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 Cæsar, 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
Cæsar--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 CÆSAR (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 Cæsar, 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 Cæsar, 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
Æsculapius 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. Æmilius 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 Döllinger, "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 Döllinger 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
Döllinger: "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 Pætus, who refused to believe in the
deification of Poppæa." 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 Poppæa, 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)]