declined the honor of deification; that the Emperor, though obliged to acquiesce in this decision, still remained favorable to the Christians, and discouraged persecution against them. The evidence for and against the credibility of this narration, is given at length in Lardner's Works, Vol. VI. pp. 605-620. Lardner himself seems to judge of it too favorably.

The five different methods, which Pilate adopted of showing his reluctance to condemn Jesus, are a sufficient testimony of his esteem for the character of his prisoner; and are so much the more convincing, as his moral sensibilities were not such as to be excited by any ordinary exhibitions of virtue. When we consider the irascibility of his temper, and the independent spirit of Christ's replies to him, it seems probable that he would not have brooked such answers from any man of less commanding virtue. But of Pilate's character, more will be said at the close of this note.

The notices, which the Roman historians have given of Christ and his system, furnish less of direct information, than of matter for inference. What they say of Christianity will suggest their opinion of its author.

Tacitus, speaking of "Pomponia Graecina, a lady of eminent quality," says that she was "accused of practising a foreign superstition," (superstitionis externae rea), Ann. B. XIll. ch. 32. This "foreign superstition” is supposed by Lipsius, and others, to have meant the christian religion.-Again, after speaking of the great fire at Rome in the year 64, he says, Nero "inflicted the most cruel punishments upon those people who were held in abhorrence for their crimes, and whom the common people called Christians. They received their name from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the Procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a while, broke out again, and spread, not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city of Rome also, whither flow from all quarters, all things vile and shameful, and where they are practised (celebrantur). At first they only were apprehended, who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, by their information, a vast multitude were apprehended; and they were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind."-" At length these men, though really criminal and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated; as people who were destroyed not from regard to the public welfare, but merely to gratify the cruelty of one man.” Ann. B. XV. Ch. 44. The enmity to the human race, of which Tacitus accuses the Christians, is probably nothing more than their neglect of the common Pagan worship, and the apparent singularity of their religious faith.

Suetonius says of Claudius, "He banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus being their leader." Life of Claud. Ch. 25. See Acts 18: 2. Christ was often called Chrestus by the Romans; and the Jews and Christians, (Chrestiani as they were often called), were regarded, by Pagans generally, as one and the same class. In his life of Nero, Ch. 16, Suetonius says, "The Christians were punished; a sort of men of a new and magical superstition;" (superstitionis novae et maleficae; which last word Mosheim considers equivalent to the word, exitiabilis, in the above-quoted passage from Tacitus, and there translated

pernicious.) Suetonius speaks, with apparent complacency, of the persecu tions which the Christians endured.

Pliny the Younger, in his celebrated letter to the Emperor Trajan, written A. D. 107, expresses himself with an indefiniteness like that of the preceding historians, in reference to "the contagion of the (Christian) superstition." He says, that he has never been present at any of the trials of Christians, and therefore does not exactly know what is the subject matter of punishment, or of inquiry. He does not know whether men ought to be punished merely for the fact that they bear the name of Christians, when they are detected in no crime, or whether they should be punished for nothing but the crimes connected with the name, Some who have been arraigned as Christians, he says, recanted their principles at the trial, repeated an invocation to the gods, made supplication to the image of the Emperor, which, with other statues, was brought out for that purpose, and reviled the name of Christ: "none of which things, it is reported, they who are really Christians can by any means be compelled to do." He concludes his letter with the well known description of the only fault or error acknowledged by the new sect; i. e. their meeting on a stated day, before light, and singing, one after another, among themselves, a hymn to Christ as a god,' their frequent partaking without any disorder, of a social meal, their mutual pledge to commit no crime, etc. etc.

The passages in Josephus, which allude to the Saviour, are found in his Antiquities, XVIII. Ch. 3. § 3. and XX. Ch. 9. § 1. The former passage only has been deemed an interpolation. The genuineness of it, however, has been defended by many, and with singular ability by C. G. Bretschneider. See Trans. of his defence in Bibl. Repos. Vol. IV. pp. 705—711, and Ch. Spec. 1825. The following are Bretschneider's versions of the two passages. "At this time lived Jesus, a wise man; if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he performed astonishing works, and was a teacher of such as delight in receiving the truth: and drew to himself many of the Jews and many also of the Gentiles. This was he who is (called) Christ. And when Pilate, at the instance of the chief men among us, had caused him to be crucified, still those who had once loved him, did not cease to love him. For on the third day he again appeared unto them alive; divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things respecting him. And even to this day, that class of persons, who were called by him Christians, have not become extinct."

