by Saturninus, when President of Syria, is related by Josephus after the départure of Antipater for Rome, it does not follow that they were actually sent off after the departure of Antipater. The circumstance is related to account for Syllæus having accompanied Antipater to Rome. It is stated as the cause of his going, and the foundation of the accusations which were laid against him. It must therefore necessarily have taken place some time before, and consequently by no means proves that, when Syllæus followed those accomplices to Rome, Saturninus was still the President of Syria. Saturninus might have quitted his official situation, as President of Syria, in the interval between the departure of these accomplices and the subsequent departure of Syllæus and Antipater.

3. That Saturninus had actually quitted the administration of affairs in Syria a considerable time before the departure of Syllæus and Antipater for Rome, in June, J. P. 4709, seems pretty clearly deducible from the very statements of Josephus himself. Josephus, when speaking of what Antipater did before he went to Rome with Syllæus, says, "He remitted large sums of money to his father's friends at Rome, that he might gain

their good will, and especially to Saturninus, the Governor of Syria." The remark of Lardnerd upon this passage is perfectly just. "Saturninus is not here called Governor of Syria, because he was then actually in that post, for he is manifestly at Rome; but to distinguish him from others of that name, of which there were many." The truth of this observation is sufficiently borne out by the phraseology of Josephus. He speaks of Saturninus as ΤΟΝ τῆς Συρίας ἐπιμελητὴν, plainly indicating by the insertion of the definitive article that he meant the phrase the "Governor of Syria” to be understood rather as a titular distinction, than any mark and proof of his actual possession of that office at the time.

These remarks will, I trust, satisfy every reflecting mind that there is no necessity whatever for supposing the language of the Jewish historian to imply that Saturninus was actually President of Syria, when Antipater, in the month of June J. P. 4709, departed with Syllæus for Rome, and hence it appears, that, notwithstanding this objection, the oath of Josephus may be fairly regarded as corresponding with the taxing at our Saviour's birth, both in point of circumstances and

a Credib. b. ii. cap. 3. p. 219.

See cap. vi. sect. 1. of this Enquiry.

time. By a comparison they have been proved to possess very marked and peculiar characters of resemblance, by a separate examination they have both been traced to the spring of J. P. 4709, as the most probable period of their occurrence. This is as nearly a demonstration of their identity as can be; and the passages in which they are recorded may henceforth be very fairly considered as reflecting mutual light and confirmation upon each other. Our conclusion that Jesus, who was born during St. Luke's taxing, was born also in spring, perhaps in April J. P. 4709, follows of course. It follows also, that, as Saturninus was succeeded by Varus in the government of Syria before the 2d of September J. P. 4708, the arоypapn at our Saviour's birth in J. P. 4709 was taken under the presidency of Varus, and not under that of Saturninus. When therefore Tertullian says "census constat actos tunc in Judea per Sentium Saturninum," he must be supposed to speak literally (if he was not altogether mistaken in his assertion, which is not very improbable,) and to mean that it was taken by Sentius Saturninus, who might perhaps have been sent from Rome into Judea for that purpose, under an idea that the knowledge he had acquired of the affairs of that province during his government of Syria would enable him to execute such a commission better than either a perfect stranger, or

one, who like Varus had but lately entered upon his presidency, and might be already too much occupied by the transaction of the ordinary business to afford leisure for such an additional undertaking. In the future part of this Enquiry I shall therefore assume it as an established fact, and endeavour to accommodate the dates of all the other parts of our Saviour's life, his baptism, his ministry, and his crucifixion, to this, as to a common and necessary foundation.

CHAP. V.

THE PROBABLE DATE OF OUR SAVIOUR'S BAPTISM.

AFTER mentioning the Baptism of our Saviour in the 21st and 22d verses of the third chapter, St. Luke in the 23d verse has added the following remark, Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος. "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age."

It was the custom with computists of former ages to make this remark the foundation of their theories relative to the period of our Saviour's birth, and it is to this inauspicious beginning that we may in a great measure attribute the universal failure of their attempts to solve the difficulties with which the subject is surrounded. Their argument ran thus: John the Baptist entered upon the discharge of his office in the 15th year Tiberius. Amidst the multitudes who flocked to his baptism Jesus also arrived, being about thirty years of age. Therefore Jesus was about thirty

of