Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. I Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him aught to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is, to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."

John ix. 1-5. “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth; and his disciples asked him, saying, Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." John ix. 35-10. "Jesus heard that they had cast him (the blind man above-mentioned) out: and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? And he answered, and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe; and he worshipped him. And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not, might see; and that they which see, might be made blind."

All that the reader has now to do, is to compare the series of examples taken from Saint John, with the series of examples taken from the other evangelists, and to judge whether there be not a visible agreement of manner between them. In the above-quoted passages, the occasion is stated, as well as the reflection. They seem, therefore, the most proper for the purpose of our argument. A large, however, and curious collection has been made by different writers,* of instances, in which it is extremely probable that Christ spoke in allusion to some object, or some occasion, then before him, though the mention of the occasion, or of the object, be omitted in the history. I only observe, that these instances are common to Saint John's Gospel with the other three.

I conclude this article by remarking, that nothing of this manner is perceptible in the speeches recorded in the Acts, or in any other but those which are attributed to Christ, and that, in truth, it was a very unlikely manner for a forger or fabulist to attempt; and a manner very difficult for any writer to execute, if he had to supply all the materials, both the incidents and the observations upon them, out of his own head. A forger or a fabulist would have made for Christ, discourses exhorting to virtue and dissuading from vice in general terms. It would never have entered into the thoughts of either, to have crowded together such a number of allusions to time, place, and other little circumstances, as occur, for instance, in the sermon on the mount, and which nothing but the actual presence of the objects could have suggested."+

semblance. But the affinity which I would point out consists in these two articles: First, that both stories denote the emulation which prevailed amongst Christ's disciples, and his own care and desire to correct it; the moral of both is the same. Secondly, that both stories are specimens of the same manner of teaching, viz. by action; a mode of emblematic instruction extremely peculiar, and, in these passages, ascribed, we see, to our Saviour, by the first three evangelists, and by Saint John in instances totally unlike, and without the smallest suspicion of their borrowing from each other.

III. A singularity in Christ's language, which runs through all the evangelists, and which is found in those discourses of Saint John that have nothing similar to them in the other Gospels, is the appellation of "the Son of man ;" and it is in all the evangelists found under the peculiar circumstance of being applied by Christ to himself, but of never being used of him, or towards him, by any other person. It occurs seventeen times in Matthew's Gospel, twenty times in Mark's, twenty-one times in Luke's, and eleven times in John's, and always with this restriction.

IV. A point of agreement in the conduct of Christ, as represented by his different historians, is that of his withdrawing himself out of the way, whenever the behaviour of the multitude indicated a disposition to tumult.

Matt. xiv. 22. "And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitude away. And when he had sent the multitude away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray."

Luke v. 15, 16. "But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him, and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities: and he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed."

With these quotations, compare the following from Saint John:

Chap. v. 13. " And he that was healed wist not who it was; for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place."

Chap. vi. 15. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone."

In this last instance, Saint John gives the motive of Christ's conduct, which is left unexplained by the other evangelists, who have related the conduct itself.

V. Another, and a more singular circumstance in Christ's ministry, was the reserve, which, for some time, and upon some occasions at least, he used in declaring his own character, and his leaving it to be collected from his works rather than his professions. Just reasons for this reserve have been assigned. But it is not what one would have expected. We meet with it in Saint MatII. There appears to me to exist an affinity be- thew's Gospel: chap. xvi. 20. “Then charged tween the history of Christ's placing a little child he his disciples, that they should tell no man that in the midst of his disciples, as related by the first he was Jesus the Christ." Again, and upon a three evangelists, and the history of Christ's different occasion, in Saint Mark's: chap. iii. 11. washing his disciples' feet, as given by Saint "And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell Johns In the stories themselves there is no re-down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the

Newton on Daniel, p. 148, note a. Jortin, Dis. p. 213. Bishop Law's Life of Christ.

↑ See Bishop Law's Life of Christ.
Matt. xvii. 1. Mark ix. 33. Luke ix. 46.
Chap. xiii. 3.

Son of God: and he straightly charged them that they should not make him known." Another instance similar to this last is recorded by Saint

*See Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity.

