III. The famous claufe in this teftimony of Jofephus concering Chrift, This was Chrift, or the Chrift, did not mean that this Jefus was the Chrift of God, or the true Meffiab of the Jews, but that this Jefus was diftinguished from all others of that name, of which there were not a few, as mentioned by Jofephus himself, by the addition of the other name of Chrift; or that this perton was no other than he whom all the world knew by the name of Jefus Chrift, and his followers by the name of Chriftians. This I efteem to be a clear cafe, and that from the arguments following:

(1) The Greeks and Romans, for whofe ufe Jofephus wrote his Antiquities, could no otherwife underftand thefe words The Jews indeed, and afterwards the Christians, who knew that a great Meffias, a perfon that was to be Chrift, the Anointed of God and that was to perform the office of a King, a Prieft, and a Prophet, to God's people, might readily fo understand this expreflion; but lofephus, as I have already noted, wrote here, not to Jews or Chriftians, but to Greeks and Romans, who knew nothing of this, but knew very well that an eminent perfon living in Judea, whofe name was Jefus Chrift, or elirs the Chrift, hath founded a new and numerous fect, which took the latter of thofe names, and were every where from him called Chrestians, or Chriftians, in which fenfe alone could they understand thefe words of Jofephus, and in which fente I believe he defired they fhould underitand them: Nor does Jofephus ever ufe the Hebrew term Me.ab in any of his writings, nor the Greck term Chrift in any fuch acceptation elsewhere.

(2.) Jofephus himself as good as explains his own meaning, and that by the laft claufe of th's very pallage where he fays the Chriftians were named from this Chrift without a fyllable as though he really meant he was the true Meffiah, or Chrift of God. le farther feems to me to explain this his meaning in that other place where alone he elfewhere mentions this name of Chrift, that is, when upon occafion of the mention of James. when he was condemned by Ananus, he calls him the Brother of Jefus, not that was the true Meffiab, or the true Chrift, but only that was called Christ.

(3.) It was quite befide the purpofe of fofephus to declare himself here to be a Chriftian, or a believer in Jefus as the true Mefliah. Had he intended fo to do, he would furely have explained the meaning of the word Chrift to his Greek and Roman readers; he would furely have been a great deal fuller and larger in his accounts of Chrift, and of the Chriftian religion: Nor would fuch a declaration at that time have recommended him, or his nation. or his writings, to either the Greeks or the Romans; of his reputation with both which people he is known to have been, in the writing of thefe Antiquities, very greatly folicitous.

(4.) Jofephus's ufual way of writing is hiftorical and declarative of facts, and of the opinions of others and but rarely fuch as directly informs us of his own opinion, unlefs we prudently gather it from what he fays hiftorically, or as the opinions of others. This is very obfervable in the writings of Jofephus. and in particular as to what he fays of John the Bapt it, and of James the Juft; fo that this interpretationis moft probable, as moft agreeable to Jofephus's way of writing in parallel cafes.

(5.). This feems to be the univerfal fenfe of all the ancients without exception. who cite this teftimony from him; and though they almost every where own this to be the true reading, yet do they every where fuppofe Tofephus to be ftill an unbelieving Jew, and not a believing Chralian: Nay, Jerome appears fo well affured of this interpretation. and that Jofephus did not mean to declare any more by these words than a common opinion, that, according to his ufual way of interpreting authors, not to the words but to the fenfe, (of which we have, I

hink, two more inftances in his accounts out of Jofephus, now before us) he renders this claufe credebatur effe Chriftus, i. e. He was believed to be brift. Nor is the parallel expreffion of Pilate to be otherwife understood, when he made that infcription upon the crofs. This is Jefus the king of the fetus which is well explained by himfelf elsewhere, and correfponds to the import of the prefent claufe, What shall I do with Jefus who is called Chrift? And we may full as well prove from Pilate's infcription upon the crofs that he hereby declared himself a believer in Chrift for the real King of the Jews as we can from these words of Jofephus. that he thereby declared himself to be a real believer in him. as the true Meffiah.

