reconcile the flight into Egypt, and the massacre of the innocents, which St. Matthew relates, with the narra, tive of St. Luke, who says, that, "after having performed the ordinances of the law, Joseph and Mary returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth ;' and then adds, "they went to Jerusalem every year to celebrate the passover." If we could adopt the relation of the two evangelists, at what time are we to place the coming of the Magi from the East in order to adore Christ; the anger of Herod; the flight into Egypt; and the massacre of the innocents? We are forced to conclude, either that the relation of St. Luke is defective, or that St. Matthew wished to deceive his readers with improbable tales. In whatever way we consider the matter, the Holy Ghost, who inspired these apostles, will in either case be found to have committed a mistake.

There is another fact on which our two evangelists do not better agree. St. Matthew, as we have seen, makes the Magi come to Bethlehem from the extremity of the East, to adore the child Jesus, and offer him presents. St. Luke, less taken with the marvellous, makes this child be adored by simple shepherds, who watched their flocks during night, and to whom an angel announced the great event of the birth of the Saviour of Israel. The latter evangelist speaks neiof the apparition of the star, nor of the coming of the Magi, nor of the cruelty of Herod-circumstances, however, which ought to have been recorded by St. Luke, who informs us that he was so exactly informed of every thing concerning Jesus,

Whatever may be in this, the parents of Christ, either after their return from Egypt, or after his presen tation in the temple, went to reside at Nazareth,

St. Matthew, as usual, perceives in this the accom▾ plishment of the prediction, he shall be called a Naza rene; but unfortunately for his purpose, this prophecy is not to be found in the Bible, nor can it be divined by whom it was uttered. It is however certain, that Nazarene among the Jews, signified a vaz gabond, a person excluded from the rest of the world; that Nazareth was a very pitiful town, inhabited by beings so wretched that their poverty had become proverbial; and that beggars, vagrants, and people whom nobody would own, were called Nazarenes,*

It is of importance to remark, that the first Christians were styled Nazarenes. We find them also designed Ebionites, derived from a Hebrew word which signifies a mendicant, a wretch, and a pauper. Every body knows that St. Francis and St. Dominic, who, in the 13th century, proposed to revive primitive Christianity, founded orders of mendicant monks, destined to live solely on alms, to be true Nazarenes, and to levy contributions on the community, which these vagabonds have never ceased to oppress. Salmeron, in order to re-animate these mendicant monks, has maintained that Jesus Christ himself was a beggar. Be that as it may, it is not unseasonable here to make some remarks on the Nazarenes, which will throw great light on the history of Christianity. It is well known, that the name of Nazarenes was given to the apostles and Jews, who were first converted. The Jews regarded them as heretics (minian), and excommunicated persons; and, according to St. Jerome, anathematised them in all their synagogues, under the name of Nazarenes. St. Hieronym. Epist. ad ib. in Isaiam. v. 18. The Jews even at present give the name of Nazarenes (Nozerim) to the Christians, whom the Arabs and Persians call Nazari. The first Jews, converted by Jesus and his apostles, were only some reformed Jews: they preserved circumcision and other usages appointed by the law of Moses. “ Nazarąei (says St. Jerome, ita Christum recipiunt, ut observationes legis veteris non amittant, Ad. Jes. 8." In this they followed the example of Jesus, who being circumcised, and Jew during his whole life, had often taught, that it was ne

We have seen, in the course of this chapter, how little harmony exists between the two evangelists, respecting the circumstances attending the birth of Jesus. Let us now examine what could have been the views of these two writers in relating these facts so very differently.

