ber in Josephus was originally three thousand, the disagreement would be small. The number of a multitude got together in a short time, and soon dispersed, might not be exactly known: the chief captain at Jerusalem might compute them at four thousand, and Josephus think they were but three thousand.

Aldrich has proposed another very ingenious conjecture; that originally the number of the whole company in Josephus's War of the Jews was four thousand; and that the number of two hundred, said in the Antiquities to be taken prisoners, was originally two thousand: both which errors might happen only by a very small alteration.d

But I choose not to insist upon any of these solutions, which rely on emendations, made without the authority of any manuscripts. The numbers in Josephus are at present plainly faulty. In the first account, he says, they were thirty thousand in all, and that a great number of these were either slain or taken prisoners. I might have rendered the words, the most of them, or, the greatest part of them. But though I have not given them that sense, yet certainly the four hundred slain, and two hundred taken prisoners, in the other account, cannot be reckoned a great number, or a large part of thirty thousand.

But then, as I do not insist on these conjectural emendations for reconciling Josephus with St. Luke; so, on the other hand, it would be very unfair, first to take it for granted, that the number of thirty thousand in Josephus is right, and then arbitrarily to reform all the other numbers in him, in order to form an objection against the New Testament.

I think, therefore, there can be no objection brought against the numbers in St. Luke, from what Josephus has said of this affair, because his two accounts are not consistent one with another in this point; and that is sufficient.

These were my thoughts concerning this difficulty formerly. But I have now an observation to offer to the reader, which I think will not only reconcile St. Luke with Josephus, but likewise Josephus with himself; and that, without making any alterations in his numbers. This observation has been communicated to me by the truly learned and accurate Mr. John Ward, professor of rhetoric at Gresham college.

The history of this impostor seems to lie thus. He came first to Jerusalem, went from thence into the country, and

d Suspicamur interim pro διακοσιας scriptum olim δισχιλες, permutatis λ & δ, vel etiam Α et Δ.ex τετρακισχιλιες factum esse τρισμυρίες ne dubitamus quidem. Aldr. in Joseph. p. 1075. not. p.

taking a circuit by the wilderness, returned again to mount Olivet. In the Antiquities, (which contain the shorter account of this affair,) Josephus mentions only the beginning and end of the story, that is, the impostor's coming at first to Jerusalem, and at last to the mount of Olives; and drops the middle part, of which he had given a sufficient account in the books of the War. The chief captain's four thousand,' therefore, were the men carried out of Jerusalem, who were afterwards joined by others in the country to the number of thirty thousand, as related by Josephus. It is likely also, that before he left the city, he had so concerted matters with some friends whom he left behind him, as to entertain hopes, that upon his return his design would be favoured by great numbers of Jews in Jerusalem, and that he should have no opposition from any but the Romans. But upon his arrival at mount Olivet, finding the Romans drawn out to attack him, and the citizens in general prepared to oppose him, he did not dare to venture an engageinent, but presently fled with a body of his most trusty friends, as is usual in such cases. With these in particular the Roman soldiers were ordered to engage, neglecting the rest who were only a confused multitude, and immediately made off as they could by different ways. When therefore, Josephus says, the Egyptian fled, accompanied by a few only, he is to be understood of that body which at first fled away with the impostor, and were but a few, with respect to the whole thirty thousand. When he says, the greatest" part, or most of those that were with him were slain, or taken prisoners, which in the Antiquities are said to be four hundred killed, and two hundred taken, he means the greatest part of those few that fled with him. Nor need it be thought strange, that the number of the slain and the prisoners is no greater; since, as it seems, Josephus speaks only of that body of men who fled with the impostor. It is possible, some of the rest of the multitude might be killed likewise, though Josephus takes no notice of them; but it is most likely not many. For it seems by Josephus, as if only the Roman soldiers marched out against them, while the Jewish people in Jerusalem stood upon their own defence, if any onset had been made upon them.

Thus then, though there were but four thousand of these men at first, they might be joined by others afterwards to the number of thirty thousand. So St. Luke is reconciled

The words ayaywv in St. Luke, and apoi in Josephus, seem very well adapted to this distinction. 1 Τον μεν Αιγυπτιον φύγειν μετ' ολίγων. 6 Διαφθαρήναι δε και ζωγρηθηναι πλείσες των συν αυτῳ.

with Josephus. And the number, said by Josephus to be slain, or taken prisoners, might be a great number, or the greatest part, of that body which fled with the Egyptian upon the attack made by Felix and his soldiers. Thus Josephus is reconciled with himself.

But yet I cannot leave the history Josephus has given us of this Egyptian, without making two or three observations.

1. The chief captain here asks St. Paul, "Art not thou that Egyptian, which leddest out into the wilderness ?"which seems to imply, since the question was asked in Jerusalem, that these men, or a good number of them at least, were drawn out of Jerusalem: and Josephus says expressly in the latter account, that this impostor came 'out of Egypt to Jerusalem; and persuaded a good number of the meaner sort of people, (i. e. who were there,) to follow ' him.'

