The searching inquiries made by Herod when the Magi told of the star they had seen in the East, and the accurate information he received in consequence; together with the deliberate selection, by that tyrant, of the period of two years as the outside boundary to the blood of the slaughtered innocents, constitute an important subject of reflexion in relation to the difficult question before us. He acted upon the information given him by the Magi. The sign they had seen they saw not now, otherwise they would have directed Herod's attention to it, (a result specially to be dreaded, and which the Divine plan prevented,) and would have found no sufficient reason for the exquisite delight they manifested, when that heavenly sign again presented itself before their eyes. It is by no means necessary to suppose that, immediately on leaving Herod, the star appeared. The historical narrative constantly brings together in words what may have been widely separated in time. It is not even so probable that the Magi left Jerusalem on a mission like theirs, at eventide, as at an earlier hour. Strangers do not choose that hour to set out on their journey through a land unfamiliar to them. But we can easily imagine that, in the course of their journey, the day drew near its close, and they saw shining like a jewel on the mantle of evening that welcome sign, which led the way to him who is "the light of the world." According to the view which we are endeavouring to establish, as the least cumbered with difficulties, they may either have gone to Bethlehem before beholding the sign, or have been diverted from Bethlehem in a northerly direction, at the sight of it. If they went to Bethlehem, and searched in vain for him whose birth took place there; they would again leave it and follow the guidance of the suddenly reappearing star; and the excessive joy they displayed at its reappearance, would correspond with such temporary disappointment as they had just undergone. No one, however, can appreciate the various probabilities of the case, who has not by careful examination of the original, and by the laying aside of all mere inferences, not firmly founded on Matthew's words, first put himself in the proper position of an impartial judge.

The visit of the Magi to Bethlehem seems so accordant with all our notions of sacred history, that it appears almost heterodox and irrational to hint anything to the contrary. But they who have studied the Scriptures most, know well the difference between the truths and facts they declare, and the inferences and popular notions that have been founded upon them. They, too, know the difficulties that in the process of time have given way to faithful criticism, as well as those that yet await solution.

The writer of this article may be wrong in his view; but no commentator has hitherto reconciled the accounts of Luke and Matthew; and it is this reconciliation which is the grand object to be accomplished, and not the establishment of any mere inference or familiar notion. If Bethlehem was the place at which the Magi offered their gifts, we should decidedly prefer the view of Epiphanius, that Mary was then on a visit to Bethlehem at a period considerably after the return to Nazareth, mentioned by Luke. For it is impossible to avoid attaching some tangible meaning to the precise period adopted by Herod, as a limit to his diabolical and never to be forgotten cruelty. The Magi may have occupied a considerable time in their journey, perhaps even several months: they may not have set out at once. The sign may have aroused their attention before any special revelation, or foundation for their faith may have been given; for, in the Divine plan, attention precedes faith. At the same time, Balaam's prophecy of the STAR that was to arise out of Jacob, and the SCEPTRE that was to arise out of Israel; being the prophecy of one who had no relation to the Jewish race whatsoever, shews us that the expectation of the Messiah, in times nearer to his coming, may all the more probably have existed among some who were neither Jews nor of Jewish extraction.

Allowing, then, that a considerable time had elapsed between their first sight of the star and their interview with Herod (whether they set out at once to Jerusalem, or delayed till they had made all possible inquiries, and pondered long and seriously on the matter in their own country), we shall suppose that they accurately told the tyrant, in all simplicity, how long that period was. Now we can hardly suppose that it was less than a year. Had it been less, even Herod would have hesitated to butcher innocent children of a much greater age than he could imagine needful to accomplish his horrible purpose. Nay more, Matthew expressly says, that it was "according to the time he had particularly ascertained from the Magi," that he did set a limit to the age of the tender little ones to be slaughtered at Bethlehem. If he in reality slew all the infants, however young, as well as the children who were two years old, we may form this conclusion; that it was just about a year before the Magi came to Jerusalem that they first saw the star, or accounted it a sign of the birth having taken place; and that Herod took the broad margin of a year on each side of the point of time they mentioned, the more certainly to secure his purpose. The Magi do seem to intimate that the appearance of the star, or a certain stage of its appearance, was to them a sign of the birth having really taken place. We are inclined, however, to regard the

KaтWTÉρw, as not signifying a descent to the child of a few days or weeks old, because indeed Herod probably had more than one point of time to guide him, if the sign continued in sight for a considerable period, and then disappeared from the eyes of the Magi. In this view we should interpret Tòν Xρóvov т.p.a. as the time during which the star appeared to them. If it made its appearance previous to the birth, say months before the birth, and (whatever its nature, whether planetary, stellar, or meteoric, or even less according to such ordinary phenomena), went through a certain circuit or series of motions, we can see how those various facts might give Herod various data for the planning of his dismal project. For the sake merely of example, then, we shall suppose that the star began to shine very nearly two years before the Magi saw Herod at Jerusalem, and that it was seen by them for the greater part of a year, or even for more than a year; Herod in consequence would select that precise boundary and slay all the children from two years old down to an age somewhat under one year. If the star appeared only eighteen months before the Magi came, we must suppose that he added the six months to make sure of his victim; but then, whatever he added on the further side, he would probably add on the nearer; and this, allowing one year for the duration of the sign, would exhaust the whole two years and make the slaughter what it has often been supposed, a slaughter of every child in Bethlehem under two years of age. Two years, undoubtedly, was the outer limit, and whether the inner limit was the date of the Magi's visit or several months previous to that, the evident result of all that we can extract from the circumstance of the date is this;—that the calculation was wondrously wide of the mark, if it bore reference to a babe of only one or two months old, which it must have done if the visit occurred soon before or soon after the presentation in the temple. But after the presentation, that is, after forty days and the time spent in Jerusalem had passed by, the family returned to Nazareth. So that either our view or something like it must be adopted at once to allow for the accuracy of Luke's account, and the accuracy of the date given by the Magi to Herod. The two years are most unaccountable in relation to an infant of days, or, at the utmost, of a month or two old.

