with the internal peace and eternal blessedness which Christ proffers, may be gratified, we are far from denying it, he may be gratified; but he looks beyond all the promises of Holy Writ. So far as such a hope influences his conduct, we hesitate not to say he is actuated by an unchristian motive; and though God may gratify his worldly desire, he will certainly send leanness if not death into his soul. Trust in the Lord and do good, and verily thou shalt be fed." "The righteous shall not be forsaken, nor his seed left to beggary." Such is the tenor of the promise. Every true and faithful Christian may be sure of enough of this world's good, as much as will conduce to his highest happiness here and hereafter. Do you ask for more? Is not the life more than meat?" Is not the soul's peace more than all the rewards of ambition? Even the purer heathen philosophy got some glimpse of this; and Pope could write, "One self-approving hour whole years outweighs Of stupid starers and of loud huzzas; It is indeed written that "the meek shall inherit the earth." Under the Jewish dispensation worldly rewards were promised, if not to individuals, at least to the nation at large. Moreover, in the sense in which the prophet Habakkuk closed his sublime and glowing hymn of devout supplication, and in which David exclaimed, "I have a goodly heritage," it is true that the meek now and always inherit the earth. And whenever virtue shall everywhere prevail and selfishness be banished from the world, then in the fullest sense the meek shall inherit the earth. Meanwhile, in the actual enjoyment of all things, why should the Christian haggle for the technical possessory right? The time is indeed coming when "the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;" but that will be a very different order of things from the present; and he who, seeing the wicked prosper, complains that he has "cleansed his heart in vain and washed his hands in innocency," is as foolish and ignorant" now, as David was when he made the same complaint. Should any be disposed to find fault with Machiavelli or with us, as holding up temptations to vice, we beseech them to consider that Machiavelli can make nothing true by saying so. proper question concerns the truth of what he says. The only 1846.] Virtue its own Reward here and hereafter. 165 told the truth, why complain of him, and not rather that things are really so ordered and governed that such should be the truth? If this is thought to be dangerous doctrine, especially for the young, we confess we cannot see it so. If men will seek the world let them seck it on worldly principles. There are no other on which they reasonably can seek it. It can do no harm to show how ungodly, these principles are. Surely God was not manifest in the flesh, to teach the means of attaining such an end. Let men not delude themselves with the fond hope of transmuting the cross of Christ into gold, or of piling up the world's goods around them on Calvary. "He that thus seeketh his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for Christ's sake shall preserve it unto life eternal. And what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" This is the safe doctrine for the young and for all. Let men make their election. Let them sit down and count the cost; and not endeavor to combine in one monstrous system two things so incongruous as this world and heaven. Even "this world and heaven" is not the strict antithesis. It is rather the external and the internal. Virtue is its own reward here and hereafter. It seeks not the loaves and fishes in this world; neither does it seek any external recompense as its great object in the world to come. There is indeed a recompense promised to patient continuance in well-doing, no less a recompense than eternal life. Our Saviour said, "great is your reward in heaven." The truth is equally removed, on the one hand, from the overstrained and unscriptural doctrine of those who hold that all idea and hope of reward is destructive of the nature of virtue, even among imperfect beings like ourselves; and, on the other hand, from the preposterous doctrine of Paley, who makes it of the very essence of a virtuous act, that its motive should be the view of eternal happiness. But the end proposed by Christianity is so exactly of the same nature with the means, and the one so constantly and imperceptibly runs into the other, that they cannot really, but only figuratively or logically, be sepa rated. The polar developments of magnetism or electricity are not more indissolubly connected. Yet, in condescension to our weakness, and in accordance with the common usages of language and modes of human thought, Christianity often, and very properly presents them to us under a separate form. But in truth we know of no better life, no purer happiness, no higher heaven, which Christianity holds up before us as the reward of well-doing, than is involved and included in perfect holiness. It offers us no Mohammedan Paradise, no Indian isle of bliss. Unless perfect holiness have charms to captivate our hearts, we know of no heaven Christianity has to tempt us with. In short then, if men will have the world at all hazards; if, whatever it may cost, they are determined to join in the hot strife with men however unprincipled, for secular wealth, honors and distinctions; we say to such, we can indeed point out to you no road to certain success; you may be overreached and defeated after all your efforts, and the prize when obtained may vanish of itself or be wrested from your grasp. But, on the whole, as the world is, your shortest and surest way is to be ready to aban· don principles, debase your characters, sear your consciences, sacrifice your peace and destroy your souls. But, as you value your highest happiness here or hereafter, enter not the lists in such a contest. Let the world have its own. Let Machiavelli be right. Let worldly men pursue a low object by base means; the means are naturally fitted to the end. Let us not wish to deny, let us not envy their success. But let us seek for the approbation of a good conscience, for that "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord." ARTICLE