and it was found that the whole amount of men, with the exception of the Levites, was 601,730, or about 1820 fewer than when they had been summed up thirty-nine years before and among

them were none found who were enrolled at that time, except Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua, the son of Nun.

II.

HAVING made such observations in our former paper as seemed necessary and appropriate to confirm the statement of the evangelist Matthew respecting Herod the great, we proceed, in the second place, to illustrate and establish what is said of Archelaus, one of his sons. Herod had nine wives, and by them many children: it devolves on us, however, to mention those whose names occur in Scripture only, and they are the following:-Archelaus and Herod Antipas, by Malthace; Philip, by Philip, by Cleopatra; and Herod, usually called Herod Philip, by Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest.

66

St. Matthew informs us, that Joseph having been sometime in Egypt, in obedience to Divine direction, arose, and took the young child, and his mother, and came into the land of Israel; but when he heard that Archelaus did reign in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned into the parts of Galilee." In these words it is implied, that Archelaus suceeded his father Herod on the throne of Judea, but that his power did not extend over all the land of Israel, and that he was a man rather to be feared than trusted by his subjects. Josephus informs us that Herod the great, by his last will and testament, which was made a little before his death, appointed Archelaus his successor, with the title of king; and assigned the rest of his dominions to Herod Antipas and Philip, except some very small part which he bestowed upon his sister Salome. As Palestine, in its whole extent, was tributary to Rome, it was necessary that the arrangement now mentioned should receive the ratification of the emperor. In reference to its

main features, this was readily granted. Accordingly Archelaus was decreed successor to his father in Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, with the title of ethnarch, but was not to have the title of king until he should do something to deserve it; Herod Antipas was appointed tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa; and Philip, of Trachonitis and the neighbouring countries.

If Joseph returned out of Egypt immediately after the death of Herod, we presume that no one will object to the evangelist's expression, that Archelaus reigned: his father had in his last will appointed him his successor with the title of king. If his return from Egypt is supposed not to have happened until after the decree of Augustus passed, by which Archelaus was forbidden to use the title of king, yet the term "reigned," used by St. Matthew, cannot fairly be found fault with; for Josephus calls Archelaus "king," after Augustus had confirmed the succession as well as before.

The sacred writer says, that, "when Joseph heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea, he was afraid to go thither." There must have been some particular reason for this fear, and for his "turning aside into the parts of Galilee," though Galilee was in the possession of one of Herod's sons. It is very naturally inferred hence, that Archelaus must have been a man of bad character, even in his father's lifetime. There are several facts recorded in Josephus that confirm such a supposition, one or two of which will suffice for our purpose. After the death of Herod the great, and before he could set out for Rome, to obtain from Augustus the confirmation of his father's last will, the Jews, on account of his not complying with some

to

He

requests which they had made, became very tumultuous at the temple. ordered his soldiers among them, who slew more than three thousand Jews. This was considered an act of cruelty which admitted of no justification, and as indicative of the temper of the man, since it was committed in the beginning of his reign, or rather before his reign had commenced; for until Augustus had consented his succession, many looked upon him as no more than a private person. Another fact which sustains Matthew in the representation he has given of this prince, is the following:-after he had left Judea, an embassy of fifty of the chief men of Jerusalem was sent to Rome, in the name of the whole nation, with a petition to Augustus, that they might be permitted to live according to their own laws under a Roman governor: and when they came to Rome they were joined by above eight thousand Jews who lived there. When the emperor gave Archelaus and this embassy audience, none of the royal family would attend Archelaus to support his interest; such was their aversion to him. Again, it is recorded in Josephus, that in the tenth year of his government, A. D. 6, or 7, the chief of the Jews and Samaritans not being able to endure his cruelty and tyranny, presented complaints against him to Cæsar, who, having heard both sides, banished Archelaus to Vienna in Gaul, and confiscated his treasury.

These facts recorded by the Jewish historian will, it is conceived, be considered amply corroborative of the statements of Matthew. He seems, indeed, to have been the worst of Herod's sons, except Antipater, whom Herod put to death five days before he himself expired. As the evangelists have said little concerning our Saviour after his return out of Egypt and settlement in Galilee, until the time of his public ministry, when the government of Judæa was in other hands, we find no further mention of Archelaus made by them.

