dinarily to the governor general or Prases of a province, the Procurator having for his principal duty only the charge of the revenue and the cognizance of revenue causes. But the right of taking cognizance of capital crimes was, in some cases, given to certain Procurators, who were sent into small provinces, to fill the places of governors, (Vice Præsides,) as clearly appears from the Roman laws. The government of all Syria was at this time under a governor general, or Præses; of which Judea was one of the lesser dependencies, under the charge of Pilate as Vice Præses, with capital jurisdiction.' It could not be expected that Pilate would trouble himself with the cognizance of any matter, not pertaining to the Roman law; much less with an alleged offence against the God of the Jews, who was neither acknowledged nor even respected by their conquerors. Of this the chief priests and elders were fully aware; and therefore they prepared a second accusation against Jesus, founded on the Roman law; as likely to succeed with Pilate, as the former had done with the people. They charged him with attempting to restore the kingdom of Israel, under his own dominion as king of the Jews. "We found this fellow, said they, perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, saying, That he himself is Christ, a king.' 66 It was a charge of high treason against the Roman state and emperor; a charge which was clearly within Pilate's cognizance, and which, as they well knew, no officer of Tiberius would venture lightly to regard. Pilate accordingly forthwith arraigned Jesus, and called upon him to answer this accusation. It is worthy of note, that from the moment when he was accused of treason before Pilate, no further allusion was made to the previous charge of blasphemy; the Roman governor being engaged solely with the charge newly preferred before himself. The answer of Jesus to this charge satisfied Pilate that it was groundless, the kingdom which he set up appearing plainly to be not a kingdom of this world, but his spiritual reign in righteousness and holiness and peace, in the hearts of men. Pilate therefore acquitted him of the offence. "He went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all." Here was a sentence of acquittal, judicially pronounced, and irreversible, except by a higher power, upon appeal; and it was the duty of Pilate thereupon to have discharged him. But the multitude, headed now by the priests and elders, grew clamorous for his execution; adding, "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry. demning him, they consulted further, as stated in Matth. xxvii. 1, 2. Mark xv. 1, how to effect this design: - that when Pilate found no fault in him, and directed them to take and crucify him, some replied, "we have a law, and by our law he ought to die," (John xix. 7,) to intimate to Pilate that Jesus was guilty of death by the Jewish law also, as well as the Roman, and that therefore he would not lose any popularity by condemning him. See Zorrius, Hist. Fisci Judaici, ch. 2, § 2, (in Ugolini Thesaur. Tom, 26. col. 1001 - 1003.) The same view is taken by Deylingius, De Judæorum Jure Gladii, § 10, 11, 12, (in Ugolin. Thesaur, Tom. 29, col. 1189-1192.) But he concludes that in all capital cases, there was an appeal from the Sanhedrim to the Prætor; and that without the approval of the latter, the sentence of the Sanhedrim could not be executed. Ibid. § 15, col. 1196. Molinæus understood the Jewish law in the same manner. See his Harmony of the Gospels, note on John 18. 31. C. Molinæi Opera, Tom. 5, pp. 603, 604. But this opinion is refuted by what is said by M. Dupin, Trial, &c. § 8, and by Thomasius, above cited. 1 See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, pp. 55-62. His authorities are Loiseau, Godefroy, and Cujas, the two latter of whom he cites as follows;- -"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 pænis. Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur vice presidum; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris vice præsidis in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13." 2 Luke xxiii. 2. 3 John xviii. 38. 1 beginning from Galilee to this place." Hearing this reference to Galilee, Pilate seized the opportunity, thus offered, of escaping from the responsibility of a judgment, either of acquittal or of condemnation, by treating the case as out of his jurisdiction, and within that of Herod tetrarch of Galilee, who was then in Jerusalem on a visit. He therefore sent Jesus and his accusers to Herod; before whom the charge was vehemently renewed and urged. But Herod, too, perceived that it was utterly groundless, and accordingly treated it with derision, arraying Jesus in mock habiliments of royalty, and remanding him to Pilate. The cause was then solemnly reexamined by the Roman governor, and a second judgment of acquittal pronounced. For "Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers, and the people, said unto them, 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." 3 It may seem strange to us that after a judgment of acquittal thus solemnly pronounced, any judge, in a civilized country, should venture to reverse it, upon the same evidence, and without the pretence of mistake or error in the proceedings. Probably, in the settled jurisprudence of the city of Rome, it could not have been done. But this was in a remote province of the empire, under the administration not of a jurist, but a soldier; and he, too, irresolute and vascillating; fearful for his office, and even for his life, for he served the “dark and unrelenting Tiberius." As soon as he proposed to release Jesus, "the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Cesar's friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cæsar." Whereupon "Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required." That Jesus was executed under the pretence of treason, and that alone, is manifest from the tenor of the writing placed over his head, stating that he was king of the Jews; such being the invariable custom among the Romans, in order that the public might know for what crime the party had been condemned. The remaining act in this tragedy is sufficiently known. 