Gemini, March 25th, A. D. 29; and an ancient and lately discovered, and well preserved medal, also states that it was on the 25th of March. It may may be proper to state, that Usher and Prideaux, and all the seventy-week theorists, place the crucifixion in 33, A. D., because Christ was baptized, being thirty years old, in the fif teenth year of Tiberius, which, they say, began after the death of Augustus Cæsar, in August, A. D. 14, and which would make the year of Christ's baptism to have been in A. D. 29, and his death in 33, A. D. The solution of the difficulty is easy, for there were two epochs to the reign of Tiberius: the first, when he was made associate imperator with Augustus; and the second, after his death; and, by dating Luke's statement, of fifteen years from the first epoch, all the facts harmonize with each other.

These theorists make Christ to have been only thirtythree and a half years of age, at the crucifixion; and yet, also, thirty-seven years old. We have before us an ecclesiastical history, that states that Christ was born four years B. C., and was crucified in 33, A. D., and that then he was just thirty-three and a half years old! And is not Bishop Usher, the prince of chronologers, chargeable with the same inconsistency?

From the light we enjoy, it is a fair conclusion that Christ was about thirty-three and a half, or thirty-four years old, at his crucifixion; and that this was in Å. D., 29, March 25th. That Christmas day was not his birthday, is susceptible of ample proof; Hebraic analogy, and circumstances, and history, combine to place his birth, either at the autumnal or vernal equinox, or at the beginning of the Hebrew civil or sacred year. If the nativity was at either of these epochs, and the crucifixion was at

the vernal equinox, then was Christ either exactly thirtythree and a half, or thirty-four years of age, as is generally supposed.

Paragraph IV.

YEAR OF JUDEA'S FALL.

The next epoch we are called upon to determine, is that of the desolation of Judea, the burning of the temple, and the beginning of the long captivity. This was the year 68, A. D. The last sacred year ended at the first of Nisan, of the year 68; the army of Titus entered Judea in this month, and encamped at Jerusalem on the 14th, when the passover was to be celebrated; on the 17th of Panemus, the daily sacrifice ceased; and on the 8th of Ab, the temple was burned; and on the 10th of Elul, the city was broken up, and its walls were broken down; and all things were desolated by the beginning of the seventh month, or the new year's day of the civil year. About this epoch, chronologers have given themselves apparently little concern, as their disagreements evince, for they variously place it in 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 73, A. D. The records of those most deeply interested in preserving a true account of the year of Israel's desolation, and upon whose memory it must have made the deepest impression, that is, of the Jews themselves, show that this event was in the Rabbinical year of the world, 3828, which coincides with A. D. 68. The Roman historians, upon whom many chronologers depend, differ among themselves in those accounts of the reigns of monarchs, essential to a true understanding of the date of the epoch we are seeking. But the case is by no means as hopeless a one to settle as might be supposed; for carelessness has evidently influenced chronologers, more than want of materials. Our materials,

we believe, are chosen with the most candid and critical discrimination; and our results harmonize with the date the Jews assign to the fall of their commonwealth.

As the crucifixion was in A. D. 294, and Christ was then thirty-three and a half or thirty-four years of age, and was thirty years old at the 15th year of Tiberius, if we subtract the difference between thirty and thirty-three and a half, from twenty-nine and a quarter, we are brought to A. D. 25 and about nine months, which is about the time of year when Tiberius assumed the purple, or the anniversary of his reign. If we assume that Christ was born at the vernal equinox, B. C. 5, as Dr. Clarke, and many moderns and ancients teach, then, he being thirty-four years of age at the crucifixion, if we subtract four years from 29 A. D., eighty-five days, (or March 25) we are carried back to the month Nisan, A. D. 25, as the 15th of Tiberius. In either case, we are removed from this year of 25 to A. D. 10, by subtracting either fifteen full years, or fourteen and a half of Tiberius from it. If Christ was thirty years of age in the fall season, just at the anniversary of Tiberius' reign, it is very unreasonable to believe that Saint Luke would speak of the 15th of Tiberius, when that year had scarcely begun; but, as he does speak of it, the presumption is, that it either was about complete, or well advanced toward completion.

The notion that John's baptism of multitudes, and preaching to them in open fields, was in the frosts of winter, seems absurd, and we have no proof of it; and, more especially, as the manifestation of great personages and events was more likely to begin at the Hebrew new year, and at the feasts. We think no sensible scholar, of the Protestant school at least, will dispute about the time of Christ's birth; we are certain it would be to their

a

shame to dispute his age; and we therefore conclude, that either fourteen and a half or fifteen years are to be subtracted from A. D. 25, to find the beginning of Tiberius' reign; and, by either process, we are carried to A. D. 10, and the latter or former portion of the year. Having this epoch, as a fair goal, we set out from it to reach A. D. 68. The length of the reign of Tiberius was from August 28th, A. D. 10, to March 16, or 26th, A. D. 37, period of twenty-five years, six months, and twenty days; the length of the reign of his successor, Caius Caligula, was three years and eight months; and of his successor, Claudius Cæsar, thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days; and of his successor, Nero Cæsar, thirteen years and eight days; after him Galba reigned till the third of January following, and was murdered on the fifteenth; his reign was seven months and seven days; Otho next reigned, three months and three days; Vitellius next reigned, eight months and five days, and was killed on the third of Casleu, answering to November; Vespasian, however, began his reign on the fifth of the Nones, or Ides of July preceding, and in his second year, about the month of September, Jerusalem was destroyed.

While the historian allows seven months and seven days to Galba, we allow him but five months and nineteen days; and we assign Vitellius three months and six days, because they were cotemporary with other monarchs. This fact is admitted by historians, and is very manifest by a strict addition of the days and years of their predecessors, and seeing the time of the year when Nero ended his reign, and comparing this date with the known days when Galba and Vitellius ended their reigns, and the date of Vespasian's election to the purple. According to this, Nero ended his reign about the 14th of July, 66 A. D.; and Galba's images were thrown down,

and Otho was declared emperor; and Vespasian was declared emperor in July following; but Vitellius was his cotemporary till November, or Casleu. Galba, Otho,

and Vitellius, are omitted from Ptolemy's canon, showing that none of them reigned a single year; and Dio estimates the sum of their reigns, seriately, at about a year, which is close to what we reckoned it, before knowing his testimony. The sum of all the reigns, as thu explained, allowing one year and three months for Vespasian's, to the fall of Jerusalem, is fifty-eight years, one month, and fifteen days; and, adding this sum to the first year of Tiberius, August 28th, A. D. 10, or ten years, seven months, and twenty-seven days, we are brought to A. D. 68 and nine months. In this estimate there may be an excess of a few days, but we think no greater exceptions can be taken to it. The common epoch assigned to the associate reign of Tiberius, is A. D. 11, and we think we have shown good reasons for not adopting it; but if any think that this date is settled as much by testimony, as by the want of it, we would say, that though the epoch of the founding of Rome is supposed to be 753 years B. C., and, by consequence, the first of Tiberius synchronizes with 11 A. D., yet all must be aware that time never was measured by a more uncertain chronometer than the Roman year before the days of Julius Cæsar. Chronologers often rest content with assigning events to one year, which belong to another, because the want of time and facilities prevents their treating the subject with more accuracy.

The reader must perceive that we have spent much time and labor to be exceedingly accurate in our chronology; and that we differ from no chronologers of reputation by any large sum of years, but mostly about a year or two; and where we differ, we think he will allow