pressed men into their service), and it is still retained in the East. These proclamations were made at the gates of the cities, and in Jerusalem at the gate of the temple, where there was always a great concourse of people. On this account it was that the prophets frequently delivered their predictions in the temple (and also in the streets and at the gates) of Jerusalem, as being the edicts of Jehovah, the supreme King of Israel. (Jer. vii. 2, 3. xi. 6. xvii. 19, 20. xxxvi. 10.) In later times, both Jesus Christ and his apostles taught in and at the gate of the temple. (Luke ii. 46. Matt. xxvi. 55. Mark xii. 35. Acts iii. 11. v. 12.)

X. The kingdom which had been founded by Saul, and carried to its highest pitch of grandeur and power by David and Solomon, subsisted entire for the space of 120 years; until Rehoboam, the son and successor of Solomon, refused to mitigate the burthens of his subjects, when a division of the twelve tribes took place: ten of these (of which Ephraim was the principal) adhered to Jeroboam, and formed the kingdom of Israel, while the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, continuing faithful in their allegiance to Rehoboam, constituted the kingdom of Judah. The causes of this revolution in the commencement of Rehoboam's reign, may, as in all similar commotions, be traced to anterior events: the impolicy of that monarch was only the immediate occasion of it; and in the successive periods of the history of the Hebrews, we may discern vestiges of hereditary jealousy, which terminated only in the division of the posterity of Abraham into two distinct nations, one of whom has since disappeared. The limits necessarily assigned to this portion of our work will only allow us to attempt a rapid sketch of this long series of discord and hatred.

From the very beginning of the Israelitish nation, the two tribes of Judah and Ephraim had disputed for the pre-eminency. The former, whose glory had been predicted by the dying patriarch Jacob (Gen. xlix. 10.), flourished in the number of its families, as well as by its power and wealth; being allied to the blood of the Pharaohs during the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, where the two remarkable establishments of Er and of Jokim had been formed, which this tribe carried into Palestine. (1 Chron. v. 2. iv. 18.) Judah also marched first during the sojourning in the desert (Num. x. 14.), and reckoned upon a dominion which had been promised by so many oracles. The latter, or tribe of Ephraim, depending on the great name of Joseph, and on the right of primogenture which it had acquired in consequence of being adopted by Jacob (1 Chron. v. 2. Gen. xlviii. 5. 19.), confided in that numerous posterity which had been predicted to it; became powerful during the residence in Egypt, as is evident from the buildings erected by Sherah (1 Chron. vii. 24.); and afterwards rapidly increased in strength and prosperity. (Josh. xvii. 14. Judg. i. 35.) One very remarkable proof, that Ephraim and Judah were the two preponderating tribes, is, that when the land of Canaan was divided (Josh. xviii. 2.), they each received their allotments before the western tribes. As the southern part of the Holy Land, which was apportioned to Judah, proved too large for that tribe, the Simeonites were added to them. (Josh. xix. 1.9.) The Ephraimites, on the contrary, and the half tribe of Manasseh, which were sister and neighbouring tribes, pleaded that their allotment was not sufficiently extensive for them; and enlarged it by force of arms, and by cutting down the forests which abounded in the mountainous districts of the land of Canaan. (Josh. xvii. 14-18.)

[PART

in the triumphal hymn of Deborah, in which so many others are mentioned; and (what is particularly deserving of atten tion) it took no part in the exploits of Gideon, although the enemies whom he was going to fight had made incursions as far as Gaza (Judg. vi. 4.), whither they could not have pene trated without entering on its territory. It was the men of Judah, also, who were desirous of delivering up Samson, a Danite, to the Philistines. (xv. 11.) This old grudge subsisted in all its force, when the elevation of Saul, a Benjamite, to the throne of Israel, still further chagrined the proud. manifested in the assembly of the Israelites at Mizpeth, tribe of Ephraim: it is not improbable that the discontent which induced Samuel to renew the kingdom at Gilgal (1 Sam. x. 27. xi. 12-14.), was excited by the Ephraimites; and at the very commencement of Saul's reign we observe census, in which the troops of Judah are reckoned separately from those of Israel. (18.) At length, the elevation of David completed the mortification of the jealous and envious tribe of Ephraim, and of the northern tribes which ordinarily fol lowed the fortune of so powerful a neighbour; while Simeon and Benjamin, from necessity as well as choice, were more disposed in favour of Judah. Hence David, during the whole of his long-continued flight from Saul, never quitted the ter ritory of Judah and Benjamin, but when he took refuge in a foreign country; and he sent presents only to the cities of his own tribe. (1 Sam. xxx. 26.) On the death of Saul, two thrones arose in Israel; which gave rise to a civil war, that lasted seven years; and, had it not been for the defection of Abner, and the timidity of Ishbosheth, the tribes might never have been united under one sceptre. (2 Sam. ii. 10. iii. 1. (iii. 39.) The choice of Jerusalem for his capital and for the 9-12. v. 5.) David himself felt the weakness of his power. centre of worship, to the exclusion of Shiloh, a town of Ephraim, where the tabernacle and ark had formerly been kept (Josh. xviii. 1.), could not but displease the malecontents, whose pride was wounded by hearing that advantage celebrated in one of the sacred hymns. (Psal. lxxviii. 67, 68.) During David's reign, the dispute at the passage of the river Jordan showed how a small spark kindled a flame (2 Sam. xix. 41.), which Sheba, retiring towards the north, was at hand to excite. (xx. 1.)

