xix. 7,) to intimate to Pilate that Jesus was guilty of death by the

Jewish law also, as well as the Roman, and that therefore he would not lose any popularity by condemning him. See Zorrius, Hist. Fisci Judaici, ch. 2, § 2, (in Ugolini Thesaur. tom. 26, col. 1001-1003.) The same view is taken by Deylingius, De Judæorum Jure Gladii, § 10, 11, 12, (in Ugolin. Thesaur. tom. 29, col. 1189-1192.) But he concludes that in all capital cases, there was an appeal from the Sanhedrim to the Prætor; and that without the approval of the latter, the sentence of the Sanhedrim could not be executed. Ibid. § 15, col. 1196. Molinæus understood the Jewish law in the same manner. See his Harmony of the Gospels, note on John xviii. 31. C. Molinæi Opera, tom. 5. pp. 603, 604. But this opinion is refuted by what is said by M. Dupin, Trial, &c., § 8, and by Thomasius, above cited.

356 See M. Dupin’s Trial of Jesus, pp. 55-62. His authorities are Loiseau, Godefroy, and Cujas, the two latter of whom he cites as follows:—Procurator Cæsaris _fungens vice præsidis_ potest cognoscere _de causis criminalibus_. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd law of the code, _Ibi causæ fiscales_, &c. And he cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, _Ad. leg. fab. de plag._, and the 2nd law of the Code, _De Pœnis_.—Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur _vice præsidum_; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris _vice præsidis_ in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

357 Luke xxiii. 2.

358 John xviii. 38.

359 Luke xxiii. 5.

360 Luke xxiii. 10, 11.

361 Luke xxiii. 13, 14, 15. I regard this judgement as conclusive evidence of the innocence of the accused. Pilate’s strenuous endeavour to release him instead of Barabbas, and his solemn washing his own hands of the guilt of his blood, though they show the strength of his own convictions, yet add no legal force to the judgement itself.

362 John xix. 12.

363 Luke xxiii. 24.

364 See M. Dupin’s Trial of Jesus, pp. 82-84.

365 Ibid. 7-15. Jahn’s Bibl. Ant. § 246.

366 Deut. xxii. 22, and xxiii. 2. Selden, De Synedriis, lib. 3, cap. 4, 5.

367 Matt. i. 19, 20.

368 Matt. xi. 20-24. Luke iv. &c.

369 Matt. xxiii. per tot.

370 Matt. xii. 11-46. John vii. 40.

371 The expression _son of God_ was in common use among the Jews, to designate a man of remarkable wisdom and piety. It was not in this sense that Jesus Christ used it; for in that case it would have occasioned no great sensation. Besides, if we should assume, in order to make it a subject of accusation against these Jews, that Jesus did not expressly declare himself to be God, we should be exposed to this rejoinder: Why then do you believe in him?

372 See Deut. iv. 15, and xiii. per tot.

373 John vi. 39-42. Matt. xiii. 55.

374 This fact is clearly established as possible; and we must observe that till then there had been neither opposition nor enmity in the minds of this people, since they had listened to him with the greatest attention, and did not hesitate to acknowledge in him all that public law permitted them to do, viz., a prophet, a highly inspired man.

375 John x. 30-33.

376 Matt. x. 34. Mark x. 29.

377 Matt. xvi. 1-4. John viii. 13-18.

378 John vii. 43. Luke xxiii. 5.

379 Matt. ix. 10. Mark ii. 15. Luke xv. 1.

380 Matt. xix. 24.

381 John x. 20.

382 John vii. 12.

383 John xi. 47-50.

384 Matt. xxvi. 4. John xi. 53, 54.

385 Matt. xxi. 23.

386 It will be recollected, that the senate held its sessions in one of the porticos of the temple. At this time the high priest presided over the senate, so that the guards of the high priest, of the elders and the temple, were no other than the legal militia.

387 John xviii. 10, 11.

388 Mark xiv. 50. Matt. xxvi. 56.

389 Matt. xxvi. 60, 61. And the last came two false witnesses, and said, this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Mark xiv. 57, 58. 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. John ii. 19, 21, 22. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. But he spake of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

390 I repeat that the expression _son of God_, includes here the idea of God himself; the fact is already established, and all the subsequent events confirm it. Observe, also, that I quote the narrative of only one of the parties to this great proceeding.

391 Deut. xxviii. 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

392 Matt. xxvii. 1. Mark xv. 1.

393 The duties of Pilate were to inform himself whether the sentences given did or did not affect the interests of Rome; there his part ended. Thus it is not astonishing that this procurator, doubtless little acquainted with the Jewish laws, signed the decree for the arrest of Jesus, although he did not find him guilty. We shall see hereafter that there were then many parties among the Jews, among whom were the Herodians or serviles, partisans of the house of Herod, and devoted to the foreign interests. These are they who speak continually of Cæsar, of rendering to Cæsar the tribute due to Cæsar; they also insist that Jesus called himself _king of the Jews_, but this charge was reckoned as nothing before the senate, and was not of a nature alone to merit capital punishment.

