



Produced by Jeff G., Eleni Christofaki and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net









Transcriber's notes

Variable spelling has been retained. Minor punctuation inconsistencies
have been silently corrected. A list of other corrections can be found
at the end of the book. Footnotes were sequentially numbered and placed
at the end of the text.

  Mark up: _italics_



  THE TRIAL OF JESUS




[Illustration: CHRIST BEFORE PILATE (MUNKACSY)]



  THE TRIAL OF JESUS

  FROM A LAWYER'S STANDPOINT

  BY

  WALTER M. CHANDLER

  OF THE NEW YORK BAR


  VOLUME II

  THE ROMAN TRIAL


  THE EMPIRE PUBLISHING CO.

  60 WALL STREET, NEW YORK CITY

  1908




  Copyright, 1908, by WALTER M. CHANDLER

  _All rights reserved_




LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

                                                         FACING PAGE

  CHRIST BEFORE PILATE (Munkacsy)                     _Frontispiece_

  TIBERIUS CAESAR (Antique Sculpture)                             68

  PONTIUS PILATE (Munkacsy)                                      81

  CHRIST LEAVING THE PRAETORIUM (Dore)                           141

  THE CRUCIFIXION (Munkacsy)                                    175

  JUPITER (Antique Sculpture)                                   195

  AVE CAESAR! IO SATURNALIA (Alma-Tadema)                        240

  THE DYING GLADIATOR (Antique Sculpture)                       260

  READING FROM HOMER (Alma-Tadema)                              270




CONTENTS OF VOLUME TWO

                                                                PAGE

  PREFACE TO VOLUME TWO                                          ix


  PART 1

  _THE ROMAN TRIAL_

  CHAPTER                                                        PAGE

  I. A TWOFOLD JURISDICTION                                       3

  II. NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS                                    9

  III. POWERS AND DUTIES OF PILATE                               24

  IV. MODE OF TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES                       34

  V. ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT                                   53

  VI. ROMAN LAW APPLICABLE TO THE TRIAL OF JESUS                 68

  VII. PONTIUS PILATE                                            81

  VIII. JESUS BEFORE PILATE                                      96

  IX. JESUS BEFORE HEROD                                        119

  X. JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE                                  129

  XI. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL OF JESUS    141


  PART II

  _GRAECO-ROMAN PAGANISM_

  I. THE GRAECO-ROMAN RELIGION                                   198

  II. GRAECO-ROMAN SOCIAL LIFE                                   236


  _APPENDICES_

  I. CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS WHO TRIED JESUS              291

  II. ACTS OF PILATE                                            327

  BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                  383

  INDEX                                                         389




PREFACE TO VOLUME TWO


Sufficient was said concerning the entire work in the preface to volume
one to warrant a very brief preface to volume two.

The reader will notice that the plan of treatment of the Roman trial of
Jesus is radically different from that employed in the Hebrew trial.
There is no Record of Fact in the second volume, for the reason that the
Record of Fact dealt with in the first volume is common to the two
trials. Again, there is no Brief of the Roman trial and no systematic
and exhaustive treatment of Roman criminal law in the second volume,
corresponding with such a treatment of the Hebrew trial, under Hebrew
criminal law, in the first volume. This is explained by the fact that
the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty, while both Pilate and Herod found Him
not guilty. A proper consideration then of the Hebrew trial became a
matter of review on appeal, requiring a Brief, containing a complete
statement of facts, an ample exposition of law, and sufficient argument
to show the existence of error in the judgment. The nature of the
verdicts pronounced by Pilate and by Herod rendered these things
unnecessary in dealing with the Roman trial.

In Part II of this volume, Graeco-Roman Paganism at the time of Christ
has been treated. It is evident that this part of the treatise has no
legal connection with the trial of Jesus. It was added simply to give
coloring and atmosphere to the painting of the great tragedy. It will
serve the further purpose, it is believed, of furnishing a key to the
motives of the leading actors in the drama, by describing their social,
religious, and political environments. The strictly legal features of a
great criminal trial are rarely ever altogether sufficient for a proper
understanding of even the judicial aspects of the case. The religious
faith of Pilate, the judge, is quite as important a factor in
determining the merits of the Roman trial, as is the religious belief of
Jesus, the prisoner. This contention will be fully appreciated after a
careful perusal of Chapter VI of this volume.

Short biographical sketches of about forty members of the Great
Sanhedrin who tried Jesus have been given under Appendix I at the end of
this work. They were originally written by MM. Lemann, two of the
greatest Hebrew scholars of France, and are doubtless authoritative and
correct. These sketches will familiarize the reader with the names and
characters of a majority of the Hebrew judges of Jesus. And it may be
added that they are a very valuable addition to the general work, since
the character of the tribunal is an important consideration in the trial
of any case, civil or criminal.

The apocryphal Acts of Pilate have been given under Appendix II. But the
author does not thereby vouch for their authenticity. They have been
added because of their very intimate connection with the trial of Jesus;
and for the further reason that, whether authentic or not, quotations
from them are to be found everywhere in literature, sacred and secular,
dealing with this subject. The mystery of their origin, the question of
their genuineness, and the final disposition that will be made of them,
render the Acts of Pilate a subject of surpassing interest to the
student of ancient documents.

                                            WALTER M. CHANDLER.

  NEW YORK CITY, July 1, 1908.




    PART I

    _THE ROMAN TRIAL_

     Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum
     supplicio affectus est.--TACITUS.




CHAPTER I

A TWOFOLD JURISDICTION


The Hebrew trial of Jesus having ended, the Roman trial began. The
twofold character of the proceedings against the Christ invested them
with a solemn majesty, an awful grandeur. The two mightiest
jurisdictions of the earth assumed cognizance of charges against the Man
of Galilee, the central figure of all history. "His tomb," says
Lamartine, "was the grave of the Old World and the cradle of the New,"
and now upon His life before He descended into the tomb, Rome, the
mother of laws, and Jerusalem, the destroyer of prophets, sat in
judgment.

The Sanhedrin, or Grand Council, which conducted the Hebrew trial of
Jesus was the high court of justice and the supreme tribunal of the
Jews. It numbered seventy-one members. Its powers were legislative,
executive, and judicial. It exercised all the functions of education, of
government, and of religion. It was the national parliament of the
Hebrew Theocracy, the human administrator of the divine will. It was the
most august tribunal that ever interpreted or administered religion to
man. Its judges applied the laws of the most peculiar and venerable
system of jurisprudence known to civilized mankind, and condemned upon
the charge of blasphemy against Jehovah, the most precious and
illustrious of the human race. Standing alone, the Hebrew trial of
Christ would have been the most thrilling and impressive judicial
proceeding in all history. The Mosaic Code, whose provisions form the
basis of this trial, is the foundation of the Bible, the most potent
juridical as well as spiritual agency in the universe. In all the courts
of Christendom it binds the consciences, if it does not mold the
convictions, of judge and jury in passing judgment upon the rights of
life, liberty, and property. The Bible is everywhere to be found. It is
read in the jungles of Africa, while crossing burning deserts, and
amidst Arctic snows. No ship ever puts to sea without this sacred
treasure. It is found in the cave of the hermit, in the hut of the
peasant, in the palace of the king, and in the Vatican of the pope. It
adorns the altar where bride and bridegroom meet to pledge eternal love.
It sheds its hallowing influence upon the baptismal font where infancy
is christened into religious life. Its divine precepts furnish elements
of morals and manliness in formative life to jubilant youth; cast a
radiant charm about the strength of lusty manhood; and when life's
pilgrimage is ended, offer to the dying patriarch, who clasps it to his
bosom, a sublime solace as he crosses the great divide and passes into
the twilight's purple gloom. This noble book has furnished not only the
most enduring laws and the sublimest religious truths, but inspiration
as well to the grandest intellectual triumphs. It is literally woven
into the literature of the world, and few books of modern times are
worth reading that do not reflect the sentiments of its sacred pages.
And it was the Mosaic Code, the basis of this book, that furnished the
legal guide to the Sanhedrin in the trial of the Christ. Truly it may be
said that no other trial mentioned in history would have been comparable
to this, if the proceedings had ended here. But to the Hebrew was added
Roman cognizance, and the result was a judicial transaction at once
unique and sublime. If the sacred spirit of the Hebrew law has
illuminated the conscience of the world in every age, it must not be
forgotten that "the written reason of the Roman law has been silently
and studiously transfused" into all our modern legal and political life.
The Roman judicial system is incomparable in the history of
jurisprudence. Judea gave religion, Greece gave letters, and Rome gave
laws to mankind. Thus runs the judgment of the world. A fine sense of
justice was native to the Roman mind. A spirit of domination was the
mental accompaniment of this trait. The mighty abstraction called Rome
may be easily resolved into two cardinal concrete elements: the Legion
and the Law. The legion was the unit of the military system through
which Rome conquered the world. The law was the cementing bond between
the conquered states and the sovereign city on the hills. The legion was
the guardian and protector of the physical boundaries of the Empire,
and Roman citizens felt contented and secure, as long as the
legionaries were loyal to the standards and the eagles. The presence of
barbarians at the gate created not so much consternation and despair
among the citizens of Rome, as did the news of the mutiny of the
soldiers of Germanicus on the Rhine. What the legion was to the body,
the law was to the soul of Rome--the highest expression of its sanctity
and majesty. And when her physical body that once extended from Scotland
to Judea, and from Dacia to Abyssinia was dead, in the year 476 A.D.,
her soul rose triumphant in her laws and established a second Roman
Empire over the minds and consciences of men. The Corpus Juris Civilis
of Justinian is a text-book in the greatest universities of the world,
and Roman law is to-day the basis of the jurisprudence of nearly every
state of continental Europe. The Germans never submitted to Caesar and
his legions. They were the first to resist successfully, then to attack
vigorously, and to overthrow finally the Roman Empire. And yet, until a
few years ago, Germans obeyed implicitly the edicts and decrees of Roman
praetors and tribunes. Is it any wonder, then, that the lawyers of all
modern centuries have looked back with filial love and veneration to the
mighty jurisconsults of the imperial republic? Is it any wonder that the
tragedy of the Praetorium and Golgotha, aside from its sacred aspects, is
the most notable event in history? Jesus was arraigned in one day, in
one city, before the sovereign courts of the universe; before the
Sanhedrin, the supreme tribunal of a divinely commissioned race; before
the court of the Roman Empire that determined the legal and political
rights of men throughout the known world. The Nazarene stood charged
with blasphemy and with treason against the enthroned monarchs
represented by these courts; blasphemy against Jehovah who, from the
lightning-lit summit of Sinai, proclaimed His laws to mankind; treason
against Caesar, enthroned and uttering his will to the world amidst the
pomp and splendor of Rome. History records no other instance of a trial
conducted before the courts of both Heaven and earth; the court of God
and the court of man; under the law of Israel and the law of Rome;
before Caiaphas and Pilate, as the representatives of these courts and
administrators of these laws.

Approaching more closely the consideration of the nature and character
of the Roman trial, we are confronted at once by several pertinent and
interesting questions.

In the first place, were there two distinct trials of Jesus? If so, why
were there two trials instead of one? Were the two trials separate and
independent? If not, was the second trial a mere review of the first, or
was the first a mere preliminary to the second?

Again, what charges were brought against Jesus at the hearing before
Pilate? Were these charges the same as those preferred against Him at
the trial before the Sanhedrin? Upon what charge was He finally
condemned and crucified?

Again, what Roman law was applicable to the charges made against Jesus
to Pilate? Did Pilate apply these laws either in letter or in spirit?

Was there an attempt by Pilate to attain substantial justice, either
with or without the due observance of forms of law?

Did Pilate apply Hebrew or Roman law to the charges presented to him
against the Christ?

What forms of criminal procedure, if any, were employed by Pilate in
conducting the Roman trial of Jesus? If not legally, was Pilate
politically justified in delivering Jesus to be crucified?

A satisfactory answer to several of these questions, in the introductory
chapters of this volume, is deemed absolutely essential to a thorough
understanding of the discussion of the trial proper which will follow.
The plan proposed is to describe first the powers and duties of Pilate
as presiding judge at the trial of Christ. And for this purpose, general
principles of Roman provincial administration will be outlined and
discussed; the legal and political status of the subject Jew in his
relationship to the conquering Roman will be considered; and the exact
requirements of criminal procedure in Roman capital trials, at the time
of Christ, will, if possible, be determined. It is believed that in the
present case it will be more logical and effective to state first what
should have been done by Pilate in the trial of Jesus, and then follow
with an account of what was actually done, than to reverse this order of
procedure.




CHAPTER II

NUMBER OF REGULAR TRIALS


_Were there two regular trials of Jesus?_ In the first volume of this
work this question was reviewed at length in the introduction to the
Brief. The authorities were there cited and discussed. It was there seen
that one class of writers deny the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at
the time of Christ. These same writers declare that there could have
been no Hebrew trial of Jesus, since there was no competent Hebrew court
in existence to try Him. This class of critics assert that the so-called
Sanhedrin that met in the palace of Caiaphas was an ecclesiastical body,
acting without judicial authority; and that their proceedings were
merely preparatory to charges to be presented to Pilate, who was alone
competent to try capital cases. Those who make this contention seek to
uphold it by saying that the errors were so numerous and the proceedings
so flagrant, according to the Gospel account, that there could have been
no trial at all before the Sanhedrin; that the party of priests who
arrested and examined Jesus did not constitute a court, but rather a
vigilance committee.

On the other hand, other writers contend that the only regular trial was
that before the Sanhedrin; and that the appearance before Pilate was
merely for the purpose of securing his confirmation of a regular
judicial sentence which had already been pronounced. Renan, the ablest
exponent of this class, says: "The course which the priests had resolved
to pursue in regard to Jesus was quite in conformity with the
established law. The plan of the enemies of Jesus was to convict Him, by
the testimony of witnesses and by His own avowals, of blasphemy and of
outrage against the Mosaic religion, to condemn Him to death according
to law, and then to get the condemnation sanctioned by Pilate."

Still another class of writers contend that there were two distinct
trials. Innes thus tersely and forcibly states the proposition: "Whether
it was legitimate or not for the Jews to condemn for a capital crime, on
this occasion they did so. Whether it was legitimate or not for Pilate
to try over again an accused whom they had condemned, on this occasion
he did so. There were certainly two trials. And the dialogue already
narrated expresses with a most admirable terseness the struggle which we
should have expected between the effort of the Jews to get a mere
countersign of their sentence, and the determination of Pilate to assume
the full judicial responsibility, whether of first instance or of
revision." This contention, it is believed, is right, and has been acted
upon in dividing the general treatise into two volumes, and in devoting
each to a separate trial of the case.

Why were there two trials of Jesus? When the Sanhedrists had condemned
Christ to death upon the charge of blasphemy, why did they not lead Him
away to execution, and stone Him to death, as their law required? Why
did they seek the aid of Pilate and invoke the sanction of Roman
authority? The answer to these questions is to be found in the historic
relationship that existed, at the time of the crucifixion, between the
sovereign Roman Empire and the dependent province of Judea. The student
of history will remember that the legions of Pompey overran Palestine in
the year 63 B.C., and that the land of the Jews then became a subject
state. After the deposition of Archelaus, A.D. 6, Judea became a Roman
province, and was governed by procurators who were sent out from Rome.
The historian Rawlinson has described the political situation of Judea,
at the time of Christ, as "complicated and anomalous, undergoing
frequent changes, but retaining through them all certain peculiarities
which made that country unique among the dependencies of Rome. Having
passed under Roman rule with the consent and by the assistance of a
large party of its inhabitants, it was allowed to maintain for a while a
sort of semi-independence. A mixture of Roman with native power resulted
from this cause and a complication in a political status difficult to be
thoroughly understood by one not native and contemporary."

The difficulty in determining the exact political status of the Jews at
the time of Christ has given birth to the radically different views
concerning the number and nature of the trials of Jesus. The most
learned critics are in direct antagonism on the point. More than forty
years ago Salvador and Dupin debated the question in France. The former
contended that the Sanhedrin retained complete authority after the Roman
conquest to try even capital crimes, and that sentence of death
pronounced by the supreme tribunal of the Jews required only the
countersign or approval of the Roman procurator. On the other hand, it
was argued by Dupin that the Sanhedrin had no right whatever to try
cases of a capital nature; that their whole procedure was a usurpation;
and that the only competent and legitimate trial of Christ was the one
conducted by Pilate. How difficult the problem is of solution will be
apparent when we reflect that both these disputants were able, learned,
conscientious men who, with the facts of history in front of them,
arrived at entirely different conclusions. Amidst the general confusion
and uncertainty, the reader must rely upon himself, and appeal to the
facts and philosophy of history for light and guidance.

In seeking to ascertain the political relationship between Rome and
Judea at the time of Christ, two important considerations should be kept
in mind: (1) That there was no treaty or concordat, defining mutual
rights and obligations, existing between the two powers; Romans were the
conquerors and Jews were the conquered; the subject Jews enjoyed just so
much religious and political freedom as the conquering Romans saw fit
to grant them; (2) that it was the policy of the Roman government to
grant to subject states the greatest amount of freedom in local
self-government that was consistent with the interests and sovereignty
of the Roman people. These two considerations are fundamental and
indispensable in forming a correct notion of the general relations
between the two powers.

The peculiar character of Judea as a fragment of the mighty Roman Empire
should also be kept clearly in mind. Roman conquest, from first to last,
resulted in three distinct types of political communities more or less
strongly bound by ties of interest to Rome. These classes were: (1) Free
states; (2) allied states; and (3) subject states. The communities of
Italy were in the main, free and allied, and were members of a great
military confederacy. The provinces beyond Italy were, in the main,
subject states and dependent upon the good will and mercy of Rome. The
free states received from Rome a charter of privileges (_lex data_)
which, however, the Roman senate might at any time revoke. The allied
cities were bound by a sworn treaty (_faedus_), a breach of which was a
cause of war. In either case, whether of charter or treaty, the grant of
privileges raised the state or people on whom it was conferred to the
level of the Italian communes and secured to its inhabitants absolute
control of their own finances, free and full possession of their land,
which exempted them from the payment of tribute, and, above all, allowed
them entire freedom in the administration of their local laws. The
subject states were ruled by Roman governors who administered the
so-called law of the province (_lex provinciae_). This law was peculiar
to each province and was framed to meet all the exigencies of provincial
life. It was sometimes the work of a conquering general, assisted by a
commission of ten men appointed by the senate. At other times, its
character was determined by the decrees of the emperor and the senate,
as well as by the edicts of the praetor and procurator. In any case, the
law of the province (_lex provinciae_) was the sum total of the local
provincial law which Rome saw fit to allow the people of the conquered
state to retain, with Roman decrees and regulations superadded. These
added decrees and regulations were always determined by local provincial
conditions. The Romans were no sticklers for consistency and uniformity
in provincial administration. Adaptability and expediency were the main
traits of the lawgiving and government-imposing genius of Rome. The
payment of taxes and the furnishing of auxiliary troops were the chief
exactions imposed upon conquered states. An enlightened public policy
prompted the Romans to grant to subject communities the greatest amount
of freedom consistent with Roman sovereignty. Two main reasons formed
the basis of this policy. One was the economy of time and labor, for the
Roman official staff was not large enough to successfully perform those
official duties which were usually incumbent upon the local courts.
Racial and religious differences alone would have impeded and prevented
a successful administration of local government by Roman diplomats and
officers. Another reason for Roman noninterference in local provincial
affairs was that loyalty was created and peace promoted among the
provincials by the enjoyment of their own laws and religions. To such an
extent was this policy carried by the Romans that it is asserted by the
best historians that there was little real difference in practice
between the rights exercised by free and those enjoyed by subject
states. On this point, Mommsen says: "In regard to the extent of
application, the jurisdiction of the native courts and judicatories
among subject communities can scarcely have been much more restricted
than among the federated communities; while in administration and in
civil jurisdiction we find the same principles operative as in legal
procedure and criminal laws."[1] The difference between the rights
enjoyed by subject and those exercised by free states was that the
former were subject to the whims and caprices of Rome, while the latter
were protected by a written charter. A second difference was that Roman
citizens residing within the boundaries of subject states had their own
law and their own judicatories. The general result was that the citizens
of subject states were left free to govern themselves subject to the two
great obligations of taxation and military service. The Roman
authorities, however, could and did interfere in legislation and in
administration whenever Roman interests required.

Now, in the light of the facts and principles just stated, what was the
exact political status of the Jews at the time of Christ? Judea was a
subject state. Did the general laws of Roman provincial administration
apply to this province? Or were peculiar rights and privileges granted
to the strange people who inhabited it? A great German writer answers in
the affirmative. Geib says: "Only one province ... namely Judea, at
least in the earlier days of the empire, formed an exception to all the
arrangements hitherto described. Whereas in the other provinces the
whole criminal jurisdiction was in the hands of the governor, and only
in the most important cases had the supreme imperial courts to
decide--just as in the least important matters the municipal courts
did--the principle that applied in Judea was that at least in regard to
questions of religious offenses the high priest with the Sanhedrin could
pronounce even death sentences, for the carrying out of which, however,
the confirmation of the procurator was required."

That Roman conquest did not blot out Jewish local self-government; and
that the Great Sanhedrin still retained judicial and administrative
power, subject to Roman authority in all matters pertaining to the local
affairs of the Jews, is thus clearly and pointedly stated by Schuerer:
"As regards the area over which the jurisdiction of the supreme
Sanhedrin extended, it has been already remarked above that its _civil_
authority was restricted, in the time of Christ, to the eleven
toparchies of Judea proper. And accordingly, for this reason, it had no
judicial authority over Jesus Christ so long as He remained in Galilee.
It was only as soon as He entered Judea that He came directly under its
jurisdiction. In a certain sense, no doubt, the Sanhedrin exercised
such jurisdiction over _every_ Jewish community in the world, and in
that sense over Galilee as well. Its orders were regarded as binding
throughout the entire domain of orthodox Judaism. It had power, for
example, to issue warrants to the congregations (synagogues) in Damascus
for the apprehension of the Christians in that quarter (Acts ix. 2;
xxii. 5; xxvi. 12). At the same time, however, the extent to which the
Jewish communities were willing to yield obedience to the orders of the
Sanhedrin always depended on how far they were favorably disposed toward
it. It was only within the limits of Judea proper that it exercised any
direct authority. There could not possibly be a more erroneous way of
defining the extent of its jurisdiction as regards the kind of causes
with which it was competent to deal than to say that it was the
_spiritual or theological_ tribunal in contradistinction to the civil
judicatories of the Romans. On the contrary, it would be more correct to
say that it formed, in contrast to the foreign authority of Rome, that
_supreme native_ court which here, as almost everywhere else, the Romans
had allowed to continue as before, only imposing certain restrictions
with regard to competency. To this tribunal then belonged all those
judicial matters and all those measures of an administrative character
which either could not be competently dealt with by the inferior or
local courts or which the Roman procurator had not specially reserved
for himself."[2]

The closing words of the last quotation suggest an important fact which
furnishes the answer to the question asked at the beginning of this
chapter, Why were there two trials of Jesus? Schuerer declares that the
Sanhedrin retained judicial and administrative power in all local
matters which the "procurator had not specially reserved for himself."
Now, it should be borne in mind that there is not now in existence and
that there probably never existed any law, treaty or decree declaring
what judicial acts the Sanhedrin was competent to perform and what acts
were reserved to the authority of the Roman governor. It is probable
that in all ordinary crimes the Jews were allowed a free hand and final
decision by the Romans. No interference took place unless Roman
interests were involved or Roman sovereignty threatened. But one fact is
well established by the great weight of authority: that the question of
sovereignty was raised whenever the question of life and death arose;
and that Rome reserved to herself, in such a case, the prerogative of
final judicial determination. Even this contention, however, has been
opposed by both ancient and modern writers of repute; and, for this
reason, it has been thought necessary to cite authorities and offer
arguments in favor of the proposition that the right of life or death,
_jus vitae aut necis_, had passed from Jewish into Roman hands at the
time of Christ. Both sacred and profane history support the affirmative
of this proposition. Regarding this matter, Schuerer says: "There is a
special interest attaching to the question as to how far the
jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin was limited by the authority of the Roman
procurator. We accordingly proceed to observe that, inasmuch as the
Roman system of provincial government was not strictly carried out in
the case of Judea, as the simple fact of its being administered by means
of a procurator plainly shows, the Sanhedrin was still left in the
enjoyment of a comparatively high degree of independence. Not only did
it exercise civil jurisdiction, and that according to Jewish law (which
was only a matter of course, as otherwise a Jewish court of justice
would have been simply inconceivable), but it also enjoyed a
considerable amount of criminal jurisdiction as well. It had an
independent authority in regard to political affairs, and consequently
possessed the right of ordering arrests to be made by its own officers
(Matt. xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; Acts iv. 3; v. 17, 18). It had also the
power of finally disposing, on its own authority, of such cases as did
not involve sentence of death (Acts iv. 5-23; v. 21-40). It was only in
cases in which such sentence of death was pronounced that the judgment
required to be ratified by the authority of the procurator."[3]

The Jews contend, and, indeed, the Talmud states that "forty years
before the destruction of the temple the judgment of capital cases was
taken away from Israel."

Again, we learn from Josephus that the Jews had lost the power to
inflict capital punishment from the day of the deposition of Archelaus,
A.D. 6, when Judea became a Roman province and was placed under the
control of Roman procurators. The great Jewish historian says: "And now
Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one
of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as procurator, having
the power of life and death put into his hands by Caesar."[4]

Again, we are informed that Annas was deposed from the high priesthood
by the procurator Valerius Gratus, A.D. 14, for imposing and executing
capital sentences. One of his sons, we learn from Josephus, was also
deposed by King Agrippa for condemning James, the brother of Jesus, and
several others, to death by stoning. At the same time, Agrippa reminded
the high priest that the Sanhedrin could not lawfully assemble without
the consent of the procurator.[5]

That the Jews had lost and that the Roman procurators possessed the
power over life and death is also clearly indicated by the New Testament
account of the trial of Jesus. One passage explicitly states that Pilate
claimed the right to impose and carry out capital sentences. Addressing
Jesus, Pilate said: "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee
and have power to release thee?"[6]

In another passage, the Jews admitted that the power of life and death
had passed away from them. Answering a question of Pilate, at the time
of the trial, they answered: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to
death."[7]

If we keep in mind the fact stated by Geib that "the principle that
applied in Judea was that at least in regard to questions of religious
offense the high priest with the Sanhedrin could pronounce even death
sentences, for the carrying out of which, however, the confirmation of
the procurator was required," we are then in a position to answer
finally and definitely the question, Why were there two trials of Jesus?

In the light of all the authorities cited and discussed in this chapter,
we feel justified in asserting that the Sanhedrin was competent to take
the initiative in the arrest and trial of Jesus on the charge of
blasphemy, this being a religious offense of the most awful gravity;
that this court was competent not only to try but to pass sentence of
death upon the Christ; but that its proceedings had to be retried or at
least reviewed before the sentence could be executed. Thus two trials
were necessary. The Hebrew trial was necessary, because a religious
offense was involved with which Rome refused to meddle, and of which she
refused to take cognizance in the first instance. The Roman trial was
necessary, because, instead of an acquittal which would have rendered
Roman interference unnecessary, a conviction involving the death
sentence had to be reviewed in the name of Roman sovereignty.

Having decided that there were two trials, we are now ready to consider
the questions: Were the two trials separate and independent? If not, was
the second trial a mere review of the first, or was the first a mere
preliminary to the second? No more difficult questions are suggested by
the trial of Jesus. It is, in fact, impossible to answer them with
certainty and satisfaction.

A possible solution is to be found in the nature of the charge
preferred against Jesus. It is reasonable to suppose that in the
conflict of jurisdiction between Jewish and Roman authority the
character of the crime would be a determining factor. In the case of
ordinary offenses it is probable that neither Jews nor Romans were
particular about the question of jurisdiction. It is more than probable
that the Roman governor would assert his right to try the case _de
novo_, where the offense charged either directly or remotely involved
the safety and sovereignty of the Roman state. It is entirely reasonable
to suppose that the Jews would insist on a final determination by
themselves of the merits of all offenses of a religious nature; and that
they would insist that the Roman governor should limit his action to a
mere countersign of their decree. It is believed that ordinarily these
principles would apply. But the trial of Jesus presents a peculiar
feature which makes the case entirely exceptional. And this peculiarity,
it is felt, contains a correct answer to the questions asked above.
Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy. This
was a religious offense of the most serious nature. But when the Christ
was led before Pilate, this charge was abandoned and that of high
treason against Rome was substituted. Now, it is certain that a Roman
governor would not have allowed a Jewish tribunal to try an offense
involving high treason against Caesar. This was a matter exclusively
under his control. It is thus certain that Pilate did not merely review
a sentence which had been passed by the Sanhedrin after a regular trial,
but that he tried _ab initio_ a charge that had not been presented
before the Jewish tribunal at the night session in the palace of
Caiaphas.

It will thus be seen that there were two trials of Jesus; that these
trials were separate and independent as far as the charges, judges, and
jurisdictions were concerned; and that the only common elements were the
persons of the accusers and the accused.




CHAPTER III

POWERS AND DUTIES OF PILATE


What were the powers and duties of Pilate as procurator of Judea? What
forms of criminal procedure, if any, were employed by him in conducting
the Roman trial of Jesus? This chapter will be devoted to answering
these questions.

The New Testament Gospels denominate Pilate the "governor" of Judea. A
more exact designation is contained in the Latin phrase, _procurator
Caesaris_; the procurator of Caesar. By this is meant that Pilate was the
deputy, attorney, or personal representative of Tiberius Caesar in the
province of Judea. The powers and duties of his office were by no means
limited to the financial functions of a Roman quaestor, a _procurator
fiscalis_. "He was a procurator _cum potestate_; a governor with civil,
criminal, and military jurisdiction; subordinated no doubt in rank to
the adjacent governor of Syria, but directly responsible to his great
master at Rome."

A clear conception of the official character of Pilate is impossible
unless we first thoroughly understand the official character of the man
whose political substitute he was. A thorough understanding of the
official character of Tiberius Caesar is impossible unless we first fully
comprehend the political changes wrought by the civil wars of Rome in
which Julius Caesar defeated Cneius Pompey at the battle of Pharsalia and
made himself dictator and undisputed master of the Roman world. With the
ascendency of Caesar the ancient republic became extinct. But liberty was
still cherished in the hearts of Romans, and the title of king was
detestable. The hardy virtues and democratic simplicity of the early
republic were still remembered; and patriots like Cicero had dreamed of
the restoration of the ancient order of things. But Roman conquest was
complete, Roman manners were corrupt, and Roman patriotism was
paralyzed. The hand of a dictator guided by a single intelligence was
the natural result of the progressive degradation of the Roman state.
The logical and inevitable outcome of the death of Caesar and the
dissolution of the Triumvirate was the regime of Augustus, a monarchy
veiled under republican forms. Recognizing Roman horror of absolutism,
Roman love of liberty, and Roman detestation of kingly power, Augustus,
while in fact an emperor, claimed to be only a plain Roman citizen
intrusted with general powers of government. He affected to despise
public honors, disclaimed every idea of personal superiority, and
exhibited extreme simplicity of manners in public and private life. This
was the strategy of a successful politician who sought to conceal
offensive reality under the cloak of a pleasant deception. Great Caesar
fallen at the foot of Pompey's statue was a solemn reminder to Augustus
that the dagger of the assassin was still ready to defend the memory of
freedom, after liberty was, in reality, dead. And the refusal by the
greatest of the Romans, at the feast of the Lupercal, to accept a kingly
crown when it was thrice offered him by Antony, was a model of discreet
behavior and political caution for the first and most illustrious of the
emperors. In short, Augustus dared not destroy the laws or assault the
constitution of the state. But he accomplished his object, nevertheless.
"He gathered into his own hands the whole honors and privileges, which
the state had for centuries distributed among its great magistrates and
representatives. He became perpetual Princeps Senatus, or leader of the
legislative house. He became perpetual Pontifex Maximus, or chief of the
national religion. He became perpetual Tribune, or guardian of the
people, with his person thereby made sacred and inviolable. He became
perpetual Consul, or supreme magistrate over the whole Roman world, with
the control of its revenues, the disposal of its armies, and the
execution of its laws. And lastly he became perpetual Imperator, or
military chief, to whom every legionary throughout the world took the
_sacramentum_, and whose sword swept the globe from Gibraltar to the
Indus and the Baltic. And yet in all he was a simple citizen--a mere
magistrate of the Republic. Only in this one man was now visibly
accumulated and concentrated all that for centuries had broadened and
expanded under the magnificent abstraction of Rome." The boundless
authority of Rome was thus centered in the hands of a single person.
Consuls, tribunes, praetors, proconsuls, and procurators were merely the
agents and representatives of this person.

Tiberius Caesar, the political master of Pontius Pilate, was the
successor of Augustus and the first inheritor of his constitution. Under
this constitution, Augustus had divided the provinces into two classes.
The centrally located and peacefully disposed were governed by
proconsuls appointed by the senate. The more distant and turbulent were
subjected by Augustus to his personal control, and were governed by
procurators who acted as his deputies or personal representatives. Judea
came in his second class, and the real governor of his province was the
emperor himself. Tiberius Caesar was thus the real procurator of Judea at
the time of the crucifixion and Pilate was his political substitute who
did his bidding and obeyed his will. Whatever Tiberius might have done,
Pilate might have done. We are thus enabled to judge the extent of
Pilate's powers; powers clothed with _imperium_ and revocable only by
the great procurator at Rome.

In the government of the purely subject states of a province, the
procurator exercised the unlimited jurisdiction of the military
_imperium_. No law abridged the single and sovereign exercise of his
will. Custom, however, having in fact the force of law, prescribed that
he should summon to his aid a council of advisers. This advisory body
was composed of two elements: (1) Roman citizens resident in this
particular locality where the governor was holding court; and (2)
members of his personal staff known as the Praetorian Cohort. The
governor, in his conduct of judicial proceedings, might solicit the
opinions of the members of his council. He might require them to vote
upon the question at issue; and might, if he pleased, abide by the
decision of the majority. But no rule of law required him to do it; it
was merely a concession and a courtesy; it was not a legal duty.

Again, when it is said that the procurator exercised the "unlimited
jurisdiction of the military _imperium_," we must interpret this,
paradoxical though it may seem, in a restricted sense; that is, we must
recognize the existence of exceptions to the rule. It is unreasonable to
suppose that Rome, the mother of laws, ever contemplated the rule of
despotism and caprice in the administration of justice in any part of
the empire. It is true that the effect of the _imperium_, "as applied to
provincial governorship, was to make each _imperator_ a king in his own
domain"; but kings themselves have nearly always been subject to
restrictions; and the authorities are agreed that the _imperium_ of the
Roman procurator of the time of Christ was hemmed in by many
limitations. A few of these may be named.

In the first place, the rights guaranteed to subject states within the
provincial area by the law of the province (_lex provinciae_) were the
first limitations upon his power.

Again, it is a well-known fact that Roman citizens could appeal from the
decision of the governor, in certain cases, to the emperor at Rome. Paul
exercised this right, because he was a Roman citizen.[8] Jesus could
not appeal from the judgment of Pilate, because He was not a Roman
citizen.

Again, fear of an aroused and indignant public sentiment which might
result in his removal by the emperor, exercised a salutary restraint
upon the conduct, if it did not abridge the powers of the governor.

These various considerations bring us now to the second question asked
in the beginning of this chapter: What forms of criminal procedure, if
any, were employed by Pilate in conducting the Roman trial of Jesus?

It is historically true that Pilate exercised, as procurator of Judea,
the unlimited jurisdiction of the military _imperium_; and that this
_imperium_ made him virtually an "_imperator_, a king in his own
domain." It is also historically true that the inhabitants of the purely
subject states of a province, who were not themselves Roman citizens,
when accused of crime, stood before a Roman governor with no protection
except the plea of justice against the summary exercise of absolute
power. In other words, in the employment of the unlimited jurisdiction
of the military _imperium_, a Roman governor, in the exercise of his
discretion, might, in the case of non-Roman citizens of a subject state,
throw all rules and forms of law to the wind, and decide the matter
arbitrarily and despotically. It may be that Pilate did this in this
case. But the best writers are agreed that this was not the policy of
the Roman governors in the administration of justice in the provinces at
the time of Christ. The lawgiving genius of Rome had then reached
maturity and approximate perfection in the organization of its criminal
tribunals. It is not probable, as before suggested, that despotism and
caprice would be systematically tolerated anywhere in the Roman world.
If the emperors at Rome were forced, out of regard for public sentiment,
to respect the constitution and the laws, it is reasonable to infer that
their personal representatives in the provinces were under the same
restraint. We feel justified then in asserting that Pilate, in the trial
of Jesus, should have applied certain laws and been governed by certain
definite rules of criminal procedure. What were these rules? A few
preliminary considerations will greatly aid the reader in arriving at an
answer to this question. It should be understood:

(1) That Pilate was empowered to apply either Roman law or the local law
in the trial of any case where the crime was an offense against both the
province and the empire, as in the crime of murder; but that in the case
of treason with which Jesus was charged he would apply the law of Rome
under forms of Roman procedure. It has been denied that Pilate had a
right to apply Jewish law in the government of his province; but this
denial is contrary to authority. Innes says: "The Roman governor
sanctioned, or even himself administered, the old law of the region."[9]
Schuerer says: "It may be assumed that the administration of the civil
law was wholly in the hands of the Sanhedrin and native or local
magistrates: Jewish courts decided according to Jewish law. But even in
the criminal law this was almost invariably the case, only with this
exception, that death sentences required to be confirmed by the Roman
procurator. In such cases, the procurator decided, if he pleased,
according to Jewish law."[10] Greenidge says: "Even the first clause of
the Sicilian _lex_, if it contained no reference to jurisdiction by the
local magistrate, left the interpretation of the _native law_ wholly to
Roman _propraetors_."[11] It is thus clearly evident that Roman
procurators might apply either Roman or local laws in ordinary cases.

(2) That Roman governors were empowered to apply the adjective law of
Rome to the substantive law of the province. In support of this
contention, Greenidge says: "The edict of the _propraetor_ or
pro-consul, ... clearly could not express the native law of each
particular state under its jurisdiction; but its generality and its
expansiveness admitted, as we shall see, of an application of Roman
forms to the substantive law of any particular city."[12]

(3) That the criminal procedure employed by Pilate in the trial of Jesus
should have been the criminal procedure of a capital case tried at Rome,
during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. This fact is very evident from the
authorities. The trial of capital cases at Rome furnished models for
similar trials in the provinces. In the exercise of the unlimited
jurisdiction of the military _imperium_, Roman governors might disregard
these models. But, ordinarily, custom compelled them to follow the
criminal precedents of the Capital of the empire. The following
authorities support this contention.

Rosadi says: "It is also certain that in the provinces the same order
was observed in criminal cases as was observed in cases tried at
Rome."[13] This eminent Italian writer cites, in proof of this
statement, Pothier, Pandect. XLVIII. 2, n. 28.

Greenidge says: "Yet, in spite of this absence of legal checks, the
criminal procedure of the provinces was, in the protection of the
citizen as in other respects, closely modelled on that of Rome."[14]

To the same effect, but more clearly and pointedly expressed, is Geib,
who says: "It is nevertheless true that the knowledge which we have,
imperfect though it may be, leaves no doubt that the courts of the
Italian municipalities and provinces had, in all essential elements, the
permanent tribunals (_quaestiones perpetuae_) as models; so that, in fact,
a description of the proceedings in the permanent tribunals is, at the
same time, to be regarded as a description of the proceedings in the
provincial courts."[15]

These permanent tribunals (_quaestiones perpetuae_) were courts of
criminal jurisdiction established at Rome, and were in existence at the
time of the crucifixion. Proceedings in these courts in capital cases,
were models of criminal procedure in the provinces at the time of
Christ. It logically follows then that if we can ascertain the
successive steps in the trial of a capital case at Rome before one of
the permanent tribunals, we have accurate information of the exact form
of criminal procedure, not that Pilate did employ, but which he should
have employed in the trial of Jesus.

Fortunately for the purposes of this treatise, every step which Roman
law required in the trial of capital cases at Rome is as well known as
the provisions of any modern criminal code. From the celebrated Roman
trials in which Cicero appeared as an advocate, may be gleaned with
unerring accuracy the fullest information touching all the details of
capital trials at Rome at the time of Cicero.

It should be observed, at this point, that the period of Roman
jurisprudence just referred to was in the closing years of the republic;
and that certain changes in the organization of the tribunals as well as
in the forms of procedure were effected by the legislation of Augustus.
But we have it upon the authority of Rosadi that these changes were not
radical in the case of the criminal courts and that the rules and
regulations that governed procedure in them during the republic remained
substantially unchanged under the empire. The same writer tells us that
the permanent tribunals for the trial of capital cases did not go out of
existence until the third century of the Christian era.[16]

The following chapter will be devoted, in the main, to a description of
the mode of trial of capital cases at Rome before the permanent
tribunals at the time of Christ.




CHAPTER IV

MODE OF TRIAL IN ROMAN CAPITAL CASES


The reader should keep clearly and constantly in mind the purpose of
this chapter: to describe the mode of trial in capital cases at Rome
during the reign of Tiberius Caesar; and thus to furnish a model of
criminal procedure which Pilate should have imitated in the trial of
Jesus at Jerusalem. In the last chapter, we saw that the proceedings of
the permanent tribunals (_quaestiones perpetuae_) at Rome furnished models
for the trial of criminal cases in the provinces. It is now only
necessary to determine what the procedure of the permanent tribunals at
the time of Christ was, in order to understand what Pilate should have
done in the trial of Jesus. But the character of the _quaestiones
perpetuae_, as well as the rules and regulations that governed their
proceedings, cannot well be understood without reference to the criminal
tribunals and modes of trial in criminal cases that preceded them. Roman
history discloses two distinct periods of criminal procedure before the
organization of the permanent tribunals about the beginning of the last
century of the Republic: (1) The period of the kings and (2) the period
of the early republic. Each of these will be here briefly considered.

_The Regal Period._--The earliest glimpses of Roman political life
reveal the existence of a sacred and military monarchy in which the king
is generalissimo of the army, chief pontiff of the national religion,
and supreme judge in civil and criminal matters over the lives and
property of the citizens. These various powers and attributes are
wrapped up in the _imperium_. By virtue of the _imperium_, the king
issued commands to the army and also exercised the highest judicial
functions over the lives and fortunes of his fellow-citizens. The kings
were thus military commanders and judges in one person, as the consuls
were after them. The monarch might sit alone and judge cases and impose
sentences; but the trial was usually a personal investigation undertaken
by him with the advice and aid of a chosen body of judges from the
senate or the pontifical college. According to Dionysius, Romulus
ordered that all crimes of a serious nature should be tried by the king,
but that all lighter offenses should be judged by the senate.[17] Little
confidence can be reposed in this statement, since the age and deeds of
Romulus are exceedingly legendary and mythical. But it is historically
true that in the regal period of Rome the kings were the supreme judges
in all civil and criminal matters.

_The Early Republican Period._--The abolition of the monarchy and the
establishment of the republic witnessed the distribution of the powers
of government formerly exercised by the king among a number of
magistrates and public officers. Consuls, tribunes, praetors, aediles,
both curule and plebeian, exercised, under the republic, judicial
functions in criminal matters.

The consuls were supreme criminal judges at the beginning of the
republic, and were clothed with unlimited power in matters of life and
death. This is shown by the condemnation and execution of the sons of
Brutus and their fellow-conspirators.[18] Associated with the consuls
were, at first, two annually appointed quaestors whom they nominated. The
functions of the quaestors were as unlimited as those of their superiors,
the consuls; but their jurisdiction was confined chiefly to criminal
matters and finance.

The tribunes, sacred and inviolable in their persons as representatives
of the _plebs_ and as their protectors against patrician oppression,
exercised at first merely a negative control over the regular
magistracies of the community. But, finally, they became the chief
public prosecutors of political criminals.

The praetors, whose chief jurisdiction was in civil matters, were
potentially as fully criminal judges as the consuls, and there may have
been a time when a portion of criminal jurisdiction was actually in
their hands. In the later republic, they presided over the _quaestiones
perpetuae_, permanent criminal tribunals.

The aediles are found in Roman history exercising functions of criminal
jurisdiction, although their general powers were confined to the special
duties of caring for the games, the market, and the archives.

But the criminal jurisdiction of the magistrates who replaced the king
at the downfall of the monarchy was abridged and almost destroyed by the
famous _lex Valeria_ (_de provocatione_). This law was proposed 509 B.C.
by Publius Valerius, one of the first consuls of Rome, and provided that
no magistrate should have power to execute a sentence of death against a
Roman citizen who had appealed to the judgment of the people in their
public assembly. This _lex_ was the _magna charta_ of the Romans and was
justly regarded by them as the great palladium of their civil liberty.
And it was this law that inaugurated the popular jurisdiction of the
_comitia_. The result was that for more than three hundred years the
final determination of the question of life or death was in the hands of
the people themselves. From the passage of the Valerian law the function
of the magistrates was limited to the duty of convincing the people of
the guilt of an alleged criminal against whom they themselves had
already pronounced a preliminary sentence. The magistrates were,
therefore, not so much judges as prosecutors; the people were the final
judges in the case.

_Mode of Trial in the Comitia, or Public Assembly._--On a certain day,
the prosecuting magistrate, who had himself pronounced the preliminary
sentence against an accused person who had appealed to the people in
their public assembly, mounted the _rostra_, and called the people
together by the voice of a herald. He then made a proclamation that on
a certain day he would bring an accusation against a certain person upon
a given charge. At the same time, he called upon this person to come
forward and hear the charges against him. The defendant then presented
himself, listened to the accusation, and immediately furnished bond for
his appearance, or in default of bail, was thrown into prison. Upon the
day announced at the opening of the trial, the prosecuting magistrate
again mounted the _rostra_, and summoned the accused by a herald, if he
was at large, or had him brought forth if he was in prison. The
prosecutor then produced evidence, oral and documentary, against the
prisoner. The indictment had to be in writing, and was published on
three market days in the Forum. The prosecution came to an end on the
third day, and the accused then began his defense by mounting the
_rostra_ with his patron and presenting evidence in his own behalf. The
prosecutor then announced that on a certain day he would ask the people
to render judgment by their votes. In the early years of the republic,
the people voted by shouting their approval or disapproval of the
charges made; but later a tablet bearing one of the two letters V. (_uti
rogas_) or A. (_absolvo_) was used as a ballot.

The effect of popular jurisdiction in criminal processes at Rome was in
the nature of a two-edged sword that cut both ways. It was beneficial in
the limitations it imposed upon the conduct of single magistrates who
were too often capricious and despotic. But this benefit was purchased
at the price of a kind of popular despotism not less dangerous in its
way. It has always been characteristic of popular assemblies that their
decisions have been more the outcome of passion and prejudice than the
result of calm wisdom and absolute justice. The trouble at Rome was that
the people were both legislators and judges in their public assemblies;
and it nearly always happened that the lawmakers rose above and trampled
upon the very laws which they themselves had made. The natural offspring
of this state of things is either anarchy or despotism; and it was only
the marvelous vitality of the Roman Commonwealth that enabled it to
survive.

The reports of the great criminal trials before the _comitia_ reveal the
inherent weakness of a system of popular jurisdiction in criminal
matters. Personal and political considerations foreign to the merits of
the case were allowed to take the place of competent evidence; and
issues of right and expediency were too frequently mixed up. The
accused, at times, trusted not so much in the righteousness of his cause
as in the feelings of compassion and prejudice that moved the people as
popular judges. And to excite these feelings the most ludicrous and
undignified steps were sometimes taken. The defendant nearly always
appeared at the trial in mourning garb, frequently let his hair and
beard grow long, and often exhibited the scars and wounds received in
battle whilst fighting for his country. He sometimes offered prayers to
the immortal gods and wept bitterly; at other times he caused his
children and other relatives to appear at the trial, wailing, and
tearing their clothes. Not content with presenting all the pathetic
features of his own life, he left nothing undone to expose his opponents
to hatred and contempt. It thus happened that many of the great criminal
causes of Rome were mere farcical proceedings. A few instances may be
cited.

Horatius, though tried in the time of the third Roman king, was pardoned
by the people for the murder of his sister because of his heroic deed in
single combat with the three Curiatii, and because his father had lost
three children in the service of the state.

In the year 98, Manlius Aquillius, the pacificator of Sicily, was tried
for embezzlement. Marcus Antonius, his advocate, ended his argument for
the defense by tearing the tunic of Aquillius to show the breast of the
veteran warrior covered with scars. The people were moved to tears and
Aquillius was acquitted, although the evidence was very clear against
him.

In the trial of M. Manlius, 384 B.C., new tactics were employed. The
accused refused to appear in mourning. There was no weeping in his
behalf. On the other hand, Manlius relied upon his services to the state
for acquittal. He brought forward four hundred citizens who by his
generosity he had saved from bondage for debt; he exhibited the spoils
taken from thirty slain enemies, also military decorations received for
bravery in battle--among them two mural and eight civic crowns; he then
produced many citizens rescued by him from the hands of the enemy; he
then bared his breast and exhibited the scars received by him in war;
and, lastly, turning toward the Capitol, he implored Jupiter to protect
him, and to infuse, at this moment, into the Roman people, his judges,
the same spirit of courage and patriotism that had given him strength to
save the city of Rome and his whole country from the hands of the Gauls.
He begged the people to keep their eyes fixed on the Capitol while they
were pronouncing sentence against him to whom they owed life and
liberty. It is said that his prosecutors despaired of convicting him
amidst such surroundings, and adjourned the trial to another place,
where the Capitol could not be seen; and that thereupon the conviction
of Manlius was secured and his condemnation pronounced.

In the year 185 B.C., the tribune M. Naevius, at the instigation of Cato,
accused Scipio Africanus before the tribes of having been bribed to
secure a dishonorable peace. It was clearly evident that a charge of
this kind could not well be sustained by evidence; but it was believed
that a conviction could be secured by an appeal to the passion and
prejudice of the multitude. But this advantage operated as greatly in
favor of Scipio as it did in favor of his accusers. And he did not fail
to use the advantage to the fullest extent. In seeming imitation of M.
Manlius, two hundred years before, he appealed for acquittal to the
people on account of his public services. He refused to appear in
mourning, offered no evidence in his own behalf, nor did he exhibit the
usual humility of an accused Roman before his countrymen. With proud
disdain, he spurned the unworthy imputation of bribery, and pointed the
people to the magnificent achievements of his brilliant public career.
He reminded them that the day of the trial was itself the anniversary of
his victory over the greatest enemy that Rome ever had, at Zama. It was
degrading, he exclaimed, both to him and to the Roman nation, to bring
such a charge on this day against the man to whom it was due that the
Commonwealth of Rome still existed. He refused to lower himself, he
said, by listening to the insolent charges of a vulgar brawler who had
never done anything for the state. He declared that instead he would
repair at once to the temple of Jupiter and render thanks for his
victory over Hannibal to the protecting gods of his country. With these
words, he left the Forum and went to the Capitol and from there to his
house, accompanied by the great majority of the people, while the
accusing tribune and his official staff were left alone in the market
place.

The inevitable result of these cases of miscarriage of justice, in which
patriotic bravado and rhetorical claptrap took the place of legal rules,
was a desire and demand for the reform of criminal procedure. Besides,
it had ever been found troublesome and inconvenient to summon the whole
body of the Roman people to try ordinary offenses. It was only in cases
of great gravity that the ponderous machinery of the _comitia
centuriata_ could be set in motion. This difficulty was increased with
the growth of the republic, in which crimes also grew in number and
magnitude. The necessity for the reform of the criminal law resulted in
the institution of permanent tribunals (_quaestiones perpetuae_). A series
of legal enactments accomplished this result. The earliest law that
created a permanent _quaestio_ was the _lex Calpurnia_ of 149 B.C. And it
was the proceedings in these courts, which we shall now describe, that
should have guided Pilate in the trial of Jesus.

_Mode of Trial in the Permanent Tribunals._--We shall attempt to trace
in the remaining pages of this chapter the successive steps in the trial
of criminal cases before the permanent tribunals at Rome.

_First Stage_ (_postulatio_).--A Roman criminal trial before a _quaestio
perpetua_ commenced with an application to the presiding magistrate, the
praetor or the _iudex quaestionis_, for permission to bring a criminal
charge against a certain person. The technical Latin expression for this
request to prosecute is _postulatio_. It should be here noted that
State's attorneys or public prosecutors, in a modern sense, were not
known to the Romans at this time. Private citizens took upon themselves
public prosecutions in behalf of the state. They were encouraged to do
this from motives of personal profit as well as patriotic interest in
the welfare of the community. As young men in modern times, just
admitted to the bar, often accept criminal cases by assignment from the
court in order to make a beginning in their professional careers, so
young Roman nobles in ancient times sought to make reputations for
themselves by accusing and prosecuting public delinquents. And not only
professional reputation, but financial compensation as well could be
gained in this way. The Roman laws of the time of Cicero provided that a
successful prosecutor should receive one-fourth part of the property
confiscated or the fine imposed. A Macedonian inscription offered a
reward of 200 denarii to the prosecutor who should bring to justice the
desecrators of a tomb.[19]

_Second Stage_ (_divinatio_).--It often happened that more than one
accuser desired to prosecute a single offense; but more than one
prosecutor was not permitted by Roman law unless there was more than one
crime charged. Then, in case of a concurrence of would-be accusers, a
preliminary trial was had to determine which one of these was best
fitted to bring the accusation. This initial hearing was known in Roman
law as the _divinatio_. It was indeed more than a mere hearing; it was a
regular trial in which the question of the fitness of the different
candidates for the position of _delator_ was argued before the president
and the jury. This jury was in many cases distinct from the one that
finally tried the case on the merits. The purpose of the whole
proceeding known as the _divinatio_ was to secure a prosecutor who was
at once both able and sincere; and both these qualities were generally
very strenuously urged by all those who desired to assume the role of
accuser. Indeed all personal qualifications involving the mental and
moral attributes of the would-be prosecutors were pointedly urged. At
the hearing, the different candidates frequently became animated and
even bitter opponents of each other. Crimination and recrimination then
followed as a natural consequence. An applicant might show that he was
thoroughly familiar with the affairs of a province, as a special fitness
in the prosecution of a public official for extortion in that province.
An opponent, on the other hand, might show that said applicant had been
associated with said official in the government of the province and had
been, and was now, on the friendliest terms with him. After the
meritorious qualifications of all the claimants had been presented, the
president and jury rendered their decision. The details of the evidence
affecting the merits of the charge were not considered at this
preliminary trial. Only such facts were considered as affected the
personal qualifications of the different candidates for the place of
accuser. When these qualifications were about equally balanced in point
of merit between two applicants, the abler speaker was generally chosen.

_Third Stage_ (_nominis delatio_).--It frequently happened that the
_postulatio_, the request to prosecute, was not followed by the
_divinatio_, the preliminary hearing on the merits of different
applicants, because there was only one would-be accuser; and his
qualifications were beyond dispute. In such a case, when a request to
bring a criminal charge against a certain person had been presented by a
citizen to the praetor, there followed, after a certain interval of time,
a private hearing before the president of the court for the purpose of
gaining fuller and more definite information concerning the charge. This
private proceeding was styled the _nominis_ or _criminis delatio_, and
took place before the president alone. Its main object was to secure a
specification of the personality of the accused as well as of the
charges brought against him. At this stage of the trial the presence of
the accused person was necessary, unless he was absent under valid
excuse. The _lex Memmia_, passed in the year 114 B.C., permitted a
delinquent to plead that he was absent from Rome on public business, as
an excuse for not appearing at the _nominis delatio_. In the year 58
B.C., the tribune L. Antistius impeached Julius Caesar. But the
colleagues of Antistius excused Caesar from personal attendance because
he was absent in the service of the state in Gaul. But, if the accused
appeared at the _nominis delatio_, the prosecutor interrogated him at
length concerning the facts of the crime. The purpose of this
interrogation (_interrogatio_) was to satisfy the president that there
was a prima facie case to carry before the regular tribunal in open
trial. The proceedings of the _nominis delatio_ were thus in the nature
of a modern Grand Jury investigation, instituted to determine if a
serious prosecution should be had.

_Fourth Stage_ (_inscriptio_).--If the interrogation convinced the
president that the prosecutor had a prima facie case to take before the
permanent tribunal, he framed a form of indictment called the
_inscriptio_. This indictment was signed by the chief prosecutor and
also by a number of witnesses against the accused called
_subscriptores_. The charge was now definitely fixed; and, from this
moment, it was the only offense that could be prosecuted at the trial.
The drawing up of this charge by the president was similar to the
framing of an indictment by a modern Grand Jury.

_Fifth Stage_ (_nominis receptio_).--After the indictment or inscription
had been framed, it was formally received by the president. This act
was styled the _nominis receptio_ and corresponds, in a general way,
with the presentment of an indictment by a modern Grand Jury. When the
_nominis receptio_ was complete, the case was said to be _in judicio_,
and the accused was said to be _in reatu_. The president then fixed a
day certain for the appearance of the accused and the beginning of the
trial. The time fixed was usually ten days from the _nominis receptio_.
However, a longer time was allowed if evidence had to be secured from
beyond the sea. Thirty days were allowed the accusers in the prosecution
of Scaurus. Cicero was given one hundred and ten days to secure evidence
against Verres; but he actually employed only sixty. The time granted
the prosecutor was also required by the law to be utilized by the
defendant in preparing his case.

The preliminary steps in the prosecution were now complete, and the
accused awaited the day of trial. In the meantime, he was allowed to go
at large, even when charged with a grave offense like murder.
Imprisonment to prevent escape had almost ceased at the time of which we
write. If the evidence against the accused was weak, it was felt that he
would certainly appear at the trial. If the evidence against him was
very strong, it was thought that he would seek to escape a sentence of
death in voluntary exile, a step which Romans always encouraged, as they
were averse, at all times, to putting a Roman citizen to death.

_Sixth Stage_ (_citatio_).--At the expiration of the time designated by
the president for the beginning of the trial, the proceedings before the
judges began. All the necessary parties, including the judges or jurors,
were summoned by a herald to appear. This procedure was termed the
_citatio_. Strange to say, if the accused failed to appear the case
could proceed without him. The reason for the requirement of his
presence at the _nominis delatio_, but not at the trial is not clear;
especially when viewed in the light of a modern trial in which the
defendant must be present at every important step in the proceedings.
Under Roman procedure, the presence of the defendant was not necessary,
whether he was in voluntary exile, or was obstinately absent. In 52
B.C., Milo was condemned in his absence; and we read in Plutarch that
the assassins of Caesar were tried in their absence, 43 B.C.

Excusable absence necessitated an adjournment of the case. The chief
grounds for an adjournment were: (1) Absence from the city in the public
service; (2) that the accused was compelled to appear in another court
on the same day; (3) illness.

The absence of the accused did not prevent the prosecution of the case,
but the nonappearance of the prosecutor on the day fixed for the
beginning of the trial usually terminated the proceedings at once. The
fact that the case had to be dismissed if the accuser failed to appear
only serves to illustrate how dependent the state was on the sincerity
of the citizen who undertook the prosecution. The obligations of the
prosecutor honestly and vigorously to follow up a suit which he had set
in motion were felt to be so serious a matter by the Romans that
special laws were passed to hold him in the line of duty. The _lex
Remmia_ provided that if any citizen knowingly accused another citizen
falsely of a crime, the accuser should be prosecuted for calumny
(_calumnia_). It further provided that, in case of conviction, the
letter K should be branded on the forehead of the condemned. Such laws
were found necessary to protect the good name of Roman citizens against
bad men who desired to use the legal machinery of the state to gratify
private malevolence against their enemies. It may thus be seen that the
system which permitted public prosecutions on the motion of private
citizens was attended by both good and bad results. Cicero regarded such
a system as a positive benefit to the state.[20] Its undoubted effect
was to place a check upon corruption in public office by subjecting the
acts of public officials to the scrutiny and, if need be, to the censure
of every man in the nation. On the other hand, accusers in public
prosecutions came finally to be identified, in the public mind, with
coarse and vulgar informers whose only motive in making public
accusations was to create private gain. So thoroughly were they despised
that one of the parasites of Plautus scornfully exclaims that he would
not exchange his vocation, though low and groveling, with that of the
man who makes a legal proceeding "his net wherein to catch another man's
goods."[21]

_Seventh Stage_ (_impaneling the judges_).--But if the prosecutor
appeared in due time, the trial formally began by the impaneling of the
judges. This was usually done by the praetor or _iudex quaestionis_ who,
at the beginning of the trial, placed the names of the complete panel of
jurors, inscribed on white tablets, into an urn, and then drew out a
certain number. Both prosecutor and accused had the right to challenge a
limited number, as the names were being drawn. The number of challenges
allowed varied from time to time.

_Eighth Stage_ (_beginning of the trial_).--When the judges had been
impaneled, the regular proceedings began. The place of trial was the
Forum. The curule chair of the praetor and the benches of the judges,
constituting the tribunal, were here placed. On the ground in front of
the raised platform upon which the praetor and judges sat, were arranged
the benches of the parties, their advocates and witnesses. Like the
ancient Hebrew law, Roman law required that criminal cases should be
tried only by daylight, that is, between daybreak and one hour before
sunset. At the opening of the trial, the prosecutor, backed by the
_subscriptores_, and the accused, supported by his patrons and
advocates, appeared before the tribunal.

In a modern criminal trial the case is opened by the introduction of
testimony which is followed by regular speeches of counsel for the
people and the defendant. In those jurisdictions where opening addresses
are required before the examination of the witnesses, the purpose is to
inform the jury of the facts which it is proposed to prove. Argument and
characterization are not permitted in these opening speeches. The real
speeches in which argument and illustration are permitted come after the
evidence has been introduced. The purpose of these closing speeches is
to assist the jury in determining matters of fact from conflicting
testimony.

Under the Roman system of trial in criminal cases, the order was
reversed. The regular speeches containing argument, characterization,
and illustration, as well as a statement of the facts proposed to be
proved, were made in the very beginning. Evidence was then introduced to
show that the orators had told the truth in their speeches.

It is not practicable in this place to discuss the kinds and relevancy
of evidence under Roman criminal procedure. Suffice it to say that
slaves were always examined under torture.

The close of the evidence was followed by the judgment of the tribunal.

_Ninth Stage_ (_voting of the judges_).--The judges voted by ballot, and
a majority of votes decided the verdict. The balloting was done with
tablets containing the letters A. (_absolvo_), C. (_condemno_) and N. L.
(_non liquet_). When the votes had been cast, the tablets were then
counted by the president of the tribunal. If the result indicated a
condemnation, he pronounced the word _fecisse_; if an acquittal, the
phrase, _non fecisse videtur_; if a doubtful verdict (_non liquet_), the
words _amplius esse cognoscendum_. The result of a doubtful (_non
liquet_) verdict was a retrial of the case at some future time.

Such were the main features of the trial of a capital case at Rome at
the date of the crucifixion. Such was the model which, according to the
best authorities, Pilate was bound to follow in the trial of Jesus. Did
he imitate this model? Did he observe these rules and regulations? We
shall see.




CHAPTER V

ROMAN FORMS OF PUNISHMENT


According to Gibbon, the laws of the Twelve Tables, like the statutes of
Draco, were written in blood. These famous decrees sanctioned the
frightful principle of the _lex talionis_; and prescribed for numerous
crimes many horrible forms of punishment. The hurling from the Tarpeian
Rock was mild in comparison with other modes of execution. The traitor
to his country had his hands tied behind his back, his head shrouded in
a veil, was then scourged by a lictor, and was afterwards crucified, in
the midst of the Forum by being nailed to the _arbor infelix_. A
malicious incendiary, on a principle of retaliation, was delivered to
the flames. He was burned to death by being wrapped in a garment covered
with pitch which was then set on fire.[22] A parricide was cast into the
Tiber or the sea, inclosed in a sack, to which a cock, a viper, a dog,
and a monkey had been successively added as fit companions in death.[23]

But the development of Roman jurisprudence and the growth of Roman
civilization witnessed a gradual diminution in the severity of penal
sanctions, in the case of free citizens, until voluntary exile was the
worst punishment to which a wearer of the toga was compelled to submit.
The Porcian and Valerian laws prohibited the magistrates from putting
any Roman citizen to death. The principle underlying these laws was the
offspring of a proud and patriotic sentiment which exempted the masters
of the world from the extreme penalties reserved for barbarians and
slaves. Greenidge, interpreting Cicero, very elegantly expresses this
sentiment: "It is a _facinus_ to put a Roman citizen in bonds, a
_scelus_ to scourge him, _prope parricidium_ to put him to death."

The subject of this volume limits the discussion in this chapter to a
single Roman punishment: Crucifixion. Around this word gather the most
frightful memories and, at the same time, the sweetest and sublimest
hopes of the human race. A thorough appreciation of the trial of Jesus,
it is felt, renders necessary a comparatively exhaustive treatment of
the punishment in which all the horrors and illegalities of the
proceedings against Him culminated.

_History._--Tradition attributes the origin of crucifixion, the most
frightful and inhuman form of punishment ever known, to a woman,
Semiramis, Queen of Assyria. We are reminded by this that quartering,
drawing at a horse's tail, breaking on the wheel, burning and torture
with pincers, were provisions in a codex bearing the name of a woman:
Maria Theresa.[24]

Crucifixion was practiced by the ancient Egyptians, Carthaginians,
Persians, Germans, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. The Romans employed
this form of punishment on a colossal scale. The Roman general Varus
crucified 2,000 Jews in one day at the gates of Jerusalem. The close of
the war with Spartacus, the gladiator, witnessed the crucifixion of
10,000 slaves between Capua and Rome.

