Tiberius was now dead, but only just known to be so, might be the exciting cause of the violence itself; especially if there is any foundation in truth for the tradition elsewhere alleged °, of his memorable rescript in favour of Christianity. The intentions of his successor might not yet be known; or if the tidings of the favours, which Caius had already conferred on Agrippa, had reached Judæa, this would tend rather to encourage, than to deter the execution of any designs against the obnoxious religion; for the whole conduct of Agrippa subsequently serves to shew that he was as bigoted to the ancient faith, and as inimically disposed towards Christianity as any of his subjects P.

I will pause, therefore, here to anticipate an objection. Should it be said that the time, which we assign to the first seven chapters of the Acts, is more than enough for the transaction of intermediate events, between the commencement of the history, and the period of this attack upon the church; we may reply, first, that if these events are to be considered continuous, even the least possible supposition of the length of the time in question, that which should date the course of proceedings from the Pentecost of U. C. 786, in the nineteenth of Tiberius Cæsar, would still be more than sufficient to bring every thing to pass, before the Pentecost of U. C. 790, in the first of Caius. But if the events are not to be considered continuous, then there were hiatuses between them; and if there were hiatuses at all, they might be hiatuses of indefinite extent, and much more of such an extent as to fill up the period of seven years.

Secondly, there are evidently points in the course of

o Vol. i. 444. 449. Dissertation xiii. p Ant. Jud. xix. vi. 1. vii. 3. Acts xii. 1. 3.

the narrative, at which intervals of greater or less extent between preceding and succeeding events may reasonably be supposed to exist; the particulars of which notwithstanding are nowhere given.

The first of these occurs at Acts ii. 42. The circumstances there related must have occupied some months dated from the day of Pentecost, when the Gospel began to be preached. That this feast therefore had long been over, at iii. 1-iv. 31, where the account of the miracle and of its consequences, the first particular which is next given in detail, begins and continues to be related, may be taken for granted; and yet that it was not the time of some other feast may also be inferred from iv. 16, 17: because among such as are supposed to have witnessed, and such as were likely to be impressed by, the miracle, none are there specified, except the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the people of the Jews in general.

A second period occurs iv. 32-37, and a third, at v. 12—16; of both which the same conclusion is even more evident than of the first. The last in particular must necessarily have embraced a considerable lapse of time; before the second attempt of the Sanhedrim to molest the further progress of the Gospel.

A fourth period occurs at v. 42, and vi. 1—6, which recounts the appointment, and the occasion of the appointment of the order of deacons. A fifth might intervene between vi. 7 and vi. 8; for the nature of the intermediate particulars would require some time; nor was it perhaps before the ordination of Stephen to the office of deacon, that by his eminent zeal and activity he rendered himself the most conspicuous, and the primary object of the ensuing persecution. This period, as I should conjecture, extended from at least the Passover to the Pentecost of U. C. 790.

That period, however, where the greatest lapse of time, with the least detail of particulars, may most reasonably be presumed to have intervened; is the period which immediately follows upon Acts v. 3440. The nature of the advice then given by Gamaliel, and adopted by the council, supposes that the apostles thenceforward would be left to themselves. His reasoning was to this effect. If the project or attempt of the apostles was of men, it would come to nothing of itself, and therefore might safely be let alone; but if it was of God, nothing which the Sanhedrim could do would arrest its progress, or defeat its ultimate success. If Gamaliel was sincere when he gave this advice, and his colleagues were sincere when they resolved to act upon it; the suspension, at least for some time after, of all violence against Christianity would be matter of course. Before this period not less than one year, and very probably not less than two years, must have transpired; and after this period, which would thus coincide with U. C. 785, the latter half of the eighteenth of Tiberius, the attention of the Jews and of their rulers, as I have shewn elsewhere 9, was probably monopolized by other considerations which came more home to themselves by Pilate's dedication of the shields, or sequestration of the Corban to construct an aqueduct, and by the increasing oppressiveness of his administration in general', which would be more and more felt, the longer it lasted.

