among the Pagans were made to the latter; nor I did its advocates ever attempt to make converts to it, much less were such multitudes in every nation converted to it as Josephus here represents. The heathens who embraced the Gospel, rivalled the Jews in zeal and attachment to it.

They gloried in its happy influence, and in the powerful assurance it gives of a future state: and Josephus says with truth, that, if the disciples of Moses did not glory in its superior excellence, they would be surpassed by that multitude of Pagans, who now embraced it in every country under heaven.

8. Josephus in various parts of his works, relates the progress of the Gospel under those names, which designate the religion of Moses and the prophets. In the book of the Acts we are told that certain Jews of Cyprus and Cyrene, preached the Lord Jesus at Antioch, xi. 16. The same fact is thus recorded by Josephus. "The Jews at Antioch were continually bringing over a great multitude of Greeks to their worship, and making them a part of themselves." J. W. lib. vii. c. 3. 3. The same author asserts, J. W. lib. ii. c. xx. 2. that all the women of Damascus, with few exceptions, were become converts to the Jewish worship; and no reasonable doubt can be entertained from the nature of the case, and from the circumstance of the apostle, Paul and his brethren having been preaching Christianity some years in that city, but that the Jewish worship here meant was the Christian religion. In the twentieth book of the Jewish Antiquities, our author has given an account of the conversion to Judaism of the royal

family of the Adiabenes, a people who inhabited a small province of Assyria; and one circumstance is happily mentioned, which proves that the conversion here meant was a conversion to the Gospel. Ananias, who converted Izates, taught that he might worship God without circumcision. Before the coming of Christ, a submission to this rite, was an indispensable condition on the part of those proselytes, who wished to be received into the Jewish community. But the preachers of the Gospel laid aside this obligation as altogether useless and burdensome. They were the only Jews who entertained this just and liberal sentiment. Ananias was, therefore, one of their number; and Josephus, in recording the conversion of queen Helen, and her son Izates to the Jewish religion, has related their conversion to Christianity. Eccles. Res. c. ix. There are three circumstances, which remarkably illustrate the truth of this inference. The first is, that Helen embraced ti.e religion of Jesus was a fact known to the early fathers: for Orosius expressly asserts it from Josephus. (Oros. lib. vii. c. 6.) The second is, that towards the beginning of the third century, mention is made of the Adiabenes; and they were then a Christian nation, persecuted with great cruelty by Sapor, king of Persia. This event is recorded by Sozomen, (lib. ii. c. 12.) and by Nicephorus, (histor. tripar. lib. viii. c. 38.) The third circumstance is, that, in an ancient Jewish tract, entitled Toldos Jeschu*, written to vilify

* This tract, which contains a malicious account of the birth of Jesus, is to be found in a collection of Jewish

Jesus Christ, Helen, queen of the Adiabenes, is represented as exerting her influence in favour of Jesus, and opposing the Jewish rulers who were bent on destroying him. The anachronism of making her acquainted with our Lord, while yet living, is doubtless intentional: but the fiction proves that the author, who was a Jew, understood Josephus to be a Christian historian. Tertullian*, in a well-known passage, intimates that there were Christians in Rome, before the death of Tiberius, two or three years after the crucifixion of Jesus. His language is adopted by Eusebius. Orosius, in the fifth century, goes farther, and asserts in direct terms, that the senate expelled the Christians from the city. These writers must have meant Jewish Christians: for the Gospel was hardly as yet proclaimed to the Gentiles. Now Philo and Josephus have recorded the calamity respecting their countrymen, to which the above fathers refer. We have, therefore, the authority of Tertullian, Eusebius, and Orosius, that in this instance, the Jewish writers in question are really Christian writers; and one instance, if satisfactory, is sufficient to ascertain their views and character in regard to Christianity.

works, refuted by Wagenseil. This work is entitled Igneatela Satanæ. A part of the passage about Helen will be quoted in the sequel.

Euseb. Eccles. His. lib. ii. 2.

* Tertul. Apol. c. v. p. 6. Oros. lib. vii. c. 4. Jos. Anti. lib. xviii. c. iii. 5. Phil. vol. ii. p. 569. These passages may be found in chapter x, of the Researches.

C

9. Philo and Josephus have given an account of a Jewish sect, whom, from the former I have called Esseans, though from the latter they are usually called Essenes. Eusebius and all ecclesiastical writers after him, have noticed that branch of the Esseans, who flourished in Egypt: and they hesitate not to say from the narrative of Philo, that they were believers in Jesus. The Catholics, who paid too much deference to the fathers, implicitly followed their testimony in this, as in other instances. Men, particularly when under the influence of party spirit, are ever apt to run into extremes. The Catholic writers sought to extol the fathers; the protestants, who opposed them, endeavoured to degrade them beyond reason and justice; and being eager to discover instances of error or falsehood, which might destroy their credit, they fixed on the testimony of Eusebius, that the Esseans were followers of Christ. Thus the discussion respecting that people became a party question; and is it to be wondered at, if under the influence of religious rancour, the disputants should have overlooked the truth. In this question great deference is due to the opinion of the fathers; because they might have other sources of information, besides Philo and Josephus, which are not extant in modern days; because they had no adequate motive to misrepresent the truth; for, in claiming fraternity with the Esseans, they claimed fraternity with heretics, whom on other occasions they passed by either with sullen hatred, or noticed in order to refute them:-lastly, because in pronouncing the Esseans to be Christians, they pronounced on a matter of fact, which existed

in their days, independently of any appeal to the writings of Philo. Who first inhabited those monkish institutions, which prevailed in Egypt, and which were thence imported into Italy, and into other countries of Christendom? According to Philo, the Esseans or Therapeuta, were the first founders of them; and he expressly calls them by the very name of monasteries. And who inhabited the same institutions, in the days of Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius? Undoubtedly they were occupied by professed Christians. The profession of the then inhabitants, therefore, bespeaks the views and character of their original founders. Whatever those establishments were, at first, they would continue to be to the last. Individuals, with the progress of the Gospel, might alter their opinions and habits; but whole bodies of men or public institutions, rendered venerable by antiquity, never change, until a total revolution has taken place in the state of society.

The origin of the Esseans, notwithstanding the ample accounts of Philo and Josephus, is involved in mystery; and in my Researches I attempted its development, by shewing-First, that they were the same class of men continued through successive ages with the sons of the prophets, mentioned in the Book of Kings, of whom Elijah was one. This conjecture is rendered probable by the similarity which subsisted between the Esseans and the sons of the prophets; by the high antiquity of the former, as well as the latter, and by the great reverence which they paid to the prophetic writings.-Secondly, that John the Baptist was one of the Esseans; and taught in the midst of that people, when our

7