We have said that the kingdom of this Agrippa was not coincident with that of his father. He was never, in fact, King of Judoea. The three years during which Agrippa I. reigned at Caesarea were only an interpolation in the long series of Roman procurators who ruled Judaea, in subordination to the governors of Syria, from the death of Herod the Great to the final destruction of Jerusalem. In the year 44, the second Agrippa was only sixteen years old, and he was detained about the court of Claudius, while Cuspius Fadus was sent out to direct the provincial affairs at Caesarea. (f2060) It was under the administration of Fadus that those religious movements took place, which ended (as we have seen above, p. 635) in placing under the care of the Jews the sacred vestments kept in the tower of Antonia, and which gave to Herod king of Chalcis the management of the Temple and its treasury, and the appointment of the high priests. And in other respects the Jews had reason to remember his administration with gratitude; for he put down the banditti which had been the pest of the country under Agrippa; and the slavish compliment of Tertullus to Felix (Acts 24:2, 3) might have been addressed to him with truth, — that "by him the Jews enjoyed great quietness, and that very worthy deeds had been done to the nation by his providence." He was succeeded by Tiberius Alexander, a renegade Alexandrian Jew, and the nephew of the celebrated Philo. (f2061) In relation to the life of this official in Judaea, there are no incidents worth recording: at a later period we see him at the siege of Jerusalem in command of Roman forces under Titus:(f2062) and the consequent inscriptions in his honor at Rome served to point the sarcasm of the Roman satirist. (f2063) Soon after the arrival of Ventidius Cumanus to succeed him as governor (f2064) in the year 48, Herod king of Chalcis died, and Agrippa II. was placed on his throne, with the same privileges in reference to the Temple and its worship which had been possessed by his uncle.
"During the government of Cumanus, the low and sullen murmurs which announced the approaching eruption of the dark volcano, now gathering its strength in Palestine, became more distinct. The people and the Roman soldiery began to display mutual animosity." (f2065)
One indication of this animosity has been alluded to before, (f2066) — the dreadful loss of life in the Temple which resulted from the wanton insolence of one of the soldiers in Antonia at the time of a festival. Another was the excitement which ensued after the burning of the Scriptures by the Roman troops at Beth-Horon, on the road between Jerusalem and Caesarea. An attack made by the Samaritans on some Jews who were proceeding through their country to a festival led to wider results. (f2067) Appeal was made to Quadratus, governor of Syria; and Cumanus was sent to Rome to answer for his conduct to the Emperor. In the end he was deposed, and Felix, the brother of Pallas the freedman and favorite of Claudius, was (partly by the influence of Jonathan the high priest) appointed to succeed him. (f2068)
The mention of this governor, who was brought into such intimate relations with St. Paul, demands that we should enter now more closely into details. The origin of Felix and the mode of his elevation would prepare us to expect in him such a character as that which is condensed into a few words by Tacitus, (f2069) — that, "in the practice of all kinds of lust and cruelty, he exercised the power of a king with the temper of a slave." The Jews had, indeed, to thank him for some good services to their nation. He cleared various parts of the country from robbers; (f2070) and he pursued and drove away that Egyptian fanatic, (f2071) with whom Claudius Lysias too hastily identified St. Paul. (f2072) But the same historian from whom we derive this information gives us a terrible illustration of his cruelty in the story of the murder of Jonathan, to whom Felix was partly indebted for his own elevation. The high priest had presumed to expostulate with the governor on some of his practices, and assassins were forthwith employed to murder him in the sanctuary of the Temple. (f2073) And as this crime illustrates one part of the sentence, in which Tacitus describes his character, so we may see the other parts of it justified and elucidated in the narrative of St. Luke; — that which speaks of him as a voluptuary, by his union with Drusilla, whom he had enticed from her husband by aid of a magician, who is not unreasonably identified by some with Simon Magus, (f2074) — and that which speaks of his servile meanness, by his trembling without repentance at the preaching of Paul, and by his detention of him in prison from the hope of a bribe. When he finally left the Apostle in bonds at Caesarea, this also (as we shall see) was done from a mean desire to conciliate those who were about to accuse him at Rome of mal-administration of the province. The final breach between him and the provincials seems to have arisen from a quarrel at Caesarea between the Jewish and Heathen population, which grew so serious, that the troops were called out into the streets, and both slaughter and plunder was the result.
The mention of this circumstance leads us to give some account of the troops quartered in Palestine, and of the general distribution of the Roman army, without some notion of which no adequate idea can be obtained of the Empire and the Provinces. Moreover, St. Paul is brought, about this part of his life, into such close relations with different parts of that military service, from which he draws some of his most forcible imagery, (See especially Ephesians 6:10 18; also 1Corinthians 14:8; and 2Timothy 2:3, 4.) that our narrative would be incomplete without some account both of the Praetorian guards and the legionary soldiers. The latter force may be fitly described in connection with Caesarea, and we shall see that it is not out of place to allude here to the former also, though its natural association is with the city of Rome.
That division between the armed and unarmed provinces, to which attention has been called before (pp. 129-181), (f2075) will serve to direct us to the principle on which the Roman legions were distributed. They were chiefly posted in the outer provinces or along the frontier, the immediate neighborhood of the Mediterranean being completely subdued under the sway of Rome. The military force required in Gaul and Spain was much smaller than it had been in the early days of Augustus. Even in Africa the frontier was easily maintained; for the Romans do not seem to have been engaged there in that interminable war with native tribes which occupies the French in Algeria. The greatest accumulation of legions was on the northern and eastern boundaries of the Empire, — along the courses of the three frontier rivers, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates; (f2076) and, finally, three legions were stationed in Britain, and three in Judaea. We know the very names of these legions. Just as we find memorials of the second, the ninth, and the twentieth in connection with Chester (f2077) or York, so by the aid of historians or historic monuments we can trace the presence of the fifth, the tenth, and the fifteenth in Caesarea, Ptolemais, or Jerusalem. (f2078) And here two principles must be borne in mind which regulated the stations of the legions. They did not move from province to province, as our troops are taken in succession from one colony to another; but they remained on one station for a vast number of years. And they were recruited, for the most part, from the provinces where they were posted: for the time had long passed away when every legionary soldier was an Italian and a freeborn Roman citizen. (f2079) Thus Josephus tells us repeatedly that the troops quartered in his native country were re-enforced from thence; (f2080) not indeed from the Jews, — for they were exempt from the duty of serving, (f2081) — but from the Greek and Syrian population.
