φάτνη. Nor can it be said with truth that ἐν τῇ φάτνη may relate equally, as Dr. Priestley explains it, to all who had been named. If the word κείμενον had not been subjoined to βρέφος, I should admit the plausibility of this exposition; but the participle xɛiμevov, as has been observed, requires some such supplement, and consequently appropriates what follows as the full expression of the situation of the babe. But to return to bishop Pearce's exposition: on what authority a bag made of goat's hair is believed to have been called garn, he has not thought to inform us. The like contrivance amongst ourselves, though very common, we never call a manger. The very quotations produced by Dr. Pearce confute bis hypothesis. Homer represents the horse as chained to the garn, and getting loose from it only by breaking his chain. Could he mean to say, that he had been secured by being bound to a haircloth bag, and not to something which he could not carry off? The quotation from Virgil is precisely of the same kind," abruptis fugit præsepia vinclis." Those bags, Harmer tells us, are hung about the heads of the cattle; but surely they could never occasion the breaking of either chain or halter. It may be asked, What shall we say then to the authorities produced by Harmer, to wit, D'Arvieux Thevenot, and Sir John Chardin, who affirm, that they use no mangers in the East, unless we bestow that name on the coarse bags above described? We will say, that we admit the testimony of these witnesses, as evidence not only of what they saw themselves, but of what was then customary in the countries which they visited. At the same time, we do not admit it as evidence of what had been the practice there seventeen hundred years before, especially when, as to the more ancient usages, we have direct testimony that they were different. There is here no opposition of testimony. We find, therefore, no difficulty in believing both. The one concerns the practice of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, the other that of the first century alone. To obviate this, it has been affirmed and is doubtless true, that the Asiatics are not so changeable as the Europeans, in what regards their manners and customs. But were we to conclude thence that they never change at all, we should err more widely than if we should believe them as fickle as ourselves. The difference is only in degree. I have had occasion, in the preliminary Dissertations, to indicate and to trace some of the changes which have obtained in opinions, in manners, and customs, and even in the import of words. Man is naturally mutable, and mutability, in some degree, cleaves to every thing that is human. It is indeed impossible that the revolutions (or changes affecting whole kingdoms and States) to which Syria and the neighboring countries have been subjected, should not have produced great and numerous alterations in all respects above-mentioned. Their conquerors, too, in different ages, have mostly been

nations exceedingly different from one another, both in political principles and in religious ceremonies-the Chaldeans, the Persians, the Grecians, the Romans, the Arabians, and last of all the Turks. Are changes in government, such as these, compatible with a perfect uniformity in their fashions and customs? No, certainly. Let it not however be imagined, that I mean to depreciate such observations as those of Harmer. This is far from my intention. I know that, in many cases, they may be very useful, and several of those made by that learned author undoubtedly are so; but all observations of that kind are then most safely applied, when they throw light upon a passage of Scripture which, misled by our own customs, we find obscure; and not when they serve to darken what is expressed both plainly and explicitly. If a present custom in the East, applied to any ancient fact recorded, makes a passage clear which is otherwise inexplicable, it is a very strong presumption, and in some cases even a proof, that their present is a continuation of their ancient practice. But let it not on the other hand, be founded on an axiom, that whatever is used at present in that part of the world was always so, or that whatever was once their fashion, is the fashion with them still; than both which nothing can be more evidently false. As to the point in question, the word gatvn is used in the Sep. as the version of a Heb. word, which manifestly denotes the manger, crib, or vessel in a stable, out of which the cattle eat. The Heb. Da ebus, which is so rendered, appears both from etymology and from use, to be of this import. See Job 39: 9. Isa. 1: 3. Prov. 14: 4. The same may be said with truth of the Syriac word & auria, by which it is translated in that ancient version; and as to the Gr. term, Phavorinus says Dárvn παρὰ τοῦ φαγεῖν γίνεται. But though enough has been said to remove so slight a presumption founded on their present customs, I shall on this article give positive evidence, both that the practice was in Asia, in ancient times, to feed their cattle out of mangers, or vessels made of durable materials, as stone, wood, or metal, and that it was actually in such a vessel that our Lord was laid. First, that mangers were used in Asia, particularly by the Persians, of whom Harmer tells us, from Thevenot, that at present they have in their stables no such implement, the authority of Herodotus will put beyond dispute. In relating the final victory obtained by the Greeks over the Persians, and the total expulsion of the latter out of Greece, he acquaints us that the tent of Mardonius, the commander in chief of the Persian army, was pillaged, and that there was found in it a brazen manger for his horses, which, on account of its singular beauty, was presented to the goddess Alea Minerva, in whose temple it was deposited. His words are (1. ix. c. 70), Tv σκήνην τοῦ Μαρδονίου οὗτοι [Τεγεήται] ἐσαν οἱ διαρπάσαντες, τὰ τὲ ἀλλὰ ἐξ αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν φάτνην τῶν ἵππων ἐούσαν χαλκέην πᾶσαν

