upon

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 slaves'; freemen were privileged from this inhumanity and ignominy. It is a flagrant enormity, says Cicero, for a Roman citizen to be bound2: 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 tortured for the discovery of his crimes. Dion Cassius, particularising 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.3 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; transfered his cause, by appeal, from the jurisdiction of the Roman procurator to the decision of the emperor. This appears to be 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,

1 Q. Gallium prætorem, servilem in modum torsit. Sueton. in Vita Augusti, cap. 27. p. 192. Variorum edit.

2 See the last note but one.

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

г

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 abso-
lutely 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, cr 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 receive no personal harm from the magis-
tracy till his cause was 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 con-
cerning 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 per-
severed, I ordered them to be immediately punished; for I was

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

3

2 Dion. Halicarn. lib. v. p. 281. edit. Oxon. 1704. See also p. 334. ejusdem edit. Appellationes quotannis urbanorum quidem litigatorum prætori delegavit; ac provincialium consularibus viris, quos singulos cujusque provinciæ negotiis reposuisset. Sueton. vit. August. cap. 33. p. 208. edit. var. Lug. Bat. 1662.

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.''

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 attended and guarded him.2 This manner of confinement is frequently mentioned, and there are many beautiful allusions to it in the Roman writers. Thus was St. Paul confined. Fettered 3 in this manner, he delivered his apology before Festus, king Agrippa, and Bernice. And it was this circumstance that occasioned one of the most pathetic and affecting strokes of true oratory that ever was displayed either in the Grecian or Roman senate. 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! What a prodigious effect must this striking conclusion, and the sight of the irons held up to enforce it, make upon the minds of the audience. During the two years that St. Paul was a prisoner at large, and lived at Rome in his own hired house, he was subjected to this confinement. Paul was suffered to dwell with a soldier that kept him. The circumstance of publicly wearing this chain, and being thus coupled to a soldier, was very disgraceful and dishonourable, and the ignominy of it would naturally occasion the desertion of former friends and acquaintance. Hence the apostle immortalises the name of Onesiphorus, and fervently intercedes with God to bless his family, and to remember him in the day of future recompense, for a rare instance of distinguished fidelity and affection to him when all had turned away from him and forsaken him. The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he oft refreshed me, and was not ASHAMED of my CHAIN, but immediately upon his arrival in Rome he sought me out very diligently till he found me! The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day. (2 Tim. i. 16, 17, 18.)

"Sometimes the prisoner was fastened to two soldiers, one on each side, wearing a chain both on his right and left hand. St. Paul at first was thus confined. When the tribune received him from the hands of the Jews, he commanded him to be bound with two chains. (Acts xxi. 33.) In this manner was Peter fettered and confined by

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

2 Quemadmodum eadem catena et custodiam et militem copulat, sic ista quæ tam dis. similia sunt, pariter incedunt. Senecæ Epist. 5. tom. ii. p. 13. Gronovii, 1672. So also Manilius.

Vinctorum dominus, sociusque in parte catena, Interdum pœnis innoxia corpora servat. Lib. V. v. 628, 629. In like manner the brave but unfortunate Eumenes addressed a very pathetic speech to his army, with his fetters on. Plutarch, Eumenes. Justin, lib. xiv. cap. 3. Prolatam, sicut erat catenatus, manum ostendit. Gronovii.

Justin, lib. xiv. cap. 3. p. 395.

Herod Agrippa. The same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with TWO CHAINS. (Acts xii. 6.)

"It further appears, that if the soldiers, who were thus appointed to guard criminals, and to whom they were chained, suffered the prisoner to escape, they were punished with death. Thus when Peter was delivered out of prison by a miracle, the next morning we read there was no small confusion among the soldiers who were appointed his guards, and to whom he had been chained, what was become of Peter.

"Whence it appears that his deliverance had been effected, and his shackles had been miraculously unloosed, without their knowledge, when they were sunk in repose. Upon which Herod, after making a fruitless search for him, ordered all those who had been entrusted with the custody of Peter to be executed. (Acts xii. 19.) In like manner also keepers of prisons were punished with death, if the confined made their escape. This is evident from what is related concerning the imprisonment of Paul and Silas at Philippi. These, after their bodies were mangled with scourges, were precipitated into the public dungeon, and their feet were made fast in the stocks. At midnight these good men prayed and sang praises to God in these circumstances; when suddenly a dreadful earthquake shook the whole prison to its foundation, all the doors in an instant flew open, and the shackles of all the prisoners dropped to the ground. This violent concussion awakening the keeper, when he saw the doors of the prison wide open, he drew his sword, and was going to plunge it in his bosom, concluding that all the prisoners had escaped. In that crisis Paul called to him with a loud voice, entreating him not to lay violent hands upon himself, assuring him all the prisoners were safe.

