priests and heads of families, and had two presidents,-one Jews in our Saviour's time used to denote the place of the in the person of the high-priest, and another who sat in the damned. name of the king. The judicial establishment was reorganized after the captivity, and two classes of judges, inferior and superior, were appointed. (Ezra vii. 25.) But the more difficult cases and appeals were brought, either before the ruler of the state, or before the high-priest; until, in the age of the Maccabees, a supreme judicial tribunal was instituted, which is first mentioned under Hyrcanus II.' This tribunal (which must not be confounded with the seventy-two counsellors, who were appointed to assist Moses in the civil administration of the government, but who never fulfilled the office of judges) is by the Talmudists denominated SANHEDRIN, and is the great Council so often mentioned in the New Testament. It was most probably instituted in the time of the Maccabees, and was composed of seventy or seventy-two members, under the chief presidency of the highpriest, under whom were two vice-presidents; the first of whom, called the Father of the Council, sat on the right, as the second vice-president, who was called Chakam, or the Wise Man, did on the left hand of the president. The other assessors, or members of this council, comprised three descriptions of persons, viz. 1. The Apps, or Chief Priests, who were partly such priests as had executed the pontificate, and partly the princes or chiefs of the twenty-four courses or classes of priests, who enjoyed this honourable title:-2. The penals also had inferior ministers or officers (Unger, Matt. v. Te, or Elders, perhaps the princes of tribes or heads of families; and, 3. The гpauμarus, Scribes, or men learned in the law. It does not appear that all the elders and scribes were members of this tribunal: most probably those only were assessors, who were either elected to the office, or nominated to it by royal authority. They are reported to have sat in a semi-circular form; and to this manner of their sitting in judgment Jesus Christ is supposed to refer in Matt. xix. 23., and St. Paul in 1 Cor. vi. 2.

The Sanhedrin held its daily sittings early in the morning (according to the Talmudists) in the Temple; but they are contradicted by Josephus, who speaks of a council-house in the immediate vicinity of the Temple, where this council was in all probability convened; though in extraordinary emergencies it was assembled in the high-priest's house, as was the case in the mock trial of Jesus Christ. The authority of this tribunal was very extensive. It decided all causes, which were brought before it, by appeal from inferior courts; and also took cognizance of the general affairs of the nation. Before Judæa was subject to the Roman power, the Sanhedrin had the right of judging in capital cases, but not afterwards; the stoning of Stephen being (as we have already observed) a tumultuary act, and not in consequence of sentence pronounced by this council.3

Besides the Sanhedrin, the Talmudical writers assert that there were other smaller councils, each consisting of twentythree persons, who heard and determined petty causes: two of these were at Jerusalem, and one in every city containing one hundred and twenty inhabitants. Josephus is silent concerning these tribunals, but they certainly appear to have existed in the time of Jesus Christ; who, "by images taken from these two courts, in a very striking manner represents the different degrees of future punishments, to which the impenitently wicked will be doomed according to the respective heinousness of their crimes. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the JUDGMENT; and whosever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the cOUNCIL; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of HELL FIRE. (Matt. v. 22.) That is, whosoever shall indulge causeless and unprovoked resentment against his Christian brother, shall be punished with a severity similar to that which is inflicted by the court of judgment. He, who shall suffer his passions to transport him to greater extravagances, so as to make his brother the object of derision and contempt, shall be exposed to a still severer punishment, corresponding to that which the council imposes. But he who shall load his fellow-Christian with odious appellations and abusive language, shall incur the severest degree of all punishments, equal to that of being burnt alive in the valley of Hinnom :"-which, having formerly been the scene of those horrid sacrifices of children to Moloch by causing them to pass through the fire, the

• Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xiv. c. 9. § 3.

De Bell. Jud. lib. v. c. 4. § 2. lib. vi. c. 6. § 3.

Dr. Lightfoot has given a list of sixteen presidents who directed the Sanhedrin from the captivity till its dissolution. (Prospect of the Temple, eh. xxii. § 1. Works, vol. ix. pp. 312-346. 8vo. edit.)

• Harwood's Introduction to the New Test. vol. ii. pp. 188, 189.

