Full text of "A development of remarkable events, calculated to restore the Christian religion to its original purity, and to repel the objections of unbelievers"

See other formats

'^''f A i

U/'

v^ ?.

:ffc»-

= ,vv

1 i,l|1(V

^■^■^.:^'

.V - ^ 4

I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,!

4 Princeton, N. J. f

* . t

lFromtheRev.>W,aSPRAGUE,D.D. SeptA839 f

=53 ^c

'^e<^^€e

Case, Plvisin-

^V/<e?/; SeC!,,,: .

^"^ f^o....... I

^^^^71^^:^ ^

DEVELOPEMENT

REMARKABLE EVENTS,

CALCULATED

TO RESTORE THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION'

ORIGINAL PURITY,

AND TO REPEL

THE OBJECTIONS OF UNBELIEVERS. ,

BY JOHN JONES.

2_ V'^C

• ■_

There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed ; and hid, that
shall not be known. Matt. x. 26.

y sMuEvv] ^i^ucriv aToXoytav, yx aA.r,S/i jxiv, yds x«X«v, TrpoSatTcWj ds
T4V0J ax ocuotcov e(TXV, Plutarch. De Sujientitione.

Dissolvat hoc argumentum, si quis potest : ita cnim res rem sequitur;
ut h32C ultima necessesit confiteri. Sed ne illud quidem dissolvet ali-
* quis. Lactantiiis.

A^OL. I.

LEEDS:

PRINTED BY EDWARD BAINES;

FOR J.JOHNSON, N''72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, LONDON.
1800.

CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME,

TAGE.

1 HE passage respec'.ing Jesus Cl^rist, found in the Jewish

Antiquities, rejected as spurious by learned men, - 8-10

Internal marks of genuineness pointed out in this para-
graph, - - - - 12-29

The reason stated why the early Fathers passed over in si-
lence the testimony whichjosephus bore to Jesus Christ, S3

The testimony of the same writer in favour of Jolui the

Baptist, - " - - 38

The design of Josephus therein was to confirm what the

Evangelists record of John, - - 44 - 32

A supposed disagreement between Matthew and Josephus

reconciled - - - - 53-62

Origin had read the disputed paragraph concerning Christ, G2 - C7

Josephus's account of the death of James proved to be ge-
nuine.— He ascribes the destruction of Jerusalem to
the Massacre of the Christians, - - CS - 85

The controverted paragraph known to Hegesippus — Maca-

rius — Chrysostom — Thcodoret — Pholius, - S7-10t

EusebiuSj Theophylact, Minutius Felix and Suidas, consi-

dcied Josephus to be a Christian writer, - 104-109

The authanticity of the passage proved from the context, T 09-129

The men, specified by Josephus as having occasioned the
disturbances at Rome, were nominal converts to the
Christian religion, - - - 129-I3S

The introduction of the gospel into Rome was the true
cause of the severe treatment which the Jews received
from the government, - - - 139-179

The testimony of TertuUian, that Tiberius publised an edict

in favour of thq Christians, corroborated from Philo, - 164

The state of that author's mind respecting the professors of

Christianity developed^ - - -165

Tl*e edict, which Tiberius sent to the provinces, occasioned •

the rest of tlie churches mentioned in Acts ix. 31. 166-1'? t

Seneca embraces the Christian doctrine, but renounces the

profession of it from prudential motives, - l'79-19l

Dion Cassius classes the Jewish and Egyptian converts under

the I'nle oi Erai^Hxtf OT sociefies, - - 192-193

The Agapas, or love-feasts of tlie piimitive Clirislians were
borrowed from those festivals, which the Egyptians
celebrated in honour of Isis and Osiris, - 195-19S

Tlie enormities practised in the Egyptian festivals, being
imported into the Christian church by the devotees of
Isis, laid the foundation for the calumnies alleged
against the first followers of Jesus, - 201-?05

The prevalence of the Christian doctrine occasioned the

extinction of the Pagan oracles, - - 201-232

The object, which induced Plutarcli to compose his book.
De Defectu Oraculorum, was to invalidate the argn-
ment urged by the advocates of Christianity, that its pu-
rifying influence banished the demons from the world, 232-24T

The news of our Lord's death was brought to Rome by an

Egyptian pilot, _ . _ 247-256

The Philologeis in Rome adopted the Gnostic hypothesis,
that Jesus was inhabited by a demon, — called him Pan,
the son of Mercury and Penelope, - - 2j7

They instigated Tiberius to propose to the senate the deifi-
cation of Jesus, J _ . 260-263

They changed the name of Christus into Chrestus, as sup-
posing him to be one of those demons, wliich, on ac-
count of their beneficence and utility to tlie human
race, were stilcd X^iif oj, - - 263-26S

The first Egyptian converts supposed the divinity resident in

the man Jesus to he the same with Osiiis or Sira/iis, 266-270

The Philologcrs in Rome forged certain Oracles, which

they ascribed to the Sibyl^respecting Jesus Christ, 272-277

Christianity introduced into the British Isles in consequence

of the banishment of the Jewish converts, - 277

Josephus ascribes the story of Mary's miraculous conceptioa

to the priests of Isis as its true origin, - 285-289

Fulvia, whose conduct gave birtiito that tale, is satyrised by

Juvenal under the fictitious title of ///yi/""^, - 305-315

Is also noticed by Martial under tlic name of Fabulla, 315-322

The events, said in the first two chapters of Matthew to have
taken place in Jerusalem, occurred with little varia-
tion at Rome, ... 325-329
Tliose chapters analysed, - - - 329-365
Jesus shewn to have been bom two years after the death of

Herod the Great, - - - 365-36*

Jesus proved from the four Evangelists to be the legaiinatc

Son of Joseph and Mary, - - Sf^S-LiSa

The impostors, whom Titeerius banished from Italy, were

the first teachers of the Gnostic heresy, - 411-413

The Gospel 'of our Saviour's Infancy was composed by the

Gnostics, - - - - 4l5--lCiS

Tlie contents of the introductory chapters, ascribed to Mat-
thew, are taken from the Gospel of the Infancy, 43S-4i'8

The contents of the two first chapters in Luke copied from

the Gospel of the birth of Mary, - 4l8-4"8

The true origin of those chapters well known to the Fathers, 438-4G3

Matthew- composed his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, 465-4'i72

TheNazarenes and Ebiunites formed the same class of Jew-
ish converts, - _ _ 472-482

The introductory chapters not contained in the original Gos-
pel of Matthew, - - . 482-199

The supposed supernaiural birth and divine nature of Jesus
inconsistent with the temptations to which he was ex-
posed after the descent of the Holy Spirit, - 6.0S-M9

ERRATA.

Page. For Read

188. line 3 from bottom, pradllsers preachers

2S8. line 1, Jie Philip

367. — 10, dele six

467. — 3, impartiality fidelity

490. note, last line, ovtos ovra

4&'2. note, line 2, read ^tJ^Xou/AEvtjy

PREFACE.

ThE' volume here offered to the public, toge-
ther with the others which are designed to suc-
ceed it, proposes to develope a series of very
important events respecting the Christian Reli-
gioji. If, from the perusal of it, the candid
reader shall find reason to believe that those
events have a foundation in truth, he must feel
himself so much interested as to encourage the
prosecution of the subject. Much encourage-
ment, however, the author does not expect ;
since the persons, prompted either by curiosity, or
by zeal for " the truth as it is in Jesus," to peruse

it, must, from the established course of things,

' \ • • • 1.

be relatively few. Small, m comparison, is the

number of readers who bestow any time what-
ever upon theological subjects j and smaller
still is the proportion of those to whom a work
of this tendency will be acceptable. The au-
thor, therefore, can feel no disappointment on
seeing his labours in this field neglected, and
even discountenanced, by the majority of man-
kind : on the contrary, he is convinced, that the
ignorance of some, the bigotry of others, the

VI PREFACE.

fashionable levity and scepticism of the times^
the interest felt by many persons of influence,
to preserve a corrupt and established system of
religion, together with the secular and political
pursuits in which the public are generally en-
gaged, will inevitably confine his performance
to a very narrow circle. Were he conscious,
indeed, of displaying, in the developement of
these facts, talents and learning corresponding
with the importance of them, he might safely
hope for some patronage amongst the friends of
genuine Christianity. But to superior genius,
and deep penetration, the author lays no claim.
He hopes, nevertheless, to engage the attention
of thos^ with whom he has the happiness of a
personal acquaintance. And should his volumes
be circulated only amongst his friends, still he
will have the consolation to reject that even
this partial circulation, though it preclude the
prospect of emolument and fame, will be fol-
lowed by some material advantages. His
teaders, being a select number, will not be
alarmed at the boldness of his investigation :
they will not turn either with cold indifference,
or with supercilir)us contempt, from his preten-
sions to develope momentous facts ; and what
is far more important, they will not bring to the
inquiry minds unfavourable to the reception of
truth, but disposed by their zeal for pure reli-

PREFACE. Vii

gion, and their knowledge of the author, to ex-
amine it with attention, and to yield a cordial
assent, wherever the evidence may appear clear
and satisfactory. ,

It is not unusual with writers, in the prefaces
to their respective works, to apologise for de-
fects, and to deprecate the severity of criticism.
But, in the present case, as far as the arrange-
ment of the subject, and the language in which
the author expresses himself, are concerned, any
laboured apology, it is hoped, will be thought
unnecessary. Not that he has the vanity to
imagine that his style is faultless ; he flatters
himself, however, that it is marked in genej-al
with the clearness and precision which are the
only qualities of good composition admissible by
the grave and tasteless subjects of theological
criticism.

With regard to other more material faults,
the author "^trusts, that he may justly urge in
extenuation of them the words of the learned
Spencer : " As to my manner of treating the
subject, my industry will, I think, secure me
from the censure of any man. The names of
those learned persons fromwhom I happen to dif-
fer, as well as the errors and reproofs of others^
I have, for the most part, passed over in si-

Vlil PREFACfe.

lence, and that not with any sullen acrimony*
Besides which, I have refrained altogether from
that illiberal fury with which learned men oft-
en lacerate each other. I am not conscious of
having, on any occasion, forced Scripture to
yield an unwilling support to my opinion ; nor
upon obscure topics have I indulged an un-
hridled liberty of conjecture ; but used a free-
dom, tempered with mature deliberation." —
*' Since then I have endeavoured to conduct the
argument in that equitable manner, which may
obtain the general approbation, I cherish a hope
of finding my reader not Jess equitable to my-
self, and ever mindful of human frailty, if at
any time he discover me stumbling in the pro-
secution of my subject. This hope I the more
willingly .entertain, in as much as the path
which I now tread is slippery, intricate, and
marked by very few vestiges ; so that occasion-
ally to err in such a road is not only human but
unavoidable *."

* Preface to Libri Tres De Legibus Hebrsormn.

SERIES OF EVENTS
DEVELOPED.

^ O portion of ancient records^ since the
revival of learning, has so much engaged the
attention, and so widely divided the opinion
of learned men, as the celebrated passage
found in the Jev^ish Antiquities^ dohcerning
Jesus Christ. During a whole century, its
genuineness has been the subject of dispirte
amongst critics of every denomination, and
almost in every country throughout Chfisten-
dom. The result of this controversy is, that
the paragraph seems now to be generally
given up as the forgery of some ancient
Christian in the third century i nor is there,
perhaps, a learned man at present in Europe,
whose judgment is held in any estimation,
' that thinks it the genuine production of the
great Josephus,

VOL» I, B

For the instruction of such of my readers
as have not had the means of perusing the
writings of critics on the subject, I will here
transcribe the sentiments of the most distin-
guished among them that opposed the au-
thenticity of the passage.

Lucas Osiander, who, if I recollect rightly,
v/as the first to call its genuineness in ques-
tion, speaks of it in the following manner :
" Testimonium Josephi de Christo ego om-
nino supposititium esse credo, et ab aliquo
sciolo ipsius libris insertum. Si enim Jose-
phus ita de Christo sensisset, ut testimonium
pras se fert, (^yoscphiis) fuisset Christianus :
cum tamen in omnibus ejus scriptis nihil
prorsus, quod saltem Christianismum redo-
leat, reperiri queat." jip. Havercamp. vol-
ii. p. 27(>.

The author of 'The Divme Legation of
Moses makes a similar assertion : " The case,
indeed," says he, "'was different in a. Jew,
who had none of tliis intercommunity. If
such a one owned die truth of Christianity,-
he must needs embrace it. We conclude,
therefore, that the passage where Josephus (who

was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses
could make him), is made to acknowledge
that Jesus is the Chirst, // a raiik forgery ^ and
a very stupid one too,'* Div, Leg, B. ii.
§ vi. p. 295, vol. i.

Tanaquil Faber speaks of this paragraph
in terms still more contemptuous. " Veni-
amus," says he, •* ad rem, idque demus ope-
ram ut probemus sublitum os in hac re bonae
potestatis fuisse ; ostendamusque '^yi<riv banc
tam insulsam et negligenter intrusam fuisse,
ut Origenis testimoniis, quae a nobis infra pro-
ferentur, facile carere possimus , ita res ipsa
fallaciam, piam illam quidem, (quis negat ?)
sed fallaciam tamcn nobis apportatam esse vo-
ciferatur *.'*

So confident was this great critic that the
paragraph never came from the hand of Jo-
sephus, that he thought it impossible for any
person after him to maintain the contrary,
and that his book on the subject would put
an end for ever to the discussion. " lis
itaque gratum ut faciam, et eorum causa

* Ap, Havercamp. ut sup.

multis, uti spero, aliis, decrevi diatribam hanc
paucis conscribercj et rem ipsam ita enu-
cleare ut nullus in posterum disputandi locus
relinquatur ; nisi forte iis quibus perpetuo du-
bitare decretum sit."

Indeed, this writer went so far as to ascribe
the passage to Eusebius as its author, and to
point out the place in which Josephus would
have inserted it in his Antiquities, had it
been his composition ; and, to complete his
infatuation, he drew up in Greek a short pa-
ragraph of his own, which he asserts might
with equal propriety be ascribed to the Jewish
historian.

The arguments urged by this able man
have been also insisted upon by Fabricius,
Ittigius, Blondel, Vitringa, and by Dr. Lard-
ner in our own country, whose candour and
learning seem in the estimation of the public
to have finally decided the question. His
objections will be stated in the sequel.

Doctor Priestley thus delivers his opi-
nion on the subject : " The famous pas-
sage in Josephus concerning Christ is not a

more evident interpolation than many in these
Epistles of Ignatius.'* History of Early
Opinions, vol. i. p. I09.

The late doctor Kippis thus w^rites re-
specting the matter : " Without taking upon
me to decide concerning the authenticity of
this famous passage, I must be permitted to
remark, that it can never be of any real ad-
vantage in a controversy with the enemies of
our holy religion. Of v^hat avail can it be
to produce a testimony so doubtful in itself,
and which some of the ablest advocates for
the truth of the Gospel reject as an interpo-
lation ? An infidel must revolt at such an ar-
gument. It ought, therefore,, to be for ever
discarded from any place among the evidences
of Christianity; though it may continue to
exercise the critical skill of scholars and di-
vines/' Life of Gardner y p. 75.

The judgment of the celebrated Gibbon
deserves in particular to be noticed. '* The
passage concerning Jesus Christ," writes he,
** which was inserted into the text of Jose-
phus between the time of Origen and that or
Eusebius, may furnish an example of no vul-

B 3

gar forgery. The accomplishment of the
prophecies, the virtues, the miracles of Je-
sus, are distinctly related. Josephus ac-
knowledges that he was the Messiah, and he-
sitates whether he should call him a man. If
any doubt can still remain concerning this
celebrated passage, the reader may examine
the pointed objections of Le Fevre, and the
masterly reply of an anonymous critic, whom
I believe to have been the learned Abbe de
Longuerue." Vol. ii. cap, xvii. p. 408.

Permit me to produce one authority more.
It is that of the benevolent De Saint-Pierre.
" It is impossible," says he, " to adduce a
more satisfactory demonstration of this an-
cient dishonesty of the two parties than an
interpolation to be found in the writings of
Flavins Josephusy who was contemporary
with Pliny. He is made to say in so many
words that the Messiah was just born ; and
he continues his narration without referring
so much as once to this wonderful event, to
the end of a voluminous history. How can
it be believed that Josephus, who frequently
indulges himself in a tedious detail of minute
circumstances relatin;^ to events of little im-

portance, should not have reverted a thou-
sand and a thousand times to a birth so deeply-
interesting to his nation j considering that its
very destiny was involved in that event, and
that even the destruction of Jerusalem was
only one of the consequences of the death of
Jesus Christ? He, on the contrary, per*
verts the meaning of the prophecies which
announce him, applying them to Vespasian
and to Titus ; for he, as well as the other
Jews, expected a Messiah triumphant. Be-
sides, had Josephus believed in Christ, would
he not have embraced his religion ?'*

The objections which could thus extort
the unanimity of learned men of every de-
nomination in rejecting a passage which they
had the most powerful inducement to adopt,
must appear very decisive. They are the
three following apparently insurmountable
ones :

1. The sentiments which it contains are the

sentiments of a Christian, which Josephus

was not : it could tjot therefore have been his

production,

B 4

2. // is not quoted nor referred to by any
Christian writers before the time of Eusebius^
who flourished about the beginning of the fourth
century, and afterwards,

3. The passage interrupts the course of the
J)istory, and therefore bears incontestable marks
of forgery.

Such are the arguments which have been
urged against the genuineness of this famous
paragraph. They seem to carry with them
an irresistible weight, and to be such as force
the reader, however unwilHng, on the con-
clusion that it is a palpable forgery. An-
swers, however, have been attempted to be
given to them ; a summary of which is thus
stated by the Abb^ du Voisin,

\. "It is extant in all the copies of Jo-
sephus published and unpublished. Baronius
relates, that a manuscript of this historian's
Antiquities was found in the library of the
Vatican, translated into Hebrew 3 in which
this passage was marked with an obelus; a
thing which could have been done by none
but a Jew. In an Arabic version preserved

by the Minorites of Mount Libanus, the
narrative exists entire. 2. This testimony of
Josephus has been applauded by Eusebius,
Isidorus of Pelusium, Sozomen, Cassiodorus,
Nicephorus, and many more, who all indis-
putably had seen various manuscripts of con-
siderable antiquity. 3. The stile of the pas-
sage so exactly resembles that of Josephus,
that, to adopt the expression of Huetius, one
Ggg is not more like to another. Proofs of
this assertion may be seen in the dissertation
of Daubuz, subjoined to Havercamp's edi-
tion. 4. Josephus not only mentions Vi^ith
respect John Baptist but also James—
* Ananus assembled the Jewish Sanhedrim,
and brought before it James the brother of
Jesus who is called Christ, with some others,
whom he delivered over to be stoned, as in-
fractors of the law.* 5. It is highly impro-
bable that Josephus, who hath discussed with
such minuteness the history of this period,
mentioned Judas of Galilee, Theudas, and
other obscure pretenders to the character of
the Messiah, as well as John Baptist and
James the brother of Christ, should have
preserved the profoundest silence concerning
Christ himself, whose name was so cele-

bratcdat that time both amongst the Jews and
the Romans. 6. Let no one person persuade
himself that this passage was forged either
by Euscbius, who first cited it, or any other
carher writer : for the Christian cause is so
far from needing any fraud to support it, that
nothing could be more destructive to its in-
terest; more especially a fraud so palpable

and obtrusive." jippendix to the Life of
Lard, N°X.

These reasons, weighty as they may be in
themselves, yet are deemed insufficient to re-
pel the above formidable objections. The
passage then must be given up, or some new
considerations are necessary to be alleged in
behalf of its genuineness. Such considera-
tions it is my object in these volumes to pro-
duce. They are contained in the following
propositions, which it will be my business in
the sequel to demonstrate :

I. "Josephus was in reality a believer in fe-
sus, though^ on account of his political situa-
tion, and the great odium which fewish and
Gentile bizotrv attached to the Christian naine,
he did not explicitly avow his faith, or rank

himself among the disciples of Christ ; but ne-^
'Dertheless he has in several farts of his works
endeavoured by a judicious allegation of facts' to
prove the divine mission of our Lord, afid the
truth of his Gospel.

II. Not only the disputed passage, but
ALSO THE WHOLE CONTEXT, is such an apo^
logy for Christy his true disciples y afid his reli-
gion, as could never have come from any of the
fathers, or any other orthodox Christian ; since
he therein unfolds the real source of the miracu-
lous birth and deification of fesus, and holds up
the base authors of those doctrines to merited
disgrace.

Before I proceed to the discussion of these
important propositions, it is necessary here
to translate the controverted paragraph. It
is to this effect :

" About this time existed Jesus, a wise
man, if indeed he might be called a man-:
for he was the author of wonderful works,
and the teacher of such men as embraced
truths with delight. He united to himself
many Jews, and many from among the Gen-
tiles. This was the Christ, and those who

from the first had been attached to him,
continued their attachment, though he was
condemned by our great men, and crucified
by Pilate. For he appeared to them again
alive the third day. These and innumerable
marvellous things concerning him are fore-
told by the divine prophets ; and the tribe
that from him call themselves Christians are
not fallen oiF even at this time *."

That this passage could never have come
from any but a person that v^^as a decided be-
liever in Jesus, is what I readily grant. The
following considerations, however, will serve
to evince, that the author, whoever he might
be, did not openly avow his faith, or rank
himself in the number of the professed fol-
lowers of Christ.

1, Though the writer expressly declares
in the above paragraph that our Lord was the
Christ, yet it is to be observed that in the
beginning he gives him the simple denomi-
nation of Jesus. Now if we attend to the
manner in which the fathers introduce in their
writings any account of him, we shall find that

* Autiq. Jud. lib. xviii. cap. iii. § 3.

they stile him not merely Jesus^ but Jesus
Christy or Jesus Christ our Lord, or our Lord
Jesus Christ. These titles they annex, partly
to distinguish him from any other of the same
name, but chiefly to express their reverence
for his character, and to raise him, under
these honourable appellations, above the un-
just odium vvrhich prejudice had connected
with the place of his birth, and the ignominy
which he underwent. If then any of these
men had composed the paragraph, they
would, it is probable, from the mere impulse
of habit, have added to Jesus some other
name expressive of their respect for his cha-
racter. And as this is not the case, a pre-
sumption arises that it proceeded from one
that had no such habit, or at least was in
circumstances which did hot permit him to
indulge ^t.

2. The author of the controverted pas-
sage, though he asserts the reality of our
Lord's miracles, has not referred them to
God as their primary author, or alleged
them as a proof of his divine mission. The
enemies of the Gospel in very early times, be-
ing unable to deny, allowed the truth of

these miracles, yet resisted the just conclu-
sion that Jesus was the Son of God ; because
other persons, they pretended, performed si-
milar works, who nevertheless had no claim
to that high title. The author of this pas-
sage however has not, as is always done by
other Christian writers, urged this conse-
quence, but contented himself with merely as-
serting our Lord's divine works. He does in-
deed insinuate, that Jesus was the Son of God,
or, at least, that he sustained some character
beyond that o^ human. But this insinuation is
delivered in very ambiguous and cautious
terms ; though Sozomen and some other or-
thodox divines have endeavoured to pervert
them into a testimony to the divinity of
Jesus.

3. The clause, this was the Christ, fur-
nished the adversaries of the passage with the
fullest assurance that it never could have
dropped from the pen of an unbeliever. For
would a person that rejected the Messiahship
of Jesus have acknowledged in direct terms
thit he was the Messiah ? To this question
Abbe du Voisin thus replies : " The phrase,
*' this man was Christ,' or' rather * Christ'

was this man,* by no means intimates that
Jesus was the Messiah, but only that he was
the person called Christ both by the Chris-
tians and Romans, among whom Josephus
wrote ; just as if we should say in our lan-
guage, this is the same man as was named
Christ." This answer appears to me, I con-
fess, very unsatisfactory : for our Lord in
this place is said to be the Christ, and not a
person that went by that name. Josephus,
therefore, if he wrote it, must have believed
him to be that person. Nevertheless it
ought to be observed, that the writer, in
making this declaration, had it in view to
rectify the corruption (effected, as .will pre-
sently appear, by the very impostors whom
he himself stigmatises) of Christus into
Chrestus. As if he had saidj'Ouroj ou X^ojoroj
aXAoj Xpia-Tog tjv ; and it is probable that, un-
der the pretence of correcting this error,
Josephus has sheltered the testimony which
he makes in favour of Jesus as the Messiah.
Let me here add, that the corruption, to
which I conceive there is in this place an
allusion, is a circumstance which speaks
in behalf of the genuineness of the pas-
sage.

4. Every reader who has perused with atten*
tion the writings of the apostles and of the
fathers, must have made the three following
observations : 1 . In speaking of the death of
Christ, they generally use an epithet to cha-
racterise his innocence ; but in the disputed
passage we find no epithet used for this pur-
pose. The author does not describe him as
^Just or a /lofy man, but simply as a sufferer.
The reader is told that he was condemned,
that he underwent an ignominious death ;
without any additional information, that his
punishment was unmerited, or that his accu-
sers acted with cruelty and injustice. But it
is evident, from the tenor of the passage,
that the writer y^// the iniquity of his suffer-
ings, and wished his reader to entertain the
same feelings. And why then should he not
have expressed the sentiment which he thus
entertained ? No reason for so strange a con-
duct could, I imagine, have existed, except-^
ing some political consideration which ren-
dered it prudent in him not to profess what
in his heart he believed to be true. S^ The
Christian writers uniformly represent the cru-
cifixion of our Lord as an act not of Pilate,-
but of the Jewish rulers, or of the people ^

But here Christ is, on the contrary, said to
have been crucified by Pilate, We are not
informed, that the governor, when he sat in
judgment upon him, thrice pronounced him
undeserving of death ; and that he deHvered
him up for execution, merely to secure the
favour of the Jews, and to gratify the envy
of his accusers. Passing over these impor-
tant circumstances, which 2i professed htlitvtv
in Christianity would not have done, Jose-
phus simply asserts, that Pilate executed upon
him the sentence of the law, and leaves the
reader to draw the unjust inference, that he
was prompted to it by the sense of public
justice. This is just the representation which
is given of the death of Christ by his bit-
terest enemies. Celsus affirms, that Pilate
(as being the person to whom alone the
sword of justice was entrusted) tried, con-
demned, and executed him. — 3. The sacred
authors, in describing the death of our Sa-
viour, on all occasions, use terms, which
imply injustice, treachery, or violence. The
most common word by which they denote
his mock trial, is eTriQovXTj, which signifies an
illegal seizure, or an i?jsidious assault : and the
VOL. I. C

usual verbs employed by them, in express-
ing his sufferings, are (povsuu, * al^su, 'Tr^oh^ufn,
oiTTOKTetvca, a'7roXXv[A,i, all which convey the
idea of murder, or of an unjust and violent
death. But Josephus, so far from employing
these or terms of similar import, uses words
of a quite opposite signification. Instead of
eTTi^ovXy} he has chosen ev^et^i^ j which, says
Potter, in his Antiquities of Greece, " was
against such as committed any action or af-
fected any place of which they were incapable
by law :" as also against ** those that confessed
the cri?ne laid to their charge^ without standing
the trial "f*." This meaning of the term is
also confirmed by a scholium which Valesius
has produced from a certain manuscript,
which is to this effect : 'Or/ evhi^ig e<rri xoir-
i/jyoptocg ovofjtu koctoc 'ttXbiovuv, fx.xXi(rTtx, de jcxtk
Tuv o(pEiXovTuv Tca orii/^ocriCf) Koci 7roXtr£Vi(r9a,i jm,£X-

XOVTUV X'

* The verb that our autlior uses is £TriTtp.oi,u}, which in the
New Testament and other writings conveys the idea of merited
reproof or piinisliment. Daubuz, in his learned Treatise on
the subject, has collected various iastances of its application
by Josephus, in all which it seems to signify legal conviction.
See B. ii. c. xxi.

f Vol. i". p. 125.

X See Daubuz, lib, li, cap. xviii.

Now from this account of the word, we
may draw the following inferences : that Je-
sus claimed some office in the state ^ by
which, no doubt, the author meant, that he
professed to be the king of the Jews ; — that
he had no right to this office, but was dis-
qualified for it by the laws of his country ;
—that finally he acquiesced in the accusation
brought against him^ that is, he did not
deny when interrogated by the chief priests,
but, on the contrary, intimated that he was
the Messiah whom they supposed to be a
temporal prince. These inferences, which,
if the explanation given above of sv^ei^ig be
just, must be deemed unexceptionable, im-
ply that the author of the disputed passage
was not a believer in him as the Christ, but,
on the contrary, regarded him 2iS justly put to
death for claiming that character. But the
author himself in the preceding clause ex-
pressly asserts that he was the Christ, and
gives such a description of him as indicates
his divine mission ; and therefore must have
thought his death an unjust act. How then
are we to reconcile the writer with himself?
This is the way to reconcile his language,

c 2

The emperor Titus, and other great men in
Rbriie and Judsa, cherished the common
mistake, that the Messiah, whom the Jews
expected, was to be an earthly king ; and
consequently imagined, that the claim of Je-
sus, was incompatible with the authority of
Caesar. This mistake was so general, and so
difficult to be rooted out, that it prevailed
even in the time of Justin Martyr; who, in
his Apology, addressed to Antoninus, and
the Roman senate, says thus : Kat vfx,eig, ukov-

(TOCVTBq (^OttTlXilKV 'TTpOtrOOKCOVTOCq Tif^oig, UZPtTCOg

ccvQ^UTTivov XByeiv yif^ag VTrsiXyjupxTB *. That is, and
you findings that we are expecting a kingdom,
imagine i without distinguishing the cases, that we
mean a human kingdom. Now Josephus, though
convinced of the truth of Christianity, yet hav-
ing never openly professed himself a convert to
it, and being in habits of friendship with the
chief men in Judaea and Rome, after he had
borne his testimony to Jesus> as the messen-
ger of God, and the Christ, adopted, for the
purpose of concealing his faith, and repelling
the suspicion, that he was not a friend to
CjEsar, such terms, as, taken in their legal ac-

* Apol. I. p. 18.

ceptation, seemed to signify, that he approved
of our Lord's crucifixion, and that Jesus had no
right to the title of the Messiah. This cer-
tainly was a disingenuous act, and an act incon-
sistent with that open and manly spirit, which
the Gospel inculcates, and which its founders
so nobly displayed. It is a conduct, how-
ever, which the difficult circumstances of
Josephus in some degree extenuated, though
not completely justified. It is a conduct too,
which, though not agreeable to the morality
of the Gospel, agrees too well with history
and observation. Every age and country pre-
sent us with innumerable instances of per-
sons who, virtuous in other respects, have
nevertheless loved the praise of men more
than the praise of God -, who have concealed
their religious sentiments, or made the ap»
pearance, sanctioned with all the solemnities
of an oath, of believing what they did not
believe ; and that, not to avoid persecution
and ignominy, which was the case with
Philo, Josephus, and several others, but
merely for the sake of emolument. But I
hasten to another observation, which affords
a presumption equally strong, that this pas-
sage is the genuine offspring of Josephus .

C 3

5. He appeared to them the third day again-
alive^. Now suppose the declaration here
made to a person, utterly unacquainted with
the history of Jesus Christ; in what sense
would he be likely to understand it ? If he
believed in the existence of spirits, which
was the case with the Greeks and Romans,
he would take it to signify, that Jesus's Ghost,
after he had been dead three days, appeared
to his disciples ; or that, after he was seem-
ingly breathless for that length of time, he
nevertheless recovered. One of these, I am
persuaded, would be the inference which a
man, to whom the resurrection of our Sa-
viour was unknown, would necessarily make.
For there is not the least intimation here
given, that he was buried \ and that God,
after this, raised his body from the grave.

* This language is no where made use of by the writers of
the New Testament. In no place is it said, that he appeared
to them, but that God raised him from the dead, or words equally
strong and expressive of the resurrection of his body. On
this I cannot help quoting the words of Daubuz. " Levius
erit igitur fortasse animadvertisse, si Christianns hoc testimo-
nium inseruit, vix ac ne vix quidem usus esset hac elocu-
tione, ut Christum resurrexisse diceret. Cum enim isti de hac
re loquuntur, Christum dicunt avacrrijvai, et avao'T'ojo'aa'Sa/,
et similia." Lib. ii. c. xxiv.

23«

The author, then, of this paragraph, though
he certainly believed t\iQ resurrection of Jesus,
has, for some motive or other, declined to
assert it. And what could this motive have
been ? The doctrine of a future resurrection,
though founded on the actual resurrection of
Christ, which was attested by a number of
eye-witnesses, instead of gaining the assent,
provoked the ridicule, of the gentile philo-
sophers. Numbers indeed of those sophists
beheved in a life to come, on the principle,
that the soul was distinct from, and would
survive the body^ but rejected, with con-
tempt, the opinion, that the body itself was,
again to be re-organised, and to die no more.'
This assertion will hereafter be illustrated,
and proved by a variety of instances, drawn
from the ancient apologists, w^ho in their
writings have endeavoured to remove the ob-
jections of their adversaries.

Now Josephus, either not having firm-
ness to encounter the scoffs of the heathen
priests and philosophers respecting this tenet
(which indeed is the fundamental article in
the Christian faith), or thinking it prudent

c 4

24.

to keep it out of sight, and to assert only
facts, which, though less offensive, implied
it ; or, what is most likely, wishing to con-
ceal his decided conviction in favour of the
Gospel, has passed over it in this paragraph
in profound silence. And it is a fact worthy
of notice, that, when our historian speaks of
James, the brother of our Lord, and de-
scribes the opinions and practices of the
'Jewish Christians, as we shall hereafter prove
them to have been, he is equally silent on
this point, though both occasions required its
soecification. This is a remarkable coinci-
dence, which, as it is the usual concomitant
of truth, and beyond the reach of the most
sagacious forgery, points to Josephus as the
author of this noted paragraph.

Not only has the author of this passage
omitted to specify the resurrection of Jesus,
but also his asce?ision into heaven ; his second
coming, to raise the dead, to pass, on the
different characters of men, a final decision,
and to confer on his faithful followers glory,
honour, and immortality. These animating
doctrines are the grand articles in the faith of
the Christian, and are entirely founded on the

resurrection of our divine master from the
dead. Hence the ancient apologists, when-
ever, in their writings, they speak of his
being raised from the grave, add, that he ^-
scended into heaven. I believe, indeed, that
scarcely a single instance can be produced,
where his ascension is not mentioned in con-
nection with his resurrection, though it had
again and again been asserted. But the writer
of this paragraph, in the only solitary place
where he notices the resurrection of Jesus,
passes over, in profound silence, his subse-
quent elevation, and his second appearance.
The omission of such events, which indeed
are the essential principles of Christianity,
cannot be accounted for, but upon the sup-
position, that the author either did not be-
lieve them to be true, or had not the firm-
ness to declare their truth ; the latter of which
hypotheses was evidently the case. Nor can
it be objected to this conclusion, that Mat-
thew (whose example probably Josephus had
before his eyes), who wrote the life, and as-
serted the resurrection of Christ, has left un-
noticed his ascension. For it is a fact, no
less singular than true, that this Evangelist,
without mentioning, has proved with logical

exactness, that our Lord ascended into hea-
ven. The proof which he gives, is implied
in the following statement. ** Either Jesus
is now dead, which the report of his having
been stolen supposes, or he is alive, and ex-
ists among us ; or he is ascended into heaven,
which his disciples affirm." The middle
supposition, that he was still in existence, all
the Jews knew, and allowed to be false.
The doubt therefore lay between the first and
last suppositions. The Evangelist asserts the
falsehood of the former, and then, by an
obvious and necessary consequence, leaves
his reader to infer the truth of the latter.
Not a proposition in Euclid, or a syllogism
in Aristotle, can be found, which exceeds
this statement, either in conciseness of ex-
pression, or solidity of conclusion. Permit
me to observe, by the way, that we here
perceive a striking instance of that consis-
tence and brevity, which ever characterise
truth. Matthew wrote his Gospel among
the Jewish people, who affected to believe a
story, which, if true, subverted the doctrine,
that Jesus ascended to his heavenly father, and
would again return. This story he simply
pronounces to be false, and then, as I have

said, leaves his reader to draw the proper
conclusion. Mark, Luke, and John*, on the
contrary, composed their respective Gospels
among people by w^hom the story of our
Lord's being stolen from the grave was not
heard of, or not credited. They therefore
pass it over in silence, and assert only the
last of the above three suppositions, namely,
that Jesus ascended into heaven.

* The Evangelist John does not indeed directly assert, that
our Lord ascended } but he has, nevertheless, recorded a de-
claration of his Master, which obviously implies it — Go to
fny brethren, and say unto them I ascend mito my Father, Sec.
John, XX. 17. This remark upon Matthew and John, shews
that the following question, put by Berrisford to Jsbn Bunch,
has in it no weight, because it is ill founded. " But let me
ask you, in respect of the ascension, which followed the re-
surrection of Jesus, is it not very strange that this is not men-
tioned by any of the Apostles, who are said to have been eye-
witnesses of the fact; but Liike and Mark only are the re-
laters of the thing, who were not Apostles, and had all they
writ from the information of the Apostles. This is what
astonishes me. If it was a truth, surely so important a one
ought not to be omitted by those who saw it : since Mattbeiu
and John did write histories of Christ, why should they be
silent on this grand article, and take no notice of it in their
records ? What do you say to this ?" The reply that Bunch
makes is indeed unsatisfactory ; and it is very strange that he
should have overlooked the above verse of the Evangelist
John. See Buncle's Life, vol, i. p. 48(5.

7. Lastly, it appears evident from the con-
clusion of the paragraph, that though the
author bore his testimony to Jesus as the
Christ, yet he excludes himself from the
number of his followers. " And the tribe*

* In the use of (pvXov, tribe, applied to the sect of Chris-
tians, Lardner discovers, or fancies he discovers, a proof of
forgery. " #yAry," says he, " is the word used by Josephus
for tribe ; and fuXov, which we have here, always signifies
nation. Nor were the Christians a nation or political society
in the first three centuries." By (pvXovy however, the author
does not mean a political society, but only a large body of
men, uniting under one head, and distinguished by a com-
mon name. To this body the denomination of (pvXov or
i^vog might be applied, without including the idea of civil
establishment. This is evident from the application of bot^i
terms in classic authors to the various tribes of animals j and
it is more evident still from that very word being applied to
the Christians by Lucian, who, as we shall see hereafter, calls
them fi^ioLpov r; (fuXov avSpwtipv. This is sufficient to shew
tlie futility of Lardner's criticism. I cannot, however, help
adverting to a similar objection of BhndeL According to this
author, c^vKov is appropriated to men connected together by
mutual relationship. This assertion is just and true : but at
the same time it is the very thing that renders the employ-
ment of the term in this place peculiarly proper.

Our Lord in one of his last parables compares himself to a
lonseboJder, in which he represents his followers as the several
members of his family. This representation, as was natural,
•was copied by the disciples ; and hence they describe their
connection with Christ in terms which denote the relation

that from him call themsehes Christians, have
not fallen off even at this day.'* If the writer
professed himself to be one of this tribe, it
is plain he would have said, ** And the tribe,
that from him call ourselves Christians, have
not fallen off even to this day."

These observations I have made, not so
much to 'prove the genuineness of the dis-
puted passage (for they are in this respect
perfectly unnecessary), as to apprize the
reader, that the author, notwithstanding his

subsisting between children and their father. This strong
figure they carried still farther, to express the prevalence of
his faith, which is accordingly done in words, that, literally
taken, express the increase of a progeny. Hence the conversion
of an unbeliever was spoken of as an addition to the family
of Christ. As the members of this family led in consequence
a new life, formed nciu habits, and entertained neiu miewSf
they were said, conformably to the same figure, to be born or
begotten again, or to become 7ie'a! creatures. Farther, as the
affinity which all the members bore to their divine house-
holder was the same, and as they cherished alike the hope of
a future existence, to be bestowed by their heavenly Father,
they assumed the common appellation of brethren, and of
course the family-name of Christian. The household of
Christ, at length, grew numerous, multiplied into several
branches, settled in different parts, and formed a large pro-
portion of the Roman empire. It then naturally received the
denomination of tribe or nation.

full belief in the divine miflion, and Messiah-
ship of Jesus, did not rank himself among
his followers, but secretly endeavoured to
promote and establish his Gospel in the
world.

My next step is to consider the omission of
this celebrated passage by Justin Martyr, and
other fathers, before the days of Eusebius.

** This paragraph,'* says Lardner, ** is not
quoted, nor referred to, by any Christian
writers, before Eusebius, who flourished at
the beginning of the fourth century, and af-
terwards."

** If it had been originally in the works of
Josephus, it would have been highly proper
to produce it in their dispute with Jews and
Gentiles ; but it is never quoted by Justin
Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria -, nor by
Tertullian, or Origen ; men of great learn-
ing, and well acquainted with the works of
Josephus. It was certainly very proper to
urge it against the Jews : it might also be
fitly alleged against Gentiles. A testimony
so favourable to Jesus in the works of Jose-

phus, who lived so soon after the time of our
Saviour, who was so well acquainted with the
transactions of his country, who had received
so many favours from Vespasian and Titus,
could not be overlooked or neglected by any
Christian apologist."

These and other similar arguments had
been before noticed by Fabricius, and urged
by Faber, Blondel, Ittigius, and others.

'* To this," says Abbe du Voisin, " it
may be answered, that there is no strength in
this negative argument against Eusebius,
drawn from the silence of the ancient fathers."
** The fathers did not cite the testimony of
Josephus, either because they had no copies
of his writings, or because his testimony was
foreign to the scope of their own ; or be-
cause it could be of little use, especially in
the earliest times, when the miracles of
Christ were admitted by the Jews at large ;
or because that for this very testimony the
evidence of Josephus was disregarded by the
Jews themselves. To this last consideration
Justin apparently alluded, when he thus ad-
dressed himself to Trypho : " Ye yourselves

know, O Jews ! that Jesus Is risen again, and
ascended into heaven, according as the pro-
phets foretold *."

* That the Jews, concerned in the crucifixion of our
Lord, with others that lived at that time, knew this, maybe
fully proved from the evangelical history. The elders, we are
told, " gave large money" to the soldiers for saying that his
disciples came by night, and stole him away. Would they
have done this, had they not been fully convinced that his
disciples did not steal him j or, in other words, that God
raised him from the dead ? (See Matt, xxviii. 12.)

The Scribes and Pharisees, and those that put him to death,
must have narrowly investigated the matter, in order, if pos-
sible, to contradict the report of the Apostles. They had
every opportunity, and every inducement, for such an inves-
tigation. The heinous charge, that they had stained their
hands in the blood of innocence, that they had resisted the
counsels, and slain the person whom God sent to save them,
was flung in their faces by his intrepid Apostles. But the
truth of the charge depended on the assertion that God had
raised him from the dead. If, therefore, that assertion were
irue, the accusation must have been well founded ; and if
fake, it must have, been a gross calumny. Would these mur-
derers have acquiesced in an imputation so atrocious, without
minutely investigating the basis on which it rested, and there-
by, if possible, exposing the mahgnity of the charge ? Would
they have been content to be thought guilty of so great a
crime, if, by instituting an enquiry, they could have proved
their innocence ? Besides, the Sadducees had another motive
for examining the fact of our Lord's resurrection, and ex-
posing it, if a falsehood. For this event contradicted, and by
aa irresistible argument refuted, their favomite doctrine of

These reasonings can, I presume, have but
little weight : for it seems scarcely possible
that men so learned, and so well acquainted
with the works of Josephus, as those men
were, should have omitted a testimony so de-
cisive in their favour, and so difficult to be
repelled by their adversaries, unless they had
some motive very different from those al-
leged above, and much more cogent. This
motive I shall here simply state, and prove
the existence of it, in the sequel. It is con-
tained in the following proposition :

Justin Martyr, and other early fathers, per^

feci ly knew that the doctrines of the supernatural

birth and deif cation of Jesus, which they had

learnt in the Egyptian school, and which they

pretended to have come from the Apostles, are

annihilation in death. As the resurrection of Jesus then
overthrew this their dariing tenet ; inquiry, they well knew,
if not founded in truth, would have enabled thera to detect
it. With an inducement so powerful, they have must made
the necessary inquiry. It follows then, that, as all the unbe-
lieving Jews of our Saviour's time did scrupulously investigate
the evidence which his followers alleged in proof of his re-
surrection, they were in their hearts, though they might af^
feci the contrary, fully convinced of that event.

VOJ*. I. D

referred by Josephus to the Egyptian priests at
Rome, in the i:ery passage where he is speaking
of yesus Christ, They therefore passed over
this disputed passage in silence, lest they should
bring the origin of those doctrines to light.

It is necessary to develope a great variety
of facts, before I can enter upon a discussion
of this proposition. Permit me then to be-
gin this inquiry by shewing that Josephus
was a decided believer in the Gospel, and an
Apologist j that the first Christian writers re-
garded him in this light; and, though they did
not think proper to cite his famous testimony
in favour of Jesus, yet were fully acquainted
with it. To this part of the subject I pro-
ceed with the more alacrity, as an opportunity
will be given me to explain many interesting
passages in Josephus and others, which have
hitherto escaped the attention of learned
men.

In the first place ; it is worthy of observa-
tion, though the remark may not be neces-
sary to my argument, that Justin Martyr,
notwithstanding his total silence respecting
the disputed passage, speaks of Josephus and

Philo in terms of the highest praise. On
observing (in his Cohortatio ad Grcecos) that
they wrote the Hfe and actions of Moses, he
calls them oX (roipuruToi tuv la-Toptoypixipuv, the
wisest of historians. From this it is plain,
that Philo and Josephus, in the accounts
which they give of the Jewish lawgiver, dis-
play, according to Justin, very great wisdom.
Would a Christian writer have said this of
them, unless, in his opinion, they had com-
prehended the true wisdom of the Mosaic
laws ? But the wisdom of the Mosaic laws was
brought to light by Jesus Christ, and by him
alone. Is it then too much to infer from
Justin, that, in his opinion, Philo and Jose-
phus did understand and adopt the wisdom
which Jesus thus brought to Hght ? On this,
however, and such inferences, I need not lay
the least stress. I request the assent of the
reader only to facts, clear and incontrovertible.
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria have
both mentioned Josephus ; but no inference
of any consequence can be drawn from what
they say concerning him. Origen then next
demands our attention.

D 2

In his first book against Celsus *, Origen
writes thus : " As Celsus personates a Jew,
and allows that as a Baptist John baptized
Jesus, I would inform him, that soon after
the times of John and Jesus, a certain Jew
writes, that John, on becoming Baptist, bap-
tised for the remission of sins. For, in the
eighteenth book of the Jewish Antiquities,
Josephus bears testimony of John, that as a
Baptist he announced ptirijicafiofi to them
that were baptized.'*

On this Lardner observes, " Here + it
may be objected, that Origen supposes Jose-
phus to say, that John promised purification
or forgiveness of sins to those who were bap-
tized J whereas Josephus says of John, *' that
he taught the people to make use of baptism,
not for the expiation of their sins, but for
the purity of the body." It is here taken for
granted, that Origen did not comprehend the
exact meaning of Josephus, and that he has
misrepresented the account which this histo-
rian gives of the Baptist. Of this supposed
mistake of Origen, Daubuz thus speaks—

* Page. 35.

f Vol. vii. p. 115.

" Quandoquidem * hie (Faber) et alii tanto-
pere Origen'is auctoritate commoveri, si qui-
dem ipsis liceat, ut volunt, interpretari ejus
.verba, videantur; quid nimihi, quod his, H-
ceat, quando se Eusebii et Hieronymi aucto-
ritate premi sentiunt ^ ut nempe Origenis ip-
sius auctoritatem hac in re nihiU faciam, quod
hie non satis accurate Flavii verbi legisse re-
periatur, si quidem 'verba Josephi de Johanne
Baptistd et Jacobo fratre Domini eo tradit ut
nequeunt cum verbis Flavii, prout nunc legun-
tur, convenire : et eodem quidem loco ubi de
Christo Josephum male sentientem asserit.
Ideoque cum verba Josephi tarn male acce-
pisse constet, cur non etiam Testimonium de
Christo male intellexisse censebitur? Ait
enim, ut ipse ex Josephi sententia loqui pro-
fitetur, Johannem in peccatorum remissionem
tinxisse; deinde propter Jacobi necem urbis
excidium contigisse."

This author, with some modern critics,
supposes that Josephus does not represent
John as baptizing the people for the rcmis-

* Lib. i. 32, apud Haver.
D 3

sion of sins ; and charges Origen with mis^
apprehending Josephus in saying that he does
this. Now I will shew those critics, that it
is they, and not Origen, who have miscon-
ceived the meaning of Josephus. The pas-?
sage which he has written concerning Johri
is to this efFed.

*' To some of the Jews it appeared, that
the army of Herod was destroyed by God, in
just vengeance for the murder of John,
named Baptist. For Herod slew him, though
he was a just man, and encouraged the Jews
to come to his baptism, in the practice of vir-
tue, in the exercise of justice to one another,
and piety towards God ; assuring them that
t6us baptism is acceptable in his sight, and
" not by using it, as the means of averting sins,
but of cleansing the body, as the mind is pu-
rified by righteousness. Herod, seeing his
communication with others, and all his hearers
much elated with his discourses, feared lest
his power of persuasion should induce the
people to rebel -, for they seemed eager to act
in conformity to his advice. He therefore
thought it better to anticipate a revolution by
killing him, than repent after a change should

involve him in difficulties. Thus, by the
jealousy of Herod, he vv^as sent in chains to
Machasrus, the above mentioned castle, and
there slain : and it was the opinion of the
Jews, that, to avenge his death, there came
upon the army of Herod the destroyer from
God, incensed at his baseness *." '

Before I proceed to explain the meaning of
this important passage, it is necessary to call
the reader's attention to what Matthew has said
of the Baptist. " Then went out to him Jeru-
salem and all Judasa : and all the region round
about Jordan : and were baptized of him in
Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he
saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
come to his baptism, he said unto them, O !
generation of vipers, v/ho hath warned you
to flee from the wrath to come -f* ? Bring

* Antiq. Jud. lib. xvlli. cap. v. 2.

f The terms yevvij^xara £^i5vu)v and (puysivj in thp 7tli
verse, are contrasted with each other ; and the contrast de-
notes, 1. That the calamities which awaited the Jews came
upon thera with great rapidity^ like an enemy advancing in the
rear. 2. That before the change, which was then taking
place in their sentiments and conduct, they were vmable to
escape from it j being, as it were, oppressed with a load of

2> 4

forth therefore fruits, meet for repentance.
And think not to say within yourselves, we
have Abraham to our father : for I say unto
you, that God is able, of these stones, to
raise up children unto Abraham. And now
also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees :
therefore every tree, which bringeth not good
fruit, is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
I, indeed, baptize you with water unto re-
pentance ; but he that cometh after me is
mightier than I *, whose shoes I am not

vices and prejudices, so as to move no faster than a reptile.
3. That repentance and reformation enlarged their power of
motion, and invested them, as it were, with wings tofy.

The opposition here observable between the above terras is
slso to be observed in the following lines of Horace :

PIctoribus atque poetis

Quidlibet audendi semper fuit sequa potestas.
Scirnusj et hanc veniam petimusque damus(jue vicissim ;
Sed non ut placidis coeant immitia ; non ut
Scrpevtes avibiis geminentur, tigribus agni.

De Ar. Poet, g— 13.

The same allusion is expressed in the following line of
Homer : '

■ 00 01 sTtsira,

AfMov £(r<rBirai fTFEEIN yivvxs ^;o' OlfiNOTS.

Lib. e. 393.

* The words in the original are very forcible and impresr
sive. Taken in their literal gense, they represent our Lord as

worthy to bear : he will baptize you with the
Holy Ghost and with fire."

In this paragraph it is asserted or implied,

1. That John declared to the Jews who
came to his baptism, that the Messiah, whom
they were expecting, was at hand,

2. That a great evil awaited them in case
they did not repent, and believe in him ;
which evil, though at some distance, came
upon them, like an armed foe, in the de-
struction of their country, and in their sepa-
ration from the stem of Abraham, which was
just then to take place.

3. That, in order to avoid this calamity, it
was necessary not only to repent and come to
his baptism, but also to bring forth fruits jneet
for repentance : that is, to effect a thorough

a great giantf with a body and a soul far sui"passing otlier
men. So vast was his size, that the Baptist had not strength
enough to carry his shoes. Amplitude of stature is the usual
figure to express elevation of mind, or majesty of character.
See, if you have leisure,. Sophocles, CE. T. 1200, and Horn.
y, 1^5—170.

change in their fempers and conduct ^ as well as
in their sentiments,

4. That John speaks of his institution, not
only as inferior to that of Jesus, but also as
symbolical of it.

5. Finally ; from the representation of
Matthew, it is obvious that the Baptist was a
prophet y or, in other words, that he was in-
spired of God not only to inform the Jews of
their coming Messiah, but also to forewarn
them of the dreadful consequences of reject-
ing him.

Now I propose to prove, that Josephus
had • before his eyes the paragraph of the
Evangelist, which contains these declarations,
and has adopted a method highly judicious
and successful to enforce them, without, at
the same time, appearing to do it.

Firft, then, Josephus inculcates, that John
the Baptist announced to the Jews their ex-
pected Messiah.

<* Herod, seeing his communication with

others, and all his hearers much elated with
what he said to them, feared lest his power of
persuasion should induce the people to rebel."

It is evident, then, from this, that John
delivered to the people' some doctrine, which,
at least in the opinion of Herod,^ tended to
seduce them from their allegiance. Before
the king could y^^r that the persuasion of the
Baptist might occasion rebellion, he must
have apprehended that he instigated them to
rebel. This inference is too plain to be de-
nied. But what could have induced Herod
to entertain such an apprehension ? What
but this? John came in the wilderness of
Judasa, proclaiming that the kingdom of hea-
ven was at hand. Now in what light must
Herod necessarily have regarded such a pro-
clamation ? He certainly could not have un-
derstood it otherwise than as a declaration to
the Jews, that the great King, who should
rescue them from the Roman yoke, and de-
throne the Herodian family, was actually ar-
rived. This mistaken notion, which he che-
rished in common vvdth all other Jews at the
time, must, of necessity, have filled him with
^nger and consternation. Regarding the Bap-

tist as the proclaimer of treason -, and more-
over seeing the people eager to comply with
his advice, like what is written of Herod the
Great at the birth of Christ, " he \vas trou-
bled." Jealousy and resentment were awaken-
ed in his breast, and prompted him to cruelty,
as the best security against the impending
storm. He therefore seizes, imprisons, and
murders the man, whose popularity he dread-
ed, and whose integrity he revered : " thus
thinking it better to anticipate a revolution
by killing him, than repent after a change
should involve him in difficulties."

Herod, like many of the Jews, might ima-
gine that John, instead of pointing to the
Messiah as coming after him, proclaimed him
in his own person. But still the fact that he
did proclaim him, is not hence invalidated,
but implied in this very error.

The Baptist indeed seems to have foreseen
the error, and to have used every means in
his power to correct it. It was doubtless
with this view, that he assumed an office in
every respect diffi^rent from the functions,
and subordinate to the dignity, of a king. All

interference in temporal and ecclesiastical af-
fairs he declined, and sought neither honour,
riches, nor power ; and that he might not
offend the pride nor excite the jealousy of
Herod, and other rulers, he retired into the
desert, and there preached thje coming of the
Christ" in terms the most guarded, and the
least likely to give offence, or create alarm.
That he might finally rectify the misappre-
hension of those who came to be baptized by
him, with the expectation . of seeing him
feasting on luxurious dainties, and arrayed in
the splendor of royalty, he dressed in the
coarsest raiment, and subsisted on the most
austere diet. But, notwithstanding all these
precautions, the doctrine which he preached
awakened the fear and suspicion of Herod.
For such an effect an adequate cause must be
assigned ^ and none, it is maintained, but t^e
good news announced by him that the king-
dom of heaven was at hand^ can be assigned
as the probable and adequate cause.

Thus we see that Josephus, while he seems
to have passed over in profound silence the
divine mission of John to apprize the Jews of
their coming Messiah, has very judiciously

stated a fact, which implies and Inculcates it.
Nor is this all that he has done. He went a
short step farther, and hints, as appears to
me, at the intercourse which took place be-
tween John and our Lord with his disciples,
on being baptized by him. ** Herod," says
he, " seeing his communication with others,
and all made delighted with his discourses,
feared lest he should induce the people to re-
bel." That this communication alludes to the
testimony which the Baptist gave of our Lord
before the people in the wilderness, is ren-
dered extremely probable, from the circum-
stance that it was evidently the chief cause
of Herod's fear and jealousy : it is at least
certain, that it refers to some persons whom
Herod apprehended to be concerned with
him in exciting rebellion. And who were
these so likely to have been, as the man whom
he pointed out as the Messiah, together with
his adherents?

The murder of John, for proclaiming the
Messiah to the Jews, implies in it two things,
which corroborate the above inference.

First; Jesus himself must have been in dan-

ger of being put to death in the same manner;
on the supposition that Herod knew him to
be the person who, as Josephus hints, had
communication with the Baptist. And we
find, in fact, that Herod meditated the de-
sign of kilUng him, as he did his forerunner.
For we read, that, after his confinement, our
Lord was obHged to seek security in making
his escape. ** When John was put in prison,
Jesus retired into GaUlee *." Secondly; if,
in truth, Herod had put John to death for
pointing out to the Jews the great king,
whom they were expecting, the fame of our
Lord, on first reaching his ears, must neces-
sarily, on the principle of association, have
recalled the preacher to his remembrance.
And this too we perceive to have been the
case. For on hearing of the miracles of Je-
sus, which indicated that he was the Messiah,
Herod said, ** This is John risen from the
dead ;" that is, " the spirit which actuated
John has entered into and influences this
rpan."

2. The Baptist, according to the Evange-

* Matt, chap, iv. 12.

list Matthew, informed the people, that, in
order to avoid the divine anger, it was neces-
sary not only to repent, that is, to change
their opinion of his charader and office, but
also to bring forth fruits suitable to repent-
ance ; that is, as has been explained, to ef-
fect a correspondent change in their tempers
and conduct. With this representation, the
account which Josephus gives of him per~
fectly accords. " Herod slew him, though
he was a just man, and encouraged the people
to come to his baptism, in the exercise of
virtue, in the practice of j ustice to one an-
other, and of piety towards God."

3. In order to corroborate the testimony of
Matthew, Josephus intimates, that John had
forewarned the Jews of some great evil which
awaited them, in case they did not repent,
and receive our Lord.

** He encouraged the Jews to come to his
baptism, in the practice of virtue, in the ex-
ercise of justice to men, and of piety towards
God ', assuring them that thus baptism is ac-
ceptable in his sight, and not by using it as
the means of averting sins, em rm uy,cciiTOiSuif

TTu^aiTvia-u, (literally, for the deprecation) of
certain sins."

Now, in the language of a Jew, to avert
or deprecate sin is the same thing as to avert
or deprecate some natural evil, or temporal
affliction, which is the supposed consequence
of sin. The Baptist then, according to Jo-
sephus, apprized the Jewish people of some
calamity that hung over them, on account of
their guilt.

The circumstance, however, declares he,
of their being merely baptized by John, was
not sufficient to secure the divine favour. In
order to obtain the acceptance of the Deity,
it was necessary for them to unite with bap-
tism, justice to man, and piety towards God;
then they would be accepted of him j that
is,- on shewing the sincerity of their faith by
reformation, they would escape the danger
which threatened them, because of their
transgressions.

4. It was asserted, that in the account of
our Evangelist it is implied, that the baptism

VOL. I. E

of John was not only inferior to the baptism
of Jesus, but also symbolical of it. That is,
in the external purification which the Baptist
administered to the body, v^2& typifed 2ixApour-^
trayed that inward and refined purity, which
Jesus by his divine doctrine would commu-
nicate to the mifid. And it appears very re-
markable, that Josephus, who had every op-
portunity to know the real nature of John's
baptism (as having lived three years in the
wilderness with his successor, wdio, as we
shall hereafter see, was a Christian teacher),
understood it in this light, and assigns to it a
symbolical sense. " John," says he, ** warned
the people, that baptism is acceptable in the
sight of God ; by using it to cleanse the body,
as the mifid is purified by righteousness."

5. Lastly; Josephus intimates that John
was a prophet, or had from God the know-
ledge of future events. For it follows, from
his representation, that he foresaw and fore-
told to the Jews the future evils w^hich came
upon them, on account of their sins. But
what could these evils have been, unless they
were the destruction of their country, and
their dispersion among the Gentiles ? And as

the Baptist, "according to the Jewish histo-
rian, as well as the sacred penman, refers to
these events, it is to be inferred from the
former, no less than the latter, that he was a
prophet. But thefe is another proof, far
more decisive, to be drawn from Josephus,
that John was divinely inspired : in his own
words it is implied, that he announced the
Messiah to the Jews, But this supposes,
that he had received from heaven an extraor-
dinary communication. His own declaration,
recorded by the Evangelist John, puts this
matter beyond doubt. " I know him not ;
but he who sent me to baptize with water,
the same said unto me : upon whom thou
flialt see the Spirit descending, and remain-
ing upon him, the same is He, which shall
baptize with the Holy Ghost." Indeed, the
principal reason why John is represented in
the New Testament to have been a prophet,
was his having foretold that the Christ was
coming after him. It follows then> as an
indisputable fact, that Josephus inculcates,
though his political circumstances and sy-
stematic prudence did not permit him to </(f-
clare it in words, that John the Baptist was a

E 2

prophet, or sent of God to proclaim the
Messiah.

In confirmation of this important conclu-
sion, which proves that Josephus was a be-
liever, may be alleged the opinion of some
among the ancients ; who understood him in
this passage as bearing testimony to the divine
inspiration and mission of the Baptist. To
account for this opinion, modern critics,
through inattention to the full force of the
paragraph, have concluded that a part of it
is lost. The conclusion, however, is as un-
necessary, as it is unsupported by either pro-
bability or evidence.

Permit me to specify one incident more,
in which the author has contrived to confirm
the evangelical history. In one clause of it
is this assertion : ** For they seemed eager to
act in conformity with his advice." Compare
with this what is written by Luke (chap. iii.
10, 11, 12, 13.) and you will find between
them a surprising agreement.

The various, singular, and minute agree-
ments, which have now been pointed out.

between the Evangelist and the Jewish his-
torian, justify, I presume, the conclusion,
that the latter had before his eyes the Gospel
of the former ; and endeavoured, though with
great caution and reserve, to confirm by
facts the evangelical relation concerning the
Baptist.

There is, however, one supposed disagree-
ment between these two authors *, which,

* " The difference (fays Michaelis, vol. i. p. 64) between
these accounts is striking : for, according to Josephus, Herod
alone is to blame, who puts John to death, on a suspicion
that is totally ungrounded j but he is much more excusable,
according to the Evangelists, who relate that he was artfully
surprised into a consent against his inclination ; the)'- give,
therefore, a proof of their moderation and impartiality, in
relating the death of a friend, qualities which must excite a
favourable opinion in our judgment of an historian. If we
compare the Evangelists with Josephus, in point of age, we
shall find the presumption still greater in their favour. Jo-
sephus was born some years after John was beheaded, and
was neither known to his disciples, from whom he could have
derived intelligence, nor interested, like the Evangelists, to
inquire minutely into the circumstances of the event. He
had heard in general terms that John was beheaded by the
command of Herod, a few years before the time of his birth ;
and, like many profound historians, who think to discover a
serious political reason for events, that Avere occasioned by a
trifling accident, ascribed, perhaps, a cause, which had no

E 3

as it is very striking, and has occasioned
great perplexity to the learned, I shall here
notice and reconcile. The disagreement al-
luded to is briefly this — Josephus relates,
that Herod put John to death, lest he should
excite rebellion : Matthew, on the other
hand, says, that he was beheaded in conse-
quence of a reproof which he gave the king
for marrying the wife of his brother.

Now I hesitate not to say, that Josephus
is perfectly right in the statement which he
has given us. But still it does not by any
means follow, that the account which the
Evangelist has recorded is false. Nay, Jose-
other ground than his own Imagination. This at least Is cer-
tain, that if we found the same contradiction in the relation
of a fact, between either Greek or Roman, or modern histo-
rians, we should not hesitate to prefer the author who was
contemporary to the event related, and who, to a knowledge
of the person described, joins minuteness and impartiality, to
him who lived in a later period, and wrote a general history,
of which the subject in question was only an inconsiderable
part."

Had our learned author understood, as he might have done,
this celebrated paragraph of the Jewish historian, he might
have saved himself all this trouble of accounting for a dis-
agreement that never existed, excepting iii his own and others'
imacrination.

phus himself, though he knew that he appa-
rently contradicted the sacred historian, has
taken care to jtistlfy him, by stating a fact,
which implied the truth of his narrative — »
" And it was the opinion of the Jews, that,
to avenge his death, came the destroyer from
God, incensed at his baseness." The army,
of which Josephus here speaks, had marched
against Aretas, father of the divorced wife,
who made war on Herod for the insult of-
fered his family, in the person of his daughter.
In the beginning of the first battle, Herod
and his army were completely routed 5 and
the victory terminated in favour of the injured
father.

Now suppose it to have been a fact, and a
fact, too, notorious to the Jewish people, that
the Baptist had the firmness and virtue to ad-
vise Herod not to repudiate his wife ; and
thus had endeavoured to prevent the war be-
tween him and Aretas — suppose, I say, this
to have been the case, what would have been
the language natural for the Jews to use on
Herod's defeat ? Was it not most natural for
them on that occasion to say, " The destruc-

E 4

tion of his army is a judgment upon him
from God for violating his law, and killing
his prophet, who had the magnanimity to ad-
monish him of his crime ?"

The opinion of the Jews, therefore, re-
specting the defeat of Herod, mentioned by
Josephus, implies the reproof given him by
the Baptist : it points to this reproof as its
cause, and proceeded from it, alone, as its
consequence.

That Herod ordered his head to be brought
to him in the manner stated by the Evange-
lists, will hereafter be made manifest from
the context.

It appears, then, from Josephus himself,
that Herod had two reasons for putting John
to death — 1. Lest he should seduce the peo-
ple to rebellion. — 2. Because he had rebuked
his intemperance. And as these reasons are
BOt contradictory, each of them might have
had their share in the catastrophe. But the
fact, if properly attended to, will perhaps
appear to be this — The former was the real
motive which Herod had for beheading him.

the latter only the ostensible one : for if, as
Josephus expressly says, the king killed him
from fear and jealousy, he must have done all
in his power to keep out of sight such base
incentives, and to ascribe his death to some
cause less flagrant in itself, and more likely
to appease the people, to whom the Baptist
bad been endeared, not only by his exem-
plary virtue and wisdom, but also by the joy-
ful message which he brought them, that the
Messiah was at hand.

Herod, therefore, was well aware, that if
he killed him on account of this message,
and confessed that he did it from this motive,
the resentment of the Jews would have kin-
dled against him, and impelled them at aU
events to avenge his death.

While Herod was filled with fear and jea-
lousy against the Baptist, he was reproved by
him, as related by the Evangelists, for di-
vorcing his own wife, and marrying that of
his brother, whom he had seduced. The
reproof, however just, offended the pride,
and roused the resentment, of the king ; who
being raised, in his own opinion, above the

restraints of justice and chastity, punished,
as an insult to his person, a rebuke due to his
crime. Under this pretence he seized and
sent him, in chains, to Machaerus, a castle
on the frontiers, the distance and strength of
which might frustrate the zeal of his friends.
But his confinement, though it might gratify
the resentment, could not have dissipated the
fear, of Herod. His death was the only me-
thod of removing all grounds of alarm. But
the cause, which excused his imprisonment,
would not, in the views of the people, jus-
tify his murder. What then was to be done ?
In the true spirit of the vermin, whose name,
by the superior discernment of Jesus, was ap-
plied to his character *, he planned the man-
oeuvre, which simplicity has thus related :

** When Herod's birth-day was kept, the
daughter of Herodias danced before them, and
pleased Herod ; whereupon he promised, with
an oath, to give whatever she should ask ; and
she, being before instructed of her mother,
said, * Give me here John Baptist's head in a
charger;' and the king was sorry. Never-

*• Luke, xlii. 32.

theless, for the oath's sake, and them which,
sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be
given her."

Now the declaration of Josephus, that He-
rod put John to death from motives of fear
and jealousy, supposes that his sorrow was
not reali but affebled -, or, in other words, that
he was not, as is generally thought, betrayed
into this absurd promise, by mistaken pater-
nal fondness, but that the whole story was a
preconcerted measure between him and his fa-
mily. And if the circumstances of it be
narrowly examined, it will appear more than
probable that they proceeded from design.
They are too singular and complicated to be
the result of chance ; and conspire too much
with the views of cruelty and tyranny not to
have been intended. But what is chiefly to
be attended to is, that the mother was ac-
quainted with the promise before it was made
to the daughter. Herod, therefore, must have
previously informed her that he should make
such a promise. Besides, we are told Herod
^wished to kill him, but feared the multitude,
because they counted him as a prophet ; that
is, because they esteemed him to be one that

was divinely commissioned to point out the
Christ. If then the people protected John
from the anger of Herod for announcing the
Messiah, we might naturally conclude that
this was the chief circumstance which pro-
voked his anger. This conclusion, I grant,
the context does not favour, as it as^cribes the
wrath of the king to the reproof which he
had received. But if, as we are informed,
Herod wished to put him to death, how could
Ixe have been soj^ry for being obliged to do it ?
This consideration of itself shews, that his
sorrow was aiFected, and not real ; and that
the above reason for beheading this virtuous
man was merely ostensible, and a scheme
artfully preconcerted between him and the
queen.

