to popular seditions.  It sought to put down religious enthusiasts, rightly foreseeing that by their excited preachings they would lead to the total ruin of the nation.  Although the excitement created by Jesus was in nowise temporal, the priests saw, as an ultimate consequence of this agitation, an aggravation of the Roman yoke and the overturning of the temple, the source of their riches and honors.[2] Certainly the causes which, thirty-seven years after, were to effect the ruin of Jerusalem, did not arise from infant Christianity.  They arose in Jerusalem itself, and not in Galilee.  We cannot, however, say that the motive alleged in this circumstance by the priests was so improbable that we must necessarily regard it as insincere.  In a general, sense, Jesus, if he had succeeded, would have really effected the ruin of the Jewish nation.  According to the principles universally admitted by all ancient polity, Hanan and Kaiapha were right in saying:  “Better the death of one man than the ruin of a people!” In our opinion this reasoning is detestable.  But it has been that of conservative parties from the commencement of all human society.  The “party of order” (I use this expression in its mean and narrow sense) has ever been the same.  Deeming the highest duty of government to be the prevention of popular disturbances, it believes it performs an act of patriotism in preventing, by judicial murder, the tumultuous effusion of blood.  Little thoughtful of the future, it does not dream that in declaring war against all innovations, it incurs the risk of crushing ideas destined one day to triumph.  The death of Jesus was one of the thousand illustrations of this policy.  The movement he directed was entirely spiritual, but it was still a movement; hence the men of order, persuaded that it was essential for humanity not to be disturbed, felt themselves bound to prevent the new spirit from extending itself.  Never was seen a more striking example of how much such a course of procedure defeats its own object.  Left free, Jesus would have exhausted himself in a desperate struggle with the impossible.  The unintelligent hate of his enemies decided the success of his work, and sealed his divinity.

[Footnote 1:  John xi. 49, 50.  Cf. ibid., xviii. 14.]

[Footnote 2:  John xi. 48.]

The death of Jesus was thus resolved upon from the month of February or the beginning of March.[1] But he still escaped for a short time.  He withdrew to an obscure town called Ephraim or Ephron, in the direction of Bethel, a short day’s journey from Jerusalem.[2] He spent a few days there with his disciples, letting the storm pass over.  But the order to arrest him the moment he appeared at Jerusalem was given.  The feast of the Passover was drawing nigh, and it was thought that Jesus, according to his custom, would come to celebrate it at Jerusalem.[3]

[Footnote 1:  John xi. 53.]

[Footnote 2:  John xi. 54.  Cf. 2 Chron. xiii. 19; Jos., B.J., IV. ix. 9; Eusebius and St. Jerome, De situ et nom. loc. hebr., at the words [Greek:  Ephron] and [Greek:  Ephraim].]