394 See Matt. xxvii. 27. Mark xv. 16. John xix. 2.

395 John xix. 7.

396 The sending back of Jesus to Herod, which, according to the Gospel of St. Luke, Pilate would have done, is not stated by the other Evangelists, and does not at all change the judicial question. Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and of Perea, had no authority in Jerusalem. Upon his visit to this city, Pilate, according to St. Luke, would, out of respect, have caused Jesus to appear before this ally of the Romans, because Jesus was surnamed the Galilean, though originally from Judea. But to whatever tribe he belonged, the nature of the accusation would still have required, according to the Hebrew law, that he should be judged by the senate of Jerusalem.

397 Matt. xvii. 42, 43.

398 This Analysis first appeared in the _Gazette des Tribunaux_.

399 Joshua vii. 19, &c.

400 By this, says Father Lamy, we may understand what the mixture of wine and myrrh was, which they presented to Jesus on the cross, and which he would not drink. _Introd. to the reading of the Holy Scriptures_, chap. vi. (_Note of Mr. Salvador_, Book iv. ch. 2.)

401 As was that of Stephen, whom the same priests caused to be massacred by the populace, without a previous sentence of the law. OCCIDERE: Non occides, thou shalt not kill. _Deut_. v. 17. Veneno homines occidere. Cic. pro Roscio, 61. Virginiam filiam sua manu occidit Virginius. Cic. de Finib. 107. Non hominem occidi. Horat. I. Epist. 17, 10. Inermem occidere. Ovid. ii. Fast. 139. INTERFICERE: Feras interficere. Lucret. lib. v. 251. Interfectus in acie. Cic. de Finib. 103. Cæsaris interfectores. Brutus Ciceroni, 16, 8. Interfectorem Gracchi. Cic. de Claris Orrato. 66.

402 Will it be believed, that Tertullian and St. Irenæus were obliged to refute seriously some writers of their day, who considered the conduct of Judas not only excusable, but worthy of admiration and highly meritorious, “because (as they said) of the immense service which he had rendered to the human race by _preparing their redemption!_” In the same manner, at a certain period, we have seen plunderers of the public money make a merit of their conduct, because in that way they had weakened the usurpation and prepared the way for the triumph of legitimacy.

403 See, as to these two grounds of nullity, the Jewish authors cited by Prost de Royer, tome 2, p. 205, _verbo_ ACCUSATION.

404 Mr. Salvador admits this: “Caiaphas,” says he, “made himself his accuser.” p. 85.

405 Ananias, a chief priest, having given orders to strike Paul upon the face, Paul said to him: “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten, _contrary to the law_!” Acts xxiii. 3.

406 Mr. Salvador, in his note to p. 82, admits, that “the expression _Son of God_ was in common use among the Hebrews, to signify a man of great wisdom, or of deep piety.” But he adds, “_It was not in this sense_, that it was used by Jesus Christ; it would not have caused so strong a sensation.” Thus, then, by _construction_, and changing the words from their usual meaning, an article of accusation is formed against Jesus.

407 That is, he usurped the functions of a judge; for we shall see, in the next section, that the _Council_ of the Jews had not jurisdiction of capital cases.

408 Antiq. Judaic. lib. 18, cap. 3 & 6.

409 Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end. Matt. xxvi. 58. So also the young man spoken of by St. Mark, xiv. 51: And there followed him a certain young man, &c.

_ 410 De Crimine_ præsidis cognitio est. Cujas, xix. Observ. 13.

411 Procurator Cæsaris _fungens vice præsidis potest cognoscere de causis criminalibus_. Godefroy, in his note (letter S) upon the 3rd law of the Code, _Ubi causæ fiscales_, &c. And he cites several others, which I have verified, and which are most precise to the same effect. See particularly the 4th law of the Code, _Ad leg. fab. de plag._, and the 2nd law of the Code, _De Pœnis_.

412 Procuratoribus Cæsaris data est jurisdictio in causis fiscalibus pecuniariis, non in criminalibus, nisi quum fungebantur _vice præsidum_; ut Pontius Pilatus fuit procurator Cæsaris _vice præsidis_ in Syria. Cujas, Observ. xix. 13.

413 “To carry one from Caiaphas to Pilate” has since become a proverb.

414 Lysias thus wrote to Felix the Governor, in relation to Paul: Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or bonds. Acts xxiii. 29.

415 Gerhard makes the following unanswerable dilemma upon this point. “Be consistent with thyself, Pilate; for, if Christ is innocent, why dost thou not send him away acquitted? And if thou believest him deserving of chastisement with rods, why dost thou proclaim him to be innocent?” _Gerh. Harm._ ch. 193, p. 1889.

416 We will cite here the words of one of the finest laws of the Romans: Vanæ voces populi non sunt audiendæ, quando aut noxium crimine absolvi, aut innocentum condemnari desiderant—The idle clamour of the populace is not to be regarded, when they call for a guilty man to be acquitted, or an innocent one to be condemned. _Law 12, Code de Pœnis_. Pilate might also have read in Horace: Justum et tenacem, &c.—

“The man in conscious virtue bold, Who dares his secret purpose hold, Unshaken hears the crowd’s tumultuous cries, And the impetuous _tyrant’s_ angry brow defies.”