But be this as it may, there are other and independent grounds upon which it may be maintained, that the elucidation of the chronology of the Gospels

Samuel with the immaculate conception of Jesus; things in reality very different from each other. For whilst the miraculous conception of Isaac, and of Samuel was effected by the intervention of natural means, the immaculate conception of Jesus was effected without that intervention. The one was supernatural, the other only preternatural, and this difference in the nature of the thing will make I apprehend a corresponding difference in the conclusion to which it leads. What then is this conclusion? It must I think be confessed that the Trinitarians have sometimes pushed too far the consequences to be drawn from the fact of the immaculate conception, and have erroneously argued, as if, when that immaculate conception was once admitted, the deity of Jesus, the absolute coequality and coeternity of the Father and the Son immediately followed. But though the immaculate conception may not alone afford an irresistible argument in favour of the complete divinity of Jesus, it is yet tolerably conclusive against his mere humanity. For if Jesus was a simple man and nothing more than a simple man, there can be no reason in the world why he should not also have been a proper man, that is, begotten according to the common laws and order of generation. His extraordinary mission and character, like those of Samson or of Samuel, might be sufficient to account for the extraordinary circumstances which accompanied his birth, its proclamation by Angels and annunciation by a Star; but nothing less than an extraordinary nature can give a satisfactory reason for the extraordinary method of his conception. If therefore insist upon the simple humanity of Jesus, and at the same time allow the truth of his immaculate conception, we should seem to throw upon the Deity the imputation of having wrought, for no visible purpose whatever, a miracle unique in its kind, and extremely difficult in its proof, a miracle at once singular and unnecessary. In one word a different manner of conception indicates a different nature in the being conceived, and if Jesus was born of a purè virgin he must have been distinct from

we

every

is worthy of all the attention it has hitherto received. To preserve a general resemblance to the scenes and period in which the actions they record are laid, is a quality at once common to the Poet and Historian, to the writer of fiction and of truth. The leading features of any time, or place, or characters, cannot be mistaken, and may easily be preserved. But to extend the likeness to the minuter particulars is beyond the power of the most careful inventor, and intentionally to insert an apparent contradiction which it would demand the labour of centuries to remove is more than can be expected even from the most finished artifice.

every common man. Hence it appears that though the inferences, to which the doctrine of the immaculate conception leads, are not so precise as to decide the minor controversy which subsists between the Arian and Athanasian Creeds, they are quite definite enough to enable us to determine the great point against the scheme of the Humanitarians. Resting his opinion upon the numerous declarations of Holy Writ, the Arian or Athanasian, may maintain the angelic or divine pre-existence of Christ, even though he could be proved not to have been conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of a pure virgin. But when coupled with that immaculate conception and birth, those deductions obtain additional weight. The immaculate conception is a collateral and corroborative argument for the pre-existence of Jesus and his superiority to the rest of mankind. But whoever maintains the simple humanity of Jesus, must needs deny this immaculate conception, for in admitting the fact, he admits what is a strong presumptive argument against the truth of his theory. Humanitarianism and the immaculate conception are scarcely compatible with each other, a different method of conception usually indicating, as I have before observed, a different nature in the being conceived.

Such a proceeding would infallibly defeat the object of imposture which necessarily aims at immediate success. Whoever therefore shall be able to point out the method by which the harmony between the narratives contained in the two opening chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke may be clearly established, and the dates which they have separately assigned to the birth and baptism of Jesus be shewn to correspond with the dates assigned by the Roman and Jewish historians to the events with which they are connected, will have conferred an essential benefit upon Christianity and mankind, by precluding the use of a very favourite objection to the accuracy of the Evangelists, and affording at the same time one of the strongest examples of minute resemblance and undesigned coincidence.

Animated then by a sense of the united difficulty and importance of the chronology of our Saviour's life, I shall now proceed to lay before the reader the result of inquiries which with many necessary interruptions have occupied much of

my

attention for several years, in the humble hope of giving some degree of satisfaction to every Christian, and perhaps of becoming, through the blessing of God, the instrument of confirming the fluctuating faith and removing the sceptical prejudices of some inexperienced but inquisitive mind. But should my endeavours to ascertain the true

time of the birth, baptism, and crucifixion of Jesus be found upon examination unfortunately unsuccessful, I shall not after all my labours, and all my care, feel ashamed to confess that I have failed in that which so many men of greater talent and perhaps of greater industry have attempted in vain.

CHAP. II.

The Vulgar Era, and the Death of Herod.

THE Vulgar Era, at the 1819th year of which we have now arrived, is decidedly wrong, and has evidently been formed upon partial views and unsound principles. For by fixing the birth of Christ to the 25th of December in the 753rd year of Rome, it can scarcely be made to agree with 477. any of the other dates with which we have been furnished either by St. Matthew or St. Luke.

From St. Luke himself it may be probably inferred, and by St. Matthew (ii. 1.) it is both expressly asserted and circumstantially implied, that Jesus was born "in the days" and before the death of "Herod the king;" and under that name the Evangelists undeniably referred to Herod the Great, the duration of whose life and reign it is impossible to extend beyond the conclusion of the 751st year of Rome. The truth of this will

• Written in the month of August, 1818.