reliance can be placed on those expressions in the fourth Gospel on account of the anti-Jewish feelings of its writer, who manifestly cared as little for the human descent of Jesus and his birth-place, as he did for the accomplishment of the prophecies in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, either in the person of the Messiah himself or in that of John the Baptist; for he represents the latter as explicitly denying that he was the prophet Elijah *, whom the Jews expected to appear before the Lord's coming, though in so doing he contradicts the declarations of Jesus himself, as recorded in the first two historical Gospels †. And what is even more remarkable is, that the writer of this Gospel represents the people of Jerusalem, who of all others most anxiously expected the Messiah in the person of a descendant of their king David, as asserting directly the contrary: 'We know this man whence he is; but when the Messiah cometh, no one knoweth whence he is'; to which Jesus himself is made virtually to assent by replying, 'Ye both know me and whence I am and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not ' §.

6

Further, it is deserving of serious notice, that though Nathanael, upon his seeing Jesus shortly after the conversation with Philip already cited, is made to exclaim, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel' ||; yet throughout the whole Gospel Jesus is not once mentioned as having been addressed as the Son of David either by his disciples or by any of the people, who, according to the three other Gospels, freely attributed to him that title.

In fact, there is not in the fourth Gospel so much as an allusion to our Lord's claim to be of the seed of David, except in the one single text already cited, where that claim is positively questioned because he was not out of the town of Bethlehem where David was! Further, it is a remarkable fact that in this Gospel alone the Inscription on the Cross describes the 'King of the Jews' of the other Gospels as 'Jesus of Nazareth.'

Disclaiming, however, all dependence on these statements in the fourth Gospel having reference to the birth-place of our Lord, it has to be remarked that from the first Gospel it might be inferred, though it is not expressly stated, that Joseph and Mary were domiciled at Bethlehem until the birth of Jesus; when, in consequence of the warning of the wise men from the East,' they fled into Egypt, whence after a time they returned into their native country, and then went to reside at Nazareth in Galilee, where they took up their permanent abode.

6

The second Gospel is silent on this head, beginning with the mission of John the Baptist, as, in fact, the first Gospel would commence likewise were its first two chapters omitted.

The third Gospel opens with a most beautiful description of the miraculous conception and birth not only of Jesus but also of his relative John the Baptist, which, in spite of its legendary character, may not unreasonably be accepted as having a groundwork of reality. Joseph and Mary are therein described as being resident at Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, as it is universally admitted they were afterwards. Only they are alleged to have gone to Bethlehem, in consequence of a certain taxation by Cyrenius or Quirinius, the Roman Governor of Judæa.

The fourth Gospel, like the second, says nothing respecting the birth of our Lord; but this is only in accordance with the spirit of that document, which does not concern itself with the personal history of the man Jesus so much as with him under his divine aspect. But, as already stated, this Gospel is decidedly in favour of the notion that Jesus was not only bred but born at Nazareth.

Without in the least intending to rely on the Apocryphal Gospels as authorities possessing any real value, it may not be irrelevant to notice that in that of the Nativity, though Joseph is described as resident at Bethlehem, Mary is said to have been living apart from him in Galilee at the time of the Annunciation and miraculous Conception; and that nine months afterwards, Joseph, who had been away from her all the time, returned and took her with him to his home at Bethlehem. In others Mary

and Joseph are both made to have resided at Jerusalem, where their miraculous espousals took place, and likewise the Annunciation. But this was evidently occasioned by the peculiar sanctity which Mary had by that time acquired, from her having come to be looked on as the Mother of God,' whence it was deemed only suitable that she should be withdrawn from Nazareth and placed in immediate connexion with the Temple. By this means, too, Mary, in her advanced state of pregnancy, was spared the long journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem.

