1. ACCOUNT OF THE JEWISH SECTS MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. I. The Pharisees.-II. The Sadducees.-III. The Essenes.IV. The Scribes.-V. The Lawyers.-VI. The Samaritans.-VII. The Herodians.-VIII. The Galileans. IX. The Zealots.-X. The Sicarii. I. The PHARISEES were the most numerous and powerful sect of the Jews. The precise time when they first appeared is not known but, as Josephus mentions the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, as distinct sects, in the reign of Jonathan (B. c. 144-139), it is manifest that they must have been in existence for some time. Calmet is of opinion that their origin cannot be carried higher than the year of the world 3820, corresponding with the year 184 before the Christian æra. They derived their name from the Hebrew verb ¬ (PHɑRASH) to separate; because they professed an uncommon separation from the apparel and customs of the world to the study of the law, and an extraordinary devotion to God and sanctity of life, beyond all other men. Hence one of them is represented as thanking God, that he was not as other men are; and St. Paul, in his masterly apology before king Agrippa, terms them anpifiorarn apsis, the most rigorous sect, in our version rendered the most straitest sect. (Acts xxvi. 5.) They were not restricted to any particular family or class of men: there were Pharisees of every tribe, family, and condition. The credit which they had acquired by their reputation for knowledge and sanctity of life early rendered them formidable to the Maccabæan sovereigns; while they were held in such esteem and veneration by the people, that they may be almost said to have given what direction they pleased to public affairs. They boasted that, from their accurate knowledge of religion, they were the favourites of heaven ;3 and thus, trusting in themselves that they were righteous, despised others. (Luke xi. 52. xviii. 9. 11.) Among the tenets inculcated by this sect, we may enumerate the following; viz. 2. The Pharisees contended that God was in strict justice bound to bless the Jews, and make them all partakers of the terrestrial kingdom of the Messiah, to justify them, to make them eternally happy, and that he could not possibly damn any one of them! The ground of their justification they de rived from the merits of Abraham, from their knowledge of God, from their practising the rite of circumcision, and from the sacrifices they offered. And as they conceived works to be meritorious, they had invented a great number of supere rogatory ones, to which they attached greater merit than to the observance of the law itself. To this notion St. Paul has some allusions in those parts of his Epistle to the Romans in which he combats the erroneous suppositions of the Jews. 3. The Pharisees were the strictest of the three principal sects that divided the Jewish nation (Acts xxvi. 5.), and affected a singular probity of manners according to their system, which however was for the most part both lax and corrupt. Thus, many things which Moses had tolerated in civil life, in order to avoid a greater evil, the Pharisees determined to be morally right; for instance, the law of retalia tion, and that of a divorce from a wife for any cause. (Matt. v. 31. et seq. xix. 3—12.) During the time of Christ there were two celebrated philosophical and divinity schools among the Jews, that of Schammai and that of Hillel. On the question of divorce, the school of Schammai maintained, that no man could legally put away his wife except for adultery: the school of Hillel, on the contrary, allowed a divorce for any cause (from Deut. xxiv. 1.), even if the wife found no favour in the eyes of her husband,-in other words, if he saw any woman who pleased him better. The practice of the Jews seems to have gone with the school of Hillel. Thus we read (in Ecclus. xxv. 26.), "If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh; give her a bill of divorce and let her go;" and in conformity with this doetrine, Josephus, who was a Pharisee, relates that he repudiated his wife who had borne him three children, because he was not pleased with her manners or behaviour. 4. Further, they interpreted certain of the Mosaic laws most literally, and distorted their meaning so as to favour their own philosophical system. Thus, the law of loving their neighbour, they expounded solely of the love of their friends, that is, of the whole Jewish race; all other persons being considered by them as natural enemies (Matt. v. 43. compared with Luke x. 31–33.), whom they were in no respect bound to assist. Dr. Lightfoot has cited a striking illustration of this passage from Maimonides. An oath, in which the name of God was not distinctly specified, they taught was not binding (Matt. v. 33.), maintaining that a man might even swear with his lips, and at the same moment annul it in his heart! So rigorously did they understand the command of observing the Sabbath-day, that they accounted it unlawful to pluck ears of corn, and heal the Those natural laws which Moses did not sanction by any penalty they accounted among the petty commandments, inferior to the ceremonial laws, which they preferred to the former, as being the weightier matters of the law (Matt. v. 19. xv. 4. xxiii. 23.), to the total neglect of mercy and fidelity. Hence they accounted causeless anger and impure desires as trifles of no moment (Matt. v. 21, 22. 