As nothing is recorded dishonourable to the father or son, it is probable that they adhered to the law of Moses, and assiduously endeavoured to promote the welfare of their people. Indeed, several incidents in the history of the Jews, from their return from the captivity to their last age, strongly indicate that the rulers in general enforced the observance of the letter of the laws. Thus we know that they allowed the land to rest every seventh year, and even superstitiously interpreted the injunction to rest from secular affairs on the Sabbath. Onias I. officiated about the same number of years as his father. Dying 302, B.C. his son, Simeon, succeeded him in the priesthood. His excellent character, and religiously just government, procured him the honourable title of Just. A high-priest more than two centuries later was also called Simeon the Just. Some apply the beautiful eulogium of the author of the Ecclesiasticus to the latter; but it must respect the former, if the book containing it is as ancient as the writer of it in Greek asserts; for he says that he found it in Egypt, when Ptolemy Evergetes was king. The two kings of this name reigned a considerable time before the second Simeon, called the Just. Be this as it may, the son of Onias is celebrated for his learning and piety. If we believe tradition, he added certain names to the genealogies of Nehemiah, and made some slight corrections of the Scriptures, by which the sacred canon was completed. From his days, no Jewish teacher presumed to revise or add to the inspired volume; but every one devoted himself to investigate its meaning, and expound it to the people. The Rabbins consider him to have been the last of the high-priests who claimed the exclusive right to the presidency of the Great Council. The dignity of president of the council passed from him to Antigonus Sochæus, an eminent Jewish teacher, whose very name, we think, indicates that, though a Jew, he or his relations were on friendly terms with the Greeks. The Jewish teachers had now become, perhaps, generally zealous for the traditions of the Fathers; for it appears that the chief object of the instructions of Sochæus was to subvert those doctrines which distinguished the sect of the Pharisees. They uniformly represented God as disposed to reward in this life religious services, added to those enjoined by Moses; and as certain to punish in this life those who neglected their traditionary ritual. He, on the contrary, boldly taught that no services were acceptable to God, unless required by him in his written revelation, and performed, not from fear, but love. He disregarded the work done by slaves for hire, and only rewarded that done from disinterested and pure affection. This apparently exalted principle is more allied to the philosophy of Plato than to the pure wisdom of the Sacred Oracles. The human mind is not formed to exclude all regard to one's own happiness, even when serving God; nor doth he ever demand this species of self-denial. The spring of all obedience which he truly approves is indeed love to him; but it is love in the form of gratitude, rather than in the disinterested form of his love to his creatures, and especially to fallen man. It, doubtless, includes admiration of his greatness, and esteem of his excellency; but its conspicuous feature is grateful emotion, "We love him, because he first loved us!"

Antigonus Sochæus was the chief teacher of the Jewish schools, which were probably originally formed on the model of the schools

of the prophets, but evidently modified by the philosophical academy of Alexandria, which, it is well known, was resorted to by many persons from all the countries subject to Egypt. Some Jews became, at a later period, famous for the learning which they acquired in Alexandria; and it is not unlikely that Antigonus owed much of his celebrity to his attainments in Grecian philosophy. Among his disciples, the names of two occupy a place in history-Sadoc and Baithosus; and the former gave name to the Sadducees, one of the principal religious sects of the Jews. These disciples are said to have misunderstood the doctrine of their master. Because he taught them to renounce the hope of reward for their works, they inferred that he maintained that there were no future rewards or punishments. But the fact may be, that the philosophy which his example had recommended to their study, perverted their minds, and gendered pride of intellect, which impels those who cherish it to refuse submission of spirit to the authority of God, when he calls them to admit principles opposed to those which they admire, and to adopt practices in which they have no pleasure.

