were ever interrupted in this privilege of appealing, as we find they often were with regard to some other privileges, such as the exemption from being enlisted in the Roman army, and sending their collections to Jerusalem; but the reason is plain. The cases of appeal wherein the parties were obliged themselves to attend at Jerusalem seldom happened; and the cases wherein either of the parties were unwilling to go, and it was necessary to use force, much seldomer and we may take it for granted, that when persons had so far transgressed the Mosaic institution as to deserve the animadversion of the high priest and sanhedrim at Jerusalem, they usually renounced Judaism, and conformed to the rites and customs of their heathen neighbours; in which case the high priest had no more power over them.

To all that has been now said, it may be objected, that this decree of Julius Cæsar extended only to Hyrcanus and his sons, who should succeed him in his ethnarchy and priesthood; and therefore does not reach the times we are speaking of, when St. Paul went to Damascus : for none of the offspring of Hyrcanus were then high priests. The reply to this is, that there was afterwards a decree made by Augustus Cæsar, that the Jews should enjoy their own laws in the same manner as they had done under Hyrcanus. By comparing the preface of this decree with that of Julius Casar first quoted by us, it is easy to perceive that Augustus had that before him when he made this. The decree of Julius Cæsar is introduced thus: "Forasmuch as Hyrcanus "the son of Alexander the Jew, both now and in

e Jos. Antiq. 1. 16. c. 6. §. 2.

R

"former times, as well in peace as in war, has shewn "both fidelity and industry in our affairs, as many σε generals have testified of him, and in the last war "at Alexandria came to our assistance with one "thousand five hundred auxiliaries, and being sent

66

by me against Mithridates, exceeded all the army "in bravery." The decree of Augustus begins thus: "Forasmuch as the Jewish nation have been found

66

66

grateful to the Roman people, not only at this pre"sent, but in past times, and especially under my "father Cæsar the emperor, and particularly their high priest Hyrcanus, it seemeth meet to me, and "my council, that the Jews use their own customs "according to their own country laws, as they used "them under Hyrcanus." This law was made by Augustus upon complaint of the Jews of Asia and Cyrene, that they were interrupted and hindered in some part of their customs by the cities where they dwelt, and is ordered by him to be dedicated in that most famous temple erected to himself by the community of Asia. This is a further proof, that the clause alleged from the decree of Julius Cæsar reached the Jews of all places under the Roman dominion. It does not appear that the Jews had allowance to live according to their own country laws in foreign cities by virtue of any decree of Julius Cæsar now extant, excepting this: and this does not enact that they should so live, but takes it for granted that they did so live by virtue of former laws passed in their favour; and the particular it enacts is, that Hyrcanus and his sons after him should be judges of all their differences in religious affairs. Augustus, having this very edict before him, further decrees, that the Jews in Asia, Cyrene,

and throughout the Roman empire, should use their own customs, according to their own country laws, in the same manner as they had been used by them under Hyrcanus the high priest. Which, as it fully shews that the alleged clause related to all the Jews under the Roman government, so it gave to the high priest and sanhedrim at Jerusalem the very same power which had been granted to Hyrcanus and his sons by Julius Cæsar, and constituted them judges of all the disputes in religious affairs that should happen among the Jews inhabiting any part of the Roman empire.

If Damascus was at this time under Aretas king of Arabia Deserta, as we know it was a few years after, when St. Paul made his escape from a windowt, he was a king subject to the Romans, and durst not act in contradiction to their laws. It is very probable also, that in the present case he had not the least inclination so to do. It is not impossible but he might himself be a Jew: some of the Arabians were so g. This we know, that his daughter was a Jewess, because he had married her to Herod, tetrarch of Galilee h. It is not likely therefore that he would be less favourable to the Jews than were the Romans.

f 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33. ran, p. 22, pr.

8 Sale's Prelim. Disc. to the Alcoh Jos. Antiq. 1. 18. c. 5. §. 1.

CHAP. VII.

More Jewish customs confirmed.

ST. PAUL says, When the saints were put to death, I gave my voice against them. This is thought to relate to the death of St. Stephen only. For he says, And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him k. Likewise St. Luke in relating the fact says, And the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul And Saul was consenting to his death m This is generally understood as the whole which is meant by its being said, that he gave his voice against the saints when they were put to death, that is, that he fully approved of the death of St. Stephen, and demonstrated he did so by taking charge of the raiment of the witnesses, when they stripped themselves to stone him. We read not of any other Christians that were put to death before his conversion, and for this reason alone is the meaning of the words confined to St. Stephen's death. But it is not unlikely there might be several others: for the History of the Acts is very brief, and doubtless passes over many more things than it relates ". If there were several others put to death besides St. Stephen, I can see nothing that may hinder us from taking the words in their literal sense. Might

i Acts xxvi. 10.

1 Acts vii. 58.

k Acts xxii. 20.

m Acts ix. I.

n Vid. 2 Cor. xi. 23, &c. where you will find many facts even in the history of St. Paul, which are not related in the Acts.

not St. Paul have been a judge in one of the courts of Twenty-three? might he not have been a disciple in one of those three orders which always sat in the courts of Twenty-three, and upon some of these occasions have been called upon the bench? That he was ordained and raised to the dignity of an elder P, the learned Selden says, is not in the least to be doubted 9. Vitringa is of the same opinion, and collects it from that honourable office which was given him by the great sanhedrim, being sent as their commissioner to all the synagogues. This he compares with the office which afterwards was known in the Theodosian code by the name of apostolus patriarchæ, and was next in dignity to that of the patriarch himself.

It may seem strange to some, that St. Paul was not excommunicated by the Jews after he turned Christian; for St. John tells us, the Jews had agreed, that if any man did confess that Jesus was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogues. St. Paul, notwithstanding, entered boldly into their synagogues wherever he came, and preached that

• Vid. Seld. de Syned. 1. 2. c. 6. §. 2. p. 1322, 1323. Synedriorum viginti triumviralium fuere judicia-capitalia et criminalia omnigena quæ haud inter casus illos reservatos reperta. Ibid. c. 10. §. 3. p. 1435, prope init.

P No person could be a judge unless he were first ordained an elder, though all elders were not immediately judges.

9 Presbyteratus autem dignitatem antedictam ab Gamaliele accepisse Paulum, antequam Christo nomen dederat, non videtur omnino dubitandum. De Syned. 1. 2. c. 7. §. 7. p. 1360. Vid. et 1. 1. c. 14. p. 1099, pr. et med.

De Synag. vet. 1. 3. p. 1. c. 7. p. 707. Quid vetat credere hos vere ritu Judaico, &c.

• John ix. 22.