Trial Of Jesus.Refutation Of The Chapter Of Mr. Salvador, Entitled“The Trial And Condemnation Of Jesus.”“The chapter, in which Mr. Salvador treats ofthe Administration of Justice among the Hebrews, is altogether theoretical. He makes an exposition of the law—that things, in order to beconformable to rule, must be transacted in a certain mode. In all this I have not contradicted him, but have let him speak for himself.In the subsequent chapter the author announces:“That according to thisexposition of judicial proceedingshe is going to follow out the application of them to the most memorable trial in all history, that of Jesus Christ.”Accordingly the chapter is entitled:The Trial and Condemnation of Jesus.The author first takes care to inform us under what point of view he intends to give an account of that accusation:“That we ought to lament the blindness of the Hebrews for not having recognised a God in Jesus, is a point which I do not examine.”(There is another thing also, which he says he shall not examine.)“But, when they discovered in himonly a citizen, did they try himaccording to existing laws and formalities?”The question being thus stated, Mr. Salvador goes over all the various aspects of the accusation; and his conclusion is, that the procedure was perfectly regular, and the condemnation perfectly appropriate to the act committed.“Now,”says he, (p. 87,)“the Senate, having adjudged that Jesus, the son of Joseph, born in Bethlehem, had profaned the name of God by usurping it himself, though a simple citizen, applied to him[pg 542]the law against blasphemy, the law in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and verse 20, chapter 18th, conformably to which every prophet, even one that performs miracles, is to be punished when he speaks of a God unknown to the Hebrews or their fathers.”This conclusion is formed to please the followers of the Jewish law; it is wholly for their benefit, and the evident object is, to justify them from the reproach ofdeïcide.We will, however, avoid treating this grave subject in a theological point of view. As to myself, Jesus Christ is theMan-God; but it is not with arguments drawn from my religion and my creed, that I intend to combat the statement and the conclusion of Mr. Salvador. The present age would charge me with being intolerant; and this is a reproach which I will never incur. Besides, I do not wish to give to the enemies of Christianity the advantage of making the outcry, that we are afraid to enter into a discussion with them, and that we wish to crush rather than to convince them. Having thus contented myself with declaring my own faith, as Mr. Salvador has let us clearly understand his, I shall also examine the question under a merelyhumanpoint of view, and proceed to inquire, with him,“Whether Jesus Christ, consideredas a simple citizen, was tried according to the existing laws and formalities.”The catholic religion itself warrants me in this; it is not a mere fiction; for God willed, that Jesus should be clothed in the forms of humanity (et homo factus est), and that he should undergo the lot and sufferings of humanity. Theson of God, as to his moral state and his holy spirit, he was also, in reality, theSon of Man, for the purpose of accomplishing the mission which he came upon earth to fulfil.This being the state of the question, then, I enter upon my subject; and I do not hesitate to affirm, because I will prove it, that, upon examining all the circumstances of this great trial, we shall be very far from discovering in it the application of those legal maxims, which are the safeguard of the rights of accused persons, and of which Mr. Salvador, in his chapterOn the Administration of Justice, has made a seductive exposition.The accusation of Jesus, instigated by the hatred of the[pg 543]priests and the Pharisees, and presented at first as a charge ofsacrilege, but afterwards converted into apoliticalcrime andan offence against the state, was marked, in all its aspects, with the foulest acts of violence and perfidy. It was not so mucha trialenvironed with legal forms, as a realpassion, or prolonged suffering, in which the imperturbable gentleness of the victim displays more strongly the unrelenting ferocity of his persecutors.When Jesus appeared among the Jews, that people was but the shadow of itself. Broken down by more than one subjugation, divided by factions and irreconcilable sects, they had in the last resort been obliged to succumb to the Roman power and surrender their own sovereignty. Jerusalem, having become a mere appendage to the province of Syria, saw within its walls an imperial garrison; Pilate commanded there, in the name of Cæsar; and the late people of God were groaning under the double tyranny of a conqueror, whose power they abhorred and whose idolatry they detested, and of a priesthood that exerted itself to keep them under the rigorous bonds of a religious fanaticism.Jesus Christ deplored the misfortunes of his country. How often did he weep for Jerusalem! Read in Bossuet'sPolitics drawn from the Holy Scriptures, the admirable chapter entitled,Jesus Christ the good citizen. He recommended to his countrymenunion, which constitutes the strength of states.“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, (said he,) thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”He was supposed to be not favorable to the Romans; but he only loved his own countrymen more. Witness the address of the Jews, who, in order to induce him to restore to the centurion a sick servant that was dear to him, used as the most powerful argument these words—that he was worthy for whom he should do this, for he loveth our nation. And Jesus went with them. Luke vii. 4, 5.Touched with the distresses of the nation, Jesus comforted them by holding up to them the hope of another life; he alarmed the great, the rich, and the haughty, by the prospect of[pg 544]a final judgment, at which every man would be judged not according to his rank, but his works. He was desirous of again bringing back man to his original dignity; he spoke to him of hisduties, but at the same time of hisrights. The people heard him with avidity, and followed him with eagerness; his words affected them; his hand healed their diseases, and his moral teaching instructed them; he preached, and practised one virtue till then unknown, and which belongs to him alone—charity. This celebrity, however, and these wonders excited envy. The partisans of theancient theocracywere alarmed at thenew doctrine; the chief priests felt that their power was threatened; the pride of the Pharisees was humbled; the scribes came in as their auxiliaries, and the destruction of Jesus was resolved upon.Now, if his conduct was reprehensible, if it afforded grounds for alegal accusation, why was not that course taken openly? Why not try him for the acts committed by him, and for his public discourses? Why employ against him subterfuges, artifice, perfidy, and violence? for such was the mode of proceeding against Jesus.Let us now take up the subject, and look at the narratives which have come down to us. Let us, with Mr. Salvador, open the books of the Gospels; for he does not object to that testimony; nay, he relies upon it:“It is by the Gospels themselves,”says he,“that I shall establishall the facts.”In truth, how can we (except by contrary evidence, of which there is none) refuse to place confidence in an historian, who tells us, as Saint John does, with affecting simplicity:“He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”John xix. 35.Section I.—Spies, or Informers.Who will not be surprised to find in this case the odious practice of employing hired informers? Branded with infamy, as they are in modern times, they will be still more so when we carry back their origin to the trial of Christ. It will be seen presently, whether I have not properly characterized by the[pg 545]name of hired informers those emissaries, whom the chief priests sent out to be about Jesus.We read in the evangelist Luke, chap. xx. 20:Et observantes miserunt insidiatores, qui se justos simularent, ut caperent eum in sermone, et traderent illum principatui et potestati præsidis. I will not translate this text myself, but will take the language of a translator whose accuracy is well known, Mr. De Sacy:“As they only sought occasions for his destruction, they sent to himapostate persons who feigned themselves just men, in order totake holdof his words, that they might deliver him unto magistrate and into the power of the governor.”And Mr. De Sacy adds—“if there should escape from him the least word against the public authorities.”This first artifice has escaped the sagacity of Mr. Salvador.Section II.—The Corruption and Treachery of Judas.According to Mr. Salvador, the senate, as he calls it, did not commence their proceedings by arresting Jesus, as would be done at the present day; but they began by passing a preliminary decree, that he should be arrested; and he cites, in proof of his assertion, St. John xi. 53, 54, and St. Matthew xxvi. 4, 5.But St. John says nothing of this pretended decree. He speaks, too, not of a public sitting, but of a consultation held by the chief priests and thePharisees, who did not, to my knowledge, constitute a judicial tribunal among the Jews.“Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this mandoeth many miracles.”John xi. 47. They add:“If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him,”—which imported also, in their minds,and they will no longer believe in us. Now, in this, I can readily perceive the fear of seeing the morals and doctrines of Jesus prevail; but where is the preliminaryjudgment, or decree? I cannot discover it.“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor[pg 546]consider, that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people ... and heprophesied, that Jesus should die for the nation of the Jews.”But toprophesyis not topass judgment; and the individual opinion of Caiaphas, who was only one among them, was not the opinion of all, nor ajudgment of the senate. We, therefore, still find ajudgmentwanting; and we only observe, that the priests and Pharisees are stimulated by a violent hatred of Jesus, and that“from that day forth they took counsel together forto put him to death; ut interficerent eum.”John xi. 53.The authority of St. John, then, is directly in contradiction of the assertion, that there was anorder of arrestpreviously passed by a regular tribunal.St. Matthew, in relating the same facts, says, that the chief priests assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and there held counsel together. But what counsel? and what was the result of it? Was it to issue anorder of arrestagainst Jesus, that they might hear him and then pass sentence? Not at all; but they held counsel together,“that they might take Jesusby subtilty, orfraud, andkill him”;concilium fecerunt,ut JesumDOLOtenerent etOCCIDERENT. Matt. xxvi. 5. Now in the Latin language, a language perfectly well constituted in everything relating to terms of the law, the wordsoccidereandinterficerewere never employed to express the act of passingsentence, orjudgment of death, but simply to signifymurderorassassination.401Thisfraud, by the aid of which they were to get Jesus into their power, was nothing but the bargain made between the chief priests and Judas.Judas, one of the twelve, goes to find the chief priests, and says to them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? Matt. xxvi. 14, 15. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver! Jesus, who foresaw his treachery, warned[pg 547]him of it mildly, in the midst of the Last Supper, where the voice of his master, in the presence of his brethren, should have touched him and awakened his reflections! But not so; wholly absorbed in his reward, Judas placed himself at the head of a gang of servants, to whom he was to point out Jesus; and, then, by akissconsummated his treachery!402Is it thus that ajudicial decree was to be executed, if there had really been one made for the arrest of Jesus?Section III.—Personal Liberty.—Resistance to an Armed Force.The act was done in the night time. After having celebrated the Supper, Jesus had conducted his disciples to the Mount of Olives. He prayed fervently; but they fell asleep.Jesus awakes them, with a gentle reproof for their weakness, and warns them that the moment is approaching.“Rise, let us be going; behold he is at hand that doth betray me.”Matt. xxvi. 46.Judas was not alone; in his suite there was a kind of ruffian band, almost entirely composed of servants of the high priest, but whom Mr. Salvador honours with the title of thelegal soldiery. If in the crowd there were any Romansoldiers, they were there as spectators, and without having been legally called on duty; for the Roman commanding officer, Pilate, had not yet heard the affair spoken of.This personal seizure of Jesus had so much the appearance of a forcible arrest, an illegal act of violence, that his disciples made preparation to repel force by force.Malchus, the insolent servant of the high priest, having[pg 548]shown himself the most eager to rush upon Jesus, Peter, not less zealous for his own master, cut off the servant's right ear.This resistance might have been continued with success, if Jesus had not immediately interfered. But what proves that Peter, even while causing bloodshed, was not resisting alegal order, alegal judgmentor decree, (which would have made his resistance an act ofrebellion by an armed force against a judicial order,) is this—that he was not arrested, either at the moment or afterwards, at the house of the high priest, to which he followed Jesus, and where he was most distinctly recognised by the maid servant of the high priest, and even by a relative of Malchus.Jesus alone was arrested; and although he had not individually offered any active resistance, and had even restrained that of his disciples, they bound him as a malefactor; which was a criminal degree of rigour, since for the purpose of securing a single man by a numerous band of persons armed with swords and staves it was not necessary.“Be ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?”Luke xxii. 52.Section IV.—Other Irregularities in the Arrest.—Seizure of the Person.They dragged Jesus along with them; and, instead of taking him directly to the proper magistrate, they carried him before Annas, who had no other character than that of beingfather-in-law to the high priest. John xviii. 13. Now, if this was only for the purpose of letting him be seen by him, such a curiosity was not to be gratified; it was a vexatious proceeding, an irregularity.From the house of Annas they led him to that of the high priest; all this time beingbound. John xviii. 24. They placed him in the court yard; it was cold, and they made a fire; it was in the night time, but by the light of the fire Peter was recognised by the people of the palace.Now the Jewish law prohibitedall proceedings by night; here, therefore, there was another infraction of the law.[pg 549]Under this state of things, his person being forcibly seized and detained in a private house, and delivered into the hands of servants, in the midst of a court, how was Jesus treated? St. Luke says, the men that held Jesusmockedhim andsmotehim; and when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. Luke xxii. 63, 64, 65.Will it be said, as Mr. Salvador does, that all this took place out of the presence of the senate? Let us wait, in this instance, till the senate shall be called up, and we shall see how far they protected the accused person.Section V.—Captious Interrogatories.—Acts of Violence towards Jesus.Already had the cock crowed! But it was not yet day. The elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and, having caused Jesus to appear before their council, they proceeded to interrogate him. Luke xxii. 66.Now, in the outset, it should be observed, that if they had been less carried away by their hatred, they should, as it was thenight time, not only have postponed, but put a stop to the proceedings, because it wasthe feast of the Passover, the most solemn of all festivals; and according to their law nojudicial procedurecould take place on a feast-day, under the penalty of being null.403Nevertheless, let us see who proceeded to interrogate Jesus. This was that same Caiaphas, who, if he had intended to remain ajudge, was evidently liable to objection; for in the preceding assemblage he had made himself theaccuserof Jesus.404Even before he had seen or heard him, he declared him to bedeserving of death. He said to his colleagues, that“it wasexpedientthat one man should die for all.”John xviii. 14.[pg 550]Such being the opinion of Caiaphas, we shall not be surprised, if he shows partiality.Instead of interrogating Jesus respectingpositive acts done, with their circumstances, and respectingfacts personal to himself, Caiaphas interrogates him respectinggeneral facts, respecting his disciples (whom it would have been much more simple to have called as witnesses), and respecting hisdoctrine, which was a mere abstraction so long as no external acts were the consequence of it.“The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine.”John xviii. 19.Jesus answered with dignity:“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”Ib. 20.“Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me,what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I said.”Ib. 21.“And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?”Ib. 22.Will it here be still said, that this violence was the individual act of the person who thus struck the accused? I answer, that on this occasion the fact took place in the presence and under the eyes of the whole council; and, as the high priest who presided did not restrain the author of it, I come to the conclusion, that he became an accomplice, especially when this violence was committed under the pretence of avenging the alleged affront to his dignity.But in what respect could the answer of Jesus appear offensive?“If I have spoken evil,”said Jesus,“bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”405John xviii. 23.There remained no mode of escaping from this dilemma. They accused Jesus; it was for those, who accused, to prove their accusation. An accused person is not obliged to criminate himself. He should have been convicted by proofs; he himself called for them. Let us see what witnesses were produced against him.[pg 551]Section VI.—Witnesses.—New Interrogatories.—The Judge in a Passion.“And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.”Mark xiv. 55.“For many barefalse witnessagainst him, but their witness agreed not together.”Ib. 56.“And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”Ib. 57, 58.“But (to the same point still) neither so did their witness agree together.”Ib. 59.Mr. Salvador, on this subject, says, p. 87:“The two witnesses, whom St. Matthew and St. Mark charge withfalsehood, narrate a discourse which St. John declares to betrue, so far as respects the power which Jesus Christ attributed to himself.”This alleged contradiction among the Evangelists does not exist. In the first place, St. Matthew does not say that the discourse was had by Jesus. In chapter xxvi. 61, he states the depositions of the witnesses, but saying at the same time that they werefalse witnesses; and in chapter xxvii. 40, he puts the same declaration into the mouth of those who insulted Jesus at the foot of the cross; but he does not put it into the mouth of Christ. He is in accordance with St. Mark.St. John, chapter ii. 19, makes Jesus speak in these words:“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”And St. John adds:“He spake of the temple of his body.”Thus Jesus did not say in an affirmative and somewhat menacing manner,I will destroy this temple, as the witnessesfalselyassumed; he only said, hypothetically,Destroy this temple, that is to say, suppose this temple should be destroyed, I will raise it up in three days. Besides, they could not dissemble, that he referred to a temple altogether different[pg 552]from theirs, because he said, I will raise up another in three days,which will not be made by the hands of man.It hence results, at least, that the Jews did not understand him, for they cried out,“Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”Thus, then, the witnesses did not agree together, and their declarations had nothing conclusive. Mark xiv. 59. We must, therefore, look for other proofs.“Then the high priest, (we must not forget, that he is still the accuser,) the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it, which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.”Mark xiv. 60. In truth, since the question was not concerning the temple of the Jews, but an ideal temple, not made by the hand of man, and which was alone in the thoughts of Jesus, the explanation was to be found in the very evidence itself.The high priest continued:“I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.”Matt. xxvi. 63. I adjure thee, I call upon thee on oath! a gross infraction of that rule of morals and jurisprudence, which forbids our placing an accused person between the danger of perjury and the fear of inculpating himself, and thus making his situation more hazardous. The high priest, however, persists, and says to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?406Jesus answered,Thou hast said. Matthew xxvi. 64;I am. Mark xiv. 62.“Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying,He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, nowye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”Matt. xxvi. 66.Let us now compare this scene of violence with the mild deduction of principles, which we find in the chapter of Mr. SalvadorOn the Administration of Justice; and let us ask ourselves,[pg 553]if, as he alleges, we find a justapplicationof them in the proceedings against Christ?Do we discover here thatrespectof the Hebrew judge towards the party accused, when we see that Caiaphas permitted him to be struck, in his presence,with impunity?What was this Caiaphas, at once an accuser and judge?407A passionate man, and too much resembling the odious portrait which the historian Josephus has given us of him!408A judge, who was irritated to such a degree, that he rent his clothes; who imposed upon the accused a most solemn oath, and who gave to his answers the criminal character, thathe had spokenblasphemy! And, from that moment, he wanted no more witnesses, notwithstanding the law required them. He would not have an inquiry, which he perceived would be insufficient; he attempts to supply it by captious questions. He is desirous of having him condemnedupon his own declaration alone, (interpreted, too, as he chooses to understand it,) though that was forbidden by the laws of the Hebrews! And, in the midst of a most violent transport of passion, this accuser himself, a high priest, who means to speak in the name of the living God, is the first to pass sentence of death, and carries with him the opinions of the rest!In this hideous picture I cannot recognise that justice of the Hebrews, of which Mr. Salvador has given so fine a view inhis theory!Section VII.—Subsequent Acts of Violence.Immediately after this kind of sacerdotal verdict rendered against Jesus, the acts of violence and insults recommenced with increased strength; the fury of the judge must have communicated itself to the bystanders. St. Matthew says:“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; who is he that smote thee?”Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.[pg 554]Mr. Salvador does not contest the truth of this ill treatment. In page 88 he says,“It was contrary to the spirit of the Hebrew law, and that it was not according to the order of nature, that a senate composed of the most respectable men of a nation,—that a senate, which might perhaps be mistaken, but which thought it was acting mildly, should have permitted such outrages against him whose life it held in its own hands. The writers who have transmitted these details to us, not having been present themselves at the trial, were disposed to overcharge the picture, either on account of their own feelings, or to throw upon their judges a greater odium.”I repeat; this ill treatment was entirely contrary to the spirit of the law. And what do I want more, since my object is to make prominentall the violations of law.“It is not in nature to see a body, which respects itself, authorize such attempts.”But of what consequence is that, when the fact is established?“The historians, it is said, were not present at the trial.”But was Mr. Salvador there present himself, so that he could give a flat denial of their statements? And when even an able writer, who was not an eye-witness, relates the same events after the lapse of more than eighteen centuries, he ought at least to bring opposing evidence, if he would impeach that of contemporaries; who, if they were not in the very hall of the council, were certainly on the spot, in the vicinity, perhaps in the court yard, inquiring anxiously of every thing that was happening to the man whose disciples they were.409Besides, the learned author whom I am combating says, in the outset (p. 81),“it is from the Gospels themselves that he will take all his facts.”He must then take the whole together, as well those which go to condemn, as those which are in palliation or excuse.Those gross insults, those inhuman acts of violence, even if they are to be cast upon the servants of the high priest and the persons in his train, do not excuse those individuals, who, when they took upon themselves the authority of judges, were bound[pg 555]at the same time to throw around him all the protection of the law. Caiaphas, too, was culpable as the master of the house (for every thing took place in his house), even if he should not be responsible as high priest and president of the council for having permitted excesses, which, indeed were but too much in accordance with the rage he had himself displayed upon the bench.These outrages, which would be inexcusable even towards a man irrevocably condemned to punishment, were the more criminal towards Jesus, because, legally and judicially speaking, there had not yet been any sentence properly passed against him according to the public law of the country; as we shall see in the following section, which will deserve the undivided attention of the reader.Section VIII.—The Position of the Jews in respect to the Romans.We must not forget,that Judea was a conquered country. After the death of Herod—most inappropriately surnamedthe Great—Augustus had confirmed his last will, by which that king of the Jews had arranged the division of his dominions betweenhistwo sons: but Augustus did not continue their title ofking, which their father had borne.Archeläus, on whom Judea devolved, having been recalled on account of his cruelties, the territory, which was at first intrusted to his command, was united to the province of Syria. (Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17, cap. 15.)Augustus then appointed particular officers for Judea. Tiberius did the same; and at the time of which we are speaking, Pilate was one of those officers. (Josephus, lib. 18, cap. 3 & 8.)Some have considered Pilate as governor, by title, and have given him the Latin appellation,Præses, president or governor. But they have mistaken the force of the word. Pilate was one of those public officers, who were called by the Romans,procuratores Cæsaris, Imperial procurators.[pg 556]With this title ofprocurator, he was placed under the superior authority of the governor of Syria, the truepræses, or governor of that province, of which Judea was then only one of the dependencies.To the governor (præses) peculiarly belonged the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases.410Theprocurator, on the contrary, had, for his principal duty, nothing but the collection of the revenue, and the trial of revenue causes. But the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases did, in some instances, belong to certainprocurators, who were sent into small provinces to fill the places of governors (vice præsides), as appears clearly from the Roman laws.411Such wasPilateat Jerusalem.412The Jews, placed in this political position—notwithstanding they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercise of their religion, and many things merely relating to their police and municipal regulations—the Jews, I say, had not thepower of life and death; this was a principal attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans always took great care to reserve to themselves, even if they neglected other things.Apud Romanos, jus valet gladii; cætera transmittuntur.Tacit.What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? Without doubt the scribes, and their friends the Pharisees, might well have been alarmed, as a body and individually, at the preaching and success of Jesus; they might be concerned for their worship; and they might have interrogated the man respecting his creed and his doctrines,—they might have made a kind of preparatory proceeding,—they might have declared, in point of fact, that those doctrines, which threatened their own, were contrary to their law, as understood by themselves.[pg 557]But that law, although it had not undergone any alteration as to the affairs of religion, had no longer any coercive power as to the external or civil regulations of society. In vain would they have undertaken to pronounce sentence of death under the circumstances of the case of Jesus; the council of the Jews had not the power to pass asentence of death; it only would have had power to makean accusationagainst him before the governor, or his deputy, and then deliver him over to be tried by him.Let us distinctly establish this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According to him, (p. 88),“the Jews hadreserved the power of trying, according to their law; but it was in the hands of theprocuratoralone, that the executive power was vested; every culprit must be put to death byhisconsent, in order that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to foreigners.”No; the Jews had not reservedthe right of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should becomeimpatient of the yoke; it was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Cæsar in Judea, was not merely an agent of theexecutive authority, which would have left thejudiciaryandlegislativepower in the hands of the conquered people—he was not simply an officer appointed to give anexequaturor mere approval (visa) to sentences passed byanother authority, theauthority of the Jews. When the matter in question was acapitalcase, the Roman authorities not only ordered theexecutionof a sentence, but also took cognizance (cognitio) of the crime; it had the right of jurisdictionà priori, and that ofpassing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation,vice præsidis, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred;[pg 558]but in any event we hold it to be clear, that the Jews had lost the right ofcondemning to deathany person whatever, not only so far as respects theexecutionbut thepassingof the sentence. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.The Jews were not ignorant of this; for when they went before Pilate, to ask of him the condemnation of Jesus, they themselves declared, that it was not permitted to them to put any person to death:“It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”John xviii. 31.Here I am happy to be able to support myself by the opinion of a very respectable authority, the celebrated Loiseau, in his treatise onSeigneuries, in the chapter on the administration ofjustice belonging to cities.“In truth,”says he,“there is some evidence, that thepolice, in which the people had the sole interest, was administered by officers of the people; but I know not upon what were founded the concessions of power to some cities of France to exercise criminal jurisdiction; nor why the Ordinance of Moulins left that to them rather than civil cases; for the criminal jurisdiction is theright of the sword, themerum imperium, or absolute sovereignty. Accordingly, by the Roman law, the administration of justice was so far prohibited to the officers of cities, that they could not punish even by a simple fine.Thus it is doubtless that we must understandthat passage of the Gospel, where the Jews say to Pilate,It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; for, after they were subjected to the Romans, they had not jurisdiction of crimes.”Let us now follow Jesus to the presence of Pilate.Section IX.—The Accusation made before Pilate.At this point I must entreat the particular attention of the reader. The irregularities and acts of violence, which I have hitherto remarked upon, are nothing in comparison with the unbridled fury, which is about to display itself before theRoman Judge, in order to extort from him, against his own conviction, a sentence of death.[pg 559]“And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders, and scribes, and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.”Mark xv. 1.As soon as the morning was come; for, as I have observed already, every thing which had been done thus far against Jesus was doneduring the night.They then led Jesus from Caiaphas unto the Hall of Judgment of Pilate.413It was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lestthey should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. John xviii. 28.Singular scrupulousness! and truly worthy of the Pharisees! They were afraid ofdefiling themselves on the day of the passoverby enteringthe house ofa heathen! And yet, the same day, only some hours before presenting themselves to Pilate, they had, in contempt of their own law, committed the outrage ofholding a counciland deliberating uponan accusation of a capital crime.As they would not enter,“Pilate went out to them.”John xviii. 29. Now observe his language. He did not say to them,Where is the sentence you have passed; as he must have done, if he was only to give them his simpleexequatur, or permission to execute the sentence; but he takes up the matter from the beginning, as would be done by one who hadplenary jurisdiction; and he says to them: What accusation bring ye against this man?They answered, with their accustomed haughtiness: If he were nota malefactorwe would not have delivered him up to thee. John xviii. 30. They wished to have it understood, that, being a question ofblasphemy, it was thecause of their religion, which they could appreciate better than any others could. Pilate, then, would have been under the necessity of believing themon their word. But this Roman, indignant at their proposed course of proceeding, which would have restricted his jurisdiction by making him the passive instrument of the wishes of the Jews, answered them in an ironical manner:[pg 560]Well, since you say he has sinned against your law, take him yourselves and judge him according to your law. John xviii. 