"Ananus assembled a council of judges, and having brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, (whose own name was James), and certain others, and having accused them of violating the laws, he delivered them over to be stoned."

The character of Pilate, a correct appreciation of which is important for understanding the history of our Saviour's trial, may be learned from Winer's Bib. Realwörterbuch, Art. Pilate, and the authorities there mentioned. The following is a translation of the passage in Philo, referred to on page 399, of this volume.

"Pilate was Procurator of Judea. Not so much out of favor to Tiberius

as hatred of the Jews, he dedicated gilt shields, and placed them in Herod's palace, within the holy city. There was no figure upon them, nor any thing else that was forbidden, except a certain needful inscription, containing the name of the person who dedicated them, and of the person to whom they were dedicated.-When this transaction was noised abroad, the people petitioned that the shields, thus newly introduced, might be taken away, that their hereditary customs, which had been kept safe through so many ages by kings and emperors, might not be violated. He opposed their wishes with roughness, as he was a man of inflexible temper, arrogant and implacable. They then cried out, "Do not you excite sedition and war! Do not you put an end to our peace! The Emperor is not honored by treating our ancient laws with disrespect. Do not make him, then, a pretext for injuring our nation. He does not wish to have any of our usages abolished. If you say that you have received any edict or letter, or any thing of the kind from the Emperor, produce it, that we may cease troubling you with the matter, and by ambassadors may entreat the Emperor to revoke his command." This last exasperated Pilate very much; for he was afraid that if they should send an embassy, they would prove against him many mal-administrations of his government: his pronouncing judgment under the influence of bribes, his abusive conduct, his extortion, his violence, his injustice, his oft-repeated slaughters of men who had not been condemned, his inhuman cruelty. Feeling angry and implacable, Pilate now could not tell what to do. On the one hand, he neither dared to remove what had been dedicated, nor was he willing to do anything for the gratification of men who were his subjects; and on the other hand, he was not ignorant of the firmness of Tiberius in things of this kind. When the chief men of the nation saw his perplexity, and also that he repented of what he had done, but did not wish to have his sorrow perceived, they wrote to Tiberius the most supplicatory letters. When the emperor had read these letters, what did he say of Pilate? What did he threaten? It is needless to narrate how angry he became; the event itself declares; and yet he was not easily irritated. The event was, that immediately, even on that very day, he wrote a letter to Pilate, rebuked him severely for his recent audacious proceeding, and commanded him to remove the shields forthwith. Accordingly they were removed from the metropolis to Cesarea by the sea-side, called Sebaste, in honor of your great grand-father (Augustus); that they might be placed in the temple consecrated to him there. In that temple they were deposited." Letter of Agrippa the Elder to Caligula; in Philo Jud., de Virt. et Leg. ad Caj., Works, Vol. II. pp. 589, 590. This account from Philo is remarkably similar to one in Josephus, Ant. XVIII. Ch. 3. § 1. Instances like these, (supposing them to have been two different events), and like that of Pilate's attempting to bring a current of water into Jerusalem, (recorded in Jos. Ant. XVIII. Ch. 3. § 2), must have convinced the Prefect, how dangerous it was to oppose the religious prejudices of the Jews; and thus excite them to complain of his mal-administration to the Emperor. They will, therefore, serve to account for the fear which he manifested during several parts of our Saviour's trial. See John 19: 7, 8. 19: 12, etc.

NOTE F, pp. 437-439, 415, 416.

