arrival of the Magi and the birth of Jesus to have been proximate occurrences. I never yet asked the question of any one without receiving such an answer; and the language of the Apostle, one would suppose, could scarce have been so framed as to produce this general impression unless a similar impression had been operating upon his own mind. That the birth of Jesus was a recent event, when the Magi arrived, is indeed evident, from the specific nature of their question, Пoù éσTIV o Texoe's, "where is he that is born?" from the peculiar terms of the demand which Herod made of the chief priests and scribes, ἐπυνθάνετο παρ' αὐτῶν, “ ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται;” “ he demanded of them, where is the Christ born?" and from Mary being still with her child and husband in Bethlehem. I do not argue so much from the force of any one of these observations taken singly, as from the result of the whole when considered together and in connexion with the context. The question of the Magi would imply only their own opinion

a Commentators have in my opinion very needlessly laboured to prove that γεννᾶται means or may mean μέλλει γεννᾶσθαι, and ποὺ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται, "where the Christ should be born," forgetting apparently that it seems to have been St. Matthew's intention to imply by the use of the present term, that these were the very words which Herod used. He assembled the chief Priests and Scribes and asked them a question, ἐπυνθάνετο παρ' αὐτῶν. The tenor and terms of the question were these, Toû ó Χριστὸς γεννᾶται ; "Where is the Christ born ?"

that Christ was lately born and therefore might be erroneous; Herod's demand was plainly only a deduction from their statements; and Mary and Joseph, and the child might have been at Bethlehem, the place of their family though not of their residence, at any other period as well as upon the birth of Jesus. For we know that they came and brought their son with them to Jerusalem every year, and Bethlehem was but a six miles, or two hour's journey, from the capital. Each observation therefore is by itself inconclusive; but when joined, it becomes a very high improbability that so many characters of a recent occurrence, and so likely to mislead, should, if fallacious, have all fallen upon one event, and in the compass of a page. But the most unequivocal mark of all, is in the use of the aorist yevvnévros, together with the insertion of the word idov, in the first verse. The aorist yevvηlévτos if alone would be indefinite, but when combined with idov and compared with

• Mr. Mann, p. 41. considers the argument deduced from the aorist yevvnévtos as of very little importance, and produces several instances from the New Testament in which the time to which it refers is quite indefinite. But he appears to have overlooked its force when in connection with idov. I am not aware that there is any passage in the New Testament in which this union of idou with an aorist occurs in an indefinite sense. At least the union most commonly refers to some event which had only just taken place. It is several times used to express the immediate and instantaneous succession of an event to one already mentioned. Matth. iii. 17. and xvii. 5.

the 13th and 19th verses, it is impossible any longer to mistake its meaning. Αναχωρησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῶν Μαγῶν ἰδοὺ ἀγγέλος Κυρίου φαίνεται κατ ̓ ὄναρ τῷ Ἰωσήφ. Again, Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Ηρώδου, ἰδοὺ, ἀγγέλος Κυρίου κατ ̓ ὄναρ φαίνεται τῶ Ἰωσὴφ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ. Who ever doubted that the warning to Joseph to flee into Egypt was given immediately after the departure of the Magi, or supposed that the divine command to return from thence, was not issued so soon after the decease of Herod, that the intelligence of his death had not had time to reach their place of habitation by the ordinary mode of conveyance? Why then should we needlessly depart from this established rule of interpretation in explaining the exactly corresponding phrase in the former passage? Why should we not hold ourselves bound to consider ̓Ιησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν Βεθλεὲμ . . .. ΙΔΟΥ Μαγοῖ ἀπὸ Ανατολῶν παρεγένοντο, as subject to the same inference, and implying in the same manner the quick succession of the visit of the Magi to the birth of Jesus. To support us in this deduction we have the express testimony of one of the most ancient Fathers and the oldest tradition which exists upon the matter in the Church. AMA yap τῶ γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν, Μαγοῖ ἀπ' Αραβίας παραγενόμενοι προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ. Such is the interpretation put upon the words of St. Matthew by Justin

Martyr' about the year A. D. 150, and we may suppose, from his positive method of speaking, that the general inference, as well as his own, from the perusal of the whole account was, that the birth of Jesus and the arrival of the Magi were events almost immediately succeeding each other. It is certain however, that at a later period this opinion was renounced by many, and the arrival of the Magi placed nearly two years after Christ's birth, under an idea that the change was imperatively demanded by another passage in the very chapter under our consideration. The argument indeed is not of any material consequence or strength. It is however of sufficient weight to deserve an investigation.

"Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men." Matth. ii. 16.

If Herod had so diligently enquired the time, it is considered extremely improbable that he should thus unnecessarily send forth and slay all

'Dial. cum Tryph. p. 303. He repeats the assertion in p. 315, in nearly the same words.

the children from two years old and under, when he must have been thoroughly satisfied, had Jesus been so lately born, that the child he wished to destroy could not have been more than two or three months old. To make assurance thus doubly sure, seems, it is said, a wanton and an useless, and therefore an incredible act of barbarity.

In reply to this objection we may observe that the word Stern's which is employed by the Evangelist upon this occasion will certainly bear a sense, which would confine the murder of the Innocents to those who had completed their first year alone, and that it is in fact so used by Aristotle, and so explained by Hesychius. Having thus reduced the extent of the cruelty one half, there is little if any remaining improbability in the incident; since it would have been difficult if not impossible for Herod to have fixed upon a period less comprehensive with any kind of prospect of attaining his end.

I admit, however, that this answer is not quite satisfactory or decisive. I allow that the word

* Ενθεν τίνι οὐ φανεῖται ὅτι ὅτε ἦλθον οἱ Μάγοι, δύο ἦν ἐτῶν • mais yeyevnμevos; says Epiphanius Hær. 51. cap. ix. p. 431. A. Vide Poli Syn. in Matth. ii. 16.

E