11-3
LIBEAEY |
||
OF THE |
||
Theological Seminnry, |
1 |
|
PRINCETON, N. J. |
||
Case, \Z> C^C Diyjsio: SiM^..jLi^fcS.^wLSectionXwi |
||
Book, v,.i.;. z No... |
||
i |
r
& ■* '^;j, ^y:^ ;>\ ^
^i ;
s.
•A
* ■
>*> *\ V .,\v.* , A
i * • s
V «
v v
* " V*v -*£ '*■
..>
* <
k/v~ /dndndf
THE
CREDIBIL IT Y
OF THE
Gofpel Hiftory :
O R, T H E
FACTS
Occasionally mention'd in the
NEW TESTAMENT;
Confirmed by Passages of
Ancient Authors
Who were contemporary with our
Saviour or his Apostles, or lived near their Time.
With an Appendix concerning the Time of Herod's Death.
__ i • >.
V O L. II.
By Nathaniel Lardner.
LONDON:
Printed for ] o h m Chandler at the CrossKeys :), the Poultry. 1717.
;
THE
CONTENTS
BOOK II.
\HRE E Objections a. gainft Luke, ch.ii. v. i, 2. Pag. i.
Chap. II. Two Ob- jections taken from the jilence of Jofe- phus. 189
Chap. III. An Objection againft the fif- teenth year of Tiberius compared with the age of Jefus at his Baptifm. 201 Chap. IV. Of Annas and Caiaphas. 3 do Chap. V. Of the different names given to Herodias'^ firft husband by the Evange- lifis and Jofephus. 3 1 5
Chap. VL
The C O N T E N T S.
Chap. VI. Of Zacharias the fon of Ba- rachias. 334
Chap. VII. Of Theudas. 352
Chap. VIII. Of the Egyptian Impojior. 371 The Conclufion* 381
An Appendix concerning the time of He- rod V death. 388
ERRATA.
AGE 1 to. 1. 3. from the bottom of the page, for Ghtiri- nius read 6hiirinu<. 12.6. 1 14. for ngo i? r. x^erS. 129. J. 10. after Saint r. Luke. 144. in the margin for Deur. x.Numb. 145. 1* 1. for this cafe, r. this rule in this cafe. 25-5. 1. 6.. for Antomnies. r. Antomnes. 285-. 1. 10. for P/£> r. Pj/o. p. 376. 1. 1 5. for w>0«/</ read // wo«W. In the Notes p. 2,6. l.i. for ^!)WTTa,«(j^ r. KVigvTTopivGc. 71. ]>ult. for ^w» r. i%w J5. I.ult. for 141. r. 1242.
P
THE
CREDIBILITY
O F T H E
GOSPEL HISTORY
BOOK II.
Chap. I.
Three Objections againfi Luke, ch. ii. v. i, z,
£. I. The firfi Obj. That there is no mention made by any ancient Author of a "Decree in the reign of Auguftus for taxing all the world, Stated and anfwered. §ALThefecondObj. That there could be no taxing made in Judea, during the reign of Herod, by a decree B of
The Credibility of the Book II.
of Auguftus , jlated and anfwered. #. III. The third Obj. That Cy renins was not Governour of Syria till fe- deral ye drs after the birth of Jejus , Stated, together with a general an- fwer. §. IV. "Divers particular Solu- tions of this Obj. §. V. The laft So- lution confirmed and improved. §. VI. 'Divers particular difficulties attending the Suppofiiton, that this taxing was made by Cyrcnius, confidered.
H E Hiftory of the New Tejla- mcnt is attended with many difficulties. Jewifh and He a. then authors concur with the facred Hiftorians in many things. But it is pretended, that there are other particulars in which they are contradicted by authors of very good note.
Among thefe, the difficulties which may be very properly confidered in the firft place, are thofe which relate to the account St. Luke has given of the Taxing in Judeay which brought Jofeph and the Virgin to Bethlehem a little before the birth of Jefus. A NT) it came to pajje in thofe days, fays St. Luke, that there went out a decree
from
Chap. I. Gospel History. g
from Cefar Auguftus that all the world Jhould be taxed. {And this taxing was jirft made when Cyrcnius was governour of Syria) And all went to be taxed, every one in his own city. And Jofeph alfo went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (becaufe he was of the houfe and linage of David) to be taxed with Mary his efpoufed wife, being great with
cbiU'- LukeilA,
Against this account feveral objecti- — 5- ons have been railed (a). They may be all reduced to thefe three.
I. I t is obje&ed, That there isrio men- tion made, in any ancient Roman or Greek Hiftorian, of any general taxing of people all over the world, or the whole Roman Empire, in the time of Auguftus, nor of any Decree of the Emperour for that pur- pofe : Whereas, if there had been then any fuch thing, it is highly improbable, that it fhould have been omitted by them.
II. S t. Matthew (ays, that Jefus was born Matth- a in the days of Herod the king. Jaded there-
(«) Vid. Spanhcm. Dubia EvangelicaPart-ii. Dub. iv. v.&c. Huet. Demonft. Evangel. Prop, ix, cap. x. 2c Commenta- tore3.
B i foit
The Credibility of the Book II
fore was not at that time a Roman province, and there could not be any taxing made there by a Decree of Auguftus.
III. CTRE N I US was not Govcrnour of Syria till nine or ten, perhaps twelve years after the birth of Jefus. St. Luke therefore was mifhken, in faying, that this Taxing was made in his time. This objecti- on will be dated more fully hereafter.
§. I. By way of anfwer to the firft ob- jection,
i. I allow that there is not any mention made by ancient writers of any general tax- ing all over the world, or of all the fubj efts of the Roman Empire, in the reign of Au- gujluf.
Many learned men having been of a different opinion, 1 am obliged to confider their proofs.
T I L L E M O N T (a) puts the queftion (for he does not aflert it) whether 'Plinie has not referred to fuch a thing. But it is plain from T/inie's words, that he ipeaks of a partition of Italie pnly into feve- rai diftri&s {b ). There
(a) Tillemont Memoires Ecclef. Tom. i. Not. ii. Sur Jefus Cbr'tfl. (6) Nunc ambitum ejus, urbefque enumerabi-
mus. Qua in re praefari necefTarium eft, au&orem nos Divum
Auguftum
Chap.L Gospel History.
There is a palTage alfo of TDio, which has been referred to upon this occafion : But it has evidently no relation to the mat- ter before us. The Romans had a Tax cal- led the twentieth. This tax was grievous to many people. Jlugujlus therefore defired the Senate to confider of fome other. ' But ' the Senate not rinding any proper expedient, « he intimated that he would raife mony upon c lands and houfes, without telling 'cm what, ' or in what manner,it fhould be ; and hercup- c on fent officers abroad, fome one way and ' fome another, to make a furvey of the c- 1 ftates both of particular perfons and cities. c But upon this the Senate complied imme- c diately,and the old tax of the twentieth was ' confirmed, left a worfe fhould come in its c room. This was all ^Aiiguftus aimed at, * and the Survey was laid afide (a)\ JJe- ftdes, this affair happened, A.U. 766. A.D. 13. long after the taxing which St. Luke fpeaks of.
Auguftum fecuturos, defcriptionemque ab eo fa&am Italiae totius in rcglones xi. Vim. Jib, iii.cap. v.
{a) Kcti Ktceaftfipct fjuy^it iixav, p,^' etrov, fjuvi&' tome uvrl cua-turiv, i7rifju-^iv oc^Hi ay&v) roc n T ihurm >£ roc t3 noltut
JW^in, t$ r»v iiKo^v rttett ktiiXMTcu' i ^ *ytWc' DlO. lib* 56. p. ;88. E.
B 3 The
The Credibility of the BookIL
The paffage, which Baronius (a) has quoted from Aethicus, he does himfelf al- low to relate only to a geometrical defcrip- tion of the Empire, begun by order of Ju- lius Cefar, and finifhed in thirty two years, and therefore over long before the taxing mentioned by St. Luke.
I am afraid to mention his argument from Tlinie, left it fhould be thought, that I in- tend to divert the reader, when we ought to be ferious. Tlinie fays : c And as for ' Augaftus himlelf, whom all mankind \ rank in this clafle [ of fortunate per- € forts'] if the whole courfe of his life be € carefully confidered, there will be obferved c in it many instances of the ficklenefle and * inconfhnce of human affairs (Jf)? But Baronius fuppofes, that Tlinie fays, that in every cenfus mention is made of Auguftus, and that there was fo particularly in that made by Vefpafian and Titus, becaufe he -Br ft made (c) a furvey of the whole Ro- man
W Apparat. N. 97. (b) In Divo quoque Auguflo,
<quem univerfa mortalitas in hac censura nuncupat, fi diligen- ter aeftimentur cun&a, magna fbrtis humanae reperiantur volu- mina Lib. 7. cap. 4$. (c) Ideraque dum haec alibi
ait: [lib. 7. cap. 45.3 In Divo quoque Augufio, quern univerfa mortalitas in hnc cenfura nuncufat, nempe earn, quam Vefpa- ilanas & Titus recens egerunt, de qua idem mferius [ibid. cap.
49-3
Chap J. Gospel History.
man 'Empire : Thus making Tlinie to refer, in the patTage he quotes from him, not to what went before, but to a paltige which follows four chapters lower.
Some have alleged, as a proof of this general taxing, fome words of Suidas, who in his Lexicon (a) fays, c That Aitgitftus c fent out twenty men of great probity into * all parts of his Empire, by whom he made 1 an aiTeiTement of perfons and cftates, order- 1 ing a certain quota to be paid into the 1 trcafury. This was the firft Cenfus, they c who were before him having at pleafure ex- 1 acled tribute of thofe who had any thing . 1 fo that it was a public crime to be rich'.
But it is very difficult to take this upon Suidass authority alone, fince he fays not in what part of AaguflvSs reign it was done, quotes no author for it, and it is not to be
49.] Meminir, fignificare videtur, in quolibet repetito in orbe Romano luftris lingulis cenfu, mentionem Augufti fieri ; quod primus omnium univerium orbem Romanum fubjs&um im- pcrio cenfuiflet. At de ceniibus fatis. Baron, ubi fupra.
(a) In Voc. 'Aw/petty' 'Aw/petty i u7rxfii6fAr,(rt<;' 'O ^ KaTrctp ' Avyxq-®-', 0 [Aovctp%v<rctc, uxotrtv otvtl)>ct$ rkc, ct^i'mc rev fiiov x^ rev r^eTev i^iXs^eifJCttv^'y Ijri 7ra<rctv rw yvy t vxvxew, i^iTif/i^i* e>\i uv "itw/^ettyaLc, izoit)<roLTo T2 rs oivdpax&v £ icrim, uvTctgKT] rivet Trgorct^cts ra or,u>o<rio) [//aTgav dv. r&ruv si<r(P'-fieJ^' 'Aur/t y Icrsypctty Trparn iytviro, tt xgo avrx mc. xtxrqyAvxq Tt jW/tf utyxipyi/jiwv , eoq iivett roTq iuxoeoiq ^tyx/ocnov fyxXqu/cc rov fhvrov,
B 4 found
p The Credibility of the Book II.
found in any ancient writer now extant. Tho', poffibly, he refers to the ftory juft now told from *Dio-y who allures us, that project, he mentions , was never executed. Befides, Suidas fays, this was the jirft Cenfus-, which is a very great miftake. There had been be- fore Augufius many alTeflements of Roman citizens, and likewife of divers provinces of the Roman Empire.
In another place Suidas fays, * Augujlus < had a defirc to know the number of all the ? inhabitants of the Roman Empire (a). And he mentions the number, which, he fays, \yas found upon the enquiry. But Suidas muft have been miftaken. Arch- bifhop Ufshefs remark upon this paflage is worth placing here. c In their Confuliliip
* {Cains Marcius Cenforinus* and C. AJinius 1 Gal/US'] there was a fecond mufter made
* at i?0/?^,inwhich were numbered 4233000 « Roman Citizens, as is gathered out of the f fragments of the Ancyran marble. In
* Suidas ', in 'K\iywro$ the number is far lelTe « of thofe that were muttered, 41 01 01 7.
* which yet he very ridiculoufly obtrudeth
(a) V. 'Auyx<r<&" 'Avy%s-<&' Kx~<roig frefytv ocvra ^mTa,^ r*s
Chap.I. Gospel History. 9
i upon us not for the mufter of the city only ' but of the world (a)'.
The late learned Editor (b) of Suidas does alfo highly approve of this centure paf- fed upon his Author by our moft learned and excellent Arch-bifhop. It is obfervable that they both ufe here the word City [urbis cenfu], I hope however they mean not the City of Rome only and the country round about it, but the Roman Citizens all over the Roman Empire, or at left all Italie: for otherwife, with fubmiffion, I fhould think them, in this particular, almoft as un- reafonable as Suidas. It is incredible, that there mould have been at Rome and in the country round about it, befide ftrangers and flaves, which were very numerous, fo many Roman Citizens as are mentioned on the Ancyran Marble; even though all, who were entered in aCenfus, be fct down there ;
(a) Annals: year of the world, 3996. p. 786. lEngl. EJir. Lond. 1658. In the Latin the laft words are: Qui tamen nort pro Urbis tantum fed pro Orbis etiam Romani cenfu ridicule nobis ibi obtruditur.
(b) De hoc loco vide omniso Caiaubonum contra Baron, Exerc. 1. Num. 93. EtUiTer. — qui refle obfervarunt, Suidam hie cenfum urbis pro cenfu orbis Romani lectori obtruderc- cum ridiculum fit credere, non plures fuifie totius imperii Ro- mani incolas, quam quot Suidas hie exprimit.
which
io The Credibility of the Book II.
which however is denied by fome. I fup- pofe then, that by the Mufter of the City, thefe learned men mean the mufter or cen- fus of Roman Citizens in any part of the Roman Empire ; as oppofed to all the peo- ple in general living in the fame Empire. And in this fenfe only (a) I adopt their cenfure of Suidas : and cannot but think it very juft. The number of the inhabitants of the Ro- man Empire muft needs have exceeded the numbers mentioned by Suidas, or on the marble y though it fliould be fuppofed, that none are included in thefe numbers but thofe who were arrived at military age. This might be (ufficient to (hew, that the number on the Ancyran marble is not the number of all the people of the Roman Em- pire: but other reafons may appear prefent-
I mud in the next place take the liberty of confidering what Dr. Frideaux has laid upon this fubjeft, who, with Huet (£), and others, thinks, that this defcription or furvey in Judea belonged to one of the furveys made by Augufius ; and that in particular,
(a) I think this evidently Kufter'sfenfe* His Or bis R&mani is explained afterwards by tonus imperii Romani Incolas. There fore his urbis cenfm imports Roman Citizens living any where.
{b) Demon. Evang. ubi fupra §. iii.
it
Chap. I. Gospel History. h it was a part of his fecond Cenfus. l The c firft was in the year when he himfelf was
* the fixth time, and AL Agrippa the fecond ' time Confuls, that is, in the year before the
* Chriftian Aera 28, The fecond rime in the
< Confulfhip of C. Marcms Cenforinus and ' C. Afinius Gallus, that is, in the year be- c fore the Chriftian Aera 8. And the laft:
* time in the Confulfhip of Sextus Pom- 4 perns Nepos, that is, in the year or' the
< Chriftian Aera 14. In the firft and laft
* time he executed this with the afliftance of
* a Collegue. But the fecond time he did it
* by himfelf alone, and this is the defcription y which St. Luke refers to. The Decree con-
* cerning it ilTued out the year I have menti- ? oned, that is, in the 8th year before rhe c Chriftian Aera, which was three years be-
' fore that in which Chrift was born.
1 That we allow three years for the execu- ' tion of this decree can give no juftreafon
< for exception The account taken by
c the decree of Auguftus at the time of our c Saviour's birth extended to all manner of
< perfons, and alfo to their pofleffions^ftates, c qualities, and other circumftances. And « when a defcription and furvey like this was l ordered by William the Conqueror, to be
1 taken
I x The Credibility of the Book II.
1 taken for England only, I mean that of c the Domefday Book, it was fix years in < making; and the Roman province of Syria 1 was much more than twice as big as all 1 England {a).'
To all this I fhall only fay (i.) that the furveys made by Auguftas were of Roman Citizens only. So he fayshimfelf in thein- fcription on the Ancyran marble [b). And the Roman Hiftorians fay the fame thing (f). But the Cenfus or Defcription made in Judea, according to St. Luke's account, was of all the inhabitants of that country, which certainly were not, all of them, Roman Citizens.
(a) Prideaux Conn. Part. ii. pag. 6$o. 651. 8vo. Edit. 1718,
(b) Et. In Confulatu. Sexto. Cenfam. Poiuu. Gol'eg3, M. Agrippa. Egi — Quo. Luftro. Civium. RoMANCRUM.Cenlita funt. Capita, Quadragiens. Ceptum. Millia. Et. Sexaginta.Tria.
Cum Nuper. Luftrum. Solus. F.ci. Legi. Cenforum.
simio. Cof. Quo. Luftro, Cenfa. funt. C ivium, romangrum.
Quadrjgens. Centum. Millia. Et. Ducenta. Triginta. Tria.
In confulatu. F 1. ——Cum. nuperrime- Luftrum. Cum.
Lega. Tiberio, Sext. Pompeio. Et. Sext. Apuleio. Cof. Quo. Luftro. rom. Capitum. Quadragens. Centum. Mil.— iciijta. Et. Septem. Mil. Legi.
(c) Recepit& morum legumque regimen aeque perpetuum* quo jure, quamquam fine cenfurae honore, cenfum tam#n Populi ter egic Suet* in Aug. cap. 27.
(2.) This
Chap.I. Gospel History. 13
(2.) The years which the Do&or men- tions were not the years, in which the de- crees were iflued out,but in which the furveys were finifhed. This appears to me the mod natural meaning of the words of the Infcription.
Perhaps it will be objefted, that the confulfhips here fet down do not denote the years, in which acenfus was finifhed, but in which it was refolved upon and entered in the Fafti, or Public A&s $ and that the fenfe of the Infcription may be thus : In fuch5 and fuch a Confulfhip I made a cenfus, by which cenfus, when finifhed, the number of Citi- zens was found to be fo and fo. It may be likewife faid, that the phrafe Luftrum feci does not neceffarily import the making the Luftrum, which was done when the Cenfus was over, but that Luftrum is here Synony- mous with Cenius. And jt may be urged, that when Luftrum denotes the folemn fa- crifice at the conclufion of the cenfus, the verb condo is ufed, and not facto, which we have here.
T o this I anfwer, that by the account here given of the third cenius we are obliged to fuppofe, that the Confulfhips here named denote the times, when each Cenfus was
finifhed
i^ The Credibility of the Book II.
finifhed. Sextus Yompeius and Sextus Apu- leius, in whofe Confulfliip the laft cenfus is placed, were Confuls A. U. 767, A. D. 14. And Auguftus died the 1 9th of Auguft that very fame year. If the cenfus had been only begun, and not finifhed, he could not have fet down on the Table, as he has done, the number of Citizens which was found in that Cenfus. Moreover, it is plain from (a) Suetonius, that Tiberius was nominated for Coliegue of Auguftus in this Cenfus, the year before, if not fooner. It is likely the Cenfus might be then entered in the public Afts. But however that be, it is plain, that the date on the Ancyran Marble fignifies the compleating of the Cenfus. And I think, that the paflage I have juft quoted from Sue- tonius may remove the fcruple relating to the phrafe 5 fince he has ufed the verb condo, by which we are fully affured, that the cen- fus was finifhed, and the folemn facrifice performed at the conclufion of it, in the year fet down on the Ancyran Marble.
(a) A Germania in urbem pod biennium regreffus, trium- phum, quem diftulerat, egit. — Dedicavit Sc concordiae aedem»— Ac non multo poft lege per CofT. lata, ut provincias cum Au- gufto communiter adminiftraret, fimulque cenfum ageret, con- dito luftro io Illyricum profedtus eft. w. Tiber, cap. 20, 11.
Farther
Chap.I. Gospel History. 17
Farther, lyiuguftus in the Ancyran marble places his firft cenfus in his own fixth Confulfhip* K^Agrifpa being his collegue. And *Dio fays exprefly that ^Augufius made, or finijhed (a) the cenfus in that year. This being the cafe as to the firft and third cenfus of ^Auguftns, we may conclude the fame thing alfo with reference to the fecond, and that it was finifhed the eighth year before the Chriftian Aera : confequently, it isimpof- fible, that St. Luke's defcription fliould have been a part of it.
After Auguflus's death there were three books found among his papers : and one of thefe is alleged as a proof that there had been made fome general furvey of the Roman Empire y and that about this time. Do&or Trideaux's words are thefe : c Of the c book, which Auguftus made out of the « lurveys and defcriptions which were at * this time returned to him out of every Pro- c vince and depending Kingdome of the Ro- [ man Empire, Tacitus <J?)9 Suetonius (c),
and
(a) Kef* Tctc, uTrtygctQcK, s|£r£As<r£* 1. 5 3 • p. 496. c.
(b) Cum proferr; libeilum recitarique juflit. Opes publicae continebantur. Quantum avium, fociorumque in avmis : quot dafles, regna, provincial tributa aut vedtigalia, & necef- iitates 8c largitiones, quae cun&a fua manu perfenpferat Au- guftus. Tacit. Ann. lib. i. cap. xi.
if) De tribus voluminibus, uno, mandata de fuaere fuo
com-
1 6 The Credibility of the Book II
1 and 'Dion Cajfius (a), make mention, and € reprefcnt it to be very near of the fame ' nature with our Domefday Book above- * mentioned'.
B u t I do not fee how Auguflus** hav- ing had by him a little book (libellum> Bre- viarium imperii) written with his own hand, containing a fmall abridgement of the public taxes, impofts, and revenues, can be any proof that this ftate of the em- pire was formed upon a furvey made at this time, or indeed upon any general furvey made at any other time> by virtue of any one fingle decree (that is St. Lukes phrafe) for the whole empire. This ftate which Au~ guflus had by him of the public firength and riches might have been formed upon furveys made at different times. Nay, he might have in this Book the ftate of depen- dent Kingdomes, in fome of which a Cen-* fiis had never been made. And it is likely
complexus eft : altero, indicem rerum a fe ge$arum, quern vel. let incidi in aeneis tabulis, quae ante Maufoleum ftatuerentur : tertio, breviarium totius imperii, quantum miiitum ubique fub fignis effet, quantum pecuniae in aerario & fifcis, & ve&iga- lium refiduis. Suet, in Aug. cap. 101.
(*) To TpiTcv rot, rt T rgxTituTaii ^ tx T Xfotr'oh)v, rwrt uvxXafAccrav T ^vyjaa-'iM, to, T£ tA^<^ T Cv To7<i Qwxvgofc Xfnppcrw Difi. lib. j-6. p. ^91. B.
it
Chap.L Gospel History. if
it may appear in the progreffe of this argu- ment, that there were^ feveral countries, branches of the Roman Empire, which had never been obliged to fubmit to a Cenfus.
Beside that there is not found in any ancient Roman hiftorian any account of a general Cenfus of all the countries and peo- ple of the Roman Empire ; there are consi- derations taken from the nature of the thing, which render it very improbable, that a ge- neral Cenfus fhould ever have been appoint- ed at one time. The Roman Afieilments were always difagreeable things in the pro- vinces, and often caufed difturbances. An unaverfal Cenfus at the fame time feems to have been impracticable. And there does not appear in any Roman hiftorian fo much as a hint, that fuchathing was ever thought of by any of their Emperours.
What is juft now faid of the difficul- ty of making a general furvey at one and the fame time, affe&s chiefly the Do&or's Sentiment, who feems to think that the tax- ing St. Luke ipeaks of was a proper Roman Cenfus. They who fuppofe that it was only a numbring of the people, are not particu- larly concerned with it.
C
1 8 The Credibility of the BookIL
2. 1 am of opinion,thatSt.Z/f^ fpeaks on- ly of a taxing in Judea : and that the firft verfe of his fccond chapter ought to bfe ren- dered after this manner : And it came to pafs in thofe days, that there went forth a decree from Cefar Auguftus that all the land (hould be taxed. So Monfieur Len- fant has tranflated it (a). Bjnaeus like- wife is of the fame Sentiment, and has iiipported it, in my judgment, very well (£).
I have (hewn in another (c) place that the word we have here does fometimes de- note a particular country only, and that St. Luke has ufed it for the land of Judea. And he muft be fo underftood in this place. The Decree relates to the land of Judea on- ly, becaufe (d) the account that follows is
of
(a) En ce temps la, il fut publie un Edit de la part de Cefar x\ugufte, pour faire un denombrement de tout !e pais. Nouveati. Tefi. voyez les notes. (b) AntoniusBvnaeuy
de natali J. Chrifti. lib. i. cap. iii. §♦ v. vi.
(c) See V. i. p. 511. n. a. Some time after this whole
chapter was in a manner quite finifhed, I met with Kettchenii Annotata in Ar. T. He has upon this text alleged feme other examples of this ufe of o^ayAvn' I re'y upon thofe I have produced in the place refeired to, and (hall not trouble the rea- der with more.
(d) What is above was writ feveral months before I had feen Keuchenius. But my Sentiments are fo much confirmed by what he has faid upon the fame fubje£r, that I am per- f waded the leader will allow me to take the advantage of
fub-
Chap. I Gospel History. 19
of that country only. And inuft not every one perceive fome dcficicnce if outv^m be here rendered the whole world or the Ro- man Empire. Let us fee what St. Luke fays, omitting at prefent the parcntheils% And it came topajfe in thofe days that there went out a decree pom Cefar Auguftus that all the world jhoidd be taxed. And all went to be taxed^ every one in his own city- And Jofcph alfo went tip pom Galilee out of the city of Nazareth. If the account of the Decree had been worded by St. Luke fo ge- nerally as to comprehend the w7hole world, would be not have taken fome notice of the land of judea before he came to relate par- ticularly what was done in it ?
I f it be enquired : If the land of Judea only be meant, what does the term all figni- fie * I anfwer, it was very neceffary to be added. At the time when St. Luke wrote, and indeed from the death of Herod7 which happened foon after the nativity of Jefus,
fubjoining here from him what follows: Praeterea, an vtx\ fpeciem habet, Auguftum uno eodemque tempore defcriptio- nem per totum orbem Romanum inftituere voluille ? eccedit quod omnes v. 3. ad civitatcm patriam prob&i leguntur, ut defcriberentur, nimirum iliud xmtic, rcipicit ad xxo-uv -r\v iixxfjijivw, cujus defcriptio injun&a faifle verf. 1. legitur, be iftius mandati authoritate omnes impulli, Sc ad propriam civi- tatem prote&i effe memoramur.
C 2 the
io The Credibility of the Book II.
the land of Judea or of Ifrael had differed a difmembring. Archelaus had to his {hare Judea properly fo called, together with Sa- maria and Idumea. And the province of judea, which was afterwards governed by Roman Procurators, was pretty much of the fame extent. But Galilee, Iturea^ and other parts of the land of Ifrael, had been given to other dependents of Herod the Great.
St. Luke's words therefore are extremely proper arid expreflive, That all the land (hould be taxed ; to (hew, that this decree of Augaftus comprehended Galilee, the country in which Jofeph lived. That this was the intention in adding this term of uni- verfality, is evident from St. Lukes fpecifying immediately afterward the name of the City, from which Jofeph came to Bethlehem $ which City was not in the country that originally belonged to the tribe of Judah^ was not fituated in the bounds of the pro- vince of Judea at the time in which Saint Luke is fuppofed to write, but was of the kingdome of Judea in the reign of Herod.
1 1 feems needleffe to obferve that it was very common to add the term all or whole to Judea or Land, when perfons intended
the
;
Chap. I. Gospel History, 21 the Land of the Ifraelttes. There are divers inftances in the Old and New Tejlament* And Jofepkus, fpeaking of Agrippa the Elder, who had been pofleffed of all the territories iubjeft to his grandfather Herod the Great, fays : ' He had now reigned 5 three years over, the whole land of * Judea (a)9.
Though lam very well fotisSed from the contexr, that St. Luke comprehends nothing in Augufluss decree befide the land of Judea ; yet it is no fmall confirmation of this interpretation, that the molt early chrhlian. writers feem to have underftood St. Luke in the fame manner. For when they fpeak of this circumftance of our Savi- our's nativity, they never fay any thing of a general Ccnfus all over the world, or the Roman Empire.
J if ST IN MARTI R inhisfirfla- pology informs theEmperour and the Senate, of the time and place of Chrift's nativity. c Bethlehem? fays he, in which Jefus Cfrrift 1 was born, is a village in the country of 1 the Jews% at the dift.ance of five and thir- i ty ftadia from Jerufalem. You may af-
mto- jofeph. pag. 871. v.^4.
C 3. * Aire
%z The Credibility of the Book II.
c fare your felves of this from the Cenfus 1 made in the time of Cyrenius your firft c procurator in Judea (a)\ He mentions this Cenfus alfo in feveral other places^ and always in the fame manner (b). I do not recoiled above one paffage of Ircnaeus, in which there is any notice taken of this Cenfus (f), and that is not very material© S t. Clement of *^4lexandria fays : ' Our
* Lord was born in the eight and tvven-
* tieth year,when they firft ordered a cenfus to
* be made in the time of slugvftus (d)\
O R I G E N confounds this cenfus with that afterward made in J tide a by (e) Cyre- wiiis. But fays nothing of its being univcrfal.
TftXKOVTOi TTiVTS '\tg6<rO>Mt/j6>V, C4 y sy.$ri$D i]rtcrx<; XfJTOS, &>5 id)
f/jufoiv d^'jvxvh t-y. ruv hcrz'/patpa'v t yzvcfwav Im Kvpr,vlis rx b/jjiTipx cv 'lufrouct TreaTX yzvoiAiva ixn-farif Jufb. Mart. ApoL I p. 75. E. {b) Hgo irZv 6K&T0V ttsvt^kovta
*/tyw"m^ rev Xfifsv siyttv yf/*u$ sVt KvfljVilS' ibid. T3g. 85. B°
AzTf)-/f!X(pyj^ «(T'/)S C* TlJ 'IXOXiGt, TGTZ 7?$Ct)Tr,C 17TI KffJJI't'a' K. T.A.
Dial. i:.p. .103. D. (c) Sed proxima aetatis dicebanf,
\Judaei Job. viii. ^6.57.] five vere fcientes ex conferiptione ceni'u.% live conjicientes fecundum aetatem, ouarn videbant habere eum iuper quadragmta. Iren. lib. ii. op, xxii. §. 6. (</) 'Eymv>Cy y 0 JfLvti®-' yyj&v rZ cydh'ai ?£ uko'tw trti, ore vearov 'ix.tXiv<roiv eiitfsy '%U(pei$ ymSfc Clem. Strom, lib. 1. pag. 339. D. - ^e) fcai pe?' fx-Hvov. [©iKffflt/j ov 70,?$ i^q
^MtYgecQw kf*ifee,i<i, ot \onci ysygmi£g h 'Ijjo-*?, 'its^aq Tig r#A<- hcti<&>' riofaxc, savTa a-vviX7ri<5-rt(r°v &xi r» A«S T 'Ix^otW Or'ig. rMt. Celf. lib. i. p, /].},
And
Chap.L Gospel History. 23
And indeed the paflagc amounts almoft to, a pofitive proof, that he thought thecenfus re- lated to Judea only.
TERTU LLIAN has often made mention of the time of the rife of Christia- nity in his apology addrciTcd to the Roman Magiftratcs (a)> in his books inferibed to the Gentiles {b): of this and the cenfus, in his treatifes, wrote againft the Jews (r)> and againft Heretics (d): but yet there is no notice taken of any Cenfus befide that in Judea.
If any think that we are to expert no mention of a general Cenfus from the Chri- stian writers, becaufe the Cenfus in Judea was all that was to their purpofe : I fay, that a general Cenfus of all the people and coun- tries of the Roman Empire was very much to their purpofe, the more to illudrate the
(a) ApoJ.cap. v. vii.xxi. {b) Ad Nat. lib.i. cap,
vii. (c) Fuit enim de p:tria Bethlehem, £c de demo
David, ficut apud Romanes in cenfu defcripta eft Maria, ex qua nafcitur Chriflu;. adv. judaecs cxp. 9. (d) Aufer
hinc, inquir, rooleftos Temper Ciefaris cenfus. De cxr-ieCbrijti cap. 2. Sed & cenfus conftat aclcs fub Auguflo nunc in Juciaea per Senrium Saturninum, apud quos genus ejus inqui- rere potuiffent. adv. Marc: lib, iv. cap. 19. Tam diftincla fuit, aprimordio Judaea Gens per tribus & populos, & familias, fie domos, ut nemo facile ignorari de genere potuifler, vei de re. cemibus Auguftinianis ccniibus, adhuc tunc fbrtafie pendenti- buse ibid. cap. 36.
C 4 epocha
24 The Credibility of the Book II
epochaof our Saviour's nativity. A general Cenfus muft have been better known than one that was particular. Would Jufiin Mar- ty, Origin, and Tertullian have omitted this circumftance, if St. Luke had mentioned it ? Or if they themfelves were aware of it? And yet in their time certainly an univer- fal Cenfus, made in the reign of Aaguftus7 could not have been forgotten.
Nay, though the univerfality of the Cenfus had been a circumftance of no im- portance at all in their argument 5 yet it is almoft impoffible, but it muft have dropped from them in fome one of thofe many oc- cafions, in which they have mentioned our Saviour's nativity, and the cenfus which ac- companied it.
I shall proceed but one ftep farther to obferve, that Eufebius has made no men- tion of any more than the cenfus performed in Judea, neither in his Hiftory {a) nor in his Chronicle (£).
I cannot fay, that this interpretation is fupported by any ancient verfion. But
(a) Vid. Hift. Ere. lib. i. cap. v.. (b) 'Ev tZ Ay
Jrlpeo^a Kwpjfw©* vzro rij$ a-v/K^m fixers, etzi? a>> {&&(&• uc, t«v 'la^utccv ' cLXoyqaipotc, iTrmnvtATG T viriw x} T cucqTofw. p. 76. md, <k p. 200.
Bymeus
Chap.I. Gospel History. ry
Bynaeus (a) obfcrves, that in an ancient glofs there is this explanation of it : That all the world Jhould be taxed] or fur- veyed: not the orb of all the earth, but the orb of Judea and Syria.
I f then the Ccnfus or Defcription order- ed by the Decree of Augaftus at the time of our Saviour's nativity was of the land of Judea only, the filenceof ancient hiftorians is no obje&ion at all againft St. Luke's ac- count. There muft have been many furveys of provinces of the Roman Empire in the reign of Aaguftusy of which there is no notice taken by any of the Roman or Greek authors now in our hands.
The only writer, in whom we could ex- peft any mention of it, is Jvfephus. Whether he has lpoke of it or not, will be confidered hereafter. But fuppofing at prefent, that there is no notice at all taken of it by him, this is no objection againft St. Luke. It is not to be expefted, we fhould find in one fingle
(a) Hoc a nemine interpretum, quod quidera ego fciam, animadverfum effe nili in fpecimine GlofTae Ordinariae, quod Robertus Stephanus cdidit, legimus. Octavius xlii. imperii fui anno, publico thereto edixit, ut un'tverfus crbis Judtteorum &» Syriae defcriberetur, & paulo pojl [ut ce??feretur totus orbh~t fiue defcriberetur : non quidem or bis terrarum, fed orbis Judaeo^ %um & Syriae. Bynaeus. De nacali Jefu Chrifti p. 306.
Hifto»
%6 The Credibility of the Book II
Hiftorian all the affairs that were tranfafted ia his country. We have undoubted evidence of this enrollemcnt in the early teftimonies of the chriftian writers. I have already ex- hibited more than enough of them. Jujtin Martyr fpeaks of it in his apology to the Emperour and the Senate before the midle of the fecond century. Tertullian men- tions it in feveral of his pieces. There is. fcarce any one occaftonal fad or circum- itance relating to the hiftqry of Jcfus, which was more frequently and more publicly men- tioned by the chriftian writers. And yet it was never contcftcd, that I know of, in all antiquity, not even by the adverfaries of the Chritlian Religion. Julian fpeaks of it as a thing univcrfally known. I fubjoin his words. c The jefus, fays he, whom yon
* extol, was one oiCefar's fubje&s. If you € deny it, FJ1 prove it by and by. Though « it may be as well done now. For you fay
* your fclvcs that he was enrolled with his c father and mother in the time of Cy- c renins {a)'
?.<yt<r8w (Pan (j/sv rot kurov ^rtypu-^oc^ fjuirct rS zctr^e, j£
y?5 i*v,Tecc Iffi K-^mu' Apud Cmlklib. vi. png. 2,13. ed.Spanh,
5 I PRE-
Chap, I. GospflHistory. a?
I presume, I have anfvvcred this ob- jection ; but it is upon the fuppofition that St. Luke ipeaks of a Ccnfus or enrollment in Judea only. I have not taken up this interpretation to avoid a difficulty, but bc- caufc I really think it to be St. Luke's mean- ing. However, if St Luke be fuppofed to (peak of a general Ccnfus of the Roman Empire, I own it, that the filence of anti- quity would be a very great objection. Nor is the difficulty much leffened by fuppofing this enrollment was of Perfons only, and not of lands or goods. The numbring the people was far from being the principal defign of a Ccnfus of Roman Citizens. But yet, oftentimes, when an hiftorian mentions a Cenfus, he gives very little account of any thing relating to it,befide the number of Ci- tizens that was found. If ever the number of all the people of the Roman Empire had been taken in the reign of Augu/lus% it would have been a very great curiofity 5. and hiftorians would have been very fond of gratifying their readers with ir. Though we have but few writers of thofe times, yet it is with me unqueftionablc, that in fome of thole we have, there would have been a particular account of fo remarkable an event,
a 8 The Credibility of the Book If.
or at left many references to it: whereas there are none at all.
$. II. S t. Matthew fays, that Jefus was born in the days of Herod. Judea therefore was not at that time a Roman Province: and there could be no taxing made there by virtue of a Decree of Auguflus.
This objection has been anfwered al- ready. For it is evident from what has been alleged from the Chriftian writers in the reply to tb^ former objection, that there was fome Cenfus, Defcription, or Survey made in Judea at the time of our Saviour's nativity, by a Decree of Auguflus. How- ever,that no fcruples may remain in the minds of any from a. falfe notion of the ftate of Judea under Herod, I (hall particularly con- fider the matter of this fecond objection.
Before I diftin&ly confider this ob- jection, I would obferve in general 5, that though we have the word Taxing in our verfion, that all the world Jhould be taxed ^ This taxing was firft made$ yet the words ufed by St. Luke do not import a Tax, or laying a Tax or Duty upon a people. In the margin of our Bibles we have the word enrolled. And in moft other tranflati-
Chap. I. Gospel History. 29
ons (a) a word of like fignification is ufed.
I must alfo premife, that fome have thought, that this Enrolment was to be on- ly of names and perfons 5 and that all An- gujius aimed at by this decree was to know the number of people inhabiting the Ro- man Empire, with their employments and conditions of life. Do&or Whitby para- phrafes thefe words thus : that all the world (hould be taxed : /. e. € fhould have their 4 names and conditions of life, fet down ' in court rolls, according to their families'.
Others have thought, that this Decree obliged to a Regiftry not only of the names of perfons and their conditions of life, but alfo of their goods and poffellions 5 and that in fliort, it was a Roman Cenfus which was now made, in order to the peoples pay ing taxes for the future, according to the value of their eftates. I own it, I am in- clined to this latter opinion 5 and that Saint Luke (peaks only of a Cenfus in Judea, as 1 have already declat'd.
(a) Ut defcriberetur univerfus orbis. Haec defcriptio prima fa&a eft: Verf. vulg. pourfaire un denombrement — ce denom- brcment fe fit, Monst verf. & Mr. Ls Ckrc, Lenfmt, &c.
Having
30 The Credibility of the Book II.
Having prcmifcd thefe things, that we may find out what kind of enrolment \ or regL firing was now ordered by Auguftus, whether a decree of Auguftus, could be obligatory at this time upon the people of Judea $ and whether, it is likely there was a Roman Cenfus made there at this time, 1 fhall confider thefe following particulars.
1 . I shall explain the nature of a Ro- man Cenfus.
2. I shall confider the force of Saint Luke's words.
3. I sh A l l defcribe in general the date of Judea under Herod.
4. I shall enquire what grounds there are to believe, that a B.oman Cenfus was made in Judea at this time.
1. Ishall explain the nature of a Ro- man Cenfus. A Cenfus ("as I take it) con- fided of thefe two parts: jirft, the account, which the people gave in of themfelves and their eftates ; and fecondly, the v&lue fet up- on their eftates by the Cenfors, who took the account from theni. The people did un- doubtedly repreient in fome meafure the va- lue of the things they entered $ but the Cenfors feem to have had the power of de- termining and fetling the value.
There
Chap.L Gospel History. 31
There was indeed another thing which belonged to the office of the Cenfors at Rome , fc. the Cenfure or Corre&ion of manners : but, as I fuppofe this belonged only to a Cenfus of Roman Citizens, and that it was no part of a Cenfus of all the inhabitants of a Province, or of a Country fubjeft to a dependent Prince, I take no notice of it here.
The Roman Cenfus was an inftitution of Servius Tullius, the fixth King of Rome. <Diony[ius of Halicarnaffus gives us this account of it 5 that * He ordered all the 1 Citizens of Rome to regifter their eftates
* according to their value in money, taking c an oath, in a form he prefcribed, to deli-
* ver a faithful account according to the beft
* of their knowledge, fpecifying withal the
* name of their parents, their own age, and
* the names of their wives and children, ad- 1 ding alfo what quarter of the City, or jj what town in the country, they lived in (a)*
(a) 'EKiXitxriv uttxvtccc, 'Pwfjucuzs uxoyg&QLo-Qal n tci tiujoio% ru$ 4>V«*« TTpes ugyupiev, oyjo<rxvT6is rov vofAiftov ogKov, V) Jtejjfii
TUXqQv) Xj ^73 7TXVTCS T« fiibrfcit T£Tif/,yt^i TTCCTiPVV Ti COV U(Ti
*/pu<povTct.$y ^ v.t.ixixv w *£»cr* ^jASvt#s, yvvouKocc, re >£ iret72)z$ cvoyjQL^ovTctc, t£ cv run KXToixx<rn iKO.<rok tm zeXiaq tot#, * vuya tyis x®fx$ ng*rt(li»Tetsm Dionyf Hal. Ant. Rom. h, iv. c. i/. p. in. ink. Hudf, Edit,
And
g x The Credibility of the Book II;
And after much the lame manner do we find a Roman Cenfus defcribed in the (a) Fragments of the Twelve Tables, and in the Roman {b) Orators, (V) Hiftorians^ and (d) Lawyers. From all whom it ap- pears, the people were required to give in an account of their names, their quality, em. ployments, wives, children, fervants, and eftates.
Beside what the people did> there feems to have been fomething done by the Cenfors more than the bare taking the ac- count the people gave in : That is> they were to determine the value of each parti- cular of their eftates, and the amount (e) of the whole: and from this feems to have been taken the name or title of this office both
(a) Cenfores populi aevirates, foboles, familias, pecuniafque cenfento. Cic.de Leg. Lib. i;i. cap. 3. (b) Jam (ut
cenforiae tabulae loquuntur) fabriim & proctim, aucko dicere* iun fabrorum 8c procorum. Cic. Orator. Num. 156. (c) Ab hoc (Servio Tullio) populus Romanus relatus in cenfum. Summdque regis folertia ita eft ordinata refpublica, ut omnia patrimonii, dignitatis, aetatis, artium, officiorumque difcrimina in tabulas referrentur, ac (1 maxima civitas minimae domus diligentia contineretur. Florus Lib. i. cap. vi. vid. Li v. L. 1. cap. 41. &. ieq. (d) Vid. Digefta. Tit.de Cenfibus.
(e) In cenfu habendo poteftas omnis aeftimationis habendae* fummaeque faciundae cenfori permittitur. Cic. in Verr. Lib. ii. £ta, 131.
itx
Chap.I. Gospel History. 33
in the (a) Latin, and in the (i) Greek language. For not only was the compafs of ground which any onepoiTeiTed to be con- fidercd, but the nature of it, and the profits it might yield : Nor the number only of flaves or fervants which any one had ; but alfo the work (V) they were employed in, according to which their Service was to be valued. And therefore, every one reckoned himfelf worth fo (d) much as the Cenfors valued his cftate at.
This power which the Cenfors had of rating or valuing the eftates of all perfons, gave them an opportunity of committing in- juftice , in favouring fome and opprefllng others. For tho' there were (<?) rules by which they ought to regulate their eftimation of
(n) Cenfio aeftimatio, unds Cenfores. Frftus. de verb. Sign- Cci.fores ab re appeilati funr. Liv. Lib. iv. cap. 8. fin. (b) Ttiurrfe. (c) !n far vis defer endis obfcr-
vandum eft, ut 8c nationes eorum, & officia, & a-tificia fpecialiter deferantur. 1. 4. §. $*. fi. decenfibtis. (d) Cenforcs di&i, quod rem fram quifuue tanri aeftimare folirus fit, quan- tum iili cenfuerirt. Teftits. V. Cenfores. (e) Forma cen-
fuah cavetur, at agri fie incenium rcfenntur, afvumquod
in decern annos proximos fatu n erlt,quotjugerum fit, ilium
aequitatem debet admittere cenfitor, ut officio ejus congruat, relevari eum> qui in publics t?.bulis delate modo frui certis ex caufis non poflit. 1. 4. pr. cod.
D every
34 The Credibility of the Book II.
every particular, and thefupremeCenforsftf) were wont to iffue cut Precepts to their under officers, injoining Juftice and equity in their pofts; yet if the fupreme Cenfors were men of ill principles, very great enor- mities often went unpuniflied (£).
That the reader may have a compleat idea of thedefignof thefe enrolments among the Romans^ at left fo far as is neceffary to our purpofe ; I fhall add here the account which TDionyfius has given of the Cenfus made by T. Lartius the Dictator, A. U. 258. before Chrift, 496. Being chofen Dictator, < He immediately ordered, that all,
* according to the excellent inftitution of
* Servhts Tullius, fhould in their feveral c tribes give in an account of their eftates, c fetting down the names of their wives and
* children, and their own age and that of
* their children. All having in a fhort time 1 offered themfelves to be afielTed (for the ' penalty of neglect was no lefs than for-
* feiture of eftateand citizenfhip) there were ' found to be one hundred fifty thoufand and
(a) Edicis enim, te in decumanum, fi plura fiiftulerit, quam debitum fit, in o&uplum judicium daturum efTe. Cic in Ferr> Lib. iii. Num 2,6. (£) Sic cenfus habitus eft, tc
Praetore, ut eo cenfu nullius civitatis refpublica poflet admini- ftrari. Nam locupletifllmi cujufq; cenfus extenuaiant, tenuif. fimiauxrant. ibid. L.a.n. 138,
1 , * feven
Chap. I. Gospel History. 35*
c feven hundred Romans at Man's eftate. * After this, he feparated thofe who were of ' military age from the elder 5 and dilpofing 1 thofe into centuries he formed four bodies f of horfe (a) and foot/ From this paflage it appears, that the knowledge of the mili- tary ftrength of the ftate was intended in this inftitution, as well as the regulating the public revenue. It was neceilary to obferve this here5 that the reader may the better judge of fome arguments that follow.
2. W e fhallnow confider the force and import of the words St. Luke makes ufe of in his account of the matter before us.
No w it muft be allowed, that the Verb made ufe of by St. Luke in the firft vcrfe, that all Jloould be taxed 01 enrolled (£), is ufed by Greek Authors, for the making of any kind of entry or enrolment. Thus Servius Tullius oblerving many Roman Ci«
[a) To y.^ot,n<fcv v \ZF9 Sspyii? Tv>jbA% & oyji/uortKurura ficcvi'
X£6>$ KO,TU,<?U.QiVTCJV VCl/jlf/jCOV, 77^017^' I7?iru\i '?0> UjOliOlC, <Z7TU0~t
yvvoiiKtov Vj xuioav ovotjmru,, y^ '.iMxazc, savr&jv rs x. Texwr cy oX'.yw £& x,eova) %&\tuv Tt[jui}<rcci/jtvav, £tcc to y,f/zQ&* ty,c, Ttyjagias" tijvt£ >f> &<rioV9 ^nXLcrc/A tisc, u7fu$tiira,vTei$ zony v^ tv> ffoXiTfiecf %zrTu.y.c<riGiq jrXsutq ivpiSyjo-ccv it ov l»/3ij 'Fa>[&e6iwv 7rs\r$xc(id'iKcx- fAVfioihw fjuirk t*to cfictKfivcu; ras i%ovrel$ t\v rgurivo-iyjcy i-Xixiav "ten t 7egifr(&VTiQ6yr k. A. lib f.C. 7v p. ^i-f.
D % tize
3 6 The Credibility of the Book II.
tizens to be in debt, ordered all of them who had not where-withal to fatisfie their Creditors to enter (a) their names and the fum they owed in public rolls, that it might | be known what the whole amounted to, and provifion might be made for payment.
This word is likevvife ufed concerning the enrolments which were made,when the Ro- man Citizens gave in their names and in- lifted themfelves in the Service of a Gene- ral (J?).
S o that perhaps there may be fome reafon toqueftion, whether St. Luke intended not a bare entry or enrolment made by the peo- ple of Judea, of their names and condition of life, as many learned men have fuppofed.
But yet on the other hand, it is certain, that the whole of a Cenfus is oftentimes exprefiedby the Greek authors, by the words which St. Luke has ufed. Thus T>io Cajfius fpeaking of %yluguftiis'$ firft cenfus, fays^ * in the fame year he finifhed (c) the en-
< rolments'.
(a) 'A7roypu<pB&% x.iXiv<ru$ Ttt$ t&nxpiif<i,o<roiTvtv niriv uMwroi itfrccv <P'jhotTTiiv toTc, otpiiXxcriy t£, xo<roviy.u,<?oe,. Dionyf. H*/. L.iv* C IO. p. Z~)J. ('^) Sypipp'sov tthnyg&tyofjjivot ti 7Tfog
\ • t \ 5 I s \ \j/f,
TtfS JJ«y*//>0VS6S TCl OVOf/JCCTCf , K. TOV ffCtTlUTtXOV OfJbVUtTi^ Opx.09'
Dion. Hal. Lib. x. cap. 16. init. (c) '£v J\Jh tS
T9TS 7rȣ6VTl TCCT& CtfatX, ftp/Tip i^tfO Sfffixfyj *? T*S ttmypOiCftoi,;
Chap.I. GospelHistory. 37
« rolmcnts :' Hereby meaning, the whole of a Cenfus, including alfo the cenfure of man- ners, which belonged to a Cenfus of Roman Citizens. And in another place, when he particularly defcribes the office of a Cenfor, he fays : ' As Ccnfors, They [The Empc- * rours] enquire (a) into our lives andman- ' ners and make enrolments.3 He intends therefore in this place the whole of a Cenfus, except the correction of manners, by the noun, which St. Luke makes ufe of in the fecond verfe : only it is in the plural num- ber.
Farther St. Luke's narration contains in it fo many circumftances of a B.oman Cenfus, that I cannor but think, there was at this time a proper Cenfus. The fubftance of the Decree was, that all the land fhould be enrolled. Again , \ylll went to be tdxed^ or enrolled. And he intimates very plainly, that Mary alfo was enrolled with Jofeph. All thefe are particulars extremely agreeable to the nature of a Roman Cenfus.
iliTiXia-i' D':o. L. 5-3. p 496.C. ad A U. C. 716. — vid. ctiam pag.<;ii. B. i£«CTd»(ic.Gal]arum] yc etn*/;x$zc st6.j}V«t«,&c.
(a) 'Ex. 5 TV TlfMITfi/U99 TH<i Tt &Uft K. 7 «$ fgKTgf ^5|
i£«-*£*fr*, tZatnytscpxs xuSrrur id. L. 5$. p. $c8. B. C.
D s Though
3 8 The & -edibility of the Book II.
Though therefore the words in Saint Luke, and efpecially rhe Verb in the firft verfe, is u(ed for the making of any kind of entry, yet the whole relation obliges us to underftand it concerning this particular kind of enrolment.
And St. Luke's words appear to be ex- tremely proper. The Edifts for a Cenfus feem to have generally run in this form, exprefling the duty of the people. There is in Cicero the title of fuch an Ed id, pub- lished by Verres Praetor of bicilie, when a Cenfus was to be made in that Province. It is called An Edict concerning the En- rolment {a).
I n a Cenfus of the Citizens of Rome, the number of the people was always taken and obferved, but there was a cenfus made of goods and lands, as well as of perfons. This appears from pafTages already quoted from cDionyfiusoi Halicarnaffus and others. And Livie fays exprefly, that the very de- fign of the inftitution was , that people might contribute to the expences of the
(a) Edictum de Profession*, Cic* m Ver. Lib. iii. Num. 26.
ftate
Chap.I. Gospel History. 39
ftate not by the Head, but in proportion to their eftates (^).
And for ought that appears, the fame views were purfued in the affefiements made in the provinces. Tacitus indeed fays that the Batavi paid no tribute to the Romans, and furnifned the ftate with arms and {b) men only upon occafion. And fome may be difpofed to infer from hence that there might beenrolmentsmade, in fuch a province, of the names of the people, and their con- ditions of life j in order to know what number of troops it might furnifh the ftate with.
This is very poflible, and I think, not unlikely. Though 1 have not yet feen any particular ihftance of it referred to by learn- ed men upon this occafion. Some how-
(a) Ut cjuemKimodum Numa divini audtor juris fuifitt, itaServium conditorem omnis in civirate difcriminis, ordinum- que, quibus inter gradus dignitatis FoRtunaeque aliquid inters lucer, porter i fama ferrent : Cenfum enim inftituit, rem falu- berriraam ranto futuro imperio: ex quo belli pacifque munia
KON VIRITIM, UT ANTLA, SED PRO HABITU PECUNlARUM,
fierent. Liv. lib. t. cap. 41.
(b) Nee opibus Romanis, focietate validiorum attriti, viros tantum armaque imperio minittrant. Tacit. Hift. lib. iv. cap. 11. Nam nee tributis cqntemnuntur, nee publicanus atterit. exempti oneribas 8c collationibus, & tantum in ufum proelio. rum iepotiti, velut tela atque arma belli* refervantur. Id. de Morib. Germ. ap. 20.
D 4 ever
40 The Credibility of the Book II.
ever do fuppofe that the furvey of Judea at this time was made by t^/luguftus with this very view (a). But I believe Judea was the laft place in which the Romans would look for Soldiers. The Jews had formerly ferved the Kings of Syria and Egypt in their wars: They had like wife been in the Roman armies. But now they had fcrupies about ferving Heathens iri this way. And all of them who were in the fervice of the Romans had been difcharged in form (£). Their own Kings kept foreign troops in judea. After the conqucft of Egypt, Au- gustus made Herod a prelent of four hundred Gauls that had been the Life Guard of Cleopatra Queen of Egypt (c). And in the defcription of Herod's funeral folemni- ty> Jofephus reckons up three diftind corps of foreign foldiers, Thracians, Germans, and Gauls (d). Indeed the Jews were at this time fo felf-willed and tumultuous, that (as it feems) no Prince was very forward to put weapons into their hands.
(a) Breviario igitur quod meditabatur Auguftu?, quantum jniUtum Judaea fuppeditare j>ofiet,includi debuit. Bafnage. Ann. folit. Ecc. ante E>. j". n. xi.
(b) Jofeph. Ant. lib. 14. cap. x. §. n.
fc) Id. deB. J. Lib. 1. p. 1006. 15. {d) Ibid.cap.uk.
fub. fin.
X RECOI,!,^
Chap.I. Gospel History. 41
I recollect but one inftance that looks like a defign of any of the Roman Emperours to take Jews into their Service^ This was in the reign of Tiberius, who, as Suetonius fays, fent the jewijh youth (who were at Rome) under a fort of a military oath into the more unhealthful provinces (a}. But this feems to me to have been more like fending them to the mines than taking them into military fervice. We are certain the Jews did afterward pay tribute to the Ro- mans. And perhaps I may hereafter make it appear they were now, and had been, be- fore this, tributary to the Romans. It is therefore much more likely, that furveys ihould be made in Jurfea with a view to tribute than to military fervice.
N o r do I perceive, what learned men gain by this. They think it difhonourable to Herod to have the goods of his fubje&s enrolled and rated by a Roman officer for the payment of tribute. But where lies the difference between this, and the numbring and entering his people in order to demand for Soldiers as many men as his country could afford ? If indeed this enrolment of
(a) Judaeorum juventutem, per fpeciem fecrj ■■■', in pro- vincias gravioris coeli diftribuit. vit- Tiber, cap. 36, v & Spiff/, uinn. 2. cap. 8^.
LUS
4^ The Credibility of the Book II.
his people had been made by Herod, by his own authority, and at his own difcretion, in order to furnifh the Emperour with a cer- tain quota of men upon occafion, Herod's honour had been faved. But this is not St. Luke's account. There went out a decree from Cefar Auguftus that all the land JJjonld be taxed. And by virtue of this decree of Augnflus all Herod's fubje&s, men and wo- men, in every part of his dominions> were enrolled, with great exa&nefTe, and as it feems with great expedition. And the order of enrolment muft have been very preffing» I do not fuppofe indeed, that the Virgin was obliged at all by the decree to go to Bethle- hem : But I think, that Jofeph would not have gone thither when (he was fo near the time of her delivery, if the enrolment would have admitted of a delay, or could have been done at another time.
And that this enrolment was performed by fome Roman officer, as well as ordered by an Imperial decree, may be very fairly concluded from the parenthefis, v. 2. Since the main intention of it is to diftinguifh it from another, which was certainly made by a Roman Officer.
Chap.L Gospel History. 43
M r. Whifton indeed fays, It is very pro- bable that the enrolment of the Jews was made by Herod, at the requeft of (a) Au- guftus. It would have been to Mr. Whifton* purpofe to give a few fpecimens of this ftile of Augnftus or of the Republic toward fomc of their dependent nominal Kings. But it would not have fignified much in this cafe, becaufe St. Luke does not fay, there went out a requeft from Cefar Auguftus, but a 'Decree. And therefore we fhould have been flill obliged to call it a 'Decree. And I be- lieve, we may do fo very fafely. We fhall find by and by, from the hiftory of Herod, that it is very unlikely, that ^Auguftus mould havefent Herod 'any requefts about this time.
AGAIN: Mr. fVhiflon fuppofes that Herod the King of the Jews was requefted or required to get him (Auguftus) a like exaff account of the jewijh nation^ as he had already attained of the reft of the Ro- mm Empire, But if this had been all that Auguftus did, namely, requiring or requeft- ing this of Herod, then Herod muft have ifliied a command or order to all his people to cnrolle themielves. But how came Saint Luke to mention Auguftus's requirement or
(0) Short view of the Harrrr, of the four Evang. p. 149.
requeft
44 The Credibility of the Book II.
requcft to Herod, and call it a decree too, and yet fay nothing of Herod's order \ I think St. Luke does plainly reprefentthe peo- of Judea in motion for enrolling themfelves in their feverai cities in obedience to Au- guftus's decree $ and he fays nothing of Herod.
Some have thought that this enrolment was the efFeft of Auguflus's curiofity. And fome exprefllons of Claudius (a) in his fpeech to the Senate about giving the free- dom of the City to the Gauls have been al- leged by learned men as a proof, that affeffe- ments were fometimes made in the provinces purely out of curiofity. For he fays, that he had found a Cenfus to be a very difficult work, even when nothing more was intend- ed by it, than to know, what hisEftate (or riches) was. But even from thefe words it appears, that an account was taken of the Eftates of the people, as well as their names and conditions of life. And the Ccnfors muft have made an eftimation : Ocherwife the value could never have been known with
(a) Et quidem cum ad cenfus novo turn opere & inadfueto GalHis, ad bellum avocatus eflet. Quod opus, quam arduura nobis fit, nunc cummaxime, quamvis nihil ultra quam ut pub- lice notaefint facuitatesnoftrae exquiratur, nimis magno experL mento cognofcimus. vid. Upf. exmrf. ad Tacit. Ann. xi. A.
any
Chap.L Gospel History. 4,7
any certainty. Befides, I think, that all the Emperour intends here, is, that he could eafily conceive with what difficulty a Cenlus was at firft introduced into a Province, when even now a frefh Cenfus was feldom made without fome difturbance. And as a proof of this, he inftances in the rebellion, which the firft cenfus of Gaul produced in that country (a). And though he calls this re- newing a Cenfus, only an inquiry that his eftate or revenue might be publickly known : yet certainly the tribute to be paid accord- ing to the Cenfus is not to be excluded. Princes do not,nor is it reafonable they mould reckon their people only, all their riches. The revenue arifing from the tribute or taxes which they pay is certainly a part of the Prince's riches. The Emperours meaning therefore is, that the making of a Cenfus now is not the impofing any new hardfhip: the great ufe of them is to preferve exact- nefTc and order in the ftate of his revenues, and yet they give people uneafineffe : How much more muft they have done fo formerly)
(a) Livie fpeaks likewife of this difturbance. Tumultus, qui ob Cenfum exortuii n Gallia erat, coropofaus. Efitom* libri 1 >7 . Liviani.
More-
4<S The Credibility of the Book II.
M o r e o v e r, the taxing afterwards made in Judea was certainly a Cenfus of Goods as well as Perfons. And yet when St, Luke makes mention of it in Gamaliel's (a) fpeech, he ufes the fame word he does here.
All the firft Chriftians thought this was a cenfus of goods. It is apparent that Juflin Martyr thought fo, in that he tells the Emperourand the Senate, it was made by their firft Procurator in Judea. Tertullian makes no fcruple to call it very plainly a Cenfus, And Eufebius in his chronicle fays exprefly, that enrolments were then made of goods as well as of perfons. All thefe con- federations, if I miftake not, render it high^ ly probable, that according to St. Luke, there was now a proper cenfus made injudea throughout the territories of Herod.
But though it be fuppofed, that here was now a Cenfus made, yet a Cenfus is not a Tax. AlTeiTcments were certainly made, that tribute might be paid according to them : and where a Cenfus was made, a tribute might be required. But yet it might be for- bore or remitted. And whether any Tri-
(a) Mir* txtov uv'irn 'I*J<*s o rxfahxt®* vd toXs ypffun tJjs Zsri'ygcKpM, Aft. V. 37»
butc
Chap. I. Gospel History. 47
bute was raifcd upon this Cenfus or not, I leave at prefent undetermined.
Supposing the affair St. Luke gives us an account of to have been a Roman Cenfus, it is poflible two or three enquiries may be here made. (1.) What occafion was there for jfofeph to enrolle himfelf, fince he was a poor man 5 as may be concluded from the feffer ofFering, which the Virgin made at the Temple, for her purification >
1 anfwer, that it was the Cuftomin a Ro- man Cenfus, for perfons of all employments and chara&ers to enter themlelves ; as ap- pears from the defcriptions given of it, in the authors which I have before quoted. And though Joftph was not a rich man, it does not follow he had nothing. However, whatever his condition was, the Edidt obliged him to give in an account of himfelf to the officers unlefs there was a particular excep- tion made, and only fuch perfons were re- quired to appear who were poffefied of e- ftates to fuch a value. ^Auguftus feems once to have made fuch a Cenlus of the Ro- man Citizens (a). But that this was not
the
48 The Credibility of the Book li- the ufual method, is evident, becaufe this particular circumftancc of that cenfus is men- tioned as fomewhat extraordinary.
(2 ) Since Jofeph lived in Galilee, how came he to go up from thence, to be regi- ftered at Bethlehem ?
T o this I anfwer, that poffibly he might be obliged to it by virtue of fome claufe in the Edidt. Ulpian fays {a), that perfons ought to enrolle themfelves in the place where their eftate lies. Though Jofeph was not rich, yet he might have fome fmall in- heritance in or near Bethlehem, and might be obliged to go thither upon that account. But this I do not infill: upon here.
S t. Luke gives us this reafon of his going to Bethlehem : becaufe he was of the houfe and linage of 'David, v. 4. It is probable* that this journey was owing to the Cuftom of the Jews, who, whenever they were num- bred, entered themfelves according to their tribes and families. If againft this, it be
U(r6in<3iP^ir> T%$ T£ s|ft» tics 'iruXicts oiKavrccq %x> •KVocyx&criV >»srey£«4'*<3£> Js«r*s [M twrtfitraa-i rt T»£#%6tvTtsm Dio.L.55*.
P- 557- B.
(a) Is vero qui agrum in alia civitate habet, in ca civitate profited debet, in qua ager eft. Agri enim tributum in e3m avitatem Hebet levare, in cujus territorio pofiidetur. I.4. §. 1. ff. 4e cenjibus
Chap.I. Gospel History. 49
obje&ed. That the Jews had loft the regi- fters of their families before this time : J anfwer, that this does not appear. They were reckoned by them to be of great im- portance. And it is not unlikely, that many? if not moft of them, had the regifters of their families till the final mine of their ftate and conftitution, and perhaps for fome time after ir. Anna is faid to be the daugh- ter of Phanuel, of the Tribe of Asser *. 36. Barnabas was a Levite t, Taul affirms, \*cls iV* that he was of the Tribe of Benjamin IIJRw*. ™> Andthefe two were born in foreign coun-p^/ 111.5 „ tries, the one in Cyprus, the other at Tarfus. JOSE? HU S, the jewijh Hiftorian having mentioned the time of his birth, and the names of feveral of his ancestors, fays : ' Thus have I given an account of my * family, as I found it in the publick re- 1 cords3 (a). It is true, Jofephus was of the race of the priefts, and their regiftcrs might be kept with greater care and exa£l- nefle than others : But it is evident from what he fays of the marriages of the priefts, that the regifters of other families were in
(;») Tw "fji iv ra yivac, iipav eietabjQifl &$ \v rate, a ?: par 10.15 AiXroii umytypui/jiJtjiiw svpov, xtwc, zx^nht/.ca'' jfofepb.'m vie inic.
E being
So The Credibility of the Book II.
being likewife. c Every prieft, fays he, a-
* mong us is obliged to marry a woman of
* his own nation, and not fo much to re-
* gard money or any other advantages, but c to make an exaft enquiry into her defcent, e and to accept of no account but what is « well attefted. This is done not in Judea c only 5 but in all places, wherever there is ' any part of our nation, this law relating to 1 the marriages of the priefts is moft careful- ' ly obferved ; I mean in Egypt and Ba-
* bylony and every other part of the world, < in which any of our priefts live {a).
(3.) What neceffity was there, for the Virgin Mary to go to Bethlehem ? Surely, every matter of a family was not obliged by a Roman Cenfus, to appear before the of- ficer, with his wife, children and fervants, if he had any.
I answer, that I know not of any ob- ligation (he was under by virtue of Auguftus's Ed id to go to Bethlehem at this time : But yet, Jofeph and Mary might choofe it. And
cOkux, to y»<^- l\i.raZ)wi dv T kyfcuiw XufAfiuvovTA rw ^xooy^iy j£ 5r»2k»s 7rocpot%o[Atvov [fiupTvpcc? ^ rxZrei %^octto^jIV » [//ovov £3"*
UVTK ' \X&0(.kXC, &?&' 67CX 5T0TS (TV^i}[A/X T* y«W$ l?\v itfAjOIV, XStKit TO UKfllQs UTTOQ-uZfTM To7$ tyiUCTl flTffi TS$ */&[//%$' X. T. A. COTitm
Apon, lib. i. §.7,
they
Chap. I. Gospel History. j*x
they might have very good reafons for it that we are unacquainted with. St. Luke fays ch. ii. 41, 42. Now his parents went to Jerufalem every year^ at the feaft of the Tajfover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jeruialem, after the cuftom of the feaft. And yet by the Law of Mofes, the males only were obliged to appear before God at the great Feafts. And many learned men are of opinion, that our Saviour did not go up to Jerufalem till this paflbver (which St. Luke here fpeaks of) when he was twelve years of age : though his Parents, Maryy as it feems, as well as Jofeph, had gone up to Jerufalem every year ; /. e. from their laft fettiement in Ga- lilee, after their return from Egypt.
3 . I Shall now give a general defcrip- tion of the flate and condition of Judea under Herod, that we may be able to judge whether a Roman Cenfus could be made in it by virtue of a decree of f^Auguftus.
The Roman Empire extended at this time to all the mod confiderablc countries of the known world, whether fttuated in Eu- rope, Afia, or Africa. Befide thofc coun- tries which were properly called Provinces, and were governed by Officers fent from E 2 Rom??
$% The Credibility of the Book II.
Rome, with the title of Prefidents, Praetors, or Proconfuls ; there were other countries governed by Kings, Tetrarchs or Dynafts dependent upon the Roman State.
I n the ftate and condition of thefe de- pendent Princes, there was a confiderable difference. Some few received their crown from the Emperour, and acknowledged a de- pendence, but paid no tribute (a)-, among the reft, who were in a more proper fubje- ftion fome were called Friends of the Empe- rour or the Roman State. This was undoubt- edly a very great honour, efpecially when conferred in form (A). Thefe Friends of the Romans furnifhed them with a part of their troops, or with fums of money upon particular occafions; or made prefentsto the Emperour and his minifters, w7hen needful. That is, they paid tribute in the genteeleft way. Others were more properly tributary, and were obliged to the payment of certain fums of money : but it is generally fuppofed
(a) 'FI5 [' ApfAivtus] '?eofAix7oi z% ctg%is<ri fit h <P^f>a x-ofitjidw, civroi 3 kvToT$ bvnfatxf&stri rift ficttriXtctq' Appian. in Praef. irtit.
(^) Cognitis dehinc Ptolemaei per id belum ftudiis, repeti- tus ex vetufto mos, miflufque e fenatoribus qui fcipionem eburnum, togam piclam, antiqua munera pacrum daret, regem- que & Socium, atque amicum appellaret. Tacit. Ann, lib. iv. cap. 26. vid. & aliud cxemplum apud Dionyf.HalMb, v. cap. 35. Pag- *9l*
that
Chap.I. Gospel Htstory. 55 that they raifed it themfclves among their people by their own officers. But I fufped that many of thole princes called Friends were properly tributary, and that the Em- perour had an officer in the territories of moft of them who took care of his revenue. Befide thefe, there were (if I miftake nor) fome countries under the government of dependent Kings, in which a tribute was raifed in the way of a Roman Cenfus.
That Herod was a dependent Prince, 1 think, was never denied. He obtained the kingdome of Judea at firft by virtue of a decree of the Roman (a) Senate; and was aflifted in taking poiTeffion of it by Roman troops commanded by their own (Jf) officers. t^Auguftus gave him leave to nominate for his Succeilbr which of his fons he pleafed. But yet in his laft will there was a claufe, by which the final determination of all was fubmitced to the will and pleafure of the Emperour. And after his death his fons were obliged to go to Rome (c) to obtain the grant and confirmation of Auguftus, be- fore they dared to take poiTefTion of the territories affigned them by their father.
(a) Jofeph. de Bell. lib. i, cap. 14. fin.
(£) Ibid. cap. 18.
(c) De Bell. lib. z. cap. 1.
E $ That
5*4 The Credibility of the Book II.
That Herod was tributary to ^Auguftus immediately before his death, feems evident from the Sentence pronounced by the Em- perour after he had confidered Herod s will.
* To Archelaus were given, fays Jofephus,
* Idumea, and Judea, and the country of
* the Samaritans. Thefe were eafed of a e fourth part of their tribute, Cefar decree-
* ing them this relief, becaufe they had not joined with the other people in the late
* difturbances {a)\ I think it moll reafona- ble to underftand this of a tribute paid, or to be paid, not to Herod or Archelaus out to the Emperour. If the Samaritans were tributary to Cefar, the Jews were fo like- wife. It is plain thefe were not more fa- voured than the former. And they w«.re both equally fubjed to Herod and Arcle.
IflUS.
That Herod had been always tributary to the Roman Empire, may be inferred from what Agrippa the younger fays to the jews in his Speech to diffuade them from the war. c At this time, fays he, the defire of
(a) Ta ^' Ayx&oia <rvvTtXxvTce, 'ihfActToc rs *£ 'Ixhtfa, to, ts 'ZocpupuTucar rtrufTX pipm *»"« T3 (p'o^m TrccgsteXvvro, ¥^a.i<rcc- «@u uvtoTs xytpiiriv ynpurxf/bailf && to [/*» (rvvcc7ro^ii(rcit tjj Ae«r*j xXntot fofepb. Ant. lib. 17. cap.xiii. §. 4. vid. & de Bell. lib. ii. cap, vi.
liberty
Chap.L Gospel History. ??
liberty is unfeafonable. It had been much better to have maintained it with vigour formerly.— Then all ought to have been done that was poffible, to have kept out the Romans, when To'mpey firft entered into this land. But our anceftors, and their kings, fuperior to you in wealth, in flrength and conduct, yielded to a fmall part of the Roman power. And you now the hereditary fubjeds of the Romans attempt to refill their whole Empire (a)* And jofephus in his fpeech to the jews befieged in J.jnifalemt to perfwade them to furrender to Titus, plainly dates the begin- ning of the jewijh fervitude to the Ro- mans from Fompy's conqueft of Judea (<£). It may be concluded from hence, that from that time the jcjus were tributary to the
(a) 'A2&G6 fAjf,v roys w» sXtvOipt'as iiriGvutiu u&paf, £Uv Imp
r» \m\oi UTroBccXiiv avrviv uyavi^iSai Trpirspot. -tots *h «»
*%fw vearei uarsp 7S «/.»« ai\«.Ha,i 'fa pains *«£•», ctz t*jv &£%$* t7r&B&m rSs %^(V^ 0 Uefxaryit©-* k/>\ «n (a yyjzrtgoi xpoysyci, j£ ci Qcz<riXz7$ etvrSf, 1$ %e?,tAX(ri t§ (rap act t§ "\"^XU^ XfAsivw ut&u* 7fo>is.w foatxsifAtivoi, »"po§ poTpstv oAtysjv \*Cy * Pap, hum evv&u,s*>i «*
UVTiftOV Oft/Sif h, ii TC fA "CZZUX-iSCiV Q4t OiUdo%K$ X0C pZlXr^OTsS— —
5rpo<S oXr,v wOfefirfa ?*? 'I'kuxivv rtytptww yofepb- de Bell. lib. ji. cap. 16. pag. icSj-. 1086, (b) TlcQtv s\' £f£«p*fo
^aXtU^y up ixi W f<*<r&>t T Wftyowf, trt i '.Apjfs/SyAtf, >§ Ypx<tv« yjiititty k, sj xpo$ it)kt)X%fi tfnq n«fMFMM inityecyt rj? naXfi,
j§ 'PeifhttU^ WiTtfhi 0 Q$% xh\ «* ££<«$ fawfcjuW id, ibid, lib* v, cap. ix, p. 141. fin.
E 4 Romans
$6 The Credibility of the Book II.
Romans. Subjection and Servitude muft needs imply the paying of Tribute,
ATT I A N mentions Herod King of the Xdumeans and Samaritans among the other Kings, who, according to Mark An- tony $ direction, were to bring in a certain prescribed tribute (a). Antony and Herod were always very good friends, and it can- not be luppofed that Herod was better ufed by Augufius than he had been by Antony*
I N the ftory of the difference between Herod and Syllaeus the Arabian, which difference ieems to have arofe about three years before Herod's death, and to have con- tinued a year or two at left, if not as long as Herod lived, there is a paiTage that defer ves to beobferved in this place. c Syllaeus more- 6 over bribed Fabatus, Caefar's Procurator,
* and employed him againft Herod.But Herod c by a larger fum of money drew off Fabatus ' from Syllaeus, and by him required the
* performance of thofe things which Cefar
* had ordered (to be done by Syllaeus*). c However Syllaeus went on in his old way
* performed none of thofe things 5 andmore-
* over accufed Fabatus to Cefar, faying, that
diUelhCiv. iib. v. pag. 1 135.
< he
Chap.L Gospel History. ?j
€ he was a Procurator more in Herod's in- terefts than the Emperours (a)'. By Tro- curator can be meant no other than an officer that took care of the Emperour's revenue. And the nature of the charge feems to imply, that Fabatus had a truft under the Empcrour in Herod's dominions. This indeed may be queftioned, becaufe that after- wards, Syllaeus having killed Fabatus , Are. tas the King of ^Arabia profecuted Syllaeus at Rome for the murder of Fabatus ', as well as for other crimes committed by him (£). And from hence it may be inferred by fome> that Fabatus was rather an officer in <_Arabia. Let it be fo. However, here is a proof, that the Emperour had a Procurator to take care of his tribute or revenue in the country of a dependent Prince : for (uch was the King of ^Arabia. And it is not impoffible, that Fabatus might be concerned in both thofe Kingdoms, of Judea and Arabia.
