means usual in the vessels of that day-and accordingly that such an one might well accommodate the centurion and his numerous party, in addition to its own crew and lading.

There is a very singular air of truth in all this. The several detached verses at the head of this number tell a continuous story; but it is not perceived till they are brought together. The circumstances drop out one by one at intervals in the course of the narrative, unarranged, unpremeditated, thoroughly incidental; so that the chapter might be read twenty times, and their agreement with one another and with contemporary history be still overlooked. But if the account of the voyage, as far as relates to the change of ship, the tempest, the disastrous consequences, &c. is found, on being tried by a test which the writer of the Acts could never have contemplated, to be an unquestionable fact, how can the rest, which does not admit of the same scrutiny, be set aside as unworthy of credit ?—for instance, that Paul actually foretold the danger-that again, in the midst of it, he foretold the final escape, and that an angel had declared to him God's pleasure, that, for his sake, not a soul

should perish? I see no alternative, but to receive all this nothing doubting; unless we consider St. Luke to have mixed up fact and fiction in a manner the most artful and insidi

ous. Yet who can read the Acts of the Apostles and come to such a conclusion?

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. 3. § 3.

3