Part IX. Our Lord’s Resurrection, His Subsequent Appearances, And His

Ascension.

TIME. _Forty days_.

§ 159. The morning of the Resurrection. (First Day Of The Week.) _Jerusalem_.

Matthew. Mark. CH. XXVIII. 2-4. CH. XVI. 1. And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the _mother_ of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead _men_.

§ 160. Visit of the women to the Sepulchre. Mary Magdalene returns. (First Day Of The Week.) _Jerusalem_.

Matthew. Mark. CH. XXVIII. 1. CH. XVI. 2-4. In the end of the sabbath, as 2 And very early in the it began to dawn toward the morning, the first _day_ of first _day_ of the week, came the week, they came unto the Mary Magdalene, and the other sepulchre at the rising of the Mary to see the sepulchre. sun: 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4 (And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away,) for it was very great.

Luke. John. CH. XXIV. 1-3. CH. XX. 1-2. Now upon the first _day_ of The first _day_ of the week the week, very early in the cometh Mary Magdalene early, morning, they came unto the when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices sepulchre, and seeth the stone which they had prepared, and taken away from the sepulchre. certain _others_ with them. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. 3 And they entered in, and 2 Then she runneth, and cometh found not the body of the Lord to Simon Peter, and to the Jesus. other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

§ 161. Vision of angels in the Sepulchre. (First Day Of The Week.) _Jerusalem_.

Matthew. Mark. CH. XXVIII. 5-7. CH. XVI. 5-7. 5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 5 And the angel answered and 6 And he saith unto them, Be said unto the women, Fear not not affrighted: ye seek Jesus ye: for I know that ye seek of Nazareth, which was Jesus, which was crucified. crucified: he is risen; he is not here; behold the place where they laid him. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly, and tell his 7 But go your way, tell his disciples, that he is risen disciples and Peter, that he from the dead, and behold, he goeth before you into Galilee: goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he there shall ye see him: lo, I said unto you. have told you.

Luke. CH. XXIV. 4-8. 4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down _their_ faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen. Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, 7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. 8 And they remembered his words,

§ 162. The women return to the city. Jesus meets them. (First Day Of The Week.) _Jerusalem_.

Matthew. Mark. CH. XXVIII. 8-10. CH. XVI. 8. 8 And they departed quickly 6 And they went out quickly from the sepulchre, with fear and fled from the sepulchre; and great joy; and did run to for they trembled, and were bring his disciples word. amazed: neither said they any thing to any _man_; for they were afraid. 9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came, and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. 10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

Luke. CH. XXIV. 9-11. 9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary _the mother_ of James, and other _women that were_ with them, which told these things unto the apostles. 11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

§ 163. Peter and John run to the Sepulchre. (First Day Of The Week.) _Jerusalem_.

Luke. John. CH. XXIV. 12. CH. XX. 3-10. 12 Then arose Peter, and ran 3 Peter therefore went forth, unto the sepulchre, and and that other disciple, and stooping down, he beheld the came to the sepulchre. linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. 4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. 5 And he stooping down, _and looking in_, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie; 7 And the napkin that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. 8 Then went in also that other disciple which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. 9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. 10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.

§ 164. Our Lord is seen by Mary Magdalene at the Sepulchre. (First Day Of The Week.) _Jerusalem_.

John. Mark. CH. XX. 11-18. CH. XVI. 9-11. 11 But Mary stood without at 9 Now, when _Jesus_ was risen the sepulchre weeping: and as early, the first _day_ of the she wept she stooped down _and week, he appeared first to looked_ into the sepulchre, Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 12 And seeth two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. 14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master. 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch 10 _And_ she went and told me not: for I am not yet them that had been with him, ascended to my Father: but go as they mourned and wept. to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and _to_ my God and your God. 18 Mary Magdalene came and 11 And they, when they had told the disciples that she heard that he was alive, and had seen the Lord, and _that_ had been seen of her, believed he had spoken these things not. unto her.

§ 165. Report of the watch. (First Day Of The Week.) _Jerusalem_.

Matthew. CH. XXVIII. 11-15. 11 Now, when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. 12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, 13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him _away_ while we slept. 14 And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. 15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

§ 166. Our Lord is seen of Peter; then by two disciples on the way to Emmaus. (First Day Of The Week.) _Emmaus_.

Mark. Luke. CH. XVI. 12, 13. CH. XXIV. 13-35. 12 After that, he appeared in 13 And behold, two of them another form unto two of them, went that same day to a as they walked, and went into village called Emmaus, which the country. was from Jerusalem _about_ threescore furlongs. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed _together_, and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden, that they should not know him. 17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications _are_ these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering, said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God, and all the people: 20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and besides all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done. 22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre. 23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 24 And certain of them which were with us, went to the sepulchre, and found _it_ even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 28 And they drew nigh unto the village whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. 29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed _it_, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? 13 And they went and told _it_ 33 And they rose up the same unto the residue: neither hour, and returned to believed they them. Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.(308) 35 And they told what things _were done_ in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

§ 167. Jesus appears in the midst of the Apostles, Thomas being absent. (Evening Following The First Day Of The Week.) _Jerusalem_.

Mark. CH. XVI. 14-18. 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven,(309) as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief, and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues: 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Luke. John. CH. XIV. 36-49. CH. XX. 19-23. 36 And as they thus spake, 19 Then the same day at Jesus himself stood in the evening, being the first _day_ midst of them, and saith unto of the week, when the doors them, Peace _be_ unto you. were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace _be_ unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my 20 And when he had so said, he feet, that it is I myself: shewed unto them _his_ hands handle me, and see; for a and his side. Then were the spirit hath not flesh and disciples glad when they saw bones, as ye see me have. the Lord. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them _his_ hands and _his_ feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honey-comb. 43 And he took _it_, and did eat before them. 44 And he said unto them, 21 Then said Jesus to them These _are_ the words which I again, Peace _be_ unto you: spake unto you, while I was _as my_ Father hath sent me, yet with you, that all things even so send I you. must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and _in_ the prophets, and _in_ the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their 22 And when he had said this, understanding, that they might he breathed on _them_, and understand the scriptures, saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 46 And said unto them, Thus it 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, is written, and thus it they are remitted unto them; behoved Christ to suffer, and _and_ whose soever _sins_ ye to rise from the dead the retain, they are retained. third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

§ 168. Jesus appears in the midst of the Apostles, Thomas being present. (Evening Following First Day Of Week After Resurrection.) _Jerusalem_.

John. CH. XX. 24-29. 24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: _then_ came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace _be_ unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust _it_ into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed _are_ they that have not seen and _yet_ have believed.

§ 169. The Apostles go away into Galilee. Jesus shows himself to seven of them at the Sea of Tiberias. _Galilee_.

Matthew. John. CH. XXVIII. 16. CH. XXI. 1-24. 16 Then the eleven disciples After these things Jesus went away into Galilee, shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he _himself_. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the _sons_ of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing. 4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore; but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. 5 Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. 6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. 7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt _his_ fisher’s coat _unto him_, (for he was naked) and did cast himself into the sea. 8 And the other disciples came in a little ship (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes. 9 As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. 10 Jesus saith unto them, bring of the fish which ye have now caught. 11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come _and_ dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. 13 Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise. 14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead. 15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, _son_ of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord: thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, _son_ of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord: thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, _son_ of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry _thee_ whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. 20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following; (which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?) 21 Peter seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what _shall_ this man _do_? 22 Jesus saith unto him, if I will that he tarry till I come, what _is that_ to thee? Follow thou me. 23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, if I will that he tarry till I come, what _is that_ to thee? 24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

§ 170. Jesus meets the Apostles and above five hundred brethren on a mountain in Galilee. _Galilee_.

Matthew. CH. XXVIII. 16-20. 16 into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him,(310) they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came, and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, _even_ unto the end of the world. Amen.

§ 171. Our Lord is seen of James; then of all the Apostles. _Jerusalem_.

The title of this section in inserted, for the sake of preserving the series of Dr. Robinson, whose arrangement has been followed in this Harmony; but as the appearances of Jesus which are here referred to, are related only by Luke in Acts, i. 3-8, and by Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 7, the particular insertion of those passages is omitted, for the reasons already given. See § 137, note. The subject of this and the eleven preceding sections, respecting the resurrection of Jesus, is discussed in the Note on the Resurrection.

§ 172. The Ascension. _Bethany_.

Mark. Luke. CH. XVI. 19, 20. CH. XXIV. 50-53. 19 So then, after the Lord had 50 And he led them out as far spoken unto them, he was as to Bethany:(311) and he received up into heaven, and lifted up his hands, and sat on the right hand of God. blessed them. 20 And they went forth, and 51 And it came to pass, while preached every where, the Lord he blessed them, he was parted working with _them_, and from them, and carried up into confirming the word with signs heaven. following. Amen. 52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: 53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

§ 173. Conclusion of John’s Gospel.

John. CH. XX. 30, 31. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 31 But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. CH. XXI. 25. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

NOTE ON THE RESURRECTION.

The accounts of the Resurrection and of the subsequent appearances of our Lord, have been harmonised in various methods; of which the latest, and probably the best, is that of Professor Robinson, in an article published in the Bibliotheca Sacra for February 1845, vol. ii. pp. 162-189. As the best service the present writer could do to the English reader, he has therefore here abridged that article, by omitting the introduction, and such parts as relate to the Greek text, and a few other passages, which it seemed might be spared without injury to the narrative itself.

§ 1. _The Time of the Resurrection._

Matt. 26: 1, 2. Mark 16: 1, 2, 9. Luke 24: 1. John 20: 1.