(a) Ilticrc&s ;} [Xvt&ou©"'] jro/&o<s ^^fjjx<n ^xpuroyrlvKaMret-
tctyi<?v)<ri n &zv 1,'jXxm QctfloLTov, j£ £i &.'jtz roc, tcstevgrtsrr# taw
irpbq KxirccpcCy J»o»»jjtjjv hvxi Xiyav, & t iKiiva, t p ^Hgcaht m/p. Qsporrw Jofeph. dt Bell. lib. 1. cap. 29. p3g. 1030. V. li.-~ (£) Vid, Jofepb.Ara Mb. 17. cap. 3.
Upon
5*8 The Credibility of the Book II.
Upon the whole then, Herod was al- ways a dependent tributary Prince. Whether he was at laft obliged to fubmit to a Cenfus, will be the fubjed of enquiry under the next head.
All that I would fhew farther here is, that a Cenfus was not inconfiftent with the rights allowed to thefe dependent Princes, according ro the Roman conftitution. This is generally denied, and therefore fome proof muft be given of it. But it cannot be ex- expe&ed, that I fliould produce many ex- amples of a Cenfus made in dependent king- doms: partly, bccaufe the Roman Hiftoriaii,? never take any notice of thefe things, un lefs they are attended with fome accidents that render them remarkable : and partly, becaufe the Romans had feveral waysot rai- ling tribute 5 and a Cenfus, which was the moft diiagreeable way of all, was not u(ed in all thofe countries that were properly pro- vinces.
After the battle of Thil'ippiy in which Brutus and CaJJius were defeated, Mark An- tony went over into i^Afia, and coming to Ephefus, fummoned theftates of the nations thereabout to give him a meeting. In a fpeech he made to thefe States^ among
othec
Chap. I. GospelHistory.
other things, he tells them : * Your King Attains bequeathed his kingdome to us by c teftament. Our government has been mil- ' der than his was. For we remitted the c taxes you had been wont to pay to him, € till men of turbulent fpirits arofe amongft c us, and laid us under a neceflity of demand- ' ing tribute of you. And even then we did 1 not impofe it upon you in the way of a
< Cenfus, that we might colled it with the
< lefs hazard and trouble to ourfelves, and « required only the annual payment of alum ' of money out of the produce of your c country (V).' In the conclufion they a- greed to pay a whole nine years tribute in two years time. The battle of Thilippi was fought (b) A. U. 712. Attains died [c) A. U. 621. So that A$a (Propria) had been then a Province 90 years, and yet they had not had any Cenfus among them. It is not likely therefore,that we fhould meet with many inftances of a Cenfus made in depen. dent kingdoms.
(0) Exu •} zotqcriv, a 7rpo$ roi rif/jy^xrot, vimv iTrtv^KcCf/ziv, a>q lev v^jiic, uy.ivJbvov tp'ogov iK?JyoifA,£v, uXbct fjutgt) (pifuv T2 iKcc^nrt Kc&yxZv i7Fi7u%o[jtjtr Afpian. De Bell, Civ. Jib.V. pag. 1074.
(b) Vid.Petavii Raiionarium Temporum Part. i.lib. iv. cap. 20^
(c) Vid. ibid. cap. 14.
TACITUS
?9
60 The Credibility of the Book II.
T A CITUS however has given us one inftance. About this time> fays he9 c the
* Cilicians fubje& to Arch elans the Cappa- c docian (a), being required to enrolle them- € felves in our way, and to pay tribute ac- cordingly, withdrew into the faftneffes of mount Taurus : and by the advantage of
c the fituation, maintained themfelves againft 1 the weak forces of the King 5 till Marcus
* Trebellius came into his afliftance from < Vitellius Prefident of Syria with four ' thoufand Roman Soldiers, and a body of 1 Auxiliaries, &c. (b).
B y Cilieia I here underftand not Cilicia the Plain [Cilicia Carnpeflris\ which had been 1 Roman Province long before this, but Cilicia the Rugged \_Afpera\ which had been annexed by Auguftus to the Kingdome of Cappadocta [c). Ir is true, that upon the death of old Archelaus, A. U. 770,
(a) Or, that had been fubjeft to Archelaus the C*ppadocUn.
{6) Per idem tempus Clitarum natio Cappadoci Archelao fubjecla, quia noftrum in modum deferre cenfus, pati tributa adigebantur, in jug* Tauri Montis abfeetfit: locorumque in- genio fefe contra regis imbelles copias tutabantur ; donee M. Trebellius Legatus a Vitellio praeiide Syriae cum quatuor millibus legionariorum, & dele&is auxiiiis mifTus, duos colles operibus circumdedit : & erumpere aufos, ferro, ceteros, fiti ad deditionem coegit. Tacit. Annul, lib. vi. cap. 41.
(c) Vid. Strabonem lib. xiv. p. 987. D.
A. D. 17.
Chap.I. Gospel History. 6l
A.D.i 7.(^), the Kingdome of Cappadocia was reduced totheftate of a Province (b)$ and this disturbance, which Tacitus here fpeaks of, isplacedby him in A. U. 789. A.D. 36. (c). But Tacitus has no where faid, that this Cilicia was made a province. If it had, he muft have known it ; and could not have fpoke of it, as he does here. He lays, that the people maintained themfelves in their faftnefifes againft the King's weak forces^ till a General arrived from Vitellius with a rein- forcement of Roman Soldiers. If it had been a Province, he would have laid, that the people had been too hard for the troops which the Prefect had with him. And this account is in the main confirmed by feveral other Hiftorians, who fay, that this Cilicia was governed by Kings till the time of Vef- pafian [d).
Nor is it very hard to trace the fortune of this people from the beginning of the reign of Caligula to Vefpafian. For 'Bio
(a) C. Coelio L. Pomponio Cojf. (£) Regnum in
provinciam reda&um eft. Tacit Ann.Xih. ii.cap.41 . (c) QJPIautio & Sext. Papinio Cojf. (d) Item Thraciam, Ciliciam,
& Comagenem ditionis regiae ufque ad id tempus, in provinciae forrnam redegit. Sueton. in Vefpaf. cap. 8. Item Thraciam, Ci- liciam Tracheam, & Comagenem, quae fub regibus amicis fuerant, in provinciarum forrnam redegit [Vefpafiantij]. Eutrop. lib. vii. cap.xix.
fays*
6% The Credibility of the Book II.
fays, that Caligula gave the Maritime Cili- ciay (which was another name of this coun- try) to Antiochus, as an acceflion to his kingdome of Comagene {a). Before Cali- gula died he took it away from him. And by Claudius it was again reftored to the fame Antiochus (Jf). And from an account, which Tacitus has given of another tumult of this people, A. U. 805. A. D. 52. \_Faufto Sulla & Salvio Othone Coff.~\ they appear to have been then fubjeft to Antiochus (r). And it is likely they continued under him till it was made a province by Vefpajian* becaufe Comagene alfo was at that time reduced to a province, as appears from Sueto- nius and Eutropius already quoted 5 and from Jofephus, who fays, that this Antiochus was diipofleffed of all his dominions in the fourth year of Vefpafian (d).
(#) 'O ^ 'AvTio%aTz tx 'Atio%8 tw Kofjuyjciymv, w o nuryig
&VTX *%*, £ 7Tf>0$tTl >§ T* 7TCCpOC.8x^.l>ioSlOC T«? K(AtJ«&$ <^s' Dio.
lib. 5*9. p. 645-. D. (<£) Kc" fJOirk txto 7 J rs 'Avno^ot
riiv Kofjufjtjxyww kxihiM* (6 y> Ttx,i(&'> <£ %iy uvtgs ot ^5 uvrhy cttpyignro-) id. lib. 60. pag. 670. A. (c) Nee
xnulto poft agrettium Cilicum nationes, quibus Clitarum cog- nomentum, faepe 5c alias commotae, tunc Trofobore duce,
montes afperos caftris cepere.- Dein rex ejus orae Antiochus,
blandimentis adverfus plebem, fraude in ducem, cum barbaro- rum copias diflocafiet, Trofobore paucifque primoribus inter, fe&is, ceteros dementia compofuit. Tacit. Ann, lib. xii. cap. $5. W Vid. Jofeph. de Dell- Jud. lib. vii. cap. 7.
i The
Chap.I. Gospel History. 63
The only difficulty is, who they were fubjeft to, when this cenfus was ordered to be made among them in the later end of Tiberius\ reign. For by the manner, in which the firfl: words of this paflage of Tacitus are quoted by Cardinal Noris {a), and by Tagi {b) from him, they muft have underftood by Archelao fubjefia, the people that had been fubjeff to Archelaus, that is, to Ar- chelaus the King of Cappadocia. However, Lipjius and Muretus (c) underftand Taci- tus to fay, that they were then fubjeEt to Archelaus, a fon of the former Archelaus who died at Rome^ A. U. 770.
I am under no obligation to determine this matter, becaufe it is the fame thing to my purpofe, whether they were now fub- je& to the King of Comagene or fome other dependent prince 5 or whether they were fubjed to a fon of the old Archelaus King of Cappadocia : The im belles regis copiae9 the King's weak forces proving they were under a King. But it feems to me moft natural to interpret Tacitus^ as Lipfius does. The imbelles regis copiae imply, that a King had been mentioned before 5 and therefore
(a) Noris Cenotaph. Pif. Difl. ii. pag. 508. (b) Appar,
ad AnnaJ. num. 127. (c) In loc
Archelao
64- The Credibility of the Book II.
Archelao fubjefia cannot be very fairly un- deiftood to mean no more than a defcriptL. on of thefe Cilicians, to diftinguifh them from others of that name.
TIBERIUS had been indeed very angry with old Archelaus. But neverthe- leffe, he might be willing, when he had made his kingdome of Cappadocia a province, to give one of his fons this fmall appendage of it. This Cilicia was far from being any ftrong temptation. The country was moun- tainous, and the people were apt to turn to robbery or piracy, and for thefe reafons they had been given before by Augufius to the ; above-mentioned Archelaus (a). Cap- padocia had been a very rich booty to TL berius. Upon its being made a province, by the ready mony and efFe&s of Archelaus and the revenues of the country, fuch fums came into the public treafury of the Ro- mans, that their tax called the hundreth fell immediately to a two hundreth {(?). We may therefore fuppofe, that by Archelaus here is meant a fon of the former King of
(a) Vid. Strabo lib. xiv. p-987. D.
(6) Regnum ejus in provinciam redactum eft; fruftibufyne ejus levari fojfe centejimae veft'tgal, profeflus Caefar, ducen- tciina«m ia pofterum ftatuit. Tacit. Ann.Xib, ii. cap. 41.
Capo*
Chap. I. Gospel History, 6f
Cappadocia, tho' he be an obfeure perfon. And the weakndTe of the king's forces is an argument, that he was no considerable prince, and that thefe people were his only Subjects.
Though here be but one example, it is fufficient for my defign. I believe ir was dis- graceful to a Prince, to have a Ccnfus made in his dominions. However, Tacitus docs not infinuate, that there was any injufiicein it, or that it was absolutely inconfiftent with the rights indulged to dependent Princes : and the King, to whom this people were Subject, Supported this ccnfus, as far as 'he was able.
4. 1am now to enquire, whether we have any rcafons to believe, that there was a Cenfus made in Juiea at this time.
W e can hope for no light in this matter from any author but Jofephus, except the notice which the Chriftian writers have taken of it. If we will rely upon them, I think the point is decided already : but at prefent we will lay afidc their tcftimonies, and con- fine our enquiries to jofephus.
That Herod was always tributary has been proved. I apprehend, that toward the later end of his reign there was lomc alte- ration made in hiscircumftanccsfor the worfe.
F In
66 The Credibility of the Book II.
In order to judge of the evidence there is for it, we muft trace the hiflory of Herod's af- fairs about this time.
OBOT) t^4 S was now King of Arabia, and Syllaeus his chief Officer under him* who indeed adminiftrcd all affairs of that country with almo(t kingly authority. He- rod had lent Qbodas a considerable fum of mony : When, the time of payment came, Hired demanded the mony, but in vain. Moreover a band of robbers had inf cited Herod s dominions and carried off fevcralof his Subjects, and were afterwards fheltered by Qbodas and Syllaeus in Arabia. Thefe differences between the two courts of Judea and Arabia were brought before Saturninus and Volumnius the Empercur's chief officers in Syria, the neighbouring province. Here it was ftipulated, that Hi rod mould furrender to Qbodas all the Arabians he hod in his cuftody,*and that Qbodas mould releafe all jewijh prifoncts, and pay the mony he owed in thirty days time (a). But, when this time was expired, none of thefe conditions w7ere performed on the part of the Arabians. And Syllaeus full of refentment againfti^- rcd fails for Rome. The terms agreed upon
(d) Jofcph. Ant. lib. \6. cap ix. p. 7; 4.
not
Chap. L Gospel History. 6j
not having been performed by Obodas, Herody with the confent of Saturninus and Vblumnius, marches into Arabia, and routs the forces that oppofed him. Advice of this is immediately fent to Syllaeus then in Italie. He procures an audience of Au- gufiuSy tells him, That Herod had made an incurfion into Arabia, laid waft the country ,, and killed five and twenty hundred Arabians with their General, Augujius having heard this, enquires of Herod % friends at Rome, and of perfons who arrived from Syria* whether this was matter of fad. Being af- fured it was, without ever asking the occa- fion, * He wirites a letter to Herod in very ' angry terms. The fubftance of this letter i was, That whereas he had hitherto treated ' him as a friend, he mould for the future c treat him as a subject (a)\
H E RO T> then fent Ambafladors to Rome : But they were forced to return with- out fo much as obtaining an audience. A fecond Ambafly likewife went to Rome without any efFeft (Jb).
(a) 'Opyji rt /Mti^av iynere ra> Kccio-ctpt, r^ ycutyii xpoq top Mpa^jjx, run oc^cc #fl6A£,Ta!s, y^ txto tv& i7TiToXytc, to Ki^ocXct-iot^ iri zruXxi y^u^hnt^' avru <Pi\at rut v7tv)x.ou %e*iariTtU' id. ibid* p-73$. (*) 1\ 736 init.
F 2 itf
6 8 The Credibility of the Book II.
I N the mean time Qbodas dies , and Aretas takes upon him the crown of Arabia: and then fends away Ambaffadours to Rome, with large prefents 5 withal accufing Syllaeas, his predeceffor's chief minifter, of many great crimes. But Syllaeus was (till in great fa- vour at Rome, and Auguftus was offended* that Aretas had taken upon him the govern- ment of Arabia without firft obtaining his leave. And fent back the Ambaffadours without receiving the prefents, or admitting them to an audience. c The affairs of thefe
* two kingdoms of Jtidea and Arabia were ' then in a very bad pofture. In one there 1 was a King not confirmed in his govern- 1 ment. And Herod having loft the Em- 1 perour's favour was forced to fubmit to ' many difgraces and affronts. Seeing no 1 end of thefe evils, he relblved to fend c once more an Ambaffy to Rome, and to
* try whether he could gain friends there,
* and by them recover the Emperour'sgood
* will. The perion fent upon this occafton ' was Nicolas or T)amafcus (a)'.
This
(a) TflJ 3 TTfp* ty,v 'Ifs^atuv >£ 'Agoifiiuv, u$l jc, jU/S^ov Ik thefts, — T ~$ fiu<riXia>v, 6 "p. vza ty.v fyyjw fizfiaietv ^ojv. — 'Hp*y0ij$ j>
Chap. I. Gospel History. 69
This Nicolas, who was ever firm to Herod's intercft, was a man of great abilities and of admirable addreile. When he came to Rome, Sjrllaeuss power was declining: New informations againft him had been brought from Arabia, and Nicolas artfully joining in with the Arabians procures an audience of Auguftus \ and having firft fup- ported the charges brought by them againft Syllaeus, he proceeded to thedefenfe of He- rod. Here the Empcrour flopped him fhort, 1 and bid him anfwer, whether Herod bM riot ' marched his forces into Arabia, and (lain * five and twenty hundred men ? To which Nicolas replied : That the things the Em- Bcrour had heard concerning Herod were in part true and in part falfe, and that the occa- sion of all had been concealed from him. He informed the Empcrour of the differences between O'jodas and Herod: That certain Stipulations had been entered inro in the prefence of Saturnmus and Volumnius : That Syllaeus had fwom by the Empcrour's Fortune, that the terms agreed upon fhould be punctually executed, but that nothing had
fi.irgtct>r:fcv ixtgiu hot ri T (p.Xcjv, Kj jfpflj Ljt^ &CilCTU£cc rap hivfc.M 7rotwr<ic.f/ttv(&" x. r. >.• p. 7 56,
F 3 been
?o The Credibility of the Book II.
been done : That Herod had not moved his forces, till he had firft obtained the confent of the Emperours chief officers in Syria y and that the numbers of the flain had been very much magnified. Auguftus, perceiving that his difpleafure againft Herod had been built upon mifreprefentations, was appeafed ; and at length pronounced a Sentence, that Syllaeus fhould return home, give Herod fatisfattion, and then be punifhed for his crimes (a).
Some time after this we have an account of feme difturbances in He rods family. A very Arid friendfhip had commenced be- tween Antipater Herod's eldeft fon, Theroras Herod's brother, and T k er or as s wife, who was particularly difagrecabie to Herod. Sa- lome, Herod's Mat, who knew everything, fufpe&ed that thelc three were carrying on defisms againft her brother. She came and told him what fhe knew, and Herod had had fome intelligence before, and was full of fufpicions, but what he had heard was not fully confirmed* There follows immediate- ly upon this, a paflage of fo extraordinary a nature, that it muft be tranferibed without any abridgement. ' There was moreover,
(*) Id. ibid, cap.x pag. 740, 741.
fays,
Chap.I. Gospfl History. 71
fays {a) Jofephus, a certain Se£t of Jerjusy who valued themfelves highly for their exa& knowledge of the law, and talking much of their intercft with God, were greatly in favour with the women. They are called T bar i fees, men who had it in their power to controle Kings, extremely fubtle, and ready to attempt any thing a- gainft thole whom they did not like. When therefore the whole jewijh nation took an oath to be faithful to Cefar and the interefts of the King, thefe Men tothe
(£;) Koa vi'j y* f/jioiov Ti *[xcsaY>tav xyipaxuv It? axgifictHru piyoc
<P0MXV t5 STWTfJS VOfJjH, C<5 fcXlfi'.V TO Cucy 7rpO(T7rtlliiUjtVUV "izZq/.TO
jj yjvxiKOJvTTif QxpicxToi k&Xx.txi, /SxtriXlvo-i avvuifjivoi (bx\i?a uyTtTrfccaruv, zrpcyj^iic,, y.cLa. tS ^k"t» tij to ffoXipbiu Ti id fiXccxTitv IxTipU/ivoi' th'jtoc, y£v tx '^oxix.'i fii^xiacavT^ JY oMUV a (Mjy ivveSjrcU Katcxpi, >£ 70% fixo-tXivt, 7TsxyyvXTVy e* oe oi cud^ic, a>c a>fjba<ro6v} cm$ ijsrfp 6>cc>&i%i}.tos jcj xvtxs fiacnXias ^vyjiaxrx.vT'^h' %gtfbcc(rivt v, ^>ieu^a yam tv,v fyys.xy \sa~tp xvtZv, H<rq)ipti' a j cK.yjU'zOfjjiv&i to wyciuv etvrm, ■zpoyiaviv ^i^i^t^ivovTO sjt^oiTKTU tv 0«£, x\aX;yov a)$ 'Hpafy pi xxtuxccvoskc, upy^ \X>o Gf» ryyiQio-fAiViM xvtm Ti ^ yv.il Tea t&7F uvtS} tv.c, Ti (sciviteictc, u$ Tt ixintp *m$%ts<rns «j Qigajatt, zreuaeeq Ttoi'mv etVTofc,. Kafi Tuh^ & y> iXe&vQxn* t>%. ~ct.Xa<[/jrlvJ i'txyyt>.7X /ixtnMT KV, y^ OTi T KiP\ tw xvXw cicc.pdi.eouv Ti'.XC,- (c 6 pSLVi'MVC, TT T£ Q>c.pi<rxiuy t*$ u..Tic»TciTX<i xvxifsi, JCj Buyaxv tcv iwSycyy
Kc&ftr/ Ti TIVX T TOTi 7TpX%0VTX XftTV[ T* SVXpiXifSj X^ 7TXi^lKcC (jVTU. tCVTW KTilVil -) C ZciV 0, Tt TH ClKiiX (TVVtt^^Kii CI? O Q>Ufl-
(rcci®* tXtyer 'IJ^to ^o Bxyc»iu^ Iz-' xvto)v ac, %xry,p Ti £ svipyirt^
070[Accr6'/xr<>yj£y'& , t» i .Tt>c«rc;5"«.^;cr6/>t/ivK r. po'oJy.q-u fiucriXiuc,,
XX.T06 yjifX fJ iKZkVW %LvTX iiVCCi, 7T afityVT®-' Ot'JTU) yotfAX Tt
%vv3 £ xxi?u<rw, riium yvr,<Tiur Antiq. 17. cap. 2. § 6.
B 4. number
7% The Credibility of the Book IL
« number of above iix thoufand refufed to € iwear. The King having laid a fine upon € them, Pheroras's wife paid the money for ' them. They, in requital for this her kind* c neffe, (for they were (uppofed by their
* great intimacy with God to have attained c to the gift of foreknowledge) foretold, that
* God having decreed to put an end to the c government of Herod and his race, the < kingdome would be transferred to her and
* Theroras and their children. Salome, c who was ignorant of none of thefe things*
* came and told the King of them, and af-
* Cured him likewife, that many of the court 1 were corrupted by them. Then the King € put to death the moft guilty of the T/jari- 1 fees, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one
* Cams, the mod beautiful young man a-
* bout the Caurt, and the great inftrument c in the Kings unlawful pleafures. He likc- f wife flew every one of his own family c which adhered to thofe things which were
* (aid by the Tharifees. But B ago as had
* been elevated by them [above all the rejl\ < for lie was to be called father and bene-
* fa&or, the King who was to be appointed f according to their prediction (Tor all things
* would be in his power) being to give him
? capacity
Chap. I. Gosffl History. 73 ? a capacity of marriage, and of having c children of his own/
I n the margin (a) I juftify my verfion of this pallage, as to one particular, in which it is fingular. But befide that, poffibly,
(a) This pafTage of Jofephus has been already quoted very often by learned men, who have treated of this Cenfn$y or of the true time of our Saviour's nativity. But al), whom I have feen, have followed Gelenius's verfion of thefe laft words, which is thus: Nam Bagoas in earn fpem fiiblatus erat, qua/i parens Sc benefactor appellandus regis, quern deifinarent vaticinia ; profpere enim ceilura novo regi omnia, conftabiliendo fuccef- fionem prolis leg-itimae. They certainiy did not look upon the origira'. If they had, they would have eaiily perceived his miftake. Eythis means they have loft one ftrong argument, that this affair has a reference to our Cenms, as wiJl appear by and by. Doctor Hud/on has very much corrected Gelenius's vei ilon, and tranilatcs the concluding words thus: Fuit autem per eos elatus Bagoas, quod dicerent eum patrem befieficumque appel- latum iri ejus, qui ex eorum praedidticne creandus rex eflet : habiturum enim cum regem omnium rerum poteftatem, &; Bagoae vires conciiiaturum cum muiiere congrediendi, proprioi- que liberos gignendi. But, methinks, the ienfe of this is not very extraordinary, Bagoas is to receive a great benefit from the King, and beftowes none upon him, that 1 fee,- and yet he is to be called Wis Father and Btnefachr. I think, that Jofephus lays, that the Phariftes gave our, that Bagoas was to become or to be called, a Father; and hereby, that is, by his having children would alio be a benefactor to his country. J have made no alteration in the original words of Jofephus. I have only inlerted a comma after ovoyjcc<r6woyjt»^f and changed the colon after fiurtxU'c, to a comma. This interpretation is not sny own. I had it from a learned and ingenious friend, to whom I am very much indebted for this, and divers other critical obfervations which I highly value,
fomc
74 The Credibility of the BooHL
fome may have a fcruple about this Sentence : He likewife few every one of his own family, who adhered to thofe things which were faid by the Tharifees. The original word is in the lingular number, which were faid by the Pharifee, or which the Pharifee faid. If any fhould be apt to think from hence, that this has reference to fome thing faid by fome particular Tharifee, I muft de- fire them to confider the context. It is evi- dent from what goes before and follows that period, that the Pharifees in general are concerned in this affair, though fome only were punifhed, the mo ft guilty, as Jofephus calls them. The fame phrafe is in another place uled by Jofephus, where the Pha- rifees in general are intended. Thus, he fays : ' The S adduce es 9 when in office ,
* ufually go into the meafures (a) of th^
* Pharifees ': in the original it is, of the Tharifee.
I take this oath, which Jofephus here fpeaks of, to be the fame thing with Saint Lukes tax'wg, for thele reafons.
(i .) As far as I can perceive, this oath muft have been taken much about the fame time
4xtfi<r*i&- teyw Antiq. iS. c. i. §-4>
witlx
Chap.L Gospel History. 75*
with the taxing or Ccnfus mentioned by St. Luke, according to all thofe who place the nativity of Jefus fome time between twelve, or fifteen months and two years be- fore the death of Herod.
(z ) There is a great variety of cir- cumstances attending this oath in Jofephusy that accord with the hiftory the Evangelifts have given us of the birth of Jefus. I ima- gine I am very much prevented by the reader, but I (hail fpecifie fome of them.
S t. Luke fays : There went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the land Jhould be taxed. The fubftance of the oath mjofephus was, to be faithful to Cesar, as well as to Herod. An oath is a formal acknowledgement of fubje&ion, as well as an engagement to fidelity. No greater acknow- ledgement of fubjedtion could be made than an enrolment in a Roman Cenfus. St. Luke fays, the decree was, that all the land fhould be taxed, and that all went to be taxed. Jo* fephus agrees with him furprifingly, when he fays, that All the jewijh nation took the oath, except fix thoufand Vharifies.
S t. Luke's Taxing and Jofephus\ Oath are followed with parallel events. When the wife men came, faying : Where is he,
that
16 The Credibility of the Book II
that is born King of the Jews $ Herod was troubled and all Jerufalem with him. Jo- fephus's account is a perfeft comment upon this text of St. Matthew. St. Matthew fays : When he [Herod] had gathered the Chief Priests and Scribes of the people together , he demanded of them where Christ Jhouldbe born. And they faid un- to him, in Bethlehem of Judea : for thus it is written by the Prophet 5 and thou Beth- lehem-— art not the le aft among the princes of Juda : for out of thee Jhall come a Go- vernour that shall rule my people ^'mH'Hsrael. So that all the difturbance at Je- rufalem, which St. Matthew fpeaksof, was on account of the birth of a King of the Jews. And it is the fame thing in Jofephus. And the chief priefls and Scribes of Saint Matthew were undoubtedly of the Vharifees, which are the perfons fo much fpoken of by Jofephus. The King in Jofephus has a cha- racter of the Chrift or Meffias : for All things would be in his power. Whether the jeft upon B ago as, or rather upon the Tha. rifees, be of Jofephus's own invention 5 o whether it was an old piece of wit in ufe a- mong profane people to banter thofe who ex- petted great things from the Meffias 5 or
whether
Chap.L Gospel History. 77
whether it be matter of fad, that fome of the Pharifees did at this time give any fuch afllirances to fome perfon of influence in Judea% the better to carry on felfifli defigns, I do not determine. But it is an evidence, that the King, who was then the iubjett of difcourfc, was fuppofcd to bean extraordinary perfon.
I n ^jofephus the Tharifees give out a prediction, that God had decreed to put an end to Herod\r government 7 &c. This I take to be the very fame thing with the chief priejls and fcribes (a): Thus it is written by the prophet, in St. Matthew : That is, what Jofephus calls a prediction or prophecy of the Pharifees is no more than an inter- pretation or application of an ancient pro- phecy. Thus Jofephus took upon himfclf the aire and character of a prophet, when he applied the ancient jewijh prophecies of
(a) Unde pufas fac"lum, ut eo ipfo tempore, proximc pod defcriptionem Judaicam Pharifaei va:icinia ifta tractarent, £c j:ra lubitu fuo interpretarentur i" Numquid res ipfa teftimoniura perhibet Matthaei narrationi f Nonne audis mages ab oriente quaerentes, ubi natus fit Rex judaeorum 1 Nonne Her pd cm fcifcirantem a Pharifaeis, ubi Chriftus nafcerctur? His enim occaiionibus, his Herodis mandatis, Pharifaei ad Prophetarum libros remifti, vaticinia de quibus quaerebatur prolata, ad pla- citum uxoris Pherorae, fecretis colloquiis detorferunt. K'pler. de Anno Natal, Chrift. cap. is.
the
^8 The Credibility of the Book IT.
the Meffias to Vefpafian. He was taken pri- foner by Vefpafian then General in *$iidea under Nero. Jofephus9 hearing that Vef- pafian had a defign to fend him to the Em- perour, defired he might ipeak with the Ge- neral in private. Being brought before Vef- pafian^ and all the company being difmified, except Titus and two friends, Jofephus be- gins ; * You think Vefpafian, that you have K in Jofephus a meer prifoner. But I am 1 come to you as a meflenger of great things. c Had I not been fent to you by God, I
* knew what the law of the Jews is, and ' how it becomes a General to die. Do
* you fend me to Nero ? What! are they c who are to fucceed Nero before you to c continue? You Vefpafian will be Cefar ; € You, and this your fon will be Empcrour. € Bind me therefore ftill fafter, and rcferve c me for your felf. For you (hall be Lord c not of me only, but of the earth and the
* fea and all mankind. And forpunifhment 1 I deferve a clofer confinement, if I now
* fpeak falfhood to you in the name of
* God Cay
(a) *Eya> j Itc\ rip up few £tOf/j*i <ppZ[ci$ p£i'£e>©~, u KttTtJ
%tfougej xj ©taf- Jof. deB. lib. iii.cap, vii. §. 9.
HoWEVERy
Chap. I. GospelHistory. 79
However, befide the an! wer given by the Scribe s to Herod's enquiry, we are tore- member the fpeech made by old Simeon, an eminent Tharifee, attheprefentationofjefus at the temple; and that AnnazVROVWETESST. gave thanks unto the Lord, and /pake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Ifrael. And there might be many other fuch like things faid there by others, to all which Jojephus, a Prieft, and well informed of what was faid and done at the temple, may be juftly fuppofed to have a reference.
S t. Matthew fays, that when Herody^, that he was mocked of the wife men, he was exceeding wroth, and fent forth, and few all the children that were in Beth- lehem, and in all the coafts thereof And Jofephus has given us the tokens of an un. common rage in Herod, And though Saint Matthew has related, upon this occafion, no other inftance of Herod's cruelty, befide the orders for deftroying the children in and near Bethlehem ; yet nothing is more likely, than that Herod, the moft jealous of mor- tals fhould, upon the retreat of the wife- men, be filled with fufpicions, that the Scribes and Phanfees, whom he had lately confult* ed about the birth-place of the King of the
Jews,
8 o The Credibility of the Book IL
Jews, had been acceflbry to the difappoint- ment he had met with from the faid wife* men : and that being heated by the infinua- tions of his filler Salome (provided Jofe- phus has not brought her in here for the fake of a jeft) and by the barbarous counfels of his fon Antipater, now in Judea and in high favour, he fliould then make alfo that cruel ravage in his court and at Jerufalem, of which our jewi/b hiftorian has given us a fummary account.
(3.) As I think, that Jofephus was a very firm Jew 5 fo his indecent way of fpeaking of this affair is a ftrong proof it relates to the transitions at Jerufalem after the birth of Jefus. Is it not flrangc, that Jofephus
rfhould banter the Tharifees for pretending to the gift of foreknowledge, when he him- felf, a Tharifeey has been moft notorioufly guilty of it \ I intend not only his fpeech to Vefpafian, juft now tranferibed. There are other, rather more flagrant inftances, and that in the hiftory of (a) the jewijh War, writ long before his Antiquities, in which is the paffage we are upon. His ridicule of the
(«)Vid. de Bell. lib. tii. cap. 7. §• ?'• v'ld- 8cquae fequuntur Jofcfhi ad Vefpafianum alloquium, ibid. § 9.
Tharifees
^
Chap.L Gospel History. 8i
Tharifees appears to me very unfeafonable in an account of fuch a fcene of cruelty, and when they were under very heavy fuf. ferings : And for what > For refilling the oath of fidelity ? No. They had efcaped with zfine for not /wearing to Cefar, &c. if there had not followed fome ofFenfes more particularly againft Herod, as is pretended. And what are thefe? Why predictions and expe&ations, that the kingdome was by the decree or appointment of God to be trans- ferred to fome perfon not of Herod's race » another inftance of agreement with the time that fucceeded the birth of Jefus, which, according to the Evangelifts, was a time of great expectation of a King predi&ed and prophecied of. But here is not one riotous or feditious aftion mentioned or hinred, the utmoft is feditious words. And yet Jofe- phus juftifies, triumphs in thefe terrible ex- ecutions. In a word, he, who ufes to con- demn Herod as a man of an inhumane dif- pofition, here treats the Pbarijtes of this time with Htrodian cruelty.
All this is abfolutely unaccountable to me, but upon the fuppofition, that this af. fair relates to the birth of Jcfus. Nor do I think, that I wrong Jofephus in the left. It
G is
8i The Credibility of the Book II.
is to me more than probable, that every Jew, who did not believe Jefus to be the Chrift, as Jofephus did not, had a great deal of ill-will againft him and all his fol- lowers. That any Jew of thofe times fnould have been long in a ftate of indifference up- on this point, wasimpoflible.
I f it be faid, that the predi&ions men- tioned by Jofephus relate not to Jefus, but to Pheroras's Wife, and her Children : I do not deny, but that flie might pay a regard to what the Tharifees faid at this time, as well as others did : but that (he, or Pheroras, or any one iffuing from them was the per- fon then difcourfedof, and the chief fubjeft of the Tharifees prcdi&ions, I do not be- lieve, becaufe it is inconfiftent with the reft of Jofepkus'b&oyy. If Theroras's wife had been the perfon chiefly concerned in this affair, as Jofephus pretends here, would (he have efcaped with her life in (o wide a fcene of cruelty, in which even the former favou- rites of Herod were involved? If the depo- sitions of people ran now all toward Pheroras and his wife, would Antipater have been ftill great with them ? Would Antipater, fo defirous of the Crown, have gone away to Rome, as he did foon after this execution.
and
Chap. I. Gospfl History. 83
and leave things in this pofture ? Would he, when he went away, leave fecurely in the hands of Theroras and his wife the work of poyfoning his father, and fecuring the fucceffion for himfelO Would not Ant ip ti- ter, who had lately, with exquifite artifice and cruelty, accomplifhed the death of his two brothers, fons of Herod by Mafiamne^ have been able to have effefted the mine of Pheroras's wife t It is true, after this execu- tion was over, fhe was called to account by Herod.
That it may not be infinuated, that I conceal any difficulty, I will here give the reader Jofephus's words which follow next after the long palfage we are concerned with.
* Herod having puniflied the Pharifees, who
* had been convicted of concerning them- 1 felves in this affair, calls a council of 1 his friends, and there accufes Thcroras's 1 wife : afcribing to her the affront that
* had been offered to the virgins ( a), and € therein to him : adding, that fhe did all ' fhe could to create a difference between e him and his brother, that the fine irnpofed
(a) The virgins] The meaning is: Pheroras's wife had been his fervant. Herod had offered Pherorns one of his daughters, and after that, another. But Pberoras refukd them both out ©f his afle&ion for this woman.
G 3 c upon-
84 The Credibility of the Book II.
* upon the Pharifees had been evaded by her 1 means, and that in the prefent affair no- f thing had been done without her :-— and < that if Theroras had any regard for him, € he would of his own accord put away his 1 wife. You will then, fays he to Theroras, c be my brother indeed, and we fhall live c (a) together in friend fhip/
If the meaning of the lafl: words of the charge againft this woman be not, that in the prefent affair nothing had been done without her, as I have rendered them, but that Now a days nothing was done without her, as Doctor Hud/on tranflates them (b)9 then her conduct in the late affair is not (o much as made a particular crime, but is only
fJjtVXS^ CVViopiGV Ti ZTOMTUi. T (ptA&lV, Kj X.X,T1)ycpiO,V TJJS QifiapV
yvvcuKoc, Tqv Ti itfipw T 7rct[.6ivavTvj to\[a,% t7ic, yvmiKo$ uvxrifelq, j^ 'iyK^/Moc Toivrw a.Tty/ixv uvrcti ■7roixyj&(&', u?i ecyuvoQiruv eaa-iv ccvtZ 7rpo$ tov ei.oiX<p6v v^ TroXif/jov va <j)vtriCt>$. ccvtoT^ <& Play a) ^ JV 'tpyw oa-oc, £uveuro, tvjv ts hiXwiv tjJs fy[/jict,q t%<; Xz? ccvtzs £7ri{2>i7jhi<n}<; rtXvti £lx<ptv%ttiwi tgic, sKtivqc, t ts vut ?r£7rpccy[Ai&vav iaiv 0, ti & [X>£T glvtw uvd' av tyipw^ot x#A&>5 *%stv, * £s*i<ru «<^ yvuf/jcov tunjytxrsas T l^cov^ ccvTcx.iXiv?o» ten7rz[/j7rzo% yvvcciKot. tc&vtw, a)$ jreAs^t/K tS JTf 0$ pus ca utTiur ttrefA/ivjjv Kj vvv, uTTtp c&vTi7Toty cvyyzvtius tyi$ £(/>%$, a7ru7ruoj£ TyvJi ty,v yc,[AiTwm [/jtm$ fi xt&$ S[Ac$ u,hx<pt><i Tt k} rtpyttv ix. knotty pw<&" Antiq. \7». C 3. § 1.
{b) Suifque impendiis evirata eflet folutio mul&ae ab ipf0 impoiitae, nihilque jam fine ilia ageretur.
comprehended
Chap. I. Gospel History. 8^ comprehended in a general charge of an over bufy intriguing temper.
But let it be granted that Jofephus fays, her conduct in this affair was an exprefs charge in Herod's accufation 5 yet the punifhmene propofed confutes the fuppofttion, that (lie was the main agent in this concern. Herod allures Tkeroras, they two fhould be very good friends, if this woman were but put away. Would this difgrace have fatisried Herod, if befide many other provocations, fhe had now been the Principal in a crime, for which many accefibries, and thofe in all other refpe&s very acceptable perions, had been punifhed with death? 1 hope we may be allowed not to credit Jofephus in acir- cumftance fo inconfiftent with the reft of his account. And, 1 think, it is not hard to guefie, why Jofephus gave fome fa lie turns in this ftory.
I h a v e one thing more to defire of the reader, that is, that he will be plcaied to confider, whether Jofephus does not contra- dict himfelf in the main paflage, in which he is fo merry. He tells us at firft, that the Tharifces, in requital for the kindncflc fhewed to them, foretold, that God had de- creed to transfer the kingdome to Theroras's
G 3 wije%
&6 The Credibility of the Book II.
wife, and Pheroras, and their children i But at the end, it is the King, who was to he appointed according to their prediction. How comes Therorass wife^ and Pheroras, and their children to be all a King ? Or how came the King to be all them \ If the reader can reconcile thefe things together, it will be very well» But if he cannot, I hope he w.ill come over to me, and allow, that here are fome things faid of Theroras's wife and the Tharifies without foundation* I ever take it, that inconfiftences are a cer- tain fign, that an author has not confined himfelf barely to matter of fad, but has in. dulgcd his fanfy and gone into fi&ion.
FOR thefe reafons then I think, that the Path in Joftphusy taken by all the jewijh nation, is the fame thing with the taxing or cnrolement mentioned by St. Luke. An4 I think, that this oath refers to a cenfus made in Judea, for the following reaions. In a cenfus the people gave in an account of themfelves and their eftates upon oath. Ijt feems to me very probable that a cenfus was made, or at left ordered by Auguflus, during the time that Herod lay under his difplcafure. Under the former particular I fhewed that Herod had been, before this, a tributary
prince-
Chap.L Gospel History. 87
prince. His great fubjection appears likevvife in the difference between him and Obodas. He was obliged to refer the matter in difpute to the Emperour's officers in Syria. After Obodas had broke the ftipulations, Herod did not dare to move his forces without the content of the before- mentioned officers. And Augujius fuppofing that he had done fo, was very angry, and threatens, that whereas he had hitherto ufed him as a friend, he Jhould for the future treat him as a fubjecl. Thefe words are undoubtedly pro- per and expreilive words. If Herod, when a friend of Augujius, was in fuch fubje&i- on, what can the treating as zfubjeti mean, but the reducing him to the loweft ftate of dependent princes ? Which feems to be that of obliging them to fubmit to acenfus, and then raifing tribute in their dominions ac- cording to it.
JOSETHUS fays, that after the rcceit of this letter from i_Auguftits, Herod fenc in vain two Ambaffies to Rome, that the ftate of Judea grew worfe and worfe, that Herod was obliged to fubmit to many dif- graces. The Emperours difpleafure againft Herod was manifeft therefore, not at Rome only, but in all the countries about Judea, G 4. (1.) But
S3 The Credibility of the Book II.
(i.) But it may beobje&ed, that Jofe-
phus has no where faid, that there was any
cnrolement made of the Jews, much lefs
that there was a proper Cenfus made in
Judea.
T o this I anfwer, that it is apparent, there was an enrolement and numbring of the people. How elfc fliould all the people have taken an oath, except fix thoufandPharifees ? Did they not enter the people that took the oath \ If they did nor, how fliould it have been known who fwore and who did not?
Nor can it be inferred there was no en- rolement or Cenfus, becaufe Jofephus has not exprefly faid there was. Jofephus's ac- count of this matter is very flight and de- fective. If it had not been for fome things which followed after the oath3 and had fome connexion with it, it feems that he would have taken no notice of it at all. An oath had been taken by ail the jewijh na- tion to Cefar and Herod, and great ex- a&nefle had been obferved in relation to it. The numbers and characters of thofe which had refufed were known. This was an af- fair of importance, and deferved a much more particular account than he has given ps. ^nd we are alloweji to fuppofe fome
things,
Chap. I. Gospel History. 89
things, not expreiTed, which muft: neccifari- ly have been concomitants of it.
I do not pretend to ailign pofitively the reafons of his flight mention of this affair. But, I apprehend, I can give fome probable account of it. Herod's fubjc&s were all en- rolled in a Cenfus, but there was no tribute demanded upon it. Herod had great dexte- rity, or very good fortune in furmounting the difficulties he met with in the feveral parts of his life. He was himfelf a man of a great Genius, and fome of his fcrvants were men of great abilities. Nicolas of T)a- mafcus in particular was eminent for learn- ing and addrefle. And Herod knew very well how to bellow a prefent or a bribe.
I am moreover the rather inclined to think, that no tax was raifed upon this Cen- fus, becaufe it appears that after thefe trou- bles, of which Jofephus has given us an ac- count, Auguftus was in a great meafure re- conciled to Herod. Perceiving, that his refentment againft Herod had been very much founded upon afperfions, he might be difpofed to forbear exacting the tribute up- on the Cenfus, and to let things go on in the old way. Then Herod had taken care that the Decree had been obeyed and exe-
Sute4
90 The Credibility of the Book II.
cuted in his dominions without difturbance : all had fworn or enrolled themfelves, ex- cept fix thoufund Tharifees, and they were fined.
Moreover, Herod was now an old man, and had many Sons. It was therefore very likely, there would be fome partition made of his dominions at his death. And Augaftus might be very willing there fhould be fo. Three or four little princes are bet- ter governed then one that is powerful. Tri- bute could not be paid according to this Cenfus any longer than the (everai parts of the ktngdome continued united in one perfon. When it came to be divided or parcelled out, a new cenfus would be neceffary.
I f then no tribute was paid upon this •Cenfus, an hiftorian could the more eafily pafs it by without a very particular defcrip- tion, efpecially fince it had been finifhed without any popular tumults.
I t may tje inferred from the manner in Which St. Luke mentions this furvey, that it was not very much taken notice of. If it had been univerfally known, there had been hardly any occafion, upon the mention of a decree of Augufius in the reign of Herod to enrole all the land, to fubjoin a parenthefis,
the
Chap. I. GospelHtstory. 91
the chief intent of which teems to be to di- ftinguifh this from another that happened not jill after the removal of Herod's lucceiTor.
If this Cenfus was not univerfally known when Jofephus wrote, he might be well pleafed to touch upon it but (lightly. The jewijh writers were very forward to enume- rate the honours done to their people by the Roman Senate, or the chief men of the com- monwealth, or the Emperours afterwards ; the better to gain fome regard among other nations, by whom they were generally de- fpifed and hated. But as for any difgraces they received from the Romans, the cafe was very different.
Thus Jofephus has mentioned many favours conferred on the Jews by Julius Cefar, Augujlus, Livia, Marcus Agrippa* Claudius, and other Romans: but yet he fays nothing of the Journey which Caius9 Augufiuss cldcfl adopted fon, made through Judea, in the beginning of the reign of Archelaus. This we have from (a) Sueto- nius only, an author very little concerned \njewi[h affairs. The rcafon feems to be,
(a) Sed 8c Caium Ncpotem, quod Judaeam prietervehens apud Hierofolymam noa fupplicafier, collaudavit [Auguftus]* Sueto in Aug. cap, 93 .
that
cjx The Credibility of the Boot If.
that Cairn offered no facrificeat Jerufahrn, nqr made any prefent to the temple, which was deemed apiece of contempt (hewn to their religion.
Possibly, Jofephus found but a (lender account of this tranfa&ion in the Hiftory of Nicolas of T)amafcus7 from which he took his materials for this reign. Though Nicolas was no JeWy yet he was a great friend and flatterer of Herod : and it could not but be an ungrateful task to him, after that he had in the former part of his work drawn his matter as a great genius^ a founder of cities, and friend of Augitftus, todefcribc atlaftfo difagreeable a fcene as that of one of the Emperour's officers enrolling all the fubjects of his dominions.
N ICO LAS (a) had great intimacies with Herod. Jofephus has affirmed more than once, that he was a great flatterer (b) of him. And in one place fays particularly,
* That living in his kingdome and together
• with him he compofed his hiftory with a c view to pleale the King and advance his 1 intereft, touching upon thofe things only
(a) Kfiti N<»<j/\eses o Ac/^ecu-^vo^ <pi\oc, n m tS fixviXzac,, x* rot 'Xcctroe. rwd'tociTa^vJoc, sxu'vai, %. A. Antiq. 17. c. 5 • §. 4.
(b) Ibid. 1. 14. c. 1. § 3.
1 which
Chap. I. Gospel History. 95
* which made for (a) his honour/ This inrolemenr, even though it was not a proper afieflement, but only an entry of the names
. of all the people, their age and condition, accompanied with an oath of ftrid fidelity to the Emperour, muft have been the great- eft mortification of Herod's whole life: and from the character of Nicolas, juft fetdown, it may be concluded almoft with certainty, that he did not give a particular account of this affair. Nor had Joftfhus any induce- ments to fupply his defe&s in this place.
(2.) But it will be faid, that the filence of Jofephus is not the only difficulty : there is in him well nigh pofitive proof, that there had been no cenfus or enrolement made in Judea before the removal of ArcPjelaits. For upon the occafion of this, he fays;
* Moreover Cyrenius came into Judea, it 1 being annexed to the province of Syria, to c to make an afleffement of their goods and 1 feife i^lrchelaus's eftate. The Jews were
* at firft very much moved at the (b) men- € tion of the enrolements, but by degrees
(a) Z<ym »^> c* rvf fict<riXnu. $ fuv ccvtu', xi^tt^iT^in^c, Iku»» j£ kcc6 \z3-v)fi<ria,v ctyiy{u<pivy [*ovov <x.7rroptii&* T Trfbq wkXux* kvTu QtpotiTw Antiq. 16. c.7. §. 2.
(6) 'Oi -j Kau7Tip to Kctr u^xat, c* }('*a tptpovrtq tIj* t?r\ tcu$ jnr«yfccQttTi *k(ohw Antiq. 18. c. i.§. 1.
J « they
94 The Credibility of the Book II.
1 they were brought to acquiefce at the per- ' fwafion of Joazar the High Prieft'. He i obferves alfo, ' that at this time Judas the * Gaulanlie excited them to a rebellion, ' telling them, that a cenfus would intro- 1 duce downright {a) flavcry.' It will be faid; It may be hence inferred, that there had been no enrolments made before : if there had, they could not have been fo fright- ful now.
Ianswer, that there muft have been an enrolment made, when the oath mentioned by Jofephus was taken : And that oath was likewife an exprefs and folemn acknowledge- ment of fubjeftion to the Romans.
Besides, though this oath had been quite omitted by Jofephus , it would not have followed, that there had been no en- rolment made before this time in Judea. People are not always of the fame temper. Judas of Galilee now broached or revive^ the principle, that they ought to obey none but God : and for fome reafons it was re- ceived with great applaufe, fpread and gained ground. But the Jews muft have been more fubmiflive, when they all took the oath to Cefar, except fix thoufend. And af«
W Ibid.
Chap.L Gospel History. 95"
ter Herod was dead,there was a very nume- rous EmbalYy fent to Rome in the name of the whole jeiuiJI) nation, entreating, that inftead of being governed by any of Herod s dependents, c they might be annexed to the € Province of Syria, and be fubjed toPrae- 1 tors fent from thence, promifing likewife
* a moft quiet and peaceable behaviour under € fuch a government {a).
I n another place Jofephus reprefents Judas's arguments in thefe terms : < And
* at this time a certain man called Judas the
* Galilean excited the people to rebellion, c telling them they had a mean fpirit if they
* could endure to pay tribute to the Ro* c mans, and acknowledge mortal men for
' their Lords after God had been their
1 King (£)'• It might be as well inferred from what "Judas fays here, that the Jewt had never before paid tribute to the Romans, or been fubjecT: to mortal Lords, as from what he fays in the other place, that they had never before been enrolled. 1 prefume
{a) 'He ^j x-itpuXotiot uvT0i$ <? G&lia<ria>ct (Zaa-iXiiaz p £ t<*Z»
?<£$ tKua-i xtftjxofjtj'tvoHi rf>ec,TKyo7$' k. r. A. JoJ, Ant. 17. p. 784* V. 35. {b) KctKityv, u <p'o£ov n 'Pupxioii T*hfi» tdtepvi-
*»«•*, >§ fittrx Tlf 0«* cV»c* twit ^sa-7r^Tfc^ De BelU lib. ii« cap. S. J. I.
it
9 6 The Credibility of the Book IL
it need not be proved, that they had been iubject, before this, to mortal Lords. I think too, that I have fhewn, they had been tributary to the Romans in the reign of Herod. They had likewife paid Tribute to the R omans before Herod's reign : For Jofephus fays, that Coffins c impofed a heavy
* tribute upon the people [in Syria']. And in
* particular bore very hard upon Judea, ex-
* a&ing of them leven hundred talents of f filvcr (V)\ This fum was laid in fevcral portions upon the fevcral parts of Judea, and Herod^ then Governour of Galilee under Hyrcanusy brought in his quota the fi.rfb and thereby very much obliged Caffius, Judas's fpeech therefore is no proof, that there had been no enrolment or Cenfus made in Judea before the removal of yJrm chelaus.
(3.) I can think of but one difficulty more. Perhaps fome will fay, my argu. ment is de.fe&ive, and that in order to make it out, that this oath, taken by the Jews, in JofephuSy was a cenfus, I ought to pro- duce fome palTage of an ancient writer, in
(#) Kett <papfc'$ oivrouc, (AiycaXat; stfSTiOsf fJbecXiTec j Try 'liteUtciv
iKocKua-iVi foTxx,o<rix tx?mvtx kqyvfo h<rv[#TTO[Aiiv&'* Ant. lib* 14. cap, xi. §.i.
which
Chap. I. Gospel History. 97
which a cenfus is called an Oath, or the ad of the people enrolling themfclves in a cen- fus is expreffed by taking an oath. I own then, that I have not any fuch example by me. However, I would offer here two or three confiderations.
[i.] In a Roman Cenfus the people gave in their account of themfelves and their eftates upon oath. And that oath, as repre- fented by Dionyjius, has a very near reiem- blance with the words of Jofephus. TDiony- (ius fays, the people were commanded to take an oath to give in a true account ac- cording to the befl of their knowledge: and Jofephus fays, that the whole jewijh nation engaged by an {a) oath to be faithful to Cefar and the interefls of the King.
[2.] VV e have in the ancient writers very few accounts of alTeffements made in pro- vinces. The Roman hiftorians fcarce ever take any notice of them, but when they were attended with fome diftuibances which
(a) There is another thing which msy deferve nctce. Dior.yfiHs fays, That the penalty at Rome for not enroll ng in a cenfus was lofs of eftate and citizenfhip. Perhaps the fine impoied on the Pbarifeej, who refufed to fwear4 was now ordered in conformity to the Roman Cuftoms upon like occa- fions. For Herod had been wont before to in&& punifhments of another kind for refilling to fwear fidelity to him. Antic^*
I/. CIO. % +.
H m ade
9 8 The Credibility of the Book It
made them remarkable. As we have but very few writers of thofe times, efpecially iuch as lived in the provinces 5 it is not to be wondered that we meet with fome lingular phrafes in thofe we have, and which we can- not parallel in any other authors now in our hands. If we had before us the works ot a good number of provincial writers, it is not unlikely, but we might fee fome of them reprefent their nation enrolling them- felvesin a Ccnfus, efpecially inthefirft Cen- fus made in their country, by the taking an oath of Allegiance and Fidelity to the Emperour. I fhall give an inftance from Jofcphus, and which has likewife fome affi- nity with ourfubjed. In the jewijh war he calls Fabatus Cefar's Procurator (a) : In his Antiquities (£) he calls him Cefars fervant. He alio calls one Stephen, who was in J tide a in the time of Cumantts, Cefar's fer- vant. c And {c) at this time, fay s he, fome * who aimed at innovations fet upon Stephen
a fervant
(a) Diia-uc, 3 TtoT-hoic, Xfrftu-vrt <&cc3c&tov rev Kuhtu£(&' JWjj- ryjv DeB?ll. lib. I. cap. 2,9. p. 1030. v. 22,. vid. &. v. 29.
(b) — kwQvflL&tM 3 ''% <bu.pv.Tov Kcu<rcx.c<&j c£Xov Ant'iq, 1 7. cap. ?. p-7f S- v. 6.
(c) T&JV y> ItytCMIW i'Xi ViCOTSpKTwZ TiVSCj KXT& TW OY)Vj'>GL<t
fix*
Chap.I. Gospfl History. 99
' a fervant of Cefar> in the High- way about 4 a hundred Stadia from the city, and robbed ' him of all he had'. I have fhewn above, that Fabatus was ^Aagu Jius s Procurator in the Kingdom of Arabia, if not alfo in J: ica. And that Stephen alfo was Procura- tor in Judea, may be concluded, from the treafure he had with him, and from his being particularly the objed of thefpite of the fe- ditious Jews who were uneafy under the Roman government. So that, with Jofe- phus, the EmpeTottr's fervant and the pro- curator of the Emptrour's revenue were fy- nonymcus terms. If jofephus appears at prefent lingular in this ftiJc, yet I doubt not, but it was at thatt time very common.
[;.] I apprehend, that though the Jews entered thcmfelves and their eftates in the way of a Roman Cenfus, ye: there was no tribute railed upon it, Which might be the reafon of Jofephus 's reprefenting this affair fimply by taking an oath, rather than by the name of a Cenfus.
I have now laid before the reader the evidence I have for this fuppofition, that there was a Cenfus made in Judea a little
Avtiq. 20. cap. 4. j, a. vid. &Je Bdl. p. 1071. v. 3*.
H 2 before
j oo The Credibility of the Book II.
before the death of Herod. The particulars mentioned by St. Luke, and the expreffions he ufes, are very fuitable to a Cenfus. And the pofture of Herod's affairs about this time incline me to think there was an enrolment, after the manner of a Roman Cenfus, made in his dominions by order of Auguflus.
But whether I am in the right or not, St. Luke certainly fays, that there was an en- rolment : And Jofephus fays, that the whole jew'ijh nation had taken an oath to be faith- ful to Cefar and Herod. Some entry there- fore mud have been made. And if St. Luke be undcrftood to fpeak only of an en- rolment of names and perfons, his account is confirmed by Jofephus as fully as one could wifh.
And though it mould be thought, that I have not fully proved, that there was at this time a proper affeflement made in Judea-> yet I have, I think, fhewn undeniably, that about this time that country was brought in- to a very ftrift fubjc&ion to Auguflus: And herein alio St. Luke and Jofephus agree en- tirely.
I am fenfiblethat they, who have hither- to fuppoied, that Jcfus was not born till a few weeks before the death of Herod, will
very
Chap.L GospELHisTORy. 101
very unwillingly allow, that the oath in Jofiphus has any relation to St. Lukes en- rolement. But then, befidc the task of eva- ding all the many concurring circumflanccs in St. Luke and Joflphus, they will labour under one very great difficulty. For this oath appears to have been taken by the Jews fo very near the end of Herod's reign, that it will be utterly inconcciveable, that the Romans fhould have ordered another ge- neral enrolment and harraflethe people again before Herod's death. Nor will they be able to remove this difficulty by faying, that the [wearing began about the time it is placed in by Jofephus, but was not finifhed till a few weeks before Herod died : For it was all over at the time Jofcphus fpeaks of it. All had taken the oath, but fix thoufand Vkari- feesi they had refufed, and were fined.
J. III. The third objection, is this. Cy* renins was not Governour of Syria till nine or ten, perhaps twelve years after our Saviour was born : therefore St. Luke has made a mi- ftake in faying, that this taxing happened in the time of Cyrenius.
This objection mud nowbeftatcd more at length. In our trandation the words are : And this taxing was fir ft made when Cy-
H 3 renins
I o x The Credibility of the Book IL
renius was governour of Syria. What is the fane of cur tranflation, I donot know : and it muft be owned likewife, that the words of the Original (a) feem to have in them an uncommon ambiguity. Many think, the mod genuine natural tenfe of the original words is : This, firfi taxing (or enrolment) was made when Cyrenins was. governour of Syria. And upon this fenie of them the objection is founded. And it is urged, this cannot be agreeable to the truth. For the Evangel ills have allured us, that Jefus was born in the later end of Herod's reign. But Jofifthvs fays, that {b) Quintilius Varus was then Prcfident of Syria, and he muft have been Co at left a year before Herod died. And Satitrninus was his predccelTor. Moreover Jofeptus fays, that Cyrenins was fent Go- vernour into Syria, when Archelaus was re- moved from his government of Judea, who yet reigned there between nine and ten years after H.rod. Jofephus relates this matter, in his Antiquities, thus.
' But in the tenth year (c) of Arche- c laus's government, the chief of the Jews.
(a) 'Avtv) it bmypapv npaT?, h/ivtro ijysfA,6ȣvovT(&> t7,c Zvsii/A KegpxV {b) Ant. L. 17. cap, v. j, 1. (e) Asxutm
and
Chap.I. Gospel History. 103
« and Samaritans not being able to bear his « cruelty and tyranny accufed him to Cefaf. The Emperour fent an officer into Judeaio bring him to Rome. 4 When he came thither? c Cefar, having heard what he had to (ay in
* anfwer to his accufers, banifhed him, ap- 1 pointing Vienna a City in Gaul for the € place of his abode {a). And the country
* of Archelaus being annexed to the pro-
< vince of Syria, Cyrenius a Confular perfon
* was fent by Cefar to make an aflelTement ' in Syria, and to feile Archelaus\ eftate (b)\
Afterwards he fays : * In the mean
* time Cyrenius a Roman Senator, who had
* ferved all other offices, and through then^ 1 arrived at the Confulfhip, and was diftin-
< guifhed likewife by divers other honours
* and dignities, came into Syria with a few c troops, being fent thither by Cefar to ad- 4 minifter juftice to that people, and to make c an aflelTement of their goods. And Copo- ' nius a perfon of the Equeftrian rank was
< fent with him to govern in Judea with « fupreme authority. Cyrenius alfo came in-
< to Judea, now annexed to Syria, both
(*) Ant. L. £7. C. 15. §. 2.
*M C4f $PP««j <t u.7TotiN<r'opjtv&' oikoV ibid. §. ^o,
H 4. to
j 04 The Credibility of the Book II.
* to aiTeffe their eftates, and to feife tyirche* < lauss effects and treafure (a)'.
It is objected therefore, that St. Luke has committed a very grolTe miftake, in faying, that this taxing was made when Cyrenius was govemcur of Syria : Since it appears from ^ofephus, that Cyrenius was not prefi- dent of that province till after the banifh- nient of Archelaus, Herod's /on and fucceflbr.
T o this I anfwer, that though the fenfe of the words, as they now ftand in St. Luke's Gofpel, fhould be iuppofed inconfiftent with this account taken from Jofepkus > yet it would be unreafonable to conclude, that St. Luke had really made any miftake. St. Luke appears in the reft of his hiftory, and from many particulars of this account before us, to be lb fully matter of the ftate of Judea, and of the nature of this affair he is here fpeakir.g of, that it is impoflible he Thould commit any fuch miftake.
(et) YLvevvi®" 3, t *;$ vw 6%/viv rrvvcf/ef/jivav &iv«p, too; ts u,Xh&$ &£%<£<> tziTiTz>.ix.&',) V3 a'ta 7ra<rcoy o^tva-xq i>7roc.To$ yzvsc%,
fcTTiuv, ys/vc-0[/jW6<z 'ixSeueov ry txi 7rZrw ib£<nof ncifw 3 ^
feut&okrtc&iiTZvTm WMSiti *m}*)fQ!*sv*i"rec'Ap%iXetif ftf* UiXtoc1 <4ntiq> 58. C.I. §. |.
' In
Chap.L Gospel History. Toy
I n the beginning of his third chapter St. Luke has moft exaftly fpecified the State of all Judea, or the land of Ifrael, as it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, by fetting down the feveral Tetrarchs and Go- vernours of it, and the true extent of their territories.
S t. Luke underftood the nature of enrol- ments, as made by the Romans. The enrol- ment now made, was by virtue of a Decree of Augujlus. And he fays that Jofeph went to be taxed with Mary his efpoufed wife. This was the cuftom of the Romans, as has been fhewn from undoubted teftimonies, to enrole women as well as men, whereas the Jews ufed to number or enrole Males only.
Moreover, St. Luke appears to be well acquainted with the Cenfus which Jo- ftphus gives us an account of. Gamaliel fays : After this man rofe up Judas of Galilee, tn^fav.w; the days of the taxing and drew away much people after him : he alfo perijhed, and as many as obeyed him, were difperfed. J think it may be fairly fuppofed, that Saint Luke underftood what he has related from Gamaliel. And then, here are particulars enough to fatisfie us, he wanted no infor- mation
j&6 The Credibility of the Boot it
mation concerning the Cenfus which 'Jofe- jphus fpeaks of.
That Gamaliel 'here fpeaks of the Cen- fus made in Judea after the banifhrnent of Archelaus is evident, becaufe it was at that time, that Judas of Galilee raifed a diftur- bance. Gamaliel calls them tke days of the taxing, which implies, that this was a very noted and remarkable Period: as it is certain, it was.
GAMALIEL here calls this Judas by his proper name, Jofephus does in one place call him Judas Gaulanites (a), but he often (tiles him Judas the Galilean, ox of Galilee \b). Gamaliel fays,that he drew away; much people after him. Jofephus fays the fame thing of him in almoft the fame words (c).
GAMALIEL does cxaftly fpecifiq the time in which this man rofe up, namely in the time of the taxing, or of the enrol- ment 5 for Jofephus fays, ' he perfuaded, 1 not a few not to enrolc themlelves, whea
(«) Ant. L. i8. cap. i. pag.792. v. 3.
(6) 'O rWuA^tos 'lAs p. 974- 3- %$.**$ TxXiXcucr,
'l%^uq ovoiaoc.' p. 1060. 8.
(c) 'Eteufypoc, amy wot, 'li^x rzs nturxvTos 'labxiuv vk ©A»y»s
txipQe? dc B. Jud, L. vii. pag. 1313. v. 4 1 .
Cme-
Chap.L Gospel History. 107
? Cyrenius the Cenfor was fent into f Judea (a).
GAMALIEL fays he alfo perifhed, and all, even as many as obeyed him, were fcattered. Jofepfjus has no where related particularly the end of this Judas. But that his cnterprize was defeated at that time, we may be certain : otherwife the Roman Go- vernment could not have fubfifted in that country with any quiet, which yet it did for near fixty years after the banifhment of t^Archelaus. Nor is thereafter this any men- tion made, in Jofephus*s hiftory, of any a&ion or attempt of Judas.
Perhaps it will be here obje&ed, that Gamaliel's words imply, that this defign of Judas was quite confounded, and his prin- ciples funk at once : And yet it feems like- ly from the uneaimeffe which the Jews ex- prefs under the Roman tribute in fome places of the Evangelifts, that his principles were in being long afterwards : And from Jofephus it appears, that his notions were very pre- valent, and were one caufe of their war % laft with the Romans.
But if any fo underftand Gamaliel, they appear to me very much to miftake the de-
(a) Ibid. & pag. jyz. init.
fign
io 8 The Credibility of the Book II.
fign of his Argument. Doubtlcfs it was not without fpecial reafon that Gamaliel alleged thefe two inftances. And he fpeaks of each in a very different manner. Of Theudas he fays : He was flain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were fcattered and brought to nought {.PiehvQycTxvy $ iytvovro li$ a/sV] They were ruined and came to nothing. Of Judas he fays : he alfo perijhed, and all, as many as obeyed him were difperfed l^iea-Ko^ia^YiaoLv^]. Having mentioned thefe two inftances, which the councel were well acquainted with, and hereby laid a founda- tion for the advice he propofed to give, he goes on : And now 1 fay unto you, refrain from thefe men, and let them alone : for if this counfel or this work be of men, (as Theudas's was), it will come to (a) nought (as his did.) But if it be of God, ye can- not overthrow it, left haply ye be found even to fight againft God.
I t is not to be fuppofed, that Gamaliel fhould fay : Judas's defign was of God. However the chief men of the jewijh nation might approve his principles, they were wifer than openly to efpoufe them : they left that to the common people.
i The
Chap. I. Gospel History. IOp
The force of Gamaliel's argument is this : Theudas and his meafures came to nothing. After him Judas rofe up : He himfelf pe- riled, and his people were difperfed $ but yet his principles prevail. You likewife may now punifh thefe men, and put an end to their lives j but if their principles be of God, they will prevail notwithstanding 5 and all the iffue will be, that you will con- trad guilt, fight againfl: God, but in vain.
A n d to this feems to be owing the great fuccefle of Gamaliel's reafoning, and the iervice he did the Apoftles at this time. He *nfinuates fome hopes, that their defign might be of the fame nature with Judas s» This may be inferred from his way of expref- fmg himfelf: left haply ye be found to fight againft God. This was Judas' s peculiar principle, that they were to own no mortal Lords, but God only (a). And it is not un- likely, that Gamaliel intended hereby to in- fmuate, not only that there was danger of their oppofing a defign which came from God, and of oppofing it with no other effeft, but that of contracting guilt to them- felves y but alfo of oppofing the very King-
[#) Jofeph pag. 1060. v. 10.
dora
j io The Credibility of the Boole II,
dom and government of God which they wifhed to be under.
I t deferves likewife to be obferved, that Gamaliel mentions Theudas with contempt and indignation. Before ihefe days rofe up Theudas, boafting himfelf to be forne body ; but nothing like this follows the mention of "Judas.
GAMALIEL concludes upon the whole, that they fhould let ihefe men alone. We have no occafion to meddle in this mat- ter. It is not unlikely but the Romans > our prefent Governours, will be jealous of thefe men. But it feems to me an affair we have noreafonto concern our felves in.
S t. Luke therefore muft be fuppofed to be well acquainted with the Cenfus made after the banifhment of i^Archelaus.
I must be permitted to obferve farther, that St. Luke does here call Cyrenius by his true name. It has indeed been a difpute among learned men, whether his Roman name was Quirinus or Quirinhis. Onuphrius in his Fafii printed it Quirinius : Grotius (a) and Lipfius (b) thought Onuphrius was miftaken, and that it ought to be correft-
(a) In Luc. ii z. {b) In not. gd Tuck.
Mtw. L. iii. c. 48.
ed
Chap. I. GospelHistory. hi
cd Quirinius. (a) Terizonius feems to have proved, that Quirimts is the true way of writing it in Latin : fmce it was not the family name, or the nornen, but cognomen y the third name of this Gentleman. For his name was Cains Sulpicius gtiirinus, and in the Syriac verfion of St. Luke he is written Kttrinus, and in the Latin vulgate Cyrinus. But however that be, he allows it to be com- mon for the Greeks to make fome alteration in the termination of Roman names, when they turn them into their own language. It is certain his name in all the Greek authors has the termination of io<; or his. Strabo (^) and *Dio (c) call him KWnos (Cyrinhis). But in Jofephus {d) his name is always wri- ten, as in St. Luke, Cyrenius.
Moreover it is certain Cyrenius was Governour of Syria, and he has here a very proper title, by which he muft have been well known in Judea, and in all that part of the world.
Lastly, if we confider that the words now before us are a parenthesis, and that St. Luke calls the Enrolment or Ccnfus he
fa) Diflerta. de Auguftea orb. Terr. Defer. §.50.
(b) Lib. 11. p. 85-4.
(c) Vid. Bio. lib. $4. ad A.U. 741.
(J) P. 791- v. s, 11. p. -94. v,:i, 17j & u.
S was
1 1 x The Credibility of the Book II.
was fpeaking of, the firft, we cannot well doubt, but that the original intention of them was, in fome manner or other, to dw ftinguifh this enrolment, which was now made in the reign of Herod, from that, which was afterwards made when t^Arche* laus was banifhed.
H e that will ferioufly confider all thefc particulars, will have no fufpicions, that St. Luke has made any miftake.
I f then the fenfe, which is now ordina- rily given thefe words, is not confiftent with truth, it is highly reafonable to con- clude, that either we do not take the true meaning of them, or elfe that fome fmall alteration or other has happened in the text of St. Luke.
$. IV. But though what has been here offered, and which has alfo been in the main alleged before by thole who have considered this place, be fufficient to take away the force of this obje&ion ; yet, I prefume, it will be expe&ed, I fhould give fome account of the particular Solutions that have been offered by learned men.
I shall therefore briefly mention fome which appear to me lefs probable, and then rcprefent fome others more diflindly, and
at
Chap. I. Gospel History. 115
at laft endeavour to fupport or emprove that which appears to me thefaireft.
i. O n e Solution propofed by (a) Cal- vin, and much approved by Salmeron and Baronius, is that Jofephus was miftakcn in the account which he has given of Cyrenhts. The two laft mentioned writers efpecially are of opinion, that we need pay little regard to jofephus^ whofe hiftory, they fay, abounds with miftakes and falfhoods (£). And Baro- nius (c) has taken fome pains to make out a new feries of the fucceffion of the Gover- nors of Syria about this time. For he thinks, that Cyrenius was twice, if not thrice, prefident of Syria. But this project can be but little approved by learned men at prefent. No one that reads Jofephus without prejudice, and that confiders he had before him the hi- ftory of Herod's reign writ by Nicolas of ^Damafcus^ who was a learned man, Herod's favourite, and employed by him in affairs of Government, can make any doubt, but that
{a) In loc.
(b) Praeftat ut Jofephi verd fidem & hiftoriam deferamus, tanquara incertam, 8c fluctuantem 8c vcritati in multis diflen^ tientem. Salmeron in Evang. T. iii. Tra&at. 52.
(r) Sicque contra Jofephi delin'3 certo apparerer, fub Au- gufto imperatore, vivente Herode feniore, reperiri duplicem immo triplicem Quirinii in Syria praefecluram. Baron. Ann, An. D. 3. Vid, 8; app. ad Ann. num. 80— Stf.
I ®uin-
H4 The Credibility of the Book II.
^uintilius Varus was Governour of Syria when Herod died 5 that (7. Sentius Satur- ninus was his predeceflor, and was in the pro- vince at left two or three years ; and that M. Titius was prefident before him. With all thefe Governours of Syria Herod had fome concerns. What Jofephus has faid of them may likewife be confirmed in a great meafure from other Authors (a). So that there is no room for Cyrenius at this time. Nor can there well be any queftion made, but that Jofephus has given us, in the main? a true account of the enrolment or CenfuS made by Cyrenius after Archelaus's banifh- ment. It appears from the manner, in which Gamaliel fpeaks of the Taxing when Judas of Galilee rofe up, that this was a remark- able event. And the account Jofephus gives Of it may aflure us, this was an affair all men were then well acquainted with. The dr fturbance raifed by Judas was fupprefled, but yet the principle fubfifted. It was the occafion of much uneafinefle under the Roman Government, and many were at times puniflied on account of it {b).
(a) Vid. Norif. Cenot. Pif. DifT. ii. cap. 16. §.9. 10.
(b) Jof. Ant, L. 18. cap. 1 . §. 6.
%. Another
Chap.L Gospel History. 115*
2. Another Solution propofed by Calvin (a), and which Valefms (£) judges to be the moft commodious of any, is, that the Decree of ijtuguftiis v is iffued in the later end of Heroes reign 5 but that for fome reafon or other the Cenfus could not be made, or at left nor finifhed till the time that Cyrenius was Governour of Syria, ten or twelve years afterwards.
But this is to make St. Lukefpezk very improperly and confufedly, in what he fays of Cyrnius. And it is dire&Iy contrary to what follows. Having related, that there went out a decree from Cefar Auguftus, that all the world jhould be taxed, he fubjoins: and all went to be taxed every one in his own City. And there was fo great a refort at this time at Bethlehem upon this account, that Jofeph and Mary were obliged to take up with very indifferent accommodations : There was no room for them in the inn.
3. Some think that inftead of Cyrenius, we ought to read Saturninus ; becaufe , according to Jofephus, he was Prefed of Syria, within a year or two before Herod died 5 and Tertiillian fays this Cenfus was
(a) Ubi fupra. (b) Vid. Notas ad Eufib. Hill.
Ec. Lib. 1. cap. v,
I 2 made
1 1 6 The Credibility of the Book II.
made by him. This is one of the Solutions propofed by (a) Valejius, though he rather approves that laft mentioned. But againft this, it has been obferved by many learned men, that Cyrenius is in all our Copies of St. Luke, and appears to have been there before Tertullians time ; fince Juftin Mar- tyr fays exprefly, that this Cenfus was made by Cyrenius.
4. Other learned (b) men have thought it a very eafy and probable conjc&ure, that originally the name in St. Luke was Quin- tilius. Quintilius Varus fucceeded Satur- ninus, and was in the Province of Syria, when Herod died. The Cenfus afterward made by Cyrenius was certainly beft known> and fome ignorant tranfcriber might therefore imagine Quintilius a miftake, and pretend to corre£ the original by inferting Cyrenius in his room. Befides, the alteration of Quintilius to Cyrenius, is a change of only a few (c) letters, and therefore might the more eafily happen.
But this Solution is liable to the fame obje&ion with the former, viz. that Cy-
(*) Ubi fupra. (h) Huet. Dem. Evang.Prop.ix.
cap. x, Parker Demonft. of the truth of the Chrift. Religion, p. z 1 9, 4to. 1 6 8 1 . (c) KvYvrAiV, Kvpwis*
renin*
Chap.I. Gospel History. 117
renins is in all the Copies of the Greek ori- ginal, and in all the ancient verfions. And befides, has this difadvantage, that this Cen- lus St.L^fpeaksof is not afcribed to Quiw tilius Varus by any ancient Chriltian writer whatever, whereas Saturninus has been men- tioned by Tertullian.
The reader is to judge for himfelf, but there are fome other (a) Solutions which feem to me more probable, and to deferve a more particular confederation.
5. The next I (hall mention is that of- fered by (b) Mr. Whifton^ which is this >
* that aDefcription or enrolment of the Jews 4 was made juft before our Saviour's birth, € but the Tax it felt was not raifed till the c banifhment of Archelaus when Cyrenhts 1 was Governour of Syria : And Dr. 'Pri- deaux feems to approve of this way of fol- ving this difficulty. For he fays : c If the c fecond verfe of the 2d. chapter of Saint c Luke, be fo rendered as to imply that the , levying the Tax according to the Defcrip-
* tion mentioned in the former verfe, was € firft executed, while Cyrenius was Gover*
(a) I have pafiedby the conjecture of thofe who havefup. pofed this whoe parenthefis to be an interpolation, as not de- serving to be mentioned. (6) A ihortview of the Harm, of the Evangelifts Prop. xi.