Scepticism, or the doubting the reality of every thing seen, and denying the certainty of every thing reported, may be said to be the transition state of mind from the habit of unfounded veneration of antiquity,and unreserved confidence in traditionary knowledge, to sacred reverence for truth and a cordial reception of it, after perceiving the full evidence by which it is supported. That this state of mind actually prevailed among the philosophers of the age of Ptolemy Evergetes might, we apprehend, be easily proved. Though they sanctioned by example the fabulous mythology and visionary conceptions of the multitude, who devoutly adored the gods, yet they secretly laughed at these things, and were not unwilling to witness them turned into subjects of merriment. Reflect on the theatrical scenes of Greece and the productions of the poets of the age, and you will be convinced that the Greeks saw or heard much which proclaimed that their gods were mere phantoms of their imagination: what they saw or heard in their academies and theatres, was, if not designed to teach, adapted to dispose them to be amused by their gods, rather than cultivate towards them a reverential and devotional spirit. It seems therefore manifest that the gods of the nations had lost all hold of the affections of the learned among the Greeks, who, nevertheless still remained destitute of supreme love of truth and desire to discover it. Few of them surpassed Socrates, notwithstanding that Divine knowledge was much more accessible to them than to him, and the majority of them were far inferior to him in correct knowledge and pure conduct. In respect to religion, they were, in fact, generally, sceptics, if not atheists. They recommended, and actively promoted the religious worship of their respective nations. This they did, however, confessedly, not from any belief that it possessed any excellence in itself, but on account of its supposed utility to impart pleasure to the people, and restrain them from acts of insubordination to the laws and civil institutions. Now it is certain that the Sadducees agreed with the Grecian philosophers in regarding and treating religion merely as an engine of state. And it is probable that their first leader had learned in Alexandria to question the existence of a future state and all invisible beings. How he reconciled this opinion with his admission that there was only

One Living and True God, and that the books of Moses and the prophets contained a revelation of his will, it may seem impossible to ascertain, for most plainly do these books announce the truths which the Sadducees disbelieved. But who does not know that many learned men, who receive the Scriptures as inspired, deny some truths which they distinctly reveal, and enforce as of eternal importance? By sophistical reasoning, those who boast of superior discernment and knowledge, find it no difficult task to misinterpret the most distinct statements of Divine truth, so as to make them appear to convey a meaning altogether different and even opposite to the usual import of the language employed by their authors? The Alexandrian philosophers employed the most mystical and allegorical language to explain religion, insomuch that they repre sented all the facts connected with it as little else than fictious tales, or symbolical scenes, which they explained, as their imagination suggested, to illustrate and confirm their subtle theories concerning God and his works. Sadoc, pursuing their path, may have set aside all the narratives or announcements respecting angels and transactions in the invisible world as only allegorical scenes, representing the agencies of nature, by which the Divine Being sustains the universe, and supplies mankind with means by which they procure health, riches, pleasure, and honour. But, in whatever manner he reasoned to pervert or veil Divine truth, certain it is that he and his followers asserted that no angel or spirit existed, and that man wholly perished at death, and that consequently there was no future reward to be expected, nor future punishment to be feared. Some have accused them of having rejected all Revelation except the Pentateuch. Of this we have no proof in the Scripture; and it is improbable that they should deny the inspiration of the largest portion of the Scripture, and not only pass uncensured, but be admitted, as we shall see they were, to hold the chief offices of government. That they totally disregarded the traditions of the elders, and made no pretensions to intense devotion, seem unquestionable; and hence they were hated by the Pharisees, and unpopular with the religious. A sketch of their character is given under the article Sadducees, in the "Pocket Biblical Dictionary."

Simon the Just left a son and heir to the office of high-priest; but on account of his youth his uncle Eleazer was exalted in his stead. The most memorable act ascribed to him by tradition is the selection of seventy of the most learned Jews, who were qualified to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language. These, as we have already stated, were sent into Egypt at the request of the king.

Though his nephew, named Onias, was at his death thirty years old, he was not immediately raised to the office of high-priest. The reason of this is unknown; perhaps he declined it, for he intimated at a future period that he had not sought the office. The dignity was conferred on his aged relation Manasses, son of Simon the Just, B.C. 233. He, however, died in the course of two years, and Onias became the second high-priest of this name. He appears to have been destitute of every quality which was necessary to the honourable discharge of the duties of his exalted office. Completely selfish and covetous, he was totally indifferent to the interests of the people.

N

His mean spirit and unjust conduct brought his nation to the very verge of destruction.

