his computation more exact, as also that of Origen, who here and probably in many other instances seems closely to have adhered to the opinions of his master Clemens.

The sentiments of Origen with regard to the year of our Saviour's crucifixion will appear very plainly from a comparison of the two following passages:

Ἀπὸ πεντεκαιδεκάτου ἔτους Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ἐπὶ τὴν κατασκαφὴν ναοῦ τεσσαράκοντα καὶ δύο πεπλήρωται ἔτη.

Τεσσαράκοντα γὰρ ἔτη καὶ δύο οἶμαι ἀφ' οὗ ἐσταύρωσαν τὸν ̓Ιησοῦν γεγονέναι ἐπὶ τὴν ̔Ιεροσολύμων καθαίρεσιν.

By thus placing the same number of years between the destruction of Jerusalem and the fifteenth of Tiberius, and between the destruction of Jerusalem and the death of our Saviour, it is clear that the fifteenth of Tiberius was the year to which he as well as Clemens referred the date of the crucifixion.

That the same opinion was held by Tertullian the passages already quoted from his writings are a sufficient proof; and for the sentiments of Afri

Hom. xiv. in Jerem. p. 140.

canus to the same purpose we may rest satisfied with the testimony of Jerome:-" Julius Africanus in quinto temporum, Atque exinde usque ad annum quintum-decimum Tiberii Cæsaris, quando passus est Christus, numerantur anni sexaginta.

Lastly, we find the same date assigned to our Saviour's death by Lactantius: "Ab eo tempore quo Zacharias fuit usque ad annum quintum-decimum imperii Tiberii Cæsaris, quo Christus crucifixus est, anni quingenti numerantur siquidem Darii, &c.

Such were the general sentiments of the Christian Church during the first three centuries; and it was not until the fourth century that any new idea was promulgated. Eusebius, conceiving that our Lord was baptized in the fifteenth year of the sole empire of Tiberius, and that his ministry lasted about three years and a half, very naturally transferred the Passover of the crucifixion to the eighteenth or nineteenth year of that Emperor's reign. The foundations of this new date I have already endeavoured to prove to be defective; and I therefore think that, considering their weak and unsatisfactory nature, we cannot

be deemed presumptuous in regarding the tradition, which fixes the passion of our Saviour to the fifteenth year of Tiberius, as containing the most probable hypothesis, not only on account of its extreme antiquity and respectable patrons, but also because it agrees most exactly with those opinions relative to the baptism and ministry of our Lord which have already appeared most worthy of our adoption.

SECTION III.

The probable Month and Day of our Saviour's
Crucifixion.

FROM the arguments and authorities produced in the preceding Section we might safely conclude that the fifteenth year of the sole empire of Tiberius, and the 4742d of the Julian Period, was not only the most probable, but the certain year of our Lord's crucifixion, were it not for some difficulties which arise from the consideration of the month and the day on which he suffered.

It is plain, in the first place, from the narrations of the Evangelists that our Saviour was crucified on a Friday. He was nailed to the cross about the sixth Jewish hour, or about twelve o'clock. He expired on the cross about the ninth Jewish hour, or about three o'clock in the afternoon, and that on the Friday afternoon. For, after he had expired, "when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is the day before a sabbath,

Joseph of Arimathea went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus."a This is sufficiently distinct; but to shew that this sabbath was the Saturday or seventh day of the week, and not any of the great festivals which were also called sabbaths, we may just add another quotation from the same Evangelist: "When the sabbath was past... very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they (Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome) came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun."b From these passages we clearly perceive that our Lord was crucified on the Friday, the day before the Jewish sabbath, and rose again on Sunday, the first day of the week. This is indeed so universally allowed, that it would have been needless to dwell upon it, except for its importance, when viewed in connection with another fact.

For it is also demonstrable, in the second place, that our Saviour was crucified on the 15th day of the Jewish month Nisan. This proposition is not so generally received as the former one, but yet may be satisfactorily proved.

It is well-known that a controversy, originating in the supposed meaning of certain expressions of

a

Mark xv. 43.

Mark xvi. 1, 2.