31. This was an absolute mystification to them, for they knew their own want of power to condemn him to death. But they were obliged to yield the point, and to submit to Pilate himself theirarticles of accusation.Now what were the grounds of this accusation? Were theythe samewhich had hitherto been alleged against Jesus—the charge ofblasphemy—which was the only one brought forward by Caiaphas before the council of the Jews? Not at all; despairing of obtaining from the Roman judge a sentence ofdeathfor areligiousquarrel, which was of no interest to the Romans,414they suddenly changed their plan; they abandoned their first accusation, the charge of blasphemy, and substituted for it apoliticalaccusation, anoffence against the state.Here we have the very crisis, or essential incident, of the passion; and that which makes the heaviest accusation of guilt on the part of the informers against Jesus. For, being fully bent on destroying him in any manner whatever, they no longer exhibited themselves as the avengers oftheir religion, which was alleged to have been outraged, or of their worship, which it was pretended was threatened; but, ceasing to appear as Jews, in order to affect sentiments belonging to a foreign nation, those hypocrites held out the appearance of being concerned for the interests ofRome; they accused their own countryman of an intention to restore the kingdom of Jerusalem, to make himselfkingof theJews, and to make an insurrection of the people against their conquerors. Let us hear them speak for themselves:“And they began toaccusehim, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying, that he himself is Christ aking.”Luke xxiii. 2.What a calumny! Jesus forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar! when he had answered the Pharisees themselves, in presence of the whole people, by showing them the image of Cæsar upon a[pg 561]Roman piece of money, and saying, Give unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's. But this accusation was one mode of interesting Pilate in respect to his jurisdiction; for, as an imperialprocurator, he was specially to superintend the collection of the revenue. The second branch of the accusation still more directly affected the sovereignty of the Romans:“He holds himself up for aking.”The accusation having thus assumed a character purelypolitical, Pilate thought he must pay attention to it.“Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall,”(the place where justice was administered,) and havingsummoned Jesus to appearbefore him, he proceeds to his Examination, and says to him:“Art thou the king of the Jews?”John xviii. 33.This question, so different from those which had been addressed to him at the house of the high priest, appears to have excited the astonishment of Jesus; and, in his turn, he asked Pilate:“Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”Ib. 24. In reality, Jesus was desirous of knowing, first of all, the authors of this new accusation—Is this an accusation brought against me by theRomansor by theJews?Pilate replied to him—“Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me; what hast thou done?”Ib. 35.All the particulars of this procedure are important; I cannot too often repeat the remark, that in no part of the transactions before Pilate is there any question at all respecting a previous sentence, a judgment already passed—a judgment, the execution of which was the only subject of consideration; it was a case of a capital accusation; but an accusation which was then just beginning; they were about the preliminaryinterrogatoriesput to the accused, and Pilate says to him,“What hast thou done?”Jesus, seeing by the explanation what was the source of theprejudgingof his case, and knowing the secret thoughts which predominated in making the accusation, and that his enemies wanted to arrive at the same end by an artifice, answered Pilate—“My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews;”(we see, in fact, that Jesus had forbidden[pg 562]his people to resist) but, he added,“now is my kingdom not from hence.”John xviii. 36.This answer of Jesus is very remarkable; it became the foundation of his religion, and the pledge of its universality, because it detached it from the interests of all governments. It rests not merely in assertion, in doctrine; it was given injustification, indefenceagainst the accusation of intending to make himselfKing of the Jews. Indeed, if Jesus had affected atemporalroyal authority, if there had been the least attempt, on his part, to usurpthe power of Cæsar, he would have been guilty of treason in the eyes of the magistrate. But, by answering twice,my kingdom is not of this world, my kingdomis not from hence, his justification was complete.Pilate, however, persisted and said to him:“Art thou a king then?”Jesus replied, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. John xviii. 37.Pilate then said to him:What is the truth?This question proves, that Pilate had not a very clear idea of what Jesus calledthe truth. He perceived nothing in it butideology; and, satisfied with having said (less in the manner of a question than of an exclamation)“What is the truth,”he went on to the Jews (who remained outside) and said to them,“I find in him no fault at all.”John xviii. 38.Here, then, we see Jesus absolved from the accusation by the declaration of the Roman judge himself.But the accusers, persisting still farther, added—“He stirreth up the people, teachingthroughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.”Luke xxiii. 5.“He stirreth up the people!”This is a charge of sedition; and for Pilate. But observe, it wasby the doctrine which he teaches; these words comprehend the real complaint of the Jews. To them it was equivalent to saying—Heteachesthe people, he instructs them, he enlightens them; he preachesnew doctrineswhich are notours.“He stirs up the people!”This, in their months signified—the people hear him willingly; the people follow and become attached to him; for he preaches a doctrine[pg 563]that is friendly and consolatory to the people; he unmasks our pride, our avarice, our insatiable spirit of domination!Pilate, however, does not appear to have attached much importance to this new turn given to the accusation; but he here betrays a weakness. He heard the wordGalilee; and he makes that the occasion of shifting off the responsibility upon another public officer, and seizes the occasion with avidity. He says to Jesus—you are aGalileanthen? and, upon the answer being in the affirmative, considering Jesus as belonging to the jurisdiction of Herod-Antipas, who, by the good pleasure of Cæsar, was then tetrarch of Galilee, he sent him to Herod. Luke xxiii. 6, 7.But Herod, who, as St. Luke says, had been long desirous ofseeing Jesusand had hoped to see some miracle done by him, after satisfying an idle curiosity and putting several questions to him, which Jesus did not deign to answer,—Herod, notwithstanding the presence of the priests, (who had not yet gone off, but stood there with their scribes,) and notwithstanding the pertinacity with which they continued to accuse Jesus, perceiving nothing but what was merely chimerical in theaccusation of being a king, made a mockery of the affair, and sent Jesus back to Pilate,after having arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, in order to show that he thought this pretended royalty was a subject of ridicule rather than of apprehensions. Luke xxiii. 8, &c., and De Sacy. Ib.Section X.—The Last Efforts before Pilate.No person, then, was willing to condemn Jesus; neither Herod, who only made the case a subject of mockery, nor Pilate, who had openly declared that he found nothing criminal in him.But the hatred of the priests was not disarmed—so far from it, that the chief priests, with a numerous train of their partisans, returned to Pilate with a determination to force him to a decision.The unfortunate Pilate, reviewing his proceedings in their presence, said to them again:“Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people—and, behold, I, having[pg 564]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 you to him, and lo,nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.”Luke xxiii. 14, 15.After“chastising”him! And was not this a piece of cruelty, when he considered him to be innocent?415But this was an act of condescension by which Pilate hoped to quiet the rage with which he saw they were agitated.“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him.”John xix. 1. And, supposing that he had done enough to disarm their fury, he exhibited him to them in that pitiable condition; saying to them at the same time, Behold the man!Ecce homo. John xix. 5.Now, in my turn, I say, here is indeed a decree of Pilate, and an unjust decree; but it is not the pretended decree alleged to have been made by the Jews. It is a decision wholly different; an unjust decision, it is true; but sufficient to avail asa legal barto any new proceedings against Jesus for the same act.Non bis in idem, no man shall be put twice in jeopardy, &c. is a maxim, which has come down to us from the Romans.Accordingly,“from thenceforth Pilate sought toreleaseJesus.”John xix. 12.Here, now, observe the deep perfidy of his accusers.“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend; whosoever maketh himself akingspeaketh against Cæsar.”Ib.It does not appear that Pilate was malignant; we see all the efforts he had made at different times to save Jesus. But he was apublic officer, and was attached tohis office; he was intimidated by the outcry which called in question hisfidelity to the emperor; he was afraid of adismissal: and he yielded. He immediately reascended the judgment-seat; (Matt. xxvii. 19), and, as new light had thus come upon him, he proceeded to make a second decree![pg 565]But being for a moment stopped by the voice of his own conscience, and by the advice which his terrified wife sent to him—“Have thou nothing to do with that just man”—(Matt. xxvii. 19)—he made his last effort, by attempting to influence the populace to accept of Barabbas instead of Jesus.“But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.”Mark xv. 11. Barabbas! a murderer! an assassin!Pilate spoke to them again:What will ye then, that I should do with Jesus?And they cried out,Away with him, crucify him. Pilate still persisted:Shall I crucify your king?thus using terms of raillery, in order to disarm them. But here showing themselves to be more truly Roman than Pilate himself, the chief priests hypocritically answered:We have no king but Cæsar.John xix. 15.The outcry was renewed—Crucify him, crucify him! And the clamour became more and more threatening;“and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.”Luke xxiii. 23.At length Pilate,being desirous of pleasing the multitude, proceeds to speak. But can we call it a legal adjudication, ajudgment, that he is about to pronounce? Is he, at the moment, in that free state of mind which is necessary for a judge, who is about to pass asentence of death? What new witnesses, what proofs have been brought forward to change his conviction and opinion, which had been so energetically declared, of the innocence of Jesus?“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it. Matt. xxvii. 24. And Pilate gave sentence, that it should be as they required. Luke xxiii. 24. And he delivered him to them to be crucified.”Matt. xxvii. 26.Well mayest thou wash thy hands, Pilate, stained as they are with innocent blood! Thou hast authorised the act in thy weakness; thou art not less culpable, than if thou hadst sacrificed him through wickedness! All generations, down to our[pg 566]own time, have repeated that theJust Onesufferedunder Pontius Pilate. Thy name has remained in history, to serve for the instruction of all public men, all pusillanimous judges, in order to hold up to them the shame ofyielding contrary to one's own convictions. The populace, in its fury, made an outcry at the foot of thy judgment-seat, where, perhaps, thou thyself didst not sit securely! But of what importance was that? Thydutyspoke out; and in such a case, better would it be to suffer death, than to inflict it on another.416We will now come to a conclusion.Theproofthat Jesus was not, as Mr. Salvador maintains, put to death for the crime of blasphemy or sacrilege, and for having preached a new religious worship in contravention of the Mosaic law, results fromthe very sentencepronounced by Pilate; a sentence, in pursuance of which he was led to execution by Roman soldiers.There was among the Romans a custom, which we borrowed from their jurisprudence, and which is still followed, of placing over the head of a condemned criminal a writing containingan extract from his sentence, in order that the public might knowfor what crimehe was condemned. This was the reason why Pilate put on the cross a label, on which he had written these words:Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judæorum, (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), which has since been denoted by the initials J. N. R. J. This was the alleged cause of his condemnation. St. Mark says—“And the superscription of hisaccusationwas written over—The King of the Jews.”Mark xv. 26.This inscription was first inLatin, which was the legal language of theRomanjudge; and it was repeated inHebrewand[pg 567]Greek, in order to be understood by the people of the nation and by foreigners.The chief priests, whose indefatigable hatred did not overlook the most minute details, being apprehensive that people would take it to be literally a fact affirmed, that Jesuswas the King of the Jews, said to Pilate:“Write notKing of the Jews, but thathe saidI am king of the Jews.”But Pilate answered:“What I have written I have written.”John xix. 21, 22.This is a conclusive answer to one of the last assertions of Mr. Salvador, (p. 88,) that“the Roman Pilate signed the sentence;”by which he always means that Pilate did nothing but sign a sentence, which he supposes to have been passed by the Sanhedrim; but in this he is mistaken. Pilate did not merelysignthe sentence, or decree, butdrew it up; and, when his draft was objected to by the priests, he still adhered to it, saying, what I have written shall remain as written.Here then we see the true cause of the condemnation of Jesus! Here we have the“judicial and legal proof.”Jesus was the victim of apoliticalaccusation! He was put to death for the imaginary crime of having aimed at the power of Cæsar, by calling himselfKing of the Jews! Absurd accusation; which Pilate never believed, and which the chief priests and the Pharisees themselves did not believe. For they were not authorized to arrest Jesus on that account; it was a new, and totally different, accusation from that which they first planned—a sudden accusation of the moment, when they saw that Pilate was but little affected by theirreligiouszeal, and they found it necessary to arousehis zeal forCæsar.“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend!”This alarming language has too often, since that time, reverberated in the ears of timid judges, who, like Pilate, have rendered themselves criminal by delivering up victims through want of firmness, whom they would never have condemned, if they had listened to the voice of their own consciences.Let us now recapitulate the case, as I have considered it from the beginning.Is it not evident, contrary to the conclusion of Mr. Salvador, that Jesus, considered merely asa simple citizen, was not tried and[pg 568]sentenced eitheraccording to law, oragreeably to the forms of legal proceedings then existing?God, according to his eternal design, might permit the just to suffer by the malice of men; but he also intended, that this should at least happen by a disregard of all laws, and by a violation of all established rules, in order that the entire contempt of forms should stand as the first warning of the violation of law.Let us not be surprised then, that in another part of his work, Mr. Salvador (who, it is gratifying to observe, discusses his subject dispassionately) expresses some regret in speaking of the“unfortunate sentence against Jesus.”Vol. i. p. 59. He has wished to excuse the Hebrews; but, one of that nation, in giving utterance to the feelings of his heart, still says—in language which I took from his own mouth,“We should be very cautious of condemning him at this day.”I pass over the excesses which followed the order of Pilate; as, the violence shown to Simon, the Cyrenian, who was made in some degree a sharer in the punishment, by being compelled to carry the cross; the injurious treatment which attended the victim to the place of the sacrifice, and even to the cross, where Jesus still prayed for his brethren and his executioners!To the heathen themselves I would say—You, who have gloried in the death of Socrates, how much must you be struck with wonder at that of Jesus! Ye, censors of the Areopagus, how could you undertake to excuse the Synagogue, and justify the sentence of the Hall of Judgment? Philosophy herself has not hesitated to proclaim, and we may repeat with her—“Yes, if the life and death ofSocrateswere those of a sage, the life and death ofJesuswere those of a divinity.”
Trial Of Jesus.Refutation Of The Chapter Of Mr. Salvador, Entitled“The Trial And Condemnation Of Jesus.”“The chapter, in which Mr. Salvador treats ofthe Administration of Justice among the Hebrews, is altogether theoretical. He makes an exposition of the law—that things, in order to beconformable to rule, must be transacted in a certain mode. In all this I have not contradicted him, but have let him speak for himself.In the subsequent chapter the author announces:“That according to thisexposition of judicial proceedingshe is going to follow out the application of them to the most memorable trial in all history, that of Jesus Christ.”Accordingly the chapter is entitled:The Trial and Condemnation of Jesus.The author first takes care to inform us under what point of view he intends to give an account of that accusation:“That we ought to lament the blindness of the Hebrews for not having recognised a God in Jesus, is a point which I do not examine.”(There is another thing also, which he says he shall not examine.)“But, when they discovered in himonly a citizen, did they try himaccording to existing laws and formalities?”The question being thus stated, Mr. Salvador goes over all the various aspects of the accusation; and his conclusion is, that the procedure was perfectly regular, and the condemnation perfectly appropriate to the act committed.“Now,”says he, (p. 87,)“the Senate, having adjudged that Jesus, the son of Joseph, born in Bethlehem, had profaned the name of God by usurping it himself, though a simple citizen, applied to him[pg 542]the law against blasphemy, the law in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and verse 20, chapter 18th, conformably to which every prophet, even one that performs miracles, is to be punished when he speaks of a God unknown to the Hebrews or their fathers.”This conclusion is formed to please the followers of the Jewish law; it is wholly for their benefit, and the evident object is, to justify them from the reproach ofdeïcide.We will, however, avoid treating this grave subject in a theological point of view. As to myself, Jesus Christ is theMan-God; but it is not with arguments drawn from my religion and my creed, that I intend to combat the statement and the conclusion of Mr. Salvador. The present age would charge me with being intolerant; and this is a reproach which I will never incur. Besides, I do not wish to give to the enemies of Christianity the advantage of making the outcry, that we are afraid to enter into a discussion with them, and that we wish to crush rather than to convince them. Having thus contented myself with declaring my own faith, as Mr. Salvador has let us clearly understand his, I shall also examine the question under a merelyhumanpoint of view, and proceed to inquire, with him,“Whether Jesus Christ, consideredas a simple citizen, was tried according to the existing laws and formalities.”The catholic religion itself warrants me in this; it is not a mere fiction; for God willed, that Jesus should be clothed in the forms of humanity (et homo factus est), and that he should undergo the lot and sufferings of humanity. Theson of God, as to his moral state and his holy spirit, he was also, in reality, theSon of Man, for the purpose of accomplishing the mission which he came upon earth to fulfil.This being the state of the question, then, I enter upon my subject; and I do not hesitate to affirm, because I will prove it, that, upon examining all the circumstances of this great trial, we shall be very far from discovering in it the application of those legal maxims, which are the safeguard of the rights of accused persons, and of which Mr. Salvador, in his chapterOn the Administration of Justice, has made a seductive exposition.The accusation of Jesus, instigated by the hatred of the[pg 543]priests and the Pharisees, and presented at first as a charge ofsacrilege, but afterwards converted into apoliticalcrime andan offence against the state, was marked, in all its aspects, with the foulest acts of violence and perfidy. It was not so mucha trialenvironed with legal forms, as a realpassion, or prolonged suffering, in which the imperturbable gentleness of the victim displays more strongly the unrelenting ferocity of his persecutors.When Jesus appeared among the Jews, that people was but the shadow of itself. Broken down by more than one subjugation, divided by factions and irreconcilable sects, they had in the last resort been obliged to succumb to the Roman power and surrender their own sovereignty. Jerusalem, having become a mere appendage to the province of Syria, saw within its walls an imperial garrison; Pilate commanded there, in the name of Cæsar; and the late people of God were groaning under the double tyranny of a conqueror, whose power they abhorred and whose idolatry they detested, and of a priesthood that exerted itself to keep them under the rigorous bonds of a religious fanaticism.Jesus Christ deplored the misfortunes of his country. How often did he weep for Jerusalem! Read in Bossuet'sPolitics drawn from the Holy Scriptures, the admirable chapter entitled,Jesus Christ the good citizen. He recommended to his countrymenunion, which constitutes the strength of states.“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, (said he,) thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”He was supposed to be not favorable to the Romans; but he only loved his own countrymen more. Witness the address of the Jews, who, in order to induce him to restore to the centurion a sick servant that was dear to him, used as the most powerful argument these words—that he was worthy for whom he should do this, for he loveth our nation. And Jesus went with them. Luke vii. 4, 5.Touched with the distresses of the nation, Jesus comforted them by holding up to them the hope of another life; he alarmed the great, the rich, and the haughty, by the prospect of[pg 544]a final judgment, at which every man would be judged not according to his rank, but his works. He was desirous of again bringing back man to his original dignity; he spoke to him of hisduties, but at the same time of hisrights. The people heard him with avidity, and followed him with eagerness; his words affected them; his hand healed their diseases, and his moral teaching instructed them; he preached, and practised one virtue till then unknown, and which belongs to him alone—charity. This celebrity, however, and these wonders excited envy. The partisans of theancient theocracywere alarmed at thenew doctrine; the chief priests felt that their power was threatened; the pride of the Pharisees was humbled; the scribes came in as their auxiliaries, and the destruction of Jesus was resolved upon.Now, if his conduct was reprehensible, if it afforded grounds for alegal accusation, why was not that course taken openly? Why not try him for the acts committed by him, and for his public discourses? Why employ against him subterfuges, artifice, perfidy, and violence? for such was the mode of proceeding against Jesus.Let us now take up the subject, and look at the narratives which have come down to us. Let us, with Mr. Salvador, open the books of the Gospels; for he does not object to that testimony; nay, he relies upon it:“It is by the Gospels themselves,”says he,“that I shall establishall the facts.”In truth, how can we (except by contrary evidence, of which there is none) refuse to place confidence in an historian, who tells us, as Saint John does, with affecting simplicity:“He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”John xix. 35.Section I.—Spies, or Informers.Who will not be surprised to find in this case the odious practice of employing hired informers? Branded with infamy, as they are in modern times, they will be still more so when we carry back their origin to the trial of Christ. It will be seen presently, whether I have not properly characterized by the[pg 545]name of hired informers those emissaries, whom the chief priests sent out to be about Jesus.We read in the evangelist Luke, chap. xx. 20:Et observantes miserunt insidiatores, qui se justos simularent, ut caperent eum in sermone, et traderent illum principatui et potestati præsidis. I will not translate this text myself, but will take the language of a translator whose accuracy is well known, Mr. De Sacy:“As they only sought occasions for his destruction, they sent to himapostate persons who feigned themselves just men, in order totake holdof his words, that they might deliver him unto magistrate and into the power of the governor.”And Mr. De Sacy adds—“if there should escape from him the least word against the public authorities.”This first artifice has escaped the sagacity of Mr. Salvador.Section II.—The Corruption and Treachery of Judas.According to Mr. Salvador, the senate, as he calls it, did not commence their proceedings by arresting Jesus, as would be done at the present day; but they began by passing a preliminary decree, that he should be arrested; and he cites, in proof of his assertion, St. John xi. 53, 54, and St. Matthew xxvi. 4, 5.But St. John says nothing of this pretended decree. He speaks, too, not of a public sitting, but of a consultation held by the chief priests and thePharisees, who did not, to my knowledge, constitute a judicial tribunal among the Jews.“Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this mandoeth many miracles.”John xi. 47. They add:“If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him,”—which imported also, in their minds,and they will no longer believe in us. Now, in this, I can readily perceive the fear of seeing the morals and doctrines of Jesus prevail; but where is the preliminaryjudgment, or decree? I cannot discover it.“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor[pg 546]consider, that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people ... and heprophesied, that Jesus should die for the nation of the Jews.”But toprophesyis not topass judgment; and the individual opinion of Caiaphas, who was only one among them, was not the opinion of all, nor ajudgment of the senate. We, therefore, still find ajudgmentwanting; and we only observe, that the priests and Pharisees are stimulated by a violent hatred of Jesus, and that“from that day forth they took counsel together forto put him to death; ut interficerent eum.”John xi. 53.The authority of St. John, then, is directly in contradiction of the assertion, that there was anorder of arrestpreviously passed by a regular tribunal.St. Matthew, in relating the same facts, says, that the chief priests assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and there held counsel together. But what counsel? and what was the result of it? Was it to issue anorder of arrestagainst Jesus, that they might hear him and then pass sentence? Not at all; but they held counsel together,“that they might take Jesusby subtilty, orfraud, andkill him”;concilium fecerunt,ut JesumDOLOtenerent etOCCIDERENT. Matt. xxvi. 5. Now in the Latin language, a language perfectly well constituted in everything relating to terms of the law, the wordsoccidereandinterficerewere never employed to express the act of passingsentence, orjudgment of death, but simply to signifymurderorassassination.401Thisfraud, by the aid of which they were to get Jesus into their power, was nothing but the bargain made between the chief priests and Judas.Judas, one of the twelve, goes to find the chief priests, and says to them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? Matt. xxvi. 14, 15. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver! Jesus, who foresaw his treachery, warned[pg 547]him of it mildly, in the midst of the Last Supper, where the voice of his master, in the presence of his brethren, should have touched him and awakened his reflections! But not so; wholly absorbed in his reward, Judas placed himself at the head of a gang of servants, to whom he was to point out Jesus; and, then, by akissconsummated his treachery!402Is it thus that ajudicial decree was to be executed, if there had really been one made for the arrest of Jesus?Section III.—Personal Liberty.—Resistance to an Armed Force.The act was done in the night time. After having celebrated the Supper, Jesus had conducted his disciples to the Mount of Olives. He prayed fervently; but they fell asleep.Jesus awakes them, with a gentle reproof for their weakness, and warns them that the moment is approaching.“Rise, let us be going; behold he is at hand that doth betray me.”Matt. xxvi. 46.Judas was not alone; in his suite there was a kind of ruffian band, almost entirely composed of servants of the high priest, but whom Mr. Salvador honours with the title of thelegal soldiery. If in the crowd there were any Romansoldiers, they were there as spectators, and without having been legally called on duty; for the Roman commanding officer, Pilate, had not yet heard the affair spoken of.This personal seizure of Jesus had so much the appearance of a forcible arrest, an illegal act of violence, that his disciples made preparation to repel force by force.Malchus, the insolent servant of the high priest, having[pg 548]shown himself the most eager to rush upon Jesus, Peter, not less zealous for his own master, cut off the servant's right ear.This resistance might have been continued with success, if Jesus had not immediately interfered. But what proves that Peter, even while causing bloodshed, was not resisting alegal order, alegal judgmentor decree, (which would have made his resistance an act ofrebellion by an armed force against a judicial order,) is this—that he was not arrested, either at the moment or afterwards, at the house of the high priest, to which he followed Jesus, and where he was most distinctly recognised by the maid servant of the high priest, and even by a relative of Malchus.Jesus alone was arrested; and although he had not individually offered any active resistance, and had even restrained that of his disciples, they bound him as a malefactor; which was a criminal degree of rigour, since for the purpose of securing a single man by a numerous band of persons armed with swords and staves it was not necessary.“Be ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?”Luke xxii. 52.Section IV.—Other Irregularities in the Arrest.—Seizure of the Person.They dragged Jesus along with them; and, instead of taking him directly to the proper magistrate, they carried him before Annas, who had no other character than that of beingfather-in-law to the high priest. John xviii. 13. Now, if this was only for the purpose of letting him be seen by him, such a curiosity was not to be gratified; it was a vexatious proceeding, an irregularity.From the house of Annas they led him to that of the high priest; all this time beingbound. John xviii. 24. They placed him in the court yard; it was cold, and they made a fire; it was in the night time, but by the light of the fire Peter was recognised by the people of the palace.Now the Jewish law prohibitedall proceedings by night; here, therefore, there was another infraction of the law.[pg 549]Under this state of things, his person being forcibly seized and detained in a private house, and delivered into the hands of servants, in the midst of a court, how was Jesus treated? St. Luke says, the men that held Jesusmockedhim andsmotehim; and when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. Luke xxii. 63, 64, 65.Will it be said, as Mr. Salvador does, that all this took place out of the presence of the senate? Let us wait, in this instance, till the senate shall be called up, and we shall see how far they protected the accused person.Section V.—Captious Interrogatories.—Acts of Violence towards Jesus.Already had the cock crowed! But it was not yet day. The elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and, having caused Jesus to appear before their council, they proceeded to interrogate him. Luke xxii. 66.Now, in the outset, it should be observed, that if they had been less carried away by their hatred, they should, as it was thenight time, not only have postponed, but put a stop to the proceedings, because it wasthe feast of the Passover, the most solemn of all festivals; and according to their law nojudicial procedurecould take place on a feast-day, under the penalty of being null.403Nevertheless, let us see who proceeded to interrogate Jesus. This was that same Caiaphas, who, if he had intended to remain ajudge, was evidently liable to objection; for in the preceding assemblage he had made himself theaccuserof Jesus.404Even before he had seen or heard him, he declared him to bedeserving of death. He said to his colleagues, that“it wasexpedientthat one man should die for all.”John xviii. 14.[pg 550]Such being the opinion of Caiaphas, we shall not be surprised, if he shows partiality.Instead of interrogating Jesus respectingpositive acts done, with their circumstances, and respectingfacts personal to himself, Caiaphas interrogates him respectinggeneral facts, respecting his disciples (whom it would have been much more simple to have called as witnesses), and respecting hisdoctrine, which was a mere abstraction so long as no external acts were the consequence of it.“The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine.”John xviii. 19.Jesus answered with dignity:“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”Ib. 20.“Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me,what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I said.”Ib. 21.