BUHR
GRAD
A 1,078,672
BT
440
.D8713
1839
The Trial of Jesus
Before
Caiaphas and Pilate.
Ry
Duro L!!
1

:
17
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
GENERAL LIBRARY
;
GALEN C. HARTMAN
LIBRARY FUND
THE
-སྐ
TRIAL OF JESUS
BEFORE
CAIAPHAS AND PILATE.
BEING
A REFUTATION OF MR. SALVADOR'S CHAPTER
ENTITLED
THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF JESUS.
BY M. DUPIN,
ADVOCATE AND DOCTOR OF LAWS.
If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend. - John xix. 12.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH,
BY A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN BAR.
BOSTON:
CHARLES C. LITTLE AND JAMES BROWN.
1839.
GRAD I BUHR
BT
440:
D8713
1839
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1839, by CHARLES
C. Little and JAMES BROWN, in the Clerk's Office of the Dis-
trict Court of the District of Massachusetts,
CAMBRIDGE PRESS :
METCALF, TORRY, AND BALLOU.
ནཏོ
ه همراه دور جدید
HET NIE **J
Sart
4.
'.
CONTENTS.
_ }
PREFACE
ANALYSIS of the Chapter of Mr. Salvador, en-
titled "The Administration of Justice" among
the Jews
TRIAL OF JESUS.
Refutation of the Chapter of Mr. Salvador, en-
titled "The Trial and Condemnation of Je-
sus
V
1
17
SECTION I.
Spies, or Informers
26
SECTION II.
The Corruption and Treachery of Judas
28
SECTION III.
Personal Liberty. - Resistance to an Armed
Force
33
SECTION IV.
Other Irregularities in the Arrest.
Seizure of
the person
36
1
по
iv
SECTION V.
Captious Interrogatories. Acts of Violence
towards Jesus
SECTION VI.
Witnesses.-New Interrogatories. The Judge
in a Passion
38
42
SECTION VII.
Subsequent Acts of Violence
49
SECTION VIII.
The Position of the Jews in respect to the Ro-
mans
54
SECTION IX.
The Accusation made before Pilate
62
SECTION X.
The last Efforts before Pilate
75
PREFACE.
•
A FEW years ago, Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physi-
cian and a descendant of one of those Jewish
families, whom the intolerance of Ferdinand the
Catholic expelled, in a body, from Spain, about the
year 1492 — published at Paris a learned work, en-
titled "Histoire des Institutions de Moïse et du Peu-
ple Hebreu," or History of the Institutions of Moses
and the Hebrew People; and in one chapter of his
work he gives an account of the Administration of
Justice among the Hebrews. To that chapter he has
subjoined an account of the "Trial and Condemna-
tion of Jesus;" in the course of which he expresses
his opinion, that the trial, considered merely as a
legal proceeding, was conformable to the Jewish laws.
The author of the following little work, M. Dupin,
who is one of the most eminent lawyers of the
French Bar, immediately called in question the cor-
rectness of Mr. Salvador's opinion, and entered upon
an analysis of this portion of his work, with a view to
examine its soundness; and the present volume con-
vi
tains the result of that examination, conducted with
great legal skill and extensive learning.
It appears, that he had, many years before, in a
little work, entitled "The Free Defence of Accused
Persons," published in 1815, taken the same views of
this great trial; which, as he observes, has been
justly called
"the Passion or Suffering of our
Savior; for he did in truth suffer, and had not a
trial."
1
The author's attention, however, had been with-
drawn from this subject for several years, when it
was again brought under his notice by the work of
Mr. Salvador; a copy of which was sent to him by
that writer, with a request that M. Dupin would give
some account of it. Accordingly, says the latter,
"it is in compliance with his request, and not from a
spirit of hostility, that I have made this examination
of his work ;" and he gives ample proof of his good
feeling towards Mr. Salvador, with whom, he says, he
is personally acquainted, and for whose talents he has
a great respect.
With this friendly spirit he enters upon his ex-
amination; which is conducted with an ability,
learning, animation, and interest, that leave nothing
to be desired. As an argument, his work is unan-
swerable, he has demolished that of his adversary;
vii
and, for intense interest, we do not know any publi-
cation of the present day to be compared with it.
The introductory Analysis of Mr. Salvador's chap-
ter on the Administration of Justice according to the
Jewish Law will be highly instructive and interest-
ing; and those persons, who have not been accus-
tomed to read the Bible with particular reference to
the Law, will find many new and striking views of
that portion of the Scriptures. They cannot fail to
be particularly struck with the extraordinary care
taken to secure by law the personal liberty and
rights of the citizen.
According to Mr. Salvador's view "the fundamen-
tal division into castes is the principal basis of the
oriental theocracies. Moses, on the contrary, took
for his basis the unity of the people. In his system
of legislation the people are every thing; and the
author shows us, that every thing, eventually, is done
for them, by them, and with them. The tribe of Levi
was established, only to supply a secondary want;
and that tribe was very far from obtaining all the
powers which we are apt to attribute to it; it did not
make, nor develope the laws; it did not judge or
govern; all its members, even the high priest him-
self, were subject to the control of the Elders of the
nation, or of a Senate legally assembled.
viii
Intimately connected with these rights of the
people was the liberty of speech; and Mr. Salvador,
in his chapter on the Public Orators and Prophets,
maintains, and in the opinion of M. Dupin, proves
clearly, that in no nation was the liberty of speech
ever so unlimited, as among the Hebrews. Accord-
ingly he observes "What an additional difference
was this between the Israelites and the Egyptians!
Among the latter, the mass of the people did not
dare, without incurring the hazard of the most ter-
rible punishment, to utter a word on affairs of state;
it was Harpocrates, the god of silence with his fin-
ger on his closed lips, who was their God; in Israel,
it was the right of speech.
But we forbear any further reflections, and submit
this remarkable performance to our readers. Those,
who are familiar with the animated tone of French
writers, will perhaps discover in this translation some
loss of the fire and intensity of the original; but the
translator's purpose will be effected, if his version
shall be found to be a faithful one.
September 3, 1839.