27-30.); they compassed sea and land to make proselytes 10 to the Jewish religion from among the Gentiles, that they might rule over their consciences and wealth: and these proselytes. through the influence of their own scandalous examples and characters, they soon rendered more profligate and abandoned the New Test. vol. ii. p. 355. To this popular notion of a transmigration of souls, Dr. H. ascribes the alarm of Herod, who had caused John the Baptist to be beheaded, when the fame of Christ's iniracles reached his court; but, on comparing Matt. xvi. 6. with Mark viii. 15., it appears tha Herod was a Sadducee, and, consequently, disbelieved a future state. H alarm, therefore, is rather to be attributed to the force of conscience which haunted his guilty mind in despite of his libertine principles. 1. They ascribed all things to fate or providence, yet not so absolutely as to take away the free will of man, though fate does not co-operate in every action. They also believed in the existence of angels and spirits, and in the resurrection of the dead (Acts xxiii. 8.): but, from the account given of them by Josephus, it appears that their notion of the immortality of the soul was the Pythagorean metempsychosis; that the soul, after the dissolution of one body, winged its flight into another; and that these removals were perpetuated and diversified through an infinite succession, the soul animating a sound and healthy body, or being confined in a deformed and diseased frame, according to its conduct in a prior state of existence. From the Pharisees, whose tenets and traditions the people generally received, it is evident that the disciples of our Lord had adopted this philosophical doc-sick, &c. (Matt. xii. 1. et seq. Luke vi. 6. et seq. xiv. 1. et seq.) trine of the transmigration of souls; when, having met with a man who had been born blind, they asked him whether it were the sins of this man in a pre-existent state which had caused the Sovereign Disposer to inflict upon him this punishment. To this inquiry Christ replied, that neither his vices or sins in a pre-existent state, nor those of his parents, were the cause of this calamity. (John ix. 1-4.) From this notion, derived from the Greek philosophy, we find that during our Saviour's public ministry, the Jews speculated variously concerning him, and indulged several conjectures, which of the ancient prophets it was whose soul now animated him, and performed such astonishing miracles. Some contended that it was the soul of Elias; others of Jeremiah; while others, less sanguine, only declared in general terms that it must be the soul of one of the old prophets by which these mighty deeds were now wrought. (Matt. xvi. 14. Luke ix. 19.) Ant. Jud. lib. xiii. c. 5. § 9. The high reputation and influence of the Pharisees are strikingly illustrated by the following anecdote:-When Alexander Jannæus lay on his death-bed, about eighty years before the Christian æra, his queen Alexandra having expressed great anxiety on account of the exposed state in which herself and sons would be left, the dying monarch recommended her to court the Pharisees, and delegate part of her power to them. Alexandra followed this advice; and the Pharisees, availing themselves of the opportunity, made themselves masters of the government, and disposed of every thing as they pleased. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xiii. c. 15. $5. c. 16. 1. Bell. Jud. lib. i. c. 4. a Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 2. §4. Ibid. lib. xiii. c. 5. § 9. lib. xviii. c. 2. §3. De Bell. Jud. lib ii. c. 8. 14. Acts v. 38, 39. Ibid. lib. xviii. c. 1. § 3. De Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 8. § 14. lib. iii. c. 8. § 5. The author of the Book of Wisdom (ch. viii. 20.) seems to allude to the same doctrine, when he tells us, that, being good, he came into a body undefiled. • Dr. Lightfoot's Works, vol. ii. pp. 568, 569. Dr. Harwood's Introd. to See Rom. i-xi. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 2. §4. De Bell. Jud lib. ii. c. 8. $ 4. Justin. Dialog. cum Tryphon. Pirke Aboth. Life of himself, § 76. Grotius, Calinet, Drs. Lightfoot, Whitby, Dod dridge, and A. Clarke (on Matt. v. 30. et seq. and Matt. xix. 3. et seq.) have all given illustrations of the Jewish doctrine of divorce from rabbinica writers. See also Selden's Uxor Hebraica, lib. iii. c. 22. (Op. tom. ii. col 782-786.) 9 "A Jew sees a Gentile fall into the sea, let him by no means lift him out for it is written, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of the neighbour. But this is NOT thy neighbour." Works, vol. ii. p. 152. 10 Justin Martyr bears witness to the inveterate malignity of the prose lytes of the Pharisees against the name of Christ, at the beginning of the second century. "Your proselytes," says he to Trypho the Jew (p. 350) "not only do not believe in Christ, but blaspheme his name with refold more virulence than yourselves. They are ready to show their malicious zeal against us; and, to obtain merit in your eyes, wish to us reproach, and torment, and death." See further Dr. Ireland's Paganism and Christianity compared, pp. 21-23. ever they were before their conversion. (Matt. xxiii. Esteeming temporal happiness and riches as the est good, they scrupled not to accumulate wealth by means, legal or illegal (Matt. v. 1-12. xxiii. 4. Luke 14. James ii. 1-8.); vain and ambitious of popular apse, they offered up long prayers' in public places, but not out a self-sufficiency of their own holiness (Matt. vi. -. Luke xviii. 11.); under a sanctimonious appearance spect for the memories of the prophets whom their anrs had slain, they repaired and beautified their sepul= (Matt. xxiii. 