III. Long after this, however, we have mention made of Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the great, by Malthace, and own brother to the ethnarch of Judæa. Luke writes, that, "when the word of God came to John in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Herod was

233

tetrarch of Galilee." Luke iii. 1. We have already seen that to this district of Palestine he was appointed tetrarch by his father's last will; here Luke asserts that he retained possession of his tetrarchy in the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius, upwards of thirty years after his entering upon it. All that we have to do is to endeavor to point out the truth of this declaration. This is abundantly attested by Josephus, particularly in the seventh chapter of the eighteen book of his antiquities, in which he says that Herod continued tetrarch of Galilee, till he was removed by Caligula, the successor to Tiberius. It was this Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, to whom our Saviour was sent by Pilate, Luke xxiii. 6, 7, when he was accused before him.

Concerning this Jewish prince there are two circumstances mentioned, namely, his marrying Herodias, and beheading John the Baptist, which require some attention. These events have been related by all the evangelists except John. We beg to present St. Mark's account. "For Herod had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison, for Herodias' sake his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her. For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife: therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him, but she could not. For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and a holy, and observed him; and when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee : and when the daughter of the said Herodias came in and danced, and pleased Herod, and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom." Mark vi. 17—23.

This unlawful marriage is recorded in Josephus. "About this time," he says, "a difference happened between Aretas, king of Petræa, and Herod, upon this occasion. Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas, and lived a considerable time with her. But in a journey he took to Rome, he made a visit to Herod [Philip] his brother, though not by the same mother, for Herod [Philip] was born of

Simon the high priest's daughter. Here, falling in love with Herodias, the wife of this Herod, daughter of their brother Aristobulus, he ventured to make her proposals of marriage. She approving of them, an agreement was entered into, that when he was returned from Rome, they should be married. One part of the contract was that Aretas' daughter should be divorced. Antiq. lib. 18, c. 5. Josephus afterwards speaks of this marriage, where he intimates that Herodias had a daughter by her first husband, whose name was Salome. No notice is taken by the Jewish historian of this young lady dancing in the presence of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, at a public entertainment; nor are we furnished with any instance exactly parallel. This dance has been considered, on this account, a very unusual circumstance; otherwise Herod would not have thought of requiting it with so large a present as the half of his kingdom. However the daughter of Herodias having received from Herod a solemn promise confirmed by an oath, that he would give her "whatsoever she should ask of him, came with haste unto the king," having conferred with the mother, "and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist. And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought; and he went and beheaded him in prison, and brought his head in a charger and gave it to the damsel, and the damsel gave it to her mother." At the time of this event, it was common for princes to require the heads of eminent persons, whose execution they ordered, to be brought to them, especially when there was any particular resentment.

We

have an instance in Josephus, which follows the story of this marriage. Aretas was extremely provoked at the treatment of his daughter, and at length a war broke out between him and Herod. The latter was defeated. Herod sent an account of this to the emperor Tiberius; he resenting the attempt of Aretas, wrote to Vitellius, the president of Syria, to declare war against him, with orders, that if he were taken prisoner, he should be brought to him in chains; and that if he were slain, his head should be sent to him. Antiq. lib. 19, c. 6. The

following is another instance: Agripina, then wife of the emperor Claudius, and mother of Nero, who was afterwards emperor, sent an officer to put to death Lollia Paulina, who had been her rival for the imperial dignity. And

Dion Cassius says, that when Lollia's head was brought to her, not knowing it at first, she examined it with her own hands, till she perceived some particular feature by which that lady was distinguished.

Dio. lib. 60. This instance we the rather give here, because it shews the reason of this practice among the great, which seems to have been, that they might be certain their orders had been executed.

We only remark, once more, in regard to this event, that Josephus represents Herodias as a woman full of ambition and envy, as having a mighty influence over Herod; and as fully capable of the act ascribed to her by the sacred historian, or any similar one.

