felf, as Tanaquil Faber fufpected, or fome other Christian about his time, compofed the paragraph under confideration. 6 Διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τ ̓ ἀληθὴ δεχομένων : literally, A teacher of fuch men as received the truth with pleasure. Mr. Bryant, in fupport of his interpretation, having repeated from Daubuz fome inftances of a fimilar phrafeology in Jofephus, obferves that our Saviour and his Apoftles ufe the word aan for the Gospel doctrine, and that Jofephus may be supposed to act as an hiftorian of Greece would have done, if he had been to mention Zeno the Stoic, and had defcribed him, as didarxαλος. ανθρώπων, των ήδονη το καλον, και το πρέπον, δεχομένων. But not fatisfied with this account of the matter, he proceeds to inquire into the different fenfes in which the words, true and truth, are ufed in the Old and New Teftament, and in the Septuagint, and concludes that by d, Jofephus may be fuppofed to intend religion and morality in general. Upon this representation and reafoning we beg leave to remark, that we believe Mr. Bryant would find it difficult to produce a paffage from any writer, who was not a Chriftian, in which the Chrif tian doctrine is filed το αληθές, oι αλήθεια; that it would have been more to his purpose to have produced fome inftances out of Jofephus, in which to nic is put for religion, or morality in general, than to have fearched for them in the Scriptures; and that in the Scriptures, wherever they may be fuppofed to fignify religion, they intend the true religion, in oppofition to falfe ones, and are never equivalent in their fignification to morality, any further than juftice and integrity may imply a regard to moral obligation in general. By To Examuxov in the next fentence Mr. Bryant, as we have feen, understands the Hellenifte, that is, according to his Interpretation, the devout men mentioned Acts ii. 5. as oppofed to Izdata or native Jews. It is generally tranflated, Gentiles. And it has been objected, that we have no account of our Saviour's making any profelytes among the Gentiles. Upon this fubject Mr. Bryant has the following note, which we recom mend to the attention of the curious. But after all, do we not go too far in this notion? The principal object of our Saviour's miffion was certainly the houfe of Ifrael. But we cannot fuppofe that he excluded others, who believed and defired to be of his fold. What are we to think of the Centurion, whofe fervant was healed: and of the woman of Syrophenicia? St. John mentions a nobleman (avng Barining) of Capernaum, who believed, and all his houfe. Are we certain that he was a Jew? Even among the Apostles, was not Simon the Canaanite originally a Gentile? By his fecondary name there is room to fuppofe it. It is faid, Matth. iv. 24. that our Saviour's fame went (not only through all Ju them. the au dea, but) throughout all Syria: and they brought him all fick people * It is neceffary to confider farther, to whom Jofephus addreffed himself in this hiftory. Does he not tell us, that he wrote principally for the Greeks; and in the next place for the Romans? To what poffible purpose could it have been, if he had told either of those nations that Jefus was the Meffiah? They would not have understood the term: and it would have ferved only to have embarraffed the hiftory. But of Chrift, whom they often ftiled Xensos, and Chreftus, they had heard.' Even this reafoning is, in our opinion, more fpecious than folid; and, indeed, includes in it a Petitio Principii. In the courfe of his obfervations on this part of the paragraph, Mr. Bryant takes occafion to confider the objection that has been made to the whole from the filence of Origen, and endeavours to prove, that he must have had it in his copies of Jofephus. His reasoning on this fubject is too fingular to pafs unnoticed. There are two paflages in which Origen afferts that Jofephus did not look upon Jefus as the Chrift. Mr. Bryant, having quoted one of these paffages †, argues thus: Now it is to be oblerved, that there is no part of Jofephus, excepting the paffage in difpute, from whence Origen could have made this inference, that the author did not look upon Jefus as the Chrift. In this paffage the hiftorian fays, that he was the fame perfon as Chrift; and that a fet of people called Chriftians ftill remained: in which account he tacitly excludes himself from being of that Antiq. L. 20. C. 9. p. 976. + Comm. in Matth. xiii. 55. In tranflating this paffage, he renders τὸν Ἰησῶν ἡμῶν, Jefus, whom we vorfh.. Whether this be through design or careleffnefs it is equally unjustifiable. number. number. There is not a fyllable elsewhere mentioned, from whence Origen could have made fuch a deduction. He muft therefore, of a certainty, have seen this hiftory of our Saviour. Mr. Bryant's obfervations upon the other paffage in Origen are ftill more extraordinary. We give them at length, as a ftriking inftance of the effect of prejudice, and the love of paradox, in confounding the ideas, and cafting an obscurity over the reasoning of a man of fenfe and learning. But let us proceed,' fays he, to a ftricture upon Jofephus, fimilar to that above, from another part of Origen. * This writer, though he did not believe in Jefus, as the Chrift, or Meffiah, yet when he was fearching out the cause of the city's ruin, and of the deftruction of the temple, ought to have acknowledged, that all this happened on account of their injuftice towards Jefus; and of their having flain the Chrift, who had been foretold by the prophets. But he, acceding in fome degree, though, as it were, unwillingly, to the truth, fays, that all this evil came upon the Jews as a judgment from God, for their behaviour towards James the Juft, who was the bro ther of Jefus, called Chrift. For they put him to death, though he was confeffedly a man of the most confummate virtue. If then he could attribute the destruction of Jerufalem to James, with how much more propriety might he have afcribed it to the death of Jefus Chrift? We find here, that Origen feems to blame Jofephus for not attributing the evils which the Jews experienced to Chrift, rather than to James; for he was a perfon of more confequence; and their outrage to him more heinous. But how could he have expected any fuch thing from this hiftorian, if he had never fhewn that he was at all acquainted with Chrift; but only had mentioned his name