claration from God, to put Joseph and Mary out of doubt, that the child was to restore the kingdom to Israel, and settle an everlasting dominion in the house of David, as God had declared by the mouths of all the prophets; and as the whole nation had ever understood them, and founded their expectations upon them. And yet, afterwards, when Zacharias the father of John, Simeon, and Anna the prophetess, came to prophesy the same thing, Mary was very much astonished, she kept all these sayings, and pondered them in her heart," but knew not what it would come to, or what such predictions should mean, though she had been let into the secret by a revelation from God before her conception. Matthew mentions nothing of this revelation from God to Mary by the angel, but places the whole credit of the story upon Joseph's dream, that which his spouse had declared to him, or should have declared, was true.

There is another remarkable difference between the pseudo Matthew, and Luke's annotator, which seems to discredit the whole story of Christ's being born under Herod. Matthew tells us, that soon after the nativity of our Saviour, Joseph, being warned of God in a dream, took the young child and his mother, and fled into Egypt till the death of Herod. But his emendator in Luke assures us, that after the parents had been at Jerusalem, and performed the ceremony of purification in the temple, They returned again to Galilee, to their own city Nazareth," Luke, chap. ii. 39, without the least mention of Herod, or any apprehensions they were under from him.

The genealogy of Christ in Matthew and Luke, supposes plainly that he had some natural descent, and that he was, as St. Paul affirms, according to the flesh, of the seed of Abraham, and descended from the fathers of the Jewish nation. But the story of our pseudo Matthew cannot possibly be reconciled with this.

Our modern chronologers, in attempting to justify this piece of false history, have been obliged to offer violence to Josephus, and give up all his historical and chronological characters with respect to the reign and death of Herod. And had it not been for such a prejudice, they could have found no difficulty at all in Josephus as to this matter. That he was made or declared king of Judea in the 5th Julian year, or in the year of the Julian period 4673, and that he died in the 42d Julian year, or the year of the Julian period 4710, would have been thought very plain from Josephus, had there been nothing else in the case. In the Julian year 42, March 13th, about three in the morning, there happened a great and remarkable eclipse of the moon, which is mentioned by Josephus as falling out a little before the pascha, when Herod's life was despaired of; and he died that year before the feast. This eclipse happened on the full moon before the pascha; and besides this, there is no other eclipse of the moon which can stand in competition with it,

within the time that Herod's death may be disputed; I mean no eclipse visible in Judea, or within the observation of that country.

You may here observe, that this supposed revelation from God to Mary by the angel Gabriel, was the declaration of a thing false in fact, though such hope or expectation had been deeply rooted and confirmed in the whole Jewish nation for near one thousand years, or from the time of the revolt of the ten tribes. For after this, all their prophets had promised and foretold the restoration of the kingdom to the house of David, and the perpetual duration of it in that family after such a restoration.

But Christ himself always disclaimed this Messiahship, and declined all the overtures made to him about it; and he would not be received and owned as that branch from the root of Jesse, who was to restore the nation to their ancient liberties and independency, as had been declared to them from the mouths of all the prophets.

When our Saviour came upon his trial before Pilate, he renounced this Jewish character of the Messias, and declared that he had never set up any such pretensions, that he had made no such claim among the Jews, and that though this was what they charged him with, and he must die for it, yet they could bring no proof of it.

But surely, had the revelation of the angel to Mary, and the prophecies of Zacharias, Simeon, and Anna, been now produced and proved, the evidence must have been very strong against him, and he had been justly put to death as an impostor and false prophet.

I know not what you may think of me, Sir, for the freedom of these observations; but I can assure you, that I am not at all interested in the matter, and therefore should not be sorry if the quite contrary should happen to be true.

You may keep this correspondence as deep a secret as you please, for I shall discover the subject of it to nobody without your leave.

I thought I could not talk to any man of greater impartiality and integrity, or who might be more likely to remove my scruples ; and therefore I shall beg leave to subscribe myself,

Sir,

Your most sincere friend,

and humble Servant,

May 10th, 1735.

T. MORGAN.

Sir,

Mr. Lardner answered:

Hoxton Square, June 17th, 1735.

I AM honoured with your letter of the 10th of May. It is a great satisfaction to me, that the Credibility, &c. has been so far approved by a person of your learning and acuteness. I know, that I did not willingly dissemble, or lessen any objections against the Evangelical History; and was in hopes I had removed them to the satisfaction of the attentive and candid, who will make but just allowances for the loss of ancient writings.

I shall offer a few things in answer to your letter, with a design of giving farther satisfaction, or receiving farther light myself.

You say, 'that any taxation, enrolment, or census should 'be laid upon the whole country, by the sole authority of 'Augustus, while Herod was king of Judea, and in high favour 'with the emperor, seems incredible.' I apprehend that this ought not to be thought incredible, considering the few remaining accounts of the treatment of dependent princes, or provinces. You indeed put it, in high favour :' but I have plainly shown, that Herod was for some time under the displeasure of Augustus. And it is evident from Josephus himself, that there was an oath exacted, and an enrolment made, at the latter end of the reign of Herod; an affair that answers very well to that mentioned by St. Luke.