Crucifixion, as a form of punishment, was unknown to the ancient
Hebrews. The penalty of death was enforced among them by burning,
strangling, decapitation, and stoning. The "hanging" of criminals "on a
tree," mentioned in Deut. xxi. 22, was a posthumous indignity offered
the body of the criminal after death by stoning, and struck horror to
the soul of every pious Israelite who beheld it. Among the Romans also
degradation was a part of the infliction, since crucifixion was
peculiarly a _supplicium servile_. Only the vilest criminals, among free
men, such as were guilty of robbery, piracy, assassination, perjury,
sedition, treason, and desertion from the army, met death in this way.
The _jus civitatis_ protected Roman citizens against this punishment.

_Mode of Crucifixion._--A sentence of death having been pronounced by a
Roman magistrate or tribunal, scourging became a preliminary to
execution. This was done with the terrible _flagellum_ into which the
soldiers frequently stuck nails, pieces of bone, and other hard
substances to heighten the pain which was often so intense as to produce
death. The victim was generally bound to a column to be scourged. It was
claimed by Jerome, Prudentius, Gregory of Tours, and others that they
had seen the one to which Jesus was bound before His scourging began.
After the flagellation, the prisoner was conducted to the place of
execution. This was outside the city, often in some public road, or
other conspicuous place like the Campus Martius at Rome. The criminal
was compelled to carry his own cross; and when he had arrived at the
place of crucifixion, he was compelled to watch the preparations for his
torture. Before his eyes and in his presence, the cross was driven into
the ground; and, after having been stripped naked, he was lifted upon
and nailed to it. It sometimes happened that he was stretched upon it
first and then lifted with it from the ground. The former method was the
more common, however, as it was desired to strike terror into the victim
by the sight of the erection of the cross. The body was fastened to the
cross by nails driven into the hands and sometimes into the feet; more
frequently, however, the feet were merely bound by cords.

The pictures of crosses in works of art are misrepresentations, in that
they are too large and too high. The real cross of antiquity was very
little longer than the victim, whose head was near the top, and whose
feet often hung only twelve or fifteen inches from the ground. Pictorial
art is also false because it fails to show the projecting beam from near
the center of the cross upon which the criminal sat. That there was such
a beam is attested by the almost unanimous voice of antiquity.

Crucifixion was conducted, under Roman auspices, by a _carnifex_, or
hangman, assisted by a band of soldiers. At Rome, execution was done
under the supervision of the _Triumviri Capitales_. The duty of the
soldiers was not only to erect the cross and nail the victim to it, but
also to watch him until he was dead. This was a necessary precaution to
prevent friends and relatives from taking the criminal down and from
carrying him away, since he sometimes continued to live upon the cross
during several days. If taken down in time, the suffering man might
easily be resuscitated and restored to health. Josephus tells us that
three victims were ordered to be taken down by Titus at his request, and
that one of them recovered. "In the later persecutions of the
Christians, the guards remained four or six days by the dead, in order
to secure them to the wild beasts and to cut off all possibility of
burial and resurrection; and in Lyons the Christians were not once able
by offers of much gold to obtain the privilege of showing compassion
upon the victims of the pagan popular fury. Sometimes, however,
particularly on festival days, e.g., the birthdays of the emperors, the
corpse was given up to the friends of the deceased, either for money or
without money, although even Augustus could be cruel enough to turn a
deaf ear to the entreaties of the condemned for sepulture."[25]

Roman records tell us that the soldiers frequently hastened death by
breaking the legs of the criminal; at other times, fires were built
about the cross beneath him; and, again, wild beasts were turned loose
upon him.

It was the general custom to allow the body to remain and rot upon the
cross, or to be devoured by wild beasts and birds of prey. "Distracted
relatives and friends saw the birds of prey attack the very faces of
those whom they loved; and piety often took pains to scare away the
birds by day and the beasts by night, or to outwit the guards that
watched the dead."[26]

Sepulture was generally forbidden by law, though there were exceptions
to the rule. At the request of Joseph of Arimathea, Pilate consented
that Jesus should be taken down and buried.[27] A national exception
seems also to have been made in the case of the Jews on account of the
requirements of Deut. xxi. 22, 23.

_Pathology._--The following pathological phases of death by crucifixion
are from a treatise by the celebrated physician, Richter (in John's
"Bibl. Arch."), which have been reproduced in Strong and McClintock's
"Cyclopedia":

"(1) The unnatural position and violent tension of the body, which cause
a painful sensation from the least motion.

"(2) The nails, being driven through parts of the hands and feet which
are full of nerves and tendons (and yet at a distance from the heart)
create the most exquisite anguish.

"(3) The exposure of so many wounds and lacerations brings on
inflammation, which tends to become gangrene, and every movement
increases the poignancy of suffering.

"(4) In the distended parts of the body, more blood flows through the
arteries than can be carried back into the veins: hence too much blood
finds its way from the aorta into the head and stomach, and the blood
vessels of the head become pressed and swollen. The general obstruction
of circulation which ensues causes an intense excitement, exertion, and
anxiety more intolerable than death itself.

"(5) The inexpressible misery of _gradually increasing_ and lingering
anguish.

"(6) Burning and raging thirst.

"Death by crucifixion (physically considered) is, therefore, to be
attributed to the sympathetic fever which is excited by the wounds, and
aggravated by exposure to the weather, privation of water, and the
painfully constrained position of the body. Traumatic fever corresponds,
in intensity and in character, to the local inflammation of the wound,
is characterized by heat, swelling, and great pain, the fever is highly
inflammatory, and the sufferer complains of heat, throbbing headache,
intense thirst, restlessness, and anxiety. As soon as suppuration sets
in, the fever somewhat abates, and partially ceases as suppuration
diminishes and the stage of cicatrization approaches. But if the wound
be prevented from healing and suppuration continues, the fever assumes a
hectic character, and will sooner or later exhaust the powers of life.
When, however, the inflammation of the wound is so intense as to produce
mortification, nervous depression is the immediate consequence; and, if
the cause of this excessive inflammation of the wound still continues,
as is the case in crucifixion, the sufferer rapidly sinks. He is no
longer sensible of pain, but his anxiety and sense of prostration are
excessive; hiccough supervenes, his skin is moistened with a cold clammy
sweat, and death ensues. It is in this manner that death on the cross
must have taken place in an ordinarily healthy constitution."

The intense sufferings and prolonged agony of crucifixion can be best
illustrated by an account of several cases of this form of punishment
taken from history.

From the "Chrestomathia Arabica" of Kosegarten, published in 1828, is
taken the following story of the execution of a Mameluke. The author of
this work gleaned the story from an Arabic manuscript entitled "The
Meadow of Flowers and the Fragrant Odour":

"It is said that he had killed his master for some cause or other, and
he was crucified on the banks of the river Barada under the castle of
Damascus, with his face turned toward the East. His hands, arms, and
feet were nailed, and he remained so from midday on Friday to the same
hour on Sunday, when he died. He was remarkable for his strength and
prowess; he had been engaged with his master in sacred war at Askelon,
where he slew great numbers of the Franks; and when very young he had
killed a lion. Several extraordinary things occurred at his being
nailed, as that he gave himself up without resistance to the cross, and
without complaint stretched out his hands, which were nailed and after
them his feet: he in the meantime looked on, and did not utter a groan,
or change his countenance or move his limbs. I have heard this from one
who witnessed it, and he thus remained till he died, patient and silent,
without wailing, but looking around him to the right and the left upon
the people. But he begged for water, and none was given him, and he
gazed upon it and longed for one drop of it, and he complained of thirst
all the first day, after which he was silent, for God gave him
strength."

Describing the punishments used in Madagascar, Rev. Mr. Ellis says: "In
a few cases of great enormity, a sort of crucifixion has been resorted
to; and, in addition to this, burning or roasting at a slow fire, kept
at some distance from the sufferer, has completed the horrors of this
miserable death.... In the year 1825, a man was condemned to
crucifixion, who had murdered a female for the sake of stealing her
child. He carried the child for sale to the public market, where the
infant was recognized, and the murderer detected. He bore his punishment
in the most hardened manner, avenging himself by all the violence he was
capable of exercising upon those who dragged him to the place of
execution. Not a single groan escaped him during the period he was
nailed to the wood, nor while the cross was fixed upright in the
earth."[28]

More horrible still than punishment by crucifixion was that of
impalement and suspension on a hook. The following description of the
execution, in 1830, at Salonica, of Chaban, a captain of banditti, is
given by Slade: "He was described by those who saw him as a very
fine-looking man, about thirty-five. As a preparatory exercise, he was
suspended by his arms for twelve hours. The following day a hook was
thrust into his side, by which he was suspended to a tree, and there
hung enduring the agony of thirst till the third evening, when death
closed the scene; but before that about an hour the birds, already
considering him their own, had alighted upon his brow to pick his eyes.
During this frightful period he uttered no unmanly complaints, only
repeated several times, 'Had I known that I was to suffer this infernal
death, I would never have done what I have. From the moment I led the
klephte's life I had death before my eyes, and was prepared to meet it,
but I expected to die as my predecessors, by decapitation.'"[29]

_The Cross._--The instrument of crucifixion, called the Cross, was
variously formed. Lipsius and Gretser have employed a twofold
classification: the _crux simplex_, and the _crux composita_ or
_compacta_. A single upright stake was distinguished as a _crux
simplex_. The _crux composita_, the compound or actual cross, was
subject to the following modifications of form: _Crux immissa_, formed
as in the Figure [symbol: Cross]; _crux commissa_ thus formed [symbol:
T-cross]; and the _crux decussata_, the cruciform figure, set diagonally
after the manner of the Roman letter X. It is generally thought that
Jesus was crucified upon the _crux immissa_, the "Latin cross."

According to the well-known legend of the "Invention of the Cross," the
actual cross on which Jesus was crucified was discovered in the year 326
A.D. by the Empress Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great. As the
story goes, while visiting Jerusalem and the scenes of the passion, she
was guided to the summit of Calvary by an aged Jew. Here an excavation
was made, and, at a considerable depth, three crosses were found; and,
with them, but lying aside by itself, was the inscription, in Hebrew,
Latin, and Greek, placed above the head of Christ at the time of the
crucifixion. To determine which of the three crosses was the one upon
which Jesus suffered, it was decided, at the suggestion of Macarius,
bishop of Jerusalem, to employ a miracle. The sick were brought and
required to touch the three. According to the legend, the one upon which
the Savior died immediately imparted miraculous healing. A church was at
once built above the excavation and in it was deposited the greater part
of the supposed real cross, and the remainder was sent to Byzantium, and
from there to Rome, where it was placed in the church of Santa Croce in
Gerusalemme, built especially to receive the precious relic. The
genuineness of this relic was afterwards attested by a Bull of Pope
Alexander III.

In connection with the legend of the discovery of the actual cross upon
which Christ was crucified, goes a secondary story that the nails used
at the crucifixion were also found at the same time and place. Later
tradition declared that one of these was thrown by Helena into the
Adriatic when swept by a terrific storm, and that this was followed by
an instantaneous calm.

The popular impression among Christians that the cross is exclusively a
Christian religious symbol, seems to be without historical foundation.
It is quite certain, indeed, that it was a religious emblem among
several ancient races before the beginning of the Christian era.

The ancient Egyptians adored the cross with the most holy veneration;
and this sacred emblem was carved upon many of their monuments. Several
of these monuments may be seen to-day in the British Museum.[30] A cross
upon a Calvary may also be seen upon the breast of one of the Egyptian
mummies in the Museum of the London University.[31] The ancient
Egyptians were accustomed to putting a cross on their sacred cakes, just
as the Christians of to-day do, on Good Friday.[32]

The cross was also adored by the ancient Greeks and Romans, long before
the crucifixion of Christ. Greek crosses of equal arms adorn the tomb of
Midas, the ancient Phrygian king.[33] One of the early Christian
Fathers, Minucius Felix, in a heated controversy with the pagan Romans,
charged them with adoration of the cross. "As for adoration of the
cross," said he to the Romans, "which you object against us, I must tell
you that we neither adore crosses nor desire them. You it is, ye Pagans,
who worship wooden gods, who are the most likely people to adore wooden
crosses, as being part of the same substance with your deities. For what
else are your ensigns, flags, and standards, but crosses, gilt and
beautiful? Your victorious trophies _not only represent a cross, but a
cross with a man upon it_."[34]

It also seems that, at a time antedating the early Romans, Etruscans and
Sabines, a primitive race inhabited the plains of Northern Italy, "to
whom the cross was a religious symbol, the sign beneath which they laid
their dead to rest; a people of whom history tells nothing, knowing not
their name; but of whom antiquarian research has learned this, that they
lived in ignorance of the arts of civilization, that they dwelt in
villages built on platforms over lakes, and that they trusted to the
cross to guard, and maybe to revive, their loved ones whom they
committed to the dust."

The cross was also a sacred symbol among the ancient Scandinavians. "It
occurs," says Mr. R. P. Knight, "on many Runic monuments found in Sweden
and Denmark, which are of an age long anterior to the approach of
Christianity to those countries, and, probably, to its appearance in the
world."[35]

When the Spanish missionaries first set foot on the soil of Mexico, they
were amazed to find that the Aztecs worshiped the cross as an object of
supreme veneration. They found it suspended as a sacred symbol and an
august emblem from the walls of all the Aztec temples.[36] When they
penetrated farther south and entered Peru, they found that the Incas
adored a cross made out of a single piece of jasper.[37] "It appears,"
says "Chambers's Encyclopedia," "that the sign of the cross was in use
as an emblem having certain religious and mystic meanings attached to
it, long before the Christian era; and the Spanish conquerors were
astonished to find it an object of religious veneration among the
nations of Central and South America."[38]

That the ancient Mexicans should have worshiped the cross and also a
crucified Savior, called Quetzalcoatle,[39] is one of the strangest
phenomena of sacred history. It is a puzzle which the most eminent
theologians have found it impossible to solve. They have generally
contented themselves with declaring the whole thing a myth built upon
primitive superstition and ignorance. This worship of the cross and
Quetzalcoatle was going on before Columbus discovered America, and it
seems impossible to establish any historical or geographical connection
between it and the Christian worship of the cross and the crucified
Jesus.

Several writers of eminence have contended that the widespread adoration
of the cross, as a sacred symbol, among so many races of mankind,
ancient and modern, proves a universal spiritual impulse, culminating in
the crucifixion of Jesus as the common Savior of the world. "It is more
than a coincidence," says the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, "that Osiris by the
cross should give life eternal to the spirits of the just; that with the
cross Thor should smite the head of the great Serpent, and bring to life
those who were slain; that beneath the cross the Muysca mothers should
lay their babes, trusting to that sign to secure them from the power of
evil spirits; that with that symbol to protect them, the ancient people
of Northern Italy should lay them down in the dust."[40]

But it is not with the mythical crucifixions of mythical gods that we
have to deal. The real, historical death of Jesus upon the cross with
its accompanying incidents of outrageous illegality is the purpose of
this treatise; and to the accomplishment of that design we now return.




CHAPTER VI

ROMAN LAW APPLICABLE TO THE TRIAL OF JESUS


_What was the law of Rome in relation to the trial of Jesus?_ The answer
to this question is referable to the main charge brought against the
Master before Pilate. A single verse in St. Luke contains the
indictment: "And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow
perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying
that he himself is Christ a King." Three distinct elements are wrapped
up in this general accusation; but they are all interwoven with and
culminate in the great charge that Jesus claimed to be "Christ a King."
Of this accusation alone, Pilate took cognizance. And there is no
mistake as to its nature and meaning. It was High Treason against
Caesar--the most awful crime known to Roman law. This was the charge
brought by the priests of the Sanhedrin against the Nazarene. What then
was the law of Rome in relation to the crime of high treason? The older
Roman law, _crimen perduellionis_, applied chiefly to offenses committed
in the military service. Deserters from the army were regarded as
traitors and punished as public enemies either by death or
interdiction of fire and water. Later Roman law broadened the definition
of treason until it comprehended any offense against the Roman
Commonwealth that affected the dignity and security of the Roman people.
Ulpian, defining treason, says: "_Majestatis crimen illud est quod
adversus populum Romanum vel adversus securitatem ejus committitur._"[41]
Cicero very admirably describes the same crime as: "_Majestatem minuere
est de dignitate aut amplitudine aut potestate populi aut eorum quibus
populus potestatem dedit aliquid derogare._"[42] The substance of both
these definitions is this: Treason is an insult to the dignity or an
attack upon the sovereignty and security of the Roman State. From time
to time, various laws were passed to define this crime and to provide
penalties for its commission. Chief among these were the _lex Julia
Majestatis_, 48 B.C. Other laws of an earlier date were the _lex
Cornelia_, 81 B.C.; _lex Varia_, 92 B.C.; and the _lex Appuleia_, 100
B.C. The _lex Julia_ was in existence at the time of Christ, and was the
basis of the Roman law of treason until the closing years of the empire.
One of its provisions was that every accusation of treason against a
Roman citizen should be made by a written libel. But it is not probable
that provincials were entitled to the benefit of this provision; and it
was not therefore an infraction of the law that the priests and Pilate
failed to present a written charge against Jesus.

[Illustration: TIBERIUS CAESAR (ANTIQUE SCULPTURE)]

In studying the trial of Jesus and the charge brought against Him, the
reader should constantly remind himself that the crucifixion took place
during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, a morbid and capricious tyrant,
whose fretful and suspicious temper would kindle into fire at the
slightest suggestion of treason in any quarter. Tacitus records
fifty-two cases of prosecution for treason during his reign. The
enormous development of the law of _majestas_ at this time gave rise to
a class of professional informers, _delatores_, whose infamous activity
against private citizens helped to blacken the name of Tiberius. The
most harmless acts were at times construed into an affront to the
majesty or into an assault upon the safety of this miserable despot.
Cotta Messalinus was prosecuted for treason because it was alleged "that
he had given Caligula the nickname of Caia, as contaminated by incest";
and again on another charge that he had styled a banquet among the
priests on the birthday of Augusta, a "funeral supper"; and again on
another charge that, while complaining of the influence of Manius
Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius, with whom he had had trouble in court, he
had said that "they indeed will be supported by the senate, but I by my
little Tiberius."[43]

Manercus Scaurus was prosecuted for treason because he wrote a tragedy
in which were certain lines that might be made to apply in an
uncomplimentary manner to Tiberius. We are told by Dio that this tragedy
was founded on the story of Atreus; and that Tiberius, believing himself
referred to, said, "Since he makes me another Atreus, I will make him an
Ajax," meaning that he would compel him to destroy himself.[44]

"Nor," says Tacitus, "were even women exempt from danger. With designs
to usurp the government they could not be charged; their tears are
therefore made treason; and Vitia, mother to Fusius Geminus, once
consul, was executed in her old age for bewailing the death of her
son."[45]

An anecdote taken from Seneca but related in Tacitus, illustrates the
pernicious activity of the political informers of this age. At a banquet
in Rome, one of the guests wore the image of Tiberius on his ring. His
slave, seeing his master intoxicated, took the ring off his finger. An
informer noticed the act, and, later in the evening, insisted that the
owner, to show his contempt of Tiberius, was sitting upon the figure of
the emperor. Whereupon he began to draw up an accusation for high
treason and was getting ready to have it attested by subscribing
witnesses, when the slave took the ring from his own pocket, and thus
demonstrated to the whole company that he had had it in his possession
all the time. These instances fully serve to illustrate the political
tone and temper of the age that witnessed the trial and crucifixion of
Jesus. They also suggest the exceedingly delicate and painful position
of Pilate when sitting in judgment upon the life of a subject of
Tiberius who claimed to be a king.

It is deemed entirely appropriate, in this place, to discuss a peculiar
phase of the law of treason in its relationship to the trial of Jesus.
It is easily demonstrable that the teachings of Christ were treasonable
under Roman public law. An essential and dominating principle of that
law was that the imperial State had the right to regulate and control
the private consciences of men in religious matters. It was held to be
an attribute of the sovereignty of Rome that she had the right to create
or destroy religions. And the theory of the Roman constitution was that
the exercise of this right was not a religious but a governmental
function. The modern doctrine of the separation of Church and State had
no place in Roman politics at the time of Christ. Tiberius Caesar, at the
beginning of his reign, definitely adopted the principle of a state
religion, and as Pontifex Maximus, was bound to protect the ancient
Roman worship as a matter of official duty.

Roman treatment of foreign religions, from first to last, is a most
interesting and fascinating study. Polytheistic above all other nations,
the general policy of the Roman empire was one of toleration. Indeed she
not only tolerated but adopted and absorbed foreign worships into her
own. The Roman religion was a composite of nearly all the religions of
the earth. It was thus natural that the imperial State should be
indulgent in religious matters, since warfare upon foreign faiths would
have been an assault upon integral parts of her own sacred system. It is
historically true that attempts were made from time to time by patriotic
Romans to preserve the old Latin faith in its original purity from
foreign invasion. The introduction of Greek gods was at first vigorously
opposed, but the exquisite beauty of Greek sculpture, the irresistible
influence of Greek literature, and the overwhelming fascination of Greek
myths, finally destroyed this opposition, and placed Apollo and
AEsculapius in the Roman pantheon beside Jupiter and Minerva.

At another time the senate declared war on the Egyptian worship which
was gradually making its way into Rome. It had the images of Isis and
Serapis thrown down; but the people set them up again. It decreed that
the temples to these deities should be destroyed, but not a single
workman would lay hands upon them. AEmilius Paulus, the consul, was
himself forced to seize an ax and break in the doors of the temple. In
spite of this, the worship of Isis and Serapis was soon again practiced
unrestrained at Rome.[46]

It is further true that Rome showed not only intolerance but mortal
antagonism to Druidism, which was completely annihilated during the
reign of the Emperor Claudius.

A decree of the Roman senate, during the reign of Tiberius, ordered four
thousand freemen charged with Egyptian and Jewish superstitions out to
Sardinia to fight against and be destroyed by the banditti there, unless
they saw fit to renounce these superstitions within a given time.[47]

But it must be remembered that these are exceptional cases of
intolerance revealed by Roman history. The general policy of the empire,
on the other hand, was of extreme tolerance and liberality. The keynote
of this policy was that all religions would be tolerated that consented
to live side by side and in peace with all other religions. There was
but one restriction upon and limitation of this principle, that foreign
religions would be tolerated only in their local seats, or, at most,
among the races in which such religions were native. The fact that the
worship of Serapis was left undisturbed on the banks of the Nile, did
not mean that the same worship would be tolerated on the banks of the
Tiber. An express authorization by Rome was necessary for this purpose.
Said authorization made said worship a _religio licita_. And the
peregrini, or foreigners in Rome, were thus permitted to erect their own
altars, and to assemble for the purpose of worshiping their own gods
which they had brought with them. The reverse side of this general
principle of religious tolerance shows that Roman citizens were not only
permitted but required to carry the Roman faith with them throughout the
world. Upon them, the Roman state religion was absolutely binding; and
for all the balance of the world it was the dominant cult. "The
provinces," says Renan, "were entirely free to adhere to their own
rights, on the sole condition of not interfering with those of others."
"Such toleration or indifference, however," says Doellinger, "found its
own limits at once whenever the doctrine taught had a practical bearing
on society, interfered with the worship of the state gods, or confronted
their worship with one of its own; as well as when a strange god and
_cultus_ assumed a hostile attitude toward Roman gods, could be brought
into no affinity or corporate relation with them, and would not bend to
the supremacy of Jupiter Capitolinus."

Now, the principles declared by Renan and Doellinger are fundamental and
pointed in the matter of the relationship between the teachings of Jesus
and the theory of treason under Roman law. These principles were
essential elements of Roman public law, and an attempt to destroy them
was an act of treason under the definitions of both Ulpian and Cicero.
The Roman constitution required that a foreign religion, as a condition
of its very existence, should live in peace with its neighbors; that it
should not make war upon or seek to destroy other religions; and that it
should acknowledge the dominance and superior character of the imperial
religion. All these things Jesus refused to do, as did his followers
after Him. The Jews, it is true, had done the same thing, but their
nationality and lack of aggressiveness saved them until the destruction
of Jerusalem. But Christianity was essentially aggressive and
proselytizing. It sought to supplant and destroy all other religions. No
compromises were proposed, no treaties concluded. The followers of the
Nazarene raised a black flag against paganism and every heathen god.
Their strange faith not only defied all other religions, but mocked all
earthly government not built upon it. Their propaganda was nothing less
than a challenge to the Roman empire in the affairs of both law and
religion. Here was a faith which claimed to be the only true religion;
that proclaimed a monotheistic message which was death to polytheism;
and that refused to be confined within local limits. Here was a
religion that scorned an authorization from Rome to worship its god and
prophet; a religion that demanded acceptance and obedience from all the
world--from Roman and Greek, as well as Jew and Egyptian. This scorn and
this demand were an affront to the dignity and a challenge to the laws
of the Roman Commonwealth. Such conduct was treason against the
constitution of the empire.

"The substance of what the Romans did," says Sir James Fitz-James
Stephen, "was to treat Christianity by fits and starts as a crime."[48]
But why a crime? Because the Roman religion, built upon polytheism, was
an integral and inseparable part of the Roman State, and whatever
menaced the life of the one, threatened the existence of the other. The
Romans regarded their religion as "an engine of state which could not be
shaken without the utmost danger to their civil government." Cicero
further says: "The institutions of the fathers must be defended; it is
the part of wisdom to hold fast the sacred rites and ceremonies."[49]
Roman statesmen were fully aware of the truthfulness of the statement of
a modern writer that, "wherever the religion of any state falls into
disregard and contempt it is impossible for that state to subsist long."
Now, Christianity was monotheistic, and threatened destruction to
polytheism everywhere. And the Romans treated it as a crime because it
was regarded as a form of seditious atheism whose teachings and
principles were destructive of the established order of things. The
Roman conception of the nature of the crime committed by an attack upon
the national religion is well illustrated by the following sentence from
Doellinger: "If an opinion unfavorable to the apotheosis of any member of
the imperial dynasty happened to be dropped, it was dangerous in itself
as falling within the purview of the law of high treason; and so it fell
out in the case of Thrasea Paetus, who refused to believe in the
deification of Poppaea." If it was high treason to refuse to believe in
the deification of an emperor or an empress, what other crime could be
imputed to him whose design was to destroy an entire religious system,
and to pile all the gods and goddesses--Juno and Poppaea, Jupiter and
Augustus--in common ruin?

From the foregoing, it may be readily seen that it is impossible to
appreciate the legal aspects of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, unless
it is constantly kept in mind that the Roman constitution, which was
binding upon the whole empire, reserved to the state the right to permit
or forbid the existence of new religious faiths and the exercise of
rights of conscience in religious matters. Rome was perfectly willing to
tolerate all religions as long as they were peaceful and passive in
their relations with other religions. But when a new and aggressive
faith appeared upon the scene, proclaiming the strange dogma that there
was but one name under heaven whereby men might be saved, and demanding
that every knee bow at the mention of that name, and threatening
damnation upon all who refused, the majesty of Roman law felt itself
insulted and outraged; and persecution, torture, and death were the
inevitable result. The best and wisest of the Roman emperors, Trajan
and the Antonines, devoted to the ax or condemned to crucifixion the
early Christians, not because Christianity was spiritually false, but
because it was aggressive and intolerant, and they believed its
destruction necessary to the maintenance of the supremacy and
sovereignty of the Roman State.

An interesting correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, while the former
was governor of Bithynia, reveals the Roman conception of and attitude
toward Christianity. Pliny wrote to Trajan: "In the meanwhile, the
method I have observed toward those who have been brought before me as
Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they
admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with
punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished,
for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a
contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction.
There were others also brought before me possessed with the same
infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to
Rome."

To this, Trajan replied: "You have adopted the right course, my dearest
Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were
brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for
all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If, indeed,
they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be
punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he
is a Christian, and shall make it evident he is not, by invoking our
gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon
his repentance."[50] Here the magnanimous Trajan called Christianity a
crime, and this was the popular Roman conception of it during the first
two centuries of its existence.

Now, it is true that Christianity was not on trial before Pilate; but
the Author of Christianity was. And the same legal principles were
extant and applicable that afterwards brought the Roman State and the
followers of the Nazarene into mortal conflict. For the prisoner who now
stood before the procurator to answer the charge of high treason
asserted substantially the same claims and proclaimed the same doctrines
that afterwards caused Rome to devote His adherents to flames and to
wild beasts in the amphitheater. The record does not disclose that
Pilate became fully acquainted at the trial of Jesus with His claims and
doctrines. On the other hand, it is clear that he became convinced that
the claim of Jesus to be "Christ a King" was not a pretension to earthly
sovereignty. But, nevertheless, whatever might have been the information
or the notions of the deputy of Tiberius, the teachings of Jesus were
inconsistent and incompatible with the public law of the Roman State.
Pilate was not necessarily called upon to enforce this law, since it was
frequently the duty of Roman governors, as intimated by Trajan in his
letter to Pliny, to exercise leniency in dealing with religious
delinquents.

To summarize, then: it may be said that the Roman law applicable to the
trial of Jesus was the _lex Julia Majestatis_, interpreted either in the
light of claims to actual kingship made by Jesus, or to kingship of a
religious realm whose character and existence were a menace to the
religion and laws of Rome. In the light of the evidence adduced at the
hearing before Pilate, these legal principles become mere abstract
propositions, since there seems to have been neither necessity nor
attempt to enforce them; but they were in existence, nevertheless, and
were directly applicable to the trial of Jesus.




[Illustration: PONTIUS PILATE (MUNKACSY)]




CHAPTER VII

PONTIUS PILATE


_His Name._--The praenomen or first name of Pilate is not known. Rosadi
calls him Lucius, but upon what authority is not stated. His nomen or
family name indicates that he was connected either by descent or by
adoption with the gens of the Pontii, a tribe first made famous in Roman
history in the person and achievements of C. Pontius Telesinus, the
great Samnite general. A German legend, however, offers another
explanation. According to this story, Pilate was the natural son of
Tyrus, King of Mayence. His father sent him to Rome as a hostage, and
there he was guilty of murder. Afterwards he was sent to Pontus, where
he distinguished himself by subduing certain barbarian tribes. In
recognition of his services, it is said, he received the name Pontius.
But this account is a pure fabrication. It is possible that it was
invented by the 22d legion, which was assigned to Palestine at the time
of the destruction of Jerusalem, and was afterwards stationed at
Mayence. The soldiers of this legion might have been "either the bearers
of this tradition or the inventors of the fable."

It is historically almost certain that Pilate was a native of Seville,
one of the cities of Baetic Spain that enjoyed rights of Roman
citizenship. In the war of annihilation waged by Agrippa against the
Cantabrians, the father of Pilate, Marcus Pontius, acquired fame as a
general on the side of Rome. He seems to have been a renegade to the
cause of the Spaniards, his countrymen. And when Spain had been
conquered by Rome, as a reward for service, and as a mark of
distinction, he received the pilum (javelin), and from this fact his
family took the name of Pilati. This is the common explanation of the
origin of the cognomen Pilatus.

Others have sought to derive the word Pilate from _pileatus_, which,
among the Romans, was the cap worn as a badge of servitude by manumitted
slaves. This derivation would make Pontius Pilate a _libertus_, or the
descendant of one.

Of his youth, very little is known. But it is believed that, after
leaving Spain, he entered the suite of Germanicus on the Rhine and
served through the German campaigns; and that, when peace was concluded,
he went to Rome in search of fortune and in pursuit of pleasure.

_His Marriage._--Soon after his arrival in Rome, Pilate was married to
Claudia, the youngest daughter of Julia, the daughter of Augustus. Julia
was a woman of the most dissolute and reckless habits. According to
Suetonius, nothing so embittered the life of the Roman emperor as the
shameful conduct of the mother of the wife of the procurator of Judea.
He had reared her with the utmost care, had accustomed her to domestic
employments such as knitting and spinning, and had sought to inculcate
principles of purity and nobility of soul by requiring her to speak and
act openly before the family, that everything which was said and done
might be put down in a diary. His guardianship of the attentions paid
her by young men was so strict that he once wrote a letter to Lucius
Vinicius, a handsome young man of good family, in which he said: "You
have not behaved very modestly, in making a visit to my daughter at
Baiae." Notwithstanding this good training, Julia became one of the
lewdest and coarsest women in Rome. Augustus married her first to
Marcellus; then, after the death of Marcellus, to Marcus Agrippa; and,
finally, to Tiberius. But in spite of the noble matches that had been
made for her, her lewdness and debaucheries became so notorious that
Augustus was compelled to banish her from Rome. It is said that he was
so much ashamed of her infamous conduct that for a long time he avoided
all company, and even had thoughts of putting her to death. His sorrow
and humiliation are shown from the circumstance that when one Phoebe,
a freedwoman and confidante of hers, hanged herself about the time the
decree of banishment was passed by the senate, he said: "I had rather be
the father of Phoebe than of Julia." And whenever the name of Julia
was mentioned to him, during her exile, Augustus was wont to exclaim:
"Would I were wifeless, or had childless died."[51]

Such was the character of Julia, mother-in-law of Pilate. In exile, she
bore Claudia to a Roman knight. In her fifteenth year, the young girl
met the Spaniard in Rome and was courted by him. Nothing better
illustrates the character of Pilate than his union with this woman with
whose origin and bringing up he was well acquainted. It was a servile
and lustful rather than a noble and affectionate eye which he cast upon
her. Having won the favor of Tiberius and the consent of Claudia, the
marriage was consummated. After the nuptial rites, tradition has it that
Pilate desired to follow the bride in the imperial litter; but Tiberius,
who had acted as one of the twelve witnesses required by the law, forced
him back, and drawing a paper from his bosom, handed it to him and
passed on. This paper contained his commission as procurator of Judea;
and the real object of the suit paid to Claudia was attained.

Pilate proceeded at once to Caesarea, the headquarters of the government
of his province. His wife, who had been left behind, joined him
afterwards. Caesar's permission to do this was a most gracious
concession, as it was not generally allowed that governors of provinces
should take their wives with them. At first it was positively forbidden.
But afterwards a _senatus consult_, which is embodied in the Justinian
text, declared it better that the wives of proconsuls and procurators
should not go with them, but ordaining that said officials might take
their wives with them provided they made themselves personally
responsible for any transgressions on their part. Notwithstanding the
numerous restrictions of Roman law and custom, it is very evident that
the wives of Roman officers frequently accompanied them to the
provinces. From Tacitus we learn that at the time of the death of
Augustus, Germanicus had his wife Agrippina with him in Germany; and
afterwards, in the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, she was also with
him in the East. Piso, the praefect of Syria, took his wife with him at
the same time. These facts are historical corroborations of the Gospel
accounts of the presence of Claudia in Jerusalem at the time of the
crucifixion and of her warning dream to Pilate concerning the fate of
the Master.

_His Procuratorship._--Pontius Pilate was the sixth procurator of Judea.
Sabinus, Coponius, Ambivus, Rufus, and Gratus had preceded him in the
government of the province. Pilate's connection with the trial and
crucifixion of Jesus will be dealt with in succeeding chapters of this
volume. Only the chief acts of his public administration, in a purely
political capacity, will be noticed here. One of the first of these acts
serves well to illustrate the reckless and tactless character of the
man. His predecessors in office had exercised great care in the matter
of the religious prejudices of the Jews. They had studiously avoided
exhibiting flags and other emblems bearing images of the emperor that
might offend the sacred sentiments of the native population. Even
Vitellius, the legate of Syria, when he was marching against the Arabian
king Aretas, ordered his troops not to carry their standards into Jewish
territory, but to march around it. Pilate, on the other hand, in
defiance of precedent and policy, caused the garrison soldiers of
Jerusalem to enter the city by night carrying aloft their standards,
blazoned with the images of Tiberius. The news of this outrage threw the
Jews into wild excitement. The people in great numbers flocked down to
Caesarea, where Pilate was still stopping, and begged him to remove the
standards. Pilate refused; and for five days the discussion went on. At
last he became enraged, summoned the people into the race course, had
them surrounded by a detachment of soldiers, and served notice upon them
that he would have them put to death if they did not become quiet and
disperse. But, not in the least dismayed, they threw themselves upon the
ground, laid bare their necks, and, in their turn, served notice upon
Pilate that they, the children of Abraham, would rather die, and that
they would die, before they would willingly see the Holy City defiled.
The result was that Pilate finally yielded, and had the standards and
images withdrawn from Jerusalem. Such was the Roman procurator and such
the people with whom he had to deal. Thus the very first act of his
procuratorship was a blunder which embarrassed his whole subsequent
career.

A new storm burst forth when, on another occasion, Pilate appropriated
funds from the Corban or sacred treasury to complete an aqueduct for
bringing water to Jerusalem from the "Pools of Solomon." This was
certainly a most useful enterprise; and, ordinarily, would speak well
for the statesmanship and administrative ability of the procurator. But,
in this instance, it was only another exhibition of tactless behavior in
dealing with a stubborn and peculiar people. The Jews had a very great
reverence for whatever was set apart for the Corban, and they considered
it a form of awful impiety to devote its funds to secular purposes.
Pilate, we must assume, was well acquainted with their religious
scruples in this regard, and his open defiance of their prejudices was
an illustration not of courage, but of weakness in administrative
matters. Moreover, his final conduct in the matter of the aqueduct
revealed a malignant quality in the temper of the man. On one occasion
when he was getting ready to go to Jerusalem to supervise the building
of this work, he learned that the people would again importune him, as
in the case of the standards and the images. He then deliberately caused
some of his soldiers to be disguised as Jewish citizens, had them armed
with clubs and daggers, which they carried concealed beneath their upper
garments; and when the multitude approached him to make complaints and
to present their petitions, he gave a preconcerted signal, at which the
assassins beat down and cut to pieces great numbers of the helpless
crowds. Pilate was victorious in this matter; for the opposition to the
building of the aqueduct was thus crushed in a most bloody manner. But
hatred against Pilate was stirred up afresh and intensified in the
hearts of the Jews.

A third act of defiance of the religious prejudices of the inhabitants
of Jerusalem illustrates not only the obstinacy but the stupidity as
well of the deputy of Caesar in Judea. In the face of his previous
experiences, he insisted on hanging up in Herod's palace certain gilt
shields dedicated to Tiberius. The Jews remonstrated with him in vain
for this new outrage upon their national feelings. They were all the
more indignant because they believed that he had done it, "less for the
honor of Tiberius than for the annoyance of the Jewish people." Upon the
refusal of Pilate to remove the shields, a petition signed by the
leading men of the nation, among whom were the four sons of Herod, was
addressed to the emperor, asking for the removal of the offensive
decorations. Tiberius granted the request and the shields were taken
from Jerusalem and deposited in the temple of Augustus at Caesarea--"And
thus were preserved both the honor of the emperor and the ancient
customs of the city."[52]

The instances above cited are recounted in the works of Josephus[53] and
Philo. But the New Testament also contains intimations that Pilate was a
cruel and reckless governor in his dealings with the Jews. According to
St. Luke xiii. 1: "There were present at that season some that told him
of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices."
Nothing definite is known of this incident mentioned by the Evangelist.
But it probably refers to the fact that Pilate had put to the sword a
number of Galileans while they were offering their sacrifices at
Jerusalem.

_His Character._--The estimates of the character of Pilate are as varied
as the races and creeds of men. Both Josephus and Philo have handed down
to posterity a very ugly picture of the sixth Roman procurator of
Judea. Philo charges him with "corruptibility, violence, robberies,
ill-treatment of the people, grievances, continuous executions without
even the form of a trial, endless and intolerable cruelties." If we were
to stop with this, we should have a very poor impression of the deputy
of Tiberius; and, indeed at best, we can never either admire or love
him. But there is a tender and even pathetic side to the character of
Pilate, which is revealed to us by the Evangelists of the New Testament.
The pure-hearted, gentle-minded authors of the Gospels, in whose
writings there is not even a tinge of bitterness or resentment, have
restored "for us the man within the governor, with a delicacy, and even
tenderness, which make the accusing portrait of Philo and Josephus look
like a hard, revengeful daub." Instead of painting him as a monster,
they have linked conscience to his character and placed mercy in his
heart, by their accounts of his repeated attempts to release Jesus. The
extreme of pity and of pathos, derived from these exquisitely merciful
side touches of the gentle biographers of the Christ, is manifested in
the opinion of Tertullian that Pilate was virtually a Christian at
heart.[54]

A further manifestation is the fact that the Abyssinian Church of
Christians has canonized him and placed his name in the calendar on June
25th.

A still further revelation of this spirit of regarding Pilate merely as
a sacred instrument in the hands of God is shown by the Apocryphal
Gospel of Nicodemus which speaks of him as "uncircumcised in flesh but
circumcised in heart."

Renan has called him a good administrator, and has sought to condone his
brutal treatment of the Jews by pointing to the necessity of vigorous
action in dealing with a turbulent and fanatical race. But the combined
efforts of both sacred and secular apologists are still not sufficient
to save the name of Pilate from the scorn and reprobation of mankind.
That he was not a bad man in the worst sense of the term is manifest
from the teachings of the Gospel narratives. To believe that he was
wholly without conscience is to repudiate the revelations of these
sacred writings. Of wanton cruelty and gratuitous wickedness, he was
perhaps incapable. But the circumstances of his birth and breeding; his
descent from a renegade father; his adventurous life in the army of
Germanicus; his contact with and absorption of the skepticism and
debauchery of Rome; his marriage to a woman of questionable virtue whose
mother was notoriously coarse and lewd--all these things had given
coloring to the character of Pilate and had stricken with inward
paralysis the moral fiber of his manhood. And now, in the supreme moment
of his life and of history, from his nerveless grasp fell the reins of
fate and fortune that destiny had placed within his hands. Called upon
to play a leading role in the mighty drama of the universe, his craven
cowardice made him a pitiable and contemptible figure. A splendid
example this, the conduct of Pilate, for the youth of the world, not to
imitate but to shun! Let the young men of America and of all the earth
remember that a crisis is allotted to every life. It may be a great one
or a small one, but it will come either invited or unbidden. The sublime
courage of the soul does not avoid, but seeks this crisis. The bravest
and most holy aspirations leap at times like angels from the temple of
the brain to the highest heaven. Never a physician who does not long for
the skill that discovers a remedy for disease and that will make him a
Pasteur or a Koch; never a poet that does not beseech the muse to
inspire him to write a Hamlet or a Faust; never a general of armies who
would not fight an Austerlitz battle. Every ambitious soul fervently
prays for strength, when the great crisis comes, to swing the hammer of
the Cyclop with the arm of the Titan. Let the young aspirant for the
glories of the earth and the rewards of heaven remember that youth is
the time for the formation of that courage and the gathering of that
strength of which victory is born. Let him remember that if he degrades
his physical and spiritual manhood in early life, the coming of the
great day of his existence will make him another Pilate--cringing,
crouching, and contemptible.

The true character of the Roman judge of Jesus is thus very tersely
given by Dr. Ellicott: "A thorough and complete type of the later Roman
man of the world: stern, but not relentless; shrewd and worldworn,
prompt and practical, haughtily just, and yet, as the early writers
correctly perceived, self-seeking and cowardly; able to perceive what
was right, but without moral strength to follow it out."[55]

_His End._--Pilate's utter recklessness was the final cause of his
undoing. It was an old belief among the Samaritans that Moses buried the
sacred vessels of the temple on Mt. Gerizim. An impostor, a sort of
pseudo-prophet, promised the people that if they would assemble on the
top of the mountain, he would unearth the holy utensils in their
presence. The simple-minded Samaritans assembled in great numbers at the
foot of the Mount, and there preparing to ascend, when Pilate on the
pretense that they were revolutionists, intercepted them with a strong
force of horse and foot. Those who did not immediately submit were
either slain or put to flight. The most notable among the captives were
put to death. The Samaritans at once complained to Vitellius, the legate
in Syria at that time. Vitellius at once turned over the administration
of Judea to Marcellus and ordered Pilate to leave for Rome in order to
give an account to the emperor of the charges brought against him by the
Jews.[56] Before he arrived in Italy, Tiberius had died; but Pilate
never returned to the province over which he had ruled during ten bloody
and eventful years.

"_Paradosis Pilati._"--The death of Pilate is clouded in mystery and
legend. Where and when he died is not known. Two apocryphal accounts are
interesting, though false and ridiculous. According to one legend, the
"Paradosis Pilati," the emperor Tiberius, startled and terrified at the
universal darkness that had fallen on the Roman world at the hour of the
crucifixion, summoned Pilate to Rome to answer for having caused it. He
was found guilty and condemned to death; but before he was executed, he
prayed to Jesus that he might not be destroyed in eternity with the
wicked Jews, and pleaded ignorance as an excuse for having delivered the
Christ to be crucified. A voice from heaven answered his prayer, and
assured him that all generations would call him blessed, and that he
should be a witness for Christ at his second coming to judge the Twelve
Tribes of Israel. He was then executed; an angel, according to the
legend, received his head; and his wife died from joy and was buried
with him.

"_Mors Pilati._"--According to another legend, the "Mors Pilati,"
Tiberius had heard of the miracles of healing wrought by Jesus in Judea.
He ordered Pilate to conduct to Rome the man possessed of such divine
power. But Pilate was forced to confess that he had crucified the
miracle worker. The messenger sent by Tiberius met Veronica who gave him
the cloth that had received the impress of the divine features. This was
taken to Rome and given to the emperor, who was restored to health by
it. Pilate was summoned immediately to stand trial for the execution of
the Christ. He presented himself wearing the holy tunic. This acted as a
charm upon the emperor, who temporarily relented. After a time, however,
Pilate was thrown into prison, where he committed suicide. His body was
thrown into the Tiber. Storms and tempests immediately followed, and the
Romans were compelled to take out the corpse and send it to Vienne,
where it was cast into the Rhone. But as the storms and tempests came
again, the body was again removed and sent to Lucerne, where it was sunk
in a deep pool, surrounded by mountains on all sides. Even then, it is
said, the water of the pool began to boil and bubble strangely.

This tradition must have had its origin in an early attempt to connect
the name of Pilate with Mt. Pilatus that overlooks Lake Lucerne. Another
legend connected with this mountain is that Pilate sought to find an
asylum from his sorrows in its shadows and recesses; that, after
spending years in remorse and despair, wandering up and down its sides,
he plunged into the dismal lake which occupies its summit. In times
past, popular superstition was wont to relate how "a form is often seen
to emerge from the gloomy waters, and go through the action of washing
his hands; and when he does so, dark clouds of mist gather first round
the bosom of the Infernal Lake (such as it has been styled of old) and
then wrapping the whole upper part of the mountain in darkness, presage
a tempest or hurricane which is sure to follow in a short space."[57]

The superstitious Swiss believed for many centuries that if a stone were
thrown into the lake a violent storm would follow. For many years no one
was permitted to visit it without special authority from the officers of
Lucerne. The neighboring shepherds bound themselves by a solemn oath,
which they renewed annually, never to guide a stranger to it.[58] The
strange spell was broken, however, and the legend exploded in 1584,
when Johannes Mueller, cure of Lucerne, was bold enough to throw stones
into the lake, and to stand by complacently to await the
consequences.[59]




CHAPTER VIII

JESUS BEFORE PILATE


At the close of their trial, according to Matthew[60] and Mark,[61] the
high priest and the entire Sanhedrin led Jesus away to the tribunal of
the Roman governor. It was early morning, probably between six and seven
o'clock, when the accusing multitude moved from the judgment seat of
Caiaphas to the Praetorium of Pilate. Oriental labor anticipates the day
because of the excessive heat of noon; and, at daybreak, Eastern life is
all astir. To accommodate the people and to enjoy the repose of midday,
Roman governors, Suetonius tells us, mounted the _bema_ at sunrise. The
location of the judgment hall of Pilate in Jerusalem is not certainly
known. It may have been in the Castle of Antonia, a frowning fortress
that overlooked the Temple and its courts. Much more probably, however,
it was the magnificent palace of Herod, situated in the northwest
quarter of the city. This probability is heightened by the fact that it
was a custom born of both pride and pleasure, for Roman procurators and
proconsuls to occupy the splendid edifices of the local kings. The
Roman propraetor of Sicily dwelt in the Castle of King Hiero; and it is
reasonable to suppose that Pilate would have passed his time while at
Jerusalem in the palace of Herod. This building was frequently called
the "King's Castle," sometimes was styled the "Praetorium," and was often
given the mixed name of "Herod's Praetorium." But, by whatever name
known, it was of gorgeous architecture and magnificent proportions. Keim
describes it as "a tyrant's stronghold and in part a fairy
pleasure-house." A wall thirty cubits high completely encircled the
buildings of the palace. Beautiful white towers crowned this wall at
regular intervals. Three of these were named in honor of Mariamne, the
wife; Hippicus, the friend; and Phasaelus, the brother of the king.
Within the inclosure of the wall, a small army could have been
garrisoned. The floors and ceilings of the palace were decorated and
adorned with the finest woods and precious stones. Projecting from the
main building were two colossal marble wings, named for two Roman
imperial friends, the Caesareum and the AEgrippeum. To a person standing
in one of the towers, a magnificent prospect opened to the view.
Surrounding the castle walls were beautiful green parks, intercepted
with broad walks and deep canals. Here and there splashing fountains
gushed from brazen mouths. A hundred dovecots, scattered about the
basins and filled with cooing and fluttering inmates, lent charm and
animation to the scene. And to crown the whole, was the splendid
panorama of Jerusalem stretching away among the hills and valleys. Such
was the residence of the Roman knight who at this time ruled Judea. And
yet, with all its regal splendor and magnificence, he inhabited it only
a few weeks in each year. The Jewish metropolis had no fascination
whatever for the tastes and accomplishments of Pilate. "The saddest
region in the world," says Renan, who had been imbued, from long
residence there, with its melancholy character, "is perhaps that which
surrounds Jerusalem." "To the Spaniard," says Rosadi, "who had come to
Jerusalem, by way of Rome, and who was also of courtly origin, there
could have been nothing pleasing in the parched, arid and colorless
nature of Palestine, much less in the humble, mystic, out-at-elbows
existence of its people. Their superstition, which would have nothing of
Roman idolatry, which was their sole belief, their all, appeared to him
a reasonable explanation, and a legitimate one, of their disdain and
opposition. He therefore detested the Jews, and his detestation was
fully reciprocated." It is not surprising, then, that he preferred to
reside at Caesarea by the sea where were present Roman modes of thought
and forms of life. He visited Jerusalem as a matter of official duty,
"during the festivals, and particularly at Easter with its dreaded
inspirations of the Jewish longing for freedom, which the festival, the
air of spring and the great rendezvous of the nation, charmed into
activity." In keeping with this custom, Pilate was now in the Jewish
Capital on the occasion of the feast of the Passover.

Having condemned Him to death themselves, the Sanhedrin judges were
compelled to lead Jesus away to the Praetorium of the Roman governor to
see what he had to say about the case; whether he would reverse or
affirm the condemnation which they had pronounced. Between dawn and
sunrise, they were at the palace gates. Here they were compelled to
halt. The Passover had commenced, and to enter the procurator's palace
at such a time was to incur Levitic contamination. A dozen judicial
blunders had marked the proceedings of their own trial in the palace of
Caiaphas. And yet they hesitated to violate a purely ritual regulation
in the matter of ceremonial defilement. This regulation was a
prohibition to eat fermented food during the Passover Feast, and was
sacred to the memory of the great deliverance from Egyptian bondage when
the children of Israel, in their flight, had no time to ferment their
dough and were compelled to consume it before it had been leavened.
Their purposes and scruples were announced to Pilate; and, in a spirit
of gracious and politic condescension, he removed the difficulty by
coming out to meet them. But this action was really neither an
inconvenience nor a condescension; for it was usual to conduct Roman
trials in the open air. Publicity was characteristic of all Roman
criminal proceedings. And, in obedience to this principle, we find that
the proconsul of Achaia at Corinth, the city magistrates in Macedonia,
and the procurators at Caesarea and Jerusalem, erected their tribunals in
the most conspicuous public places, such as the market, the race course,
and even upon the open highway.[62] An example directly in point is,
moreover, that of the procurator Florus who caused his judgment seat to
be raised in front of the palace of Herod, A.D. 66, and, enthroned
thereon, received the great men of Jerusalem who came to see him and
gathered around his tribunal. To the same place, according to Josephus,
the Jewish queen Bernice came barefoot and suppliant to ask favors of
Florus.[63] The act of Pilate in emerging from the palace to meet the
Jews was, therefore, in exact compliance with Roman custom. His judgment
seat was doubtless raised immediately in front of the entrance and
between the great marble wings of the palace. Pilate's tribune or _bema_
was located in this space on the elevated spot called Gabaatha, an
Aramaic word signifying an eminence, a "hump." The same place in Greek
was called Lithostroton, and signified "The Pavement," because it was
laid with Roman marble mosaic. The location on an eminence was in
accordance with a maxim of Roman law that all criminal trials should be
directed from a raised tribunal where everybody could see and understand
what was being said and done. The ivory curule chair of the procurator,
or perhaps the ancient golden royal chair of Archelaus was placed upon
the tessellated pavement and was designed for the use of the governor.
As a general thing, there was sitting room on the tribunal for the
assessors, the accusers and the accused. But such courtesies and
conveniences were not extended to the despised subjects of Judea; and
Jesus, as well as the members of the Sanhedrin, was compelled to stand.
The Latin language was the official tongue of the Roman empire, and was
generally used in the administration of justice. But at the trial of
Jesus it is believed that the Greek language was the medium of
communication. Jesus had doubtless become acquainted with Greek in
Galilee and probably replied to Pilate in that tongue. This is the
opinion, at least, of both Keim[64] and Geikie.[65] The former asserts
that there was no interpreter called at the trial of Christ. It is also
reasonably certain that no special orator like Tertullus, who informed
the governor against Paul, was present to accuse Jesus.[66] Doubtless
Caiaphas the high priest played this important role.

When Pilate had mounted the _bema_, and order had been restored, he
asked:

"What accusation bring ye against this man?"

This question is keenly suggestive of the presence of a judge and of the
beginning of a solemn judicial proceeding. Every word rings with Roman
authority and administrative capacity. The suggestion is also prominent
that accusation was a more important element in Roman criminal trials
than inquisition. This suggestion is reenforced by actual _dictum_ from
the lips of Pilate's successor in the same place: "It is not the manner
of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused
have the accusers face to face, and have license to answer for himself
concerning the crime laid against him."[67]

The chief priests and scribes sought to evade this question by
answering:

"If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto
thee."[68]

They meant by this that they desired the procurator to waive his right
to retry the case; accept their trial as conclusive; and content himself
with the mere execution of the sentence. In this reply of the priests to
the initial question of the Roman judge, is also revealed the further
question of that conflict of jurisdiction between Jews and Romans that
we have already so fully discussed. "If he were not a malefactor, we
would not have delivered him up unto thee." These words from the mouths
of the priests were intended to convey to the mind of Pilate the Jewish
notion that a judgment by the Sanhedrin was all-sufficient; and that
they merely needed his countersign to justify execution. But Pilate did
not take the hint or view the question in that light. In a tone of
contemptuous scorn he simply replied:

"Take ye him, and judge him according to your law."

This answer indicates that Pilate did not, at first, understand the
exact nature of the proceedings against Jesus. He evidently did not know
that the prisoner had been charged with a capital offense; else he would
not have suggested that the Jews take jurisdiction of the matter. This
is clearly shown from the further reply of the priestly accusers:

"It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."[69]

The advice of Pilate and the retort of the Jews have been construed in
two ways. A certain class of critics have contended that the procurator
granted to the Jews in this instance the right to carry out capital
punishment, as others have maintained was the case in the execution of
Stephen. This construction argues that Pilate knew at once the nature of
the accusation.

Another class of writers contend that the governor, by this language,
merely proposed to them one of the minor penalties which they were
already empowered to execute. The objection to the first interpretation
is that the Jews would have been delighted to have such power conferred
upon them, and would have exercised it; unless it is true, as has been
held, that they were desirous of throwing the odium of Christ's death
upon the Romans. The second construction is entirely admissible, because
it is consonant with the theory that jurisdiction in capital cases had
been withdrawn from the Sanhedrin, but that the trial and punishment of
petty offenses still remained with it. A third and more reasonable
interpretation still is that when Pilate said, "Take ye him and judge
him according to your law," he intended to give expression to the hatred
and bitterness of his cynical and sarcastic soul. He despised the Jews
most heartily, and he knew that they hated him. He had repeatedly
outraged their religious feelings by introducing images and shields into
the Holy City. He had devoted the Corban funds to unhallowed purposes,
and had mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices. In
short, he had left nothing undone to humiliate and degrade them. Now
here was another opportunity. By telling them to judge Jesus according
to their own laws, he knew that they must make a reply which would be
wounding and galling to their race and national pride. He knew that they
would have to confess that sovereignty and nationality were gone from
them. Such a confession from them would be music to his ear. The
substance of his advice to the Jews was to exercise their rights to a
certain point, to the moment of condemnation; but to stop at the place
where their sweetest desires would be gratified with the exercise of the
rights of sovereignty and nationality.

Modern poetry supports this interpretation of ancient history. "The
Merchant of Venice" reveals the same method of heaping ridicule upon a
Jew by making him impotent to execute the law. Shylock, the Jew, in
contracting a usurious loan, inserted a stipulation that if the debt
should not be paid when due, the debtor must allow a pound of flesh to
be cut from his body. The debt was not discharged at the maturity of the
bond, and Shylock made application to the Doge to have the pound of
human flesh delivered to him in accordance with the compact. But Portia,
a friend of the debtor, though a woman, assumed the garb and affected
the speech of a lawyer in his defense; and, in pleading the case, called
tauntingly and exultingly to the Jew:

    This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
    The words expressly are, a pound of flesh:
    Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh;
    But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed
    One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
    Are by the laws of Venice confiscate
    Unto the State of Venice.[70]

But whatever special interpretation may be placed upon the opening words
passed between the priestly accusers and the Roman judge, it is clearly
evident that the latter did not intend to surrender to the former the
right to impose and execute a sentence of death. The substance of
Pilate's address to the Jews, when they sought to evade his question
concerning the accusation which they had to bring against Jesus, was
this: I have asked for a specific charge against the man whom you have
brought bound to me. You have given not a direct, but an equivocal
answer. I infer that the crime with which you charge him is one against
your own laws. With such offenses I do not wish to meddle. Therefore, I
say unto you: "Take ye him and judge him according to your law." If I am
not to know the specific charge against him, I will not assume
cognizance of the case. If the accusation and the facts relied upon to
support it are not placed before me, I will not sentence the man to
death; and, under the law, you cannot.

The Jews were thus thwarted in their designs. They had hoped to secure a
countersign of their own judgment without a retrial by the governor.
They now found him in no yielding and accommodating mood. They were thus
forced against their will and expectation to formulate specific charges
against the prisoner in their midst. The indictment as they presented
it, is given in a single verse of St. Luke:

"And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting
the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he
himself is Christ, a King."[71]

It is noteworthy that in this general accusation is a radical departure
from the charges of the night before. In the passage from the Sanhedrin
to the Praetorium, the indictment had completely changed. Jesus had not
been condemned on any of the charges recorded in this sentence of St.
Luke. He had been convicted on the charge of blasphemy. But before
Pilate he is now charged with high treason. To meet the emergency of a
change of jurisdiction, the priestly accusers converted the accusation
from a religious into a political offense. It may be asked why the
Sanhedrists did not maintain the same charges before Pilate that they
themselves had considered before their own tribunal. Why did they not
lead Jesus into the presence of the Roman magistrate and say: O
Governor, we have here a Galilean blasphemer of Jehovah. We want him
tried on the charge of blasphemy, convicted and sentenced to death. Why
did they not do this? They were evidently too shrewd. Why? Because, in
legal parlance, they would have had no standing in court. Why? Because
blasphemy was not an offense against Roman law, and Roman judges would
generally assume cognizance of no such charges.

The Jews understood perfectly well at the trial before Pilate the
principle of Roman procedure so admirably expressed a few years later by
Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, and brother of Seneca: "If it were a matter
of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear
with you: but if it be a question of words and names, and of your law,
look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters."[72] This
attitude of Roman governors toward offenses of a religious nature
perfectly explains the Jewish change of front in the matter of the
accusation against Jesus. They merely wanted to get themselves into a
Roman court on charges that a Roman judge would consent to try. In the
threefold accusation recorded by the third Evangelist, they fully
accomplished this result.

The first count in the indictment, that He was perverting the nation,
was vague and indefinite, but was undoubtedly against Roman law, because
it was in the nature of sedition, which was one of the forms of treason
under Roman jurisprudence. This charge of perverting the nation was in
the nature of the revival of the accusation of sedition which they had
first brought forward by means of the false witnesses before their own
tribunal, and that had been abandoned because of the contradictory
testimony of these witnesses.

The second count in the indictment, that He had forbidden to give
tribute to Caesar, was of a more serious nature than the first. A
refusal, in modern times, to pay taxes or an attempt to obstruct their
collection, is a mild offense compared with a similar act under ancient
Roman law. To forbid to pay tribute to Caesar in Judea was a form of
treason, not only because it was an open defiance of the laws of the
Roman state, but also because it was a direct denial of Roman
sovereignty in Palestine. Such conduct was treason under the definitions
of both Ulpian and Cicero. The Jews knew the gravity of the offense when
they sought to entrap Jesus in the matter of paying tribute to Caesar.
They believed that any answer to the question that they had asked, would
be fatal to Him. If He advised to pay the imperial tribute, He could be
charged with being an enemy to His countrymen, the Jews. If He advised
not to pay the tribute, He would be charged with being a rebellious
subject of Caesar. His reply disconcerted and bewildered them when He
said: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and
unto God the things that are God's."[73] In this sublime declaration,
the Nazarene announced the immortal principle of the separation of
church and state, and of religious freedom in all the ages. And when, in
the face of His answer, they still charged Him with forbidding to pay
tribute to Caesar, they seem to have been guilty of deliberate falsehood.
Keim calls the charge "a very flagrant lie." Both at Capernaum,[74]
where Roman taxes were gathered, and at Jerusalem,[75] where religious
dues were offered, Jesus seems to have been both a good citizen and a
pious Jew. "Jesus bon citoyen" (Jesus a good citizen) is the title of a
chapter in the famous work of Bossuet entitled "Politique tiree de
l'Ecriture sainte." In it the great French ecclesiastic describes very
beautifully the law-abiding qualities of the citizen-prophet of Galilee.
In pressing the false charge that he had advised not to pay taxes to
Rome, the enemies of Jesus revealed a peculiar and wanton malignity.

The third count in the indictment, that the prisoner had claimed to be
"Christ a King," was the last and greatest of the charges. By this He
was deliberately accused of high treason against Caesar, the gravest
offense known to Roman law. Such an accusation could not be ignored by
Pilate as a loyal deputy of Tiberius. The Roman monarch saw high treason
in every word and act that was uncomplimentary to his person or
dangerous to his power. Fifty-two prosecutions for treason, says
Tacitus, took place during his reign.

The charges of high treason and sedition against Jesus were all the more
serious because the Romans believed Palestine to be the hotbed of
insurrection and sedition, and the birthplace of pretenders to kingly
powers. They had recently had trouble with claimants to thrones, some of
them from the lowest and most ignoble ranks. Judas, the son of Hezekiah,
whom Herod had caused to be put to death, proclaimed royal intentions,
gathered quite a multitude of adherents about him in the neighborhood of
Sepphoris in Galilee, raised an insurrection, assaulted and captured the
palace of the king at Sepphoris, seized all the weapons that were stored
away in it, and armed his followers with them. Josephus does not tell us
what became of this royal pretender; but he does say that "he became
terrible to all men, by tearing and rending those that came near
him."[76]

In the province of Perea, a certain Simon, who was formerly a slave of
Herod, collected a band of followers, and had himself proclaimed king by
them. He burned down the royal palace at Jericho, after having plundered
it. A detachment under the command of the Roman general Gratus made
short work of the pretensions of Simon by capturing his adherents and
putting him to death.[77]

Again, a certain peasant named Athronges, formerly a shepherd, claimed
to be a king, and for a long time, in concert with his four brothers,
annoyed the authorities of the country, until the insurrection was
finally broken up by Gratus and Ptolemy.[78]

In short, during the life of Jesus, Judea was passing through a period
of great religious and political excitement. The Messiah was expected
and a king was hoped for; and numerous pretenders appeared from time to
time. The Roman governors were constantly on the outlook for acts of
sedition and treason. And when the Jews led Jesus into the presence of
Pilate and charged Him with claiming to be a king, the recent cases of
Judas, Simon, and Athronges must have arisen in his mind, quickened his
interest in the pretensions of the prisoner of the Jews, and must have
awakened his sense of loyalty as Caesar's representative. The lowliness
of Jesus, being a carpenter, did not greatly allay his fears; for he
must have remembered that Simon was once a slave and that Athronges was
nothing more than a simple shepherd.

When Pilate had heard the accusations of the Jews, he deliberately arose
from his judgment seat, gathered his toga about him, motioned the mob to
stand back, and beckoned Jesus to follow him into the palace. St. John
alone tells us of this occurrence.[79]

At another time, in the Galilean simplicity and freedom of His nature,
the Prophet of Nazareth had spoken with a tinge of censure and sarcasm
of the rulers of the Gentiles that lorded it over their subjects,[80]
and had declared that "they that wear soft clothing are in kings'
houses."[81] Now the lowly Jewish peasant was entering for the first
time a palace of one of the rulers of the Gentiles in which were soft
raiment and royal purple. The imagination is helpless to picture the
historical reflections born of the memories of that hour. A meek and
lowly carpenter enters a king's palace on his way to an ignominious
death upon the cross; and yet the greatest kings of all the centuries
that followed were humble worshipers in their palaces before the cross
that had been the instrument of his torture and degradation. Such is the
irony of history; such is the mystery of God's providence; such is the
mystic ebb and flow of the tides and currents of destiny and fate.