incidentally? Origen thinks the behaviour of Jofephus upon this occafion ftill more ftrange, as Chrift had been foretold by the prophets. But the hiftorian must have fhewn that he was acquainted with our Saviour's character, or how could he have known that it was conformable to the prophecies which had preceded. When this learned father tells us, that Jofephus did not believe in Jefus, as the Chrift, fome may perhaps think, very juftly in our opinion, that he formed his judgment from the words αδελφος Ιησε το λεγομενα Χριςε : which by a perfon who believed, would have been rather expreffed Inos T Xoirs. From hence he may be thought to have concluded, that Jofephus was not a Chriftian. But St. Matthew ures the fame terms, § Ιησες ὁ λεγόμενος Χριςος ; and no one can fuppofe him to have been an unbeliever. Origen muft therefore have formed his opinion upon other grounds; from the evidence of the historian in the paffage, which is the subject of debate, • Cont. Celf. 1. 1. p. 35. Edit. Cautab. § C. i. v. 16. The The very words of Origen, Ο δ' αυτος καίτοιγε απιςων τω Ιησε s Xes, wherein he intimates, that Jofephus did not believe in Jefus, as the Chrift, fhew plainly that the hiftorian did in fome degree believe, and that he had afforded evidence of his belief. This is manifeft paft all difpute. We may then be affured that Jofephus had given an history of this divine perfon; and Origen had certainly feen it, as is plain from what has preceded; otherwife he would not have blamed the hiftorian for not mentioning Chrift as the cause of these calamities, but for not mentioning him at all. The firft was only a wrong inference, not fo much of Jofephus, as of his countrymen, and of little confequence. But the latter, had it been true, would have been a fatal omiffion, and an unpardonable defect; for he who knew fo much of the Difciple, could not well be ignorant of the Mafter; and fhould have taken proper notice of his character. All which in reality we find done. Origen therefore was acquainted with this paffage; and as he tells us more than once, that Jofephus never admitted Jefus to have been the Saviour of the world, he fhews plainly how he interpreted the words 'O Xpisos duros ny. And when Pilate upon an accufation of the principal perfons among the fews, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had from the beginning fhewed their regard for him, fill perfified in their affection; for he appeared to them upon the third day restored to life, according to the predictions of the facred prophets, who bad foretold this, and many other wonderful circumftances concerning him.' ' It has been juftly thought that the latter fentence could not have been written by any one who was not a Chriftian. Mr. Bryant, on the contrary, is perfuaded, that many would have given a like teflimony, had they been called upon, though they were not of the Chriftian community. For, fays he, all that we have here told us, is, that Jefus was an extraordinary perfon, and wonderfully endowed: one who had this immunity above others, that his body was not confined to the grave, but was raised upon the third day. Is this all that we are here told? Is it a circumftance of no account that the refurrection of Jefus took place according to the predictions of the prophets, and that they foretold many other wonderful things concerning him? Mr. Bryant, in fupport of his opinion, mentions Herod's fufpicion that he was John the Baptift rifen from the dead; and the repeated declaration of the people, This is of a truth the Prophet, &c. But who does not fee the difference between the cafes? Herod's fufpicion arofe from an opinion which prevailed ämong the Jews, that they who were put to death upon a religious account, would-rife from the dead, and appear again upon the earth. And the perfuation of the people was founded upon his miracles and doctrine, and not upon the fulfilment of the prophecies in him. Mr. Bryant further alleges that the miracles of our Saviour were univerfally credited by the Jews, and indeed that neither Julian, Celfus, nor Porphyry ever difputed. them. True but they afcribed them to the agency of evil fpirits, or to the power of magic. If they had afcribed them to a divine agency, they must have believed his divine miffion. The chief ftrength of Mr. Bryant's argument upon this part of the paragraph is, we think, contained in the following quo tation. Having obferved that many of the Jews were as inveterate against him, as his difciples were zealous in his caufe;' he goes on, 'but there was a third fort between these two extremes; which confifted of a large party in the nation. These faw the fanctity of his manners, the excellency of his doctrines, and were aftonished at his miracles; and though they could not allow him to be the Chrift who was to come, yet they esteemed him as fomething more than man. Many imagined that there were two different perfons pointed out in the facred writings; the one a great prophet, a worker of miracles, and preacher of righteoufnels; the other a victorious prince, who was to free, them from the bondage of the Romans, and whofe dominion was to be over the whole earth. They thought that the former character might be applied to our Saviour; though they were ftill ftaggered about many appearances, which they knew not how to reconcile. Such, I imagine, was Nicodemus, and Jofeph of Arimathea; fuch alfo Gamaliel, and many of thofe difciples who upon a time deferted their Mafter*. Many of the first converts after his death had been previoufly in this state of mind. Thefe, though they were not confirmed in their faith, yet yielded to the evidence of their fenfes. In confequence of which they believed in part, and admitted the prophecies partially; and had they been called upon to give an account of Chrift, they would have afforded much the fame hiftory as is given by Jofephus.' Such was the middle party among the Jews. It confifted of a fet of people in a ftate of fufpence; who, though they were not enemies to the gofpel, yet could not bring themfelves to accede to it. Amongst the people of this clais we may lace the Jewish hiftorian. He faw the truth, but at a diftance,' &c. There are many things in this paffage to which juf objections may be made. The greater part of it is affertion and conjecture, uníupported by evidence. Some of the Jews, no doubt, thought, mote favourably of Jefus than others. If he had ap |