the Roman chief delayed his decision, he was clearly disposed to favour the weak Hyrcanus as more likely to be serviceable to himself, and Aristobulus resolved to fight for the crown. He at first attempted to defend Jerusalem, but surrendered on the approach of Pompey. His adherents retired to the temple, which, after a three months' siege, was taken by assault on a Sabbath day. Hyrcanus1 was now confirmed in his dignity as high priest, but he was deprived of the crown, and became tributary to Rome. Aristobulus and his children (with the exception of Alexander, who escaped by the way) followed Pompey as captives (63 B.C.).

It was in vain that Alexander, and afterwards Aristobulus, endeavoured again to raise the standard of rebellion in Palestine. The watchful and energetic Romans, who were now virtually masters of the country, specially Mark Antony, defeated all their plans. At the same time, Antipater succeeded in ingratiating himself with the new lords of the soil. The war between Cæsar and Pompey seemed at first to hold out new prospects to the party of Aristobulus, as Antipater had espoused the cause of Pompey; but the adherents of the latter killed Aristobulus and his son, while Antipater himself seasonably changed sides, and compensated for his former opposition by rendering such effective assistance to Cæsar, that he obtained even greater privileges than he had before possessed, being nominated Roman procurator in Judea. The national party was naturally jealous of the unbounded influence which the Idumean Antipater and his sons (of whom Herod was the most promising) were acquiring in Palestine. But, though Antipater was poisoned, the influence of his sons remained unshaken, and they preserved their power in spite of all the revolutions which at this period took place throughout the Roman world. Cæsar had been slain, and the short-lived republic was succeeded by the triumvirate. The affairs of the East were now confided to Mark Antony, a friend of Antipater; and Herod, though he had previously given assistance to the republican party, soon gained his favour. 1 Jos. Ant. xiv. 5-13; Wars, i. 8-12.

In vain did the Jews send successive deputations to complain of the exactions of the sons of Antipater. The latter were confirmed in the government of Judea under Hyrcanus, and their power was still further established by the betrothal of Herod with the beautiful Mariamne, the grand-daughter of the high priest. Soon afterwards Mark Antony was captivated by the charms of Cleopatra.

Antony's inactivity and exactions exposed his provinces to the inroads of the Parthians, who soon possessed themselves of Syria; but the threatening aspect of affairs in Italy obliged Antony to return immediately to Rome, where he happily effected a temporary reconciliation with his colleagues. During his absence from the East, Antigonus, a son of the late Aristobulus, had secured from the Parthians the recognition of his claims upon the Jewish throne1 (40 B.C.). By treachery, both the aged high priest Hyrcanus and the brother of Herod were made captives and put in chains; but Herod himself had managed to escape to Masada, where he placed his friends in safety, and then departed for Rome. Meanwhile Herod's brother had committed suicide in prison, and Antigonus had cut off the ears of Hyrcanus, in order to unfit him for the priesthood. Herod had originally gone to Rome, for the purpose of procuring the government of Judea for Aristobulus, the brother of Mariamne, under whom he hoped to act as Antipater had done under Hyrcanus; but, when there, he succeeded in obtaining his own elevation to the Jewish throne.

Herod returned to Palestine to conquer his new kingdom by help of the Romans, and, after a two years' struggle (37 B.C.), recovered the country. Antigonus was executed, and Herod reigned undisturbed. One by one he removed his dangerous rivals of the family of the Asmoneans out of the way. The first victim was young Aristobulus, his brother-inlaw, who was far too great a favourite with the people to be allowed to live. Next followed the aged Hyrcanus, who had inconsiderately returned to Palestine from his asylum in Parthia. By and by none of the Asmoneans remained. While ridding himself of every possible rival, Herod also 1 Jos. Ant. xiv. 13-16; Wars, i. 13-18.

knew how to conciliate the favour not only of Antony, but, after his fall, of Octavius. In this brief sketch we cannot refer more fully to the eventful reign of Herod. Cunning, ambitious, bold, and energetic, he was equally hated and feared by his subjects. The two distinguishing features of his character and government were the most unrelenting cruelty, which sacrificed even those nearest to him to the slightest suspicion, and a magnificence which induced him everywhere to raise lasting monuments to himself. Signal instances of the former occurred, when he caused not only his wife, but even his sons and other near relatives, to be executed. Of the latter, the rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem, and the foundation of new cities, such as Cæsarea Stratonis, are examples. But to no monument does Herod owe the preservation of his memory so much as to the fact that towards the close of his reign Jesus was born in Bethlehem.1

