any stay, in his return to Rome, he ordered some of them to be thrown to lions, and other wild beasts, until all whom he had taken were destroyed.

So says our author. The number of the captives, according to Josephus [De B. J. 1. 6. ix. 3.], were ninety and seven thousand; many of whom, according to him, were sold for slaves: but this, so far as I see, is quite omitted by our author, as also the triumph of Vespasian and Titus for their conquest of Judea.

But why does he omit these things? To me it seems to be owing to the pride of his heart. The temple had been burnt, Jerusalem was destroyed; the whole country of Judea had been subdued by the Romans, uncircumcised and idolatrous people: facts which he could not deny, or disown, however dishonourable and reproachful to his nation; and he has himself related these events in his way and manner. But yet he was, as it seems, desirous to save his nation from some circumstances of reproach and dishonour; he therefore forbore to say any thing of the triumph of Vespasian and Titus, though performed in the metropolis of the vast empire of the Romans, and published and recorded in public and durable monuments, as well as in writings of the best credit. From the same principle of pride and vanity, he forebore to say that at this time many Jews, the people of Israel, had been sold for slaves, to live in slavery to uncircumcised Gentiles: so it seems to me. And I think it may deserve to be taken notice of by us, that in the fictitious history which he has given of his journey to Rome, and the inauguration of Vespasian there, he has mentioned a particular, somewhat resembling this: For after the coronation of Vespasian, and the death of Agrippa, and his son Monbaz before mentioned, when Vespasian began to shew favour to Joseph, and ⚫ ordered his chains to be struck off, Joseph presented a petition to Vespasian in behalf of all 'sons of Israel, who were then in prison at Rome, entreating that they might be set at liberty; ⚫ and upon that condition promising that he would for the future be a faithful counsellor to the ' emperor, and serve him according to the utmost of his ability:, which petition was granted by the emperor; and all Israelites who had been bound at Rome, were set at liberty.' Which must be allowed to be one of the fictitious events of that voyage to Rome, which is throughout the fiction of this writer's fertile invention, who says what he pleaseth.

b

d

After this our author tells the story of Eleazar, and his men at Massada, but somewhat differently from Josephus. He does not say that they determined to kill themselves and one another: his account is, that after the speech of Eleazar, they killed their wives and daughters, that they might not fall a prey into the hands of the enemy: and then the men went out of the city and fought with the Romans: of whom they slew very many, till they were themselves all killed. And,' says he, here end the wars of the second house.'

f

с

After which follows this author's final lamentation, and in a rhythmical sort of poesy, as Gagnier observes, very different from that among the Hebrews at the time when their temple was destroyed.

h

• Woe is now unto us?

For the city of our glory is laid waste,

Dixit, vero Josephus: Nonne opprobrium mihi est reserari a me catenas ferreas, et interim vincula filiorum Israël, qui mecum sunt Romæ, non etiam reserari tuo jussu? Si ergo nunc audieris me, quandoquidem inveni gratiam in oculis tuis, solves, quæso, vincula omnium Israëlitarum, qui mecum sunt Roma; et ero tibi consiliarius fidelis omnibus diebus, et inimicus ero inimicis tuis, et adversabor adversariis tuis. Fecit itaque Vespasianus secundum sermonem Josephi, et solvit omnia vincula omnium vinctorum filiorum Israël, qui erant cum Josepho Romæ. Lib. 6. cap. 78. p. 346.

Cap. 96, p. 447, 488, et cap. 97, p. 452.
Vid. de B. J. 1. 7, cap. viii. ix.

d Tunc surgentes viri uxores suas et filias suas accersunt, quas osculati et complexi, ita alloquuntur. Melius est in oculis nostris, ut moriamini in terrâ vestrâ cum sanctitate et honore, quam ut eatis in captivitatem, et cum opprobrio in terram inimicorum vestrorum, et cum idolis gentium,-et contumeliâ moriamini-Cap. 97, p. 452.

* Postea egressus est Eleazarus Sacerdos cum omnibus viris bellatoribus qui secum erant ex urbe, et miscuerunt ingentem pugnam cum multitudine exercitûs Romanorum, et occide

runt multos ex eis absque numero. Ac tandem pugnantes Judæi contra proprias ipsorum animas, donec omnes absumerentur in prælio illo mortui pro Jehovâ, et pro sanctuario ejus. Huc usque desinunt bella domus secundæ. Cap. 97, p. 452.