I 3 l nour
1 8 The Credibility of the Book II.
« nour of Syria, this will remove all diffi-
* culties. And the Text can well beat this c interpretation [a).
In order to fupport this interpretation, Mr. Whifton (ays (Jf). c The word ufed for
* the Defcription at our Saviour's birth is the ' Verb aVo^^apOjxoi 5 and that ufed for the
* taxation under Cyrenius 7 is the noun c a-woypatpfi' He adds, that by cuftom a € noun of the fame original with a verb does c vary in fignification from it. Teo^erpeTv c is to meaiure the earth : Teofs-ST^ict, is Geo- 1 metry 5 or the Science that confifts of the c knowledge of numbers and figures.
* Nay in Englifh^ in the words dire&ly ap-
* polite to this matter, the verb to tax is
* oftentimes to lay an imputation, while the
* noun a Tax is the levy of money only/
But (i .) Mr. IV- ns Argument from
the ufe of nouns and verbs is not valid here. He fays, ' by cuftom a noun of the fame
* original with a verb does vary in fignifica-
* tk>n from it'. This may be, and there may be many inftances of it. But it had been much more material to give an example or two of the ufe of the noun aVoy^xpJ for
{a) Connex. Part. ii. lib.ix. Anno ante ch. v, ib) Ubi fupra.
a Tax
Chap.I Gospel History. 119
a Tax, namely in the fenfe in which he here underftands it. This he has not done, and I prefume no iuch example can be al- leged from any Greek author.
I know of but two or at the mod: three Senfes in which this noun is ufed, which can have any relation to this matter.
[1.] It is u(ed for the ad of the peo- ple in prcfenting themfelves to be enrol- led. As when Soldiers offered themfelves to be inlifted (a) or enrolled under a General. And in aCenfus it may be ufed for the ad of the people who come and offer themfelves to be enrolled and afieffed. So the word feems to be ufed by Jofephus, when he fays in the place above quoted that Judas per- fwaded not a few (b) of the Jews not to make enrolments or entries , that is, not to offer themfelves to be entered and ailefied.
[2.] The word is ufed for a Cenfus. So it is ufed by TDio in many places : aiffQyeaLf.a$ inoiiicrbcti is the fame as cenfum agerej that is, to make enrolments, is the iame as to make a Cenfus (Y).
[3.] This
(a) See above, p. ^6. n. b. (b) 'Eteecfytpos tizzyevot
'laotx. t£ 7rt t<roivTo$ 'laoot'iav »x oMyac, ^ 7rcn7<>% tolc, '&brt>y paty x$. de B. Jud. L. vii. p. 131?. 40. (0 nA^ lv tc/S; ^ra-
7f'«^e6~5j P- ^09. C. kvjoi ^ lazyputpsts T ov tvj 'l7«A<Jtf x«Te<_
I ^ X.»VT(S'»
no The Credibility of the Book II.
[3.] This noun is ufed for the public Rolls or Court Books, in which the entries were made : This Senfe of the word is very common. Thus Caligula being at play at Dice, and having loft all his money, he asked for the Gallic court Rolls (a), and ordered feveral of the mod wealthy of that people to be put to death, and feifed their cafh. And the Citizens of Rome, whofe debts were more than they could difcharge, having entered the fums they owed in Books opened for that purpofe, Servius Tullius> took the Books or Rolls, [t^s di*rQypcL$d$ fAa£s] brought them into the Forum, and paid the Creditors (b).
Thus I have reckoned up all the Senfes I know of this noun, relating to this matter. However it never fignifies a Tax. Taxes were paid according to the Cenfus where any had been made. But they were no part of it. They might be remitted, or demanded. And the tribute is never expreffed by the noun diroypcL^ but is ever diftinguifhed from what that fignifies. (2.) This
xivrm ixoivxrccTo' 5 5-7. B. vid. etiam jam citat. pag. 496. C, fo9. B. C.See above p. 119.
(#) Kvfitvw 'j naze *£ fjuuQav or 1 %k, un ot oLgyvptov, jjrjjo-s rs t#s *r TccXxtZv 'bbny^u.Quc, x. r. A. Dio. L. j"9- p. 6tf» B.
(b) Dion. Hal, L.iv. cap. 10. p. 107. 13.
(c) Tev rs (pipov rov c/jc t tenygeityw affiles, nM ri nysc nxTtXvirt Dio, L.4.9. pag. 401. B.
Chap.I. Gospel History, ju
f2.) This interpretation ofthefe words is contrary to matter of faft. There was no Tax levyed after the banifhment of Arche- laus according to the Enrolment made at the birth of our Saviour. But as foon as Ar- chelaus was banifhed, c Cyrenius came into * Judeato make an afieflement of their goods.3 Jofephus is as exprefs in this matter as can be (a). Then it was that Judas of Galilee and his followers c exclaimed that an afleffe- c ment would bring in among them down- < right flavery(^)5.
This interpretation therefore is fo far from being of any fervice to us, that it would introduce a new, and, 1 think, infuperable difficulty, by putting upon thefe words a fenfe dire&ly contrary to what Jofephus has faid.
JOSE? HUS is fo exprefs, that there feems no need of reafoning upon the matter to confute this fuppofition. But I can never conceive, how a Tax could be levyed in Judea^ after the removal of ^4rchelaus, upon. the Cenfus or enrolment made at our Saviour's birth, without the utmoft confufion or the
(a) TlxeZv j y^ Kuf*i*vio$ it$ t7,v 'laaet7</,v twnTifju?i<ro{jtjtvo$ re uvtuvtUc, hrU? Ant. L. i8.c. i- (b) Tw ts ^rer^jjo-**
£<Jiv <x,?&o n xvTixfvc Pxtiiciv inKpifi.v Xtyrrtf Id. ibid.
utmoft
I ix The Credibility of the Book II.
utmoft injuftice. When the Enrolment which St. Z,#/b fpeaks of was made, Galilee, Trachonitis, and other countries were fub- je£fc to Herod, befide Judea: many who lived in Galilee enrolled themfelves in Judea particularly Jofeph, as St. Luke aflures us. But when ^Archelaus was banifhed, one half of Herod's Dominions was in the poiTeffion of Herod the Tetrarch and Philip, and had been fo ever fince the death of Herod called the Great. And only Judea, Samaria and Idumea, which had been fubjeft to Arche. laus, were thrown into the form of a Ro- man Province. The Jews having enrolled themfelves according to their families at the time of our Saviour's nativity, and many having come into Judea properly fo called from Galilee and other parts of Herod s ter- ritories, a new enrolment was abfolutely neceffary in 'Judea at the time of Arche- laus's removal, if they were to pay tribute there in the way of a Cenlus. Judea, other- wife, muft have been very much over- bur- dened. If there was an afleffement of goods made at the latter end of Herod s reign, un- doubtedly Jofeph's ftock at Nazareth was entered and rated at Bethlehem. And as the Jews in that part of the world were
chiefly
Chap.I. Gospel History. 113
chiefly of the tribes of Judah and Benja- min^ the inhabitants of Galilee, and Tra* chonitis, &c. muft have very generally en- rolled themfelves in towns that belonged to the province of Judea. But it would have been very unreafonable in the Romans to de- mand tribute of the people of Judea, pro- perly fo called, for eftates and goods which were in the territories of the Tetrarchs Herod and Tki/ip.
And we are allured, that the Romans did ufe to ad equitably and with great ex- a&neffe in thefe matters. Many of the Ro- man Citizens had been for a long timeop- prefled with the weight of their debts. Away having been found out A, U. 402, to give them eafe, Livie fays, that the next year a Cenlus was ordered, becaufe the property of many things had been altered (a).
6. The Solution I fhall confider in the next place, is that, which wasfirft offered by Heruoaert (b). I give it here in the words
(a) Quia Solutio aeris alieni multarum rerum mutaverat do- mir.os; cenium agi placuit. lib. 7. cap. zz. n. 6.vid & c. zi.
(if) Uc hoc loco genhivus nytfMnverroi vocsbuio npa-r) ad- ditus, vim compaction's efficiat, 6c perinde fit, ac fi diceretur defcriptionem illam eiTe priorem, priufque fa6tam,qu:im Quiri- nius Syriae pracficeretur, praefe&uramque ipfius gcreret. Her- TBoaert nova &. vera Chronologa Monachii 1611. p. 189.
of
1 24 The Credibility of the Book II.
of (a) DoCtotlVhitbyhy whomitisefpoufed. f^And this taxing was firft made f before that made) when Cyrcnius was Governow of Syria. The leraned Kepler (£) approved of this interpretation as perfe&ly agreeable to the genius of the Greek language. Not- withftanding this (V) Cafaubon reje&ed it, and was fuppofed by moft to have con- futed Herwaert's arguments for it. Peri- z>onius in his difiertation upon this Subje&of the Taxing has afrefh fupported this inter- pretation. Monfieur Le Clerc in his additi- ons to Dr. Hammond % annotations exprefles his approbation of it: and has fince declared (d) that he thinks it has been fet in fo clear a light as to be inconteftable. And it is now embraced by many other learned men both Proteftants and Catholics.
I a m very defirous, this Solution fhould appear here to as much advantage as an ar- gument fo full of Greek criticifms can do in
(a) Tn ioc. (£) Cum igitur omnium Graecc do&o-
rum judicio conftet fie optimeverfum efTe hunc locum Lucae, multoque emendatius quam habet antiqua verfio, fpero omnes acquieturos hac Solutione obje&ionis prius propofitae. J>e Natal. J. Chr. p. 116, 117. (c) Zxerc. in Bzron.
i. n. 33. (J) Ce denombnmn,t fe fit avant que J^ulri^
whs fut goHvemenr de la Syrie. Des Savans hommes ont mis, cette explication dece paflage de St. Luc dans un fi grand jou? qu'eJle paroit defTormais inconteftable. Nottv* Teflam.
a defign
Chap. I. Gospel History, nj
a defign of this nature in our own language. Teri'zonius allows, that a great many of Rerwaerfs inftances are not to the purpofe. And Mr. Le Clerc has in his writings more than once referred to Perizonius's treatife for the proofs of this interpretation. I reckon therefore, that it will be fufficient to reprefent this argument, as it is drawn up by Dr. Whitby zndPerizonius : efpecially if I take in by the by an inftance or two, infifted on by others, though neglected by them.
Doctor Whitby fays c I dare not allow
* of the boldnefs of thofe Critickswho for
* Ku^Wh read YLvwtlXiv I would rather
c read 7rpo tve, than itpafrrn— — But neither c do we need this criticifm, fince the words ' irp£r@* and Trpirep®* are by the Seventy < oft ufed according to this fenfe ; of the € word irporepovj this is beyond doubt, God
' faying twice ams%\£ <r<pYiiLici$ isr&0Tlpa<; cry?
I will fend hornets before thee \ Exod. xxiii.
* is. Jof. xxiv. 12. That irp&t©" alfo is
1 ufed in the fenfe of priority, we learn ' from thefe inftances Tr^riroK©* eyd v av, I am before thee, I am elder than thou- c $ Ivcl ti hk IXoylobm o \iy@* j%« <urp<£T(§k ; J Chal. h KRVDIQ, Why then was not
the
i%6 The Credibility of the Book II-
* the word firfi fpoken to me ? Cur mihi non 1 annunciatum eft priori? 2 Sam. xix. 43.
* Ifa. lxv. i<5. The former troubles are for- 1 gotten, Gr. liriTwaovicLi rrw 6a/4iv ayTWI' 1 T7)v 7Ti?'jTvv, and ver. 17. £ ^v jLtvm^oSai 1 t<£v TTpoTg^wy, they Jhall not remember 1 the former* So Johni, 15.30. or* Tr^wTOS c jx» 3?, /J?r #* ^^J fe/wv ^^, and chap. 15. 1 18. know that they hated iy.1 tv^utqv, 1 me before you, 1 Cor. xiv. 30. 0 irpdor©^ c Let the former hold his peace 5 and 1 Job. c 4. 19. /^£ /<?w #/';#, Sti tt-^'t©*, be. * caufc he loved us before 5 and in Arifto- c phanes, d\*? &*. av ir*o t£ is interpreted, c aAA5 ax dv TieOTepov, Neph.p. 122. And
* fo Theophylaff interprets the word here.
* TvTegnr porigoi YiyejuonuovT©*) hyvv rurponpov c 7i riyiuiovsve Trig ^v^icl$ K.vpvvt@J,
PERIZONIUS underftands thefe words in the fame fenfe (a) with the Do- dor, only he differs from him and Her. waert , in that they fuppofe irpoSrvi to be the fame as %pqtI*x, whereas he fays
(a) Verus itique rrua fcntentia verborum fenfus eft: Hate dejcnptio prius, vel, ante, faftx eft, quam prae/ideret Syria9 Qhiirtnus. Differ tatio de Auguftea or bis terrarum Defer ip- tione, §. xxi.
thefe
Chap. I. GospelHistory. 117
thefe numeral adjedtives have the force of ad- verbs (a).
H e alleges divers of the fame examples which the Doftor does, particularly John i. 1 5, and xv. 18. Of the later, St! fy*« Trg£rw v(jlo)v /uLejubiiyii, he fays, itmuQbyall means be underftood (b) of priority of time : It hated me before it hated you.
H e fuppofes alfo (c) that we have a par- rellelinftance in a word of an oppofite mean- ing, 2 Mace, vii.41. e%a,T<i t£v viqSv fi fJinrn^ iTeAluTnvt' Laft of all after the Jons the mother died. In the fame manner is it*utcv
{a) Voluit autem Herwartus 7rponrr, poni uvri § Trporspx, atque hujas locurionis vi, genitivum, qui fequitur, a ra> v-pair*, tarquam a comparative*, regi. Durum hoc plcrifque vifum. Ego rem aliter expediendam omnino cenfeam. Uparri fimpli- cirer, ut adjec'livum numeraie jungitur verbo, quemadmodum folent adjetliva habitum vcl modum rei geftac iignificantis,
tanquam fi fint adverbia Sic plane crpZr(^y verbis adjun-
<5fcum, faepe fignificat fotam ordinis & numeri rationem, line difcrimine, plurefne fint, an unus, qui fequantur; atque adeo rune non tarn fuperlativi, quam pofitivi naturam induit* eandemque fubit conftru&ionsm, qaam JW«pa$ 6c feqq. Pati hoc naturam rei fignificatae evidens ex lingua Hebraica, ubi» ut conftat, eodem vocabulo ]1t£>V-| prior & primus, "IRH primus & unus, promifcue fignificantur. Pofitivi autem naturam vere quafi induere aliquando to npeoTcs apud Graecos, vel inde coili- gas, quod ex eo formatum fuerit aliud p'ane fuperlativum xpaTiros id quod non fuifTet opus, fi ferrper iftlus gradus vim retincret a-p«T«$- ibid. §. xxii. (b) Vertendum omnino
cum fignificatu temporis, me primum ante vosibid.& §. xxiii.
(e) Ibid,
the
ia8 The Credibility of the Book II.
the adverb ufed in Ariftophanes in avibus p. m. 564. de Gallo 5 ?^%e Tg tt^mtov A^g/« x) tAtyaGufy, i. e. imperabatque Per/is priuf- quam T>arius & Megabyzus.
PERIZON1US fays, that the ge- nitives that follow Tr^ceror are governed by an Ellipfis (b)7 and that tt^tqs /uv, is the fame as irpoorog irpo /utov, itzplos v/ulmv the fame as TTgcaTot; TTfd tfytcSV Thus in Z>«^ xi. 38*
(/») Ibid.
(£) !Ig» enim efle particulam, quae in ifta locutione defide- ratur, 8c a qua regitur genitivus, certiflimum ex eo, quod ubi ellipfis nulla, 8c fententia plene ac integre exponitur, ilia potif- fimum occurrit exprefla. Apud Anton. Liberalem fab. Z9I K»l npo ' HpootXiXs tyry 6ux<ri TuXttfouh Trpary Galinthias ibi optime dicitur merita fulfil* de Hercule, 8c idcirco Thebanos in fefio Herculis facrificare Gahnthiadi pr'ms , feu primae, ante
Herculem Sed 8c ipfe Lucas Evang. xi.38.exprefiit fimi-
liter to 5rpo poft %t>aroe; 0 3 <bct,pi<rou<&') inquit, ifrw iduvfjuxa-sv* en a xpaTov I^svxticH xfo ugirv quod non primum fe laverit, antequam ciburn fumeret. Vides utrobique poft xparn 8c srpSrov ante genitivum expreflfam hanc praepofitionem ; quod certo eft indicio, ab ea etiam regi, quando nulla comparet, omifia per s^u^iv, fed tamen intelligenda: atque adeo expli- candum etiam npwrov Austin, quafi didtum eflet ^urov 7rpb Accent' *s twy^aipvi nyum Kvpnvus, quafi ^cortj Trpb Kvpwiif
§. xxv.- mihique idem eft, ac ii dixilTet Lucas, non quidem
mortcct, iiyo[/jovivovTos> verum 7rgoorn ngo yiyti/jwivovToe,-— — J Sed nihil fimilius, quod ad conftruttionis 8c linguae rationem* Lucae verbis fecundum noftram eorum inter pretationem, quam locus Lxx. Interpretum Jeretn. xxix. i.xtoi 61 Xoyot, fearer- &X&* Ugsyjtx$ it$ BafivXcZvx vrspov efyxQwros 'U^ovlisl^ 'Lipxa-ccXtiyi*' Haec funt verba, quae mifit, vel fcripfit Jeremias Babylonem, poftquam exiit Jechonias ex Hierofolymis §. xxviii.
He
Chap. I. Gospel History. 129
He wondered, [on 8 vs-poHrou e/SxTr-na-flw 7rpo i?f /r«] th&t I°e had n°t wafted before din- ner. From this and another fuch inftance he concludes, that the genitive is governed by 7T£o undcrftood, when it is wanting.
This is the fubftanceof the argument in favour of this meaning of this paflage of St. Luke.
I t has been thought by fome to be an objection againft this folution, that then Saint has omitted to name the perlbn by whom this enrolment was made. But methinks this is a defect which may bedifpenfed with. This interpretation anfwers very well what feems to be the main intention of this pa- renthefis, namely, to diftinguifli the enrol, ment now made from that which was made afterward. And if the words will bear this fenfe, I mould think that moft perfons would acquiefce in it. For my own part, I dare not abfolutely re j eft it : but yet I am not fully fatisfied, that this fenfe can be fairly put up- on the words. I think my felf obliged to review the arguments here offered by thefe learned men, and hope it may be done without ofFenfe.
K I SHAfcfc
1 3 o The Credibility of the Book II.
I shall therefore make fome remarks upon Do&or Whitby and Teriz,onhi$y and confider likewife fome other examples, o- mitted by them, upon which fome others have laid a great ftretle.
Doctor IVhitbfs inftances of the ufe of irepTseps and i^orepov from the Seventy are not to the point, becaufe the word in St. Luke is Tr^w'-n?. There is no doubt, but 7rpoTg£©., the comparative, is very often fol- lowed by a genitive cafe, and denotes fuch or iuch a thing to be before another. We want fome plain examples of this uie of
IfPcSj^k' NOL* iS 7TpQDTCT0JC©* eyoo 71 GV tO
the point, becaufe the 7) is wanting in Saint Luke, and the conflru&ion is different. The example from IfaAxv. 16. only proves that 7rpT©« fignifies the former : and tho* Trp'Jm in St. Luke fhould be fo rendered, the difficulty will remain in its full force. For, then the fenfe will be; This former taxing was made, ^fowCyrenius was govemour of Syria. Nor can the 7T£wt©' in 1 Cor. xiv# 30. or 1 John iv. 19. do us any fervice, for want of a regimen equivalent to what we have in our text. Nor do I fee what ufe can be made of the phrafe borrowed from Arifio- fhanes. The pafiagefrpm 2 Sam. 19. 43>
as
Chap J. Gospel History. 131
as it is quoted by Keuchen'ms (V), feems to me more ftrongly ro fupport this inter- pretation, than as it is quoted by the Doctor. Though, I fuppofc, the Do&or had his rea- fbns for quoting it in that way. Nor has Terizonius quoted this text, though he had Keuchen'ms before him. It is obfervable, that'll is wanting in (b) Grabe's edition of the Septuagint, as there is nothing an- fwerable to it in the Hebrew. The inllances from St. John's Gofpel will be distinctly con- sidered by and by.
TERIZO NIUS l§. 22.] is con- cerned to (hew that tt^t@^ is not always fuperlative, but iome times only pofitive. But I cannot perceive the force of his ar- guments. Becaufe the Hebrews have ufcd fome of their Numerals in this manner, does it follow that the Greeks did > Is it any proof that the Englijh fay Henry Seven, be-
(x) Silentio tandem praeterire nequeo quod i Sam, cap. 19. 43. legitur, Et -vtr Ifraelis refpondit viro Judae, & dixit, n»\h* fitnt decern partes hi rege, ubi Lxx. de fuo addere videntur. j£ 7rgei>TOTox(&' sy« vi ao, fa etiam in Divide ego prae te: cur igitur me viltbendtfti, fa noa fuit -verbum meum primum fett prius (inter duos enim leimo eft)mthi ■areducendum regem meum} quod Lxx. vertunt, ?£ sx iAcyia-Sn A*ye« /ah nearis yj0i £ ladct, ixisyl-<l>cci rov fia,<riXLcc lyjol$ ubi yrgSrot £ 'lis Jet manitefte poriicur pro xporsfoc,' Petri Keuchen: annot. in loc. (6) K«»
K 2 caufc
l^r The Credibility of the BookIL
caufe the French fay Louts guatorze ? And then for the other argument, that Tip^Ves zj tfi /V se^r* ^ pofitive , becaufe ^p^'-ng^ is formed from it : The Caie, I think is this 5 Trpc has two or three fuperlatives : and if <Perizonius would prove itpvToq to be a pofitive, he mud produce tome example in which it is to ufed.
The firft quotation in *Perizonius[§. 23 ] which I (hall confidcr isjohnxx. 3, 4. P^/^r therefore went forth, and that other dif- ciple, and cayne to the Sepulchre. So they ran both together, and the other difcipledtd outrun Peter [^ 3X8* ir^Sroc, uc, to ^vnyatov] and came firft to the Sepulchre. Which 'Perizowus would render thus : and came firft, viz. before Teter j and fays that the meaning cannot be came firft of all [ir^Sios itdvlw~] becaufe Mary Magdalene had been there before. No, for certain, it is not, came firft of all, becaufe two only are here fpoken of 5 and omnium primus is not properly faid of two. But I wonder Verizonius did not perceive the proper ellip- lis in this place, and which is very obvious, nanaely, toiv SWv, and came the firft of the two. Verizonius does not deny, that vpSim is ufed, where two only are fpoken
of i
Chap. I. Gospel History. 133 of 5 nay, he con tends for it. But becaufe it is generally denied (a), and becaufe his proofs appear to me not very clear, or at left not fo fully to (bit my interpretation of this text, I mall give two undoubted examples. Thus (i) cDionyJitts fays, that Servius Tut- lius's wife was daughter of Tarquin the firjl'> though there were but two Tar quins Kings of Rome. Tlutarch thus dr (cribes a reftlefs uneafy mind. * If he is a native of 4 a province, of Galatia for inftance, or Bi- 1 thjnia 5 He thinks he is not well ufed, if 1 he has not fome eminent poft among his « Citizens. If he has that, he laments that * he has not a right of wearing the Tatri- 1 cian habit : If he has that, he grieves that
< he is not a Roman Praetor : If he is ' Praetor, that he is not Conful ; and if c Conful, that he was not declared firft, but
< (c) only the latter (of the two/.
(a) T\£uro<, 7§ tfporspoq JiotQtgti' xpSrcs y> In] TrcXXeZy, Tr^npoi ^, *7r\ JVo* Ammon. de Sim. & Dijf. (b) Tupuwix
6vyu7ijp *<rx "S n%ooT* (sct<riXiu$- Dioryf. Hal. Antiq. p. 2. 34. V. 1 3. confer, p. 1/0. v. 41. oti TxpKvviu & xpoTipov fix<riXtv<rxv- T«>s 'PufAiXim ethxtyx kmc, nt* & p. 2 J"3. 10. ? ftpoTtpov Qcca-iXiuq Txpxvvirs (byocTvp' (c) 'E-xv j Xj rpxrvyaJv, on ft*
V.TXTiVW >£ VTTXTi'JUV CTl ft/) Tffft/TOS, *,?&' VS~t{*$ CS^yeilVfy.
flutHTchAc Aoimt Tmnq. p. 470. c.
K I Thjs
1 3 4 The Credibility of the Book II.
This text then will not help Terizo- n'ms. All that can be proved from it is, that irgZ'tos is ufed very properly where two only are fpoken of. If tt^tyi in St. Luke be allowed to fignify thefrfi or former of two taxings, all that will refult from hence is, that St. Luke thought there was another taxing befide this 5 and that this now made by Cyrenius was the former of the two. No inflance of this fort will prove, that the meaning of this paiTage is, This taxing -was before j or prior to, that made when Cy. renins was Governour of Syria.
The examples from John i. 15, 30* xv. 18. are fome of the moft proper exam- ples in the whole number : and if they are rightly underflood, they are very much to the purpofe. But, with fubmiffion to theie learned men, I think, they are taken by 'em in a wrong (enfe. They are both much of the fame kind > but I choofe to confider flrft of all that alleged from John xv. 18. h 0 xia^o:, ufAcic, fjLiau, yivaexsTe on \fjik ttzmtov vpotv jueplcww If the world hate you% know that it hated me before it hated you. Her wart (a) is much pieafed with this example. If
(a) Tile vero S. Joannis xv. 18. locus ad hoc inftitutum minfice .facit,— Si mundas vos edit, fcitote quia me frier em 11c bis odie hubiut*
Chap. L Gospel History. 135-.
I f irpuTov be fuppofed to be an adverb, then this is not a parallel inftance. But in- deed, as I take it, it is neither an adverb, nor an adjective, but a noun Subftantivc ; or at left, an adjective ufed fubftantively : and the latter part of the verfe ought to be rendered : Know that it has hated me your chief. The connexion of the words may fatisfy us, that this was our Saviour's meaning. His argument is, that men had hated him who was fuperior to them 5 nay, they had hated even his father, the difciples therefore ought not to be furprifed if they hate them alfo. v. 20. Remember the words that I [aid unto youy the fervant is not greater than his Lord, if they have perfe- cted me, they will alfo perfectite you. v. 24. But now they have both feen and hated me and my father. The force of the argument is not, that the world had hated him before it had hated them : But he bids them confider, that it hated him who was their mafter, an4 whom they allowed to be lo. This is the argument made ufe of in other places with the fame view. The difciple is not above m^^^ his majler, nor the Servant above his Lord. a5« ----If they have called the mafier of the
K 4 konfe
1^6 The Credibility of the Book II.
hoiife Beelzebub, how much more fhall they C(ill them of his houjloold ?
If it be faid, that there was no occafion to fubjoin your chief after me ; that me is u fed £eiK?m<Sh and that the difciples could confider Jefus no otherwife than as their matter : I anfwer, that it is apparent from the texts already alleged here by me, that this was not our Saviour's Stile ; and that he did not truft fo much to his difciples un- derstandings. When he had occafion to draw any inferences from his fuperiority, he always exprefleth it. le call me Mafter, and Lord, and ye fay well : for fo 1 am* If 1 then your Lord and Mafter have wajhed Johnxm. your feet, ye ought alfo to waflo one ano- 14 t hers feet.
TWros is ufed feveral times in the New
Teftamenty in the plural number, for fuperio-
xity of honour and dignity : Kal to?s ir^-ron
t£s TaAiKctias, is not ill rendered in our
Mark vi. verfion, chief ejlates of Galilee: ywatKtSv
7jjksx*. T1* T6^V ^f»T&>i' hk oA/yai, of the chief wo-
4« men not a few : or, as perhaps the words
might be rendered, not a few of the wives
of the chief men.
I t is likewife ufed ir> the Angular num- ber in the fame fenfe. Kal J$ Idt G*A>i *v
Chap.L Gospel History. 137
v/uuv uvat 7r£wT0$, l<T*> Vf&<£v S^Ao;* And ivhofoever will be chief among you, let him be your fervant* There is another un-xx*^7* exceptionable inftance of this ufe of the word :
fey $2 to?s— rjirnpyp %ja>j>la Tea ispo&Too Tnq mgh*
In the fame quarters were foffejfwns of the chief man of the IJland. Grotius, tortus, his annotations upon this place, has exhibi- 7% ted a Greek infeription, found in this very Ifland of Melita, a part of which inferip- tion is thus : A. K. KIOS. lnnET2, PQM. nPflTOS MEA1TAIQN. L. C. Kius, Roman Knight, chief of the Melitenes.
The word is often fo ufed in the Sep- tuagint verfion : irp&Toz rZv t?iclxqvtcl, chief of the thirty *. Kal *A<rd<p -nrp»ro« T<Z>p*.lCkr9*> dSivTM f , and in many other other places, t Nehem. And in Jofephus : 'ISTo; 0 IL'ra <**?*, o«xii'4S" Tff§ nrpiTn$ /u*ip&0$ *srg£ro$9 Juftus the fon of Tifiusy chief or leader of the third faction in (a) Tiberias. I throw an example or two more from other (J?) authors into the margin.
(*) 7°feph' in vit. p. 907. V. 12 . (£) T« $ j X*8k
iovrcs xpuris n&\ ifucl' %. A. Herodot. lib.i. C. I If. «» jjav^ «*-osf >£ 0 TTguros ccvTuv x.A. ibid. C.173. KxiEircCfJtjiva)>}cit<;€ot&)TXf>%av> cv Aiwwym i\«*jjc*t Actx-i^ccif^mts^ x} t '?a\juuwv [Qvifiuiuv legit Pcrizonius] xj r '£ftww tjwtos iyivw JElian. Var* #//?. vii. 14.
Therb
1 3 8 The Credibility of the Book II
There islikewife in the New Tefla- ment a verb derived from ttpwt©,, accord- ing to this fenfe of it s /W yivnmi ov 7zimv cZvtoc, Trgoolivoovy that in all things he might Col. i. 1 8. have the preeminence : or, that in all things he might be chief: a word very common alfo in other writers.
Nor do I fee, why wpcSj®. fhould not be allowed to be ufed fubftantively in divers of the places I have produced. Trinceps in Latin is properly an adje&ive, and is often (6 ufed : at other times it is a fubftantive. 'Av- Tox.ep.i&g is fometimes an (a) adje&ive. It is alfo ufed fubftantively. No one will deny it. "T7raT©- is a word very near parallel with Trpc^T©,, is often an adjedive, at other times is ufed fubftantively, and denotes a Con- ful.
I c o me now to the other inftance, John.
U 15. Hl<&* r\V OV UTTOVy 0 OTTiau) jus e^%0-
%v% This was he of whom Ifpake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me0 The fame words occur again v. 30. withlit- tle variation. But the laft claufe ought not,
(a) Aufiw rw yyTGxfoiTcfti. *Y%y&s ■D'onjf. Hal. lib. 7. |». 408. V.I.
in
Chap. I. GospelHistory. 130
in my opinion, to be rendered, for he was before me, but, for he is my Prince or Lord,
What I have already faid in favour of this meaning of nr^rog in the former in- ftance may, I prefume, make way for ad- mitting it here.
I apprehend John to fay: He that follows me, or comes behind me, was al- ways before me, or in my view, for he is my Prince. "Ej&irpcaSBv and omaca (unlefs I am much miftaken) are never ufed in the New Teftament for priority or pofkriority of time, nor for fuperiority or inferiority in refpeft of dignity (unlefs they are fo ufed herein the cafe of John the Baptijl) but al- ways have a regard to place. For we mufl all appear before the judgment feat of Chrifi a. [vEu,7repa\$6v t£ 8i{jlccto$ t« X^cj-b] a % cor. v. / faid unto Peter before them all bJ°* CEjLt7r^pcr3ev irccvToev']. Forgetting the^^ things which are behind, and reaching forth unto thofe things which are before iC cH.. ...
g3w ir7ttKT2ivo[Aivo<;y Ivcimov and H/jntepaStv arc frequently ufed the one for the other d.d Matth- It is true, John came before Chrift, dwisw&fiS. before his face. He went before him as an9,
officer
140 The Credibility of the Book If.
officer before a great man. But that is ex- prefTed here in oViW /&£ Ip^oj^voc;
B u t I will not contend about this. Per- haps \[L-n^d^r%v \k* yiynv is not ill rendered in our tranflation, is preferred before me, though it appears to me an unufual fenfe of the word.
However, tt^SIos jt*« muft neverthe- leffe be underftood, as I render it. And I learn from Beza (a), that others have been of the fame opinion before me.
Thus then John fays, toward the con- clufion of his miniftry : Te your felves bear witnefs that I [from the beginning] faid, I am not the Chrift, but that I came before
* John in. fom >^ Referring to what he had declared at firft : 1 am the voice of one crying in the wildemejfe, make strait the way of*
f _ ;. ,$. the Lord f. That is, I came not on my own account, but barely as a harbinger that makes way for his Lord. This is the pecu- liar chara&er of John, under which he w^s
it2fc.x].3.prophefied of || : And under which he al-
Maiach.iihyzys fpeaks 0f himfelf. And what in the 15 th and 30th verfes of this ift. chap, of John, is 5U 7r^lrog p* fo, he is my Prince^
(a) Quamobrcm etiam nonnulli xfaAs f*% interpretantur fmicefsmetu 1 quod mihipenitus infolens videtur. Bez,, inloc#
is
Chap. I. Gospel History. 141
is in the 27th. verf. reprefented by an expret fion that denotes the vaft fuperiority of Chrift above him : ecvlos igiv 0 qttigw (/m eg%o[JLepc$9 OS tfA.'sr^oa^iv /uw ylyivtv* « \yoo £k iipi at;io<;
it is, who coming after mey is preferred be- fore me, whofejhoes latchet I am not worthy to unloofe. That is, I am fo far inferior to him, and am in fo low a poft under him, that I am not worthy to perform the meaneft office about his perfon : or, iu other words, I am a mere harbinger, and he is my Lord. Athenagoras (a) has ufed this word in this very fenfe of a Prince or chief.
I hope it will be no objection againft this interpretation, that then the words I would not have been ircuiis julv %v> but igiv ; for thefe are all one and the fame. I need go no farther for proof than thefe two verfes: 8T05 rip ov %nxQv in the 15 th, in the 30th is aTOS igi Tvegji « iyoi tnuov. So that 5p and sgi fignifie the very fame thing, and arc ufed one for the other.
(a) rJpo(r?xi J) t« ]£* to nguTtvw xecrcc <putrivt ru o't 2bgv<pt£»% rot nPilTON, o'JWeJttv n t£ Trpoxvtpytiv <ku* onea-ov f[A7rce*i9 i£ irj>o<rxvTi<;' Decet enim hoc fecund um naturam principatum habere, illud autem, fatellitis vice Principi fuo viam facere* & praevio curfu, omnia impedimenta & praerupta tollere. D* fie/for. p. jo. D.farif l6$6.
I AM
14^ The Credibility of the Book II.
I AM indeed aware, that fome Gramma- rians will except againft my notion of -sr^atfos being a Subftantive. I will then for the pre- fent fuppofe it to bean Adjedive. But yet, I cannot part with the interpretation I have given of either of thefc texts. The context latisfies mc, the fenfe I affix to the words is the true meaning : and I can, if I miftake nor, account for it according to the ftridkft rules of the Grammarians. Let then ib-^£tov in John xv. 18. be inclulive, and be under- ftood partitively, and i^alv will be governed by the ellipfis if. This I fuppofe will not be contcfted. But I choofe to underftand <&g(Srov hereexclufively. I think, that is the beft fenfe. And then the ellipfis may be (a) 7rpo7 or <we&9 or whatever elfe the Gram- marians like beft. Yl^Stoc, in John i. 15, 30. is evidently exclufive, according to my way of rendring it 5 and the /uS following is governed by an ellipfis of one of the laft mentioned prepofuions. This I take to be
(a) Terizonius fays §. 24. Apud Graecos hanc vicem prae- ftant praepoiitiones trgb 8c scsp, quarum ilia refpondet rZ ante, haec ru prae. TJgo is alfo ufed to denote preference and pre* eminence, both limply and incompofition. Simply : K«t» »r©»
vrpo £ swat to 2bKs7)i tix9fo%oyjtvi)<i Vhdo^p. 193. D.vid. St p-I94« D. I* compofitioo : in xptr *>$, n^oTipxV) &c.
perfectly
Chap. I. Gospel History. \^
perfe&ly agreeable to the rules of the Gram- marians. And thus, in one place Jefus tells his difciples, that he was chief above them : and in the other John the Baptiji fays, that Jefus was Prince or chief above him. And now I have Beza on my fide, with reference to John i. 15. For though he would not allow, that ^wto's jua is my prince, yet he fays (a), after a very careful examination, he is convinced, it exprefTes the vaft excel- lence and fuperiority of Chrift above John. I am not fingular therefore in fuppofing, that this text does not exprefs dire&ly and fim- ply priority of time, but only virtually and confequentially, as it is implied and com- prehended in the fupetior dignity, of which it is a part.
There is another wgiiv in the New Teftament, which has been underftood by fome in the fame fenfe, in which thefe learn- ed men have taken the two former inftances, though it is not alleged bv them. Now the „ M fir ft day of the feaft of unleavened bread .'xxvi. 17.
(a) Caeterum hoc loco diligentius expenfo, quam antca, — Ia* Declarat igitur praeftantiam, fed Chrifto pecuiiarem, & ip(i propriam : nempe quafidiceret Joannes. Qui me fcquitur quafl magiftrumpraeeuntem difcipulusquifpiam,'mihiantepofitus e(\ idqueoptimo jure quia infinitis modis eft praeftantior: quamvis ante docere coepcrim quim ille fck mundo patefecerit. In he
This
1 44, The Credibility of the Book II.
This was the fourteenth day of the month a but it is urged here, that the 15th day was the firft day of the feaft of linleavened bread 5 fotjofephus fays, that the 16th day of the month was (a) the fecond day of that feaft. And the words of the Law agree here withj And in the fourteenth day of the firft month is the pajfover cf the Lord. ^And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feaft. jyeuu Seven days {hall Unleavened bread be eaten. xxvm.i -j^Q fourteenth day therefore was the day of St-e Exod the paflfover. The feaft of unleavened bread was diftinft from it, and lafted feven days from the 14th at night. The fifteenth day ofrhe month was the firft of unleavened bread. Therefore, when the Evangelifts, fpeaking of the 14th day, fay, it was ir^drm t£v dfvjucov, they mean not the firft day of un- leavened bread, but the day before that Feaft. The ^ews have a rule, that in the compu- tation of Feafts, the day ( b) preeeeds the night. What ftreffe ought to be laid upon
<hKocrn) Antiq. 3. c. 10. p. 124. v. 20.
(b) Quum autem Matt. 16. 17. 6c Marc. 14. 12. ipfe dies 14. Nifan appellator primus dies azymorum, intelligendum id €ft fecundum canonem Judaeorum, mox traditum, fcilicet in facris comedendis diem praecedere nodtem ; lie ut terapus vefpertinum diei 1 4. 8c nox iiibfequens hoc modo diei 14 ac- ceDfcantur. RelanJ. Antic^ Heb.^. 422,
4 this
Chap.I. Gospel History. j^f this cafe, I know not. I am fatisned we do not need it. The Vaffbver was ftri&Iy fpeaking diftinft from the feaft of unleavened bread, and feven days of un- leavened bread followed the day of the psfT- over. But their houfes were eleanfed from all leaven on the morning of the day on which thePafchal Lamb was (lain, and there- fore after neon they could eat no leavened bread. For this reafon, perhaps, the day of the paflbver was called the fhft of unleavened bread. But, wharever was the reafon of it, it is certain, that the paflbver and the feaft of unleavened bread are often taken promifcu- oufly the one for the other. And though Jofepkus, in the particular account of the in- ftitution, diftinguiflies the paflover from the feaft of unleavened bread, yet he often calls the one the other. * At (a) that time, fays he, the feaft approaching, in which the Jews are wont to eat unleavened bread. * The feaft is called the paflbver, it being kept 1 in remembrance of their departure out of e Egypt- And in one place he fays, we keep
(a) 'EvTdcr^c 'j fttntt to'jvs rbv ttetipov sofritq, cv vj 'lad'airis
%<ru. r«5 s| 'Aiyvz-TX oczTx^crsaq olvtm yvnpinitf Anticj^, 17. c. 9. §•3- P-77 3* v.aj. vid. ficp.609. v. 31.88;. v. ic.
L « the
146 The Credibility of the Boot II.
(a) the feaft of unleavened bread eight ' days.3 According to this method of computation, the 14th day wasthefirft of un- leavened bread. So that when thefe two feafts were confidered as one, as they were very often, and the whole was called by the feaft of unleavened bread, the fourteenth day muft be the firft. The Evangelifts, per- haps, do not write in Syftem : nor does Jo- fephus, as it feems, nor indeed any other good writers ; but according to the ufual way of fpeaking.
HE RWAERT if?) lays great ftreffe upon a paftage of Athenams, who quotes
(a) ' 0&ZV £<5 f//Vil!Aii1V TV)$ TOTS £va&lCl$ £OgTW UyOf/jiV S/p" Y,yj{^OC«i
ex.T0, tw t ktyyjM AtyofAivqv Antiq. 2. c. i$. p. S8. in'tt.
(b) Die vero locus Ariftotehs eft fingularis. Eum recenfet Athenaeus Lib. xi. p. 5-05. xfo ^ olvtu \UXuto}v<&'~\ tx&' kvfi to h$<§~ T Xoyuv 0 Tyjl'3^ ' AX't'Eci[jJiv(&'i coc, 1$iKtct$ 6 Nfjeasv; iVep? (£ XaTqf tav. ' AgiTOTzXqc, j cv raj Trspi XctyTm iSTW, y[d(pu> 'OvxZv x£e £p>yj£Tpi£c r&5 KaXHfhiv^q 1.u$pov(&> [&![&¥$ f.m <Poo[*zv uvea Asyss *£ juwjMtf}cr«s, vi rg$ ' 'AXs%%yjZv% t% Tn'm x&i TTfxyrss ypczfiivrs&s T Xcokocctikw oiaXoyav aiTtxpv$ (pcurKCov 0 7ioXvyjo(.- 6z<rxT@*' ' Act^oTtMc, trfo IIXutwoc, otn^oyaq yiypa<ptvcct to* 'AXeloit/jivcv. Haec quidem Athenaeus: Ubi fane verba i la )\ri- flotelis T85 k^utxc, yfd^psJTxt; t ZoJKpuTM&v ^sc^oyav. Athenaeus hifce interpretatur [r&s ^-mpev] %£o UXuTm^ <^#Aoy£$,5c.r.A. Plato enlm in fuis Dia'ogis introducit Socratem qui horterur
juvenes, fophiftas redarguat, viros doceatj unde haud immerito
vocantur Socratici- Quernaarioduni igitur Ariftoteles Akx-
ameni DiaJogos prius fcriptos, quam Plato fuos Socraticos con- fer ipfiflet, vocat rss n^odrxs ygcc$iVT<»<; t 2&>xp«jr^Jv friciXayuty He Divus Lucas, &c. Herwaerz. ubi fupra. pag. 197.
AriJtotle%
Chap. I. Gospel History. 14/7
Arijlotle, faying (as Herwaert underftands the words) that Alexamenus\ dialogues were wrote before the Socratic dialogues [that is the dialogues in which Tlato intro- duces Socrates'] cxprefly affirming, fays A~ thenaeus, that Alexamenus wrote dialogues before P/ato.
But it is very plain to me, that Ar'ifto- tie fays that ^Aiexamenus's dialogues were the firft Socratic dialogues 5 that is, that A- lexarncnus was the inventer of that way of writing. I have tranfcribed the paflage of Kyithenaens more at length then Her'jiaert has done. And if the reader will confider the whole of it, I think he will be con- vinced : 1 ft, That by Socratic dialogues is here meant, not Tlafo's dialogues in which he introduces Socrates, but in general that way of writing : and 2dly, That Arijlotle fays that Alexamenus s dialogues were {a) the firft of the kind. From whence At he- naens infers very juftly that Arlflole fays ex * prefly, that Alexamenus wrote dialogues be- fore Tlato.
I think likewife, that Atkenacus never dreamt of that meaning of lyirifiotle's words which Herwaert affixes to them. Interpret
f.«0 So Atkenaeus (ays exprefly. t£0' Lfi to I<^* t xiyw
L z Arijlotle
9
3
14(5 The Credibility of the Book II.
(#) the feaft of unleavened bread eight 1 days.3 According to this method of computation, the 14th day wasthefirft of un- leavened bread. So that when thefe two feafts were confidered as one, as they were very often, and the whole was called by the feaft of unleavened bread, the fourteenth day mud be the firft. The Evangelifts, per- haps, do not write in Syftem : nor does Jo- fephus, as it feems, nor indeed any other good writers ; but according to the ufual way of fpeaking.
UERWAERT (*) lays great ftreffc upon a paflage of Athenaeus, who quotes
(a) ' Ohv he, fjuvtif/jijv t%$ tots ivosiot$ sogrw c&yoyjsv s<p' ii[/i{px$ exro), rw t utyyjuv Aiyofjwinr Antiq. 1. C. 1$. p. S8. init,
(b) Ills vero locus Ariftotelis eft fingularis. Eum recenfet Athenaeus Lib. xi. p. 5-05. srpo $ uvtx [Hautcd!©""] t£Q' £V£s to h£®~ T Aoyav 6 Tjji'^ 'Aai%>cc[AIv<&'} ooc, N*xt«e§ 0 N*x«£y$
ifOfiT <& X6)T9)ftct.-V. ' AgtS-0TtX7}$ 3 QA> TO) TTfpi TctTlTm %TC:"i «/{Ci<pil> 'OvxSv £$£ SfJ^f/jiTfUiC T85 KOLAtS[/t/&V%$ TaQpOy©" [Al[/!jV$ pYl <Q&)[*£V
uvea A<5<ys§ t§ ju^sjo-ets, y t%$ 'AAt^scj^sva rS Taji* r^s ?rpa>Ttf$ ypapivTX$ T XcjkocctikZv oietAoyw ot,vTiKpv$ (pct<rx.cov 0 7Toav{Ajol- &z<?xt©~ ' Ae>is-oTtAv$ trpo nXarwvor, otxAoyiis ysypaQivsu to* ' AXsljzyjivcv. Haec quidem Athenaeus: Ubi fane verba i la )\ri- ftotelis rise nguTXs ypectpsurxq t Sax-puTiM* hxAoyuv. Athenaeus hi fee inter pretatur [r»s ir^Ttpov] nfo Hautcm©" ^ccAoya^K.r.A. Plato enim in fiiis Dia'ogis introducit Socratem qui hortetur juvenes, ibpbiftas rcdarguat, viros doceatj unde haud immerito
vocamur Socratici- Quern ac'm ad urn igitur Ariftoteles Akx-
ameni Dialogos prius fcriptos> quam Plato fuos Socraticos con- fcripfifiet, vocat r»s ?rgct>T%s ygatylvT&s t X6»cpetTix.m hctAoyuiy He Di vus Lucas^ &c. Herwxert. ubi iupra. pag. ro7.
AriJkotle%
Chap. I. Gospel History. 147 Ariflotle, faying (as Herwaert undcrftands the words) that Alexamenus* s dialogues were wrote before the Socratic dialogues [that is the dialogues in which Tlato intro- duces Socrates'] exprefly affirming, fays A- thenaeus, that Alexamenus wrote dialogues before P/ato.
But it is very plain to me, that Arfio- tie fays that t^Alexamenus's dialogues were the firft Socratic dialogues j that is, that A- lexarncnus was the inventer of that way of writing. I have tranferibed the paflage of t^Athenaeus more at length then Herwaert has done. And if the reader will confided the whole of it, I think he will be con- vinced : 1 ft, That by Socratic dialogues is here meant, not Tlato's dialogues in which he introduces Socrates, but in general that way of writing: and 2dly, That Arijlotle fays that Alexamenus^ dialogues were (a) the firft of the kind. From whence Atke- naeus infers very juftly that Ariftole fays ex- prefly, that Alexamenus wrote dialogues be* fore Tlato.
I think likewife, that Athenaeus never dreamt of that meaning cf ^Ariflotle's words which Herwaert affixes to them. Interpret
(.«) So Athenaeus fays exprefly : rZ6' %vfi to Ij^©- t x'oyw
L z Arijlotle
*
148 The Credibility of the Book II.
Ariflotle as Wrwaert does, and Athenaeus is guilty of a ridiculous tautology in his in- ference.
That I underftand Ariftotle aright, is farther evident from 'Diogenes Laertius, whofe words upon the fame fubjedt are thus : c Some lay that Zeno the Elean was the firft e writer of Dialogues, but Ariftotle in his
* firft Book of Poets fays that Alexamenus
* the Teian was, as does alfo Vhavorinus in « his commentaries (a).
I t was neceflary to dwell thus long upon this inftance, becaufe it is the only inftance from a profane author which Monfieur (b) Bafnage, who follows Heryjaert, has quoted in favour of this interpretation of St. Luke.
W e return now to Terizonius, and will take next his inftances [$. 25.] $ Tap'R^x- ?\i'6$ so^fvi Qut>(7i TolMvQik^i <urgoifau and hue. XL. 38. 0 ^g <pxgjio-£io$ l^oSvi^ctJfj^afv Sri &
iaj^.qv fc£a'sr770,8jj T*r Qp dgjLfc? The left that can be faid of thefe is, that they avail no- thing at all, becaufe they are not parallel with our text. If St. Luke's words had
(a) Aix*oyti$ roivvv <pu.tr t 7F£wtw y^ur^ctt Zwmat. rov 'EAs^tjjh
&$ «J fy&fiafioc, cv aZnffiVHf/tmopxn. Diog.Laert. Lib. ilf. Se^m. 48. (b) Ann. Polit. Ecclef. ant. Dom. $, num. 14.
been
Chap. I. Gospel History. 149
been,'sj^fiJ7» or 7r^ooTovlyivelo /zzr£p^>,Ifuppofe we mould have been ail agreed, and there would have been no occafion to employ a good part of a differtation to prove that he faid, This taxing was before Cyr enuts's time. If there had been divers unexceptionable in- ftances produced, in which #r£«7os followed by a genitive [without the tjh^~\ had been ufed for priority of time, then thefe here al- leged would have been very good proofs of this way of accounting for the con- ftrudtion by way of Ellipfis, and to fuppofe that 'are? ought to be understood where it is not expreffed. But till that is done, they are of no ufc.
But this is not all : For indeed 'Terizo- nius could not have fhewn any thing more againft himfelf than thefe examples. For if it be the cuftom of the Greek authors to fub- join ttq) after in-pcSto*;, when they intend to fay one thing is before another, it is an ar- gument that w%(£*o$ alone has not this power. Nay, St. Luke, it feems, fubjoins <&& to the adverb tsrpooTOv. I fuppofe <m£) is never fub- joined to Tv^ne?^ or 'zc^in^pu But thefe inftances fhevv, it is ufual to fubjoin it to te^cSIos, when priority before another thing is intended to be expreffed.
L 3 I*
I To The Credibility of the Boot II.
If I fhould affert that communicare te was good Latin, and equivalent to communicate tecum, would it avail any thing to produce inftances of comwimicavit mecum , cum Caio, and the like ? Would thefe prove that cum is needleGto be added, and that it is in- cluded in the Verb? Would not all fuch examples be againft me? This is Terizoniush
argument.
But then it mud be allowed, that Ten- nonius's example from Arijlophanes, and another from {a) Alexander Aphrodi/ius, alleged by others in this caufe, prove that TTpvlov the adverb is ufed, without tag) fol- lowing it, to denote the priority they con- tend for. How far the argument will hold by way of analogy from adverbs to adjectives, I cannot fay. It ought alio to be allowed, 1 think, that the paflage [§. 23.] from the Maccabees, uydh rwv m£v i\ fj.nTv? IhXiulnGt, laft of all, after the Jons, the mother died, is a parallel inftance. But whether fuch ano- ther example can be found in any good Greek writer, I very much queftion. And the <ut$>£1qc, /uoi t£ 'Ifc'Sa, of a Sam. xixv43. but
I6Vus prius tonitru psrficit quam fulgur, aut fimul, Alexand. ^krod. Problm- Lib. i.
Chap.L Gospel History. i^i
not found in all copies of the Seventy, is likewife an equivalent phrafe to that in St. Lake, and to be underftood in the fame fcnfc thefe learned men put upon St. Luke's words. It I miftakc not, the whole ftrefle of the argument for this interpretation relies upon thefe three particulars 5 provided I un- derftand aright, John'u 15. 30. xv. 18, the ?rp'Jh t.'jV a^u'awr, and the pafiage from Athenaeus : which, whether J do or not, is fubmitted to the judgment of the reader.
An d it ought to be confidered, whether it be reafonable to affix to wpdh in. Saint Luke a meaning fo very unufual, if nor unprecedented in any good writer, efpecially confidering the many ways of cxpre fling the fenfe which thefe learned men contend for, fuchas «z&jf^, (z^7i'^,7rpr7?£pr, iryflov% Trgplop
7T£p, 7Tp'Jh 7T£P, TTQ/ivy &C.
Lastly, a pallage of Herodotus [a) docs very ftrongly incline me to think, that it is not very agreeable to the genius of the Greek Language to ufe the (uperlative adjeftive irgc2ro$ to exprefs the priority of one thing before another either in a pofitive way, or in- ftead of TT?iri^o<;. He fays ; Oi ^g 'Kiyjir-
(4) Lib. a. init.
L 4 1w,
i$i The Credibility of the Book II.
1ioi9 irgjLv \jlsv% -\cL\K\k-K\iyjx; gq$m QcLGiXkuaau, ivojM^ov Suvr&s 7r^to1ug ycviaQcLi vnix^ocv a^G^fiJ- *7rm* Ittc^t] dNg \oLfjL\jArtitxpc) SctoiAsvouc, ^GgAwa* h^ivcLL Si lives tybi'Gialo tt^ootoi, M tbtb w^i- Zxai §piyzq izy&Uo&c, r^vla^ati ewvlwVy twv as aAXm>, iutii&f c The Egyptians, before the ' reign of Tfammetichus, thought them- K felvcs thefirft [or mod ancient] of all peo- 1 pie. But fince the reign of ¥farnmetichus>
* who made an experiment for finding out
* who were the firft of all people, they have ' thought that the Phrygians were before
* them, they, before others'. If 7t$to$ could be ufed in the fenfe contended for, why did not Herodotus, who had here ufed it twice, ufc it once more > Why did he take wep'TteP* in the later branch of the Sen- tence, if Tr^TOs would have been as proper? I do not think he did it for the fake of the found, but the fenfe.
I have now fet before the reader the arguments for this interpretation, and have offered my own remarks upon them. I muft conclude, as I began, with faying, that I am in fufpenfe whether this meaning can be put upon St. Luke's words,
7. There
Chap. I. Gospel History. iyg
7. There is another Solution which was firft propofed by (a) Beza, and has been embraced by many learned [b) men. The Roman Catholic Authors that approve of this Solution agree to underftand the words, as they ftand in the vulgate verfion : This firft cDefcription or Enrolment was made by Cyrenius (c). The Proteftants ge- nerally render them : This firft Enrolment was made, Cyrenius being Treftdent of Syria : or, when Cyrenius was Prefident of Syria (d).
B y prefident of Syria, they do not un- derftand, Prefident in the moft ftrid and proper fenfe of the word 5 it being apparent from Jofephus, that either Saturninus, or Quintilius Varus muft have been Prefident of Syria at the time this enrolment was made. And there is no inftance of two perfons being jointly Prefidents with equal power in the fame Province, when a Pro-
(a) Bez. inloc. Vid.Sc Haef.Dem.Ev. Prop.ix. Cap. x. §. 3.
(b) Grot. 8c Hamm. in loc. Scaliger. animad. in Chron. EujU.zd A. 2016. Cafau6. in Bar. Exerc. i. Numb. 31. 32'. Ujer. Ann. ant. aer.Chr. v. Norif. Cenot. Pif. Diflert, ii. p.3201 — 322. Pagi. app. adann. Bar. Num, 126. — 129.
(c) Haec dcfcriptio prima fa&a eft a praefide Syriae, Cyrino.
(d) Hacc defcriptio prima facta eft praefidente Syriae Cyrenio. Eez.. Haec defcriptio prima facia eft cum praeeffet Syriae Cy- renius, Cafaub. ubi fupra. Numb, 31.
vince
1/4 The Credibility of the Book II.
vince was in peace, as Syria was at this time (#),
They fuppofe, that when lyiuguftus had iffued his decree that all the world, that fe, ail the Roman Empire fhould be taxed (for in this wide and extenfive fenfe dothefe learned men underftand thefe words of Si. Luke) Cyrenius was lent with extraordi- nary power to make the Cenfus in Syria and Jitdea : And Satuminusot Quint ilius Varus, which fixver of them was then Prefident, was joined with him : and was iubordinate to him, or had equal power with him in this particular work. Cyrenius therefore having at this time fome power in Syria, he is called Prefident of it, though he was not proper- ly Prefident or the ordinary chief Magiftrate of that Province.
I n order to juftifie this Solution two things are to be confidered: i. Whether Cyrenius, though not properly Prefect of Syria, may be called fo in a loofe and gene- ral fenfe : and 2dly, It muft be fhewn, that it is not unlikely, that Cyrenius might be fent upon this affair at this time with extraordina, xy power.
(a) Vid.Norif. Cenotaph. Pif.Diff. ji. cap. i6.$. 10.
As
Chap.I. Gospel History, iff
As to the firft point, it is alleged, that the Title of Governour or Prejident is often given to others bcfide thofe who are properly poiTelTed of that dignity. Jofephus calls Saturninus and Volumnius Presidents of Syria (a), though Saturninus was at that time Prefident, according to his own ac- count, and Volumnius Procurator only, /. e. the officer that took care of the Emperour's revenue in that Province.
That Cyrenius might be fent upon this affair with extraordinary power, is not at all unlikely. For the office of Cenfor in the City was very honourable, and was a diftincT: charge from that of the Confulsand Praetors, the ordinary magiftrates. The Surveys in Provinces alfo were often performed not by the ordinary governours but by pcrfons fent thither with extraordinary power, and thofe, perfons of the higheft eminence and dig- nity (£).
Such
(a) '^KiZ/oq -j otiXiyira Tfsjt rarm ro7c, KctiPctpo$ yysfjtioo'tv SEfttrggfppri xj ' OvoMi)f/j';ia)--7:i^l coy im n ItBcraoviva £ 'OuoXoiajvih £ Tvgioc$ szirctTxvTuv Antiq. L. \6. cap.o.pag. 734. v. 2<. and
2vg'.uq y.yifjij'ovxc,- ib. cap. 10. p. 741. v. 1.
(&) Regimen fumraae rei pene$ Germanicum agendo Gallia, rum Cenfui turn intentum. Tacit. Ann. Lib. 1. cap. 31. ad A- U. 767. Interea Germanico per Gallias, ut diximus, cenftig
flccipenti,
Jf6 The Credibility of the BootIL
Such an one was this Cyrenius. He was not defcended from a noble, or Tatri~ cian family : But by his early fcrvices he had obtained the honour of the ConfuMhip, and palled through that and other offices with great reputation : obtained a memorable vic- tory over the Homonadenfesy for which he received the honour of triumphal ornaments : Was afterwards Governour to Cuius Caefar, Augujius's eldcft adopted fon : Married Aemilia Lepida, who had been defigned by Auguflus for the wife of Lucius, his fecond adopted Son j and at lad had the honour of a publick funeral by a Decree of the Senate in the reign of Tiberius {a).
This quick difpatch he made of affairs of importance rendered him a very fit man
acc'pentl, exceJJJJfe AuguCium, adfertur. Id. cap. 33. vid. 8c L.ii. cap. 6.
(a) Sub idem rempus, ut mors Silpicii Qiiirinii publicis ex- fcquiis frequentaretur, petivit (Tiberius) a Senatu. Nihil ad vere- rem £c patritiam Sulpiciorum famiram Quirinius pertinuit, or- tas apud municipium Lanuvium : Sed iropiger militiae, &acri- bus miniileriis confulatum Tub Divo Auguftoj mox expugna- tis per Ciliciam Homonadenfium Cafteliis inilgnia triumph! adeptuSj datufque Re&or Caio Caefari Armeniam obiinenti, Tiberium quoque Rhodi agentem coluerat. Tacit. An. L. iii» c. 48. Jghiirinic — defiinata quondam uxor L. Caefari, acDivo Augufto nurus, dederetur. Id. ibid, c 23. De hac re vid. etiam Sueton. Tib. c. 49. & de victcrii in Homoaadenfes parta* Strabon. Lib. xii. pag, 854.
for
Chap. I. GospuHistory. I fj
for fuch an affair as this Cenfus in Syria and
Judea.
Moreover there is nothing in the
hiftory which we have of Cyrenius, which is any way inconfiftent with his coming into Jiidea about this time: but divers particu- lars, which render it very probable he might be employed in this work.
CTRENIUS was Conful of Rome, A. U. 742. He might therefore very well be fent upon the expedition againft the Ho- monadenfes in the year U. C. 747. or, pof- fibly, in 746, It was a piece of prudent advice which Maecenas gave {a) Auguftu*, never to beftow a provincial government upon the Senators or other great men, till fome time after they bad laid down their City Magiftracy. Which advice Auguftus fol- lowed, and appointed the fpace of five years interval between their ferving any publick office in the City, and receiving another in the Provinces (£).
As Cyrenius's expedition againft the fore- mentioned people was his firft action after his Confulfhip, he might very probably be crn-
(a)Dio. Lib. 51. pag, 4~9- fin. (b) Mn&,« vp*
Tttin ir£t f/jtrcc to c'v ryvoXu ufeccixtyitrQ*? Id. L. 5 3. p. 505.
C Au&or & aliarum rerum fait. In queis ne magiftratus
depofito ftatim in provincias mitterentur, Sutton. Aug.c. 36.
ployed
15*8 The Credibility of the Book II
ployed in it, A. U. 747. Archbifhop UJher [a) thinks he was then Proconful of Cilicia* Cardinal Noris thinks it more likely that he was not then the ordinary Governour of Cilicia, but that he was fent upon this expe- dition with extraordinary (b) power, How- ever the learned men that embrace this fo- lution fuppofc, that having finifhed this war, he might be fent into Syria and Judea to perform the Cenfus there, in the later end of the year of Rome, j\j^ or, as others, in 748^ or 749. About which time the Cenfus or En- rolment, which St. Luke fpeaks of, muft have been made, for Herod died in the year 750, or 751.
CTRE NIUS was not appointed Go- vernour to Caius Cefar till the Year U. C. 755. Cardinal Noris infers this from the words of Tacitus above-cited : datus ReElor Caio Caefari Armeniam obtinenti* It is evidently a miftake of thofe learned men who have thought that Cyrenius was Go- vernour to Cains, when he firft went into the Eaft. It is certain, that M. Lcllius was then his Governour. And Cyrenius was not put into that Poft till after the death of
(a) Vid.Ann. A. 5. ante aer. Chr, (b) Cenotaph.
PjJQT.PiiT.ii.pag. 3 10.
Chap. L Gospel History. 15*9
Lollius [a), which feems to have happened fome time in the year of Rome 7 55. Be- fides, it is certain from Jofephus, that Caius was at Rome after the death of Herod, aad therefore was not yet fet out for the Eaft. For he was one of thofe whom Augufttis called to the Council he held after Herod's death about confirming his lafl: will (£).
CTRENIUS therefore feems to have been at leifure for this work : And from the whole of his ftory and character, fo far as it is come down to us from the Greek and Roman Authors, no man appears more like- ly to have been employed in it.
This folution has one advantage above moft of thofe above-mentioned, in that it is here allowed, that this furvey was performed by Cyrenius, in which all the ancient chriftiaa write rs agree, except Tertullian ; who in one place (but the only place in which he has named the chief officer concerned in it) af- cribes it to Saturninus. And we are much obliged to thefe learned men for tracing the hiftory of Cyrenius, and thereby removing, in part at left, the obje&ions againft this fup«
(a) Felleius, L.ii.c 102,. Suet. Tib. c. 15. N$rif uWfiipi** p. 517. (b) Jofefb.Ant.L' 17. c-9-P» 77n*
l pofitioa
1 6b The Credibility of the Boot IT.
pofition, which has been the current opinion of Chriftians.
There is however one difficulty attend- ing this Solution: I mean the fenfe, in which thefe learned men underftand Cyreni- us\ government or prefidentfhip. I do not at all conteft the validity of their argument, that the title of fiybjuLwv may be given to one who is not properly Prefident. But fince Cyrenius certainly was afterwards the ordinary governour of Syria, it is not eafy to under- ftand this title in St. Luke in aloofe and ge- neral way. And I can never perfwade my felf, that St. Luke intended no more than the power and authority of making a Cenfus in Syria. If Cyrenius had never been Prefi- dent of Syria, perhaps their inflances had been to the point ; but now, I think, they are not. Befides, according to the way in which thefe learned men generally interpret St. Luke, riyefjLOvluovlQS, &c. is here the genitive cafe abfolute, or governed by W\ underftood : either of which does as fully exprefs Cyrenius's being Prefident of Syria, as any form of ex- preffion can do,
JOSEPH SCAL1GER feems to have interpreted thefe words lomewhat dif- ferently from other learned men who embrace
this
Chap. I. Gospel History. i6t
this Solution. He takes them thus. This "Defcription <was thejirji under Cyrenius prc- fident of Syria. I put his words in the mar- gin (a)9 that the reader may judge whether I mifunderftand him. But ftill this interpre- tation is liable to the objection laft mentioned : for it is implied in it, that Cyrenius was Prc- fident of Syria, at the time of both thefe Surveys.
§. V. There is yet another interpreta- tion, which thefe words are capable of, and which has for fomc time appeared to me the genuine meaning of them. This was the firft affeffement of Cyrenius Governour of Syria. The natural order of the words is this : Auth etytitlo ft TTgGpivi a,Tizy~a,(pri iym T. 2.K. There are innumerable inftancesof a conftru&ion parallel with this here of *A'/tk r) amyfcLyk 7t^ty. Mntth. xxii. 3$. 'Adn eci irp'Jh $ fizylAvi ivfofw' This is the firfl and great commandment, Mark xiL 30. "AvIyi TTfxTYi ZvIoKa' Numb, ii. 32. ' A'JTt) iwidK^lc, TWV CkSv 'Icr^juriX' Thefe
are thofe which were numbred of the chil- dren
(a) Ideo S.Lucas non contentus eft dicere "Avtv ^n^u^in iV-nxo itysfjb6vi'javT<&' tSJs 'Zvotxs Kypjjy.y. Sed quum duas «;ro- +/f6t<p4s fciret fuifle, addidit, jrp&iTjj : uvr* y Ajraypa^ Syiptrm Wj^tnur Ccrte, fi eft sr^r*, ergo cuaedam fuit &vt*{U j 8c fane
M t^T
1 6 % The Credibility of the Book II.
dren of IfraeL I put an inftance or two more into [a) the margin. It is eafie for the reader to obferve, thefe inftances are parallel with the words before us: the particle fi or at follows r'Av1i) or cA'jr^i, and preceeds the Subftantive.
'Eyivelo is not here fa£t la eft7 was madey but fuity was. I prefume I need not give any proofs, that this is a very common mean- ing of this verb.
The diftant fituation of iyivelo in Saint Luke from duw need not create any fcruple. In fome examples the verb fubftantive is quite wanting, as in Markx'u. 30. Numb. I 44. Sometimes s^r is exprefled, and follows im- mediately after <z,v1y. But it is found in all kinds of pofitions in paflages parallel with this of St. Luke. I give one inftance which anfwers the conftruclion of this verfe in every refpeft, Rev. xix. 9. Slot 01 Xoyi dx-Sivot tun r3 ©e£. Thefe are the true fayings of the word of God. And another inftance
r~? JWspees zneminit idem. Act. v. 37. Atque ita diftinguen. dum efle nemo dubitare poteft. Scaliger. animadv. in Chron. Eufeb. ad. A. 2016.
(a) Numb. i. 44. Aurjj ij smtrKi^iq h iTrsa-Kt^ecro Mavovj$, C.ap.iii.I.Kest avTcttctt'y&io-iis 'Acinar v.^.^roevroc rk ovopctTM t viav [Aapw* vid. cap. iy. 32, 38. Dent. vi. 1. 6c alibi.
from
Chap.I. Gospel History. i6$
from Tlato (a) of iylvelo it felf, in a fitua- tion exactly parallel with this in St. Luke.
CH q 7) TiMvrr\y do EygX£$LTZ$9 1S ZTizigptf
TlfJJLV iyi'Jilo, GLVO0OC, 6$$ flfJLB?^ Cpx7fJJeV CLV, 1^V
linn 5v 4<7rei&l§Y)/uev cLgjigvv> g aAAw^ <p£pvi- /uLooivuh $ $iy&iQ'Ki?v. c This, O Echecrates, 6 was the end of our friends and as we fay, 4 the bed, wifeft and jufteft man that ever ' we knew*.
I f it be objected, that it mull: be thi$ cenfus 5 or this firft cenfus was made, and not this was the firft cenfus 5 bccaufe there is nonounfubftantive preceding £v%7 by which it can be governed : I anfwer, that as I inter- pret the words, £Sln is governed by the amyejLpn that follows, or by an hmygp$i underftood. And this is the cafe of many other (b) paflages, which yet muft be con- ftrued, as I do St. Luke.
Let us proceed. When St. Luke calls Cyrenius Governour of Syria, I underftand the words in the ftri£fc and proper fenfe. rHyifjLDvlvov7@* r3$ KugJ.x<; is not the genitive caie abfolute, or governed by i<m underftood, and to be conftrued, Cyrenius being gover-
{a) Phaedo. Fin. (b) Ezek. 48. v. r. Kul
raZroc rx ogtu. T QvXcov. V. 29. 50. "Avry k y%t h SsxAurt c* x.^putous <pvXu7<; X Wpu*>.' x} »ret oi hap^irpot mrm — K#l
M a nour
I #4 The Credibility of the Book II.
n:ur of Syria, oiwhen Cy renins was gover- nour cf Syria 5 but it is governed by ^roYe^f ft They do not exprefs any time at all. But this is Cyren'us's title, the title, by which he was well known in that part of the world. As we fay, Antony the Triumvir, or Cat 0 the Cenfor, to diftin^uifh them from others of the fame names. 'klyt(jyvbQp%$9 &c. is with me the fame thing, as if St. Luke had faid,
It is certain, that Greek Authors delight very much in theufe of participles; and, I think, more efpecially when they fpeak of titles and dignities. Thus Cicero, in (V) l^io, fays: c We expefl that our Praetors and c Confuls fhould follow the laws of rcafon c and jufticc/ Tis fJL.lv q-&nr\y)iVTu$ 701$ 6'
mtsTv dZcJcroi/^y The fame fame hiftorian (Ji) fays: c The three brothers, the Antonies, ' had all of them fome office in the City at
* one and the fame time : Marcus was Con-
* (ul, Lucius Tribune, and Caius Praetor'. TaiiS yx? it a&Apo) 01 'Avnzivioi xtoi o%s «p-
(a) Lib. 43. p. 150. D. W Lib. 4$.
These
Chap. I. Gospel History. l6?
These participles feem to me to be fome- times fubftantives, or at left, to be (a) ufed fubftantivcly. I believe all are fcnftblc that a,0<Xm is fa ufed. Some of thofe other titles of offices or dignities cxpreiTed by partici- ples feem to me very near, or altogether pa- rallel with it.
But let iybfyvltgin®!' be a mere partici- ple 3 only then it will be laid: If ir be go- verned by etmy^rty it ought to have been {lyifj^vivaavl^. To this I anfwer, that un- doubtedly iyifjigi>e*jwj;v1@* would have been very proper, but fo is alio nytfjgvivjvl®*. It is no uncommon thing for Greek authors to ufe the Prefcnt tenfc for the fir ft Aorift. I give an inftance or two that fully juftify my interpretation. Jofephtis fays : c And it h cer- 1 tain that Varus was of a Royal Family, c ftnee he was a defcendent of Soemus who c wasTetrarchof a country near mount (J?) € Lib anus' '. Kct\ w Q/UQ?tQ%.vfJ<,ivooS o 'Ova*©* (ZcMnhiK'S yivu;, lyfovos y,rj(juiv & m^l Ai(&4,VW 7*le&f>%8vlQ<;. T^ionyjius fays, that the Latins were fo called from Latinus a K'ng of (c)
(a) kiy.iuvoc, KoiT'3^ o t^s vy,<t% lmTto7rtvai. Dio. lib. 6i. p. 701. A. Kina Toit&u t# rn "Zvpfai vytfAOYfvwTi' Jofeph* p. 907- V.I2. A'jto$ ^ \zzo t5 t«<j- ^a/pec, if/tfAoi/ivovTot ^eBu^i
id. p. 945- V.35. (b) P.9^9. v.ao. (c) Anciq.
R.lib. z. p. 76 v.24.
M 3 that
1 66 The Credibility of the Book II.
that country. 'Ovc/uut 3 tyivw Si gvjjl^lvU; Ztui Acitivoi iK?\.nvv)ttLV lir dv^zpq Sbva&vovlos ■roov ihTrwv Acltivu. If any fhould fay, it is im- proper to underftand this participle, as I do, becaufe Cy renins was not Governour of Syria till after the time in which St. Luke's furvey was made 5 I add one example more, which muft fully obviate this exception. He- rodian fays, c That to Marcus the Emperour ' were born fevcral daughters (a) and twofons. Tcp QcuJiXivQvli NLz&Kcei QvycLiieeg jmv iyeycvlo tfftsiW, afperzs 3 Mo. Yet feveral of thofe children were born to him before he was Emperour. This inftance fhews plainly, that fchefe participles do not always import only the time when men are in office.
I hope this is fufficient to fhew, that iybfjiovivovhg is the fame as y^fj.cvo*;, at left that it is governed by *&roygx<pn. The fup- pofing 7\yc^cvsvov1o<; T.2. K. to be the Geni- tive abfolute, or governed by g?n, as it has given occafion for the objection we are now upon, fo it feems to have led fome learned men into interpretations of this, text unfup- ported by the life of good Greek writers.
Iapprehend I have now juftifkd pay interpretation of every part of this verfe :
(a) Lib. i. ln\t» '
Chap.L Gospel History. 167
TJois was the fir ft Ajjeffement (or furvey) of Cyrenius the Governour of Syria, or, of Cyrenius who was Governour of Syria.
B u t if any choofe rather to take Scaliger's method, as to the firft part of the verfc, I fhall not contend about that, provided my ienfe of the later part be admitted. Then the Interpretation will ftand thus. This fur- vey was the firft [furvey] of Cyrenius the Governour of Syria.
Nor can I fee any reafon why all thofe who follow Beza, and fuppofe that this furvey was made by Cyrenius, as well as that made after Archelaus's removal, fnouid not receive this interpretation. When they come to fhew why this is called by St. Luke the firft furvey, though indeed they have not tranflated the place as I do, (a) they una- voidably run into the fame meaning. Ba-
(a) Denique dicitur haec defcriptio jwrd, ut diilinguatur ab alia, de qua Aci. v. 37. quam Jofcphus & Eufebius liucris con- iignarunt, 6c Tub Cyrenio etiarn fa&am dicunt, licet diverio tempore. Hamm. in he. ex ». crlione Cleric.
Hunc igitur cenfum Quirinius haV.uit A. U. 749 cura ex- traordimrio imperio in Syriam mifius; quae defcriptio prima 3 S.Luca dicitur, quod idem poftea Quirinius A.U. 760. praefes ordinarius in Syriam veniens, cenfum iterum in Judaea egit, cadem turn piimum in provinciae fonnam redacta. Norif. Cenotaph. P^p. 312,
M 4 ronius
1 68 The Credibility of the BookIL
ronius (a) likewife underftands the words much after the fame manner, only he falfly fuppofed that Cyrenius was twice prefident of Syria.