Luke, chap. iv. 41. What we thus find in the three evangelists, appears also in a passage of Saint John, chap. x. 24, 25. "Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." The occasion here was different from any of the rest; and it was indirect. We only discover Christ's conduct through the upbraidings of his adversaries. But all this strengthens the argument. I had rather at any time surprise a coincidence in some oblique allusion, than read it in broad assertions.

VI. In our Lord's commerce with his disciples, one very observable particular is the difficulty which they found in understanding him, when he spoke to them of the future part of his history, especially of what related to his passion or resurrection. This difficulty produced, as was natural, a wish in them to ask for farther explanation; from which, however, they appear to have been sometimes kept back, by the fear of giving offence. All these circumstances are distinctly noticed by Mark and Luke upon the occasion of his informing them, (probably for the first time,) that the Son of man should be delivered into the hands of men. "They understood not," the evangelists tell us, "this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not and they feared to ask him of that saying." Luke ix. 45. Mark ix. 32. In St. John's Gospel we have, on a different occasion, and in a different instance, the same difficulty of apprehension, the same curiosity, and the same restraint:"A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me; because I go to the Father. Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us? A little while, and ye shall not see me and again, A little while, and ye shall see me and, Because I go to the Father? They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith. Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them," &c. John xvi. 16, &c.

witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" was such an answer, as might have been looked for from the person, who, as he proceeded to the place of execution, bid his companions, (as we are told by Saint Luke,) weep not for him, but for themselves, their posterity, and their country; and who, whilst he was suspended upon the cross, prayed for his murderers, "for they know not," said he, "what they do." The urgency also of his judges and his prosecutors to extort from him a defence to the accusation, and his unwillingness to make any, (which was a peculiar circumstance,) appears in Saint John's account, as well as in that of the other evangelists.+

There are moreover two other correspondencies between Saint John's history of the transaction and theirs, of a kind somewhat different from those which we have been now mentioning,

The first three evangelists record what is called our Saviour's agony, i, e. his devotion in the garden immediately before he was apprehended; in which narrative they all make him pray, "that the cup might pass from him." This is the particular metaphor which they all ascribe to him. Saint Matthew adds, "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me except I drink it, thy will be done."s Now Saint John does not give the scene in the garden: but when Jesus was seized, and some resistance was attempted to be made by Peter, Jesus, according to his account, checked the attempt with this reply: "Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" This is something more than consistency; it is coincidence: because it is extremely natural, that Jesus, who, before he was apprehended, had been praying his Father, that that cup might pass from him," yet with such a pious retraction of his request, as to have added, "If this cup may not pass from me, thy will be done;" it was natural, I say, for the same person, when he actually was appre hended, to express the resignation to which he had already made up his thoughts, and to express it in the form of speech which he had before used, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" This is a coincidence between writers, in whose narratives there is no imitation, but great diversity.

VII. The meekness of Christ during his last sufferings, which is conspicuous in the narratives of the first three evangelists, is preserved in that of Saint John under separate examples. The answer given by him, in Saint John,* when the high priest asked him of his disciples and his doc- A second similar correspondency is the followtrine; "I spake openly to the world; I ever taught ing: Matthew and Mark make the charge upon in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the which our Lord was condemned, to be a threat of Jews always resort; and in secret have I said no- destroying the temple; "We heard him say, I thing; why askest thou me? ask them which will destroy this temple made with hands, and heard me, what I have said unto them;" is very within three days I will build another made withmuch of a piece with his reply to the armed party out hands:" but they neither of them inform us, which seized him, as we read in Saint Mark's upon what circumstances this caluniny was foundGospel, and in Saint Luke's: "Are you come ed. Saint John, in the early part of the history,** out as against a thief, with swords and with staves supplies us with this information; for he relates, to take me? I was daily with you in the temple that, on our Lord's first journey to Jerusalem, teaching, and ye took me not." In both answers, when the Jews asked him, "What sign showest we discern the same tranquillity, the same refer- thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? ence to his public teaching. His mild expostula-he answered, Destroy this temple, and in three tion with Pilate, on two several occasions, as related by Saint John,‡ is delivered with the same unruffled temper, as that which conducted him through the last scene of his life, as described by his other evangelists. His answer in Saint John's Gospel, to the officer who struck him with the palin of his hand, "If I have spoken evil, bear

*Chap. xviii. 20, 21. † Mark xiv. 48. Luke xxii. 52. Chap. xviii. 34; xix. 11.

days I will raise it up." This agreement could hardly arise from any thing but the truth of the case. From any care or design in Saint John, to make his narrative tally with the narratives of other evangelists, it certainly did not arise, for no such design appears, but the absence of it.