Now if it be true, that jealousy, and the
apprehension of being deprived of his king-
dom, were the motives with Herod to de-
stroy the Baptist ^ and that the above tale re-
specting the oath was a mere pretext to
cloak his base designs, it was natural for a
writer of Josephus's political discernment to
see through and pass over it, in his narrative,
as an idle pretence, and ascribe the death of

the Baptist to its real cause. But why, it
might be asked, have not the Evangelists
done the same ? Why did they not, as Jose-
phus so judiciously has done, pass over the
story in silence, or. express their suspicion of
its being a mere contrivance between Herod
and his family ? The answer to this is very
obvious. Either their honest bluntness did
not discern the artifice of the king, or, what
is more probable, their candour did not per-
mit them to represent as a fiction what they
only suspected to be so, and for which they
had no other evidence but suspicion *.

•* The view which has now been given of this story will
help us to estimate the true merit of the following passage of
the learned and independent, though mistaken, Mr. Evanson.
« In the fourteenth chapter" (says he) " we have a very sin-
gular story told us of the cause of the death of John the Bap-
tist. But it is the peculiar fate of this historian (viz. Mat-
thew) to have almost all the uncommon facts he has related
unconfirmed by any other writer. St. Luke, though he men-
tions John's being beheaded by Herod, speaks of it in the
-person of Herod as his own voluntary act, and gives not the
least hint that he was artfully drawn in to murder him against
his own inclination : and Josephus, who is equally silent
about the dancing daughter of Herodias, expressly assures
us, tliat Herod, after he had imprisoned him, put him to
death, because he was jealous of the great influence his cha-
racter and preaching had upon the people, and because he
thought it easier and more prudent by bis death to prevent

Let us liow return to Origen. ** In the
eighteenth book," says he, " of the Jewish
Antiquities, Josephus bears testimony of John,
that, as a Baptist, he announced purification
to them that were baptized.'*

Josephus, the reader will remember, repre-
sents John as exhorting the Jews to come to
his baptism, in the practice of virtue, and ap-
prizing them that t^en only would their bap-
tism be acceptable unto God, and their sins
forgiven ; or, as it has been explained, then
only would they escape the wrath coming
upon them. Now Celsus, it seems, admitted
that John did indeed baptize Jesus and others,
but that he did this simply as the teacher of a
sect, or the bead of a party, and not as a pro-
phet divinely cofnmissioned to point out the Mes-
siah, and summon the Jews to his baptism,
as the mean of averting the calamity await-
ing them.

To prove what Celsus denied, Origen very
properly avails himself of the testimony of

any insurrection upon this account, than to inflift the same
punishment upon him, after a tumult might be begun."
Disson. p. l6d.

6'3

Josephus; who, though not a Christian in
■profcssio7i, inculcates that the Baptist did re-
ceive authority from God to foretell the
Christ, and to invite the people to his bap-
tism, as the mean, when united with refor-
mation, of obtaining the divine forgiveness,
and escaping the wrath to come ; or, in the
words of Origen, that he came and baptized
for the remission of sins, and announced puri-m
jication to them that "were baptized. For the
expressions, to be accepted of God, to have
sin forgiven, or averted, and to be purified
from sin, bear in all languages, I believe,
the same signification, and, in the Jewish,
mean a deliverance from affliction, or a tem-
poral evil.

The evil threatening the Jews, to which
Josephus represents John as alluding, Origen
properly understands to signify the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, and the temple. This is
evident from the clause, which he immedi-
ately subjoins to the paragraph already quoted
— " And Josephus, though he did not be-
lieve in Jesus as the Christ, ought, when in-
vestigating the cause of the fall of Jerusa-
lem, and the destruction of the temple, to

have said that these things happened to the
people, because of the snare which they laid
against him, since they slew the predicted
Christ. But he, as if unwilling, not erring
far from the truth, says, that these happened
to the Jews, in vengeance of James, who
was the brother of him called Christ j since
they slew him, who was a very just man."

On these words, Faber observes * — " Sane
isthasc Origenis verba non sunt perplexabilia,
ut ait comicus ; quin, contra, nil planius.
Clare enim, et ut audiant omnes, ait, Jose-.
phum banc sententiam improbasse, Jesum
nostrum esse Christum. Unde ex hoc quo-
que Origenis loco constat, a Josepho Jesum
laudatum non fuisse j sed contra ; itaque
adeo id verum esse quod antea saepe signiii-
cavi, adversum Jesum scripsisse Josephum."
After this Lardner says "f- — " This passage
(namely, that concerning Christ) is not only
not quoted by Origen, but we can perceive
that he had it not." The contrary, however,
we may perceive to be the truth. For the
clause, asserting that Josephus did not believe

* Apud Havercamp. p. 272.
•f- Lard. vol. vii. p. 121.

in Jesus as the Christ, only implies that he
did not make a public profession of Jesus as
the Christ ; and this he was warranted in say-
ing, from the disputed passage ; for Josephus
there makes use of words, in describing his
death, which, if taken in their strict legal
signification, mean that Christ was justly put
to death for pretending to be the Messiah.

The conclusion drawn by Faber, from the
words of Origen, that Josephus wrote a pa-
ragraph against our Lord, is most unwar-
ranted, and proved to be false, by the consi-
deration that Origen understood Josephus>
when speaking of John, to say, that he was
a prophet, and commissioned to point out the
Messiah, and to warn the Jews of the conse-
quences of rejecting him. This considera-
tion too proves unquestionably that Origen
knew, that the Jewish historian was in his
hearty though not professedly , a follower of
Jesus. But why then did Origen say the
contrary ? For the very reason, I answer,
which induced him and all the other fathers,
before Eusebius, to pass over the disputed pas-
sage in silence, and which I have stated in
the above proposition.

VOL. I. F

That Origen had read the disputed para-
graph, notwithstanding the assertion of Fa-
ber and Lardner, will appear probable from
hence.

First ; he supposes that Josephus, though
he did not believe in Jesus as the Christ,
bore some testimony in his favour, and re-
garded him as an extraordinary person. This
distinction is implied in the words, *' as the
Christ." Thus Celsus used the clause, ** as
a Baptist," to mark the opposition between
the character which he allowed, and that
which he did not allow, John to sustain.
Without intending such a distinction, they
are impertinent, and without meaning.

Secondly; Origeninsinuates, that Josephus
said nothing openfy in favour, of Jesus, in his
History of the Jewish War ; a book, which,
as he himself attests, in his own Life, he
wrote to shew the cause of that war, which
ended^ in the destruction of the Jewish state :
— " Though, 1^/6 j;^ itruestigating the causes of
the fall of Je'rusalerriy and the destruction of
the tempky he ought to have said, that these
things happened to the people, because of

the snafe which they laid against him ; since
they slew the predicted Christ/'

Now this insinuation, that Josephus said
nothing favourably of Christ, in Ms 'Jewish
War, supposes, that he did in the yeivish
Antiquities speak in his favour. But mark
the force of his words — " He ought to have
said that these things happened," &c. — Why
ought Josephus to have said this ? On the
supposition that he was an enemy of Christ ;
or that, according to Faber, he wrote against
him, he could not be expected to do this.
On the contrary, if he was a friend of our
Lord, and if he spoke in commendation of
him elsewhere, it was fit, it was his duty, to
declare that Jerusalem was destroyed on his
account. In vindication of Josephus, how-
ever, be it here asserted, what hereafter I
hope to demonstrate, that his principal ob-
ject, throughout the Jewish War, was to shew
the fulfilment of the predictions, and to esta-
blish the divine mission, of Jesus.

In the latter part of the above paragraph,
Origen attests, that Josephus ascribed the de-

F 2

struction of Jerusalem, and of the temple,
to the murder of James, whom he acknow-
ledges to have been a most just man. But
no passage of this kind is supposed to be now
extant in the Jewish Antiquities. Let us,
however, see whether learned men are right
in this supposition : if not, it will furnish a
striking proof how little the works of Jose-
phus are understood by modern critics. In
book XX. cap. ix. § 1. is to be found a well-
known passage, which is thus translated by
Lardner. — " The emperor *, having been
informed of the death of Festus, sent Albi-
nus to be prefect in Juda'a. And the king
(meaning Agrippa the younger) took away
the high priesthood from Joseph, and be-
stowed that dignity upon the son of Ananus,
who also was named Ananus.— This younger
Ananus, who, as we said just now, was
made high priest, was haughty in his beha-
viour, and very enterprising : and, moreover,
he was of the sect of the Sadducees, who,
as we have also said before, are above all
other Jews severe in their judicial sentences.
This then being the temper of Ananus, and

* Vol. vii. p. 129.

he thinking that he had a fit opportunity, be-
cause Festus was dead, and Albinus was yet
upon the road, calls a council of judges ; and
brings before them James, the brother of him
who is called Christ, and some others, and
accused them as transgressors of the laws,
and had them stoned to death. But the most
moderate men of the city, who also were
reckoned most skilful in the laws, were
offended at this proceeding. They therefore
sent privately to the king, entreating him to
send orders to Ananus no more to attempt
such things : and some went away to meet
Albinus, who was coming from Alexandria,
and put him in mind, that Ananus had no
right to call a council without his leave. Al-
binus, approving of what they said, wrote to
Ananus in much anger, threatening to punish
him for what he had done : and king Agrippa
took away from him the high priesthood, af-
ter he had enjoyed it three months, and put
in Jesus, the son of Damnaeus."

Fabricius and other learned men have su-
spected, in part, the genuineness of this pas-
sage ; than which nothing is more absurd and

F 3

groundless, as will appear from the following
observations, which, with invincible evidence,
establish its authenticity.

In the first place -, it states, that the Sadr
ducees were more severe than other Jews iri
the administration of justice ; and that this
severity led Ananus, who was one of them,
to pass upon James and others the sentence
of condemnation. This is true, and exactly
accords with the account which is given of
that sect in the Acts of the Apostles. But
why was this severity exercised towards
James? Because, says the author, the Sad-
ducees regarded him and his adherents as
transgressors of the laws. But did not the
Pharisees as well as the Sadducees regard the
followers of Jesus as the transgressors of the
law ? Why then should the latter have been
more severe to them than the former ? The
true reason of this Josephus has kept out of
sight ; and we must look for it in the Acts,
where we are led to conclude, that the Sadr
ducees opposed the Apostles with more vio-
lence than the Pharisees, because they taught
what that sect denied — a life to come, and
the resurrection of the dead ; and for the

truth of their doctrine appealed to the resur-
rection of Jesus. Behold then another in-
stance, in which Josephus, out of compli-
ance with the prejudice of the Greeks and
Romans, has endeavoured to throw a veil
over the distinguishing doctrine of the Go-
spel. This, I have observed, he has omitted
in the disputed paragraph ; and he omits it,
we see, in this place, where historical fide-
lity called upon him to state it, in order to
account satisfactorily, and justly, for the cru-
elty of Ananus, and his sect, in this in-
stance.

In the second place ; we ought to remark the
very great caution with which he censures the
unjust sentence of Ananus, and vindicates
the innocence of James and his fellow suf-
ferers. He does not himself pass this cen-
sure on their judge, or apply to him any epi-
thet, which marked his own disapprobation,
but puts it in the mouth of others. ** The
men in the city, most distinguished for their
probity, and accurate knowledge of the laws,
were grievously offended at this measure." He
calls in too the testimonies of Albinus and

F 4

Agrippa, to prove the injustice and violence
of the act ; the former of whom vi^rites to
Ananus v^ath much anger, the latter deprives
him of his priesthood, on account of it.

Thirdly ; observe the manner in wliich he
speaks of James as being the brother of him
who is called Christ. This circumstance
shews that the author of the paragraph was
not a believer in the miraculous conception :
for the ancient fathers, who affected to be-
lieve it, kept his relations out of sight ; as
this circumstance, of course, implied that
Jesus, like his other brethren, was the son of
Joseph and Mary. Indeed, Origen seems to
have understood Josephus, as if he hinted at
the falsehood of this doctrine ; and therefore
parries off the insinuation in the following
manner — Tov a Iccjcco^ov tovtov o lifjcm yvvjO'iog
f^ocOvjTTjg UuvXog (hyiciv euowzevut ug uds\(pov rev
YLvDioV ov Too'ovrov oicc to Troog uifx,oirog (njyysveg

'ij rVJV KOtVTJV OiVTCOV UVIZTpO(p7}V' CO'OU dlOC TO 1^9o; KOii

TOV Xoyov — That is, " This James, Paul the
genuine disciple of Jesus affirms to ha^ue seen,
biing, as it were, the brother of our Lord ;

* Contr. Cd?. p. 35.

but thus denominated, not so much on account
of their natural a£inity, or education, as on
account of their similarity in disposition and
doctrine.'' This surely is false ; James was
not stiled the brother of Jesus, because he
bore a greater moral resemblance to him than
the other Apostles. If any of them, in a
peculiar manner, claimed this dignity, it was
the favourite disciple. Nor would Origen
have made such an impertinent, as well as
false, observation, had he not perceived the
drift of the writer in calling James the bro^
ther of Jesus.

Fourthly -, we may remark, that the writer
of this passage was not in the habit of speak-
ing of our Lord as the Christ. For he de-
nominates him Christ, as if that was his pro-
per name, and not his title, as the Messiah of
the Jews. The writer, therefore, was no
professed Christian, and consequently no
forger.

Observe, lastly, that the persons whom
Josephus characterises as most distinguished
for probity, and their knowledge of the laws.

must, as they disapproved of the death of
James, have been believers, either professedly,
or so in conviction. I scarcely need add,
though it is of importance to do it, that the
men, whom Josephus represents as suffering
with James, w^ere evidently the disciples of
Jesus.

I once more return to Origen. In his
commentary upon Matthew, xiii. 55, 56, he
speaks thus : " This James is he whom Paul
mentions in his Epistle to the Galatians : say-
ing, * other of the Apostles saw I none, save
James, the Lord's brother.' This James was
in so great repute with the people for his vir-
tue, that Josephus, who wrote twenty books
of the Jewish Antiquities, desirous to assign
the reason of their suffering such things, as
that even the temple was destroyed, says,
that these .things were owing to the anger of
God, for what they did to James, the bro-
ther of Jesus, called Christ. And it is won-
derful that he, who did not believe our Jesus
to be the Christ, should bear such a testis
mony to our James. He also says, that the
people thought they suffered these things
upon account of James,"

Upon this Lardner remarks *,

'f Qrigen, in his books against Celsus,
quote§ Josephus again as speaking of James
to the Lke purpose. But there are not now
any such passages in Josephus -, though they
are quoted as from him by Eusebius also.
But he does not say whether from his Jewish
War, or from his Antiquities, or in what
book of either, as he sometimes does, when
he quotes Josephus. Jerome has twice quoted
Josephus for these things : first, in his article
of St. James, and then in that of Josephus
himself i but not much more expressly than
Eusebius." — Similar observations have been
made by other critics, who all agree in say-
ing that Origen forgot himself, or that the
passage in Josephus, to which he refers, has
by some means or other been lost. But the
fact is, that the passage is now extant in the
Antiquities of Josephus, and wanted only
eyes to see it.

In the passage above considered, the his-
torian, it is to be observed, does not say

t Lard. vi. 478 479.

where James and others were stoned, but
only that a sentence of this kind was passed
upon them by Ananus. But Hegesippus, a
writer in the second century, tells us, that
James was stoned in the temple. If the ac-
count of both these writers be taken as true,
we are to infer, that, after a mock trial had
taken place upon James ^w^o^Z'^n, the mob was
let loose against them ; who, instead of con-
ducting the innocent victims out of the tem-
ple, which they perhaps had orders to do,
vented their fury upon them in that spot.

Now carry back your eye to the fifth sec-
tion of the preceding chapter, and you will
find the words of Josephus to which Origen
refers. They are to this effect. * " This

itov aSeiag avaQaivoyrs; sv -raic soprai; ol Xxcrrai, y.c/A rov ai-
Cfjcov oaoiw^ Ksyipv'Au.syy/ syjivtzg., crvvoLvxiJAyyvu,svoi -T'jig itKri-
Sfja-i'/, avr.povv jw,£y nvscs laura^v s^Soovg, o6§ Ss; sifi •^prjfjia.ffiv
aAXpjj intriperowtsc, cv imvjV kxtx tr^'j a.Xy.r^'j t'qaiv, aXXa.
y.xi v.ata, to hpov aviov;' kxi yxp sx^i <r(pa,rr£tv sr-jX^awy, ovos
£v rovTuj ooTcouvrsg atrs^siv. ^tx rovro oii^^ai kxi rov ©siv, ju-jcr^-
cxvra rYi'/ aasSsixv airx'-/, aTTotrrpx-^riVXi [j.sv yjMy rr^y ir-jKiy
rs h Ispov our. sri y.x^xpov avrx' oiy.rirrjpiov- y.ctvxyrx, Pcj[j.xio-js
sirxyaysiv r/fjAv, v.xi rr, iroKsi xx^xp7iov rv3 KXi Sov?^£ixy siti^x-
Xsiv (Tvv yivffj^i y.xi tsxvotg, (rxfpovrjiTxi txi; crvij.CopXiS jSodao-
[/.syov r/txas. Antiq. Jud. lib. xx. cap. viii. 5.

murder (namely that of Jonathan) having
continued unpunished, the Sicarii afterwards,
ascending in great multitudes into the feast,
with weapons, which, as before, they con-
cealed (under their clothes), on mingling
with the crowds, slew some, who indeed were
their enemies, but whom they were hired by
others to murder; which they did, not only
in other parts of the city, but some even in
the temple. For even in that sacred place
they had the audacity to massacre ; nor did
they think that they were committing im-
piety. But I am of opinion, that on this ac-
count, God, who hates impiety, has demo-
lished our city; and regarding the temple
as no longer a pure habitation for himself,
brought upon us the Romans, and exposed it,
and the city, to purifying fire, and ourselves,
with our v/ives and children, to slavery;
wishing that we should learn virtue from our
calamities."

Here we are told that Jerusalem and the
temple were destroyed on account of the mur-
der of certain persons. And here let me en-
deavour to prove, very briefly, first, that by
these persons Josephus meant the followers

of Jesus ; and, secondly, that the men here
meant, he afterwards, in the passage above
examined, explains to be 'James and others.

That they were the disciples of Jesus, will
appear,

1 . Because they were, as Josephus tells us,
enemies of the Sicarii. Now these Sicarii, or
Lesta, were bands of robbers, who infested
and plundered the country under certain im-
postors ; each of whom professed himself ei-
ther the Messiah, or a teacher under Christ ;
and therefore nominal professors. But such
persons were resisted and detested more by
the peaceable and virtuous followers of Jesus,
than by the other Jews ^ as they opposed an
impostor to the true Christ, whom they pro-
fessed, or brought the Christian profession
into disgrace, by making it the cloak of fraud
and villany. Here Josephus emphatically
and exclusively calls them the enemies of
these plunderers.

2. The writer informs us, that these banditti
were hired by others to put to death the persons
who were the objects of their vengeance. W-e

are not indeed told who the persons were that
suborned these assassins, but we may well con-
clude that they were some leading men of the
city, such as the Scribes and Pharisees ; who,
as we are assured from several places in the
New Testament, used to procure murderers
to dispatch those, among the Christians, that
were most obnoxious to them.

3. So great was the hatred of the Jews
against the disciples of Jesus, and so blind
and furious was their zeal, that they thought
it no crime to put them to death wherever
they could be found. And here we have an
instance of the same fury and bigotry.
**'For," says he, ** even in that sacred place,
they had the audacity to massacre, nor did
they think that they were committing im-
piety."

4. Josephus seems to have had before his
eyes the denunciation which John Baptist de-
livered against the Jews for their conduct to
the Messiah, that was sent to save them ;
and, in terms equally strong, asserts the same
evil consequences which awaited them—
** He shall purify you with holy wind and

fire : whose fan is in his hand, and he will
thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his
wheat into his garner : but he will burn up
the chafF with immense fire." — Afi:erthis Jo-
sephus says — '* But I am of opinion, that on
this account God, who hates impiety, has
demolished our city : and regarding the tem-
ple as no longer a pure habitation for him-
self, brought upon us the Romans, and ex-
, posed it, and the city, to purifyifjg fire, and
ourselves, with our wives and children, to
slavery ; wishing that we should learn virtue
from our calamities."

5. The paragraph in Josephus, which just
follows the above, will, when properly ex-
amined and explained, fully fhew that he
had the Jewish converts in his thoughts on
this occasion. But this I shall not now dis-
cuss, as it would interfere with my future in-
tention. I proceed then.

Secondly, to shew, that the men, here said
by him to have been killed, are the very
same with those whom he calls 'James and
others in the passage already examined.

Against this it may be urged, that the
massacre of which Josephus speaks in this
place, happened soon after the time in whicn
Jonathan the high priest was murdered by Fe-
lix; whereas James and his adherents were
condemned after Ananus was made pontiff.
This would have been a solid objection, had
not the historian himself anticipated it. In
order to shew that the two massacres did not
happen together, he insinuates that the se^
cond arose from the authors of the first be-
ing suffered to continue unpunished ; which
necessarily supposes some length of time be-
tween them ; and in order to mark this in-
terval the stronger, he inserts the words ro
-Koi-nov, after that. Nor can we be at a loss to
see the reason why the author has brought
together two events, which happened on
two different occasions. They are events of
the same kind, so as to have been associated
together in the memory ; and they were per-
petrated by the same base agents ; which ren-
dered the transition from the one to the other
very natural, and indeed unavoidable.

Nor can it be farther objected, that the
Apostle and his brethren are said to have been
VOL. I. ^

condemned to be stoned ; whereas the in-
nocent victims, to whom he here alludes,
were murdered by the Sicarii. In this there
is no inconsistence. The chief priest and
his associates passed the sentence of death
upon them. But the sentence was known
and allowed by all good men to be unjust ;
and the high reputation of James, for piety
and justice, rendered it difficult, and even
dangerous, to be carried into execution. In
such circumstances was it not natural for
Ananus and his party to apply to the known
enemies of the Christians, and hire them to
execute it ?

Josephus, be it farther observed, when
speaking of the condemnation of James and
others, has not added a word about the man^
ner of their execution, nor of the persons
concerned in it ^ which well agrees with the
supposition that he had already noticed their
death.

In confirmation of this, I shall farther pro-
duce a striking fact. Hegesippus, in his ac-
count of the death of James, preserved by
Eusebius, says, that the Scribes and Pharisees

thus addressed him.—." Persuade * the peo-
ple not to err respecting Jesus: for alLthe
people and we all have respect for thee, and
we and the people bear witness that thou art
a just man, and no respecter of persons.
Stand, therefore, on the wing of the temple,
that, by being above the people, they may
all hear thy words : for on account of the Pass^
over all the tribes are come together with the
Gentiles J*

Here it is asserted, that there was a feast
in Jerusalem, at which all the Jews and some
Gentiles were assembled, at the time James
was put to death. Of this circumstance Jo-
sephus takes no notice, when speaking of the
condemnation of James by Ananus ; but as-
serts it in the account which he gives of the
massacre in the temple. " The Sicarii after-
wards," says he, "ascending, without any man-
ner of concern, to the feast — on mingling
with the crowds, slew some, who indeed were
their enemies, but whom they were hired by
others to murder." — If then the persons here

* Euseb. Ecclcs. Hist, book ii. cap. xxili. p. 79-

G 21

alluded to were believers ; if they were mur-
dered during the time of a feast in Jerusalem ;
if, farther, James fell about that time, and, as
Hegesippus says, on such an occasion, it fol-
lows, with some degree of certainty, that
James was in the number of those slain by
the Sicarii. But whether this conclusion be
in itself just or not, it is no less than abso-
lutely sure, that Origen understood the matter
in that light. For if he entertained the opi-
nion that James was one of those that fell in
the temple, as related by Josephus, to whose
murder he ascribed the destruction of the
Jewish state, we see before us, in effect, the
very passage which our learned apologist a-
scribes to him. The historian, it is true,
does not say that this was done on account of
James solely, but on account of all the per-
sons that suffered in Jerusalem, and in the
temple ; that is, on account of the followers
of Jesus in general. As, however, James
was the only person whom Josephus has spe-
cified by name, Origen thought himself jus-
tified (though he certainly was not) in say^
ing, that in vengeance of him these calami-
ties befell the Jews. Origen, it is farther to
be noticed, says, that Josephus styles our

Apostle a very just man. But he does not
speak thus of him. It is, however, very-
plain that he thought him a most just man, and
labours, without expressing it, to impress
that idea upon his reader. Origen drew the
proper inference ; and therefore, without inr
justice, made him speak what he only meant,

I have been much longer on these passages
than I intended ; and, lest I should offend by
prolixity, I shall conclude with three short
inferences.

1. The correspondence between the two
foregoing passages, quoted and blended toge-
ther by Origen, supposes, contrary to the opi-
nion of the learned, that they are both genuine.

2. The testimony which Josephus bears to
John the Baptist, that he was a prophet;
that he pointed out the Messiah ; that he
baptized for the remission of sins ; his para-
graph in favour of James and others, and
particularly his assertion, that Jerusalem was
destroyed for the murder of the Christians ;
all these, if allowed to be fair conclusions,
prove irresistibly that he was in his heart a

^ ■ r, G I

thorough, though a disguised, convert to
Christianity.

3. The passages in which Josephus speaks
in favour of John and James, though un-
questionably genuine, and though understood
by the ancient fathers to convey the above
important conclusions, have, nevertheless, not
been quoted by any, except Origen, before
Eusebius. The silence, therefore, of Justin,
Clement, Tertullian, and others, is no argu-
ment against the genuineness of the disputed
passage concerning Christ : for they have been
silent in respect to those which are allowed
to be genuine, and which they had a very
strong, if not equal, motive to cite.

But to proceed. The following is a pas-
sage taken from the Bibliotheque of Sextus
Sene?2sisy inserted amidst the Epistles of
Learned Men, in the second volume of Jo-
sephus.

" Si * Josephus, inter alias Herodis sasvi-
tias, banc occisorum infantium crudelitatem

* H»vercam. Ed. vol. ii. p. 2/6,

non recensuit, nihil id Chrlstianum virum
movere debet ; prascipue cum ipse Josephus
alia fere innumera, multa etiam majoris mo-
menti multoque illustriora, vel oblivione vel
incuria vel m'alitia prseterierit ; sic uti eum
Egesippus pervetustus historicus accusat quod
divinam Domini nostri Jesu Christi resur-

RECTIONEM ET EJUS DIVINA OPERA VO-

LENS SCIENSQUE TACUERIT."

With the silence of Josephus concerning
the massacre of the infants by Herod, I have
at present nothing to do. Let me, hov^ever,
remark, that it is hard that an historian should
be censured for not recording what had never
happened, but is the mere fiction of ancient
fraud.

The declaration of Hegesippus, here stated,
is important, as it shews that that writer,
who, as Baronius says, flourished about the
time of Constantine, had read the disputed
passage in Josephus, and understood it in the
manner I have explained it. *' Josephus,"
says he, " knowingly and wilfully has passed
over in silence the resurrection of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and the divinity of his works.'*

G 4

This is very true : though in the controvert-
ed paragraph he says that Jesus v/as the au-
thor of wonderful works, yet he does not
ascribe the power which he had to God,^ or
attest that his works were divine ; nor does he
mention a syllable about his being raised
from the dead. But I go further than this,
and assert, that Hegesippus was well aware
that Josephus was in his heart a believer i
otherwise with what propriety could he find
fault with him for not relating the resurrec-
tion of Jesus ? Was such a testimony to be
expected from one that was known not to
have been a believer ? Is it to be expected
that we should meet with it in 'Joseph Ben
Goriofiy or in the Talmudsy or in any other of
the 'Jewish writings ? See also an extract of
the same author y made by Baronius, AnnaL £f-
cksiast, tom. i. A. C. xxxiv. or Havercam.
Ed. vol. ii. p. 276.

The account which Macarius, in the time
of Dioclesian, gives of this passage, is very
different from that of Hegesippus. His words
are these— Iwcr'/jTro? *, o ef U^oa-oXvfAuv *£^6uj

* See Fabrlcius, apud Havercamp. vol. U. p.6l.

^BVOi^BVog, ycci i(TTO^rjov f^£T ccXyjQeio^g ret y,ccT lou-
^xiovg, ^cc^rv^u rov Xo.,(rTcv tou aXyj^ivou Qbop

ryZyovOTOiy SVOiv9^U7r7}(rcCVTa, TS, KCCl (TTOtVDCoQBVTCCj XUt

T^iTvi i^f^s^a. iyspQsvToi' ov ra (Tvyyoocfji^a.roc ev tt
^vjf/,o(na, uTTozsiToci jSiCXioQtik.v. — Which is to this
effect — JosephuSy a priest of 'Jerusalem, who
wrote with fidelity the history of the Jewish
(iffairSj testifies^ that Christ was the true
God-, that he became a man ; that he was cru~
cijiedy attd rose from the dead the third day-^
whose works are deposited ifi the public li-
brary.

This is a plain misrepresentation of the
passage ; but it is such as was natural from an
orthodox person, who was prone to turn
words to his own purpose.

So industrious, indeed, have the advocates
of the Trinity ever been in its defence, that
they have found proof for the divinity, in the
sufferings of Christ, and inferred the perfec-
tions of God from the infirmities of human
nature. The zeal of Macarius, therefore,
might be forgiven, who first has wrested the
insinuation of Josephus that Jesus was the
Son of God, into an acknowledgement of the

Trinitarian faith. Bat the violence which is
here offered to his testimony, is a fair pre-
sumption that the assertions of this martyr
XYould have been contained in the passage,
had it been the forgery of an orthodox divine.

Chrysostom, it is well known, has not
quoted this passage in any part of his volu-
minous writings ; and hence it has been in-
ferred that he knew nothing of it. But the
conclusion is palpably false ; for, in his ora-
tions against the Jews, he proposes Josephus
to them as a f77ost faithful witnessy or a wit-
ness 'particularly deserving of their regard —

lAOCOrV^OC [/.OCXKTTOi Ot^tOTrKTTQV *.

Could ChrysQStom have thus characterized
Josephus, and held him up to the Jewish
people as one eminently entitled to their cre-
dit, if he was not aware, that he bore in his
writings some remarkable testimony in favour
of our Lord ? But no such testimony is to be
found in them, excepting the passage in his
Antiquities. Chrysostom, therefore, must
have read that passage, and had it in his

* See Ittig. Prolegom. vol. ii. p. BQ,

mind, when he gave him the above appella-
tion. As an illustration of this assertion,
suppose that Sozomen had not quoted in his
Ecclesiastical History the testimony of Jose-
phus, but only thus expressed himself re-
specting him — ocPiOx^^cog * uv e;^ f^cc^rvg ri^g
'Tre^t ©eou uXviQs.ag — v/ords very like those of
Chrysostom, and which Epiphanius Scholias-
ticus has rendered — Dignissi?nus erit testis de
veritate Christi: would it not be just to
conclude, that Sozomen had perused the con-
troverted paragraph ? It certainly would.
Accordingly, after making the above decla-
ration, he actually cites it, in the manner it ii
now extant in the Jewish Antiquities.

I shall next quote a passage from Theodo-
ret, who flourished about the year 420. The
passage to which I allude is well known, and
is as follows — 'On (5" ol ttocXoci lou^uioi rov jt^a-

JCX^lOV AcCVl'rjX ^ZyKTTOV UTTEiCCcXoVV TTPOmVjTVjV, UOCP"

Tvg ot^iozp^^? IbxrvjTTog o 'E^oaiog, rov jjtsv Xpio"-
ria-viKov ov ^e^oci^civo; KrjpvyiAcCy rvjv ^' aXri^Biocv
z^VTrreiv ovic a.v6'^of>LSvog. Tom. ii. p. Sg'}^,-^^
7hat the Jeivs of old regarded the blessed Da-

* Lib. i. cap, i.

921

niel as the greatest prophet y Josepbus the He^
brew is an eminent witness; who, though he
did not receive the Christian proclamation, yet
did not prevail upon himself to conceal its truth.
That is — Though he chose not to make an open
profession of the Gospel, he had nevertheless
the honesty to bear witness to its divine origin.
Here then we have a decisive testimony not
only to the authenticity of the disputed pa-
ragraph *, but also that Josephus really be-
lieved in his heart the truth of Christianity,
notwithstanding his want of firmness and re^
solution to proclaim his faith in it.

The author who next demands our atten-
tion is Photius, whose learning, more than
the age in which he lived, gives an impor-
tance to his authority.

** This -f- paragraph was wanting in the

* It ought, however, to be observed, that, as this bishop
has made the above observation at the end of his Commen-
taries on Daniel, he refers to a book, which, as we are in-
formed by Jerom, Josephus had written on the same subject.
The object of that book seems to have been to estabUsh the
truth of Christianity.

t Lardn. vol. vii. p. 123.

copies of Josephus, which were seen by Pho-
tius in the ninth century."

** I make a distinct article of this writer,
because he read and revised the works of Jo-
sephus as a critic. He has in his BibHo-
theque no less than three articles concerning
Josephus, but takes no notice of this pas-
sage ; whence it may be concluded that it
was wanting in his copies, or that he did not
think it genuine ; but the former is the more
likely. He refers to the passage concerning
John the Baptist in this manner, ♦ This
Herod, tetrarch of Galilee and Perasa, son
of Herod the Great, is he who put to death
the great John the forerunner 3 because, as
Josephus says, he was afraid he would stir
up the people to rebellion ; for all men paid
great regard to John, on account of his tran^
scendent virtue. In his time also our Sa-
viour suffered.' How fair an occasion had
Photius here to refer also to the testimony
given to Jesus, which we now have, if he
had seen it ? Upon this article of Photius the
very learned Ittigius, in his Prolegomena to
Josephus, has just remarks ; invincibly as-
serting the absolute silence of this great

critic concerning this paragraph of Jose-
phus/'

The argument here used is simply this.
** Photius had not in his copies the testimony
now extant in the Antiquities of Josephus,
because he is silent respecting it, which he
would not have been, had he seen it.'* But
this argument, if it prove any thing, proves
too much : for it necessarily leads to the con-
clusion, that he had never perused it in any
other whatever ; that is, Photius, whom Zo-
naras justly calls bv Xoyoig ovo^ua-rorottrogi the
most celebrated scholar of the age, had not seen a
noted paragraph, ascribed to Josephus, though
quoted by all ecclesiastical writers from Eu-
sebius, down to the ninth century. For if
it did not exist in his own copies, while he
had read it in those writers, it is scarcely
possible but that he would have made some
such an observation as the following : " The
passage concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,
cited from Josephus by Eusebius and others,
is not in those of his works which are in my
possession."

To this let me add another remark — Pho-

tius, it is allowed, met in the Antiquities of
Josephus with two passages -, one respecting
John the Baptist, the other concerning James,
the brother of Jesus. Now if he had not there
also met with the disputed passage, some
such animadversion as this, it is probable,
would have dropped from him — " It is very
wonderful that Josephus the Hebrew, though
he notices the forerunner, and his own bro-
ther, makes not the least m.ention of Jesus."
That he has not made an observation like
this, is a strong presumption that there was
no ground for it ; that is, the paragraph did
actually exist in the copies which he pos-
sessed.

But this Is not all that we have to oppose
to the reasonings of Lardner, and other ad-
versaries of the passage.

A book, entitled Ue^i ryjg rou Uocvtoi; AiTixg,
was thought, in former times, to have been
WTitten by Josephus. This book has perish-
ed in the common wreck of ancient learn-
ing. A fragment, however, is still preserved,
and annexed to his other Works. Ah extract
of it will be taken hereafter.

Concerning the author of this book, Pho-
tius makes the following remark — Ais^na-i
xai "TTSpi TTjg y.o<r^oyoviot(; KS(pocXiudug ' Trepi jxsv rov
XptCTov, Tou aXviQivov ©eov i/i^uv, ug syyicrTa, ^soXo-
y£t, KXi/iCiv T6 Kurriv avoc(pdiyyofjLBvo;, ycon rviv sic

'TTOCTfOg U(pOCC(rT0V ySHiTiV U^BUTTTUg uvoiypx(p'jov*

Which may be thus rendered :

** Of the creation of the world he gives but
SI summary account : but concerning Christ,
who is truly our God, he speaks in terms
very conformable to our theology. He gives
him that very name, and unexceptionably de-
scribes his incomprehensible descent from the
father." After this he subjoins — ** This
may, perhaps, lead some to doubt that the
book came from the hand of Josephus."
Then he adds — ** I found in the annotations
that it is not the composition of Josephus,
but of one Cains, a presbyter in Rome. Be-
ing published without the author's name, it
was hence' by some imputed to Josephus ; by
others to Justin Martyr -, while others as-
signed it to Ir£?2ceus/'

My first remark upon this production is,

that, after all that Photlus says, it appears to
have been h's own opinio?!, that the book was
actually composed by Josephus. " This,'*
says he, " may perhaps lead some to doubt,
that it is the work of Josephus." Which lan-
guage appears to me, not to imply that Pho-
tius himself had any doubts of this kind. He
says, indeed, that he found in the annota-
tions that it was not his production. But
this amounts to no more than if he had said
that an annotator m.akes such an asser-
tion. Does it hence follow that the asser-
tion was true, or that Photius thought it to
be so ?

But why should any have doubted, or why
should Photius (if he really did so) have en-
tertained any doubt, that the work was the
production of Josephus ? This might be the
cause of their suspicion. The Jewish histo-
rian, though a believer in Christ, and though
in several parts of his works he has endea-
voured to establish the truth of his divine
missiofh, yet has no where openly and directly
avowed his faith, or insisted on the pecuHar
doctrines of the Gospel ; such as the resur-
rection of Jesus, as the prototype of the fu-

VOL, I. H

ture resurrection of all mankind, and his se-
cond appearance to judge the world* But
the book under consideration contains these
doctrines clearly maintained, and strenuously
defended. This, indeed, is a circumstance
which might well induce a person to suspect
that it never came from the pen of Josephus.
But then it should be remembered, that, if it
be his composition, he gave it to the public
without his name. The reason of which seems
to have been, that it contains tenets which
he believed to be true, and wished to propa-
gate, but had not the firmness to avow. And
this is one of those many little artifices which
in the course of our inquiry will appear to
have been adopted by this otherwise illustrious
author, in order to conceal or to soften his
real sentiments.

It seems to have been the opinion of Ta-
naquil Faber, that the disputed passage con-
cerning Jesus, if proved to be genuine, would
imply that this book was in reality the pro-
duction of Josephus 'y for he argues against
the authenticity of that paragraph, on the
supposition that this performance was not his.
If this be the case, it will follow, with ab-

solute certainty, that it claims Josephus for
its author : for it will appear, before we come
to the end of our" present inquiry, morally
impossible that the paragraph should be spu-
rious. Independently, however, of this con-
sideration, there are two circumstances which
here deserve to be noticed, as they render it
very probable that it came from no other
hand than that of the Jewish historian.

First J it appears from the words of Pho-
tius, that the author, whoever he may have
been, was some 'Jewish convert y who did not
believe the divinity or the supernatural birth
of Jesus— Concerning Christ, who is truly
God, he theologizes very near us — that is, very
near those of the orthodox faith. The writer
was not then quite orthodox, but very near
being so, or in this treatise he spoke in great
conformity to their system. This a Jewish
believer might well do. For though he re-
jected the divinity and the pre-existence of
Jesus, considered in a personal sense, yet, re-
garding him in the light of a divine messen-
ger, and applying to him the title of Logos,
which properly marked the message which
he brought to mankind, he might speak of

H 2

100

him as a God, as the author of all things, and
as proceedijtg in an ijicomprehensible manner
from the Father, This the Apostles have in
reality done, though they believed, and, as
we shall presently see, insisted, that Jesus
was the son of Joseph and Mary. In his ca-
pacity, indeed, as the commissioner of hea-
ven, which denoted him only as a moral agent,
exclusively of his personal nature, they speak
of him in lofty terms, and ascribe to him the
very name, which denotes the wisdom and
benevolence of God : and it is in the same
figurative sense, in the same moral view, as
the servant of God, and the benefactor of
men, and not in his human capacity, that the
writer of this book speaks of our Lord. He
was not, therefore, an orthodox writer, and
consequently could not have been Caius, Ire-
nsEUS, or Justin, who unquestionably were of
that class. ^

Secondly -, Josephus, in his Jewish Anti-
quities, hints his intention of writing a book
'77101 0sou Y.OLI T^g ov(rixg aurov. Now this title
is the same in signification with that of the
book which we are considering. Here then
we see Josephus expressing his design of

101

writing such a book ; and is there any im-
probability in supposing that he did execute
this design ?

Thirdly ; the above arguments receive some
weight from the testimony of JoM Damas-
cenus and Zonaras ; the former of whom has
mentioned this book as the work of Jose-
phus : the latter, after quoting his testimony
from the Antiquities, speaks thus — *' In his
book to the Greeks, written against Plato,
and entitled. Concerning the Cause of all things,
which book the holy John Damascenus has
also mentioned, Josephus writes thus." — Zo-
naras then quotes a passage from it, which I
shall cite hereafter.

Upon the whole then we have reason to
conclude, that, notwithstanding the insinu-
ation of Photius, this production, which, if
we may judge from the fragment of it still
surviving, was learned, eloquent, and replete
with noble arguments in favour of Chris-
tianity, was, in reality, the production of
Josephus 'y and consequently the conclusion
which Faber draws from it against the dis-
puted passage, is futile and groundless.

H 3

102

I have one remark more to make, before
I quit Photius, which will afford my reader a
more satisfactory evidence, that this critic had
perused in his copies the disputed paragraph.
This evidence is founded on the law of asso-
ciation, to understand which, I must premise
the two following remarks.

1 . Photius, if he had read it in the Anti-
quities, and understood it in the manner above
explained, must have observed, that the au-
thor, in order to repel the suspicion that he
was himself a Christian, made use of a lan-
guage, which, if taken in its strict legal
sense, signified that our Lord was deservedly
put to death for pretending to be the Mes-
siah ; or, in the style of a Jew, for assuming
the title which belonged to their great tem-
poral prince.

2. In gratitude to Vespasian and Titus, for
the distinguished favours which he had re-
ceived, Josephus assumed from them the sur-
name of Flavins, For this, some of his own
nation reproached and envied him, as they
did our Saviour ; and wished, if they could,
to punish him for his arrogance. Here then

103

Josephus and Jesus did both of them assume
a royal name -, and, in this respect, bore such
resemblance to each other, that Photius, on
adverting to this incident in the conduct of
the former, would, by the mere impulse of
association, be led to think of the claims of
the latter, and to animadvert on the improper
language which Josephus had used respect-
ing his claim, though he believed in his heart
the justice of it.

Now Photius in his Bibliotheque makes
this observation on Josephus for arrogating
the royal appellation of Flavins — '* While
many through envy reproached him with it,
he was not brought into judgmeiit for //;"
which is evidently a kind of remonstrajice or
retort upon him, for employing a word,
which, taken in its strict acceptation, signi-
fies that Jesus was deservedly brought to
judgment, as having claimed an office for
which he was not legally qualified. The
meaning of Photius, w^hen drawn out to full
view, is to this purpose. ** Our Lord was
condemned for professing to be the Messiah
— a character to which he had the fullest
right, and for which he was qualified by the

H 4-

10-1.

power and wisdom of God himself: yet Jo-
sephus the Hebrew, contrary to his own con-
viction, and solely for the purpose of con-
cealing his faith, insinuates that he was justly
punished, and not qualified for that charac-
ter. How much then must he deserve pu-
nishment for such equivocation, and for as-
suming, from vanity and flattery, a title, to
which neither birth nor fortune gave him a
just claim!"

What confirms the allusion here made to
Josephus is the use of svceiPig -, the very
word which he has employed in the disputed
passage concerning Christ. We may observe
farther, that the term, as employed by Pho-
tius, has no propriety whatever, and scarcely
any meaning, but in its reference to the Jewish
historian *.

I cannot quit this part of the subject with-
out noticing a singular passage of Eusebius,

* An observation of the same kind has been made by Dau-
buz : " Vox £V(?£i^if ," says he, " hie minus est propria : nisi
quis dicere volucrit, Photium de Josepho loquentem, ipsum-
que hoc testimonium in animo habentem, maluisse vocem
minus quidem propriam, ex Josepho tamen, de quo loqueba-
tur, nautuatum usurpare." Ap. Havercara. lib. ii. p. 22(2.

105

in his Ecclesiastical History. The passage is
this : ** * With this writer (viz. Philo) Jo-
sephus agrees, both of whom aHke make it
manifest, that the calamities which befel the
Jews originated in their atrocities against our
Saviour." Observe, Eusebius does not say-
that these writers declare this fact in express
terms, but that they make it appear so ;
namely, by a recital of facts : that is, accord-
ing to this writer, Philo and Josephus, while
they did not openly profess their faith in Jesus
Christ, or rank in the number of his disciples,
nevertheless endeavoured in their writing's to
evince the truth of his divine mission, and to
hold up to the world the sufferings of the
Jews, as a just punishment from God for re-
jecting their Messiah.

I cannot here help observing, that, had mo-
dern critics attended to this assertion of Eu-
sebius, and studied, on the principle it sug-
gests, the productions of those extraordinary
men, they would have seen that there is the

* "Zwcc^si S' a.'j'fu} '/.at 6 Icvtrr^'n'og, o[xom; ccito ruiv Uikurou
yjiwviy, Kai T'ujv Y.a,Tx Tov 'EajtTjpog yj^mv rsroXfjyriy.svujVf'rag koctx
iravTos rov eSvovs sya,p^(X,<r^xt 2HMAINX2N a-u[j,(popccs. Lib, ii.
cap. vi. p. 54.

106

most solid ground for believing them to have
been in their hearts the disciples of Jesus ;
and that the grand aim in all their works is
to defend his followers from calumny and
persecution, and to exhibit his Gospel as a
gift worthy of universal reception.

This leads me to cite an observation of
'Tbeophylact, in his Commentary upon John,
chap. xiii. 33. *' The Jews, indeed," writes
he, " sought him when their city was taken,
and when the divine anger assailed them on
every side ; as Josephus also testifies, who
asserts, that on account of the death of Je-
sus these things happened to them."

Learned men have supposed that the writer
here refers to some particular passage of Jo-
sephus ', but in this, I conceive, they are
mistaken : for Theophylact understood, and
very properly too, that the main design of
that historian in composing his Jewish War,
was to justify the prediction of our Lord, and
to shew that the punishment inflicted upon
him by the Jews was the cause of those cala-
mities which, in their turn, they underwent.
Hence the words of our commentator are to

107

be considered as respecting the object and
tendency of the whole history, and not any
particular passage in Josephus,

• Similar to the above declaration of Theo-
phylact is an assertion made by Minucius Fe*
lix in his Octavius ; who, in his reply to Cce-
cilius, makes use of these words : " * Read
the Jewish writings, or, if you are more
fond of the Roman, ask of Flavins Josephus
concerning the Jews, and you will presently
be informed, that their misfortunes are the
fruits of their guilt, and that nothing hap-
pened to them but what had been foretold as
the consequence of their continued obsti-
nacy."

From this clause it is obvious, that Minu-
cius looked upon Josephus as a writer who
ascribed the calamities of the Jewish nation
to the guilt they incurred in rejecting and
putting to death their Messiah. Observe too,

* Scripta eorum relege J vel, si Romanis magis gaudes ut
'transeamus, Flavii Josephi, vel Antonii Juliani de Judaeis
require j jam scies nequiti^ sua hanc eos meruisse fortunam :
nee quidquam accidisse quod non sit his, si in contumacia
perseverarent, ante prsedictura, P. 3 19.

108

what is very remarkable, that he classes Jo-
sephus, not with the yeivish, but with the
Romafi writers.

I shall conclude this branch of my subject
with an observation which Suidas makes on
the word Jesus. " We find," says he, " Jo-
sephus, who wrote the history of the Jewish
captivity, openly declaring in his records of
that event, that Jesus purified himself with
the priests in the temple." Whether or not
Josephus ever made a declaration of this kind,
is not at present my business to inquire, but
only to observe, that Suidas seems to have
been well acquainted with the systematic
concealment of our historian, and contrasts
with it, as appears to me, his exp licit ness on
the occasion to which he here refers : and on
this contrast rests the propriety of the adverb
(pocn^uq-j which, if considered in this light,
is very significant, but has otherwise little or
no propriety.

I proceed next to examine the context of
the disputed passage ; which, as it lays open
the origin of the corruptions of Christianity,
and developes a series of events on which is

109

Impressed in legible characters the truth of
the Christian religion, exceeds in value and
importance, I had almost said, all the united
productions of Greece and Rome.

" This paragraph*,'* says Dr. Lardner,
" concerning Jesus, interrupts the course of
the narrative ; and therefore it is not genuine,
but is an interpolation."

*« In the preceding paragraph Josephus
chives an account of an attempt of Pilate to
bring water from a distant place to Jerusalem
with the sacred money, which occasioned a
disturbance, in which many Jews were killed,
and many others were wounded."

** The paragraph next following this, about
which we are now speaking, begins thus:
* And about the same time another sad cala-
mity gave the Jews great uneasiness.' That
calamity was no less than banishing the Jews
from Rome by order of the emperor Tibe-
rius, occasioned, as he says, by the miscon-
duct of some Jews in that city."

* Vol. vii. p. 124.

110

" This paragraph, therefore, was not ori-
ginally in Josephus. It does not come from
him : but it is an interpolation inserted by-
somebody afterwards. This argument must
be of great weight with all who are well ac-
quainted with the writings of Josephus, who
is a cool and sedate writer, and never failing
to make transitions where they are proper or
needful."

" I believe it is not easy to instance in an-
other writer, who is so exact in all his pauses
and transitions, or so punctual in the notice
he gives, when he has done with one thing,
and goes on to another. That must make
this argument the stronger."

** Tillemont was very sensible of this dif-
ficulty, though he thinks that the writers,
who maintain the genuineness of this passage,
have made good their point. * It must be
owned, however,' says he, ' that there is one
thing embarrassing in this passage, which is,
that it interrupts the course of the narration
in Josephus ; for that which immediately fol-
lows begins in these terms : ' About the same
time there happened another misfortune.

Ill

which disturbed the Jews.* For those words
* another misfortune,* have no connection
with what was just said of Jesus Christ,
which is not mentioned as an unhappiness ;
and, on the contrary, it has a very natural re-
ference to what precedes in that place, which
was a sedition, in which many Jews were
killed or wounded.. Certainly it is not so
easy to answer to this difficulty as to the
others. I wish that Mr. Huet and Mr. Roie
had stated this objection, and given satisfac-
tion upon it. As for myself, I know not
what to say to it, but that Josephus himself
might insert this passage after his work wa$
finished ; and he did not then think of a
more proper place than this, where he passed
from what happened in Judaea, under Pilate,
to somewhat that was done at the same time
at Rome ; and he forgot to alter the trans-
ition which he had made at first."

" Undoubtedly the difficulty presses very
hard, which will allow of no better solution."

Thus do Lardner, and others with him, ar-
gue against the authenticity of the passage,
from its apparent want of connection ; while

112

they understood neither the passage Itself,
nor any part of the context in which it stands.
The objection here stated will remain a last-
ing monument of the fallacy of learning and
criticism, when separated from a knowledge
of the law which regulates the human mind.

Before I proceed to the solution of this
difficulty, or rather before I turn it into a de-
monstration of the genuineness of the para-
graph, I cannot help adverting to the teme-
rity of Lardner's inference — " The paragraph
interrupts the course of the narration, there-
fore it is an interpolation." With as much
propriety might the inference be reversed —
" It interrupts the course of the narration,
therefore it is genuine." For would not an
interpolator be much more likely to guard
against the suspicion of forgery, by giving it
a proper connection, than an authentic writer ?
A person capable of writing a passage in the
style of Josephus must surely have had the
address to insert it in a place where it might
have the appearance of unity with the con-
text. He would not, by a total want of ar-
rangement, put it in the power of every
reader to say, ** it obviously interrupts the

113

course of the narrative, and therefore it is
an interpolation."

That the reader may have a clear view of
the connection which the paragraph sustains,
I shall here lay before him the whole context
as it stands in the original, and which forms
the ground- work of our future inquiry. The
passage preceding the controverted one is to
this effect. ** Pilate caused water to be in-
troduced into Jerusalem, at the expence of
the sacred money ; fixing on the source of
the stream at the distance of two hundred
stadia. But the Jews were not pleased with
this proceeding : many thousands of them
came together, and with shouts demanded of
him to desist from his design. Some of them
made use of reproaches, and, as is usual with
mobs, insulted the governor. But having
dispatched a large number of soldiers, dis-
guised in a Jewish dress, under which they
carried short swords, into a place where they
might surpund the multitude, he then or-
dered them to separate. While they pressed
forward to reproach him, he gave the mili-
tary the signal, before agreed upon ; who did
far greater execution than what Pilate order-

VOL. I. I

114

ed : as they punished without distinction the
peaceable and the tumultuous. But the peo-
ple were not in the least appeased, so that
many being unarmed, and assailed by armed
men, were killed on the spot ; while others
escaped with wounds. And thus was the tu-
mult suppressed.

** And about this time existed Jesus, a
wise man, if indeed he might be called a
man: for he was the author of w^onderful
works, and the teacher of such men as em-
brace truths with delight. He united to him-
self many Jews, and many from among the
Gentiles. This was the Christ : and those
that, from the first, had been attached to
him, continued their attachment, though he
was condemned by our great men, and cru-
cified by Pilate. For he appeared to them
again alive the third day: these and innu-
merable other marvellous things concerning
him being foretold by the divine prophets.
And the tribe that from him call themselves
Christians, are not even at this time fallen
off.

** And about those times another sad cala-

115

mity agitated the, Jews, with which are con-
nected certain flagrant deeds respecting the
temple of Isis. This audacious crime of the
priests of Isis I shall first relate, and then
transfer the narrative to the calamity which
the Jews suffered*

" At Rome lived a woman, named Pan-
Una, greatly distinguished for the dignity of
her ancestors, and the charms of personal
virtue. She was very rich, and very beauti-
ful ; and it was the principal study of her
life to cultivate modesty, which indeed is the
chief ornament of her sex. She was mar-
ried to Satiirninus, whose merit in every
respect equalled the virtues of his wife.
With this woman Deems Mtindiis, a knight
of high rank, became enamoured. For the
gratification of his passion he offered her
large sums of money ; but she, being too
great to surrender her chastity to a bribe, re-
fused his offer, and her refusal inflamed him the
more. He, however, still continued making
more handsome proposals, which at length a-
mounted to two hundred thousand i\ttic drach-
ma?, for the indulgence of one night. This
too she rejected. Mundus, unable to support

116

the disappointment occasioned him, resolved
to starve himself to death. Upon this fatal
resolution he was bent ; nor could he be di-
verted from the execution of it. But in his
service lived one Ida, a woman made free by
his father, and capable of every villany. Being
much grieved at the resolution of her young
master (for he appeared to be dying), she re-
animates him with her address, and made him
hope that she should procure him the enjoy-
ment of Paulina. He is transported with her
promise, and advanced her fifty thousand
drachmae, which she said was sufficient for
the purpose. Ida, on reviving the young
man by these means, and having received the
desired sum, pursues a different way for sub-
duing the woman, who, she saw, would not
yield the citadel of her virtue to the force of
money. Knowing that she was much de-
voted to' the worship of Isis, she planned this
scheme : she goes to some of the priests, and
discloses the passion of her master, and by
her entreaties (but chiefly by her presents,
having at the time given them twenty-
five thousand drachma?, with the promise of
an equal amount when the scheme should
succeed) prevails upon them to use all their

117

endeavours to procure him the beloved wo-
man. Captivated with such sums of gold, they
pledged their service. The oldest of them
repaired to the house of Paulina, and obtained
a private interview with her.. He came, he
said, from the god Anubis, who was ena-
moured with her beauty. The information
gave her pleasure. By the assistance of her
associates she adorned herself in a style worthy
the honour done her by Anubis ; and ac-
quainted her husband that she had been in-
vited to his table and his bed. Convinced
of her chastity, he permitted her to accept
the invitation, and accordingly she went to
the holy place. Supper being now over, the
time of repose arrived, the doors of the tem-
ple fastened, and the lights removed, Mun-
dus, who had there concealed himself, then
obtained the enjoyment which he wished.
Supposing him to be the god, she adminis-
tered throughout the night to his lust. Be-
fore those of the priests, who had not been
made privy to the fraud, were up, Mundus
departed ; and Paulina returning in the morn-
ing to her husband, told him of the god's
appearance ; and to her friends she boasted of
him in splendid language. These, consider-

I 3

lis

ing the matter, did not, in part, give her
credit, and, in part, were held in amaze-
ment, being unable to disbelieve what she
said, because of her known worth and mo-
desty. The third day after this Mundus met,
and thus accosted, her : * Thou hast, Pauli-
na, spared me two hundred thousand drachmas,
which thou mightest have added to thine
own fortune ; while, at the same time, thou
hast not failed to gratify my desire. For the
reproachful names thou hast given Mundus,
I little care ; since I have enjoyed thee under
the assumed name of Anubis.' Understand-
ing, at length, the atrocious deed into which
she had been betrayed, she rent her robes,
and revealed the crime to her husband, en-
treating his interference. Accordingly he laid
before the emperor the whole affair. Tibe-
rius having minutely examined the priests,
ordered them to be crucified, together with
Ida, v/ho was the cause of ruin and dis-
grace to this woman. The temple of Isis he
destroyed, and threw her shrine into the Ti-
ber. Mundus he only banished, thinking
that, as he offended through excess of love,
he did not merit a severer punishment. Such
was the disgrace brought by the priests on the

119

temple of Isis. I now return to relate the
misfortune which at the same time befell the
Jews at Rome.

" A Jew resided there, who, having been
accused of transgressing the laws of Moses,
fled from his country to avoid the punish-
ment which threatened him. Jn every re-
spect he was a wicked man. During his re-
sidence at Rome he professed to unfold the
wisdom of the Mosaic laws, in conjunction
with three other men, who, in every view,
resembled himself. With these associated
Fulvia, a woman of rank, that had become a
convert to the Jewish religion, and whom
they prevailed upon to send, for the temple
of Jerusalem, presents of purple and gold.
These they received, and appropriated to their
own use -, which, indeed, was their motive at
first in making the request. Tiberius, when
informed of this by Saturninus, the husband
of the unjustly accused Fulvia, commanded
all the Jews to be expelled from the city.
The men, to the number of four thousand,
were taken into the army by order of the se-
nate, and sent to the island of Sardinia -, but

I 4

120

the greatest part of them, determined to pre-
serve their laws unviolated, refused to serve
as soldiers. These were put to death. And
thus, because of the wickedness of four men,
the Jews were driven from the city.

** Nor did the nation of the Samaritans
escape disturbance. For they were stirred up
by a man, who, making no scruple of telling
falsehoods, and influenced by the desire of
popularity, imposed on the multitude by va-
rious artifices. Having prevailed upon them
to assemble on Mount Gerizim, a place in
their estimation the most holy, he there pro-
mised to shev^ them the sacred vessels which
Moses had deposited and concealed in that
spot. The people, giving credit to him,
took up arms, and having stationed them-
selves in a certain village, called Tirathabah,
were joined by such as had already been
collected in that place. These, by their su-
perior numbers, intended to make an ascent
up the mountain. But Pilate, having antici-
pated their march, by a detachment of in-
fantry and cavalry, attacked them in the vil-
lage 3 in which attack he slew some, and put

121

Others to flight ; but the greater number he
made prisoners, the chief of whom Pilate
executed *."

Such is the account given us by Josephus
concerning these great and mighty events.
Modern critics, not comprehending them,
have for this reason insisted, that the testi-
mony concerning Christ bears no connection
with the context, and must, therefore, be an
interpolation. Let us then examine it in this
respect.

In the paragraph preceding it, Josephus,
we have seen, records a disturbance which
happened between Pilate and the Jewish peo-
ple, on account of some water to be brought
into Jerusalem. Now this was not the only
disturbance which took place between them.
The Evangelist Matthew relates another,
which must have happened about the same
time : ** When Pikte saw that he could
prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was
made, he took water, and washed his hands

* Jud.'Antiq. book xviii. cap. iii. p. 876—879,

122

before the multitude, sayings I am innocent
of the blood of this just person ; see ye to
it." My question then is, could Josephus
avoid having in his mind the tumult of
which Matthew here speaks, when he was
just relating another of the same kind be-
tween Pilate and the people ? And as he ne-
cessarily had such an event in his mind, was
it not natural for him to pass over to it, or
to some leading circumstance connected with
it ? And this the disputed passage shews him
to have done. From the commotion respect-
ing the water, he steps, by association, to
that which attended the trial of our Lord.
On this last he did not suffer his imagination
to dwell ; but is carried forward to the inno-
cent cause of it, which was our Saviour. If
the intermediate idea, which is that of a /«-
viult, and which occasioned the transition in
the thoughts of the writer, be inserted, the
connection, which before appeared far-fetched
and abrupt, will then be clear and pertinent —
** And thus was the tumult suppressed. And
about this time arose between Pilate and the
Jews another tumult respecting Jesusj who
was a wise man, if indeed he might be called

123

a man," &c. Regarded in this light, scarcely
can any two passages be found that bear a
closer affinity to each other.

An instance of this kind, where the trans-
ition is apparently abrupt, but is, in reality,
the most natural and obvious, is to be met
with in the paragraph respecting John the
Baptist. That paragraph will appear, on ex-
amination, to have been inserted in a place,
where it seems to have not the least connec-
tion, but evidently interrupts the course of
the narrative, and, indeed, is no other than
a parenthesisy introduced in the midst of a
sentence, which by means of it is broken
into two distinct fragments. Hence Blondel,
who alone had the temerity to argue on this
account against its genuineness, says thus :
" Scripserat * Josephus : rccuroc "Upoo^yig y^oc(psi
TT^og rov T^i^epioV o o opyi^ (pEooov ttjv Apercc STrt-
^si^vjCTiv, ypcx.(p£t TTpog OvireXXiov, TroXefzov-B^evsy-
KBtu' zui TjTOi ^ouov IXovToc ccvocyotysiv ^s^epcsvoVf tj
jcT£ivof/,£vou 7rgjU.7re;y ti^v KB(pocXviv avrov. Kcci T;€e-
^log f/,BV TccuToc 'TTDoccrartiv eTTsareAXs tu tcoctoc Y^voiuv
(TTpxTriyui. OvtreXXiog os TTX^ua'icevoia'cci/^evog cog etg

* Ap. Havercamp. vol. ii. p. 2(50,

124

7roX£[/,oUf &c. &c. At nebulo, ut suo de Jo-

hanne commento locum faceret, narrationis

Jilo abruptOy post a-T^xTriyu lineas 20, nee pri-

oribus nee posterioribus cohasrentes, intrusit."

Had this great man understood the law of
assoeiation, he would not have used that as
an argument against the passage, which in-
fallibly demonstrates its authenticity. The
historian, just before the passage which he
has inserted concerning the Baptist, is speak-
ing of the war that broke out between Herod
and Aretas, because of the injury done by
the former to the family of the latter, and
for which John reproved him, as being guilty
of injustice and intemperance. Herod sent
the emperor such an account of Aretas, as
made him very angry, which induced him to
write to his general in Syria, demanding of
him to send his head to Rome. Now if He-
rod had given similar orders to bring him the
head of John, for his interference in this bu-
siness, would it not have been very natural in
Josephus, on saying that Tiberius gave orders
for the head of Aretas to be sent to him, to think,
and, if his pen was permitted to follow the chain
of his ideas, to speak of the same order given

125

respecting the Baptist ? And this we find is
the fact. The writer, after saying that Ti-
berius issued the above command, breaks off
the thread of his discourse, and introduces
the murder of John by Herod. Thus it ap-
pears that this passage, while it labours un-
der a seeming want of connection, bears the
closest affinity to the context; which proves
these two things, that it was not the inter-
polation of a forger, but must have been sug-
gested to the writer of the context by the
mere impulse of association ; and that the
command given by Herod to take off the
head of John, as stated by our Evangelists,
was a fact which existed in his mind at the
time he composed it. It is to be remarked
too, that this command, though it formed
the' link which led the author to think and
to speak of John, is not expressed by him ;
and hence the very great similarity in the
manner in which Josephus has introduced the
two passages respecting Jesus and his fore-
runner. Both are introduced with seemingly
great abruptness ; but if the law of the hu-
man mind be attended to, they have the
closest connection. The intermediate ideas,
which caused this insertion, are, in each in-

12^

stance, kept out of sight ; and, what is most
singular, both of them are supplied by the

Evangelist Matthew.

The accounts subjoined to the disputed
passage next demand our attention. I shall
begin with the last of the three disturbances
which Josephus has recorded ; namely, that
occasioned by the Samaritan impostor.

Of the object which this Samaritan had in
view, our historian has not informed us. But
we may fairly conclude, that he professed to
be the great temporal prince, whom the Jews
and Samaritans, in those times, eagerly ex-
pected. For no other object could he have
prevailed on the deluded multitude to take up
arms, and expose their lives to danger, in
his behalf; nor could any pretension but this
have awakened the jealousy, and justified the
interference, of Pilate. On the supposition
that he and his followers were pursuing some
end hostile to the government, it was natural
in him to interpose his authority, and bring
them to punishment. And what end could
this have been, unless it was to support their
chief as the Messiah, who was to rescue

127

them, as they conceived, from the Roman
yoke ?

These considerations are fully confirmed by
a passage in Origeuy which assures us, that
the impostor, of whom Josephus here speaks,
aimed by his artifices to make the people be-
lieve that he was their wished-for Christ,
The passage to which I allude is as follows
— -" After * the times of Jesus, Dositheus,
a Samaritan, endeavoured to persuade his
countrymen that he was the Christ whom
Moses foretold \ and he appears to have pro-
cured followers."

The evidence, it seems, which this jug-
gler pretended to offer that he was the Christ
foretold by Moses, consisted in being able to
point out to the people, on Mount Gerizim,
the sacred utensils, which Moses was sup-
posed to have deposited in that place.

Here then we find in the Antiquities of Jo-
sephus two paragraphs, just succeeding each
other; one giving an account of an extraordi-

* Orig. cont, Cels. p. 44.

12S

nary man, professing to be the Messiah in Ju-
daea ; the other, of a person, very different in-
deed in character, but soon after making the
same profession in Samaria. This passage,
therefore, claims, in point of subject, a close
alliance with that concerning our Lord, and
implies that they both came from the same
author. After bearing his testimony to the
true Messiah, who appeared among the Jews,
was it not natural in Josephus to stigmatize
the false claims of a man that had the wick-
edness and address to oppose himself to the
Son of God ? Admitting, what we shall pre-
sently see was the case, that our author had
no design to bring his evidence against the
Samaritan impostor, as the impious antago-
nist of our Lord, yet it is easy to prove that
both narratives came from the same hand,
and that the passage respecting Jesus was no
more a forgery than this concerning Dosi-
theus. When Josephus was giving the cha-
racter of our Saviour, he had in his mind the
idea of a person who, by enforcing his just
claim to the Messiahship, occasioned a tu-
mult between Pilate and the Jewish people :
and must not this idea have excited in his re-
collection a man, that among the Samaritan

129

hation excited between them a similar tu-
mult, and by the same pretension ? If so,
must he not have passed from the former to
the latter by the mere impulse of association ?
Besides, the affinity between the two pas-
sages is plainly pointed out by Joseplius him-
self — " Nor," says he, " have the nation of
the Samaritans escaped disturbance." This
disturbance, be it remembered, was occa-
sioned by a man professin2^ to be the Messiah*
It seems then that the historian had already
related some commotion which the nation of
the yews had suffered from the same cause.

The narrative of Josephus concerning the
tumult which distressed the Jews at Rome,
next demands our notice. In order to point
out the errors of learned men on this sub-
ject, and to pave the way for demonstrating
the propositions which I have above laid
down, I propose to bhev/,

I. That the "Jew spoken of in this paragraph
was a NOMINAL con'vert to Christianity*,
who, in conjunction with certain Egyptians,
that had been priests of Isis, introduced the
Gospel into Rome^

VOL. I. K

130

II. That the ilUtreatment which the "Jews
suffered from Tiberius and the senate, and their
banishment from Italy, were chiefly owing to
the introduction of Christianity Into that city,
(tnd to the rapid progress which It made there,
in spite of the opposition It received from the
government, and from Its other enemies*

In support of these propositions, as they
have escaped the attention of modern eccle-
siastical writers, I hope to produce proofs the
most decisive, and such as must satisfy every
impartial inquirer. Nothing, I am sensible,
less than the most unequivocal evidence, is
sufficient to establish them ', and when such
evidence can with safety be opposed to au-
thority, I cannot, in the eye of reason, incur
the imputation of rashness and vanity, or be
thought to be actuated by the spirit of in-
novation.

But before I proceed to the testimonies
which establish the above assertions, it may be
right to advert to one or two objections, which
are apt to force themselves on the reader.

Christianity, it may be said, could not have

151

been introduced into Rome at a period so
early as the reign of Tiberius, But this, so
far from being impossible, or even improba-
ble, is the very reverse. Learned men are
agreed, that, between the crucifixion of our
Saviour, and the death of that emperor, there
intervened, at least, the space oi Jour years.
This surely is a length of tim.e sufficient for
the introduction of it into that city, had it
been much more remote from Judsa than it
really is. That, during a period so long, the
Gospel should not, by some means or other,
have been conveyed thither, is a thing utterly
inconsistent, I v^^ill not say, with the zeal of
its first propagators, whose early labours were
necessarily limited to their own country, but
with that curiosity and importance, which the
fame of its holy founder soon excited in every
part of the Roman empire.

