of Joshua, extraordinary Judges were raised up by providence, but Selden supposes that there were many intermissions in the continuance of these councils. During the time of Eli, Samuel and Saul, there is no mention of the Sanhedrin in the Bible, but the Jews teach that Samuel received the instruction in the law from Eli and his council, and David form Samuel and his council. Under the reign of Jehosaphat, there is a supposed reference to this body; 2 Chron. xix. 8. Under Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, the princes of Judah are said to have held an assembly in the entry of the new gate of the king's house; Jer. xxvi. 10, 11. Under Zedekiah, the authority of this council seems to have been so great that the king himself could do nothing against them; Jer. xxxviii. 4, 5. Ezekiel describes the seventy elders with their President Jaazaniah; Ez. viii. 11. The same is intended, it is thought by the Jews, (whose opinions we are now detailing) by the princes and officers of Jehoiakim; 2 Kings xxiv. 12. According to Grotius, the seventy elders retained their authority during the Babylonish captivity; Ez. i. 5. viii. 16. ix. 1. The Rabbins make Ezra the President after the return from Babylon. The Sanhedrin retained authority until the time of Herod the Great, after which it suffered a great diminution of power. It was divided by Gabinius into five parts; it was almost done away by Herod, was injured by frequent removals, and by the Romans despoiled of power in capital cases. In Judea, as well as other provinces, the provincial Senate could not pronounce sentence of death, without the consent of the governor. This is thought by some to explain John xviii. 31. When Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus, the Sanhedrin, according to Grotius, came to an end. But the Jews think otherwise, and have a tradition that upon the destruction of the temple, Rabbi Johannes, the son of Zac

cheus, and Rabban Gamaliel the Second, presided over the Sanhedrin; and that it existed during the reign of Antoninus Pius. It is also supposed that the aged Simeon, who took our Saviour in his arms, was at that time President, and that he was succeeded by his son Rabban Gamaliel, who was the instructer of Paul.*

Hitherto, all that has been said rests chiefly upon Talmudical authority. There have been men of learning who have denied the existence of any such council in the Jewish commonwealth prior to the time of the Asmonean princes. It is not to be supposed that there are any persons versed in the Talmuds, who are willing to suspend their faith upon the mere testimony of the Rabbins, especially when they speak of events which occurred many ages before their time. Of the early monuments of the nation of Israel, the only remains are in the Scriptures. It is therefore an inquiry of primary importance, whether they contain any notices of such a Council, and of its continuance. The Jews and many learned Christians have maintained that they do, but upon grounds altogether insufficient.

It is affirmed that seventy, or seventy-three persons were set over the people, who had such a superintendence of their affairs as was compatible with, the royal authority; and that this was in memory of those whom Jacob brought down into Egypt. The Scriptures, however, afford no authority for this statement. Moses speaks indeed of "the elders of Israel," whom he was commanded to address, but adds no hint that they were invested with authority, or were seventy in number, or were instituted with any reference to those who accompanied the patriarch. In every age, men venerable for their years and wisdom, have been highly honoured, and the elders of Israel were, in all probability, counsellors, rather than magistrates. This opinion is also

* For a catalogue of the alleged Presidents from the captivity, see Witsii Miscellanea Sacra. Vol. I, pp. 556-7-8.

confirmed by the fact, that when the nation had obtained freedom, the e persons had no pre-eminence, and that Mose ane was the edge of controversies. Those who are called the officers of the children of Israel, (Ex. v. 14,) were not Judges chosen by the people, but servants of the Egyptian tyranny, appointed by the task-masters themselves that they might be responsible for the performance of the labour.demanded.

It must be acknowledged that the seventy elders are mentioned, Ex. xxiv. 1, 9. Let it be observed, however, that they are called "seventy of the elders of Israel," which implies that there were others who had the same appellation, from the number of whom these were elected, not as authorized officers, but as companions of Moses in this solemn covenant. The very words of Moses evince that they had no power as magistrates; "And he said unto the elders, tarry ye here for us, until we come again unto you: and behold Aaron and Hur are with you; if any man have matters to do, let him come unto them," v. 24. Nothing, therefore, has hitherto appeared, which resembles the Sanhedrin.

