under Jefus Chrift:-Thirdly, That the Apoftle's words are a wrong quotation:-And Fourthly, that the text is foreign to his fubject, viz. rejection of Jews, and engrafting of Gentiles-Fifthly, That in the prophecy Jews are the moft happy people, when in fact they were at our Saviour's time moft wicked and miferable, and have been ever fince fuch.Sixthly, that Midian, Sheba, &c. people no longer exifting, pay their duty at Jerufalem.

Answer.-ift. The redemption from Babylonish captivity is the primary accomplishment of that chapter; that from captivity of fin and Satan the ultimate.-2dly. The fpiritual accomplishment is highly preferable to the literal.-3dly. The Apostle cites fome of the principal words of the prophecy, as fufficient to refer to the whole, and adds others as a fummary of the reft.-4thly. The rejection of unbelieving Jews is very applicable to the prophecy, as it fhews how the prophecy was fulfilled.-5thly. The believing Jews, the only true feed of Abraham, were the moft holy and the moft happy.-6thly. Midian, &c. fignify the Gentiles; and are very proper figures, though the names of fuch nations no longer exist.

On the Prophecy of the GOSPEL, as a DELIVERANCE from CAPTIVITY, lxi. 1. applied by CHRIST. LUKE iv. 18—21.

INFIDELS object that this cannot relate to the times of Christianity, because in v. 4-6, Gentiles are spoken of as ferving Jews, which cannot be true either literally or figu ratively.

Anfwer. The expreffions are figurative, and ftrongly declare that the Gentiles being taken into the glorious Covenant, of which the converted Jews are the firft parties, are in a kind of fubferviency to them; as St. Paul largely fhows the advantages and fuperiority of the Jews in this Covenant; and converted Gentiles are, by him, compared to the wild olives, and Jews to the trees; the former to engrafted branches, the latter to the root.

ON THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.

F

(Continued from page 363.)

ROM the preceding statement of various most remarkable contemporary facts, we may pretty fafely venture to conclude that Aretas must have died fome time, at latest, in the beginning of the year 37. "And Pilate," as profeffor Marth fays, "continued procurator of Judæa, only till the beginning of the fame year, viz. 37, of the vulgar æra. For," fays he, "Jofephus, who relates in his Antiquities that Pilate, after he had governed Judæa 10 years, was difpoffeffed of his government by Vitellius, proconful of Syria, and fent to Rome-adds-that when Pilate arrived there, Tiberius was already dead, πριν δε ητη Ρώμη προσχειν αυτόν, φθάνει Τίβηριος μεταςας. Now Tiberius, adds the fame very learned profeffor, died on the 16th of March, of the year 37, of the vulgar æra.

Now when it is confidered that Paul was at Damascus in the life time of Aretas, and that he had been at Damafcus "many days," but how many we know not, after he had recovered himself, and had been introduced to the believers then, and before he made his escape from thence, we shall have no great reafon to doubt of his having been converted, at the latest, not later than the year 36.

And when we come to confider further, that he appears to have been converted fome time after the death of Stephen, and indeed long after that event, to cause many of the faints at Jerufalem, and in remote places, to be executed legally, before he went to Damafcus, we may conclude pretty fairly that Stephen must have suffered a good while before, and confequently long before Pilate left Judæa.

Taking it now for certain, that we have fomething like a reafon for doubting of the truth of the affumption made by these two very learned profeffors-let us next proceed to inquire, whether the Jews really appear to have been difpoffeft of this fundamental law of their religion, under Pilate, as clearly as they seem to think we should believe.

We know that it was a maxim of policy with the Ro mans, when they made any nation a province, to permit it to be governed by its own laws,-and we do not hear of any hiftorian that fays the Jews, whofe hierarchy could not exift without that permiffion, were above all people deprived of that privilege. If they were fo deprived, we may, of course,

expec

expect to find the privation noticed by Philo or jofephus. But fo far are thefe from affording us any reafon to think that any fuch change took place, that they each assure us, that they were permitted to be governed by their own laws. (e)-Philo (e) fays, that Pilate ordered fome fhields to be fet up in the royal palace at Jerufalem in honor of the emperor. This the Jews confidered not as a compliment to the emperor, but as an infult to their God; and begged to know if the emperor had been brought acquainted with it. But obtaining no redress from Pilate, they wrote to Rome, ftating that it was contrary to their laws. Tiberius inftantly reprimanded Pilate for doing it, and ordered them to be removed. Jofephus (x) mentions another fimilar occurrence, which ferves likewife to fhew that they had their laws, though Pilate appears to have been inclined to fhew no refpect to them. Pilate, he fays, contrary to the practice of his five predeceffors, introduced the Roman ftandards into the temple, but finding what uneafinefs it gave the Jews, who declared that the lofs of their lives was nothing fo terrible to them as the violation of their laws, ordered them to be removed.