ANALYSIS
OF THE CHAPTER OF MR. SALVADOR, ENTI-
((
TLED THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
AMONG THE JEWS.*
""
MR. SALVADOR has discussed with par-
ticular care whatever relates to the admin-
istration of justice among the Jewish
people. We shall dwell upon this chap-
ter, which undoubtedly will most interest
our readers.
Judicare and judicari, to judge and to
be judged, express the rights of every He-
* This Analysis first appeared in the Gazette des
Tribunaux.
1
2
brew citizen; that is, no one could be con-
demned without a judgment, and every
one might, in his turn, be called upon to
sit in judgment, upon others. Some ex-
ceptions to this principle are explained;
but they do not affect the rule. In mat-
ters of mere interest each party chose a
judge, and these two chose a third person.
If a discussion arose as to the interpreta-
tion of a law, they carried it to the lower
council of Elders, and from thence to the
Great Council at Jerusalem. Each town
of more than one hundred and twenty
families was to have its lower council,
consisting of twenty-three members; and
these had jurisdiction in criminal cases.
The expressions, he shall die, he shall
be cut off from the people, which are so
often used in the Mosaic law, embrace
three very different significations, which
we are accustomed to confound. They
indicate the suffering of death as a pun-
3
ishment, civil death, and that premature
death, with which an individual is natural-
ly threatened, who departs from those rules.
which are useful to the nation and to the
individual himself. Civil death is the last
degree of separation, or excommunication ;
it is pronounced, as a judicial punishment,
by the assembly of the judges.
There were three kinds of separation;
which Mr. Salvador compares to the three
degrees of civil excommunication provided
for in the French Penal Code, and which
condemn the criminal to hard labor either
for life or for a term of years, or to certain
correctional punishments. But the He-
brew excommunication had this advan-
tage, that the party never lost all hope of
regaining his original standing.
The Hebrew lawyers, in relation to the
punishment of death, maintained opinions,
which deserve to be quoted :
4
"A tribunal, which condems to death
once in seven years, may be called san-
guinary."
"It deserves this appellation,
says doctor Eliezer, when it pronounces a
like sentence once in seventy years."
_" If
we had been members of the high court,
say the doctors Tyrphon and Akiba, we
should never have condemned a man to
death." Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, re-
plied "Would not that be an abuse?
Would you not have been afraid of multi-
plying crimes in Israel? Mr. Salvador
answers "No, certainly; far from less-
ening their number, the severity of the
punishment increases it, by giving a more
resolute character to the men who are able
present day, how
to brave it; and, at the
many intelligent minds range themselves
on the side of Akiba and Tyrphon! How
many consciences refuse to participate, in
any manner, in the death of a man! The
flowing of blood, the multitude excited
5
by an unbecoming curiosity, the victim
dragged in triumph to the horrible altar,
the impossibility of repairing a mistake,
(from which human wisdom is never ex-
empt) the dread of one day seeing a de-
parted shade rising up and saying, “I was
innocent," the facility which modern na-
tions have of expelling from among them
the man whose presence pollutes them
the influence of general depravity on the
production of crimes and finally the ab-
surd contrast of the whole of society,
while in possession of strength, intelli-
gence, and arms, opposing itself to an in-
dividual wretch (who has been drawn on
by want, by passion, or by ignorance) and
yet finding no other means of redress than
by exceeding him in cruelty-all these
things, and many others, have so deeply
penetrated the minds of all ranks of peo-
ple, that there will one day proceed from
them the most striking proof of the power
6
of morals over the laws; for the law will
be changed by the simple fact, that we
shall not find any person, who will consent
to apply it."
I feel honored in having maintained the
same opinion in my Observations on Crim-
inal Legislation; but I solicit those, who
wish to see this question discussed in its
whole extent, to read the profound reflec-
tions which the Duke de Broglie has just
published on the subject, in the last num-
ber of the Revue Française (for October,
1828.)
The whole criminal procedure in the
Pentateuch rests upon three principles,
which may be thus expressed; publicity
of the trial, entire liberty of defence
allowed to the accused; and a guaranty
against the dangers of testimony. Ac-
cording to the Hebrew text one witness
is no witness; there must be at least two
or three who know the fact. The witness,
7
who testifies against a man, must swear
that he speaks the truth; the judges then
proceed to take exact information of the
matter; and, if it is found that the wit-
ness has sworn falsely, they compel him
to undergo the punishment to which he
would have exposed his neighbor. The
discussion between the accuser and the
accused is conducted before the whole as-
sembly of the people. When a man is
condemned to death, those witnesses, whose
evidence decided the sentence, inflict the
first blows, in order to add the last degree
of certainty to their evidence. Hence the
expression Let him among you, who is
without sin, cast the first stone.
}
If we pursue their application of these
fundamental rules in practice, we shall find
that a trial proceeded in the following
manner.
On the day of the trial, the executive
officers of justice caused the accused per-
8
son to make his appearance. At the feet
of the Elders were placed men, who under
the name of auditors, or candidates, fol-
lowed regularly the sittings of the Coun-
cil. The papers in the case were read;
and the witnesses were called in succes-
sion. The president addressed this exhor-
tation to each of them: "It is not conjec-
tures, or whatever public rumor has brought
to thee, that we ask of thee; consider that
a great responsibility rests upon thee; that
we are not occupied by an affair, like a
case of pecuniary interest, in which the
injury may be repaired. If thou causest
the condemnation of a person unjustly ac-
cused, his blood, and the blood of all the
posterity of him, of whom thou wilt have
deprived the earth, will fall upon thee;
God will demand of thee an account, as
he demanded of Cain an account of the
blood of Abel. Speak."
9
A woman could not be a witness, be-
cause she would not have the courage to
give the first blow to the condemned per-
son; nor could a child, that is irresponsi-
ble, nor a slave, nor a man of bad charac-
ter, nor one whose infirmities prevent the
full enjoyment of his physical and moral
faculties. The simple confession of an
individual against himself, or the decla-
ration of a prophet, however renowned,
would not decide a condemnation.