Where there were not one hundred and twenty inhabitants in a town or village, according to the Talmudist, there was a tribunal of three judges: and to this tribunal some writers have erroneously imagined that Joseph of Arimathea belonged, rather than to the great Sanhedrin. But both the writers of the New Testament and Josephus are silent con cerning the existence of such a tribunal. Jahn is of opinion that this court was merely a session of three arbitrators, which the Roman laws permitted to the Jews in civil causes: as the Talmudists themselves state that one judge was chosen by the accuser, another by the party accused, and a third by both parties. It appears, however, that only petty affairs were cognizable by this tribunal. The reference to arbitrators, recommended to Christians by St. Paul in 1 Cor. vi. 1—5., has been supposed to be derived from this tribunal. It is essential to the ends of justice, that the proceedings of the courts should be committed to writing, and preserved in archives or registries: Josephus informs us that there was such a repository at Jerusalem, which was burnt by the Romans, and which was furnished with scribes or notaries, for recording the proceedings. From this place, probably, St. Luke derived his account of the proceedings against the protomartyr Stephen, related in Acts vi. and vii. These tribu25.), who probably corresponded with our apparitors or mes sengers; and others whose office it was to carry the decrees into execution, viz. 1. The panтopes, or exactors, whose business it was to levy the fines imposed by the court; and, 2. The Bravis, or tormentors, those whose office it was to examine by torture: as this charge was devolved on gaolers, in the time of Christ, the word Brass came to signify a gaoler.

IV. It appears from Jer. xxi. 12., that causes were heard, and judgment was executed in the morning. According to the Talmud,' capital causes were prohibited from being heard in the night, as also were the institution of an examination, the pronouncing of sentence, and the carrying of it into execution, on one and the same day; and it was enjoined that at least the execution of a sentence should be deferred until the following day. How flagrantly this injunction was disregarded in the case of Jesus Christ, it is scarcely neces sary to mention. According to the Talmud, also, no judg ments could be executed on festival days; but this by no means agrees with the end and design of capital punishment expressed in Deut. xvii. 13. viz. That all the people might hear and fear. It is evident from Matt. xxvi. 5. that the chief priests and other leading men among the Jews were at first afraid to apprehend Jesus, lest there should be a tumult among the people: it is not improbable that they feared the Galilæans more than the populace of Jerusalem, because they were the countrymen of our Lord. Afterwards, however, when the traitor Judas presented himself to them, their fears vanished away.

In the early ages of the Jewish history, judicial procedure must have been summary, as it still is in Asia. Of advocates, such as ours, there is no appearance in any part of the Old Testament. Every one pleaded his own cause; of this practice we have a memorable instance in 1 Kings iii. 16— 28. As causes were heard at the city gate, where the people assembled to hear news or to pass away their time, Michaelis thinks that men of experience and wisdom might be asked for their opinions in difficult cases, and might sometimes assist with their advice those who seemed embarrassed in their own cause, even when it was a good one. Probably this is alluded to in Job xxix. 7-17. and Isa. i. 17.9 From the Romans, the use of advocates, or patrons who pleaded the cause of another, might have passed to the Jews. In this view the word Пaparos, or advocate, is applied to Christ, our intercessor, who pleads the cause of sinners with his Father. (1 John ii. 1.) The form of proceeding appears to have been as follows:

1. Those who were summoned before courts of judicature, were said to be ypaμμevas as xpion, because they were cited by posting up their names in some public place, and to these

Josephus, De Bell. Jud. lib. vi. c. 3. § 3.
Schleusner's and Parkhurst's Lexicon, in voce.
Sanhedrin, IV.

And also among the Marootzee, a nation inhabiting the interior of South Africa. Campbell's Travels in the interior of South Africa, vol. ii. p. 236. (London, 1822. 8vo.) From this, and other coincidences with Jewish observances, Mr. C. thinks it probable that the Marootzee are of Jewish or Arabian origin.

Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. iv. pp. 320. 323.

