An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists Part 55

Pilate, however, does not appear to have attached much importance to this new turn given to the accusation; but he here betrays a weakness. He heard the word _Galilee_; and he makes that the occasion of s.h.i.+fting off the responsibility upon another public officer, and seizes the occasion with avidity. He says to Jesus-you are a _Galilean_ then? and, upon the answer being in the affirmative, considering Jesus as belonging to the jurisdiction of Herod-Antipas, who, by the good pleasure of Caesar, 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 Jesus did not deign to answer,-Herod, notwithstanding 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 _accusation of being a king_, made a mockery of the affair, and sent Jesus back to Pilate, _after having arrayed him in a gorgeous 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 determination to force him to a decision.

The unfortunate Pilate, reviewing his 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 considered him to be innocent?(415) But this was an act of condescension by which Pilate hoped to quiet the rage with which he saw they were agitated.

"Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him." John xix. 1. And, supposing 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 h.o.m.o_. 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 decision, 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 his accusers. "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend; whosoever maketh himself a _king_ speaketh against Caesar." Ib.

It does not appear that Pilate was malignant; 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 reascended the judgment-seat; (Matt. xxvii. 19), and, as new light had thus come upon him, he proceeded to make a second decree!

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 of Jesus. "But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them." Mark xv. 11. Barabbas! a murderer! an a.s.sa.s.sin!

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 crucify your king?_ thus using terms of raillery, in order to disarm them. But here showing themselves to be more truly Roman than Pilate himself, the chief priests hypocritically answered: _We have no king but Caesar._ John xix. 15.

The outcry was renewed-Crucify him, crucify him! And the clamour 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 pleasing the mult.i.tude_, proceeds to speak. But can we call it a legal adjudication, a _judgment_, that he is about to p.r.o.nounce? Is he, at the moment, in that free state of mind which is necessary for a judge, who is about to pa.s.s a _sentence of death_? What new witnesses, what proofs have been brought forward to change his conviction and opinion, which had been so energetically 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 mult.i.tude, 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.

Luke xxiii. 24. And he delivered him to them to be crucified." Matt.

xxvii. 26.

Well mayest thou wash thy hands, Pilate, stained as they are with innocent blood! Thou hast authorised the act in thy weakness; thou art not less culpable, than if thou hadst sacrificed him through 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 pusillanimous 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 thyself 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 on another.(416)

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 wors.h.i.+p in contravention of the Mosaic law, results from _the very sentence_ p.r.o.nounced by Pilate; 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 jurisprudence, and which is still followed, of placing 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. This was the reason why Pilate put on the cross a label, on which he had written these words: _Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum_, (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), which has since been denoted by the initials J. N. R.

J. This was the alleged cause of his condemnation. St. Mark says-"And the superscription of his _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 _Roman_ judge; and it was repeated in _Hebrew_ and _Greek_, in order to be understood by the people of the nation and by foreigners.

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_, but that _he said_ I am king of the Jews." But Pilate answered: "What I have written I have written." John xix. 21, 22.

This is a conclusive answer to one of the last a.s.sertions of Mr. Salvador, (p. 88,) that "the Roman Pilate signed the sentence;" by which he always means that Pilate did nothing but sign a sentence, which he supposes to have been pa.s.sed 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 Caesar, by calling himself _King of the Jews_! Absurd accusation; which Pilate never believed, and which the chief priests and the Pharisees themselves did not believe. 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 accusation 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_ Caesar.

"_If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar'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.

Is it not evident, contrary to the conclusion of Mr. Salvador, that Jesus, considered merely as _a simple citizen_, was not tried and sentenced either _according to law_, or _agreeably to the forms of legal proceedings then existing_?

G.o.d, 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 disregard 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 dispa.s.sionately) 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 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 pa.s.s 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 undertake to excuse the Synagogue, and justify 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."

FOOTNOTES

1 Cicero, Philip. II. -- 43.

2 Nov. Org. 1. 68. "Ut non alius fere sit aditus ad regnum hominus, quod fundatur in scientiis, quam ad regnum clorum, in quod, nisi sub persona infantis, intrare non datur."

3 Bishop Wilson's Evidences, p. 38.

4 See Dr. Hopkins's Lowell Lectures, particularly Lect. 2. Bp.

Wilson's Evidences of Christianity, Vol. i. pp. 45-61. Horne's Introduction, Vol. i. pp. 1-39. Mr. Horne having cited all the best English writers on this subject, it is sufficient to refer to his work alone.

5 Hopkins's Lowell Lect., p. 48.

6 It has been well remarked, that, if we regard man as in a state of innocence, we should naturally expect that G.o.d would hold communications with him; that if we regard him as guilty, and as having lost the knowledge and moral image of G.o.d, such a communication would be absolutely necessary, if man was to be restored.-Dr. Hopkins's Lowell Lect., p. 62.

7 The argument here briefly sketched, is stated more at large, and with great clearness and force, in an essay ent.i.tled "The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation," pp. 13-107.

8 See Professor Stuart's Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, where this is abundantly proved.

9 Per Tindal, Ch. Just., in the case of the Bishop of Meath v. the Marquis of Winchester, 3 Bing. N. C. 183, 200, 201. "It is when doc.u.ments are found in other than their proper places of deposit,"

observed the Chief Justice, "that the investigation commences, whether it was reasonable and natural, under the circ.u.mstances of the particular case, to expect that they should have been in the place where they are actually found; for it is obvious, that, which there can be only one place of deposit strictly and absolutely proper, there may be many and various, that are reasonable and probable, though differing in degree, some being more so, some less; and in these cases the proposition to be determined is, whether the actual custody is so reasonably and probably accounted for, that it impresses the mind with the conviction that the instrument found in such custody must be genuine." See the cases cited in 1 Greenleaf on Evidence -- 142. See also 1 Stark. on Evidence, pp. 332-335, 381-386.

Croughton v. Blake, 12 Mees. & Welsb. 205, 208. Doe v. Phillips, 10 Jurist, p. 34. It is this defect, namely, that they do not come from the proper or natural repository, which shows the fabulous character of many pretended revelations, from the Gospel of the Infancy to the Book of Mormon.

10 1 Greenleaf on Evid. -- 34, 142, 570.