense would be heard, Jesus had the right
to hold his pease.  The requirements of the law had not been
observed in his behalf, in the composition of the court, its time
of meeting or in the procedure.  Whether a crime had been charged
may be doubted but it was evidently not a very serious matter as
the High Priest immediately abandoned the charge and proceeded
along another line.  Christ was not condemned by the Sanhedrin on
the charge testified to by the two witnesses.

     That the High Priest was, in fact and illegally, seeking to
require Jesus to testify against himself is, I think, conclusive-
ly shown by the fact that upon Christ's refusing to testify, the
High Priest then besought him with the most solemn adjuration
which could be put to a Jew, one which he was obliged to answer
"I adjure you by the living GOD that thou tellest us whether thou
be the Christ, the Son of GOD."  Mark does not relate this inci-
dent as an adjuration but states the question to have been "Art
thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"  In either case, it was
a call upon the prisoner to testify against himself and was il-
legal. 

     To this demand, Jesus answered: "Thou hast said; neverthe-
less I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitt-
ing on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heav-
en." Immediately the High Priest rent his garments saying "He
hath spoken blasphemy, what further need have we of witnesses? 
Behold, now ye heard his blasphemy.  What think ye?"  And they
said :He is guilty of death."

     And they jeered and mocked at him, spit in his face and
buffeted him, and, covering his head with a cloak, struck him and
asked him to prophecy who had struck him.  Imagine a scene of
this kind in the highest court of the land, where the most dig-
nified personages of the day were in attendance, if justice were
the object of the proceedings.

                                8


     The illegalities of this trial were many.  The judges had
denied Christ the presumption of innocence, with which the law
invested him, and had adjudged him guilty in advance of trial. 
The court was held in the night-time and on a feast day, no coun-
sel had been appointed for the accused.  He had been convicted,
not upon the testimony of two witnesses, but upon his own tes-
timony given upon the demand of the High Priest, and according to
Matthew, after the adjuration which a Jew could not refuse to
heed, the judges had sought witnesses against him instead of in
his favor.  The vote had not been taken in the manner prescribed
by law.  The High Priest, who should have spoken last, with a
dramatic rending of his garments, expressed his opinion first and
called upon the others to confirm it.  The verdict of guilty was
pronounced at once, without the intervention of the day of fast-
ing and prayer and religious meditation.

     The Sanhedrin itself recognized the illegality of its own
procedure in holding a night session, and as soon as it was day,
held another meeting.  At this meeting, as recounted by St. Luke,
they all propounded the question to Jesus whether he was the
Christ.  And when he said he was, they said "What need we any
further witnesses for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. 
And the whole multitude arose and led him unto Pilate." It is
unnecessary to point out that this day meeting was not legal.  It
is subject to all the objections made against the one held during
the night before except that it was held in the day time.

                   IV. THE TRIAL BEFORE PILATE

     The trial before Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor, began
at the hall of judgement in the early morning.  It was held in
the open air as the Jews would not enter the hall on the feast
day for fear of being defiled.  This is not the only instance in
history of where a precise observance of the forms of religion or
ethics has attend an example of man's inhumanity to man.  Christ
was brought before Pilate because the Sanhedrin had no power to
put him to death without the approval of the Roman Governor.

     When they brought Jesus to the hall of judgment, Pilate went
out to them and said "What accusation bring ye against this man?" 
Thus he made an express demand for a statement of the charges. 
The priests made no specific charge but answered. "If he were not
a malefactor we would not have delivered him up unto thee." 
Pilate said to them. "Take ye him and judge him according to your
law."  And they replied. "It is not lawful for us to put any man
to death."

     This colloquy indicates that the Jews were seeking only to
obtain the approval of the Governor to the sentence of death for
blasphemy which the Sanhedrin had determined upon.  While it was
the duty of the Roman Governor to pass upon all cases where it
                                9


was sought to impose the death penalty, it was the frequent prac-
tice, in order to avoid friction with the native authorities as
far as possible, to approve the sentence without investigation
and as a matter of form.  The failure of the priests to make a
definite accusation in answer to Pilate's question was apparently
a hint to him that such a practice would be very acceptable to
the Sanhedrin in this particular case. 

     There are several entirely patent reasons for Pilate's re-
fusing to act upon the hint.  He knew that "for envy they had
delivered" Christ to him.  He seems to have evidenced a con-
siderable respect for Jesus, of whose activities he had heard. 
Being a Pagan, he could hardly be expected to wax indignant over
superstitious differences.  Knowing the charge was conceived in
envy and not apparently deeming the matter of any particular
consequence, he had little sympathy with the purpose.  Hence his
contemptuous advice to try Jesus according to the Jewish law
under which he knew the death penalty could not be inflicted.

