of latitude, being given also to the imperial procurators, such as Pontius Pilate, and even to the prefects who had the principal charge of any business. It is in this sense, perhaps, that it is here applied to Cyrenius (or, as Tacitus calls him, Quirinius), who certainly was not, in Herod's lifetime, president or governor of Syria. But, on this point, I do not find any difference amongst interpreters. As to the second, it is made a question whether ήγεμονευονTos ought to be understood as the genitive absolute of the participle, and consequently, as intended to express the time when the event mentioned took place; or as equivalent to the appellative yeuw, and serving merely as a title derived from an office which Cyrenius some time or other, either before or after, possessed, and being in the genitive as agreeing with Kuonviov, which is governed by anoyoagn. Those who construe the sentence in this manner, render it thus: This was the first assessment of Cyrenius, governor of Syria.' It is this mode of interpretation which has been adopted by Lardner; as to which I beg leave to offer to the reader's consideration the following reflections. It cannot be doubted that the participle present often supplies the place of an appellative; but in such cases, if I remember right, it is the uniform practice to distinguish it by the article. Thus it is, ὁ βαπτίζων, ὁ πειρά ζον, ὁ ἀναγινώσκων, οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οἱ κυριεύοντες. On the contrary, when the participle is used as a participle, and particularly when it is in the genitive absolute, it has not the article. Should it be argued, that it must, nevertheless, be a noun in this place, because it governs the genitive, and not the case, of the verb; I answer, that the same circumstance (not unusual in Gr.) takes place in all the examples shortly to be produced, as to which, there never was any doubt that the words were to be understood merely as participles in the genitive absolute. Secondly, No way can be more proper for attaining the sense of an author, in places where it may be doubtful, than by comparing those with similar expressions in other places of that author, about which all interpreters are agreed. Now, there cannot be a greater similarity in construction, than that which the beginning of the following chapter bears to the verse under examination: Ηγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ιουδαίας, καὶ τετραρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας, Ηρώδου, Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετραρχοῦντος τῆς Ιτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς ̓Αβιληνῆς τετραρχούντος—ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ ἐπὶ ̓Ιωάννην. There cannot be a greater coincidence in syntax than there is in the two passages now compared, insomuch that, if there be no ambiguity in the original of the passage quoted, (and I have never heard it said that there is, neither is there, notwithstanding the learned doctor's remark, any ambiguity in the original of the passage under examination. The similarity in both is striking, upon the slightest attention: The present participles in the

genitive, without the article; the first of the participles, nyeμoveúovros, the same in both; and all of these governing the genitive, and not the accusative; the occasion of introducing these circumstances also similar. Now it was never questioned, that the participles in the beginning of the third chapter are merely participles in the genitive absolute, employed solely for ascertaining the time when John's ministry commenced. I shall bring another example from the same author, which is also similar in every circumstance: Acts 18: 12. Γαλλίωνος δὲ ἀνθυπατεύοντος της Αχαΐας, κατεπέστησαν οἱ ̓Ιουδαῖοι τῷ Παύλῳ — When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection against Paul." This is no Hellenistic idiom of the evangelist, it is perfectly classical; Unazevovt av being often used by the Gr. writers of Roman affairs as corresponding to consulibus in La., for marking, by the names of the consuls in office, the date of an event or transaction mentioned. The remark, therefore, that names of office, and participles supplying the place of such names, do not always imply that the office was possessed at the very time to which the action or event refers, though certainly true, is not applicable to the case in hand. The words, expressed in the precise manner above explained, can be neither names of office, nor introduced for the purpose of supplying such names, but participles of the present, specially intended for fixing the circumstance of time. I cannot, therefore, admit this hypothesis of Lardner, (though at first inclinable to it), without infringing the common rules of syntax, and doing injury to the manner of the sacred writer; I rather may say, to his meaning, manifestly shown from instances in other places entirely similar. Further, had it been the evangelist's intention to signify that the register was made by Cyrenius, the proper expression would have been vло Kuonviov; for, in that case, it would have clearly been (what it must have been the writer's intention to represent it) the register only of the empire, tñs oixovμévns, executed by Cyrenius. One would think that the author of the Vul. had found the preposition in the Gr. MS. he used, as we read in his translation, "a præside Syriæ Cyrino." But some critics of the La. church, particularly Maldonat, reject the preposition as interpolated. Si. evidently suspects it, and observes that in the margin of some MS. La. Bibles, it is corrected in the notes called correctoria. Now, as this reading has no countenance from Gr. MSS. ancient commentaries, or printed editions, it is entitled to no regard; and if it were, the only difference it would make on the sentence is this: the present reading implies no more than that the event happened during the presidency of Cyrenius, the other would denote also that it was done by him, for nyeμovevovios, without the article, would still be a participle, and not a noun.

