34.) He is now at the right hand of God,

The

which (to use their own and Epiphanius's words) the genea logy was taken away. This, it will be confessed, is making a tolerably large demand upon the complaisance of the reader; yet there remains still more occasion for his courtesy, if he will travel on amicably with the Editors even through the first two pages of their translation. The genealogy appears, upon the first view, to be a difficulty in their way, which they have themselves unnecessarily created. Ebionites they have produced, as their favourite witnesses, to ascertain what was the true and original gospel of St. Matthew. But the Ebionites omit the entire of the two first chapters of that gospel. Why then injure their evidence by contending for the genealogy, which they reject? The reason is plainly assigned. The genealogy, as it stands, may answer the purpose of proving, that Jesus was the offspring of Joseph and Mary: and, accordingly, the Editors apprize us, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates applied it to this use, and hence deduced the mere humanity of Christ. They proceed also to shew the reasonableness of admitting the genealogy to be genuine, on the ground, that "it can hardly be supposed, that an author writing for the instruction of Hebrew Christians would have omitted to trace the descent of Christ from Abraham and David, upon which they justly laid so great a stress." They then proceed to evince the like reasonableness of discarding all that follows the genealogy to the end of the second chapter. "This" (they say) 66 COULD NOT have been written by the author of the genealogy, for it CONTRADICTS HIS DESIGN, which was to prove, that Jesus, being the son of Joseph, was the descendant of Abraham and David; whereas the design of this narrative is to show, that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, was not his real father. This account therefore of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ must have been

making intercession for us: and (Hebr. vii. 25.)

wanting in the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, as well as in those of the Ebionites: and if the genealogy be genuine, this narrative MUST BE spurious." Thus, then, the whole matter is completely arranged. The genealogy must be genuine as marking the human descent of Christ from Abraham and David, a thing expected by the Jews: and by all who received it as genuine, the narrative of the miraculous conception, as contradicting its design, must be rejected as spurious. At the same time, lest we should imagine, that the force of this reasoning might have operated so powerfully upon those Hebrew Christians who received the genealogy and maintained the proper humanity of Christ as to induce them to take away the narrative which so directly contradicted the genealogy, in like manner as it is admitted others of them had taken away the genealogy itself, the Editors take care, in the very next note to assure us, that to that description of Christians "the account of the miraculous conception could not have been in any degree unacceptable:" 66 nor would it" (they add)" at all have militated against the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ, it being a fact analogous to the miraculous birth of Isaac, Samuel, and other eminent persons of the Hebrew nation." Thus it appears, that the history of the miraculous conception is itself something miraculous; for it at the same time contradicts, and yet does not at all militate against, the idea of Christ's human descent.

Now perhaps it may be doing no more than justice to these erudite and luminous commentators, to bring together into one point of view, the scattered lights, which have been here distinctly noticed; but which cannot fail from their combined brilliancy to shed a brighter glory upon the work which they are designed to illustrate.-1. The Ebionites and Marcion have omitted, in their respective copies of certain GG 4

He ever liveth to make intercession for us.

portions of scripture, passages, which are undoubtedly parts of the genuine sacred text; and the former (it is confessed) have actually taken away the genealogy from St. Matthew's gospel: the proof, therefore, arising from their omission of whatever relates to the miraculous conception of Christ must be received as decisive against that fact, although it is admitted, that the narratives of it, as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke, come attested by every manuscript and every version now ex'ant without exception.-2. The gospel of St. Matthew, as it is conveyed to us at this day by all the MSS. and all the versions, cannot be genuine, because it requires us to believe, that our Lord was born before the death of Herod; but we may admit as unquestionable the gospel of the Ebionites, which pronounces Herod to be living at the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, or about the thirtieth year after our Lord's nativity. Lastly, the narrative of the miraculous conception ascribed to Saint Matthew, must have been rejected by all who received the genealogy, as contradicting the design of the genealogy, which was to establish the human descent of Christ; at the same time that it is quite clear, that the fact of the miracu lous conception could not at all have militated against the doctrine of the proper humanity of Christ, nor consequently have been in any degree unacceptable to those who held that doctrine. Such are the new views presented at the opening of this Improved Version, which is to set every thing to rights in the Christian Scriptures. See pp. 1, 2, 3. 5. and also p. 121.

