nological difficulty whatever in St. Luke's Introduction." I am the more desirous to explain the grounds of my assertion, (which I made, and now repeat, with full conviction,) because in the two last editions of the Improved Version, after a reference made to my hypothesis respecting the passage in Luke which is usually considered as teaching the miraculous conception, I find it stated, that "at any rate the chronological difficulty remains the same." The only points of chronological difficulty are the following: 1. That St. Luke's statement of the time when the Baptist began his ministry, compared with our Lord's age at his baptism, assigns a period for his birth which is inconsistent, it is supposed, with the Introductory Narrative. II. That the Census spoken of in Luke ii. 1, did not take place till several years after the birth of Christ. The latter I think quite clear; and it is virtually declared by the historian, as I shall state afterwards. I. The first difficulty solely arises from combining the chronology of the Introduction to St. Matthew's Gospel, with that of St. Luke's. In our present inquiry we have nothing to do with the former. The communication made to Zacharias in the temple, is fixed by the historian (ch. i, 5) to the reign of Herod; but nothing that occurs afterwards requires us to place any other fact recorded in the Introduction before his death. Chronos asserts the contrary; and I must notice his assertion; but in the first instance I will pursue my own train of calculation. The historian (ch. i. 26) places the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary, in the sixth month after the heavenly message to Zacharias. If the birth of Christ occurred nine months after that period, (on which supposition, to simplify the question, we may proeeed,) still it might have been fourteen months after the death of Herod. Of course it might have been less. • Chronos makes his quotation from an extract given by the Reviewer of my Reply to Bishop (now probably Archbishop) Magee. The reader may be referred to the whole Note in p. 299. Herod died some time before a Passover either in A. U. 750, or in A. U. 751. In the statement to which Chronos refers, I assumed the former, which I now think (for a reason which I shall state hereafter) to be less probable than the latter; but I will pursue the calculation on A. U. 750, as the less favourable to my argument. If we suppose the birth of Christ to have occurred about a year after the death of Herod, this brings us to the spring of A. U. 751. In that case he was thirty years old in the spring of A. U. 781. The fifteenth year of Tiberius, reckoning from the death of Augustus, began Aug. 19, A. U. 781. The baptism of Christ may be placed in the latter part of January or in February, A. U. 782, when he would not have completed his 31st year. St. Luke's words in iii. 23, are not at all inconsistent with this: they are, Και αυτος ην ὁ Ιησους ώσει ετων τριάκοντα agxoμevoç. The literal rendering of the clause is, "And Jesus himself was about thirty years old when beginning :" and on considering the connexion, and observing the language of the Evangelist in ch. i. 2, and Acts i. 22, I have no difficulty in supplying the ellipsis. I would, therefore, translate the clause thus: “And Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry," and so it is translated by Newcome, and by the Geneva Version of 1805, and probably by others also. Hence it appears that even taking the more unfavourable supposition respecting the time of Herod's death, there is no discrepancy between the dates in the third chapter of Luke, and the Introduction. What I have thought the decisive argument for the earlier date of Herod's death, viz., A. U. 750, is the remarkable eclipse of the moon which occurred not long before, on the night when the Jewish Rabbies were burnt at Jericho by Herod's order. This is assumed to have been on the 13th of March, A. U. 750. But it appears from Playfair's Tables, that there was a total eclipse of the moon at Jericho on the 11th of January, A. U. 751. This far better accords with the events narrated by Josephus, between the death of the Rabbies and the Pas Dr. Carpenter on the Introductory Chapters to Luke's Gospel. sover, (for which the earlier date allows barely a month,) and it gives the other arguments for the later date a preponderating influence. Taking the spring of A. U. 751 for the death of Herod, we need not place the birth of Christ before the spring of A. U. 752; and he would not then have completed his thirtieth year till after his baptism, supposing that to have occurred as above-stated. Once more, I see nothing in the Introductory Narrative to fix the time of Christ's birth to nine months after the Annunciation. Upon the hypothesis which I have advanced in the Appendix to the 2d Edition of Unitarianism the Doctrine of the Gospel, respecting the interpretation of ch. i. 26—33, it is clear from ch. i. 39, 56, that the birth of Christ could not have taken place till at least twelve months after the