Sivut kuvina

consigned to death, he is not lost, nor is he added to the numbers who are gone before him, but is translated into another state by the word of that great cause of all things, by whom the world was created. For God by his said Word, by whom he made all things, will raise the perfect man from the dregs of this world, and exalt him near himself: he will place him near his own person.

3. If we reflect without prejudice, it will appear in the highest degree probable, that Josephus, who has recorded the destruction of Jerusalem, as predicted by Christ, was himself a Christian. A belief in the existence and agency of demons, generally prevailed among Jews and Gentiles; and, therefore, some things deemed miraculous, might not in their apprehension bespeak the power of God. But the knowledge of events yet in futurity, was considered as belonging only to God; and he who distinctly predicted them, gave an unquestionable proof of wisdom derived from God. This proof Josephus had before him; in common with all other Jews, he must have acknowledged its validity; and he gave himself up a voluntary agent to record it to posterity.It cannot be pleaded, with any colour of probability, that he was ignorant of the prediction.It had been published in Judea, and in all the world, long before the event: and Josephus is the historian who, with the knowledge of the prediction, has related the event, and related it too expressly as the fulfilment of a prophecy.*—

* See Jewish War, lib. 4. c. 6. 3. Eccles. Resear. vol. i. p. 448. It is remarkable that the Jewish historian represents

[ocr errors]

Daniel had, in general terms, foretold the destruction of the holy city and temple; this prediction Jesus rendered more definite by a variety of particulars, which exceeded the possibility of coincidence, conjecture, or natural sagacity. This circumstance served to identify the prophecy of our Lord with that of Daniel; and Josephus, in order to shelter the former from the odious imputation of having invited a foreign foe to destroy his native land, refers it to the latter. But he notices the oracle under the limitations specified by Christ; and he has carefully collected all the warnings which, according to our Lord, would precede the siege of Jerusalem. His object in so doing was, to transmit to distant countries and to future ages, a narrative which, when compared with the evangelical records, would prove their truth to the end of time. How differently would he have acted, if he were not a believer in the Gospel? The manner in which he would have written, we might infer from that in which Tacitus, Dion Cassius, and the impostor Josippon, have actually recorded the fall of the Jewish state.

4. We learn from Jerome and Theodoret, that Josephus published a Commentary on the Prophecies of Daniel, in which his design appears to have been, to determine the exact time of the Messiah's advent, and thus to enforce the divine authority of Jesus. The learned Jews, since the time of our Lord, have vilified Daniel, and

the prophecy respecting the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, so definite and notorious, that those who were instruments in the hand of God to accomplish it, believed in that event. See Eccles. Resear. p. 506.

even denied his prophetic character. In his Commentary, and in his Jewish Antiquities, (see lib. x. c. 11. 7.) Josephus undertook to defend him; saying, that Daniel surpassed all the other prophets, because he not only predicted good things, but defined the exact time of their fulfilment. A conduct so favourable to the Gospel, and so opposite to that of its enemies, could have been adopted only by a sincere and undisguised friend, Eccles. Res. p. 397.

The leading question, which divided the friends from the adversaries of Christianity among the Jews, was, Whether the expected Messiah was to be a temporal or a spiritual prince? The advocates of the former opinion, connected with the hopes of a victorious deliverer, the preservation and even the emancipation of the Jewish state.On the other hand, those who followed a spiritual Lord, insisted on the fulfilment of the prophecy, in the total destruction of the Jewish community. Here again Josephus takes his stand with the supporters of the Gospel; and he boldly declares, that so far from gratifying those of his countrymen who expected a temporal deliverance, God raised up Vespasian, in order to destroy them, and thus fulfilled the oracle which had been delivered against the holy city.*

5. A great portion of the Pharisees, with multitudes among the higher classes of the Jews, finding themselves unable successfully to oppose the Gospel by open violence, endeavoured to subvert it by an artful system, which pretended to

*J. W. lib. 6. c. 5. 6. Eccles, Res. 396.

strengthen and to improve it. Our Lord, in the course of his ministry, cautioned his followers against these malignant deceivers; and his apostles were led to reprobate their character, and unmask their views, in various parts of their writings. By comparing the description which Peter and Jude have given of them with the Jewish war, we discover that Josephus has, in various parts of it, noticed the same people under the name of Zealots. This fact, when investigated and acknowledged, will place in a clear light, the attachment of the Jewish historian to the Christian religion. Would a man that was himself averse or indifferent to the claims of the Gospel, have aided, with all the weight of his authority, and all the strength of his genius, its teachers against their most dangerous opponents? Would he have held up to the world, as the worst enemies of truth and virtue, those men who at the time were universally known to be the worst enemies of Christianity? Eccles. Res. c. 17.

6. Josephus, in the beginning of his Antiquities, asserts, that he engaged in his great work chiefly by the advice of Epaphroditus, a man of virtue and wisdom in the court of Domitian. Now, Suetonius and Dion Cassius, have briefly noticed this man; and from their narratives we might infer, that he was a convert to the Gospel. For both these historians, though writing in a different age, and in different languages, join Epaphroditus with Clement, who is known to have suffered for his conversion to Christianity. Both, moreover, assign frivolous and contradictory reasons for his being put to death, which shews that he really suffered for the same reason with Clement;

a reason which these historians were evidently ashamed to specify. The words of Dion in particular warrant this inference. He says, "that Domitian slew Clement, the consul, with many others, in consequence of having embraced the Jewish institutions; and he presently mentions Epaphroditus by name, as one of his victims, though under the absurd charge of not having supported Nero after the loss of his power. Now Paul, in his epistle to the Philippians, speaks of Epaphroditus as a brother and coadjutor in Christ; and the only question is, Whether the Roman historians and the apostle, speak of the same man and there is evidence, it appears to me, sufficient to prove the affirmative, beyond all reasonable doubt. For the name is the same: the time is the same; Suetonius and Dion having brought Epaphroditus back to the reign of Nero, at which period Paul was a prisoner in Rome. The place is the same, because the apostle says expressly, that his Gospel was known and received in the whole palace, meaning the palace of Nero. Phil. i. 13. iv. 22. Moreover, from the Roman historians, it appears probable that Epaphroditus was a believer in Christ; and from the apostle Paul it appears certain that he was so.

It is allowed that the Epaphroditus of Suetonius and Dion, is the same with that of Josephus; and the unblemished honour, ascribed to him by the latter, accords with the magnanimity and purity of character, observable in the friend of the apostle. Further, we clearly perceive from the Roman authors, that Epaphroditus did not, like Clement and many others, withdraw on his conversion from the duties of society. His con

[ocr errors]
« EdellinenJatka »