Vers. S-19.-A scene in a Jewish oourt of law. We have here a graphic picture of the procr,dure nuder the Hebrew criminal law, for it would appear that Jeremiah was indicted and tried in accordancCl with correct legal order. 'l'he details of such a trial are not unimportant to the student of constitutional history. But they are also fnll of human interest. The law-court is a strange mirror of character. Many as are the objections to the publication of police news in thCl daily papers, it does at least serve to open our eyes to the eccentricities as well as the enormities of our variegated human world. Let us see what light this trial of Jeremiah throws upon the various persons concerned. I. TrrE ACCUSERS. The leading accusers are priests and prophets. '!'he priests, also, were foremost in the accusation of our Lord. Jeremiah bad threatened the temple; it is not wonderful that temple officials should be enraged with him. Religions persecution is generally instigated by the professional clerical class, whose vested interests have been attacked by the reformer. The prophets were directly opposed by the teaching of J eremiab. If orthodoxy is to be decided by the vote of the majority, they were the orthodox of their day. They were annoyed by tlrn contradiction of the greatest man of their order. Unable to answer him, they tried to suppress him. Tho conduct of these men may suggest some general lessons, viz. (1) fidelity to the ordinances of worship is no proof of fidelity to God; (2) professional religiousness may be far removed from religiousness of character; (3) they who claim to be regular teachers of religion may be th(last to recognize fresh truth; (4) t4ey who are interested in a controversy are bad judges of the merits of the case. II. THE ACCUSED. 1. Jeremiah remains faithful to his message. He reiterates it with new emphatic warnings. His defence is that he is sent by God to speak as he has spoken. He rests on innocence, truth, Divine authority. With such a plea he dare not recant. '.l'he true servants of God will know that they ought to ... obey God rather than men," and therefore, like St. Peter and St. Jol.m, that they" cannot but speak the things which they have seen and beard" (Acts iv. 20). 2. Jeremiah showed indifference to bis own life (ver.14). He was a brave man, though his enemies accused him of advocating a coward's policy. It is noble thus to have strength to act on the conviction that truth is more precious than life. 3. Jeremiah warned the people of the consequences of injustice (ver. 15). 'rhis he did more for their sakes than for his own. Nothing can be more fatal to a country than the corruption of justice. IIL THE JUDGES. The princes and elders seem to have the position of judges. They are cool and impartial. lo the Jewish state the office of judge came with birth and rank. The most radical friend of the people may see that the superior culture and freedom from popular passions of these men may have fitted them in some measure for their work. Unhappily, Jeremiah bas exposed another side of their character. It 6peaks well for tb3m, however, after the severe castigation he had given "the shep- herds" (e.g. eh. xxv. 34.-38), that they bad the magnanimity to lend tho prophet an impartial bearing, in spileof the virulent opposition of the priests. Ilut possibly these t\~o classes of leading men were not on tbe friendliest of terms with one another. Even 1f this be the case it is well that, unlike Herod and Pontius Pilato, they did not come to ILn agreement through the sacri6ec of an innocent victim. Some of the ciders cited the cu. xxv1. 1-24.J THE DOOK OF 'l'HE PROPHET JEREnlfAH. 6G7
precedent of Micah's case. We see here the value of such an illustration. It serves to detach tho principle under consideration from the prejudice of the passions of the hour. IV. THE JUllY, The assembly of the people seems to have acted ns a jury. The priests and prophets present their accusation to them and the princes. The people and the princes pronounce the opinion that J ercruinh is innocent. The elders address them- selves exclusively to the ass~rnbly of the people. This assembly shows the weakness of a popular concourse. The people are swayed from side to side. First they side with the priests, then with the rulers. It also show3 its advantages. The people are open to impression; they do not care for formal consistency to a previous conviction; they like to see fair play. When their broad human instincts are appealed to they respond rightly. •