Some time after I had been perfwaded this was the fenfe of this text, I met with thefe words of TanaquilFabtr (b). Beatus Lucas y cap. 2. ait natum ejfe Chriftum do- minum tempore primi cenfus, feu defcripti- onis7 quae a Cyrenio feu Quirinio faffia eft. This paffage gave me a great deal of pleafure, though it does not appear how this acute and learned man underftood iyi^ovluovh^ — But I have lince met with a more cxplicite authori- ty for my way of tranflating e&vfa ri cl7td- yeoLQ-A. The title of Origeiis xl Homily upon St. Luke7 in the latin edition of his works, is thus: T>e eo quod fcriptum efty Tuer autem crefcebat & confer t abatur fpiritu, ufque ad eum locum ubi ait : Haec eft de« fcriptio prima quae fail a eft fub praefide Syriae Cjrino. And, in the body of the (f) Homily are words to the fame efFjd.
(a) Quod igitur ab Evangelifta ea defcriptio a Quirino prima facia dicitur : non fie (ut vidimus) eft accipiendum, ut tunc primum judaei fuerintdefcripti at que cenfi : fed primam dixerit XG^tdiwji-ctindae fub eodem praefide facia. App. tlunu 88.
(b) Epift.lib. i. ep. 43. (9 Haec fuit defcriptio pri- ma, a praefide Syriae Cvrino*
Jhb
Chap, I. Gospel History. i6p
The verfion I here offer does net only appear to me a very natural and obvious mean- ing of the words, but it is very good fenle, and extremely fuitable to their pofition in a parenthefis. In thofe days there went out a decree from Cefar Augujlus that all the world [Land] JIjouU be taxed. {This was the fir ft ajfejfement of Cyrenhis the Gover- Tiotir of Syria), It isneedyefs to qblerve, that if this verfion be allowed, the objection we are confidering vanifhes. There is no colour or pretence to fay, that St. Luke confounded the cenfus or furvcy, made in the time of Herod, with that made after the removal of Archelaus. .
§.VL I APPREHEND thei'C llCS UOW
no objection againd St. Luke, but what may arife from the doubts which fome may have in their minds, concerning Cyrenhis being the officer employed in making this furvey. I wifh the reader be not quite tired with this long (ucceffion of criticifms. Eut whether he will accompany me any farther or not* I think my iclf obliged to take into confidera. tion all the difficulties which attend this particular circumftance.
H e r e I adopt at once all that has been already offered by thofe who embrace Be&a's
Solution;
170 The Credibility of the Book II.
Solution, to make it appear probable, that Cyrenius performed the Cenfus of which St. Luke fpeaks. But I now enjoy a peculiar advantage above thofe learned men, in the fuppofition I advanced at firft, that this cen- fus of Cyrenius was of Judea only. They think, that Auguftus's decree extended to the whole Empire j and that Cyrenius was fent with extraordinary power to make the cenfus in Syria and Judea. But they fup- pofe, (and indeed they are obliged to allow itj that Satuminus was joined with him, if Satuminus was then prefident. This has vyvo.n'PerizOfjiiis {a) a fine advantage againft their fuppofition, that Cyrenius was concern- ed in this cenfus. To give Cyrenius fuperior or equal power to Satuminus in Syria, the province of which he was the ordinary governour, would have been an affront, efpecially confidering that Satuminus was equal to Cyrenius^ in every refped, and fuperior to him in fome : for he was of a better family, and the elder Conful by fevea years. And it is no lefs injurious to Cyre- nius to put him under Satuminus*
I a m not at all concerned with this. I think Cyrenius performed the Cenfus alone,
(a) Pifiert.de Aug. Defcrij). §.15, 16, 17.
Chap. I. GospelHistory, 171
by virtue of the extraordinary power with which he was fent. But if any are inclined to think, that Saturninus was joined in the Commiffion with him, this would be no difparagement to Saturmntis . To give him authority in a neighbouring kingdome where he had none before, would not be to leiTen him, but to augment his power. Nor do I fuppofe, it could beany difgrace to Cy renins to have the Governour of Syria made his partner.
I proceed to confider all the difficul- ties that can affeCt the fuppofition that this cenfus was made by Cyrenius, as far as I am concerned with them.
1. It is faid, that it was not cuflomary for the Romans to fend any great man twice into the fame country. Since it is certain from JofephuSy that Cyrenhts afterwards made a Cenfus in Syria and Judea, it may be con * eluded, he did not perform that Cenfus, which St. Luke fays was made in Judea at the time of our Saviour's nativity (*).
(a) Multis de caufis difplicet nobis gemma haec Cyi deicriptio. Bis ad eandem rem Quirintum in Syrian] fuilTc
mifium, fidem vix imperat, nee Romano1: sd more* qua B*[nage, Ann. Vol, Ecc. ant. Dom. 5. num. 14.
To
17 x The Credibility of the Book II.
T o this I anfwer : I allow, that it was not ufual for the fame perfon to be more than once made the Prefident of one and the fame province.— And in this Baronws, who thought" Cyremus was twice or thrice Govcr- nourof Syrians deferted by all learned men. Por none of the defenders of Beta's Solu- tion, who maintain the double cenfus of CyrenhiSy do fay, that Cyremus was twice the ordinary Prefident of Sjria.
B u t it was very common for one and the fame perfon to be lent twice or oftnerinro the fame country in different Pofts or with different degrees of authority. CafaubonQi) has produced inftances enough to filence this objection. And M. Vipfanius Agr/ppa, the perfon laft mentioned by him, was fent twice into Syria by Auguflus with extraordinary power. Firfl: of all, A. U. 731. (£), and again, A. U. 7l%- if). I will
(a) Nequevero nullum eftexemplum illorum, qui in eaio'em provincias cum ecdem, vel diverfo munerefunt mifli. C.CaiTms profectus in Syriam Quaeftor M.Craffij mox ipfo&c ejusexer- citu de'eto, res magnas ibi gefllt, & aliquamdm provinciam obtinuit: eidemque pofl: aliquot annos fenatus Syriam 8c hel- ium contra Dolabellam decrevit. Ventidius Baflus, quando pnmum cum Party's bellum geflit, Antonii fuit Legatus-. poftea ejufdem belli gerendi cura illi demandata eft, — -— Agrippa qui per decennium Aiiam adminiflravit, bis ex Italia eodem, eft profeclus, Cafaub.'m Baron, Exerc. i. num. 31.
W Dio.L<>S, p. fiE, c. (0 Id. 1,54- P* 534* B<
Chap. I. Gospel History. 173
I will give an undeniable example of an officer's being twice in the fame pro- vince with different degrees of power. When Yijo prefeft of Syria had been removed by Germanicusy and after that Germanicus him- felf died, the officers in the province had a confutation together, who fhould be made Prefident of Syria. Vibius Marfus laid claim to it, but at laft yielded to en. Sentius Satuminus [a) the elder officer. Thus Sentius, one of the chief officers then in the province, was made prefident. This a- lone is a proof, that it was very common for officers to ferve different pofts in the fame Province. But this is not what I aim at. This Confultation (b) was held A. U. 772, A.D. 19. And it appears from Jofephut (c), and Tacitus (d)y that long after this, in the (e) reign of Claudius, this fame Vibius Marfus came to be actually prefident of
(a) Comfultatum inde intsr lega'os, quique alii fenatorum adtrjnt, qui/nam Syriae fraeficeretur. Ec ceteris modice nifis, inter Vibium Marsum 8c Cn. Stmtium diu quaefitum : dein Marfus ieniori, & acrius tendenti S^ntio conceiTit. Tacit. Ann. lib.ii. cap. 74. (£) M. Silano & L. Norbano Ccjf,
fc) Kgjj fjtsir jj Koto, TliTgaiHo* yjiv Mug<r<&J &i£t%ciTo3 )£ ontzi Sti^ww. Ant. 19. cap. vi. §. 4. (d) Et ieriperare Ar-
menia™, ni Vibio Marso Syriae legato bellum minitante co- hibitus foret. Tacit. Ann. xi. cap. 10. (e) About A.U.
705, vid. Pagi; Grit, in Bar. A.D. 42, n. viii.
Syria*
174 The Credilility of the Book II.
Syria. There is therefore no abfurdity at all ia fuppofing that Cyrerims was fent by Auguftus with extraordinary power at the later end of Herod's reign to make a furvey mjudea, and that about ten or twelve years afterwards he came as the ordinary governour into Syria, and then made a Cenfus in that province and in Judea annexed to it.
2. I t is obje&ed, that none of the Ro~ ?nan or Greek hiftorians, though Cy renins has been fpoken of by feveral of them, have taken any notice of this Cenfus.
I answer, that this is no difficulty at all. I fuppofe, that no one will make any queftion, but that Cyrenius made an aflcffe- ment in Syria and Judea, when he was fent prefident into Syria, becaufe we have Jo- fcphuss authority for it. And yet none of the Roman or tireek authors have faid any thing of this Cenfus.
Though Tacitus has in the paflage cited above reckoned up divers of Cyrenius's exploits and honours, and others have made mention of him and of fome of his Services • yet Floras (a) has taken notice of a confi-
(#) Marmaridas atque Garamantas Curinio fubigendo dedit (dttgujlus). Potuit 6c ille redire Marmaricusj fed modeftior in aeftimanda vi&oria fuit. Florm lib- iv. cap, n.
derabk
Chap. I. Gospu History. 175- dcrable aftion of his, omitted by all the reft : If indeed he means our Cyrenius.
3. But it will be faid : It may be cer- tainly concluded from the account which Jo- fephus has given of the Cenfus made (a) by Cyrenius after Archelaus's banifhmenr, that Cyrenius had never been in J tide a or enrol- led the Jews before. If he had, Jofephus could not well have omitted to take notice of it then.
low n, that at firft fight this muft appear a very considerable difficulty.
(1.) But it ought to be obfcrvcd, that Joftphus does not particularly name any of Cyrenius's honours or fervices, befide thofc which relate to the City of Rome. Jofe- phus knew of divers others, but he does not expreffe them. And among thofe omitted or referred to in the general only, may be that of the firft furvey in Judea.
(2. ) I t h 1 n k it is plain, that either Jo- fephus did not care to give any particular ac- count of that oath taken by the Jews to Auguflus in the later end of Herod's reign, or elfe that he found but a flight account of it in thofe Memoirs or hiftories which he made ufe of. He had faid nothing of it,
(a) Sec the account above p. 105.
had
1 7 6 The Credibility of the Book II.
had it not been for a mod remarkable distur- bance in Herod's court and family, with whicji it had a connexion.
A n d any one may perceive, that it is then touched upon very {lightly. Is it not * ft range that Jofephus fhould not name the officer who took the oath for t^Auguftus ? No one can make any doubt, but there was fome Ferfon of eminence deputed by the Emperour for that work. As Jofephus did not mention him then, I fhould never ex- pert to find his name afterwards. And who- ever can account for Jofephus's omiflions relating to the affair of the oath, may account for hisfilcnce in this paflage, though Cyrenius had been once before in Judea.
(3.) I think that arguments formed upon theomiffionsof Hiftorians are of very little weight. There are in Jofephus other omiffions as remarkable as this. Idcfire to confiderthe account he gives, in his War of the Jezcs, of the reducing Judea to a pro- vince. c Archelauss country being reduced to ' a province, coponius a man of the equeftrian € rank among the Romans was fent Procurator, * being invefted with the power of life and 1 death. In his time \i<m 1£h~] a certain Galilean* I whofe name was Judas, excited the people
to
Chap. I. Gospel History. 177
to a rebellion, telling them, That they were ' of a mean fpirit, if they could endure to pay 1 tribute to the Romans, and acknowledge ' mortal men for their Lords after God had * been their King. This man was the head c of a diftinft Scft, in nothing like (a) the reft. This is all he fays. He does not fay there was now any cenfus made, has not one word of Cyrenius or his coming mtojudea.
I t is true that Jofephus has, in two other places in the War of the Jews (b), cccafio- nally mentioned Cyrenius, and in the later of thofe places, his cenfus alfo. But it mud be allowed to be a very great omiflion,not to do this in the proper place, in the account of the reduftion of Jndea to the (late of a pro- vince. This might have been realbnably ex- petted in a hiftory of the War, when this af- feffement made by Cyrenius and the princi- ple broached at that time were main foun- dations of it.
If it be faid, that J oft phis palled over this affair (lightly in the IVar, becaufe he in- tended to write his Antiquities and mention it more particularly then : I anfwer, this is faid without ground. And I might as well
{a) De Bell Lib. if. cap. 8. §. u (b) Ibid. c. 17.
§.S. & I.7. c.3. §.i.
N fay,
178 The Credibility of the Book II.
fay, that Jofephus omitted in his Antiquities the particular account of Cjreniuis frfi a&ff- menr, becaufe he intended to write afterward another book of the hiftory of the Jews, and go over their affairs once more, as he exprefly allures us at the concluiion of his ^^Antiquities.
J OS EP HUS informs us in his Life, writ after the IVar, and the Antiquities, that the Jews had a battle with GeJJius Flo- rus their laft Procurator, and killed him and a good many of his men , and that this vi- ctory was fatal to them: Poraimuch as this determined them to the war with the (a) Romans. Is it not ftrange that Jofephus fhould fay nothing of this in the hiftory of the War, where he has made fo frequent mention of Florus, and afcribed the jewifb uneafineife under the Roman Government to the cruelties and other irregularities of this man? For this inftance lam indebted to (h) Monficur LeClerc.
(?) 'O d[' lxz>Xccv y^ <rvy..p£i>.av \huyj^ hi%vfyiy 77t>hm t tbir uvty, irsccvTaiv : ttj yivzr&t ro TiGsix %reatryj»i irvf/Lafcfu £:;uy}$ t}u*wt6v%$' evrijfQw** YJ **"< tutu fruTxstv in rev ftiXtu/et ayeus-fa iravrss, ^ viKvo-uvTic, t&s 'Papui^s uq reA®- tifomrctpiv, inVit* §, 6. (6) Hift. Ecc A. D. 66. n. 12.
There
Chap. I. GospflHistory. i
There is another omiflion appears to me very remarkable. Theroras, Herod's youngeft brother, is often mentioned by Jofephus. He has particularly informed us, thar. when Auguflus was in Syria, he gave this *P her or as a Tetrarchy (a) at the requeft of Herod. And we are informed by Jofephus, of V her or as0 s retirement into his Tetrarchy, of Herod's vifiting him there, and of Tkercras's dying (I?) at home, and of his being brought afterwards from thence to be buried. But yet, if I miftake not, he has never once faid what this Tetrarchy was, whofeit had been before, nor where it lay. It is true, that whereas in the Antiquities {c) Jofephus fays Pheroras went to his Tetrarchy > in his War (d) he fays, he went to Pcraea, (or as in fome copies Petraea): but *Peraea properly focallcd,could not be this Tetrarchy, becaule Teraea belonged all along to Herod. But this Tetrarchy cf ^Pheroras was given him by Auguflus, and was difrir.ct from that eftate or revenue which (e) had
(a) Antiq. iy. c 10. §. 3, (b) Tbid.K 17. c. ?.
de B.J. 1. i. c. 2.9. (r) 4>£p»p«» d[' st* Tv,? ol'jt*
TtTf*p%Sx$' p. 76. v. ~j. (.) Qijieifxs J bfro%agii<ni0
1*5 rw ntpuioiv p. 103 1. v. 41. vid. Sep. 1032,. v. 16. (^1 T«
uTromyjcic, qsh tv^ fixa-thua', irboTvo'tviKeiTOVTebhwTetr x, A.Antiq. 15. c. 10. 5. 5.
N 2 been
J 80 The Credibility of the Book II.
been fettled upon him by Herod. Thefe particulars may convince us, that, though Cyrenius was m Judea in the time of Herod \ Jofep/ous was capable of omitting to take notice of it.
4. Again, it will be faid : It may be fairly concluded from another place in Jofe- j>hus> that Cyrenius was but once in Judea. For he fays, that c Majfada was then held c by Ekazar, the chief man of the Sicarii? c a dcfcendent of Judas, who perfwaded ' not a few of the Jews not to cnrole c themfelves, as I have faid {a) above, when 1 Cyrenius the Cenfor was (£) fent into « Judea\
1 own it, this is a difficulty, but the ar- gument is not conclufive. It is true, that Judas made this difturbance when Cyrenius was fent into judea, or in the time of Cy- renius: but it does not follow that Cyre- nius was lent but once into Judea. The New Te (lament will afford us an inftance upon this very fubjefl: which will be of uie to
(a) Vid. ile Bell. 1. a. C. 17. §. 8, (b) K*Asir<w
«5 to ji*» fyxpiov Mxcc&^Ky Xfotirnxst 3 t2 j6«t«Ajj$>3»«» Lvto
*l«h'Jw %x oAiyxs , e'e, ftpirspov o"i<rs, A03x.cc ;*&, pd nau^ toss
JS.I.7. 08. $.£.
US
Chap. I. Gospel History. i 8 i
us. Gamaliel fays : \_AJter this man rofe up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the tax- ing, and drew away much people after him. If we had in our hands this book only of St. Luke, namely the Afls of the Apoftlesy it is not unlikely that many would have fuppofed, that St. Luke knew of no other taxing made in J udea, but that, in the time of which Judas role up. But we are allured from his Gofpel, that this conclufion would have been faife : for there, he has fpoke very particularly of another, which he calls the fir ft, or at left diftinguifhes very plainly from fome other.
I must be allowed to repent here once more, that arguments formed upon the fiience of writers are very feldomofmuch moment. Jofephus is the only jewijh writer of thofe times, in whom we have the hiftory of that country : And it cannot be juftly conclud- that any particular thing was not done, or that fuch or fuch a circumftance did not attend it, becaufe he has not mentioned it, All writers have their particular views, and fome things we are very defirous to know might for fome rcafon or other, which we are ignorant of, lie without the compafs of their defigns. Befides, the moft accurate and N 3 care-
1 8 x The Credibility of the Book II.
careful historians have omitted many faftsor incidents, that might be very properly men- tioned, through forgetfulneffe or overimht. I take the omiilion of the defcription of the Tetrarchy that belonged to Pleroras to be a remarkable inftance of this fort.
5. But it will be laid, that Tertullian is pofitive, the cenfus in Jucfea at the time of our Saviour's birth was made by Sentius Saturninus {a),
I answer, to this : (1.) It ought to be confidcred, that the Heretic Marcion, with whom Tertullian difputes in this place3did not admit the authority of the firft chapters (Ji) of St. Luke's Gofpcl. And it was the cu- (lorn of Tertullian to argue from thofc parts of fcripture, which the Heretics he was dealing with (V) acknowledged. Poflibly there- fore Tertullian having, or (uppofing he had rcalon to think, that this cenfus was made, when Saturninus was prefident of Syria, he
(<?) Sd & cenfus confiat actos Tub Augutlo nunc in Judaea per S.ntium Saturhinum. /.pud quos genus ejus inquirere potuiflent. Contr. Marc. lib. 4. c. 19. (6) Accedk
his Cerdon quidam. SAim evangelium Lucae, ncc ra-
men return recipic. Poll hunc difcipulus ipfius emerfit Mar-
cion. Haerefin Cerdonis approbare conatus eft. de praef-
crip. Haeret. cap. 51. (c) Quam & argumentationibus
earum,Sc fcripturis quibus utuntur, provocavimusex abundanti. de came Cbrifti* cap • 1 f.
might
Chap, I. Gospel History. 183 might choofe to mention the ordinary officer as a thing certain : but yet might not in- tend to affirm that the cenfus was made by him, but only that it happened in his time. Ifaac Cafuubon judged it not unreafonable lb to underftand Tertullian, who often ufes words (a) improperly. I thought it not fit to deprive the reader of this anfwer or this learned man. But I do not adopt his inter- pretation of Tertullian.
(2.) TE RTU L L I A N's authority ought not to outweigh the tcftimony of more ancient writers who were nearer the event. Juftin Martyr, in his firft apology, prefented to the Roman Emperour fixry years before Tertullian wrote his books againft Marcioriy fays, this Cenfus was performed in Judea by Cy renins \ and all other writers agree with Jufiin^ as has been fhewn al- ready.
(i.)TERTULLIAN's authori- ty is of the lefs weight in this point, becaufe he has made very grofs blunders in hiftory, of
(fi) Tertullian us cum adverfus Marcio. fcribit, SeJ & co-jltst,
ad majorcm iidem magilhatum ordinarium pot:us noroi-
nat, quam extraordinarium- Ait aurem per SeniiumSnturnlnum dure cv Tertuliianice, hoc eft, improprie pro h\ TL&rU 2*T»pi- »*> ve\iyt(itov*uovT&' t^ 2. K. CaUub. Epercit. i.n. 1 1.
N 4 which
184 The Credibility of the Book 1L
which I (hall fay fome what more in the third chapter.
(4.) I imagine fome account may be given of this miftake of Tertullian. It has been obferved,that Marpion, whom Tertul- lian was now arguing with, did not own thefirft chapters ot St. Luke's Gofpel. Ter- tullian therefore not having his eye particular- ly upon St. Luke-, and fuppofing that this Cenfus was made in Judea when Satuminus was prcfident of Syria, lays, it was made by him,
J UT) £l^ having been afterwards a branch of the province of Syria, he con- cluded that it was fo at this time, and that therefore the Cenfus muft have been made by the Prefident of Syria. But this was argu- ing from later to more early times, as men not throughly veiled in hiftory are apt to do.
After the banifliment of Archelausy Judea wras annexed to Syria. But whilft Herod was Jiving, the prefident of Syria had not any proper authority in Judea. The Prefident of Syria was always the moft con- siderable officer in the Eaftern part of the Empire. When the Romans had any
war
Chap.L Gospel History, igy
waf(#) in that part of the world, the neigh- bouring Kings were obliged to follow his di- rections, to furnifh thofe fums of money> or thofe troops which he required, and to fend thefe to the places he appointed. When any differences happened between thefe Kings and Tetrarchs, they were bound to refer them to him, nor could they march any forces out of their territories without his confent. But he feems not, efpecially in a time of peace, to have had any proper autho- rity within their dominions.
Nor do I think, that I here impute to Tertullian any very grofs miftake. The ftate of dependent kingdoms and provinces in the Roman Empire underwent frequent changes. And a perfon had need to have made hiftory his peculiar ftudy, and to have aimed at fome uncommon accuracy, in order to undcrftand the ftate of ail the Roman provinces for a couple of Centuries,
I h a v e now gone through all the diffi- culties which are of any moment in this point.
(a) Turn inrelle£ro Barbarorum irrifu, qui peterent quod cripuerant, confuluit inter primores civitatis Nero, beljum an*
cys an pax inhonejla placer -et, nee dubitatum de bello
icribitur tetrarchis ac regibus praefe&ifque ac procuratoribus —jujps Corbulorth obfequi. Tacit, Ann. 15. 0.15.
3 I HAVE
J 35 The Credibility of the Book II.
I have nothing farther to add to thofe evidences which 1 have already produced, except thefe two obfervations : ift. that it fecms to mc highly probable from the man- ner in which Eufebius (peaks of this matter In his chronicles, that it was originally the common opinion of Chriiiians, that Cyre- nius was fent into Judea on purpofe to make this Cenfus: ' In the thirty third year of
* Herod., Cyreriius being fent by the Roman ' Senate made a Cenfus (or enrolments*) of
* goods and pcrfons (*)\ This does very much confirm the opinion of thole learn- ed men who think, that Cyrenius was fent with extraordinary power : Though why Eufebius mentions the Senate inftead of the Emp.'rour> I know not.
Possibly fome may be difpofed to fet afidc Eufehius\ authority, becaufe, in his Ec- clefiauical Hiftory, he has confounded the two furveys. But I muft confeffc, Iafcribe that, not to ignorance, but to fome what a great deal worfe. It is impollible, that a man of Eufebhtis acurenefle, who had the New Tejiament and Jofephus before him, mould think a Cenfus made after Archelans\ banifhment was the fame with that made before
(*) Chron, pag. 76.
Herod
Chap.L Gospel History. 187
Herod died. But Eufebius was rcfolvcd to have St. Lvkes hiftory confirmed by the ex- prefs teftimony of the jewijb Hiftorian, right or wrong. Here Eufebius was under a biafie. In his Chronicle we have a fimple unbiailcd account of what was the opinion of Chrifli- ans and others at that time.
Secondly \ I t feems to me in the nature of the thing mod probable, that fome pcrfon was fent with extraordinary power to make this Enrolment. There is no evidence in Jojephus, that i_Auguftus had any intention to take away the Kingdome from Herod and make Judea a province. A Cenfus in his dominions was a very great difgrace. But to have ordered it to be performed by the Prcfident of Syria would have been an ad- ditional affront. It would have looked like making Herod fubjeft to Syria. Since Jtidea was to continue a diftind Kingdome^ as hitherto, and only to be reduced to a more Ariel: dependence, the only method of mak- ing this Genius could be that of fending fome perfon of honour and dignity, like CyreniuSy to enrole the fubjecls of Herod, and value their eftatcs, that for the future, tribute might be paid according to this Cen- fus. And this does admirably fu.it the na- ture
1 88 The Credibility of the Book XL
ture of the oath mentioned in Jofeppjns, the fubftancc of which was to be faithful to Cefar and Herod.
I conclude therefore, that it is upon the whole mod probable, that the firft affeffe- ment, of which St. Luke here writes, was perlormed by Cyrenius, as well as the fecund. This appears to me a very natural meaning of St. Lukes words, and the external evidences for this fuppofirion feem to me to outweigh the objeftions.
If any are ftili of another opinion, I wifh they would fupport Herwaert's interpretation by at left two or three unexceptionable ex- amples from fome good Greek writers.
W e have now got through the affair of the Cenfus. If I have not been fo happy* as to remove every difficulty attending this text of St. Luke $ yet I hope the reader will allow at left, that I have not concealed or diffembled any.
Chap.
Chap. II. Gospf.l History. 189
Chap. II.
Two obje&ions taken from the Silence of Jqfephus.
§. I. He has not mentioned the /laughter of the Infants of Bethlehem : g. II. Nor of the Galileans, whofe blood Pilate had mingled with their Sacri- fices.
$. L^SSSjj t. Matthew fays : Then Herod,
p S H when he Jaw that he was
t£i^!S3 mocked of the wife men, was
exceeding wroth, and fent forth, and few
all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coafls thereof from two
years old and under, according to the time
which he had diligently enquired of the
wife men *.
It is objefled to this, That if there had been fo cruel a (laughter made by Herod, of innocent infants at Bethlehem, a place not far from Jerufalem^ it is very unlikely it
ihould
Ma:i it.
ipo The Credibility of the Book II-
fliould have been omitted by Jofefhus, who has writ the Hiftory of the Jaws, and par- ticularly of the reign of Herod.
T o this I anfwer : i . This appears to me to be at the beft an objedion of a very ex- traordinary nature. The molt exad and di- ligent hiftorians have omitted many events that happened within the compafs of thofe times of which they undertook to write. Nor does the reputation which any one hi- florian has for exadneffe invalidate the credit of another, who feems to be well informed of the fads he relates. Suetonius, Tacitus, and UioCaJJius, have all three writtenof the reign of Tiberius : but it is no objedion a- gainft the veracity of any one of them, that he has mentioned fome things of that Em- perour, which have been omitted by the reft. No more is it any objedion againft St. Mat- thew, that he has related an adion of Herod, not mentioned by Jofephus.
2. There have been as great cruelties committed by many Eaftern Princes: nor was there ever any man more likely than He- rod to give the orders here mentioned by St. Matthew. When he had gained pofief- fion of Jerufalem (V) by the Afliftance of
/ (a) J°fiph. Antiq. {, 14-jc 16, §. ult.
the
Chap. E GospelHistoky. 191
the Rowans, and his rival Antigonus was taken prifoner, and in the hands of the Re- man General Sofas, and by him carried to Mark ^Antony, Herod by a large fum of Money pcrfwaded Antony to put him to death. Herod's great fear was, that Anti- gonus might fome time revive hisprctcnfions, as being of the Afmonean family. Arifto- bulus, brother of his wife Mariamne, was murdered {a) by his directions at eighteen years of age, becaufe the people at Jen/fa- lern had fhewn fome affection for hisperfon. In the feventh year of his reign from the death of Antigonus* he put to death Hyr* canns, grandfather of Mariamne, then eigh- ty years of age, and who had faved Herod's life when he was profecuted by the Sanhe- drim 5 a man, who in his youth, and in the vigour of his life, and in all the revolutions of his fortunc,had fnevvn a mild and peaceable difpofition (£). His beloved wife, the beau- tiful and virtuous Mariamne had a public ex- ecution (c), and her mother Alexandra followed foon after (d). Alexander and Arijlobuhts, his two Sons by Mariamne were flranglcd in prifon by his order (e)
(a) Aitiq.xv. c 3. §. 3. tie Bell L. i. c. n. (&) Jat^ i<). c.vi. tie Bell, ubi iupra. (c) Antrq if. c. vii.§. 5. 6.
(J) Ibid. §. 8. (e) Aat's^iG. C.X\.%.6.dtBelLL.'\.c\if.
upon
I9X The Credibility of the Book 11.
upon groundlefle fufpicions, as it feems, when they were at man's eftate, were mar- ried and had children. I fay nothing of the death of his eldeft Son Antipater. HJofe- fhus^s character of him be juft, he was a mif- creant, and deferved the word: death that could be infli&ed.
I n hislaft ficknefTe, a little before he died, he fent orders throughout Judea, requiring the prefence of all the chief men of the na- tion at Jericho. His orders were obeyed, for they were enforced with no lefs penalty than that of death. When thefe men were come to Jericho^ he had them all fhut up in the Circus, and calling for his Sifter Sa- lome and her husband Alexas, he told them : My life is now but fhort, I know the difpo- fitions of the jewijh people, and nothing will pleafe them more than my death. * You 1 have (^)thefe men in your cuftody, as foon ' as the breath is out of my body, and be- c fore my death can be known, do you let € in thefoldiers upon them and kill them. All
* Judea and every family will then, though
* unwillingly, mourn at my death'. Nay, jo-
XTilvcCTi 7Ftpi?*l<TXVTi$ T»5 ?f>XTta)TK$, UM 7rZrct 'lifdXiOt >£ 7Tc6{
liK<&9 ecKwfa' spot i'aKcutny de Bell i.e. 33. § 6.
fephus
Chap.II. Gospel History. ipg
fephus fays, ' That with tears in his eyes he ' conjured them by their love to him and their € fidelity to God, not to fail of doing him c this honour : And they promifed (a) they c would not fail.
These orders indeed were not executed. But, as a modern hiftorian of very good fenfe obferves, 'Thehiftoryof this his mod wick-
* ed defign takes off all obje&ion againft the
* truth of murdering the innocents, which c may be made from the incredibility of fo
* barbarous and horrid an a&. For this ' thoroughly fliews, that there can nothing € be imagined fo cruel, barbarous, and hor-
* rid, which this man ,ft*§* not capable of J doing (b)\
It may alfo be proper to obferve, that aL moft all the executions I have inftanced in were Sacrifices to his ftate jealoufy, and love of empire. And the (laughter which St. Mat- thew has given an account of, was made up_ on the occafion of tidings brought to Je~ rufalem, of the birth of one who was King of the Jews.
(a) Kott 6 ft [//iTcc &&k^ucjv 7roTViCt)U)i»&', ^ r» <rvyy<9t'$ rw turn** t§ xiriv tk Qua TrpovKxXav, hntrMVtrt ys* iiTiUjao% k\iw% xci)tum afAo^oya* a xucct.Qfoxaft' Antiq. I7.cvi. §. 5#
(b) Vrideaux Conn, Part. ii. p. 65-5.
o 3. JOSE-
IP4 The Credibility of the Book II.
3. JOSE? HUS has given us an ac- count of a terrible execution made in He- rod's court, and at Jerufalem about this very time, upon the occafion of fome predictions that God was about to take away the king- dome from Herod. I think it was made at the very fame time with the {laughter of the infants. St. Matthew relates only what was done at Bethlehem, Jofephus^ what happened zijerufalem. The Silence of Jofepkus a- bout the former, and of St. Matthew about the later, may be in a good meaiure ac- counted for by thefe two or three considera- tions.
(:.) St. Matthew was not concerned to relate ftate matters, but barely to give the hi- ftory of Jefus Chrift, and therefore all that he was obliged to take notice of upon this occa- fion was the attempts made upon the life of Jefus. Jofephus's is a political hiftory of the jewijlo nation, and therefore the executions at Court might be more fuitable to his dc- fign.
(2.) All writers of good fenfe and candour, who have wrote the hiftory of iuch jealous and cruel princes as Herod> have been obliged, both out of a regard to themfclves,and their readers,to omit fbme of 5 their
Chap.IL Gospel History. 19^
their odious and offenfivea&ions, and topafs by fome parts or circumftancesof thofe trans- actions which they mention (a). And I cannot help paying a particular refped to the Evangelifts for the many inftances of their candour and goodneffe, and for this in par- ticular, that they have none of them fought to brand the memory of Herod, who fought the life of Jelus, with the many cruelties of his reign, nor the dreadful circumftances of his death $ and that Matthew, who alone has informed us of the murder of the in- fants, confined his narration to that, and palled by all the other tokens, which, I doubt not, Herod fhewed at this time of a mod odious jealouiy.
Nor would I blame Jofephus barely for the omiffion of the barbarities committed at Bethlehem. He has related many cruel ac- tions of Herod. To have related them all would probably have appeared fpite and ill will, rather than faithfulnefle or impartiality. It is evident there were many put to death at Jerufale7n, befide thofe he names in the account of that execution. Poflibly the
(a) Neque fum ignarus, a plerifque fcriptoribus, omifla multa turn pericula <k poenas, dum copia fatifcunt $ aut quae ipfis nimia 8c maefta fuerant, ne pari taedio le&uros ad- rkercnr, vereatur. Tacit. Ann, 1. vi. c. 7.
O 2 omiflion
i<)6 The Credibility of the Book II.
omiffion of the murder of the Infants may be owing to thofe reafons I have here hinted, namely, a fear of being charged with adefign to load Herod unreafonably, or a fear of rendering his hiftory difagreeable by too par- ticular a detaile of cruel anions.
($.) I have thus far endeavoured to account for Jofephus's filence in the way of apology for him, and fhould be glad to leave the matter here : but his ftrange way of fpeaking, and that in two (a) places of his works, of an execution at yerufalem about this time, though according to his own ac- count and acknowledgement it was very fevcrc and terrible, will not permit me to conclude here. Suppofing then that that ex- ecution was made on account of difcourfes which happened at Jerufalem upon the ru- mour of the birth of Jefus, I think, that lince Jofephus was determined in the main to vindicate Herod upon that occafion, he was obliged for his own honour to fay nothing of what was done at Bethlehem. The (laugh -
(a) One of thofe psHages with obfervations upon it may be feen above, p.7 0.-80*. It is thepaflagel referred to Vol.i. p 27^, as defer virig a particular attention. W the reader has not yet obferved it, I would now recommend it to his perufa!. The other palfage will be found toward the later end of §. 1 . of the next chapter to this.
ter
Chap. II. Gospel History. 197
tcr of all the infants from two years old and under, of a whole City, town, or village, and the diftridt round about it, whatever co- lours an hiftorian might have put upon it, would have appeared to all mankind, but prejudiced and hardened Jews, an horrid inhumanity.
4. S t. Matthew's account is confirmed by the teftimony of ancient Chriftian Au- thors. I give one paiTage from Juflin Mar- tyr, who wrote before the middle of the iecond Century. c But, fays he, Herod,
* when the Arabian wife men did not come
* back to him as he had defired them, but c according to a command given them re-
* turned by another way into their own coun- 1 try, and when Jofeph together with Mary 1 and the young child were gone into Egypt,
* according to directions given to them alfo ' by a divine revelation, not knowing the ' child whom the wife men had come to ' worfhip , commanded all the children € in Bethlehem without exception to be < killed {a). This was prophefied of byje- 1 remiah, the fpirit of God faying by him 4 thus : A 'voice was heard in Rama.—-
ptfym, £>jak>g. Fart. ii. p. 304. Parif. (p. 307. ih'ilb.)
O 3 This
19 8 The Credibility of the Book II.
T h i s is all I offer by way of anfvver to this objection.
There is however a noted paflage in Macrobius, a Heathen Author, who flourish- ed in the later end of the fourth century, who among other jefts of Auguftus has this; c When he [Auguftus~] had heard that a- c mong the children within two years of ' age, which Herod King of the Jews com- 4 manded to be flain in Syriay his own fon c had been killed, he faid : It is better to be f Herod's hog than his fan (a).
I lay little or no ftreffe upon this paflage, partly becaufe it comes too late, partly be- caule there is reafon to fuppofe Macrobius has been miftaken about the occafion of the jeft. No early chriftian writers have faid any thing of Herod's having had a young child of his own killed in the {laughter at Bethlehem. If ^Auguftus did pafs this jeft upon Herod, it might be occafioned by the death of Antipater, or rather of Alexander and Arifiobulus (b).
(a) Cum audiffet inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes Rex Judaeorum intra bimatum juilit inrerfici, filium quoque ejus pecifum : ait, Melius eft Herodis for cum ejfe quam filium* Macrcb. $at. lib. a. c. 4. (£j See Doctor Whitby's An-
jiot, on Matt ai. 16, ij.
Chap.II. Gospel History. 199
§. II. An objeftion of the like fort with that we have been confidering,may be made againft St. Luke, who fays, There were pre- fent at that fafon, fome that told him of the Galileans , whofe blood Vdate had mingled with their Sacrifices. It has been Jf*""1' thought ftrange by fome, that Jofefkus has made no mention of this event.
In anfwer to this obje&ion, I (hall trans- cribe a paffage of Jofefhus. * Judas the 1 Galilean introduced a fourth fed among ' the Jews. In all other things they agree ' with the Thari/ees, but they have an in-
* vincible love of liberty, and acknowledge c God alone their Lord and Governour. Nor € can any kind of death, or any punimments ' of their friends and relations make them
* call any man Lord. As many have been c witnefles of their immoveable firmneffe,
* I (hall fay no more upon this head : Not 1 out of a fear, left my accounts fhould be 1 thought incredible, but rather becaufe it is 1 not eafy fully to reprefent their contempt < of all kinds of fufferings (a).
(a) 'Ov 'f> atebiKct \u* lie, axirUv u7?oto,<p6vj n r Xtyouiwm
$)i%ojlent tw Tct}M.7rapuit tk #Ay«$v©-a 6 Aay©- ct^nynren* jinfia.L. 1 8. Q. i. §. 6.
0 4 ¥m-
ao o The Credibility of the Book II.
Perhaps the Galileans mentioned by St. Luke were fome of the followers of the before mentioned yudas. jofephus fays he has emitted the greateft part of thefufFerings of that Sed. I think it is not difficult to gueffe the reafon. Judas's principles were very popular among the Jews, but in the opinion of the Romans they were criminal, as being inconfiftent with Subje&ion to their government. And it was next to impoflible for Jofephus to give a particular account of all tranfa&ions in Judea relating to this mat- ter, without offending the Jews his country- men on the one hand, or the Romans on the other.
But whether the Galileans mentioned by St. Luke were men of this principle is not certain, nor is it material. For though they were not, the paflage juft tranferibed from rtrfephus may fatisfieus, that many remark. "" able events have been omitted by him up- on fome account or other.
vmm
Chap.
Chap. III. Gospel Histohy. aoi
Chap. III.
An obje&ion againft the Fifteenth year of the Reign of Tiberius compared with the age of Jefus at his Baptifm.
£. I. The Ob;, ftated. §. II. The firft Solution : That St. Luke, by the fif- teenth of Tiberius, might intend the fifteenth of hzs Proconfular power, not of his fole empire after the death of Auguftus. §. III. The confidence of other notes of time in the Gofpels with this Suppo/ition. §. IV. The fecond Solution : That the age of thir- ty years afcribed to Jefus at his bap- tifm may be tinderftood with latitude.
T. Luke fays; Now in the fif- teenth YEAR OF THE REIGtf of Tiberius Cesar, Pontius ^Pilate being governour of *Judea.— -the word
of
h
— V. 21,
aox The Credibility of the Book II.
of God came unto John the fon of Zacha- *Lukeiu. r/as in the wildemeffe *. — Now when all the people were baptized, it came topaffe, that Jefus alfo being baptized, and praying the heaven was opened ': And the Holy Ghoft defccndid in a bodily Jhape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, whi h faid<> Thou art my beloved Son, in thee 1 am well pleafed. And Jefus himfelf
-—BEGAN TO BE ABOUT THIRTY YEARS OF AGE.
Against this account of St. Luke this objection may be formed. St. Matthew fays exprefly, that Jefus was born in Bethlehem of judea in the days of Hi rod the king. But, though Jefus was born but a month or two before the death of Herod, he would be at left thirty one years of age at his baptifm. But if Jefus was born above a year, much more, if above two years before Herod's death, then the age of thirty years here af- cribed to him at his baptifm is abfolutelyin- conlillent with the notes of time mentioned at the commencement of John the Baptift's miniftry : even allowing, that the word of God came to John in the very beginning of the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and that Jefus was baptized a few months after.
Chap.III. Gospel History, aog
Before I (late this obje&ion at length, I would obferve, that the true genuine mean- ing of thefe words, Refits himfelf (a) be- gan to be about thirty years of age, is not that he then entered the thirtieth year of his age, but Jefus was about thirty years of age when he began his miniftry : or when (b) he thus began to Jhew himfelf publickly. This, I think, is now the general opinion of (c) learned men. So the Greek word of this text is ufed by St. Luke in other places. Thus the High Priefts and others charge Jefus before Tilate, faying, He fiirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, Lu\iX^ beginning 1% ^d^ev©- having be gun] froms- Galilee to this place. St. Peter in the de- bate concerning the choice of an Apoftle in the room of Judas fays : Wherefore of thefe men which have accompanied with us all the time that the Lord Jefus went in and out among us, beginning from the bap-
(a) K#» uvrlc, h o 'I/jer£$ cotru trZv t^iukcvtcc upx>o[jcti(&> , q>9s r~. A. (b) Dr. ClarWs Paraphrafe. (r) Lucse
jnentem Janfenius [Cone. cap. 14.] optime affecutus eft, quam fie cxprimit; Senfus erity & ipfe J ejus tr at fere tri- gintu annorum, cum jam fafcepto baptifmo aufftcaretur Jeindt munus fuum. Bafnage Anna). Pol. Ecc ant. D.f. n. 28. vid. 5c Anton. Cappeil. de coena Chrifti fuprema. Sett. 12. c. 25. MS'Wh'Jion's Jhort view of the harmony, &c. p. 136.
tifrn
104 The Credibility of the Book II.
tifm [c) of John, unto the fame day that ke was taken up from usjmufl one be ordained to be a witnejfe with us of his refiirreEiion- Ach\ 2i I come now to the obje&ion : Au- ~i. gufius died and Tiberius iucceeded him the 19th. of Augufl, A.U. 767, Julian year 59, A. D. 14. Therefore the fifteenth of Tiberius began the 19th. Jug. A. U. 781, A.D. 28. Herod died (a) before the PaiT- over in A. U. 750, Julian year 42, or eife before the Paflbver in A. U. 751, Jul. year 43. If then John the Baptift began to preach in the beginning of the fifteenth of Tiberius, in the later end of A. U. 781, and Jefus be fuppofed to have been bapti- zed by John a few months after, on the 6th of January of the year following, viz. A.U* 782 ; Jefus muft have been in the 3 2d. year of his life, if Herod 'died in the Spring A.U. 751, and if Jefus was born the 25th *De- cemb. preceeding, viz. A. U. 750. But if Herod died A.U. 750, and Jefus was born the 25th cDecemb. before, viz, A. U. 749, then he would be at his baptifm in the 33 d. year of his age.
(a) 'Ev a, ImXU ^ igiMsv ty* fa^c fi K^<& 'Iwx$, xfixpi. (a) S.e the Appendix.
Bu?
Chap. III. Gospel History, aoy
B u x it may be made appear feveral ways, that Jefus was born above a year, probably above two years before Herod died.
i . T h i s may be inferred from the E van- gelifts themfelves. For it is very probable that Herod lived a year or more after the murder of the infants. The wife men hav- ing worfhiped Jefus, when they were de- parted, Behold the angel of the Lord ap- peared to Jofeph in a dream* faying, arife7 and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt, and be thou there un- til I bring thee word : for Herod will feek the young child to deftroy him. When he arofe, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt. M , „ And was there until the death of He- 13—15. rod. The direction given to Jofeph by the angel, may afford ground to fuppofe that Joflph was to make fome (lay in E- gypty at left fome months, or more than a few weeks or days: which, from what fol- lows, appears to have been till the death of Herod.
Moreover St, Matthew fays, that when Herod was dead, Behold* an angel of th- Lord appeared to Jofeph in a dream in E^ypt, faying, Anje, take the young child
and
ao 6 The Credibility of the Book II.
and his mother, and go into the land of Ifrael: For they are dead which
E TA SOUGHT THE YOUNG CHILDES LIFE. «•— -v. iy>
ao. I x being known from Jofephus, that
Antipater died but five days before his fa- ther Herod) it may be inferred from the ufe of the plural number, that Antipater is meant by the angel as well as Herod^ and that he had been concerned in the defign to put Jefus to death, and that his cruel inten- tions were onecaufeof Jofeph's removal out of ^fudea into Egypt. But Antipater could have no influence on his father's counfels for ten months or more before Herod died, as will appear prefently : therefore the murder of the infants happened, moft probably, a year before the death of Herod.
I t may likewife be concluded from Saint Matthew's account, that Jefus was born near two years before the murder of the infants. For thus he fays : Now when Jefus was born in Bethlehem of Jtidea^ in the days of Herod the king : Behold there came wife men jrom the eaft to Jerufalem, faying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews ? for we have fen his far in the eaft, and Matt. lili are come to worjhip him. — -Then Herod, when he had privily called the wife men7
en-
Chap. III. Gospel History. 207
enquired of them diligently what time the Jlar appeared *. * v. 7:
The wife men having been to worfhip the child, and departing into their own coun- try v/ithout coming back to Jerufalem, Then Herod when he faw that he was mocked of the wife men^ was exceeding wroth., and jent forth^ and (lew all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coajls thereof from two years old and under \ac cord- ing to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wife men f .
Jesus was born before the wife men came, for their queftion was : Where is he that is born ? They knew he was born, becaufe they had feen his ftar in the eaft. Herod 'en- quired what time the ftar appeared, and flew all the children from two years and under, according to that time. Therefore the ftar had appeared two years before, and Jefus was born at or near that time.
Nor can the fuppofed diftance between the appearing of the ftar and the arrival of the wife men weaken this calculation. There might be many reafons to hinder their un- dertaking the journey immediately : Poflibly, they apprehended no neceflity of fetting out fooner. For allowing the truth of the fad:,
that
ao8 The Credibility of the Book II.
that they had fccn a ftar by which they un- derftood the birth of a King in Judea, they could not well make any doubt of his living, or of their having an opportunity to wor- fhip him, though they delayed a year or two* But, whatever were the reafons of their de- lay, we have no right to depart from the words of St. Matthew, who intimates very plainly, that it was two years from the ap- pearing of the Star to the time in which. Herod ordered the children to be flain.
Add thefc two years to the foremen- tioned year which Herod lived after the {laughter of the children ; and it will ap- pear, that according to St. Matthew, Jeius was born three years before Herods death.
2. I t may be proved from Tertullian that Jefus was born above two years before the death of Herod ^ for he fays, that the cenfus or tax made in Judea, at the time of which Jefus was born, was made (a) by Sentius Saturninus. But Jofepkus allures us, that Quint itius Varus was come into Syria as Succeffor to Saturninus^ before (h) the death of Herod. It may not be eafy to determine exa&Iy from Joftphus the time of Varus's
(a) Adv. Marc. lib. 4, c. 19. See above P. 181. (b) Antiq. 17 c« 5. §. z« 6c alibi*
arrival
Chap, III. Gospel History. ao<?
arrival in Syria : But there are in being fomc ancient Coins (#) or Medals of the City of Antioch, the Capital of that Province, that demonftrate the time of his government. One of thefe coins has on the reverfe a figure repreknting the City of Antioch> and the name of Varus with a date in Greek nume- rals xxv. And there are others with the fame figure and infcription, with the nume- rals xxvi, xxvii. The firft of thefe coins allures us, that Varus was in Syria before September A. U. 748. For the Era which the ^Antiochians ufed at that time was that of the A&iac Victory, which was obtained A. U. 723 (JS). The 25 th year of this Era ended the fecond of September A. U. 748. It is therefore manifeft that Jefus was born be- fore September in that year, if Saturninus
(a) Scripfit ad me Card. Norifius, cxtare in Scrinio iiluftrifTi- mi Marchionis Riccardi nummurn minimae magnitudinis caput Jovis in antica repraefentantem, in cujus pofticu habetur, Eni OYAPOr ANTIOXES2N, mu^cr fedens pede fdper figu- ram Orontis fluminis, tenens dexu a palmam; &. in medio EK. id eft. Anno xxv. Pagi appar. ad Bar. n. 1^6. vid. omnino. Norif. Epoch. Syromaced. Diflsrt. 3. c. 7. 2o MemoireS de 1'Academie deslnfcrip. Tom. <,! p. 181. ed. Amft,
{b) Doclor Adix iuppofes the Anuockian Era of the A6rhc Victory does not begin till A. U. 724, Vid. Diflert. de J. C. Anno & Menfe natali, p. 102. It is not my bufinefs to enter into difpui-e upon this head. The other opinion Teems to me Sioft probable, vid. isorlf. ubi ftipr*. P*gj Apparat. n. 103, 104.
P made
aio The Credibility of the Book II.
made the Cenfusof which St. Z«^fpeaks, or if it was made in his time. And if it be fuppofed, that Jefus was born on the 25 th day of 'December , then his nativity muft ne- ceilarily be placed as far back as the 25th. Decemb. A. U. 747.
3 . I expect likewife to be here re- minded of fome things advanced by me in the fitft chapter of this Book 5 and that it will be urged : If the oath which Jofephus fays was taken by all the Jews to Augujlus and He^ rod rclktc to the Cenfus or enrolment whidi St, Luke fpeaks of, then Jefus muft have been born about three years before the death of Herod.
Possibly the obje&ion may be ftated in this manner.
I t cannot be lefs than ten months from the commencement of the enquiries made by Herod into the caufe of Pheroras's death and the crimes of Antipater to the death of Herod. When the firft diicoveries were made, t^Antipater was at Rome. Herod lent for him in a very prefling but kind man- ner, diffembling all fulpicions concerning him, that he might not delay to return to Judea. Jofephus fays, that when Antipa- ter returned, he knew nothing of the ac- 4 pufations
Chap. III. Gospel History. hi
cufations which had been brought a°ainft him, though {a) feven months had then palled from the firft difcoverie of his crimes. In a day or two after Antipater's return to Jadea Herod calls a council, in which (J?) he himfelf and Varus, Governour of Syria, prefided. Antipater is brought before them, convi&ed and remanded to prifon. But Herod not daring to pronounce fentence on Antipater without leave from t^Auguftusy Exprefies were fent to Rome with an account of what had pafled. After that thefe meffen- gers were fent away from Judea, a letter was intercepted, which was written to An- tipater by K^lcme a jewifh woman at Rome in the Service of the Empreffe Livia, in which letter were frefh proofs of Antipa- ters defigns. Hereupon Herod fent away frefh difpatches from Rome. Thefe return to Judea, and bring word, that Acme had been put to death by Auguflus, and that the Emperour left it to Herod to do with Antipater as he thought fit. Soon after this, Antipater was put to death, and in five days after Herod died (c)»
(a) Keu to« f/j£Tx£y T3 i\ty%av x} tJJis tTtctvo&z cnXtiovTur fork /up!*; Be Bell, lib I. cap. 31. p. 1034.. v lt* (b) Ibid. cap. 31. (c) Vid. Jofiph. de Ldl. lib.?. cap. 30, — 3 3« Ant. 1. i". cap. 3. 3.
P z As
z I z The Credibility of the Book II.
A s there was a fccond Ambafly fent to Rome after the trial of Antipater, and this returned before Herod dkd, with an account that Acme had been put to death, upon in- formations they had carried with them to Rome, it is impoflible to aflign lefs than three months for the interval between the arrival of Antipater in Judea and Herod's death, which added to the former [even make^TZ months.
I x being fuppofed in the firft chapter, that the execution which Herod made in his own family, happened at the fame time with the (laughter of the children at Beth- lehem^ it muft next be confkiered how long time that execution preceded the firft en- quiries into Antipaterh defigns. The fads mentioned by Jofephus in this interval (land thus.
HEROD having put to death feveral of his courtiers and fervants, calls his friends together, charges *Pheroras*s wife with cre- ating disturbances, and infifts upon it that ^Pheroras put her away. Theror&s loving his wife too well to comply with this de- mand, the two brothers fall out. Vheroras leaves Herod and goes to his Tetrarchy, withal fwearing folcmnly never to come to
Herod
Chap. III. Gospel History, i 1 3 Herod more. About this time, as ir fccms Antipater with his father's confcnt left ^W*^ and \v..a£ to Rome. Soon after 'Pheroras was gone home, Herod fell Tick, But though Herod fent for Theroras, he would not come to him. Nbt long after, 7 her or as is lick, Herod goes to fee him, they arc reconciled^ Pheroras dies. Herod has him brought to Jerufalem and buried there (^).
When Pheroras was buried, forne of his fcrvants made applications to Herody de- firing him to enquire into the manner and caufes of Theroras's death. Thefe enquiries Open a horrid fecneof wickednefle. And it appears, that a confpiracy had been formed by Antipater to ppifon his father Herod j and that he had committed the execution of this defign to Theroras^ arid fcrvants of his own whom he had left behind him when he went to Rorns, and who were to <pbey Pheroras's dire&ions (J?)*
I t will not be eafie to allot lefs than three months for the facts juft now mentioned in the interval between the execution in Herod's family and the firft enquiries into the
{a)Jofoh. di Bell, lib.i. cap. 29. §.4. Ant. 17. cap. 3. (b) De Bell. ibid. c. 30. Ant. ibid. 4.
P 3 caufc
a 14 The Credibility of the Book II.
caufe of Vheroras\ death. Three months added to the former ten make thirteen.
The execution fpoken of by Jofephus and the {laughter of the children mention- ed by St. Matthew being allowed to have happened both at the fame time, the in- terval between the birth of Jefus and this execution is already computed. It cannot be lefs than a year and nine or ten months? that is, near two years; confequently, we have a frefh argument that Jefus was born three years before the death of Herod. But how inconfiftent this is with Jefus being about thirty* years of age in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, appears from what has been faid already.
Having now ftated thefe objections and given them their full force, as I imagine, before I proceed to offer at a reply, I would make two or three reflexions upon fome par- ticulars contained in them.
I d o allow, that it appears to me highly probable, that Herod did live a year at left after the flaugliter of the infants.
But as for Tertulliaris teftimony, that the Tax in Judea was made by Saturninus, I think it is not of much weight 3 fince he is |hc only perfon that has faid this, and he
flourished
Jhap.III. Gospel History, ris
flourifhed not till about two hundred years after the event. Befides, though Tertullian was well skilled in the Roman Laws and Cu- floms, he has committed many grofs blunders in hiftory. The reader may fee ieveral of them collected by (a) *Dodwell in hisDii- fertations upon Irenaeus. One of them is the computation Tertullian has made of the time from the nativity of Jefus to the tak- ing of Jerufalem (H) by Vefpafian 5 which, according to him, was not full fifty three years. And in reckoning up the reigns of the Ieveral Emperours he has quite omitted that of Claudius, and allotted not quite ten years to the reign of Nero. He, who could make fuch miftakes in the hiftory of the Roman Emperours, might very cafily be ig- norant who was Prefident of Syria at the time of our Saviour's Nativity.
Nor ami fatisfied with the proofs offered in thefe objections, that Jefus was born near two years before the flaughter of the chil- dren at Bethlehem. Dr. Whitby (c) quefti- ons whether aVo Ahtus $ z&tuTepa) fhould not be rendered from one year old and ^un* der rather than from two years old and under,'
(«) Differ, iii, §. xiii. (b) Vid. Tertul. adverf.
Jud. cap. 8. (c) Mattb. ii. i<5.
P 4 But
a 1 6 The Credibility of the Book II.
But let herk fignifie two years, yet I think no concluiion can be made about the precife time of the birth of Jefus from Herod's orders. It is moft likely, that this ftar appeared fome time before the birth of Jefus, and that it was underftood by the wife Men to prefignifie it. Hereby they were prepared tor their journey, and it is highly probable that thefe Wife men came in- to Judea to worfhip this King, as foon a$ they could after they concluded he was born, and that they arrived at Jerufalem in a very few months atter his birth. But fince their enquiry was : Where is he that is born King of the Jews <? Herod, whofe cruelty had in a manner no bounds, orders all chil- dren near Bethlehem to be flain who had been born fince the appearing of the Star, or perhaps even for fome fpace before the time, at which, after an exaft enquiry of the wife men, he perceived it had ap- peared.
As there appears not to be any proof from St.Matthew9 that Jefus was born two years, or near two years before the (laughter of the infants 5 fo, I think alfo, that there are no proofs in Jofephas that the Oath taken by
the
Chap. III. Gospel History. %jy
the Jewshad preceded two years or near two years the execution made in Herod's court. The Oath and the Execution are related by Jo- fephus both together. The reader is referred to that paffage, as alfo to the charge brought againft Pheroras's wife immediately after that execution was over. A mong other
things in that charge Herod fays, That fie
did all fie could to create a difference be* tween him and his brother $ that the fine imp o fed upon the Pharifees had been evaded by her means \ and that in the prefent af- fair nothing had been done without her. This prefent affair I fuppofe to relate to the predictions given cut by the P bar i fees, that God would take away the kmgdome from Herod and his children. The payment of the fine is the laft crime (he is charged with be- fore this affair, which had preceded the exe- cution. It certainly therefore is not a crime of two years (landing. Herod in Co long a time might have found put fome new fault in a woman, he was fo much offended with. We may be pretty well allured from this ac- count, if I miftake not, that this Oath had preceded the faid execution and predictions, {put fome few months only.
Sup*
2,1 8 The Credibility of the Book II.
Supposing then the Execution to be truly dated, in the objedion, at about thirteen months before the death of Herod, we may infer, that the Oath in Jofephus, and the description in St. Luke was made, and that Jefus was born about a year and fix or feven months before Herod's death.
I f indeed Antipater had been at Rome two years before he was recalled byhisfather, as fome learned men have thought, then this execution mud have been made above thir- teen months before Herod's death ; becaufe it is likely, or rather certain, that Antipater was in Judea at the time of that execution. But I think it is a miftake to fuppofe he had been fo long out of Judea. ^Antipater flayed fome time in Judea after his brothers Alexander and %y£riflobuhis were {a) dead, and took a great deal of pains to defeat and fet afide the advantageous marriages which Herod defigned for their children : He alio entered into cabals with Theroras and his , wife in order to fecure the Succeffion for himfelf. Moreover, Saturninus was got to Rome a good while before Antipater went from home, jofephus fays in his Antiqui- ties, that Antipater having reiblved, if pof-
(*) Antiq. 17. c. r.
' ' fible,
Chap. III. Gospel History. up fible, to haften his fathers death, and being defirous to ftrengthen and (ecure his own in- terefl: that he might reign after him, ' He re-
* mitted large fums of money to his father's f friend? at Rome, that he might gain their
* good will, but efpecially that he might have ' the favour of Saturninus the governour of 1 Syria, {a) Saturninus is not here called governour of Syria, becaufe he was then a&ually in that Port, for he is manifeftly at Rome s but to diftinguifh him from others of that name, of which there were many. And it appears from the parallel place in the War of the Jews, that one favour which Antipater defired of thefe perfons at Rome who had influence on his father was, that they would write to Herod that his tAnti- pater's] prefence at Rome would be fervice- able to him in the prefent pofture of affairs. Antipater had now fettled all things with Theroras for the poifoning of Herod, as foon as an opportunity offered. Bm Anti- pater, fo long as he ftaid in Judea, could not forbear converfing with *Pheroras and his wife, which was extremely difagreeable
cuotm iwxc, Kot.dis-ufAiv&'y %^o%oinm^i S^r^wey, rev t«$ 2vf»#s ism* .Atfrv. ibid. p. 750, v.io,
tQ
xio The Credibility of the Boot II.
to Herod. l Therefore Antipater {a) con- trived by the intereft of friends at Rome to procure leave for a voyage thither. Thefe writing, that it would be very proper fo? Antipater to be fent to Cefar without de- lay, he {Herodr\ immediately fent him thither, having fur nifhed him with afump- tmous equipage and large fums of money, giving him alfo his Will to carry with him to the Emperour/
I t is true, that after Antipater** journey to Rome, mention is made of Saturninus as in Syria : but then it is, becaufe Jofephus re- lates a fad that had happened before Antipa- ter went from Judea. Jofephus, giving an account of what Antipater did at Rome, mentions (£) fome accomplices of Syllaeus fent thither by Saturninus to anfwer for themfelves. But this might have been done by Saturninus fome time before.
A g a i n, if ^Antipater had been two years out of Judea, Herod, who wanted plaufible reafons to induce him to return, could not have failed to put this, of. his long abfence,
(a) TIpocyfJtjccTtviTxi, dice, tt sVj t£< 'ItuZixs (piXw, rv.v in "lUc^jurjV "bjr$£v[/jict» eivra. ypccyc&vrw >f> ticsum, oiTv 'AvTi7rarpov viwtpQw'M hoc %%'oviS ?rpos Rowrxpcc,, 6 p ttrt pi^KO-ae, i^issi^ij x. \. de B. l.i. c. 29.5.2. {b) DeB. ibid, §.3.
Aatiq. 17,-c, 3.5.2 ■
into
Chap. III. GospelHistory. rzi
into his letters, as a very cogent and unex- ceptionable argument, which yet he does not appear {a) to have done.
I t may be farther argued, that Antipa- ters journey to Rome did not precede the death of Herod two years. The very com- mencement of the enquiries into the death of Theroras could not be above ten months before the death of Herod, as has been fhewn already. A great progrefle had been made in thofe examinations, 'Doris, Anti- paters mother, had been dete&cd and put out of {b) Herod's houfe 5 Mariamne the High Prieft s daughter (c) was alfo put away, and her ton (truck out of a new Will Herod had made. * When thefe things were doing c fays Jofephus, B at hy litis Antipatefs freed- c man arrived from Rome, And being put ' to the queftion was difcovered to have c brought with him a frefh quantity of poy- * fon to be given to his [Antipatefs] mo- 1 ther and Theroras, that if the former had f failed to difpatch the King they might try I this (d) upon him.' Before Antipater had
gone
(/») See the fubftance of thefe letters, Be B. 1. i.e. 31. §.?. Antiq. 17. c. $\§. i» (b) Anti^ 17.C 4,$. 1. (c) Ibid (d) 'Ev tutco j ^ BuOvfooi qm 'Vvfjwt umAtvQipoi; 'AvTizretTfit
'?,
%%i The Credibility of the Book 11
gone to Rome he had provided (a) poyfori for Pheroras to give his father. It is plain, that when Bathylhis was fent from Rome, Antipater did not know whether theroras had made any ufe of the firft poyion or not, and that he had ftill a full confidence in him. But if Antipater had been gone from Judea two years, and had heard nothing of the cffeft of that poyfon, fuch a delay would have created fufpicions. Moreover this fecond preparation appears to be fent to back the former; fo that we may beaffured,we are to go backward, not years, but only fome months for the true time of Antipater'% leaving cJudea.
Once more, the firft opening of the en- quiries into the caufes of Pheroras's death has been laid at about ten months before the death of Herod. That Antipater was then but newly let out for Rome, may be inferred from hence. Theroras being dead, Herod had him brought to Jerufalem, honoured him with a funeral, and made great lamenta- tions for him. * This, fays Jofephusy was 1 the beginning of forrow to Antipater
JUMJTp 9§ QspUfCt, lie, U TO TTpOTSpoV fM) U^TOITO & /3otCTiA*6J5, TttTV
y»v f/jiTct%tigi£ovTo uvr'ov. ibid. §. ?• de B. I • c. 3 1 . §. I. (a) Ant'ifr ibid. §♦ $.De Bell. ibid. c. 30. § 5.
* though
Chap. III. Gospel History. rz%
* though (a) he was then (ailed to Rome. 1 God requiring of him the blood of his
* brothers. I (hall give a particular relation
* of this whole affair, that it may be an ad- monition to all mankind to adhere to the
c pra&ife of virtue.' If t^Antipater had been then any long time out of Judea, Jo- fephus would have faid, though he was then at Rome, or though he had been fome time there. It is poflible, Antipater might have been gone from home a month or two: but the phrafe here ufed by Jofephus feems to me to import, that there were not yet come to Jerufalem any tidings of <ylntipa- ters arrival at Rome.
I h o p e it will be excufed, that I have infifted fo long upon this point. The fuppofi- tion, that Antifater \ was gone to Rome be- fore the removal of Saturninus, and two years or more before the death of Herod> has caufed much confufion in the chronology of many learned men about this time.
There is in Jofephus another paflage not yet obferved by any one upon this oc- cafion, that 1 know of, which may help to determine the time of the execution made
T«*yg szrt P<y^)j§ mnXiVKOTi xxxav lyinro otfX*, t^ a.&Xtyox,.
T#w*$ «vtI> Timpm 2? ©iSf, x, a, Antiq- 17. c. 3. §.3.
by
114 The Credibility of the Boot IL
by Herod in his court and at jerufalem, and which will confirm my opinion about it. JofephtiSy having given the hiftory of Herod s putting to death his two Sons Alexander and ArijlobuluSy makes divers reflections upon that a&ion. It might have been fufficient, fays he, even (uppofing them guilty of the crimes laid to their charge., to have con- demned ihem to perpetual imprifonment, or to have baniflied them, but to take away their lives was a piece of downright cruelty.
* Nor does the delay extenuate the crime, c for after deliberation, having been refolved ' at one time and in fufpenle at another, to
< commit mch a fad, is an argument of a 1 bloody difpofltion, and of a mind obfti- f nately bent upon wickednefTe : Which
* fame temper he fnewed afterward upon
* another occafion, when he fpared not others 1 [or the reft] perfons who feemed to be the
< molt dear to him of any. The juftice of c their punifliment abates our compafllon
* for their ruine, but yet his cruelty was*- c like here alfo, in that he (pared not even c them. But of thefe more in courfe (a) c by and by3. his
(a) 'Ev sTriroccrit, 3, £ 7rofe.ciy,i<; p ocy^QivTcc xc>%,kya^ j f*t'Atf~
Chap. III. Gospel History, rif
This laft piece of cruelty I take ro mean the execution made by H rod in his court, and which JofepLus relates afterward in the next book of thefe Antiquities. It cannot refer to the death of Antipater, becaufc he is but one ; nor to the defign upon the chief men of Judea fllut up in the Circus, be- caufe they had committed no offenfe, and that defign was never executed 5 nor to the Rabbies ; becaufe they do not appear to have ever been dear to Herod. But it muft be the before mentioned execution, of which I hope the reader has a clear idea. Then H.rod put to death all of his own family that adhered to the things faid by the Tharifeesy and to other perfons that appear to have been favourites with him. And it is obfervable, that as in that account Jofphusis pleafed to divert himlelf with thofe executions 5 fo, here alio, even when he is aggravating the cruelty of Herod, he betray es the fame good will toward thofe who then fuffercd under the rage of this inhumane tyrant.
fjutrctKivviTit Yy#W5 ^T' T2 Xtipovav' ldy,M;<Ti 'j k) rote, kv^c, in. "^yn^of/jivo^ ioi T? 5T£fi<?iei7r&>v cfraq socy.si (piXrurxs, t(f> cic, ro ^ £Uccw t^icrrov tirom crv[/,-ufa'ia% t*$ "a<7rs;JS'jfj!jivsq, ro j u/ao* cfAoiov 'v,vi ru priori sxwon (ptitrcc[b£*f hi\ip& j vzrif etvrat iiy,<i k<p/\y{tptm' Antiq. 16. c. ult. ad tin.
It
% 1 6 The Credibility of the^ Ecci II.
I t would be defirable here to fettle exact- ly the time when thefe two Ions of Hi rod were put to death. Dr. dltix (a) places the council of Berytum, before which they were tried, and by which they were con- demned, in the month ot Alay, A U. 749, about ten months before Herod died. But if Herod died in the Spring A. U. 750, as the Do&or fuppofes, this council is certainly placed by him too late. It is evident from particu- lars infilled on in the objeclion, and ilnce al- lowed or mentioned by me, that it muft have preceded the death of Herod above ten months. Moreover, Saturnimis was one of this council, and if the firft Medal and the cpocha above mentioned be allowed, Sa- turninus was gone from Syria before Sept. 748. It may be, however, fuppofed, I think, that this Council was not held long before the removal of Saturninus : And it is cer- tain from the pafiage juft tranferibed, that the execution of the Tharifees and others at Jeriifalem happened fome confiderable time after the death of Alexander and Aru (iobulus.
{a) — Conventum Berytenfem qui habitus eft in caufa Alex- :ndri & Ariftobuli Maio menfe A. U. 749. ibid. p. 18. vid. Sc p. 1 3 . & alibi.
If
Chap. III. Gospel History. 227
I f any fhould objeft, that according to the account I have given of the Oath or En- rolment, that it was owing to the difpleafure of Auguftus zga'wft: Herod,it cannot be placed fo near the end of Herod's reign as I here fuppofe, but muft have happened a confidera- ble time before the removal of Sattirninus 5 becaufe Augnjins appears to have been re- conciled to Herod before Sattirninus left the province, and before the Council at Bcrytum in which Alexander and Arifiobulus were condemned : I anfwer, that the enrolment is not placed by me too late at all. It might be refolved upon by Auguftus before, and yet not be executed till zttcr Saturninus went away. And though Auguftus might be in fome meafure pacified, yet he might think fit to have the affeflement made. BefiJes^ though Jofephus fays, that upon the applica- tions Nicolas of T>amafcus had made to Auguftus at Rome, the Emperour was recon- ciled to Herody that Syllaeus was ordered home, required to pay the money he owed, and give all proper fatisfaction, and was after- ward (a) to be punifhed : Yet it is certain, that
(a) Kai nty&c, lie, tvto jcsctsVjj Ka<o-#p, &s & ]£ XufocciX xcctu*
yvZrxi 6xvctrov, Hfafy j hebJ^etrrti^ to ^ cofMFen, 0 ft
Sy^ajes ccvwri f^rsTo, t*§ JVxa& 5 £ roc %ptx rciq h^oivuKOT.t ^5n« fww, itT& WTtt xo?\xrQ))<rofjijiiio$. Antiq. 16, c. 10. §.p.
(^ 2 Syllaeus
ai8 The Credibility of the EookIL
Syllaeus did not give Herod or any oneclfe fatisfadtion. And it may be from thence in- ferred, that Herod was not fully reinflated in Auguftus's favour, for then Syllabus would have been more fubmiffive. J°fe~ phus relating Antipater's voyage to Rome, of which we have made frequent mention, fays : < Srllaeus the Arabian (a) alfo went thither « at the lame time, not having performed 1 any of thole things which Cefar enjoined. 1 And Ant ipater accufed him to Q/ir upon € the lame heads he had been before accufed 1 of by Nicolas' Prom what has been faid concerning the time of AnUpat'fs journey it appears, that this accufation muft have been brought agairift Syllaeus in the laft year of Herod's life.
It is evident, that Heed's affairs were not in a good, poflure at this time at Rome. If they had, ^Antlpater could not have made the ftate of them, and the fervice he might do his father there, a pretenfe for his journey. Moreover, Ant'ipater (b) charged Herod with a fum of two hundred talents, laid out
(a) Tw&6ptJttM T 'AvTlXCLTfU j£ Hv^OCieC, 0 ''A^Vj (AW** *>*
srptfG-sT<fc|£ Kcatrccp h&xvxfsiypiiw >£ 'AvTiTrctrpoc, ocvth KccTnyo-
p iX 877* Kittrfltpeg, zrsf; m rp7spov ti>.x.iXcco$. ibid. 1. 1J. C ;.§.i#
(6) Atccx.-ir.ee, y2» ocvu-Xcv^jato^ oLttyiyiu rcc^avroc, >§ tutu*
ft/tyi'm frf'-pecris w ij zrpes Zvfaxiov <£?ijj' De JB. 1. C 31. §. £.
chiefly
Chap. III. Gospel History. 129 chiefly, as he pretended, in the caufe againft $'y/Ia. us, his father's great enemy. From all which it is reaionable to conclude, that A7/- colas had, in his hiftory, out of regard to his matter andhimlelf, magnified the iucceiTe of his negotiations at Rom?. Nor can it be juftly expected from an Hftorian, tlut, when he comes down to the affairs of his own time, he mould be perfectly indifferent to- ward thole in which he aftcd a part him- telf.
Having now cleared the way, I would lay down two or three conclufions.
1. lAPPREHENDit appears from what has been here offered, that there is no ne- cciTiry of placing the birth of Jems above a year and fix months before the death of Herod. If Herzddkd in March A.U. 750, I mould be inclined to place the nativity of Jems in September or Ottober A U. 748. If H rod died in March 751, then the nativity of Jefus might very well be placed in Sep* tember or October 749. As I am not able fully to determine the time of Herod's death I fhali for the future have fame regard to both thefe dates of our Saviour's Nativity.
2. The account that has been given above of the time of Saturninus's removal,
CL 3 and
ago The Credibility of the Book II.
and Varus's arrival in the province of Syria does alio incline us to one of thefe dates. It is not improbable, that the oath was taken or the afleficment made much about the fame time that Varus came into Syria. And it is fttppofed by many learned men, that the Ro- man Governours ufually came from Rome into thefe Eaftern Provinces at the later end of the fummer. Ir is certain, that upon the removal of t^Arc/reJaus^hcn Cyrenms came Govemour into Syria, there was an affefie- ment made in Syria and Judea. I am. the rather inclined to think this the time of the Oath, becaufe JofepLus in his hiftory docs not relate it when it was taken, but mentions it only upon occafion of a diftur- bance at Jerufalem which had a connexion with it. And it is obfervable, that he has faid nothing of Varus, nor of the concerns of Syria, till we hear of Varus being zt Je- rufalem when Antipater returned home. But, if thofe Medals are to be relied on, Varus had now been a good while in Syria. There is therefore in Jofphus a long gap in the concerns of Syria, and alio in the publick concerns of Judea from the council at Be- rytum to the Execut'on at Jerufalem. Du- ring this time of Jofephus's filence^ I fup~
ppfe
Chap. III. Gospel History, agi
pofe the affeffement was made. According to thefirftof the Antiochian Medals, Varus came into Syria before Sept. 748. If this be fuppofed the mod likely date of his go- vernment, and if it be alfo moil probable that Herod died A. U. 750, thelc mayftrong- ly difpofe us to place the nativity of Jefus in September ox October 748.
3. T h e later part of the Summer, or Autumn feafon feems to be the mod likely time of the year for the birth of Jefus. There is no particular reafon to determine us to the 25 th of 'December. The very depth of Winter is not a very proper feafon for a lurvey and afleflement, when people are to enter themfclves according to their tribes or fa- milies. The Autumn, when Harveft and Vintage are over, is a time of general leifure. When Jefus was born at Bethlehem, There were in the fame country Jhepherds abiding in the field \ keeping watch over their flocks ImkeUSi by night. Infomevery mild climates fliccp may be abroad in the night time in ^Decern- ber. But it is not very likely, they fhould be fo in thofe countries, where they muft be attended with Shepherds. This circum- ftance is not very favourable to the fuppo- fition, that Jefus wa* born the ajth tOec. C^4 and
agi The Credibility of the BookIL
and we are at liberty to place it in autumn, a more likely feafon.
I t is not improbable then, that Jefus might be born (orne time between the mid- dle of Aaguft and the middle of November. Cyrenius, we may fuppofe, came into Judea .^t the time, or loon after the time that Varus came Governour into Syria, and publithed the Decree of Augujiusy requir- ing all people to enter themfelves, their dependents, andeftates. Judea was a coun- try of a narrow compafTe, and the affeflement might very well be made in two or three months. Cyrenius coming into the coun- try, and being a man of difpatch in all his un- dertakings, being defirous alfo to haften to Rome to receive the honours decreed him for the Vi&ory over the Homonadenfes, being alio concerned to fet fail before the bad weather came on, appointed all people to enrole thcmfelves writh all expedition within a certain limited time, which they did accord- ingly. Ani all went to be taxed every one in his own city. The fhort time appointed for this work may be fairly concluded froni St. Luke's hiftory of it. If the fpace of time allotted for it had been of any confiderable length, it cannot be thought but that Jofeph
would
ver.
Chap.III. Gospel History. 233
would have taken an opportunity to go to Bethlehem fome while before the time of the Virgin's delivery, or elfe have deferred the journey till that was over. There is nor the left hint, that this journey was taken juft at
this feafon in obedience to a divine admoni- tion. Ic is given us as the pure refult of o- bediencc to this decree of Augujlus.