29.); and such was their idea of their sanctity, that they thought themselves defiled if they touched or conversed with sinners, that is, with publi or tax-gatherers, and persons of loose and irregular lives. se vii. 39. xv. 1. et seq.) ut, above all their other tenets, the Pharisees were conous for their reverential observance of the traditions or ees of the elders: these traditions, they pretended, had handed down from Moses through every generation, but not committed to writing; and they were not merely idered as of equal authority with the divine law, but = preferable to it. "The words of the scribes," said "are lovely above the words of the law; for the is of the law are weighty and light, but the words of scribes are ALL weighty."2 Among the traditions thus timoniously observed by the Pharisees, we may briefly e the following:-1. The washing of hands up to the t before and after meat (Matt. xv. 2. Mark vii. 3.), which accounted not merely a religious duty, but considered mission as a crime equal to fornication, and punishable xcommunication. 2. The purification of the cups, vesand couches used at their meals by ablutions or wash(Mark vii. 4.); for which purpose the six large watermentioned by St. John (ii. 6.) were destined. But e ablutions are not to be confounded with those symboliwashings mentioned in Psal. xxvi. 6. and Matt. xxvii. 3. Their punctilious payment of tithes (temple-offer), even of the most trifling thing. (Luke xviii. 12. Matt. i. 23.) 4. Their wearing broader phylacteries and larger ges to their garments than the rest of the Jews. (Matt. 5.) He, who wore his phylactery and his fringe of largest size, was reputed to be the most devout. 5. fasting twice a week with great appearance of austerity kexviii. 12. Matt. vi. 16.); thus converting that exercise religion which is only a help towards the performance ts hallowed duties. The Jewish days of fasting were second and fifth days of the week, corresponding with Mondays and Thursdays: on one of these days they memorated Moses going up to the mount to receive the which, according to their traditions, was on the fifth day Thursday; and on the other his descent after he had reed the two tables, which they supposed to have been on second day, or Monday. ery surprising effects are related concerning the mortifiens of the Pharisees, and the austerities practised by some them in order to preserve the purity of the body. Somees they imposed these painful exercises for four, eight, or ten years, before they married. They deprived themes almost entirely of sleep, lest they should involuntabecome unclean or polluted during sleep. Some of them said to have slept on narrow planks, not more than twelve ers broad; in order that, if they should sleep too soundly, y might fall upon the ground and awake to prayer. Others pt on small and sharp-pointed stones, and even on thorns, order that they might be laid under a kind of necessity to always awake.3 As, however, none of these austerities Te legally commanded, and as the Pharisees were not and to practise them by any law or other obligation, each ms to have followed his own inclination and the impulse ardour of his devotion. The Talmuds mention seven ts of Pharisees, two of whom appear to be alluded to, ugh not specified by name, in the New Testament, viz. Bacher, after a very ancient Hebrew manuscript ritual, has given a curious specimen of the "vain repetitions" used by the Pharisees. s Antiquitates Biblicæ ex Novo Testamento selectæ, pp. 240-244. rgæ, 1729. 4to. rusalem Berachoth, fol. 3. 2. as cited by Dr. Lightfoot in his Hora ice on Matt. xv. The v hole of his Hebrew and Talmudical Exers on that chapter is singularly instructive. The collection of these is, by which the Jews made the law of God of none effect, is the Talmud: of which, and of its use in illustrating the Holy res, an account has already been given. On the traditions of the Jews (which illustrate very many passages of the New Testament), der may consult Mr. Allen's Modern Judaism, chap, viii. to xv. pp. Epiphanius, Hæres. 16. p. VOL. II. T 1. The Shechemite Pharisees, or those who entered into the sect only from motives of gain; just as the Shechemites suffered themselves to be circumcised. This order of Pharisees is most probably alluded to in Matt. xxiii. 5. 14.; and, 2. The Pharisees who said, "Let me know what my duty is, and I will do it."-"I have done my duty, that the command may be performed according to it." Of this sort the young man in the Gospel appears to have been, who came to Jesus Christ, saying, "Good master, WHAT GOOD THING SHALL I DO, that I may have eternal life?" and who at length replied,-ALL these have I kept (or observed) from my youth up. (Matt. xix. 16. 20.)4 With all their pretensions to piety, the Pharisees entertained the most sovereign contempt for the people; whom, being ignorant of the law, they pronounced to be accursed. (John vii. 49.) It is unquestionable, as Mosheim has well remarked, that the religion of the Pharisees was, for the most part, founded in consummate hypocrisy; and that, in general, they were the slaves of every vicious appetite, proud, arrogant, and avaricious, consulting only the gratification of their lusts, even at the very moment when they professed themselves to be engaged in the service of their Maker. These odious features in the character of the Pharisees caused them to be reprehended by our Saviour with the utmost severity, even more than he rebuked the Sadducees; who, although they had departed widely from the genuine principles of religion, yet did not impose on mankind by pretended sanctity, or devote themselves with insatiable greediness to the acquisition of honours and riches." All the Pharisees, however, were not of this description. Nicodemus appears to have been a man of great probity and piety: and the same character is applicable to Gamaliel. If Saul persecuted