But what were these legions? We must beware of comparing them too exactly with our own regiments of a few hundred men; for they ought rather to be called brigades, each consisting of more than 6, 000 infantry, with a regiment of cavalry attached. Here we see the explanation of one part of the force sent down by Claudius Lysias to Antipatris. (f2082) Within the fortress of Antonia were stables for the horses of the troopers, as well as quarters for a cohort of infantry. But, moreover, every legion had attached to it a body of auxiliaries levied in the province, of almost equal number; and here, perhaps, we find the true account of the 200 "spearmen," who formed a part of St. Paul’s escort, with the 200 legionary soldiers. Thus we can form to ourselves some notion of those troops (amounting, perhaps, to 35, 000 men), the presence of which was so familiar a thing in Judaea, that the mention of them appears in the most solemn passages of the Evangelic and Apostolic history, (f2083) while a Jewish historian gives us one of the best accounts of their discipline and exercises. (f2084)
But the legionary soldiers, with their cavalry and auxiliaries, were not the only military force in the Empire, and, as it seems, not the only one in Judaea itself. The great body of troops at Rome (as we shall see when we have followed St. Paul to the metropolis) were the Praetorian Guards, amounting at this period to 10, 000 men. (f2085) These favored forces were entirely recruited from Italy; their pay was higher, and their time of service shorter; and, for the most part, they were not called out on foreign service. (f2086) Yet there is much weight in the opinion which regards the Augustan Cohort of Acts 27:1 as a part of this Imperial Guard. (f2087) Possibly it was identical (f2088) with the Italic Cohort of Acts 10:1. It might well be that the same corps might be called "Italic," because its men were exclusively Italians; and "Augustan," because they were properly part of the Emperor’s guard, though some of them might occasionally be attached to the person of a provincial governor. And we observe that, while Cornelius ( Acts 10:1) and Julius (Acts 27:1) are both Roman names, it is at Caesarea that each of these cohorts is said to have been stationed. As regards the Augustan cohort, if the view above given is correct, one result of it is singularly interesting; for it seems that Julius the centurion, who conducted the Apostle Paul to Rome, can be identified with a high degree of probability with Julius Priscus, who was afterwards prefect of the Praetorian Guards under the Emperor Vitellius. (f2089)
This brief notice may suffice, concerning the troops quartered in Palestine, and especially at Caesarea. The city itself remains to be described. Little now survives on the spot to aid us in the restoration of this handsome metropolis. On the wide area once occupied by its busy population there is silence, interrupted only by the monotonous washing of the sea; and no sign of human life, save the occasional encampment of Bedouin Arabs, or the accident of a small coasting vessel anchoring off the shore. The best of the ruins are ingulfed by the sand, or concealed by the encroaching sea. The nearest road passes at some distance, so that comparatively few travelers have visited Caesarea. (f2090) Its glory was short-lived. Its decay has been complete, as its rise was arbitrary and sudden. Strabo, in the reign of Augustus, describes at this part of the inhospitable coast of Palestine nothing but a landing-place, with a castle called Strato’s Tower. Less than eighty years afterwards we read in Tacitus and Pliny of a city here, which was in possession of honorable privileges, which was the "Head of Judaea," as Antioch was of Syria. Josephus explains to us the change which took place in so short an interval, by describing the work which Herod the Great began and completed in twelve years. (f2091) Before building Antipatris in honor of his father (see p. 650), he built on the shore between Dora and Joppa, where Strato’s castle stood, near the boundary of Galilee and Samaria, a city of sumptuous palaces in honor of Augustus Caesar. The city was provided with every thing that could contribute to magnificence, (f2092) amusement, (f2093) and health. (f2094) But its great boast was its harbor, which provided for the ships which visited that dangerous coast a safe basin, equal in extent to the Piraeus. (f2095) Vast stones were sunk in the sea to the depth of twenty fathoms, (f2096) and thus a stupendous breakwater (f2097) was formed, curving round so as to afford complete protection from the southwesterly winds, (f2098) and open only on the north. Such is an imperfect description of that city, which in its rise and greatest eminence is exactly contemporaneous with the events of which we read in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. It has, indeed, some connection with later history. Vespasian was here declared emperor, and he conferred on it the title of a colony, with the additional honor of being called by his own name. Here Eusebius (f2099) and Procopius were born, and thus it is linked with the recollections of Constantine and Justinian. After this time its annals are obscured, though the character of its remains — which have been aptly termed "ruins of ruins" — show that it must have long been a city of note under the successive occupants of Palestine. (f2100) Its chief association, however, must always be with the age of which we are writing. Its two great features were its close connection with Rome and the emperors, and the large admixture of Heathen strangers in its population.
Not only do we see here the residence of Roman procurators, (f2101) the quarters of imperial troops, (f2102) and the port by which Judaea was entered from the west, but a Roman impress was ostentatiously given to every thing that belonged to Caesarea. The conspicuous object to those who approached from the sea was a temple dedicated to Caesar and to Rome:(f2103) the harbor was called the "Augustan harbor:" (f2104) the city itself was "Augustan Caesarea." (f2105) And, finally, the foreign influence here was so great, that the Septuagint translation of the Scriptures was read in the Synagogues. (f2106) There was a standing quarrel between the Greeks and the Jews, as to whether it was a Greek city or a Jewish city. The Jews appealed to the fact that it was built by a Jewish prince. The Greeks pointed to the temples and statues. (f2107) This quarrel was never appeased till the great war broke out, the first act of which was the slaughter of 20,000 Jews in the streets of Caesarea. (f2108)
Such was the city in which St. Paul was kept in detention among the Roman soldiers, till the time should come for his trial before that unscrupulous governor, whose character has been above described. His accusers were not long in arriving. The law required that causes should be heard speedily; and the Apostle’s enemies at Jerusalem were not wanting in zeal. Thus, "after five days," (f2109) the high priest Ananias and certain members of the Sanhedrin (f2110) appeared, with one of those advocates who practised in the law courts of the provinces, where the forms of Roman law were imperfectly known, and the Latin language imperfectly understood. (f2111) The man whose professional services were engaged on this occasion was called Tertullus. The name is Roman, and there is little doubt that he was an Italian, and spoke on this occasion in Latin. (f2112) The criminal information was formally laid before the governor. (f2113) The prisoner was summoned, (f2114) and Tertullus brought forward the charges against him in a set speech, which we need not quote at length, He began by loading Felix with unmerited praises, (f2115) and then proceeded to allege three distinct heads of accusation against St. Paul, — charging him, first with causing factious disturbances among all the Jews throughout the Empire (f2116) (which was an offence against the Roman Government, and amounted to Majestas or treason against the Emperor), — secondly with being a ringleader of "the sect of the Nazarenes" (f2117) (which involved heresy against the law of Moses), — and thirdly with an attempt to profane the Temple at Jerusalem (f2118) (an offence not only against the Jewish, but also against the Roman Law, which protected the Jews in the exercise of their worship). He concluded by asserting (with serious deviations from the truth) that Lysias, the commandant of the garrison, had forcibly taken the prisoner away, when the Jews were about to judge him by their own ecclesiastical law, and had thus improperly brought the matter before Felix. (f2119) The drift of this representation was evidently to persuade Felix to give up St. Paul to the Jewish courts, in which case his assassination would have been easily accomplished. (f2120) And the Jews who were present gave a vehement assent to the statements of Tertullus, making no secret of their animosity against St. Paul, and asserting that these things were indeed so.