There is now in Josephus' works a paragraph, Antiq. lib. 18, c. 5, in which the death of John the Baptist is related, though Herodias is not mentioned as the cause of it. But some of the learned suspecting its genuineness, we have no right to make use of it, nor can we, for this reason, do so to any advantage, as evidence. Nor is this much to be regretted; we trust the accuracy of Mark and the other evangelists in relating these events is amply confirmed by the observations which have been made, and which, had it been necessary, might have been extended.

IV. St. Luke, at the same time that he says Herod, meaning Herod Antipas, was tetrarch of Galilee, states that 'Philip was tetrarch of Iturea, and the region of Trachonitis." Luke iii. 1. That the evangelist is correct in this statement, we are assured by Josephus, who says, that Philip, the brother of Herod, died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, when he had governed Trachonitis, Batanea, and Gaulanitis, thirty-seven years. Antiq. lib. 18, c. 4. As this is the only reference made to Philip by the writers of the New Testament, and the accuracy of this fact has been made apparent, we pass on to another, and the last of Herod's own children mentioned in sacred history, Herod, frequently called Herod Philip.

V. This Herod, son of Herod the

great, by Mariamne, daughter of Simon the high priest, is but once mentioned by the evangelists, namely, in connection with Herod Antipas' marriage, and the death of John the Baptist. As we have already seen, Herodias, for whom Herod Antipas divorced his former wife, was the wife of his brother Herod, who is now under consideration. His name did not occur in his father's last will; or rather it was crossed out on account of his mother Mariamne being discovered an accomplice in a conspiracy against him. In consequence of this he retired, and led a private life at Jerusalem, having married Herodias. There is, however, one circumstance which may deserve some notice; while Josephus calls this son of Herod the great, Herod, and Herod alone, the evangelists call him Philip, and nothing more. This has been considered a difficulty by learned men, and various modes of removing it have been proposed. It would extend this communication to an unsuitable length, to enumerate these various expedients and consider their adequacy, or inadequacy to account satisfactorily, for this difference in the historians. Instead of doing this, we will propose what ap pears to ourselves as simple and satisfactory a method of reconcilement as any that we remember to have seen. We apprehend all agree in this, that the same person is intended by the evangelists and Josephus. The only difficulty arises from the name. Josephus calls him Herod, the evangelists

235

Philip. Our opinion is, that he had two names, and that sometimes he was called Herod and at other times Philip. To this we see no objection. That he should be called Herod, was likely from its being a kind of family name, holding much such a relation to Herod's family, as Cæsar did to the Roman emperors; and that he should be called Philip, was natural and proper, because it was a name that had been borne by his ancestors; that, also, he should have two names, is not at all surprising; it was a prevalent custom to give children two or more names; and that these two names, Herod Philip, should be given to this son of Herod the great, is very probable, that he might be dis. tinguished from his brother Philip, who never had another name given to him. Probably the sacred historians might use the name of Philip alone for distinction's sake; while Josephus might choose to call him Herod for other

reasons.

We shall refer to Lysanias, whom Luke mentions in connection with Herod Antipas and Philip, in a subsequent paper. For the present we shall desist, only remarking, that the fact of the evangelists being proved so accurate in these occasional references, is presumptive that they are accurate and credible in those principal and more important facts which they wrote more particularly to make known to mankind, and has a strong tendency to strengthen our faith in all their narrations.

THE TERMS OF COMMUNION AT THE LORD'S TABLE, AND WITH THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. By ROBERT BOYTE C. HOWELL, A. M., Pastor of the Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennesse. 8vo., pp. 456. London: G. and J. Dyer.

