Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Jewish Antiquities. Menage *, in his notes upon Diogenes Laertius, afcribes to Juftus three books, that is, Memoirs, befide the two before mentioned. I rather think, there was but one: and that what Juftus wrote of the war was comprised in the Chronicle. Menage's argument from Suidas is of no value. For Suidas expreffeth himself inaccurately. Nor does he mention more than two works. The Memoirs, ourpara, are the fame with Jerome's "Commentarioli "de Scripturis." Indeed, Suidas only tranfcribes Jerome, or his interpreter Sophronius, and has done it inaccurately.

[ocr errors]

Some learned men lament the lofs of this work.

Others think

it was of little value. I cannot but wish, that the work, which was in being in the time of Photius, had alfo reached us. It must have been of fome use. Perhaps the cenfure paffed upon it by Jofephus, who was in great credit, has been a prejudice to it.

I have allowed myself to enlarge in my notice of this writer, who lived at the time, and was an actor in the Jewish war with the Romans. Though his work is not extant, he is a witness to that important tranfaction.

Paufanias, who lived in the fecond century, and wrote after the year of our Lord 180, fpeaks || of a monument of queen Helena at Jerufalem, which (city) an emperor of the Romans had deftroyed to the foundation.

"Minucius Felix refers ** the Heathen people, not only to Jofe"phus, but also to Antonie Julian, a Roman author, from whom "they might learn that the Jews had not been ruined, nor aban"doned of God, till they had first abandoned him and that their "prefent low condition was owing to their wickedness, and obftinacy "therein, and that nothing had happened to them but what had been "foretold."

Who that Julian was, cannot be faid. There have been several of that name, one ++ of whom was Procurator of Judea, and was prefent with Titus at the fiege of Jerufalem, as we know from Jofephus. Tillemont fays, ‡‡ that poffibly he wrote a history of the siege of Jerufalem,

"Scripfit ille Hiftoriam Judaicam, eodem tempore quo Jofephus, a quo mendacii argui"tur. Scripfit præterea inoμnuara, quorum meminit Suidas. Scripfit et Chronicon Re<< gum Judæorum, qui coronati fuere : Ut eft apud Photium. Quod opus fignat hic Laertius.” Menag. in loc. p. 94.

"Jofephus, in Vitâ fuâ, et alibi, quafi parum fido fcriptori convitiatur. Sed de ini"mico, non magis ei crediderim, quam Jufto de Jofepho crederem, fi historia ejus exftaret, "atque in ea æmulo ab eo detractum viderem. Utinam vero, quæcumque fuerit, ad nos "ufque perveniffet." Cleric. H. E. A. C. C. cap. vii.

Tillem. as above, art. 80.

§ See Tillem. L'Emp. Marc. Aurele, art. xxxii. [[ ̔Εβραιος δὲ ̔Ελένης γυναικὸς ἐπιχωρίας τάφος ἐςὶν ἐν πόλει Σολύμοις, ἣν ἐς ἔδαφος κατέβαλεν ὁ Papásov Bacinεús. Paufan. 1. S. cap. 16, p. 633.

**"Scripta eorum relege. Vel fi Romanis magis gaudes, ut tranfeamus veteres, Flavii "Jofephi, vel Antonii Juliani, de Judæis require. Jam fcies, nequitiâ fuâ, hanc eos me"ruiffe fortunam: nec quidquam accidiffe, quod non fit his, fi in contumaciâ perfeverarent, "ante prædictum. Ita prius eos deferuiffe comprehendes, quam effe defertos: nec, ut impie loqueris, cum Deo fuo effe captos, fed a Deo, ut difciplinæ transfugas deditos." Minuc. cap. 33. Conf. cap. 10.

++ Καὶ Μάρκος ̓Αντώνιος Ιελιανὸς, ὁ τῆς Ιεδαίας ἐπίτροπος. Jof. de B. J. l. 6. cap. iv. 3. Ruine des Juifs, art. 72.

rufalem. G. Voffius, upon the ground of this paffage of Minucius, puts Antonie Julian among Latin hiftorians, who had writ a history of the Jews.

Minucius reckons Jofephus among Roman writers. Dr. Davis fufpects it to be an interpolation, and affigns not improbable reasons, in his notes upon the place.

Suetonius has mentioned the occafion of the war, the appointment of Vefpafian to be general, his, and his fon's triumph at Rome, and feveral other material things, which have been already obferved, or will in time be obferved by us from him.

What Tacitus has writ upon this subject, fo far as it remains, may be taken notice of hereafter.

Dion Caffius is another witnefs, whofe teftimony alfo may be taken more at large hereafter.

