A. M. 3811. A.C. 163; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A.M. 5247. A,C. 164.1 MAC. v. 1, JOS. IIIST. b.xii.c.14—END OF MAC JOS,HIST.b.xiii,c.19. cause; and, not only to them, but also to all others, who | the history; and of the history itself, which is an abridgsuffered in the like cause under any of the Grecian kings, ment of a larger work, composed by one Jason, an Hellenwhether of Syria or Egypt, though some of them lived ist Jew of Cyrene; but the whole is by no means equal to long before them. Thus those who suffered under Ptole- the excellence and accuracy of the first. The third, which my Philopater, at Alexandria, fifty years before the time seems to have been written by an Alexandrian Jew, din of Judas, were afterwards called Maccabees, as were the Greek language, is set off' with enlargements and emlikewise Eleazar, and the mother, and her seven sons, bellishments of the author's own invention; but, as to the though they suffered likewise before Judas erected the main ground-work of it, or the reality of such a persestandard which gave occasion to the name. cution raised against the Jews at Alexandria, it is undoubtedly true; and, though its style be a little too theatrical, its sentiments in many places are both beautiful and sublime. The fourth, e which is generally allowed to be the same with what is ascribed to Josephus, the Jewish historian, under the title of "The governing power of reason," is designed to enlarge and adorn the history of old Eleazar, and of the seven brothers, who, with their mother, suffered martyrdom under Antiochus, as it is related more succinctly in the second book of Maccabees.

As therefore those books which give us the history of Judas and his brethren, and their wars against the Syrian kings, in defence of their religion and liberties, are called the first and second books of the Maccabees; so that which gives us the history of those, who, in the like cause, under Ptolemy Philopater, were exposed to his elephants at Alexandria, is called the third book of the Maccabees; as that which contains the account of the martyrdom of Eleazar, and of the seven brothers and their mother, is called the fourth.

6

2 According to the order of time, indeed, and the sub- The author of the epistle to the Hebrews has stamped ject matter which they treat of, these books are wrong some authority upon these books, by alluding to their placed; for the third should be set first, the second history, and the punishment which the Maccabees were placed before the first, and the fourth immediately after made to undergo; but we must not therefore receive it; so that, to reduce them to right order, the first should them as canonical, because, according to the report of be put in the place of the third, and the third in the St Jerome, neither the Jewish nor the Christian church place of the first. Grotius, indeed, is of opinion, that ever looked upon them in that capacity: the church inthe third book, though it treats of matters antecedent to deed read the books of Maccabees but did not receive what is the subject of the first and second, was neverthe- them among the canonical writings. They read them as less written after them, even after the book of Ecclesias-books which contained lessons of wholesome instruction, ticus, and upon that account had the name of the third and excellent examples of worthy patriots, and glorious book given it; but the true reason of its being postponed martyrs suffering manfully in the defence of their reliis that, being of less repute and authority than thegion and liberty, and not accepting deliverance, that two former, it has always been reckoned after them, they might obtain a better resurrection.' according to the order of dignity, though it be before them in the order of time.

3

The first of these books was originally written in the Chaldee a language of the Jerusalem dialect, which was the only language spoken in Judea after the return from the Babylonish captivity, and is a very accurate and excellent history, coming nearest to the style and manner of the sacred historical writings of any extant. The second is a compilation of several pieces; of two epistles from the Jews at Jerusalem to those of Alexandria, * which seem to be spurious; of a preface preceding

Prideaux's Connection, anno 216.

2 Calmet's Preface on the third book of Maccabees. 3 3 Prideaux's Connection, anno 166. 4 Ibid. Rather than do this therefore, the usual way was, to give one too few; and therefore St Paul tells us, 2 Cor. xi. 24, that when he was whipped by the Jews, he received forty stripes, save one.' Prideaux's Connection, in the notes, anno 108.

a It was extant in this language in the time of St Jerome; for he tells us, that he had seen it, and that the title which it then bore, was Sharbit sar bene El, that is, the sceptre of the prince of the sons of God, a title which well suited Judas, who was so valiant a commander of God's people then under persecution. From the Chaldee it was translated into Greek by Theodotion, as some think, though others account that version elder; and, from the Greek, both the Latin translation and our English did proceed.-Prideaux's Connection, ammo 166.