That the resurrection of our Lord took place before full daylight, on the first day of the week, follows from the unanimous testimony of the Evangelists respecting the visit of the women to the sepulchre. But the exact time at which he rose is nowhere specified. According to the Jewish mode of reckoning, the Sabbath ended and the next day began at sunset; so that had the resurrection occurred even before midnight, it would still have been upon the first day of the week, and the third day after our Lord’s burial. The earthquake had taken place and the stone had been rolled away before the arrival of the women; and so far as the immediate narrative is concerned, there is nothing to show that all this might not have happened some hours earlier. Yet the words of Mark in another place render it certain, that there could have been no great interval between these events and the arrival of the women; since he affirms in v. 9, that Jesus “had risen _early_, the first day of the week;” while in v. 2, he states that the women went out “_very early_.” A like inference may be drawn from the fact, that the affrighted guards first went to inform the chief priests of these events, when the women returned to the city (Matt. 28: 11); for it is hardly to be supposed, that after having been thus terrified by the earthquake and the appearance of an angel, they would have waited any very long time before sending information to their employers.—The body of Jesus had therefore probably lain in the tomb not less than about thirty-six hours.

§ 2. _The Visit of the Women to the Sepulchre._

Matt. 28: 1-8. Mark 16: 1-8. Luke 24: 1-11. John 20: 1, 2.

The first notices we have of our Lord’s resurrection, are connected with the visit of the women to the sepulchre, on the morning of the first day of the week. According to Luke, the women who had stood by the cross, went home and rested during the sabbath (23:56); and Mark adds that after the sabbath was ended, that is, after sunset, and during the evening, they prepared spices in order to go and embalm our Lord’s body. They were either not aware of the previous embalming by Joseph and Nicodemus; or else they also wished to testify their respect and affection to their Lord, by completing, more perfectly, what before had been done in haste; John 19: 40-42.

It is in just this portion of the history, which relates to the visit of the women to the tomb and the appearance of Jesus to them, that most of the alleged difficulties and discrepancies in this part of the Gospel narratives are found. We will therefore take up the chief of them in their order.

I. _The Time_. All the Evangelists agree in saying that the women went out _very early_ to the sepulchre. Matthew’s expression is, _as the day was dawning_. Mark’s words are, _very early_: which indeed are less definite, but are appropriate to denote the same point of time. Luke has the more poetic term: _deep morning_, i. e. early dawn. John’s language is likewise definite: _early, while it was yet dark_. All these expressions go to fix the time at what we call _early dawn_, or _early twilight_; after the break of day, but while the light is yet struggling with darkness.

Thus far there is no difficulty; and none would ever arise, had not Mark added the phrase, _the sun being risen_; or, as the English version has it, _at the rising of the sun_. These words seem, at first, to be at direct variance both with the _very early_ of Mark himself, and with the language of the other Evangelists. To harmonise this apparent discrepancy, we may premise, that since Mark himself first specifies the point of time by a phrase sufficiently definite in itself, and supported by all the other Evangelists, we must conclude that when he adds, _at the rising of the sun_, he did not mean to contradict himself, but used this latter phrase in a broader and less definite sense. As the sun is the source of light and of the day, and as his earliest rays produce the contrast between darkness and light, between night and dawn, so the term sunrising might easily come in popular language, by a metonymy of cause for effect, to be put for all that earlier interval, when his rays, still struggling with darkness, do nevertheless usher in the day.

Accordingly, we find such a popular usage prevailing among the Hebrews; and several instances of it occur in the Old Testament. Thus in Judg. 9: 33, the message of Zebul to Abimelech, after directing him to lie in wait with his people in the field during the night, goes on as follows: “and it shall be, in the morning, as soon as the sun is up thou shalt rise early and set upon the city;” yet we cannot for a moment suppose that Abimelech with his ambuscade was to wait until the sun actually appeared above the horizon, before he made his onset. So the Psalmist (104: 22), speaking of the young lions that by night roar after their prey, goes on to say: “The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens.” But wild animals do not wait for the actual appearance of the sun ere they shrink away to their lairs; the break of day, the dawning light, is the signal for their retreat. See also Sept. 2 K. 3:22. 2 Sam. 23:4. In all these passages the language is entirely parallel to that of Mark; and they serve fully to illustrate the principle, that the rising of the sun is here used in a popular sense as equivalent to the _rising of the day_ or early dawn.

II. _The Number of the Women._ Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; v. 1. Mark enumerates Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome; v. 1. Luke has Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others with them; v. 10. John speaks of Mary Magdalene alone, and says nothing of any other. The first three Evangelists accord then in respect to the two Marys, but no further; while John differs from them all. Is there here a real discrepancy?

We may at once answer, No; because, according to the sound canon of Le Clerc:(312) “_Qui plura narrat, pauciora complectitur; qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat._” Because John, in narrating circumstances with which he was personally connected, sees fit to mention only Mary Magdalene, it does not at all follow that others were not present. Because Matthew, perhaps for like reasons, speaks only of the two Marys, he by no means excludes the presence of others. Indeed, the very words which John puts into the mouth of Mary Magdalene, (v. 2), presupposes the fact, that others had gone with her to the sepulchre. That there was something in respect to Mary Magdalene, which gave her a peculiar prominence in these transactions, may be inferred from the fact, that not only John mentions her alone, but likewise all the other Evangelists name her first, as if holding the most conspicuous place.

The instance here under consideration is parallel to that of the demoniacs of Gadara, and the blind men at Jericho; where, in both cases, Matthew speaks of two persons, while Mark and Luke mention only one.(313) Something peculiar in the station or character of one of the persons, rendered him in each case more prominent, and led the two latter Evangelists to speak of him particularly. But there, as here, their language is not exclusive; nor is there in it anything that contradicts the statements of Matthew.

III. _The Arrival at the Sepulchre._ According to Mark, Luke, and John, the women on reaching the sepulchre found the great stone, with which it had been closed, already rolled away. Matthew, on the other hand, after narrating that the women went out to see the sepulchre, proceeds to mention the earthquake, the descent of the angel, his rolling away the stone and sitting upon it, and the terror of the watch, as if all these things took place in the presence of the women. The angel too (in v. 5) addresses the women, as if still sitting upon the stone he had rolled away.

The apparent discrepancy, if any, here arises simply from Matthew’s brevity in omitting to state in full what his own narrative presupposes. According to v. 6, Christ was already risen; and therefore the earthquake and its accompaniments must have taken place at an earlier point of time, to which the sacred writer returns back in his narration. And although Matthew does not represent the women as entering the sepulchre, yet in v. 8, he speaks of them as going out of it; so that of course their interview with the angel took place, not outside of the sepulchre, but in it, as narrated by the other Evangelists. When therefore the angel says to them in v. 6, “Come, see the place where the Lord lay,” this is not said without the tomb to induce them to enter, as Strauss avers; but within the sepulchre, just as in Mark v. 6.

IV. _The Vision of Angels in the Sepulchre._ Of this John says nothing. Matthew and Mark speak of one angel; Luke of two. Mark says he was sitting; Luke speaks of them as standing. This difference in respect to numbers is parallel to the case of the women, which we have just considered; and requires therefore no further illustration.

There is likewise some diversity in the language addressed to the women by the angels. In Matthew and Mark, the prominent object is the charge to the disciples to depart into Galilee. In Luke this is not referred to; but the women are reminded of our Lord’s own previous declaration, that he would rise again on the third day. Neither of the Evangelists here professes to report _all_ that was said by the angels; and of course there is no room for contradiction.

§ 3. _The return of the Women to the city, and the first appearance of our Lord._

Matt. 28: 7-10. Mark 16: 8. Luke 24: 9-11. John 20: 1, 2.

John, speaking of Mary Magdalene alone, says that having seen that the stone was taken away from the sepulchre, she went in haste (ran) to tell Peter and John. He says nothing of her having seen the angels, nor of her having entered the sepulchre at all. The other Evangelists, speaking of the women generally, relate that they entered the tomb, saw the angels and then returned into the city. On their way Jesus meets them. They recognize him; fall at and embrace his feet; and receive his charge to the disciples.—Was Mary Magdalene now with the other women? Or did she enter the city by another way? Or had she left the sepulchre before the rest?

It is evident that Mary Magdalene was not with the other women when Jesus thus met them. Her language to Peter and John forbids the supposition, that she had already seen the Lord: “They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.” She therefore must have entered the city by another path and gate; or else have left the sepulchre before the rest; or possibly both these positions may be true. She bore her tidings expressly to Peter and John, who would seem to have lodged by themselves in a different quarter of the city; while the other women went apparently to the rest of the disciples. But this supposition of a different route is essential, only in connection with the view, that she left the tomb with the other women. That, however, she actually departed from the sepulchre before her companions, would seem most probable; inasmuch as she speaks to Peter and John only of the absence of the Lord’s body; says nothing in this connection of a vision of angels; and when, after returning again to the tomb, she sees the angels, it is evidently for the first time; and she repeats to them as the cause of her grief her complaint as to the disappearance of the body; John 20: 12, 13. She may have turned back from the tomb without entering it at all, so soon as she saw that it was open; inferring from the removal of the stone, that the sepulchre had been rifled. Or, she may first have entered with the rest, when, according to Luke, “they found not the body of the Lord Jesus,” and “were much perplexed thereabout,” before the angels became visible to them. The latter supposition seems best to meet the exigencies of the case.

“As the other women went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came, and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then Jesus said unto them, Be not afraid; go, tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.” The women had left the sepulchre “with fear and great joy” after the declaration of the angels that Christ was risen; or, as Mark has it, “they trembled and were amazed.” Jesus meets them with words of gentleness to quiet their terrors; “Be not afraid.” He permits them to approach, and embrace his feet, and testify their joy and homage. He reiterates to them the message of the angels to his “brethren,” the eleven disciples; see v. 16.

