him, and concerning a circumstance which must have been notorious among those to whom his writings were presented, his writings must have been discredited among his contemporaries, and he disgraced. Many solutions of this difficulty have been attempted; some of them fallacious. By learned men the difficulty is traced to a mistranslation. Dr. Lardner devotes many pages of his elaborate work to the elucidation of it, and most satisfactorily vindicates Luke from the commission of any mistake in this matter: his argument however is too long to be introduced here. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his comment on the passage, says, "One or the other of the two following, appears to me to be the true meaning of the text.

When Augustus published this decree, it is supposed that Quirinus (Cyrenius,) who was a very active man, and a person in whom the emperor confided, was sent into Syria and Judea, with extraordinary powers, to make the census here mentioned; though, at that time, he was not governor of Syria, for Quintilius Varus was then president; and that when he came ten or twelve years after into the presidency of Syria, there was another census made, to both of which St. Luke alludes, when he says, This was the first assessment of Cyrenius governor of Syria; for so Dr. Lardner translates the words. The passage thus translated, does not say that this assessment was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which would not have been the truth; but that this was the first assessment which Cyrenius, who was (i. e. afterwards) governor of Syria, made; soon after he became governor he made a second." This is the opinion which is advocated in a very masterly manner by Dr. Lardner. Dr. Clarke then proceeds to give the second way of solving the difficulty, which is his own, viz: "By translating the words thus: This enrollment was made BEFORE Cyrenius was governor of Syria; or before that of Cyrenius." He also says that some critics translate the passage, This enrollment was made BEFORE that of Cyrenius. Michaelis, and some other eminent and learned men, have been of this opinion; but their conjecture is not supported by any MSS. yet discovered, nor, indeed, is there any occasion for it. M. Gaussen, on the passage, says, "It is a parenthesis. According to the accent which is placed on the first word, it seems a demonstrative pronoun, or a pronominal adjective; and in this alternative the phrase must be translated literally in the first case by this first enrollment; and in the second case by the very first enrollment."

The same author says: "There is nothing, then, in St. Luke's narrative, that is not entirely natural and exact. After having spoken

in the first verse of an ordinance of Augustus, which began to be executed under Herod's reign, he apprises us, in the parenthesis of the second verse, that this enrollment must not be confounded with the too famous census of which all Judea still preserved such tragical recollections. "The very first enrollment," says he, "was made while Cyrenius was yet governor of Syria." This is the simple and literal translation of the Greek." *

Some Infidels have foolishly objected to the account given by Mark (xi. 11-14.) of Jesus cursing the fig-tree which had only leaves. They say, why curse the tree for barrenness, when, as it was not the season for gathering figs, it could not have been expected that they would be found upon it? But if it had been the season of figs, its barrenness could not have been determined simply from the fruit, of which it might already have been stripped. But the Infidel still objects, why punish it? the tree was not guilty for not bearing fruit. To this it is replied, the miracle was a type, and designed to convey to those present an instructive lesson, and the tree was no more unhappy than it was guilty, as its morality was not real, neither were its sufferings.

Notwithstanding that the New Testament Scriptures breathe a spirit of the purest and most diffusively benevolent morality, Taylor, and other Infidels of the same class, object against some of the writings of the apostles, that they countenance immorality. The following instance we give from Taylor. In Romans iii. 7. this passage occurs, "For, if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" This passage, Mr. T. asserts, recommends telling lies for the glory of God. That the true meaning of the passage may be seen, we transcribe the connection. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For, what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, and every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man.) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

* Gaussen, p. 120.

And not rather (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that good may come : whose damnation is just. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise; for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin."

The apostle is here debating with a Jew, and the passage contains his supposed objections, with Paul's replies. It may be thus rendered.

Jew. What then is the advantage of the Jew? or what the benefit of the circumcision?

Reply. Much in every respect; but principally in that the oracles of God have been intrusted (to the Jewish nation.)

Jew. Yet still, since some acted unfaithfully, does not their unfaithfulness abolish the credibility of God?

Reply. Far be the thought. But let God be acknowledged sincere, if even every man should be proved false, as it is written, &c. (see Psalm ii. 5.)

Jew. But what shall we say if our disobedience set in an advantageous position, the justice of God? would not God be unjust in inflicting punishment upon us? (I am speaking as some men probably would do.)

Reply. Far be the thought. In that case how could God judge the world?

