There was something more than anticipation. He freely accepted death as the punishment of sin, and in order to distinguish Him from typical victims; there was needed such an acceptance in the fulness of His consciousness and liberty. But is it true to say, that at Gethsemane Jesus did not drink the cup, but merely consented to drink it? Rather would we say that Gethsemane is the soul of His suffering. He laid down His life in the garden. No man took it from Him; He laid it down of Himself. There was the inner suffering before the outward suffering came. There had to be the outward suffering, for the world could not understand Gethsemane. It must have a historical fact capable of being tested by many witnesses. There must be something literal and clear. So the cross is lifted up on Calvary, and men see Him nailed there, and His blood is poured out. It is in this way that we are at first led to understand His suffering. We begin with the story of the cross, and the nails, and the lifting up of the victim, and the nerves quivering, and the life as one pang. But we are led by and by into the inner sanctuary-into the suffering of His soul. The soul of His suffering was the bearing of our sins. And He bore our sins in Gethsemane

and on Calvary, and we put the two together to understand His work for us. He rose from Gethsemane when the bitterness of death passed. Resistance is over; He gives Himself up to the ruffian band. Men cross-question Him, buffet Him, drag Him about, but He will never speak a word more. He is led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He opens not His mouth. He goes on without flinching to bear the full weight of His cross.

CHAPTER XVIII.

The Trial of Christ.

"As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth."

"My silence rather doth augment their cry,
My dove doth back into my bosom fly,
Because the raging waters still are high.”
GEORGE HERBERT.

HE death of Christ was the execution of a

THE

capital sentence proceeding upon a sixfold trial-three trials at the hands of the Jews, and three at the hands of the Romans. Out of the manifold details given by the evangelists, it is somewhat difficult to reach perfect certainty as to the precise order of events, although the general truthfulness of the narrative is apparent. We attempt to relate the incidents of the successive trials, but every detail cannot be certainly laid down.'

See two articles by A. Taylor-Innes in the Contemporary Review, vol. xxx., and the brilliant narrative in Farrar's Life of Christ.

He was tried first of all at the hands of the Jews. The Hebrew commonwealth and institutions were pervaded by a deep sentiment of justice. In the traditions of the fathers, we read, that when a judge decides not according to truth, he makes the majesty of God depart from Israel. But if he judges according to truth, were it only for one hour, it is as if he established the whole world, for it is in judgment that the Divine presence in Israel has its habitation. When Jesus was bound, He was led through the sleeping city to the palace of the High Priest. On the Thursday night, He had been arrested, because resistance was looked for, and He was first brought before Annas, who seems to have occupied the High Priest's palace jointly with his son-in-law Caiaphas. Annas was by far the most influential man in the Sanhedrim. He had been for several years High Priest, but had been removed from that office twenty years before, probably for stretching his powers to the extent of executing capital punishment. But he had been succeeded by his own relatives. Five of his sons were members of the Sanhedrim, and either had held, or were to hold, the office of High Priest, while the acting High Priest, Caiaphas, was his son-in-law. He

was regarded by the Jews as High Priest de jure, although not High Priest de facto. He viewed Jesus with feelings of bitter contempt and hatred, and endeavored at the very outset to extort from Him admissions which would involve His death. According to the Jewish law, this examination was wholly illegal. The accused was free from all personal investigation until brought to trial before the assembly of his brethren. By the Hebrew law there was no sole judge, and no sole witness. Jesus, therefore, refused to answer him. "I have in secret said nothing; why asketh thou Me? ask them which heard Me," thus taking His stand on pure Hebrew justice. The minions of Annas felt the force of the reply, and one of them struck Jesus on the face, saying, "Answerest Thou the High Priest so?" The contrast between Paul's sudden anger when similarly insulted, and the supernatural calmness of Christ, has been often marked. He again took His stand on His legal rights, and said, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness to the evil; but if not, why smitest thou Me?" Annas was baffled, and sent Him on to Caiaphas. Caiaphas, although of the same mind as the father-in-law, was a man of less force of will. He saw that there was no way of getting