This appearance and interview is narrated only by Matthew; none of the other Evangelists give any hint of it. Matthew here stops short. Mark simply relates that the women fled from the tomb; “neither said they anything to any one, for they were afraid.” This of course can only mean, that they spoke of what they had thus seen to no one while on their way to the city; for the very charge of the angels, which they went to fulfil, was, that they should “go their way and tell his disciples;” v. 7. Luke narrates more fully, that “they returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.—And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.” We may perhaps see in this language one reason why the other Evangelists have omitted to mention this appearance of our Lord. The disciples _disbelieved the report of the women_, that they had seen Jesus. In like manner they afterwards disbelieved the report of Mary Magdalene to the same effect; Mark 16: 11. They were ready, it would seem, to admit the testimony of the women to the absence of the body, and to the vision of angels; but not to the resurrection of Jesus and his appearance to them; Luke 24: 21-24. And afterwards, when the eleven had become convinced by the testimony of their own senses, those first two appearances to the women became of less importance and were less regarded. Hence the silence of three Evangelists as to the one; of two as to the other; and of Paul as to both; 1 Cor. 15: 5, 6.

§ 4. _Peter and John visit the Sepulchre. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene._

John 20: 3-18. Luke 24: 12. Mark 16: 9-11.

The full account of these two events is given solely by John. Matthew has not a word of either; Luke merely mentions, in general, that Peter, on the report of the women, went to the sepulchre; while Mark speaks only of our Lord’s appearance to Mary Magdalene, which he seems to represent as his _first_ appearance.

According to John’s account, Peter and the beloved disciple, excited by the tidings of Mary Magdalene that the Lord’s body had been taken away, hasten to the sepulchre. They run; John outruns Peter, comes first to the tomb, and stooping down, sees the grave-clothes lying, but he does not enter. The other women are no longer at the tomb; nor have the disciples met them on the way. Peter now comes up; he enters the the tomb, and sees the grave-clothes lying, and the napkin that was about his head not lying with the rest, but wrapped together in a place by itself. John too now enters the sepulchre; “and he saw and believed.”

What was it that John thus believed? The mere report of Mary Magdalene, that the body had been removed? So much he must have believed when he stooped down and looked into the sepulchre. For this, there was no need that he should enter the tomb. His belief must have been of something more and greater. The grave-clothes lying orderly in their place, and the napkin folded together by itself, made it evident that the sepulchre had not been rifled nor the body stolen by violent hands; for these garments and spices would have been of more value to thieves, than merely a naked corpse; at least, they would not have taken the trouble thus to fold them together. The same circumstances showed also that the body had not been removed by friends; for they would not thus have left the grave-clothes behind. All these considerations produce in the mind of John the germ of a belief that Jesus was risen from the dead. He believed _because_ he saw; “_for_ as yet they knew not the Scripture;” (v. 9). He now began more fully to recall and understand our Lord’s repeated declaration, that he was to rise again on the third day;(314) a declaration on which the Jews had already acted in setting a watch.(315) In this way, the difficulty which is sometimes urged of an apparent want of connection between verses 8 and 9, disappears.

The two disciples went their way, “wondering in themselves at what was come to pass.” Mary Magdalene who had followed them back to the sepulchre, remained before it weeping. While she thus wept, she too, like John, stooped down and looked in, “and seeth two angels, in white, sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.” To their inquiry why she wept, her reply was the same report which she had before borne to the two disciples: “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him,” v. 13. Of the angels we learn nothing further. The whole character of this representation seems to show clearly, that Mary had not before seen the angels; and also that she had not before been told, that Jesus was risen. We must otherwise regard her as having been in a most unaccountably obtuse and unbelieving frame of mind; the very contrary of which seems to have been the fact. If also she had before informed the two disciples of a vision of angels and of Christ’s resurrection, it is difficult to see, why John should omit to mention this circumstance, so important and so personal to himself.

After replying to the angels, Mary turns herself about, and sees a person standing near, whom, from his being present there, she takes to be the keeper of the garden. He too inquires, why she weeps. Her reply is the same as before; except that she, not unnaturally, supposes him to have been engaged in removing the body, which she desires to recover. He simply utters in reply, in well-known tones, the name Mary! and the whole truth flashes upon her soul; doubt is dispelled, and faith triumphs. She exclaims: “Rabboni!” as much as to say, “My dearest Master!” and apparently, like the other women,(316) falls at his feet in order to embrace and worship him. This Jesus forbids her to do, in these remarkable words: “Touch me not: for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God;” v. 17.

There remains to be considered the circumstance, that Mark, in v. 9, seems to represent this appearance of Jesus at the sepulchre to Mary Magdalene, as his first appearance: “Now, being risen early the first of the week, he appeared _first_ to Mary Magdalene.” In attempting to harmonize this with Matthew’s account of our Lord’s appearance to the other women on their return from the sepulchre, several methods have been adopted; but the most to the purpose is the view which regards the word _first_, in Mark v. 9, as put not absolutely, but relatively. That is to say, Mark narrates three, and only three, appearances of our Lord; _of these three_, that to Mary Magdalene takes place _first_, and that to the assembled disciples the same evening occurs _last_, v. 14. A similar example occurs in 1 Cor. 15: 5-8, where Paul enumerates those to whom the Lord showed himself after his resurrection, viz. to Peter, to the twelve, to five hundred brethren, to James, to all the apostles, and _last of all_ to Paul also. Now had Paul written here, as with strict propriety he might have done, “he was seen _first_ of Cephas,” assuredly no one would ever have understood him as intending to assert that the appearance to Peter was the first absolutely; that is, as implying that Jesus was seen of Peter before he appeared to Mary Magdalene and the other women. In like manner when John declares (21: 14) that Jesus showed himself to his disciples by the lake of Galilee for the _third_ time after he was risen from the dead; this is said relatively to the two previous appearances to the assembled apostles; and does by no means exclude the four still earlier appearances, viz. to Peter, to the two at Emmaus, to Mary Magdalene, and to the other women,—one of which John himself relates in full.

In this way the old difficulty in the case before us disappears; and the complex and cumbrous machinery of earlier commentators becomes superfluous.

After her interview with Jesus, Mary Magdalene returns to the city, and tells the disciples that she had seen the Lord and that he had spoken these things unto her. According to Mark (vs. 10, 11), the disciples were “mourning and weeping;” and when the heard that Jesus was alive and had been seen of her, they believed not.

§ 5. _Jesus appears to two disciples on the way to Emmaus. Also to Peter._

Luke 24: 13-35. Mark 16: 12, 13. 1 Cor. 15: 5.

This appearance on the way to Emmaus is related in full only by Luke. Mark merely notes the fact; while the other two Evangelists and Paul (1 Cor. 15: 5) make no mention of it.

On the afternoon of the same day on which our Lord arose, two of his disciples, one of them named Cleopas, were on their way on foot to a village called Emmaus, sixty stadia or seven and a half Roman miles distant from Jerusalem,—a walk of some two or two and a half hours. They had heard and credited the tidings brought by the women, and also by Peter and John, that the sepulchre was open and empty; and that the women had also seen a vision of angels, who said that Jesus was alive. They had most probably likewise heard the reports of Mary Magdalene and the other women, that Jesus himself had appeared to them; but these they did not regard, and do not mention them (v. 24); because they, like the other disciples, had looked upon them “as idle tales, and they believed them not;” v. 11. As they went, they were sad, and talked together of all these things which had happened. After some time Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But they knew him not. Mark says he was in another form; Luke affirms that “their eyes were holden, that they should not know him;” v. 16. Was there in this anything miraculous? The “another form” of Mark, Doddridge explains by “a different habit from what he ordinarily wore.” His garments, of course, were not his former ones; and this was probably one reason why Mary Magdalene had before taken him for the keeper of the garden.(317) It may be, too, that these two disciples had not been intimately acquainted with the Lord. He had arrived at Jerusalem only six days before his crucifixion; and these might possibly have been recent converts, who had not before seen him. To such, the change of garments, and the unexpectedness of the meeting, would render a recognition more difficult; nor could it be regarded as surprising, that under such circumstances they should not know him. Still, all this is hypothesis; and the averment of Luke, that “their eyes were holden,” and the manner of our Lord’s parting from them afterwards, seem more naturally to imply that the idea of a supernatural agency, affecting not Jesus himself, but the eyes or minds of the two disciples, was in the mind of the sacred writer.

Jesus inquires the cause of their sadness; chides them for their slowness of heart to believe what the prophets had spoken; and then proceeds to expound unto them “in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” They feel the power of his words; and their hearts burn within them. By this time they drew nigh to the village whither they went; it was toward evening, and the day was far spent. Their journey was ended; and Jesus was about to depart from them. In accordance with oriental hospitality they constrained him to remain with them. He consents; and as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed and brake, and gave unto them. At this time, and in connection with this act, their eyes were opened; they knew him; and he vanished away from them. Here too the question is raised, whether the language necessarily implies anything miraculous? Our English translators have rendered this passage in the margin, “he ceased to be seen of them;” and have referred to Luke 4: 30, and John 8: 59, as illustrating this idea. They might also have referred to Acts 8: 39. Still, the language is doubtless such as the sacred writers would most naturally have employed in order directly to express the idea of supernatural agency.

Full of wonder and joy, the two disciples set off the same hour and return to Jerusalem. They find the eleven and other disciples assembled; and as they enter, they are met with the joyful exclamation: “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon;” v. 34. They then rehearse what had happened to themselves; but, according to Mark, the rest believed them not. As in the case of the women, so here, there would seem to have been something in the position or character of these two disciples, which led the others to give less credit to their testimony, than to that of Peter, one of the leading apostles.