The governor now made a gesture (f2121) to the prisoner to signify that he might make his defense. The Jews were silent; and the Apostle, after briefly expressing his satisfaction that he had to plead his cause before one so well acquainted with Jewish customs, refuted Tertullus step by step. He said that on his recent visit to Jerusalem at the festival (and he added that it was only "twelve days" since he had left Caesarea for that purpose), (f2122) he had caused no disturbance in any part of Jerusalem, — that, as to heresy, he had never swerved from his belief in the Law and the Prophets, and that, in conformity with that belief, he held the doctrine of a resurrection, and sought to live conscientiously before the God of his fathers, (f2123) — and as to the Temple, so far from profaning it, he had been found in it deliberately observing the very strictest ceremonies. The Jews of "Asia," he added, who had been his first accusers, ought to have been present as witnesses now. Those who were present knew full well that no other charge was brought home to him before the Sanhedrin, except what related to the belief that he held in common with the Pharisees. But, without further introduction, we quote St. Luke’s summary of his own words:—
See Notes on Acts 24:10-21.
There was all the appearance of truthfulness in St. Paul’s words; and they harmonized entirely with the statement contained in the despatch of Claudius Lysias. Moreover, Felix had resided so long in Caesarea, (f2124) where the Christian religion had been known for many years, (See Acts 13:40.) and had penetrated even among the troops, (f2125) that "he had a more accurate knowledge of their religion" (v. 22) than to be easily deceived by the misrepresentations of the Jews. (f2126) Thus a strong impression was made on the mind of this wicked man. But his was one of those characters which are easily affected by feelings, but always drawn away from right action by the overpowering motive of self-interest. He could not make up his mind to acquit St. Paul. He deferred all inquiry into the case for the present. "When Lysias comes down," he said, "I will decide finally (f2127) between you." Meanwhile he placed the Apostle under the charge of the centurion who had brought him to Caesarea, (f2128) with directions that he should be treated with kindness and consideration. Close confinement was indeed necessary, both to keep him in safety from the Jews, and because he was not yet acquitted; but orders were given that he should have every relaxation which could be permitted in such a case, (f2129) and that any of his friends should be allowed to visit him, and to minister to his comfort. (f2130) We read nothing, however, of Lysias coming to Caesarea, or of any further judicial proceedings. Some few days afterwards (f2131) Felix came into the audience-chamber (f2132) with his wife Drusilla, and the prisoner was summoned before them. Drusilla, "being a Jewess" (v. 24), took a lively interest in what Felix told her of Paul, and was curious to hear something of this faith which had "Christ" for its object. (f2133) Thus Paul had an opportunity in his bonds of preaching the Gospel, and such an opportunity as he could hardly otherwise have obtained. His audience consisted of a Roman libertine and a profligate Jewish princess: and he so preached, as a faithful Apostle must needs have preached to such hearers. In speaking of Christ, he spoke of "righteousness and temperance, and judgment to come;" and while he was so discoursing, "Felix trembled." Yet still we hear of no decisive result. "Go thy way for this time: when I have a convenient season, I will send for thee," — was the response of the conscience-stricken but impenitent sinner, — the response which the Divine Word has received ever since, when listened to in a like spirit.
We are explicitly informed why this governor shut his ears to conviction, and even neglected his official duty, and kept his prisoner in cruel suspense. "He hoped that he might receive from Paul a bribe for his liberation." He was not the only governor of Judaea against whom a similar accusation is brought:(f2134) and Felix, well knowing how the Christians aided one another in distress, and possibly having some information of the funds with which St. Paul had recently been entrusted, (f2135) and ignorant of those principles which make it impossible for a true Christian to tamper by bribes with the course of law, — might naturally suppose that he had here a good prospect of enriching himself. "Hence he frequently sent for Paul, and had many conversations (f2136) with him." But his hopes were unfulfilled. Paul, who was ever ready to claim the protection of the law, would not seek to evade it by dishonorable means:(f2137) and the Christians, who knew how to pray for an Apostle in bonds (Acts 12.), would not forget the duty of "rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s." Thus Paul remained in the Praetorium; and the suspense continued "two years."
Such a pause in a career of such activity, — such an arrest of the Apostle’s labors at so critical a time, — two years taken from the best part of a life of such importance to the world, — would seem to us a mysterious dispensation of Providence, if we did not know that God has an inner work to accomplish in those who are the chosen instruments for effecting His greatest purposes. As Paul might need the repose of preparation in Arabia, before he entered on his career, (f2138) so his prison at Caesarea might be consecrated to the calm meditation, the less interrupted prayer, — which resulted in a deeper experience and knowledge of the power of the Gospel. Nor need we assume that his active exertions for others were entirely suspended. "The care of all the churches" might still be resting on him: many messages, and even letters, (f2139) of which we know nothing, may have been sent from Caesarea to brethren at a distance. And a plausible conjecture fixes this period and place for the writing of St. Luke’s Gospel under the superintendence of the Apostle of the Gentiles.
All positive information, however, is denied us concerning the employments of St. Paul while imprisoned at Caesarea. We are the more disposed, therefore, to turn our thoughts to the consideration of the nature and outward circumstances of his confinement; and this inquiry is indeed necessary for the due elucidation of the narrative.
When an accusation was brought against a Roman citizen, the magistrate, who had criminal jurisdiction in the case, appointed the time for hearing the cause, and detained the accused in custody during the interval. He was not bound to fix any definite time for the trial, but might defer it at his own arbitrary pleasure; and he might also commit the prisoner at his discretion to any of the several kinds of custody recognized by the Roman law. These were as follows:—
First, confinement in the public jail (custodia publico), which was the most severe kind; the common jails throughout the Empire being dungeons of the worst description, where the prisoners were kept in chains, or even bound in positions of torture. Of this we have seen an example in the confinement of Paul and Silas at Philippi.
Secondly, free custody (custodioe libera), which was the mildest kind. Here the accused party was committed to the charge of a magistrate or senator, who became responsible for his appearance on the day of trial; but this species of detention was only employed in the case of men of high rank.
Thirdly, military custody (custodia militaris), which was introduced at the beginning of the Imperial regime. In this last species of custody, the accused person was given in charge to a soldier, who was responsible with his own life for the safe keeping of his prisoner. This was further secured by chaining the prisoner’s right hand to the soldier’s left. The soldiers of course relieved one another in this duty. Their prisoner was usually kept in their barracks, but sometimes allowed to reside in a private house under their charge.