Philoftratus fays, "that ** when Titus had taken Jerusalem, and "filled all about it with dead bodies, and the neighbouring na"tions offered him crowns, he said, he was not worthy of fuch an "honour, nor had he himself, he faid, done that great work. He "had only lent his hand to the service of God, when he was pleased "to fhew his displeasure." Philoftratus fays, that Apollonius was much pleased with that token of wisdom and humanity. He likewise fays, that Apollonius wrote a letter to Titus, and fent it by Damis, to this purpose. "Apollonius fendeth greeting to Titus emperor of "the Romans. Since you refufe to be applauded for blood-fhed "and victory in war, I fend you the crown of moderation. You "know, for what things crowns are due."

Hence divers learned men have argued, that Titus refused to be crowned for his victory over the Jews. Bainage ++ and other learned men or the contrary are of opinion, that we may rely upon the authority of Jofephus, who tells us," that he went from Antioch to "the Zeugma, whither came to him meffengers from Vologefus "king of Parthia, and brought him a crown of gold, upon the victory obtained by him over the Jews: which he accepted of, and "feafted the king's meffengers, and then returned to Antioch. "Moreover, he accepted of a triumph for his victory over the Jews, "and all other honours cuftomary upon the like occafions." Neverthelefs Olearius, in his notes upon the place, argues, that ‡‡ Philoftratus needs

[ocr errors]

"Antonius Julianus Judaicam videtur hiftoriam confignaffe, &c." De Hift. Lat. 1. 3. De Hiftoricis incertæ ætatis.

Sueton. Vefpaf. cap. 4, 5.

I " — ac triumphum utriufque Judaicum, equo albo comitatus eft." Domit. cap. 2.
Vid. Tac. Hift. Lib. v.
Dio. 1. 66. fub in.

** Ἐπεὶ δὲ Τίτος ἡρήκει τὰ Σόλυμα, κ νεκρῶν πλέα ἦν πάνα, τὰ ὅμοςα τε ἐθνῶν ἐςε φάνων αυτόν. Ὁ δὲ ἐκ ἠξία ἑαυτὸν τέτε· μὴ γὰρ αὐτὸν ταῦτα εἰργάσθαι, θεῷ δὲ ὀργὴν φὴναντι ἐπεδεδωκέναι τὰς ἑαυτῷ χεῖρας. κ. λ. Philof. de Vit. Apol. 1. 6. cap. 29.

"Modeftiam Titi laudibus effert Baronius, quod oblatâ fibi coronâ aureâ à provinciis, "noluit coronari, teftatus fe prorfus indignum. Ufferius, aliique eruditi, illud et ipfum "tradunt, freti auctoritate Philoftrati."--- -Bafnag. Ann. 70. n. xvi. It <<

Quem tamen Jofephi locum immerito Philoftrato opponi putem.- -Neque enim Philoftratus repudialle coronem Titum ait, atque eâ non acceptâ legatos dimiffiffe,

" quod

needs not to be understood to say, that Titus refufed the crowns offered him, but only faid, that he was unworthy of that honour, he having been only an inftrument in the hand of God for displaying his juft vengeance againft guilty men.

And it must be owned, that Olearius expreffeth himself with great judgement and moderation. Either way, thofe learned men are to be reckoned mistaken, who have maintained that Titus refused to be crowned for his victory over the Jews.

However, we are ftill to reckon Philoftratus, at the beginning of the third century, a good witness to the overthrow of Jerufalem by

Titus.

These are early Heathen authors, who have related the deftruction of Jerufalem, and thereby borne teftimony to the accomplishment of our Lord's predictions concerning it.

Nor can any forget the triumphal arch of Titus, still standing at Rome, of which we before took notice.

There is also an ancient inscription to the honour of Titus *, who "by his father's directions and counfels had fubdued the Jewish na"tion and destroyed Jerufalem, which had never been destroyed by "any princes, or people before."

Which has occafioned fome learned men to fay, that even infcriptions are not free from flattery. But then it must be owned, that the genuineness and antiquity of this infcription have been called in queftion t. And there are some reasons to doubt, whether this comes from the fenate of Rome itself, as is pretended.

"quod viro docto interpretes perfuafere, fed hoc tantum, quod eo honore fe indignum dix"erit: juftitiæ Dei vindicatricis inftrumentum, cujus nullæ fuerint in iftis patrandis propriæ "vires fefe exftitiffe agnofcens, &c." Olear. in loc.

*

Imp. Tito. Cæfari. Divi. Vefpafiani. F.
Vefpafiano. Aug. Pontifici. Maximo
Trib. Pot. x. Imp. xvii. Cof. viii. P. P.
Principi. fuo. S. P. Q. R.

