:

phrases it. The marginal reading scarcely covers the whole idea he first 'hoped' in Christ. He did so, but he did more. Hope ripens unto faith, a childlike clinging trust in Jesus as his all. Groping in the twilight of his first yearnings after Him, whom having not seen, he lovedhe felt at last his hand, and followed his leadings, though the way was rough and it cost him the loss of all things. But he "trusted," and so must we, to whom the lines have fallen in pleasant places, singing as we go

"Since the dear hour that brought me to Thy foot,

And cut up all my follies by the root,

I never trusted in an arm but Thine,

Nor hoped but in Thy righteousness divine.
My prayers and alms, imperfect and defiled,
Were but the feeble efforts of a child;

Howe'er performed, this was their brightest part,
That they proceeded from a grateful heart.
Cleansed in Thine own all-purifying blood,
Forgive their evil and accept their good;
I cast them at Thy feet, my only plea,
Is what it was-dependence upon Thee."

DOUGLAS ALLPORT.

FURY OF GUILT.

"That I grieve, that's true;

But 'tis a grief of fury, not despair;
And if a manly drop or two fall down,

It scalds along my cheeks like the green wood,
That, sputtering in the flame, works outward
Into tears."

DRYDEN.

PUNISHMENT OF GUILT.

"When haughty guilt exults with impious joy,
Mistake shall blast, or accident destroy;
Weak man with erring rage may throw the dart,
But Heaven shall guide it to the guilty heart."

JOHNSON.

Apostles.

Able expositions of the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, describing the manners, customs, and localities described by the inspired writers; also interpreting their words, and harmonizing their formal discrepancies, are, happily, not wanting amongst us. But the eduction of their WIDEST truths and highest suggestions is still a felt desideratum. To some attempt at the work we devote these pages. We gratefully avail ourselves of all exegetical helps within our reach; but to occupy our limited space with any lengthened archæological, geographical, or philological remarks, would be to miss our aim; which is not to make bare the mechanical process of the study of Scripture, but to reveal its spiritual results.

SUBJECT: Paul at Casarea before Agrippa.

"And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Cæsarea to salute Festus," &c., &c.-Acts xxv. 13-27, xxvi. 1-30. THESE verses record Paul's fifth defence of himself and

THESE

his religion. His appeal to Cæsar, chapter xxv. 12, put an end to all judicial process against him, both in the Jewish and Roman Courts of Palestine. Notwithstanding, by what appears to human eyes a mere fortuitous circumstance, namely, the arrival of Agrippa at Cæsarea (ver. 13.), another opportunity of self-defence and appeal to his own nation is afforded, and his appearance on the occasion forms one of his most characteristic and eloquent apologies. The narrative before us, including fourteen verses of the 25th chapter and the whole of the 26th, divides itself into two sections: Paul's introduction to Agrippa—and his defence before Agrippa.

I. PAUL'S INTRODUCTION TO AGRIPPA. Before we notice Paul's introduction to Agrippa, we must say a passing word about the king, and his visit to Cæsarea. This Agrippa was the son of Herod Agrippa, who died at Cæsarea (chap. xii. 23), and the grandson of Herod the Great. He was seventeen years of age at his father's decease, and through the favour of Claudius Caesar, was appointed king of Chalcis, and afterwards promoted to a wider dominion, which was still further increased under Nero. In the New Testament history, we find a Herod on the throne no less than three times. This

Herod is represented by Josephus as a zealous Jew, although not regarded by the Jews with much affection or respect on account of his heathen education and equivocal position between Jews and Gentiles. The incestuous marriages for which the Herods were proverbial, is said to have an example in the case of this Agrippa and his eldest sister, Bernice, who now attended him to Cæsarea. On the king's visit to Cæsarea, in order to salute Festus," Festus seizes the occasion to introduce the case of Paul to his notice. This introduction comprises two parts

First His statement of the case to the king in the absence of Paul. Here is the statement. "And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul's cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix: about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him. To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him. Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow, I sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed; but had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there he judged of these matters. But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Cæsar." Much of this is but a recapitulation of facts, recorded by Luke in preceding verses, and which we have already noticed, The fresh elements, however, are noteworthy. They are, (1) The reason he gives for not delivering Paul up at first to the Jews. "To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is

accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him." There is a discrepancy between the reason here given and that contained in the fourth verse. The reason Festus assigned why Paul should be kept at Cæsarea, was his own convenience. This discrepancy admits of two explanations. One is, that Luke omitted to record the answer of Festus to the Jews on that occasion and that he recorded only the personal inconvenience and not the political difficulty which is here mentioned. The other explanation is, that Festus now perpetrated a falsehood in his statement to Agrippa; that he reports to Agrippa not what he did say on that occasion, but what he might have said, or what, perhaps, he ought to have said. However, whether he made this reply or not, the reply itself bears an honourable testimony to that love of justice which distinguished the Roman rule. "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him." The statement of the text is substantiated by other authors: thus Appian says, "It is not their custom to condemn men before they are heard." Philo says of the Roman prefects, "They yielded themselves to the common judges, hearing equally the accusers and defendants, condemning no man unheard, prejudging no man, but judging without favour or enmity, according to the nature of the case." Tacitus also remarks, that "a defendant is not to be prohibited from adducing all things by which his innocence may be established." The justice of such laws is happily exemplified in our own judicature. Another fresh element here is, (2) The disregard for the religious questions in dispute. The question which brought the Jews into such a violent and deadly antagonism to Paul was what Festus calls their "own superstition, and of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." The word religion would be better than "superstition" here, for it cannot be supposed that in speaking to Agrippa, who was a Jew, Festus would be so discourteous as to call his

cern.

religion a "superstition," in our sense of the word. Still of this religion, and this "one Jesus," Festus speaks with an air of manifest indifference. The whole seems to him to be unworthy of his notice. Of course, as a Roman judge, such religious questions were outside of his jurisdiction, but as a man they should have been regarded with a most vital conAnother fresh element here is, (3) His motive for his desiring him to go to Jerusalem for trial. "And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters." In the ninth verse we hear him ask Paul the question, "Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?" Here he gives the reason for putting such a question. It was his own difficulty on the point. "I doubted of such manner of questions," or as the margin has it, "I was doubtful how to inquire hereof."

Secondly: The statement of the case to the king in the presence of Paul. The result of the first statement of Festus was the desire on the king's part to hear Paul for himself. Consequently, the apostle is brought into his presence, and the circumstances of the interview were grand and imposing. "Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself. To-morrow, said he, thou shalt hear him. And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains and principal men of the city, at Festus' commandment Paul was brought forth." The cold-hearted voluptuary, for such was Agrippa, had his curiosity awakened. and was anxious to see a famous man, and to hear a strange story. Accordingly, Paul is brought into his presence. Bernice, who was first married to her uncle, Herod, the king of Chalcis, now lived criminally with her own brother Agrippa, was subsequently married to Polemon, king of Cilicia, afterwards deserted him, and returned to this Agripps, subsequently lived in unholy union with the Emperor Vespasian, and with his son, Titus. This infamous woman,