Jew. Yet, if by my violation of faithfulness, the sincerity of God is displayed in a more glorious manner, why am I still condemned as an offender? and why should not the maxim be admitted?

Parenthesis interjected by the apostle in his own person.

(As we are calumniated, and some affirm that we say) that we do bad actions, that good results may come (of them.)

Reply. Whose condemnation is (peculiarly) just.

Jew. How then? have we the preference (over the sinful world?) Reply. In no respect.

Before closing this section it may be necessary to notice some of the other misrepresentations of Mr. Taylor, which by a certain class of Infidels in this country are seized upon with great avidity, and held up as unanswerable arguments against the credibility of the New Testament Scriptures.

1st. He asserts that Jesus Christ, according to the evangelists themselves, was not crucified; but that a metamorphosis took place between him and Simon the Cyrenian, who was crucified in his stead, while Jesus stood by and mocked at the Jews.

He says, "In the reading of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the insignificant, useless, and never again, or any where else, mentioned personage, Simon the Cyrenian, is lugged in, with no character to sustain, having nothing to do or say in relavency to the business in hand." Again he says, that "the plain and grammatical construction of the text, as it should be read upon a trial for murder, it should really appear that it was Simon the Cyrenian who was crucified." Again he intimates that there was a real mistake, or substitution of Simon (as he is called the father of Alexander and Rufus) is evidently implied by Jesus himself, in these words addressed to Simon; "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

Simon the Cyrenian was introduced for the following very natural and good reason. Jesus (as has already been shewn, as was customary with those who were thus executed) was obliged to carry the cross on which he was to be crucified; but being exhausted, partly by the unjust treatment he had just received, and partly by the weight of the cross, fainted and fell down under the cruel load.

And

Simon, who it appears was accidentally passing by, and who most probably was known to be attached to Jesus, was seized and compelled to carry the cross. Simon is mentioned by name, because he was the father of Alexander and Rufus, both of whom were persons who appear to have been well known to the first Christians. there is reason to believe that one of them was the Alexander mentioned in Acts, (xix. 33.) and the other the Rufus introduced as a resident at Rome, (Romans xvi. 13.) With respect to the ridiculous assertion that the plain and grammatical construction of the texts in either of the evangelists, purport that Simon was crucified as the substitute of Jesus; every person of common sense who is capable of reading the New Testament can judge for himself, and the conclusion of all must be that the man who dared to utter such an outrageous falsehood is utterly unworthy of credit in any statement he may make.

In Acts (xv.) there is the following passage: "Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. And seven days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them at Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed

asunder one from the other; and so Barnabas took Mark and sailed unto Cypress; and Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended to the brethren by the grace of God." Upon this passage Mr. Taylor founds an assertion that Paul and Barnabas did not "preach the same story," because, says he," they quarrelled so bitterly, and like all other good Christians, never have been reconciled."

The dissension which took place between Paul and Barnabas was not a bitter quarrel ;" and so far from their never having become reconciled, they subsequently co-operated with great cordiality. That dissension, so far from proving that they did not "preach the same story," implies the strongest proof that they did. It shows that they both preached the truth; for their conduct proves that they had no fear for their cause. Had they been impostors, necessity would have compelled them to have reconciled the difficulty; for then it would have required close combination, and mutual aid to support their fraud. But they knew their cause to be of such a nature that it required no collusion, and feared no disclosures.

The fact that there was a contention between Paul and Barnabas does not imply anger or ill will on either side. It is true they differed in opinion with regard to the necessity of taking Mark on the proposed mission; they were strenuous, each in support of the course he had adopted. Paul's reason for not thinking it good to take Mark with them, as assigned in the text, was that he had departed from them when in Pamphylia..

Mark was the nephew of Barnabas, and when he departed from them, it is probable he went to see his pious mother Mary, at Jerusalem, and Peter, to whom he is supposed to have been much attached; or, as some learned men maintain, because he shrunk from labors and dangers, which, they say, is not obscurely intimated in the original, where it is said he went not with them to the work. Be this at it may, Paul, who respected no man's person, appears to have been displeased at his conduct on that occasion, and being fearful of his constancy, would not agree that he should accompany them. But Barnabas feeling an attachment for his near kinsman, and being a very gentle and kindly disposed man, wished again to take him on their journey.

Mark himself appears to have been benefited, and the interest of Christianity to have been promoted by Paul's severity on that occasion; for, by his admonitions, Mark became for the future more courageous, and the Gospel of Christ was thereby preached at the same time in different places, and so became more extensively propagated.