Should any oppose to this account of the darkness, the story which is told about Dionyfius the Areopagite's having obferved it in Egypt, in company with Apollophanes, a master under whom he profecuted his ftudies, and broke forth into this exclamation, Either the God of nature fuffers, or fympathizes with the sufferer;' it is a story, as was +intimated before, which appears altogether unworthy of credit. For there is no account of Dionyfius's having remarked it, and made fuch reflection upon it by Eufebius, or any other of the early ecclefiaftic hiftorians, as important and worthy to be transmitted to pofterity as the fact must have seemed, confidering how illustrious his rank in life was, and that he was then a heathen, having been only converted by Paul when he preached at Athens, about eighteen years after the crucifixion. As little is there mention of it in any of the different apologies ftill extant, which were written by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, and others, for the Chriftian religion, though they speak of the darkness, and appeal to such evidences as they relied upon, in support of it, as proper as it must have been thought by them for ferving their cause, or in any of the commentaries or homilies upon the evangelical history of Chrift's paffion, by Origen, Chryfoftom, Jerome, Ambrofe, Theodoret, and others, which we have tranfmitted to us, though some of them are pretty prolix and full. If we meet with Dionyfius's obfervation of the darknefs in Egypt, in his own works, these were never heard of till the fixth century, and are now very generally looked on as fpurious and forged, both by † Part 2. fect. 27. page 371.

Papifts and Proteftants of the most eminent critical judgment and ability; even there, however, there is no notice given by Dionyfius, in his minute and circumftantiate detail about the darkness he remarked at Heliopolis, of his having made fuch an excla mation as hath been afcribed to him, nor is it related by any before Syncellus, a writer of little authority, who flourished about the year 828. Withal, the fabulous authors who do speak of it afterwards, tell it with fo much variety as to destroy its credit, at leaft in concurrence with what hath been already offered, as much weight as hath been by fome laid upon it. But I must not enlarge on the fubject, and far lefs can I tarry to produce the proofs of all this now. What hath been faid, may be enough to fhew, that none ought to conclude the darknefs was more largely diffused, upon the authority of this tale concerning Dionyfius.

Now, if the darkness was thus limited, instead of involving all nations in it, and even Rome itself, which our author reprefents, it is unreasonable to fufpect or deny its truth, merely because Greek and Latin hiftorians of that age are filent about it. Indeed, if it had been univerfal, as it was not the darkness of an eclipse, but a darkness preternatural and extraordinary, which the evangelifts fhew, forafmuch as no eclipse happens at full but at new moon, nor creates an obfcurity of fo long duration, it would have been very strange, if it had been entirely overlooked by them all, fond as they were of recording prodigies, and ftruck as they must have been with wonder and aftonishment at the fight of it. But when the case was otherwise, the neglect of it by heathen hiftorians

need not offend us; we may easily digeft its omiffion by them, and even by Jofephus, who was a native of Judea, upon the principles already propofed.

After this I need fay nothing, in particular, upon his cavil from their filence about the opening of the tombs, when Jefus was upon the cross, and the rifing of the juft from the dead, which I apprehend, however, to have been rather at his refurrection than at his death, fince these things were only in the neighbourhood of Jerufalem, and were too ftrong marks of divine approbation and favour to him, whom the rulers of the nation put to death as a malefactor, to be related by their own historian. It remains,therefore,only to confider what he has advanced, with the fame view of destroying the credit of the evangelical history, from our meeting no trace of Jefus Chrift in the hiftorian Jofephus, though his father must have been an eye-witness of Jefus's miracles, the little paffage relating to him, in his works, being now universally given up as interpolated, and from no Roman hiftorian's having taken notice of the prodigies, (meaning 1 fuppofe the ftar, darkness, and refurrection of the juft,) though they happened in the reign of Tiberius, under the very eyes of a Roman governor and garrifon, who naturally would have fent the emperor and fenate a circumftantial account of the most miraculous event ever heard of.