the church of Christ, he did it out of a blind zeal; but, not to insist on the testimony which he bears of himself, it is evident, from the extraordinary favour of God towards him, that he was not tainted with the other vices common to the sect of the Pharisees. What he says of it, that it was the strictest of all, cannot admit of any other than a favourable construction. II. The sect of the SADDUCEES is by some writers considered as the most ancient of the Jewish sects; though others have supposed that the Sadducees and Pharisees gradually grew up together. This sect derives its appellation from Sadok, or Zadok, the disciple and successor of Antigonus Sochæus, who lived above two hundred (Dr. Prideaux says two hun dred and sixty-three) years before Christ; and who taught his pupils to "be not as servants, who wait upon their master for the sake of reward, but to be like servants who wait upon their master, not for the sake of reward;" but that they should let the fear of the Lord be in them. Unable to comprehend a doctrine so spiritual, Sadok deduced from it the inference that neither reward nor punishment is to be expected in a future life. The following are the principal tenets of the Sadducees: 1. That there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit (Matt. xxii. 23. Acts xxiii. 8.), and that the soul of man perishes together with the body.s 2. That there is no fate or overruling providence, but that all men enjoy the most ample freedom of action; in other words, the absolute power of doing either good or evil, according to their own choice; hence they were very severe judges.10 3. They paid no regard whatever to any tradition, adhering strictly to the letter of Scripture, but preferring the five 4 Jerusalem Talmud, Berachoth, fol. 13. 2. Sotah, fol. 20. 3. Babylonish Hora Hebraice on Matt. iii. 7. Talmud, fol. 22. 2. Dr. Lightfoot has translated the entire passages in his • Mosheim's Commentaries on the Affairs of Christians, vol. i. p. 83, • Beausobre's and L'Enfant's Introd. (Bp. Watson's Tracts) vol. iii. Lightfoot's Horæ Hebraicæ on Matt. iii. 7. p. 190. Josephus de Bell. Jud. lib. i. c. & in fine. Ant. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 1. § 4. Some learned men have expressed their surprise, that the Sadducees should deny the existence of angels, since they acknowledged the five books of Moses, in which such frequent and express mention is made of the appearance and ministry of angels. To this it is answered, that they believed not the angels, spoken of in the books of Moses, to be of any dura. tion, but looked on them as being created only for the service they performed, and existing no longer. (Grotius on Matt. xxii. xxiii. &c. Lightfoot's Works, vol. ii. p. 702. Whitby on Acts xxiii. 8. and Matt. xxii. 23.) There seem to have been heretics in the time of Justin Martyr (the second century), who entertained a similar opinion. (Justin. Dial. cum Tryphone, p. 358. b.) And it is evident that this notion was entertained by some among the Jews, so lately as the emperor Justinian's time (the sixth century); for there is a law of his extant (Novel. 146. c. 2.) published against those Jews, who should presume either to deny the resurrection and judgment, or that angels, the workmanship and creatures of God, did subsist. Biscoe on the Acts, vol. i. p. 99. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xiii. c. 5. § 9. De Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 8. § 4. 10 Ant. Jud. lib. xviii. c. 10. § 6. books of Moses to the rest. It has been conjectured by some writers that they rejected all the sacred books but those of Moses. But this hypothesis is no proof: for, in the first place, this sect took its rise at a time when the Jewish canon had been closed; and it was just as easy for the Sadducees to make their opinions harmonize with the other books of the Old Testament as with the books of Moses. Secondly, how could any of the Sadducees have sustained the office of high-priest, if they had departed in so important a point from the belief of the nation? Thirdly, although Josephus frequently mentions their rejecting the traditions of the elders, yet he nowhere charges them with rejecting any of the sacred books; and as he was himself a Pharisee, and their zealous antagonist, he would not have passed over such a crime in silence. It is further worthy of remark, that our Saviour, who so severely censured the Sadducees for their other corruptions, did not condemn them for such rejection. In point of numbers, the Sadducees were an inconsiderable sect; but their numerical deficiency was amply compensated by the dignity and eminence of those who embraced their tenets, and who were persons of the first distinction. Several of them were advanced to the high-priesthood.2 They do not, however, appear to have aspired, generally, to public offices. Josephus affirms that scarcely any business of the state was transacted by them: and that, when they were in the magistracy, they generally conformed to the measures of the Pharisees, though unwillingly, and out of pure necessity; for other wise they would not have been endured by the multitude.3 III. Concerning the origin of the ESSENES, who were the third principal sect of the Jews, there is a considerable difference of opinion. By some writers of the Jewish antiquities they have been identified with the fraternity of Assidæans, who are mentioned in 1 Macc. ii. 42. as being zealously devoted to the law; while others trace their descent to the Rechabites. But the latter were a family only, and not a sect. Most probably they derived their origin from Egypt, where the Jewish refugees, who fled for security after the murder of Gedaliah, were compelled, on the captivity of the greater part of their body, to lead a recluse life, out of which the Essene institute might have grown. They were dispersed chiefly through Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, though they were to be met with in other countries. The Essenes differed in many respects from the Pharisees and Sadducees, both in doctrines and in practice. They were divided into two classes:-1. The practical, who lived in society, and some of whom were married, though it appears with much circumspection. These dwelt in cities and their neighbourhoods, and applied themselves to husbandry and other innocent occupations. 