ment made at our Saviour's birth, without the utmost confusion or the utmost injustice. When the enrolment which St. Luke speaks of was made, Galilee, Trachonitis, and other countries, were subject to Herod, beside Judea : many who lived in Galilee enrolled themselves in Judea, particularly Joseph, as St. Luke assures us. But when Archelaus was banished, one half of Herod's dominions was in the possession of Herod the tetrarch and Philip, and had been so ever since the death of Herod called the Great: and only Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, which had been subject to Archelaus, were thrown into the form of a Roman province. The Jews having enrolled themselves according to their families at the time of our Saviour's nativity, and many having come into Judea, properly so called, from Galilee, and other parts of Herod's territories, a new enrolment was absolutely necessary in Judea at the time of Archelaus's removal, if they were to pay tribute there in the way of a census; Judea otherwise must have been very much overburdened. If there was an assessment of goods made at the latter end of Herod's reign, undoubtedly Joseph's stock at Nazareth was entered and rated at Bethlehem: and as the Jews in that part of the world were chiefly of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, the inhabitants of Galilee, and Trachonitis, &c. must have very generally enrolled themselves in towns that belonged to the province of Judea. But it would have been very unreasonable in the Romans to demand tribute of the people of Judea, properly so called, for estates and goods which were in the territories of the tetrarchs Herod and Philip.

And we are assured, that the Romans did use to act equitably and with great exactness in these matters. Many of the Roman citizens had been for a long time oppressed with the weight of their debts. A way having been found out, A. U. 402, to give them ease, Livy says, that the next year a census was ordered, because the property of many things had been altered.*

6. The solution 1 shall consider in the next place, is that which was first offered by Herwacrt: I give it here in the words of Whitby, by whom it is espoused. "And this taxing was first made (before that made) when Cyrenius

* Quia solutio æris alieni multarum rerum mutaverat dominos; censum agi placuit. Lib. vii. cap. 22. n. vi. vid. et cap. 21.

y Ut hoc loco genitivus Яyεμovεvovтoç vocabulo πọштŋ additus, vim comparationis efficiat, et perinde sit, ac si diceretur descriptionem illam esse priorem priusque factam, quam Quirinius Syriæ præficeretur, præfecturamque ipsius gereret. Herwaert. Nova et Vera Chronologia, Monachii, 1612. p. 189. • In loc.

was governor of Syria: or rather, This taxing was made. before Cyrenius was governor of Syria." The learned Kelera approved of this interpretation, as perfectly agreeable to the genius of the Greek language; notwithstanding which Casaubon rejected it, and was supposed by most to have confuted Herwaert's arguments for it. Perizonius, in his dissertation upon this subject of the taxing, has afresh supported this interpretation. Mr. Le Clerc, in his additions to Dr. Hammond's annotations, expresses his approbation of it; and has since declared, that he thinks it has been set in so clear a light as to be incontestable. And it is now embraced by many other learned men, both protestants and catholics.

C

I am very desirous this solution should appear here to as much advantage, as an argument so full of Greek criticisms can do in a design of this nature in our own language. Perizonius allows, that a great many of Herwacrt's instances are not to the purpose. I reckon, therefore, that it will be sufficient to represent this argument as it is drawn up by Whitby and Perizonius; especially if I take in by the by an instance or two, insisted on by others, though neglected by them.

6

Whitby says: I would rather read προ της than πρωτη. But neither do we need this criticism, since the words #pwTOs and POTEρos are by the Seventy oft used according to 'this sense; of the word "poτepor, this is beyond doubt, God saying twice αποστελώ σφηκιας προτερας σε, "I will send hor'nets before thee," Exod. xxiii. 28; Jos. xxiv. 12.-That #pwτos also is used in the sense of priority we learn from 'these instances; #рWтотоKоs cyw y ov, I am before thee, I am elder than thou ; και ἵνα τι εκ ελογίσθη ὁ λογος με πρωτος; Chal., "Why then was not the word first spoken to me?" Cur mihi non annunciatum est priori? 2 Sam. xix. 43; Isa. xlv. 16. "The former troubles are forgotten,” Gr. επιλησονται την θλιψιν αυτών την πρωτην, and ver. • 17, 8 μη μνησθωσι των προτέρων, they shall not remember the former." So John, i. 15, 30, оτ πρшτos μe ŋy,

66

"for he

Cum igitur omnium Græce doctorum judicio constet sic optime versum esse hunc locum Lucæ, multoque emendatius quam habet antiqua versio, spero omnes acquieturos hac solutione objectionis prius proposita. De Natal. J. Chr. p. 116, 117. b Exerc. in Baron. i. n. 32.

Ce denombrement se fit avant que Quirinius fût gouverneur de la Syrie. De savans hommes ont mis cette explication de ce passage de St. Luc dans un si grand jour, qu'elle paroît desormais incontestable. Nouv. Testam.