We can gather nothing decisive from the account of the Judges, whom Moses appointed in consequence of the advice of Jethro. These correspond neither with the Council of Three, of Twenty-three, or of Seventy, but were able men out of all Israel, placed over the people as rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, and rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens, Ex. xviii. 21, 25.

A more plausible argument is derived from Numbers xi. 16, where Moses is directed by God to institute a council of seventy men, who should assist him in bearing the burden of the people. We must here examine whether this council agreed in all points with the Sanhedrin of the Talmudists; whether it was made a perpetual institution; whether it was in fact, continued for so many ages by a regular succession of Senators; whether it was invested with authority over

High Priests and Kings; and whether it was the appropriate tribunal for the reserved cases specified by the Rabbins. And on all these points we find a total silence in the Scriptures, while the Jewish traditions are scarcely worthy of our belief. These elders were appointed to share the responsibility of Moses, and to allay the discontents of a murmuring people. Ordinary decisions of judicial nature were secured by the existing provisions of the law; and upon the death of Moses, and the possession of Canaan, it is reasonable to suppose that this temporary council was discontinued, as we find no subsequent mention of it in the Bible.

We can deduce no argument for a great and perpetual Council, from the precept in Deut. xvii. 9. "Thou shalt come unto the Priests, the Levites, and unto the Judge that shall be in those days," &c. The priests are here mentioned as versed in the law, and the Judges, whether ordinary or extraordinary, as persons qualified to decide; while there is no proof of a uniform and continual Senate, or of causes submitted to their determination. The very controversies here cited, "between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke," were not the cases reserved for the Sanhedrin, but those upon which any magistrate was competent to pass judgment.

From the convention of the elders, judges, and officers, called by Joshua in his old age, (Jos. xxiv. 1,) we learn nothing of a regularly constituted council, for these persons after the discourse of Joshua, were dismissed, "every man unto his inheritance." The Jews have many traditional fables, concerning the councils in which Eli, Samuel, Saul, Jonathan, and various monarchs presided, but they are inconsistent with the frequent assertion, that Kings could not sit in the Sanhedrin, and are too ridiculous to merit even a refutation. Jehoshaphat "set judges in the land, throughout all the fenced cities of Judah," but this is so far from establishing the existence of the Councils, that it plainly shows

that there were none in existence, especially as the members of those bodies supplied their own vacancies. It is scarcely necessary to add that the seventy elders seen by Ezekiel have no similarity to the Great Sanhedrin.

On the other hand, there are many reasons for believing that there was no such Council in the ancient common. wealth of Israel. There was none in the age of Joshua, who governed the nation, in peace as well as war, without the aid of a Council. There was none during the time of the Judges, who had authority from God himself. Samuel judged Israel for many years, and appointed his own sons his successors; and in the important transactions which led to the change of government, he consulted not with any Sanhedrin, but with God alone. There was none under the Kings, nor do we find any monarch constituted, censured, or deposed by such an assembly. There was none under Zerubbabel, Ezra, or Nehemiah, who were authorized by Kings of Persia, but are never said even to have consulted the Sanhedrin.

From all these particulars, it seems probable, that the Sanhedrin of the Hebrews, as described in the Talmud, had its origin at the time when the Jews were under the power of the Macedonian Princes, the successors of Alexander the Great: and hence the name Synedrium, for the Macedonians called the Senators, by whose counsels the affairs of their government were administered, Synedria.* The reader may consult with advantage, the French letters, in which are presented the opinions of certain Dutch theologians concerning the Critica Sacra of R. Simon, Lett. x. also Lett. vi. of their Apologist. See also Conringii Exerc. de Rep. Ebraeorum, § 21. The most useful work, however, upon this subject is of later date, by Joh. Vorstius, de Synedriis Hebraeorum.

* Liv. L. lxv. Cap. xxiii.