3 On all these accounts, I approve more the way suggested by

Wet. for removing the difficulty, by the explanation of the verb ¿yévero, than by putting the construction to the torture, to wrest a meaning from the sentence which otherwise it would never yield. It is certain that the verb yivsodai has, in the N. T., other senses besides the most common ones, ' to be,'' to become,'' to be made,' 'to be born,'' to happen.' And of those other meanings, less usual, but sufficiently warranted, the most applicable here is, to take effect,' to produce its ordinary consequences. An example of this sense we have Mt. 5: 18, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἕν η μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται; rendered in this version, "Sooner shall heaven and earth perish, than one iota, or one tittle of the law, shall perish without attaining its end." The last clause is to the same purpose in the E. T. "Till all be fulfilled." From the connexion of the verse with that immediately preceding, it is evident that the verb yivɛova is used in the one, in the same sense with πληρῶσαι in the other : οὐκ ἦλ θον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι, For the import of the word πληρώ oat in that passage, see the note in this version. We have another example in the same Gospel, 6: 10, γένηθητο τὸ θέλημα σοῦ, "Thy will be done;" that is, take effect, be executed. The same phrase occurs also, 26: 42. L. 11: 2, and nearly the same 22: 42, μὴ τὸ θέλημα μου, ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω. Again, Mt. 18: 19, our Lord, speaking of the request which two or three of his disciples shall agree in making, says, yevnoɛrai avtoïs, it shall be accomplished for them, it shall have the desired effect. I shall produce but one other example, 1 Cor. 15: 54, τότε γενήσεται λόγος ὁ γεγ ραμμένος, Κατεπόθῃ ὁ θάνατος εἰς νίκος: “Then that saying of Scripture shall be accomplished, Death is swallowed up of victory." Now let it be remarked, that, in the most common acceptation of the verb yivouac, a law is made, yivera, when it is enacted, not when it is obeyed; a request, when it is presented, not when it is granted; a promise, when it is given, not when it is performed; a prediction when it is announced, not when it is fulfilled: Yet it is in the latter only, though less common meaning, that the verb in all the instances above produced, is by the concurrent voice of all interpreters, to be understood. There is only one small point in which this solution appears to differ from that given by Wet. He, if I mistake not, retains the ordinary meaning of the verb yivoua, and, in defence of the expression, argues, that it is usual to speak of a thing as done by that person by whom it was finished, although it had been begun and carried on by others. But to say that a business enjoined so early by Augustus, was performed so long after by Cyrenius, or during his government, gives immediate scope for the question, Where was, then, the necessity that Joseph should make a journey to Bethlehem, to be registered with Mary his espoused wife, ten or eleven years before? And even if it should be ex

pressed that the business was at that time completed, it might seem strange that, in a country no larger than Judea, the execution of this order should have required so long a time. In the way I have rendered it, both objections are obviated: the register (whatever was the intention of it) was made in Herod's time, but had then little or no consequences. When, after the deposition and banishment of Archelaus, Judea was annexed to Syria and converted into a province, the register of the inhabitants, formerly taken, served as a directory for laying on the census to which the country was then subjected. Not but that there must have happened considerable changes on the people during that period: But the errors which these changes might occasion, could, with proper attention, be easily rectified. And thus it might be justly said, that an enrolment which had been made several years before, did not take effect, or produce consequences worthy of notice till then. This solution does not differ in the result from that given by Whiston, and approved by Prideaux, but it differs in the method of educing the conclusion. Amongst other objections to which Whiston's method is exposed, is, that if the sense of aлoyoan had been as unconnected with that of the verb anoyoάgouaι in the preceding verse, as he makes it, the historian would not have introduced it with the demonstrative pronoun, and said, Aörn ǹ άñoyo̟aqn, which plainly refers us for its meaning, to the verb, its conjugate, he had immediately used. This, upon the whole, is my opinion of this puzzling question. It is however proper to observe, that I offer it only as what appears to me a plausible way of solving the difficulty, without violating the syntax; but am far from having that confidence in it wherewith some critics express themselves concerning solutions which, to speak moderately, are not less exceptionable.

