SECOND SECTION, CONTAINING UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES BE TWEEN THE EVANGELISTS AND JOSEPHUS. As in the former section it was my object to establish the truth of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, by instances of undesigned coincidence to be found in them, when compared with themselves or one another, so, in this section, do I intend to follow up the argument, by other instances of undesigned coincidence between those writings and Josephus. The subject has been treated, but not exhausted, by Lardner and Paley, the latter of whom indeed did not profess to do more than epitomise that part of the "Credibility of the Gospel history" which considers the works of the Jewish historian. Josephus was born A. D. 37, and therefore must have been long the contemporary of some of the apostles. For my purpose, it matters little, or nothing, whether we reckon him a believer in Chris tianity or not; whether he had, or had not, seen the records of the Evangelists. Since the examples of agreement between him and them, which I shall produce, will be such as are evidently without contrivance, the result of veracity in both. Still it is a matter of curiosity to know whether his evidence is to be received as that of an enemy or friend, and I shall therefore venture to say a few words on this head before I proceed further. Nothing is more necessary, towards ascertaining the genuineness of a single passage or sentiment ascribed to an author, than to be possessed of the general spirit and views with which he writes. I think a due regard to this, will give us every reason to believe that the passage concerning Jesus Christ, now to be found in the copies of Josephus, is spurious.* That he wrote with an eye to Gentile readers, no man at all conversant with his works will deny. On all occasions he cultivates the good opinion of the Romans, amongst whom he lived. He is careful to give them no cause of offence, by shocking a prejudice, or correcting an error. He seems more disposed to compromise than dispute a point—to make concessions than to incur reproach-to * Antiq. xviii. c. 4. § 3. conceal his own belief than to do violence to theirs. Thus, when he relates the history of the Flood, and of the extreme age of the patriarchs, he cautiously adds, "but on these matters let every man judge for himself" (Ant. b. i. c. 3)-as if what he had said might seem adverse to the notions of a Roman. So again, having described the passage of Moses through the Red Sea, he endeavors to reconcile his heathen friends to the fact, by saying that Alexander experienced a similar miracle, an arm of the sea in Pamphylia having made way for him and his army when he was marching against the Persians. (Ant. ii. 16. 6.) Warburton, who has touched upon this subject in his usual masterly manner, (Div. Leg. v. iii. p. 110, 4to.) considers the omission in Josephus of the history of the Golden Calf, to be accounted for by the unwillingness of that author to expose the folly and grossness of his nation to the Gentiles, whose favorable opinion he was courting. In like manner, he speaks of Fate as the arbiter of events, not in the language of a Christian, not in the language of an uncompromising Jew, but rather "mediis ceu natus Athenis." (Ant. viii. 15. 6.) Again, with what an unworthy apology (as it were) for mentioning them to the wise men of Rome, does he repeat some of the prophecies of Daniel: "For my part, I have written that which I have received and read, but if any man thinks differently, I leave him at liberty to enjoy his own opinion." (Ant. x. 11. § 7.) On the subject of the immortality of the soul he is equally courteous. After relating certain dreams of Archelaus, he thus proceeds :"These things I have thought worthy of being mentioned, because they tend to confirm a belief in the immortality of the soul, and in the providence of God; but if any one holds them to be incredible, let him do so, only let him not censure others who would make them auxiliary to virtue." (Ant. xvii. 13. 5.) In the author of these and the like passages, I seem to discover a man most solicitous to stand well with the Romans amongst whom he dwelt-most careful to give them no cause of offence-most tender towards their failingsmost diffident in advancing even truths, which might minister occasion of strife, contention, or dispute. How then could such a man speak so openly and so reverently of Christ and his disciples, (as the reputed paragraph in the Antiquities would make him speak) knowing all the while, that by the Romans they were held in the most sovereign contempt? Would he have been the person to say, that this despised Jesus "was a wise man, if indeed it were lawful to call him a man-a worker of miracles-a teacher of the truth"-that he was nevertheless condemned to the cross by Pilate (a Roman governor be it remembered)—that he arose again the third day-and that from him sprung the sect of Christians, which were even then in existence? (Ant. xviii. 3. 3.) Surely such a passage as this would not have been likely to recommend him to his friends at Rome, who reckoned Christianity "a pernicious superstition;" (Tacit. Annal. 15. c. 44;) and confounded its followers with Jews, a race whom they ever abhorred. (Tacit. Hist. 5. 8.) Nor is this all. Is it credible that Josephus would have spoken of Herod as a man beloved of God (which he does more than once) and under His special protection, if he had been, in any sense of the word, a believer in Christ, whom that same Herod had taken every pains to destroy in his infancy? (Ant. xiv. c. 15. § 11.) Would he have passed over in silence the illustrious prophecy in Isaiah of the Virgin's child; led to it as he was by the history of the expedition of the two kings against Je |