tuary, which secured the supremacy of the tribe of Judah,
Finally, the erection of the temple, the immoveable sane-
the taxes levied and personal services required by Solomon,
who employed them for the most part in the embellishment
of Jerusalem, the little commercial advantage which
Ephraim could derive during his reign, in comparison of Ju-
dah, which tribe was more commodiously situated for profit-
ing by the transit of commodities between Egypt, Idumæa,
and Arabia,-the intrigues of Jeroboam, who had been im
prudently nominated to the command of the house of Joseph
(2 Kings xi. 26. 28.);-all these circumstances contributed
secretly to mature that revolution, which only awaited his
death to break forth, and which the folly of Rehoboam ren-
dered inevitable.

reigns during a period of 254 years, according to some
The KINGDOM OF ISRAEL subsisted under various sove-
chronologers; its metropolis Samaria being captured by
Shalmaneser king of Assyria, B. c. 721, after a siege of three
years. Of the Israelites, whose numbers had been reduced
by immense and repeated slaughters, some of the lower sort
were suffered to remain in their native country; but the
captivity beyond the Euphrates.3
nobles and all the more opulent persons were carried into

its capital being taken, the temple burnt, and its sovereign
The KINGDOM OF JUDAH continued 388 years; Jerusalem
Zedekiah being carried captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnez-
zar; the rest of his subjects (with the exception of the poorer
classes who were left in Judæa) were likewise carried into
captivity beyond the Euphrates, where they and their pos-

In this state of things, with such recollections and mutual pretensions, it was impossible that a spirit of rivalry and jealousy should not break forth. The tribe of Ephraim was distinguished for its proud, turbulent, and warlike spirit, as is evident not only from the remonstrances addressed by them to Joshua, but also by their discontented murmuring against Gideon, notwithstanding he was of the tribe of Manasseh (Judg. viii. 1.), and in the civil war with Jephthah, in which their envy and hatred were so severely punished. (xii. 1-4.) The tribe of Judah, on the contrary, more pacific in its tem-that the descendants of the ten tribes did afterwards return into their own It was the belief of some of the ancient fathers of the Christian church, per and more sedentary in its pursuits, appears always to neither of these opinions is supported by history. In the New Testament, have cherished a coolness towards the northern tribes. It indeed, we find mention of the twelve tribes (Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30. country: and the same notion has obtained among some modern Jews, but never assisted them in their wars; its name does not occur Acts xxvi. 7.); and St. James (i. 1.) directs his epistle to them; but it cannot 1 Xenoph. Cyr. lib. viii. 6. 17. Herod. viii. 98. Bloomfield's Annotations together; all that can be inferred from them is, that they were still in on the New Testament, vol. i. p. 66. Robinson's Lexicon, voce Ayyapsvw, being. Perhaps the whole body of the Jewish nation retained the name be concluded from these passages, that they were at that time gathered Among the Turks, these Angari or couriers are called Tatars; and in of the twelve tribes according to the ancient division; as we find the disPersia, Chappars. "When a chappar sets out, the master of the horse ciples called the twelve after the death of Judas, and before the election furnishes him with a single horse: and when that is weary, he dismounts of Matthias. This conjecture becomes the more probable, as it is certain the first man he meets, and takes his horse. There is no pardon for a tra- from the testimony of the sacred writers and of Josephus, that there were veller that should refuse to let a chappar have his horse, nor for any other considerable numbers of Israelites mingled with the Jews, sufficient indeed who should deny him the best horse in his stable." Chardin's Travels, to authorize the former to speak of the twelve tribes as constituting but vol. i. p. 257. (Bishop Watson's Tracts, vol. iii. pp. 114-116.) one body with the Jewish nation. Beausobre's Introd. to the New Test

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.

Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, might have been regarded as their princes, in the same manner as Jozadak and Joshua were as their high-priests. At the same time it cannot be denied that their humiliation, as a people punished by their God, was always extremely painful, and frequently drew on them expressions of contempt. The peculiarities of their religion afforded many opportunities for the ridicule and scorn of the Babylonians and Chaldæans, a striking example of which is given in the profanation of the sacred vessels of the temple. (Dan. v.) By such insults they were made to feel so much the more sensibly the loss of their homes, their gardens, and fruitful fields; the burning of their capital and temple; and the cessation of the public solemnities of their religion. Under such circumstances, it is not strange that an inspired minstrel breaks out into severe imprecations against the scornful foes of his nation. (Psal. cxxxvii. 8, 9.)