Interpretationem hanc primus protulit Joh. Georg. Herwaertus, multisque argumentis, vel potius exemplis, probare laboravit, sed in quibus non pauca attulit valde απροσδιονυσα. Periz. De August. Descript. sect. 21.

6

6

6

was before me." And chap. xv. 18," know that they hated, eμe #pwτor, nie before you." 1 Cor. xiv. 30, & πршτος, "Let the former hold his peace ;" and 1 John iv. 19, "We love him, оTɩ #ρwτоs, because he loved us before." And in Aristophanes, αλλ' εκ αν πρωτο is interpreted αλλ' εκ av TроTEрov Neph. p. 122. And so Theophylact interprets 4 the word here. Τέτεστι προτερα ἡγεμονευοντος, εγων προτερον η ηγεμόνευε της Συρίας Κυρηνιος.

Perizonius understands these words in much the same sense with Whitby; only he differs from him and Herwaert, in that they suppose πρωτη to be the same as πρότερα ; whereas he says, these numeral adjectives have the force of adverbs.

He alleges divers of the same examples which Whitby does, particularly John i. 15, and xv. 18. Of the latter, or εμε πρωτον ύμων μεμισηκε, he says, it must by all means be understood of priority of time: "It hated me before it hated you."

He supposes also that we have a parallel instance in a word of an opposite meaning, 2 Macc. vii. 41, coxaτη Twv υίων ἡ μητηρ ετελεύτησε. Last of all after the sons the mother died. In the same manner is pwтоv the adverb used in Aristophanes in avibus, v. 484. de Gallo; pxe Te πрWTOV Δαρειο και Μεγαβύζ», i. e. imperabatque Persis priusquam Darius et Megabyzus; vel ante Darium et Megabyzum.

Perizonius says, that the genitives that follow πршτоя are governed by an ellipsis, and that #pwтos μe is the same as

• Verus itaque meâ sententiâ verborum sensus est: Hæc descriptio prius, vel, ante, facta est, quam præsideret Syriæ Quirinius. Dissertatio de Augusti orbis terrarum Descriptione, sect. 21.

f Voluit autem Herwaertus πρωτη poni αντι το προτερα, atque hujus locutionis vi genitivum, qui sequitur, a тq πowîn, tanquam a comparativo, regi. Durum hoc plerisque visum. Ego rem aliter expediendam omnino censeam. IIporn simpliciter, ut adjectivum numerale jungitur verbo, quemadmodum solent adjectiva habitum vel modum rei gestæ significantia, tanquam si sint adverbia.- Sic plane Towrоç, verbis adjunctum, sæpe significat solam ordinis et numeri rationem, sine discrimine, pluresne sint, an unus, qui sequantur; atque adeo tunc non tam superlativi, quam positivi naturam induit, eandemque subit constructionem, quam devrepos, et seq. Ibid. sect. 22.

8 Vertendum omnino cum significatu temporis, me primum ante vos. Ib. et sect. 23. Ibid. Nempe genitivi hi non reguntur ab adjectivis, sed a præpositionibus, quæ per ellipsin sunt omissæ, sect. 24. IIpo enim esse particulam, quæ in istà locutione desideratur, et a quâ regitur genitivus, certissimum ex eo, quod ubi ellipsis nulla, et sententia plene ac integre exponitur, illa potissimum occurrit expressa. Apud. Anton. Liber. fab. 29. Και προ Ηρακλεως ἑορτη θυεσι Γαλινθιαδι Galinthias ibi optime dicitur merita fuisse de Hercule, et idcirco Thebanos in festo Herculis sacrificare Galinthiadi prius, seu primæ, ante Herculem-Sed et ipse Lucas Evang. xi. 38. expressit similiter то πро πρштos, ò de Papirais, inquit,

πρωτη.

πρωτος προ με, πρωτος ύμων the same as πρωτος προ ΐμων. Thus in Luke xi. 38. « He wondered,” ότι 8 πρωτον εβαπο τίσθη προ αριστε, "that be bad not washed before dinner." From this and another such instance he concludes, that the genitive is governed by #po understood, when it is wanting. This is the substance of the argument in favour of this meaning of this passage of St. Luke.

It has been thought by some to be an objection against this solution, that then St. Luke has omitted to name the person by whom this enrolment was made; but methinks this is a defect which may be dispensed with, if that be the only difficulty. For my own part I dare not absolutely reject it; but yet I am not fully satisfied that this is the sense of the words. I think myself obliged to review the arguments here offered by these learned men, and hope it may be done without offence.

