Part 53 (1/2)

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 t.i.tle 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 c.o.c.k 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 Pa.s.sover_, 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 a.s.semblage 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 circ.u.mstances, 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.