In the Acts of the Apostles we are furnish-
ed with a fact, which almost amounts to a cei*-
tainty, that Christianity was professed at Rome
not long after the resurrection of our Lord. On
the day of Pentecost, we are told " strangers
from Rome heard the Apostles speak with un-
known tongues," and, among others, received

K 2

the faith. These strangers, on their return
from Jerusalem, must have carried the Go-
spel with them j and it is very improbable
that these professors should have been con-
tent to keep their faith in silence, or that the
Apostles should have allow^ed them to depart
unattended by some teachers, who might far-
ther instruct and confirm them.

But against my first proposition, that the
Jew and his associates were believers in
Christ, and preachers of his Gospel, it may
farther be seriously urged, that " in every
respect they were wicked men." In answer
to this, I beg leave to cite a sensible and just
remark of Doctor Priestley. " We are not
to suppose," says he, " that every person
who professed Christianity embraced it in all
its purity, or immediately resigned himself to
the full and proper influence of it. Many
persons who had been addicted to philosophy
would consider Christianity as a new-and im-
proved species of philosophy ; and, as they
had been used to do with respect to other sy-
stems, they would adopt or reject what they
thought proper of it, and in doing this would
naturally retain what was most consonant to

the principles to which they had long been
attached," &c.

" Christianity would of course find per-
sons in every possible disposition and state of
mind, and would therefore be received with
every possible variety of effect, and in all
cases time would be requisite to the full un-
derstanding both of its principles, and its re-
quirements, and to separate the proper pro-
fessor from the improper and unworthy. Of
this we may be satisfied by reading the apo-
stolical epistles, where we find accounts of
persons, who classed themselves with Chris-
tians, and yet both disbelieved some of its
fundamental doctrines, and likewise allowed
themselves in practices, which it strictly pro-
hibited. This continued a long time after
the age of the Apostles, as ecclesiastical hi-
story testifies." Biarly 0 pinions ^ vol. i. p.
140, 141.

To this may be added another remark,
equally just and certain. Notwithstanding
the great odium attached to the profession of
Christianity in early times, many embraced
it merely for sinister purposes. The mira-

K 3

134-

cles which our Lord performed, the reahty
of which was universally believed, both in
Judaea and other countries, disposed * the
minds of men to receive /^f/se miracles, and
to ascribe those events to the agency of an
invisible being, which, in fact, were effected
by ordinary, but unknown means. Of this
disposition a multitude of persons had the
cunning to avail themselves, and to turn it to
their own profit or gratification -f-. Hence

* It Is to this disposition, and the impostures to which it
gave birth, tliat the celebrated Gibbon artfully ascribes the
reception which the works of Jesus obtained among the first
Christians. " The primitive Christians," says he, " perpe-
tually trod on mystic ground, and their minds were exercised
by the habits of believing the most extraordinaiy events.
They felt, or they fancied, that on every side they were as-
saulted by daemons, comforted by visions, instructed by pro-
phecy, and surprisingly delivered from danger, sickness, and
death itself, by the supplications of the church. The real
or imaginary prodigies, of which they so frequently con-
ceived themselves to be the objects, the instruments, or the
spectators, very happily disposed them to adopt with the same
ease, but with far greater justice, the authentic wonders of
the evangelical history ; and thus miracles, that exceeded not
the measure of their own experience, inspired them with the
most lively assurance of mysteries, which were acknowledged
to surpass the limits of their understanding." Vol. ii. p. 315.

f The impostor Alexander, whose life is written by Lu-
cian, affords a striking instance of this. See particularly
vol. i. p. 752. Var. Edition.

135

arose those swarms of impostors and magi-
cians, which soon after the time of our Sa-
viour infested the heathen and the Christian
world; who, as they impiously took upon
them that name the better to answer their
base designs, proved the means of bringing
Christianity itself, its illustrious founder, and
his faithful followers, into disgrace.

Of this unhappy number was the Jew, to
whom Josephus refers, with his wicked asso-
ciates ; who, as will appear from the sequel,
were Egyptians, nominally converted from
the worship of Isis; and were the persons
whom our historian stigmatizes as concerned
in the seduction of PauHna. Now Josephus
says of this Jew and his companions, that
they professed to teach, or unfold, the Wi-
dom of the Mosaic laws ; and that they with-
held from the temple at Jerusalem the rich
presents made to it by Fulvia. It will be
found too that they were guilty of theft and
robberies, which furnished their enemies
with a pretence to charge all the followers
of Jesus, without distinction, with these enor-
mities 5 and that moreover they were, as has

K 4

136

been just stated, chargeable with, at least
causing, the adultery of Fulvia.

Hear now the noble and indignant apo-
strophe which the Apostle Paul makes to one
of the Jewish Christians at Rome. " Be-
hold ! * thou callest thyself a Jew, and re-
posest thyself in the law, and gloriest in God,
and knowest his will, and art taught to di-
stinguish the excellencies of the law, and
takest upon thyself to he a guide of the blind,
a light to them that are in darkness, an in^
structor of the ignorant, a teacher of babes,
as posessing the characters of knowledge and
truth in the law. Dost thou then, who
teachest another, neglect to teach thyself?
Dost thou, who preachest against stealing,
steal thyself ? Dost thou, who forbiddest to
commit adultery, commit adultery ? Dost
thou abhor idols, and yet profanely rob the
temple?"

Only compare this address with the ac-r
count given by our historian, and they must
both appear to refer to the same person. Jo-

* Rom. cap. ii.

137

sephus says of him, that he professed to teach
the wisdom of the Mosaic laws : Paul ac-
costs him as one who boasted (for the Apostle
is here only making use of his own language)
to be a guide of the blinds a light to tliem that
are in darkness, an instructor of the ignorant ^
a teacher of babes. Again ; the Jewish histo-
rian informs us that he robbed the temple,
(though, as will hereafter be manifest, he was
the occasion of abolishing the idol of Isis),
that he committed adultery, that he was
guilty of stealing. And does not our ho-
noured Apostle suppose him chargeable with
these very crimes ? It appears then to me in-
disputable that they had the same man in
view. But Paul addresses him as one of the
Jewish converts in that city; whence it is evi-
dent that he professed to be one of those con-
verts, to whom he directed his Epistle. So
much then for my first proposition, that the
Jew of whom we are speaking was one who
professed to teach Christianity in Rome.

More proofs might be adduced in its sup-
port, But as the first proposition is implied
in the second, it will be needless to labour

138

the point in this place. My next object there-
fore is to shew,

11. That the ill-treatment which the Jews
suffered from T'iberius and the senate, together
with their banishment from Italy, were princi-
pally owing to the introduction of Christianity
into Rome, and to the rapid progress it made
there, in spite of the opposition which it re^
ceivedfrojn the government, and from its other
enemies.

In support of this proposition I shall al-
lege, in the first place, a paragraph from Ta-
citus. The passage, to which I allude is well
known, and runs thus — *' Actum * et de sa-
cris iEgyptiis Judaicisque pellendis. Factum-
que patrum consultum, ut quatuor millia li-
bertini generis, ea superstitione infecta, in
insulam Sardiniam veherentur, coercendis il-
lie latrociniis -, et si gravitate coeli interiissent,
vile damnum : c^eteri cederent Italia, nisi cer-
tam ante diem profanos ritus exuissent.'*
That is, in the same year was brought bfore
the senate a motion for abolishing the Egyptian

* Ail, lib. ii, cap, Uxxv. •

139

a?id Jewish rites : and it was decreed, that
four thousand of that slavish race, who were
infected with that superstition, should be con--
veyed into the island of Sardinia, there to be
restrained from robbenes ; where if they pe-
rished through the severity of the cli?nate, the
loss would not be great •; and that the rest of
them should leave Italy, unless within an ap~
pointed time they should have reli?iquished their
profane rites.

More is said by this historian on the sub-
ject ; but we shall produce the remainder in
its proper place. On the foregoing extract
several remarks are to be made, which go to
confirm my assertion,

1. It appears from the words of Tacitus,
that the Roman senate had observed a distinc"
tion between the Jewish people in that city,
** Four thousand of them were infected with
the Jewish superstition; that is, were in a
peculiar manner iiifuenced by it — professed a
greater zeal for its institutions, and made more
strenuous efforts, and more considerable sacri^
fees, in supporting and propagating it. These
accordingly were punished with greater se-'

veritv, and banished into climates, where
they were likely to perish. Others of the
Jews, that is, such as were not infected in
that high degree, experienced more lenity ;
and, so far from being exterminated, they
were permitted to continue at Rome ; pro-
vided they gave up such rites as were thought
profane, or hostile to the gentile religion.

Now 1 say that the four thousand men,
whom Tacitus represents as being in a pecu-
liar degree infected, and who on that account
suffered banishment, were those of the Jews
at Rome that had received the Gospel. This
fact is, I presume, proved by the two follow-
ing considerations — 1. That the Jewish con-
verts exhibited far greater zeal for the new
religion, far more ardour to promote its inte-
rests in the world, than the unbelieving part
of the Jews did for the Jewish — 2. That the
Apostle Paul, as v/ill appear in the sequel,
alludes, in terms the most pointed, to their
banishment, and addresses these exiles as the
warm and resolute followers of Jesus.

2. The Roman historian insinuates, that
these men, who had been exiled from Italy,

, 141

were guilty of robberies, or of stealing and
flunderliig — " Four thousand of that slavish
race were conveyed into the island of Sardi-
nia, there to be restrained from robberies. ^^
From the drift of this clause it is obvious,
that the writer considered them as guilty of
these enormities, while yet at Rome ; and
that they were banished, in part, on this ac-
count. This insinuation, we shall presently
see, is also made by SuetoniiiSy though it is
palpably false, as we are assured from the
testimonies of Philo and Josephus, who tell
us that they were all innocent of such charges,
and that only four 7nen were really guilty..
Here then we have another criterion that di-
stinguished the first followers of Jesus. Vir-
tuous and harmless as they were, beyond any
other race of men, nevertheless the breath of
calumny, in every country, endeavoured to
paint them as robbers, defraiiders, and plun-
derers. Of this I shall here produce one
or two instances. The first is a monumental
inscription, concerning the Christians, in the
time of Nero. Lardner has thus translated
it — To Nero Claudius C^sar Augus-
tus, HIGH PRIEST, for CLEARING THE
PROVINCE OF ROBBERS, AND THOSE WHO

142

TAUGHT MANKIND A NEW SUPERSTI-
TION.

Justin Martyr, in his Second Apology *, has
recorded these words of one Lucius, which
he had addressed to Urbicus, a Roman magi-
strate, on account of the unjust sentence
passed by him on an innocent Christian.
** Why should you condemn a man, con-
victed neither of adultery nor fornication -,
nor proved to be a murderer or a thief, or a
plunderer-, nor, finally, accused of any other
crime, but only of professing the Christian
name ?"

Here we see a disciple of Jesus doomed to
death as a thief and a robber, though the sen-
tence by which he stood condemned was fla-
grantly unjust. There is, however, reason
to suppose, that many men of this descrip-
tion had assumed the Christian profession,
and hence furnished the enemies of Christ
with grounds for extending those accusa-
tions to all his innocent followers. This,
I believe, was peculiarly the case in Juda?a,

* Ap. ii. p. 7- Ox. Ed.

143

where banditti of this kind abounded, and
where the malice of the Jewish people was
extremely active in ranking and confounding
such unworthy persons with the virtuous dis-
ciples of Jesus. The pen of Josephus, how-
ever, though not openly employed in their
defence, has protected them from such ca-
lumnies, and holds them up, as we have seen
in a passage already considered, as the exclu-
sive enemies of the Sicariiy the general name
of those assassins and robbers.

5. In the above citation from Tacitus it is
expressly said, that the design of the senate
in banishing the Jews and Egyptians was the
abolition of their rites. Were the emperor
and his council, let me ask, accustomed to
exercise such severities on the Jewish and
Egyptian nations ? No ; it was the wise and
just policy of the Roman government to to-
lerate, and even to protect, every nation in
the enjoyment of its religious ceremonies ;
and Tiberius, as well as Augustus, it is well
known, had hitherto distinguished himself
by his indulgencies to the Jews* And what
cause had he now for this extraordinary
change in his conduct ? Some cause there

144

must have been ; and none that is adequate}
to the effect can, I presume, be found, ex-*
cept in the prevailing genius of Christianity,
in the extraordinary zeal of its first propa-
gators, and in the menacing aspect which it
was at first supposed to assume in respect to
the Roman power, as well as the Gentile su-
perstitions.

Josephus, indeed, tells us, that this cala-
mity was brought upon the Jewish people
Jor the wickedness ofjour men. Considering
these men as chief agents in propagating the
new religion, which they corrupted by their
previous immoral principles, and disgraced by
their unworthy conduct, we may justly ad-
mit the fact. But detach them from the in-
fluence which their doctrine produced upon
the body of the Jews and Egyptians ; that is,
regard them as unconnected with the rest of
those nations by means of their instruction, and
it will appear utterly incredible, that on their
account, however flagrant their guilt might
have been, all their countrymen should have
been exposed to such calamities. To extend
to a whole people the crimes committed only
by a few, and involve the innocent with the

145

guilty in the punishment due to the latter
alone, is a degree of barbarity totally incon-
sistent with the principles and the practice of
the Roman government.

But upon the supposition that the banish-
ment of the two nations was occasioried ulti-
mately by the introduction and prevalence of
the Gospel, however cruel and unjust a
measure, it may be easily explained. The
zeal which the converts displayed to support
and propagate their faith, must have neces-
sarily excited great tumult and confusion
throughout the city. Admitting, what I am
afraid is not to be admitted, that its friends
employed only fair and laudable means in its
behalf J yet such were the intemperate zeal,
and the inveterate prejudices of their adver-
saries, that they unavoidably opposed to them
violence and clamour ; and as the contending
parties were very numerous, the tranquillity
of the city must have been much disturbed.

The disturbance which thus arose between
the believing and unbelieving Jews, was
greatly augmented, and rendered more into-
lerable, by the same dispute breaking out

VOL. I. I,

146

among the Egyptian priests, most of whom,
we shall presently see, became, at least no-
minal, converts to the faith. The supersti-
tion and the vices of the refractory among
these priests were no doubt boldly exposed,
and attacked by the more virtuous, or the re-
formed part that deserted them ; and the at-
tack, we may well suppose, was repelled and
returned with all the fierceness, and virulence
which conscious guilt usually inspires.

The scenes of tumult and disorder, thus
produced, at length awakened the attention,
and demanded the interference, of the senate
and the emperor; who regarding with the
same hostile disposition the rational faith of
the Christians, the blind prejudice of the
Jews, and the profane rites of the Egyptians,
banished them in a mass.

That the restoration of the public peace,
and the suppression of tumult, were, at least,
the pretended objects which Tiberius had in
view, in thus banishing them, we may con-
clude from Suetonius y whose account of the
affair is as follows : " Externas ceremoni-
as, i^gyptios Judaicosque ritus, compescuit,
coactis, qui superstitione ea tenebantur, reli-

.147

glosas vestes cum instrumento omni combii-
vere. Jud^orum juventutem, per speciemsa-
cramenti, in provincias gravioris coeli dis-
tribuit: reliquos gentis ejusdem, et similla
sectantes, urbe summovit, sub pcena perpe-
tus servitutis, nisi obtemperassent. Expulit
et mathematicos ; sed deprecantibus, ac se
artem desituros promittentibus, veniam de-
dit. In primis tuendas pacis a grassaturis ac
latrociniis seditionumque licentia curam ha-
buit. Stationes militum per Italiam solito fre-
quentiores disppsuit. Romse castra consti-
tuit, quibus praetorians cohortes, vagas ante
id tempus, et per hospitia dispersae, conti-
nerentur. Populares tumultus exortos gra-
vissime coercuit j et, ne orirentur, sedulo cu--
ravit*." Foreign superstitions, t/je Egyptian
and the Jewish, Tiberius suppressed -, andcom-^
felled those who 'Were fettered with it to burn
their sacred vestments and utensils, The Jewish
youth he distributed, under the pretence of
a military oath, into provinces of a severe
climate ; while the refnainder of that nation,
with others of similar profession, he removed
from the city, under the penalty of perpetual

* In Vita Tiber, cap. xxxvi.
L 2

slavery, unless they had obeyed. He expelled too
the magicians -, but granted pardon to those that
recanted and promised to abandon their art.
Above all, in order to secure peace, he provided
means against those who were licentiously given
to plunder, robbery, and sedition. For this
purpose he planted along Italy military stations,
more numerous than common -, formed a camp at
"Rome, in which were confined the prcetorian
hands ; which till then were ufirestrained, and
distributed in quarters, T^he tumults which
arose among the populace he suppressed with
7nucb severity, and exercised great vigilance for
preventi?2g similar commotiotis.

This passage, which is more decisive in
my favour than even that of Tacitus, de-
mands nevertheless some observations to dis-
play its full import.

1 . It appears from it, as w^ell as from the
former v^^riter, that one part of the Jews and
Egyptians were more attached to their prin-
ciples than the other, and on this account
experienced from the Roman government
greater hardships — " He compelled those"
(says our author) ** who were fettered with

149

that superstition, to burn their sacred vest-
ments and utensils — and distributed them in-
to provinces of a severe cHmate : while the
remainder of that nation, with others of a si-
milar profession, he removed from the city.'*

2. Here we are told that Tiberius expelled
the magicians, but pardoned those who pro-
mised to abandon their art. This sort of men
had been before forbidden the city by Au-
gustus, who was no great friend to their pro-
fession. But is it not surprising that Tibe-
rius should have done this ; since it is well
known that he was passionately devoted to
magic, and was always surrounded, as Juve-
nal says * of him, by a herd of them ? From
his prohibiting them on this occasion, we
may fairly infer, that their art was directed
to some object which they had not before in
view, and which he conceived to be preju-
dicial to his interest in some respect or other -,
or, in different words, that it was exercised

* Visne salutari sicut Sejanns? habere

Tantundem ? atque illi sellas donare curules ?
Ilium exercitibus praeponere ? tutor haberi
Principis augusta Caprearum In rupe sedentis
Cum grege Chaldseo ? Sat. x. 90.

L 3

150

in support of a foreign superstition, which
he hated, and sought to suppress, as subver-
sive of his own authority, and hostile to the
pubhc tranquilHty.

That this was the case, we may presume
from his banishing those Magi, in conjunc-
tion with the Jewish and Egyptian sects.
But this presumption amounts, I conceive, to
a certainty, if we take into consideration a
passage to be presently produced, which
proves that these very men were nominal
converts to the Gospel, having for their ob-
ject the establishment of Christianity in Rome,
and the deification of its author.

The public peace, says Suetonius, was dis-
turbed ; and in order to restore tranquillity,
.and prevent similar commotions, Tiberius
first suppressed tlie Jewifh and Egyptian rites,
and exterminated their professors from Italy.
He then formed camps in Rome, appointed
military stations throughout the country, re-
stored among the soldiers a stricter discipline,
and imposed upon them greater vigilance
than before in preventing disorder, or in pu-
nishing the authors of it.

151

These provisions, we shall presently see
from a paragraph in PhilOf extended to Greece,
and every other department of the empire.

Now it is evident, that as these precau-
tions were new and extraordinary, they must
have been occasioned by some new and ex-
traordinary circumstance in the state of the
times ; so new and extraordinary, indeed, as
to fill Tiberius and the senate with the 2:reat-
est apprehensions, and to put the vast mac nine
of the Roman government in motion against
it. The question then is, what that circum-
stance could have been, which called forth,
and could justify, such singular measures ?
The following statement can, I imagine, alone
furnish an adequate and rational solution of
this difficulty. A general expectation, de-
rived originally from the Jewish prophets,
and thence introduced into the Sibylline ora-
cles, prevailed among the Heathens, as well as
the Jewish nation, that some great personage
was about that time to appear in the East ;
who, like the sun, would ascend the meri-
dian of human glory, and spread over the
earth the splendour of universal dominion.
Men from the East came to Rome with the

L 4

152

news, that this prince had already appeared
in Judaea, who had given undoubted proofs
of his divine commission, not only in the
works he performed, but also in the superior
wisdom whi'ch he displayed. This news, as
it was then generally understood by the Jews
and Gentiles, threatened the power of Caesar,
spread itself through the city, and brought
to it many converts from among the Jews
and Egyptians : and we are informed, as will
be seen in the sequel, from an authority not
to be resisted, that about this time the great
mass of the people throughout the whole em-
pire expressed a decided inclination to throw
off the Roman yoke, and enlist under the
banners of the new and beneficent king of
the Jews, under whom they fondly expected
eternal peace, prosperity, and freedom.

On the supposition that these facts are true,
the measures adopted by Tiberius and the se-
nate have an adequate cause, and are such as
might be reasonably expected : and no other
cause, it is maintained, can be assigned, that is
in any degree commensurate with such effects.

2, The above statement accounts also for

153

the cruel and unexampled manner in which
the Jews and Egyptians were on this occa-
sion treated by the emperor. The persons
who taught in the city that Jesus was the
Messiah, he necessarily regarded as preachers
of treason and sedition ; in as much as they
proclaimed a king opposite to himself. This
circumstance of course filled him with alarm
and resentment, which he exercised not only
on those that taught the new faith, but on all
that had embraced or countenanced it. His
best security, he seems to have thought, con-
sisted in first depriving the whole Jewish and
Egyptian nations of those civil and religious
rights which they had hitherto enjoyed un-
molested, and then banishing them into cli-
mates which might prove fatal to their con-
stitutions. Nor did he think it safe to rest
even here. Such of them as were peculiarly
infected with their superstition, and were ca-
pable • of bearing arms, the senate, no doubt
at his instigation, forced into the military
service, contrary, as well to his usual cle-
mency, and to the spirit of the Jewish laws,
as to a law made in their favour by Augustus.

This violence, offered to the plainest die-

154

tates of justice and liberty, Tiberius adopted
not so much because their service was ne-
cessary, but because it was the most effectual
means of gratifying his revenge, of bursting
their attachment to the prince under whose
banners they had just enlisted, and of restor-
ing their allegiance to himself. And hence
appears the meaning of Suetonius in the fol-
lowing clause : " And the Jewish youth he
distributed, under the pretence of an
OATH, into countries of a severe climate."
But a portion of these young men, as Jose-
phus informs us, understanding that this was
the object of the oath, had the firmness to
resist being enlisted, though the consequence
was death. In this respect, be it remarked,
they acted conformably to the conduct gene-
rally observed by the Christians in the first
and second centuries,, who rejected, it is well
known, not only all the concerns of the state,
however lucrative, but every station in the
army, though the most honourable, as being
opposite to that allegiance which they swore
to their new king, and to the beneficent spi-
rit of his Gospel. Hence Philo, their im-
mortal apologist, who, though to this day
supposed to have continued the disciple of

155

Moses, gloriously employed his talents and
his influence to promote the cause, and de-
fend the followers, of Jesus, thus speaks of
them ; ** None can be found among them
that manufacture darts, arrows, swords, hel-
mets, breast-plates, nor even such weapor^s
as might be converted to bad purposes in the
time of peace -, much less do any of them en-
gage in those .arts that are useful in war."

In terms equally strong and eloquent does
this noble author describe their love of free-
dom, and their hatred of tyranny. " As to
slaves," he adds, " they have none ; but all
are free, and all equally labour for the com-
mon good. The supporters of slavery they
condemn as unjust and base despots, by whom
are violated the sacred laws of nature, who,
like a common parent, hath begotten all man-
kind without distinction, and educated them
in the genuine bonds of fraternity — frater-
nity consisting not in name, but in reality."
Such are the lovely sentiments which the be-
nevolent Jesus and his faithful followers, in
ancient times, entertained, and which the
Gospel almost in every page inculcates. No
blessing, indeed, conferred upon us by the

156

bounty of heaven, is so valuable as the Chris-
tian religion, for its subserviency (were it
permitted to operate in its native energy) to
the equality, to the rights, and to the im-
provement of mankind.

No blessing, I repeat, bestowed upon us by
the bounty of heaven, is so valuable foi" its
subserviency to these ends. By the magnifi-
cent views which faith discloses, beyond the
reach of unaided reason, it inspires boldness
and sublimity of sentiment. Affording the
most animating motives to virtue, it sup-
ports dignity and stability of character. It
exhibits our relation to the common Parent
in the mildest light, and by that means points
out to aspiring pride the common level cf ail bis
offsprings and teaches it to seek no distinc-
tions, but such as flow from superior recti-
tude of conduct, or a greater comprehension
of intellect. ' While reason leads the mind
to reflect on the order that pervades, the
constancy that preserves, the harmony that
unites, the natural and moral world j revela-
tion draws it by " the cords of love" to imi-
tate the goodness that presides over the uni-
verse, and raises it to a higher element.

157

where, with reviving freshness, it inhales the
aethereal breath of benevolence, peace, and
magnaniiility.

The Gospel, which, under the direction of
reason, is subservient to these noble views,
has nevertheless become, in the hands of ig-
norance and cunning, the instrument of quite
opposite effects. Veiled with the fraud of
pretended mystery, tyranny has perverted it
into a mean of slavery j and priestcraft, in-
stead of holding it up as the light of the
world, has employed it as a torch to spread
the flame of persecution, and to cloud the
human understanding with the smoke of fa-
naticism.

Christianity, however, on its first appear-
ance, produced, on those who properly un-
derstood and cheerfully embraced it, an in-
fluence congenial to its native tendency. It
inspired them with sentiments of manly, but
rational freedom j it emancipated themi, at
least in thought, from subordination to de-
spotic power, and raised them to the dignity
of being subjects of the divine government,
and heirs of eternal life.

Actuated by the spirit which, in this re-
spect, it inspired, the Christians at Rome op-
posed the abuses of the Roman government,
which was rendered extremely oppressive by
the wicked administration of Sejanus.

This laudable opposition, as might be
expected, brought upon them his hatred and
calumny. .Their resistance he ascribed to si-
nister motives, and exerted with success his
influence with Tiberius and the senate to pro-
cure their expulsion j and hence it is that
Philo, the celebrated Jew above mentioned,
assigns the ill treatment which his country-
men received to the misrepresentations of
Sejanus alone. " * All nations," he says,
** though prejudiced against the Jews, have
been careful not to abolish the Jewish rites -,
and the same caution was preserved in the

* Toj yap 8v tfavTa.'x^ov ita.vi'eg^ si Koa evasi ois-KstvTo itpog
lov^ctious OVK sv[/.sva)s, suXa'SuJi £<%&v, STti Ka^octpBo-ei, -rivmv twy
lovoy.'ix.wv vo[j.ii/.wy itposa^aa-^ai' Kai siri Ti^sciov jw,£y roi tov
avrov rpoTfov, kcli roi ru)v ev IrccXio. itapa-Aivrfiavfuiv, r^vmcc S')}!-
avos sa-KSVwpsi rr^v sTfi^scriv. Eyvou yap svhocg fjjata 'I'rjv sksivo'j
7'sXsvrr^v oti tec •liaffjyoprihvta, ruiv urKr^KOTwv t'tjv Pwp-^v lou-
Saiwv ^svhis r^(rxv Sisc^oXoci, irKcca-i/.ara, Sijiayou ro s^vo; dp-
TtoLo-ai 9fAovrof, oitsp tj [j^ovov r; [xccXitTT'sc. -n^si ^ovXdis a.vo(Tio(,t;
Ttxi irpa^sa-iv avrttrjo-oif.syov. Leg. p. 698.

159

reign of Tiberius : though, indeed, the Jews
in Italy have been distressed by the machina-
tions of Sejanus. For after his death the
emperor became sensible that the accusations
alleged against the Jews in Italy were calum-
nious, the mere inventions of Sejanus ; who

WAS EAGER TO DEVOUR A NATION THAT,
AS HE KNEW, MADE THE MOST DETER-
MINED RESISTANCE TO HIS IMPIOUS COUN-
SELS AND DESIGNS."

That the distress here noticed by Philo
refers to the expulsion of the Jews, which
Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius, have re-
corded, can in no wise be disputed.

The principal, though not the only, ca-
lumny by which Sejanus had prejudiced the
emperor against the Jewish people, and pro-
cured their banishment from Italy, seems to
have been the common artifice adopted in
every age by the supporters of corruption and
despotism. Finding them the determined
enemies of tyranny and oppression, he ac-
cused them of hostility to the government,
charged them with the secret, if not the
avowed, object of subverting the throne of

160

Caesar, and of raising to the empire of the
world some favourite prince of their own
nation.

These charges, it must be confessed, as
the spiritual nature of our Lord's kingdom
was not as yet understood at Rome even by
the disciples, might have some foundation in
truth. But whether they were true or false,
the confidence which at the time Tiberius
had in this base minister, insured credit to
his representations 5 and accordingly the whole
Jewish nation, as Josephus and Philo attest,
were exterminated from Italy.

But it does not, it may be said, appear
from the above extract, that the Jews of
whom Philo speaks were converts to Chris-
tianity. That he does not distinguish them
by the Christian name is what I readily grant.
But the book whence the passage is taken,
contains, I presume, evidence sufficient to
substantiate this fact. To this evidence,
however, I cannot at present have recourse ;
as it requires the previous developement of
several events hitherto unknown. I con-
tent myself therefore with now producing the

161

direct testimony of Orosius, an ecclesiastical
writer in the fifth century. His words are to
this effect — " Tiberius proposed to the se-
nate that Christ should be made a God, with
his own vote in his favour. The senate,
moved with indignation that it had not been,
as was usual, proposed for them to determine
respecting the reception of his religion, re-
jected his deification, and decreed, that
THE Christians by an edict should

BE banished from THE CITY; ESPECI-
ALLY AS Sejanus, the prefect of Ti-
berius, MOST OBSTINATELY RESISTED
the RECEPTION OF HIS FAITH *.'*

I will add two or three remarks on this
important passage.

1 . It is here positively and in direct terms
asserted, that the Jews and Egyptians, of
whom Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, and Sueto-
nius, speak, were believers in Jesus Christ,

2. Philo ascribes the calamities which the

* Oros. lib. vii. cap. |v. or Lard. vol. vii. p. 243.
VOL, I. M

162

Jewish people suffered in Italy to the wicked
machinations of Sejanus. This very asser-
tion is implied in the words of Orosius—
^he senate decreed, that the Christians by an
edict should be banished from the city j especi-
ally as Sejanus y the pr effect of T^iberius^ most
obstinately resisted the reception of his J ait h.

S. Nevertheless there appears some diffe-
rence between these two writers. Accord-
ing to Phiio, the Jews were distressed by
Tiberius himself instigated indeed by his base
minister : but Orosius says that they suffered
from the senate, even in opposition to the em-
peror.

Of the account as stated by the Jewish
writer no doubt can reasonably be entertain-
ed, as he was a competent and unbiassed
judge of the affair, having flourished at the
time; and not only that, but having himself
investigated the whole business, in conse-
quence of his being the very person whom
the Christians at Alexandria (whither they
had for the most part repaired after their ex-
pulsion from Italy) sent to Rome to plead
their cause, and to justify their innocence

162

from the charges alleged against them. His
statement, therefore, if found contradictory,
is more to be depended upon than that of a
writer in the fifth century. It will, however,
soon be perceived, that the two authors do
not contradict each other in reality ; since
one only relates circumstances which the
other has omitted.

The well-known words of Tertullian on
this subject are to this purpose. " Tiberius,
in whose time the Christian name made its
appearance in the world, after he had been
informed of the things which revealed t/pe di^
vinity of JesiiSy brought it before the senate,
with the favour of his own suffrage. The
senate, because he had not approved of him-
self being deified, rejected the deification of
Jesus^. Caesar, however, continued of the
same opinion, and threatened punishment on
such as accused the Christians *."*

On this passage, too, a few observations
may be made.

1. It appears from T^ertullian, as well as

* Tertvil. Apol. cap, v.
M 2

164.

from Orosius, that the persons of whom
Philo spealcs, as being distressed in Italy,
were converts to the Christian religion. " Cae-
sar, however, continued of the same opinion,
and threatened punishment on such as accused
THE Christians."

2. It is manifest from Tertullian, that
some accusations were lodged before Tibe-
tius and the senate against the followers of
Jesus. And the same thing is implied in the
words of Philo — " Though, indeed," says
he, " the Jews in Italy have been distressed
in consequence of the machinations of Seja-
nus. For after his death the emperor be-
came sensible that tbe accusations alleged a-
gainst the Jews in Italy were calumnies, the
mere inventions of Sejanus."

3. It is fkrther obvious from Tertulliarl,
that the emperor Tiberius discountenanced
those accusations, and threatened those that
presented them. Orosius goes still farther,
and attests, that he announced by an edict
the punishment of death against such as ac-
cused the Christians. This interesting fact
is confirmed by the testimony of Philo, whose

165

words are to this efFect : " To the consti-
tuted authorities Tiberius every where sent
orders not to molest, in their several cities, the
men of that nation, excepting the guihy alone
(who were very few) ; but, on the contrary,
to regard as a trust committed to their care,
both the people themselves, and their insti-
tutions, v^hich, Hke oil, soften their votaries
with the love of peace, and brace them with
firmness of character."

4. This fine apology which Philo makes
for the followers of Jesus, in common with
the rest of the Jewish nation, of whom they
were yet considered as a sect, developes the
true state of his mind respecting Christianity
and its founder. Had he not been a well-
wisher to both, he would have been very far
from standing forv/ard on this occasion as the
champion of its votaries. This consideration
farther directs our attention to the valuable
book whence this extract has been taken, as
having originated in circumstances occasioned
by the prevalence of the Gospel, and intend-
ed to rescue its professors from the calumnies
and persecutions brought upon them by the
jmalice of their enemies.

M 3

166

5. The above testimony of Philo, TertuU
lian, and Orosius, will account for a remark-
able fact, which is thus recorded in the Acts
of the Apostles, chap. ix. 31. " Then had
the churches rest throughout all Judsea and
Galilee, and Samaria, and were edified ; and^
walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the
comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied."

** This rest of the churches," says Doctor
Lardner, ** will be easily accounted for from
the following particulars. Soon after Cali-
gula's accession, the Jews at Alexandria suf-
fered very much from the Egyptians in that
city, and at length their oratories there were
all destroyed. In the third year of Caligula,
A. D. 59 y Petronius was sent into Syria with
orders to set the statue of the emperor in the
temple of Jerusalem. It is not improbable
but that the Jews of Judaea might be affected
at the condition of their countrymen at Alex-
iandria, where by this time they were almost
ruined ; but this order from Caligula was a
thunderstroke. There is, indeed, some doubt
whether Petronius published this order in the
year of our Lord 39 or 40. But, whenever it
was made known, the Jews must have been

167

too much engaged afterwards to mind any-
thing else ; as may appear from the accounts
which Philo and Joseph as have given us of
this affair.

*' Some learned men have ascribed this
rest of the churches to the conversion of St.
Paul, who had been a very zealous persecu-
tor. But this is, in my opinion, to do St.
Paul a great deal of wrong on one hand,' and
too much honour on the other. It appears to
me a great injustice to ascribe to him all the
sufferings of the Christians, which ensued
upon the death of Stephen, when after his
conversion we find the Jews of Judaea, Da-,
mascus, and every other place, were filled
with malice and spite against Christianity,
and against St. Paul, and every one else of
that way. On the other hand, it is doing
him, at the same time, too much honour.
St. Paul was then but a young man, and,
though a forward and active instrument, yet
he could not be more than an instrument in
that persecution. It cannot be supposed, that
whilst he was with the high- priests and Pha^
risees they were directed and animated by
him, and that when he had left them their

M 4

16S

spirits were so sunk, that they could no longer
pursue their old measures. His own dangers
at Damascus and Jerusalem are a proof to the
contrary.

" According to the description St. Luke
gives us of this rest of the churches, in the
words just now transcribed, it was very ex-
tensive even all over Judsea and Galilee, and
Samaria, and very complete; and the churches
had no molestation. So considerable an event
must have been owing to some other consi-
derable event with which the whole people
of that country was affected. I had no sooner
read the account which Philo and Josephus
have given of the sufferings of the Jews in
Alexandria, and the imminent danger of ruin
which that whole people in Judaea and other
places were in, in the reign of Caligula, but
I concluded that this state of their affairs
brought on the rest of the Christian churches,
which St. Luke speaks of, and which cer-
tainly happened about this time. Whether
I am in the right or not, others will judge."
Lard. vol. i. 97—99.

That the Doctor, however learned and able

169

in other respects, is not right in this, will, I
trust, appear from the three following rea-
sons.

1 . The calamity brought upon the Jewish
nation by the impious attempt of Caligula to
place his statue in the temple at Jerusalem,
will appear hereafter to have been occasioned
by the circumstance of the Christians in
Egypt having deified and worshipped Jesus
Christ ; which prompted that base emperor
to proclaim his own deification, and to claim
the same divine honours with our Lord. The
distress and danger which hence threatened
the Jews, must therefore, instead of suspend-
ing their fury against the Christians in Judsea
and other places, have been the means of ex-
asperating them the more ; since they looked
upon them as the primary, though the inno-
cent, cause of the general distress.

52. The cause to which Lardner assigns the
tranquillity of the churches conveys (though
he was not aware of it) the severest reflection
upon them. It supposes that the disciples of
Christ were so unfeeling, so destitute of all re-
gard to their brethren the Jews, as to enjoy

170

rest) to be comforted, and to be edijied, at a time
when the whole country was involved in one
scene of horror and consternation ; and that
too by means of this horror and consterna-
tion. Were they capable of this, they might
more fitly be deemed monsters than the fol-
lov/ers of the benevolent Jesus.

3. The cause here alleged for the peace of
the churches is erroneous, in as much as a
cause more direct, simple, and efficacious, is
assigned by the concurrent testimony of
, Philo, Tertullian, and Orosius, that Tiberius,
a little before his death, sent orders to the
magistrates throughout the empire to protect
the Christians ; and we are assured by the
former writer, that in consequence of those
orders, and other provisions made by that
emperor, profound peace and happiness pre-
vailed in every one of the provinces ^ which
continued uninterrupted, at least a year, or
perhaps two, after the accession of Caligula.
Hear a part of his words on the subject :
*' What person, on beholding Caius, when,
after the death of Tiberius Caesar, he had as-
sumed dominion over every land and sea ;
which dominion held every country, east.

171

west, north, and south, in tranquillity and
order; which united every province in social
harmony, the barbarian with the Greek, and
the Greek v/ith the barbarian, the soldier
with the citizen, and the citizen with the
soldier, all of whom blended together in con-
gratulating the return and in enjoying the
blessings of universal peace — who, I say, on
beholding this felicity under Caius, which it
exceeds the power of words to describe, would
not be iiiled with extasy at the sight* ?" If,
then, such was the happy state of every city,
of every place, in the Roman empire, in
consequence of the laws established by Ti-
berius, the churches throughout all Judasa
and Galilee, and Samaria, must /jave shared
in the general tranquillity j and it was natural
therefore that they should have rest^ be edi-
fied, and walk in the fear of the Lord-, that,
finally, they should be comforted by the Holy
Ghost, and be ?mdtiplied,

I cannot conclude this subject without ob-
serving how remarkably an observation of
Eusebiiis coincides with the above words of

* See p. 993. Par. edition.

172

the sacred historian. " Tiberius," says he,
** in whose time the Christian name appear-
ed in the world, on being informed of the di-
vinity of Jesus from Palestine, where it was
first taught, communicated it to the senate,
making it manifest to them that he approved
that doctrine -, but since the senate too did
not approve of it, they rejected it. But Ti-
berius continued in the same opinion, and
threatened death to the accusers of the
Christians ; this being suggested to his mind
by Divine Providence, thai the doctrine of the
Gospel, having the beginning of its race clear
from obstruction, might freely run through every
land*'*

This last clause is thus rendered by the
Latin translator. " Quam quidem senten-
tiam coelestis Providentia Tiberii Cassaris
menti idcirco infuderat, ut Evangelii sermo,
qui nunc primiiin nasci cceperat, absque ullo
impedimento per universum orbem spargere-
tur." By which, I presume, he appears to
have missed the force and propriety of the
passage. The expression of Eusebius is ele-

* Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. ii. ad fincm.

, 173

gant and forcible, and seems to have been
copied from the following words of Paul —
'' Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the
\voRD OF THE LORD m^y /jdvc free courfcy
and be ghrijied, even as it is with you." ^
I'heffal. chap. iii. 1.

It remains next to reconcile the difference
observable between Philo and Tertullian,
with his followers, Eusebius, Orosius, and
others.

Tiberius, it appears from the fact of his
expelling them from Rome, and depriving
them of their liberties, as attested by Philo,
proved himself, at first, hostile to the Chris-
tians and their cause * Its professors he con-
ceived to entertain sentiments inimical to his
person and government ; the prevalence of it
threw the city into confusion, and awakened
in every department of the empire the spirit
of disaffedion. Those too among the Egyp-
tians, who had embraced the Qospel, and
continued to teach it, imposed, it is highly
probable, on Tiberius by magical artifices,
which of course, after detection, called forth
his resentment, which naturally extended to

174

the rest of tlie Egyptians and Jews ; dispos-
ing him by that means to listen to the accu-
sations of Sejanus, and to concur with the
senate in expelhng them from the city. ** But
Tiberius," says Philo, " after the death of
Sejanus, became sensible th^t the accusations
alleged against the Jews in Italy were calum-
nies, the mere inventions of Sejanus."

Here we are told, on unquestionable au-
thority, that a remarkable change took place
in the conduct of that emperor towards the
Jewish nation that had received the Gospel
in Italy. But what could have been the cause
of this' happy change ? An attention to the
words of TertuUian will unfold to us what
the cause was. " Tiberius," says he, *' in
whose time the Christian name made its ap-
pearance in the world, after he had been in*
formed of the things which revealed the
divinity of Jesus," &c. Tiberius then, it
seems, changed his behaviour and disposition
towards the Christians, after he had received
some information from Judce.a, respecting our
Lord. Hence we are able to unravel the
whole business. The emperor was so much
impressed by those scenes which the famp

17o

of his miracles and resurrection produced in
Rome and other places, that he inquired
concerning the matter either of Pilate, then
governor of Judsa, or of some other persons
who had equal means to know the truth.
These informed him of the reahty of the
facts ascribed to Jesus ; and perhaps the ac-
count which he received led him to conclude
that the Jews, in general, were free from the
charges ascribed to them by their enemies.
He therefore altered his conduct towards
them, and became the friend of the very
people whom a little before he hated and
persecuted ; and in order to protect them
from firther violence, and to repair, in some
measure, the injuries which they had already
suffered, " he every where sends orders to
the constituted authorities not to molest, in
their several cities, the men of that nation ;
but, on the contrary, to regard as a trust
committed to their care, both the people and
their institutions ; which, like oil, soften their
votaries with the love of peace, and brace
them with firmness of charadier." And, fi-
nally, that he might manifest his con vie don
of the person whom the Jews and Egyptians
regarded as their master, being an exti^aordi-

176

nary character, and endued with surprising
powers, he proposed to the senate a decree
for his deification.

From this representation it is evident, that
the narratives of Tertullian and Orosius do not
go back to the beginning of the disturbances
at Rome, but commence only with the change
which took place in the behaviour of Tibe-
rius towards the Christians. Those writers
have noticed and rendered prominent only
his subsequent friendihip, but left his former
enmity in the shade. Their motive for this
will appear hereafter to proceed from a desire
to bury in eternal oblivion the origin of the
divinity and supernatural birth of Jesus Christ.

The senate, we are told, rejected the mo-
tion which the emperor proposed to them re-
specting Jesus, and assigned as a reason, that
he himself had refused the honour of deifi-
cation.

From the use of the verb probaverat in
the perfect past, and from the opposition here
drawn between Jesus and Tiberius, we might
fairly conclude that the subject had before

177

that time been agitated In Romej and this
conclusion well agrees with the explanation
given above of the disagreement between
Philo and Tertullian.

When the miracles and resurrection of our
Saviour first induced his mistaken followers
to represent him as a god in that city, no-
thing was more natural than that the enemies
of the Gospel should instigate the emperor to
proclaim his own divinity in opposition to
him. But Tiberius, having had reason to
believe that the person whom the magicians
regarded as divine was really a supernatural
being, declined the competition, as vain and
impious i and accordingly " ordered that no
flamines, or priests, should be chosen in ho-
nour of him ; also that no statues or images
should be erected for him, but with his per-
mission, and on the sole condition that they
should be exhibited as ornaments of the build-
ings, and not be ranked with the effigies of
the gods *."

* " Le Clerc objects, that the true reading in Tertullian

is not quia in se non frohaverat, but quia n07i ipse proba^verat.
Be it so : the meaning is the same. Ipse must intend the em-
peror, not the senate. The other sense is absurd^ and next
VOL. I. N

17S

Now when the emperor, having, instead
of the persecutor, become the patron of the
Jews and Christians, endeavoured in good
earnest to sanction the divinity of their ma-
ster, the senate made the above prohibition a
specious pretence for resisting his attempt ;
and lest their opposition should provoke his
displeasure, they artfully concealed it under
the veil of a handsome compliment.

The reader, I trust, is now satisfied, that the
second proposition, which I have undertaken
to prove, is no longer a supposition, but a
fact. Lest, however, it be still doubted, whe-
ther the men mentioned by Joseph us as being
expelled from Italy, were, at least in part, the
followers of Jesus, and whether their suffer-
ings were occasioned by the new faith they had
embraced, I will farther confirm it by the tes-
timony of two or three heathen writers,
who are authorities sufficient of themselves
to decide the point.

to a contradiction, and therefore not likely to be right. And
at the same time it is a rude and needless affront. The oilier
interpretation represents a handsome compliment, and a com-
pliment not without foundation. For it is very true that Ti-
berius had himself declined receiving divine honours." Lar.
yol, vii, p. 239.

17^

Seneca the philosopher has (Epistle cviii.)
this interesting and curious passage :

'* Since I have began explaining to thee
with how much greater ardour I have ap-
plied myself to philosophy in my youth than
I pursued it when old, I shall not be ashamed
to confess the love which Sotion infused into
me respecting Pythagoras. He taught me
why that philosopher, and why Sextius after
him, abstained from animals. The reason
for this, in both, was different , but in each
it was noble. Sextius believed that there is
sufficient provision for man without blood,
and that a habit of cruelty is generated when
butchering is made to administer to pleasure.
The subjects of luxury, he added, ought to
be diminished -, and insisted that a variety of
food is hostile to sound health, and unconge-
nial to our bodies.

** But Pythagoras affirmed that all things
were united together by some natural affinity,
and that different beings passed over, by a
kind of commerce, into different forms. Ac-
cording to him, no soul admits of either an-^
nihilation, or indeed inactivity j excepting in

ISO

the short time while she is removing to an-
other body. We might have marked her
periodical transitions through several habita-
tions, and then her return again into man.
In the mean time she creates in men a dread
of murder and parricide ; since they might
fall, inconscious, upon the soul of a parent,
and, by their knife or their bite, violate a
mansion in which some kindred spirit dwelt.
Soiion, when he had explained these things,
and augmented them by arguments of his
own, added, ' Do not you believe that souls
are destined for different bodies, in succession,
and that the removal of them from one into the
other is what we call death ? Do not you be-
lieve that in animals, tame or wild, and even
in those which people the water, resideth
that spirit which before animated man ? Do
not you believe that nothing in this world
absolutely perisheth, but only changeth its
situation ; that not merely celestial objects
revolve through the same circumscribed li-
mits, but that living beings also proceed
through similar vicissitudes, and souls are
borne along the same destined round ? These
are points, which have been believed by emi-
nent men. Therefore suspend your own

181

judgment, and ponder these arguments im-
partially in your mind. If they be just, to
abstain from animals is m.oral purity ; if false,
it is still frugality. Admitting this were
matter of credulity, what loss can it occasion
to me ? I plunder merely the food of lions
and vultures.' Influenced by these arguments
I began to abstain from animals, and in the
course of one year I found it not only an easy
but a pleasant habit. You will ask, how
then I came to desist from such abstinence ?
The season of my youth had fallen on the
reign of Tiberius Cassar. At that time

THE RITES OF A FOREIGN SUPERSTITION
CAME TO BE AGITATED, AND AMIDST ITS
SUBJECTS LAY A CONTROVERSY ABOUT
ABSTAINING FROM CERTAIN ANIMALS.

At the solicitations of my father, who felt,
not so much the dread of calumny ^ as hatred
to philosophy, I returned to my former cus-
tom i nor was it with ditliculty that he per-
suaded me to indulge in a better diet *."

* In Tiberii Cgesaris principatum juvent.-E tcmpus incide-
rat : alienigenarum sacra movebantur : sed inter argumenta
superstitlonis ponebatur quorundam animalium abslmen'ia.
Patre meo rogante, aui non calumniam timeeat^ sed
I'HiLosoPHiAM ODERAT, ad pristinam consuetudinem redii.
Epist- cviii. p. 426. Elzev. ed.

N 3

182

It is agreed among critics, that by foreign
superstition Seneca means the Jewish religion,
and that the discussion took place at the pe-
riod when Tiberius bapished the Jews from
Rome.

The controversy concerning the use of ani-
mal food, be it farther observed, Seneca re-
presents as then newly introduced. This is
apparent from the verb movebatur, which he
uses, and which, metaphorically applied, sig-
nifies to put in motion a question not before
agitated.

Now we are assured, on good authority,
that when Christianity was first propagated
among the Gentiles, a dispute, of the kincj
which Seneca mentions, was every where ex-
cited by its propagation. For, the Apostles,
in conformity to the decree of the first synod
held in Jerusalem, enjoined on the Gentile
converts - the necessity of abstaining from
eating sacrifices to idols, and fi-om blood, and
from things strangled," This injunction
must have met with an unfavourable recep^
tion even among those who had embraced the
Gospel 3 and from its enemies it could expect

163

nothing but the most determined opposition.
It must, therefore, wherever it was imposed,
have given rise to dispute r and, indeed, the
change it was intended to produce in the ha-
bits of those who received the faith, formed
one of the many serious difficulties which the
early preachers had to encounter in establish-
ing among the Gentile world the pure reli-
gion of Jesus *.

But while they attempted to restrain, in
this respect, the impure excesses of the hea-
thens, they had to encounter the opposite pre-
judices of the Jews. The former imposed
on themselves no restraints in the use of ani-
mal food ; the latter submitted to many un-
necessary restrictions. The Christian adopted
the medium, which reason and decency sug-

* The Egvptians, and particularly the priests, formed an
exception to this general remark ; since they, as well as the
Jews, had always been accustomed to abstain from the use of
animal food. Plutarch speaks of them thus :

0\ jXc/ Upsii oJrw hiyBooLivovtri ff^v t(uv ifBoit'^uii/.atMV <pu-
<riv, wste [/.T] (Mvov Tfapxitsia-^xi ruiv oa-iipiwv ta TOKKa, v.ai row
KpsoDv •fa, ^ijAsia xa< isio,, itoWr^v 'rtoiovvraTTspirtooiny' a,XAa -/.a:
ro'js a.\ag tmv <nri'jjv sv tens dyvsixis afdipeiv. De hid. U
Osir. sect. 5.

N 4

184

gested, between both j and hence, in the dif-
fusion of his faith, a controversy arose between
him and the Jew on one hand, and with the
Gentile on the other.

That a dispute of this kind had been ex-
cited in Rome by the introduction of the
Gospel, we may infer from a passage of Paul
in his Epistle to the Romans. But this I
shall defer till I examine the contents of that
important performance.

The argument derived from this writer in
favour of my proposition may thus be briefly
stated. From the words of Seneca it is evi-
dent that a dispute among the Gentiles and
Jews was excited at Rome, concerning the
use of certain animal food. This dispute
arose in that city, as it did in other places,
when the Gospel was first introduced into it.
It follows, therefore, that the period of its
introduction there was in his youth, near the
latter end of Tiberius's reign, and that the
controversy here alluded to was in the num-
ber of those questions which broke out be-
fore, and ended in the banishment of the
Jews and Egyptians.

185

The passage just quoted from Seneca proves
the truth of the opinion held in ancient times,
that this distinguished philosopher was ac-
quainted with the doctrines of the Gospel,
and in his heart believed them to be true ;
though ioT prudential motives he gave up that
belief. " At that time," says he, " the
rites of a foreign superstition became agi-
tated, and amidst its subjects lay a controversy
about certain animals. At the solicitations
of my father, who felt not so much the dread
of calumny as hatred to philosophy, I re-
sumed my former custom."

Now it cannot be doubted but that the
philosophy of which Seneca is here speak-
ing was connected with the preceding con-
troversy respecting animal food, which it
comprehended, as one of its branches. It
was therefore no other than the Christian sy-
stem, which indeed was distinguished by the
early Christians under the very name of phi-
losophy. In proof of this many passages from
the fathers might be quoted. But hear the
words of a late respectable writer : — " Al-
though Jesus Christ demands attention and
reverence under a much more exalted cha-

186

racter than that of a philosopher, yet it will
not be questioned by those who are more in-
clined to regard the real nature of things
than to cavil about words, that the Christian
religion merits in the higher sense the ap-
pellation of philosophy. For the weighty
truths which it teaches respecting God and
man are adapted to produce in the minds of
men the genuine principles of wisdom, and
to conduct them to true felicity. At the
same time that it enlightens the understand-
ing, it interests the heart -, exhibiting divine
wisdom in her fairest form, and supporting
her authority by the most powerful sanctions.
On these grounds, doubtless, it was that the
Christian fathers so frequently spoke of
Christianity under the title of true and evan-
gelical philosophy, and called the professors
of the Christian faith divine philosophers**'
Enfield's Hist, of Philos. vol. ii. p. 267,
268. - '

But besides this, there is another conside-
ration, which renders it extremely probable
that by philosophy Seneca meant the Chris-
tian system. His father it seems hated it,
and he was exposed to calumny in conse-

187

quence of having adopted it ; and the re-
proach attached to him was so great, that his
father interfered, and earnestly solicited him
to give up its profession.

Fortunately, however, there are other pas-
sages in the works of this great philosopher,
which show that he was in his heart, though
not openly y a believer in the Gospel. Of
this fact I shall here produce but one in~
stance, leaving others to be cited as occasion
may hereafter require them. At the end of
the Epistle, Ixiii. which he wrote on the
death of a friend, he thus expresses himself:
" Cogitemus ergo, Lucili charissime, cito nos
eo perventiiros, quo ilium pervenisse moe-
remus : et fortasse {si modo sapientiim vera
estfama, recipltque nos locus aliquis) quem pu-
tamus perisse, praemissus est. Let us then,
my dear Lucili us, rejiect that we are soon to
go to that place where we grieve that our
friend is gone 3 and where perhaps he, whom
we supposed to have perished, is sent before

us ', IF INDEED THE REPORT OF WISE MEN
3E TRUE, WHO SAY THAT SUCH A PLACS
JS TO RECEIVE US.'*

188

Observe, the philosopher in this place ex-
presses his faith, though, it must be confessed,
not without a mixture of doubt, that there
is a life after the present, whither his friend
was conveyed, and whither he hoped to be
conveyed after him. This faith he grounds
upon the report of certain wise men.

Now the question is, who could these wise
men have been ? The teachers of Christianity
announced, as the grand article of their faith,
a state after the present, where the virtuous
shall be rewarded, and the vicious punished.
This good news, which alone justified the ap-
propriate appellation of Gospel, they erect-
ed not upon philosophical disquisitions, but
upon a matter of fact ; namely, the re-
surrection of their divine master, as the pro-
totype of the universal resurrection of man-
kind. Hence the doctrine of a future state,
which they proclaimed, was not so much an
opinion as a report. And, accordingly, Seneca
thus denominates it : and as no other set of
men, excepting the practisers of Christianity,
disseminated a report like this, they must be
the very men here alluded to, and called wise

189

men. This appellation, together with that of
divine philosophers ^ was usually applied to the
philosophic part of the Gentile converts,
who, we shall hereafter see, were far more
numerous than is generally supposed by
modern critics in divinity. I will add, that
there are several circumstances in the life of
Seneca which might lead us to conclude
that he was at heart a convert to the Gospel.
On no other ground can we so well account
for the hatred borne him by Nero, for his
banishment from Rome, and particularly for
the cruel order which that tyrant gave that
he should destroy himself. Indeed, from all
these circumstances put together, we may
fairly infer that he died, in a certain sense, a
martyr to the Christian faith ; and it is some
confirmation of this inference, that the fa-
thers appear to consider him in principle as a
disciple of Jesus, though with all his stoicism
he had not sufficient resolution to encounter
the dangers and disgrace of an explicit profes-
sion of the Gospel. Jerom, it is well known,
has ranked him in the number of early ec-
clesiastical writers ; and though the .letters
ascribed to him and Paul be unquestionably
spurious, yet they are doubtless founded on

190

the belief of our philosopher, well known hi
ancient times, if not, perhaps, upon some*
real correspondence, now lost, between him
and the great Apostle of the Gentiles.

While I am on this subject, I cannot pass
by an observation of Ltidovicus Fives (which
I copy from Jones on the Canon, vol. ii. p.
98). " When Nero," says he, " had burnt
Rome, and barbarously punished the Chris-
tians, under pretence of being guilty of that
crime, Seneca desired leave of the emperor
to retire to thi country for a while j which
he did, in my opinion, because he could not
bear to see the daily and cruel massacre of the
innocent Christians." Be it observed, finally,
that as Seneca appears from his own writings
to have been a Christian in principle, though
not altogether so in conduct, on account of
his previous education, and his political si-
tuation, it will follow that it is very probable
the apostle Paul had him, among others, in
his eye, when he speaks thus (Phil. i. 13) :
My bonds in Christ are manifest in all the
palace.

The next authority I shall produce is, I

191

believe, still more decisive, that the Jews
and Egyptians, expelled by Tiberius^, w^ere,
for the most part, the followers of Jesus.

The authority which thus solicits our at-
tention is Dion Cassnis, In his Life of Clau-
dius he has written a passage to this efFeci: * :
** The Jews, who a second time flocked into
the city in such numbers, as rendered it dif-
ficult to exclude them without disturbance,
the emperor did not indeed expel; but he
commanded such of them as adhered to the
vital principles of their laws not to assem-
ble, and dissolved the societies which re-
turned under Cains,''

In this paragraph it is observable, that the
historian divides the Jewish people into two
classes ; one, which retained the vital prin-

* Touj re loui'aiouf, •tfAsovao'ayrai' au^i^, m^ts y^aXsifug ^
avsv faptxy^ii vro row o^\ov anpuiv tr^g 'rroXso; sic>yhy]va.i, ovk
g^yjKatrs fj.sv, Tw oe Stj ifaTptuj vO'xuj jSioj •yfojij^svovg bkcXsvts ij.'^
cvya^poii^ecrSai, rag Ts 'ETAIPEIAS sitavxyjsia-c;.; -jVi roi*
Taiov SieXvcs. Koci opojy [j^rj^iv o^s?.og ov, ccirayocavsc-^cfA rivx
Yiu if\iiQsi jw,ij Ttoisiv, ay [j.r, koh o -/.aV riij.ip.xv /3;o; ij.erot.p.o^'U<xSr!,
to. rs xaiDjAsta, sig d c-jvia-/rsg svivov, xarsAucE, Kcci ircog'
sra^s y^riTs Kpsag ntw s(pSoy jj^r^j v^ujp Qsp.y.ov Kitfpoi'T-Kso-^a.iy Kai
Tiyug [J,r] frsi§ou>^rjcrayro!.g sKOAacrsv. Lib. Ix. p. 66g.

192

ciple of the Mosaic laws, by which probably
are meant the rite of circumcision, and such
other external ceremonies ; the other, which
formed themselves into societies.

Now it is maintained, that by this last class
the author meant those Jews and Egyptians,
who in the time of Tiberius became converts
to Christianity. In proof of this assertion,
one instance, as it is very peculiar, will be
sufficient. Pliny the younger, in his cele-
brated Epistle to the emperor Trajan, thus
writes concerning the disciples of Jesus :
" After these things had been performed,
their custom was to separate, and meet again
at the time of meal, which consisted of plain
and harmless food ; and from this very cus-
tom they abstained, after my edict, in which,
agreeably to your orders, I prohibited their
societies*'

The word which Pliny here uses, to denote
the societies of Christians, is *Era/^s<a/, the
very term employed by Dion the historian j
and what renders the use of it on this occa^
sion very remarkable, and my assertion in-
controvertible, is the circumstance, that Pliny

193

wrote In Latin. Hence it is plain, that the
term was not casually -applied on this parti-
cular occasion to the Christian assemblies,
but chosen as the name which for some time
had been appropriated to the societies of be-
lievers. Hence, too, we perceive,

1 . That the Jews and Egyptians expelled
from Italy by Tiberius were converts to the
new faith. For if, as Dion attests, those
converts returned (or, as the clause might
more properly be rendered, as they restored
themselves under Caligula) they must have
been banished in the preceding reign ; that is,
in the reign of Tiberius.

2. From what we have already seen we
may collect the time when those societies
returned into Italy from Egypt. It was pro-
bably soon after the accession of Caligula,
when the whole world enjoyed the blessings
of peace and liberty.

3. We see the means by which the term
Hetcsria * became at first applied to the foU

* A passage in Athenaus will place the meaning of this
term in an obvious point of view : " Ilsij ^e rwv YL^r^nyMv cryc-

VOL. I. O

194

lowers of Jesus. In its original import It
signifies assemblies of people met together to

(riri'MV Ax'^ix^ocs Icrtopujv ev 't'f tBtac>r^ tujv KpTjtiKujv ov^wg
ypoL'pzi. 0\ $£ AvKtioi <rvvayov(n y.£y ra. KOtvcc (rv7o-iria, outuug,
'Ey.%<TTog Tivv yivo[J.Byu)v yiapirwy C(.va.(p£p£i r^v Jsjcar^jv sis 'i'^''
'ETAIPEIAN, -aaA rag rr^g ifoKsujg ntpogo^rivg, dg Sia.yEtjt,ov(ri oi
TfposiTT'r/.rjrc; rr^g iroXs'jjg sig roug 'rKX<rr'MV oiKOug' rwv Se oov'
Xwv byixtrtog kiyivxiov (pspsi (rrarrjpa. Kara XB(faXr^v Sixprjvrat
S'ol TfoXitai TTscvtsg Big 'ETAIPEIA2." De Cretenshim syssitiis
(corivlvih) Dos'iaaas libro quarto Cretensium ad hunc viodiim sen-
hit : Lyctii I'ero sic ad communes sodalitates cogunt. ContU'
bernjliu?7i quisque ex fructihus frcediorum decimam partem corifert
in earn sodalitatem, ac insuper reditum pcrceftum ex puhlicis iiec-
figalibus dvitatis, qme ah urhis pratfectis in si?igulas fartiilias
dispertiu7itur. Servi autem in singula capita statercm JEginenscM
pendunt. In societates civitas mii'vcrsa dividitur." AthenauSf
p. 143,

The following is a striking instance of the term 'Eraipeix
being applied to the Egyptian devotees. The author is speak-
ing of Flaccus, appointed by Tiberius governor of Eg}^pt. —
" EiJoia^s ra, jW-syaXa jOCST'a rwv ev tbXsi, roug vitspa.'xPovg aaSripsi,
fuya^ujv v.ai <rvy>iXv5ujv a.v^pojitujv op^^Xov SKuaXvsi sTtKrwitrtatr-
$ar rag r?'ETAIPElA2 xa< a-vvoSovg, al asi etri T(po(pa<m 9u-
ffcoy B'iTrMyro, rotg itpayif^aciv e^Ttapoivovcai, SisXvs, rotg afr^-
viat,'iv<Tiv sijXpi^wg -/.at sutovwg Tfpog(pspoix£vog. Graviores causas
judicabat^ cum optimatibus, superbos deprimebaf, vetabai coetui
promiscuos midtitudinis : sublatis etiam sodalitiis, qua pns-
textu sacrorum vacahant mero et crapulce ; contumacibus severus
ac rigidus." Philo in Flaccum, p. p6(>.

Here we may discern the true character of the men that
frequented the Egyptian assemblies. They were, it appears,
»iixed multitudes of people who came together under pre-

195

celebrate a feast. On this account it is often
applied to the Egyptians, noted for the fesli-
'vities which they held in honour of Lis and
Osiris. Hence, when they became converts
to the new religion, as they still continued
their fondness for entertainments, though the
object of their devotion was changed, it was
natural for them to retain also that denomi-
nation, which in this respect was expressive
of their peculiar character.

4. Hence is disclosed the origin of those
banquets frequented by the early Christians,
under the title of agapce, or love-feasts^
The devotees of Isis, as has just been ob-
served, were noted for their devotion to fes-
tivals, Vv^hich they celebrated very frequently,
and with great pomp and luxury. The dis-
ciples of Jesus too had a simple institution,
which they frequented in commemoration of
their master \ and it is written of them, be-
fore they were yet debased by foreign luxury,

tence of engaging in the offices of religion, but iu reality io
feast and to drink, till their noise and commotion resembled
the troubled waves of the sea. Flaccus, while he was yet a
friend to virtue and order, found it necessary to dissolve such
disgraceful societies,

o 21

196

that " they, continuing daily with one accord
in the temple, and breaking bread from house
to house, did eat their meat with gladness
and singleness of heart." But the Egyp-
tians, on receiving the faith, taught, as it
must as yet have been, by m.en who neither
understood its doctrines nor had imbibed its
spirit, carried with them, we may well sup-
pose, into the Christian church most of their
former customs and habits. And among these
were the feasts, to which they were so fondly
devoted, and which offered an easy coalition
with the institution of the Lord's Supper.
From this unhappy union, which was una-
voidable in such circumstances, the plain and
simple Supper of our Lord degenerated into
a riotous banquet, which did not at first, as
Mr, Hallett thinks, form an institution di-
stinct from the eucharist, but was the eucha-
rist corrupted by Egyptian luxury.

5. These considerations unfold the true foun-
dation of those calumnies which were publish-
ed against the primitive Christians by their
enemies. The Egyptian festivals, which were
holden in the night, usually ended in riot and
intemperance, and w^ere often disgraced by

197

acts of adultery, robbery. Incest, and mur.
der. Of these enormities the Egyptian con-
verts, where they did not bring the guilt,
brought the imputation into the innocent bo-
som of the Christian church i and as it was
natural in the Romans to form their notion of
the assemblies of Christians in other parts of
the empire from those in the capital, they
necessarily concluded that they were all guilty
of the same atrocious practices.

In order to convince my reader of the jus-
tice of this conclusion, I shall here compare
a fact which Josephus has related of the
priests of Isis in Rome, with a charge which
Cc^cilius ascribes, in his dispute with Octa^
WIS, to all the followers of Jesus.

- - Ida," says Josephus, - perceiving that
Paulina was much devoted to the worship of
Isis, planned this scheme (in order that Mun-
dus, her young master, might obtain her) :
she goes to some of the priests, and discloses
to them the passion of her master ; and by
her entreaties, though principally by her pre-
sents (having at the time given them two thou-
sand five hundred drachmae, together with the

o 3

. 198

promise of an equal sum when the scheme
should succeed), prevails upon them to use
all their endeavours to procure him the be^
loved woman. Captivated with sums of gold,
they pledged their service. The oldest of
them repairs to the house of Paulina, and
obtained of her a private interview. He
came, he said, from the god Anubis, who
was enamoured with her beauty. The in-
formation gave her pleasure. By the assist-
ance of her associates she adorned herself in
a stile worthy the honour done her by Anu-
bis ; and accordingly went to the holy place.
When the feast was now over, the time for
repose arrived, the doors of the temple
were fastened, and the candles removed :
then Mundus, who had there concealed
himself, obtained the enjoyment which he
wished."

Hear next the words of Cascilius, accusing
the Christians: ** Their love-feasts are no-
torious, and every where the subject of com-
mon talk. People of every age and sex, ac-
companied with all their children, sisters,
mothers, meet, on a festival day, at a com-
mon entertainment ; where, after they are

199

much heated by festivity, and the fervour of
incestuous desires is inflamed by intoxication,
a dog,> v^hich is fastened to a candlestick, is
instigated to leap after a cake thrown beyond
the extent of the cord by which he is fast-
ened, and thus the candle goes out, as if
conscious of the meditated crime. They
then roll in promiscuous indulgences, which
the darkness itself feels, though it is not a-
shamed of the impurity ; and thus they are
all equally incestuous, if not in fact, yet in
their hearts : for the gratification which is
obtained only by some, is coveted by them
all*/'

Here it is said that the enormities imputed
to the Christians were practised in their lovc-^
feasts, which I have already shewn to have
been imported into the church of Christ by
Egyptian debauchery ; and it appears to me
very probable that this is the feast mentioned
by Josephus in the above paragraph ; since it

* This same calumny is taken notice of by Teitullian in
t^iese words : " Dicimur sceleratissimi de Sacramento infanti-
cidii, et pabulo indej et post convivium incesto, quod ever-
sores luminum canes, lenones scilicet, tenebrartim in verecuu-
dia procurent." Analog, cap. vii.

o 4

200

will presently appear that Paulina, and the
priests of Isis, who were the guilty instru-
ments of her seduction, were at this very
time nominal converts to the pure religion of
Jesus, and the very men who first disgraced
it by their conduct, and corrupted it by false
philosophy and superstition.

Josephus says, that Paulina, after the feast
was over, and the candles put out, gratified
Mundus, imagining him to be Anubis, whom
the Egyptians worshipped in the shape of a
dog ; and this circuii.stance will account for
the malignant fiction alleged by Caecilius and
others : " After they are heated by festivity,
and the fervour of incestuous desires is inflamed
by intoxication, a dog, fastened to a candle-
stick, is instigated to leap after a cake thrown
beyond the extent of the cord by which he is
fastened ; and thus the light goes out, as if
conscious of the meditated crime."