* Chap. xviii. 23.

Chap. xxiii. 28.

See John xix. 9. Matt. xxvii. 14.
Chap. xxvi. 42.
1 Mark xiv. 58.

Luke xxiii. 9. Chap. xviii. 11. ** Chap. ii. 19.

If it be said, that Jesus, having tried the other plan, turned at length, to this; I answer, that the thing is said without evidence; against evidence; that it was competent to the rest to have done the same, yet that nothing of this sort was thought of by any.

A strong and more general instance of agree-1 by their nature, I should expect would, and both ment is the following:-The first three evange- which, throughout the experience which this very lists have related the appointment of the twelve subject furnishes, in fact hare, followed the opiapostles, and have given a catalogue of their nions that obtained at the time." names in form. John, without ever mentioning the appointment, or giving the catalogue, supposes throughout his whole narrative, Christ to be accompanied by a select party of his disciples; the number of those to be twelve; and whenever he happens to notice any one as of that number, it is one included in the catalogue of the other evangelists: and the names principally occurring in the course of his history of Christ, are the names extant in their list. This last agreement, which is of considerable moment, runs through every Gospel, and through every chapter of each. All this bespeaks reality.

CHAPTER V.

Originality of our Saviour's Character. THE Jews, whether right or wrong, had understood their prophecies to foretell the advent of a person, who by some supernatural assistance should advance their nation to independence, and to a supreme degree of splendour and prosperity. This was the reigning opinion and expectation of the times.

CHAPTER VI.

ONE argument, which has been much relied upon (but not more than its just weight deserves,) is the conformity of the facts occasionally mentioned or referred to in Scripture, with the state of things in those times, as represented by foreign and independent accounts; which conformity proves, that the writers of the New Testament possessed a species of local knowledge, which could only belong to an inhabitant of that country, and to one living in that age. This argument, if well made out by examples, is very little short of proving the absolute genuineness of the writings. It carries them up to the age of the reputed authors, to an age in which it must have been difficult to impose upon the Christian public, forgeries in the names of those authors, and in which there is no evidence that any forgeries were attempted. It proves, at least, that the books, whoever were the authors of them, were composed by persons living in the time and country in which these things were transacted; and consequently capable, by their situation, of being well informed of the facts which they relate. And the argument is stronger when applied to the New Testament, than it is in the case of almost any But, what is better than conjecture, is the fact, other writings, by reason of the mixed nature of that all the pretended Messialis actually did so. the allusions which this book contains. The We learn from Josephus, that there were many scene of action is not confined to a single country, of these. Some of them, it is probable, might be but displayed in the greatest cities of the Roman impostors, who thought that an advantage was to empire. Allusions are made to the manners and be taken of the state of public opinion. Others, principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the perhaps, were enthusiasts, whose imagination had Jews. This variety renders a forgery proportionbeen drawn to this particular object, by the lan-ably more difficult, especially to writers of a posguage and sentiments which prevailed around terior age. A Greek or Roman Christian, who them. But, whether impostors or enthusiasts, lived in the second or third century, would have they concurred in producing themselves in the been wanting in Jewish literature; a Jewish concharacter which their countrymen looked for, that vert in those ages would have been equally defiis to say, as the restorers and deliverers of the na-cient in the knowledge of Greece and Rome. * tion, in that sense in which restoration and deliverance were expected by the Jews.