     The priests also knew that a charge of blasphemy would meet
with little favor from the pagan Governor and, accordingly,they
concealed their true complaint and made against Christ the ac-
cusation of treason against the Roman state.

     "We found this man perverting the nation and forbidding to
give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a
king." 
  
     Such an accusation could not, obviously, be dismissed with-
out investigation by the Governor.  In addition to his adminis-
trative powers, he was a judge, with power to try, condemn and
execute.  Declining to exercise his administrative and discre-
tionary powers in favor of the death penalty for blasphemy upon
the conviction by the Sanhedrin, he was bound, as a judge, to
determine this new charge of treason against the Roman State in
accordance with the laws of Rome for the trial of criminal cases. 
The record shows that he endeavored so to do.

     When Christ was so accused by the chief priests and the
elders, he answered nothing.  Why?  The charge of a triple na-
ture, (1) perverting the nation, (2) forbidding to pay tribute to
Caesar, and (3) claiming to be a king.  The charge of perverting
the nation was too indefinite to be specifically answered.  The
charge of forbidding to pay tribute was false and his accusers
knew it.  That very week when the Pharisees, trying to entrap
him, had asked him whether it was lawful to pay tribute to
Caesar, he had answered, "Render unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's."  The charge of
claiming to be a king was of a double nature, having both a poli-
tical and a religious aspect, and he waited for the specifica-
tions of what was meant.  Pilate, as will be seen, ignored the
                               10


charge regarding the payment of tribute and conducted the trial
solely upon the charge of Christ's claiming to be a king, regard-
ing that as what was meant by the allegation of perverting the
people.

     He took Jesus into the judgement hall, away from the others,
and examined him privately.  His first question was "Art thou the
King of the Jews?"  Jesus sought immediately to know whether Pi-
late was proceeding with the trial from a political or a religio-
us standpoint and answered by himself asking a question:  "Sayest
thou this thing of thyself or did others tell it thee of me?" 
The purport is whether Pilate's question referred to a king as he
understood the term and in the sense that Caesar was a king or as
the Jews understood it, as a Messiah.  Pilate was not concerned
with the religious controversy.  He made it plain that he asked
the question only in a political sense and, impatient at being
questioned by a Jew, peremptorily demanded:  "Am I a Jew?  Thine
own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me. 
What hast thou done?"  Jesus answered the question in both ways
explaining, in a political sense, that he was not a rival of
Caesar because his kingdom was not of this world but, in a relig-
ious sense, that he was a king in the kingdom of truth.  And
Pilate, without waiting for answer, asked that brooding question
which has haunted free men with free minds since the beginning of
time, "What is truth?"

     They went out of the judgement hall and, before the whole of
the assembled people, Pilate solemnly pronounced a verdict of not
guilty.  "I find no fault in him at all."

     In a legal way, the case was then ended.  Under our modern
system of jurisprudence, we have a maxim that no man shall be
twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.  That maxim was part
of the Roman law long before and after the time of Christ, was
adopted from thence into the common law of England and became the
heritage of American jurisprudence.  Pilate's judgement, pronoun-
ced after investigation and before the accusers, was final.  All
proceedings thereafter upon the same charge were illegal.

     But the people were not appeased.  Either in reiteration of
their former charge or as a new complaint, they became "more
fierce," saying, "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout
all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place."

     Herod, the Governor of Galilee, was then in Jerusalem. 
Pilate, finding that Jesus was a Galilean, sent him to Herod for
trial.  This could be legally done.  Frequently changes of venue
were ordered to the jurisdiction of the prisoner's home.  The
common opinion seems to be that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod in
order to escape the responsibility of further trying him and to
shift the burden of the trouble which was gathering.  whether 
                               11


this is true, I do not know.  But inasmuch as the complaint then
made was that Christ had been stirring up the people of Galilee,
it is not unreasonable to suppose that Pilate, having found him
not guilty of crime in Jerusalem, might desire that the Governor
of Galilee pass upon him claimed violation of law in that juris-
diction. 

     Christ was taken to Herod, who was glad to see him because
he wanted him to perform some of the miracles of which Herod had
heard, to act the mountebank.  Christ refused to say anything. 
And the chief priests and scribes accused him before Herod. 
While the particulars of this accusation are not set out, it was
evidently regarding Christ's claim to be a king, as Herod mocked
him, arrayed him in a gorgeous robe and sent him back to Pilate. 
Evidently Herod did not consider the charges serious nor proved. 
And Herod was a Jew. 

     Upon Jesus' return, Pilate summoned the chief priests and
the rulers and the people together and once more pronounced a
deliberate judgment of acquittal.

