given by him to St. Paul seems to have been very fair and courteous ; and probably was owing to the letter which accompanied him. He also appears to acknowledge that sound principle of justice, which requires both accusers and accused to be present, and confronting each other at the time of trial, and will neither acquit nor condemn before that previous step be taken. The word, above rendered judgment hall, signifies the house of the Prætor, where causes were sometimes heard. This at Cesarea is called Herod's, because it was built by Herod the Great for his own palace; but afterwards it was converted into a residence for the Roman governor, one part being made a place of confinement for particular prisoners. It is no harsh conjecture to say, that probably these were better treated, than such as were committed to the common prison.

We have now examined the circumstances of St. Paul's conduct and treatment at Jerusalem. The next Lecture shall contain reflections on his demeanour at Cesarea, both before Felix and his successor Porcius Festus; wherein we shall find him, as on all former occasions, maintaining his character for truth, integrity, fortitude, and vigour, supported by a firm trust in God, and a noble zeal for his service.

LECTURE XIV.

CHAPTERS XXIV, XXV.

FELIX

ELIX having remitted Paul's trial till the arrival of his accusers, as we saw in the last Lecture; after five days Ananias the High Priest descended (from Jerusalem to Cesarea) with the Elders, and with a certain orator, named Tertullus; who informed the governor (or appeared before him in quality of accusers) against Paul.” This Tertullus is generally supposed to be a Roman, who was on this occasion chosen by the Jews to manage the cause, on account of his superior knowledge in the laws and forms most respected by the governor, and in the language which was to be employed on the trial.

He begins his oration with a flattering address to the judge, for the purpose of conciliating his attention and benevolence. With this view he alludes to such matters as did most credit to his administration for amidst a multitude of high crimes and gross acts of misgovernment, Felix had the good

fortune to perform a few services conducive to the peace and tranquillity of his province.*"Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, says the orator, and that very worthy deeds are done to this nation by thy providence; we accept it. always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness." After somewhat more to the same effect he proceeds in his accusation, charging Paul with being a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." In this part of the charge he endeavours by false assertions to raise a prejudice against the prisoner, as if his offences had disturbed the quiet and good order of government; although, as Lysias had stated in his letter, they were in fact nothing more than differences with the Jews about questions of their law. And to give the greater colour to these assertions, he calls him the ringleader of a new sect named Nazarenes, after Jesus of Nazareth its founder: because the introduction of all new religions and strange gods was forbidden by the Roman law. Thus by connecting a fact, in some measure true, and in his manner of representing it not strictly

* Among these were his exertions against the Siccarii or Assassins, who committed infinite murders. and -against magical impostors. Of the former he destroyed the chief leader Eleazer; and of the latter the Egyptian false prophet spoken of before.

authorised, with the accusation of turbulence and sedition, he would confound both in the mind of the judge, so that he might not be able to separate one from the other, but on the acknowledged truth of part should establish guilt in the whole.

The next point, urged by him against the Apostle, relates to his profaning the temple by bringing Heathens within the court of the Israelites: which offence, says he, we would have judged according to our law." If Tertullus meant by these words to maintain a right in the Jews to proceed capitally in this case against Paul, the position was false both in argument and fact. For it was the Heathen, who presumed to pass the forbidden -bounds, that was to be punished with death; neither had Paul introduced such an one into the temple. And he is guilty of another misrepresentation, in the next sentence, against the chief captain Lysias, as though he had by violence stopt the due course and execution of law: whereas his interposition was made to prevent a tumultuous outrage against all law and justice. If to rescue an innocent man, who had committed no crime, deserve to be branded with the name of violence, the insinuation is just; otherwise it is nothing but a false gloss upon a bad cause, which could not be supported by fair and true statements. And indeed the honest motive of the chief captain is plainly to be collected from the orator himself,

who immediately subjoins these words concerning him, commanding his accusers to come to thee." Where we clearly discover, that it was not from any partial kindness for Paul (except so far as he was injured and oppressed) but from a love of substantial justice, soberly and legally administered, that he took him out of their hands. He does not set him at liberty after his rescue, but keeps him in custody for a fair trial, of which he gives notice to his accusers.

After the accusations had been gone through, and witnesses examined in their support. Paul was permitted to make his defence: which he began thus: "Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been for many years a judge to this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself." If we compare this exordium with that of Tertullus, we shall perceive a very marked distinction between them. In one point of view only is there any agreement, and that is, their common purpose of paying respect to the chief magistrate. But while the one offers a vile adulation to him, as if he had been a virtuous and mild, governor instead of a scourge to his province, the other disdaining such insincerity, confines all his expressions of satisfac tion to the knowledge and experience of his judge. However necessary to St. Paul's safety and even life, the favourable disposition of Felix must have appeared, yet to obtain it we find not the slightest