Chapter XXXIII: 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 xxvii. 40, he puts the same declaration into the mouth of those who insulted Jesus at the foot of the cross; but he does not put it into the mouth of Christ. He is in accordance with St. Mark.

St. John, chapter ii. 19, makes Jesus speak in these words: “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” And St. John adds: “He spake of the temple of his body.”

Thus Jesus did not say in an affirmative and somewhat menacing manner, _I will destroy this temple_, as the witnesses _falsely_ assumed; he only said, hypothetically, _Destroy this temple_, that is to say, suppose this temple should be destroyed, I will raise it up in three days. Besides, they could not dissemble, that he referred to a temple altogether different from theirs, because he said, I will raise up another in three days, _which will not be made by the hands of man_.

It hence results, at least, that the Jews did not understand him, for they cried out, “Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?”

Thus, then, the witnesses did not agree together, and their declarations had nothing conclusive. Mark xiv. 59. We must, therefore, look for other proofs.

“Then the high priest, (we must not forget, that he is still the accuser,) the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it, which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.” Mark xiv. 60. In truth, since the question was not concerning the temple of the Jews, but an ideal temple, not made by the hand of man, and which was alone in the thoughts of Jesus, the explanation was to be found in the very evidence itself.

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?(406) Jesus answered, _Thou hast said_. Matthew xxvi. 64; _I am_. Mark xiv. 62.

“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.” 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?(407) A passionate man, and too much resembling the odious portrait which the historian Josephus has given us of him!(408) 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! And, 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 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_!