that, and passed by all the other tokens, which, I doubt not, Herod showed at this time, of a most odious jealousy.

Nor would I blame Josephus barely for the omission of the barbarities committed at Bethlehem. He has related many cruel actions of Herod to have related them all would probably have appeared spite and ill will, rather than faithfulness or impartiality. It is evident, there were many put to death at Jerusalem, beside those he nameth in the account of that execution. Possibly, the omission of the murder of the infants may be owing to those reasons I have here hinted, namely, a fear of being charged with a design to load Herod unreasonably, or a fear of rendering his history disagreeable, by too particular a detail of cruel actions.

(3.) I have thus far endeavoured to account for Josephus's silence in the way of apology for him, and should be glad to leave the matter here: but his strange way of speaking, and that in two places of his works, of an execution at Jerusalem about this time, though according to his own account and acknowledgment it was very severe and terrible, will not permit me to conclude here. Supposing, then, that execution to have been made on account of discourses, which happened at Jerusalem upon the rumour of the birth of Jesus, I think, that since Josephus was determined in the main to vindicate Herod upon that occasion, he was obliged, for his own honour, to say nothing of. what was done at Bethlehem. The slaughter of the infants, from two years old and under, of a whole city, town, or village, and the district round about it, whatever colours an historian might have put upon it, would have appeared to all mankind, but prejudiced and hardened Jews, an horrid inhumanity.

In a word, the objection against this relation of St. Matthew must be founded on the silence of the Greek and Roman historians, or of Josephus. As for the silence of the former; the Roman republic or empire about this time was so vast, that the affairs of many dependent princes have been lost in the crowd. Tacitus goes over the history of the Jews, from Pompey's conquest of Judea to the government of Felix, mentioned in the Acts, in one short chapter.

One of those passages with observations upon it may be seen above, p. 292, 293. It is the passage I referred to, p. 140, &c. as deserving a particular attention. If the reader has not yet observed it, I would now recommend it to his perusal. The other passage will be found toward the latter end of sect. 1. of the next chapter to this. See in the index Josephus, his account of a ' terrible execution at Jerusalem.'

Of Herod he says, The kingdom he received from Antony was enlarged [or confirmed] by Augustus. And that ' after his death, his kingdom was divided between three of his sons ;'m without so much as naming the sons of Herod, who arrived at sovereign power, and succeeded their father. Strabo says, Herod obtained the title of king first from Antony, and then from Augustus. Some of his sons he 'put to death, as guilty of designs against himself: others he appointed his successors, dividing his kingdom among them. But his sons were not happy, for they fell under 'some accusations: one of them was banished into Gaul, ' and the other two, by means of a great deal of submission, with much difficulty kept their several tetrarchies.'" He does not so much as name those sons whom Herod killed, nor those that succeeded him. It is with a like brevity that some other writers have mentioned Herod. Dio Cassius's history of affairs about the latter part of Herod's reign is wanting. I leave it to any one to judge, whether it be reasonable to expect the particular fact at Bethlehem from historians, who plainly content themselves with delivering the successions of princes, without relating their affairs, or so much as recording all their names.

As for Josephus, his silence is no more an objection against St. Matthew, than the silence of other writers is against him. Josephus has said a great deal of Herod's liberality to foreigners, to Antioch, Berytus, Tyrus, Sidon, Damascus, and many other cities in Syria; to the Athenians, Lacedæmonians, Rhodians, and other people of Greece. Of his benefaction to the Eleans, he says, "It was a common ' benefit not to Greece only but to all the world: and that 'he was so remarkable for his liberality, that Augustus and Agrippa often said, Herod's kingdom was too small for him, and that he deserved to be king of all Syria and Egypt.' I suppose people to take these things upon

m

Regnum ab Antonio Herodi datum, victor Augustus auxit [al. sanxit]. Post mortem Herodis, nihil expectato Cæsare, Simon quidam regium nomen invaserat. Is a Quintilio Varo obtinente Syriam punitus. Et gentem coërcitam liberi Herodis tripartito rexere. Tacit. Hist. 1. v. c. 9.

