tioned indeed when Dionysius lived, and who are those princes he speaks of; some have thought they were the two Antonines, others have thought he intended Severus, Caracalla, and Geta. Cardinal Noris, I think, hath put it beyond all doubt, by a passage alleged from Pliny, that Dionysius lived in the time of Augustus: the cardinal indeed supposes, that the princes here referred to are Caius and Lucius Cæsar, Augustus's adopted sons. Pagi seems to me to have shown, that the title of avaktes cannot belong to them; and that Augustus and Tiberius are the princes. which Dionysius means: but for the particulars Ì must refer the reader to Pagi himself.' (5.) There were two different computations of Tiberius's reign in the time of St. Clement of Alexandria: for having first said, that Augustus reigned forty-three years, and Tiberius twenty-two, he adds: But some reckon the reigns of the Roman emperors thus.-Augustus reigned forty-six years, four months, and one day. Then Tiberius, twenty-six years, six months, nineteen days.' h Having laid before the reader the chief arguments that have been produced for the proconsular, or joint empire of Tiberius with Augustus, I will consider also some of the objections which there are against this opinion. 1. It is objected, that Spartian says, that Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were the two first Augusti that governed the Roman empire together. But to this it is answered, that none of the patrons of this opinion ever said, that Tiberius had the title of Augustus whilst Augustus lived, but only that he was colleague with him in the empire. These words of Spartian are no more an objection against Tiberius's proconsular empire, than they are against Titus's and Trajan's; who certainly enjoyed this honour, the one with his father Vespasian, and the other with Nerva. Nor indeed did the title of Augustus give any new power; it was only a title of honour, which sort of titles were Hoc in loco [Arabia d Cenot. Pis. Diss. 2. p. 193. nempe] genitum esse Dionysium, terrarum orbis sitûs recentissimum auctorem, quem ad commentanda omnia in orientem præmisit Divus Augustus, ituro in Armeniam ad Parthicas Arabicasque res majore filio. Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. vi. cap. 27. f Critica in Baron. A. D. 11. n. 6, 7. 5 Αύγετος στη τεσσαράκοντα τρια Τιβέριος, ετη κβ. Clem. Strom. 1. i. p. 339. A Parisiis, 1629. h Τινες μεν τοι της χρόνες των Ρωμαϊκων βασιλεων ούτως αναγραφεσι.-Αύγετος εβασίλευσεν στη με, μήνας δ, ήμεραν μιαν. Επειτα Τιβέριος, ετη κς, μήνας 5, ήμερας ιθ. Id. ib. C. Hi sunt qui postea duo pariter Augusti, primi rempublicam gubernaverunt. Spartian. in Hadrian. cap. 24. Vid. Eutrop. lib. viii. cap. 9. et Capitolin. in Marc. cap. 7. * Vid. Dio. lib. liii. p. 507. usually taken gradually. Tiberius ever refused that of father of his country, and would not permit that of Augustus to be given him by any decree, though he accepted of it from some persons, and made use of it himself in letters to foreign princes. And Dio takes notice of it as a singularity in Caligula, that in one day he accepted all those titles which Augustus had received throughout his long reign, and had suffered to be given him only one by one, (some of which Tiberius never would accept of,) except only that of father of his country, which he took upon him also in a short time after.m 2dly, It is objected: If Tiberius had been made colleague in the empire with Augustus, there could have been no reason for those fears about the succession of Tiberius which Livia showed upon the death" of Augustus; nor would Tiberius have hesitated to accept the empire when offered to him by the senate: or indeed, what occasion could there have been for any new investiture at all? But to this, I think, it is easy to answer; that it is no surprising thing that Livia should be under some pain, when the settlement of her son in the empire was at stake. Though Tiberius had been partner in the empire, yet certainly the death of Augustus made a great change. Germanicus was very popular, and at the head of a numerous army and as for Tiberius's hesitation, he had been hitherto but partner in the empire, and some kind of new investiture was needful. It is true, he carried his dissimulation very far; but Augustus himself never renewed a fresh term of government, (which he did several times,) but with much difficulty; and not till he had been overcome by importunity, and the consideration of the necessity of affairs. However, this dissimulation of Tiberius has afforded a new proof, that he had been colleague with Augustus: for as Tacitus and Dio intimate