court which lay between this altar and the holy of holies *; by confequence in the vicinity, and under the observation of God himself, who refided there by a visible glory or brightness over the ark his fymbol, which did not a little aggravate and inflame their guilt. Of his death also, the Jews speak much in their † Talmud. And it is obvious there was a fitness in our Saviour's selecting him, whatever righteous men, and even prophets, might have been killed by them in fucceeding times, before his own appearance in the flesh, when he used the phraseology here to admonish them of great calamities, as he is the last prophet whofe murder is mentioned in their facred books, and the only one of whom we read that he required vengeance for the effufion of his blood before he expired, even as we do, that Abel's blood cried for it, after it was fhed.

Here then is another Zacharias killed in the temple, many ages before the coming of the Meffiah, who answers very well the description in Matthew. We may therefore be satisfied, notwithstanding Mr. Voltaire's affertion, that it could agree to none but one flain long after Jefus's death, into whofe mouth both this evangelift and Luke puts the fact, that Matthew wrote as early as is fuppofed, without having re

*This is the frequent fenfe of vaos, the term in the gofpels turned temple, while itpor fignifies the whole facred building with its courts, or any part exclusive of that. So Jofeph. Antiq. 9. 1, 2. Jehofaphat is faid to have gathered the people of Jerufalem into the itpor, and to have prayed standing with his face toward the vaos or holy of holies, κατα πρόσωπον το ναυ.

† See Lightfoot's Works, vol. 2. page 1140. and Talmud. Exercitations on Matth. vol. 1. page 237. alfo his Sermons, page 1120. Michaelis Annot. in 2 Chron, xxiv. 21.

See note, page 508.

course, for the folution of any difficulty here, to the infinite difference between books divinely inspired and fuch as are merely human, which he only acknowledges by way of fcoff and farcafm.

*

Of his calling Toldos Jefchut quite contrary to our gofpels, and making it a more antient writing.

I AM now haftening to a conclufion of this work; but ere I end, must also take notice of a remarkable

* As Mr. Voltaire here has fuppofed St. Matthew to make Christ speak of a Zacharias, who was not flain till almost 40 years after his death; fo in his article Meffiah of the fame Dictionary, he makes Gamaliel fpeak of a Theudas, who did not appear till long after thefe deliberations were held, at which he affifted. The wife Gamaliel,' says he, Acts, v. 34. mentions one named Theudas, whose history is to be 'found in Jofephus's antiquities, lib. 20. c. 2.' See ibid. page 273. But it is plain he gives this interpretation of the passage, in like manner, by way of ridicule. For, he could never believe Gamaliel intended him, whose imposture and ruin Jofephus relates. Jofephus's Theudas arose not till Cufpius Fadus was procurator of Judea, under the emperor Claudius, about the fourty-fourth year of the Christian aera. Gamaliel, in his speech made eight or ten years fooner, mentions a Theudas who had given disturbance, and been flain at that time; yea before the time of the tumults and commotions which Judas of Galilee raised, who feduced much people in the days of the affeffment or cenfus, when Judea was reduced to the state of a Roman province. They must therefore have been two different perfons of the fame name. Accordingly, this is the general sense of learned men. And why might there not be two deceivers in that country of one name, in the compafs of 40 years, with such similarity in character and fate, as this hypothefis requires? None will think this an unlikely or improbable thing, who look into the late excellent Dr. Lardner's Credibility, part 1. book 2. chap. 7. P 921-940. to whose work I therefore refer the reader.

stroke against our gospels, in one of his latest publications, I mean his Letters on eminent Writers.' There,*fays he, 'The Toldos Jeschut is the moft an tient Jewish writing that has been transmitted to us against our religion. It is a life of Jefus quite contrary to our holy gofpels. For the author makes ❝ no mention of them; and probably he would have tried to refute them, if he had known any thing of 'them. He makes Jefus the adulterous fon of Miri'ah, or Mariah, and of a foldier called Jofeph Pander, or Panther.' Thus he relates to us the infamous original which this book gives Jefus, afferts its total repugnance to the hiftory of him by the evangelifts, and at the fame time infinuates it is more worthy of credit and belief, as a writing of fuperior antiquity, and greater nearness to his age of whom it

treats.