“And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?”Ib. 22.Will it here be still said, that this violence was the individual act of the person who thus struck the accused? I answer, that on this occasion the fact took place in the presence and under the eyes of the whole council; and, as the high priest who presided did not restrain the author of it, I come to the conclusion, that he became an accomplice, especially when this violence was committed under the pretence of avenging the alleged affront to his dignity.But in what respect could the answer of Jesus appear offensive?“If I have spoken evil,”said Jesus,“bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”405John xviii. 23.There remained no mode of escaping from this dilemma. They accused Jesus; it was for those, who accused, to prove their accusation. An accused person is not obliged to criminate himself. He should have been convicted by proofs; he himself called for them. Let us see what witnesses were produced against him.[pg 551]Section VI.—Witnesses.—New Interrogatories.—The Judge in a Passion.“And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.”Mark xiv. 55.“For many barefalse witnessagainst him, but their witness agreed not together.”Ib. 56.“And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”Ib. 57, 58.“But (to the same point still) neither so did their witness agree together.”Ib. 59.Mr. Salvador, on this subject, says, p. 87:“The two witnesses, whom St. Matthew and St. Mark charge withfalsehood, narrate a discourse which St. John declares to betrue, so far as respects the power which Jesus Christ attributed to himself.”This alleged contradiction among the Evangelists does not exist. In the first place, St. Matthew does not say that the discourse was had by Jesus. In chapter xxvi. 61, he states the depositions of the witnesses, but saying at the same time that they werefalse witnesses; and in chapter xxvii. 40, he puts the same declaration into the mouth of those who insulted Jesus at the foot of the cross; but he does not put it into the mouth of Christ. He is in accordance with St. Mark.St. John, chapter ii. 19, makes Jesus speak in these words:“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”And St. John adds:“He spake of the temple of his body.”Thus Jesus did not say in an affirmative and somewhat menacing manner,I will destroy this temple, as the witnessesfalselyassumed; he only said, hypothetically,Destroy this temple, that is to say, suppose this temple should be destroyed, I will raise it up in three days. Besides, they could not dissemble, that he referred to a temple altogether different[pg 552]from theirs, because he said, I will raise up another in three days,which will not be made by the hands of man.It hence results, at least, that the Jews did not understand him, for they cried out,“Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”Thus, then, the witnesses did not agree together, and their declarations had nothing conclusive. Mark xiv. 59. We must, therefore, look for other proofs.“Then the high priest, (we must not forget, that he is still the accuser,) the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it, which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.”Mark xiv. 60. In truth, since the question was not concerning the temple of the Jews, but an ideal temple, not made by the hand of man, and which was alone in the thoughts of Jesus, the explanation was to be found in the very evidence itself.The high priest continued:“I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.”Matt. xxvi. 63. I adjure thee, I call upon thee on oath! a gross infraction of that rule of morals and jurisprudence, which forbids our placing an accused person between the danger of perjury and the fear of inculpating himself, and thus making his situation more hazardous. The high priest, however, persists, and says to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?406Jesus answered,Thou hast said. Matthew xxvi. 64;I am. Mark xiv. 62.“Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying,He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, nowye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”Matt. xxvi. 66.Let us now compare this scene of violence with the mild deduction of principles, which we find in the chapter of Mr. SalvadorOn the Administration of Justice; and let us ask ourselves,[pg 553]if, as he alleges, we find a justapplicationof them in the proceedings against Christ?Do we discover here thatrespectof the Hebrew judge towards the party accused, when we see that Caiaphas permitted him to be struck, in his presence,with impunity?What was this Caiaphas, at once an accuser and judge?407A passionate man, and too much resembling the odious portrait which the historian Josephus has given us of him!408A judge, who was irritated to such a degree, that he rent his clothes; who imposed upon the accused a most solemn oath, and who gave to his answers the criminal character, thathe had spokenblasphemy! And, from that moment, he wanted no more witnesses, notwithstanding the law required them. He would not have an inquiry, which he perceived would be insufficient; he attempts to supply it by captious questions. He is desirous of having him condemnedupon his own declaration alone, (interpreted, too, as he chooses to understand it,) though that was forbidden by the laws of the Hebrews! And, in the midst of a most violent transport of passion, this accuser himself, a high priest, who means to speak in the name of the living God, is the first to pass sentence of death, and carries with him the opinions of the rest!In this hideous picture I cannot recognise that justice of the Hebrews, of which Mr. Salvador has given so fine a view inhis theory!Section VII.—Subsequent Acts of Violence.Immediately after this kind of sacerdotal verdict rendered against Jesus, the acts of violence and insults recommenced with increased strength; the fury of the judge must have communicated itself to the bystanders. St. Matthew says:“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; who is he that smote thee?”Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.[pg 554]Mr. Salvador does not contest the truth of this ill treatment. In page 88 he says,“It was contrary to the spirit of the Hebrew law, and that it was not according to the order of nature, that a senate composed of the most respectable men of a nation,—that a senate, which might perhaps be mistaken, but which thought it was acting mildly, should have permitted such outrages against him whose life it held in its own hands. The writers who have transmitted these details to us, not having been present themselves at the trial, were disposed to overcharge the picture, either on account of their own feelings, or to throw upon their judges a greater odium.”I repeat; this ill treatment was entirely contrary to the spirit of the law. And what do I want more, since my object is to make prominentall the violations of law.“It is not in nature to see a body, which respects itself, authorize such attempts.”But of what consequence is that, when the fact is established?“The historians, it is said, were not present at the trial.”But was Mr. Salvador there present himself, so that he could give a flat denial of their statements? And when even an able writer, who was not an eye-witness, relates the same events after the lapse of more than eighteen centuries, he ought at least to bring opposing evidence, if he would impeach that of contemporaries; who, if they were not in the very hall of the council, were certainly on the spot, in the vicinity, perhaps in the court yard, inquiring anxiously of every thing that was happening to the man whose disciples they were.409Besides, the learned author whom I am combating says, in the outset (p. 81),“it is from the Gospels themselves that he will take all his facts.”He must then take the whole together, as well those which go to condemn, as those which are in palliation or excuse.Those gross insults, those inhuman acts of violence, even if they are to be cast upon the servants of the high priest and the persons in his train, do not excuse those individuals, who, when they took upon themselves the authority of judges, were bound[pg 555]at the same time to throw around him all the protection of the law. Caiaphas, too, was culpable as the master of the house (for every thing took place in his house), even if he should not be responsible as high priest and president of the council for having permitted excesses, which, indeed were but too much in accordance with the rage he had himself displayed upon the bench.These outrages, which would be inexcusable even towards a man irrevocably condemned to punishment, were the more criminal towards Jesus, because, legally and judicially speaking, there had not yet been any sentence properly passed against him according to the public law of the country; as we shall see in the following section, which will deserve the undivided attention of the reader.Section VIII.—The Position of the Jews in respect to the Romans.We must not forget,that Judea was a conquered country. After the death of Herod—most inappropriately surnamedthe Great—Augustus had confirmed his last will, by which that king of the Jews had arranged the division of his dominions betweenhistwo sons: but Augustus did not continue their title ofking, which their father had borne.Archeläus, on whom Judea devolved, having been recalled on account of his cruelties, the territory, which was at first intrusted to his command, was united to the province of Syria. (Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17, cap. 15.)Augustus then appointed particular officers for Judea. Tiberius did the same; and at the time of which we are speaking, Pilate was one of those officers. (Josephus, lib. 18, cap. 3 & 8.)Some have considered Pilate as governor, by title, and have given him the Latin appellation,Præses, president or governor. But they have mistaken the force of the word. Pilate was one of those public officers, who were called by the Romans,procuratores Cæsaris, Imperial procurators.[pg 556]With this title ofprocurator, he was placed under the superior authority of the governor of Syria, the truepræses, or governor of that province, of which Judea was then only one of the dependencies.To the governor (præses) peculiarly belonged the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases.410Theprocurator, on the contrary, had, for his principal duty, nothing but the collection of the revenue, and the trial of revenue causes. But the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases did, in some instances, belong to certainprocurators, who were sent into small provinces to fill the places of governors (vice præsides), as appears clearly from the Roman laws.411Such wasPilateat Jerusalem.412The Jews, placed in this political position—notwithstanding they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercise of their religion, and many things merely relating to their police and municipal regulations—the Jews, I say, had not thepower of life and death; this was a principal attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans always took great care to reserve to themselves, even if they neglected other things.Apud Romanos, jus valet gladii; cætera transmittuntur.Tacit.What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? Without doubt the scribes, and their friends the Pharisees, might well have been alarmed, as a body and individually, at the preaching and success of Jesus; they might be concerned for their worship; and they might have interrogated the man respecting his creed and his doctrines,—they might have made a kind of preparatory proceeding,—they might have declared, in point of fact, that those doctrines, which threatened their own, were contrary to their law, as understood by themselves.[pg 557]But that law, although it had not undergone any alteration as to the affairs of religion, had no longer any coercive power as to the external or civil regulations of society. In vain would they have undertaken to pronounce sentence of death under the circumstances of the case of Jesus; the council of the Jews had not the power to pass asentence of death; it only would have had power to makean accusationagainst him before the governor, or his deputy, and then deliver him over to be tried by him.Let us distinctly establish this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According to him, (p. 88),“the Jews hadreserved the power of trying, according to their law; but it was in the hands of theprocuratoralone, that the executive power was vested; every culprit must be put to death byhisconsent, in order that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to foreigners.”No; the Jews had not reservedthe right of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should becomeimpatient of the yoke; it was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Cæsar in Judea, was not merely an agent of theexecutive authority, which would have left thejudiciaryandlegislativepower in the hands of the conquered people—he was not simply an officer appointed to give anexequaturor mere approval (visa) to sentences passed byanother authority, theauthority of the Jews. When the matter in question was acapitalcase, the Roman authorities not only ordered theexecutionof a sentence, but also took cognizance (cognitio) of the crime; it had the right of jurisdictionà priori, and that ofpassing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation,vice præsidis, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred;[pg 558]but in any event we hold it to be clear, that the Jews had lost the right ofcondemning to deathany person whatever, not only so far as respects theexecutionbut thepassingof the sentence. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.The Jews were not ignorant of this; for when they went before Pilate, to ask of him the condemnation of Jesus, they themselves declared, that it was not permitted to them to put any person to death:“It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”John xviii. 31.Here I am happy to be able to support myself by the opinion of a very respectable authority, the celebrated Loiseau, in his treatise onSeigneuries, in the chapter on the administration ofjustice belonging to cities.“In truth,”says he,“there is some evidence, that thepolice, in which the people had the sole interest, was administered by officers of the people; but I know not upon what were founded the concessions of power to some cities of France to exercise criminal jurisdiction; nor why the Ordinance of Moulins left that to them rather than civil cases; for the criminal jurisdiction is theright of the sword, themerum imperium, or absolute sovereignty. Accordingly, by the Roman law, the administration of justice was so far prohibited to the officers of cities, that they could not punish even by a simple fine.Thus it is doubtless that we must understandthat passage of the Gospel, where the Jews say to Pilate,It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; for, after they were subjected to the Romans, they had not jurisdiction of crimes.”Let us now follow Jesus to the presence of Pilate.Section IX.—The Accusation made before Pilate.At this point I must entreat the particular attention of the reader. The irregularities and acts of violence, which I have hitherto remarked upon, are nothing in comparison with the unbridled fury, which is about to display itself before theRoman Judge, in order to extort from him, against his own conviction, a sentence of death.[pg 559]“And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders, and scribes, and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.”Mark xv. 1.As soon as the morning was come; for, as I have observed already, every thing which had been done thus far against Jesus was doneduring the night.They then led Jesus from Caiaphas unto the Hall of Judgment of Pilate.413It was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lestthey should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. John xviii. 28.Singular scrupulousness! and truly worthy of the Pharisees! They were afraid ofdefiling themselves on the day of the passoverby enteringthe house ofa heathen! And yet, the same day, only some hours before presenting themselves to Pilate, they had, in contempt of their own law, committed the outrage ofholding a counciland deliberating uponan accusation of a capital crime.As they would not enter,“Pilate went out to them.”John xviii. 29. Now observe his language. He did not say to them,Where is the sentence you have passed; as he must have done, if he was only to give them his simpleexequatur, or permission to execute the sentence; but he takes up the matter from the beginning, as would be done by one who hadplenary jurisdiction; and he says to them: What accusation bring ye against this man?They answered, with their accustomed haughtiness: If he were nota malefactorwe would not have delivered him up to thee. John xviii. 30. They wished to have it understood, that, being a question ofblasphemy, it was thecause of their religion, which they could appreciate better than any others could. Pilate, then, would have been under the necessity of believing themon their word. But this Roman, indignant at their proposed course of proceeding, which would have restricted his jurisdiction by making him the passive instrument of the wishes of the Jews, answered them in an ironical manner:[pg 560]Well, since you say he has sinned against your law, take him yourselves and judge him according to your law. John xviii. 31. This was an absolute mystification to them, for they knew their own want of power to condemn him to death. But they were obliged to yield the point, and to submit to Pilate himself theirarticles of accusation.Now what were the grounds of this accusation? Were theythe samewhich had hitherto been alleged against Jesus—the charge ofblasphemy—which was the only one brought forward by Caiaphas before the council of the Jews? Not at all; despairing of obtaining from the Roman judge a sentence ofdeathfor areligiousquarrel, which was of no interest to the Romans,414they suddenly changed their plan; they abandoned their first accusation, the charge of blasphemy, and substituted for it apoliticalaccusation, anoffence against the state.Here we have the very crisis, or essential incident, of the passion; and that which makes the heaviest accusation of guilt on the part of the informers against Jesus. For, being fully bent on destroying him in any manner whatever, they no longer exhibited themselves as the avengers oftheir religion, which was alleged to have been outraged, or of their worship, which it was pretended was threatened; but, ceasing to appear as Jews, in order to affect sentiments belonging to a foreign nation, those hypocrites held out the appearance of being concerned for the interests ofRome; they accused their own countryman of an intention to restore the kingdom of Jerusalem, to make himselfkingof theJews, and to make an insurrection of the people against their conquerors. Let us hear them speak for themselves:“And they began toaccusehim, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying, that he himself is Christ aking.”Luke xxiii. 2.What a calumny! Jesus forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar! when he had answered the Pharisees themselves, in presence of the whole people, by showing them the image of Cæsar upon a[pg 561]Roman piece of money, and saying, Give unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's. But this accusation was one mode of interesting Pilate in respect to his jurisdiction; for, as an imperialprocurator, he was specially to superintend the collection of the revenue. The second branch of the accusation still more directly affected the sovereignty of the Romans:“He holds himself up for aking.”The accusation having thus assumed a character purelypolitical, Pilate thought he must pay attention to it.“Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall,”(the place where justice was administered,) and havingsummoned Jesus to appearbefore him, he proceeds to his Examination, and says to him:“Art thou the king of the Jews?”John xviii. 33.This question, so different from those which had been addressed to him at the house of the high priest, appears to have excited the astonishment of Jesus; and, in his turn, he asked Pilate:“Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”Ib. 24. In reality, Jesus was desirous of knowing, first of all, the authors of this new accusation—Is this an accusation brought against me by theRomansor by theJews?Pilate replied to him—“Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me; what hast thou done?”Ib. 35.All the particulars of this procedure are important; I cannot too often repeat the remark, that in no part of the transactions before Pilate is there any question at all respecting a previous sentence, a judgment already passed—a judgment, the execution of which was the only subject of consideration; it was a case of a capital accusation; but an accusation which was then just beginning; they were about the preliminaryinterrogatoriesput to the accused, and Pilate says to him,“What hast thou done?”Jesus, seeing by the explanation what was the source of theprejudgingof his case, and knowing the secret thoughts which predominated in making the accusation, and that his enemies wanted to arrive at the same end by an artifice, answered Pilate—“My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews;”(we see, in fact, that Jesus had forbidden[pg 562]his people to resist) but, he added,“now is my kingdom not from hence.”John xviii. 36.This answer of Jesus is very remarkable; it became the foundation of his religion, and the pledge of its universality, because it detached it from the interests of all governments. It rests not merely in assertion, in doctrine; it was given injustification, indefenceagainst the accusation of intending to make himselfKing of the Jews. Indeed, if Jesus had affected atemporalroyal authority, if there had been the least attempt, on his part, to usurpthe power of Cæsar, he would have been guilty of treason in the eyes of the magistrate. But, by answering twice,my kingdom is not of this world, my kingdomis not from hence, his justification was complete.Pilate, however, persisted and said to him:“Art thou a king then?”Jesus replied, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. John xviii. 37.Pilate then said to him:What is the truth?This question proves, that Pilate had not a very clear idea of what Jesus calledthe truth. He perceived nothing in it butideology; and, satisfied with having said (less in the manner of a question than of an exclamation)“What is the truth,”he went on to the Jews (who remained outside) and said to them,“I find in him no fault at all.”John xviii. 38.Here, then, we see Jesus absolved from the accusation by the declaration of the Roman judge himself.But the accusers, persisting still farther, added—“He stirreth up the people, teachingthroughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.”Luke xxiii. 5.“He stirreth up the people!”This is a charge of sedition; and for Pilate. But observe, it wasby the doctrine which he teaches; these words comprehend the real complaint of the Jews. To them it was equivalent to saying—Heteachesthe people, he instructs them, he enlightens them; he preachesnew doctrineswhich are notours.“He stirs up the people!”This, in their months signified—the people hear him willingly; the people follow and become attached to him; for he preaches a doctrine[pg 563]that is friendly and consolatory to the people; he unmasks our pride, our avarice, our insatiable spirit of domination!Pilate, however, does not appear to have attached much importance to this new turn given to the accusation; but he here betrays a weakness. He heard the wordGalilee; and he makes that the occasion of shifting off the responsibility upon another public officer, and seizes the occasion with avidity. He says to Jesus—you are aGalileanthen? and, upon the answer being in the affirmative, considering Jesus as belonging to the jurisdiction of Herod-Antipas, who, by the good pleasure of Cæsar, was then tetrarch of Galilee, he sent him to Herod. Luke xxiii. 6, 7.But Herod, who, as St. Luke says, had been long desirous ofseeing Jesusand had hoped to see some miracle done by him, after satisfying an idle curiosity and putting several questions to him, which Jesus did not deign to answer,—Herod, notwithstanding the presence of the priests, (who had not yet gone off, but stood there with their scribes,) and notwithstanding the pertinacity with which they continued to accuse Jesus, perceiving nothing but what was merely chimerical in theaccusation of being a king, made a mockery of the affair, and sent Jesus back to Pilate,after having arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, in order to show that he thought this pretended royalty was a subject of ridicule rather than of apprehensions. Luke xxiii. 8, &c., and De Sacy. Ib.Section X.—The Last Efforts before Pilate.No person, then, was willing to condemn Jesus; neither Herod, who only made the case a subject of mockery, nor Pilate, who had openly declared that he found nothing criminal in him.But the hatred of the priests was not disarmed—so far from it, that the chief priests, with a numerous train of their partisans, returned to Pilate with a determination to force him to a decision.The unfortunate Pilate, reviewing his proceedings in their presence, said to them again:“Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people—and, behold, I, having[pg 564]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 you to him, and lo,nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.”Luke xxiii. 14, 15.After“chastising”him! And was not this a piece of cruelty, when he considered him to be innocent?415But this was an act of condescension by which Pilate hoped to quiet the rage with which he saw they were agitated.“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him.”John xix. 1. And, supposing that he had done enough to disarm their fury, he exhibited him to them in that pitiable condition; saying to them at the same time, Behold the man!Ecce homo. John xix. 5.Now, in my turn, I say, here is indeed a decree of Pilate, and an unjust decree; but it is not the pretended decree alleged to have been made by the Jews. It is a decision wholly different; an unjust decision, it is true; but sufficient to avail asa legal barto any new proceedings against Jesus for the same act.Non bis in idem, no man shall be put twice in jeopardy, &c. is a maxim, which has come down to us from the Romans.Accordingly,“from thenceforth Pilate sought toreleaseJesus.”John xix. 12.Here, now, observe the deep perfidy of his accusers.“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend; whosoever maketh himself akingspeaketh against Cæsar.”Ib.It does not appear that Pilate was malignant; we see all the efforts he had made at different times to save Jesus. But he was apublic officer, and was attached tohis office; he was intimidated by the outcry which called in question hisfidelity to the emperor; he was afraid of adismissal: and he yielded. He immediately reascended the judgment-seat; (Matt. xxvii. 19), and, as new light had thus come upon him, he proceeded to make a second decree![pg 565]But being for a moment stopped by the voice of his own conscience, and by the advice which his terrified wife sent to him—“Have thou nothing to do with that just man”—(Matt. xxvii. 19)—he made his last effort, by attempting to influence the populace to accept of Barabbas instead of Jesus.“But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.”Mark xv. 11. Barabbas! a murderer! an assassin!Pilate spoke to them again:What will ye then, that I should do with Jesus?And they cried out,Away with him, crucify him. Pilate still persisted:Shall I crucify your king?thus using terms of raillery, in order to disarm them. But here showing themselves to be more truly Roman than Pilate himself, the chief priests hypocritically answered:We have no king but Cæsar.John xix. 15.The outcry was renewed—Crucify him, crucify him! And the clamour became more and more threatening;“and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.”Luke xxiii. 23.At length Pilate,being desirous of pleasing the multitude, proceeds to speak. But can we call it a legal adjudication, ajudgment, that he is about to pronounce? Is he, at the moment, in that free state of mind which is necessary for a judge, who is about to pass asentence of death? What new witnesses, what proofs have been brought forward to change his conviction and opinion, which had been so energetically declared, of the innocence of Jesus?“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it. Matt. xxvii. 24. And Pilate gave sentence, that it should be as they required. Luke xxiii. 24. And he delivered him to them to be crucified.”Matt. xxvii. 26.Well mayest thou wash thy hands, Pilate, stained as they are with innocent blood! Thou hast authorised the act in thy weakness; thou art not less culpable, than if thou hadst sacrificed him through wickedness! All generations, down to our[pg 566]own time, have repeated that theJust Onesufferedunder Pontius Pilate. Thy name has remained in history, to serve for the instruction of all public men, all pusillanimous judges, in order to hold up to them the shame ofyielding contrary to one's own convictions. The populace, in its fury, made an outcry at the foot of thy judgment-seat, where, perhaps, thou thyself didst not sit securely! But of what importance was that? Thydutyspoke out; and in such a case, better would it be to suffer death, than to inflict it on another.416We will now come to a conclusion.Theproofthat Jesus was not, as Mr. Salvador maintains, put to death for the crime of blasphemy or sacrilege, and for having preached a new religious worship in contravention of the Mosaic law, results fromthe very sentencepronounced by Pilate; a sentence, in pursuance of which he was led to execution by Roman soldiers.There was among the Romans a custom, which we borrowed from their jurisprudence, and which is still followed, of placing over the head of a condemned criminal a writing containingan extract from his sentence, in order that the public might knowfor what crimehe was condemned. This was the reason why Pilate put on the cross a label, on which he had written these words:Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judæorum, (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), which has since been denoted by the initials J. N. R. J. This was the alleged cause of his condemnation. St. Mark says—“And the superscription of hisaccusationwas written over—The King of the Jews.”Mark xv. 26.This inscription was first inLatin, which was the legal language of theRomanjudge; and it was repeated inHebrewand[pg 567]Greek, in order to be understood by the people of the nation and by foreigners.The chief priests, whose indefatigable hatred did not overlook the most minute details, being apprehensive that people would take it to be literally a fact affirmed, that Jesuswas the King of the Jews, said to Pilate:“Write notKing of the Jews, but thathe saidI am king of the Jews.”But Pilate answered:“What I have written I have written.”John xix. 21, 22.This is a conclusive answer to one of the last assertions of Mr. Salvador, (p. 88,) that“the Roman Pilate signed the sentence;”by which he always means that Pilate did nothing but sign a sentence, which he supposes to have been passed by the Sanhedrim; but in this he is mistaken. Pilate did not merelysignthe sentence, or decree, butdrew it up; and, when his draft was objected to by the priests, he still adhered to it, saying, what I have written shall remain as written.Here then we see the true cause of the condemnation of Jesus! Here we have the“judicial and legal proof.”Jesus was the victim of apoliticalaccusation! He was put to death for the imaginary crime of having aimed at the power of Cæsar, by calling himselfKing of the Jews! Absurd accusation; which Pilate never believed, and which the chief priests and the Pharisees themselves did not believe. For they were not authorized to arrest Jesus on that account; it was a new, and totally different, accusation from that which they first planned—a sudden accusation of the moment, when they saw that Pilate was but little affected by theirreligiouszeal, and they found it necessary to arousehis zeal forCæsar.“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend!”This alarming language has too often, since that time, reverberated in the ears of timid judges, who, like Pilate, have rendered themselves criminal by delivering up victims through want of firmness, whom they would never have condemned, if they had listened to the voice of their own consciences.Let us now recapitulate the case, as I have considered it from the beginning.Is it not evident, contrary to the conclusion of Mr. Salvador, that Jesus, considered merely asa simple citizen, was not tried and[pg 568]sentenced eitheraccording to law, oragreeably to the forms of legal proceedings then existing?God, according to his eternal design, might permit the just to suffer by the malice of men; but he also intended, that this should at least happen by a disregard of all laws, and by a violation of all established rules, in order that the entire contempt of forms should stand as the first warning of the violation of law.Let us not be surprised then, that in another part of his work, Mr. Salvador (who, it is gratifying to observe, discusses his subject dispassionately) expresses some regret in speaking of the“unfortunate sentence against Jesus.”Vol. i. p. 59. He has wished to excuse the Hebrews; but, one of that nation, in giving utterance to the feelings of his heart, still says—in language which I took from his own mouth,“We should be very cautious of condemning him at this day.”I pass over the excesses which followed the order of Pilate; as, the violence shown to Simon, the Cyrenian, who was made in some degree a sharer in the punishment, by being compelled to carry the cross; the injurious treatment which attended the victim to the place of the sacrifice, and even to the cross, where Jesus still prayed for his brethren and his executioners!To the heathen themselves I would say—You, who have gloried in the death of Socrates, how much must you be struck with wonder at that of Jesus! Ye, censors of the Areopagus, how could you undertake to excuse the Synagogue, and justify the sentence of the Hall of Judgment? Philosophy herself has not hesitated to proclaim, and we may repeat with her—“Yes, if the life and death ofSocrateswere those of a sage, the life and death ofJesuswere those of a divinity.”