IV. Though Jofephus did not defign here to declare himfelf openly to be a Chriftian, yet could he not poffibly believe all that he here af ferts concerning Jefus Christ, unlefs he were fo far a Chriftian as the Jewith Nazarenes or Ebionites then were, who bel eved Jefus of Nazareth to be the true Melliah. without believing he was more than a man; who alfo believed the neceflity of the obfervation of the ceremo nial law of Mofes in order to falvation for all mankind, which were the two main articles of thofe Jewish Chriftians' faith, though in oppofition to all the thirteen apoftles of Jefus Chrift in the first century, and in opposition to the whole Catholic Church of Chrift in the following centuries alfo. Accordingly I have elsewhere proved, that fofephus was no other in his own mind and confcience, than a Nazarene or Ebionite Jewish Chriftian; and have observed that this entire testimony, and all that jofephus lays of John the Baptist, and of james, as well as his abfolute filence about all the reft of the apoftles and their companions, exactly agrees to him under that character, and no other. And indeed to me it is molt aftonishing, that all our learned men, who have of late confidered thefe teftimonies of jofephus, except the converted Jew Gelatinus, fhould mifs fuch an obvious and natural obfervation. We all know this from St. James's own words, that fo many ten thoufands of the Jews as believed in Chrift, in the first century, were all zealous of the ceremonial law. or were no other than Nazarene or Ebionite Chriftians; and, by confequence, if there were any reafon to think our Jofephus to be in any fenfe a believer, or a Chriftian, as from all thefe teftimonies there were very great ones, all thofe, and many other reafons, could not but conspire to affure us, he was no other than a Nazarene or Ebionite Chriftian: And this I take to be the plain and evident key of this whole matter.

V. Since therefore lofer hus appears to have been, in his own heart and confcience, no other than a Nazarene or Ebionite Chriftian, and by confequence, with them rejected all our Greek gofpels and Greek books of the New Teftament, and received only the Hebrew gofpel of the Nazarenes or Ebionites flyled by them, The gospel according to the Hebrews; or according to the twelve apoftles; or even according to Matthew, we ought always to have that Nazarene or Ebionite gospel, with the other Nazarene or Ebionite fragments in view, when we confider any pallages of ofephus relating to Chrift, or to Christianity. Thus, fince that gofpel omitted all that is in the beginning of our St. Matthew's and St. Luke's gofpels, and began with the ministry of John the Baptif; in which firft parts of the gospel hiftory are the accounts of the laughter of the infants, and of the inrollment or taxation under Auguftus Cæfar and Herod, it is no great wonder that jo. ephus has not taken care particularly and clearly to preferve thofe hiftories to us. Thus when we find that Jofephus calls tames the brother of Chrift, by the name of James the Full, and defcribes him as a mofl juft or righteous man, in an especial manner, we are to remember that fuch is his name and character in the gospel according to the He

* Matth. xxvii 3.

+ Matth. xxvii. 17, 22.

brews, and the other Ebionite remains of Hegefippus, but no where elfe that I remember, in the earlieft antiquity: Nor are we to fuppofe they herein referred to any other than that righteousness which was by the Jewish law, wherein St. Paul*, before he embraced Christianity, pro felfed himself to have been blameless. Thus when Jofephus, with other Jews, afcribed the miferies of that nation under Vefpafian and Titus, with the deftruction of Jerufalem, to the barbarous murder of James the Juft, we muft remember what we learn from the Ebionite fragments of Hegefippus, that these Ebionites interpreted a prophecy of Ifaiah as foretelling this very murder, and thofe confequent miferies; Let us take away the just one for be is unprofitable to us; therefore fball they eat the fruit of their own ways. Thus when Jofephus fays, as we have feen, that the moft equitable citizens of Jerufalem, and thofe that were moft zealous of the law, were very uneafy at the condemnation of this James, and fome of his friends or fellow Chriftians, by the high priest and Sanhedrim, about A. D. 62. and declares, that he himself was one of thofe Jews who thought the terrible miferies of that nation effects of the vengeance of God for their murder of this James, about A. D. 68. we may eafily fee thofe opinions could only be the opinions of converted Jews or Ebionites. The high priest and Sanhedrim, who always profecuted the Chriftians, and now condemned thefe Chriftians, and the body of thefe unbelieving Jews who are fuppofed to fuffer for murdering this James, the head of the Nazarene or Ebionite Chriftians in Judea, could not, to be fure, be of that opinion: Nor could Jofephus himself be of the fame opinion, as he declares he was, without the ftrongest inclinations to the Chriftian religion, or without being fecretly a Christian Jew, i. e. a Nazarene, or Ebionite; which thing is, by the way, a very great additional argument that fuch he was, and no other. Thus, laffly, when Jofephus is cited in Suidas as affirming that Jefus officiated with the priests in the temple, this account is by no means difagreeable to the pretenfions of the Ebionites. Hegefippus affirms the very fame of James the just also.