But is this book, of the generations of Jefus, (for that is the import of its Hebrew title,

120 Sepher Toldoth Jefbu,) fo contrary to our gofpels, as from his manner of expreffing himself upon the fubject, and from the fpecimen he gives of its contents, every reader will naturally imagine? Or has it that title to veneration and respect, from its being a work of more early date than our gofpels, which he invefts it with? I think neither of these will be found true.

That there is not an abfolute and entire disagreement between it and our gofpels, will appear from the following account, which the reader may rely on as exact, being formed from the perufal of the He

Page 110.

brew copy of the piece, printed by * Wagenfeil with a Latin translation.

It allows Jefus to have been born at Bethlehem, and to have wrought miracles. In particular, it reprefents him to have restored a dead man to life, and a leper + to foundness, on three different occafions, and on the last of these, to have alfo made two milftones fwim upon the Jordan, while he himself, moreover, fitting hereon, catched fishes, and gave of them unto the multitudes present, that they might eat. It defcribes the people, on feeing the two firft miracles, to have fallen down and worshipped him, faying, " "Thou art altogether the son of God,' It re

* See tom. 2 Wagenfeil, Tela ignea Satanae,' where is also a confutation of it, as well as of the Carmen Lipmanni, (which is an abridgment of the Jewish treatise against our religion ftiled Nizzachon, or Victory,) though not of Chiffuk Emanah, another very wicked piece there alfo printed, of which Dr. Kidder hath often made mention, to refute its objections, in his Demonstration of the Meffiah.

The first miracles are thus related, 'Having complained of thefe ⚫ men who called him a baftard, and pretended he was of an impure 'original, and having afferted that he was the fon of God, and that 'Ifaiah prophefied of him, "Behold a virgin fhall conceive." He

faid before the people at Bethlehem of Judah, the place of his na'tivity, Bring hither to me a dead man, I will recover him to life. 'The people haften, and digging up a grave, find nothing there but dry bones: when they reported this to him, he faid, Bring them forth into the midft;' these being brought him, he joins each of the

· bones, and covers them with skin, flesh, and nerves, so that he arose 'who was before a carcafe, and stood on his feet. When men faw it 'they wondered; then he faid, 'Do ye marvel at these things, bring 'me fome leper, I will heal him;' and when they had placed a leper " before him, he in like manner healed him, by the ineffable name; ' which when men faw, they fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Thou art the fon of God.' pp. 7. 8.

lates, that he rode into Jerufalem on an afs, which was brought to him at his own defire, and that all the city broke forth to meet him, when lifting up his voice, he said, 'Zechariah the prophet foretold concerning me, Behold thy king will come to thee ‘just, and * saved, and poor, fitting upon an ass, and upon a colt, the fon of affes.' It makes him apply these predictions to himself, Ifaiah prophefied ' of me, The lame man fhall leap as an hart. Of me my great progenitor David spake these words, The "Lord faid unto me, thou art my fon, this day I have begotten thee; and again in another place, The Lord faid to my Lord, Sit thou at my righthand; for now will I afcend to my heavenly father, and fit at his right-hand, and ye fhall behold it with your eyes;' added he, in prefence of the elders and wife men of Jerufalem.

It declares, that one Juda mixed himself into his train, with a mischievous defign, that Jefus went up to Jerufalem to celebrate the feast of unleavened bread, that the religious men were glad when Juda faid to them he would betray him into their hands, and that the man before whom he should proftrate himself was Jefus, wherefore they should play the men, and behave courageously, and take him. Accordingly, Juda does fo. Next day he proftrates himself before him, and all the citizens of Jerufalem being armed, apprehend him. It fets forth, that his disciples hereon fled hither and thither, and broke forth into bitter weeping, that the elders of Jerufalem led him into the city,

* The Hebrew word in Zechar. ix. 9. is YU Nofhang, which many Christian commentators alfo render saved instead of Saviour, as Vulgate, or having falvation,' as we do.