ancient inscription of Caligula's reign, in which Aquius Scaura is called proconsul of Cyprus. If I have done St. Luke justice in this place, it is chiefly owing to assistances borrowed from Cardinal Noris: and I think myself obliged to make a particular acknowledgment of it.

XII. The last thing I shall take notice of, is the title given to GALLIO; who in our translation is called the deputy, but in the Greek, proconsul of Achaia. In this instance, St. Luke's accuracy appears more conspicuous than in the former, because this province had a more various fortune than the other. In the original partition, they were assigned to the people and senate. In the reign of Tiberius they were, at their own request, made over to the emperor.f In the reign of Claudius, when L. Quinctius Crispinus and M. Statilius Taurus were consuls, A. U. 797. A. D. 44. they were again restored to the senate. And therefore from that time [as Dio says upon Augustus's giving Cyprus to the senate] proconsuls were sent into this country.' St. Paul was brought before Gallio in the year of our Lord 52, or 53; consequently Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, as St. Luke calls him.

h

And perhaps it will not be amiss to observe, that afterwards Nero made the Achaians a free people. The senate therefore lost this province again. However, that they might not be sufferers, Nero gave them the island of Sardinia in the room of it. Vespasian made Achaia a province again."

There is likewise a peculiar propriety in the name of the province of which Gallio was proconsul. The country subject to him was all Greece; but the proper name of the province among the Romans was Achaia. This is evident from some passages already set down in the margin, and has been particularly observed by Pausanias."

tundis. Ad A. U. 774. Ann. 1. iii. cap. 38.
C. CÆSARE PRO CONSULE CYPRUM
pag. 360. 3. laudat. a Noris. Cenotaph. Pisan.
Of Gallio see more, Ch. viii. sect. 1.
e Dio. p. 503. fin.

b P. Aquius ScauraOBTINUIT. Gruter. Inscript. Dissert. ii. p. 219.

* Ανθυπατευοντος της Αχαιας. f Achaiam ac Macedoniam, onera deprecantes, levari in præsens proconsulari imperio, tradique Cæsari placuit. Tacit. An. lib. 1. cap. 76. 8 Provincias Achaiam et Macedoniam, quas Tiberius ad curam suam transtulerat, senatui reddidit. Sueton. in Claud. cap. 25. Tŋv Τε Αχαίαν και την Μακεδονίαν απέδωκεν ὁ Κλαύδιος τότε τῳ κληρφ. Dio. lib. 60. p. 680. E. Basnage Ann. P. E. Paul.

h

i Pearson. Ann. Universæ Achaia libertatem Domitius Nero dedit. Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. 4. cap. 6. 1 Και ελευθερον ὁ Νερων αφίησιν ἁπάντων, αλλαγην προς δημον ποιησάμενος των Ρωμαίων Σαρδώ γαρ την νησον ες τα μαλισα ευδαιμόνα αντι Ελλαδος σφισιν αντεδωκεν. Pausan. p. 428. Hanov. 1613. m Achaiam-libertate ademptâ, in provinciarum formam redegit. Sueton. in Vespas. c. 8. * Καλεσι δε εχ Ελλαδος, αλλ' Αχαιας ἡγεμονα οι

CHAP. II.

OF THE STATE OF THE JEWS IN JUDEA, DURING THE MINISTRY OF OUR SAVIOUR AND HIS APOSTLES.

I. The religious state of the Jews, according to the writers of the New Testament. II. According to other ancient writers. III. The method of considering their civil state, in four periods, proposed. IV. Three preliminary observations. V. Their civil state, in the first period, according to the writers of the New Testament. VI. Some difficulties relating to it considered. VII. Their state, in the second period, according to the same writers. VIII. In the third. IX. In the fourth period. X. Some difficulties relating to this last period. XI. The civil state of Judea, in the first and last periods, according to other ancient writers. XII. In the second. XIII. In the third period. XIV. The chief captain_at Jerusalem. XV. The captain of the temple. XVI. Festus's council.

IN considering the state of the Jews in their own country, two things are to be regarded, their religious and their civil

state.

I. That they had, according to the sacred writers, the free exercise of their religion, is evident from the whole tenor of the history contained in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. They had their synagogues, the law and the prophets were read there; our Saviour taught in the synagogues. Whenever he healed any lepers, he "bid them go and shew themselves to the priests," Matt. viii. 4. "and offer the gift that Moses commanded," Luke v. 14.

There appears to have been a great resort to the temple at Jerusalem, from Galilee, and other parts, at all their usual great feasts. They were at full liberty to make what contributions they saw fit to their sacred treasury; Mark xii. 41, 44, Luke xxi. 1; and so secure were they, that they used indirect practices to enrich it; Matt. xv. 5, Mark vii. 11, 12. There is no mention made in the history of our Saviour's ministry, of any restraint, or obstruction they met with in their worship, save that one of the "Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices," Luke xiii, 1.

II. That they might thus freely perform all the services of Ρωμαίοι, διοτι εχειρώσαντο Ελληνας δι' Αχαιων, τότε το Ελληνικό προεσης Pausan. Descript. lib. vii. p. 563.

