however discovered, that Mr. Jones has brought forward any new argument, to prove that the passage is not a spurious interpretation.

From reading this critique, I was convinced that the author of it was, for the most part, a stranger to the work, on the merits of which he undertook to decide: and the declaration that he could discover no new argument for the genuineness of the disputed passage, is a proof that he had not perused the volume. The objections of the learned are founded on the supposition that Josephus was not a believer in Christ, and that he has not in any other part of his works noticed him or his followers. In my Researches, I have proved the supposition to be totally erroneous, by shewing that Josephus engaged in his works, under the patronage of a celebrated man, whom the apostle Paul recognises as a brother in Christ, and that he is the historian of the Gospel and its votaries, under those titles which belonged to them as the disciples of Moses. If these proofs are solid, the objections of the learned fall, like dead weight, to the ground. And if the reviewer did not think them so, it was his duty to refute them, instead of artfully leading his readers to conclude contrary to the truth, that no new argument was adduced in support of the passage.

On the proposition, that the object of Josephus in his works was to promote the interests of the Gospel, my reviewer remarks, "If this was his object, it is strange that it should never have been known, nor never surmised till our author came into the world. Till Mr. Jones wrote his Ecclesiastical Researches, the writings of

Josephus must have been a sealed book. Mr. Jones is the Oedipus who was destined to unravel the riddle of the Sphinx."

Mr. Jones professes only to be an ardent and a patient enquirer, guided only by the evidence of facts, and not by the authority of the learned: and he has the felicity of being born in an age, when he may publish the result of his enquiries without the fear of reproach or ridicule; and support its merits by proofs, and not by the opinions of those who have gone before him in the same field. And why should my reviewer unfairly attempt to prejudge the question, and represent me as pretending to sagacity and learning beyond all other men? A writer, who has recourse to the ungenerous arts of ridicule and misrepresentation on a grave and learned question, should himself be well informed, least his ignorance should betray his malice, and draw upon himself the disgrace he is preparing for his adversary. If the appeal be made to authority, I have authority on my side; for I have the authority of antiquity: Jerome has classed Philo and Josephus in the number of ecclesiastical writers: nor is there hardly one of the early fathers who in his writings against the Jews and Gentiles, has not quoted Josephus as a historian of facts in support of the Gospel. Eusebius has employed one chapter in his Ecclesiastical History to shew, that the men described by Philo were believers in Christ; and his opinion has been adopted by all the writers after him down to Zonaras: not to mention a host of Catholics in more modern days.

My critic strenuously maintains that the Esseans were not, and could not have been, Christians, because a community of goods was the established basis of fellowship amongst them for considerably more than a century anterior to the Christian era; because they rejected the marriage institution, commerce, navigation, and the use of wine. Now these reasons suppose that Christ must necessarily have taught all the opinions embraced by his early followers; and that those who entertained tenets not taught by him were not Christians. I do not believe that the editor of the Critical Review is much acquainted with the ancient affairs of Christianity; yet he cannot be so little read in Ecclesiastical History, as not to know these positions to be very remote from the truth. I wonder therefore at his folly and effrontery in attempting to impose them as true on his readers.

It is a fact, that our Lord encouraged his first followers, to part with their goods.The encouragement too is unlimited, though it was doubtless intended to be confined to the age and circumstances of the Jews. It was of great consequence to the credibility of the Gospel, that all those who had witnessed the miracles and resurrection of the founder, should make every possible sacrifice in his service. This sacrifice was the test of their sincerity and conviction; and as in making it they proceeded not on opinions, but on facts, of which they had themselves been spectators, their conduct is a solid ground of confidence and triumph to all men in all ages and countries.

t

On the other hand, it is not true that the equal distribution of property was a matter of compulsion, or the basis of fellowship among the Esseans. Philo and Josephus are the only writers, who have furnished us with authentic knowledge of this people; and it is evident from them that a community of goods was quite voluntary on the part of each member. The Esseans in Egypt did not divide their property or goods, but gave them away; and Philo is express in saying that they parted with their possessions of their own accord, having appointed their relatives or friends to succeed them, while yet among the living. This is a fact of importance, because it supposes that a community of goods was confined to the churches of Judea; while the Christians in other parts, who most rigidly conformed to the comniand of their divine Master, gave their goods in charity or legacies to others, instead of distributing them among the members of their own community. All the churches established by the apostles in heathen countries, acted on this principle with unexampled liberality, though they did not carry it to the extent here represented in the case of the Egyptian converts. The difference in this respect, which subsisted between the Egyptian and the Jewish Esseans, is much the same with that which obtained between the Gentile and Jewish converts; and this is an additional proof that they were the same people.

The unlawfulness of marriage was a notion soon introduced into the Christian church; and it prevailed even in opposition to the authority of Christ and his apostles; and multitudes rejected not only commerce and the luxuries of life, but

66

withdrew altogether from all the duties of society. These were erroneous impressions arising from the corrupt state of the world, when Christ appeared; and it were folly to say that they were enjoined by his authority. Christianity," says Doctor Priestley, "would of course find persons in every possible disposition and state of mind, and would therefore be received with every possible variety of effect, and in all cases time would be requisite to the full understanding both of its principles, and its requirements, and to separate the proper professor from the improper and unworthy. Of this we may be satisfied by reading the apostolic epistles, where we find accounts of persons, who classed themselves with Christians, and yet both disbelieved some of its fundamental doctrines, and likewise allowed themselves in practices, which are most strictly prohibited. This continued a long time after the age of the apostles, as Ecclesiastical History testifies." Early Opinions, vol. i. p. 140.

What my reviewer however wants in argument, he abundantly supplies by indecency and buffoonery. "We find," says he, "that Mr. Jones's primitive Christians, the Esseans, made a pious scruple of doing their business on the seventh day: and that when they did do it, the operation was encumbered with the formalities of a pitiful superstition," p. 45, 46. Again he writes, p. 39. "If one of them got up in the morning and found another person wearing his small clothes, he could not claim them as his own; but must content himself with remaining in a state of nudity, till he could find another pair wherever it could be. Would such a regulation

2