judgment was published or declared in writing. The Greek | pronounce the formula of the oath, either when it was a judiwriters applied the term purus, to those whom the cial one, or taken on any other solemn occasion. A formula Romans called proser ptos or proscribed, that is, whose names was read, to which they said Amen. (Lev. v. 1. 1 Kings were posted up in writing in some public place, as persons viii. 31.) Referring to this usage, when Jesus Christ was doomed to die, with a reward offered to whoever would kill abjured or put upon his oath, he immediately made an anthem. To this usage there is an allusion in the Epistle of swer. (Matt. xxvi. 63.) All manner of false witness was Jude (verse 4.), where the persons who are said to be most severely prohibited. (Exod. xx. 16. xxiii. 1—3.)5 JERμMEVOLUS TOUTO Ton, fire written to, or before described for, this condemnation, denote those who were long before described, in the examples of their wickedness contained in the writings of Moses and the prophets, such as the angels that sinned, the antediluvians, the people of Sodom, &c. And in the condemnation of these sinners, God has shown what he will do to all others like them. In the sacred writings, all false teachers and impure practices have been most openly proscribed and condemned, and in the following verses of the same epistle the apostle distinctly specifies who these per

the chief captain of the Roman garrison at Jerusalem pre- | according to the Talmudical writers, the Jews always gave sented himself to them. (Acts xxii. 28-36.) When they found the apostle in the temple, prejudiced as they were against him in general, and at that time particularly irritated by the mistaken notion that he had polluted the holy place by the introduction of Greeks into it, they raised a tumult, and were on the point of inflicting summary vengeance on Saint Paul. As soon as the chief captain of the Roman soldiers, who resided in a castle adjoining the temple, heard the tumult, he hastened thither. They then ceased beating the apostle, and addressed themselves to him as the chief official person there, exclaiming, Away with him. Permission being at length given to Paul to explain the affair in their hearing, they became still more violently enraged; but not daring to do themselves justice, they demanded it nearly in the same manner as the Persian peasants now do, by loud vociferations, tearing off their clothes and throwing up dust

him some wine with incense in it, in order to stupify and intoxicate him. This custom is said to have originated in the precept recorded in Prov. xxxi. 6., which sufficiently explains the reason why wine, mingled with myrrh, was offered to Jesus Christ when on the cross. (Mark xv. 23.) In the latter ages of the Jewish polity, this medicated cup of wine was so generally given before execution, that the word cup is sometimes put in the Scriptures for death itself. Thus, Jesus Christ, in his last prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, said—If it be possible let this CUP pass from me. (Matt. xxvi 39. 42.

into the air.

V. As soon as sentence of condemnation was pronounced against a person, he was immediately dragged from the court to the place of execution. Thus our Lord was instantly hurried from the presence of Pilate to Calvary: a similar instance of prompt execution occurred in the case of Achan; and the same practice obtains to this day, both in Turkey and Persia. In those countries, when the enemies of a great man have sufficient influence to procure a warrant for his death, a capidgi or executioner is despatched with it to the victim, who quietly submits to his fate. Nearly the same method of executing criminals was used by the ancient Jewish princes. It is evidently alluded to in Prov. xvi. 14. Thus Benaiah was the capidgi (to use the modern Turkish term) who was sent by Solomon to put to death Adonijah, a prince of the blood royal (1 Kings ii. 25.), and also Joab the commander-in-chief of the army. (29-31.) John the Baptist was put to death in like manner. (Matt. xiv. 10.) Previously, however, to executing the criminal, it was usual, among the ancient Persians, to cover his head, that he might not behold the face of the sovereign. Thus, the head of Philotas, who had conspired against Alexander the Great, was covered; and in conformity with this practice, the head of Haman was veiled or covered. (Esth. vii. 8.)

SECTION II.

OF THE ROMAN JUDICATURE, MANNER OF TRIAL, TREATMENT
OF PRISONERS, AND OTHER TRIBUNALS MENTIONED IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT.

I.

Judicial proceedings of the Romans.-II. Privileges and treatment of Roman citizens, when prisoners.-III. Appeals to the imperial tribunal.-IV. The Roman method of fettering and confining criminals.-V. The Roman tribunals.VI. Other tribunals mentioned in the New Testament :1. The Areopagus at Athens.--2. The Assembly at Ephesus. WHEREVER the Romans extended their power, they also carried their laws; and though, as we have already seen, they allowed their conquered subjects to enjoy the free performance of their religious worship, as well as the holding of some inferior courts of judicature, yet in all cases of a capital nature the tribunal of the Roman prefect or president was the last resort. Without his permission, no person could be put to death, at least in Judæa. And as we find numerous allusions in the New Testament to the Roman judicature, manner of trial, treatment of prisoners, and infliction of capital punishment, a brief account of these subjects so intimately connected with the political state of Judæa under the Romans, naturally claims a place in the present sketch.4