     "Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the
people; and behold, I, having examined him before you, have found
no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him.
No, nor yet Herod; for I sent to him; and lo, nothing worthy of
death is done unto him.  I will chastise him and release him."

     From a legal standpoint, the decision of Pilate to chastise
Jesus may be justified upon only one theory.  Pilate, the judge,
having found Christ not guilty of crime against Caesar, trans-
ferred the case to Pilate, the Governor and Administrator, whose
duty it was to pass upon the sentence of the Sanhedrin.  Having 
found that Christ had done nothing "worthy of death," he accepted
the verdict of guilty passed by the Sanhedrin but modified the
sentence and substituted for death, the penalty of scourging, as
he had the power to do.

     The non-legal and generally accepted theory, however, seems
to be that Pilate's action was taken merely for the purpose of
appeasing the people, who were insistent in their desire to pun-
ish Christ, and his statement that he would then release him was
evidently an invitation to the people to ask his release.  It was
the custom at the Feast of the Passover to release a prisoner to
be selected by the people.  Pilate, finding Christ not guilty, to
give force to his implied invitation and to make the selection
sure, offered them the choice of Christ or the most vicious crim-
inal in the prisons, Barabbas.  And the people, being incited by
the priests and the elders, chose Barabbas.

     Pilate thereupon took Jesus and scourged him; and the sol-
diers spit upon him and mocked him and crowned him with thorns.
                               12


     Under either theory, the judgement was final and the case
ended.  If the decision was a complete verdict of not guilty, the
sentence of scourging was unjustified and illegal.  If it was an
approval of the verdict rendered by the Sanhedrin, it was it was
the pronouncement of sentence upon that verdict and the sentence,
having been fully executed, was a complete bar to any further
proceedings.

     After the scourging, Pilate brought Jesus before the people
again, wearing the purple robe which had been placed upon him in
mockery and with the crown of thorns upon his head and a third
time pronounced a verdict of not guilty.

     "Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I
find no fault in him."

     When Jesus appeared, Pilate, seeking to awaken in the hearts
of the people some feeling of pity for the just and blameless
man, presented him to those assembled, "Behold the man."  And his
efforts to arouse pity met with that same response which has
usually been given by those who are consumed by partisan hatred,
"Crucify him, crucify him."

     In this scene, however, there is one redeeming feature.  The
people who, having been urged by their leaders to demand the
crucifixion of Christ, had been insistent in such demand, were
silent.  They pitied him as he stood there.  Only the leaders,
the chief priests and the officers, then cried "Crucify him."

     Once more Pilate, angry at the insatiable vindictiveness of
the leaders, pronounced the verdict of not guilty, this time, in
the verdict, directly challenging them to themselves assume the
responsibility of executing Christ.

     "Take ye him and crucify him; for I find no fault in him."

     And they answered:  "We have a law and by our law he ought
to die because he made himself the Son of God."

     The reason for this statement by the priests is not very
clear to me.  They do not now seek to have the sentence of the
Sanhedrin confirmed.  They seek the punishment of crucifixion
under authority of Rome.  Religious claims would have but little
force with the pagan Governor, accustomed to the worship of many
gods.  It may have been an involuntary statement justifying their
vindictiveness, under the biting challenge of Pilate.  But the
explanation which seems most reasonable to me that it was an
argument in justification of their attitude, addressed to the
people who had apparently begun to pity Christ, to impress upon
them the fact that Jesus had been guilty of blasphemy against the
Jewish religion and to turn their pity into antagonism.  In no
                               13


way could they more surely arouse the resentment of the people
than by the accusation that Jesus claimed kinship and equality
with Jehovah.

     The statement had the effect of attracting the attention of
Pilate.  Believing in the pagan myths of the gods and the sons of
the gods leaving the celestial spheres and commingling with human
beings upon the earth, taking the forms of humans but still re-
taining their divine power, he became afraid lest Jesus be the
son of Jupiter or one of the other gods, and again questioned him
in private.  While his curiosity was not entirely satisfied, he
was so impressed that "from thenceforth Pilate sought to release
Jesus," a most proper attitude on the part of the Roman Governor
and Judge, in view of the numerous judgements of not guilty he
had pronounced.

     His efforts were unavailing.  The argument of the leaders,
appealing to the religious instinct and teachings of the people,
convinced them that Jesus should die.  With cunning malignity,
they presented to Pilate the last and convincing argument.

     Pilate's administration as Governor had not been entirely
free from corruption and extortion.  Investigation might disclose
irregularities.  Tiberius was a suspicious Caesar, who believed
without proof and delighted to humiliate and punish.  Complaint
to Caesar was practically equal to condemnation by Caesar.  And
Pilate feared complaint.  Caesar's friendship was a most powerful
but most unstable support.