The
Doctors say
"We hold it as fundamen-
tal, that no one shall prejudice himself. If
a man accuses himself before a tribunal,
we must not believe him, unless the fact is
attested by two other witnesses; and it is
proper to remark, that the punishment of
death inflicted upon Achan, in the time of
Joshua was an exception, occasioned by
the nature of the circumstances; for our
*
* Joshua vii. 19, &c.
10
law does not condemn upon the simple
confession of the accused, nor upon the
declaration of one prophet alone."
The witnesses were to attest to the iden-
tity of the party, and to depose to the
month, day, hour, and circumstances of
the crime. After an examination of the
proofs, those judges, who believed the
party innocent, stated their reasons; those
who believed him guilty spoke afterwards,
and with the greatest moderation. If one
of the auditors, or candidates, was en-
trusted by the accused with his defence,
or if he wished in his own name to pre-
sent any elucidations in favor of innocence,
he was admitted to the seat, from which
he addressed the judges and the people.
But this liberty was not granted to him, if
his opinion was in favor of condemning.
Lastly; when the accused person himself
wished to speak, they gave the most pro-
found attention. When the discussion was
11
finished, one of the judges recapitulated
the case; they removed all the spectators;
two scribes took down the votes of the
judges; one of them noted those which
were in favor of the accused, and the
other, those which condemned him. Elev-
en votes, out of twenty-three, were suffi-
cient to acquit; but it required thirteen to
convict. If any of the judges stated, that
they were not sufficiently informed, there
were added two more Elders, and then two
others in succession, till they formed a
council of sixty-two, which was the num-
ber of the Grand Council. If a majority
of votes acquitted, the accused was dis-
charged instantly; if he was to be pun-
ished, the judges postponed pronouncing
sentence till the third day; during the in-
termediate day, they could not be occu-
pied with any thing but the cause, and
they abstained from eating freely, and from
wine, liquors, and every thing which might
12
render their minds less capable of reflec-
tion.
On the morning of the third day they
returned to the judgment seat. Each
judge, who had not changed his opinion,
said, I continue of the same opinion and
condemn; any one, who at first condemned,
might at this sitting acquit; but he who
had once acquitted was not allowed to con-
demn. If a majority condemned, two mag-
istrates immediately accompanied the con-
demned person to the place of punishment.
The Elders did not descend from their
seats; they placed at the entrance of the
judgment hall an officer of justice with a
small flag in his hand; a second officer, on
horseback, followed the prisoner, and con-
stantly kept looking back to the place of
departure. During this interval, if any
person came to announce to the Elders any
new evidence favorable to the prisoner,
the first officer waved his flag, and the
13
second one, as soon as he perceived it,
brought back the prisoner. If the prisoner
declared to the magistrates, that he recol-
lected some reasons which had escaped
him, they brought him before the judges
no less than five times. If no incident
occurred, the procession advanced slowly,
preceded by a herald who, in a loud voice,
addressed the people thus: "This man
(stating his name and surname) is led to
punishment for such a crime; the wit-
nesses, who have sworn against him are
such and such persons; if any one has
evidence to give in his favor, let him come
forth quickly."
It was in consequence of this rule that
the youthful Daniel caused the procession
to go back, which was leading Susanna
to punishment, and he himself ascended
the seat of justice to put some new ques-
tions to the witnesses.
14
At some distance from the place of pun-
ishment, they urged the prisoner to confess
his crime, and they made him drink a stu-
pefying beverage, in order to render the
approach of death less terrible.*
By this mere analysis of a part of
Mr. Salvador's work we may judge of the
extreme interest of the whole. His prin-
cipal object has been, to make apparent the
mutual aids which history, philosophy, and
legislation afford in explaining the institu-
tions of the Jewish people. His book is a
scientific work, and at the same time a
work of taste. His notes indicate vast
reading; and in the choice of his citations
he gives proofs of his critical skill and
* By this, says Father Lamy, we may understand
what the mixture of wine and myrrh was, which they
presented to Jesus on the cross, and which he would
not drink. Introd. to the Reading of the Holy Scrip-
tures, chap. vi. (Note of Mr. Salvador, Book iv.
ch. 2.)
15
discrimination. Mr. Salvador belongs, by
his age, to that new generation, which is
distinguished as much by its application
to solid studies, as by elevation and gene-
rosity of sentiment.
TRIAL OF JESUS.
REFUTATION OF THE CHAPTER OF MR. SALVA-
((
DOR, ENTITLED THE TRIAL AND CONDEM-
NATION OF JESUS."
THE chapter, in which Mr. Salvador
treats of the Administration of Justice
among the Hebrews, is altogether theoret-
ical. He makes an exposition of the law
that things, in order to be conformable
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 an-
nounces "That according to this exposi
tion of judicial proceedings he is going to
follow out the application of them to the
2
18
TRIAL AND
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 him only a citizen, did
they try him according to existing laws
and formalities?"
The question being thus stated, Mr. Sal-
vador 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,
CONDEMNATION OF JESUS.
19
the son of Joseph, born in Bethlehem, had
profaned the name of God by usurping it
himself, though a simple citizen, applied to
him the law against blasphemy, the law
in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and
verse 20th, chapter 18th, conformably to
which every prophet, even one that per-
forms 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 of de-
ïcide.
We will, however, avoid treating this
grave subject in a theological point of
view. As to myself, Jesus Christ is the
Man-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
20
TRIAL AND
age would charge me with being intol-
erant; 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 merely human point.
of view, and proceed to inquire, with him,
"Whether Jesus Christ, considered as 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. The son of God,
CONDEMNATION OF JESUS.
21
as to his moral state and his holy spirit, he
was also, in reality, the Son 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 circum-
stances 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 chapter
On the Administration of Justice, has
made a seductive exposition.
The accusation of Jesus, instigated by
the hatred of the priests and the Pharisees,
and presented at first as a charge of sacri-
lege, but afterwards converted into a polit-
ical crime and an offence against the state,
was marked, in all its aspects, with the
foulest acts of violence and perfidy. It
?