995 In the preceding remarks, the case has been considered only upon its general merits, and with no reference to the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. But M. Dupin, in his tract on the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, in reply to Mr. Salvador's account of it, has satisfactorily shown that throughout the whole course of that trial the rules of the Jewish law of procedure were grossly violated, and that the accused was deprived of rights, belonging even to the meanest citizen. He was arrested in the night, bound as a malefactor, beaten before his arraignment, and struck in open court during the trial; he was tried on a feast day, and before sunrise; he was compelled to criminate himself, and this, under an oath or solemn judicial adjuration; and he was sentenced on the same day of the conviction. In all these particulars the law was wholly disregarded." 1 Luke xxiii. 5. 2 Lake xxiii. 10, 11. 3 Luke xxiii. 13, 14, 15. I regard this judgment as conclusive evidence of the innocence of the accused. Pilate's strenuous endeavors to release him instead of Barabbas, and his solemn washing his own hands of the guilt of his blood, though they show the strength of his own convictions, yet add no legal force to the judgment itself. 4 John xix. 12. 5 Luke xxiii. 24. 6 See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, pp. 82-84. 7 See M. Dupin's Trial of Jesus, pp. 7-15. Jahn's Bibl. Ant. § 246. NO. V. Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, a few years ago published at Paris, a work, entitled, "Histoire des Institutions de Moise et du Peuple Hebreu," in which, among other things, he gives an account of their course of criminal procedure, in a chapter on "The Administration of Justice; " which he illustrates, in a succeeding chapter, by an account of the trial of Jesus. As this is the recent work of a man of learning, himself a Jew, it may be regarded as an authentic statement of what is understood and held by the most intelligent and best informed Jews, respecting the claims of our Lord, the tenor of his doctrines, the nature of the charge laid against him before the Sanhedrim, and the grounds on which they condemned him. The following translation of the last-mentioned chapter will therefore not be unacceptable to the reader. It will be found in Book IV. chapter iii., entitled, "The Trial and Condemnation of Jesus.' The reader will bear in his mind, that it is the language of an enemy of our Saviour, and in justification of his murderers. "According to this exposition of judicial proceedings," says the Jew, "I shall follow out the application of them in the most memorable trial in history, that of Jesus Christ. I have already explained the motives which have directed me, and the point of view in which I have considered the subject; I have already shown, that among the Jews no title was a shelter against a prosecution and sentence. Whether the law or its forms were good or bad, is not the object of my present investigation; neither is it to ascertain whether we ought to pity the blindness of the Hebrews in not discovering a Deity in Jesus, or to be astonished that a God personified could not make himself comprehended when he desired it. But since they regarded him only as a citizen, did they not try him according to their law and its existing forms? This is my question, which can admit of no equivocation. I shall draw all my facts from the Evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether all this history was developed after the event, to serve as a form to a new doctrine, or to an old one which had received a fresh impulse. Jesus was born of a family of small fortune; Joseph, his supposed father, perceived that his wife was big before they had come together. If he had brought her to trial, in the ordinary course of things, Mary, according to the 23d verse of the 22d chapter of Deuteronomy, would have been condemned, and Jesus, having been declared illegitimate, could never, according to the 2d verse of the 23d chapter, have been admitted to a seat in the Sanhedrim.' But Joseph who, to save his wife from disgrace, had taken the resolution of sending her away privately, soon had a dream which consoled him." After having been circumcised, Jesus grew like other men, attended the solemn feasts, and early displayed surprising wisdom and sagacity. In the assembly on the Sabbath, the Jews, eager for the disputes to which the interpretation of the law gave rise, loved to hear him. But he soon devoted himself to more important labors; he pronounced censures against whole towns, Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida. Recalling the times of Isaiah and Jeremiah, he thundered against the chiefs of the people with a vehemence which would in our day be terrific. The people then regarded him as a prophet; they heard him preach in towns and country without opposition; they saw him surrounded with disciples according to the custom of the learned men of the age; whatever may have been the resentment of the chief men, they were silent as long as he confined himself to the law. 5 1 Deut. xxii. 22, and xxiii. 2. Selden, De Synedriis, lib. 3, cap. 4, 5. 2 Matth. i. 19, 20. 4 Matth. xxiii. per tot. Matth. xi. 20-24. Luke iv. &c. But Jesus, in presenting new theories, and in giving new forms to those already promulgated, speaks of himself as God; his disciples repeat it; and the subsequent events prove in the most satisfactory manner, that they thus understood him. This was shocking blasphemy in the eyes of the citizens: the law commands them to follow Jehovah alone, the only true God; not to believe in gods of flesh and bone, resembling men or women; neither to spare nor listen to a prophet who, even doing miracles, should proclaim a new god, a god whom neither they nor their fathers had known." Jesus having said to them one day : "I have come down from heaven to do these things," the Jews, who till then had listened to him, murmured and cried: "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph and of Mary? we know his father, his mother, and his brethren; why then does he say that he has come down from heaven?" 