There are, moreover, certain chronological deductions con. nected with some of the foregoing observations, which I cannot avoid laying before the reader. Three pages back it has been stated, that the Editors contend, that the death of Herod must have taken place two years at least before Christ was

Now, as Mr. B. cannot allow to Christ the office

66

born. Their mode of establishing this point is deserving of some detail. It follows, they say, as a necessary conse quence from the death of Herod being placed (as it is by Lardner) in the year 750, or 751, U. C. Lardner, in the part referred to by the Editors (p. 129) had asserted, that "if Herod died in 750 U. C. he died three years and nine months before the VULGAR CHRISTIAN ERA; if at a certain time before mentioned in the year 751, then he died about two years and nine months before the said era:" and which is the truth, he professes himself unable to determine. (See Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 428). Our Editors, referring to Lardner (twice upon the same subject, at p. 2, and at p. 129.) contend peremptorily, that Christ MUST HAVE BEEN BORN at least two years and nine months, and probably three years and nine months, after the death of Herod:" and thus, in utter disregard of all the arguments by which the Vulgar Christian Era has been disproved, or rather with an apparent ignorance of the existence of any such arguments, they have at once assumed the vulgar and the true era of our Lord's nativity to be the same; and on this assumption, as in itself sufficient to invalidate the whole story of our Lord's birth as given by St. Matthew, they build the rejection of that story as an utter fabrication. They profess at the same time to ground their reasoning on the authority of Lardner; whose main object has been to establish the direct reverse of their position, that Christ "must have been born two years at least after the death of Herod";-inasmuch as, with great learn ing and sound argument, he has laboured to demonstrate the consistency of St. Luke's declaration respecting the age of Christ in the 15th of Tiberius, with the narrative of St. Matthew which places the birth of Christ about two years before the death of Herod. (Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 339-382.) That learned writer, however, in his Appendix concerning the

of intercessor, he begins with remarking, that

time of Herod's death, has, unfortunately for our Editors, in the passage above referred to, spoken of the Vulgar Christian Era as posterior to the death of Herod: and they, substituting for the Vulgar Christian Era, the time of Christ's nativity, have at once inferred the priority of Herod's death to the birth of Christ; and have adduced the authority of Lardner's name in behalf of a position, which Lardner has most triumphantly overthrown. A similar instance of careful reference to authorities, and of minute attention to the accuràcies of ecclesiastical history, is presented to us in the very front of this elaborate performance, which I cannot avoid adverting to in this place. The Editors, whilst dealing out in their Introduction large portions of that knowledge of manu scripts and the various critical apparatus for the translation of the New Testament, which Wetstein, Michaelis, Griesbach and others had already amply supplied, take occasion to speak of Ephrem the Syrian, as "a writer of SOME NOTE in the SIXTH century." (P. xiv.) In this at least they have thought and spoken for themselves: the commonly received opinion having hitherto been, that Ephrem flourished about the middle of the FOURTH century. that he was present at the council of Nice, in the year 325 ; and we are told by Jerome, that he died in the time of the Emperor Valens, that is, at some time before the year 379. We are also informed by the early authorities, that this same Ephrem, who is here so slightly glanced at as "a writer of some note," was a person of the most distinguished celebrity: a man, of whom Jerome says, "ad tantam venit claritudinem, ut post lectionem scripturarum publice in quibusdam ecclesiis ejus scripta recitentur:" who is described by Ebedjesu, a learned Syrian of the 13th century, "Ephrem magnus, qui appellatus est Syrorum propheta": who was even entitled by the Syrians," the doctor of the whole world ;" and who, in truth, with the consent of all who have hitherto made men,

From Asseman we learn,

66