Tunc lamentatus fuit Josephus, Sacerdos Dei, lamenta tionem hanc-p. 452.

Lamentatio Ben Gorionis ultima, eaque Rythmica, quam, ut Leoninæ cujusdam inter Judæos specimen poëseos non injucundum, hic Hebraïce subjunximus. Et credat Lector, si potest, sine risu, hanc ab ipso Flavio Josepho compositum fuisse tempori templi excidii. Gagnier Not. p. 452.

Væ nunc nobis !

Quia desolata est civitas gloriæ nostræ,
Et eversa est Domus Sanctuarii nostri,
In quo posita fuit spes nostra,

Et omnia desideria cordium nostrorum.
Et incensum est Templum nostrum;
Et migravimus de terrâ nostrâ,

Et ex hæreditate patrum nostrorum;
Neque ad Deum [extendimus] manus nostras,

And the house of our sanctuary is thrown down. • In which our hope was placed,

And all the desires of our hearts.

And our temple is consumed with fire,

And we have been carried out of our country,

And from the heritage of our fathers.

Nor have we stretched out our hands to God,
That we might be delivered from our exiles.
And our sins and iniquities

Have been aggravated upon us.

Our transgressions have carried us into captivity.

And our apostasies have brought us down to the earth.

But the day will come, and the time of our redemption.

And our God will deliver us.

He will remember the oath made with our fathers.
And will build up our city,

And restore our temple,

And gather our dispersions.

And will bring back our captivity.

And hasten the coming of our Messiah,

And will speedily deliver us.

And will cast down our enemies,

And will humble those who hate us.

• And will destroy, and root out all our adversaries.

• And will restore us, as at the beginning.'

Here, beside other things which an attentive reader will observe, he expresseth his expectation of the rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. So likewise, when he gave an account of Herod's building, or repairing the temple, he describes the rejoicings made upon that occasion: For the building,' says he, of the house of the Lord, which we have seen both built and destroyed; but it shall be raised a third time in honour and glory, and shall be established for ' ever.' And in like manner in another place. He is therefore a good witness to the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, which had been raised after the return from the Babylonish captivity; in which, as we say, the prophets had foretold the Messiah would make his appearance: see Hag. ii. 6-9, and Mal. iii. 1.

b

с

After his lamentation this author adds, But Titus left a remnant of Israel in the land of Israel, in the city Jabne, and its towns, and in the city Bether, and in its towns, and in Osha, and its towns.' Of all which cities, as Gagnier in his notes observes, there is no notice taken by Flavius Josephus; though there is in the Talmudical writings; and he refers to Lightfoot's works such as are inquisitive.

a Et laudaverant Jehovam cum gaudio-propter ædificium Domûs Jehovæ, quam vidimus, et ædificatam, et devastaSed adhuc reædificabitur tertio cum laude, et celebritate, et gloriâ; et firmabit eam Jehova in æternum. 1 6, cap. 55, p. 243.

tam.

Cap. 65, p. 288, sub fin. et p. 289.

Reliquit autem Titus Israëlis reliquias in terrâ Israël, in urbe Jabne, et in oppidis ejus, in urbe Bether, et in oppidis ejus, et in Osha, et oppidis ejus. Cap. 97, p. 454.

d Tres illas urbes, viz. Jabneh, Bether, et Oshah, hoc loco commemorat Ben-Gorion noster, non ex Josepho auctore suo, qui nihil hic habet de hac belli Judaïci coronide, sed ex Pandectis Talmudicis, ubi frequentissima illarum mentio occurrit. De quarum urbium situ et celebritate maxime post eversa Hierosolyma, consulenda est doctissimi Lightfooti Chorographia Terræ Israëlis. Cap. xv. lii, et lxxxiv. Gagn. Not.

P. 454.

a

This author proceeds: Moreover, Titus reigned two years after he had taken Jerusalem, ⚫ and then died. Titus was a wise king, and composed many valuable books both in the Greek and in the Roman language. Titus was a just and upright man, and all his judgments were in righteousness; but being compelled by necessity he destroyed and laid waste Jerusalem: all which evil came upon Jerusalem because of the robbers which were in Israel, and because of 'their wickedness; as we have shewn in this history.'