This appearance to Peter is mentioned by no other Evangelist; and we know nothing of the particular time, nor of the attending circumstances. It would seem to have taken place either not long before, or else shortly after, that to the two disciples. It had not happened when they left Jerusalem for Emmaus; or, at least, they had not heard of it. It had occurred when they returned; and that long enough before to have been fully reported to all the disciples and believed by them. It may perhaps have happened about the time when the two disciples set off, or shortly afterwards.

Paul, in enumerating those by whom the Lord was seen after his resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 5), mentions Peter first; passing over the appearances to the women, and also that to the two disciples; probably because they did not belong among the apostles.

§ 6. _Jesus appears to the Apostles in the absence of Thomas; and afterwards when Thomas is present._

Mark 16: 14-18. Luke 24: 36-48. John 20: 19-29. 1 Cor. 15: 5.

The narrative of our Lord’s first appearance to the apostles is most fully given by Luke: John adds a few circumstances; and Mark, as well as Luke, has preserved the first charge thus privately given to the apostles, to preach the Gospel in all the world,—a charge afterwards repeated in a more public and solemn manner on the mountain in Galilee. When Paul says the Lord appeared to _the twelve_, he obviously employs this number as being the usual designation of the apostles; and very probably includes both the occasion narrated in this section. Mark and Luke speak in like manner of _the eleven_; and yet we know from John, that Thomas was not at first among them; so that of course only _ten_ were actually present.

According to Mark, the disciples were at their evening meal; which implies a not very late hour. John says the doors were shut, for fear of the Jews. While the two who had returned from Emmaus were still recounting what had happened unto them, Jesus himself “came and stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!” The question here again is raised, whether this entrance of our Lord was miraculous? That it might have been so, there is no reason to doubt. He who in the days of his flesh walked upon the waters, and before whose angel the iron gate of the prison opened of its own accord so that Peter might pass out; he who was himself just risen from the dead; might well in same miraculous way present himself to his followers in spite of bolts and bars. But does the language here necessarily imply a miracle? The doors indeed were shut; but the word used does not of itself signify that they were bolted or fastened. The object no doubt was, to prevent access to spies from the Jews; or also to guard themselves from the danger of being arrested; and both these objects might perhaps have been as effectually accomplished by a watch at or before the door. Nor do the words used of our Lord strictly indicate anything miraculous. We do not find here a form of the word commonly employed to express the sudden appearance of angels; but, “he _came_ and stood in the midst of them;” implying _per se_ nothing more than the ordinary mode of approach. There is, in fact, nothing in the whole account to suggest a miracle, except the remark of John respecting the doors; and as this circumstance is not mentioned either by Mark or Luke, it may be doubtful whether we are necessarily compelled by the language to regard the mode of our Lord’s entrance as miraculous.

At this interview Thomas was not present. On his return the other disciples relate to him the circumstances. But Thomas now disbelieved the others; as they before had disbelieved the women. His reply was, “except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Our Lord had compassion upon his perverseness. Eight days afterwards, when the disciples were again assembled and Thomas with them, our Lord came as before, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you! He permits to Thomas the test he had demanded; and charges him to be not faithless, but believing. Thomas, convinced and abashed, exclaims in the fulness of faith and joy, My Lord and my God! recognising and acknowledging thereby the divine nature thus manifested in the flesh. The reply of our Lord to Thomas is strikingly impressive and condemnatory of his want of faith: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed!” He and the other disciples, who were to be the heralds of the Lord’s resurrection to the world as the foundation of the hope of the Gospel, refused to believe except upon the evidence of their own senses; while all who after them have borne the Christian Name, have believed this great fact of the Gospel solely upon their testimony. God has overruled their unbelief for good, in making it a powerful argument for the truth of their testimony in behalf of this great fact, which they themselves were so slow to believe. Blessed, indeed, are they who have received their testimony.

§ 7. _Our Lord’s Appearance in Galilee._

John 21: 1-24. Matt. 28: 16-20. 1 Cor. 15: 6.

It appears from the narrative of Matthew, that while the disciples were yet in Jerusalem, our Lord had appointed a time, when he would meet them in Galilee, upon a certain mountain.(318) They therefore left Jerusalem after the passover, probably soon after the interview at which Thomas was present, and returned to Galilee, their home. While waiting for the appointed time, they engaged in their usual occupation of fishermen. On a certain day, as John relates, towards evening, seven of them being together, including Peter, Thomas, and the sons of Zebedee, they put out upon the lake with their nets in a fishing boat; but during the whole night they caught nothing. At early dawn Jesus stood upon the shore, from which they were not far off, and directed them to cast the net upon the right side of the boat. “They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of the fishes.” Recognising in this miracle their risen Lord, they pressed around him. Peter, with his characteristic ardour, threw himself into the water in order to reach him the sooner. At their Lord’s command they prepared a meal from the fish they had thus taken. “Jesus then cometh and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.” This was his third appearance to the eleven; or rather to a large number of them together. It was on this occasion, and after their meal, that our Lord put to Peter the touching and thrice repeated question, “Lovest thou me?”

At length the set time arrived; and the eleven disciples went away into the mountain “where Jesus had appointed them.” It would seem most probable, that this time and place had been appointed of our Lord for a solemn and more public interview, not only with the eleven, whom he had already met, but with all his disciples in Galilee; and that therefore it was on this same occasion, when, according to Paul, “he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once.”(319) That the interview was not confined to the eleven alone, would seem evident from the fact that “some doubted;” for this could hardly be supposed true of any of the eleven, after what had already happened to them in Jerusalem and Galilee, and after having been appointed to meet their risen Lord at this very time and place. The appearance of the five hundred must at any rate be referred to Galilee; for even after our Lord’s ascension, the number of the names in Jerusalem were together only about an hundred and twenty.(320) I do not hesitate, therefore, to hold with Flatt, Olshausen, Hengstenberg, and others, that the appearances thus described by Matthew and Paul, were identical. It was a great and solemn occasion. Our Lord had directed that the eleven and all his disciples in Galilee should thus be convened upon the mountain. It was the closing scene of his ministry in Galilee. Here his life had been spent. Here most of his mighty works had been done and his discourses held. Here his followers were as yet most numerous. He therefore here takes leave on earth of those among whom he had lived and laboured longest; and repeats to all his disciples in public the solemn charge, which he had already given in private to the apostles: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations:—and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” It was doubtless his last interview with his disciples in that region,—his last great act in Galilee.

§ 8. _Our Lord’s further Appearances at Jerusalem, and his Ascension._

1 Cor. 15: 7. Acts 1: 3-12. Luke 24: 49-53. Mark 16: 19, 20.

Luke relates, in Acts 1: 3, that Jesus showed himself alive to his apostles, “after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” This would seem to imply interviews and communications, as to which we have little more than this very general notice. One of these may have been the appearance to James, mentioned by Paul alone (1 Cor. 15: 7), as subsequent to that to the five hundred brethren. It may be referred with most probability to Jerusalem, after the return of the Apostles from Galilee. That this return took place by the Lord’s direction, there can be no doubt; although none of the Evangelists have given us the slightest hint as to any such direction. Indeed, it is this very brevity,—this omission to place on record the minor details which might serve to connect the great facts and events of our Lord’s last forty days on earth, that has occasioned all the doubt and difficulty with which this portion of the written history of these events has been encompassed.—The James here intended was probably our Lord’s brother; who was of high consideration in the church, and is often, in the latter books, simply so named without any special designation.(321) At the time when Paul wrote, the other James, “the brother of John,” as he is called, was already dead.(322)

After thus appearing to James, our Lord, according to Paul, was seen “of all the apostles.” This, too, was apparently an appointed meeting; and was doubtless the same of which Luke speaks, as occurring in Jerusalem immediately preceding the ascension. It was, of course, the Lord’s last interview with his apostles. He repeats to them the promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit as soon to take place; and charges them not to depart from Jerusalem until this should be accomplished.(323) Strange as it may appear, the twelve, in this last solemn moment, put to him the question, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” How, indeed, were they to believe! Their gross and darkened minds, not yet enlightened by the baptism of the Spirit, clung still to the idea of a temporal Prince and Saviour, who should deliver his people, not from their sins, but from the galling yoke of Roman dominion. Our Lord deals gently with their ignorance and want of faith: “It is not for you to know the times and seasons;—but ye shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me—unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

During this discourse, or in immediate connection with it, our Lord leads them out _as far as to_ Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them; Luke 24: 50. This act of blessing must be understood, by all the laws of language, as having taken place at or near Bethany. “And it came to pass, _while_ he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.” Our Lord’s ascension, then, took place at or near Bethany. Indeed, the sacred writer could hardly have found words to express this fact more definitely and fully; and a doubt on this point could never have suggested itself to the mind of any reader, but for the language of the same writer, in Acts 1: 12, where he relates that after the ascension the disciples “returned unto Jerusalem by the mount called Olivet.” Luke obviously did not mean to contradict himself; and the most that his expression can be made to imply, is, that from Bethany, where their Lord had ascended, which lies on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, a mile or more below the summit of the ridge, the disciples returned to Jerusalem by a path across the mount.

As these disciples stood gazing and wondering, while a cloud received their Lord out of their sight, two angels stood by them in white apparel, announcing unto them, that this same Jesus, who was thus taken up from them into heaven, shall again so come, in like manner as they had seen him go into heaven. With this annunciation closes the written history of our Lord’s resurrection and ascension.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE TRIAL OF JESUS.

