terity remained seventy years, agreeably to the divine predictions. XI. The kingdom of Judah subsisted one hundred and thirty-three years after the subversion of the Israelitish monarchy; and for this longer duration various reasons may be adduced. 1. The geographico-political situation of Judah was more favourable than that of Israel. In point of extent, indeed, Israel far surpassed Judah, the latter kingdom being scarcely equal to the third part of Israel, which also exceeded Judah both in the fertility of its soil and the amount of its population. But the kingdom of Judah was more advantageously situated for commerce, and further possessed greater facilities of defence from hostile attacks, than the kingdom of Israel. The Syrians, being separated from the Jews by the intervening kingdom of Israel, once only laid waste the lower regions of Judah; while, for upwards of a century, they made incursions into and devastated the kingdom of Israel. The Assyrians, also, being more remote from the Jews, could not observe them so narrowly as they watched the Israelites, whom they in a manner continually threatened. Further, the naturally strong situation of Jerusalem (which city the Assyrians vainly attempted to reduce by famine) contributed much to the preservation of the kingdom, as it enabled Hezekiah to hold out successfully against the forces of Sennacherib, who besieged it in the eighth year after the subversion of the kingdom of Israel. 2. The people were more united in the kingdom of Judah than in that of Israel. The religious worship, which was solemnized at Jerusalem, the metropolis of Judah, not only united the Jews and Benjaminites more closely together, but also offered a very powerful attraction to every pious person of the other tribes to emigrate into Judah. Hence the priests and Levites, as well as many other devout Israelites, enriched the kingdom of Judah with piety, learning, and wealth. In the kingdom of Israel, on the contrary, in consequence of the expulsion of the priests and Levites, by whom its civil affairs had for the most part been administered, tumults and internal discord necessarily arose, from its very commencement under Jeroboam I.; and, with regard to the other Israelites, the history of later ages abundantly attests the very great loss sustained in states and kingdoms by the compulsory emigration of virtuous and industrious citizens, in consequence of changes made in religion. Thus, Spain has never recovered the expulsion of the Moors; and the unprincipled repeal of the edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. against the faith of the most solemn treaties, inflicted a loss upon France, from the effects of which that country has scarcely yet recovered. In like manner, in ancient times, the kingdom of Israel fell into decay, in consequence of the oppression of the faithful worshippers of Jehovah after the introduction of the worship of the calves. But this new idolatrous religion was of no advantage to the apostates: on the contrary, it was detrimental to them, for the worship of the calves had the effect of disuniting more and more the provinces of Galilee and Samaria, which naturally were too much separated; and the idolatrous worship of Baal, established at Samaria, was so repugnant to the manners of the Hebrews, as to prove the chief cause-not of concord, but of civil wars. royal family. For, though some of the Jewish monarchs more than once followed strange gods; though Asa, disregarding the counsels of Hanani, called the Syrians to his aid; though Jehoshaphat, by forming an alliance with the wicked Ahab, king of Israel, was the cause of the greatest calamities both to his kingdom and to his family; though Athaliah destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah, Joash alone excepted, who afterwards put to death the innocent high-priest Zechariah, the son of the very man to whom he was indebted for the preservation of his life and kingdom; though, finally, Ahaz, disregarding the advice of the prophet Isaiah, voluntarily called to his aid the Assyrians, and shut up the doors of the house of the Lord; yet, notwithstanding all these circumstances, the Jews never thought of expelling the royal family from the throne. Some of the Jewish monarchs, indeed, came to violent deaths in various ways; but no civil wars ensued, no ambitious princes ever disturbed the state; on the contrary, that kingdom, being always restored to the lawful heir, derived advantage, rather than suffered injury, from such changes. Thus the kingdom of Judah continued in peaceable subjection to its legitimate sovereigns; and all orders in the state consulted its welfare. Many of the kings maintained the worship of Jehovah from motives of sincere piety, and others from a conviction of the utility of religion to a state; while the priests and prophets, who vigilantly watched over the religion of their country, influenced their sovereigns to the adoption of sage counsels. To this circumstance we may ascribe the fact that the characters of the kings of Judah were more exemplary than those of the kings of Israel: for, although there were not wanting wicked and imprudent Jewish sovereigns, yet their errors and misconduct were for the most part corrected or avoided by their successors, who were instructed by the advice and example of wise and virtuous men, and thus were enabled to repair the injuries which their kingdom had sustained. The reverse of all this was the case in the kingdom of Israel; in which the royal dignity, polluted by continual murders and seditions, gradually fell into decay, and with the regal power declined all regard for the welfare of the state. Distracted by civil wars and by the contests of