22
TRIAL AND
was not so much a trial environed with
legal forms, as a real passion, or prolonged
suffering, in which the imperturbable gen-
tleness 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 subjuga-
tion, divided by factions and irreconcila-
ble sects, they had in the last resort been
obliged to succumb to the Roman power
and surrender their own sovereignty. Je-
rusalem, having become a mere appendage
to the province of Syria, saw within its
walls an imperial garrison; Pilate com-
manded 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 ex-
erted itself to keep them under the rigor-
ous bonds of a religious fanaticism.
CONDEMNATION OF JESUS.
23
Jesus Christ deplored the misfortunes of
his country.
How often did he weep for
Jerusalem ! Read in Bossuet's Politics
drawn from the Holy Scriptures, the
admirable chapter entitled, Jesus Christ
the good citizen. He recommended to
his countrymen union, which constitutes
the strength of states. "O Jerusalem, Je-
rusalem, (said he,) thou that killest the
prophets and stonest them which are sent
unto thee, how often would I have gath-
ered 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 power-
ful argument these words that he was
worthy for whom he should do this, for
24
TRIAL AND
he loveth our nation. And Jesus went
with them. Luke vii. 4, 5.
Touched with the distresses of the na-
tion, Jesus comforted them by holding up
to them the hope of another life; he
alarmed the great, the rich, and the haugh-
ty, by the prospect of a final judgment, at
which every man would be judged not ac-
cording to his rank, but his works. He
was desirous of again bringing back man
to his original dignity; he spoke to him of
his duties, but at the same time of his
rights. The people heard him with avid-
ity, 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 vir-
tue till then unknown, and which belongs
to him alone charity. This celebrity,
however, and these wonders excited envy.
The partisans of the ancient theocracy
were alarmed at the new doctrine; the
CONDEMMATION OF JESUS.
25
chief priests felt that their power was
threatened; the pride of the Pharisees wast
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 a legal accusation,
why was not that course taken openly?
Why not try him for the acts com-
mitted by him, and for his public discours-
es ?
Why employ against him subter-
fuges, 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 establish all the
facts."
26
TRIAL OF JESUS.
In truth, how can we (except by contra-
ry evidence, of which there is none) re-
fuse to place confidence in an historian,
who tells us, as Saint John does, with af-
fecting 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
SPIES, OR INFORMERS.
27
by the name of hired informers those em-
issaries, whom the chief priests sent out to
be about Jesus.
We read in the evangelist Luke, chap.
xx. 20: Et observantes miserunt insidia-
tores, qui se justos simularent, ut cape-
rent 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 accu-
racy is well known, Mr. De Sacy: “As
they only sought occasions for his destruc-
tion, they sent to him apostate persons,
who feigned themselves just men, in order
to take hold of his words, that they might
deliver him unto the 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 au-
thorities."
This first artifice has escaped the sagaci-
ty of Mr. Salvador.
28
TRIAL OF JESUS.
SECTION II.
THE CORRUPTION AND TREACHERY OF JUDAS.
ACCORDING to Mr. Salvador, the senate,
as he calls it, did not commence their pro-
ceedings 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 pre-
tended decree. He speaks, too, not of a
public sitting, but of a consultation held
by the chief priests and the Pharisees, who
did not, to my knowledge, constitute a ju-
dicial tribunal among the Jews. "Then
gathered the chief priests and the Phari-
sees a council, and said, What do we? for
this man doeth many miracles." John xi.
THE TREACHERY OF JUDAS.
29
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 preliminary judg-
ment, 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
consider, that it is expedient for us, that
one man should die for the people, .
and he prophesied, that Jesus should die
for the nation of the Jews." But to proph-
esy is not to pass judgment; and the indi-
vidual opinion of Caiaphas, who was only
one among them, was not the opinion of
all, nor a judgment of the senate. We,
therefore, still find a judgment wanting;
and we only observe, that the priests and
Pharisees are stimulated by a violent hatred
30
TRIAL OF JESUS.
of Jesus, and that "from that day forth
they took counsel together for to put him
to death; ut interficerent eum." John xi.
53.
The authority of St. John, then, is di-
rectly in contradiction of the assertion,
that there was an order of arrest previous-
ly 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 an order of
arrest against Jesus, that they might hear
him and then pass sentence? Not at all;
but they held counsel together, "that they
might take Jesus by subtilty, or fraud, and
kill him; consilium fecerunt, ut Jesum
DOLO tenerent et OCCIDERENT. Matt. xxvi.
5. Now in the Latin language, a language
perfectly well constituted in every thing
THE TREACHERY OF JUDAS.
31
relating to terms of the law, the words
occidere and interficere were never em-
ployed to express the act of passing sen-
tence, or judgment of death, but simply
to signify murder or assassination.*
This fraud, 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
* As was that of Stephen, whom the same priests
caused to be massacred by the populace, without a
previous sentence of the law. OCCIDERE: Non occi-
des, thou shalt not kill. Deut. v. 17. Veneno homi-
nes occidere. Cic. pro Roscio, 61. Virginiam filiam
sua manu occidit Virginius. Cic. de Finib. 107. Non
hominem occidi. Horat. I. Epist. 17, 10. Inermem
occidere. Ovid. ii. Fast. 139. INTERFICERE: Feras
interficere. Lucret. lib. v. 251. Interfectus in acie.
Cic. de Finib. 103. Cæsaris interfectores. Brutus
Ciceroni, 16, 8. Interfectorem Gracchi. Cic. de Claris
Orrato, 66.
32
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 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 ab-
sorbed 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
a kiss consummated his treachery ! *
* Will it be believed, that Tertullian and St. Irenæus
were obliged to refute seriously some writers of their
day, who considered the conduct of Judas not only
excusable, but worthy of admiration and highly mer-
itorious," because (as they said) of the immense ser-
vice which he had rendered to the human race by
preparing their redemption! In the same manner, at
a certain period, we have seen plunderers of the public
money make a merit of their conduct, because in that
way they had weakened the usurpation and prepared
the way for the triumph of legitimacy.
RESISTANCE TO AN ARMED FORCE.
33
Is it thus that a judicial decree was to be
executed, if there had really been one made
for the arrest of Jesus?
SECTION III.
PERSONAL LIBERTY.