Trial Of Jesus.Refutation Of The Chapter Of Mr. Salvador, Entitled“The Trial And Condemnation Of Jesus.”“The chapter, in which Mr. Salvador treats ofthe Administration of Justice among the Hebrews, is altogether theoretical. He makes an exposition of the law—that things, in order to beconformable to rule, must be transacted in a certain mode. In all this I have not contradicted him, but have let him speak for himself.In the subsequent chapter the author announces:“That according to thisexposition of judicial proceedingshe is going to follow out the application of them to the most memorable trial in all history, that of Jesus Christ.”Accordingly the chapter is entitled:The Trial and Condemnation of Jesus.The author first takes care to inform us under what point of view he intends to give an account of that accusation:“That we ought to lament the blindness of the Hebrews for not having recognised a God in Jesus, is a point which I do not examine.”(There is another thing also, which he says he shall not examine.)“But, when they discovered in himonly a citizen, did they try himaccording to existing laws and formalities?”The question being thus stated, Mr. Salvador goes over all the various aspects of the accusation; and his conclusion is, that the procedure was perfectly regular, and the condemnation perfectly appropriate to the act committed.“Now,”says he, (p. 87,)“the Senate, having adjudged that Jesus, the son of Joseph, born in Bethlehem, had profaned the name of God by usurping it himself, though a simple citizen, applied to him[pg 542]the law against blasphemy, the law in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and verse 20, chapter 18th, conformably to which every prophet, even one that performs miracles, is to be punished when he speaks of a God unknown to the Hebrews or their fathers.”This conclusion is formed to please the followers of the Jewish law; it is wholly for their benefit, and the evident object is, to justify them from the reproach ofdeïcide.We will, however, avoid treating this grave subject in a theological point of view. As to myself, Jesus Christ is theMan-God; but it is not with arguments drawn from my religion and my creed, that I intend to combat the statement and the conclusion of Mr. Salvador. The present age would charge me with being intolerant; and this is a reproach which I will never incur. Besides, I do not wish to give to the enemies of Christianity the advantage of making the outcry, that we are afraid to enter into a discussion with them, and that we wish to crush rather than to convince them. Having thus contented myself with declaring my own faith, as Mr. Salvador has let us clearly understand his, I shall also examine the question under a merelyhumanpoint of view, and proceed to inquire, with him,“Whether Jesus Christ, consideredas a simple citizen, was tried according to the existing laws and formalities.”The catholic religion itself warrants me in this; it is not a mere fiction; for God willed, that Jesus should be clothed in the forms of humanity (et homo factus est), and that he should undergo the lot and sufferings of humanity. Theson of God, as to his moral state and his holy spirit, he was also, in reality, theSon of Man, for the purpose of accomplishing the mission which he came upon earth to fulfil.This being the state of the question, then, I enter upon my subject; and I do not hesitate to affirm, because I will prove it, that, upon examining all the circumstances of this great trial, we shall be very far from discovering in it the application of those legal maxims, which are the safeguard of the rights of accused persons, and of which Mr. Salvador, in his chapterOn the Administration of Justice, has made a seductive exposition.The accusation of Jesus, instigated by the hatred of the[pg 543]priests and the Pharisees, and presented at first as a charge ofsacrilege, but afterwards converted into apoliticalcrime andan offence against the state, was marked, in all its aspects, with the foulest acts of violence and perfidy. It was not so mucha trialenvironed with legal forms, as a realpassion, or prolonged suffering, in which the imperturbable gentleness of the victim displays more strongly the unrelenting ferocity of his persecutors.When Jesus appeared among the Jews, that people was but the shadow of itself. Broken down by more than one subjugation, divided by factions and irreconcilable sects, they had in the last resort been obliged to succumb to the Roman power and surrender their own sovereignty. Jerusalem, having become a mere appendage to the province of Syria, saw within its walls an imperial garrison; Pilate commanded there, in the name of Cæsar; and the late people of God were groaning under the double tyranny of a conqueror, whose power they abhorred and whose idolatry they detested, and of a priesthood that exerted itself to keep them under the rigorous bonds of a religious fanaticism.Jesus Christ deplored the misfortunes of his country. How often did he weep for Jerusalem! Read in Bossuet'sPolitics drawn from the Holy Scriptures, the admirable chapter entitled,Jesus Christ the good citizen. He recommended to his countrymenunion, which constitutes the strength of states.“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, (said he,) thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”He was supposed to be not favorable to the Romans; but he only loved his own countrymen more. Witness the address of the Jews, who, in order to induce him to restore to the centurion a sick servant that was dear to him, used as the most powerful argument these words—that he was worthy for whom he should do this, for he loveth our nation. And Jesus went with them. Luke vii. 4, 5.Touched with the distresses of the nation, Jesus comforted them by holding up to them the hope of another life; he alarmed the great, the rich, and the haughty, by the prospect of[pg 544]a final judgment, at which every man would be judged not according to his rank, but his works. He was desirous of again bringing back man to his original dignity; he spoke to him of hisduties, but at the same time of hisrights. The people heard him with avidity, and followed him with eagerness; his words affected them; his hand healed their diseases, and his moral teaching instructed them; he preached, and practised one virtue till then unknown, and which belongs to him alone—charity. This celebrity, however, and these wonders excited envy. The partisans of theancient theocracywere alarmed at thenew doctrine; the chief priests felt that their power was threatened; the pride of the Pharisees was humbled; the scribes came in as their auxiliaries, and the destruction of Jesus was resolved upon.Now, if his conduct was reprehensible, if it afforded grounds for alegal accusation, why was not that course taken openly? Why not try him for the acts committed by him, and for his public discourses? Why employ against him subterfuges, artifice, perfidy, and violence? for such was the mode of proceeding against Jesus.Let us now take up the subject, and look at the narratives which have come down to us. Let us, with Mr. Salvador, open the books of the Gospels; for he does not object to that testimony; nay, he relies upon it:“It is by the Gospels themselves,”says he,“that I shall establishall the facts.”In truth, how can we (except by contrary evidence, of which there is none) refuse to place confidence in an historian, who tells us, as Saint John does, with affecting simplicity:“He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”John xix. 35.Section I.—Spies, or Informers.Who will not be surprised to find in this case the odious practice of employing hired informers? Branded with infamy, as they are in modern times, they will be still more so when we carry back their origin to the trial of Christ. It will be seen presently, whether I have not properly characterized by the[pg 545]name of hired informers those emissaries, whom the chief priests sent out to be about Jesus.We read in the evangelist Luke, chap. xx. 20:Et observantes miserunt insidiatores, qui se justos simularent, ut caperent eum in sermone, et traderent illum principatui et potestati præsidis. I will not translate this text myself, but will take the language of a translator whose accuracy is well known, Mr. De Sacy:“As they only sought occasions for his destruction, they sent to himapostate persons who feigned themselves just men, in order totake holdof his words, that they might deliver him unto magistrate and into the power of the governor.”And Mr. De Sacy adds—“if there should escape from him the least word against the public authorities.”This first artifice has escaped the sagacity of Mr. Salvador.Section II.—The Corruption and Treachery of Judas.According to Mr. Salvador, the senate, as he calls it, did not commence their proceedings by arresting Jesus, as would be done at the present day; but they began by passing a preliminary decree, that he should be arrested; and he cites, in proof of his assertion, St. John xi. 53, 54, and St. Matthew xxvi. 4, 5.But St. John says nothing of this pretended decree. He speaks, too, not of a public sitting, but of a consultation held by the chief priests and thePharisees, who did not, to my knowledge, constitute a judicial tribunal among the Jews.“Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this mandoeth many miracles.”John xi. 47. They add:“If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him,”—which imported also, in their minds,and they will no longer believe in us. Now, in this, I can readily perceive the fear of seeing the morals and doctrines of Jesus prevail; but where is the preliminaryjudgment, or decree? I cannot discover it.“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor[pg 546]consider, that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people ... and heprophesied, that Jesus should die for the nation of the Jews.”But toprophesyis not topass judgment; and the individual opinion of Caiaphas, who was only one among them, was not the opinion of all, nor ajudgment of the senate. We, therefore, still find ajudgmentwanting; and we only observe, that the priests and Pharisees are stimulated by a violent hatred of Jesus, and that“from that day forth they took counsel together forto put him to death; ut interficerent eum.”John xi. 53.The authority of St. John, then, is directly in contradiction of the assertion, that there was anorder of arrestpreviously passed by a regular tribunal.St. Matthew, in relating the same facts, says, that the chief priests assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and there held counsel together. But what counsel? and what was the result of it? Was it to issue anorder of arrestagainst Jesus, that they might hear him and then pass sentence? Not at all; but they held counsel together,“that they might take Jesusby subtilty, orfraud, andkill him”;concilium fecerunt,ut JesumDOLOtenerent etOCCIDERENT. Matt. xxvi. 5. Now in the Latin language, a language perfectly well constituted in everything relating to terms of the law, the wordsoccidereandinterficerewere never employed to express the act of passingsentence, orjudgment of death, but simply to signifymurderorassassination.401Thisfraud, by the aid of which they were to get Jesus into their power, was nothing but the bargain made between the chief priests and Judas.Judas, one of the twelve, goes to find the chief priests, and says to them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? Matt. xxvi. 14, 15. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver! Jesus, who foresaw his treachery, warned[pg 547]him of it mildly, in the midst of the Last Supper, where the voice of his master, in the presence of his brethren, should have touched him and awakened his reflections! But not so; wholly absorbed in his reward, Judas placed himself at the head of a gang of servants, to whom he was to point out Jesus; and, then, by akissconsummated his treachery!402Is it thus that ajudicial decree was to be executed, if there had really been one made for the arrest of Jesus?Section III.—Personal Liberty.—Resistance to an Armed Force.The act was done in the night time. After having celebrated the Supper, Jesus had conducted his disciples to the Mount of Olives. He prayed fervently; but they fell asleep.Jesus awakes them, with a gentle reproof for their weakness, and warns them that the moment is approaching.“Rise, let us be going; behold he is at hand that doth betray me.”Matt. xxvi. 46.Judas was not alone; in his suite there was a kind of ruffian band, almost entirely composed of servants of the high priest, but whom Mr. Salvador honours with the title of thelegal soldiery. If in the crowd there were any Romansoldiers, they were there as spectators, and without having been legally called on duty; for the Roman commanding officer, Pilate, had not yet heard the affair spoken of.This personal seizure of Jesus had so much the appearance of a forcible arrest, an illegal act of violence, that his disciples made preparation to repel force by force.Malchus, the insolent servant of the high priest, having[pg 548]shown himself the most eager to rush upon Jesus, Peter, not less zealous for his own master, cut off the servant's right ear.This resistance might have been continued with success, if Jesus had not immediately interfered. But what proves that Peter, even while causing bloodshed, was not resisting alegal order, alegal judgmentor decree, (which would have made his resistance an act ofrebellion by an armed force against a judicial order,) is this—that he was not arrested, either at the moment or afterwards, at the house of the high priest, to which he followed Jesus, and where he was most distinctly recognised by the maid servant of the high priest, and even by a relative of Malchus.Jesus alone was arrested; and although he had not individually offered any active resistance, and had even restrained that of his disciples, they bound him as a malefactor; which was a criminal degree of rigour, since for the purpose of securing a single man by a numerous band of persons armed with swords and staves it was not necessary.“Be ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?”Luke xxii. 52.Section IV.—Other Irregularities in the Arrest.—Seizure of the Person.They dragged Jesus along with them; and, instead of taking him directly to the proper magistrate, they carried him before Annas, who had no other character than that of beingfather-in-law to the high priest. John xviii. 13. Now, if this was only for the purpose of letting him be seen by him, such a curiosity was not to be gratified; it was a vexatious proceeding, an irregularity.From the house of Annas they led him to that of the high priest; all this time beingbound. John xviii. 24. They placed him in the court yard; it was cold, and they made a fire; it was in the night time, but by the light of the fire Peter was recognised by the people of the palace.Now the Jewish law prohibitedall proceedings by night; here, therefore, there was another infraction of the law.[pg 549]Under this state of things, his person being forcibly seized and detained in a private house, and delivered into the hands of servants, in the midst of a court, how was Jesus treated? St. Luke says, the men that held Jesusmockedhim andsmotehim; and when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. Luke xxii. 63, 64, 65.Will it be said, as Mr. Salvador does, that all this took place out of the presence of the senate? Let us wait, in this instance, till the senate shall be called up, and we shall see how far they protected the accused person.Section V.—Captious Interrogatories.—Acts of Violence towards Jesus.Already had the cock crowed! But it was not yet day. The elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and, having caused Jesus to appear before their council, they proceeded to interrogate him. Luke xxii. 66.Now, in the outset, it should be observed, that if they had been less carried away by their hatred, they should, as it was thenight time, not only have postponed, but put a stop to the proceedings, because it wasthe feast of the Passover, the most solemn of all festivals; and according to their law nojudicial procedurecould take place on a feast-day, under the penalty of being null.403Nevertheless, let us see who proceeded to interrogate Jesus. This was that same Caiaphas, who, if he had intended to remain ajudge, was evidently liable to objection; for in the preceding assemblage he had made himself theaccuserof Jesus.404Even before he had seen or heard him, he declared him to bedeserving of death. He said to his colleagues, that“it wasexpedientthat one man should die for all.”John xviii. 14.[pg 550]Such being the opinion of Caiaphas, we shall not be surprised, if he shows partiality.Instead of interrogating Jesus respectingpositive acts done, with their circumstances, and respectingfacts personal to himself, Caiaphas interrogates him respectinggeneral facts, respecting his disciples (whom it would have been much more simple to have called as witnesses), and respecting hisdoctrine, which was a mere abstraction so long as no external acts were the consequence of it.“The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine.”John xviii. 19.Jesus answered with dignity:“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”Ib. 20.“Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me,what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I said.”Ib. 21.“And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?”Ib. 22.Will it here be still said, that this violence was the individual act of the person who thus struck the accused? I answer, that on this occasion the fact took place in the presence and under the eyes of the whole council; and, as the high priest who presided did not restrain the author of it, I come to the conclusion, that he became an accomplice, especially when this violence was committed under the pretence of avenging the alleged affront to his dignity.But in what respect could the answer of Jesus appear offensive?“If I have spoken evil,”said Jesus,“bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”405John xviii. 23.There remained no mode of escaping from this dilemma. They accused Jesus; it was for those, who accused, to prove their accusation. An accused person is not obliged to criminate himself. He should have been convicted by proofs; he himself called for them. Let us see what witnesses were produced against him.[pg 551]Section VI.—Witnesses.—New Interrogatories.—The Judge in a Passion.“And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.”Mark xiv. 55.“For many barefalse witnessagainst him, but their witness agreed not together.”Ib. 56.“And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”Ib. 57, 58.“But (to the same point still) neither so did their witness agree together.”Ib. 59.Mr. Salvador, on this subject, says, p. 87:“The two witnesses, whom St. Matthew and St. Mark charge withfalsehood, narrate a discourse which St. John declares to betrue, so far as respects the power which Jesus Christ attributed to himself.”This alleged contradiction among the Evangelists does not exist. In the first place, St. Matthew does not say that the discourse was had by Jesus. In chapter xxvi. 61, he states the depositions of the witnesses, but saying at the same time that they werefalse witnesses; and in chapter xxvii. 40, he puts the same declaration into the mouth of those who insulted Jesus at the foot of the cross; but he does not put it into the mouth of Christ. He is in accordance with St. Mark.St. John, chapter ii. 19, makes Jesus speak in these words:“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”And St. John adds:“He spake of the temple of his body.”Thus Jesus did not say in an affirmative and somewhat menacing manner,I will destroy this temple, as the witnessesfalselyassumed; he only said, hypothetically,Destroy this temple, that is to say, suppose this temple should be destroyed, I will raise it up in three days. Besides, they could not dissemble, that he referred to a temple altogether different[pg 552]from theirs, because he said, I will raise up another in three days,which will not be made by the hands of man.It hence results, at least, that the Jews did not understand him, for they cried out,“Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”Thus, then, the witnesses did not agree together, and their declarations had nothing conclusive. Mark xiv. 59. We must, therefore, look for other proofs.“Then the high priest, (we must not forget, that he is still the accuser,) the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it, which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.”Mark xiv. 60. In truth, since the question was not concerning the temple of the Jews, but an ideal temple, not made by the hand of man, and which was alone in the thoughts of Jesus, the explanation was to be found in the very evidence itself.The high priest continued:“I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.”Matt. xxvi. 63. I adjure thee, I call upon thee on oath! a gross infraction of that rule of morals and jurisprudence, which forbids our placing an accused person between the danger of perjury and the fear of inculpating himself, and thus making his situation more hazardous. The high priest, however, persists, and says to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?406Jesus answered,Thou hast said. Matthew xxvi. 64;I am. Mark xiv. 62.“Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying,He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, nowye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”Matt. xxvi. 66.Let us now compare this scene of violence with the mild deduction of principles, which we find in the chapter of Mr. SalvadorOn the Administration of Justice; and let us ask ourselves,[pg 553]if, as he alleges, we find a justapplicationof them in the proceedings against Christ?Do we discover here thatrespectof the Hebrew judge towards the party accused, when we see that Caiaphas permitted him to be struck, in his presence,with impunity?What was this Caiaphas, at once an accuser and judge?407A passionate man, and too much resembling the odious portrait which the historian Josephus has given us of him!408A judge, who was irritated to such a degree, that he rent his clothes; who imposed upon the accused a most solemn oath, and who gave to his answers the criminal character, thathe had spokenblasphemy! And, from that moment, he wanted no more witnesses, notwithstanding the law required them. He would not have an inquiry, which he perceived would be insufficient; he attempts to supply it by captious questions. He is desirous of having him condemnedupon his own declaration alone, (interpreted, too, as he chooses to understand it,) though that was forbidden by the laws of the Hebrews! And, in the midst of a most violent transport of passion, this accuser himself, a high priest, who means to speak in the name of the living God, is the first to pass sentence of death, and carries with him the opinions of the rest!In this hideous picture I cannot recognise that justice of the Hebrews, of which Mr. Salvador has given so fine a view inhis theory!Section VII.—Subsequent Acts of Violence.Immediately after this kind of sacerdotal verdict rendered against Jesus, the acts of violence and insults recommenced with increased strength; the fury of the judge must have communicated itself to the bystanders. St. Matthew says:“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; who is he that smote thee?”Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.[pg 554]Mr. Salvador does not contest the truth of this ill treatment. In page 88 he says,“It was contrary to the spirit of the Hebrew law, and that it was not according to the order of nature, that a senate composed of the most respectable men of a nation,—that a senate, which might perhaps be mistaken, but which thought it was acting mildly, should have permitted such outrages against him whose life it held in its own hands. The writers who have transmitted these details to us, not having been present themselves at the trial, were disposed to overcharge the picture, either on account of their own feelings, or to throw upon their judges a greater odium.”I repeat; this ill treatment was entirely contrary to the spirit of the law. And what do I want more, since my object is to make prominentall the violations of law.“It is not in nature to see a body, which respects itself, authorize such attempts.”But of what consequence is that, when the fact is established?“The historians, it is said, were not present at the trial.”But was Mr. Salvador there present himself, so that he could give a flat denial of their statements? And when even an able writer, who was not an eye-witness, relates the same events after the lapse of more than eighteen centuries, he ought at least to bring opposing evidence, if he would impeach that of contemporaries; who, if they were not in the very hall of the council, were certainly on the spot, in the vicinity, perhaps in the court yard, inquiring anxiously of every thing that was happening to the man whose disciples they were.409Besides, the learned author whom I am combating says, in the outset (p. 81),“it is from the Gospels themselves that he will take all his facts.”He must then take the whole together, as well those which go to condemn, as those which are in palliation or excuse.Those gross insults, those inhuman acts of violence, even if they are to be cast upon the servants of the high priest and the persons in his train, do not excuse those individuals, who, when they took upon themselves the authority of judges, were bound[pg 555]at the same time to throw around him all the protection of the law. Caiaphas, too, was culpable as the master of the house (for every thing took place in his house), even if he should not be responsible as high priest and president of the council for having permitted excesses, which, indeed were but too much in accordance with the rage he had himself displayed upon the bench.These outrages, which would be inexcusable even towards a man irrevocably condemned to punishment, were the more criminal towards Jesus, because, legally and judicially speaking, there had not yet been any sentence properly passed against him according to the public law of the country; as we shall see in the following section, which will deserve the undivided attention of the reader.Section VIII.