Of the entire omiffion of Jefus Chrift by Fofephus, according to the univerfal opinion at prefent, though his father must have feen Fefus's miracles; the little paffage relating to him, in his works, being now univerfally given up as interpolated;' and of the filence of every Roman hiftorian about the prodigies at his birth and death, though a circumstantial account would naturally be tranfmitted to the emperor and fenate from the Roman governor and garrison in the province of Judea.

THE little paffage in Jofephus to which our author here + refers, runs thus, 6 At that time lived Jefus, • a wife man, if he may be called a man. For he was ' a performer of wonderful works, a teacher of men

6

who received the truth with pleasure, and he brought over (or profelyted) many Jews and Greeks. • This was the Chrift. And Pilate having condem'ned him to the cross, at the follicitation of the chief 'men among us, they who at firft loved him did • not ceafe from entertaining an affection for him.

† Antiq. 18. 3. 3. I quote the original paffage, that the learned reader may better understand the critical emendations which have been propofed by its defenders, and judge more furely about the juftice or injuftice of any different tranfation, Γινεται δε κατα τ8τον τον χρόνον Ιησες, σοφος ανηρ, ειδε ανδρα αυτον λεγειν χρη. Ην γαρ παραδόξων ερίων ποιητης, διδασκαλος ανθρωπων των ήδονη τ' αληθή δελ εχομένων, και πολλες μεν Ιεδαίες, πολλές δε και το Ελληνικό επη Γαδετο. Ὁ Χριςος αυτος, ην και αυτον,ενδείξεις των πρώτων ανδρων παρ' ήμιν, ςαυρω επιτετιμηκοτος Πιλατε, εκ επαυσαντο οιδε τον αΓαπησαντες" εφανη Γαρ αυτοις τριτην έχων ήμεραν, παλιν ζων. θείων προφήτων, ταυτα τε και αλλα μυρια θαυμασια, περι αυτά Θρηκοτων. Εις ετι νυν των Χρισιανων απο τα δε ωνομασμένον εκ επε

των

λίπει το φύλον,

πρωτον αυτ

For he appeared to them the third day again alive, the divine prophets having faid both these, and in⚫ numerable other wonderful things concerning him. The fect of the Chriftians which is denominated from him hath not ceafed until now.' However, when he affirms it is now univerfally given up as interpolated, by which he must be underflood to fignify, it is by all in this age regarded as a forgery from beginning to end, fince upon this he builds his affertion, that we meet with no trace of Jefus Chrift in the hiftorian Jofephus, he fays what is far from true. For it hath been vindicated and received as genuine, in whole or in part, by many learned men, even of late years, as by Tobias † Eckhardus, Jacobus Serenius, Dr. § Chapman, Dr. ||N. Forster of Oxford,

* As I confine myself to late years, I fay nothing of Huetius, Cave, Fabricius, Voffius, Spanhemius, Whifton, and others.

In libro cui titulus, Non Chriftianorum de Chrifto Teftimonia, ex antiquis monumentis propofita et dijudicata. Quedlinburgi, 1736. Paftor at Nykoping, and member of the Royal Society at London, in a book published about 1758, of which is an account, Nouv. Bibl. Germ. tom. 24.

Author of Eufebius, and of the defence of Phlegon's eclipse against Sykes, who would explain 'O Xp1505 870 nv, as the title on the cross, This is he who was called Chrift,' and refer the auT8 in the claufe about the prophets, not to Jefus, but to Chrift or Meffiah, by which fome chief objections against the paffage from Jofephus's character are removed.

To him is afcribed the Differtation on the subject, which Dr Lardner hath examined in his preface to the 2d volume of his Testimonies, who, as he agrees with Dr. Chapman, in his version of 'OUTOS NY XpioTos, would read r'anon instead of 7'annon, so that Jofephus fhould only fay, he was a teacher of men, who received new or unheard of doctrines with pleafure, and again would alter των θείων into των ίδιων,