The words in Matt. ii. 11 imply, as we have hinted already, that the Magi entered the home of Mary. They found the young child with his mother. They fell down and did lowliest homage to him. They opened their treasures and presented unto him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. This was a different scene altogether from that in which the shepherds beheld (not

the Traidion but) the Bpépos, on the night of the birth, or the evening of the day on which it had taken place. Italian, German, and other artists have depicted the shepherds also as presenting presents; and sometimes they have given the babe the appearance of being very much older than a few hours. This is contrary to Scripture, and it has probably been occasioned by a confused idea of the two separate occasions, which were, to all appearance, widely distant from each other; and, according to our view, separated by at least a year and more. It may seem to some scarcely worthy of attention, that the use of the pronoun, which we have twice put in italics, above, is consistent with a considerably greater age and observation than belongs to "an infant of days." It is of importance, however, to remember that the mind of the child Jesus may have been influenced, in a very peculiar manner, by the incident of the presence of the Magi, their homage paid to him, and their offerings placed before him, in his humble home; if, as our supposition implies, he was between one and two years of age, or nearly two, at the time of the visit of the Magi. "In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest ;" and therefore it is, that the consideration we have now presented, connected as it is with the early dawn of Self-Consciousness in the Holy Child, is one not to be lightly passed over. He who had to bear pain and death for us had also to bear infancy and childhood, as well as the later periods of his humanity. And while we may be unaccustomed to think of him in those years, when yet the frequent sweeping gusts and shadows of sorrow, and intimate acquaintance with grief, had not become the life portion of his Holy Soul, and while we may feel as if a loss of the dignity we attach to his character might be the result of thus thinking regarding his early childhood, it is not improbable that he found in the humble, innocent, sincere and teachable little children who sought his blessing, and whom he set forth as types of what the spirit of man must again become, reminiscences of his own Holy childhood and of early companions whom he loved. The visit of the Magi may have been one of the memories of the home at Nazareth, recalled perhaps at times by Mary, and spoken of as "she pondered in her heart" the destiny of Jesus; and, in the Divine plan, that visit may have had an influence on the Holy Child, as well as on his parents.

The Magi had an easier way of returning eastward from Galilee, than if they had been at Bethlehem. The route they took however, it is impossible to determine, few as the eastward routes from Palestine happen to be. They must surely have

long kept the memory of " Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." In the eastern land they sought, his gospel may have been all the more gladly received in after years, that they had thus early found a way to the feet of one who was to destroy the partition wall erected between Jews and Gentiles.

The gifts of the Magi may have been of great use to the Holy family, now suddenly obliged to flee from the wrath of Herod, and to dwell in a strange land-the land where Israel was in captivity as an infant nation. It is interesting to look on the track taken by Joseph in the flight to Egypt, and in the return from it, as the same that was taken by the Israelites, when they approached the promised land. Applicable as Matthew's prophetical reference is, it would be still more applicable in this case. Thus too, the feeling in the mind of Joseph, on his return into "the land of Israel" would be better understood. For there was a passover (according to Josephus) soon after the death of Herod, and in this view especially, but indeed in any view, a pious man like Joseph and in Joseph's circumstances, would have a longing for the courts of God's own house, and for the high communion there enjoyed with "the strength of Israel." Before approaching the banks of the Jordan, or the vicinity of Jericho, he would hear that Archelaus was the prince that had ascended the throne and was reigning-at least over Judæa. His knowledge of the man's character, or the reports prevalent about him, made him afraid to go to that place which every Jew, that had been absent awhile from the land of his fathers, most earnestly desired to approach. Instead, therefore, of passing near to Jerusalem, instead of setting out in that direction at all, he obeyed the Divine monition received by him, and departed or withdrew (from the place where he heard of Archelaus, and was first afraid to draw near to Jerusalem) in the direction of Galilee. In our translation the Greek words "notwithstanding... he turned aside" are not rendered as they are in other parts of the same chapter of Matthew. In the first place, the dè is merely the historical conjunction and, which here links the successive statements of Matthew's condensed and simple narrative together. In the second place, went away, retired, withdrew, left for, departed, is a truer order of meanings for ávaxwpéw, as used so frequently by Matthew.

In marking the return to Nazareth, the evangelist does so with a degree of emphasis that has often been misunderstood. But to those who observe how like a refrain the prophetical allusions of Matthew are, the reason will be clear.

In relation to "Jesus" and "Emmanuel;" to "Bethlehem" and "the Governor of Israel;" to "Egypt" and the "call" to