Page images
PDF
EPUB

Of this quotation, I shall doubtless be told, that it is an interpolation, and therefore of no authority in confirmation of the facts which it is alleged to support.

I am aware that the opposers of the gospel history have affirmed with much apparent confidence, that the passage recited from Josephus is an interpolation: But it is an affirmation, for the support of which, no solid evidence can be adduced. On the other hand, we beg leave to remind our opposers, that Origen, a man of uncommon learning, and critical knowledge, who flourished in the latter part of the second, and to the middle of the third century, alludes directly to this testimony, in his first book against Celsus. Here let me ask the question; would any writer who valued his reputation, dare to make such a reference, at a period so near the time in which Josephus lived; and in a controversy with the enemies of christianity, if no such passage were contained in the history of Josephus ? Again, would not the watchful and malignant opposers of christianity, instantly have detected the fraud of such an interpolation, if such fraud had been committed, and gladly have employed it to brand with infamy the christian cause? They certainly would, since they must have known that the detection of such a fraud would have been of more service to the cause of infidelity than all other facts and arguments to which they could appeal. This objection, therefore of our opposers, only weakens their own cause, and strengthens that which it was intended to destroy. Other evidences in confirmation of the gospel history, will be reserved as the subject of our next lec

ture.

13*

LECTURE XII.

HEBREWS i. 1, 2.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things."

In the closing part of my last Lecture, I had occasion to quote the testimony of Josephus, concerning the character and ministry of Christ, as well as his condemnation, crucifixion, and resurrection from the dead, in the days, and under the administration of Pontius Pilate, who was at that time procurator of Judea. I also anticipated and answered the objection which has been alleged to the genuineness of that testimony, by referring to the writings of Origen, one of the most celebrated authors of the early part of the third century.

I shall now present you with the same kind of evidence, from several authors of great respectability, who have appealed to Josephus for the confirmation of the principal events recorded in the history of the Saviour.

Justin Martyr, who had been a heathen philosopher in Samaria, but afterwards became an able and zealous advocate for the gospel; and who, in the time of a most bloody persecution, appeared before the Emperor Antoninus, and successfully pleaded the cause of the oppressed and persecuted christians; in his dialogue with Trypho, says to the Jews, “You knew that Jesus was risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, as the prophecies did foretel was to happen." This author suffered martyrdom in the year 162.

Origen, in his commentary on Matthew, quotes verbatim the language of Josephus, as recorded in his twentieth Book of Antiquities, concerning the death of James the Just, where the historian calls him "the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ." Again-the passage which we

have before quoted from Josephus, concerning the life, condemnation and crucifixion of the Saviour, under Pontius Pilate, is quoted by Eusebius, a native of Palestine, Bishop of Cesarea, who died in the early part of the fourth century, both in his commentary on Matthew, and in his ecclesiastical history. Ambrose, who wrote about the year 360-Hieronym, who wrote about the year 400 -Isidore, a disciple and pupil of Chrysostom, who wrote about the year 410-- Sozomen, an ecclesiastical historian, who wrote in the early part of the fifth century-all quote the same testimony of Josephus, with the utmost confidence of its truth, as well as many others who followed them, down to the sixteenth century: If this passage were an interpolation, as some have pretended, how should it happen that all the early writers should appear so totally ignorant of the fact? Would not some of the early encmies of Christianity have alleged the charge of deception against these christian writers, who appealed to this passage in Josephus ? And is it not an unavoidable conclusion that a controversy upon the merits of this famous passage would have come down to us, provided the genuineness of its character had been challenged in the early ages of the christian church? Such appears to be the only conclusion to which we are directed by impartial reason. There are a few other facts to which I will now invite your attention. The same emperors, kings, governors, procurators, civil magistrates, and ecclesiastical functionaries, which are mentioned in the New Testament history, are likewise mentioned by Josephus, and the same periods assigned by both for their lives and public acts It also appears that all the books of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse of St. John, were written and extensively circulated previous to the death of Josephus: So that had they been susceptible of the charge of forgery, that historian would have detected the imposture and exploded the deception. But on the contrary, he bears his testimony to so many of the important facts which the gospel history contains, as fairly to establish their entire credibility.