* Ηρώδης—ώστε και βασιλευς εχρημάτισε, δοντος το μεν πρωτον Αντωνικ την εξεσίαν, ύσερον δε και Καίσαρος το Σεβαςε' των δε υίων της μεν αυτός ανειλεν, ως επιβελευσαντας αυτῷ τες δε τελευτων διαδοχες απέλιπε, μερίδας αυτοις αποδες -8 μεν τοι ευτυχησαν οἱ παῖδες, αλλ' εν αιτίαις εγενοντο και ὁ μεν εν φυγῃ διετέλεσε, παρά τοις Αλλοβροξι Γαλαταις λαβων οικησιν· οἱ δε θεραπεια πολλῇ μόλις εύροντο καθοδόν, τετραρχίας αποδοθείσης ἑκατέρῳ. Strabo. I. XVI. p. 765. ed. Casaub. Antiq. 1. xvi. c. 5. sect. 3, 4. De Bell. 1. i. cap. 21. sect. 11, 12. Το δε Ηλείοις χαρισθεν, & μόνον κοινον της ̔Ελλαδος, αλλ' όλης της οικεμενης δωρον. Ibid. sect. 12. • Και φασιν αυτον τε Καισαρα και Αγρίππαν πολλακις είπειν, ὡς αποδέοι τα

Josephus's authority. I cannot conceive, how the single silence of Josephus (and of Justus of Tiberias, if you please to add him) should be an objection against St. Matthew, when the silence of the Greeks and Syrians, people that abounded so much in writers, (several of which are also still in being,) is no objection against Josephus; who has recorded many things done by Herod for those people, of which they have made no mention, that we know of.

It has been pretended, indeed, that Josephus was a great enemy to Herod, and seems willing to tell all his various acts of cruelty. But this is not certain. For Herod's character in Josephus has a mixture of good and bad: he has related a great many things to his advantage, which can be verified by no other writers. Herod put to death every member of the Jewish great council in Hyrcanus's time, except Hillel and Shammai: yet Josephus mentions this very slightly he even takes part with Herod against the pharisees in an account of an execution made at Jerusalem in the latter part of his reign. Though Josephus were an enemy to Herod, he might have inducements to show him favour upon some occasions: Agrippa the younger was living, when Josephus wrote, and he had some acquaintance with him, and obligations to him: it was not for the honour of the Jewish nation, to make a mere monster of Herod, who had reigned over them between thirty and forty years. A particular recital of all Herod's cruelties could not but make the uneasiness of the Jewish people under the Roman government appear very unreasonable: they might be thought a strange people, who rebelled against the Romans, and yet had borne with a man who had spared neither young nor old; who had slaughtered all the members of their great council, and the innocent infants of a whole town and all its district. I have sometimes thought, that this was really one reason, why Josephus made so slight mention of the cutting off the members of that senate: it might also be some inducement not to relate the slaughter of the infants.

But Josephus, as a firm Jew, had certainly a particular reason for passing over this event at Bethlehem: he could not mention it, without giving the christian cause a great advantage. To write, that Herod, at the latter end of his reigu, had put to death all the young children at Bethlehem, on occasion of a report spread at Jerusalem, that the king of the Jews had been newly born there, would have της αρχής Ηρωδη της εσης εν αυτῳ μεγαλοψυχίας. Αξιον γαρ ειναι και Συρίας άπασης και Αιγυπτε την βασιλείαν έχειν. Ant. I. xvi. c. 5. sect. 1. a Ant. 1. xiv. c. 9. sect. 4. l. xv. 1. Joseph. Vit. sect. 65.

6

greatly gratified the christians; since it was well known, when he wrote, that about thirty years after the death of Herod, Jesus, being then about thirty years of age, had been styled the king of the Jews, and had been publicly crucified at Jerusalem with that title; and it was firmly believed by all his followers, that he was the great person spoken of under that character, and was now advanced to dominion and power.

