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?