3

In the whole compass of history, where can we find a
pattern in all respects equal to Judas Maccabæus? Most of
Chap. vi. and vii. Heb. xi. 35, &c.
7 lbid.
* Calmet's Commentary on 1 Mac. ix. 18.
the second, it is not only written in the name of Judas Macca-
bus, who was slain six and thirty years before the date which
it bears, but also contains such fabulous and absurd stufi, as could

never have been written by the great council of the Jews, assem-
Prideaux's Connection, anno 166.
bled at Jerusalem for the whole nation, as this pretends to be.-

e This book, though it is in most of the ancient manuscript copies of the Greek Septuagint, and quoted by several fathers as an holy and divine book, yet was it never inserted in the vulgar Latin translation of the bible; and, as our first English trauslations were made from that, none of them have it among the apocryphal books; nor has it ever since been added, though it certainly deserves a place therein much better than several other pieces that are there.-Prideaux's Connection, anno 214. This is a mistake. It was added to the other books in Becke's bible, (1551) and, lastly, in a new version, in Bishop Wilson's bible.-Bp. Gleig.

d To this day it is extant in most of the ancient manuscript copies of the Greek Septuagint: as, particularly in the Alexandrian manuscript in our king's library, and in the Vatican manuscript at Rome. But, as it was never inserted in the vulgar Latin version of the bible, and as that version was the only one in use through the whole western church, until the reformation, it thence came to pass, that, in the first translations which we have of the bible in the English, the third book of Maccabees has never yet been inserted among other apocryphal tracts, though it certainly deserves a place there much better than some parts of the second book of the Maccabees.-Prideaux's Connec

The former of these epistles calls the feast of the dedication, Zenvornyia iv Karia, that is, the feast of making tabernacles or booths in Cisleu. Now, as the month Cisleu fell in the middletion, anno 216. of winter, it can hardly be presumed, that the people could either lie abroad in these booths, or find green boughs enough at this time of the year wherewith to make them. This is an incongruity enough to explode the former epistle. And then, as to

e This book, in like manner, though it be found in most of the ancient Greek manuscripts, is not to be met with in any of our Latin bibles; and has therefore no place among our apocryphal books.-Prideaux's Connection, anno 216.

A. M. 3841. A. C. 163; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M.5247. A.C.164.1 MAC.v.1.JOS. HIST.b.xii.c.14-END OF MAC. JOS. HIST. b.xiii.c.19. the commanders we read of were carried away with their | have here," says he, a "warlike bravery, in which there ambition, vanity or vain glory; and while they valued is no silly appearance of honour and decency, because themselves upon the subduction of others, had no rule or he preferred death to slavery and disgrace.” command over their own passions. But in this Jewish leader we find all the characters of a great hero: courage and intrepidity, guided by counsel and wisdom, and without any allay either of rashness or pride. And what a profound knowledge he had of the laws of God, and the principles of true morality, every speech that he makes to his men, when he is animating them to the combat, and inspiring them with a contempt of the greatest dangers, is a sufficient indication.

86

He died indeed a little unfortunately, and, when his army had forsaken him, encountered his enemies with an incompetent strength; but, as he had all along fought under the protection of God's good providence, he had no more reason to be diffident at this time than he had been formerly. In his first engagement with the Syrians, when he was to encounter forty thousand horse, and seven thousand foot,' he made proclamation in the camp, that all such as had betrothed wives, or were building houses, or planting vineyards, or were any ways afraid,' might return home, which could not but reduce his army considerably; and yet we find him, with this handful of men, routing three generals that were sent against hin at once, forcing and burning their camp, defeating their troops, and returning loaded with their spoils. His notion was, that God could save with a few as well as with a multitude; and therefore he might look on the desertion of his forces as a providential thing, to make the victory more conspicuous, and to magnify the divine interposition in his deliverance.