Annunciation; and even on the common interpretation, it is in no way necessary to fix upon an earlier period. So that if Herod died so early as March, A. U. 750, we need not place the birth of Christ before August in A. U. 751, in which case he would be about thirty years and a half old at his baptism. When I wrote the Appendix abovementioned, and the article in the Monthly Repository (Jan. 1811) to which it refers, I adopted Lardner's opinion that St. Luke reckoned from the time when Tiberius assumed the proconsular government, in connexion with Augustus, A. U. 764 or 765. The supposition that such a mode of reckoning the commencement of his reign was at all in use, rests, however, on very uncertain data; that it was not prevalent is certain; and that Luke employed it, is therefore highly improbable. 347 If Luke's 15th year of Tiberius really began in A. U. 778 or 779, the baptism of Christ might be placed at the latest in February 780. In that case he might have been born in the summer or autumn of 749, eighteen or twenty months before the death of Herod, in the spring of 751; and this is the shortest period which the Introduction to Matthew will allow. But if the baptism of Christ be placed in February 782, (and reckoning the reign of Tiberius from the death of Augustus it cannot be earlier,) following the Introduction to Matthew, he must have been considerably above thirty-two years old at his baptism. Following what I cannot but regard as the only legitimate reckoning of the reign of Tiberius, the ministry of the Baptist might have begun any time between August 19, A.U. 781 and August 19, 782. If it were in the spring or summer of 782, then we must refer the baptism of Christ to February 783. This would increase the discrepancy between the Introduction to Matthew, and the dates of Luke; but it would not invalidate the Introduction of his own Gospel. Taking the later date of Herod, we need not place the birth of Christ before the middle of 752; and still he would be less than thirty-one at his baptism. (See Table, col. 5.) The following table exhibits the leading modifications of the principal dates, according as we fix upon 750 or 751 for the death of Herod; each of which is sufficiently accordant with the dates of Luke's Gospel, and vindicates the Introduction from this chronological difficulty: in consequence of which every one went to his own city to be enrolled; but in the second verse he expressly states, that the enrolment itself was first carried into effect when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. This we know was when Archelaus was banished and Judæa made a Roman province, viz. about A. D. 7. The second verse inay be rendered literally, "The enrolment itself (or this enrolment) was first made (or carried into effect) when Cyrenius was governor of Syria;” Avτη ǹ añоypap πρωτη εγενετο ἡγεμονεύοντος της Συρίας Kupno and so far from presenting any chronological difficulty, I regard it as indicating that accuracy of detail which distinguishes the writings of St. Luke. He informs us that the decree of Augustus set all Palestine in motion; but he also gives us to understand, that the enrolment was not actually executed till a certain definite period which he specifies. In other words, that, from some cause or other, which it did not fall within his province to 'explain, the complete execution of the decree was suspended. If the enrolinent were merely ordered, and the execution of it afterwards suspended, it is less surprising that no notice of it should be found in Josephus. Still as it must, in ordinary circumstances, have been very obnoxious to the Jews,-as the decree must have been caused by some severe displeasure on the part of Augustus against the Jewish sovereign,-and as Josephus is very full in his account of events which took place during Herod's reign, yet gives no intimation that such a decree was issued by Augustus, it is not probable that the events recorded at the beginning of Luke ii. should have taken place before the death of Herod. The history of Josephus, for some time after the death of Herod, is obviously very defective; and till it is shewn that the facts he records are inconsistent with the statements of St. Luke's Introduction, as above explained, I cannot consider his silence as any objection to the authenticity of those statements. So far, however, from any such inconsistency existing, the circumstances which Josephus records as occurring shortly after the death of Herod, well accord with the facts stated in Luke's Introduction respecting the decreeing of the Census, and the subsequent suspension of it. In the volume of the Mon. Repos. for 1811, p. 15, I have stated those circumstances; but as that may not be accessible to many of your present readers, I beg your permission, Mr. Editor, to state the substance of them in this place. On the death of Herod, Archelaus went to Rome, to obtain the emperor's confirmation of his father's appointment of him to the sovereignty of Judæa and Samaria; but before he set out, a