cubits lower than Solomon's (1). When he acquainted the Jews with his design, they were alarmed at it, thinking that it would be both difficult and dangerous to put fuch a thing in execution, and moreover judging it unlawful to meddle with a temple which God had restored to them in fo wonderful a manner. Befides, they were afraid that the divine fervice would have been interrupted for a confiderable time, while this new temple was a building. But Herod removed their fears, by affuring them that the old temple, fhould remain untouched, till all the materials of the new one were got ready. And accordingly it appears from history, that the divine fervice was performed all the time the new one was building, or rather the old one repairing. Jofephus observes (m), that Herod" durft not prefume to enter into the holy place himself be"cause not being a priest, he stood prohibited by the law; but that he "committed the care of this part of the work to the priests themselves:" from whence it plainly appears, that place was not pulled down, but only fome alterations made in it. The fame is further evident from the gospel (n) wherein it is faid, that Jofeph and Mary went to Jerufalem every year at the feaft of the paffover, which was celebrated in the temple, and that they went thither with Jefus Chrift, according to custom (0). Had there been any interruption in that matter, the Evangelift could not have used that expreffion. And therefore the Jews never make mention of any more than two temples, looking upon Herod's, only as Zerubbabel's repaired, though it might justly have been reckoned a new temple, both upon the account of the magnificent buildings he added to it, and the rich materials he ufed, which whilft the difciples of Jefus Chrift were once admiring (0), he took an occafion from thence of foretelling the ruin of that temple. This magnificence the prophet Haggai (p) had an eye to, when he declared that the glory of this latter houfe was to be greater than that of the former. But, notwithstanding all the beauty and fumptuoufnefs of Herod's temple, this prophecy was not fulfilled but by Jefus Chrift's coming into it; He, who was the true temple of God, and of whom that of ferufalem was no more than a very imperfect figure, as St. Paul (q) and Jefus Chrift himself (r) do intimate. How noble foever the defcriptions are (s) which the Jews have given us of Herod's temple, yet they unanimoully agree (1) that there were feveral things wanting in it, as well as in that of Zerubbabel, which were the chief glory of the firft temple; that is, the Ark of the covenant, wherein were put the two tables of the law, with the pot of manna, and Aaron's rod that budded; the Urim and Thummim; the cloud, or Shecinak, which was a token of the divine Prefence; the fpirit of prophecy; and the holy anointing oil. Of all these there were but faint reprefentations, and imperfect copies in the fecond temple, as is owned by the Rabbins themselves. And therefore Haggai's prophecy was applied to the Meffiah by the ancient Jewish doctors (u), who fay, that the glory of the fecond temple (m) Id. ibid. (1) Jof, Antiq. 1. xv. c. 14. (2) Luke ii. 41, 42. (p) Hag, ii. 9. (4) Colof. ii. 9. (r) John ii. 21. (s) Jof, Antiq. Jud, 1, xv. c. 14、 (t) Thalmud. ap. Lightfoot, Tom. ii. Opp. p. 275(z) Aben-Efra ap. Deyling Obf. facr. Part. iii. Obf. 20. For outwardly temple confifted in this, that it was honoured with the Meffiah's prefence. Jofephus tells us (x), that Herod fet about this work in the eighteenth year of his reign; and finished it in the space of nine years and a half. Which muft neceffarily be understood of the walls and main body of the building, and not of all its parts and ornaments, fince the fame hiftorian relates in another place, that it was not quite finished till the time of Agrippa the Younger, the grandfon of Herod, that is about fixty years after the birth of Jefus Chrift. We have no reason therefore to be surprised at what the Jews told JESUS CHRIST (y), that this temple was forty and fix years in building, fince if we reckon from the eighteenth year of the reign of Herod, [when he undertook to rebuild the temple,] to the thirtieth year of Jefus Chrift, [in which this dispute happened between him and the Jews] we fhall find just forty-fix years. It is more natural to put this fenfe upon the words of the Jews, 9 din than, as others have done, to compute thofe forty-fix years from th the order given by Cyrus for rebuilding the temple, to the finishing of it; because by this laft calculation thofe years cannot well be made out. Jofephus relates that the people were overjoyed to fee the work compleated, and that they offered numberlefs facrifices upon that occasion. How great a fhew foever there might be of religion in this undertaking, yet it could by no means make amends for the miferies which that unhappy people fuffered from the impieties, and above all from the cruelties of Herod. If he built a temple in honour of the true God, he erected several, on the other hand, to falfe deities, in order to ingratiate himself with Auguftus and the Romans (z). But his prevailing character was an extreme inhumanity, and the most enormous cruelty. Though Jofephus hath extolled, as much as poffible, the good qualities of Herod, yet he could not conceal his crimes and vices, and above all his horrid