honour for a long time: which happened to none of our High Priests." Ant. 20, 8, 1. To this, we may attribute the taking JESUS, when he was apprehended, " first to the house of Annas ;” who "sent him bound to Caiaphas, the High Priest." John xviii. 13-24; Matt. xxvi. 57.

And it was usual with the High Priests at this time to have a senior, who had discharged that office as coadjutor. Thus Josephus relates, that on account of a disturbance between the Jews and Samaritans, Quadratus, the President of Syria, sent two of the most powerful men of the Jews, and the High-Priests, Jonathan and Ananias *, &c. and also some of the most distinguished of the Samaritans, to Claudius Cæsar, to answer for the conduct of their nations. Bell. Jud. 2, 12, 6.

From this historical review, it appears how intimately acquainted the Evangelist Luke was with the affairs of Judea, the neighbouring states, and the Romans. He spent some time himself at Rome, and could not have been ignorant of the various modes of computing the reigns of their Emperors: and that he did not reckon the fifteenth year of Tiberius from the death of Augustus, is demonstrated by the opinion of several early Christians, Tertullian, Africanus, Lactantius, &c. that the crucifixion of CHRIST happened in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, when the two Gemini were consuls, U. C. 782, or A. D. 29, evidently reckoning from the sole empire of Tiberius. But it is impossible that Luke could have referred a transaction so early as John's ministry, to the same date, understood in the same sense. This argument appears to be decisive; especially if we consider, that their opinion was incorrect, and retrenched two years from the most probable date of the crucifixion, U. C. 784, or A. D. 31. which would throw back the date of John's baptism still earlier.

This solution, of dating the 15th of Tiberius from his joint reign with Augustus, U. C. 765, has been adopted in the margin of our English Bible, dating the 15th of Tiberius A. D. 26, or U. C. 779, and either U. C. 764, or U. C. 765, are reckoned the beginning of the joint reign of Tiberius, by Usher, Pagius, Herwaert, Clericus, Prideaux, Mann, Playfair, &c.

* Jonathan was an excellent character: when the high priesthood was offered to him a second time, he declined it, and recommended another brother of his, as worthier than himself. By his interest at the Roman court, he contributed to get Felix made governor of Judea: who, in return for it, and for his wholesome admonitions, got him assassinated!—Ananias, the High-Priest, was he who insulted Paul on his trial. Acts xxiii. 2, 3.

DAY OF THE NATIVITY.

The vulgar day of our Lord's nativity, December 25, though an early tradition, as appears from the Apostolical Constitutions, Lib. 5, cap. 13, p. 312, Edit. Coteler. was not established till the time of the Emperor Constantine, who died A. D. 337, when it was enacted, probably about the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, by the Roman Church, and adopted by the Greek Church ten years after, at Constantinople; according to Chrysostom, in his homily on the day of the nativity: and at that time it was separated from the Epiphany, held on the 6th of January: whereas the Greek Church had heretofore celebrated the Nativity and the Epiphany on the same day, supposing, as was natural, that the birth of CHRIST, and the first appearance of the Star, happened on the same day. But the Church of Rome separated them, under the pretext, that "the second appearance of the Star to the Magi in the way to Bethlehem, was holier than the first *: but in reality to multiply holidays. This occasioned great discontents at Constantinople, when introduced there by Gregory, the Theologian, from Rome, the citizens murmuring at the separation, and saying to him, You have divided the feast, and involved us in polytheism †!"-An early objection against the Church of Rome.

How injudiciously the 25th of December was fixed, may appear from comparison of the two days.

The 6th of January having been the established day of the feast of the Epiphany, the Romanists did not venture to alter that, but they fixed the day of the nativity a fortnight earlier, supposing that interval sufficient for the Magi to come from the neighbouring country of Arabia Felix, which was imagined then (and is still by some commentators, Grotius, &c.) to have been their native country, from some passages in the Psalms, "The kings of Seba and Saba shall bring gifts [to CHRIST."] "To him shall be given of the gold of Seba." Ps. lxxii. 10-15, &c. Forgetting all the while that their visit to Bethlehem must have been after the purification of his mother, and

* In the Ordo Romanus, and also in the book De divinis officiis, it is observed: Nec prætereundum est, quod hæc secunda Nativitas Christi, tot illustrata mysteriis, honora→ tior sit quam prima.

† Λεγοντες, ότι ετεμες την ἑορτην, και εις πολυθειαν ἡμας ενεβαλες. Paires Apostolici, Cotelerius, Tom. I. P. 313.

his presentation in the temple, forty days after his birth, (Luke ii. 22—27; Levit. xii. 2-8.) which evidently was prior to the flight of the holy family to Egypt; and also, that the Magi were the established priesthood of the Persian empire, from the earliest times, and therefore, that even forty days would be too short for their journey from that distant country.

The true cause of their fixing on the 25th of December, is thus perhaps best explained by Sir Isaac Newton.