—The Position of the Jews in respect to the Romans.We must not forget,that Judea was a conquered country. After the death of Herod—most inappropriately surnamedthe Great—Augustus had confirmed his last will, by which that king of the Jews had arranged the division of his dominions betweenhistwo sons: but Augustus did not continue their title ofking, which their father had borne.Archeläus, on whom Judea devolved, having been recalled on account of his cruelties, the territory, which was at first intrusted to his command, was united to the province of Syria. (Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17, cap. 15.)Augustus then appointed particular officers for Judea. Tiberius did the same; and at the time of which we are speaking, Pilate was one of those officers. (Josephus, lib. 18, cap. 3 & 8.)Some have considered Pilate as governor, by title, and have given him the Latin appellation,Præses, president or governor. But they have mistaken the force of the word. Pilate was one of those public officers, who were called by the Romans,procuratores Cæsaris, Imperial procurators.[pg 556]With this title ofprocurator, he was placed under the superior authority of the governor of Syria, the truepræses, or governor of that province, of which Judea was then only one of the dependencies.To the governor (præses) peculiarly belonged the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases.410Theprocurator, on the contrary, had, for his principal duty, nothing but the collection of the revenue, and the trial of revenue causes. But the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases did, in some instances, belong to certainprocurators, who were sent into small provinces to fill the places of governors (vice præsides), as appears clearly from the Roman laws.411Such wasPilateat Jerusalem.412The Jews, placed in this political position—notwithstanding they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercise of their religion, and many things merely relating to their police and municipal regulations—the Jews, I say, had not thepower of life and death; this was a principal attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans always took great care to reserve to themselves, even if they neglected other things.Apud Romanos, jus valet gladii; cætera transmittuntur.Tacit.What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? Without doubt the scribes, and their friends the Pharisees, might well have been alarmed, as a body and individually, at the preaching and success of Jesus; they might be concerned for their worship; and they might have interrogated the man respecting his creed and his doctrines,—they might have made a kind of preparatory proceeding,—they might have declared, in point of fact, that those doctrines, which threatened their own, were contrary to their law, as understood by themselves.[pg 557]But that law, although it had not undergone any alteration as to the affairs of religion, had no longer any coercive power as to the external or civil regulations of society. In vain would they have undertaken to pronounce sentence of death under the circumstances of the case of Jesus; the council of the Jews had not the power to pass asentence of death; it only would have had power to makean accusationagainst him before the governor, or his deputy, and then deliver him over to be tried by him.Let us distinctly establish this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According to him, (p. 88),“the Jews hadreserved the power of trying, according to their law; but it was in the hands of theprocuratoralone, that the executive power was vested; every culprit must be put to death byhisconsent, in order that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to foreigners.”No; the Jews had not reservedthe right of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should becomeimpatient of the yoke; it was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Cæsar in Judea, was not merely an agent of theexecutive authority, which would have left thejudiciaryandlegislativepower in the hands of the conquered people—he was not simply an officer appointed to give anexequaturor mere approval (visa) to sentences passed byanother authority, theauthority of the Jews. When the matter in question was acapitalcase, the Roman authorities not only ordered theexecutionof a sentence, but also took cognizance (cognitio) of the crime; it had the right of jurisdictionà priori, and that ofpassing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation,vice præsidis, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred;[pg 558]but in any event we hold it to be clear, that the Jews had lost the right ofcondemning to deathany person whatever, not only so far as respects theexecutionbut thepassingof the sentence. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.The Jews were not ignorant of this; for when they went before Pilate, to ask of him the condemnation of Jesus, they themselves declared, that it was not permitted to them to put any person to death:“It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”John xviii. 31.Here I am happy to be able to support myself by the opinion of a very respectable authority, the celebrated Loiseau, in his treatise onSeigneuries, in the chapter on the administration ofjustice belonging to cities.“In truth,”says he,“there is some evidence, that thepolice, in which the people had the sole interest, was administered by officers of the people; but I know not upon what were founded the concessions of power to some cities of France to exercise criminal jurisdiction; nor why the Ordinance of Moulins left that to them rather than civil cases; for the criminal jurisdiction is theright of the sword, themerum imperium, or absolute sovereignty. Accordingly, by the Roman law, the administration of justice was so far prohibited to the officers of cities, that they could not punish even by a simple fine.Thus it is doubtless that we must understandthat passage of the Gospel, where the Jews say to Pilate,It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; for, after they were subjected to the Romans, they had not jurisdiction of crimes.”Let us now follow Jesus to the presence of Pilate.Section IX.—The Accusation made before Pilate.At this point I must entreat the particular attention of the reader. The irregularities and acts of violence, which I have hitherto remarked upon, are nothing in comparison with the unbridled fury, which is about to display itself before theRoman Judge, in order to extort from him, against his own conviction, a sentence of death.[pg 559]“And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders, and scribes, and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.”Mark xv. 1.As soon as the morning was come; for, as I have observed already, every thing which had been done thus far against Jesus was doneduring the night.They then led Jesus from Caiaphas unto the Hall of Judgment of Pilate.413It was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lestthey should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. John xviii. 28.Singular scrupulousness! and truly worthy of the Pharisees! They were afraid ofdefiling themselves on the day of the passoverby enteringthe house ofa heathen! And yet, the same day, only some hours before presenting themselves to Pilate, they had, in contempt of their own law, committed the outrage ofholding a counciland deliberating uponan accusation of a capital crime.As they would not enter,“Pilate went out to them.”John xviii. 29. Now observe his language. He did not say to them,Where is the sentence you have passed; as he must have done, if he was only to give them his simpleexequatur, or permission to execute the sentence; but he takes up the matter from the beginning, as would be done by one who hadplenary jurisdiction; and he says to them: What accusation bring ye against this man?They answered, with their accustomed haughtiness: If he were nota malefactorwe would not have delivered him up to thee. John xviii. 30. They wished to have it understood, that, being a question ofblasphemy, it was thecause of their religion, which they could appreciate better than any others could. Pilate, then, would have been under the necessity of believing themon their word. But this Roman, indignant at their proposed course of proceeding, which would have restricted his jurisdiction by making him the passive instrument of the wishes of the Jews, answered them in an ironical manner:[pg 560]Well, since you say he has sinned against your law, take him yourselves and judge him according to your law. John xviii. 31. This was an absolute mystification to them, for they knew their own want of power to condemn him to death. But they were obliged to yield the point, and to submit to Pilate himself theirarticles of accusation.Now what were the grounds of this accusation? Were theythe samewhich had hitherto been alleged against Jesus—the charge ofblasphemy—which was the only one brought forward by Caiaphas before the council of the Jews? Not at all; despairing of obtaining from the Roman judge a sentence ofdeathfor areligiousquarrel, which was of no interest to the Romans,414they suddenly changed their plan; they abandoned their first accusation, the charge of blasphemy, and substituted for it apoliticalaccusation, anoffence against the state.Here we have the very crisis, or essential incident, of the passion; and that which makes the heaviest accusation of guilt on the part of the informers against Jesus. For, being fully bent on destroying him in any manner whatever, they no longer exhibited themselves as the avengers oftheir religion, which was alleged to have been outraged, or of their worship, which it was pretended was threatened; but, ceasing to appear as Jews, in order to affect sentiments belonging to a foreign nation, those hypocrites held out the appearance of being concerned for the interests ofRome; they accused their own countryman of an intention to restore the kingdom of Jerusalem, to make himselfkingof theJews, and to make an insurrection of the people against their conquerors. Let us hear them speak for themselves:“And they began toaccusehim, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying, that he himself is Christ aking.”Luke xxiii. 2.What a calumny! Jesus forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar! when he had answered the Pharisees themselves, in presence of the whole people, by showing them the image of Cæsar upon a[pg 561]Roman piece of money, and saying, Give unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's. But this accusation was one mode of interesting Pilate in respect to his jurisdiction; for, as an imperialprocurator, he was specially to superintend the collection of the revenue. The second branch of the accusation still more directly affected the sovereignty of the Romans:“He holds himself up for aking.”The accusation having thus assumed a character purelypolitical, Pilate thought he must pay attention to it.“Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall,”(the place where justice was administered,) and havingsummoned Jesus to appearbefore him, he proceeds to his Examination, and says to him:“Art thou the king of the Jews?”John xviii. 33.This question, so different from those which had been addressed to him at the house of the high priest, appears to have excited the astonishment of Jesus; and, in his turn, he asked Pilate:“Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”Ib. 24. In reality, Jesus was desirous of knowing, first of all, the authors of this new accusation—Is this an accusation brought against me by theRomansor by theJews?Pilate replied to him—“Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me; what hast thou done?”Ib. 35.All the particulars of this procedure are important; I cannot too often repeat the remark, that in no part of the transactions before Pilate is there any question at all respecting a previous sentence, a judgment already passed—a judgment, the execution of which was the only subject of consideration; it was a case of a capital accusation; but an accusation which was then just beginning; they were about the preliminaryinterrogatoriesput to the accused, and Pilate says to him,“What hast thou done?”Jesus, seeing by the explanation what was the source of theprejudgingof his case, and knowing the secret thoughts which predominated in making the accusation, and that his enemies wanted to arrive at the same end by an artifice, answered Pilate—“My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews;”(we see, in fact, that Jesus had forbidden[pg 562]his people to resist) but, he added,“now is my kingdom not from hence.”John xviii. 36.This answer of Jesus is very remarkable; it became the foundation of his religion, and the pledge of its universality, because it detached it from the interests of all governments. It rests not merely in assertion, in doctrine; it was given injustification, indefenceagainst the accusation of intending to make himselfKing of the Jews. Indeed, if Jesus had affected atemporalroyal authority, if there had been the least attempt, on his part, to usurpthe power of Cæsar, he would have been guilty of treason in the eyes of the magistrate. But, by answering twice,my kingdom is not of this world, my kingdomis not from hence, his justification was complete.Pilate, however, persisted and said to him:“Art thou a king then?”Jesus replied, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. John xviii. 37.Pilate then said to him:What is the truth?This question proves, that Pilate had not a very clear idea of what Jesus calledthe truth. He perceived nothing in it butideology; and, satisfied with having said (less in the manner of a question than of an exclamation)“What is the truth,”he went on to the Jews (who remained outside) and said to them,“I find in him no fault at all.”John xviii. 38.Here, then, we see Jesus absolved from the accusation by the declaration of the Roman judge himself.But the accusers, persisting still farther, added—“He stirreth up the people, teachingthroughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.”Luke xxiii. 5.“He stirreth up the people!”This is a charge of sedition; and for Pilate. But observe, it wasby the doctrine which he teaches; these words comprehend the real complaint of the Jews. To them it was equivalent to saying—Heteachesthe people, he instructs them, he enlightens them; he preachesnew doctrineswhich are notours.“He stirs up the people!”This, in their months signified—the people hear him willingly; the people follow and become attached to him; for he preaches a doctrine[pg 563]that is friendly and consolatory to the people; he unmasks our pride, our avarice, our insatiable spirit of domination!Pilate, however, does not appear to have attached much importance to this new turn given to the accusation; but he here betrays a weakness. He heard the wordGalilee; and he makes that the occasion of shifting off the responsibility upon another public officer, and seizes the occasion with avidity. He says to Jesus—you are aGalileanthen? and, upon the answer being in the affirmative, considering Jesus as belonging to the jurisdiction of Herod-Antipas, who, by the good pleasure of Cæsar, was then tetrarch of Galilee, he sent him to Herod. Luke xxiii. 6, 7.But Herod, who, as St. Luke says, had been long desirous ofseeing Jesusand had hoped to see some miracle done by him, after satisfying an idle curiosity and putting several questions to him, which Jesus did not deign to answer,—Herod, notwithstanding the presence of the priests, (who had not yet gone off, but stood there with their scribes,) and notwithstanding the pertinacity with which they continued to accuse Jesus, perceiving nothing but what was merely chimerical in theaccusation of being a king, made a mockery of the affair, and sent Jesus back to Pilate,after having arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, in order to show that he thought this pretended royalty was a subject of ridicule rather than of apprehensions. Luke xxiii. 8, &c., and De Sacy. Ib.Section X.—The Last Efforts before Pilate.No person, then, was willing to condemn Jesus; neither Herod, who only made the case a subject of mockery, nor Pilate, who had openly declared that he found nothing criminal in him.But the hatred of the priests was not disarmed—so far from it, that the chief priests, with a numerous train of their partisans, returned to Pilate with a determination to force him to a decision.The unfortunate Pilate, reviewing his proceedings in their presence, said to them again:“Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people—and, behold, I, having[pg 564]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 you to him, and lo,nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.”Luke xxiii. 14, 15.After“chastising”him! And was not this a piece of cruelty, when he considered him to be innocent?415But this was an act of condescension by which Pilate hoped to quiet the rage with which he saw they were agitated.“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him.”John xix. 1. And, supposing that he had done enough to disarm their fury, he exhibited him to them in that pitiable condition; saying to them at the same time, Behold the man!Ecce homo. John xix. 5.Now, in my turn, I say, here is indeed a decree of Pilate, and an unjust decree; but it is not the pretended decree alleged to have been made by the Jews. It is a decision wholly different; an unjust decision, it is true; but sufficient to avail asa legal barto any new proceedings against Jesus for the same act.Non bis in idem, no man shall be put twice in jeopardy, &c. is a maxim, which has come down to us from the Romans.Accordingly,“from thenceforth Pilate sought toreleaseJesus.”John xix. 12.Here, now, observe the deep perfidy of his accusers.“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend; whosoever maketh himself akingspeaketh against Cæsar.”Ib.It does not appear that Pilate was malignant; we see all the efforts he had made at different times to save Jesus. But he was apublic officer, and was attached tohis office; he was intimidated by the outcry which called in question hisfidelity to the emperor; he was afraid of adismissal: and he yielded. He immediately reascended the judgment-seat; (Matt. xxvii. 19), and, as new light had thus come upon him, he proceeded to make a second decree![pg 565]But being for a moment stopped by the voice of his own conscience, and by the advice which his terrified wife sent to him—“Have thou nothing to do with that just man”—(Matt. xxvii. 19)—he made his last effort, by attempting to influence the populace to accept of Barabbas instead of Jesus.“But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.”Mark xv. 11. Barabbas! a murderer! an assassin!Pilate spoke to them again:What will ye then, that I should do with Jesus?And they cried out,Away with him, crucify him. Pilate still persisted:Shall I crucify your king?thus using terms of raillery, in order to disarm them. But here showing themselves to be more truly Roman than Pilate himself, the chief priests hypocritically answered:We have no king but Cæsar.John xix. 15.The outcry was renewed—Crucify him, crucify him! And the clamour became more and more threatening;“and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.”Luke xxiii. 23.At length Pilate,being desirous of pleasing the multitude, proceeds to speak. But can we call it a legal adjudication, ajudgment, that he is about to pronounce? Is he, at the moment, in that free state of mind which is necessary for a judge, who is about to pass asentence of death? What new witnesses, what proofs have been brought forward to change his conviction and opinion, which had been so energetically declared, of the innocence of Jesus?“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it. Matt. xxvii. 24. And Pilate gave sentence, that it should be as they required. Luke xxiii. 24. And he delivered him to them to be crucified.”Matt. xxvii. 26.Well mayest thou wash thy hands, Pilate, stained as they are with innocent blood! Thou hast authorised the act in thy weakness; thou art not less culpable, than if thou hadst sacrificed him through wickedness! All generations, down to our[pg 566]own time, have repeated that theJust Onesufferedunder Pontius Pilate. Thy name has remained in history, to serve for the instruction of all public men, all pusillanimous judges, in order to hold up to them the shame ofyielding contrary to one's own convictions. The populace, in its fury, made an outcry at the foot of thy judgment-seat, where, perhaps, thou thyself didst not sit securely! But of what importance was that? Thydutyspoke out; and in such a case, better would it be to suffer death, than to inflict it on another.416We will now come to a conclusion.Theproofthat Jesus was not, as Mr. Salvador maintains, put to death for the crime of blasphemy or sacrilege, and for having preached a new religious worship in contravention of the Mosaic law, results fromthe very sentencepronounced by Pilate; a sentence, in pursuance of which he was led to execution by Roman soldiers.There was among the Romans a custom, which we borrowed from their jurisprudence, and which is still followed, of placing over the head of a condemned criminal a writing containingan extract from his sentence, in order that the public might knowfor what crimehe was condemned. This was the reason why Pilate put on the cross a label, on which he had written these words:Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judæorum, (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), which has since been denoted by the initials J. N. R. J. This was the alleged cause of his condemnation. St. Mark says—“And the superscription of hisaccusationwas written over—The King of the Jews.”Mark xv. 26.This inscription was first inLatin, which was the legal language of theRomanjudge; and it was repeated inHebrewand[pg 567]Greek, in order to be understood by the people of the nation and by foreigners.The chief priests, whose indefatigable hatred did not overlook the most minute details, being apprehensive that people would take it to be literally a fact affirmed, that Jesuswas the King of the Jews, said to Pilate:“Write notKing of the Jews, but thathe saidI am king of the Jews.”But Pilate answered:“What I have written I have written.”John xix. 21, 22.This is a conclusive answer to one of the last assertions of Mr. Salvador, (p. 88,) that“the Roman Pilate signed the sentence;”by which he always means that Pilate did nothing but sign a sentence, which he supposes to have been passed by the Sanhedrim; but in this he is mistaken. Pilate did not merelysignthe sentence, or decree, butdrew it up; and, when his draft was objected to by the priests, he still adhered to it, saying, what I have written shall remain as written.Here then we see the true cause of the condemnation of Jesus! Here we have the“judicial and legal proof.”Jesus was the victim of apoliticalaccusation! He was put to death for the imaginary crime of having aimed at the power of Cæsar, by calling himselfKing of the Jews! Absurd accusation; which Pilate never believed, and which the chief priests and the Pharisees themselves did not believe. For they were not authorized to arrest Jesus on that account; it was a new, and totally different, accusation from that which they first planned—a sudden accusation of the moment, when they saw that Pilate was but little affected by theirreligiouszeal, and they found it necessary to arousehis zeal forCæsar.“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend!”This alarming language has too often, since that time, reverberated in the ears of timid judges, who, like Pilate, have rendered themselves criminal by delivering up victims through want of firmness, whom they would never have condemned, if they had listened to the voice of their own consciences.Let us now recapitulate the case, as I have considered it from the beginning.Is it not evident, contrary to the conclusion of Mr. Salvador, that Jesus, considered merely asa simple citizen, was not tried and[pg 568]sentenced eitheraccording to law, oragreeably to the forms of legal proceedings then existing?God, according to his eternal design, might permit the just to suffer by the malice of men; but he also intended, that this should at least happen by a disregard of all laws, and by a violation of all established rules, in order that the entire contempt of forms should stand as the first warning of the violation of law.Let us not be surprised then, that in another part of his work, Mr. Salvador (who, it is gratifying to observe, discusses his subject dispassionately) expresses some regret in speaking of the“unfortunate sentence against Jesus.”Vol. i. p. 59. He has wished to excuse the Hebrews; but, one of that nation, in giving utterance to the feelings of his heart, still says—in language which I took from his own mouth,“We should be very cautious of condemning him at this day.”I pass over the excesses which followed the order of Pilate; as, the violence shown to Simon, the Cyrenian, who was made in some degree a sharer in the punishment, by being compelled to carry the cross; the injurious treatment which attended the victim to the place of the sacrifice, and even to the cross, where Jesus still prayed for his brethren and his executioners!To the heathen themselves I would say—You, who have gloried in the death of Socrates, how much must you be struck with wonder at that of Jesus! Ye, censors of the Areopagus, how could you undertake to excuse the Synagogue, and justify the sentence of the Hall of Judgment? Philosophy herself has not hesitated to proclaim, and we may repeat with her—“Yes, if the life and death ofSocrateswere those of a sage, the life and death ofJesuswere those of a divinity.”