Of the examination of Jesus inside the palace, little is known. Pilate,
it seems, brushed the first two charges aside as unworthy of serious
consideration; and proceeded at once to examine the prisoner on the
charge that he pretended to be a king. "If," Pilate must have said,
"the fellow pretends to be a king, as Simon and Athronges did before
him; if he says that Judea has a right to have a king other than Caesar,
he is guilty of treason, and it is my solemn duty as deputy of Tiberius
to ascertain the fact and have him put to death."

The beginning of the interrogation of Jesus within the palace is
reported by all the Evangelists in the same words. Addressing the
prisoner, Pilate asked: "Art thou the King of the Jews?" "Jesus answered
him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of
me?"[82]

This was a most natural and fitting response of the Nazarene to the
Roman. It was necessary first to understand the exact nature of the
question before an appropriate answer could be made. Jesus simply wished
to know whether the question was asked from a Roman or a Jewish, from a
temporal or a spiritual standpoint. If the interrogation was directed
from a Roman, a temporal point of view, His answer would be an emphatic
negative. If the inquiry had been prompted by the Jews, it was then
pregnant with religious meaning, and called for a different reply; one
that would at once repudiate pretensions to earthly royalty, and, at the
same time, assert His claims to the Messiahship and heavenly
sovereignty.

"Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests
have delivered thee unto me: What hast thou done?"

To this Jesus replied: "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."[83]

This reply of the Master is couched in that involved, aphoristic,
strangely beautiful style that characterized His speech at critical
moments in His career. Its import is clear, though expressed in a double
sense: first from the Roman political, and then from the Jewish
religious side.

First He answered negatively: "My kingdom is not of this world."

By this He meant that there was no possible rivalry between Him and
Caesar. But, in making this denial, He had used two words of grave
import: My Kingdom. He had used one word that struck the ear of Pilate
with electric force: the word Kingdom. In the use of that word,
according to Pilate's reasoning, Jesus stood self-convicted. For how,
thought Pilate, can He pretend to have a Kingdom, unless He pretends to
be a king? And then, as if to cow and intimidate the prisoner, as if to
avoid an unpleasant issue of the affair, he probably advanced
threateningly upon the Christ, and asked the question which the Bible
puts in his mouth: "Art thou a king then?"

Rising from the simple dignity of a man to the beauty and glory and
grandeur of a God, Jesus used the most wonderful, beautiful, meaningful
words in the literature of the earth: "Thou sayest that I am a king. To
this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I
should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth
heareth my voice."[84]

This language contains a perfectly clear description of the kingdom of
Christ and of His title to spiritual sovereignty. His was not an empire
of matter, but a realm of truth. His kingdom differed widely from that
of Caesar. Caesar's empire was over the bodies of men; Christ's over their
souls. The strength of Caesar's kingdom was in citadels, armies, navies,
the towering Alps, the all-engirdling seas. The strength of the kingdom
of the Christ was and is and will ever be in sentiments, principles,
ideas, and the saving power of a divine word. But, as clever and
brilliant as he must have been, Pilate could not grasp the true meaning
of the words of the Prophet. The spiritual and intellectual grandeur of
the Galilean peasant was beyond the reach of the Roman lord and
governor. In a cynical and sarcastic mood, Pilate turned to Jesus and
asked: "What is truth?"[85]

This pointed question was the legitimate offspring of the soul of Pilate
and a natural product of the Roman civilization of his age. It was not
asked with any real desire to know the truth; for he turned to leave the
palace before an answer could be given. It was simply a blank response
born of mental wretchedness and doubt. If prompted by any silent
yearning for a knowledge of the truth, his conduct indicated clearly
that he did not hope to have that longing satisfied by the words of the
humble prisoner in his charge. "What is truth?" An instinctive utterance
this, prompted by previous sad reflections upon the wrecks of philosophy
in search of truth.

We have reason to believe that Pilate was a man of brilliant parts and
studious habits. His marriage into the Roman royal family argued not
only splendid physical endowments, but rare intellectual gifts as well.
Only on this hypothesis can we explain his rise from obscurity in Spain
to a place in the royal family as husband of the granddaughter of
Augustus and foster daughter of Tiberius. Then he was familiar, if he
was thus endowed and accomplished, with the despairing efforts of his
age and country to solve the mysteries of life and to ascertain the end
of man. He had doubtless, as a student, "mused and mourned over Greece,
and its search of truth intellectual--its keen and fruitless search,
never-ending, ever beginning, across wastes of doubt and seas of
speculation lighted by uncertain stars." He knew full well that Roman
philosophy had been wrecked and stranded amidst the floating debris of
Grecian thought and speculation. He had thought that the _ultima ratio_
of Academicians and Peripatetics, of Stoics and Epicureans had been
reached. But here was a new proposition--a kingdom of truth whose
sovereign had as subjects mere vagaries, simple mental conceptions
called truths--a kingdom whose boundaries were not mountains, seas, and
rivers, but clouds, hopes, and dreams.

What did Pilate think of Jesus? He evidently regarded Him as an amiable
enthusiast, a harmless religious fanatic from whom Caesar had nothing to
fear. While alone with Jesus in the palace, he must have reasoned thus
with himself, silently and contemptuously: The mob outside tells me that
this man is Rome's enemy. Foolish thought! We know who Caesar's enemies
are. We have seen and heard and felt the enemies of Rome--barbarians
from beyond the Danube and the Rhine--great strong men, who can drive a
javelin not only through a man, but a horse, as well. These are Caesar's
enemies. This strange and melancholy man, whose subjects are mere
abstract truths, and whose kingdom is beyond the skies, can be no enemy
of Caesar.

Believing this, he went out to the rabble and pronounced a verdict of
acquittal: "I find in him no fault at all."

Pilate had tried and acquitted Jesus. Why did he not release Him, and,
if need be, protect Him with his cohort from the assaults of the Jews?
Mankind has asked for nearly two thousand years why a Roman, with the
blood of a Roman in him, with the glorious prestige and stern authority
of the Roman empire at his back, with a Roman legion at his command, did
not have the courage to do the high Roman act. Pilate was a moral and
intellectual coward of arrant type. This is his proper characterization
and a fitting answer to the world's eternal question.

The Jews heard his sentence of acquittal in sullen silence. Desperately
resolved to prevent His release, they began at once to frame new
accusations.

"And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people,
teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this
place."[86]

This charge was intended by the Jews to serve a double purpose: to
strengthen the general accusation of high treason recorded by St. Luke;
and to embitter and poison the mind of the judge against the prisoner by
telling Pilate that Jesus was from Galilee. In ancient times Galilee was
noted as the hotbed of riot and sedition. The Galileans were brave and
hardy mountaineers who feared neither Rome nor Judea. As champions of
Jewish nationality, they were the fiercest opponents of Roman rule; and
in the final catastrophe of Jewish history they were the last to be
driven from the battlements of Jerusalem. As advocates and preservers of
the purity of the primitive Jewish faith, they were relentless foes of
Pharisaic and Sadducean hypocrisy as it was manifested by the Judean
keepers of the Temple. The Galileans were hated, therefore, by both
Romans and Judeans; and the Sanhedrists believed that Pilate would make
short work of Jesus if he learned that the prisoner was from Galilee.
But a different train of thought was excited in the mind of the Roman
governor. He was thinking about one thing, and they about another.
Pilate showed himself throughout the trial a craven coward and
contemptible timeserver. From beginning to end, his conduct was a record
of cowardice and subterfuge. He was constantly looking for loopholes of
escape. His heart's desire was to satisfy at once both his conscience
and the mob. The mention of Galilee was a ray of light that fell across
the troubled path of the cowardly and vacillating judge. He believed
that he saw an avenue of escape. He asked the Jews if Jesus was a
Galilean. An affirmative reply was given. Pilate then determined to rid
himself of responsibility by sending Jesus to be tried by the governor
of the province to which He belonged. He felt that fortune favored his
design; for Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, was at that very moment in
Jerusalem in attendance upon the Passover feast. He acted at once upon
the happy idea; and, under the escort of a detachment of the Praetorian
Cohort, Jesus was led away to the palace of the Maccabees where Herod
was accustomed to stop when he came to the Holy City.




CHAPTER IX

JESUS BEFORE HEROD


It was still early morning when Jesus, guarded by Roman soldiers and
surrounded by a jeering, scoffing, raging multitude of Jews, was
conducted to the palace of the Maccabees on the <DW72> of Zion, the
official residence of Herod when he came to Jerusalem to attend the
sacred festivals. This place was to the northeast of the palace of Herod
and only a few streets distant from it. The journey must have lasted
therefore only a few minutes.

But who was this Herod before whom Jesus now appeared in chains? History
mentions many Herods, the greatest and meanest of whom was Herod I,
surnamed the Great, who ordered the massacre of the Innocents at
Bethlehem. At his death, he bequeathed his kingdom to his sons. But
being a client-prince, a _rex socius_, he could not finally dispose of
his realm without the consent of Rome. Herod had made several wills,
and, at his death, contests arose between his sons for the vacant throne
of the father. Several embassies were sent to Rome to argue the rights
of the different claimants. Augustus granted the petitioners many
audiences; and, after long delay, finally confirmed practically the last
will of Herod. This decision gave Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, with a
tribute of six hundred talents, to Archelaus. Philip received the
regions of Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Iturea, with
an income of one hundred talents. Herod Antipas was given the provinces
of Galilee and Perea, with an annual tribute of two hundred talents and
the title of Tetrarch. The title of Ethnarch was conferred upon
Archelaus.

Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, was the man before whom Jesus, his
subject, was now led to be judged. The pages of sacred history mention
the name of no more shallow and contemptible character than this petty
princeling, this dissolute Idumaean Sadducee. Compared with him, Judas is
eminently respectable. Judas had a conscience which, when smitten with
remorse, drove him to suicide. It is doubtful whether Herod had a spark
of that celestial fire which we call conscience. He was a typical
Oriental prince whose chief aim in life was the gratification of his
passions. The worthlessness of his character was so pronounced that it
excited a nauseating disgust in the mind of Jesus, and disturbed for a
moment that serene and lofty magnanimity which characterized His whole
life and conduct. To Herod is addressed the only purely contemptuous
epithet that the Master is ever recorded to have used. "And he said unto
them, Go ye, and tell _that fox_, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do
cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."[87]

The son of a father who was ten times married and had murdered many of
his wives; the murderer himself of John the Baptist; the slave of a lewd
and wicked woman--what better could be expected than a cruel, crafty,
worthless character, whose attributes were those of the fox?

But why was Jesus sent to Herod? Doubtless because Pilate wished to
shift the responsibility from his own shoulders, as a Roman judge, to
those of the Galilean Tetrarch. A subsidiary purpose may have been to
conciliate Herod, with whom, history says, he had had a quarrel. The
cause of the trouble between them is not known. Many believe that the
murder of the Galileans while sacrificing in the Temple was the origin
of the unpleasantness. Others contend that this occurrence was the
result and not the cause of the quarrel between Pilate and Herod. Still
others believe that the question of the occupancy of the magnificent
palace of Herod engendered ill feeling between the rival potentates.
Herod had all the love of gorgeous architecture and luxurious living
that characterized the whole Herodian family. And, besides, he doubtless
felt that he should be permitted to occupy the palace of his ancestors
on the occasion of his visits to Jerusalem. But Pilate would naturally
object to this, as he was the representative of almighty Rome in a
conquered province and could not afford to give way, in a matter of
palatial residence, to a petty local prince. But, whatever the cause,
the unfriendliness between them undoubtedly had much to do with the
transfer of Jesus from the Praetorium to the palace of the Maccabees.

"And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to
see him for a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and
he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him."[88]

This passage of Scripture throws much light upon Herod's opinion and
estimate of Jesus. Fearing that he was the successor and imitator of
Judas the Gaulonite, Herod at first sought to drive Him from his
province by sending spies to warn Him to flee. The courageous and
contemptuous reply of Jesus, in which he styled Herod "that fox," put an
end to further attempts at intimidation.

The notions of the Galilean Tetrarch concerning the Galilean Prophet
seem to have changed from time to time. Herod had once regarded Jesus
with feelings of superstitious dread and awe, as the risen Baptist. But
these apprehensions had now partially passed away, and he had come to
look upon the Christ as a clever impostor whose claims to kingship and
Messiahship were mere vulgar dreams. For three years, Galilee had been
ringing with the fame of the Miracle-worker; but Herod had never seen
his famous subject. Now was his chance. And he anticipated a rare
occasion of magic and merriment. He doubtless regarded Jesus as a clever
magician whose performance would make a rich and racy programme for an
hour's amusement of his court. This was no doubt his dominant feeling
regarding the Nazarene. But it is nevertheless very probable that his
Idumaean cowardice and superstition still conjured images of a drunken
debauch, the dance of death, and the bloody head; and connected them
with the strange man now before him.

No doubt he felt highly pleased and gratified to have Jesus sent to him.
The petty and obsequious vassal king was caught in Pilate's snare of
flattery. The sending of a noted prisoner to his judgment seat by a
Roman procurator was no ordinary compliment. But Herod was at once too
serious and too frivolous to assume jurisdiction of any charges against
this prisoner, who had offended both the religious and secular powers of
Palestine. To condemn Jesus would be to incur the ill will and
resentment of his many followers in his own province of Galilee.
Besides, he had already suffered keenly from dread and apprehension,
caused by the association of the names of John and Jesus, and he had
learned that from the blood of one murdered prophet would spring the
message and mission of another still more powerful and majestic. He was,
therefore, unwilling to embroil himself and his dominions with the
heavenly powers by condemning their earthly representatives.

Again, though weak, crafty and vacillating, he still had enough of the
cunning of the fox not to wish to excite the enmity of Caesar by a false
judgment upon a noted character whose devoted followers might, at any
moment, send an embassy to Rome to make serious and successful charges
to the Emperor. He afterwards lost his place as Tetrarch through the
suspicions of Caligula, who received news from Galilee that Herod was
conspiring against him.[89] The premonitions of that unhappy day
probably now filled the mind of the Idumaean.

On the other hand, Herod was too frivolous to conduct from beginning to
end a solemn judicial proceeding. He evidently intended to ignore the
pretensions of Jesus, and to convert the occasion of His coming into a
festive hour in which languor and drowsiness would be banished from his
court. He had heard much of the miracles of the prisoner in his
presence. Rumor had wafted to his ears strange accounts of marvelous
feats. One messenger had brought news that the Prophet of Nazareth had
raised from the dead a man named Lazarus from Bethany, and also the son
of the widow of Nain. Another had declared that the laws of nature
suspended themselves on occasion at His behest; that when He walked out
on the sea, He did not sink; and that He stilled the tempests with a
mere motion of His hand. Still another reported that the mighty magician
could take mud from the pool and restore sight; that a woman, ill for
many months, need only touch the hem of His garment to be made whole
again; and that if He but touched the flesh of a leper, it would become
as tender and beautiful as that of a new-born babe. These reports had
doubtless been received by Herod with sneers and mocking. But he
gathered from them that Jesus was a clever juggler whose powers of
entertainment were very fine; and this was sufficient for him and his
court.

"Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him
nothing."[90]

Herod thus opened the examination of Jesus by interrogating Him at
length. The Master treated his insolent questions with contemptuous
scorn and withering silence. No doubt this conduct of the lowly Nazarene
greatly surprised and nettled the supercilious Idumaean. He had imagined
that Jesus would be delighted to give an exhibition of His skill amidst
royal surroundings. He could not conceive that a peasant would observe
the contempt of silence in the presence of a prince. He found it
difficult, therefore, to explain this silence. He probably mistook it
for stupidity, and construed it to mean that the pretensions of Jesus
were fraudulent. He doubtless believed that his captive would not work a
miracle because He could not; and that in His failure to do so were
exploded His claims to kingship and Messiahship. At all events, he was
evidently deeply perplexed; and this perplexity of the Tetrarch, in its
turn, only served to anger the accusing priests who stood by.

"And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused
him."[91]

This verse from St. Luke clearly reveals the difference in the temper
and purposes of the Sanhedrists on the one hand, and of Herod on the
other. The latter merely intended to make of the case of Jesus a
farcical proceeding in which the jugglery of the prisoner would break
the monotony of a day and banish all care during an idle hour. The
priests, on the other hand, were desperately bent upon a serious outcome
of the affair, as the words "vehemently accused" suggest. In the face of
their repeated accusations, Jesus continued to maintain a noble and
majestic silence.

Modern criticism has sought to analyze and to explain the behavior of
Christ at the court of Herod. "How comes it," asks Strauss, "that Jesus,
not only the Jesus without sin of the orthodox school, but also the
Jesus who bowed to the constituted authorities, who says 'Give unto
Caesar that which is Caesar's'--how comes it that he refuses the answer
due to Herod?" The trouble with this question is that it falsely assumes
that there was an "answer due to Herod." In the first place, it must be
considered that Herod was not Caesar. In the next place, we must remember
that St. Luke, the sole Evangelist who records the event, does not
explain the character of the questions asked by Herod. Strauss himself
says that they "displayed simple curiosity." Admitting that Jesus
acknowledged the jurisdiction of Herod, was He compelled to answer
irrelevant and impertinent questions? We do not know what these
questions were. But we have reason to believe that, coming from Herod,
they were not such as Jesus was called upon to answer. It is very
probable that the prisoner knew His legal rights; and that He did not
believe that Herod, sitting at Jerusalem, a place without his province,
was judicially empowered to examine Him. If He was not legally compelled
to answer, we are not surprised that Jesus refused to do so as a matter
of graciousness and accommodation; for we must not forget that the
Man-God felt that He was being questioned by a vulgar animal of the most
cunning type.

But what is certain from the Scriptural context is that Herod felt
chagrined and mortified at his failure to evoke from Jesus any response.
He was enraged that his plans had been foiled by one of his own
subjects, a simple Galilean peasant. To show his resentment, he then
resorted to mockery and abuse.

"And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and
arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate."[92]

We are not informed by St. Luke what special charge the priests brought
against Jesus at the judgment seat of Herod. He simply says that they
"stood and vehemently accused him." But we are justified in inferring
that they repeated substantially the same accusations which had been
made before Pilate, that He had claimed to be Christ a King. This
conclusion best explains the mockery which they sought to heap upon Him;
for in ancient times, when men became candidates for office, they put on
white gowns to notify the people of their candidacy. Again, Tacitus
assures us that white garments were the peculiar dress of illustrious
persons; and that the tribunes and consuls wore them when marching
before the eagles of the legions into battle.[93]

The meaning of the mockery of Herod was simply this: Behold O Pilate,
the illustrious candidate for the kingship of the Jews! Behold the
imperial gown of the royal peasant pretender!

The appearance before Herod resulted only in the humiliation of Jesus
and the reconciliation of Pilate and Herod.

"And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for
before they were at enmity between themselves."[94]




CHAPTER X

JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE


The sending of Jesus to Herod had not ended the case; and Pilate was
undoubtedly very bitterly disappointed. He had hoped that the Galilean
Tetrarch would assume complete jurisdiction and dispose finally of the
matter. On the contrary, Herod simply mocked and brutalized the prisoner
and had him sent back to Pilate. The Roman construed the action of the
Idumaean to mean an acquittal, and he so stated to the Jews.

"And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the
rulers and the people, Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me,
as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him
before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things
whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and,
lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise
him, and release him."[95]

The proposal to scourge the prisoner was the second of those criminal
and cowardly subterfuges through which Pilate sought at once to satisfy
his conscience and the demands of the mob. The chastisement was to be a
sop to the rage of the rabble, a sort of salve to the wounded pride of
the priests who were disappointed that no sentence of death had been
imposed. The release was intended as a tribute to justice, as a soothing
balm and an atoning sacrifice to his own outraged sense of justice. The
injustice of this monstrous proposal was not merely contemptible, it was
execrable. If Jesus was guilty, He should have been punished; if
innocent, he should have been set free and protected from the assaults
of the Jews.

The offer of scourging first and then the release of the prisoner was
indignantly rejected by the rabble. In his desperation, Pilate thought
of another loophole of escape.

The Evangelists tell us that it was a custom upon Passover day to
release to the people any single prisoner that they desired. St. Luke
asserts that the governor was under an obligation to do so.[96] Whether
this custom was of Roman or Hebrew origin is not certainly known. Many
New Testament interpreters have seen in the custom a symbol of the
liberty and deliverance realized by Israel in its passage from Egypt at
the time of the first great Passover. Others have traced this custom to
the Roman practice of releasing a slave at the Lectisternia, or banquets
to the gods.[97] Aside from its origin, it is interesting as an
illustration of a universal principle in enlightened jurisprudence of
lodging somewhere, usually with the chief executive of a race or
nation, a power of pardon which serves as an extinction of the penal
sanction. This merciful principle is a pathetic acknowledgment of the
weakness and imperfection of all human schemes of justice.

Pilate resolved to escape from his confusion and embarrassment by
delivering Jesus to the people, who happened to appear in great numbers
at the very moment when Christ returned from Herod. The multitude had
come to demand the usual Passover deliverance of a prisoner. The arrival
of the crowd of disinterested strangers was inopportune for the priests
and elders who were clamoring for the life of the prisoner in their
midst. They marked with keen discernment the resolution of the governor
to release Jesus. They were equal to the emergency, and began to whisper
among the crowd that Barabbas should be asked.

"And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when
they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I
release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew
that for envy they had delivered him."[98]

Pilate believed that the newly arrived multitude would be free from the
envy of the priests, and that they would be satisfied with Jesus whom
they had, a few days before, welcomed into Jerusalem with shouts of joy.
When they demanded Barabbas, he still believed that if he offered them
the alternative choice of a robber and a prophet, they would choose the
latter.

"But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they
should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said
unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They
said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus
which is called the Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be
crucified."[99]

"Barabbas, or Jesus which is called the Christ?" Such was the
alternative offered by a Roman governor to a Jewish mob. Barabbas was a
murderer and a robber. Jesus was the sinless Son of God. An erring race
wandering in the darkness of sin and perpetually tasting the bitterness
of life beneath the sun, preferred a criminal to a prophet. And to the
ghastliness of the choice was added a touch of the irony of fate. The
names of both the prisoners were in signification the same. Barabbas was
also called Jesus. And Jesus Barabbas meant Jesus the Son of the Father.
This frightful coincidence was so repugnant to the Gospel writers that
they are generally silent upon it. In this connection, Strauss remarks:
"According to one reading, the man's complete name was [Greek: hiesous
barabbas], which fact is noted only because Olshausen considers it
noteworthy. Barabbas signifies 'son of the father,' and consequently
Olshausen exclaims: 'All that was essential to the Redeemer appears
ridiculous in the assassin!' and he deems applicable the verse: '_Ludit
in humanis divina potentia rebus._' We can see nothing in Olshausen's
remark but a _ludus humanae impotentiae_."[100]

Amidst the tumult provoked by the angry passions of the mob, a
messenger arrived from his wife bearing news that filled the soul of
Pilate with superstitious dread. Claudia had had a dream of strange and
ill-boding character.

"When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him,
saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: For I have suffered
many things this day in a dream because of him."[101]

This dream of Pilate's wife is nothing strange. Profane history mentions
many similar ones. Calpurnia, Caesar's wife, forewarned him in a dream
not to go to the senate house; and the greatest of the Romans fell
beneath the daggers of Casca and Brutus, because he failed to heed the
admonition of his wife.

In the apocryphal report of Pilate to the emperor Tiberius of the facts
of the crucifixion, the words of warning sent by Claudia are given:
"Beware said she to me, beware and touch not that man, for he is holy.
Last night I saw him in a vision. He was walking on the waters. He was
flying on the wings of the winds. He spoke to the tempest and to the
fishes of the lake; all were obedient to him. Behold! the torrent in
Mount Kedron flows with blood, the statues of Caesar are filled with the
filth of Gemoniae, the columns of the Interium have given away and the
sun is veiled in mourning like a vestal in the tomb. O, Pilate, evil
awaits thee if thou wilt not listen to the prayer of thy wife. Dread the
curse of the Roman Senate, dread the powers of Caesar."

This noble and lofty language, this tender and pathetic speech, may
appear strange to those who remember the hereditary stigma of the woman.
If this dream was sent from heaven, the recollection is forced upon us
that the medium of its communication was the illegitimate child of a
lewd woman. But then her character was probably not worse than that of
Mary Magdalene, who was very dear to the Master and has been canonized
not only by the church, but by the reverence of the world.

It is certain, however, that the dream of Claudia had no determining
effect upon the conduct of Pilate. Resolution and irresolution
alternately controlled him. Fear and superstition were uppermost in both
mind and heart. The Jews beheld with anxious and discerning glance the
manifestation of the deep anguish of his soul. They feared that the
governor was about to pronounce a final judgment of acquittal.
Exhibiting fierce faces and frenzied feelings, they moved closer to him
and exclaimed: "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because
he made himself the Son of God."[102]

Despairing of convicting Jesus on a political charge, they deliberately
revived a religious one, and presented to Pilate substantially the same
accusation upon which they had tried the prisoner before their own
tribunal.

"He made himself the Son of God!" These words filled Pilate's mind with
a strange and awful meaning. In the mythology and ancient annals of his
race, there were many legends of the sons of the gods who walked the
earth in human form and guise. They were thus indistinguishable from
mortal men. It was dangerous to meet them; for to offend them was to
provoke the wrath of the gods, their sires. These reflections, born of
superstition, now swept through Pilate's mind with terrific force; and
the cries of the mob, "He made himself the Son of God," called from out
the deep recesses of his memory the half-forgotten, half-remembered
stories of his childhood. Could not Jesus, reasoned Pilate, be the son
of the Hebrew Jehovah as Hercules was the son of Jupiter? Filled with
superstitious dread and trembling with emotion, Pilate called Jesus
inside the Temple a second time; and, looking with renewed awe and
wonder, asked: "Whence art thou?"[103] But Jesus answered him nothing.

Pilate came forth from the judgment hall a second time determined to
release the prisoner; but the Jews, marking his decision, began to cry
out: "Away with him, away with him, crucify him!"[104] Maddened by the
relentless importunity of the mob, Pilate replied scornfully and
mockingly:

"Shall I crucify your king?"

The cringing, hypocritical priests shouted back their answer:

"We have no king but Caesar."[105]

And on the kingly idea of loyalty to Roman sovereignty they framed their
last menace and accusation. From the quiver of their wrath they drew the
last arrow of spite and hate, and fired it straight at the heart of
Jesus through the hands of Pilate:

"If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh
himself a king speaketh against Caesar."[106]

This last maneuver of the mob sealed the doom of the Christ. It teaches
also most clearly that Pilate was no match for the Jews when their
religious prejudices were aroused and they were bent on accomplishing
their desires. They knew Pilate and he knew them. They had been together
full six years. He had been compelled to yield to them in the matter of
the standards and the eagles. The sacred Corban funds had been
appropriated only after blood had been shed in the streets of Jerusalem.
The gilt shields of Tiberius that he had placed in Herod's palace were
taken down at the demands of the Jews and carried to the temple of
Augustus at Caesarea. And now the same fanatical rabble was before him
demanding the blood of the Nazarene, and threatening to accuse him to
Caesar if he released the prisoner. The position of Pilate was painfully
critical. He afterwards lost his procuratorship at the instance of
accusing Jews. The shadow of that distant day now fell like a curse
across his pathway. Nothing was so terrifying to a Roman governor as to
have the people send a complaining embassy to Rome. It was especially
dangerous at this time. The imperial throne was filled by a morbid and
suspicious tyrant who needed but a pretext to depose the governor of any
province who silently acquiesced in traitorous pretensions to kingship.
Pilate trembled at these reflections. His feelings of self-preservation
suggested immediate surrender to the Jews. But his innate sense of
justice, which was woven in the very fiber of his Roman nature, recoiled
at the thought of Roman sanction of judicial murder. He resolved,
therefore, to propitiate and temporize. The frenzied rabble continued to
cry: "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Three times, in reply, Conscience sent
to Pilate's trembling lips the searching question: "Why, what evil hath
he done?" "Crucify him! Crucify him!" came back from the infuriated mob.

Pilate finally resolved to do their bidding and obey their will. But he
seems to have secretly cherished the hope that scourging, which was the
usual preliminary to crucifixion, might be made to satisfy the mob. But
this hope was soon dispelled; and he found himself compelled to yield
completely to their wishes by delivering the prisoner to be crucified.
Before this final step, however, which was an insult to the true courage
of the soul and an outrage upon all the charities of the heart, he
resolved to apply a soothing salve to wounded conscience. He resolved to
perform a ceremonial cleansing act. Calling for a basin of water, he
washed his hands before the multitude, saying: "I am innocent of the
blood of this just person: see ye to it."[107]

This was a simple, impressive, theatrical act; but little, mean,
contemptible, cowardly. He washed his hands when he should have used
them. He should have used them as Brutus or Gracchus or Pompeius Magnus
would have done, in pointing his legion to the field of duty and of
glory. He should have used them as Bonaparte did when he put down the
mob in the streets of Paris. But he was too craven and cowardly; and
herein is to be found the true meaning of the character and conduct of
Pilate. He believed that Jesus was innocent; and that the accusations
against Him were inspired by the envy of His countrymen. He had declared
to the Jews in an emphatic verdict of acquittal that he found in Him no
fault at all. And yet this very sentence, "I find in him no fault at
all," was the beginning of that course of cowardly and criminal
vacillation which finally sent Jesus to the cross. "Yet was this
utterance," says Innes, "as it turned out, only the first step in that
downward course of weakness the world knows so well: a course which,
beginning with indecision and complaisance, passed through all the
phases of alternate bluster and subserviency; persuasion, evasion,
protest, and compromise; superstitious dread, conscientious reluctance,
cautious duplicity, and sheer moral cowardice at last; until this Roman
remains photographed forever as the perfect feature of the unjust judge,
deciding 'against his better knowledge, not deceived.'"

"Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he
delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took
Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of
soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when
they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a
reed in his right hand: And they bowed the knee before him, and mocked
him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took
the reed, and smote him on the head. And after that they had mocked him,
they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led
him away to crucify him."[108]

Thus ended the most memorable act of injustice recorded in history. At
every stage of the trial, whether before Caiaphas or Pilate, the
prisoner conducted Himself with that commanding dignity and majesty so
well worthy of His origin, mission, and destiny. His sublime deportment
at times caused His judges to marvel greatly. And through it all, He
stood alone. His friends and followers had deserted Him in His hour of
greatest need. Single-handed and unaided, the Galilean peasant had bared
His breast and brow to the combined authority, to the insults and
outrages, of both Jerusalem and Rome. "Not a single discordant voice was
raised amidst the tumultuous clamour: not a word of protest disturbed
the mighty concord of anger and reviling; not the faintest echo of the
late hosannas, which had wrung with wonder, fervour, and devotion, and
which had surrounded and exalted to the highest pitch of triumph the
bearer of good tidings on his entry into the Holy City. Where were the
throngs of the hopeful and believing, who had followed His beckoning as
a finger pointing toward the breaking dawn of truth and regeneration?
Where were they, what thinking and why silent? The bands at the humble
and poor, of the afflicted and outcast who had entrusted to His
controlling grace the salvation of soul and body--where were they, what
thinking and why silent? The troops of women and youths, who had drawn
fresh strength from the spell of a glance or a word from the Father of
all that liveth--where were they, what thinking and why silent? And the
multitudes of disciples and enthusiasts who had scattered sweet-scented
boughs and joyous utterances along the road to Sion, blessing Him that
came in the name of the Lord--where were they, what thinking and why
silent? Not a remembrance, not a sign, not a word of the great glory so
lately His. Jesus was alone."




[Illustration: CHRIST LEAVING THE PRAETORIUM (DORE)]




CHAPTER XI

LEGAL ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF THE ROMAN TRIAL OF JESUS


In the preceding pages of this volume we have considered the elements of
both Law and Fact as related to the Roman trial of Jesus. Involved in
this consideration were the powers and duties of Pilate as procurator of
Judea and as presiding judge at the trial; general principles of Roman
provincial administration at the time of Christ; the legal and political
status of the subject Jew in his relationship to the conquering Roman;
the exact requirements of criminal procedure in Roman capital trials at
Rome and in the provinces at the date of the crucifixion; the Roman law
applicable to the trial of Jesus; and the facts of said trial before
Pilate and Herod.

We are now in a position to analyze the case from the view point of the
juristic agreement or nonagreement of Law and Fact; and to determine by
a process of judicial dissection and re-formation, the presence or
absence of essential legal elements in the proceedings. We have learned
what should have been done by Pilate acting as a Roman judge in a
criminal matter involving the life of a prisoner. We have also
ascertained what he actually did. We are thus enabled to compare the
requirements with the actualities of the case; and to ascertain the
resemblances in the proceedings against Jesus to a legally conducted
trial under Roman law.

But, in making this summary and analysis, a most important consideration
must be constantly held in mind: that, in matters of review on appeal,
errors will not be presumed; that is, errors will not be considered that
do not appear affirmatively upon the record. The law will rather presume
and the court will assume that what should have been done, was done. In
conformity with this principle, the presumption must be indulged that
Pilate acted in strict obedience to the requirements of Roman law in
trying Jesus, unless the Gospels of the New Testament, which constitute
the record in the case, either affirmatively or by reasonable inference,
disclose the absence of such obedience. A failure to note this
presumption and to keep this principle in mind, has caused many writers
upon this subject to make erroneous statements concerning the merits and
legal aspects of the trial of Christ.

Laymen frequently assert the essential principle of this presumption
without seeming to be aware of it. Both Keim and Geikie declare that
assessors or assistants were associated with Pilate in the trial of
Jesus. The Gospel records nowhere even intimate such a thing; and no
other original records are in existence to furnish such information. And
yet one of the most celebrated of the biblical critics, Dr. Theodor
Keim, writing on the trial of Christ by Pilate, says: "Beside him, upon
benches, were the council or the assessors of the court, sub-officials,
friends, Roman citizens, whose presence could not be dispensed with, and
who were not wanting to the procurators of Judea, although our reports
do not mention them."[109] To the same effect, Dr. Cunningham Geikie
thus writes: "The assessors of the court--Roman citizens--who acted as
nominal members of the judicial bench, sit beside Pilate--for Roman law
required their presence."[110]

These statements of the renowned writers just quoted are justified not
only on the ground of logical historical inference, but also on the
principle of actual legal presumption. The closest scrutiny of the New
Testament narratives nowhere discovers even an intimation that a bench
of judges helped Pilate to conduct the trial of Jesus. And yet, as
Geikie says, "Roman law required their presence," and the legal
presumption is that they were in and about the Praetorium ready to lend
assistance, and that they actually took part in the proceedings. This
inference is strengthened by the fact that Pilate, after he had learned
the nature of the accusation against Jesus, called Him into the palace
to examine Him. Why did Pilate do this? Why did he not examine the
prisoner in the presence of His accusers in the open air? Geikie tells
us that there was a judgment hall in the palace in which trials were
usually conducted.[111] Is it not possible, nay probable, that the
assessors and Pilate were assembled at an early hour in this hall to
hear the usual criminal charges of the day, or, perhaps, to try the
accusation against Jesus, of whose appearance before them they had been
previously notified; and that, when the governor heard that the
religious scruples of the Jews would not permit them to enter the
judgment hall during the Passover feast, he went out alone to hear the
accusation against the prisoner; and that he then returned with the
accused into the hall where the bench of judges were awaiting him, to
lay before them the charges and to further examine the case? It is
admitted that this theory and the statement of Geikie that there was a
hall in the palace where trials were generally held, are seemingly
refuted by the fact that Roman trials were almost always conducted in
the open air. But this was not invariably true; and the case of Pilate
and his court might have been an exception.

It has been sought to lay particular stress upon the doctrine of legal
presumption that what should have been done, was done, unless the record
affirmatively negatives the fact, because it is impossible to appreciate
fully the legal aspects of the trial of Jesus, unless this doctrine is
understood and kept constantly in view.

A casual perusal of the New Testament narratives leaves the impression
upon the mind of the reader that the proceedings against Jesus before
Pilate were exceedingly irregular and lacking in all the essential
elements of a regular trial. As a matter of fact, this impression may be
grounded in absolute truth. It may be that the action of Pilate was
arbitrary and devoid of all legal forms. This possibility is
strengthened by the consideration that Jesus was not a Roman citizen and
could not, therefore, demand the strict observance of forms of law in
His trial. A Jewish provincial, when accused of crime, stood before a
Roman governor with no other rights than the plea of justice as a
defense against the summary exercise of absolute power. In other words,
in the case of Jesus, Pilate was not bound to observe strictly rules of
criminal procedure prescribed by Roman law. He could, if he saw fit,
dispense with forms of law and dispose of the case either equitably or
as his whims suggested. Nor was there a right of appeal in such a case,
from the judgment of the procurator to the emperor at Rome. The decision
of the governor against a provincial was final. The case of Paul before
Felix and before Festus was entirely different. Paul was a Roman citizen
and, as such, was entitled to all the rights involved in Roman
citizenship, which included the privilege of an appeal to Caesar against
the judgment of a provincial officer; and he actually exercised this
right.[112] It was incumbent, therefore, upon Roman officials to observe
due forms of law in proceeding against him. And St. Luke, in Acts xxiv.,
indicates the almost exact precision and formality of a Roman trial, in
the case of Paul.

But the fact that Jesus was not a Roman citizen does not prove that due
forms of law were not observed in His trial. It is hardly probable, as
before observed, that despotism and caprice were tolerated at any time,
in any part of the Roman world. And, besides, Roman history and
jurisprudence are replete with illustrations of complete legal
protection extended by Roman officials to the non-Roman citizens of
subject states. It is, moreover, a legitimate and almost inevitable
inference, drawn from the very nature of the Roman constitution and from
the peculiar character of Roman judicial administration, that no human
life belonging to a citizen or subject of Rome would be permitted to be
taken without due process of law, either imperial or local.

In forming an opinion as to the existence or non-existence of a regular
trial of Jesus before Pilate, the meager details of the New Testament
histories must not alone be relied upon. Nor must it be forgotten that
the Gospel writers were not lawyers or court officers reporting a case
to be reviewed on appeal. They were laymen writing a general account of
a judicial transaction. And the omissions in their narratives are not to
be considered as either discrepancies or falsehoods. They simply did not
intend to tell everything about the trial of Jesus; and the fact that
they do not record the successive steps of a regular trial does not mean
that these steps were not observed.

It is respectfully submitted that if a modern layman should write a
newspaper or book account of one of the great criminal trials of this
century, with no intention of making it a strictly judicial report, this
account would not reveal the presence of more essential legal elements
than are disclosed by the reports of the Evangelists of the proceedings
against Jesus.

The majority of writers on the subject express the opinion that the
appearance of the Christ before the Roman governor was nothing more than
a short hearing in which a few questions were asked and answers made;
that the proceedings were exceedingly brief and informal; and that the
emergencies of the case rather than forms of law guided the judgment and
controlled the conduct of Pilate. As a layman, the author of these
volumes would take the same view. But as a lawyer, treating the subject
in a judicial manner, and bound by legal rules, regulations, and
presumptions, in reviewing the merits of the case, he feels constrained
to dissent from the prevalent opinion and to declare that the New
Testament records, though meager in details, exhibit all the essential
elements of an ordinary criminal trial, whether conducted in ancient or
modern times. He further asserts that if the affirmative statements of
the Evangelists that certain things were done be supplemented by the
legal presumption that still other things were done because they should
have been done, and because the record does not affirmatively declare
that they were not done, an almost perfect judicial proceeding can be
developed from the Gospel reports of the trial of Jesus before Pilate.
These reports disclose the following essential elements of all ancient
and modern criminal trials:

  1. The Indictment, or _Nominis Delatio_.

    "What accusation bring ye against this man?"

    "And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow
    perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,
    saying that he himself is Christ a King."

  2. The Examination, or _Interrogatio_.

    "Art thou the King of the Jews?"

    "Art thou a King then?"

  3. The Defense, or _Excusatio_.

    "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world
      then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to
      the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.... To this end was
      I born and for this cause came I into the world, that I should
      bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth
      my voice."

  4. The Acquittal, or _Absolutio_.

    "I find in him no fault at all."

Here we have clearly presented the essential features of a criminal
trial: the Indictment, the Examination of the charge, the Defense, and
the Judgment of the tribunal, which, in this case, was an Acquittal.

To demonstrate that Pilate intended to conduct the proceedings against
Jesus seriously and judicially, at the beginning of the trial, let us
briefly review the circumstances attendant upon the successive steps
just enumerated. And to this end, let us proceed in order:

1. The Indictment, or _Nominis Delatio_.

When Pilate had seated himself in the ivory curule chair of the
procurator of Judea, at an early hour on Friday morning, the day of the
crucifixion of Jesus, a Jerusalem mob, led by the Sanhedrin, confronted
him with the prisoner. His first recorded words are: "What accusation
bring ye against this man?" As before suggested, this question is very
keenly indicative of the presence of the judge and of the beginning of a
solemn judicial proceeding. Every word rings with Roman authority and
strongly suggests administrative action.

The accusing priests sought to evade this question by answering: "If he
were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee."

If Pilate had adopted the Jewish view of the merits of the matter, that
his countersign was the only thing necessary to justify the final
condemnation and punishment of the prisoner; or, if he had been
indifferent to the legal aspects of the case, he would simply have
granted their request at once, and would have ordered the prisoner to
execution. But this was not the case; for we are assured that he
insisted on knowing the nature of the accusation before he would assume
jurisdiction of the affair. The mere information that He was a
"malefactor" did not suffice. The conduct of the Roman judge clearly
indicated that accusation was a more important element of Roman
criminal procedure than was inquisition. To meet the emergency, the Jews
were compelled, then, to make the formal charge, that:

"We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give
tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King."

Here we have presented the indictment, the first step in a criminal
proceeding; and it was presented not voluntarily, but because a Roman
judge, acting judicially, demanded and forced its presentment.

2. The Examination, or _Interrogatio_.

Not content with knowing the nature of the charges against the prisoner,
Pilate insisted on finding out whether they were true or not. He
accordingly took Jesus inside the palace and interrogated Him. With true
judicial tact, he brushed aside the first two accusations as
unimportant, and came with pointed directness to the material question:

"Art thou the King of the Jews?"

This interrogation bears the impress of a judicial inquiry, touching a
matter involving the question of high treason, the charge against the
prisoner. It clearly indicates a legal proceeding in progress. And when
Jesus made reply that seemed to indicate guilt, the practiced ear of the
Roman judge caught the suggestion of a criminal confession, and he asked
impatiently:

"Art thou a King then?"

This question indicates seriousness and a resolution to get at the
bottom of the matter with a view to a serious judicial determination of
the affair.

3. The Defense, or _Excusatio_.

In reply to the question of the judge, the prisoner answered:

"My kingdom is not of this world."

This language indicates that Jesus was conscious of the solemnity of the
proceedings; and that He recognized the right of Pilate to interrogate
Him judicially. His answer seemed to say: "I recognize your authority in
matters of this life and this world. If my claims to kingship were
temporal, I fully appreciate that they would be treasonable; and that,
as the representative of Caesar, you would be justified in delivering me
to death. But my pretensions to royalty are spiritual, and this places
the matter beyond your reach."

The defense of Jesus was in the nature of what we call in modern
pleading a Confession and Avoidance: "A plea which admits, in words or
in effect, the truth of the matter contained in the Declaration; and
alleges some new matter to avoid the effect of it, and shows that the
plaintiff is, notwithstanding, not entitled to his action."

It may be analyzed thus:

Confession: Inside the palace, Pilate asked Jesus the question: "Art
thou the King of the Jews?" According to St. Matthew, Jesus answered:
"Thou sayest";[113] according to St. Mark: "Thou sayest it";[114]
according to St. Luke: "Thou sayest it";[115] according to St. John:
"Thou sayest that I am a king."[116]

All these replies are identical in signification, and mean: Thou sayest
it, because I am really a king. In other words, He simply confessed that
He was a king. Then came His real defense.

Avoidance: "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to
the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.... To this end was I
born and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear
witness of the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice."

After having confessed claims to kingship, and having thereby made
Himself momentarily liable on the charge of high treason, He at once
avoids the effect of the declaration by alleging new matter which
exempted Him from the operation of the _crimen Laesae Majestatis_. He
boldly declares His kingship, but places His kingdom beyond the skies in
the realm of truth and spirit. He asserts a bold antithesis between the
Empire of Caesar and the Kingdom of God. He cheerfully acknowledges the
procuratorship of Pilate in the first, but fearlessly proclaims His own
Messiahship in the second.

4. The Acquittal, or _Absolutio_.

It is more than probable that Pilate's heathen soul mocked the heavenly
claims of the lowly prisoner in his presence, but his keenly discerning
Roman intellect marked at once the distinction between an earthly and a
heavenly kingdom. He saw clearly that their boundaries nowhere
conflicted, and that treasonable contact was impossible. He judged that
Jesus was simply a gentle enthusiast whose pretensions were harmless.
Accordingly, he went out to the mob and pronounced a verdict of "not
guilty." Solemnly raising his hand, he proclaimed the sentence of
acquittal:

"I find in him no fault at all."

This language is not the classical legal phraseology of a Roman verdict
of acquittal. The Latin word for a single ballot was _absolvo_; the
words of a collective judgment of a bench of judges was _non fecisse
videtur_. The language of St. John, though that of a layman, is equally
as effectual, if not so formal and judicial.

More than any other feature of the case, the verdict of acquittal, "I
find in him no fault at all," indicates the regularity and solemnity of
a judicial proceeding. Standing alone, it would indicate the close of a
regular trial in which a court having jurisdiction had sat in judgment
upon the life or liberty of an alleged criminal.

If to these essential elements of a trial which the Gospel records
affirmatively disclose be added other necessary elements of a regular
Roman trial which legal presumption supplies, because these records do
not deny their existence, we have then in the proceedings against Jesus
all the important features of Roman criminal procedure involving the
question of life or death. That several essential elements are absent is
evident from a reasonable construction of the statements of the
Evangelists. That which most forcibly negatives the existence of a
regular trial was the precipitancy with which the proceedings were
conducted before Pilate. We have seen that ten days were allowed at Rome
after the _nominis receptio_ to secure testimony and prepare the case
before the beginning of the trial. This rule was certainly not observed
at the trial of Jesus. But several irregularities which are apparent
from a perusal of the Gospel histories may be explained from the fact
that Jesus was not a Roman citizen and was not, therefore, entitled to a
strict observance of Roman law in the proceedings against him.

The foregoing analysis and summary apply only to the proceedings of the
first appearance of Jesus before Pilate. It was at this time that the
real Roman trial took place. All subsequent proceedings were irregular,
tumultuous and absolutely illegal. The examination of Jesus by Herod
cannot, strictly speaking, be called a trial. The usual explanation of
the sending of the prisoner to Herod is that Pilate learned that He was
a native and citizen of Galilee; and that, desiring to rid himself of an
embarrassing subject, he determined to transfer the accused from the
_forum apprehensionis_ to the _forum originis vel domicilii_. It has
frequently been asserted that it was usual in Roman procedure to
transfer a prisoner from the place of arrest to the place of his origin
or residence. There seems to be no authority for this contention. It may
or may not have been true as a general proposition. But it was certainly
not true in the case of the transfer of Jesus to Herod. In the first
place, when Pilate declared, "I find no fault in him at all," a verdict
of acquittal was pronounced, and the case was ended. The proceedings had
taken form of _res adjudicata_, and former jeopardy could have been
pleaded in bar of further prosecution. It might be differently contended
if Pilate had discovered that Jesus was from Galilee before the
proceedings before him were closed. But it is clear from St. Luke, who
alone records the occurrence of the sending of the prisoner to Herod,
that the case was closed and the verdict of acquittal had been rendered
before Pilate discovered the identity of the accused.[117] It was then
too late to subject a prisoner to a second trial for the same offense.

Rosadi denies emphatically that Herod had jurisdiction of the offense
charged against Jesus. In this connection, he says: "His prosecutors
insisted tenaciously upon His answering to a charge of _continuous_
sedition, as lawyers call it. This offence had been begun in Galilee and
ended in Jerusalem--that is to say, in Judaea. Now it was a rule of Roman
law, which the procurator of Rome could neither fail to recognize nor
afford to neglect, that the competence of a court territorially
constituted was determined either by the place in which the arrest was
made, or by the place in which the offence was committed. Jesus had been
arrested at the gates of Jerusalem; His alleged offence had been
committed for the most part, and as far as all the final acts were
concerned, in the city itself and in other localities of Judaea. In
continuous offences competence was determined by the place in which the
last acts going to constitute the offence had been committed. Thus no
justification whatever existed for determining the court with regard to
the prisoner's origin. But this investigation upon a point of Roman law
is to all intents superfluous, because either Pilate, when he thought of
Herod, intended to strip himself of his inalienable judicial power, and
in this case he ought to have respected the jurisdiction and competence
of the Grand Sanhedrin and not to have busied himself with a conflict as
to cognizance which should only have been discussed and resolved by the
Jewish judicial authorities; or else he had no intention of abdicating
his power, and in this case he ought never to have raised the question
of competence between himself, Governor of Judaea, and Herod, Regent of
Galilee, but between himself and the Roman Vice-Governor of Galilee, his
colleague, if there had been such an one. It is only between judges of
the same judicial hierarchy that a dispute as to territorial competence
can arise. Between magistrates of different States there can only exist
a contrast of power and jurisdiction. The act of Pilate cannot then be
interpreted as a scruple of a constitutional character. It is but a
miserable escape for his irresolution, a mere endeavour to temporize."

The second and final appearance of Jesus before Pilate bears little
resemblance to a regular trial. The characteristic elements of an
ordinary Roman criminal proceeding are almost wholly wanting. The
pusillanimous cowardice of the procurator and the blind fury of the mob
are the chief component parts. A sort of wild phantasmagoria sweeps
through the multitude and circles round the tribunal of the governor.
Pilate struggles with his conscience, and seeks safety in subterfuge. He
begins by declaring to the assembled priests and elders that neither he
nor Herod has found any fault in the man; and then, as a means of
compromise and conciliation, makes the monstrous proposal that he will
first scourge and then release the prisoner. This infamous proposal is
rejected by the mob. The cowardly procurator then adopts another mean
expedient as a way of escape. He offers to deliver Jesus to them as a
Passover gift. Him they refuse and Barabbas, the robber, is demanded.
Pilate's terror is intensified by superstitious dread, when the mob
begins to cry: "He made himself the Son of God!" From out the anguish of
his soul, the voice of Justice sends to his quivering lips the
thrice-repeated question: "Why, what evil hath he done?" The mob
continues to cry: "Crucify him! Crucify him!"

And as a final assault upon his conscience and his courage, the
hypocritical priests warn him that he must not release a pretender to
kingship, for such a man is an enemy to Caesar. The doom of the Nazarene
is sealed by this last maneuver of the rabble. Then, as a propitiation
to the great God of truth and justice, and as balm to his hurt and
wounded conscience, he washes his hands in front of them and exclaims:
"I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it."

The crucifixion followed Pilate's final determination; and thus ended
the most famous trial in the history of the world. It began with the
arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane at midnight, and ended with His
crucifixion on Golgotha on the afternoon of the same day. As we have
seen, it was a double trial, conducted within the jurisdictions of the
two most famous systems of jurisprudence known to mankind. In both
trials, substantially the right issue was raised. Before the Sanhedrin,
the prisoner was charged with blasphemy and convicted. Regarding Jesus
as a mere man, a plain Jewish citizen, this judgment was "substantially
right in point of law", but was unjust and outrageous because forms of
criminal procedure which every Jewish prisoner was entitled to have
observed, were completely ignored.

The proceedings before Pilate, we have reason to believe, were
conducted, in a general way, with due regard to forms of law. But the
result was judicial murder, because the judge, after having acquitted
Jesus, delivered Him to be crucified. "I find in him no fault at all"
was the verdict of Pilate. But this just and righteous sentence was
destroyed and obliterated by the following: "And they were instant with
loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of
them and of the chief priests prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that
it should be as they required."[118]

A horrible travesty on justice, this! "_Absolvo_" and "_Ibis ad
crucem_," in the same breath, were the final utterances of a Roman judge
administering Roman law in the most memorable judicial transaction
known to men.

The treatment of this great theme would be incomplete and unsatisfactory
unless reference were made to the peculiar views of some who believe
that political rather than legal considerations should govern in
determining the justice or the injustice of the proceedings against
Jesus before Pilate. A certain class of critics insist on regarding the
Roman governor in the light of an administrator rather than a judge, and
contend that the justice of his conduct and the righteousness of his
motives should be tested by principles of public policy rather than by
strict legal rules. It is insisted by such persons that various
considerations support this contention. It is pointed out that Pilate
exercised the unlimited jurisdiction of the military _imperium_, and was
not, therefore, strictly bound by legal rules; that Jesus was not a
Roman citizen, and, for this reason, was not entitled to the strict
observance of forms of law; and that the stubborn, rebellious and
turbulent temper of the Jewish people required the strong hand of a
military governor, enforcing political obedience by drastic measures,
rather than the action of a judge punctiliously applying rules of law.
These peculiar views subject the conduct of Pilate to the pressure of
public necessity rather than to the test of private right, and insist
that sympathy rather than censure should hold the scales in which his
deeds are weighed.

This view of the case was presented in the last generation by Sir James
Fitz-James Stephen in a book of extraordinary strength and brilliancy
entitled "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." It was written in answer to
John Stuart Mill, and is, without doubt, the most powerful assault in
the English language on what men have been pleased to call in modern
times "liberty of conscience." In his letters and essays, Mr. Mill,
according to the interpretation of Mr. Stephen, "condemns absolutely all
interference with the expression of opinion." When tried by this
standard, the Athenian dicasts, who condemned Socrates; Marcus Aurelius,
who persecuted the Christians; Pontius Pilate, who crucified Jesus; and
Philip II, who sanctioned the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, were
simply violators of rights of personal opinion and of freedom of
conscience. If you deny the right of liberty of conscience, Mr. Mill
contends, you must not censure Marcus Aurelius and other persecutors of
Christianity. On the contrary, you must approve such persecution; and
you must go further, and find "a principle which would justify Pontius
Pilate." This challenge was boldly accepted by Mr. Stephen, who says:

"Was Pilate right in crucifying Christ? I reply, Pilate's paramount duty
was to preserve the peace in Palestine, to form the best judgment he
could as to the means required for that purpose, and to act upon it when
it was formed. Therefore, if and in so far as he believed in good faith
and on reasonable grounds that what he did was necessary for the
preservation of the peace of Palestine, he was right. It was his duty to
run the risk of being mistaken, notwithstanding Mr. Mill's principle as
to liberty. He was in the position of a judge whose duty it is to try
persons duly brought before him for trial at the risk of error."[119]

This contention is founded upon the inexorable doctrine that what is, is
right; that revolution, though righteous, must be nipped in the bud and
destroyed; and that rights of private conscience must not be tolerated
if they tend to disturb the peace of the community at large. The
inevitable logic of the theory of Mr. Stephen is that the established
order of things in Palestine under Roman rule was right, and that it was
the duty of the Roman governor to regard all attempts at innovation or
revolution in religion or government as a breach of the peace which was
to be promptly suppressed by vigorous measures. There is undoubtedly a
certain amount of truth in this contention, in so far as it implies that
under a just and orderly plan of government, the rights of the
commonwealth to peace and security are greater than the claims of the
individual to liberty of conscience which conflict with and tend to
destroy those rights. It is a truth, at once sovereign and fundamental,
in both law and government, that the rights of the collective body are
greater than those of any individual member; and that when the rights of
the whole and those of a part of the body politic conflict, the rights
of the part must yield and, if necessity requires it, be destroyed. Upon
no other basis can the doctrine of majorities in politics and the right
of Eminent Domain in law, rest. But the application of the principles
involved in this theory must always be made with proper limitations, and
with a due regard to the rights of minorities and individuals; else
government becomes an engine of despotism instead of an expression of
political freedom. A claim of privilege which every member of the
community has a right to make, must be respected by the collective body;
otherwise, a common right has been violated and destroyed. The complete
recognition of this principle is imperative and fundamental, and is the
corner stone of political freedom in free institutions among men.

But the trouble with the contention of Mr. Stephen is that it proceeds
upon a wrong hypothesis. He intimates that Pilate might have "believed
in good faith that what he did was necessary for the preservation of the
peace of Palestine." This is a purely gratuitous and unhistorical
suggestion. The Gospel records nowhere justify such an assumption. The
very opposite is taught by these sacred writings. It is true that
Caiaphas contended that it was expedient that one man should die rather
than that the whole nation should perish. But this was a Jewish, not a
Roman opinion. The Evangelical narratives are unanimous in declaring
that Pilate believed Jesus to be innocent and that "for envy" He had
been accused by His countrymen.

It is cheerfully conceded that occasions may present themselves, in the
tumult and frenzy of revolution, when the responsible authorities of
government may put to death a person whose intentions are innocent, but
whose acts are incentives to riot and bloodshed. This may be done upon
the principle of self-preservation, which is the first law of government
as well as of nature. But no such necessity arose in the case of Jesus;
and no such motives are ascribed by the Evangelists to Pilate. They very
clearly inform us that the action of the Roman governor in delivering
the prisoner to be crucified was prompted by private and not public
considerations. He had no fears that Jesus would precipitate a
revolution dangerous to the Roman state. He simply wished to quiet the
mob and retain his position as procurator of Judea. The facts of
history, then, do not support the contention of Mr. Stephen.

Continuing, in another place, the same eminent writer says: "The point
to which I wish to direct attention is that Pilate's duty was to
maintain peace and order in Judea and to maintain the Roman power. It is
surely impossible to contend seriously that it was his duty, or that it
could be the duty of any one in his position, to recognize in the person
brought to his judgment seat, I do not say God Incarnate, but the
teacher and preacher of a higher form of morals and a more enduring form
of social order than that of which he himself was the representative. To
a man in Pilate's position the morals and the social order which he
represents are for all practical purposes final and absolute standards.
If, in order to evade the obvious inference from this, it is said that
Pilate ought to have respected the principle of religious liberty as
propounded by Mr. Mill, the answer is that if he had done so he would
have run the risk of setting the whole province in a blaze. It is only
in very modern times, and under the influence of modern sophisms, that
belief and action have come to be so much separated in these parts of
the world that the distinction between the temporal and spiritual
department of affairs even appears to be tenable; but this is a point
for future discussion.

"If this should appear harsh, I would appeal again to Indian experience.
Suppose that some great religious reformer--say, for instance, some one
claiming to be the Guru of the Sikhs, or the Imam in whose advent many
Mahommedans devoutly believe--were to make his appearance in the Punjab
or the North-West Provinces. Suppose that there was good reason to
believe--and nothing is more probable--that whatever might be the
preacher's own personal intentions, his preaching was calculated to
disturb the public peace and produce mutiny and rebellion: and suppose
further (though the supposition is one which it is hardly possible to
make even in imagination), that a British officer, instead of doing
whatever might be necessary, or executing whatever orders he might
receive, for the maintenance of British authority, were to consider
whether he ought not to become a disciple of the Guru or Imam. What
course would be taken towards him? He would be instantly dismissed with
ignominy from the service which he would disgrace, and if he acted up to
his convictions, and preferred his religion to his Queen and country, he
would be hanged as a rebel and a traitor."[120]

These theories and illustrations are not only plausible but entirely
reasonable when viewed in the light of the facts which they assume to be
true. But here again, we must insist that they do not harmonize with
the actual facts of the case to which they are intended to apply. In
the extract above quoted, three suppositions are suggested. The first
one is immaterial. Let us analyze the other two in the light of the
Gospel histories. The second supposition is this: "Suppose that there
was good reason to believe--and nothing is more probable--that whatever
might be the preacher's own personal intentions, his preaching was
calculated to disturb the public peace and produce mutiny and
rebellion." What passage of Scripture, it may be asked, justifies this
parallel with the case of Jesus before Pilate? There is, in fact,
absolutely none. The nearest approach to one is Matthew xxvii. 24: "When
Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was
made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying,
I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." The
"tumult" here referred to means nothing more than the manifestation of
agitated feelings on the part of the mob, who were enraged at the
prospect of an acquittal by the governor. It does not remotely refer to
the danger of a popular rebellion which might endanger the security and
safety of Rome. To admit this supposition would be to elevate the
motives of Pilate in consenting to the crucifixion of Jesus to the level
of solicitude for the welfare of his country. This would not be
justified by the record, which clearly reveals that Pilate was moved by
personal selfishness rather than by a sense of official duty.

The third and last supposition above mentioned is this: "And suppose,
further (though the supposition is one which it is hardly possible to
make even in imagination), that a British officer, instead of doing
whatever might be necessary, or executing whatever orders he might
receive, for the maintenance of British authority, were to consider
whether he ought not to become a disciple of the Guru or Imam." Here
again, we may ask, what passage of Scripture supports this parallel of a
Mohammedan Guru before a British officer with Jesus Christ before
Pontius Pilate? Where is it anywhere stated, or by reasonable inference
implied, that Pilate considered whether he ought not to become a
disciple of Jesus? The celebrated English author has simply argued his
case from a radically defective record of fact.

On the other hand, let us draw what we conceive to be a true parallel.
Let us take an illustration nearer home. Suppose that the Governor
General of the Philippine Islands was clothed with authority of life and
death as a judge in criminal matters pertaining to the affairs of those
islands. Suppose that a Mohammedan preacher should appear somewhere in
the archipelago where Mohammedans are numerous, and begin to proclaim a
new religious faith which was opposed not only to the ordinary tenets of
Islamism, but also to the Christian religion which is the dominant faith
of the rulers of the Philippines. Suppose that the coreligionists of
this Mohammedan prophet should seize him, bring him before the Governor
General, and lodge against him a threefold charge: That he was stirring
up sedition in the islands; that he had advised the Filipinos not to pay
taxes due to the United States government; and that he had said and
done things that were treasonable against the United States. Suppose
that the Governor General, after personal examination, became satisfied
that the Mohamammedan preacher was an innocent enthusiast, that the
charges against him were false, and were due to the envy and hatred of
his fellow-Mohammedans; that to quiet the passions, and satisfy the
demands of the mob, he proposed to scourge him first and then release
him; that, in the face of the vehement accusations of the rabble, he
hesitated and vacillated for several hours; and that finally, when the
Mohammedans threatened to send a complaint to President Roosevelt which
might endanger his position, he ordered his innocent prisoner to death.
Suppose this should happen beneath the American flag, what would be the
judgment of the American people as to the merits of the proceedings?
Would the Governor General retain his office by such a course of
conduct?

But let us view it in another light. Let us assume that the Governor
General believed that the Mohammedan preacher was innocent and that his
"personal intentions" were not remotely hostile or treasonable, but felt
that his preaching might stir up rebellion dangerous to the power of the
American government in the Philippines; and that it was his duty as the
guardian of American honor and security, to put the native preacher to
death; and this not to punish past criminal conduct, but to prevent
future trouble by a timely execution. Suppose that the Governor General
should do this while sitting as a judge, would it not be judicial
murder? Suppose that he should do it while acting as an administrator,
would it be less an assassination? Would it not stamp with indelible
shame the administration that should sanction or tolerate it? Would the
press of America not denounce the act as murder, declare that despotism
reigned in our Eastern possessions, and demand the removal and
punishment of the man who had disgraced his office and brought odium
upon the administrative justice of his country?

In closing the Roman trial of Jesus, let us repeat what we have already
said: that the conduct of Pilate, when the prisoner was first brought
before him, seems to have been marked by judicial regularity and
solemnity; that the Roman procurator seems to have deported himself in a
manner worthy of his office; that, in the beginning, he appears to have
resolved to observe due forms of law in the proceedings, to the end that
justice might be attained; and that, after a comparatively regular
trial, he pronounced an absolute verdict of acquittal. Thus far the
course of Pilate is manly and courageous. But with the return of the
prisoner from Herod, unmanliness and cowardice begin.

This last act of the great drama presents a pitiable spectacle of Roman
degeneracy. A Roman governor of courtly origin, clothed with _imperium_,
with a Praetorian Cohort at his command, and the military authority and
resources of an empire at his back, cringes and crouches before a
Jerusalem mob. The early Christian writers characterized Pilate with a
single term ([Greek: anandria]), "unmanliness." They were right. This
word is a summary, accurate and complete, of the character of the man.

There is inherent in the highest and noblest of the human species a
quality of courage which knows no fear; that prefers death and
annihilation to dishonor and disgrace; that believes, with Caesar, that
it is better to die at once than to live always in fear of death; and,
with Mahomet, that Paradise will be found in the shadow of the crossing
of swords. This quality of courage is peculiar to no race of men and to
no form of civilization. It has existed everywhere and at all times. It
causes the spirit of man to tread the earth like a lion and to mount the
air like an eagle. The ancient barbarians of Gaul believed that
lightning was a menace from the skies; and amidst the very fury of the
storm, from their great bows they sent arrows heavenward as a defiance
to the gods. This quality of courage, which is natural to man, Pilate
lacked. And when we think of his cowardly, cringing, crouching,
vacillating conduct before a few fanatical priests in Jerusalem, another
scene at another time comes up before us. The Tenth Legion rises in
mutiny and defies Julius Caesar. The mighty Roman summons his rebellious
soldiers to the Field of Mars, reads to them the Roman riot act, and
threatens to dismiss them not only from his favor but from Roman
military service. The veterans of a hundred Gallic battlefields are
subdued and conquered by the tone and glance of a single man; and with
tearful eyes, beg forgiveness, and ask to be permitted to follow once
again him and his eagles to the feast of victory and of death. Imagine,
if you can, Caesar in the place of Pilate. it is not difficult to
conceive the fare of a vulgar rabble who persisted in annoying such a
Roman by demanding the blood of an innocent man.