These and other accusations, alleged against
the disciples of Jesus, are repelled by the
fathers witli great vigour and animation.
They boldly appeal to facts, and demand of
the magistrate an inquiry into their conduct.

201

instead of resting on popular report ; and that
if any of them, after a fair investigation, should
be found guilty of such crimes, they should
be punished as criminals, and not for being
Christians : and it may here be observed,
that the exemplary conduct and extraordinary
virtue of those that were Christians indeed
extorted a confession of their innocence from
a person distinguished as much by his perse-
cution of the Christians, as he was by learn-
ing and refinement -, I mean Pliny the
younger.

In his well-known letter to Trajan he
speaks thus : ** Soliti ante lucem, stato die,
convenire, carmenque Christo quasi deo di-
cere secum invicem ; seque Sacramento, non

IN * SCELUS ALIQUOD, OBSTRINGERE ; SED

* The term scelus is here used by Pliny to signify, as is
usually done by pure writers, that species of guilt which is
incurred by assassinaUon or murder. In this sense it is applied
by Horace^ in reference to the death of Caesar :

Cui dabit partes scelui expiandi

Jupiter? Lib. i. Od. 2.

This too is the sense of it in the following lines of Virgil :

Sed regna Tyri germanus habebat

Pygmalion, scelcre ante alios immanior omnes* • • •
Ipiia sed in somnis inhumati venit imngo

202
NE FURTA, NE LATROCINIA, NE ADULTE-

RiA coMMiTTERENT." Which is to the
following effect : ** These men meet on an
appointed day to bind themselves not to com-

Conjugis, ora modis attoUens pallida miris :
Crudele* aras, trajectaque pectora ferro,
Nudavit ; caecuraque domus scelus omne retexit.

^n. lib. i. 350—360.

It denotes too the particular crime of murder in these lines
of L ucretius :

Denique avarlties et honorum caeca cupido.
Quae miseros homines cogunt transcendere fines
Juris ; et, interdum, socios scclcrum atque rainistros,
Noctes atque dies niti praestante labore
Ad summas emergere opes ; haec volnera vltae
Non iTiinimam partem mortis formidine aluntur.

Lib. iii. 5Q—Qi.

Again, the same poet speaks thus of religion, because it oc-
casioned the death of Ipbiariassa :

Religio peperit scelerosa atque impia facta.

Lib. I. 83.

Seneca, in the -passage above quoted, gives the term scehs
the same specific significaiion : " Nulla, si illi credas, anima
interit nee ce«;?at quidem ni&i tempore exiguo, dum in aliud
corpus trausfiiaditur. Viderimus per quas temporarias vices,
et quando pererratis pkiribus domiciliis in hoirinem reverta-
tur : interim scekris hominibus et parricidii metum fecit, cum
possint in }n;rentis animam inscii incurrere, et ferro morsuve
violare, in quo cognatus aliquis spiritus hospitaretur." Epist.
108.

mit murder, theft, robbery, or adultery, as
is reported to be the case in Rome and other
places; but, on the contrary, the object of
their oath is to keep their faith, and to de-
liver up the trust reposed in them ; and, in
general, to preserve themselves free from the
crimes imputed to them."

I have only to observe on this head, that a
direct opposition is observable betv^een Sue^
tonlus, who asserts, and Dion, v^ho denies,
that Claudius banished the Jews from Rome.
The two writers, however, may easily be re-
conciled. That emperor ordered the Jewish
people not to hold any more assemblies : ra-
ther than obey such an order, they chose uj
quit the city. The prohibition, therefore,
amounted in effect to an expulsion. Sueto-
nius considered it in this light; and as he
transiently touched upon the subject, he ex-
pressed it so. But Dion wds more particu-
lar, and his particularity enabled him to be
more accurate.

It is indeed asserted by Luke, in the Acts,
of the Apostles, tha all the Jews were ex-
pelled from Rome by Claudius ; but this tes-

204

tlmony admits of the same explanation with
the assertion of the Roman historian. At the
same time I cannot here help expressing my
suspicion, that the sacred writer used the
term Ccesar, meaning Tiberius^ and that an-
cient fraud changed this for Claudius. This,
I confess, is a mere conjecture -, but I main-
tain, that it is nevertheless a conjecture
which must appear very probable, when all
the artifices, employed by the fathers to con-
ceal the expulsion of the Christians by Ti-
berius, are brought to light.

The next writer who demands our atten-
tion is the celebrated Plutarch, whom learn-
ed men suppose to have been ignorant of
Christianity, and its founders ; as they can-
not perceive any allusion to either in his vo-
luminous works. It will, however, be seen
in the sequel, that they are much mistaken
in this respect.

In the obscure book which he has written
concerning the cessation of the heathen oracles,
he speaks to this effect : " After Ammonius
had finished, I said to Cleombrotus, * But do
you speak to us respecting the oracles , for

205

the glory of their divinity, in former days so
celebrated, seems now to fade ?' While Cle-
ombrotus continued silent, with his eyes
fixed on the ground, Demetrius said, * It is
not so necessary to inquire about the obscu-
rity of those oracles, since we see them all,
excepting in one or two instances, fallen
away, but rather to consider the reason of
their decay ; for by what other name can I
call their cessation ? For, even from Boeotia,
which was formerly so famous for its divi-
nations, they have glided away like the
stream, and left the country to labour under a
great dearth, without any inspiration to che-
rish it."

To this passage I call the attention of the
reader, as it contains an acknowledgment
that those oracles, which were so renowned
among the pagans, had in the time of Plu-
tarch hccomQ exlmct. Their defection too
is thus attested by Juvenal :

Quidquid

Dixerit astrdogus, credent a foute relaturn
Ammonis : quoniam DeJphis oracula cessaiit^
Et genus btimanum damnat caligo futuri *♦

*-Sat. vi. 552—555.

^06

Yet the- Chaldaeans are the first in fame ;
Their tales, as if from Hammon's fount they came.
Seem Heaven's high voice ; s'mce Delpbos, grown unkindj
Left us in darkness, to the future blind.

Now the question is, what could have been
the cause of the remarkable fact here attest-
ed ? The heathen oracles were regarded with
high esteem hy almost every description of
men in the heathen world. The populace were
taught to repose the most implicit credit on
them ', and even the philosophers in general,
though they might not believe, yet enforced
their divine inspiration merely as a conve-
nient instrument in governing the multitude.
These oracles, moreover, were authorised by
the laws, which threatened any reproach or
neglect of them with the severest punish-
ment ; and they had, finally, in their favour
the high sanctions of universal custom and
antiquity. With all these advantages on their
side, what cause could have been powerful
enough to effect their extinction ? In reply td
this question, I shall lay down to be proved
the three following propositions :

I. The oracles in vogue among the pagans
were for the most part put an end to by the

207

rel/gioJ2 of Christ ; which, after the resurrect
tion of its founder y obtained the most rapid pre-
valence in the world.

II. Phitarch composed his famous hook^ con-*
cernifig their cessation, in opposition to the
Christian teachers, who urged the expulsion of
the dcsmons, as a proof of the divine authority
and mission of fesus.

III. From this very book it appears, that
the Gospel was introduced intOy and preached
in Rome, under 'Tiberius, and embraced in name
by the priests of Isis, and other magicians in
his court ; and that these men were the first
who taught the divinity of its founder j repre^
senti?ig himy in conformity to the Egyptian
philosophy, as a good d^mon, who came
from Heaven for the sei'-vice of mankifid.

Before I proceed to the proof of these
propositions, it is necessary, for the sake of
perspicuity, to premise an observation, worthy
of notice. It is the following : that the oracles
in repute among the Gentiles were the sup-
posed inspirations of daemons, or the de-
parted spirits of dead men, raised by super-

208

stition and idolatry to the rank of Gods,
This is a fact well known and allowed by all
competent judges ; it does not therefore need
any corroboration. In inquiring then into
the causes which occasioned the defection of
the heathen oracles, we are to inquire. What
f roved the means of exposing their falsehoody
and of bringing the dcemons that inspired, and
the priests that delivered them, into disgrace f
What were the causes which effected the expul-
sion of those dcemons from the world ? or, in
more accurate and philosophical language,
what happy means did there exist of removing^
in a great degree, from among mankind, the
disorders, the vices, and siperstitious notions,
which were usually ascribed to the instigation
of evil daemons "^

L In answer then to these questions. It is
maintained, that these causes originated with
the religion of fesus Christ, which after his
resurrection obtained the most rapid prevalence
in the world, and produced the most beneficial
effects on the tempers and conduct of its votaries.
The cessation of the heathen oracles, or the
expulsion of the daemons, it occasioned.

209

1 . Because its advocates, in their endeavoun
to propagate it among the Pagans, exposed the
'vanity and falsehood of the oracles, which they
had hitherto been accustomed to look up to as
true and divine. An instance or two of this
I will here produce for the satisfaction of
the reader.

'* Eusebius has treated the subject in his
Prceparatio Evangelica, lib. iv, v, vi. He
produces such arguments as tend to fhew that
it was all human fraud, and, amongst other
things, he informs us, that many Pagan priests
and prophets, who had been taken up and
tried, and tortured, had confessed, that the
oracles were impostures, and had laid open the
whole contrivance, and that their confessions
stood upon record, and that these were not
obscure wretches, but philosophers, and ma-
gistrates, who had enriched themselves by
persecuting and plundering the Christians.
So Theodoret tells us, that, in demolishing
the temples at Alexandria, the Christians
found hollow statues fixed to the walls, into
which the priests used to enter, and thence
deliver oracles, v. 22. Eusebius adds,

VOL. I. P

ero

that the Peripatetics, Cynics, and "Epicu-
reans were of opinion, that such predictions
were all artifice and knavery. He then pro-
duces the arguments of Diogenianus against
divination. But Eusebius, as also all the an-
cient Christians, v^^as of opinion, that with
these human frauds there might have been
sometimes a mixture of dsmoniacal tricks.
Pr. Ev. vii. 16. He then argues against the
oracles from- the concessions and the writings
of Pagans. He jfhews from Porphyry, that, ac-
cording to that philosopher's own principles^
and according to the reasonings of other Pa-
gans, the gods who delivered oracles must
have been evil daemons. He proves the same
thing from human sacrifices, and produces
Porphyry's testimony and opinion that the
Pagans worshipped evil dzemons, the chief of
v/hom were Serapi& and Hecate. He proves
the same from Plutarch ; and he gives a col-
lection, made by CEnomaiis, of wicked, false, '
trifling, ambiguous oracles." Jor, Remarks,
vol. i. D. 144, 145.

What is thus done by Eusebius in his
Evangelical Preparation had doubtless been

211

done before him by the teachers of the Go-
spel, previously to the days of Plutarch and

Porphyry.

A fine specimen of the manner in which
the heathen oracles were exposed by the fol-
lowers of Jesus is recorded by Minutius
Felixy as a part of the reply made by Octa^
vius to the Pagan Cacilius,

After this last had asserted that the Ro-
mans owed their prosperity and successes to
the attention which they paid to their oracles,
the other answers him thus : " Was not Re-
gulus taken prisoner, though he consulted
and conformed to the oracles ? Mancinus paid
them the same superstitious regard, and yet
he was taken and sent into captivity. Pau-
lus obeyed the auspices of those chickens
which he kept by him at Cannas ; neverthe-
less he and the greater part cf the Roman
army were prostrated on the ground. Caius
Caesar despised the augurs, v/ho advised him
not to send his fleet to A rlca j3efore the
winter should be over 5 and did not success
amply justify his contempt of them ? But
need I say any more cf these oracles ? Am-

P S

212

phiaraiis predifted things that happened after
his death -, and yet this very man was unable
to foresee that his wife would betray hkn for
the sake of a necklace ! Tiresias, who was
blind to things present, had notwithstanding
eyes to see what were yet to come ! Ennius
forged an oracle concerning Pyrrhus, which
he ascribed to the Pythian Apollo, when
Apollo had now ceased to utter verses; whose
dark and ambiguous responses began to fail
as soon as men began to be more civilised
and less credulous *,"

2 . The early teachers of Christianity con-
tributed to the extinction of the heathen ora-
cles, by holding up the daemons, who were
the authors of those oracles, as the cause of
all the vices which corrupted, and of all the su-
perstitious notions v/hich debased, those un-
der their influence.

The following paragraph is taken from
yusfm Martyr, who addressed his Apology
to the emperor and senate of Rome.

** Why then should you deal so severely

* Octai'lus, p! 238.

513

with us, who injure no man, nor profess sen-*
timents impious like these ? You do not in-
quire with impartiality, and your decisions
are dictated, not by wisdom, but by absurd
prejudice, which is generated in you by evil
dcemons. For, these da;mons, since their first
appearance in the world, have continued
to debauch women, to corrupt children,
and to alarm mankind by terrific visions,
Hence, those who cannot form a right judg-
ment of such things, and are ignorant that
they are the effects of evil spirits, worship them
as godsy and distinguish them by their assumed
names. But when Socrates endeavoured, by a
rational inquiry, to bring the matter to light,
and rescue mankind from subjection to the
daemons, these dsmons, by means of men
delighting in wickedness, effected his mur-
der as an enemy of the gods, and the intro-
ducer of new daemons. The same thing they
effect in respect to us. For not only among
the Greeks were those crimes exposed by the
wisdom of Socrates, but also among the bar-
barians by the wisdom of God, which became
ipan, and is called Jesus Christ : in whom
we having trusted, affirm, that the dsemon^

p 3 V

214r

which do these things are not good but evil,
and hate all such as love virtue *."

The next passage is taken from Tertullian.
" The object of all that the dsemons do, is
the destruction of man. They therefore in-
flict upon the body certain pains and disor--
ders, and infuse into the soul sudden, violent,
and unusual emotions. The subtilty of their
nature enables them to operate both upon the
corporeal and immaterial part of man ^ and
while they preserve themselves invisible in
their operations, they are apparent in their
effects. As when the air, impregnated
with latent contagion, and diffusing its pesti-
lential breath, shakes to the ground the fruit
in its blossom, or withers it in the bud, or
tears it in its maturity ; so, with the same'
invisible infection the blasts of the daemons-
agitate the minds which they have seized with
furious phrensy, squalid madness, flagrant'
lusts, and various errors ; the worst conse--
quence of which is, that they recommend
themselves as gods to the minds of men en-
tangled in their snares, in order that they

* Justin Mar. i. Apol. p. 9 10. Ox. Ed.

215

may glut on the incense and blood of the
victims offered to their images. They are
the source of every evil to man, and never
the authors of good. They pry into the fur
ture schemes of providence, and collect them
from those predictions which w^ere formerly
delivered to, and are now read by men*
Hence they anticipate a certain ' order of
events, and rival the very divinity whose in-
spiration they have stolen: but with what
address their oracles are adjusted, how ambi-
guous and how fallacious, all those that trust
in them know from experience *."

Now in these, and those other passages
upon the subject, which are to be met
with in the fathers, it is observable, that
the bad passions and vices of men are ascribed
to the operation of dsemons -, and, in the
first of these passages, the author speaks of
those daemons as having themselves com-
mitted the crimes of which, literally -f*

* Tertul. A.polog. cap. xxU.

f I cannot help quoting here a just and important remark
of the learned Farmer. " It hath been observed already, that
the dc-emons within them were supposed to occupy the seat of
the human aoul, and to perform all its functions in the bod^.

P 4

216

speaking, the persons supposed to be under
their influence, were guilty. In this respect
Justin, and others after him, used a language
highly figurative, and had two reasons for the
practice — 1. That they might expose the evil
dispositions and practices of unbelievers, with-
out offending and exasperating them, at least
in that degree which would have been the

During his possession the dseraoniac himself was silent ; it
was the daemon alone that spoke in him. Whatever was
done by the former was attributed to the impulse of the lat-
ter. Dsemoniacs were not only regarded by others, but gene-
rally conceived of tliemselves, as speaking and acting under
the influence of the spirits by which tliey believed themselves
possessed, or as being those very spirits. At least every thing
they said and did corresponded to their apprehensions of the
sentiments and Inclinations of the in-dwelling daemon, being
themselves indeed (in their own imagination) nothing more
Jthan tlieir organs of speech and action. Hence the daemon
and the dsemoniac were often, in common speech, confound-
ed together, both were described under the same term-, and
the same act was referred indifferently to either." Farmer on
ibe Damoniacs, p.. 250.

Agreeably to this representation, when Justin Martyr and
some others say, that the daemons debauched women, and
corrupted children, and the like, we are to understand that
they mean only tlie nu-?ii who were guilty of those crimes,
and who were impelled to them by the influence of the dae-
mons. Had Middhton, and some other modern critics, attend-
ed to this fact, they would not have ascribed to that father a
*' monstrous doctrine,'' which originated n;erely in their own
misconception.

217

case, had themsehesy and not the d(2monsy
been so accused. — 2. That, by holding them
up to the world as the primary cause of
all wickedness, they might more effectu-
ally excite the hatred of mankind towards
them, and hence liberate them from their
supposed influence and authority. And it
cannot well be doubted but that this artifice
had a considerable effect in bringing those
daemons into general contempt, or, agreeably
to the popular language, in banishing them
from the world.

But whatever might have been the real
opinion of the ancient Christians on this
head, they Vv^ere justified in ascribing the de-
pravities of the human heart to the sugges-
tion of da^m.ons, on the authority of some
among the heathen philosophers. Poi-phyryy
in his work Concerning Abstinence from Ani-
mals, speaks to this effect : ** From these
dagmons proceed every kind of intemperance,
the desire ofriches, ambition, and especially de-
ception J for falsehood is essential to them *,"

* Haa-a. yccp ocKoXacna, kou itXovrujy sXift; v.xi So^r^g, STti
rovtwv {caiiMvwv), Koci ^aXifrra, a.Tta.rrf to yap ^avh; rou-
rois Oixtijv. Porpk. lib. ii. fol. 23.

218

It was in conformity to tibis notion, which
prevailed in Judasa, as well as in other places,
that our Lord described the generation of bad
habits, under an allusion to the commonly-
received doctrine of the body being possessed
by an evil spirit. One instance I shall here
produce. ** When the unclean spirit is gone
out from the man, it passeth through dry
places in search of refreshment , but doth
not find it : then it saith, I will return to my
house whence I cam.e out ; and on its coming
findeth the house ready for its reception,
swept, and set in order. Then it goeth, and
taketh with it seven other spirits, more
wicked than itself : and they go in and dwell

This last clause leads me to explain a misinterpreted verse
in John, chap. viii. 44. — " 'Orav XaXr, ro ^hnu^og, bk rwv iSnov
XaXii' on v/£ucrT/,f, •/.«( 6 irarr/p avrov." Which maybe rendered
tJias — " JVben any lyar speakcih, hefpeaketh of his mun ; fcr not
tmJy be but his father too is a lyar." If this version be right,
ro v|/£'j5o; is the fame, in signification, with t'is i'sva'tYiS ; and,
instead of being the accusative case after XocXr, is the uomi-
Ttative before it. A striking instance of sucli an usage oc-
curs in the following line of Homer.

Ov yap i-Jis. ^evosrcri xccrrip Zsvg sctiTet' apwyog.

II. iv. 235,

Noi-'f scrrj, says the Scholium, ouoe yap ^orfitio-n 6 Zsu; rois
^va-raii — aiitl Eustathius, bk bttoli /SoijSoj -rois ^evtrraii

2-19

there, and the last state of that man becometh
worse than the first. So will it be also to this^
wicked generation." Matthew, xii. 43.

** The comparison of the evil spirit/' says
Mr. Wakefield, " in this, and the two next
verses, is wholly accommodated to the no-
tions entertained by the Jews of those times,
concerning demoniacal possessions ; and is-'
here employed by our Lord, in connection
with a series of arguments, which had ori-
ginated from the objections made by the Pha-
risees to his ejection of a demon. The ge-
neral purport seems to be this :

** This wicked generation, by a persever-
ing resistance to the truth, andean obstinate
inattention to every- opportunity of improve-
ment, will advance by rapid steps from one
degree of wickedness to another, and at
length fill up the measure of their iniqui-
ties *."

I- proceed to observe,

* * Commentary en Matthew, in loc.

220

3. That, as the Christian religion, in early
times, was instrumental in reforming the
vices of mankind, so, according to the vul-
gar language, it was instrumental in expel-
ling the daemons which produced them.

The early Christian writers, in various
parts of their productions, insist on the happy
effect of their doctrine on the lives of its
professors : nor is there a topic on which they
are so eloquent and animating as when they
describe the mighty power of the Gospel in
reforming the world.

Hear the words of an author, whose ho-
neyed flow of language procured him the ap-
pellation of the Christian Cicero. " The
mighty energy of the divine precepts on the
minds of men is demonstrated by daily expe-
rience. Give me a man that is irascible, re-
proachful, or impetuous, and, by a few words
of God, I will restore him, mild as a lamb.
Give me a man that is covetous, and tena-
cious of his property, and I will give him
back to you liberal, and distributing his mo-
ney with full hands. Give me a man fearful

221

of pam and of death, and he will despise
crucifixions, and flames, and torture *. Give
me a man that is lustful, an adulterer, or a
gambler, and you will presently see him so-
ber, chaste, and moderate. Give me a man
that is cruel and thirsty for blood, and his
fury will ^oon be changed into real clemency.
Give me a man that is unjust, foolish, or an
offender, and immediately he will become
equitable, prudent, and inoffensive. For by
a single baptism all his wickedness will be
washed away "f.'*

But lest It should be suspected that there is
more rhetoric than truth in this paragraph, I
will here cite the language of a man whose
testimony cannot well be resisted or called in
question.

"They entitle themselves," says he, " p/jj-
sicianSf and they are physicians indeed ! since

* For taiirum, which is the original, I have taken the li-
berty to substitute tormentum, which I conceive to be the right
reading, as it is in the subsequent chapter.

f Lactaniius, lib. iii. c. 26. See Origen against Celsus.
Ed. Spenc. p. 33. ^

222

they proclaim an art of healing superior to
that which is found in the world : for the
latter heals merely bodies, but the former
cures even soiilsy after they have been sei^jed
by disorders fierce and scarcely remediable ;
souls, which have been occupied by lusts and
depraved indulgences, by sorrows and fears ;
by tenacious avarice, childish follies, and ini-
quitous frauds, and by an innumerable mul-
titude of other vices and bad passions *.'*^

* 'H ?£ Ttpoatpscis '^^'■^ (pi\0(rofcov svSv; e'Jbfxtvei'xi Sioc "tr^g
<jtposfr,(Teujs- Sispatavrai yxp kxi '^spaTrsuriSs; xaXovvtai' r^roi
itcup oarov lacfpiKTiV sTfccyysXXovrai. upsiTo-ovx rr/^ Kara. t^oKsis }
^ [/.zv yap crwjxaT'a ^spaTfsvsi /xovov, sKsivrj $s %ai '^vya^ vocroi;
iiSKpaTriiJ.avas "xaXsntais Kai Svsiaroi;, a; xar£cr>iij\|/av y^d'ovat
xai iTti^viuai, Kvitai -x-ai fo^oi, vXeovs^iairs xici afpoa-vvat, xat
ccSix-iai, y.ai ro ruiv aXXujv TTaSwv, y.ai Kaaiwv avrf^vrov itKrfioi.
De Fit. Content, in Initio, vol. ii, p. 4/1. Ed. Man.

This passage of Philo will justify the following paragraph
written by Eufebius, which I lliall give in the Latin version
of Vigerus. This, and indeed the whole beautiful chapter,
whence it is taken, are deserviugof particular attention. " Ut
primum religiosissima pacisquc amantissima servatoris nostri
-doctrina increpuit, non ille tantum error, qui Deorura mul-
titudinem invehebat, fundi tus toUeretur j verum etiam im-
portatae per ista populorum dissidia calamitates subito con-
quiescerent. Equidem id vel maximum arbitror diviuae ar-
canasque servatoris nostri potestatis argumentum. Illius au-
teni utilitatis, quae palam doctrlnse hujus praedicationem con-
fecuta est, cuivis rem fecum attenLc rcputanti clarum hoc

S23

They are the words of Philo in defence of
the converts in Egypt— Philo, supposed to
this day to have been a JeWy but, in reality,
the first and greatest advocate (the twelve
apostles excepted) for the Christian system
that ever shone upon the face of the globe.

in primis et illustre fpecimen intueri liceat ; quod nee alias
unquam ex omni hominum memoria, nee ab coram ullo, qui
fama quondam nominis et existimatione floruerunt : fed tan-
tum ex quo ipsius doctrinse per universum orbera diffusae
■verbis et concionibus hominum aures afflari ccepere, continuo
factum fit, ut qui ferini prius ac barbari nationum omnium
mores fuerant, iidem lenioribus et humanioribus institutis
xnansuescerent. Itaque ncc Persae, qui semel ejus discipline
nomen dederunt, nuptias amplius cum matribus ineuut : nee
Scytliae, quod in eorum quoque regionem Christi sermo pe-
netravit, humana jam came pascuntur ; nee alia barbarorura
genera incesto filiarum ac soromm concubitu polluuntur : nee
ad mares furioso libidinis festu raar^s ipsi^rapiuntur, nee eae-
.teras, quae naturae leges violant, corporis voluptates perse-
quuntur: neccanibus atquevolucribus necessariorum ac pro-
pinquorum suorum cadavera, quibus id quondam in more
.'fuerat, objiciunt: nee senio jam confectis, ut antea, laqueos
injiciunt, nee sibi amicissimorum came post obitum antiquo
ritu saginantur: nee mnjorum instituto dsemonibus tanquam
diis homines immclant, nee sibi carissimos jugulant falsa pi-

etatis opinione delusi. Haec, inquam, omnia superioribus

iUis temporibus grassabantur, nunt autem fieri .omnino de-
siere, immani ac belluiii'i tot raalorum peste salataris unius
Evangelic^ legis viribus profligata." Pr^parailo Evang^lca,
lib. i. p. 11.'

224

It Is worthy of remark, that the bad ha-
bits and vices, which he represents as having
feized and occupied the minds of men, carry
an allusion to the vulgar notion of the body
being possessed by the evil daemons, which
were supposed to be the cause of those vices,
and which were afterwards dislodged by the
Christian doctrine.

The preceding observations will, I con-
ceive, develope the nature and design of the
following miracle, which Mark has thus re-
corded : " And they came over unto the
other side of the sea, into the country of the
Gadarenes. And when he was come out of
the ship, immediately there met him out of
the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who
had his dwelling among the tombs, and no
man could bind him, no not with chains;
because that he had been often bound with
fetters and chains, and the chains had been
plucked asunder by him, and the fetters
broken in pieces : neither could any man
tame him. And always, night and day, he was
in the mountains, crying, and cutting him-
self with stones. But when he saw Jesus

225

afar off, he came and worshipped him, and
cried with a loud voice, and said. What have
I to do with thee, Jesus, thou son of the
most high God ? I adjure thee by God, that
thou torment me not. For he said unto him.
Come out of the man, thou unclean spi-
rit ! And he asked him. What is thy name ?
And he answered. My name is Legion ; for
we are many. And he besought him much
that he would not send them away out of the
country. Now there was nigh a great herd
of swine feeding. And all the devils be-
sought him, saying. Send us into the swine
that we may enter into them. And forth-
with Jesus gave them leave -, and the unclean
spirits went out, and entered into the swine ;
and the herd ran violently down a steep place
into the sea (they were about two thou-
sand), and were choaked in the sea.'* Mark,
chap. v.

Here, we see, it is asserted, that the dae-
mons, which were cast out of the man, were
sent into the swine, and that these, in conse-
quence, were driven headlong into, and drown-
ed in, the sea. This, if expressed with phi-
losophical accuracy, signifies, that tae dis-

VOL, I. Q_

226

order which afflicted the man was, at the
Gommand of Jesus, transferred to the swine,
and effected their destruction.

Now the real design of this seeming cru-
elty, which has occasioned so much per-
plexity to the friends, and so much triumph
to the enemies of "the Gospel, consists in the
symiboiical nature * which it possesses in com-

^ •* In a few words," (says Jortin, in his Remarks, vol. il,
"p. 16.) " the observation which I would offer is this. The
miracles of Christ were prophecies at the same time : they
were such miracles as in a particular manner suited his cha-
racter ; tbey luere significant emblem of his designs^ and figurea
aptly representing, the benefits to be conferred by him on man-
kind; and they had in them, if we may so speak, a spiritual
sense. So much may be urged in behalf of this interpreta-
tion of them as shall probably seaire it from being ranked
among those fanciful expositions which are generally slighted
by wise men : for many cabalistical notions have made their
appearance in this, as wfell as in other centuries and coun-
tries, which are even beneath censure or mention, and nei-
ther fit for the land nor yet for the dunghill." Peruse the
whole from page 16 to page 30. Though the author, in this
part of his subject, justly claims the merit of originahty, he
is far from having exhausted it. The symbolic-al nature of
the miracle in question has escaped his notice, though his ex-
planation of many of them is successful and elegant. And
here let me point out a circumstance which receives its ex-
planation from the typical reference which this miracle of
our Lord bore to the chifa->ion and effects of his Gospel in the

227

tttm with almost all his other miracles. In
the ejection then of the unclean spirits, their
entrance into the swine (which, on account
of their ////^*, are the most proper symbol
ef moral impurity), and> finally, in their rush-
world, the persons from whom he cast out the evil spirits,
on this occasion, were, we are told, ttvo in number j one
representing the conversion and subsequent reformation of
tliose among tlie Jews, the other of those among the Gen-
tiles, that should receive his religion. Accordingly, Matthew.
who wrote his Gospel for the Jews, whom it was necessary to
apprise of the future progress and happy effects of Christianity
amon- the Pagans as well as his own nation, mentions both
of them; whereas Mark and Luke, who addressed their re-
spective Gospels to the Gentile converts, notice only one of
those daemoniacs: for the latter did not cherish the narrow
and unsocial prdjudide, under which the former laboured, that
the blessings of the Messiah's government were to be confined
to themselves. It was therefore unnecessary in Mark and
Luke to give any hint that such a prejudice was erroneous.
Besides this, neither their feelings as Jews, nor impartiality as
historians, would have permitted thesd writers to represent,
«nder a strong emblematical incident, the Jewish people (who
in every stage of their history were more pure than their ido-
latrous neighbours) as being equally chained down with the
Gentiles, by the possesion of bad habits and passions.

* A S01V and ?l filthy creature are almost synonymous in the
classic languages. Amka Into sus, is an expression of Ho^
race, to which the folio%ving line of Virgil is similar:

-_ non ore; soUitos'

ImmurJi memiiiere sues j act are" mattiplos.

228

ing into and disappearing in the sea, our
Lord intended to presignify, and in sensible
colours to delineate, the mighty power which
his religion would possess in purifying man-
kind from those pollutions by which they were
debased, and which ignorance and supersti-
tion usually ascribed to daemoniacal influence.
That the event corresponded with this repre-
sentation is a fact, as we have already seen,
in part, attested by the unequivocal faith of
history. ,

Let infidelity then cease to cavil at this
miracle of our Lord, since it displays a wis-
dom, and even a benevolence, equal to what
characterises his other works.

4. The religion of Jesus contributed, ac-
cording to the popular language, to expel the
daemons from the world, by exposing the ab-
surd notions and counteracting the pernicious
influence of the pagan worship ; of which
daemons, good and evil, were the supposed
objects.. .

That the Gospel proved the mean of abo-
lishing the heathen system, is a. fact which

229

even its enemies must allow , it may there-
fore be unnecessary to produce any authori-
ties in proof of it : yet I cannot help citing
a passage or two for the satisfaction of the
reader. On this subject Justin Martyr thus
addresses the Romans : " The ancients of
every nation worshipped Bacchus the son
of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona.
together with ^sculapius, who, to gratify
their incestuous lusts, did things too base
even to be named. They offered homage
also to Proserpine and Venus, infuriated as
they were with the love of Adonis, whose
mysteries you too celebrate. But these, with
all others called gods, we hold in contempt,
though threatened with the punishment of
death, consecrating ourselves to the eternal
and incorruptible God ; and this we do by
yesus Christ *."

Eusebius, after citing the words of Isaiah,
which our Lord applied to himself, as re-
corded by Luke (cap. iv. 17—19), writes
to this effect : " These divine oracles, pre-
served from of old among the Hebrews, pre,

» Juttin Mar. I. Apol. p. *9-

dieted the joyful news of our deliverance,
. though blind in mind, and held in compli-
cated chains by evil demons. Having the
eyes of our understanding hence adequately
enlightened ; having become sober-minded,
reflecting, and rational, and rescued from
every iniquity, we refuse to offer sacrifice,
pr act subserviently to those who are made
gods by the decrees of the heathens, and who
in formej times had dominion over us likewise ;
but being conducted and introduced by the
doctrine of oijr Saviour to the only true God,
the sovereign and supporter, the preserver
and benefactor, and also the framer and con-
ductor of all things, him only we deem to
be tlie true God -, to him alone we ascribe due
reverence ; to him alone we cherish senti-
ments of veneration and piety j and that not
in a way acceptable to the demons, but as
we are taught by that joyful messenger sent
down from heaven to be the Saviour of all
mankind *."

These and innumerable other passages of

•* Evan. Preepar. lib. iv. scct. xxi. p. 101. Step. Edit, or
Veg. Edit. vol. i. p. 17O.

231

the kind are sufEcient to shew how instru-
mental and effectual the Christian doctrine
proved in overthrowing the heathen system ;
and as it was the mean of abolishing the
whole system of heathenism, it must neces-
sarily have been the mean of abolishing the
pagan oracles, which constitute a principal
branch of it. Accordingly Porphyry, though
a bitter enemy of the Christians and their
cause, makes the following concession :
« * People wonder whether the disorder,
which now for many years has disturbed the
state, was occasioned by the departure of
^sculapius and all the other gods. For,
since jfesus was held in veneration, none of
the gods experienced any public act offered
to their service."

On this singular concession, Eusebius,
from whom I have copied the above extract,
premises this remark : " That after the com-
ing of our Saviour among men, the evil dx-
mons lost all their power and influence, as

Xiv r/ vocr'o^, AiXKXyjTfiov Bi^i^rjij.tui kxi Tujv aXXaiv ^scav jaijxsr*
oiKTTjj* I/ycrou yap riaw^xsvoy ov^sixiag ng ^suiv SyjU^oo-iocs (jj(^S'^
Xiix; rjThro, Evan. Pnepar. lib. v. sect. i. p. 10/.

0^4

232

the advocate of those daemons himself thus
confesses in his book against us."

It is now time to proceed to my next pro-
position ; which is to she<v,

II. T^at Plutarch wrote his book De De-
FECTU Oraculorum, in order to invalidate
the argument urged by the advocates of the
Gospel, that the dcemons were expelled from the
world, in consequence of its purifying infuence.

In order to prove this point, it is necessary
to specify, by a few extracts, the causes to
which that sophist ascribes the expulsion of
the daemons, and the consequent cessation of
the oracles. The first position which he ad-
vances is, that those daemons were the spirits
of dead men, which did not receive the power
of divination after their separation from, but
possessed it while yet united with, the body,
though indeed obscured and obstructed by
its corruptibility and inertness. ** * If," says
he, ** as you agree with the divine Hesiod, in
thinking that daemons are souls either sepa-

* Plut, Works, vol. ii. p. 431.

233

rated from the body, or that hold no inter-
course with it, why should we suppose them,
while yet in the body, to be destitute of that
ppwer^ by which they are enabled, wh^n be-
come daemons, to foresee and foretell things
to come ? For it is not probable, that any
faculty, or any capability, should have been
communicated to them, after their separation
from the body, which they did not possess
during their union with it. But though the
soul possessed all her powers, she must, ne-
vertheless, possess them very imperfectly dur-
ing her incorporation -, as some of her ener-
gies lie in that time invisible and enveloped :
others, again, of them are feeble, and appear
obscure, as if through a cloud or agitated
water ; while others, finally, are slow, and
incapable of displaying themselves, and there-
fore demand the study and cultivation of
the owner to improve them, and to remove
those latent obstructions which prevent their
growth. For the soul possesses the faculty
of divination, even when entwined with the
body, though she be blinded by means of her
mixture with earth : just as the sun does not
then become splendid, when he emerges from

234

behind the clouds, but shines, though inter-
cepted from our view, with one uniform
lustre."

The next position which the sophist lays
down is, that as the sou], during her resi-
dence in the body, is endued with the prin-
ciple of divination ; so, after she is dissolved
from it, and become a daemon, she is occa-
sionally inspired from the same causes as
when she was united with it. And these
causes are the effluvia of natural bodies, ex-
halations from the earth, certain degrees of
cold and heat, evaporations, fountains of pe-
culiar qualities, and the like.

** Since," adds he, " souls have this power
implanted in them, though yet obscure, and
difficult to be conceived, it frequently, ne-
vertheless, blooms out into view in dreams,
and at the performance of religious rites -, ei-
ther because the body then becomes pure,
and receives a disposition congenial to divi-
nation ; or because the rational and contem-
plative faculty relaxes and disengages itself
from present objects, and leaves the mind to

1235

be carried away by the impulse of those emo-
tions which, though irrational, prognosticate
future things. For he is not, as Euripides
says, the best prophet who conjectures well,
since such a person always follows the dictate
of reason, and uniformly proceeds along the
path of probability. But the prophetic power,
like a writing-table, senseless, indefinite, and
incapable of impressing itself, though sus-
ceptible of images and anticipations pas-
sively inscribed, attains, without the exer-
cise of reason, the knowledge of futurity,
and that chiefly when it is disengaged from
present concerns. But that emotion, which
we call divine inspiratioriy is excited by a cer-
tain temperature and disposition of the body -,
and this disposition the body of itself often
acquires, though more frequently it be ef-
fected by the earth, which opens to mankind
the sources of various other powers ; some of
which produce phrensy, disorders, and death ;
while others produce lenient, medicinal, and
beneficent efi^ects. But the stream and breath
of divination, which flows hence, is the most
pure and divine, whether it be imbibed with
the air alone, or with the liquid water. For
when this stream is mingled with the body

it generates a temperature * which is uni-
usual and foreign to the soul ; a temperature
which may in various ways be conceived,
though difficult to be expressed. For by its
heat and expansion it opens certain pores,
which convey images of things to come, just
as wine, by rising in vapours to the brain,
brings to light many emotions and sentiments
which before lay concealed. For Bacchana-
lian fury and madness are accompanied with a
high degree of inspiration ; since, according
to Euripides, the scul, when warmed and
heated by passion, rejects that studied cau-
tion which human prudence suggests, and

* The principle to which this wretched sophist ascribes
the power of divination in the mind is copied, perhaps, from
the following Hnes of Virgil, where that noble writer, in a
happy union of philosophy and poetry, describes the sourct
of the same power in birds :

Hand equidem credo, quia sit divinitus illis
Ingcnium, aut rerum fato prudentia major :
V'eram, ubi tempestas et cceli mobilis humor
Mutavere vias j et Jupiter humidus Austris
Densat, erant quae rara modo, et, quae densa relaxat j
Vertuntur species animorum, et pectora motus
Nunc alios, alios, dum nubila ventus agebat,
Concipiunt : hinc ille avium concentus in agris,
Et laptae pecudes, et ovantes guttiire corvi.

Geor. I. 415, &c.

237

which extinguishes the kindling breath of the
divinity. It may at the same time not be ab-
surd to assert, that aridity, which is produced
by heat, subtilises the air, and renders it more
pure and ethereal : since, according to He?~a-
clitus, the soul is destitute of moisture, which
blunts the senses both of hearing and seeing ;
and, when it falls on a looking-glass, effaces
the brightness of the image reflected by the
air. On the other hand, it is not impossible
but that the faculty of prognostication is
generated and (just as iron by immersion)
consolidated in the soul by means of frigidity
and condensation. And as liquified tin con-
tracts brass, and fills up the many pores
which it contains, and, at the same time,
renders it more bright and pure, so it is pro-
bable, that prophetic vapour, containing in
it something appropriate and congenial to the
mind, fills up its vacuities, and holds it to-
gether in harmony *."

* P. 432, 433. It is utterly impossible that Plutarch, en-
dowed as he was with learning and talents, could have been
weak enough to believe what he here advances to be true :
he must therefore have been nvicked enough to say what he
knew to he/alse, for the sake, as will soon appear, of under-
mining the Christian cause. Indeed, a farther examinatiun

23S

■ Having ascribed the power of divinatioil iri
souls and demons to exhalations and other
similar causes, he leads his reader to con-
clude, that as these causes were variable, and
Hable, in certain circumstances, to cease, the

©f this singular book, and of his other philosophical work*,
which are, almost without exception, a series of falsehoods,
forgeries of superstitious notions, mixed with truths clan-
destinely stolen from the Christian system, will abundantly
prove, that, however great were his abilities and his erudi-
tion, he possessed a temper the most fierce and illiberal, and
a heart deeply depraved with superstition and guilt. Had we
ilo other proof than this very dialogue, we should have suf-
ficient reason to conclude that tlie author was far, very far,
from deserving the encomium bestowed upon him by a writer,
whose enmity against the religion of Jesus led him to extol
all those who opposed it in ancient times. " The names of
Seneca," says he, " of the elder and the younger Pliny, of
Tacitus, of Plutarch, of Galen, of tlie slave Epictetus, and
of the emperor Marcus Antoninus, adorn the age in which
they flourished, and exalt the dignity of human nature.
They filled with glory their respective stations, either in ac-
tive or contemplative life ; their excellent understandings
were improved by study j philosophy had purified iheir mijidi
from the prejudices of the popular superstition, and their days
ivere spent in the pursuit of truth and the practice of 'virtue. Yet
all tht'se sages (it is no less an object of mrprise thatt of concern)
o^uerlooked or rejected the perfection of the Christian system.
Their language or their silence equally discov^er their con-
tempt for the growing sect, which in their time had diffused
itself over the Piomnn empire." The Decline and Full of the
Hornan Empire^ vol. i. p. 6l0, chap. xv.

Q.39

eessation of the oracles, or the departure of
the daemons, must have followed of course.

<« All the powers," says he, " which sur-
round the earth, though itself eternal and
incorruptible, have sometimes their decay and
generation 3 and at other times they depart
and disappear; and after those revolutions,
which are carried on in infinite time, return
attain to view, as we may learn from visible
objects. For, many lakes and rivers, and te-
pid fountains, have, in certain places, been
entirely dried up, while in others they glided
away, or sunk out of sight *."

Thus much I thought it right, for the sa-
tisfaction of my reader, to translate from this
curious book. A great deal more' is said by
the author -, but ail his reasonings are of the
same stamp, and too absurd and contemptible
to recompense' the pain of transcribing them.
It remains ther! to shew, that, in advancing
the above arguments, he had before his eyes
the disciples of Jesus, who imputed the ex-
pulsion of the daemons to the prevalence and

* Pass 433. . .

240

purifying influence of their faith. The fol-
lowing considerations will be sufficient to
evince this important fact.

1 . The almost total subversion of the pa-
gan religion, and the implied subversion of
the pagan oracles, vvliich took place so early
even as the time of Plutarch, was an effect
so remarkable, so notorious, and an effect too
which so obviously pointed to Christianity as
its cause, that no person, however unin-
formed, much less such a writer as Plutarch
was, possessed of every kind of knowledge
and information, could have been ignorant
of it.

2. As Plutarch must have known that the
cessation of the heathen oracles was ascribed
to the influence of the Gospel, it was natural
in him, as possessing eminent abilities, and
actuated by deep-rooted enmity towards it,
on account of his attachment to the pagan
system, to oppose its votaries, and endeavour
to deprive them of so formidable an argu-
ment in favour of their faith, by assigning
the banishment of the daemons to some other
cause.

f241

^. The causes to which he imputes that
event, and all his reasonings on the subject,
are so grossly absurd, so destitute of truth,
and even of speciousness, so replete w^ith
folly and nonsense, as to manifest that he wzs
pressed by some powerful opponents, whom
he could not encounter on the fair and open
ground of argumentation ; whose force, there-
fore, he sought to evade and to frustrate by
scholiastic subtilties and metaphysical per-
plexities, which are not only improbable, but
incomprehensible.

4. That Plutarch composed this book In
opposition to the Christian teachers, is a fact
fairly to be inferred from a passage in it,
where he assails the disciples of Jesus with
all the bitterness of reproach, and all the
scoff of ridicule, for entertaining the notion
which they did respecting the daemons. The
passage is put by him into the mouth of C/<f-
ombrotuSi arid is as follows : " If it be iit to
laugh in philosophy, we ought to laugh at
those, who expect that bodies, which are mere
idols, dumb, blind, and lifeless, should, af-
ter an indefinite revolution of years, reappear,
and again be completely organized ; some of

VOL. I. R

those bodies being yet alive, others being long
since burnt, or decomposed by putrefaction—
These, I say, are the men to be derided,
who introduce into philosophy such fan-
tastic puerilities as these, but, nevertheless,
bluster, if you insist before them, that the
daemons preserve for a long period not only
their existence, but their faculties.'*

The word in the original standing for Mies
is ti^coXoc -J which, considering the design of
the writer, was the most suitable that he could
have chosen. This, I presume, will appear
from the following reasons :

An idoly in the eye of Pagan philosophy,
was nothing more than a corporeal represen-
tation of a spiritual being, or a visible sym-
bol of a divinity that was itself invisible. To
this divinity it bore the same analogy which
a body, that is seen and felt, has to the mind,
which is capable of neither. Hence, by a
common figure of speech, the body may be
styled the idol of the mind. For instance, be-
cause Apis formed the body, in which the
soul of Osiris was supposed to reside, it was
called the idol of Osiris : Ev ^i Mefi(p£i r^e-

243

(pE(r9at rov A-rnv tt^uXov ovroc, rvi; ezEivov tJ/u^ijs",
oTTou Kcct (Tu^cx, KSKT^oct. Plutarcb De Iside,

But ei^uXov has frequently another signifi-
cation, exactly according with the sense here
given to it by Plutarch j namely, something
transient or perishable. For this reason, the
Egyptians, we are told by Herodotus, when
they assembled at a feast, handed round a
dead body, which they called ei^u\ov rccvdouTrou
reOvvizoTog, with this maxim. Drink and be
merry, for soon you will be lifeless like this.
Herod, lib. ii. cap. 7S.

Sophocles, wishing to convey a strong idea
of the shortness and uncertainty of human
life, put these words in the mouth of Ulysses :

'0/30; yap ijpa? ov^sv ovfccg aXXo ttAtjv

Accordingly the Scholiast on the place thus
explains the term : Ei^cjKcc roc (pocivofji>evcK, bv ru
aept (pxvTccc^ocroc, uTrep u^oc rto cpocvvivcci atpuvi"
^ovToci, ucrruTu ovroc Tcat ocQi^onoc,

Taken in this acceptation, no word in the

R 2

2441

language could have suited the purpose of
Plutarch better, as it enabled him to express
in the strongest manner the apparent ab-
surdity of those men, who maintained that
human bodies, now known to be perishable,
and ever fluctuating, shall hereafter be ren-
dered insusceptible of decay, and, though
dissolved and scattered by death, again be
restored to their former shape and configu-
ration.

There is still another reason, which ren-
dered the use of u^uXu in this place pecu-
liarly happy and forcible. The teachers of
the Gospel, wherever they conveyed it, at-
tacked with all the force of argument the
senseless objects of heathen idolatry — Et^^wXa
— says Justin, in his Epistle to Diognetus—
ov ycoMCpoc ', ov tvX(pu ; outc o.^M'^ol xoit avoao'dTjToi ;
Such words as these were alvvays used by
the Christian preachers in their attacks on the
Pagan superstition, before and after the days
of Plutarch ; and he doubtless felt their force.
But too stubborn to be convinced, and too
haughty to receive instruction, he lays hold
of them; and then, after connecting with
them a notion, which to the eye of Gentile

54^

philosophy appeared still more ridiculous and
absurd, hurls them back at the head of his
opponents. Without admitting the justness
of this remark, it will be difficult to account
for the very great similarity between the
words of Plutarch, and those quoted above
from Justin.

If then this criticism be just, it cannot be
doubted but that the men here stigmatized were
the disciples of Jesus : for they alone taught
that the bodies of men were again to be orga-
nized and reunited with those souls * which
before inhabited them. This opinion, though
founded upon a fact which claimed the testi-
mony of the senses, was, nevertheless, treat-
ed by the unbelieving Gentiles, and even by
many professed Christians, as absurd, vision-

* The teachers of Christianity among tlie Gentiles seem*
In general, to have adopted the popular doctrine, borrowed
from the eastern philosophy, that the human soul, as being
distinct from, would, on its separation by death, survive the
body : but our Lord and his apostles appear, by inculcating
the resurrection of the dead as the sole ground of a future
existence, to have considered this as an idle notion, and to
have adopted the more rational idea, that the powers of sen-
sation, consciousness, and thought in man proceed from the
internal organization of the body,

K 3

S46

ary, and impossible ; and this, wc see, is the
contemptuous manner in which it is treated
by this proud sophist.

'« They," says he, " are to be derided,
who introduce into philosophy such fan-
tastic puerilities as these, but who neverthe-
less bluster, if you insist before them, that
the daemons preserve for a long period not
only their existence, but also their faculties/'

The sentiment concerning the daemons,
which is here reprobated, is implied in al-
most all that the early Christians have said of
them ; since they maintain, that the influence
and authority which they had hitherto exer-
cised over mankind were destroyed by the
coming of our Lord into the world, and that
the daemons themselves were expelled from
among men by the power of the Gospel, and
confined in Tartarus, or some cold and dreary
climates, till they should receive from the
judge of all the punishment due to their
crimes.

It remains now to prove in the last place,
that,

247

III. From this i^ery book it appears, that
the Gospel was introduced into and preadicd
in Rome in the reign of Tiberius, and em^
braced in name by the priests of Lis, and other
magicians in his court; and that these men
were the first who taught the divinity ofi its

founder ; representing him, ifi c onforrnity to the
Egyptian theology, as a good dcemon, who came

from heaven for the service of mankind.

That I may make good this interesting
point, I must be permitted to take from this
book a long but singular passage. It is as
follows : — " * While Heracieon was thinking

* ITjOOf 'fa.'OfaL ts 'Upay.Xsujvog (riMifri §i!X.vo8ij,bvo'j ri ifpos
avrov^ AAXa <pa.vXQu; [/.sv {s(prj) Saiixova; oik EaTrs^'oKAi;? jW,o-
vov, w 'HpajtXewv, aTtsKiirsv, aWcc xai UXarouv kui 'Bs'/okoxtti;
XKi Xpva-iTttos' sTi $s Ar/ihOKpiTog, svy^oiMsvo; suXoy^^v etSoXuiv
'I'uy^avBiv, rj iJijAoj tjv srspa Sva-rpacTtaXa, •/.cci ju.s^firytaj' •yivaKT-
YMv zyjtvta. 't(poa.ipi<T5\,g riva.; koci QpiJ.ag. Hapi Ss ^avocta twv
toiovtujv aKy)y.ox Xoyoy avSpos ovk OLcppoyog ov^' aXat^ovog' Ai~
piAiava yocp fs '^r^ropoi, ou xai JjU-wy svioi SiaHYiKoaciy, Em-
Sfpcnjj -jjv tfarvjp, s^^og itoXit-qg -ncci SiSacrynxXo; ypaiMiJ-ocfiKcuv. Ou-
to's efrj. Iters itX^oov eis IraXiav £7rj?7jj/aj vscug, s^Ttopiy-o, yjpf^-
u,xrcc y.cci (TU^vQvs STfi^ccrccg ayqv(rrjg. ''E-o'ifspag iJ'ojiJtj Ttspt rag
'£.')(iva,^cf,g vrjcrovg aTfOfftrjvai ro itvzv^.a,, v.xi rrjV vaw Siafspoi/^B-
VYiV TtXrja'iov ysysaQcLi Ila^ujv £yp7jyopsva.i h rovg irXsKTrovg^
TfoXXovg Ss Koci Tfivsiv sTi d'iSentvriKorai' &^a.l<pvrjg $£(pwvr,v ocito trjc;
s/Tjcra Tcvy Ila^c/:y a,Mv<rSrjviii, Qaij^ouv rivog ^o-n KocXouvrog, uiirrs

R 4

248

ou these things, Philip observed, that not
only Empedocles, but also Plato, Xenocrates,

tavaa^siv. 'O Ss Qaaous Aiyviftio; ijv xutepvrirrjS, ovSe fiuv £|x-
ffAeovrwv yvupiij^os itoXXotg ait ovo[/,arog' St; jtAsx ovv xXrjSsvrx
trKuvrjtrixt, to $£ rpiTov vitaxovtrai -fu) xaKovvtr xaKeivov ZTtiTsi-
yavta, triv (fwvr^v siiteiv, 'Or; Irav yavri xara, to UaXcuSe^, aTray-
ysiXov, oti riav o ^syx$ rs^vriKs. Tour' aKOvcravrag, 6 E7r<9ro-
<njj sfT], liavtcLs S/CTTXayTjvaj, xaj SiSovtag Ix'jroii Xoyov, sire
'7fji7j<ra,i ^sXriov sir) ro Tfoofrrsray^svov, stfs /x:j iroXviepayiMivsiv,
aXX' £s.v ovtcvg, yvwvxi rov Qxiloiv, say [j.cv t) TTveyju-a, tfocpx-
•jtXsiv YjiTv^iav £')(ovra, vriVBiJAag ?£ xa; yaX^v^j itspi rov rottov
yE'/Ofievri;, avsiitsiv 6 tjkovosv o-V ovv sysvsro y-xtx to UocXwosg,
6vte TTvsvy.aros ovroj-,, ovrs y.Xv^ujvoi, ex 'rfpvavyjg ^Xsifovtx fov
Ga[/.ovv Kpo; rr/V ytfj sntstv, w(ntsp r^KOVcav, oVt o [J-sya; Uav
TcSvryjtsv Ou ^Srjvxi os itocuo'aiJ.ivov ocurov, y.xi yevs^rSxi [j^ayxv
cvy^ EVOSf aXXa ntoXXtuv (Ttsvxyij^ov, diJ-x 5xuaairiJ.iu [xsjuy^s-
vov Ola h TtoXX'jJv xvQpuiruiv itapovrwv^rxyjj rov Xoyov sv 'Vwix^yi .
cy.sSxcSriVXl' tixi rov Qxi^^ovv ysvea-Qxi y.srx'irsiJ.T^rov vifo Ti^spis
KxKTxpos' ovTuj fc Kio-rcVffai rcu Xoyw rov Ti^spiov, utrrs Sixituv-
Bav£(r^xi xa* ^fj-rsiv tspirs ITavo;* sixx^stv hrovsiiipi xvrov 0i-
MXoyov( crv^vo'js ovtag, rov i^ 'EpiJ^ov Jtai Ur^veXoirrji ytyivi)'
(Asvov. 'O iJ,Bv cvv ^tXiTfTtoi s\yj y.xi rxv irxfovrwv sho'js [j.ap'
rupag, AipuXixvou rs yspovrog xy.rjKOorx;.

'O (is Ayju^r^rpio; Syr, rc/jv TtcSi rr^v Bpsrrxvixv vrjC-civ sivxnfoX'
Xa; spyfij^ovs ctopxoxg, cJy svix; oxiiJ^ovuiv xx'i rjpu:ujv cvoju-a^scrSaj*
z'Xsuo'a.i 8'xvro; laropixg v.xi Osx; ivvA.x, liouxr, rs l3x(riX£cvg,£i;
rr^v £yyi7ra xsi^j^evY/V rxv ipr^UMV, £yji<Txv a t^oXXsc £itor/.o-jvrxc,
Up'jvs Oi y.xi aciX^s zxvrxg utto rxv Bpsrrxvwv ovrx;' a;piK0ij.£v8
S'avrs vBxa-ri, cruyyjJTiv ij.'cya.Xr^v tspi rov a.zpx xxi hou'riij.£ixs
•^oXXxg ysvfcSxt, y.at nrvzvi/.xrx y-xrappayr^vxi xxi Tt£!r£iy irpyjtr'
rTipxg' STfsi S'sXxer^rs, Xsysiy rsg vyjcixTxg, on rwv Kpzicaovoov
rivog SKXsiXr/ig ysycvsv wg yxp Xvyvog xvxtroii.vjog, (pxvai hivov
^hv £yji,(rtsYvvy.£vog Se iroXXoig Xnrrjpo; strriv, ovrxg aly-ByxXxi.

24-9

and Cryslppus, prove in their writings that
the daemons are evil. Democritus also, by-
praying that these demons might be auspi-
cious to him, supposed that they were of a
depraved disposition, and generate in men in-
clinations congenial to their own depravity.

'4'u%a; fag jasv avaXaix^/sii sv^isysi; xai aXvrfss s^oucnv, cd h
Cbfo-fj; avrw'J Kxi (p^opai 'jioXXav.ig [xsv, w; vvvi, Ttvs'Ji^ara. %ai
XaXas 'fps(pov(n, iroXXaKig Ss Xoiij^ikoi; TfccQsa-iv aspa, ipapy.ar'
to'jiriy. Eksi i^Evrot y.iav hvm vYiO-ov^ £v -^ Tov Kpovov >is(.rsipx,^ai
^pavpov^uBVOv mo t'ou Bpiapsw v.aMvhvi'a,, Ssa-y^ov yap aurcu roy
vTfvQv /X£/X7jp(^avr;(r9a<, itoXXous Ss iTspi avtov siyai 5'a/^ovaf oira-
h'js %xi hpxTtovrccg.

'lTioXoi,^<f3v ^£ 0 KXsoiJ,?potos' tyw \lzv (ei^ij) xcc< zyw roi"
avrccSisXhiv. ApKsi Ss itpo; rrjv intohcnv, to [j^TiSsv svavrioucrScci,
f/.Yj^s KwXveiv s^t^siy ovru:; 'Tavra,' kccitoi '2.1'uSiKOvg (s<prj) yivujffxo-
fisy ov jU,ovoy Kocta, Smijjovuiv rjv Xsyvu So^a.v e^ovrag, aXXa v.a.1
Bsouv ovtijuv rotrourwy to srXy]5os, kvi ^pcjui^svovs a'iSiuj v.a.i af'^ap^
tiu' tovg S'aXXou; xai ysyovsvcci km (p^apr^asff^xi vo^ilovrag.
ETTiKOvpsiccv h p/Acuatr/y.oy; jca; ysXcutot-S ovti tpo'^y^fsov , ols toX-
f/Mcri yji]7^xi y-txi y.ocra rr^g ifpovotag, auOov aurrjv aitOY.fxXovV'
•tsg. 'U[j,zis es ry aTtaipiav fj^vSov sivat fa(j.sv, ev Koa-fj^oig Toe-
cvToig, tj^y^hva. Xoycu Ssiio xv'SspvuJiJ.svov syjvcrocvj ccXXcc itocvras
£% rayroaaroy xaj ysyovotag yicci (rvvKfTaiisvovg. E< ^^yj/Y] ys-
Aav ev (piXo<ro<pia,'i'a siScvXa, yeXao'tsov ra xMyOL-aixi tu^pXa, kcci
a.i|/yp^a, itoi [j.svov(ny aTtXstovg eroov ifspio^ovg eTri<pa.ivoiJ.£vcc, y.ai
'ffspivoo'rsvtoc TtavT'-i], ra f^sv sri "Cp^vtwv, to. ^s TtaXca naraxacsv'
t'MVy-fi Kai ■Hxrac'cc'n'svT'ujy aitoppvevta, (pXsSoyag nai cr-Kias khKOv-
fsg sig <pv(rioXoyia.v' av h (py; rig, sivcci daii^ovag ov <pv<Tsi [Moyov,
aXXoc /caf Xoyoig, xai To^ (ruj'C,s<rSai ;ca< Siajxsysiv TioXvv "X^ww
<i%ovrac, hcryoXv.iywt!is. P. 419, 4-20.

250

But concerning the death of these evil spi-
rits, I have received an account from a man,
by no means destitute of wisdom and mo-
desty, I mean JEmilianns the rhetorician, son
of Epitherses, my fellow- citizen, and master
in grammar. This person related, that a ship
was once sailing for Italy, richly stored with
merchandise, and also having many passen-
gers on board. One evening, when this ship
was near the Echinades, the wind subsided,
and in consequence she was hauled towards
the shore of the island Paxus. Many of the
passengers were drinking after supper, but
the greater part of them were watching ;
when on a sudden a voice was he^^rd from the
island, calling aloud for Thaumas, which
filled them with wonder. This Thaumas
was an Egyptian, and the pilot, and not
known by name to many in the ship. Though
called twice, he continued silent ; but the
third tirne he paid attention to the voice,
which with great force commanded him thus :
^* When you shall have arrived at

THE PaLODES, say THAT THE GREAT

Pan is dead." On hearing this, Epither-
ses said, that they were all astonished, and rea-
soned with themselves whether or not it were

251

better to do v/hat was ordered, or to leave it
unnoticed. But Thaumas determined, that if
there should be wind, he would p?,?s by die
Palodes in silence ; but . if it should prove
"calm in that place, he would announce what
he had heard. Having arrived at the island,
there was neither wind nor tide : 'liiaumas,
therefore, placing himself at the stern, v/ith
his face to the land, announced, as he had
heard, that the great Fan was dead. As soon
as he had ended, immediately were groans
uttered, mixed with astonishir.ent, not of one,
but of a multitude. And as there were many
more present, the report of this was propa-
gated throughout Rome; so that Tiberius
Ccesar sent for Thaumas, and asked of him.
Who this Pan was ? and made inquiries con-
cerning him. But the philoiogers, who were
around the emperor in great numbers, re-
presented this Pan to be the son of Mercury
and Penelope. And Philip had many wit-
nesses present, who heard these things from
the aged i^miiianus.

" And Demetrius said, that there v/ere
many islands dispersed around Britain, some
of which were celebrated for the daemons and

253

demi-gods abounding in them. There, at
the command of the emperor, he sailed for
the purpose of exploring the coasts. While
he was lately in those islands, a great com-
motion and many strange appearances were
seen in the air, accompanied with a violent
wind and thunder. When the storm had
ceased, the inhabitants told him that some
superior being had been deprived of life : for
as a candle when burning occasions no harm,
but if extinguished proves offensive to many j
so superior spirits, when kindled with life,
are inoffensive and beneficent ; but when de-
prived of animation they excite by their ex-:
tinction hurricanes and tempests, and often-
times poison the air with contagious disor-
ders. In one of these islands Saturn lies en-
chained by Briareus, surrounded by many dae-'
mons for his servants and attendants.

" Then Cleombrotus, in reply, observed^
that he too had it in his power to detail such
things, but he would not then enter into a
discussion of them ; since, though admitted
to be true, they were foreign to the subject.
The Stoics, we know (continued he), enter-
tain the same opinion with myself respecting

the daemons ; and though they admit a mul-*
tiphcity of inferior gods, yet maintain one only
to be eternal and incorruptible, and: all the
rest to be subject to renovation and decay.
And as to the scoffs and reproaches of the
Epicureans, we need not heed them, since
they are so bare-faced as to ridicule even
Providence, calling it a mere fable. But wc
may retort the charge of fable upon them, for
asserting that there are worlds without num-
ber, and without end, and yet that these worlds
are not regulated by a supreme wisdom, but
have originated in, and are supported by, their
own spontaneous impulse. But if it be fit to
laugh in philosophy, we ought to laugh at
those who expect that bodies, which are mere
idols, &G. &c."

On this extract several observations are ne-»
cessary to be made, in order to develope its
meaning.

First, It is maintained vislth Eusebius, and
the catholic writers who followed him, though
opposed by Lardner, and other protestant di-
vines, that the great Pan, of whose death
Thaumas brought an account to Rome, is

£54

no other than our Lord Jesus Christ. This
will appear indisputable, for the following
reasons :

This person is said to have died in the reign
of Tiberius, when it is well known that our
Saviour suffered ; and the appellation of Pan,
which heathenism has applied to him, as sig-
nifying the Lorii of all *, answers to the no-
tion cherished by the Jews, and other Gen-
tile nations, that the expected Messiah would
be an universal prince, and to the descrip-
tion given of him in the New Testament, as
being the person to whom all power in hea-
ven and earth is given.

This account Philip received from JEmili^
anus the rhetorician. Now this iEmilianus,
we are assured from Apuleius, as has been
pointed out by War hurt on y and allowed by
Lardner, was a belie'uer in Jesus. By the
Pan, therefore, who died in the reign of Ti-

* Thus Orpheus says of him :

ITava xaXw )c/?arfpov yz dsov, xoff^oio to av^ifav

Kcu TTvp aflavarov -raJe y^p /xeAtj ect* tou Hxvos-

Q55

berlus, he must have meant his divine ma-
ster Jesus Christ, and he could not mean
any other. Cleombrotus, who opposed, and
Plutarch w^ho has recorded this story, and
all the other speakers in this dialogue, were
aware that by Pan was meant our Lord :
for the former, in the latter part of the pa-
ragraph, passes over from him to his disci-
ples, and severely censures them for teaching
the resurrection of the body, and entertain-
ing sentiments different from him concerning
the daemons.

Secondly -, It has already been shewn from
Josephus, Philo, and other authors, that the
news was brought to Rome of the great king
expected to hold universal empire in the
world, having appeared in Judaea; that this
news threw the whole city into confusion,
jnade many converts among the inhabitants,
excited the alarm of Tiberius, and the indie-
nation of the senate, and, finally, occasioned
the banishment of the Jews and Egyptians
resident in that city. In the above passage
we see these facts corroborated. It is related
in it, that the report of a person, deemed by
some Lon:! of all, was conveyed by an Egvp-

25(j

tian to Rome, and that this report flew rapidly
throughout the town, and became the sub-
ject of investigation by Tiberius, the senate,
and the magicians in his court.

Thirdly; Thaumas and the Egyptians,
whom Tiberius consulted, were at that time
converts to the new faith, which indeed they
blended with Gentile superstition. This fact
is evident from the former giving him the ap-
pellation of Pan, which is a Greek term sig-
nifying all ', and by which he must have in-
tended to characterise him, as the beneficent
prince that was to govern the world in equity,
peace, and freedom. The representation
which the latter gave Tiberius of our Lord
renders it equally obvious that they regarded
him as a messenger from God ; for being asked
by that emperor. Who this Pan was ? they
answered, that he was the son of Mercury
and Penelope'^, Mercury, it is well known,

* Pan was represented by some to be the son of Mercury
and Penelope. Thus Herodotus — " E/C lirf^^Koit-fj; ncci 'Ep'
fj.£U} Ksyerai ysvecrSaj uVo ruuv EXA>;va.'v o Hay." And so
writes Cicero — " Ex Mercurio et Penelope Pana natum fe-
runt." It is plain, therefore, that Thaumas and the philo-
logers meant by Pan the same person, and that they did jiot
differ ia their representation of him.

was tlie messenger of Jupiter, occasionally
sent down from heaven for the service of
mankind, and Penelope was a rare example
of chastity and virtue. In describing him
therefore as the son of Mercury, they held
him up as a divine messenger, while, as the
son of Penelope, they expressed the extraor-
dinary virtue and purity of his character.

As Thaumas and the philologers, being
composed of Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Per-
sians, devoted to the study of magic and
astrology, were, in name, at least, converts to
the religion of Jesus, and evidently in the
number of those that taught it in Rome, we
may account for the general conversion of the
Egyptians in that city, and for their being
banished, together with the Jews, out of
Italy.

Fourthly ; The story of the voice at
Paxus, which commanded Thaumas to an-
nounce the death of the great Pan, was a
mere contrivance concerted by him and some
others, for the purpose of impressing the
company present with the belief, that the
death of Jesus would prove the destruction

VOL. I*

of the daemons. Thaumas, we are told, was
the pilot, and of course had the care and di-
rection of the ship. The voice from the ad-
jacent island, which commanded him to an-
nounce the death of the great Pan, came in
the mg&f : the sea was moreover ca//??, and
the passengers were carousing after supper.
Is it not then highly probable, from these
circumstances, that it was the voice of a man
of the same views with himself, whom he
had privately sent on shore for this purpose,
and who returned again into the ship after its
accomplishment ? The voice ordered him,
immediately on his arrival at the Palodes,
to announce ** that the great Pan was dead.**
On this, Thaumas determined, if there should
be wind^ to pass by the Palodes in silence ;
but if it should prove calm in that place, he
would announce what he had heard. Mark
then the condition which was to determine
his conduct : ** If there was wind enough to
sail forward, he would pass by in silence ; but
publish what he had heard, if the sea was
becalmed." Which plainly amounts to this :
if the wind should continue so as to enable
tlie ship to proceed in its voyage, he should
;iot have opportunity to execute his medi^

259

tated scheme. On the contrary, if the wind
should subside. So as to retard its course, art
opportunity for this would be given him.
And it happened that, when they arrived at
the place, there was neither wind nor tide„
We are to suppose then, that at the Palodes,
as in the island of Paxus, Thaumas secretly
sent a person or persons on shore for the
purpose of expressing " groans, mixed with
astonishment," on hearing from the ship, that
the great Pan was dead. ** After this, Thau-
mas, placing himself at the stern, wdth his
face to the land, announced, as he had heard,
that the great Pan was dead. As soon as he
had ended, immediately were uttered groans,
mixed with astonishment, not as of one, but
of a multitude.'*

These groans *, and this astonishment,,
were supposed by the people in the ship to
have proceeded from the dsmons in the

* The deemons are here represented as feeling the same
emotions, and expressing the same dread and horror, which
those recorded in the New Testament felt and expressed in
the presence of our Lord. The conduct of Thaumas, there-
fore, on this occasion, points to the accounts there given re-
specting the daemoniacs, and is founded upon them as knowa

trutlas.

