be put out by the sword of the Romans, being, either way, extinguished like other great excitements, which he instanced, and which had at first awakened much expectation in some, and alarm in others. If the cause which the apostles upheld were destitute of vital strength, if it were not of God, it would assuredly come to nothing, whatever stir it made at the moment; but if there were any good in it, it would prosper, in spite of all their endeavours to put it down; and they would then incur the guilt of having endeavoured to lay a curse where God had laid a blessing.

Some have thought, from his admitting the supposition that the apostles might prove to be in the right, that he was secretly a Christian, or at least had a leaning in that direction. This does not seem to have been the case. The mere suspicion would have neutralized all his counsel. The hypothesis was necessary to his argument, and, as a liberal-minded man, he did not shrink from using it, for what it might be worth, in favour of persons so earnest in bearing testimony to the prominent doctrine of the Pharisees, who were favourable to the apostles, not because they believed in Christ, but because they preached the resurrection of the dead. It is likely also that Gamaliel's kindly feeling, if it were such, changed somewhat with the lapse of time; for we know that the man who 'breathed threatenings and slaughter' against the Christians came from his school. He also died with a high Jewish reputation, presiding over the Sanhedrim to the last, that is, until within eighteen years of the destruction of Jerusalem, or about twenty-two years after the events now under consideration. Lightfoot says, 'For all the fairness of this man at this time, yet did he afterwards ordain and publish that prayer, called "The Prayer against Heretics," meaning Christians,-framed, indeed, by Samuel the Little, but approved and authorized by this man, president of the Sanhedrim, and commanded to be used constantly in their synagogues, in which they prayed against the gospel, and the professors of it.'

Gamaliel was a common enough name among the Jews, especially in and after this age. There is little doubt that the

one before us is the most eminent of them, distinguished as Gamaliel the elder. The sacred historian indicates his eminence in the public view, by describing him as a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people.' A doctor or teacher of the law was one who had made the law and the traditions illustrative of it his especial study, and who taught it to others like a professor to his class. Gamaliel was the first in reputation of those professors, and it was a distinction to have belonged to his class. This distinction was enjoyed by Paul, who more than once tells us that he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel'—which is as much as to say, that he had received the highest education which was obtainable at Jerusalem.

The information we possess concerning this eminent man entirely coincides with that here given. He was distinguished as Rabban Gamaliel; and as there were two other Rabbans of the name, one his grandson, and the other his great-grandson, he was further distinguished as Rabban Gamaliel the elder. Rabban was a title of the highest distinction-as much more dignified than Rabbi, as Rabbi was than Rab. There were, in fact, but seven persons, all presidents of the Sanhedrim, who ever bore it, and of these, four were of this family. The first was his father, Simeon, whom some have fancied to be the same who took the infant Jesus in his arms and blessed Him; and the others this Gamaliel and the two of that name just mentioned. So highly was the present Gamaliel esteemed, that the Jewish Mishna declares that when he died the glory of the law ceased, and purity and Pharisaism expired. A great mourning was made for him, and it is recorded that one of his pupils, Onkelos the Targumist, burnt seventy pounds of frankincense in honour of the great Rabban when he died. This ostentation was, however, contrary to his wish; for it is recorded that he left orders that his corpse should be wrapped up in linen for burial, not in silk, as had been the custom. It is added, that this was very grievous to his relatives, who thought he had not been interred with sufficient honour.

So much of Gamaliel, with whose advice to 'refrain from these men,' that is, to leave them unmolested, the council so

far agreed as to desist from the purpose of putting them to death; but fearful of compromising their own authority with the people, if they suffered them to go altogether unpunished, after they had avowedly disregarded the injunction which had been laid upon them, they were beaten or scourged, and then dismissed with a renewed injunction, 'not to speak in the name of Jesus.' This being a Jewish scourging, was of thirty-nine stripes, like those which Paul mentions that he had been subject to. 2 Cor. xi. 24. It was a common secondary punishment among the Jews; and our Lord had forewarned his disciples that they would be exposed to this pain and shame. And how did this first experience of it affect them? They rejoiced.' What for? Certainly not because they had been scourged, nor because they had escaped with their lives, but that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.'

