name of hired informers those emissaries, whom the chief priests sent out to be about Jesus. We read in the evangelist Luke, chap. xx. 20: Et observantes miserunt insidiatores, qui se justos simularent, ut caperent eum in sermone, et traderent illum principatui et potestati præsidis. I will not translate this text myself, but will take the language of a translator whose accuracy is well known, Mr. De Sacy: "As they only sought occasions for his destruction, they sent to 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 authorities." This first artifice has escaped the sagacity of Mr. Salvador. SECTION II.-THE CORRUPTION AND TREACHERY OF JUDAS, ACCORDING to Mr. Salvador, the senate, as he calls it, did not commence their proceedings by arresting Jesus, as would be done at the present day; but they began by passing a preliminary decree, that he should be arrested; and he cites, in proof of his assertion, St. John xi. 53, 54, and St. Matthew xxvi. 4, 5. But St. John says nothing of this pretended decree. He speaks, too, not of a public sitting, but of a consultation held by the chief priests and the Pharisees, who did not, to my knowledge, constitute a judicial tribunal among the Jews. "Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles." John xi. 47. They add: "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him," which imported also, in their minds, and they will no longer believe in us. Now, in this, I can readily perceive the fear of seeing the morals and doctrines of Jesus prevail; but where is the preliminary judgment, 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 N N ...... 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 prophesy is not to pass judgment; and the individual 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 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 directly in contradiction of the assertion, that there was an order of arrest previously 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; concilium fecerunt, ut Jesum DOLO tenerent et OCCIDERENT. Matt. xxvi. 5. Now in the Latin language, a language perfectly well constituted in every thing relating to terms of the law, the words occidere and interficere were never employed to express the act of passing sentence, 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 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 * 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 occides, thou shalt not kill. Deut. v. 17. Veneno homines 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. 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! * 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 THE act was done in the night time. After having celebrated the Supper, Jesus had conducted his disciples to the Mount of Olives. He prayed fervently; but they fell asleep. Jesus awakes them, with a gentle reproof for their weakness, and warns them that the moment is approaching. "Rise, let us be going; behold he is at hand that doth betray me." Matt. xxvi. 46. Judas was not alone; in his suite there was a kind of ruffian band, almost entirely composed of servants of the high priest, but whom Mr. Salvador honours with the title of 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 * 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 meritorious," because (as they said) of the immense service 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. 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 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 fatherin-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. St. 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? 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 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 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 evidently liable to objection; for in the preceding assemblage he had made himself the accuser of Jesus. 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. * 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. |