But the cowardice and pusillanimity of the Roman governor are not
properly illustrated by comparison with the courage and magnanimity of a
Roman general. At the trial of Jesus, Pilate was acting in a judicial
capacity, and was essentially a judge. His character, then, may be best
understood by contrasting it with another judge in another age and
country. His craven qualities will then be manifest.

The greatest of the English jurists and judges was Sir Edward Coke. His
legal genius was superb and his judicial labors prodigious. During the
greater part of his professional career he slept only six hours, "and
from three in the morning till nine at night he read or took notes of
the cases tried in Westminster Hall with as little interruption as
possible." He was great not only as a judge, but as an advocate as well.
The consummate skill with which he argued the intricate cases of Lord
Cromwell and Edward Shelley, brought him a practice never before equaled
in England, and made him renowned as the greatest lawyer of the times.
His erudition was profound, his powers of advocacy brilliant, his
personal and judicial courage was magnificent. He not only repeatedly
defied and ridiculed his colleagues on the bench, but more than once
excited the wrath and braved the anger of the king. He fearlessly
planted himself upon the ancient and inalienable rights of Englishmen;
and, time and time again, interposed his robe at office between the
privileges of the Commons and the aggressions of the Crown. He boldly
declared that a royal proclamation could not make that an offense which
was not an offense before. His unswerving independence was well
illustrated in a case brought before him in 1616. The question at issue
was the validity of a grant made by the king to the Bishop of Lichfield
of a benefice to be held _in commendam_. King James, through his
attorney-general, Bacon, commanded the chief justice to delay judgment
till he himself had discussed the question with the judges. Bacon, at
Coke's request, sent a letter containing the same command to each of the
judges. Coke then obtained their signatures to a paper declaring that
the instructions of the attorney-general were illegal, and that they
were bound to proceed with the case. The king became very angry,
summoned the judges before him in the council chamber, declared to them
his kingly prerogative, and forbade them to discuss his royal privileges
in ordinary arguments before their tribunal. Coke's colleagues fell upon
their knees, cowed and terrified, before the royal bigot and despot, and
begged his pardon for having expressed an opinion that had excited his
displeasure. But Coke refused to yield, and, when asked if, in the
future, he would delay a case at the king's order, he bravely replied
that on all occasions and under any emergency, he would do nothing
unworthy of himself or his office as an English citizen and judge. And
rather than prostitute the high prerogatives of his court, he
indignantly and contemptuously hurled his judicial mantle into the face
of the Stuart king. How much grander and nobler was the conduct of Coke,
the Englishman, than that of Pilate, the cowardly, pusillanimous Roman!
Both were judges, both stood in the shadow of the majesty and menace of
a throne, both were threatened with royal wrath, both held high judicial
places under the governments of the most vast and glorious empires that
this world has known. Coke preferred the dictates of his conscience to
the decrees of his king; and his name remains forever enshrined in the
minds and memories of men as the noblest type of a brave and righteous
judge. For a miserable mess of Roman political pottage, Pilate forfeited
his birthright to the most splendid and illustrious example of judicial
integrity and courage in the history of the earth; and his name remains
forever a hissing and reproach, as the worst specimen of the corrupt and
cowardly judge that mankind has known.

If it be objected that the position of Pilate was more painful and
precarious than that of Coke, because the Roman was confronted by a wild
and furious mob, reply must then be made that both the spirit and letter
of Roman laws forbade surrender by Roman governors and administrators of
the principles of justice to the blind passions of the multitude. This
spirit was, in a later age, set forth in the laws of Justinian, when
reproduction was made of the proclamations of the emperors Diocletian
and Maximian, on the occasion of a public riot, that "the vain clamors
of the people are not to be heeded, seeing that it is in no wise
necessary to pay any attention to the cries of those desiring the
acquittal of the guilty, or the condemnation of the innocent."[121]

Pilate yielded to the demands of the mob when his country's laws forbade
it. His intellect willed the execution of an innocent man when his
conscience condemned it. "Such was the man whose cowardice, made
manifest in the most supreme and memorable act of injustice the world
has ever known, was destined to earn him eternal infamy. To him and to
no others pointed the poet as

                                  'colui
    Che fece per viltate il gran rifiuto;'

to him, the prototype of that long train of those who were never quite
alive, who vainly sought glory in this world, vainly dreaded infamy;
who, ever wavering betwixt good and evil, washed their hands; who, like
the neutral angels of the threshold, were neither faithful nor
rebellious; who are equally despised by pity and justice; who render
themselves

    'A Dio spiacenti ed ai nemici sui.'

And what man other than Pilate was ever placed so typically, in such
accordance with the eyes of the poet, between the Son of God and His
enemies, between justice and mercy, between right and wrong, between the
Emperor and the Jews, and has refused either issue of the dilemma?

"Was it Celestine, Diocletian, or Esau? But they of two things chose the
one; and who knows but that they chose the better? A hermitage and a
mess of pottage may under many aspects be better worth than the papacy
renounced by Celestine, than the empire abdicated by Diocletian, or than
the birthright bartered by Esau. But Pilate refused to choose, and his
refusal was great--great enough to justify the antonomasia of Dante--and
it was cowardly. He refused not only the great gift of free will in a
case when a free choice was his absolute duty. When admitted, like the
fallen angels, to the great choice between good and evil, he did not
cleave for ever to the good, as did St. Michael, or to the evil, as did
Lucifer, but he refused a power which for him was the fount of duty and
which cost the life of a man and the right of an innocent."

But was Pilate alone guilty of the crime of the crucifixion? Were the
Jews wholly blameless? This raises the question: Who were the real
crucifiers of the Christ, the Jews or the Romans? That the Jews were the
instigators and the Romans the consummators of the crucifixion is
evident from the Gospel narratives. The Jews made the complaint, and the
Romans ordered and effected the arrest of the prisoner in Gethsemane.
Having tried Him before their own tribunal, the Jews then led Jesus away
to the Roman governor, and in the Praetorium accused Him and furnished
evidence against Him. But the final act of crucifying was a Roman act.
It is true that Jewish elements were present in the crucifixion of
Jesus. The death draught offered Him on the cross suggests a humane
provision of Hebrew law. This drink was usury administered among the
Hebrews "so that the delinquent might lose clear consciousness through
the ensuing intoxication." Again, the body of Jesus was removed from the
cross and buried before it was night. This was in deference to an
ancient custom of the Jews to bury criminals before sunset who had first
been executed by stoning for the crime of blasphemy and had then been
subjected to the indignity of being hung upon a tree, in conformity with
a Mosaic ordinance contained in Deut. xxi. 22. But these two incidents
exhaust the Jewish features of the crucifixion; and, besides, these
elements were merely physical. The spiritual or moral features,
involving turpitude and crime, are entirely different considerations
from those that are simply historical. The question still arises: Who
were the morally guilty parties? Who were the directly responsible
agents of the crucifixion, the Jews or the Romans? Upon whom should the
greater blame rest, if both were guilty? A passage from St. John seems
to indicate that the Jews were the bearers of the greater sin. Replying
to a question of Pilate concerning the procurator's power to crucify
Him, "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me,
except it were given thee from above; therefore he that delivered me
unto thee hath the greater sin."[122] According to many commentators,
Jesus referred to Caiaphas; according to others, He spoke of Judas as
the person who had the greater sin. But in any case it is certain that
He did not intend to involve the whole Jewish nation in the crime of His
arrest and execution. The language of the scriptural context indicates a
single person. Pilate, on the one hand, is made the silent instrument in
the hands of God for the accomplishment of the designs of Heaven.
Caiaphas, on the other hand, is probably referred to as the one having
the greater sin, because, being the high priest of the Sanhedrin, he
better understood the questions involved in the religious charge of
blasphemy, and was, therefore, the greater sinner against the laws of
God, in the matter of the injustice then being perpetrated.

[Illustration: THE CRUCIFIXION (MUNKACSY)]

Aside from the religious questions involved, and speaking in the light
of history and law, our own judgment is that the real crucifiers of the
Christ were the Romans, and that Pilate and his countrymen should bear
the greater blame. It is true that the Jews were the instigators, the
accusers. But Pilate was the judge whose authority was absolute. The
Jews were powerless to inflict the death penalty. Pilate had the final
disposition of all matters of life and death. In short, he could have
prevented the crucifixion of Jesus. He did not do so; and upon him and
his countrymen should rest the censure of Heaven and the execration of
mankind.

But, admitting that the priests of the Sanhedrin were equally guilty
with Pilate and the Romans, does it follow that all Jews of the days of
Jesus who were not participants in the crime against him, should suffer
for the folly and criminal conduct of a mere fragment of a Sadducean
sect? Is it not true that the Jewish people, as a race, were not parties
to the condemnation and execution of the Christ? Is it not reasonable to
suppose that the masses in Palestine were friendly to the democratic
Reformer who was the friend of the poor, the lame, and the blind? Did
not the reception of his miracles and his triumphal entry into Jerusalem
indicate His popularity with the plain people? Is it not historically
true that the great body of the Jewish population in Judea, in Galilee,
in Samaria, and in Perea, was unfriendly to the members of the
Sanhedrin, and regarded them as political renegades and religious
delinquents? Is it not reasonably certain that a large majority of the
countrymen of Jesus were his ardent well-wishers and sincerely regretted
his untimely end? Is it possible to conceive that these friends and
well-wishers were the inheritors of the curse of Heaven because of the
crime of Golgotha? If not, is it rational to suppose that their innocent
descendants have been the victims of this curse?

The cruel and senseless notion of the implacable wrath of Deity has
prevailed in all the ages as an explanation of the destruction of
Jerusalem and the dispersion and persecution of the Jews. It is worse
than nonsense to see in this event anything but the operation of vulgar
physical forces of the most ordinary kind. The fall of Jerusalem was a
most natural and consequential thing. It was not even an extraordinary
historical occurrence, even in Jewish history. Titus did not so
completely destroy Jerusalem as did Nebuchadnezzar before him. Razing
cities to the ground was a customary Roman act, a form of pastime, a
characteristic Roman proceeding in the case of stubborn and rebellious
towns. Scipio razed Carthage and drove Carthaginians into the most
remote corners of the earth. Was any Roman or Punic god interested in
this event? Caesar destroyed many Gallic cities and scattered Gauls
throughout the world. Was any deity concerned about these things?

Roman admiration was at times enkindled, but Roman clemency was never
gained by deeds of valor directed against the arms of Rome. Neither
Hannibal nor Mithradates, Vercingetorix nor Jugurtha, the grandest of
her enemies, received any mercy at her hands. To oppose her will, was to
invite destruction; and the sequel was a mere question of "the survival
of the fittest." The most turbulent, rebellious and determined of all
the imperial dependencies was the province of Judea. The Jews regarded
the Romans as idolaters; and, instead of obeying them as masters,
despised and defied them as barbarians. When this spirit became manifest
and promised to be perpetual, the dignity of the Roman name as well as
the safety of the Roman State, demanded the destruction of Jerusalem and
the dispersion of the Jews. And destruction and dispersion followed as
naturally as any profane effect follows any vulgar cause.

The Irish, another splendid race, are being dispersed throughout the
earth by the English domination of Ireland. Is anybody so keenly
discerning as to see in Irish dispersion a divine or superhuman agency?
Is it not, after all, the simple operation of the same brutal, physical
forces that destroyed Carthage and Jerusalem, and, in a latter century,
dismembered Poland?

But the advocates of the divine wrath theory quote Scriptures and point
to prophecy in support of their contention. Then Scriptures must be
pitted against Scriptures. The last prayer of the Master on the cross
must be made to repeal every earlier Scriptural prophecy or decree.
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," is the sublimest
utterance in the literature of the world. It is the epitome of every
Christian virtue and of all religious truth. This proclamation from the
cross repealed the Mosaic law of hereditary sin; placed upon a personal
basis responsibility for offenses against God and man; and served notice
upon future generations that those who "know not what they do" are
entitled to be spared and forgiven. To believe that God ignored the
prayer of Christ on the cross; and that the centuries of persecution of
the Jews which followed, were but the fulfillment of prophecy and fate,
is to assail the Messiahship of Jesus and to question the goodness and
mercy of Jehovah. Jesus knew the full meaning of His prayer and was
serious unto death. To believe that the Father rejected the petition of
the Son is to destroy the equality of the persons of the Trinity by
investing one with the authority and power to review, revise, and reject
the judgments and petitions of the others. If the Christian doctrine be
true that Christ was God "manifest in the flesh"; if the doctrine of the
Trinity be true that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost, are one and the same, eternal and inseparable, then the prayer of
Jesus on the cross was not a petition, but a declaration that the
malefactors of the crucifixion, who, in the blindness of ignorance, had
helped to kill the Son of Man, would receive at the Last Day the
benefits of the amnesty of the Father of mercy and forgiveness.

If the perpetrators of the great injustice of the Sanhedrin and of the
Praetorium are to be forgiven because they knew not what they did, is
there any justice, human or divine, in persecuting their innocent
descendants of all lands and ages? "When Sir Moses Montefiore was
taunted by a political opponent with the memory of Calvary and described
by him as one who sprang from the murderers who crucified the world's
Redeemer, the next morning the Jewish philanthropist, whom Christendom
has learned to honor, called upon his assailant and showed him the
record of his ancestors which had been kept for two thousand years, and
which showed that their home had been in Spain for two hundred years
before Jesus of Nazareth was born." This half-humorous anecdote
illustrates the utter absurdity and supreme injustice of connecting the
modern Jew with ancient tragic history. The elemental forces of reason,
logic, courage and sympathy, wrapped up and interwoven in every impulse
and fiber of the human mind and heart, will be forever in rebellion
against the monstrous doctrine of centuries of shame, exile and
persecution visited upon an entire race, because of the sins and crimes
of a handful of their progenitors who lived more than a thousand years
before.

But, if the visitation of the sins of the fathers upon the sons is to be
maintained, and perpetuated as a form of divine, if not of human
justice, then, why not, at least, be consistent in the application of
the principle? Many philosophers and critics have detected a striking
kinship between the teachings of Socrates and those of Jesus. A
celebrated historian closes a chapter of the history of Greece with this
sentence: "Thus perished the greatest and most original of the Grecian
philosophers (Socrates), whose uninspired wisdom made the nearest
approach to the divine morality of the Gospel."[123] The indictments
against the philosopher of Athens and the Prophet of Nazareth were
strikingly similar. Socrates was charged with corrupting Athenian youth;
Jesus, with perverting the nation. Socrates was charged with treason
against Athens; Jesus, with treason against Rome. Both were charged with
blasphemy; the Athenian, with blasphemy of the Olympic gods; the
Nazarene, with blaspheming Jehovah. Both sealed with their blood the
faith that was in them. If the descendants of the crucifiers of the
Christ are to be persecuted, brutalized, and exiled for the sins of the
fathers, why not apply the same pitiless law of hereditary punishment to
the descendants of the Athenian dicasts who administered hemlock to the
greatest sage of antiquity? Why not persecute all the Greeks of the
earth, wherever found, because of the injustice of the Areopagus?

Coming back from antiquity and the Greeks to modern times in America,
let us express the hope that all forms of race prejudice and persecution
will soon cease forever. It is a truth well known of all intelligent men
that racial prejudice against the Jew has not completely vanished from
the minds and hearts of Gentiles; that political freedom in an
enlightened age has not brought with it full religious tolerance and
social recognition; that the Jew enjoys the freedom of the letter, but
is still under the ban of the spirit. It is not necessary to go to
Russia to prove this contention. In 1896, Adolf von Sonnenthal, the
greatest of modern actors, who has covered the Austrian stage with
glory, celebrated the fortieth anniversary of his entrance into
theatrical life. The City Council of Vienna refused to extend him the
freedom of the city, because he was a Jew. In 1906, Madame Bernhardt,
the most marvelous living woman, while acting in Canada, was insulted by
having spoiled eggs thrown upon the stage amidst shouts of "Down with
the Jewess!" This outrage called forth a letter of apology, which
appeared in public print, from Sir Wilfred Laurier, Prime Minister of
the Dominion. In the summer of 1907, the sister of Senator Isidor
Rayner, of Maryland, was refused admission to an Atlantic City hotel
because she was a Jewess. Be it remembered that these several acts of
prejudice and persecution did not happen in the Middle Ages, or under
the government of the Romanoffs. Two of them occurred at the beginning
of the twentieth century, beneath the flags of two of the freest and
most civilized nations of the globe. What have Americans to say of the
exclusion of a virtuous, refined, intelligent sister of a great American
senator from an American hotel for no other reason than that she was a
Jewess; that is, that she was of the same race with the Savior of
mankind?

There is certainly no place for religious intolerance and race prejudice
beneath our flag. Fake and hypocritical our religion, if while
professing faith in Jesus we continue to persecute those for whom He
prayed! In vain did Washington, marching in Liberty's vanguard, "lead
Freedom's eaglets to their feast"; in vain the proclamation of the
Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution at
Philadelphia, a hundred years ago; in vain the bonfires and orations of
the nation's natal day, if our boasted liberties are to exist in theory,
but not in practice, in fancy, but not in fact!

Let no persecutor of the Jew lay the unction to his soul that he is
justified by the tragedy of Golgotha; for he who persecutes in the name
of religion is a spiritual barbarian, an intellectual savage. Let this
same persecutor not make the mistake of supposing that the Jews are
wholly responsible for the persecution that has been heaped upon them.
Before he falls into the foolish blunder of such a supposition, let him
ponder the testimony of several Gentile experts upon the subject. Let
him read "The Scattered Nation," a brilliant lecture on the Jew by the
late Zebulon Vance, of North Carolina, in which occurs this sentence:
"If the Jew is a bad job, in all honesty we should contemplate him as
the handiwork of our own civilization." Let him find Shakespearean
confirmation of this statement in "The Merchant of Venice," Act III,
Scene i. If the Jew-baiter objects that this is the imagination of a
poet, let us then point him to the testimony of a great historian and
statesman to prove to him that the Gentile is in great measure
responsible for the causes that have produced Jewish persecution.

In the British House of Commons, on April 17, 1873, a bill for the
removal of the disabilities of the Jews was the subject of parliamentary
discussion. Lord Macaulay took part in the debate and spoke as follows:

     The honorable member for Oldham tells us that the Jews are
     naturally a mean race, a money-getting race; that they are averse
     to all honorable callings; that they neither sow nor reap; that
     they have neither flocks nor herds; that usury is the only pursuit
     for which they are fit; that they are destitute of all elevated and
     amiable sentiments.

     Such, sir, has in every age been the reasoning of bigots. They
     never fail to plead in justification of persecution the vices which
     persecution has engendered. England has been legally a home to the
     Jews less than half a century, and we revile them because they do
     not feel for England more than a half patriotism.

     We treat them as slaves, and wonder that they do not regard us as
     brethren. We drive them to mean occupations, and then reproach them
     for not embracing honorable professions. We long forbade them to
     possess land, and we complain that they chiefly occupy themselves
     in trade. We shut them out from all the paths of ambition, and then
     we despise them for taking refuge in avarice.

     During many ages we have, in our dealings with them, abused our
     immense superiority of force, and then we are disgusted because
     they have recourse to that cunning which to the natural and
     universal defence of the weak against the violence of the strong.
     But were they always a mere money-changing, money-getting,
     money-hoarding race? Nobody knows better than my honorable friend,
     the member for the University of Oxford, that there is nothing in
     their national character which unfits them for the highest duties
     of citizens.

     He knows that, in the infancy of civilization, when our island was
     as savage as New Guinea, when letters and art were still unknown to
     Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterwards
     the site of Rome, this contemned people had their fenced cities and
     cedar palaces, their splendid Temple, their fleets of merchant
     ships, their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen and
     soldiers, their natural philosophers, their historians and their
     poets.

     What nation ever contended more manfully against overwhelming odds
     for its independence and religion? What nation ever, in its last
     agonies, gave such signal proofs of what may be accomplished by a
     brave despair? And if, in the course of many centuries, the
     depressed descendants of warriors and sages have degenerated from
     the qualities of their fathers; if, while excluded from the
     blessings of law and bowed down under the yoke of slavery, they
     have contracted some of the vices of outlaws and slaves, shall we
     consider this is a matter of reproach to them? Shall we not rather
     consider it as a matter of shame and remorse to ourselves? Let us
     do justice to them. Let us open to them the door of the House of
     Commons. Let us open to them every career in which ability and
     energy can be displayed. Till we have done this, let us not presume
     to say that there is no genius among the countrymen of Isaiah, no
     heroism among the descendants of the Maccabees.

If the persecutor of the Jew is not moved by the eloquence of Macaulay
or by the satire and sarcasm of Shakespeare, then let him call the roll
of Hebrew great names and watch the mighty procession as it moves.
Abraham among patriarchs; Moses among lawgivers; Isaiah and Jeremiah
among prophets; Philo, Maimonides, Spinoza, and Mendelsohn among
philosophers; Herschel, Sylvester, Jacobi, and Kronecker among
mathematicians and astronomers; Josephus, Neander, Graetz, Palgrave, and
Geiger among historians; Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Offenbach, Goldmark,
Joachim, Rubinstein, and Strauss among musicians; Sonnenthal, Possart,
Rachel, and Bernhardt among actors and actresses; Disraeli, Gambetta,
Castelar, Lasker, Cremieux, and Benjamin among statesmen; Halevi and
Heine among poets; Karl Marx and Samuel Gompers among labor leaders and
political economists; the Rothschilds, Bleichroerders, Schiffs, and
Seligmans among financiers; Auerbach and Nordau among novelists; Sir
Moses Montefiore and Baron Hirsch among philanthropists!

But there are no Caesars, no Napoleons, no Shakespeares, no Aristotles
among them, you say? Maybe so; but what of that? Admitting that this is
true, is anything proved by the fact? These characters represented
mountain peaks of intellect, and were the isolated products of different
races and different centuries. It may be justly observed that, of their
kind, no others were comparable to them. But if the "mountain-peak"
theory is to govern as to the intellectuality of races, will it be
seriously contended that any one of the last-mentioned characters was
equal in either spiritual or intellectual grandeur to the Galilean
peasant, Jesus of Nazareth? If colossal forms of intellect and soul be
invoked, does not the Jew still lead the universe?

Jesus was the most perfect product of Jewish spiritual creation, the
most precious gem of human life. The most brilliant and civilized
nations of the earth worship Him as God, "manifest in the flesh,
justified by the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, received up into glory."[124]

Both skeptics and believers of all ages have alike pronounced His name
with reverence and respect. Even the flippant, sarcastic soul of
Voltaire was awed, softened and subdued by the sweetness of His life and
the majesty of His character.[125]

"If the life and death of Socrates are those of a sage," said Rousseau,
"the life and death of Jesus are those of a God."[126]

"Jesus of Nazareth," says Carlyle, "our divinest symbol! Higher has the
human thought not yet reached. A symbol of quite perennial, infinite
character, whose significance will ever demand to be anew inquired into,
and anew made manifest."[127]

"Jesus Christ," says Herder, "is in the noblest and most perfect sense,
the realized ideal of humanity."[128]

"He is," says Strauss, "the highest object we can possibly imagine with
respect to religion, the Being without whose presence in the mind
perfect piety is impossible."[129]

"The Christ of the Gospels," says Renan, "is the most beautiful
incarnation of God in the most beautiful of forms. His beauty is
eternal; His reign will never end."[130]

Max Nordau betrays secret Jewish pride in Jesus when he says: "Jesus is
soul of our soul, even as he is flesh of our flesh. Who, then, could
think of excluding him from the people of Israel? St. Peter will remain
the only Jew who has said of the Son of David, 'I know not the man.'
Putting aside the Messianic mission, this man is ours. He honors our
race, and we claim him as we claim the Gospels--flowers of Jewish
literature and only Jewish."

"Is it a truth," asks Keim, "or is it nothing but words, when this
virtuous God-allied human life is called the noblest blossom of a noble
tree, the crown of the cedar of Israel? A full vigorous life in a barren
time, a new building among ruins, an erect strong nature among broken
ones, a Son of God among the godless and the God-forsaken, one who was
joyous, hopeful, generous among those who were mourning and in despair,
a freeman among slaves, a saint among sinners--by this contradiction to
the facts of the time, by this gigantic exaltation above the depressed
uniformity of the century, by this compensation for stagnation,
retrogression, and the sickness of death in progress, health, force and
color of eternal youth--finally, by the lofty uniqueness of what he
achieved, of his purity, of his God-nearness--he produces, even with
regard to endless new centuries that have _through him_ been saved from
stagnation and retrogression, the impression of mysterious
solitariness, superhuman miracle, divine creation."[131]

"Between Him and whoever else in the world," said Napoleon at St.
Helena, "there is no possible term of comparison."[132]

Throughout Napoleonic literature two names constantly recur as
exhibiting the Corsican's ideals of spiritual and intellectual
perfection. These names are those of Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar.
Napoleon's stupendous genius and incomprehensible destiny formed the
basis of a secret conviction within his soul that with Jesus and Caesar
displaced, he himself would be the grandest ornament of history. But in
the mind of the emperor there was no element of equality or comparison
between Jesus and Caesar. The latter he regarded as the crown and
consummation of Roman manhood, the most superb character of the ancient
world. The former he believed to be divine.

It was the custom of Napoleon while in exile at St. Helena to converse
almost daily about the illustrious men of antiquity and to compare them
with himself. On one occasion while talking upon his favorite theme with
an officer, one of the companions of his exile, he suddenly stopped and
asked: "But can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?" In reply, the officer
candidly confessed that he had never thought much about the Nazarene.
"Well, then," said Napoleon, "I will tell you." The illustrious captive
then compared Jesus with the heroes of antiquity and finally with
himself. The comparison demonstrated how paltry and contemptible was
everything human when viewed in the light of the divine character and
sublime achievements of the Man of Nazareth. "I think I understand
somewhat of human nature," said Napoleon, "and I tell you all these were
men, and I am a man, but not one is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than
man. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and myself founded great empires;
but upon what did the creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus
alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions would
die for Him."[133]

We have every reason to believe that the homage paid the character of
Jesus by Napoleon was not merely the product of his brain, but was also
the humble tribute of his heart. When the disasters of the Russian
campaign broke upon his fortunes, when "the infantry of the snow and the
cavalry of the wild blast scattered his legions like winter's withered
leaves," the iron-hearted, granite-featured man who had "conquered the
Alps and had mingled the eagles of France with the eagles of the crags,"
only laughed and joked. But, while contemplating the life and death of
Jesus, he became serious, meditative and humble. And when he came to
write his last will and testament, he made this sentence the opening
paragraph: "I die in the Roman Catholic Apostolical religion, in the
bosom of which I was born more than fifty years ago."[134] The
Christianity of Napoleon has been questioned. It is respectfully
submitted that only an ungenerous criticism will attribute hypocrisy to
this final testimony of his religious faith. The imperial courage, the
grandeur of character, and the loftiness of life of the greatest of the
emperors negative completely the thought of insincerity in a declaration
made at a time when every earthly inducement to misrepresentation had
passed forever.

But Jesus was not the Christ, the Savior of warrior-kings alone, in the
hour of death. On the battlefield of Inkerman an humble soldier fell
mortally wounded. He managed to crawl to his tent before he died. When
found he was lying face downward with the open Bible beside him. His
right hand was glued with his lifeblood to Chapter XI., Verse 25 of St.
John. When the hand was lifted, these words, containing the ever-living
promise of the Master, could be clearly traced: "I am the resurrection
and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he
live."




    PART II

    _GRAECO-ROMAN PAGANISM_




[Illustration: JUPITER (ANTIQUE SCULPTURE)]




CHAPTER I

GRAECO-ROMAN PAGANISM


_Extent of the Roman Empire at the Time of Christ._--The policy of
ancient Rome was to extend and hold her possessions by force of arms.
She made demands; and if they were not complied with, she spurned the
medium of diplomacy and appealed for arbitrament to the god of battles.
Her achievements were the achievements of war. Her glories were the
glories of combat. Her trophies were the treasures of conquered
provinces and chained captives bowed in grief and shame. Her theory was
that "might makes right"; and in vindication and support of this theory
she imbued her youth with a martial spirit, trained them in the use of
arms from childhood to manhood, and stationed her legions wherever she
extended her empire. Thus, military discipline and the fortune of
successful warfare formed the basis of the prosperity of Rome.

At the period of which we write, her invincible legions had accomplished
the conquest of the civilized earth. Britain, Gaul, Spain, Italy,
Illyria, Greece, Asia Minor, Africa, Egypt, and the islands of the
Mediterranean--six hundred thousand square leagues of the most fertile
territory in the world--had been subdued to the Roman will and had
become obedient to Roman decrees. "The empire of the Romans," says
Gibbon, "filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a
single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his
enemies. The slave of imperial despotism, whether he was compelled to
drag his gilded chain in Rome and the Senate, or to wear out a life of
exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or on the frozen banks of the
Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. To resist was fatal, and it
was impossible to fly. On every side he was encompassed by a vast extent
of sea and land, which he could never hope to traverse without being
discovered, seized, and restored to his irritated master. Beyond the
frontiers, his anxious view could discover nothing, except the ocean,
inhospitable deserts, hostile tribes of barbarians, of fierce manners
and unknown language, or dependent kings who would gladly purchase the
emperor's protection by the sacrifice of an obnoxious fugitive.
'Wherever you are,' said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, 'remember that
you are equally within the power of the conqueror.'"

In obedience to a universal law of development and growth, when the
Roman empire had reached the limits of physical expansion, when Roman
conquest was complete, when Roman laws and letters had reached
approximate perfection, and when Roman civilization had attained its
crown and consummation, Roman decline began. The birth of the empire
marked the beginning of the end. It was then that the shades of night
commenced to gather slowly upon the Roman world; and that the Roman ship
of state began to move slowly but inevitably, upon a current of
indescribable depravity and degeneracy, toward the abyss. The Roman
giant bore upon his shoulders the treasures of a conquered world; and
Bacchus-like, reeled, crowned and drunken, to his doom.

No period of human history is so marked by lust and licentiousness as
the history of Rome at the beginning of the Christian era. The Roman
religion had fallen into contempt. The family instinct was dead, and the
marital relation was a mockery and a shame. The humane spirit had
vanished from Roman hearts, and slavery was the curse of every province
of the empire. The destruction of infants and the gladiatorial games
were mere epitomes of Roman brutality and degeneracy. Barbarity,
corruption and dissoluteness pervaded every form of Roman life.

A perfect picture of the depravity of the times about which we write may
be had from a perusal of the Roman satirists, Tacitus and Juvenal. The
ordinary Roman debauchee was not the sole victim of their wrath. They
chiseled the hideous features of the Caesars with a finer stroke than
that employed by Phidias and Praxiteles in carving statues of the
Olympic gods.

The purpose of Part II of this volume is to give coloring and atmosphere
to the picture of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus by describing: (1)
The Graeco-Roman religion; and (2) the Graeco-Roman social life, during
the century preceding and the century following the birth of the Savior.


1.--THE GRAECO-ROMAN RELIGION

_Origin and Multiplicity of the Roman Gods._--The Romans acquired their
gods by inheritance, by importation, and by manufacture. The Roman race
sprang from a union of Etruscans, Latins, and Sabines; and the gods of
these different tribes, naturalized and adopted, were the first deities
of Rome. Chief among them were Janus, Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. Other
early Roman deities were Sol, the Sun, and Luna the Moon, both of Sabine
origin; Mater Matuta, Mother of Day; Divus Pater Tiberinus, or Father
Tiber; Fontus, the god of fountains; Vesta, the goddess of the hearth;
and the Lares and Penates, household gods.

These primitive Italian divinities were at first mere abstractions,
simple nature-powers; but later they were Hellenized and received
plastic form. The Greeks and Romans had a common ancestry and the
amalgamation of their religions was an easy matter. The successive steps
in the process of blending the two forms of worship are historical. From
Cumae, one of the oldest Greek settlements in Italy, the famous Sibylline
books found their way to Rome; and through these books the Greek gods
and their worship established themselves in Italy. The date of the
arrival of several of the Hellenic deities is well ascertained. The
first temple to Apollo was vowed in the year 351 A.U.C. To check a
lingering epidemic of pestilence and disease, the worship of AEsculapius
was introduced from Epidaurus into Rome in the year 463. In 549,
Cybele, the Idaean mother, was imported from Phrygia, in the shape of a
black stone, and was worshiped at Rome by order of the Sibylline books.

In various ways, the Hellenization of the Roman religion was
accomplished. The Decemviri, to whom the consulting of the Sibylline
books was intrusted, frequently interpreted them to mean that certain
foreign gods should be invited at once to take up their residence in
Rome.

The introduction of Greek literature also resulted in the importation of
Greek gods. The tragedies of Livius Andronicus and the comedies of
Naevius, founded upon Greek legends of gods and heroes, were presented in
Rome in the later years of the third century B.C. Fragments of Greek
literature also began to make their way into the Capital about this
time. Philosophers, rhetoricians, and grammarians flocked from Greece to
Italy and brought with them the works of Homer, Hesiod and the Greek
philosophers, whose writings were permeated with Greek mythology.

Grecian sculpture was as potent as Grecian literature in transforming
and Hellenizing the religion of Rome. The subjugation of the Greek
colonies in the south of Italy and the conquests of Greek cities like
Syracuse and Corinth in the East, brought together in Rome the
masterpieces of the Greek sculptors.

A determined effort was made from time to time by the patriotic Romans
to destroy Hellenic influence and to preserve in their original purity
early Roman forms of worship. But all attempts were futile. The average
Roman citizen, though practical and unimaginative, was still enamored of
the beautiful myths and exquisite statues of the Greek gods. And it was
only by Hellenizing their own deities that they could bring themselves
into touch and communion with the Hellenic spirit. The aesthetical and
fascinating influence of the Greek language, literature and sculpture,
was overwhelming. "At bottom, the Roman religion was based only on two
ideas--the might of the gods who were friendly to Rome, and the power of
the ceremonies over the gods. How could a religion, so poverty-stricken
of thought, with its troops of phantom gods, beingless shadows and
deified abstractions, remain unscathed and unaltered when it came in
contact with the profusion of the Greek religion, with its circle of
gods, so full of life, so thoroughly anthropomorphised, so deeply
interwoven into everything human?"[135]

Not only from Greece but from every conquered country, strange gods were
brought into Italy and placed in the Roman pantheon. When a foreign city
was besieged and captured, the Romans, after a preliminary ceremony,
invited the native gods to leave their temples and go to Rome where,
they were assured, they would have much grander altars and would receive
a more enthusiastic worship. It was a religious belief of the ancient
masters of the world that gods could be enticed from their allegiance
and induced to emigrate. In their foreign wars, the Romans frequently
kept the names of their own gods secret to prevent the enemy from
bribing them.

The gods at Rome increased in number just in proportion that the empire
expanded. The admission of foreign territory brought with it the
introduction of strange gods into the Roman worship.

When the Romans needed a new god and could not find a foreign one that
pleased them, they deliberately manufactured a special deity for the
occasion. In the breaking up and multiplication of the god-idea, they
excelled all the nations of antiquity. It was the duty of the pontiffs
to manufacture a divinity whenever an emergency arose and one was
needed. The god-casting business was a regular employment of the
Decemviri and the Quindecemviri; and a perusal of the pages of Roman
history reveals these god-makers actively engaged in their workshops
making some new deity to meet some new development in Roman life.

The extent of the polytheistic notions of the ancient Romans is almost
inconceivable to the modern mind. Not only were the great forces of
nature deified, but the simplest elements of time, of thought, and
action. Ordinary mental abstractions were clothed with the attributes of
gods. Mens (Mind), Pudicitia (Chastity), Pietas (Piety), Fides
(Fidelity), Concordia (Concord), Virtus (Courage), Spes (Hope), and
Voluptas (Pleasure), were all deities of the human soul, and were
enthusiastically worshiped by the Romans. A single human action was
frequently broken into parts each of which had a little god of its own.
The beginning of a marriage had one deity and its conclusion, another.
Cunina was the cradle-goddess of a child. Statilinus, Edusa, Potnia,
Paventia, Fabelinus and Catius were other goddesses who presided over
other phases of its infancy. Juventas was the goddess of its youth; and,
in case of loss of parents, Orbona was the goddess that protected its
orphanage.

Any political development in the Roman state necessitated a new divinity
to mark the change. In the early periods of their history, the Romans
used cattle as a medium of exchange in buying and bartering. Pecunia was
then the goddess of such exchange. But when, in later times, copper
money came into use, a god called AEsculanus was created to preside over
the finances; and when, still later, silver money began to be used, the
god Argentarius was called into being to protect the coinage. This
Argentarius was naturally the son of AEsculanus.

Not only the beneficent but the malign forces of nature were deified.
Pests, plagues, and tempests had their special divinities who were to be
placated. "There were particular gods for every portion of a
dwelling--the door, the threshold of the door, and even the hinges of
the door. There was a special god for each different class--even the
most menial and the most immoral; and a special divinity for those who
were afflicted in a peculiar manner, such as the childless, the maimed
or the blind. There was the god of the stable, and the goddess of the
horses; there were gods for merchants, artists, poets and tillers of the
soil. The gods must be invoked before the harvest could be reaped; and
not even a tree could be felled in the forest without supplicating the
unknown god who might inhabit it."[136]

The extreme of the Roman divinity-making process was the deification of
mere negative ideas. Tranquillitas Vacuna was the goddess of "doing
nothing."

Not only were special actions and peculiar ideas broken up and
subdivided with an appropriate divinity for each part or subdivision,
but the individual gods themselves were subdivided and multiplied. It is
said that there were three hundred Jupiters in Rome. This means that
Jupiter was worshiped under three hundred different forms. Jupiter
Pluvius, Jupiter Fulgurator, Jupiter Tonans, Jupiter Fulminator, Jupiter
Imbricitor, Jupiter Serenator, were only a few designations of the
supreme deity of the Romans.

It will thus be seen that polytheism was insatiable in its thirst for
new and strange gods. When the god-casting business was once begun,
there was no end to it. And when the Roman empire had reached its
greatest expansion, and Roman public and private life had attained to
complete development, the deities of the Roman religion were
innumerable. No pantheon could hold them, and no Roman could remember
the names of all. Temples of the gods were everywhere to be found
throughout the empire; and where there were no altars or temples,
certain trees, stones and rocks were decorated with garlands and
worshiped as sacred places which the gods were supposed to frequent.
Thus the Roman world became crowded with holy places, and the gods and
goddesses became an innumerable host. Petronius makes a countrywoman
from a district adjoining Rome declare that it was much easier to find a
god in her neighborhood than a man. We shall see that the multiplicity
of the gods was finally the cause of the decay and ruin of the Roman
religion.

_The Roman Priesthood._--The Roman priesthood was composed of several
orders of pontiffs, augurs, keepers of the Sibylline books, Vestal
virgins, epulos, salians, lupercals, etc.

Fifteen pontiffs exercised supreme control in matters of religion. They
were consecrated to the service of the gods; and all questions of
doubtful religious interpretation were submitted to the judgment of
their tribunal.

Fifteen learned and experienced augurs observed the phenomena of nature
and studied the flight of birds as a means of directing the actions of
the state.

Fifteen keepers of the Sibylline books read the pages of their treasures
and from them divined coming events.

Six Vestals, immaculate in their virginity, guarded the Roman sacred
fire, and presided at the national hearthstone of the Roman race.

Seven epulos conducted the solemn processions and regulated the
religious ceremonies at the annual festivals of the gods.

Fifteen flamens were consecrated to the service of separate deities.
Those of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus were held in the highest esteem.
The Flamen Dialis, or priest of Jupiter, was loaded down with religious
obligations and restrictions. He was not permitted to take an oath, to
ride, to have anything tied with knots on his person, to look at a
prisoner, see armed men, or to touch a dog, a goat, or raw flesh, or
yeast. He was not allowed to bathe in the open air; nor could he spend
the night outside the city. He could resign his office only on the death
of his wife. The Salians were priests of Mars, who, at festivals
celebrated in honor of the war-god, danced in heavy armor, and sang
martial hymns.

_Roman Forms of Worship._--Roman worship was very elaborate and
ceremonial. It consisted of sacrifices, vows, prayers, and festivals.
With the exception of the ancient Hebrews, the Romans were the greatest
formalists and ritualists of antiquity. Every act of Roman public and
private life was supposed to be framed in accordance with the will of
the gods. There was a formula of prayer adapted to every vicissitude of
life. Caesar never mounted his chariot, it is said, that he did not
repeat a formula three times to avert dangers.

A painful exactness in the use of words was required in the offering of
a Roman prayer. A syllable left out or a word mispronounced, or the
intervention of any disturbing cause of evil import, would destroy the
merit of the formula. The Romans believed that the voice of prayer
should not be interrupted by noises or bad omens. And that the sound of
evil augury might not be heard at the moment of supplication, they were
in the habit of covering their ears. Musical notes of favorable import
were not objectionable, and frequently flutes were played while the
prayer was being offered to chase away disturbing sounds. At other
times, the priests had special assistants whose duty it was to maintain
silence during the recital of the formula. But, if the ceremony was
successful, if the language had been correctly pronounced, without the
omission or addition of a word; if all disturbing causes and things of
evil omen had been alienated from the services, then the granting of the
prayer was assured, regardless of the motive or intention of the person
praying. It should be remembered that piety and faith were not necessary
to the efficacy of Roman prayer. Ceremonial precision, rather than
purity of heart, was pleasing to the Roman gods. A peculiar element
entered into the religions of both the ancient Romans and the ancient
Hebrews. It was the principle of contract in an almost purely juristic
sense. Both the Romans and the Hebrews believed that if the divine law
was obeyed to the letter, their deities were under the strictest
obligation to grant their petitions.

Under the Roman form of worship, a peculiar act of supplication was
performed by the suppliant who kissed his right hand, turned round in a
circle by the right, and then seated himself upon the ground. This was
done in obedience to one of the laws of Numa. The circular movement of
the earth, it was thought, was symbolized by the turning round in a
circle; and the sitting down indicated that the suppliant was confidant
that his prayer would be granted.

The Romans believed that prayers were more efficacious if said in the
immediate presence and, if possible, in actual contact with the image of
the god. The doorkeepers of the temple were frequently besieged by
suppliants who begged to be admitted into the inclosures of the sacred
places where they might pray to the deity on the spot.

On account of the vast numbers of the gods, the Romans were sometimes at
a loss to know which one to address in prayer. Unlike the Greeks, they
had no preferences among their deities. Each was supplicated in his turn
according to the business in hand. But they were frequently in doubt as
to the name of the god who had control of the subject-matter of their
petitions. In such cases, the practical genius of the Roman people
served them well. They had recourse to several expedients which they
believed would insure success. When in doubt as to the particular
divinity which they should address in supplication, they would, at
times, invoke, in the first place, Janus, the god of all good
beginnings, the doorkeeper, so to speak, of the pantheon, who, it was
believed, would deliver the prayer to the proper deity. At other times,
in such perplexity, they would address their petitions to a group of
gods in which they knew the right one was bound to be. It sometimes
happened that they did not know whether the deity to be supplicated was
a god or goddess. In such an emergency, they expressed themselves very
cautiously, using the alternative proviso: "Be thou god or goddess." At
other times, in cases of extreme doubt, they prayed to all the deities
at once; and often, in fits of desperation, they dismissed the entire
pantheon and addressed their prayers to the Unknown God.

Another mode of propitiating the gods was by sacrifice. Animals, the
fruits of the fields, and even human beings were devoted to this
purpose. In the matter of sacrifice, the practical genius of the Roman
people was again forcibly manifested. They were tactful enough to adapt
the sacrifice to the whims and tastes of the gods. A provision of the
Twelve Tables was that "such beasts should be used for victims as were
becoming and agreeable to each deity." The framers of these laws
evidently believed that the gods had keenly whetted appetites and
discriminating tastes in the matter of animal sacrifice. Jupiter
Capitolinus was pleased with an offering of white cattle with gilded
horns, but would not accept rams or bulls. Mars, Neptune and Apollo
were, on the other hand, highly delighted with the sacrifice of bulls.
It was also agreeable to Mars to have horses, cocks, and asses
sacrificed in his honor. An intact heifer was always pleasing to the
goddess Minerva. A white cow with moon-shaped horns delighted Juno
Calendaris. A sow in young was sacrificed to the great Mother; and doves
and sparrows to Venus. Unweaned puppies were offered as victims of
expiation to the Lares and Penates. Black bulls were usually slaughtered
to appease the infernal gods.

The most careful attention was given to the selection of the victims of
sacrifice from the flocks and herds. Any serious physical defect in the
animal disqualified. A calf was not fit for slaughter if its tail did
not reach to the joint of the leg. Sheep with cloven tongues and black
ears were rejected. Black spots on a white ox had to be rubbed white
with chalk before the beast was available for sacrifice.

Not only animals were sacrificed, but human beings as well, to appease
the wrath of the gods in time of awful calamity. In early Roman history,
gray-headed men of sixty years were hurled from the Pons Sublicius into
the Tiber as an offering to Saturn. In the year 227 B.C., the pontiffs
discovered from the Sibylline books that the Gauls and Greeks were to
attack and capture the city. To fulfill the prophecy and, at the same
time to avert the danger, the senate decreed that a man and woman of
each of these two nations should be buried alive in the forum as a form
of constructive possession. This was nothing but a human sacrifice to
the gods.

Again, two of Caesar's soldiers, who had participated in a riot in Rome,
were taken to the Campus Martius and sacrificed to Mars by the pontiffs
and the Flamen Martialis. Their heads were fixed upon the Regia, as was
the case in the sacrifice of the October-horse. As an oblation to
Neptune, Sextus Pompeius had live men and horses thrown into the sea at
the time when a great storm was destroying the fleet of the enemy.

A near approach to human sacrifice was the custom of sprinkling the
statue of Jupiter Latiaris with the blood of gladiators. A priest caught
the blood as it gushed from the wound of the dying gladiator, and dashed
it while still warm at the face of the image of the god.

Suetonius tells us that after the capture of Perugia, Augustus Caesar
slaughtered three hundred prisoners as an expiatory sacrifice to Julius
Caesar.

Thus at the beginning of the Christian era, human beings were still
being sacrificed on the altars of superstition.

_Ascertaining the Will of the Gods._--Various methods were employed by
the Romans in ascertaining the will of the gods. Chief among these were
the art of divination from the flight of birds and from the inspection
of the entrails of animals; also from the observation of lightning and
the interpretation of dreams. The Romans had no oracles like those of
the Greeks, but they frequently sent messengers to consult the Delphic
oracle.

Nothing is stranger or more disgusting in all the range of religious
history than the practice of the Roman haruspices. That the ancient
masters of the world should have felt themselves obliged to search in
the belly of a beast for the will of Jupiter is one of the abominable
enigmas of Pagan superstition. The inspection of the entrails of victims
was a Tuscan science, early imported from Etruria, and naturalized at
Rome. Tuscan haruspices accompanied the Roman armies everywhere, and
determined by their skill whether a battle should be fought or a retreat
ordered. When it was doubtful what to do, an animal was slaughtered, and
the heart, lungs, liver, tongue, spleen, kidneys and caul were closely
inspected with the aid of a small needle or knife. Various conditions
and appearances of these parts were considered as signs of the pleasure
or disfavor of the gods. Largely developed veins on the adverse side
were considered tokens of extreme displeasure and an indication of
pending misfortune. It was also considered gravely ominous when the head
or protuberance in the right lobe of the liver was wanting. The Romans
were too practical and indomitable, however, to allow a single bad omen
to frustrate a great enterprise. If the inspection of the entrails of
the first animal was not favorable, they slaughtered still others until
a propitious sign was observed. At times, a score of beasts were slain
before the gods gave assent to the enterprise in hand.

Divination from the flight and notes of birds was another method
employed by the Romans in finding out the will of the gods. And it may
be remarked that this was certainly a more rational and elevated form of
divination than that which we have just discussed. An eagle swooping
down from the skies would certainly be a more natural and pleasing
suggestion of the thoughts and attributes of Jove than the filthy
interior of the entrails of a bull.

The elements of divination from the flight of birds were derived either
from the significant notes and sounds of their voices, or from the
manner in which their wings were flapped or their flight conducted. If
the bird flew from the left to the right of the augur, it was considered
a happy omen; if the flight was in the opposite direction, the
enterprise in hand had to be abandoned or at least delayed. Augury by
flight was usually applied to eagles and vultures, while woodpeckers,
ravens, crows, and screech owls announced the will of the gods by note.
The direction from which the note came, usually determined the nature of
the augury. But, in the case of the screech owl, the sounds were always
of evil omen, from whatever side they came. And those who have been so
unfortunate as to hear its mournful, desolate and God-forsaken tones
will not be disposed to censure either the Romans or their gods for the
low esteem in which they held this bird.

Again, it was a principle of Roman augury that auspices could be
neutralized or overcome. If a crow furnished an omen, and an eagle gave
another which was opposed to it, the first sign was wiped out, because
the eagle was a larger and nobler bird than the crow. And, as in the
case of prayer, so also in the matter of the auspices, a disturbing
sound would destroy the effect of the augury. The squeak or cry of a
mouse would destroy a message from Jupiter conveyed in the scream of an
eagle.

But the most potent manifestation of the divine mind, among the ancient
Romans, was that derived from thunder and lightning. Lightning to them
was the sovereign expression of the will of the gods; and a single flash
blotted out every other sign and token. It was an irrevocable presage
and could not be remotely modified or evaded. It came directly from the
hand of the deity and was an emphatic revelation of the divine mind. All
places struck by lightning were considered sacred and were consecrated
to the god who had sent the bolt. Upon the spot where it fell, an altar
was raised and an inclosure formed. The service of consecration
consisted in burying the lightning, that is, in restoring the earth
thrown up by it, and in the sacrifice of a two-year-old sheep. All such
places were considered hallowed spots and it was impious and
sacrilegious to touch them or even look at them. The gods deprived of
reason those who destroyed the altars and sacred inclosures of these
places.

These various methods of ascertaining the will of the deities were
employed in every important transaction of Roman public and private
life. At times, all of them cooeperated on occasions of vast import and
when the lives and destinies of great men were involved.

The following single paragraph from Suetonius contains allusions to all
the modes of divination which we have just discussed:

     After the death of Caesar, upon his return from Apollonia as he was
     entering the city, on a sudden, in a clear and bright sky a circle
     resembling the rainbow surrounded the body of the sun; and
     immediately afterwards, the tomb of Julia, Caesar's daughter, was
     struck by lightning. In his first consulship whilst he was
     observing the auguries, twelve vultures presented themselves as
     they had done to Romulus. And when he offered sacrifice, the livers
     of all the victims were folded inward in the lower part; a
     circumstance which was regarded by those present, who had skill in
     things of that nature, as an indubitable prognostic of great and
     wonderful fortune.[137]

The interpretation of dreams also formed an important part in the
determination of the will of the gods, not only among the Romans, but
among all ancient nations. The literature of antiquity, both sacred and
profane, is filled with dreams. Whether the biographer is Matthew or
Plutarch, dreams appear on the pages of both. Chrysippus made a
collection of prophetical dreams in order to explain their meaning. Both
Galen and Hippocrates believed that dreams were sent by the gods to men.
Artemidorus wrote a treatise on the subject, and in it he assures us
that it was compiled at the express bidding and under the direction of
Apollo himself.

It was in a dream that Joseph was warned not to put away Mary his
wife.[138] It was also in a dream that an angel voice warned him to flee
into Egypt with the infant Savior to escape the murderous designs of
Herod.[139] Nearly every great event, both in Greek and Roman history,
seems to have been heralded or attended by dreams. The following account
is given by Suetonius of the dreams of Quintus Catulus and Marcus Cicero
presaging the reign of Augustus:

     Quintus Catulus had a dream, for two nights successively after his
     dedication of the Capitol. The first night he dreamt that Jupiter
     out of several boys of the order of the nobility who were playing
     about his altar, selected one, into whose bosom he put the public
     seal of the commonwealth, which he held in his hand; but in his
     vision the next night, he saw in the bosom of Jupiter Capitolinus,
     the same boy; whom he ordered to be removed, but it was forbidden
     by the God, who declared that it must be brought up to become the
     guardian of the state. The next day, meeting Augustus, with whom
     till that hour he had not the least acquaintance, and looking at
     him with admiration, he said he was extremely like the boy he had
     seen in his dream. Some gave a different account of Catulus's
     first dream, namely that Jupiter, upon several noble lads
     requesting of him that they might have a guardian, had pointed to
     one amongst them, to whom they were to prefer their requests; and
     putting his fingers to the boy's mouth to kiss, he afterwards
     applied them to his own.

     Marcus Cicero, as he was attending Caius Caesar to the Capitol,
     happened to be telling some of his friends a dream which he had the
     preceding night, in which he saw a comely youth let down from
     heaven by a golden chain, who stood at the door of the Capitol, and
     had a whip put into his hands by Jupiter. And immediately upon
     sight of Augustus, who had been sent for by his uncle Caesar to the
     sacrifice, and was as yet perfectly unknown to most of the company,
     he affirmed that it was the very boy he had seen in his dream. When
     he assumed the manly toga, his senatorian tunic becoming loose in
     the seam on each side, fell at his feet. Some would have this to
     forebode, that the order of which that was the badge of
     distinction, would some time or other be subject to him.[140]

Omens also played an important role in molding the destiny of the Roman
state. In his "Life of Caesar Augustus," Suetonius says:

     Some signs and omens he regarded as infallible. If in the morning,
     his shoe was put on wrong, the left instead of the right, that
     boded some disaster. If when he commenced a long journey, by land
     or sea, there happened to fall a mizzling rain, he held it to be a
     good sign of a speedy and happy return. He was much affected
     likewise with anything out of the common course of nature. A
     palm-tree which chanced to grow up between some stones in the court
     of his house, he transplanted into a court where the images of the
     Household Gods were placed, and took all possible care to make it
     thrive. In the island of Capri, some decayed branches of an old
     ilex, which hung drooping to the ground, recovered themselves upon
     his arrival; at which he was so delighted, that he made an
     exchange with the Republic of Naples, of the Island of Ischia, for
     that of Capri. He likewise observed certain days; as never to go
     from home the day after the Numdinae, nor to begin any serious
     business upon the nones; avoiding nothing else in it, as he writes
     to Tiberius, than its unlucky name.[141]

Any unusual happening and all the striking phenomena of nature were
regarded by the Romans as prodigies or omens indicative of the will of
the gods. The nature of the occurrence indicated the pleasure or the
wrath of the deity. An eclipse of the sun and the moon, a shooting star,
a rainbow of peculiar color, showers of stones and ashes, were regarded
as awful prodigies, and generally threw the Roman Senate into a panic.
On such occasions, the pontifical college called a hurried meeting. The
augurs and haruspices were summoned to immediate duty; and everything
was done to ascertain the will of the gods and to do their bidding. A
two-headed snake or a three-legged chicken, such as we frequently see
to-day, would have shaken the whole Roman religious system to the
center.

Such was the credulity of the Roman people, that the most improbable and
impossible stories, mere rumors born of lying imposture, were heard and
believed. "Idols shed tears or sweated blood, oxen spoke, men were
changed into women, cocks into hens, lakes or brooks ran with blood or
milk, mice nibbled at the golden vessels of the temples, a swarm of bees
lighted on a temple or in a public place." All such alleged occurrences
required sacrifices and expiatory rites to conquer the fury and regain
the favor of the gods.

_Fall of the Early Roman Religion._--At the beginning of the Christian
era, the old Roman religion, founded upon the institutions of Numa, had
almost come to an end. The invasion of Italy by the Greek gods was the
first serious assault upon the early Roman faith. The elegant refinement
and fascinating influence of Greek literature, philosophy and sculpture,
had incrusted with a gorgeous coating the rude forms of the primitive
Roman worship. But, as time advanced, the old gods grew stale and new
deities were sought. The human soul could not forever feed upon myths,
however brilliant and bewitching. The mysterious and melancholy rites of
Isis came to establish themselves by the side of those of Janus and
AEsculapius. The somber qualities of the Egyptian worship seemed to
commend it. Even so good and grand a man as Marcus Aurelius avowed
himself an adorer of Serapis; and, during a sojourn in Egypt, he is
reported to have conducted himself like an Egyptian citizen and
philosopher while strolling through the temples and sacred groves on the
banks of the Nile.[142]

The effect of the repeated changes from one form of religious faith to
another was to gradually destroy the moral fiber of Roman worship and to
shatter Roman faith in the existence and stability of the gods. The
first manifestation of that disintegration which finally completely
undermined and destroyed the temple of Roman worship was the familiarity
with which the Romans treated their gods. Familiarity with gods, as
with men, breeds contempt. A striking peculiarity of both the Roman and
Greek mythologies was the intimate relationship that existed between
gods and human beings. Sometimes it took the form of personal
intercourse from which heroes sprang, as was the case with Jupiter and
Alcmene, of whom Hercules was born. At other times, deities and human
beings traveled together on long voyages, as was the case with Minerva
and Telemachus on their trip to the island of Calypso. These were
instances of what the Greeks regarded as that natural and sympathetic
relationship that not only could but should exist between them and their
divinities. But in time the Romans entered upon a career of frivolous
fellowship and familiarity with their gods which destroyed their mutual
respect, and hastened the dissolution of the bonds that had hitherto
held them together. They began to treat their divinities as men,
deserving of honor indeed, but nevertheless human beings with all the
frailties and attributes of mortals. "Arnobius speaks of morning
serenades sung with an accompaniment of fifes, as a kind of reveille to
the sleeping gods, and of an evening salutation, in which leave was
taken of the deity with the wishing him a good night's rest."

The Lectisternia or banquets of the gods were ordinary religious
functions to which the deities themselves were invited. These feasts
were characterized at times by extreme exclusiveness. It was not right,
thought the Romans, to degrade and humiliate the greater gods by seating
them at the banquet board with smaller ones. So, a right royal fete was
annually arranged in the Capitol in honor of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva.
The statue of the great god was placed reclining on a pillow; and the
images of the two goddesses were seated upon chairs near him. At other
times, the functions were more democratic, and great numbers of the gods
were admitted, as well as a few select and distinguished mortals. On
such occasions, the images of the gods were placed in pairs on cushions
near the table. The Romans believed that the spirit of the god actually
inhabited or occupied the statue. This we learn from Lucian. The happy
mortals who were fortunate enough to be present at the banquet, actually
believed that they were seated among the gods. Livy tells us that once
the gods turned on their cushions and reversed themselves at the table,
and that mice then came and devoured the meats.[143]

The Roman historians very seriously inform us that special invitations
were extended the gods to attend these banquets. They fail to tell us,
however, whether R.S.V.P. or any other directions were inserted in the
cards of invitation. We are left completely in the dark as to the
formality employed by the deities to indicate their acceptance or
rejection of the proffered honor.

The purpose of the Lectisternia was at first undoubtedly to promote
hospitality and fellowship, and to conciliate the good will of the gods.
But finally such intimacy ripened into contempt and all kinds of
indecencies began to be practiced against the deities. Speaking of the
actions of certain Romans, Seneca says: "One sets a rival deity by the
side of another god; another shows Jupiter the time of day; this one
acts the beadle, the other the anointer, pretending by gesture to rub in
the ointment. A number of coiffeurs attend upon Juno and Minerva, and
make pretence of curling with their fingers, not only at a distance from
their images, but in the actual temple. Some hold the looking-glass to
them; some solicit the gods to stand security for them; while others
display briefs before them, and instruct them in their law cases." This
rude conduct was practiced by men. But Seneca, continuing, says: "Women,
too, take their seats at the Capitol pretending that Jupiter is enamored
of them, and not allowing themselves to be intimidated by Juno's
presence."[144]

_Roman Skepticism._--Of contempt of the gods, which was due to many
causes, skepticism was born. The deities of every race had been brought
to Rome and placed in the pantheon; and there, gazing into each other's
faces, had destroyed each other. The multiplicity of the gods was the
chief agency in the destruction of the Roman faith and ritual. The yoke
and burden of endless ceremonials had been borne for centuries and were
now producing intolerable irritation and nauseating disgust. The natural
freedom of the soul was in open rebellion and revolt against the hollow
forms and rigid exactions of the Roman ritual. The eagle of the human
intellect was already preparing to soar above the clouds of
superstition. Cicero gave expression to the prevalent sentiments of
educated Romans of his day when he wrote:

     I thought I should be doing an immense benefit both to myself and
     to my countrymen if I could entirely eradicate all superstitious
     errors. Nor is there any fear that true religion can be endangered
     by the demolition of this superstition; for as this religion which
     is united with the knowledge of nature is to be propagated, so,
     also, are all the roots of superstition to be destroyed; for that
     presses upon and pursues and persecutes you wherever you turn
     yourself, whether you consult a diviner or have heard an omen or
     have immolated a victim, or beheld a flight of birds; whether you
     have seen a Chaldaean or a soothsayer; if it lightens or thunders,
     or if anything is struck by lightning; if any kind of prodigy
     occurs; some of which things must be frequently coming to pass, so
     that you can never rise with a tranquil mind.

The completion of Roman conquest in the reign of Augustus was another
potent influence in the destruction of the old Roman religion. The chief
employment of the Roman gods had ever been as servants of the Roman
state in the extension of the Roman empire. Their services were now no
longer needed in this regard, and their ancient worshipers were ready to
repudiate and dismiss them. The Hebrew characteristic of humility and
resignation in the presence of divine displeasure was not a Roman trait.
The ancient masters of the world reserved the right to object and even
to rebel when the gods failed to do their duty after appropriate prayers
had been said and proper ceremonies had been performed. Sacrilege, as
the result of disappointment, was a frequent occurrence in Roman
religious life. Bitter defiance of the heavenly powers sometimes
followed a defeat in battle or a failure in diplomacy. Augustus, as
supreme pontiff, chastised Neptune, the god of the sea, because he lost
his fleet in a storm, by forbidding the image of the god to be carried
in the procession of the next Circensian games. The emperor Julian was
regarded as a most pious potentate, but he did not hesitate to defy the
gods when he became displeased. At the time of the Parthian war, he was
preparing to sacrifice ten select and beautiful bulls to Mars the
Avenger, when nine of them suddenly lay down while being led to the
altar, and the tenth broke his band. The fury of the monarch was
aroused, and he swore by Jupiter that he would not again offer a
sacrifice to Mars.[145] Claudius, the commander of the Roman fleet at
Drepanum, ordered the sacred pullets to be thrown into the sea because
they would not eat. When Germanicus was sick in Asia, his devoted
admirers offered frequent prayers to the gods for his recovery. When the
report of his death reached Rome, the temples of the unaccommodating
deities were stoned, and their altars were overturned.[146]

The same feeling of angry resentment and defiance may be discerned in
inscriptions on the graves of relatives prematurely snatched away by
death. An epitaph on the monument of a child of five years was this: "To
the unrighteous gods who robbed me of my life." Another on the tombstone
of a maiden of twenty, named Procope, read as follows: "I lift my hand
against the god who has deprived me of my innocent existence."[147]

The soil of familiarity, contempt and sacrilege which we have just
described, was most fertile ground for the growth of that rank and
killing skepticism which was destroying the vitals of the Roman faith at
the time of Christ. This unbelief, it is true, was not universal. At the
time of the birth of the Savior, the Roman masses still believed in the
gods and goddesses of the Greek and Roman mythologies. Superstition was
especially prevalent in the country districts of both Greece and Italy.
Pausanias, who lived about the middle of the second century of the
Christian era, tells as that in his time the olden legends of god and
hero were still firmly believed by the common people. As he traveled
through Greece, the cypresses of Alcmaeon, the stance of Amphion, and the
ashes of the funeral piles of Niobe's children were pointed out to him.
In Phocis, he found the belief still existing that larks laid no eggs
there because of the sin of Tereus.[148] Plutarch, who lived about the
middle of the first century of our era, tells us that the people were
still modeling the gods in wax and clay, as well as carving them in
marble and were worshiping them in contempt and defiance of philosophers
and statesmen.[149] But this credulity was limited to the ignorant and
unthinking masses. The intellectual leaders of both the Greek and Roman
races had long been in revolt against the absurdity and vulgarity of the
myths which formed the foundation of their popular faiths. The purity
and majesty of the soul felt keenly the insult and outrage of enforced
obedience to the obscene divinities that Homer and Hesiod had handed
down to them. Five hundred years before Christ, Pindar, the greatest
lyric poet of Greece, had denounced the vulgar tales told of the
deities, and had branded as blasphemous the story of the cannibal feast
spread for the gods by the father of Pelops. Xenophanes, also, in the
sixth century before Christ, had ridiculed the mythical tales of the
Homeric poems, and had called attention to the purely human character of
popular religions. He had pointed out that the Ethiopians painted the
images of their deities black, and gave them flat noses, in the likeness
of themselves; that the Thracians, on the other hand, created their gods
blue-eyed and red; and that, in general, every race had reflected its
own physical peculiarities in the creation of its gods. He declared it
to be his opinion that if the beasts of the field should attempt to
produce a likeness of the gods, the horses would produce a resemblance
of themselves, and that oxen and lions would ascribe to their own
divinities their own images and peculiarities.

