bach maintained that Marcion compiled a work of his own, for the service of his system and the use of his followers, from the writings of the Evangelists and particularly of Luke.* "That Marcion used St. Luke's Gospel at all," says Bishop Marsh, "is a position which has been taken for granted without the least proof. Marcion himself never pretended that it was the Gospel of St. Luke; as Tertullian acknowledges, saying, Marcion Evangelio suo nullum adscribit autorem.' (Adv. Marcion. lib. iv. cap. 2.) It is probable, therefore, that he used some apocryphal Gospel, which had much matter in common with that of St. Luke, but yet was not the same."+

* Griesbachii Hist. Text. Gr. Epist. Paul, p. 92.

† Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. part ii. p. 159. Dr. Loeffler has very fully examined the question in his dissertation, entitled, Marcionem Paulli Epistolas et Lucæ Evangelium adulterasse dubitatur; Franckfort on the Oder, 1788. The conclusions of his minute investigation are, that, (1.) The Gospel used by Marcion was anonymous: (2.) Marcion rejected all our four Gospels, and maintained the authenticity of his own in opposition to them (3.) His followers afterwards maintained that Christ himself and Paul were the authors of it: (4.) Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius had no reason for regarding Marcion's Gospel as an altered edition of Luke's; and their assertion is a mere conjecture resting upon none but frivolous and absurd allegations: (5.) The difference of Marcion's Gospel from Luke's is inconsistent with the supposition: (6.) There are no just grounds for believing that Marcion had any pressing motives to induce him to adopt a garbled copy of Luke; and the motives assigned by the fathers are inconsistent and selfdestructive.

Thus it appears that the Calm Inquirer and Annotator has not in this instance preserved due accuracy in his statements.

He goes on to say, "From Luke iii. 1, compared with verse 23, it appears that Jesus was born fifteen years before the death of Augustus, that is at least two years after the death of Herod: a fact which completely falsifies the whole narrative contained in the preliminary chapters of Matthew and Luke." Thus precipitately, not to say profanely, does this writer rush to conclusions, on a topic which has exercised the laborious industry, not only of orthodox critics and commentators, but of writers as unbelieving as himself, yet more learned and more calm. "It is wonderful," says the judicious and elegant Ernesti, that more reverence is often paid to the books of men, than to the book of God. In the former, if difficulties and seeming discrepancies occur, correction or conciliation is sought for, as if the writers were incapable of error: but if such are discovered in the latter, the opportunity is seized for cavilling either at the writers or at their matter itself."*

Every one, who has attended to the subject of ancient chronology, is aware that there is no

* Admirandum est plus reverentiæ tribui libris humanis quàm divinis. Nam in illis, de antiquis loquimur, cum aliquid ejusmodi incidit, correctio aut conciliatio quæritur, velut avauáρryta fuerint; in his occasio arripitur carpendi vel scriptores vel doctrinam ipsam. J. A. Ernesti Instit. Interp. N. T. p. 13.

point in relation to which so great difficulties occur, as the adjusting of the notes of time which are found in the Greek and Latin historical writers. They had no conception of that perfect accuracy in dates which the close researches of modern times cause us to feel the want of: and, had they perceived the necessity, they had scarcely the means, from the defect of established epochs, and from many other causes, of answering the purpose. Many difficulties from this cause occur which have appeared to the most patient critics absolutely insuperable except by cutting the knot. It requires exquisite caution to construct any positive argument upon such grounds.

Lardner has treated this subject in his usual minute and circumstantial manner, and has shewn that it may be maintained on just grounds; that, by "the fifteenth year of the government* of Tiberius Cæsar," Luke might intend the fifteenth from his being associated with Augustus as colleague in the empire ;+ and that the phraseology, "Jesus was about thirty years old when beginning [his ministry,]" may be to an age two or three years the round sum mentioned.‡ poses to understand 'agyóuevos

properly applied over, or under, Campbell Campbell proin the sense of

*'Hyeμovía is a more general term than reign, and is applicable to any kind of rule or presidency.

+ Filius, COLLEGA imperii, consors tribunitiæ potestatis adsumitur. Taciti Annal. i. 3.

Credib. Part I. Book II. ch. iii.

UTOTασσóμevos in chap. ii. 51. but, I apprehend, without any sufficient authority. "In this passage, however," says a learned and laborious modern critic, "the use of the adverb wore clearly shews that nothing can be with certainty determined with respect to the year of Christ's age, at the time of his baptism and his entrance on his public ministry."

"If the relation given of the miraculous conception were true, it is utterly unaccountable that these extraordinary events should have been wholly omitted by Mark and John, and that there should not be a single allusion to them in the New Testament, and particularly that in John's history, Jesus should be so frequently spoken of as the son of Joseph and Mary, without any comment, or the least hint that this statement was erroneous."+ This objection carries a plausible front: but we ask a fair attention to the following considerations.

The fact in question was of the most private and delicate nature possible, and, as to human attestation, it rested solely on the word of Mary herself, the person most deeply interested. Joseph's mind was satisfied with regard to her honour and veracity, by a divine vision, which,

* "Hic verò ipse usus adverbii reì luculenter docet, nihil certi definiri posse de ætatis Christi anno quo baptizari se siverit, quove doctoris publici partes agere cœperit." Kuinal (Prof. Theol. in Acad. Gisensi, i. e. Giessen in Hesse Darmstadt.) Comm. in Libros Histor. N. T. Lips. 1817; vol. ii. p. 357.

in whatever way it was evinced to him to be no delusion, was still a private and personal affair. But this was not the kind of facts to which the first teachers of Christianity were in the habit of appealing. The miracles on which they rested their claims were such as had multiplied witnesses to attest them, and generally enemies not less than friends. Here then, we see a reason why Jesus and his disciples did not refer to this circumstance, so peculiar and necessarily private. The account in Matthew had probably been transmitted through the family of Joseph and Mary, and that in Luke through the family or intimates of Zacharias and Elizabeth; a supposition which furnishes a reason why the two narratives contain so little matter in common. The same reason will account for the absence of reference to this miracle in the epistolary writings of the New Testament, if that absence be admitted to the fullest extent: for there is, at least, one passage which appears to carry an implication of the fact. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in explaining the symbolical representations by which it pleased the Holy Spirit, under the former dispensation, to prefigure the blessings of Christianity, seems to put the interior sanctuary, or "holy of holies," as the sign of the heavenly state; and the outer tabernacle as that of "the flesh," or human nature of the Messiah. As the Aaronical high-priest, on the great anniversary of expiation, was first to officiate in the tabernacle, offering the sacrifices.