He here says that Titus reigned two years after he had taken Jerusalem,' which is very inaccurate. Vespasian did not die before the year of our Lord 79: after him Titus reigned more than two years, and died in the year of Christ 81: nor does our author say any thing here of Vespasian, as he ought to have done. But we must not stay to remark upon the defects or inaccuracies of this writer; if we had so done we should never have got through his work; and every reader is able to observe many things without my mentioning them.

This author gives a good character of Titus: and he could do no less, after having before related so many favours and civilities conferred by him upon the Jews. Titus also, as all know, is much commended in the History of the Jewish War, written by Flavius Josephus, from which this writer had all his materials that are of any value. But herein he differs from the Talmudical writers, as Gagnier observes in his notes upon this work; for they represent Titus as exceeding impious and profane, as we also have seen. How the learned Jews can reconcile these contradictions is not easy to comprehend: but they continue to pay respect to this author as well as to the Talmudical doctors.

с

Reland, likewise, in his notes upon the triumphal arch of Titus, takes notice of the grievous reproaches and scandalous reflections upon him in the Jewish writers; whereby they have shewn that they are skilful in the art of slandering, and spare not when they attempt it. Moreover, in this their enmity to Titus, they bear witness to that great event, the overthrow of their city and temple, of which he was, under God, the instrument.

III. I may now make some general remarks; but they need not to be many nor long.

1. This writer is evidently an impostor, a detestable character, which cannot be too much disliked, nor too much censured: he did not live in the time of Vespasian and Titus, as he pretends; nor is he Joseph the son of Gorion the priest, who was appointed to preside in Jerusalem, or to govern in Galilee.

2. Nevertheless he is a witness to the burning of the temple, and the taking of Jerusalem, and the conquest of Judea, by the forementioned emperors: to those events he has borne his testimony, and his testimony is received by the people of his own nation; especially by the learned among them.

3. He says that Titus was compelled by necessity to destroy Jerusalem, and that all this ' evil had come upon Jerusalem because of the robbers and their wickedness.'

He therefore does not ascribe the calamities which befell the Jews, in the time of Vespasian and Titus, to their sin in rejecting Jesus, and not receiving him as the Messiah. Their calamities he owns, and thereby bears witness to the fulfilment of our Saviour's prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem: but he does not acknowledge any guilt contracted by his people in crucifying the Lord Jesus, and persecuting his followers: nor does Josephus: nor

a

Regnavit autem Titus duobus annis postquam cepit Jerusalem, et mortuus est. Porro Titus Rex fuit sapiens, magnus in scientia eloquentiæ, tum in linguâ Græcâ, tum in linguâ Romanâ, et composuit libros multos cum sapientiâ Græce et Romane. Fuitque Titus vir justus et rectus, et omnia judicia ejus erant cum justitiâ. Verum necessitate coactus desolavit et delevit Jerusalem. Et quidem desolavit et delevit eam, quia omne malum illud, quod venit super Jerusalem, non venit nisi per latrones, qui erant in Israël, et propter impietatem illorum, uti memoravimus. Cap. 97, p. 456.

b Hic magna est discordia Ben-Gorionem inter et Talmudicos Doctores, quam non diffitentur ipsi Rabbini. Nec deesse tamen asserunt sapientes, qui illam contradictionem concilient, quemadmodum affirmat R. David Ganz. Sed quo judicio id tentaverint, judicium sit penes lectorem.

Quoad nostrum Ben-Gorionem, illum hoc loco sibi constare fatendum est. Cum enim in versione Rufini ubique magnas Titi Imp. virtutes summis laudibus prædicari legerit, ipseque,

d

Flavium Josephum secutus, illum sæpius multis elogiis ornavisset, non ausus fuit suos Doctores Talmudicos cum famæ suæ dispendio sequi, ne videlicet sibi contrarius videretur. Gagn. p. 456.

c Hebræi narrant, sed ex odio Titi, quem illum impium vocant, ac si hominem longe post homines natos sceleratissimum diceres, non modo velis sacris eum vasa templi imposuisse, sed et contaminasse adytum impio facinore, in Gemara Gittin. fol. 56, 2. Cepit meretricem, eâque inductâ in sanctum sanctorum, stratoque Legis volumine, facinus patravit super illud. Dein stricto gladio velum perrupit, unde sanguis, facto miraculo, missus est, sic ut exiens Titus putaret se Deum ipsum peremisse Reland. de Spollis Templi in Arcu Titiano. cap. 13, p. 130, 131.

