this, and for this alone, they have faithfully and without exaggeration, for our conviction, recorded the miracles that convinced themselves; miracles, not like the wonders of profane history, nor of fable, no, nor of counterfeit evangelists; not miracles of astonishment but of instruction; miracles neither extravagant, nor unworthy, nor unwanted, but distinguished from all others by their propriety, by their being worthy of him who alone worketh miracles, by their being wrought to declare his will, upon occasions where man from his ignorance or superstition has become blind to it, or from his wickedness wilfully disregards it; occasions which have occurred much more rarely than is commonly supposed, even by those who allow no miracles but what they find, or fancy, in the Scriptures: * miracles, lastly, which are neither dumb (like all others, dumb as to morals at least) nor intended to strike us dumb with stupid admiration, but miracles which speak-which speak a language understood by all, and which every where proclaim, and call upon us to "C have proclaim, that God would mercy and not sacrifice." What then saith the Scripture ? Cast out the phantom and its son, for the son of the phantom shall not be heir with the son of God. 66 But let us return to our chronology. Dr. Carpenter seems to think that he gets rid of the difficulty abovestated, by supposing" that Jesus at his baptism, in 782, was not yet thirty-one years of age, which," says he, St. Luke's words (iii. 23) appear clearly to imply." To me these words are so far froin appearing clearly to imply this, that they appear clearly to imply the contrary, and to assert, in the way I have explained above, that Jesus at the time of his baptism, was not yet thirty years of age. The Ye who reverence the Scriptures, who value their solid, sterling worth, and prefer their virgin modesty and native charms, to the leer of invitation, the loose and wanton attire, the tinselled glare and gaudy paint (1 Pet. iii. 3) with which established or fanatic fashions have disguised and tricked them to their interest or their fancy,-remember, "all that glisters is not gold." Doctor, however, concluding that he completed his thirty-first year before the expiration of 782, places his birth in 751. Still, even if he were born before the end of 751, the difficulty, though Even diminished, does not vanish. upon that supposition, if we adhere to the commonly-received date of 25th December, for the birth of Jesus, John's conception could not have taken place till six months after Herod's death; and not till three months after, if we adopt the earlier date of Joseph Scaliger, Lightfoot, † * "Quare natalis Christi competeret circiter fiuem Septembris diebus xyas." So says Scaliger in his notes upon some Greek fragments at the end of the last edition of his work "De Emendatione Temporum," p. 59, Colon. Allobr. 1629, fol. But in his prolegomena to the same edition, p. xxii., speaking of the year of Christ's birth, he calls it " annus Julianus 43, in cujus xxv Decembris natus fuerit Dominus." In the body of the same work (Book vi. p. 551) he says, "Christus natus anno periodi Julianæ 4711 in fine, aut 4712 in principio." And again, (p. 545,) “De anno autem ita censuerunt veteres, et recte: Christum natum anno xxviii Actiaco. Hoc est natalem Christi circa ultimos menses anni Juliani conferunt a cujus anni Juliani Augusto inivit vicesi-` mus octavus annus Actiacus." And in his edition of Eusebius's Chronicle, or Thesaurus Temporum, Amst. 1658, fol. "Natalis Domini P. 306, mid. he says, inciderit circiter Octobrem ineuntem, plus, minus." Here is considerable fluctuation of opinion. Probably, September was the month in which he finally acquiesced, as the edition of his book De Emendatione, to which the Greek fragments are annexed, was a posthumous publication, and as he speaks of the fragments as throwing light upon some of the darkest parts of Scripture chronology. +Lightfoot's Harmony of the New Testament, Sect. vi. on second chapter of Luke, Vol. I. p. 4, [204, errata]; ibid. Sect. ix. p. 8, [208,] and p. 10 [210]; also Sect. viii. of the Prolegomena to his Harmony of the Four Evangelists, Vol. I. p. 390, and Harmony itself on Luke ii. 7, p. 427; and again, pp. 452, 477, 455, [487]. See also his Heb. and Talmud. Exercitat. on Matt. ii. 1, Vol. II. pp. 106, 107, and on Matt. iii. 16, Vol. II p. 128, Lardner, Dr. Jebbt and others, t. To meet this still remaining part of who think that Jesus was born in the the difficulty, Dr. C. adds, that "Luke's month of September. Lardner's Credib. Part. I. Vol. II. pp. 796, 798, 800, edit. 8vo. 1741; or Kippis's edition of his Works, 1788, Vol. I. pp. 352, 353. + See Harmony of the Gospels in his Works, Vol. I. p. 135, line 32, edition 1787. Erasmus Schmidius, in his Versio Nor. Test. cum Notis et Animadvers. Norimb. 