THIS is an American work, published in this country under the direction of the committee of the "Baptist Tract Society." It includes such additions as are intended to adapt it "to the present state of the controversy in England, and exhibit the tendency and results of free communion in their latest aspect." This

work was originally prepared by Mr. Howell, at the request of the Baptist State Convention of Tennesse, presented to him in 1840. It was printed in 1841. In America, it is stated, that " the Baptist Churches have uniformly declined participating in the Lord's supper with Christians who have not been baptized;" and that" amongst them a most happy unanimity, both of sentiment and practice, has ever prevailed on this subject." But the extensive circulation of the works of the late Robert Hall, has awakened attention and inquiry; and the fact, that "Pædobaptists have planted

their artillery" on this topic, "as upon the very citadel of Zion, that they may pour into our ranks a more destructive fire," says Mr. Howell, constitute the chief reasons why the Baptists are called on to defend their position. Whether there was much occasion for alarm lest the transatlantic Baptist Churches should renounce their Baptist constitution, in consequence of these things, or whether the defences now thrown around them by Mr. Howell's labors will secure it, or invite fresh and more vigorous assailants, is not in our power to determine. We beg leave to express our regret that he has, in various places, laid himself open to his adversaries by the severity of his language, and by overstating his propositions. Strict Baptists though we are, at least in practice, it never occurred to us to designate Robert Hall's reasonings a jumble of nonsense, indicative alike of weakness and insincerity;" nor to speak of him as "the glory and the shame, the boast and the blight, of the Baptist Church."-p. 77 and 109. We could have wished that these, and a few other asperities, had been cut away at least by the English editor.

66

Without tarrying to notice other defects in the work which have occurred to us, we will endeavour to lay before our readers a general view of the conduct of the argument contained in this volume. Mr. Howell commences by distinguishing communion in its largest sense from communion in the Lord'ssupper. While the former includes every expression of fraternal regard, every instance of the unity of the spirit exerted in prayer and supplication," the latter refers to "the fellowship which Christians enjoy with God and each other in the ordinance of the Lord'ssupper." The former is common to all Christians, and should be cultivated; while from the latter, our author contends, the Baptists must retire as far as all Pædobaptists are concerned. The maintenance of these two courses has ever appeared to us the greatest practical difficulty that lies in the path of the strict Baptist; though it does not seem to be so esteemed by Mr. Howell. But we will not anticipate his argument. The subject to which the author poses to confine himself strictly,

pro

"May be stated in general terms as embracing the laws of the Lord's-supper; the preliminaries to its reception; our reasons

for declining to partake of it with those who violate or neglect them; the policy of adherence to inspired instructions; and our claims, in doing so, to be considered as consulting, by the only effectual means, the union and harmony of the body of Christ. The internal controversy, in relation to strict and free communion, we have thus far, as I have before intimated, almost entirely escaped. On so fortunate a circumstance I congratulate the American Church."

66

After disavowing any unkind spirit in entering on this controversy, and claiming for the Baptists the credit of Sir Isaac Newton's opinion, that they were the only community that "never symbolized with antichrist;" and refusing to submit to the imputation of bigotry, intolerance, and proscriptiveness, Mr. Howell proceeds to shew, that "we are under the most weighty obligations to observe God's commandments, without addition, diminution, or change, and to point out, that, as all power granted to Christian Churches is executive, we are not at liberty to admit any terms of communion but those established by Jesus Christ himself, the only lawgiver of his people." Repentance, faith, and baptism, are there stated as the terms of communion, and our author proceeds to contend that the order in which they were enjoined by Christ is imperative. That, as baptism should not precede faith, so both should precede communion. This he does by a reference to the commission: Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; to the example of the apostles; Acts ii. 38-42, &c.; and to the design of the two institutions. Mr. Howell proceeds to show, that baptism has been held in all ages, and by all denominations, to be a divinely-instituted preliminary to the Lord's-supper. For proof of this he appeals to the earliest Christian Fathers, and quotes the sentiments of a train of Christian writers, as Justin Martyr, (who wrote A. D. 150), Jerome, (A. D. 400), Augustine, (A. D. 400), Bede, (A. D. 700), Theophylact, (A. D. 1100), Bonaventura, (A. D. 1250), Spanheim, (A. D. 1600), Lord King, (A. D. 1700), who all directly, or by clear implication, assert the same thing. The same opinions, he avers, are held by the most distinguished denominations of the present day; and quotes Dr. Wall, Dr. Manton, Dr. Doddridge, and Dr. Dwight, in proof of his statement. The early sects that separated from Rome on account of her corruptions,