2. The contemplative Essenes, who were also called Therapeute or Physicians, from their application principally to the cure of the diseases of the soul, devoted themselves wholly to meditation, and avoided living in great towns as unfavourable to a contemplative life. But both classes were exceedingly abstemious, exemplary in their moral deportment, averse from profane swearing, and most rigid in their observance of the Sabbath. They held, among other tenets, the immortality of the soul (though they denied the resurrection of the body), the existence of angels, and a state of future rewards and punishments. They believed every thing to be ordered by an eternal fatality or chain of causes. Although Jesus Christ censured all the other sects of the Jews for their vices, yet he never spoke of the Essenes; neither are they mentioned by name in any part of the New Testament. The silence of the evangelical historians concerning them is by some accounted for by their eremitic life, which secluded them from places of public resort; so that they did not come in the way of our Saviour, as the Pharisees and Sadducees often did. Others, however, are of opinion, that the Essenes being very honest and sincere, without guile or hypocrisy, gave no room for the reproofs and censures which the other Jews deserved; and, therefore, no mention is made of them. But though the Essenes are not expressly named in any of the sacred books, it has been conjectured that they are alluded to in two or three passages. Thus, those whom our Lord terms eunuchs, who have made themselves such for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matt. xix. 12.), are supposed to be the contemplative Essenes, who abstained from all 1 Schmucker's Biblical Theology, vol. i. p. 264. The reader will find several additional proofs in confirmation of the preceding account of the books received by the Sadducees, in Dr. Jortin's Remarks on Eccl. Hist. Appendix, No. II. vol. i. pp. 365-374. Edit. 1805. Acts v. 17. xxiii. 6. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xiii. c. 10. $$ 6, 7. lib. xviii. c. 1. § 4. Ant. Jud. lib. xviii. e. 1. 54. intercourse with women, in the hope of acquiring a greater degree of purity, and becoming the better fitted for the kingdom of God. St. Paul is generally understood to have referred to them, in Col. ii. 18. 23., where "voluntary humi lity," and "neglecting the body," are peculiarly applicable to the Essenes; who, when they received any persons into their number, made them solemnly swear that they would keep and observe the books of the sect and the names of the angels with care. What is also said in the above-cited passage, of "intruding into things not seen," is likewise agreeable to the character of the Therapeutic Essenes; who, placing the excellence of their contemplative life in raising their minds to invisible objects, pretended to such a degree of elevation and abstraction as to be able to penetrate into the nature of angels, and assign them proper names, or rightly interpret those already given them; and also to pry into futurity and predict future events. On these accounts it is highly probable that they were "vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind." Further, the tenets referred to by St. Paul (Col. ii. 21. "touch not, taste not, handle not") are such as the Essenes held, who would not taste any pleasant food, but lived on coarse bread and drank nothing but water, and some of whom would not taste any food at all till after sunset: if touched by any that were not of their own sect, they would wash themselves, as after some great pollution. It has been conjectured that there might be a sodality of Essenes at Colosse, as there were in many other places out of Judaa; and that some of the Christians, being too much inclined to Judaism, might also affect the peculiarities of this sect; which might be the reason of the apostle's so particularly cautioning the Colossians against them.5 IV. There is in the Gospels frequent mention of a set of men called SCRIBES, who are often joined with the chiefpriests, elders, and Pharisees. They seem to have been men of learning, and on that account to have had great deference paid to them (Matt. ii. 4. vii. 29.); but, strictly speaking, they did not form any distinct sect. The Scribes generally belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, in whose traditions and explanations of the law they were profoundly skilled; and on the Sabbath-days "they sat in Moses' seat" and instructed the people. Originally, they had their name from their employment, which at first was transcribing the law: but in progress of time they exalted themselves into the public ministry and became teachers of it, authoritatively determining what doctrines were or were not contained in the Scriptures, and teaching the common people in what sense to understand the law and the prophets. In short, they were the oracles which were consulted in all difficult points of doctrine and duty; and it is not improbable that they were, for the most part, Levites, whose peculiar business it was to study and read the law. The Scribes were of different families and tribes, and therefore of different sects: hence we read, that there were Scribes of the sect of the Pharisees and also of the Sadducees. (Acts xxiii. 