     Unable to convince Pilate as a judge and not being able to
accomplish the death of Jesus through the forms of the law, the
rulers attacked him through political argument, with veiled hint
of complaint to Rome.

     "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend; who-
soever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar."

     The trial was ended.  The judge vacated his office, and gave
way to the time-serving and fearful politician.

     Pilate took water and washed his hands before the multitude,
saying "I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to
it."  And "he delivered him to be crucified."

                      NO VERDICT OF GUILTY

     There was no verdict of guilty.  Even as the soldiers led
him away to the execution, the words of the judge hung on the
air, pronouncing him a just person, not guilty of the charges
made against him.  He was not legally executed.  He was murdered,
either judicially or politically, it matters not which.
                               14


     In telling the story of the trial of Christ, I have dove-
tailed together the various accounts as related in the four gos-
pels in such a way as to most clearly present my conception of
the legal propositions involved, each of the accounts being in-
complete.   The conclusion is irresistible that Jesus was never
legally condemned by any court.  In the Sanhedrin, he was tried
by partisan judges, acting at an illegal time, with illegal pro-
cedure and pronouncing its judgement illegally.  Moreover, its
sentence was disapproved by the officer having legal authority to
pass upon it and another sentence, within his power and discre-
tion, was inflicted instead.  Before Pilate, he was four or more
times pronounced innocent; he was never found guilty of any crime
and he was executed without warrant of law.  Before Herod, he had
also been pronounced not guilty of the charges made against him. 
He was the victim of religious hatred, going to his death to
satisfy the demands of those who feared to let men think.  

     To read the story of the trial occupies only a few minutes. 
It is impossible to answer all the questions which surge into the
mind as one reads.  The account is short, told plainly and with
almost legal calmness.  Yet the story, as it is told, is of in-
finite sadness.  The injustice toward the central figure is
heart-rending.  But what is infinitely more pathetic is that
through the whole tragic scene, there is no man, save one, who
measures up to stalwart and loyal manhood.  It may be that the
story is not all told.  It may be that under the merciless glare
of the white light of Christ's character, men seem only base. 
Certainly, among the Romans whose ideals of justice were of the
noblest character, among the leaders and rulers of the Jews who
worshipped Jehovah with devotion, among the vast crowds who fol-
lowed Jesus, among the disciples who had lived with him and from
his own lips had heard his gospel and who afterward endured mar-
tyrdom for his sake, there was a man.  It is hard to believe that
the story has been all told.  

     In conclusion, let me merely suggest an idea, told in legal
language and illustrated from the trial we have just considered.

     Sometimes, people are prone to condemn the forms of proced-
ure in our courts.  Indignant because of the circumstances or
character of a crime, they immediately pronounce the accused
guilty and are impatient with the forms and presumptions with
which he is invested by law and in which it is the business of
the court to protect him.  The forms of procedure in courts are
the best expression of the settled judgement of experts in the
orderly conduct of a trial designed to arrive at the truth.  They
change slowly because they should always progress, never retro-
gress.  They must always further protect against injustice rather
than foster it.  So long as they remain, they ought to be most
jealously followed.  Life and liberty are too sacred to be des-
troyed by the clamor or passion of the moment.  Had the forms of
                               15

 
the law been followed in the trial of Christ he would, in all
probability, not have been condemned and executed. 

     In private life, also, brethren, should we strictly observe
the forms and spirit of the law.  We often try, before the bar of
our prejudices, those who do not conduct themselves strictly in
accordance with our own dogmatic views and, without proof of a
chance to be heard, condemn them and demand that they be cruci-
fied by the Pilate of public opinion.  Sometimes, we may even
drag them out of the agony of another Gethsemane at night to
pronounce our judgement and demand their social of political or
civic death.  And for aught we know, they may be princes in the
kingdom of truth.

     Let us arraign men only before the bar of the Sanhedrin of
our consciences.  Let no passion, desire or evil feeling prejud-
ice the court.  Let us hold them innocent until proved guilty. 
Let the witnesses be two, and not false witnesses, who must agree
together.  Let us appoint our Charity counsel for the accused and
admit testimony freely in their favor.  If our verdict be not
guilty, let us proclaim it at once and loudly.  If it be guilty,
let it be pronounced only after a day of fasting, prayer and
meditation.  Even after the judgement has been given, let the
court of our Humanity remain in session and the signal flags be
set from the judgement hall to the place of execution.  And as
the one we have condemned is being led away to judgement, let the
first fleeting witness of fact, doubt or rumor in his favor stay
the execution and a new trial be granted.  Paraphrasing what was
said of the Sanhedrin, let it be said of us, "He seeks to save
character, not to destroy character."