Mr. Salvador does not contest the truth of this ill treatment. In page 88 he says, "It was contrary to the spirit of the Hebrew law, and that it was not according to the order of nature, that a senate composed of the most respectable men of a nation,-that a senate, which might perhaps be mistaken, but which thought it was acting mildly, should have permitted such outrages against him whose life it held in its own hands. The writers who have transmitted these details to us, not having been present themselves at the trial, were disposed to overcharge the picture, either on account of their own feelings, or to throw upon their judges a greater odium."

I repeat; this ill treatment was entirely contrary to the spirit of the law. And what do I want more, since my object is to make prominent _all the violations of law_.

"It is not in nature to see a body, which respects itself, authorize such attempts." But of what consequence is that, when the fact is established?

"The historians, it is said, were not present at the trial." But was Mr.

Salvador there present himself, so that he could give a flat denial of their statements? And when even an able writer, who was not an eye-witness, relates the same events after the lapse of more than eighteen centuries, he ought at least to bring opposing evidence, if he would impeach that of contemporaries; who, if they were not in the very hall of the council, were certainly on the spot, in the vicinity, perhaps in the court yard, inquiring anxiously of every thing that was happening to the man whose disciples they were.(409) Besides, the learned author whom I am combating says, in the outset (p. 81), "it is from the Gospels themselves that he will take all his facts." He must then take the whole together, as well those which go to condemn, as those which are in palliation or excuse.

Those gross insults, those inhuman acts of violence, even if they are to be cast upon the servants of the high priest and the persons in his train, do not excuse those individuals, who, when they took upon themselves the authority of judges, were bound at the same time to throw around him all the protection of the law. Caiaphas, too, was culpable as the master of the house (for every thing took place in his house), even if he should not be responsible as high priest and president of the council for having permitted excesses, which, indeed were but too much in accordance with the rage he had himself displayed upon the bench.

These outrages, which would be inexcusable even towards a man irrevocably condemned to punishment, were the more criminal towards Jesus, because, legally and judicially speaking, there had not yet been any sentence properly pa.s.sed against him according to the public law of the country; as we shall see in the following section, which will deserve the undivided attention of the reader.

Section VIII.-THE POSITION OF THE JEWS IN RESPECT TO THE ROMANS.

We must not forget, _that Judea was a conquered country_. After the death of Herod-most inappropriately 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 t.i.tle 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 intrusted to his command, was united to the province of Syria. (_Josephus_, Antiq. Jud. lib. 17, cap.

15.)

Augustus then appointed particular officers for Judea. Tiberius did the same; and at the time of which we are speaking, Pilate was one of those officers. (_Josephus_, lib. 18, cap. 3 & 8.)

Some have considered Pilate as governor, by t.i.tle, and have given him the Latin appellation, _Praeses_, president or governor. But they have mistaken the force of the word. Pilate was one of those public officers, who were called by the Romans, _procuratores Caesaris_, Imperial procurators. With this t.i.tle of _procurator_, he was placed under the superior authority of the governor of Syria, the true _praeses_, or governor of that province, of which Judea was then only one of the dependencies.

To the governor (_praeses_) peculiarly belonged the right of taking cognizance of _capital_ cases.(410) The _procurator_, on the contrary, had, for his princ.i.p.al duty, nothing 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 provinces to fill the places of governors (_vice praesides_), as appears clearly from the Roman laws.(411) Such was _Pilate_ at Jerusalem.(412)

The Jews, placed in this political position-notwithstanding they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercise of their religion, and many things merely relating to their police and munic.i.p.al regulations-the Jews, I say, had not the _power of life and death_; this was a princ.i.p.al attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans always took great care to reserve to themselves, even if they neglected other things.

_Apud Romanos, jus valet gladii; caetera transmittuntur_. TACIT.

What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus?

Without doubt the scribes, and their friends the Pharisees, might well have been alarmed, as a body and individually, at the preaching and success of Jesus; they might be concerned for their worship; and they might have interrogated the man respecting his creed and his doctrines,-they might have made a kind of preparatory proceeding,-they might have declared, in point of fact, that those doctrines, which threatened their own, were contrary to their law, as understood by themselves.

But that law, although it had not undergone any alteration as to the affairs of religion, had no longer any coercive power as to the external or civil regulations of society. In vain would they have undertaken to p.r.o.nounce sentence of death under the circ.u.mstances of the case of Jesus; the council of the Jews had not the power to pa.s.s 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 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 pa.s.sing 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 become _impatient of the yoke_; it was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the princ.i.p.al attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the _executive authority_, which would have left the _judiciary_ and _legislative_ power in the hands of the conquered people-he was not simply an officer appointed to give an _exequatur_ or mere approval (_visa_) to sentences pa.s.sed 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 _a priori_, and that of _pa.s.sing judgment in the last resort_. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation, _vice praesidis_, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred; but in any event we hold it to be clear, that the Jews had lost the right of _condemning to death_ any person whatever, not only so far as respects the _execution_ but the _pa.s.sing_ of the sentence. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.