"The times of the birth and passion of CHRIST, with such like niceties, being not material to religion, were little regarded by the Christians of the first age. They who began first to celebrate them, placed them in the cardinal points of the year; as the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, on the 25th of March, which, when Julius Cæsar corrected the calendar, was the Vernal equinox; the feast of John the Baptist on the 24th of June, which was the Summer solstice; the feast of St. Michael on September 29th, which was the Autumnal equinox; and the birth of CHRIST on the Winter solstice, December 25th; with the feasts of St. Stephen, St. John, and the Innocents, as near it as they could place them; and because the solstice, in time, removed from the 25th of December to the 24th, the 23d, and the 22d, and so on backwards, hence some, in the following centuries, placed the birth of CHRIST on December 23d, and at length on December 20; and for the same reason, they seem to have set the feast of St. Thomas on December 21, and that of St. Matthew on September 21.

"So also, at the entrance of the sun into all the signs of the Julian calendar, they placed the days of other saints: as the Conversion of Paul, on January 25, when the sun entered Aquarius; St. Matthias, on February 25, when he entered Pisces; St. Mark, on April 25, when he entered Taurus ; Corpus Christi, on May 26, when he entered Gemini; St. James, on July 25, when he entered Cancer; St. Bartholomew, on August 24, when he entered Virgo; Simon and Jude, on October 28, when he entered Scorpio; and if there were any other remarkable days in the Julian calendar, they placed the saints upon them as St. Barnabas on June 11, where Ovid seems to place the feast of Vesta and Fortuna, and the goddess Matuta; and St. Philip and St. James, on the first of May, a day dedicated both to the Bona Dea, or Magna Mater, and to the goddess Flora, and still celebrated with her rites.

"All which shews that these days were first fixed in the Christian Churches by mathematicians at pleasure, without any ground in tradition; and that the Christians afterwards took up with what they found in the calendars." Prophecies of Daniel, chap. ii. Part I. p. 144.

Hospinian, a learned German antiquary, is of opinion that the Christians at Rome did not celebrate the 25th of December, as thinking CHRIST was then born, but to make amends for the Heathen Saturnalia; which was a season of great festivity, beginning on December 16, and lasting three days, but usually prolonged to the end of the week, on acount of the succeeding feast of the Sigillarii. Macrob. Saturnal. lib. i. cap. 10. And indeed the crowding together so many holydays, near the end of December, as we find in the calendar, strongly confirms this opinion.

To determine the true day of CHRIST'S birth, as Scalier says, belongs to God alone, not man*. Of all the various conjectures that have been proposed, the most probable are, either 1. that "Christ, our Passover," was born about the time of the vernal equinox, when the Passover was celebrated, or 2. about the autumnal equinox, at the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, when "the WORD became flesh, and (εσkηvwσɛv) tabernacled among us, (John i. 14.) or 3. on the great day of atonement, the 10th day of the seventh month, as " a faithful highpriest, in things pertaining to GOD, to make atonement for the sins of the people [of Israel,”] Heb. ii. 17. “ to be himself a propitiation for our sins; and not for our's only, but also for those of the whole world." 1 John ii. 2. And if this last (adopted by Primate Usher) be preferred, it gives a peculiar emphasis to the declaration of the angel to the shepherds on the night of the nativity:-" Fear not, for lo, I bring you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be unto all the people [of Israel:] for unto you is born this day a SAVIOUR, who is CHRIST THE LORD.-Glory to GOD in the highest, and on earth, peace, goodwill towards men." Luke ii. 10-14.

And indeed either of these two last epochs agrees better than the first with the prevailing traditions of the duration of

* Diem vero definire, unius DEI est, non hominis.

THE MINISTRY OF CHRIST.

The apostolical father, Ignatius, a disciple of John the Evangelist, and bishop of Antioch, the second in succession from Peter, who suffered martyrdom in the reign of Trajan, A. D. 107, in his epistle to the Trallians, gives the following curious and valuable testimony; Cotelerius, Patres Apostol. tom. ii. p. 68.

"GOD THE WORD- -having lived in the world three decads of years, was baptized by John truly, and not seemingly; and having preached the Gospel three years, and wrought signs and wonders; he, the Judge, was judged by the false Jews and Pilate; was scourged, smitten on the cheek, spit upon, wore a crown of thorns and a purple robe, was condemned, was crucified, truly, not seemingly, nor in appearance, nor by deception; he died truly, and was buried, and was raised from the dead,” &c. And this is confirmed by the testimony of Eusebius, the learned Bishop of Cesarea, who flourished about A. D. 300, in his Demonstratio Evangelica, p. 400.

"It is recorded in history, that the whole time of OUR SAVIOUR'S teaching and working miracles was three years and a half, which is the half of a week [of years.] This John the Evangelist will represent to those who critically attend to his Gospel. One week of years, then, may be reckoned the whole time of his continuance with his Apostles, both before his passion, and after his resurrection from the dead: for it is written, that until his passion, he shewed himself to all, disciples and not disciples; during which time, by his doctrines and extraordinary cures, he shewed the powers of his GODHEAD to all without distinction, both Greeks and Jews; and also after his resurrection from the dead, he was with his disciples and apostles, as it is reasonable to think, an equal number of years; 'being seen of them forty days, and conversing with them, and telling them the things pertaining to the kingdom of God,' as contained in the Acts of the Apostles. So that this is the one week of years,' signified by the prophecy [of the seventy weeks in Daniel] during which he confirmed the covenant with many;' namely, by strengthening the new covenant of the Gospel-preaching. And who were the many with whom he confirmed it? Plainly his disciples and apostles, and all those of the Hebrews that believed on him. Moreover, in the half of this one week,' in which he confirmed the covenant disclosed to the

13

6