ARMED FORCE.
RESISTANCE TO AN
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 re-
proof 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
}
3
34
TRIAL OF JESUS.
was a kind of ruffian band, almost entirely
composed of servants of the high priest,
but whom Mr. Salvador honors with the
title of the legal soldiery. If in the crowd.
there were any Roman soldiers, 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 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 contin-
ued with success, if Jesus had not imme-
diately interfered. But what proves that
Peter, even while causing bloodshed, was
RESISTANCE TO AN ARMED FORCE.
35
not resisting a legal order, a legal judgment
or decree, (which would have made his re-
sistance an act of rebellion 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 malefac-
tor; which was a criminal degree of rigor,
since for the purpose of securing a single
man by a numerous band of persons armed
with swords and staves it was not neces-
66
sary. 'Be ye come out as against a thief
with swords and staves? " Luke xxii. 52.
36
TRIAL OF JESUS.
1
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 being father 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
being bound. 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
ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF THE PERSON.
was recognised by the people of the pal-
ace.
Now the Jewish law prohibited all pro-
ceedings 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 pri-
vate 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 Jesus mocked him and smote
him; 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 blasphe-
mously 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 in-
stance, till the senate shall be called up,
and we shall see how far they protected
the accused person.
...
38
TRIAL OF JESUS.
SECTION V.
CAPTIOUS INTERROGATORIES.
VIOLENCE TOWARDS JESUS.
ACTS OF
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 the
night time, not only have postponed, but
put a stop to the proceedings, because it
was the feast of the Passover, the most
solemn of all festivals; and according to
their law no judicial procedure could take
place on a feast-day, under the penalty of
INTERROGATORIES; ACTS OF VIOLENCE. 39
being null.* Nevertheless, let us see who
proceeded to interrogate Jesus.
This was that same Caiaphas, who, if he
had intended to remain a judge, was evi-
dently liable to objection; for in the pre-
ceding assemblage he had made himself
the accuser of Jesus. †
had seen or heard him, he
be deserving of death.
Even before he
declared him to
He said to his
colleagues, that "it was expedient that one
man should die for all." John xviii. 14.
Such being the opinion of Caiaphas, we
shall not be surprised, if he shows partial-
ity.
Instead of interrogating Jesus respecting
positive acts done, with their circumstances,
and respecting facts personal to himself,
See, as to these two grounds of nullity, the Jewish
authors cited by Prost de Royer, tome 2, p. 205, verbo
ACCUSATION.
† Mr. Salvador admits this: "Caiaphas," says he,
"made himself his accuser." p. 85.
40
TRIAL OF JESUS.
Caiaphas interrogates him respecting gen-
eral facts, respecting his disciples (whom
it would have been much more simple to
have called as witnesses) and respecting
his doctrine, which was a mere abstraction
so long as no external acts were the con-
sequence of it. "The high priest then
asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doc-
trine." 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.
66 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, Answer-
est thou the high priest so?" Ib.
INTERROGATORIES; ACTS OF VIOLENCE. 41
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 pre-
sided 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 dig-
nity.
પ
But in what respect could the answer of
Jesus appear offensive? If I have spo-
ken evil," said Jesus," bear witness of the
evil; but if well, why smitest thou me ? "*
John xviii. 23.
* Ananias, a chief priest, having given orders to strike
Paul upon the face, Paul said to him: God shall smite
thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after
the law, and commandest me to be smitten, contrary
to the law?" Acts xxiii. 3.
42
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 him-
self 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 coun-
cil sought for witness against Jesus to put
him to death; and found none." Mark xiv.
55.
"For many bare false witness against
him, but their witness agreed not togeth-
Ib. 56.
er."
FALSE WITNESSES
JUDGE'S PASSION. 43
"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."
57, 58.
Ib.
"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. Mat-
thew and St. Mark charge with falsehood,
narrate a discourse which St. John de-
clares to be true, 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 were false witnesses; and in chapter
44
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 ac-
cordance 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 witnesses falsely
assumed; he only said, hypothetically,
Destroy this temple, that is to say, sup-
pose 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 from theirs,
because he said, I will raise up another in
three days, which will not be made by the
hands of man.
FALSE WITNESSES
JUDGE'S PASSION. 45
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, there-
fore, 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 ask-
ed Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing?
what is it, which these witness against
thee? But he held his peace, and an-
swered 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 ex-
planation was to be found in the very evi-
dence itself.
46
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 per-
son between the danger of perjury and the
fear of inculpating himself, and thus mak-
ing his situation more hazardous. The
high priest, however, persists, and says to
him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of
God?* Jesus answered, Thou hast said.
Matthew xxvi. 64; I am. Mark xiv. 62.
"Then the high priest rent his clothes,
* Mr. Salvador, in his note to p. 82, admits, that "the
expression Son of God was in common use among the
Hebrews, to signify a man of great wisdom, or of deep
piety. But he adds, "It was not in this sense, that it
was used by Jesus Christ; it would not have caused so
strong a sensation." Thus, then, by construction, and
changing the words from their usual meaning, an article
of accusation is formed against Jesus.
FALSE WITNESSES
JUDGE'S PASSION. 47
saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what
further need have we of witnesses? behold,
now ye 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 vio-
lence with the mild deduction of princi-
ples, which we find in the chapter of Mr.
Salvador On the Administration of Jus-
tice; and let us ask ourselves, if, as he
alleges, we find a just application of them
in the proceedings against Christ?
Do we discover here that respect of the
Hebrew judge towards the party accused,
when we see that Caiaphas permitted him
to be struck, in his presence, with impu-
nity?
What was this Caiaphas, at once an ac-
cuser and judge? A passionate man, and
*
* That is, he usurped the functions of a judge; for we
shall see, in the next section, that the Council of the
Jews had not jurisdiction of capital cases.
48
TRIAL OF JESUS.
too much resembling the odious portrait
which the historian Josephus has given us
of him! * A judge, who was irritated to
such a degree, that he rent his clothes;
who imposed upon the accused a most sol-
emn oath, and who gave to his answers
the criminal character, that he had spoken
blasphemy! And, from that moment, he
wanted no more witnesses, notwithstand-
ing 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 hav-
ing him condemned upon his own declara
tion alone, (interpreted, too, as he chooses
to understand it,) though that was forbid-
den 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
Antiq. Judaic. lib. 18, cap. 3 & 6.