I. "The judicial proceedings of the Romans were conducted in a manner worthy the majesty, honour, and magnanimity of that people. Instances, indeed, occur of a most scandalous venality and corruption in Roman judges, and the story of Jugurtha and Verres will stand, a lasting monument of the power of gold to pervert justice and shelter the most atrocious villany. But, in general, in the Roman judicatures, both in the imperial city and in the provinces, justice was administered with impartiality; a fair and honourable trial was permitted; the allegations of the plaintiff and defendant were respectively heard; the merits of the cause weighed and scrutinized with cool unbiassed judgment; and an equitable sentence pronounced. The Roman law, in conformity to the first principal of nature and reason, ordained that no one should be condemned and punished without a previous public trial. This was one of the decrees of the twelve tables: No one shall be condemned before he is tried. Under the Roman government, both in Italy and in the provinces, this universally obtained. After the cause is heard, says Cicero, a man may be acquitted: but, his cause unheard, no one can be condemned. To this excellent custom among the Romans, which the law of nature prescribes, and all the principles of equity, honour, and humanity dictate, there are several allusions in Scripture. We find the holy apostles,

So zealous were the Jews for the observance of their law, that they were not ashamed themselves to be the executioners of it, and to punish criminals with their own hands. In stoning persons, the witnesses threw the first stones, agreeably to the enactment of Moses. (Deut. xvii. 7.) Thus, the witnesses against the protomartyr Stephen, after laying down their clothes at the feet of Saul, stoned him (Acts vii. 58, 59.); and to this custom our Saviour alludes, when he said to the Pharisees, who had brought to him a woman who had been taken in adultery,-He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (John viii. 7.) As there were no public executioners in the more ancient periods of the Jewish history, it was not unusual for persons of distinguished rank themselves to put the sentence in execution upon offenders. Thus Samuel put Agag to death (1 Sam. xv. 33.); and in like manner Nebuchadnezzar ordered Arioch the commander-in-chief of his forces to destroy the wise men of Babylon, because they could not interpret his dream. (Dan. ii. 21.) Previously, however, to inflicting punishment, it was a custom of the Jews, that the witnesses should lay their hands on the criminal's head. This custom originated in an express precept of God, in the case of one who had blasphemed the name of Jehovah, who was ordered to be brought without the camp: when all, who had heard him, were appointed to lay their hands upon his head, and afterwards the congregation were to stone him. By this action they signi- The materials of this section are principally derived from Dr. Harwood's fied, that the condemned person suffered justly, protesting section xvi. the texts cited being carefully verified and corrected. The subIntroduction to the New Testament (a work now of rare occurrence), vol. ii. that, if he were innocent, they desired that his blood might jects of this and the following section are also discussed by Dr. Lardner, fall on their own head. In allusion to this usage, when sen- Credibility, part i. book i. c. 10. $59--11.; and especially by Calmet in his tence was pronounced against Jesus Christ, the Jews ex-inserted in his Commentaire Littérale, tom. i. part ii. pp. 387-402., and in elaborate Dissertation sur les supplices dont il est parle dans l'Ecriture, claimed,-His blood be upon us and our children. (Matt. xxvii. his Dissertations, tom. i. p. 211. et seq. See also Merill's Notæ Philologicæ 25.) From the above-noticed precept of bringing the crimi- in passionem Christi, and Wyssenbach's Notæ Nomico-Philologica in pas nals without the camp, arose the custom of executing them sionem, in vol. iii. of Crenius's Fasciculus Opusculorum, pp. 583-691. and Lydius's Florum Sparsio ad Historiam Passionis Jesu Christi, 18mo. Dorwithout the city. drechti, 1672.

But in whatever manner the criminal was put to death, 1 Harmer's Observations, vol. iii. pp. 367–369.

Interfici indemnatum quemcunque hominem, etiam xii Tabularum decreta vetuerant. Fragment. xii. Tab. tit. 27.

6 Causâ cognitâ multi possunt absolvi: incognitâ quidem condemnari nemo potest. In Verrem, lib. i. c. 25. "Producing the laws which ordain that no person shall suffer death without a legal trial." Dion. Halicarn. lib. iii. p. 153. Hudson. "He did not allow them to inflict death on any citizen uncondemned." Ibid. lib. vi. p. 370. lib. vii. p. 428. edit. Hudson, Oxon. 1704. "They thought proper to call him to justice, as it is contrary to the Appian. Bell. Civil. lib. iii. p. 906. Tollii, 1670. "Did not you miserably murder Lentulus and his associates, without their being either judged or convicted?" Dion Cassius, lib. 46. p. 463. Reimar.

Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 372-376. Captains Irby and Mangles have related a singular instance of similar rapidity of executing a condemned person. In this case "the sufferer had been appointed to the command of the had; (or pilgrims to Mecca), "and had set off from Constantinople. While he was on his return from Mecca, a Khat-sheriffe was despatched from the capital, ordering his head to be cut off, and sent immediately to Constanti-Roman customs to condemn any one to death without a previous trial." ple. His sentence was carried into execution before he reached Damas CILE" Travels in Egypt, &c. p. 257.

* Quintus Curtius, lib. vi. c. 8. tom. ii. p. 34. edit. Bipont. VOL. II.

H

who did not, like frantic enthusiasts and visionaries, court | Roman citizen. In consequence of this epistle Felix gave persecution, but embraced every legal method which the the apostle a kind and candid reception: when he read it, he usages and maxims of those times had established to avoid turned to him and said, When your accusers come hither it, and to extricate themselves from calamities and sufferings, before me, I will give your cause an impartial hearing.s pleading this privilege, reminding the Romans of it when And accordingly when the high-priest Ananias and the Santhey were going to infringe it, and in a spirited manner up- hedrin went down to Cæsarea with one Tertullus an orator, braiding their persecutors with their violation of it. When whose eloquence they had hired to aggravate the apostle's Lysias, the Roman tribune, ordered Saint Paul to be con- crimes before the procurator, Felix, though a man of merceducted into the castle, and to be examined by scourging, that nary and profligate character, did not depart from the Roman he might learn what he had done that enraged the mob thus honour in this regard; and would not violate the usual proviolently against him, as the soldiers were fastening him cesses of judgment to gratify this body of men, though they with thongs to the pillars to inflict this upon him, Paul said were the most illustrious personages of the province he o the centurion who was appointed to attend and see this ex-governed, by condemning the apostle unheard, and yielding ecuted, Doth the Roman law authorize you to scourge a free- him, poor and friendless as he was, to their fury, merely man of Rome uncondemned, to punish him before a legal upon their impeachment. He allowed the apostle to offer sentence hath been passed upon him? (Acts xxii. 25.) The his vindication and exculpate himself from the charges they centurion hearing this went immediately to the tribune, bid- had alleged against him; and was so far satisfied with his ding him be cautious how he acted upon the present occa- apology as to give orders for him to be treated as a prisoner sion, for the prisoner was a Roman citizen! The tribune at large, and for all his friends to have free access to him; upon this information went to him, and said, Tell me the disappointing those who thirsted for his blood, and drawing truth, Are you a freeman of Rome? He answered in the af-down upon himself the relentless indignation of the Jews, firmative. It cost me an immense sum, said the tribune, to who, undoubtedly, from such a disappointment, would be purchase this privilege. But I was the son of a freeman,2 | instigated to lay all his crimes and oppressions before the said the apostle. Immediately, therefore, those who were ordered to examine him by torture desisted; and the tribune was extremely alarmed that he had bound a Roman citizen. In reference to this also, when Paul and Silas were treated with the last indignity at Philippi by the multitude abetted by the magistrates, were beaten with rods, thrown into the public gaol, and their feet fastened in the stocks, the next morning upon the magistrates sending their lictors to the prison with orders to the keeper for the two men whom they had the day before so shamefully and cruelly treated to be dismissed, Paul turned to the messengers and said, We are Roman citizens. Your magistrates have ordered us to be publicly scourged without a legal trial. They have thrown us into a dungeon. And would they now have us steal away in a silent and clandestine manner? No! Let them come in person and conduct us out themselves. The lictors returned and reported this answer to the governors, who were greatly alarmed and terrified when they understood they were Roman citizens. Accordingly, they went in person to the gaol, addressed them with great civility, and begged them in the most respectful terms that they would quietly leave the town. (Acts xvi. 37.)3

"Here we cannot but_remark the distinguished humanity and honour which St. Paul experienced from the tribune Lysais. His whole conduct towards the apostle was worthy a Roman. This most generous and worthy officer rescued him from the sanguinary fury of the mob, who had seized the apostle, shut the temple doors, and were in a tumultuous manner dragging him away instantly to shed his blood. Afterwards, also, when above forty Jews associated and mutually bound themselves by the most solemn adjurations, that they would neither eat nor drink till they had assassinated him; when the tribune was informed of this conspiracy, to secure the person of the apostle from the determined fury of the Jews, he immediately gave orders for seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to escort the prisoner to Cæsarea, where the procurator resided; writing a letter, in which he informed the president of the vindictive rage of the Jews against the prisoner, whom he had snatched from their violence, and whom he afterwards discovered to be a