It was under this latter species of custody that St. Paul was now placed by Felix, who "gave him in charge to the centurion, that he should be kept in custody" (Acts 24:23); but (as we have seen) he added the direction, that he should be treated with such indulgence (f2140) as this kind of detention permitted. Josephus tells us that, when the severity of Agrippa’s imprisonment at Rome was mitigated, his chain was relaxed at meal times. (f2141) This illustrates the nature of the alleviations which such confinement admitted; and it is obvious that the centurion might render it more or less galling, according to his inclination, or the commands he had received. The most important alleviation of St. Paul’s imprisonment consisted in the order, which Felix added, that his friends should be allowed free access to him.
Meantime, the political state of Judaea grew more embarrassing. The e asperation of the people under the mal-administration of Felix became increasingly implacable; and the crisis was rapidly approaching. It was during the two years of St. Paul’s imprisonment that the disturbances, to which allusion has been made before, took place in the streets of Caesarea. The troops, who were chiefly recruited in the province, fraternized with the Heathen population, while the Jews trusted chiefly to the influence of their wealth. In the end Felix was summoned to Rome, and the Jews followed him with their accusations. Thus it was that he was anxious, even at his departure, "to confer obligations upon them" (v. 27), and one effort to diminish his unpopularity was "to leave Paul in bonds." In so doing, he doubtless violated the law, and trifled with the rights of a Roman citizen; but the favor of the provincial Jews was that which he needed; and the Christians were weak in comparison with them; nor were such delays in the administration of justice unprecedented, either at Rome or in the provinces. Thus it was, that, as another governor of Judaea (f2142) opened the prisons that he might make himself popular, Felix, from the same motive, riveted the chains of an innocent man. The same enmity of the world against the Gospel, which set Barabbas free, left Paul a prisoner.
No change seems to have taken place in the outward circumstances of the Apostle when Festus came to take command of the province. He was still in confinement as before. But immediately on the accession of the new governor, the unsleeping hatred of the Jews made a fresh attempt upon his life; and the course of their proceedings presently changed the whole aspect of his case, and led to unexpected results.
When a Roman governor came to his province, — whether his character was coarse and cruel, like that of Felix, or reasonable and just, as that of Festus seems to have been, — his first step would be to make himself acquainted with the habits and prevalent feelings of the people he was come to rule, and to visit such places as might seem to be more peculiarly associated with national interests. The Jews were the most remarkable people in the whole extent of the Roman provinces; and no city was to any other people what Jerusalem was to the Jews. We are not surprised therefore to learn that "three days" after his arrival at the political metropolis, Festus "went up to Jerusalem." Here he was immediately met by an urgent request against St. Paul, (f2143) preferred by the chief priests and leading men among the Jews, (f2144) and seconded, as it seems, by a general concourse of the people, who came round him with no little vehemence and clamor. (f2145) They asked as a favor (f2146) (and they had good reason to hope that the new governor (f2147) on his accession would not refuse it) that he would allow St. Paul to he brought up to Jerusalem. The plea, doubtless, was, that he should be tried again before the Sanhedrin. But the real purpose was to assassinate him (f2148) on some part of the road over which he had been safely brought by the escort two years before. So bitter and so enduring was their hatred against the apostate Pharisee. The answer of Festus was dignified and just, and worthy of his office. He said that Paul was in custody (f2149) at Caesarea, and that he himself was shortly to return thither (v. 4), adding that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up an uncondemned person as a mere favor (f2150) (v. 16). The accused must have the accuser face to face, (f2151) and full opportunity must be given for a defense (ib.). Those, therefore, who were competent to undertake the task of accusers, (f2152) should come down with him to Caesarea, and there prefer the accusation (v. 5).
Festus remained "eight or ten days" in Jerusalem, and then returned to Caesarea; and the accusers went down the same day. (f2153) No time was lost after their arrival. The very next day (f2154) Festus took his seat on the judicial tribunal, (f2155) with his assessors near him (v. 12), and ordered Paul to be brought before him. "The Jews who had come down from Jerusalem" stood round, bringing various heavy accusations against him (which, however, they could not establish), (f2156) and clamorously asserting that he was worthy of death. (f2157) We must not suppose that the charges now brought were different in substance from those urged by Tertullus. The prosecutors were in fact the same now as then, namely, delegates from the Sanhedrin; and the prisoner was still lying under the former accusation, which had never been withdrawn. (f2158) We see from what is said of Paul’s defense, that the charges were still classed under the same three heads as before; viz. Heresy, Sacrilege, and Treason. (f2159) But Festus saw very plainly that the offence was really connected with the religious opinions of the Jews, instead of relating, as he at first expected, to some political movement (vv. 18, 19); and he was soon convinced that St. Paul had done nothing worthy of death (v. 25). Being, therefore, in perplexity (v. 20), and at the same time desirous of ingratiating himself with the provincials (v. 9), he proposed to St. Paul that he should go up to Jerusalem, and be tried there in his presence, or at least under his protection. (f2160) But the Apostle knew full well the danger that lurked in this proposal, and, conscious of the rights which he possessed as a Roman citizen, he refused to accede to it, and said boldly to Festus, —
"Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar." Acts 25:10-11
Festus was probably surprised by this termination of the proceedings; but no choice was open to him. Paul had urged his prerogative as a Roman citizen, to be tried, not by the Jewish, but by the Roman law; (f2161) a claim which, indeed, was already admitted by the words of Festus, who only proposed to transfer him to the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin with his own consent. (f2162) He ended by availing himself of one of the most important privileges of Roman citizenship, the right of appeal. By the mere pronunciation of these potent words, "I appeal unto Caesar," (f2163) he instantly removed his cause from the jurisdiction of the magistrate before whom he stood, and transferred it to the supreme tribunal of the Emperor at Rome.
To explain the full effect of this proceeding, we must observe that, in the provinces of Rome, the supreme criminal jurisdiction (both under the Republic and the Empire) was exercised by the Governors, whether they were Proconsuls, Propraetors, or (as in the case of Judaea) Procurators. To this jurisdiction the provincials were subject without appeal, and it is needless to say that it was often exercised in the most arbitrary manner. But the Roman citizens in the provinces, though also liable to be brought before the judgment-seat of the Governor, were protected from the abuse of his authority; for they had the right of stopping his proceedings against them by appealing to the Tribunes, whose intervention at once transferred the cognizance of the cause to the ordinary tribunals at Rome. (f2164) This power was only one branch of that prerogative of intercession (as it was called) by which the Tribunes could stop the execution of the sentences of all other magistrates. Under the Imperial regime, the Emperor stood in the place of the Tribunes; Augustus and his successors being invested with the Tribunician power, as the most important of the many Republican offices which were concentrated in their persons. Hence the Emperors constitutionally exercised the right of intercession, by which they might stop the proceedings of inferior authorities. But they extended this prerogative much beyond the limits which had confined it during the Republican epoch. They not only arrested the execution of the sentences of other magistrates, but claimed and exercised the right of reversing or altering them, and of re-hearing (f2165) the causes themselves. In short, the Imperial tribunal was erected into a supreme court of appeal from all inferior courts either in Rome or in the provinces.