SUBSEQUENT ACTS OF VIOLENCE. 49
death, and carries with him the opinions of
the rest!
In this hideous picture I cannot recog-
nise that justice of the Hebrews, of which
Mr. Salvador has given so fine a view in
his 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 by-
standers. 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,
4
50
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 mis-
taken but which thought it was acting
mildly, should have permitted such out-
rages against him whose life it held in its
own hands. The writers, who have trans-
mitted these details to us, not having been
present themselves at the trial, were dis-
posed to over charge the picture, either
on account of their own feelings, or to
throw upon their judges a greater odium.'
وو
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 prominent all the violations of
law.
SUBSEQUENT ACTS OF VIOLENCE. 51
"It is not in nature to see a body,
which respects itself, authorize such at-
tempts." But of what consequence is that,
when the fact is established? "The his-
torians, it is said, were not present at the
trial." But was Mr. Salvador there pres-
ent 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. Besides, the learned author
* Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's
palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see
the end. Matt. xxvi. 58. So also the young man
52
TRIAL OF JESUS.
.
He
whom I am combating says, in the outset
(p. 81) "it is from the Gospels themselves
that he will take all his facts."
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 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 re-
sponsible as high priest and president of
the council for having permitted excesses,
spoken of by St. Mark, xiv. 51: And there followed
him a certain young man, &c.
SUBSEQUENT ACTS OF VIOLENCE. 53
which, indeed were but too much in ac-
cordance with the rage he had himself
displayed upon the bench.
These outrages, which would be inex-
cusable 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.
54
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 surnamed the
Great Augustus had confirmed his last
will, by which that king of the Jews had
arranged the division of his dominions.
between his two sons: but Augustus did
not continue their title of king, which
their father had borne.
Archelaus, on whom Judea devolved,
having been recalled on account of his
cruelties, the territory, which was at first
entrusted to his command, was united to
the province of Syria. (Josephus, Antiq.
Jud. lib. 17, cap. 15.)
POLITICAL POSITION OF THE JEWS. 55
Augustus then appointed particular offi-
cers 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 gover
nor, 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 offi-
cers, who were called by the Romans.
procuratores Cæsaris, Imperial procurators.
With this title of procurator, he was
placed under the superior authority of the
governor of Syria, the true præses, or gov-
ernor of that province, of which Judea was
then only one of the dependencies.
To the governor (præses) peculiarly be-
longed the right of taking cognizance of
capital cases.* The procurator, on the
* De Crimine præsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix.
Observ. 13.
56
TRIAL OF JESUS.
contrary, had, for his principal duty, no-
thing but the collection of the revenue,
and the trial of revenue causes. But the
right of taking cognizance of capital cases
did, in some instances, belong to certain
procurators, who were sent into small prov-
inces to fill the places of governors (vice-
præsides), as appears clearly from the
Roman laws.*
salem.†
Such was Pilate at Jeru-
The Jews, placed in this political posi-
Procurator Cæsaris fungens vice præsidis potest
cognoscere de causis criminalibus. Godefroy, in his
note (letter S) upon the 3d law of the Code, Ubi
causæ fiscales, &c. And he cites several others, which
I have verified, and which are most precise to the
same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code,
Ad leg, fab. de plag., and the 2d law of the Code, De
pœnis.
+ Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis
fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum
fungebantur vice præsidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit
procurator Cæsaris vice præsidis in Syria. Cujas,
Observ. xix. 13.
POLITICAL POSITION OF THE JEWS. 57
tion-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 munici-
pal regulations - the Jews, I say, had not
the power of life and death; this was a
principal attribute of sovereignty, which
the Romans always took great care to re-
serve 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 preach-
ing and success of Jesus; they might be
concerned for their worship; and they
might have interrogated the man respect-
ing his creed and his doctrines, - they
might have made a kind of preparatory
proceeding, they might have declared,
58
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 under-
gone any alteration as to the affairs of re-
ligion, had no longer any coercive power
as to the external or civil regulations of
society. In vain would they have under-
taken to pronounce sentence of death under
the circumstances of the case of Jesus;
the council of the Jews had not the power
to pass a sentence of death; it only would
have had power to make an accusation
against 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 had reserved the power of trying,
according to their law; but it was in the
hands of the procurator alone, that the
POLITICAL POSITION OF THE JEWS.
59
executive power was vested; every culprit
must be put to death by his consent, in
order that the senate should not have the
means of reaching persons that were sold
to foreigners."
No; the Jews had not reserved the 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 be-
come impatient of the yolce; 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 sove-
reignty. Pilate, as the representative of
Cæsar in Judea, was not merely an agent
of the executive authority, which would
60
TRIAL OF JESUS.
have left the judiciary and legislative pow-
er in the hands of the conquered people-
he was not simply an officer appointed to
give an exequatur or mere approval (visa)
to sentences passed by another authority,
the authority of the Jews. When the
matter in question was a capital case, the
Roman authorities not only ordered the
execution of a sentence, but also took
cognizance (cognitio) of the crime; it had
the right of jurisdiction à priori, and that
of passing 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 ter-
ritorial jurisdiction the case occurred; but
in any event we hold it to be clear,
that the Jews had lost the right of con-
demning to death any person whatever,
not only so far as respects the execution but
the passing of the sentence. This is one
of the best settled points in the provincial
law of the Romans.
POLITICAL POSITION OF THE JEWS.
61
;
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 per-
mitted 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 respect-
able authority, the, celebrated Loiseau, in
his treatise on Seigneuries, in the chapter
on the administration of justice belonging
to cities. "In truth," says he, there is
some evidence, that the police, in which
the people had the sole interest, was ad-
ministered 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 the right of the
62
TRIAL OF JESUS.
sword, the merum 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
understand that 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.
Ar this point I must entreat the partic-
ular attention of the reader. The irregu-
ACCUSATION BEFORE PILATE.