I will here notice a few of them which have escaped the charge of forgery and the suspicion of interpolation ;

and which, of themselves, furnish incontrovertible evidence of the credibility of the gospel history.

Josephus records the name of John the Baptist; that he was a baptizer, and preached the remission of sins to those who received his baptism: This may be seen by consulting the eighteenth book of his Antiquities. In the same book he mentions the extensive influence which John the Baptist had obtained over the minds of the multitude; the unlawful marriage of Herod, to Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, and his inhumanity in casting John into prison, and the order for his being put to death: He also asserts that John the Baptist was a most righteous man, and one whom all men esteemed for his piety. These facts accord so well with the gospel history, that whoever rejects the one, must reject the other also.

In his twentieth Book, he records the massacre of James the Just, whom he calls "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ ;" and expresses an opinion which prevailed among the Jews, that Jerusalem was destroyed as a punishment for his murder. This James is mentioned in the New Testament, as the brother and apostle of Christ; and one of his epistles is now numbered with the canonical books of the New Testament. He was the first who filled the office of Bishop of Jerusalem; was universally esteemed for his piety, and was put to death in the year sixty-two. To these facts, twenty-four ecclesiastical writers and historians appeal in succession, previous to the fourteenth century: Nor has their truth ever been called in question by a single writer of note. The facts are therefore too plain for denial, so long as the voice of history is allowed to be received in evidence. These are a few of the leading and important facts recorded in the evangelical history, and to which an unbelieving Jew felt himself under the necessity of bearing testimony, while recording the public acts of Herod and Pontius Pilate. They carry with them such plain and evident marks of truth, that skeptics have found it necessary, either to pass them in silence, or attempt to weaken the credibility of this historian, by branding him with the charge of superstition. But his character as an historian is too well established, to be in the least shaken by such feeble at1empts.

Tacitus, the celebrated Roman historian, who flourished as a writer and public advocate, about fifty years after the crucifixion of Christ, notwithstanding his bitter enmity to, and abhorrence of christians, has recorded such facts relating to its origin and rapid progress, as must for ever silence the clamor of those who are idle enough to pretend that Christ was an obscure individual, or that his religion was little known during the first century. For this author tells us in his fifteenth book, when speaking of those people who were called christians—“ The founder of this name was CHRIST, one who in the reign of TIBERIUS suffered death as a criminal, under PONTIUS PILATE, Imperial Procurator of Judea, and, for a while, the pestilent superstition was quelled, but revived again and spread, not only over Judea, where it was first broached, but even through Rome.” The historian is here writing of a period when christianity was in its infancy, and during the life-time of some of the apostles. He describes in glowing colors the cruelty of Nero, who, having set fire to the city of Rome, that he might be gratified with a spectacle of what he had read concerning the burning of Troy, attempted to cast the odium upon the innocent followers of our Lord. In this, the monster was but too successful, and a vast multitude of christians of different ages and sexes, suffered the most cruel torture and death. Their sufferings are thus described by the historian. "First therefore were seized, such as freely owned their sect; then, a vast multitude by them discovered; and all were convicted" (not of the imputed crime of burning Rome, but of being christians, which was mistaken for hatred to mankind.) The historian adds-" To their death and torture were added the aggravations of cruel derision and sport; for, either they were disguised in the skins of savage beasts, and were exposed to expire by the teeth of devouring dogs; or they were hoisted up alive, and nailed to crosses; or wrapped in combustible vestments, and set up as torches, that when the day set, they might be kindled to illuminate the night. For presenting this tragical spectacle, NERO had lent his own gardens, and exhibited at the same time the public diversion of the Circus, sometimes driving a chariot in person, and, at intervals, stand

« PreviousContinue »