cording to the ritual of the church, completely deprived the Dissenters of their before-enjoyed privileges. He (Mr. Wm. Smith) was one of the class of persons now praying to be relieved from the pres. sure of that Act, and it was important to those persous as a class, that, coming before Parliament, they should stand rectus in curia. He begged then to aver, that the Dissenters were unarraigned of any crime, and that they had as good a title to worship God in their own way as any members of the Church of England. Marriage was the natural right of the human species, and neither man nor woman, without the grossest injustice, could be deprived of its benefits. Yet the act of the 26th Geo. II. said to the Dissenters, "You shall comply with terms which are contrary to the dictates of your cousciences, or you shall forego the advan tage of that natural right," Such a holding was most unjust. It was not without precedent, because the same course had been pursued under Louis XIV., towards the Protestants of France. The measure in France, however, though unjust, was not so inconsistent as the law in England; because the Government of that country recognized at the time no religion but the Roman Catholic. To presume every Frenchman a Roman Catholic was most unjust; but, such being the presumption, there was no inconsistency in saying that members of the Roman Catholic church should be married according to its rites. In England, however, there was a gross and palpable inconsistency about the arrangement. At the very time when the Act of Geo. II. passed, the Dissenters had the benefit of the Act of Toleration, At that time it so happened that the Unitarian Dissenters were in small numbers, so small, indeed, that they had not a place of worship (so called) belonging to them; but the Jews and the Quakers were especially exempted from the provisions of the Act. The Jews could scarcely, perhaps, be called dissenters from the Church of England-(the Church of England might, indeed, more properly be called dissenters from them, for they were the more ancient)-but the Quakers were, to all intents and purposes, a sect dissenting from the Church of England, and they could have no right to any exemptions in which the Unitarians were not entitled to participate. By the canon law, marriage was nothing else but a civil contract. This was stated by high authority in this country, when, in 1813, a question respecting the validity of a Scottish marriage was discussed. The opinion of the Lord Chancellor was, that the Scottish law was founded on the canon law, which was the foundation of the laws respecting marriage throughout Europe, and which regarded_marriage as a contract. There was no doubt whatever but the Scottish law considered a marriage by consent of parties, and in presence of witnesses, to be as valid as if it were by any clergyman. The Marriage-Act had for its object the prevention of clandestine marriages. With that object he wished not to interfere, and he would therefore only propose the alteration of the religious part. Some religious ceremonies were common to all uations, and were highly proper, but they were not necessary. As a proof of that, he might refer to the decree of Pope Innocent III. in council, which declared the religious solemnity not to be necessary to the validity of Marriages. But the religious ceremony ought to be in unison with the feelings of the parties. The ritual of the Church of England was derived from the Romish Church. Now to make that ri tual a necessary part of marriage, where religious objections existed to it, was a positive absurdity. He proposed leaving out the whole of that part of the ritual which stated opinions on which the petitioners disseuted from the Church of England. As he understood from the noble Lord that his motion would not be opposed, he thought it unnecessary to go into further discussion of the subject now. He might, however, mention, that the wisdom of our ancestors had enacted burning alive as the punishment for Christians marrying Jews. When that law was repealed, and some time previously, more persons were found to contend for its justice, and even humanity, than could now be found to advocate the part of the present law, which he wished to alter. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill altering certain points in the 26th Geo. II., commonly called the Marriage-Act. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wished not to be understood to pledge himself to the support of the measure. Mr. H. GURNEY did not see what possible objection there could be to Unitarians being married by their own clergymen. The whole service would then be suited to their own sentiments, and, bans being regularly proclaimed in the church, no inconvenience could arise from it. On the other hand, there were many objections to parties having the service performed by clergymen of a different persuasion. He wished, therefore, that instead of such a measure as was now proposed, the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Dr. Phillimore) would embrace the subject in his bill. Mr. W. SMITH explained. Leave was given to bring in the bill. THE Monthly Repository. No. CXCVII.] MAY, 1822. [Vol. XVII. The Introductory Chapters to Luke's Gospel Spurious: their Chronology inconsistent with Truth and with itself. April 27, 1822. SIR, thirty" cannot be fairly explained to ALLOW me to say, through the mean any thing else than that he was channel of your Repository, that I think Dr. Lant Carpenter is mistaken when he imagines that, "independently of the Introduction to St. Matthew, there is no chronological difficulty whatever in the Introduction to St. Luke's Gospel." (See Mon. Repos. XVI. 360.) Let us take his own statement, according to which the 15th year of Tiberius commenced August 19th, in the year of Rome 781; and place the baptism of Jesus, as he does, in the following January or February, in the year 782 of Rome. Connecting these premises with what he reads in Luke iii. 23, the Doctor ascribes the birth of Jesus to the year 751. But I think the words of the text do not justify him in placing it earlier than 752. According to the common translation, with which Wakefield and the Improved Version agree, this text informs us that Jesus at his baptism "began to be about thirty years of age." Now, the words about "Jesus was about thirty years of age, beginning so to be. Apxqueros fixes the senses of wou to the beginning of the thirtieth year." (Newcome's Harmony of the Gospels, fol., Dublin, 1778, Note upon Luke iii. 23, page 5 of his Notes.) In his translation of the New Testament, 8vo., Dublin, 1796, he gives a different explanation. Lightfoot says, the Evangelist" intimateth to us that Jesus, when he was baptized, was but entering on his thirtieth year." "The word apxouevos, beginning to be, denieth his being thirty compleat; for if he were full thirty, then he began not to be so, By the phrase, therefore, is