lived for several years; here Cornelius, the Italian centurion, was converted; here the angel of the Lord smote Herod Agrippa the First, on account of his impious hardihood; here Peter, when persecuted by Herol, found a temporary refuge; from hence St. Paul sailed to Tarsus, when forced to leave Jerusalem on his return from Damascus; here, too, he landed after his second missionary tour, and spent some time on his return from his third missionary journey; and here now he is brought as a prisoner, and remains two long years before his voyage to Italy. It was the home of Eusebius, the father of ecclesiastical history; was the scene of some of Origen's labours, and the birthplace of Procopius, the eminent Byzantine historian. In this chapter we have an account of Paul as he appears before Felix, and it leads us to consider his Accusers, his Defence, and his Judge. We take his judge last, because his character comes out more fully at the end of the chapter. I. PAUL'S ACCUSERS. We have three things to notice concerning his accusers. "And after First Their character. Who were they? : five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders." Ananias was the man who a few days before, in Jerusalem, as Paul stood before the Sanhedrim (Acts xxiii. 2), commanded Paul to be smitten on the mouth, thus outraging justice and humanity. The "elders" were members of that ruling body who sanctioned such an outrage. These had "descended" locally, and, proud bigots, as they considered, morally, to Jerusalem, in order, if possible, to carry into execution the mortal hostility of the Sanhedrim against Paul, One might have thought that the known history of those hollow hypocrites, and unscrupulous and intolerant bigots, would have excluded them as witnesses from any court of justice--but here they are. Secondly: Their advocate. "They brought with them a certain orator, Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul." As the name of this man is Roman, he was no doubt a Roman barrister of signal abilities, and perhaps of great reputation. The Jews, probably, for the most part being ignorant of Roman customs and laws, employed Roman lawyers to represent them in the courts of justice. Whatever the ability, the culture, the fame of this Tertullus, one thing is clear from the adulation which he addressed to Felix, that he was an unscrupulous flatterer, and, therefore, destitute of that sense of truthfulness which is essential to all moral worth. Mark how he opens the case. "Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness." The character of this Felix, which will appear hereafter, will show this Tertullus to have been one of those unprincipled barristers who will outrage every noble sentiment of truth and justice in order to carry their point. Thirdly: Their charge. The charge was threefold. (1) Sedition. "We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews." A pestilence, or a pest, would be a more forcible translation, as well as a more literal one. The two great orators, Demosthenes and Cicero, speak of different persons as the pest of the Republic, the State, the Empire (pestis republice, civitatis imperii). All the disturbances and commotions which Paul's enemies created were laid to his charge. To the Roman no crime was more heinous than that of sedition, for they seemed nervously afraid that their vast empire might in some part give way. Another charge was (2) Heresy. "A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." The disciples of Christ were contemptuously called Nazarenes, because they were the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, a place of notorious contempt. Paul is charged here with being the leader of that sect of heresy. This charge has the merit of truth. He was a standard-bearer in this little but rapidly growing army. The other charge (3) was Sacrilege. "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law." The profanation of the temple was a serious but groundless charge. His enemies had asserted (chap. xxii. 28) that he had introduced Greeks to the sacred place; this was a foul calumny. After these charges, this clever but unprincipled advocate does two things. (1) Implies that the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem would have judged Paul righteously if Lysias had not interposed. "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him." (2) He gets the Jews, including Ananias, and the elders whom he brought down, to assent to all he had stated. “And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so." I suppose it would scarcely matter what the barrister said→ what falsehoods he stated, what fallacies he propounded, if they went to ruin Paul, he would have the hearty corroboration of these Jews. Tertullus has now done; he has stated his charge, and done his best to make "the worse the better reason." II. PAUL'S DEFENCE. This is Paul's third defence, or apology. The first was to a vast crowd of Jews assembled from all parts of the world at Jerusalem, to be present at the feast of Pentecost. The second was before the Sanhedrim, This, the third, is before protection of Roman arms, or great council of the nation. a Roman magistrate, under the yet in the presence of the high priest. There are four things about this defence that must be noticed. First: His introduction. His exordium was courteous and explanatory. Then Paul, after the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, " Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself: because that thou mayest understand, that there are but yet twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship." Whilst in his opening remarks there is nothing of the hollow laudation and servile flattery of the barrister, there is the courtesy of a truthful and magnanimous soul. He gives the judge credit, not for great intelligence, commanding ability, great usefulness, or high virtue, but merely for a knowledge of Jewish affairs, and modern Jewish events. Here he expresses his pleasure in standing before one who knew the facts of the case. The apostle ventured to suppose that the judge knew that it was only "twelve days" since he went up to Jerusalem for to worship. The twelve days, says Lange, which the apostle mentions, may be reckoned as follows:- : I. Day after his arrival, visit to James. (Chap. xix. 18.) II. Levitical purification, and the first visit to the temple. (Chap. xxi. 26.) III-VII. Days of the Nazarite-offering; onset against Paul, and his capture. (Chap. xxi. 27.) VIII. The apostle before the chief councils. (Chap. xxii. 30; xxiii. 1.) IX. The conspiracy, and its discovery; in the evening Paul is removed from Jerusalem. (Chap. xxiii. 12-31.) X. Arrival at Antipatris. (Chap. xxiii. 31.) XIII. Trial before Felix. (Chap. xxiv. 1.) The trial before Felix accordingly took place on the fifth day (perà TérTe quépas, chap. xxiv. 1) after Paul's departure from Jerusalem, if the day of the departure be included. On the other hand, the fifth day had not yet elapsed, and, therefore, is to be excluded from the twelve days, as also is the day of the apostle's arrival at Jerusalem. (Origen.) In his opening remarks he indicates two facts that bear powerfully on his own defence. (1) His recent arrival in the country (twelve days) leaving him no time forsuch proceedings as were charged against him; and (2) his purpose in visiting Jerusalem, which was to attend to the duties of that religion ("to worship") which they accused him of renouncing. Secondly: His denial. He gives a direct denial to two of the three charges-sedition and sacrilege. "And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city: neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me." He disclaims, in the most unqualified way, any attempt on his part, whether in the city, temple, synagogues, or anywhere else among the people, to break the public peace, and boldly asserts the impossibility of sustaining any such charge by evidence. Thirdly: His confession. The third charge, heresy, he accepts rather than repels. In answer to the charge that he was a "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes," he says, "This I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets : and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." The same Greek word as that translated "sect" in the fifth verse, is in this passage translated "heresy;" the word simply means, division, schism, without any reference to the present popular notion of heresy as being an error of doctrine. A new sect in theology is always heretical in the eyes of the old. The apostle is not ashamed of being a Nazarene, but he denies that Christianity is a newly-formed heresy. On the contrary, he affirms that as an apostle in the new faith, he held the old. (1) He worshipped the old God of the Hebrews. "So worship I the God of my fathers;" as if he had said, I propound no new divinity; the ancestral Deity I alone adore. (2) He believed in the Old Scriptures, believing "all things that are written in the law and in the prophets;" all things commanded by the law of Moses, and foretold by the old prophets, especially the things relating to the Messiah. His apostolic history was a proof of this, for wherever he went, his arguments in defence of Christianity were drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures. (3) He held to the old hope. "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow." The Old Scripture undoubtedly points to the resurrection of the dead (Job xix. 25–27; Isa. xxix. 19; Dan. xii. 2), and the Pharisees, the leading |