Trial Of Jesus.Refutation Of The Chapter Of Mr. Salvador, Entitled“The Trial And Condemnation Of Jesus.”“The chapter, in which Mr. Salvador treats ofthe Administration of Justice among the Hebrews, is altogether theoretical. He makes an exposition of the law—that things, in order to beconformable to rule, must be transacted in a certain mode. In all this I have not contradicted him, but have let him speak for himself.In the subsequent chapter the author announces:“That according to thisexposition of judicial proceedingshe is going to follow out the application of them to the most memorable trial in all history, that of Jesus Christ.”Accordingly the chapter is entitled:The Trial and Condemnation of Jesus.The author first takes care to inform us under what point of view he intends to give an account of that accusation:“That we ought to lament the blindness of the Hebrews for not having recognised a God in Jesus, is a point which I do not examine.”(There is another thing also, which he says he shall not examine.)“But, when they discovered in himonly a citizen, did they try himaccording to existing laws and formalities?”The question being thus stated, Mr. Salvador goes over all the various aspects of the accusation; and his conclusion is, that the procedure was perfectly regular, and the condemnation perfectly appropriate to the act committed.“Now,”says he, (p. 87,)“the Senate, having adjudged that Jesus, the son of Joseph, born in Bethlehem, had profaned the name of God by usurping it himself, though a simple citizen, applied to him[pg 542]the law against blasphemy, the law in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and verse 20, chapter 18th, conformably to which every prophet, even one that performs miracles, is to be punished when he speaks of a God unknown to the Hebrews or their fathers.”This conclusion is formed to please the followers of the Jewish law; it is wholly for their benefit, and the evident object is, to justify them from the reproach ofdeïcide.We will, however, avoid treating this grave subject in a theological point of view. As to myself, Jesus Christ is theMan-God; but it is not with arguments drawn from my religion and my creed, that I intend to combat the statement and the conclusion of Mr. Salvador. The present age would charge me with being intolerant; and this is a reproach which I will never incur. Besides, I do not wish to give to the enemies of Christianity the advantage of making the outcry, that we are afraid to enter into a discussion with them, and that we wish to crush rather than to convince them. Having thus contented myself with declaring my own faith, as Mr. Salvador has let us clearly understand his, I shall also examine the question under a merelyhumanpoint of view, and proceed to inquire, with him,“Whether Jesus Christ, consideredas a simple citizen, was tried according to the existing laws and formalities.”The catholic religion itself warrants me in this; it is not a mere fiction; for God willed, that Jesus should be clothed in the forms of humanity (et homo factus est), and that he should undergo the lot and sufferings of humanity. Theson of God, as to his moral state and his holy spirit, he was also, in reality, theSon of Man, for the purpose of accomplishing the mission which he came upon earth to fulfil.This being the state of the question, then, I enter upon my subject; and I do not hesitate to affirm, because I will prove it, that, upon examining all the circumstances of this great trial, we shall be very far from discovering in it the application of those legal maxims, which are the safeguard of the rights of accused persons, and of which Mr. Salvador, in his chapterOn the Administration of Justice, has made a seductive exposition.The accusation of Jesus, instigated by the hatred of the[pg 543]priests and the Pharisees, and presented at first as a charge ofsacrilege, but afterwards converted into apoliticalcrime andan offence against the state, was marked, in all its aspects, with the foulest acts of violence and perfidy. It was not so mucha trialenvironed with legal forms, as a realpassion, or prolonged suffering, in which the imperturbable gentleness of the victim displays more strongly the unrelenting ferocity of his persecutors.When Jesus appeared among the Jews, that people was but the shadow of itself. Broken down by more than one subjugation, divided by factions and irreconcilable sects, they had in the last resort been obliged to succumb to the Roman power and surrender their own sovereignty. Jerusalem, having become a mere appendage to the province of Syria, saw within its walls an imperial garrison; Pilate commanded there, in the name of Cæsar; and the late people of God were groaning under the double tyranny of a conqueror, whose power they abhorred and whose idolatry they detested, and of a priesthood that exerted itself to keep them under the rigorous bonds of a religious fanaticism.Jesus Christ deplored the misfortunes of his country. How often did he weep for Jerusalem! Read in Bossuet'sPolitics drawn from the Holy Scriptures, the admirable chapter entitled,Jesus Christ the good citizen. He recommended to his countrymenunion, which constitutes the strength of states.“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, (said he,) thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”He was supposed to be not favorable to the Romans; but he only loved his own countrymen more. Witness the address of the Jews, who, in order to induce him to restore to the centurion a sick servant that was dear to him, used as the most powerful argument these words—that he was worthy for whom he should do this, for he loveth our nation. And Jesus went with them. Luke vii. 4, 5.Touched with the distresses of the nation, Jesus comforted them by holding up to them the hope of another life; he alarmed the great, the rich, and the haughty, by the prospect of[pg 544]a final judgment, at which every man would be judged not according to his rank, but his works. He was desirous of again bringing back man to his original dignity; he spoke to him of hisduties, but at the same time of hisrights. The people heard him with avidity, and followed him with eagerness; his words affected them; his hand healed their diseases, and his moral teaching instructed them; he preached, and practised one virtue till then unknown, and which belongs to him alone—charity. This celebrity, however, and these wonders excited envy. The partisans of theancient theocracywere alarmed at thenew doctrine; the chief priests felt that their power was threatened; the pride of the Pharisees was humbled; the scribes came in as their auxiliaries, and the destruction of Jesus was resolved upon.Now, if his conduct was reprehensible, if it afforded grounds for alegal accusation, why was not that course taken openly? Why not try him for the acts committed by him, and for his public discourses? Why employ against him subterfuges, artifice, perfidy, and violence? for such was the mode of proceeding against Jesus.Let us now take up the subject, and look at the narratives which have come down to us. Let us, with Mr. Salvador, open the books of the Gospels; for he does not object to that testimony; nay, he relies upon it:“It is by the Gospels themselves,”says he,“that I shall establishall the facts.”In truth, how can we (except by contrary evidence, of which there is none) refuse to place confidence in an historian, who tells us, as Saint John does, with affecting simplicity:“He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”John xix. 35.Section I.—Spies, or Informers.Who will not be surprised to find in this case the odious practice of employing hired informers? Branded with infamy, as they are in modern times, they will be still more so when we carry back their origin to the trial of Christ. It will be seen presently, whether I have not properly characterized by the[pg 545]name of hired informers those emissaries, whom the chief priests sent out to be about Jesus.We read in the evangelist Luke, chap. xx. 20:Et observantes miserunt insidiatores, qui se justos simularent, ut caperent eum in sermone, et traderent illum principatui et potestati præsidis. I will not translate this text myself, but will take the language of a translator whose accuracy is well known, Mr. De Sacy:“As they only sought occasions for his destruction, they sent to himapostate persons who feigned themselves just men, in order totake holdof his words, that they might deliver him unto magistrate and into the power of the governor.”And Mr. De Sacy adds—“if there should escape from him the least word against the public authorities.”This first artifice has escaped the sagacity of Mr. Salvador.Section II.—The Corruption and Treachery of Judas.According to Mr. Salvador, the senate, as he calls it, did not commence their proceedings by arresting Jesus, as would be done at the present day; but they began by passing a preliminary decree, that he should be arrested; and he cites, in proof of his assertion, St. John xi. 53, 54, and St. Matthew xxvi. 4, 5.But St. John says nothing of this pretended decree. He speaks, too, not of a public sitting, but of a consultation held by the chief priests and thePharisees, who did not, to my knowledge, constitute a judicial tribunal among the Jews.“Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this mandoeth many miracles.”John xi. 47. They add:“If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him,”—which imported also, in their minds,and they will no longer believe in us. Now, in this, I can readily perceive the fear of seeing the morals and doctrines of Jesus prevail; but where is the preliminaryjudgment, or decree? I cannot discover it.“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor[pg 546]consider, that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people ... and heprophesied, that Jesus should die for the nation of the Jews.”But toprophesyis not topass judgment; and the individual opinion of Caiaphas, who was only one among them, was not the opinion of all, nor ajudgment of the senate. We, therefore, still find ajudgmentwanting; and we only observe, that the priests and Pharisees are stimulated by a violent hatred of Jesus, and that“from that day forth they took counsel together forto put him to death; ut interficerent eum.”John xi. 53.The authority of St. John, then, is directly in contradiction of the assertion, that there was anorder of arrestpreviously passed by a regular tribunal.St. Matthew, in relating the same facts, says, that the chief priests assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and there held counsel together. But what counsel? and what was the result of it? Was it to issue anorder of arrestagainst Jesus, that they might hear him and then pass sentence? Not at all; but they held counsel together,“that they might take Jesusby subtilty, orfraud, andkill him”;concilium fecerunt,ut JesumDOLOtenerent etOCCIDERENT. Matt. xxvi. 5. Now in the Latin language, a language perfectly well constituted in everything relating to terms of the law, the wordsoccidereandinterficerewere never employed to express the act of passingsentence, orjudgment of death, but simply to signifymurderorassassination.401Thisfraud, by the aid of which they were to get Jesus into their power, was nothing but the bargain made between the chief priests and Judas.Judas, one of the twelve, goes to find the chief priests, and says to them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? Matt. xxvi. 14, 15. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver! Jesus, who foresaw his treachery, warned[pg 547]him of it mildly, in the midst of the Last Supper, where the voice of his master, in the presence of his brethren, should have touched him and awakened his reflections! But not so; wholly absorbed in his reward, Judas placed himself at the head of a gang of servants, to whom he was to point out Jesus; and, then, by akissconsummated his treachery!402Is it thus that ajudicial decree was to be executed, if there had really been one made for the arrest of Jesus?Section III.—Personal Liberty.—Resistance to an Armed Force.The act was done in the night time. After having celebrated the Supper, Jesus had conducted his disciples to the Mount of Olives. He prayed fervently; but they fell asleep.Jesus awakes them, with a gentle reproof for their weakness, and warns them that the moment is approaching.“Rise, let us be going; behold he is at hand that doth betray me.”Matt. xxvi. 46.Judas was not alone; in his suite there was a kind of ruffian band, almost entirely composed of servants of the high priest, but whom Mr. Salvador honours with the title of thelegal soldiery. If in the crowd there were any Romansoldiers, they were there as spectators, and without having been legally called on duty; for the Roman commanding officer, Pilate, had not yet heard the affair spoken of.This personal seizure of Jesus had so much the appearance of a forcible arrest, an illegal act of violence, that his disciples made preparation to repel force by force.Malchus, the insolent servant of the high priest, having[pg 548]shown himself the most eager to rush upon Jesus, Peter, not less zealous for his own master, cut off the servant's right ear.This resistance might have been continued with success, if Jesus had not immediately interfered. But what proves that Peter, even while causing bloodshed, was not resisting alegal order, alegal judgmentor decree, (which would have made his resistance an act ofrebellion by an armed force against a judicial order,) is this—that he was not arrested, either at the moment or afterwards, at the house of the high priest, to which he followed Jesus, and where he was most distinctly recognised by the maid servant of the high priest, and even by a relative of Malchus.Jesus alone was arrested; and although he had not individually offered any active resistance, and had even restrained that of his disciples, they bound him as a malefactor; which was a criminal degree of rigour, since for the purpose of securing a single man by a numerous band of persons armed with swords and staves it was not necessary.“Be ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?”Luke xxii. 52.Section IV.—Other Irregularities in the Arrest.—Seizure of the Person.They dragged Jesus along with them; and, instead of taking him directly to the proper magistrate, they carried him before Annas, who had no other character than that of beingfather-in-law to the high priest. John xviii. 13. Now, if this was only for the purpose of letting him be seen by him, such a curiosity was not to be gratified; it was a vexatious proceeding, an irregularity.From the house of Annas they led him to that of the high priest; all this time beingbound. John xviii. 24. They placed him in the court yard; it was cold, and they made a fire; it was in the night time, but by the light of the fire Peter was recognised by the people of the palace.Now the Jewish law prohibitedall proceedings by night; here, therefore, there was another infraction of the law.[pg 549]Under this state of things, his person being forcibly seized and detained in a private house, and delivered into the hands of servants, in the midst of a court, how was Jesus treated? St. Luke says, the men that held Jesusmockedhim andsmotehim; and when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. Luke xxii. 63, 64, 65.Will it be said, as Mr. Salvador does, that all this took place out of the presence of the senate? Let us wait, in this instance, till the senate shall be called up, and we shall see how far they protected the accused person.Section V.—Captious Interrogatories.—Acts of Violence towards Jesus.Already had the cock crowed! But it was not yet day. The elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and, having caused Jesus to appear before their council, they proceeded to interrogate him. Luke xxii. 66.Now, in the outset, it should be observed, that if they had been less carried away by their hatred, they should, as it was thenight time, not only have postponed, but put a stop to the proceedings, because it wasthe feast of the Passover, the most solemn of all festivals; and according to their law nojudicial procedurecould take place on a feast-day, under the penalty of being null.403Nevertheless, let us see who proceeded to interrogate Jesus. This was that same Caiaphas, who, if he had intended to remain ajudge, was evidently liable to objection; for in the preceding assemblage he had made himself theaccuserof Jesus.404Even before he had seen or heard him, he declared him to bedeserving of death. He said to his colleagues, that“it wasexpedientthat one man should die for all.”John xviii. 14.[pg 550]Such being the opinion of Caiaphas, we shall not be surprised, if he shows partiality.Instead of interrogating Jesus respectingpositive acts done, with their circumstances, and respectingfacts personal to himself, Caiaphas interrogates him respectinggeneral facts, respecting his disciples (whom it would have been much more simple to have called as witnesses), and respecting hisdoctrine, which was a mere abstraction so long as no external acts were the consequence of it.“The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine.”John xviii. 19.Jesus answered with dignity:“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”Ib. 20.“Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me,what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I said.”Ib. 21.“And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?”Ib. 22.Will it here be still said, that this violence was the individual act of the person who thus struck the accused? I answer, that on this occasion the fact took place in the presence and under the eyes of the whole council; and, as the high priest who presided did not restrain the author of it, I come to the conclusion, that he became an accomplice, especially when this violence was committed under the pretence of avenging the alleged affront to his dignity.But in what respect could the answer of Jesus appear offensive?“If I have spoken evil,”said Jesus,“bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”405John xviii. 23.There remained no mode of escaping from this dilemma. They accused Jesus; it was for those, who accused, to prove their accusation. An accused person is not obliged to criminate himself. He should have been convicted by proofs; he himself called for them. Let us see what witnesses were produced against him.[pg 551]Section VI.—Witnesses.—New Interrogatories.—The Judge in a Passion.“And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.”Mark xiv. 55.“For many barefalse witnessagainst him, but their witness agreed not together.”Ib. 56.“And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”Ib. 57, 58.“But (to the same point still) neither so did their witness agree together.”Ib. 59.Mr. Salvador, on this subject, says, p. 87:“The two witnesses, whom St. Matthew and St. Mark charge withfalsehood, narrate a discourse which St. John declares to betrue, so far as respects the power which Jesus Christ attributed to himself.”This alleged contradiction among the Evangelists does not exist. In the first place, St. Matthew does not say that the discourse was had by Jesus. In chapter xxvi. 61, he states the depositions of the witnesses, but saying at the same time that they werefalse witnesses; and in chapter xxvii. 40, he puts the same declaration into the mouth of those who insulted Jesus at the foot of the cross; but he does not put it into the mouth of Christ. He is in accordance with St. Mark.St. John, chapter ii. 19, makes Jesus speak in these words:“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”And St. John adds:“He spake of the temple of his body.”Thus Jesus did not say in an affirmative and somewhat menacing manner,I will destroy this temple, as the witnessesfalselyassumed; he only said, hypothetically,Destroy this temple, that is to say, suppose this temple should be destroyed, I will raise it up in three days. Besides, they could not dissemble, that he referred to a temple altogether different[pg 552]from theirs, because he said, I will raise up another in three days,which will not be made by the hands of man.It hence results, at least, that the Jews did not understand him, for they cried out,“Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”Thus, then, the witnesses did not agree together, and their declarations had nothing conclusive. Mark xiv. 59. We must, therefore, look for other proofs.“Then the high priest, (we must not forget, that he is still the accuser,) the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it, which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.”Mark xiv. 60. In truth, since the question was not concerning the temple of the Jews, but an ideal temple, not made by the hand of man, and which was alone in the thoughts of Jesus, the explanation was to be found in the very evidence itself.The high priest continued:“I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.”Matt. xxvi. 63. I adjure thee, I call upon thee on oath! a gross infraction of that rule of morals and jurisprudence, which forbids our placing an accused person between the danger of perjury and the fear of inculpating himself, and thus making his situation more hazardous. The high priest, however, persists, and says to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?406Jesus answered,Thou hast said. Matthew xxvi. 64;I am. Mark xiv. 62.“Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying,He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, nowye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”Matt. xxvi. 66.Let us now compare this scene of violence with the mild deduction of principles, which we find in the chapter of Mr. SalvadorOn the Administration of Justice; and let us ask ourselves,[pg 553]if, as he alleges, we find a justapplicationof them in the proceedings against Christ?Do we discover here thatrespectof the Hebrew judge towards the party accused, when we see that Caiaphas permitted him to be struck, in his presence,with impunity?What was this Caiaphas, at once an accuser and judge?407A passionate man, and too much resembling the odious portrait which the historian Josephus has given us of him!408A judge, who was irritated to such a degree, that he rent his clothes; who imposed upon the accused a most solemn oath, and who gave to his answers the criminal character, thathe had spokenblasphemy! And, from that moment, he wanted no more witnesses, notwithstanding the law required them. He would not have an inquiry, which he perceived would be insufficient; he attempts to supply it by captious questions. He is desirous of having him condemnedupon his own declaration alone, (interpreted, too, as he chooses to understand it,) though that was forbidden by the laws of the Hebrews! And, in the midst of a most violent transport of passion, this accuser himself, a high priest, who means to speak in the name of the living God, is the first to pass sentence of death, and carries with him the opinions of the rest!In this hideous picture I cannot recognise that justice of the Hebrews, of which Mr. Salvador has given so fine a view inhis theory!Section VII.—Subsequent Acts of Violence.Immediately after this kind of sacerdotal verdict rendered against Jesus, the acts of violence and insults recommenced with increased strength; the fury of the judge must have communicated itself to the bystanders. St. Matthew says:“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; who is he that smote thee?”Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.[pg 554]Mr. Salvador does not contest the truth of this ill treatment. In page 88 he says,“It was contrary to the spirit of the Hebrew law, and that it was not according to the order of nature, that a senate composed of the most respectable men of a nation,—that a senate, which might perhaps be mistaken, but which thought it was acting mildly, should have permitted such outrages against him whose life it held in its own hands. The writers who have transmitted these details to us, not having been present themselves at the trial, were disposed to overcharge the picture, either on account of their own feelings, or to throw upon their judges a greater odium.”I repeat; this ill treatment was entirely contrary to the spirit of the law. And what do I want more, since my object is to make prominentall the violations of law.“It is not in nature to see a body, which respects itself, authorize such attempts.”But of what consequence is that, when the fact is established?“The historians, it is said, were not present at the trial.”But was Mr. Salvador there present himself, so that he could give a flat denial of their statements? And when even an able writer, who was not an eye-witness, relates the same events after the lapse of more than eighteen centuries, he ought at least to bring opposing evidence, if he would impeach that of contemporaries; who, if they were not in the very hall of the council, were certainly on the spot, in the vicinity, perhaps in the court yard, inquiring anxiously of every thing that was happening to the man whose disciples they were.409Besides, the learned author whom I am combating says, in the outset (p. 81),“it is from the Gospels themselves that he will take all his facts.”He must then take the whole together, as well those which go to condemn, as those which are in palliation or excuse.Those gross insults, those inhuman acts of violence, even if they are to be cast upon the servants of the high priest and the persons in his train, do not excuse those individuals, who, when they took upon themselves the authority of judges, were bound[pg 555]at the same time to throw around him all the protection of the law. Caiaphas, too, was culpable as the master of the house (for every thing took place in his house), even if he should not be responsible as high priest and president of the council for having permitted excesses, which, indeed were but too much in accordance with the rage he had himself displayed upon the bench.These outrages, which would be inexcusable even towards a man irrevocably condemned to punishment, were the more criminal towards Jesus, because, legally and judicially speaking, there had not yet been any sentence properly passed against him according to the public law of the country; as we shall see in the following section, which will deserve the undivided attention of the reader.Section VIII.—The Position of the Jews in respect to the Romans.We must not forget,that Judea was a conquered country. After the death of Herod—most inappropriately surnamedthe Great—Augustus had confirmed his last will, by which that king of the Jews had arranged the division of his dominions betweenhistwo sons: but Augustus did not continue their title ofking, which their father had borne.Archeläus, on whom Judea devolved, having been recalled on account of his cruelties, the territory, which was at first intrusted to his command, was united to the province of Syria. (Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17, cap. 15.)Augustus then appointed particular officers for Judea. Tiberius did the same; and at the time of which we are speaking, Pilate was one of those officers. (Josephus, lib. 18, cap. 3 & 8.)Some have considered Pilate as governor, by title, and have given him the Latin appellation,Præses, president or governor. But they have mistaken the force of the word. Pilate was one of those public officers, who were called by the Romans,procuratores Cæsaris, Imperial procurators.[pg 556]With this title ofprocurator, he was placed under the superior authority of the governor of Syria, the truepræses, or governor of that province, of which Judea was then only one of the dependencies.To the governor (præses) peculiarly belonged the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases.410Theprocurator, on the contrary, had, for his principal duty, nothing but the collection of the revenue, and the trial of revenue causes. But the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases did, in some instances, belong to certainprocurators, who were sent into small provinces to fill the places of governors (vice præsides), as appears clearly from the Roman laws.411Such wasPilateat Jerusalem.412The Jews, placed in this political position—notwithstanding they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercise of their religion, and many things merely relating to their police and municipal regulations—the Jews, I say, had not thepower of life and death; this was a principal attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans always took great care to reserve to themselves, even if they neglected other things.Apud Romanos, jus valet gladii; cætera transmittuntur.Tacit.What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? Without doubt the scribes, and their friends the Pharisees, might well have been alarmed, as a body and individually, at the preaching and success of Jesus; they might be concerned for their worship; and they might have interrogated the man respecting his creed and his doctrines,—they might have made a kind of preparatory proceeding,—they might have declared, in point of fact, that those doctrines, which threatened their own, were contrary to their law, as understood by themselves.[pg 557]But that law, although it had not undergone any alteration as to the affairs of religion, had no longer any coercive power as to the external or civil regulations of society. In vain would they have undertaken to pronounce sentence of death under the circumstances of the case of Jesus; the council of the Jews had not the power to pass asentence of death; it only would have had power to makean accusationagainst him before the governor, or his deputy, and then deliver him over to be tried by him.Let us distinctly establish this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According to him, (p. 88),“the Jews hadreserved the power of trying, according to their law; but it was in the hands of theprocuratoralone, that the executive power was vested; every culprit must be put to death byhisconsent, in order that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to foreigners.”No; the Jews had not reservedthe right of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should becomeimpatient of the yoke; it was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Cæsar in Judea, was not merely an agent of theexecutive authority, which would have left thejudiciaryandlegislativepower in the hands of the conquered people—he was not simply an officer appointed to give anexequaturor mere approval (visa) to sentences passed byanother authority, theauthority of the Jews. When the matter in question was acapitalcase, the Roman authorities not only ordered theexecutionof a sentence, but also took cognizance (cognitio) of the crime; it had the right of jurisdictionà priori, and that ofpassing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation,vice præsidis, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred;[pg 558]but in any event we hold it to be clear, that the Jews had lost the right ofcondemning to deathany person whatever, not only so far as respects theexecutionbut thepassingof the sentence. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.The Jews were not ignorant of this; for when they went before Pilate, to ask of him the condemnation of Jesus, they themselves declared, that it was not permitted to them to put any person to death:“It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”John xviii. 31.Here I am happy to be able to support myself by the opinion of a very respectable authority, the celebrated Loiseau, in his treatise onSeigneuries, in the chapter on the administration ofjustice belonging to cities.“In truth,”says he,“there is some evidence, that thepolice, in which the people had the sole interest, was administered by officers of the people; but I know not upon what were founded the concessions of power to some cities of France to exercise criminal jurisdiction; nor why the Ordinance of Moulins left that to them rather than civil cases; for the criminal jurisdiction is theright of the sword, themerum imperium, or absolute sovereignty. Accordingly, by the Roman law, the administration of justice was so far prohibited to the officers of cities, that they could not punish even by a simple fine.Thus it is doubtless that we must understandthat passage of the Gospel, where the Jews say to Pilate,It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; for, after they were subjected to the Romans, they had not jurisdiction of crimes.”Let us now follow Jesus to the presence of Pilate.Section IX.—The Accusation made before Pilate.At this point I must entreat the particular attention of the reader. The irregularities and acts of violence, which I have hitherto remarked upon, are nothing in comparison with the unbridled fury, which is about to display itself before theRoman Judge, in order to extort from him, against his own conviction, a sentence of death.[pg 559]“And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders, and scribes, and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.”Mark xv. 1.As soon as the morning was come; for, as I have observed already, every thing which had been done thus far against Jesus was doneduring the night.They then led Jesus from Caiaphas unto the Hall of Judgment of Pilate.413It was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lestthey should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. John xviii. 28.Singular scrupulousness! and truly worthy of the Pharisees! They were afraid ofdefiling themselves on the day of the passoverby enteringthe house ofa heathen! And yet, the same day, only some hours before presenting themselves to Pilate, they had, in contempt of their own law, committed the outrage ofholding a counciland deliberating uponan accusation of a capital crime.As they would not enter,“Pilate went out to them.”John xviii. 29. Now observe his language. He did not say to them,Where is the sentence you have passed; as he must have done, if he was only to give them his simpleexequatur, or permission to execute the sentence; but he takes up the matter from the beginning, as would be done by one who hadplenary jurisdiction; and he says to them: What accusation bring ye against this man?They answered, with their accustomed haughtiness: If he were nota malefactorwe would not have delivered him up to thee. John xviii. 30. They wished to have it understood, that, being a question ofblasphemy, it was thecause of their religion, which they could appreciate better than any others could. Pilate, then, would have been under the necessity of believing themon their word. But this Roman, indignant at their proposed course of proceeding, which would have restricted his jurisdiction by making him the passive instrument of the wishes of the Jews, answered them in an ironical manner:[pg 560]Well, since you say he has sinned against your law, take him yourselves and judge him according to your law. John xviii. 