καὶ θέης ἀξίην· τὴν μὲν νύν φάτνην ταύτην τὴν Μαρδονίου ἀνέθε σαν ἐς τὸν νηόν τῆς ̓Αλέης Αθηναίης. Nobody will pretend that the historian could mean that Mardonius carried about with him a brass stable for his horses, which the Greeks found in his tent. Every circumstance of the story adds to the credibility of the fact, but more especially of that point with which alone my argument is concerned. We have here the testimony of an historian worthy of credit, particularly in matters which fell within his own knowledge, which, when he wrote, were recent in respect of time, and, in respect of place, transacted on the most public theatre at that time in the world; a testimony besides, with the best means of confuting which, if it had been false, he furnished his contemporaries, by telling them where this curious piece of furniture was to be seen. Now let it be observed, that the story is still stronger evidence that the Persians were then accustomed to the use of mangers, than it is of the particular fact related. Had it answered any purpose to the historian to tell a falsehood, he would never have contrived a falsehood notoriously contradictory to the Persian customs, at that time well known in Greece. Neither could he himself be ignorant of their customs. Not to mention his extensive knowledge, he was an Asiatic, a native and citizen of Halicarnassus, a city of Caria in Asia Minor, and consequently in the neighborhood of the Persian dominions. To this testimony I shall add that of Justin Martyr, the first of the Fathers after the disciples of the apostles: he wrote about the middle of the second century. He says expressly, that when Joseph could find no place in the village of Bethlehem to lodge in, he betook himself to a cave near it, and that, when they were there, Mary bore the Messiah, and laid him in a manger. His words are, [Dial. cum Tryphone,] *Επειδή ̓Ιωσὴφ οὐκ εἶχεν ἐν τῇ κώμῃ ἐκείνῃ που καταλῦσαι, ἐν σπηλαίῳ τίνι συνέγγυς τῆς κώμης κατέλυσε, καὶ τότε αὐτῶν ὄντων ἑκεῖ, ἐτετοχεῖ ἡ Μαρία τὸν Χριστόν καὶ ἐν φάτνῃ αὐτὸν ἐτεθεῖκει. Now nothing can be more evident, than that here the onnialov, where Joseph and Mary were lodged, is distinguished from the qatvn where she laid the infant. Such natural caves as could in a strait afford shelter both to men and cattle, were not uncommon in that country; and a principle of humanity or of hospitality, for which the ancients were remarkable, might influence the people to bestow some labor upon them, in order to render them more commodious. This, at least, is not an implausible way of accounting for their finding a manger, and perhaps some other conveniences, in such a place. But, whatever be in this, for I am nowise interested to promote the credit of the tradition, though very ancient; and though Origen, who wrote in the third century, confirms it, telling us, that at Bethlehem they showed the cave wherein Jesus was born, and the manger in the cave wherein he was swathed, (contra Celsum, Δείκνυται τὸ ἐν Βηθλεὲμ σπηλαίον ἐνθὰ ἐγέννη

θη, καὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ φάτνη ἐν ᾗ ἐσπαργάνωθη); from these testimonies it is very evident, that in those days such implements in a stable as we call mangers were well known, and in common use in Judea. For let it be remembered, that Justin was a native of Palestine, having been born in Neapolis of Samaria, the city which in Scripture is called Shechem and Sichar. Origen also had lived some time in the country. In which way soever, therefore, we understand the story of the cave related by Justin, as a fiction or as a fact, it is a full proof that they were not then unacquainted with the use of mangers.

