hand, but that it would be accompanied by the end of all earthly things. The storm burst upon the Jews in the beginning of 68, the year A.D. 67, when Vespasian entered Galilee with a large army. The vigorous defence made by the towns of that province detained him there till nearly the end of the year; after which the death of Nero, [A.D. 68, June 10,] induced him to suspend his operations, which, on his own accession, [A.D. 69, July 3,] were resumed by his son Titus. During this interval, Jerusalem had suffered such miseries from internal seditions, that the arrival of the Romans was expected by many as a relief. Zacharias, the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent citizens, was murdered in the temple,†

* James v. 8, Be ye also patient; establish your hearts; for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 1 Peter i. 7, That the trial of your faith might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ; i. 20, Christ was manifested in these last times for you; iv. 7, But the end of all things is at hand; iv. 17, For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God.

Lardner conjectures the date of Peter's 1st Epistle 63, 64, or 65; of Jude's Epis. 64, 65, or 66; of James's Epis. 61. These dates fall within the time when the Jews began to anticipate the miseries to

come.

† Jos. War iv. ch. v.; Matt. xxiii. 35. Lardner concludes that the Zacharias, son of Barachias, mentioned in Matthew, was Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, killed in the court of the temple, 2 Chron. xxiv. (Credib. Part i. Book ii. ch. 6.) But the following reasons lead me to think that Josephus and Matthew intended the same person. Firstly, The names given to the father, Baruch and Barachias, although distinct in the Greek, might easily be confounded. Secondly, Although Jerome said that the Nazarenes had, in their copy of Matthew, "the son of Jehoiada," Lardner allows that it was probably an insertion, and that the copies of Matthew generally from the earliest times, had "son of Barachias." Thirdly, The purport of the discourse in Matthew is, that the Jews of that generation would suffer for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth; and as he begins with Abel, he was not likely to stop at the Zacharias in the Chronicles, B.C. 840, when there was abundance of righteous blood shed among the Jews after that date; whereas the murder of the Zacharias mentioned by Josephus was probably, at the time when Matthew wrote, a recent and notorious event. Fourthly, It would not appear to the writer of the gospel inconsistent to make Jesus, thirty-three years beforehand, speak of this Zacharias, since he represents him as speaking of many

[A.D. 68,] and his death was the beginning of a series of daily riots and massacres. The profanation of the temple seemed especially to forebode the approaching ruin of the state; because the book of Daniel had described the pollution of the sanctuary as preparatory to the times of the end.*

other events connected with the fall of Jerusalem in the spirit of prophecy. Fifthly, The characters agree in Matthew and Josephus; the former speaks of righteous blood, the latter says that Zacharias was one of the most eminent citizens, for his riches, his hatred of wickedness, and his love of liberty; moreover "that he confuted in a few words the crimes laid to his charge, and turning his speech against his accusers, went over distinctly all their transgressions of the law, and made heavy lamentations upon the confusion they had brought public affairs to;" which resembles very much the discourse in Matthew, containing the mention of Zacharias. Sixthly, Although Luke, in the parallel passage, xi. 47-51, appears to speak of Zacharias as being one of the prophets, this might arise from his being ignorant of the transaction which Matthew had in view; for one of the many murders committed during the fall of Jerusalem might easily be unknown to a foreigner writing some years afterwards, and at a distance. But Zacharias, son of Barachias, one of the minor prophets, was well known to all the Christians. Luke, therefore, supposed that Matthew had this Zacharias in view, and consequently adapted his version of the discourse to this notion. Seventhly, Matthew did not really intend this last-named Zacharias, because no record appears to have existed among the Jews of the manner of his death, and in his time the temple was in ruins. Eighthly, Admitting the conjecture, that the original of Matthew mentions no father, but simply Zacharias, as in Luke, the insertion of son of Barachias instead of Baruch, is explained by the transcribers generally, as well as Luke, having a better knowledge of the prophet than any other Zacharias.

* Dan. xi. 31-40, The book of Daniel refers to the events in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (see chap. xiv.); but many of the Jews considered it as a prophecy of the future. Josephus says, (War iv. ch. 6,) "There was a certain antient oracle of those men (the prophets) that the city should then be taken, and the sanctuary burnt by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews, and their own hand should pollute the temple of God." The passages most resembling this are Daniel ix. 26, xi. 31-45; but Josephus has quoted them incorrectly, and improved them with his own invention, as he frequently does when quoting the Old Testament from memory. See his account of Pharaoh Necho's seizure of "Queen Sarah, whom Abraham preferred to recover by means of prayer to God, instead of employing his 318 captains with an immense army under each." War, Book v. ch. ix.

The siege of Jerusalem was begun on the 14th of April, A.D. 70; it was defended with the most desperate bravery for nearly five months, and taken on the 8th September, after suffering the worst extremities which can befal a besieged city. The temple was burnt, the entire city demolished excepting three towers, and henceforward the Jews cease to appear as a political power in history.

