Holy Ghost, doubtless with a view to exercise the faith of the faithful, has inspired them very differ ently. Besides, an able concordance of the Gospels would prove a very dangerous work :-it would necessarily bring together facts related by authors, who, very far from supporting, would only reciprocally weaken each other-a circumstance which could not fail to stagger at least the faith of the compiler.

St. Matthew, who, according to common opinion, wrote the first history of Jesus, asserts, that as soon as Christ was born, and while he was still in the stable at Bethlehem, Magi came from the East to Jerusalem, and enquired where the king of the Jews was, whose star they had observed in their own country. Herod, who then reigned in Judea, being informed of the motive of their journey, consulted the people of the law; and having learned that Christ was to be born at Bethlehem, he permitted the Magi to go there, recommending to them to inform themselves exactly of this child, that he himself might do him homage.*

It appears, from the narrative of St. Matthew, that as soon as the Magi left Herod, they took the road to Bethlehem, a place not far from Jerusalem. It is surprising that this prince, alarmed at the arrival of the Magi, who had thus announced the birth of a king of the Jews, did not take more precaution to allay his own uneasiness, and that of the capital, which the gospel represents as in a state of consternation at this grand event. It would have been very easy for him to have satisfied himself of the fact, without being under the necessity of relying on strangers, who did not exe

St. Matthew ii. 2. &c.

cute his commission. The Magi did not return: Joseph had time to save himself and his little family by flight; Herod remained tranquil in spite of his suspicions and fears. It was not till after a considerable interval that he got into a passion on finding himself deceived; and then, to preserve his crown in safety, he ordered a general massacre of the children of Bethlehem and the neighbouring villages! But why suppose such conduét in a sovereign, jealous, distrustful, and cruel? This prince had assembled the doctors of the law and principal men of the nation; their advice had confirmed the rumour spread by the wise men; they said it was at Bethlehem that Christ was to be born, and yet Herod did nothing for his own tranquillity! Either Herod had faith in the prophecies of the Jews, or he did not believe them. In the first case, and instead of relying on strangers, he ought himself to have gone, with all his court, to Bethlehem, and paid homage to the Saviour of the nation. In the second case, it is absurd to make Herod order a general massacre of infants, on account of a suspicion founded on a prophecy which he did not believe.

Neither do we find that this prince's indignation was roused till after the lapse of several days, and after he perceived that the Magi derided him, and returned by another road. Why did he not learn by the same means, the flight of Jesus, of Joseph, and his mother ? Their retreat must certainly have been observed in a place so small as Bethlehem. It will perhaps be said, that God on this occasion, permitted Herod to be blinded; but God should not have permitted the inhabitants of Bethlehem and its environs to be so obstinate in preserving a secret that was to cost the lives of all their children. Possessed of the power of working mira

eles, could not God have saved his son by more gen tle means than the useless massacre of a great number of innocents?-On the other hand, Herod was not absolute master in Judea. The Romans would not have permitted him to exercise such cruelties; and the Jewish nation, persuaded of the birth of Christ, would not have been accessary to them. A King of England, more absolute than a petty sovereign of Judea, dependent on the Romans; would not be obeyed, were he to order his guards to go and cut the throats of all the children in a neighbouring village; because three strangers, in passing through London; had said to him, that among the infants born in that village there was one, who, according to the rules of judicial astrology; was destined to be one day king of Great Britain. At the time when astrology was in vogue, they would have contented themselves with causing search to be made for the suspected infant; they would have kept it in solitary confinement, or perhaps put it to death; but without comprehending other innocent children in its proscription.

We might indeed oppose to the relation of Matthew the silence of the other evangelists, and especially that of the historian Josephus, who, having reasons to hate Herod, would not have failed to relate a fact so likely to render him odious as the massacre of the innocents. Philo is likewise silent on the subject; and no reason can be divined why these two cele brated historians should have agreed in concealing à fact so horrible. We cannot suppose it has proceeded from hatred to the Christian religion; for that detached fact would prove neither for nor against it. We are, therefore, warranted to conclude that this massacre is a fable; and that Matthew seems to have in

vented it merely to have the opportunity of applying an ancient prophecy, which was his predominant taste. But in this instance he has obviously deceived himself. The prophecy which he applies to the massacre of the innocents, is taken from Jeremiah. All the Jews understood it as relating to the Babylonish captivity. It is conceived as follows: "The Lord hath said, the voice of lamentations, groanings, and bitter tears, has been heard from on high of Rachael, who weeped for her children, and refused to be comforted for them, because they were not."-The following verse is so plain, that it is inconceivable why Matthew has ventured to apply it to the pretended massacre at Bethlehem "Thus saith the Lord (continues Jeremiah), refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, and thy children shall come again from the land of the enemy." Their return from the captivity is here clearly pointed out, when the Israelites should again plant vines after obtaining possession of their own country.

:

It is also to accomplish a prophecy, that the same St. Matthew makes Jesus travel into Egypt. This journey, or rather Christ's return, had, according to him, been predicted by Hosea in these words: "Out of Egypt have I called my son." But it is evident, that this passage is to be considered only as relating to the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, through the ministry of Moses. Besides, the journey and abode of Jesus in Egypt, do not agree in any manner with some circumstances which bappened in the infancy of Christ, as related by St. Luke, who in, forms us, that at the end of eight days Jesus was circumcised. The time of Mary's purification being accomplished, according to the law of Moses, Joseph and

his mother carried Christ to Jerusalem, in order to present him to the Lord, agreeably to the law which ordained the consecrating to him the first born (first fruits), and offering a sacrifice for them. On this occasion, Luke tells us, that old Simeon took the infant in his arms, and declared in the presence of all the people assisting at the ceremony, that the child was the Saviour of Israel. An old prophetess, called Anna, bore aloud the same testimony in his favour, and spoke of him to all those who looked for the redemption of the Jews. But why were speeches thus publicly made in the temple of Jerusalem, in which city Herod resided, unknown to a prince so suspicious? They were much better calculated to excite his uneasiness, and awake his jealousy, than the arrival of astrologers from the East.

Did Joseph and Mary, who came to Jerusalem for the presentation of Jesus, and purification of his mother, return to Bethlehem? and went they from thence into Egypt in place of going to Nazareth? St. Luke says indeed, most expressly, that when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. But in what time did the parents of Jesus accomplish all that the law ordained? Was it before going into Egypt, or after their return from that country, where, according to St. Matthew, they had taken refuge to shelter themselves from the cruelty of Herod? In a word, did the purification of the virgin, and the presentation of her son in the temple, take place before or after the death of that wicked prince? According to Leviticus, the purification of a mother who had brought a son into the world, was to be made at the end of thirty days. Hence we see how very difficult it is to