very plainly the fears which Tiberius had of Germanicus, so Suetonius says: He pretended a bad state of health, that Germanicus might 'entertain hopes of a speedy succession, or at least a part 1 Το τε τε πατρος της πατρίδος προσρημα παντελως διεωσάτω, και το το Αυγος, εκ επέθετο μεν (εδε γαρ ψηφισθηναι ποτε ειασε) λεγομενον δ' ακέων, και γραφόμενον αναγινωσκων, εφερε και όσακις γε βασιλευσι τισιν επετελλε, και EKELVO πроσεVEуpape. Dio. lib. lvii. p. 607. A. m'Ωςε παντα όσα ο Αύγετος εν τοσετῳ της αρχης χρονῳ μολις και καθ ̓ ἐν ἑκατον ψηφισθεντα οἱ εδέξατο (ὧν ενια Τιβέριος εδ' όλως προσηκατο εν μια μeρa λaßev, K. T. λ. Dio. lib. lix. p. 641. D. "Acribus namque custodiis domum et vias sepserat Livia. Tacit. Ann. lib. i. cap. 5. Dio. lib. lvii. p. 603. Tacit. Ann. lib. i. cap. 33-35. nership in the empire.' But such an expectation had been ridiculous in Germanicus, and this pretence of Tiberius could never have had the effect he designed, if no one had been partner in the empire before. 3. But the chief objection against the supposition, that St. Luke has computed the reign of Tiberius from the time of his proconsular empire, seems to be this; That it does not appear that any writers have computed the reign of those who were colleagues in the empire by the epoch of their proconsular empire, and that in particular there are no traces of this computation of Tiberius's reign,a To this I answer: There is reason to think, that people did often compute according to the epoch of the proconsular empire. Pagi mentions a medal which has this inscription: In the xi. new sacred year of the emperor Titus Cæsar Vespasian Augustus.' Now Titus reigned alone after his father's death but a little above two years. 6 It will not be expected I should here attempt to explain the meaning of the epoch of the new sacred year. All that I shall observe is, that it appears not to have been used upon the coins of any emperors beside those of Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, and Nerva: and that it does not begin at any one common period, such as the building or dedication of any one particular temple, but that the numbers answer exactly to the years of the several emperors on whose coins it is found." And Pagi is of opinion, that it was an epoch chiefly used by the people of Syria and Egypt, because the epithet sacred' is inore cominon upon their coins than any others.t And I cannot but think, that there were for some time different computations of the length of Nerva's and Trajan's reigns; and that they were owing to this, that Trajan was æquiore animo Germanicus celerem successionem vel certe societatem principatûs operiretur. Suet. in Tiber. cap. 25. n. iv. Est autem inauditum in omni memoria, Titi annos ab alio initio fuisse deductos quam a morte Vespasiani. S. Basnage, Annal. Pol. Eccles. A. D. 11. Sic in nummo Græco apud Occonem, p. 166. legitur ΑΥΤ. ΤΙΤΟΥ. ΚΑΙΣΑΡΟΣ. ΟΥΕΣΠΑΣΙΑΝΟΥ. ΣΕΒ. ΕΤΟΥΣ. ΙΕΡΟΣ. IA. id. est, Imperatoris Titi Cæsaris Vespasiani Augusti anno novo sacro xi. Quo ex Titi nummo manifeste apparet, deceptos viros eruditos qui negant annos Tiberii, Titi, aliorumque imperii collegarum numeratos fuisse. Hæc porro epocha non nisi in Vespasiani, Titi, Domitiani, et Nervæ nummis occurrit. Pagi, Crit. in Baron. A. D. 81. n. iii. * Nisi enim hoc modo in nummis Titi, Domitiani, et Nervæ, epocha hæc explicetur, impossibile est nummos inter se posse convenire; cum eorum imperii annos non excedat, sed ad amussim iis respondeat. Pagi, ibid. ' Et nullibi sacri nomen frequentius, quam in nummis in Syriâ et Egypto percussis, usurpatum. Ibid. n. iv. u W V for some time Nerva's colleague in the empire. Mr. Dodwell was of opinion, that Nerva did actually resign the empire to Trajan before his death: and so Aurelius Victor and Lactantius seem to say. I think indeed that Nerva did not resign, not only because Eutropius* says, that Dioclesian was the first of all the Roman emperors that did so, but especially because the younger Pliny, who served under Nerva and Trajan, and knew them both very well, says nothing of it, though he often mentions their joint empire. But I think, that the notion which the fore-mentioned authors had of Nerva's resigning, may be very well accounted for upon the supposition, that they had met with different computations of the time of these two princes' reigns in some ancient writers; and their mistake is not easy to be accounted for otherwise. As for Tiberius, I take it for granted that it has been fully proved, that he was for some time partner in the empire with Augustus; and particularly that it has been made appear, that Piso was præfect of Rome