Quod. Præceptis. Patris. Confiliifque. et.
Aufpiciis. Gentem. Judæorum. Domuit. Et.
Urbem. Hierofolymam. Omnibus. Ante. Se.
Ducibus. Regibus. Gentibufque. aut. Fruftra.
Petitam. aut. omnino. Intentatam. Delevit.

Ap. Gruter. p. 244..

"Ubi fteterit, ignoratur. Scaliger vult ab Onufrio fictum." Ap. Gruter. Ib.

ALL

ALL THE

ACTIONS RECORDED IN THE GOSPEL

ARE

PROBABLE.

F the Gofpels were forgeries, it is natural to fuppofe, fome of the actions therein recorded would be unbecoming the character and circumftances of the perfons to whom they are afcribed. The truth is, this fort of cenfure has actually been paffed upon a few of the things performed by Jefus, by his difciples, and by his enemies. Indeed, the boldnefs with which particular actions have been thus condemned, looks as if they were really blameable; yet, upon examination, it appears that there is not any juft foundation for cavil here. In the relation which the Evangelifts have given of our Lord's actions, they have maintained the niceft propriety. He has done nothing below his dignity as the Son of God, and Saviour of the world. The conduct of his difciples and of his enemies is equally in character, being exactly fuch as might be expected from perfons of their difpofitions.In this, therefore, as in all other refpects, the Gofpels are fufficiently probable, yea carry a high degree of evidence in their own bofom. But, that the reader may judge for himself, 1 propofe to examine matters minutely; beginning with the ordinary actions of our Lord's life, which have been blamed by the enemies of revelation, as unworthy of the high character afcribed to him in the Gospels.

SECT.
E C T. I.

Shewing that all the ordinary actions of our Lord's life, were perfectly fuitable to his character and undertaking.

OUR Lord's ordinary actions are fuch as follow. During the years of his childhood and youth, he remained with his parents, being in fubjection to them, and working with his father at his occupation. When he entered on his public life, he went about doing good to the bodies and to the fouls of men. He minded no private concern of his own, being wholly employed in the duties of his miniftry.He therefore did not live in worldly pomp or fplendor, but in continual hardships and mortifications; being fupported VOL. V. N

by

by the charity of his friends.In all this he plainly acted agreeably to his character and function. Nor, in fact, have our adverfaries found any fault with his general conduct. What reproaches have been thrown out, are levelled against a few actions, which may be eafily defended, being reasonable and decent in the highest degree.

1. His behaviour towards his parents has been cenfured as not fufficiently refpectful. And the following inftances are mentioned. His ftaying behind them in Jerufalem without their knowledge, when at the age of twelve years they carried him up to the paffover. The anfwer which he gave to his mother at the marriage in Cana, when the informed him that the wine was run short. And what he faid of his mother and brethren, to one who told him, that they ftood without, defiring to speak with him.As to our Lord's "tarry"ing in Jerufalem after his parents were gone," though his mother blamed him for it, because of the pain which it had given them, it was no fort of difobedience. They had not ordered their fon to come away. Having parted with them by accident, perhaps on the day they propofed to fet out, they thought he had gone away with fome of their kinsfolk. And in this perfuafion they departed without making any fearch for him. The fault, therefore, if there was any here, lay in themfelves. His parents having thus left him, Jefus propofed to spend his time profitably till they fhould return. He prefented himself to the doctors, who in the chambers of the temple inftructed fuch young ones as had been brought up by their parents to the feaft. And when it came to his turn, by afking the doctors certain queftions in the courfe of the exercife, he modeftly infinuated to them a correction of the errors they were guilty of in teaching. Thus he gave the people a fpecimen, by way of prelude, of what he was more fully to perform afterwards in the course of his miniftry. If his parents had duly confidered what the angel formerly told them concerning the dignity of their fon, they might have expected fome fuch extraordinary tranfaction during his firft attendance in his father's houfe. At leaft, when they found him fo employed, instead of finding fault, they ought with reverence to have beheld those first manifeftations of his divinity. Wherefore the answer which he returned to his mother's complaint, is a fufficient vindication of his conduct in this matter. Luke ii. 49. And " he said unto them, How is it that ye fought me?" viz. on the road, that was an improper place. "Wift ye not that I must be about my "Father's bufinefs?" or, as others tranflate it, "in my Father's houfe?" You ought, therefore, to have fought me in the temple.--What Jefus faid to his mother at the marriage of Cana, was by no means difrefpectful. John ii, 4. "Woman, what have I to do with thee? "Mine hour is not yet come." In our language, indeed, the compellation of woman founds harfh, being a term of difrefpect. But it was by no means fo among the Eafterns, who made use of it in addreffing perfons of the first quality, as all know who are acquainted with the Grecian writings. Our Lord, therefore, is very ignorantly

found

« PreviousContinue »