Pilate: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death*. But whoever considers the state of the Jewish nation, and the authority of the Sanhedrim at that time, will find much reason to doubt, whether the Jews had then lost that right. So that another sense is to be put upon this passage, than what at first sight it seems to import, as is observed in the note on that place. 1. From these words of Pilate to the Jews, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law, it may justly be inferred, that they could dispose of the life of JESUS CHrist, there being no manner of ground for supposing this saying of Pilate's to be an irony. 2. Pilate found himself at a loss how to pass sentence of death upon a person in whom he found no fault at all, especially with respect to the Romans; and that in a case he had no notion of. It was not the custom of the Romans to deprive any country of its ancient laws and privileges, when they reduced it to a province. And Josephus tells us, that the Roman senate and emperors gave the Jews full liberty of enjoying their's as before. If so, is it probable that they would have deprived them of one of the chief, the power of condemning a blasphemer or transgressor of the law to death? 3. There are some instances which undeniably prove, that the Jews had still the power of life and death. In the fifth chapter of the Acts we see their great council consulting how they might put the Apostles to death; and perhaps they would have put their wicked purposes in execution, had they not been dissuaded from it by Gamaliel ". The stoning of St. Stephen was nothing like those riotous and disorderly proceedings, which the Jews were wont to call judgments of zeal, as some writers have imagined. All is done here in a regular and legal manner, though with a great deal of rage and fierceness. St. Stephen is brought before

(*) John xviii. 31. (1) John xviii. 31. See Bynæus de Morte Christi. 1. 3. Joseph contra Appion. p. 1065, et de Bello Jud. 1. ii. chap. 17. (m) Acts v. 33, 34.

the council or sanhedrim *. False witnesses are set up to accuse him of blasphemy". He makes a long speech to vindicate himself; but not being after all thought innocent, he is condemned to be stoned, according to the law. And lastly, his execution is performed according to all the rules observed upon the like occasion. The witnesses, according to custom, cast the first stones at him, and lay their garments at Saul's feet". That the Jews had still power of life and death, is further evident from what St. Paul says before the council of the Jews, that he persecuted the Christians unto death, and had received letters from the elders (or sanhedrim) to bring them which were at Damascus bound unto Jerusalem to be punished. We do not find that the Roman magistrates, were wont to trouble themselves with causes of this nature: Pilate avoided, as much as possible, condemning JESUS CHRIST, and was brought to it at last purely out of fear of drawing upon himself the emperor's displeasure, because the Jews made treason their pretence of accusing him. The same thing is manifest from what Tertullus the orator of the sanhedrim alleged against St. Paul, before Felix, procurator of Judea ". We took Paul, saith he, and would have judged him according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands. Which that officer undoubtedly did, because to the charge of blasphemy and of profaning the temple, they joined that of sedition, upon which last account he made his appearance before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa. His appealing to the emperor is a farther proof that the sanhedrim had the power of condemning him to death. We may pass the same judgment upon the motion Festus made to him of going to Jerusalem, there to be judged, because the sanhedrim could not exercise their jurisdiction any where else. From all

Deut. xvii.7. (n) Acts vi. 11. (0) Acts vii. (p) Acts xxii. 20. (2) Ibid. ver. 4, 5. (r) Acts xxiv. 6. 7. (s) Acts xxv. 9.

these particulars we may justly conclude, that the Jews had still the power of life and death; but that this privilege was confined to crimes committed against their law, and depended upon the governor's will and pleasure. Which is evident from the instance of the high-priest Ananus, who was deposed for having convened the sanhedrim, and put St. James to death without the consent, and in the absence of Albinus, who succeeded Festus in the government of Judea'.