V. "The Roman tribunal, if we may judge of it from what is related concerning Pilate's, was erected on a raised stage, the floor of which was embellished with a tesselated pavement. This consisted of little square pieces of marble, or of stones of various colours, which were disposed and arranged with great art and elegance, to form a chequered and pleasing appearance. Pliny informs us that this refinement was first introduced among the Romans by Sylla.2 Their great men were so fond of this magnificence, and thought it so essential to the elegance and splendour of life, that they appear to have carried with them these splendid materials to form and compose these elaborate floors, for their tents, for their houses, and for their tribunals, wherever they removed from a depraved and most wretchedly vitiated taste, at last deeming them a necessary and indispensable furniture, not merely a vain and proud display of grandeur and greatness. With this variegated pavement, composed of pieces of marble or stone thus disposed and combined, the evangelist informs us that the floor of Pilate's tribunal was ornamented.

1 Opus tessellatum ex parvulis coloris varii lapillis quadratis constabat, quibus solum pavimenti incrustabatur. Varro de re rustica, lib. iii. 1.

Suetonius vita J.

2 Lithostrota acceptavere sub Sylla. Plinii Hist. Nat. lib. xxxvi. p. 60. In expeditionibus tessella et sectilia pavimenta circumtulisse. Cæsaris, cap. 46. p. 74. edit. variorum, Lug. Bat. 1662. Vid. etiam not.

Salmasii in loc.

(John xix. 13.) Such an embellishment of a tribunal was only a proud ostentatious display to the world of Italian greatness and magnificence, calculated less for real use than to strike the beholders with an idea of the boundless prodigality and extravagance of the Romans.

"Having mentioned Pilate the Roman procurator, we cannot close this section without remarking the efforts he repeatedly made, when he sat in judgment upon Jesus, to save him from the determined fury of the Jews. Five successive attempts are enumerated by commentators and critics. He had the fullest conviction of his innocence that it was merely through malice, and a virulence which nothing could placate, that they demanded his execution. Yet though the governor for a long time resisted all their united clamour and importunity, and, conscious that he had done nothing worthy of death, steadily refused to pronounce the sentence of condemnation upon him; yet one argument, which in a menacing manner they addressed to him, at last totally shook his firmness and induced him to yield to their sanguinary purpose. The Jews, after aggravating his guilt and employing every expedient in vain to influence the president to inflict capital punishment upon him, at last cried out: If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend; whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cæsar. Upon hearing this, all his former firmness instantly vanished; he could stem the torrent of popular fury no longer; to this he yielded, and immediately ordered his execution. Then delivered he him, therefore, to them to be crucified. This conduct of Pilate arose from his perfect knowledge of the character and temper of his master Tiberius, who was a gloomy old tyrant, day and night incessantly haunted with the fiends of jealousy and suspicion who would never forgive any innovations in his government, but punished the authors and abettors of them with inexorable death.' Pilate, therefore, hearing the Jews reiterating this with menaces, that if he let him go he was not Cæsar's friend-knowing the jealousy and cruelty of Tiberius2, and fearing that the disappointed rage of the Jews would instigate them to accuse him to the old tyrant, as abetting and suffering a person to escape with impunity, who had assumed the regal title and character in one of his provinces, was alarmed for his own safety; and rather than draw down upon his devoted head the resentment of the sovereign, who would never forgive or forget an injury, real or imaginary, contrary to his own judgment and clear persuasion of the innocence of Jesus, sentenced him to be crucified."

VI. As the Romans allowed the inhabitants of conquered countries to retain their local tribunals, we find incidental mention made in the New Testament, of provincial courts of justice. Two of these are of sufficient importance to claim a distinct notice in this place: viz. 1. The Areopagus, at Athens; and, 2. The Assembly, at Ephesus.

1. The tribunal of the AREOPAGUS is said to have been instituted at Athens, by Cecrops the founder of that city, and was celebrated

1 See Suetonius, Tacitus, Dion Cassius.

2 Philo makes the very same remark concerning Pilate, p. 390. edit. Mangey.