cruelty. He imbrued his hands in the blood of his wife, of his children, and of the greatest part of his family: Of so restless and jealous a temper was he, that he fpared neither his people, nor the richest and most powerful of his fubjects, nor even his very friends (a). He was naturally fo fufpicious, that he put the innocent to the torture for fear the guilty fhould escape (b). It is juftly wondered at that Jofephus fhould make no mention of the flaughter of the infants at Bethlehem (c), which was done by Herod's order, not long after our Saviour's birth. To account for this omiffion, fome learned men have imagined, that this mafacre having been done privately from houfe to house by a few foldiers, it made no great noife, or else was not fet to Herod's account (d). But it is most probable that Jofephus knew nothing of it, fince he found it not in the memoirs of Nicolaus Damafcenus, an historian of those times; whom he himself charges with having palliated and dif (x) Jof. Antiq. 1. xv. c. 14. (z) Jofeph. Ant. l. xv. c. 12, 13. (y) John ii. 20. () Matth. ii, 16. (a) Jof. Ant. 1. xi. cap. 11. & de Bell, Jud. 1. i. p. 17. (6) Id. ibid. p. 19: (d) Lami Harm, Evang. p. 54. guised quifed the most notorious and extravagant cruelties of Herod (e). It feems however not to have been unknown to a heathen author (ƒ), who fpeaks of it (though confufedly,) in the following manner: "Auguftus "having been informed, that among fome children, which Herod had ordered "to be killed in Syria, (he fhould have said Judea) he did not spare one of “bis oron fons, faid, That it was much better to be Herod's wine, than his fon," alluding to the Jewith cuttom of not eating fwine's flesh. However this be, as Herod was a Jew, he could not be the author of fo barbarous a cruelty without making himself guilty of the utmost impiety, fince he did it with a defign to cut off the Meffiah, being fully fatisfied by the answer which he received from the chief priests and elders (g), that the new-born infant was the promifed Chrift. His end, and a very difmal one, being a vifible punishment of his wickedness, clofely followed this horrid butchery. He died as he had lived, contriving nothing but mifchief, and framing the most bloody and inhuman defigns (b). His death was looked upon as a very happy deliverance, and the tidings of it received with the utmost joy and fatiffaction; which that vile monfter well foreseeing, he had ordered all the chief men of the city to be barbarously murdered before he died, that there might be a general mourning at his death (i). A fewish doctor, supposed to be pretty ancient, affirms that the day of his death was kept by the Jews, as a feftival (k). The learned are not agreed about the year of his death; but thus much is certain, that he died 34 years after the expulfion of Antigonus, and in the 37th year from his being declared king of the Jews by the Romans (1). We fhall have occafion to examine this more particularly hereafter, when we come to treat of the chronology of the New Teftament. of Herod. After having spoken of Herod the Great, it is proper Of the pofterity that we fhould next give an account of his fons and grandfons, as far as is requifite for the understanding the New Teftament. We find three of his fons mentioned there, between whom, by his laft will and teftament, he divided his dominions; viz. ARCHELAUS, to whom he gave the kingdom of Judea, together with Idumæa, and Samaria; HEROD Antipas, or Antipater, whom he appointed Tetrarch or governor of Galilee and Perea; and PHILIP, whom he made likewife Tetrarch of Ituraa, Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and fome other countries. It was neceflary that Herod's will thould be ratified by Auguftus Cafar, and it was accordingly done, excepting this, that he would (e) Jof. Ant. 1. xvi. p. 11. (g) Matt. ii. 4, 5, 6. (f) Macrob. Saturn. ii. 4. (6) Jof. Ant. L. xvii. cap. 8. He was parched up with a faint, in:vard fever, that almost burnt his heart out, and yet fcarce fenfible to the touch. He was tormented with an infatiable appetite, ulcers and cholicks in his bowels; phleg matick tumors in his feet and groin; afthmas, cramps; &c, (i) Id. ibid. (k) Megillath Taanith ap. Uffer. Ann. p. 535. Lami Appar. Chron. would not bestow upon Archelaus the title of king, but only that of Ethnarch, that is, prince or chief of the nation (m). This name, which had been given before to fome of the high-priefts, (as to Hyrcanus for (n) inftance,) feems to denote a dignity fuperior to that of a Tetrarch, but inferior to that of a king, fince Auguftus, refufing to confer this latter title upon Archelaus, was however willing to diftinguish him from his brothers by that of Ethnarch. The learned are not agreed about the meaning of the word Tetrarch. But it may be inferred from what hath been just now faid, that it was reckoned lefs honourable than the name of king or prince. In its primary and original fignification it implies a governor of a fourth part of the country, and this feems to have been the first meaning that was affixed to it (o). But it was afterwards given to the governors of a province, whether their government was the fourth part of a country, or not; as it happened in the cafe now before us, for Herod divided his kingdom only into three parts. However, the Tetrarchs were looked upon as princes, and