9.) In the New Testament, the Scribes are frequently identified with the Pharisees, because they held both these titles. They were Scribes by office, and Pharisees by religious profession. This explanation will account for the Pharisees in Matt. xxii. 35. being called Scribes in Mark xii. 28.7 V. The LAWYERS (v) or TEACHERS OF THE LAW and Scribes appear to be synonymous terms, importing one and the same order of men; as St. Matthew (xxii. 35.) calls him a lawyer whom St. Mark (xii. 28.) terms one of the Scribes. Dr. Macknight conjectures the Scribes to have been the public expounders of the law, and that the lawyers studied it in private: perhaps, as Dr. Lardner conjectures, they taught in the schools. But M. Basnage is of opinion that they were a distinct class or sect of men, who adhered closely to the Josephus, de Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 8. § 7. tana, vol. x. p. 592. Michaelis thinks that Saint Paul alludes to the tenets Jennings's Jewish Antiquities, book i. c. 13. Encyclopædia Metropoli and practices of the Essenes in his Epistle to the Ephesians, and in his first Epistle to Timothy Introd, to the New Test, vol. iv. pp. 79-85. Dr. Priand Pliny have recorded concerning the Essenes. deaux has collected with great industry and fidelity all that Philo. Josephus, Connection, vol i book v. sub anno 107 B. c. pp. 343-363. 8th edit. There is a very interesting description of the institute of the Essenes in vol. ii. pp. 124-150, of phic delineation of Jewish manners and customs, such as they most pro "Helon's Pilgrimage to Jerusalem," which contains an admirable and grabably were at the time when the advent of the Messiah was at hand. For the translation of this very pleasing and instructive work from the German of Frederick Strauss, the lover of sacred literature is indebted to the Rev. John Kenrick, M. A. of York. Dr. Burton's Papists and Pharisees compared, p. 6. (Oxford, 1766. Svo.) Stranheim's Ecclesiastical Annals, by the Rev. G. Wright, p. 178 a Prideaux, vol. ii. p. 313. Lardner's Credibility, part i. book i. ch. 4. $3. (Works, vol. i. p. 126) Macknight's Harmony, sect. 87. vol. ii. p. 472. Svo edit. the law, and totally disregarded all traditions, and ey were the same as the modern Karaites.1 where their language is taught. The head of this sect is stated to reside at Paris. The Samaritans at Napolose are The SAMARITANS, mentioned in the New Testament, in possession of a very ancient manuscript Pentateuch, which erally considered as a sect of the Jews. they assert to be nearly 3500 years old; but they reject the appellation is, in the New Testament, given to a vowel points as a rabbinical invention. In order to complete people who sprang originally from an intermixture our notice of this sect, we have subjoined their confession of en tribes with Gentile nations. When the inhabitants faith, sent in the sixteenth century by Eleazar their highharia and of the adjacent country were carried into priest to the illustrious critic Scaliger, who had applied to ty by Shalmaneser king of Assyria, he sent in their them for that purpose; together with a few additional parcolonies from Babylonia, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and ticulars from the baron de Sacy's Memoir on the Samaritans, vaim; with which the Israelites who remained in the and the Rev. W. Jowett's Christian Researches in Syria. came intermingled, and were ultimately amalgamated 1. The Samaritans observe the Sabbath with all the exme people. (2 Kings xvii. 24.) An origin like this actness required in Exodus; for not one of them goes out of of course, render the nation odious to the Jews; and the place where he is on the Sabbath-day, except to the maritans further augmented this cause of hatred by synagogue, where they read the law, and sing the praises of g all the sacred books of the Jews, except the Penta- God. They do not lie that night with their wives, and neiwhich they had received from the Jewish priest who ther kindle nor order fire to be kindled: whereas the Jews en sent to them from Assyria to instruct them in the transgress the Sabbath in all these points; for they go out ligion. (2 Kings xvii. 27, 28.) On the return of the of town, have fire made, lie with their wives, and even do from the Babylonish captivity, when they began to not wash themselves after it.-2. They hold the passover to Jerusalem and the temple, the Samaritans requested be their first festival; they begin at sunset, by the sacrifice cknowledged as Jewish citizens, and to be permitted enjoined for that purpose in Exodus; but they sacrifice only st in the work; but their application was rejected. on Mount Gerizim, where they read the law, and offer iv. 1-4.) In consequence of this refusal and the sub-prayers to God, after which the priest dismisses the whole t state of enmity, the Samaritans not only took occasion congregation with a blessing. [Of late years, however, havmniate the Jews before the Persian kings (Ezra iv. 5. ing been prohibited from ascending Mount Gerizim by their v. 1-7, 8.); but also, recurring to the directions of oppressors the Turks, they offer the paschal sacrifice within (Deut. xxvii. 11-13.), that on entering the promised their city, which they consider to be within the precincts of e He rews should offer sacrifices on Mount Gerizim, the sacred place.]