nishment as the law permits you to inflict.

To them this was gall and wormwood, because it was for the life of
Christ they were thirsting, and they well knew that imprisonment or
beating with rods was as far as they could go. The cold, keen Roman,
as proud as themselves, was making them feel the pressure of Rome's
foot on their neck, and he enjoyed a malicious pleasure in extorting
from them the complaint, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to
death."

Forced against their will and their expectation to formulate a charge,
they began to pour forth many vehement accusations; out of which at
length three emerged with some distinctness--first, that He was
perverting the nation; second, that He forbade to pay the imperial
tribute; and third, that He set Himself up as a king.

It will be observed that they never mentioned the charge on which they
had condemned Him themselves. It was for none of these three things
that they had condemned Him, but for blasphemy. They knew too well,
however, that if they advanced such a charge in this place, the
likelihood was that it would be sneered out of court. It will be
remembered how a Roman governor, mentioned in the life of St. Paul,
dealt with such a charge: "Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a
matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I
should bear with you; but, if it be a question of words and names, and
of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.
And he drave them from the judgment-seat." [3] And, although of course
Pilate could not have dared to exhibit the same cynical disdain for
what he would have called Jewish superstition, yet they knew that it
was in his heart.

But their inability to bring forward the real charge put them in a
false position, the dangers of which they did not escape. They had to
extemporise crimes, and they were not scrupulous about it.

Their first charge--that Jesus was perverting the nation[4]--was vague.
But what are we to say of the second--that He forbade to pay the
imperial tribute? When we remember His reply that very week to the
question whether or not it was lawful to pay tribute--"Render unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are
God's"--it looks very like a deliberate falsehood.[5] There was more
colour in their third statement--that He said He was Christ a King--for
He had at their tribunal solemnly avowed Himself to be the Christ.
Yet, in t