Whitby's instances of the use of προτερος and πρότερον from the Seventy are not to the point, because the word in St. Luke is πpwτŋ. There is no doubt but pоTEроs, the comparative, is very often followed by a genitive case, and denotes such or such a thing to be before another; we want some plain examples of this use of πρωτος" nor is πρωτοτοκος eynov to the point, because the is wanting in St. Luke, and the construction is different. The example from Isa. Ixv. 16, only proves that #pwTos signifies the former and though pwn in St. Luke should be so rendered, the difficulty will remain in its full force. For then the sense will be, This former taxing was made when Cyrenius was governor of Judea." Nor can the #pwTos in 1 Cor. xiv. 30, or 1 John iv. 19, do us any service, for want of a regimen equivalent to what we have in our text; nor do I see what use can be made of the phrase borrowed from Aristophanes. The passage from 2 Sam. xix. 43, as it is quoted by Keuchenius, seems to me more strongly to support this interιδων εθαύμασεν, ότι » πρωτον εβαπτίσθη προ το αρισε" quod non primum se laveret, antequam cibum sumeret. Vides utrobique post πρωτη et πρωτον, ante genitivum expressam hanc præpositionem ; quod certo est indicio, ab ea etiam regi, quando nulla comparet, omissa per XX, sed tamen intelligenda: atque adeo explicandum etiam πρωτον Δαρεις, quasi dictum esset πρωτον προ Δαρεις ή απογραφή πρώτη Κυρηνιs quasi πρωτη προ Κυρηνικ. sect. 25. mihique idem est, ac si dixisset Lucas, non quidem προτερα ἡγεμονεύοντος, verum πρωτη προ ἡγεμονευοντος.—Sed nihil similius, quod ad constructionis et linguæ rationem, Lucæ verbis secundum nostram eorum interpretationem, quam locus LXX. interpretum Jerem. xxix. 1. οὗτοι οἱ λογοι, οὓς απέτειλεν Ιερεμίας εις Βαβυλωνα ύτερον εξελθοντος Ιεχονια εξ Ιερεσαλημ. Hæc sunt verba, quæ misit Jeremias Babylonem, postquam exiit Jechonias ex Hierosolymis, sect. 28. *Silentio tandem præterire nequeo, quod 2 Sam. cap. xix. 43, legitur, Et vir Israëlis respondit viro Judæ, et dixit,

k

pretation, than as it is quoted by Whitby, though I suppose he had his reasons for quoting it in that way; nor has Perizonius quoted this text, though he had Keuchenius before him. It is observable, that Isca is wanting in 'Grabe's edition of the Septuagint, as there is nothing answerable to it in the Hebrew his instances from St. John's gospel will be distinctly considered presently.

99

The first quotation in Perizonius [sect. 23.] which I shall consider is John xx. 3, 4. "Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together, and the other disciple did out-run Peter,' και ήλθε πρωτος εις το μνημείον, "and came first to the sepulchre." Which Perizonius would render thus: And came first, or before Peter; and says, that the meaning cannot be "came first of all," "рwтоs aνTwv, because Mary Magdalene had been there before. No, for certain, it is not, came first of all, because two only are here spoken of; and omnium primus is not properly said of two. But I wonder Perizonius did not perceive the proper ellipsis in this place, and which is very obvious, namely, To dvou, and came the first of the two. Perizonius does not deny, that #pwTos is used where two only are spoken of; nay, he contends for it. But because it is often denied,m and because his proofs appear to me not very clear, or at least not so fully to suit my interpretation of this text, I shall give two undoubted examples. Thus" Dionysius says, that Servius Tullius's wife was daughter of Tarquin the first, though there were but two Tarquins kings of Rome. Plutarch thus describes a restless uneasy mind. If he is a native of a province, of 'Galatia for instance, or Bithynia, he thinks he is not well ' used, if he has not some eminent post among his citizens. If he has that, he laments that he has not a right of wearing the patrician habit: if he has that, he grieves that he is 'not a Roman prætor: if he is prætor, that he is not consul:

Mihi sunt decem partes in rege, ubi LXX. de suo addere videntur, kaι πршTOTOKOG εYW nov, et etiam in David ego præ te: cur igitur me vilipendisti, et non fuit verbum meum primum seu prius (inter duos enim sermo est) mihi ad reducendum regem meum; quod LXX. vertunt, kai ɛk eλoyiσðŋ o doros p πρωτος μοι τε Ιεδα επιστρέψαι τον βασιλεα εμοι ; ubi πρωτος τε Ιεδα manifeste ponitur pro πρότερος. Petri Keuchen. annot. in loc.

δυο.

m

* Και εκ ελογίσθη ὁ λόγος με πρωτος μοι το επιτρέψαι τον βασιλεα εμοι. Πρωτος και προτερος διαφέρει πρωτος γαρ επι πολλων, πρότερος δε επι Ammon. de Sim. et Diff. ap. H. Steph. Thes. Gr. in Appendice. Ταρκύνιο θυγατηρ έσα τα πρωτε βασιλεως. Dionys. Hal. Antig. p. 234. v. 13. conf. p. 250. ν. 42. ότι Ταρκύνιο το προτερον βασιλευσαντος 'Ρωμαίων αδελφε παις ην. et p. 253. 10. το προτερον βασιλεως Ταρκύνιο θυγατη..