-3. They celebrate for seven days torected a temple on that mountain, and instituted sacri-gether the feast of the harvest, but they do not agree with the ccording to the prescriptions of the Mosaic law. Jews concerning the day when it ought to begin; for these all these and other circumstances, the national hatred reckon the next day after the solemnity of the passover: en the Samaritans and Jews increased to such a height, whereas the Samaritans reckon fifty days, beginning the next e Jews denounced the most bitter anathemas against day after the Sabbath, which happens in the week of the (Ecclus. 1. 26.), and for many ages refused thern unleavened bread, and the next day after the seventh Sabbath kind of intercourse. Hence the woman of Samaria following, the feast of the harvest begins.-4. They observe stonished that Jesus Christ, who was a Jew, should the fast of expiation on the tenth of the seventh month: they ink of her. (John iv. 9.) Hence also the Jews, when employ the four-and-twenty hours of the day in prayers to Could express the utmost aversion to Christ, said to God, and singing his praises, and fasting. All fast, except Thou art a SAMARITAN, and hast a devil. (John viii. children at the breast, whereas the Jews except children The temple on Mount Gerizim was destroyed by Hyr- under seven years of age.-5. On the fifteenth of the same B. c. 1293 but the Samaritans, in the time of Jesus, month, they celebrate the feast of tabernacles.-6. They ed that mountain sacred, and as the proper place of never defer circumcision beyond the eighth day, as it is comal worship. (John iv. 20, 21.) At that time, also, in manded in Genesis, whereas the Jews defer it sometimes on with the Jews, they expected the advent of a Mes- longer.-7. They are obliged to wash themselves in the John iv. 25.), and many of them afterwards became morning, when they have lain with their wives, or have been lowers of Jesus Christ, and embraced the doctrines of sullied in the night by some uncleanness; and all vessels igion. (Acts viii. 1. ix. 31. xv. 3.)1 that may become unclean, become defiled when they touch them before they have washed.—8. They take away the fat from sacrifices, and give the priests the shoulder, the jaws, and the belly.-9. They never marry their nieces as the Jews do, and have but one wife, whereas the Jews may have many.-10. They believe in God, in Moses, and in Mount Gerizim. Whereas, say they, the Jews put their trust in others, we do nothing but what is expressly commanded in the law by the Lord who made use of the ministry of Moses; but the Jews swerve from what the Lord hath commanded in the law, to observe what their fathers and doctors have invented.-11. They receive the Torah or Pentateuch, and hold it as their only sacred book; they reverence the books of Joshua and Judges, but do not account them sacred in the same manner as the Torah, considering Joshua not to have been a prophet, but only the disciple of a prophet, that is, of Moses.-12. They expect a prophet, whom they term Hathab; but, say they," there is a great mystery in regard to Hathab, We shall be happy when he comes." who is yet to come. When the Rev. Mr. Jowett, in November, 1823, interrogated the officiating Samaritan priest concerning their expectation of a Messiah, the latter replied that they were all in expecta tion of him;-" that the Messiah would be a man, not the Son of God,-and that this" (Naposloe). "was to be the place which he would make the metropolis of his kingdom: this was the place, of which the Lord had promised, he would place his name there." The report of the Samaritans worshipping a dove is groundless; nor is it true that they deny the resurrection of the dead, or the existence of angels. They admit, however, that they recite hymns and prayers ards the close of the Jewish polity, the Samaritans Pharisaical Jews consists in their rejection of the oral law, and Visit of the Rev. James Connor, in 1819 and 1820, to Candia, Rhodes, Mémoire sur l'Etat actuel des Samaritams. par M. Silvestre de Sacy. F that Jehovah would pardon the dead, and the priest purifies them by prayer. The Samaritans have a catalogue of the succession of their high-priests from Aaron to the present time. They believe themselves to be of the posterity of Joseph by Ephraim, and that all their high-priests descended from Phinehas; whereas the Jews have not one of that family. They boast that they have preserved the Hebrew characters which God made use of to promulgate his law; while the Jews have a way of writing from Ezra, which is cursed for ever. And, indeed, instead of looking upon Ezra as the restorer of the law, they curse him as an impostor, who has laid aside their old characters to use new ones in their room, and authorized several books that were written to support the posterity of David. Several attempts have been made to convert these Samaritans; but they have been oppressed instead of being made Christians, and they are reduced to a small number rather by misery than by the multitude of those who have been converted. Nay, they seem more stubbornly wedded to their sect than the Jews, though these adhere rigorously to the law of Moses. At least Nicon, who lived after the twelfth century, when setting down the formalities used at the reception of heretics, observes, that if a Jew had a mind to be converted, in order to avoid punishment or the payment of what he owed, he was to purify himself, and satisfy his creditors before he was admitted. But the Samaritans were not received before they had been instructed two years, and were required to fast ten or fifteen days before they professed the Christian