3 On another day, the Jews, irritated from the same cause, took stones and threatened him. Jesus said unto them, "I have done good works in your eyes by the power of my Father, for which of these works would you stone me? It is for no good work," replied the Jews, who stated the whole process in few words, "but because of thy blasphemy; for being a man, thou makest thyself God."5 4 His language was not always clear. Often his disciples themselves did not comprehend him. Among his maxims, some of which showed the greatest mildness, there were some which the Hebrews, who were touched only through their natural sense, thought criminal. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." Finally, if he wrought miracles before certain of the people, his replies to the questions of the doctors were generally evasive." In regard to political relations, he caused dissensions. A great number of disorderly persons whom he had the design of reclaiming, but who inspired dread in the national council, attached themselves to him; his discourse flattered them inasmuch as he pronounced anathemas against riches. "Know," said he, "that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." In this state of affairs, the council deliberates; some are of opinion that he should be regarded as a madman," others say that he seeks to seduce the people.1 Caiaphas, the high priest, whose dignity compels him to defend the letter of the law, observes that these dissensions would furnish an excuse to the Romans for overwhelming Judea, and that the interests of the whole nation must 1 The expression son of God was in common use among the Jews, to designate a man of remarkable wisdom and piety. It was not in this sense that Jesus Christ used it; for in that case it would have occasioned no great sensation. Besides, if we should assume, in order to make it a subject of accusation against these Jews, that Jesus did not expressly declare himself to be God, we should be exposed to this rejoinder: why then do you believe in him? 2 See Deut. iv. 15, and xiii. per tot. 3 John vi. 39-42. Matth. xiii. 55. 4 This fact is as clearly established as possible; and we must observe that till then there had been neither opposition nor enmity in the minds of this people, since they had listened to him with the greatest attention, and did not hesitate to acknowledge in him all that the public law permitted them to do, viz. a prophet, a highly inspired outweigh those of a single individual; he constitutes himself the accuser of Jesus.' The order is given to seize him. But let us pause here upon a fact of the highest importance. The senate did not begin by actually seizing Jesus, as is now the practice; they begin by giving, after some debate, an order that he should be seized. This decree is made public; it is known to all, especially to Jesus. No opposition is offered to his passing the frontier: his liberty depends entirely upon himself. This is not all; the order for his arrest was preceded by a decree of admonition. One day, Jesus having entered the temple, took upon himself authority contrary to the common law; then he preached to the people, and said: "That those who should believe in him should be able to do all things, so that if they should say to a mountain, remove thyself and cast thyself into the sea, it would obey." Then the chief priest and senators went to find him, and said to him, "By what authority doest thou these things? who gave thee this power?"3 Meanwhile a traitor discloses the place whither the accused had retired; the guards, authorized by the high priest and by the elders, hasten to seize him. One of his disciples, breaking into open rebellion, with a stroke of his sword cuts off the ear of one of them, and brings upon himself the reproof of his master. As soon as Jesus is arrested, the zeal of the apostles is extinguished; all forsake him. He is brought before the grand council, where the priests sustain the accusation. The witnesses testify, and they are numerous; for the deeds of which he is accused were done in the presence of all the people. The two witnesses whom St. Matthew and St. Mark accuse of perjury, relate a discourse which St. John declares to be true, with regard to the power which Jesus arrogates to himself. Finally, the high priest addresses the accused, and says: "Is it true that thou art Christ, that thou art the Son of God?" "I am he," replies Jesus; "you shall see me hereafter at the right hand of the majesty of God, who shall come upon the clouds of heaven." At these words, Caiaphas rent his garments in token of horror.8 "You have heard him." They deliberate. The question already raised among the people was this: has Jesus become God? But the senate having adjudged that Jesus, son of Joseph, born at Bethlehem, had profaned the name of God by usurping it to himself, a mere citizen, applied to him the law of blasphemy, and the law in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and the 20th verse in chapter 18, according to which every prophet, even he who works miracles, must be punished, when he speaks of a god unknown to the Jews and their fathers: the capital sentence was pronounced. As to 4 It will be recollected, that the senate held its sessions in one of the porticos of the temple. At this time the high priest presided over the senate, so that the guards of the high priest, of the elders and the temple, were no other than the legal militia. 5 John xviii. 10, 11. 6 Mark xiv. 50. Matth. xxvi. 56. 7 Matth. xxvi. 60, 61. And the last came two false witnesses, and said, this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Mark xiv. 57, 58. And there arose certain and hare 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. John ii. 19, 21, 22. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. 8 I repeat that the expression son of God, includes here the idea of God himself; the fact is already established, and all the subsequent events confirm it. Observe, also, that I quote the narrative of only one of the parties to this great proceeding. 9 Deut. xxviii. 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. |