It is a matter of considerable importance in re gard to the exposition of the N. T., to define ac curately what relation the Jews stood in during the ministry of Christ in particular to their Roman masters. Lardner has discussed the question with a learning and ability which have exhausted the subject, and he concludes that the Jews, while they retained for the most part their laws and customs, both civil and religious, untouched, did not possess the power of life and death, which was in the hands of the Romah governor, and was specifically held by Pilate. Pilate, indeed, bore the title of procurator, and the procurator, as being a fiscal officer, had not generally the power of life and death. But,' says Lardner (i. comp. pp. 83464), Pilate, though he had the title of procurator, had the power of a president. The evangelists usually give Pilate, Felix, and Festus the title of governor, a general word, and very proper, according to the usage of the best writers, and of Josephus in particular, in many places.' According to the evangelists, the Jewish council having, as they pretended, convicted Jesus of blas phemy, and judged him guilty of death, led him away to Pilate, and seem to have expected that he should confirm their sentence, and sign au order that Jesus should be punished accordingly. In deed, the accounts found in the Gospels and in other authorities, touching the civil condition of the Jews at this time, are in strict agreement. We proceed to mention another instance of accordance, which is still more forcible, as being on a very minute point.
From Matt. xxvii. 19, it appears that Pilate had his wife (named probably Procla, or Claudia Pro cula) with him. A partial know-ledge of Roman history mizht lead the reader to question the his toric credibility of Matthew in this particular. In the earlier periods, and, indeed, so long as the Commonwealth subsisted, it was very unusual for the governors of provinces to take their wives with them (Senec. De Controv. 25), and in the strict regulations which Augustus introduced he did not allow the favour, except in peculiar and specified circumstances (Sueton. Aug. 24). The practice, however, grew to be more and more prevalent, and was (says Winer, Real-w5rt. in Pilate ') customary in Pilate's time. It is evident from Tacitus, that at the time of the death of Augustus, Germanicus had his wife Agrippina with him in Germany (Annul., i. 40, 41 ; comp, iii. 33-59, Joseph. Antiq. xx. to. I ; Ulpian, iv. 2). In deed, in the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, Germanicus took his wife with him into the East. Piso, the prefect of Syria, took his wife also along with him at the same time (Tacit., Anna., ii. 54, 55). But,' says Lardner (i. 145), nothing can render this (the practice in question) more appa rent than a motion made in the Roman Senate by Severus Cxcina, in the fourth consulship of Tiberius, and second of Drusus Cxsar (A.D. 21),
that no magistrate to whom any province was assigned should be accompanied by his wife, ex cept the Senate's rejecting it, and that with some indignation' (Tacit., Anna., iii. 33, 34). The fact mentioned incidentally, or rather implied, in Mat thew, being thus confirmed by full and unques tionable evidence, cannot fail to serve as a corro boration of the evangelical history.
Owing to the atrocity of the deed in which Pilate took a principal part, and to the wounded feelings of piety with which that deed has been naturally regarded by Christians, a very dark idea has been formed of the character of this Roman governor. That character was undoubtedly bad ; but moral depravity has its degrees, and the cause of religion is too sacred to admit any spurious aid from exaggeration. It is therefore desirable to form a just conception of the character of Pilate, and to learn specifically what were the vices under which he laboured. For this purpose a brief out line of the evangelical account seems necessary. The narratives on which the following statement is founded may be found in John xviii. xix. ; Matt. xxvii. ; Mark xv. ; Luke xxiii.
Jesus, having been betrayed, apprehended, and found guilty of blasphemy by the Jewish San hedrim, is delivered to Pilate in order to undergo the punishment of death, according to the law in that case provided. This tradition of Jesus to Pilate was rendered necessary by the fact that the Jews did not at that time possess on their own authority the power of life and death. Pilate could not have been ignorant of Jesus and his pre tensions. He might, had he chosen, have imme diately ordered Jesus to be executed, for he had been tried and condemned to death by the laws of the land ; but lie had an alternative. As the execution of the laws, in the case at least of capital punishments, was in the hands of the Roman procurator, so, without any violent strain ing, might his tribunal be converted into a court of appeal in the last instance. At any rate, remon strance against an unjust verdict was easy and proper on the part of a high officer, who, as having to inflict the punishment, was in a measure responsible for its character. And remonstrance might easily lead to a revision of the grounds on which the verdict had been given, and thus a cause might virtually be brought, de novo, before the procurator : this took place in the case of our Lord. Pilate gave him the benefit of a new trial, and pronounced him innocent.
This review of the case was the alternative that lay before Pilate, the adoption of which speaks undoubtedly in his favour, and may justify us in declaring that his guilt was not of the deepest dye.