S 2

250

island, which were grieved and terrified at
the news communicated to them. This news
they considered as the fatal prelude of their
destruction or banishment : since b^^ his death
(and his subsequent resurrection) the Lord of
All irresistibly proved the truth of his divine
mission, and afforded the surest pledge of his
future triumph over evil spirits, and of his
destroying that authority which they were
supposed to exercise over the bodies and
minds of men.

Fifthly; This passage in Plutarch farther
explains and corroborates a remarkable pas-
sage in Tertullian, which, as I have already
given a translation of it, I shall here set down
in the original. " Tiberius ergo, cujus tem-
pore Christianum nomen in seculum intravit,
annunciata sibi ex Syria Pal^stina, quas illic
veritatem istius divinitatis revelarant, detu-

LIT AD SENATUM CUM PR^ROGATIVA
SUFFRAGII SUI : SENATUS, QUIA NON IPSE

PROBAVERAT, RESPUiT." The extraordi-
nary fact here attested, that the emperor of
Rome proposed to the senate to deify Jesus
Christ, and place him in the number of the
heathen gods, has long been called in ques-

tlon, and is now rejected as false by most cri-
tics and divines ; though, at the same time,
s^ome men- of learning and candour still think
it true. But the fact is, that Tertullian, to-
gether with Eusebius, Orosius, and others
who in subsequent times have recorded the
matter, and pointed to him for their autho-
rity, has, in order to throw the veil of eter-
nal oblivion over the origin of those corrup-
tions which still debase the religion of Jesus,
studiously kept out of sight the very circum-
stances which render it credible, and which
are obviously implied in the narrative itself.
The circumstances supposed in it are the fol-
lowing : — 1. Some pretended friends of our
Lord, in whom Tiberius had confidence, re-
presented him to that prince as a being above
human, or, in other words, as a God. —

2. Those friends solicited Tiberius to propose
the deification of Jesus to the senate.—

3, Since these instigators sought to deify their
master by a human decree, that is, by the
very means which raised to divine honours
the rabble of the Pantheon, they must have
been Gentile, and not 'Jewish converts *.

* The evidence here adduced in favour of this singular and
important fact, is, I presume, sufficient to establish the truth

S 3

262

With these implications, which, I helieve,
are fairly deduced from the fact attested by
Tertullian, compare the above story in Plu-
tarch. It inculcates, we have seen, that a

of it. We shall, however, sec it abundantly confirmed here-
after from the writings of Philo, Josephus, the apostle Paul,
the evangelist John, Lucius, Apuleius, and Liic'ian. The
animadversions of Gibbon on this subject deserve to be quoted,
as they serve to illustrate a just remark which he made on
himself, viz. that " his views were rather exfemive than aC'
curate." " The apology of Tertullian," says he, " contains
two very ancient, very singular, but, at the same time, very
suspicious instances of imperial clemency j the edicts pub-
lished by Tiberius and by Marcus Antoninus, and designed
not only to protect the innocence of tlie Christians, but even
to proclaim those stupendous miracles which had attested the
truth of their doctrine. The first of these examples is at-
tended with some difficulties which might perplex the scep-
tical mind. We are required to believe, that Pontius Pilate
informed the emperor of the unjust sentence of death which
be had pronounced against an innocent and, as it appears, a
divine person; and that, without acquiring the merit, he ex-
posed himself to tlie danger of martyrdom ; that Tiberius,
who avowed his contempt for all religion, immediately con-
ceived the design of placing the Jewish Messiah among tlie
gods of Rome 3 that his servile senate ventured to disobey the
commands of their master; thai Tiberius, instead of resent-
ing their refusal, contented himself with protecting the
Christians from the severity of the laws many years before
such laws were enacted, or before the church had assumed
any distinct name or existence^ &c." Vol. ii. cap. xvi.
p. 444.

2^3

certain Egyptian brought to Rome the news
of the death of Jesus Christ,^ that he and
other magicians in favour at the court of
Cassar, represented him to be one pf the good
daemons employed by heaven for the benefit
of mankind; and that Tiberius made the
matter the subject of inquiry, and gave cre-
dit to such a representation. If then he be-
lieved th^t Jesus was a supernatural being, was
it not natural in him to apply, at the insti-
gation of his deceivers, to the senate, thaj
they might give to this opinion the sanction
of a law ? The story in Plutarch therefore at-
tests, or rgther implies, the fact asserted by
TertuUianj and it may be observed, con-
versely, that the assertion of Tertullian refers
the narrative of Plutarch to no other than
Jesus Christ,

Sixthly i It appears very obvious from the
above passage, that Thaumas, and the magi-
cians who taught Christianity in Rome, re-
presented our Lord to be one of the good
damons that came down from heaven for the
benefit of mankind. And, which is very re-
markable, Cleombro^us, yiotwiths^anding his

? 4

2^4.

vi6\<inC6 agalilst the followers of Christ, seems
to have considered him in the same light,
since he conceded the truth of the story re-
lated by Fhilipj and shifts it off as a point
foreign to the subject, though bearing the
rriost obvious connection with it.

Now, the good daemons, which were sup-
posed to be the souls of dead men raised to
the rank of gods, and made the objects of
worship by Gentile superstition, were distin-
guished, on account of their superior utility
and beneficence while yet among the living,
by the appellation of XPHSTOI. Of this
take for a proof the following example from
Plutarch :

** *05gv 0 [A,ev UKoLTcov OXvf/,7noig Qsotg roc ^e^ta
KUi '^repiTTOi, roc ^' oe,VTi(puvo(. tovtuv ooci^ocriVf u7ro~
Si^ua-tv, 'O ^6 Bivoyc^otTVjg x,ui tuv i^f^e^iov utto^
(pfiot^xg, Kxt Ti!)V eo^TUV oca, TrXvjyoig Timg, it] xo7T£~
TOTjg, yj hgipvj^iocg, if] oii(rx^o^o'yf'>^?t ex^vcnv, outs
Siuv rif^ccig ov^s ^oiif/,ovuv TT^ogifiKBiv Oieroii XPH-*
STXIN, aXXoj etvoti (pvasig ev rep 'n-e^ie^ovTi f^e~
yccXag (JtBv kki i(TX^^<^y ^vgr^OTTOvg Si koci q-jcu^^w-
'TTccgy cil %a;£>oU(r;i' Toig roioVTOig, KOit ruyx'X'VOVTcci

^65

ifT^og cvhv aXko %s;^o:/ r^sTTovrai' rovq ^e XPH-

cuif^ovocg jcoii (pvXuKocg uvQ^ccrruv 'TTpoguyoasusi."

Since then the Egyptian converts- at Rome
inculcated, that Jesus was one of those daemons
denominated good, they of course applied to
him the common denomination of XPHSTOS,
Chrestus, And this inference is confirmed by
a very singular matter of fact. In very early
times our Lord was actually called Chre-
sTus ; and to this corruption of his name we
meet with frequent allusions in all the an-,
cient writers, both friends and enemies of our
Lord *.

But what dasmon did they suppose Jesus to
be ? Or to whom of the ancients did they
conceive the soul which animated him, and
enabled him to do the things which he is
said to have done, formerly to have belonged ?
The circumstance of our Lord being a Jew
pointed their attention to one of the Jewish
patriarchs ; but as these men were Egyptians^

* See on this subject the learned Spe7iccr, vol. ii. p, 8/9,
880, Onezelrjs apud Min. Ft-/. 253. Tirinus apud Valer,
Maximum, p. 42. p^ossius, De Idol, lib. i. cap. 2^.

266

prejudice naturally directed them to the most
distinguished among their own ancestors.

-Now, if any one of those patriarchs were
held in equal veneration by the two nations,
however they might hate each other, to
him they would have been likely to refer
the dasmon which animated their new ma-
ster. Joseph, it is well known, was alike
revered by them. This person, in whom the
Jews gloried as their ancestor, the Egyptians
worshipped in the form of a bull, and under
the title of Serapis. But Serapis was the
same with Osiris *. If then the magicians -f*

* See Plutarch^ Be Iside^ sect. 28.

•j- The Jewish people were divided in tlieir opinion about
our Lord. Astonished at his works and his wisdom, they
imagined, some of them, that he was John the Baptist j
some, that he was EUas ; and others, Jeremiah, or one of
the prophets : not that they meant that the person of Jesus
was one of those persons, raised from the grave, and again
reorganized, but t4iat the spirit which animated either of the
former, came and animated the latter. Now, was it not as na-
tural in the Egyptians at Rome to refer the soul of our Lord
to the patriarch Joseph, who was endeared to the inhabitants
of Egypt, and even considered by them as one of their own race,
as it was in the people of Juda;a to ascribe it to one of Uieir
distinguished prophets ? The prejudice then of the Jews in
this respect illustrates and confirms what is herq stated of the
Egyptians.

267

looked upon Jesus to be the same with Jo-*
sephy it follows, that they must have thought
him to be the same with Osiris, the princi-
pal god of the Egyptians. That the first
Egyptian converts did in reality affect to
consider Christ as no other than this divi-
nity, is a fact that must appear highly pro-
bable from the following observations :

1 . The command given to Thaumas, to an-
nounce at the Palodes that the great Pan was
dead, is a fiction borrowed by him from the
Egyptian mythology concerning Osiris. " On
a sudden a voice was heard from the island,
calling aloud for Thaumas. — Though called
twice, he continued silent; but the third
time he attended to the voice, which with
great force commanded him thus : When you
shall have arrived at the Falodes, say that the
great Fan is dead.'" Hear next what is re-
corded by Plutarch of Qsiris. " When Osi-
ris was born, a voice was heard, saying, that
the Lord of all is come into the world : and
some attest, that one Pamyles, when fetch-
ing water, heard a voice from the temple of
Jupiter, commanding him to announce, in a
loud voice, that the great and henejicent king

e6$

0 sin's is born *." Compare now these two
paragraphs; and the former must, I presume,
appear to have been founded on the latter.
Hence it is evident, that Thaumas had Osiris
in his mind, when he designated our Lord by
the title of Pan, From this, moreover, it is
plain, that Thaumas gave him that name,, be-
cause he considered him, what Plutarch here
asserts Osiris to be, %vfiog ttuvtuv, the Lord
of afL

2. That the Egyptian converts supposed
Christ and Osiris to be the same, is a fact
which is attested by the emperor Adrian,
In his letter -f- to the consul Servianus, pre-

* Tv; jxsv Ttc'jj-rri rov Ocipiv yzysaSai, )tcu (pojvY^v avtu/ 'r's%-
&«'/r; avvsKitBTstv-, uis aTravrcof yjjuag sts (pw; 'srpjasKnv' svioi Ss
UaiAyuXrjV tiva Xsyyjcnv, sv ©ijSaif vSpEnoi^zvov, etc tov ls(>ov tou

ya§ SixcriXsvg avscy^rrj^ yeyovs. De hide, Sect. 12.

f On this letter of the emperor, Lardner has the follow-
ing' paragraph, which shews how far he was from going to
the bottom of the subject : " This appeal's to be tact from
a letter of tlie emperor Hadiian, preserved by Vopiscns. A
common report was, it seems, tJien spread in Egypt, that the
Christians worshipped Serapis. The letter goes so far as to
say, that the Jews, the Samnritans, and. the Christians, that
even the chief master of the synagogue, tlie Christian pres-
byters, and the bishops, and even the patriarch hiinself, wor-

£G9

served by Vopiscus, he writes, " //// qui Se*
rapim colunt, Christiani sunt: et de-

VOTI SUNT SeRAPI, (VUI S£ ChRISTI EPI-
SCOPOS DICUNT."

The Christians in Egypt would not, I con-
ceive, as is here asserted of them, have been
devoted to Serapis, or Osiris, unless they sup-
shipped Serapis as well as Christ. Had this accusation been
confined to a part of the Christians or Jews, or had any par-
ticular sort of heretics been mentioned, one might have
tliought it possible; but the charge is so general, that it can
never be true. We must, therefore, seek for something in
the custom of those times, which will account for the rise of
such a calumny. And I think the use of amulets, which it
is not improbable prevailed among some of the Christians in
Egypt, as, we are assured, it afterwards did at Antioch, wili
account for it. The emperor makes no mention of the Basi-
iidians, but charges tlie Christians at large with the crime.
It may, therefore, as well be attributed to the Catholics as to
them. The truth of the matter seems to be this : the empe-
ror knew very Jittle about the Christians, and took up this
opinion from common report. He very probably heard that
some Christians did use such amulets, on which, among
other things, the name of Serapis was engraved ; and as
the heatliens, in a like situation, would {Jay a particular re-
gard to the god from whom they expected the cure, and were
continually in the use of joining together the worship of all
kind of deities ; to him it would appear a very natural con-
clusion, that the Christians who used these amulets worship-
ped Serapis as weU as Christ." Vol. ix. p. 295.

270

posed that there was some near affinity be-
tween them : nor would the bishops of Christ
have considered themselves as the bishops of
Serapis, had not both persons in their esti-
mation been the same.

But this fact will appear more fully here-
after from the writings of Paul, Philo, Plu-
tarch, and Apuleius. I proceed next to an-
other observation on the above extract.

Seventhly; It unfolds the meaning, and
proves the truth, of a passage in the works
of the apostate 'Julian, The passage is as
follows : " * Ye (speaking to the Christians)
are so unhappy as not to continue iu the
things delivered to you by the Apostles — ■
things carried by their descendents to a worse

* OuVw Js ifftt Zvi-fvyi^it w^-rz Qvh Toig viro fwv aitocro-

^upoii xa< Svscs^sa-rspoy iitQ tiuv £iriy*yOjU.£vwv E^sj^yatrSij.
Toy yovv Iijirouv ovrs YlavXof eroX/xijcrfv eitfeiy hov, cuts Mar-
6enos, ovts AovxccSj ovrs Mapxcj" aXXa 6 XPH2T02 Iwavvris,
aia-Qoy,£vos "^^ij ttoAo ttXtj^os socXukos £v itoXXons tiuv "EAAtjvi-
S'wv xa< IraAio.'riJ'wy iroXsujv v-iro raurijf rr^g vocov ax.O'Ju>v Ss,
©ijU-ai^ Kai TO, pvTj^aara Wi'TooM Y.ai ITauAou, KocSpa jm.£v, att-wuv
fo[i.u;s avta Ssca.irsu'.ij.evaf irsuiros sroXiArjOsy stirsiy, Cyr. Cob
Jul. lib. X p. 327

271

and more Trnpious height. For neither Paul
nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, pre-
sumed to call Jesus a God: but the dcemonU
sing John, having heard that a great multitude
in the cities of Greece and Italy were seised
with this disorder, was the first of them that
dared to advance his divinity.**

Here it is asserted — 1. That the Christian
doctrine underwent a change from the form in
which it was first delivered by the Apostles.
—2. That this change consisted in the dei-
fication of its founder. — 3. That it was ef-
fected in the cities of Italy and Greece.

Observe now how these assertions (which,
be it remarked, ought to be credited, be-
cause the author had no apparent motive for
making them, if they were not true) accord
with, and are explained by the above extract
from Plutarch. There we have seen, the
philologers around Tiberius advanced our Sa-
viour to the rank of dcemons or gods. This
representation, of him seems, on account of
the extraordinary things allowed in early times,
by all foes as well as friends, to have been d^ne
by him,, to have obtained universal credit in

272

Rome, and, no doubt, in other cities of Italy
and Greece. In the cities of Italy and
Greece, therefore, the deification of Jesus
must from this have first prevailed. And
this is the fact which Julian positively asserts.

From the former it has, moreover, been
shewn, that the first teachers of the divinity
of Christ applied to him the title of Chrestus,
expressive of his character as a good dcemon.
And it is remarkable, that the latter sarcas-
tically characterises 'John with that very epi-
thet, for the supposed support which he gave
to that doctrine.

Eighthly; A clause in the above extract
brings to light the meaning of a pas-
sage respecting Tiberius, recorded by IDion
Cassias, ** Tiberius*," says he, in his Life
of that emperor, " reprobated these verses of
the Sibyl : and be examined all the books con-
taining predictions % and some he rejected as
cf JIG value, but others of them he approved."

* 'O sv TifsiJOf ta.<jra. re rcc stTtj, w; xat ^svSrj ovra, Sis-
CaXe' xai j3j.fA»a TravTO. rx y^ccvrsia, riva. tyjtvra. sirsfrKs^aro,
ra jitfv ws ovSsvog a^ia utsxpiys, rx iJ' svbkoivs. Dion Cassinsy
lib. Lvui. p. 6i5.

273

Now, the question is, what motives induced
Tiberius, on the occasion here mentioned, to
inquire into, and condemn, the prophetic
books, and some other oracles ascribed to the
Sibyl ? And what, in particular, were these
books and these oracles ? These important
questions we may solve from the following
words of Plutarch : " And as there were
many men present, the report of this was
propagated" throughout Rome -, so that Tibe-
rius sent for Thaumas, and asked of him.
Who this Pan might be? and made in-
quiries CONCERNING HIM. But the phi-
lologers, who in great numbers surrounded
the emperor, represented this Pan to be the
son of Mercury and Penelope."

By representing our Lord as the son of
Mercury and Penelope, the philologers, I
have already shewn, signified, that he was a
being of extraordinary purity, descended with
a commission from heaven for the benefit of
mankind.

This representation Tiberius, we may well
suppose, was not inclined to believe, with-
out proof; and to prove this, such of the

VOL. I, T

274

philologers as were Jews (in the number of
whom, probably, was the wicked Jew men«
tioned by Josephus) naturally produced the
prophecies, which had been delivered to their
nation, concerning the .expected Messiah.
But these prophecies, when produced and ex-
amined, it was as natural in the emperor to
esteem as of no value, and to reject as false,
or unintelligible, or mere forgeries. The
Gentiles had ever despised the religion, and
hated the name of Jews. It was not there-
fore to be expected, that tlic emperor, or
any other heathen, should give credit to their
sacred writing.s *. But the predictions of the
Sibyl were believed and respected by both
the Romans and Egyptians from time imme-
morial ; and some of these, we are told, Ti-

* The sentiments of the heathens respecting the Hebrew
prophets, and the divine mission of JNIoses, may be seen in
the writings of Lucian and of CeJsus. See the former in his
Alexander, and the latter, apud Orig. lib. vii. p. 327. ^^^'
also Justin's Colorlatio^ p. 11. fol. ed. where he thus addresses
fhe Greeks respecting Moses and the prophets : " Toiiroi/j

<)(XX' EKtr^S avw^sv 'ria.pa. Qsou OiSsKTYjS ^'jupsa;. 'Tjj^eis Se, sitnor^,
diy. tr^v Ttpotspav t'cuv irarspuy vyMv TrXavYjV, rovroig Tdi^eT^xk
cvK oisa-^s $£iv, rivag h^oLtniXAW; v[.'mv OL^tOTficrovc rrj; ^sots-
KSiXi ysysyr^'T^jCci (fare j"

^75

berlus rejected as unauthentic. But before
he could have rejected such oracles, they
must have been prodticed by some of the
philologers.

Now, the question is, were there extant at
this time, among the heathens, any oracles,
which professed to foretell the coming of our
Lord into the world, and other circumstances
belonging to him ? There certainly existed
no such writings. The conclusion then is
most obvious, 'That the oracles ascribed to the
Sibyl, which Tiberius examined and rejected,
were the forgeries of those Egyptians, ChaU
deans, and Persians who became nominal con-
*verts to Christianity in Rome, and corrupted
it with the heathen superstition. Here then
we see the origin of those false oracles which
the fathers, to their great dishonour, have
quoted under the name of Sibylline oracles^
in their addresses to the Gentiles, as predic*
tive of our Lord, and acknowledging the
truth of his Gospel.

"With regard to these oracles, learned men
are at length agreed, ** that they are all, from
first to last, and without any one exception,

T 3

£76 .

mere Impostures.'* So far they agree in the
truth ; but as to the time of their composi-
tion, it appears from the above passages, and
still more decisively from passages to be no-
ticed in the next volume, that they agree in
an error : for they suppose them to have
been composed in the second century, about
the year 128 or 130. That some of those
which compose the present collection, in
eight books, might have been fabricated at
that period, or afterguards, is a supposition
not very improbable. But the above conclu-
sion from Plutarch and Dion Cassius proves,
that the first specimens of them were extant
in the days of Tiberius, many years before
any of the writings of the New Testament
were published. Accordingly, 'we shall find ,
on due examnation, that these oracles, and
their base authors, are held up to public indigo
nation, as false and unworthy of notice, by all
the Apostles,- and particularly by the great
Apostle of the Gentiles,

Tenthly ; It is expressly said by Tacitus
and Suetonius *y that the Jewish youths, in-

* From these writers then we gather the curious and inte-
resting information, at vjbat iimct autl hy what means^ the Gospel

^11

fectcd with that superstition (that is, as I
have shewn, the Jewish converts to the new
faith) Were transported into islands the se-
verity of whose climates might prove de-
structive to them. Some of them, it is there-
was introduced into this island ; and here we see confirmed
all that is said by Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and others,
concerning the introduction and the prevalence of it in this
country in the days of the Apostles. A passage of Gildas,
which I extract from Camdcris Brita?2ma, Gough's edition,
p. 50, is on this subject highly deserving of notice^ as it ex-
actly coincides with the above inference drawn from the Ro-
man historians. Speaking of Boadicea's revolt, and its con-
sequences, that writer adds — " In the mean time, the island,
exposed to the severest cold, and, as it were, in the extremity
of the earth, out of the reach of the visible sun, was first,

UNDER THE REIGN OF TiBERIUS, AS WE WELL KNOW, FA-
V'OURED WITH THAT TRUE SUN, SHINING NOT IN THE MA-
TERIAL FIRMAMENT, BUT FROM THE HIGHEST HEAVENS, BE-
FORE ALL TIME, ENLIGHTENING THE WORLD WITH ITS
BEAMS IN ITS APPOINTED TIME J i. e. ChRIST BY HIS PRE-
CEPTS."

It is worthy of remark in this place, that the first Chris-
tian church established in this country was dedicated to the
Virgin Mary. Now, the reason of its being dedicated to her
will, appear, when in the sequel of this volvime it will be dis-
covered, that some of the fabricators of the supernatural birth
of Jesus, and of the exaltation, on that account, of his mo-
ther, were among the very persons who, by order of the se-
nate, were banished from Rome to the British isles, Oa this
subject see Fuller's Eccles. Hist, p. 7> if I recollect rightly.

T 3

278

fore natural to suppose, were sent to the Bri^
tish isles, where, of course, they carried with
them the story of our Saviour's death, and
their faith in him as the Lord of alL

This circumstance will account for the fol-
lowing tale, which Demetrius relates imme-
diately after PhiHp had ended the narrative
that he gives of the death of Christ,

" And Philip had many witnesses present,
who had heard those things from the aged
iEmilianus. And Demetrius said, that there
were many islands dispersed around Britain,
some of which were celebrated for the de-
mons and demi-gods abounding in them.
There, at the command of the emperor, he
sailed for the purpose of exploring the coasts.
While he was lately in those islands, a great
commotion and many strange appearances
were seen in the air, accompanied by a vio-
lent wind and thunder. When the storm had
ceased, the inhabitants told him, that some

SUPERIOR BEING HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF

LIFE. For, as a candle when burning causes
no harm, but if extinguished proves offen-
sive to many -, so superior spirits, when kin-

^79

died with life, are inoffiinsive and beneficent,
but when deprived of animation, they excite,
en their extinction, hurricanes and tempests,
and oftentimes poison the air with contagious
disorders."

Now it is maintained, that by the superior
being deprived of life, the inhabitants of
Britain meant the So?2 of God, who was put
to death in Judsa 5 and that the convulsions
which took place in the heavens on his expi-
ration were no other than the preternatural
appearances which accompanied his cruci-
fixion. For, it appears from the context, and
the manner in which Demetrius introduces
this story, that he considered this superior
being to be the same with the great Pan
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. But
this Pan has already been proved to be the
same with Jesus Chnst. This appears also
from Demetrius's design in relating this story j
which was manifestly to confirm the account
that Philip gave of the death of Pan. At
first view, indeed, it would seem that the ex-^
piration of this being, and the concomitant
agitation in the air, took place while he con-
tinued in the islands. But this is not his

T 4

280

meaning. He intended only to say, that he
he had lately been in the British isles, where
the inhabitants informed him, that nature had
some time before been agitated by the ex-
tinction of a superior being. Demetrius, in-
deed, was aware, that the person who thus
suffered was no other than Jesus Christ ; but
as he was not himself a believer in him, but
an enemy to his followers and to his cause,
he craftily endeavours to deprive them of
the unequivocal proof that he was the Son of
God, by artfully insinuating, that the super-
natural appearances in the air were owing to
the god Saturn having fallen asleep in one of
those islands, and not, as the people supposed,
to some good dasmon that expired in a distant
country.

The language in which the death and the
character of this superior being are delineated
proves, moreover, that the inhabitants meant
our divine master, who suitered in Judsa ; for
they represent him as benefice7it and good, while
the light of life shone in him ; but say that
the extinction of it proved prejudicial tomuU
titudes. They describe finally his depriva-.
tion of existence, under a strong allusion to

Q81

a loss of light in the sun, to which our Lord
is frequently compared in the New Testa-
ment, and in other sacred writings of very-
early as well as modern times. Their own
words deserve again to be quoted : ** 'On ruv
Kpei(r<rovcav rivog s^Ae^if/*? ytyovsv :" BECAUSE
THERE HAPPENED AN ECLIPSE OF SOME
ONE OF THE SUPERIOR BEINGS. Tllis IS a

literal translation of the clause; and it is
language most evidently pointing to the dark-
ness of the sun at the crucifixion of Jesus *.

* From this it appears certain, that not only Demetrius,,
but also PKitarch, and the other spealvcrs in this dialogue,
were well acquainted with the prdeternatural darkness which
happened while Jesus hung on the cross, in proof of his di-
vine mission. This surely is a circtimstance sufiicient to re-
fute the insidious triumph of G:bhon, who boldly asserts, that
this event was unknown to all the philosophers and observers
of natiire that lived, at the time, in the heathen world. But
how should his boast and his confidence have been humbled,
had he been aware, that a nation, not only remote from Ju-
daea, but separated from the then known world by an inna-
vigable sea ; a nation for many years inaccessible to the Ro-
man arms, and whom the attempt to approach was thought
by their insolent invaders to be more dangerous than a con-
flict with them in the field of battle ; that a nation thus situ-
ated felt the convulsion, which bore testimony to the inno-
cence and the claims of Jesus ; and that in the course of two
years after his death they received and embraced his religion,
while they opposed with success the power and the arts of
Jlome ! In opposition, howevci, to his assertions, I shall en-
gage to prove hereafter, that the darkness in question is ob-

282

It farther appears that lie entertained the
same opinion of the d^Emons which the
Christians did, and that he speaks of them
in the same contemptuous language. He
maintains, that they were not gods, and
that they were all of a vicious disposition;
and for this cites the authority of Plato, Em-
pedocles, and others ; and he calls them, too,
by the name of n^uXot, idols, the very word ge-
nerally used by the disciples of Jesus to ex-
press the vanity and nullity of the heathen
deities *. He defends, moreover, Minilia-
7ius-f, d. Cbristia??, and his master in rheto-
ric, from the accusation o^ folly and confix
de'fice, with which the Christian teachers were

scurely hinted at by Seneca, explicitly asserted by Phlegon,
and wantonly ridiculed by Lucian : and that Plutarch and
Pliny, though they had the artifice to disguise their know-
Jedge, yet were well acquainted with this event, and adopted
the disingenuous means of evading its force, by attempting
to reduce into historical fact?, and oppose lo it, those natural
occurrences, which the adulatory and poetic genius of Virgil
and Horace "aggrandized into supernatural appearances.

* *' We know," says the apostle Paul, " that an idol is
■rtotbing in the world :" alluding, I conceive, to the name of
idol, which in Hebrew signifies also nothing.

t It must appear obvious to the reader, that Ej>itberses, tbe
father of ^'Emilianus, w as also a believer in Jesus, and that
probably he gave his son a Christian education.

283

commonly charged by their enemies. But
what is principally to be regarded, he relates
this tale of Jesus Christ, which he had re-
ceived from iEmilianus, to shew that, in con-
sequence of his death, the daemons disap-
peared from the world ; and appeals for the
truth of it to several witnesses then present,
who, as well as himself, had heard it from
his master. Cleombrotus, indeed, seems to
have been aware, that Philip was an advocate
for the Gospel ; and, doubtless, he had an
eye to him in the severe censure which he
passes upon the Christians, for believing the
resurrection of the body.

Heracleon (another speaker in this dialogue)
had, it is true, before endeavoured to remove
this suspicion of Cleombrotus, by declaring,
** that none of those v/ho entertained such
impious, profane, and incoherent sentiments
respecting the gods, was then present." On
this, turning to the suspected person, he
makes the following remark : " Should we
not, Philip, take heed, lest, by erecting our
inquiry on a lofty foundation *, we inadvert-

* The lofty foundation, on which Philip erected his opinion
respecting the expulsion of the daemon':, seems to have been

284

cntly render it absurd." To this, Philip pre-
sently replies : ** I am aware, Heracleon, that
we have fallen upon a perplexed subject ; but
it is not possible to arrive at a probable con-
clusion in an arduous inquiry, unless by having
recourse to adequate principles. It is yourself
who are guilty of inadvertency, in denying
the very thing you grant ; for you confess
that there are daemons, while in the same
breath you insist that they are good and im^
mortal.'*

Lastly ; If then it be true, that Philip was
a believer in Jesus, it must appear manifest,
that this celebrated dialogue concerning the
cessation of the heathen oracles originated
in the opinion maintained by him and other
Christians, that the expulsion of the daemons
from the world was occasioned by the pre-*

the divine mission of Jesus, which had for its object the de-
liverance of mankind from their pernicious influence. Phi-
lip appears to have insisted, that the causes to which his op-
ponents ascribed the departure of the daemons, were neither
true in thenaselves, nor adequate to the effect. Hence we
may perceive his meaning in the following words : " It is not
possible to arrive at a probable conclusion in. an arduous in-
quiry, but by having recourse to u<A.^(/a/f principles,"

285

valence of the Gospel. Hence is confirmed
(if any additional evidence be necessary to
confirm it) the truth of my second proposi-
tion ; namely, that the object of PKitarch in
writing this book was to oppose and check
that growing * opi,nion.

Having now finished my remarks on this
book of Plutarch, I at length return to the
Jewish historian, and to an examination of the
long paragraph which he has written concern-
ing Paulina, This, we have seen, is subjoined
by Josephus to tiie disputed passage about
our Lord. But what connexion has it with
the history of Jesus Christ ? What had the
narrative of a woman at Rome, devoted to
the Egyptian superstition, and betrayed into
adultery by the priests of Isis, to do with a
man that lived and died in Judasa ?

The fact, that Josephus was a believer ;

* It is worthy of remark, that this celebrated dialogue oa
the cessation of the heathen oracles, being written by an
enemy of the Christians and their cause, is partially related j
and that those parts in particular, which respect Jesus and his
followers, are represented, if not much mutilated, in the
dark and invidious colours of malice and bigotry.

28(>

that in several parts of his writings he en-
forces the truth of the Gospel, and defends
its founder and his faithful followers from ca-
lumny and persecution; furnishes a clear so-
lution to these questions. Josephus saw, thsCt
a doctrine maintaining the supernatural birth
of Jesus, was gaining ground in Italy, Greece,
and Egypt, and inculcated by its votaries, as
a branch of the Gospel taught by our Lord
and his Apostles. To check this false and
preposterous opinion, and to cut up by the
roots the calumnies which unbelievers bor-
rowed from it and its base authors, to asperse
the original founders of Christianity — hepoints
out the place where it first originated, relates
the very incident that gave it birth, and holds
up the man that fabricated it to public in-
dignation.

Behold then. Christian ! an Important disco-
very presented to thee by the immortal author
of the Jewish Antiquities -, viz. that the

SUPPOSED MIRACULOUS BIRTH OF JeSUS

Christ is a fabrication of the

PRIESTS of IsiS at RomE, COPIED FROM
THE ADULTERY OF A WOMAN DEVOTED

287

TO THE VILEST OF THE HEATHEN DEI-
TIES *.

* Let us however grant, for the sake of argument, that
Josephus was not a believer in Jesus, and that the exposure of
the miraculous conception related of Mary was not his object
in recording the above story concerning Paulina : the follow-
ina positions, founded on a law of the human mind, which
is die same, whether he was a friend or a foe to the Gospel,
will lead us to the same conclusion :

1. Admitting the truth and genuineness of the accounts
inserted in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, yet Joseplius,
beincr " as much a Jew as the law of Moses could make
him,'^' did not believe their truth ; as he did not receive h.s
claim to the Messiahship, supported, as it was, by proofs the
most powerful, would he l>aYe allowed the truth of the mi-
raculous conception, which depended only on the attestation
of hU mother? Josephus, therefore, must have been of opi-
nion, that Mary, while she pnterJed to be pregnant by the
spirit of God, was, in reality, pregnant by a man.

2. Josephus, when writing the paragraph respecting Jesus,
must necessarily have had in his mind the story of his mira-
culous birth. A tale so remarkable, and, at the same time,
so singular, could not but be present to his recollection, when
he was describing his character, and contemplating that very
wisdom and power, which proved him to be the Son of God.
He had. therefore, in his thoughts a woman, who having
conceived of a human being, professed that she conceived of
the Holy Spirit. That the writer had such an idea, on the oc-
casion, in his mind, is proved from fact : for he has imn^di^
ately subjoined to the passage, in which he speaks of cu^
Lord, the story of another woman at Rome, who mr.de a si-
milar profession.

28S

But in order to demonstrate the truth of
this important fact, and to settle all disputes

3. As Joisephus had associated the story of the miraculous
birth with the name and character of Christ, but at the same
time did not believe the truth of it, he (upon the supposition
of his being a Jew) necessarily would have imputed it to
Jesus himself, his mother, or his disciples, as a gross, ab-
surd, and even impious imposture ; if, in reality, such a tale
had originated in them, or had been propagated by them in
Judaea. As a Jew, that is, as one who was an enemy to Je-
sus and his cause, he had every possible inducement to urge
this imputation. This is no more than what every other Jew,
properly so called, would have done. All the Jewish nation,
from the time of our Saviour to the present day, discredited
the story j and those of them, who looked upon the accounts
as given in Matthew and Luke to be authentic, have imputed
the story to our Lord and his friends as a false and infamous
contrivance ; and if Josephus was not a Christian, why should
not he, as well as his brethren, have represented it in the
same light ? It follows then, in as much as he has not charged
Jesus, or his mother, ov any of his followers in Judaea, with
the doctrine which appeared to him to be downright impiety,
that he could not make such a charge with any colour of
tnith. In other words, the invention of the miraculous con-
ception could not, in the judgment of Josephus the Jewish
historian, be ascribed to Jesus Christ, his relations, or hi3
apostles.

4. Lastly; since Josephus could not accuse our Saviour,
or his disciples in Judrea, witli the doctrine of his pre-
tended prae.ternataral birth, the mere impulse of association
must have led him, when writing the preceding paragraph,
to the place where the story originated, and to the persons
by whom it \saa fabricated. Accordingly, on finishing the

S89

about it for ever, I shall lay down, ^hd prove,
the following propositions ;

I. T^he story of the miraculous conception of
Mary, as inserted in Matthew and Luke,
is the very same with this story of Paulina, re-
lated hy Josephusi faltered, indeed, in some mi-
iiute circumstances) and the substance of the
events composing those chapters did in reality
happen in Rome> ajid not in Jerusalem.—
7he doctrine of the supernatural birth of Jesus
is taught in no other part of the New Testament :
on the contrary, the whole of hij; history sup^-
poses our Lord to be the legitimate son of fo"
seph and Mary, and a native of Nazareth.-^
The accounts, inserted in the beginning of the
above mentioned Gospels, have been extract^
ed by seme early Christian^ educated in the

passage concerning Jestis, he abruptly passes over from Judoea
to Roine, and relates the long story respecting Paulina ; the
summary of which is, that a woman, who had either the
wickedness or the weakness to spend a night in the arms of a
man, pretended that she was administering to the pleasure of
Anubis.

It follows, therefore, from the law of association, operat-
ing in the mind of Josephus, diat the adultery of Paulina is
tlie real source of the miraculous conception of Mary,

VOL. I. U

.290

Egyptian school^ from two Gospels originally
composed, the one by the wicked Jew whom
yosephiis mentions, the other by Thaumas
noticed by Plutarch,

II. The men who first maintained in Rome the di-
"cinity and the supernatural birth of Jesus Christ,
maintained also [as being partly Egyptians).
the opinions held by the Gnostics; and were
zealous, moreover, (as being in part Jews J for
the rites of the Mosaic law. — In consequence of
the expulsion of the Christians from Italy by the
Rofnan senate, these impostors propagated their
heresies through Greece and Egypt, and intro-
duced them even into the churches among the Gen^
tiles, established by the apostle Paul. — Our Lord,
being divinely inspired, foresaw the fabrica-
tion of the doctrines of his divinity and super-
TMtural birth at RomCi and was led, in certain,
.circumstances, by the great law of the association
of ideas to warn his disciples against them. He
also furnished iliem with striking fads, by re-
cording which, they might, on his authority alone,
convince the world of the falsehood of those
doctrines. Accordingly the evangelists Mark,
Luke, and fohn, wrote their Gospels chiefy
with this view, and adopted the admirable me-

291

ihod, not of opposing their asseverations to
prevailing falsehoods, but simply of stating well
authenticated facts, and f leaving the reader to
draw his own conclusio?is.'-rheprevalenceofthe
impostures from Rome was the mean which the
wisdom of Providence adopted to call forth the
writings of the New Testament.^lhe apostles
Fauh Peter, and John, in their respective
Epistles, give them the most decided 'opposition,
and stigmatize their authors as liars and de-
ceivers,

III. The Jewish and Egyptian converts,
when banished from Rome, carried the new
faith with them into Egypt, where it was em-
braced by a great part of the Jews and Egyp-
tians reiident in that country, during the inter-
val of public tranquility above noticed from
Philo.^1 he patrons of the Egyptian supersti-
tion, being alarmed and exasperated at its rapid
prevalence, at length instigated Caligula to check
it, by persecuting its professors, and by holding
himsef up as a God, to be worshipped by the
Jews and Gentiles, in opposition to Jesus
Christ, deified and made the object of divine
honours in Egypt.^The Christian converts, in
-order to put an end to the grievous calamities

u 2

which they were now suffering in Alexandrid
and other places, commissioned Fhilo^ with some
others, to that emperor^ to vindicate their in-
nocence from the charges brought against them
by Apion and other devotees of his. — Fhilot
having failed in the object of his embassy,
published^ on his return home, in two books, a
defence of the followers of fesus in fudcea and
B>gypt j in which he holds them up as a body of
men not to be equalled for wisdom and virtue
among the human race ; and vindicates the truth
of their doctrine by its unrivalled efficacy in re-

forming the vices of manhnd.^^fosephus, tread-
ing in the steps of the magnanimous Philo, ijjserted

, in his History of the Jewish War an account
of the Christians in fudcea and other coun-
tries ; and throughout the whole of his narra-
tive opposes his testi?nony to the accusations pro-
pagated against them by their enemies.

IV. All the ancient Christian writers called
the Fathers, knew, successively, that the
doctrines of the miraculous conception of Mary,
and the divinity of fcsus, originated with the
Egyptian converts at Rome ; and that they might
conceal the origin of them, they ?iot only for-
bore to mention the introduction of the Gospel

29S

info Rome, and the aitonishing events that foU
lowed in that city, and in Egypt^ but made me
of various artifices and equivocationsy in order
to bury them in everlasting oblivion.

V. The adversaries of tJje Gospel in ancient
times, among the Gentiles, such as Plutarch,
Julian, Porphyry, and others, fully knew,
that these doctrines originated with the magi-
cians in the court of Tiberius, and were in
after times incorporated with the Christian sy^
stem, in direct opposition to the authority of the
Apostles ; but at the same time did not expose the
fraud, as it furnished them with abundant ma-
terials for calumniating our Lord and his faith-
ful followers in fudcea, and with plausible
grounds for ascribing their miracles to those ma-
gical artifices which were practised by the first
Egyptian converts. This artifice, with others
of the kind, as well as the many concessions
which they have been forced to make, demon-
strate, that in their hearts they were convinced
of the truth of Christianity, and of the divine
mission of its author, and that their opposition
to it proceeded from rank malignity and inter ^
Cjted motives.

U 3

294

VI. It appears from the urkings of the ati^
cient yews, that they were fully acquainted
with the true origin of those doctrines, and'
with the strenuous opposition given to them by. the
Apostles ; Suti nevertheless, affected to consider
them as branches of Christianity, from the same
motive which actuated its enemies among the
Gentiles. The author of the Jewish tract eji-
titled ToLDOTU Jesehu, or the Birth of
Jesus, copied his account from the story of
Paulina, recorded by fosephus, as the origin of
the miraculous conception of Mary,

Such are the propositions, which, being
founded upon the context in which the dis-
puted passage concerning Jesus stands, I
propose, in the remainder of this, and in a
series of volumes, to demonstrate.

Their importance must be confessed by
all my readers ; and if th?. evidence produced
in proof of them be decisive, I trust that
the inquiry will render an essential service
to the interests of the Gospel, and, indeed,
place its truth on a basis that can never be
moved.

295

I. My first object then is to shew, that the
story of the miraculous conception of Mary^ as
inserted in Matthew avd Luke, is the 'very
same ivith this story cf Paulina, related by
yosephus, altered indeed in some of ils circum-
stances; and that the substance of the events
composing those chapters did in reality happen in
Rome, and not in Jerusalem — 77?^/ the doc-
trine of the supernatural birth of Jesus is
taught in, no other part of the New Testament -,
on the contrary, the whole of his history sup-
poses our Lord to be the legitifnate son of Joseph
and Mary, and a native of Nazareth — That
the accounts inserted in the hegmrnng of the
above mentioned Evangelists have been extracted
by some early Christians educated in the Egyp-
tian school, from two Gospels originally com-
posed, one by the wicked Jew whom Josephus
mentions, and the other by Thaumas noticed in
'Plutarch,

In order to see how the two stories accord
with each ether, it is necessary to consider
what is said of the conduct of this celebrated
woman by ancient writers. And I begin
with Josephus himself.

u 4

256

Here then it is to be observed, that Pati"
iina, mentioned in the first paragraph, and
Fulvia in the ne^t, are but two different
hames of the same woman. This will ap-
pear indisputable, if we examine what is sai4
concerning her in the two passages.

In each of these passages she is described as
the wife of Saturnmm \ and this Saturninus is,
^s evidently in both, the same man, the parti-
cular friendof Tiberius, who, at his instigation^
interfered in behalf of his injured spouse. Ac-
cordingly, when speaking of her under the
name of Fuhia^ Josephus alludes to her se-
duction in the temple of Isis, before men-
tioned—** A7roG'v][^ciivEi yof^ ir^og Ti^e^iov (piXog cov
'Zccrvovivo^y Tnj; ^ovXCtag ocvui^y tirKDcyi^iet Tfjg yvvcci"
'icog,*' Tha,t is, Saturninus, at the instigation
vf hii wife, lays the business before Tiberius,

In the passage preceding he says of her — »
** ^y£yoit/,v}TO Q£ Xocrou^vivuy reo eig roc ttocvtcc cuvti-
(TOUjttei/w TCtiv TTeoi oi\jT7]v a^.oXoycov. — *H ^' sig ^ix-

VOiaV TOTS -TT^UTOV EXOoVTOi. TOV ToXfZYlf^CtTOg TTS^l-

prjyvVTOii TB Tviv (rToXyjv, xui r avdpi ^yiXcocrotdoc tq'j
iruvTog ETTi^oMXiVj^ocTo; to jjLsyeQog, eosiTofiTj Tre^i-

fi07

c^ixtivs TT[v TT^tx^iv." She mas tfiarried to Satur-
niiiusy who in every respect equalled the elevated

qualities of his sfouse* Having then first

discovered the nature of the atrocious deed, into
which she had been betrayed, and disclosed the
whole of it to her husband^ she intreated him
not to leave unpunished the injury done her..
He therefore laid the matter before the eni~
feror.

Since then it cannot be doubted but that
Paulina and Fulvia are but two different
jnames of the same woman, it follows hence,

1 . That as the four men with whom she
associated, and by means of whom she em-
braced the Jewish religion, have been shewn
to be the persons who introduced and taught
Christianity in Rome, she must have been a
convert to the Christian doctrine. It fol-
lows, also, -

Q. That the three persons whom Josephus
represents as the associates of the wicked
Jew, in teaching the law of Moses, were no
other than the Egyptian priests mentioned

C9S

in the preceding paragraph as concerned ii^
the seduction of Fulvia.

3. It must farther appear probable, that
Thaumas, mentioned by Plutarch, was in the
number of these priests of Isis, who asso-
ciated with this Jew ; and that these four
men formed, in part, the philoloijrs around
Tiberius, who embraced Christianity, and
deified its founder.

4. We may conclude, moreover, that as
these priests of Isis were concerned with the
Jew in robbing the temple of the presents
made for its use by Fulvia, so he was an in-
strument with them in effecting her seduc-
tion. And this inference is supported by the
indignant apostrophe with which, as I have
shewn, the apostle Paul addresses him. " Be-
hold! thou callest thyself a Jew, and reposest
thyself on the law, and gloriest in God, and
knowest his will, and art taught to distin-
guish the excellences of the law ; and takest
upon thyself to be a guide of the blind, a
light to them that are in darkness, an in-
structor of the ignorant, a teacher of babes j
as' possessing the characters of knowledge and

"^99

truth in the law. Dost thou, then, that
teachest another, neglect to teach thyself?
Dost thou, who preachest against stealing,
thyself steal ? Dost thou, who forbiddest
adultery, commit adultery ? Dost thou abhor
idols, and yet profanely rob the temple?"

It has already been shewn, that the crimes
of robbery, of murder, of lewdness, adul-
tery, and the like, originated with the first
Egyptian converts at Rome ; that is, with
the men whom Josephus represents as being
guilty of such' enormities. And this is con-
firmed by what our Apostle next says to the
wicked Jew and his associates : ** Dost thou
glory in a law, and by the transgression of
this very law dishonour God? For the
NAME OF God is evil spoken of through
you among the Gentiles."

I cannot here help remarking, though I
am encroaching on the subject of the next
volume, that the m.en here alluded to seem,
from the subsequent words of the Apostle,
not to have been originally Jt'ivs, but Gentile
converts ; meaning, no doubt, the Egyptians
who in name embraced the Gospel. " He

soo

is not a Jew, who is one outwardly in the
flesh ; but he is a Jew, who is one inwardly,
and that is circumcision, which is a circum-
cision of the heart, in the mind, not in th(j
precept." As if he had briefly said, ♦* You
are become Jews in profession. Do not mis-
take the character which you thus sustain : it
consists not in a compliance with the external
institutions of the law, but in the cultivation
of that moral purity which these institutions
are calculated and intended to produce."

5, In these two passages we see a decisive
proof, that Josephus was a believer in Chris-
tianity, and that he used his great talents and
influence in defending its professors from ca-
lumnies and persecution. The Christian doc-
trine he characterizes as the wisdom cf the
Mosaic laws, and endeavours to shelter it from
odium and intolerance, under the paternal
wings of Judaism. Indeed, Judaism is th^
title which the Gospel usually bore in very
early times, among both the Gentile unbe-
lievers and the Jewish converts ; the former
of whom did not know, and the latter of whom
did not admit, of any distinction between the
religion of Moses and that of Jesus -, as in their

sol

conception the one was only the perfection ol*
the dcvelopement of the other *'.

Tacitus, we have seen, insinuates, that
the Jews banished by the senate, were

* Respecting the confusion of Christianity with Judaism
in very early times, see Mr. Wakefield's excellent Commea-
tary on Matthew, p. 317, and Jor. Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 8.

To Pliny, Martial, Tacitus, and Suetonius, 'who, as was
natural, made this confusion, we may add Plutarch and /k-
fvenal. The former of these, in his book concerning Super-
stition, which, it will appear hereafter, he wrote against the
Christians, thus speaks : — " ApE-nj? yap sKitig 6 Qyj; strtiv,
ou SeiKiccs -ffpofaa-is' aKXx lOTAAIOI, craffarwv ovYmv, p
ayvaiji.rroi; KaSe^ojxsvoi, rcov iroKsfji.iujy v.Xii^a'Ao.s irposrtl^svrw/y
Kaj to. T'si^T) v.a.fxXaii.txvovrwv, oux avecmjcrav, a.XXa e;x£(ray,
wsittp iv ffxyrivri jxja, ffi j£(cr»Ja<]w.6v(a, o-yvog&jU-Eyoi." Plutauh,
vol. ii. p. l63.

The author here alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem by
Titus. Compare the last clause with Matthew, cap. xxxiii.
37; and with iay^f, xix. 43, 44.

Juvenal, towards the beginning of his third satire, thus
writes respecting the expulsion of the Jews, part of whom
were converts to the Gospel, by an edict of Domiiian.

Nunc sacri fontis nemus, et delubra locantur
Judais, quorum cophinus fcenumque supellex.

The cruelty of that fell tyrant towards the followers of
Jesus, is alluded to, as has been observed by some learned
men, in the following lines of the same writer :

302

guilty of robbery, and of other excesses }
and it cannot be doubted, but tliat it was
maintained by their enemies in Rome, that
the whole nation thus suffered, because they
were all equally criminal. In opposition
to such assertions, Josephus has given his
testimony: " The Jews were driven

FROM THE CITY, BECAUSE OF THE WICK-
EDNESS OF FOUR MEN.'*

The charges of murder, incest, and lewd-
ness, extended by their enemies to the vir-
tuous followers of Jesus, were founded, I
have shewn, on the atrocities committed by
the first Egyptian converts in the temple of
Isis. Josephus, in order to repel those un-
just charges, relates their guilty deed re-
specting Paulina, not as the disciples of Jesus
(though they were at this time his disciples
in name), but as the priests of Isis, disdain-

Atque utinam his potius nngis tota ill;i dedisset
Tempora saevitiae, claras quibus abstulit urbi
lUustresque animas impune, et vindice nullo.
Sed periit, postquam cerdonibus esse timendus
Cospcrat. Hoc nocuit Lamiaium caede madenti.

LJat iv. ad fin.

Some remarks are made on these lines b t-- i-.'-t- See
vol. vii. p. 263.

303

ing to give them the appellation of Jewish
converts ; and it is remarkable, that when he
notices the rn, as concerned with the wicked
Jew in teaching the wisdom of the Mosaic
laws, he passes over their names in scornful
silence, and only characterises them ** as be-
ing in every respect wicked men."

In order, moreover, to keep out of sight
the mortifying inference, that an honourable
convert to the religion of Jesus was weak or
base enough to have connexion with the de-
votees of Egyptian superstition, and particu-
larly to sacrifice her virtue and honour at the
shrine of Anubis, he distinguishes her, in the
first instance, by the name of Paulina, and
in the second by the denomination of Fuhia,
which was, perhaps, her own name -, whereas
the former she appears, from an epigram in
Martial, soon to be cited, to have received
from one Paullus, either her gallant or her
husband.

This woman, because she embraced the
new religion, was made by its adversaries, at
once, the object of ridicule, satire, and re-
proach. But this circumstance which brought

304.

tipbn her the hatred of the Romans, engaged
this illustrious friend of Christianity in her
favour. He accordingly palliates, though he
does not justify, her conduct, and ascribes
her misfortune to delusion, and not, as
her accusers maintained, to artifice. Can-
dour, however, obliges me to observe, that
the apology which Josephus offers for her be-
haviour is, upon the face of it, very partial ^
since the story, even as it is related by him-
self, affords a strong presumption, that, un-
der the pretence of being invited by Anubis,
she went to gratify some favourite person or
other, and that beforehand she was conscious
of this, however she might affect the con-
trary, after the deed had, against her wishes,
been discovered.

Juvenal, as well as Josephus, has noticed
this celebrated woman ; but he gives a very
different character of her in his Satire on // o-
tnm ; a piece well known to learned meni
though, perhaps, they need to be informed,
that the persons who have so powerfully
called forth his indignation and ridicule, were,
for the most part, ladies of rank and fortune,
that had embraced the Gospel in Rome. h\

S05

proof of this, I shall shew, that Hippia, who
makes the most prominent figure m that fa-
mous performance, is no other than the Pau^
Una, or Fuhia, recorded by the Jewish hi-
storian.

At this assertion, the reader will, perhaps,
be surprised -, but when truth is advanced,
surprise, in the breast of candour, will give
way to conviction.

In support of the proposition, I will shew,
that the circumstances recorded by the Je^Aish
historian, are clearly alluded to, and confirm-
ed, by the Roman satirist.

The term H'llpia, which Juvenal assigns to
her, is a pure Greek word (I(p<a\ signifying
a beautiful female. This appellation the poet
bestows on her, as descriptive of her personal
beauty ; for which, as we learn from Jose-
phus, she was much distinguished.

In the Jewish Antiquities she is represented
as a woman of rank, and married to a person
of great dignity. The following line attests
the same fact :

VOL. I. X

Nupta senatori. comltatn csi Hippla luilum.

Sat. vl. 82.

According to the hijjtoriun, she was much
iiddlctcd to the worship of Isis. For her de-»
votion in this respect she is ridiculed by die
poet :

Eccc furentis

Bellonae, JSbtrisque Dciini, cliorusiiitr.it. 510, 51!.

Josephus asserts that she was a proselyte to
yudaism. Ilcr superstition, as a J&wesSf is
laughed at in Juvenal :

Cum dodit illo locum, cophino ta^noquf rrlicto,
Arc.ui.uu J\:d.sa trcmcais uiciulicat in aurem.

511, 5tJ.

This rahbls gCK*, •! Jt-^iss tiext, xwtb jTiJf,
JMsjitris bfr story m tki Ijui/s ear*

That she made some presents to the Jews,
a5i is related by Josephus, might be inferred
from this writer :

Jaipiot VI ilia mnnum, stnl pnroiiis, a^e minuto ;
Qualiacuiuiuc voles Judxi souuiia vcuduiit.

515, 5io.

* The trand.itian of the-<;f .niul the following lines I havff
taken froiu the excellent \*crsiou of ^Ir. Oweii.

207

The assi sanation which she iTiade in the
temple of Isis ; her unusually ornamental style
of dress upon th':? occasion ; the pleasure
.which the invitation from Anubis gave her 5
her haste in going ; together veirh the pre-
paration for her reception ; all which are
particularly specified by Josephus ; — the sa-
tirist thus describes :

Nam si COKSTITCIT, solitosue decektivs optat

Oenaei, et peoperat, jamque expectatl'k ill hortiJ,

Aut apud Isiacje potius sacraeia len^ ;

Disponit crinera laceratis ipsa capillis,

Kuda huxnero, Psecas infelix, nudisque mamillis.

Altior hie quard cincinnus ? Taurea punit

Con tin ub flexi crimen fagin usque capilli.

486—492.

From Josephus we learn, that the c/jief
of the priests of Isis, who brought her the
wished- for invitation, obtained a private in-
terview v/ith her, and that by his contriv-
ance Mundus was afterwards concealed in
the temple. On these circumstances the
following significant lines seem to have beea
founded :

ApvocAT Ap.chigexejc, onerosaque pa'.l'a jactat :

AbDITUS IKTEEEA latex, et SEC£ETUS advltek,
iMfATiEIfSCUE M0K2B SI LET — 235 — 238.

308

** The person in whose arms," says her
historian, " she spent the night, was a Ro^
man knight ; and the slave that planned the
scheme of her seduction was crucified, at the
instigation of her husband, who had himself
been instigated by her." To these incidents
the satirist pointedly alludes :

Sed jacet in servi complexibus, aut EauiTis. — 278-,

Again :

Pone crucem servo : meruit quo critnine servus
Supplicium ? Quis testis adest ? quis detulit?

218, 219.

G<?, crucify thai slave ! the lady storms :

Pray, ivhat is bis crime ? who proves ? who informs ?

From the account of Josephus, however
partial, we may infer, that while her friends
judged her innocent, some, notwithstanding,
entertained suspicion of her guilt. On the
contrary, that her criminality was not main-
tained by al/y but that some specious plea
was urged in her defence, we may gather
from Juvenal, her bitterest enemy :

Die aliquem, sodes, die, Quintiliane, colorem.
Haeremus 5 die ipsa 279, 280.

jrbat can he said ? O ! come, Qimtiliant free
The pretty culprit by some specious plea.

509

Impossible ! he cries. Then, madam, try
What your own better genius can supply.

The influence which she had over her hus-
band, his mistaken confidence in her virtue,
and the appHcation w^hich she made for his
protection, after the discovery of her guilt,
are paralleled by the following description :

■ • Aut ficta pcUice plorat,

Uberibus semper lacrymis, seraperque paratis
In statione sua, atque expectantibus illam,
duo jubeat manare modo : tu credis amorem,

TUTIBI TUNC CUK.RUCA PLACES, FLETUMQUE LABELLI3
EXSORBES . 271 ^275.

These coincidences are, I presume, suffi-
cient to prove my assertion, that the Paulina,
or Fulvia of Josephus, is no other than the
Hippia of Juvenal. Features so various, so
extraordinary, and, at the same time, so si-
milar to each other, must have been copied
from the same original. We are, therefore, at
liberty to use such incidents respecting her,
as are farther furnished by this noble satirist.
Very important, indeed, to our purpose is the
information conveyed in the following Lnes :

Nupta senator], comltata est Hippia ludum
Ad Pharon, et Nilum, famosaque raoenia Lagi,

X 3

SIO

Prodig'a et mores urbis damnante Canopo.
Immemor ilia domus, et conjugis at que sororls.
Nil patriae indulsit, plorantesqne improba natos,
Utque magis stupeas, ludos, Paridemque reliquit.

82—87.

Hipfia, ivlo to a senator luas wed,
Forsook her husband, and to .(Egypt fled.
A playtr ber mate ; een le^id Canopus staring
At tbh Iciud prank, as past her utmost daring.

We are further informed, that this woman
pretended to hold conversation with his in
nightly dreams ; and that she went into Egypt
in consequence of a command which her fa^
vounte divinity gave in her sleep.

• Si Candida jusserit lo.

Ibit ad iEgypti finem, calidaque petilas
A Meroe portabit aqu^s, ut spargat in aede
Isidis, antiquo quae proxima sui'git ovili.
CKEorr i!NiM IPSJU3 dominjE se voce moneri.

En ANIMAM tT MENTEM CUM QUA DII NOCTE

loquuntur! ^ 525 — 530,

Should Isis jbid, ohsequ'wus would she run

To Mc-eros, parch" d by the meridian sun^

To fetch some huy water for the dome,

That 's Isis favourite TBiMPLii here at Rome ;

For she believes each silly whim she feels

A heaven-sent dream, which Isis self reveals,

A likely sQul, and spirit to be bless' d,

JVith heav'nly converse in the hears of rest !

311

• From Egypt she presently returns, and
again lives with the husband, whom, not long
after her marriage, she had abandoned.

Indc

Avolat, et spreti repetit vestigia Tecti.
Ornatas paulo ante foras, pendentia linquit
Vela domus, et adhuc virides in limine ranaos.
Sic crescit numerus j sic fiunt octo mariti.

224--22g.

Thus brings she her tame husband to her cue ;
Then quits these kingdorns in pursuit of new.
And match on match contracts^ and wears and batters
Her 'very bridal veil to rags and tatters ;
■ Then whirls about, with her old passion burnsy
And to her former husband she retitrris.
The bouse she quits, just deck'd with leaves before.
With garlands hung yet green upon the door.

■ The time of her return from Egypt was
in the reign of Caligula, some time after the
death of Tiberius. This appears from a pas-
sage, already quoted, in Dion Cassius, where
he asserts, that some amongst the societies,
consisting of Jewish and Egyptian converts,
returned to Rome, in the reign of that em-
peror.

Let me be permitted in this place to produce
what that historian observes in respect to those

X 4'

512

societies, and what, before, it would have been
premature to have noticed. " The empe-
ror, seeing that it was of no avail to com-»
jnand the people to abstain from certain cus-
toms, unless enforced by daily compulsion,
shut up those public houses which they fre-
quented for the sake of drinking, and for-
bade that any of them should sell seasoned
meat, or warm water."

Now the warm water, here mentioned,
was. not, I conceive, v/ater heated by the fire,
but such as was naturally so, and brought
from Egypt to be used by the devotees of
Isis and Osiris, at the celebration of their
festivals. A passage just quoted, in which
Juvenal speaks of Paulina, is sufficient to de-
termine this point :

Si Candida jusserit lo.

Ibit ad -/Egypti finem, calidAque petitas
A Meroe poitabit aquas, ut spargat in aedc
Isidis

The water of this lake, and that of the
Nile, was used by those women in Rome,
and other places, who attended the nocturnal
orgies of the Egyptian divinities. Of this
water they made use, on account of its iUf

513

fiammatory nature, and of its tendency to
promote either fecundity or barrenness, as it
suited their respective inclinations. That it
had these opposite effects, we are told by
Athenceus, who quotes the words of Theo-
phrastus on the subject. There is reason to
fear that the women devoted to the worship
of Isis at Rome, continued this abominable
practice after their nominal conversion to the
Christian faith, and, moreover, used in their
festivals sumptuous diet, spirituous liquors, and
other inflammatory allmentSy in order, at once,
to kindle their lusts, and gratify their appe-
tites. Hence C^cilius thus accuses the Christ
tians in general : " Et de convivio notum
est 5 passim omnes loquuntur. Ad epulas so-
lemni die coeunt, cum omnibus liberis^ soro-
ribus, matribus, sexus omnis homines, et om-
nis ^tatis. lUic, post multas epulas, ubi con-
vivium caluit, et incests libidinis fervor ebri-
etate exarsit, canis, qui candelabro nexus est,
jactu offulas ultra spatium lines, qua vinctus
^st, ad impetum et saitum provocatur : sic
everso et extincto conscio lumine, impuden-
tibus tenebris nexus infands cupiditatis in-
volvunt per incertum sortis : et si non omnes
4;»pera, conscientia tamen paritef incesti i quo-

314

niam voto universorum appetitur, quidquid
accidere potest in actu singulorum." M/w,
Fel. p. 88.

And it is for this custom that Juvenal, in
the above-mentioned satire, reproaches the
Christian women at Rome :

Quid enim Venus ebria curat ^

Ingninis et capitis quae sint discrimina nescit.
Grandia quae mediis jam noctibns ostrea inordet j
Cum perfusa mero spumant unguenta Falerno,
Cum bibitur concha, cum jam vertigine tectum
Ambulat, et geminis exsurgit mensa lucernis.

Nota Bonas secreta Deae, cum tibia lumbos
Incitat; et cornu pariter, vinoque feruntur
Attonitae, crinemque rotant, ululantqoe Priapi
Maenades. O quantus tunc ill is mentibus ardor
Concubitus 1 Quae vox saltante libidine ! Quantus
Ille meri veteris per crura madentia torrens !

Sat. vi. 299— 318.

Pliny, however, candidly acknowledges,
that the Christians in Bithynia did not use,
when met together, any of these means to
inflame their passions j but came only to a
^lain and simple meal, in which there was no-
thing hurtful, rare, or inflammatory. His
words are these : " Quibus pesactis, morem
sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ,ad

515
<:apiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen,

ET INNOXIUM."

The poet Martial has also noticed this
distinguished woman, and has written several
epigrams upon her, under the name of Fa--
bulla.

The similarity of Fulvia and Fabulla af-
fords some presumption, previously to any
other proof, that they denote the same per-
son ', the difference between them being such
as might be easily accounted for. Names,
whether of men or things, necessarily change
with the flux of time. This is more parti-
cularly the case, when frequently used either
in speech or in writing, and transfused into an-
other tongue i both which circumstances took
place with regard to the name of this woman.

But the change of Fulvia into Fabulla
might have proceeded not so much from un-
avoidable corruption, as from design. Plu-
tarch, in his ^cestionibus Romanisy mentions
a concubine of Hercules, named ^uQoXcc,
the celebrity of whose lewdness at Rome
procured her divine honours. '

Sl6

The enemies of Fulvia, seeing her distin-
guished by the base spirit of this goddess,
might, on that account, more exactly bestow
upon her the name ; and, instead of Fulvia,
call her Fabola, or FabuUa.

Fabulla, indeed, is once mentioned by Ju-
venal himself, in the second satire "^ j and
mentioned too in such a manner as to render
it not improbable that she was the same with
Hippia. On the contrary. Martial has no
where, as far as I recollect, noticed a woman
so called i and this affords some presumption
that he has written upon the same person un-
der a different denomination. For it is not

« ,. Sed quid

Nonfac'icnt alii, cum tu muUic'ia sumas,
Cretice ; ti, banc vestem populo mirante, perores
In Proculas, et Pollineas ? Est mcecha Fabulla.
Damnetur, si vis, etiam Carfinia, — Sat. ii. 67 — 70.

In these verses it is asserted, that Fabulla was an adultressj
and not only that, but it is plainly implied that there were
some who did not condemn her as guilty of that crime. The
acknowledgment that she luas an adultress, here made by
haronia.t was obviously not expected by Crciicus ; which ne-
cessarily supposes tliat there were those \^ho did not make that
acknowledgment, but defended lier, as being unjustly ac-
cused. These two circumstances agree remarkably with tlie
character of Paulina, and bespeak her to be the same woman.

317

likely that this poet, amidst the vast variety
of characters which he has noticed, should
have sufFered to pass unobserved a woman so
celebrated as Hippia.

In the following epigram (Lib. i. 65.)
Martial acknowledges the personal beauty^-
and fortune of Fabulla j by which Fulvia, as
Josephus attests, was much distinguished :

Bella es ; novimus : et puella ; verum est j
£t dives, quis enim potest negare ?
Sed dum te nimium, Fabulla, laudas.
Nee dives, neque bella, nee puella es.

Her extravagance and dissipation, together
with her guilt in leaving her own husband,
and going into Egypt with another man, for
which she is reprobated by Juvenal, are im-
plied and ridiculed in the following lines :

AsLiphyro^, KAyrcy so-ttsca, anoirov,

Ka.1 Sovar'f ■jjj'e ftXovc' s^^^S ccfnurws. Lib. Iv. 9.

All the point and wit which this paltry
epigram possesses, rests entirely on the ob-
scure resemblance subsisting between 2«-
TOig, the name of her father, and the ad-
verb ccQ-uTcag, inserted to mark her profusion.

318

It is here to be observed farther, that * KXvro^
appears to me not to have been the proper
name of the person v^ith whom she went
away, but an- epithet expressive of his cha-

* The epithet KXuto;, here used, is well^xplained by the
foliowhig application of it in Homer :

Ka* rota irvp ccvsy.x^s, -am rjixsXys KATTA Mi;X«.

Od. I. 303.

This justifies the use of it in tlie succeeding lines of So-

phochs :

EviJ' sXiy.so-ffi ^ovo-i Kat

KATTOIS TTSG-cvY aiTToMot^

Ef'SixvQv aljjJ shvc-CK. A. M. 375.

Which is thus explained by the Scholium.:

KAura KeyBi ra oLiitoXio. Siot, rag ev avroi; •ta.pct'Xjy.i xon

This leads me to rectify a glaring error, which has crept
into a line preceding the above passage.

In the common editions we read thus :

Ev!^' BpsiiriOig

Ko[y.rjV o-irpi^ ovv^i iX'jXKaX'jJv XEPI.

Which should be thus re id and punctuated ;

EvJ' smifm;

IssKyjuv epsi<pQctg a^sr, aovaiov cpovou^
Kojj^YjV OLTtpi^ ow^i a-j?:Kx^ujv, riEPI.

Id est, Tfspi apvciou (povou. A similar collocation may be
Been in linea 804, 605, of the same play.

S19

racter, as a devotee of the Egyptian divini-
ties, who were noted for their bleating and
howlingy in seeking after Aph, Hence Ju-
venal, speaking of the attachment of this
woman to the priests of Anubis, characterizes
them in this manner :

Ergo hie praecipuum summumque meretur honorem,
Qui grege linigero circumdatus, et grege calvo
Plangentis populi currit derisor Anubis.

Sat. vi. 531—534.

Fulvia, as it appears from Juvenal, had
fine hair, in which she much delighted. The
same thing is intimated in the following epi-
gram of Martial :

Jurat capillos esse, quos emit, suos

Fabulla : numquid ilia^ PauUe, pejerat ? Ep. vi. 12<

Here we see an appeal made to one TauU
his, whether or not Fabulla perjured herself
in swearing that the hair which she had only
bought, was her own ^ Now, the force and
point of this appeal consist, as appears to me,
\n her having actually perjured herself on a
more serious subject ; that is, in having vio-
lated her fidelity to him. He must, there-
fore, have been either her. husband or gal-

320

lant ; which circumstance accounts for hef
being called Paulifia, which is easily formed
from Pauilus.

This person was, perhaps, a relation of
JEmilius Paulus who was consul some few
years before the Christian asra, and was con-
cerned in demolishing the temple of Isis and
Serapis, in the reign of Tiberius. This fact
is related by Valerius Maximus in these words :

" L. i^milius Paulus consul, cum senatus
Isidis et Serapidis fana diruenda censuisset,
eaque nemo opificum attingere auderet, po-
siTA pr^textA, securim arripuit, tem-
plique ejus foribus inflixit." pjd. Far, p. 41,

Observe, the author does not say that ^mi-
lius pulled down the temple, while he was
consul, but after he had laid down the con-
sulship. An inattention to the force of Va-
lerius's language has induced learned men to
suppose that the event here related is dif-
ferent from the dem.olition of the temple of
Isis, recorded by Josephus.