Such was the state of things when St. Paul appealed from Festus to Caesar. If the appeal was admissible, it at once suspended all further proceedings on the part of Festus. There were, however, a few cases in which the right of appeal was disallowed; a bandit or a pirate, for example, taken in the fact, might be condemned and executed by the Proconsul, notwithstanding his appeal to the Emperor. Accordingly, we read that Festus took counsel with his Assessors, (f2166) concerning the admissibility of Paul’s appeal. But no doubt could be entertained on this head; and he immediately pronounced the decision of the Court. "Thou hast appealed (f2167) unto Caesar: to Caesar thou shalt be sent."
Thus the hearing of the cause, as far as Festus was concerned, had terminated. There only remained for him the office of remitting to the supreme tribunal, before which it was to be carried, his official report (f2168) upon its previous progress. He was bound to forward to Rome all the acts and documents bearing upon the trial, the depositions of the witnesses on both sides, and the record of his own judgment on the case. And it was his further duty to keep the person of the accused in safe custody, and to send him to Rome for trial at the earliest opportunity.
Festus, however, was still in some perplexity. Though the appeal had been allowed, yet the information elicited on the trial was so vague, that he hardly knew what statement to insert in his despatch to the Emperor: and it seemed "a foolish thing to him to send a prisoner to Rome without at the same time specifying the charges against him" (v. 27). It happened about this time that Herod Agrippa II., King of Chalcis, with his sister Berenice, came on a complimentary visit to the new governor, and staid "some days" at Caesarea. (f2169) This prince had been familiarly acquainted from his youth with all that related to the Jewish law, and moreover was at this time (as we have seen) (f2170) superintendent of the Temple, with the power of appointing the high priest. Festus took advantage of this opportunity of consulting one better informed than himself on the points in question. He recounted to Agrippa what has been summarily related above; (f2171) confessing his ignorance of Jewish theology, and alluding especially to Paul’s reiterated assertion (f2172) concerning "one Jesus who had died and was alive again." This cannot have been the first time that Agrippa had heard of the resurrection of Jesus, or of the Apostle Paul. (f2173) His curiosity was aroused, and he expressed a wish to see the prisoner. Festus readily acceded to the request, and fixed the next day for the interview.
At the time appointed, Agrippa and Berenice came with great pomp and display, and entered into the audience-chamber, with a suite of military officers and the chief men of Caesarea; (f2174) and at the command of Festus, Paul was brought before them. The proceedings were opened by a ceremonious speech from Festus himself, (f2175) describing the circumstances under which the prisoner had been brought under his notice, and ending with a statement of his perplexity as to what he should write to "his Lord" (f2176) the Emperor. This being concluded, Agrippa said condescendingly to St. Paul, that he was now permitted to speak for himself. And the Apostle, "stretching out the hand" which was chained to the soldier who guarded him, spoke thus:—
See Notes on Acts 26:1-24
Here Festus broke out into a loud exclamation, (f2177) expressive of ridicule and surprise. To the cold man of the world, as to the inquisitive Athenians, the doctrine of the resurrection was foolishness: and he said, "Paul, thou art mad: thy incessant study (f2178) is turning thee to madness." The Apostle had alluded in his speech to writings which had a mysterious sound, to the prophets and to Moses (f2179) (vv. 22, 23); and it is reason able to believe that in his imprisonment, such "books and parchments," as he afterwards wrote for in his second letter to Timothy, (f2180) were brought to him by his friends. Thus Festus adopted the conclusion that he had before him a mad enthusiast, whose head had been turned by poring over strange learning. The Apostle’s reply was courteous and self-possessed, but intensely earnest.
"But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. " Acts 26:25-26
Then, turning to the Jewish voluptuary who sat beside the Governor, he made this solemn appeal to him:—
"King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest." Acts 26:27
The King’s reply was:"Thou wilt soon (f2181) persuade me to be a Christian." The words were doubtless spoken ironically and in contempt: but Paul took them as though they had been spoken in earnest, and made that noble answer, which expresses, as no other words ever expressed them, that union of enthusiastic zeal with genuine courtesy, which is the true characteristic of "a Christian."
"And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds." Acts 26:29
This concluded the interview. King Agrippa had no desire to hear more; and he rose from his seat, (f2182) with the Governor and Berenice and those who sat with them. As they retired, they discussed the case with one another, (f2183) and agreed that Paul was guilty of nothing worthy of death or even imprisonment. Agrippa said positively to Festus, "This man (f2184) might have been set at liberty, (f2185) if he had not appealed to the Emperor." But the appeal had been made. There was no retreat either for Festus or for Paul. On the new Governor’s part there was no wish to continue the procrastination of Felix; and nothing now remained but to wait for a convenient opportunity of sending his prisoner to Rome.
Coin of Nero and Herod Agrippa II. (f2186)
Footnotes
(f2057) We assume that Festus succeeded Felix in the year 60. In support of this opinion we must refer to the note (C) upon the Chronological Table, Appendix III.
(f2058) Agrippa II. was made king of Chalcis A. D. 48 — he received a further accession of territory A. D. 53, and died, at the age of 70, A. D. 99. He was intimate with Josephus, and was the last prince of the Herodian house.
(f2059) Titus seems to have been only prevented from marrying this beautiful and profligate princess by the indignant feeling of the Romans. See Dio Cass. 66:15. The name of Berenice is so mixed up with the history of the times, and she is so often mentioned, both by Josephus and by Roman writers, that it is desirable to put together here some of the principal notices of her life and character. She was first married to her uncle, Herod, king of Chalcis; and after his death she lived with her brother, Agrippa, not without suspicion of the most criminal intimacy. (Joseph. Ant. 20:7, 3.) Compare Juvenal, 6:155.
It was during this period of her life that she made that marriage with Polemo, king of Cilicia, which has been alluded to in the earlier part of this work. (p. 23.) Soon she left Polemo, and returned to her brother: and then it was that St. Paul was brought before them at Caesarea. After this time, she became a partisan of Vespasian. Tac. Hist. 2:81. Her connection with Vespasian’s son is mentioned by Suetonius and by Tacitus, as well as by Dio Cassius. The one redeeming passage in her life is the patriotic feeling she displayed on the occasion alluded to, p. 625. (See Joseph. War, 2:15, 16.)