1 Dion Cassius confirms what the tribune here asserts, that this honour was purchased at a very high price. "The freedom of Rome formerly," says the historian, "could only be purchased for a large sum;" but he observes, "that in the reign of Claudius, when Messalina and his freedmen had the management of every thing, this honour became so cheap that any person might buy it for a little broken glass." Dion Cassius, lib. lx, p. 955. Reimar.

"But I was free born." Probably, St. Paul's family was honoured with the freedom of Rome for engaging in Cæsar's party, and distinguishing themselves in his cause during the civil wars. Appian inforins us, that "He made the Laodiceans and Tarsensians free, and exempted them from taxes; and those of the Tarsensians who had been sold for slaves, he or dered by an edict to be released from servitude." Appian de Bell. Civil. p. 1077. Tollii. 1670.

It was deemed a great aggravation of any injury by the Roman law, that it was done in public before the people. The Philippian magistrates, therefore, conscious of the iniquity which they had committed, and of the punishment to which they were liable, might well be afraid for Paul and Silas had their option, either to bring a civil action against them, or to indict them criminally for the injury which they had inflicted on the apostle and his companion. In either of which cases, had they been cast, they would be rendered infamous, and incapable of holding any magisterial office, and subjected to several other legal incapacities, besides the punishment they were to undergo at the discretion of the judge, which in so atrocious an injury would not have been small. Biscoe on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 352-351. Acts xxiii. 27. "I have since learned that he is a Roman citizen."

emperor.

The same strict honour, in observing the usual forms and processes of the Roman tribunal, appears in Festus the successor of Felix. Upon his entrance into his province, when the leading men among the Jews waited upon him to congratulate him upon his accession, and took that opportunity to inveigh with great bitterness and virulence against the apostle, soliciting it as a favour (Acts xxv. 3.) that he would send him to Jerusalem, designing, as it afterwards appeared, had he complied with their request, to have hired ruffians to murder him on the road, Festus told them, that it was his will that Paul should remain in custody at Cæsarea; but that any persons whom they fixed upon might go down along with him, and produce at his tribunal what they had to allege against the prisoner. This was worthy the Roman honour and spirit. How importunate and urgent the priests and principal magistrates of Jerusalem, when Festus was in this capital, were with him to pass sentence of death upon the apostle, merely upon their impeachment, and upon the atrocious crimes with which they loaded him, appears from what the procurator himself told king Agrippa and Bernice upon a visit they paid him at Cæsarea, to congratu late him upon his new government. I have here, said he, a man whom my predecessor left in custody when he quitted this province. During a short visit I paid to Jerusalem, upon my arrival I was solicited by the priests and principal magistrates to pass sentence of death upon him. To these urgent entreaties I replied, that it was not customary for the Romans to gratify (xxv. 16.) any man with the death of another; that the laws of Rome enacted that he who is accused should have his accuser face to face; and have license to answer for himself concerning the crimes laid against him."

II. "It appears from numberless passages in the classics that a Roman citizen could not legally be scourged. This was deemed to the last degree dishonourable, the most daring indignity and insult upon the Roman name. 'A Roman citizen, judges!' exclaims Cicero in his oration against Verres, was publicly beaten with rods in the forum of Messina. during this public dishonour, no groan, no other expression of the unhappy wretch was heard amidst the eruelties he suffered, and the sound of the strokes that were inflicted, but this, I am a Roman citizen! By this declaration that he was a Roman citizen, he fondly imagined that he should put an end to the ignominy and cruel usage to which he was now subjected." The orator afterwards breaks forth into this

