and customs, yet it does not follow, that it was rightful, according to the constitution they were then under. It is certain, that magistrates do sometimes transgress the bounds of their authority, as well as people commit disorders. We have a plain instance of this at Philippi, Acts xv. where the magistrates commanded Paul and Silas to be beaten and imprisoned. But in this their sudden passion, they acted very irregularly, as they were soon sensible themselves. And it is not impossible, but the Jewish council at Jerusalem, in compliance with their own malice, and the clamours of the people, might pronounce a sentence that exceeded the bounds of their authority, and execute it, before the Roman officer could come in to prevent it.

This might be said, supposing there were here the complete form of a legal process, which I think there is not. It is true, here were witnesses, and they bring their charge; but here is no sentence pronounced by the council, not one word of it; nor does the high priest collect the opinions. If this had been done, it is not likely that St. Luke would have omitted it. In the account of the proceedings against our Saviour, Matt. xxvi. 66. Mark xiv. 64. particular mention is made of the high priest's asking the council their opinion, "What think ye?" and of the answer they made, "He is guilty of death." And St. Luke, c. xxii. 71, has given the result of their debates: "And they said, What need we any farther witnesses? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth." In the two cases already considered in this period, St. Luke has informed us, not only of the accusations against the prisoners and the defence they made, but of the debates of the council after the prisoners had been heard. These were ordered to go aside, there are debates, and the final resolution is taken, and then the prisoners are called in again, and the sentence is pronounced. Concerning Peter and John, see Acts iv. 15-18. of the apostles, c. v. 34-40.

And in the present case, after the witnesses, which they had suborned, had delivered their accusations, "Then said the high priest, Acts vii. 1, Are these things so?" That is, he gave Stephen leave to make his defence. If after Stephen had done, the council had ordered him to go out; or if there had been any debates in the council concerning him, or the high priest had asked their opinion, and a sentence had been pronounced, it is incredible these things should have been omitted, as they are entirely. For what St Luke says is, that having heard what Stephen said, "they gnashed on him with their teeth;" and that "he then looked up to heaven and said,--I see the heavens opened, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; then they cried out with a loud voice,-and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him." This has all the appearance of a tumultuous proceeding of the people, which the council, probably, had no inclination to check, but were highly pleased with; for of them I understand those words, "When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth;' words which represent an ungoverned rage."

And, if I mistake not, Stephen is not convicted upon the evidence of the witnesses: but upon his saying, "I see the Son of man standing on the right hand of God, they ran upon him with one accord."

His expressions they termed blasphemous; and in that case the Jewish people at this time seem to have made no scruple at all of stoning a man immediately, without any trial. There are so many instances of this in the Gospels, that it seems needless to allege any in particular. See John v. 17, 18. viii. 58, 59. x. 30-39.

And, as for the appearance of a legal punishment in these particulars, that "they cast him out of the city, and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul," I think, they cannot prove, that this was not a tumultuous action: for even the most unruly and disorderly multitude will oftentimes, in their utmost extravagances, assume some formalities of a legal procedure.

Notwithstanding this, there are some learned men who think, this was not a sudden act of the people, but that it was a punishment inflicted by the Jewish council. They say, that it was not allowed for private persons to put any man to death for any crime against their law, unless they did it whilst the criminal was in the very act."

a Sed uti bene observavit Seldenus, lib. x. de jure nat. & gent. cap. 4. ex zeli judicio, supplicium capitale in ipso dum committebatur facinus duntaxat momento, seu homini εT' avlopp deprehenso, a zelotis, id est, privato zelo ductis, infligi permittebatur. M. Wagenselius in Carm. Lip. Confut. p. 301. and he alleges several passages from Jewish authors as proof of this, particularly from Maimonides. Quisquis pa

ganam mulierem init-si istud propalam fiat, hoc est, decem vel pluribus scelus inspectantibus, tum si zelotæ hominem adoriantur, & impigre trucident, laudantur.---- Veruntamen haud aliter licet zelotæ impetum in concubitores facere, quam si ipsi venereo operi sint intenti.- Quod si ab opere cessent, tum porro trucidare nefas est. Ibid. p. 301, 302.