(f2060) Joseph. Ant. 19:9, 20:5, 1. War, 2:11, 6.
(f2061) Joseph. Ant. 20:5, 2.
(f2062) War, v. 1, 6. Compare 2:18, 7; and iv 10, 6.
(f2063) Juv. 1:129.
(f2064) Ant. 20:5, 2. War, 2:12, 1.
(f2065) Milman’s Hist. of the Jews, 2:203.
(f2066) See the preceding chapter, p. 635. For Beth-Horon, see p. 647, n. 7.
(f2067) Ant. 20:6. War, 2:12.
(f2068) Josephus and Tacitus differ as to the circumstances of his first coming into the East. According to one account, he was joint-procurator for a time with Cumanus, the latter holding Galilee, the former Samaria. From the circumstance of his being called Antonius Felix, it has been supposed that he was manumitted by Antonia, the mother of Claudius.
(f2069) Hist. v. 9. See Ant. 12:54.
(f2070) War, 2:13, 2.
(f2071) Ant. 20:8, 6. War, 2:13, 5.
(f2072) See the preceding chapter.
(f2073) Ant. 20:8, 5. His treachery to Eleazar the arch-robber, mentioned by Josephus in the same section, should not be unnoticed.
(f2074) See p. 74, n. 3.
(f2075) We may add here, that the division of the provinces under the Emperors arose out of an earlier division under the Republic, when a Proconsul with a large military force was sent to some provinces, and a Propraetor with a smaller force to others.
(f2076) In the time of Augustus we find four legions in the neighborhood of the Euphrates, eight on the Rhine frontier, and six along the Danube (two in Moesia, two in Pannonia, and two in Dalmatia). In that of Hadrian, the force on each of these rivers was considerably greater.
(f2077) Antiquarians acquainted with the monuments of Chester are familiar with the letters LEG. 20:v. v. (Valens Victrix).
(f2078) In the History of Tacitus (V. 1) these three legions are expressly mentioned. Compare 1:10, 2:4. The same legions are mentioned by Josephus. See, for instance, War, v. 1, 6, v. 2, 3. We have also notices of them on Syrian coins and inscriptions.
It should be noticed that the passages just adduced from Josephus and Tacitus refer to the time when the Jewish war was breaking out. Judaea may have been garrisoned, not by legions, but by detached cohorts, during the rule of Felix and Festus.
(f2079) At first under the Republic all Roman soldiers were Roman citizens. "But in proportion as the public freedom was lost in extent of conquest, war was gradually improved into an art and degraded into a trade." The change began with Marius. The alauda of Caesar was formed of strangers: but these troops afterwards received the Roman citizenship. With the distinction between the Praetorian and legionary soldiers, all necessary connection between citizenship and military service ceased to exist. In strict conformity with this state of things. we find that Claudius Lysias was a citizen by purchase, not because he was a military officer.
(f2080) Ant. 14:15, 10. War, 1:17, 1.
(f2081) Joshua Ant. 14:10, 11-19.
(f2082) What is written here and in the preceding chapter is based on the assumption that the cohort under the command of Claudius Lysias was a legionary cohort. But it is by no means certain that it was not an independent cohort like those called "Augustan" and "Italic." It appears that such cohorts really contained 1,000 men each.
(f2083) It must be borne in mind that some of the soldiers mentioned in the Gospels belonged to Herod’s military force: but since his troops were disciplined on the Roman model, we need hardly make this distinction.
(f2084) War, 3:5.
(f2085) Under Augustus there were nine cohorts. Under Tiberius they were raised to ten. The number was not increased again till after St. Paul’s time.
(f2086) Such a general rule would have exceptions, — as in the case of our own Guards at Waterloo and Sebastopol.
(f2087) This is a question of some difficulty. Two opinions held by various commentators may, we think, readily be dismissed. 1. This cohors Augusta was not a part of any legio Augusta. 2. It was not identical with the Sebasteni (so named from Sebaste in Samaria) mentioned by Josephus: for, in the first place, this was a troop of horse; and secondly, we should expect a different term to be used.
Wieseler thinks this cohort was a special corps enrolled by Nero under the name of Augustani. They were the elite of the Praetorians, and accompanied Nero to Greece. The date of their enrolment constitutes a difficulty. But might not the cohort in question be some other detachment of the Praetorian Guards 1
It appears from Joseph. War, 3:4, 2, that five cohorts (independently of the legions) were regularly stationed at Caesarea, and the Augustan cohort may very well have been one of them. But we are not by any means limited to those. Dean Alford remarks, very justly, that we must not assume, as too many commentators have done, that this cohort was resident at Caesarea.
(f2088) See p. 26, n. 4, also p. 108, n. 3, (in the account of Cornelius,) where it is shown that this corps cannot have been a cohort of Nero’s Legio prima Italica. One objection to the view of Meyer, who identifies the two, is that Judaea was not under procurators at the time of the conversion of Cornelius. But there is great obscurity about the early dates in the Acts. If the "Augustan cohort" is identical with the Augustani of Nero, it is clear that the "Italic cohort" is not the same.
(f2089) The argument is given in full by Wieseler.
(f2090) Thus Dr. Robinson was prevented from visiting or describing what remains. The fullest account is perhaps that in Buckingham’s Travels (1:197-215). See also Irby and Mangles, and Lamartine. There is an excellent description of the place, with illustrations, at the end of the first volume of Dr. Traill’s Josephus. We may refer now to the views in Van de Velde’s Pays d’Israel.
(f2091) Antiq. 15:9, 6. War, 1:21, 5-8.
(f2092) The buildings were of white stone.
(f2093) It contained both a theatre and an amphitheatre. The former possesses great interest for us as being the scene of the death of Agrippa (p. 119). Some traces of it are said to remain.
(f2094) The arrangement of the sewers is particularly mentioned by Josephus. The remains of the aqueducts are still visible.
(f2095) This is the comparison of Josephus, Antiq. In the "War" he says it was greater than the Piraeus.
(f2096) Most of the stones were 50 feet long, 18 feet broad, and 9 feet deep. Josephus, however, is not quite consistent with himself in his statement of the dimensions.
(f2097) This breakwater has been compared to that of Plymouth: but it was more like that of Cherbourg, and the whole harbor may more fitly be compared to the harbors of refuge now (1852) in construction at Holyhead and Portland.
(f2098) Josephus particularly says that the places on this part of the coast were "bad for anchorage on account of the swell towards (i.e. from) the S. W." — a passage which deserves careful attention, as illustrating Acts 27:12.
(f2099) He was the first biblical geographer (as Forbiger remarks in his account of Caesarea), and to him we owe the Onomasticon, translated by Jerome. This place was also one of the scenes of Origen’s theological labors.