From history we learn that the annual tribute which Judea rendered Egypt was twenty talents of silver. The sum had been regularly sent to the king of Egypt by every high-priest, the supreme ruler of the nation, till the time of Onias II. The mere love of money had made him retain this tribute. After some years, Ptolemy Evergetes determined to bear no longer such presumptuous conduct. He sent Athenion, one of his courtiers, to Jerusalem, to demand the payment of the arrears, which then amounted to a great sum, and to threaten the Jews, in case of refusal, with a body of troops who should be commissioned to expel them from their country, and divide it among themselves. The alarm was very great at Jerusalem on this occasion, and it was thought necessary to send a deputation to the king, in the person of Joseph, the nephew of Onias, who, though in the prime of his youth, was universally esteemed for his prudence, probity, and justice. Athenion, during his continuance at Jerusalem, had conceived a great regard for his character; and as he set out for Egypt before him, he promised to render him all the good offices in his power with the king. Joseph followed him in a short time, and on his way met with several considerable persons of Colo-syria and Palestine, who were also going to Egypt with an intention to offer terms for farming the great revenues of those provinces. As the equipage of Joseph was far from being so magnificent as theirs, they treated him with little respect, and considered him as a person of no great capacity. Joseph concealed his dissatisfaction at their behaviour, but drew from the conversation that passed between them all the circumstances he could desire, with relation to the affair that brought them to court, and without seeming to have any particular view in the curiosity he expressed. When they arrived at Alexandria, they were informed that the king had made a progress to Memphis, and Joseph was the only person among them who set out from thence in order to wait upon that monarch, without losing a moment's time. He had the good fortune to meet him as he was returning from Memphis, with the queen and Athenion in his chariot. The king, who had received impressions in his favour from Athenion, was extremely delighted at his presence, and invited him into his chariot. Joseph, to excuse his uncle, represented the infirmities of his great age, and the natural tardiness of his disposition, in such an engag ing manner as satisfied Ptolemy, and created in him an extraordinary esteem for the advocate who had so effectually pleaded the cause of that pontiff. He also ordered him an apartment in the royal palace of Alexandria, and allowed him a place at his table. When the appointed day came for purchasing by auction the pri vilege of farming the revenues of the provinces, the companions of Joseph in his journey to Egypt offered no more than eight thousand talents for the provinces of Colo-syria, Phenicia, Judea, and Samaria. Upon which Joseph, who had discovered, in the conversation that passed between them in his presence, that this purchase was worth double the sum they offered, reproached them for depreciating the king's revenues in that manner, and offered twice as much as they had done. Ptolemy was well satisfied to see his revenues so considerably increased; but being apprehensive that the person

who proffered so large a sum would be in no condition to pay it, he asked Joseph what security he would give him for the performance of his agreement? The Jewish deputy replied with a calm air, that he had such persons to offer for his security on that occasion as he was certain his majesty could have no objections to. Upon being ordered to mention them, he named the king and queen themselves, and added that they would be his securities to each other. The king could not avoid smiling at this little pleasantry, which put him into so good a humour, that he allowed him to farm the revenues without any other security than his verbal promise for payment. Joseph acted in that station for the space of ten years, to the mutual satisfaction of the court and provinces. His rich competitors, who had farmed those revenues before, returned home in the utmost confusion, and had reason to be sensible that a magnificent equipage is a very inconsiderable indication of merit.

If we may credit the narrative of Josephus, Joseph procured great riches as the collector of taxes; and that, although he seems to have oppressed the neighbouring countries, yet he was generous to his own people, and advanced their interests. But the historian's account of Joseph's family has a fabulous aspect, and his assertion that he held the office twenty-two years seems doubtful, for during part of that period the Egyptian court was strongly alienated from the Jewish nation, and not likely to leave the raising of the tribute in the hands of one of the natives.

Having thus adverted to the liberty granted the Jews by the three first successors of Alexander, we return to the history of Ptolemy Evergetes and his times, in which he certainly was the chief royal actor. Seleucus Callinicus, on learning that he had returned to Egypt, recovered courage, and raised a fleet and army in order to reduce the revolted province. The navy was utterly destroyed by a tempest; only the king and a few persons escaped. The army was totally defeated, and Seleucus would have ceased to reign, had not his revolted provinces, from grateful feelings towards his family, compassionated his humbled state, and resolved to support him. The cities of Smyrna and Magnesia were his most efficient friends. They had expressed their attachment to Antiochus Theos by numbering him among their deities. The marble column on which the treaty between Seleucus and the above cities was engraved, is a relic of antiquity much prized.

The Syrian king, to strengthen himself against his powerful enemies in the south and east, applied to his brother for aid. Though only fourteen years of age, yet he was governor of Asia Minor, and named, from his rapacity, Antiochus Hierax, the Hawk. He promised him the independent sovereignty of Asia, but, in consequence of procuring a truce with Eygpt, of ten years, he violated his word. This occasioned a sanguinary war between them, which terminated in the ruin of both. Antiochus was murdered by a banditti; and Seleucus died a prisoner in Parthia, where he was treated as a king. These events left the king of Egypt in possession of an immense empire, and of liberty to pursue whatever plans he deemed proper to advance the glory of his reign.

His name is honourably associated with Aratus, in the noble work of rousing the energies of the Grecians from a lethargy which threatened, at a most unseasonable time, the destruction of their