63
larities 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 the Roman
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 Je-
sus, was done during the night.
They then led Jesus from Caiaphas unto
the Hall of Judgment of Pilate.* It was
early; and they themselves went not into
the judgment hall, lest they should be de-
«To carry one from Caiaphas to Pilate " has since
become a proverb.
64
TRIAL OF JESUS.
filed; but that they might eat the passover.
John xviii. 28.
Singular scrupulousness! and truly wor-
thy of the Pharisees! They were afraid
of defiling themselves on the day of the
passover by entering the house of a hea-
then! And yet, the same day, only some
hours before presenting themselves to Pi-
late, they had, in contempt of their own
law, committed the outrage of holding a
council and deliberating upon an accusa-
tion of a capital crime.
As they would not enter, "Pilaté 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 simple exequatur, or permis-
sion to execute the sentence; but he takes
up
the matter from the beginning, as would
be done by one who had plenary jurisdic-
tion; and he says to them: What accusa-
tion bring ye against this man? Ib.
ACCUSATION BEFORE PILATE.
65
They answered, with their accustomed
haughtiness: If he were not a malefactor
we would not have delivered him up to
thee. John xviii. 30. They wished to have
it understood, that, being a question of blas-
phemy, it was the cause of their religion,
which they could appreciate better than
any others could.
Pilate, then, would
:
have been under the necessity of believing
them on their word. But this Roman,
indignant at their proposed course of pro-
ceeding, which would have restricted his
jurisdiction by making him the passive
instrument of the wishes of the Jews,
answered them in an ironical manner :
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
5
66
TRIAL OF JESUS.
to Pilate himself their articles of accusa-
tion.
Now what were the grounds of this ac-
cusation? Were they the same which had
hitherto been alleged against Jesus - the
charge of blasphemy — 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 of death for a religious
quarrel, which was of no interest to the
Romans,* they suddenly changed their
plan; they abandoned their first accusation,
the charge of blasphemy, and substituted
for it a political accusation, an offence
against the state.
Here we have, the very crisis, or essen-
tial incident, of the passion; and that
*
Lysias thus wrote to Felix the Governor, in rela-
tion to Paul: Whom I perceived to be accused of
questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his
charge worthy of death or bonds. Acts xxiii. 29.
ACCUSATION BEFORE PILATE.
67
which makes the heaviest accusation of
guilt on the part of the informers against
Jesus. For, being fully bent on destroy-
ing him in any manner whatever, they no
longer exhibited themselves as the aveng-
ers of their 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 appear-
ance of being concerned for the interests
of Rome; they accused their own country-
man of an intention to restore the kingdom
of Jerusalem, to make himself king of the
Jews, and to make an insurrection of the
people against their conquerors.
Let us
hear them speak for themselves :
"And they began to accuse him, saying,
We found this fellow perverting the nation,
and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar,
saying, that he himself is Christ a king."
Luke xxiii. 2.
68
TRIAL OF JESUS.
1
What a calumny! Jesus forbidding to
give tribute to Cæsar! when he had an-
swered the Pharisees themselves, in pres-
ence of the whole people, by showing
them the image of Cæsar upon a 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 imperial procurator, 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 a
king."
The accusation having thus assumed
character purely political, Pilate thought
he must pay attention to it. "Then
Pilate entered into the judgment hall, (the
place where justice was administered,) and
having summoned Jesus to appear before
him, he proceeds to his Examination, and
ACCUSATION BEFORE PILATE.
69
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 the
Romans or by the Jews?
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
70
TRIAL OF JESUS.
already passed
a judgment, the execution
of which was the only subject of consid-
eration; it was a case of a capital accu-
sation; but an accusation which was then
just beginning; they were about the pre-
liminary interrogatories put to the accused,
and Pilate says to him, "What hast thou
done?"
Jesus, seeing by the explanation what
was the source of the prejudging of his
case, and knowing the secret thoughts
which predominated in making the accu-
sation, and that his enemies wanted to
arrive at the same end by an artifice, an-
swered 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 his
people to resist) but, he added, "now is
my kingdom not from hence." John xviii.
36.
ACCUSATION BEFORE PILATE.
71
This answer of Jesus is very remarka-
ble; it became the foundation of his re-
ligion, 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 in jus-
tification, in defence against the accusation
of intending to make himself King of the
Jews. Indeed, if Jesus had affected a
temporal royal authority, if there had been
the least attempt, on his part, to usurp the
power of Cæsar, he would have been
guilty of treason in the eyes of the magis-
trate. But, by answering twice, my king-
dom is not of this world, my kingdom is
not from hence, his justification was com-
plete.
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
72
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 called the
truth. He perceived nothing in it but
ideology; and, satisfied with having said
(less in the manner of a question than of
an exclamation) "What is the truth,"
he went out to the Jews (who remained
outside) and said to
him no fault at all."
Here, then, we see
them, "I find in
John xviii. 38.
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, teach-
ing throughout all Jewry, beginning from
Galilee to this place." Luke xxiii. 5.
"He stirreth up the people"! This is
ACCUSATION BEFORE PILATE.
73
a charge of sedition; and for Pilate.
But
observe, it was by the doctrine which he
teaches; these words comprehend the real
complaint of the Jews. To them it was
equivalent to saying — He teaches the peo-
ple, he instructs them, he enlightens them;
he preaches new doctrines which are not
ours. "He stirs up the people "! This, in
their mouths signified the people hear
him willingly; the people follow and
become attached to him; for he preaches
doctrine that is friendly and consolatory to
the people; he unmasks our pride, our
avarice, our insatiable spirit of domina-
tion!
Pilate, however, does not appear to have
attached much importance to this new turn
given to the accusation; but he here be-
trays a weakness. He heard the word
Galilee; and he makes that the occasion
of shifting off the responsibility upon
another public officer, and seizes the occa-
74
TRIAL OF JESUS.
sion with avidity. He says to Jesus — you
are a Galilean then? and, upon the an-
swer 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 of seeing Jesus and
had hoped to see some miracle done by
him, after satisfying an idle curiosity and
putting several questions to him, which Je-
sus did not deign to answer, Herod, not-
withstanding 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 the accu
sation of being a king, made a mockery of
the affair, and sent Jesus back to Pilate,
after having arrayed him in a gorgeous
LAST EFFORTS BEFORE PILATE. 75
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 deter-
mination to force him to a decision.