We will now lay together a few events of this time, in the order in which it may be fuppofed they happened.
About a year and fix or feven months before the death of Herod, foon after the ar- rival of Varus in the province of Syria, in Augujl or September , A. U. 743 , or 749, Julian year 40, or 41, Cyrenius [or fome other perfon of eminence] came into Judea, an allurement was made there, and in the time of it, ]efus was born at Bethle- hem in the month of September or October. After the term of forty days was expired Jefus was preiented at the Temple at Jerufa!emy and Mary made her offering according to the Law. Whenthefe things were finiihed, they went from Jerufalem and dwelt in fome City of "Judea, poflibly at Bethlehem. In the year following, viz. A.U. 749, or 750, about the beginning of February ', came wife
men
v.n
a^4 The Credibility of the Book IL
mm:, ii. men from the eajl to Jerufalem, faying, where is he that is bo?n king of the J wi ? They, being guided by the ftar which they had f en in the eaft, we fit and wor [hipped him. After their departure, the Virgin and the child Jeius being now fit for travelling, Jofeph wasadmonifhed by an angel to take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt, which he did. H.rod foon perceiv- ing from the wife men's not returning to him, that he had been mccked by them, and being much enraged thereat, fent forth and flew alfthe children that were in Bethlehem ', and in all the coafls thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wife men. He alfo put to death at the fame time divers Than fees, and other perfons at Jentfalem, fome of his own family and attendants; who, being before in expectation of the coming of a great Prince who was to rife up from among them, and by the arrival of the wife men had been confirmed in the belief that this event was now at hand, exprelTed them- felves in terms, which Herod and his fon jfntipaterznA. their flatterers termed feditious. Immediately after thefe executions Theroras'$ wife v/as called to an account alfo, as being
fuppofeel
T.lC
Chap.IIL Gospel History. r$f
fuppofed to have entertained the fame prin- ciples and expectations withtheie Tharifees, to whom flic had lately fhewn great favour in paying the fine impofed upon them for not entering themfelves and taking the appointed Oath in the time of the forementioned afifefie- nient. Theroras not fubmitting to the or- ders given him by Herod in council to put away his wife, Herod and Pheroras fell out. Hereupon, in the later end of February, or beginning of March, the fame year Tkeroras retires with his wife to his Tetrarchy. And Antipater having, before (a) this by various practices, and particularly by letters procured from Rome, difpofed his father to confent to his making a Journey into Italy ; and fup- pofing, that by the execution now juft over> all turbulent ipirirs had been awed and peace and quiet might enfue, lets fail for Rome. In the later end of April or the beginning
(a) The account of Avtipxter's fending letters and prefents to Rome is Antiq. 17. c. 1. §. 1. Of Herod's lafl quarrel with jpheroras, his forbidding AnUpMer to converfe with Rherorasy or his wife, of Antipater's journey to Rome, and Pheroras's retirement is ibid. c. 3. In the IVar, [1. 1. c. 29. §. 1.] Antipater's letters to Rome and his journey are mentioned to- gether : but as his journey is here a To reprefented as the effecl: of advice brought from Rome, it is fuppofed that thefe ictters were fcnt by him fome time before. And Pberoras's retire- pent is the thing next mentioned.
of
%l& The Credibility of the Book If.
of May following, Theroras dies, is brought to Jerufalem and buried. No fooner was the Mourning for him over, but his Servants apply to Hsrod to make enquiry into the caufes of his death : and now in the middle of Miy, or foon after, the Examinations into this matter began 5 and though Antipa- >0 ter was failed from Judea for Rome1, and got at a diftance from the place in which juftice ought to be executed on him, and therefore, according to the ordinary courfe of things, it might have been fuppoicd he was in fafety ; yet from this time the divine vengeance began to prepare itfeif again!! him, till at laft it fell upon him for ail his horrid crimes. The evidence was at firfl: obfeure and imperfect, but opened continually more and . more. Herod in his letters to Antipater dif- iembled his refentments, but earner! iyprefled his return to Judea. About the middle of ^Dec ember, ieven months after the flrft en- quiry into the caule of ^herorass death, K^Antipater arrived at Jerufulem : And is tried there before Herod3 and Varus Prefident of Syria, and condemned to death. Herod however, not daring to proceed to execute the Sentence without exprefs leave from Augujius, fent AmbalTadors to Rome with a
full
Chap. III. Gospfl History. 237 full account of what had pa(Ted, and foon after, a fecond Ambafly, new evidence hav- ing been found after the departure of the former. Thefe Jaft AmbalTadors return to Judea with full power from Auguftus about the middle of March A. U. 750, or 751 : foon after which Antipater was executed, and in five days time Herod himfelf died3 about a year and five or fix months after the birth of Jefus.
Upon the whole, I prefume it appears, we lie under no neceflity of dating the birth of Jefus before the later end of the year of Rome 748, or 749. We hereby in part abate the objection, as dated above -, but dill we have before us, undoubtedly, a very great difficulty. We will now enquire what can be faid to it.
§. II. 1. When St. Luke fays, Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,-- the word of God came unto j)hny he may- intend fome computation of the reign of Tiberius, different from that of his fole em- pire after the death of Auguftus. It is no unufual thing for the reigns of Princes to be computed from feveral dates. There were two computations of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. For, as Dr. Trideaux obferves,
« Nabo-
a 3 8 The Credibility of the Book II.
c Nahopollafar King of Babylon being old 1 and infirm took his Ton Nebuchadnezzar ' into partnerfhip in the Empire, and fent ' him with an army into thofe parts [Syria c andPaleftine']. And from hence xhzjewijb 1 computation of the years of Nebuchadnez- t zar's reign begins.— But according to the ' Babylonians his reign is not reckoned to * begin till after his father's death, which 1 happened two years afterwards. And both 1 computations being found in fcripture, it ' is ncceflary to fay fo much here for the re- ' conciling of them (a).' And there were two or three ways of computing the reign of (b) Cyrus.
B u t to come nearer to our time, there were many computations of the reign of (c) Auguftus. Some computed the begin- ning of his reign from the year in which Julius Cefar was killed, as (d) Jofephus : who fays ; Auguftus reigned fifty feven years fix months and odd days. Some from the year after, and reckoned his reign fifty fix years- Others computed from the year in which the
(a) Conn. Part. i. p. 6o. (b) MarJhaWs Treatife of the 70 weeks, p. 44. (c) Vid. Petav. Rationarium Temp. Part z. 1. 3. c. iy. pagi appar. n.66 73. 103. 114,
(d) Anu^ 18. c.i.§. *. Dt Bell, z, c.o. §. 1,
victory
Chap. III. Gospfl History, 139 vi&ory was obtained at (a) AEtium> and fay he reigned reigned forty four years > others from the year after, as Ttolomee, in his Canon, and St. Clement (b) of Alexan- dria 3 and give him only forty three years. And Herod reigned thirty four years from the death of Ant?gonusy thirty kven from the time he was declared King of Judca by the (c) Roman Senate.
2. There feems to be very good reafon to conclude from divers paiTages of the Ro- man hiftorians and the moft ancient Chriftian writers, that there were two different com- putations of the beginning of Tiberiush reign, one from the time he was made Collegue with Auguffus, and the other from his fole empire after the death of Augnjlus.
Several very learned men and very eminent chronologers (d) are of opinion, that St. Lake intends the former of thefe
(a) Atque abeotemporeexercitibuscomparatis> primum cum M, Antonio, Marcoque Lepido. dein tantum cum Antonio pec duodecim fere annos, novilTime per quaruor 6c quadraginta folus Rempublicam tenuit. Suet on. in Augufi. c. 8. vid. Dio* j. fi, (b) Srrom. p. 3 39- A Edit. Pari/.
(c) Joftph. de R. 1. cult. §. 8 1. Antiq. 17- c. 8.$. 1.
(J) Herwartus in nova 6c vera chronolog'a cap. 24S. Ujfer^ Ann. A. M. 4015. Jomn. Citric. DiiTertatio de Ann. vitas, Chrifti. Trideaux Conn. Part.ii. Book 9. A.D.xii. Vagi Critic; in Baron. A. Chr. 1 1. 71*
two
^4° The Credihility of the Book II.
two computations. I mall give a brief ac- count of the grounds there are for this fup- pofition , taken chiefly from Doftor Tagi 5 who appears to have beftowed a great deal of pains upon this argument , and mull: be allowed to have treated it with great accu- racy and judgment.
(1.) That Augaftus did in part Jay afide government fome time before he died, may be inferred from the words of an uncer- tain author of a Panegyrick, in which, in the name of the City of Rome he diflwades Maximianus Herculeus from refigning the Empire. c Is it fit, fays ke> that you mould c now give your felf a difcharge, and do that c fo foon,which Angujlus did not do till after 1 the feventieth year of his age, and the fif- 4 tieth of (a) his reign?'
(2.) Several of the Roman hifto- rians have exprefly mentioned Tiberius^s being taken into partnerftiip in the Govern- ment with Augujlus.
(a) Quoufque hoc Maximiane, patiar, me quati, tequiefcere, mihi libertatem adimi, te uiurpare tibi illicitam mifiionem? An quod Divo Augufto poft ftptuaginta aetatis, quinquaginta imperii, non licuit anno?, tarn cito licuit tibi I Panegyr. cap. 1 1. laudat. a Vftgio. Critic, A, Qb, 1 1. n. iii.
VELLE1US 3
Chap. III. GospelHistory. 241
VELLEIUS TATERCULUS, who lived in the reigns of thefe two Emperours* fays, c that at the deiire of Auguflus there ' was a lawpaffed by the Senate and People
* of Rome, that Tiberius might have equal 1 power with him in all the provinces and (a) 1 armies3. Suetonius fays, 4 There was a ' Law made, that Tiberius fhould govern
* the provinces jointly with Auguflus, and € make the Cenfus with (b) him3. Tacitus fays * That Tiberius was made collegue in
* the Empire ("with ^Auguflus') taken into € partnerfhip with him in the Tribunician
* power, and recommended ( c) to all the
armies*.
(a) Cum res Galliarum maximae molis, accenfafque plebis Viennenfium diflenfiones, coercitione magis quam poena mol- lifTet, & Senatus Populufque Rom. ('poflulante patre ejus) aequum ci jus in omnibus provinces exercitibufque efTet.
quam erat ipfi, decreto complexus efler. in urbem re-
verfus, jampridem debitum, fed continuatione bellorum dila- tum, ex Pannoniis Dalmatiifque egit triumphum. Vellei. lib ii. cap. 12,1.
(6) A Germania in urbem poll biennium regreflus, trium- phum quern diflulerat egit Dedicavit 8c Concordiac
aedem : item Pol;ucis 2c Caftoris, fuo fratrifque nomine, de manubiis. Ac ncn multo poft lege per CcfT. lata, ut pro- vinces cum Augufto communiter adminiftrarct; fimulque cenfum ageret, condito iuftro in lilyricum profe&us eft. Suet, in Tiber, cap. 20. 1 1.
(c) Drufoque pridem extincto, Nero folus e privignis erat :
\llic cuncli vergere: fiiius. collega. imperii, confors tribunitiae
R poteftatij
%^% The Credibility of the Book. II.
1 armies'. Andthereare in this laft mentioned (a) Hiftorian frequent references toTiberius's pannerfhip in the empire with Auguftus.
I must be allowed to be particular in the account of fome things faid by *Dio. In his hiftory of the affairs A. U. 765, A.D. 13. he fays: ' Auguftus (b) now advanced € in years, recommended in a writing Ger- 4 manicus to the Senate, and the Senate to c Tiberius. He did not however read the « writing himfelf (not being able) but Ger- c manicus, as he had been wont to do. — < But yet he did not lay afide the care of ' the public.'- Under the next Year, A. U. 766, A. D. 13. the fame hiftorian lays: « ^Augtftus then accepted (V) for the fifth
poteftatis adfumitur, omnifque per exercitus oftentatur. Tacit. An. lib. 1. cap. 3.
(a) Etenim Auguftus, paucis ante annis, cum Tibeno Tri- bur.iciam potefratem A Patribus rursum poitularet, &c. id. ibid. c. 10 Verfae inde ad Tiberium pieces. Et ille varie differebat, de magnitudine imperii, fua modeftia ; foiam Divi Augufti mentem tantae molis capacem: fe in partem curarum vocatum, experiendo didicifle, quam arduum, — iegendi cuncta onus. ibid, c.-i 1.
(b) 'O j on 'Avywros Ixtivov rs, hi f$ «ri yrtgaq m, ry /SaA*jf & tuvtw t« Tij&tgia KccgcixczrihTo' knyva j to fiifit.iov &k ccvilq (£ */ocp oioc, Ti W yiyavttrKuv) «&/&' 0 rzgp&yixcs, v$irtg lioofct,
. g {JUiVTOl <£ TCL/&M nrloV Ti XCl£* TZTO ohuKU. Dio. l.$6.
p. «87. B.C. (c) Ty>v t£ TTgorouriav t KonaJv rw
&KiTW, t»» Triijjzrrw eatm o% i Auya$-«s £A«*/3s, t§ rwTtfizgiu rvp ifysclcw TV o^ntowysKw uvfai *&**. ibid. p. )28, B.
time,
Chap. III. Gospel History, 243
* time, though unwillingly, the government
* of the flatefor ten years, and renewed alfo c the Tribunician power to Tiberius? He fays alfo, ' That Auguftus (a) on account c of his great age (which like wife hindered c his coming to the Senate, except veryrare- ' ly) defired he might have twenty annual
counfellors.-— And a decree was paffed, that c whatever was ena&ed in council by him,
* together with Tiberius, and thofe faid < counfellours, and the Confuls in being, and ' the Confuls eled, and his Grand fonsadop- ' ted by him, and any others whom he « mould call to his council, fhould be ratified,
* and deemed of the fame authority, as if 1 ena&ed by the authority of the whole ' Senate/ This mention of Tiberius, and of him only by name , in this Decree of the Senate, next after Auguftus, appears to me remarkable. I do not obferve that any of thefe pafiages of T>io have been quoted by Vagi. For what reafon he omitted them I do not know. He has however infifted
(</) Kot« <rtY///38Aa$, iWo § yvjoac, (b<p S5T££S^ 1$ to fatevrvfw
fTi, KM* a-7tuvtcjrct.ru., vvvttpoiTu) n>co<ri* stjj<ti&$ yrv.ruvo r$
xpo<rtyvL$l<r6», xuvQ' c<ru ccv uvtu yjiToc tz y T</3£p/s £ fiizr
iXiWUV, T TI OC.H VZoUTtVOVTUVy »£ T £5 TXTO 'tWnCiOUy'AiySi.V, j1
T£ syyovuv uvth T nariTav cr^ovori, T Tt u?a&>v otrac, cm zx.ci<roTt TTzcTTTupuXufir), (z,aMvoyLiiv(t) o^oi^y xvgioi, «; xj xot<ry TVt yigvviet *ifi<r*,yTet, uvea, ibid, C. D.
R 2 upon
*44 27^ Credibility of the Book II.
upon another paffage of this hiftorian taken from the preceding year, viz. A. U. 764. A.D. n. But his argument from it feems to me to be founded upon a forced and arbi- trary conftru&ion of T^io : and therefore I content my felf with referring the reader for it to (a) him, and (6) Monfieur LeClerc, who alfo lays a ftreiTe upon it.
Once more, *Dio fays, that upon the death of ^Auguftus c Tiberius immediately ' (c) fent away letters from No/a to the ar- e mies and all the provinces, as Emperour:
* but yet did not call himfelf fo, though € that, with other titles, had been given him ' by a decree'.
(3.) There is a particular fad related of Tiberius by feveral Hiftorians, faid to be done by him when Prince, which yet muft have been done before Auguftus died, Vlinie fays, that Tiberias was much given to drinking : c And that it was thought, that
* for this reafon Lucius Pifo had been chofen « by him to be Prefed of Rome, becaufe he 1 had continued two days and two nights
(a) A D. ij.n. 13, 14, 15-. (b) Ubi fupra.
(c) ToiXTOS XV $ Tiq 6)V, 2$ Ti TU <rfCCT07Ts£cC, 7^ 1$ TU \hvjy
avTo'toiTap hvtx.1' •y'4<pt<r(liiv y> kvru y^ piTec, T u?ka>v ovcyjocruVy
£* &Zkto. Dio. I.57. p. 601. D.
* drinking
Chap. III. Gospfl History, i^
c drinking with him (a) when Trince*. Suetonius fays, that Tiberius in his firft cam- paines, was rr . ... .J.cd on for hisexcefie
in drinking, and that, c Afterwards when c Prince, in the very time of the Correction c of the public manners he fpent a night and f two days in eating and drinking with <■ Vomponius Flaccus and Luchis Vifo, to the 4 former of which he gave immediately the
* province of Syria, and to the other the
* prefecture of the City (by.
I t may be worth while to obferve with Tagi, that thefe two writers who tell us the ftory of this drunken bout of Tiberius, and the confequences of it, feem not to have had their accounts from one and the fame fource. They differ from each other in two
(a) Tribus congiis (unde 8c cognomen ill} fuit) epotis
uno impetu, fpeclante miraculi gratia Tib. principe, in Senecla jam fevero atque etiam faevo alias, fed ipfa juvema ad merum pronior fuerat: eaque commendatione credidere L.Pifonem urbis Romae curae ab eo dele&um, quod biduo duabufque nodlibus perpotationem continuaflet apudipfum jam prjncipem. Ylin. Nat.Hift. lib. 14. cap. 21.
(b) In caftris tiro etiam turn, propter vini aviditatem pro Claudio, CaUius, pro Nerone Mero vocabatur . Poftea Prin. ceps in ipfa publicorum morum correclicne cum Pomponio Flacco 8c L. Pifone no&em continuumque biduum epulando potandoque confumpfit : quorum alteri Svriam provinciam, alteri praefe&uram uibis confeftim detulit. Suet* in Tib. cap. 42.
R s 9$
146 The Credibility of the Book XL
or three particulars : One fays, that this piece of exceffe lafted two days and two nights 5 the other, one night and two days. ^Plinie mentions only the preferment of 5P//0, Suetonius adds that of Flaccus alfo. But they both agree in faying, that Tiberius was then Trince ; and Suetonius adds a very particular circumftance as to the time, that it was during the corre&ion of the public man- ners, which may very naturally lead us to what he had faid of the Law patted, that Tiberius fhould govern the provinces jointly with Augujius and make the Cenfus with him; one part of which at Rome was the Corre&ion of manners.
But we muft enquire fomewhat more particularly into the time of this ad of in- temperance. It may be eafily inferred from Tacitus : who relating the affairs of the year in which ^Domithis ^yienobarbus and M. Farms Camillus were Confuls, fc. A. U. 78s> A. D. 32. fays: c Then Tifo had the * honour of a public funeral by decree of f the Senate, having behaved in his office to f general fatisfa&ion for (a) twenty years3.
(*) Dein Pifo viginti per annos pariter probatus, publico funeic ex decreto Senatus ceiebratus eft. Tacit. Ann. lib. vi. gap, 11.
f If
Chap. III. GospelHistory. 247
If we go back twenty years, we are brought to the 1 2th year of the Chriftian Era, and the 765th of the City 5 in which year, accord- ing to Tacitus, Ptfo muft have been prefeft of Rome, which is two years before the death of Auguflus.
There are however fome objections to this ftory, which muft be confidered before we leave it. Several (<*) learned men would read in Tacitus X. inftead of XX. But to this Do&or Tagfs reply is fufficient, that this emendation is without the authority of any Manufcripts. It is likewife obje&ed, that Yomponius Flaccus was not Prefect of Syria till long after the year of the City 765 : confequently, neither was Vifo then made Prcfeft (b) of Rome. Dr. Tagi (?) allows very readily, that Tomponhis did not at this time go Prefed into Syria ; but then he gives feveral inftances of men who have been nominated governours of provinces, who yet never went into them 5 one is Aelius
(a) Lipfius in Joe. Norif. Cmot. Til.DiJf. ii. p. 3 24.
(a) S.d hoc amplius ex Suetonio colliges, faftum Pifonem Praefectum, fub idem tempus quo Pomponius Syriae Praetor. Il!e autem Syriae non ante annum 773 praeponi potuit ( Maeiiam enimprovinciamadminiflrabar,A.772-.utiex Tacit.lib. ii.chrum:) non ergo tot annos Pifo Praefc&us uibi. Lipfius ubi fupra. yi(i. etiam Norijium ibid.
(r) A.Chrv 11, n. v.
R 4 Lamia,
448 The Credibility of the BookIL
Lamia, who by this very fame EmperoUr had been nominated prefed of the farhe province likewife, namely of Syria, Jbut yet never went thither. The fad is taken no- tice of by (a) Tacitus, and (b) T>ioy which laftobferves, that this was a common pradife with Tiberius. Tacitus has mentioned another like inftance in the reign of Nero (c). Another objedion againft Tifrfs being made prefed of the City A. U. 76$) is this: Suetonius fays, that this exceffe of Tiberius was committed during the public corredion of manners : By which he has been fuppofed to refer to Tibcrius's being made Cenfor with Augufliis. But Cardinal Norls objeds, that the Cenfus was not made by Augujtusy A. U. 76s, but 767. And
(a) Extrcmo anni [A. U. 786. A. D. 33.] Mors Aclif Lanrae funere cenlbrio celebrata, qui adminiftrandae Suriac imagine tandem exfolutus, urbi praefuerat. Tacit. Ann.lib.v].
(b) Tatfi T\n<rmet rev xoXixp%ot Titevrvccivra eyuiotrik rctty^ stings, it) AgKioi) {"legend um Aapicv, id eft LamiamJ kvr' czvrS rayjiav cc^tiMro, ov xpoTrxXctt ry rpcLnoi (legendum Yvgiccl Muretus in Tacit. An. v!«) :T£©f«|#$ x.scTsi'%sv ou ry 'Pay^y. tzto j ^ l<p' srifav xoftsav sttoisi, *ey» /£", pyhvos kvrm J'toutivos, Xoya'j (Tfj, 7iyj&v livrae, TrgcvTrciyf&zyos' Dio.lib.^8. p. 633 D.
(c) Syria P. Anteio deftinata, St variis mox artibus elufus, ad pcflremum in urte retentus eft. Tacit. Ann* lib. 13. capi 22.
M
Chap.IIL Gospel History. %^
(a) he is of opinion, that the public correction of manners which Suetonius here lpeaks of intends the Edicts which Tiberius publiflied againft Luxury A. U. 77 5* For my own part, I cannot fee, but that the words of Suetonius may very well refer to the time in which Tiberius was decreed Cenfor with Auguftus, which might be done A. U. 765 : though the Cenlus was not made, or at left not finiflied, till the year 767.
But that this correction of manner sy which Suetonius here fpeaks of, is not that which he has himfelf mentioned in another {b) place i and which Tacitus fays was made A. U. 775 (f)> may be made evident from two or three paffages not particularly infilled on by Vagi. Seneca fays, that Tiberius gave fecret dire&ions of importance to Pifoy when he went into Campania, at which time there were divers uneafineffes and dif-
(4) Bed Suetonius li cenfor em Tiberium fignificaret, annum U.C. 767. defignaifet, quo ipfa fublicorum morum correftio a cenfoiibus peradra eft. Itaque deiignat tern pus, quo Tiberius publicis edi&is urbano luxui Modum ponebat, A.U. 775. ibid. p.314. vid. eund.p. 329. (b) In Tib. cap. 34.
(c) Caius Sulpicius, D.Haterius confules fequuntur. Intur- bidus externis rebus annus, domi fufpefta femitate adverlum luxum. Ann. L, iii. cap. 52.
contents
i so The Credibility of the Boot II.
contents in the City (a). This Journey of Tiberius was made in the bednnine of the year before that, in which the Edicts were publiflied for the fuppreiTing of luxury, namely in the year of the City 774, as ap- pears from Tacitus b). It is plain there- fore, that Ttfo was Prefect of Rome in 774, and in the very beginning of it : and it may be fuppofed, that Tiberius had had consider- able experience of Pifo's fidelity and ability in that poft before that, fince he relied upon him in a very critical conjuncture.
Cardinal Noris objects [(;•) farther : It is true Tiberius had proconfular power in the provinces two years before Auguftus's death : all the authority he had in the city was ow- ing to his Tribunician power, but that in- cluded
(a) L. Pifo, urbis cuftos, ebrius ex quo femel fa&us eft, fair, majorem partem noelis in convivio exigebat. ufque in horam fextam fere dormiebat : hoc erat ejus marunnum. Officium tamen fuum, quo tutela urbis continebatur, diligen- tifiTime adminiftravir. Huic & Divus Auguftus dedit fecreta mandita, cum ilium praeponercr. Thraciae, quam perdomuit, & Tiberius proficllcens in Campaniam, cum multa in urbe 8c fufpe£ta relinqueret £c invifa. Seneca ep. 83.
(b) Sequitur Tiber ii Quartus, Drufi fecundus confulatus. ejus anni principio Tiberius, quafi firmandae valetudini, in Campaniam concefiir : longam &: continuara abfentiam paula- tim meditans. Tacit. Ann. lib. iii. cap. 31.
(c) His accedit, Tiberium in provinces biennio ante mortem Augufti imperium obtinuiile 5 intra urbem vero non habuifle,
nifi
Chap. III. Gospfl History, aj-i
eluded only a right of interceding or forbid- ding, but could not give the power of ap- pointing a Prefect.
I think it is undoubted, that Tiberius might call the Senate by virtue of the Tribu- nician power (a), and it is likely do feveral other things. But there is no need of con- tending about this point. Perhaps Tiberius did not nominate and appoint Vifo Prefect of the City : He might however recommend him fo effectually to Augnftus, his Collegue, that he might appoint him. Dr. Vagi ob- ferves, that Tlinie, fpeaking of this matter* ufes the word choojing-, not appointing (b).
I imagine, that this fact is now clear- ed up and vindicated againft the feveral ob- jections which have been made to it, and that Pifo was appointed or chofen to be Prefect of the City of Rome by Tiberius, then Prince, two years before the death of Auguftus> namely, in A. U. 76$.
But before I quite leave this ftory, I would ftrengthen the argument founded up"
nifi jus intercedendi ob tribuniciam poteftatem. Quarc unus Auguftus Urbis praefe£U defignandi poteftatem habebat. Norif, ibid. p. 3:4.
(a) Vid. Uffer. Ann, A. M. 4or$\ & 4017.
(b) Fique^ommendationecredidere L. Piibnem Urbis Romac <pu£ae ab eo deUclum. vid. ftp. Cm, ad an. Ch, 1 1. 11,17.
99
ijx The Credibility of the Boole IL
on it by a remark or two upon the Title of Trince given here to Tiberius by Plinie and Suetonius.
I t is well known that Trince was the foft title, which Augufius chofe rather than that of (a) King or Dictator. This title therefore, when ufed abfolutely, is equiva- lent to Emperour : And *Dio fays, that Ti- berius had the title of Emperour given him by a decree, before Augufius died, as has been obferved already. Moreover this title of Emperour is frequently given by Roman and Greek Authors to Titus and Trajan on accounts of their tribunician and proconfu. lar power, which they enjoyed, the former in the life-time of his father Vefpajian, the later, of Nerva. Doctor Pagi thinks, this title of Emperour which was given to thefe Collegues in the Empire was founded parti- cularly on the perpetual proconfular power in all the provinces (J?). But however that
(«) Qui cunfia difcordiis civilibus felTa, nomine Princif is fub imporium accepit. Tacit. Ann. lib. i. cap. i. Non regno tamen, neque di&atura, icd principis nomine conftitutam Rempublicam. UA&A. cap. 9. (S) Titus enim>
quemadmod urn & ante cum Tiberius, ac peft eum Trajanus, imperii Collega fuit, idecque i^nperatoris titulo exornatus. Imperii collegae Tribunicia potcftite, & imperio proconfulari donabantur, ratione cujus imperatores aunenpati. fagi. A. D» 71. n.iii. in Crit. fid Bar.
be,
Chap. III. GospflHistory. 15*3
be, it is certain, they are often called Em- perours. Joftphtts in his defcription of Vef+ pafiaris and Titus's triumph at Rome after the jewifo war, fays, That the (a) Empe- rours lodged the night before near the tem- ple of IJts. TUnte the elder in his de- dication of his Natural Hiftory to Titus, written before the death of Vefpafian, calls Titus Emperour (b) more than once. Phi- lojlratus fays, that Titus was declared Em- perour at Rome, and admitted to equal pow- er in the government (c) with his father. It is in vain therefore to fay, that Titus was called Emperour in his father's life-time pure- ly on account of his having been faiuted Emperour by his Soldiers in the Camp, or in the Senfe in which this word was ufed under the Commonwealth, fince Vhiloftratus fays he was declared Emperour at Rome.
(fl) 'Exs? ybcg uvi77ccvovTO rfc vvktg$ ivMn/? ct oiVTOK^ecro^q. Jofeph. de Bell, lib. vii. cap. v. p. 1305-. v. &.
(b) Jucundiflime Imperator- Scianique omnes quam ex
aequo tt cum vivat imp:rium. Triumphalis & Cenforius tu, iexiefque conful, ac Tribuniciae poteftatis particeps. Vim. ia Praefaf.
(c) 'AvctjifafcU j 'AvrcKgurwp cv rjj'Pa»//»Jf, ^ ccfiruuv khuQiiq Tisrcovy knviu [am iroiko^Yiirm t»j$ u$X/& t<*> varpi- x. r. ?.. Cumque imperator Romae eflet appellatus, omnibus ornatus dignitatibus, Romam iter ingreflus, ut patris collega fieret. Fhiloft. vit. Appollonii lib. vi. cap. 30. p. £60, Ppjiae- 1709.
More-
XT 4 The Credibility of the Book II.
Moreover Capitolinus (a) calls Vefpafian and Titus Princes without any diftin£Hon« All thefe paflages thus laid together may fatif- fie us, that Trince and Emperour are equi- valent in thefe writers ; and that Tiberius had a right to the title of Ptince, even dur- ing the life-time of Auguftus, after he wras made his Collegue in the Empire. I fhall refer the reader to but one paflage more, in which Tlinie the younger aflfures us, that Trajan was declared Emperour (b) by Nerva in his life-time. And it feems very ftrongly to fupport Do&or Vagi's opinion, that the title of Emperour given to thefe Collegues was founded rather on their Pro- confular empire than theirTribunician power. (4.) There are two or three verfes of ^Dionyfius the geographer, which Do&or Tagi efteems a vety remarkable teftimony to the Proconfular Empire of Tiberius (c).
It
(a) Avus Annius Rufus, item Conful 8c praefeftus urbi adfeitus in pitricios a principibus Vefpafiano 8c Tito cenfo- ribus. inM:trc, Antonin Pbilof.
(6) Simul fi!ius, fimul Oiefar, mox IMPERATOR, 8c <?bnibrs Tribuniciae potefta' is, &: omnia pariter 6c ftatim fa&us cs, quae proxime parens verus tantum in alterura filium conr tulit. Plin. Paneg, cap. 8.
(c) 'Ex. #ioq 'Av(ronvjt$ ecu f^iyoi xoigsiveovTSt;- v. 78*
A Jove Aufonii iemper longc lateque dominantes.
Chap. III. Gospfl History, a^y
It appears from the two lad: of thcfe verfes, that in ^ionyftus's time Rome was governed by more than one Prince. It has been que- ftioned indeed, when cDionyJius lived, and who are the ^Princes he f peaks of. Some have thought, they were the two Antoninies : others have thought, he intended Severns% Caracalla and Geta. {a) Cardinal Noris7 I think, hath put it beyond all doubt by a pallage alleged from (b) Tlinie, that 'Diony- (ius lived in the time of Auguftus. The Cardinal indeed fuppofes, that the Princes here referred to are Cuius and Lucius Caefar, Auguftus* adopted Sons. Do&or Vagi feems to me to have fhewn, that the tirle of ccvclktzc cannot belong to them 5 and that Auguftus and Tiberius are the Princes which T>ionyfius means : But for the parti- culars I mud refer the reader to the Doctor himfelf (c).
Fcoujw TifAvozocv, sfAeov fJAyav ciKov tciu.y.rui^ 25^
MvTtfci ttccg-ucov 7roXtav, 'aQvuov totSAov, 5<6
De amce Tiberi loquitur ; aitque, Qui armbilem fecat in duag partes Romam, Romam honorabilem, meorum magnam do- mum Principum vel Dominorum. Dionyf orbis defcript.
(a) Cenotaph. Pif. DiflT. ii. p. 193. ' (b) Hoc in loco
[Arabia nempe] genitum efle Dionyfium,terrarum orbis fitus recentifiTimum au&orem, quem ad commentanda omnia in orientem pracmifit Divus Auguftus, ituro in Armeniam ad Par- ' ' thicas Arabicaique res Majorcfilio. Vim. Hift.Nttt.Yib. vi.cap. i/4
(c) Cririca in Baron. A. D. 11, a. vi. vii.
There
% $6 The Credibility of the Book II. ("5.) There were two different com- putations of Ttberius's reign in the time of St. Clement of Alexandria. For having firft faid, that Augujlus reigned forty three years and Tiberius twenty two (a), he adds:
* But fome reckon the reigns of the Roman 1 Emperours thus.— Augujlus reigned forty 1 fix years four months and one day. Then
* Tiberius, twenty fix years, fix months,
* nineteen days (b).
Having laid before the reader the chief arguments that have been produced for the Proconfular or joint Empire of Tiberius with Auguflus, I will confider alio fome of the objections there are againft this opinion.
1. It is objected, That Spartian fays, that Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (c) were the two firft Augujli that governed the Roman Empire together. But to this it is anfwered, that none of the Patrons of this opinion ever faid, that Tiberius had the title of Augujlus, whilft Augujlus lived, but only that he was Collegue with him
(a) ' ' Avy%<?6$y%TV) Tiaraeo&xovToi Tfi.sc- Ttfisgio^itn xfi.Clement. Strom, lib. 1. p. 339. A. Parifis 1619.
(£) Tm$ ft rci tss #p<J>^S T2 'VayjVAKW fiouriXzav xtws uve&~ ypudusct ■' 'Atjya^c<i zBcio-iXivtrtv stjj ^r, [wvoa; o"9 ijf/jtguv [Aioc*. 'Exht* Tifiipioz, stjjxs", fMvea r, vfAsgus id* id. ibid. C.
(c) Hi funtj qui poftea duopariter Augufti, primi rempub- licam gubernavcrunt. Sfnriikn. in Hadrian, cap. zq.
3 in
Chap. III. Gospel History. z$"j
in the Empire. Thefe words of Spartian are no more an obje&ion againft Tiberius's Proconfular Empire, than they are againft Titus s and Trajan's, who certainly enjoyed this honour, the one with his father Vef- pajian9 and the other with Nerva,
Nor indeed did the title of Auguflus give any new power. It was only a title of honour (a), which fort of Titles were ufual- ly taken gradually. Tiberius ever refufed that of Father of his country. And would not permit that of Auguflus to be given him by any Decree, though he accepted of it from fomeperfons, and made ufeof ithim- felf in his letters to (J?) foreign Princes. And 53/0 takes notice of it as a Angularity in Ca- ligula, that in one day he accepted all thofc titles which Auguflus had received through- out his long reign, and had fufFered to be given him only one by one(fome of which Tiberius never would accept of) except only that of father of his country $ which he
(a) Vid. Bio. lib. ^5. p. W.
(b) To Ti Tit KXTPCC, T3 XCCTgidiC$ 7TP0(TPryjOC XOVT&Zi C'i<U>~CtT6>
to tS 'Avygfg »» z7rlfcro p (v& >f> -\>Yt<piQr$w&<. tots Uxti) teyoyjtvov c\' ukxuv, v^ ygxtpifjuwov uvxy.vaxry.av, t<p*ps' >£ 6rx>u$ yi fixviXiva-k tktIv MMSf^s, v^ initio n^ooriviypxtyi. JOlo lib. f m p.607. A.
S tcok
z?8 The Credibility of the Book II
took upon him alfo in a fhort time af- ter (a).
2dly, It is obje&cd: If TiBerius hzd been made Collcgue in the empire with Augufius, there could have been no rea(on for thofc fears about the Succeffion of Tiberius, which Livia fliewed upon the death (b) of Au- guftus. Nor would Tiberius have hefitated to accept the empire when offered to him by the Senate : Or indeed, what occafion could there have been for any new inveftiture at ail >
But to this, I think it is eafy to anfwer, that it is no furprifing thing, that Livia fhouid be under fome pain, when the (ettiement of her fan in the Empire was at Hake. Though Tiberius had been partner in the empire, yet certainly the death of Auguftus made a great change. Germanicus was very popular, and at the head of a numerous army (c). And as for Tibenuss hesitation, he had been hitherto but partner in the empire, and fome kind of new inveftiture was neediul. It is
(«) c/f]«-s xccvra OTA o 'Avyxros ov rea-aru 7s <*££& %gov® fJjoAig 7{{/0(rtlKiCTo] C* VAcL £jt/i£££ Att/Ssft. *>.t. X.Dio. hb. 5"9- p 6^:. J),
(b) Aciibus namoue cuftodiis domura, 6c vias fepferat Livia. Tacit, Ann. lib. r. cap. 5.
(r) Tacit. Aaa. lib. i. cap. 33.— SS- Dio' 1 b- 51 • P23- 6o3*
true,
Chap. III. Gospel History. 25*9
true, he carried his diffimulation very far : but Augujlus himiclf never renewed a frefli term of government (which he did feveral times) but with much difficulty $ and not till he had been overcome by importunity and the confederation of the neccflity of af- fairs.
However, this diffimulation of 77. berius has afforded a new proof, that he had been Collegue with Auguftus. For, as Ta- citus and cDio intimate very plainly the fears which Tiberius had of Germanicus 5 fo Suetonius in particular fays, * He pretend- 4 ed a bad ftate of health, that Germanicus ' might entertain hopes of a fpeedy Succeffi- * on, or at left(^) a parrncrfhip in the empire". But fuch an expectation had been ridicu- lous in Germanicus, and this pretenle of Tiberius could never have had the effect he deflgned, if no one had been partner in the empire before.
3. But the chief objection againft the fuppofition, that St. Luke has computed the reign of Tiberius from the time of his Pro- confular empire feems to be this , That it docs not appear that any writers have com-
(a) S mulavit &. valitudinem, quo aequiore ani.no Germani- cus c-lerem SucceiTionem vcl certe focietatem jrincipatus opairetur. Stift. in Tiber. Cap. i $,
S 2 puted
ado The Credibility of the Bool II,
puted the reign of thofe who were Collegues in the empire by the epocha of their Pro- confular empire, and that in particular there are no traces of this computation of Tiberius3 s reign (a).
To this I anfwer : There isreafon to think, that people did often compute according to the epocha of the Proconfular empire. *Pagi mentions a Medal which has this infeription: In the xi. new f acred year of the Emperour Titus Cefar Vefpafian (b) Auguftus. Now Titus reigned alone after his father's death but a little above two years.
I x will not be expe&ed, I fhould here at- tempt to explain the meaning of the epocha of the new Jacred Tear. All that I mall ob- ferve, is, that it appears not to have been ufedupon the coins of any Emperours befide thofe of Vefpafian, Titus, cDomitian and
(a) Eft autem inauditum in omni memoria, Titi annos ab alio initio fuiiTe dedu&os quam a morte Vefpaiiani. S. Bafnage Anna). Pol. ,Ecclef A.D. u. n. iv.
(£) Sic in nummo Graeco apud Occonem pag. 166. legitur AYT. TITOT. KAI2APOS. OYESFIASIANOY . 2EB. ETOYS. lEPOY. IA. id eft, Impe.atoris Titi Caefar is Vefpafian i Augufti £nno novo Sacro xi. Quo ex Titi nummo manifefte apparet, deceptos viros eruditos qui negant annos Tiberii, Titi, aliorum_ que Imperii Collegarum numeratos fuifle. Haec porro epocha non nifi in Vefpafiani, Titi, Domidani & Nervaenummis oc- currit. Vagi. Crit. in Baron. A.D. 81. n.iii.
$ Nerva :
Chap. III. Gospel History. 261
Nerva : And that it docs not begin at any one common period, fuch as the building or dedication of any one particular Temple, but that the numbers anfwer exa&ly to the years of the feveral emperours on whofe coins it is found {a). And Do&or Vagi is of opinion, that it was an epocha chiefly ufed by the people of Syria and Egypt, becaufe the epithet facred is more common upon their coins than any others (tf).
A n d I cannot but think, that there were for fome time different computations of the th of Nerva s and Trajan's reigns ; and hat they were owing to this, that Trajan was for fome time Nerva s Collegue in the empire. 'Dodwcll (c) was of opinion, that Nerva did actually refign the empire to Trajan before his death. And fo (d) Au«
(a) Nifi cnim hoc modo in nurrmis Titi, Domitiani 8c Nervae epocha haec explicetur, impoflible eft nummos inter fe poffe convenire; cum coram imperii anr,os non excedat, •fed ad amuffim iis refpondeat. Vagi. ibid.
(6) Et nullibi facri nomen frequentius, quam in nummisia Syria 6c ^Egypto percufiis, ufurpatum. Vagi, ibid. n.iv.
(c) Vid. Append, ad Diflert. Cypr. n.30,40.
(d) Quid enim Nerva Cretenii prudentius ? — Qui cum ex- trema aetate apud Scquanos, quoTyranni defecit metu, impe- rium arbitrio legionum cepiflct; ubi profpexit, nili a iuperiori- bus robuftioribufq; corpore,animoque geri non pofle,menie Sexto acDecimofemeteo abdicavit. AnreL Ftci.de Caefar. in Nerva.
S 3 relms
z£z The Credibility of the Book XL
re tins Victor-, and (<z) LaU annus feem to lay. I think indeed thai* Nerva did not rcfign, not only becaufe Eutropius (£) fays that "Diocletian was the firft of all the Ro- man Emperours that did fo, but efpecially becaufe the younger T/inie^ who ferved un- der A^mzand Trajan^ and knew them both very well, fays nothing of it, though he often (c) mentions their joint empire. But 1 think, that the notion which the fore - mentioned Authors had of Nerva's refigning may be very well accounted for upon the Sup- pofuion, that they had met with different computations of the time of thefetwo Princes reigns, in tome ancient writers : And their miftakc is not eafie to be accounted for othcrwife.
(a) Simul 8c exempium Nervae proferebatj qui imperium Traj.-dao tradidifler. De Mor:. Perfecur. cap. i 8. . (b) DiocieuiaDus privjtus in villa, quae haud procul a Salonis efr, praeclaro ctio fenuitj inuiitata virtute uius j ut foius omnium pod conditum Rcjmanuro imperium ex tanto rafiigio i'ponte ad privatae vitae (latum civiiirateinque remcaret. Eutrop. ?ib. ix.cap. 2,8.
(c) Affumptus e.s in laborum curarumque consortium. Tlin. Jtaug- cap. 7. Indc Quasi depoilto imperio qua fecuri- tate, qua gloria Iaetus ? (Servo, nempg). Namquaatuium re_ fert deponas an rABTjARis imperium, nifi quod difficilius koc eft* ibid. cip. 8, Magnum hoc tuae moderationis indi- cium, qupd ncn fojum fiiccciijr imperii; fed particeps etiam sociusque pla^uiili. cap. £»
As
Chap. III. Gospel History. 163
A s for TtberiuSy I take it for granted that it has been fully proved, that he was for fome time partner in the empire with Au- gufiits \ and particularly that it has been made appear that Tifo was Prefed of Rome twenty years, and that he was put into that Poll: by the appointment or procurement of Tiberius. (Thus much I think Monfieur Bafnage allows) (a). And Suetonius and Tlinie both fay that Tiberius was then 'Prince.
And it is highly probable,that the Srft Chri- ftians had a perfwafion that there were two dif- ferent epochaes of the beginning of Tibe- rius\ reign : Othcrwife , when they faid, that Jefus was crucified in the fifteenth year of Tibjnus, when the two Gemini were Con- fuls, namely A. D. 29. fas they didalmoft univerfally) after he had preached above (£) two years, or a [c) whole year including two
(a) UbI fupra. A. D. II. n. ii. £) Tricefimo
cnim juxta Evangelifram Lucim anno aetatis fuae coepit in came Dominus Evangeiium praedicare, &. juxta Johannem Evangeliftam, per tria pafchata duo:; pcftea implevit annos: 2c inde fex Tiberii iupputantur anni &c. Jpillindtim La.>di* emus apud Huron. Comment, in Dan. c. 9. O 3 '1*$*$ xu,^ rm *I>j<r2 %0t rgtcc. Ji£r^t4/;)' *r;j* Qrig. cont. Cell*. 1. a. p. 67.
(c) Kst» crt ivtctvrov f/sovov'i^u uvrov xr.f tlui,y^r^ro yiyieftr*
rut arcoc, n&iTiKctihxttTu xv trtt Tifiepx, k. x&rtx.ati&K.siT&
'Avyus-%' 'uru xXryxirut ru toixkcvtu ztk $*>$ » t~u6:-v. C'em.
Akx. Stom. 1. x. p. 540. A.
S 4 pafiovcrs,
%6^ The Credibility of the Book II.
paffovers, or a year and fome (^)few months * they muft have been fenfible that they contra- dicted St. Luke, who fays, that the word of God came to John the Baptlfi in the fif- teenth year of Tiberius 5 fince alfo they muft necefTarily have allowed fome time for the miniftry of John, diftinct from that of Je- fus.
That we have fo few examples of this way of computing the reign of Tiberius is not to be wondered, confidering how few ancient writers who lived near his time are comedown to us, and efpecially fuch as lived in the Provinces, where this epocha muft have been chiefly ufed. The diftind com- putation of ^/"fuguftus's reign to the time of , his death, and of Tiberius's after him was undoubtedly mod commodious : and forthis reafon, probably, the computation of Ti- berius's reign from the time of his Procon- iular Empire was foon dropped. Befides, Tiberius feems to have taken pains to obli- terate this date of his government : inafmuch as he was unwilling to have it thought that he owed his greatneflc to the adoption of Augujius, or the intrigues of his mother
(a) 'Eytavrev. yc&g x% y^ f/Jii»st$ cAiy#§ iwuhr Or'ig. Pbiloc. p.*.
Livia 5
Chap.IIL Gospel History. r6s
Livia 5 but would have it afcribed folely to the free choice of the people after Augufius's death (a), that is, to his own merit, as 2)/0 exprefly fays (£).
TIBERIUS then having had for fomc time before the death of Augaflus equal power with him in all the provinces and ar- mies, and having been made thereby partner with him in the empire, it is not impofllble, but that St. Luke might compute the reign of Tiberius by this epocha,
We fhould now, if poflible, fettle the exa6l time when Tiberius was made part- ner with Auguftus. It may be concluded, that he was fo A. U. 765, two years be- fore Auguftus died, becaufe in that year Tifo was made prefed of Rome, Tiberius btingTrince. And Arch-bifhop UJherzni Dr, Trideaux place the beginning of this government of Tiberius in this year.
There is however a confiderable dif- ficulty attending this matter, becaufe Velleius
(a) Dabat 8c famae, ut vocatus ele&ufque potius a Repub- lica videretur, quam per uxorium ambitum 6c fenilem adop- tionem inrepfiffe. Tacit. Ann. lib. i.cap.8.
(b) ''H^/j p. <f> vkxo-cc on imiSott y Aw':a cutam$ & 'Awyxrx t/y ug%w avrco 7rs(ii7rs7ron)Ktvx,i iAsyero, t7r?.scrr£v ottoj^ i/j^ kclp fateiritf &.?&& 7txgx ty^c, fivXric, kvocyKafoe, ew, (c" x-ccroc ccpirw crCpZv vrpvwuv fofyitv etvrw uMtyiveii' Die lib. 57. p. 635 D.
and
r66 The Credibility of the Book II.
and Suetonius differ about the time in which the Law was palled by the Senate decreeing Tiberius equal power with Auguftus in the provinces and armies. According to Sueto- nius this law was not palled till after Twe- rinses triumph, which certainly happened A. U. 765. A. D. 12. But according to Velleius (a) this law was pafled at the defire of ^Atigaftus before Tiberius returned to Rome from Germany to make his triumph. Do&or Tagi (b) is inclined to prefer the teftimony of Velleius Pater cuius before that of Suetonius, becaufe Velleius was contem- porary with Tiberius. But yet he dares not be pofuive in this matter, becaufe St. Cle- ment's numbers are different from both. However, as Tiberius wasConful in the 21ft, and 31ft years of our Lord, he judges this piece of refpeft to the tenth and twentieth years from the nth year of our Lord to (V)
t {a) Siteton. in Tibfr. cap. a 1 , 22. Velleius Pat. L. ii. cap, 121,
Their words are tranfenbed above., p. Jfi, \b) Vid.Crit. A. Ch. 11 n.x. (c) Q_Liia tarn en Tiberius anno Chrifli xxi. rurfufque anno Chrifii xxxi. Confql proceffit, exiftirnandum, utrumque con- fuktum ob Decennalia 2c Vicennalia Imperii Proconiularis Tibcrii gcrtum, ideoque 5c iilum anno Chrifli xi. Imperio Proconlulari donatum: quamquam uterque confularus anno Chrifli xii. quo rem adtarn narrat Suetonius, refpondere ctiam poffit, etiamfi quinquennaiia legitirao tempore celebrata fuerint.
i4. ibki. be
Chap. III. Gospel History. 167
be a confirmation of the Suppofition that Tiber hiss proconfular power commenced A. D. 11. Heobferves alfo marks of ho- nour ihewn to the Qiiinquennals of this epocha, fuch as the dedication of temples by himfeif or the people of the provinces, the founding of cities by dependent princes, and fuch other the like things, with which the Qtiinquennals and T>ecennals7 that is> the fifth and tenth years of remarkable events were wont to be celebrated.
A s he thinks it mod probable, that 77- berius's Proconfular Empire began A. U. 764, A. D. 11 5 fo he is pretty well fatisfied as to the month and day of the month > which he thinks was the 2 8th of Juguji^ or vth. of the Kalends of September. One rcafon for it is, that from the 725th year of the City, Auguftus feems to have had a par. ticular refped for the vth. of the Kalends of months. Moreover, according to the fecond computation which Clemens Alexandrimis mentions of the reign of Tiberius , it muft have begun on the 28th. of Augufl. Saint Clement fays, that Tiberius reigned twenty fix years, fix months, nineteen days. Now Tiberius died the 16th. of March A.D. 37. from the 28th. of Auguft A.D. 10 to the
I dtll.
t6 8 The Credibility of the Book II.
1 6th. of March A. D. 37. are exadly ( ac- cording to Dodor Tagfs reckoning) fo many years, months, and days as St. Clement men- tions. So that though St. Clement has been in the wrong as to the year, flnce he begins this computation of Tzberzus's reign A. D. 10 5 yet he has helped us to the month and day of the month on which it commen- ced (a).
I h a v e reprefented the Doctor's fenfe of this matter, as well as I can, in a few words. But I cannot fay, that this reafoning is altogether convincing. I muft acknow- ledge, that I fee not how any argument can be drawn from St. Clement's teftimony, cither for the year or month of this epocha, if his numbers have been altered, as the Dodor allowes they have been in many places, and particularly in this very pafTage.
There appears to me fome weight in the Dodor's obfervation upon the Quinquen- nals and Dccennals of this epocha : But yet it is not fully condufive. There might be fome other reafon, befide that here fup- pofed, for Tiberius's taking the confulfhip
(a) Qiiare Clemens Alexandrinus rei geftae diem nobis con- fervavic, fed numeri annurum corrupt!, quod in eo au&ore n^ii infrequens. Tagi. Critic. A.D. n. n. ix.
AoD.2I»
Chap. III. Gospel History. 269 A. D. 21. and $.n The izd. and 26th. years of the Chriftian Era are as remarkable as any other for the founding of Cities, dedicating temples, and erefting of monu- ments. Though indeed, if this epocha be- gan in the midle of any year, it is obvious at firft fight, that thefe honours may be divided betwixt two years.
And perhaps Velleius V at er cuius and Sue- tonius may be reconciled by fuppofing only, that there was fome time between Awuftus's propofing Tiberius 's partnerfhip with him to the Senate, and the palling of the Ad.
Upon the whole, I think there is good reafon to believe, that Tiberius was Collegue in the Empire with Auguffus, and that this epocha of Tiberius'* empire was followed for fome time by fome perfons, in the pro- vinces at left • but it appears to me uncertain, when this Proconfular empire began, whether about two years, or about three years before Auguftus died.
Let us however adjufl: the numbers in St. Luke ro this computation of the reign of Tiberius, which commenced either about two years, or about three years before his fole empire after the death of Augufius.
And
2,70 The Credibility of the Book II.
And we will have an eye to the two dates of our Saviour's nativity abovementioned, fc September or October A. U. 748, and 749* If Tiberius'* Proconfular Empire began about three years before Auguftus died, fc. the 28th. of Aug. A. U. 764, A. D. ir. then this 15 th. of Tiberius'* reign (accord- ing to this computation of it) began Auguft 2g. A.U. 77s. A. D. 25. Suppofing that John the Baptift began his miniftiy Novem- ber following, in the fame year,- and that Jefus was baptized by him the 6th. of Ja- nuary following in, A.U. 779. A.D. 26 : Then upon the fuppofition that Jefus w.as born in September A. U. 748, he would be at his baptifm thirty years of age and fome months over.
If Tiberius'* Proconfuiar empire com- menced about two years before the death of Auguftus, fe.A.V. 765. A.D. 12, then the fifteenth of the reic;n of Tiberius besan in A. U. 779- A. D. 26. And fuppofing that John the Baptift began his miniftry in AV wmker of that year, and that Jefus was bap- tized by him the 6th. of January follow- ing, A. U. 780. A.D. 27, then, upon the .-iiippoiuion that Jefus was born in September A. U. 749, he would be at the time of his
baptifm
Chap. III. Gospel History. 171
baptifm thirty years of age and fome months over: Or, if born A. U. 748, he would be fomewhat more than thirty one years of age.
W e will put this matter one way more. If 'John the Baptift began his miniftry in the fifteenth of Tiberius A. U. 778. A. D. 25, (as in the firft dating of this queftion^) but did not baptize Jefus till the 6th. of Ja- nuary A. U. 780. A. D. 27, after he had preached fomewhat above a year, then Jefus would be at his baptifm thirty years of age and odd months, if he was born A. U. 749 . thirty one years of age and fome odd months, if boiii the later end of the year 74 8.
I s e e not but that we have a very good right to take thofe dates of thcfc events which appear moft favourable to St. Luke • fince it is not abfolutely certain when Herod died, or when Tiberius s Proconfular Em- pire began : Nor have any of the writers of harmonies determined, that I know of, be- yond contradi&ion, the fpace of time be- tween the commencement of John the Bap- tijl's miniftry and our Saviour's baptifm. But if we allow on each hand the dates the left favourable to St. Luke's numbers, viz>. that Jefus was born A. U. 748. and that he was
not
%7% The Credihility of the Book II.
not baptized till January A. U. 780. A. D. 27 5 yet even then Jefus would be little more (as has been fhewn) than thirty one years of age j at which time a perfon may be faid very properly to be about thirty years of age, as will appear by and by.
I imagine I have now fhewed, that there is nothing improbable in the fuppofi- tion, that St. Luke computed the reign of Tiberius, not from his fole empire after the death of Auguftus but from the time of his proconfular empire, when he had equal pow- er with Auguftus given him in all the pro- vinces and armies, and that upon this fuppo* fition, there liesno obje&ion againft the age afcribed to Jefus at his baptifm.
§. III. H o w e v e r, in order to compleat this Solution of this difficulty, it will be pro- per to confider fome other notes of time, which we find in theEvangelifts, and to en- quire, whether thcfe likewile agree with this- fuppofition.
S t. Luke fays : Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cefar, Pon- tius Pilate being Governour of Judea — the word of God came unto John the
Luke iii. Son of Zacharias.
It
Chip. III. Gospfl HrsTORY. 173
I t has been the opinion of fome learned men, that Pilate did not come into Judea fo loon as the 15th year. of Tiberhish Pfocon- fular empire, the 12th of his fole empire, A. U. 77S. A. D. 25.
That everyone may judge of this mat- ter, I fhall let down the account Jofephus has given of Pilate's leaving judea, from which we fhall be able to conclude, when he came into it.
The Senate of the Samaritans fent complaints againft Pi' ate to Vitellius, Prc- fidenr of Syria. And Jofephus fays : c Vi- c tellius, fending his friend MarceUus to ad- 1 minifte'r the affairs of judea, commanded c Til ate to go to Ro;r>e to anfwer to the c Emperour for thofe things of which he c was accufed by the jews. And 'Pi/ate c having fpent ten years in Judea, haft- c ned away to Rome, in obedience to the 1 commands of Vitellius, not daring to re- c fufe. But before he got to Rome, Tiberius ' was dead.
< Moreover Vitellhts came into Judea , < and went up to J erufalem. It was then a c Feafi: time. The Feaft is called the Fass- c over. Vitellius being received there with * great magnificence, abolifhed entirely the
T tax
^74* The Credibility of the Book II.
1 tax upon vendible fruits, and granted to c the Priefts the right of keeping in the c temple the Vcftmcnt of the High Prieft 4 and all its ornaments as they had done for-
* merly. Having conferred thefc favours
* upon the nation, he alfo took away the « Priefthood from the High-Pricft Joftph* i who is like wile called Caiaphas, and fut>
* ftituted in his room Jonathan the Son of 1 A nanus the High-Piieft. And then re- ' turned to Antioch {a).
J O S ET HU S immediately after this fays, that Tiberius fent orders to Vitellius to to go and make aleague with the King of the Partisans ; that Vitellius having had a \w ee t i n g w i t h t he Ki ng at t h c r i ver Euphrates , and executed his commiilion, returned again to (p) Antioch,
fa) K«-t 'QiiV'«nfl§, MwfMSKev roy uvrx $&.?» ixxipy'&i iftiUiihuTW TtXq' Wdcauq y-Vi}Coz/tSvt.v^ [U'Azrcy tmAivrsv sVi V&yjTfi frzwsii, wp-:< a Kcirr;yn(luv 'Ikeuiu hH:\:vru, rev a-vrcxrarcfet' v^ RfAareg, c^a ii-ia-j hevrfQjLq t-;l '[xfraUi,. lie, 'P&f/yw wiiys'io, retTc, 'Oui'T*3£u* r:u£opivo, hrc^cuq, zk ivuvrsiTrsTv TF'ivj n tjj Payj.j TS(cyC.-i kvih, $£x:ju Tippies )AttT&T<x.e, 'Qv't'rti&ioi j, s*f-rm *[}£eai'ien6t.(pw-ctf*®6$s *** 'li[orc/M(*&r u.-:vn, v^ v,v stvroit, icon, Uu<y& j xctAthv..' ^xfoic, 3 yjzy&bozftxiis 'GwVeAmc, tsj teA^ *fr anxL/j£vuv jc«p"&>y tZvirtcw Hi tc prcti Tti$ Tc/,vrr,v KKTSlx&tFt Xj
cv too (sfS xlitxuvw vse roik isftvoriv \zr-v TW eVj/*iA«fl«, x-vJoTt k, Ttpvitc/ w uvro'ir. t,£x<riu' x. 7, a. J of ph. Ant. lib. {8. cap»
After
Chap. III. Gospfl History. 175-
After this VtteUius received orders from Tiberius to go and make war with Areias Kino; of Pefra.
' Vite'lius then having got all things ready for the war with Are!as> haftencd away for Petra with two legions, and other auxiliary forces, and was corneas far as Pto/omas. But as he was about to march his army through Judea, the chief men met him, entreating him not to go through their country ; — He complied with their requeft. And having ordered his army to take their rout through the great plain, he himfelf with ftefWtheTetrarch and their friends went up to Jer&falem, to worfhip God, a Feaft of the Jews being at hand (a). He was received by the people of the Jews with great rciped. Having been there three days, he took away the High-Pricfthood from 'Jonathan and gave ic to his brother Theophilus. And on the fourth day after his arrival, receiving let- ters which brought an account of the death of Tiberius, he took an oath of the peo- ple to Cains (b)\
b) Id. ibid. cap. vi. §. 3.
T 2 A F£W
a7^ The Credibility of the Book II.
A few remarks on this account will fuffice.
I t is not exprefly faid, which Feaft of the Jews the laft mentioned Feaft was : But there can be no doubt, but that it was the Paflbver A. D. 37. I think this is not con- tefted by any one. Tiberius died the 1 6th of March, A, D. 37. The news of his death might eafily reach Judea by the Paflbver of that year, and could not be retarded to the Feaft of Tentecoft.
T h e Paflbver fir ft mentioned in this account muft have been the Paflbver A. D. 36. It is evident, that the fummer follow- ing Vttcllius went as far as the river Euphrates, and returned to \yintioch : and the next (bring he was to go and make war with Aretas. Cut whilfl his troops marched towards Tetra, he went up to Jerufalem at the Paflbver in the year thirty kven^ as has been obferved. Nothing can be plainer, I think, than that Pihte was removed before the Paflbver in thirty fix. And he muft have been out feme time before. Vitellins did not go to Jerufalem immediately after hehadfent away Vilatet but firft ordered his friend Marecllus to take care of affairs there.
It
.Chap. HI. Gospel History. 177
I x is not (aid here, how long Pilate had been out, before Vitellius went up to jeru- falem ; but it is probable, it was half a year. This may be concluded from hence. Jofe- phus fays, that Vitellius, when he was at Jerufahm, the firft time here fpoken of, put the High-Prieit s veftment into the Prieft's hands to be kept by them in the Temple Jofephns is very expreffe,that this favour was conferred by Vitellius upon the nation at this time, and that having done fo, he put out Caiaphas and returned to Antioch. Now in another place Jofephns fays : ' This Vcft-
* ment King Herod kept here [in the Caftle c of t^Antonia], And after his death it was c kept in the fame place by the Romans till
< the times of Tiberius Cefar. In his reign ' Vitellius prcfident of Syria, having come c to Jerufalem, and the people receiving
* him in a very honourable manner, he being c willing to make them a fuitable return
1 fince they had defired that the facred veft- c ment might be in their own cufiody, wrote
< to Tiberius Cefar about it, and he grant- c ed their rcqueft (V).' From this paifuge it
appears,
(a) Tuvt'w o fisctrtXtui 'Hpa>«<js ttyvAxhv c« rZ towui *J pirce
T 3 >;r.
a7& The Credibility of the Book II.
appear?, that Vitellius did not put the High- PrieiYsVeftment into the hands of the Jews without leave from Tiberius. If Vitellius actually made this grant when he was at Je- rufalem at the Pailbver A. D. thirty fix, (as Jofepkus fays cxprcfly in the fir ft paflage) it is likely the Jews had fent their rcqueft to him about the time that 'Pi/ate was re- moved. And considering the flowncfle of Tiberius in all his proceedings, it will not be thought ftrange, that we allow half a year between the Jews prefenting their rcqueft to Vitellius \n Syria, and the return of an an- fwer from the Emperour : It is rather fur- prizing itfhould have come back lb ioon.
It is poflible that fomc may except a- gainft this argument, and fay, that the grant was not made by Vttelltus, when he w:s at Jerufalem \ but that he there received the Jews rcqueft, then wrote to Tiberius, and lometime after this put the (acred Veftment into their cuftody. But though Jofephus does in this laft paflage feem to place things in this order 5 yet I Ihculd think that fince
vjwmW hti tutu i) 'C-j.'riXs.ic; I tv,(, ~Zvp.ci$ viyiy.a>v> Lrid/i&f.trcis
fc/w U3?o 7W ccvtZv tfyx<ri&>i *;£«Myp«Y* 5T£p tut av T i £ s& Kciu aft, xczxiiyce fctTfity, Jut. lib, XV. csp.xi.j.j.
in
Chap. III. GospelHistort. zy9
m the paflage firft cited, he fays, Viteliius be- llowed this favour upon the Jews, whilft at Jerufahm at that times it may be inferred, that the petition had been prcfentcd to him whilft in S/riayznd that he brought Ttberius's grant to ^erufalem with him.
H o w e v £ r, though this argument mould not be allowed me, yet fincc upon cP;late*s removal Marcellus was fent to govern in Judea> it is plain there was fome time be- tween Viteliius' s iffiiing his orders' to dilate to go to Rome^ and his own Journey to Jemfalem. This time might be the fpace of five or fix months, and I apprehend that the probability at left of my rcafoning a- bove, that Viteliius received the Jews peti- tion for keeping the High-PricfVs Veftmcnc in Syria, then wrore to Tiberius, and deli- vered it to them, when he was at Jen-fa- I rn, may very much difpofe us to admit the fuppofifion of this fpace.
And though it (rjould be thought, that at the PaiTover next after Tilateh removal Viteliius did not give the High- Pricft's Veftmcnt into the iewijh hands, but only received their pctirion for that favour -; yet this does fully overthrow the opinion of thofc, who have thought, that Pilate was T 4 removed
2 So The Credibility of the Book II.
removed but a few weeks before the death of Tiberius. Vitellius, after the removal of Tilaie^ was at Jcrufalem at a Paflbver, and having been magnificently received by the Jews, in requital of their civilities wrote to Tiberius (fo we will fuppofc at prefent) that they might have the keeping of the High-Pricft's garment, and Tiberius granted it. This PaiTover then was not that Pail- over, at which Vitellhts, being at Jerufa- km, heard of the death of Tiberius. We are therefore fully allured that the paflbver which followed the removal of Vilate was not the paflbver A. D. 37, before which 77- berius died, but the paflbver preceding, viz. that in A. D. 36.
1 t is certain thcn,that Pilate was removed before the Paflbver, A. D. 36, and probable, that he was removed about Ave or fix months before it, namely, about September or Gfio- bcr, A. D. 35. about a year and a half before the death of Tiberius.
Since Joftphns fays, that Pilate fpent ten years in judea\ he came thither about OStoter A. D. 25, or at left before the Paflbver A. D. 26, in the twelfth year of Tiireriufsfolc empire, which twelfth year be- gan the nineteenth of Augufi A. D.i^'- This
alio
Chap. III. Gospel History. a8l
alio is perfectly confident with what Jofe- phus fays of Valerius Grains, the firfl Pro- curator of Judea under Tiberius, that he c /pent eleven years in Judea, and was then c fucceeded by Pontius Pilate (ay.
S o that though we fhould fuppofe that Tiberius s Proconfular Empire began three years before the death of %yligujius, as Dr. Pagi is inclined to do, k. 28. Augitji. A. U. 764. A. D. 1 1 ; yet Pontius Tilate would even then be in Judea in the fifteenth of that Empire, which began Aug. 28. A.U. 778. A. D. 25.
There is one difficulty, and but one in all this matter. Jofephus fays, that ' SP/. * /2ft? — - haftened away to Rome in obc- c dience to the commands of Vitellms, not
< daring to rcfufc. But before he got to c Rome, Tiberius was dead'.
I t will be beft to take the objection from Mr. IVhiJfon. c Now it is known from Jo- 1 fiphus that Pontius Pilate was Procurator c of Judea but ten years ; and that he was f put out fo little a while before the death
< of Tiberius^ that the Emperour was a&ual- ' ly dead before P//*/* arrived at Rome to
tfUTf^Ksr Antiq. 18. c. 2,§. 2.
anfwer
i8i The Credibility of the Book II.
e anfwer for himfelf. Tiberius died March 1 26th. (a) A. D. 37. And Pilate might
* be out of his office a month, or fix weeks
* before, iuppofe it February ', from thence c we muft count ten years backward for e for the beginning of Pilate's government, 1 which will therefore fall into February ' A.D. 27. [b):
This is the difficulty : But 1 think, it would be very wrong to be determined by one fingle Sentence againft all the evidence which arifes from the whole feries of a nar- ration. It is extremely evident, that the Fcaft time, in which, ViteUiiisy being at Jerufalem> heard of the death of Tiberius, is not the Pailbver which followed next af« ter 'Pilate's removal. I fhaii not repeat particulars, but content my (elf with refer- ring the reader to Jofephus's account, al- ready tranferibed.
And if this one fentence about the time of Pilate's arrival at Rome be inconfiftent with the reft of the ftory, it is more reafon-
(a) I fuppofe that Mr. Whifim herein follows Dio (anlefs it be a fault of the pref<j : But according to Suetonius and Tacitus, Tiberius died the 16th. of March, vid. Vagi. Crir* in Baron. A,D. 3". n. ii.
{b) Whifton's Ihort view of the harmeny of the four Evan- gi lifts, Fag, 1 59.
able
Chap. IIL Gospf.l History. 283
able to fuppofc, that Jafephus was miftaken h\ this particular, than in every thing elfe. He mii>ht be mif-informcd about the time when Vilate got to Rom?, but he could not well be ignorant of fome of the moft remarkable events in his own country, that is, when Pilate left Judeat when Caiaphasy and his SuccelTor Jonathan were put out of the High-Pricft's Office.
But there is no reafon to fuppofe this particular is inconfiftcnt with the other cir- cumftances mentioned in this relation. Mr. JVhijion indeed can allow but a month Or fix weeks between the time of Vilate $ removal out of his office and his arrival at Rome. But it ought to be confidcred, that Vilate was not fent to Rome in order to take poflefllon of a kingdome or fome new ample province, but to anfwer for his conduct in his late government. Nor was he fent exprefs : Nor was he recalled by the Emperour himfclf. But he was fent away by Vitellius, a fellow fubjecl, though a fu- pcrtor officer. Jofephus fays, that dilate haftened away to Rome. I have given his words the ftrongeft fenfc in the translation . but I think, the meaning is no more than that he went away out of Jvdea. And I Jofephus
2.84 The Credibility of the Book II.
cjoftphits intimates very plainly the relu&ance with which Tilate obeyed Viteliiiis% when he fays, that he went, not daring to re- fufe.
There was, if I miftake not, fomc Law under the Commonwealth, which re- quired the Governonrs of provinces to be at Rome in three months time after their term of government was expired : But whether that law was in force now, I cannot fay. However it is plain it was not obferved : cFifo's condudt is a proof of it. Germanicus died in November or [a) fooner : As may be inferred from a paffagc of Suetonius ',\vho (ays, 1 that the publick ibrrow for his death at c Rome continued even through the Holy c Days of 'December (by : meaning, I fup- pofe, the Saturnalia , which were cele* bratcd in the middle of that month. And as Germankus died in Syria, fome time niuft be allowed for the carrying the news
(a) Baftage [Ann. Polit. Ec. Vol. i. p. 22.1.] fuppefes he died mju'.y. Dec'mio quints Julii Germ:nicum vkam cum morte rommutaffe ex Taciro cor.jtduram iacirrus: T.qwfttr ordo in- futiut , uts ttirmae id'ibus ju'iis imzginrm (jus fquerentur. Ann. 1.2. c.83. (£) Scd ut demuui fato fun£um
palam factum el, non folatiis ullfc, non ediclis uilis inhiberi luctus publicus potuit , duravitqae etiam per feftos Decembris msniis diss. S-Asion, in Cal:^. cap. 6.
Of
Chap. III. Gospil History. aSy
of his death from thence to Rome. Tifo was gone from the Province of Syria before the death of Germanicm. It is mod pro- bable, that he was turned out by Gerwa- iiiciis {c). And yet he was not come to Rome at the time of the Megalenjian games of the next year, which were kept on the fifth of April (6). It is true, the peo- ple of Rome were very uneafy at thele de- lays of Pfo , becaufe they wanted to have him brought to his trial for the death of Germanicus, whom he was thought to have poyfoned. But yet I do not perceive that when {c) his trial came on, his long abfence from Rome is reckoned up amongft his other crimes.
A n d to add no more, the flownelle of Tiberius in all his proceedings may help us to account for Pilate's delays in going to Rome,
(a) Addunt p'erique jufium (Pifonem) provinciae decedere. T.cit. Ann. lib. ii. cap. 70.
(b) Et quia Ludorum Megalenfium fpeclaculum fuberat, etiam voluntatis refumerent. Turn exuto juftitio, rcditum ad muniaj Sc Drufus lilyricos ad exercitus profedhis eft, ercclis cmnium animis pjtendae a Pifone ultionis; 2c crebo queftu, qu;J vagus interim per amoena Ajiac at que Ac.': aide, adr ■ ganti & fubdola mora fcelerum probatioies fnteerttret. Jacit. Ann. lib iii. cap. 6, 7.
U) Id. ibid, cap. 15,
though
28 6 The Credibility of the Book II.
though it befuppofed that he made a year and a half of it.
JOSE P HUS fays, that Tiber his was the moft dilatory Prince that ever lived (a). His conduct towards Herod Agrippa affords a ftrong proof it. A Servant of Agrippa waited upon the Prefect of Borne, alluring him he had fome informations of great con- fequenccto give to the Empcrour relating to his mafter. The Prefect fent him to Tiberius, but he, without making any particular en- quiry into the matter, only keeps the man •fife in cuftody. Agrippa lying under the Emperour's difpleafurc was forced to make intcreit to have his fervant heard. And though he then informed the Empcrour of words fpoken by Agrippa which were little Ids than treafon, and Agrippa was imme- diately thereupon confined 5 yet he was never called for asrain, though Tiberius lived fix months (b) after. Tacitus has mentioned another inftance well nigh, or quite as re- markable (Y). This flow way of think- ing
(a) M^^T^i it KCAl Tie, ITipfJV fictPihWV *j TWj>«£Wff¥ yVOpit»0$*
Antiq. lib. 18. pig Si I. v. 3.
(b) Jofepb. Ant. lS. cap. vii.
(c) Cooiuhufque C3efar an fepeliri (ineret, (.De Ajinh Guild Ur^uttur) non erubuit permittere, ultrcque incufarc exfus, qui
Chap. III. Gospfl History. agy
ing and a&ing was vifible in Tiberius in his very youth (a). And no hiftorian of thofe times is fiienc about it. Ti/ale, who had fcrved Tiberius ten years, could not be ig- norant of what all the world knew. He might have many probable reafons to thinks that, if he did not come in the Emperours way, he mould never be called for. If en- quiry was made for him, an cxcuic might be found out that would ferve for fome time. Sicknefle might be pretended, as a realon for his (lay in i^/fjla, Achaia, or fome other place where he was got. Perhaps this was really the cafe. To be put out of his Go- vernment by VitelliitS) upon the complaints of the people of his province, muft have been a very grievous mortification. En (lulus allures us, that not long after this 'Pilate made away with himlelf out of vcxatiori for his many misfortunes (£).
rgum abfttdiffeKt afiteejttam coram convincerotur. Scilicet medio triennio detueiat tern pus fubeundi judicium confu'ari feni tot ccnfularium parenri. Tact. Ann. lib.vi. cap. 2 j.
(a) Sae/aac lenta natura ne in puero quidem latuit. Sueton. in Tiber, csp. 5-7. S-.-d mirigavit SjJ3nus, non Gafli amore, verum ut cunclaciones prinopis aperirentur, guar us cum Icn- tum in meditando. Tacit. Ann.Wb.iv. cap. ji.
(b) YlovTioc, lUXaroc Ixi Va'.a Kvactcc[c$ iroixfattw 7rtpi7rt<rM frv[*/$>opK,7$3 ccc, Qxcrw ot tcc 'PtifAeae/f (rvyy^^siy.tvoi, avropwsv fijS itA'Jrv iyinto' Zujcb. Chrun. p, 7 3.
There
288 The Credibility of the Book IT.
There is another note of time men- tioned in St. John's Gofpcl, which ought al- io to be confidered. Then faid the Jews, Forty and fix years was this temple in building : and wilt thou rear it tip in three
rtl .. days?
lo. I suppose, that the objection to be
formed upon this text is to this effect.. Thele words were fpoken by the Jews at the firft Palfover of our Saviour's public miniflry, and the next after his Baptiun by^John. The Temple which the Jews (poke of, was the Temple then before their eyes, and which Herod had rebuilt or repaired. But Herod did not make the propoial for rebuilding it till the eighteenth year of his reign, reckon- ing from the death of Antigonus. There- fore, if the fifteenth of Tiberius's reign men- tioned by St.Luke be the fifteenth of his Pro- confular Empire, and not of his fole empire after the death of Augufiits, this temple could not have been fo long as forty fix years in building, at the time thefe words were fpoken.
T o this I might anfwer, That an ob- jection taken from Jofephus's account of the time when Herod repaired the temple can be of little moment : becaufe in one
place
Chap. III. Gospel History. 2.89
place he fays, that Herod repaired the tem- ple in the fifteenth (/?), and in another the eighteenth year (J?) of his reign. As the fifteenth year from the death of Antigonus is fuppofed to be coincident with the eigh- teenth year from the time in which Herod was declared King of Jadea by the Senate of Romefovnz may be difpofed to conclude, that, when Jofephus fays Herod $ propofalto rebuild the Temple was made to the Jews in the eighteenth year of his reign, he com- putes from the time in which Herod was de- clared King by the Roman Senate.
