There was among the Romans a custom, which we borrowed from their jurisprudence, and which is still followed, of placing over the head of a condemned criminal a writing containing an extract from his sentence, in order that the public might know for what crime he was condemned. This was the reason why Pilate put on the cross a label, on which he had written these words: Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judæorum, (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews), which has since been denoted by the initials J. N. R. J. This was the alleged cause of his condemnation. St. Mark says—“And the superscription of his accusation was written over—The King of the Jews.” Mark xv. 26.
This inscription was first in Latin, which was the legal language of the Roman judge; and it was repeated in Hebrew and [pg 567] Greek, in order to be understood by the people of the nation and by foreigners.
The chief priests, whose indefatigable hatred did not overlook the most minute details, being apprehensive that people would take it to be literally a fact affirmed, that Jesus was the King of the Jews, said to Pilate: “Write not King of the Jews, but that he said I am king of the Jews.” But Pilate answered: “What I have written I have written.” John xix. 21, 22.
This is a conclusive answer to one of the last assertions of Mr. Salvador, (p. 88,) that “the Roman Pilate signed the sentence;” by which he always means that Pilate did nothing but sign a sentence, which he supposes to have been passed by the Sanhedrim; but in this he is mistaken. Pilate did not merely sign the sentence, or decree, but drew it up; and, when his draft was objected to by the priests, he still adhered to it, saying, what I have written shall remain as written.
Here then we see the true cause of the condemnation of Jesus! Here we have the “judicial and legal proof.” Jesus was the victim of a political accusation! He was put to death for the imaginary crime of having aimed at the power of Cæsar, by calling himself King of the Jews! Absurd accusation; which Pilate never believed, and which the chief priests and the Pharisees themselves did not believe. For they were not authorized to arrest Jesus on that account; it was a new, and totally different, accusation from that which they first planned—a sudden accusation of the moment, when they saw that Pilate was but little affected by their religious zeal, and they found it necessary to arouse his zeal for Cæsar.
“If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend!” This alarming language has too often, since that time, reverberated in the ears of timid judges, who, like Pilate, have rendered themselves criminal by delivering up victims through want of firmness, whom they would never have condemned, if they had listened to the voice of their own consciences.
Let us now recapitulate the case, as I have considered it from the beginning.
Is it not evident, contrary to the conclusion of Mr. Salvador, that Jesus, considered merely as a simple citizen, was not tried and [pg 568] sentenced either according to law, or agreeably to the forms of legal proceedings then existing?
God, according to his eternal design, might permit the just to suffer by the malice of men; but he also intended, that this should at least happen by a disregard of all laws, and by a violation of all established rules, in order that the entire contempt of forms should stand as the first warning of the violation of law.
Let us not be surprised then, that in another part of his work, Mr. Salvador (who, it is gratifying to observe, discusses his subject dispassionately) expresses some regret in speaking of the “unfortunate sentence against Jesus.” Vol. i. p. 59. He has wished to excuse the Hebrews; but, one of that nation, in giving utterance to the feelings of his heart, still says—in language which I took from his own mouth, “We should be very cautious of condemning him at this day.”