36

The message which Moses sent to the king of Edom was delivered in these words,- Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country. We will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of thy wells. We will go by the king's highway; we will not turn to the right hand or to the left, until we have passed thy borders: and Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by ine, lest I come out against thee with the sword.' But hereupon a question has arisen, whether the Edomites might lawfully, and according to the rules of strict right, deny the Israelites a passage through their country.

Selden is of opinion, that princes have always a right to deny foreign troops a passage through their country, not only to preserve their territories from being invaded, and their subjects from being plundered, but to prevent their being corrupted like wise, by the introduction of strange manners and customs into their kingdom. But Grotius, on the other hand, asserts, that this refusal of the Edomites was an act contrary to the just rights of human society; that, after the promise which the Israelites had made of marching through their country quietly and inoffensively, they might very justly have fallen upon the Edomites, had they not been restrained by a divine prohibition that, for this very cause, the Greeks thought proper to make war upon the kings of Mysia; and that the principal reason which the powers of Christendom gave for their carrying their arms against the Saracens was, because they hindered their brethren going in pilgrimage to Jerusalem from passing through their country.

However the sentiments of these two great men may

bitants of Succoth, for denying his army some necessary refreshments when they were pursuing the enemy, is justified upon the presumption, that such a refusal was a kind of rebellion against the state, that those who expos ed their lives for the public safety had a right to be maintained at the public expense, and that no man wight call any thing his own when a demand of this nature came upon him. And if Gideon, who was sent immediately by an angel to deliver his brethren, and, in l his achievements, was supported by the Spirit of God, thought it no injustice to put the people of Succoth to exquisite tortures for denying his army what they wanted; why might not Judas give the people of Ephron up to military execution, for being so cruel and inhuman as to deny him a passage through their city, when there was no possibility of taking his route any other way?

The people that are with thee,' says the Lord to Gideon,' are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine hand hath saved me: proclaim there-be, it is certain, that Gideon's severity against the inhafore in the tents of the people, that whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return, and depart from mount Gilead; which reduced the Jewish army to ten thousand, and these again, by another expedient, were reduced to three hundred; and yet even these, by the assistance of the Lord of Hosts, utterly subdued the vast army of the Midianites. Upon this presumption, then, that Judas thought his army under the care and direction of the same Lord of Hosts, there was no discouragement in the desertion of his forces, nor any false reasoning in his speech: "If our time is come, let us die manfully for our brethren; which, in the present juncture of our affairs, is the best thing we can do: but if it be not, God, we know, is able to give us victory, and to defend For how often have we experienced the effects of his almighty power? Is not conquest always in his hands? Or is there any difference, with regard to him between a larger or a smaller number ?" These seem to be the reasons that determined Judas in his choice of engaging the enemy, though superior in force and if these reasons are built upon right notions of God, and confirmed by a long experience of his goodness, they will certainly clear him from all imputation of rashness, or presumptuous tempting of God in this action: an action for which St Ambrose, in particular, has represented him as a perfect model of true heroism: for " You 31 Mac, iii. 39. Ibid ver. 56. 3 Judges vii. 2, &c. Ambros. b. i. Offic. c. 41.

us.

7

What the particular situation of this phron was, wê can no where learn; but the author of the book of Maccabees seems to imply, that the country all about it was inpassable, that is, was very probably so full of water and morasses, that the company which Judas had along with him must have been lost, had they been obliged to turn either to the right hand or to the left. In their own defence, therefore, they were necessitated to make their way through the town; and if, in the siege and Mare Clausum, c. 20. "On the law of War and Prace, b. ii. c. 2; and Mare Clausum, b. i. c. 1. Judges vi. 14. Chap. viii. 16.