But I do not infill upon this, and am willing to allow, that Herod made the propo- fal to the Jews of building their temple in the eighteenth year of his reign from the death of Antigonus.
A n d I think it is as likely that the yews, in thefe words recorded by St. John, refer to the time of Herod's propofal, as to the time in which he began adualiy to repair the temple. It is moft probable, that Herod made this offer to xhzjewijh people, when afiem- bled together at one of their great Feafts. This therefore would be the moft folemn and
(a) De Beil. lib. i. cap. z i . inic. lb) Ant. lib. xv. cap, n. frit.
U remark^
ac o The Credibility of the Boot II.
remarkable Epocha of rebuilding the temple, which work undoubtedly he fet about as foon afterwards as he could.
And it is very common to fay, that men do things, when they propofe to do them, or begin to do them. Thus jofephus fays in his War of the Jews : c In the fifteenth year
* of his reign he [Herod] repaired the tem- 1 pie it felf, and enclofed a fpot of ground c about it, of double the compafs with that
* which furrounded it before. This was done € at a vafi: expence,and is a proof of hisuncom-
* mon magnificence (a). We will allow that the fifteenth year in this place ought to be correded by his dnttqwties^vhctc he lays, that c in the eighteenth year of his reign c Herod projected [or undertook] the re- ' building the Temple, which was thegreat- 1 eft of all his works (by. But then it ap- pears from hence, that Herod is faid byjo- fephus in one place to do what in another he is only faid at the fame time to propofe or begin.
(a) TiiVTSzciiGiKoiTa yxv trti t«$ GatrtXuoiSy oevrov n rev vaov
TrcAvrzXuu.- De Bell. lib. i. cap. 21. init.
(£) Tore yxv ox,TaxsiihKc&Tis tyi$ 'Hp#^V fiet<ritetc(s ysyovorog ivieevrts,- — - egyoy » to tv%ov £7rsj3xMrot rev viav "$ OsS Si ocvtv
K*T*a-Kw&r#i%» Ant, lib* xv. cag, xi. init.
Suppo-
Chap. HI. Gospel History. 291
Supposing that the Jews in this text of Join refer to the time in which Herod made the propofal of rebuilding the temple, we will fee how this term of forty fix years will agree with the Suppofition that St. Lukes fifteenth year of Tiberius is the fifteenth of his Proconiular Empire.
I f the fifteenth of Tiber/m's Proconfular Empire began the 2 8th of Auguft A.U.778* A. D. 2 5. (according to Dr. Tagis opinion) and if John the Baptift began to preach in November that year, but did not baptize Jefus till after he had preached a year and fome months, then the Paffover at which thefe words were ipoken was the PaiTbver A. U. 780. A.D. 27.
Or if the fifteenth of Tiberius'* reign began A. U. 779, A.D. 26, zndjohn be- gan then to preach, and Jefus was baptized by him, fome time before the paflbver next following? (till thefe words would be fpoke by thejews at the Paffover A.U.78o,A.D.27.
The eighteenth year of Herod's reign, from the death of Antigo?ius. is fuppofed to have begun fome time in A. U. 734. Herod might make his offer to the jews of rebuilding the Temple at the Feaft of Ta- bernacles, in November that year. From November A. U. 734. to the Paffover A, U,
V z 78c AD.
2.92 The Credibility of the Book II.
780, A. D. 27, is almoft forty five years and an half. At this time therefore the jews might not improperly fay> the temple had been forty fix years in building. The forty fixth year was then current. And it was to the pnrpofe of the Jews, rather to add to, than to diminifh the time which had been fpent in that work. So that there is no time more fuitable to thefe words of the Jews than the Pafiover A. D 27. Though there is no manner of inconfiftence between underftanding the fifteenth of Tiberius, of his Proconfular Empire, and fuppofingthat thefe words were fpoken at the Pallbver A. D. 28. And then the Temple might have been a- bove forty fix years in building.
What has been here faid, may be fuf- ficient to (hew, that St. Luke might compute the reign of Tiberius from the epocha of his Proconfular Empire; that if he did, Jefus might be faid, with great exa&nefie and pro* priety, to be about thirty years of age at his baptifm ; and that there is nothing in this iuppofition inconfiftent with any other notes of time mentioned in the Gofpels.
§. IV. Another way of folving this difficulty is this. Thefe words of Saint Luke : And Jefus himfelf began to be about
thirty
Chap.III. Gospel History. 293
thirty years of age, maybe understood withLtt*' m- fome latitude. Jefus might be thirty {a) two years of age or more at this time. The word about (wVei) is often uied, whereapre- cife exadtnefle is not intended or expcdlcd. Matth.xiv. 21. %ylnd tkey that had eaten were about five thoufandiuzti TrtvToLX.t<r%i- AioO, befide wom:n and children. And the other Evangelifts, in fpeaking of this Mira- cle, ufc the fame phrafe *. St. Luke iays>*M*rkvL k^451. ii. 41. Kjind the fame day there ^. were added unto them about [a>a-g!] three i+. thouf and fouls. And with a like latitude f^* does this phrafe] feem to be ufed in many other places f\ t Luke'u
I? is Kepler's opinion, that round andxxit.4,1. decimal numbers may be ufed with sreatS1',"'.44'
C? john I. 49.
latitude : And that a pcrfon may be very truly *&• v. 36. faid to be about thirty years of age, if he be above five and twenty and under thirty five: But that,if aperfon be laid to be about eight and
(a) Ex noftra quidem Chronologia, fcquitur Chriftum jam annum xxxii. evafifle cum ad baptifmum acceffit. Nil tamen in ea , vel abfurdi, vel .pugrme aliquid cum Luca inteiiigi- mus, cum de viro annos duos & triginca nato, cujus aetas dubitanter profcrtur, non incongrue dici poflk, eft annorum
circiter triginta Iterum iterumque monemus, ex phrafi
Lucae, Jofephi de fupremo Herodis anno chronologia damna- ri nequit. Bafnage Ann. Pol. Ec. Ante Dqm.j.n, vi. vid, etiam ad A. D. 30. num. iv.
U 3 twenty
2,94 The Credibility of the BookIL
twenty or two and thirty years of age, it is to be fuppofed he is exaftly fo old, or not above a month or two more or lefs. (a). And indeed many examples of this ufe of round numbers may be found in the (£) beft writers, even without the particle da-eU about \ which of it felf feems to be a hint, that the writer does intend to be underftood with fome latitude.
fa) Hie receptus mos eft iinguis omnibus ut circiter ^odo dicamus quicquid eft inter 45*00 & 5500. Quare fie etiam in noftro exemplo quicquid eft inter 15 &: 35, id omne circiter jp did poteft. Alia efTet voculae ratio, fi praefixiflet numero non rotundo. Ut fi dixiflet circiter 28 annos, vel circiter 32. annos. Quae enim infra decern nominatim exprimuntur, iis appofita vocula crater raro unum annum folidum ia dubio ponat, fed fere menfes tantum aut dies aliquot numero paucos 6c infra quantitatem anni folidi. Keplerus de Anno C. Natali. Cap-xii. p. 140, 141.
(b) Ab illo enim profe&u viribus datis tantum valuit, ut in quadraginta deinde annos tutam pacern haberer. Livius, Lib.i. cap, xv. n. 7. This refers to Nvma's reign, of which
afterwards Lhie fays Romulus feptem 8c triginta regna-
vit annos, Numa Tres et quadraginta. ibid. cap. xxi. When the City of Rome was taken by the Gauls and the remnant of the people were entering into the Capitol, Livit ufes thefe words: Verfae inde adhortationes ad agmen juvenumj quos in Capitolium atque in arcem profequebantur, commendmuts viriuti eorum invent tuque urbis per trecentos sexaginta
annos omnibus bellis viftrkls,- fortunam. id. lib. v. capo
40. Camillas not long after in the very fame year, in his fpeech to diflwade them from removing to Ve'u\ fays; Tre- centesimus sexagesimus quintus annus urbis, Jguirites, agitur. ibid. cap. 54, vid. cundem Lib. vi. cap. 28. n. 7, 2c ■]F#flff. Cleric, notas.
If
Chap. III. Gospel History. 29 f
I f we may take St. Ltike's words in this manner, there is fcarce any need that I fhould trouble the reader with any calculation, to fhew the agreement of his numbers with the time of our Saviour's nativity.
The fifteenth of Tiberius's fole empire began A. U. 781. A. D. 28. If Jefus was baptized the 6th January A, U. 7S2,A.D. 29, he would be but fome months above thirty three years of age, though he was born fo foon as September A. U. 748. And if he was born A. U. 749? then, though his baptifm be placed in the beginning of A,U« 783, A. D. 30, (till he would be little more than thirty three years of age.
All the other notes of time in the Go- fpels are alio very eafily reconciiedwith this fif- teenth of Tiberius^s fole Empire. Tontius Pilate came into Judea before the PaiTover in the 12th year of Tiberius $ fole Empire, A.U. 779, A. D. 26. (as has been fhewn) : And continued there ten years. Therefore he was undoubtedly Governour of Judeazt the commencement of John the Baptift's miniftry, and till after our Saviour's cruci- fixion.
A s for thofe words of the Jews fpoken
by them at the firft PaflTovcrof our Saviour's
U 4 ttiiniflrys
z$6 The Credibility of the BookIL
miniftry, Forty fix years has this temple been building, if is but to (iippofe that they referred, not to the time when Herod made the propofal of repairing the Temple in the 1 8th year of his reign, but to the time when in purfuance of that propofal he a&ually fct about the work , after he had got all things in a readinefle for it, and it will be eafily perceived that thefe words are agreeable to truth.
I do not prefume to determine, which of thefe two Solutions is the jufteft : or whether St. Luke intended the fifteenth of Tiberius's Proconfular Empire when he was made Col- legue with i_Auguftusy or the fifteenth of his fole Empire. In order to do this, it would be needful, as I apprehend, to confiderthe time allotted by the Evangelifts to the mini- ftry of John the Baptift and our Saviour? the Chronology of the Affs of the Apoftles* compared with fome pafiages in the Epiftles, and alio the teftimonies of the ancient Chri- ftian writers. As I have not here room for all thefe premifes, it may be befl: to wave the conclufion. All I fhall fay at prefent is, that the Suppofition, that St. Luke intend- ed the former of thefe two epochaes, feems to be very much favoured by the firft Chri-
ftiansj
Chap. III. Gospel History. 197
ftians, who generally place the crucifixion of Jefus at the PalTover of the 1 $ th of Tiberius's fole Empire, when the two Gemini were Confuls of Rome, A. D. 29 : And that their teftimonies are of great weight with me. I fubjoin in the Margin (a) a few of them, for the fake of thofe who may hap- pen to be unacquainted with the fe matters. I apprehend that each of thefe is a very good Solution of the objection ftated at the beginning of this chapter, though I believe many will think it is there ftated by me in a manner very favourable to an object- or. Nay, I imagine I have laid what is fuf- ficient to fatisfy any reafonable perfon, that there does not lie any objection againftany notes of time mentioned by the Evangelifts
(a) Hujus [Ttkrii] qnimo decinio anno imperii patfus eft
Chriftus Quae paftio hujus exterminii intra tempora Ixx.
hebdomadarum perfe&a eft iub Tiberio Caetere, CofTI Ru- bellio Gemino St Rufio Gem:no, rrenfe Martio, temporibus Pafchae. Tertul. adverf. Jud. c 8. Arque exinde u/que ad an- num quintum decimum Tiberii Caefaiis, quando paflus eft Chriftus, numerantur 2nni fexaginta. Afrkanus apud Hteroi;* Dan. C.ix. Qui fuit fub imperio Tiberii Caefaris; cujus anno
quinto decimo, id eft, duobus Geminis confulibus Judaei
Chriftum cruci arHxerunt. Lattxnt. Inft. I.4. c. 10. Extremis temporibus Tiberii Caefari.s, uc fcriptum legimus, Dominus
cofter Jefus Chriftus a Judaeis cruciatus eft, duobus
Geminis confulibus. ds Mart. Perfecttt. c. 2.
from
29 8 The Credihilitjr of the Book II.
from the Chronology of other ancient writers. This is iufficient to my prefent purpofe.
I h ave nothing farther to add here, be- fide this one obfervation.
I t is no difparagement to the facred Hi- ftoiians, that we are fomewhat at a lofs to fettle precifeiy the very year of fome of thofe events which they have related. Many im- portant fads related by the beft hiftorians are attended with Chronological difficulties. I fhall give but one inftance, an inftance which we are nearly concerned with. Joftphus was a man of a learned education, is a pro- feffcd writer of hiftory, of the civil and facred hiftory of his country : and is general- ly allowed to be an accurate writer. He has exprefly mentioned two epochaes of the commencement of Herod's reign, and has given an account of his death, and the du- ration of his government. He has writ the hiftory of the whole reign of this Prince. He has related the Series of events, and the Succeflion of the Princes and Governours of Judea before and after Herod. He has put down the years of the Olympiads, and the names of the Coniuls, when fome of the mod remarkable of thefe events happened. Nor Ufve all Roman and Greek hiftorians
been
Chap. III. GospelHistory. aop
been filent about Herod or his defcendents, and the jewijh Affairs, near this time : Not to mention Talmudical or other jewtfh Au- thor*. And yet, notwithstanding all thefe advantages, whether through prejudice or want of fufficient light, it has happened, that learned men have differed widely about the time of Herod's death, and are not yet come to a full agreement.
Chap:
3 oo The Credibility of the Book II
Chap. IV. Of Annas and Caiaphas.
$. I. The difficulty relating to their being both high-priefts at the fame time confidered. §. II. Of Caiaphas being high-priefl that year, in winch Jefus was crucified.
E have another objection againft the account St. Luke gives of the Government Judea was under, when John the Baptift began to preach. Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cefar, Tontius Pilate being govemour of Judeay and Herod being Tetrarch of Galilee. Annas and Caia- phas BEING THE HIGH-PRIETS the WOrd of
*Luhe «\Qod came unto John *
I t is obje&ed, that it appears from the books of the Old Tefi lament, the writings of Jofephus and other Jews, that there was
but
Chap.IV. Gospel History. 301
but one High-Prieft among the Jews at a time. St, Luke therefore has been miftaken in faying, that Annas and Caiaphas were both High-Priefts.
Much has been writ upon this fubjeft, and learned men (a) have been of divers opinions. I hope I may be excufed, if in this place I depart from the method I ufually take in confidering thefe obje&ions, and do not fet down all the Sentiments of writers upon this point.
I shall here therefore do little more than deliver my own Sentiments concerning this matter in a few particulars, which, I hope, will contain a iufficient anfwer to the objection.
1. It would be extremely unreafonable to impute to St. Luke fo great a miftake as the fuppofing, that there were properly two High-Priefts among the Jews at the fame time. He appears in the reft of his hiftory well acquainted with jewifb affairs. It is plain, that he knew very well there was one who was in the office of High-Prieft: ch. xxii. 50. And one of them fmote the Ser-
(a) Vid. Baron, Ann. A. D. 31. num. 8.- Cafatdon in
Earon. Exerc.xiii. Num. v. Selden de SuccefT. iuPcntif.Ub. i. &$*u» Hammond. Aunot. cum multis aliis,
<vant
3 o x The Credibility of the Book II.
*vant of the High-Priest.-- 54. Then took
they him and led him, and brought him to
the High-Priest's houfe.
2. I t is likely, that the power which the
jewijh people were poffefied of under the Romans was lodged chiefly in the hands of two perfons : and it may be fuppofed, the Jews chofe to have it fo. When they had refolved upon the War with the Romans 9 Jofrphus fays: c They afiembled in the tern- 4 pie, and appointed feveral Generals. And ' 7°feph the Son of Gorion, and the High- 1 Vridb Ananus, were chofen to befupreme < governours (a) of all things in the City.' I have not obferved this paflage quoted by any upon this occafion : Whether it be material or not, the reader will judge. But it has inclined me to fuppofe,that about this time there were ufually among the yews two perfons, to whom the government was chiefly committed. I muft however advertife the reader, that Ananus, here called High Prieft, was not then in the office of the Prieft-hood.
(a) K.xl (TWct.Ggoi<r6svTS$ h$ to lspovy T^cArnyhc, c&xB^ufav X %o-
''Avdi®^, T Tt 71O.T0C TW 7T0>UV OCZ-lZVT&V eLVTOKgCZTOptS, Xj [/je6?\l?0&
Tht THTst} Tq$ voters knyiyur DeBell, z, c, 10. §. 3.
3. Since
Chap. IV. Gospel History. 303
3. Since Caiaphas was now properly High-Pricft, zwda^innas had been fo 5 if the latter was now in fome pod of authority, they might be both faid very properly to be High-Priefts at this time. Joftphtis often calls Saturninus and Volumnhis Prefidents or Governours of Syria (aX though Sa- turninus only was Prefident, and Volumnhis the Emperour's Procurator, that is, the officer that took care of the revenue.
There happened a difturbance between the Jews and the Samaritans in the reign of Claudius. Camanus the Procurator of Jade a was not able to compofe it : appeals were made to Quadratus Prefident of Syria. He having punifhed feveral c fent two others of c the moft powerful men of the Jews, as 1 alfo the high Priests Jonathan and
* Ananias, and Ananas the Son of this laft 1 mentioned perfon, and fome other confide-
* rable men to Cefar (fi)\ I take this paflage of jofephas (which has been often cited by
(di) UeXbiUKti j£ hi 'Zccryg'/ivov i^Oiyru. <£ 'Qvotepnov ras ZvgU<} iytftovets' Ant. lib. 1 6, cap. x. p. 741. v. 1, 1. To% Kui<rccg<&->
qytfAoa-iv Xccrzpvivu) n y^ 'OvoXxfAvia tjrt Tt ZeCTVgviviS j£ 'Ou-
cteyAiX r Swp/iae? hrira,T&T*v. ibid, cap.ix. p. 734- *•%$• &37«
(£) Auo j STigxs T ovvxrururay, k} ts$ «f/i<fp*<s 'lvHt$n» Xj Avocviuv, rov ri txtx 7TotT^ot ''Avwm — — xvi7rff*ytv fat Katcraf «£. De Bell. lib. ii. cap. xii. §. 6.
learned
304 The Credibility of the Book If.
learned men) to be very near parallel with Sr. Luke's.
JON A THA N had been High-Prieft, but had been put out long before now by Vitellius {a) : Ananias was (J?) now High- Prieft. In like manner,in the cafe in quefiion, Annas had formerly been High-Prieft, but Caiaphas was now in that office.
I a m the more inclined to think Jofe- phus's ftile here parallel with St. Ltike's* becaufe it appears from another place, where Jofephus mentions this affair, that Ananus7 the third perfon named, was then Captain of the Temple (c). From whence I con- clude, that the Three perfons here mentioned were then in the three chief pofts of the jewijh civil and facred Government. He fpeaks indeed of two others, whom he calls the moft powerful of the Jews. But I ap- prehend they were fo only in refpecT: of their influence. It is reafonable to fuppofe, that the perfons named were in the moft eminent Stations.
There is another particular, in which thefe two paffages are parallel: Jonathan^
(a) Ant. 1 8. capt 6. §. 3 .
(b) Ibid. 20. cap. 4. p. 886. v. 411 [a) Ant. 20, c.f. p. 88$. v. 36,
who
Chap. IV. Gospel History, gojf
who had been High-Priefr, is named be- fore ^Ananias, then in office : The two names ftand in the fame order in Saint Luke. I fuppofe, that thefe proportions may afford a clear Solution of this diffi- culty.
The learned Selden conje&ures, that Annas and Caiaphas are not mentioned in this place by St. Luke on account of any Sacred fun&ion they difcharged, but as they were the two perfons who had then the chief authority under the Romans in the Civil ad- ministration of the jewijh affairs : that Annas was now Prince of the Sanhedrim, and Caiaphas the father of it$ and that There- fore Annas is firft named, as being in the more honourable ftation of the civil govern- ment. He fuppofes that thefe two pods might then be annual, that Annas was Prince of the Sanhedrim when John the Baptift be- gan his miniftry, and that Caiaphas was Prince when our Saviour was crucified. And therefore St. John fays particularly, that Caiaphas was High-Ptieft that fame year *. But that afterwards when Peter* j0?nx\. and John were called before the counci'M9^1^ Annas \ who is firft f named, was Trincef. X and
306 The Credibility of the Book II.
and Caiaphas , Father of the Sanhe- drim (a).
S ELT) EN offers thefe thoughts, as conjectures only. I hope therefore, it will not be deemed prefumption, to be of another mind, or to offer fome different thoughts upon this fubjed.
A s Caiaphas was now in the office of the Priefthood when John the Baptift be- gan his miniftry, »I fuppofe that Caiaphas is mentioned by St. Luke on the account o^
(a) Hinc, fi conjcdlurae venia detur, exiftimarim, Annam Sc Caiaprnm Pontifices fimul a D. Luca di&os, non quafacrae f un&ionis dignitas illo nomine denotatury fed qua civilis eorum adminiff ratio, ut £c ceterorum quibuicum conjunguntur, ad ipfum annum, de quo verba ibi fiunt, indicandum denotaretur. Scilicet Annam tunc fuifle Synedrii Principem, Caiapham vero
ejufdem Pattern. Ita demum cur Caiaphas, quern facram
dignitatem ipfam velut Aharonis fucceflbrem geffiiTe inter- vaiio illo ex Jofcpho docemur, Annae poftponatur, ratio non inepta reddi poteft. Etenim Principi Synedrii Pater Synedrii erat Temper iecundar!us. S.'d vero nee Principis nee Patris Synedrii mur.us Temper perpctuum erat, fed ab alio ad alium, pro re nara tranfiatum. Quod ex tituio Talmudico Horsijoth, cap. ii». aliiique Magifttcrum commentariis elicitur. Et forfan
tunc temporis annuum erat. Atque illinc forfan altera
ilia qua.Pcio de Cai3phae pentifkatu fuo anno apud D.Joannem
defignato folvenda Adeo ut Anno Tiberii xv, feu in loco
D. Lucae, Annas eflet Princeps Synedrii, Caiaphas Pater, anno vero Pafiionis Annas Pater, Caiaphas Princeps j poflmcdum vero Annas, inter mos utpote eminentiiTimus, itidem Prin. ceps, 5c Caiaphas Pater, ut in A&orum quarto. SilJen. dc Succ In Pont if. lib. i. c. xii.
the
Chap.IV. Gospel History. 507
the High Priefthood, and the Civil Authority joined with it ; and that, the jewijh govern- ment being at this time under the Romans Arijiocratical, Annas is mentioned together with Caiap has, as being the other chief per- fon in the jewijh adm initiation. But I am of opinion, that we have not fufficient light at prefent to determine, what Pod of ho- nour Annas was in, though that of Prince of the Sanhedrim be as likely as any. How- ever, I cannot eafily perfwade my felf, that during the jews fubjeclion to the Romans, the Prince of the Sanhedrim, or any other jew, not in the High Pricfthood, was equal, much lefs fuperior to him who enjoyed that Office : unlefs, when there was fome jewijh Prince appointed Governour of the Temple by the Roman Emperour. If Jofef bus's authority be fufficient to decide this matter, it is plain the High-Pried had the chief pow- er in the jewijh nation under the Romans. This may be concluded from hence, that he has preferved the Succeflion of the High- Pricfts, and of them only, to the deftru&i- on of the Temple. But if there had been after the removal of Archelaus any perfons in an office of fuperior authority to the High- Prieft, he would have alfo given us their
X z names*
308 The Credibility of tie Book II.
names. We fhould alfo in all probabili- ty have met with feme accounts in his hi- ftory, of the putting out of thefe Officers by the Roman Govcrnours, when they did not behave to fatisfadion. And indeed jo- fephus feems to me exprefly to fay, that the High-Prieft was the chief perfon in the jewifh nation under the Romans. Having at the conclufion of his Antiquities reckoned up the jewifh High-Priefts he fays : ' Some 4 of thefe adminiftered affairs under Herod 1 the King and his Son Archelaas : after € their death the adminiftration was Ari- « Jlocratkaly but the Prefidentfhip of 1 the nation was committed to the High- * Priefts (a).
Farther, I apprehend no myftery at all in the order in which thefe two per- fons are named by St. Luke. Ancient wri- ters feem not to be very folicitous about the order in which they name perfons who are pretty near equal (b). 1 fuppofe that
Caiaphas
(#} K«i TlViC, f& UVTOIV l7tcXlTVJ(TlX,)IT0 S7Ti ' T2 'Rptohi fict(TlXtV6V- T©°, K^ IKl 'Ag%l?H2C% 5" 770C.tch>$ CiVTH' [AIT& £i T»» T%TUV TtXiW
r«y, afiTOKfciTicc >/, w v KoAiTiicty tjjv 3 %eos acta? & tQyxq ot uPXtifizic, 7T£77i<rswTo' Jofeph. Antiq, xx. c. 9. fin.
(£) Thus Herodotus fays that Cambyfes was the Son of Cyrus and Cajfandana : andpreiently after, that he was Son of this woman and Cyrus. Ua^.nQi tw jZccr^vv Ktf^wnjs,
Chap.TV. Gospel History. 309
Caiaphas was at this time chief in dignity and authority in the government : But that neverthelefic, there is no abfurdity or im- propriety in naming Annas firft, inafmuch as he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, and was pall: thePricfthood.
§. II. It will perhaps be expected I fhould here fay fomewhat to a Text of St. John, which has a relation to this matter, and which does appear at flrft to be a very difficult place. Kyind one of them named Caiaphas, being High-Priest that (a) same year, faid unto them, ye know nothing at all, nor confi- der that it is expedient for us, that one man fhould die for the people, and that the whole nation perifh not. And this fpake he, not of himfelf : but being (bj High-Priest that
Kypy lav rtmi ^ lLa.es a.^a.nt% tcLvty^ j iv.e, ywxtx.o$ lav
vretit ?£ Ki/^s KecfApvcti? Euterp. inir. Jofephus fay, Herod had two Sons by a Samaritan woman, namely, An tit as and Arckelam. Soon after, Archdatts is mentioned firft, h ~ y.u,k & "Za/jjupt&v i6vx$ fjjia., Kj zroAoic, £vTjj 'Avt.ttuc i£ 'A«-
TgoCpas iiyjir Antiq. 17. c. i.§ 3. Jofahus hys again, th3t Herod called to the Council at Berytam Salome and Pheroras, Z><? Bell. 1. 1. c.2~.§. 3. Afterwards Tero the old Soldier com- plains to Hercd, that he hearkned to fkeroras and Salome a- gainft his own Sons, ibid. §.4.
(a) 'Apxupi'jq av y iviuvris ixLvx (6)'AX^a keyjtyujc,
61V X iViOtVTiS tKW%} 7o[0$qv}TiV<rZV.
X 3 YEAR
3io The Credibility of the Book II.
year, he prophesied that jefus Jhould die for that nation: and not for that na- tion only, but that alfo he Jhould gather
john\\. together in one the children of God that
w—%1. <-jyere fcattered abroad*
There arc here two things which need
to be explained 5 firft, Why Caiaphas is
iaid to be High-Prieft that fame year : And
fecondly, What is meant by his prophefyingy
being High -Vr left.
Some have thought that the Phrafe, being High* Priefi that year, implies that St. John fuppofed the High Priefthood was annual. And upon this account they have been willing to charge him with a great miftake. For Tontius Pilate was Gover- siour of J /idea ten years, and Caiaphas was put into the Priefthood by Valerius Grains, Pilate's Predeceflbr 5 and conti- nued in it5 till after T Hate's removal. Selden thought that by High-Pricft is meant the chief man of that nation, and particu- larly the Prince of the Sanhedrim , which poft might be at that time annual. For my own part, I think, that year (as it ought to have been rendered, and as the fame phrafe Is rendered v.$i, and not that fame year) denotes no moi:e than at fh#t time. It is
yery
Chap.IV. Gospel History. 3 ji
very common to put years and days in the plural number, for time. After many days thou Jhalt be vifited: In the latter years thou jhalt come into the land that is brought back from the faord, &c. Then (hall the EzsL.. a
m ' ** 1 w / xxxv 111. S.
offerings of Judah be pleafant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in UaXach% former years. There are other texts per- jli- 4- haps more appofite to our purpofc. And thou Jhalt go unto the prieft that J> hall be in xxvi/5. those days. And he fa all dwell in that City, until the death of the high prieft that e{ fhall be 'in those days. Thilo ufes the word day, in the fingular number, in the fame man- ner : Speaking of the trial of Jcaloufy, he fays, the man and the woman fhall go up to the temple, c and the man (landing before the ' altar fhall declare thecaufe of his jcaloufy 1 in theprefence of him who is Pried at that 1 {a) day'.^ All that St. John feys therefore is,that Caiaphas was High Prieft at that time, or theHigh-Prieft of that time. And if we ought to iuppofe any thing emphatical in the cxprelYion, which yet I cannot fee, I appre- hend it arifes from the diftance between the
(a) Ken 0 f£ uw.o fczc, unrixfu y fiapx, xx^ovroc, & kcct ixuUit t\v i-yApciv ligojpivx, SqXiSTU t\v VTrovotxy 'ccpot' k, A. De Legibus Special, p. 785. C.
X 4 time,
3 1 x The Credibility of the Book II.
time of the event and the writing. Saint John writing his Gofpel a confiderable time after the crucifixion of Jcfus, when many might be fuppofed to be ignorant who was then High-Pried, and there having been un- der the Romans frequent removals made in that office, it was natural enough for him to expreffe this circumdance with fome peculiar emphafis, or to mention it more than once. The other difficulty to be confidered lies in thefe words : Being High-Trieji that year he prophefyed. Here I cannot perceive the fenfe of this obfervation, fnppofing, with Selden, High-Prieft to (land for Prince of the Sanhedrim. By prophefyingl underftandin this place, declaring the event, which it was in a peculiar manner the office of the Pried to do, when he was enquired of, or when God was enquired of (a) by him concerning any important matters under deliberation. Thus
(a) Then the king fent to call Ahimelech the Priest the
Son of Abitub. And Saul fat d unto h m, Why have ye
tonfplred againft me, thou and the Son of Jeffe, and haft
enquired of God for him? iSam.xxii. ti. 13. And David /aid to Abiathar the Priest, Bring hither the Ephod. Then
j aid David, O Lord God of Jfrael Will the men of Keilah
deliv r me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as thy fer-
Vant hath heard? And the Lord J aid he will cone down,
1 Sam.xxiii. 10. — ij. And when Saul enquired of the Lord* the Lord anfwered him not, neither by dreajm, nor by uri*i, tier by prophets 3 ch. xxviii, tfe
^ofet
Chap. IV. Gospel History, 315 Jofephus fays : c But the PhHiftines, when
< they heard that the Hebrews had made c 'David King, brought forth their army
< againft him.- But the (#) King of
c the y<?w (for he allowed not himfelf to
< do any thing without prophefy, and the € command of God, and aflurance of the i event from him) required the High-Piieft ' to foretell him, what was the will of God? c and what would be the iflue of the battle. c When he had propheficd victory and pow-
< er, he led out his forces againft the Phi- c liftines'. And prefently after : c The (£) c King of the Israelites enquiring again of c God, concerning the event of the battle, c the High-Prieftprophefyed', that he fhould do fo and fo, and then would have a fure and ea(y victory : referring to the ftory told, 2 Sam. v. 32—25.
Let us now apply thefe remarks in a ge- neral parajThrafe of this text of St. John. Some of the council, of a different opinion
(a) 'O^jT 'IzJauav ficitri\zv$t &&v ^ ocviu 7T£o(PyitLci$, t£ §* jcsXivtrxi rov Otpv, ^ 7?sgi t itrof/jtyuv hxfizlv lyyyjjruc £Ks7vof9
Wo^ctxov if at to r?? fAUffls tsA®-, Kfoteyuv uvrZ>% 7rpo<p7)Ttv-
v*s' Antiq. 7. c. 4. §. I.
(ft) UuMv 3 $ fix<n\iu<i t2 'Wpct^Xirav SpOffitVlt rov 0SOV, mfi
tk TTipi tw pufflv ityhs, xoo<pi)Tivu 6 #{&*(&, k. A. ibid.
from
3 14 The Credibility of the Book II.
from thofe whofe words are recorded v. 48, having, as may be fuppofed, from confide- rations taken from the difpofitions of the people, the temper of the Roman Gover- nour, and other circumftances of their affairs, exprefled fome doubts about the fuccefle of a profecution of Jefus, and the confequences of taking away his life: c Caiaphas> who
* was the High-Frieft at that time, when it
* came to his turn to deliver his opinion,
* faid : You have hitherto talked very weak-
* ly and ignorantly. You may proceed in c the cafe before you without hefitation. The
* taking (a) away the life of this man will 6 be fo far from being ruinous to the whole < nation in this country and in other parts, c as fome of you fear, that it will be much ' for the advantage of the people oi God
* every where. This however he faid, not c merely of himfelf : but being then High-
* Prieft, he foretold the iffue and event of ' their counfels and of the death of Jefus :
* And that it (b) would come to paffe that f Jefus would die for that nation, and not
•k\*jw Ivcc *<$ #vfy«5T©« <W72>0#wj iWsp 5 A&2, i§ [Ufi oXov to s0i>©* icTaAajTflM.
« for
Chap.V. Gospel History. gjy c for that nation only, but that through his € death he would alfo gather together in one * the children of God which were fcattered c abroad/
Chap. V.
Of the different names given to Herodiass firft husband by the Evangelifts and Jo- fephus.
COME now to confider the diffi- culty hinted above (a) arifing from the different names given by
the Evangelifts and Jofephus to the firft hus- band of Herodias : whom they call Thilip **M*uh JofephuSy Herod. I need not here the paffages of the G ofpeis, or of Jo- fephiis, relating to this affair. If the reader 7g. will be pleafed to look back (b) he will find what is fufficient for thepurpofe.
tranfcribe^;/;L
17- Luke Hi.
(a) Vol. 1. pf 14. notec. 09— P-»*.— —lS\
As
31 6 The Credibility of t foe Boole II.
"A s Jofephus, fpcaking of this unlawful marriage of Herod the Tetrarch and Hcrodias, calls her firft husband Herod $ foit is certain that according to him, Philip, whom Saint Luke ftiles Tetrarch of Iturea and the region Lukeiiii>0j Trachonitis, could not be the perfon: for Jofephus fays, that Herodi as's daughter Salome was married to Philip, Herod's Son, the Tetrarch (a) of Trachonitis. Nor is there any mention made in Jofephus of any other Son of Herod the Great, who was called 'Philip, befide the forementioned Tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis.
I have no reafon to fay any thing more of Philip the Tetrarch than I have done al- ready, having (hewn in another place (c)y that St. Luke has given a juft account of him. But I will here give a brief hiftory of Herod, to whom Jofephus fays Hero- dias was firft married 5 becaufc I apprehend it may be needful for fome readers, and it will be of great ufe to us upon this occafion. . H EROT> was the Son of Herod the Great by Mariamne daughter of Simon the High-Prieft After Herod the Great had
(*) 'H ^ (tw/uTvp cu>Tm ZxXaifin GHXixxa y#/4*4T &i, 'H^ai^g trxiel tZ Ttrpetpxy rm T(l^«yl'r*^• Antiq. 1 8. c. vi. §. 4. (c) Vol. i, p.iz.
killed
Chap. V. GospelHistory. 317
killed his two Sons Alexander and ^Arifto- buhis^ he repented of what he had done, and refolved to take fpecial care of their children. And in particular, he contracted Herodias, daughter of Ariftobulus, to the above mentioned Herod (a). There happened indeed afterwards fome alterations in the difpofitions made by Herod the Great at this time, but however this (J?) contract re- mained good, as may be concluded from hence : that this contrad is not mentioned among thofe alterations, and becaufe in the account Jofephus gives of Herod the Te- trarch's unlawful marriage with Herodias, her firft husband, whom fhe left in his life- time, is exprefly faid to be Herod Son of Mariamne the High-Pricffs daughter.
H E ROT) the Great in one of his wills, made after this contrad, appointed the faid Herod his Succeflbr in cafe Antipater fliould die before him. But afterwards, in the enquiries concerning Antipater % defign to poyfon his father, it appeared that Ma- riarnne, mother of Herod, had been con-
(a) 'Evsyywro ti lie, yuyjcv rvti j zTzgc&v t 'Apire/3»Atf
Qvyurifuv, 'H^&S^ xxi^i ra ccvtx' yivircci -j ra> /3#<nA« C4i tSs £ ' Atyiifiac, 4vycCT(>o$' Ant. lib. 17. C. i. p.7$T. V. I. vid. Sc p. 1017. v. 36.
{b) Vid.Jofeph. p. 751. v.zo. p.JozS. v. 3$.
cerned
3 1 8 The Credibility of the Book II.
cerned in the fame defign : whereupon He- rod the Great put away Mariamne, altered the claufe of his Will relating to her Son, and took away the Priefthood from her fa- ther (a) Simon. After this we hear no more of Herod, till we have the account of He* rodias's leaving him.
Here then lies our difficulty. The Evangelifts call Herodias's firft husband Thi- lip. It is obje&ed that they muft mean ^Philip the Tetrarch. But it is plain from Jofephtts, that Philip the Tetrarch was not her firft husband, but Herod, fon of Herod the Great by Mariamne the High-Prieft's daughter.
I n anfwer to this : i. It has been faid by fome, that Jofephus was miftaken. Mr.Baf- nage (£) of FlottemanviUe, whom I have
often
(a) K«i £tot ruh cHp&)Jjj5 sttHMJ* 7£ l|gy8«As j£ rov tuov e&yrijs i%»Xtftys T haQwoov, its to ficta-itevrrut ^Ji^vnyjiveut ixsivif j£ rov 7nv8i(>6V tw cci'^i^aoruv^j a.tyzi'Xct.To "Ztpc-jvuTcv a BoyQii' Antiq. 17. civ. p.757- v-43- vid-Sc P- 1033- v. 30.
(b) Nulla ergo excufatio Jofepho parari poteft. Cujus nar- ration!, ilia Evangeliftarum, mifia vel eorum uyx^cc^rwioc9 dubio procul eft anteponenda, cum teftes 8c plures, & anti- quiores fuerint, 8c rationes longe graviores habuerint diligen- tius inquirendi in caufas mortis illatae Joanni, quas ducunt ex Herodiadis, Philippo Legitimo viro, contra jus 8c fas, at> Antipae ereptaeodio, in Joannem, fceleftas nuptias damnantem,
Equi-
Chap. V. Gospel History. 319
often quoted, is fully perfwaded, that Vhilip* Tctrarcli of Iturea and Trachonitis^ was He- rodias's firft husband. Befide that the Evan- gelifts lived nearer the time of the Event than Jofephus, he fays, they had more reafon to be well informed in this matter than Jofe- phus, and they are three to one. Mr. Baf- nage does not deny Herod's, having had a fon of his own name by the High-Prieft's daughter: but he fays, this fon died before his father. And he thinks, that Jofepkus fays as much, and has allured us that after Antipater was dead, Herod had no fons left, befide Arehelaus^ Herod Antipas, and Vhilipy betwixt whom he divided his king- dome. And therefore Jofepkus is guilty of a moft flagrant felf-contradi&ion in making the Son of the High-Prieft's daughter, Hero-
Equidim Jofephus tenetur sV avrsQopa deprehenfus, cum ipfe docuerit, Herodi Magno pofl: rr.ortem Antipatri, nil fiiiorum fuifle, praeter Archelaum, Herodem Antipim, 5c Philippum* quos inter, rcgnum diviferat fuum. Ncc vero fimile eft in teftamento, hujus Herodis, Herodiadi, ut ait Jofephus, ma~ trimonio conjun&i, parentem non mcminifTe, ne expers partis efTet, de bonis ejus j eo magis, quo multa Salomi ibrori fuae praedia moriendo dederat Kerodes. Id faciies Jolepho lar- giemur, ex Simonis Ponti^.cis filia procreatum Herodi regi filium fuiiTe, patcrno nomine donatum. Parenti fuperftitem fuifle, negabimus, ex alto hiftoriae Judaicae filentio, in qu«.
vir iile partes egifiet fuas. Erravit igitur Jofephus — —
Btfnage. Ann, Ttolit, Ecclef. A. D. 19. n. iii.
dias\
3 zo The Credihility of the Book II.
dias's husband. Befides there is no mention of this Son in Herod the Great's laft will, which would be very ftrange, if he was then alive, efpecially confldering that Herod left his Sifter Salome a very good eftate in land.
This is Monfieur Bajhage's Solution: but, in my opinion, a very poor one. I will not be pofuive that Jofephtis has made no miftake in the accounts of Herod's family : becaufe where a man has iftue by feven or eight wives, as Herod had, perhaps a writer had need to have a head peculiarly turned for genealogy to be fecure from ail errors in giving an account ot his children and all their marriages ; efpecially conddering how much the (d) female dependents of Herod
in-
(d) Bcfide HeroJias, her three nieces, daughters of her brother Herod Agrippa, would employ the attention of an Hi- ftorian. Bernice,the eldeft, after the death of her firft husband Hero J King of Chalets, married P demon King of Csiicia, [0r as fome read it Lycia], ' But this marriage iaftcd not long,
* for Bcrniceleft Polemox.' ' Ov fjjvy Ith ttoXu vvvzyjimv b yu^(^ utfsa. Bwixn £i UKoXua-iccv, aq \cpu<rc.v, %a.ra'kw7iii TovHoteyjMcc Antiq, 10. c. 6. §.3. Mariamne [the fecond daughter] « about
* the fame time, having divorced Arcbdus the Son of HeL « chins, married Demetrius the AUbarch of the Jews at Alex. ' andria.ro) kvrZ j x.ct.i$ ^ M*£M(Ayjv>7?u%ct,iTvi<rc(,yjivrl t 'Ap%iXccov3 <rwa>Kvi<rz 7w AyfAyrgty — totz h *£ ty,v aXaficcfifticcv kvro$ ii%s. ibid. Drufilh, the youngeft, left Aziaus King of the Emefenes and married Felix; as has been fhewn already, V.I. p- 53-
hav«
Chap.V. Gospel History. 3x1
incrcafed the task in a fliort time by leaving or divorcing their husbands. But I can never pcrfwade my felf, that Jofephus, a profefled writer of jewijh hiftory, could be guilty of fo many miftakes as are included in a mi- ftake about Herodiass firft husband. If he was not furniflied with the events of all Herod's children, yet he muft certainly know the marriages of the laft princes in the land of Ifrael, his own country. Could he be ignorant who was Vhilip the Tetrarch's wife ? who was the firft husband of Herod the TetrarclVs fecond wife, and of Jgrippa the
have put down here all thefe instances for the £>ke of a re* mark. Our Saviour fays : Whenever fiall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery againfi her. And if a woman fl>all put away her husband, and be married to another fl)e committeth adultery. Mark x. n, I fa. It maybe inferred from hence, that the jewijjj women, as well as the men, did then pra&ife Divorces, and after that marry to Others, Thefe inftances from Jofephus confirm the inference. We may be allured thefe Lad es were not fingular. Their exam- ples would be followed by others: and, it is likely, were fup- ported by many precedents. It the wom.n took this licence, what wou'd not the men do\ Our Hiilorian Jofephus affords us a double example of this practice. His firft wife left him, vit. §. 75. And he married another. Her he divorced after he had had three children by her, becaufe he was not pleaied with her Manners. And then he married a third, by whom alfo he had children : xced' c» ok tuupc* x^ t»v ywx?x.x, &a
(AqTtgX. § "6.
Y Great's
3 xx The Credibility of the Boot II.
Great's Sifter? Was not Herodias's leaving her firft husband , in all refpe&s a mod no- torious aft ion ? Was not Jofephus well ac- quainted with her nephew, t^Agrippa the younger \
M r. Bafnage fays, Jofephus has aflured us Herod had but three fons left after the death of Antipater. I think, Jofephus has never faid any fuch thing. If he had, he would be a writer of no weight , fince he has afterwards exprefly faid that Hero- ridas's firft husband was Herod the fon of the High-Prieft's daughter. And if Jofe- phus had aflured us Herod the Great had but three fons left after Antipater was dead, Nix. Bafnage might have fpared his arguments from the omiffion of Herod the High-Prieft's daughter's fon, and the large eftate left to Salome, in Herod the Great's laft will.
Indeed, there is no reafon to con- clude that Herod> fon of the High-Prieft's daughter, died before his father: but a great deal of reafon to fuppofe he furvived him, befide the exprefle mention made of him long afterwards as the husband of Herodias. For in the will his father made after the en- quiries into t^Antipatefs confpiracy, and
there-
Chap.V. Gospel History. 315
therefore in the laft year of his life, this faid Heroes fucceffion was ftruck out, as Jofe- phus exprefly fays (a). And though there be no mention made in Herod's laft will, of any other fons by name, beiide thofe to whom he left a part of his territories ; yet it is very likely, there were others to whom he left prefents (b). It is not ftrange that Herod fhould leave no towns or Lordfhips to this fon (though living) in his laft will, fince his mother had been lately deteded in a great crime. Nay, it is not ftrange, that Three fons only of Herod had Tetrarchies, and the reft, though never fo many, only funis of money or revenues, As for the Towns bequeathed by Herod to his fifter Salome ; fhe had been always faithful to him, and it was fit fhe fhould have fome extraordinary teftimony of his afFettion. Jofephus himfelf (c) afllgns this as the
(a) See before, p. 221. (b) Jo[efhu*'s account of
Herod's laft Will is, that he gave to Herod Amipas, Galilee, &c. to Philip, Gaulor.itisy &c. to Archelaus the Klrgdome, to Szlome his Sifter, Jamnia, &c. and that he took care of all the reft of his family, leaving them handfome legacies of moHy or ample revenues, rpavcjjo-j 'j >£ t XcittZv h'o-ci rvyytn~i
i)<rotv ctvTWy %pviiA/XT6>v rt £o<rs<ri ^ 77erxr'oh:v uvucpogui's, iKUs*', cv iv7ropU x.<x,Qiru[Atv(&'. Antiq. 17. c. 8 §. X.
(V) TaXufJtjviv ti i7ri (biycc InXir^tv m» uozX$w% ivvxv ti ci 5r2t<rt 7rfo$ ccvtov hxjAiiJUiirtKvTctv x. r. A. Antiq. 17. C w\l
§...
Y 2 reafon
314 The Credibility of the Book II.
reafon of that regard fnewed to her in He* rod's wills.
And Thilo fays, that when Tilate de- dicated fliields and placed them in Herod's palace at Jerufalem {a), the Jews got four {b) of the Kings fons, and other his defcendents to make ufe of their intereft with Tilate to remove the fhields. If Philo may be relied upon in this matter, and if we may underftand the word Sons in the moft proper fenfe, (which it fcems mod reafonabie to do) and not for Grandchildren or other defcendents 5 then Herod muft have left behind him at left two Sons, be- fide thofe three betwixt whom he divided his dominions : For Archelaus certainly was not one of the four fons whom Thilo fpeaks of, becaufe he had been baniflied into Gaul long before Tilate's government. Suppofing then that Herod Tetrarch of Galilee and Thilip Tetrarch of Trachonitis were two of the four, there muft have been two o- ther Sons of Herod, befide them and Ar- chelaus.
(a) *AvuTi@ii(rtt &> to~$ koctoc t»v UgoyroXtv 'HguM ficuriXtion? Thilo de legat. in Cxi. p. 1034. A, (&) Rgtrw-etftSHn
t»5 t« /3#(r*Anv{ w«5 TiTTccexs — — >£ rut cc)kv$ "tenyoyxs' id. ibid.
Bu T
Chap.V. Gospel History, 327
But however Thilo ought to be under- flood, I can never think it a fair way of getting lid of this difficulty to charge Jofe* phas with a great many gtofs blunders.
2. I proceed therefore to lay before the reader another Solution which has been in the main approved of already by many learn* ed men.
(1.) The Evangelifts and Joftphus are in the right, and none of them have com- mitted any miftake in this matter. I have juft fhewn, that there is no rcafon to think Jofephus was miftaken. And it is as un- realonablc to fuppofc, that the Evangelifts arc miftaken. They all agree in calling Herodias's firft husband Philip. And they appear to be fully matter of the hiftory of Herod the Great's family. One or other of them have told us, that Anhelaus fuccecd- cd his father in Judea> that Herod (who was alio called ^Antipas) wasTetrarch of Galilee, T hi lip of Trachonitis. If they had not been well informed, fome errors would have appeared here. St. Luke has given the proper titles and characters to all the other dependents of Herod whom he hath mentioned afterward, Herod the King, Agrifpa, Bernice, Drujilla.
Y 3 They
3 z6 The Credibility of the BooklL
They fpeak of this unlawful marriage of Herodias, as a matter they were well acquainted with 5 and yofephus concurs with them in the main.
(2.) The Evangelifts do not intend 'Philip the Tetrarch, but the fame perfon that Jofephus does. If they had intended 'Philip the Tetrarch, when they fpeak of Herodias's husband, they would have given him his title. This is their conftant method. St. Matthew lays, that Jefuswas bominthe Matth. ii days of Herod the king. St. Luke, that Lukei. 5 .the vifionof Zacharias was in the dap of Herod the king of judea* In the account of our Saviour's return from Egypt St. Mat- thew fays, that jofeph heard that Arche- laas did reign, in Judea, in the room of Mztth. u. his father Herod. St. Luke gives the pro- Z2" per titles to all the princes whom he men- tions at the beginning of John the Baptift's Lukeui l.miniftry. In the account of Pilate'sknd* ing our Saviour to Herod it appears plainly, Luke xxiii.that he was the Tetrarch of Galilee^ to 6,"s' whom he was fent. When St. Luke begins the hiftory of Herod Agrippa, he calls him jrf xxv ! 'ffoe king- He gives alfo the title of King J3. to Jgrippa,
Indeed
Chap.V. Gospel History. 327
Indeed the church at Jerufalem in their prayer to God give Herod and Ton- tins Tilate no titles. And I believe none^a.iir.17; would have them there at length. In the account of the death of John the Bap- tifl^ and this marriage, all the Evangelifts do ever give Herod his title : But not one of Matthew. them have given the Thilip whom they men- j^ vi. tion any title, but that Herod had laid l*- ...
7 7 j n j r - ^ Luke ill.
hold of John, and fut him tn prifon for 19. xi. 7. Herodias fake, his brother Philip's wife™?*'™- or bound him in prifon for Herodias fake ****rk *»« his brother Philips wife. Again: H rod Luke m. the Tetrarch being reproved by him for l - Herodias his brother Philip's wife. I make no doubt therefore but that Thilip^Hcrodias's firft husband, was a private perfon who lived in all probability at yerufalem, and that Herod the Tetrarch in his way to Rome there fell in love with her and made the control, Thilip then, whom the Evangelifts fpeak of, as the firft husband of Herodias, was a private perfon , inverted with no titles or dignities : and fo is jofephtis's Hem rod , as appears from the hiftory I have given of him : And it is not unlikely, that this was one reafon, among others, why Herod the Tetrarch's propofal of mar- Y 4 xiagc;
gi8 The Credibility of the Book II.
riage was fo foon accepted by Hcrodias, an ambitious woman.
The only difficulty therefore concerning this matter aiifes from the name, jofephus calls this perfon Herod, theEvangeliftsf^i- lip : Moreover Thilip was the name of the Tetrarch of It urea and Trachonitis, there- fore it may be thought ftrange, that Herod the Great fliould have another fon called Thilip.
This difficulty will be cleared by the following confideratidns. It is not at all ftrange that Herod the Great fliould have two ions called by the fame name, when he had children by feven or eight wives. Even according to Jofephus, the eldeft fon was called Antipater, and another, who was the youngeft, Antipas or Herod Anti- pasy the Tetrarch of Galilee. Thefe are but one and the fame name, only a different termination. Jofephus mentions ri^pe of of Herod's fons of the name Herod, with^ out any other addition (tf). But yet it is highly probable, they had fome other jiames by which they were diftinguifhed,
(») Vid. Jofepb. Antiq.h. 17. -C. i. L. 1 8, C. vi. §. 4. De Bel!. L. i. C. xxviii. & Genealog, Herod, in Reland. Valeft.
though
Chap.V. Gospel History. 319
though Jofephus has not mentioned them. Grotius (a) thinks it very probable, there was a Philip among the anceftors of Herod the Great, after whom two of his ions were named Philip : as there were two of them, who bore the name of Antipater or Anti- pas from his father.
Though there was another brother by the fame father, namely Philip thcTetrarch* called by the fame name with Herodiass husband ; yet ic was not necelTary for the Evangelifts to take notice of it. When writers relate a well known fad, near the time in which it happened, whilft there is no danger of perfons making a miftake, this precaution is often ncglc&cd. 'Dio's ac- count of Kyirchelauss removal is thus: € Herod of Pale/line being accufcd by his ' brothers was banifhed to the other (b) 1 fide the Alps'. Herod was the name by which the Tetrarch of Galilee was ufually called. And he alfo was afterwards banifh- ed to the other fide the Alps. Yet I believe no one ever charged T)io with a miftake here as to the perfon he (peaks of, or fuf-
(a) In Matth. xix. 3.
{b) "O, ts 'tipao-te 0 Tlu.Aottrt)vos, cciTixv Tito, *?n t a.?t}.<$ta* JKccfiliv, uaro y«|S ''Amarus ijxssfwfi'a-Sii. lib. 55. p. 567. B.
peeled
3 j o The Credibility of the Book II
oe&edthat he thought the Tetrarch of Ga' lileey was banifhedfrom his dominions A.U. 759. I willtranfcribe here an obfervation of the learned and judicious Dr. (a) Trideaux. 1 He \JPtolomy Lathyrus'] was fucceeded € by Cleopatra his daughter, and only le- ' gitimate child. Her proper name was 1 Berenice, and fo Taufanias calls her. For c it is to be noted that as all the males of this
< family had the common name of Ptolomj, e fo all the females of it had that of Cleo- 1 patra, and befides had other proper names 1 to diftinguifti them from each other.
* Thus Selene was called Cleopatra, and fo ' were alio two other of her Sifters. And c in like manner this daughter of Lathyrus,
* whofe proper name was Berenice borealfo
< that of Cleopatra, according to the ufage ' of her family. The obfervingof this will c remove many obfcurities and difficulties € in the Egyptian Hiftory*.
The Evangelifts do all agree in calling Herodias's firft husband Thilip: and they appear fully mafters of their ftory. It is therefore highly reafonable to fuppofe he was called Philip as well as Herod. I ftiall put a cafe refembling this. Jofephus al-
(/*) Conn. Part. ii. year before Chrift 8i". p. 39<>-
ways
Chap.V. GospelHistory. 331
ways calls Livia , Auguftus's wife, (a) Julia, though that was the proper name of Auguftus's daughter, without ever giving the left hint of his reafon for it. It is true, that though the Roman hiftorians do generally call her Lwia 5 yet they have told us, that fhe had alfo the name of Julia, and have informed us of the reafon of it; which was, that Auguftus in his laft will adopted his wife into the Julian family? and appointed that fhe fhould bear the name of Julia (b). And there are medals, on which fhe bears this name. But if no- thing of this had appeared in any of the Roman authors, or inferiptions that are ex- tant 3 yet fince Jofefhus appears to be well acquainted with the Roman affairs from Julius Cejar down to his own time, I believe, moft men would have allowed that he had fome good reafon for calling the wife of Auguftus Julia. And for the fame rea- fon a like fuppofition ought to be made in behalf of the Evangelifts in the cafe before us.
(a) Vid. Jofeph. p. 1 oi 8. not. h.
(b) Tiberium & Liviam heredes habuit. Livia in familiam. Jnliam nomenq; Auguftae adfumebatur. Tacit. Ann. Lib. i. c 8. vid. & Stieton- Ang. cap. ior. Dion. p. Coo. A.
It
Matt. x. a, 3-
3 5 x The Credibility of the Book II.
I x was exceeding common among the
ancients, Jews and others, for perfons to
have two names, and to be called fometimes
by the one, and fometimes by the other.
There are feveral inftances in the New
Tefiament. Simon, who is called *Peter 5
Lebbeus, whofe fur name was Thaddeus :
John™. Thomas, which is called T)ydimus : Simeon,
mi xiii 1 t^oat was ca^c^ Niget 5 Saul who was alfo
" ' 'called Taid.
JO SET HUS calls Caiaphas, the High- Prieft, Jofeph. He has indeed told us that he was alio called Caiaphas (#). If man- kind would have been as equitable to the writers of the New Tejlament, as they ufual- ly are to other authors, to fome who are far from giving equal tokens of skill or probity with them, this would have created no dif- ficulty, though Jofephus had never fubjoined the name of Caiaphas to that of Jofeph, But if any had been difpofed to give the Evangelifts unfair and unequal treatment, it is likely, they would have pretended that here was a notorious blunder \ and that Caiaphas was fo far from being High-Pried when John Baptifl began his miniftry, and when Jefus was crucified, that there never
, {a) ?,79U v-z3- 802. v. aS.
was
Chap.V, Gospel History. 333
was any fuch perfon High-Prieft among the Jews.
I hope what is already (aid may befuf- ficient to convince all reafonable men, there is no juft ground to fufpecT: the Evangelifts of any miftake in the name of Herod/as's firft husband. However, there is fomewhat farther to be offered. There are other wri- tings extant in which he is called 'Philip. I (hall tranfcribe here the account of it in Dr. IVhitbfs words. c Gorionides faith, 1 Herodias was firft married to Philip, and c then taken away from him by Herod An- c tipas. The old Hebrew chronicle faith, * Uxor em fratris fui Philippi ipfo vivente 1 junxit fibi matrimonio, quae libcros ex c jratre ejus fufceperat, & tamen is earn < duxit uxorem^ fchap. 36). And an old c Chronicle of the fecond Temple, faith, 1 Antipas Philippi fratris fui uxorem ac- € cepit, ex qua Me liberos ante genuerat c (F. 54. c. 4.) /. e. Antipas married the c wife of his brother Philip, he being yet [ living, and having had children by her {a).
(a) Whitby on Mutth. xiv. 3.
Chap.
3g4 The Credibility of the Book II
Chap. VI.
Of Zach arias the Son of Barachias.
HERE are fome difficulties at- tending the prophetical repre- fentation, given by our Lord, of thofe judgments which he fore- faw, would foon befall the jewijh nation. This we have in two of the Evangelifts, in St. Matthew, and St Luke. One account will illuftrate the other, and we may have fome occafion to refer to each of them : and therefore I (hall fet them both down here at once.
The account of this matter, as it Hands in St. Matthew, is thus : Woe unto you Scribes and Tharifees, hypocrites, becaufe ye build the tombs of the Prophets, and garni jh the fepulchres of the righteous $ and fay, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Prophets. Where*
fore
Chap. VI. Gospfl History. 337
fore ye be witneffes unto your felves, that
ye are the children of them that killed the
'Prophets. Fill ye up then the rneafure of
your fathers. Te Serpents, ye generation
of vipers, how can ye efcape the damnation
of hell? Wherefore, behold, I fend unto
you Prophets, and wife men and Scribes,
and fome of them ye fhall kill and crucife,
and fome of them Jhall ye fcourge in
your Synagogues, and perfecute them from
city to city : that upon you may come all
the righteous blood [bed upon the earthy
from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the
blood of Zach arias, son of Barachias,
whom ye few between the temple and the
altar. Verily, I fay unto you, all thefe
things Jhall come tipon this generation *.
The parallel place in St. Luke is in thefe xxiii. words: Wo unto you, for you build thev'619'~~ fepulchres of the Prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witnefs that ye allow the deeds of your fathers, for they indeed killed them, and ye build their fepulchres. Therefore alfo faid the wifdom of God, I will fnd them Prophets and K^Apoftles, and fome of them they fh all flay and perfecute -, that the iiood of all the 'Prophets, which was find from the foun- dation
3 3 6 The Credibility of the Book II.
dation of the world, may be required of this generation $ from the blood of ^Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, which pe- rijhed between the altar and the temple : verily, I fay unto you, it jhall be required n^L-^'of this generation*.
Here the Evangelifts may be charged with a miftakc feveral ways. They who would fuppofe, that the Zacharias here referred to, is Zacharias, one of the twelve lefler jewijh prophets, will fay, they muft have been miftaken, becaufe in the time of this Zacharias, the temple is fuppofed to have been in ruins : and therefore it is im- poflible, he fhould have been killed be- tween the temple and the altar. And others, who fuppofe the Zacharias here intended, is the Zacharias, whofe death is related in 2 Chron. xxiv, may fay, that St. Mattheuu miftook the name of his father. For his name was Jehojada, and not Barachias.
There is another Zacharias, whofe death is related by Jofephus. But that hap- pened not till long after the time, in which our Saviour is fuppofed to have fpoken thefe words. This feems to afford the moft for- midable objection. 1 fhall therefore ftate
and
Chap. VI. Gospfl History. 337
and conflder it particularly. And in an- fwering this I hope toanfwer alfo the other two.
Before I flatc this obje&ion, I (hall here tranfcribe the palTage of Jofephus, on which it is founded. I mud abridge ic in- deed, but I fhall omit nothing that's ma- terial to the point before us.
' The zealots, fays Jofepbus, were ex-
* ceedingly enraged againft Zacharias Qa\ c the fonof Baruch : for he was a man who i detefted all wickednefle, was a lover of
* liberty, and moreover was very rich. They « call (Jf) together therefore by a decree feven- 1 ty of the chief of the people, and form c a kind of Council dcilitute of all autho-
* rity. They then brought Zacharias be- 1 fore them, andaccufed him of a confpiracy c with the Romans: and in particular charged
* him with fending meflengers to Vefpajian, € the better to concert mealures for bctray- 1 ing them into his hands'. But they had no witnefles. The fads were not proved. Zacharias in a fpecch he delivered before the Council confuted all the calumnies of the
Z zealots,
3 3 8 The Credibility of the Book II.
zealots, and warmly reproved them for their wickcdnefTc c The feventy then acquitted 1 him, choofing rather to die with him, than € to bring upon themfelves the imputation c of his death. He being thus abfolved, the 4 zealots raifed a loud clamour againft thefe ' Judges, as not underftanding the defign for c which they had been invefted with autho- £ rity. And two of the moft daring of the 4 zealots,fallinguponZ^^mmnthe middle * of the Temple, flew him there (a).
I x may be laid then : Prom hence it ap- pears, that the writers of thefe books were not acquainted with the affairs of thofe times. Thefe writings therefore don't come from St. Matthew or St. Luke. At left the authors of them did not live at the time they arc hippofed to have lived : poflibly not till long afterwards. How elf'e could they have committed fuch a blunder, as to make Jefus tell the Jews of his time, in the reign of Tiberius^ that they had killed Zach arias the fon of Barachias, or Baruch 5 when Jofephus informs us, that lie was not killed till the latter end of Nero's reign^
haQQufWri rev Zu^etfUv. DeBell. 1. 4. c. 5. § 4.
above
Chap. VI Gospel History. 339
above thirty years after thefe words arc faid to have been fpoken by Chrift ?
I. T o this I anfwer5 in the firfl place, that the fad related by Jofephus dees not fuit the words of Chrift in the Evangelifts.
For (i.) the name of the father of Za- charias feems to be different. Dr. Whitby {a) obferves c that as Baruch in Jeremiah, € and the Apocrypha is always called by ' the Septuagint Bxp^ (Baruch J fo JTD13
* (Barachiah) is rendered by them Bxpv%fa$ ' {Barachiah) Ifa. viii. 2. Zach. i. t. 7.
* And in Neh. iii. we find Bx^a^/a; (Ba-
* rachias) ^.4. and Bap*^ (Baruch) v.io. c which fhows they wTere not the fame « name'.
(2.J Their characlcrs are not the fame. The defign of our Saviour's difcourfe obliges us to fuppofe, that the Zacharias he mentioned was a prophet: Whereas the Zacharias in Joftphus has not that cha- ncier from him.
(3.) The place, in which they are faid to have been flain, is not the fame. The Zacharias in the gofpels perifhed between the temple and the altar, according to both Sr, Matthew and St. Luke. But there is
(a) Oa Mattb.xiiiu 3 j*.
Z i no
34° The Credibility of the Book II.
no reaion to lap pofe, that Jojlfhus's Za- charias was (lain in the inner court, in which the altar flood. The council was not held within that Court : and Zacharias feems to have been (lain immediately after his absolution by the council. If he was flain in any part of the Q^qi) temple, that is perfectly agreeable to the words of Jo- fephus 5 for under that name were com- prehended the temple and all the courts and buildings belonging to it.
These feveral inftanccs of difagree- lnent, I fliould think, muft incline mod perfons to conclude,that the fame Zacharias was not intended by the Evangelifts and Jojlphus.
But perhaps this is more than is reafon- able to expeel: fhould be allowed by an Ob- jector. He can eafily believe of writers who are in little credit with him, that they may run far wide of the truth ; and really in- tend a fad that has but a fin all refemblance with their relation. With fuch what hath been laid hitherto will have little weight.
I proceed therefore to fome othet conftderations.
II. I say then, that our Lord in the words we are now considering, inftanceth
in
Chap. VI. Gospel History. 341
in fads fuppofed to have been done a con- fiderable time before. The whole tcnour and defign of his difcourfe allure us of it.
The Zackarias he mentions is not one whom they of that age had themfclvcs (lain, but rather one of thole prophets whole tombs they built.
The Turn of what our Saviour fays (if I miftake not) is this: Ye fay, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. This you fay 5 but, as hereby you own, that you are the chil- dren of them that killed the prophets ; lb by your conduft, by your malice, your pride, your hypocrify, your obftinate di [obedience to God, you make it appear that you allow the deeds of your fathers, and are their ge- nuine off- fpring. You even exceed them in wickedneffe. You are now filling up, and you will ftill go on to fill up the meafurc of their iniquity. I am come among you in my fathers name, and have done works which no man ever did ; but you do not hearken to me. My words you do not re- ceive, and me you will crucifie. God will ftill fend among you, as he did to your fa- thers, prophets and wifemen, to inftruit you
Z 3 in
34* The Credibility of the Book 1L
in the mod excellent do&rine, to admonifh and reclaim you: but ye will kill andcmcifie them, fcourge them in your Synagogues, and perfccute them from City to City. Hereby you will make the wicked deeds of your fathers your own, and bring the guilt of 'em upon your felves :, You will hereby deferve, that all the righteous blood, fhed from the foundation of the world, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias> fhould be required of you : and verily 1 fay unto you, it Jhall be required of this generation.
Our Lord fee ms to me to remind them of inftanccs of difobedience and cruelty, which they were well acquainted with? which they avowedly condemned, and pre- tended to fee the evil of 5 but yet did, and would imitate in a moft notorious manner 1 and hereby would bring the guilt of them upon themfelves. And the conclufion of all J obliges us to fuppofe, that the death of the Zacharias he had mentioned, was an adlof cruelty committed by their fathers. This is the fenfe cf the words in both the Evangc- Ms,
This appears to me fo evident, that if ?here had been do event recorded in any of
Chap.VL Gospel History. 343
their ancient writings which anfwered to the death of Zacbarias here defcribed ; yet I fhould have fuppofed that there was fomc fuch event, that had happened Ionic time before, and which they were then well ac- quainted with.
Ilf. However, we have [a) a facT: recorded in the Old Teftament which ex, aclly answers the words of our Saviour. It is in zChron. xxiv. 17.— 22. Now after the death of Jehojada- -they left the hcufe
of the Lord God of their fathers and
wrath come upon Judah and Jerufalem — yet he fent prophets unto them to bring them again unto the Lord, and they teftifii d again/I them : but they would not give ear. And the fpirit of God came upon Zachariahy the Jon of Jehojada the priejl, which flood above the people, and faid un- to them y Thus faith God, Why tranfgrejfe ye the commandment of tloe Lord ? And they confpired againft him* and Jloned him with ft ones at the commandment of the king in the court of the houfe of the Lord. Thus Joajh the king remembered not the kindnefs which Jehoj -da his fa- ther had done to him, but flew his Jon :
(a) Vid. Whitby > MMtt.XXhi. 36.
Z 4 and
344 The Credibility of the Book II.
and when he died, he [aid, the Lord look ttpon it and require it.
This fa& is exaftly parallel with that defcribed by your Lord. ( i .) This Zachariah fpoke in the name of the Lord (the fpirit of God came upon hint). It wasfuitable to our Lord's defign to inftance in the death of a pr ophet. Te fay, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the death of the prophfts ---- 1 Jend unto you prophets, and Wifemen and fcribes. Abel was a righ- teous man, and this Zacharias a prophet.
(2.) The place, in which this Zacharias is laid to have been killed, anfwers the de- fcription in the Eyangelifts. He wasilain in the court of the houfe of the Lord, that is, in the court of the priefts, the inner court of the temple. In both the Evangelifts the fame place is fpecified, between the temple and the altar. This particular circumftayce of io remarkable an event was, doubtlefs, handed down to them by tradition. Ac- cording to the account in the Chronicles y he was in the inner court when he delivered his nicflagc from God to them : He flood abovt ike people. The ground of the inner
court was railed above the reft. He flood at
the
Chap.VL Gospel History. 345- the extremity of that, and (poke to the peo- ple (landing in the next gourt below him. \ylt the commandment of the King, thev ruflied in upon Zachariah. He retired, they purfued him and ft one d him with ftones, To that he fell down in the fpace between the altar of burnt-offerings and the temple.
(3.) Our Lord (ubjoins : whom ye slew. The death of Zacharias in the Chronicles was the ad of the nation, of King and People. This particular is added to this inftance with the higheft propriety. The death of Abel was the death of a righ- teous man, but not committed by them. The death of Zacharias was the a&of their ancestors, that is, of that people to whom our Lord was fpeaking. For a nation is in all ages reckoned the fame people, And he anfwered and f aid unto them, what did Mofes command you? Verily I fay unto^a!'hx' ?: you, Mofes gave you not that bread from--™ 19. heaven. ^D id not Mofes ghe you thefc law \
(*4.) Expressions made ufe of in the hiftoiy of Zacharias in the Chronicles, and by our Saviour in his difcourfe to the Jews put it paft doubt that he intended this
fad,
3 46 The Credibility of the Book IL
fad, and alluded to this very account in that book. Behold I fend unto you prophets and wife men and fenbes. The hiftory in the Chronicles begins thus : Jet be ft nt un- to them prophets to bring them again unto the Lord, and they teftijied again ft them ,&c. It concludes thus: And when he dudy he faidy the Lord look upon it and require it- Our Saviour tells the Jews, that the blood of all the prophets would be required of that generation.
(5.) As the fad related in the Chronicles does in all its circumftances anfwer that de- fcribed by our Lords lb there is a fuitable- neife in the order in which it (lands in our Lord's difcourfe. Abel is the firft righteous man (lain, and the death of this Zacharias is the laft ad of cruelty to a prophet related in the Jewijh facred writings,
IV. It ought to beobferved, that there is an exad harmony between theEvangelifts, in the account they have given of this dif- courfe of our Saviour, though there is no reafon to think that one has copied the other. This ought to fatisfy us that no miftake has been made.
In one particular indeed there is a diffe- rence. Im St. Matthew Zacharias is ftiled
the
Chap. VI. Gospel History. 34,3 the ion of Barachias, whereas in St. Lukes account it is not faid who was his father.
A n d in this particular the perfon whom our Saviour fpeaks of feems not to anfwerto him mentioned in the Chronicles* For there he is called the fon of Jehojada.
There is therefore but one obje&ion againft fuppofing, that our Saviour meant the Zacharias in the Chronicles. But it is fuch an objedion asdeferves confederation.
I t has been cbferved by (a) divers learned men, that many peribns among the Jews were called by two names, efpecially when their true name happened to have fomc of the letters of the word Jehovah in it. For this reafon Barachias may have been ufed for Jehojada, fince likewife thefc two names have much the fame meaning.
Other learned men iuppofe, that Barachias was very early inferted into Saint Matthew's Gofpel by fome tranferiber. There is the more reafon for this fuppofition, becaufe it is wanting in St. Luke : Or elfe Jehojada might have been originally in St. Matthew, but fome Chriftian tranferiber not well acquainted with the Jewijh hiftory nor knowing who Jehojada was, and there-
(a) Vid. Cm. & Wbltb. in ice,
n
48 The Credibility of the Booldl.
fore fufpeding that to be a miftake, might pretend to corred it by putting Barachias in the room of J.-kojada. Za.hariah the (on of Barachias , whofe prophecies form one of the books of the Old Tejiament, was certainly better known among the Chriftians than Zacharias the ion of Jehojada. It is not at all unlikely therefore, that our not having this name in St. Matthew may be owine; to the ignorance and rafhneffe of fome tranicriber. This fuppofition feems to be favoured by what Sr. Jerome fays, who in- forms us, that in the Gofpelof the Nazarenes Zachariah is called /&* Son of [a) jehojada. Some have thought, that there is alike inftance in Matth. xiii. 3$, where we have thefe words : That it might be fulfilled which was fpoken by the prophet faying, 1 will open my mouth in parables, &c. The the words of this quotation are in P/^78.2. the title of which is Mafchil of Afaph. Saint Jerome (b) fays that in (ome copies of St. Matthew it was written : That it might be fulfilled which was fpoken by the prophet Efaias. He thinks it was originally : which
(a) In evangello quo utuntur Nazareni, pro filio Barachfa?, filium Jojadae reperimus fcriptum . S, Hieron, comment. Mattbt 2 xiii. 36, [6) In loc.
was
Chap. VI. Gospel History. 3 49
was fpoken by the prophet Afaph. But fome tranicriber, not knowing Afaph to be a pro- phet, put Efaias in his room. Afterward, others, perceiving there were no fuch words as thole which follow here to be found in Efaias, left out his name. And from thence forward in mod copies it was written : which was fpoken by the prophet \ faying, &c. I crave leave to mention an obferva- tion, that may iupport the former of thefe two fuppofuions, vi£i that originally the fon of Barachias was wanting in St. Mat- theWy as well as in St. Luke. The ancient Chriftians feem to have been very much di- vided in their opinion who the Zacharias here fpoken of was. Many Chriftians in St. Jerome's time thought he was Zacharias the father of John the Baptift, borrowing this notion (as he (a) adds) from fome Aprocyphal books of no authority. In the copies of St. Matthew's Gofpel in his time, he was ftiled the ion of Barachias, as in ours : But the Nazarene Chriftians, being Jews by birth, and undemanding the hiftory of their own nation, had it in their Gofpel, Zacharias the Jon of Jehojada. This in-
(4) Com. in M*tb. xxiii. $6.
deed
3 ?o The Credibility of the Boot 11
indeed was the truth, but it feems to have been an infertion.
But this is left to the reader to judge of as he thinks fit. It is highly probable, that one of thefe may be the cafe,* either that Johojada not being well known, Barachias was put in his room : or elfe, that the Son of Barachias, was added.
There being fo probable an account of this reading, I hope there remains no farther fcruple about this text.
There is another interpretation of thefe words which fome have inclined to, name- ly, that the Zacharias here mentioned is the Zacharias whofe death Jofephns has given us the hiftory of : and that our Saviour fpoke of him by way of prophecy. But as there can be no objection which I am concern- ed with formed againft the Evangclifts from this fenfe of the words, I have taken no notice of it.
Besides, I think it is by no means the true fenfe of the place. Dr. Whitby obferves very well, that c Chrift fpeaks c here of the Prophets whom they had flain, € not of one who was to be flain a little be- * fore the deftru&ion of Jerufalem 5 for
€ then
Chap. VI. Gospel History.
' then none of the people could have im- c derftood his meaning*.
By the whole tenour of our Saviour's difcourfe, the Zacharias he fpeaks of is excluded from the number of thofe that were to be {lain. If the Zacharias whom jofephus fpeaks of was as good a man as he reprefents him, and did faithfully reprove the wickednelTe of the prevailing party of his nation, he might be one of thofe holy and Wife rnen> whom our Saviour forefaw would be (lain by the Jews. But he can never be the Zacharias whom our Saviour mentioned by name, for he is one of thofe prophets which had been flain before, and whofe blood would be required of them.
Tl
Ceu?,
%fz The Credibility of the Book II,
Chap. VII. Of Theudas.