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 preferred in point of rank to all the kings who were then at Babylon, either as hostages, or for the purpose of paying homage to the Chaldæan monarch. He was treated as the first of the kings; he ate at the table of his conqueror, and received an annual allowance, corresponding to his royal rank. These circumstances of honour must have reflected a degree of dignity on all the exiles, sufficient to prevent their being ill-treated or despised. They were probably viewed as respectable colonists, enjoying the peculiar protection of the sovereign. In the respect paid to Jehoiachin, his son Shealiel and his grandson Zerubbabel undoubtedly partook. If that story of the discussion before Darius, in which Zerubbabel is said to have won the prize, be a mere fiction, still it is at least probable that the young prince, though he held no office, had free access to the court; privilege which must have afforded him many opportunities of alleviating the unhappy circumstances of his countrymen. It is therefore not at all surprising, that, when Cyrus gave the Hebrews permission to return to their own country, many, and perhaps even a majority of the nation, chose to remain behind, believing that they were more pleasantly situated where they were, than they would be in Judæa. It is not improbable that the exiles (as is implied in the story of Susanna, and as the tradition of the Jews affirms) had magistrates and a

"If the Israelites were ill-treated in Assyria after the overthrow of Sennacherib in Judæa, as the book of Tobit intimates, this calamity was of short duration; for Sennacherib was soon after assassinated. The Israelites of Media appear to have been in a much better condition, since Tobit advised his son to remove thither. (Tobit xiv. 4. 12, 13.) This is the more probable, as the religion of the Medes was not grossly idolatrous, and bore considerable resemblance to that 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 JuUnder the able conduct of Judas, on account of his heroic dæa, and carried into captivity Hyrcanus the high-priest and exploits surnamed Maccabæus, (27D маKaвI the Hammerer)2 Phasael the brother of Herod; the latter fled to Rome, where the son of Mattathias, surnamed Asmon (from whom is de- Mark Antony, with the consent of the senate, conferred on rived the appellation Asmonæans, borne by the princes de- him the title of king of Judæa. By the aid of the Roman scended from him), and his valiant brothers, the Jews main-arms Herod kept possession of his dignity; and after three

11 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 Que Romanus), were on the Roman ensigns. Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chro nology, vol. i. p 599.

years of sanguinary and intestine war with the partisans of
Antigonus, he was confirmed in his kingdom by Augustus.4
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.) 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 table will, perhaps, be found useful in distinguishing the particular persons of this family, whose names occur in the evangelical histories.

tion.

"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 sum of money, persuaded Antony to put him to death. Herod's great fear was, that Antigonus might tobulas, brother of his wife Mariamne, was murdered by his directions at some time revive his pretensions, as being of the Asmonæan family. Ariseighteen 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 prosecated 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 Mariamne, 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 ebeyed, 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 Judea 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, 'the history of this his most wicked design takes off all objection against the truth of murdering the innocents, which may be made from the incredibilty of so barbarous and horrid an act. For this thoroughly shows, that there can nothing be imagined so cruel, barbarous, and horrid, which this men 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. Asi. c. 7, 8. 11, 12. lib. xvii. c. 6. Lardner's Credibility, part i. book ii. c.

251

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 sublects, who considered him as a king; hence the evangelist, in conformity with the Jewish idiom, says that he reigned. ciously: for, after the death of Herod, and before Archelaus (Matt. ii. 22.) His reign, however, commenced inauspiwill, the Jews having become very tumultuous at the temple could go to Rome to obtain the confirmation of his father's in consequence of his refusing them some demands, Archelaus ordered his soldiers to attack them; on which occasion upwards of three thousand were slain.3 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 (wyers, a man of birth or rank, the son of Herod), went into a far country (Italy), to receive for himself a kingdom (that of Juand sent a message (or embassy) after him (to Augustus dæa) and to return. But his citizens (the Jews) hated him 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.

sons, received from his father the district of Galilee and 3. HEROD ANTIPAS (or Antipater), another of Herod's

Judæa on their return from Egypt; and induced them by the divine admo-
This circumstance probably deterred the Holy Family from settling in
nition to return to their former residence at Nazareth in Galilee. (Matt. ii.
22, 23.) Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. p. 717.

vol. i. p. 294.
Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 9. § 3. c. 11. Harwood's Introduction,

There is an impressive application of this parable in Mr. Jones's Lec-
(Works, vol. iii. pp. 35, 36.)
tures on the figurative Language of Scripture, lect. v. near the beginning
Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 11. (al. xii.) § 2. c. 13. (al. xiv.)

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: 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