aversion; and they would have been glad, if possible, to have them buried in eternal oblivion. The reason of their dread and aversion will арpear hereafter.

Josephus had very different notions of christianity from the Greek and Latin fathers; believing in the gospel as it was delivered to the saints, he laid open the sources of its corruptions, and held up to public infamy the base authors of those corruptions. The early christian writers perfectly comprehended his character and language; while the prejudices of education have rendered the moderns insensible to both.

A work, professedly christian, was written by Josephus in his later days, when he had every motive to be full and explicit on the subject of christianity. Concerning this book, Photius has the following remark: "Of the creation of the world, he gives but a summary account. But respecting Christ, he (namely, Josephus) speaks very conformably to our theology. He gives him that very name, and unexceptionably describes bis incomprehensible descent from the Father This may perhaps lead some to doubt, that the book came from the hand of Josephus."* In this

* Διέξεισι και περι της κοσμογονίας κεφαλιωδώς περί μεν του Χριςου, του αληθινού Θεον ἡμῶν, ὡς ἔγγις

passage two things are clearly implied: first, that Josephus in ancient time was known to be a believer in Jesus; because a book, inculcating the truth of christianity, went under his name, and was generally supposed to be his: secondly, it was apprehended, that he was not an orthodox christian; because this book, as being very nearly orthodox, could not, it was supposed, come from his

pen.

Now, Photius was in the number of those who thought, that a work very nearly orthodox could hardly be the production of Josephus. He was therefore in the number of those who knew that Josephus was indeed a christian, but not an orthodox christian. This conclusion is demonstrable from other premises. This learned man was fully aware, that Philo and Josephus have written respecting the Jewish believers, under the titles of Esseans and Theraputa; and he asserts, and asserts with truth, that the method of allegorizing the Jewish scriptures, adopted by Origen and other later christian writers, was bor rowed from the Esseans in Egypt. Accordingly, Photius was aware, that Philo and Josephus were christian historians and apologists; and yet he is

θεολογει κλησιν τε αυτην αναφθεγγόμενος, και την εκ πας προς άφρασον γένεσιν αμέμπτως αναγράφων.

profoundly silent respecting the testimony which Josephus bears to Jesus Christ.

From this silence Dr. Lardner argues, that the disputed paragraph was wanting in the copies of Josephus, which were seen by Photius in the ninth century. But this conclusion, so far from being warranted, is the very reverse of what should be drawn. This passage had been quoted by all ecclesiastical writers, from Eusebius down to the ninth century: and if, while reading it in those writers, Photius did not find it in his own copy or copies, he would not have failed to make some such observation as the following: "The passage concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, cited from Josephus by Eusebius and others, is not in those copies which are in my possession.". Moreover, he would have added, what indeed would be surprising, and even incredible, that Josephus, the Jewish historian, though he has given a full account of the Jewish believers, and mentioned James and John the Baptist by name, has taken no notice of Christ himself. And as Photius has made no observation of this kind, it is certain that he could not have made it with truth; the paragraph actually existing in the copies which he possessed. But this reasoning, on which no inconsiderable stress might be laid, in the absence of more conclusive matter, is superseded by the answer I am going to give to the second

objection, which is-That the controverted paragraph, as containing the sentiments of a christian, could never have come from the pen of Josephus,

Josephus wrote his Antiquities at the advice, and with the encouragement, of a distinguished believer in Christ; and for those of the heathens who were eager to learn the Jewish institutions, that is, of the heathen converts. Having this end in view, he was necessarily led in some part or other of the work to speak of Christ himself, especially as the calumnies of his enemies rendered a testimony to the purity of his character and the truth of his doctrine indispensably necessary.

Josephus was a believer in Christ: he considered his gospel as the Jewish religion refined and perfected, and calls it not unfrequently the philosophy of Moses, or the wisdom of his laws.

Josephus is the historian-he is also the apologist, of the Jewish and Gentile believers: he has described their customs and opinions, and placed their virtues in the fairest light, in spite of the calumnies with which they were assailed. A believer in the gospel would not have left unnoticed the finisher of his faith, throughout a voluminous work, intended to support and promote his cause: a defender of the christians would not

have left their innocent and virtuous chief without defence.

The objections made against the disputed passage would never have been made, had these things been known; they originated in misconception; and the real character and views of Josephus being at length brought to light, they fall, like a dead weight, to the ground; and there they will remain, a monument of the temerity and mistaken views of those who made them.

Nor should I omit to mention, that the style of the passage is in exact unison with the very peculiar style of Josephus: the same conciseness and comprehension, the same dry and unvarnished detail of facts distinguish it, which distinguish all his other works. Nor can any suspicion arise against its genuineness from the want of authentic evidence. The same historical testimony authenticates it, which authenticates all the works of Josephus; no manuscript, no version, no copy being ever known to exist, without this celebrated paragraph.

This important paragraph unites in a remarkable manner the opposite qualities of brevity and fulness. In a few sentences Josephus has brought together the leading articles of faith contained in the four gospels, and asserts them to be true. Jesus was a wise man, and the au