were a famous sect among the ancient Jews, and consisted of persons of great quality and opulence. Reflecting their origin there are various accounts and various opinions. Epiphanius, and after him many other writers, contend, that they took their rise from Dositheus a sectary of Samaria, and their name from the Hebrew word יְדֵי, yede, or justice, from the great justice and equity which they showed in all their actions; a derivation which neither suits the word Sadducee nor the general character of the sect. They are thought by some too to have been Samaritans; but this is by no means probable, as they always attended the worship and sacrifices at Jerusalem and never at Gerizim.

In the Jewish Talmud we are told that the Sadducees derived their name from Sadoc, and that the sect arose about 260 years before Christ, in the time of Antigonus of Socho, president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the principal divinity school of that city. He had often in his lectures, it seems, taught his scholars, that they ought not to serve God as slaves do their masters, from the hopes of a reward, but merely out of filial love for his own sake; from which Sadoc and Beithus inferred that there were no rewards at all after this life. They therefore separated from their master, and taught that there was no resurrection nor future state. This new doctrine quickly spread, and gave rise to the sect of Sadducees, which in many respects resembled the Epicureans.

Dr Prideaux thinks, that the Sadducees were at first no more than what the Caraites are now; that is, they would not receive the traditions of the elders, but stuck to the written word only; and the Pharisees being great promoters of those traditions, hence these two sects became directly opposite to each other. See Prideaux's Conn. part ii. book 2. and 3.; and see also Pharisees and Caraites.

Afterwards the Sadducees imbibed other doctrines, which rendered them a sect truly impious; for they denied the resurrection of the dead, and the existence of angels, and of the spirits or souls of men departed. Sadducees. (Matt. xxii. 23. Acts xxiii. 8.) They held, that there is no spiritual being but God only; that as to man, this world is his all. They did not deny but that we had reasonable souls; but they maintained this soul was mortal; and, by a necessary consequence, they denied the rewards and punishments of another life. They pretended also, that what is said of the existence of angels, and of a future resurrection, are nothing but illusions. St Epiphanius, and after him St Auffin, have advanced, that the Sadducees denied the Holy Ghost. But neither Josephus nor the evangelists accuse them of any error like this. It has been also imputed to them, that they thought God corporeal, and that they received none of the prophecies.

It is pretty difficult to apprehend how they could deny the being of angels, and yet receive the books of Moses, where such frequent mention is made of angels and of their appearances. Grotius and M. Le Clerc observe, that it is very likely they looked upon angels, not as particular beings, subsisting of themselves, but as powers, emanations, or qualities, inseparable from the Deity, as the sunbeams are inseparable from the sun. Or perhaps they held angels not to be spiritual but mortal; just as they thought that substance to be which animates us and thinks in us. The ancients do not tell us how they solved this difficulty, that might be urged against them from so many passages of the Pentateuch, where mention is made of angels.

As the Sadducees acknowledged neither punishments nor recompenses in another life, so they were inexorable in their chastising of the wicked. They observed the law themselves, and caused it to be observed by others, with the utmost rigour. They admitted of none of the traditions, explications, or modifications, of the Pharisees; they kept only to the text of the law; and maintained, that only what was written was to be observed.

The Sadducees are accused of rejecting all the books of Scripture except those of Moses; and to support this opinion, it is observed, that our Saviour makes use of no Scripture against them, but passages taken out of the Pentateuch. But Scaliger produces good proofs to vindicate them from this reproach. He observes, that they did not appear in Israel till after the number of the holy books was fixed; and that if they had been to choose out of the canonical Scriptures, the Pentateuch was less favourable to them than any other book, since it often makes mention of angels and their apparition. Besides, the Sadducees were present in the temple and at other religious assemblies, where the books of the prophets were read indifferently as well as those of Moses. They were in the chief employments of the nation, many of them were even priests. Would the Jews have suffered in these employments persons that rejected the greatest part of their Scriptures? Menasseh ben-Israel says expressly, that indeed they did not reject the prophets, but that they explained them in a sense very different from that of the other Jews.

Josephus affirms us, that they denied destiny or fate; alleging that these were only fictions void of sense, and that all the good or evil that happens to us is in consequence of the good or evil side we have taken, by the free choice of our will. They said, also, that God was far removed from doing or knowing evil, and that man was the absolute master of his own actions. This was roundly to deny a providence; and upon this footing I know not, says F. Calmet, what could be the religion of the Sadducees, or what influence they could ascribe to God in things here below. However, it is certain they were not only tolerated among the Jews, but that they were admitted to the high-priesthood itself. John Hircanus, high-priest of that nation, separated himself in a signal manner from the feet of the Pharisees, and went over to that of Sadoc. It is said, also, he gave strict command to all the Jews, on pain of death, to receive the maxims of this sect. Arithobulus and Alexander Janneus, son of Hircanus, continued to favour the Sadducees; and Maimonides assures us, that under the reign of Alexander Janneus, they had in possession all the offices of the Sanhedrim, and that there only remained of the party of the Pharisees, Simon the son of Caiaphas, who condemned Jesus Christ to death, was a Sadducee (Acts v. 17. iv. 1); as also Ananus the younger, who put to death St James the brother of our Lord. At this day, the Jews hold as heretics that small number of Sadducees that are to be found among them. See upon this matter Serrar, Trilhæref. Menasseh ben-Israel de Resurrectione mortuorum; Bofinger's History of the Jews, &c.; and Calmet's Dissertation upon the Sects of the Jews before the Commentary of St Mark.

The feet of the Sadducees was much reduced by the destruction of Jerusalem, and by the dispersion of the Jews; but it revived afterwards. At the beginning of the third century it was so formidable in Egypt, that Ammonim, Origen's master, when he saw them propagate their opinions in that country, thought himself obliged to write against them, or rather against the Jews, who tolerated the Sadducees, though they denied the fundamental points of their religion. The emperor Justinian mentions the Sadducees in one of his novels, banishes them out of all places of his dominions, and condemns them to the severest punishments, as people that maintained atheistical and impious tenets, denying the resurrection and the last judgment. Ananus, or Ananus, a disciple of Juda, son of Nachman, a famous rabbin of the 8th century, declared himself, as it is said, in favour of the Sadducees, and strenuously protected them against their adversaries. They had also a celebrated defender in the 12th century, in the person of Alpharag, a Spanish rabbin. This doctor wrote against the Pharisees, the declared enemies of the Sadducees; and maintained by his public writings, that the purity of Judaism was only to be found among the Sadducees; that the traditions avowed by the Pharisees were useless; and that the ceremonies, which they had multiplied without end, were an unsupportable yoke. The rabbi Abraham ben David Italleri replied to Alpharag, and supported the feet of the Pharisees by two great arguments, that of their universality and that of their antiquity. He proved their antiquity by a continued succession from Adam down to the year 1167; and their universality, because the Pharisees spread all the world over, and are found in all the synagogues. There are still Sadducees in Africa and in several other places. They deny the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body; but they are rarely found, at least there are but few who declare themselves for these opinions.