The whole structure of the Roman religion, built upon myths and adorned
with fables, was ill fitted to stand the tests of analysis and
criticism. It was destined to weaken and crumble the moment it was
subjected to serious rational inquiry. Such inquiry was inevitable in
the progress of that soul-growth which the centuries were sure to bring.
Natural philosophy and historical study began to dissolve the sacred
legends and to demand demonstration and proof where faith had before
sufficed. Skeptical criticism began to dissect the formulae of prayer and
to analyze the elements of augury and sacrifice. Reason began to revolt
against the proposition that Jupiter was justified in rejecting a
petition because a syllable had been omitted or a word mispronounced.
Men began to ask: "What explanation could be given of the strange
changes of mind in the gods, often threatening evil on the first
inspection of the victim, and at the second promising good? How did it
happen that a sacrifice to Apollo gave favorable, and one to Diana
unfavorable signs? Why did the Etruscan, the Elan, the Egyptian, and the
Punic inspectors of sacrifice interpret the entrails in an entirely
different manner? Again, what connection in nature was there between a
fissure in the liver of a lamb, and a trifling advantage to a man, an
inheritance to be expected, or the like? And on a man's intending to
sacrifice, did a change, corresponding to his circumstances, take place
in the entrails of the beast; so that, supposing another person had
selected the same victim, he would have found the liver in a quite
different condition?"

The gods themselves became subjects of inspection and analysis. Their
origin and nature were studied historically, and were also reviewed in
the light of natural and ethical products. Three hundred years before
Christ, Evhemere of Messina boldly declared that the gods were simply
ancient kings deified by fear and superstition after death. Anaxagoras
sought to identify the several deities with the forces and phenomena of
nature, thus converting the pantheon into an observatory, or into a
physical and chemical laboratory. Metrodorus contended that the gods
were deifications of mere abstract ethical precepts.

Instances are recorded in history, from time to time, where the
philosophers attempted to explain to the people the natural meaning of
those things which they believed were pregnant with supernatural import.
On a certain occasion, a ram with one horn was found on the farm of
Pericles, and, from this circumstance, an Athenian diviner, named
Lampon, predicted that the party of the orator would triumph over the
opposite faction and gain control of the government. Whereupon
Anaxagoras dissected the skull, and demonstrated to the people the
natural cause of the phenomenon in the peculiar shape of the animal's
brain. But this reformer finally suffered the fate of other innovators,
was prosecuted for impiety, and was only saved by the influence of
Pericles.

At the beginning of the Christian era, the religion of Rome was
privately ridiculed and repudiated by nearly all statesmen and
philosophers of the empire, although they publicly professed it on
grounds of public policy. Seneca, a contemporary of Jesus, advised
observance of rites appointed by law, on patriotic grounds. "All which
things," he says, "a wise man will observe as being commanded by the
laws, but not as being pleasing to the gods." Again he says: "All that
ignoble rabble of gods which the superstition of ages has heaped up, we
shall adore in such a way as to remember that their worship belongs
rather to custom than to reality." Ridiculing the popular notions of
the matrimonial relations of the deities, the same eminent philosopher
says: "And what of this, that we unite the gods in marriage, and that
not even naturally, for we join brothers and sisters? We marry Bellona
to Mars, Venus to Vulcan, Salacia to Neptune. Some of them we leave
unmarried, as though there were no match for them, which is surely
needless, especially when there are certain unmarried goddesses, as
Populonia, or Fulgora, or the goddess Rumina, for whom I am not
astonished that suitors have been wanting."

The prevailing skepticism of the times is well illustrated in a dialogue
which Cicero introduces into his first Tusculan Disputation between M,
which may be interpreted Marcus, and A, which may be translated Auditor:

    MARCUS: Tell me, are you not afraid of the three-headed Cerberus in
      the infernal regions, and the roaring of Cocytus, and the passage
      over Acheron, and Tantalus, dying with thirst, while water laves
      his chin, and Sisyphus,

      "Who sweats with arduous toil in vain
      The steepy summit of the mount to gain?"

      Perhaps you are also afraid of the inexorable judges, Minos and
      Rhadamanthus, because before them neither L. Crassus nor M.
      Antonius can defend you, and because appearing before Grecian
      judges, you will not be permitted to employ Demosthenes, but must
      plead for yourself before a very great crowd. All these things,
      perhaps, you fear, and therefore regard death as an eternal evil.

    AUDITOR: Do you think I'm such a fool as to give credence to such
      things?

    MARCUS: What! You don't believe in them?

    AUDITOR: Truly, not in the least.

    MARCUS: I am deeply pained to hear that.

    AUDITOR: Why?

    MARCUS: Because, if occasion had offered, I could very eloquently
      have denounced them, myself.[150]

The contemptuous scorn of the cultivated Romans of his time is
frequently revealed in the writings of Cicero. He refers more than once
to the famous remark of Cato, who said that he could not explain why the
haruspices did not laugh in each other's faces when they began to
sacrifice.

At this point, it is worthy of observation that the prevalent unbelief
was not limited to a simple denial of the existence of mythical
divinities and of the efficacy of the worship rendered them. Roman
skepticism sought to destroy the very foundation of all religious belief
by denying not only the existence of the gods, but also the immortality
of the soul. Cicero is said to have been the only great Roman of his
time who believed that death was not the end. Students of Sallust are
familiar with his account of the conspiracy of Cataline in which it is
related that Julius Caesar, in a speech before the Roman senate, opposed
putting the traitor to death because that form of punishment was too
mild, since beyond the grave there was neither joy nor sorrow.[151]

Antagonism to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul reached a
melancholy refinement in the strange contention that life after death
was a cruel thought. Pliny expresses this sentiment admirably when he
says:

     What folly it is to renew life after death. Where shall created
     beings find rest if you suppose that shades in hell and souls in
     heaven continue to have any feeling? You rob us of man's greatest
     good--death. Let us rather find in the tranquillity which preceded
     our existence the pledge of the repose which is to follow it.

When skepticism had destroyed their faith in the gods, and had robbed
them of the consolations of religion, educated Romans sought refuge and
solace in Greek philosophy. Stoicism and Epicureanism were the dominant
spiritual and intellectual forces of the Roman empire at the time of
Christ. Epicureanism was founded by Epicurus, who was born of an
Athenian family in the Island of Samos about 342 B.C. Stoicism
originated with Zeno, a native of Cittium in Cyprus, born about the year
340 B.C.

The original design of the system of Epicurus was to found a
commonwealth of happiness and goodness in opposition to the purely
intellectual aristocracy of Plato and Aristotle. Men were beginning to
tire of speculation and dialectics, and to long for a philosophy built
upon human feeling and sensibility. As a touchstone of truth, it was
proposed to substitute sensation for intellect. Whatever was pleasing to
the natural and healthful senses was to be taken to be true. The pursuit
of happiness was to be the chief aim of the devotees of this system. The
avoidance of mental pain and physical suffering, as well as the
cultivation of all pleasurable emotions, were to be the leading features
of every Epicurean programme. In the beginning, Epicureanism inculcated
principles of virtue as a means of happiness. The mode of life of the
first followers of Epicurus was simple and abstemious. Barley-bread and
water are said to have been their ordinary food and drink. But in time
this form of philosophy became identified with the coarsest sensuality
and the most wicked lust. This was especially true after it was
transplanted from Greece to Italy. The doctrines of this school met with
a ready response from the pleasure-seeking, luxury-loving Roman people
who were now enriched by the spoils and treasures of a conquered world.
"This philosophy therefore became at Rome a mere school of
self-indulgence, and lost the refinement which, in Greece, had led it to
recognize in virtue that which gave zest to pleasure and in temperance
that which prolonged it. It called simply for a continuous round of
physical delights; it taught the grossest sensuality; it proclaimed the
inanity of goodness and the lawfulness of lust. It was the road--sure,
steep and swift, to awful demoralization."

Stoicism, on the other hand, furnished spiritual and intellectual food
to that nobler class of Romans who were at once the support and ornament
of a magnificent but decadent civilization. This form of philosophy was
peculiarly consonant with early Roman instincts and habits. In its
teachings were perfectly reflected that vigor, austerity, and manly
self-reliance which had made the Roman race undisputed masters of the
world. Many of its precepts were not only moral and ennobling, but
deeply religious and sustaining. A striking kinship between them and
certain Christian precepts has been frequently pointed out. Justice,
fortitude, prudence, and temperance were the four cardinal virtues of
Stoicism. Freedom from all passions and complete simplicity of life,
resulting in perfect purity of manners, was its chief aim. But the
fundamental principles of both Epicureanism and Stoicism were
destructive of those spiritual elements which furnish complete and
permanent nourishment to the soul. Stoicism was pantheism, and
Epicureanism was materialism. The Stoic believed that the human soul was
corporeal, but that it was animated and illuminated by the universal
soul. The Epicurean taught that the soul was composed of material atoms,
which would perish when its component parts separated or dissolved.
Epicureanism was materialistic in its tendency, and its inevitable
result, in perverted form, was sensualism. Stoicism was pervaded
throughout by a melancholy and desolating fatalism. It was peculiarly
the philosophy of suicide; or, as a great French writer once described
it, "an apprenticeship for death."[152] To take one's life was not only
allowable but commendable in certain cases. Zeno, the founder of the
sect, taught that incurable disease was a sufficient excuse for suicide.
Marcus Aurelius considered it an obligation of nature and of reason to
make an end of life when it became an intolerable burden. "Kill thyself
and die erect in the consciousness of thy own strength," would have been
a suitable inscription over the doorway of every Stoic temple. Seneca
furnished to his countrymen this Stoic panacea for all the ills of life:

     Seest thou yon steep height, that is the descent to freedom. Seest
     thou yon sea, yon river, yon well; freedom sits there in the
     depths. Seest thou yon low withered tree; there freedom hangs.
     Seest thou thy neck, thy throat, thy heart; they are the ways of
     escape from bondage.

And the Roman philosopher was not only conscientious but consistent in
his teachings. He was heroic enough to take the medicine himself which
he had prescribed for others. Indeed, he took a double dose; for he not
only swallowed poison, but also opened his veins, and thus committed
suicide, as other Stoics--such as Zeno, Cleanthes and Cato--had done
before him.

It was not a problem of the Stoic philosophy,

    Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
    The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
    And by opposing end them?[153]

A familiar illustration of the advocates of suicide among the Roman
writers was that a human body afflicted with incurable disease, or a
human mind weighed down with intolerable grief, was like a house filled
with smoke. As it was the duty of the occupant of the house to escape
from the smoke by flight, so it was the duty of the soul to leave the
body by suicide.

But neither Epicureanism nor Stoicism could satisfy the natural longing
of the soul for that which is above the earth and beyond the grave. It
was impossible that philosophy should completely displace religion. The
spiritual nature of the Roman people was still intact and vigorous after
belief in myths was dead. As a substitute for their ancient faith and as
a supplement to philosophy, they began to deify their illustrious men
and women. The apotheosis of the emperors was the natural result of the
progressive degradation of the Roman religion. The deification of Julius
Caesar was the beginning of this servile form of worship; and the
apotheosis of Diocletian was the fifty-third of these solemn
canonizations. Of this number, fifteen were those of princesses
belonging to the imperial family.

Divine honors began to be paid to Caesar before he was dead. The
anniversary of his birth became a national holiday; his bust was placed
in the temple, and a month of the year was named for him. After his
assassination, he was worshiped as a god under the name of Divus Julius;
and sacrifices were offered upon his altar. After Julius Caesar, followed
the deification of Augustus Caesar. Even before his death, Octavian had
consented to be worshiped in the provinces, especially in Nicomedia and
Pergamus. After his death, his worship was introduced into Rome and
Italy.

The act of canonizing a dead emperor was accomplished by a vote of the
senate, followed by a solemn ceremony, in which an eagle was released at
the funeral pile, and soaring upward, became a symbol of the ascent of
the deceased to the skies. A Roman senator, Numerius Atticus, swore that
he had seen Augustus ascending to heaven at the time of his
consecration; and received from Livia a valuable gift of money as a
token of her appreciation of his kindness.

Not only were grand and gifted men like Julius and Augustus Caesar, but
despicable and contemptible tyrants like Nero and Commodus, raised to
the rank of immortals. And, not content with making gods of emperors,
the Romans made goddesses of their royal women. Caligula had lived in
incestuous intercourse with his sister Drusilla; nevertheless, he had
her immortalized and worshiped as a divine being. This same Caligula who
was a monster of depravity, insisted on being worshiped as a god in the
flesh throughout the Roman empire, although the custom had been not to
deify emperors until after they were dead. The cowardly and obsequious
Roman senate decreed him a temple in Rome. The royal rascal erected
another to himself, and appointed his own private priests and
priestesses, among whom were his uncle Claudius, and the Caesonia who
afterwards became his wife. This temple and its ministry were maintained
at an enormous expense. Only the rarest and most costly birds like
peacocks and pheasants, were allowed to be sacrificed to him. Such was
the impious conceit of Caligula that he requested the Asiatics of
Miletus to convert a temple of Apollo into a shrine sacred to himself.
Some of the noblest statuary of antiquity was mutilated in displacing
the heads of gods to make places for the head of this wicked monster. A
mighty descent this, indeed, from the Olympian Zeus of Phidias to a bust
of Caligula!

Domitian, after his deification, had himself styled "Lord and God," in
all documents, and required all his subjects to so address him. Pliny
tells us that the roads leading into Rome were constantly filled with
flocks and herds being driven to the Capital to be sacrificed upon his
altar.[154]

The natural and inevitable result of the decay of the Roman religion was
the corruption and demoralization of Roman social life. All experience
teaches that an assault upon a people's religious system is an assault
upon the entire social and moral organization. Every student of history
knows that a nation will be prosperous and happy to the extent that it
is religiously intelligent, and in proportion to its loyalty to the laws
of social virtue, to the laws of good government, and the laws of God;
and that an abandonment of its gods means the wreck and dissolution of
its entire social structure. The annals of Rome furnish a striking
confirmation of this fact.

The closing pages of this chapter will be devoted to a short topical
review of Roman society at the time of Christ. Only a few phases of the
subject can be presented in a work of this character.


II.--GRAECO-ROMAN SOCIAL LIFE

_Marriage and Divorce._--The family is the unit of the social system;
and at the hearthstone all civilization begins. The loosening of the
domestic ties is the beginning of the dissolution of the state; and
whatever weakens the nuptial bonds, tends to destroy the moral fiber of
society. The degradation of women and the destruction of domestic purity
were the first signs of decay in Roman life. In the early ages of the
republic, marriage was regarded not only as a contract, but as a
sacrament as well. Connubial fidelity was sacredly maintained. Matrons
of the type of Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, were objects of
national pride and affection. The spirit of desperation which caused the
father of Virginia to plunge a butcher's knife into the chaste and
innocent heart of his child to save her from the lust of Appius
Claudius, was a tragic illustration of the almost universal Roman
respect for virtue in the age of the Tarquins. To such an extent were
the marital relations venerated by the early Romans that we are assured
by Dionysius that five hundred and twenty years had passed before a
single divorce was granted. Carvilius Ruga, the name of the first Roman
to procure a divorce, has been handed down to us.[155]

If we are to believe Doellinger, the abandonment of the policy of
lifelong devotion to the marriage relation and the inauguration of the
system of divorce were due not to the faults of the men but to the
dangerous and licentious qualities of the Roman women. In connection
with the divorce of Carvilius Ruga, he discusses a widespread conspiracy
of Roman wives to poison their husbands. Several of these husbands fell
victims to this plot; and, as punishment for the crime, twenty married
women were forced to take the poison which they had themselves prepared,
and were thus put to death. And, about a half century after this
divorce, several wives of distinguished Romans were discovered to be
participants in the bacchanalian orgies. From all these things,
Doellinger infers that the Roman men began to tire of their wives and to
seek legal separation from them.[156]

But, whatever the cause, the marriage tie was so easily severed during
the latter years of the republic, that divorce was granted on the
slightest pretext. Q. Antistius Vetus divorced his wife because she was
talking familiarly and confidentially to one of his freedmen. The wife
of C. Sulpicius imprudently entered the street without a veil, and her
husband secured a divorce on that ground. P. Sempronius Sophus put away
his wife for going to the theater without his knowledge.

Cicero divorced his first wife that he might marry a younger and
wealthier woman; and because this second one did not exhibit sufficient
sorrow at the death of his daughter, Tullia, he repudiated her.

Cato, the stern Stoic moralist, was several times divorced. To
accommodate his friend Hortensius he gave him his second wife Marcia,
with her father's consent; and, after the death of the orator, he
remarried her.

After being several times previously divorced, Pompey put away Mucia in
order that he might wed Julia, Caesar's daughter, who was young enough to
be the child of Pompey.

Caesar himself was five times married. He divorced his wife, Pompeia,
because of her relationship to Clodius, a dashing and dissolute young
Roman, who entered Caesar's house on the occasion of the celebration of
the feast of the Bona Dea in a woman's dress, in order that he might pay
clandestine suit to the object of his lust. Caesar professed to believe
that the charges against Pompeia were not true, but he divorced her
nevertheless, with the remark that "Caesar's wife must be above
suspicion." We are reminded by this that, in ancient as in modern times,
society placed greater restrictions upon women than upon men; for Caesar,
who uttered this virtuous and heroic sentiment, was a most notorious
rake and profligate. Suetonius tells us that he debauched many Roman
ladies of the first rank; among them "Lollia, the wife of Aulus
Gabinius; Tertulla, the wife of Marcus Crassus; and Mucia, the wife of
Cneius Pompey." It was frequently made a reproach to Pompey, "that to
gratify his ambition, he married the daughter of a man upon whose
account he had divorced his wife, after having had three children by
her; and whom he used, with a deep sigh, to call AEgisthus." But the
favorite mistress of Caesar was Servilia, the mother of Marcus Brutus.
To consummate an intrigue with her, he gave Servilia a pearl which cost
him six millions of sesterces. And at the time of the civil war he had
deeded to her for a trifling consideration, several valuable farms. When
people expressed surprise at the lowness of the price, Cicero humorously
remarked: "To let you know the real value of the purchase, between
ourselves, Tertia was deducted." It was generally suspected at Rome that
Servilia had prostituted her daughter Tertia to Caesar; and the witticism
of the orator was a _double entendre_, Tertia signifying the third (of
the value of the farm), as well as being the name of the girl, whose
virtue had paid the price of the deduction. Caesar's lewdness was so
flagrant and notorious that his soldiers marching behind his chariot, on
the occasion of his Gallic triumph, shouted in ribald jest, to the
multitude along the way:

    Watch well your wives, ye cits, we bring a blade,
    A bald-pate master of the wenching trade.[157]

If this was the private life of the greatest Roman of the world, who, at
the time of his death, was Pontifex Maximus, the supreme head of the
Roman religion, what must have been the social life of the average
citizen who delighted to style Caesar the demigod while living and to
worship him as divine, when dead?

A thorough knowledge of the details of the most corrupt and abandoned
state of society recorded in history may be had by a perusal of the
Annals of Tacitus and the Satires of Juvenal. The Sixth Satire is a
withering arraignment of Roman profligacy and wickedness. "To see the
world in its worst estate," says Professor Jowett, "we turn to the age
of the satirists and of Tacitus, when all the different streams of evil,
coming from east, west, north, south, the vices of barbarism and the
vices of civilization, remnants of ancient cults, and the latest
refinements of luxury and impurity, met and mingled on the banks of the
Tiber." Rome was the heart of the empire that pumped its filthy blood
from the center to the extremities, and received from the provinces a
return current of immorality and corruption. Juvenal complains that

    Long since the stream that wanton Syria laves,
    Has disembogued its filth in Tiber's waves.

Grecian literature and manners were the main cause of Roman
dissoluteness.

The grandfather of Cicero is said to have made this declaration: "A
Roman's wickedness increases in proportion to his acquaintance with
Greek authors." It is undeniably true that the domestic immorality of
the Greeks exercised a most baneful influence upon the social life of
the Romans. Both at Athens and in Sparta marriage was regarded as the
means to an end, the procreation of children as worshipers of the gods
and citizens of the state. In this fundamental purpose were involved,
the Greeks believed, the mission and the destiny of woman. Marriage was
not so much a sacred institution, as it was a convenient arrangement
whereby property rights were regulated and soldiers were provided for
the army and the navy. This view was entertained by both the Athenians
and the Spartans. The code of Lycurgus regulated the family relations to
the end that healthy, vigorous children might be born to a military
commonwealth. The Spartan maidens were required to exercise in the
palestra, almost naked, in the presence of men and strangers. And so
loose and extravagant were the ideas of conjugal fidelity among the
Spartans that it was not regarded as an improper thing to borrow another
man's wife for the purpose of procreating children, if there had already
been born to the legitimate husband all the children that he desired.
This we learn from Xenophon[158] and from Polybius,[159] who assure us
that it often happened that as many as four Spartans had one woman, in
common, for a wife. "Already in the time of Socrates, the wives of
Sparta had reached the height of disrepute for their wantonness
throughout the whole of Greece; Aristotle says that they lived in
unbridled licentiousness; and, indeed, it is a distinctive feature in
the female character there, that publicly and shamelessly they would
speed a well-known seducer of a woman of rank by wishing him success,
and charging him to think only of endowing Sparta with brave boys."[160]

[Illustration: AVE CAESAR! IO SATURNALIA (ALMA-TADEMA)]

At Athens the principle was the same, even if the gratification of lust
was surrounded with a halo of poetry and sentiment which the Spartan
imagination was incapable of creating. The Athenians were guilty of a
strange perversion of the social instincts by placing a higher
appreciation upon the charms of a certain class of lewd women that they
did upon the virtuous merits of their own wives and mothers. These
latter were kept in retirement and denied the highest educational
advantages; while the former, the Hetairai, beautiful and brilliant
courtesans, destined for the pleasure and entertainment of illustrious
men, were accorded the utmost freedom, as well as all the advantages of
culture in the arts and sciences. Demosthenes has classified the women
of ancient Athens in this sentence: "We have Hetairai for our pleasure,
concubines for the ordinary requirements of the body, and wives for the
procreation of lawful issue and as confidential domestic guardians." The
most renowned of the Hetairai was Aspasia, the mistress of Pericles. She
was exceedingly beautiful and brilliantly accomplished. At her house in
Athens, poets, philosophers, statesmen, and sculptors frequently
gathered to do her honor. Pericles is said to have wept only three times
in life; and one of these was when he defended Aspasia before the
dicastery of Athens against the charge of impiety.

Another of the Hetairai scarcely less famous than Aspasia was the
celebrated Athenian courtesan, Phryne. Praxiteles, the sculptor, was one
of her adorers. She, too, was tried for impiety before the dicastery.
Hiperides, the Attic orator, defended her. To create a favorable
impression upon the court, he bade her reveal her bosom to the judges.
She did so, and was acquitted. So great was the veneration in which
Phryne was held that it was considered no profanation to place her image
in the sacred temple at Delphi. And so overwhelming was her beauty, that
her statues were identified with the Aphrodite of Apelles and the
Cnidian goddess of Praxiteles. At Eleusis, on the occasion of a national
festival, she impersonated Venus by entering naked into the waves, in
the presence of spectators from all the cities of Greece. She is said to
have amassed such a fortune that she felt justified in offering to build
the walls of Thebes.

Such was the esteem in which these elegant harlots were held, that we
find recorded among their patrons on the pages of Greek history the
names of Pericles, Demades, Lysias, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Aristotle,
Aristippus, and Epicurus. So little odium attached to the occupation of
this class of women that we read that Socrates frequently paid visits to
one of them named Theodota and advised her as to the best method of
gaining "friends" and keeping them.[161]

As the sculptors did not hesitate to carve the images of the Hetairai in
marble and give them the names of the goddesses of Olympus, so the
poets, orators, and historians did not fail to immortalize them in their
poems, orations, and annals. Greek statuary and literature were then
transported to Italy to corrupt Roman manners. It was not long before
adultery and seduction had completely poisoned and polluted every
fountain of Roman private life. "Liaisons in the first houses," says
Mommsen, "had become so frequent, that only a scandal altogether
exceptional could make them the subject of special talk; a judicial
interference seems now almost ridiculous."

Roman women of patrician rank, not content with noblemen as lovers,
sought out "lewd fellows of the baser sort" among slaves and gladiators,
as companions of corrupt intrigues. Juvenal, in his Sixth Satire, paints
a horrible picture of social depravity when he describes the lewdness of
Messalina, the wife of Claudius I. This woman, the wife of an emperor,
and the mother of the princely Britannicus, descends from the imperial
bed, in the company of a single female slave, at the dead of night, to a
common Roman brothel, assumes the name Lycisca, and submits to the
embraces of the coarsest Roman debauchees.

The degradation of women was not peculiar to the Capital of the empire,
but extended to every province. Social impurity was rankest in the East,
but it was present everywhere. Virtue seemed to have left the earth, and
Vice had taken her place as the supreme mistress of the world.

_Luxury and Extravagance._--At the birth of Christ, the frontiers of the
Roman empire comprised all the territory of the then civilized world. In
extending her conquests, Rome laid heavy tribute upon conquered nations.
All the wealth of the earth flowed into her coffers. The result was
unexampled luxury and extravagance. A single illustration will serve to
show the mode of life of the wealthy Roman citizen of the time of which
we write. Lucullus, the lieutenant of Sulla, and the friend of Cicero
and Pompey, had amassed enormous wealth in the Mithradatic wars. This
fortune he employed to inaugurate and maintain a style of social life
whose splendor and extravagance were the astonishment and scandal of his
age and race. The meals served upon his table, even when no guests were
present, were marked by all the taste, elegance, and completeness of a
banquet. On one occasion, when he happened to dine alone, the table was
not arranged with the ordinary fullness and splendor; whereupon he made
complaint to the servants, who replied that they did not think it
necessary to prepare so completely when he was alone. "What! did you not
know that Lucullus would dine with Lucullus?" was his answer. At another
time, Cicero and Pompey met him in the Forum and requested that he take
them with him to dine, as they desired to learn how his table was spread
when no visitors were expected. Lucullus was embarrassed for a moment;
but soon regained his composure, and replied that he would be delighted
to have such distinguished Romans dine with him, but that he would like
to have a day for preparation. They refused this request, however; nor
would they consent that he send directions to his servants, as they
desired to see how meals were served in his home when no guests were
there. Lucullus then requested Cicero and Pompey to permit him to tell
his servants, in their presence, in what room the repast should be
served. They consented to this; and Lucullus then directed that the Hall
of Apollo should be arranged for the dinner. Now the dining rooms in the
home of Lucullus were graded in price; and it was only necessary to
designate the room in order to notify the servants of the style and
costliness of the entertainment desired. The Hall of Apollo called for
an expenditure, at each meal, of fifty thousand drachmas, the equivalent
of $10,000 in our money. And when Cicero and Pompey sat down at the
table of Lucullus a few hours later, the decorations of the room and the
feast spread before them, offered a spectacle of indescribable beauty
and luxury. The epicure had outwitted the orator and the general.

Other anecdotes related by Plutarch also illustrate the luxurious life
of Lucullus. Once when Pompey was sick, his physician prescribed a
thrush for his meal; whereupon Pompey's servants notified him that a
thrush could not be secured in Italy during the summer time, except in
the fattening coops of Lucullus.

Cato despised the luxurious habits of Lucullus; and, on one occasion,
when a young man was extolling the beauties of frugality and temperance
in a speech before the senate, the Stoic interrupted him by asking: "How
long do you mean to go on making money like Crassus, living like
Lucullus and talking like Cato?"[162]

Lucullus was not the only Roman of his day who spent fabulous sums of
money in luxurious living and in building palatial residences. M.
Lepidus, who was elected Consul in 87 B.C., erected the most magnificent
private edifice ever seen in Rome.

But the culmination of magnificence in Roman architecture was the Golden
House of Nero. Its walls were covered with gold and studded with
precious stones. The banquet rooms were decorated with gorgeous
ceilings, and were so constructed that from them flowers and perfumes
could be showered from above on the guests below.

Concerning the luxurious life of the later days of the republic, Mommsen
says: "Extravagant prices, as much as one hundred thousand sesterces
(L1,000) were paid for an exquisite cook. Houses were constructed with
special reference to this subject.... A dinner was already described as
poor at which the fowls were served up to the guests entire, and not
merely the choice portions.... At banquets, above all, the Romans
displayed their hosts of slaves ministering to luxury, their bands of
musicians, their dancing-girls, their elegant furniture, their carpets
glittering with gold, or pictorially embroidered, their rich silver
plate."[163]

But the luxury and extravagance of the Romans were nowhere so manifest
as in their public bathing establishments. "The magnificence of many of
the thermae and their luxurious arrangements were such that some writers,
as Seneca, are quite lost in their descriptions of them. The piscinae
were often of immense size--that of Diocletian being 200 feet long--and
were adorned with beautiful marbles. The halls were crowded with
magnificent columns, and were ornamented with the finest pieces of
statuary. The walls, it has been said, were covered with exquisite
mosaics that imitated the art of the painter in their elegance of
design and variety of color. The Egyptian syenite was encrusted with the
precious green marbles of Numidia. The rooms contained the works of
Phidias and Praxiteles. A perpetual stream of water was poured into
capacious basins through the wide mouths of lions of bright and polished
silver. 'To such a pitch of luxury have we reached,' says Seneca, 'that
we are dissatisfied if we do not tread on gems in our baths.'"[164]

The circuses were scarcely inferior to the baths in magnificence.
Caligula is said to have strewn them with gold dust.

The result of Roman luxury in the matter of food and drink was a coarse
and loathsome gluttony which finds no parallel in modern life.
Epicureanism had degenerated from barley-bread and water to the
costliest diet ever known. Wealthy Romans of the age of Augustus did not
hesitate to pay two hundred and fifty dollars for a single fish--the
mullet. And that they might indulge their appetite to the fullest
extent, and prolong the pleasures of eating beyond the requirements and
even the capacity of nature, they were in the habit of taking an emetic
at meal times. We learn from the letters of Cicero that Julius Caesar did
this on one occasion when he went to visit the orator at his country
villa. And the degeneracy of Roman life is nowhere more clearly
indicated than in the Fourth Satire of Juvenal where he describes the
gathering of the great men of the state, at the call of Domitian, to
determine how a turbot should be cooked.

But the reader must not infer that all Romans were rich and that luxury
was indulged in every home. In the Roman capital the extremes of wealth
and poverty met. The city was filled with idlers, vagabonds and paupers
from all quarters of the globe. In the early days of the Republic,
sturdy farmers had tilled the soil of Italy and had filled the legions
with brave and hardy warriors. The beginning of the empire witnessed a
radical change. Hundreds of thousands of these farmers had been driven
from their lands to furnish homes to the disbanded soldiers of
conquerors like Sulla, Marius, and Caesar. Homeless and poverty-stricken,
they wandered away to Rome to swell the ranks of mendicants and
adventurers that crowded the streets of the imperial city. The soldiers
themselves, finding agriculture distasteful and unprofitable, sold their
lands to Roman speculators, and returned to the scene of the triumphs of
their military masters. The inevitable consequence of this influx of
strangers and foreigners, without wealth and without employment, was the
degradation and demoralization of Roman social and industrial life.
Augustus was compelled to make annual donations of money and provisions
to 200,000 persons who wandered helpless about the streets. This state
of things--fabulous wealth in the hands of a few, and abject poverty as
the lot of millions--was the harbinger sure and swift of the destruction
of the state.

_Slavery._--At the beginning of the Christian era, slavery existed in
every province of the Roman empire. Nearly everywhere the number of
slaves was much greater than that of the free citizens. In Attica,
according to the census of Demetrius Phalereus, about the beginning of
the fourth century B.C., there were 400,000 slaves, 10,000 foreign
settlers, and 20,000 free citizens. Zumpt estimates that there were two
slaves to every freeman in Rome in the year 5 B.C. It frequently
happened that a wealthy Roman possessed as many as 20,000 slaves. Slaves
who gained their freedom might themselves become masters and own slaves.
During the reign of Augustus, a freedman died, leaving 4,116 slaves.
Crassus possessed so many that his company of architects and carpenters
alone exceeded 500 in number.

The principal slave markets of Greece were those at Athens, Ephesus,
Cyprus, and Samos. In the market place of each of these cities, slaves
were exposed for sale upon wooden scaffolds. From the neck of each was
hung a tablet or placard containing a description of his or her
meritorious qualities, such as parentage, educational advantages, health
and freedom from physical defects. They were required to strip
themselves at the request of purchasers. In this way, the qualifications
of slaves for certain purposes could be accurately judged. The vigorous,
large-limbed Cappadocians, for instance, like our modern draft horses,
were selected for their strength and their ability to lift heavy loads
and endure long-continued work.

The property of the master in the slave was absolute. The owner might
kill or torture his slave at will. Neither the government nor any
individual could bring him to account for it. Roman law compelled
female slaves to surrender themselves, against their will, to their
master's lust. All the coarseness and brutality of the haughty,
arrogant, and merciless Roman disposition were manifested in the
treatment of their slaves. Nowhere do we find any mercy or humanity
shown them. On the farms they worked with chains about their limbs during
the day; and at night they were lodged in the _ergastula_--subterranean
apartments, badly lighted and poorly ventilated. The most cruel
punishment awaited the slave who attempted to escape. The
_fugitavarii_--professional slave chasers--ran him down, branded him on
the forehead, and brought him back to his master. If the master was very
rich, or cared little for the life of the slave, he usually commanded
him to be thrown, as a punishment for his attempt to flee, to the wild
beasts in the amphitheater. This cruel treatment was not exceptional,
but was ordinary. Cato, the paragon among the Stoics, was so merciless
in his dealings with his slaves that one of them committed suicide
rather than await the hour of punishment for some transgression of which
he was guilty.[165] It frequently happened that the slaves had knowledge
of crimes committed by their masters. In such cases they were fortunate
if they escaped death, as the probability of their becoming witnesses
against their masters offered every inducement to put them out of the
way. In his defense of Cluentius, Cicero speaks of a slave who had his
tongue cut out to prevent his betraying his mistress.[166] If a slave
murdered his master, all his fellow-slaves under the same roof were held
responsible for the deed. Thus four hundred slaves were put to death
for the act of one who assassinated Pedanius Secundus, during the reign
of Nero.[167] Augustus had his steward, Eros, crucified on the mast of
his ship because the slave had roasted and eaten a quail that had been
trained for the royal quail-pit. Once a slave was flung to the fishes
because he had broken a crystal goblet.[168] On another occasion, a
slave was compelled to march around a banquet table, in the presence of
the guests, with his hands, which had been cut off, hanging from his
neck, because he had stolen some trifling article of silverware. Cicero,
in his prosecution of Verres, recites an instance of mean and cowardly
cruelty toward a slave. "At the time," he says, "in which L. Domitius
was praetor in Sicily, a slave killed a wild boar of extraordinary size.
The praetor, struck by the dexterity and courage of the man, desired to
see him. The poor wretch, highly gratified with the distinction, came to
present himself before the praetor, in hopes, no doubt, of praise and
reward; but Domitius, on learning that he had only a javelin to attack
and kill the boar, ordered him to be instantly crucified, under the
barbarous pretext that the law prohibited the use of this weapon, as of
all others, to slaves."

The natural consequence of this cruel treatment was unbounded hatred of
the master by the slave. "We have as many enemies," says Seneca, "as we
have slaves." And what rendered the situation perilous was the
numerical superiority of the slave over the free population. "They
multiply at an immense rate," says Tacitus, "whilst freemen diminish in
equal proportion." Pliny the Younger gave expression to the universal
apprehension when he wrote: "By what dangers we are beset! No one is
safe; not even the most indulgent, gentlest master." Precautionary
measures were adopted from time to time both by individuals and by the
government to prevent concerted action among the slaves and to conceal
from them all evidences of their own strength. To keep down mutiny among
his slaves, Cato is said to have constantly excited dissension and
enmity among them. "It was once proposed," says Gibbon, "to discriminate
the slaves by a peculiar habit; but it was justly apprehended that there
might be some danger in acquainting them with their own numbers."[169]

If the Roman masters maltreated and destroyed the bodies of their
slaves, the slaves retaliated by corrupting and destroying the morals of
their masters. The institution of slavery was one of the most potent
agencies in the demoralization of ancient Roman manners. The education
of children was generally confided to the slaves, who did not fail to
poison their minds and hearts in many ways. In debauching their female
slaves, the Roman masters polluted their own morals and corrupted their
own manhood. The result teaches us that the law of physics is the law of
morals: that action and reaction are equal, but in opposite directions.

_Destruction of New-Born Infants._--The destruction of new-born children
was the deepest stain upon the civilization of the ancient Greeks and
Romans. In obedience to a provision of the code of Lycurgus, every
Spartan child was exhibited immediately after birth to public view; and,
if it was found to be deformed and weakly, so that it was unfit to grow
into a strong and healthy citizen of the Spartan military commonwealth,
it was exposed to perish on Mount Taygetus. The practice of exposing
infants was even more arbitrary and cruel in Rome than in Greece. The
Roman father was bound by no limitations; but could cast his offspring
away to die, through pure caprice. Paulus, the celebrated jurist of the
imperial period, admitted that this was a paternal privilege. Suetonius
tells us that the day of the death of Germanicus, which took place A.D.
19, was signalized by the exposition of children who were born on that
day.[170] This was done as a manifestation of general sorrow. The
emperor Augustus banished his granddaughter Julia on account of her
lewdness and licentiousness, as he had done in the case of his daughter,
Julia. In exile, she gave birth to a child which Augustus caused to be
exposed. It often happened that new-born babes that had been cast away
to die of cold and hunger or to be devoured by dogs or wild beasts were
rescued by miscreants who brought them up to devote them to evil
purposes. The male children were destined to become gladiators, and the
females were sold to houses of prostitution. Often such children were
picked up by those who disfigured and deformed them for the purpose of
associating them with themselves as beggars.

The custom of exposing infants was born of the spirit of fierceness and
barbarity that characterized many ancient races. Its direct tendency was
to make savages of men by destroying those tender and humane feelings
for the weak and helpless which have been the most marked attributes of
modern civilizations. Occasionally in our day one hears or reads of a
proposition by some pseudo-philanthropist that the good of the race
demands the destruction of certain persons--deformed infants, imbecile
adults and the like. But the humanity of the age invariably frowns upon
such proposals. The benign and merciful features of our Christian creed
would be outraged by such a practice.

_Gladiatorial Games._--The combats of gladiators were the culmination of
Roman barbarity and brutality. All the devotees of vice and crime met
and mingled at the arena, and derived strength and inspiration from its
bloody scenes. The gatherings in the amphitheater were miniatures of
Roman life. There, political matters were discussed and questions of
state determined, as was once the case in the public assemblies of the
people. Now that the gates of Janus were closed for the third time in
Roman history, the combats of the arena took the place, on a diminutive
scale, of those battles by which Romans had conquered the world. The
processions of the gladiators reminded the enthusiastic populace of the
triumphal entries of their conquerors into the Roman capital. Nothing so
glutted the appetite and quenched the thirst of a cruel and licentious
race as the gorgeous ceremonials and bloody butchery of the gladiatorial
shows.

These contests, strange to say, first took place at funerals, and were
intended to honor the dead. In 264 B.C., at the burial of D. Junius
Brutus, we are told, three pairs of gladiators fought in the cattle
market. Again, in 216 B.C., at the obsequies of M. AEmilius Lepidus,
twenty-two pairs engaged in combat in the Forum. And, in 174 B.C., on
the death of his father, Titus Flaminius caused seventy-four pairs to
fight for three days.[171] It will thus be seen that the death of one
Roman generally called for that of several others.

In time, the fondness of these contests had grown so great that generals
and statesmen arranged them on a gigantic scale as a means of winning
the favor and support of the multitude. The Roman proletariat demanded
not only bread to satisfy their hunger, but games to amuse them in their
hours of idleness. Augustus not only gave money and rations to 200,000
idlers, but inaugurated gladiatorial shows in which 10,000 combatants
fought. Not only men but wild beasts were brought into the arena. Pompey
arranged a fight of 500 lions, 18 elephants and 410 other ferocious
animals, brought from Africa. In a chase arranged by Augustus, A.D. 5,
36 crocodiles were killed in the Flaminian circus, which was flooded for
the purpose. Caligula brought 400 bears into the arena to fight with an
equal number of African wild animals. But all previous shows were
surpassed in the magnificent games instituted by Trajan, A.D. 106, to
celebrate his victories on the Danube. These games lasted four months;
and, in them, 10,000 gladiators fought, and 11,000 beasts were slain.

Such was the thirst for blood, and to such a pitch had the fury of the
passions reached at the beginning of the empire that Romans were no
longer satisfied with small fights by single pairs. They began to demand
regular battles and a larger flow of blood. And to please the populace,
Julius Caesar celebrated his triumph by a real battle in the circus. On
each side were arrayed 500 foot soldiers, 300 cavalrymen, and 20
elephants bearing soldiers in towers upon their backs. This was no mimic
fray, but an actual battle in which blood was shed and men were killed.
To vary the entertainment, Caesar also arranged a sea fight. He caused a
lake to be dug out on Mars Field, and placed battleships upon it which
represented Tyrian and Egyptian fleets. These he caused to be manned by
a thousand soldiers and 2,000 oarsmen. A bloody fight then ensued
between men who had no other motive in killing each other than to
furnish a Roman holiday. Augustus also arranged a sea fight upon an
artificial lake where 3,000 men were engaged. But both these battles
were eclipsed by the great sea fight which the emperor Claudius caused
to be fought on Lake Fucinus, in the presence of a great multitude that
lined the shore. Nineteen thousand men engaged in the bloody struggle.
On an eminence overlooking the lake, the Empress Agrippina, in gorgeous
costume, sat by the side of the emperor and watched the battle.

Announcement of gladiatorial fights in the amphitheater was made by
posters on the walls of the city. In these advertisements, the number
and names of the fighters were announced. On the day of the performance
a solemn procession of gladiators, walking in couples, passed through
the streets to the arena. The arrangements of the building and the
manner of the fights were so ordered as to arouse to the highest pitch
of excitement the passions and expectations of the spectators. The
citizens were required to wear the white toga. The lower rows of seats
were occupied by senators, in whose midst were the boxes occupied by the
imperial family. The equestrian order occupied places immediately above
the senators. The citizens were seated next after the equestrians, and
in the top-most rows, on benches, were gathered the Roman rabble. An
immense party- awning, stretched above the multitude, reflected
into the arena its variegated hues. Strains of music filled the air
while preparations for the combat were being made. The atmosphere of the
amphitheater was kept cool and fragrant by frequent sprays of perfume.
The regular combat was preceded by a mock fight with blunt weapons. Then
followed arrangements for the life-and-death struggle. The manager of
the games finally gave the command, and the fight was on. When one of
the gladiators was wounded, the words "hoc habet" were shouted. The
wounded man fell to the earth, dropped his weapon, and, holding up his
forefinger, begged his life from the people. If mercy was refused him,
he was compelled to renew the combat or to submit to the death stroke
of his antagonist. Attendants were at hand with hot irons to apply to
the victim to see that death was not simulated. If life was not extinct,
the fallen gladiator was dragged out to the dead room, and there
dispatched. Servants then ran into the arena and scattered sand over the
blood-drenched ground. Other fighters standing in readiness, immediately
rushed in to renew the contest. Thus the fight went on until the Roman
populace was glutted with butchery and blood.

Gladiators were chosen from the strongest and most athletic among slaves
and condemned criminals. Thracians, Gauls, and Germans were captured and
enslaved for the purpose of being sacrificed in the arena. They were
trained with the greatest care in gladiatorial schools. The most famous
of these institutions was at Capua in Italy. It was here that Spartacus,
a young Thracian, of noble ancestry, excited an insurrection that soon
spread throughout all Italy and threatened the destruction of Rome.
Addressing himself to seventy of his fellow-gladiators, Spartacus is
said to have made a bitter and impassioned speech in which he proposed
that, if they must die, they should die fighting their enemies and not
themselves; that, if they were to engage in bloody battles, these
battles should be fought under the open sky in behalf of life and
liberty, and not in the amphitheater to furnish pastime and
entertainment to their masters and oppressors. The speech had its
effect. The band of fighters broke out of Capua, and took refuge in the
crater of Mount Vesuvius (73 B.C.). Spartacus became the leader, with
Crixus and Oenomaus, two Celtic gladiators, as lieutenants. Their
ranks soon swelled to the proportions of an army, through accessions of
slaves and desperadoes from the neighborhood of the volcano. During two
years, they terrorized all Italy, defeated two consuls, and burned many
cities. Crixus was defeated and killed at Mount Gargarus in Apulia by
the praetor Arrius. Spartacus compelled three hundred Roman prisoners,
whom he had captured, to fight as gladiators, following Roman custom, at
the grave of his fallen comrade and lieutenant. Finally, he himself was
slain, sword in hand, having killed two centurions before he fell. With
the death of their leaders, the insurgents either surrendered or fled.
Those who were captured were crucified. It is said that the entire way
from Capua to Rome was marked by crosses on which their bodies were
suspended, to the number of ten thousand.[172]

Throughout Italy were amphitheaters for gladiatorial games. But the
largest and most celebrated of all was the Coliseum at Rome. Its ruins
are still standing. It was originally called the Flavian Amphitheater.
This vast building was begun A.D. 72, upon the site of the reservoir of
Nero, by the emperor Vespasian, who built as far as the third row of
arches, the last two rows being finished by Titus after his return from
the conquest of Jerusalem. It is said that twelve thousand captive Jews
were employed in this work, as the Hebrews were employed in building the
Pyramids of Egypt, and that the external walls alone cost nearly four
millions of dollars. It consists of four stories: the first, Doric; the
second, Ionic; the third and fourth, Corinthian. Its circumference is
nearly two thousand feet; its length, six hundred and twenty feet; and
its width, five hundred and thirteen. The entrance for the emperor was
between two arches facing the Esquiline, where there was no cornice. The
arena was surrounded by a wall sufficiently high to protect the
spectators from the wild beasts, which were introduced by subterranean
passages, closed by huge gates from the side. The Amphitheater is said
to have been capable of seating eighty-seven thousand people, and was
inaugurated by gladiatorial games that lasted one hundred days, and in
which five thousand beasts were slain. The emperor Commodus himself
fought in the Coliseum, and killed both gladiators and wild beasts. He
insisted on calling himself Hercules, was dressed in a lion's skin, and
had his hair sprinkled with gold dust.

[Illustration: THE DYING GLADIATOR (ANTIQUE SCULPTURE)]

An oriental monk, Talemachus, was so horrified at the sight of the
gladiatorial games, that he rushed into the midst of the arena, and
besought the spectators to have them stopped. Instead of listening to
him, they put him to death.

The first martyrdom in the Coliseum was that of St. Ignatius, said to
have been the child especially blessed by our Savior, the disciple of
John, and the companion of Polycarp, who was sent to Rome from Antioch
when he was bishop. When brought into the arena, St. Ignatius knelt down
and exclaimed: "Romans who are here present, know that I have not been
brought into this place for any crime, but in order that by this means
I may merit the fruition of the glory of God, for love of whom I have
been made a prisoner. I am as the grain of the field and must be ground
by the teeth of the lions that I may become bread fit for His table."
The lions were then let loose, and devoured him, except the larger bones
which the Christians collected during the night.

The spot where the Christian martyrs suffered was for a long time marked
by a tall cross devoutly kissed by the faithful. The Pulpit of the
Coliseum was used for the stormy sermons of Gavazzi, who called the
people to arms from thence in the Revolution of March, 1848.

_Graeco-Roman Social Depravity, Born of Religion and Traceable to the
Gods._--The modern mind identifies true religion with perfect purity of
heart and with boundless love. "Do unto others as you would have others
do unto you" is the leading aphorism of both the Hebrew and Christian
faiths. The Sermon on the Mount is the chart of the soul on the sea of
life; and its beatitudes are the glorifications of the virtues of
meekness, mercy, and peace. To the mind imbued with the divine precepts
of the Savior, it seems incredible that religion should have ever been
the direct source of crime and sin. It is, nevertheless, a
well-established fact that the Roman and Greek mythologies were the
potent causes of political corruption and social impurity in both Italy
and Greece. Nothing better illustrates this truth than the abominable
practice that found its inspiration and excuse in the myth of the rape
of Ganymede. The guilty passion of Zeus for the beautiful boy whom he,
himself, in the form of an eagle, had snatched up from earth and carried
away to Olympus to devote to shameful and unnatural uses, was the
foundation, in Greece, of the most loathsome habit that ever disgraced
the conduct of men. Passionate fondness for beautiful boys, called
paiderastia in Greek, termed sodomy in modern criminal law, was the
curse and infamy of both Roman and Grecian life. This unnatural vice was
not confined to the vulgar and degenerate. Men of letters, poets,
statesmen and philosophers, debased themselves with this form of
pollution. It was even legalized by the laws of Crete and Sparta.
Polybius tells us that many Romans paid as much as a talent ($1,000) for
a beautifully formed youth. This strange perversion of the sexual
instincts was marked by all the tenderness and sweetness of a modern
courtship or a honeymoon. The victim of this degrading and disgusting
passion treated the beautiful boy with all the delicacy and feeling
generally paid a newly wedded wife. Kisses and caresses were at times
showered upon him. At other times, he became an object of insane
jealousy.

An obscene couplet in Suetonius attributes this filthy habit to Julius
Caesar in the matter of an abominable relationship with the King of
Bithynia.[173] "So strong was the influence of the prevalent epidemic on
Plato, that he had lost all sense of the love of women, and in his
descriptions of Eros, divine as well as human, his thoughts were
centered only in his boy passion. The result in Greece confessedly was
that the inclination for a woman was looked upon as low and
dishonorable, while that for a youth was the only one worthy of a man of
education."[174]

A moment's reflection will convince the most skeptical of the progress
of morality and the advance of civilization. That which philosophers and
emperors not only approved but practiced in the palmiest days of the
commonwealths of Greece and Rome, is to-day penalized; and the person
guilty of the offense is socially ostracized and branded with infamy and
contempt.

The above is only one of many illustrations of the demoralizing
influence of the myths. The Greeks looked to the gods as models of
behavior, and could see nothing wrong in paiderastia, since both Zeus
and Apollo had practiced it. Nearly every crime committed by the Greeks
and Romans was sought to be excused on the ground that the gods had done
the same thing. Euthyphro justified mistreatment of his own father on
the ground that Zeus had chased Cronos, his father, from the skies.

Homer was not only the Bible, but the schoolbook of Grecian boys and
girls throughout the world; and their minds were saturated at an early
age with the escapades of the gods and goddesses as told by the immortal
bard. Plato, in the "Republic," deprecates the influence of the Homeric
myths upon the youth of Greece, when he says: "They are likely to have a
bad effect on those who hear them; for everybody will begin to excuse
his own vices when he is convinced that similar wickednesses are always
being perpetrated by the kindred of the gods." And Seneca thus condemns
the moral effect of the myth of Zeus and Alcmene: "What else is this
appeal to the precedent of the gods for, but to inflame our lusts, and
to furnish a free license and excuse for the corrupt act under shelter
of its divine prototype?" "This," says the same author in another
treatise, "has led to no other result than to deprive sin of its shame
in man's eyes, when he saw that the gods were no better than himself."

We have seen that, in the matter of the multiplicity of the gods, there
were deities of the baser as well as of the better passions, and of
criminal as well as virtuous propensities. Pausanias tells us that in
his day, on the road to Pellene, there were statues of Hermes Dolios
(the cheat), and that the worshipers of this god believed that he was
always ready to help them in their intrigues and adventures. The same
writer also tells us that young maidens of Troezene dedicated their
girdles to Athene Apaturia, the deceiver, for having cunningly betrayed
AEthra into the hands of Neptune. The festivals of Bacchus were far-famed
in ancient times for the drunken debauches and degrading ceremonies that
accompanied them. The Attic feasts of Pan were celebrated with every
circumstance of low buffoonery. The solemnities of the Aphrodisia were
akin to the bacchanalian orgies in all the features of inebriety and
lust. The name of the goddess of love and beauty was blazoned across the
portal of more than one Greek and Roman brothel. The Aphrodite-Lamia at
Athens and the Aphrodite-Stratonikis at Smyrna were the favorite
resorts of the most famous courtesans of antiquity. Venus was the
recognized goddess of the harlots. A thousand of them guarded her temple
at Corinth; and, when an altar was erected to her at the Colline gate in
Rome, in the year 183 A.U.C., they celebrated a great feast in her
honor, and dedicated chaplets of myrtle and roses, as a means of
obtaining her favor as the guardian divinity of their calling.

What more could be expected, then, of the morality of the Greeks and
Romans, when we consider the nature of their religion and the character
of their gods? Jupiter and Apollo were notorious rakes and libertines;
Venus and Flora were brazen-faced courtesans; Harmonia was a Phrygian
dancer, who had been seduced by Cadmus; Hercules was a gladiator; Pan
was a buffoon; Bacchus was a drunkard, and Mercury was a highway robber.
And not only in the poems of Homer and Hesiod did the Greek and Roman
youth learn these things, but from the plays of the theaters and from
plastic art as well. If we except the gladiatorial fights in the
amphitheaters, nothing was more cruel and unchaste than Greek and Roman
tragedy and comedy. At the time of Christ, the tastes and appetites of
the multitude had grown so fierce and depraved that ordinary spectacles
were regarded as commonplace and insipid. Lifelike realities were
demanded from the actors on the stage; and accordingly, the hero who
played the role of the robber chief, Laureolus, was actually crucified
before the spectators, and was then torn to pieces by a hungry bear.
The burning of Hercules on Mount Oeta and the emasculation of Atys
were sought to be realized on the stage by the actual burning and
emasculation of condemned criminals. Lustful as well as cruel appetites
were inflamed and fed by theatrical representations of the intrigues and
adventures of the gods and goddesses. Pantomimes and mimic dances, with
flute accompaniment, were employed to reproduce the amours and
passionate devotions of the inhabitants of Olympus. The guilty loves of
Aphrodite with Mars and Adonis, the adventures of Jupiter and Apollo
with the wives and daughters of mortals, were the plays most frequently
presented and most wildly applauded. And the ignorant rabble were not
the only witnesses of these spectacles. "The sacerdotal colleges and
authorities," says Arnobius, "flamens, and augurs, and chaste vestals,
all have seats at these public amusements. There are seated the
collective people and senate, consuls and consulars, while Venus, the
mother of the Roman race, is danced to the life, and in shameless
mimicry is represented as reveling through all the phases of
meretricious lust. The great mother, too, is danced; the Dindymene of
Pessinus, in spite of her age, surrendering herself to disgusting
passion in the embraces of a cowherd. The supreme ruler of the world is
himself brought in, without respect to his name or majesty, to play the
part of an adulterer, masking himself in order to deceive chaste wives,
and take the place of their husbands in the nuptial bed."[175]

Not only gladiatorial games and theatrical shows, but painting and
sculpture as well, served to corrupt and demoralize Roman and Greek
manners. Nor is there any prudery in this statement. The masterpieces of
the Greek artists have been the astonishment and despair of all
succeeding ages; and the triumphs of modern art have been but poor
imitations of the models of the first masters. But it is, nevertheless,
true that the embodiment in marble of certain obscene myths was
destructive of ancient morals. The paintings in the temples and houses
of the cities of Greece and Italy were a constant menace to the mental
purity of those who gazed upon them. The statue of Ganymede at the side
of Zeus was a perpetual reminder to the youth of Athens of the
originator of the loathsome custom of paiderastia. The paintings of Leda
and the swan, of the courtship of Dionysus and Ariadne, of the naked
Aphrodite ensnared and caught in the net with Ares that adorned the
walls and ceilings of Greek and Roman homes, were not too well
calculated to inspire pure and virtuous thoughts in the minds and hearts
of tender youths and modest maidens who looked upon and contemplated
them. At Athens, especially, was the corrupting influence of painting
and plastic art most deeply felt. "At every step," says Doellinger,
"which a Greek or Roman took, he was surrounded by images of his gods
and memorials of their mythic history. Not the temples only, but streets
and public squares, house walls, domestic implements and drinking
vessels, were all covered and incrusted with ornaments of the kind. His
eye could rest nowhere, not a piece of money could he take into his hand
without confronting a god. And in this way, through the magical
omnipresence of plastic art, the memory of his gods had sunk into his
soul indelibly, grown up with every operation of his intellect, and
inseparably blended with every picture of his imagination."[176]

It can thus be easily imagined how close the connection between the
social depravity and the religion of the Greeks and Romans. What was
right in the conduct of the gods, men could not deem sinful in their own
behavior. Indeed, lewd and lascivious acts were frequently proclaimed
not only right, but sacred, because they had been both sanctioned and
committed by the gods themselves. "As impurity," says Doellinger, "formed
a part of religion, people had no scruples in using the temple and its
adjoining buildings for the satisfaction of their lust. The construction
of many of the temples and the prevalent gloom favored this. 'It is a
matter of general notoriety,' Tertullian says, 'that the temples are the
very places where adulteries were arranged, and procuresses pursue their
victims between the altars.' In the chambers of the priests and
ministers of the temple, impurity was committed amid clouds of incense;
and this, Minucius adds, more frequently than in the privileged haunts
of this sin. The sanctuaries and priests of Isis at Rome were specially
notorious in this respect. 'As this Isis was the concubine of Jove
herself, she also makes prostitutes of others,' Ovid said. Still more
shameful sin was practiced in the temples of the Pessinuntine mother of
the gods, where men prostituted themselves and made a boast of their
shame afterwards."[177]

_The Bacchanalian Orgies._--The most interesting passage of ancient
literature dealing with social life in its relation to religious
observances, is an extract from Livy, the most elegant of Roman
historians. This passage describes the bacchanalian orgies, and gives
exquisite touches to certain phases of ancient Roman social life. Its
insertion here entire is excused on the ground of its direct bearing
upon the subject matter of this chapter:

     A Greek of mean condition came, first, into Etruria; not with one
     of the many trades which his nation, of all others the most skilful
     in the cultivation of the mind and body, has introduced among us,
     but a low operator in sacrifices, and a soothsayer; nor was he one
     who, by open religious rites, and by publicly professing his
     calling and teaching, imbued the minds of his followers with
     terror, but a priest of secret and nocturnal rites. These
     mysterious rites were, at first, imparted to a few, but afterwards
     communicated to great numbers, both men and women. To their
     religious performances were added the pleasures of wine and
     feasting, to allure a greater number of proselytes. When wine,
     lascivious discourse, night, and the intercourse of the sexes had
     extinguished every sentiment of modesty, then debaucheries of every
     kind began to be practiced, as every person found at hand that sort
     of enjoyment to which he was disposed by the passion predominant in
     his nature. Nor were they confined to one species of vice--the
     promiscuous intercourse of free-born men and women, but from this
     store-house of villany proceeded false witnesses, counterfeit
     seals, false evidences, and pretended discoveries. From the same
     place, too, proceeded poison and secret murders, so that in some
     cases, even the bodies could not be found for burial. Many of their
     audacious deeds were brought about by treachery, but most of
     them by force; it served to conceal the violence, that on account
     of the loud shouting, and the noise of drums and cymbals, none of
     the cries uttered by the persons suffering violation or murder
     could be heard abroad.

[Illustration: READING FROM HOMER (ALMA-TADEMA)]

     The infection of this mischief, like that from the contagion of
     disease, spread from Etruria to Rome; where, the size of the city
     affording greater room for such evils, and more means of
     concealment, cloaked it at first; but information of it was at
     length brought to the consul, Postumius, principally in the
     following manner. Publius AEbutius, whose father had held equestrian
     rank in the army, was left an orphan, and his guardians dying, he
     was educated under the eye of his mother Duronia, and his
     stepfather Titus Sempronius Rutilus. Duronia was entirely devoted
     to her husband; and Sempronius, having managed the guardianship in
     such a manner that he could not give an account of the property,
     wished that his ward should be either made away with, or bound to
     compliance with his will by some strong tie. The Bacchanalian rites
     were the only way to effect the ruin of the youth. His mother told
     him, that, "During his sickness, she had made a vow for him, that
     if he should recover, she would initiate him among the
     Bacchanalians; that being, through the kindness of the gods, bound
     by this vow, she wished now to fulfil it; that it was necessary he
     should preserve chastity for ten days, and on the tenth, after he
     should have supped and washed himself, she would conduct him into
     the place of worship." There was a freedwoman called Hispala
     Fecenia, a noted courtesan, but deserving of a better lot than the
     mode of life to which she had been accustomed when very young, and
     a slave, and by which she had maintained herself since her
     manumission. As they lived in the same neighborhood, an intimacy
     subsisted between her and AEbutius, which was far from being
     injurious either to the young man's character or property; for he
     had been loved and wooed by her unsolicited; and as his friends
     supplied his wants illiberally, he was supported by the generosity
     of this woman; nay, to such a length did she go under the influence
     of her affection, that, on the death of her patron, because she
     was under the protection of no one, having petitioned the tribunes
     and praetors for a guardian, when she was making her will, she
     constituted AEbutius her sole heir.

     As such pledges of mutual love subsisted, and as neither kept
     anything secret from the other, the young man jokingly bid her not
     be surprised if he separated himself from her for a few nights, as,
     "on account of a religious duty, to discharge a vow made for his
     health, he intended to be initiated among the Bacchanalians." On
     hearing this, the woman, greatly alarmed, cried out, "May the gods
     will more favorably!" affirming that "It would be better, both for
     him and her, to lose their lives than that he should do such a
     thing:" she then imprecated curses, vengeance, and destruction on
     the head of those who advised him to such a step. The young man,
     surprised both at her expressions and at the violence of her alarm,
     bid her refrain from curses, for "it was his mother who ordered him
     to do so, with the approbation of his stepfather." "Then," said
     she, "your stepfather (for perhaps it is not allowable to censure
     your mother), is in haste to destroy, by that act, your chastity,
     your character, your hopes and your life." To him, now surprised by
     such language, and inquiring what was the matter, she said, (after
     imploring the favor and pardon of the gods and goddesses, if,
     compelled by her regard for him, she disclosed what ought not to be
     revealed), that "when in service, she had gone into that place of
     worship, as an attendant on her mistress, but that, since she had
     obtained her liberty, she had never once gone near it: that she
     knew it to be the receptacle of all kinds of debaucheries; that it
     was well known that, for two years past, no one older than twenty
     had been initiated there. When any person was introduced he was
     delivered as a victim to the priests, who led him away to a place
     resounding with shouts, the sound of music, and the beating of
     cymbals and drums, lest his cries while suffering violation, should
     be heard abroad." She then entreated and besought him to put an end
     to that matter in some way or other, and not to plunge himself into
     a situation, where he must first suffer, and afterwards commit,
     everything that was abominable. Nor did she quit him until the
     young man gave her his promise to keep himself clear of those
     rites.

     When he came home, and his mother made mention of such things
     pertaining to the ceremony as were to be performed on that day, and
     on the several following days, he told her that he would not
     perform any of them, nor did he intend to be initiated. His
     stepfather was present at this discourse. Immediately the woman
     observed that "he could not deprive himself of the company of
     Hispala for ten nights; that he was so fascinated by the caresses
     and baneful influence of that serpent, that he retained no respect
     for his mother or stepfather, or even the gods themselves." His
     mother on one side and his stepfather on the other loading him with
     reproaches, drove him out of the house, assisted by four slaves.
     The youth on this repaired to his aunt AEbutia, told her the reason
     of his being turned out by his mother, and the next day, by her
     advice, gave information of the affair to the consul Postumius,
     without any witnesses of the interview. The consul dismissed him,
     with an order to come again on the third day following. In the
     meantime, he inquired of his mother-in-law, Sulpicia, a woman of
     respectable character, "whether she knew an old matron called
     AEbutia, who lived on the Aventine hill?" When she had answered that
     "she knew her well, and that AEbutia was a woman of virtue, and of
     the ancient purity of morals;" he said that he required a
     conference with her, and that a messenger should be sent for her to
     come. AEbutia, on receiving the message, came to Sulpicia's house,
     and the consul, soon after, coming in, as if by accident,
     introduced a conversation about AEbutius, her brother's son. The
     tears of the woman burst forth, and she began to lament the unhappy
     lot of the youth: who after being robbed of his property by persons
     whom it least of all became, was then residing with her, being
     driven out of doors by his mother, because, being a good youth (may
     the gods be propitious to him), he refused to be initiated in
     ceremonies devoted to lewdness, as report goes.

     The consul thinking that he had made sufficient inquiries
     concerning AEbutius, and that his testimony was unquestionable,
     having dismissed AEbutia, requested his mother-in-law to send again
     to the Aventine, and bring from that quarter Hispala, a freedwoman,
     not unknown in that neighborhood; for there were some queries which
     he wished to make of her. Hispala being alarmed because she was
     being sent for by a woman of such high rank and respectable
     character, and being ignorant of the cause, after she saw the
     lictors in the porch, the multitude attending to the consul and the
     consul himself, was very near fainting. The consul led her into the
     retired part of the house, and, in the presence of his
     mother-in-law, told her, that she need not be uneasy, if she could
     resolve to speak the truth. She might receive a promise of
     protection either from Sulpicia, a matron of such dignified
     character, or from himself. That she ought to tell him, what was
     accustomed to be done at the Bacchanalia, in the nocturnal orgies
     in the grove of Stimula. When the woman heard this, such terror and
     trembling of all her limbs seized her, that for a long time she was
     unable to speak; but recovering at length she said, that "when she
     was very young, and a slave, she had been initiated, together with
     her mistress; but for several years past, since she had obtained
     her liberty, she knew nothing of what was done there." The consul
     commended her so far, as not having denied that she was initiated,
     but charged her to explain all the rest with the same sincerity;
     and told her, affirming that she knew nothing further, that "there
     would not be the same tenderness or pardon extended to her, if she
     should be convicted by another person, and one who had made a
     voluntary confession; that there was such a person, who had heard
     the whole from her, and had given him a full account of it."