31. This was an absolute mystification to them, for they knew their own want of power to condemn him to death. But they were obliged to yield the point, and to submit to Pilate himself theirarticles of accusation.Now what were the grounds of this accusation? Were theythe samewhich had hitherto been alleged against Jesus—the charge ofblasphemy—which was the only one brought forward by Caiaphas before the council of the Jews? Not at all; despairing of obtaining from the Roman judge a sentence ofdeathfor areligiousquarrel, which was of no interest to the Romans,414they suddenly changed their plan; they abandoned their first accusation, the charge of blasphemy, and substituted for it apoliticalaccusation, anoffence against the state.Here we have the very crisis, or essential incident, of the passion; and that which makes the heaviest accusation of guilt on the part of the informers against Jesus. For, being fully bent on destroying him in any manner whatever, they no longer exhibited themselves as the avengers oftheir religion, which was alleged to have been outraged, or of their worship, which it was pretended was threatened; but, ceasing to appear as Jews, in order to affect sentiments belonging to a foreign nation, those hypocrites held out the appearance of being concerned for the interests ofRome; they accused their own countryman of an intention to restore the kingdom of Jerusalem, to make himselfkingof theJews, and to make an insurrection of the people against their conquerors. Let us hear them speak for themselves:“And they began toaccusehim, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying, that he himself is Christ aking.”Luke xxiii. 2.What a calumny! Jesus forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar! when he had answered the Pharisees themselves, in presence of the whole people, by showing them the image of Cæsar upon a[pg 561]Roman piece of money, and saying, Give unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's. But this accusation was one mode of interesting Pilate in respect to his jurisdiction; for, as an imperialprocurator, he was specially to superintend the collection of the revenue. The second branch of the accusation still more directly affected the sovereignty of the Romans:“He holds himself up for aking.”The accusation having thus assumed a character purelypolitical, Pilate thought he must pay attention to it.“Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall,”(the place where justice was administered,) and havingsummoned Jesus to appearbefore him, he proceeds to his Examination, and says to him:“Art thou the king of the Jews?”John xviii. 33.This question, so different from those which had been addressed to him at the house of the high priest, appears to have excited the astonishment of Jesus; and, in his turn, he asked Pilate:“Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”Ib. 24. In reality, Jesus was desirous of knowing, first of all, the authors of this new accusation—Is this an accusation brought against me by theRomansor by theJews?Pilate replied to him—“Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me; what hast thou done?”Ib. 35.All the particulars of this procedure are important; I cannot too often repeat the remark, that in no part of the transactions before Pilate is there any question at all respecting a previous sentence, a judgment already passed—a judgment, the execution of which was the only subject of consideration; it was a case of a capital accusation; but an accusation which was then just beginning; they were about the preliminaryinterrogatoriesput to the accused, and Pilate says to him,“What hast thou done?”Jesus, seeing by the explanation what was the source of theprejudgingof his case, and knowing the secret thoughts which predominated in making the accusation, and that his enemies wanted to arrive at the same end by an artifice, answered Pilate—“My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews;”(we see, in fact, that Jesus had forbidden[pg 562]his people to resist) but, he added,“now is my kingdom not from hence.”John xviii. 36.This answer of Jesus is very remarkable; it became the foundation of his religion, and the pledge of its universality, because it detached it from the interests of all governments. It rests not merely in assertion, in doctrine; it was given injustification, indefenceagainst the accusation of intending to make himselfKing of the Jews. Indeed, if Jesus had affected atemporalroyal authority, if there had been the least attempt, on his part, to usurpthe power of Cæsar, he would have been guilty of treason in the eyes of the magistrate. But, by answering twice,my kingdom is not of this world, my kingdomis not from hence, his justification was complete.Pilate, however, persisted and said to him:“Art thou a king then?”Jesus replied, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. John xviii. 37.Pilate then said to him:What is the truth?This question proves, that Pilate had not a very clear idea of what Jesus calledthe truth. He perceived nothing in it butideology; and, satisfied with having said (less in the manner of a question than of an exclamation)“What is the truth,”he went on to the Jews (who remained outside) and said to them,“I find in him no fault at all.”John xviii. 38.Here, then, we see Jesus absolved from the accusation by the declaration of the Roman judge himself.But the accusers, persisting still farther, added—“He stirreth up the people, teachingthroughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.”Luke xxiii. 5.“He stirreth up the people!”This is a charge of sedition; and for Pilate. But observe, it wasby the doctrine which he teaches; these words comprehend the real complaint of the Jews. To them it was equivalent to saying—Heteachesthe people, he instructs them, he enlightens them; he preachesnew doctrineswhich are notours.“He stirs up the people!”This, in their months signified—the people hear him willingly; the people follow and become attached to him; for he preaches a doctrine[pg 563]that is friendly and consolatory to the people; he unmasks our pride, our avarice, our insatiable spirit of domination!Pilate, however, does not appear to have attached much importance to this new turn given to the accusation; but he here betrays a weakness. He heard the wordGalilee; and he makes that the occasion of shifting off the responsibility upon another public officer, and seizes the occasion with avidity. He says to Jesus—you are aGalileanthen? and, upon the answer being in the affirmative, considering Jesus as belonging to the jurisdiction of Herod-Antipas, who, by the good pleasure of Cæsar, was then tetrarch of Galilee, he sent him to Herod. Luke xxiii. 6, 7.But Herod, who, as St. Luke says, had been long desirous ofseeing Jesusand had hoped to see some miracle done by him, after satisfying an idle curiosity and putting several questions to him, which Jesus did not deign to answer,—Herod, notwithstanding the presence of the priests, (who had not yet gone off, but stood there with their scribes,) and notwithstanding the pertinacity with which they continued to accuse Jesus, perceiving nothing but what was merely chimerical in theaccusation of being a king, made a mockery of the affair, and sent Jesus back to Pilate,after having arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, in order to show that he thought this pretended royalty was a subject of ridicule rather than of apprehensions. Luke xxiii. 8, &c., and De Sacy. Ib.Section X.—The Last Efforts before Pilate.No person, then, was willing to condemn Jesus; neither Herod, who only made the case a subject of mockery, nor Pilate, who had openly declared that he found nothing criminal in him.But the hatred of the priests was not disarmed—so far from it, that the chief priests, with a numerous train of their partisans, returned to Pilate with a determination to force him to a decision.The unfortunate Pilate, reviewing his proceedings in their presence, said to them again:“Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people—and, behold, I, having[pg 564]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 you to him, and lo,nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.”Luke xxiii. 14, 15.After“chastising”him! And was not this a piece of cruelty, when he considered him to be innocent?415But this was an act of condescension by which Pilate hoped to quiet the rage with which he saw they were agitated.“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him.”John xix. 1. And, supposing that he had done enough to disarm their fury, he exhibited him to them in that pitiable condition; saying to them at the same time, Behold the man!Ecce homo. John xix. 5.Now, in my turn, I say, here is indeed a decree of Pilate, and an unjust decree; but it is not the pretended decree alleged to have been made by the Jews. It is a decision wholly different; an unjust decision, it is true; but sufficient to avail asa legal barto any new proceedings against Jesus for the same act.Non bis in idem, no man shall be put twice in jeopardy, &c. is a maxim, which has come down to us from the Romans.Accordingly,“from thenceforth Pilate sought toreleaseJesus.”John xix. 12.Here, now, observe the deep perfidy of his accusers.“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend; whosoever maketh himself akingspeaketh against Cæsar.”Ib.It does not appear that Pilate was malignant; we see all the efforts he had made at different times to save Jesus. But he was apublic officer, and was attached tohis office; he was intimidated by the outcry which called in question hisfidelity to the emperor; he was afraid of adismissal: and he yielded. He immediately reascended the judgment-seat; (Matt. xxvii. 19), and, as new light had thus come upon him, he proceeded to make a second decree![pg 565]But being for a moment stopped by the voice of his own conscience, and by the advice which his terrified wife sent to him—“Have thou nothing to do with that just man”—(Matt. xxvii. 19)—he made his last effort, by attempting to influence the populace to accept of Barabbas instead of Jesus.“But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.”Mark xv. 11. Barabbas! a murderer! an assassin!Pilate spoke to them again:What will ye then, that I should do with Jesus?And they cried out,Away with him, crucify him. Pilate still persisted:Shall I crucify your king?thus using terms of raillery, in order to disarm them. But here showing themselves to be more truly Roman than Pilate himself, the chief priests hypocritically answered:We have no king but Cæsar.John xix. 15.The outcry was renewed—Crucify him, crucify him! And the clamour became more and more threatening;“and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.”Luke xxiii. 23.At length Pilate,being desirous of pleasing the multitude, proceeds to speak. But can we call it a legal adjudication, ajudgment, that he is about to pronounce? Is he, at the moment, in that free state of mind which is necessary for a judge, who is about to pass asentence of death? What new witnesses, what proofs have been brought forward to change his conviction and opinion, which had been so energetically declared, of the innocence of Jesus?“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it. Matt. xxvii. 24. And Pilate gave sentence, that it should be as they required. Luke xxiii. 24. And he delivered him to them to be crucified.”Matt. xxvii. 26.Well mayest thou wash thy hands, Pilate, stained as they are with innocent blood! Thou hast authorised the act in thy weakness; thou art not less culpable, than if thou hadst sacrificed him through wickedness! All generations, down to our[pg 566]own time, have repeated that theJust Onesufferedunder Pontius Pilate. Thy name has remained in history, to serve for the instruction of all public men, all pusillanimous judges, in order to hold up to them the shame ofyielding contrary to one's own convictions. The populace, in its fury, made an outcry at the foot of thy judgment-seat, where, perhaps, thou thyself didst not sit securely! But of what importance was that? Thydutyspoke out; and in such a case, better would it be to suffer death, than to inflict it on another.416We will now come to a conclusion.Theproofthat Jesus was not, as Mr. Salvador maintains, put to death for the crime of blasphemy or sacrilege, and for having preached a new religious worship in contravention of the Mosaic law, results fromthe very sentencepronounced by Pilate; a sentence, in pursuance of which he was led to execution by Roman soldiers.There was among the Romans a custom, which we borrowed from their jurisprudence, and which is still followed, of placing over the head of a condemned criminal a writing containingan extract from his sentence, in order that the public might knowfor what crimehe was condemned. This was the reason why Pilate put on the cross a label, on which he had written these words:Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judæorum, (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), which has since been denoted by the initials J. N. R. J. This was the alleged cause of his condemnation. St. Mark says—“And the superscription of hisaccusationwas written over—The King of the Jews.”Mark xv. 26.This inscription was first inLatin, which was the legal language of theRomanjudge; and it was repeated inHebrewand[pg 567]Greek, in order to be understood by the people of the nation and by foreigners.The chief priests, whose indefatigable hatred did not overlook the most minute details, being apprehensive that people would take it to be literally a fact affirmed, that Jesuswas the King of the Jews, said to Pilate:“Write notKing of the Jews, but thathe saidI am king of the Jews.”But Pilate answered:“What I have written I have written.”John xix. 21, 22.This is a conclusive answer to one of the last assertions of Mr. Salvador, (p. 88,) that“the Roman Pilate signed the sentence;”by which he always means that Pilate did nothing but sign a sentence, which he supposes to have been passed by the Sanhedrim; but in this he is mistaken. Pilate did not merelysignthe sentence, or decree, butdrew it up; and, when his draft was objected to by the priests, he still adhered to it, saying, what I have written shall remain as written.Here then we see the true cause of the condemnation of Jesus! Here we have the“judicial and legal proof.”Jesus was the victim of apoliticalaccusation! He was put to death for the imaginary crime of having aimed at the power of Cæsar, by calling himselfKing of the Jews! Absurd accusation; which Pilate never believed, and which the chief priests and the Pharisees themselves did not believe. For they were not authorized to arrest Jesus on that account; it was a new, and totally different, accusation from that which they first planned—a sudden accusation of the moment, when they saw that Pilate was but little affected by theirreligiouszeal, and they found it necessary to arousehis zeal forCæsar.“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend!”This alarming language has too often, since that time, reverberated in the ears of timid judges, who, like Pilate, have rendered themselves criminal by delivering up victims through want of firmness, whom they would never have condemned, if they had listened to the voice of their own consciences.Let us now recapitulate the case, as I have considered it from the beginning.Is it not evident, contrary to the conclusion of Mr. Salvador, that Jesus, considered merely asa simple citizen, was not tried and[pg 568]sentenced eitheraccording to law, oragreeably to the forms of legal proceedings then existing?God, according to his eternal design, might permit the just to suffer by the malice of men; but he also intended, that this should at least happen by a disregard of all laws, and by a violation of all established rules, in order that the entire contempt of forms should stand as the first warning of the violation of law.Let us not be surprised then, that in another part of his work, Mr. Salvador (who, it is gratifying to observe, discusses his subject dispassionately) expresses some regret in speaking of the“unfortunate sentence against Jesus.”Vol. i. p. 59. He has wished to excuse the Hebrews; but, one of that nation, in giving utterance to the feelings of his heart, still says—in language which I took from his own mouth,“We should be very cautious of condemning him at this day.”I pass over the excesses which followed the order of Pilate; as, the violence shown to Simon, the Cyrenian, who was made in some degree a sharer in the punishment, by being compelled to carry the cross; the injurious treatment which attended the victim to the place of the sacrifice, and even to the cross, where Jesus still prayed for his brethren and his executioners!To the heathen themselves I would say—You, who have gloried in the death of Socrates, how much must you be struck with wonder at that of Jesus! Ye, censors of the Areopagus, how could you undertake to excuse the Synagogue, and justify the sentence of the Hall of Judgment? Philosophy herself has not hesitated to proclaim, and we may repeat with her—“Yes, if the life and death ofSocrateswere those of a sage, the life and death ofJesuswere those of a divinity.”
“The chapter, in which Mr. Salvador treats ofthe Administration of Justice among the Hebrews, is altogether theoretical. He makes an exposition of the law—that things, in order to beconformable to rule, must be transacted in a certain mode. In all this I have not contradicted him, but have let him speak for himself.
In the subsequent chapter the author announces:“That according to thisexposition of judicial proceedingshe is going to follow out the application of them to the most memorable trial in all history, that of Jesus Christ.”Accordingly the chapter is entitled:The Trial and Condemnation of Jesus.
The author first takes care to inform us under what point of view he intends to give an account of that accusation:“That we ought to lament the blindness of the Hebrews for not having recognised a God in Jesus, is a point which I do not examine.”(There is another thing also, which he says he shall not examine.)“But, when they discovered in himonly a citizen, did they try himaccording to existing laws and formalities?”
The question being thus stated, Mr. Salvador goes over all the various aspects of the accusation; and his conclusion is, that the procedure was perfectly regular, and the condemnation perfectly appropriate to the act committed.“Now,”says he, (p. 87,)“the Senate, having adjudged that Jesus, the son of Joseph, born in Bethlehem, had profaned the name of God by usurping it himself, though a simple citizen, applied to him[pg 542]the law against blasphemy, the law in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and verse 20, chapter 18th, conformably to which every prophet, even one that performs miracles, is to be punished when he speaks of a God unknown to the Hebrews or their fathers.”
This conclusion is formed to please the followers of the Jewish law; it is wholly for their benefit, and the evident object is, to justify them from the reproach ofdeïcide.
We will, however, avoid treating this grave subject in a theological point of view. As to myself, Jesus Christ is theMan-God; but it is not with arguments drawn from my religion and my creed, that I intend to combat the statement and the conclusion of Mr. Salvador. The present age would charge me with being intolerant; and this is a reproach which I will never incur. Besides, I do not wish to give to the enemies of Christianity the advantage of making the outcry, that we are afraid to enter into a discussion with them, and that we wish to crush rather than to convince them. Having thus contented myself with declaring my own faith, as Mr. Salvador has let us clearly understand his, I shall also examine the question under a merelyhumanpoint of view, and proceed to inquire, with him,“Whether Jesus Christ, consideredas a simple citizen, was tried according to the existing laws and formalities.”
The catholic religion itself warrants me in this; it is not a mere fiction; for God willed, that Jesus should be clothed in the forms of humanity (et homo factus est), and that he should undergo the lot and sufferings of humanity. Theson of God, as to his moral state and his holy spirit, he was also, in reality, theSon of Man, for the purpose of accomplishing the mission which he came upon earth to fulfil.
This being the state of the question, then, I enter upon my subject; and I do not hesitate to affirm, because I will prove it, that, upon examining all the circumstances of this great trial, we shall be very far from discovering in it the application of those legal maxims, which are the safeguard of the rights of accused persons, and of which Mr. Salvador, in his chapterOn the Administration of Justice, has made a seductive exposition.
The accusation of Jesus, instigated by the hatred of the[pg 543]priests and the Pharisees, and presented at first as a charge ofsacrilege, but afterwards converted into apoliticalcrime andan offence against the state, was marked, in all its aspects, with the foulest acts of violence and perfidy. It was not so mucha trialenvironed with legal forms, as a realpassion, or prolonged suffering, in which the imperturbable gentleness of the victim displays more strongly the unrelenting ferocity of his persecutors.
When Jesus appeared among the Jews, that people was but the shadow of itself. Broken down by more than one subjugation, divided by factions and irreconcilable sects, they had in the last resort been obliged to succumb to the Roman power and surrender their own sovereignty. Jerusalem, having become a mere appendage to the province of Syria, saw within its walls an imperial garrison; Pilate commanded there, in the name of Cæsar; and the late people of God were groaning under the double tyranny of a conqueror, whose power they abhorred and whose idolatry they detested, and of a priesthood that exerted itself to keep them under the rigorous bonds of a religious fanaticism.
Jesus Christ deplored the misfortunes of his country. How often did he weep for Jerusalem! Read in Bossuet'sPolitics drawn from the Holy Scriptures, the admirable chapter entitled,Jesus Christ the good citizen. He recommended to his countrymenunion, which constitutes the strength of states.“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, (said he,) thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
He was supposed to be not favorable to the Romans; but he only loved his own countrymen more. Witness the address of the Jews, who, in order to induce him to restore to the centurion a sick servant that was dear to him, used as the most powerful argument these words—that he was worthy for whom he should do this, for he loveth our nation. And Jesus went with them. Luke vii. 4, 5.
Touched with the distresses of the nation, Jesus comforted them by holding up to them the hope of another life; he alarmed the great, the rich, and the haughty, by the prospect of[pg 544]a final judgment, at which every man would be judged not according to his rank, but his works. He was desirous of again bringing back man to his original dignity; he spoke to him of hisduties, but at the same time of hisrights. The people heard him with avidity, and followed him with eagerness; his words affected them; his hand healed their diseases, and his moral teaching instructed them; he preached, and practised one virtue till then unknown, and which belongs to him alone—charity. This celebrity, however, and these wonders excited envy. The partisans of theancient theocracywere alarmed at thenew doctrine; the chief priests felt that their power was threatened; the pride of the Pharisees was humbled; the scribes came in as their auxiliaries, and the destruction of Jesus was resolved upon.
Now, if his conduct was reprehensible, if it afforded grounds for alegal accusation, why was not that course taken openly? Why not try him for the acts committed by him, and for his public discourses? Why employ against him subterfuges, artifice, perfidy, and violence? for such was the mode of proceeding against Jesus.
Let us now take up the subject, and look at the narratives which have come down to us. Let us, with Mr. Salvador, open the books of the Gospels; for he does not object to that testimony; nay, he relies upon it:“It is by the Gospels themselves,”says he,“that I shall establishall the facts.”
In truth, how can we (except by contrary evidence, of which there is none) refuse to place confidence in an historian, who tells us, as Saint John does, with affecting simplicity:“He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”John xix. 35.
Section I.—Spies, or Informers.
Who will not be surprised to find in this case the odious practice of employing hired informers? Branded with infamy, as they are in modern times, they will be still more so when we carry back their origin to the trial of Christ. It will be seen presently, whether I have not properly characterized by the[pg 545]name of hired informers those emissaries, whom the chief priests sent out to be about Jesus.
We read in the evangelist Luke, chap. xx. 20:Et observantes miserunt insidiatores, qui se justos simularent, ut caperent eum in sermone, et traderent illum principatui et potestati præsidis. I will not translate this text myself, but will take the language of a translator whose accuracy is well known, Mr. De Sacy:“As they only sought occasions for his destruction, they sent to himapostate persons who feigned themselves just men, in order totake holdof his words, that they might deliver him unto magistrate and into the power of the governor.”And Mr. De Sacy adds—“if there should escape from him the least word against the public authorities.”
This first artifice has escaped the sagacity of Mr. Salvador.
Section II.—The Corruption and Treachery of Judas.
According to Mr. Salvador, the senate, as he calls it, did not commence their proceedings by arresting Jesus, as would be done at the present day; but they began by passing a preliminary decree, that he should be arrested; and he cites, in proof of his assertion, St. John xi. 53, 54, and St. Matthew xxvi. 4, 5.
But St. John says nothing of this pretended decree. He speaks, too, not of a public sitting, but of a consultation held by the chief priests and thePharisees, who did not, to my knowledge, constitute a judicial tribunal among the Jews.“Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this mandoeth many miracles.”John xi. 47. They add:“If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him,”—which imported also, in their minds,and they will no longer believe in us. Now, in this, I can readily perceive the fear of seeing the morals and doctrines of Jesus prevail; but where is the preliminaryjudgment, or decree? I cannot discover it.
“And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor[pg 546]consider, that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people ... and heprophesied, that Jesus should die for the nation of the Jews.”But toprophesyis not topass judgment; and the individual opinion of Caiaphas, who was only one among them, was not the opinion of all, nor ajudgment of the senate. We, therefore, still find ajudgmentwanting; and we only observe, that the priests and Pharisees are stimulated by a violent hatred of Jesus, and that“from that day forth they took counsel together forto put him to death; ut interficerent eum.”John xi. 53.
The authority of St. John, then, is directly in contradiction of the assertion, that there was anorder of arrestpreviously passed by a regular tribunal.
St. Matthew, in relating the same facts, says, that the chief priests assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and there held counsel together. But what counsel? and what was the result of it? Was it to issue anorder of arrestagainst Jesus, that they might hear him and then pass sentence? Not at all; but they held counsel together,“that they might take Jesusby subtilty, orfraud, andkill him”;concilium fecerunt,ut JesumDOLOtenerent etOCCIDERENT. Matt. xxvi. 5. Now in the Latin language, a language perfectly well constituted in everything relating to terms of the law, the wordsoccidereandinterficerewere never employed to express the act of passingsentence, orjudgment of death, but simply to signifymurderorassassination.401
Thisfraud, by the aid of which they were to get Jesus into their power, was nothing but the bargain made between the chief priests and Judas.
Judas, one of the twelve, goes to find the chief priests, and says to them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? Matt. xxvi. 14, 15. And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver! Jesus, who foresaw his treachery, warned[pg 547]him of it mildly, in the midst of the Last Supper, where the voice of his master, in the presence of his brethren, should have touched him and awakened his reflections! But not so; wholly absorbed in his reward, Judas placed himself at the head of a gang of servants, to whom he was to point out Jesus; and, then, by akissconsummated his treachery!402
Is it thus that ajudicial decree was to be executed, if there had really been one made for the arrest of Jesus?
Section III.—Personal Liberty.—Resistance to an Armed Force.
The act was done in the night time. After having celebrated the Supper, Jesus had conducted his disciples to the Mount of Olives. He prayed fervently; but they fell asleep.
Jesus awakes them, with a gentle reproof for their weakness, and warns them that the moment is approaching.“Rise, let us be going; behold he is at hand that doth betray me.”Matt. xxvi. 46.
Judas was not alone; in his suite there was a kind of ruffian band, almost entirely composed of servants of the high priest, but whom Mr. Salvador honours with the title of thelegal soldiery. If in the crowd there were any Romansoldiers, they were there as spectators, and without having been legally called on duty; for the Roman commanding officer, Pilate, had not yet heard the affair spoken of.
This personal seizure of Jesus had so much the appearance of a forcible arrest, an illegal act of violence, that his disciples made preparation to repel force by force.
Malchus, the insolent servant of the high priest, having[pg 548]shown himself the most eager to rush upon Jesus, Peter, not less zealous for his own master, cut off the servant's right ear.
This resistance might have been continued with success, if Jesus had not immediately interfered. But what proves that Peter, even while causing bloodshed, was not resisting alegal order, alegal judgmentor decree, (which would have made his resistance an act ofrebellion by an armed force against a judicial order,) is this—that he was not arrested, either at the moment or afterwards, at the house of the high priest, to which he followed Jesus, and where he was most distinctly recognised by the maid servant of the high priest, and even by a relative of Malchus.
Jesus alone was arrested; and although he had not individually offered any active resistance, and had even restrained that of his disciples, they bound him as a malefactor; which was a criminal degree of rigour, since for the purpose of securing a single man by a numerous band of persons armed with swords and staves it was not necessary.“Be ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?”Luke xxii. 52.
Section IV.—Other Irregularities in the Arrest.—Seizure of the Person.
They dragged Jesus along with them; and, instead of taking him directly to the proper magistrate, they carried him before Annas, who had no other character than that of beingfather-in-law to the high priest. John xviii. 13. Now, if this was only for the purpose of letting him be seen by him, such a curiosity was not to be gratified; it was a vexatious proceeding, an irregularity.
From the house of Annas they led him to that of the high priest; all this time beingbound. John xviii. 24. They placed him in the court yard; it was cold, and they made a fire; it was in the night time, but by the light of the fire Peter was recognised by the people of the palace.
Now the Jewish law prohibitedall proceedings by night; here, therefore, there was another infraction of the law.
Under this state of things, his person being forcibly seized and detained in a private house, and delivered into the hands of servants, in the midst of a court, how was Jesus treated? St. Luke says, the men that held Jesusmockedhim andsmotehim; and when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him. Luke xxii. 63, 64, 65.
Will it be said, as Mr. Salvador does, that all this took place out of the presence of the senate? Let us wait, in this instance, till the senate shall be called up, and we shall see how far they protected the accused person.
Section V.—Captious Interrogatories.—Acts of Violence towards Jesus.
Already had the cock crowed! But it was not yet day. The elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and, having caused Jesus to appear before their council, they proceeded to interrogate him. Luke xxii. 66.
Now, in the outset, it should be observed, that if they had been less carried away by their hatred, they should, as it was thenight time, not only have postponed, but put a stop to the proceedings, because it wasthe feast of the Passover, the most solemn of all festivals; and according to their law nojudicial procedurecould take place on a feast-day, under the penalty of being null.403Nevertheless, let us see who proceeded to interrogate Jesus. This was that same Caiaphas, who, if he had intended to remain ajudge, was evidently liable to objection; for in the preceding assemblage he had made himself theaccuserof Jesus.404Even before he had seen or heard him, he declared him to bedeserving of death. He said to his colleagues, that“it wasexpedientthat one man should die for all.”John xviii. 14.[pg 550]Such being the opinion of Caiaphas, we shall not be surprised, if he shows partiality.
Instead of interrogating Jesus respectingpositive acts done, with their circumstances, and respectingfacts personal to himself, Caiaphas interrogates him respectinggeneral facts, respecting his disciples (whom it would have been much more simple to have called as witnesses), and respecting hisdoctrine, which was a mere abstraction so long as no external acts were the consequence of it.“The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine.”John xviii. 19.
Jesus answered with dignity:“I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.”Ib. 20.
“Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me,what I have said unto them; behold, they know what I said.”Ib. 21.
“And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?”Ib. 22.
Will it here be still said, that this violence was the individual act of the person who thus struck the accused? I answer, that on this occasion the fact took place in the presence and under the eyes of the whole council; and, as the high priest who presided did not restrain the author of it, I come to the conclusion, that he became an accomplice, especially when this violence was committed under the pretence of avenging the alleged affront to his dignity.
But in what respect could the answer of Jesus appear offensive?“If I have spoken evil,”said Jesus,“bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”405John xviii. 23.
There remained no mode of escaping from this dilemma. They accused Jesus; it was for those, who accused, to prove their accusation. An accused person is not obliged to criminate himself. He should have been convicted by proofs; he himself called for them. Let us see what witnesses were produced against him.
Section VI.—Witnesses.—New Interrogatories.—The Judge in a Passion.
“And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.”Mark xiv. 55.
“For many barefalse witnessagainst him, but their witness agreed not together.”Ib. 56.
“And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”Ib. 57, 58.
“But (to the same point still) neither so did their witness agree together.”Ib. 59.
Mr. Salvador, on this subject, says, p. 87:“The two witnesses, whom St. Matthew and St. Mark charge withfalsehood, narrate a discourse which St. John declares to betrue, so far as respects the power which Jesus Christ attributed to himself.”
This alleged contradiction among the Evangelists does not exist. In the first place, St. Matthew does not say that the discourse was had by Jesus. In chapter xxvi. 61, he states the depositions of the witnesses, but saying at the same time that they werefalse witnesses; and in chapter xxvii. 40, he puts the same declaration into the mouth of those who insulted Jesus at the foot of the cross; but he does not put it into the mouth of Christ. He is in accordance with St. Mark.