The Jews were not ignorant of this; for when they went before Pilate, to ask of him the condemnation of Jesus, they themselves declared, that it was not permitted to them to put any person to death: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." John xviii. 31.

Here I am happy to be able to support myself by the opinion of a very respectable authority, the celebrated Loiseau, in his treatise 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 administered by officers of the people; but I know not upon what were founded the concessions of power to some cities of France to exercise criminal jurisdiction; nor why the Ordinance of Moulins left that to them rather than civil cases; for the criminal jurisdiction is the _right of the 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 pa.s.sage of the Gospel, where the Jews say to Pilate, _It is not lawful for us to put any man to death_; for, after they were subjected to the Romans, they had not jurisdiction of crimes."

Let us now follow Jesus to the presence of Pilate.

Section IX.-THE ACCUSATION MADE BEFORE PILATE.

At this point I must entreat the particular attention of the reader. The irregularities and acts of violence, which I have hitherto remarked upon, are nothing in comparison with the unbridled fury, which is about to display itself before 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 Jesus was done _during the night_.

They then led Jesus from Caiaphas unto the Hall of Judgment of Pilate.(413) It was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest _they should be defiled_; but that they might eat the pa.s.sover.

John xviii. 28.

Singular scrupulousness! and truly worthy of the Pharisees! They were afraid of _defiling themselves on the day of the pa.s.sover_ by entering _the house of_ a heathen! And yet, the same day, only some hours before presenting themselves to Pilate, they had, in contempt of their own law, committed the outrage of _holding a council_ and deliberating upon _an accusation of a capital crime_.

As they would not enter, "Pilate went out to them." John xviii. 29. Now observe his language. He did not say to them, _Where is the sentence you have pa.s.sed_; as he must have done, if he was only to give them his simple _exequatur_, or permission to execute the sentence; but he takes up the matter from the beginning, as would be done by one who had _plenary jurisdiction_; and he says to them: What accusation bring ye against this man?

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 _blasphemy_, 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 proceeding, which would have restricted his jurisdiction by making him the pa.s.sive 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 to Pilate himself their _articles of accusation_.

Now what were the grounds of this accusation? 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,(414) they suddenly changed their plan; they abandoned their first accusation, the charge of blasphemy, and subst.i.tuted for it a _political_ accusation, an _offence against the state_.

Here we have the very crisis, or essential incident, of the pa.s.sion; and that which makes the heaviest accusation of guilt on the part of the informers against Jesus. For, being fully bent on destroying him in any manner whatever, they no longer exhibited themselves as the avengers 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 appearance of being concerned for the interests of _Rome_; they accused their own countryman 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 Caesar, saying, that he himself is Christ a _king_." Luke xxiii. 2.

What a calumny! Jesus forbidding to give tribute to Caesar! when he had answered the Pharisees themselves, in presence of the whole people, by showing them the image of Caesar upon a Roman piece of money, and saying, Give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar'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 a.s.sumed a 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 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 already pa.s.sed-a judgment, the execution of which was the only subject of consideration; it was a case of a capital accusation; but an accusation which was then just beginning; they were about the preliminary _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 accusation, and that his enemies wanted to arrive at the same end by an artifice, answered Pilate-"_My kingdom is not of this world_; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews;" (we see, in fact, that Jesus had forbidden his people to resist) but, he added, "now is my kingdom not from hence."

John xviii. 36.

This answer of Jesus is very remarkable; it became the foundation of his religion, and the pledge of its universality, because it detached it from the interests of all governments. It rests not merely in a.s.sertion, in doctrine; it was given in _justification_, 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 Caesar_, he would have been guilty of treason in the eyes of the magistrate. But, by answering twice, _my kingdom is not of this world_, my kingdom _is not from hence_, his justification was complete.

Pilate, however, persisted and said to him: "Art thou a king then?" Jesus replied, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. John xviii. 37.

Pilate then said to him: _What is the truth?_

This question proves, that Pilate had not a very clear idea of what Jesus 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 on to the Jews (who remained outside) and said to them, "_I find in him no fault at all_." John xviii.

38.

Here, then, we see Jesus absolved from the accusation by the declaration of the Roman judge himself.

But the accusers, persisting still farther, added-"_He stirreth up the people, teaching_ throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place." Luke xxiii. 5.

"He stirreth up the people!" This is a charge of sedition; and for Pilate.

But observe, it 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 people, he instructs them, he enlightens them; he preaches _new doctrines_ which are not _ours_. "He stirs up the people!"

This, in their months signified-the people hear him willingly; the people follow and become attached to him; for he preaches a doctrine that is friendly and consolatory to the people; he unmasks our pride, our avarice, our insatiable spirit of domination!