210 



ticularly in the numerical passages,) no one, I believe, will find 

 it terj difficult to deliver an opinion, not unfavourable to the 

 principles of our hypothesis. In the second alternative, or 

 that Josephus does not intend to quote or to refer to this verse, 

 his authority isof course, not to be alledged againstits fidelity, 

 and theargument of the learned author is not strengthened by 

 producing it. It may be that it is to the parallel verse in the 

 book of Chronicles, Avhich we have examined at length, in our 

 observations on his first argument, that Josephus is alluding, 

 and that the number assigned is his own ; in which case we 

 have already seen how inconclusive any hypothetical po- 

 sitions founded upon the corresponding testimony are, for the 

 rejection of the contested verse. 



I shall consider the passage of Josephus more at length in 

 the sequel. 



5th. This would indeed be a most serious charge, were it 

 just or defensible. I have consulted the commentary of 

 Origen on St. John's gospel ; I have examined the different 

 passages he has alledged from the old Testament, and I have 

 found the quotation to which the learned author undoubtedly 

 alludes; with some surprise, I confess, yet with unmixed 

 satisfaction, to discover so little authority for the conclusion 

 which he has hastily deduced. Origen, in the passage un- 

 der review, is discussing the reason for the answer of the 

 Jews to our Saviour, who was speaking as the Evangelist ex- 

 presses it, " of the temple of his body " " forty and six years, 



was 



