TKIAL-AT-LAW
TKIBES
6i;
complaint in criminal cases passed over to the in- faiiious df.lafor, who was too often a mere creature in the Emperor's power. Thus the oUl Roman |>rinci]i1es of freedom and equality before the law yielded to the most unblushinj; absolutism.
4. Trials in the NT. — Tlie trial of Jesus con- formed to the letter, at least, of Roman law by its final appeal to I'ilate. In the trials of the earlier Christians no such sanction was sought. The case against Peter and Jolm was too vague to wan-ant criminal proceedings, and the Sanhedrists contented themselves with the scourging usual in minor breaches of the peace (Ac '■>"'}. The bolder outlook and speech of Stephen rendered liiui liable to the same charge of blasphemy as his Master had faced ; but so infuriated were his judges by the aggressive tone of his defence that they hurried him out to execution without even the semblance of a formal condemnation (7"'')- Ihe proceedings of king Herod were still more summary, the igno- minious death of James and imprisonment of Peter being carried througli apparently without either accusation or trial (12"''-)- Even the apostle Paul had to endure persecution and stoning apart from the regular forms of trial {&■■"'■ 14"- '», etc.). But in liis case Roman justice came ilcfinitely athwart the hot passions of Jewish prejmlice ; for the main sphere of his activity lay within tlie direct adminis- tration of Rome, and he himself enjoyed the privileges of ,1 free-born Roman citizen.
His first appearance before a Roman magistrate was in the culonia of Philipi)i, soon after his land- ing in Macedonia. The charge levelled against him and Silas was the serious one of 'impiety' — • introducing customs whicli Roman citizens could neither acknowledge nor observe. In the exercise of their official coercitio, the magistrates (aTparriyol, prcctorcs) stripped and beat the accused, leaving them in prison till the case might be form.ally tried, or- the riot otherwise quelled. But tlie public scourging of Roman citizens, without trial, was a scandal that might involve the magistrates them- selves in a criminal prosecution, and Paul and Silas were released with honour (i6'"°'-). At Thessa- lonica a similar charge of impiety, combined with the suggestion of treason against the Emperor, was brought by jealous Jews ; but here the case was disposed of by the simple course of taking securities from the leading Christians of the city, while Paul and Silas went free (IT'"')- A renewed charge of illegal worship brought against Paul by the Jews of Corinth recoiled on their own heads; for the philo.sophic proconsul, Gallio, not merely resolved the accusation Into a mere matter of 'words and names' and questions afl'ecting their own law, but calmly perndtted the mob to seize and beat Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, before the very tribunal (IS'''"-). At Ephesus, again, the Apostle was .saved from the fanatical violence of the mob by the sanity of the town-clerk (o ypanixaTem, the city scribe or secretary), who re- minded them that the courts were open and the proconsuls (avdv-iraToi, plur. of category) ready to hear all matters of public order and justice (IQ^"-).
The tinal long-drawn trial of Paul all'ords the most interesting example of the interplay of national and Imperial justice around the person of a Roman citizen. The case was opened oy the law less attack of certain Jews from Asia, who laid hold of the Apostle, accusing him of treason against the Jewish law and people (21-'"-). His life was save<l only through the forcible intervention of the Roman military tribune, who hurried him to the for tress of A ntonia, where thegarrisonwasstationed, and would have examined him by scourging, had not Paul once more as.-^erted his privileges as a Roman citizen (2'2-'"'-). The case being apparently one for the Jewish courts, the tribune summoned
the Sanhedrin, and set the Apostle on his defence before them (•.'•2-* 23'"). No result being thus ar- rived at, the tribune, in strict harmony with Roman procedure, remanded him to the governor I'elix, then residing in Ca'sarea, with a formal dispatch explaining the main grounds of the charge, and his own tentative judgment on their validity (23'-''-). The [irosecution being judicially ('ited to apjiear before the governor, the high priest him.self accepted suuinu)ns, with a number of the Sanhedrists, and a trained orator, Tertullus, who formally accused the pri.soncr on the three countsof heresy, sacrilege, and treason (24°). The case broke down, and I'aul was detained for two more years simply througli the governor's weakness and greed (v.-"). The re- hearing of the case before t'elix' successor, the brave and honourable Porcius Eestus, would no doubt have resulted in the Apostle's acquittal, had he not chosen, in the exercise of his rights as a citizen, to entrust his life and liberty to Roman justice rather than expose them to tlie malice of his enemies in Jerusalem (25""-). The apjieal was allowed by Festus, after a brief deliberation with his consilium (v.'-), and Paul was .sent to Rome, with a dimissory letter strongly in his favour (v.^'). Unhapjiily, the destinies of Roman citizens were then in the hands of a Nero ; and as the result of ■a tedious process, the details of which are wrapped in obscurity, 'the prisoner of Jesus Christ' found no more justice at his court than he had experienced in Jerusalem, the powers of Rome and Jeru.salem uniting to stamp out the Christian 'heresy' in blood (see art. Paul).