ambitious aspirants to the throne, the Israelites became disunited; the provinces, which at the commencement of the Israelitish monarchy had been tributary to it, revolted; and almost all the kings, who swayed the sceptre of Israel, governed so ill, as scarcely to deserve the name of sovereigns. While the sacred historians repeatedly record of various kings of Judah that they did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that their father David had done, the ordinary character of the kings of Israel is related with this stigma,-that they departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 4. Lastly, and principally, pure and undefiled religion was most carefully preserved and cultivated in the kingdom of Judah, while the vilest idolatry was practised in the kingdom of Israel. This fact is so clearly narrated in the histories of the two kingdoms, that it is needless to adduce any examples. As a necessary consequence of true piety, the Jews far surpassed the Israelites in the purity of their moral character; and in the implicit confidence with which they left all their affairs to the divine protection; for, at the very time, when abomiTo this union among the Jews is principally to be ascribed nations of every kind were practised in Israel, when scarcely the brilliant victory which in the reign of Abijah gave them a crime was left unattempted, and when the Israelites sought a decided superiority over the Israelites; and the same una- all their safety and protection from foreign aid, in Judah, the nimity and affection for true religion, in the time of Heze-Law of the LORD" was most diligently studied; and the kiah, disposed them all promptly to shake off the yoke of the Assyrians, and rendered them sufficiently strong to accomplish their deliverance without any foreign aid. The Israelites, on the contrary, being for the most part torn by factions, and despairing of being able to recover their affairs, were irresolute under almost every circumstance. 3. The succession to the throne of Judah was more regular; and the character of its sovereigns was more exemplary than in the kingdom of Israel. Although the authority of the kings of Judah was unquestionably much lessened in point of extent by the revolt of the ten tribes, yet, if we consider its internal power and stability, we shall find that it was rather increased than diminished by that defection. From the very commencement of the separation, it is evident that the prophets, in obedience to former oracles (see 2 Kings viii. 19.), were so attached to the family of David, that no wickedness or contempt of the laws on the part of individual kings could lessen their fidelity to the royal lineage. Hence no Jew ever thought of seizing the throne of David, no prophet ever foretold the ruin of the VOL. II. G Jews, strengthened by their unshaken trust in Jehovah, voluntarily risked every thing to promote the welfare of their country.2 In short, the histories of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel furnish a perpetual illustration of the truth of Solomon's declaration, that righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Prov. xiv. 34. XII. STATE OF THE HEBREWS DURING THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY. The condition of the Hebrews, during the captivity, was far from being one of abject wretchedness."This is manifest from the circumstance, that a pious Hebrew prophet held the first office at the court of Babylon; that three devout friends of this prophet occupied important political stations; and that Jehoiachin, the former king of Judah, in the forty 1 Thus, Ahaziah, king of Judah, was slain by Jehu, king of Israel (2 Chron. da the priest (2 Chron. xxiii. 14-16.); Joash, by his own servants (2 Chron. xxii. 7-9.); Athaliah, who succeeded Ahaziah, by the command of Jehoia. xxiv. 25, 26.); and Amaziah, by some of his subjects who conspired against him. (2 Chron. xxv. 27.) Judæ diutius persisteret quam Regnum Israel, pp. 96–104. 120—122. 2 Bernhardi, Commentatio de Caussis quibus effectum sit, ut Regnum fourth year of the captivity, was released from an imprison- | prince from their own number. Jehoiachin, and after him ment which had continued for thirty-six years, and was pre- Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, might have been regarded as their ferred in point of rank to all the kings who were then at princes, in the same manner as Jozadak and Joshua were as Babylon, either as hostages, or for the purpose of paying their high-priests. At the same time it cannot be denied homage to the Chaldæan monarch. He was treated as the that their humiliation, as a people punished by their God, first of the kings; he ate at the table of his conqueror, and re- was always extremely painful, and frequently drew on them ceived an annual allowance, corresponding to his royal rank. expressions of contempt. The peculiarities of their religion These circumstances of honour must have reflected a degree afforded many opportunities for the ridicule and scorn of the of dignity on all the exiles, sufficient to prevent their being Babylonians and Chaldæans, a striking example of which is ill-treated or despised. They were probably viewed as given in the profanation of the sacred vessels of the temple. respectable colonists, enjoying the peculiar protection of the (Dan. v.) By such insults they were made to feel so much sovereign. In the respect paid to Jehoiachin, his son Sheal- the more sensibly the loss of their homes, their gardens, and iel and his grandson Zerubbabel undoubtedly partook. If fruitful fields; the burning of their capital and temple; and that story of the discussion before Darius, in which Zerub- the cessation of the public solemnities of their religion. babel is said to have won the prize, be a mere fiction, still it Under such circumstances, it is not strange that an inspired is at least probable that the young prince, though he held no minstrel breaks out into severe imprecations against the office, had free access to the court; a privilege which must scornful foes of his nation. (Psal. cxxxvii. 