(f2100) See the Appendix of Dr. Traill’s Josephus, vol. I. xlix-lvi, where a very copious account is given of the existing state of Caesarea. Its ruins are described as "remains from which obtrude the costly materials of a succession of structures, and which furnish a sort of condensed commentary upon that series of historical evidence which we derive from books." Of late years they have been used as a quarry, furnishing shafts and ready-wrong blocks, &c, for public buildings at Acre and elsewhere.
(f2101) We are inclined to think that the "praetorium" or "palace" of Herod (Acts 23:35) was a different building from the official residence of Felix and Festus. This seems to be implied in Acts 24:24 and Acts 25:23. We shall have occasion again to refer to the word praitwrion , Acts 26.
(f2102) See above on the Augustan cohort.
(f2103) This temple has been alluded to before, p. 107. Josephus says that in the temple were two statues, one of Rome and one of Caesar. Ant. In War, he says that the statues were colossal, that of Caesar equal in size to the Olympian Jupiter, and that of Rome to the Argive Juno.
(f2104) We find this term on coins of Agrippa I. One of them is given in our larger editions.
(f2105) So it is called by Josephus. Ant. 15:1, 51.
(f2106) Lightfoot on Acts 6:1. See p. 34, n. 3
(f2107) Ant. 20:8, 7. War, 2:13, 7.
(f2108) War, 2:18, 1. See p. 665.
(f2109) It is most natural to reckon these five days from the time of St. Paul’s departure from Jerusalem.
(f2110) "With the Elders;" by which we are to understand representatives or deputies from the Sanhedrin.
(f2111) The accuser and the accused could plead in person, as St. Paul did here: but advocati (rJhtorev) were often employed. It was a common practice for young Roman lawyers to go with consuls and praetors to the provinces, and to "qualify themselves by this provincial practice for the sharper struggles of the forum at home." We have an instance in the case of Caelius, who spent his youth in this way in Africa. Cic. pro Coel. 30. It must be remembered that Latin was the proper language of the law courts in every part of the Empire See p. 2.
(f2112) See again p. 2, for remarks on Tertullus and the peculiarly Latin character of the speech here given.
(f2113) "They laid information before the governor against Paul," Acts 24:1. See Acts 25:2.
(f2114) "When he was summoned," v. 2. The presence of the accused was required by the Roman law.
(f2115) See above. It is worth while to notice here one phrase which is exactly the Latin tua providentia. It may be illustrated by the inscription: PROVID. AUG. on the coin of Commodus in the titlepage of this edition.
(f2116) A mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world.
(f2117) A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes On the word for sect, see below, note, on v. 14 The Authorized Version unfortunately renders the same Greek word, in one case by "sect," in the other "heresy," and thus conceals the link of connection. As regards "Nazarene," this is the only place where it occurs in this sense. In the mouth of Tertullus it was a term of reproach, as "Christian" below (Acts 26:28) in that of Agrippa.
(f2118) Who hath also gone about to profane the Temple.
(f2119) We have before observed that the Sanhedrin was still allowed to exercise criminal jurisdiction over ecclesiastical offenders.
(f2120) Compare the two attempts, Acts 23:15 and Acts 25:3.
(f2121) V. 10. It is some help towards our realizing the scene in our imagination, if we remember that Felix was seated on the tribunal (bhma) like Gallio (Acts 18:12) and Festus (Acts 25:6).
(f2122) In reckoning these twelve days (v. 11) it would be possible to begin with the arrival in Jerusalem instead of the departure for Caesarea, — or we might exclude the days after the return to Caesarea. Wieseler’s arrangement of the time is as follows. 1st day; Departure from Caesarea. 2d: Arrival at Jerusalem. 3d: Meeting of the Elders. 4th (Pentecost):Arrest in the Temple. 5th: Trial before the Sanhedrin. 6th (at night):Departure to Caesarea. 7th: Arrival. 12th (five days after):Ananias leaves Jerusalem. 13th: Ananias reaches Caesarea. Trial before Felix.
(f2123) It has been well observed that the classical phrase "our hereditary God" (v. 14) was judiciously employed before Felix. "The Apostle asserts that, according to the Roman law which allowed all men to worship the gods of their own nation, he is not open to any charge of irreligion." Humphry.
(f2124) If these events took place in the year 58 A. D., he had been governor six years.
(f2125) Acts 10, Besides other means of information, we must remember that Drusilla, his present wife, was a Jewess.
(f2126) Such is the turn given to the words by some of the best commentators. Or they may be taken to denote that he was too well informed concerning the Christian religion to require any further information that might be elicited by the trial: it was only needful to wait for the coming of Lysias.
(f2127) This is more correct than the A. V.
(f2128) Not "a centurion," as in A. V. A natural inference from the use of the article is, that it was the same centurion who had brought St. Paul from Antipatris (see above), and Mr. Birks traces here an undersigned coincidence. But no stress can be laid on this view. The officer might be simply the centurion who was present and on duty at the time.
(f2129) See below.
(f2130) V. 23.
(f2131) V. 24.
(f2132) We must understand that Felix and Drusilla came to some place convenient for an audience, probably the hall mentioned below (Acts 25:23) where the Apostle spoke before Festus with Drusilla’s brother and sister, Agrippa and Berenice.
(f2133) Observe the force of being a Jewess. We should also notice the phrase by which the Gospel is here described, the faith in Christ or the Messiah The name "Christian" was doubtless familiarly known at Caesarea. And a Jewish princess must necessarily have been curious to hear some account of what professed to be the fullfillment of Jewish prophecy. Compare Acts 25:22.
(f2134) Albinus, who succeeded Festus, is said to have released many prisoners, but those only from whom he received a bribe. Joseph. Ant. 20:8, 5. War, 2:14, 1.
(f2135) This suggestion is made by Mr. Birks. For the contributions which St. Paul had recently brought to Jerusalem, see above.
(f2136) We may contrast the verb here (v. 26) with that for continuous address (v. 25), as we have done before in the narrative of the night-service at Troas, Acts 20:9, 11.
(f2137) It is allowable here to refer to the words in which Socrates refused the aid of his friends, who urged him to escape from prison: while in comparing the two cases we cannot but contrast the vague though overpowering sense of moral duty in the Heathen philosopher with the clear and lofty perception of eternal realities in the inspired Apostle.
(f2138) See pp. 89, 90.
(f2139) It is well known that some have thought that the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon were written here. This question will be considered hereafter.
