way of living, and, being imitated by others, might give the first occasion to monkery among Christians.

We have no guide, to enable us to discover the origin of this sect. Pliny, indeed, saith, though we know not upon what authority, that it had subsisted for several thousand years*. The most probable opinion is, that it begun a little before the time of the Maccabees, when the faithful Jews were forced to fly from the cruel persecution of their enemies into deserts and caves; and by living in those retreats many of them being habituated to retirement, which thereby became most agreeable to them, they chose to continue it, even when they might have appeared upon the public stage again, and accordingly formed themselves into recluses. As to the numbers of which this sect consisted, Philo and Josephus agree, that in Judea there were about four thousand; but in Egypt Philo makes the number of them to be much larger+.

The absolute silence of the evangelical history concerning the Essenes is by some accounted for from their eremetic 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 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 they are not expressly mentioned in any of the sacred books, it is supposed, and not without reason, that they are referred to by St. Paul in the second chapter of his epistle to the Colossians; "Let no man," saith he, “beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind: which things have indeed a show of wisdom, in will-worship and humility, and neglecting of the body," Coloss. ii, 18, 23. What is here said of a voluntary humility, and neglecting the body, is in a peculiar manner applicable to the Essenes; and by Josephus it appears, that they had something peculiar among them re

* Plin. Histor. Natur. lib. v, cap. xvii.

+ Philo in Tractat. quod omnis probus liber, Oper. p. 678, C; et de Vitâ Contemplativâ, p. 690, E; Joseph. Antiq. lib. xviii, cap. i, sect. v.

any

lating to the angels; for he saith, "that when they received into their number, they 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 said 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 abstraction and elevation, as to be able to dive into the nature of angels, and assign them proper names, or rightly interpret those already given them; and likewise to pry into futurity and foretel things to comet. Upon which it is highly probable," they were vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind." Moreover the dogmata to which St. Paul refers in the following words, "Touch not, taste not, handle not," ver. 21, are such as the Essenes held; who would not taste any pleasant food, but lived upon coarse bread, and drank nothing but water; and some of them would not taste any food at all till after sun-set§; and who, if they were touched by any that were not of their own sect, would wash themselves, as after some great pollution. Perhaps there might be a sodality of Essenes at Colosse, as there were in many other places out of Judea; and that some of the Christians, 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 against them¶.

*Joseph. de Bello Judaic. lib. ii, cap. viii, sect. vii, sub fin. p. 163. + Joseph. de Bello Judaic. lib. ii, cap. viii, sect. xii, p. 165. Philo de Vitâ Contemplativâ, p. 692, B, p. 696, D.

§ Philo, ubi supra, p. 692, A.

Joseph. ubi supra, sect. x, p. 164.

¶ Concerning the Essenes, besides the references above, see Serarii Trihæresis, Drusius de Tribus Sectis Judæor; Scaliger's Elenchus Trihæres. Serarii; Clerici Prolegom. ad Histor. Eccles. sect. i, cap. iv, v, p. 16—29; and Basnage's History of the Jews, book ii, chap. xii, xiii.

CHAP. XIII.

OF THE GAULONITES AND HERODIANS.

THE Gaulonites were not a religious sect, but a political faction, raised up and headed by Judas of Galilee, who is mentioned in the fifth chapter of the Acts, ver. 37. Josephus calls him Ιδας Γαυλανιτης in the first chapter of the eighteenth book of his Antiquities*; yet in the title, or contents of that chapter, and in the fifth chapter of the twentieth book, he is stiled Ιeδας το Γαλιλαιομ. Judas the Gaulonite, therefore, and Judas of Galilee were the same person; indifferently called by one or the other of those names, because Gaulona, his native country, which lay beyond Jordan, was otherwise called Galilee, or Galilee of the Gentiles, Matth. iv, 15, et alibi, to distinguish it from the other Galilee on this side Jordan.

This Judas, it seems, had raised and headed an insurrection against the Roman government, on occasion of the tax which Augustus levied on Judea, when he reduced it into the form of a Roman province. This party was soon suppressed, and we read no more of it in the New Tetament; unless, perhaps, as Godwin conjectures, those persons were some of this faction, otherwise called Galileans, whom Pilate slew as they were performing the sacred rites at the altar, and thereby mingled their blood with their sacrifices, Luke xiii, 1.