8, 9.) have afforded him many opportunities of alleviating the un- "If the Israelites were ill-treated in Assyria after the overhappy circumstances of his countrymen. It is therefore not throw of Sennacherib in Judæa, as the book of Tobit intiat all surprising, that, when Cyrus gave the Hebrews per- mates, this calamity was of short duration; for Sennacherib mission to return to their own country, many, and perhaps was soon after assassinated. The Israelites of Media appear even a majority of the nation, chose to remain behind, be- to have been in a much better condition, since Tobit advised lieving that they were more pleasantly situated where they his son to remove thither. (Tobit xiv. 4. 12, 13.) This is were, than they would be in Judea. It is not improbable the more probable, as the religion of the Medes was not that the exiles (as is implied in the story of Susanna, and as grossly idolatrous, and bore considerable resemblance to that the tradition of the Jews affirms) had magistrates and a of the Jews." CHAPTER II. POLITICAL STATE OF THE JEWS, FROM THEIR RETURN FROM THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY TO THE SUBVERSION OF THEIR CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. SECTION I. POLITICAL STATE OF THE JEWS UNDER THE MACCABEES, AND THE SOVEREIGNS OF THE HERODIAN FAMILY. 1. Brief account of the Maccabees.-II. Sovereigns of the Herodian family :—1. Herod the Great.-St. Matthew's narrative of the murder of the infants at Bethlehem confirmed.-2. Archelaus.-3. Herod Antipas.-4. Philip.-5. Herod Agrippa. -6. Agrippa junior.-7. Bernice and Drusilla. I. On the subversion of the Babylonian empire by Cyrus tained a religious war for twenty-six years with five successive the founder of the Persian monarchy (B. c. 543), he author- kings of Syria; and after destroying upwards of 200,000 of ized the Jews by an edict to return into their own country, their best troops, the Maccabees finally established the indewith full permission to enjoy their laws and religion, and pendence of their own country and the aggrandizement of caused the city and temple of Jerusalem to be rebuilt. In their family. This illustrious house, whose princes united the following year, part of the Jews returned under Zerub- the regal and pontifical dignity in their own persons, admibabel, and renewed their sacrifices: the theocratic government, nistered the affairs of the Jews during a period of one hunwhich had been in abeyance during the captivity, was re-dred and twenty-six years; until, disputes arising between sumed; but the re-erection of the city and temple being in- Hyrcanus II. and his brother Aristobulus, the latter was deterrupted for several years by the treachery and hostility of feated by the Romans under Pompey, who captured Jerusathe Samaritans or Cutheans, the avowed enemies of the Jews, lem, and reduced Judæa to a tributary province of the republic. the completion and dedication of the temple did not take place (B. c. 59.) until the year 511 B. C., six years after the accession of Cyrus. The rebuilding of Jerusalem was accomplished, and the reformation of their ecclesiastical and civil polity was effected by the two divinely inspired and pious governors, Ezra and Nehemiah. After their death the Jews were governed by their high priests, in subjection however, to the Persian kings, to whom they paid tribute (Ezra iv. 13. vii. 24.), but with the full enjoyment of their other magistrates, as well as their liberties, civil and religious. Nearly three centuries of uninterrupted prosperity ensued, until the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, when they were most cruelly oppressed, and compelled to take up arms in their own defence. II. SOVEREIGNS OF THE HERODIAN FAMILY.-1. Julius Cæsar, having defeated Pompey, continued Hyrcanus in the high-priesthood, but bestowed the government of Judæa upon Antipater, an Idumæan by birth, who was a Jewish proselyte, and the father of Herod surnamed the Great, who was subsequently king of the Jews. Antipater divided Judæa between his two sons Phasael and Herod, giving to the former the government of Jerusalem, and to the latter the province of Galilee; which being at that time greatly infested with robbers, HEROD signalized his courage by dispersing them, and shortly after attacked Antigonus the competitor of Hyrcanus in the priesthood, who was supported by the Tyrians. In the mean time, the Parthians having invaded Judæa, and carried into captivity Hyrcanus the high-priest and Phasael the brother of Herod; the latter fled to Rome, where Mark Antony, with the consent of the senate, conferred on him the title of king of Judæa. By the aid of the Roman Under the able conduct of Judas, on account of his heroic exploits surnamed Maccabæus, (p мakaвI the Hammerer)2 the son of Mattathias, surnamed Asmon (from whom is derived the appellation Asmonæans, borne by the princes descended from him), and his valiant brothers, the Jews main-arms Herod kept possession of his dignity; and after three 1 | Esdras iii. iv. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xi. c. 3. He is, however, most generally supposed to have derived this name from a cabalistical word, formed of M. C. B. I. the initial letters of the He. brew Text, Mi Chamoka Baelim Jehovah, i. e. who among the gods is like unto thee, O Jehovah? (Exod. xv. 11.) which letters might have been displayed on his sacred standard, as the letters S. P. Q. R. (Senatus, Populus Qui Romanus), were on the Roman ensigns. Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. i. p 599. years of sanguinary and intestine war with the partisans of Antigonus, he was confirmed in his kingdom by Augustus. This prince is characterized by Josephus as a person of singular courage and resolution, liberal and even extravagant Jahn's History of the Hebrew Commonwealth, vol. i. pp. 161. 163. • Beausobre, Introd. to the New Test. (Bp. Watson's Tracts, vol. iii. p. 119.) in his expenditure, magnificent in his buildings, especially in the temple of Jerusalem, and apparently disposed to promote the happiness of every one. But under this specious exterior he concealed the most consummate duplicity; studious only how to attain and to secure his own dignity, he regarded no means, however unjustifiable, which might promote that object of his ambition; and in order to supply his lavish expenditure, he imposed oppressive burdens on his subjects. Inexorably cruel, and a slave to the most furious passions, he imbrued his hands in the blood of his wife, his children, and the greater part of his family; such, indeed, were the restlessness and jealousy of his temper, that he spared neither his people, nor the richest and most powerful of his subjects, not even his very friends. It is not at all surprising that such a conduct should procure Herod the hatred of his subjects, especially of the Pharisees, who engaged in various plots against him: and so suspicious did these conspiracies render him, that he put the innocent to the torture, lest the guilty should escape. These circumstances sufficiently account for Herod and all Jerusalem with him being troubled at the arrival of the Magi, to inquire where the Messiah was born. (Matt. ii. 1-3.) The Jews, who anxiously expected the Messiah "the Deliverer," were moved with an anxiety made up of hopes and fears, of uncertainty and expectation, blended with a dread of the sanguinary consequences of new tumults; and Herod, who was a foreigner and usurper, was apprehensive lest he should lose his crown by the birth of a rightful heir. Hence we are furnished with a satisfactory solution of the motive that led him to command all the male children to be put to death, who were under two years of age, in Bethlehem and its vicinity. (Matt. ii. 16.) tion. No very long time after the perpetration of this crime, Herod died, having suffered the most excruciating pains, in the thirty-seventh year of his being declared king of the Jews by the Romans. The tidings of his decease were received by his oppressed subjects with universal joy and satisfacHerod had a numerous offspring by his different wives, although their number was greatly reduced by his unnatural cruelty in putting many of them to death: but, as few of his descendants are mentioned in the Sacred Volume, we shall notice only those persons of whom it is requisite that some account should be given for the better understanding of the New Testament. The annexed table2 will, perhaps, be found useful in distinguishing the particular persons of this family, whose names occur in the evangelical histories. 1 "When Herod," says the accurate Lardner, "had gained possession of Jerusalem by the assistance of the Romans, and his rival Antigonus was taken prisoner, and in the hands of the Roman general Sosius, and by him carried to Mark Antony, Herod, by a large gun of money, persuaded Antony to put him to death. Herod's great fear was, that Antigonus might some time revive his pretensions, as being of the Asmonan family. Aris tobulus, brother of his wife Mariamne, was murdered by his directions at eighteen years of age, because the people at Jerusalem had shown some affection for his person. In the seventh year of his reign from the death of Antigonus, he put to death Hyrcanus, grandfather of Mariamne, then eighty years of age, and who had saved Herod's life when he was prosecuted by the Sanhedrin; a man who, in his youth and in the vigour of his life, and in all the revolutions of his fortune, had shown a mild and peaceable disposition. His beloved wife, the beautiful and virtuous Mariamine, had a public execution, and her mother Alexandra followed soon after. Alexander and Aristobulus, his two sons by Mariamne, were strangled in prison by his order upon groundless suspicions, as it seems, when they were at man's estate, were married, and had children. I say nothing of the death of his eldest son Antipater. If Josephus's character of him be just, he was a miscreant, and deserved the worst death that could be inflicted; in his last sick ness, a little before he died, he sent orders throughout Judæa, requiring the presence of all the chief men of the nation at Jericho. His orders were obeyed, for they were enforced with no less penalty than that of death. When these men were come to Jericho, he had them all shut up in the circus, and calling for his sister Salome, and her husband Alexas, he told them, My life is now but short; I know the dispositions of the Jewish people, and nothing will please them more than my death. 'You have these men in your custody; as soon as the breath is out of my body, and before my death can be known, do you let in the soldiers upon them and kill them. All Judæa and every family will then, though unwillingly, mourn at my death. Nay, Josephus says, That with tears in his eyes he conjured them by their love to him, and their fidelity to God, not to fail of doing him this honour; and they promised they would not fail;' these orders, indeed, were not executed. But as a modern historian of very good sense observes, truth of murdering the innocents, which may be made from the incredibility of so barbarous and horrid an act. For this thoroughly shows, that there can nothing be imagined so cruel, barbarous, and horrid, which this man was not capable of doing.' It may also be proper to observe, that almost all the executions I have instanced, were sacrifices to his state jealousy, and love of empire." Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xiv. c. 23. 25, 26. 28. lib. xvi. c. 7, 8. 11, 12. lib. xvii. c. 6. Lardner's Credibility, part i. book ii. c. the history of this his most wicked design takes off all objection against the 2 $1. From Schulz's Archæologia Hebraica, p. 54. Reland has given a genealogical table of the entire Herodian family. (Palæstina, tom. i, p. 174.) minions among his three sons, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, HEROD, misnamed the Great, by his will divided his doand Herod Philip. mea, with the regal dignity, subject to the approbation of 2. TO ARCHELAUS he assigned Judæa, Samaria, and IduAugustus, who ratified his will as it respected the territorial division, but conferred on Archelaus the title of Ethnarch, or chief of the nation, with a promise of the regal dignity, if he should prove himself worthy of it. Archelaus entered upon his new office amid the loud acclamations of his subjects, who considered him as a king; hence the evangelist, (Matt. ii. 22.) His reign, however, commenced inauspiin conformity with the Jewish idiom, says that he reigned. ciously: for, after the death of Herod, and before Archelaus could go to Rome to obtain the confirmation of his father's will, the Jews having become very tumultuous at the temple in consequence of his refusing them some demands, Archelaus ordered his soldiers to attack them; on which occasion upwards of three thousand were slain. On Archelaus going to Rome to solicit the regal dignity (agreeably to the prac tice of the tributary kings of that age, who received their crowns from the Roman emperor), the Jews sent an embassy, consisting of fifty of their principal men, with a petition to Augustus that they might be permitted to live according to their own laws, under a Roman governor. To this circumstance our Lord evidently alludes in the parable related by Saint Luke. (xix. 12-27.) A certain nobleman (wyns, a man of birth or rank, the son of Herod), went into a far country (Italy), to receive for himself a kingdom (that of Judæa) and to return. But his citizens (the Jews) hated him and sent a message (or embassy) after him (to Augustus Cæsar), saying, "We will not have this man to reign over us.” The Jews, however, failed in their request, and Archelaus, having received the kingdom (or ethnarchy), on his return inflicted a severe vengeance on those who would not that he should reign over them. The application of this parable is to Jesus Christ, who foretells, that, on his ascension, he would go into a distant country, to receive the kingdom from his Father; and that he would return, at the destruction of Jerusalem, to take vengeance on those who rejected him. The subsequent reign of Archelaus was turbulent, and disgraced by insurrections of the Jews against the Romans, and also by banditti and pretenders to the crown: at length, after repeated complaints against his tyranny and mal-administration, made to Augustus by the principal Jews and Samaritans, who were joined by his own brothers, Archelaus was deposed and banished to Vienne in Gaul, in the tenth year of his reign; and his territories were annexed to the Roman province of Syria." 3. HEROD ANTIPAS (or Antipater), another of Herod's sons, received from his father the district of Galilee and 3 This circumstance probably deterred the Holy Family from settling in Judæa on their return from Egypt; and induced them by the divine adinonition to return to their former residence at Nazareth in Galilee. (Matt. ii. 22, 23.) Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. p. 717. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 9. § 3. c. 11. Harwood's Introduction, vol. i. p. 294. There is an impressive application of this parable in Mr. Jones's Lectures on the figurative Language of Scripture, lect. v. near the beginning (Works, vol. iii. pp. 35, 36.) Josephus, Ant, Jud. lib. xvii. c. 11. (al. xii.) § 2. c. 13. (al. xiv.) Peræa, with the title of Tetrarch.1 He is described by Josephus as a crafty and incestuous prince, with which character the narratives of the evangelists coincide; for, having deserted his wife, the daughter of Aretas king of Arabia, he forcibly took away and married Herodias the wife of his brother Herod Philip, a proud and cruel woman, to gratify whom he caused John the Baptist to be beheaded (Matt. xiv. 3. Mark vi. 17. Luke iii. 19.), who had provoked her vengeance by his faithful reproof of their incestuous nuptials; though Josephus ascribes the Baptist's death to Herod's apprehension, lest the latter should by his influence raise an insurrection among the people. It was this Herod that laid snares for our Saviour; who, detecting his insidious intentions, termed him a fox (Luke xiii. 32.), and who was subsequently ridiculed by him and his soldiers. (Luke xxiii. 