The last act of Herod's life is sufficiently indicative of his character. The loathsome disease, which at last cut him off, had for some time preyed on his vitals. When he felt his end approaching, he summoned the principal men amongst the Jews, and ordered them to be shut up and to be killed immediately after his decease, in order to secure (as he said) that his decease should occasion a general mourning throughout the land. Happily this cruel behest was not obeyed. The possessions of Herod were divided by the emperor between his three sons.3 Archelaus was made ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, but soon afterwards banished to Gaul; Herod Antipas (the Herod of the Gospels) obtained Galilee and Perea; and Philip, the northern district on the eastern bank of Jordan. On the banishment of Archelaus, Judea was brought directly under Roman rule, and placed under a procurator, who was to some extent subordinate to the imperial legate of Syria. The Jewish hatred of foreign rule, and the inability of the Romans to understand the

1 [On the census of Cyrenius or Quirinius, see Life and Times, i. pp. 181-183. There is a full discussion of the question in Schürer, I. ii. 105–143, where, however, a different conclusion is reached.]

2 Jos. Ant. xvii. 6. 5; Wars, i. 33. 6.

3 Ib. xvii. 11. 4-5; ib. ii. 6. 3.

prejudices of the nation, would in any case have rendered difficult the administration of the province. But, in fact, the breach between the Romans and the Jews was made continually wider, owing to the rapacity and cruelty with which almost all the governors of Judea exercised their office. The most noted of these procurators was Pontius Pilate, under whose administration the Lord Jesus, being delivered by the Jews into the hands of the Romans, " offered Himself by the Eternal Spirit unto the Father." But Pilate's tyranny was too great to be long tolerated. When, on another occasion, he caused a number of unoffending Samaritans to be slaughtered, he was sent to Rome by Vitellius, the legate of Syria, in order to answer for his conduct before the Emperor Tiberius (37 a.D.).1 The Roman legates and procurators imitated the conduct of Herod in frequently changing the occupants of the high priesthood, to gratify their own avarice or caprice. [Nevertheless the high priests retained considerable power down to the fall of Jerusalem. They were almost always chosen from among a few favoured families, who formed an influential aristocracy, and strengthened the power of the high priest.] Even Jewish authorities represent these priests as morally and religiously so degraded as by their sins to have called down the Divine vengeance upon the people.2

Once more, ere its final extinction, a brief prospect of comparative independence was held out to the Jewish nation.3 Herod Agrippa, a grandson of Herod by one of those sons whom he had ordered to be executed, had been educated at Rome. There he had gained the favour of Caligula, who, on his accession to the empire, gave him the tetrarchy of Philip, who had died in the interval, together with that of Abilene, and bestowed on him the title of king. This unexpected elevation of Herod Agrippa (the Herod of the Book of Acts) excited the envy of his uncle, Herod Antipas. He applied to the emperor for similar honours, but was banished, and his tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea given to Herod Agrippa. After the assassination of Caligula,

1 Jos. Ant. xviii. 4. 1-2.

3 Jos. Ant. xviii. 6; xix. 5-9;

2 Pes. 57a; comp. Derenbourg, p. 232 ff. Wars, ii. 9-11.

Claudius obtained the purple, partly through the influence of Herod Agrippa. In acknowledgment of these services, Herod now received Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, so that his kingdom was actually more extensive even than that of his grandfather Herod,—an instance this (we may observe by the way) of historical justice to the descendant of the murdered son of Mariamne, from whom he had sprung.

Agrippa was thoroughly Roman in his habits and modes of thinking, though in a certain way attached to the national religion. By his influence with the emperor, he had already succeeded in averting one and another storm of persecution from his subjects, whose favour he courted by an apparent zeal for the synagogue. From such motives he caused James, the brother of John, to be killed, and imprisoned Peter. The signal judgment which put an end at the same time to his presumption and his life, is well known to the readers of the New Testament. Although the Jews had cause to deplore the death of Herod Agrippa, who may be designated as the last native prince who held authority in Palestine, the Greek inhabitants, and even the Roman soldiers in Cæsarea, publicly exhibited their joy at his decease in so indecent a manner, as to induce Claudius to resolve on removing these cohorts from Judea. Cæsarea was one of those places in which the contentions, which now became very general, between the Jewish and the Gentile inhabitants of Palestine were most continuous and bitter. Although built by Herod the Great and with Jewish money, it was, on various grounds, claimed by the Greeks as a heathen city. Being the seat of the Roman government and of their principal garrison in Palestine, the collisions were frequent between the heathens, who were numerous and influential, and the Jews, and their contentions for supremacy in the town peculiarly obstinate. It was here that the spark fell which ultimately enveloped Judea in the flames of a great national war.

Herod Agrippa II. (the King Agrippa of the Acts) was ultimately appointed king of Chalcis, and superintendent of the temple.1 Palestine itself remained, ever after the death

1 Jos. Ant. xx. 1. 3; 5. 2.