It is at least impossible that Jesus, as St. Luke relates, could constantly reside at Nazareth till he was twelve years of age, if it be true that he was carried soon after his birth into Egypt, where St. Matthew

cessary to respect and observe the law. Yet in process of time the Nazarenes, or Ebionites, were anathematised by the other Christians, for having united the ceremonies of the law with the gospel of Christ. St. Jerome, speaking of them and the disciples of Corinthus, says, Qui (Ebioni et Cerinthieni) credentes in Christo, propter hoc solum a patribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis ceremo nias Christi evangelio miscuerunt. Sie nova confessi sunt, ut vetera non amitterent. St. Hieron. in Epistol ad Augustin." It seems, that in acting thus, the Ebionites, or Nazarenes, conformed themselves to the intentions of Jesus and his apostles. It is, therefore, surprising to see them treated afterwards as heretics. But we will see (in chap. 17.) the true cause of this change; it was evidently owing to St. Paul, whose party prevailed over that of St. Peter, the other apostles, and the Nazarenes or Judaising Christians. Thus St. Paul corrected and reformed the system of Jesus Christ, who had preached only a Judaism reformed. The apostle of the Gentiles succeeded in making his master, and his old comrades, be regarded as heretics, or bad Christians. Thus it is, that theologists frequently take the liberty of rectifying the religion of the Saviour they adore! Moreover, the Nazarenes had a gospel in Hebrew very different from the one we possess, and which was attributed to St. Barnabas. See Toland, în a work published under the title of NAZARENES, in octavo, London, 1718. According to that gospel, the Nazarenes did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

makes him remain until the death of Herod. Even in the time that Jesus lived, he was upbraided with his stay in Egypt.* His enemies averred that he there learned magic, to which they attributed the wonders, or cunning tricks, they saw him perform. St. Luke, to do away these accusations, has thought proper to be silent as to the journey to Egypt, which made his hero suspected. He fixes him, therefore, at Nazareth, and makes him go every year with his parents to Jerusalem. But the precaution of that evangelist seems to have been useless. St. Matthew, who wrote before him, had established the journey and abode of Jesus in Egypt. Origen, in his dispute with Celsus, does not deny it. Hence we see, that the Christian doctors did not doubt that Jesus had been in that country, notwithstanding the silence of St. Luke. Let us endeavour then to develope the motives of these two writers.

The Jews in general agreed in the expectation of a Messiah or Deliverer; but as the different orders of the state had their prophets, they also possessed different signs by which they were to know the Messiah. The great, the rich, and persons well informed, did not surely expect that the deliverer of Israel should be born in a stable, and sprung from the dregs of the people. They undoubtedly expected their deliverance by a prince, a warrior, a man of power, able to make himself respected by the nations inimical to Judea, and

* The gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ, ascribed to the apostle St. Thomas, makes the holy family travel into Egypt, and makes Jesus go from city to city, working miracles sufficient to procure them a comfortable subsistence. The water Mary used in washing her child, cured lepers, and persons possessed with devils; the presence of Christ made the idols fall down, &c.Codex Apoc. tome 1. p. 182.

to break in pieces their chains. The poor, on the cor trary, who, as well as the great and the rich, have their portion of self love, thought they might flatter them selves that the Messiah would be born in their class. Their nation and their neighbours furnished many examples of great men sprung from the bosom of poverty; and the oracles with which this nation was fed were of such a nature, that every family believed itself enti tled to aspire to the honour of giving birth to a Messiah; though the most general opinion was, that this deliverer was to come of the race of David.

Admitting this, shepherds and people of the lowest order might readily believe, that a woman, delivered in a stable at Bethlehem, had brought the Christ into the world. It may likwise be presumed, that Mary, with a view to render herself interesting, said to those who visited her, that she was descended from the blood of kings—a pretension well adapted to excite the commiseration and wonderment of the people. This secret, and the confused remembrance of some prophecies about Bethlehem, the native country of David, were sufficient to operate on the imaginations of these credulous people, little scrupulous about proofs of what was told them.

St. Matthew, who reckoned on the credulity of his readers,* had his head full of prophecies and popular

* Men are always as credulous as children upon religious subjects. As they comprehend nothing about it, and are nevertheless told that they must believe it, they imagine they run no risk in joining sentiments with the priests, whom they suppose to have succeeded in discovering that which they do not understand. The most rational people ask themselves, "What shall we do?--what interest can so many people have to deceive?" To these we say, they do deceive you, either because they are