7— 11.) Some years afterwards, Herod, aspiring to the regal dignity in Judæa, was banished together with his wife, first to Lyons in Gaul, and thence into Spain. returned to her brother, and became the mistress, first of Vespasian, and then of Titus, who would have married her, but that he was unwilling to displease the Romans, who were averse to such a step.7 (2.) DRUSILLA, her sister, and the youngest daughter of Herod Agrippa, was distinguished for her beauty, and was equally celebrated with Bernice for her profligacy. She was first espoused to Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus, king of Comagena, on condition of his embracing the Jewish religion; but as he afterwards refused to be circumcised, she was given in marriage, by her brother, to Azizus king of Emessa, who submitted to that rite. When Felix came into Judæa, as procurator or governor of Judæa, he persuaded her to abandon her husband and marry him. Josephuss says that she was induced to transgress the laws of her country, and become the wife of Felix, in order to avoid the envy of her sister Bernice, who was continually doing her ill offices on account of her beauty.9 SECTION II. 4. PHILIP, tetrarch of Trachonitis, Gaulonitis, and Batanæa, is mentioned but once in the New Testament. (Luke iii. 1.) He is represented by Josephus as an amiable prince, beloved by his subjects, whom he governed with mildness and equity:3 on his decease without issue, after a reign of thirty-seven years, his territories were annexed to the POLITICAL STATE OF THE JEWS UNDER THE ROMAN PROCURAprovince of Syria.4 5. AGRIPPA, or Herod Agrippa I., was the son of Aristobulus, and grandson of Herod the Great, and sustained various reverses of fortune previously to his attaining the royal dignity. At first he resided at Rome as a private person, and ingratiated himself into the favour of the emperor Tiberius: but being accused of wishing him dead that Caligula might reign, he was thrown into prison by order of Tiberius. On the accession of Caligula to the empire, Agrippa was created king of Batanæa and Trachonitis, to which Abilene, Judæa, and Samaria were subsequently added by the emperor Claudius. Returning home to his dominions, he governed them much to the satisfaction of his subjects (for whose gratification he put to death the apostle James, and meditated that of St. Peter, who was miraculously delivered, Acts xii. 2—17.); but, being inflated with pride on account of his increasing power and grandeur, he was struck with a noisome and painful disease, of which he died at Cæsarea in the manner related by St. Luke. (Acts xii. 21 -23.)5 6. HEROD AGRIPPA II., or Junior, was the son of the preceding Herod Agrippa, and was educated under the auspices of the emperor Claudius: being only seventeen years of age; at the time of his father's death, he was judged to be unequal to the task of governing the whole of his dominions. These were again placed under the direction of a Roman procurator or governor, and Agrippa was first king of Chalcis, and afterwards of Batanæa, Trachonitis, and Abilene, to which other territories were subsequently added, over which he seems to have ruled, with the title of king. It was before this Agrippa and his sister Bernice that St. Paul delivered his masterly defence (Acts xxvi.), where he is expressly termed a king. He was the last Jewish prince of the Herodian family, and for a long time survived the destruction of Jerusalem. 7. Besides Herodias, who has been mentioned above, the two following princesses of the Herodian family are mentioned in the New Testament; viz. (1.) BERNICE, the eldest daughter of king Herod Agrippa I. and sister to Agrippa II. (Acts xxv. 13. 23, xxvi. 30.) was first married to her uncle Herod king of Chalcis ; after whose death, in order to avoid the merited suspicion of incest with her brother Agrippa, she became the wife of Polemon, king of Cilicia. This connection being soon dissolved, she I. TORS, TO THE SUBVERSION OF THEIR CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY. Powers and functions of the Roman procurators.—II. Political and civil state of the Jews under their administration. -III. Account of Pontius Pilate.-IV. And of the procurators Felix and Festus. I. THE Jewish kingdom, which the Romans had created in favour of Herod the Great, was of short duration; expiring on his death, by the division of his territories, and by the dominions of Archelaus, which comprised Samaria, Judæa, and Idumæa, being reduced to a Roman province annexed to Syria, and governed by the ROMAN PROCURATORS. imperial revenues, but also had the power of life and death in These officers not only had the charge of collecting the capital causes and on account of their high dignity they are sometimes called governors (Huoves). They usually had a council, consisting of their friends and other chief Romans in the province; with whom they conferred on important queswas very unusual for the governors of provinces to take tions.10 During the continuance of the Roman republic, it their wives with them. Augustus" disapproved of the introduction of this practice, which, however, was in some instances permitted by Tiberius. Thus Agrippina accompa nied Germanicus12 into Germany and Asia, and Plancina was with Piso, whose insolence towards Germanicus she contributed to inflame :13 and though Cæcina Severus afterwards offered a motion to the senate, to prohibit this indulgence (on account of the serious inconveniences,-not to say abuses, that would result from the political influence which the wives might exercise over their husbands), his motion was rejected, and they continued to attend the procurators to their respective provinces. This circumstance will account for Pilate's wife being at Jerusalem. (Matt. xxvii. 19.) The procurators of Judæa resided principally at Cæsarea,15 which was reputed to be the metropolis of that country, and occupied the splendid palace which Herod the Great had erected apprehended, they repaired to Jerusalem, that, by their there. On the great festivals, or when any tumults were presence and influence, they might restore order. For this purpose they were accompanied by cohorts (rupa, Acts x. 1.), or bands of soldiers, not legionary cohorts, but distinct companies of military: each of them was about one thousand strong.15 Six of these cohorts were constantly garrisoned in Judæa; five at Cæsarea, and one at Jerusalem, part of which was quartered in the tower of Antonia, so as to com 14 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xix. c. 1. § 1. lib. xx. c. 7. §3. Tacitus, Hist. lib. c. 81. Suetonius in Tito, c. 7. Juvenal, Sat. vi. 155. Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. 7. §1, 2. Acts xxiv. 24. 1 Concerning the meaning of this term learned men are by no means agreed. In its primary and original signification it implies a governor of the fourth part of a country; and this seems to have been the first meaning affixed to it. But afterwards it was given to the governors of a province, ii. whether their government was the fourth part of a country or not: for He rod divided his kingdom only into three parts. The Tetrarchs, however, • Schulzii Archæologia Hebraica, pp. 49-59. Pritii Introd. ad Nov. Test. were regarded as princes, and sometimes were complimented with the title pp. 429-414. Dr. Lardner's Credibility, vol. i. book i. ch. 1. §§ 1-11 of king. (Matt. xiv. 9.) Beausobre's Introd. to the New Test. (Bp. Wat-Works, vol. i. pp. 11-30. Svo. or vol. i. pp. 9-18. 4to.) Carpzovii Antiquison's Tracts, vol. iii. p. 123.) The Romans conferred this title on those tates Hebræ Gentis, pp. 15-19. princes whom they did not choose to elevate to the regal dignity; the Tetrarch was lower in point of rank than a Roman governor of a province. Schulzii, Archæol. Hebr. pp. 18, 19. Jahn, Archæol. Bibl. $240. 2 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 7. Ibid. lib. xvii. c. 8. § 1. lib. xviii. c. 5. §4. De Bell. Jud. lib. i. c. 33. §8. lib. ii. c. 6. §3. 4 Ibid. Ant. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 4. $6. ■ Ibid. lib. xviii. cc. 5-8. • Ibid. lib. xix. c. 9. De Bell. Jud. lib. ii. cc. 12, 13. 10 Josephus (Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. 4. §4. and de Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 16. § 1. mentions instances in which the Roman procurators thus took council with their assessors. 11 Suetonius, in Augusto, c. 24. 12 Tacitus, Annal. lib. ii. cc. 54, 55. lib. i. cc. 40, 41. 13 Ibid. lib. i. c. 40. 1 Ibid. lib. iii. cc. 33, 34. 18 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 3. § 1. lib. xx. c. 5. § 4. De Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 9. § 2. Tacit. Hist. lib. ii. c. 79. 18 Biscoe on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 330-335. mand the temple, and part in the prætorium or governor's III. Of the various procurators that governed Judæa under palace. the Romans, PONTIUS PILATE is the best known, and most These procurators were Romans, sometimes of the eques-frequently mentioned in the sacred writings. He is supposed trian order, and sometimes freedmen of the emperor: Felix to have been a native of Italy, and was sent to govern Judæa (Acts xxiii. 24-26. xxvi. 3. 22-27.) was a freedman of the about the year A. D. 26 or 27. Pilate is characterized by emperor Claudius,' with whom he was in high favour. Josephus as an unjust and cruel governor, sanguinary, obstíThese governors were sent, not by the senate, but by the nate, and impetuous; who disturbed the tranquillity of Judæa Cæsars themselves, into those provinces which were situated by persisting in carrying into Jerusalem the effigies of Tibeon the confines of the empire, and were placed at the empe- rius Cæsar that were upon the Roman ensigns, and by other ror's own disposal. Their duties consisted in collecting and acts of oppression, which produced tumults among the Jews.5 remitting tribute, in the administration of justice, and the Dreading the extreme jealousy and suspicion of Tiberius, he repression of tumults; some of them held independent juris- delivered up the Redeemer to be crucified, contrary to the dictions, while others were subordinate to the proconsul or conviction of his better judgment: and in the vain hope of governor of the nearest province. Thus Judæa was annexed conciliating the Jews whom he had oppressed. After he had to the province of Syria. held his office for ten years, having caused a number of innocent Samaritans to be put to death, that injured people sent an embassy to Vitellius, proconsul of Syria; by whom he was ordered to Rome, to give an account of his mal-administration to the emperor. But Tiberius being dead before he arrived there, his successor Caligula banished him to Gaul, where he is said to have committed suicide about the year of Christ 41.6 II. The Jews endured their subjection to the Romans with great reluctance, on account of the tribute which they were obliged to pay: but in all other respects they enjoyed a large measure of national liberty. It appears from the whole tenor of the New Testament (for the particular passages are too numerous to be cited), that they practised their own religious rites, worshipped in the temple and in their synagogues, followed their own customs, and lived very much according IV. On the death of king Herod Agrippa, Judæa being to their own laws. Thus they had their high-priests, and again reduced to a Roman province, the government of it council or senate; they inflicted lesser punishments; they was confided to ANTONIUS FELIX; who had originally been could apprehend men and bring them before the council; and the slave, then the freedman of Nero, and, through the influif a guard of soldiers was necessary, could be assisted by ence of his brother Pallas, also a freedman of that emperor, them, on requesting them of the governor. Further, they was raised to the dignity of procurator of Judæa. He libecould bind