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 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 absorbed in his reward, Judas placed himself at the head of a gang of servants, to whom he was to point out Jesus; and, then, by a _kiss_ consummated his treachery!(402)

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.-RESISTANCE TO AN ARMED FORCE.

The act was done in the night time. After having celebrated the Supper, Jesus had conducted his disciples to the Mount of Olives. He prayed fervently; but they fell asleep.

Jesus awakes them, with a gentle reproof for their weakness, and warns them that the moment is approaching. "Rise, let us be going; behold he is at hand that doth betray me." Matt. xxvi. 46.

Judas was not alone; in his suite there was a kind of ruffian band, almost entirely composed of servants of the high priest, but whom Mr. Salvador honours with the t.i.tle 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 continued with success, if Jesus had not immediately interfered. But what proves that Peter, even while causing bloodshed, was not resisting a _legal order_, a _legal judgment_ or decree, (which would have made his resistance 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 malefactor; which was a criminal degree of rigour, since for the purpose of securing a single man by a numerous band of persons armed with swords and staves it was not necessary. "Be ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?" Luke xxii. 52.

Section IV.-OTHER IRREGULARITIES IN THE ARREST.-SEIZURE OF THE PERSON.

They dragged Jesus along with them; and, instead of taking him directly to the proper magistrate, they carried him before Annas, who had no other character than that of 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 was recognised by the people of the palace.

Now the Jewish law prohibited _all proceedings by night_; here, therefore, there was another infraction of the law.

Under this state of things, his person being forcibly seized and detained in a private house, and delivered into the hands of servants, in the midst of a court, how was Jesus treated? St. Luke says, the men that held 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 blasphemously spake they against him.

Luke xxii. 63, 64, 65.

Will it be said, as Mr. Salvador does, that all this took place out of the presence of the senate? Let us wait, in this instance, till the senate shall be called up, and we shall see how far they protected the accused person.

Section V.-CAPTIOUS INTERROGATORIES.-ACTS OF VIOLENCE TOWARDS JESUS.

Already had the c.o.c.k 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 Pa.s.sover_, 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 being null.(403) Nevertheless, let us see who proceeded to interrogate Jesus. This was that same Caiaphas, who, if he had intended to remain a _judge_, was evidently liable to objection; for in the preceding a.s.semblage he had made himself the _accuser_ of Jesus.(404) Even before he had seen or heard him, he declared him to be _deserving of death_. 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 partiality.

Instead of interrogating Jesus respecting _positive acts done_, with their circ.u.mstances, and respecting _facts personal to himself_, Caiaphas interrogates him respecting _general 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 consequence of it. "The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine." John xviii. 19.

Jesus answered with dignity: "I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing." Ib. 20.

"Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me, _what I have said unto them_; behold, they know what I said." Ib. 21.

"And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?" Ib. 22.

Will it here be still said, that this violence was the individual act of the person who thus struck the accused? I answer, that on this occasion the fact took place in the presence and under the eyes of the whole council; and, as the high priest who presided did not restrain the author of it, I come to the conclusion, that he became an accomplice, especially when this violence was committed under the pretence of avenging the alleged affront to his dignity.

But in what respect could the answer of Jesus appear offensive? "If I have spoken evil," said Jesus, "bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?"(405) John xviii. 23.

There remained no mode of escaping from this dilemma. They accused Jesus; it was for those, who accused, to prove their accusation. An accused person is not obliged to criminate himself. He should have been convicted by proofs; he himself called for them. Let us see what witnesses were produced against him.

Section VI.-WITNESSES.-NEW INTERROGATORIES.-THE JUDGE IN A Pa.s.sION.

"And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none." Mark xiv. 55.

"For many bare _false witness_ against him, but their witness agreed not together." Ib. 56.

"And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." Ib. 57, 58.

"But (to the same point still) neither so did their witness agree together." Ib. 59.

Mr. Salvador, on this subject, says, p. 87: "The two witnesses, whom St.

Matthew and St. Mark charge with _falsehood_, narrate a discourse which St. John declares 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 xxvii. 40, he puts the same declaration into the mouth of those who insulted Jesus at the foot of the cross; but he does not put it into the mouth of Christ. He is in accordance with St. Mark.

St. John, chapter ii. 19, makes Jesus speak in these words: "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And St. John adds: "He spake of the temple of his body."

Thus Jesus did not say in an affirmative and somewhat menacing manner, _I will destroy this temple_, as the witnesses _falsely_ a.s.sumed; he only said, hypothetically, _Destroy this temple_, that is to say, suppose this temple should be destroyed, I will raise it up in three days. Besides, they could not dissemble, that he referred to a temple altogether different from theirs, because he said, I will raise up another in three days, _which will not be made by the hands of man_.

It hence results, at least, that the Jews did not understand him, for they cried out, "Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?"

Thus, then, the witnesses did not agree together, and their declarations had nothing conclusive. Mark xiv. 59. We must, therefore, look for other proofs.

"Then the high priest, (we must not forget, that he is still the accuser,) the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it, which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing." Mark xiv. 60. In truth, since the question was not concerning the temple of the Jews, but an ideal temple, not made by the hand of man, and which was alone in the thoughts of Jesus, the explanation was to be found in the very evidence itself.

The high priest continued: "I adjure thee, by the living G.o.d, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of G.o.d." Matt. xxvi. 63. I adjure thee, I call upon thee on oath! a gross infraction of that rule of morals and jurisprudence, which forbids our placing an accused person between the danger of perjury and the fear of inculpating himself, and thus making his situation more hazardous. The high priest, however, persists, and says to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of G.o.d?(406) Jesus answered, _Thou hast said_. Matthew xxvi. 64; _I am_. Mark xiv. 62.

"Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, _He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses_? behold, 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 violence with the mild deduction of principles, which we find in the chapter of Mr. Salvador _On the Administration of Justice_; 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 impunity_?

What was this Caiaphas, at once an accuser and judge?(407) A pa.s.sionate man, and too much resembling the odious portrait which the historian Josephus has given us of him!(408) A judge, who was irritated to such a degree, that he rent his clothes; who imposed upon the accused a most solemn oath, and who gave to his answers the criminal character, that _he had spoken_ blasphemy! And, from that moment, he wanted no more witnesses, notwithstanding the law required them. He would not have an inquiry, which he perceived would be insufficient; he attempts to supply it by captious questions. He is desirous of having him condemned _upon his own declaration alone_, (interpreted, too, as he chooses to understand it,) though that was forbidden by the laws of the Hebrews! And, in the midst of a most violent transport of pa.s.sion, this accuser himself, a high priest, who means to speak in the name of the living G.o.d, is the first to pa.s.s sentence of death, and carries with him the opinions of the rest!

In this hideous picture I cannot recognise that justice of the Hebrews, of which Mr. Salvador has given so fine a view 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 bystanders. St.

Matthew says: "Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; who is he that smote thee?" Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.