to be understood that he was now nine and twenty years of age compleat, and just entering upon his thirtieth." (See his Harmony of the New Testament, p. 8, [208, errata,] and Harmony of the Four Evangelists, p. 455.) Scaliger critically examines the words, and contends that they mean, "Christum VOL. XVII. 2 L nearer to thirty than he was to twentynine or to thirty-one. He must, therefore, have been more than twenty-nine and a half, and less than thirty and a half; that is, he must have been baptized some time within the twelve months that intervened between these two limits of his age. (See Whiston's Harmony, p. 8, No. vi. edit. 1702, 4to.) But Luke informs us not only that our Lord's age, at his baptism, was within these limits, but that it began to be so. He could not, therefore, have passed through the first half of the limited year: for if he had, he would have been ending instead of beginning those twelve months. Consequently he must have been baptized before he had completed his thirtieth year. And therefore if, with Dr. Carpenter, his baptism be placed in 782, his birth must be placed in 752. Now, in what is commonly called the first chapter of Luke, the conception of John the Baptist is dated six months before the conception, and consequently fifteen months before the birth, of Jesus. (See verses 26 and 36.) And if this birth were on the 25th of December, in the year of Rome 752, the conception of the ad baptismum accessisse trigesimo anno completo, et trigesimo uno ineunte," and, according to custom, is very angry with those who understand them otherwise. (See his Canones Isagogici, Lib. iii. p. 306, at the end of his edition of Euseb. Thesaur. Temp. 1658; also De Emend. Temp. p. 255, ed. 1583, or p. 549, ed. 1629.) Campbell has a good note on the passage in his Translation of the Gospels. Among other sound and sensible observations, he says, that some critics have justly remarked that there is an incongruity" between agxoμevos and woε, "the one a definite, the other an indefinite term, which confounds the meaning, and leaves the reader entirely at a loss." ordinary,-that would not have been sufficiently surprising, but by the sudden appearance of the angel who presides over dreams; at whose command the child flees into Egypt; by whose information it afterwards learns (what never could have been known in Egypt without) the death of Herod, and by whose voice it is "called out of Egypt" again, to fulfil a prophecy which was never uttered, and which, without a call, could never have been fulfilled. The little hero of the tale then becomes a miracle of rabbinical "learning at twelve years of age; and Baptist could not have been earlier This is just what we should expect. Fiction is regardless of facts and of dates, of sobriety and moderation, because its object is to strike us dumb like Zacharias, and to make us "marvel all" (ch. i. 20, 63); and therefore it sets before us one born out of due time," the offspring of a phantom, ushered into the world with dreams, and wandering stars, and wise men from the East, worshiping with gold and frankincense and myrrh, with shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night, with hosts of quiring angels, and with all the machinery of romance; petrifies us with an account of murders not only so extensive and so savage, that they far "out-herod Herod," but so wild, so frantic and so useless withal, that no man could ever have ordered such deeds of folly as well as horror, but a raving maniac, whose orders would never have been obeyed; † soothes and softens us again by extricating the chief object of our solicitude from his perilous situation, not by the aid of God's providence, ordinary or extra "meeting A vast vacuity; all unawares, Fluttering his pennons vain, plumb down he drops Ten thousand fathom deep" into a yawning chasm, where he is lost,-shall I say for 17 years? That would imply that the son of wonder whom we lose at twelve, were the son of Joseph who is baptized at 29. No: where he remains " a thing forbid," one "for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever," one never heard of more. For the Son of man whom we read of in the gospel was not a phantom, nor the son of a phantom, but an ordinary man, superior to the rest of mankind, not in nature, but in virtue only; who became the son of God, not by supernatural generation, but by moral conduct and by obedience, an obedience unparalleled, an obedience which no temptation could seduce, no provocation disturb, no fear of disgrace could stagger, no painful suffering subdue. For this, God was pleased to set his seal upon him, (Acts ii. 22; Rom. i. 4; Philipp. ii. 8, 9; Heb. ii. 9, xii. 2,) in order that he might give to all men power to become the sons of God even as Jesus was the son of God, that thus they might have life through his name; (John i. 12, xiii. 15, xx. 31; Rom. viii. 14; Philipp. ii. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 21, &c.;) and for this purpose, that all men might believe, practically believe, this truth; and for this purpose alone the evangelists have described, not the birth, life, parentage and education, but the ministry, the conduct, the character of their holy Master, and have told us, not how he was conceived in the womb, but how he went about doing good. (Acts x. 34-39.) For their Chronology inconsistent with Truth and with itself. 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 proclaim, that God would have mercy and not sacrifice." 66 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. 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 from 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." 259 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 diminished, does not vanish. Even 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, † * Decembris natus fuerit Dominus." In "Quare natalis Christi competeret circiter finem Septembris diebus xvnya." 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 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 vicesimus 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. Jebb+ and others, 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. 1. pp. 352, 353. See Harmony of the Gospels in his Works, Vol. I. p. 135, line 32, edition 1787. Erasmus Schmidius, in his Versio Nov. Test. cum Notis et Animadvers. Norimb. 1658, fol., in a note upon John iii. 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 Anti quaria, 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 nati 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 Opuscuborum Fasciculi, Rotterod, 1700, 12mo., the 44th tract is Dissertationum Ecclesiasticarum Triga-1. De Sanctitate relativa. 2. De Veneratione Sacra. 3. De Sortitione et Alea: quibus accedunt Fragmenta sacra, 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, σunywσey, &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 wher 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 |