If this observation be just, we perceive the

321

reason why ^Emilius Paulus should have taken
an active part in the business. A favourite,
or one that had been the wife of Paulus, his
relation, was seduced by the priests of Isis :
he therefore exerted his power to punish her
devotees, and destroy her temple.

In the next epigram which Martial wrote
on this woman, he ridicules her artifice in
deceiving her husband, and his confidence in
her chastity ; both which may be inferred
from her apologist Josephus, and from Juve-
nal, her bitterest accuser :

Qua moechum ratione baslaret

Coram conjuge repperit FabuUa,

Parvum basiat usque morionem :

Hunc multis rapit osculis madentem

Moechus protiniis, et suis repletum

Ridenti dominae statim remittit.

Quanto morio major est maritus ! Ep. xii, 96.

The Egyptian converts at Rome held, as
we have already seen, their nocturnal festi-
vals, in which prevailed those gross impuri*
ties that brought a scandal on the honoured
name of Christ, and laid a foundation for
the calumnies which ignorance and malice

VOL. I. Y

322 ,

extended indiscriminately to all his virtuous
followers.

This circumstance, which distinguished
Fulvia and her associates, is thus delineated
by Martial :

Omnes aut vetulas habes arnicas,

Aut turpes, vetulisque foediores ;

Has duels comites trahisque tecum

Per convivia, porticus, theatra :

Sic formosa, Fabulla, sic puelJa es ? Lib. viii. yg.

When Christianity was introduced into
Rome, not only Paulina, but a vast multi-
tude of other women, distinguished for their
birth and fortune, received it. Respecting
one of these, the malignity of Tacitus prompt-
ed him to write as follows :

" In the same year the lust of the women
was restrained by a severe decree of the se-
nate, prohibiting any one from living by pro-
stitution, whose grandfather, father, or hus-
band, was a Roman knight ; for VistiUay
born of a noble family, had divulged among
the asdiles the licentiousness of her conduct.
But they did not punish her ; thinking that

3^3

a sufficient punishment was inflicted on the
unchaste by the very nature of the prosti-
tution which they professed. It was, how-
ever, demanded of Titidius T.abeo, the hus-
band of VistiHa, why he did not avail him~
self of the vengeance of the law against his
wife, manifestly detected of such flagitious-
ness. And while he pretended that the sixty
days, allowed him for inquiring into her con-
duct, were not yet expired, they decreed
that the inquiry already made furnished suffi-
cient evidence of her crime. And she ab-
sconded in the island of Seriphos ; and a de-
cree passed for the expulsion of the Jewish
and Egyptian rites '*."

Now the women here spoken of, whose

* " Eodem anno gravibus senatus decretis libido foemina-
rum coercita ; cautumque, ne qiiaestum corpore facerer. cui
avus, aiit pater, aut maritus, eques Romanus fuisset. Nam
Vistilia, praetoria familia genita, licentiam stupri apud aediles
vulgaverat ; more inter veteres recepto, qui satis poenarum
adversus impudicas in ipsa professione flagitii rredebant. Ex-
actum eta Titidio Labeone, Vistiliae marito, cur in uxore de-
licti manifesta legis ultionem omisisset ? Atque illo praeten-
dente sexaginta dies ad consultandum datos necdum prae-
teriisse, satis visum de Vistilia statuisse. Eaque in insulam
Seriphon abdita est. Actxim et de sacris^gyptiis, &;c."
Tacit. An. lib. ii. ad finem.

Y 2

5^4

lust the senate endeavoured to check and cor-
rect by a new law, were Roman matrons,
of rank and family, who had received the
Gospel on its first introduction in Rome, and
frequented the temple of Isis, where, it is to
be feared, they were guilty of the enormi-
ties ascribed afterwards to the body of the
Christians. Of this I need not give any for-
mal proof; as it must appear very evident
from the circumstance, that these women are
connected by Tacitus with the Jewish and
Egyptian converts banished from Italy.

Vistilia, we are here told, went, and ab-
sconded in the island of Seriphos, which lies
in the ^gean sea. Now we may infer from
Juvenaly that this was the very place into
which some of the magicians were sent, when
expelled from Rome. It cannot therefore be
'doubted, but that in company with these,
and, perhaps, at their instigation, Vistilia re-
paired to that island. Nor is it improbable,
that the famous Fulvia, vt^ho must have httn
in the number of the matrons proscribed by
the senate, and who, as I have shewn. Went
with her new husband into Egypt, was one
of die party. As he was an Egyptian, it wa.^?

52o

natural to extend his journey from Seriphon
to his own country, and to take her with him.
Her circuitous route, over the different seas to
Alexandria, is thus described by Juvenal :

Sed quanquam in magn!s opibus, plumaque patema,
Et segmentatis dormisset parvula cunis,
Contempsit pelagus (famam contempserat olim,
Cujus apud raoUes rainlma ^st jactura cathedras).
Tyrrhenes jgitur fluctus, lateque sonantera
Pertulit Ionium, constanti pectore, quamvis
Mutandum toticsesset mare. Sat. vi. 63r—Q4:,

From Tacitus then we infer the impor-
tant fact, that the woman, whose seduction in
the temple of Isis Josephus exhibits as the
.origin of the miraculous conception of Mary,
was, after the detection of her crime, obli-
ged, in company with other women, equally
guilty, to flee the vengeance of the law ; and
that her new lover, as well as herself, left
Rome, in consequence of the resentment of
Tiberius.

It remains now to collect the several lead-
ing events brought to light in these sheets,
and compare them, one after the other, with
the contents of the two first chapters of the
supposed Matthew.

Y 3

326

1 . Certain magicians y who in name received
the religion of Jesus, came to Rome, and there
announced the birth of the Great King, whom
the Jews expected to make his appearance in
the world.

** Now, after Jesus was born at Bethle-
hem in Judaea, in the days of Herod the
king, behold ! there came magi of the East
to Jerusalem, saying, * Where is the infant
king of the Jews ? tor we have seen his star
rise, and are come to pay him homage."

2. 'The news of this event spread rapidly
throughout the city, and filed the emperor with
alarm, and the senate with indignation.

" When Herod heard this, he was troubled,
and all Jerusalem with him."

3. Tiberius, on hearing of this report , sent
for Thaumas, and the other pbilohgers, and made
minute inquiries of them, who this great Pan
{or Lord of All) was ?

** And when he had gathered all the chief
priests and the scribes of the people toge-

ther, he asked them, * Where this Christ
might be born ?**

4. To prove that Jesus Christ was the great
temporal prince whom the Jews expected to he
horn in Bethlehem of Judaa, the philologers

forged certain oracles, which they ascribed to
the Sihyly pretending to foretell that he should
he horn in that place.

" And they said unto him, * At Bethle-
hem, in Judaea ; for thus it is written by the
prophet."

5. Tiberius, alarmed at the progress of the
new faith i as thinking it hostile to his person
and government i and exasperated too by the tu-
mults which it excited in the city, put to death a
great number of its professors, who themselves
were but babes iii respect to the spiritual
knowledge of it ; while the rest he banished from
the coasts.

** Then Herod, when he saw himself
mocked by the magi, was greatly en-
raged ; and sent and slew all the children in

Y 4

528

Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof,
from two years old and under, according to
the time which he had learned exactly of the
magi/*

6. Paulina we fit to the temple of Lis with
the intention of gratifying the lust of the impure
Anuhis j hut, instead, of the god^ she received a
man into her arms,

" After his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she
was found to be with child by the Holy
Spirit/'

7. Paulina and her new hushatid left Rome
in consequence of the resentment of Tiberius and
the senate; and, warned in a dream by the god"
dess Lis, they went into Egypt.

** An angel of the Lord appcareth to Jo-
seph in a dream, saying, ' Arise, and take
with thee the child and his mother, and flee
into Egypt, and be there till I bring thee
word J for Herod is about to seek the child, to
destroy him/*

3^9

8. Soon after the death of T^ therms , Paulina,
with others of the Christian societies, returns
from Egypt, and again settles in Rome,

** And when Herod was dead, behold ! an
angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to
Joseph in Egypt, saying, * Arise, and take
with thee the child and his mother, and go
to the land of Israel ; for they are dead who
were seeking the child's life.' So he arose,
and took with him the child and his mother,
and went towards the land of Israel."

But in order to convince every candid in-
quirer, that this narrative of the reputed
Matthew is a forgery, founded on the trans-
actions in Rome, I will next shew, that the
events related in these chapters are utterly
incompatible with the known circumstances
of the Jews in the time of our Lord, and
therefore could never have happened in
Judasa.

In order to do this with certainty and ef-
fect, it is necessary to transcribe once more
the whole narrative, and examine it by se-
parate paragraphs.

330

'* Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on
this wise : When as his mother Mary was
espoused to Joseph, before they came toge-
ther, she was found with child of the Holy
Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a
just man, and not willing to make her a pub-
lic example, was minded to put her away
privily."

In this clause two things are plainly im-
plied ; first, that Joseph, had Mary been with
child in consequence of adultery with some
other man, would have been imjiist, or, in
other words, would have violated the law,
if, after the discovery, he married her ; se-
condly, that it was in his power to expose
her to public sJoame^ or, as the original term,
'TToi^cx.^eiyiJcexrKroii, more exactly imports, to de-
liver her up to public justice, or capital punish-
ment ; and it was owing to his clemency
that he did not thus punish her.

Now it is contended that both these im-
plications 2S^ false, as being contradictory to
the Jewish laws and customs. In proof of
this, I will cite the words of the second law :
" —-When a man hath taken a wife, and mar-

331

ried her, and it come to pass that she find no
favour in his eyes, because he hath found
some .uncleanness in her, then let him
write her a bill of divorcement, and give
it in her hand, and send her out of his
house *.'*

Here the law expressly permitted Joseph to
retain Mary, \i she pi' ased him, ov ij shejoind
favur in his ryes. Could he then have been
deemed unjust for doing what the law per-
mitted ? But this is not all. Joseph, so far
from being lenient in not punishing his wife,
could not have done this had he been so in-
clined ', for his inclination in this respect the
law plainly restrained, and sheltered Mary
from punishment by only giving her a bill of
divorcement, and sending her out of his
house. This is confirmed, if confirmation
be necessary, by the authority of Lightjoot.
" So far," says he, " was the law mollified,
that I say not weakened, by the law of giv-
ing a bill of divorce, that the husband might
not only pardon his adulterous wife, and not
compel her to appear before the Sanhedrim ;

* Dexiter. xxiv. 1.

332

hut scarcely could, if he would, put her to
death *."

And not only the law of Moses, but also
the prevailing customs of the Jews, allowed
Joseph either to put away, or marry his wife,
without the imputation of injustice. In-
stances, which justify this assertion, occur in
many places of the New Testament.

'* It had been said," declares our Lord,
** by them of old, whosoever shall put away
his wife, let him give her a writing of di-
vorcement -y but I say unto you, that who-
soever shall put away his wife, saving for the
sake of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery 3 and whosoever shall marry her that
is divorced committeth adultery." Is it not
hence very evident, that the Jews, whom our
Lord addressed, did, without the charge of
violating the law, not only divorce their
wives for the sake of fornication, but also
for reasons less weighty ? " This appears
also," says Lardner, " from the questions put
to him concerning this matter, and the an-

* See Lightfoot, in loc.

553

stvers our Lord gave to them, and the sur-
prise and uneasiness which the disciples ex-
press at his decisions, when he forbade such
licentious divorces as those made for every
cause.— Justin Martyr, about the middle of
the second century, says, that to that very
day their rabbies permitted them to have
each man four or five wives; and that wherever
they were, they conversed with as many Wo-
men as they pleased, and that, under the no-
tion of marriage *."

Is it not from all this very manifest, that
Joseph might have divorced his wife in case
of adultery, without violating the laws, or of-
fending the prejudices of the Jewish people ?

The relation then of the supposed Evan-
gelist, as it respects Joseph and Mary, can-
not be true ; but, on the contrary, is strictly
so, in reference to Titidius and Vistilia in
Rome. This woman, we have seen, had
transgressed the laws by the most flagitious
debauchery. Her husband connived at her
guilt ; the rigour of justice was demanded

* Vol. i. p. 37,

3S4.

against them by the senate, and they were
obliged to flee their country.

*' But after he had been thinking on these
things, behold ! an angel of the Lord ap-
peared unto him in a dream, saying, * Jo-
seph, son of David, fear not to take unto
thee Mary thy wife ; for that which is be-
gotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.'*

That an angel might appear to Joseph in a
dream is not impossible 3 but it is contrary to
probability, and therefore is a fact which re-
quires very strong and unequivocal evidence
to render it credible. But the evidence here
offered is the most equivocal that can well be
conceived. Joseph is not informed of the
pregnancy of his wife //// he had reason to
s.uspect her of adultery. The angel appears
to him in the usual manner in whch Isis was
said to appear to her priests. The angel,
too, endeavours to persuade him that Mary
was with child, not by a man, but by the
Holy Spirit ; the very way, we are led to
think, in which the messenger of Anubis,
who brought his wife the honorable invita-
tion, accosted Saturninus :— ** Fear not, Sa-

535

turninus, to let thy wife go ; for it is not any
man, but the holy Anubis, that is in love with
her." Finally, in his address to Joseph, the
angel not only calls him by his name, but
distinguishes him as the descendant oj David,
Is such an address consonant to the language
of a messenger sent from God, who must
have been free from human vanity ; or to the
pride of a Jew, who wished to inform the
people whom he was deceiving, and who
were strangers to the parents of our Lord,
that he sprang from a royal extraction * ?

" And she will bring forth a son, and thou
shalt call him Jesus ; for he will save them
from their sins. Thus was fulfilled the word
of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ' Be-
hold ! a Virgin will be with child, and will
bring forth a son, and he will be called E^tna-
nuel, which means God with ics."

* Zonaras has copied from Josephus the narrative of Pau-
lina's adultery, and related it nearly in his words. He men-
tions, however, one circumstance omitted by the Jewish
historian ; namely, that the priest of Anubis, who brought
the invitation to Paulina, applied to her husband, in order to
obtain his consent. The husband consented, we are told,
from the confidence he had lu her chasliiy: — " Ka; ret av^pi
Tiotvourai ro ayysX^sv, kxi sxsivos a-vvsx'-^psr Tr^v a-ujifpoa-ivriV
I'yj; yvva.iy.os yiyuuiryMv." Zonar, An. vol. i. p. 253. D.

SS6

The Impious perversions of the prophecies,
which occur in this place, and in the next
chapter, I shall not particularly dwell upon.
Their misapplication has again and agaitt
been demonstrated ; so that the most intelli-
gent advocates of this wild tale are brought
to confess that they are only accommodations,

« JSiow all this was done, that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the
prophet y saying, * Behold ! a Virgin shall be
with child, and shall bring forth a son'' —
The deceivers were aware that the reader
might put the question. What end is an-
swered by this strange event ? In order to
obviate it, they quote from Isaiah the above
prediction, which, as is well known, refers
to Hezekiah ; and that they might meet the
question in its full extent, they plunge them-
selves into an abyss of absurdity. " All
this," say they, " was done, that it might be
fulfilled."

The events gone before, which are included
in the term all, are these : — Mary is with
child by the Holy Spirit; Joseph suspects
her of adultery, and determines to put her

337

away privily, but is afterwards prevented by
an angel appearing to remove his suspicion.
And a// t/jese, it seems, are accomplished by
the prophecy, that a young woman should
conceive and bear a son * !

The words of the prophet, in their ori-
ginal import, respect Ahaz; assuring him
" that he should have a son, and that before
this child knows to refuse the evil, and choose
the good, the land, by whose two kings thou

* In proof that v'lrgo may mean a married young ivomany
It is easy to produce many instances. I shall, however, con-
tent myself with the following from Horace, lib. ii. od. 8.

Te senes parci, miseraeque nuper
Virgines miptee^ tua ne vetardet
Aura maritos.

The last clause of these lines, which is rather obscure, may
be illustrated by a similar expression of Ph'ilo Judaus, in his
book De Mercede Meretrkts. They are words put in the
mouth of Happiness, addressing the deluded votary of Plea-
sure.— " Ta; aXXas vocrovs >ca» J<>jca; kavrr^g ova £jU,TyVt;cr£v, a\s
f^ avay/iijf, sxsiVTjv alpov^£voi,^fri<rri, ha, ATPArivof ujipsKsias
sTTa.pdsii, £vrog ap-K'jujv Ksii^Sr,;." Vol. ii. p. 268. Ed. Man.

It is here proper to remark, that the Jews, from the begin-
ning, maintained, that the corresponding Hebre\v word sig-
, nified in this place not a 'virgiUf but a young v-'oman. Sec
Origen con. Ceh. p. 27.

VOL. I. Z

338

art straightened, will be forsaken.'* As to
the primary application, then, of this predic-
tion, we cannot doubt, but that it respects
Hezekiah. " But," say the advocates of the
miraculous conception, " it bears a secondary
reference to Christ." If this be the case,
permit me to ask. How can a prophecy,
which in its original application foretells, that
a child should be born by means of a natural
father, in its secondary sense be taken to fore-
tell, that Jesus should be conceived without
a natural father ?

" Thou shalt call his name," says the an-
gel, " JesiiSy in order to fulfil the prophecy,
and thou shalt call his name Emanuel," Our
Saviour then was called Jesus, because it had
been foretold that he should be named E?77a^
nuel ! Is this the reasoning of an angel, or
the base artifice of a forger, who sought to
justify his deception by remote analogies f

The angel gives Joseph the interpretation
of that word, and tells him that it signifies
God with us. He must, therefore, have been^
aware, that Joseph, a Hebrew, did not know

339

the Hebrew tongue ! A forger, indeed, writing
among a people ignorant of it, might justly
entertain such an apprehension, and there-
fore interpret its meaning *.

" Then Joseph, being raised from sleep,
did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him,
and took unto him his wife; and knew her
not till she had brought forth her first-born
son ; and he called his name Jesus."

The fabricators of the story were aware,
that as Mary became pregnant after her e-
spousal to Joseph, she must have been made
so by him. In order, therefore, to give some
colour of probability to their fiction, that she
had conceived by the Holy Spirit, and not by
her husband, they said that she had no child-
ren afterwardsy and that the brethren of our
Lord were the offspring of Joseph by a for-

* The evangelists, Mark, Luke, and John, as they wrote
among Gentiles^ and for the use of Gentile converts, who,
of course, were ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, explain the
meaning of such terms in that language as they had occasion
to employ ; whereas Matthew.) who composed his Gospel for
the Jewish Christians, has not, if I recollect rightly, done
this in a single instance. See Mark, v. 41. John, iv. 25,

Z 2!

3-iO

mer wife -, and this opinion was transmitted
down by them, and has been believed by all
denominations of Christians to this day.

It is an opinion, however, overthrown in
the above paragraph ; which shews that the
sagacity of its authors was not equal to
their fraud. Jesus is styled th.Q Jirst-born
of Mary, who must therefore have had
children born after him. The only child
of a mother has never yet been called her

FIRST-BORN.

Our deceivers seem farther to have thought,
'that it would have been criminal in Joseph to
cohabit with his wife //// her delivery. To
exculpate him from this crime, they tell us that
•' he did not know her until she had brought
forth her first-born." The superstitious no-
tion here alluded to is surely of the rankest
kind, and clearly betrays the impure fountain
whence it flowed.

Juvenal, having said that Isis, as she pre-
tended, conversed with Paulina, or some other
female devotee, in her dreams, proceeds thus
in his description :

341

Ergo h'lc proeclpuum summumque meretur honorcra.
Qui grege linigero circumdatus, et grege calvo,
Plangentis populi currlt derisor Anubis.
Ille petit veniam, quoties non abstinet uxor
ConcuintUj sacris observaiidisque dieius :
Magnaque debetur violato poena cadurco :
Et movisse caput visa est argentea serpens.
Illius iacryrnae meditataque murmura praestant,
Ut veniam culpae non abnuat, ansere magno
Scilicet et tenui popano corruptus Osiris.

Sat. vi. 531—540.

On this passage Salmasius has the follow-
ing note, translated by Mr. Owen : " The
female devotees of Isis kept nine days sacred
in honour of the goddess. Cadurcum was the
bed on which they lay within the temple
every night, during the festival, to avoid all
commerce with their husbands — a heinous
sin ! it seems, which nothing but a good
bribe to Osiris^ that is, to his priests, could
expiate."

** Now, when Jesus was born in Bethle-
hem of Judaea, in the days of Herod the king,
behold ! there came magi from the East to
Jerusalem, saying, * Where is he that is born
king of the Jews ? For we have seen his
star in the East, and we are come to worship
him."

z 3

542

That all this fiction is founded upon the
events which are shewn to have taken place
at Rome, will farther appear from the fol-
lowing considerations :

The magi here spoken of, to whom igno-
rance and fraud have given the appellation of
wise men, could, in reality, have no know-
ledge of the birth of our Lord ; because the
whole system of astrology, from which this
knowledge is pretended to have been derived,
is discovered, by the progress of reason and
natural philosophy, to be a gross deception.
But a preternatural appearance *, it will be
said, in the form of a star, might have given
them this information.

* This supposition is made by Orlgcn. " Stellam," says
he, *' quae in Oriente visa est, iwvam fuisse opinamur,_nec
ulli ex istis notis similem, quae vel in firmamento sunt, vel in
orbibus inferioribus : sed ejus generis quales cometae visuntur
temporanei, Decides, Pogonise, Pithi, aut quomodocunque li-
bet Graecis varlis nominibus sis;nare horum differentes fiffu-

o o

ras." Orlg. coji. Ceh. p. 45.

The words of the author of the Epitome, annexed to tlic
w'ork of Clement, deserve here to be quoted : — " Avsrs/Asy

^£vos aa-ryjs xai xatvos v.araXvwv rr^y itaXaiav cca-Tf'O^sT'iay,

picts Yp£Troij:.£vo5." Clem. Alex. p. 800.

S43

The possibility of this supposition I do not
deny. But surely it is altogether incredible,
that the Almighty should have suspended the
laws of nature, in order to sanction an art
quite contrary to truth and reason. What
renders this supposition still more impro-
bable, is the acknowledged depravity of all the
astrologers of every nation and every de-
scription ^.

Would the God of purity give a superna-
tural communication to the most filthy and
flagitious of the heathens ? But the conside-
ration which, beyond all others, proves that
such men received from God no intimation of
the Messiah's birth, is their being pointed
out to the Jews in the Old Testament as per-

* *' Quid ergo/' says TertuUian, '* dicemus magiam ?

Quod omnes pene fdllaciam multifortnem lucm mentis hu-

manae, totius erroris ariificem, salutis pariter animasque vastw
iricem ; secundae scilicet idololatriae, in qua se daemones per-
inde mortuos fingunt." P. 305.

The magi are ever classed by the Fathers among the vilest
of the human race. Sec Ter. p. QO, 568, See too an in-
stance of their great depravity, mentioned by Clemens Alex,
p. 431.

Z 4

sons that were to be excluded from among
them.

" There shall not be found among you,"
says Moses, " one that useth divination, oR
AN OBSERVER OF TIMES, or an enchanter,
or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar
spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer." By
an observer of times, in this passage, is meant
the astrologer, who calculated time from the
course of the stars, and pretended to unfold
future events. from their several aspects.

The prophet Isaiah complains to the Al-
mighty that he had forsaken the house of Ja-
cob, because they entertained among them
and gave attention to the teachers of astro-
logy. ** Verily, thou hast abandoned thy
people, the house of Jacob, because they are
filled with diviners from the East, and

WITH soothsayers, LIKE THE PHILIS-
TINES *."

Such is the representation which is given
throughout the whole Bible of those who,

* Lowib^s Trans, chap. ii. 6.

345

from whatever country, practised the magical
arts; and is it credible that the immutable
God should have afforded an extraordinary
communication to men who were the object
of his abhorrence ?

If the magi came to Jerusalem in the man-
ner here stated, the object of their coming
must have been to prepare the Jewish nation
for receiving their Messiah. But this object
must necessarily have been ineffectual : for
the Jews, as they had been taught by Moses
and the prophets, abominated them as im-
postors and idolators. They would not,
therefore, have given them any credit, though
they had announced the truth.

Jesus, if he had at his birth been thus pub-
licly pointed out as the king of the Jews,
must ever after have been regarded in this
light by the people at large ; and this idea of
him would, in a particular manner, have been
cherished by his family and followers. But,
from the whole of his history, it is manifest
that such an honorable notion was enter-
tained by neither his friends nor enemies.
Till a late period in his ministry, his claim

346

to the Messiahship was not an object of hope
to the one, nor of dread to the other party.

The wisdom of God, as appears from the
four Gospels, judged it proper, that Jesus
should not be known to be the Christ, till he
had established the truth of this by his mi-
racles, and particularly by his resurrection.

With the divine wisdom, in this respect,
the discovery, and the annunciation of his
being the Messiah at his birth, would have
been palpably inconsistent. Such a disco-
very, therefore, as is here represented, was,
in truth, never made.

The title, which in the original is " the
barn king of the Jews," given our Lord by
the magi, bears an opposition to Herod, who
had been jnadc king of the Jews by the se-
nate. Now -this opposition supposes two
things : first, that the title of Herod wasy}/-
miliar to the magi, which could have been
the case only with Jews in Rome or in Judaea,
and not with men that came from a distant
country: secondly, that Jesus was king of
the Jews in thfe same sense in which Herod

was ; or, in other words, that he was a fem^
poral prince. But this doctrine could never
have come from God, nor have been inti-
mated by Matthew, but by some early Jew,
who mistook the nature of the Messiah's
kingdom.

From the words, ** we have seen his star
in the East," which the magi made use of,
it is manifest that such men never came from
the east of Jerusalem, but from the east of
Rome. For if they were in the east of Je-
rusalem, the star, before it could have di-
rected them to that city, must have appeared
in the west : if, on the contrary, they stood
in the west of it, the star appearing in the
East directly pointed towards Judaea. It fol-
lows, therefore, that while the magi pretended
to be eastward, they were, in reality, west-
ward of Jerusalem ; that is, at Rome, as has
been already shewn.

" When Herod the king had heard these
things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem
with him : and when he had gathered all the
chief priests and scribes of the people toge-

348

ther, he demanded of them. Where Christ
should be born ?"

That the events here spoken of; namely,
that certain men from the East brought to
Rome the news of the Messiah ; that the
city was in consequence thrown into commo-
tion ; that Tiberius was alarmed, and assem-
bled the magicians, in order to be informed
respecting Jesus ; — that all these occurrences
happened there, we have already seen ; — that
they do not agree with the circumstances of
Jerusalem, will appear from the following
remarks :

The above paragraph implies that Herod
and the inhabitants of Jerusalem gave credit
to the news concerning the Messiah's birth,
brought by the magi. But this is an impli-
cation absolutely false, because the Jewish
people have, in general, regarded the whole
system of astrology as vain deceit.

When the news of our Saviour's resurrec-
tion, which proved him to be the Messiah,
was carried to Rome, it was natural for Ti-

349

berius, who did not understand the nature of
his kingdom, to be alarmed, and for the
tranquilhty of the city to be disturbed : but
is it credible that the birth of a childy who
had neither family nor fortune to support his
claim, should have occasioned any apprehen-
sion in Herod, and have created disturbance
throughout Jerusalem ?

It is asserted in this clause, that the Jewish
rulers, as well as the king, were troubled by
the information of the magi. That it occa-
sioned trouble to Herod is what might be
expected ; but to the priests and the people
at large it must have been a matter of the
greatest joy. On the contrary, the magi-
strates and the inhabitants of Rome naturally
shared in this alarm with the emperor.

Herod, who had been born and educated
among the Jews, and of course acquainted
with their opinions and customs, must have
well known where their expected Messiah
should be born *. He had, therefore, no

* This observation must appear more obviously just, if, as
is most probable, what Origen asserts was true. — " The chief
priests and scribes," says he, " publicly taught^ before the

350

need to inquire of the Scribes and Pharisees
the place where, according to the mistaken
opinion of the Jews, he was to receive his
birth. On the other hand, it was reasonable
that Tiberius, who, from his distant situa-
tion, was a total stranger to the Jews and
their expectations, should make the inquiry
here mentioned.

** And they said unto him : In Bethlehem
of Judaea ; for thus it is written by the pro-
phet : — * And thou Bethlehem, in the land of
Judah, art not the least among the princes of
Judah ; for out of thee shall come a governor
that shall rule my people Israel."
I

Now let us suppose, that Herod, as is said
in the above paragraph, did assemble the
Scribes and Pharisees, and demanded of them
the place of our Saviour's birth. What re-
ply, let me ask, was it natural for them to
make to the question ? As they were on the

advent of Christ, that he was to be born at Bethlehem.'*

Ong. con. CeJs, p. 1 39.

What was tlius publicly taught by the priests could not have
been unknown to Herod ; so that an inquiry on the subject
must have becn'unnecessary.

351

spoty they would most assuredly have an-
swered, " He is to be born in Bethlehem:'^
or, perhaps, their national pride might have
led them to add, " Bethlehem, the city of
David.'\

When Tiberius, as has been shewn, made
the same, or similar inquiry, was the same
precise answer likely to be given to him ? — -
No. The great distaitce of the emperor from
Bethlehem rendered it necessary to subjoin
the name oi the country which included it,
and which Was well known in remote re-
gions : accordingly, this is the reply which
the chief- priests are said to have returned :— -
*^ And they said unto him : In Bethlehem, of

But the principal circumstance which proves
that this inquiry was made iii reality by Ti-
berius, and not by Herod^ is the remark-
able changes introduced into . this prophecy,
which evidently suppose that it was cited in
some country very remote fiom Judsa. To
shew what I mean, it is necessary to quote
the prediction as it stands in Micah, which
is thus rendered in the common translation :

352

— " But thou Bethlehem Epbratah, though
thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth, that is to
be ruler in Israel.'* Between this, and the
quotation of it, in the supposed Matthew,
there are three remarkable differences ; for
Ephratahy in the former, the latter substi-
tuted ** land of Judah," or, as it was written
in the time of Jerom, which, no doubt, was
the true reading, ** land of Judsa." And
why this substitution ? Why should not the
words of the prophet have been faithfully
preserved ? The Jews, as is well known,
were scrupulous, even to excess, about their
sacred writings. Scarcely would they, at any
time, correct, much less would they intro*
duce, any error into their Scriptures. The
authors of these chapters must, therefore,
have some strong inducement, before they
could make any alteration. The forgery of
the miraculous conception at Rome unfolds
this reason for it :

Ephratah, being the name of a little pro-
vince, including Bethlehem, and used by
Micah to distinguish it from Bethlehem in
Galilee, was not sufficiently comprehensive to

353

be known in a distant place. The forgers,
therefore, in order to specify with exactness
the spot which gave Jesus birth, were ob-
liged to annex, not, as the prophet did, the
name of the provhice, but of the country y in
which Bethlehem was situated. A familiar
example will render my meaning obvious, and
place in a proper light the force of my argu-
ment. Suppose that it were asked m.e. Where.
was Sir Joshua Reynolds ^^r;^.?— if this question
were proposed in any part of England, or of
Great Britain, where Devonshire is well
known. Sir Joshua, I should reply, was born
at Plympton, in Devonshire. But if the same
query should be put to me at Rome, where
this county is generally unknown, my reply
then would be. He was born at Plympton, in
England, The change, therefore, of Ephra-
tail for land of Judcea, demonstrates the for-
gery to have taken place very far from that
country, where the name of a province in it
was not well known.

In the original prophecy we farther read,
** Though thou be little among the thousands
of Judah :" but the citation has, " And thou
Bethlehem, in the land of Judaea, art not the

VOL. I. 2 A

354

least." In the clause thus altered, the forgers
insinuate, that Bethlehem was one of the most
renowned cities in Judasa. Theii* object was
to remove an objection made by mistaken
pride against our Lord, namely, that a cha-
racter so exalted as the Messiah should have
been born in a little village. Celsus re-
proaches him as being poor, and as receiving
his birth from so mean a place as Bethlehem *.

Lastly : Whilst Micah only says, " Out of
thee shall he come ;" the reputed Matthew
has, " Out of thee shall come a governor,''
It was fully understood among the Jews, that
by he was meant the Messiah, whom they
were expecting. If, therefore, the authors
of this story wrote to thejiiy they had no need
to explain the fronourii or to substitute its
equivalent. On the contrary, as they wrote
among Gentiles, who were strangers to the
.language and expectations of the Jews, it
was requisite, in order to be comprehended,
to insert the name for he, its representative -f*.

* " KeAc-oj," says Origen, " o>£((J<i^e< t'co Ir^ss^ koci stti 'fw
tv. VMy.v}s ccvToy •yByovsyai lovSu'iKr^g." P. 22.

-f- An apposite instance, to illustrate the truth of this ob-
srr\-ation, is the fojlowing, which I take from Cicero, De

355

But, what Is most worthy of observation, the
substituted name means a temporal ruler, and
is not appUed elsewhere in the New Testa-
ment to Jesus Christ, but always signifies an
fearthly prince 5 and this proves, what I have
already- observed, that the writers of these
chapters did not understand the nature of the
Messiah's kingdom. What is still more so,
the original of governor seems to have been
the very term which Tiberius used concern-
ing Galba, when he predicted his rising to
the empire of Rome. The similarity of the
language into which the prophecy of Micah
is changed, to that employed by Josephus,
respecting the emperor, is so very striking,
that I shall lay both passages before the reader
in the original.

The words of the supposed Evangelist are
tl\ese : — " Ov^ocfjcug ikocx^a-ryi si sv toig 'FIFE-
MOZIN lou^a* SK. crou yot^ s^eKevarBToct 'HFOT-

Natura Deorum. — " Nee vero probare soleo id, quod de Py-
thagoreis accepimus, quos ferunt, si quid affirmarent in dis-
putando, cum ex lis quaereretur, quare ita esset, respondere
. solitos — IPSE dixk." Ipse, thus used by those philosopherSj
was well known to mean Pythagoras ; but this was not so evi-
dent to a Roman reader. Cicero, therefore, subjoins an ex-
planation of it— Ipse ajitem erat Pythagoras. Lib. i. 5.

<■! A 2

356

MENOi." Those of Josephus are the fol-
lowing : — " VocXCav ouv ttots ^sci(ru[^£vog ug aV'
rov sigiovToi (Tiberius), (^jjo"; ■tt^o? rovg g7r<Tij-

iilOTOCTOUg OLUTUy tog TTOiOXyBVOlTO aVVJ^ TT] FcofJLOitXU

TTOTB rif^vjorofJCBvog 'HFEA^ONIj^. Toe re ttocvtx
uowTiiuv oTToca. exof^svoc wi^uva, HFOTMENOS
*HrEMONnN ^ockKTToc oLvm ovrog^ vtto tou sttoC'-
X^GsvovTog auTcov iiri rotg Tt^wyf/.occriv sx^vito au-
raig *." To this Reland subjoins this remark
— " Noia quod Lnperatores 'Hy^f^ovsg dicantur^

That the forgers might copy the language
of Tiberius, which proved a true prediction,
in order by that means to recommend the
prophecy of Micah, is not improbable. Be
this, however,, as it may, it is certain that
Matthew never gave our Lord an appellation
appropriate to the Roman emperors.

" Then Herod, when he had privily called
the magi, inquired of them diligently what
time the star appeared. And he sent them
to Bethlehem, and said, * Go, and search di-
ligently for the young child, and when ye
have found him, bring me word again, that

* Antiq. Jud. vol. i. p. 804.

^57

I may come and worship him also.* And
when they had heard the king, they de-
parted ; and, lo ! the star, which they saw
in the East, went before them, till it came
and stood over where the young child was.
When they saw the star, they rejoiced with
exceeding great joy."

On this paragraph I have already made one
remark. I shall here only express my regret
and astonishment, that a fiction, which the
plainest observations demonstrate to be an im-
pudent and absurd falsehood, should have
been incorporated with the pure and simple
religion of Jesus, and thereby expose it to
the contempt and derision of thinking men.
A star, which philosophy teaches to be in-
comparably greater than our world, and to
be immensely more distant than the sun,
came, and stood above the top of the house
where Jesus was born ! Whilst a fiction, wild
and bare-faced like this, is made, by fraud
and ignorance, the foundation of Christianity,
can we wonder at the prevalence of infidelity ?

** When tliey were come into the house,
they saw the young child with Mary, hi^;

<i A 3

358

mother, and fell down and worshipped him ;
and when they had opened their treasures,
they presented unto him gifts, gold and
frankincense, and myrrh."

That the forgers of the miraculous con-
ception supposed our Lord to be a temporal
prince, has already been noticed, and proved
from two instances. In the last paragraph we
have a still farther confirmation of this fact.
The magi, we are here told, brought our
Lord some presents, fell down before him,
and worshipped him, or paid him homage.
These acts imply, that he was, in their opi-
nion, such a personage as usually received
these marks of respect in Eastern countries ;
and such personages, it is well known, were
princes and sovereigns *.

* " The people of the East," says Mr. Wakefield, " never
approached the presence of kings, and great personages,
without a present in their hands. This custom is taken notice
of several times in the Old Testament. See Gen. xliii. 11.
2 Kings, y. 5, &c. and still prevails in the East, and some of
the newly discovered islands in the So^uth Seas.

The following story proves, how invariably this token of re-
spect was observed : As Artaxerxes, king of Persia, was go-
ing along the road, he was suddenly met by a man of a mean
condition , who being afraid to approach him without an of-

359

The nature of the gifts which are said to
have been offered to him evinces that such
gifts had never, in reality, been offered.
They are looked upon by the Fathers, who
"were very good judges (for they were the
genuine disciples of those who fabricated this
account), as carrying a typical reference to.
our Lord's death and resurrection ; the gold
denoting the extent and perpetuity of his
kingdom, whilst the myrrh and frankincense
presignify his sufferings *.

fering, took up some water out of a river in both his hands,
and presented it to the king-In conformity to this general
practice, the magi present some of the choicest produce of
their country." Com. on Matt, in loco.

* " To," says Origen, « fsf ovrsj f^sv Sojpcc, d, Iva, ovfus ovo-

o-^..vav, «;? h bsa. A.^avcrov." P. 46. See also Ckmns
Alexandrifius, p. l?^.

The fact, however, seems to be, that this fiction is founded
upon the Egyptian mythology respecting Osiris. The para-
o-raph to which I allude, and from which this account ap-
pears to have been borrowed, deserves to be transcribed from
Plutarch. It is thus rendered by S<juire.--'' And, indeed, so
great is the veneration which they pay this luminary, and so
willing are they to render him kind and propitious to them,
that three times every day do they burn or offer incense to him ;
resin, at his first rising 3 myrrh, when he was in the meridian ;
and a mixture, called kufhi, at the time of his setting."

£ A 4

350

The magi then foresaw that Jesus was U
suffer, and to rise from the dead. — Truths
which were hidden from his own disciples
till they actually took place !

** And being warned of God in a dream,
that they should not return to Herod, they
departed into their own country another way.
And when they were departed, behold ! the
angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a
dream, saying, * Arise, and take the young
child, and his mother, and flee into Egypt.
And be thou there until I bring thee word:
for Herod will seek the young child, to destroy
him.' V/hen he arose, he took the young
child, and his mother, by night, and de-
parted into Egypt. And was there until the
death of Herod : that it might be fulfilled,
which was spoken of the Lord, by the pro-

What renders this passage most worthy of notice is, the cir-
cumstance already pointed out, that the Egyptian converts
supposed Jeuis Christ to be the same with Osiris, whom Plut-
arch here maintains to be the same with the sun. See bis book
eonceriiing Osiris, sect. 52.

The resin, myrrh, and kuphi, which the Egyptian offered
to this divinity, like the gifts of the magi, bore a symbolical
signification. See the last section of the same book.

361

phet, saying. Out of Egypt have I called
my son."

If the magi here mentioned had announced
the birth of Jesus, and believed in him as the
Messiah of the Jev^rs, they must have been
Christians -, and it is natural to suppose, that
when they departed, to avoid the anger of
Herod, they went off in company with Jo-
seph and Mary ; and this appears plain from
the context. The author, on saying, that they
retired into their own country, breaks off the
narrative concerning them, and relates the
departure of our Lord and his parents. We
may conclude, . therefore, that they went to-
gether, and must all have gone into Egypt.
Here the story coincides, and is the very
same with that of PauHna, who left Rome,
in conjunction with the Egyptian converts,
and withdrew into that country.

" Then Herod, when he saw that he was
mocked of the magi," respecting the time of
the star, which he had diUgently inquired of
them, " was exceeding wrath, and sent forth,
and slew all the children that were in Beth-
lehem, and all the coasts thereof, from two

362

years old, and under. Then was fulfilled
that which was spoken by Jeremiah the pro-
phet, saying, In Rama was there a voice
heard, lamentation and weeping, and great
mourning ; Rachel weeping for her children,
and would not be comforted, because they
were not."

Without dwelling upon the unaccountable,
and therefore incredible, folly and cruelty
here imputed to Herod, nor upon the silence
of those early historians who had opportunity
to know, and inclination to relate, such a deed,
if it were true ; there are two circumstances
which sufficiently expose the falsehood of this
account.

It appears from the above clause, when its
members are properly connected, that Herod
was deceived by the magi in respect to the
star, which indicated the birth of Jesus, and
that this deception was the real cause of his
anger. Nov/ this seems one of the reasons
for which Tiberius became enraged with the
Christian magi at Rome, and banished them
from the citv.

This relation, if true, supposes that Joseph
and Mary were inhabitants of Bethlehem ; at
least that they lived there for the space of two
years j either of which is a false supposition.

This foregoing narrative asserts, that Herod
" slew all the children in Bethlehem, and in
all the coasts thereof, from two years old, and
under." This account is faithfully copied,
from the manner in which Tiberius treated
the Christians at Rome. " The Jewish ^o«/^,'*
says Suetonius, " he distributed into islands
of a severe climate." " Those that were of
2. proper age^' relates Tacitus, " the emperor
sent into the island of Sardinia." ** And,"
according to Josephus, '^ such as refused to
be enlisted, were put to death." And each
of these historians represent them as banished
from all the coasts.

The unprovoked butchery of the children
by Herod, the forgers v/ere aware would ap-
pear to all a very incredible event. They
therefore represent it as the fulfilment of a
prophecy, which refers, when attended to,
not to a future, but a past event. The verse
in Jeremiah being not a prediction, but an

36-ir

accommodatioi2j was brought to the recoUec-
tion of tlie writer by association, excited by
the similarity of the events in the two places,
and particularly by the names Ro?fia and Rama
being nearly the same.

'* But when Herod was dead, behold ! an
angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Jo-
seph in Egypt, saying, ' Arise, and take the
young child, and his mother, and go into the
land of Israel : for they are dead which
.'fought the young child's life.' And he 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 Judaea,
in the room of his father Herod, he was
afraid to go thither ; notwithstanding, being
warned of God in a dream, he turned aside
into the parts of Galilee. And he came and
dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might
■be fulfilled, which was spoken by the pro-
phets : He shall be called a Nazarcne"

*' They are dead.'' — Some others, it seems,
besides Herod, sought the life of the child.
None at Jerusalem could have sought it ; for
the chief-priests and scribes were not yet dis-

i>03

appointed in him. They would not, there-
fore, have wished him to be put to death,
but the reverse, if they had any notion of
his being the Messiah. At Rome, on the
contrary, many, besides the emperor, desired
the Ufe of Paulina and the magi.

Joseph, says the story, was afraid to return
thither^ or therey that is, to Jud^a. From
this it is plain, that the forgers at the time of
writing it were not in that country , for no
man yet applied the adverb thre to the place
where he himself resided. This will be il-
lustrated by an example. — A person in Eng-
land may say of another that went to France
or America, he returned thither. But if lie
himself, at the time he spoke this, were re-
sident in either of those places, he would
then say, he returned Icre.

I shall conclude this proposition with prov-
ing, from a comparison of Luke and Jose-
phus, that our Lord was not born in the days
of Herod tlie kin?.

In the account which we have examined, it
is said that Herod killed all tlie children from

366

two years old, and under. From this we may
infer, that Jesus was two years of age when
he was conveyed into Egypt. There he was
commanded to stay till the death of Herod.
Now we cannot suppose, that this event took
place immediately ; else why was he sent to
a country so distant, to avoid the anger of
Herod, if he was soon to die ? Jesus, there-
fore, must have been some time in Egypt be-
fore the death of that king. The author of
the Gospel of our Scvoioiirs infancy makes
his continuance there to be three years. Lest
this be thought too much, let it be limited
to two. Our Lord then, when Herod died,
was four years of age. When that event
took place, Philip, the son of Herod, became
tetrach of Trachonitis, which, with the two
provinces of Batanea and Gaulanitis, he go-
verned thirty -seven years. This, his last year,
was, as we learn from Jcsephus, the twen-
tieth of the reign of "Tiberius ^- j the tliirty-se-

* This testimony of Josephus on this point Is express : and
as the thirty-seven years which Philip reigned are expressed
not in figures, but at full length, it is liable to no mistake, —
" Tors f-£v ^iACTTro;, "fIcwiJa li r// o.OiXfos, rsAS-ra rov /Sisv,

.Y.SA rpiocKivra,^' Sjc. Antjq, Jtul. lib. xviii. cap. 5. sect. 0.

%^1

cond of his government must, therefore, have
beeii the fifteenth of that emperor.

But Jesus V7as born, as v/e have seen, four
years before the death of Hercd, and, of
course, before PhiUp was made governor.
Our Lord then, accordmg to this calculation,
was thirty-six years old in the fifteenth of
Tiberius. But the evangelist Luke says ex-
pressly, that he then began to be about thirty^
■4% years of age ; consequently Jesus was not
born till about two years after the death of
Herod the Great.

As it is of importance to prove this point
beyond the possibility of doubt, I will lead
the reader to the above conclusion in another
way. Our Evangelist affirms, that Jesus was
thirty years old the fifteenth of Tiberius.
The fifteenth of Tiberius, if Josephus is to
be relied upon, was the thirty-second of Phi-
lip. Our Lord then was thirty, the thirty-
second of that tetrach. He must, therefore,
have been born two years after his govern-
ment load commenced ; that is, two years af-
ter the death of his father Herod.

358

This may be demonstrated in a manner still
different. According to the received com-
putation, Augustus died in the year of Rome
767; Herod in the year 750. The former
then survived the latter seventeen years. And
this precisely agrees vi^ith the statement of
Josephus, which supposes that the tetrarchy
of Philip, vv^ho succeeded Herod, commenced
seventeen years before the accession of Tibe-
rius. Now, as Augustus, after the defeat of
Antony, reigned forty-four years, and sur-
vived Herod seventeen, Herod's death took
place the twenty-seventh of his reign. But,
according to Luke, who says that Jesus was
thirty the fifteenth of Tiberius, his birth
must have preceded the decease of Augustus
by fifteen years ; which, taken from forty-
four, leaves twenty-nine* Herod then died
in the twenty-seventh, and Jesus was born
the twenty « ninth of the reign of Augustus;
that is, the death of Herod the Great, or the
succession of his son Philip, preceded the
nativity of our Lord two yeai's,

I propose in the next place to prove, thaty
from the tenor of the four Gospels, our Lord

S69

appears to have been universally supposed by his
mother^ his brethren, his disciples, as well as
the Jews at large^ to be the legitimate son of
Joseph and Mary, and a native of Nazareth,

And here I beg leave to premise an obser-
vation worthy of notice, viz. that the sup-
posed birth of Jesus at Bethlehem is an es-
sential branch of the doctrine of the miracu-
lous conception. If then this branch of it
be demonstrated to be false, it follows, of
tourse, that the whole story is equally false :
if, on the other hand, it be proved, that Je-
sus was born at Nazareth, hi^ being a son of
Joseph is a necessary consequence.

That in no part of :h^ Nev/ Testament,
excepting only the beginning of Matthew's
and of Luke's Gospel, Jesus is said to have
been born at Bethlehem, and super naturally
conceived, is a fact which cannot be denied.
Not one of the four Evangelists has any where
else, directly or indirectly, inculcated such a
doctrine. In no passage of ali the Epistles,
or of the Acts of the Apostles, is any expres-
sion dropped which implies an approbation of
it, or carries the faintest allusion to it, as a
VOL. I. SB

370

doctrine originating with them. No where
do we perceive a single trace of the enemies
of the Gospel, amongst the Jews and Gentiles,
having opposed it, which, I conceive, would
inevitably have been the case, had it pro-
ceeded from Jesus and his apostles.

So far was this doctrine from not having
been openly and directly taught by them, that
it is very manifest from factSy which they have
recorded, that it formed no part of their com-
mission, arid therefore cannot be true.

Matthew hath recorded these words : " And
it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished
these parables, he departed hence : and when
he was come to his own country, he taught
them in their synagogue, insomuch that they
were astonished, and said, ** Whence hath this
man this wisdom, and these mighty works ?
Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not his
mother called Mary ? And his brethren, James
and Joses, and Simon and Judas, and his
sisters, are they not all with us ? Whence
then hath this man all these things * ?"

* Cap. xiii. 54, 53.

371

Here, the people of the town, amongst
whom our Lord had Hved, put the questior:. Is
not this the carpenter s son ? Now, is it not
obvious that they were of opinion, that this
question was necessarily to be answered in
the affirmati've ? Or does it not shew, that
these people were as fully convinced that he
was the offspring of Joseph as that he was
the offspring of Mary .^ We have then the
assurance of the very inhabitants of the place,
where Jesus spent his life, that the story of
his not being the son of Joseph is a down-
right falsehood.

The Jewish nation, mistaking the mean-
ing of Malachi, entertained the undoubted
belief, that the Messiah should be born in
Bethlehem, the city of David. Hence, the
townsmen of Jesus, on his having manifested
amongst them that divine power and wisdom
which indicated that he was the Christ, drew
the necessary inference, that he professed him-
self to be a native of Bethlehem ; and it is
against this supposed profession that the fol-
lowing queries are directed : " His brethren
James and Joses, and Simon and Judas, and
his sisters, are they 7wt all with us f Whence

2 B 2

37^

then hatli this man all these things ?" As if
they had said, ** Have not his father, mo-
ther, and brethren, always lived with us in
Nazareth f How then can this man perform
works which intimate that he was born in
Bethlehem * ?"

In the account ascribed to Luke we read
thus : " And the angel came in unto Mary,
and said, * Hail, thou, that art highly fa-
voured ! the Lord is with thee : blessed art
thou among women.' And when she saw
him, she was troubled at his saying, and
cast in her mind what manner of salutation
this should be. And the angel said unto her,
* Fear not, Mary : for thou hast found favour
with God. And behold ! thou shalt con-
ceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name Jesus, He shall be
great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest, and the Lord God shall give him
the throne of his father David. And he

* The common acceptation of the words 'jtpoi rj^ag, <witb
lis, is extremely futile. A sense of its futility induced the
learned Markland (see the place in Bowyers Critical Conjec-
tures) to render the clause like oursel'ves ; and this version, for
want of a better, Mr. Wakefield has adopted in his new trans-
lation.

o>y cy

shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever -,
and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

In this address it is told, without a figure,
that her son was to be the Messiah, whom
the Jews expected to sit on the throne of
David, and assume over mankind a dominion
that should never end : and it appears, from
the words which Mary herself uses in the se-
quel, that she understood the angel as mak^
jing this assertion.

Let us now consider the following incident,
which is recorded by the Evangelist Mark :
*' And the multitude came together again,
so that they could not so much as eat bread.
,. When his friends heard of it, they went out
to lay hold on him; for they said he is
RESIDE HIMSELF *." Mark Hi. 20, 21.

* Critics and commentators have been at great pains in ex-
plaining this passage. Mr. Wakefield thus renders it : " And
they came to a house ; and the multitude crowded together
again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And
when his own family heard of it, they went out to secure
him : for some had told them that be ivas gone out."

According to this version, the family of our Lord were
with him in the house from which he is supposed to have gone

2 B 3

37-^

The friends here meant were his relations.
In this critics are agreed. Indeed, the sa-.

out. Bat this was not the case : for, in verses 31 and 32, we
arj told, that " his mother and brethren came, and standing
fiukboui to call him, sent in; for the multitude was sitting
round : and they said unto him, ' Behold ! thy mother and thy
brethren without are inquiring for thee." The words
tbey we?ii out, mean 'h'-refore, that they went out Jrom their
own bouse, and not from the house in which our Lord stood.
This alone makes the sense consistent, and, indeed, rescues
the who.e passage from gross absurdity. For if they were
with him in the house, when he went out, they musj:
themselves have seen or heard him going. But the Evangel-
ist says, when his own family beard — " when some had told
them that he was gone out, they went out to secure him."
Besides, v\ hat can be meaiit by the words " they went out to
secure {Kpcc7r,(ra.i) or af'prebend him.}" Finally] the rendering
of tlie word s^ea-ryj by the phrase, be ivas gone out, is en-
tirely unwarrantable. The term usually denotes an uncom-
mon vehemence of passion, or a sudden obliquity of mind ;
though a writer, from a regard to its constituent parts, might
use it in the literal sense, to signify the removal of a body, by
soa-.e instantnnrous impulse, from its customary position, to
a different situation. But an etymological refinement like
this is not to bc» expected from any of the Evangelists, whose
•want of education, and unavoidable ignorance of those ele-
gancies in the Greek language, which can be perceived only
by a cultivated taste, compelled them to employ every word
in its popular and usual signification. These observatioris are,
I trust, sufficient to prove the fallacy of the above version,
though supported by the abilit}' and axithority of Mr. Wake-
field. I cannot, however, conclude this note without pro-
ducing two arg-.iments, \\4iich to my mind demonstrate that

375

cred historian, on returning, after a short di-
gression, to the same subject, calls them the
mother and brethren of Jesus.

His mother then thought, that he was beside
himself, or, in other v/ords, that he was mad.

the common translation is the just one ; which implies, that
the family of our Lord imagined that he was beside himself;
or, more agreeably to the language and sentiments of a Jew,
that be had a dcsmon. — 1. This idea existing in the mind of
the historian, when relating this story, brought to his recol-
lection, by the law of the association of ideas, a similar opinion
maintained by the Pharisees. In consequence of this associa-
tion he suspends, and that very abruptly, the narrative in hand,
and relates the following : " The Scribes, which came down
from Jerusalem, said, ije hath Eelzebub, and by the prince
of the devils casteth he out devils," &c. — 2. Our Lord appears
to have been aware, that his mother and brethren entertained
some unworthy apprehension of him. This seems from the
observation which he delivers on the occasion : " And he an-
swered them, saying, ' Who is my mother, or my brethren ?'
And he looked round about on them which sate about him,
and saidj 'Behold, my mother and my brethren ! For whoso-
ever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister,
and mother." Let these words be examined impartially, and,
surely, we must perceive, that the mother and brethren of Jesus
were at this time guilty of some action, or of cherishing some
opinion which did not accord v/ith the will of God, and
which excluded tliem from the number of his own disciples.
Without this implication there would have been, in his re-
mark on this occasion, an impertinence, and a want of filial
tenderness.

2 B 4

376

But what could have been the cause of such
an unv/orthy apprehension ? It could be no
other than this : her son, poor and illiterate
a^^ he was, did and said Such things as implied
that he was the Messiah, yet pursued a con-
duct the very reverse of what the Jews ex-
pected their Messiah to adopt. Plow was
she to account for such a presumption, ac-
companied, at the same time, with so much
inconsi;-tsncy ? The most natural way, it
seems, to account for his conduct, was to
suppose, v/hat some of the Pharisees said of
John, that he had a daemon. The mother of
our Lord then imagined, that her son was
really mad, in claiming a dignity to which
she had been informed, by an angel from hea-
ven, that God would raise him I

From the account in Luke, we are necesr
sarily ied to conclude, that John the Baptist
knew, even from his youth, that Jesus was to
be the Messiah. But the following fact, re-
lated by the beloved Evangelist, shews,beyond
controversy, that the Baptist did not know him
as such, till he was informed of the fact in the
wilderness. His words are very remarkable :
** The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto

•377

him, and saith, * Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sm of the world ! This
is he of whom I said, ' After me cometh a man
which is preferred before me -, for he was be-
fore me. And I knew him not ; but that
he should be made manifest to Israel, there-
fore am I come baptizing with water." Jo/in
i. S9> 30, 31.

I shall, produce one incident more, which
is very striking. It is the following : " Many
,of the people, when they heard this saying,
said. Of a truth this is the prophet. Others
said, This is the Christ. But some said, Sh all
Christ come out of Galilee ? Hath
NOT THE Scripture said that Christ

COMETH OUT OF THE SEED OF DaVID,
AND OUT OF THE TOWN OF BeTHLEHEM,

WHERE David was ?" yo/in vii. 40, 41,42.

Here we see the people divided into two
parties ; one believing, that Jesus was the
Messiah, the other rejecting that belief ; for
which they assigned this remarkable reason :
That he was not born in Bethlehem, where
the Christ was to be born, but in Galilee,
whence none expected him to come. But

378

could these men reject our Lord as the Mes-
siah for not being born at Bethlehem, had his
birth actually taken place in that city? Or
would the friends of Jesus have acquiesced in
the objection, if they could so easily remove
it, by replying, " That for this very reason he
was the Christ, because he was born in Beth-
lehem ?" It is evident then, on the face of
this passage, that, in the estimation of both
the friends and foes of our Lord in Jerusa-
lem, he was a native of Na:^areth, and not
of Bethlehem.

That the Apostles of our Lord did not
countenance the doctrine, that he was super-
naturally conceived, and born at Bethlehem,
will appear from the following remark. It
is a fact manifest from the above passage, as
well as many others in the writings of the
Fathers, that the Jews of our Saviour's time
objected to his being the Messiah, partly be-
cause he did not come from the city cf Da-
vid, and partly because he came from the
despised town of Nazareth. " Can so great
a good come out of Nazareth ?" was an ob-
jection made not only by the unbelieving
Jews, but by one of his own disciples. Upon

379

this city the pride of the inhabitants of Judsa
looked, it .seems, v/ith a strong, though
unreasonable, contempt. The odium which
prejudice had associated with the place of his
birth, malignity transferred to the person of
our Lord, Hence, the name 'Jesus of Na~
zareth, continually in the mouth of his ene-
mies, conveyed the bitterest reproach, which
they endeavoured to augment by connecting
with it the ideas of poverty, obscurity, m.can-
ness, and, above all, that of an ignominious
death.

Now, it may be asked, if our Lord had
really been born in Bethlehem, would not
his Apostles, in preaching the Gospel after
his death, have always styled him " Jesus of
Bethlehem," instead of " Jesus of Naza-
reth ;" since, by this means, they would have
rescued him from the odium and calumny at-
tached to his character. To suppose, that
they would not have called their Divine Ma-
ster by this name, could they have done it
consistently with truth, is to suppose them
either destitute of respect for his person and
^eal in his cause, or that they betrayed the
grossest stupidity in their endeavours to dif-
fuse his doctrine.

580

Either of these suppositions, I will be bold
to affirm, cannot be made with any colour of
truth. Their zeal, their discernment, their
cool deliberation, and their resolute beha-
viour, may be proved and illustrated in a
thousand ways. One or two instances in
the conduct of Peter, which sufficiently
evince his address and alacrity in this respect,
I shall here lay before my reader.

When this Apostle and his fellow-labourer
John were going to the temple, the former
thus accosted the lame man sitting at the
gate : ♦* Silver and gold have I none, but
such as I have, give I thee. In the name of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and
walk *." Now, one of the chief objects
which Peter had in view, by annexing, as
their enemies always did, the name of Naza^
reth to Jesus Christ, on this and other occa-
sions, was to transfer to it those sentiments
of admiration and love which that miracle
necessarily excited in the beholders, and thus
induce them to embrace the holy one, whom
they had crucified, and esteem him, whom
they hated without a cause.

* Acts iii. 6.

•381

A proof that this was his design, is the
consideration, that whenever the Apostles were
in circumstances (such as in places out of
Judaea) where this prejudice did not prevail,
they never subjoined the term Nazareth to
the name of Jesus, on the performance of
miracles.

Anothei' instance of this kind we may se-
lect from the tenth of the Acts : " You know
the word," says Peter to Cornelius and his
friends, " which was published throughout
all Judsa, and began from Galilee, after the
baptism which John preached ; 'Jesus of Na--
zarethy how God anointed him with holy
spirit and power, who went about doing good,
and healing all that were oppressed by the
devil."

The Apostle was aware, that on mention-
ing the name Nazareth a violent prejudice
arose in the minds of his hearers. He there-
fore hastens to remove it, by assuring them,
that God anointed him, that is, purified or
^washed him from the pollution which he had
contracted from his connexion with Naza-
reth, and the ignominy of crucifixion. This

58^

consideration plainly shews, that he mentioned
the place whence our Lord had come with re-
luctance, and that he would have avoided it, or
substituted for it the name oi Bethlehem, could
he have done so without violating the truth.
Yet Peter says, contrary to his inclination,
not only that Christ came from Nazareth, but
that the wordy or i?jformation concerning him,
began in Galilee, — and that at the close of the
baptism of John. If, however, credit is to
be given to the tale of the miraculous con-
ception, this is not true ; for the Jirst infor-
mation of him was given by the magi in Je-
rusalem. And is it credible, that our Apostle,
in explaining the rudiments of the Gospel,
should have passed over in silence facts which
it were so much to his purpose to,relate ? No-
thing would have been so likely to affect the
mind of a Gentile, who, like most other Gen-
tiles, was probably devoted to astrology ^ as
the assurance, that at the birth of Christ a
star appeared in the East, and pointed him
out to certain wise men as the future king
of the Jews. But so f^r from saying any
thing of the kind, Peter tells him the very
reverse y which is a circumstance, had there
been no other in their wTitings, sufficient to

383

demonstrate, that the contents of the two first
chapters of the supposed Matthew were ei-
ther unknown to the Apostles, or (which will
appear hereafter to be the fact) that knowing
them, they did not believe them to be founded
in truth.

From these, and many other parts of the
New Testament, we may with certainty/con-
clude, that the doctrine which represents our
Saviour to have been supernaturally conceived,
and born at Bethlehem, is a palpable false-
hold. This appears from tht implied testimo-
ny of his countrymen, of his own mother, of
his friends and foes in Jerusalem, and, finally,
of his chosen disciples ; all these persons, with-
out exception, having considered him as the
son of Joseph, and a native of Nazareth. And
this universal belief, in very early times, the
fabricators of the miraculous conception at-
tempted to account for, and explain away, by
certain plausible means, furnished by the ex-
traordinaiy conduct of Paulina, the very wo-
man with whom the story originated.

Those who first contrived the tale, in con-
sequence of denying Jesus to be the offspring

384

of Joseph, did not insist, that he was a de-
scendant of David. Thus far they acted
with perfect consistency. Bat the persons
who in after times framed it anew, and
inserted it in the New Testament, saw^
that this consequence would overthrow the
proofs drawn from the prophecies, that Je-
sus was the Christ; as the Messiah, accord-
ing to them, would spring in the line of Da-
vid. But how could he have descended from
David, unless he was the offspring of Jo-
seph, who was knov/n to come from that pa-
triarch ? This perplexing question was solved
by the assertion, sometimes, that Mary, as well
as her husband, derived her pedigree from
the stem of Jesse ; and, at other times, that
Jesus was the son of Joseph by adoption.

This, however, was a question of small
difficulty, compared with the following,
which was necessary to be removed before
the tale could have any degree of plausibility.
Our Lord was universally known to be the
son of Joseph, and known too to have been
born of Mary, after her espousal to Joseph,
within the time, which proved him a legiti-
mate child. But the credibility of the tale

38o

requiired, that he should be represented to
have been born whilst his mother was yet a
virgin, and prior to her espousal. Could the
authors of the story have made this assertion ?
No ; they could not have done it, without di-
rectly contradicting a well-known fact. And
if, on the contrary, this point were conceded,
namely, that Jesus was born after the mar-
riage of his mother, how could it happen,
that he was not the lav/ful offspring of her
husband ? This was a dilemma indeed ; but^
fortunately, the case of Paulina afforded them
an expedient, by which to resolve the diffi-
culty with some degree of speciousness.

This woman, on receiving the invitation
from Anubis, wxnt to the tem.plc to admi-
nister, as she supposed, to the pleasure of
the god ; but, contrary to her expectation,. a
man interposes, and assumes to himself the
enjoyment which was intended for the divine
lover. This extraordinary circumstance the
deceivers had only to reverse. This was
the desired expedient ; and thus they ap-
plied it to the mother of Our Lord : '^ Af-
ter his mother was espoused to Joseph, bat

VOL. I. 2 c

3S^

before they came together, she was found to
be with child by the Holy Spirit." The
plain meaning of which is — " Alary, indeed,
ivas espoused to Joseph at the time of her con-
ception : nevertheless she ivas not pregnant by
him. For before the happy pair had an cppor-^
tunity to enjoy the frst fruits of their union,
the Divine Being interposed, and made her with
child "^.^^

* What occasion this story has given io unbelievers for
deriding the whole Gospel, may be seen from the following
paragraph, extracted from the Age of Reason.

" The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously ob-
scene. It gives an account of a young woman engaged to be
married j and, while under this cngngement, she is, to speak
plain language, debauched by a ghost, under the impious
pretence, \\\di\.the Holy Ghost shall coiiie upon tbeey and the pow^r
of the Highest shall ovcrshadoiu thee. Notwithstanding which^
Joseph afterwards marries her, cohabits with her as his wife',
and, in his turn, rivals the ghost. This is putting the story
into intelligible language ; and, when told in this manner,
there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own it.

-." Obscenity- in matters of faith, however wrapped up, is
always a token of fable and imposture : for it is necessary to
our serious belief in God, that we do not connect it with sto-
ries that run, as this does, into ludicrous interpretations.
This story is, upon the face of it, the same kind of story as
that of Jupiter and Leda, or Jupiter and Europa, or any of
^the amorous adventures of Jupiter j and shews, as is already
stated in the former part of the Age of Reason, that the Chris-
tian faith is hiiilt upon the heathen viythology.'" Part II. p. 5i»

38/

This representation, suspicious and impious
as it is, appears indisputable, if a close at-
tention be given to the words of the original :
** And Jacob begat Jofeph, the husband of
.Mary, of whom was born Jesus, called
Christ : hut {^z) the birth of Jesus was thus :
for {yoi-i) after his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came together, she was
discovered with child by the Holy Spirit."
The disjunctive buti for which, in the com-
mon translation, is substituted nowy is here
used to prevent the reader from drawing the
obvious conclusion, that she conceived of her
husband ; while the conjunction yor assigns
the reason why Joseph was not the father of
Jesus — ^" Because his mother, after her mar-
riage, but before the husband had access to
her, was impregnated by the Spirit of God,"
Such is the manner In which Egyptian fraud
has endeavoured to explain av/ay the v/ell-
established noticn, that our Saviour was ths
son of Joseph.

The next received opinion, which the de-
ceivers had to account for and invalidate, v/as
Lis being a native of Nazareth,

- ^ C 2

38 8

That Christ had lived in this cityj and was
hence called a Nazarme, wei e facts of ge-
neral notoriety, and which it was not safe for
falsehood to deny. If then he were born,
as the story of the miraculous conception as-
serts, at Bethlehem, now came he to leave
that place ? — a place which, in the mistaken
estimation of the Jews, demanded the ho-
nourable birth and residence of th^ Messiah :
- — and how, in particular, came he to dvv^ell
in a town, which brought upon him ignominy
•and contempt ^ These were perplexing ques-
tions, which the framers of the story en-
deavoured to answer, by recurring to thc^
famous woman, v/hose conduct furnished
them with the materials of the tale. On be-,
inp- banished from Rome, Paulina retired into
Egypt ; a place into which thousands of
Christians, we are assured from Philo, fled
for refuge from persecution. Her flight to
that country easily suggested the expediency
of sending Joseph and Mary there too. But
v/hat motive could be assigned for their flight ?
" Herod was about to seek the child to de-
stroy him." But why so far for refuge ?
** No safety could be obtained in any corner
of Judaja, xo\ he slev/ the children in all th?

3S9

coast thereof,'" But how could Herod know,
that Jesus, an Infant, and the son of a poor
carpenter, was to become king of the Jews ?
*^ Certain magi from the East came to Jeru-
salem, saying. Where is the infant king cf
the Jews ? For we have seen his star in the
East, and we are come to pay him homage.
When Herod the king heard this, he was
troubled, and wanted to kill the child."

^ But v/hy did not Joseph and Mary, on be-
ing informed in Egypt of the death of He-
rod, again return to Bethlehem, the place of
their abode, and which claimed the honour
of his residence ? " Hearing, that Archelaus
reigned in Judsa instead of Herod his father,
they were afraid to go thither." But what
could have been their reason for retiring to a
city so obno^fious as that of Nazareth } " Be-
ing warned of God in a dream, they went
and dwelt in that city, that it might be ful-
filled which was spoken by the prophet Sy He
shall be calLd a Nazarene.'' You mean to
say then, that, although Jesus was in reality
a citizen of Bethlehem, yet his countrymen
were to call him erroneously by the name
of Nazareth ? ** That is the meaning which

2 c 3

590

we wish to insinuate." But, if it be net too
clos^ a question,' Who were these prophets
that foretold this event ? — Your silence is
very consistent. General assertions are the
usual proofs with lyars and impostors.