The death of Jesus is universally regarded among Christians as a cruel murder, perpetrated under the pretence of a legal sentence, after a trial, in which the forms of law were essentially and grossly violated. The Jews to this day maintain, that, whatever were the merits of the case, the trial was at least regular, and the sentence legally just; that he was accused of blasphemy, and convicted of that offence by legal evidence. The question between them involves two distinct points of inquiry, namely, first, whether he was guilty of blasphemy; and, secondly, whether the arraignment and trial were conducted in the ordinary forms of law. But there will still remain a third question, namely, whether, admitting that, as a mere man, he had violated the law against blasphemy, he could legally be put to death for that cause; and if not, then whether he was justly condemned upon the new and supplemental accusation of treason or of sedition, which was vehemently urged against him. The first and last of these inquiries it is proposed briefly to pursue; but it will be necessary previously to understand the light in which he was regarded by the Jewish rulers and people, the state of their criminal jurisprudence and course of proceeding, and especially the nature and extent of the law concerning blasphemy, upon which he was indicted.

In the early period of the ministry of Jesus, he does not appear to have excited among the Pharisees any emotion but wonder and astonishment, and an intense interest respecting the nature of his mission. But the people heard him with increasing avidity, and followed him in countless throngs. He taught a purer religion than the Scribes and Pharisees, whose pride and corruption he boldly denounced. He preached charity and humility, and perfect holiness of heart and life, as essential to the favour of God, whose laws he expounded in all the depth of their spirituality, in opposition to the traditions of the elders, and the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees. These sects he boldly charged with making void and rejecting the law of God, and enslaving men by their traditions; he accused them of hypocrisy, covetousness, oppression, and lust of power and popularity; and denounced them as hinderers of the salvation of others, as a generation of serpents and vipers, doomed to final perdition. It was natural that these terrific denunciations, from such a personage, supported by his growing power and the increasing acclamations of the people, should alarm the partisans of the ancient theocracy, and lead them to desire his destruction. This alarm evidently increased with the progress of his ministry; and was greatly heightened by the raising of Lazarus from the dead, on which occasion the death of Jesus was definitively resolved on;(324) but no active measures against him seem to have been attempted, until the time when, under the parable of the wicked husbandmen who cast the heir out of the vineyard and slew him, he declared that the kingdom of God should be taken from them, and given to others more worthy. Perceiving that he spake this parable against them, from that hour they sought to lay hands on him, and were restrained only by fear of the popular indignation.(325)

Having thus determined to destroy Jesus at all events, as a person whose very existence was fatal to their own power, and perhaps, in their view, to the safety of their nation, the first step was to render him odious to the people; without which the design would undoubtedly recoil on the heads of its contrivers, his popularity being unbounded. Countless numbers had received the benefit of his miraculous gifts; and it was therefore deemed a vain attempt to found an accusation, at that time, on any past transaction of his life. A new occasion was accordingly sought, by endeavouring to “entangle him in his talk;” a measure, planned and conducted with consummate cunning and skill. The Jews were divided into two political parties. One of these consisted of the Pharisees, who held it unlawful to acknowledge or pay tribute to the Roman emperor, because they were forbidden, by the law of Moses,(326) to set a king over them who was a stranger, and not one of their own countrymen. The other party was composed of the partisans of Herod, who understood this law to forbid only the voluntary election of a stranger, and therefore esteemed it not unlawful to submit and pay tribute to a conqueror. These two parties, though bitterly opposed to each other, united in the attempt to entrap Jesus, by the question,—“Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not?”(327) If he answered in the negative, the Herodians were to accuse him to Pilate, for treason; if in the affirmative, the Pharisees would denounce him to the people, as an enemy to their liberties.(328) This insidious design was signally frustrated by the wisdom of his reply, when, referring to Cæsar’s image and legend, on the coins which they all received as legally current, he showed the inconsistency of withholding the honour due to one thus implicitly acknowledged by both parties to be their lawful sovereign.

Defeated in this attempt to commit him politically, their next endeavour was to render him obnoxious to one or the other of the two great religious sects, which were divided upon the doctrine of the resurrection, the Pharisees affirming, and the Sadducees denying, that the dead would rise again. The latter he easily silenced, by a striking exposition of their own law. They asked him which, of several husbands, would be entitled in the next world to the wife whom they successively had married in this; and in reply, he showed them that in heaven the relation of husband and wife was unknown.(329)

Their last trial was made by a lawyer, who sought to entrap him into an assertion that one commandment in the law was greater than another; a design rendered abortive by his reply that they were all of equal obligation.(330)

It being apparent, from these successive defeats, that any farther attempt to find new matter of accusation would result only in disgrace to themselves, the enemies of Jesus seem to have come to the determination to secure his person secretly, and afterwards to put him to death, in any manner that would not render them odious to the people. In execution of this design, they first bribed Judas to betray him by night into their hands. This object being attained, the next step was to destroy his reputation, and if possible to render him so vile in the public estimation, as that his destruction would be regarded with complacency. Now no charge could so surely produce this effect, and none could so plausibly be preferred against him, as that of blasphemy; a crime which the Jews regarded with peculiar horror. Even their veneration of Jesus, and the awe which his presence inspired, had not been sufficient to restrain their rising indignation on several occasions, when they regarded his language as the blasphemous arrogation of a divine character and power to himself; and could they now be brought to believe him a blasphemer, and see him legally convicted of this atrocious crime, his destruction might easily be brought about, without any very scrupulous regard to the form, and even with honour to those by whom it might be accomplished.

It will now be necessary to consider more particularly the nature of the crime of blasphemy, in its larger signification, as it may be deduced from the law of God. That the spirit of this law requires from all men, everywhere, and at all times, the profoundest veneration of the Supreme Being, and the most submissive acknowledgment of Him as their rightful Sovereign, is too plain to require argument. If proof were wanted, it is abundantly furnished in the Decalogue,(331) which is admitted among Christians to be of universal obligation. At the time when the Jewish Theocracy was established, idolatry had become generally prevalent, and men had nearly lost all just notions of the nature and attributes of their Creator. It is therefore supposed that the design of Jehovah, in forming the Jewish constitution and code of laws, was to preserve the knowledge of himself as the true God, and to retain that people in the strictest possible allegiance to him alone; totally excluding every acknowledgment of any other being, either as an object of worship or a source of power. Hence the severity with which he required that sorceries, divinations, witchcrafts and false prophecies, as well as open idolatries, should be punished, they being alike acts of treason, or, as we might say, of _præmunire_, amounting to the open acknowledgment of a power independent of Jehovah. Hence, too, the great veneration in which he commanded that his name and attributes should be held, even in ordinary conversation. It is the breach of this last law, to which the term _blasphemy_, in its more restricted sense, has usually been applied;(332) but originally the command evidently extended to every word or act, directly in derogation of the sovereignty of Jehovah, such as speaking in the name of another god,(333) or omitting, on any occasion that required it, to give to Jehovah the honour due to his own name.(334) Thus, when Moses and Aaron, at the command of God, smote the rock in Kadesh, that from it waters might flow to refresh the famishing multitude, but neglected to honour him as the source of the miraculous energy, and arrogated it to themselves, saying, “Hear now, ye rebels, must _we_ bring you water out of this rock?”(335) this omission drew on them his severe displeasure. “And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify _me_ in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore _ye_ shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.” Accordingly, both Moses and Aaron died before the Israelites entered into the promised land.(336) No other deity was permitted to be invoked; no miracle must be wrought, but in the name of God alone. “I am Jehovah; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.”(337) This was ever a cardinal principle of his law, neither newly announced by Isaiah, nor by Moses. Its promulgation on Mount Sinai was merely declaratory of what had been well understood at the beginning, namely, that God alone was the Lord of all power and might, and would be expressly acknowledged as such, in every exertion of superhuman energy or wisdom. Thus Joseph, when required to interpret the dream of Pharaoh, replied, “It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace.”(338) And Moses, in all the miracles previously wrought by him in Egypt, expressly denounced them as the judgments of God, by whose hand alone they were inflicted.(339) After the solemn re-enactment of this law on Mount Sinai, its signal violation by Moses and Aaron deserved to be made as signal an example of warning; and this judgment of Jehovah may be said to constitute the leading case under this article of the law; forming a rule of action and of judgment for all cases of miracles which might be wrought in all coming time. The same principle was afterwards expressly extended to prophesying. “The prophet—that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.”(340) His character of prophet, and even his inspiration, shall not authorize him to prophesy but in the name of the Lord. He shall not exercise his office in his own name, nor in any name but that of Jehovah, from whom his power was derived.

That such was understood to be the true meaning of this law of God, is further evident from the practice of the prophets, in later times, to whom was given the power of working miracles. These they always wrought in his name, expressly acknowledged at the time. Thus, the miracle of thunder and rain in the season of the wheat-harvest, called for by Samuel, he expressly attributed to the Lord.(341) So did Elijah, when he called fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice, in refutation of the claims of Baal.(342) So did Elisha, when he divided the waters of Jordan, by smiting them with the mantle of Elijah;(343) and again, when he miraculously multiplied the loaves of bread, for the people that were with him;(344) and again, when he caused the young man’s eyes to be opened, that he might behold the hosts of the Lord around him, and smote his enemies with blindness.(345) And even the angel Gabriel, when sent to interpret to Daniel the things which should befall his people in the latter days, explicitly announced himself as speaking in Jehovah’s name.(346)

The same view of the sinfulness of exercising superhuman power without an express acknowledgment of God as its author, and of any usurpation of his authority, continued to prevail, down to the time of our Saviour. Thus, when he said to the sick of the palsy, “Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee,” certain of the Scribes said within themselves, “This man blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”(347) And again, when the Jews, on another occasion, took up stones to stone him, and Jesus, appealing to his good works done among them, asked for which of them he was to be stoned; they replied, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”(348) Yet Jesus had on no occasion mentioned the _name_ of Jehovah, but with profound reverence.