Nay, I do not see how any serious and attentive heathen, who had heard any thing of Jesus, could read a relation of this event in Josephus, a Jewish historian, known to be no favourer of those called christians, but he must be disposed to think, the christian belief deserved some consideration. For if there was a report spread at Jerusalem, the capital city of Judea, that the king of the Jews had been newly born; and if this report was so far credited, that Herod, notwithstanding his numerous issue, thought it needful to make away with all the young children at Bethlehem and its borders, in order to secure the succession in his own family this is at once a strong argument, that the Jewish expectation of a great person to arise from among them is no new thing, and that there were some reasons to think, that great person had been born at that time. Moreover, he must also suppose it possible, that the child, whose life was aimed at, escaped, notwithstanding the care of Herod : for it is plain he did not certainly know the child, of whom the discourse was; if he had, he would not have given orders for destroying all the young children under such an age.

The more any heathen knew of the Jewish expectations, or of the story of Jesus, either by hearsay from the christians, or by having looked into any of the gospels, the more would he have remarked such a relation in this historian.

For this reason, Josephus could by no means be willing to relate this event, with its most peculiar circumstances; though I think he has given a general account of Herod's cruelty at that time, as I have sufficiently shown already.

6

4. St. Matthew's account is confirmed by the testimony of ancient christian authors. I give one passage from Justin Martyr, who wrote before the middle of the second century. But,' says he, Herod, when the Arabian wise men did not come back to him as he had desired them, but ac'cording to a command given them returned by another way into their own country; and when Joseph, together with Mary and the young child, were gone into Egypt, according to directions given to them also by a divine

6

revelation; not knowing the child whom the wise men had come to worship, commanded all the children in Bethlehem, without exception, to be killed.'s This was prophesied of by Jeremiah, the spirit of God saying by him thus, "A voice was heard in Rama."

6

6

This event is also mentioned by Irenæus, who lived in the same century, and by Origen" in the third century, in his answer to Celsus, where he says, Herod put to death ' all the little children in Bethlehein and its borders, with a design to destroy the king of the Jews, who had been born there.' It is needless to make any more quotations of christian writers.

6

There is also a noted passage in Macrobius, a heathen author, who flourished in the latter end of the fourth century, who among other jests of Augustus has this; When he [Augustus] had heard that among the children within two years of age, which Herod king of the Jews commanded to be slain in Syria, his own son had been killed, "he said, "It is better to be Herod's hog than his son.'

999

W

I lay little or no stress upon this passage, partly because it comes too late, partly because there is reason to suppose, Macrobius has been mistaken about the occasion of the jest. No early christian writers have said any thing of Herod's having had a young child of his own killed in the slaughter at Bethlehem. If Augustus did pass this jest upon Herod, it might be occasioned by the death of Antipater, or rather of Alexander and Aristobulus.*

This is what I said of this passage in the first edition. I would now add; it ought to be allowed, that Augustus did pass this jest upon Herod, upon some occasion or other, and that Macrobius has given us exactly the words of the jest. This passage also shows, that Herod's slaughter of the in

Παντας άπλως τες παίδας της εν Βηθλεεμ εκελευσεν αναιρεθηναι. Dialog. Part. 1. p. 304. Paris. (p. 307. Thirlb.)

Propter hoc et pueros eripiebat, qui erant in domo David, bene sortiti in illo tempore nasci, ut eos præmitteret in suum reguum; ipse infans cum esset, infantes hominum martyres parans, propter Christum, qui in Bethlehem natus est Judæ, in civitate David, interfectos secundum scripturas. Contra Hær. lib. iii. c. 16. sect. 4. al. c. 17. In quâ [Ægypto]et Dominus noster servatus est, effugiens eam persecutionem quæ erat ab Herode. Ib. c. 21. sect 3. al. c. 28. · " 'Ο δ' Ηρώδης ανειλε παντα τα εν Βηθλεεμ και τοις όριοις αυτής παιδια, ως συναναιρήσων τον γεννηθεντα Ιεδαίων βασιλέα. Lib. i. p. 47.

▾ Vid. Euseb. Hist. Ec. l. i. c. 8. P. Oros. 1. vii. c. 3, &c. &c.

* Cum audîsset inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes rex Judæorum intra bimatum jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum; ait, Melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium. Macrob. Sat. lib. ii. cap. 4.

* See Whitby's Annot. on Matt. ii. 16, 17.

VOL. I.

2 A