amongst the sects of the Jews, the scribes, and chief priests, ie. the heads of the twenty-four courses of the priesthood. The council was, to a certain extent, administrative; but it was, very especially, a council of appeal and decision upon religious points, with vast powers of discipline in connection with these. It is said that the power of life and death was taken from the Sanhedrim by the Romans, about forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem; that is, about three years before the crucifixion. The Talmud is the authority for the statement; and it agrees with the declaration of the Jews to Pilate, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." The instances of the death of Stephen, and of James, are explained as ebullitions of popular fury, in violation of the law, a fury which the rulers well knew when and how to excite. Josephus ("Antiq." xx. 9, 1) directly asserts that the murder of James was a "breach of the laws;" but the question is involved in too much uncertainty to be easy of decision. That this great council included Pharisees and Sadducees, Herodians, scribes, and lawyers, is a sufficient proof of its antagonism to Christ. But it is not easy to understand the littleness, malevolence, and murderous intentions with which they deliberately assembled for the suppression of the Gospel; and for the assassination, and, when that seemed inexpedient, judicial murder of our Lord, whom they all knew to be holy, just, and true, and that He had come from God. This malevolence makes the history of the Sanhedrim an utterly distasteful subject to all lovers of justice; and deprives it of that interest which would otherwise belong to a council so venerable, having such prescriptive claims to respect, and before which Christ was arraigned. No. III. RETICENCE OF JOSEPHUS CONCERNING CHRIST. The singular reserve of Josephus with regard to the advent of Christ, and the progress of Christianity, has been much noticed. It is, indeed, strange that an historian of so much candour and truthfulness, possessing so many qualifications for giving an impartial account of what was so chief an event of the period of history with which he was contemporary, should so slightly mention this event, as almost to pass it over in silence; in so entire silence, in fact, as to throw suspicion on the genuineness of the simple passage in which he does directly mention Christ. We must take it for granted that his silence was intentional. It is impossible that he could possess less information than Roman historians, or that he could accidentally pass over so important a fact of history. It is likely that the spread of Christianity in Judæa itself, in the interval between our Lord's ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem, did not attract any very considerable attention, when contrasted with the disturbed condition of the country; and we know that Josephus himself was prominently occupied in these troubles. But still it had made very decided progress; there were Christians throughout the length and breadth of the land. The fact of their conforming at first to the outward observances of the ceremonial law, did not really conceal their separation by their faith from the rest of the nation; it did not give them the character of being merely a sect of the Jews. It is impossible, therefore, that their peculiar tenets should have escaped the observation of Josephus. And it is most unlikely that he could have been wholly ignorant of the prophecies of Christ which they held, and which enabled them to avoid all the miseries which fell upon their countrymen through the Romans. This silence of Josephus is the more strange, as he so invariably ascribes the miseries which befel the Jews to the direct agency of God, who employed the Roman arm to punish the iniquity of the nation. He even ascribes (on the quotation of several of the early writers) the overthrow of the nation to the punishment which God sent upon them for the murder of James: "These miseries befel the Jews by way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus that was called Christ; because they had slain him, who was a most righteous person. It is indeed most extraordinary that he should thus consider the murder of James, whilst passing over that of Jesus; whom he merely names, thus showing that he was not ignorant of His history. In the same way, he says (“Antiq.” xviii. 5, 2) that "some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment for what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man," etc. With how much greater reason might he not have ascribed these calamities to the fulfilment of our Lord's own predictions, that God would avenge His death and rejection upon that generation of the nation. A man so observant and thoughtful could not possibly have overlooked this consequence, and could scarcely have been unaware of the predictions. The passage (" Antiq." xviii. 3, 3) in which Josephus directly mentions Christ is a striking one; and there appears to be fair grounds for accepting it as authentic. Probably it would never have been questioned, but for its decisive character, as contrasted with the historian's otherwise uniform reticence on the subject of Christ. The passage in question has been criticized by Paley (“Evidences,' i. 7), whose remarks are valuable. He says, "In a passage extant 6 in every copy that remains of Josephus's history, but the authenticity of which has been long disputed, we have explicit testimony to the substance of our history in these words, ' At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call Him a man, for He performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to Him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned Him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for Him, did not cease to adhere to Him; for, on the third day, He appeared alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many wonderful things concerning Him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from Him, subsists to this time.' Paley strongly contends either that the passage is genuine, or that the silence of Josephus is designed; it being impossible that he could be ignorant of facts which the contemporary Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius refer to distinctly. He also aptly instances in support of his own view a similar silence of the Mishna (A.D. 180), the Jerusalem Talmud (A.D. 300), and the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 500). Designed silence, or even the meagreness of the notice above given, argues that Josephus was full of Jewish prejudices so far as Christians were concerned; and that, as he did not see the extent of their progress, or foresee the certainty of their triumph, he passed them over in the contemptuous silence of a foe who was assured they would