gross breach of official duty; he would have been justly amenable to the censure of the emperor, and to ignominious expulsion from office. The presumption that public magistrates have duly performed the obligations imposed on them by their respective stations, is a fundamental principle of universal jurisprudence.

But the intrinsic presumption that Pilate transmitted to the Roman government his official report of the life, death, and alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ is confirmed by extraneous evidence. The fact of his report is repeatedly averred by the early christian fathers. Speaking of the wonderful demonstrations which accompanied the crucifixion of our Lord, Justin Martyr, in his first Apology for Christianity, addressed to the authorities of the Roman empire, about the year one hundred and forty of the christian era, thus speaks; "And that these things were so done, you may know from the acts written in the time of Pontius Pilate."* Tertullian in his Apology for the new faith, also addressed to the Roman government, and written about the year one hundred and ninety-eight, speaks thus; "Of all these things relating to Christ, Pilate, him

* Justin Martyr, Apol. prima, p. 65, 72.

self in conscience already a christian, sent an ac

count to Tiberius, then emperor. And elsewhere, in the same chapter, he thus appeals to the pagan authorities; "Search your own public documents. At the moment of Christ's death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noon; which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day."

Eusebius, who wrote about the year three hundred and fifteen, speaks in this manner; "When the wonderful resurrection of our Saviour and his ascension to heaven were in the mouths of all men, it being an ancient custom for governors of provinces to write to the emperor and give him an account of new and remarkable occurrences, that he might not be ignorant of anything, Pilate informed the emperor of the resurrection of Christ, and likewise of his reputed miracles, and that, being raised up after he had been put to death, he was already believed by many to be a god.† The report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius is also affirmed by Epiphanius, Chrisostom, Orosius, and Gregory of Tours.

* Tertullian, Apol. c. 21.

Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. 11, c. 2.

Modern infidels have affected to sneer at these statements of the christian fathers. But the statements were never contradicted by the heathen infidels of the first four centuries. Celsus attempted an elaborate confutation of the new faith, and published his treatise about the year one hundred and seventy-five, and thirty-five years after the appearance of Justin Martyr's first Apology. The pagan unbeliever had the christian work before him, and must have studied it diligently, page by page and sentence by sentence. Why did not the learned and vindictive Celsus meet and contradict the bold appeal of Justin Martyr to "the acts written in the time of Pontius Pilate ?" He did not because he dared not. By such contradiction he would have come into direct collision with the public records of the empire.

About the year two hundred and seventy, and a little more than seventy years after the publication of Tertullian's Apology, heathen infidelity, personified by Porphyry, one of its most renowned champions, made its second great effort to write down the faith of the cross. Open before the eyes of Porphyry lay the writings of the two christian apologists; his ears he could not close to the challenge of Tertullian, "Search your own public doc

uments." How overwhelming must have been the triumph of the pagan combatant could he have averred and shown that the imperial archives contained not the pretended report from the procurator of Judea. How would the christian world have been humbled and confounded as it gazed on the public immolation of its two favorite advocates by infidel hands, not as martyrs to the truth, but as fabricators of falsehood! Yet upon the pressing emergency, the wary Porphyry stood speechless as the grave!

In the fourth century, and about fifty years after Eusebius had reiterated the standing appeal of evangelical antiquity to Pilate's official report of the crucifixion, the apostate Julian brandished his imperial pen against the new religion. He was an accomplished scholar and a profound statesman. His own experience had impressed on his mind the ancient and universal usage of the empire, requiring from governors of provinces official reports of such extraordinary events as marked their administrations. He had before him the works of Justin Martyr, of Tertullian and of Eusebius. He could not be ignorant that the appeal of the faithful to the report of Pontius Pilate had been sounded and echoed and reverberated along the track of centu

ries. He must have felt the pressure of the appeal. Yet even the emperor Julian passed over in ominous silence the subject of that memorable letter from the governor of Judea to his imperial master, which, unless subtracted by pagan cunning, still survived a speaking witness from his own archives.

It is a principle of universal justice that, if a party rightfully demands the production of a document in the possession of his adversary, its nonproduction creates a decisive presumption against the party withholding it. For its suppression must have been prompted by views incompatible with the development of truth. This principle strongly commends itself to the common sense of mankind. The official report of the crucifixion, transmitted by Pilate to Tiberius, was a document perhaps decisive of the great controversy between Christianity and unbelief. It was in the hostile custody of heathen Rome, who ought to have held it for the common benefit of all her subjects. The advocates of primitive Christianity appealed to the document, and demanded its production, and named the place of its custody, and stated its momentous contents. The champions of paganism remained dumb as the idols they worshipped. This silence, continued for