Now, had Jesus been an enthusiast, it is probable that his enthusiasm would have fallen in with the popular delusion, and that, whilst he gave himself out to be the person intended by these predictions, he would have assumed the character to which they were universally supposed to relate. Had he been an impostor, it was his business to have flattered the prevailing hopes, because these hopes were to be the instruments of his attraction and success.

This, however, is an argument which depends entirely upon an induction of particulars; and as, Why therefore Jesus, if he was, like them, consequently, it carries with it little force, without either an enthusiast or impostor, did not pursue a view of the instances upon which it is built, I the same conduct as they did, in framing his have to request the reader's attention to a detail character and pretensions, it will be found dif- of examples, distinctly and articulately proposed. ficult to explain. A mission, the operation and In collecting these examples, I have done no benefit of which was to take place in another life, more than epitomize the first volume of the first was a thing unthought of as the subject of these part of Dr. Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel prophecies. That Jesus, coming to them as their History. And I have brought the argument Messiah, should come under a character totally within its present compass, first by passing over different from that in which they expected him; some of his sections in which the accordancy apshould deviate from the general persuasion, and peared to me less certain, or upon subjects not deviate into pretensions absolutely singular and sufficiently appropriate or circumstantial; secondoriginal; appears to be inconsistent with the im-ly, by contracting every section into the fewest putation of enthusiasm or imposture, both which, words possible, contenting myself for the most

Matt. x. 1. Mark iii. 14. ↑ Chap. vi. 70.

Luke vi. 12.
Chap. xx. 24; vi. 71.

* Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament (Marsh's Translation,) c. 2. sect. xi.

part with a mere apposition of passages; and, thirdly, by omitting many disquisitions, which, though learned and accurate, are not absolutely necessary to the understanding or verification of the argument.

of Tiberius ;* and of Philip, that he died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, when he had governed Trachonitis and Batanea and Gaulanitis thirty seven years."+

III. [p. 20.] Mark vi. 17. "Herod had sent forth, and laid hold upon John, and bound him prison, for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her."

The writer principally made use of in the inquiry, is Josephus. Josephus was born at Jeru-in salein four years after Christ's ascension. He wrote his history of the Jewish war some time after the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in the year of our Lord LXX, that is, thirtyseven years after the ascension; and his history of the Jews he finished in the year XCIII, that is, sixty years after the ascension."

At the head of each article, I have referred, by figures included in brackets, to the page of Dr. Lardner's volume, where the section, from which the abridgment is made, begins. The edition used, is that of 1741.

I. [p. 14.] Matt. ii. 22. “When he (Joseph) heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee."

In this passage it is asserted, that Archelaus succeeded Herod in Judea; and it is implied, that his power did not extend to Galilee. Now we learn from Josephus, that Herod the Great, whose dominion included all the land of Israel, appointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, and assigned the rest of his dominions to other sons; and that this disposition was ratified, as to the main parts of it, by the Roman emperor.*

With this compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 6. sect. 1.-" He (Herod the tetrarch) made a vist to Herod his brother.-Here, falling in love with Herodias, the wife of the said Herod, he ventured to make her proposals of marriage. §

Again, Mark vi. 22. "And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in and danced—. With this also compare Joseph. Antiq. I. xviii. c. 6. sect. 4. "Herodias was married to Herod, son of Herod the Great. They had a daughter, whose name was Salome; after whose birth, Herodias, in utter violation of the laws of her country, left her husband, then living, and mar ried Herod the tetrarch of Galilee, her husband's brother by the father's side."

IV. [p. 29.] Acts xii. 1. "Now, about that time, Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church." In the conclusion of the same chapter, Herod's death is represented to have taken place soon after this persecution. The accuracy of our historian, or, rather, the unmeditated coincidence, which truth of its own accord produces, is in this instance remarkable. There was no portion of time, for thirty years before, nor ever afterward, in which there was a king at Jerusalem, a person exercising that au thority in Judea, or to whom that title could be applied, except the three last years of this Herod's