8

1 Mac. v. 45, 46.

A.M.3841. A.C.163; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M.5247. A. C.164.1 MAC.v.i.JOS. HIST.b. xii.c.14-END OF MAC.JOS.H ST b. xiii. c. 19. sackage of it, great numbers of people were put to the sword, this was properly the effect of their own folly and obstinacy, in refusing not so much to do a favour as an act of common right, even when it was humbly requested by a general, at the head of a victorious

A. M. 3841.A.C.163; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A.M.5247. A.C.164.1 MAC.v.1.JOS.HIST.b.xii.c.14-END OF MAC.JOS.H!ST,b,xii.c.19. "The deed hath been told, but not applauded, it is rather | tween them; nor does he say, that Hyrcanus went to be considered than imitated."

This reflection indeed will hold good in several other matters related in the history of the Maccabees, namely, that the author of it neither commends nor discommends, but only relates them. Demetrius Soter, for instance, was the rightful heir to the crown of Syria, and Alexander Balas no more than a vile impostor; and yet Jonathan thought proper to adjoin himself to him, because he remembered what a bitter enemy Demetrius had all along been to the Jewish interest; how oft he had sent his generals with positive orders to take his brother Judas dead or alive; and what ruin and oppression his frequent invasions had brought upon the whole nation. And therefore no wonder, that we find him taking a contrary part to the man, whom he looked upon as an enemy to his country. Demetrius Nicanor, in like manner, was the true heir to the same crown, and Alexander Zabina no more than a broker's son of Alexandria; and yet we find John Hyrcanus entering into a league and alliance with the latter, because indeed Demetrius had behaved so ungratefully to the Jews, (who had rescued him from the rebellion of his subjects,) as to load them with heavy taxes, even though he had promised them an immunity from them to engage their assistance.

The truth is, the kingdom of Syria was always in hostility with Judea. Its kings were tyrants, and great persecutors of the Jewish religion; and therefore what reason had any Jewish prince to trouble himself with the right of succession in an enemy's country? All that he seemed to be concerned in was, to make what advantages he could of their divisions, and by adjoining himself to the party, from whence he might expect the best treatment and support, to secure and establish his own, and his country's interest.

3

2

It is a mistake, however, to think, that Hyrcanus destroyed Samaria, out of the hatred which the Jews bore to the sect of the Samaritans, because, upon examination, we shall find, that none of that sect did, at that time, live in that place. The ancient Samaritans, who were of the sect that worshipped God on mount Gerizzim, had slain in a tumult, (as we related before,) one Andromachus, a favourite of Alexander the Great, whom he had constituted governor of Syria; and in revenge for this base act Alexander had expelled them all from Samaria, and in their stead, new planted the city with a colony of Macedonians, Greeks, and Syrians mixed together, and they were the descendants of those who inhabited Samaria, when Hyrcanus made war against it; for the expelled Samaritans retired to Shechem, where they settled their abode, and made it the head seat of their sect ever since.

In like manner, it is a mistake to think, that, because Hyrcanus is said to have left the Pharisees, and adjoined himself to the Sadducees, therefore he espoused their doctrine against the resurrection and a future state. On the contrary, it seems highly probable, that at this time the Sadducees had gone no further in the doctrine of this sect, than their rejecting all the unwritten traditions which the Pharisees held in so much veneration.

Josephus mentions no other difference, in his time, be

over to the Sadducees in any other particular, than in the abolishing the traditional constitutions of the Pharisees; and therefore we can hardly think, that so good and righteous a man, as he is represented to have been, would, upon any provocation whatever, have been induced to renounce the great and fundamental articles of his religion; but it can be no diminution to his character, we hope, that he made it his business to oppose those false interpretations of the law, which our blessed Saviour, in the course of his ministry, so severely condemned.

CHAP. III. Of the Original and Tenets of the
Jewish Sects.

Ir seems very probable, indeed, that during the times of the prophets, who, by their commerce with God, were immediately instructed in his will, no disputes about matters of religion could possibly arise, because their authority was sufficient for the decision of every controversy; but that when this race of prophets disappeared, and their authority ceased, men soon began to wrangle and dispute, and to form themselves into different sects and parties, upon the first occasion that offered.