1658, fol., in a note upon John iji. 30, noticing the silly conceit of those who suppose this passage to be an allusion to Jesus being born at the winter solstice, from which the days increase in length, and John the Baptist at the summer solstice, from which the days decrease, says, "Quod commentum, hoc unicum refellit quod nec Christus in Decembri, sed sub finem Septembris, nec Joannes Baptista in Junio natus fuerit, sed sub finem Martii." Fabricius, in his Bibliographia Antiquaria, p. 480, edit. Schaffhausen, Hamb. 1760, 4to., having observed that Joan. Frid. Mayer published a dissertation at Gryphiswald, 1701, "De eo quod quilibet anni mensis gloriam pati servatoris ambitiose sibi asserat," gives a table of every month in the year, under each of which (July excepted) he has arranged the names of those who place the birth in that month. For July he seems to have known of nobody who declared. The most numerous and respectable names are found under December and September. Under the last-mentioned month, besides Lightfoot and Schmidius, he places a tract, entitled "Christ's Birth mis-timed, by R. S.," which was re-published in the Phoenix, a revival of scarce and valuable pieces, Lond. 1707, 8vo. pp. 114, &c., and to which I find a reply was made in another tract, entitled "Christ's Birth not mis-timed, in Answer to R. S.," Lond. 1649. (See the Bodleian Catalogue, Vol. I. p. 276, col. 2, edit. 1738, fol.) Under the same month also, he places Josephus Medus in Crenii fascie. Tom. X. p. 254, seq.; Jo. Harduinus in Antirrhetico; D. Aug. Quirinus Rivinus libro de vera Ætate Servatoris nostri, eique assentient Christianus Gerberus libro de Ceremoniis Ecclesiasticis, pp. 132 and 149. With regard to Mede, it is true that in the tenth volume of Crenius's Opusculorum Fasciculi, Rotterod, 1700, 12mo., the 44th tract is Dissertationum Ecclesiasticarum Triga-1. De Sanctitate relativa. 2. De Vencratione Sacra. 3. De Sortitione et Alea: quibus accedunt Eragmenta saera, a Josepho Medo Anglo, S. T. B. scripta; and that in p. 254, as cited by Fabricius, we find among the Fragmenta, which consist of detached notes on various parts of Scripture, "Christus natus est mense Septembri circa festum tabernaculorum, Johan. i. 14, exŋywσey, &c. Zac. xiv. 16-19. Festum hoc neglectum fuerat a tempore Joshuæ usque ad egressum e captivitate. Nehem. viii. 17, (quod malo omine notare potuit Christum natum non agnoscendum isti populo ante reductionem e longa captivitate,) sic fors verum tempus nativitatis usque ad conversionem Judæorum." But this Triga of Dissertations is not to be found in the posthumous edition of Mede's Works, published by Dr. Worthington, Lond. 1670, fol., in which, however, Mede says, (p. 703,) “Our Lord was baptized anno Olympiadico 805 ineunte, about the feast of Expiation, in the seventh month Tisri, six months after John began to baptize, and in that year, natural and political, which began in the 15th of Tiberius towards ending, but was the 16th when he was baptized. For I suppose John began to preach and baptize in the first month Nisan, (when summer was before him, and not when the winter was to enter,) in the 15th year of Tiberius, which ended August following." Here we have the authority of the authentic edition of Mede's Works for his placing our Lord's baptism in September, And, as Scaliger observes, (see p. 174, col. 2, No. 2016 of his edition of Euseb. Thesaur. Tempor. Amst. 1658, in Animadversionibus, and p. 305 of his Canones Isagog. annexed to the same work; also Fabricii Bibliograph. Antiquar. edit. 1760, p. 463, de Festo Epiphaniæ, and p. 480,) the whole of the Eastern Church, and the greater part of the early Christians, held that Jesus was baptized on his birth-day: "Idque persuasum habebant ex testimonio Lucæ, quod perspicuum est quum dicat quo tempore Christus baptizatus fuit eodem inivisse trigesimum annum suum” (Luc. iii. 23). This, Mede could not be ignorant of. But whether he adopted the opinion of these early Christians, and coupled the baptism with the birth-day, is not to be ascertained from the genuine edition of his works, in which he only says, cautiously, (and, perhaps, with the fear of being thought to differ from the Establishment before his eyes,) p. 266, Give me leave to + Introduction renders it necessary to relate, not mine own, nor as my own, Calvisius (Chronol. p. 424, col. 2, edit. of the same month. The latter has a curious note to shew that if the ancient Christians intended to point out the 25th of December as the exact day of the nativity, they were certainly mistaken therein but he rather relies upon uncommon observation which he had from "an a very great man," [qu. if Dr. Clarke or Sir Isaac Newton?] that the Christian holidays were not meant to declare that the particular event occurred on that particular day; but that whenever any day was polluted by the licentious and idolatrous rites of the Heathens, the Christians endeavoured to sanctify that day by affixing some solemnity of their own to it. Thus they fixed on the 25th of December for the birth of Jesus, without knowing on what day it happened, merely because the Heathens celebrated their Saturnalia at that time. (See his Harmony, pp. 161-163.) Probably the reader will think this remark more ingenious than just, at least, such a practice, if it ever prevailed, would be as likely to corrupt Christianity as to purify Pagan ism. Archbishop Newcome, taking the mean between the two extremes of the middle of August and the middle of November laid down by Lardner, (Vol. I. p. 353 of his Works, edit. 1788, 8vo. or p. 799, Vol. II. Part I. edit. 1741, 8vo.,) places the birth of Jesus on the 1st of October; and supposes that he was baptized in the 1 same month. (See his Harmony, p. 2, top, and p. 5 bottom, Notes, 1778, fol.) He also