Saint Matthew says, that Archelaus reigned, was king in Judea. Agreeably to this, we are informed by Josephus, not only that Herod ap-life, within which period the transaction recorded pointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, but that he also appointed him with the title of King; and the Greek verb Bass, which the evangelist uses to denote the government and rank of Archelaus, is used likewise by Josephus. †

in the Acts is stated to have taken place. This prince was the grandson of Herod the Great. In the Acts, he appears under his family-name of Herod; by Josephus he was called Agrippa. For proof that he was a king, properly so called, The cruelty of Archelaus's character, which is we have the testimony of Josephus in full and not obscurely intimated by the evangelist, agrees direct terms:-"Sending for him to his palace, with divers particulars in his history, preserved Caligula put a crown upon his head, and appointby Josephus" In the tenth year of his governed him king of the tetrarchie of Philip, intending ment, the chief of the Jews and Samaritans, not being able to endure his cruelty and tyranny, presented complaints against him to Cæsar."

II. [p. 19.] Luke iii. 1. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar,-Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip, tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis,-the word of God came unto John."

By the will of Herod the Great, and the decree of Augustus thereupon, his two sons were ap pointed, one (Herod Antipas) tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa, and the other (Philip) tetrarch of Trachonitis and the neighbouring countries. I We have therefore these two persons in the situations in which Saint Luke places them; and also, that they were in these situations in the fifteenth year of Tiberius; in other words, that they continued in possession of their territories and titles until that time, and afterward, appears from a passage of Josephus, which relates of Herod, "that he was removed by Caligula, the successor

Ant. lib. xvii. c. 8. sect. 1.
De Bell. lib. i. c. 33. sect. 7.
Í Ant. lib, xvii. c. 13. sect 1.
Ant. lib. xvii. 8. sect. 1.

also to give him the tetrarchie of Lysanias. And that Judea was at last, but not until the last, included in his dominions, appears by a subse quent passage of the same Josephus, wherein he tells us, that Claudius, by a decree, confirmed to Agrippa the dominion which Caligula had given him; adding also Judea and Samaria, in the utmost extent, as possessed by his grandfather Herod.

Ant. lib. xviii. c. 8. sect. 2. t Ibid. c. 5. sect. 6. ↑ See also Matt. xiv. 1-13. Luke iii. 19. The athinity of the two accounts is unquestionable; but there is a difference in the name of Herodias's first husband, which, in the evangelist, is Philip; in Josephns, Herod. The difficulty, however, will not appear considerable, when we recollect how common it was in those times for the same person to bear two names. "Simon, which is called Peter: Lebbeus, whose surSimeon, who was called Niger; Saul, who was also callname is Thaddeus; Thomas, which is called Didymus; ed Paul." The solution is rendered likewise easier in the present case, by the consideration, that Herod the Great had children by seven or eight wives; that Josephus mentions three of his sons under the name of Herod: that it is nevertheless highly probable, that the brothers bore some additional name, by which they were distinguished from one another. Lardner, vol. ii. p. 87. Antiq, xviii. c. 7. sect. 10. Ib. xix. c. 5. sect. 1.

V. [p. 32.] Acts xff. 19–23. “ And he (Herod) | pa being then but seventeen years of age, the went down from Judea to Cesarea, and there emperor was persuaded to alter his mind, and abode. And on a set day, Herod, arrayed in appointed Cuspius Fadus prefect of Judea, and royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an the whole kingdom; which Fadus was succeeded oration unto them: and the people gave a shout, by Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus, Felix, Festus.t saving, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man; But that, though disappointed of his father's kingand immediately the angel of the Lord smote dom, in which was included Judea, he was neverhim, because he gave not God the glory: and he theless rightly styled King Agrippa, and that he was eaten of worins, and gave up the ghost." was in possession of considerable territories borderJoseph. Antiq. lib. xix. c. 8. sect. 2. "He ing upon Judea, we gather from the same authority; went to the city of Cesarea. Here he celebrated for, after several successive donations of country, shows in honour of Cæsar. On the second day 'Claudius, at the same time that he sent Felix of the shows, early in the morning, he came into to be procurator of Judea, promoted Agrippa from the theatre, dressed in a robe of silver, of most Chalcis to a greater kingdom, giving to him the curious workmanship. The rays of the rising tetrarchie which had been Philip's; and he added sun, reflected from such a splendid garb, gave him moreover the kingdom of Lysanias, and the proa majestic and awful appearance. They called vince that had belonged to Varus." him a god; and entreated him to be propitious to them, saying, Hitherto we have respected you as a man: but now we acknowledge you to be more than mortal. The king neither reproved these persons, nor rejected the impious flattery.--Immediately after this, he was seized with pains in his bowels, extremely violent at the very first. He was carried therefore with all haste to his palace. These pains continually tormenting him, he expired in five days' time."