Perhaps there is no better method of investigating any theory than by examining the converse modes of exhibiting it. Take, for example, the statement that free agency implies a power, existing in its possessor, to choose what he does in fact refuse, and to refuse what he does in fact choose. The power to sin, as possessed by every moral being who is now and ever will be free from sin, illustrates the power to be perfect, as possessed by every moral being who is now not only imperfect but entirely sinful. As the power of sinning is entirely consistent with an infallible certainty of not sinning; so the power of becoming and remaining free from all sin, is entirely consistent with an infallible certainty of remaining forever sinful. As the statement that the elect angels, that the Saviour, that even the Deity, have the ability to do what any other moral agent can do, is often condemned for its apparent disrespect to the character of God, so the statement that the evil angels, and all the non-elect have the ability to repent, is often condemned for its apparent disrespect to the divine purposes, and its assumption of human independence. Both the statements however are condemned unjustly. It has been already remarked, (Note D.), that the power of the highest orders of holy beings to sin, is connected with an infallible certainty, that the power will not be exercised in actual sinning; so it may be remarked, that the power of man to be perfect is connected with the same kind of certainty, that this power will not, during the present life, be exercised in this perfect obedience. It seems unreasonable to insinuate that the doctrine of natural ability to do whatever God has required, is at all inconsistent with man's inveterate unwillingness to do it, and his consequent entire dependence on the special interposition of the Holy Spirit.

Such remarks, however, as those of Ullmann on pages 437-9, oblige us to confess, that evangelical divines, insisting on the exact equality between the power of man and his obligation, do sometimes include in this power, such a degree of contingency, as would render it always uncertain, whether the possible will not be also the actual. The mere possession of an ability is regarded, tacitly at least, as some evidence that the ability will be developed in this or that way! Because man can be perfect, there is thought to be some ground for expecting, or at least suspecting, that he will in fact and in this life be perfect! And because he has faculties adequate to all that is demanded of them, he is called upon to confide in himself, and cherish "faith in human nature."

While we would condemn such a style of reasoning as is pursued on pages 437-439, and such phraseology as is employed there, and also on pages 415, 416, such for example as "faith in human nature," (Glaube an die Menscheit), we would still choose to stop, in our condemnation, at the proper bounds. There is no error, believed by man, which is not mingled with some truth; and the remarks of Ullmann, however untrue as well as unfortunate in some respects, are yet pervaded by a sentiment, not only correct but important. If, in our theories, we extend the depravity of man be

NOTES BY THE TRANSLATOR.

in

yond its real province; if we deny the innocence of some of his natural desires; if we abjure all confidence in the decisions of his moral sense; if we deny the adaptedness of divine truth to exert a hopeful influence on his constitutional susceptibilities; if we reject the idea that he works out his own salvation simultaneously with his being influenced by God; if we insist on his passivity and dependence, so as to exclude his activity and freedom in the renovation of his soul; above all, if we forget the fact, that the Spirit of converting love never intermits his watch and care over the race, but stands ready to hear the faintest cry for help, and to inspire the prayer which he afterwards answers; we shall benumb our own sensibility, and shall labor with diminished zeal and skill for the accomplishment of the divine promises. There is always danger, lest, in our zeal for the letter of a human creed, we lose the spirit of the Bible; and in wishing to make out a strong case of human depravity, we bereave ourselves of some of the choice sentiments of our religious being. There is sad reason to believe, that one class of good men, at the present day, overlook man's need, in their zeal for his possessing a moral nature; and another class overlook his real agency, their zeal for his being governed by his Maker. Meditating disproportionally on what God has given to man, some almost forget how obstinate man is in abusing all these gifts. Meditating too exclusively on our depraved and dependent state, others are inclined to respect our constitution as little as our character, and they impute sin to all that we are, as well as all that we do. Now there can be but little doubt, that those, who wish to produce a strong impression of man's guilty helplessness, would succeed better than they have as yet done,if they would insist more frequently upon those noble powers, which are unremittingly abused, and which are essential to man's aggravated sinfulness. There can be but little doubt, also, that those who wish to commend the doctrine of ability commensurate with duty, would sooner dispel the prejudices that oppose them, if they would insist more on what they firmly believe, the undeviating tendency of the natural heart to turn all its power of well doing into the channel of evil doing. The whole truth, just as it is, must be believed, or we cannot unite evangelical activity with rational dependence. The powers of man must be acknowledged to exist, or he will not feel his responsibility and his guilt. His inveterate unwillingness to do what of good he can do, must be exhibited fully, or he will be tempted to regard his capabilities as in themselves virtuous, which would be as irrational as to regard them sinful. The fault, so far as there is any fault, in two of the evangelical parties, who are jealous of each other in reference to the doctrine of natural ability, seems to be, not so much that either party believes what is positively false, as that each party is somewhat inclined to insist on merely half of what is true. The charge of positive heresy, when made by either party against the other, appears to be gratuitous, and even if made from good motives, is productive of but few good results.