The sacred historian is careful to add that, notwithstanding all that had passed, daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.'

Forty-first Week-Fourth Day.

THEUDAS AND JUDAS.—ACTS v. 36, 37.

LET us this evening return to the speech of Gamaliel, for the purpose of bestowing more particular attention upon the historical circumstances to which he refers. 'For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.'

To this mention of Theudas an objection has been taken which it is important to clear up. It is said to be opposed to the statements of Josephus, who, in his Antiquities of the Jews,

relates, that when Fadus was procurator of Judea, one Theudas prevailed upon a great multitude to take with them their wealth, and follow him to the river Jordan. For he gave himself out to be a prophet, and declared that the river, dividing at his command, would afford them an easy passage. Fadus, however, suffered them not long to enjoy their delusion, but sent a body of horse against them, which, falling upon them unexpectedly, killed many, and took many alive. They took also Theudas himself, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.' Now, Josephus expressly tells us, that this happened under the administration of Fadus, who was made procurator after the death of king Herod-Agrippa, in the fourth year of the Emperor Claudius, and therefore many years after this speech was made by Gamaliel. It is therefore urged by unbelievers, that words are put into the mouth of Gamaliel by the writer of the Acts which he never uttered; that he is represented as relating an event of which he could not, at that time, possibly have had any knowledge, seeing that it happened many years after.

It will be seen that the force of the objection just stated, rests on the assumption that the Theudas here mentioned by Gamaliel, and the Theudas of whom Josephus speaks, are one and the same person. And this is attempted to be proved from the identity of the name and the similarity of the circumstances. Each boasted himself to be somebody, had a number of followers, and was slain. But, these being incidents common to almost all impostors who raise a rebellion, they by no means prove the point for which they are brought forward. On the other hand, there are circumstances stated in which the two transactions differ very widely. Gamaliel expressly says, that his Theudas was before Judas of Galilee, who raised a sedition ' in the time of the taxing,' which taxing, as we have seen,2 took place when Judea was made a Roman province, in the twelfth year of our era. But the Theudas of Josephus was under the procurator Fadus, that is, in the year 45 or 46 A.D., as these two years formed the whole duration of his government. There 1 Antiquities, xx. 5, § 1.

2 Evening Series: Twenty-eighth Week--Fourth Day.

.

was thus, from the data respectively supplied by the two historians, an interval little short, if at all short, of forty years between the two events and persons. In the next place, the Theudas of Josephus gathered together a much larger body of men than the Theudas of Gamaliel : Josephus says, a very great multitude;' whereas Gamaliel says, 'a number of men, about four hundred.' Of the very great multitude who followed Theudas, Josephus asserts, that many were killed and many taken alive; but Gamaliel affirms, that when his Theudas was killed, all his followers were scattered.

When we take into account this difference of time and other circumstances, it is obviously suggested, that Gamaliel and Josephus had different events and persons in view. No argument to the contrary can be drawn from the name; for Theudas or Thaddeus was in this age a very common name among the Jews. Besides these, several persons of the name are mentioned in the Talmud; and one of the apostles bore the name of Thaddeus. The possibility of there being two such impostors of this name, is illustrated by the fact, that several seditious leaders in this age were called Judas, besides Judas of Galilee; and a still larger number of public impostors bore the name of Simon. It is therefore not in itself unlikely that two leaders of the name of Theudas should appear at an interval of forty years.

That thus there was a Theudas, other than the one named by Josephus, who raised a sedition anterior, probably by some years, to that raised by Judas of Galilee at the time of the taxing, and that it is to him Gamaliel refers, has been the opinion, or rather explanation, given by many of the best ancient and modern interpreters. The insurrection of Judas of Galilee was after the close of the reign of Archelaus; and we may find a time, about the beginning of that reign, to which the other sedition may very well be assigned. This was when Archelaus was at Rome, soliciting from the Emperor Augustus the confirmation of his father's will. At that time, as described by Josephus himself, almost the whole of Palestine was in commotion. In Idumea, 2000 soldiers, who had been dismissed by

VOL. VIII.

D