twenty years, and that he was put into that post by the appointment or procurement of Tiberius. Thus much I think Basnage allows," and Suetonius and Pliny both say that Tiberius was then ' prince.' And it is highly probable that the christians had a persuasion, that there were two different epochs of the beginning of Tiberius's reign: otherwise, when they said that Jesus was crucified in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, when the two Gemini were consuls, namely, A. D. 29, (as they did almost universally,) after he had preached above two years, or " Vid. Append. ad Dissert. Cypr. n. 39, 40. Quid enim Nervå prudentius? Qui cum extremâ ætate apud Sequanos, quo tyranni defecit metu, imperium arbitrio legionum cepisset; ubi prospexit, nisi a superioribus robustioribusque corpore animoque geri non posse, mense sexto ac decimo semet eo abdicavit. Aurel. Vict. de Cæsar. in Nervâ. * Simul et exemplum Nervæ proferebat, qui imperium Trajano tradidisset. De Mort. Persecut. cap. 18. * Diocletianus privatus in villâ quæ haud procul a Salonis est, præclaro otio senuit; inusitatâ virtute usus; ut solus omnium post conditum Romanum imperium ex tanto fastigio sponte ad privatæ vitæ statum civilitatemque remearet. Eutrop. lib. ix. cap. 28. y Assumptus es in laborum curarumque consortium. Plin. Paneg. cap. 7. Inde quasi deposito imperioquâ securitate, quâ gloriâ lætus? (Nerva nempe) Nam quantulum refert, deponas an partiaris imperium, nisi quod difficilius hoc est? ib. c. 8. Magnum hoc tuæ moderationis indicium, quod non solum successor imperii, sed particeps etiam sociusque placuisti. cap. 9. Ubi supra, A. D. 11. n. ii. a Tricesimo enim juxta evangelistan. Lucam anno ætatis suæ cœpit in carne Dominus evangelium prædicare; et juxta Johannem evangelistam, per tria paschata duos postea implevit annos: et inde sex Tiberii supputantur anni, &c. C ab whole year including two passovers, or a year and some few months; they must have been sensible that they contradicted St. Luke, who says, that the "word of God came" to John the Baptist in the "fifteenth year of Tiberius;" since also they must necessarily have allowed some time for the ministry of John, distinct from that of Jesus. That we have so few examples of this way of computing the reign of Tiberius, is not to be wondered, considering how few ancient writers who lived near his time are come down to us, and especially such as lived in the provinces where this epoch must have been chiefly used. The distinct computation of Augustus's reign to the time of his death, and of Tiberius's after him, was undoubtedly most commodious; and for this reason, probably, the computation of Tiberius's reign, from the time of his proconsular empire, was soon dropped. Besides, Tiberius seems to have taken pains to obliterate this date of his government, inasmuch as he was unwilling to have it thought that he owed his greatness to the adoption of Augustus, or the intrigues of his mother Livia; but would have it ascribed solely to the free choice of the people after Augustus's death, that is, to his own merit, as Dio expressly says. d Tiberius then having had, for some time before the death of Augustus, equal power with him in all the provinces and armies, and having been made thereby partner with him in the empire, it is not impossible, but that St. Luke might compute the reign of Tiberius by this epoch. We should now, if possible, settle the exact time when Tiberius was made partner with Augustus; it may be concluded that he was so, A. U. 765, two years before Augustus died, because in that year Piso was made præfect of Rome, Tiberius being prince: and Archbishop Usher and Prideaux place the beginning of this government of Tiberius in this year. There is however a considerable difficulty attending this Appollinarius Laodic. apud Hieron. Com. in Dan. cap. 9. 'O de Isdaç naṆA Ty Inos de тpia diтpitev ern. Orig. cont. Cels. 1. ii. p. 67. * Και ότι ενιαυτον μονον εδει αυτόν κηρύξαι, και τωτο γεγραπται ούτως-πεντεκαιδεκατῳ εν έτει Τιβέριο, και πεντεκαιδεκατῳ Αύγεστε ουτω πληρώνται τα τριακοντα ετη έως ου επαθεν. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. i. p. 340. A. Ενιαυτον γαρ πω και μήνας ολιγες εδιδαξεν Orig. Phil. p. 4. d Dabat et famæ, ut vocatus electusque potius a republicâ videretur, quam per uxorium ambitum et senilem adoptionem irrepsisse. Tacit. Ann. 1. i c. 8. • Ηδη μεν γαρ ηκεσα ότι επειδαν ή Λικία άκοντος το Αύγετε την αρχήν αυτή περιπεποιηκεναι ελέγετο, επλαττεν όπως μη παρ' εκείνης, αλλά παρα της βέλης αναγκασος ὡς και κατα αρετην σφων προηκων, δόξειεν αυτην ειληφέναι Dio. I. lvii. p. 603. D. VOL. I. 2 c |