VI. The first citation of the famous teftimony concerning our Saviour from Tacitus, almost all that was true of the Jews is directly taken by him out of Jofephus, as will be demonftrated under the third Differtation hereafter.

VII. The fecond author I have alleged for it is Juftin Martyr, one fo nearly coeval with Jofephus, that he might be born about the time when he wrote his Antiquities, appeals to the fame Antiquities by that very name; and though he does not here directly quote them, yet does he feem to me to allude to this very teftimony in them concerning our Saviour, when he affirms in this place to Trypho the Jew, That bis na tion originally knew that Jefus was rifen from the dead, and afcended into heaven, as the prophecies did foretel was to happen. Since there neither now is, nor probably in the days of Juftin was, any other Jewish tef timony extant which is fo agreeable to what Juftin here affirms of those Jews, as is this of Jofephus the Jew before us: Nor indeed does he feem to me to have had any thing elfe particular in his view here, but this very teftimony, where Jofephus fays, "That Jefus appeared to his followers alive the third day after his crucifixion, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."

VIII. The third author I have quoted for Jofephus's teftimonies of John the Baptist, of Jefus of Nazareth, and of James the Juft, is Origen, who is indeed allowed on all hands to have quoted him for the excellent characters of John the Baptift, and of James the Juft, but whofe fuppofed entire filence about this teftimony concerning Chrift is ufually alleged as the principal argument against its being genuine, and par

54L

ticularly as to the claufe, This was the Chrift, and that, as we have feen, because he twice affures us, that in his opinion, Jofephus did not himfelf acknowledge Jefus for the Chrift. Now as to this latter claufe, I have already fhewed, that Jofephus did not here, in writing to Greeks and Romans, mean any fuch thing by thofe words as Jews and Chriftians naturally underftand by them: I have alfo obferved, that all the ancients allow ftill, with Origen, that Jofephus did not in the Jewish and Chriftian fenfe, acknowledge jefus for the true Meffiah, or the true Chrift of God, notwithstanding their express quotation of that claufe in lofephus as genuine; fo that unlefs we fuppofe Origen to have had a different notion of thefe words from all the other ancients, we cannot conclude from this affertion of Origen's, that he had not thefe words in his copy, not to fay, that it is, after all, much more likely that his copy a little differed from the other copies in this claufe, or indeed omitted it entirely, than that he, on its account must be fuppofed not to have had the reft of this teftimony therein, though indeed I fee no neceflity of making any fuch fuppofal at all. However, it feems to me, that Origen affords us four feveral indications that the main parts, at leaft, of this teftimony itfelf were in his copy.

(1.) When Origen introduces Jofephus's teftimony concerning James the luft, that he thought the miferies of the Jews were an inftance of the divine vengeance on that nation, for putting James to death instead of Jefus, he ufes an expreffion no way necellary to his purpofe, nor occafioned by any words of Jofephus there, that they had flain that Chrift which was foretold in the prophecies. Whence could this expreffion come here into Origen's mind, when he was quoting a teftimony of Jofephus's concerning the brother of Chrift, but from his remembrance of a claufe in the teftimony of the fame Jofephus concerning Chrift himself, that the prophets had foretold his death and refurrection and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him?

(2.) How came Origen to be fo furprized at Jofephus's afcribing the deltruction of Jerufalem to the Jews murdering of James the Juft, and not to their murdering of Jefus, as we have feen he was, if he had not known that Jofephus had fpoken of Jefus and his death before, and that he had a very good opinion of Jefus, which yet he could learn no way fo authentically as from this teftimony? Nor do the words he here ufes, that Jofephus was not remote from the truth, perhaps allude to any thing elfe but to this very teftimony before us.

(3.) How can the fame Origen, upon another flight occafion, when he had juft fet down that teftimony of Jofephus concerning James the Juft, the brother of Jefus, who was called Chrift, to fay, That "it may be queftioned whether the Jews thought Jefus to be a man, or whether they did not fuppofe him to be a being of a diviner kind?" This looks fo very like to the fifth and fixth claufes of this teftimony in Jofephus, that Jefus was a wife man if it be lawful to call him a man. that it is highly probable Origen thereby alluded to them: And this is the more to be depended on, becaufe all the unbelieving Jews, and all the rest of the Nazarene Jews, efteemed Jefus with one confent as a mere man, the fon of Jofeph and Mary; and it is not, I think, poffible to produce any one Jew but Jofephus, who in a fort of compliance with the Romans and the Catholic hriftians, who thought him a God, would fay any thing like his being a God.

