these things! Therefore, they could have had no inducement whatever to have been particular in quoting this passage from Josephus. But the time in which Eusebius wrote, and the circumstances under which he wrote, are quite sufficient reasons why he quoted it, as they prove incontrovertibly, that he was not the author of the passage.

Then, in order to rebut, and I trust satisfactorily, the assertion, that Eusebius, or some other Christian in the days of Eusebius, introduced that passage into the writings of Josephus, we must first ask the question, what could have induced Eusebius to do so? Or, in other words, what object could he have had in view? Not to prove that Christianity then existed, for it was then the religion of the state! Not to prove that such a person as Jesus Christ had existed in Judea about two or three hundred years before, for Tacitus, the Roman historian whom I quoted a short time ago, recorded this fact! Not to prove several other things, connected with this Christ, for numerous writers, even some enemies, had already related these things! What then, I ask, could have been his object? Infidels will reply, "his only object unquestionably was to corroborate the history given of Christ by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." I freely admit he could have had no other possible motive, for such dishonest conduct. But the question is, had he this object? I answer unhesitatingly, No! No! For, if this were his object, and he could have had no other object, then would he have been the greatest idiot that ever existed; for, instead of corroborating what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John said of Christ, he has actually done the very reverse! For he and they, namely, Josephus and the sacred writers, directly contradict each other, in no less than three distinct particulars. As, therefore, Eusebius, or any other

Christian, could have had no other object in forging this passage, than to corroborate the apostolic writings, and, as it is evident from the passage itself, that so far from corroborating, it contradicts them; it must be self-evident that no Christian ever wrote this passage; therefore, it is no interpolation-therefore, it is genuine.

But, wherein does it contradict the inspired writers? I answer, that, in the first place, it states that Christ "was a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure!" Now, this is directly opposed to the account the Scriptures give of Christ's conduct and character; for, so far from his teaching being confined to such characters, he, more particularly, taught those who would not recieve the truth, and was found so often in the company of such men, (no doubt taking every opportunity to convert them) that the Pharisees, who were by the Jews esteemed the greatest lovers of truth, called him the friend of publicans and sinners; and were his bitterest enemies, even unto death! But, HE told them, that "He came, not to call the righteous," those supposed lovers of truth, "but sinners, to a new mind!"

Secondly, Josephus tells us, "He drew over to Him both many of the Jews and of the Gentiles." Here again, the Scriptures are contradicted; for, during Christ's life time, he made not a single Gentile convert; yea, he unequivocally declared, that " He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Thirdly, and lastly, Josephus informs us, that, "when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him!" Now, the Scriptures positively say, that, "all his disciples forsook him and fled!". Who can, after reflecting for a moment on

these facts, doubt, that Josephus was the author of this passage?

The fact is, he acted, on that occasion, the crafty part of many of the most dangerous enemies of Christianity. He was only acting like the true assassin, who, under the mask of friendship, plunges the dirk into the heart of his victim! Had he openly professed his internal hatred to Christianity he could not (he conceived) have so effectually given it this stab; but, professing friendship, or, at least, impartiality, he writes so, as, in his times, must have been most inimical to the cause of Christ, that is, as it were, unintentionally, proving the Apostles to be liars!-But, in our times, most satisfactory and serviceable to the cause. So does God overrule the worst intentions of men, to the accomplishment of his own purposes, and the promotion of his own cause! Oh, how He catches the wise in their own craftiness!

In reply to the second objection, viz., "that many copies of Josephus's works have been found, which had not this passage, therefore, that it must be an interpolation," I have only to observe, that it is not at all wonderful, such copies of it should be found, which proves, that certain Jewish transcribers, not perceiving the drift of Josephus, or rather, thinking the passage too strong in favour of Christianity, took the liberty of leaving it out. There was no moral obligation why they should not; and, moreover, there was every religious obligation, why they should. It is much easier to erase, than to interpolate a passage, particularly in ancient writings.

Or, again, what was to prevent any Jewish owner of the book drawing his pen over that passage, which, to a superficial observer, appears in every point to favour Christianity? But, the fact of no less than TWENTY-TWO distinct authors, from Anno Domini, 324, to Anno Domi

ni, 1480, having quoted this passage from Josephus, puts, at once, all cavilling, under this head, to silence. See Appendix, C.

The third and last objection to the genuineness of this passage is, that Josephus, a Jew, would not state, that Christ performed many wonderful works, and that he was the Christ. As to the first part of this objection, let it be distinctly recollected, that the Jews never questioned the power possessed by Christ of performing miracles! They got over the difficulty, by attributing the power to the influence of Satan! So say the Scriptures -So says the Talmud-So say other Jewish writings! Moreover, it is an undisputed fact, that the miracles of Christ were never questioned for the FIRST FOUR CENTURIES! Neither by Celsus, Porphyry, nor the emperor Julian-three of the bitterest enemies Christianity ever had, and who wrote specifically against it.

As to the second part of this third objection, viz., that Josephus said, that "he was the Christ," proving that Josephus, a Jew, could not have been the author of this passage, it only shows, either the littleness, the ignorance, or crookedness of the mind that could devise such an objection: for Josephus, by using the a rticle "the," did not by it necessarily imply that he desired to point out Jesus of Nazareth as the true Messiah of God; but, as the remarkable and notorious Christ, who was the founder of the sect of the Christians then in existence, in contradistinction to the numerous pretended Christs, who had appeared previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, but who had, ere then, fallen into oblivion, and were forgotten. This was evidently his motive for using the definite article "the" in reference to HIM who was cruci fied under Pontius Pilate.

ISAAC. God's design in commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, was, as the result unequivocally shows, merely to prove or test Abraham, in order that his faith, love, and obedience, might be manifest; and NOT, in fact, that he should offer up his son. Moreover, the whole transaction was symbolical of the advent of the Messiah.

Thus

ISAIAH. It is prophesied by Isaiah, in chap. vii. 14; “behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel;" and this is referred to by Matthew, chap. i. 23, in relating the circumstances connected with the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. This prophecy is, like many other predictions in the sacred writings, united to another which should, during th elife time of the persons to whom it was communicated, take place. This appears to be a course almost universally adopted by the servants of Jehovah, so that by the almost immediate fulfilment of the one, to afford an earnest or certainty of the fulfilment of the other, or more remote one. the Lord Jesus himself, unites his prediction respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, which was to occur before "that generation had passed away," and the final destruction of the world, which was not to take place till towards the close of the six working days, or eras of this world, and on the preparation for the sabbath, or seven thousand years, A. M., Matth. xxiv. (See Jerusalem.) The above prophecy of Isaiah is intimately connected with another, which was to take place within a very few years after the prediction. We find, in the first verse of this chapter, that Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, form a confederacy, and go up to war against Jerusalem and the house of David. Upon which,