As for the Herodians, they are passed over in silence both by Josephus and Philo, and only kown by being mentioned in three passages of the New Testament history. We find them combined with the Pharisees in endeavouring to entangle our Saviour with that ensnaring question, "Whether it was lawful to give tribute to Cæsar," Matth. xxii, 16, 17. We read of the Pharisees taking counsel with the Herodians against † Sect. ii, p. 965.

* Sect. i, p. 869, edit. Haverc. Joseph. de Bello Judaic. lib. ii, cap. viii, sect. i, p. 160; Antiq. lib. xvii, cap. ult. sect. ult. et lib. xviii, cap. i, sect. i, p. 867, 869, 870.

Jesus, how they might destroy him, Mark iii, 6; and we hear our Lord charging his disciples to take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of Herod; which is commonly understood of the sect of the Herodians, who derived their name from Herod, Mark viii, 15. This account of the Herodians is so concise, that it hath left room for almost numberless conjectures concerning them.

Some make them to be a political party, others a religious sect. The first opinion is favoured by the Syriac version, which everywhere stiles the Herodians, the domestics of Herod; and it is alleged, that the author of this version, as he was nearly contemporary with them, had the best means of knowing who they were. It is likewise argued, that they could not be a religious sect, because Josephus, who professedly gives an account of the several religious sects of the Jews, neither on that occasion nor on any other makes any mention of the Herodians. On the other hand, in favour of the opinion that they were a religious sect, it is pleaded, that our Saviour's cautioning his disciples against the leaven of Herod, implies, that the Herodians were distinguished from the other Jews by some doctrinal tenets, leaven being explained by our Saviour himself to signify doctrine, see Matt. xvi, 6, 12.

It is probable the truth lies betwixt these two opinions, or rather comprehends them both.

The notion, that the Herodians were a set of people who held Herod to be the Messiah, which is espoused by Tertullian*, Epiphanius †, Jerome +, Chrysostom §, and Theophylact|| among the ancients, and by Grotius¶, as well as others, of the moderns, is without sufficient foundation, and highly improbable; whether we understand it to be meant of

* Tertullian. de Præscriptione Hæreticor. cap. xlv, sub fin. Oper. p. 219, B. edit. Rigalt. Paris, 1675.

+ Epiphan. adversus Hæreses, Hæres. xx, sect. i, p. 45, edit. Petav. Colon. 1682.

Hieron. contra Luciferianos, cap. xvi, though in his Comment, on Matt. xxii, 15, 16, he rejects this opinion.

§ Chrysost. in Marc. xii, 13.

Theophylact. in Matt. xxii, 16, p. 131, Paris, 1635.

¶ Grotius de Veritate Christian. Relig. lib. v, sect. xiv, sub fin. in not. et apud annot. in Matt. xvi, 6.

Herod the Great, who died soon after our Saviour was born; or of Herod Antipas, who reigned at the time of his personal ministry; since neither of them were native Israelites, and it cannot well be supposed, that any Jews were so ignorant as to take a foreigner for the Messiah, who had been so expressly promised them to be raised up among themselves, of the tribe of Judah, and of the house of David. Besides, supposing any of them had been so stupid as to apprehend the first Herod to be the Messiah, no doubt his death, to say nothing of his wicked and odious administration, would long since have convinced them of their mistake; since he had been very far from accomplishing the deliverance of Israel from all oppression, which they expected from the Messiah. And as for the second Herod, his dominions were small, and his power little, in comparison with the former; Judea now being reduced into the form of a Roman province; so that he was little more than the procurator of Galilee, with the title only of king. It is therefore utterly inconceivable, that any should take him for the Messiah.

The most probable opinion concerning the Herodians seems to be that of Dr. Prideaux*, that they derived their name from Herod the Great, and were distinguished from the Pharisees and other Jews, by their falling in with Herod's scheme of subjecting himself and his dominions to the Romans, and likewise by complying with many of their heathen usages and customs. In their zeal for the Roman authority they were diametrically opposite to the Pharisees, who esteemed it unlawful to submit, or pay taxes, to the Roman emperor; an opinion, which they grounded on their being forbidden by the law to set a stranger over them, who was not one of their own nation, as their king. The conjunction of the Herodians, therefore, with the Pharisees against Christ is a memorable proof of the keenness of their resentment and malice against him; especially, when we consider that they united together in proposing to him an ensnaring question on a subject which was the ground of their mutual dissention; namely, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar; and provided he answered in the negative, the Herodians would accuse him of treason against the state; and should he reply in the affirmaPrideaux's Connect. part ii, book v, sub fin.