7. “ Laid him in a manger,” ανέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ. Bishop Pearce is of opinion, that by the word qárvn is here meant a bag of coarse cloth, like those out of which the horses of our troopers are fed when encamped. This bag he supposes to have been fastened to the wall, or some other part, not of the stable, but of the guest-chamber, or room for the reception of strangers, where Joseph and Mary were lodged in which guest-chamber, intended solely for the accommodating human creatures and not cattle, there was a manger, but there was no bed; and this obliged Mary to have recourse to the manger for laying her child in. What could have led a man of Dr. Pearce's abilities to adopt a hypothesis so ill compacted, as well as unsupported, it is not easy to conceive;perhaps a strong prejudice against the notion that the mother of our Lord should, on that occasion, have had no better accommodation than what a stable could afford. But in all such cases, the reflection ought ever to be present to our minds, that what we are inquiring into is not a matter of theory, but a point of fact; concerning

6

the evidence of which we shall never be capable of judging with impartiality, if we have allowed our minds to be preoccupied with vain conceptions in relation to fitness and dignity, of which we are not competent judges. If, along with sufficient evidence of the fact, there be nothing that contradicts the manifest principles of the understanding, or shocks that sense of right and wrong which is the law of God written on our hearts, we ought to be satisfied. For that there should be things astonishing, or even unaccountable, in transactions so far superior to every other object of our meditations, is what we ought in reason to expect, ever remembering, that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are our ways his ways. Mr. Harmer [see Observations, vol. i. p. 442. ed. 2d.] says, that as the horses in the East eat chiefly barley, they do not eat it out of a manger, as with us, (for they have no mangers,) but out of bags of haircloth, which are hung about their heads for that purpose. From this observation of bishop Pearce's, Dr. Priestley has drawn a conclusion in a great measure the reverse, to wit, that they were all in a stable; but that there is no mention of a manger of any kind, the parvn, on his hypothesis, meaning only 'stable.' That the word qάrun means 'stable,' or rather stall,' as well as 'manger,' is admitted. Manger seems to have been the original signification, and the other meaning, stall, to have arisen from a synecdoche of a part for the whole, as in La. tectum is sometimes used for domus, and puppis for navis; or, as in Eng. sail for ship. But abstracting from all other considerations, the words of the original are unfavorable to that philosopher's interpretation: ávéxhivev avtov év tỷ gázvy obviously implies, that this was the place wherein the child was laid, and whereby he was distinguished in point of place, not only from those without doors, but from those within. The Doctor has indeed attempted to give such a turn to the words, as may make v ty qάrvn relate in common to all the three preceding verbs, ἔτεκεν, ἐσπαργάνωσεν, and ἀνέκλινεν ; but, with what success, must be submitted to the learned. To mention the laying of a child, without saying where, is a very blank sort of information; and when the place is named, we expect it to be what particularly marks the situation of the child, and not what he has in common with those who thus dispose of him, and perhaps with many others. If Mary had borne Jesus in her house, would it have been natural to say, She brought forth her first-born son, and swathed him, and laid him, without adding a word, such as in a cradle, or on a couch, to denote where? But if, for explanation, it had been added simply in the house, or there, we should have surely thought the whole clause exceedingly superfluous: for who can suppose that she would have taken him to another house? It strengthens my argument, that the word garn occurs again twice in this chapter, and is always connected with the position of the child, xeiμevov iv tỷ VOL. II.

42