eventually come to nought, but who was too fair, truthful, and impartial to circulate error or falsehood concerning them. Whiston, however, takes a different view: he declares his firm belief that the passage above quoted, supported by the credit assigned to it by so many of the early writers, is genuine. He cites the evidence of Origen (who says that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ), Eusebius, Higisippus, Jerome, Isidorus, Sozomen, within the first five centuries; and many more of later date, who (except Origen) quote the passage verbatim. But he asserts that Josephus was a Nazarene, or Ebionite Christian, who, like those in Acts xxi. 20, believed in Christ, but without considering that He was more than a man, and who held the necessity of observing the ceremonial law; and that he held these views secretly, and therefore could not draw attention to Christianity by detailing the progress of the new faith. If his "Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades" is genuine, this view receives direct refutation; because he thus quotes sayings of Christ, whom he names as "God the Word," and the Universal Judge. He would, therefore, not have been an Ebionite, but an orthodox Christian. But the view of Origen seems more probable at the date he wrote (A.D. 230) he must have heard of tradition of the views held VOL. II. S by Josephus, had he been even an Ebionite Christian; and it seems natural that a man in high esteem amongst the Romans (who had not yet taken any active part, as yet, for the suppression of Christianity, but who were rather treating it with a contemptuous indifference,) should not much concern himself with the progress of a religion which the Romans let alone at the time, and which, perhaps for the very reason that the Jews persecuted it, they allowed to develop itself. Whilst, on the other hand, the absorption of Josephus in Jewish politics blinded him to the earlier advances of the new faith, and his Jewish prejudices affected to ignore it. He had nothing to say against it; his integrity forbade his slandering it; but he did his best to bury it in silence, the subject being neither an interesting one to his Roman patrons, nor a welcome one to the Jewish readers of his history. No. IV. On iii. 2; xviii. 3. THE TEMPLE. The following extract from Dean Milman's "History of the Jews," Book xvi., which describes the Temple as it stood at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, is so graphic and so full of details of interest, that no apology is necessary for its insertion : "High above the whole city rose the Temple, uniting the commanding strength of a citadel with the splendour of a sacred edifice. According to Josephus, the esplanade on which it stood had been considerably enlarged by the accumulation of fresh soil, since the days of Solomon, particularly on the north side. It now covered a square of a furlong each side. Solomon had faced the precipitous sides of the rock on the east, and perhaps the south, with huge blocks of stone; the lower sides likewise had been built up with perpendicular walls to an equal height. These walls in no part were lower than 300 cubits, 525 feet; but their whole height was not seen excepting on the eastern and perhaps the southern sides, as the earth was heaped up to the level of the streets of the city. Some of the stones employed in this work were of the size of 70 feet, probably, in length. "On this gigantic foundation ran on each front a strong and lofty wall without; within, a spacious double portico or cloister 52 feet broad, supported by 162 columns, which supported a cedar ceiling of the most exquisite workmanship. The pillars were entire blocks hewn out of solid marble, of dazzling whiteness, 43 feet high. On the south side the portico or cloister was triple. "This quadrangle had but one gate to the east, one to the north, two to the south, four to the west; one of these led to the palace, one to the city, one at the corner to the Antonia, one down towards the gardens. "The open courts were paved with various inlaid marbles. Between this outer court of the Gentiles, and the second court of the Israelites, ran rails of stone, but of beautiful workmanship, rather more than five feet high. Along these, at regular intervals, stood pillars with inscriptions in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, warning all strangers, and Jews who were unclean, from entering into the Holy Court beyond. An ascent of 14 steps led to a terrace 172 feet wide, beyond which rose the wall of the Inner Court. This wall appeared on the outside 70 feet, on the inside 43; for, besides the ascent of 14 steps to the terrace, there were five more up to the gates. The Inner Court had no gate or opening to the west, but four on the north, and four on the south, two to the east; one of which was for the women, for whom a portion of the Inner Court was set apart, and beyond which they might not advance; to this they had access by one of the northern, and one of the southern gates, which were set apart for their use. Around this court ran another splendid range of porticoes or cloisters: the columns were quite equal in beauty and workmanship, though not in size to those of the outer portico. Nine of these gates, or rather gateway towers, were richly adorned with gold and silver on the doors, the door posts, and the lintels. The doors of each of the nine gates were 52 feet high, and half that breadth. Within, the gateways were 52 feet wide and deep, with rooms on each side, so that the whole looked like lofty towers: the height from the base to the summit was 70 feet. Each gateway had two lofty pillars 21 feet in circumference. But that which excited the greatest admiration was the tenth, usually called the Beautiful Gate of the Temple. It was of Corinthian brass of the finest workmanship. The height of the Beautiful Gate was 87 feet, its doors 70 feet. The father of Tiberius Alexander had sheeted these gates with gold and silver; his apostate son was to witness their ruin by the plundering hands and fiery torches of his Roman friends. Within this quadrangle there was a further separation; a low wall which divided the priests from the Israelites near this stood the great brazen altar. great porch or Propyleon, according to the design of the last, or Herod's Temple, extended to a much greater width than the body of the Temple; in addition to the former width of 105 feet, it had two wings of 35 each, making, in the whole, 175. The great gate of this last quadrangle, to which there was an ascent of twenty steps, was called that of Nicanor. The gateway tower was 132 feet high, 43 wide; it had no doors, but the frontispiece was covered with gold, and through its spacious arch was seen the golden gate of the Temple, glittering with the same precious metal, with large plates The |