If we narrowly compare this cunningly de~
*Dised f^able, as it is related in Matthew and
in Luke, various striking differences will
present themselves between these supposed
accounts of the two Evangelists, not only in
the facts which compose it, but in the stjile
of its composition. As it stands in Luke, its
language and ideas caa be traced to no other
country but Judcea, . Not one of those ex-
traordinary events which took place at Rome,
and which compose the fable in Matthew,
are here mentioned. To none of those events
is there even an allusion. On the contrary,
the whole is made up of Jev/ish incidents ;
is filled with the names of persons and places,
with opinions, customs, and ceremonies,
which could only be understood by the peo-.
pie of Judisa, and interesting to natives of
that country, It is also crov/ded with prophe-
cies, merely calculated to flatter Jewish pride,
and with peculiarities which characterise thq
Jewish language. It is sufficient, I trust, to

391

inake this one general remark, the truth of
which none can doubt ; and I may be excused
/rom entering into a minute analysis of the
contents of those chapters. Now, what is
■the conclusion, which it is most reasonable
to draw from this peculiarity ? It is obviously
this — T/iat the account of the miraculous con-
ception prefixed to Luke's Gospel was borrowed
from the Egyptians, and carried into Jud^a,
and there fabricated by some fewish converts,
in a manner less liable to exposure, and more
accommodating to the prejudices of the Jewish
nation.

This important conclusion I shall confirm
by two additional remarks. The events which
form the substance of the story, as composed at
Rome, and of which the forgers availed them-
selves to account for the general opinion, that
our Lord was the son of Joseph, and a na-
tive of Nazareth, however false, yet as the)'-
were events v/hich took place in a very re-
mote country, cduld not be sufficiently de-
tected and exposed. Taking advantage, there-
fore, of their distance from Jud-cca, they
freely made use of such fictions as best suited
their purpose. But let us suppose, that a Jew,

2 c 4

392

a friend or a sharer in the forgery, conveyed
it to Judsa, or any of the neighbouring coun-
tries I could he there say, that magi cam3
from the East, announcing the birth of the
Messiah ; that, in consequence, Herod, with
2.11 Jerusalem, was troubled -, that being de-
luded by the magi, he slew all the infants in
Bethlehem and the surrounding coasts ; that,
to avoid his anger, Joseph and Mary fled to
Egypt, and, on returning thence, went and
settled at Nazareth ? All these events being
notorious falsehoods, he could not assert them,
v/ithout being refuted and exposed both by
the friends and enemies of ouf Lord. Ac-
cordingljt in the tale related by the supposed
Luke, they are, every one of them, suppressed,

. But those who conveyed the story to Ju-
daea, which I hey could not have done till
long after its first fabrication, were obliged
not only to exclude these notorious false-
hoods, but also not to introduce any new
fact, or specify any particular event, which
might be capable of refutation. The cau-
tion with which they were forced to proceed
in triis respect it is very curious to observe.

Jesus, indeed, .s here affirmed to have been

S93

born at Bethlehem : but the prophecy of MI-
Cah, which the Jews regarded as predictino-
the Messiah's birth in that place, is not cited
in support of the affirmation. The enemies
of Jesus had always objected to him, that he
was not a nativ e of that city ; and himself,
with his friends, acquiesced in the objection.
It could not, therefore, be soon asserted, that
he actually received his birth there, and thence
argued, that he was the Messiah. Joseph, it
was known by the inhabitants of Nazareth at
least, had never regarded his son as the king
of the Jews, and probably died before his
ministry commenced. Hence, in Luke no
notice is taken of him. nor is it said, that any
intimation was given him, that Jesus was to be
the Christ. But it might be urged, that our
Lord, if asserted to have been born at Bethle-
liem, might easily have been refuted, unless
the assertion were true, by making the proper
inquiry of the inhabitants. To prevent, how-
ever, such refutation, Mary is represented as
having been delivered net in a /jousej but in a
stall * or a ckfiy at some distance from the village .

* The stali in which our Lord is said to have been born

lay in a de7i, which was one of those subterraneous celh where

" shepherds drove their fxocks, or thievci assembled, and brought

394

She is related, moreover, to have brought forth
in the night. In the night an angel is sent to
the shepherds ; and these shepherds have no
names given them. Such is the caution which
the first propagators of the miraculous con-
ception were obliged to take, when they first
taught it in Judsa, or the adjacent countries.

It remains now to explain the well-known
difference which subsists between the two
genealogies given in Matthev/ and Luke.
This difference has been the subject of great
dispute in every age, and proved a source of
much perplexity to the believer, whilst it has
furnished the infidel with a formidable argu-
ment against the truth and authenticity of
those Gospels *.

together their booty. But we shall presently see, that the idea
of representing him to be born in a den was suggested by the
magicians, who usually practised their mysterious rites in
such places. Origen goes so far as to say, that this den
was well known even in his time, and tliat the very clothes
were there to be seen in which the infant Jesus was wrapped.
See, if you please, p. 39 of his book against Celsus.

* What use infidels have made of the difference between
these genealogies, in attempting to undermine the whole sy-
.stem of Christianity, may be seen from the following extract.
*' The history ol' Jc^us Christ is contained in the four book«

395

, Now, supposing, that the genealogy of LuU
formed a part of the miraculous conception,

ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first
chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus
Christ) and in the third chapter of Luke there is also given
a gene-ilogy of Jesus Christ. Did these two agree, it would
not prove'the genealogy- to be true, because it might never-
theless be a fabrication ; but as they contradict each other in
every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. If Matthew
speaks truth, Luke spt-aks i\dsehood ; and if Luke speaks
truth, Matthew spenks falsehood : and as there is no authority
for believing onu more than another, there is no authority for he.
lieving either ; and f they cannot he believedy even in the frst
thing they say, and set out' to prove, they are not entitled to It
helie-ved in any thing they say afterwards.

« If these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a false-
hood between them (as these two accounts iliow they do) in
the veiy commencement of their histor}- of Jesus Christ, and
of who and what he was, what authority (as I have before
asked) is there lefc for believing the strange things they tell
us afterwards ? If they cannot be believed in their account of
his natural genealogy, how are we to believe them when tlicy
tell us, that he was the Son of God, begotten by a ghost, and
that an angel announped this in secret to his mother ? If they
lied in one genealogy, why are we to believe them in the
other? If his natural genealogy was manufactured, which it
certainly is, why are we not to suppose that his celestial ge-
nealogy is manufactured also ; and that the whole is fabulous ?
Can any man of serious reflection hazard his feature happiness
upon the belief of a story, naturally impossible, repugnant
to every idea of decency, and related by persons already de-
tected of falsehood ? Is it not more safe, that we stop ourselves
\t the plain, pure, and unmixed belief of one Gcd, which, is

396

yet as the tale inserted in this Evangelist was
propagated in Jud^a, it would follow, that
////>, and not the genealogy in Matthew, is
the true one. But the fact is, that Luke, as
we shall presently see, having heard of the
fabrication of a false genealogy by the Egyp-
tian converts, wrote that which goes by his
name, to contradict, and to shew the false*
hood of the other. But what could have
been the object of those forgers in framing a
false genealogy ? Their view was first to
prove, by certain coincidences, that Jesus
was the king of the Jews, and that Joseph,
his father, fled wdth him, in the manner re-
lated, into Egypt, in conformity to a sup-
posed typical reference borne to him by the
patriarch 'Joseph. Hence he is, in this ge-
nealogy, said to be the son of y^^o^, whereas
he was, in truth, the son of Hell. But how,
it will be asked, could they prove, that Jesus
was the Christ, from a false fabrication of his
pedigree ? They first represent Abraham and
David as types of the Messiah, and the Ba-
bylonish captivity as • emhhmatical of the

Deism, than commit ourselves to an ocean of improbable,
irrational, indecent, and contradictory tales ?" The Jgc ij/'
Reason^ Part II. pages 52 — .'51.

397

bondage of the Jews under y^ugusi us ; and,
m the second place, insinuate, that the deli-
verance of the Jewish nation, under the
Christ," would happen at a distance of time
from the last period, consisting of the same
number of generations with those vAich fill
up the two preceding intervals. But, unfor-
tunately, this circumstance, instead of proving
Jesus to be the temporal king whom the
Jews expected, only proves them to be im-
postors. Tliese men, be it remembered,
whilst they were relating the birth of our
Lord, and the fancied events v/hich hap-
pened under Herod at Jerusalem, had in their
minds those real scenes v/hich occurred in
the days of Tiberius, on the introduction of
Christianity into Rome. And tlis time,
which was about forty years, or one genera-
tion afterwards, they, through madverttiicj,
against which it was impossible for a forger
to be always sufficiently on his guard, actu-
ally confounded v/ith the pretended period of
our Saviour's birth. " So all the generations
from Abraham to David," say they, "are
fourteen generations j and from David, until
the carrying away into Babylon, are fourteen
generations ; and from the carrying away into

39^

Babylon unto Christ are fourteen genera-*
tions." But the truth is, that from Babylon
unto Christ are only thirteen generations, as
will appear to any that will take the trouble
of reckoning them -, whereas from Babylon
to Tiberius i the time of this forgery, there
are ^xo^trXy fourteen.

There remains one farther difficulty to be
explained ; a difficulty which in every age
has supplied abundant materials for contro-
versy amongst learned men, and furnished
them with a fair opportunity to exercise
their ingenuity in critical conjectures. The
difficulty to which I refer is contained in the
following passage, which is thus translated by
Mr. Wakefield ; — " And in those days a de-
cree came forth from Cssar Augustus, that
all the world should register themselves :
jiow this first registering was when Cyre-
nius was governor of Syria*."

Before I proceed to explain this passage, I
must cite from Josephus the account which
he has given of the event here signified.

* Luke, cap. ii. l, 2.

S99

It is as follows : — " Cyrenius, a senator, jlr-
rived with a few in Syria, being sent there
hy Cassar to administer justice to the nation,
and to assess their property. Coponius, a
knight, is commissioned with him, who was
invested with supreme power over the Jews.
And Cyrenius came into Judaea, now added
to Syria,, in order to assess the properties of
the Jews, and dispose of the effects of Ar-
chelalis. But they, though dreading the very
name of the enrolment, ceased to make far-
ther opposition to it, by the persuasion of
Joazarus, the high priest. But Judas Gau-
lonitis, together with one Sadducus, a Pha-
risee, urged them to rebel ; asserting, that
the enrolment brought upon therti nothing
less than entire slavery, and calling upon the
nation to maintain their liberty."

Now every reader, I affirm, who examines
these two passages without prejudice, will
immediately conclude, that they both refer to
the same event. It is, however, contended
by learned critics, that the taxation spoken of
in Luke was imposed not when Cyrenius was
governor of Syria, but when Herod the Great
was king of Judsa, T9 me, I confess, it

. 400

seems a matter of astonishment, that an opi-
nion so di^netrically opposite to the -plain de-
claration of the writer should have been en-
tertained by any intelligent and candid in-
quirer. In as much, however, as this opi-
nion is supported by numberless authorities-
of the first respectability, I shall think it
worth Vv'hile to bestow a few words in the re-
futation of it* It is said then, that the as-
sessment here mentioned was exacted in the
reign of Hero J.- This is false : first, be-^
cause the writer says ijiriiully that it was not
in the reign of Herod, and that at the time
there was no Jdng in Judsa. To give an ex-
ample: suppose a" future historian was to
write thus : — " Robespierre tyrannized over
the French when George the Third was king
of England;" would not this language fairly
imply that no king existed then in France ?
The case is quite parallel. " This asses-
ment," says the writer, "happened when
Cyrenius was governor of Syria." He does
not say, when Herod ruled over judcd.:. If,
therefore, the author's ow^n declaration is to
be regarded, it f:>llovs^s, that at the period of
the cnrolm-ent specified by him there was no
king in that country.

401

This opinion is false. Secondly ; because
I have already demonstrated, that our Lord
was not born till two years after the death of
Herod the Great.

Thirdly ; because, if Judica had in truth
been assessed under the reign of Herod, who
was made king of that country by Augustus,
Josephus would have mentioned this assess-
ment as an extraordinary event ; whereas it
appears manifest from his narrative that such
an event had never before taken place. " The
Jews," he says, " though dreading at first
the very name of the enrolment, ceased to
make farther opposition to it," &c. Agam,
*^ Judas Gaulonitis urged them to rebel j as-
serting, that the enrolment brought upon
them was nothing less than entire slavery."
Does not this language clearly imply that
the Jews had not before that time registered
themselves for taxation? How could they
then first dread the name of registering, if
they had long ago submitted to it, and be-
come familiar to it? And how could Judas
have asserted that it brought slavery upon
them, if they had previously been enslaved
by it ?

VOt. I. ^ ^

402

Fourthly ; because it is manifest, from the
Acts of the Apostles, that Judasa had never
been taxed more than once. — " And after this
man rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of
the taxing'' By connecting Judas with the
period of taxation, without any farther speci-
jication, Gamaliel evidently shews that not
more than one period of that kind had oc-
curred. For instance, if a writer of the hi-
story of England should say, that the king-
dom was divided by Alfred into several di-
stinct parts for the better administration of
justice, would not his use of that name, with-
out any epithet, second or third, annexed to
it, prove that but one Alfred reigned in
England ?

Lastly ; the opinion, that Judaea was taxed
under Herod the Great is unfounded j be-
cause the " passage of so extraordinary a na-
ture," which Lardner adduces to prove it,
itself proves the contrary, A clause of this
paragraph is thus rendered by him : — " When,
therefore, the whole Jewish nation took an
oath to be faithful to Cssar, and the interests
of the king, these men (namely the Pharisees)
to the number of above six thousand, refused

403

IQ swear *»'* The object of the oath here
mentioned is expressly said to have been not
to tax the Jev/ish nation, but to bind their
allegiance to Csesar and Herod.

But this is not my principal argument.
" The Pharisees," says the historian, *^ above
six thousand of them, refused to swear." This
oath then required of the Jews v^as not a
subject of compulsion, but a matter of discre-
tion, which all might, and which ma72y did,
actually decline. It could not, therefore,
have been the consequence of a " decree
which came forth from Cjesar Augustus ;"
for they would then have been compelled to a
compliance, and punished, if they ultimately
refused i which was the case only with those
who were otherwise guilty.

prom all these considerations, it can no
longer be questioned, but that the assessment
spoken of in this chapter was that imposed
071 Judsa by Augustus, when Cyrenius was
president of Syria ; that is, about ten years
^fter the decease of Herod the Great. I will

* Vol. i p. 279.
S D 2

404

next proceed to the explanation of the pas-
sage, which the reader will see is very cu-
rious, and which itself demonstrates that
it never came from the hand of Luke.
With this view, I must repeat what has
frequently been shewn, namely, that the au-
thors of the miraculous conception supposed
our Saviour to be the prince who should
reign in Israel, and deliver it from the Roman
yoke. This is the leading idea which is
inculcated in this place : — " And it came to
pass in those days, that there went out a de-
cree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world
(or, as it is in the original, all the inhabitable
earth) should be taxed." Here the forgers
insinuate, that Cssar had the arrogance to
claim to himself that grand, universal em-
pire which belonged only to the Messiah of
the Jews -, for to tax the whole world was to
bring the whole world under subjection to
him; taxation being the badge of subjuga-
tion. " And this taxing was '^ first made

* The term irpwros is not always used in an arithmetical
sense, to denote priority of 7mmheri, as \viien it is opposed to
secofid, third., kc. but often to signify pre-eminence in point
of rank or dignity. For instance : " '0{ sc.v .&sAtj," says our
T/Ord to his discipleSj " sv u/a*v sivxi IlPIiTOS;, etrruj v^i^kv

405

wlien Cyrenius was governor of Syria;'*
which ought to be rendered this capital^ this
chief, this superior taxing to any which Au-
gustus had the insolence ever before to im-
pose, was made when Cyrenius was gover-
nor of Syria." — '* And all went to be taxed,
every one into his own city. Joseph also
went up from Galilee, out of the city of
Nazareth, into Judsa, unto the city of Da-
vid, to be taxed with Mary, his espoused
wife, being great with child. And so it was^
that while they , were there, the days were ac-
complished that she should be delivered .'" Ob-
serve the point which it is the object of the
impostors to inculcate : " When Cssar ar-

SovXof :^'-^lFboever luisbes to he first amofigyon, let him he a
SERVANT. Here it obviously expressed a master, in opposi- ■
tlon to his servant, or, more generally, a superior to a person
that is suhofd'niate to him. In the same sense it is used bv the
Baptist, when he says of Jesus, '■' Hpuitog jtxou scrr;/' He is viy
superior; he is my master -y arid I am hut his servant. The La-
tin UTord primus has frequently the same sigaification> as itn
the following lines of Virgil :

Arma virumque cano Troj^ qui primus ab oris- . • c
Prima quod ad Trojam pvQ charis gesserat Axgis.
See also Lucretins, lib. i. 8^.

406

rogated to himself that unbounded empire
which the Almighty intended for the king of
the Jews alone 5 when he had, moreover,
the insolence to subjugate the favourite and
chosen people of God ; at tbat very time the
Messiah came into the world. Providence
had so arranged the period of his appearance,
and so controlled the counsels of his ene-
mies, that he was born the very hour in
which his parents, and the other Jews, were
sealing their 11a very."

Lest the import of this divine interposi-
tion should not be understood by the Jewish
people, an angel is brought down from Hea-
ven to remind them of it. — ** The angel said
unto the shepherds, * Fear not -, for, behold 1 I
bring you good tidings of great joy, which
shall be to all this people. For unto you is
born thh day, in the city of David, a Sa-
viour, which is Christ the Lord." — ** Ab-
stain from grief:" as if he had said, " The
prospect of slavery is removed from the peo-
ple of God. I am commissioned to bring
you the joyful news that your deliverer from
the Roman government is born this day—

407

this very dai/y when your necks are first bend-
ing to its yoke."

From this explanation, which, though so
very obvious, has hitherto escaped the atten-
tion of critics, two conclusions are to be de-
rived : one is, what we have already been in-
sisting upon, that the story of the miracu-
lous conception, as inserted in Luke, was
taken from that fabricated in Rome, and
thence conveyed to JudiEa, where it was
planned in a manner more conciliating to
the Jewish nation. Viewed in this respect,
the forgers have shewn a considerable skill.
They adopted for their purpose an idea,
which was most soothing to the affliction,
and congenial to the pride of the Jews; and
on that account the most likely to reconcile
them to Jesus as their expected Messiah.
The second conclusion is, that Luke never
wrote these chapters : for, at the time he
composed his Gospel, he fully understood the
spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom. And it
cannot be supposed by any friend of Chris-
tianity, that, whilst our honest Evangelist had
too much wisdom to be mistaken himself, he
had the baseness to adopt the idea of our
Lord's being a temporal prince, as an expe-

VOL. I. 2 E

408

dient to deceive others. However, lest infi-
delity should have the impudence to allege
this charge against him, I shall hereafter
produce his own explicit and noble testimony
against the story and its authors.

From the fadls developed in the pre-
ceding enquiry, it is concluded, that the
story of the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ,
was fabricated by the priests of Isis; and
that the events, said to have happened at Je-
rusalem, did in reality take place, with little
variation, at Rome. In confirmation of this
conclusion, I proceed to shew, that the ac-
counts we now have, respecting his super-
natural birth, in the introductions of Mat-
thew and Luke, have been copied from two
gospels; one entitled. The Gospel of the In-
fancy of our Saviour ; the other. The Gospel
of the Birth of Mary ^.

But before I begin this enquiry, it is ne-
cessary to trace, which I shall do as briefly
as possible, the origin of those false teachers,
who are known under the name of Gnos-
TiCKS. Of the early appearance of these

* These gospels may be seen in the second volume of Jere-
miah Jones, on the Canon ; where an English translation of
them is annexed.

4-09

heretics, no doubt can be entertained; as
they are the men whom the apostles op-
pose in their respective epistles. It appears
too, from their own account, that they were
contemporary with the first teachers of the
gospel*. But, Who were the persons or
person that first taught the Gnostic heresy?
Irena^us-j-, Epiphanius, and many others,
affirm, that it originated with Simon Magus,
The truth, however, of this opinion, may be
jusdy questioned, for the following reasons :

1. Because Simon never ranked himself
with any denomination of Christians \,

So far from being a disciple of Jesus, he

* Tertullian says of them, " Because they existed in the
apostolic age they are so audacious, as to arrogate to their
doctrines the authority of the apostles." His own words are
somewhat different, but this is the substance of them : — De
Prascriptione Harettcorum. p. 2ig.

•f* Simon autem Samarltanus ex quo universas hereses sub-
stiterunt. Irenasus, lib. i. p. 94. Atque hinc eorum, quos
Gnosticos appellamus origo profiuxit. Epiphan.' vol. i. p. 58.
This too was the opinion of the author of the Clementine Ho'
miltes : — 'Air^nq ui^ia-u^, un; rox»^o^<'**» afo rov tov ^eov /SXkct-
^wjuouvToj ZtjuwvojTJiv afX"" ^^/^°''^''"' Horn. xvi. p. 729.

X It is true, indeed, that Simon believed and was baptized.
But the apostle Peter soon turned him out of the Christian
church. A<fls viii. 13—23.

2E2

410

was a professed adversary of his apostles, and
his religion. In derision of the title God
the Son, given our Lord, soon after his resur-
rection, by many mistaken converts among
the Gentiles, he stiled himself God the Fa-
ther*; and to ridicule the AlotJier of God,
as Mary was called, he said, that his wife
Heleiiy was the mother of the Holy Ghost.
Since then this impostor was not a Christian,
nor pretended to be one, no sect of Chris-
tians could have had their origin with him.

2. The assertion of Irenaeus, that Simon
was the first teacher of the Gnostics, is erro-
neous : — Because these his followers would,
in that case, have prevailed mostly in Sa-
maria. But they did not prevail in that
country. Egypt was the place where they
chiefly abounded : And had they been Sa-
maritans, they would have been so obnox-
ious to the Jewish converts, that the latter

* Iren. p> 94. Epiphan. p. 52, 56. These authors do
riot indeed say, that Simon made these pretensions in derision
of the titles given to Jesus Christ and his Mother; But that
this was his object in so doing, I shall in the sequel prove, by a
remarkable fact.

That Simon endeavoured to rival our Lord, and that his
followers were a distinct sect from every denomination of
Christians, is expressly affirmed by Origen contra Celsum,
p. 272.

411

would be in no danger of being deluded by
their specious impostures. But so captivat-
ing were their tenets, and such was the ad-
dress with which they insinuated themselves
into the churches, that it required all the
exertions of the apostles to prevent the new
converts from being led away by them.

3. I'he followers of Simon Magus were
comparatively few in number; and we may
conclude from the manner in which Justin
and Origen speak of them, that they were a
sect quite different from the Christians, and
nearly extinct in their times*.

The answer, then, to the above question
is, not that Simon Magus, but that the Egyp-
tian impostors at Rome, were the founders
of the Gnostic heresy. This will appear
from the following considerations :

* Justin says expressly, that though his own nation, the Sa-
maritans, considered Simon as the supreme God, there were
but few among other nations that fell into such an impious su-
perstition.— O'Kiyoi ^E x»» n aXTiot; sSvECtv, 'w? tov v^unov S'sov, iKUvov
ofJioXoyovvTiiy £x,E»vov nat TT^ocnivvovatv. Apol. l. p. 52. Oxford editm

Quin et Simon Samaritanus Magus, per magiam suam,
quosdam decissereconalus, eifectu non caruit ad tempus ; nunc
autem in toto 01 be opinor vix triginta Simonianos reperiri; ac
fortasse ne tot quidem. Origen Con. Cclsum. p. 44.

'2 E 3

412

1, The Philologers in the court of Tibe-
rius were, for the most part, Egyptians.
As they were expelled from Rome, they
went, it is natural to suppose, into their own
country, where they must have carried their
heresy with them : And we find, that Egypt
was the place in which Gnosticism, with its
professors, chiefly flourished.

2. From the accounts which are given us
of the Gnostics by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
Epiphanius*, it appears, that their tenets
were a strange mixture of the Egyptian su-
perstition, with the Christian theology.
They maintained, that Christ was the same
with Horusj one of the divinities of Egypt ;
and as they distinguished between the elder
and younger Horus, they believed in a su-
perior and inferior Christ -f. They seem,
moreover, to have appropriated to our Lord,

* Respecting Valentlnus, and his followers, Epiphanius
writes thus :— =-AsyEi Js auloj TE KKi ot ccvrov roy Ki/g»ov tj^wy Imo-ouv

M£T«ywy£«, xa; Ogo^£T»)y, xat Ogov. Vol. I. p. 171. See also
Irenaeus, p. i8.

•f- Hence Origen says of the heretics : Duos quidem Decs
ausoscsse Haereticosdicere; ciDuos Christos audivimus, Lib.ii.
fffgi afx'^y. cap. vii«

413

the title of Pan * ; because he possessed the
plenitude of those gifts bestowed upon him
by the other angels. And what is more re-
markable still, they worshipped the Serpoit,
as the source of all wisdom ; and pretended,
that it was the same with Christ -f. Now, if
we review what has been said of the false
teachers in Rome, we shall perceive, that

* TodE, Tov Z&)T>i|« Tov sx ffwvTwv ovTa, TO Tlav ovai, iice, tow
Jioyou Tou, irciv «^§ev ctavoiyov ij^rtr^ocvy onkovaQai XiyoviTi oj to Hcty
uVf tiimoi^ev t>iv /Anr^av t»i5 'EvQvy.rio-BUi. Iren. p. 17. See also
p. 14, at the bottom.

^ Ophitae huic sclentiam omnem tribuunt, itaque profiten-
tur Serpentem honiinibus scientiae cmnis authorem extitisse.
Epiphan. p. 270. This they pretended to be Christ himself:
And endeavoured to prove the truth of this opinion^ from the
Old and New Testaments. See again the same author, p. 274^
275. In page 263, I have shewn, that the impostors at Rome
represented Christ as a good demon, to which they gave the name
of Chrestus. Here we have a confirmation of that fact. The
Ophitae, a sect of the Egyptian Gnostics, woishipped the Ser-
pent, and maintained, that it was no other than Christ. But
we read, in an extract of Eusebius, /ro?« Philo BibliuSf that the
Phoenicians and Egyptians called that animal aya9o» ^oa^ovoc
a good demon. Euseb. Evan Prae par, Lib. i. cap. x. Again,
in page 268, I have shewn, that the deceivers pretended, that
Christ was the same with Serapis, or Osiris. This fact, too,
we here see confirmed. Since they worshipped the Serpent, as
an external symbol of our Lord, they must have taught, that he
and Serapis were also the same: for the Serpent, it is well
known, was regarded as the representative of that divinity.—
Ipsum Serapidem draco rcpraesentabat. See Spencer de Legidus
Hebraorum, p. 427.

2 E 4

414

they blended the Egyptian theology with
the new faith, and supposed our Lord to be
a good demon, called Chrestus, which had de-
scended to this earth for the benefit of man-
kind. They represented him, too, as being
the Egyptian divinity Serapis, and more-
over gave him the name o^ Pan. Being de-
votees of Isis, they must also have been wor-
shippers of the Serpent, an image of which,
we are assured by Diodorus Siculus, and
Macrobius, was placed in the temples, de-
dicated to that goddess as an object of divine
honours.

3. Some of the early Egyptian Gnostics,
on account of their hatred towards the
apostles, and their faithful followers, affect-
ed to defend the treachery, and venerate
the character of Judas. They even used a
gospel, which they ascribed to him, in pre-
ference to the genuine records of the evan-
gelists. In as much as they professed to
follow that traitor, and so much resembled
him in character, he might not improperly
be said to have been the founder of their
sects. Accordingly we find that some of the
ancients represent Judas Iscariot, as the fa-
ther of the Gnostic heretics *.

* See a note in Tertullian De Prascrtptione Hareticorumy-^,

415

4. The multitude of heretics, which,
even in tlie age of the apostles, overspread
the Christian world, and which introduced
themselves, as we shall see in the sequel,
into the apostolic churches, points to Rome
as the real source of them: since the cir-
cumstance of their being expelled thence by
the emperor, easily accounts for their vast
numbers, and their wide dispersion. In ad-
dition to these reasons I shall only remark,
in this place, that several passages in the
New Testament will direct us to that city,
and to no other place, as the true origin of
the Gnostic heretics.

I proceed next to shew, that the Gospel
of our Saviour's Infancy was, in its primary,
though doubdess not in its present state, the
composition of the Gnostic heretics, who

2ig, where this is shewn to have been the opinion of Gai-
ter ius, founded on the authority of Alexander the patriarch
of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Jerome. The words of
the latter I shall quote hereafter. The heretics pretended,
Judas had greater knowledge, and was more accurately
acquainted with the truth of the gospel, than were the other
disciples. Et hasc Judam Proditorem diligenter (axgi/Swi)
cognovisse dicunt, et solum pras caeteris cognoscentem vc-
ritatem, perfecisse proditionis mysterium : per quem, et
terrena et ccelestia, omnia dissoluta sunt. Et confindlionera
{a-vixitXaa-^t) afferunt hujasmodi, Judae Evangelium illud vo-
cantes. Iren. p. 112, at the bottom.

416

had come from Rome* This will ap-
pear :

First, Because it is one of those books
which they used, and which, Irenc-eus says,
they fabricated. The passage to wliich I
allude in that author, is as follows : — " Be-
sides these, they introduce a vast many apo-
cryphal and spurious writings, which they
had forged, so as to perplex the unintelli-
gent, who are unacquainted with the true
records." For which purpose they adopt
this artifice : — " The Lord," say they,
" (being a boy at school), when his master,
as is usual, desired him to say Alpha, an-
swered Alpha. But when the master again
ordered him to say Beta, the Lord replied:
* Tell you me first what Alpha is, and then
I will tell you what Beta is :' and this they
explain as if he alone understood the un-
known meaning contained in the form of
Alpha*."

Compare this passage with the following,
which is taken from the Gospel of the In-
fancy :

" There was also at Jerusalem, one, nam-

* Irenaeus, p. 86. cap. xvii.

417

ed Zaccheus, who was a school-master. He
said to Joseph, * Josep/ij why dost thou not
send Jesus to me, that he may learn his
letters.' Joseph agreed, and told the divhie
.Mary; so they brought him to that master,
who, as soon as he saw him, wrote out an
alphabet for him, and he bade him say
Aleph : and when he had said Aleph, the
master bade him pronounce Beth. Then
the Lord Jesus said to him, ' Tell me first
the meaning of the letter Aleph, and then I
will pronounce Beth.' The Lord Jesus far-
ther said to the master, * Take notice how I
say to thee.* Then he began clearly and
distinctly to say, Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Dalith,
and so on, to the end of the alphabet. At
this the master was so surprized, that he said,
* I believe that this boy was born before
Noah;' and turning to Joseph, ' Thou hast
brought a boy to me to be taught, who is
more learned than any master.' He said
also to the divine Mary, * This, your son,
has no need of any learning*." '

The story recorded by Irenreus, and this
in the Gospel of the Infancy, is evidently
the same : and, as it appears from the express

* I copy the translatiun of Mr. Jones, chap, xlviii.

418

testimony of this author, that it was the fa-
brication of the first Gnostics, it seems not
improbable, that the book, which contains
it, namely, the Gospel of our Saviour's In-
fancy, was their invention.

Secondly, The stile of duplicity and mys-
teiyy in which the first Gnostic teachers
veiled their sentiments, and which charac-
terises the gospel in question, proves, as ap-
pears to me, beyond controversy, that it
came from their hands. That my reader
may judge of the nature and force of this
argument, it is necessary to place before him
a passage or two, from the account, which
Irenseus' gives of their theological system.

" When wisdom was first separated from
the Plenitude, she led a life of fervitude in
dark and solitary places. Being remote
from the light, she could apprehend no-
thing, but, like an abortion, was without
consistence and form. But the superior
Christ, feeling pity for her, invested himself
with a form, which is according to substance
and not according to knowledge. And,
having done this, and collected into himself
his own power, flew upwards, and left Wis-
dom, in order, that perceiving her own de-

419

gradation, she might, by the assistance of
the Plenitude, be raised, in her views, to su-
perior things, attracted by that odour of
immortahty, which the Christ, and the Holy
Spirit, breathed upon her*."

Absurd and rhapsodical, as this passage
may appear at first sight, yet, if we narrow-
ly inspect it, the following rational meaning
will be found at the bottom : —

When human reason^ or intelligence^ first
emanated from the Father of Lig/its, and was
immersed in a corporeal form ^ it tvas compell-
ed, on account of its zveahiess, to act i?i obedi-

* Of this, and the subsequent passage, I have, for the sake
ef brevity, given a very free translation. I have not, however,
deviated from the meaning and spirit of the original. The
Latin version is as follows : — Ea vero, quae extra Pleroma di-
cunturabiis, sunt talia : Enthymesin illius superioris Sophias,
quam et Achamoth vocant, separatam a superiore Pleromate
cum passione dicunt, in umbrae et vanitatis locis deservisse per
necessitatem : extra enim lumen facta est, et extra Pleroma in-
formis et sine specie, quasi abortus, ideo quia nihil appvehen-
dit. Misertum autem ejus superiorem Christum, at per cru-
cem.extensum, sua virtute formasse formam, quae esset secun-
dum substantiam tantum, sed non secundum agnitionem : et
haec operatum recurrere, substrahentem suam virtutem, et re-
reliquisse illam, uti senticns passionem, quas erga illam esset, per
separationem Pleromatis concupiscat eorum quasmeliora sunt,
habens aliquam odorationem iramortalitatis, relictam in semet
ipsaaChristo et Spiritu Sancto. Cap. vii. p. 19.

420

aice to the passions : nor was it able, in the
dark imprisonment of the body, to gain any
sure sijsteniatic knciuledge of its parent, nor
effect a re-union with him. Heaven, however,
inpiti/r condescended to assist the infirmities of
the liuman understanding, and to give some in-
formation respecting the nature of God, and the
final expectation of man. But the infor?7iatio7i
which the first heavenly messaiger brought to
the liuman race, was partial and temporary,
and delivered under the veil of symbolical rites
and mi/stic language, rather than in explicit
and inlcUigible terms. It was, however, suffi*
cient to give tlicm a faint hope of inwiortality,
and thus induce them to the cultivation of supe-*
rior virtue.

In the subsequent chapter, Irena^us again
WTites thus : — *' The Christ, having ascended
to the Plenitude, was unvviUing himself to
come down a second time, to the Mother (or
Wisdom spoi^en ol* above), but sent the Para-
cletus, or the Saviour, invested with all pow-
er, by the Father, anj^ the other Aeons; so
that all things, — thrones, divinities, andprin-
cipajitics, miglit be wrought in him. The
Mother, on seeing him come with angels,
bis equals in age, veiled herself, on account
of Iier shame: but when she saw him, and

421

all the fruits derived from him, she ran to
him, deriving strength from his appearance :
and he, having assumed a form according to
knowledge, removed her perplexities and
pain*".

This paragraph, divested of its symbolical
representation, means as follows: — The first
conimunication of heaven to niankindj being
ini'perfect, and not sufficiently explicit, another
message loas sent in the person of Jesus Christ,
who, from tJie extraordinary endowments he
had received from the Father, supplied the de-
fects, and developed the meaning of the former.
Human wisdom, however, zvas not willing to
j'eceive his claim, on his first appear aiKe, but.

* Cum igitur peragrasset omnem passionem mater ipsorum,
et vixcum data esset, ad obsecrationem conversa est ejus lumi-
nis, quod derelinquerat earn, hoc est, Christi, dicunt; qui
regressus in Pleroma ipse quidem, ut datur intelligi, pigratus
est secundo descendere ; Paracletum autem misit ad earn, hoc
est, Salvatorem, prasstante ei omnem virtutem Patre, et om-
nia sub postestate tradente: et^onibus autem similiter, uti in eo
omnia conderentur visibilia, et invi?Ibilia, throni, divinitates,
dominatiunes. Mittitur autem ad eam cum coaetaneis suis an-
gelis. Hanc autem Achamoth reveritam eum dicunt, primo
quidem copertionam imposuisse propter reverantiam ; Deinde
autem cum vidisseteum cum omni fruidlificatione sua accurrisse
ei, virtute accepta de visu ejus. Et ilium formassecam forraa-
tionem, quae est secundum agnitionem, et curationem passio-
num fecisse ejus separantem eas ab ea, et uon eas neglexisse*
P. 32, 23.

^'22

attempted to conceal, or to new-jnodel the defoV'
viitks of its own system. But being compelled,
at Icngtli, to admit the truth of his divine mis-
sion, it teas delivered from that obscurity and
uncertainty, under ivhich it before laboured.
For the latter, unlike the former Christ, deli-
vered his doctrines in plain, simple, and com-
prehensible language.

From this account, if it be admitted as just,
it appears, that by the first Christ, the Gnos-
tics meant the Revelation, which God made
by himself, under the Jewish dispensation :
while the latter signifies that full and com-
plete manifestation of his will, contained in
the gospel*.

I shall next place before you, a few pas-
sages from the Gospel of our Saviour's In-
fancy, in order to show, that it is penned in
the same singular manner, and marked with
that mystical ambiguity v/hich veils the
theological opinions of those impostors ; in

* You will here observe, that the Christ which descended the
second time, was not, according to the above repi-esentation, the
same with the first. In other words, the Jewish and the Christ-
ian systems did not come horn the same divine Author. Hence
Origen says, that the heretics referred the Old and New Testa-
ments to two difFereut Gods. The passage will be cited in the
sequel.

423

other words, you will see, that it is so com-
posed, as to convey a sense false and absurd
if literally, but rational and true when meta-
phorically interpreted : —

" Again, on another day, the Lord Jesus
was playing with some boys by a river, and
they drew water out of the river by little
channels, and made little fish pools. But the
Lord Jesus had made twelve sparrows, and
placed them about his pool, on each side,
three on a side. But it was the Sabbath-
day, and the son of Hanani, a Jew, came
by, and saw them making these things, and
said. Do ye thus make figures of clay on the
Sabbath ? And he ran to them, and broke
down their fish pools. But when the Lord
Jesus clapped his hands over the sparrows
he had made, they fled away chirping, —
Another time, when the Lord Jesus was
coming home in the evening with Joseph,
he met a boy, who ran so hard against him,
that he threw him down ; to whom the Lord
Jesus said : As thou hast thrown me down
so shalt thou fall, never again to rise. And
that moment the Ipoy fell down and died *,

* Chap. xlvi.

2 F

4'M

This story is puerile and absurd enough ;
b\it it has, at the bottom, a rational signifi-
cation. " Jesuf Christ chose twelve apostles, to
testify the truth of what they had seen and
heard. After he had blessed tJiein, at his de-
parture, tiicy went and preached his gospel
throughout tlie world.'' The representation
here given is founded upon the very words
of our Lord when he first commissioned his
apostles : " Do not two sparrows sell for
three farthings? Fear not, therefore, for ye
are of more value than many sparrows."
The boy who threw our Saviour down, and
fell himself and died in consequence, means
the disciple that betrayed him, and after-
wards went and hanged himself*. The
author seems to allude to the words of John,
who says, that when the traitor with the ofid-

* That Judas was the person here meant by the boy that
threw Jesus down, Is expressly asserted in chap. xxxv. *' This
same boy, who struck Jesu?, and out of whom Satan went in
the form of a dog, was Judas Ischariot, who betrayed him to
the Jews." — Mark this curious declaration: Satan went out of
him in the form of a dog. The Cainists, a sect of the Gnostics
in Egypt, and as we have observed, the disciples of Judas,
continued to worship the dog Anubisy after their pretended con-
version to the Christian religion : for this reason they are dis-
linguished, as we shall presently see, by the apostles, under the
name of dogs. Satan, then, went out of the master only \o
rntcr into bis scholars.

425

cers came to apprehend Jesus, they were
struck to the ground; chap, xviii. G.

Another curious specimen of that ambi-
guity in which this Gospel is written, is the
following : — " On a certain time, the king
of Jerusalem sent for Joseph, and said, I
would have thee make me a throne, of the
same dimensions with that place in which I
commonly sit. Joseph obeyed ; and forth-
with began the work, and continued two
years in the king's palace before he finished
it. And when he came to fix it in its place,
he found it wanted two spans, on each side,
of the appointed measure : Which, when
the king saw, he was very angry with Jo-
seph ; arid Joseph, afraid of the king's an-
ger, went to bed without his supper, taking
riot any thing to eat. Then the Lord Jesus
asked him what he was afraid of? Joseph
replied, because I have lost my labour in
the wotk which I have been about these
two years. Jesus said to him, ' Fear not,
neither be cast down : Do thou lay hold on
one side of the throne, and I will the other,
and we will bring it to its just dimensions.'
And when Joseph had done as Jesus said,
and each of them had with strength drawn

2F2.

426

his side, the throne obeyed, and was brought
to the proper dimensions of the place*".

The purpose of the above strange fiction
is to this effect : — Josep/i had neither birth
nor fortune, tchich might qualify his son to fill
the throne of Judea; but his disqualification^
in those respects, was removed by the superna-
tural poxvers xuith which he was endowed,

I shall produce one instance more : —
' And when the Lord Jesus was seven years
of age, he was on a certain day with other
boys, his companions, about the same age,
who, when they were at play, made clay
into several shapes, viz. asses, oxen, birds,
and the like ; each boasting of his work,
and endeavouring to excel the rest. Then
the Lord Jesus said to the boys, I will com-
mand those figures which 1 have made to
walk. And immediately they moved; and
when he commanded them to return, they
returned. He had also made the figures of
birds, and sparrows, which, when he com-
manded to fly, did fly; and when he com-
manded to stand still, did stand still : And if
he gave them meat and drink, did eat and

* Chap, xxxix.

427

drink. When at length the boys went
away, and related these things to their pa-
rents, their fathers said to them, Take heed,
children, for the future, of his company,
for he is a sorcerer; shun and avoid him,
and from henceforth never play with
him*."

The creation here ascribed to our Lord,
signifies, the new life of virtue, which, as it
were, he breathed into those who became con-
verts to his gospel; and who henceforth lived
in obedience to his comjnandments : it being
usual to denote different descriptions of men
in their natural and idolatrous state, by oxEisf,
ASSES, BIRDS, FISHES f, ^c. The boys with

* Chap, xxxvi.

f " Christ," says Clement, in his Address to the Greeks,
" is the only one among all, whom we have yet heard of, that
humanises into men the fiercest beasts ; the frivolous being
mere birds ; the deceiving reptiles ; the irascible lions ; the
voluptuous pigs ; and the ignorant stones and logs of wood ;"
page 4. Compare with this description, Psal. xlviii. 12, 20. ;
Jer. V. 8. ; Job ix. 12.; Gen. xl. 27, 17. The vision, which
Peter saw, Acts x. ro— 13, is particularly worthy of notice :
«• And he saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending
unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners,
and let down to the earth. Wherein were all manner of four-
footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things,
and fowls of the air." By these, no doubt, were represented
the different descriptions of Gentiles, that would receive the
Christian religion,

2 F 3

i2,8

whom he is said to be playing, mean ihosie
pretended divine teachers, contemporary
with, or subsequent to, him ; such as ,th,e
scribes, the Pharisees, and the false pro-
phets, of whom he speaks in the gospels.
These could give to their followers only the
form of rational beings, but were not able,
like Jesus, to bestow eyes on the blind, or
life on the dead.

It is unnecessary to aflduce more exam-
ples. The reader is now able to understand
the singular style in which this book is writ-
ten : and he will, I trust, assent to the jus-
tice of the conclusion, that it is so like the
language in which the Gnostics expressed
their sentiments, as to point to them and
no other, as the authors of this gospel. From
the double interpretation of which it is ca-
pable, and from the studied artifice with
which it is composed, we may see the pro-
priety of the following remark made by
Origen :— " I know a certain gospel, * ac-
cording to Thomas,' and ' according to Mat-
thias,' and many other we read, that we
may not seem to be ignorant of any thing
for the sake of those, who think ihey know
something, if they are acquainted with those
gospels*,

* Lardner, vol. ii. p. 503.

429

The Gospel of the Infancy, wentj at firsf,
as we shall see immediately, under the name
of Thomas, and it may be inferred from the
above paragraph, that some persons prided
themselves in understanding it. Does not
this imply, that it contains a mysterious
sense, which it requires some skill to un-
fold ; and which is very different from the
plain and literal signification ?

It has just been observed, that this Gospel
was stiled, 'according to Thomas', and a
fragment of it is still extant under that name.
It begins thus : — *' I, Thomas , an Izraelite,
judged it necessary to make known to our
brethren among the Gentiles, the actions
and miracles of Christ in his childhood,
which our Lord and God Jesus Christ,
wrought after his birth in Bethlehem, at
which I myself was astonished*."

In this paragraph there is one circumstance,
which might lead one to conclude, that the
Thomas here meant, so far from being Thomas
the disciple of our Lord, who miisthavebeen
incapable of such falsehoods, was not even a

* Tills fragment is annexed to the Gospel of the Infancy, by
Mr, Jones, vol. ii. p. 273.

2F4

430

Ifew; for he calls himself an IzraeUte, which,
had he really been one of the Izraelites, he
would not have done : as he would take it
for granted, that his reader knew this; nor
suspect, that any should think otherwise :
whereas, it was very natural in a Gentile,
that personated Thomas, to anticipate such a
suspicion, on the part of his readers, and re-
pel it by asserting, that he was Thomas the
Izraelite.

Now, it has been shown from Plutarch,
that one of the Egyptian Magi, who had be-
come a professor, and a leader of Christian-
ity, in Rome, was named Thaumas ; or ac-
cording to our mode of writing it, Tliojuas.
If then the Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy
was, as has been proved, composed by some
of the Gnostic leaders, who had originated
in that city, is it not very probable, that
the Thomas, whose name it bore, in former
times, was no other than Thaumas mention-
ed by Plutarch ?

If then this book was the composidon of
Thaumas, or at least of some of the Gnos-
tics,.who had come from Rome, it might be
expected, that some of the events which oc-
curred there, should be alluded to in it. And

431

this we shall find to be the case. In chaptef
ten we read thus : " When Joseph was con-
sidering with himself about the journey^ the
morning came upon him. In the length of
tlie journey the girts of the saddle broke.
And now he drew near to a great city, in
which there was an idol, to which the other
idols and gods of Egypt offered their vows.
And there was by this idol, a priest minister-
ing to it, who, as soon as Satan spake out of
that idol, related the things he said to the
inhabitants of Egypt, and those countries.
This priest had a son three years old, who
was possessed with a great multitude of de-
vils, who uttered many strange things : and
when the devils seized him, went about nak-
ed, with his clothes torn, throwing stones at
those whom he saw. Near to that idol was
the inn of the city, into which, when Joseph
and the divine Mary were come, and had
turned into that inn, all the inhabitants of the
city were astonished, and all the magistrates
and priests of the idol assembled before that
idol, and made enquiry there; saying. What
mean all this consternation and dread which
have befallen upon our country ? The idol
answered and said. The unknown God is
come hither, who is truly God ; nor is there
any one besides him, who is worthy of di-

432

vine worship : for he is truly the Son of
God. At the fame of him, this country
trembled, and, at his coming it is under
the present commotion and consternation;
and we ourselves are aifrighted at the
greatness of his power. And at the same
instant, this idol fell down, and at his fall all
the inhabitants of Egypt, besides others, ran
togetlier*."

From the facts already developed, we are
enabled to see the meaning of the above pa-
ragraph, which, like every thing said in
this Gospel, has some foundation in truth.
The great city then, here mentioned, means
the city of Rome, which was the greatest in
the empire. Christianity, on its introduc-
tion there, gave rise to a great commotion
among the inliabitants : And to this the fol-
lowing words seem to refer : — " At the fame
of him this country trembled."

Tiberius assembled the Philologers to
know of them, Who Jesus was. A similar
enquiry \\ as doubtless made by other great
men, and especially by the senate, who, as
we have seen, interested themselves in the

* Chap. X,

^3<3

business. On this appears to he founded
the ensuing clause : — " Ail the inhabitants
of the city, and all the magistrates and
priests of the idols, assembled before that
idol, and made enquiry there ; saying, what
means all this consternation and dread,
which have fallen upon all our country?"

Jesus was unknown to the emperor; but
from the representation of the magiciaps he
thought him to be a god, and proposed his
deification to the senate. With this agrees
the answer, which is given by the priest of
the idol, "The unknown God is come hither,
who is truly God."

The idol we are told, received the offer-
ings and vows of the other idols of Egypt;
that is, it was the supreme idol of that nation,
which was the idol of Isis. But this idol
Tiberius ordered to be pulled down, and
thrown into the Tyber. See above, page 118.
Hence appears the meaning of the succeed-
ing words: — and at the same instant

THE IDOL FELL DOWN*.

* Other idols fell at Rome about the time, in which that of
Isis was thrown into the Tyber. This is mentioned by D/o
Casiius, as being the case with the statue of "Janus. To tou
lavou a.ya.'K^cii, Y.oOiiTci'ji, Lib. Ivii. p. 6 1 5. The impostors

434

After the destruction of the idol, the Egyp-
tians were expelled from the city. They
then went, with most of the other Gentile
converts, that left Italy, into their own coun-
try. This circumstance brings to light the
signification of the next clause: — all the

INHABITANTS OF EGYPT, BESIDES OTHERS,
RAN TOGETHER AT HIS FALL.

In order to impress the emperor with the
belief, that the advent of Christ into the
world ^^as foretold by divine inspiration,
they forged, we have already seen, certain
prophecies (page 27^2), which they ascribed
to the sibyl. With the predictions of the
Jewish prophets those impostors were, no
doubt, yet unacquainted ; and, if they
themselves had the knowledge of, and be-
lieved, the inspired penmen of Judea, it
would, they knew, be useless to cite them
before Tiberius, and others, who did not ad-
mit their divine authority. But to Zoro-

seem to have produced an oracle of the sibyl which pretendec!
to foretel their destruftion, and the destrudion of Rome itself,
about that time. If we may judge from the context of the
above writer, this appears to have been the circumstance which
induced Tiberius to examine the sibylline oracles. It was not
unusual with those Christians, who had recource to such
impostures, to cite them as predicating the downfall of the hea-
then temples and idols. See Clem, Alexan. vol. I. p. 44.

435

aster the founder of magic, whose claims
to inspiration they would much more rea-
dily allow, than those of the Jewish pro-
phets, the learned at Rome were no stran-
gers. It is natural, then, to suppose, that
the Philologers would have availed them-
selves of their predeliction in his favour,
and assert something like what is contained
in the following paragraph : — " And it came
to pass, when the Lord Jesus was born at
Bethlehem, a city of Judea, in the time of
Herod the king, the wise men came from
the East, according to the prophecy of Zoro-
aster*,"

I shall only add, that in the following
paragraph, there seems an allusion to the
present, which Pauline made to the Jevv
and his associates: — " Then the divine Mary
took one of the swaddling clothes, in which
the infant was wrapped, and gave it to them
instead of a blessing, ivhich they received from
her as a most noble present »'*

It remains now for me to show, that the
introductory chapters, ascribed to Matthew,
have really been taken from the Gospel of

* Chap. vil.

4^3^

die Infancy of Jesus. The truth of this fact
appears.

First, Because this Gospel was composed
by those very men who fabricated the story
of his miraculous birth.

Secondly y Because it was extant before the
genuine Gospels ; at least before that of
Luke. In proof of this, we must produce
what that Evangelist says in his introduction ;
'* For as much as many have taken in hand to
set forth, in order, a declaration of those things,
which are surely believed, among us; even
as they have delivered them unto us, which
from the beginning were eye witnes-
ses, and ministers of the word, it seemed
good to me also, having had perfect under-
standing of all things from the first, to write
unto thee, in order, most excellent Theophi-
lus, that thou mightest know the certainty
of those things, wherein thou hast been in-
structed."

From this passage three things may be
fairly inferred: — 1. That many persons be-
fore Luke attempted to give a history of the
life of Jesus. — 2. That the gospels thus
written, were o( 7io aufhorili/, and little cal-

437

ciliated to give certainty to a person who
wished to know the truth. — 3. That Luke
composed kisy and addressed it to Theophi-
kis, to prevent the evil effects of fraud and
imposition. But whose were the false gos-
pels, to which the Evangelist here refers ?
Learned men are generally agreed, that one
of these was the Gospel of the Egyptians*,
But this famous gospel appears to me to have
been only a counterpart of the Gospel of the
Infancy : for these reasons : — the same men,
viz. the Egyptian Gnostics, were the authors
of both ; — and among them both were in
use. Hence we meet with a passage -f- in

* This was the opinion of Erasmus, Grotius, Du Pin, Fa-
ther Simon, Dr. Grabe, and Dr. Mills. They are cited by
Mr. Jones, Vol. I. p. 248, 249.

•{• " Thence they proceeded to Memphis and saw Pharaoh,
and abode three years in Egypt, and the Lord Jesus did very
many miracles in Egypt, which are neither to be found in the
Gospel of the 7«/aKf);, nor in the Gospel of P^r/<?c//o«," chap.
XXV. The Gospel of Perfection, as it here stands opposed to
that of the Infancy of Jesus, means that of his Maturity. And,
as the object of the former was to record the miracles done by
him when a child, the design of the latter was to give the history
of him when become a man. But the Gospel of the Infancy was
composed by the Egyptian Grostics : may we not conclude,
then, that the Gospel of Perfection, which was no other than
the famous Egyptian Gospel, was their composition ? At least,
it is certain that the authors of the Gospel of the Infancy used
it. This is attested by Clement of Alexandria, who, in the
fourth book of his Stromata^ refutes their sentiments respecting

438

the Gospel of the Infancy, in which the
Egyptian Gospel is alluded to in such a man-
ner, as implies, that they had some connec-
tion with each other. If then the Egyptian
Gospel were extant hefore that of Luke, we
may infer, that the Gospel of the Infancy
was so too. What will prove this beyond
dispute is, the circumstance that the apostle
Paid, as we shall see in the sequel, repro-
bates the Gospel fabricated by the Egyptian
Gnostics, and places what he and the other
apostles taught in opposition to it, as the
only true and genuine doctrine. If this be
true, the conclusion is certain, that the con-
tents of the two first chapters of Matthew
have been taken from it. I will select an
extract, to show how similar the two ac-
counts are to each other : —

" And it came to pass, that when the
Lord Jesus was born at Bethlehem, a city of

the unlawfulness of marriage. What Epiphanius says of the
Egyptian Gospel, is deserving of attention, as the character he
gives of it, answers precisely to the Gospel of the Infancy,
Speaking of the SabeUiam, he says, page 514, " They support
their error from certain apocryphal writings, and especially
from what is called the Egyptian Gospel. In that many things
are related of the Saviour, which have a latent and mystic meaif
ing" This is no other than that style of duplicity and mystery
which characterises the Gospel ot thelnfancy, and which points
to the founders of the Gnostic sects as its authors.

439

Judea, in the time of Herod the king, the
wise men came from the east to Jerusalem.
And brought with them, offerings of gold
frankincence and myrrh, and worshipped
him. And, at the same time, there appear-
ed to them, an angel in the form of that star,
which had before been their guide, in their
journey, the light of which they followed
till they returned to their own country."

" But Herod perceiving that the wise
men did delay, and not return to him, cal-
led together the priests and wise men and
said. Tell me in what place the Christ
should be born? And when they replied.
In Bethlehem, a city of Judea, he began to
contrive in his own mind the death of the
Lord Jesus. But an angel of the Lord ap-
peared unto Joseph, in his sleep, and said.
Arise, and take the child and his mother,
and go into Egypt, as soon as the cock
crows ; so he arose and went."

" At the end of three years, he returned
out of Egypt, and when he came near to
Judea, Joseph was afraid to enter ; forbear-
ing that Herod was dead, and th^t Archelaus
reigned in his stead, he was afraid ; and
2 G

440

when he went to Judea, an angel of God
appeared to him and said, O ! Joseph, Go
into the city Nazareth, and abide there."*

Thirdly, Tht priority of the Gospel of the
In-fancy to the account of our Lord's birth
in Matthew, is demonstrated from the follow-
ing circumstance. Irenaeus says of the first
Gnostics that, while they used the same lan-
guage, with the orthodox church, they thought'
differently : -f and Tertullian affirms, after
him, that, if one would explore the meaning
of their words to the bottom, it will be found
that they rejected the common opinion,
though they seem by their ambiguity to
maintain it. j^ These assertions might lead
one ito conclude, that those, who fabricated
the Gospel ofthe Infancy, used such terms, as
when taken in the plain, and literal sense,
indicate the supernatural birth of Jesus, but,
in a ^mystical and metaphorical view, teach
the reverse. And this upon examination will
appear to be fact.

" In the three hundred and ninth year

* Chap. vli. ix,
■f Ojuoia jtxsy XaXouvTEi avo^oiat J? ^^ovouvTEi, .p8ge 3i St the top.

% Si subtiliter tentes per amblguetatcs bilinques communem
fidera affirmant. De Valen. p. 25. B.

441

of the 3era of Alexander, Augustus pub-
lished a decree that all persons should go to
be taxed, in their own country ; Joseph,
therefore, arose, and with Mary his spouse
went to Jerusalem, and then came to Beth-
lehem, that he and his family might be tax-
ed, in the city of his fathers. And when
they came by the cave, Mary confessed to
Joseph, that her time of bringing forth was
come, and she could not go on to the city,
and said. Let us go into this cave. At that
time the sun was very near going down.
But Joseph hastened away, that he might
fetch a midwife : And when he saw an
old Hebrew woman, who wasof Jesusalem,
he said to her. Pray come hither, good wo-
man, and go into that cave, and you will
there see a woman, just ready to bring
forth."

" It. was then after sun set, when the old
woman and Joseph with her reached the
cave, and they both went into it. And behold !
it was all filled with lights, greater than the
light of lamps and candles, and greater than the
light of the sun itself. The infant was there
wrapped up in swaddling clothes, and suck-
ing the breast of his mother, the divine Mary.
2 G 2

442

When they both saw this Hght, they were
surprized. The old woman asked the di-
vine Mary, Art thou the mother of this
child ? The divine Mary answered, she
was. On which the old woman said, Thou
art' very different from all other women.
The divine Mary answered. As there is
not any child like to my son, so neither^is
there any woman like to his mother. The
old woman answered and said, O ! my lady
I am come hither, that I may obtain an
everlasting reward. Then the divine lady
Mary said to her. Lay thy hands upon the
infant : which when she had done, she
became clean ; and, as she was going forth,
she said from henceforth, all the days of my
life, I will attend upon, and be a servant
of this infant."*

Now, if we minutely examine the above
extract^ we shall find, that, while it seems
a fabulous narrative of the birth of our Sa-
viour, it is in reality, a true account of the
manner, in which the Christian faith was
blended with the Egyptian superstition by
the Philologers, on its introduction into
Rome.

* Chap. il. iii.

> 443

" And when they came by the cave,
Mary confessed to Joseph, that her tmie of
bringing forth was come, and she could not
go on to the city, and said. Let us go into
this cave." The cave* here spoken of,
means one of those subterraneous holes, in
which the eastern sages were accustomed to
celebrate their mysteries. The arrival,
therefore, of Mary at the cave, and her de-

* Here we see the origin of that opinion, maintained by the
fathers that Jesus was born not in Bethlehem, but in a neigh-
bouring cave or den. Porphyry in his life of Pythagoras, in-
forms us, " That sage made a cave on the outside ot the city,
which he appropriated for his own philosophy, and in which
he spent the greater part of his days and nights in conversation
with his associates." page 12.

As the eastern philosophers, had places of this kind, where they
delivered their sacred rites, we cannot be surprized at the
following assertion of Eusebius, though every ingenuous person
will feel indignant that such a falsehood should be attested by
him, with the confidence of truth, " On the Mount of Olives,
he says, There was a cave, in which according to a tradition,
ivhich i! very certain, our Saviour communicated his most se-
cret mysteries to his disciples." See Tillemont, vol. i. p. 43.
whose words i have quoted. It is worthy of remark, that some
of the Jewish leaders, when they saw the miracles of Jesas,
inferred that he was a Magician, and that he frequented a place
of this sort, where he had intercourse with evil demons. Of
this class seems to have been the scribe, who thus accosted him,
with the hope no doubt of being admitted to the celebration
of his rites : '* Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou
goest." His reply, in part is " Voxes have holes ;" that is,
'* Cunynng and deceitful men frequent suhterraneous hoieu I
fssari to no such places."

2g 3

444-

livery there of the child, signify that
the Magicians received the Gospel, ac-
commodated indeed to their previous no-
tions of religion, by representing, in mysti-
cal language, the founder, as a God, and
^ii penult uralli/ conceived. It is remarkable
that every time, the mother is mentioned,
before she came to the cave, she is called
simply Mary : but when she is brought
there, and delivered of her son, she, ever af-
ter, has the epithet divine, annexed to her
name,

" At that time the sun was very near going
down." AVhich literally is thus ; At that
time, the sun was going rapidly into the weft :*
That is, The light, which shone in Jesus
Christ, the great luminary of the moral
world, was reflected far to the west of Judea,
viz. Rome, when the Philologers corrupt-
ed his faith. Joseph did not enter the cave
with his wife when she went to be deliver-
ed. Which signifies, that the Magicians
represented Jesus, as supernaturally con-
ceived, and not as the oflspring of Joseph.

Joseph returns again with an old Hebrew
xvoman, who was a native of Jerusalem, to

* Sol autem in occasuin praeceps ferebatur.

445

assist at the birth of the child. This Heb-
rew woman means the Jewish religion, *
which is the mother of the christian system.
Her coming back with Joseph, denotes,
that he claimed Jesus, as his own legitimate
son, and that the Jewish dispensation, and
not the heathen theology, was to have the
honour of ushering into life the Son of God.

" When Joseph and the old woman went
into the cave, behold ! it was all filled with
lights greater than the light of lamps and
candles, and greater than the light of the
sun itself." That is; The philosophers,
who embraced the new. religion, moulded
according to their own depraved notions,
pretended to more of the light of world-
ly wisdom, more of the splendor of artificial
philosophy, than those, who taught it in
Judea, and even than the founder of Chris-
tianity himself. /

** The infant was there wrapped up in

* Judaism, is peTsonified and represented under the figure of
a Hebrew woman, In the following paragraph of Clement.
The offspring of the ingenuous are numerous, the Hebrew "wo-
man, tuho formerly had many children, is become barren through
disobediejice. A similar representation is given in Isaiah liv.
I.— 6, Ciena. Akxan. p. 8.

2 G 4

swaddling clothes, and suckingthe breasts of
his mother." By this is intimated, That
the Gospel was, at first, concealed by the
Magicians, under the vail of Egyptian du-
plicity, and received by that means an ad-
ditional vigour and prevalence. " The old
v/oman told the divine Mary, O ! my lady,
I am come here, that I may obtain an ever-
lasting reward, from henceforth, all the
days of my life, I will attend upon, and be
a servant of this infant." Which is an ac-
knowledgment, that the Jewish religion was
subordinate to the Christian.

" The old woman laid her hands on the in-
fant, and she became clean ; that is, Judaism
was delivered from the corruptions, into
which it had fallen, in consequence of
being improved, and perfected by the wis-
dom of Christ; This interpretation might
be pursued farther : but what is here ad-
duced is, I presume, sufficient to show, that
the first teachers of the miraculous concep-
tion, while they seemed from the literal ac-
ceptation of their words, to inculcate fhat
doctrine. Do in reality, if sifted to the bot-
tom, teach the simple humanity and the
natural birth of Jesus. The object of their
artifice -was to recommend the new reli-

447 '

gion to general reception, by concealing
those parts, which gave offence to the pride
of human wisdom and worldly grandeur:
and it appears to me probable that when-
ever this end would be fully answered, it
was the intention of the impostors to unmask
the story and represent the matter in its
true and simple light.* But it happened
in this as in other instances of deception,
that the metaphorical signification, annexed

* The conduil; of the impostors in framing such a story is
founded upon a pernicious maxim, which they had learned
as the worshippers of the serpent, That it wasla\\fultoteli false-
hood, to promote the truth. The objeifl they proposed, and
the reasoning they used, on this subject, we shall notice in
the sequel, I shall only observe that the mystical signification
here given to the above paragragh willaccount for tlje seeming-
ly contradictory fact, that the Gnostics, though they forged the
tale of our Lord's supernatural birth, generally in aftertimes
rejected it. Indeed from its first appearance many of those
heretics believed it to be false, and held up the history of it, in
its true point of light ; namely, as a piece of mythology, thai
is, as a narrative, conveying a moral occult signification, dif-
ferent from the literal and external sense. In confirmation of
this I have the authority of Theodoret, who in epistle 145
says ; " Simon and Menander, Cerdon and Marcion, deny
altogether the incarnation of Jesus, and call his birth of a
virgin, a mythology." Those Gnostics, on the contrary,
whose leaders were the impostors at Rome, maintained his
supernatural birth ; but as they supposed him to be a god,
possessed of a body differing from other men, they said he was
the son of Mary only in appearance, thdt is, he was in rea-
lity no more her son than he was the son of Joseph. See Iren£us,
p. 33. and the words of Theodoret note first: I shall quote them
en a future occasion.

4-4-8

to their words was overlooked or forgotten,
and the literal alone retained. The con-
clusion then at which I arrive is this: The
tale, exhibited in the introductory chapters,
as the figurative meaning has been entirely
discarded, must have been subsequent to the
account, which we have in this spurious
Gospel; and, therefore, copied from it as ta-
ken in the literal sense.

My next step is to show that the con-
tents of the first two chapters of Luke, are
taken from the Gospel of Mary. Before, I
enter on this subject, I would recommend
it to my reader to peruse what the learned
Jeremiah Jones has said on this Gospel. From
him he will learn ; that the Gospel of the
birth of Mary, and the Protevangelmi of
JameSy were originally the same, and pro-
bably the composition of the same author ;
that the author of it was some IJeLenistic
Jew; and that the Gospel of the Infancy,
and that of the birth of Mary have always
been joined together, from the beginning, as
parts of the same book. * This circumstance
implies that the writers of them, though one
a Jew and the other a Gentile, had some

* Jones, volume II. p. 175 — 180—316—321.

449

acquaintance, and acted in concert with eacli
other. But we have seen from Josephus,
that an intercourse and a co-operation of
this kind subsisted between the wicked Jew
and the Egyptian Thaumas. May we not
then infer that, as the former composed the
Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy, that of the
birth of Mary, came from the hands of the
latter. Whether the justice of this infe-
rence, be admitted or not, it must still be
allowed, that the Gospel of Mary claims the
same high antiquity with the Gospel of the
Infancy. It remains then to prove that the
narrative in Luke is copyed from it.

In the Gospel of Mary's Birth, she is re-
presented to have been a perpetual virgin;
and Joseph is said to have espoused her, not
that he might make her his wife, but be
the guardian of her virginity. — " And the
High Priest said. Thou art the person, cho-
sen to take the virgin of the Lord to keep her
for him."

Now if we examine attentively the
account in Luke, we shall find that it in-
sinuates this very thing, which is directly
asserted in the spurious Gospel. Mary is

450

said to be only espoused* to Joseph, who,
though nominalli/ her husband, yet preserved
her a virgin. " And, in the ninth month
the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a
virghi, espoused to a man, whose n^me
was Joseph." Again in the second chap-
ter it is said, *' Joseph also went up from
Galilee with Mary his espoused wife.

The impostors were afraid to say openly,
that Mary was not really married to Joseph,
as this would be a falsehood notorious to all
in Judea. They insinuate however, that
she was only so far his wife as to have been
espoused to him, but that she never violated
her virginity by an intercourse with her
reputed husband.

The anael accordlns: to the narrative in
Luke, thus accosted Mary, " Behold ! thou
shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth
a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He
shall be great, and shall be called the son of
the Highest, and the Lord shall give unto
him, the throne of his father David, and he

* There is some reason to believe says TiHemont, that the
Gospel makes use of the word betrothed, only to sigw'fj' that :he
ceased not to be a virgin. Vol. I. 378. N. viii.

451

shall reign over the house of Jacob, and of
his kingdom there shall be no end."

If you attentively consider, this paragraph
you will find in it, nothing that could lead
Mary to suppose that her son, thus promis-^
ed to be the Messiah, whom the Jews ex^
pected, was to be conceived in a superna-
tural manner. And yet, she is represented
as making this absurd reply to the angel,
" Hoic call this be, seeing that I know not a
iiian! The circumstance of her conceivins
without a man, must have been so remote
from her comprehension, that she could
scarcely have understood it, though it had
been asserted in the plainest and most direct
terms. How, then, could she infer such
an event, from a language, which gave
no idea of it ? The conclusion natural for
her to have made, was, That, when it pleas-
ed God, she should be married, a son would
be born to her, whom the Almighty was to
raise to the throne of David. But attend to
the tale as it is related in the Gospel of Mary.
" Fear not Mary — For you have found
favour with the Lord, because you have
made virginity your choice : Therefore,
while you are a virgin you shall conceive
without sin and bring forth a son. He

452

shall be great, because he shall reign from sea
to sea, and from the river to the end of the earth :
and he shall be called the son of the highest:
for he, who is born of mean state on earth,
reigns in an exalted one in heaven : and the
Lord shall give him the throne of his father
David ; and he shall reign over the house of
Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there
shall be no end. To this discourse of the
angel Mary replied, " How can that be :
For seeing, that according to my voxCy I
never knew any many how can I bear a
child without the addition of a mail s seed?"^

The angel, you see, tells Mary, in this ad-
dress, that she should conceive, while a virgin,
who had vowed to continue so. The an-
swer, she makes, is therefore very natural
and consistent ; while, as it stands, at pre-
sent, in our Evangelist, it is as destitute of
reason and consistence, as it is of truth.
What then are we to conclude ? AVhat but
this ? That the story in Luke has been copi-
ed from that, in the spurious Gospel ; and
that the copyists, fearing to say too much,
least they should be detected, have so curtailed
the account, as to fall into that absurdity and

* Vol. II. p. 11 5f Chap, ix.

