THE CRITICAL REVIEW. For the Month of October, 1765. ARTICLE I. A large Collection of ancient Jewish and Heathen Teftimonies to the T With Notes and Obfervations. HIS learned and laborious author having, in a former volume*, confidered every paffage relative to the Chrif tian religion, in all the Jewish and heathen writers of the apoftolic age, proceeds, in the volume now before us, to examine the teftimonies of the heathen writers of the fecond century. In his account of the writings of Jofephus, he had rejected, as an interpolation, the celebrated paffage, which is now found in the Antiquities of that author, concerning our Saviour; but finding that some learned men are still tenacious of it, he endeavours, in the preface to this volume, to answer feveral objec tions alledged against his opinion. The alterations, he fays, which are proposed by the learned author † of a Differtation on this fubject, as emendations of the text, are deftitute of authority; the objections taken from the want of connection in the place where the paffage ftands, and from the filence of all ancient Chriftian writers before Eufebius, and of fome others after him, remain in their full force. He adds, that the word Christ, or Meffiah, appears not in any place, in all the works of Jofephus, excepting two; namely, the paragraph we are now confidering, which is in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities; and a paffage in the twentieth book of the fame Antiquities, where mention is made of Fames the brother of Jefus, * See Crit. Rev. vol. xix. pag. 35. † Dr. N. Fofter. - VOL. XX. October, 1765. R who is called Chrift. This, he thinks, is a good argument, that thefe two paffages are interpolations for Jofephus had many, yea innumerab.e occafions, for mentioning that word, and Speaking of the expected Meffiah. But that word is not to be found any where in him, excepting these two paffages, where he is made to speak of Jefus Chrift. He must have defignedly and fludioutly avoided that expreffion; and it is incredible that he fhould bring it in for the fake of Jefus, our Saviour, for whom he cannot be fuppofed to have had any favourable regard. It appears to me (continues the Doctor) to be the wisdom and the intereft of Chriftians, to adhere to, and improve, the genuine works of Jofephus, and to maintain their integrity, inftead of attempting to vindicate paffages, which are so justly sufpected to be interpolations.' We efteem Dr. Laidner for the juftice and spirit of this remark. Chriftianity, can derive no credit from false atteftations; and credulity is one of the meaneft foibles of which a writer can be guilty. The ninth chapter, which is the firft in this volume, contains the letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan, concerning the Chriftians, and Trajan's refcript, with notes and oblervations, and an account of the perfecution in the time of that emperor, generally reckoned the third heathen perfecution. Thofe epiftles (our author obferves) bear teflimony to the innocence of the firft Chriftians, in their folemn worship, in their meal, fome time afterwards, and in their whole lives. There was not any crime, befides that of their religion, proved against any of thofe that were brought before Pliny, Even their accufers and profecutors appear not to have alledged any thing elfe against them, but that they were Chriftians. He examined deferters; he put to the torture two women, who were minifters, or deaconeffes; and yet he difcovered nothing but what was quite harmless. The only charge against them is (what Pliny calls) an abfurd fuperftition, and obftinacy therein. Trajan knew not of any offence they were guilty of, excepting only their not fupplicating to the gods. -The honefly and innocence of these men oblige us to pay a great regard to their belief and profeffion of the Chriftian religion.' * The tenth chapter contains an account of Epictetus, and Ar. rian, who drew up the Enchiridion, and difcourfes of Epi&eius, with obfervations on two paffages in thefe difcourfes, which have been fuppofed, by many learned men, to relate to the Chriftians. L. 2. cap. 9. L. 4. c. z. The The first is dubious; the fecond is more determinate. Epictetus (fpeaking of intrepidity, and particularly with regard to a tyrant, furrounded by his guards, and officers) fays, "Is it poffible that a man may arrive at this temper, and become indifferent to thofe things, from madness, or from habit, as the Galileans and yet that no one should be able to know, by reafon and demonftration, that God made all things in the world?" The Doctor having fhewn, that by Galileans the Chriftians are here intended, cites the following pertinent remark from the tranflation of the ingenious Mrs. Carter: έσ Epictetus probably means, not any remaining disciples of Judas of Galilee, but the Chriftians, whom Julian afterwards affected to call Galileans. It helps to confirm this opinion, that M. Antoninus mentions them by their proper name of Chriftians, as fuffering death out of mere obftinacy. It would have been more reasonable, and more worthy the character of thefe great men, to have inquired into the principles on which the Chriftians refused to worship heathen deities, and by which they were enabled to fupport their fufferings with fuch amazing conftancy, than rafhly to pronounce their behaviour the effect of obftinacy and habit. Epictetus and Antoninus were too exact judges of human nature, not to know, that ignominy, tortures, and death, are not merely, on their own account, objects of choice. Nor could the records of any time, or nation, furnish them with an example of multitudes of perfons of both fexes, of all ages, ranks, and natural difpofitions, in diftant countries, and fucceffive periods, refigning whatever is most valuable and dear to the heart of man from a principle of obftinacy, or the mere