But you say, the main thing is the authority of Eusebius.' This ought not to be so. For it is not reasonable to suppose that Eusebius was fully master of the state of every province of the Roman empire, almost three hundred years before his own birth, scarce of any one. A learned Englishman might be mistaken about the time of some governor of Jamaica, or even of Ireland, who had lived two or three hundred years ago. And it is likewise possible, that Eusebius, though honest in the main, might have some partiality for the evangelical history. Therefore he applied that passage, which relates to the taxation after the removal of Archelaus, to the enrolment in St. Luke; that is, he was willing to have St. Luke's history confirmed by a passage of Josephus, which makes express mention of Cyrenius and therefore he took that, relating to Archelaus or the time after his removal; but very injudiciously, to say nothing worse. For Eusebius, in that very chapter, places the birth of Christ in the 28th year of Augustus, after the conquest of Egypt, and the death of Antony. And according to all our gospels, Jesus must have been born in the time of Herod, or at least before the removal of Archelaus: how otherwise could he have been crucified under Pontius Pilate, after a ministry of

some years, which ministry could not begin till he was thirty years complete, or in his thirtieth year?

You think it incredible, that there should be a taxing in all Judea, in the time of Herod the Great. But how should there be such a one afterwards? when the land of Israel was divided; part made a province, part remaining under the government of Herod the tetrarch, and his brother Philip. And if the taxation, after the removal of Archelaus, affected the territories of Herod the tetrarch, you allow taxations of dependent princes. But indeed that census made by Cyrenius after the removal of Archelaus was not universal, (for all the land of Israel,) nor would it have brought Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem.

I see no good reason to call all the latter part of the first chapter of Luke a parenthesis; it is a part of his history, and is quoted by Justin Martyr, and other writers of the second century. Mary might keep some things and ponder them, and be surprised, though she had before had general intimations of them. Luke ii. 19, is one of these places, where she is said to ponder, and with good reason. The song of the angels, which breathes nothing but peace and good-will, the mean circumstances of herself and her son at that time, might well lead her to serious meditation. Again, ver. 33, Joseph and Mary had reason to marvel, when Simeon spoke of the nature and extent of this benefit, and went on also to hint the disgraces and sufferings of Jesus. Nor are these things contrary to those related in the first chapter, but only some farther explications of things there spoken by the same spirit, for the instruction of Joseph and Mary, and the forming them to a becoming temper and conduct. For, chap. i. ver. 75, the design of this blessing now vouchsafed, is said to be, that we might serve God in holiness and righteousness."

In all the gospels Jesus is the king of Israel, and the son of David. He no where disclaims these characters, though he was not such a prince as some fondly expected and imagined, and others maliciously charged him to be. Matt. xxi. 15. There were many at the temple, who said, "Hosanna to the Son of David ;" whom he justifies, though the Pharisees were displeased. Matt. xxii. 42, &c. he speaks of the Messiah as David's Son and Lord, so as to claim those characters to himself.

Though Luke says nothing of the journey into Egypt, it may have been performed according to the account in Matthew. The words of Luke amount to no more than an omission of that affair, without denying it to have been done. Such omissions are common in the evangelists. Don't you, Sir, plainly perceive many things related in St. John's Gospel, between the baptism of Jesus, and the time when the other evangelists begin their history of our Lord's public ministry?

In my Appendix it is largely shown that Herod died in the Julian year 42, or 43; I have not determined which; though I suppose the arguments there proposed appear strongest for the year 42. But the matter is of no great consequence, which of those two years be right.

St. Luke's words concerning Cyrenius, ought, by no means, to incline us to think, that he meant the census made in Judea after the removal of Archelaus, but rather the contrary. These words are a parenthesis, and you know, Sir, that they admit of various senses. Whatever is the sense of that parenthesis, it is probable that the design of it is, to distinguish the enrolment there mentioned, from that made after the removal of Archelaus. These things I submit to your consideration. I enlarge no farther upon them to a person of your learning and judgment.

I am, Sir,

Your humble Servant,

APPENDIX, No. V.

N. LARDNER.

REMARKS UPON SOME DIFFICULTIES CONCERNING THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

AS to the excellence and usefulness of the rules of christianity, several strong objections have been made. The substance of them is as followeth.

Obj. In the gospel there are many excellent precepts; but since they are the effect of heavenly inspiration, should not they have been rather supported with short and clear reasons, than delivered in the way of authority?

Ans. I. It cannot be improper for a person who has a heavenly inspiration, or divine commission, to speak sometimes, or even often, in the way of authority.

II. When our Saviour delivers precepts in the way of authority, the fitness of so doing may be perceived. Particularly, this is observable in the 5th chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, where he represents the design of his commission, and the nature of his doctrine. The Jews expected not a reformation under the Messiah, but great earthly advantages and great sensual indulgences. He therefore says, Matt. v. 17, "Think not, that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." The design of my commission is not to abrogate or weaken, but rather to confirm, strengthen,