In all these deflexions from the truth we may perceive the origin and growth of the legend that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, so natural is it to man to make what he imagines or wishes to be true appear to be so. The prophecy of Micah (v. 2) having been understood to foretell that the Messiah, who was to be ruler in Israel, should come out of Bethlehem Ephratah within the limits of the tribe of Judah, it was only natural to suppose he must have been born at that place. When once this idea was entertained, all the rest followed as a matter of course, down to the very caves or holes in the rock, which are identified with the inn' where the Holy Family stopped and the 'stable' in which the Saviour was born. The legend of the Bear and Ragged Staff inn at Cumnor, related in a former chapter *, is a striking example of how easily and how speedily this might be effected. And it is under the influence of a feeling akin to that which induces humble tourists to visit the quondam hostelry of Giles Gostling with Scott's novel in their hands, that more enthusiastic and enterprising travellers are led to do' the Holy Land, and visit these apocryphal sites with the help of Murray's 'HandBook of Syria and Palestine.'

On an impartial consideration of the whole subject, the reasonable conclusion appears to be that our Lord Jesus, though of the lineage of David the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, of the tribe of Judah, was born at the place after which he was named; and as Nazareth is in Galilee, that is to say within the kingdom of Israel, Joseph, or Ephraim, as contradistinguished from that of * Chapter IV. page 52.

Judah, he may be held to have complied with the condition which by many is deemed to be implied in the prophecy of Isaiah, Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim;' ;'*Messiah ben David' and Messiah ben Joseph' being thus seen to be one and the same person,

CHAPTER VII.

THE CONCEPTION AND BIRTH OF JESUS.

WERE it not for the legends representing Bethlehem as having been the birth-place of Jesus of Nazareth, his personal history would unquestionably be rendered far more consistent and intelligible, by regarding the provincial town after which he was named as having been the residence of his parents, not only before and after his birth, as is generally admitted, but at the time of his birth likewise. As regards the doctrine of the Incarnation of our Lord, the place at which he was actually born is, however, quite immaterial. His life on earth, like that of every human being, commenced at the moment of conception in his mother's womb, and not at that of his birth; which latter is, so to say, an incident of that life, occurring in the regular course of nature, and consequent on the full development of the embryo after the ordinary term of gestation. There is no room for question on this point. The Roman Law, on which that of most civilized countries is based, says explicitly: Qui in utero sunt in toto pœne jure civili intelleguntur in rerum natura esse'†, especially 'quotiens de commodis ipsius partus quæritur't. And the Jewish Law goes even further than that of Rome; for while this latter regards the unborn child as existing for its own benefit, the former deems it capable of doing wrong, such as unreasonably kicking its mother and so giving her a cause of complaint to the * Isa. xi. 13. + 'Digest.' Lib. i. Tit. v. c. 26 (edit. Mommsen). Ibid. c. 7.

6

Judge! When Rabbi Jehudah the Holy was asked at what time evil affections begin to prevail, whether at the first forming of the foetus in the womb or at the time of the child's coming forth, he replied 'from the first forming'*. Since, then, whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the paternity of Jesus and as to the manner in which he was begotten, there is not, and never was, any reasonable doubt whatever as to the fact that he was conceived in the womb of his mother Mary at Nazareth, and not at Bethlehem, it follows that the Messiah's human existence on earth commenced at Nazareth, whether this place be, or be not, regarded as that of his actual birth.

This indisputable fact is the foundation of the dogma of the Christian Church respecting the Incarnation of Jesus Christ; and accordingly the union of the Divine Nature with the human in the womb of the Virgin Mary is celebrated yearly on the 25th of March, at the feast of the Annunciation, or Lady Day, which is placed nine calendar months, the usual period of gestation, before the feast of the Nativity, or Christmas Day, on the 25th of December, when the Birth of Christ' is held to have taken place. And, quite consistently with this, the commencement of the Christian era was originally and correctly fixed at the Incarnation, and not at the Nativity, of 'Christ;' and until the introduction of the New Style the civil year commenced on March 25th, the date of the Incarnation, and not on January 1st.

According to the belief of the universal Christian Church as expressed in the Nicene Creed, the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, is 'The only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;'—that is to say, in the words of the second of the Articles of Religion' of the Established Church of England, he

took man's nature in the

* Talmud': Sanhed. fol. 91. 2, and Beresh, rabb, fol. 38. 1; as cited by Lightfoot, ii. 570.