Thus it appears that the law of blasphemy, as it was understood among the Jews, extended not only to the offence of impiously using the name of the Supreme Being, but to every usurpation of his authority, or arrogation, by a created being, of the honour and power belonging to him alone.(349) Like the crime of treason among men, its essence consisted in acknowledging or setting up the authority of another sovereign than one’s own, or invading the powers pertaining exclusively to him; an offence, of which the case of Moses, before cited, is a prominent instance, both in its circumstances and in its punishment. Whether a false god was acknowledged or the true one denied, and whether the denial was in express terms, or by implication, in assuming to do, by underived power, and in one’s own name, that which God only could perform, the offence was essentially the same. And in such horror was it held by the Israelites, that in token of it every one was obliged, by an early and universal custom, to rend his garments, whenever it was committed or related in his presence.(350) This sentiment was deeply felt by the whole people, as a part of their religion.

Such being the general scope and spirit of the law, it would seem to have been easy to prove that Jesus had repeatedly incurred its penalties. He had performed many miracles, but never in any other name than his own. In his own name, and without the recognition of any higher power, he had miraculously healed the sick, restored sight to the blind and strength to the lame, cast out devils, rebuked the winds, calmed the sea, and raised the dead. In his own name, also, and with no allusion to the Omniscient, no “Thus saith the Lord,” he had prophesied of things to come. He had by his own authority forgiven sins, and promised, by his own power, not only to raise the dead, but to resume his own life, after he should, as he predicted, be put to death. Finally, he had expressly claimed for himself a divine origin and character, and the power to judge both the quick and the dead(351). Considered as a man, he had usurped the attributes of God. That he was not arrested at an earlier period, is to be attributed to his great popularity, and the astounding effect of his miracles. His whole career had been resplendent with beneficence to the thousands who surrounded him. His eloquence surpassed all that had been uttered by man. The people were amazed, bewildered, and fascinated, by the resistless power of his life. It was not until his last triumphal visit to Jerusalem, after he had openly raised Lazarus from the dead, when the chief priests and elders perceived that “the world was gone after him,” that they were stricken with dismay and apprehension for their safety, and under this panic resolved upon the perilous measure of his destruction.

The only safe method in which this could be accomplished, was under the sanction of a legal trial and sentence. Jesus, therefore, upon his apprehension, was first brought before the great tribunal of the Sanhedrim, and charged with the crime of blasphemy. What were the specifications under this general charge, or whether any were necessary, we are not informed. But that this was the offence charged, is manifest both from the evidence adduced and from the judgment of conviction.(352) Such was the estimation in which he was held, that it was with great difficulty that witnesses could be found to testify against him; and the two who at last were procured, testified falsely, in applying his words to the temple of Solomon, which he spake of the temple of his body. When, upon the occasion of his scourging the money-changers out of the temple, the Jews demanded by what authority he did this, Jesus replied, alluding to his own person, “Destroy _this_ temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”(353) But though the witnesses swore falsely in testifying that he spake of the Jewish temple, yet his words, in either sense, amounted to a claim of the power of working miracles, and so brought him within the law. The high priest, however, still desirous of new evidence, which might justify his condemnation in the eyes of the people, proceeded to interrogate Jesus concerning his character and mission. “I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 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_.”(354) We may suppose the multitude standing without the hall of judgment, able, through its avenues and windows, to see, but not to hear, all that was transacting within. It became important, therefore, to obtain some reason upon which the high priest might rend his clothes in their sight, thus giving to the people, by this expressive and awful sign, the highest evidence of blasphemy, uttered by Jesus in the presence of that august assembly. This act turned the tide of popular indignation against him, whose name, but a short time before, had been the theme of their loudest hosannas. There was now no need to go into the past transactions of his ministry, for matter of accusation. His friends might claim for him on that score all that the warmest gratitude and love could inspire; and all this could be safely conceded. But here, his accusers might say, was a new and shocking crime, just perpetrated in the presence of the most sacred tribunal; a crime so shocking, and so boldly committed, that the high priest rent his clothes with horror, in the very judgment seat, in the presence of all the members of the Sanhedrim, who, with one accord, upon that evidence alone, immediately convicted the offender and sentenced him to death.

If we regard Jesus simply as a Jewish citizen, and with no higher character, this conviction seems substantially right in point of law, though the trial were not legal in all its forms. For, whether the accusation were founded on the first or second commands in the decalogue, or on the law, laid down in the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, or on that in the eighteenth chapter and twentieth verse, he had violated them all, by assuming to himself powers belonging alone to Jehovah. And even if he were recognized as a prophet of the Lord, he was still obnoxious to punishment, under the decision in the case of Moses and Aaron, before cited. It is not easy to perceive on what ground his conduct could have been defended before any tribunal, unless upon that of his superhuman character. No lawyer, it is conceived, would think of placing his defence upon any other basis.

The great object of exciting the people against Jesus being thus successfully accomplished, the next step was to obtain legal authority to put him to death. For though the Sanhedrim had condemned him, they had not the power to pass a capital sentence; this being a right which had passed from the Jews by the conquest of their country, and now belonged to the Romans alone. They were merely citizens of a Roman province; they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercise of their religion, and many other things relating to their police and municipal regulations; but they had not the power of life and death. This was a principal attribute of sovereignty, which the Romans always took care to reserve to themselves in order to be able to reach those individuals who might become impatient of the yoke, whatever else might be neglected. _Apud quos (Romanos), vis imperii valet; inania transmittuntur_.(355) The jurisdiction of capital cases belonged ordinarily to the governor general or _Præses_ 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.(356)

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 Cæsar, saying, That he himself is Christ, a king.”(357)

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_.”(358) 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, beginning from Galilee to this place.”(359) 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.(360) The cause was then solemnly re-examined 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.”(361)

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 vacillating; 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 Cæsar’s friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cæsar.”(362) Whereupon “Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.”(363) 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.(364) The remaining act in this tragedy is sufficiently known.

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.(365)

THE JEWISH ACCOUNT OF THE TRIAL OF JESUS. BY MR. SALVADOR.

MR. JOSEPH SALVADOR, a physician and a learned Jew, a few years ago published at Paris, a work, entitled, “Histoire des Institutions de Moïse et du Peuple Hébreu,” 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 tried 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 23rd verse of the 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy, would have been condemned, and Jesus, having been declared illegitimate, could never, according to the 2nd verse of the 23rd chapter, have been admitted to a seat in the Sanhedrim.(366) 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.(367)

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 labours; he pronounced censures against whole towns, Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida.(368) 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.(369) The people then regarded him as a prophet;(370) 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.

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.(371) 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.(372)

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?”(373) 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,(374) thou makest thyself God.”(375)

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.”(376) Finally, if he wrought miracles before certain of the people, his replies to the questions of the doctors were generally evasive.(377)

In regard to political relations, he caused dissensions.(378) 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;(379) 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.”(380) In this state of affairs, the council deliberates; some are of opinion that he should be regarded as a madman,(381) others say that he seeks to seduce the people.(382) 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 outweigh those of a single individual; he constitutes himself the accuser of Jesus.(383)

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.(384) 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?”(385)

Meanwhile a traitor discloses the place whither the accused had retired; the guards, authorized by the high priest and by the elders,(386) 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.(387) As soon as Jesus is arrested, the zeal of the apostles is extinguished; all forsake him.(388) 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.(389) 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.(390) “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:(391) the capital sentence was pronounced. As to the ill-treatment which followed the sentence, it was contrary to the spirit of the Jewish law; and it is not in the course of nature, that a senate composed of the most respectable men of a nation, who, however they might have been deceived, yet intended to act legally, should have permitted such outrages against him whose life was at their disposal. The writers who have transmitted to us these details, not having been present at the trial, have been disposed to exaggerate the picture, either on account of their prejudices, or to throw greater obloquy on the judges.

One thing is certain, that the council met again on the morning of the next day or the day following that,(392) as the law requires, to confirm or to annul the sentence: it was confirmed. Jesus was brought before Pilate, the procurator that the Romans had placed over the Jews. They had retained the power of trying according to their own laws, but the executive power was in the hands of the procurator alone: no criminal could be executed without his consent: this was in order that the Senate should not have the means of reaching men who were sold to foreigners.(393) Pilate, the Roman, signed the decree. His soldiers, an impure mixture of diverse nations, were charged with the punishment. These are they who brought Jesus to the judgment hall, who stripped him before the whole cohort, who placed upon his head a crown of thorns, and a reed in his hand, who showed all the barbarity to which the populace in all ages is disposed; who finally caused him to undergo a punishment common at Rome, and which was not in use among the Jews.(394) But before the execution, the governor had granted to the condemned an appeal to the people, who, respecting the judgment of their own council, would not permit this favour, couching their refusal in these terms: “We have a law; and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”(395) Then Pilate left them the choice of saving Jesus, or a man accused of murder in a sedition; the people declared for the latter; saying that the other would scatter the seeds of discord in the bosom of the nation, at a time when union was most necessary.(396)

“Jesus was put to death. The priests and elders went to the place of punishment; and as the sentence was founded upon this fact, that he had unlawfully arrogated to himself the title of Son of God, God himself, they appealed to him thus: ‘Thou wouldst save others; thyself thou canst not save. If thou art indeed the king of Israel, come down into the midst of us, and we will believe in thee, since thou hast said, I am the Son of God, let that God who loves thee come now to thine aid.’(397) According to the Evangelist, these words were a mockery; but the character of the persons who pronounced them, their dignity, their age, the order which they had observed in the trial, prove their good faith. Would not a miracle at this time have been decisive?”