Acts xxiii. 35. Literally, "Hear it through; give the whole of it an attentive examination." Similar expressions occur in Polybius, lib. i. pp. 39. 170. 187. lib. iv. p. 329. edit. Hanov. 1619. See also Dion. Halicarn. lib. x. p. 304. 6 Felix per omne sævitium ac libidinem, jus regium servili ingenio exercuit. Tacitus Hist. lib. v. p. 397. edit. Dublin. Felix cuncta maleficia in pune ratus. Annal. xii 54. He hoped also that money, &c. Acts xxiv. 26. "Senators," saith Piso, "the law ordains that he who is accused should hear his accusation, and after having offered his defence, to wait the sentence of the judges." Appian, Bell. Civil. lib. iii. p. 911. Tollii, Amst. 1670. "He said, that what he now attempted to do was the last tyranny and despotism, that the same person should be both accuser and judge, and should arbitrarily dictate the degree of punishment." Dion. Halicarn. lib. vii. p. 428. Hudson. Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum: scelus verberari. In Verrem, lib.

pathetic prosopopoeia: O transporting name of liberty! O the distinguished privilege of Roman freedom! O Porcian and Sempronian laws! Are things at last come to this wretched state, that a Roman citizen, in a Roman province, in the most public and open manner, should be beaten with ods!" The historian Appian, after relating how Marcellus, to express his scorn and contempt of Cæsar, seized a person of some distinction, to whom Cæsar had given his freedom, and beat him with rods, bidding him go and show Cæsar the marks of the scourges he had received, observes, that this was an indignity which is never inflicted upon a Roman citizen for any enormity whatever.2 Agreeably to this custom, which also obtained at Athens, in the Adelphi of Terence, one of the persons of the drama says to another, If you continue to be troublesome and impertinent, you shall be instantly seized and dragged within, and there you shall be torn and mangled with scourges within an inch of your life. What! a freeman scourged, replies Sannio. To this privilege of Roman citizens, whose freedom exempted them from this indignity and dishonour, there are several references in Scripture. St. Paul pleads this immunity. He said to the centurion, as they were fastening him to the pillar with thongs to inflict upon him this punishment, Is it lawful for you to scourge a Roman ? So also at Philippi he told the messengers of the magistrates, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison, and now do they thrust us out privately; no, verily, but let them come themselves and fetch us out. And the sergeants told these words to the magistrates, and they feared when they heard that they were Romans, and were conscious they had used them with a contumely and dishonour which subjected them to the just displeasure of the Roman senate.

another singular privilege which a freeman of Rome enjoyed. The sacred historian relates, that after Festus had stayed about ten days in the metropolis, he went down to Cæsarea, and the next day after his arrival he summoned a court, ascended the bench, and ordered Paul to be brought before him. Here, as he stood at the bar, his prosecutors from Jerusalem with great virulence charged him with many heinous and atrocious crimes, none of which, upon strict examination, they were able to prove against him. For in his apology he publicly declared, in the most solemn terms, that they could not convict him of any one instance of a criminal behaviour, either to the law, the temple, or to the Roman emperor. Festus then, being (Acts xxv. 9.) desirous to ingratiate himself with the Jews, asked him if he was willing his cause should be tried at Jerusalem. To this proposal Paul replied, I am now before Cæsar's tribunal, where my cause ought to be impartially canvassed and decided. You yourself are conscious that I have been guilty of nothing criminal against my countrymen. If I have injured them, if I have perpetrated any capital crime, I submit without reluctance to capital punishment. But if all the charges they have now brought against me are proved to be absolutely false and groundless, no person can condemn me to death merely to gratify them. I appeal to the emperor. Festus, after deliberating with the Roman council, turned and said to him, Have you appealed to the emperor? You shall then go and be judged by the emperor. From the above-mentioned particulars, which are corroborated by several other similar incidents in the Roman history, it appears that a Roman citizen could by appeal remove his cause out of the provinces to Rome. It was,' says Mr. Melmoth, one of the privileges of a Roman citizen, secured by the Sempronian law, that he could not be capitally convicted but by the suffrage of the people, which seems to have been still so far in force as to make it necessary to send the person here mentioned to Rome." We are informed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus that the ever-memorable Poplicola enacted this law, that if any Roman governor showed a disposition to condemn any one to death, to scourge him, or despoil him of his property, that any private person should have liberty to appeal from his jurisdiction to the judgment of the people, that in the mean time he should rewas finally decided by the people. This law, which was instituted at the first establishment of the commonwealth, continued in force under the emperors. If a freeman of Rome, in any of the provinces, deemed himself and his cause to be treated by the president with dishonour and injustice, he could by appeal remove it to Rome to the determination of the emperor. Suetonius informs us that Augustus delegated a number of consular persons at Rome to receive the appeals of people in the provinces, and that he appointed one person to superintend the affairs of each province." A passage in Pliny's epistle confirms this right and privilege which Roman freemen enjoyed of appealing from provincial courts to Rome, and, in consequence of such an appeal, being removed, as St. Paul was, to the capital, to take their trial in the supreme court of judicature. In that celebrated epistle to Trajan, who desired to be informed concerning the principles and conduct of the Christians, he thus writes: The method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this-I interrogated them whether they were Christians: if they confessed, I repeated the question twice again, adding threats at the same time, when, if they still persevered, I ordered them to be immediately 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 citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried thither,'12

