Jesus having been advanced to great dignity and employed by no other writer of the New Testament. And yet, there is reason to think, that this precise repetition of St. Matthew is not a quotation from him, but rather a loose citation from St. Luke, who has not used any terms resemb ling them. And, because the thought occurs in various places of the New Testament, we are not obliged to conclude that there is an allusion to St. Matthew, who is the only writer that has used the words: and this too, although Justin tells us, that he quotes from the Evangelists, at the same time that it must be admitted, that no other but Matthew and Luke can be alluded to; the one of whom does not at all employ the words alluded to, and the other does most accu rately. Dr. Williams, indeed, in a note, adds, that "Justin also seems to allude to the Arabian Magi, Math. ii. 11. in his dialogue with Trypho, p. 315, &c. but it may be only an allusion to a common tradition." (Free Enq. p. 98.)—Now the reader will be surprized to learn, that this seeming allusion to the passages in Matth. ii. 11. concerning the Arabian Magi, is almost an exact transcript of that part of St. Mat thew's history, and in several places conveyed in the very words of St. Matthew. The Magi, speaking of the king, whose birth was signified by the appearance of the star, tell Herod, in the precise terms of the Evangelist, xa nλ0quer και ηλθομεν Tgoσnvrnσai avtov: and having come to Bethlehem, and fallen down and worshipped the young child, they are described by Justin as bringing their gifts, in the very language of St. Matthew; προσενεγκαν αυτω δωρα, χρυσον, και λιβανον, και opvgvar: and again, being warned in a vision not to return to Herod, they are described by Justin, as returning into their own country by a different way, in almost the very words of the Evangelist likewise, δι' αλλης οδε εις την χώραν αυτών. Matth. ii. 2. 11, 12. and Justin, pp. 304, 305. 307, which See felicity, is, by the appointment of God, conti last pages, indeed, whoever reads, will be instantly satisfied, that St. Matthew is scarcely out of the view of the writer in a single line. It is true, indeed, that it is not to this part of Justin that Dr. Williams has referred, when he has spoken of the seeming allusion to the Magi, but to p. 315. C. Colon. 1686; that is, to p. 330 of the edition here cited. But why did not Dr. Williams take care to inform himself of what Justin did say, before he ventured to pronounce what he did not say. More however yet remains. We find in this history, as given by Justin, two prophecies applied, which are applied by none else but St. Matthew; and we find also, that these prophecies are cited in the words of St. Matthew, and not in those of the prophets by whom they were delivered. What can be proof, if this be not?-1. In like manner as in St. Matthew, we here find Herod, when alarmed by the report of the wise men, consulting the scribes and elders; who inform him, that Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, for that the Prophet had said, Και συ Βεθλεεμ γη Ιάδα, εδαμως ελαχιση ει εν τοις ηγεμόσιν Ιεδα, εκ σε γαρ εξελεύσεται ηγέμενος Osis moiμavel Tov Aav μs. See Matt. ii. 6, and Justin, pp. 55. 305. Now, in this citation of the prophecy, the Evangelist and the Martyr agree in every letter; whilst the prophecy itself, as given by the LXX, runs differently thus; Kaι σv Βεθλεεμ οικος το Εφραθα, ολιγοςος ει τι είναι εν χιλίασιν Ιεδα εκ σε μοι εξελεύσεται ηγέμενος τε είναι εις άρχοντα εν τω Ισραηλ. Alex.-2. When describing the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem, and the consequent fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy, Justin thus quotes the prophecy: Φωνη εν Ραμα ηκέσθη, κλαυθμος και οδυρμος πολυς" Ραχηλ κλαίεσα τα τεκνα αυτης, και εκ ηθελε παρακληθηναι οτι εκ είσι. See Justin, p. 307, and Matt. ii. 18. Here also, we have a complete agree ment between Justin and St. Matthew, with this single exception, that the words Senvos na, found in the common nually employing his renovated and improved readings of St. Matthew, are here wanted. But it should be at the same time noted, that these words are likewise wanted in some manuscripts and many versions of St. Matthew; and that Griesbach marks them as most probably to be expunged from the text of the Evangelist. Now, on the other hand, how stands the prophecy itself, as rendered by the Seventy? Φωνη εν Ραμα ηκέσθη θρηνεί, και κλαυθμός και οδυρμο, Ραχηλ αποκλαιομένης επι των ύίων αυτής, και εκ ήθελεν παρακληθηναι, οτι εκ εισιν. - Alex.mor, as in Vatic. αποκλαιομένη εκ ήθελε παυσασθαι επι τοις υιοις αυτης, ότι εκ εισιν.