disturbance among the Jews led him to call out his soldiers, who killed 2000 of them. Some of his relations went at the same time to Rome, who were unfavourable to the division in Herod's will, and wished, if possible, to have Judæa made a Roman province. At the first hearing of the case, Augustus determined nothing; though he treated Archelaus with kindness, and appeared inclined to decide in his favour. While matters remained in this suspense, fifty ambassadors came from Judæa, by the consent of Varus, the Syrian president, to solict that their country might be made a Roman province; and soon after, news came from Varus, of great disturbances in Judæa, and of a revolt so serious, that at the termination of it, he put 2000 to death by crucifixion. Another hearing took place before the emperor; and the ambassadors pleaded their cause against Archelaus: but Augustus dissolved the assembly without having decided the question. Not long after, however, he determined to give Archelaus the sovereignty of Judea and Samaria, with the title of Ethnarch instead of King. So far we have the clear testimony of Josephus; and at this period, (according perfectly with the date already assigned, from St. Luke's own data, for the birth of our Lord,) it appears highly probable that Augustus, influ enced by the strong representations of the Jews, issued a decree that all the land should be enrolled, with a view to taxation, and as the first step towards making it a Roman province. From St. Luke we learn, that the Census was not actually made till Cyrenius was governor of Syria; and we may therefore conclude, that Archelaus made such promises as induced the emperor to suspend the execution Dr. Carpenter on the Introductory Chapters to Luke's Gospel. of his decree, almost as soon as it was begun. As the immediate effect of the decree was only temporary, and the Jews in general then wished for a change in their condition, there was neither time nor disposition for those commotions which took place when the Census was actually made, after the banishment of Archelaus; and the circumstances which really took place, might be lost sight of in subsequent occurrences. In the two foregoing paragraphs I think I have given the real state of the case; but this is not necessary to the vindication of the authenticity of Luke's Introduction. I have now only to offer some remarks on the assertions of Chronos, as far as they affect my state ments. 349 at once; for if our Lord were more than thirty but less than thirty-one at his baptism in February 782, then he was born after that month in 751; and even if Herod died in March 750, there is nothing in the Introduction to prevent our placing the birth of Christ above a year after the death of Herod, say in April 751. But Chronos says there is. Every supposition I have stated, places the annunciation of the birth of the Baptist in the reign of Herod: Chronos considers the Introduction as placing the birth of Christ also in the reign of Herod. Even if it did, allowing the later date of the death of Herod, (early in 751,) the 3d column of my Table shews that there is still no chronological difficulty. But I see nothing to require us to place the birth of Christ before the death of Herod. Chronos Translating ch. iii. 23, as Wakefield says, (p. 262,) "Elizabeth is stated and the Improved Version do, in con- to have conceived 'in the days' whereformity with the Public Version, he in the Lord looked on her, (i. 25,) maintains, not only that Christ must that is, immediately after the aphave been somewhere between 29 pearance of the angel. After those and 30 at his baptism, but also, (p. days,' that is, those days of Herod 257,) that "he could not have passed which followed immediately after, she through the first half of the limited conceived, and hid herself five months year;" in other words, that "he must (ver. 24)." Chronos only looks to find have been baptized before he had com- objections, and therefore does not displeted his 30th year." If, therefore, cern truth. The historian says, ver. he concludes, "with Dr. Carpenter, 23, that ". as soon as the days of his his baptism be placed in 782, his birth (Zacharias's) ministration were асmust be placed in 752.” Even allow-complished, he departed to his own ing all this, it appears from col. 4 of the foregoing Table, that no chronological difficulty attends the Introduc tion. Warped (it is reasonable to suppose) by his antipathy to the Introduction, Chronos has adopted a rendering of ch. iii. 23 which (in his own judgment) throws upon Luke an incongruity between agxouevos (beginning) and wσa, (about,) which, in the words of Campbell, "confounds the meaning, and leaves the reader entirely at a loss." Chronos knew of the rendering in Newcome's Translation, for he speaks of it; but he neither tells the reader what it is, nor attempts to shew that it is unfounded. And yet, if that rendering be the true one, Christ might have been nearly thirty-one at his baptism, without any impeachment of the minute accuracy of Luke. But