"Neither was it lawful for a Roman citizen to be bound, to be examined by the question, or to be the subject of any ingenious and cruel arts of tormenting to extort a confession from him. These punishments were deemed servile; torture was not exercised but upon slaves; freemen were privileged from this inhumanity and ignominy. It is a flagrant enormity, says Cicero, for a Roman citizen to be bound: not meaning by that, that it was unlawful for a Roman to be fettered and imprisoned; but it was in the highest degree unjustifiable and illegal for a freeman of Rome to be bound in order to be tor-ceive no personal harm from the magistracy till his cause tured for the discovery of his crimes. Dion Cassius, particularizing the miseries of Claudius's government, observes, that Messalina and Narcissus, and the rest of his freemen, seized the occasion that now offered to perpetrate the last enormities. Among other excesses they employed slaves and freedmen to be informers against their masters. They put to the torture several persons of the first distinction, not merely foreigners, but citizens; not only of the common people, but some even of the Roman knights and senators: though Claudius, when he first entered upon his government, had bound himself under a solemn oath that he would never apply the torture to any Roman citizen. These two passages from Cicero and Dion illustrate what St. Luke relates concerning Lysias the tribune. This officer, not knowing the dignity of his prisoner, had, in violation of this privilege of Roman citizens, given orders for the apostle to be bound, and examined by scourging. (Acts xxii. 24, 25.) When he was afterwards informed by his centurion that St. Paul was a freeman of Rome, the sacred historian observes, that upon receiving this intelligence, the chief captain was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him. (xxii. 29.)

III. "We find that St. Paul, when he discovered that Festus his judge was disposed to gratify the Jews, appealed from a provincial court to the imperial tribunal; transferred his cause, by appeal, from the jurisdiction of the Roman procurator to the decision of the emperor. This appears to be

1 O nomen dulce liberatis! O jus eximium nostræ civitatis! Olex Porcia, legesque Sempronia! Huccine tandem omnia recederunt, ut civis Romanus in provincia populi Romani, delegatis in foro virgis cæderetur.

Ibid. 163.

Appian. Bell. Civil. lib. ii. p. 731. Tollii.

* Nam si molestus pergis esse, jam intro abripiere, atque ibi
Usque ad necem operiere loris. S. loris liber.
Adelphi, act ii, scenal. ver. 28.

▲ Acts xxii. 25. The consul Marcellus scourged with rods one of the ma. gistrates of that place who came to Rome, declaring he inflicted this as a public token that he was no Roman citizen. Plutarch, in Cæsar. p. 1324. edit. Gr. Stephen.

• Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum. Cicero in Verr. lib. v. 170. • Q. Gallium prætorem, servilem in modum torsit.

gusti, cap. 27. p. 192. Variorum Edit.

* See the last note but one.

• Dion Cassius, lib. lx. p. 953. Reimar.

IV, "The Roman method of fettering and confining criminals was singular. One end of a chain, that was of commodious length, was fixed about the right arm of the prisoner, and the other end was fastened to the left arm of a soldier. Thus a soldier was coupled to the prisoner, and every where

• Mr. Melmoth's note on the 97th letter in the 10th book of Pliny's Epis tles, vol. ii. p. 672. 3d edit.

10 Dion. Halicarn. lib. v. p. 281. edit. Oxon. 1704. See also p. 334. ejusdem

edit.

11 Appellationes quotannis urbanorum quidem litigatorum prætori delega Sueton. in vita Au- vit; ac provincialium consularibus viris, quos singulos cujusque provinciæ negotiis reposuisset. Sueton. vit. August. cap. 33. p. 208. edit. var. Lug. Bat. 1662.

12 Plinii Epistolæ, lib. x. epist. 97. pp. 722, 723. ed. var. 1669.