&p^jS j wju be proper in the next place to *$ m confider the objeftion relating to \&<£§m xheudas. The Apoftles were brought before the council at Jt. rufalem : And when they took counfel to flay them, Gamaliel commanded to put the ^Apoftles forth a little fpace, and f aid unto them> Te men of Ifrael take heed to your felves, what ye intend to do as touching thefe
mm. FOR BEFORE THESE DAYS ROSE UP
Theudas, boafling himfelf to te fome body, to whom a number of men, about four hun- dred, joined themftlves : who was fain f, and all as many as obeyed him, w re feat - tered and brought to nought After this man rofe up Judas of Galilee ', in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him : and all> even as many as obeyed
'AB.v. 34. J. s J
^-36. him, were difperjea.
This
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 3^3
This fpeech of Gamaliel was made not long after our Saviour's afcenfion. Lado- vicus Cappellus places it in the beginning of {a) Caligula s reign. Dr. Whitby (b) and others three or four years fooner, in the 20th of Tiberius A. D. 34. And Gamaliel here fpeaks of Thendas as having given diftur- bance before judas of Galilee, who in the days of the taxing drew away much people. This refers doubtlefs to the affefTementmade by Cyrenius after Archelaus was depofed, when Judea was reduced to a Roman (c") Province: which happened in the fixth or feventh year of the Chriftian Aera. It was at this time that yudas, whom Jofephus calls Judas Gaulanites, and likewife Judas the Galilean^ rais'd difturbances in that coun- try.
But Jofephus gives us an account of an Impoftor, called Theudas, when Cufpius Fadus was Procurator in Judea 5 and there- fore not before the fourth year of Claudius the Roman Emperor A. D. 44, that is, fevea years after Gamaliel's fpeech was made,
{a) Spicileg, in Adt.cap.v. 36. (6) Whitby Par.
upon this text. (c) Jof. jlmiq. Lib. xvii. cap.
ult. xviii.cap, i.DaB. Jut. Lib.vii. cap . viii. §1.
A a accord-
3 j" 4 The Credibility of the Book II.
according to Cappellus's computation, and ten years after it, according to Dr. Whitby's. JOSEPHUS's words are theft: 1 Whilft Fadus was Procurator of yudea, c a certain Impoftor called Theudas per-
* fwaded a very great multitude, taking their
* effects along with them to follow him to c the river Jordan. For he faid he was a < prophet, and that caufing the river to di- t vide at his command, he would give them
* an cafie paflagc over. By thefe fpeeches
* he deceived many. But Fadus was far 1 from fuffering them to go on in their
* madneffe : for he fent out a troop of horfe,
* who, coming upon them unexpectedly, ( flew many, and took many prifoners.
* Theudas himfelf was among the latter. € They cut of his head, and brought it to
* jerufalem. Thefe things happened in 1 judea, while Cufpins Fadus was Pio- 1 curator (a).'
It
(a) ®uh; j «£ '\v£a.iu.$ IziTgoTrtvovTos, yaw ri$ ump, ©si'^&§
top 'lopaouiiiv 9T07ccu/cy kvTu. zTfotyqrr^ <yb gjisysy Ewaft, >£ '.rgos-dy f/jan rev KcTc&fjtjoi c^io'citi) cioaev t(py) Tragi^tiv uvto?$ deceiee/f x* rtivret Atym irotitiXq fsnongoty. » p«y tiovsv ct,v7%$, TiJs etipgorvvne
Chap.VIL Gospel History. 377
It may therefore be pretended, that Saint Luke has made a miftake. The Theudas whom jofephus mentions appeared not till feveral years after Gamaliel's fpeech was made. Nor has Jofephus faid any thing of any other. The perfon Gamaliel fpeaks of is of the lame name. He likewife boa/led himfelf to be feme body, that is, a prophet* He was (lain, and his followers were fcat- tered. In thefe particulars Gamaliel and Jojephus agree. Therefore they mean the fame perfon, but they differ moft widely a. bout the time. For which reafon St. Luke muft have been miftaken.
Divers folutions have been offered of this difficulty.
1 . Some fay, St. Luke might put the affair of Theudas into Gamaliel's fpeech by way of anticipation. He knew very well, that Theudas did not appear till after this time 5 but this being a very proper in- fiance, and fuitable to the main fcope and defign of the fpeech which Gamaliel made, He inferted it himfelf. But this is not at all agreeable to the fimplicity of
cevrov ti rot ®tva&v <£wygt)<rci.vT£$ et^env^aert rvy y.s$u><>iv, £ ko-
Aa: St,LfikS$
3 $6 The Credibility of the Boot II.
St. Luke's narration, efpccially conftdering how particular he is as to the number of Thendas's followers : To whom a number of men> about four hundred joined themfelves. And one would think Valefius was at a lofs for examples of anticipation, when the only one he produces is out of a Poet, and that has fcarce any refemblance with this before us (a).
2. Some think that Jofephus has been miilaken, and has mifplaced Theudas's infur- rection. This Solution Valefm prefers be- fore the former ; and it is approved likewife by Monfieur {b) Le Clerc. They under- ftand Gamaliel to fay : Before thefe days (c) that is, a little while ago rofe up Theitdas, boafting himfelf to be fome body. And if you look farther back (V), before this man
(not
(a) Alia quoque conciliandi ratio excogitari potcft; fidica- mus B* Lucam in eo loco kclt* x^oXvi'iv lecutum efTe. Quae quidem figura occurrit interdum apud antiquos fcriptores exempli caufa apud Virgilium cum dicit
fortufque require Felines.
Atqui cum haec dicerentur Aeneae, nondum condita erat VeKai Vakf. A*not. in Enfeb. H. E. L. ii. c. xi.
(£) Clcrici Hiftor. Eccl, A.D. 28. n.do.
(c) Ufc ^ Tb'Tflv v kf*t*%» avsnt ©hJ£$. Quae verba rem nuper ac noviflime fa&am demonftrant. Valef. ubi fupra.
{J) Sed quoniam Cafaubonus negat Craecos unquam i iocutos fuiflc, producendus eft teftis omni exceptione major.
4 I*
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 3 57
(not after this man> as we render it) rofe up
Judas of Galilee. Thus, according to
Vdkfius, Jofephtts has not mifplaccd this event of Theudas above twelve years ; but according to Mr. LeClerc, the errour is great" er, for he fuppofes he rofe tip A. D. 2g.
But this kind of Solution appears to me perfectly arbitrary, and not to be untying, but cutting the knot. And I freely own, I have no right to them. It is very unlikely, that Jofephus fhould have been miftaken a- bout the time of that Theudas's infurredion which he gives an account of. He may have made miftakes in chronology : but Jofephtw is very exprefs here, that this affair happened in the time of Fadus, when he himfelf mud have been feven years of age.
A n d in my opinion thefe learned men give a wrong meaning to two expreffions in Gamaliel's fpeech. It is not necelTary to un-
ts eft Clemens Alexandrinus, qui in lib. 7 Stromat. Tub finem, eodem prorfus modo locutus eft quo B. Lucas — Nam Martian tiftiem quidem tcmpcr'ibm vixit qiubns Bafdides <& Valentimis. Vemm ttnquam prior cum Mis aJhxc junioribus verfatUfS eft. addit dt'inde, jw»£0* ov "Zlpm W oMyov xijguofovros y riirpa v77/iKX<riv. Vofi qucm Smon praedicantem ?etrum audivit alt- qttamdiu Quis non videt in hoc Clementis loco poft hunc idem Valerc atque ante hunc — fed & geographiae fcriptores, quoties terrarum iitum & populorum nomina defcribunt, eodem lo- ■uuntur raodo. Dicuntenim yjirk r^me, urn w£m.id: ibi.L
A a 3 def-
3 5*8 The Credibility of the BookIL
derftand thofc words, Before the fe days rofe up Theudas, of a hi tie while ago, two or three years before. Thcfe common phrafes are loofe and undetermined in all languages, and fignifie lomctimes, a fhorter, at others, a longer fpace of time. And the fubjeQ: matter of the difcourfe, or the coherence of things, or feme light from abroad can alone determine what the fpace of time intended is. Ir is faid ; But Saul increafed the more in Jtrengthj and confounded the 'Jews which were at <Damafcus.—»~AnT> after that many days were fulfi'led, the Jews took
^Bs'iKi cotmfel to kill him. By thefe many days can be meant but a fhort fpace of time, as appears from Gal. i. 17. 18. St. Paul tells Felix : Forafmtch as I know that thou haji
43. xxiv. been °f wany years a judge unto this na- tion, I do the more chear fully anfwer for my fclf. Though it is likely, Felix had not then been in Judea above five years. And yet it might be faid very properly, that he had been there many years: fince in five years time, a Governour may be fuppofed to gain a good infightinto the laws and cuftoms pi his province, and the temper of the people ; as alio, becaufe very often Govern fioqrs were removed in a fhorter fpace of
time
JG
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 359
time. When Pilate's Soldiers had marched in- to Jerufalem with Enfigns, the Jews went from thence in a great body to Pi/ate at Cefarea, and there made Supplications , Jo- fephus la) fays, many days. But it appears prefently afterwards, that on the Q)) fixth day from their arrival Tilate feated himfelf on his Tribunal, and granted their petition. So Jofiphus relates this in his Antiquities. In his War thefe earned Supplications con- tinued five whole days ic) and nights.
Thus thefe phrafesthat feem to import a long duration, are much limited by the con- nexion of a difcourfe, or by the nature of the things fpoken of. And other phrafes that denote ordinarily a fliorter duration, muft be underftood fometimes with great lati- tude. There is an example in Jeremiah ch* xxxi. 31. Behold the days come faith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the houje of Ifrael, 1;. 3 3 . after those days, faith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts. I fuppofe no one thinks,the(e promifes or predi&ions were to be accomplished prefently. Porphyry fays
(a) iKtjiixj ^ciiij^tvoi fart sreTfca? &/*££*{. Antiq. 18. cap4.
§, I. (b) K«,TO« IKTY)V Vf/jifCtV— — — oiVTce, iTil To Otftf/aC
«»£ ibid. (c) 'Em ntvrf; ypjifecs j£ vvktols htsc$ xkwitoi
^m^Tiffaf, lib. 2.c 9. §• 1.
A a 4 ' that
%6o The Credibility of the Book II.
c that many of the ancients had been fup*
* pofed to underftand the founds of birds
* and other animals, and Apollonim (a) of c Tyana not long ago/ i^ApoIlonius died before the end of the firft century of the Chriftian Aera. 'Porphyry was not born till the 232d, or 233d year (J?) of the fame Aera. Every one muft be fenfible, with what latitude Vorphyrifs not long ago is to be underftood.
I see no neceffity therefore of reftraining the fenfe of the phrafe in this text, before thefe days } to two or three years. It may as well intend twenty or thirty years. It is plain it does fo here, fince it was not till after Theudas that Judas rofe up.
Which brings me to the other phrafe mifunderftood by thefe learned men : Af- ter this man, fj&?<£ rSrov. The inftances of the ufe of this prepofition by Geogra- phers for a remoter diftance are not to the point, becaufe here it imports time. And as for Valefius's quotation from St. Clement, I think it not worth while to confider here, whether he underftand it aright or not. At the beft St.Clemenfs paffage is very ob-
(/») 'Sic em p? t3 7raXctie)v 6 M&xa,7r<&', ^ oi toixtoi, £
jr£o jtoAAs 3 'Ano/kcmos 6 Tvaviv$. Forphyr. de Abji. lib. 3.C.3. (£)Vid. Inc. [Holften. de V'.t. & Scrip- forphyr. cap. r.
fcure
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 361
(cure and perplexed. St. Luke's phrafe is one of the mofl common phrafes in all the Greek language, and is ever underftood as it is rendered in this place by our tranllators. It would beunreafonable to affix a new mean- ing to a very common phrafe upon the fmgle authority of one obfcure paffage. This is faid upon the fuppcfition that the phrafe in St. Clement was the fame with that in St. Luke, and that the fenfeaffigned by Va- le (ius to St. Clement's palTage was the mod likely fenfe of any. But indeed the phrafe in St. Clement is not the fame, and for that reafon is of thelefs weight here.
I suppose then that our tranflation is juft, and that the fubftance of this part of Gamaliel's fpeech is this: Not long fince rofe up Theudas. It might be thirty years or more. The perfons he fpoke to knew very well how long. And after this man, in the time of the celebrated alTeffemcnt, when Judea was made a Roman province> rofe up Judas of Galilee. Both thefe men perifhed, and their adherents were fcattercd.
3. And the Solution, already offered by divers learned (a) men, of the difficulty under confideration, appears to me perfe&ly
(a) Cafsub. Exercit. in Baron, ii. n. 18. prot. & Hamm. i* 48> v.3<\ juft.
B &i The Credibility of the Book IL
juft. There were two Tfoeudas's in Judea that were irnpoftors, one before Judas of Galilee, and another in the reign of C/^/- d'tus. There is no miftake upon this head in Jofephus, nor in St. L#&, who has given us an exa<ft and true account of Gamaliel's ipeech.
It is not at all unlikely that there fhould be two irnpoftors in Judea of the fame name in the compafs of about forty f a) years, and that they fnould both come to the lame end. Thefe are the two chief difficult ties in this matter, and they may be both cleared up.
(i.) It is not at all ftrange that there fhould be two irnpoftors in judea of the name Tkeudas^ inthefpaceof forty years. There were feveral irnpoftors named Simon. Be- fide Simon Magus, mentioned in the New Tejiament, and often fpoken of by the firfl: Chriftian writers, there was one Simon a fervant of Herod, who, after his matter's death, had the impudence to fet himfelf up
(a) The interval cannot be fhorter. Jofephus's TbeuJas could not appear before the year 44.. Gamaliel's Theudas rofe up before Judas of Galihe, who made his difiurbance in the 6th or 7th year of the Chriftian iEra.
for
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 363
foTKing, and put {a) on a diadem. After a long and obftinate engagement with Gratus> he was defeated, and his men were difperfed. He was taken prifoner, and by Gratus's order his head was (J?) cut off. There was another Simon, fon of yudds of Galilee, who was crucified in the (c) reign of Claudius by Tiberius Alexander, governour of Judea zfaxFadus. There was in the time of Felix one Simon of Cyprus, who pretended to Magic. I have already mentioned him in another place (b).
There were like wife feveral yudas's who gave difturbance to this country in a very fhort time. yudas of Galilee was a noted perfon, mentioned here by Gamaliel, and oftentimes by Jofephus. He rofe up in the time of the taxing prefently after the re- moval of ^Arckelaus. There was (d) another Judas (c), fon of Ezechias, who foon af- ter
Tji uxgxrict T 7r£ayp,u,Tuv, huh) pa. rs iTo\u,r,<ri 7rsn>i6i^. Ant la. 17. C. 12*. §. 6. (b) Teocrcc, ivrv%m tjjv xtQoiMv tenrtfjum
ibid. (c) Ibid. I. zo. c.4. §.i, (b J Vol.1.
P- 34. (</) 'I»<^5 J v 'Eft*/* t>«»?, x.>, Antiq. 17.
cap. 12. §.5-. (c) Archbifhop t//7;<?r thinks this 7«^
to \>t Gamaliel's Tbeudas. ' For whereas Jehudah of the He- brew* is the fame with Theuiab of the Syrians, from whence Judas wATbaddeus [compare Lnkew\9 16, with Mark in. 18. ~] "and much rather Jhtndat, the fame name plainly comes. This
pin
3 64 The Credibility of the Book IL
tcr Herod's death affected regal authority, and did a great deal of mi (chief. There was one Judas 7 fon of Sepphoraeus, a man in great reputation for his skill in the law, who with fome others raifed a Sedition during Herod's laft fickneffe. He and fome of his confederates (a) were burnt alive. So that there were three men of the fame name, who in the fpace of about ten years raifed commotions in Judea.
(2.) Nor is the agreement of character and circumftances mentioned by Gamaliel and Jofephus a proof they fpeak of one and the fame perfon. There are but two par- ticulars of this fort : That they pretended to be extraordinary perfons, and that they were flain and their followers fcattered or brought to nought. But in this there is nothing ex- traordinary. Though there had been yet more circumftances, in which they had a- greed, this would have been no proof that one and the fame perfon is fpoken of.
GAMALIEL&ys: Theudas boafted himfelf to be fome body, and he was Jlain : Jofephus, that Theudas faid he was a pro- phet, and his head was cut off.
« Judas feems A be no other than Theudas, of whom Gamaliel * fpeal«-tfcfr v. 36/ Annals p-797« da) DeBeJL l,x. c.33. §. 1.-4.
yOSEPHC/S
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 36^
J O S E P H US has informed us, con- cerning the Theudas he fpeaks of, that he got a good number of people to follow him to Jordan. Though Gamaliel and Jofephus had concurred in fo particular a circumflance as this (which they do not) yet it would not have been a fufficient reafon for our fuppo- fing that they intended the fame perfon.
I shall give an inftance. Of Simon {a) above-mentioned, fervant of Herod, Jofe- phus fays, that he plundered and burnt the palace at Jericho. And that he burnt feve- ral royal houfes in divers parts, having firft given them to be plundered by his followers. He fays alfo, that the people with Simon were chiefly (b) Teraeans, or people that lived on the other fide of Jordan* After- ward, even while he is fpeaking of affairs that paffed in Judea foon after the death of Herod, he fays that • ztAmatha near Jordan • a Royal Palace was burnt down by a num- c ber of men very much like thofe who were I with (c) Simon'
(4) To cv 'ligtxitvTi fixa-fauo* layunfpri JV ugirxyvi ccyut tcc ty>cccruXi^UfJU{Jtjivei. Antiq. 17. C.12, 6, (£) To T£ aroAt* T2 Tlfgoctvv ibid. (c) KuTtTrgYioSyj 3 >£ rot «r» rZ 'Ug$&*$ zctxjmZ ci 'Afjb*6c~$
fi&Ti'faict v&9 rtvay evrwrw uvtyw 2»j*Aiw tfxfurtys'Wf, ibid,
I?
%66 The Credibility of the Book It
If Jofephus had omitted this laft fad, and fome other hiftorian had related it, to- gether with the name of the leader of this body of men, and given them their charact- er 5 which, if true, muft have refembled that of the men with Simon 5 unlefs the re- putation of this hiftorian had been very well eftablifhed, it would have been thought that he was miftaken, arid the perfon he meant was Simon, though he called him by another name. A 'palace burnt down at i^Amatha, by Jordan. Who could thefe be but Si- mon's people, who, Jofephus fays, were moftly Taraeans? Then the time agrees exa&ly : Both fads in the abfence of Ar- chelaus from Judea after his father's death. This writer therefore muft have been grofly miftaken in the name of the perfon to whom he afcribes the conduit of this a&ion.
Or,it is not unlikely^thatCritics^ight have been divided : Some would have vindicated Jofephus, and fome the other writer. And yet they would have been all miftaken, un- lefs they had allowed two different bodies of men, and two different matters to be fpoken of, and that both the hiftorians were in the right.
S It
Chap.VIL Gospel History. 367
I t is certain, that thefe impoftors about thistime hadarefemblance in their pretenfions and their fates : one boafted he would give his followers a pafiage over Jordan, as Jofephus's Theudas : another promifcd his people they fhould fee the walls of Jerufa- lem fall down before them, as the Egyp- tian Impoftor. The great fcene of expecta- tion was the (a) wildernefie. But in this they agreed univcrfally, the company was routed and difperfed, and ufually the leaders executed. This, we may be certain was the cafe, or elfe the government had been overturned.
These few circumftances then, in which Gamaliels Theudas refembles him mention- ed by Jofephns are no good argument that one and the fame perfon is intended.
Besides, there is one material circum. fiance in which they differ. Gamaliel fays : before thefe days rofe up Theudas,'--- to whom a number of tnen9 about four hundred joined tkemfelves. But Jofepkus fays of his Theudas, that he perfwaded a 'very great multitude to follow him. And that many were flam, and many taken fri- foners. Jofephus's Theudas therefore muft
{a) M*ttk*xx'w> 16. Jofefh, Antiq. 20. cap. 7. 6, & alibi.
have
3 63 The Credibility of the Book II
have had with him a much larger company than the former.
(3.) It has been very well obferved by (a) Dr. Whitby^ that the ancients generally agreed there was a Theudas before the com- ing of our Lord, though Jofephus has taken no notice of him. Beza (J?) was of opi- nion that the Theudas, of whom Gamaliel fpeaks, did not arife before our Saviour's nativity, but foon after Herod's death, in that fort of interregnum,which there was in Judea, whilft ^Archelaus was at Rome. Which was alfo Archbifliop Ufar's opinion, as I have {hewn above.
It is certain that this was a time of theut- moft confufion. Jofephus has mentioned feveral by name who then gave disturbance in that country, and hinted at mifchiefs done by others, whofe names he has not put down. It is plain he has pad by many more than he has mentioned. For he fays : * At that * time (r) there were innumerable diftur- < bances in Judea'.
'lx&xioic, fjusyecv rma txvrov Myav. Orig. Cont* Celj. p. 44. See more citations in Whitby upon the place. (6) In
loc. (c) 3Ev Tttra j y^ srspot, [Aivgicc 6o£vfim s%o[/jMc6 r>)v
JvPumv K«TsA*f*0«wf. Anti^. 17. c. 12. §. 4, vid. 8c d% Bt 1.2. 04,
Con*
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 369
Considering all thcfe things, that there had been before this many pretenders in Judea-, that Jofephus has been far from mentioning all that rofe up in the later end of Herod's reign, and in that remarkable time of confuflon which fucceeded his death; fince there had been in this country in a very ihort time divers adventurers for power and au- thority of one and the fame name 5 and fince Theudas (a) was no uncommon name among the Jews-, and fince thefe leaders of parties and factions very much refcmbled each other, and that fometimes in more particulars than thofe fpecified by Gamaliel, it is not at all unlikely that there were two Theudas's who were impoftors. We may depend upon it there were» Gamaliel fpeaks of one who was before Judas of Galilee, and Jofephus of another in the time of Claudius.
Indeed I am fomewhat furprized that any learned man fhould find it hard to believe, that there were two Impoftors in Judea of the name of Theudas in the compafs of for- ty years (b).
BJTRICL
(a) Frequens erat id romen apud Hebraeos. Itaque noa mirum eft diverfis temporibus plures extitiiTe fadtiofbs homines ejufdem nominis. Grot, in loo (b) Duos enim
Theudas fuifle, qui fe prephetas efTe mentiti, alter _poft alte-
3 yo The Credibility of the Book II. BATRICIT>ES, Patriarch of A- lexandrta about the middle of the eighth century, fuppofed that the High-Prieft Simon, firnamed the Jit/l, and who according to other Hiflorians (a) died about 290 years before the Chriftian Aera, and Simeon^ who took our Saviour into his arms when he was prefented at the temple, were one and the fame perfon, and that he was then 3 50 years of age (£). I do not fay, thefe two miftakes are equal 5 but the pretence for thus confound- ing two pcrfons is juft the fame, in both thefe caies, which is the agreement in name and character. For the High-Prieft's name is fometimes writ Simeon : He was called the juft : And the Evangelift fays, that Simeon was just and devout.
rum Judaeos ad fpem rerum novarum concitaverint,nunquam adduci poflum ut acdzw, Falef. ubi fupra.
(a) S:e Prideaux Conn. Part. i. Book 8. year before Chrift zoi. (b) In feptuaginta autem fuit viry qui nun-
cupate eft Simeon Jujltts; is qui except ulnis Dominum no* fir urn Chrtftum e Templo.-—Trcduxit autem Dms ei vitae ter- tnkum, adeo ut viveret CCCL annos, & videret Dominum noflrum Chriflum. ®)utm cum vidiffet, dixit, nunc dimitte fewum tuum O Dcmine, &o apud Selden. De Succ. in Pontif, L. i c.vii.
►SI
Chap.
Chap.VIIL Gospel History. 371
Chap. VIII. Of the Egyptian Impoftor*
HERE is yet another particular, in which it has been thought by fome that Jofephus contradids St. Luke. In the xxi. of the AEis of the Apoflles is the account of the uproar at Je- rufalem, when the Jews apprehended Taal and would have killed him. When the chief captain had taken him from the Jews, and had got him in his own cuftody, it is faid, he put this queftion to him : Art not thou that Egyptian, which before thefe days madefl an uproar, and leddeft out into the wilderneffe four thousand men thatABsxiiu were murderers? *8'
The obje&ion lies againft the number here mentioned. For Jofephus, fpeaking of this fame Egyptian, fays : he gathered K> gether thirty thoufand men.
Bb 2
Ws
3 7 f The Credibility of the Book II.
We have the ftory twice told in Jofe- phiis^ in his Antiquities ^ and in his Hiftory of the -jewtjh JVar. I (hall fet down Jofephus\ words, and leave it to the reader to judge, whether an objection of any weight can be formed againft St. Luke from the account we have of this affair in Jofephus. I (hall in the firft place tranfcribe the account in the jew- ijh JVar, bccaufe that was firft writ.
'But the Egyptian falfe prophet f brought a yet heavier difafter upon the Jews. <• For this impoftor coming into the country 1 and gaining the reputation of a prophet,
* gathered together thirty thoufand men who ' were deceived (a) by him. Having brought
* them round out of the wildernefle up to
* the mount of Olives, he intended from 1 thence to make his attack upon Jerufalemy c and having beaten the Roman Guard, to
* bring the people into fubje&ion to him, « and govern them by the help of the men c whom he had got with him. But Felix i coming fuddenly upon him with the Ro-
* man Soldiers, prevented the attack: and
(a) Mii^cvi 3 returns TrPwyy 'la^etta^ ixecKuirtv o ' ' ktyuxri®* •tyiv^oTrpofyTW 7rxpoc,yivo[A£vo$ y> si$ rw %af>Kv, cinQgayros yot)$t k} 7rpc$>>iTX xWi» t7ri$tl<; ittvrS, mpi Tyurytvyuic, p ciSgoiQi t mctrn. (jsjivuv ninety uyW^ olvthsom t«$ &£>j^oi<*$ u$ to' Ehc&icvv xahyyjivey
ef>K K. A.
' all
Chap. VIII. G os pfl History. 373
< (a) all the people joined with him in their
c own defenfe, fo that, when they came to
engage, the Egyptian fled, followed by a
* a few only. A great number of thofe € that were with him were cither {lain or € taken prifoners. The reft of the multi- c tude being fcattered fhifted for them-
* felves as they could/
The account he gives of this affair in the Antiquities is thus : ' About the fame c time (Joe had been [peaking of fome other events in the beginning of Nero's reign) 1 there came (b) a perlbn out of Egypt to c Jerufalem, who pretended to be a Prophet, ' and having perfwaded a good number of
* the meaner fort of people to follow him to 1 the Mount of Olives, he told them, that
(«) Kxi TtXf, 0 OVf/jOC, <rvmpv;yo(,TO TVjC, XfAVVW U$l (TVl/jfio^
A«5 yivofAfvys, T ft 'AtyvSfTim Qvytiv fAtr' o^yav , 2ixq>6xfivxi 0 *7 fyfyfi&tp*1 nteWS cvv &VTW. re jj \oi7rot zrA»j0os CKi^xir&if im tw ixvrav ix.a<rov hxXxQuv De Bell. i. c. i3-§. <,.
(£) 'AQlXVUTXt 2) T'S *\ ' AiytiltT* X.XTX TXTOV Toy xxifov lie, roc
'ifgotroXt/px, xpotyKT'lS tweet Xiyay, t§ cvfjufiuXivwv tZ fa/tomx* 7>M6u (tuv xvtu kpc$ cpot, to 7rfo(rxyof>tvof/jtyey 'EXxieov tp- %te% ■ >6steiv y> i(pxo-KO> uvTcTq tKtTCiv t7ri&7£xi, «J$, x.itev<rxvT<>sy uvtv, nlzToi Tot Tm 'liPo<rcXvjjt*av Tii%n> JY av tw u<ro£ov xv- To?s 7TXPi%uv tTnjyyiT&tTo' <I>i}A<| y &><; ixvdeTo txZtx, xtMvti Tki
fOXTiUTX$ XVXXxfiiXv TX 07TXx, >£ f/ATX 7TO?ke0V iTmiuv Tt *$ *iZa» CPfAYlTXi ^5T9 TUV '\lfOfrt)>:jyjC>)y 7TfiO(rfix?&il To7<; 7TiPl T 'AiyV7TTW}£
TtTgXKe<rix<; p uvrav xvuX%t$\xy.oirlv<i j ^avlxs'tXxfla 6 j' ' fayunTios faros hxtyenrxc, <m T«s i*x%i)<; xQxvm iyitttr Antiq.zo.c. 7 §.6.
JJ b 3 « from
374 The Credibility of the Book IL
* from thence he would let them fee the walls
* of Jemjalem faji down at his command,
* and promifed through them to give them
* entrance into the City. But Felix being
* informed of thefe things ordered his fol- ' diersto their arms. And marching out of e Jerufakm with a large body of horfe and < foot, fell upon thofe who were with the c Egyptian : killed four hundred of them,
* and took two hundred prifoners. But the
* Egyptian getting out of the fight, efcap'd'* The reader , if he thinks it needful,
may confult the commentators and other writers who (#) have confidered this dif- ficulty. Grot'ws fuppofes, that they were at firft but four thoufand^ but that at length they increafed to the number of thirty thou- fund. Valejius reckons there were four thou- fand only that were murderers or Sicarii, tho' the whole company amounted to the number Jofep bus mentions. Y)t.Whttby thinks,that it is likely the number in Jofephus was original- ly three thou fand. And certainly none of thefe folutions are contemptible. But, for my own part, I think there is more need of re-
(a) Grot. Whitby in loc. Jofepb. p. 107$. not. p. Valef. tn&ijeb. Hid. L.ii.cap.u.
conciling
Chap. VIII. Gospel History. 377
conciling Jofephus with himfelf, or at leaft one of thefe accounts with the other, than to reconcile St. Luke with Jofephus.
If indeed we had any good reafon to think, that the number in Jofephus was ori- ginally three thoufand , the difagrcement would be fmali. The number of a multi- tude got together in a fhort time, and foon difperfed, might not be exactly known : the chief captain at Jerufakm might com- pute them at four thoufand, and Jofephus think they were but three thoufand.
D r. Aldrich has propofed another very ingenious conje&ure : that originally the number of the whole company in Jofephus's War of the Jews was four thoufand, and that the number of two hundred faid in the Antiquities to be taken prifoners was ori- ginally two thoufand: Both which errors might happen only by a very fmall altera- tion {a).
But I choofe not to infift upon any of thefe Solutions, which rely on emendations made without the authority of any Manufcripts.
(a) Sufpicamur interim pro<5Weo-i»s fcriptum olim <JV#<Pw*5 p?rmutatis A & <^ vel etiam A. & A. ex TtTp**^^* fa&um tile Tpia-yjvfoq ne dubitamus quidem. Mdr. in Jofytf?. 1075. Net p.
B b 4 The
37^ The Credibility of the Book II.
The numbers in Jofephus are at prefent plainly faulty. In the firft account he fays they were thirty thoufand in all, and that a great number of thefe were either flain or taken prifoners. I might have rendered the words, the moft of them. But though I do not give them that fenfe, yet certainly the four hundred jlain and two hundred taken prifoners, in the other account, can- not be reckoned zgreat number or a large part of thirty thoufand.
B u t then, as I do not infift on thefe tonjcdural emendations for reconciling Jo- fepkus with St. Luke ; fo, on the other hand, would be very unfair, firft to take k for granted that the number of thirty thoufand in Jofephus is right, and then ar- bitrarily to reform all the other numbers in him, in order to form an obje&ion againft the New Teftament.
I think therefore there can be no ob- jection brought againft the numbers in Saint Luke from what jofephus has faid of this affair, becaufe his two accounts are not con- fident one with another in this point : And that is fufficient.
But yet I cannot leave the Hiftory Jofephus has given us of this Egyptian,
with-
Chap. VIII. Go spfl History, ^yy
without making two or three obfervati- ons.
i. The chief captain here asks Saint
Paul: Art not thou that Egyptian which
{a) leddest out into the mlderneffe?-—
which feems to imply, fince the queftion was
asked at Jerufalem, that thefe men, or a
good number of them at left, were drawn
out of Jerufalem: And Jofephus fays ex-
prefly in the later account, that thi* impoftor
came out of Egypt to Jerufalem j and pen
faaded a good number of the meaner fort of
people, (/. e. who werp there) to follow
him.
2. The chief captain fpeaks of their being led out into the wildernesse. This circumftance Jofephus has mentioned in the firft account, where he more particularly re- lates their march, and the compafie they took, than in the other.
3. This Egyptian efcaped. Jofephus has put down this in both places, and un- doubtedly this is fuppofed in the queftion put to St. Taul by the chief captain. The agreement in this particular deferves to be taken notice of, becaufe it was the com.
(a) 'O ilayxyar*
WW
378 The Credibility of the Book II.
mon fate of thefe impoftors to perifh them- feves with a good number of their followers
4. This Egyptian caufed this diftur- bance, according to Jofephus, when Felix was Governour of Judea. This impoftor therefore did not arife any long time be- fore the feifure of St. Taul at ^erufalem. He might be ftill living therefore : In this refpeft there was no abfurdity in this quefti- on of the chief captain. ;>
5. Another particular, which we are obliged to Jofphus for, is, that all the peo- ple (fc. at Jerufalem) favoured, or joined with Felix, upon this occafion, in their own defenie : That is, all but fome very mean people. If Jofephus had not men- tioned this, perhaps it would have been faid : Since confiderable numbers ufually joined thefe impoftors, and it is likely more favoured them ; how was it poffible, that the chief captain fliould ask Paul, when he faw the whole city was in an uproar, and the peo- ple were ready to tear him to pieces : Art not thou that Egyptian ? That pretended pro- phet, that before thefe days madeft an up- roar ? A man of a favourite character at this time among the Jews I
1 THINK
Chap.VIIL Gospel History. 379
I think indeed, that if Jofephus had omitted this circumftance, it would have been a very good reply, to fay, that the chief captain did not yet know what was the matter : And though there was a loud cry in the multitude, of away with him 5 Yet the confufion was fuch, fome fay- ing one thing, and fome another 5 that the chief captain had yet no notion what the cafe was. However we have now no oc- cafion to have recourfe to this reply. Jofe- phus has told us, that all the people favoured Felix in his enterprize againft this man : whether it was becaufe he came from Egypt , or what was the reafon, is of no importance.
(5. There is a remarkable agreement between the chief captain in the A£ls and 'Jofephus, in the defcription they give of this man. The chief captain fays : Art not thou that Egyptian? And it is obfervable, that Jofephus has not mentioned this man's name in either of the accounts. In the firft he calls him the Egyptian falfe prophet, and the Egyptian. In the other, he fays, there came one (or a certain perfon) out of E- gypt : And again, Felix fell upon thofe who were with th$ Egytian : But the EK Uiw n efcaped.
380 The Credibility of the Book II.
W e have therefore in the t^iEis the ex- att manner, in which the Jews about this time fpoke of this impoftor. This is with me a proof, that St. Luke lived and wrote about this time : that is, at the time he is fuppofed to write. We have here undoubt- edly the chief captain's queflio* in the very words in which it was put. St. Luke muft have received this account from St. Paul, or fome one elfe who was prefent, if he was not by himfelf.
After all thefe points of agreement we may be allowed to fuppofe, that, if we had Jofephus's original numbers (the only material particular in which his two ac- counts differ the one from the other and from St. Luke) they would have been exa&ly, or very near the fame with thofe in the Atts.
^Sr
THE
CONCLUSION.
IH A V E now performed what I under- took, and have (hewn that the account given by the Sacred Writers of perfons and things is confirmed by other ancient authors of the beft note. There is nothing in the books of the New Teftament unfuitable to the age in which they are fuppofed to have been writ. There appears in thefe Writers a knowledge of the affairs of thofe times not to be found in authors of later ages. We are hereby af- filed, that the books of the New Tefta- ment are genuine^ and that they were writ by perfons who lived at or near the time of thofe events of which they have given the hiftorj.
Any one may be fenfible, how hard it is for the moft learned, acute, and cautious man to write a book in the chara&er of fome perfon of an earlier age 5 and not betray his own time by fome miftake about the affairs of the age in which he pretends to place
him-
3 82 The Credibility of the Book IL
himfelf, or by allufions to cuftoms or prin- ciples fmce fprung up, or by fome phrafe or expreflion not then in ufe. It is no eafy thing to efcape all thefe dangers in the fmalleft performance, though it be a treatife of theory or fpeculation. Thefe hazards are greatly encreafed, when the work is of any length? and efpecially if it be hiftorical, and be con- cerned with chara&ers and cuftoms. It is yet more difficult to carry on fuch a defign in a work confiding of feveral pieces, writ to all appearance by feveral perfons. Many in- deed are defirous to deceive, but all hate to be deceived. And therefore, though attempts have been made to impofe upon the world in this way, they have never or very rarely fucceeded, but have been dete&ed and ex- pofed by the skill and vigilance of thofe who have been concerned for the truth.
The Volume of \ht~$ew Tejlamentcon- fifts of feveral pieces. Thefe are afcribed to eight feveral perfons. And there are the ftrongeft appearances that they were not all writ by any one hand, but by as many perfons as they are afcribed to. There are lefler differences in the relations of fome fads, and fuch feeming contradiftions as would never have happened, if thefe books
had
Gospel History. 383
had been all the work of one perfon, or of feveral who writ in concert. There are as manypeculiarities of temper andftilc5as there are names of writers : divers of which fhew no depth of Genius, or compafle of know- ledge. Here are reprefentations of the titles, pods, behaviour of perfons of higher and lower rank in many parts of the world. Perfons are introduced, and their chara&ers are fet in a full light. Here is a hiftory of things done in feveral cities and countries, and there are allufions to a vaft variety of cuftoms and tenets of perfons of feveral na- tions, fetts, and religions. The whole is writ without affe&ation, with the greateft fimplicity and plainneffe, and is confirmed by other ancient writers of unqueftioned authority.
If it be difficult for a perfon of learning and experience to compofe a fmall treatife concerning matters of fpeculation, with the characters of a more early age than that in which he writes ; it is next to impoffible, that fuch a work of confiderable length, confifting of feveral pieces, with a great variety of hiftorical fads, reprefentations of characters, principles, and cuftoms of feve- ral nations and diftant countries, of perfons 4. of
3 84- The Credibility of the Book It
of all ranks and degrees, of many interefis and parties, fhould be performed by eight feveral perfons, the moft of them unlearned, without any appearance of concert.
I might perhaps have called this argu- ment a demonftration, if that term had not been often mifapplied by men of warm imaginations, and been beftowed upon rea- foningsthat have but afmall degree of pro- bability. But though it fhould not be a drift demonftration , that thefe writings are genuine : or though it be not abfolutely im- poflible in the nature of the thing, that the books of the New Tejlament fhould have been compofed in a later age than that to which they are affigned, and of which they have innumerable characters 5 yet, I think, it is in the higheft degree improbable, and altogether incredible.
/ F the books of the New Tejlament were writ by perfons who lived before the deftruffion of Jerufalem, that is, if they were writ at the time in which they are [aid to have been writ, the things related in them are true. If they had not been matter of fad, they would not have been credited by any perfons near that time, and in thofe parts of the world in which they
arc
Gospel History. 38 f
are laid to have been done, but would have been treated as the moil: notorious lies and falihhoods. Suppofe three or four books fhould now appear amongft us in the lan- guage moft generally understood, giving an account of many remarkable and extraor- dinary events which had happened in (bme kingdome of Europe, and in the mod noted cities of the countries next adjoining to it 5 fome of them faid to have happened between fixty and feventy years ago, others between twenty and thirty, others nearer our own time : Would not they be looked upon as the moft manifeft and ridiculous forgeries and impoftures that ever were contrived > Would great numbers of perfons, in thofe very places, change their religious principles and praclifes upon the credit of things repor- ted to be publickly done which no man had ever heard of before ? Or rather, is it poffible that fucha defign as this fhould be conceived by any fober and ferious perfons, cr even the moft wild and extravagant ?
I F the hifiory of the New Tejtament be credible, the Chrijiian Religion is true. If the things here related to have been done by Jefus, and by his followers, by vir- tue of powers derived from him, do not
C c prove
386 The Credibility of the Book II.
prove a perfon to come from God, and that his doftrine is true and divine, nothing can^ And as Jefus does here in the circumftances of his birth, life, fufFerings, and after ex- altation, and in the fucceffe of his do&rine anfwer the defcription of the great perfon promifed and foretold in the Old Tejla,- ment, he is at the fame time fhewed to be the Meffiah.
FROM the agreement of the writers of the New Teflament with other ancient writers we are net only affured that thefe books are genuine, but alfo that they are come down to us pure and uncorrupted, without any confiderable interpolations or alterations. If fuch had been made in 'em, there would have appeared fome fmaller differences at left between them and other ancient writings.
There has been in all ages a wicked propenfity in mankind to advance their own notions and fanfics by deceits and forgeries. They have been practifed by Heathens^ Jews, and Chriftians, in iupport of ima- ginary hiftorical fads, religious ichemesand pra&ifes, and political interefts. With thefe views fome whole books have been forged, and pafTages inferted into others of undoubt- ed
Gospel History, &c. 3 87
ed authority. Many of the Chriftian wri- ters of the fecond and third centuries, and of the following ages appear to have had falfe notions concerning the ftate of Judea between the nativity of Jefus and the de. ftru&ion of Jerufalem, and concerning many other things occafionally mentioned in the New Tejiament. The confent of the beft ancient writers with thofe of the New Tejiament is a proof, that thefe books are ftill untouched, and that they have not been new modelled and altered by Chriftians of later times in conformity to their own pe- culiar Sentiments.
This may be reckoned an argument, that the generality of Chriftians have had a very high veneration for thefe book:, 5 or elfe, that the feveral feds among them have had an eye upon each other, that no altera- tions might be made in thofe writings to which they have all appealed. It is alfo an argument, that the Divine Providence has all along watched over and guarded thefe beft of books (a very fie objefl: of an efpecial care) which contain the beft of principles, were apparently writ with the beft views, and have in them inimitable chara&ers of truth and Ilmplicity.
C c z AN
388
A N
APPENDIX
Concerning the time of Herod's death.
N all enquiries concern- ing the chronology of the Neiv Tejlament, and particularly concerning the true time of our Sa- viour's nativity, and the commencement of his miniftry, it is very needful to take into confederation the time of Herod the Great's death. Indeed it is very desirable in the firft place to fettle exactly the date of this event. But to do this is a veiy hard task. Nor has any one yet been (o happy, as to remove all difficul- ties
y4 T T E N T> I X. 389
ties and give univerfal iatisfatfion upon this head.
That none may be quite at n lofle in judging of the difficulty confidered in the
third chapter of this Volume, I (hall here give a brief account of this matter.
The chief opinions at prefent concern- ing the time of Herod's death are thefc three. Some think he died a little before the pafibver of A, U. 750, Julian year 42. others, on Novemb. 25, that fame year: others, a fnort time before the Pafibver, A.U. 751.
§\ I. The Englifh reader may fee all, in a manner, that can be (aid for the fecond opinion, in Mr. fVhifton's Jhort View of the Harmony of the four Evangeiifls, Prop.iz. But, though feveral very learned men have embraced this opinion, it appears to me a meer hypothecs without foundation. The only ground of it is a jexvifi account of their Feafts and Fafts, in which that day is noted as aFeaft ; becaufe on it Herod died. But (a) this book appears to be of no au- thority.
(a) SecI'f»it6.Annote.Mattb ii. 23 Ltmy Apparat. Chronol. Fart. i. cap. 9. §. 5.
C c 3 §. II. That
39o ATTEKVIX.
$.11. That Herod died but a fhort time before Tome one of the jewijh Paff- overs, is evident from (a) Jofephus. If we re j eft entirely his authority, it is in vain to talk about the time of Herod's death. ^Arch elans kept a Paffover in Judea after his father's death, before he went to Rome 5 which he would not have done, if it had not been near. He had good reafon to haften to Rome. He had many enemies. Herod Antipas had been appointed his fa- ther's fucceifor in a former Will, and he pre- tended that Will ought to take place. When the Jews at the Temple made their de- mands of Archdcms , he gave them fair words, that they might not make any di~ fturbance and retard his journey (b\ he being in haft to go to Rome. This haft is expreffed by Jofephus in the JVar, and in the ^Antiquities in very ftrong terms. Ar. chelaus7 in his way to Rome, at Cejarea, met Sabtnus the Emperour's Procurator in
(a) D-: Bell. h..ci. Jnt'tq 17. C 9.
(b) IV : <- -c,^o)\vnro ft 'A(%iAoc&', kitay^ro j tw etffiuvxv psro £ nip tw sfyJlbv Ixiihcoc, k. A. DeBell. z. c. 1. §. 3. Tyroic
tAfifclhoWq, XeUKSg OilVusS Qh$W 7V\V 'ogl/j^V OtVTW, iffSViVSj £%6)V TB» £7Tl Y60f/tVl$ OCcill ayJicJ^ 9FgOX8l[it6V1lV UVTM TCtfcOS, Sfil 7TSPt(TX0-
nwrsi T Sftpnw Ta K-Muraei. Antiq. 17. c.p. §.i.
Syria.
ATT EWDIX. 391
Syria, who was going {a) in all haft to Je- rufalem to fccure Herod's treafurc for c//«- guflus. By help of the interceffions of Va- rus, prefident of Syria ("who was then like wife at Ce fared) Archelatis prevailed up- on Sabinus to promife, that he would not proceed any farther. But notwithstanding that, when Archelaus was gone away, he went up to Jerufalem -, and there ordered all things, according to his own will and pleafurc. This was all managed without any orders from Rome. If Herod had been dead two or three months, they would have had directions from thence upon this matter. Nay, if Herod had been dead one month, this vigilant Procurator would have been at Jerufalem before now. I think this has not been infilled on by any before. But I take it to be a demonftration, that, according to Jofphus, Herod's death happened but a very fhort fpace before fome Pafiover.
§\ III. That Herod died a little before the PalTover A. U. 750* Jul. year 42, is argued in this manner. His d idem per had made great progrefie before the pulling down
(a) 'XieeatrtaQu et[' cv Kxis-xeux. rot 'Aex&ccov Z«e/3!»o$,
fjuivoc, i7rV (pv^ctKy r 'Hoa}# y^jylr m . Antiq. ibid, §. 3. vid.cC Pe B, ibid, £.£•$.$.
Cc 4 the
'&% ATT EH 2) / X
the Golden Eagle at the Temple. The jewijh Rabbies excited their Scholars to this a&ion, News being brought that Herod was (d) dying, as it is in the War •> (b) dead, as it is in the Antiquities . Thefe Rabbies were taken up and carried to Je- richo, where Herod was. A council was called, and they were tried, Herod was fo ill that he could not ftand, and notwith- ftanding the new ftrength (c) which rage gave him upon this occafion he was carried (d) to the council in a chair. Soon after this thefe Rabbies were burnt to death, and that very (e) night there was an eclipfe of the moon. This eclipfe, according toaftrono- mical computations, happened (f) the 13 th March, A. U. 750. After this, Herod grew worfe and worfe. It is plain, he could not live long. The Paffovcr (g) of this year happened the nth of JpriL From
(0) A^.p^/ff-^ «) 6v>i<rxtiv 6 /Zc,<rtXstj$. deBell. I.e. 33. §.1,
Aoy©-' he, kvT%r? tsQvccvxi, (pecc'Can T ficcrtXict, J^ <rVVi7TfCtTTS to7$ <rc<ptT&S<:. Antiq. I7?c.6. §. ^. (c) 'Exi txto.i; 6 ficc<riAiii>;y
skxavc-Uv, x, A. de Bell 1. C. 33. §. 4. (d) Kcc]
7rcif£Cyn,oyjivuy> l\ptv.\wik<ru.e> !<§ to clvtq Qi&Tpov Izl kam^'lis Kiip&oc, ft^vrnfjulec & won. Antiq. ibid. {?) &al ij
fihm 3 rjj uvrvi wktI i%ifax&p ibid. §. 4. (/) Petav.
PoOrj, Temp. 1. xi. c. 1. (s) Vid. ytny App. £hron.p.58,
the
s4T T E H T) I X. 395
the 1 3th of March to the i ith of April is a fufficicnt fpacc of time for all that Jofephui has related concerning Herod s illncflc, his fettling his affairs, the execution of Jnti* pater, Herod's death and funeral 5 which arc the things placed between the Ecliple and Arckelauss coming to Jerufalem at the Paflbvcr.
In the JVar, (a) Jofephus fays that Ar- chelaus was banifhed in the ninth year of his reign: In the Antiquities, that he was ac. cufed before Auguftus by the Jews and Samaritans in the (b) tenth year of his government. In his o'jun life Jofephus fays, that his father was born in the (c) tenth year of Arche/aus's reign. From whence one would be apt to conclude, that Arche^ laus reigned nine years compleat ,• and that the tenth year was current, when he was ba. nifhed. T>io (d) places Jrchelaus's banifh- ment in the 7 5 9th year of Rome. If He- rod did not die till the beginning of A. U-
(a) Era t7}cu etpxw vnetret QvyoioiviTcci fjuiv 11$ Jllmxv. de B. I. Z- C. 7. § v (h Aixut? j *«' "?*$ ct'xfis 'Ao^Xocat ci
VacoToi y,x.Trl-/opz(Ttv ocvrS tVi Kcn<rcip(&j. J. 17. c. 1 5. lm
(c) Kcci [ylviTxi] MurClxs fiaa-ttevoT®-' 'Ao%£Xu% to ^tKurcy §. 1. (d) O, T£ 'Hgafo$ 0 nccXcu<rv:vo<;,—-vzro rui
P 5*^7. B.
75t. the
394 A P T E NT) I X.
751, the ninth year of Archelaush reign could not be completed in the 7 5 9th year of Rome. But if Herod be fuppofed to have died the beginning of A.U. 750? J°fe" fhus and T>io agree. Moreover, Jojep&us jays that (a) Cyrenius feifcd Archelaus's eftate, and finiflied the Affeflcmcntin Judea in the thirty feventh year after the defeat of Antony at Aciium by Cefar Auguftus. The viftory at Aiiiurn was obtained the 2d- Septemb. A. U. 72?. Therefore the 37th year from it begins 2d. Sept. A. U. 7^9^ and ends 2d. Sept. 760. Supposing then, that Herod died the beginning of A. U. 750, there is in this particular alfo a very good harmony between Jojcphus and <Dio. There is however one great difficulty attending this opinion. For Jofephus has faid in two places, that Herod reigned thir- ty four years after the death of (b) Antigo- nus 5 and thirty fiven years after he was
(a~) Ky^)W©» 'j rot, 'AgfciXaa ^yjecra &hn£oyjtv(&' «<?V, j£ *r "bhttTkyjlitricov %ipa<; 1%'dQ-ocv t ca i-yivovro Tgia.Ko$co y^j tfi&cyju> Z7U fjutToc T?tv 'Avravia cv 'Aktim yiTTav \Z3~o ¥.ui(rc.e<^" Antics* 1. l8. C.2. §. I.
(£) — TzXivtu. fixcihivcrecs u<p' 8 /* "tertKTzivcti; 'Avrlyovev *--
Papalm kxi^ily^vi ficuriteUy tnTot. ^ Tgla,KovT<x,% de B. J. 1. I,
cult. §. 8. vid. 6v Amiq. 17. c. 8. § s.
declared
ATTEHDIX. w
declared King by the Roman Senate. And he places this declaration of {a) the Senate in A. U. 714, the death of (b) Antigonus in the year 717. If indeed at the beginning of A. U. 750, Herod had reigned thirty- fix years compleat from the firft date of his reign, and thirty three from the later 5 fo that the 37th of the one epocha, and the 34th of the other were to be current at the time of his death ; then Herod might be faid not improperly to have reigned, with refpeft to the one, thirty feven years, and to the other, thirty four. It is fuppofed by fome learned men that Herod was declared King by the Senate, (c) toward the very end of the year 714, by others (d) the later end of OElober or beginning of No- vember, by others ( e) in September or 0£to. bery by others (/) about the middle oijuly, that year. But then, at the beginning of the year 750, Herod could not have reigned from this date thirty fix years compleat, nor was the 37th year current. Herod took Je-
(a) Antiq. 14. c. 14 §. 5. JeB. 1. c. 14- §. 4. (b) Antifc 14. c. ult. §. 4. (c) Alix de J. C. Anno 8c menfc nataii.
p.7y- ('0 Bafnage Ann. Polit, E. Vol. I. p. 17. n. \6m
(e) Norif. Cenot. Pif p. 1 39. V*gi Aftar. p. 80. {f) H htfloris fiort view. p. i^o.
rufafcm
39^ AT ? E N'b I X.
rufalem as fome (a) think in September A. U. 717, others (£), about the end of June, Archbifhop Ufloer (V), on the firft: of January this year. If the Archbifhop's fuppofition could be allowed, we fnould have here no difficulty. But if any of the others are followed, then from this date of Herod's reign, viz. the taking of Jerufaletn, or the death of ^Antigonus (which are ail one) to the beginning of the year 750, we have not quite thirty three years compleat, nor is the thirty fourth current.
I n anfwer to this difficulty it is faid (d) by learned men, that the years of the jewzjb Kings were computed from the beginning of the Month Nifan, which ufually anfwers pretty near to our March. Infomuch that, if a King began to reign in any part of the year before, even in February, another year of his reign would begin with Nifan , that is, March. So Jofephus relates, that Jerufalem was taken (e) by Tompey when
(a) Alix ubi fupra. p. 117. (b) Whi(lon\h\d. p.i^i.
B-fiwge ibid-p. 30. n. 9. (c) Annals. P.J. 4677. (V/JInde etiam anni regum Hebraeorum fupputabantur, ita ut fi quis Rex in Adar regnaret, a Nifan alter annus imperii ejus inciperet, Rdnnd. Antiq.Heb.de Temporib. facris, c. 1. init. \id,&K>p- ler. de ann. natal. J. C. cap. 7. P- 4^- (*) <dntie[. 14.
c,4- $.3.
Antony
AT T E NT) I X. 397
Antony and Cicero were Conluls, by Herod, when M. Agripfa and Caninius Callus were confuls, on the very anniverfary of the fame calamity from Pompey, it having been taken by him on the fame (a) day twenty ftven years before : Though there were but twenty fix years compleat between thefe two events. And from the taking of Jerufalem by Herod to its dc ftru&ion by Titus, Jofephus computes (J?) one hundred and feven years, though it was but one hundred and fix compleat. But, in my opinion, thefe inftances are not home to the point. For in them the year named is current. Whereas, in the cafe before us it is not fo. If Herod died in the beginning of the year 750, the thirty third and thirty fixth years of his reign were not compleat. §. IV. Other (c ) learned men fup- pofe that Herod died a fhort time before the PafTover A. U. 751. This they argue from the number of years affigned to Herod*s reign in the places above mentioned. They do not allow the truth of the Talmudical ac- count of computing the Reigns of the jewifh
(a) Ibid. c. 1 6. §. 4. (b) Ibid. 20. c. p, vid. Kepler
'bid. {() Vic4. Lamy Appar. Chror. Part i. c. ix. Baf-
nage Anna!. Pol. Ecc, Vol.i. p if6. n,v.
Kingc
3P8 AVTENTHX.
Kings fromche beginning of Nifan or from the Pafifover. If Jofephus had followed fuch a kind of computation, he would have given forne hint of it in his books writ in the Greek language and for the inftru&ion of ftrangers. They fay alfo, that Herod's was a flow lingring diftemper ; and that it is not likely he fhould die fo foon after the exe- cution of the Rabbies and their accomplices, as is fuppofed by the Patrons of the former opinion. Laftly, they obferve the (a) a- greement of all the other numbers in Jofe- fhm concerning the dates of the reign of Archelaus and other fons of Herod.
This opinion however labours under feveral very great difficulties. ^Dio's account of the removal of Archelaus is entirely reje&ed. But to do this (J?) is not very rea- fonable. Farther, the fupporters of this opinion muft allow of the Eclipfe above- mentioned 5 or they muft fay it was no real eclipfe, but only fome obfcurity that was taken tor an Eclipfe. If they allow the Eclipfe, then Herod muft have lived a year
(a) Note, the learned men, whoefpoufe the former opinion, fuppofe alfo that Jofcpbus's numbers in all other places agree with them. (6) Vid.Ncrif. Cenot.ftly. 147.
after
ATTEND! X.
after the execution of the Rabbies, provided he died (a) but a few days before the Pad- over A. U. 751* But it is incredible that Herod fhould live fo long, confidcring the defcription Jofephus gives of the diftemper. Befides, it is evident that the Mourning of the jewifi people for the Rabbies, at the Pall- over next after Herod's death, was (J?) very frefh, which it could not have been, if the Rabbies had been dead above a year before. Moreover, it is evident, that Herod's Am- bafladors were lent away to Rome to know x_Auga[lus's plealure concerning exfe/i- pater, feme time {c) before the difturbance at the Temple, when the Golden Eagle was taken down. And it is very plain, that Herod lived not (d) many days after the ar- rival of the AmbafTadors. So that according to this opinion thefe Ambafladors muft have fpent above a year in their journey from Judea
(a) Quae aptis temporibustribui non pofTjnt..nifi haec mors contigerit jam aliquibus menfibus promoto Anno U. C. 75-1, in quo comprobavimus mortuum fuifle Herodcm. Quoquo autem anno mortuus fit, non multis ante pascha diebus mors ilia obtigit,utteftaturJofephus,cui fidem iidhibemus.Lawy ubifupra.U
(6) 'H* 3 TO 7Tiv6(^ &% lSGT£<?C&Xyj2V0V, 0L?&' OlffiGfyoit ^ICITTPU-
cloi> ^ @gfiv'&j iymtev7<&' , xoxsrot n Trip^avTEs 'oXw rwiroXw. deB. z. c.i. §.a. vid. & Antiq. 17. c.9. §. 1. (c) Dd
B.i. c 32. fin. Antiq. 17. c. ?. fin. (</) DeD. ibid.c. 32.
§. 7, 8. Antiq. ibid. c. 7. 8c c. 8.§. 1.
t3
3
99
4oo ATTEWDIX.
to Rome and back again, though they were fent upon very preffing bufincfle, which is alfo incredible. Or they rriuft reject the account of the Eclipfe and fay, as Father Lamy(a) does, that it was only apalencffe or obicurity which was no real Eclipfe of the Moon i which, I believe, will appear very unreafonable to all Aftronomers.
These are the three principal opinions concerning the time of Herod's death. And thek the main arguments for, and objections againft them. I prefume it appears to the read- er from particulars allcdged from Jofephuszni ^Dhy That Herod did not die before the year 750, nor furvive the year 751 : And that he died a fhort time before xhcjewifh Paffover, of one of thefc years.lt follows that if Herod died in 750, he died three years and nine months before the Vulgar Chriftian ^Era, which com- mences January 1. A. U. 754. If at the time abovementioned in the year 751, then he died about two years and nine months be- fore the faid ^Era. Which is the truth I dare not determine.
(a) Ubi fupra. §.d.
FINIS.
INDEX
T O T H E
Second Volume.
M E, ajevijh wo- | man pat to death at
p. 211.
l\\ AUrich (Dr.) com- mended, 275. Ant/pater, eldeft Son of Herod the Great, concern'd in the murder cf the infants at Bethlehem, p. 206. His ddign topoyfcnhis father, zio, 2:1, 212. The time of his laft jour- ney to Rome fettled, 218, — 22;.
'A*»yp*0i». The meaning of this word, p. 1 19, 120,
Afofoment, the nature of a Ro- man AfTeHcment,2,o — jy.Somc- times made in the territories of
dependent King?, 5-8, — 6f. That there was one made in Judea at the time of oar Sa- viour's birth, 6f — ioi. Augujcus, feveral computations of hisreign9 238. The nature: of this title of Auguftus, 157 .
B,
BAroniits, his miftake of Plim'e, 6. Thought Cyren'mt was twice Governour of S/rla, 113.
Bafrage (of FlottemanviUe) his Solution concerning the diffe- rent names of Herodias's firft husband. 3 1 8.
B.itricides, his peculiar opinion concerning Simon the j Lift, 370.
Beza, his foluuon concerning. Cjrer/tuSs tax, 1/3, <J»g,
Dd
Caiaphjt
INDEX,
c.
CAiapkAs, called Jofepb by the hiftorian Jofephus, 332.
C'i'ita {Auguflus'i adopted fon) his journey through Judea, 9 1 .
Cenfui. See Ajfejfement)
Clerc. See Le Clerc.
Cjrmms, the account of his com- ing into Judea afrer the re- moval of Archelaus, 103. His true name, 1 1 o. His chara&er, 15-6, 157. Divers particular folutions of the chief difficulty concerning hisTaxe,i 12 — 1S8.
E.
EMperour, this title given to collegues in the Roman Em- Pire> 253.
E'Afebtus (of Ccfarea) cenfured, 186. An Execution made by Herod at Jerusalem, 70, — 73,224, 225.
FAbatus, Procurator of Au- gustus in Arabia and Judea,
Ifcfor (Tanquil) commended, 1 1 8,
C^1 Amalirt, the force of his rea- y ibning in favour of the Apoftles, 107,—- no.
H.
HErod (the Great) always a dependent tributary prince, 53, — 57. reduced to a more ftrift fubjeclionto the Romans^
65, e^ Several opinions of learned men concerning the time of his death, 298, and 389. &c.
Herod, (Son of Herod the Great, by the High-Prieft's daughter) hishiftory, 316, &c.
Henvaert , his interpretation of Luke ii. 2 . 123.
H'gh-Prieft's Vefimem. See ViteU lias.
i
I.
£#*, the regifters of their fa- milies in being till the de- ftru&ion of Jerusalem, 49. praelifed divorces, both men and women, 320. note D.
Jefus, the true time of his nati- vity, 229 — 237. The durati- on of his miniftry according to the firft Chrifrian writers, 263, 264. The time of his cruci- fixion according to the fame writers, 297*
Jofepb, on what account he was obliged by Auguftus's decree to enrole himfeif, 47. Why he went to Btthlehem to be enrol- led, > . 48.
Jjfephus (the jewijh hiftorian} pre- tended to prophecy, 77, 80. was a firm Jew, 8o, — 8i. His paffages concerning a terrible execution at Jerufalem, 70, — 73, 224, 225. calls L'n<ia, Au~ guftus's wife, Julia, 331. calls Caiapbas Jofepb, 331.
K.
KEpUr, quoted, 77. nctez. 124. 293.
U
INDEX.
LE Clerc (John) quoted, 124. 244, 3 56. commended, i~8. Livia (Auguftus's wife) called Ju- lia, by Jofefhus9 331.
M.
MAry the (BlefTed Virgin) why lhe went to Bethle- hem at the time of the taxi 117, So.
N.
NAthity. See Jefus. Nebuchadnezzar , two computations of his reigns 37.
Nerva did not refign the empire to Trajan, 261, 2,62 .
Nicolas (of Damafctts) his cha- racter, and his AmbafTy to Au- guftus, 68, &c. Was very in- timate with He^oJ, 92. mag- nified the fuccefTe of his am- bafly, 2257.
o
o.
Ath, taken by the Jbw, to Cefar and Herod, 71. was the fame thing with St. Luke's enrolment, 74, &c.
Theroras, enquiries into the oc- cafion of his death, 213.
Theroras's Wife, mifreprefented by Jofephus, 82, 86.
Pilate (Pontius,) when he came into Jadea, and when removed,
273, 281. Objections con-
fidered, 281 287. Made
away with himfelf, 287
Philo, i peaks of four Sons of He- rod living in the time of PiUte,
3*4.
Fifo (Lucius) when made pretecl: of Rome, 24' 2 jo.
Pifo (Vrefident of Syria) his delays? in going to Rome after his re- moval, 284, 285.
Trefident, this title taken in a ge- neral Senfe, 15-5, 303.
Prideaux (Dr. Humphry) com- mended. 330. His opinion con- cerning the afleflement at our Saviour's nativity confidered, 10.
Prince, when ufed abfblutely, e- quivalent to Emperour, 252.
S*Caliger ijofeph) his fenfe of f Luke \\ 2. 160, 167.
Selden, his opinion concerning the authority of Annas and Caia- pbas, ^ 305, ere.
Sutdas, his pafTages concerning Auguftus's cenfus. 7, 8.
T)Agi (Dr. Antony) commended,
X l|o.
Tertzontus, his interpretation of L«&«ii. 2. reprefented and con- hdered, 126, — 152.
Fhxrifces, fix thoufand of them re rule to fwear to Cefar and i/m?</, 7 r , #r.
TEmple at Jerufalem, that ft had been 46 years in build- ing at the firfl pafibver of our Saviour's miniftry, 288, — 296. Tertullian, iays the Tax at our Saviour's birth was made by Saturninus, 182, 208. com- mit red
INDEX.
mitted great miftakes in hiftory,
183, 215.
Tiberius, two computations of
the time of his reign, 2 39—.—
25-6. Objections againH: this
Supposition, 256,— 264.
The date of the firft computa- tion, 265* — z6o. A Dilatory Prince, 185, 286.
U.
VArus (Sht'wtilius) when he came Prefident into Syria, 209. YitelUus (Prefident of Syria) dis- places Pilate, puts the -keeping of the BighPrieft's veftmenc
into the hands of the yews, and does feveral other things at Jerufdem, 273—2,7?
W.
WHiJlon (William) his fuppo- fition that the Jews were enrolled by Herod at the requeft of Auguflus, 45. His folution of a difficulty concerning Cy- r emus' s Tax, 1 1 7-— 1 2 3 . Hi$ opinion concerning the time of Pilate's removal, 28 ^--287. concerning the time of Herod's death, considered, 389. Whitby his interpretation of Luke ii.i. iz<f3&c.
CO |
c9 |
oo |
CO |
06" |
00 |
00 |
Of |
©o |
A Catalogue of BOOKS Printed for and Sold by A. Bettejworth, at the Red-Lion iii ¥ater-NofteY-Row\
A lo 5. <J
ATalantis, 4 Vol. nvcs. Apuleius's Golden Afs, 2 Vol. i2ves. Adas Manuale: OiyA Seer of fmall Maps. By Moll. 8vo. Athenian Oracle, now in the Prefs, Svo. A&a Regia : Or, An Abridgment of Mr. Rymer's Fcedera. Pub
linYd Monthly, at 1 s. each. Apollo's Feaft, izves. co 01 00
Art of Pleafing in Converfation, in French and Englifh. By Car- £.
dinal Richlieu. i2ves. S °°
Agreeable Variety, 8vo.- Art of Thinking. Tianflated by Ozell. i2ves. Arabian Nights Entertainment, Complear, 6 Vol. izyqs- Abrjdgment Statutes, 6 Vol. 8vo. Addifon's Travels, i2ves.
Works, 3 Vol. i2ves. Works, 4 Vol. 4x0. Aecomplifh'd Conveyancer, 3 Vol. 8vo.
B
"DRidgman's Conveyancer, Folio.
-0 Biihop Blackhall's Works, 2 VoL Folio.
Biihop Burner on the Thirty nine Articles, Folio.
Abridgment of his Hiftory of the Reformation, 3 Vol. i2ves. Dr. Barrow's Works, 2 Vol. Fol. Book of Homiles, Folio, 1726. Boyce on the Thirty nine Articles, Folio. Burnet's Theory of the Earth, 2 Vol. tivo. Dr. Bates Works, Folio, 1724.
Burnec's (Dr. Thomas,) Sermons at Boyle's Lectures, for the Years J724, 172/, 2 Vol.
ElTay upon Government, 8vo. Scripture Trinity, 8vo. Blackmore's ('Sir Richard) Eflays, 2 Vol. 8vo.
Creation, a Poem, i2Ves. Redemption, a Poem; being a Supple menc to the Creation, 8vo. Buchanan's Hiftory of Scotland, 2 Vol. Engliih, with curious £-
Cuts, 8vo. Boyer's Fienchand Englifh Dictionary, 8vo.
Telemachus, 2 Vol. lives. Bailey's Etymological Englifls Dictionary
Transition of Erafmus Colloquies. Bruyere's Works, 2 Vol. Tranllated horn the French, 8vo. Betterton's Life with the Amorous Widow. Behn's Novels, 2 Vol. iaves.
Plays, 4 Vol. I2ves. Boerhavc's Aphorifms, Tianflated into Englifh, 8vo. Mrs. Barker's Novels, 2 Vol. i2Ves.
Patchwork Screen, 2 Vol. i2ves. Britiih Apollo, 3 Vol. i2Ves. containing two Thoufand Anfwei's to Curious QueJtions in molt Arts and Sciences, iivct.
A
c 00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
oS |
00 |
03 |
06* |
00 |
IJ |
00 |
01 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
09 |
oo |
03 |
00 |
00 |
00 |
18 |
00 |
• I |
10 |
00 |
01 |
12 |
00 |
00 |
12 |
00 |
~l 00 02 |
OQ |
00 |
02 |
00 |
|
00 |
12 |
00 |
00 |
OQ |
00 |
00 |
12 |
00 |
01 |
O/ |
06 |
£ 00 |
09 |
00 |
00 |
CI |
co- |
00 |
02 |
co |
00 |
II |
00 |
00 $ o° > 00 |
02 |
00 |
04 |
00 |
|
II |
00 |
|
00 |
07 |
00 |
00 |
°S |
06 |
00 |
c7 |
00 |
oo |
9J |
06 |
00 |
09 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
06* |
00 |
°J |
CO |
00 |
12 |
00 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
30 |
OS |
00 |
OO |
°s |
00 |
}„0 |
00 |
00 |
Britiih |
F-23.
fcritilh Compendium i Containing the Defcents of the Engliih,") Scotch, and Irifh Nobility, with their Arms curioufly Engra- r ven, 3 Vols. i2ves. J
Builders Dictionary, 8vo. Dr. Brown of Cold Baths. laves. B^ileau's Art of Poetry, 4 Canto's, i2ves.
Lutrin : An Heroi-Comical Poem. BulftroJe ( Whit lock) Effays, 8vo. Bridges of Fra&ions, i2ves.
Bradley's New Improvements in Planting and Gardening, 8vo. Byihe's Art of Poetry^ 2 Vol.
Blackmore's Ecclefiaftical Antiquity, abridg'd from Bingham,a Vol. Ball's Aftrology improv'd '"
Btukett of the New Teftament, Folio. *
Beveridge's Piivare Thoughts, 8vo. Ditto, lives. Prayer, 8vo. Ditto, i2ves. Blackmore on Confumptions, 8vo. on the Spleen
on the Gout and Rheumatifm on the Vapours. Binoham's Antiquities, 2 Vols. Folio. Brown (Tho .) Works, j Vols, izves. Biihop's Sermons at Lady Moyer's Leaure, 8vo. Baynard of fcot and Cold Baths, 8vo.
C
CAffandra : A fam'd Romance, j Vols. i2ves Cook of Forefb Trees, 8vo. Bi lop Cumberland, De Legibus Naturae, 8"vo. Cato's Letters, + Vols. laves Cave's Primitive Chnfhanity, 8vo. Calamy's (Benj.) Sermons, 8vo Clark's Body of Divinity, 2 Vol. 8vo. Cocker's Englii-hDiaionarySvo.
Decimal Anthmetick, 8vo. Countefs of Morcon's Devotions 24s. • n, Comber's Companion to the Altar, 8vo. <
Sr-ftian Pattern, Trauflated from the Latin of Tho. a Kempis.a^. Culpeper'sEnRlilhPhyficianEnlarg'd r Y Midwife, i2ves.
Difpenfatory, iaves. ^nrtiisr Tranilated horn the Italian. Cap of Gray Hairs for a Green Head, 8vo. Croxall's^fop's Fables, raves. rox's Hiftory of Carohna, Svo.
Crufo's Lite abridg'd, in a neat Pocket Volume, i2ves. clmbray's Private Thoughts upon Religion laves. Cornelius Nepos, EnglinYd by feveral Hands, lives.
S^S^-he^t,nd Altar, rave,
Ch v i deVaudray, a Novel, lives.
JYO.
1. |
s. |
<*. |
01 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
04. |
00 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
ob |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
°* |
o5 |
00 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
06 |
06 |
00 |
OS |
00 |
00 |
II |
00 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
01 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
09 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
03 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
03 |
06 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
00 ' |
03 |
06 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
02 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
12 |
0$ |
00 |
OS |
00 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
00 |
15 |
00 |
00 |
05 |
06 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
10 |
.00 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
00 |
04 |
06 |
00 |
09 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
04 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
OS |
00 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
06 |
06 |
£00 |
02 |
06 |
Clark's |
en
Clark's Anfwer to the Religion of Nature delineated, 8vo.
Di to, againft Hutrhinfon's Ideas of B.aury, 8vo. Clarendon's (Lord) Fiftory of rhc Pebcllion, 6 Vols. Svo. Cafes again (t the -DifTenters, 3 Vols. 8vo. Clark, (Dr. Samuel,) on the Artribures, 8vo.
Seventeen Sermons at Sc. James's, 8vo.
on the Gofpels, 2 Vols. 8vo." Cheyne (Dr.) on Health and Long Lite, 8vo. Congreve's Plays and Poems, ^Vols. izves. Critical riiltory of England, 2 Vols. 870* Chefelden's Anatomy, 8vo. Cambden's Britannia 2 Vols. Folio. Chmches no Chavnel Houfes, proving the Indecency of Burying in
Churches and Church-Yarns. Carcafe's Bo jk of Rates. Folio 1726. Comical Hiltory of Francion, 2 Vols. t2ves. Chambers's Dictionary ot ^rts and Sciences, 2 Vols. Folio. Chillipgworth's W rks, Folio, 1726". Chandler (Blfl op) Defence ot Chrftianity, 8vo» Collier's Sacred Interpreter, 2 Vol. 8vo. Cambray ot the Being and Existence of God, laves. Clarendon and Whitlock compared, 8vo. Collier's Antoninus, 8vo.
1. |
s. |
d. |
00 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
01 |
05 |
01 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
IS |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
II |
00 |
00 |
04 |
o5 |
00 |
09 |
00 |
00 |
II |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
03 |
10 |
09 |
00 |
01 |
|
01 |
or |
|
00 |
OS |
06 |
00 |
12 |
06 |
00 |
°J |
06 |
00 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
°s |
00 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
DOtmt's Civil Law in its Natural Order, Tranilated by Dr. ? Strahan, 2 Vols. Fol. S Z
Dupin's Me hod of Studying Divinity, 8vo. Dionis's Midwirry, Englifh, 8vo. Devout Chriftian's Companion, 2 Volsv i2ves. Dacicr's Abridameat ot Plato's Works. Tranflated from the ^L French, 2 Vols. i2ves. 3
Dreiincourc of Deach, Svo.
DicHonarium RuhVtcum &Urbanicum: Or,ADi£Uonary of Country £. Affairs, 2 Vols. 8vo. 3
Defoe's orks, 2 Vols. 8vo. Dr-exeliud's Hourly Companion, i2ves. Derham's Phyfuo-Theology, 8vo. A tiro-Theology, 8vo. Dupin's Hiftory of the Church, abridg'd, in four neat Pocket- 7 Volumes, i2ves. $
Dryden's Plays, in 5 Vols. i2ves.
Mlfceilanies, 6VAs. i2ves. Virgil, with Cuts, 3 Vols, i zves. Juvenal, lives. Fables. Ditton, on the Refurrection, 8vo.
on Fluids, 8vo. Defence of the Female Sex.
Dalton's Country Juftice, with large Additions, by W. Nelfon, ? Efq; Folio, 171& 3
Danois's Tales ot the Fairies, 3 Vol. I2ves< Di&ionary of all Religions, 8vo. Degolls on Worms, Svo- Du&or Hiftoricus, ..a Vo.s. 8vo»
0i 05
00 |
oj- |
00 |
00 |
04 |
05 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
0/ |
00 |
00 |
oy |
00 |
00 |
00 |
00 |
00 |
10 |
oa |
00 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
• 00 |
10 |
00 |
01 |
00 |
oo |
00 |
18 |
00 |
00 |
II |
00 |
00 |
03 |
06 |
00 |
03 |
06 |
00 |
05 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
lot |
05 |
00 |
00 |
07 |
06 |
80 |
04 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
10 |
Otf |
A 2
R»filand*«
[43
E
oo |
OI |
vC |
00 |
04 |
06 |
oo |
OI |
00 |
oo |
02 |
06 |
01 |
16 |
00 |
01 |
OS |
00 |
oo |
°9 |
00 |
oo |
°3 |
06 |
oo |
02 |
06 |
oo |
04. |
06 |
OI |
00 |
00 |
oo |
03 |
00 |
oo |
01 |
00 |
oo |
04. |
06 |
oo |
02 |
06 |
oo |
02 |
06 |
Na.land's Intereft : Or, The Gentleman and Farmer's Friend.