But it may be questioned, whether the scheme of zealotism at this time, was exactly the same which is represented in the writings which these learned men quote. And though it were, it is not impossible, but when such a principle was countenanced, as that of the right of private persons to kill men "in the act," they might sometimes go beyond the bounds of that principle. And it is highly probable, that the chief men of the Jewish nation, when their authority was certainly under some restraints, might connive at the exorbitances of this zeal. It is certain, we have in the Acts of the Apostles, many instances of the Jews, in several places, lying in wait for Paul's life; not to catch him in the act of what they call blasphemy, or any other violation of their law, but to kill him for facts done by him some time before. It is not material to inquire, what this was owing to; whether it ought to be called zealotism, or any thing else. It is certain, these were common practices among them. One thing, which they seem at this time to have thought the proper object of this private zeal, is what they called blasphemy. Now a criminal could not well be punished for this in the very act. The words must first be out of a man's mouth, before he could be guilty. Here were words spoken by Stephen, which they termed blasphemy: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." These words were spoken before the council, and it is likely, before a good many other persons, who were present as witnesses and prosecutors, therefore before ten or more persons. And Stephen was put to death with all the expedition possible, that is, in the very act, as near as could be. For it follows immediately, Acts vii. 57, 58, "Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rau upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city and stoned him."

Nor is the putting Stephen to death by stoning any proof, that there had been a sentence pronounced, or that there was any legal form observed in his death. For this was common in their tumultuous attempts. Jesus having said some things which gave them offence, John x. 31, "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him." He went on to argue with them: ver. 33. They answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy." See John xi. 7, 8. The stoning which Paul suffered at Lystra was merely tumultuous. Acts xiv. 19. "And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people [ras oxous, the multitude] and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead." Thus much for the case of Stephen.

4. It follows, Acts viii. 1," And Saul was consenting to his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Ver. 3. "As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison." Ch. ix. 1. 2. "And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus, to the synagoues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem." When Ananias, at Damascus, was directed in a vision to go to Saul, ch. ix. 13, 14, "he answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

It must, I think, be supposed that Saul could not have taken up any at Damascus, (which was subject to Aretas) by the authority of the council at Jerusalem, unless the governor there gave him leave: and it is highly probable, the correspondence between them was such as that he would not refuse it."

And St. Paul says of himself, in his speech to the people of Jerusalem, Acts xxii. 4, 5, “I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women, as also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there, bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished." Ver. 19, 20. "And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned, and beat in every synagogue, them that believed on thee: and when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed," &c.

In his speech to king Agrippa, Acts xxvi. 9-13, Paul says, "Which thing I also did in Jerusalem, and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests, and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished

a Vid. Acts ix. 23, 24, 2 Cor. xi. 32. & Clerici Hist. Eccles. Ann. xxxi. Num. 1.

them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at mid-day, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven," &c.

Here is a great variety of particulars: imprisoning, beating in the synagogue, persecuting into strange cities, and putting to death.

As for the persecuting into strange cities, it is not at all surprising, that the Jews should have sufficient authority and power in their own country, (though they had a Roman governor amongst them,) to impose hardships upon the followers of Christ that would make them leave Judea; since, as has appeared from instances in the Acts of the Apostles already alleged, they were able to drive them from one place and city to another, in Greece, and several parts of Asia. The punishments inflicted in the synagogues, must be supposed inflicted by a mere Jewish authority, since they had the free exercise of their religion.

The apostle says also expressly, that "many of the saints" did he imprison by "authority from the chief priests." When he says, he "persecuted this way unto the death," I think, he expresses his aim and design; and that in the opposition he had made against the followers of Jesus, he proposed to bring upon them not the lesser punishment only of fines, whipping or imprisonment, but death itself.

The case of the loss of life is that of Stephen, whose death, he says, he was consenting to, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. Besides this, in his speech to Agrippa, he says, "and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them."