St. John, chapter ii. 19, makes Jesus speak in these words:“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”And St. John adds:“He spake of the temple of his body.”
Thus Jesus did not say in an affirmative and somewhat menacing manner,I will destroy this temple, as the witnessesfalselyassumed; he only said, hypothetically,Destroy this temple, that is to say, suppose this temple should be destroyed, I will raise it up in three days. Besides, they could not dissemble, that he referred to a temple altogether different[pg 552]from theirs, because he said, I will raise up another in three days,which will not be made by the hands of man.
It hence results, at least, that the Jews did not understand him, for they cried out,“Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”
Thus, then, the witnesses did not agree together, and their declarations had nothing conclusive. Mark xiv. 59. We must, therefore, look for other proofs.
“Then the high priest, (we must not forget, that he is still the accuser,) the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it, which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.”Mark xiv. 60. In truth, since the question was not concerning the temple of the Jews, but an ideal temple, not made by the hand of man, and which was alone in the thoughts of Jesus, the explanation was to be found in the very evidence itself.
The high priest continued:“I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.”Matt. xxvi. 63. I adjure thee, I call upon thee on oath! a gross infraction of that rule of morals and jurisprudence, which forbids our placing an accused person between the danger of perjury and the fear of inculpating himself, and thus making his situation more hazardous. The high priest, however, persists, and says to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?406Jesus answered,Thou hast said. Matthew xxvi. 64;I am. Mark xiv. 62.
“Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying,He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, nowye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.”Matt. xxvi. 66.
Let us now compare this scene of violence with the mild deduction of principles, which we find in the chapter of Mr. SalvadorOn the Administration of Justice; and let us ask ourselves,[pg 553]if, as he alleges, we find a justapplicationof them in the proceedings against Christ?
Do we discover here thatrespectof the Hebrew judge towards the party accused, when we see that Caiaphas permitted him to be struck, in his presence,with impunity?
What was this Caiaphas, at once an accuser and judge?407A passionate man, and too much resembling the odious portrait which the historian Josephus has given us of him!408A judge, who was irritated to such a degree, that he rent his clothes; who imposed upon the accused a most solemn oath, and who gave to his answers the criminal character, thathe had spokenblasphemy! And, from that moment, he wanted no more witnesses, notwithstanding the law required them. He would not have an inquiry, which he perceived would be insufficient; he attempts to supply it by captious questions. He is desirous of having him condemnedupon his own declaration alone, (interpreted, too, as he chooses to understand it,) though that was forbidden by the laws of the Hebrews! And, in the midst of a most violent transport of passion, this accuser himself, a high priest, who means to speak in the name of the living God, is the first to pass sentence of death, and carries with him the opinions of the rest!
In this hideous picture I cannot recognise that justice of the Hebrews, of which Mr. Salvador has given so fine a view inhis theory!
Section VII.—Subsequent Acts of Violence.
Immediately after this kind of sacerdotal verdict rendered against Jesus, the acts of violence and insults recommenced with increased strength; the fury of the judge must have communicated itself to the bystanders. St. Matthew says:“Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; who is he that smote thee?”Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.
Mr. Salvador does not contest the truth of this ill treatment. In page 88 he says,“It was contrary to the spirit of the Hebrew law, and that it was not according to the order of nature, that a senate composed of the most respectable men of a nation,—that a senate, which might perhaps be mistaken, but which thought it was acting mildly, should have permitted such outrages against him whose life it held in its own hands. The writers who have transmitted these details to us, not having been present themselves at the trial, were disposed to overcharge the picture, either on account of their own feelings, or to throw upon their judges a greater odium.”
I repeat; this ill treatment was entirely contrary to the spirit of the law. And what do I want more, since my object is to make prominentall the violations of law.
“It is not in nature to see a body, which respects itself, authorize such attempts.”But of what consequence is that, when the fact is established?“The historians, it is said, were not present at the trial.”But was Mr. Salvador there present himself, so that he could give a flat denial of their statements? And when even an able writer, who was not an eye-witness, relates the same events after the lapse of more than eighteen centuries, he ought at least to bring opposing evidence, if he would impeach that of contemporaries; who, if they were not in the very hall of the council, were certainly on the spot, in the vicinity, perhaps in the court yard, inquiring anxiously of every thing that was happening to the man whose disciples they were.409Besides, the learned author whom I am combating says, in the outset (p. 81),“it is from the Gospels themselves that he will take all his facts.”He must then take the whole together, as well those which go to condemn, as those which are in palliation or excuse.
Those gross insults, those inhuman acts of violence, even if they are to be cast upon the servants of the high priest and the persons in his train, do not excuse those individuals, who, when they took upon themselves the authority of judges, were bound[pg 555]at the same time to throw around him all the protection of the law. Caiaphas, too, was culpable as the master of the house (for every thing took place in his house), even if he should not be responsible as high priest and president of the council for having permitted excesses, which, indeed were but too much in accordance with the rage he had himself displayed upon the bench.
These outrages, which would be inexcusable even towards a man irrevocably condemned to punishment, were the more criminal towards Jesus, because, legally and judicially speaking, there had not yet been any sentence properly passed against him according to the public law of the country; as we shall see in the following section, which will deserve the undivided attention of the reader.
Section VIII.—The Position of the Jews in respect to the Romans.
We must not forget,that Judea was a conquered country. After the death of Herod—most inappropriately surnamedthe Great—Augustus had confirmed his last will, by which that king of the Jews had arranged the division of his dominions betweenhistwo sons: but Augustus did not continue their title ofking, which their father had borne.
Archeläus, on whom Judea devolved, having been recalled on account of his cruelties, the territory, which was at first intrusted to his command, was united to the province of Syria. (Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17, cap. 15.)
Augustus then appointed particular officers for Judea. Tiberius did the same; and at the time of which we are speaking, Pilate was one of those officers. (Josephus, lib. 18, cap. 3 & 8.)
Some have considered Pilate as governor, by title, and have given him the Latin appellation,Præses, president or governor. But they have mistaken the force of the word. Pilate was one of those public officers, who were called by the Romans,procuratores Cæsaris, Imperial procurators.[pg 556]With this title ofprocurator, he was placed under the superior authority of the governor of Syria, the truepræses, or governor of that province, of which Judea was then only one of the dependencies.
To the governor (præses) peculiarly belonged the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases.410Theprocurator, on the contrary, had, for his principal duty, nothing but the collection of the revenue, and the trial of revenue causes. But the right of taking cognizance ofcapitalcases did, in some instances, belong to certainprocurators, who were sent into small provinces to fill the places of governors (vice præsides), as appears clearly from the Roman laws.411Such wasPilateat Jerusalem.412
The Jews, placed in this political position—notwithstanding they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercise of their religion, and many things merely relating to their police and municipal regulations—the Jews, I say, had not thepower of life and death; this was a principal attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans always took great care to reserve to themselves, even if they neglected other things.Apud Romanos, jus valet gladii; cætera transmittuntur.Tacit.
What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? Without doubt the scribes, and their friends the Pharisees, might well have been alarmed, as a body and individually, at the preaching and success of Jesus; they might be concerned for their worship; and they might have interrogated the man respecting his creed and his doctrines,—they might have made a kind of preparatory proceeding,—they might have declared, in point of fact, that those doctrines, which threatened their own, were contrary to their law, as understood by themselves.
But that law, although it had not undergone any alteration as to the affairs of religion, had no longer any coercive power as to the external or civil regulations of society. In vain would they have undertaken to pronounce sentence of death under the circumstances of the case of Jesus; the council of the Jews had not the power to pass asentence of death; it only would have had power to makean accusationagainst him before the governor, or his deputy, and then deliver him over to be tried by him.
Let us distinctly establish this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According to him, (p. 88),“the Jews hadreserved the power of trying, according to their law; but it was in the hands of theprocuratoralone, that the executive power was vested; every culprit must be put to death byhisconsent, in order that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to foreigners.”
No; the Jews had not reservedthe right of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should becomeimpatient of the yoke; it was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Cæsar in Judea, was not merely an agent of theexecutive authority, which would have left thejudiciaryandlegislativepower in the hands of the conquered people—he was not simply an officer appointed to give anexequaturor mere approval (visa) to sentences passed byanother authority, theauthority of the Jews. When the matter in question was acapitalcase, the Roman authorities not only ordered theexecutionof a sentence, but also took cognizance (cognitio) of the crime; it had the right of jurisdictionà priori, and that ofpassing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation,vice præsidis, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred;[pg 558]but in any event we hold it to be clear, that the Jews had lost the right ofcondemning to deathany person whatever, not only so far as respects theexecutionbut thepassingof the sentence. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.
The Jews were not ignorant of this; for when they went before Pilate, to ask of him the condemnation of Jesus, they themselves declared, that it was not permitted to them to put any person to death:“It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”John xviii. 31.
Here I am happy to be able to support myself by the opinion of a very respectable authority, the celebrated Loiseau, in his treatise onSeigneuries, in the chapter on the administration ofjustice belonging to cities.“In truth,”says he,“there is some evidence, that thepolice, in which the people had the sole interest, was administered by officers of the people; but I know not upon what were founded the concessions of power to some cities of France to exercise criminal jurisdiction; nor why the Ordinance of Moulins left that to them rather than civil cases; for the criminal jurisdiction is theright of the sword, themerum imperium, or absolute sovereignty. Accordingly, by the Roman law, the administration of justice was so far prohibited to the officers of cities, that they could not punish even by a simple fine.Thus it is doubtless that we must understandthat passage of the Gospel, where the Jews say to Pilate,It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; for, after they were subjected to the Romans, they had not jurisdiction of crimes.”
Let us now follow Jesus to the presence of Pilate.
Section IX.—The Accusation made before Pilate.
At this point I must entreat the particular attention of the reader. The irregularities and acts of violence, which I have hitherto remarked upon, are nothing in comparison with the unbridled fury, which is about to display itself before theRoman Judge, in order to extort from him, against his own conviction, a sentence of death.
“And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders, and scribes, and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.”Mark xv. 1.
As soon as the morning was come; for, as I have observed already, every thing which had been done thus far against Jesus was doneduring the night.
They then led Jesus from Caiaphas unto the Hall of Judgment of Pilate.413It was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lestthey should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. John xviii. 28.
Singular scrupulousness! and truly worthy of the Pharisees! They were afraid ofdefiling themselves on the day of the passoverby enteringthe house ofa heathen! And yet, the same day, only some hours before presenting themselves to Pilate, they had, in contempt of their own law, committed the outrage ofholding a counciland deliberating uponan accusation of a capital crime.
As they would not enter,“Pilate went out to them.”John xviii. 29. Now observe his language. He did not say to them,Where is the sentence you have passed; as he must have done, if he was only to give them his simpleexequatur, or permission to execute the sentence; but he takes up the matter from the beginning, as would be done by one who hadplenary jurisdiction; and he says to them: What accusation bring ye against this man?
They answered, with their accustomed haughtiness: If he were nota malefactorwe would not have delivered him up to thee. John xviii. 30. They wished to have it understood, that, being a question ofblasphemy, it was thecause of their religion, which they could appreciate better than any others could. Pilate, then, would have been under the necessity of believing themon their word. But this Roman, indignant at their proposed course of proceeding, which would have restricted his jurisdiction by making him the passive instrument of the wishes of the Jews, answered them in an ironical manner:[pg 560]Well, since you say he has sinned against your law, take him yourselves and judge him according to your law. John xviii. 31. This was an absolute mystification to them, for they knew their own want of power to condemn him to death. But they were obliged to yield the point, and to submit to Pilate himself theirarticles of accusation.
Now what were the grounds of this accusation? Were theythe samewhich had hitherto been alleged against Jesus—the charge ofblasphemy—which was the only one brought forward by Caiaphas before the council of the Jews? Not at all; despairing of obtaining from the Roman judge a sentence ofdeathfor areligiousquarrel, which was of no interest to the Romans,414they suddenly changed their plan; they abandoned their first accusation, the charge of blasphemy, and substituted for it apoliticalaccusation, anoffence against the state.
Here we have the very crisis, or essential incident, of the passion; and that which makes the heaviest accusation of guilt on the part of the informers against Jesus. For, being fully bent on destroying him in any manner whatever, they no longer exhibited themselves as the avengers oftheir religion, which was alleged to have been outraged, or of their worship, which it was pretended was threatened; but, ceasing to appear as Jews, in order to affect sentiments belonging to a foreign nation, those hypocrites held out the appearance of being concerned for the interests ofRome; they accused their own countryman of an intention to restore the kingdom of Jerusalem, to make himselfkingof theJews, and to make an insurrection of the people against their conquerors. Let us hear them speak for themselves:
“And they began toaccusehim, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying, that he himself is Christ aking.”Luke xxiii. 2.
What a calumny! Jesus forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar! when he had answered the Pharisees themselves, in presence of the whole people, by showing them the image of Cæsar upon a[pg 561]Roman piece of money, and saying, Give unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's. But this accusation was one mode of interesting Pilate in respect to his jurisdiction; for, as an imperialprocurator, he was specially to superintend the collection of the revenue. The second branch of the accusation still more directly affected the sovereignty of the Romans:“He holds himself up for aking.”
The accusation having thus assumed a character purelypolitical, Pilate thought he must pay attention to it.“Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall,”(the place where justice was administered,) and havingsummoned Jesus to appearbefore him, he proceeds to his Examination, and says to him:“Art thou the king of the Jews?”John xviii. 33.
This question, so different from those which had been addressed to him at the house of the high priest, appears to have excited the astonishment of Jesus; and, in his turn, he asked Pilate:“Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”Ib. 24. In reality, Jesus was desirous of knowing, first of all, the authors of this new accusation—Is this an accusation brought against me by theRomansor by theJews?
Pilate replied to him—“Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me; what hast thou done?”Ib. 35.
All the particulars of this procedure are important; I cannot too often repeat the remark, that in no part of the transactions before Pilate is there any question at all respecting a previous sentence, a judgment already passed—a judgment, the execution of which was the only subject of consideration; it was a case of a capital accusation; but an accusation which was then just beginning; they were about the preliminaryinterrogatoriesput to the accused, and Pilate says to him,“What hast thou done?”
Jesus, seeing by the explanation what was the source of theprejudgingof his case, and knowing the secret thoughts which predominated in making the accusation, and that his enemies wanted to arrive at the same end by an artifice, answered Pilate—“My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews;”(we see, in fact, that Jesus had forbidden[pg 562]his people to resist) but, he added,“now is my kingdom not from hence.”John xviii. 36.
This answer of Jesus is very remarkable; it became the foundation of his religion, and the pledge of its universality, because it detached it from the interests of all governments. It rests not merely in assertion, in doctrine; it was given injustification, indefenceagainst the accusation of intending to make himselfKing of the Jews. Indeed, if Jesus had affected atemporalroyal authority, if there had been the least attempt, on his part, to usurpthe power of Cæsar, he would have been guilty of treason in the eyes of the magistrate. But, by answering twice,my kingdom is not of this world, my kingdomis not from hence, his justification was complete.
Pilate, however, persisted and said to him:“Art thou a king then?”Jesus replied, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. John xviii. 37.
Pilate then said to him:What is the truth?
This question proves, that Pilate had not a very clear idea of what Jesus calledthe truth. He perceived nothing in it butideology; and, satisfied with having said (less in the manner of a question than of an exclamation)“What is the truth,”he went on to the Jews (who remained outside) and said to them,“I find in him no fault at all.”John xviii. 38.
Here, then, we see Jesus absolved from the accusation by the declaration of the Roman judge himself.
But the accusers, persisting still farther, added—“He stirreth up the people, teachingthroughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.”Luke xxiii. 5.
“He stirreth up the people!”This is a charge of sedition; and for Pilate. But observe, it wasby the doctrine which he teaches; these words comprehend the real complaint of the Jews. To them it was equivalent to saying—Heteachesthe people, he instructs them, he enlightens them; he preachesnew doctrineswhich are notours.“He stirs up the people!”This, in their months signified—the people hear him willingly; the people follow and become attached to him; for he preaches a doctrine[pg 563]that is friendly and consolatory to the people; he unmasks our pride, our avarice, our insatiable spirit of domination!
Pilate, however, does not appear to have attached much importance to this new turn given to the accusation; but he here betrays a weakness. He heard the wordGalilee; and he makes that the occasion of shifting off the responsibility upon another public officer, and seizes the occasion with avidity. He says to Jesus—you are aGalileanthen? and, upon the answer being in the affirmative, considering Jesus as belonging to the jurisdiction of Herod-Antipas, who, by the good pleasure of Cæsar, was then tetrarch of Galilee, he sent him to Herod. Luke xxiii. 6, 7.
But Herod, who, as St. Luke says, had been long desirous ofseeing Jesusand had hoped to see some miracle done by him, after satisfying an idle curiosity and putting several questions to him, which Jesus did not deign to answer,—Herod, notwithstanding the presence of the priests, (who had not yet gone off, but stood there with their scribes,) and notwithstanding the pertinacity with which they continued to accuse Jesus, perceiving nothing but what was merely chimerical in theaccusation of being a king, made a mockery of the affair, and sent Jesus back to Pilate,after having arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, in order to show that he thought this pretended royalty was a subject of ridicule rather than of apprehensions. Luke xxiii. 8, &c., and De Sacy. Ib.
Section X.—The Last Efforts before Pilate.
No person, then, was willing to condemn Jesus; neither Herod, who only made the case a subject of mockery, nor Pilate, who had openly declared that he found nothing criminal in him.
But the hatred of the priests was not disarmed—so far from it, that the chief priests, with a numerous train of their partisans, returned to Pilate with a determination to force him to a decision.
The unfortunate Pilate, reviewing his proceedings in their presence, said to them again:“Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people—and, behold, I, having[pg 564]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 you to him, and lo,nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.”Luke xxiii. 14, 15.
After“chastising”him! And was not this a piece of cruelty, when he considered him to be innocent?415But this was an act of condescension by which Pilate hoped to quiet the rage with which he saw they were agitated.
“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him.”John xix. 1. And, supposing that he had done enough to disarm their fury, he exhibited him to them in that pitiable condition; saying to them at the same time, Behold the man!Ecce homo. John xix. 5.
Now, in my turn, I say, here is indeed a decree of Pilate, and an unjust decree; but it is not the pretended decree alleged to have been made by the Jews. It is a decision wholly different; an unjust decision, it is true; but sufficient to avail asa legal barto any new proceedings against Jesus for the same act.Non bis in idem, no man shall be put twice in jeopardy, &c. is a maxim, which has come down to us from the Romans.
Accordingly,“from thenceforth Pilate sought toreleaseJesus.”John xix. 12.
Here, now, observe the deep perfidy of his accusers.“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend; whosoever maketh himself akingspeaketh against Cæsar.”Ib.
It does not appear that Pilate was malignant; we see all the efforts he had made at different times to save Jesus. But he was apublic officer, and was attached tohis office; he was intimidated by the outcry which called in question hisfidelity to the emperor; he was afraid of adismissal: and he yielded. He immediately reascended the judgment-seat; (Matt. xxvii. 19), and, as new light had thus come upon him, he proceeded to make a second decree!
But being for a moment stopped by the voice of his own conscience, and by the advice which his terrified wife sent to him—“Have thou nothing to do with that just man”—(Matt. xxvii. 19)—he made his last effort, by attempting to influence the populace to accept of Barabbas instead of Jesus.“But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.”Mark xv. 11. Barabbas! a murderer! an assassin!
Pilate spoke to them again:What will ye then, that I should do with Jesus?And they cried out,Away with him, crucify him. Pilate still persisted:Shall I crucify your king?thus using terms of raillery, in order to disarm them. But here showing themselves to be more truly Roman than Pilate himself, the chief priests hypocritically answered:We have no king but Cæsar.John xix. 15.
The outcry was renewed—Crucify him, crucify him! And the clamour became more and more threatening;“and the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.”Luke xxiii. 23.
At length Pilate,being desirous of pleasing the multitude, proceeds to speak. But can we call it a legal adjudication, ajudgment, that he is about to pronounce? Is he, at the moment, in that free state of mind which is necessary for a judge, who is about to pass asentence of death? What new witnesses, what proofs have been brought forward to change his conviction and opinion, which had been so energetically declared, of the innocence of Jesus?
“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it. Matt. xxvii. 24. And Pilate gave sentence, that it should be as they required. Luke xxiii. 24. And he delivered him to them to be crucified.”Matt. xxvii. 26.
Well mayest thou wash thy hands, Pilate, stained as they are with innocent blood! Thou hast authorised the act in thy weakness; thou art not less culpable, than if thou hadst sacrificed him through wickedness! All generations, down to our[pg 566]own time, have repeated that theJust Onesufferedunder Pontius Pilate. Thy name has remained in history, to serve for the instruction of all public men, all pusillanimous judges, in order to hold up to them the shame ofyielding contrary to one's own convictions. The populace, in its fury, made an outcry at the foot of thy judgment-seat, where, perhaps, thou thyself didst not sit securely! But of what importance was that? Thydutyspoke out; and in such a case, better would it be to suffer death, than to inflict it on another.416
We will now come to a conclusion.
Theproofthat Jesus was not, as Mr. Salvador maintains, put to death for the crime of blasphemy or sacrilege, and for having preached a new religious worship in contravention of the Mosaic law, results fromthe very sentencepronounced by Pilate; a sentence, in pursuance of which he was led to execution by Roman soldiers.
There was among the Romans a custom, which we borrowed from their jurisprudence, and which is still followed, of placing over the head of a condemned criminal a writing containingan extract from his sentence, in order that the public might knowfor what crimehe was condemned. This was the reason why Pilate put on the cross a label, on which he had written these words:Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judæorum, (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), which has since been denoted by the initials J. N. R. J. This was the alleged cause of his condemnation. St. Mark says—“And the superscription of hisaccusationwas written over—The King of the Jews.”Mark xv. 26.
This inscription was first inLatin, which was the legal language of theRomanjudge; and it was repeated inHebrewand[pg 567]Greek, in order to be understood by the people of the nation and by foreigners.
The chief priests, whose indefatigable hatred did not overlook the most minute details, being apprehensive that people would take it to be literally a fact affirmed, that Jesuswas the King of the Jews, said to Pilate:“Write notKing of the Jews, but thathe saidI am king of the Jews.”But Pilate answered:“What I have written I have written.”John xix. 21, 22.
This is a conclusive answer to one of the last assertions of Mr. Salvador, (p. 88,) that“the Roman Pilate signed the sentence;”by which he always means that Pilate did nothing but sign a sentence, which he supposes to have been passed by the Sanhedrim; but in this he is mistaken. Pilate did not merelysignthe sentence, or decree, butdrew it up; and, when his draft was objected to by the priests, he still adhered to it, saying, what I have written shall remain as written.
Here then we see the true cause of the condemnation of Jesus! Here we have the“judicial and legal proof.”Jesus was the victim of apoliticalaccusation! He was put to death for the imaginary crime of having aimed at the power of Cæsar, by calling himselfKing of the Jews! Absurd accusation; which Pilate never believed, and which the chief priests and the Pharisees themselves did not believe. For they were not authorized to arrest Jesus on that account; it was a new, and totally different, accusation from that which they first planned—a sudden accusation of the moment, when they saw that Pilate was but little affected by theirreligiouszeal, and they found it necessary to arousehis zeal forCæsar.
“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend!”This alarming language has too often, since that time, reverberated in the ears of timid judges, who, like Pilate, have rendered themselves criminal by delivering up victims through want of firmness, whom they would never have condemned, if they had listened to the voice of their own consciences.
Let us now recapitulate the case, as I have considered it from the beginning.
Is it not evident, contrary to the conclusion of Mr. Salvador, that Jesus, considered merely asa simple citizen, was not tried and[pg 568]sentenced eitheraccording to law, oragreeably to the forms of legal proceedings then existing?
God, according to his eternal design, might permit the just to suffer by the malice of men; but he also intended, that this should at least happen by a disregard of all laws, and by a violation of all established rules, in order that the entire contempt of forms should stand as the first warning of the violation of law.
Let us not be surprised then, that in another part of his work, Mr. Salvador (who, it is gratifying to observe, discusses his subject dispassionately) expresses some regret in speaking of the“unfortunate sentence against Jesus.”Vol. i. p. 59. He has wished to excuse the Hebrews; but, one of that nation, in giving utterance to the feelings of his heart, still says—in language which I took from his own mouth,“We should be very cautious of condemning him at this day.”
I pass over the excesses which followed the order of Pilate; as, the violence shown to Simon, the Cyrenian, who was made in some degree a sharer in the punishment, by being compelled to carry the cross; the injurious treatment which attended the victim to the place of the sacrifice, and even to the cross, where Jesus still prayed for his brethren and his executioners!
To the heathen themselves I would say—You, who have gloried in the death of Socrates, how much must you be struck with wonder at that of Jesus! Ye, censors of the Areopagus, how could you undertake to excuse the Synagogue, and justify the sentence of the Hall of Judgment? Philosophy herself has not hesitated to proclaim, and we may repeat with her—“Yes, if the life and death ofSocrateswere those of a sage, the life and death ofJesuswere those of a divinity.”