then the chronological difficulty respecting the Introduction vanishes house;" and, in the next verse, that "after these days" (assuredly the days of Zacharias's ministration) "his wife Elizabeth conceived, and hid herself five months:" in which there is nothing whatever implying that this occurred "immediately" (as Chronos strangely says) "after the appearance of the angel;" nor any thing which refers to the reign of Herod. If the expression "after those days," in ver. 24, have no reference to "the days of Herod," in ver. 3, those marks of time which occur in ver. 39, and in ch. ii. 1, can have no necessary reference to "the days of Herod ;" and in my judgment they have none at all. I am no advocate for shrinking from the closest examination of things held true and sacred; but let it be conducted in the spirit of truth and in the love of it; and if I understand the characteristics of that spirit, I am obliged to deny it to Chronos. When he talks of the "son of a phantom," and of casting out "the phantom and its son," he ought to know that he is guilty of an unworthy misrepresentation of the doctrine of miraculous conception. Adam was not the "son of a phantom," because he was created by the immediate agency of divine power. It is by such arts as these that Christianity is assailed by some Unbelievers; and Unitarianisin, by some who think themselves the only Christians. Let the Unitarian leave them to his opponents: they disgrace any cause; at least they disgrace those who use them. Let the doctrine of miraculous conception, if false, be argued down; but it ought not to be attacked with all the associated imaginations derived from the ribaldry of the scorner, or the follies of its injudicious advocates. As to the Introduction of Luke, I see no reason to deny its genuineness. I cannot estimate its evidence as of equal weight with those parts of the Gospel which respect the ministry of Christ: St. Luke could scarcely have had such indubitable means of knowledge with respect to the events recorded in the Introduction, as he possessed for those which occurred thirty years after. But the diligent research, sound judgment, and faithful accuracy, which his invaluable writings shew to have been his constant characteristics, will not allow me to withhold my assent to facts which he has recorded, and which he obviously believed with undoubting credit, till better cause is assigned than the "fabulous appearance" of some parts of the things related. I am not without a perception of the difficulty attending some parts of the Introduction: but, taken generally, I think the history of great moment; and among the great objects which the events recorded would accomplish, were the strengthening the expectations which even then existed of the near approach of the Messiah; the preparing Mary to watch with pe culiar assiduity over the spiritual growth of one who was to be holy from his birth; and the training of Jesus himself to that character of mind, and in that culture of holy faith and obedience, which made him eminently fitted for the great work before him. The character of Jesus, as we know it must have been before his great work commenced from what we see of it afterwards, affords to my mind a powerful evidence to the general authenticity of the Introduction. The most weighty difficulties which have operated against its credibility, are those of a chronological nature; and they vanish when the Introduction to St. Matthew's Gospel is relinquished. Both accounts, as far as I can judge, cannot be true; but Luke's Introduction ought not to be attacked through the most incredible parts of the Narrative prefixed to Matthew's Gospel. This Chronos has done (p. 258); and in a manner which has none of the characters of "truth and soberness" to recommend it. Even if I could spare time, I should be indisposed to examine all the statements in the Letter and Postscript of Chronos, which I deem utterly unfounded; some of them appear to have been made to try the credulity of the reader; and the investigation of the rest is less necessary, because the randomness of the manner in which he argues and asserts is so striking, that few who are accustomed to think and reason on critical and theological subjects, can be so far misled as to take Chronos for authority. I SIR, LANT CARPENTER. EXPECTED much pleasure from the reply of Dr. Smith, and I was not disappointed. [See Mon. Repos. XVI. 354, and present Vol. p. 152.] The candour, the truly Christian spirit, the ability and research which characterise that reply, render it a pleasing specimen of the manner in which theological controversies should be conducted. But my admirable opponent has left unnoticed the strong parts of my letter. I therefore purpose in this paper to concentrate my views of the disputed passage in the Philippians, noticing as I proceed some of the positions advanced by the Doctor. Our blessed Lord, in his last journey to Jerusalem, laid before his disciples, in the clearest terms, the sufferings that awaited him: and farther to pre |