portions, and inserting the presentation between them, that the method I have pursued differs, I believe, from that of every other individual. The generality of writers consider this visit of the Magi in the light of a single undivided occurrence, and make no distinction between their arrival at Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Hence those, who perceived the force of the objections which prove that the Magi could not have reached Bethlehem and made their offerings before the presentation, too hastily concluded that they had not reached Jerusalem before that event. Whilst those on the other hand, who felt convinced that they must have reached Jerusalem before the presentation, as rashly conceived that they had before it also presented their gifts in Bethlehem. Considering the transaction as a contemporaneous whole, they vainly endeavoured to extricate themselves from the dilemma. In this error I remained for a long time, and necessarily felt the greatest difficulty in framing a defensible hypothesis. Whichever alternative I adopted I threw myself upon a valid objection, and was compelled to maintain one of the following absurdities,—either that when the Magi came Herod heard nothing about the prophecies and presentation of Jesus, although they had occurred before, or that Mary offered the lesser gift for her purification after having received the costly gifts of these oriental sages. It was not

F

till after the most mature deliberation that I became aware of the fallacy and perceived the facility of removing every difficulty by no longer considering the arrival of the Magi at Jerusalem and Bethlehem as contemporaneous events, and by so introducing the presentation as to make it clash with neither of the objections.

We must now inquire when the purification of the Virgin which corresponds with the presentation of Jesus took place. The general opinion is, that it took place as usual at the expiration of 40 days after the birth of the child, and in this I perfectly agree. It has been doubted however, and there are those who say that the language of the Mosaic law implies only that the purification of the mother shall not take place before the expiration of 40 days after the birth of a male child, but does not prevent its being deferred for a longer period. It really would appear as if there were some minds so fond of uncertainty and doubt, that they were unwilling to permit any thing to pass undisputed; for in the present instance nothing can be more plain than that if nothing interfered with the performance of the appointed rite, it should be performed on the earliest allowable day. "When the days of her purifying are fulfilled for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering

and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sinoffering." Levit. xii. 6. I know of nothing in this case which could prevent the observance of the command,-I remember the pious disposition of Joseph and Mary,-I feel convinced of their desire to continue in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless, and therefore I cannot for a moment doubt that they brought Jesus to the temple at the specified time. I consequently conclude that the purification took place on the 41st day after the birth of Jesus, and that the Magi. arrived in Jerusalem a day or two before. Now we have already shewn that the Magi arrived in Jerusalem on or before the 13th of February, J. P. 4710. Reckoning therefore 40 days back from that date, we fix the birth of Jesus either on or before the 3d of January, J. P. 4710, that is, he must have been born at least one year before the death of Herod, supposing him to have died about the beginning of J. P. 4711.

CHAP. III.

SECTION II.

The probable MONTH of the Nativity,

We have seen in the last section how long the birth of Christ must, we are now to endeavour to shew how much longer his birth may have preceded the death of Herod.

For any thing that has been hitherto stated, it is not absolutely requisite to fix the birth of Christ before the 3d of January, J. P. 4710. But wherever it is unnecessary, it is improper to carry back any date to a more remote period; and upon this principle we ought to act in the present instance. We ought not to throw back the birth of Jesus without reason. If therefore we can find out with any degree of probability the Season of the year at which Jesus was born, we are authorized to refer it back as far as that season in the year immediately preceding the 3d of January, J. P. 4710, before which we have seen that Christ must have been born, but no

farther. In a word, we must seek for it in, and not beyond, the year comprehended between the 3d of January, J. P. 4710, and the 3d of January, J. P. 4709; unless some other chronological mark should occur in the course of the discussion to require a contrary mode of proceeding. Thus the season of the year at which Christ was born appears to be the only question, the determination of which is still wanting to enable us to fix the probable date of his birth. I shall therefore examine it with as much diligence and impartiality as are in my power.

Two methods of ascertaining the period of the year in which Christ was born have been deduced by chronologers from the characters of that event which have been left by the Evangelists.

1. Since St. Luke informs us, chap. i. 36. that the annunciation of the Virgin Mary took place in the sixth month after the conception of Elizabeth, it is evident that, if Jesus the son of Mary was born after the usual period of gestation, he must have been born between five and six months after John the Baptist the son of Elizabeth. Consequently if the date of the birth of John the Baptist can be found, that of Jesus may easily be calculated.