After the return of the people from Babylon, Joshua the high priest, and Zerubbabel the governor, together with the chief elders, their contemporaries and others that afterwards succeeded them, collected together all the ancient and approved usages of the Jewish church, which had been in practice before the captivity. These, and whatever else pretended to be of the like nature, Ezra brought under a review, and, after due examination, having settled them by his approbation and authority, he thereby gave birth to what the Jews call their Oral Law. For they pretend, that when God gave unto Moses the law on Mount Sinai, he gave him, at the same time, the interpretation of it, with a strict injunetion to comanit the former to writing, but to deliver the other down to posterity only by word of mouth; that, pursuant to this injunction, Moses wrote several copies of the law, which he left behind him among the several tribes, but, in the interpretation of it, he took care more especially to instruct his successor Joshua; that, after his death, Joshua delivered this interpretation, or oral law, to the elders who succeeded him, and that they delivered it to the prophets, who transmitted it down to each other, until it came to Jeremiah; that Jeremiah delivered it to Baruch; Baruch to Ezra; Ezra to the men of the great synagogue, until it came to Simon the Just; and that Simon delivered it to others, who handed it down in a continued succession, until it came to Rabbah Judah Hakkadosh, who wrote it into the book which they call the Mishnah.

But all this is a mere fiction, spun out of the fertile

Prideaux's Connection, anno 446.

a There is good ground for supposing that the Sadducees beid the impious tenets ascribed to them in the New Testament, he before the time of Josephus, and that even Sadoc, the founder of the sect, denied that there was any future state of rewards and punishments. Indeed the author seems to allow as much in the succeeding dissertation.-ED,

A.M.3841.A.C.163; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M.5247.A.C.164, 1 MAC. v.1.JOS, HIST.b.xii.c.14-END OF MAC.JOS. HIST.b.xiii.c.19.

tence of the spirits or souls of men departed. Their notion was, that there was no spiritual being, but God only; that, as to man, this world was his all; that, at his death, his soul and body die together, never to live any more; and that therefore there is no future reward or punishment. They acknowledged indeed, that God made this world by his power, and governs it by his providence, and for the carrying on of this government, hath ordained rewards and punishments; but then they suppose, that these rewards and punishments are in this

invention of the Talmudists, and the little truth that there seems to be in it, is only this,-that after the death of Simon the Just, there arose a sort of men, (whom the Jews call Tannaim, or Mishnical doctors,) that made it their business to study and descant upon these traditions, which had been received, and allowed by Ezra and the men of the great synagogue, to draw such consequences and inferences from them, as they thought proper; to ingraft these into the body of the ancient traditions, and to expect from others that they should receive them, as if they had been as authen-world only; and for this reason alone it was, that they tic as the other. But this imposition was too gross and palpable not to be attended with remonstrances from several so that, in a short time, the Jewish church came to be divided into two grand parties, namely, those who adhered to the written law only, among whom the Sadducees were the chief; and those who, over and above this, received the traditions and constitutions of the elders, among whom the Pharisees made the greatest figure.

:

The most ancient sect among the Jews, was that of the Sadducees, which took its name from Sodock, the founder of it. This Sodock (as the Talmudic story is) was the disciple of Antigonus Socho, who lived, according to the Jewish calculation, about three hundred years before Christ, and used often to inculcate to his disciples, that they ought to serve God disinterestedly, without any view of compensation, and not like slaves, who only serve their master for the sake of a reward: and from hence his disciples Sodock and Baithus made this wrong inference, namely, that there was no reward to be expected in another world, and consequently that the soul dies, and the body will not rise again. Whether this mistake of the doctrine of Antigonus, or, as others suppose, dissoluteness of manners which at that time might prevail, gave occasion to the opinion of the Sadducees, but so it was, that, in process of time, they grew to be very impious and detestable. They denied the resurrection of the dead, the being a of angels, and the exis

the

Prideaux's Connection, anno 446; L'amy and Beausobre's Introduction.