fometimes complimented even with the name of kings (p), but this was a mifapplying of the word. Archelaus was acknowledged king by the people with vast expreffions of joy; but though he had declared that he would not ufurp that title, without the emperor's confent, yet he foon acted like a king, or rather a tyrant, that is, in a very absolute and arbitrary manner. Auguftus had promised him the kingly power, whenever he fhould make himfelf worthy of that honour (q); but he, instead of endeavouring to gain the favour of his fovereign, and the good-will of his fubjects, exercifed in the very begining of his reign fuch cruelties towards them, that, not being able to bear his unjust and barbarous dealings, they complained of him to Auguftus. It was undoubtedly upon the account of the tyrannical temper of this prince, that Jofeph and Mary, when they came back from Egypt, and heard that he reigned in Judea, in the room of his father Herod, were afraid to go thither: and therefore came and dwelt in a city of Galilee called Nazareth (r), which was under the jurifdiction of Antipas, a good and mild governour. We cannot exactly tell whether this return of Jofeph and Mary happened before, or after, Archelaus's journey to Rome to have his father's will confirmed. However, when he came back to ferufalem, he acted in as tyrannical a manner as ever, fo that the chief men of the Jews and Samaritans joined in fuch grievous complaints against him, that Cafar banished him to Vienne, a city in Gaul, where he died (s). From that time Judea was made a province of the Roman empire, and as well as Samaria and Idumaa, governed by Roman magi ftrates, which had the name of Procurators, the first of whom was Caponius of the equeftrian order (t). These Procurators depended upon the prefident of Syria, to which Judea and Samaria alfo were annexed, after Auguftus had reduced them into provinces. Quirinus, a Roman fenator, was then governor of Syria, and he it was who with the affiftance of Caponius (m) Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xvii. p. 13. (n) Id. Antiq. 1. xiv. p. 22. Caponius put the emperor's commands in execution, by thus reducing, Judea and Samaria into provinces. This is the fame Quirinus whom St. Luke and Jofephus (u) call Cyrenius, who by Cafar's order, made a taxing in Judea and Syria. JOSEPHUS mentions only this last taxing. But it is unquestionably manifeft from St. Luke, that there was another ten years before, that is, at the time of our Saviour's birth (x). It is therefore to diftinguish this first taxing from the fecond, that the Evangelift fays, that this, which happened at the birth of our Saviour, was made before that of Quirinus, which the fame divine author makes alfo mention of in the Acts of the apostles (y). It is true that St. Luke's words are obscure and ambiguous, for one would think at firft fight that they fhould be rendered, This first taxing was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria (z). But this tranflation of them cannot be reconciled with the hiftory of thofe times; for it appears that, at the time of our Saviour's nativity, it was either Sentius Saturninus or Quintilius Varus, that was prefident of Syria, and not Quirinus (a). It may however be fuppofed, that, as it happened fometimes, Quirinus was fent by the emperor into Syria with an extraordinary commillion to make his first taxing, and was perhaps invefted with the title of governor or procurator, thefe two names being often promifcuously used by facred and profane writers (b). But, in fhort, there is no occafion of having recourfe to this fuppofition, if we do but render the words of S. Luke thus, This taxing was made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria. The original will admit of this fenfe, as well as the other, and therefore we have followed it in our tranflation after feveral learned criticks (c). Quirinus's taxing had made fo much noife, and the memory of it was fo fresh in men's minds, when St. Luke wrote his gofpel, that he had reason to suppose it had caused the other to be forgotten, fince it had been, in all likelihood, lefs taken notice of, as being no more than a bare enrolling of the citizens names, without taking an estimate of their eftates, as was done by Quirinus; therefore the Evangelift thought fit to diftinguish them one from another. For it is to be obferved, that when JESUS CHRIST was born, Judea was not the tributary to the Romans, as it had been before in the time of Pompey, because Auguftus had given it to Herod; but, when after the banishment of Archelaus, it was again reduced into a province, it became of courfe tributary to the Roman empire, and accordingly an eftimation of it was made in order to fettle and regulate the taxes and tribute. The reason why Jofephus doth not fpeak of the first taxing mentioned (*) Luke ii. 2. Jofeph. Antiq. 1. xviii. p. 1. For an account of the nature of the Procurator's office, fee Bifhop Pearfon on the Creed, upon these words, Under Pontius Pilate. (x) Luke ii. 2. (y) Acts v. 37. (2) Αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγνεῖο ἡγεμονεύοδος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνία. (a) Tertull. adv. Marc. 1. iv. p. 19. (b) Lami Appar. cap. 10. fect. iii. (c) See Perizonius, Differtat. de Aug. Defcript. And Dr. Whitby, in his Comment on this place. |