men and keep them in custody; the council could rated that country from banditti and impostors (the very likewise summon witnesses and take examinations; they worthy deeds alluded to by Tertullus, Acts xxiv. 2.); but he could excommunicate persons, and they could inflict scourg-was in other respects a cruel and avaricious governor, inconing in their synagogue (Deut. xxv. 3. Matt. x. 17. Mark tinent, intemperate, and unjust. So oppressive at length did xiii. 9.); they enjoyed the privilege of referring litigated his administration become, that the Jews accused him before questions to arbitrators, whose decisions in reference to them Nero, and it was only through the powerful interposition of the Roman prætor was bound to see put in execution. Pallas that Felix escaped condign punishment. His third Beyond this, however, they were not allowed to go; for, wife, Drusilla, has already been mentioned. It was before when they had any capital offenders, they carried them before these persons that St. Paul, with singular propriety, reasoned the procurator, who usually paid a regard to what they of righteousness, temperance, and a judgment to come. (Acts stated, and, if they brought evidence of the fact, pronounced xxiv. 25.) On the resignation of Felix, A. D. 60, the governsentence according to their laws. He was the proper judgement of Judæa was committed to PORTIUS FESTUS, before in all capital causes; for, after the council of the Jews had whom Paul defended himself against the accusations of the taken under their consideration the case of Jesus Christ, Jews (Acts xxv.), and appealed from his tribunal to that of which they pretended was of this kind, they went with it Cæsar. Finding his province overrun with robbers and murimmediately to the governor, who re-examined it and pro- derers, Festus strenuously exerted himself in suppressing nounced sentence. That they had not the power of life and their outrages. He died in Judæa about the year 62.8 death is evident from Pilate's granting to them the privilege of judging, but not of condemning Jesus Christ, and also from their acknowledgment to Pilate-It is not lawful for us to put any man to death (John xviii. 31.); and likewise from the power vested in Pilate of releasing a condemned criminal to them at the passover (John xviii. 39, 40.), which he could not have done if he had not had the power of life and death, as well as from his own declaration that he had power to crucify and power to release Jesus Christ. (John xix. 10.) 1 Suetonius in Claudio, c. 28. • See Dr. Lardner's Credibility, part i. book ii. c. 2. where the various passages are adduced and fully considered. * Cod. lib. i. tit. 9. 1. 8. de Judæis.-As the Christians were at first re garded as a sect of the Jews, they likewise enjoyed the same privilege. This circumstance will account for Saint Paul's blaming the Corinthian Christians for carrying their causes before the Roman prætor, instead of leaving them to referees chosen from among their brethren. (1 Cor. vi. 1-7.) The celebrated Roman Jurist, Ulpian, states that the governors of the Roman provinces had the right of the sword; which implied the authority of punishing malefactors; an authority which was personal, and not to be transferred. (Lib. vi. c. 8. de Officio Proconsulis.) And Josephus states (De Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 8. § 1.) that Coponius, who was sent to govern Judea as a province after the banishment of Archelaus, was invested by Augustus with the power of life and death. (Bp. Gray's Connection of Sacred and Profane Literature, vol. i. p. 273. See also Dr. Lardner's Credibility, c. 2. § 6.) The case of the Jews stoning Stephen (Acts vii. 56, 57.) has been urged by some learned men as a proof that the former had the power of life and death, but the circumstances of that case do not support this assertion. Stephen, it is true, had been examined before the great council, who had heard witnesses against him, but nowhere do we read that they had collected votes or proceeded to the giving of sentence, or The situation of the Jews under the two last-mentioned procurators was truly deplorable. Distracted by tumults, excited on various occasions, their country was overrun with robbers that plundered all the villages whose inhabitants refused to listen to their persuasions to shake off the Roman yoke. Justice was sold to the highest bidder; and even the sacred office of high-priest was exposed to sale. But, of all the procurators, no one abused his power more than GESSIUS FLORUS, a cruel and sanguinary governor, and so extremely avaricious that he shared with the robbers in their booty, and allowed them to follow their nefarious practices with impunity. Hence considerable numbers of the wretched Jews, with their families, abandoned their native country; while those who remained, being driven to desperation, took up arms against the Romans, and thus commenced that war, which terminated in the destruction of Judæa, and the taking away of their name and nation.10 even to pronounce him guilty: all which ought to have been done, if the proceedings had been regular. Before Stephen could finish his defence, a sudden tumult arose; the people who were present rushed with one accord upon him, and casting him out of the city, stoned him before the affair could be taken before the Roman procurator. Pritii Introd. ad Nov. Test. p. 592. 14. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 3. §§ 1, 2. Ibid. lib. xviii. c. 4. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. cc. 7, 8. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. 8. $$ 9, 10. De Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 10 Schulzii Archæologia Hebraica, pp. 59–66. |