:

All this time, as we may gather by implication from various passages, the Sadducees, and not the Pharisees, possessed the lead in the council. This is especially implied by v. 17: ἀναστὰς ὁ ̓Αρχιερεὺς, καὶ πάντες οἱ αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων-The high

σὺν αὐτῷ, ἡ οὖσα

q Vol. i. 449, 450. Dissertation xiii. tibus.

s Acts iv. 1, 2. v. 17. 34.

ó

oi

r Philo, ii. 590. 1. 22-29. De Virtu

priest, and all they of his party, the sect of the Sadducees that then was; the Sadducees of the day; the Sadducees for the time being: and that this high priest was still Caiaphas appears from v. 27, 28, compared with iv. 5, 6. 17: and that all were the same, who had put our Lord originally to death, seems to follow from their language itself-Ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and desire to bring this man's blood upon us.

All this is naturally accounted for if those, whom St. Luke describes as ek yévous àрxieρатiкоû*, were, as I understand the description, relations of the high priest. The expression properly denotes either persons of a family which were apxiepeîs, that is, heads of the courses of the priests; or those of a family which was akin to the high priesthood-which itself had produced high priests: and this last is a natural description of the kindred or family of Ananus the son of Seth, whose five sons, Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus, as well as himself, had been or were sometime high priests; and whose sonin-law Caiaphas, having been appointed high priest by Gratus about the twelfth of Tiberius ", continued in office until he was removed by Vitellius in the twentythird. Annas himself, whom Quirinius had appointed as early as U. C. 760, continued to be the vicar of

* Among these persons, men

tion is made of John and Alexander, as well as of Annas and Caiaphas. The former was probably the same John, whose tomb is repeatedly alluded to by Josephus (Bell. Jud. v. vi. 2. vii. 3. ix. 2. vi. ii. 10.) as somewhere in the vicinity of the first

and outermost wall of the city; the latter was, perhaps, the Alexander mentioned in like manner (Bell. v. v. 3. and Ant. xviii. viii. 1.) as the father of Tiberius Alexander, (governor of Egypt at the time of the accession of Vespasian,) and the brother of Philo Judæus.

t Ant. Jud. xviii. ii. 2. iv. 3. v. 3. xix. vi. 4. xx. ix. 1. V xviii. ii. 1.

u xviii. ii. 2. iv. 3.

Caiaphas, even when he had been superseded by him; and in point of precedence was scarcely to be distinguished from Caiaphas himself".

That each of them belonged to the sect of the Sadducees may justly, I think, be inferred from Ant. Jud. xx. ix. 1, where Josephus expressly asserts that Ananus the younger, the son of Annas; (who, as we may suppose, only inherited the sentiments of his father;) αἵρεσιν μετῄει τὴν Σαδδουκαίων : as well as from the residue of the account. The purpose for which the fact is noticed; viz. to explain the conduct of Ananus towards James, the brother of Christ; and the similarity of the conduct of the high priest for the time being, at Acts vi. and vii. towards Stephen, render it exceedingly probable that not only some one of the Sadducees in general, but some one of the family of Ananus in particular, was now in office: and this would be the case any time between the removal of Caiaphas, at the passover in the last year of Tiberius, and the appointment of Simon, surnamed Cantheras, in the first or the second of Claudius *.

That the martyrdom of Stephen synchronised with the time of some feast or other may almost necessarily be collected, from the mention of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those of Cilicia and Asia, who are said to have stood up against him. All these, the Libertines themselves not excepted; (of whom Suidas writes, Λιβερτίνοι, ὄνομα ἔθνους —and whose appellation, as a nomen gentilitium, would be regularly derived from some such theme as Aißeρтa, Aiβέρτη, Λίβερτος, Λιβερτίνη, or the like, the very form of which almost vouches for its African original;) were different classes of persons, inhabitants of different regions or cities; the three first probably of the

w John xviii. 13. 24. x Ant. Jud. xviii. iv. 3. xix. vi. 2. y Acts vi. 9.