κοτων

their religion, though they be supposed to have been then under the Roman government, is not at all improbable. For the Romans had ever permitted the people they conquered to practise their own religious rites in their own way and seem not to have departed from this principle, till after the period of the evangelical history. And that the Jews were now at full liberty to worship God, according to the institutions of Moses, we are assured by Josephus, who has left us the history of these times. The Koman presidents did indeed, for some time, put in, and turn out their high priests at pleasure. Valerius Gratus, Pilate's predecessor, made several high priests, in the time of his government. The last high priest he made was Caiaphas, who continued in that office during all Pilate's administration. He being removed from the province, Vitellius, president of Syria, put in Jonathan the son of Ananus, or Annas; and afterward Theophilus, another son of Ananus, in the room of Jonathan. But in this there was nothing unusual or extraordinary. Herod the Great and Archelaus had been wont, before this, to constitute and remove the high priests at pleasure.d Theophilus, just now mentioned, continued high priest till Herod Agrippa, [mentioned Acts xii.] then king of all Judea, displaced him, and put Simon the son of Boethus into his room.e However, this Herod was a Jew; and from thence to the time the war broke out with the Romans, the nomination of the high priests, and the government of the temple, were committed to princes of the Jewish religion, by the direction of the Roman emperors. After the death of Herod Agrippa, Claudius invested Herod king of Chalcis, brother of Herod Agrippa, with these powers; and after his death, Agrippa the younger, son of the said Herod Agrippa." And although they might all act somewhat arbitrarily in the nomination of the high priests, yet they always confined their choice to those who were of the race of the priests.

The Roman governors did indeed sometimes offer them abuses, or suffer abuses to be committed in the country, contrary to the institutions of the law, as they did also injure them in their civil properties. But these abuses seem not to have been very numerous; when any were committed, it was without the emperor's authority; and, usually, the Jews at length obtained satisfaction.h

This general view of the religious state of the Jews in

Judea may suffice at present. I shall have occasion to enlarge more upon this subject hereafter.

III. Their civil state will require a more particular consideration in this place. It will be needful to lay together a good number of texts, that the reader may be able to judge what representation the sacred historians have given of this matter. That it may be done distinctly, I desire leave to divide their history into four periods. These will serve to relieve us in a disquisition, which will be of some length. And perhaps we may have some other advantages, and receive some clearer light into this matter, by this method, than we should have otherwise.

1. The first period reaches from the preaching of John Baptist to our Saviour's resurrection.

2. The second, from thence to the time of Herod the king, mentioned Acts xii.

3. The reign of this Herod.

4. From the end of his reign to the conclusion of the evangelical history.

IV. I must here premise, that in going over the several passages of scripture relating to this matter, we are particularly to have our eye to a point, in which learned men are not entirely agreed, nåmely, what power and authority the Jewish nation was now possessed of; and whether they had the power of life and death, or only a right to inflict some lesser penalties.

2. I would likewise observe, that our inquiry here will chiefly be confined to the state of the Jews in Judea, properly so called. I have already shown (in part at least) in the foregoing chapter, that St. Luke has given a just account of the several divisions of the land of Israel, and of the princes and governors to whom they belonged: but now we are to consider the power, which the Jews were possessed of in Judea. Therefore the beheading of John the Baptist is a fact, that does not at present come particularly under our consideration. He was beheaded by Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, son of Herod the Great. And there can be no doubt, but he had the power of life and death (however he abused it) in his own territories.

3. I would also premise, that the evangelists are not answerable for the legality of all the facts they have related. It is said that, "all they in the synagogue, when they heard. these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust him [Jesus] out of the city, [Nazareth,] and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong," Luke iv. 28, 29.

The Jews are said to have taken up stones to cast at Jesus more than once, and that in the temple. John viii. 59, x. 31, 33, 39. It is also said, that when Paul was about to sail into Syria, from Greece, the Jews laid wait for him, Acts xx. 3. So that he was forced to alter his purpose, and go another way. It can never be supposed, that any of these attempts were legal. It cannot be thought, that Herod the tetrarch, in whose territories Nazareth was, permitted the multitude to throw men off the precipice, whenever they did not like their doctrine. Much less can it be supposed, that such practices were allowed in any places where the government was in the hands of the Romans, as it certainly was in Greece, if not also in Judea. Such practices as these are never countenanced by those who are in authority. And if the scribes and pharisees, and the great men among the Jews, had, at this time, any principles that justified and encouraged such actions; and if they excited the common people to them in Judea, as well as in other parts; it may be reckoned an argument, they had not the government in their own hands, or the power of putting men to death by their own authority, when they judged them guilty. This observation may be of some use hereafter.

V. I shall now proceed to consider the account we meet with in the Evangelists in the first period, from the commencement of John the Baptist's ministry to the resurrection of our Saviour.

St. Luke has informed us, that when the word of God came to John," in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests," Luke iii. 1, 2. And all the evangelists have assured us, that our Saviour was brought before Pilate and condemned by him. So that (according to them) Pilate was governor in Judea, during the whole time of our Saviour's ministry, or the period we are now in. But because the power of this governor is not particularly described by any of the evangelists, in order to judge what authority he had here, and what power Annas, or Caiaphas, or any other chief men among the Jews were possessed of in this country, we must observe the discourses, proceedings, and events recorded by the sacred historians, which have any relation to this matter.

1. The Jews appear to have been at liberty to follow their own laws and customs in most matters, particularly in the affair of marriage and divorce, in which they differed considerably from many other people.

"It has been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let