     The woman, now thinking without a doubt that it must certainly be
     AEbutius who had discovered the secret, threw herself at Sulpicia's
     feet, and at first began to beseech her, "not to let the private
     conversation of a freedwoman with her lover be turned not only into
     a serious business, but even capital charge;" declaring that "she
     had spoken of such things merely to frighten him, and not because
     she knew anything of the kind." On this Postumius, growing angry,
     said "she seemed to imagine that then too she was wrangling with
     her gallant AEbutius, and not that she was speaking in the house of
     a most respectable matron, and to a consul." Sulpicia raised her,
     terrified, from the ground, and while she encouraged her to speak
     out, at the same time pacified her son-in-law's anger. At length
     she took courage, and, having censured severely the perfidy of
     AEbutius, because he had made such a return for the extraordinary
     kindness shown to him in that very instance, she declared that "she
     stood in great dread of the gods, whose secret mysteries she was to
     divulge; and in much greater dread of the men implicated, who would
     tear her asunder with their hands if she became an informer.
     Therefore she entreated this favor of Sulpicia, and likewise of the
     consul, that they would send her away some place out of Italy,
     where she might pass the remainder of her life in safety." The
     consul desired her to be of good spirits, and said that it should
     be his care that she might live securely in Rome.

     Hispala then gave a full account of the origin of the mysteries.
     "At first," she said, "those rites were performed by women. No man
     used to be admitted. They had three stated days in the year on
     which such persons were initiated among the Bacchanalians, in the
     daytime. The matrons used to be appointed priestesses, in rotation.
     Paculla Minia, a Campanian, when priestess, made an alteration in
     every particular as if by the direction of the gods. For she first
     introduced men, who were her own sons, Minucius and Herrenius, both
     surnamed Cerrinius; changed the time of celebration, from day to
     night; and, instead of three days in the year, appointed five days
     of initiation in each month. From the time that the rites were thus
     made common, and men were intermixed with women, and the licentious
     freedom of the night was added, there was nothing wicked, nothing
     flagitious, that had not been practiced among them. There were more
     frequent pollution of men, with each other, than with women. If any
     were less patient in submitting to dishonor, or more averse to the
     commission of vice, they were sacrificed as victims. To think
     nothing unlawful, was the grand maxim of their religion. The men,
     as if bereft of reason, uttered predictions, with frantic
     contortions of their bodies; the women, in the habit of
     Bacchantes, with their hair dishevelled, and carrying blazing
     torches, ran down to the Tiber; where, dipping their torches in the
     water, they drew them up again with the flame unextinguished, being
     composed of native sulphur and charcoal. They said that those men
     were carried off by the gods, whom the machines laid hold of and
     dragged from their view into secret caves. These were such as
     refused to take the oath of the society or to associate in their
     crimes, or to submit to defilement. Their number was exceedingly
     great now, almost a second state in themselves and among them were
     many men and women of noble families. During the last two years it
     had been a rule, that no person above the age of twenty should be
     initiated, for they sought for people of such age as made them more
     liable to suffer deception and personal abuse." When she had
     completed her information, she again fell at the consul's knees,
     and repeated the same entreaties, that he might send her out of the
     country. The consul requested his mother-in-law to clear some part
     of the house, into which Hispala might remove; accordingly an
     apartment was assigned her in the upper part of it, of which the
     stairs, opening into the street, were stopped up, and the entrance
     made from the inner court. Thither all Fecenia's effects were
     immediately removed, and her domestics sent for. AEbutius, also, was
     ordered to remove to the house of one of the consul's clients.

     When both the informers were by these means in his power, Postumius
     represented the affair to the senate, laying before them the whole
     circumstance, in due order; the information given to him at first,
     and the discoveries gained by his inquiries afterwards. Great
     consternation seized on the senators; not only on the public
     account, lest such conspiracies and nightly meetings might be
     productive of secret treachery and mischief, but, likewise, on
     account of their own particular families, lest some of their
     relations might be involved in this infamous affair. The senate
     voted, however, that thanks should be given to the consul because
     he had investigated the matter with singular diligence, and without
     exciting any alarm. They then commit to the consuls the holding an
     inquiry, out of the common course, concerning the Bacchanals and
     their nocturnal orgies. They ordered them to take care that the
     informers, AEbutius and Fecenia, might suffer no injury on that
     account; and to invite other informers in the matter, by offering
     rewards. They ordered that the officials in those rites, whether
     men or women, should be sought for, not only at Rome, but also
     throughout all the market towns and places of assembly, and be
     delivered over to the power of the consuls; and also that
     proclamation should be made in the city of Rome, and published
     through all Italy, that "no persons initiated in the Bacchanalian
     rites should presume to come together or assemble on account of
     those rites, or to perform any such kind of worship;" and above
     all, that search should be made for those who had assembled or
     conspired for personal abuse, or for any other flagitious
     practices. The senate passed these decrees. The consuls directed
     the curule aediles to make strict inquiry after all the priests of
     those mysteries, and to keep such as they could apprehend in
     custody until their trial; they at the same time charged the
     plebeian aediles to take care that no religious ceremonies should be
     performed in private. To the capital triumvirs the task was
     assigned to post watches in proper places in the city, and to use
     vigilance in preventing any meetings by night. In order likewise to
     guard against fires, five assistants were joined to the triumvirs,
     so that each might have the charge of the buildings in his own
     separate district, on this side the Tiber.

     After despatching these officers to their several employments, the
     consuls mounted the rostrum; and, having summoned an assembly of
     the people, one of the consuls, when he had finished the solemn
     form of prayer which the magistrates are accustomed to pronounce
     before they address the people, proceeded thus: "Romans, to no
     former assembly was this solemn supplication to the gods more
     suitable or even more necessary: as it serves to remind you, that
     these are the deities whom your forefathers pointed out as the
     objects of your worship, veneration and prayers: and not those
     which infatuated men's minds with corrupt and foreign modes of
     religion, and drove them, as if goaded by the furies, to every lust
     and every vice. I am at a loss to know what I should conceal, or
     how far I ought to speak out; for I dread lest, if I leave you
     ignorant of any particular, I should give room for carelessness, or
     if I disclose the whole, that I should too much awaken your fears.
     Whatever I shall say, be assured that it is less than the magnitude
     and atrociousness of the affair would justify: exertions will be
     used by us that it may be sufficient to set us properly on our
     guard. That the Bacchanalian rites have subsisted for some time
     past in every country in Italy, and are at present performed in
     many parts of this city also, I am sure you must have been
     informed, not only by report, but by the nightly noises and the
     horrid yells that resound through the whole city; but still you are
     ignorant of the nature of that business. Part of you think it is
     some kind of worship of the gods; others, some excusable sport and
     amusement, and that whatever it may be, it concerns but a few. As
     regards the number if I tell you that there are many thousands,
     that you would be immediately terrified to excess is a necessary
     consequence; unless I further acquaint you who and what sort of
     persons they are. First, then, a great part of them are women, and
     this was the source of the evil; the rest are males, but nearly
     resembling women; actors and pathics in the vilest lewdness; night
     revellers, driven frantic by wine, noise of instruments, and
     clamors. The conspiracy, as yet, has no strength; but it has
     abundant means of acquiring strength, for they are becoming more
     numerous every day. Your ancestors would not allow that you should
     ever assemble casually without some good reason; that is, either
     when the standard was erected on the Janiculum, and the army led
     out on occasion of elections; or when the tribunes proclaimed a
     meeting of the commons, or some of the magistrates summoned you to
     it. And they judged it necessary, that wherever a multitude was,
     there should be a lawful governor of that multitude present. Of
     what kind do you suppose are the meetings of these people? In the
     first place, held in the night, and in the next, composed
     promiscuously of men and women. If you knew at what ages the males
     are initiated, you would feel not only pity, but also shame for
     them. Romans, can you think youths initiated, under such oaths as
     theirs, are fit to be made soldiers? That arms should be intrusted
     with wretches brought out of that temple of obscenity? Shall these,
     contaminated with their own foul debaucheries and those of others,
     be champions for the chastity of your wives and children?

     "But the mischief were less, if they were only effeminated by their
     practices; or that the disgrace would chiefly affect themselves; if
     they refrained their hands from outrage, and their thoughts from
     fraud. But never was there in the state an evil of so great
     magnitude, or one that extended to so many persons or so many acts
     of wickedness. Whatever deeds of villany have, during late years
     been committed through lust; whatever through fraud; whatever
     through violence; they have all, be assured, proceeded from that
     association alone. They have not yet perpetrated all the crimes for
     which they combine. The impious assembly at present confines itself
     to outrages on private citizens; because it has not yet acquired
     force sufficient to crush the commonwealth: but the evil increases
     and spreads daily; it is already too great for the private ranks of
     life to contain it, and aims its views at the body of the state.
     Unless you take timely precautions, Romans, their nightly assembly
     may become as large as this, held in open day and legally summoned
     by a consul. Now they one by one dread you collected together in
     the assembly; presently, when you shall have separated and retired
     to your several dwellings, in town and country, they will again
     come together, and will hold a consultation on the means of their
     own safety, and, at the same time, of your destruction. Thus
     united, they will cause terror to every one of you. Each of you
     therefore, ought to pray that his kindred may have behaved with
     wisdom and prudence; and if lust, if madness, has dragged any of
     them into that abyss, to consider such a person as the relation of
     those with whom he has conspired for every disgraceful and reckless
     act, and not as one of your own. I am not secure, lest some even of
     yourselves may have erred through mistake; for nothing is more
     deceptive in appearance than false religion. When the authority of
     the gods is held out as a pretext to cover vice, fear enters our
     minds, lest in punishing the crimes of men, we may violate some
     divine right connected therewith. Numberless decisions of the
     pontiffs, decrees of the senate, and even answers of the aruspices,
     free you from religious scruples of this character. How often in
     the ages of our fathers was it given in charge to the magistrates,
     to prohibit the performances of any foreign religious rites; to
     banish strolling sacrificers and soothsayers from the Forum, the
     circus and the city; to search for and burn books of divination;
     and to abolish every mode of sacrificing that was not conformable
     to the Roman practice! For they, completely versed in every divine
     and human law, maintained that nothing tended so strongly to the
     subversion of religion as sacrifice, when we offered it not after
     the institutions of our forefathers, but after foreign customs.
     Thus much I thought necessary to mention to you beforehand, that no
     vain scruple might disturb your minds when you should see us
     demolishing the places resorted to by the Bacchanalians, and
     dispersing their impious assemblies. We shall do all these things
     with the favor and approbation of the gods; who, because they were
     indignant that their divinity was dishonored by those people's lust
     and crimes, have drawn forth their proceedings from hidden darkness
     into the open light; and who have directed them to be exposed, not
     that they may escape with impunity, but in order that they may be
     punished and suppressed. The senate have committed to me and my
     colleague, an inquisition extraordinary concerning that affair.
     What is requisite to be done by ourselves, in person, we will do
     with energy. The charge of posting watches through the city, during
     the night, we have committed to the inferior magistrates; and, for
     your parts, it is incumbent on you to execute vigorously whatever
     duties are assigned you, and in the several places where each will
     be placed, to perform whatever orders you shall receive, and to use
     your best endeavors that no danger or tumult may arise from the
     treachery of the party involved in the guilt."

     They then ordered the decrees of the senate to be read, and
     published a reward for any discoverer who should bring any of the
     guilty before them, or give information against any of the absent,
     adding, that "if any person accused should fly, they would limit a
     certain day upon which, if he did not answer when summoned, he
     would be condemned in his absence; and if anyone should be charged
     who was out of Italy, they would not allow him any longer time, if
     he should wish to come and make his defence." They then issued an
     edict, that "no person whatever should presume to buy or sell
     anything for the purpose of leaving the country; or to receive or
     conceal, or by any means aid the fugitives." On the assembly being
     dismissed, great terror spread throughout the city; nor was it
     confined merely within the walls, or to the Roman territory, for
     everywhere throughout the whole of Italy alarm began to be
     felt--when the letters from the guest-friends were
     received--concerning the decree of the senate, and what passed in
     the assembly and the edict of the consuls. During the night, which
     succeeded the day in which the affair was made public, great
     numbers attempting to fly, were seized and bought back by the
     triumvirs, who had posted guards at all the gates; and informations
     were lodged against many, some of whom, both men and women, put
     themselves to death. Above seven thousand men and women are said to
     have taken the oath of the association. But it appeared that the
     heads of the conspiracy were the two Catinii, Marcus and Caius,
     Roman plebeians; Lucius Opiturnius, a Faliscian; and Minius
     Cerrinius, a Campanian: that from these proceeded all their
     criminal practices, and that these were the chief priests and
     founders of the sect. Care was taken that they should be
     apprehended as soon as possible. They were brought before the
     consuls, and confessing their guilt, caused no delay to the ends of
     justice.

     But so great were the numbers that fled from the city, that because
     the lawsuits and property of many persons were going to ruin, the
     praetors, Titius Maenius and Marcus Licinius were obliged, under the
     direction of the senate, to adjourn their courts for thirty days
     until the inquiries should be finished by the consuls. The same
     deserted state of the law courts, since the persons against whom
     charges were brought did not appear to answer, nor could be found
     in Rome, necessitated the consuls to make a circuit of the country
     towns, and there to make their inquisitions and hold the trials.
     Those who, as it appeared, had been only initiated, and had made
     after the priest, and in the most solemn form, the prescribed
     imprecations, in which the accursed conspiracy for the perpetration
     of every crime and lust was contained, but who had not themselves
     committed, or compelled others to commit, any of those acts to
     which they were bound by the oath--all such they left in prison.
     But those who had forcibly committed personal defilements or
     murders, or were stained with the guilt of false evidence,
     counterfeit seals, forged wills, or other frauds, all these they
     punished with death. A greater number were executed than thrown
     into prison; indeed the multitude of men and women who suffered in
     both ways, was very considerable. The consuls delivered the women
     who were condemned to their relations, or to those under whose
     guardianship they were, that they might inflict the punishment in
     private; but if there did not appear any proper person of the kind
     to execute the sentence, the punishment was inflicted in public. A
     charge was then given to demolish all the places where the
     Bacchanalians had held their meetings; first, in Rome, and then
     throughout all Italy; excepting those wherein should be found some
     ancient altar, or consecrated statue. With regard to the future,
     the senate passed a decree, "that no Bacchanalian rites should be
     celebrated in Rome or in Italy:" and ordering that, "in case any
     person should believe some such kind of worship incumbent upon him,
     and necessary; and that he could not, without offence to religion,
     and incurring guilt, omit it, he should represent this to the city
     praetor, and the praetor should lay the business before the senate.
     If permission were granted by the senate, when not less than one
     hundred members were present, then he might perform those rites,
     provided that no more than five persons should be present at the
     sacrifice, and that they should have no common stock of money, nor
     any president of the ceremonies, nor priest."

     Another decree connected with this was then made, on a motion of
     the consul, Quintus Marcius, that "the business respecting the
     persons who had served the consuls as informers should be proposed
     to the senate in its original form, when Spurius Postumius should
     have finished his inquiries, and returned to Rome." They voted
     that Minus Cerrinius, the Campanian, should be sent to Ardea, to be
     kept in custody there; and that a caution should be given to the
     magistrates of that city, to guard him with more than ordinary
     care, so as to prevent not only his escaping, but his having an
     opportunity of committing suicide.

     Spurius Postumius some time after came to Rome and on his proposing
     the question, concerning the reward to be given to Publius AEbutius
     and Hispala Fecenia, because the Bacchanalian ceremonies were
     discovered by their exertions, the senate passed a vote, that "the
     city quaestors should give to each of them, out of the public
     treasury, one hundred thousand asses; and that the consuls should
     desire the plebeian tribunes to propose to the commons as soon as
     convenient, that the campaigns of Publius AEbutius should be
     considered as served, that he should not become a soldier against
     his wishes, nor should any censor assign him a horse at the public
     charge." They voted also, that "Hispala Fecenia should enjoy the
     privileges of alienating her property by gift or deed; of marrying
     out of her rank, and of choosing a guardian, as if a husband had
     conferred them by will; that she should be at liberty to wed a man
     of honorable birth, and that there should be no disgrace or
     ignominy to him who should marry her; and that the consuls and
     praetors then in office, and their successors, should take care that
     no injury should be offered to that woman, and that she might live
     in safety. That the senate wishes, and thought proper, that all
     these things should be so ordered."--All these particulars were
     proposed to the commons, and executed, according to the vote of the
     senate; and full permission was given to the consuls to determine
     respecting the impunity and rewards of the other informers.[178]

The bacchanalian orgies were first suppressed nearly two hundred years
before Christ. The above extract from Livy reminds us that at that time
the Romans were still strong and virtuous, and that a proposal of their
Consul to eradicate a vicious evil that threatened the existence of both
domestic life and the State, met with warm approval and hearty support
from both the Senate and the people. But the insidious infection was
never completely eradicated; and the work of the "Greek from Etruria"
bore bitter fruit in the centuries that followed. And when we consider
that not only bacchanalian orgies, but Greek literature, painting,
sculpture, tragedy and comedy, were the chief causes of the pollution of
Roman morals and the destruction of the Roman State, should we be
surprised that Juvenal, in an outburst of patriotic wrath, should have
declaimed against "a Grecian capital in Italy";[179] and that he should
have hurled withering scorn at

    The flattering, cringing, treacherous, artful race,
    Of fluent tongue and never-blushing face,
    A Protean tribe, one knows not what to call,
    That shifts to every form, and shines in all.

And, when we consider the state of the Roman world at the time of
Christ, should we be surprised that St. Paul should have described
Romans as "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate,
deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,
proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful"?[180]

Suffice it to say, in closing the chapter on Graeco-Roman paganism,
that, at the beginning of the Christian era, the Roman empire had
reached the limit of physical expansion. Roman military glory had
culminated in the sublime achievements of Pompey and of Caesar.
Mountains, seas, and deserts, beyond which all was barbarous and
desolate, were the natural barriers of Roman dominion. Roman arms could
go no farther; and Roman ambition could be no longer gratified by
conquest. The Roman religion had fallen into decay and contempt; and the
Roman conscience was paralyzed and benumbed. Disgusted with this world,
the average Roman did not believe in any other, and was utterly without
hope of future happiness. A gloomy despondency filled the hearts of men
and drove them into black despair. When approaching death, they wore no
look of triumph, expressed no belief in immortality, but simply
requested of those whom they were leaving behind, to scatter flowers on
their graves, or to bewail their early end. An epigram of the Anthology
is this: "Let us drink and be merry; for we shall have no more of
kissing and dancing in the kingdom of Proserpine: soon shall we fall
asleep to wake no more." The same sentiments are expressed in epitaphs
on Roman sepulchral monuments of the period. One of them reads thus:
"What I have eaten and drunk, that I take with me; what I have left
behind me, that have I forfeited." This is the language of another:
"Reader, enjoy thy life; for after death there is neither laughter nor
play, nor any kind of enjoyment." Still another: "Friend, I advise, mix
thee a goblet of wine, and drink, crowning thy head with flowers. Earth
and fire consume all that remains after death." And, finally, one of
them assures us that Greek mythology is false: "Pilgrim, stay thee,
listen and learn. In Hades there is no ferryboat, nor ferryman Charon;
no AEacus or Cerberus;--once dead, and we are all alike."[181]

Matthew Arnold has very graphically described the disgusting, sickening,
overwhelming despair of the Roman people at the birth of Christ.

    Ah! carry back thy ken,
      What, some two thousand years! Survey
    The world as it was then.

    Like ours it looked, in outward air,
      Its head was clear and true;
    Sumptuous its clothing, rich its fare;
      No pause its action knew.

    Stout was its arm, each thew and bone
      Seem'd puissant and alive--
    But ah! its heart, its heart was stone
      And so it could not thrive.

    On that hard pagan world disgust
      And secret loathing fell;
    Deep weariness and sated lust
      Made human life a hell.

    In his goodly hall with haggard eyes,
      The Roman noble lay;
    He drove abroad in furious guise
      Along the Appian Way.

    He made a feast, drank fierce and fast,
      And crowned his hair with flowers;
    No easier, nor no quicker passed
      The impracticable hours.[182]

But the "darkest hour is just before the dawn," and "the fulness of the
time was come." Already the first faint glimmers of the breaking of a
grander and better day were perceptible to the senses of the noblest and
finest of Roman intellects. Already Cicero had pictured a glorious
millennium that would follow if perfect virtue should ever enter into
the flesh and come to dwell among men.[183] Already Virgil, deriving
inspiration from the Erythraean Sibylline prophecies, had sung of the
advent of a heaven-born child, whose coming would restore the Golden
Age, and establish enduring peace and happiness on the earth.[184]
Already a debauched, degraded and degenerate world was crying in the
anguish of its soul: "I know that my Redeemer liveth!" And, even before
the Baptist began to preach in the wilderness, the ways had been made
straight for the coming of the Nazarene.




_APPENDICES_




APPENDIX I

CHARACTERS OF THE SANHEDRISTS WHO TRIED JESUS


The following short biographical sketches of about forty of the members
of the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus are from a work entitled "Valeur de
l'assemblee qui prononca la peine de mort contre Jesus Christ"--Lemann.
The English translation, under the title "Jesus Before the Sanhedrin,"
is by Julius Magath, Oxford, Georgia.

Professor Magath's translation is used in this work by special
permission.--THE AUTHOR.


THE MORAL CHARACTERS OF THE PERSONAGES WHO SAT AT THE TRIAL OF CHRIST

The members of the Sanhedrin that judged Christ were seventy-one in
number, and were divided into three chambers; but we must know the
names, acts, and moral characters of these judges. That such a knowledge
would throw a great light on this celebrated trial can be easily
understood. The characters of Caiaphas, Ananos, and Pilate are already
well known to us. These stand out as the three leading figures in the
drama of the Passion. But others have appeared in it; would it not be
possible to produce them also before history? This task, we believe, has
never yet been undertaken. It was thought that documents were wanting.
But this is an error; such documents exist. We have consulted them; and
in this century of historical study and research we shall draw forth
from the places where they have been hidden for centuries, the majority
of the judges of Christ.

Three kinds of documents have, in a particular manner, enabled us to
discover the characters of these men: the books of the Evangelists, the
valuable writings of Josephus the historian, and the hitherto unexplored
pages of the Talmud. We shall bring to light forty of the judges, so
that more than half of the Sanhedrin will appear before us; and this
large majority will be sufficient to enable us to form an opinion of the
moral tone of the whole assembly.

To proceed with due order, we will begin with the most important
chamber--viz., the chamber of the priests.


I. THE CHAMBER OF THE PRIESTS

We use the expression "chamber of the _priests_." In the Gospel
narrative, however, this division of the Sanhedrin bears a more imposing
title. Matthew, Mark, and the other Evangelists, designate it by the
following names: the council _of the high priests_, and the council _of
the princes of the priests_.[185]

But we may ask, Why is this pompous name given to this chamber by the
Evangelists? Is this not an error on their part? An assembly of priests
seems natural, but how can there be an assembly of high priests, since
according to the Mosaic institution there could be only one high priest,
whose office was tenable for life. There is, however, neither an error
nor an undue amplification on the part of the Gospel narrators; and we
may also add here that both Talmuds positively speak of an assembly of
high priests.[186] But how, then, can we account for the presence of
several high priests at the same time in the Sanhedrin? Here is the
explanation, to the shame of the Jewish assembly:

For nearly a century a detestable abuse prevailed, which consisted in
the arbitrary nomination and deposition of the high priest. The high
priesthood, which for fifteen centuries had been preserved in the same
family, being hereditary according to the divine command,[187] had at
the time of Christ's advent become an object of commercial speculation.
Herod commenced these arbitrary changes,[188] and after Judea became one
of the Roman conquests the election of the high priest took place almost
every year at Jerusalem, the procurators appointing and deposing them in
the same manner as the praetorians later on made and unmade
emperors.[189] The Talmud speaks sorrowfully of this venality and the
yearly changes of the high priest.

This sacred office was given to the one that offered the most money for
it, and mothers were particularly anxious that their sons should be
nominated to this dignity.[190]

The expression, "_the council of the high priests_," used by the
Evangelists to designate this section of the Sanhedrin, is therefore
rigorously correct; for at the time of the trial of Christ there were
about twelve ex-high priests, who still retained the honorable title of
their charge, and were, by the right of that title, members of the high
tribunal. Several ordinary priests were also included in this chamber,
but they were in most cases related to the high priests; for in the
midst of the intrigues by which the sovereign pontificate was surrounded
in those days, it was customary for the more influential of the chief
priests to bring in their sons and allies as members of their chamber.
The spirit of caste was very powerful, and as M. Derembourg, a modern
Jewish savant, has remarked: "_A few priestly, aristocratic, powerful,
and vain families, who cared for neither the dignity nor the interests
of the altar, quarreled with each other respecting appointments,
influence, and wealth_."[191]

To sum up, we have, then, in this first chamber a double element--high
priests and ordinary priests. We shall now make them known by their
names and characters, and indicate the sources whence the information
has been obtained.

CAIAPHAS, high priest then in office. He was the son-in-law of Ananos,
and exercised his office for eleven years--during the whole term of
Pilate's administration (25-36 A.D.). It is he who presided over the
Sanhedrin during this trial, and the history of the Passion as given by
the Evangelists is sufficient to make him known to us. (See Matt. xxvi.
3; Luke iii. 2, etc.; Jos., "Ant.," B. XVIII. C. II. 2.)

ANANOS held the office of high priest for seven years under Coponius,
Ambivus, and Rufus (7-11 A.D.). This personage was the father-in-law of
Caiaphas, and although out of office was nevertheless consulted on
matters of importance. It may be said, indeed, that in the midst of the
instability of the sacerdotal office he alone preserved in reality its
authority. For fifty years this high office remained without
interruption in his family. Five of his sons successively assumed its
dignity. This family was even known as the "sacerdotal family," as if
this office had become hereditary in it. Ananos had charge also of the
more important duties of the Temple, and Josephus says that he was
considered the most fortunate man of his time. He adds, however, that
the spirit of this family was haughty, audacious, and cruel. (Luke iii.
2; John xviii. 13, 24; Acts iv. 6; Jos., "Ant.," B. XV. C. III 1; XX.
IX. 1, 3; "Jewish Wars," B. IV. V. 2, 6, 7.)

ELEAZAR was high priest during one year, under Valerius Grattus (23-24
A.D.). He was the eldest son of Ananos. (Jos., "Ant.," B. XVIII. II. 2.)

JONATHAN, son of Ananos, simple priest at that time, but afterwards made
high priest for one year in the place of Caiaphas when the latter was
deposed, after the disgrace of Pilate, by Vitellius, Governor-general of
Syria (37 A.D.). (Jos., "Ant.," B. XVIII. IV. 3.)

THEOPHILUS, son of Ananos, simple priest at that time, but afterwards
made high priest in the place of his brother Jonathan, who was deposed
by Vitellius. Theophilus was in office five years (38-42 A.D.). (Jos.,
"Ant.," B. XIX. VI. 2; Munk, "Hist. de la Palestine," p. 568.)

MATTHIAS, son of Ananos. Simple priest; afterwards high priest for two
years (42-44 A.D.). He succeeded Simon Cantharus, who was deposed by
King Herod Agrippa. (Jos., "Ant.," XIX. VI. 4.)

ANANUS, son of Ananos. Simple priest at the time; afterwards made high
priest by Herod Agrippa after the death of the Roman governor, Portius
Festus (63 A.D.). Being a Sadducee of extravagant zeal, he was deposed
at the end of three months by Albanus, successor of Portius Festus, for
having illegally condemned the apostle James to be stoned. (Acts xxiii.
2, xxiv. 1; Jos., "Ant.," B. XX. IX. 1.)

JOAZAR, high priest for six years during the latter days of Herod the
Great and the first years of Archelaus (4 B.C.-2 A.D.). He was the son
of Simon Boethus, who owed his dignity and fortune to the following
dishonorable circumstance, as related by Josephus the historian: "There
was one Simon, a citizen of Jerusalem, the son of Boethus, a citizen of
Alexandria and a priest of great note there. This man had a daughter,
who was esteemed the most beautiful woman of that time. And when the
people of Jerusalem began to speak much in her commendation, it
happened that Herod was much affected by what was said of her; and when
he saw the damsel he was smitten with her beauty. Yet did he entirely
reject the thought of using his authority to abuse her ... so he thought
it best to take the damsel to wife. And while Simon was of a dignity too
inferior to be allied to him, but still too considerable to be despised,
he governed his inclinations after the most prudent manner by augmenting
the dignity of the family and making them more honorable. Accordingly he
forthwith deprived Jesus, the son of Phabet, of the high priesthood, and
conferred that dignity on Simon." Such, according to Josephus, is the
origin--not at all of a supernatural nature--of the call to the high
priesthood of Simon Boethus and his whole family. Simon, at the time of
this trial, was already dead; but Joazar figured in it with two of his
brothers, one of whom was, like himself, an ex-high priest. (Jos.,
"Ant.," B. XV. IX. 3; XVII. VI. 4; XVIII. I. 1; XIX. VI. 2.)

ELEAZAR, second son of Simon Boethus. He succeeded his brother Joazar
when the latter was deprived of that function by King Archelaus (2
A.D.). Eleazar was high priest for a short time only, the same king
deposing him three months after his installation. (Jos., "Ant.," B.
XVII. XIII. 1; XIX. VI. 2.)

SIMON CANTHARUS, third son of Simon Boethus. Simple priest at the time;
was afterwards made high priest by King Herod Agrippa (42 A.D.), who,
however, deposed him after a few months. (Jos., "Ant.," B. XIX. VI. 2,
4.)

JESUS _ben_ SIE succeeded Eleazar to the high priesthood, and held the
office for five or six years (1-6 A.D.) under the reign of Archelaus.
(Jos., "Ant.," XVII. XIII. 1.)

ISMAEL _ben_ PHABI. High priest for nine years under procurator Valerius
Grattus, predecessor of Pontius Pilate. He was considered, according to
the rabbins, the handsomest man of his time. The effeminate love of
luxury of this chief priest was carried to such an extent that his
mother, having made him a tunic of great price, he deigned to wear it
once, and then consigned it to the public wardrobe, as a grand lady
might dispose of a robe which no longer pleased her caprices. ("Talmud,"
"Pesachim," or "of the Passover," fol. 57, verso; "Yoma," or "the Day of
Atonement," fol. 9, verso; 35, recto; Jos., "Ant.," XVIII. II. 2; XX.
VIII. 11; Bartolocci, "Grand Bibliotheque Rabbinique," T. III. p. 297;
Munk, "Palestine," pp. 563, 575.)

SIMON _ben_ CAMITHUS, high priest during one year under procurator
Valerius Grattus (24-25 A.D.). This personage was celebrated for the
enormous size of his hand, and the Talmud relates of him the following
incident: On the eve of the day of atonement it happened, in the course
of a conversation which he had with Arathus, King of Arabia--whose
daughter Herod Antipas had just married--that some saliva, coming out of
the mouth of the king, fell on the robe of Simon. As soon as the king
left him, he hastened to divest himself of it, considering it desecrated
by the circumstance, and hence unworthy to be worn during the services
of the following day. What a remarkable instance of Pharisaical purity
and charity! ("Talmud," "Yoma," or "the Day of Atonement," fol. 47,
verso; Jos., "Ant.," XVIII. II. 2; Derembourg, "Essai sur l'histoire,"
p. 197, n. 2.)

JOHN, simple priest. He is made known to us through the Acts of the
Apostles. "And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and
Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were
gathered together in Jerusalem." (Acts iv. 6.)

ALEXANDER, simple priest; also mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles in
the passage above quoted. Josephus also makes mention of him, and says
that he afterwards became an _Alabarch_--that is to say, first
magistrate of the Jews in Alexandria. That he was very rich is to be
learned from the fact that King Herod Agrippa asked and obtained from
him the loan of two hundred thousand pieces of silver. (Acts iv. 6;
Jos., "Ant.," XVIII. VI. 3; XX. V. 2; Petri Wesselingii, "Diatribe de
Judaeorum Archontibus," Trajecti ad Rhenum, pp. 69-71.)

ANANIAS _ben_ NEBEDEUS, simple priest at that time; was elected to the
high priesthood under procurators Ventideus, Cumanus, and Felix (48-54
A.D.). He is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and by Josephus. It
was this high priest who delivered the apostle Paul to procurator Felix.
"Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain
orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul." (Acts
xxiv. 1.) According to Jewish tradition, this high priest is chiefly
known for his excessive gluttony. What the Talmud says of his voracity
is quite phenomenal. It mentions three hundred calves, as many casks of
wine, and forty pairs of young pigeons as having been brought together
for his repast. ("Talmud," Bab., "Pesachim," or "of the Passover," fol.
57, verso; "Kerihoth," or "Sins which Close the Entrance to Eternal
Life," fol. 28, verso; Jos., "Ant.," XX. V. 2; Derembourg, work quoted
above, pp. 230, 234; Munk, "Palestine," p. 573, n. 1.)

HELCIAS, simple priest, and keeper of the treasury of the Temple. It is
probably from him that Judas Iscariot received the thirty pieces of
silver, the price of his treason. (Jos., "Ant.," XX. VIII. 11.)

SCEVA, one of the principal priests. He is spoken of in the Acts apropos
of his seven sons, who gave themselves up to witchcraft. (Acts xix. 13,
14.)

Such are the chief priests that constituted the first chamber of the
Sanhedrin at the time of the trial of Christ.

From the documents which we have consulted and the resume which we have
just given, we gather:

1. That several of the high priests were personally dishonorable.

2. That all these high priests, who succeeded each other annually in the
Aaronic office in utter disregard of the order established by God, were
but miserable intruders. We trust that these expressions will not offend
our dear Israelitish readers, for they are based on the statements of
eminent and zealous Jewish writers.

To begin with Josephus the historian. Although endeavoring to conceal
as much as possible the shameful acts committed by the priests composing
this council, yet he was unable, in a moment of disgust, to refrain from
stigmatizing them. "About this time," he says, "there arose a sedition
between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of
Jerusalem, each of which assembled a company of the boldest sort of men,
and of those that loved innovations, and became leaders to them. And
when they struggled together they did it by casting reproachful words
against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody
to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner
in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the
impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests that they had
the hardness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take
away those tithes that were due the [simple] priests. Insomuch that the
poorest priests died of want."[192] Such are the acts, the spirit of
equity and kindness, that characterized the chief judges of Christ! But
the Talmud goes farther still. This book, which ordinarily is not
sparing of eulogies on the people of our nation, yet, considering
separately and by name, as we have done, the high priests of that time,
it exclaims: "What a plague is the family of Simon Boethus; cursed be
their lances! What a plague is the family of Ananos; cursed be their
hissing of vipers! What a plague is the family of Cantharus; cursed be
their pens! What a plague is the family of Ismael ben Phabi; cursed be
their fists! They are high priests themselves, their sons are
treasurers, their sons-in-law are commanders, and their servants strike
the people with staves."[193] The Talmud continues: "The porch of the
sanctuary cried out four times. The first time, Depart from here,
descendants of Eli;[194] ye pollute the Temple of the Eternal! The
second time, Let Issachar ben Keifar Barchi depart from here, who
polluteth himself and profaneth the victims consecrated to God![195] The
third time, Widen yourselves, ye gates of the sanctuary, and let Israel
ben Phabi the willful enter, that he may discharge the functions of the
priesthood! Yet another cry was heard, Widen yourselves, ye gates, and
let Ananias ben Nebedeus the gourmand enter, that he may glut himself on
the victims!" In the face of such low morality, avowed by the least to
be suspected of our own nation, is it possible to restrain one's
indignation against those who sat at the trial of Christ as members of
the chamber of priests? This indignation becomes yet more intense when
one remembers that an ambitious hypocrisy, having for its aim the
domineering over the people, had perverted the law of Moses in these
men. The majority of the priests belonged, in fact, to the Pharisaic
order, the members of which sect made religion subservient to their
personal ambition; and in order to rule over the people with more ease,
they used religion as a tool to effect this purpose, encumbering the
law of Moses with exaggerated precepts and insupportable burdens which
they strenuously imposed upon others, but failed to observe themselves.
Can we, then, be astonished at the murderous hatred which these false
and ambitious men conceived for Christ? When his words, sharper than a
sword, exposed their hypocrisy and displayed the corrupt interior of
these whitened sepulchers wearing the semblance of justice, the hatred
they already cherished for him grew to a frenzied intensity. They never
forgave him for having publicly unmasked them. Hypocrisy never forgives
that.

Such were the men composing the council of priests, when the Sanhedrin
assembled to judge Christ. Were we not justified in forming of them an
unfavorable opinion?... But let us pass on to the second chamber, viz.,
the chamber of the scribes.


II. CHAMBER OF THE SCRIBES

Let us recall in a few words who the scribes were. Chosen
indiscriminately among the Levites and laity, they formed the _corps
savant_ of the nation; they were doctors in Israel, and were held in
high esteem and veneration. It is well known what respect the Jews, and
the Eastern nations generally, have always had for their _wise men_.

Next to the chamber of the priests, that of the scribes was the most
important. But from information gathered from the documents to which we
have already referred, we are constrained to affirm that, with a few
individual exceptions, this chamber was no better than that of the
priests.

The following is a list of the names and histories of the _wise men_ who
composed the chamber of the scribes at the trial of Christ:

GAMALIEL, surnamed the ancient. He was a very worthy Israelite, and his
name is spoken of with honor in the Talmud as well as in the Acts of the
Apostles. He belonged to a noble family, being a grandson of the famous
Hillel, who, coming from Babylon forty years before Christ, taught with
such brilliant success in Jerusalem. Gamaliel acquired so great a
reputation among his people for his scientific acquirements that the
Talmud could say of him: "_With the death of Rabbi Gamaliel the glory of
the law has departed._" It was at the feet of this doctor that Saul,
afterwards Paul the apostle, studied the law and Jewish traditions, and
we know how he gloried in this fact. Gamaliel had also among his
disciples Barnabas and Stephen, the first martyr for the cause of
Christ. When the members of the Sanhedrin discussed the expediency of
putting the apostles to death, this worthy Israelite prevented the
passing of the sentence by pronouncing these celebrated words: "Ye men
of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching
these men.... And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let
them alone; for if this counsel be of men it will come to naught; but if
it be of God ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to
fight against God." Gamaliel died nineteen years after Christ (52 A.D.).
(Acts v. 34-39; xxii. 3; Mishna, "Sotah," or "the Woman Suspected of
Adultery," C. IX.; "Sepher Juchasin," or "the Book of the Ancestors," p.
53; David Ganz, "Germe de David ou Chronologie" to 4768; Bartolocci,
"Bibliotheca magna Rabbinica," T. i. pp. 727-732.)

SIMON, son of Gamaliel, like his father, had a seat in the assembly. The
rabbinical books speak of him in the highest terms of eulogy. The
Mishna, for instance, attributes to him this sentence: "Brought up from
my infancy among learned men, I have found nothing that is of greater
value to man than silence. Doctrines are not the chief things, but work.
He who is in the habit of much talking falls easily into error." This
Simon became afterwards the intimate friend of the too celebrated
bandit, John of Giscala, whose excesses and cruelty toward the Romans,
and even the Jews, caused Titus to order the pillaging of Jerusalem.
Simon was killed in the last assault in 70 A.D. (David Ganz,
"Chronologie" to 4810; Mishna, "Aboth," or "of the Fathers," C. I.;
"Talmud," Jerusalem, "Berachoth," or "of Blessings," fol. 6, verso;
"Historia Docorium Misnicorum," J. H. Otthonis, pp. 110-113; De
Champagny, "Rome et la Judee," T. ii. 86-171.)

ONKELOS was born of heathen parents, but embraced Judaism, and became
one of the most eminent disciples of Gamaliel. He is the author of the
famous Chaldaic paraphrase of the Pentateuch. Although the rabbinical
books do not mention him as a member of the Sanhedrin, yet it is highly
probable that he belonged to that body, his writings and memory having
always been held in great esteem by the Jews; even at the present day
every Jew is enjoined to read weekly a portion of his version of the
books of Moses. Onkelos carried the Pharisaical intolerance to the last
degree. Converted from idolatry to Judaism, he hated the Gentiles to
such an extent that he cast into the Dead Sea, as an object of impurity,
the sum of money that he had inherited from his parents. We can easily
understand how that, with such a disposition, he would not be favorably
inclined toward Jesus, who received Gentiles and Jews alike. ("Talmud,"
"Megilla," or "Festival of Esther," fol. 3, verso; "Baba-bathra," or
"the Last Gate," fol. 134, verso; "Succa," or "the Festival of
Tabernacles," fol. 28, verso; "Thosephthoth," or "Supplements to the
Mishna," C. v.; Rabbi Gedalia, "Tzaltzeleth Hakkabalah," or "the Chain
of the Kabalah," p. 28; "Histor. Doct. Misnic.," p. 110; De Rossi,
"Dizionario degli Autori Ebrei," p. 81.)

JONATHAN _ben_ UZIEL, author of a very remarkable paraphrase of the
Pentateuch and the Prophets. There is a difference of opinion regarding
the precise time at which he lived. Some place it several years before
Christ; others at the time of Christ. We believe, however, that not only
was he contemporary with Christ, but that he was also one of his judges.
In support of our assertion we give the two following proofs, which we
think indisputable: 1. Jonathan, the translator of the Prophets, has
purposely omitted Daniel, which omission the Talmud explains as due to
the special intervention of an angel who informed him that the manner in
which the prophet speaks of the death of the Messiah coincided too
exactly with that of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, since Jonathan has
intentionally left out the prophecies of Daniel on account of their
coincidence with the death of Christ, it proves that he could not have
lived before Christ, but must have been contemporary with him. 2. In
comparing the paraphrase of Onkelos with that of Jonathan, we find that
the latter had made use of the work of the former, who lived in the time
of Christ. Examples may be found in Deut. xxii. 5, Judges v. 26, Num.
xxi. 28, 29. If, then, Jonathan utilized the work of Onkelos, who lived
in the time of Christ, the fact proves beyond question that he could not
have lived before Christ. The Talmudists, in order to reward this person
for having, through his hatred of Christ, erased the name of Daniel from
the roll of prophets, eulogize him in the most absurd manner. They
relate that while engaged in the study of the law of God, the atmosphere
which surrounded him, and came in contact with the light of his
understanding, so caught fire from his fervor that the birds, silly
enough to be attracted toward it, were consumed immediately. ("Talmud,"
"Succa," or "the Festival of Tabernacles," fol. 28, verso; David Ganz,
"Chronol." 4728; Gesenius, "Comm. on Isaiah," Part I. p. 65; Zunz,
"Culte divin des Juifs," Berlin, 1832, p. 61; Derembourg, work quoted
above, p. 276; Hanneburg, "Revelat Bibliq.," ii. 163, 432.)

SAMUEL HAKATON, or _the Less_. Surnamed to distinguish him from Samuel
the prophet. It was he who, some time after the resurrection of Christ,
composed the famous imprecation against the Christians, called
"Birchath Hamminim" (Benedictions of Infidels). The "Birchath Hamminim,"
says the Talmud, and the commentary of R. Jarchi, "was composed by R.
Samuel Hakaton at Jabneh, where the Sanhedrin had removed after the
misconduct of the Nazarene, who taught a doctrine contrary to the words
of the living God." The following is the singular benediction: "_Let
there be no hope for the apostates of religion, and let all heretics,
whosoever they may be, perish suddenly. May the kingdom of pride be
rooted out; let it be annihilated quickly, even in our days! Be blessed,
O Lord, who destroyest the impious, and humblest the proud!_" As soon as
Samuel Hakaton had composed this malediction, it was inserted as an
additional blessing in the celebrated prayer of the synagogue, the
"Shemonah-Essara" (the eighteen blessings). These blessings belonged to
the time of Ezra--that is to say, five centuries before the Christian
era; and every Jew has to recite it daily. St. Jerome was not ignorant
of this strange prayer. He says: "_The Jews anathematize three times
daily in their synagogue the name of the Christian, disguising it under
the name of Nazarene._" According to R. Gedalia, Samuel died before the
destruction of Jerusalem, about fifteen or twenty years after Christ.
("Talmud," "Berachoth," or "of Prayers," fol. 28, verso; "Megilla," or
"the Festival of Esther," fol. 28, verso; St. Jerome, "Comment. on
Isaiam," B. II. C. V. 18, 19; Tom. iv. p. 81 of the "Valarsius," quarto
edition; Vitringa, "de Synagoga vetr.," T. ii. p. 1036, 1047, 1051;
Castellus, "Lexicon heptaglotton," art. Min.)

CHANANIA _ben_ CHISKIA. He was a great conciliator in the midst of the
doctrinal quarrels so common at that time; and it happened that the
rival schools of Shammai and Hillel, which were not abolished with the
death of their founders, often employed him as their arbitrator. This
skillful umpire did not always succeed, however, in calming the
disputants; for we read in the ancient books that in the transition from
force of argument to argument of force, the members of the schools of
Shammai and Hillel frequently came to blows. Hence the French expression
_se chammailler_. It happened, however, according to the Talmud, that
Chanania once departed from his usual system of equilibrium in favor of
the prophet Ezekiel. It appears that on one occasion the most
influential members of the Sanhedrin proposed to censure, and even
reject, the book of this prophet, because, according to their opinion,
it contained several passages in contradiction of the law of Moses; but
Chanania defended it with so much eloquence that they were obliged to
desist from their project. This fact alone, reported fully as it is in
the Talmud, would be sufficient to show the laxity of the study of the
prophecies at that time. Although the exact date of his death is
uncertain, it is, nevertheless, sure that it took place before the
destruction of the Temple. ("Talmud," "Chagiga," or "the obligations of
the males to present themselves three times a year at Jerusalem," 2, 13;
"Shabbath," or "of the Sabbath," C. I.; "Sepher Juchasin," or "the Book
of Ancestors," p. 57.)

ISMAEL _ben_ ELIZA, renowned for the depth of his mind and the beauty
of his face. The rabbins record that he was learned in the most
mysterious things; for example, he could command the angels to descend
from heaven and ascend thither. We have it also from the same authority
that his mother held him in such high admiration that one day on his
return from school she washed his feet, and, through respect for him,
drank the water she had used for that purpose. His death was of a no
less romantic nature. It appears that after the capture of Jerusalem,
the daughter of Titus was so struck with his beauty that she obtained
permission of her father to have the skin of his face taken off after
his death, which skin she had embalmed, and, having perfumed it, she
sent it to Rome to figure among the spoils as a trophy. ("Talmud,"
"Aboda Zarah," or "of Idolatry," C. I.; Rabbi Gedalia, "Tzaltzeleth
Hakkabalah," or "the Chain of the Kabalah," p. 29; "Sepher Juchasin," or
"the Book of Ancestors," p. 25; "Tosephoth Kiddushin," C. IV.)

Rabbi ZADOK. He was about forty years old at the trial of Christ, and
died after the burning of the Temple, aged over seventy. The Talmud
relates that for forty years he ceased not from fasting, that God might
so order it that the Temple should not be destroyed by fire. Upon this
the question is propounded in the same book, but no answer given, as to
how this rabbin could have known that the Temple was threatened with so
great a calamity. We believe that Rabbi Zadok could have obtained
information of this terrible event in one of the two ways--either from
the prophetic voice of Daniel which proclaimed more than forty years
previous to the occurrence that abomination and desolation should crush
the Temple of Jerusalem when the Messiah should have been put to death;
or by the voice of Jesus himself, who said forty years before the
destruction of the Temple: "See ye not all these things?" (i.e., the
buildings of the Temple) "verily, verily I say unto you, There shall not
be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down."
(Mishna, "Shabbath," or "of the Sabbath," C. XXIV. 5 to end; "Eduth," or
"of Testimony," C. VII. 1; "Aboth," or "of the Fathers of Tradition,"
IV. 5; David Ganz, "Chronol." 4785; Seph. Juchasin," fol. 21, 26;
Schikardi, "Jus Regium Hebraeorum," p. 468; Dan. ix. 25-27; Luke xxi. 6;
Matt. xxvi. 2.)

JOCHANAN _ben_ ZAKAI. The rabbinical books accord to this rabbi an
extraordinary longevity. From their writings it would appear that, like
Moses, he lived a hundred and twenty years, forty years of which he
consecrated to manual labor; another forty to the study of the law; and
the last forty years of his life he devoted to imparting his knowledge
to others. His reputation as a savant was so well established that he
was surnamed the _Splendor of Wisdom_. After the destruction of the
Temple, he rallied together the remaining members of the Sanhedrin to
Jabneh, where he presided over this remnant for the last four or five
years of his life. He died in the year 73 A.D. When he breathed his
last, says the Mishna, a cry of anguish was heard, saying: "With the
death of Jochanan ben Zakai the splendor of wisdom has been quenched!"
We have, however, other information regarding this rabbi which is, so to
speak, like the reverse side of a medal. The Bereshith Rabba says that
Rabbi Jochanan was in the habit of eulogizing himself in the most
extravagant manner, and gives the following as a specimen of the praises
he bestowed upon himself: "If the skies were parchment, all the
inhabitants of the world writers, and all the trees of the forest pens,
all these would not suffice to transcribe the doctrines which he had
learned from the masters." What humility of language! One day his
disciples asked him to what he attributed his long life. "To my wisdom
and piety," was his reply in his tone of habitual modesty. Besides, if
we were to judge of his moral character by an ordinance of which he is
the author, his morality might be equal to the standard of his humility.
He abolished the Mosaical command of the ordeal of bitter waters,
immorally isolating a passage in Isaiah from its context. Finally, to
fill up the measure of his honesty, he became one of the lewdest
courtiers of Titus, and the destroyer of his country. But while
obsequious to human grandeur, he was obdurate to the warnings of God,
and died proud and impenitent. ("Talmud," "Rosh Hashanah," or "of the
New Year," fol. 20, recto; 31, recto; "Sotah," or "of the Woman
Suspected," etc., IX. 9; "Yoma," or "the Day of Atonement," fol. 39,
recto, and 43; "Gittin," or "of Divorce," fol. 56, verso and recto;
"Succa," or "of the Festival of Tabernacles," fol. 28, verso; Mishna,
Chapter, "Egla arupha"; "Sepher Juchasin," or "the Book of Ancestors,"
fol. 20, recto; "Seph. Hakkabalah"; Otthonis, "Hist. Doct. Misn.," pp.
93-103; Hosea iv. 14; Jos., "Wars," VI. V. 3; De Champagny, "Rome et la
Judee," T. i. p. 158.)

ABBA SAUL. He was of prodigious height, and had the charge of
superintending the burials of the dead, that everything might be done
according to the law. The rabbins, who delight in the marvelous, affirm
that in the exercise of his duties he found the thigh bone of Og, the
King of Bashan, and the right eye of Absalom. By virtue of the marrow
extracted from the thigh of Og, he was enabled to chase a young buck for
three leagues; as for the eye of Absalom, it was so deep that he could
have hidden himself in it as if in a cavern. These stories, no doubt,
appear very puerile; and yet, according to a Talmudical book
(Menorath-Hammoer, "the lighted candlestick"), which is considered of
great authority even in the modern [orthodox] synagogue, we must judge
of these matters in the following manner: "Everything which our doctors
have taught in the Medrashim (allegoric or historical commentaries) we
are bound to consider and believe in as the law of Moses our master; and
if we find anything in it which appears exaggerated and incredible, we
must attribute it to the weakness of our understandings, rather than to
their teachings; and whoever turns into ridicule whatever they have said
will be punished." According to Maimonides, Abba Saul died before the
destruction of the Temple. (Mishna, "Middoth," or "of the Dimensions of
the Temple," Chapter, "Har habbaith"; "Talmud," "Nidda," or "the
Purification of Women," C. III. fol. 24, recto; Maimonides, "Proef ad
zeraim"; Drach, "Harmonies entre l'Eglise et la Synagogue," T. ii. p.
375.)

R. CHANANIA, surnamed the Vicar of the Priests. The Mishna attributes to
him a saying which brings clearly before us the social position of the
Jewish people in the last days of Jerusalem. "Pray," said he, "for the
Roman Empire; for should the terror of its power disappear in Palestine,
neighbor will devour neighbor alive." This avowal shows the deplorable
state of Judea, and the divisions to which she had become a prey. The
Romans seem, however, to have cared very little for the sympathy of R.
Chanania, for, having possessed themselves of the city, they put him to
death. (Mishna, "Aboth," or "of the Fathers of Tradition," C. III. 2;
"Zevachim," or "of Sacrifices," C. IX. 3; "Eduth," or "of Testimony," C.
II. 1; David Ganz, "Chronologie," 4826; "Sepher Juchasin," or "the Book
of Ancestors," p. 57.)

Rabbi ELEAZAR _ben_ PARTAH, one of the most esteemed scribes of the
Sanhedrin, on account of his scientific knowledge. Already very aged at
the destruction of the Temple, he yet lived several years after that
national calamity. ("Talmud," "Gittin," or "of Divorces," C. III. 4;
"Sepher Juchasin," p. 31.)

Rabbi NACHUM HALBALAR. He is mentioned in the rabbinical books as
belonging to the Sanhedrin in the year 28 A.D., but nothing particular
is mentioned of his history. ("Talmud," "Peah," or "of the Angle," C.
II. 6, "Sanhedrin.")

Rabbi SIMON HAMIZPAH. He also is said to have belonged to the Sanhedrin
in the year 28 A.D. Beyond this but little is known. ("Talmud," "Peah,"
C. II. 6.)

These are, according to Jewish tradition, the principal scribes, or
doctors, that composed the second chamber of the Sanhedrin at the time
of the trial of Christ. The ancient books which speak of them are, of
course, filled with their praises. Nevertheless, blended with these
praises are some remarks which point to the predominant vice of these
men--namely, pride. We read in Rabbi Nathan's book, "Aruch" (a
Talmudical dictionary of great authority[196]): "_In the past and more
honorable times the titles of rabbin, rabbi, or rav,[197] to designate
the learned men of Babylon and Palestine, were unknown; thus when Hillel
came from Babylon the title of rabbi was not added to his name. It was
the same with the prophets, who were styled simply Isaiah, Haggai, etc.,
and not Rabbi Isaiah, Rabbi Haggai, etc. Neither did Ezra bring the
title of rabbi with him from Babylon. It was not until the time of
Gamaliel, Simon, and Jochanan ben Zackai that this imposing title was
first introduced among the worthies of the Sanhedrin._"

This pompous appellation appears, indeed, for the first time among the
Jews contemporary with Christ. "They love the uppermost rooms at feasts,
and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the
market-places, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." Proud of their
titles and learning, they laid claim to the foremost rank in society. _A
wise man_, say they, _should be preferred to a king; the king takes the
precedence of the high priest; the priest of the Levite; the Levite of
the ordinary Israelite. The wise man should be preferred to the king,
for if the wise man should die he could not easily be replaced; while
the king could be succeeded by an Israelite of any order_.[198] Basing
the social status on this maxim we are not astonished to find in the
Talmud[199] that at a certain time twenty-four persons were
excommunicated for having failed to render to the rabbi the reverence
due his position. Indeed, a very small offense was often sufficient to
call forth maledictions from this haughty and intolerant dignitary.
Punishment was mercilessly inflicted wherever there was open violation
of any one of the following rules established by the rabbis themselves:

If any one opposes his rabbi, he is guilty in the same degree as if he
opposed God himself.[200]

If any one quarrels with his rabbi, it is as if he contended with the
living God.[201]

If any one thinks evil of his rabbi, it is as if he thought evil of the
Eternal.[202]

This self-sufficiency was carried to such an enormous extent that when
Jerusalem fell into the hands of Titus, who came against it armed with
the sword of vengeance of Jehovah, Rabbi Jehudah wrote with an
unflinching pen: "_If Jerusalem was destroyed, we need look for no other
cause than the people's want of respect for the rabbis._"[203]

We ask now of every sincere Israelite, What opinion can be formed of the
members of the second chamber who are about to assist in pronouncing
judgment upon Christ? Could impartiality be expected of those proud and
selfish men, whose lips delighted in nothing so much as sounding their
own praises? What apprehensions must one not have of an unjust and cruel
verdict when he remembers it was of these very men that Christ had said:
"Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes; they make
broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments; they
love greetings in the market, and to be called Rabbi, Rabbi; which
devour widows' houses; and for show make long prayers."[204] The
remembrance of this rebuke, so galling to their pride, continually
rankled in their minds; and when the opportunity came, with what
remorseless hate did they wreak upon him their vengeance! We may, then,
conclude from the foregoing facts that the members of the chamber of the
scribes were no better than those composing the chamber of the priests.
To this assertion, however, there is one exception to be made; for, as
we have already seen, there was among those arrogant and unscrupulous
men[205] one whose sense of justice was not surpassed by his great
learning. That man was Gamaliel.


III. CHAMBER OF THE ELDERS

This chamber was the least influential of the three; hence, but few
names of the persons composing it at the period to which we refer have
been preserved.

JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA. The Gospel makes of him the following eulogy: Rich
man; honorable counselor; good and just man; the same had not consented
to the counsel and deed of the others. Joseph of Arimathea is called in
the Vulgate, or the Latin version of the Bible, "noble centurion,"
because he was one of the ten magistrates or senators who had the
principal authority in Jerusalem under the Romans. His noble position is
more clearly marked in the Greek version. That he was one of the seventy
may be concluded, first, because it was common to admit senators who
were considered the ancients of the people in this assembly; they were
indeed the chiefs and the princes of the nation--_seniores populi,
principes nostri_; second, because these words, "he had not consented to
the counsel and deed of the others," proves that he had a right to be in
the grand assembly and take part in the discussions. (Matt. xxvii.
57-59; Mark xv. 43-46; Luke xxiii. 50; John xix. 38; Jacobi Alting,
"Schilo seu de Vaticinio patriarchae Jacobi," p. 310; Goschler, _Diction.
Encyclopediq._; word, "Arimathea"; Cornelius Lapidus, "Comment. in
Script. sac.," edition Vives, T. xv. p. 638, second col.)

NICODEMUS. St. John the Evangelist says that he was by profession a
Pharisee, a prince of the Jews, a master in Israel, and a member of the
Sanhedrin, where he one day attempted to oppose his colleagues by
speaking in defense of Jesus. This act brought down upon him the
disdainful retort from the others, "Art thou also a Galilean?" He was
one, it is true, but in secret. We know from the Gospel account of him
that he possessed great riches, and that he used nearly a hundred pounds
of myrrh and spices for the burial of Christ. The name of Nicodemus is
mentioned in the Talmud also; and, although it was known that his
attachment to Christ was great, he is, nevertheless, spoken of with
honor. But this fact may be due to his great wealth. There were, says
the Hebrew book, three eminent men in Jerusalem--Nicodemus ben Gurien,
ben Tzitzith Hacksab, ben Kalba Shevuah--each of whom could have
supported the whole city for ten years. (John iii. 1-10; vii. 50-52;
xix. 39; "Talmud" "Gittin," or "of Divorces," C. V. fol. 56, verso;
"Abodah Zarah," or "of Idolatry," C. II. fol. 25, verso; "Taanith," or
"of the Fast Days," III. fol. 19, recto; fol. 20, verso; Midrash Rabbah
on "Koheleth," VII. II; David Ganz, "Chron." 4757; Knappius, "Comment.
in Colloquium Christi cum Nicodemo"; Cornelius Lapidus, "Comment. in
Joann." Cap. III. _et seq._)

BEN KALBA SHEVUAH. After stating that he was one of the three rich men
of Jerusalem, the Talmud adds: "His name was given to him because
whosoever entered his house as hungry as a dog came out filled." There
is no doubt that his high financial position secured for him one of the
first places in the chamber of the ancients. His memory, according to
Ritter, is still preserved among the Jews in Jerusalem. ("Talmud,"
"Gittin," or "of Divorces," C. V. fol. 56, verso; David Ganz, "Chronol."
4757; Ritter, "Erdkunde," XVI. 478.)

BEN TZITZITH HACKSAB. The effeminacy of this third rich man is made
known to us by the Talmud, where it is stated that the border of his
pallium trained itself always on the softest carpets. Like Nicodemus and
Kalba Shevuah, he no doubt belonged to the Sanhedrin. ("Talmud,"
"Gittin," C. V. fol. 56, verso; David Ganz, "Chron." 4757.)

SIMON. From Josephus the historian we learn that he was of Jewish
parentage, and was highly esteemed in Jerusalem on account of the
accurate knowledge of the law which he possessed. He had the boldness,
one day, to convoke an assembly of the people and to bring an accusation
against King Herod Agrippa, who, he said, deserved, on account of his
bad conduct, that the entrance into the sacred portals should be
forbidden him. This took place eight or nine years after Christ--that is
to say, in the year 42 or 43 A.D. We may safely conclude that a man who
had power enough to convoke an assembly and sufficient reputation and
knowledge to dare accuse a king, must undoubtedly have belonged to the
council of the Sanhedrin. Besides, his birth alone at a time when
nobility of origin constituted, as we have already said, a right to
honors, would have thrown wide open to him the doors of the assembly.
(Jos., "Ant.," XIX. VII. 4; Derembourg, "Essai sur l'histoire et la
geographie de la Palestine," p. 207, n. 1; Frankel, _Monatsschrift._,
III. 440.)

DORAS was a very influential citizen of Jerusalem, and is thus spoken of
by Josephus. He was, however, a man of cruel and immoral character, not
hesitating, for the sake of ingratiating himself with Governor Felix, to
cause the assassination of Jonathan, the high priest who had made
himself obnoxious to that ruler by some just remonstrances respecting
his administration. Doras effected the assassination in cold blood by
means of murderers hired at the expense of Felix (52 or 53 A.D.). The
prominence which this man for a long time maintained in Jerusalem
warrants the presumption that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. (Jos.,
"Ant.," XX. VIII. 5.)

  JOHN, son of JOHN.

  DOROTHEAS, son of NATHANAEL.

  TRYPHON, son of THEUDION.

  CORNELIUS, son of CERON.

These four personages were sent as ambassadors by the Jews of Jerusalem
to Emperor Claudius in the year 44, when Cuspius Fadus was governor of
Judea. Claudius mentions this fact in a letter sent by him to Cuspius
Fadus, and which Josephus has preserved. It is very probable that either
they themselves or their fathers were members of the chamber of the
ancients; for the Jews appointed as their ambassadors only such members
of the Sanhedrin as were distinguished for superior learning. (Jos.,
"Ant.," XX. I. 1, 2.)

The rabbinical books limit their information concerning the members of
this chamber to the names we have just mentioned. To be guided, then, by
the documents quoted, one would suppose that although this chamber was
the least important of the three, yet its members were perhaps more just
than those composing the other two, and consequently manifested less
vehemence against Christ during His trial. But a statement made by
Josephus the historian proves beyond doubt that this third chamber was
made up of men no better than were to be found in the others. It was
from among the wealthy element of Jewish society, says Josephus, that
Sadduceeism received most of its disciples.[206] Since, then, the
chamber of ancients was composed principally of the rich men of
Jerusalem, we may safely conclude that the majority of its members were
infected with the errors of Sadduceeism--that is to say, with a creed
that taught that the soul dies before the body.[207] We are, then, in
the presence of real materialists, who consider the destiny of man to
consist in the enjoyment of material and worldly things,[208] and who
are so carnally minded that it would seem as if the prophetic
indignation of David had stigmatized them beforehand when he says: "They
have so debased themselves as to become like the beasts that have no
understanding."[209] Let not our readers imagine that in thus speaking
we at all mean to do injustice to the memory of these men. A fact of
great importance proves indisputably that Sadducees or Epicureans were
numerous among the Sanhedrin. When, several years after the trial of
Christ, the apostle Paul had in his turn to appear before that body, he
succeeded by the skill of his oratory in turning the doctrinal
differences of that assembly to his benefit. "Men and brethren," he
exclaimed, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and the
resurrection of the dead I am called in question."[210] Hardly had the
apostle pronounced these words when a hot discussion arose between the
Sadducees and the Pharisees, all of them rising and speaking in great
confusion--some for the resurrection, others against it--and it was in
the tumult of recrimination and general uproar that the apostle was able
peacefully to withdraw. Such was the state of things in the supreme
council of the Hebrews; and men of notorious heresy, and even impiety,
were appointed as judges to decide on questions of doctrine. Among these
materialists there were, however, two just men; and, like Lot among the
wicked inhabitants of Sodom, there were in this assembly Nicodemus and
Joseph of Arimathea.

We shall now briefly sum up the contents of the preceding chapter. We
possess certain information respecting more than one half of the
seventy-one members of the Sanhedrin. We know almost all the high
priests, who, as we have already said, formed the principal element of
this council. This majority, as we have intimated, is sufficient for the
forming of an estimate of the moral tone of all the judges; and before
the debates begin, it is easy to foresee the issue of the trial of
Christ.

What, indeed, could have been the issue of a trial before the first
chamber, composed as it was of demoralized, ambitious, and scheming
priests? of priests who were mostly Pharisees--that is to say, men of
narrow minds, careful only of the external, haughty, overbearing, and
self-satisfied, believing themselves to be both infallible and
impeccable?[211] It is true they expected a Messiah; but their Messiah
was to subdue unto them all their enemies, impose for their benefit a
tax on all the nations of the earth, and uphold them in all the
absurdities with which they have loaded the law of Moses.

But this man who is about to be brought before them has exposed their
hypocritical semblance of piety, and justly stripped them of the
undeserved esteem in which they were held by the people. He has
absolutely denounced the precepts which they invented and placed above
the law. He even desired to abolish the illegal taxes which they had
imposed upon the people. Are not all these more than sufficient to
condemn Him in their eyes and prove Him worthy of death?

