and 13th March, it would involve, by analogy with the modern instance, an autumnal eclipse on the 16th September preceding; and as that was the very period of the year when the day of expiation" fell, with which the events related by Josephus in connexion with that eclipse are associated, by an incident there related; it seems there can be no doubt of the correctness of this view of the subject.

The Birth of Our Lord.

Whatever doubts may have grown up from modern controversy as to the age of our Lord, one would think that "that year" in which his birth happened must have been quite undisputed among the early Churches. It was undoubtedly in the year of "The taxing," which was made towards the end of Herod's life, but put in force by Cyrenius ten years after his death; that is, immediately after the deposition of Archelaus. "The Consular

Year" of this assessment could not fail to be popularly known, for it must have been cited in every levy that was made of the new tribute. The record of that assessment was in fact long referred to by the Christian apologists, as existing in the public archives at Rome. Justin Martyr does so to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, and Tertullian does so in his treatise against Marcion. It seems impossible therefore, that the designation of the consular year of that birth could ever have been mistaken; and though we only find one historical mention of it by its consular designation, as far as we know, which is in the history of Sulpicius Severus; it seems under such circumstances, that that authority, as recording a popular undisputed tradition about which no difference could exist, ought to satisfy us. Now this writer distinctly states "that it was in the consulate of Sabinus and Rufinus that Christ was born." The rest of his testimony is not trustworthy, but that fact as to the names of the consulate could not err. Sulpicius adds, that it was "on the 8th day before the calends of December," which answers to the 25th December. This day also has been objected to by modern commentators, and a great many others suggested in its place; but the early fathers received it as part of the evidence which had been derived from the Roman archives: and Tertullian's reference to that authority is quite unexceptionable on the subject, since it had nothing to do with any controversy as to the period of our Lord's birth; but was used simply to satisfy his antagonist Marcion, that our Lord

See Josephus' Antiq., b. xvii., 6, 4; and Whiston's Note.

e Hist. Sacr., lib. ii., c. 27.

was born into the world in the ordinary way, and was "entered" in that registration as other children of his own village were. We shall be content, therefore, notwithstanding Scaliger's and his followers' hypothesis-that the birth happened about the autumnal equinox-to regard the day and month as that which the old churches received; viz., the 25th December, and the year as the consular year of Sabinus and Rufinus.

This consulate stands next before that of "Lentulus and Messala;" under which, in the spring, the death of Herod took place; and that year is called by Josephus, "the 34th year of Herod's reign, after he had procured Antigonus to be slain." It is plain, the preceding year of Sabinus and Rufinus, by the same reckoning, would therefore be the 33rd year of his reign from the same epoch:-accordingly we find it so stated by Sulpicius Severus in the place above cited,-" under Herod in the 33rd year of his reign, Christ was born; Sabinus and Rufinus being consuls; on the 8th day before the calends of January."

Beginning of John Baptist's Ministry.

We take of course the authority of St. Luke as irrefragable, that this ministry took its commencement in the 15th year of Tiberius; and that that computation dates from the adoptive title of that emperor, three years before the death of Augustus. In our former paper of January, 1856, we gave reasons for concluding that this 15th year of Tiberius could not have had an earlier inception than the month of October, in the consulate of Agrippa and Lentulus; three years and five months before the 25th March in the consulate of the two Gemini, which was the period of our Lord's crucifixion. That conclusion, however, was as to the possible, rather than the probable epoch; for it proceeded on the possibility of the adoptive acts, by which Tiberius and Germanicus were promoted, the one to the purple and the other to the consulate, having taken place immediately after the return of the two generals from Germany in the month of September of that year.

The probable date of those occurrences would undoubtedly be at the beginning of the next consular year; when Germanicus took his new office of consul upon him, and was so prepared to hail the new associate of the empire, according to the wish of Augustus. The difference is only three months; but we may regard the latter as the true epoch of the adoptive accession; viz., the 1st January of the consulate of " Gætulicus and

d Tertul. adv. Marcion, 1. iv., c. 17.

e See J. S. L. of that date, p. 264.

Sabinus ;"-the 66th of the 69 consulates under consideration. By that course, the commencement of John's ministry would be confined to some period within that year, whose commencement was 3 years and 3 months before the death of our Lord Christ. It could not either be earlier than the commencement of that year, or after the day of the anniversary of Augustus' death in the preceding one, that Pontius Pilate could have arrived as procurator" in Judæa. For this consulate of "Gætulicus and Sabinus is the 12th in number from that of the two Sexti, in which Augustus died; making 11 full years up to the 19th August of that antecedent year. But 11 years was the period of the government of Gratus, the predecessor of Pilate; who took the government from Annius Rufus by the gift of Tiberius, immediately after Augustus' death. Josephus's account of these changes is very precise: "Tiberius was now, on the death of Augustus, the third emperor, and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judæa, and to succeed A. Rufus; and Gratus having fulfilled his service, went back to Rome after he had tarried in Judæa 11 years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.f

The meaning is, to the 12th year; and we may assign therefore the coming of Pilate with great probability to the beginning of that consular year, which was the 12th of Gratus; namely, the year of Gætulicus and Sabinus, or the same in which John's ministry began.

