PILATE, or Pontius Pilate, was governor of Judaea when our Lord was crucified. Of his family or country we know little, though it is believed that he was a native of Rome, or at least of Italy. He was sent to govern Judaea in the room of Gratus, in the year 26 or 27 of the common era, and he governed this province for ten years, that is, from the twelfth or thirteenth to the twenty-second or twenty-third year of Tiberius. He is represented, both by Philo and by Josephus, as a man of an impetuous and obstinate temper, and, as a judge, accustomed to sèll justice, and to pronounce any sentence that was desired, provided he' was paid for it. The same authors mention his rapines, his injuries, his murders, the torments he inflicted upon the innocent, and the persons he put to death without any form of process. Philo, in particular, describes him as a [7:17:742]man who exercised excessive cruelty during the whole time of his government, disturbed the repose of Judaea, and gave occasion to the troubles and revolt which followed. St Luke (xiii. I, 2, et seq.) acquaints us that Pilate had mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices, and that the matter having been related to our Lord, he said, “Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” It is not known upon what particular occasion Pilate caused these Galileans to be slain in the temple whilst they were sacrificing; for this is the meaning of die expression about mingling their blood with their sacrifices. Some think they were disciples of Judas the Gaulonite, who taught that the Jews ought not to pay tribute to foreign princes, and that Pilate had put some of them to death even in the temple; but there is no proof of this fact. Others are of opinion that these Galileans were Samaritans, whom Pilate cut to pieces in the village of Tira-taba,^[1. Josephus, Antip Jud. lib. xviii. c. 5. ] as they were preparing to go up to Mount Gerizim, where a certain impostor had promised to discover to them treasures; but this event did not happen before the year 35 of the common era, and consequently two years after the death of Jesus Christ. At the time of our Saviour’s passion, Pilate made some faint endeavours to rescue him out of the hands of the vindictive Jews. He knew that they had delivered him up, and pursued his life with so much violence, solely out of malice and envy (Matt, xxvii. 18). His wife, also, who had been disturbed the night before with frightful dreams, sent to tell him that she desired him not to meddle in the affair of that just person (ibid. 19). He attempted to appease the wrath of the Jews, and to give them some satisfaction, by scourging our Lord (John, xix. 1; Matt, xxvii. 26). He also tried to take him out of their hands by proposing to deliver him or Barabbas, on the day of the festival of the passover. Lastly, he had a mind to discharge himself from pronouncing judgment against him by sending him to Herod king of Galilee (Luke, xxiii. 7, 8). But when he saw that all this would not satisfy the Jews, and that they even in a manner threatened him, saying he could be no friend to the emperor if he let him go (John, xix. 12, 15), he caused water to be brought, and having washed his hands before all the people, publicly declared himself innocent of the blood of Jesus, in whom he found no fault (Matt, xxvii. 23, 24); though at the same time this miserable juggler with conscience delivered him up to his soldiers that they might crucify him. His conduct, however, was sufficient to justify Jesus Christ, as Calmet observes, and to show that the governor held him to be innocent; but it was not enough to vindicate the conscience and integrity of a judge, whose duty it was to assert the cause of oppressed innocence, as well as to punish the guilty and criminal. He ordered to be inscribed on our Saviour’s cross an abstract as it were of his sentence, and the motive of his condemnation, “Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews,” which was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Some of the Jews found fault with it, and remonstrated with Pilate, alleging that he ought to have written “Jesus of Nazareth, who pretended to be king of the Jews.” But Pilate could not be prevailed on to alter it, and gave them this peremptory answer, that what he had written he had written.

Towards evening, he was applied to for leave to take down the bodies from the cross, that they might not continue there the following day, which was the passover and the sabbath-day (John, xix. 31). This he allowed, and granted the body of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea, that he might pay to it his last duties (ibid. 33). Lastly, when the priests, who had solicited the death of our Saviour, came to desire him to set a watch upon the sepulchre, lest his disciples should steal him away by night, he answered them, that they had a guard, and might place it there themselves (Matt, xxvii. 65). This is the substance of what the gospel tells us concerning Pontius Pilate.

Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, and several other succeeding writers, both ancient and modern, assure us that it was formerly the custom for Roman magistrates to prepare copies of all verbal processes and judicial acts which took place in their several provinces, and to send these to the emperor. Pilate, therefore, in compliance with this custom, having sent intelligence to Tiberius of what had passed relating to Jesus Christ, the emperor wrote an account of it to the senate, in a manner which gave reason to infer that he thought favourably of the religion of Jesus Christ, and showed that he had no §erious objection to their decreeing him divine honours. But the senate was not of the same opinion, and so the matter dropped. It appears, from what Justin says of these acts, that the miracles of Jesus Christ were mentioned there, including even the circumstance of the soldiers having divided his garments amongst them. Eusebius insinuates that they spoke of his resurrection and ascension. Ter-tuilian and Justin refer to these acts with so much confidence, that we cannot suppose them to have written without authority. However, neither Eusebius nor St Jerome, who were both inquisitive and intelligent persons, nor any other author who wrote afterwards, seems to have seen these acts, at least not the true and original acts; for as to those which we have now in great number, they are not authentic, being neither ancient nor uniform. There are also some pretended letters of Pilate to Tiberius, giving a history of our Saviour; but they are universally allowed to be spurious.

Pilate being a man who, by his excessive cruelties and rapine, had disturbed the peace of Judaea during the whole time of his government, was at length deposed by Vitellius, -the proconsul of Syria, in the 36th year of Jesus Christ, and sent to Rome to give an account-of his conduct to the emperor. But though Tiberius died before Pilate arrived at Rome, yet his successor Caligula banished him to Vienne in Gaul, where he was reduced to such extremity that he put himself to death with his own hands. The Evangelists call him governor, although in reality he was only procurator of Judaea.

With regard to Pilate’s wife, the general tradition is, that she was named Claudia Procula or Proscula; and in relation to her dream, some are of opinion, that as she had intelligence of our Lord’s apprehension, and knew by his character that he was a righteous person, her imagination, being struck with these ideas, had naturally produced the dream we read of; but others think that this dream was sent to her providentially, for the clearer manifestation of our Lord’s innocence.