By Jofephus we alfo learn, that Pilate, having built an aqueduct for the benefit of Jerufalem, thought the facred treafury (for a treasury, it seems, they had, though they are supposed to have been governed by the Roman laws) fhould contribute towards it. And accordingly he proceeded to levy a tax upon it. This ftep made the Jews very uneasy, who confidered it as facrilegious. How this proceeding ended, does not appear.

This fame exclufive right of being governed by their own laws, it may be inferred they enjoyed under Pilate, from what paffed in the Sanhedrin, when they confulted about putting Jefus to death, (f) and from the answer which they returned to Pilate when he faid "Take ye him and crucify him." In the Sanhedrin they faid to each other, "If we let this man alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans fhall come and take away our place and nation." But what

(e) Joseph. contr. Apionem, p. 1065.-And De bell. Jud. 1. ii.

C. 17.

(e) Legat. 1033, &c.

(x) De bell. Jud. 1. ii. c. 8. et Id. ibid.

Sec. c. i. ditto.

(f) John xi. 48.

Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 4,

what occafion had they to be anxious about this, if the Romans had already abolished their laws? To Pilate, when he faid "Take ye him and crucify him ;" they answered "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himfelf the Son of God." What now could have induced the Jews to say we have a law, if that law was no longer in force?

True, fame may fay, we admit that it seems to have been neceffary the Jews fhould have been governed by their own laws. We only contend, that they had not the power of ftoning blafphemers; and we appeal in fupport of our opinion, to the declaration which the heads of their nation made to Pilate, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." But how happened it that they were deprived of a privilege only-fo necessary to their ecclefiaftical government? And why is not fome account of fo fingular a privation given by hiftorians, especially by Philo and Jofephus? As they are fuppofed to have been deprived before our Lord's miniftry, and in the government of Pilate, what reason can be affigned why they fhould have been then deprived? Does it appear that they frequently found it neceffary to stone blafphemers about that time? Is it credible that among the Jews, who gloried in being the worshippers of the one true God, fuch offenders were numerous, particularly about that time above any other? If fuch offenders happened frequently about that time, we have the greater reafon to expect that they would have been noticed. But where do we meet with any inftance on record? After the faith of Chrift had been received, we fee a greater reafon why they should have been thought much more numerous. (g) But before that event took place, the floning of blafphemers could not have endangered the ftate, and therefore if the Romans put a stop to it, (which must have endangered the ftate) they must have done it, because they thought it abfurd; for we cannot fuppofe that a people who delighted in seeing the most favage exhibitions, would have done it from motives of humanity. But what reafon have we to think that executions frequently occurred under the government of Pilate before our Lord fuffered? Have we any account of one instance?

But further-If the Romans deprived the Jews of this power

(g) When Paul says he blasphemed, and compelled others to blaspheme, what does he mean? If he does not use the word as applying to the Deity, in what other sense does he use it?

power, because it was found to endanger the public tranquil lity, why did they grant them that privilege of demanding yearly the releafe of a condemned malefactor however "notable"-one who had made an infurrection, and in it committed murder, and in direct oppofition to the remonftrance of the Roman governor, and even, if they chose it, at the expence of the life of an innocent perfon? Such a privilege exercised yearly, feems to have been incomparably more contrary to the interefts of the Romans than that of ftoning blafphemers, perhaps not more than once in an age. Surely as they were confeffedly indulged with a privilege fo contrary to the Roman intereft, we may hope to be excufed from yielding affent to this prefumed and unaccountable privation fo dangerous to the religion of the Jews, till we have spent a little more thought about it. And especially, as we find it fuggefted that this practice, which had been difcontinued under Pilate, as having been found to endanger the ftate, was, immediately on the fucceffion of Marcellus, when blafphemers were become incomparably more numerous, revived.

In the eighth chapter of St. John, we read how the Scribes and Pharifees, having taken a woman in the very act of adultery, brought her to our Lord in the temple, and said, "Mofes in the law commanded us that fuch fhould be ftoned; but what fayeft thou ?" This, St. John adds, "they faid, tempting him, that they might have to accufe him." If they were then deprived of the privilege of executing the fentence of the law, why did they think of afking him this queftion, and for the purpose too of accufing him? Our Saviour might have replied to them-" Why do you ask me? You know that you have not any longer the power to do it. If you will do it, you must expect to answer before a Roman magistrate. I advise you, as a friend, not to hazard a profecution before a heathen tribunal." But inftead of faying fo, he, after much apparent inattention, faid unto them, "He that is without fin among you, let him caft the first stone at her."-Again-In c. xii. 33. we read how our Saviour faid, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me," (this he faid, adds St. John, fignifying what death he fhould die.) But what reafon had his followers to think that he would ever suffer death as a malefactor? Nothing, they must have known, could be more undeferved. On the contrary, they had reason to be afraid that the Jews would ftone hina as a blafphemer, they knew that they had twice taken up ftones for that intent, and they knew that he had, on that account,

1