-These remarkable passages in Justin, it must be observed, have been altogether unno ticed by Dr. Williams.-What then, upon the whole, is to be judged, concerning the likelihood of Justin's having quote ed from St. Matthew, and concerning the accuracy of Dr. Williams's examination of this subject,-it cannot be necessary farther to discuss. At p. 466 of this volume, the Sibylline Oracles have been referred to. A few extracts from those oracles are here subjoined. In the eighth book are to be found several pas sages relating to the nativity of Christ. The angel Gabriel is there described, as visiting Mary the mother of our Lord, and foretelling the miraculous production of the Saviour: and the birth of this illustrious deliverer, at Bethlehem, of a virgin mother, is at length detailed. To this detail is added what follows. Καινοφανης δε μαγοισι σεβασθη θέσφατος ατηρό p. 258. powers, in some unknown way, for the benefit In the same work also, at p. 65, we find the incarnation of the Son of God; and the name, Ingous, by which, in his human form, he was to be known to men, thus described: Δη τοτε και μεγαλοιο Θεου παις ανθρωποισιν Τεσσαρα φωνηεντα φερει τα δε άφωνα δι' αυτω. Dr. Williams refers to both the above passages; and admits, that there are many which relate to the birth of Christ. Yet he contends, that they are all evidently taken from St. Luke's Gospel, one only excepted; namely, that one first cited above, which states, that "the wondrous new star that appeared was revered by the wise men :" and this he endeavours to explain away, as being derivable from the general tradi tion, and therefore not necessarily to be traced to St. Mat thew's Gospel. (Free Enq. p. 97.)-Dr. Williams has, however, been rather unfortunate in the assertion, that every circumstance noticed in this work concerning the history of Christ, with the single exception just made, is taken from the Gospel of St. Luke. Had he examined the Sibylline Oracles for himself, and not contented himself with looking to the extracts given by Lardner, he would have discovered his assertion to be untenable; he would have found one passage, at least, alluding to a fact not recorded by St. Luke, nor by any Evangelist but St. Matthew, that of the preservation of the infant Jesus by the flight into Egypt. of his church." We are told, that "we may It has been said in the preceding note, p. 468, that "the references made by the Apostolical Fathers to St. Matthew's Gospel are extremely few ;" and that, (with an exception in the case of Ignatius)" these Fathers are, in no part of their writings, engaged in any debate or discussion whatever on the subject of the birth of Christ." The truth of these positions will be manifest on a short review. The Apostolical Fathers are five, Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius and Polycarp. Now, first, as to St. Barnabas; the greatest number of possible references made by this Father to St. Matthew's Gospel amounts to eight: and, in the opinion of Lardner, those, that may with any strength of probability be considered as such, do not exceed four, viz. Matth. xvi. 24; xx. 16; v. 42; ix. 13. And neither in these, nor in any allusion of this Father to any part of the New Testa ment, is there to be found any thing controversial respecting the birth or history of Christ. That the reader may satisfy himself as to this fact, I subjoin the several passages, to which, in addition to those above enumerated, St. Barnabas can be supposed to have referred. Matth. xxii. 43, 44. xxiv. 22. xxv. 5, 6. 10. xxvi. 31. Luke vi. 30. Acts x. 42. Rom. iv. 3. v. 16. ix. 10, 11, 12. xi. 36. xv. S. 1 Cor. iii. 16. xi. 20. 2 Cor. v. 17. Eph. ii. 2. v. 16, 17. Phil. iv. 5. 2 Tim. i. 10. Heb. iii. 5. x. 25. 1 Pet. i. 17. ii. 5. 2 Pet. iii. 10. Rev. xxii. 12. 2. As to St. Clement. In the Epistle, which, as Bishop of Rome, he addressed to the Church of Corinth, we find but four references to the Gospel of St. Matthew; viz. vii. 1, 2, 12. ix. 42. xviii. 6. xxvi. 24. And neither in these, nor in any allusions to other parts of the New Testa ment, do we meet with any matter connected with the history of the birth of Christ, or relating to any object but that of moral and religious improvement, and the enforcement of |