The reader will be pleased now to recollect a previous proposition, which was laid down at the beginning of this inquiry; namely, that the sacred historians are not accountable for the legality of the facts or proceedings which they relate. Though this affair should be allowed to have all the forms of a legal process, sentence, and punishment, according to the Jewish law 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, ch. xxii. 71, has given the result of their debates: "And they said, What need we any further 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, ch. 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 Ste

66

phen 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

a Sed uti bene observavit Seldenus, lib. x. de jure nat. et gent. cap. 4. ex zeli judicio, supplicium capitale in ipso dum committebatur facinus duntaxat momento, seu homini e' avropwpy 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, particu

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 might 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 enquire, 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 at 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 ran 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,

larly from Maimonides. Quisquis paganam mulierem init.-Si istud propalam fiat, hoc est, decem vel pluribus scelus inspectantibus, tum si zelotæ hominem adoriantur, et 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.

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, [T8s oxλovs, 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 synagogues, 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.b

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

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

from the chief priests, and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished 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," 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 inagistrate, (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