Most of the leading Jewish Christians emigrated to foreign countries, and became incorporated with the Gentile churches. But those who still adhered to the law of Moses clung to their native land. When the war was over, they are supposed to have returned from Pella to Jerusalem, and to have maintained a church there till the time of Adrian, who prohibited the Jews from coming to Jerusalem.* From that time the church at Jerusalem consisted of Gentiles. From the notices which remain of the society of the Jewish Christians, under the names of Nazarenes and Ebionites, it seems to have fallen into great disrepute with the rest of the Christians. Their persevering Judaism, and aversion to Paul, prevented the Gentile churches from amalgamating with them, or from shewing them that respect and attachment which would otherwise have seemed due to the relics of the parent society. And as the Gentile churches became the most influential part of the Christian body, and supplied the chief Christian writers, they were able to procure general reception to their own representation of the point of difference; and consequently the remnant of the early converts, the countrymen, and possibly some of the hearers, of Jesus himself, have come to be classed in church history amongst the early heretics.

* Euseb. on the Heresy of the Ebionites, L. 3. cap. 27, "Some who are not to be moved by any means from their respect for the Christ of God, are in some respects very infirin. They are called by the ancients Ebionites, because they have but a low opinion of Christ, thinking him to be a mere man, born of Joseph and Mary, honoured for his advancement in virtue; and esteeming the ritual ordinances of the law necessary to be observed by them, as if they could not be justified by faith in Christ only. Others of them do not deny, that Jesus was born of a virgin by the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, they do not acknowledge his pre-existence as God the Word; and, like the others, they are fond of the external observ

About the time of the fall of Jerusalem, [A.D. 68-70,] the history of Christ, bearing the name of Matthew, was published amongst the Christians of Judea. It contained most of the accounts which had been preserved of the acts and discourses of Christ, mingled with traditions of a later growth, and with passages representing the ideas then prevalent in the Jewish church. It was well received by the Christians, and in a few years was followed by many imitations, of which there only remain those of Mark and Luke; the former written for the use of the church at Rome, and the latter for those of Achaia. Both these writers seem to have made use of Matthew's work, altering some parts in order to adapt it the better for the use of Gentile churches, and adding such narratives as they had been able to procure from other

sources.

These three histories bear the impress of the events and opinions of the age in which they were written.* They contain copious references to the fall of Jerusalem, and to the persecutions which the church began to undergo amongst the Gentiles about that time. The coming of Jesus is represented as near at hand, and as cotemporary with the end of all things. He is described occasionally as the Judge of mankind, in addition to his original character of King of Israel and Successor of David. And the kingdom of heaven is a confused mixture of regenerated Israel and of a kingdom not of this world.

The distance of thirty-seven years from the death of Christ, and of seventy from his birth, allowed of the in

ances of the law of Moses. They also reject Paul's epistles, and call him an apostate from the law." Jerome speaks of the Nazarenes in his time, A.D. 400, as admitting the authority of Paul. The preponderating influence of the Gentile churches, no doubt, gradually procured admission amongst the Nazarenes for the canon of scriptures as fixed by the former. According to Jerome, some of the Ebionites or Nazarenes followed the liberal example of Peter and James, and observed the Mosaic rites themselves without seeking to impose them on others; (Hieron. in Is. cap. i. t. 3;) but the intolerance of the rest might easily alienate the Gentiles from their whole body.

*See chap. iii., iv., and v.

† Nero's persecution began A.D. 64.

troduction of many fables concerning his person and character; and about this time arose the doctrine of the miraculous conception. The Gospel of Matthew is the earliest Christian writing in which this doctrine is found; but it appears that, on its first publication, that book was not of sufficient authority to procure general reception to the whole of its contents; and as the story was more consonant with Gentile than with Jewish taste,* a great part of the Jewish church refused to admit it.† Mark, who followed Matthew, passed the story over without notice. But Luke having inserted it with some variations in his Gospel, which, from its superiority of style and greater completeness, grew probably into the most extensive use amongst the Gentile churches, the latter came gradually to receive the doctrine of the miraculous conception as implicitly as those of the resurrection and

ascension.

Reformed Judaism, or Christianity, as it began to be more generally called after the first Jewish church had died away, had made much progress amongst the Gentiles in the lifetime of Paul, [A.D. 37-64,] owing to the excellence of the Jewish system of monotheism, which carried with it the doctrines attached to it by its preachers, of the Messiahship and resurrection of Jesus. But as these latter do not rest, like the former, on natural reason, there was more difficulty at first in procuring them a free reception. The chief argument of the Apostles in support of the claims of Jesus, the fulfilment of prophecy, might be urged with effect upon the Jews, and the Gentiles acquainted with the Jewish scriptures; but to the great proportion of the Greeks and Romans, who had never studied the law and the prophets, the Messiah

*The introduction of Alexandrian Jews into the church warrants the conjecture that the story of the miraculous birth of Christ originated in the desire of some of the converts to render to their master the same honours as had been paid to Plato, of whom a similar story had been told. "Speusippus quoque sororis Platonis filius, et Clearchus in laude Platonis, et Anaxilides in secundo libro philosophiæ, Perictionem matrem Platonis phantasmate Apollinis oppressam ferunt, et sapientiæ principem non aliter arbitrantur nisi de partu virginis editum." Hieron. Adv. Jovin. lib. i. ↑ Eusebius on Heresy of Ebionites.