Can a more favorable verdict be expected of the members of the second
chamber, composed as it was of men so conceited and arrogant? These
doctors expected a Messiah who would be another Solomon, under whose
reign and with whose aid they would establish at Jerusalem an academy of
learning that would attract all the kings, even as the Queen of Sheba
was attracted to the court of the wisest king of Israel. But this Jesus,
who claims to be the Messiah, has the boldness to declare blessed those
who are humble in spirit. His disciples are but ignorant fishermen,
chosen from the least of the tribes; his speech of a provoking
simplicity, condemning before the multitude the haughty and pretentious
language of the doctors. Are not these things sufficient to bring down
upon him their condemnation?

And what justice can we expect, in fine, from the third chamber, when we
remember that most of its members were depraved Sadducees, caring only
for the enjoyment of the things of this world, heedless of the welfare
of the soul, almost denying the existence of God, and disbelieving in
the resurrection of the dead? According to their views, the mission of
the Messiah was not to consist in the regenerating of Israel as well as
of the whole human race, but in the making of Jerusalem the center of
riches and worldly goods, which would be brought hither by the conquered
and humbled Gentiles, who were to become the slaves of the Israelites.
But the man upon whom they are called to pass judgment, far from
attaching great importance to wealth and dignity, as did they,
prescribes to his disciples the renunciation of riches and honors. He
even despises those things which the Sadducees esteem most--viz.,
pedigree, silk attire, cups of gold, and sumptuous repast. What could
have rendered his condemnation surer than such manifestations of
contempt for the pride and voluptuousness of these men?

To limit our inquiry to the moral characters of the judges alone, the
issue of the trial can be but fatal to the accused; and so, when the
three chambers constituting the Sanhedrin council had entered into
session, we can well imagine that there was no hope for the acquittal of
Jesus; for are not all the high priests, as well as the majority of the
scribes and ancients, against him?[212]




APPENDIX II

ACTS OF PILATE


The apocryphal Acts of Pilate are herewith given under Appendix II. The
authenticity of these writings has never been finally settled by the
scholarship of the world. It is safe to say, however, that the current
of modern criticism is decidedly against their genuineness.
Nevertheless, the following facts seem to be very generally conceded by
the critics: That there are now in existence certain ancient documents
called the "Acts of Pilate"; that they were probably discovered at
Turin, in northern Italy, and were first used by the noted New Testament
palaeographer, Dr. Constantine Tischendorf, who studied them in company
with the celebrated orientalist, Victor Amadee Peyron, professor of
oriental languages in the University of Turin; and, furthermore, that
these documents that we now have are approximately accurate copies of
the document mentioned by Justin Martyr about the year 138 A.D., and by
Tertullian about the year 200 A.D.

But, admitting all these things, the question of _genuineness_ and
_authenticity_ still remains to be settled. Was the document referred to
by Justin as the "Acts of Pilate," and again as the "Acts recorded
under Pontius Pilate," a genuine manuscript, written by or composed
under the direction of Pilate, or was it a "pious fraud of some
Christian," who gathered his prophecies from the Old, and his facts from
the New Testament, and then embellished both with his imagination?

The subject is too vast and the space at our disposal is too limited to
permit a discussion of the authenticity of the Acts of Pilate. We have
deemed it sufficient to insert under Appendix II lengthy extracts from
the writings of Tischendorf and Lardner, two of the most celebrated
biblical critics, relating to the genuineness of these Acts. The reader
would do well to peruse these extracts carefully before reading the Acts
of Pilate.


LARDNER'S REMARKS ON THE ACTS OF PILATE

_The Acts of Pontius Pilate, and his letter to Tiberius_

"Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, which was presented to the emperor
Antoninus Pius, and the Senate of Rome, about the year 140, having
mentioned our Savior's crucifixion and some of the circumstances of it,
adds: 'And that these things were so done you may know from the Acts
made in the time of Pontius Pilate.'

"Afterwards in the same Apology, having mentioned some of our Lord's
miracles, such as healing diseases and raising the dead, he adds: 'And
that these things were done by him you may know from the Acts made in
the time of Pontius Pilate.'

"Tertullian, in his Apology, about the year 200, having spoken of our
Savior's crucifixion and resurrection, and his appearance to his
disciples, who were ordained by him to preach the gospel over the world,
goes on: 'Of all these things, relating to Christ, Pilate, in his
conscience a Christian, sent an account to Tiberius, then emperor.'

"In another chapter or section of his Apology, nearer the beginning, he
speaks to this purpose: 'There was an ancient decree that no one should
be received for a deity unless he was first approved by the senate.
Tiberius, in whose time the Christian religion had its rise, having
received from Palestine in Syria an account of such things as manifested
our Savior's divinity, proposed to the senate, and giving his own vote
as first in his favor, that he should be placed among the gods. The
senate refused, because he himself had declined that honor.'

"'Nevertheless the emperor persisted in his own opinion, and ordered
that if any accused the Christians they should be punished.' And then
adds: 'Search,' says he, 'your own writings, and you will there find
that Nero was the first emperor who exercised any acts of severity
toward the Christians, because they were then very numerous at Rome.'

"It is fit that we should now observe what notice Eusebius takes of
these things in his Ecclesiastical History. It is to this effect: 'When
the wonderful resurrection of our Savior, and his ascension to heaven,
were in the mouths of all men, it being an ancient custom for the
governors of provinces to write the emperor, and give him an account of
new and remarkable occurrences, that he might not be ignorant of
anything; our Savior's resurrection being much talked of throughout all
of Palestine, Pilate informed the emperor of it, as likewise of his
miracles, which he had heard of, and that being raised up after he had
been put to death, he was already believed by many to be a god. And it
is said that Tiberius referred the matter to the senate, but that they
refused their consent, under a pretence that it had not been first
approved of by them; there being an ancient law that no one should be
deified among the Romans without an order of the senate; but, indeed,
because the saving and divine doctrine of the gospel needed not to be
confirmed by human judgment and authority. However, Tiberius persisted
in his former sentiment, and allowed not anything to be done that was
prejudicial to the doctrine of Christ. These things are related by
Tertullian, a man famous on other accounts, and particularly for his
skill in the Roman laws. I say he speaks thus in his Apology for the
Christians, written by him in the Roman tongue, but since (in the days
of Eusebius) translated into the Greek.' His words are these: 'There was
an ancient decree that no one should be consecrated as a deity by the
emperor, unless he was first approved of by the senate. Marcus Aemilius
knows this by his god Alburnus. This is to our purpose, forasmuch as
among you divinity is bestowed by human judgment.'

"And if God does not please man, he shall not be God. And, according to
this way of thinking, man must be propitious to God. Tiberius,
therefore, in whose time the Christian name was first known in the
world, having received an account of this doctrine out of Palestine,
where it began, communicated that account to the senate; giving his own
suffrage at the same time in favor of it. But the senate rejected it,
because it had not been approved by themselves. 'Nevertheless the
emperor persisted in his judgment, and threatened death to such as
should accuse the Christians.' 'Which,' adds Eusebius, 'could not be
other than the disposal of Divine Providence, that the doctrine of the
gospel, which was then in its beginning, might be preached all over the
world without molestation.' So Eusebius.

"Divers exceptions have been made by learned moderns to the original
testimonies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian. 'Is there any likelihood,'
say they, 'that Pilate should write such things to Tiberius concerning a
man whom he had condemned to death? And if he had written them, is it
probable that Tiberius should propose to the senate to have a man put
among the gods upon the bare relation of a governor of a province? And
if he had proposed it, who can make a doubt that the senate would not
have immediately complied? So that though we dare not say that this
narration is absolutely false, yet it must be reckoned as doubtful.' So
says Du Pin.

"These and other difficulties shall now be considered.

"Now, therefore, I shall mention some observations:

"In the first place, I shall observe that Justin Martyr and Tertullian
are early writers of good repute. That is an observation of Bishop
Pearson. These testimonies are taken from the most public writings,
Apologies for the Christian religion, presented, or at least proposed
and recommended to the emperor and senate of Rome, or to magistrates of
high authority and great distinction in the Roman empire.

Secondly: It certainly was the custom of governors of provinces to
compose Acts or memoirs or commentaries of the remarkable occurrences in
the places where they presided.

In the time of the first Roman emperors there were Acts of the Senate,
Acts of the City, or People of Rome, Acts of other cities, and Acts of
governors of provinces. Of all these we can discern clear proofs and
frequent mention in ancient writers of the best credit. Julius Caesar
ordered that Acts of the Senate, as well as daily Acts of the People,
should be published. See Sueton. Jul. Caes. c. xx.

"Augustus forbade publishing Acts of the Senate.

"There was an officer, himself a senator, whose province it was to
compose those Acts.

"The Acts of the Senate must have been large and voluminous, containing
not only the question proposed, or referred to the senate by the consul,
or the emperor, but also the debates and speeches of the senators.

"The Acts of the People, or City, were journals or registers of
remarkable births, marriages, divorces, deaths, proceedings in courts of
judicature, and other interesting affairs, and some other things below
the dignity of history.

"To these Acts of each kind Roman authors frequently had recourse for
information.

"There were such Acts or registers at other places besides Rome,
particularly at Antium. From them Suetonius learned the day and place of
the birth of Caligula, about which were other uncertain reports. And he
speaks of those Acts as public authorities, and therefore more decisive
and satisfactory than some other accounts.

"There were also Acts of the governors of provinces, registering all
remarkable transactions and occurrences.

"Justin Martyr and Tertullian could not be mistaken about this; and the
learned bishop of Caesarea admits the truth of what they say. And in the
time of the persecuting emperor Maximin, about the year of Christ 307,
the heathen people forged Acts of Pilate, derogatory to the honor of our
Savior, which were diligently spread abroad, to unsettle Christians, or
discourage them in the profession of their faith. Of this we are
informed by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History.

Thirdly: It was customary for the governors of provinces to send to the
emperor an account of remarkable transactions in places where they
presided.

"So thought the learned Eusebius, as we have seen.

"And Pliny's letters to Trajan, still extant, are a proof of it. Philo
speaks of the Acts or Memoirs of Alexandria sent to Caligula, which that
emperor read with more eagerness and satisfaction than anything else.

"Fourthly: It has been said to be very unlikely that Pilate should write
such things to Tiberius, concerning a man whom he [Pilate] had condemned
to death.

"To which it is easy to reply, that if he wrote to Tiberius at all, it
is very likely that he should speak favorably and honorably of the
Savior.

"That Pilate passed sentence of condemnation upon our Lord very
unwillingly, and not without a sort of compulsion, appears from the
history of the Evangelist: Matt. xxvii.; Mark xv.; Luke xxiii.; John
xviii. Pilate was hard pressed. The rulers of the Jews vehemently
accused our Lord to him. They said they had found him perverting the
nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that himself is
Christ, a king, and the like; and all without effect for a while.

"Pilate still sought for expedients to set Jesus at liberty.

"As his reluctance had been very manifest and public in a court of
judicature, in the chief city of the nation at the time of one of their
great festivals, it is highly probable that when he sent to Rome he
should make some apology for his conduct. Nor could anything be more
proper than to allege some of our Savior's miracles which he had heard
of, and to give an account to the zeal of those who professed faith in
him after his ignominious crucifixion, and openly asserted that he had
risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.

"Pilate would not dare in such a report to write falsehood, nor to
conceal the most material circumstances of the case about which he was
writing. At the trial he publicly declared his innocence: and told the
Jews several times 'that he found no fault in him at all.'

"And when he was going to pronounce the sentence of condemnation, he
took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying: I am
innocent of the blood of this just person: 'See ye to it.' Matt. xxvii.
24.

"When he wrote to Tiberius he would very naturally say something of our
Lord's wonderful resurrection and ascension, which were much talked of
and believed by many, with which he could not be possibly unacquainted.
The mention of these things would be the best vindication of his inward
persuasion, and his repeated declarations of our Lord's innocence upon
trial notwithstanding the loud clamors and united accusations of the
Jewish people and their rulers.

"Pilate, as has been said several times, passed condemnation upon Jesus
very unwillingly, and not until after long trial.

"When he passed sentence upon him he gave orders that this title or
inscription should be put upon the cross: 'Jesus of Nazareth, the king
of the Jews.'

"When he had expired, application was made to Pilate, by Joseph of
Arimathea, an honorable counsellor, that the body might be taken down
and buried. To which he consented; but not till assurance from the
centurion that he had been sometime dead. The next day some of the
priests and pharisees came to him, saying: 'Sir, we remember that that
deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise
again. Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure, until the
third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say
unto the people, He is risen from the dead.' 'So the last error shall
be worse than the first.'

"Pilate said unto them: 'Ye have a watch; go your way, make it sure as
you can.' So they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone
and setting a watch.

"Whilst they were at the sepulchre there was a 'great earthquake,' the
stone was rolled away by an Angel, 'whose countenance was like
lightning, and for fear of whom the guards did shake and become as dead
men.' Some of the guards went down into the City, and showed unto the
chief priests all the things that were done.

"Nor can there be any doubt that these things came also to the
governor's ears. Pilate, therefore, was furnished with materials of
great importance relating to this case, very proper to be sent to the
emperor. And very probably he did send them, for he could do no
otherwise.

"Fifthly: it is said, 'That if Pilate had sent such things to Tiberius,
it is nevertheless very unlikely that Tiberius should propose to the
senate that our Savior might be put among the gods, because that emperor
had little or no regard for things of religion.'

"But it is easy to answer that such observations are of little or no
importance. Few princes are able to preserve uniformity in the whole of
their conduct, and it is certain that Tiberius varied from himself upon
many occasions and in different parts of his life.

"Sixthly: it is further urged, that if Tiberius had proposed the thing
to the senate, there can be no doubt that the senate would have
immediately complied.

"But neither is this difficulty insuperable; for we are assured by
Suetonius that Tiberius let several things be decided by the senate
contrary to his own opinion, without showing much uneasiness.

(It must be observed here that Dr. Lardner is very copious in quotations
from the best authorities in proof of all his statements. The reader is
referred to Vol. VI of his great works, pages 605-620, where will be
found these quotations in foot-notes too lengthy to be transcribed
here.)

"Seventhly: The right interpretation of the words of Tertullian will be
of use to remove difficulties and to confirm the truth of the account.

"I have translated them in this manner: 'When Tiberius referred the
matter to the senate, that our Lord should be placed in the number of
gods, the senate refused, because he had himself declined that honor.'

"The words are understood to the like purpose by Pearson.

"There is another sense, which is that of the Greek translation of
Tertullian's Apology, made use of by Eusebius: 'The senate refused
because it had not itself approved of it.' But that sense, if it be any
sense at all, is absurd, and therefore unlikely. If none beside the
senate had a right to consecrate any for the deity, yet certainly the
consul or the emperor might _refer_ such a thing to that venerable body.
According to Tertullian's account, the whole is in a fair way of legal
proceeding." [And it may be remarked here that Tertullian, being well
versed in Roman law, would hardly have passed by a blunder here or
committed one in anything wherein he may have had to do with the
statement.]

"By virtue of an ancient law, no one might be reckoned a god (at least
by the Romans) without the approbation of the senate. Tiberius having
been informed of some extraordinary things concerning Jesus, referred it
to the senate, that he also might be placed in the number of deities.
Was it possible after this that the senate should refuse it, under a
pretense that Tiberius had bestowed divinity upon Jesus without their
consent, when he had done no such thing, and at the very time was
referring it to their judgment in the old legal way?

"Le Clerc objects that the true reading in Tertullian is not--_Non quia
in se non probaverat_, but _quia non ipse probaverat_.

"Be it so. The meaning is the same. _Ipse_ must intend the emperor, not
the senate. The other sense is absurd, and next to a contradiction, and
therefore not likely to be right, and at the same time it is a rude and
needless affront. The other interpretation represents a handsome
compliment, not without foundation. For it is very true that Tiberius
had himself declined receiving divine honors.

"Eighthly: It has been objected that Tiberius was unfriendly to the
Jewish people, and therefore it must be reckoned very improbable that he
should be willing to put a man who was a Jew among the gods.

"But there is little or no ground for this objection. It was obviated
long ago in the first part of this work, where beside other things it
is said: In the reign of Tiberius the Jewish people were well used. They
were indeed banished out of Italy by an edict; but it was for a
misdemeanor committed by some villains of that nation. The great
hardship was that many innocent persons suffered beside the guilty.

"Upon other occasions Tiberius showed the Jews all the favor that could
be desired, especially after the death of Sejanus; and is much applauded
for it by Philo.

"Ninthly: Still it is urged, 'Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose
that Tiberius would receive for a deity a man who taught the worship of
one God only, and whose religion decried all other deities as mere
fiction.'

"Upon which I must say, nothing can be more absurd than this objection.
Tertullian does not suppose Tiberius to be well acquainted with the
Christian religion, our Savior's doctrine.

"All he says is, that, having heard of some extraordinary things
concerning him, he had a desire to put him among the Roman deities.

"Tenthly: Tertullian proceeds: 'Nevertheless the emperor persisted in
his opinion, and ordered that if any accused the Christians they should
be punished.' This was very natural. Though the senate would not put
Jesus in the number of deities, the emperor was still of opinion that it
might have been done.

"And he determined to provide by an edict for the safety of those who
professed a high regard for Jesus Christ. Which edict, as Eusebius
reasonably supposes, was of use for securing the free preaching of the
gospel in many places.

"But the authority of that edict would cease at the emperor's demise, if
not sooner. Unfortunately, it could not be in force, or have any great
effect, for a long season.

"Nor need we consider the ordering such an edict as in favor of the
Christians as an incredible thing, if we observe what Philo says, who
assures us that 'Tiberius gave orders to all the governors of provinces,
to protect the Jews in the cities where they lived in the observation of
their own rights and customs; and that they should bear hard on none of
them, but such as were unpeaceable and transgressed the laws of the
State.'

"Nor is it impossible that the Christians should partake of the like
civilities, they being considered as a sect of the Jews. And it is
allowed that the Roman empire did not openly persecute the Christians,
till they became so numerous that the heathen people were apprehensive
of the total overthrow of their religion.

"In the eleventh place, says a learned and judicious writer, 'It is
probable that Pilate, who had no enmity toward Christ, and accounted him
a man unjustly accused and an extraordinary person, might be moved by
the wonderful circumstances attending and following his death, to hold
him in veneration, and perhaps to think him a hero and the son of some
deity. It is possible that he might send a narrative, such as he thought
most convenient, of these transactions to Tiberius: but it is not at all
likely that Tiberius proposed to the senate that Christ should be
deified, and that the senate rejected it, and that Tiberius continued
favorably disposed toward Christ, and that he threatened to punish those
who should molest and accuse the Christians.' 'Observe also,' says the
same learned writer, 'that the Jews persecuted the apostles, and slew
Stephen, and that Saul made havoc of the church, entering into every
house, and hailing men and women, committing them to prison, and that
Pilate connived at all this violence, and was not afraid of the
resentment of Tiberius on that account.'

"Admitting the truth of all these particulars just mentioned, it does
not follow that no orders were given by Tiberius for the protection of
the followers of Jesus.

"For no commands of princes are obeyed by all men everywhere. They are
oftentimes transgressed.

"Nor was any place more likely than Judea, where the enmity of many
against the disciples of Jesus was so great. Nor need it be supposed
that Tiberius was very intent to have this order strictly regarded. For
he was upon many occasions very indolent and dilatory; and he was well
known to be so. Moreover, the death of Stephen was tumultuous, and not
an act of the Jewish council. And further, the influence of Pilate in
that country was not now at its full height. We perceive from the
history of our Lord's trial before him, as recorded in the gospels, that
he stood in fear of the Jews.

"He was apprehensive that, if he did not gratify them in that point,
they might draw up a long list of maladministrations for the emperor's
view. His condemnation of Jesus at the importunity of the Jews, contrary
to his own judgment and inclination, declared to them more than once,
was a point gained; and his government must have been ever after much
weakened by so mean a condescension. And that Pilate's influence in the
province continued to decline is manifest, in that the people of it
prevailed at last to have him removed in a very ignominious manner by
Vitellius, president of Syria.

"Pilate was removed from his government before the Passover in the year
of Christ 36. After which there was no procurator or other person with
the power of life and death, in Judea, before the ascension of Herod
Agrippa, in the year 41.

"In that space of time the Jews would take an unusual license, and
gratify their own malicious dispositions, beyond what they could
otherwise have done, without control.

"Twelfth: Some have objected that Tertullian is so absurd as to speak of
Christians in the time of Tiberius; though it be certain that the
followers of Jesus were not known by that denomination till some time
afterwards.

"But this is a trifling objection. Tertullian intends no more by
Christians than followers of Jesus, by whatever name they were known or
distinguished; whether that of Nazarenes, or Galileans, or disciples.

"And it is undoubted, that the Christian religion had its rise in the
reign of Tiberius; though they who professed to believe in Jesus, as
risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, were not called Christians
till some time afterwards.

"So at the beginning of the paragraph he says, 'There was an ancient law
that no god should be consecrated by the emperor, unless it was first
approved by the senate.' Nevertheless, Tertullian was not so ignorant as
not to know that there were not any emperors when the ancient decree was
passed.

"His meaning is, that no one should be deified by any man, no, not by a
consul or emperor, without the approbation of the senate.

"Finally: We do not suppose that Tiberius understood the doctrine of the
Savior, or that he was at all inclined to be a Christian.

"Nor did Tertullian intend to say any such thing, for immediately after
the passage first cited from him, he adds: 'But the Caesars themselves
would have believed in Jesus Christ, if they had not been necessary for
the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars.'

"Grotius appears to have rightly understood the importance of these
passages of Tertullian; whose note upon Matthew xxiv. 2, I have
transcribed below." The reader is referred to Vol. VI. of Lardner's
Works, where he will find the notes of this learned writer, as quoted
from various ancients and moderns, in proof of all he has brought
forward in these lengthy arguments, and which cannot be transcribed
here.

"Admit, then, the right interpretation of Tertullian, and it may be
allowed that what he says is not incredible or improbable. The Romans
had almost innumerable deities, and yet they frequently added to that
number and adopted new. As deifications were very frequent, Tiberius
might have indulged a thought of placing Jesus among the established
deities without intending to derogate from the worship or honor of those
who were already received.

"But the senate was not in a humor to gratify him.

"And the reason assigned is, because the emperor himself had declined
that honor, which is so plausible a pretense, and so fine a compliment,
that we cannot easily suppose it to be Tertullian's own invention;
which, therefore, gives credibility to his account.

"Eusebius, though he acknowledged the overruling providence of God in
the favorable disposition of Tiberius toward the first followers of
Jesus, by which means the Christian religion in its infancy was
propagated over the world with less molestation, does also say, at the
beginning of the chapter quoted, 'The senate refused their consent to
the emperor's proposal, under a pretence that they had not been first
asked, there being an ancient law, that no one should be deified without
the approbation of the senate, but, indeed,' adds he, 'because the
saving and divine doctrine of the gospel needed not to be ratified by
human judgment and authority.'

Chrysostom's observation is to like purpose, but with some inaccuracies.
It is likely that he was not at all acquainted with Tertullian; and he
was no admirer of Eusebius. Perhaps he builds upon general tradition
only. 'The Roman senate,' says he, 'had the power of nominating and
decreeing who should be gods. When, therefore, all things concerning
Christ had been published, he who was the governor of the Jewish nation
sent to them to know if they would be pleased to appoint him also to be
a god. But they refused, being offended and provoked, that before their
decree and judgment had been obtained, the power of the crucified one
had shined out and had attracted all the world to the worship of him.
But, by the overruling providence of God, this was brought to pass
against their will, that the divinity of Christ might not be established
by human appointment and that he might not be reckoned one of the many
who were deified by them.'

"Some of which, as he proceeds to show, had been of infamous characters.

"I shall now transcribe below in his own words what Orosius, in the
fifth century, says of this matter, that all my readers may have it at
once before them without looking farther for it." This quotation from
Orosius will be found in the "Testimony of the Fathers," under the
title, "Testimony of Orosius."

"And I refer to Zonoras and Nicephoras. The former only quotes Eusebius,
and transcribes into his Annals the chapter of his Ecclesiastical
History quoted by me. Nor has Nicephoras done much more."[213]


TISCHENDORF'S COMMENTS ON THE ACTS OF PILATE

"It is the same with the second apocryphal work brought under review
above, the so-called Acts of Pilate, only with the difference that they
refer as much to John as to the synoptical Gospels. Justin, in like
manner as before, is the most ancient voucher for this work, which is
said to have been written under Pilate's jurisdiction, and by reason of
its specification of wonderful occurrences before, during, and after the
crucifixion, to have borne strong evidence to the divinity of Christ.
Justin saw as little reason as Tertullian and others for believing that
it was a work of pious deception from a Christian hand." [As has been
alleged by opponents.] "On the contrary, Justin appeals to it twice in
his first Apology in order to confirm the accounts of the occurrences
which took place at the crucifixion in accordance with prophecy, and of
the miraculous healings effected by Christ, also the subject of
prophetic announcement. He cites specifically (chap. 35) from Isaiah
lxv. 2, and lviii. 2: 'I have spread out my hands all the day unto a
rebellious people which walketh in a way that was not good. They ask of
me the ordinances of justice, they take delight in approaching to God.'
Further, from the 22nd Psalm: 'They pierced my hands and my feet; they
parted my garments upon them and cast lots upon my vesture.' With
reference to this he remarks that Christ fulfilled this; that he did
stretch forth his hands when the Jews crucified him--the men who
contended against him and denied that he was Christ. 'Then,' he says
further, 'as the prophet foretold, they dragged him to the judgment
seat, set him upon it and said, Judge us.' The expression, however,
'they pierced,' etc., refers to the nails with which they fastened his
feet and hands to the cross. And after they had crucified him they
threw lots for his clothing, and they who had taken part in the act of
crucifixion divided it among themselves. To this he adds: And you can
learn from the Acts, composed during the governorship of Pontius Pilate,
that these things really happened.

"Still more explicit is the testimony of Tertullian. It may be found in
Apologeticus (chap. 2) where he says that out of envy Jesus was
surrendered to Pilate by the Jewish ceremonial lawyers, and by him,
after he had yielded to the cries of the people, given over for
crucifixion; that while hanging on the cross he gave up the ghost with a
loud cry, and so anticipated the executioner's duty; that at that same
hour the day was interrupted by a sudden darkness; that a guard of
soldiers was set at the grave for the purpose of preventing his
disciples stealing his body, since he had predicted his resurrection,
but that on the third day the ground was suddenly shaken and the stone
rolled away from before the sepulchre; that in the grave nothing was
found but the articles used in his burial; that the report was spread
abroad by those who stood outside that the disciples had taken the body
away; that Jesus spent forty days with them in Galilee, teaching them
what their mission should be, and that after giving them their
instructions as to what they should preach, he was raised in a cloud to
heaven. Tertullian closes this account with the words, 'All this was
reported to the Emperor at that time, Tiberius, by Pilate, his
conscience having compelled even him to become a Christian.'

"The document now in our possession corresponds with this evidence of
Justin and Tertullian. Even in the title it agrees with the account of
Justin, although instead of the word _acta_, which he used, and which is
manifestly much more Latin than Greek, a Greek expression is employed
which can be shown to have been used to indicate genuine Acts. The
details recounted by Justin and Tertullian are all found in our text of
the Acts of Pilate, with this variation, that nothing corresponds to
what is joined to the declaration of the prophet, 'They dragged him to
the seat of judgment and set him upon it and said,' etc. Besides this,
the casting lots for the vesture is expressed simply by the allusion to
the division of the clothes. We must give even closer scrutiny to one
point. Justin alludes to the miracles which were performed in
fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, on the lame, the dumb, the blind,
the dead, and on lepers. In fact, in our Acts of Pilate there are made
to appear before the Roman governor a palsied man who had suffered for
thirty-eight years, and was brought in a bed by young men, and healed on
the Sabbath day; a blind man cured by the laying on of hands; a <DW36>
who had been restored; a leper who had been cleansed; the woman whose
issue of blood had been stanched, and a witness of the raising of
Lazarus from the dead. Of that which Tertullian cites we will adduce
merely the passage found in no one of our gospels, that Jesus passed
forty days after his resurrection in company with his disciples in
Galilee.

"This is indicated in our Acts of Pilate at the end of the fifteenth
chapter, where the risen man is represented as saying to Joseph: 'For
forty days go not out of thy house, for behold I go to my brethren in
Galilee.'

"Every one will perceive how strongly the argument that our Acts of
Pilate are the same which Justin and Tertullian read is buttressed by
these unexpected coincidences. The assertion recently made requires,
consequently, no labored contradiction that the allusions to both men
have grown out of their mere suspicion that there was such a record as
the Acts of Pilate, or out of the circulation of a mere story about such
a record, while the real work was written as the consequence of these
allusions at the close of the third century. What an uncommon fancy it
requires in the two men to coincide so perfectly in a single production,
as is the case in the Acts to which I am now referring. And are we to
imagine that they referred with such emphasis as they employed to the
mere creations of their fancy?

"The question has been raised with more justice, whether the production
in our possession may not have been a copy or a free revision of the old
and primitive one. The modern change in the title has given support to
this conjecture, for it has occasioned the work to be commonly spoken of
as the Gospel of Nicodemus. But this title is borne neither by any Greek
manuscript, the Coptic-Sahidian papyrus, nor the Latin manuscripts with
the exception of a few of the most recent. It may be traced only
subsequently to the twelfth century, although at a very early period, in
one of the two prefaces attached to the work, Nicodemus is mentioned in
one place as a Hebrew author and in another as a Greek translator. But
aside from the title, the handwriting displays great variation, and the
two prefaces alluded to above show clearly the work of two hands.
Notwithstanding this, however, there are decisive grounds for holding
that our Acts of Pilate contains in its main substance the document
drawn from Justin and Tertullian. The first of these to be noticed is,
that the Greek text, as given in the version most widely circulated in
the manuscripts, is surprisingly corroborated by two documents of the
rarest character, and first used by myself--a Coptic-Sahidian papyrus
manuscript and a Latin palimpsest--both probably dating from the fifth
century. Such a documentary confirmation of their text is possessed by
scarcely ten works of the collective Greek classic literature. Both of
these ancient writings make it in the highest degree probable that the
Egyptian and Latin translations which they contain were executed still
earlier.

"But could a work which was held in great consideration in Justin's and
Tertullian's time and down to the commencement of the fourth century,
and which strenuously insists that the Emperor Maximin caused other
blasphemous Acts of Pilate to be published and zealously circulated,
manifestly for the purpose of displacing and discrediting the older
Christian Acts--could such a work suddenly change its whole form, and
from the fifth century, to which in so extraordinary a manner
translators, wholly different in character, point back with such
wonderful concurrence, continue in the new form? Contrary as this is to
all historical criticism, there is in the contents of the work, in the
singular manner in which isolated and independent details are shown to
be related to the canonical books, no less than in the accordance with
the earliest quotations found in Justin and Tertullian, a guaranty of
the greatest antiquity.

"There are in the contents, also, matters of such a nature that we must
confess that they are to be traced back to the primitive edition, as,
for example the narrative in the first chapter of the bringing forward
of the accused.

"It is incorrect, moreover, to draw a conclusion from Justin's
designation of the Acta which is not warranted by the whole character of
the work. The Acta, the _[Greek: hypomnemata]_, are specified in
Justin's account not less than in the manuscripts which we possess, as
being written _under_ Pontius Pilate, and that can signify nothing else
than that they were an official production composed under the direct
sanction of the Roman governor. Their transmission to the emperor must
be imagined as accompanied by a letter of the same character with that
which has been brought down to us in the Greek and Latin edition, and
yet not at all similar in purport to the notable Acts of Pilate."[214]


THE ACTS OF PILATE

(_First Greek Form_)

I, Ananias, of the propraetor's bodyguard, being learned in the law,
knowing our Lord Jesus Christ from the Holy Scriptures, coming to Him by
faith, and counted worthy of the holy baptism, searching also the
memorials written at that time of what was done in the case of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which the Jews had laid up in the time of Pontius Pilate,
found these memorials written in Hebrew, and, by the favor of God, have
translated them into Greek for the information of all who call upon the
name of our Master Jesus Christ, in the seventeenth year of the reign of
our lord Flavius Theodosius, and the sixth of Flavius Valentianus, in
the ninth indiction.

All ye, therefore, who read and transfer into other books, remember me
and pray for me, and pardon my sins which I have sinned against Him.

Peace be to those who read and those who hear, and to their households.
Amen.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 1.--Having called a council, the high priests and the scribes
Annas and Caiaphas and Semes and Dathaes, and Gamaliel, Judas, Levi and
Nepthalim, Alexander and Jairus, and the rest of the Jews, came to
Pilate accusing Jesus about many things, saying: We know this man to be
the son of Joseph the carpenter, born of Mary; and he says that he is
the Son of God, and a king; moreover, profanes the Sabbath, and wishes
to do away with the law of our fathers. Pilate says: And what are the
things which he does, to show that he wishes to do away with it? The
Jews say: We have a law not to cure anyone on the Sabbath; but this man
has, on the Sabbath, cured the lame and the crooked, the withered and
the blind and the paralytic, the dumb and the demoniac, by evil
practices. Pilate says to them: What evil practices? They say to him:
He is a magician, and by Beelzebub, prince of the demons, he casts out
the demons, and all are subject to him. Pilate says to them: This is not
casting out the demons by an unclean spirit, but by the god Esculapius.

The Jews say to Pilate: We entreat your highness that he stand at the
tribunal and be heard. And Pilate, having called them, says: Tell me how
I, being a procurator, can try a king? They say to him: We do not say
that he is a king, but he himself says that he is. And Pilate, having
called the runner, says to him: Let Jesus be brought in with respect.
And the runner, going out and recognizing him, adored him, and took his
cloak into his hand and spread it on the ground, and says to him: My
Lord, walk on this and come in, for the procurator calls thee. And the
Jews, seeing what the runner had done, cried out against Pilate, saying:
Why hast thou ordered him to come in by a runner, and not by a crier?
for assuredly the runner, when he saw him, adored him, and spread his
doublet on the ground and made him walk like a king.

And Pilate, having called the runner, says to him: Why hast thou done
this, and spread out thy cloak upon the earth and made Jesus walk upon
it? The runner says to him: My Lord procurator, when thou didst send me
to Jerusalem to Alexander, I saw him sitting upon an ass, and the sons
of the Hebrews held branches in their hands and shouted; and others
spread their clothes under him saying: Save now, thou who art in the
highest; blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The Jews cry out and say to the runner: The sons of the Hebrews shouted
in Hebrew; whence, then, hast thou the Greek? The runner says to them: I
asked one of the Jews, and said: What is it they are shouting in Hebrew?
And he interpreted it for me. Pilate says to them: And what did they
shout in Hebrew? The Jews say to him: _Hosanna membrome baruchamma
adonai._ Pilate says to them: And this hosanna, etc., how is it
interpreted? The Jews say to him: Save now in the highest; blessed is he
that cometh in the name of the Lord. Pilate says to them: If you bear
witness to the words spoken by the children, in what has the runner done
wrong? And they were silent. And the procurator says to the runner: Go
out and bring him in what way thou wilt. And the runner, going out, did
in the same manner as before, and says to Jesus: My Lord, come in; the
procurator calleth thee.

And Jesus, going in, and the standard bearers holding their standards,
the tops of the standards bent down, and adored Jesus. And the Jews,
seeing the bearing of the standards how they were bent down and adored
Jesus, cried out vehemently against the standard bearers. And Pilate
says to the Jews: Do you not wonder how the tops of the standards were
bent down and adored Jesus? The Jews say to Pilate: We saw how the
standard bearers bent them down and adored him. And the procurator,
having called the standard bearers, says to them: Why have you done
this? They say to Pilate: We are Greeks and temple slaves, and how
could we adore him? and assuredly, as we were holding them up, the tops
bent down of their own accord and adored him.

Pilate says to the rulers of the synagogue and the elders of the people:
Do you choose for yourselves men strong and powerful, and let them hold
up the standards, and let us see whether they will bend down with them.
And the elders of the Jews picked out twelve men powerful and strong,
and made them hold up the standards six by six; and they were placed in
front of the procurator's tribunal. And Pilate says to the runner: Take
him outside of the Pretorium, and bring him in again in whatever way may
please thee. And Jesus and the runner went out of the Pretorium. And
Pilate, summoning those who had formerly held up the standards, says to
them: I have sworn by the health of Caesar, that if the standards do not
bend down when Jesus comes in, I will cut off your heads. And the
procurator ordered Jesus to come in the second time. And the runner did
in the same manner as before, and made many entreaties to Jesus to walk
on his cloak. And he walked on it and went in. And as he went in the
standards were again bent down and adored Jesus.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 2.--And Pilate, seeing this, was afraid, and sought to go away
from the tribunal, but when he was still thinking of going away, his
wife sent to him saying: Have nothing to do with this just man, for many
things have I suffered on his account this night. And Pilate, summoning
the Jews, says to them: You know that my wife is a worshiper of God, and
prefers to adhere to the Jewish religion along with you. They say to
him: Yes, we know. Pilate says to them: Behold, my wife has sent to me,
saying, Have nothing to do with this just man, for many things have I
suffered on account of him this night. And the Jews answering, say unto
Pilate: Did we not tell thee that he was a sorcerer? Behold, he has sent
a dream to thy wife.

And Pilate, having summoned Jesus, says to him: What do these witness
against thee? Sayest thou nothing? And Jesus said: Unless they had the
power, they would say nothing; for every one has the power of his own
mouth to speak both good and evil. They shall see to it.

And the elders of the Jews answered, and said to Jesus: What shall we
see? First, that thou wast born of fornication; secondly, that thy birth
in Bethlehem was the cause of the murder of the infants; thirdly, that
thy father Joseph and thy mother Mary fled into Egypt because they had
no confidence in the people.

Some of the bystanders, pious men of the Jews, say: We deny that he was
born of fornication; for we know that Joseph espoused Mary, and he was
not born of fornication. Pilate says to the Jews who said he was of
fornication: This story of yours is not true, because they were
betrothed, as also these fellow-countrymen of yours say. Annas and
Caiaphas say to Pilate: All the multitude of us cry out that he was born
of fornication, and are not believed; these are proselytes and his
disciples. And Pilate, calling Annas and Caiaphas, says to them: What
are proselytes? They say to him: They are by birth children of the
Greeks, and have now become Jews. And those that said that he was not
born of fornication, viz.: Lazarus, Asterius, Antonius, James, Amnes,
Zeras, Samuel, Isaac, Phinees, Crispus, Agrippas and Judas, say: We are
not proselytes, but are children of the Jews, and speak the truth; for
we were present at the betrothal of Joseph and Mary.

And Pilate, calling these twelve men who said that he was not born of
fornication, says to them: I adjure you, by the health of Caesar, to tell
me whether it be true that you say, that he was not born of fornication.
They say to Pilate: We have a law against taking oaths, because it is a
sin; but they will swear by the health of Caesar that it is not as we
have said, and we are liable to death. Pilate says to Annas and
Caiaphas: Have you nothing to answer to this? Annas and Caiaphas say to
Pilate: These twelve are believed when they say that he was not born of
fornication; all the multitude of us cry out that he was born of
fornication, and that he is a sorcerer; and he says that he is the Son
of God and a king, and we are not believed.

And Pilate orders all the multitude to go out, except the twelve men who
said that he was not born of fornication, and he ordered Jesus to be
separated from them. And Pilate says to them: For what reason do they
wish to put him to death? They say to him: They are angry because he
cures on the Sabbath. Pilate says: For a good work do they wish to put
him to death? They say to him: Yes.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 3.--And Pilate, filled with rage, went outside of the Pretorium
and said to them: I take the sun to witness that I find no fault in this
man. The Jews answered and said to the procurator: Unless this man were
an evil-doer, we should not have delivered him to thee. And Pilate said:
Do you take him and judge him according to your law. The Jews said to
Pilate: It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death. Pilate said: Has
God said that you are not to put to death, but that I am?

And Pilate went again into the Pretorium and spoke to Jesus privately,
and said to him: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered Pilate:
Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee of me?
Pilate answered Jesus: Am I also a Jew? Thy nation and the chief priests
have given thee up to me. What hast thou done? Jesus answered: My
kingdom is not of this world; for if my kingdom were of this world, my
servants would fight in order that I should not be given up to the Jews:
but now my kingdom is not from thence. Pilate said to him: Art thou,
then, a king? Jesus answered him: Thou sayest that I am king. Because
for this have I been born, and I have come, in order that everyone who
is of the truth might hear my voice. Pilate says to him: What is truth?
Jesus says to him: Truth is from heaven. Pilate says: Is truth not upon
earth? Jesus says to Pilate: Thou seest how those who speak the truth
are judged by those that have the power upon earth.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 4.--And leaving Jesus within the Pretorium, Pilate went out to
the Jews and said to them: I find no fault in him. The Jews say to him:
He said, I can destroy this temple, and in three days build it. Pilate
says: What temple? The Jews say: The one that Solomon built in forty-six
years, and this man speaks of pulling it down and building it up in
three days. Pilate says to them: I am innocent of the blood of this just
man. See you to it. The Jews say: His blood be upon us and upon our
children.

And Pilate, having summoned the elders and priests and Levites, said to
them privately: Do not act thus, because no charge that you bring
against him is worthy of death; for your charge is about curing and
Sabbath profanation. The elders and the priests and the Levites say: If
anyone speak evil against Caesar, is he worthy of death or not? Pilate
says: He is worthy of death. The Jews say to Pilate: If anyone speak
evil against Caesar, he is worthy of death; but this man has spoken evil
against God.

And the procurator ordered the Jews to go outside of the Pretorium; and,
summoning Jesus, he says to him: What shall I do to thee? Jesus says to
Pilate: As it has been given to thee. Pilate says: How given? Jesus
says: Moses and the prophets have proclaimed beforehand of my death and
resurrection. And the Jews, noticing this and hearing it, say to Pilate:
What more wilt thou hear of this blasphemy? Pilate says to the Jews: If
these words be blasphemous, do you take him for the blasphemy, and lead
him away to your synagogue and judge him according to your law. The Jews
say to Pilate: Our law bears that a man who wrongs his fellow-men is
worthy to receive forty save one: but he that blasphemeth God is to be
stoned with stones.

Pilate says to them: Do you take him and punish him in whatever way you
please. The Jews say to Pilate: We wish that he be crucified. Pilate
says: He is not deserving of crucifixion.

And the procurator, looking round upon the crowds of the Jews standing
by, sees many of the Jews weeping, and says: All the multitude do not
wish him to die. The elders of the Jews say: For this reason all the
multitude of us have come, that he should die. Pilate says to the Jews:
Why should he die? The Jews say: Because he called himself the Son of
God and King.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 5.--And one Nicodemus, a Jew, stood before the procurator and
said: I beseech your honor let me say a few words. Pilate says: Say on.
Nicodemus says: I said to the elders and the priests and Levites, and to
all the multitude of the Jews in the synagogue, What do you seek to do
with this man? This man does many miracles and strange things, which no
one has done or will do. Let him go and do not wish any evil against
him. If the miracles which he does are of God, they will stand; but if
of man, they will come to nothing. For assuredly Moses, being sent by
God into Egypt, did many miracles, which the Lord commanded him to do
before Pharaoh, king of Egypt. And there were Jannes and Jambres,
servants of Pharaoh, and they also did not a few of the miracles which
Moses did; and the Egyptians took them to be gods--this Jannes and
Jambres. But, since the miracles which they did were not of God, both
they and those who believed in them were destroyed. And now release this
man, for he is not deserving of death.

The Jews say to Nicodemus: Thou hast become his disciple, and therefore
thou defendest him. Nicodemus says to them: Perhaps, too, the procurator
has become his disciple, because he defends him. Has the emperor not
appointed him to this place of dignity? And the Jews were vehemently
enraged, and gnashed their teeth against Nicodemus. Pilate says to them:
Why do you gnash your teeth against him when you hear the truth? The
Jews say to Nicodemus: Mayst thou receive his truth and his portion.
Nicodemus says: Amen, amen; may I receive it, as you have said.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 6.--One of the Jews, stepping up, asked leave of the procurator to
say a word. The procurator says: If thou wishest to say anything, say
on. And the Jew said: Thirty-eight years I lay in my bed in great agony.
And when Jesus came, many demoniacs and many lying ill of various
diseases were cured by him. And when Jesus saw me he had compassion on
me, and said to me: Take up thy couch and walk. And I took up my couch
and walked. The Jews say to Pilate: Ask him on what day it was when he
was cured. He that had been cured says: On a Sabbath. The Jews say: Is
not this the very thing we said, that on a Sabbath he cures and casts
out demons?

And another Jew stepped up and said: I was born blind; I heard sounds,
but saw not a face. And as Jesus passed by I cried out with a loud
voice, Pity me, O son of David. And he pitied me and put his hands upon
my eyes, and I instantly received my sight. And another Jew stepped up
and said: I was crooked and he straightened me with a word. And another
said: I was a leper, and be cured me with a word.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 7.--And a woman cried out from a distance and said: I had an issue
of blood, and I touched the hem of his garment, and the issue of blood,
which I had had for twelve years, was stopped. The Jews say: We have a
law that a woman's evidence is not received.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 8.--And others, a multitude both of men and women, cried out,
saying: This man is a prophet, and the demons are subject to him. Pilate
says to them who said that the demons were subject to him: Why, then,
were not your teachers also subject to him? They say to Pilate: We do
not know. And others said: He raised Lazarus from the tomb after he had
been dead four days. And the procurator trembled, and said to all the
multitude of the Jews: Why do you wish to pour out innocent blood?

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 9.--And, having summoned Nicodemus and the twelve men that said he
was not born of fornication, he says to them: What shall I do, because
there is an insurrection among the people? They say to him: We know not;
let them see to it. Again Pilate, having summoned all the multitude of
the Jews, says: You know that it is customary, at the feast of
unleavened bread, to release one prisoner to you. I have one condemned
prisoner in the prison, a murderer named Bar Abbas, and this man
standing in your presence, Jesus in whom I find no fault. Which of them
do you wish me to release to you? And they cry out: Bar Abbas. Pilate
says: What, then, shall we do to Jesus, who is called Christ? The Jews
say: Let him be crucified. And others said: Thou art no friend of
Caesar's if thou release this man, because he called himself the Son of
God and King. You wish this man, then, to be a king, and not Caesar?

And Pilate, in a rage, says to the Jews: Always has your nation been
rebellious, and you always speak against your benefactors. The Jews say:
What benefactors? He says to them: Your God led you out of the land of
Egypt from bitter slavery, and brought you safe through the sea as
through dry land, and in the desert fed you with manna and gave you
quails, and quenched your thirst with water from a rock, and gave you a
law; and in all these things have you provoked your God to anger, and
sought a molten calf. And you exasperated your God, and he sought to
slay you. And Moses prayed for you, and you were not put to death. And
now you charge me with hating the emperor.

And, rising up from the tribunal, he sought to go out. And the Jews cry
out and say: We know that Caesar is king, and not Jesus. For assuredly
the magi brought gifts to him as to a king. And when Herod heard from
the magi that a king had been born, he sought to slay him, and his
father, Joseph, knowing this, took him and his mother, and they fled
into Egypt. And Herod, hearing of it, destroyed the children of the
Hebrews that had been born in Bethlehem.

And when Pilate heard these words he was afraid; and, ordering the crowd
to keep silence, because they were crying out, he says to them: So this
is he whom Herod sought? The Jews say: Yes, it is he. And, taking water,
Pilate washed his hands in the face of the sun, saying: I am innocent of
the blood of this just man: see you to it. Again the Jews cry out: His
blood be upon us and upon our children.

Then Pilate ordered the curtain of the tribunal where he was sitting to
be drawn, and says to Jesus: Thy nation has charged thee with being a
king. On this account, I sentence thee first to be scourged, according
to the enactment of venerable kings, and then to be fastened on the
cross in the garden where thou was seized. And let Dysmas and Gestas,
the two malefactors, be crucified with thee.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 10.--And Jesus went forth out of the Pretorium, and the
malefactors with him. And when they came to the place they stripped him
of his clothes and girded him with a towel, and put a crown of thorns on
him round his head. And they crucified him; and at the same time, also,
they hung up the two malefactors along with him. And Jesus said: Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do. And the soldiers parted
his clothes among them; and the people stood looking at him. And the
chief priests and the rulers with them mocked him, saying: He saved
others, let him save himself. If he be the Son of God, let him come down
from the cross. And the soldiers made sport of him, coming near and
offering him vinegar mixed with gall, and said: Thou art the king of the
Jews; save thyself.

And Pilate, after the sentence, ordered the charge against him to be
inscribed as a superscription in Greek and Latin and Hebrew, according
to what the Jews had said: He is king of the Jews.

And one of the malefactors hanging up spoke to him, saying: If thou be
the Christ, save thyself and us. And Dysmas answering reproved him,
saying: Dost thou not fear God, because thou art in the same
condemnation? And we, indeed, justly, for we receive the fit punishment
of our deeds; but this man has done no evil. And he said to Jesus:
Remember me, Lord, in thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen, amen; I
say to thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 11.--And it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over
the earth until the ninth hour, the sun being darkened; and the curtain
of the temple was split in the middle. And, crying out with a loud
voice, Jesus said: Father, _baddach ephkid ruel_, which is, interpreted,
Into thy hands I commit my spirit. And, having said this, he gave up the
ghost. And the centurion, seeing what had happened, glorified God and
said: This was a just man. And all the crowds that were present at this
spectacle, when they saw what had happened, beat their breasts and went
away.

And the centurion reported what had happened to the procurator. And when
the procurator and his wife heard it they were exceedingly grieved, and
neither ate nor drank that day. And Pilate sent for the Jews and said to
them: Have you seen what has happened? And they say: There has been an
eclipse of the sun in the usual way.

And his acquaintances were standing at a distance, and the women who
came with him from Galilee, seeing these things. And a man named Joseph,
a councillor from the city of Arimathea, who also waited for the kingdom
of God, went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down
and wrapped it in a clean linen, and placed it in a tomb hewn out of the
rock, in which no one had ever lain.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 12.--And the Jews, hearing that Joseph had begged the body of
Jesus, sought him, and the twelve who said that Jesus was not born of
fornication, and Nicodemus and many others who had stepped up before
Pilate and declared his good works. And of all these that were hid
Nicodemus alone was seen by them, because he was a ruler of the Jews.
And Nicodemus says to them: How have you come into the synagogue? The
Jews say to him: How hast thou come into the synagogue? for thou art a
confederate of his, and his portion is with thee in the world to come.
Nicodemus says: Amen, amen. And likewise Joseph also stepped out and
said to them: Why are you angry against me because I begged the body of
Jesus? Behold, I have put him in my new tomb, wrapping him in clean
linen; and I have rolled a stone to the door of the tomb. And you have
acted not well against the just man, because you have not repented of
crucifying him, but also have pierced him with a spear. And the Jews
seized Joseph and ordered him to be secured until the first day of the
week, and said to him: Know that the time does not allow us to do
anything against thee, because the Sabbath is dawning: and know that
thou shalt not be deemed worthy of burial, but we shall give thy flesh
to the birds of the air. Joseph says to them: These are the words of the
arrogant Goliath, who reproached the living God and holy David. For God
has said by the prophet, Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the
Lord. And now that he is uncircumcised in flesh, but circumcised in
heart, has taken water and washed his hands in the face of the sun,
saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just man; see ye to it. And
you answered and said to Pilate: His blood be upon us and upon our
children. And now I am afraid, lest the wrath of God come upon you and
upon your children, as you have said. And the Jews, hearing these words,
were embittered in their souls, and seized Joseph and locked him into a
room where there was no window; and guards were stationed at the door,
and they sealed the door where Joseph was locked in.

And on the Sabbath the rulers of the synagogue and the priests and the
Levites made a decree that all should be found in the synagogue on the
first day of the week. And, rising up early, all the multitude in the
synagogue consulted by what death they should slay him. And when the
Sanhedrin was sitting, they ordered him to be brought with much
indignity. And, having opened the door, they found him not. And all the
people were surprised and struck with dismay, because they found the
seals unbroken, and because Caiaphas had the key. And they no longer
dared to lay hands upon those who had spoken before Pilate in Jesus'
behalf.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 13.--And while they were still sitting in the synagogue and
wondering about Joseph, there came some of the guard whom the Jews had
begged of Pilate to guard the tomb of Jesus, that his disciples might
not come and steal him. And they reported to the rulers of the
synagogue, and the priests and Levites, what had happened: how there had
been an earthquake; and we saw an angel coming down from heaven, and he
rolled away the stone from the mouth of the tomb and sat upon it; and he
shone like snow and like lightning. And we were very much afraid, and
lay like dead men; and we heard the voice of the angel, saying to the
women who remained beside the tomb, Be not afraid, for I know that you
seek Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here. He has risen, as he said.
Come, see the place where the Lord lay; and go quickly and tell his
disciples that he is risen from the dead, and is in Galilee.

The Jews say: To what women did he speak? The men of the guard say: We
know not who they were. The Jews say: At what time was this? The men of
the guard say: At midnight. The Jews say: And wherefore did you not lay
hold of them? The men of the guard say: We were like dead men from fear,
not expecting to see the light of day, and how could we lay hold of
them? The Jews say: As the Lord liveth, we do not believe you. The men
of the guard say to the Jews: You have seen so great miracles in the
case of this man, and have not believed; and how can you believe us? And
assuredly you have done well to swear that the Lord liveth, for indeed
he does live. Again the men of the guard say: We have heard that you
have locked up the man that begged the body of Jesus, and put a seal on
the door; and that you have opened it and not found him. Do you, then,
give us the man whom you were guarding, and we shall give you Jesus. The
Jews say: Joseph has gone away to his own city. The men of the guard say
to the Jews: And Jesus has risen, as we heard from the angel, and is in
Galilee.

And when the Jews heard these words they were very much afraid, and
said: We must take care lest this story be heard, and all incline to
Jesus. And the Jews called a council, and paid down a considerable money
and gave it to the soldiers, saying: Say, while he slept, his disciples
came by night and stole him; and if this come to the ears of the
procurator we shall persuade him and keep you out of trouble. And they
took it, and said as they had been instructed.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 14.--And Phinees, a priest, and Adas, a teacher, and Haggai, a
Levite, came down from Galilee to Jerusalem, and said to the rulers of
the synagogue, and the priests and the Levites: We saw Jesus and his
disciples sitting on the mountain called Mamilch; and he said to his
disciples, Go into all the world, and preach to every creature: he that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not
shall be condemned. And these signs shall attend those who have
believed: in my name they shall cast out demons, speak new tongues, take
up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall by no means
hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall be well. And
while Jesus was speaking to his disciples we saw him taken up into
heaven.

The elders and priests and Levites say: Give glory to the God of Israel,
and confess to him whether you have heard and seen those things, of
which you have given us an account. And those who had given the account
said: As the Lord liveth, the God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, we heard these things, and saw him taken up into heaven. The
elders and the priests and the Levites say to them: Have you come to
give us this announcement, or to offer prayer to God? And they say: To
offer prayer to God. The elders and the chief priests and the Levites
say to them: If you have come to offer prayer to God, why, then, have
you told these idle tales in the presence of all the people? Says
Phinees, the priest, and Adas, the teacher, and Haggai, the Levite, to
the rulers of the synagogues, and the priests and the Levites: If what
we have said and seen be sinful, behold, we are before you; do to us as
seems good in your eyes. And they took the law and made them swear upon
it not to give any more an account of these matters to anyone. And they
gave them to eat and drink and sent them out of the city, having given
them also money, and three men with them; and they sent them away to
Galilee.

And these men, having gone into Galilee, the chief priests and the
rulers of the synagogue, and the elders came together in the synagogue
and locked the door, and lamented with great lamentation, saying: Is
this a miracle that has happened in Israel? And Annas and Caiaphas said:
Why are you so much moved? Why do you weep? Do you not know that his
disciples have given a sum of gold to the guards of the tomb, and have
instructed them to say that an angel came down and rolled away the stone
from the door of the tomb? And the priests and elders said: Be it that
his disciples have stolen his body; how is it that the life has come
into his body, and that he is going about in Galilee? And they, being
unable to give an answer to these things, said, after great hesitation:
It is not lawful for us to believe the uncircumcised.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 15.--And Nicodemus stood up, and stood before the Sanhedrin,
saying: You say well; you are not ignorant, you people of the Lord, of
these men that come down from Galilee, that they fear God, and are men
of substance, haters of covetousness, men of peace; and they have
declared with an oath, we saw Jesus upon the mountain Mamilch with his
disciples, and he taught what we heard from him, and we saw him taken up
into heaven. And no one asked them in what form he went up. For
assuredly, as the book of the Holy Scriptures taught us, Helias also was
taken up into heaven, and Elissaeus cried out with a loud voice, and
Helias threw his sheepskin upon Elissaeus, and Elissaeus threw his
sheepskin upon the Jordan, and crossed and came into Jericho. And the
children of the prophets met him and said, O Elissaeus, where is thy
master Helias? And he said, He has been taken up into heaven. And they
said to Elissaeus, Has not a spirit seized him, and thrown him upon one
of the mountains? But let us take our servants with us and seek him. And
they persuaded Elissaeus, and he went away with them. And they sought him
three days, and did not find him; and they knew that he had been taken
up. And now listen to me, and let us send into every district of Israel
and see, lest, perchance, Christ has been taken up by a spirit and
thrown upon one of the mountains. And this proposal pleased all. And
they sent into every district of Israel and sought Jesus, and did not
find him; but they found Joseph in Arimathea, and no one dared to lay
hands on him.

And they reported to the elders and the priests and the Levites: We have
gone round to every district of Israel, and have not found Jesus; but
Joseph we have found in Arimathea. And hearing about Joseph they were
glad and gave glory to the God of Israel. And the rulers of the
synagogue, and the priests and the Levites, having held a council as to
the manner in which they should meet with Joseph, took a piece of paper
and wrote to Joseph as follows:

Peace to thee! We know that we have sinned against God, and against
thee; and we have prayed to the God of Israel that thou shouldst deign
to come to thy fathers and to thy children, because we all have been
grieved. For, having opened the door, we did not find thee. And we know
that we have counseled evil counsel against thee; but the Lord has
defended thee, and the Lord himself has scattered to the winds our
counsel against thee, O honorable father Joseph.

And they chose from all Israel seven men, friends of Joseph, whom, also,
Joseph himself was acquainted with; and the rulers of the synagogue, and
the priests and the Levites say to them: Take notice; if, after
receiving our letter he read it, know that he will come with you to us.
But if he do not read it, know that he is ill-disposed towards us. And,
having saluted him in peace, return to us. And having blest the men,
they dismissed them. And the men came to Joseph and did reverence to
him, and said to him: Peace to thee! And he said: Peace to you and to
all the people of Israel! And they gave him the roll of the letter. And
Joseph, having received it, read the letter and rolled it up, and
blessed God and said: Blessed be the Lord God, who has delivered Israel,
that they should not shed innocent blood, and blessed be the Lord, who
sent out his angel and covered me under his wings. And he set a table
for them: and they ate and drank and slept there.

And they rose up early and prayed. And Joseph saddled his ass and set
out with the men: and they came to the holy city Jerusalem. And all the
people met Joseph and cried out: Peace to thee in thy coming in! And be
said to all the people: Peace to you! and he kissed them. And the people
prayed with Joseph, and they were astonished at the sight of him. And
Nicodemus received him into his house and made a great feast, and called
Annas and Caiaphas and the elders and the priests and the Levites to his
house. And they rejoiced, eating and drinking with Joseph; and, after
singing hymns, each proceeded to his own house. But Joseph remained in
the house of Nicodemus.

And on the following day, which was the preparation, the rulers of the
synagogue and the priests and the Levites went early to the house of
Nicodemus; and Nicodemus met them and said: Peace to you! And they said:
Peace to thee and to Joseph, and to all thy house and to all the house
of Joseph! And he brought them into his house. And all the Sanhedrin sat
down, and Joseph sat down between Annas and Caiaphas; and no one dared
to say a word to him. And Joseph said: Why have you called me? And they
signaled to Nicodemus to speak to Joseph. And Nicodemus, opening his
mouth, said to Joseph: Father, thou knowest that the honorable teachers
and the priests and the Levites seek to learn a word from thee. And
Joseph said: Ask. And Annas and Caiaphas, having taken the law, made
Joseph swear, saying: Give glory to the God of Israel, and give him
confession; for Achar, being made to swear by the prophet Jesus, did not
forswear himself, but declared unto him all, and did not hide a word
from him. Do thou also, accordingly, not hide from us to the extent of a
word. And Joseph said: I shall not hide from you one word. And they said
to him: With grief were we grieved because thou didst beg the body of
Jesus and wrap it in clean linen and lay it in a tomb. And on account
of this we secured thee in a room where there was no window; and we put
locks and seals upon the doors, and guards kept watching where thou wast
locked in. And on the first day of the week we opened and found thee
not, and were grieved exceedingly; and astonishment fell upon all the
people of the Lord until yesterday. And now relate to us what happened
to thee.

And Joseph said: On the preparation, about the tenth hour, you locked me
up, and I remained all the Sabbath. And at midnight, as I was standing
and praying, the room where you locked me in was hung up by the four
corners, and I saw a light like lightning into my eyes. And I was afraid
and fell to the ground. And some one took me by the hand and removed me
from the place where I had fallen; and moisture of water was poured from
my head even to my feet, and a smell of perfumes came about my nostrils.
And he wiped my face and kissed me, and said to me, Fear not, Joseph:
open thine eyes and see who it is that speaks to thee. And, looking up,
I saw Jesus. And I trembled and thought it was a phantom; and I said the
commandments, and he said them with me. Even so you are not ignorant
that a phantom, if it meet anybody and hear the commandments, takes to
flight. And seeing that he said them with me, I said to him, Rabbi
Helias. And he said to me, I am not Helias. And I said to him, Who art
thou, my lord? And he said to me, I am Jesus, whose body thou didst beg
from Pilate; and thou didst clothe me with clean linen, and didst put a
napkin on my face, and didst lay me in thy new tomb, and didst roll a
great stone to the door of the tomb. And I said to him that was speaking
to me, Show me the place where I laid thee. And he carried me away and
showed me the place where I laid him; and the linen cloth was lying in
it, and the napkin for his face. And I knew that it was Jesus. And he
took me by the hand and placed me, though the doors were locked, in the
middle of my house, and led me away to my bed and said to me, Peace to
thee! And he kissed me and said to me, For forty days go not forth out
of thy house; for, behold, I go to my brethren in Galilee.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAP. 16.--And the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and the
Levites when they heard these words from Joseph, became as dead, and
fell to the ground, and fasted until the ninth hour. And Nicodemus,
along with Joseph, exhorted Annas and Caiaphas, the priests and the
Levites, saying: Rise up and stand upon your feet, and taste bread and
strengthen your souls, because to-morrow is the Sabbath of the Lord. And
they rose up and prayed to God, and ate and drank, and departed every
man to his own house.

And on the Sabbath our teachers and the priests and Levites sat
questioning each other and saying: What is this wrath that has come upon
us? for we know his father and mother. Levi, a teacher, says: I know
that his parents fear God, and do not withdraw themselves from the
prayers, and give the tithes thrice a year. And when Jesus was born his
parents brought him to this place and gave sacrifices and burnt
offerings to God. And when the great teacher, Symeon, took him into his
arms, he said, Now thou sendest away thy servant, Lord, according to thy
word, in peace; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast
prepared before the face of all the peoples; a light for the revelation
of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Symeon blessed
them, and said to Mary his mother, I give thee good news about this
child. And Mary said, It is well, my lord. And Symeon said to her, It is
well; behold, he lies for the fall and the rising again of many in
Israel, and for a sign spoken against; and of thee thyself a sword shall
go through the soul, in order that the reasoning of many hearts may be
revealed.

They say to the teacher Levi: How knowest thou these things? Levi says
to them: Do you not know that from him I learned the law? The Sanhedrin
say to him: We wish to see thy father. And they sent for his father. And
they asked him, and he said to them: Why have you not believed my son?
The blessed and just Symeon himself taught him the law. The Sanhedrin
says to Rabbi Levi: Is the word that you have said true? And he said: It
is true. And the rulers of the synagogue, and the priests and the
Levites said to themselves: Come, let us send into Galilee to the three
men that came and told about his teaching and his taking up, and let
them tell us how they saw him taken up. And this saying pleased all. And
they sent away the three men who had already gone away into Galilee with
them; and they say to them: Say to Rabbi Adas and Rabbi Phinees and
Rabbi Haggai, Peace to you and all who are with you! A great inquiry
having taken place in the Sanhedrin, we have been sent to you to call
you to this holy place, Jerusalem.

And the men set out into Galilee and found them sitting and considering
the law: and they saluted them in peace. And the men who were in Galilee
said to those who had come to them: Peace unto all Israel! And they
said: Peace to you! And they again said to them: Why have you come? And
those who had been sent said: The Sanhedrin call you to the holy city
Jerusalem. And when the men heard that they were sought by the Sanhedrin
they prayed to God, and reclined with the men and ate and drank, and
rose up and set out in peace to Jerusalem.

And on the following day the Sanhedrin sat in the synagogue, and asked
them, saying: Did you really see Jesus sitting on the mountain Mamilch
teaching his eleven disciples, and did you see him taken up? And the men
answered them and said: As we saw him taken up, so also we said.