d It is said by some learned men, that Maimonides ascribes the destruction of Jerusalem to our Lord. So Dr. Sharpe in his argument, &c. p. 38, 39. And De Voisin in Pr. Rugion. Fidei. p. 127. Certe R. Moses in tract. De Regibus, et De

6

a

indeed can I well see how any unbelieving Jews can make such acknowledgments. Rabbi Isaac, in his Munimen Fidei above quoted, which is written against the Christians, quotes John xix. 15. "The chief-priests answered: We have no king but Cæsar." Upon which he remarks in this manner: This shews that, before Jesus was crucified, the Jews were subject to the Roman 6 emperors. The emperor here intended was Tiberius, who sent Pilate to preside at Jerusalem, as appears from the third chapter of Luke at the beginning. This may suffice for an answer to an objection of the Nazarenes, who say the Jews lost their kingdom for their sin in hanging ' Jesus.' This, though it be no better than an evasion, shews the Jewish temper and principles. I say it is no better than an evasion. The Jewish people, as we know very well, were subject to the Romans in our Saviour's time: but the case was much altered with them afterwards. They were then very happy, and were so for some good while after that, enjoying, under the mild government of the Romans, the free exercise of their religion, and the temple worship, and many other privileges. The distress, and other circumstances of the siege of Jerusalem, were very uncommon, sufficient to raise the attention of all serious men, and the long duration, and other circumstances of their captivity and dispersion ever since, are also very uncommon and extraordinary: but this is not a time or place for me to enlarge upon them any farther. But it is reasonable to think that unbelieving Jews must endeavour, some how or other, to evade the argument in favour of Christianity, taken from the destruction of Jerusalem, and their long continued captivity and dispersion. And beside the passage just now alleged, the same Rabbi Isaac, in the place before referred to, relating to the death of Agrippa, says, that the differences between king Agrippa, and the wicked leaders of the factions, at length brought on the desolation of the temple.'

4. This work of Josippon confirms the history of the Jewish war written by Flavius Josephus, son of Matthias; and it must induce us to set a real value upon Josephus, and raise our esteem for him. They are both fond of their own people: but Josephus was indeed contemporary with the events which he records, and with the principal actors in them, and therefore he must have the preference. This author is a plagiary, and knows nothing of the war of which he writes, but what he has stolen from another without naming him: and, with all his Greek politeness, Josephus has more the air of sincerity and simplicity than this Hebrew writer. Indeed, it would have been a bad exchange if, instead of the History of the Jewish War, written by Flavius Josephus, we had palmed upon us the History of the Wars of Jehova, written by Josippon; who neither was the son of Gorion, who presided at Jerusalem, nor the son of Matthias, who governed in Galilee.

СНАР. VII.

A RECOLLECTION OF THE FOREGOING ARTICLES, AND REFLECTIONS UPON THEM.

I. The preceding articles recollected. II. Reflections upon them. III. Concluding observations.

I.

I

C

QUOTE no more Jewish writers. I therefore now proceed to recollect what we have seen, and to make remarks; but I need not recollect the first two chapters: I hope they have not been

Bell. cap. 11, propter Jesum Christum excidium Jerosolymitanum contigisse fatetur.-Id est, Ille, qui visus est esse Messias, et occisus est sententiâ judiciali, &c. ille fuit causa, cur Israël gladio perierit, et reliquiae Israël dispersæ sint, et 'depressæ, et cur lex mutata sit.' But how this is to be understood, I cannot well say. I have not the tract of Maimonides here referred to.

a Hæc ibi. Ecce hoc dicto ostenditur, ante Jesu cruci affixionem jam tum Cæsares Romanos Judæis imperitâsse. Atque is Cæsar [de quo ibi sermo] Tiberius fuit, qui Pilatum Hierosolymis præfecerat, ceu constat ex capitis III. Lucæ

initio: Valebit hoc pro responso adversus objectionem Nazaræorum, quâ clamitant, Judæos propter peccatum suspensionis Jesu perdidisse regnum suum, &c. R. Isacci Munimen Fid. p. 446. Conf. p. 55, 56. ibid.

b Cæterum, ob illam, quæ inter Regem Agrippam et improbos duces factiosorum exorta fuerat contentionem, denique desolatum fuit templum, uti ex Josepho constat. Munim. Fid. p. 417. And see before p. 564, note b.

