Origen had read the testimony of Josephus in favour of Jesus Christ, and he knew that the author rejected the miraculous birth and divinity of Christ. "Josephus," says he, "ought to have said that their attempt upon Jesus was the cause of the ruin of that people, forasmuch as they had put to death the predicted Christ. But, why ought he to have said this, if he did not believe in Jesus? Origen alludes to the paragraph in the Antiquities, where the author says that Jesus was the Christ predicted by the Prophets. The doctrine of the miraculous conception supposes that Jesus had no brothers and, sisters according to the flesh, they being the children of Joseph by a former wife. Origen wished to establish this groundless notion, and tacitly refers to Josephus, who has set it aside by exposing the origin of that doctrine. Origen also understood Josephus as asserting the mere humanity of Jesus, when he says that he was a man; and in opposition to this assertion, he takes occasion to bear testimony to his divinity. Why should he thus insist on the supernatural birth and divinity of Christ when speaking of Josephus, if he did not understand that Josephus aimed to set aside those doctrines.

I shall here repeat a passage of Photius already quoted in the Researches, p. 302. A work professedly Christian was written by Josephus in his latter days, when it was natural for him 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, our true God, he (namely Josephus) speaks very con

formably to our theology. He gives him that very name, and unexceptionably describes his incomprehensible descent from the Father. This may lead some to doubt that the book came from the hand of Josephus." And presently Photius ascribes it to another author. Here it is observable that Photius supposes this book, not to have been the production of Josephus, not because it was a Christian work, but because it was an Orthodox Christian work, making Christ a God, and describing his incomprehensible descent from the Father. Photius therefore knew Josephus to be a believer in Christ, but not an Orthodox believer. But whence did he know this? Josephus in his Antiquities has borne his testimony to Christ: there he asserts his mere humanity; and so far from sanctioning the story of his miraculous birth, he holds forth the origin of it, and its base authors to public infamy. And are we to expect that Photius with this conviction, and after insinuating that Josephus was one of those heretics who rejected the divine nature of Jesus, should quote that passage? Assuredly not. Accordingly Photius has passed it over in silence, though he has acknowledged the testimonies which the Jewish historian bears to John the Baptist and to James.

Chrysostom in one of his orations against the Jews, calls Josephus a most faithful witness, μάρτυρα μάλιςα αξιοπιςον, and Theodoret at the close of his commentary on Daniel, writes, that "The Jews of old regarded the blessed Daniel as the greatest prophet. Of this Josephus is an eminent witness, who, though he did not profess the Christian doctrine, was not willing to conceal

its truth." It is true indeed that Josephus did not profess the Gospel as the religion of Jesus, but he believed in it, and has spoken of it, and defended it as the wisdom or philosophy of Moses and the prophets: and this is all that Theodoret meant, who was disposed to represent the Jewish believers as rather Jews than Christians. Neither Theodoret, nor Chrysostom has cited the famous passage respecting Jesus Christ. They were well acquainted with the Antiquities, and though the former says that the author did not conceal the truth, and the latter that he was a most faithful witness, yet they passed over his testimony in silence.

CHAPTER VI.

THE CONTENTS OF THE

INTRODUCTORY

CHAPTERS ASCRIBED TO MATTHEW, FOUN-
ED ON THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH OC-
CURRED AT ROME.

THE truth of this proposition will appear, if we compare the facts contained in the said chapters with those which occurred in Rome, as they are recorded by Josephus and other writers of antiquity.

"A Jew resided there who having been accused of transgressing the law of Moses, fled from his country to avoid the punishment which threatened him. In every respect he was a wicked man. During his residence at Rome, he professed to unfold the wisdom of the Mosaic law, in conjunction with other three men, who in every view resembled himself."

The Jew and his associates, who pretended to teach the philosophy of Moses, were nominal teachers of the Jewish religion as refined and perfected by Christ. They were, therefore, among those who coming from the East, proclaimed in Rome the appearance of that universal king, whom the Jews and Gentiles expected in the world about that period. Now, the author of the disputed chapters had little more than to

substitute Jerusalem for Rome to produce the following tale: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold there came Magi from the East to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?' For we have seen his star in the East, and we are come to worship him." The men who according to Josephus united with the wicked Jew, were three in number: and it is singular that this is the number of those magicians who, according to tradition, came to Jerusalem, announcing the birth of Christ.

The wise-men, of whom the supposed Matthew relates, could in reality have no knowledge of the birth of our Lord; because the whole system of Astrology, from which this knowledge is pre tended to have been derived, is discovered by the progress of reason and natural philosophy to be altogether a system of deception. But it may be said that a preternatural appearance in the form of a star, might have given the Magi this information. The possibility of this supposition cannot be denied. But surely it is altogether incredible, that the Almighty should have suspended the laws of nature, in order to sanction an art, which reason has discovered to be false.

What renders this supposition still more improbable, is the acknowledged depravity of all the astrologers of every nation and every country. Would the God of purity give a supernatural communication to the most filthy and flagitious of the heathens? But the consideration which, beyond all others, proves that such men had received from God no intimation of the Messiah's birth, is their being pointed out to the Jews, in