And as to the time of his coming, it is expressly said, (to the confusion of the Jews now) that it was to be before the sceptre should depart from Judah, Gen. xlix. 10. In the second temple, Hag. ii. 7, Within seventy weeks of the building of it, Dan. ix. 24. that is, (according to the prophetical known style of a day for a year) within four hundred and ninety years after.

9.

From these, and many more prophecies of the Messiah or Christ, his coming was the general expectation of the Jews from the beginning, but more especially, about the time in which it was foretold he should come, when several false Messiahs did appear among them. And this expectation still remains with them, though they confess that the time foretold by all the Prophets for his coming, is past.

But what I have next to offer will be more strange to you. You may say it was natural for the Jews to expect their Messiah, who was prophesied of in their book of the law, and was to be a Jew, and King of all the earth. But what had the Gentiles to do with this? There were no prophecies to them.

Therefore, what I have to show you is, that these prophecies of the Messiah were likewise to the Gentiles. For it is said he should be the expectation of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews. And Gen. xlix. 10. that "the gathering of the people (or nations) should be to him." In the vulgar it is rendered expectatio gentium, "the expectation of the Gentiles." He is called "the desire of all nations," Hag. ii. 7. And I will show you the general expectation the Gentiles had of his coming, about the time that he did come.

They knew him by the name of the East. Their tradition was, that the East should prevail, as I will show you presently. But first let me tell you, that the Holy Scripture often alludes to him under this denomination. The blood of the great expiatory sacrifice was to be sprinkled towards the East, Lev. xvi. 14. to show whence the true expiatory sacrifice should come. And he is thus frequently styled in the Prophets. Zech. iii. 8. it is said, according to the vulgar, "I will bring forth my servant the East." And chap. vi. 12. "Behold the man whose name is the East." Our English renders it, in both places, the "Branch," for the Hebrew word bears both senses. But the Greek renders it, 'Avaroλn, which we translate the "dayspring," Luke i. 78. and put on the margin sunrising or branch.' The vulgar has it "the East, or Sun rising from on high." He is called the "Sun of Righteousness," Mal. iv. 2.

6

And it is said,

come to thy

Isa. lx. 3." The Gentiles shall light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." Now, Sir, how literally was this fulfilled in the Magi (generally supposed to be kings) coming from the East, led by a star which appeared to them in the East, to worship Christ when he was born, and to bring presents unto him as unto a king! As it is told in the second of St. Matthew.

D. Why do you quote St. Matthew to me? You know we make no more of him than of one of your legend writers, and believe this story no more than that these three kings are now buried at Cologne.

C. You make great use of the legends, and an

swer every thing by them; and I confess they are the greatest affront to Christianity, and (if possible) a disproof of it, as it must be to those who will place them upon the same footing with the Holy Bible, as too many do in the Church of Rome, and cry, we have the authority of the Church for both. And they are taught to receive the Holy Scriptures upon the authority of the Church only. But my business is not with them now; I shall only say, that when they can bring such evidences for the truth of their legends, or for any particular fact in them, as I do for the Holy Scriptures, and in particular for the fact of Christ, then I will believe them. D. Will you believe nothing that has not all those evidences you produce?

C. Far from it; for then I must believe nothing but this single fact of Christ; because no other fact in the world, no, not of all those recorded in Holy Scriptures, has all these evidences which the fact of Christ has. And so God has thought fitting, that this great fact, above all other facts, of the greatest glory to God, and importance to mankind, should appear with greater and more undeniable evidence than any other fact ever was in the world.

D. We are now upon the particular fact of the Magi, or wise men, coming to Christ.

any more to say as to that?

Have you

C. It has those same evidences that the truth of the Bible in general has, which are more than can be produced for any other book in the world. But now

as to this fact in particular: St. Matthew was the first who wrote the Gospel, and it was in the same age when this fact was said to be done. And can you

think it possible, that such a fact as this could have passed without contradiction, and a public exposing of Christianity, then so desirable and so much endeavoured by the unbelieving Jews, their high-priests, elders, &c. as the only means for their own preservation, if the fact had not been notorious and fresh in the memory of all the people then at Jerusalem, namely, that these wise men came thither, and that Herod and the whole city were troubled at the news they brought of the birth of the King of the Jews; that Herod thereupon gathered all the chief Priests and Scribes of the people together, that they might search out of the prophets, and know the place Christ should be born; and then the slaughter of the infants in and about Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, which followed-I say, could such a fact as this have passed at that very time, if it had not been true? Could St. Matthew have hoped to have palmed this upon all the people, and upon those very same chief Priests and Scribes, who, he said, were so far concerned in it? Would none of them have contradicted it, if it had been a forgeryespecially when the detecting it would have strangled Christianity in its birth? Would not they have done it, who suborned false witnesses against Christ, and gave large money to the soldiers to conceal (if possible) his resurrection? Would not they have done it, who persecuted Christianity with all spite and fury, and invented all imaginable false stories and calumnies against it? Whereas here was one at hand, this of the Magi, which, if false, could have been so easily detected, by appealing to every man, woman, and child, I may say, in Jerusalem, Beth

lehem, and even in all Judea; who, no doubt, had heard of the terrible massacre of so many infants, and the cause of it.

D. I can give no account why the writers against Christianity did not offer to contradict this fact of the star and the Magi, which is put in the very front of this Gospel of St. Matthew. And there it is called his (Christ's) star. "We have seen his star

in the East."-As if God had created a new and extraordinary star on purpose, as the signal of Christ hung out in the heavens, to give the world notice of his birth. But did none of the heathen philosophers take notice of this star, or of this relation given of it by your St. Matthew?

C. Yes. For Chalcidius, in his comment upon Plato's Timæus, speaking of the presages of stars mentioned by Plato, adds as a further proof"There is likewise another more venerable and holy history," by which I doubt not he means this of St. Matthew; for what he tells seems to be taken out of it, "That by the rising of a certain unusual star, not plagues and diseases, but the descent of the venerable God, for the salvation and benefit of mortals, was observed by the Chaldeans, who worshipped this God newly born, by offering gifts unto him."

D. This makes those Magi or wise men to have been Chaldeans, who I know, were the most noted then in the world for the most curious learning, particularly in astronomy. And they were likewise east of Jerusalem, so that it might be well said they came from the east, and had seen his star in the east. But I cannot imagine how they should read