Here it ought to be observed, that it is not expressed by what authority they were put to death. Though the sentences were pronounced and executed by the Roman magistrate, (as in the case of our Saviour,) Saul might be one who gave his voice against those who were so punished; as the people at Jerusalem did demand of Pilate, that Jesus might be crucified. It is of some such act as this, that Saul's giving his voice against them must be understood; of witnessing against them, promoting a popular clamour against them, or of approving, and consenting to their condemnation and punishment. This is all that can be intended, because, whether they were put to death by the authority of the sanhedrim, or of a Roman governor, it cannot be supposed that Saul was one of the judges.

But I think, it may very well be questioned, whether in these words Paul refers to any thing beside the death of Stephen. This is the only person, whose death he has any where expressly said he was concerned in. There is not any one instance, beside the death of Stephen, hinted by St. Luke: whereas, if there had been any, it is very improbable that he should have omitted them, since he has given so particular an account of that of Stephen. It is very common, in less exact, nay in almost all kinds of relations, to use the plural number, where one only is meant. Thus St. Matthew says, Matt. xxvii. 44," that the thieves also which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." Whereas it appears from St. Luke, (ch. xxiii. 39, 40.) that only one of the malefactors, which were hanged, railed on him, whilst he was rebuked by the other for it. Again, Paul said unto them, [the keepers of the prison at Philippi] Acts xvi. 37, "They have beaten us openly uncondemned being Romans." And yet, most probably, Paul only was a Roman and not Silas. And in no case could a plural number be put for a singular more properly than here, where the apostle, in his great humility, aggravates his former blindness and madness. And the meaning of his words here is no more than, when any one was put to death, I was very forward in approving it.

Thus I think, that all which does evidently appear to have been done by a proper authority of the chief priests and council of the Jews, is imprisoning, scourging in the synagogue, and in some public place, and harassing in such a manner, as to oblige men to leave Judea. Stephen is put to death, but it seems to have been in a tumultuous manner.

However it must be allowed, that this was a time of very heavy sufferings for the followers of Jesus. And one would be apt to suppose, that for a good part of this period, the Jews had no Roman governor residing among them; or if they had, that he connived at some disorders; or else, that their zeal rendered them so tumultuous, that he was not able to keep things in good order amongst them.

There is one thing very observable, that for some time before the end of this period, the disciples of Christ enjoyed peace in Judea. Acts ix. 31. "Then had the churches rest through

out all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria." I hope we shall be able to perceive, in some measure, the occasion of this, when we come to inquire what light foreign writers give us into this time. VIII. We go on now to the third period, which is the reign of Herod the king. The account we have of the transactions in this period, is contained in the twelfth chapter of the Acts of the apostles; particularly from ver 1 to the 7th, and ver 18, 19. There being no difficulty in it, I need not transcribe it. Every order and act of Herod here mentioned, his killing James with the sword, imprisoning Peter with intent to bring him forth to the people, commanding the keepers to be put to death, is an undeniable proof of his sovereign authority at this time in Judea.

IX. The fourth period reaches from the reign of this Herod, to the conclusion of the evangelical history.

The main thing which occurs here, is the treatment of Paul in Judea, so far as there is any appearance of a legal procedure. He being come to Jerusalem, and having been persuaded to purify himself with others that had a vow, entered into the temple, Acts xxi. 26-34, "to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification.-And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, crying out, Men and brethren, help: this is the man that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and farther, brought Greeks also into the temple, and has polluted this holy place. (For they had seen before with him in the city, Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) And all the city was moved, and the people ran together, and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut. And as they went about to kill him, tidings came to the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them; and when they saw the chief captain, and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and demanded who he was, and what he had done. And when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle.-But before he was led in, with the chief captain's leave, he made a speech to the people in the Hebrew tongue: in which he relates at length, that he had received directions in a trance, saying, Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. The Jews, not being able to contain themselves any longer, "lift up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live. The chief captain then commanded that he should be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by Scourging," Acts xxii. 22, 23, 24." But Paul affirming that he was a Roman, the centurion appointed to attend the torture, went and gave the chief captain information of it. "On the morrow, because he [the chief captain] would have known the certainty, wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them, ver. 30. And Paul earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by, said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people," Acts xxiii. 1-5. A dissension arising in the council, "the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle, ver. 9, 10.