says, "Probably John began to preach when he was 30 years of age. See Numb. iv. 3, 47, that is, about six months before Jesus's baptism." (Ibid. p. 5, middle.) Le Clerc seems to think the month of our Lord's birth quite uncertain, "No dle of 751." Necessary! For what? No reason is assigned, no authority quoted, no probability mentioned for have happened so early in the year. so placing it, or for supposing it to The necessity for placing it thus early seems to be no other than this, that, unless it be so placed, the chronological difficulty cannot be got rid of, so as to reconcile the fictitious Luke with the true. But if this be a sufficient necessity, it will authorize us to get rid of the chronological difficulty in the Introduction to Matthew's Gospel, suppose that Jesus at his baptism in in the same way. We have only to 782 was not yet 35 years of age, and (in which year, Dec. 25, Bp. Pearce we must then place his birth in 747 places it); and if we say that Matthew's Introduction renders it necescessary to place it before the last six days of that year, we shall reconcile at once the pseudo-Matthew (ii. 16) with the genuine Luke (iii. 1 and 23); and all will go smoothly on without the chronological difficulty will vanish, disturbing the day established for the nativity. The wise men might arrive at Jerusalem in 749, in proper time for Herod to be "troubled and all Jerusalem with him," he might call a council of "all the chief priests and scribes of the people;" "might privily inquire of the star-gazers dili gently," or exactly, 66 what time the star appeared;" they might follow their leader, the eastern luminary, to Bethlehem, "till it came and stood saved them the necessity of "searchover where the young child was," and ing for it diligently;" might offer their precious treasures and their still more precious worship; might be "warned in a dream" (the star it seems, a mere outward-bound convoy, had nothing more to do with them)" not to return to Herod," who, when he saw that he wroth," and might issue the mandate "mocked, might be exceeding for his "belluina crudelitas" in time was to have it executed on the 25th of December, 749, when the dreaded infant would be just ripe and ready (barring dreams) to be murdered when he was exactly "two years old," with "all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, under" that age. And thus Herod might shew the Jews how silly a thing it was for them to suppose that the "Scripture cannot be broken" (John x. 35); might reply to his father, (John viii. 44,) that though the Son of God could never "dash his foot against a stone, (Matt. iv. 6, Luke iv. 11,) that was no proof that a man could not cut his throat, and might congratulate himself on having done more than all the gates of Hell can do (Matt xvi. 18)-conquered the kingdom of heaven, frustrated all its plans some thirty years before the time appointed for their maturity, and secured his seat upon the throne for as many years more as he had sat on it already (no small time); though he was now so worn out with age and disease, and the anxious, corroding cares, disappointments and vexations of a wicked and a miserable reign, that he died about three months afterwards, in March, 750. The dreams would not stand at all in the way of this, for neither the Jews, nor Herod, nor, as I think, his father, though he passes for a deep one," would know any thing about them, or their suc . cess. But the chronological difficulty that occurs in the introductory chapters to Luke, independently of those prefixed to Matthew, has not yet been considered in its full extent. Hitherto it has only been extended to the conception of John the Baptist; but it appears to me to reach even the birth of Jesus himself: for the same note of time first taken up by the pseudoLuke, as a date in order to point out in what king's days the angel appeared to Zacharias, seems to be studiously continued and carrried on by him till he arrives at the birth of Jesus. Elizabeth is stated to have conceived "in the days" wherein the Lord look ed on her, (i. 25,) that is, immediately after the appearance of the angel. After "those days," that is, those days of Herod which followed immediately after, she conceived, and hid herself five months (ver. 24). It is not barely said, "afterwards." The Greek is not μETE TEITA, μETA TAUTA, or vapov, but the very words used before are used again: TavTas Tas Яμepas is coupled with μera, as if for the express purpose of informing the reader, that the days of her concealment were the same days identified before, the days of Herod, who is thus pointed out to be still living at the expiration of the five months. The very same mark of time is carefully repeated for the purpose of carrying on the reign of Herod, in the 39th verse. 