2 "In the house allotted to strangers," iv to zaradiμare. E. ἐν τῷ καταλύματι. T. "In the Inn." I shall here, not only for the vindication of the version, but for the further illustration of the whole passage, make a few observations on the houses built in the East for the reception of strangers. Busbequius, ambassador at the Porte from the emperors Ferdinand and Maximilian, a man well acquainted with the Turkish polity and manners both in Europe and in Asia, where, on the public service, he had also occasion to be, mentions (Epist. 1.) three sorts of houses built for the accommodation of travellers. The first is the caravansary, the most considerable, and that which, from its external magnificence, is the most apt to attract the attention of strangers. It is, says Busbequius, a very large building; commonly lighted from the top, either by sky-lights or by a spacious dome, which serves for ornament as well as use. Into this edifice, which is all under one roof, and has no partitions, all travellers, and their cattle, are addmitted promiscuously. The only division in it is an area in the middle for the servants, the beasts, and the baggage, enclosed with a parapet, three feet high, which is so broad as to reach the wall of the house on every side, and thus to form a stone bench all along the walls, for accommodating the travellers, and raising them above the level of the horses, camels, and mules. This bench is commonly from four to six feet broad. There are chimneys at proper distances in the walls. Every little party has such a proportion of this bench, with a chimney, as must serve for kitchen, parlour, and bed-chamber. They use the provisions. which they bring with them, or which they purchase in the place. At night, the saddle-cloth, and their own upper garments, commonly serve for bed-clothes, and the saddle for a pillow. The public supplies them only in lodging. The account given by this imperial minister, in the sixteenth century, does not materially differ in any thing from what is related by Tournefort and other travellers of the present age. Busbequius calls the second sort of public house xenodochium, which he says is only to be found in a few places. The former is intended chiefly for the accommodation of those travelling companies called caravans, from which it derives its name; the latter receives no cattle, nor are the strangers hud

dled together as in the caravansary, but are decently accommodated in separate apartments, and supplied at the public charge for three days, if they choose to stay so long, in moderate but wholesome food. The third he calls stabulum; and of this kind he mentions some as very capacious, though not so magnificent as the caravansary. Here also the travellers and their cattle were under the same roof, and not separated by any partition-wall from each other. Only the former possessed the one side, which had at least one chimney, and the latter the other. When he himself in travelling was forced to put up with such quarters, (for this sometimes happened), he tells us that he made the curtains of his tent serve for a partition between him and the other travellers. Now, of the three sorts, it is probable that these two only, the xenodochium and the stabulum, were known in the days of the apostles. Indeed the first mentioned, the caravansary, appears no other than an improvement of the stabulum, the plan being much enlarged, and perhaps a few accommodations added; of all which it is likely that the annual pilgrimages to Mecca, after the establishment of Mohammedanism in the East, first suggested the necessity. Of the two other kinds there appear such traces in Scripture as render it at least credible that they were both in common use. The κατάλυμα mentioned twice by this evangelist, once by Mr. and occurring sometimes in the Sep. answers to the xenodochium of Busbequius; the navdozetov of L. in conformity to its name, corresponds to the stabulum of the other. It is accordingly so rendered in the Vul.; whereas diversorium is that by which xazáλvua is rendered in that translation. All the later translators into La. Er. Ar. Zu. Cas. and Be. less properly confound these words, rendering both diversorium. In cases of this kind, immediately depending on the customs of a country, the old translator, who, from his vicinity in time and place, had the best opportunity of knowing the customs, is entitled to the preference. It deserves our notice also, that the ancient Sy. never confounds the two words. In this, therefore, I agree with bishop Pearce, that πανδοχεῖον and κατάλυμα are not synonymous. the same distinction, however, does not obtain with us which obtained with them, we have not names exactly corresponding; but there is resemblance enough in the chief particulars to make the term Inn a tolerable version of the word πανδοχεῖον, but not of κατάλυμα, for that cannot be called an Inn where the lodgers are at no charges, which was most probably the case of the xarάivua. It was necessary that there should be at Jerusalem, whither the three great festivals brought regularly, thrice in the year, an immense concourse of people, very many of the former kind, the xarahúμara. There was but one xarahúμa, it seems, at Bethlehem, a small village, and when Joseph came thither it was full. For this reason, the pious pair, if they did not betake themselves to the cave, according to