The high priest continued: "I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Matt. xxvi. 63. I adjure thee, I call upon thee on oath! a gross infraction of that rule of morals and jurisprudence, which forbids our placing an accused person between the danger of perjury and the fear of inculpating himself, and thus making his situation more hazardous. The high priest, however, persists, and says to him: Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?* Jesus answered, Thou hast said. Matthew xxvi. 64; I am. Mark xiv. 62.

"Then the high priest rent his clothes,

* 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.

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." Matt. xxvi. 66.

Let us now compare this scene of violence with the mild deduction of principles, which we find in the chapter of Mr. Salvador On the Administration of Justice; and let us ask ourselves, if, as he alleges, we find a just application of them in the proceedings against Christ?

Do we discover here that respect of the Hebrew judge towards the party accused, when we see that Caiaphas permitted him to be struck, in his presence, with impunity?

What was this Caiaphas, at once an accuser and judge? * A passionate man, and

*

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.

too much resembling the odious portrait which the historian Josephus has given us of him! * A judge, who was irritated to such a degree, that he rent his clothes; who imposed upon the accused a most solemn oath, and who gave to his answers the criminal character, that he had spoken blasphemy! And, from that moment, he wanted no more witnesses, notwithstanding the law required them. He would not have an inquiry, which he perceived would be insufficient; he attempts to supply it by captious questions. He is desirous of having him condemned upon his own declaration alone, (interpreted, too, as he chooses to understand it,) though that was forbidden by the laws of the Hebrews! in the midst of a most violent transport of passion, this accuser himself, a high priest, who means to speak in the name of the living God, is the first to pass sentence of

And,

death, and carries with him the opinions of the rest!

In this hideous picture I cannot recognise that justice of the Hebrews, of which Mr. Salvador has given so fine a view in his theory!

SECTION VII.

SUBSEQUENT ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

IMMEDIATELY after this kind of sacerdotal verdict rendered against Jesus, the acts of violence and insults recommenced with increased strength; the fury of the judge must have communicated itself to the bystanders. St. Matthew says: "Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us,

thou Christ; who is he that smote thee?" Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.

Mr. Salvador does not contest the truth of this ill treatment. In page 88 he says, "it was contrary to the spirit of the Hebrew law, and that it was not according to the order of nature, that a senate composed of the most respectable men of a nation, — that a senate, which might perhaps be mistaken but which thought it was acting mildly, should have permitted such outrages against him whose life it held in its own hands. The writers, who have transmitted these details to us, not having been present themselves at the trial, were disposed to over charge the picture, either on account of their own feelings, or to throw upon their judges a greater odium.”

I repeat; this ill treatment was entirely contrary to the spirit of the law. And what do I want more, since my object is, to make prominent all the violations of law.