for a long time been regarded as rather a difficult one by Biblical students, has now, in the judgment of the learned Editor of the Quarterly Review, been satisfactorily explained. It appears that the persevering research and patient investigation of a German divine, who, as a classical scholar and exponent of Roman history, enjoys a high reputation in Germany, has been rewarded by the discovery of certain historic facts as recorded in the annals of Roman history, which go to prove that the Cyrenius of Luke's Gospel was twice Governor of Syria-first for a term of five years, commencing in the year 4 before the Christian era, when the Jews, according to Jewish law, under Herod their King, repaired each man to his own city for the purpose of being taxed; and secondly, in the year 6 after the Christian era, when Judea, being at this time reduced to a Roman province, was taxed according to the Roman fashion. Cyrenius, or more properly, according to the Roman form, Quirinius, was, according to this, appointed to the Governorship of Syria a short time previous to the death of Herod, the reigning Jewish King, and while Judea was still permitted by Augustus to be internally governed by Jewish law. And Quirinius having at this time levied the tax referred to by Luke, the time and place of our Lord's birth, as connected with this Governor and with Bethlehem, are alike accounted for. The expression of Luke, "This taxing was first made," evidently implies a subsequent taxing, or taxings, of a similar kind, and it is doubtless to the one subsequently taken by Quirinius, a reference to which is here made that Luke refers in Acts v. 37.

As the result of scholastic research, it is thus made to appear that the taxing or enrolment referred to in Luke's Gospel is identical with the enrolment of the inhabitants

and property of the Roman world, which is represented by the Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, as having · taken place under Augustus some years previous to the edict for an after enrolment as mentioned by Josephus. And as the discovery made by the German scholar, Dr. Zumpt, goes to show that Quirinius was Governor of Syria at the time of each enrolment, or collection of the tax, his first Governorship having extended over a period of five years, embracing the time of taxing to which Luke refers, this, with the reference made by Josephus to the second enrolment, is in this manner, quite reconcilable.

A reference is also made by the Quarterly Review to a certain inscription on a sepulchral tablet discovered near Tivoli, which is believed to also refer to the two-fold term of Government of Quirinius; but "the argument of Dr. Zumpt," says the Review, "is thoroughly convincing without it." It further remarks that it is a "complete success," and adds—“ Here is a difficulty which but some thirty years ago Dr. Strauss was gloating over and declaring to be entirely insoluble,—and now we behold it solved. Here we have another proof that Biblical studies are not, as they were once regarded, a stationary science, but like all other sciences, admit of progression and increase."

We may further add in reference to the solution of this difficulty, that the theory of Dr. Zumpt is adopted by Thomas Lewin, Esq., of Trinity College, Oxford, M.A., F.S.A., author of a "Key to the Chronology of the New Testament; that it is endorsed by Dr. McCosh, the learned and philosophic author of "Christianity and Positivism;" that it is sanctioned by the high authority of the present Archbishop of York, and also by the celebrated

E

author of a recent "Commentary of the Greek Testament," the late Dr. Alford, Dean of Canterbury.

A brief reference here to the old method of disposing of this "difficulty" will, doubtless, not be unacceptable to the reader. It appears that the original text will bear a varied translation, and hence various attempts have been made by learned and eminent critics to remove the difficulty. But the version of it as given by the learned Dr. Lardner is, in the judgment of Dr. Adam Clarke, and of the Rev. A. Barnes, the most satisfactory. In the Commentary of the latter it is thus given :-" According to his (Dr. Lardner's) view it means, This was the first census of Cyrenius, Governor of Syria. It is called the first to distinguish it from one afterwards taken by Cyrenius.'-Acts v. 37. It is said to be the census taken by Cyrenius, Governor of Syria, not that he was then Governor, but that it was taken by him who was afterwards familiarly known as Governor. Cyrenius, Governor of Syria was the name by which the man was known; and it was not improper to say that the taxing was made by Cyrenius, Governor of Syria, though he might not have been actually Governor for many years afterwards. Thus Herodotus says that 'to Marcus the Emperor were born several daughters and two sons,' though several of those children were born to him before he was Emperor. According to this Augustus sent Cyrenius, an active, enterprising man, to take the census. At that time he was a Roman senator, afterwards he was made Governor of the same country, and received the title which Luke gives him."

The explanation quoted from Dr. Lardner by Mr. Barnes is certainly very reasonable. He who when a Roman senator had been appointed to make the assessment referred to by Luke, had been also made Governor previously to Luke's

having narrated the circumstance; and hence it is that this first taxing, or assessment, as well as the one subsequently taken, was truly the assessment of this Governor. Other explanations have been given, but these to a candid mind, I am persuaded, will prove quite satisfactory. The difficulty above explained is the only one we have noticed, worthy of note, referred to in the whole of Renan's work; but if the intelligent reader would have every difficulty solved that may occur to his mind in the perusal of the Scriptures, he must, if he would act rationally, put himself to the trouble of consulting Commentaries, Scripture Harmonies, &c. Unless he does this, agreeably with the spirit of the Apostolic injunction, “Prove all things," he must necessarily remain in ignorance and uncertainty in reference to a great many apparent difficulties that may in this way be easily solved. Besides difficulties which are purely imaginary, we may expect to find many things in the Scriptures which, to the carnal mind, as the Apostle Peter says, are "hard to be understood;" and hence we are exhorted to take care that we do not, as do others, wrest them to our own destruction."

66

With regard to the apparent discrepancies which the Gospels are said to contain, Dr. McCosh, President of New Jersey College, Princeton, in his work on Christianity and Positivism," has some very excellent remarks. He says (page 256, and following):-" There certainly is not in these biographies that laboured consistency which we always find in trumped-up story, and which so prejudices all who are in the way of shrewdly estimating testimony. The writers are artless in everything; but they are especially so in this, that, conscious of speaking the truth, they are not careful to reconcile what they say in one place with what

they or others may say in another place. I admit that we have such differences as are always to be found in the reports of independent witnesses; but I deny that there are contradictions. Commentators may differ, and are at liberty to do so, as to the explanations which they offer of the apparent discrepancies. All meanwhile may agree in declaring that the difficulties arise solely from our not knowing more than the Evangelists have told us, and that they would vanish if we knew all the circumstances. To illustrate what I mean in a very familiar way :-One day, when passing along the streets of the city in which I lived at the time, I saw that there was a house on fire about half a mile off; and as I happened to have an official interest in a dwelling in that quarter, used for a philanthropic purpose, I proceeded towards the spot. Meeting a person who seemed to be coming from the fire, I asked him where it was, and he told me it was in a certain street. Passing on towards that street, I asked another person where the fire was, and he gave me the name of a different street. I asked a third witness about the fire: he told me he had been there, and it was nearly extinguished. I met a fourth individual a little way farther on, and he informed me that it was blazing with greater fury than ever. Had I stopped here, I might have been tempted to say, What a bundle of contradictions! one says the fire is in one street, and another that it is in a different street; one says that the flames are nearly extinguished, and another says they are increasing; and had I stopped it might have been impossible for me to reconcile the inconsistencies. But I had reason to be concerned about that fire, and so I went on, and found that all the witnesses had spoken the truth. The house was a corner one, between the two streets which had been named; the