The unfortunate Pilate, reviewing his
76
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 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 consid-
ered him to be innocent?* But this was
an act of condescension by which Pilate
hoped to quiet the rage with which he saw
they were agitated.
* Gerhard makes the following unanswerable dilem-
ma upon this point. "Be consistent with thyself, Pi-
late; for, if Christ is innocent, why dost thou not
send him away acquitted? And if thou believest him
deserving of chastisement with rods, why dost thou
proclaim him to be innocent?" Gerh. Harm. ch. 193,
p. 1889.
LAST EFFORTS BEFORE PILATE. 77
"Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and
scourged him." John xix. 1. And, sup-
posing 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 de-
cision, it is true; but sufficient to avail as
a legal bar to 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 to release Jesus." John xix. 12.
Here, now, observe the deep perfidy of
"If thou let this man go,
his accusers.
78
TRIAL OF JESUS.
thou art not Cæsar's friend; whosoever
maketh himself a king speaketh against
Cæsar." Ib.
It does not appear that Pilate was malig-
nant; we see all the efforts he had made at
different times to save Jesus. But he was
a public officer, and was attached to his
office; he was intimidated by the outcry
which called in question his fidelity to the
emperor; he was afraid of a dismissal;
and he yielded. He immediately reascend-
ed the judgment seat; (Matt. xxvii. 19,)
and, as new light had thus come upon
him, he proceeded to make a second de-
cree!
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
LAST EFFORTS BEFORE PILATE. 79
of Jesus. "But the chief priests moved
the people, that he should rather release
Barabbas unto them." Mark xv. 11. Ba-
rabbas! 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 cruci-
fy your king? thus using terms of raille-
ry, in order to disarm them. But here
showing themselves to be more truly Ro-
man 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 clamor 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 pleas-
ing the multitude, proceeds to speak. But
can we call it a legal adjudication, a judg-
80
TRIAL OF JESUS.
ment, 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 a sentence of death? What
new witnesses, what proofs have been
brought forward to change his conviction
and opinion, which had been so energeti-
cally 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.
xxiii. 24. And he delivered him to them
to be crucified." Matt. xxvii. 26.
Luke
Well mayest thou wash thy hands, Pi-
late, stained as they are with innocent
blood! Thou hast authorized the act in
thy weakness; thou art not less culpable,
than if thou hadst sacrificed him through
LAST EFFORTS BEFORE PILATE. 81
wickedness! All generations, down to our
own time, have repeated, that the Just
One suffered under Pontius Pilate. Thy
name has remained in history, to serve for
the instruction of all public men, all pusil-
lanimous judges, in order to hold up to
them the shame of yielding contrary to
one's own convictions. The populace, in
its fury, made an outcry at the foot of thy
judgment seat, where, perhaps, thou thy-
self didst not sit securely! But of what
importance was that? Thy duty spoke
out; and in such a case, better would it
be to suffer death, than to inflict it onl
another.*
*
We will cite here the words of one of the finest
laws of the Romans: Vanæ voces populi non sunt
audiendæ, quando aut noxium crimine absolvi, aut in-
nocentem condemnari desiderant - The idle clamor of
the populace is not to be regarded, when they call for
a guilty man to be acquitted, or an innocent one to be
6
82
TRIAL OF JESUS.
We will now come to a conclusion.
The proof that 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
from the very sentence pronounced by Pi-
late; 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 jurispru-
dence, and which is still followed, of plac-
ing over the head of a condemned criminal
a writing containing an extract from his
sentence, in order that the public might
know for what crime he was condemned.
condemned. Law 12. Code de Panis. Pilate might
also have read in Horace: Justum et tenacem, &c.
"The man in conscious virtue bold,
Who dares his secret purpose hold,
Unshaken hears the crowd's tumultuous cries,
And the impetuous tyrant's angry brow defies."
LAST EFFORTS BEFORE PILATE.
83
This was the reason why Pilate put on the
cross a label, on which he had written
these words: Jesus Nazarenus Rex Ju-
dæorum, (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the
Jews,) which has since been denoted by
the initials J. N. R. J. This was the al-
leged cause of his condemnation. St. Mark
says "And the superscription of hist
accusation was written over The King
-
of the Jews." Mark xv.
26.
This inscription was first in Latin,
which was the legal language of the Ro-
man judge; and it was repeated in Hebrew
and Greek, in order to be understood by
the people of the nation and by foreign-
ers.
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 Jesus was the King of the Jews, said
to Pilate "Write not King of the Jews,
:
84
TRIAL OF JESUS.
but that he said I am king of the Jews."
But Pilate answered: "What I have writ-
ten 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 sen-
tence;" 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 merely sign the sentence,
or decree, but drew 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 a political accusation!
He was put to death for the imaginary
crime of having aimed at the power of
Cæsar, by calling himself King of the
LAST EFFORTS BEFORE PILATE.
85
Jews! Absurd accusation; which Pilate
never believed, and which the chief priests
and the Pharisees themselves did not be-
lieve. 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 ac-
cusation of the moment, when they saw
that Pilate was but little affected by their
religious zeal, and they found it necessary
to arouse his zeal for Cæsar.
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.
86
TRIAL OF JESUS.
Is it not evident, contrary to the conclu-
sion of Mr. Salvador, that Jesus, consid-
ered merely a a simple citizen, was not
tried and sentenced either according to law,
or agreeably to the forms of legal pro-
ceedings 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 disre-
gard 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
LAST EFFORTS BEFORE PILATE.
87
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 under-
take to excuse the Synagogue, and justify
* To the sufferings of those who were put to death
were added mockery and derision." TACIT. Ann.
IV. 44,
88
TRIAL OF JESUS.
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 of Socrates
were those of a sage, the life and death of
Jesus were those of a divinity."

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 06316 6493
Searce
autof Pruit