Saint Paul addresses this person as a Jew: King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest." As the son of Herod Agrippa, who is described by Josephus to have been a zealous Jew, it is reasonable to suppose that he maintained the same profession. But what is more material to remark, because it is more close and circumstantial, is, that Saint Luke, speaking of the Father, (Acts xii. 1—3,) calls him Herod the king, and gives an example of the exercise of his authority at Jerusalem: speaking of the son, (xxv. 13,) he calls him king, but not of Judea; which distinction agrees correctly with the history.

The reader will perceive the accordancy of these accounts in various particulars. The place (Cesarea), the set day, the gorgeous dress, the acclamations of the assembly, the peculiar turn of the flattery, the reception of it, the sudden and VIII. (p. 51.] Acts xiii. 6. "And when they critical incursion of the disease, are circumstances had gone through the isle (Cyprus) to Paphos, noticed in both narratives. The worms, men- they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a tioned by Saint Luke, are not remarked by Jose-Jew, whose name was Barjesus, which was the phus: but the appearance of these is a symptom, deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent not unusually, I believe, attending the diseases man.' which Josephus describes, viz. violent affections of the bowels.

VI. [p. 41.] Acts xxiv. 21. "And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul."

Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c. 6. sect. 1, 2. " Agrippa gave his sister Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of the Emesenes, when he had consented to be circumcised.-But this marriage of Drusilla with Azizus was dissolved in a short time after in this manner-When Felix was procurator of Judea, having had a sight of her, he was mightily taken with her. She was induced to transgress the laws of her country, and marry Felix."

Here the public station of Felix, the name of his wife, and the singular circumstance of her religion, all appear in perfect conformity with the evangelist.

VII. [p. 46.] “And after certain days, king Agrippa and Bernice came to Cesarea to salute Festus." By this passage we are in effect told, that Agrippa was a king, but not of Judea; for he came to salute Festus, who at this time administered the government of that country at Cesarea.

Now, how does the history of the age correspond with this account? The Agrippa here spoken of, was the son of Herod Agrippa, mentioned in the last article: but that he did not succeed to his father's kingdom, nor ever recovered Judea, which had been a part of it, we learn by the information of Josephus, who relates of him that, when his father was dead, Claudius intended, at first, to have put him immediately in possession of his father's dominions; but that Agrip

The word, which is here translated deputy, signifies proconsul, and upon this word our observation is founded. The provinces of the Roman empire were of two kinds; those belonging to the emperor, in which the governor was called proprætor; and those belonging to the senate, in which the governor was called proconsul. And this was a regular distinction. Now it appears from Dio Cassius,§ that the province of Cyprus, which in the original distribution was assigned to the emperor, had been transferred to the senate, in exchange for some others; and that, after this exchange, the appropriate title of the Roman governor was proconsul.

fb. xviii. 12. [p. 55.] "And when Gallio was deputy (proconsul) of Achaia."

The propriety of the title "proconsul," is in this passage still more critical. For the province of Achaia, after passing from the senate to the emperor, had been restored again by the emperor Claudius to the senate (and consequently its government had become proconsular) only six or seven years before the time in which this transaction is said to have taken place. And what confines with strictness the appellation to the time is, that Achaia under the following reign ceased to be a Roman province at all.

IX. [p. 152.] It appears, as well from the general constitution of a Roman province, as from what Josephus delivers concerning the state of

* Antiq. xix. c. 9. ad fin.

† Ib. xx. De Bell. lib. ii.

De Bell. lib. ii. c. 12. ad fin

$ De Bell lib. liv. ad A. U. 732
Suet. in Claud. c. 25. Dio. lib. xi.

« AnteriorContinuar »