(f2140) Acts 24:23. Meyer and De Wette have understood this as though St. Paul was committed to the custodia libera; but we have seen that this kind of detention was only employed in the case of men of rank, and moreover the mention of the centurion excludes it. But besides this, it is expressly stated (Acts 24:27) that Felix left Paul chained. The same Greek word (meaning relaxation) is applied to the mitigation of Agrippa’s imprisonment (Joshua Ant. 18:6, 10) on the accession of Caligula, although Agrippa was still left under custodia militaris, and still bound with a chain. We shall have occasion to refer again to this relaxation of Agrippa’s imprisonment as illustrating that of St. Paul at Rome. There was, indeed, a lighter form of custodia militaris sometimes employed, under the name of observatio, when the soldier kept guard over his prisoner, and accompanied him wherever he went, but was not chained to him. To this we might have supposed St. Paul subjected, both at Caesarea and at Rome, were not such an hypothesis excluded as to Caearea by Acts 24:27, 26:29, and as to Rome by Ephesians 6:20, Philippians 1:13. Compare Acts 28:16, 31.
(f2141) Such seems the meaning of "relaxation at to eating" in the passage of Josephus, referred to in the preceding note.
(f2142) Albinus. See above, p. 664. Josephus says that, though he received bribes for opening the prisons, he wished by this act to make himself popular, when he found he was to be superseded by Gessius Floras.
(f2143) See v. 2 and v. 15. We should compare St. Luke’s statement with the two accounts given by Festus himself to Agrippa, below.
(f2144) Again we should compare v. 2 and v. 15. Thus the accusers were again representatives of the Sanhedrin.
(f2145) See the second account given by Festus himself to Agrippa, below, v. 24. "All the multitude of the Jews dealt with me, both in Jerusalem and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer."
(f2146) V. 3. See v. 16.
(f2147) Compare the conduct of Albinus and Agrippa I., alluded to before.
(f2148) V. 3.
(f2149) The English version "should be kept" is rather too peremptory. Festus doubtless expresses this decision, but in the most conciliating form.
(f2150) See above, v. 11. Compare the case of Pilate and Barabbas.
(f2151) V. 16. Compare the following passages Acts 23:30, 24:19, 25:5.
(f2152) V. 5.
(f2153) The course of the narrative shows that they went immediately. This is also asserted in the phrase "go down with me," which does not necessarily imply that they went down in the same company with Festus.
(f2154) "The next day," v. 6.; "without any delay on the morrow," v. 17.
(f2155) See again vv. 6, 17.
(f2156) V. 7.
(f2157) See v. 24, where the demand for his death is said to have taken place both at Jerusalem and Caearea.
(f2158) At this period, an accused person might be kept in prison indefinitely, by the delay of the accuser, or the procrastination of the magistrate. See our remarks on this subject, at the beginning of Ch. 25.
(f2159) Acts 25:8, (1) "the Law," (2) "the Temple," (3) "Caesar."
(f2160) V. 9. In v. 20 this is omitted.
(f2161) V. 10.
(f2162) "Wilt thou," &c.
(f2163) The expression here used (equivalent to the Latin appellare) was the regular technical phrase for lodging an appeal. The Roman law did not require any written appeal to be lodged in the hands of the Court; pronunciation of the single word Appello was sufficient to suspend all further proceedings.
(f2164) We must not confound this right of Appellatio to the Tribunes with the right of appeal (Provocatio) to the Comitia, which belonged to every Roman citizen. This latter right was restricted, even in the Republican era, by the institution of the Quoestiones Perpetuoe; because, the judices appointed for those Quaestiones being regarded as representatives of the Comitia, there was no appeal from their decisions. In the time of the Emperors, the Comitia themselves being soon discontinued, this right of Provocatio could be no longer exercised.
(f2165) According to Dio, this was already the case as early as the time of Augustus. It may be doubted whether the Emperor at first claimed the right of reversing the sentences pronounced by the judices of the Quaestiones Perpetuae, which were exempt from the Intercessio of the Tribune. But this question is of less importance, because the system of Quaestiones Perpetuae was soon superseded under the Empire, as we shall afterwards have an opportunity of remarking.
(f2166) For a notice of such consiliarii in a province, see Sueton. Tib. 33. Their office was called assessura. Sueton. Galb. 14.
(f2167) The sentence is not interrogative, as in A. V., but the words express a solemn decision of the Procurator and his Assessors.
(f2168) This report was termed Apostoli, or litaroe Jimissorioe.
(f2169) Some illustrations of peculiar interest from Josephus, as regards both the complimentary character of this visit and the position of Berenice in the matter, are pointed out by the lamented Prof. Blunt, in his Scriptural Coincidences, pp. 358-360.
(f2170) See above, p. 653.
(f2171) Vv. 14-21.
(f2172) The form of the verb implies this reiteration.
(f2173) The tense (v. 22) might seem to imply that he had long wished to see St. Paul.
(f2174) For the audience-hall, see above We may remark that the presence of several Chiliarchs implies that the military force at Caesarea was considerable. The five resident cohorts mentioned by Josephus have been noticed above, p. 657, n. 5.
(f2175) Vv. 24-27.
(f2176) The title Lord applied here to the Emperor should be noticed. Augustus and Tiberius declined a title which implied the relation of master and slave, but their successors sanctioned the use of it, and Julian tried in vain to break through the custom.
(f2177) Observe the mention of the "loud voice," coupled with the fact that Paul "was speaking for himself." Both expressions show that he was suddenly interrupted in the midst of his discourse.
(f2178) The original has the definite article here.
(f2179) See again v. 27, where St. Paul appeals again to the prophets, the writings to which he had alluded before.
(f2180) 2Timothy 4:13. These, we may well believe, would especially be the Old
Testament Scriptures, — perhaps Jewish commentaries on them, and possibly also the works of Heathen poets and philosophers.
(f2181) The phrase here cannot mean "almost," as it is in the Authorized Version. It might mean either "in few words
" (Ephesians 3:3), or "
in a small measure," or "in a small time." The latter meaning agrees best with the following, "in little or in much." We might render the passage thus:"Thou thinkest to make me a Christian with little persuasion." We should observe that the verb is in the present tense, and that the title "Christian" was one of contempt. See
1Peter 4:16.
(f2182) V. 30.
(f2183) V. 31.
(f2184) Again the expression is contemptuous. See the remarks on Acts 16:35 (p.
268). Caludius Lysias uses a similar expression in his letter to Felix, 23:27.
(f2185) Compare Acts 28:18.
(f2186) From the British Museum. Mr. Akerman describes it thus. "This prince, notwithstanding the troubles which now began to afflict his ill-fated country, spent large sums in improving and beautifying Jerusalem, Berytas, and Caesarea Philippi. Of the latter there is a coin extant, bearing the head of Nero: reverse EPI BASILE AGRIPPA NERWNIE, within a laurel garland, confirming the account of Josephus (Ant. 20:9, 8), who says Herod enlarged and called the city Neronias, in honor of the Emperor." Numbers Ill. p. 57.