Annas says: Take them away from one another and let us see whether their
account agrees. And they took them away from one another. And first they
call Adas and say to him: How didst thou see Jesus taken up? Adas says:
While he was yet sitting on the mountain Mamilch and teaching his
disciples, we saw a cloud overshadowing both him and his disciples. And
the cloud took him up into heaven, and his disciples lay upon their
faces upon the earth. And they call Phinees, the priest, and ask him
also, saying: How didst thou see Jesus taken up? And he spoke in like
manner. And they again asked Haggai, and he spoke in like manner. And
the Sanhedrin said: The law of Moses holds: At the mouth of two or three
every word shall be established. Buthem, a teacher, says: It is written
in the law, And Enoch walked with God, and is not, because God took him.
Jairus, a teacher, said: And the death of holy Moses we have heard of,
and have not seen it; for it is written in the law of the Lord, and
Moses died from the mouth of the Lord, and no man knoweth of his
sepulchre unto this day. And Rabbi Levi said: Why did Rabbi Symeon say,
when he saw Jesus, "Behold, he lies for the fall and rising again of
many in Israel, and for a sign spoken against"? And Rabbi Isaac said: It
is written in the law, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who
shall go before thee to keep thee in every good way, because my name has
been called upon him.

Then Annas and Caiaphas said: Rightly have you said what is written in
the law of Moses, that no one saw the death of Enoch, and no one has
named the death of Moses; but Jesus was tried before Pilate, and we saw
him receiving blows and spittings on his face, and the soldiers put
about him a crown of thorns, and he was scourged and received sentence
from Pilate, and was crucified upon the Cranium, and two robbers with
him; and they gave him to drink vinegar with gall, and Longinus, the
soldier, pierced his side with a spear; and Joseph, our honorable
father, begged his body, and he says he is risen; and as the three
teachers say, We saw him taken up into heaven; and Rabbi Levi has given
evidence of what was said by Rabbi Symeon, and that he said, Behold, he
lies for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign
spoken against. And all the teachers said to all the people of the Lord:
If this was from the Lord, and is wonderful in your eyes, knowing you
shall know, O house of Jacob, that it is written, Cursed is every one
that hangeth upon a tree. And another scripture teaches: The gods which
have not made the heaven and the earth shall be destroyed. And the
priests and the Levites said to each other: If this memorial be until
the year that is called Jobel, know that it shall endure forever, and he
hath raised for himself a new people. Then the rulers of the synagogue,
and the priests and the Levites, announced to all Israel, saying: Cursed
is that man who shall worship the work of man's hand, and cursed is the
man who shall worship the creatures more than the Creator. And all the
people said, Amen, amen.

And all the people praised the Lord, and said: Blessed is the Lord, who
hath given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he hath
spoken; there hath not fallen one word of every good word of his that he
spoke to Moses, his servant. May the Lord our God be with us, as he was
with our fathers; let him not destroy us. And let him not destroy us,
that we may incline our hearts to him, that we may walk in all his ways,
that we may keep his commandments and his judgments which he commanded
to our fathers. And the Lord shall be for a king over all the earth in
that day; and there shall be one Lord, and his name one. The Lord is our
king; he shall save us. There is none like thee, O Lord. Great art
thou, O Lord, and great is thy name. By thy power heal us, O Lord, and
we shall be healed; save us, O Lord, and we shall be saved, because we
are thy lot and heritage. And the Lord will not leave his people, for
his great name's sake; for the Lord has begun to make us into his
people.

And all, having sung praises, went away each man to his own house
glorifying God; for his is the glory forever and ever. Amen.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Mommsen, "Roemisches Staatsrecht," III. I. p. 748.

[2] "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," 2d <DW37>., I. p. 185.

[3] "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," 2d <DW37>., I. p. 187.

[4] Josephus, "Wars of the Jews," II. 8, 1.

[5] Josephus, "Ant.," XX. 9, 1.

[6] John xix. 10.

[7] John xviii. 31.

[8] Acts xxv., xxvi.

[9] "The Trial of Jesus," p. 77.

[10] "The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," 1st <DW37>., II. p.
74.

[11] "The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time," p. 118.

[12] "The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time," p. 118.

[13] "The Trial of Jesus," p. 293.

[14] "The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time," p. 413.

[15] "Geschichte des roemischen Criminalprocesses."

[16] "The Trial of Jesus," pp. 291-93.

[17] Dionysius II. 14.

[18] Liv. II. iv. 5.

[19] Heuzey, "Miss. archeol. de Maced.," p. 38.

[20] Accusatores multos esse in civitate utile est, ut metu contineatur
audacia (pro Roscio Amer. 20).

[21] Persa V. 63 _seq._

[22] Fiske, "Manual of Classical Literature," III. Sec. 264.

[23] Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Chap. XLIV.

[24] Const. crim. Theres., Art. 5, par. 2.

[25] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 250.

[26] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 250.

[27] John xix. 38-41.

[28] "History of Madagascar," vol. i. p. 371, 372.

[29] "Records of Travel in Turkey and Greece," vol. i. p. 447.

[30] "The Celtic Druids," p. 126; "Anacalypsis," vol. i. p. 317.

[31] "Anacalypsis," vol. i. p. 217.

[32] Colenso's "Pentateuch Examined," vol. vi. p. 115.

[33] Baring-Gould, "Curious Myths," p. 291.

[34] "Octavius," Chap. XXIX.

[35] "Ancient Art and Mythology," p. 30.

[36] Brinton, "The Myths of the New World," p. 95.

[37] Baring-Gould, "Curious Myths," p. 299.

[38] Vol. iii. Art., "Cross."

[39] Kingsborough, "Mexican Antiquities," vol. vi. 166. p.

[40] "Curious Myths," p. 311.

[41] "Digest," XLVIII. 4.

[42] "De Inventione," II. 17.

[43] Tacitus, "Annals," p. 215.

[44] Dio, Lib. LVIII.

[45] "Annals," B. VI. Chap. II.

[46] Doellinger, "The Gentile and the Jew," vol. ii. p. 33.

[47] Doellinger, "The Gentile and the Jew," vol. ii. p. 172.

[48] "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," pp. 89, 90.

[49] De Legibus.

[50] Correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, Letters XCVII, XCVIII.

[51] Suet., "Caesar Augustus," Chap. LXIV.

[52] Philo, "De Legatione ad Cajum," Sec. 38, ed. Mangey, II. 589 _sq._

[53] Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII. 3, 1.

[54] Apol. c. 21 ("jam pro sua conscientia Cristianum").

[55] "Historical Lectures," 6th ed. p. 350.

[56] Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII. 3, 2.

[57] Scott, "Anne of Geierstein," Chap. I.

[58] Gessner, "Descript. Mont. Pilat," Zuerich, 1555.

[59] Golbery, "Univers Pittoresque de la Suisse," p. 327.

[60] Matt. xxvii. 1, 2.

[61] Mark xv. 1.

[62] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 84.

[63] Josephus, "Wars of the Jews," II. 14, 8; II. 15, 1.

[64] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 87.

[65] Geikie, "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 533.

[66] Acts xxiv. 1.

[67] Acts xxv. 16.

[68] John xviii. 30.

[69] John xviii. 31.

[70] Act IV. Scene i.

[71] Luke xxiii. 2.

[72] Acts xviii. 14, 15.

[73] Matt. xxii. 21.

[74] Matt. xvii. 24, 25.

[75] Matt. xxvi. 18, 19.

[76] Josephus, "Ant.," XVII. 10, 5.

[77] Josephus, "Ant.," XVII. 10, 6.

[78] Josephus, "Ant.," XVII. 10, 7.

[79] John xviii. 33.

[80] Matt. xx. 25.

[81] Matt. xi. 8.

[82] John xviii. 34.

[83] John xviii. 36.

[84] John xviii. 37.

[85] John xviii. 38.

[86] Luke xxiii. 5.

[87] Luke xiii. 32.

[88] Luke xxiii. 8.

[89] Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII. 7, 1, 2.

[90] Luke xxiii. 9.

[91] Luke xxxii. 10.

[92] Luke xxiii. 11.

[93] Tacitus, "Hist.," II. 89.

[94] Luke xxiii. 12.

[95] Luke xxiii. 13-16.

[96] Luke xxiii. 17.

[97] Livy v. 13: "Vinctis quoque demptu vincula."

[98] Matt. xxvii. 16-18.

[99] Matt. xxvii. 20-22.

[100] Vie, par. 131.

[101] Luke xxvii. 19.

[102] John xix. 7.

[103] John xix. 9.

[104] John xix. 15.

[105] John xix. 15.

[106] John xix. 12.

[107] Matt. xxvii. 24.

[108] Matt. xxvii. 26-31.

[109] Keim, "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. p. 87.

[110] Geikie, "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 533.

[111] Geikie, "The Life and Words of Christ," vol. ii. p. 532.

[112] Acts xxiv.; xxv. II; xxvi. 32.

[113] Matt. xxvii. 11.

[114] Mark xv. 2.

[115] Luke xxiii. 3.

[116] John xviii. 37.

[117] Luke xxiii. 4-16.

[118] Luke xxiii. 23, 24.

[119] "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," p. 87.

[120] "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," pp. 93-95.

[121] L. 12, Cod. De poenis, ix. 47: "Vanae voces populi non sunt
audiendae, nec enim vocibus eorum credi oportet quando aut noxium crimine
absolvi aut innocentem condemnari desiderant."

[122] John xix. 10.

[123] Dr. Smith's "History of Greece," Chap. XXXV. p. 418.

[124] 1 Tim. iii. 16.

[125] See Dict. Philos. Art. "Religion."

[126] "Emile."

[127] "Sartor Resartus," 137, 140.

[128] "Herzog's Encyc." vol. v. 751. Art. "Herder."

[129] "Vergaengl. u. Bleibendes im Christenthum," 132.

[130] "Etudes d'Hist. Rel.," pp. 213, 214.

[131] "Jesus of Nazara," vol. vi. pp. 430, 431.

[132] Montholon, "Recit de la Captivite de l'Emp. Napoleon."

[133] Bertrand's "Memoirs," Paris, 1844.

[134] "Je meurs dans la religion catholique, apostolique et romaine,
dans le sein de laquelle je suis ne, il y a plus de cinquante ans."

[135] Doellinger, "The Gentile and the Jew," vol ii. p. 29.

[136] "Preparation of the World for Christ," pp. 380, 381.

[137] Suetonius, "Caesar Augustus," Chap. XCV.

[138] Matt. i. 20.

[139] Matt. ii. 13.

[140] Suetonius, "Caesar Augustus," Chap. XCIV.

[141] Suetonius, "Caesar Augustus," Chap. XCII.

[142] Doellinger, "The Gentile and the Jew," vol. ii. p. 185.

[143] Liv. xl. 59.

[144] Ap. Aug. C.D. VI. 2.

[145] Doellinger, vol. ii. p. 183.

[146] Suetonius, "Caligula," Chap. V.

[147] Mabillon, "Iter. Ital." p. 77.

[148] Pausanias, ix. 17. 1.

[149] De Superst. 6.

[150] M. Dic, quaeso, num te illa terrent? Triceps apud inferos Cerberus?
Cocyti fremitus? travectio Acherontis?

      "Mento summam aquam attingens enectus siti,
    Tantalus, tum illud quod,
      Sisiphus versat
    Saxum sudans nitendo neque proficit hilum,"

fortasse etiam inexorabiles judices Minor et Rhadamanthus? apud quos nec
te L. Crassus defendet, nec M. Antonius; nec, quoniam apud Graecos
judices res agetur, poteris adhibere Demosthenen; tibi ipsi pro te erit
maxima corona causa dicenda. Haec fortasse metuis, et idcirco mortem
censes esse sempiternum malum. A. Adeone me delirare censes, ut ista
esse credam? M. An tu haec non credis? A. Minime vero. M. Male hercule
narras. A. Cur, quaeso. M. Quia disertus esse possem, si contra ista
dicerem.

[151] Sallust, "Bellum Catilinarium, 50."

[152] Renan, "Les Apotres."

[153] "Hamlet," Act III, Scene i.

[154] Doellinger, vol. ii. pp. 175-79.

[155] Dion. ii. 25.

[156] Doellinger, vol. ii. pp. 267-69.

[157] Suetonius, "Julius Caesar," l-li.

[158] Xen. de Rep. Lac. i. 8.

[159] "Polyb. Fragm." in Scr. Vet. Nov. Coll. ed. Mav. ii. 384.

[160] Doellinger, vol. ii. p. 249.

[161] "Xen. Mem. Socr." iii. 13.

[162] Plutarch, "Life of Lucullus."

[163] Fisher, "The Beginnings of Christianity," p. 205.

[164] "Encyc. Brit." vol. iii. p. 436.

[165] Plutarch, "Life of Cato."

[166] Cicero, "Pro Cluent." 66.

[167] Tacitus, "Annals," 42-44.

[168] De Pressense, "The Religions Before Christ," p. 158.

[169] Milman's "Gibbon's Rome," vol. i. p. 51.

[170] Suetonius, "Caligula," Chap. V.

[171] Fisher, "The Beginnings of Christianity," p. 213.

[172] Pliny, Ep. X. 38.

[173] Suetonius, "Julius Caesar," Chap. XLIX.

[174] Doellinger, vol. ii. pp. 253, 254.

[175] Doellinger, vol. ii. pp. 205, 206.

[176] Doellinger, vol. ii. p. 207.

[177] Doellinger, vol. ii. p. 208.

[178] Livy, b. xxxix. Chaps. VII.-XX.

[179] "----non possum ferre, Quirites, Graecam urbem." (Sat. III.)

[180] Romans i. 29-31.

[181] Doellinger, vol ii. pp. 155, 156.

[182] Matthew Arnold's Poems--"Obermann Once More."

[183] Cicero, "De Fin." v. pp. 24, 69.

[184] Eclogue IV.

[185] Matt. ii. 4; xxi. 15; xxvi. 3, 47, 59; Mark xi. 18; xv. 11; Luke
xix. 47; xx. 1; John xi. 47; xii. 20.

[186] Derembourg, "Essai sur l'histoire et la geographie de la
Palestine," p. 231, note 1.

[187] Josephus, "Ant.," Book XX. Chap. X. 1; XV. III. 1.

[188] Josephus, "Ant." Book XV. Chap. III. 1.

[189] Josephus, "Ant.," Book XVIII. Chap. II. 3; Book XX. Chap. IX, 1,
4.

[190] See "Talmud," "Yoma," or "the Day of Atonement," fol. 35, recto;
also Derembourg, work above quoted, p. 230, note 2.

[191] "Essai sur l'histoire et la geographie de la Palestine," p. 232.

[192] Jos., "Ant.," XX. VIII. 8.

[193] "Talmud," "Pesachim," or "of the Passover," fol. 57, verso.

[194] The high priests designated under the name of the descendants of
Eli are those who, as sons of the high priest Eli, polluted the Temple
by their immorality. (See 1 Kings iii. 22-25.)

[195] This Issachar was a priest of such a dainty nature that in order
to touch the sacrifices he covered his hands with silk. ("Talmud,"
"Pesachim," or "of the Passover," fol. 57, verso.)

[196] Rabbi Nathan, son of Rabbi Yechiel, was the disciple of the
celebrated Moses, the preacher and first rabbi of the synagogue at Rome
in the ninth century. His work forms a large folio volume, and contains
some minute explanations of the most difficult passages in the "Talmud."

[197] I. e., lord.

[198] "Talmud," Jerus., "Horayoth," or "Regulations of Justice," fol.
84. recto.

[199] "Talmud," Jerus., "Shevuoth," or "of Oaths," fol. 19, verso.

[200] "Tanchumah," or "Book of Consolation," fol. 68, recto.

[201] "Tanchumah," or "Book of Consolation," fol. 68, recto.

[202] "Tanchumah," or "Book of Consolation," fol. 68, recto, and
"Sanhedrin," fol. 110, verso.

[203] "Talmud," "Shabbath," or "of the Sabbath," fol. 119, recto.

[204] Luke xx. 46; Matt. xxiii. 5-7; Mark xii. 38, 39.

[205] Some remarkable pages respecting the pride of the Jewish scribes
and doctors may be found in Bossuet's "Meditations on the Gospel."

[206] Jos., "Ant.," XVIII. I. 4.

[207] Jos., "Ant.," XVIII. I. 4.

[208] Munk, "Palestine," p. 515.

[209] Psalms.

[210] Acts xxiii. 6.

[211] Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16; ix. 11, 14; xii. 2; xxiii. 5, 15, 23; Luke v.
30; vi. 2, 7; xi. 39, etc.; xviii. 12; John ix. 16; "Perkeh Avoth," or
"Sentences of the Fathers," I. 16; Jos., "Ant.," XVII. II. 4; XVIII. I.
3; "Vita," 38; "Talmud," Bab., "Sotah," fol. 22, recto.

[212] "From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how
that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and
chief priests and scribes." (Matt. xvi. 21.)

[213] "The Credibility of the Gospel History," in the chapter on
"Testimonies of Ancient Heathens," vol. vi. p. 605 _et seq._

[214] "Origin of the Four Gospels," pp. 141-50.




BIBLIOGRAPHY


                          MAIN AUTHORITIES

  THE BIBLE.     English Authorized Version of 1611.

  THE TALMUD.    Babylonian Recension, translated into English by Michael
                 L. Rodkinson. New Talmud Publishing Company, New York,
                 1896.

  THE MISHNA.    Edition of Surenhusius. Amsterdam, 1698-1703. Consulted
                 by the author in the Astor Library, New York City.


                           MINOR AUTHORITIES

  ABBOTT.        Jesus of Nazareth, by Lyman Abbott. Harper Brothers,
                 New York, 1882.

  ANDREWS.       The Life of Our Lord, by Samuel J. Andrews. Charles
                 Scribner's Sons, New York, 1906.

  BARING-GOULD.  Curious Myths of the Middle Ages, by S. Baring-Gould.
                 Roberts Brothers, Boston, 1880.

  BAUR.          The Church History of the First Three Centuries, by F.
                 C. Baur. Translated from German by A. Mendies. London,
                 1878.

  BENNY.         The Criminal Code of the Jews, by Philip Berger Benny.
                 Smith, Elder & Company, London, 1880.

  BLACKSTONE.    Commentaries on the Laws of England, by Sir William
                 Blackstone. Edited and annotated by Thomas M. Cooley.
                 Callaghan & Company, Chicago, 1884.

  CICERO.        M. Tullii Ciceronis orationes. Whittaker & Company,
                 London, 1855.

  DEUTSCH.       The Talmud, by Emanuel Deutsch. The Jewish Publication
                 Society of America, Philadelphia, 1896.

  DOeLLINGER.     The Gentile and the Jew, by John J. I. Doellinger. Two
                 volumes. Gibbings & Company, London, 1906.

  EDERSHEIM.     The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, by Alfred
                 Edersheim. Two volumes. Longmans, Green & Company,
                 New York, 1905.

  FARRAR.        The Life of Christ, by Frederic W. Farrar. E. P. Dutton
                 & Company, New York, 1883.

  FISHER.        The Beginnings of Christianity, by George P. Fisher.
                 Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1906.

  GEIB.          Geschichte des roemischen Criminalprocesses, von Dr.
                 Gustav Geib. Weidmann'sche Buchhandlung. Leipzig, 1842.

  GEIKIE.        The Life and Words of Christ, by Cunningham Geikie.
                 Two volumes. Henry S. King & Company. London, 1877.

  GIBBON.        The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
                 by Edward Gibbon. With notes by Rev. H. H. Milman.
                 Phillips, Sampson & Company, Boston, 1853.

  GRAETZ.        History of the Jews, by Heinrich Graetz. Six volumes.
                 The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia,
                 1891.

  GREENLEAF.     The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Simon Greenleaf.
                 Soney & Sage, Newark, N. J., 1903.

  GREENIDGE.     The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time, by A. H. J.
                 Greenidge. Stevens & Sons, London, 1901.

  HARNACK.       Reden und Aufsaetze, von Adolf Harnack. J. Ricker'sche
                 Verlagsbuchhandlung, Giessen, 1904.

  HIGGINS.       Anacalypsis: An Enquiry into the Origin of Languages,
                 Nations and Religions, by Godfrey Higgins. Longman,
                 Brown & Longman, London, 1827.

  HODGE.         Systematic Theology, by Charles Hodge. Charles
                 Scribner's Sons, New York, 1892.

  INNES.         The Trial of Jesus Christ, by A. Taylor Innes. T. & T.
                 Clark, Edinburgh, 1905.

  JOSEPHUS.      The Works of Flavius Josephus, Whiston's Translation.

  JOST.          Geschichte des Judenthums, von I. M. Jost. Doerffling
                 und Francke, Leipzig, 1857.

  JUVENAL.       The Satires of Juvenal. George Bell & Sons, London,
                 1904.

  KEIM.          Jesus of Nazara, by Theodor Keim. Six volumes. Williams
                 & Norgate, London, 1883.

  LARDNER.       Works of Nathaniel Lardner. Ten volumes. William Ball,
                 London, 1838.

  LEMANN.        Valeur de l'assemblee qui prononca la peine de mort
                 contre Jesus-Christ, par MM. Lemann. Translated from
                 the French into English under the title "Jesus Before
                 the Sanhedrin," by Prof. Julius Magath, of Oxford, Ga.,
                 in 1899.

  LIVY.          The History of Rome, by Titus Livius. George Bell &
                 Sons, London, 1906.

  LOISY.         Les Evangiles Synoptiques, par Alfred Loisy. Librairie
                 Fishbacher, Paris, 1907.

  MENDELSOHN.    The Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews, by
                 S. Mendelsohn. M. Curlander, Baltimore, 1891.

  MOMMSEN.       The Provinces of the Roman Empire, by Theodor Mommsen.
                 Two volumes. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1899.

  MONTESQUIEU.   De l'Esprit Des Lois, par Montesquieu. Garnier Freres,
                 Paris, 1905.

  PALEY.         Evidences of Christianity, by William Paley. The
                 Religious Tract Society, London, 1794.

  RABBINOWICZ.   Legislation Criminelle du Talmud, par I. J. M.
                 Rabbinowicz. Chez l'auteur, Paris, 1876.

  RENAN.         Histoire des origines du christianisme, par Joseph
                 Ernest Renan. Paris, 1863. Livres 1-6: 1. Vie de Jesus.
                 2. Les apotres. 3. Saint Paul. 4. L'Antichrist. 5. Les
                 evangiles et la seconde generation chretienne.
                 6. L'eglise chretienne.

  ROSADI.        The Trial of Jesus by Giovanni Rosadi.
                 Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1905.

  SALVADOR.      Histoire des Institutions de Moise, par J. Salvador.
                 Michel Levy-Freres, Paris, 1862.

  SCHUeRER.       The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, by Emil
                 Schuerer. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1906.

  STEPHEN.       Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, by James Fitzjames
                 Stephen. Henry Holt & Company, New York, 1873.

  SUETONIUS.     The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, by C. Suetonius
                 Tranquillus. George Bell & Sons, London, 1906.

  TACITUS.       The Works of Tacitus. American Book Company, New York,
                 1904.

  WISE.          The Martyrdom of Jesus, by Isaac M. Wise. The Bloch
                 Publishing and Printing Company, Cincinnati & Chicago,
                 1888.


In addition to the above, many other authorities have been consulted in
the preparation of the two volumes of this work. Quotations from them
are frequently found in the text, and citations are given in the notes.
The author, in closing the article, entitled "Bibliography," wishes to
express his sense of great indebtedness and appreciation to the numerous
very valuable encyclopedias that adorn the shelves of the various
libraries of New York City; and especially to The Jewish Encyclopedia,
published by Funk & Wagnalls, New York and London, 1901.




INDEX


  A

  Abarbanel, Isaac, on the Sanhedrin, I, 106

  Ab-beth-din, vice-president of the Sanhedrin, I, 112

  Abbott, Lyman, on the scribes of the Sanhedrin, I, 158

  Acts of Pilate, the Apocryphal,
    modern criticism of, II, 327
    discovery of, II, 327
    Lardner on the authenticity of, II, 328 _seq._
    Tischendorf on the authenticity of, II, 345 _seq._
    antiquity of, II, 351
    text of, II, 351 _seq._

  AEbutius, Publius, part of, in the exposure of Bacchanalian orgies, II,
  271 _seq._

  AEdile, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36

  AEsculapius, Graeco-Roman divinity, II, 198

  Akiba, Jewish rabbi, Mishna systematized by, I, 79

  Albanus, Roman governor, his deposition of Albanus, II, 296

  Alcmene, myth of Zeus and, II, 265

  Alexander, Jewish Alabarch, biographical note on, II, 299

  Alexander III, pope, genuineness of "true cross" attested by bull of,
  II, 63

  Alexandrian MS. of the Bible, I, 67

  Ananias ben Nebedeus, Jewish priest,
    biographical note on, II, 299
    family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 302

  Ananos. See Annas

  Ananus, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 296

  Anathemas, Jewish, against the Christians, II, 307, 308

  Anaxagoras, Greek philosopher,
    on the deification of natural forces, II, 225
    his exposure of the divination of Lampon, II, 226

  Annanias, author of "Acts of Pilate," II, 351

  Annas (Ananos), Jewish high priest,
    examination of Christ before, I, 238-247
    deposition of, by Gratus, I, 244; II, 20
    Christ examined in house of, I, 256
    biographical note on, II, 295
    legendary examination of Joseph of Arimathea, II, 374, 376

  Antecedent Warning, peculiar provision of Hebrew Criminal Law
  regarding, I, 147-152

  Antistius, L., Roman tribune, impeachment of Julius Caesar by, II, 46

  Antoninus Pius, Roman emperor, persecution of Christians by, II, 78

  Aphrodisia, rites of, II, 265

  Aphrodite, Greek divinity, patroness of prostitutes, II, 265

  Aquillius, Manlius, Roman governor, trial of, before the Comitia, II, 40

  Antonius, Marcus, Roman advocate, defense of, of Manlius Aquillius, II,
  40

  Aristotle, Greek philosopher, on the licentiousness of Sparta, II, 241

  Arnold, Matthew, on despair of Roman people, II, 286

  Arnobius, Numidian writer,
    on the familiar treatment of Roman gods, II, 218
    on the lewdness of the Roman drama, II, 267

  Art, effect of, in corruption of Roman and Greek morals, II, 268

  Aspasia, mistress of Pericles, II, 242

  Athens, domestic licentiousness of, II, 240, 241

  Athronges, Jewish peasant, revolt of, II, 110

  Atticus, Numerius, Roman senator, attests ascent of Augustus to heaven,
  II, 234

  Atys, myth of, represented on Greek and Roman stage, II, 267

  Augurs,
    Roman priests, II, 204
    spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267

  Augury, modes of, II, 211

  Augustus Caesar, Roman emperor,
    reign and policy of, II, 25, 26
    care of profligate daughter Julia, II, 83
    belief of, in omens, II, 215
    his chastisement of Neptune, II, 222
    deification of, II, 233

  Aurelius Antoninus, Marcus, Roman emperor and philosopher,
    persecution of Christianity by, II, 78
    adoration of Serapis by, II, 217
    on suicide, II, 232


  B

  Bacchanalian orgies, Livy's account of, II, 270-283

  Bacchus, Roman deity, licentious festivals of, II, 265

  Barabbas (Bar Abbas) released by Pilate, II, 131, 138, 363

  Baring-Gould, S., on the symbolism of the Cross, II, 66

  Baths, Roman, splendor of, II, 247

  Beheading of criminals under Hebrew Law, I, 91, 99

  Benny,
    on the Talmud, I, 75
    on internment in Jewish Cities of Refuge, I, 98, 99

  Bernhardt, Sarah, insulted in Quebec, II, 182

  Bernice (Berenice), Jewish queen, a suppliant before Florus, II, 100

  Bible,
    the manuscripts of, I, 67
    purity of text of, I, 69
    anthropomorphism of, I, 336-338
    influence of, II, 4, 5
    "Birchath Hamminim" Jewish imprecation against Christians, II, 308

  Blasphemy,
    discussion of charge against Christ of, I, 193-209
    Hebrew definition of, I, 199-201
    classification of, I, 203

  Boethus, family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 301. See also Simon

  Bossuet, Jacques B., French divine, on the citizenship of Christ, II,
  108

  Brothels, Roman, dedication of, to Venus, II, 265

  Burning of criminals under Hebrew Law, I, 92, 99


  C

  Caesar, Caius Julius,
    10th legion cowed by, II, 169
    superstition of, II, 205
    disbelief of, in immortality, II, 229
    deification of, II, 233
    divorces of, II, 238
    profligacy of, II, 238, 239
    unnatural practices attributed to, II, 263

  Caiaphas, Jewish high priest,
    accusation of, against Christ, before Sanhedrin, I, 190
    erratic conduct of, at trial of Christ, I, 290
    role of, in trial of Jesus before Pilate, II, 101
    biographical note on, II, 295
    legendary examination of Joseph of Arimathea by, II, 374, 376

  Caligula, Roman emperor,
    deifies his sister Drusilla, II, 234
    depravity of, II, 234

  Cantharus, family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 301

  Capital Crimes under Hebrew Criminal Law, classification and
  punishments of, I, 91-101

  Carlyle, Thomas, on the life of Christ, II, 187

  Cassius, Dion, on the labeling of Roman criminals, I, 57

  Cato, Marcus Porcius,
    contempt of, for the haruspices, II, 228
    suicide of, II, 232
    divorces of, II, 237
    contempt of, for Lucullus, II, 246
    merciless treatment of slaves, II, 251

  Catulus, Quintus, dream of, presaging accession of Augustus, II, 214

  Chanania, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314

  Chanania ben Chiskia, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 309

  Charles IX, king of France, bloody sweat of, I, 59, 60

  Christianity, conflict of, with Roman paganism, I, 16; II, 76-79

  Chrysostom, St. John, on the legendary desire of Tiberius to deify
  Christ, II, 344

  Cicero, Marcus Tullius,
    dream of, presaging accession of Augustus, II, 215
    on Roman superstition, II, 221
    on Roman skepticism, II, 227
    his divorce of his wife, II, 237
    witticism of, upon Caesar's gallantries, II, 239

  Cities of Refuge, Jewish, internment in, I, 96-99

  Claudia, granddaughter of Augustus,
    marriage of, to Pilate, II, 82
    dream of, regarding Jesus, II, 133, 355

  Claudius, Roman commander, throws sacred pullets into the sea, II, 222

  Clement V, pope, and the Talmud, I, 88, 89

  Coliseum, the, description of, II, 260

  Comitia Centuriata,
    public criminal trials in, II, 37-43
    miscarriage of justice in, II, 38-42

  Commodus, Roman emperor, deification of, II, 234

  Consul, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36

  Coke, Sir Edward, contrast between Pilate and, II, 170-172

  Cornelius, son of Ceron, the elder, biographical note on, II, 321

  Cross, Roman instrument of death,
    erroneous representations of, II, 56
    forms of, II, 62
    use of, by various races as religious symbol, II, 64-67

  "Cross, the True," legends of, II, 62, 63

  Crucifixion,
    Plutarch on, I, 56
    history of, II, 54, 55
    mode of, II, 55
    pathology of, II, 58, 59
    Roman citizens exempt from, II, 54
    of Jesus, II, 365

  Cybele, Roman deity, importation of, from Phrygia, II, 199


  D

  Deification of Roman emperors, ceremony of, II, 234

  Dembowski, Bishop, and the Talmud, I, 88

  Demosthenes, on the women of Athens, II, 242

  Derembourg, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294

  Deutsch, Emanuel,
    on the Talmud, I, 74, 80
    on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I,
    179, 181

  Diocletian, Roman emperor, deification of, II, 233

  Divination, Roman modes of, II, 211

  Divorce,
    among the Romans, II, 236-239
    trivial pretexts for, II, 237, 238

  Doellinger,
    on the Roman view of Christianity and high treason, II, 77
    on divorce, and the profligacy of Roman matrons, II, 236
    on the effect of art in corrupting Greek and Roman manners, II, 268

  Domitian, Roman emperor, self-deification of, II, 235

  Doras, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 321

  Dorotheas, son of Nathanael, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II,
  321

  Drama, the, licentiousness of, among Greeks and Romans, II, 266

  Dreams, interpretation of, among Romans and Greeks, II, 213, 214

  Druidism, annihilation of, II, 73

  Drusilla, deified by Caligula, II, 234

  Dysmas, legendary name of one of the thieves crucified with Jesus, II,
  364


  E

  Edersheim, Alfred, on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time
  of Christ, I, 177

  Elders, Jewish chamber of. See Sanhedrin

  Eleazar ben Partah, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314

  Eleazar, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II,
  295

  Eleazar, son of Simon Boethus, Jewish high priest, biographical note
  on, II, 297

  Eliezer, Jewish rabbi, Mishna amplified by, I, 79

  Ellicott, Dr., on the character of Pilate, II, 91

  Epicurus, Greek philosopher, II, 229

  Epicureanism, degradation of, among Romans, II, 230

  Epitaphs, irreligious Roman, II, 222, 285

  Epulos, Roman priests, II, 204

  Etruria, importation of haruspices from, II, 210

  Eusebius, reference of, to the "Acts of Pilate," II, 329, 333, 344

  Evhemere, on the Greek gods, II, 225

  Evangelists,
    honesty of, I, 12
    character of, I, 13, 14
    motives of, I, 15
    ability of, I, 18
    candor of, I, 20-24
    discrepancies of, I, 29-33
    corroborative elements of narrative of, I, 34-39
    impossibility of collusion among, I, 38
    conformity of narrative of, with human experience, I, 39
    coincidence of testimony of, with collateral circumstances, I, 52-67
    narrative of, confirmed by profane historians, I, 56, 57

  Evidence, rules of, under Hebrew Law, I, 144, 145


  F

  False swearing under Hebrew Criminal Law, I, 93

  Fathers, Church, writings of the, I, 68

  Fecenia, Hispala, part of, in exposure of Bacchanalian orgies, II,
  271 _seq._

  Felix, Minucius, Christian father, controversy of, with pagans on
  adoration of the cross, II, 64

  Flagellation, under Hebrew Criminal, I, 94

  Flamens,
    Roman priests, II, 204
    spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267


  G

  Gallio, pro-consul of Achaia, attitude of, toward Jewish clamors, II,
  107

  Gamaliel, Jewish rabbi, biographical note on, II, 304

  Ganymede, depraving influence of myth of rape of, II, 262

  Gavazzi, Alessandro, sermons of, in Coliseum, II, 262

  Geib, on the status of Judea, II, 16 on the courts of the Roman
  Provinces, II, 32

  Geikie, Cunningham,
    on the non-existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, 181
    on the character of the trial of Jesus before Sanhedrin, I, 184

  Gemara,
    the Jerusalem and Babylonian recensions of, I, 81
    relation of, to Mishna, I, 83. See also Talmud and Mishna

  Germanicus,
    Caesar temples profaned on death of, II, 222
    exposure of children born on day of death of, II, 254

  Gestas, legendary name of one of thieves crucified with Jesus, II, 364

  Golden House of Nero, II, 246

  Gibbon, Edward,
    on the jurisdiction of the great Sanhedrin, I, 120
    on the laws of the Twelve Tables, II, 53
    on the extent of the Roman Empire, II, 196

  Gladiatorial games,
    origin of, II, 256
    gigantic scale of, in Rome, II, 256, 257
    conduct of, II, 258

  Gospels, the, admissibility of, as legal evidence, I, 5-12

  Governors, Roman,
    powers of, II, 24, 27, 28, 29
    forbidden to take wives to their provinces, II, 84, 85

  Graetz, Heinrich, on the existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of
  Christ, I, 181

  Greeks,
    superstition of, II, 223
    philosophy of, II, 229
    depraving effect on Romans of art, literature, and manners of, II,
    240-244, 268, 284
    Bacchanalian orgies introduced by, II, 270
    invective of Juvenal against, II, 284

  Greenidge, on the interpretation of native law by Roman propraetors, II,
  31

  Greenleaf, Simon, American jurist,
    on the admissibility of the Scriptures as legal evidence, I, 6-9
    on the testimony of the Evangelists, I, 10, 11
    on the legal justice of the conviction of Christ for blasphemy, I,
    209


  H

  Hacksab ben Tzitzith, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 320

  "Hall of Hewn Stones," sessions of Sanhedrin in, I, 117

  Haruspices, Roman, account of, II, 210

  Helcias, Jewish treasurer, biographical note on, II, 300

  Helena, Empress, legendary discovery of "true cross" by, II, 62

  Hercules, Greek divinity, burning of, represented on Greek and Roman
  stage, II, 267

  Herder, Johann, on the character of Christ, II, 187

  Herod Antipas,
    character of, II, 120
    his treatment of Jesus, II, 122-127

  Herod I, the Great,
    last will of, II, 119, 120
    arbitrary changes of, in high priesthood, II, 293

  Hetairai, status of, in Athens, II, 242, 243

  High priest, Jewish,
    vestments of, I, 158
    abuses in appointment of, II, 293

  Hillel, Jewish doctor, inspiration of, I, 84

  Hillel, School of,
    and the Mishna, I, 79
    dissensions of, with School of Shammai, II, 309

  Homer, the bible of the Greeks, II, 264

  Honorius IV, pope, and the Talmud, I, 87

  Horatius, trial of, before the Comitia Centuriata, II, 40


  I

  Ignatius, St., martyrdom of, in Coliseum, II, 261

  Impalement, death by, II, 61

  Infanticide, among Romans, II, 254

  Inkerman, story of soldier killed at battle of, II, 191

  Innes,
    on the trials of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, I, 185; II, 10
    on the cowardice of Pilate, II, 138

  Interpreters, not allowed in Jewish courts, I, 107

  Imprisonment. See Law, Hebrew Criminal, I, 93

  Ishmael, Jewish rabbi, and the Mishna, I, 79

  Ismael ben Eliza, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 309

  Ismael ben Phabi, Jewish high priest,
    biographical note on, II, 298
    family of, cursed in Talmud, II, 301

  Isis, Egyptian deity,
    rites of, established in Rome, II, 217
    Roman temples of, a resort of vice, II, 269

  Issachar ben Keifar Barchi, Jewish priest, cursed in Talmud, II, 302


  J

  James, brother of Jesus, condemnation of, by Ananus, II, 296

  Janus, Roman god, invocations of, II, 207

  Jehovah, appearances of, in human form, I, 343-349

  Jerome, St., on the Jewish anathema against Christians, II, 308

  Jesus, the Christ,
    human perfection of, I, 14; II, 186
    scourging of, I, 56, 57
    breaking of legs of, by soldiers, I, 57
    bloody sweat of, I, 59, 60
    physical cause of death of, I, 61, 62
    watery issue of, I, 60-62
    devotion of women to, I, 66
    resurrection of, I, 211; II, 368
    divinity of, I, 211, 212
    celebrates the Paschal feast, I, 220-224
    at Gethsemane, I, 224-226
    arrest of, I, 225
    private examination of, before high priest, I, 238-247
    charged with sedition and blasphemy I, 250
    annnounces his Messiahship before Sanhedrin, I, 273, 274
    Messianic prophecies fulfilled in Him, I, 323-328, 341, 342
    miracles of, I, 350-355
    at morning session of Sanhedrin, I, 356-362
    condemned to death by Sanhedrin, I, 365
    His teachings treasonable under Roman law, II, 72
    before Pilate, II, 96 _seq._
    charged with high treason before Pilate, II, 106, 352
    indictment of, before Pilate, II, 107-109
    acquitted by Pilate, II, 116
    sent by Pilate to Herod, II, 118
    before Herod, II, 119 _seq._
    mocked, and sent back to Pilate by Herod, II, 127
    second appearance of, before Pilate, II, 129 _seq._
    delivered to Jews by Pilate, II, 138
    mocked by mob, II, 139
    tributes of skeptics to, II, 187
    Napoleon's tribute to, II, 189, 190
    charged by Jews with illegitimacy, II, 356
    crucifixion of, II, 365
    See also trial of Jesus, Hebrew, and trial of Jesus, Roman

  Jesus ben Sie, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 298

  Jews, the political state of,
    at time of Jesus, II, 11-23
    discussion of their responsibility for Christ's death, II, 174-180
    prejudices against, II, 180-187
    distinguished, II, 185, 186

  Joazar, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 296

  Jochanan ben Zakai, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 311

  John, St.,
    at the sepulcher, I, 37
    at the crucifixion of Christ, I, 65

  John, St., Gospel of, style of, I, 19

  John, Jewish priest, biographical note on, II, 299

  Jonathan, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II,
  295

  Jonathan ben Uziel, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 306

  John, son of John, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 321

  Joseph of Arimathea,
    presence of, at trials of Christ, I, 282-286, 364
    biographical note on, II, 318
    receives body of Jesus from Pilate, II, 366
    apocryphal account of escape of, from Jews, II, 367, 373-376

  Josephus, Flavius,
    on the character of Pilate, I, 21
    on scourging I, 56
    on the Pharisees, I, 87
    on the existence of the great Sanhedrin at time of Christ, I, 176
    on the loss, by Jews, of power of life and death, II, 19
    on the rapacity of the high priests, II, 301

  Jowett, Benjamin, upon the corruption of Rome, II, 240

  Judah, the Holy, Jewish rabbi, and the composition of the Mishna, I, 79,
  80

  Judas, son of Hezekiah, Jewish rebel, put to death by Herod, II, 109

  Judas Iscariot, his betrayal of Christ, I, 227-235

  Julia, daughter of Augustus,
    profligacy of, II, 82
    marriages of, II, 83

  Julian, Roman emperor, his defiance of Mars, II, 222

  Juno, Roman divinity, sacrifices to, II, 208

  Jupiter, Roman deity,
    multitudinous forms of, II, 203
    sacrifices to, II, 208

  Justin Martyr, reference of, to "Acts of Pilate," II, 331, 346, 348

  Juvenal, Satires of, on Roman social depravity, II, 240, 244, 248


  K

  Keim, Theodor,
    on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I,
    178
    on the character of Christ, II, 188, 189

  Knight, R. P., on the symbolism of the Cross, II, 65

  Koran, the, I, 77


  L

  Lamartine, Alphonse, on the death of Christ, II, 3

  Lampon, Greek diviner, exposed by Anaxagoras, II, 226

  Lardner, on the authenticity of the "Acts of Pilate," II, 328 _seq._

  Law, Hebrew Criminal,
    administration of, I, 153, 154
    basis of, I, 73, 84, 85
    burial of bodies after execution under, I, 101, 171
    capital punishments under, I, 91-93, 99-101
    circumstantial evidence under, I, 144
    Cities of Refuge under, I, 96
    courts and judges, I, 102-126
    execution under, I, 170, 171
    false swearing under, I, 93
    flagellation under, I, 94
    imprisonment under, I, 93
    peculiarities of, I, 125, 132, 147, 167, 168
    slavery under, I, 95
    tenderness of, for human life, I, 154, 155, 310
    testimony under, I, 144-147
    witnesses under, I, 127-144
    written and documentary evidence irrelevant, I, 133, 145

  Laws, Roman,
    lex Appuleia, II, 69
    Cornelia, II, 69
    Julia Majestatis, II, 69, 80
    Memmia, II, 46
    Porcia, II, 54
    Remmia, II, 49
    Talionis, II, 53
    Valeria, II, 37, 54
    Varia, II, 69

  Lazarus, raising of, from the dead, I, 352

  Lectisternia, Roman banquets to the gods,
    slaves released at, II, 130
    indecencies of, II, 218

  Lemann, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291

  Lepidus, Marcus, Roman patrician, magnificence of, II, 246

  Livy,
    on scourging, I, 57
    account of Bacchanalian orgies, II, 270-283

  Longinus, legendary name of soldier who pierced Christ, II, 379

  Lucullus, Roman patrician, luxury of, II, 244

  Luke, St., occupation of, I, 19

  Luke, St., Gospel of, style of, I, 19

  Lupercals, Roman priests, II, 204

  Luxury of the Romans, II, 244

  Lycurgus, code of, II, 241


  M

  Macarius, identification of "true cross" by, II, 63

  Macaulay, Lord, speech of, on Jewish disabilities, II, 184

  Mahomet, character of, I, 14

  Malchus, ear of, cut off by Peter, I, 36, 226

  Magath, Julius, extract from work of, II, 291

  Maimonides,
    on Hebrew Capital Crimes, I, 91
    on the prohibition of nocturnal trials, I, 255, 256

  Manlius, Marcus, trial of, before the Comitia Centuriata, II, 40

  Marius, Caius, assassin cowed by, I, 62

  Mark, St., Jesus arrested at home of, I, 220

  Marriage,
    among the Romans, II, 236
    among the Greeks, II, 240-243

  Marcius, Quintus, Roman consul, motion of, on the suppression of the
  Bacchanalian orgies, II, 282

  Mars, Roman deity, II, 208

  Messiah, the,
    prophecies regarding, and their fulfillment in Jesus, I, 322-328
    varying expectations of Jews regarding, I, 319-322; II, 110
    conception of Pharisees of, II, 324
    conception of Sadducees of, II, 325

  Matthew, St., occupation of, I, 19

  Matthias, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II,
  296

  Mendelssohn, on the Talmud, I, 75

  Messalina, Roman empress, lewdness of, II, 244

  Messalinus, Cotta, prosecuted for treason, II, 70

  Metrodorus on the Greek gods, II, 226

  Mezeray, de, on the bloody sweat of Charles IX, I, 60

  Minerva, Roman deity, II, 208

  Miracles,
    probability of, I, 40-51
    Spinoza on, I, 40-43
    Renan on, I, 44
    of Christ, I, 351-354

  Mishna, the,
    E. Deutsch on, I, 80
    subdivisions of, I, 80
    relation of Talmud to, I, 83
    traditional view of, I, 84
    on capital and pecuniary cases, I, 155, 156. See also Gemara and
    Talmud.

  Mommsen, Theodor,
    on the jurisdiction of native courts of Roman subject peoples, II,
    15
    on Roman marital looseness, II, 243
    on Roman extravagance, II, 247

  Montefiore, Sir Moses, anecdote of, II, 180

  Mosaic Code, the, a basis of Hebrew Criminal Law, I, 73, 84, 85

  Mueller, Johannes, explodes legend of Pilate and Lake Lucerne, II, 95


  N

  Nachum Halbalar, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314

  Naevius, Marcus, accusation of Scipio Africanus by, II, 41

  Napoleon I,
    fickleness of populace toward, I, 63, 64
    tribute of, to Jesus, II, 189
    religious faith of, II, 190, 191

  Nasi, prince of the Sanhedrin, I, 112

  Nathan, Jewish rabbi, note on, II, 315, note

  Neptune, Roman deity, II, 208

  Nero, Roman emperor,
    deification of, II, 234
    Golden House of, II, 246

  Ney, Michel, French marshal, compared with St. Peter, I, 64

  Nicodemus, Jewish elder,
    presence of, at trial of Christ, I, 282-286
    defense of Christ before Sanhedrin, I, 305
    presence and conduct of, at second trial of Jesus by Sanhedrin, I,
    364
    biographical note on, II, 319
    apocryphal account of pleading of, for Jesus before Pilate, II, 360
    Gospel of. See "Acts of Pilate"

  Nordau, Max, on Jewish pride in Jesus, II, 188


  O

  Oaths, not administered to witnesses, under Jewish law, I, 134

  Octavian. See Augustus

  Omens, belief of Romans in, II, 215

  Onkelos, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 305

  Oracle, Delphic, consulted by Romans, II, 210

  Osiris, Egyptian deity, the cross a symbol of, II, 66

  Ovid, Roman poet, on unnatural practices in temples, II, 269


  P

  Paganism, Graeco-Roman,
    conflict of, with Christianity, I, 16; II, 76-79
    Hellenization of Roman religion, II, 199
    importation of foreign gods, II, 200
    origin and multiplicity of Roman gods, II, 198-204
    Roman priesthood, II, 204, 205
    Roman forms of worship, II, 205-209
    perplexity of worshipers regarding deities, II, 207
    prayer, II, 207, 208-210
    augury and divination, II, 210-215
    omens, II, 215, 216
    decay of Roman faith, II, 217-220
    Roman skepticism, II, 220-229
    sacrilege among Romans, II, 221
    disbelief of Romans in immortality, II, 228, 229
    Epicureanism among the Romans, II, 229-231
    stoicism, II, 231-233
    deification of Roman emperors, II, 233-235
    base deities of Romans, II, 265
    effect of religion in Greek and Roman social corruption, II, 269

  Palace of Herod, description of, II, 96, 97

  Paley, William, on the discrepancies of the Gospels, I, 32, 33

  Pan, Graeco-Roman divinity, feasts of, II, 265

  Paul, St.,
    on the depravity of Rome, II, 284
    delivery of, to Felix, II, 299

  Pericles, Greek tyrant, and the divination of Lampon, II, 226

  Pentateuch, the, a basis of Hebrew jurisprudence, I, 73

  Permanent Tribunals (quaestiones perpetuae), mode of trials before, at
  Rome, II, 43-52

  Peter, St.,
    at the sepulcher, I, 37
    compared with Marshal Ney, I, 64
    and Malchus, I, 36, 226

  Pharisees,
    and the Talmud, I, 87
    attitude of, toward the law, I, 338
    dominant in priestly order, II, 302
    their conception of the Messiah, II, 324
    characteristics of, II, 324

  Philip, St., and the feeding of the five thousand, I, 35

  Phillips, Wendell, on Hindu swordsmanship, I, 48

  Philo, Jewish philosopher, on the character of Pilate, I, 21; II, 89-91

  Phryne, mistress of Praxiteles anecdote of, II, 242

  Pilate, Pontius,
    powers of, as procurator of Judea, II, 27-31
    name and origin of, II, 81, 82
    marriage of, II, 82
    becomes procurator of Judea, II, 84
    provokes the Jews, II, 85
    appropriates funds from Corban, II, 86
    hangs shields in Herod's palace, II, 88
    slays Galileans, II, 88
    character of, I, 21; II, 88
    canonization of, II, 89
    ordered to Rome by Vitellius, II, 92
    legends regarding death of, II, 92-94
    interrogation of Jesus, II, 112-115
    talents of, II, 115
    his opinion of Jesus, II, 115
    acquits Jesus, II, 116
    sends Jesus to Herod, II, 117
    reconciled with Herod, II, 128
    offers to release Barabbas, II, 130
    warned by wife's dream of Jesus, II, 133, 355
    washes his hands of Christ's death, II, 137, 364
    releases Barabbas, II, 138, 363
    summary of his conduct of Christ's trial, II, 168
    conduct of, compared with Caesar, II, 169; with Sir Edward Coke, II,
    170-172

  Pindar, Greek poet, denunciation of, of vulgar superstitions, II, 224

  Plato, Greek philosopher,
    unnatural love of, II, 263
    reprobation of Homeric myths, II, 264

  Pliny, the Younger,
    correspondence of, with Trajan, II, 78
    disbelief of, in immortality, II, 229
    on slavery, II, 203

  Plutarch,
    on crucifixion, I, 56
    anecdotes of Lucullus, II, 244-246

  Polybius, on Roman pederasty, II, 263

  Pompeia divorced by Caesar, II, 238

  Pompey, Cneius, the Great,
    conquest of Palestine by, II, 11
    defeated at Pharsalia, II, 25
    divorce of his wife Mucia, II, 238

  Pontiffs, Roman, II, 204

  Poppaea, wife of Nero, deification of, II, 77

  Postumius, Spurius, Roman consul, suppression of Bacchanalians by, II,
  270-283

  Praetor, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36

  Priesthood, Roman. See Roman religion

  Priests, Jewish Chamber of. See Sanhedrin

  Procurator, Roman, jurisdiction of, II, 27, 28

  Provinces, Roman, classification of, by Augustus, II, 27


  Q

  Quetzalcoatle, crucified Savior, worshiped by Mexicans, II, 66


  R

  Rabbi, origin of Jewish title of, II, 315

  Rabbis, Jewish, arrogance of, II, 316

  Raphall, Morris, on the origin of the Sanhedrin, I, 104

  Rawlinson, George, on the political state of Judea at the time of
  Christ, II, 11

  Religions, policy of Romans toward foreign, and of conquered peoples,
  II, 72-74

  Renan, Ernest,
    on miracles, I, 44-47
    on the "judicial ambush" of blasphemers, I, 235
    on the character of Pilate, II, 90
    on the character of Christ, II, 187, 188

  Richard III, King of England, contest of, with Saladin, I, 48

  Richter on the pathology of crucifixion, II, 58, 59

  Rosadi,
    on the confession of the accused under Hebrew law, I, 143
    on the hatred of Pilate toward the Jews, II, 98
    on the order of criminal trials in Roman provinces, II, 32

  Rousseau, Jean Jacques, on the death of Christ, II, 187

  Romans,
    laws of, the basis of modern jurisprudence, II, 5
    policy of, toward subject peoples, II, 13-15
    responsibility of, for Christ's death, II, 174-176
    religion of. See Paganism

  Ruga, Carvilius, first Roman to procure a divorce, II, 236


  S

  Sacrifice, human, among the Romans, II, 209

  Sadducees,
    attitude of, toward the law, I, 338
    attitude of, toward anthropomorphism of Pentateuch, I, 338
    dominant in the Sanhedrin, I, 339
    disbelief of, in immortality, II, 322
    wealth and rank of, II, 322

  Saladin, Saracen Sultan, contest of, with Richard III, I, 48

  Salians, Roman priests, II, 204

  Sallust, Roman historian, on the conspiracy of Cataline, II, 229

  Salvador, Joseph, on the existence of the Great Sanhedrin at the time of
  Christ, I, 177

  Samuel, Hakaton, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 307

  Sanctuary, right of, among ancient peoples, I, 96

  Sanhedrin, the Great,
    origin of, I, 103
    history of, I, 104
    organization of, I, 105
    chamber of scribes, I, 105; II, 303
    chamber of elders, I, 105; II, 318
    chamber of priests, I, 105; II, 292
    qualifications of members of, I, 106
    disqualifications of judges of, I, 109
    officers of, I, 112
    compensation of officers of, I, 115
    sessions of, I, 116
    recruitment of personnel of, I, 117
    quorum of, I, 119
    jurisdiction of, I, 119
    appeals to, from minor Sanhedrins, I, 120
    morning sacrifice of, I, 157
    assembling of judges of, I, 158
    scribes of, I, 158, 159
    examination of witnesses by, I, 159-162
    debates and balloting of judges of, I, 162
    procedure of, in cases of condemnation of accused, I, 165-167
    method of counting votes, I, 167, 168
    death march of, I, 169, 170
    question of existence of, at time of Christ, I, 175-181
    jurisdiction of, in capital cases at the time of Christ, I, 181-183
    discussion of trial of Christ before, I, 183-186
    procedure of, in trial of Christ before, I, 186
    illegality of proceedings of, against Christ, I, 255-259, 260-262,
    263-266, 267-270, 287-294
    illegality of sentence of, against Christ, I, 271-278, 279-286
    disqualifications of members of, who condemned Christ, I, 296-308
    morning session of, at trial of Christ, I, 356-364
    three sessions of, to discuss Christ, I, 305, 306
    authority of, after Roman conquest, II, 12, 16, 21
    deprived by Romans of power of capital punishment, II, 19, 20
    biographical sketches of members of, who tried Jesus, II, 291-326

  Sanhedrins, minor,
    appeals from, to Great Sanhedrin, I, 120
    establishment of, I, 121
    jurisdiction of, I, 121
    superior rank of those of Jerusalem, I, 123, 124

  Saul, Abba, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 313

  Savonarola, Girolamo, Florentine reformer, burning of, I, 63

  Scaurus, Manercus, prosecuted for treason, II, 70

  Sceva, Jewish priest, biographical note on, II, 300

  Schenck, account of, of the bloody sweat of a nun, I, 59

  Schuerer,
    on the existence of the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ, I, 176
    on the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, II, 18
    on the administration of civil law by Sanhedrin, II, 30

  Scipio Africanus, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata, II, 41

  Scott, Sir Walter, on the contest between Richard III and Saladin, I,
  47, 48

  Scourging,
    of Jesus, I, 56
    mode of, among Romans, II, 55

  Scribes, Jewish, Edersheim on, I, 302

  Scribes, Jewish Chamber of. See Sanhedrin

  Segnensis, Henricus, anecdote of, illustrative of mediaeval ignorance
  regarding Talmud, II, 74

  Semiramis, Assyrian queen, origin of crucifixion imputed to, II, 54

  Seneca,
    anecdote from, regarding political informers, II, 71
    on the patriotic observance of the national religion, II, 226
    on suicide, II, 232
    on slavery, II, 252
    on Roman myths, II, 265

  Septuagint, version of the Bible, paraphrasing of anthropomorphic
  passages in, I, 237

  Sepulture, of crucified criminals forbidden, II, 58

  Serapis, Egyptian deity,
    images of thrown down, II, 73
    Marcus Aurelius an adorer of, II, 217

  Servilia, mistress of Julius Caesar, II, 239

  Shammai, School of,
    and the Mishna, I, 79
    dissensions of, with School of Hillel, II, 309

  Shevuah ben Kalba, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 319

  Shoterim of the Sanhedrin, I, 113

  Sibylline Books, II, 199, 204

  Sibyl, Erythraean, Virgil inspired by, II, 287

  Simon, Jewish rebel, revolt of, II, 110

  Simon, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 320

  Simon Boethus, made high priest by Herod I, II, 296

  Simon ben Camithus, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 298

  Simon Cantharus, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II, 297

  Simon, son of Gamaliel, Jewish elder, biographical note on, II, 305

  Simon Hamizpah, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 314

  Sinaitic MS. of the Bible, I, 67

  Slavery,
    under Hebrew law, I, 95
    account of, among Romans, II, 250, 251

  Social life, Graeco-Roman,
    marriage and divorce, II, 236-240
    prostitution, II, 242-244
    luxury and extravagance, II, 244-249
    poverty of Roman masses, II, 249
    slavery, II, 249-253
    infanticide, II, 254
    gladiatorial games, II, 255-262
    depravity of, traceable to corrupt myths, II, 262-270
    practice of Bacchanalian rites, II, 270-283
    hopeless state of, at time of Christ, II, 284-287

  Socrates, Greek philosopher,
    resemblance of charges against, to those against Jesus, II, 181
    counsel of, to Hetairai, II, 243

  Sodomy, prevalence of,
    among Greeks and Romans, II, 262-264
    practiced in Roman temples, II, 269

  Solomon ben Joseph, Jewish rabbi, on the Talmud, I, 90

  Sonnenthal, Adolf von, Jewish actor, refused freedom of Vienna, II, 182

  Sparta, licentiousness of, II, 241

  Spartacus, Roman gladiator, revolt of, II, 259, 260

  Spartans, marital looseness of, II, 241

  Spinoza, Jewish philosopher, on miracles, I, 40-44

  Standards, apocryphal miracle of, at trial of Christ, II, 354 _seq._

  Starkie on the credibility of testimony, I, 12

  Stephen, St., stoning of, I, 365

  Stephen, Sir James F. J.,
    on the Roman treatment of Christianity, II, 76
    on Pilate's trial of Jesus, II, 159-164

  Stoicism,
    among the Romans, II, 231
    resemblance of, to Christian precepts, II, 331

  Stoning of criminals under Hebrew law, I, 92, 99

  Strangling of criminals under Hebrew law, I, 91, 99

  Strauss, David,
    on the behavior of Jesus before Herod, II, 126
    on the character of Christ, II, 187

  Stroud on the physical cause of death of Christ, I, 61, 62

  Suetonius, Roman historian,
    on the labeling of criminals before execution, I, 57
    on divination, II, 213
    narrative of, of dreams presaging reign of Augustus, II, 214
    account of, of belief of Augustus in omens, II, 215

  Suicide, attitude of Stoics toward, II, 232

  Suspension, death by, II, 61, 62

  Sweat, bloody, historical instances of, I, 59, 60


  T

  Tacitus, Roman historian, on slavery, II, 253

  Talmud, the,
    definition of, I, 74
    recensions of, I, 81
    contents of, I, 82
    relation of Mishna to, I, 83, to Gemara, I, 83; to Pentateuch, I,
    83; to Mosaic Code, I, 84, 85
    efforts of Christians to extirpate, I, 87, 88
    message and mission of, I, 89
    See also Gemara and Mishna

  Telemachus, St., death of, in arena, II, 261

  Temples, a resort of immorality in Rome, II, 269

  Tertullian, Latin father,
    on the character of Pilate, II, 89
    on the resort of vice to temple precincts, II, 269
    reference of, to the "Acts of Pilate," II, 329, 333 _seq._, 347, 348

  Tertullus, his prosecution of Paul, II, 299

  Testimony, under Hebrew Criminal Law,
    of each witness required to cover entire case, I, 132
    vain, I, 145
    standing, I, 146
    adequate, I, 147
    of accomplices, I, 228-230, 235, 236

  Theodota, the courtesan, counseled by Socrates, II, 243

  Theophilus, son of Annas, Jewish high priest, biographical note on, II,
  296

  Theresa, Maria, Austrian empress, codex of, II, 54

  Three, Jewish Courts of, jurisdiction of, I, 124

  Tiberius Caesar, Roman emperor,
    sway of, II, 27
    character of, II, 70
    prosecutions of, for treason, II, 70, 71
    marriage of, to Julia, II, 83
    legendary desire of, to deify Christ, II, 329, 330 _seq._

  Tischendorf, Constantine, on the authenticity of the "Acts of
    Pilate," II, 345 _seq._

  Tissot, account of, of the bloody sweat of a sailor, I, 59

  Trajan, Roman emperor, correspondence of, with Pliny, II, 78

  Trials, Roman criminal,
    right of appeal, II, 28
    during the regal period, II, 35
    Roman, mode of, in the Comitia Centuriata, II, 37-43
    mode of, in the Permanent Tribunals, II, 43-52
    prosecutor, role and selection of, II, 43, 44, 49

  Trial of Jesus, Hebrew,
    nature of charge against Jesus before Sanhedrin, I, 187
    procedure of, before Sanhedrin, I, 188
    discussion of charge of blasphemy against Jesus, I, 193-209
    illegality of arrest of Jesus, I, 219-237
    illegality of private examination of Jesus before high priest, I,
    238-247
    illegality of indictment of Jesus, I, 248-254
    illegality of nocturnal proceedings against Jesus, I, 255-259
    illegality of the meeting of the Sanhedrin before morning sacrifice,
    I, 260-262
    illegality of proceedings against Christ, because held on the eve
    of the Sabbath, and of a feast, I, 263-266
    illegality of trial, because concluded in one day, I, 267-270
    condemnation of Jesus founded on uncorroborated evidence, I, 271-278
    Jesus illegally condemned by unanimous verdict, I, 279-286
    condemnation of Jesus pronounced in place forbidden by law, I, 288-292
    irregular balloting of judges of Jesus, I, 292-294
    condemnation of Jesus illegal, because of unlawful conduct of high
    priest, I, 290, 291
    disqualifications of judges of Jesus, I, 296-308
    Jesus condemned without defense, I, 309
    second trial of Jesus by Sanhedrin, I, 356-366

  Trial of Jesus, Roman,
    discussion of Roman and Hebrew jurisdiction, II, 3-23
    Roman law applicable to, II, 68-80
    as conducted by Pilate, II, 96-118, 129-139
    legal analysis of, II, 141-168

  Tribune, Roman, judicial powers of, II, 36

  Tryphon, son of Theudion, Jewish elder; biographical note on, II, 321

  Twelve Tables, laws of the, II, 53, 208


  U

  Ulpian, Roman jurist, his definition of treason, II, 69


  V

  Vatican, MS. of the Bible, I, 67

  Venus, Roman deity,
    sacrifices to, II, 208
    impersonated by Phryne, II, 243
    worshiped by harlots, II, 266

  Veronica, St., legend of, II, 93

  Vestals, Roman priestesses,
    guardians of sacred fire, II, 204
    spectators at licentious dramas, II, 267

  Vinicius, Lucius, Roman patrician, letter of Augustus to, II, 83

  Virgil, poem of, on advent of heaven-born child, I, 321; II, 287

  Virginia, legend of, II, 236

  Vitellius, legate of Syria,
    spares Jewish prejudices, II, 85
    orders Pilate to Rome, II, 92

  Vitia, Roman matron, executed for treason, II, 71

  Voltaire, Francois de,
    account of, of the bloody sweat of Charles IX, I, 59
    on character of Christ, II, 187

  Vulgate, version of the Bible, I, 68


  W

  Witnesses, under Hebrew Criminal Law,
    competency and incompetency of, I, 127-129
    number of, required to convict, I, 129
    agreement of, I, 131
    adjuration to, I, 134
    examination of, I, 136, 138
    false, I, 140
    the accused as, I, 141
    separation of, I, 137

  Wise, Rabbi,
    on the non-existence of the Great Sanhedrin at time of Christ, I,
    175, 179
    on the "martyrdom of Jesus," I, 330


  X

  Xenophanes, ridicule of, of Greek religion, II, 224


  Z

  Zadok, Jewish scribe, biographical note on, II, 310

  Zeno, Greek philosopher, originator of Stoicism, II, 229

  Zeus, Greek divinity,
    character of, I, 14
    myth of rape of Ganymede by, II, 262




Corrections

The first line indicates the original, the second the correction:

  p. 61: Describing the punishments used in Madasgascar
         Describing the punishments used in Madagascar.

  p. 151: and that he recognized
          and that He recognized.

  p. 174: as did S. Michael
          as did St. Michael.

  p. 392: Dysmas, legendary name of one of thieves crucified with Jesus,
          II, 364

          Dysmas, legendary name of one of the thieves crucified with
          Jesus, II, 364

          Derembourg, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294
          Derembourg, Joseph, on the Jewish priestly families, II, 294

  p. 397: Lemann, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291
          Lemann, extract from work of, on Sanhedrin, II, 291

  p. 402: Scipio Africanus, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata
          Scipio Africanus, trial of, before Comitia Centuriata, II, 41

  Footnote 15: Geschichte des roemischen criminalprocesses
               Geschichte des roemischen Criminalprocesses

  Footnote 152: Renan, "Les Apotres."
                Renan, "Les Apotres."






End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Trial of Jesus from a Lawyer's
Standpoint, Vol. II (of II), by Walter M. Chandler

*** 