(4.) How came Origen to affirm twice, fo exprefsly, that Jofephus did not himfelf own, in the jewish and Chriftian fenfe, that Jefus was Chrift, notwithstanding his quotations of fuch eminent teftimonies out of him for John the Baptift his forerunner, and for James the Juft his brother, and one of his principal difciples There is no paffage in all Jofephus fo likely to perfuade Origen of this as is the famous teftimony before us, wherein, as he and all the ancients underflood it, he was generally called Chrift indeed, but not any otherwife than as the com

mon name whence the fect of Chriftians was derived, and where he all alon; fpeaks of thofe Chriftians as a fect then in being, whofe author was a wonderful perfon, and his followers great lovers of him, and of the truth, yet as juch a fect as he had not joined himself to. Which expofition, as it is a very natural one, fo was it, I doubt, but too true of our Jofephus at that time: Nor can I devife any other reafon but this, and the parallel language of Jofephus elfewhere, when he speaks of James as the brother not of Jefus who was Christ, but of Jefus who was called Christ, that could fo naturally induce Origen and others to be of that opinion.

IX. There are two remarkable paffages in Suidas and Theophylact, already fet down, as citing Jofephus; the former that Jefus officiated with the priests in the temple, and the latter that the deftruction of Je. rufalem, and miferes of the Jews, were owing to their putting Jesus to death, which are in none of our prefent copies, nor cited thence by any ancienter authors, nor indeed do they feem altogether confiftent with the other more authentic teftimonies. However, fince Suidas cites his paffage from a treatife of Jofephus's called Memoirs of the Jews captivity, a book never heard of elsewhere and fince both citations are not at all difagreable to Iofephus's character as a Nazarene or Ebionite. I dare not pofitively conclude they are fpurious, but must leave them in fufpence, for the farther confideration of the learned.

X. As to that great critic Photius, in the ninth century, who is fuppofed not to have had this testimony in his copy of Jofephus, or else to have efteemed it fpurious. because in his extracts out of Jofephus's antiquities, it is not exprefly mentioned. This is a strange thing indeed! That a fection, which had been cited out of Jofephus's copies all along before the days of Photius, as well as it has been all along cited out of them fince his days. fhould be fuppofed not to be in his copy, because it does not direly mention it in certain fhort, and imperfect extracts, no way particularly relating to fuch matters. Thofe who lay a ftrefs on this filence of Phorius feem little to have attended to the nature and brevity of thofe extracts. They contain little or nothing, as he in effect profefles at their entrance, but what concerns Antipater. Herod the Great, and his brethren, and family, with their exploits. till the days of Agrippa jun. and Cumanus. the governor of Judea. fifteen years after the death of our saviour, without one word of Pilate. or what hap pened under his government which yet was the only proper place in which his reftiniony could come to be mentioned. However fince Photius feems, therefore, as we have seen, to fufpect the treatife afcribed by fome to Telephus of the Universe. because it fpeaks very high things of the eternal generation and divinity of Chrift this looks very Tike his knowledge and belief of fon.ewhat really in the fare Jofephus, which pake in a lower manner of him, which could be hardly any other pallage than this teftimony before us. And fince, as we have alfo teen, when he fpeaks of the Jewith hiftory of Juftus of Tiberias, as infected with the prejudices of the Jews, in taking no notice of the advent, of the acts, and of the miracles of Jefus Chrift, while yet he never fpeaks fo of Jofephus himfelf, this naturally implies also, that there was not the like occafion here as there. but that Jofephus had net wholly omitted that advent, thofe acts, or miracles, which yet he has done every where elfe, in the bocks feen by Photius, as well as Juftus of Tiberias, bur in this famous teftimony before us, fo that it is moft probable, Photius not only had this teftimony in his copy, but believed it to be genuine alto.

XI. As to the flence of Clement of Alexandria, who cites the an tiquities of Jofephus, but never cites any of the teftimonies now before us, it is no ftrange thing at all, fince he never cites Jofephus but once, and that for a point of chronology only, to determine how many years had paffed from the days of Mofes to the days of Jofephus, fo that has