THE TRIAL OF JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND PILATE.

Being A Refutation Of Mr. Salvador’s Chapter Entitled “The Trial And Condemnation Of Jesus.” By M. Dupin. Translated From The French by John Pickering, LL.D.

Preface.

A few years ago, Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician—and a descendant of one of those Jewish families, whom the intolerance of Ferdinand the Catholic expelled, in a body, from Spain, about the year 1492—published at Paris a learned work, entitled “Histoire des Institutions de Moïse et du Peuple Hébreu,” or History of the Institutions of Moses and the Hebrew People; and in one chapter of his work he gives an account of the _Administration of Justice_ among the Hebrews. To that chapter he has subjoined an account of the “Trial and Condemnation of Jesus;” in the course of which he expresses his opinion, that the trial, considered merely _as a legal proceeding_, was conformable to the Jewish laws.

The author of the following little work, M. Dupin, who is one of the most eminent lawyers of the French Bar, immediately called in question the correctness of Mr. Salvador’s opinion, and entered upon an analysis of this portion of his work, with a view to examine its soundness, and the present volume contains the result of that examination, conducted with great legal skill and extensive learning.

It appears, that he had, many years before, in a little work, entitled “_The Free_ Defence of Accused Persons,” published in 1815, taken the same views of this great trial; which, as he observes, has been justly called “the _Passion_ or _Suffering_ of our Saviour; for he did in truth _suffer_, and had not a trial.”

The author’s attention, however, had been withdrawn from this subject for several years, when it was again brought under his notice by the work of Mr. Salvador, a copy of which was sent to him by that writer, with a request that M. Dupin would give some account of it. Accordingly, says the latter, “it is in compliance with _his request_, and not from a spirit of hostility, that I have made this examination of his work;” and he gives ample proof of his good feeling towards Mr. Salvador, with whom, he says, he is personally acquainted and for whose talents he has a great respect.

With this friendly spirit he enters upon his examination; which is conducted with an ability, learning, animation, and interest, that leave nothing to be desired. As an argument, his work is unanswerable,—he has demolished that of his adversary; and, for intense interest, we do not know any publication of the present day to be compared with it.

The introductory _Analysis_ of Mr. Salvador’s chapter on the Administration of Justice according to the Jewish Law will be highly instructive and interesting; and those persons, who have not been accustomed to read the Bible with particular reference to the _Law_, will find many new and striking views of that portion of the Scriptures. They cannot fail to be particularly struck with the extraordinary care taken to secure by law the personal liberty and rights of the citizen.

According to Mr. Salvador’s view, “the fundamental division into _castes_ is the principal basis of the oriental theocracies.” Moses, on the contrary, took for his basis the _unity_ of the people. In his system of legislation the people are every thing; and the author shows us, that every thing, eventually, is done for them, by them, and with them. The tribe of Levi was established, only to supply a secondary want; and that tribe was very far from obtaining all the powers which we are apt to attribute to it; it did not make, nor develope the laws; it did not judge or govern; all its members, even the high priest himself, were subject to the control of the Elders of the nation, or of a Senate legally assembled.

Intimately connected with these rights of the people was the _liberty of speech_; and Mr. Salvador, in his chapter on the _Public Orators and Prophets_, maintains, and in the opinion of M. Dupin, proves clearly, that in no nation was the liberty of speech ever so unlimited, as among the Hebrews. Accordingly he observes—“What an additional difference was this between the Israelites and the Egyptians! Among the latter, the mass of the people did not dare, without incurring the hazard of the most terrible punishment, to utter a word on affairs of state; it was Harpocrates, the god of silence with his finger on his closed lips, who was their God; in Israel, it was _the right of speech_.”

But we forbear any further reflections, and submit this remarkable performance to our readers. Those, who are familiar with the animated tone of French writers, will perhaps discover in this translation some loss of the fire and intensity of the original; but the translator’s purpose will be effected, if his version shall be found to be a faithful one.

September 3, 1839.

Analysis Of The Chapter Of Mr. Salvador, Entitled “The Administration Of Justice” Among The Jews.(398)

Mr. Salvador has discussed with particular care whatever relates to the _administration of justice_ among the Jewish people. We shall dwell upon this chapter, which undoubtedly will most interest our readers.

_Judicare_ and _judicari_, to judge and to be judged, express the rights of every Hebrew citizen; that is, no one could be condemned without a judgment, and every one might, in his turn, be called upon to sit in judgment upon others. Some exceptions to this principle are explained; but they do not affect the rule. In matters of mere interest each party chose a judge, and these two chose a third person. If a discussion arose as to _the interpretation of a law_, they carried it to the lower council of Elders, and from thence to the Great council at Jerusalem. Each town of more than one hundred and twenty families was to have its lower council, consisting of twenty-three members; and these had jurisdiction in criminal cases.

The expressions, _he shall die, he shall be cut off from the people_, which are so often used in the Mosaic law, embrace three very different significations, which we are accustomed to confound. They indicate the suffering of death as a punishment, civil death, and that premature death, with which an individual is naturally threatened, who departs from those rules which are useful to the nation and to the individual himself. Civil death is the last degree of _separation_, or _excommunication_; it is pronounced, as a judicial punishment, by the assembly of the judges.

There were three kinds of separation; which Mr. Salvador compares to the three degrees of civil excommunication provided for in the French Penal Code, and which condemn the criminal to hard labour either for life or for a term of years, or to certain correctional punishments. But the Hebrew excommunication had this advantage, that the party _never lost all hope of regaining his original standing_.

The Hebrew lawyers, in relation to the punishment of death, maintained opinions, which deserve to be quoted:—

“A tribunal, which condemns to death _once in seven years_, may be called _sanguinary_.”—“It deserves this appellation, says doctor Eliezer, when it pronounces a like sentence once in seventy years.”—“If we had been members of the high court, say the doctors Tyrphon and Akiba, we should never have condemned a man to death.” Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, replied—“Would not that be an abuse? Would you not have been afraid of multiplying crimes in Israel?” Mr. Salvador answers—“No, certainly; far from lessening their number, the severity of the punishment increases it, by giving a more resolute character to the men who are able to brave it; and, at the present day, how many intelligent minds range themselves on the side of Akiba and Tyrphon! How many consciences refuse to participate, in any manner, in the death of a man! The flowing of blood, the multitude excited by an unbecoming curiosity, the victim dragged in triumph to the horrible altar, the impossibility of repairing a mistake, (from which human wisdom is never exempt), the dread of one day seeing a departed shade rising up and saying, ‘_I was innocent_,’ the facility which modern nations have of expelling from among them the man whose presence pollutes them—the influence of general depravity on the production of crimes—and finally the absurd contrast of the whole of society, while in possession of strength, intelligence, and arms, opposing itself to an individual wretch (who has been drawn on by want, by passion, or by ignorance) and yet finding no other means of redress than by exceeding him in cruelty—all these things, and many others, have so deeply penetrated the minds of all ranks of people, that there will one day proceed from them the most striking proof of the power of morals over the laws; for the law will be changed by the simple fact, that we shall not find any person who will consent to apply it.”

I feel honoured in having maintained the same opinion in my _Observations on Criminal Legislation_; but I solicit those, who wish to see this question discussed in its whole extent, to read the profound reflections which the Duke de Broglie has just published on the subject, in the last number of the _Revue Française_ (for October, 1828.)

The whole criminal procedure in the Pentateuch rests upon three principles, which may be thus expressed; publicity of the trial, entire liberty of defence allowed to the accused; and a guaranty against the dangers of testimony. According to the Hebrew text _one_ witness is no witness; there must be at least two or three who know the fact. The witness, who testifies against a man, must swear that he speaks the truth; the judges then proceed to take exact information of the matter; and, if it is found that the witness has sworn falsely, they compel him to undergo the punishment to which he would have exposed his neighbour. The discussion between the accuser and the accused is conducted before the whole assembly of the people. When a man is condemned to death, those witnesses whose evidence decided the sentence inflict the first blows, in order to add the last degree of certainty to their evidence. Hence the expression—_Let him among you, who is without sin, cast the first stone_.

If we pursue their application of these fundamental rules in practice, we shall find that a trial proceeded in the following manner.

On the day of the trial, the executive officers of justice caused the accused person to make his appearance. At the feet of the Elders were placed men who, under the name of _auditors_, or _candidates_, followed regularly the sittings of the Council. The papers in the case were read; and the witnesses were called in succession. The president addressed this exhortation to each of them: “It is not conjectures, or whatever public rumour has brought to thee, that we ask of thee; consider that a great responsibility rests upon thee: that we are not occupied by an affair, like a case of pecuniary interest, in which the injury may be repaired. If thou causest the condemnation of a person unjustly accused, his blood, and the blood of all the posterity of him, of whom thou wilt have deprived the earth, will fall upon thee; God will demand of thee an account, as he demanded of Cain an account of the blood of Abel. Speak.”

A woman could not be a witness, because she would not have the courage to give the first blow to the condemned person; nor could a child, that is irresponsible, nor a slave, nor a man of bad character, nor one whose infirmities prevent the full enjoyment of his physical and moral faculties. _The simple confession of an individual against himself_, or the declaration of a prophet, however renowned, would not decide a condemnation. The Doctors say—“We hold it as fundamental, that _no one shall prejudice himself_. If a man accuses himself before a tribunal, we must not believe him, unless the fact is attested by two other witnesses; and it is proper to remark, that the punishment of death inflicted upon Achan, in the time of Joshua(399) was an exception, occasioned by the nature of the circumstances; for our law does not condemn upon the simple confession of the accused, nor upon the declaration of one prophet alone.”