45S

incoherence, which sometimes escape the
most sagacious impostors.

I shall give but one instance more. Ta-
citus writes thus : — " A decree was passed
by the senate, that four thousand of the li-
bertine race of Jews, infected with that
superstition, and capable of bearing arms,
should be transported into the island of
Sardinia; there to be restrained from rob-
beries : and had they perished there, through
the severity of the climate, the loss would
not have been great. The rest were to de-
part from Italy ; unless within an appoint-
ed day, they laid aside their profane rites«
After these things Cassar moved, that a virgin
should be chosen in the room of Occia, who
for seven and fifty years had with the utmost
chastity presided over the sacred vestals." *

One might conclude from this passage,
that Occia became a convert to the new re-
ligion, and that she departed with the Jews
and Egyptians, expelled by the emperor.
I draw this inference : Because the his-
torian connects her with their departure :

* Post quae, retulit Caesar capiendam Virginem in Locum
Occi£, quae, septem et quinquaginta per annos, summa sancti-
inonia Vestalibus Virginibus prsesiderat. An. Lib. II. Cap, 86,

Because he does not say what became of
her, when another was chosen to fill her
place. And, lastly, his words may be con-
sidered, as expressing a mixture of surprise
and indignation. As if he had said, *' It
is wonderful that Occia, after having con-
ducted herself, with the utmost chastity,
for the long period of fifty seven years,
should have left her former honourable
station, and gone off with a people, infected
with a new superstition, and infamous for
their vices." *

* As the impostors represented the mother of our Lord
to be a perpetual virgin, they were under the necessity
of inventing some falsehood or other, to account for the cir-
cumstance that he had brothers dnd listers; The most speci-
ous invention for this purpose was to say that Joseph was
cid, when he espoused the virgin Mary ; that he had been
married before, and that those children were all by his first wife,
and consequently but half-brothers and sisters to our Lord,
Now, as this was a mere fiftion, the imagination of the person,
who first wrote the story or first invented the tale, that Joseph
had a former wife, was likely by the mere impulse of association,
to fix upon the original woman, from whom the idea of
Mary's virginity was copvtd. And this appears to have been
fact. Jerome "writes thus on Matthew xu. 49. '* Those, who
say that the brethren of the Lord were children of Jospeh by
another wife, follow the extravagant fictions of some apocry-
phal books, and who ieign, that her name was Escha.

Here you see, it is asserted, that those, who maintained the
above position, did it on the authority of some spurious
writings. These spurious writings must mean the Gospels of
Mary's Birth and of our Saviour's Infancy, where the same

455

if this conclusion be true, and if the Gos*
pel in question be the composition of the
wicked Jew, at Rome, it may be easily ima-
gined, that in describing Ajina, who is here
said to be the mother of Mary, he should
copy some features, from the character of
Occia, a woman, so distinguished by her rank
and profession. In other words, we may
expect that the fictitious A7ina, will be found
to be no other than the real Occia.

Now read the following passage, which
human fraud has dared to insert among the
records of divine truth : " And Anna, a
prophetess, a daughter of Phanuel of the
tribe of Aser, far gone in years, who had
lived with her husband seven years from
her virginity, a widow about eighty four
years old ; who departed not from the tem-
ple, paying religious service, night and day,
with fastings and prayers : She also came
up, at the same time, and continued giv-
ing thanks unto the Lord, and speaking of

thing is related (Jones Vol. II. p. 171) though the name of Jo-
seph's supposed former wife is not, for an obvious reason, there
mentioned. But the woman, which the forgers had injvicw was
Occia; and it appears from the above extract that those, who fol-
lowed their authority, called her Escha, which is evidently the
same name,

4-56

the child to all, that were expecting deli-
verance in Jerusalem."

The first remark here to be made is, that
the Anna, spoken of in the above paragraph,
is the same with her, who in the spurious
Gospel is represented, as the mother of Ma-
ry. Hence we see the reason, of the testi-
mony, she bears to Jesus, as the expected
Messiah. As she was his grandmother,
she felt peculiar interest in his exhibition
at Jerusalem, and in recommending him
to general reception. But by the lictitious
Anna, the impostors, as we have inferred,
merely meant the vestal Occia. And this
inference is confirmed by the similarity of
the two characters. Occia, as Tacitus as-
serts, was a virgin, and spent the greatest
part of her life in the Temple, and, as she
was concerned in sacred things, and had
presided over the vestal virgins, assumed, of
course, the character of a prophetess. With
this character, and profession, the account
given of Anna remarkably agrees : " Anna
a prophetess who departed not from the
temple paying religious service, night and
day, with fastings and prayers."

The spurious Gospel represents Anna

457

as having been several years married to
Joachim, before she conceived Mary^
Hence we see the meaning of the follow-
ing clause, which, as it stands, in the ge-
nuine Gospel, is quite unintelligible : " An-
na, a prophetess, far gone in years, who
had lived with her husband seven years
from her virginity." That is to say. She
was old, when she was married (for Occia
lived a virgin, till her fifty seventh year,
when probably she changed her condition.)
and she spent seven years /r(?7?z her virginity,
that is, ajter she had laid aside her virginity
and before she brought forth her daughter
Mary. That I may not be thought fanciful^
in the above statement, 1 will here subjoin a
remarkable coincidence, which proves that
Anna and Occia mean the same woman*
According to the Roman historian, she lived
a vestal virgin fifty seven years. She must
therefore have been sixty-three, when she
left the temple, and went off with the Egyp-
tian converts ; since she was not eligible to
that profession before her sixth year*. If,
then, she was sixty-three when she left th^
temple, and married to Joachim according

* Consult Adam's, or Kennefs Roman Antt^iuesy under the
article Vestal Virgins,

2 H 2

458

to the author of the false gospel, under the
name of Anna, she must have been seventy,
when, seven years afterwards, she brought
forth Mary. But, we are told, in the same
book, that Mary was betrothed to Joseph in
her fourteenth year *, about which time,
she conceived Jesus. Consequently she
was eighty-four y at the period of our Lord's
presentation in Jerusalem. And this calcu-
lation exactly agrees with what we read in
Luke: — " She was a widow of about four-
score and four years''

The preceding enquiry will enable us to
account for the following letter, written by
Jerome, respecting the gospels in question:
— " To the Bishops Cromatius and Heliodo-

* " But the Virgin of the Lord, as she advanced in years, in-
creased also in perfections, and according to that of the Psalm-
ist, Her father and mother forsook her, but the Lord took care
of her. For she every day had the conversation of angels, and
every day received visions from God, which preserved her from
all sorts of evil, and caused her to abound with all good things;
so that at length, when she arrived at her fourteenth year ^ as the
wicked could not lay any thing to her charge worthy of reproof,
so all good persons, who were acquainted with her, admired her
*life and conversation. At that time the high priest made a pub-
lic order, that all the virgins, who had public settlements in the
temple, and were come to their age, should return home, and,
as they were now of a proper maturity, should, according to the
custom of their country, endeavour to be married ;" cap. vii.

459,

rus*, most blessed and holy lords, Jerome,
a humble servant in Christ, sendeth greeting.
He, who digs the earth conscious of gold,
does not instantly snatch away what the la-
cerated clods may pour forth ; but before
the brandished iron turns up the glittering
mass, he pauses awhile over the green turfs,
which are to be removed, and feeds himself
with hope, no less than with actual gain.
An arduous work is enjoined upon me;
since your blessedness commands me (to
translate) a book, which the holy Matthew
himself, an apostle and evangelist, was un-
willing to make public. For, if this was not
to be kept secret, he would have prefixed it
to the gospel which he has published. But
this little book he composed in Hebrew cha-
racters, and, thus sealed up, delivered it
to the public, in order that a book written
in Hebrew letters, might be obtained by
the most religious ; who from their own
times might hand it down to posterity

* This letter is rendered in English by Mr. Jones, vol. II.
124. It may be found in Jerome's large Works, torn. 7, 8, g
page 635. The supposition of some critics that it never came
from the hand of this writer is not worthy of attention. The
single circumstance that Jerome employed his labour to translate
the book, to which it refers, is a sufficient proof that he is also
th,e author of the letter.

2 H 3

4f60

through successive ages. But the contents
of this book, wliich was never intended to
be entrusted to any other (than the most
faithful) they related in very different v^ays.
But it happened that the publication of it,
by one Seleucus, a disciple of Manes, who
also composed a false Acts of the Apostles,
furnished matter to pull down, rather than
edify, the church, and accordingly was ad-
judged by a certain synod to be unworthy
of its attention. Let then those snarling
men cease to bite : we are not super-adding
this book to the canonical scriptures, but
translate the writings of an evangelist and
apostle, in order to detect the fallacies of
heresy. In doing this, we do not so much
obey the pious bishops as oppose impious
heretics*.

* The heretics, to whom Jerome here refers, were those, that
denied the miraculous birth of Jesus, and maintained that the
Christ descended upon him after his baptism. They were the
followers of Cerinthus, Colorbarsus and Marcion. In order to
prove that Jesus Kad a divine power, before that period, Jerome
brings forward the miracles, which, in this gospel, he is said to
have performed, while yet a child. Epipbanius throws much
light on this epistle ot Jerome, as to his object in translating it.
After asserting in the most positive manner, that our Lord
wrought his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, he presently re-
calls himself, and affedls to credit his juvenile miracles, and
adds : *' It was fit that those things should have been done by
Jesus, while yet a boy, that no pretext might be Jeft for those he-

461

On this famous Epistle it is necessary to
make a few remarks : — The author asserts
positively, that the two gospels, which con-
stituted the book in question, were the com-
position of the evangelist Matthew, and that
it was delivered down to posterity as his. Of
this tradition the reason is now very obvious.
The men, that copied the story of our Lord's
birth from the Gospel of his Infancy, and
inserted it in Matthew, would naturally say,
that the original, as well as the copy, was
his production. By that means, they were
most likely to secure the credit of the story,
though the insertion of it, in the genuine
Gospel, should be discovered.

Again, in the foregoing letter, it is said, that
Matthew intended the book should be kept se-
cret *, that it should be entrusted to none but

resies, which say the Christ descended upon him in the form of
a dove, after his baptism." Vol. 1. 442.

* We may here see the meaning of Gregory Nysreti, when he
speaks of the secret h/siorfoi the Virgin. SerTillemont, vol. I.
p. 374. This last author refers to p. 346 De Nativitate Christi
of the former. Epiphanius calls these gospels, Jewish traditions^
invented by the Ehionites, or Nazarene Christians. His ob-
jeft was to screen himself and his fellow-impostors, from the ac-
cusation of forgery, by imputing it to his adversaries ; on the
same principle that a thief charges another with theft, in order,
by that means, to shelter his own charadler from suspicion,

2 H 4 -

462

the most faithful, and that these handed it
down from one generation to another. Now
these are assertions no less remarkable in them-
selves, than conformable to fact. From the
first fabrication of these gospels to the age
of Jerome, they were kept in profound se-
crecy. Neither Justin Martyr, nor Irenaeus,
nor Tertullian, nor Clement of Alexandria,
has taken any notice of them, though they
appear from facts, which they copied from
them, to have been well acquainted with
their existence and contents. This is a sin-
gular circumstance ; and nothing will ac-
count for it, but the fact, tliat the narratives
of our Saviour's birth, now extant in the ge-^
nuine records, were taken from these Gos-
pels; and that the above writers were all
well aware of the forgery. Had they
brought them to light, or made the same use
of them as Jerome and others of his time
did, the fraud would have been detected :
and this is what they were sensible of. They
had, therefore, the prudence, or rather the
cunning, to pass over them in silence. But
the lapse of four hundred years, as it had ob-
literated from the generality of men, all
knowledge of the original forgery, and its
base authors, permitted the champions of
imposture to act ditferently from their pre-

463

decessors. Accordingly we see the autlior
of this letter stepping forward, and, with a
fraud equalled only by audacity, imposing
upon the ignorance and credulity of the age
ill which he lived, as the production of an
holy evangelist, writings, which he well
knew originated in Egyptian falsehood and
duplicity.

Finally, we may see the reason why the
contents of the two spurious gospels, above
examined, have been received and attested
as tj'ue, by the advocates of the divinity and
miraculous conception of Jesus in every age
of the church. Thus Origen, TertuUian,
and others, state it as matter of fact, though
they dared not to produce their authority
for such assertions, that Christ was born ma
neighbouring cave, and not in the town of
Bethlehem ; that his brothers and sisters were
the children of Joseph by a former wife;
and that Herod murdered Zacharias the fa-
ther of John the Baptist, in the entrance of
the temple*. When the progress of time

* See the Proievangelion, chap.xxiii. The account of his mur-
der by Herod is, in part, as follows : ** Zacharias was murdered,
in the entrance of the temple and altar, and above the partition;
but the children of Israel did not know when he was killed."
Then at the hour of salutation the priests went into the temple:

4f64f

rendered it safe to bring those gospels to
light, the supporters of error and superstition,
even while they were afraid to maintain
their genuineness, persisted in asserting and
propagating the truth of those things which
they contain. Hence we see the opinions,

but Zacharias according to custom did not meet them, and bless
them, yet they still continued waiting for him to salute them ;
and when they found that he did not, in a long time, come, one
of them ventured into the holy place, where the altar was, and
he saw blood lying on the ground, congealed ; when, behold ! a
voice from heaven said, Zacharias is murdered, and his blood
shall not be washed away until the Revenger come."

Observe, now, how exacdlly TertuUian has copied this nar-
rative, " Zacharias inter altare et aedem trucidatur, perennes
cruoris sui maculas silicibus adsignans," p. 493. D. On read-
ing the above account of Zacharias in the temple you will antici-
pate me in the remark, that what we read of this same Zacharias,
in the first chapter of Luke, is taken from it. But my princi-
pal objecH; is to observe, that the circumstance of these chapters
being copied from the spurious gospels, will serve to detedl a
glaring forgery in Matthew xxiii. 35. The impostors, who in-
serted the story in the genuine records, in order to give the
colour of truth to the fidlion of Zacharias's death, took awdy
the words. Son of Jehoiada and the rest of the citation, which
our Lord mad? from 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21. and put in their
room, the following clause from the gospel of Mary; Son sf
Zacharias, nuhomys shv) beinueen the temple and the altar. On
the authority of Jerome, we are assured that the gospel, which
the Jewish Christians used, and, which we shall presently see,
was the gospel of Matthew in its original and genuine state, had
instead of Son of Barachias, Son of Jehoiada. In evangelic,
quo Nazaraeni utuntur, pro filio Barachiae, filium Jehoiadse
scriptum reperimus. Comment, in loco. And this appears to nae
a sufficient proof of the forgery.

465

that Mary was the daughter of Joiachim and
Anna, that she was conceived in their ad-
vanced age, that miracles attended her birth,
that she was devoted by her parents for the
service of the temple, and, that though es-
poused to Joseph, she continued a virgin
throuo-h life*, prevail in the catholic church
through successive generations, almost to
the present day.

In an enquiry concerning the origin and
truth of the miraculous birth of Jesus, the
sentiments of the ancient Jewish christians
ouo-ht not in propriety to be omitted. The
investigation of their belief on the subject
will form the next step in our progress.
And here we shall meet with additional evi-
dence that the introductory chapters in Mat-
thew never came from him.

Matthew addressed his gospel to the Jew-
ish believers, and composed it solely for
their use. This is a fact attested by all an-

* Some of the later fathers have gone so far as to say that the
Virgin did not die, or that after' her death she rose again. Read,
if you have leisure, the History of the Bks^ed Virgin by ritle-
mont. You will there meet with sad instances of that latitude in
error into which men will be carried, when they once deviate
from the straight path of truth.

466

cient writers, and allowed, I believe, by
most modern critics ; nor can it indeed well
be called in question, as it is supported by
abundance of internal evidence. A few in-
stances in corroboration of it, the reader may
be pleased to see pointed out :

1. Matthew, in as much as he wrote for
a people, who well understood the meaning,
and readily admitted, the authority of the
Jewish prophets, applies to our Lord as the
Messiah, their predictions, more frequently
than either of the other evangelists*.

2. In the Gospel according to Matthew -f-,
Christ cites, or alludes to certain maxims of
the Mosaic law, which citations and allusions
are not preserved with equal fidelity in the
Gospels of Mark and Luke. To this it may
be added, that he is represented by the for-
mer, as reasoning from customs and opini-
ons peculiar to the Jews, much oftener than
by the latter historians.

3. The impartiality which the Christian

* Matthew iv. 15, 16. xii. ig. xxi. 5. xxiii. 35, xxvii. 35.

•{* Matthew ix. 13. xii. 7. Compare these with Mark ii. 28.
Luke V. 5. Compare agnin Matthew xix, 28. with Mark x. 30.
Luke xviii. 29.

467

system enjoins, and the magnanimity, which
it inspires, required of Matthew to record
with impartiality, all those evils, that his
Master had foretold, would befal the nation,
on account of its sins; the severe reprehensions
which he had passed on the scribes and Pha-
risees, for their vices, together with the de-
fects he had pointed out in the Mosaic reli-
gion, and the improvements proposed in his
own. Accordingly, several chapters in this
gospel are employed in the narrative of what
Christ delivered on these subjects. This is
a prominent feature, which distinguishes the
Gospel of Matthew from that of Mark.
The odium that prevailed in Rome, where
this latter evangelist published his gospel,
against his countrymen, and their system,
and the partiality on the other hand, which
he cherished for both, induced him to omit
them altogether.

Now the conclusion, which forces itself
on our attention, from the consideration,
that Matthew addressed his gospel to the
Hebrew converts, is this : — He must then
have composed it in the Hebrew tongue^,

* The question in what language Matthew published his gospel
has been discussed, with much variety of opinion, by modern
critics, Lightfoot, Michaelis, Wakefield, and others patronize the

468

I mean, that dialect of it, A^^hich was, at the
time, commonly used- in Judea. This in-
ference appears in my judgment, unavoid-
able : for it is inconceivable, that a writer,
who, as Irenasus says of him, eagerly desired
to reform the manners and improve the un-
derstandings of his countrymen, should ad-
dress them in a foreign and unknown lan-
guage.

Would an Englishman, residing in Eng-
land, publish in French, a book, for the ex-
press use of his fellow -subjects, in which
they were all, learned and unlearned, deeply
and equally concerned ? Or would a native
of Wales, address the inhabitants of that
country, in any other than the Welch
tongLie, on a subject of high importance to
them ? To suppose this, would be absurd ;
nor can it be less absurd to suppose, that
Matthew wrote to the Jewish people in any
other than the Jewish language. For it can-
not, I presume,' be affirmed, that Greek was
then so prevalent in Judea, and so well un-
derstood by the common people, as English

tradition of the fathers, that he wrote it in the then "Vernacular
tongue of Judea ; while, Lardner, Jortin, Le Clerc, Wetstein
and many besides, decide for the opinion, that he composed it
in the Greek language. See Lard, voh 6. 6c< 65,

4:69

is at present in Wales, or even- French in

England.

This argument receives additional force
from the concurrent testimony of the fa-
thers; who say, that Matthew did compose
his gospel in the Hebrew dialect*: and to
this testimony is due, it appears to me, the
highest credit, as they had no motive to con-
cur.in a falsehood ; the bias, on the contrary,
will presently seem to be on the other side.

Nor can it be objected to this, tliat the pre-
sent Greek text carries no internal evidence
of its being a translation, which my argu-
ment supposes : for this evidence could only
appear from a minute comparison of it with
the original. But, in the case before us,
such a comparison is precluded by the loss
of the original. Nor would it be a conces-
sion of any weight, were I to grant what is
sometimes maintained, that the Gospel of.
Mattliew is marked by those characters of
unlaboured ease and simplicity, which dis-
tinguish the others. For, though the gos-
pels of Mark, Luke, acd John, were con-
fessedly written in Greek, they ought, never-

* These testimonies are cited by Lardner, vol. vi, p. 49—52.

470

theless, to be considered as little better than
translations from the Hebrew : since they are
only so many different specimens of He-
brew ideas, dictated and arranged in the
Helen istic dialect. And are we to infer,
that the Gospel of Matthew is not a tran-
slation, because it exhibits those quaHties
which characterise compositions, that may
be deemed but a species of translations?

It must not, however, be allowed, that
no marks of its being a translation can be
discerned in the present Greek text of Mat-
thew. For it has a stile more figurative; it
abounds with stronger allusions, with bolder
personifications, and contains more numer-
ous comparisons and parables than the other
gospels. These peculiarities, which a tran-
slator could not but in part preserve, are ow-
ing, I conceive, to the genius of the Jewish
language, which, on account of its high an-
tiquity, is formed, more than any other,
upon objects of sense ; and for this reason,
invests, in a proportionally greater degree,
whatever ideas it expresses, with images
borrowed from material things. To this it
may be added, that the original identical
words, which our Lord had used, are seldom
preserved in this gospel; whereas they occur

471

frcquently in that of Mark *. Now the
contrary of this might fairly be expected,
liad Matthew written in the Greek tongue,
and addressed a people like himself preju-
diced in favour of the Hebrew language. On
the contrary, the fact is easily accounted for,
on the supposition, that the evangelist had
penned his history in this tongue. For a
translator, being uninfluenced by the preju-
dice of the original writer, would, of course,
decline retaining the original words ; ex-
cepting where the want of corresponding
terms, having equal import, rendered it ne-
cessary-j-. It is worthy of remark, finally,
that Matthew, for the most part, expresses
that kingdom of peace and righteousness to
be established by the Messiah on the earth,
by those terms, which denominate it in the
Jewish writings ; whereas the other evan-
gelists have deviated from this phraseology,
and generally stile it, not the kingdom of hea-

* Compare Mat. xv. 5. with Mark vii*. ii. Again, Mat.
xi, 25. with Mark v. 41. ; Mat. xix. 33. with Mark x. 51.

+ The word Racha is an instance of this kind ; no other lan-
guage having an equivalent name fully to express its significa-
tion : for this reason it is retained in all modern versions.
*• It is a word," says Lightfoot, " used by one that despiseth
another with the highest scorn." Light, in Mat, v. 22,

VOL. I. 2 1

472

vtn, but the kingdom of God. This diversity
of representation would not, it is probable,
have taken place, had Matthew written in
the same language with them.

Whatever weight these considerations may
have upon the reader, still the conclusion,
it is maintained, is irresistible that, as our in-
spired penman composed his narrative for
the Jews, he must have composed it in the
Jewish language : And this conclusion is
farther confirmed by the fathers, who agree
in this fact, though it has a tendency to over-
throw their own darling opinion respecting
the birth and person of Christ.

Now we find, that the first Jewish be-
lievers, to whom this historian addressed
his gospel, had the name of Nazarenes. This
denomination was applied to them by their
enemies, because their Master came from the
despised town of Nazareth ; and we shall pre-
sently see that they too willingly adopted it,
in order to distinguish themselves from those
christians among the Gentiles, who falsely
maintained that he was born at Bethlehem,

But the Jewish converts were soon called
by another name, which was equally igno-

473

minious. They were stiled Ebionltes, a
term expressive of their poverty, and applied
to them in contempt of it.

. But the Ebionites are supposed by the ge-
nerality of modern critics, not to have been
the same with the Nazarenes, or the great
body of the Jewish christians; but a §ect,
whom an intemperate zeal for the Mosaic
law, had separated into a distinct society.
But this opinion, I am free to say, has no
foundation in truth : And my reasons for it
are the following* : —

1. The early christian writers, such as
Iren^eusf , Origen, and Eusebius, who speak

* I am the more confident in this assertion, as Dr. Priestley,
in his History of Early Opinions, (vol. iii. lib. 3. c. 8.) has clear-
ly proved that the Nazarenes and Ebionites were the same
people.

+ Vide Irenseus, p. 102, where he describes their sentiments;
and p. 358, where he attempts to refute them. It is deserving
of notice, that this writer never applies the title of Nazarenes
to any of the Jewish believers. His reason was, that he knew
this to be the name by which the first christian society, with
Jesus at their head, were distinguished. Common decency,
therefore, if nothing else could, restrained him from branding
the Jewish converts as heretics, under the denomination which
they had in common with Christ and his apostles. As to Ori-
gen, says Dr. Priestley, " His testimony is clear and decisive

2 12

474

of the Jewish believers, have no where no-
ticed such a distinction between the Naza-
renes and Ebionites : on the contrary, they
apply to the Hebrew converts the common
denomination of Ebionites, without the small-
est intimation that they were different sects
of christians. But this difference, they
would most certainly have marked, had
there been any foundation for it in truth :
since the sentiments of the Ebionites con-
cerning the birth and person of Jesus, were
opposite to their own; and, as they were
the sentiments of a people, who had every
opportunity to know the truth, no method
could have proved so likely to counter-
act and overthrow them, as to oppose to
them the opinion of the other Jewish con-
verts, separated from the former under the
appropriate name of Nazarenes. This ar-
gument receives an additional weight from
Jerome*, who gives the title of Nazarenes

to this purpose : He says, that the word Ebion, in the Jewish
language, signifies poor, and those of the Jews, who believe Je-
sus to be the Christ are called Ebioitites." Ear. Opin. vol. iii.
p. 1 66. See also his book against Celsus, where he divides the
Jewish believers into two classes, and calls each class Ebionites,
Lib. V. p. 232. In the next page the Doctor adds, " Eusebius
gives the very same account of the two sorts of Ebionites, and
makes no mention of any Nazarenes as differing from them."
Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 27. p. 121.

* See Dr. Priestley, p. 169 — 180.

475

to those, whom Origen and others call
Ebionites.

2. That the names of Ebionites and Na-
zarene^ were but two different appellations
of the same people, appears from Augustine,
who says, that the Syinmachians^ were Na-
zarenes; but Symmachus is well known to
have been an Ebionite: the Symmachians,
or Nazarenes, therefore, were Ebionites too.

3. Theodoret says, that Iren^us wrote
against the Nazarenes ; but, Irenaeus has
written against the Jewish christians under
the name of Ebionites, consequently, ac-
cording to these writers, the Ebionites and
Nazarenes were the same people -f .

.4. From the account, which Epiphaniifs
has given of the origin of the Ebionites, we
may conclude, that they were the very same

* Lard. vol. ili. p. 307. Tillemont, vol. ii. p. 86.

\ I assert this on the authority of Tillemont^ (vol, ii. p. 83).
His words are these, '* Theodorit says, that S. Justin, S. Iren-
aus, and Origen, wrote against the Nazarseans. And yet we
do not perceive that either S. Irenaeus or Origen have spokea
expressly of them ; but confuiing the Ebionites wat confuting

213

47^

with those Jews, whom the apostles con-
verted to the christian faith, and, who in
the Acts^ are called Nazarenes. " They
call themselves poor,'* says that writer, " be-
cause, in the times of the apostles, they sold
their property, and laid it at the feet of the
apostles*". If then they were converted by
the apostles, and, if they gave up th;:a* prp-.
perty to them, they must have been tiie very
persons spoken of i . the Acts; and these
certainly formed the sect of the Nazarenes.

5. Since it appears from the preceding
paragraph, that the Jewish converts were
reproached by their adversaries under the
name of Ebionites, even early in the times
of the apostles, we might expect in their
writings some allusions to such a reproach :
And in this expectation, if I be not mistaken,
we shall not, on enquiry, be disappointed.
The Apostle Paul, for instance, seems to air
lude to it, when he enumerates the several
ignominious points of light in which he and
his fellow-labourers were placed by their
enemies, " As unknown, though well
known ; as deceivers, yet true ; as dying,
and behold we live; as severely treated, yet

* Epiphan. vol, i, p. 141. A,

477

not destroyed; as sullen, though always re-
joicmg; as poor, yet enriching many;"
1 Cor. vi. 8 — 10. Here you see Paul repre-
sents the Jewish believers, together with the
apostles, as vilified under the appellation oF
jyow, which is the signification of the word
(Aebiounlm) Ebionites, That this was a
term of reproach appropriated to the follow-
ers of Jesus, appears evident from the cir-
cumstance of the writer subjoining anotlier
clause, in order to explain the meaning of
it, '* as having nothingy though possessing all
thinss." Examine also Rom. xv. 26. Gal.
ii. 10. James ii. 2, 3, 5, 6, In 2 Cor. viii.
9. the same author has these remarkable
words, " Ye know the kindness of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that being rich, he, on your
account, became poor, that in his poverty ye
misfht be made rich." The Hebrew verb
Aebeh, from which the term Aebioun, Ebion-
ite, is taken, signifies to will, or, io^do a thing
with a willing mind. Hence the above clause
might thus be rendered: — He being rich,
willingli/ became an Y.bion on your account ;
that is, he, of his own accord, assumed the
condition of a man, that was poor, and a
man, too, that was despised on account of
his poverty. That the apostle had the ori-

2 14

47 S

ginal sense of the word in his mind, may be
inkrred from what he immediately adds, by
way of exhortation to the Corinthians, to fol-
low our Lord's example : — " Now, tliere-
fore, perform the doing of it, that as there
was a readiness to zvill, so there may be a
performance also, out of that which you
have."

The later fathers ascribe the origin of the
Jewish christians to one Ebion ; but so
vague is the manner in which they speak of
him, that modern critics are agreed, that
sucli a person never really existed. This is
a remarkable fact : but it is a fact, which
receives an obvious solution from the above
passage. There it is said, that Jesus became^
or ivas, an Ebion. As the title of Ebionites
was applied to the Nazarene sect in general,
that of Ebion must have been appropriated
to the founder of them, that is, Ebion and
Christ was the same person. But the Christ
of the Jewish believers was born at Naza-
reth; whereas that of the Gentile converts
was a God that came down from heaven,
and received his birth at Bethlehem. While
the early christian writers were restrained by
a sense of decency, and something like the
love of truth, from thus distinguishing be-

479

tween Christ and Ebion, Epiphanius * had-
the courage to make the necessary disthic-
tlon, and having thus separated the former,
he lets loose upon the hitter all the rage of
malice and calumny. If then the matter
stood as is here stated, no wonder that he and
others who speak, have not been particular
in their account of him. I shall only add,
that by tbion, Epiphanius must mean the
Son of Joseph of Nazareth ; for he says, that
that man was the founder of the Ebionites -f ;
but it will appear, in the sequel, if it do not
appear already, that the founder of that sect
^as, beyond all dispute, the founder of
Christianity.

So inconsistent were the enemies of our
Lord and his followers, that, while they
sometimes vilihed them, as poor, yet at other
times, they attected to speak of their new
profession as a mere artihce to enrich them-

* Tertullian in his treatise De Virginihtis Velandh, makes
mention ot Hebion ; but he applies this name to the Jetu^sh be-
liever, who rejected the tale ot Jesus being born of a virgin,
p. 176. Misheim, therefore, is mistaken, when he says, that
the iibove writer spt-aks of him as the founder of the Ebionites.
See his Commentaries, p. 331. The honour of this represen-
tation must, if 1 am not mistaken, be left to Epiphanius, as
its original author,

^ See vol. i, p. 125.

480

selves. This charge Philo, in a book,
which he wrote in defence of the disciples
' of Jesus, in Egypt, has noticed; and he repels
it with that high-toned eloquence, which
a great and good man never fails to display,
when called, in a trying emergence, to plead
the cause of truth and innocence. " Is it
not," says he, ** irrational, and replete with
impudence, or madness, or something
else, which, from its enormity, wants a
name, to say that those men are rich, who
are most destitute, and in want even of com-,
mon necessaries ; lead a sorrowful and afflict-
ed life; voluntarily submit to famine them-
selves, in order to supply the public with
plenty, and feed on the ethereal breath of
virtue as grass-hoppers, they say, feed alone
on air*."

* While the generous provisions, which the poorer classes of
the Jewish converts received, gave their enemies the opportunity
of saying, that they embraced Christianity for the s^Ice of sharing
in the common benefit ; so the unrivalled generosity of the
wealthy believers, which prompted them to distribute the^r
goods among their poorer brethren, in the manner related in
Acts, chap. V. exposed them to the imputation of being deemed
poor, and to the odium of being ranked with the Ebionites.
The inconsistence and malice of their adversaries in thisT-espect,
Philo exposes, in the same strain of divine eloquence and holy
indignation: *' Is it not irrational and replete with impudence
or madness, or something else, which, from its enormity, wants
a name, to say (on the other hand) that those men zxefoor, who

4S1

6. Farther, it will presently appear, frora
the Gospel of Matthew, that the Hebrew
converts, to whom this evangelist addressee!
his narrative, and who, in the Acts of the
Apostles, and in the Writings of the Fathers,
are called Nazarenes, were no other than the
Ebionites: Since there may be discovered in
it, traces of that illiberal attachment to the
Mosaic institutions, and of that jealousy for
their Jewisli privileges, under which the latt
ter are represented as having laboured.

These arguments seem to me to prove^

abound with gold, silver, revenues, and a multitude of other pos*
sessions; whose abundance supplies not only their own friend^
and relatives, but extending beyond their own families, re-
lieves large communities and tribes of men, and furnishes even
a whole city with such things as are necessary in peace or war.'^
From this extraordinary exertion of benevolence, which Philo
himself says, exceeds the power of language to describe, we may-
perceive the force and justice of Paul's declaration, Though

FOOR, TET MAKING MANY RICH.

It is particularly worthy of notice, that the famine, to which
that noble Author alludes, as voluntarily undergone by the
Jewish believers for the sake of supplying the public with
plenty, is that, which is thus noticed by Luke, " And in those
days, some teaghers came down from Jerusalem to Antioch ; one
of whom, named Agahus, arose, and signified by the Spirit,

THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A GREAT FAiMlNE

THROUGHOUT ALL THE WORLD, whi.ch ca me to pass accord-
ingly under Claudius Uaesar. Then every one of the disciples
according to his ability, determined to send relief to their bre-
thren of Judea." Acts xi. 27 — 30.

482

beyond all dispute, that the distinction,
which Epiphanius has insinuated, and which
liis implicit followers ever since have admit-
ted, without a shadow of evidence, to have
subsisted between the Nazarenes and Ebion-
ites, has no foundation in any thing but arti-
fice alid falsehood.

Let us next proceed to the application that
is to be made of the preceding enquiry :

Fi7'stj In as much as Matthew published
his gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and ex-
pressly for the use of the Hebrew converts, it
follows, that this was the very gospel, and no
other, which was used and received by them
as authentic. This inference is confirmed,
if confirmation be necessary, by the words
of Irena^us, who says, that the Gospel ac-
cording to Matthew, was written for the
Jews : for these earnestly desired a Christ
from the seed of David ; and Matthew, hav-
ing a still greater desire for this, hastened,
with all diligence, to fulfil it*". As then

* Evangelium secundum Mattha^um ad Judaeosscriptum. Hi
cnim majorem in modum cupiebantex semineDavidisChristurn
ostcndi. Matthsus vero, qui eadem nee remissiore quam ipsi
cupiditate tcneretur, orani ratione contendit plenam ipsis fidem
i'acere quod Christus sit e setnine Davidis : propterea a Christi
genealogia initium duxit ; page 47 i.

483

the Jewish christians earnestly desired a gos-
pel from the hands of Matthew, and as this
evangelist complied with their desire, it
must have been this alone, which they
adopted as the authentic standard of their
faith and practice. Indeed Iren^eus in ano-
ther place says positively, that the Ebionites,
or the body of the Hebrew believers, did
use the Gospel of Matthew, and no other *.

Secondlijy It is hence certain, that the in-
troductory chapters did not exist in the ori-
ginal gospel, which came from the hand of
Matthew. For it is implied in the words of
Irenasus, and unequivocally asserted by Epi-
phanius-f, that the gospel, which the Ebion-
ites had received, did not contain those
chapters, but began at the third. The for-
mer of these writers, it is true, says, that our
evangelist began with the genealogy; and
the latter boldly affirms, that the Jews mu-

* Qui autem dicuntur Ebionaei consentiant quidem miindum.
a Deo factum. — Solo autem evangeiio quod est secundum Mat-
thaeum utuntur ; p. 102.

-}• Vide vol. i. p. 137. In the next page he says of them,
that they cut off the genealogy from the gospel which they used,
and that it thus began, ** And it came to pass, in the days of
Herod king of Judea, under Caiphas the chief priest, that John
came baptising with the baptism of repentance in the river Jor-
dan.

484

tilated die genuine gospel. But these are
assertions without proof, and the assertions
too of men capable of telhng any falsehood
in support of their own darling opinions.
To every candid enquirer it must appear
highly Improbable, that those christians
should have rejected any part of their gos^
pel, if they were convinced of its authenti-
city. The reason of this improbability is
obvious : the preaching of this evangelist,
and that of the other apostles, was the
means of converting them to the christian
faith. He must, therefore, have been held
by them in liigh and incontrovertible autho-
rity: and, as a proof of this, they solicited
from him a gospel, which they valued more
than any of the others. It was not, then,
because they ?nutilated, but because they
preserved unadulterated, the sacred records
committed to their care, that they rejected
the disputed chapters. The charge of muti-
lation they would, undoubtedly, have repel-
led with indignation, and retorted upon their
accusers, the guilt of an unparalleled false-
hood and forgery. This then being the case,
we have the testimony of the Jewish chris-
tians, who, as they w^re in circumstances,
which precluded all doubt or mistake, were
the most competent judges on the subject,

485

That the chapters in question formed no parf^
of the original Gospel of Matthew.

Thirdly, As the Hebrew christians, whe-
ther they be called Nazarenes or Ebionites,
used the genuine Gospel of Matthew, it fol-
lows of course, that the spurious gospel,
which the fathers call the Nazarene Gospel^
and of which they have given us some ex-
tracts in their writings, was not regarded by
them as the authentic history of that evan-
gelist, though they might hold it in some
estimation and occasionally consult it. This
gospel was probably the production of
some Jewish converts, and, as it may have
contained facts not related in the Evange-
lical History, or exhibited such as are, in a
new and peculiar light, it would very well
serve, the purpose of explaining or illustrat-
ing the authentic Gospel of Matthew. The
use of it, thus far, was rational and praise-
worthy, though it might furnish their op-
ponents among the Gentiles, with speci-
ous grounds for misrepresentation. For so
great was the malice of the fathers against
the Jewish believers, for opposing the divi-
nity and supernatural birth of Jesus, that
they availed themselves of every opportunity
to misrepresent tlieir sentiments, and to vi-

4S6

lity their character *. It cannot therefore be
a matter of wonder, that they have fixed
upon certain parts in a book^ which was in-
tended merely to illustrate the Apostolic re-
cords, and handed them down to posterity as
so many specimens of the gospel, which these
Jewish believers preferred and deemed ge-
nuine,

* The Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, used to coiner
and offer prayers, where the temple stood, till they were pro-
hibited by the orders of Adrian, to approach that place. See
Mosheim De Rebus Chrisiianorum, p. 332. Irenaeus from this
takes occasion to say, that they paid divine honours to that city,
p. 103. The Jewish christians again rej.cted the divinity of
Jesus, and maintained that the Spirit of God descended upon
him after his baptism in the river Jordan. This seems to have
given rise to the following barefaced calumny of Epiphanius.
ihj^ «v1» Seov tx°^^^' ^''-'O' ^^teem ijoater as a God. p. 53.
Clement in one of his Stromata, says something of the same kind
concerning the disciples of Thales, who held water to be the prin-
ciple of all things, l^iao 'u; 9eov (ji^ovti. Which if I recoUeA
right, are his words. Take the following paragraph, in which
Epiphanius speaks of Ebion, or Jesus the son of Joseph of Naza-
reth as a specimen of the manner in which the Ebionifes are spo-
ken of by the later fathers: Ut enim,si quis variisex lapillisorna-
tum, sibi aliquem conficiat, aut variegatam coloribus vestem
induat, atqueexqulsitam quondam elegantiam adhibeat, sic illee
contra omnibus undique perniciosis ac pestifevis dogmatibus
accercitis.quidqaid unaquaique haeresishorrendtim imprimis, et
exitiabllc, ac detestandum asserit, turpe, inqu m, et absonum
absurditatisqoe plenum, et odiosum, e sinci lis doema concin-
Tiaris, omnium in se formas specicsqne transtiilit. Nam Sama-
ritanorum impuram supevstiti' nemafFcdlavit. A Juda-is pnrro
nomen accepit. AbOssoeis et Nnzaraeisdigmata. Ccrinhiano-
rum deinde formam, Carpocratianorum requitiam ; Christian-
orum denique appellationetn usurpare contendit, p. 125.

487

Fourthly, The artful insinuation of Je-
rome, anci the audacious assertion of Epipha-
nius, that the account of tlie miraculous con-
ception, existed in this Nazarene, or spurious
gospel, though admitted to be true, can have
no weight, nor aftord any just groun4 for in-
ferrino- that the same account was extant in
the genuine production of Matthew. On
the contrary, the presumption is, that as the
Hebrew christians appear from indisputable
evidence, not to have had the story prefixed,
to the authentic gospel, which they used, they
had it not, in a gospel less esteemed indeed,
but valuable, for the purpose of illustration.
This presumption is confirmed, by the man-
ner in which Epiphanius attests the above
fact: " The Nazarenes have the Gospel ac-
cording to Matthew, most complete in the
Hebrew language : for this is still preserved
among tliem obviously, as it w^as written from
the beginning in Hebrew characters. But
I know not whether they have taken away
the genealogies from Abraham to Christ*."
Observe here, he does not say that the ]S^a-

* E;j^oii!7t ^£ TO y.a.'ra, MaT9onov EvayysXtov 7rX»igsr«T0v E^^xirt'
sra^ auTOt j ■/«§ o-oi^wj rovro, staG^uj sf ajJiib Eyfatpn E^g«Jx,ok; yja/A-
uKCTi, £Tt criD^irai' ovk oiJ«Je, ej wxi Taj ■yEVEaXoyiaj T» oiiTQ Tcu
A^^ocaiJi. axi^ Xgifou ffEgisiAoy. Vol. i. p. 124.

VOL. r. 2 K

488

zarenes used this gospel, but only had it in
their possession. 1 he writer is also guilty of
gross inconsistence : for he asserts, that they
had this gospel most complete, and yet imme-
diately adds, " he did not know whether they
had taken away the genealogies." Epipha-
nius moreover seems to me to labour under
a secret conviction of falsehood, in asserting
the integrity of this gospel, and endeavours
to repel it, by a number of emphatic words.
This gospel is still preserved — is preserved
among them — is preserved obviously, as it was
written yro7?i the hegimiing. Whether there
be any weight in this observation or not, it
may be still demonstrated, that the Nazarenes
had no gospel among them, which contained
the introductory chapters : for it appears,
from the account, which this very author
gives of them, that they were no believers in
the contents of those chapters. His account
of their sentiments is as follows: " They do
not differ in any way from the Jews, ex-
cepting that they believe in Christ ; for
they admit, that the dead shall be raised,
and that God is the author of all things.
They maintain too that God is one, and
that Jesus is his Son *". If then, they

* Neque enim apud illos, legis Hbri, prophetae aut HagJo
jjrapha prohibentur, quae Judasi Biblia nuncupant, ut et a Ju-

489

agreed with the Jews, excepthig that they
beheved in Christ, they must, Uke them,
have rejected his divinity, pre-existence,
and supernatural birth. Like the Jews, too,
they maintained that God, and not Jesus,
was the Maker of all things, that there was
but one, and not three Gods. They how-
ever believed, differently from their country-
men, that Jesus was the Son or servant of
God. Epiphanius must therefore be guilty
of gross equivocation, when, in the sequel he
adds, that " he was not sure, whether they
were led by the depravity of Cerinthus to
adopt the doctrine of our Lord's simple hu-
manity." But if you were not sure, sir, -of
this, why did you stigmatize them as heretics,
and inveigh against them v/ith all the viru-
lence of reproach, calling them horiiets, which
inflict pain hy their poisonous bites f

If however any doubt still remain of the

conviction of Epiphanius, that the Jewish

xhristians were unitarians, in the strictest

dxis approbantur , a quibus Nazarasi nulla in re dissentlunt,
qui ad legis pra^scriptum ac Judaeorum more omnia sua dogma-
ta profitentur : nisi quod in Christum credunt. Nam et mortuos
excitari putant, eta Deo universa producta, unum esseDeum,
ejus que filium Jesum Christum praedicant; p. 122,

2K 2

490

sense of the word, it must be removed by
the account which he gives of the first Jew-
ish converts, in Egypt. " Having seen,"
says he, " as it were from a distant beacon,
th.e flame, which Jesus and his apostles kin-
dled in Judea, though they knew not the
use of it; they too kindled a fire in imitation
of it, and burnt themselves. For having
heard of the name of Jesus, and seen some
of the signs exhibited by the hands of the
apostles, they believed in Christ, and as they
knew that he was conceived at Nazareth,
and brought up in the house of Joseph, and
for this reason stiled Jesus of Nazareth ^ they
assumed to themselves the title of Naza-
renes ^'\ In this passage are two things
worthy of notice: 1, Ihe Mazarene chris-

* Erant ilH gcnere quidem Judaei, atque ad legem et cir-
cumcisionem hxserant; sed qucroadircdum qui e specula pro-
cul igPfiT! a'=p;clunt, neque cujus rel gratia, quemve a'l usum
hoc incendiiira excitatum luerit, sciunt, utrunnnam ad obsonia
coquenda, cibosque victui piaeparandcs, an ut cremia aridavc
virgulta, utassolet, concremarent; sic illi, illud ipsum imitati,
semetipsos incendio consumpserunt ; siquidem, solo Jesu no-
niine audito, conspectisque, quas ab apostolis fierent portentis

ac miraculis, in ilium et ipsi quoque crediderunt. Fvovt^j ^e

ciVTOVf Na^KfST £V yccr^i lyy-vixcmkivroi,, xa.i a emu ItKrn^ avar^a^-
£VTa, KIX.I ^kcc TCXtTO Ev Tu ivocyysXiui IvTouv TCiv Nay^'paiov xaXsto-Gaj,
w; -it-o-i 'oi AcrocTToXoi (pacr*, Ihctomv tov Na^wjawv awja aTOdEd'Ety/xE-
vov 01/TJ4 o-Jijauoij x«i TEgK'74 xat E^»?f, TGUTo TO ow/xa ET*Ti9£«(r»y etvron"
page 120.

491

tians in Egypt (some of whom, perhaps,
were at Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost,
and there converted hy the apostles to the
new finih, which, of course, they conveyed
with them into their own country), knew
that Jesus was not only educated at Nazareth,
but born in that place. They tlierefore re-
jected the story, whicli represents him as
having received his birth at Bethlehem.
2. Because our Lord was born and educated
at Nazareth, they assumed the name of Na-
'zarenes. They therefore distinguished them-
seh^es by this appellation, in opposition to
those that referred his nativity to the town of
Bethlehem; that is, they intended, by the
very name, which they adopted, as the fol-
lowers of Jesus, to discourage the story of
his supposed miraculous birth. Hence,
their calumniator, Epiphanius, says of
them, that they burned themselves in the
very fire, which they kindled in imitation
of Christ and his apostles.

But this is not all the evidence we have to
prove that the introductory chapters were
not contained in the genuine original gos-
pel of Matthew. The sect of the Nazarene
christians were famous for their skill in the

2 K .3

492

Hebrew language, and diligent in the in-
vestigation of their sacred records. Sym-
machusy a Syrian philosopher, became a
convert to their principles, though he flou-
rished at a period, when they had lost much
of the lustre they had attained to, in the apos-
tolic age. Eusebius speaks of him thus,
in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. vi. c. 17.
** Syvimachus was an Ebionite. The heresy
of those, who are thus called, maintained,
that Christ was born of Joseph and Mary,
and supposed that he was a mere man ; and,
as we have seen from the preceding history,
adhered firmly to the Jewish law. The
commentaries of Symmachus are still ex-
tant, in which he strenuously exerts himself
to fortify the above-mentioned heresy, by
an appeal to the Gospel of Matthew*.

The inference from this passage is very
obvious. As Symmachus fortified the he-
resy of the Ebionites by an energetic, appeal
to the Gospel of Matthew, the story of our

* The words in the original are very strong : — Ev o<j J«

5oxE» TTfOj TO xala MaTOsjiov ivocyyiXiov airoTuvoy.i'iOi tw ^£iJ»)X«/it£vw
'oi.t^iakv xgaTUVEtv' He stretches himself to bear up the above-de'
dared heresy^ by resting its "weight on Matthew. The allu-
sion is to a man supporting a heavy burden, by pressing against
it, when placed in part on something else opposite to him.

493

Lord's supernatural birth, was not extant in.
that, which the Jewish converts used: and
that the gospel under the name of Mat-
thew, to wliich he thus appealed, was the
original and genuine one, even Eusebius
dares not deny.

In another place, (lib. iv. cap. 22. p. 184)
Eusebius thus speaks of Hegesippus, an early
Jewish christian, who wrote an history of
the church, from the days of the apostles to
his own time: — " He extracts some things
out of the gospel according to the Hebrews;
(I mean out of) that, which is composed in
the Syriac, and especially that in the He-
brew dialect, shewing, by that means, that he
was a believer from among the Hebrews*.'*
Here it is plainly implied, — that there existed
a Hebrew Gospel- of Matthew in the time of
Hegesippus, which (if I understand the
author rightly) was written both in the
Syriac tongue and in the then modern He-
brew;— that in reference to the difterent sects
of the Gnostics, (whom Eusebius had just be-
fore mentioned, as refuted by Hegesippus)
he cited some things out of the Hebrew, and
not out of the Greek version, and that in do-

* See the observations of Lardner on these words; vol. ii. p. 144,

2k4

4-94

ing this, he manifested himself to be one of
the Ebionites. From which these two con-
clusions follow : — Ilegesippus acted the same
part, which Symmachus did after him, viz.
appealed to the original Gospel of Matd)ow,
in support of the Eblonite heresy; and that
the circumstance of a man's citing the He-
brew, and not the Greek gospel, was deemed
a sufficient proof, in those days, that he re-
jected the divinity and supernatural birth of
Jesus.

The spuriousness of the chapters in ques-
tion may, in the last place, be proved, by the
authority of Tatian. This heretic, as he is
called, was for some time a disciple of Justin
Martyr. But refusing, in imitation of his
master, to adopt the pernicious maxim, that
it w^as lawful to tell a falsehood in order to
promote the truth, rejected the story of our
Lord's supernatural birth, and excluded it
from a harmony of the four gospels, which
he compiled. His honesty, in this respect,
of course, brought down upon him the ven-
geance of the orthodox divines, who, in suc-
ceeding ages, supported the tale. Accord-
ingly, Irenasus and Epiphanius represent
him as an apostate from the truth, and one,
that had sunk into all the blasphemous errors

- 495

of the Gnostics: It is painful to sec a virtu-
ous character thus traduced, and that for the
vcrv reasons, which eiltitle him to our esteem
and veneration. Fortunately one of tiie
productions of this writer has survived the
wreck of time, and the mahce of ancient
fraud. His Oration to the Greeks, which
coukl come from none but a man, that was
truly honest, and highly elegant and inform-
ed, shows to us what his real principles were;
and proves, that in all the essential articles of
the christian faith, they were diametrically
opposite to the Gnostic system. For, in this
work, he professes to believe, and he incul-
cates too upon his readers, in unequivocal
terms, that the human soul is material and
mortal in itsdj) but shall be restored again to
life with the resurrection of the body (Vide
p. 52. Edition Worth.) ; that Christ really suf-
fered (p. 54.); that there shall be a judg-
ment to come, in which God himself will
preside (p. 24.) He also ascribes the crea-
tion of the world to the Almighty, from
whom, and not from an inferior deity, pro-
ceeded the Logosl (p. 20.) Finally he re-
futes the doctrine of fatality, denies the sup-
posed inliucnce of the stars, the artifices of
magic, and the efficacy of charms and amu-
lets (p. 3G, 37, (54, 65.) In short, so far

496

from falling into the absurdities of Valenti-
iius, he stands forth, a teacher of the truth,
as it is in Jesus. At least, it may be said of
him, that, if he has not reasoned with all the
accuracy and justness of a thoroughly-en-
lightened christian, he has not in any in-
stance deviated into the wilds of heathenism,
or attempted to recommend his faith, under
the borrowed colours of falsehood*. Theo-

* I cannot help selecting one passage, as a specimen of Ta-
tlan's style and manner. After observing that he would not re-
ceive the decrees of fate ; since the worst of men taught this
doctrine, merely as a pretext to justify their own enormities,
he then adds, "1 have no wish to become a king: I am not
inclined to enrich myself; I have refused prefcrmerts; I hate
debaucheries; and that luxury, which results from commerce, I
do not covet; 1 strive not to attain your Olympic crowns; I am
free from the madness of ambition ; 1 despise death, and am su-
perior to all the attacks of disease; nor does sorrow waste my
soul. If 1 be a slave, I remain in slavery ; and if I be born free, I
pride not in the freedom of my birth. I behold the same sun
with others; and others, like me, are subject to that death, which
is the consequence of yielding to sin. The afHuent man sows
the around, and the needy man partakes of his produce. The
rich die, and the poor reach the circumscribed end of life. They
who possess much riches, want for more, and through the affect-
ed respect, which is shown them, they become vain-glorious;
while he, who is not in affluence, has most contentment.
Desiring nothing but what depends upon himself, he lives in
placid tranquillity;" p. ^13. No reader of taste, I am sure,
can peruse this paragraph without being gratified with that sim-
ple eloquence and unl^boured ease, which mark the language of
it : And as to the sentiments it contains, he must be convinced,
that the man, wh- dicta! ed them, pusscssed a mind highly exalted
by the views, and rigidly disciplined by the influence of the
christian doctrine.

497

doret thus speaks of Ills Harmony of the
Gospels :—" He composed a gospel, which
is called Dia Tessaron (of the Four), leaving
out the genealogies, and every thing, which
shows the Lord to be of the seed of David,
according to the flesh; which has been used
not ,only by those of his sect, but also by
thern, who follow the apostolic doctrine,
they not perceiving the fraud of the compo-
sition, but simply using it as a compendious
book. I have also met with two hundred ol
these books, which were in esteem in our
churches; all which I took away, and laid
aside in a parcel, and placed in their room
the gospels of the four evangelists;" Apud
Lar. voLii. p. 138.

In this passage it is said, that Tatian left out
the genealogies. By this 1 conceive, we are to
understand, that he took away the introduc-
tory chapters in Matthew and Luke, in which
the genealogies are contained. Thus Epi-
phanius says of the Nazarenes, that he did not
know whether they cut off the genealogies
from the Gospel of Matthew, meaning the
whole story of our Lord's birth*. AVhat is

* Thus too Irenaeus, when he informs us that Matthew be-
gan with the genealogy, it is his object to inculcate that the in-
troductory chapters were extant in his gospel. It appears, m-

498

here added, that he exckided the other texts,
which show the Lord to have been born of
the seed of David, is probably a falsehood,
and indeed may be shown to be such. The
position that he was not the offspring of
David, was only maintained by the Gnos-
tics, as a consequence of their opinion that
Jesus was a man only in appearance, or that
he descended from some Egyptian family.
But Tatian was not an Egyptian, nor a Gnos-
tic, and therefore could not be led by his
principles, or by national pride, to the above
conclusion. Farther, Epiphanius tells us,
that his Harmony was classed with the gospel
according to the Hebrews, and was thought
by some to be the same with that gospel*;
and this seems to be the meaning of Theodo-

deed, that in the Harmony, still extant, and which is ascribed to
Tatian, these chapters wholly, or in part, are found. But, I
hesitate not to say, that nothing which favours the doctrine of
our Lord's supernatural birth, ever came from that upright
man. He did not believe it, and he had too much integrity to
impose upon mankind such a gross falsehood as a branch of the
gospel of Christ. Had Tatian embraced the story, he, like his
master Justin and others, would have mentioned and enforced it
in his address to the Greeks. But not a syllable is there said
about it, which is a plain proof that it formed no part of his
creed.

* The words of Epiphanius are as follows : — Aiyilai Js ro,
Tjys; xaXouo-r Vol. i. p. 391.

499

ret, when he says, that it was used not only
by those of liis sect, but also by them, who ,
follow the apostolic doctrine. But how
could it have been classed with the Hebrew
gospel, or used by those, that followed the
doctrine of the apostles, if the author left out
the places, which show Jesus to be a descen-
dant of David ! The assertion of Theodoret
then, is a falsehood, proceeding from the
same dishonourable motive, which promp-
ted him to vilify all the faithful believers,
who disdained to adulterate the celestial
wine of truth with the impure streams of
human error.

From the implied testimony then of Ta-
tian, Hegesippus, and Symmachus, and from
the concurrent belief of all the Jewish chris-
tians, the conclusion irresistibly follows, that
the original gospel, composed by our holy
evangelist, did not contain the controverted
chapters. This fact will serve to clear up
some difficulties, respecting the real existence
of that gospel in former times. First, It
explains the reason, why the fathers have
not bestowed the same care in the preserva-
tion of it, as of the present Greek text, or of
the other gospels. Had it been transmitted
to posterity, it would, they well knew^ be

500

an everlasting monument of the subsequent
insertion of the introductory part. The
fraud and the fear of detection, of which
Theodoret gives us an example in the above
passage, confined the circulation of it to
the Jewish believers. They were the sole
repository of it, and with them it perished.
Secondly f From the same motive, which in-
duced the christian writers to suppress that
gospel, they also neglected to make enquiries
about it*, or to give us some information
respecting the person, who translated it

* Lardner argues against the real existence of Matthew's He-
brew gospel, from Origen not enquiring after and consulting it.
" In his Commentaries on the second Psalra, he makes mention
of two Hebrew copies, which he had seen, and observes a differ-
ence between them, in disposing the first two Psalms, and then
how they were disposed in the Septungint version. Again,
upon Ps. iii. 7, he consults the Hebrew copies, and finds a
difference from the Seventy. Well, why did not Origen enquire
also for Hebrew copies of St. Matthew's Gospel ?"

" I cannot but think, therefore, Origen was not fully satis-
fied that St. Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. Undoubt-
edly there was such a tradition, as ije himself owns. This was
said by some ; but perhaps the account was not so attested as to
demand a ready assent. If Origen had believed Sf. Matthew's
gospel to have been written in Hebrew, in all probrbility he
would have been induced to enquire for it; and if his belief had
been well grounded, it can hardly be doubted, but he might have
found it upon enquiry. Origen had an intimate friendship with
the chief bishops of Palestine : he could not but be well known
to all the christians in general in that country, none of whom
would have refused to lend him their copies of any book of the
New Testament in their possession. At one word spoken by

501

into Greek, and the time in which this was
done. Thirdlyy As the circumstance that
Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, without
the miraculous conception, bore decidedly
against the advocates of that story, in an-
cient times, their testimony to the publica-
tion of that gospel in the Hebrew language,
is deserving of the highest credit : Since we
may rest assured, that they would never have
concurred in such a tradition, if it were not
founded in truth. Had its publication in
that tongue been a matter of uncertainty, or
had it been capable, from its obscurity, of
being concealed, they would have passed it
over in profound silence, and represented
the interpolated Greek version as the only
genuine production of that evangelist*.

him Ambrose, and the notaries employed by him, and many
others, would have sought for Hebrew copies of St. Matthew s
gospel- and if there had been any such in that country, or near it,
there would have been brought to him as many as he desired.
Nevertheless Origen does not appear to have ever seen such a
copy • therefore, there was no such thing in being as an authen-
tic Hebrew Gcspel of St. Matthew: if there had, how cou.d
it have escaped the industry and inquisitiveness of Ongen ;
vol. ii. p. 541, 542*

See also vol. vi. p. 62. where he argues, that Matthew did
not write his gospel in Hebrew, because we are not informed
who it was that rendered it into Greek.

* No part of ancient ecclesiastical history is so obscure,
confused, and contradictory, as what relates to the Jewish con-

502

Tinally\, It follows, from the forgery of
the disputed chapters, that Jesus became the
Son of God just after his baptism by John,
and that the power and wisdom, which then
descended upon him in the form of a dove,
together with the attestation then given him
by Jehovah himself, as his Son, constitute
his claims to that character. > And this is
what the Jewish christians, with the apostles
at their head, maintained. The truth of the
above conclusion, too, is confirmed by the
remarkable piece of history, which imme-
diately succeeds the narrative of his bap-
tism.

As Jesus possessed the nature of man, and
like all other men was governed by the great

verts, their sentiments, and the gospel, which they used. The
investigation, which is made above will, I trust, serve to clear up
these subjects. It hence appears, that all the confusion and ob-
scurity, which hang over them, have proceeded entirely from.
the endeavours of the fathers to perpetuate and impose upon
posterity for divine truths, those abominable doctrines, which
were borrowed from the G nostics, at a time when, as we shall see
in the sequel, their sentiments underwent some reformation, in
consequence of the vigorous opposition made to them by the
apostles. I cannot conclude without recommending it to my
readers, to peruse the writings of Jones, Lardner, and others,
respecting the Nazarcne Gospel. He will there see into what false
ccnclusions, absurd conjectures, and endless uncertainties, they
have been betrayed by an unsuspecting, but mistaken confidence,
in the authority of the early christian writers.

50S

law of self-lov<3, he felt, on receiving hi*
commission from heaven, a powerful and
instantaneous inchnation to use it, fur his
own personal benefit. Hence arose in his
breast, a violent struggle between selfish de-
sire, on the one hand, and the necessity ot
submitting, on the other, to the will of hea-
ven, in the execution of his office. The
powers, of which he saw himself possessed,
gave such a strong and sudden impulse to
the natural wish of gratifying his own appe-
tites, and of investing himself agreeably to
the prepossessions of his countrymen, with
all spiritual and temporal dominion, as to
hold him for some short time in suspense
about the course he should pursue. But
being aware, that a compliance .with this
impulse would frustrate the end of his mis-
sion, and forfeit his character as the Son of
God, he nobly resisted the suggestions of
self-love, as so many temptations offered by
Satan himself, " Then was Jesus," writes
the evangelist, " led up of the spirit into the
wilderness, to be tempted of the devil And
when he had fasted forty days and forty
nights, he was afterwards an hungered.^ And
when the tempter came to him, he said. If
thou be the Son of God, command that

VOL. U ^ ^

504

tliese stones be made bread. But he an-
swered, and said, It is written, man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth from the mouth of God."

"Then tlie devil takcth him up into the
holy city, and setteth him on the pinnacle
of the temple. And said unto him. If thou
be the Son of God, cast thyself down: For
it is written. He shall give his angels charge
concerning thee ; and in their hands they
shall bear thee up, lest, at any time, thou
dash thy foot against a stone, Jesus said
unto him, It is written again. Thou shalt
not tempt the Lord thy God."

** Again, the devil taketh him up into an
exceeding high inountain, and sheweth him
all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory
of them. And saith unto him, all those
things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down
and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto
him. Get thee hence Satan : for it is written.
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and
him only shalt thou serve;" Mat. iv. 1 — 11.

This piece of history, when divested of
that symbolical representation, which cha-
racterises the style of the eastern nations,

505

and expressed in plain and simple terms, is,
as appears to me, to this effect: — Jesus feel-
ing very liimgry, proposed to himself the ijiies-
tion, fV'helher, if he really ivere the Son of God,
he iniglit not use his extraordinary powers as
such, to supply his wants, and thus prevent him-
self jrom languisJiing to death*. But this
question, which was excited in his mind by the
want of food, he negatived, as it might lead to
an exercise of his powers, which, though inno-
cent, on the present occasion would be inconsis-
tent ivith the will of God, and favourable to
the cause of the adversary.

Having resisted this temptation, he was at-
tacked by another : He knew the manner in which
his countrymen expected their Messiah to make
his fust appearance. The natural wish he che-

* The eiid, which the tempter had in view in his attempt to
persuade Jesus to turn stones into bread, or, as Mr. Wakefield
renders the clause, into loaves, is not expressed. But his
object is very evident trom the rtply made to him, Man shall
net live on bread alone. Which mtans, that though he should
in a miraculous manner procure food, it would not necessarily
follow, that his lile should be preserved. The drift of the
tempter, then, was to insinuate, that J-sus v.ould perish
through hunger, unless he used his power imme 'i-^tely to sup-
ply his want. This ellipsis, be it ob.erved, is d strong pre-
sumption, that the whole ot tht Kn.^ t:u ion consisted of ideas,
excited in the mind of Jesus by his i.tangs and other circum-
itances.

2L2

50(5

risked of being reeeivecl as such by thayiy sug^
gested to him the proprieti/ of placing himself
on the eastern wing of the temple^ and dropping
thence in the midst of the immense crowd below.
If he did this, hisjancy suggested to hi?n, that,
on seeing him Jail, unhurt , from sucJl a stupen-
dous height, they would receive him as the
Messiah, and in consequence invest him, with-
out hesitation, with the chief dignities and
emoluments of the Jewish church. But this
suggestion, too, he witltstood : for, however de-
sirable lie deemed it to be, to insure the favour
of the Jews by appearing aynong them, in the
manner, in zvhich tJiei/ expected their Messiah
to appear, he judged it presumptuous to depend
on God Jor an extraordinary support, if he en-^
dangercd his life to answer an end, xvliicJi his
wisdom thought fit to accomplish by other and
better means.

Tlie love of glory and distinction, zvhich are
inseparable Jrom the human heart, Jiowever ex-
alted by benevolence^ presented to the imagina-
tion of Jesus a still greater alluremmt. Not
only the government of Judea, but all the king-
doms of tJie world, ambition held up to his viav,
as within his reach, if he ti^ould but employ for
this purpose, the authority now invested in him;
(ilid itfartJicr iminuated, that his aggrandise^

507

Tiient in this respect^ would remove at once,
every impediment to universal reception ; since
the whole Jewish nation expected a prince, and
a conqueror, in the person of their Messiah,
But this temptation he instantly repelled, as
'being incanipafible with that conduct, ivhich
the wisdom of heaven thought fit he sJwuldpur"
sue, as the Saviour of mankind**

From this explanation of the passage,

* The hypothesis of Farmer, that the temptation was a
xuistonary scene is, I conceive, itself a vision, though no reader
of taste can peruse his treatise, without being charmed and edi-
fied with the many elegant and just remarks, which are inter-
spersed throughout the whole uf it. The general idea, however,
Tvhich that able critic entertained on this subject is, I contend,
far from the truth. In proof of my assertion, were it not fo-
reign to the present enquiry, I might adduce many, and, as it
appears to me, decisive reasons. But the best and most f ffec-
tual way to overthrow an erroneous supposition is the substitu-
tion of on more just and true : And it is maintained, that the
circutn stances of the ideas, which constitute the temptation,
being, on this occasion, excited in the breast of our Lord, well
accords with the conclusion we are taught to draw from the known
laws of the human mind, operating in the peculiar situation, in
which the history n presents him. These laws furthrr justify us
in asserting, th:it those ideas would be most predominant, ict en
first suggested, and that ■' d orce would be weakener*, and
their recurrence rendered less frequent, after the first tempta-
tion, which they presented, hadbeen successfullydcieated; though
they might at intervals, recur in subsequent scenes. And this
was the fact: Luke, in addition to the narrative of Matthew,
asserts, " And when the devil had ended all the temptation, hf
departed fnm him for a season ;'* chap. iy. 13.

508
we may draw the three following conclu-

sions

First, Jesus assumed the title, Son of God,
because he was thus pointed out by the di-
vine Spuit, which descended upon him, after
his baptism, and not because he was a super-
natural being, or, because he had come into
this world in a supernatural manner.

Secondly, The doubt, which our Lord
seems to have entertained, that he was the
Messiah, implied in the words, if thou bc- the
Son of God, and which naturally proceeded
from the vast magnitude and novelty of his
commission, is incompatable with tiie re-
ceived doctrines of his divinity and super-
natural birth.

Thirdly^ The same conclusion follows,
from the violent temptations, to which he was
exposed, immediately after he had received
divine power and wisdom. Such tempta-
tions correspond precisely with the feelings
and language, which a.being merely human
would have manifested, if placed in the cir-
cumstances of our Saviour at that time. Had
he been a divine or ang* lie being, conceiv-
ed without the inbU amen tali ty of a man, of

509

which, if true, he must have been fully
aware, all temptation from the love of plea-
sure, riches, and ambition *, would have
been absolutely precluded by a firm and
unshaken conviction, that he was the Christ,
and by an early and invariable determination,
as to the course he should pursue in the dis-
charge of his otBce.

* It is worthy of notice, that the temptation of Jesus con-
sists ot" three f(r-ts, which taken together, cm prise all those selfish
considerations, which tempt men to sacrifice to their own pri-
vate gratifications, these duties, which they owe to God and their
neighbours. The first comprehends the pleasure of eating and
driniiing, or in general those of sense. The second includes
church authority, or that authority, which ecclesiastical men pos-
sess and exercise, under a false system of religion, over the
minds of their fellow-creatures ; while the third coni^'ms tempo-
ral pow:er, or that power, which usurpers have claimed in all
ages, over the bodies of men. These, with the riches and ho-
nours procured by them, it is certain, constitute the tempta-
tions, which assail every human being; and they are the temp-
tations, it seems, which, though without success, attacked our
Lord. Hence we perceive, the propriety of the apostoliu declara-
tion, *' For we have not an high-priest, which cannot be touched
with the feeling of our infirmities, but ivas in all foinis tempted
as ive are, yet luithout sin ;" Heb. iv. 15.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME,

PRINTED BY E. BAINES,
i.EEDS.

rt'i.

■N

)

\^\

If'

-^ • /

I 'I

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "A development of remarkable events, calculated to restore the Christian religion to its original purity, and to repel the objections of unbelievers"

See other formats