On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    Ability of the two accounts of Matthew and Luke relating to the miraculous conception , arguing and insisting that " the taxing by Cyrenius , ( ch . ii . ) is inconsistent witn history as deferred to the days of Herod , and that , the two accounts of Matthew and Luke are utterly irreconcileable . " The writer of this article must , however , be allowed to contend , that the inaccuracy and incongruity of those accounts is not so well established as the ingenious Doctor and many others would represent : on the contrary , he

    hopes to shew that they are perfectly consistent and correct ; arid in that expectation , it will be attempted to be maintained that the true signification of the first five verses of the second chapter of Luke , on which the question arises , is not that the decree of Caesar , or the journey of Joseph and Mary to be taxed , was when Cyrenius was Governor : nor is it asserted that the taxing during Cyrenius' governorship was in the days of Herod : for the supposition that all the events mentioned in these five verses are by the Evangelist referred to one and the same period is erroneous . The truth is , that four out of the five verses relate to preparations for taxing only , and it is the

    second verse alone which speaks of an actual taxing having been " made . " " This taxing was first made when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria , " and history accords with and sanctions that distinction ; for although the decree of Caesar Augustus was issued in the days of Herod , and although in the same days the people repaired to their respective cities to be taxed , yet it amounted in its temporary result to a record or registering of the people only , inasmuch as it was not practically acted upon by an actual taxing , either immediately or for a considerable period after : in fact , the " taxing

    was not made , " or in other words , the real levy of the tax did not take place , until Cyrenius was the Governor of Syria , and Herod was dead . Notwithstanding , therefore , it is stated in Matthew , that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the days of Herod the King , Mary having , according to Luke , gone thither with Joseph to be taxed ; and notwithstanding Luke states that the taxing was ^ first made" when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria ,

    at which time Herod was dead ; still there is not any contradiction , because two different and distinct eras are spoken of . One , the decree for taxing and the journey of Mary and her delivery in the days of Herod , and the other , the taxing subsequently " made" or carried into actual practical execution , in Cyrenius' governorship . Luke doth not say that the decree of

    Augustus , which caused the journey of Mary to Bethlehem , was when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria , but , on the contrary , it is to be inferred from his statement that it was in the days of Herod , for he introduces that decree by the words , " It came to pass in those days . " What days ? Why surely those with which he had just before commenced his history , namely , " the days of Herod , the King of Judea . "

    That the Evangelist , in his 1 st and 2 d verses , contemplates two distinct periods of time , may be argued from this , that if only one had been alluded jo , he would have said , " There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus , when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria ; or , Cyrenius being Governor of Syria ; in the same way as in the 1 st verse of the ensuing chapter he mentions the governorship of Pontius Pilate , in the reign of Tiberius . The words ,

    " This taxing was first made , " are wholly superfluous and unmeaning , if a different time from the decree itself had not been referred to : and , indeed , the 2 d verse is inclosed within parentheses , to mark that its contents are a digression from , and not essentially connected with , the regular chain of the nan » tive . The Evangelist might have omitted the 2 d verse , in which Cyrenitis is mentioned , without the least prejudice to his main object ; and , pro-

    Untitled Article

    17 i St . Luke's Gospel .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), March 2, 1827, page 174, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1794/page/14/