The judges of Israel were wont formerly to meet at the door of the tabernacle". Afterwards an apartment adjoining to the court of the priests, was set apart for that use*. It was unlawful to judge capital causes out of that place. The Thalmudists relate, that about forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, i. e. about the thirtieth of Christ, the Jewish sanhedrim removed from that place into another, which was close to the mount of the temple. The reason they gave for it, is, that there were then such vast swarms of thieves and murderers in Judea, that it was impossible to put them all to death; both because they were very numerous, and because they were often rescued out of the hands of justice by the people, or the Roman governors. So that the sanhedrim thought fit to forsake that place, where the extreme iniquity of the times would not suffer them to inflict due punishments on criminals; fancying themselves no longer bound to administer justice, if they forsook the place that was appointed for it. And perhaps when the Jews told Pilate that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death, they meant only, either that their power was considerably lessened in this respect, the whole authority being lodged in the Roman governors *; or else that they did not now assemble in the place set apart for taking cognizance of capital crimes. The sanhedrim was afterwards removed into the city, and from thence to several places out of Jerusa

(t) Joseph. Antiq. xx. 8. (u) Numb. xi. 24. * It was called the chamber Gazith, or of freestone. (x) Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 1.

lem. These frequent removals reduced, by degrees, its power and authority to nothing.

Before the birth of our Saviour, two very famous Rabbins, had been presidents of the sanhedrim, viz. Hillel and Schammai, who entertained very different notions upon several subjects, and particularly upon the point of divorce. This gave occasion to the question the Pharisees put to JESUS CHRIST upon that head". Before Schammai, Hillel had Menahem for his associate in the presidency of the sanhedrim. But the latter forsook afterwards that honourable post, to join himself, with a great number of his disciples, to the party of Herod Antipas, who promoted the levying of taxes, for the use of the Roman emperors, with all his might. These, in all probability, are the Herodians, of whom mention is made in the gospel, as we have observed on Matt. xxii. 16. To Hillel succeeded Simeon his son, who is supposed to have been the same as took JESUS CHRIST up in his arms, and publicly acknowledged him to be the Messiah. If so, the Jewish sanhedrim had for president a person that was entirely disposed to embrace Christianity. Gamaliel, the son and successor of Simeon, seems also not to have been far from the kingdom of heaven".

OF THE JEWISH PROPHETS AND

DOCTORS.

Of the

THE business of the prophets was to reveal the will of God to mankind, to teach, and reprove, to foretell things to come, and, upon occasion, prophets. to confirm religion and the prophecies they delivered, by miracles, which were termed signs, be

(y) Matt. xix. 3. (z) Luke ii. 18. (a) Acts v. 34, &c. xxii. 3.

cause they were plain and manifest proofs of their divine mission. Jews and Christians unanimously agree, that Malachi was the last of the prophets properly so called. It is observable, that so long as there were prophets among the Jews, there arose no sects or heresies among them, though they often fell into idolatry. The reason of it is, that the prophets learning God's will immediately from himself, there was no medium; the people must either obey the prophets, and receive their interpretations of the law, or no longer acknowledge that God who inspired them. But when the law of God came to be explained by weak and fallible men, who seldom agreed in their opinions, several sects and religious parties unavoidably sprung up.

and doctors.

We may trace the origin of these doctors back to the time of Ezra, who is himself called a scribe, Of the scribes which is a word of the same import as that of doctor. The term scribe is indeed of a more extensive signification in holy scripture, because there were several sorts of scribes. We find for instance in Deuteronomy, according to the version of the seventy, some officers named scribes'. But by this word are most commonly meant the Jewish doctors, and this is the sense which it generally bears in the New Testament. Hence JESUS CHRIST said of the scribes as well as the Pharisees, that they sat in Moses's chair. It appears from the first book of Maccabees", that there was, in the time of its author, a company of scribes; and from the second, that there were several degrees of dignity and subordination among them. Such a regulation as this was necessary, after the gift of prophecy had ceased among them, because the high-priests, having the greatest share of the administration in their hands, could have no leisure or opportunity of applying themselves to explain the law, and instruct the people.

(a) Ezra vii. 6.

(b) Deut. xx. 5, 9. yрaμμaтeis. (c) Matt. xxiii. 1. Mark xii. 38. (d) 1 Macc. vii. 12. (e) 2 Macc. vi. 18