Josephus again relates that Pontius Pilate was 10 years in Judæa; and taking this also to mean to the 11th year, it tallies exactly; for Pontius Pilate was deposed by Vitellius the governor of Syria for extortion and cruelty, and this evidently happened early in the year, which must have been his 11th year; for being ordered to hasten to Rome, he found Tiberius dead. The period of his departure is plainly shewn by the history; which states that Vitellius immediately after he had dismissed Pilate to Rome, went up to the Jews' Feast of the Passover at Jerusalem, and remitted the obnoxious taxes Pilate had imposed. It is clear, therefore, Pilate was sent off early in the month of March of his 11th year, and found Tiberius dead on the 26th March; and that Vitellius made his visit to the Feast in the same month.

We say, there were probably nine consulates only from that of Gætulicus and Sabinus to that of Proculus and Nigrinus, in which year Tiberius died. On this point our authority Dio fails us towards the close of his list, if our supposition is correct; since

f Joseph. Antiq., b. xviii., c. ii., § 2.

he makes the consular successions in that interval to be eleven. The length of Tiberius' reign is however one of the "vexed questions;" for the Chronicon Paschale supplies a list of no less than twelve consulates, after that of Gætulicus and Sabinus to Tiberius' death.

Notwithstanding the assigned break in the annals of Tacitus, it is quite plain he omits two of the usually inserted consulates in that period; namely, that of Vinicius and Longinus, and Tiberius and Sejanus; being the two next in Dio's list after the two Gemini; for he assigns the marriage of Caligula, which Dio dates under the consuls Gallus and Nonianus, to a date two years earlier. This cannot be accounted for, except by a reduced scale of the consular list.

Victorius, another writer of undoubted credit as to the later successions, also omits two consulates, though not the same as Tacitus. They are those of Domitian and Scribonianus and of Galba and Sulla, being the two which succeed those omitted by Tacitus.

It seems clear that these double pairs of doubtful entries are the original and substitutional consulates of two years only entered both by Dion Cassius and those who follow him; but of which Victorius and Tacitus have preserved only the proper order of succession, though in a different way;-Victorius having preserved the original or proper consuls of the year, and Tacitus those who were the substituted consuls of the same year.

These entries follow thus, from Dion Cassius:

On the first number we must speak hypothetically; but of Tiberius and Sejanus history is clear, that Tiberius resigned his consulate on the 15th May, when Corn. Sylla was substituted in his place; and that Sejanus vacated his by his death in the month of October. It cannot be doubted that No. 73 are these substituted consuls. The finding the names of Vinicius and Longinus repeated in 72 by Cassiodorus, is a convincing proof also that those two consulates were also of the same year; of

9 Annales, lib. vi., 20.

which Dio has inserted, as in the other case, the substituted consuls. Cassiodorus kept to the old names, from some difficulty he found in inserting new ones; probably, because he had evidence that those names were not the names of the original consuls of the year, but substitutional names. There are other reasons for supposing these eight consulates of Tiberius, after that of the two Gemini, not to be depended upon; one is, that Dio assigns the consulate of Tiberius 20th year to Aulus Vitellius and Fabius Persicus, and in his history states, that the consuls of that year were put to death by Tiberius for assuming to celebrate that 20th year of his reign in a way which implied the ceremonial of a decennial confirmation of the empire. A mistake that needs not much refutation, since Aulus Vitellius lived to reign as emperor in the place of Tiberius, 30 years afterwards.

The best direct authorities shew that the years of Tiberius' reign are over estimated. Clemens of Alexandria, at the close of the 2nd century, writes that Augustus reigned 43 years, and Tiberius 22; which tallies with the consular list we have given, with an addition of 6 years beyond the year of our Lord's death. For we make 69 consulates, or 68 years from Herod's accession to that year in which our Lord was crucified, including that year; -and 6 years more will make the period 74 years; so that, as Herod's election by the senate was 9 years before the year of the Battle of Actium, from which or the succeeding December the reign of Augustus was counted, that deducted from the 74 years will give the 65 years, which is the total sum of the two reigns, according to Clemens' authority. It is plain Clemens himself held the opinion, that that was the true account of the matter; for he adds, that "some compute the time of these emperors thus: Julius Cæsar 3 years and 4 months, Augustus 46 years and 4 months, and Tiberius 26 years and 6 months :". -a computation we shall not pretend to explain.

With respect to the reign of Tiberius from the death of Augustus, we think the succession of the Syrian deputies, as stated by Josephus, is the best authority that can be found on that particular point; and it is in perfect agreement with that of Clemens:—that Tiberius appointed Gratus, who held the government 11 years and was succeeded by Pontius Pilate, who held it 10 years and was sent away hastily to Rome at the end of his time on a charge of oppression, and found Tiberius just dead on his arrival at Rome. It is impossible, if that statement is true, that the reign of Tiberius could have exceeded 22 years: it probably did not fully attain that period.

It may appear difficult to conceive that historians could have distributed events over seven years which were the true fruit of