force of habit: not to fay, that habit could have no influence on the first sufferers." It is obfervable, that Epictetus's Difcourfes abound with quotations of Greek authors, and references to ancient history. Nevertheless, we find not any mention made of Mofes, or Da vid, or Solomon, or any of the Jewish prophets; nor yet of Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or John, or Paul, or Peter. The difciples of Jesus wrote in Greek, and the books of Mofes, and the Jewish prophets, had been before his time tranflated into the Greek language. Epictetus could not be altogether ignorant of them; nor were any of them undeferving the regard of a moral philofopher. From whence then arifes this total inattention to thefe writers? Dr. Lardner juftly obferves, that they were Unitarians, and could not be alledged, or taken notice of, without hurting, if not overthrowing, the polytheistic scheme. In the eleventh chapter, the author cites and examines the refcript of the emperor Adrian, in favour of the Chriftians, to Minucius Fundanus, proconful of Afia, and his letter + to Servian, who was conful in the year 134, concerning the Chrif tians in Egypt. Lampridius tells us, that this emperor intended to confecrate feveral temples to the honour of Jefus Chrift; but our author thinks that this ftory is without any good foundation; it being inconfiftent with his known principles, and unfupported by the teftimony of those ancient Chriftian writers, who must have known it, and would have mentioned it, if it had been true The tellimony of Bruttius Præfens to Domitian's perfecution, is the fubject of the twelfth chapter. This Brottins is fupposed to have been conful with Titus Antoninus, in the year 139, and a Latin hiftorian. But who he was is a matter of difpute. His teftimony, however, is of no great importance; it confists of a paffage, quoted by Eufebius, in which we are told, that many Chriftians fuffered martyrdom under Domitian, and that Flavia Domitilla, niece to Flavius Clemens the conful, was banished to the island Pontia, becaufe fhe confeffed herself to be a Chriftian. In the thirteenth chapter our author examines the teftimony of Phlegos; particularly the following celebrated paffage, quoted by Eufebius: "In the fourth year of the zozd Olympiad, there was an eclipfe of the fun, the greateft of any known before. It was night at the fixth hour of the day, fo that the ftars appeared in the heavens. And there was a great earthquake in Bithynia, which overturned many houfes in Nice." Some writers, it is well known, have fuppofed that thefe words relate to the darkness at the time of our Saviour's crucifixion. But, fays Dr. Lardner, the evangelifts only fpeak of darknefs in the land of Judea. 2. There are fuch inaccuracies, and fuch differences in the quotations of Phlegon by feveral anthors, as very much diminish the credit and authority of this teftimony. 3. Phlegon fays nothing of Judea. What he fays, is, that in fuch an Olympiad there was an eclipfe in Bithynia, and an earthquake at Nice. 4. Phlegon does not say, that the earthquake happened at the fame time with the eclipfe. 5. Phlegon does not mention any of the extraordinary circumftances of the darkness at the time of our Saviour's fufferings. * See Eufeb. Ecclef. Hift. 1. 4. c. 9. See Flav. Vopifc. in Saturn, 6. Phlegon 6. Phlegon fpeaks of an ordinary eclipfe of the fun, therefore he cannot intend the darkness mentioned by the evangelifts, which happened when the moon was full; at which time an eclipse of the fun is impoffible; nor do any of the evangelifts use the word eclipfe, in their history of this darkness. 7. It is rea sonable to believe, from what Phlegon writes, that there was a great eclipfe of the fun in fome year of the 2ozd Olympiad. According to the calculations of fome able aftronomers *, there was a great eclipfe of the fun, in the month of November, in the twenty-ninth year of our Lord, according to the common account, and the first year of the zozd Olympiad. But whe ther their calculations be right, or not, we may be fatisfied that Phlegon thought there was a great eclipfe of the fun about that time. From all thefe confiderations, without infifting much upon that which is the fecond in order, it appears to me (fays Dr. Lardner) that we have not fufficient reafon to think that Phle gon has mentioned the darkness which happened at the time of our Saviour's crucifixion. It is obfervable that this paffage is very feldom mentioned by the ancient learned Christian writers, as a teftimony to the wonderful events, at the time of our Saviour's paffion, which induces me to think they paid lit tle or no regard to it, and that they did not judge it proper to be all dged, either for the fatisfaction and confolation of adverfaries, or for the confirmation of their own people.' The eclipse mentioned by Thallus, our author fuppofes to have been a natural eclipfe of the fun; and the teftimony of Dionyfius the Areopagite he juftiy explodes. In the fourteenth chapter he examines the teftimony of Antoninus Pius, and obferves, that there is no fign of any forgery in the edict which that emperor is faid, by Eufebius, to have fent, in favour of the Chriftians, to the ftates of Afia. He farther obferves, that Antoninus wrote alfo to the Theffalonians, Athenians, and all the Greeks in general, that they should forbear to give trouble to the Chriftians, unless they were guilty of fome offence contrary to the welfare of fociety. The fubject of the fifteenth chapter is a paffage in the Meditations of Marcus Antoninus, concerning the Chriftians; the perfecutions in his time; a remarkable deliverance of this emperor in his wars in Germany; and the hiftory of the Thundering Legion. This philofopher's obfervation concerning the Chriftians is as follows: * See Dr. Sykes's Differtation on the eclipfe mentioned by Phlegon. R 3 "What |