Child, unless by his divine providence he had prevented his own death in some special manner. As it was, there seems very good reason to think, that the apocryphal account of the murder of Zacharias is true, and that he was slain after all between the temple and the altar. It is an early tradition, and though the reasons of it are differently given, it is the only account which will render our Lord's threat to the Jews intelligible. For there can be no doubt, that as our Lord begins with Abel' the first martyr, with whose murder the Jews had no direct concern, so he would end with the very last murder with which they had a direct concern. In the conflict of tradition with opinion we may set aside the latter: and if St. Jerome is only giving his opinion when he treats this as an apocryphal dream, he seems to be reckoning without his host. In his exemplary zeal against apocryphal books, he forgets what the plain and obvious sense of the Gospel requires, and transfers the murder spoken of to a period several centuries before Christ, and then himself quotes an apocryphal book to maintain his own view. Taking it for granted then that Zacharias did suffer, we have a Scripture proof of the need of prudence upon Mary's part, without going to the statesmanlike selection of facts presented to us by the wily Josephus".

e Tromb. iv. p. 86. and iii. p. 285.

There is a tradition, that Adam was buried in Golgotha: so Abel's blood might cry from thence against the Jews, he probably being buried thereabouts also. Vide Bened. ad Append. August. Serm. 6. Ephrem, iii. p. 499. or O. T. p. 328.

"Josephus being desirous to train up the heathen by probabilities to a good conceit of his nation, and those things which were written of them, hee must not laie too great a task upon their belief; and therefore still, when his history leads him to the mention of a strange thing, hee alwaies tempers the discourse with a con

5. This being so, we may now proceed to consider the events that took place upon this occasion. Simeon was directed by the Holy Spirit to come into the temple, and when his parents brought in the Child Jesus to do for him according to the custom of the law, and were going to put him in the priest's hands for the purpose, Simeon " also took him into his arms, and blessed God, and said" the Nunc dimittis. It is pretty plain from this, that Simeon was not a priest himself, but probably belonged to some school of the prophets. The Nunc dimittis might not excite the attention of the priest, who very possibly hurried through his work, and went off as soon as his part of the business was over-or, if really a religious man, would be as little likely to tell Herod's party as Simeon himself. An irreligious man might have looked upon the whole party as a very shabby set out, and thought Simeon a pious old monk, who was gossiping in Scripture phrase about something or other. No doubt in both dispensations, abundance of priests might be found to deal with sacred things in this way. He thought, perhaps, he had left the old man to have his gossip out, with this shabby couple; if he chose to take an interest in them, well and good; let him have his

venient mixture of possibilities: and howsoever it sometimes endangers the main matter, yet we shall seldom find him reporting a wonder sincerely; but having warily taken off that which could seem incredible, hee proposes the action under such easy circumstances as shall make it concord with human reason and common apprehension." John

Gregory, Tracts on the Septuagint, p. 42. For those who have no relish for this racy passage of a protestant writer, Baronius i. p. 93. may be cited, who says, ex ipsiusmet scriptis ... eum apertâ luce ostendimus mendacissimum. Gesenius, if I remember right, in his Geschichte der Heb. Spr. makes his Hebrew scholarship very questionable.

fancies, poor old man! This is put so in order to shew, how possible it was for Simeon's prophecy to take no effect on the priest, even if he was a Herodian: he might have gone off, and not heard a syllable of it. St. Luke says not a word about the effect of the Nunc dimittis upon the priest; but observes, that his father and his mother were wondering (or kept wondering", as the phrase would mean in Greek or Hebrew) at what was said about him. Even our Lord is said to wonder at unbelief, so that it would not imply necessarily that effect of novelty upon ignorance" which wonder commonly implies. They might have wondered not at the things which were said, but at their being said at all; have wondered, i. e. at finding Simeon allowed to understand who the Child was, and to hint at his knowledge in terms intelligible enough to those already instructed in the Messiah's character and office, but easily mistakeable to the careless and irreligious. Yet the temple was a large place, and if it was before or after they accomplished all things according to the law, the priest might not have heard a syllable, either of the Nunc dimittis, or of the prophecy.

So by 1, Ps. cxxii. 2. on which see Ewald. Heb. G. p. 537. §. 282. 2. and for the Greek, Kuhner, §. 416. 4. and Wunder. ad Soph. Philoct. 1191.

i Johnson's Life of Yalden, fin. Lugo, Disp. xxii. §. 5. no. 45. Licet nihil occurreret Christo vincens omnem ejus scientiam, potuit tamen aliquid occurrere vincens aliquam ejus scientiam, e. g. fides magna et inusitata centurionis; de quâ si judicium ferendum esset

6. Simeon next blesses them, and says to Mary his mother, not to every body, but to her, and probably in a low tone, "Behold, this Child is set for the ruin and resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against; and thine own soul shall a sword pass through, that the thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed." Things to come shortly to pass very likely coloured the words of this prophecy. The slaughter of the innocents, was an earnest of the ruin of many; the resurrection of many bodies of the saints, an earnest of a more general resurrection. Jesus would become a proverb and a by-word among the heathen, and so be a sign spoken against. But the next words are what more nearly concern us, because they more nearly concern Mary. Now I suppose no one will deny, that if it can be made clearly to appear how the piercing of Mary's soul contributes to the revealing of the thoughts of many, then the words are to be taken in the order in which they stand. There is another way of taking them, by which the words, Yea, and a sword shall pass through thine own soul,' are made a parenthesis, and the words, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed,' are made to depend upon what preceded. The sense would then be: Christ shall be for the ruin and resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against, that it may be made manifest what is in man,' what the real character of many is. This to me is excessively objectionable, as it seems to go close upon the semipelagian principle, that men merit the gifts and calling of God by their inward character. For when the supposed parenthesis is omitted, the former part of the text will most naturally be taken of the first movement and impression which Christ makes upon

men, and the latter will imply that they must be in condition to receive grace in order to take that impression. If they have good hearts they will come to Christ, they will choose him rather than he them. Moreover, it wrests the words from the order in which they are, simply because it is not obvious at once how Mary's passion would operate upon men's hearts in the way spoken of.

7. But if we suppose Mary really to be the Mother of all living, then we shall see, that that passion which caused her to have adopted sons, has a great deal to do with revealing the thoughts of many hearts. At the time of the crucifixion, St. John was already chosen by Christ. Thoughts of faith, hope, and love towards Christ were in his heart, not because he had chosen Christ, but because Christ had chosen him. The existence of these divinely implanted thoughts were brought to light by Christ when he gave him Mary for his Mother, and that was, when a sword of grief was passing through her heart. He who had true love for Christ was tested then: Mary's passion was a suffering together with Christ, and he who could not feel for her, was not one of those to whom Christ had given love for himself. Every one that loveth her who begot, loveth him also who was born of her. The love of Mary is a proof therefore of the love of Christ. And the love of Mary includes a compassion for her bitter sorrows, which installed her in the dignity of the Mother of all living, a title St. Epiphanius and other Fathers have claimed forher. In venturing to offer this explanation of the passage, I am only acting consistently with a belief

j 1 John v. 1.