VII. THE TRUE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH. Translated from Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien. Hamburg, 1843. By Rev. George E. Day, Marlborough, Mass. [The computation of time from the Christian era, universally adopted since the eighth century among Christian nations, is based upon the calculation of the year of Christ's birth, made in the sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus a Roman monk of Scythian extraction. That this calculation is incorrect, is now gener. ally admitted. The church fathers had only an uncertain tradition and differed among themselves. In modern times, Pearson and Hug, have placed the birth of Christ one year before our era; Scaliger, agreeing with Eusebius, two years; Calvisius Vogel, Paulus, and Süskind, agreeing with Jerome, three; Bengel and Anger, with Wieseler and the common view, four; Usher and Petavius, five; Sanclemente and Ideler, seven. The present essay, in addition to comprising the results of the 1846.] Introductory Note. 167 latest investigations on this question, is further valuable as a thorough examination of the credibility of two prominent events recorded in the gospels in connection with the birth of Jesus, both of which have been disputed, viz. the star in the east, and the census under Augustus near the time of Christ's birth. The former, Prof. Norton (Evidences of the genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. I. Notes, p. lix.) does not hesitate to call " a fiction," and even grounds his rejection of the first two chapters in Matthew, in part, on their containing what he calls such "a strange mixture of astrology and miracle" as "we find represented in the story of the Magi." Even supposing the star to have been an extraordinary meteor, it is difficult to perceive the force of this objection, unless indeed we first assume that the birth of Christ was a far less important event than the world has been accustomed to regard it. But if the ground maintained by Wieseler, in this essay in respect to the star in the east, is correct, not only are the objections of Prof. N. stripped of the semblance of plausibility, but the narrative itself, confirmed by undeniable astronomical facts, becomes a remarkable witness in favor of the genuineness of the two chapters, which it is cited by Prof. N. to impeach. It is only necessary to add that the author of the following essay is a native of Altencelle in the kingdom of Hanover, where he was born, Feb. 28, 1813. In 1836, he was appointed Repetent in Theology; in 1839, Privatdocent; and in 1942, Professor extraordinarius, in the University of Göttingen. The two other works by which he is known to the public are an examination of the genuineness of Mark 16: 9-20 and John xxi,1 and a treatise on the Apocalyptical literature of the Old and New Testaments.2 -TR.] For the sake of more certain progress, we propose to treat, in the first place, of the year in which Jesus was born, and then, to inquire whether anything can be definitely decided in respect to the month and day. Our first inquiry, then, is: "In what year was Jesus born? 1 Num loci Mr. 16: 9-20, et Jo. 21, genuini sint nec ne indagatur eo fine, ut aditus ad histor. apparitionum J. Ch. rite conscribendam aperiatur. Götting. 1839, 8vo. 2 Auslegung und Kritik der apokalypt. Literatur des Alten and Neuen Testaments, 1 Beitr. die 70 Wochen des Proph. Daniel. Nebst einer hist.-krit. Untersuchung über den Sinn, etc., der Worte Jesu von s. Parusie in den Evang. Götting. 1839. The first year of our customary reckoning of time from the birth of Christ, or the Dionysian era, agrees with the year 754 U. C., according to the reckoning of Varro, or 4714, Per. Jul. Dionysius himself, as Ideler, after Sanclemente, has shown, in his Manual of Chronology, II. 383, (to whose instructive discussion of our question I beg leave to refer the reader,) placed the birth of Jesus near the close of the year 754 U. C. Of more recent writers, even Hase, despairing of the credibility of the gospel narrative, agrees with the Dionysian reckoning. With this exception, the conviction of the erroneousness of this computation, is at present nearly universal. Let us review the grounds of its rejection, and inquire whether a better one may not be substituted. In our Gospels, we have four data, on which our investigation must rest, viz.; first, the reign of king Herod, (Matt. 2: 1, comp. Luke 1: 5,) the father of Archelaus, (Matt. 2: 22); secondly, the appearance of the star of the wise men, and their arrival in Jerusalem, (Matt. 2: 2, 7, 16); thirdly, the census in Judea, under Augustus, (Luke 2: 1); and fourthly, the thirty years of age, at which Jesus entered upon the Messianic office, (Luke 3: 23.) Only the first, third and fourth of these data were designed to possess a chronological character, and thus in this respect also Luke appears more distinctly chronological. According to the degree, in which these four data lead to one and the same result, must its value be estimated. Should it be supported by a whole chronological system with which the gospel narrative harmonizes, its truth would hardly be doubted. FIRST DATUM. Christ was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Matt. 2: 1-22. Luke 1: 5. But how long did Herod reign and when did he die? The historian Josephus, to whom, as by birth a Jew, special authority on this point belongs, informs us (Antiq. 17, 8. 1, de bell. Jud. 1, 33. 8,) that Herod died in the thirty-seventh year after the time, when by Roman influence (through Antony and Octavius, by virtue of a decree of the Senate) he was appointed king, and in the thirty-fourth year after the death of Antigonus, or the commencement of his actual reign. This appointment, which is mentioned in the Antiq. 14, 14. 5, falls, We reckon here and throughout this Article from the foundation of Rome, in order to have a fixed standard different from the year of Christ's birth, and by which the latter may be measured. The year of Rome (U. C.) can be easily changed into the erroneous but current year of the Dionysian era. 2 See his Leben Jesu, 3te Aufl. S. 49 sq., where the works on this question are cited, |