The chief captain after this, being informed of a conspiracy against Paul, sent him with a guard of two hundred soldiers to Felix at Cesarea; who, when he had received him, together with a letter from Lysias the chief captain, told Paul, he would "hear him, when his accusers also were come," ver. 35. "After five days, Ananias the high priest descended with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul," Acts xxiv. 1-22. Felix having heard both sides, "deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter.-But after two years, Porcius Festus came into Felix' room: and Felix willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound, ver. 27. "Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Cæsarea to Jerusalem. Then the high priest, and the chief of the Jews, informed him against

Paul, and besought him, and desired favour against him, that he would send for him to Jeru salem, laying wait in the way to kill him. But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Cæsarea; and that he himself would depart shortly thither. Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him. Accordingly, he went down to Cæsarea-and sitting on the judgment-seat-the Jews which came down from Jerusalem-laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove-Paul answered for himself.-But Festus willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?" Acts xxv. 1-9. Hereupon Paul appealed to Cæsar, and was carried to Rome.

The case is this: a man was like to have been killed in a popular tumult at Jerusalem; a Roman officer there rescues him, takes him into his own hands, and lodges him in a castle. Afterwards, that his prisoner might be safer, he removes him to Cæsarea, the residence of the governor, before whom there are divers hearings. There was therefore at this time a Roman governor in Judea, at first Felix, who was succeeded by Festus. But beside them here is also a Jewish council, which appears not void of authority.

This is the sum of the story. But here are divers particulars to be reviewed. The pretence for seizing this man at first is extremely complicated: "That he taught men every where against the people, and the law, and this place, and had brought Greeks into the temple, and polluted this holy place. The whole charge, however, seems to have been of a religious nature. This appears from divers testimonies.

When Paul was brought before the council at Jerusalem by Lysias, he "said, I am a pharisee, the son of a pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead am I called in question," Acts xxiii. 6. This is a presumption the debates then ran upon matters of religion. Lysias, in the letter he sent with Paul to Felix, says :-" I brought him forth into their council, whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law," ver. 28, 29. Tertullus, whom Ananias took along with him to Cæsarea, tells Felix, "We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, who also hath gone about to profane the temple," ch. xxiv. 5, 6. Here are hard words, and some grievous charges thrown in to increase the account; and nothing true, but that Paul was a Nazarene, as Paul affirms, and seems to make out to Felix. "And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogue, nor in the city: neither can they prove the things whereof they accuse me. But this I confess to thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, ver. 1214. And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ," ver. 24. These new notions therefore of Paul were the great subject of inquiry, to see whether there was any thing dangerous or punishable in them. Thus, before Festus at Cæsarea, the Jews, which were come down from Jerusalem, "laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove," ch. xxv. 7: When Agrippa came to salute Festus, Festus declared Paul's cause unto the king, and tells him, 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," ver. 20. They might mix other matters in their complaints, as men intent upon a point are wont to do; but Festus perceived no truth in their charges, but what concerned their superstition or religion. Festus afterwards brings forth Paul to Agrippa; and Paul having rehearsed the manner of his life from first to last, before, and since his conversion; and having acquainted them in particular with his commission from Christ to preach the gospel; after all was over, Agrippa said unto Festus, "This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Cæsar," ch. xxvi. 15-30. Which words shew, Agrippa was convinced by what Paul said; first, that these principles of his were his only crime; and secondly, that notwithstanding the charges and pretences of the Jews, Festus had a right to set Paul at liberty.

From all which particulars it appears, that all the evidence against Paul, was of facts that concerned the Jewish religion, or the security of their worship: and yet we find, that Felix and Festus were the judges of this prisoner, in this cause: all parties acknowledge it.

The Jews seem to have owned it by their conduct: for Ananias went down to Cæsarea with Tertullus, and accused Paul there before Felix, Acts xxv. 6, 7. And when Festus came into the province, they went to Cæsarea again, and pleaded against Paul. Festus, speaking of Paul to