6

2. The chief captain speaks of their being "led out into the wilderness." This circumstance Josephus has mentioned in the first account, where he more particularly relates their march, and the compass they took, than in the other.

3. This Egyptian escaped. Josephus has put down this in both places, and undoubtedly this is supposed in the question put to St. Paul by the chief captain. The agreement in this particular deserves to be taken notice of, because it was the common fate of these impostors to perish themselves, with a good number of their followers.

4. This Egyptian caused this disturbance, according to Josephus, when Felix was governor of Judea. This inpostor therefore did not arise any long time before the seizure of St. Paul at Jerusalem. He might be still living therefore; in this respect there was no absurdity in this question of the chief captain.

5. Another particular, which we are obliged to Josephus for, is, that all the people (at Jerusalem) favoured, or joined with Felix, upon this occasion, in their own defence; that is, all but some very mean people. If Josephus had not mentioned this, perhaps it would have been said, since considerable numbers usually joined these impostors, and it is likely more favoured them, how was it possible, that the chief captain should ask Paul, when he saw the whole city was in an uproar, and the people were ready to tear him to pieces, "Art not thou that Egyptian ?" that pretended prophet, that "before these days madest an up

* Ο εξαγαγων.

roar?" a man of a favourite character at this time among the Jews!

I think, indeed, that if Josephus had omitted this circumstance, it would have been a very good reply, to say, that the chief captain did not yet know what was the matter; and though there was a loud cry in the multitude, of “ away with him;" yet the confusion was such, "some saying one thing," and "some another," that the chief captain had yet no notion what the case was. However, we have no occasiou to have recourse to this reply. Josephus has told us, that all the people favoured Felix in his enterprize against this man; whether it was because he came from Egypt, or what was the reason, is of no importance.

6. There is a remarkable agreement between the chief captain in the Acts and Josephus, in the description they give of this man. The chief captain says, "Art not thou that Egyptian?" And it is observable, that Josephus has not mentioned this man's name in either of the accounts. In the first he calls him the Egyptian false prophet, and the Egyptian: in the other he says, there came one (or a certain person) out of Egypt: and again, Felix fell upon those who were with the Egyptian; but the Egyptian escaped.

We have then in the Acts the exact manner in which the Jews about this time spoke of this impostor. This is with me a proof, that St. Luke lived and wrote about this time: that is, at the time be is supposed to write. We have here undoubtedly the chief captain's question in the very words in which it was put. St. Luke must have received this account from St. Paul, or some one else who was present, if he was not by himself.

I hope, therefore, that the account which Josephus has given of this impostor, will be no longer reckoned an objection against St. Luke, but a confirmation of his history.

THE CONCLUSION.

I HAVE now performed what I undertook, and have shown that the account given by the sacred writers, of persons and things, is confirmed by other ancient authors of the best note. There is nothing in the books of the New Testament unsuitable to the age in which they are supposed to have been written. There appears in these writers a knowledge

of the affairs of those times not to be found in authors of later ages. We are hereby assured, that the books of the New Testament are genuine, and that they were written by persons who lived at or near the time of those events, of which they have given the history.

Any one may be sensible, how hard it is for the most learned, acute, and cautious man, to write a book in the character of some person of an earlier age, and not betray his own time by some mistake about the affairs of the age in which he pretends to place himself, or by allusions to customs or principles since sprung up, or by some phrase or expression not then in use. It is no easy thing to escape all these dangers in the smallest performance, though it be a treatise of theory or speculation: these hazards are greatly increased when the work is of any length, and especially if it be historical, and be concerned with characters and customs. It is yet more difficult to carry on such a design in a work consisting of several pieces, written to all appearance by several persons. Many indeed are desirous to deceive, but all hate to be deceived: and therefore, though attempts have been made to impose upon the world in this way, they have never or very rarely succeeded, but have been detected and exposed by the skill and vigilance of those who have been concerned for the truth.

The volume of the New Testament consists of several pieces; these are ascribed to eight several persons; and there are the strongest appearances, that they were not all written by any one hand, but by as many persons as they are ascribed to. There are lesser differences in the relations of some facts, and such seeming contradictions, as would never have happened, if these books had been all the work of one person, or of several who wrote in concert. There are as many peculiarities of temper and style, as there are names of writers; divers of which show no depth of genius or compass of knowledge. Here are representations of titles, posts, behaviour of persons of higher and lower rank in many parts of the world; persons are introduced, and their characters are set in a full light; here is a history of things done in several cities and countries; and there are allusions to a vast variety of customs and tenets of persons of several nations, sects, and religions. The whole is written without affectation, with the greatest simplicity and plainness, and is confirmed by other ancient writers of unquestioned authority.

If it be difficult for a person of learning and experience, to compose a small treatise concerning matters of specula