Engliih Liberties : Or, The Free-born Subjects Inheritance. By W. Nelfon, Efqj Effay on the Tranfmutation of the Blood, Svo. Eutropius, in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. Echard's Hiftory of England, Folio. Roman Hiftory, 5 Vols. Svo. Ecclehaftical Hiftory, 2 Vols. 8vo. Gazetteer, in Two Parts, i2ves. Terence, i2ves. Hiftory of the Revolution, Svo. Eufebius's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, Englifli, Folio. Etheridge's Plays, i2ves. Englifh Expofitor, i2ves. Echard's (Dr.) Works, 8vo. England's Black Tribunal, i2ves. Everard's Gauging, i2ves. Eikon Bafilike : To which is added, The Life of King Charles ">
the Firft, by Perinchief. $ °° °* °6
F
FLavell's Works, 2 Vol. Folio. Husbandry Spiritualiz-'d, I2ves. Navigation Spiritualiz'd, 8vo. Bifhop Fleetwood's Relative Duties, 8vo. Fiiher's Aiithmetick, I2ves. Farrier's and Horfeman's Dictionary, 8vo. Familiar Letters of Love and Gallantry, in Two neat Pocket
Volumes, i2ves. Florus in Ufum Delphini, 8vo.
Frauds of the Romi/h Priefts and Monks, in Two Volumes, lives. Fable of the Bees, 8vo. Fiiend's Hiftory of Phyfick, 2 Vols. Svo. Freeholder, I2ves. Fuller's Pharmacopoeia Extemporanea, lives.
The fame in Englilh, Svo. Fidde's Sermons, Folio. Furquhar's Plays and Poems, 2 Vols. i2ves.
G
Goodman's (DrJ Penitent pardoned, Svo. Winter Evening Conference, Svo. Old Religion, j rves. Glanvill of Witches, 1726. Svo. Gordon's (Patrick) Geographical Grammar, 8vo.
(George) Intridukion to Geography, Aftronomy, Dyal- ~>
ling, and Chronology, 8vo. 17-6. 3
Gerhard's Meditations. By Rowell. °° °3 °°
Ditto, fmall Edition. °° OI °°
Gentleman Angler, laves. °° OI °6
Gaftrell's Chriftian Inftitutes, I2ves. 0O °2 °®
Gentleman Inftrufted, Svo. °° °2 °6
Guiilim's Difplay of Heraldry, Folio. °z 0i °o
Gentleman Jockey, 8vo. °° OI 0<*
Gibfon's Farrier's Gui.'e, Svo. ™ °S °°
Farmer's rifpenfatory, Svo. °° °+ °J
Method of Dieting Horfes, 8vo. ®° °3 of
■ Gay s
02 |
00 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
00- |
01 |
06 |
00 |
04, |
06 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
OS |
oC |
00 |
OS |
00 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
00 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
00- |
00 |
OS |
06 |
bo |
*7 |
06 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
00 |
04 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
00 |
o5 |
00 |
* 00 |
04 |
06 |
[ 5]
Gay's Paftorals,
Gedde's Tracts, 3 Vols. 8vo.
Guardian, 2 Vols. i2Ves.
Gardner's Ditoonary, 2 Vols. I2ves.
Gibfon's Anatomy of Human Bodies, Svo.
HENRY, (Matthew) on the Bible, 6 Vol's. Works, Colle&ed into One Volume. Hooker's Ecclefuftical Polity, 17^4, Folio. Horneck's (Dr.> Crucified Jefus, 8vo.
on Coiifiueration, 8vo. Beft Exercife, 8vo. Fire of the Altar, i2ves. Handley's Mechanical Effays on the Animal Oeconomy, 8vo.
Colloquia Chirurgica: Or,TheWholeArt of Surgery ,Svo. Hawney's Trigonometry, 8vo.
Compleat Meafurer. 1 2ves. Hiftory of England, 4 Vols. 8vo. With the Heads of all the
Kings and Queens curioufly Engrav'd. Howell's (Lawrence; Hiltory of the Bible, 3 Vols. With ijq
Copper Plates, 3 Vols. 8vo. Howell's (James) Familiar Letters, 8vo. Harris's (Dr.) Lexicon Technician, 2 Vols. Folio. Hudibras, in Three Parts ; with a new Sett of Cuts. Hiltory and Prefent State of the Kingdom of France, 2 Vols. lives. Hatton's Pfaltar, i2ves. Howard's Neweft Way of Cookery, i2ves Hiftory of Engliih Martyrs in Queen Mary's Reign, Svo, Hatton's Comes Comercii, 8vo. Hiftory of Hungary, I2ves.
Hewit's Tables of Intereft, engraven on Copper Plates, lives. Hiftory of Tryals and Attainders, 2 Vols. i2ves. Hutchinfon's Enquiry into our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 8vo. Hanover Tales: Or, The Secret Hiftory of Count Fradonia, and
the Unfortunate Beritia, lives. Henley's Heft her, an Hiftorical Poem Hoiatius in Ufum Delphini, 8*0. Haywood's Novels, 4 Vols. nves. Hook's Experimencs, publilh'd by Derham. Hiltoria Sacra: Or, Hiftory of the Feafts and Fafts of the Church }
of England. Hope's Compleat Horfeman, Folio. Howard's Plays, lives.
Hiftory of Herodotus, Engliih'd by Lictjebury, z Vols. 8v0. The Hive : Or, A Collection of Songs, 3 Vols. i2ves. Hiftory of the Devil, 8vo.
Johnfon's (SamueU Works. Folio. Jones's Poetical Mifcelianies, lives. Jujftinius in Ufum Delphini, 8vo.
Engliih'd, by Brown, i2ves. Jenks's Devotions on leveral Occafions Juvenalis in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. Jenkins of the Chriftian Religion, 2 Vols. 8vo. Journey through England, 3 Vols. 8vo.
Inquiry i:>co the Original or our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue a 8v?.
A 3
!. |
s. |
d. |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
18 |
00 |
00 |
OJ |
00 |
00 |
12 |
00 |
00 |
°J |
oS |
06 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
°7 |
06 |
01 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
00 |
04 |
06 |
CO |
04 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
°s |
00 |
00 |
OZ |
06 |
00 |
o» |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
02 |
00 |
|
}o, |
00 |
00 |
00 |
oj |
00 |
02. |
10 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
04 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
00 |
02. |
06 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
0/ |
06 |
00 |
04 |
06 |
>■ 00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
06 |
0$ |
00 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
£■ 00 |
°s |
00 |
01 |
02 |
l6 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
07 |
06 |
00 |
OS |
00 |
00 |
10 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
°S |
c6 |
00 |
02 |
o<5 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
00 |
10 |
00 |
O) |
*s |
00 |
0 |
04 |
b6 |
Jacknu:.\ |
t |
S. |
d. |
oo |
01 |
00 |
oo |
°5 |
06 |
oo |
06 |
00. |
oo |
l5 |
00 |
oo |
02 |
06 |
m
Jackman de vt Confclentiat, izves. Independent Whig. Ibbot's Sermons at Boyle's Lectures. Jones's Can >u of che New Tcftafhem, 3 Vol*. J urku's Devotions, izves.
K
T/ Eakwell's Works, 2 Vols. Folio. 02 00 00
■^ M :ft ot his Pieces fingle
Kind's (BifhopJ nven ions of Men in^rhe Wortfup of God, nves.
Ken's (Bp.) Crown or Glory the Be- ard of the Righteous, Svo.
E' p: fition ot -he Church <~aiechifrn. Kennet's Roman Antiquities, 8vo. Kind's Heathen Gods, i2ves. Keiil's lntrodnfcti on to Aftronomy, Englifh, Svo. King, on che Creed, Svo.
C nftirurions ot the Primitive Church. Kidder, ot the M ffiah, Folio. Key's Practical Mea hirer. Keiil's Introduction to Natural PhiLfophy, 8vo°.
L
T OCK's Works, 3 Vols. Folio. *"— ' ot Human Jndentanding, 2 Vol.
pf Education, lives, of Government, i^ves. Efop's Fables Eng. ana Latin,8vO. Leftrange's J i-phus, Folio.
flop's Fa bles, 8vo. Erafmus, Svo. Littlebury's Tranflation of Herodotus, 2 Vols. 8vo. Ladies Travels into Spain, 2 Vols. I2ves, Lee's Tragedies, 3 Vols, i2Ves Lives of the Engliih nets, 2 Vol. Leybourn's Dialling, Folio.
Dialling, abriJg'd and improv'dj, by Wilfon, lives. 00 02 00
Littleton's Dictionary, E:igliih and Latin. t 00 16 00
Life of the Count ne Vuievir, i2ves. 00 01 06
Madam de Beaumont, i2ves. 00 oi 06
ot Lucinda, lives. 00 01 06
of Charlotta Dupont, i2ves. 00 02 oo
Ladies Library, 3 Vols lives. 00 09 00
Lewis's Origines Hebrseae, 4. Vols. Svo. 01 00 00
Lire of Signior Rozeili, 2 Vols, with Cuts* 00 op oq
Lamb's Cookery, Svo. 00 06 00
Lite ot Oliver Cromwell, 8vo. 0,0 05 06
Law of Chriftian Perfection, 8vo. . 00 oj 06"
Love's Surveying, 8vo. 00 03 0$
Lucas's Enquiry alter Happinefs, 2 Vols? 00 10 oq
Practical Christianity. 00 03 06"
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
oj |
06 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
°4 |
06 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
02 |
J* |
00 |
00 |
09 |
oo |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
06 |
01 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
00 |
io |
00 |
00 |
05 |
00 |
00 |
09 |
00 |
00 |
11 |
00 |
00 |
IJ |
00. |
01 01 00
M
MOLL's Compleat Geographer, Folio. Moral Virtue delineated. Tranflatec Monf. Gomberville
Manton on the 119th Pfalm, 1723. 01 00 00
Monrfaucon's Travels into Italy, Folio. 00 $8 oq
Memoirs ot Philip de Comines, 2 Vols. 8v». 00 10 00
Memoirs
Moral Virtue delineated." Tranflated from the French of \ QJ 0Q 00
C 7.1
Memoirs of Anne of Auftria, jVols. J2ves.
Moyle's Works 2 Vols. 8vo.
Montaigne's Effays, 3 Vols. 8vo.
Miffon's Travels over England, 8vo.
Mauger's French Grammar, 8vo.
Martial in Ufum Delphini, 8vo.
Mifcellanea Aurea • Or, Golden Medley.
Medulla hiftoriae Angiicanae, 8vo.
Motteaux's Don Quixor, 4. Vol. lives.
Morgan's Principles of Medicine, 8vo.
Moreland's Vade Mccum, jvo
Mailer- Key to Pop.ry, 3 Vols. lives.
Milbourn's Legacy to the Church or England,zVols.
Mandey, of Measuring. Svo.
Maimer's Husbandry^ 2 Vols. Svo.
Mangey, on the Loru's Prayer, 8vo.
Mufae Anglicans, Vols.
Moor (Bi/hop oi Ely) his Sermons, 2 Vols. 8vo.
N
"VTIcholls's Conference with a Theift, 2 Vols, with large Addi-
•*- tions, 8vo.
New Voyage round the World by a Courfe never fail'd before, Svo.
Nelfon's (Robert) Works, Abridg'd and Methodized, 2 Vok nves.
Noble Slaves, a Novel, lives.
New Mifcellaneous Poems, with Five Love Letters from a Nun
to a Cavalier, and the Cavalier's Anfwer, in Verfe. Nelfon of the Feafts and Fafts of the Church of England.
Practice or true Devotion, i2Ves. New Manual of Devotions, in 3 Parts. Nuptial Dialogues and Debates, 2 Vols. nves. Nelfon's Abridgment of the Law, 3 Vols. Folio.
1. s.
00 ic
OO
DO
II o,>
15 00
00 04. oS
00 02 00
00 06 06
00 04. 00
00 06 00
00 10 00
00 06 00
00 02 00
00 09 00
00 09 00
00 0/ 00
oo 09 00
00 03 06
00 o? 06
00 09 00
•00
00
10 00 04. c6 00 06 00 00
OO 02 00 02
00
00 0/ 00 02
00
06
03 00
00
00 OJ 06
°4- 10 00
o;
iZanam's Courfe of .the Mathematicks. Done from the French by Dr. Defaguliers, and others, 5 Vols. 8vo. Ovidii Metamorphofes in Ufum Delphini.
Translated into Englilh Verfe, and publifh'd by Dr. Sewell, 2 Vols. Osborn's Works, x Vols. nves. Oftervald's Caufes of the Corruption of Chriftians. Orleans's Hidory cf the Stuarts, recommended by Echard, Svo. Ovid De Triftibu; in Englilh Verfe
Ogilby's and Morgan's Pocket Book of the Roads, 8vo. Ovid's Epiftles, Englilh, with Cuts, nves.
Art of Love, with Cuts, i2ves. Oldham's Works, 2 Vols. nves.
1
01 02 06
00 05 06
00 oj 06
00 oj 06
00 04. 06
00 04. 06
00 01
00 01
00 03 00
00 03 00
00 0/ 00
00
06
pHilips's Englilh Dictionary, Folio.
A ?atrick's(Bp.) Devout Chriftian Inftru&ed, i2Ves,
Chriilian Sacrifice, i2Ves.
Menfa Myftica, 8vo.
Sermons, on Contentment, 8vo.
Help toYoungCommunicants,24° Patrick's ( Dr.) Pfalms, nves. Potter's (Biihop) Greek Antiquities, 2 Vols. 8vo. Pembroke's Arcadia, 3 Vols, by Sir Philip Sidney, 17 2 j,
A 4
01 t)0 CO
00 03 00
00 05 00
00 Oj- 00
OO Of 00
00 00 06
02 1 3
00 OO 03
OO Oo 06
PuffenJorf «
[8]
Puffendorf's Introcfu£lion to the Hiftory of Europe, ^vo.
Pomfret's Poems, i2ves.
Plurality of Worlds. Tranflated from the French of Fontenell.
By Gardner. Poftman robb'd of his Mail : Or, A Collection of Letters, written
by the beft Wits of the prefent Age, T2Ves. Prior's Poems, 2 Vols, i2ves. Parnell's Poems, 8vo. " Pope's Homer's Iliad, 6Vols. lives, with Cuts. Odiffey, in j Vol. izves. Mifcellauies, 2 Vols. i2Ves. Pvideaux's Connexion of the Old and New Teftament, 4. Vols. §vg.
Life of Mahjmet, 8vo. Palladio's Architecture, ^to. Pomet's Hiftory cf Dtfuggs, 4J0. Perfian Tales, 3 Vols. izves,
Patrick's (Bi.iop) Paraphrafe on all the Poetical Books of the Old Teftament.
Commentary on the Hiftorical Books of the Bible, 2 Vols. Folio. Pearfon, on the Cre^, Folio. Pitt's (Rev. Mr.) Poems on ieveral Occafions*
QUarles's Emblems, lives. ^ Divine Poems, J2ves.
Oufcen's Clofet open'd, laves. Cniiney's Pharm. Officinalis, 8vo. Lexicon Medicum, Svo. San&orius Aphorifms, 8vo« Quintus Curdus, 2 Vols. Engliih.
ROW'S Calliposdia, i2ves. Richardfon of Painting, 2 Vols. Zvo. Robinfon (Dr.; on the St nc and Gravel, Svo.
on Confumpti jus, 8vo. Roval French Grammar.
Robert's (Capt.) Voyages to the Cape de Verd Iflands Ray's WlCdom of Godwin the Creation. Phyfico-TheologicalDifcourfes,8vo. Ratcliff's Life, i2ves. Religious Philolopher, 2 Vols. 4x0. Refleaions on Ridicule, 2 Vols. Ronayne's Algebra, 8vo. Row's Lucan's Pharfalia, 2 Vols, xzves. Salluft, Englifh
S
CEiden's Works, 6 Vols. PubliuYd by Dr. Wilklns ^ Stevens's Englifli and Spaniih Dictionary. Sranhope (Dr. ' on thc E?iftles and Gofpels, 4. Vols, Sherlock(Dr.)oi Death, 8vo'.
The fame in i2ves.
ou Judgment, Svo.
on a FutureScate,bVo.
on Providence, Svo.
of Religious Affembhes, Svo,
Svo.
?. |
s. |
d. |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
r 00 |
02 |
oS |
c 00 |
o3 |
o» |
c6 |
||
00 |
o> |
06 |
00 |
03 |
|
00 |
18 |
00 |
00 |
15 |
00 |
00 |
OS |
c6 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
06 |
00 |
04. |
00 |
01 |
01 |
00 |
00 |
09 |
00 |
§ 00 |
18 |
00 |
}o> |
°S |
00 |
00 |
12 |
00 |
00 |
05 |
06 |
00 |
04 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
00 |
0<J |
00 |
00 |
OS |
06 |
00 |
OS |
c6 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
eo |
01 |
06 |
00 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
04. |
00 |
00 |
04. |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
OS |
00 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
00 |
05 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
16 |
00 |
00 |
OS |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
©0 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
o7 |
16 |
00 |
01 |
01 |
00 |
01 |
02 |
CO |
00 |
03 |
06. |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
04. |
00 |
00 |
04. |
06 |
00 |
04 |
06 |
00 |
04, |
CO |
Sherlock8s |
[9]
Sherlock's ("Dr.) Sermons, 2 Vols. 8vo. Secret Hiltoiy cf Whitehall, 2 Vols. i:ves. Sele£t Novels, 2 Vols, with Cuts, i2ves. Strother's Pharm. Practica, I2ves. Sydenham's (Dr.) Work, Engliih, Svo. Scrivener's Guide, 2 Vol. Svo. Salmon's Family Dictionary, 8vo. Smith's Arc of Painting In Oil, i2ves. Symfon's New Voyage to the Weft Indies. South's Maxims, 8vo. Sylvius de la Bore's Practical Phyfick, 8vo. Salluftius in Ufum D Iphini, cvo. Schrevelii Lexicon, 8vo. Spe&ator, 8 Vols.
Seneca's Morals. By Sir R. Leftrange, 8vo. Scanhope's(Dr.)Chrifcian Pattern, 8vo.
Parfons Chriftian Directory. St. Auftin's Meditations. Epi£tetus's Morals, 8vo. Salmon's Druggilt Shop cpen'd, 8vo. Suetonius, Engliih, 2 Vols. Spinke's Sick Man vifued, 8vo. Steel's (Sir Richard) Plays. Southern's Plays, 2 Vol. Strother's Efl-iy on Health, 8vo. Salmon's Review or the Hiftory of England, 2 Vols, againft Burnet's Hiftory, 2 Vo's. EfTay on Marriage. Shaw's Practice of Phyfick, 2 Vols. Svo.
Tranflation of Boerhave's Chymiftry. Sutherland's Ship-Building unveil'd, Folio. Sydenham's Practice of Phyfick, Englifh. Shaftsbury's Characteriflicks, 3 Vols. Stanhope's (Dr.) 12 Sermons on feveral Occafions, 8vo. Swinden's Enquiry into the Place of Hell. South's Sermons, 6 Vols. 8vo. Shaw's Edinburgh Difpenfutory. Sharp's Sermons, 4 Vols. .
T rpAylor's (Bp.) Life of Chrift, now in the Prefs. ■A J Rules for Holy Living and Dying.
Contemplations on the State of Man. Golden Grove, i2Ves. Tyrrel's Bibliotheca Politics, Folio. Tournfort's Voyage into the Levant, 2 Vols. 4-to. Tatler, j Vols, lives. Tacitus, Englifh, 3 Vols. i2ves. Terentius in Ufum Delphini, 8vo.
Englilh'd by Echard, I2ves. Travels of an Engli.h Gentleman from London to Rome on ?
Foot, I2ves. Turretin of Fundamental Principles in Religion, Svo. Turner's Surgery, 2 Vols. fcvo.
Difeafes of the Skin, iivo. Syphiiis, civo. Temple's Works 2. Vols. Folio. Tillotfon's (Biihop) Works, 3 Vols. Folio. T*]« of a Tub» "Ves, with Cuts.
1. |
s. |
<?. |
GO |
09 |
Oft |
OO |
OJ |
06 |
OO |
06 |
OO) |
OO |
03 |
06 |
OO |
04 |
06 |
OO |
II |
00 |
OO |
06 |
09 |
00 |
01 |
00 |
OO |
03 |
06 |
OO |
01 |
06 |
00 |
04 |
00 |
00 |
04 |
oo» |
OO |
06 |
06 |
01 |
00 |
ot* |
OO |
°J |
oo> |
OO |
Or |
06 |
OO |
04 |
o£ |
OO |
04 |
oS |
OO |
04 |
06 |
OO |
07 |
06 |
OO |
OS |
00 |
OO |
oy |
00 |
OO |
03 |
o» |
00 |
06 |
o» |
00 |
°J |
o£ |
OO |
10 |
o» |
OO |
10 |
o» |
OO |
04 |
06 |
00 |
09 |
o» |
OO |
18 |
0» |
OO |
IJ |
00 |
OO |
05' |
o£ |
OO |
x* |
00 |
00 |
°s |
oS |
OO |
OJ |
06 |
01 |
10 |
00 |
OO |
oT |
o» |
OO |
18 |
00 |
OO |
Of |
OC9 |
OO |
02 |
06 |
OO |
01 |
o» |
CO |
iS |
00 |
ot |
10 |
00 |
CO |
12 |
06 |
OO |
09 |
00 |
OO |
OS |
06 |
OO |
02 |
of |
" OO |
01 |
c6 |
00 |
01 |
oc» |
OO |
II |
00 |
00 |
05 |
c6 |
OO |
ci |
06 |
01 |
12 |
00 |
02 |
10 |
OQ> |
00 |
02 |
06 |
Vat.ban
C io]
V
"\7Auban, of Fortification, 8vo.
* Vida's Art of Poetry, in English, ures. Vertot's Revolutions of Rome, 2 Vols. 8vq.
ot Sweden, 8vo.
of P .-nilgai, 8vo. Vanbrugh's (Sir John) Plays, 2 Vols.
W Y\7Heatley on the Common Prayer, Folio. ** Whitby, on the New Teftament, 2 Vols. Difquifiriones Modeftx, 8vo. Ward's London Spy, in 6 Vols. 8vo.
N. B. Molt ot the Pieces may be had fingle. Nuptial Dialogues 2 Vols. i2ves. Webfter's Arithmetick in Epitome, i2Ves.
Book-keeping, 8vo. Wycherley's Plays, 2 Vols. I2ves. Ward's Young Mathematician's Guide.
Woodward's Ell ay towards a Marural Hiflory of the Earth, 8vo. "Wifeman's Surgery, 2 Vols. 8vo. ' Week's Preparation to the Sacrament, i2res. Wood's Infticutes of the Common Law, Folio, of the Civil and Imperial Law, 8vo. Wake's (Abp.) Genuine Epiftles.
Commentary on the Church Catechifm. Warder's Monarchy of Bees, tfvo.
Well's Sacred Geography of the Old and New Teftament, 8vo. 4 Vols. Courfe of the Mathematicks, 5 Vols. Svo. Watts's Aftronomy, 8vo. Logick, 8vo. Sermons, 3 Vol. I2ves. Pfalms, I2ves. Wingate's Arithmetick, 8vo.
OUNG Clerk's Tutor, i2ves. Young, (Dr.) on the Laft Day, I2ves.
Poem on Lady Jane Gray,8vo.
hibr't w Ufmn Scholarum.
"OAiley's Ovid's Metamorphofis, 2vo. •L) Ovid De Triflibus, i2ves.
Phredrus, 8vo. Cato, I2ves.
Kxercifes, Engiifh and Latin, i2ves.
Exercitia Latfnar Or, Latin for Garretfon's Exercifes, xarcs. Busby's Greek Grammar, 8vo.
Englifli Introduction to the Latin Tongue. Syntaxis Erafmiana ConltricKor, 8vo, Ditto, Conftrued, 8vo. Beia's Latin Teftament, i2ves and 240.
Glavis
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
00 |
10 |
00 |
00 |
04 |
06 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
00 |
oy |
00 |
00 |
18 |
00 |
02 |
02 |
00 |
00 |
03 |
00 |
01 |
07 |
06 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
02 |
06 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
00 |
°S |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
ol- |
00 |
00 |
io |
00 |
00 |
01 |
00 |
OI |
04 |
00 |
00 |
06 |
00 |
00 |
oy |
06 |
00 |
02 |
00 |
00 |
01 |
06 |
. 01 |
00 |
00 |
00 |
18 |
00 |
00 |
04 |
06 |
00 |
04 |
06 |
00 |
09 |
00 |
00 |
01 |
05 |
GO |
04 |
0* |
OO |
01 |
06 |
OO |
01 |
00 |
OO |
01 |
00 |
C "3
Clavis Homerica, 8vo.
Clark's Introduction to the making or Lati»
Florus, 8vo.
Nepos, 8vo.
Eucropius, ovo. "} A ,, . . T. ■v r /All with Literal
Erafmus, i^ves. > -. n . *l r j • \ rranilations.
Cordenus iaves. J
Caftalio's Latin Hble, in 4. neat Vols.
Latin Teflament, I2ves.
Cornelius Nepos, raves.
Celfar, lives.
Demofthenes, laves
Dyche's Vocabulary, 8vo.
Youth's Guide to the LatinTongue,iives.
Engli'h Particles Latinized, <$vo.
Phaidrus, lives. Elefta Major a, 8vo. Minora, bvo. Eutropius, «2ves. Epi-rammatum Delectus, lives. Erafmus, Dublin, lives. Familiar Form, I2ves. Farnaby's Rhetorick, 8vo. Englifh and Latin, Garretfon's Englifh Exercifes, I2ves. Gradus ad Parnaflum, 8vo. Gregory's Nomenclatura, 8vo. Hederici Lexicon, 4ro. Homeri Ilias,Greek and LatinjSvo* Helvici Colloquia, I2ves. Hoaaley's Phaedrus, i2ves. Horace, i2Ves. fine Nods. King's Heathen Gods, lives. Lock's ytfop Interlinear/, Englift and Latin. Leed's Greek Grammar, I2ves. London Vocabulary, by Greenwood, lives. Leufden's Compendium, 8vo. Martialis Epiurammata, i2ves.
More's Englifh Examples, tor the Ufe of Bury Sckool, 8vc, Pantheon. By Tooke, 8vo. with Cuts. Phaedrus Delphini, 8vo. Ra 's Nomenclatura. 8vo. Royal Grammar, lives. Urmlton's Help to ihe Accidenre, 8vcw London Spelling Book, lives.
Walker's Art of Teaching, nves.
Engl. Examples, 1 2ves.
Particles, 8vo. Wet tenhal i's Gr . Grammar , 1 ives . Well's Dionyfius, 8vo. Ware's Pra&ical Grammar, 8vo. Xenophon de Cyri IntUtutione, Greek and Litin.
Moji of the Clajficks in Ufum Detyhim.
BOOKS lately pibliftitl
\. np HE Entertaining Novels of Mrs. Jane Barker. Containing, i. Exilius? ■*■ Or, TheBanihYd Roman. 2. Clelia and Marcellus: Or, The Conftant Lo- vers. 3« The Reward of Virtue: Or, The Adventures of Clarinthia and Lyfan- der. 4. The Lucky Efcape: Or, The Fate of Ifmenus. J. Cbdius and Scipiana • Or, The Beautiful Captive. 6. Pifo : Or, The Leud Courcier. 7. The Happy Reclufe: Or, The Charms of Liberty. 8. The Fair Widow: Or, Falfe Friend. 9. The Amours of Bofvill and Galefia. The 2d. Edition. In 2 Vols. Price js.
II. A Patchwork Screen for the Ladies : Or, Love and Virtue recofnmended, in a Collection of Inftrudtive Novels, related after a Manner entirely New, an4 interfpers'd with Rural Poems, defcribing the Innocence of a Country Life. Price is. 6"d.
III. A Lining for the Patchwork Screen : Defigned for the farther Entertain- ment of the Ladies. Price is. 6d. Thefe Two by Mrs. Barker.
IV. The Life of Charlotta du Pont, an Englifli Lady, taken from her own Memoirs: Giving an Account how fhe was trapann'd by her Step-Mother to Virginia^ how the Ship was taken by fome Madagafcar Pyrates, and retaken by a Spaniih Man ot War; of her Marriage in the Spanifh Weft-Indies, and Adven- tures while ihe refided there, with her Return to England ; and the Hiftory of feveral Gentlemen and Ladies whom fhe met withal in her Travels, fome of whom had been Slaves in Barbary, and others caft on Shore on the Barbarous Coails up the great River Oroonocjue; with their Efcape thence, and fafe Return to France and Spain. A Hiftory that contains the greateil Variety of Events ever yet publifh'd. By Mrs. Aubin. Price 2 s.
V. The Tragical Hiftory of the Chevalier de Vaudray and the Countefs de Vergi. In Two Parts. To which is annex'd a fliort Novel, entitled, The In- human Husband. Done from che French by Mr. Morgan? Price 2 s.
VI. The Agreeable Variety : Peing a rnifcellaneous Colle&ion in Profe and Verfe, from the Works si the moil Celebrated Authors. In Two Parts, viz. Part I. Containing Inftru&ive Difcourfes on the moft ufeiul Subjects, tor the happy Condu£t of human Life. 2. Chai'aft.^rs of the moil Illuftrious . erf jnages of both Sexes, of our own, and other Nations, particularly the remarkable Manner of Life of the excellent Princefs or Parma. Written by herfeif, and found among her Papers aher her Deceafe. 3. Choice Poems, and Select Paifages, extracted trom the moft elebrated Poets. Part II. Containing Original Poems; Sixty familiar Letters upon Education, Lwe, Friendihip, &c. none of which ever before Publifh'd. The Whole Collected and Publiih'd by a Lady. Price 3 s. 6d. The 2d Edition.
VII. Mifcellanea Aurea: Or, The Golden Medley. Confiding of, 1. A Voyage to the Mountains of the Moon, under the yEquator : Or, Parnaffus reform'd. 2. The Fortunate Ship-wreck: Or, A Defer: prion of New Athens, being an Account of the Laws, Manners, Religion, and Cuftoms of that Country. By Morris Williams, Gent, who refided there above twenty Years. 3. Alberoni.-Or, A Vindication of that Cardinal. 4.. The Secret Hiftory of the Amours of Don A!onzo Duke of Lerma, and Grandee of Spain. 5. Tne Garden of Adonis : Or, Love to no Purpofe j being about twenty Copies of Verfes and Love Letters. By a Lady. 6- Mahomet nolmpoftor; written in Arafeick, by Abdulla-Mahunied Omcr. 7. An Account of Bad and Good Women, antient and modern. With feveral other Epiftchry Effays in Profe and Verfe. By Mr. Milton ; the Lady W-----, Mr. Philips, and feveral Others. In Octavo. Price 4 s.
VIII. The
[ n]
VIII. The four Years Voyage of Captain George Roberts; Being a Series o* uncommon Events, which betel him in a Voyage to the Iflands of the Canaries, Cape de Verde, and Barbadoes, from whence he was bound to the Coalf. ot Guinea j the Manner of his being taken by three Pirate Ships, Commanded by Low, Ruffel,, and Spriggs, who after having plundered him, and detained hiin ten Days, put him aboard his own Sloop without Provisions, Water, &c. and with only two Boys, one of eighteen, and the other of eight Years of Age ; the Hardlhips he endured for above twenty Days, til] he arrived at the Illand of St. Nicholas, from whence he was blown off to Sea (before he could get any Suftenance) witbouc his bigg eft Buy and Boat, whom he had fent aftiore ; and after four Days Diffi- culty and Diflrefs, was Ship-wieck'd on the unfrequented Wand of Si. John ; where, after he had remained near two Years, he built a Veffel to bring hini- felfoft. With a particular and curious Defcription and Draught of the Cape de Verd Iflands, their Roads, anc! oiing Places, Nature and Production ot the Soil; the Kindnefs and Hofpitality of the Natives to Strangers, their Religion, Man- ners, Cultoms, and Superftitions, &c. Together with Obfeivaiions on the Mi- nerals, Mineral Waters, Metals, and Salts, and of the Nitre, with which fome ot thofe Iflands abound. Written by himfelf now living at Shad- Thames, 1726. Price 5 s.
IX. The Travels of an Engliih Gentleman from London to Rome on Foot : Containing a Comical Defcription of what he met with Remarkable in every City, Town, and Religious Houfe, in his whole Journey ; AHo an Account of their ridiculous Pr^ceflicns, and Ceremonies, in their Churches, through their Streets, and in the Woods. Likewife the Debaucb/d Lives, and Amo- rous Intriegues of the Priefts and Nuns : With a pleafant Account of the Opening the Holy Gate of St. Peter's Church. Alfo Reflections upon the Su- perftition and Foppiih Pageantry 'ot the whole Ceremony of the laft Grand Jubilee at Rome. The 4th Edition. Now PuhlihYd for the Diversion and Information of the Proteftants of England. Price is. 6d.
X. Saduciflimus Triumphatus : Or, A full and plain Evidence concerning Witches and Apparitions. In Two Parts. The Firft treating of their Poffibi- licy • the Second of their real Exiftence. By Jofeph Glanvill, Ctuplain in Ordi- nary to King Charles II. and F. R. S. The 4th Edition, with Additions, With fome Account of Mr. Glanvill's Life and Writings. Price 6s* 1726.
XI. The Works of the Honourable Sir Philip Sidney, Km. In Trofe and Verfe. Containing, 1. The Countefs of Pembr he's Arcaoia. 2. The Defence of Poefy. 3. Aftrcphel and Stella. 4.. The Remedy of Love. j. The Lady of May: A Mafque. 6. The Life of the Author. The 14.tr] Edition. In Three Vols. 8vo. 172J. Price 13 s. 6 d.
XII. The New Defcription and Prefent State of the Kingdom of France. Containing, 1. An Hiftorical Account of its Kings, their Anrkjulty, Pier na- tives, &c. With a Defcription of all the Royal Palaces, and of the Paiu<f;f $, Statues, and other Curiofities therein contained. 2. Of the Parliament, an) all Officers, Civil and Military, belonging to his Majelty, and rhe Princes of the Blood. 3. Of the Bifhopticks, other Church Dignities, Monad;
and Clergy; of tne Univerfities, Faculties therein ftudied, and of the French Academy. 4. The Peerage of 1 ranee j the three Orders of Knighthood j the Nobility and Mar/hals ; and the Coats of Arms of each refpectivc Family truly Emblazoned, j. A Defcription of the City of Paris, and all the Publick Buildings, hureh~es, Libraries, and Collection of Rarities, and whatfoever elfe is remarkable. 6. The Roads irom one Town to another, with the exact Diflances from Place to Place, not only in France, but from thence through Spain, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands, la Two Volumes, taves. The ad Edition, 1726. Price 6 s.
XIII. Mechanical
[ 14]
XIII. Mechanical EfTays on the Animal Oeconomy ; wherein not only th* Conduct of Nature in Animal Secretion, but Senfation and human Generation, are dHlinctly confider'd, and Anatomically explained j „ as alio the particular Manner of the Operation of a Medicine is accounted for, and many other Curious and Uncommon Subjects are treated of ; neceffary for all that ftudy Nature, and particularly thofe that make Phyfick or Surgery their Practice. By James Handley, Surgeon, Aifthor of Collociuia Chirurgica, 8vo. Price $ s.
XIV. England's Intereft; Or, The Gentleman and Farmer's Friend: Shewing' I. How Land may be improv'd from 20s. to 81. and fo to 100 1. per Acre, per Annum, with great Eafe, and for an inconfiderable Charge. 2. The befl and qurckeft Way of raifing a Nurfery. 3. How to make Cyder, Perry, Cherry, Currant, Goofeberry, Mulberry, and Birch Wines, as Strong and Wholfome as French and Spanifh Wines ; and the Cyders and Wines fo made to be fold at 3d. per Quart, tho' as good as Wine now fold for 18 d 4.. Di- . regions for Brewing the fineft Malt Liquors, better and cheaper than hitherto known, y. Inftru&ions for Breeding Hoifes, Husbandry of Bees, and order- ing Fifh and Fifh-Ponds. Laftly, Phyfick for Families -} containing many ufeful Medicines for feveral Diftempers, particularly the Plague. By Sit J. Moore, i2Ves. Price is. 6d.
XV. Englifh Liberties :,Or, The Free-born Subject's Inheritance. Containing Magna Charta, Charta de Forefta, the Statute de Tallagio non Concedendo, the Habeas Corpus Acl ; with feveral other Statutes, and Comments on each of them: Likewife the Proceedings in Appeals of Murder, of Ship-Money* of Tunnage and Poundage, ot Parliaments, of the Three Effaces and of the Settlement ot the Crown by Parliament. Together with a ihort Hiitory of the SuccefTion, not by any Hereditary Right j alfo a Declaration of the Liber- ty of the Stujec"t, the Petition of Right; with a lhort, but impartial Rela- tion of the Difference between King Charles I. and the Long^ Parliament j of Tryals by Juries, and of the Qualifications of Jurors, their Punifliment for Misbehaviour, and of Challenges to them. L ftly, Of Jutlices of the Peace, Coroners, Conftables, Church- Wardens, Overfeers of the Poor, Sur- veyors of the Highway, &c With many Law- Cafes throughout the Whole. Compiled firft by Henry Care, and now continued with large Addicions. By W. Nelfon, of the Middle-Temple, Efqj The 4.1 h Edition. Price 4 s. 6d.
XVI. A Crown of Gl ry, the Reward of the Righteous: Being Meditati- ons upon the VicifTnude and Uncertainty of all Sublunary E joyments, viz.. 1. Honour, Riches, and Pleafure. 2. The Nature and Caufe of Afflictions. 3. The great Benefit of Afflictions. 4.. 01 our Refignation to the Will of God. To which is added, A Manual of Devotions f r Times of Trouble and Af- fliction ; alfo Meditations and Prayers for the Holy Communion, both before, at, and after receiving ; with fome general Rules ;.nd Directions for our Daily Practice. Compos'd for the Ufe of a Noble Family. By the Right Re- verend Dr. Thomas Kenn, late Lord Bi/hop of Bach and Weils. Price as. 6d.
XVII. The Devout Christian's Hourly Companion : Confifting of Holy Prayers, and Divine Meditations. Done into Englilh from that Spiritual Drexelius. The 3d Edition, in i2ves. Price is.
XVIIT. The Gentleman Angler : Containing fhort, plain, and eafy In- flections, whereby the mod ignorant Eeginner may in a little Time, be- come a perfect Artift in Angling for Salmon, Salmon-Peal, Trout, Pike, Carp, Perch, Barbell, Tench, Brfcarri, Chub, Greyiing. Mullet?, Flounders, Roach, Dace, Gudgeon, &c With feveral Obfervations on Angling, Angle* Rods, and Artificial Flies ; how to choofe the belt Hair, and Indian Grafs ; ©f the proper Times and Seafons for River and Pond Fiihing. To which is addsd, The Angler's new Song, the Laws of Angling, and the £orm ot a
Licence
[ «n
Licence and Deputation tor Angling. Together with an Appendix : Contain- ing the Method of Rock and Sea Fifhing ; an Explanation of Technical Words ufed in the Art of Angling y choice Receipts tor drolling Fi/h j and how to improve Barren Ground, by turning it into Filh-Ponds. By a Gentle- man,who made Angling his Diverfxon upwaids of twenty eight Years, 1726. Price i s. 6 d.
XIX. A Practical Difcourfe of Religious Affcmblies, under the foliov/ino Heads : i. Of Religion in general. 2. What Religious Worfhip is. 3. Of Publick Worfhip, and the Danger of forfaking Publick Aflemblies. ... The Seafonablenefs of this Difcourfe. $. Concerning Speculative Atheifts. 6. The Inclination of Human Nature to Religious Wor/f.ip. 7. Atheilfs fljouJd QO) wholly forfake Religious Affemblies. d. Nor intermeddle in the Difputes of Religion. 9. Concerning the Practical Atheift. 10. The Danger of Irreligion, both with refpect to this World and the next. 11. Concerning Parrchkl Communion, 12. Concerning the Neglect of the Publick Prayers of the Church. 13. Concerning the great Neglect of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. By William Sherlock, D. D. late Dean of Sc. Paul's. The 4th Edition, J726. Price 4 s.
XX. Spiritual Communion Recommended and Enforced from Scripture from the Primitive Fathers and Councils, from Reafon, and from Experience in an Examination and Defence of the Doctrine, Worfhip, Rites, and Ce- remonies of the Church of England. In Two Parts. By a Lay Hand, Svo. J72i"« Price is. 6 d.
XXI. Arithmetick in the Plaineft and mod Concife Method hitherto ex- tant; with new Improvements tor Difpatch of Bufineis in all the feveral Rules ; as alfo Fractions, Vulgar and Decimal, wrought together after a new Merhod' that renders both eaiy to be underttood in their Nature and Ufe. The Whole per ufed and approved of by the molt Eminent Accom'prants in 'the fe- veral Offices of the Revenues, viz. Cultoms, Excife, &c. as the only Book of its Kind, for Variety of Rules, and Brevity of Work. By Geo. Fiiher, Accompta.nt. The 2d Edition, with large Additions and Improvements, I2ves! 1725. Price 2 s. 6 J.
XXII. A new Method of treating Confumpcions ; wherein all the Decays incident to Human Bodies are mechanically accounted for, with fome Consi- derations, touching the Difference between Confumptions, and thofe Decays that naturally attend Old Age. To which are ade'ed, Ar°umefits in Defence of the roffibiliry of curing Ulcers in the Lungs; as alio Reafons demonftra- ting that the irregular DJcharges of all the Evacuations in Con/umptions aril'e horn the Reuftance of the Heart not decaying in a fimple Proportion to the Refiftance of the other Parrs, tfvo. Price js.
XXIII. A compleat Treati.'e of the Gravel and Stone, with all their Caufes Symptoms and Cuies accounted for. To which are added, Propofitions de- monurating that the Stone may be fafely dilfo'ived without wy Detriment to the Bouy, "drawn horn Reafon, Experiments, and Anatomical Obfervarigns The 2d Edition, with large Additions. Svo. i rice ^s. Thcfe two by Nicholas RobinfOn, M. D. *
XXIV. An EiTay towards a Natural Kiftory of the Earth, and Tcrrefhial Bodies, efpecially Minerals; as alfo of the .Sea, Rivers; and Springs ; With an Account of the Univerfal Deluge, and c\ the Effects it had on rhe Earth By John Woodward, M D. Ptoteabr of Phyfick in Grelham Colle-e. The 3d Edition. Price 4.S.
XXV. The
1*6 ]
XXV. The Demonftration of True Religion, in a Chain of Confequeneei from certain and undeniable Principles -} wherein the NecelTuy and Certainty ©f Natural and Revealed Religion, with the Nature and Reafou o: both are proved and explained ; and In particular the Authority of the Chriftiatt Revelation is effablimed, not only from the Natures and Reafons of Things, but alfo from the Relation it bears to the Scriptures of the Old Teftarnent. In 16 Sermons preached at Bow Church in the Years 1724, and 17^/, for the Lecture founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle, Efq; In two Volumes, 8vo. Trice 9 s.
XXVI- An Effay upon Government: Or, The Natural Notions of Govern- ment, demonftated in a Chain of Confequtvices from the fundamental Princi- ples of Society. By which all the niceit Cafes of Confcience relating to Government, may be, and many of them are here refolved, with refpe£fc to the Authority of Government in general* the End and Manner of making and executing Laws, the Meafures of Submiffion to Princes, and the Law- tulnefs or Unlaw] uluefs of Revolutions \ in a Method altogether new. Price 1 s. 6d. The cwo laft by Thomas Burnett, D. D. Prebendary or Sarum, and Re&or of Wefthington in Wiltshire.
PLAYS, on E/zher Letter, at One Shilling each
A Bramule, *"■ All for Love, Anatomift,
Ambitious Stepmother, Artful Husband, Artful Wife, Beaux's Stratagem, Beaux's Duel, Beggar's Bufli, Biter,
Boarding School, Bold Strike for a Wife. Briton, Bufiris, Bufy Body, Caius Marius, Campaign, Careleis Husband, Caco, Chances, Committee, Conicious Lovers, CountryWife, Sir Courtly Nice, Cruel Gift, Devil of a Wife, DiitrefsM Mother, Don Sebaitian, Double Gallant,
Drummer,
Duke or Gioucefter,
Earl of Eifov,
./Efop,
Fair Penitent,
Fair Quaker of Deal,
Fall of Saguntum,
Fatal Marriage,
Gamefter,
Hamlet,
Hob,
Humours of Purgatory,
Jane Shore,
Jane Gray,
Inconftant,
Ignoramus,
Ifland Princefs, '
King Lear,
London Cuckolds,
Love and a Bottle,
Love for Money,
Love makes a Man,
Love's lafl Shift,
Mariamne,
Meafure for Meafure,
Merry Wives of Windier,
Northern Heirefs,
Northern Lafs,
Oroonoko.
Orphan,
Othello,
Phardra and Hippolit us,
Pilgrim,
Plain Dealer,
Provok'd Wife,
Recruiting Officer,
Rehearfal and Chances,
Relapfe,
Revenge,
Royal Convert,
Rule a Wile,
She Gallant,
Sauney the Scot,
She wou'd and ihe wou'd'nt,
She wou'd if fiie cou'd,
Siege of Damafcus,
Sophonisba,
Spartan Dame,
'Squire of Alfatia,
Tamerlane,
Theodofius,
Tunbridoe Weils,
Twin-Rivals,
Venice preferv'd>
Ulyilcs,
Sir Walter Raleigh,
Wife's Excufe,
Wonder.
Wtth great Variety of Plays, Poetry, Novels, &c.
ADDITIONS
AND
ALTERATIONS
I N T H E
Second Edition
O F T H E
CREDIBILITY
OF THE
Gospel History:
or, t H E
FACTS
Occafionally mention'd in the
NEW TESTAMENT,
Confirmed by
Passages of Ancient Authors, who were con^
temporary with our Saviour or his Apottles, or lived near their time. With an Appendix concerning the time of Herod's death.
km > > ■ - ' ■ ' ■ iii — ■—
By NATHANIEL LARDNER.
— — — %_ : ■
LONDON:
printed for jo n n G r a y at the C r o % s-K E y i sa ths Poultry, 1750.
ADVERTISEMENT
Concerning the
SECOND EDITION.
NOW allow, that the words of St. Luke, ch. ii. 2. are capable of the fenfe, in which they are underflood fey Herwaert and Perizonius. But as I ftill difpute molt of the examples alledged by thofe learned men in fupport of that fenfe, there is but a fmall alte- ration made in that article. The Reverend Mr. Majfion has * given me occafion to confider afrefh what I had faid concerning Macrobius's paffage. I hope, what is now added will be to his and others fatisfaclion. I have alfo taken this opportunity to add fome farther obferva- tions on Jofepbus's filence about the (laughter of the in- fants at Bethlehem. But the moft important addition is a curious obfervation on Jofiephus concerning the Egyp- tian impoftor, which I received from Mr. Ward. Thefe and the few other alterations and additions made in this edition can need no apology with thofe who underftand the nature of this defign. As the Additions are print- ed by themfelves, and may be had feparate, I hope the firft edition is not much prejudiced hereby.
Note 5 "The Additions are to be given to thofe who are fojfejfed of the firft Edition.
* See his Slaughter of the children in Bethlehem, as an hiftorical fi&, vindicated, cjfY. in- the dedication to the Biihop of Coventry Had Lichfield,
BOOK
(3X
BOOK I.
Note : The figures included within Crotchets are the Pages of the fecond edition ; the other are the pages of the firft edition.
CHAP. II.
PAGE [47] 70. 1. 2. — and to intimate, that they ought not to expecl to be refiored to the au- thority they wijhed for, whilfi they were fo uni- Verfally corrupt (a).
Note added, (a) There is a remarkable paffage to this purpofe iri the fpeech of Jofepbus to the Jews in Jerufalem, while Titus with the Roman army lay before the city. II hitv & h^d^iS* Aah'^;
ftatriet, xj H w&i «tAAitA*< le<£, niwjrnioy iTnyctyt 7H T^AfW, > 'Papauots utt'itcl^iv q Qioi 7fc\j dvcttyvs ihivfodets. Jofeph. de l.v. c.9. §.4.
Page [151] 243. At the end of Chap. in. Add: It appears from a verfe of Horace (b), that the Jewifh zeal in making profelytes was very extraordinary, and much taken notice of.
0)
Ac veluti te
Judaei cogemus in hanc conccdere turbam.
Lib. i. Sat. iv. ver. ult.
Page [213] 346. At the end of Chap. vii. Addi- tion. §. XVII. St. John fays [Ch. xix. 39, 40.] There came alfo Nicodemus, and brought a mixture of myrrhe
A 2 and
(4)
dnd aloes, about an hundred pound weight, Then took they [Jofeph of Arimathea and Nicodemus] the body of Jefus, and wound it in linen clothes, with the fpices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. This may feem to fome a large quantity of fpices, to be bellowed on a fingle body at its interment. And it has been made an objection by a modern (c) Jew againft the hiftory of the New Teftament. And yet according to St. Mark [Ch. xvi. i.] and St. Luke [Ch. xxiii. 55, 56] Mary Magdalene, and fome other women, having obferved the fepulchre, and where the body was laid, went and bought fweet fpices, that they might anoint him. And on the firft day of the week, early in the morning, they came to the fepulchre, bringing the fpices which they had prepared.
But the largeneffe of this quantity will not furprizc any, who confider the Jewifh cuftom ; and that they were wont not only to embalm, or anoint the body, but to lay it alfo in a bed of fpices. 'Tis faid of Afa [2 Chron. xvi. 14.] They buried him in the bed which was filled with fweet odors, and divers kinds of fpices pre- pared by the apothecaries art: and they made a very great burning for him. The Jews of this time feem not to have fallen fhort of their anceftors in this kind of ex- penfe. For Jofephus in the account of Herod's funeral procefiion fays : " The foldiery was followed by five " hundred (laves and freed- men bearing fweet fpices (d).*- He mentions the fame number in the War, and in the Antiquities. 5Tis likely there were fpices here for a burn- ing, as well as for a bed to lay Herod's body in.
It is likewife objected by the fame Jew, that the quantity of fpices mentioned by St. John was a load
for
(e) Jmram, in B. Kidder, affirms, that this was enough ffyr two hundred dead bodies, and that it could not be carried with lefs than 1 the ftrength of a mule, and therefore not by Nicodemus. Kidder's Demonfirat. of tbeMeffias, Part III. Ch. iii. §. II.
(d) Hii-jay'i' •'■■ 3 ut' djj U ">S Qt)LeT£v y A7ri\zvQi$6)V ecpo~ fjictr $'■)£?*• De B. J. 1. i. c. ult. §. 9. T«to/< %iirov)o tzv'Jcuioo'ioi hiKntov St ?vu,:>.-: opb /. Antiq. 1. i 7. c. 8. §. 3. As Bifhop Kidder has not quoted thc^t fcafiages, I hope they will not be unaccep&r
(5)
for a mule, and therefore could not be carried by Ni- codemus. One would not have expected fuch an ob- jection from a reafonable creature, who might know it to be a very juft, as well as common way of fpeak- ing, to afcribe to any perfon that which is done by his order or direction. St. John has made particular men- tion of Jofeph and Nicodemus, as prelent at the burial of Jefus, They were both of them men of fubftance, and may be fuppofed to have order'd the attendance of fome of their fervants on this occafion.
Chap. viii. Page [253] 413, and the firft three lines of p. 414. are altered thus : But I apprehend (<?), that St. Paul tells them, he perceived they were in all things very devout. This would give no offenfe at Athens. It was their peculiar character (f) ♦, the encomium, which they were fond of above any other.
(e) The conclufion of the note, page 41 3. is altered from a para- phrafe to a literal verfion thus. I think therefore that St. Paul fays : I perceive, that ye are in all things very devout. For as I paffed along, end obferved the objects of your worjhip, I found alfo an altar with this infer ipt ion : To the unknown God, Whom therefore ye wor- Jhip without knowing him, him do I declare unto you. ♦
{/) Note added : 'E. ya,<> ti cla^o J hfttwaJw <&'<j\iw,, )y r*V hf T?*>T0i{ o£iv kyK&fAtov, to -tjfei tatQ- Tcv.yi;.d?\Q-, ty oj> 73-a.vjl
amriKeiv. Dionyf. Hal. de Thucydid. Judic. §. 40. Vid. & omnha Sophoc.Oed. Col. v. 1000. & feq. It was cuftomary for eminent ftrangers, who fpokc in public at Athens, to give fhem in their firil difcourfe fome commendation, taken from the wifdom of their lawes and inftitutions, or fome other topic. St. Paul had R;ood reafjn not to be defective in this point upon fo nice an occaiion. He could v'ery truly fay they were a devout people. It was extreme! - to h •> pur- pofc, and they would be much pleafed to hear it from him. ii uiy
*s, "£*§? rri //w <ts-(Jtz&v t&s aut&j ttwx&cu, Philoft. vit. Alexjtd. Sophift. §.3. Atytivcuots fj.lv y) cTnJWf j/v^/JQ- ojJ t ■■ - Pi«$ Ao^-b*, on *} irfifTov A9jW£s dt f*fl», in \s iyntofjuov kx. . I - \v
?J Irzcot, tocxtcov ovrav, cc T/< uVef A^lnvMuv bV»/. Id. vit. Po- lem. §.4. It was therefore a Angularity in Polemen, 1 moil proud man, that in his difcourfe at Athens, at his fir/ vifit, he faid nothing in their praife. There is another like example \ irticularly obferved in -^/r/tf* the fophiit. Msro* 3 *tco ircLy«n<rid.$ i / r i*jvw *r*~
A 3 **%&#
(6)
>4£«<y£, //A t In&vcov ffool&v, ctxxet f la^ry . Id. vit. Adrian. §.2. Grotius underitood St. Paul to fpcak here of the Athenians in the way of commendation, as I do.
Page [256] 416. How can it he thought then, that thefe governours Jhould undertake to Jupprejs the (g) ftrft Christians, 6cc.
(g) Note added* When the Romans permitted the Jetvijh fyna- gogues to ufe their own laws, and proper government ; Why, I pray, Ihould there not be the fame toleration allowed to the Apoftolical Churches ? The Roman cenfure had as yet made no difference between the judaizing fynago^ues of the Jews, and the Chriftian fynagogues or churches of the Jews, Nor did it permit them to live after their own laws, and forbid thefe. Dr. Ligbtfoot Hcbr. & Talm. Excrc, 01$ Matth. iv. 230
Page [262] 426. in the note, after chief Roman officers, add : or %% Philofratus exprefTes it, Judges who had the fword : facet?* y6 fetffd-cu tyjTAc [fiKctf iiri //u/%**, &c] 0;io©- 1x0*10: Vit, Sophift. 1. i. n* 25. §.2.
Chap. x. p. [299] 488. I. 17, after, Jhould he Jet at liberty, add : Lucian fays, that " at the requeft of *c Athenodorus, of Harjus, the ftoic philofopher, and cc preceptor of Auguftus, the city of Tar Jus obtained " freedom from tribute (h) ".
[h) AQnuofa?®-, r&fMjCy roijtof, of xj ftfeto-jcetxQ- iyivtjo jc. A? Vol. 2, edit, Amft. p. 473, Lucian. MacroL
Page [313] 512. at the end of Ch. x. add: Helio- dorus, the fophift, being in a certain (i) iftand, fell under a charge of murder. " Whereupon, fays (k) *c Pbiloftratus, he was fent to Rome, to anfwer for him- 6 felf before the Prefects of the Praetorium.,§
(z) About A. D* 223. (k) AaCcov qwtI) vy\q~o> Qtvipw tdm
fictv, 6t^gT4//e9« i{ r 'P^V""- «f *&toXoynro(ufyjQ- tg7; -fW r£g» 7Qiri<Pwy YiyiiJLOQ-i. Vit. Sophift, I. 2, num. 32.
BOOK II.
Ch. i.p. [369] 73. in the notes, inftead of a learned and ingenious. friend ,read, my' learned and ingenious friend, Mr. Ward.
Page
(7)
Page [401] 129. the lines 13 — 22 are to be thus read. But methinks this is a defect which may be dif- penfed with, if that be the only difficulty. For my own part, I dare not abfolutely reject it : but yet I am not fully fatisfied, that this is the fenfe of the words. I think my f elf oblige 'd, &c.
Page [411] 148, after commentaries , and p. 149, 150, 151, 152. are altered thus : But though I contelt all thefe inftances (as thinking I have given the true meaning of all thofe places) it muft be allowed, that Perizonius's example from Arifiophanes, and another from Alexander Aphrodifius (/) alleged by others in this caufe, prove that ^£701/, ufed adverbially is put with- out i-^ following it to denote the priority they contend for. How far the argument will hold by way of ana- logy from adverbs to adjectives, I cannot fay. It ought alio to be allowed, that the t?«t6* y.oi <& l£«T* of 2 Sam, xix. 43. (but not found in all the copies of the Seventy) is an equivalent phrafe to that in St. Luke, and to be underitood in the fame fenfe, which is put upon St, Luke's words. The pafTage from the Maccabees, Laft of all after thefons the mother died, contains alfo a paral- lel phrafe. To thefe I add two other inftances (m) of irpuT®- itfelf, which I am unwilling to conteft, and mail leave with the reader.
Pcrizonius\ way of accounting for this construction by the ellipfis of a prepofition to be underftood, when not expreffed, is well argued from the two inftances he has alleged of ntf fubjoined to ct/wt©-. I add another like inftance from Eufebius (;/). Though perhaps the
A 4 other
(I) *H nrXnyvt nquTov $ ctcctirnt r Cplvrnv ^tot«Am, y aua. I£tusprius tonitru perficit quam fulgur, aut fimul. Alexand. Apbrod, Problem. 1. 1, (m) Tlpo nfc 9v\at%VT«oir, x} rfa oKcoi> &? <)•.> 'Q^.
•9-go* %%t TfcoTtfy id) nv Tf&'7w $*h id 6?"7'k'<.w. Ante eas res quae vere funt, & ante principia univerfalium eft unus deus prior etiam pri- mo deo & rege. Iambi, de myfteriis, §.8. c. 2. Kou t^t©- ere- Cat-Hro rv dWup. primus ante alios corona honoratus eft. Vionyf* fa/, Hift. Rom. 1. iv, c. 3. (n) Avtiko, y*v fcaA* dtttrvpiS*,
(8)
other way of fuppofing v^m ufed for v&T'i&L (o) need noc be quite rejected.
I prefume this may be fufRcient to fhew, that the phrafe in St. Luke is capable of the fenie contended for by thefe learned men. Bur I cannot yet peifwade my felf, that it is the real fenfe of the text for the following reafons.
i. This is a very uncommon ufe of the word *-?#t©-. This, I think, is evident, in that the Critics have been fo much at a lofTefor infhnces. Stevenskntyf ofnorie(/>), be- fide that produced abo*/e from Aphrodifius^ where t^7o¥ is ufed adverbially. There are alfo almofl innumerable other ways of exprefling this priority of time (q). The reafon of the Greek writers fo rarely ufing this word thus is very obvious. It can hardly be done without caufing fome ambiguity *, therefore when they ufe it in this fenfe, we fee they often fubjoin tW. That this ufe of ir^vT®- was designedly avoi Jed, feems to me evident from a paffage (r) of Herodotus ; where having in the former part of the fentence twice ufed the fuperlative, in the latter he takes the comparative ; either to avoid ambiguity, or as more agreeable to the genius of the Greek language.
2. It does not appear, that any of the firft Chriftians underftood St, Luke in this fenfe. That they did not fo interpret this text, we are affured from the Syriacy VuU gate, and other verfions ; from Juftin Martyr, Eufebiusr and from the paffage of Julian above quoted -, in which he certainly reprefents the common opinion of people in his time, of Chriftians and others.
Page
"flKATCdv®" JWcTo^aAAo/. Praepar.Ev. 1. 14. c. 2. (c) "Er/
Ji rts <Pvva[j.i<;> ovc'ias yi.lv <P-v i^c , lv /Jr 0 fpur*. Eft autem quaedam vis c#entia quidem inferior, fed nobilior animo. Sallvft. de mundo. c. 8. (p) ^^-^o^ ; -zpo-rz-cv prius. Alexander Aphro- difius, »i irwyri, k. A. Qucm alioqui ufum apud vetuftiores rarifli- mum efie puto : affertur tamen & ex Arifiotclis Rhet. tt?£top «, pro. prius quam. Thefaur. Gr. Tom. 3I 567. A. (7) rif 0, t^Jt^"
gfv, 'Tpcorov [adverb.] nt pork^cr,, nr^um <r£<?, ^f'f3 &c, {. -) The fame as in the firft edition, /. 152.
(9)
Page 1 88. The laft paragraph but one is left out.
Chap. ii. p. [439] 197. after horrid inhumanity , acid : In a word, the objection againft this relation of St. Mat- thew mud be founded on the filence of the Greek and Ro- man hiftorians, or of Jofephus. As for the filence of the former, the Roman republick or empire about this time was fo vaft, that the affairs of many dependent princes have been loft in the crowd. Tacitus goes over the hi- ftory of the Jews from Pompefs conqueft ofjudea to the government of Felix, mentioned in the Acls, in one more chapter. Of Herod he fays : ' The kingdome he receiv-
* ed. from Antonie was enlarged [or confirmed] by Au-
* gujius. And that after his death his kingdome was di-
* vided between three of his fons (j).' Without fo much as naming the fons of Herod, who arrived at fovereign power, and fucceeded their father. Strabo fays, * Herod « obtained the title of king firft from Antonie, and then
* from Auguflus. Some of his fons he put to death, as ' guilty of defigns againft himfelf: others he appointed
* his fucceffors, dividing his kingdome among them. *■ But his fons were not happy, for they fell under fome < accufations. One of them was banifhed into Gaul, and c the other two by means of a great deal offubmhTion with
* much difficulty kept their feveral tetrarchies (/).' He does not fo much as name thofe fons whom Herod killed, nor thofe that fucceeded him. 'Tis with a like brevity that fome other writers have mention'd//dyW. Dio Caf- fius's hiftory of affairs about the latter part of Herod's reign
is
(-0 Regnum ab Antonio Herodi datum, vi&or Auguflus auxit [al. fanxit]. Poll mortem Herodis, nihil expeflato Caefare, Simon qui- dam regium nomcn invaferat. Is a Quinc"lilio Varo obtincnte Syriam punitus. Et gcntem coercitam liberi Herodis tripartito rexere. Tacit, Hift. l.v. c. 9. (t) cHf<y«r>K — Jrs *) Cx<ntev{ iyj^fxetrio-ij
J^qAQ- 70 (ii$ irfUTov AptovU t i%xaia.v, uVs?.?*' '3 xj Kaiff&p®- *7» 2«6W«. <ffi 0 vtuv 78\y fj.lv euSrbf dv&Azv, u< Q,7n<fii?<ivaa.yTctf fltttao?. t&j 0 TlKevtfJ' <ria<Pb'X*s dniXiTi, fJ.telJ'eti ojjtcTis ^ro/*V« — ifxiv rot cwivyjHidLVtu Tcuftf, <t\K* ht outiouk; iyivovro. xj •
fJLlV CV $vyyi tPiZTltetft, Tet&Tolf AAA.cC#£/ YcLKO/TOM KctGuy Qlm J,U<TjV. 01 0 dt&tarUd, iroWii p'ohlS iVfpPTO KaQofov, TiT&pyjaf
&ro<MftW iK&riw. Strabo. 1. 16- p. 765. cd. Cafoub,
( »o)
is wanting. I leave it to any one to judge, whether it be reafonable to expect the particular fact at Bethlehem from hiftorians, who plainly content themfelves with deliver- ing the fucceflion of princes, without relating their af- fairs, or fo much as recording all their names.
As for Jofephus ; his filenee is no more an objection againft St. Matthew, than the filenee of other writers is againft him. Jofephus has faid a great deal of Herod's li- berality to foreigners, to Antioeh, Berytum, Tyrus, Sidon, Damafcus, and many other cities in Syria ; to the Atheni- ans^ Lacedemonians , Rhodians, and other people of Greece. Of his benefaction to thz Eleans, he fays, c It was a com-
* mon benefit not to Greece only but to all the world («)': and c that he was fo remarkable for his liberality, that « Auguftus and Agrippa often faid ♦, Herod's kingdome
* was too fmall for him, and that hedeferved to be king « of all Syria and Egypt (x). 9 I fuppofe people take thefe things upon Jofephus9 % authority. I cannot con- ceive how the fwgle filenee of Jofephus (and ofjufius of 'Tiberias if you pleafe to add him) fhould be an objection againft St. Matthew ; when the filenee of the Greeks and Syrians, people that abounded fo much in writers (feve- ral of which are alfo flill in being) is no objection againft Jofephus: who has recorded many things done by Herod for thofe people, of which they have made no mention that we know of.
It has been pretended indeed, that Jofephus was a great enemy to Herod, and feems willing to tell all his various acts of cruelty. But this is not certain, for He- rod's character in Jofephus has a mixture of good and bad. He has related a great many things to his advan- tage, which can be verified by no other writers. Herod put to death every member of the Jewifh great Council in Hyrcanus's time, except Hillel and Shammai', yet Jo- fephus
[u) Antiq. !. 16. c. 5. §. 3, 4. de Bell. 1. 1 . c. 21. $. 1 1, 12. ^ To jj
riK <T«£<W'. ibid. §. 12. (x) Kou tpctalv ojjt'ov tz KaJffct*a )y
Ayei7T7retv toWclkk arrttv, cor, ^n^iat to. $ *PX"* Hp«cT« <^aV«£
yvifl* T CdJiKetAV lx*v* Ant^- 1- 16. C- 5. §. 1 1
(» )
fephus mentions this very (lightly (<y). He even takes part with Herod againft the Pharifees in an account of an execution made at Jerufalem in the later part of his reign. Though Jo fephus were an enemy to Herod, he might have inducements to fhew him favour upon fome occafions. Agrippa the younger was living, when Jo- fephus wrote ; and he had fome acquaintance with him and obligations to him (z). It was not for the honour of the Jewi/h nation to make a mere monfter of Herod, who had reigned over them between thirty and forty years, A particular recital of all Herod's, cruelties could not but make the uneafinefle oithtjewifh people under the Roman government appear very unreafonable. They might be thought a ftrange people who rebelled againfl the Romans, and yet had bore with a man who had fpared neither young nor old •, who had (laughtered all the members of their great council, and the innocent infants of a whole town and all its diftricl:. I have fbme- times thought, that this was really one rcafon, why Jo- fephus made fo flight mention of the cutting off the members of that fenate. It might alfo be fome induce- ment not to relate the (laughter of the infants.
But Jofephus, as a firm Jew, had certainly a parti- cular reafon for pafling over this event at Bethlehem: He could not mention it without giving the Chriftian caufe a great advantage. To write, that Herod at the latter end of his reign had put to death all the young children at Bethlehem, on occafion of a report fpread at Jerufa- lem, that the King of the Jews had been newly born there, would have greatly gratified the Chriftians •, fince it was, well known, when he wrote, that about thirty years af- ter the death of Herod, Jefus, being then about thirty years of age, had been (liled the King of the Jews, and had beenpublickly crucified at Jerufalem with that title; and it was firmly believed by all his followers that he was the great perfon fpoke of under that character, and was now advanced to dominion and power.
Nay,
ty) Ajit, L xix. c. 9. §. 4. xv. 1, lz) Vi<3- Jof. vit. §. 65.
( 12)
Nay, I do not fee how any ferious and attentive Hea- then, who had heard any thing of Jefus, could read a relation of this event in Jofephus (a Jewifh hiftorian, known to be no favourer of thofe called Chriftians) but he muft be difpofed to think, the Chriftian belief de- ferved fome confideration. For if there was a report fpread at Jerufalem, the Capital city of Judea, that the King of the Jews had been newly born ; and if this report was fo far credited, that Herod, notwithftanding his numerous iffue, thought it needful to make away with all the young children * at Bethlehem, and its bor- ders, in order to fecure the fuccefiion in his own family: this is at once a ftrong argument, that the Jewijh ex- pectation of a great perfon to a rife from among them is no new thing, and that there were fome reafons to think that great perfon had been born at that time. Moreover, he muft alfo fuppofe it pofiible, that the Child, whofe life was aimed at, efcaped, notwithftand- ing the care of Herod. For it is plain, he did not cer- tainly know the child, of whom the difcourfe was : if he had, he would not have given orders for deftroying all the young children under fuch an age.
The more any Heathen knew of the Jewijh expecta- tions, or of the ftory oljefus, either from hearfay from the Chriftians, or by having looked into any of the Gofpels, the more would he have remarked fuch a rela- tion in this hiftorian.
For this reafon Jofephus could by no means be wil- ling to relate this event, with its mod peculiar circum- ftances ; though I think he has given a general account pf Herod's cruelty at that time, as I have fuffkiently (hewn already.
Page [444] 197. After, A voice was heard in Rama^ add : This event is alfo mentioned in Irenaeus (a)9 who lived in the fame century •, and by Origen (b) \a the third century, in his anfwer to Celfus, where he fays : f Herod put to death all the little children in Bethlehem « and its borders, with a defign to deftroy the King of
the
( »3 )
€ the Jews, who had been born there.' 'Tis needJefs to make any more quotations of Chrijlian (c) writers.
(a) Propter hoc & pueros eripiebat, qui erant in domo David, bene fortiti in ilia tempore nafci, ut eos praemitteret in fuum regnum ; iple infans cum eflet, infantes hominum martyres parans, propter Chri- ilum, qui in Bethlehem natus eft Judae, in civitate David, interfeclos fecundum fcripturas. Contra Haer. 1. iii. c. 16. §. 4. al. c. 17. In qua [^gypto] & dominus nofter fervatuseft, effugiens earn perfecutionem quae erat ab Herode. ibid. c. 21. §. 3. al. c. 28. (b) o <^' 'Hfw-
cvv*vcw>'\oav r 'fiuflQivra. Iz<PjIa>v 3*<r/A*ct, I. I. p. 47. [c) Vid. Eufeb.Hift. Ec. Li. c. 2c. P. Orof.l. vii. c. 3, &c. &c.
Page [445] 198. After Ariftobulus add : This is what I faid of this paflage in the firft edition. I would now add : It ought to be allowed, that Auguftus did pafs this jell upon Herod, upon fome occafion or other, and that Macrobius has given us exactly the words ofthe jeft. This paflage alfo fhews, that Herod's (laughter of the infants in Judea was a thing well known in Macrobi- us*s time, and was not contefted by Heathens.
If we could be allured, that Macrobius tranferibed this whole paflage, not only the jeft it felf, but the oc- cafion of it likewife, from fome more ancient author, it would be a proof, that this event was well known in that author's time alfo. And we mould have a great deal of reafon to fuppofe, that author was a Heathen; becaufe it is moft likely, that Macrobius, a bigotted Heathen (d) himfelf, did not much deal in Chriftian writers.
But it is pofiible, that Macrobius found only the jeft in his author, and added the occafion, having collected it from the common difcourfe of the Chriftians of his time, who frequently fpoke of this cruel action of Herod. There is fome reafon to fufpect this, becaufe it is very likely that Augu ft us's reflexion upon Herod was occafion- ed by the death of one of thofe fons whom Jofephus has
mentioned ;
(</) This is very evident from his worlo. And the reader may fee a full proof of it in the Rev. Mr. Majors flaughter of the children in B<tkkbemt as an hiitorical faft, vindicated, §.3.
(14)
mentioned ; and that it has no relation at all to the {laughter of the infants at Bethlehem. This fufpicion may be farther ftrengthened by the great agreement of" Macrobius with St. Matthew in the words he ufes con- cerning the children {e). Macrobius being ignorant of Herod's ftory, and having heard of the (laughter of the infants-, when he met with this jeft in fome author, con- cluded there had been fome young child of Herod put to death together with them.
lam content therefore to leave it a doubtful point, whether Macrobius tranferibed this whole paffage, or the jeft only, from fome more ancient author.
"Upon the whole then, there lies no objection againft this relation of St. Maothew. There is nothing impro- bable in the thing it fe If, confidering the jealous, cruel temper of Herod. The filence of Jofephus, or of the ancient Greek and Roman hiftorians, can be no difficul- ty with any reafonable perfon. This fact is confirmed by the exprefs teftimony of very early Chriftian wri- ters, and by Macrobius^ a Heathen author, in the latter end of the fourth century, from whom it appears, that this event was not then contefted, and that it was even better known, than the fate of thofe fons of Herod, whom Jofepbus fays he put to death at man's eftatc.
(e) Children within two years of age, which Herod King of the Jew* commanded to bejlain.
Chap. vii. p. [541] 360. 1- 10. after underftoody add: I place another remarkable inftance from Cicero in the margin (/).
(f) Qh'1^ ea» <luae NUPER» ^ e** Pauc*s feculis, medicorum ingc- niis reperta lunt ? De Nat. Deor. 1. 2. c. 50.
Chap. viii. p. [551] 376. after, And that is fufficient, add: Thefe were my thoughts concerning this difficul- ty formerly. But I have now an obfervation to offer to the reader, which I think will not only reconcile St. Luke with Jofepbus, but likewife Jofepbus with him-
felfs
( '5 )
felf ; and that without making any alterations in his numbers. This obfervation has been communicated to me by the truly learned and accurate Mr. John JVard> Rhetorick Profefibr at Grejham Colledge.
The hiftory of this impoftor feems to lye thus. He came firfl to Jerufalem, went from thence into the country, and taking a circuit by the wildernefs re- turned again to the mount of Olives, In the Antiquities (which contain the fhorter account of this affair) Jofe- phus mentions only the beginning and end of the ftory, that is, the impoftor's coming at firft to Jerufalem, and at laft to the mount of Olives •, and drops the middle part, of which he had given a fufficient ac- count in the books of the War. The chief captain's four thoufand therefore were the men carried out of Je- rufalem, who were afterwards (g) joined by others in the country to the number of thirty thoufand, as related by Jofephus. 'Tis likely alfo, that before he left the city, he had fo concerted matters with fome friends, whom he left behind him, as to entertain hopes, that upon his return his defign would be favoured by great numbers of Jews in Jerufalem, and that he fhould have no opposition from any but the Romans. But up- on his arrival at the mount of Olives, finding the Ro- mans drawn out to attack him, and the citizens in general prepared to oppofe him, he did not dare to venture an engagement, but prefently fled with a body of his moft trufty friends, as is ufual in fuch cafes. With thefe in particular the Roman foldiers were ordered to engage, neglecting the reft, who were only a confufed multitude, and immediately made off as they could by different wayes. When therefore Jofephus fays, the Egyptian fled accompanied by a few (b) only, he is to be underftood of that body which at firfl fled away with the impoflor, and were but a few with refpect to the whole thirty thoufand. When
he
(g) The words iZetyetytZv in St. Luke, and «t0£?<£<H in Jo/e* **phus, feem very well adapted to this diftinftion. {h) J by (J.iv 'AtyvTTtov Qvyny \x{^ Myvy*
( i6)
he fiiys, the greateft (i) part, or moft of thofe who were with him were Jlain or taken prifoners, which in the Anti- quities are faid to be four hundred killed, and two hun- dred taken, he means the greateft part of thofe few that fled with him. Nor need it be thought ftrange, that the number of. the (lain and the prifoners is no greater j fmce, as it feems, Jofephus fpeaks only of that body of men who fled with the impoftor. 'Tis pofiible, fome of the reft of the multitude might be killed like- wife, though Jofephus takes no notice of them ; but 'tis moft likely not many. For it feems by Jofephus, as if only the Roman foldiers marched out againft them, while the Jewifh people in Jerufalem flood upon their defence, if any onfet had been made upon them.
Thus then, though there were but four thoufand of thefe men at firft, they might be joined by others af- terwards to the number of thirty thoufand. So St. Luke is reconciled with Jofephus. And the number, faid by Jofephus to be Jlain or taken prifoners, might be a great number, or the greateft part, of that,body which fled with the Egyptian upon the attack made by Felix and his foldiers. Thus Jofephus is reconciled with himfelf.
(i) &'tci(pQd,$vcu 3 x) £»y?w0»WK 9rAe»V»* ffvv olutJ.
Page [$$5~] 380. Inftead Of the laft paragraph read: I hope therefore, that the account, which Jo- fephus has given of this impoftor will be no longer reckon'd an objection againft St. Luke, but a confir- mation of his hiftory.
FINIS.
Jujl Publijhed, By the fame Author,
A Vindication of three of our Bleffed Saviour's Miracles, vitl the Railing of Jairus's daughter, the Widow of Nairn's fon, and Lazarus. In anfwer to the objections of Mr. Woolftori* fifth Dif« eourfe on the Miracles of our Saviour.
. M -H
WV • A Mow.
■Kb
■;..■■■ \
SPi