worshipped him, and paid obedience to his laws. All unwritten traditions, as well as all written books, except the five books of Moses, they absolutely rejected; and the probable reason why they did so, is, that they could not so well maintain these opinions, which are not so flatly contradicted in the Pentateuch, as in the other sacred books, if once they admitted these books to be canonical. All supernatural helps to their duty they utterly denied for their doctrine was, that God had made man perfect master of all his actions, with a full freedom to do either good or evil as he thinks fit, without any assistance to him for the one, or restraint upon him as to the other; and for this reason, because they looked upon all men to have an inherent power to make their condition better or worse, according as they took right or wrong measures, whenever they sat in judgment upon criminals, they were always remarked to pass the severest sentences; as indeed their general character was, that they were a very ill-natured sort of men, churlish and morose in their behaviour even to each other, but cruel and savage to every one besides. Their principles, one might suppose, would have naturally led them into all manner of riot and excess; but it was not always so. Some of them were men of rigid virtue and strict probity; for 2 though they had cast off the belief of a future state, yet as they admitted of a providence to punish vice, and reward virtue, in this life, their desire

2 Basnage's History of the Jews, b. ii. c. 6.

And, 3dly,

b Mr Basnage, in his History of the Jews, (b. ii. c. 6,) though he allows the question to be difficult, seems to be of a contrary opinion. 1st, because the Sadducees taught and prayed in the a In what sense the Sadducees denied the existence of angels, temple, where the prophets, and other holy writers, were read, it is difficult to determine, since they certainly acknowledged the as appears from the example of Christ, who explained a passage authority of the Pentateuch. Some pretend, that they accounted out of Isaiah. 2dly, because Josephus, who ought to have been the invention of angels but a novel thing, and that their very well acquainted with the principles of this sect, relates of them, name was never heard of, until the return from the captivity, (b. vi. c. 9,) that they received what was written. and therefore they rejected them; whilst others suppose, that because the Pharisees, in their disputes with them about the they looked upon them as the inseparable powers of God, which, doctrine of the resurrection, quote, not only the writings of like the rays of the sun, without being parted from that planet, Moses, but those of the prophets likewise, and other hagiograshine and shed their influence here below. But now, consider- phers, whose authority the others do not deny, but only endeaing that the Sadducees received the five books of Moses, they vour to elude the force of the passages that are thence produced could hardly entertain any such notions as these. As therein against them. Upon the whole, therefore, Scaliger (Elench. they read of frequent apparitions of angels, they could not fancy Trihær. c. 16.) is of opinion, that these Sadducees did not absothem a new invention of the Rabbins that returned from the cap-lutely reject all the sacred writings, but rather looked upon them tivity. As they saw in these books, that they properly came down from heaven upon earth, they could not imagine that they were beings inseparable from the Deity; and therefore we may suppose, that they rather looked upon them only as so many phantasms; and that, as the bodies, which these angels put on, had perhaps only the appearance of human bodies, the same notion they might have of the spirits which animated them: because every thing, except God, in their opinion, was material.-Basnage's History of the Jews, b. ii. c. 6. [Mr Taylor, in his supplements to Calmet, remarks, that it is more likely when the Sadducees are charged with denying the existence of angels, we misapply the term; intending by it celestial angels, whereas they meant it of disembodied human spirits. If this were the case, it easily accounts for the reception of the Pentateuch.]-ED..

as books composed by holy men, whose memoirs they reverenced, though they could not believe them of the like authority with the law of Moses, which to them was the only rule of faith. But notwithstanding this, "the account which is given us in the gospel," says the learned Prideaux, "of the disputation which Christ had with the Sadducees, plainly proves the contrary. For seeing there are so many texts in the prophets and hagiographa, which plainly and directly prove a future state, and the resurrection from the dead, no other reason can be given why Christ waved all these proofs, and drew his argument, only by consequence, from what is said in the law, but that he knew, that the Sadducees, had rejected the prophets and the hagiographa, and therefore would admit of no arguments, but from the law only."-Anno 107.