religion, to attend at morning and evening prayers, and to learn some psalms; others were not used with so much rigour. The term of two years which was enjoined to the Samaritan proselytes is an argument that they were suspected, and the reason why they were so was, that they had often deceived the Christians by their pretended conversion. from the Pharisees, A. D. 12, when Archelaus was banished, VII. The HERODIANS were rather a political faction than a X. The SICARII, noticed in Acts xxi. 38. were assassins, religious sect of the Jews: they derived their name from who derived their name from their using poniards bent like Herod the Great, king of Judæa, to whose family they were the Roman sica, which they concealed under their garments, strongly attached. They were distinguished from the other and which was the secret instrument of assassination. The Jewish sects, first, by their concurring in Herod's plan of Egyptian impostor, also mentioned by the sacred historian, subjecting himself and his people to the dominion of the Ro- is noticed by Josephus, who says that he was at the head of mans; and, secondly, in complying with the latter in many 30,000 men, though St. Luke notices only 4000; but both of their heathen practices, such as erecting temples with accounts are reconciled by supposing that the impostor (whe images for idolatrous worship, raising statues, and instituting in the second year of Nero pretended to be a prophet) led cut games in honour of Augustus; which symbolizing with 4000 from Jerusalem, who were afterwards joined by others idolatry upon views of interest and worldly policy is sup-to the amount of 30,000, as related by Josephus. They were posed to have been a part at least of the learen of Herod, attacked and dispersed by the Roman procurator Felix. against which Jesus Christ cautioned his disciples (Mark viii. BOTH IN RELIGION AND MORALS, AT THE TIME OF CHRIST'S BIRTH. General corruption of the leaders of the Jewish nation of their chief priests, and other ministers of religion-its deplorable effects on the people.-State of the Jews not resident in Pa lestine. 15.); consequently they were directly opposed to the Phari-§ 2. ON THE EXTREME CORRUPTION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE, sees, who, from a misinterpretation of Deut. xvii. 15. maintained that it was not lawful to submit to the Roman emperor, or to pay taxes to him. But Herod and his followers, understanding the text to exclude only a voluntary choice, and not a necessary submission where force had overpowered choice, held an opinion directly contrary, and insisted that in this case it was lawful both to submit to the Roman emperor, and also to pay taxes to him. How keen then must have been the malice of the Pharisees against Christ, when they united with their mortal enemies the Herodians, in proposing to him the ensnaring question, whether it was lawful to give tribute to Cæsar or not? (Matt. xxii. 16.) If our Redeemer had answered in the negative, the Herodians would have accused him to the Roman power as a seditious person; and if in the affirmative, the Pharisees were equally ready to accuse him to the people, and excite their indignation against him, as betraying the civil liberties and privileges of his country. Christ by his prudent reply defeated the malice of both, and at the same time implicitly justified the Herodians in paying tribute to Cæsar. It is further probable that the Herodians, in their doctrinal tenets, were chiefly of the sect of the Sadducees, who were the most indifferent to religion among the whole Jewish nation; since that which is by one evangelist called the leaven of Herod (Mark viii. 15.), is by another termed (Matt. xvi. 6.) the leaven of the Sadducees.2 VIII. The GALILEANS were a political sect that originated Lewis's Origines Hebrææ, vol. iif. pp. 57-59. In pp. 59-65. he has printed a letter, purporting to have been written by the Sainaritans at Shechem in the seventeenth century, and sent by them to their brethren in England, by Dr. Huntington, some time chaplain to the Turkey company at Aleppo, and afterwards Bishop of Raphoe, in Ireland. * Prideaux's Connection, part ii. book v. (vol. ii. pp. 365-368.) Jennings's Jewish Antiquities, book i. ch. xii. Calmet, Dissertations, tom. i. pp. 737 -743. where the different opinions of former writers concerning the Hero. dians are enumerated; as also in Elsley's Annotations on the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 342-346. vol. ii. p. 15. Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, voce; Lardner's Credibility, part i. book i. ch. iv. § 4. (Works. vol. i. pp. 126, 127.) Tappan's Lectures on Jewish Antiq. p. 239. THE preceding chapters will have shown that the political state of the Jews was truly deplorable. Although they were oppressed and fleeced by various governors, who exercised the most rigorous authority over them, in many instances with peculiar avarice, cruelty, and extortion, yet they were in some measure governed by their own laws, and were permitted to enjoy their religion. The administration of their sacred rites continued to be committed to the high-priest and the Sanhedrin; to the former the priests and Levites were subordinate as before: and the form of their external wership, except in a very few points, had suffered no visible change. But, whatever comforts were left to them by the He was a native of Gamala, in the province of Gaulonitis. lib. ii. c. 17. 59 7-9. lib. vii. c. 8. § 1. The Theudas mentioned in Acts v.36 Apparatus Biblicus, vol. i. p. 239. Ibid. lib. xx. c. 8 § 6. De Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 13. § 5. Dr. Lardner's |