The witnesses were to attest to the identity of the party, and to depose to the month, day, hour, and circumstances of the crime. After an examination of the proofs, those judges who believed the party innocent stated their reasons; those who believed him guilty spoke afterwards, and _with the greatest moderation_. If one of the _auditors_, or _candidates_, was entrusted by the accused with his defence, or if he wished in his own name to present any elucidations in favour of innocence, he was admitted to the seat, from which he addressed the judges and the people. But this liberty was not granted to him, if his opinion was in favour of condemning. Lastly; when the accused person himself wished to speak, they gave the most profound attention. When the discussion was finished, one of the judges recapitulated the case; they removed all the spectators; two scribes took down the votes of the judges; one of them noted those which were in favour of the accused, and the other, those which condemned him. Eleven votes, out of twenty-three, were sufficient to acquit; but it required thirteen to convict. If any of the judges stated that they were not sufficiently informed, there were added two more Elders, and then two others in succession, till they formed a council of sixty-two, which was the number of the Grand Council. If a majority of votes acquitted, the accused was discharged _instantly_; if he was to be punished, the judges postponed pronouncing sentence till the third day; during the intermediate day they could not be occupied with anything but the cause, and they abstained from eating freely, and from wine, liquors, and everything which might render their minds less capable of reflection.

On the morning of the third day they returned to the judgment seat. Each judge, who had not changed his opinion, said, _I continue of the same opinion and condemn_; any one, who at first condemned, might at this sitting acquit; but he who had once acquitted was not allowed to condemn. If a majority condemned, two _magistrates_ immediately accompanied the condemned person to the place of punishment. The Elders did not descend from their seats; they placed at the entrance of the judgment hall an officer of justice with a small flag in his hand; a second officer, on horseback, followed the prisoner, and constantly kept looking back to the place of departure. During this interval, if any person came to announce to the Elders any new evidence favourable to the prisoner, the first officer waved his flag, and the second one, as soon as he perceived it, brought back the prisoner. If the prisoner declared to the _magistrates_, that he recollected some reasons which had escaped him, they brought him before the _judges_ no less than five times. If no incident occurred, the procession advanced slowly, preceded by a herald who, in a loud voice, addressed the people thus: “This man (stating his name and surname) is led to punishment for such a crime; the witnesses who have sworn against him are such and such persons; if any one has evidence to give in his favour, let him come forth quickly.”

It was in consequence of this rule that the youthful Daniel caused the procession to go back, which was leading Susanna to punishment, and he himself ascended the seat of justice to put some new questions to the witnesses.

At some distance from the place of punishment, they urged the prisoner to confess his crime, and they made him drink a stupefying beverage, in order to render the approach of death less terrible.(400)

By this mere analysis of a part of Mr. Salvador’s work we may judge of the extreme interest of the whole. His principal object has been, to make apparent the mutual aids which history, philosophy, and legislation afford in explaining the institutions of the Jewish people. His book is a scientific work, and at the same time a work of taste. His notes indicate vast reading; and in the choice of his citations he gives proofs of his critical skill and discrimination. Mr. Salvador belongs, by his age, to that new generation, which is distinguished as much by its application to solid studies, as by elevation and generosity of sentiment.

Trial Of Jesus.

Refutation Of The Chapter Of Mr. Salvador, Entitled “The Trial And Condemnation Of Jesus.”

“The chapter, in which Mr. Salvador treats of _the Administration of Justice among the Hebrews_, is altogether theoretical. He makes an exposition of the law—that things, in order to be _conformable to rule_, must be transacted in a certain mode. In all this I have not contradicted him, but have let him speak for himself.

In the subsequent chapter the author announces: “That according to this _exposition of judicial proceedings_ he is going to follow out the application of them to the most memorable trial in all history, that of Jesus Christ.” Accordingly the chapter is entitled: _The Trial and Condemnation of Jesus_.

The author first takes care to inform us under what point of view he intends to give an account of that accusation: “That we ought to lament the blindness of the Hebrews for not having recognised a God in Jesus, is a point which I do not examine.” (There is another thing also, which he says he shall not examine.) “But, when they discovered in him _only a citizen_, did they try him _according to existing laws and formalities_?”

The question being thus stated, Mr. Salvador goes over all the various aspects of the accusation; and his conclusion is, that the procedure was perfectly regular, and the condemnation perfectly appropriate to the act committed. “Now,” says he, (p. 87,) “the Senate, having adjudged that Jesus, the son of Joseph, born in Bethlehem, had profaned the name of God by usurping it himself, though a simple citizen, applied to him the law against blasphemy, the law in the 13th chapter of Deuteronomy, and verse 20, chapter 18th, conformably to which every prophet, even one that performs miracles, is to be punished when he speaks of a God unknown to the Hebrews or their fathers.”

This conclusion is formed to please the followers of the Jewish law; it is wholly for their benefit, and the evident object is, to justify them from the reproach of _deïcide_.

We will, however, avoid treating this grave subject in a theological point of view. As to myself, Jesus Christ is the _Man-God_; but it is not with arguments drawn from my religion and my creed, that I intend to combat the statement and the conclusion of Mr. Salvador. The present age would charge me with being intolerant; and this is a reproach which I will never incur. Besides, I do not wish to give to the enemies of Christianity the advantage of making the outcry, that we are afraid to enter into a discussion with them, and that we wish to crush rather than to convince them. Having thus contented myself with declaring my own faith, as Mr. Salvador has let us clearly understand his, I shall also examine the question under a merely _human_ point of view, and proceed to inquire, with him, “Whether Jesus Christ, considered _as a simple citizen_, was tried according to the existing laws and formalities.”

The catholic religion itself warrants me in this; it is not a mere fiction; for God willed, that Jesus should be clothed in the forms of humanity (_et homo factus est_), and that he should undergo the lot and sufferings of humanity. The _son of God_, as to his moral state and his holy spirit, he was also, in reality, the _Son of Man_, for the purpose of accomplishing the mission which he came upon earth to fulfil.

This being the state of the question, then, I enter upon my subject; and I do not hesitate to affirm, because I will prove it, that, upon examining all the circumstances of this great trial, we shall be very far from discovering in it the application of those legal maxims, which are the safeguard of the rights of accused persons, and of which Mr. Salvador, in his chapter _On the Administration of Justice_, has made a seductive exposition.

The accusation of Jesus, instigated by the hatred of the priests and the Pharisees, and presented at first as a charge of _sacrilege_, but afterwards converted into a _political_ crime and _an offence against the state_, was marked, in all its aspects, with the foulest acts of violence and perfidy. It was not so much _a trial_ environed with legal forms, as a real _passion_, or prolonged suffering, in which the imperturbable gentleness of the victim displays more strongly the unrelenting ferocity of his persecutors.

When Jesus appeared among the Jews, that people was but the shadow of itself. Broken down by more than one subjugation, divided by factions and irreconcilable sects, they had in the last resort been obliged to succumb to the Roman power and surrender their own sovereignty. Jerusalem, having become a mere appendage to the province of Syria, saw within its walls an imperial garrison; Pilate commanded there, in the name of Cæsar; and the late people of God were groaning under the double tyranny of a conqueror, whose power they abhorred and whose idolatry they detested, and of a priesthood that exerted itself to keep them under the rigorous bonds of a religious fanaticism.

Jesus Christ deplored the misfortunes of his country. How often did he weep for Jerusalem! Read in Bossuet’s _Politics drawn from the Holy Scriptures_, the admirable chapter entitled, _Jesus Christ the good citizen_. He recommended to his countrymen _union_, which constitutes the strength of states. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, (said he,) thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

He was supposed to be not favorable to the Romans; but he only loved his own countrymen more. Witness the address of the Jews, who, in order to induce him to restore to the centurion a sick servant that was dear to him, used as the most powerful argument these words—that he was worthy for whom he should do this, for he loveth our nation. And Jesus went with them. Luke vii. 4, 5.

Touched with the distresses of the nation, Jesus comforted them by holding up to them the hope of another life; he alarmed the great, the rich, and the haughty, by the prospect of a final judgment, at which every man would be judged not according to his rank, but his works. He was desirous of again bringing back man to his original dignity; he spoke to him of his _duties_, but at the same time of his _rights_. The people heard him with avidity, and followed him with eagerness; his words affected them; his hand healed their diseases, and his moral teaching instructed them; he preached, and practised one virtue till then unknown, and which belongs to him alone—_charity_. This celebrity, however, and these wonders excited envy. The partisans of the _ancient theocracy_ were alarmed at the _new doctrine_; the chief priests felt that their power was threatened; the pride of the Pharisees was humbled; the scribes came in as their auxiliaries, and the destruction of Jesus was resolved upon.

Now, if his conduct was reprehensible, if it afforded grounds for a _legal accusation_, why was not that course taken openly? Why not try him for the acts committed by him, and for his public discourses? Why employ against him subterfuges, artifice, perfidy, and violence? for such was the mode of proceeding against Jesus.

Let us now take up the subject, and look at the narratives which have come down to us. Let us, with Mr. Salvador, open the books of the Gospels; for he does not object to that testimony; nay, he relies upon it: “It is by the Gospels themselves,” says he, “that I shall establish _all the facts_.”

In truth, how can we (except by contrary evidence, of which there is none) refuse to place confidence in an historian, who tells us, as Saint John does, with affecting simplicity: “He that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.” John xix. 35.

Section I.—SPIES, OR INFORMERS.

Who will not be surprised to find in this case the odious practice of employing hired informers? Branded with infamy, as they are in modern times, they will be still more so when we carry back their origin to the trial of Christ. It will be seen presently, whether I have not properly characterized by the 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 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 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 everything 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_.(401)

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 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 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 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.(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 assemblage 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 circumstances, 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 PASSION.

“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