Some learned men have of late appealed to a book entitled Toldoth Jeschu. I am of opinion that Christianity does not need such a testimony, nor such witnesses. I have

improperly premised to this work; but they need not to be brought in here in the way of recapitulation and recollection: I shall recollect only what we have seen in Jewish writers, beginning with Josephus.

Two things are to be regarded by us-their testimony to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the destruction of Jerusalem.

In Josephus there is a paragraph where JESUS is mentioned very honourably, and agreeably to his true character: but it is not universally received by learned men as genuine. Many are rather of opinion that it has been inserted in his works since his time.

There is in him another paragraph concerning John the Baptist, which is generally received as genuine: aud it is a valuable testimony to his preaching, and therein calling men to the prac tice of virtue. He likewise says that he was put to death by Herod the tetrarch; but he says nothing of that part of his character, that he appeared as the forerunner of the Messiah.

He likewise acknowledgeth that there was then in Judea a general expectation of a great person to arise from among them, who should obtain the empire of the world; and that this expectation was one great occasion of the war with the Romans, and that it was built upon an oracle found in their sacred writings; and that many of their wise men embraced it, and acted upon it in their engaging in the war. He has also spoken of many false prophets who appeared at that time, promising great advantages to the people if they would follow them, and that many were deceived by them. If they did not call themselves Christs, as well as prophets, they did in effect take upon them the character of the Messiah.

In the Mislina it is allowed that there is no express mention of Jesus Christ, the design of that work being to make a collection of the numerous traditions which hitherto were unwritten; but I have alleged a paragraph which I think contains an invidious representation of the state of things under the gospel dispensation, in the second century.

a

In the Talmudical writings Jesus is mentioned: but as Lightfoot, who was well acquainted with them, says, it was chiefly with a view to wound and reproach him. They call his mother by the name Mary; but they have aspersed her character, and have assigned to Jesus a spurious nativity. They have mentioned several of our Saviour's disciples, who, as they say, were put to death. They say our Saviour suffered as a malefactor at one of the Jewish Passovers, or in the eve of it, as the expression is. They seem in some places to acknowledge the power of miracles in Jesus and his disciples: and if they had not known that many miraculous works were ascribed to him, they would not have insinuated that he learned magical arts in Egypt, and brought them thence in a private manner, and then set up himself among his countrymen as an extraordinary person.

That is the sum of their testimony upon this article. It would be in vain to expect a great deal from Jews upon this head, who are our enemies. Such are their prejudices, that they are, and always have been, the most inveterate enemies of Jesus, and his followers.

Concerning the other point, the destruction of Jerusalem, their testimony is more material, indeed very valuable. Josephus, without intending it, has borne testimony to the fulfilment of all our Saviour's predictions concerning the miseries of the siege of Jerusalem, the desolation of the land of Judea, and the dispersion of his nation. We have above transcribed his account at large. His testimony has been repeated, with some variations, in Josippon's History of the Jewish War: and the Mishna, and the Talmuds likewise, acknowledge the conquest of Judea by Vespasian and Titus, the burning of the temple, or the second house, and the overthrow of Jerusalem, which was dug up to the foundation.

looked it over several times, with an intention to give some account of it; but, after all, I could not persuade myself to attempt it: for it is a modern work, written in the 14th or 15th century, and is throughout, from the beginning to the end, burlesque and falsehood; nor does the shameless writer acknowledge any thing that has so much as a resemblance of the truth, except in the way of ridicule. I shall however put down here the short censure of Grotius upon this work, though he does not mention the title of it; not thinking it, as I suppose, worthy to be named. Some of the Jews ' ascribe the miracles of Jesus to a certain secret name, which was put in the temple by Solomon, and kept by two lions.

for above a thousand years, but was conveyed thence by 'Jesus; which is not only false, but an impudent fiction, [non mendaciter modo, sed et impudenter confictum est.] For, as to the lions, so remarkable and wonderful a thing, neither the books of the Kings, nor the Chronicles, nor Josephus, mention any thing of them. Nor did the Romans,. 'who before the times of Jesus entered the temple with Pompey, find any such thing. Grotius, of the truth of the Christian religion. B. 5, sect. iv. in the version of Dr.. John Clarke. And I refer to. Wagenseil's Confutation of the Toldoth Jeschu..

a See above, p. 550-552.