'In those days," in Herod's days, Mary arose and went on a visit to her cousin. And lastly, in ch. ii. 1, it is said, that "in those days," i. e., in the days of Herod, were accomplished the days that Mary should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born son (ii. 6, 7). In this last place, the pronoun in the Greek is different from that used in verses 24 and 39; being the one usually employed when reference is made to a more remote antecedent, and seems here intended to carry the reader back to the days first mentioned in ch. i. 5, "the days of Herod the king of Judea.” Dr. Paley also understands the phrase "those days," as intended to fix the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod; for he says, that "St Matthew, and St. Luke also himself, relates that Jesus was born in the time of Herod." (Evidences, Vol. II. p. 187, 2nd ed. 1794, 8vo.) It is probable too, that the spurious chapters which have usurped the name of Matthew, and those which have usurped that of Luke, were written by the same author. And if so, this furnishes an additional reason for supposing that the one account, as well as the other, was meant to place the birth of Jesus in the days of Herod. The chronology, therefore, of the parasitical fungus which passes for the first two chapters, cannot be reconciled with that of the third chapter of Luke, if the commonly-received month and day of the nativity be adopted, unless Herod were living on the 25th of Dec., 752. But, according to Dr. Carpenter, he died in March, 750. Such is the difficulty that results from the date which the first chapter of the spurious Introduction to Luke requires us to assign to the birth of Jesus, when compared with that which is assigned to it by Luke himself. But this is not all. In the second verse of the second chapter of this foul excrescence, we have a much greater chronological difficulty. Here the pretended Luke errs on the opposite side. He had before placed the birth of Jesus nearly three years too soon. He now places it more than ten years too late. If Jesus was born in the days of Herod, he must have been about 33 at least, at the time of his baptism. But if he was not born till the days of the taxing, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, he could not have been more than about 20 when he was baptized. This last is a much more formidable difficulty in chronology than any that occurs in the spurious chapters prefixed to Matthew's Gospel. Lardner accordingly discusses the taxing of Cyrenius at greater length than he does the fifteenth of Tiberius. Dr. Carpenter "after repeatedly considering his arguments with a perfect willingness to receive his opinion," is dissatisfied with what he has said on the latter difficulty. But his "double toil and trouble" bestowed on the former seems scarcely to have satisfied Lardner himself, for he concludes it in these words: "If I have not been so happy as to remove every difficulty attending this text, yet I hope the reader will allow at least, that I have not concealed or dissembled any." Like Dr. C., I too have repeatedly considered Lardner's arguments, long ago, with the same disposition, and with no better success. I have more recently attended to those of Mr. Benson. The result has been to increase my convictions that none of those silly stories about the infancy of Jesus which are ascribed to Matthew and to Luke, were ever seen or heard of by those evangelists. The pretended Luke, like the pretended Matthew, not only contradicts the genuine Luke, but he contradicts himself also. Whoever this counterfeit was, he was no evangelist. Whatever he was, he was no chronologer. When viewed in reference to chronology, the childish tales of wonder pre fixed to the rational and moral treatise of the beloved physician, present nothing to the eye but a mass of confusion. In every other point of view they are more like the fictitious legends of Popery than like the genuine Gospel of Luke. CHRONOS. P.S. A good review of Mr. Benson's book could not fail to be acceptable and interesting to the readers of the Repository. It is the work of an ingenious and sensible young man, with a mind possessed of native and acquired abilities, and stored with a very creditable share of learning. Unfor tunately, he straps a millstone about his neck before he plunges into the deep. That which is puerile, perplexed and contradictory, that whose genuineness has always been disputed by Christians ever since it was known, (the rubbish that constitutes the spurious chapters,) he takes for granted as the undoubted Gospel of the evangelists, and then labours by compression and extension, and all sorts of distortion and screwing, to bring what is simple in itself (viz. Luke iii. 1—23), whose genuineness no Christian ever disputed, into consistency with a chaos which is inconsistent with itself. struggles hard; but the load with which he has encumbered himself, drags him to the bottom in spite of all his “anxious" (p. 213) efforts. It always has been so; and always will be so. A man may as well try to serve God and Mammon, as to reconcile the legitimate with the illegitimate evangelists. He who would give a true and consistent account, must hold to the one and despise the other. There is no other way under heaven, given among men, whereby he can succeed. He Mr. Benson concludes, from his inquiries, that Jesus was born in April or May, 4709 of the Julian period, (749 of Rome,) about two years before Herod's death (pp. 116, 117); that John the Baptist entered on his ministry in May, 4739, Jul. per. [779 Rom.] (p. 220); that Jesus was This is said upon the supposition that Tiberius reigned two or three years during the life of Augustus, and that "The Chronology of our Saviour's Luke reckoned those to be years of Ti Life," Cambridge, 1819, 8vo. berius, and not of Augustus, of whom he |