reigned thirty-four years after the death of Antigonus, and thirty-seven years after he was declared king by the Roman senate. And be placeth this declaration of the senate in A. U. 714, the death of Antigonus in the year 717. If indeed at the beginning of A. U. 750, Herod had reigned thirty-six years complete from the first date of his reign, and thirty-three from the latter; so that the 37th of the one epoch, and the 34th of the other, were to be current at the time of his death; then Herod might be said not improperly to have reigned, with respect to the one, thirty-seven years, and to the other thirty-four. It is supposed by some learned men, that Herod was declared king by the senate," toward the very end of the year 714: by others at the latter end of October, or beginning of November; by others in September or October: by others about the middle of July that year. But then, at the beginning of the year 750, Herod could not have reigned from this date thirty-six years complete, nor was the 37th year current. Herod took Jerusalem, as some think, in September, A. U. 717; others, about the end of June; archbishop Usher, on the first of January this year. If the archbishop's supposition could be allowed, we should have here no difficulty. But if any of the others are followed, then from this date, of Herod's reign, the taking of Jerusalem, or the death of Antigonus, (which are all one,) to the beginning of the year 750, we have not quite thirtythree years complete, nor is the thirty-fourth current.

X

In answer to this difficulty it is said by learned men, that the years of the Jewish kings were computed from the beginning of the month Nisan, which usually answers pretty near to our March. Insomuch, that if a king began to reign in any part of the year before, even in February, another year of his reign would begin with Nisan, that is, March. So Josephus relates, that Jerusalem was taken by Pompey, when Antony and Cicero were consuls; by Herod, when M.

r

c

-Τελευτα βασιλευσας αφ' ε μεν αποκτείνας Αντίγονον εκράτησε των πραγ μάτων, έτη τεσσαρα και τριακοντα, αφ' ε δε ύπο 'Ρωμαίων απεδείχθη βασιλευς, ETTα Kαι TрLAKоvra de B. J. 1. i. c. ult. sect. 8. Vid. etiam Ant. 1. xvii. c. 8. sect. 1. • Ant. 1. xiv. c. 14. sect. 5. De B. l. i. c. 14. sect. 4. "Alix. de J. C. Anno et Mense Basnage, ann. Polit. E. Vol. i. p. 17. n. 16.

Ant. l. xiv. c. ult. sect. 4. natali. p. 75.

Noris. Cenot. Pis. p. 139. Pagi Appar. p. 80. * Whiston's Short View, p. 150.

a

y Alix. ubi supra, p. 117.

Whiston, ibid. p. 152. Basnage, ibid. p. 30. n. 9.

Annals, P. J. 4677.

Inde etiam anni regum Hebræorum supputabantur, ita ut si quis rex in Adar regnaret, a Nisam alter annus imperii ejus inciperet. Reland. Antiq. Heb. de Temporib. Sacris, c. 1. init. vid. etiam Kepler. de Ann. natal. J. C. cap. 7. p. 46. Ant. l. xiv. c. 4. sect. 3.

d

6

Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls, on the very anniversary of the same calamity from Pompey, it having been taken by him on the same day, twenty-seven years 'before' though there were but twenty-six years complete between these two events. And from the taking of Jerusalem by Herod to its destruction by Titus, Josephus computes one hundred and seven years, though it was but one hundred and six complete. But, in my opinion, these instances are not home to the point. For in them the year named is current, whereas, in the case before us, it is not so. If Herod died in the beginning of the year 750, the thirty-third and thirty-sixth years of his reign were not complete.

IV. Other learned men suppose, that Herod died a short time before the passover, A. Ü. 751. This they argue from the number of years assigned to Herod's reign in the places above mentioned. They do not allow the truth of the Talmudical account of computing the reigns of the Jewish kings from the beginning of Nisan, or from the passover. If Josephus had followed such a kind of computation, he would have given some hint of it, in his books written in the Greek language, and for the instruction of strangers. They say also, that Herod's was a slow, lingering distemper, and that it is not likely he should die so soon after the execution of the rabbies and their accomplices, as is supposed by the patrons of the former opinion. Lastly, they observe the agreement of all the other numbers in Josephus, concerning the dates of the reign of Archelaus and other sons of Herod.

This opinion, however, labours under several very great difficulties. Dio's account of the removal of Archelaus is entirely rejected. But to do this is not very reasonable. Farther, the supporters of this opinion must allow of the eclipse above mentioned; or they must say, it was no real eclipse, but only some obscurity that was taken for an eclipse. If they allow the eclipse, then Herod must have lived a year after the execution of the rabbies, provided he died but a few days before the passover, A. U. 751. But

d Ibid. c. 16. sect. 4.

Ibid. 1. xx. c. 9. vid. Kepler, ibid.

Vid. Lamy, Appar. Chron. Par. i. c. 9. Basnage, annal. Pol. Eccl. Vol. i. p. 156. n. v. 8 Note; the learned men, who espouse the former opinion, suppose also that Josephus's numbers in all other places agree with them. h Vid. Noris. Cenot. Pis. p. 147.

i Quæ aptis temporibus tribui non possunt, nisi hæc mors contigerit jam aliquibus mensibus promoto anno U. C. 751, in quo comprobavimus mortuum fuisse Herodem. Quoquo autem anno mortuus sit, non multis ante pascha diebus mors illa obtigit, ut testatur Josephus, cui fidem adhibemus. Lamy, ubi supra, sect.

1

it is incredible that Herod should live so long, considering the description Josephus gives of his distemper. Besides, it is evident, that the mourning of the Jewish people for the rabbies, at the passover next after Herod's death, was very fresh, which it could not have been, if the rabbies had been dead above a year before. Moreover, it is evident, that Herod's ambassadors were sent away to Rome, to know Augustus's pleasure concerning Antipater, some time before the disturbance at the temple, when the golden eagle was taken down. And it is very plain, that Herod lived not many days after the arrival of the ambassadors. So that, according to this opinion, these ambassadors must have spent above a year in their journey from Judea to Rome and back again, though they were sent upon very pressing business, which is also incredible. Or they must reject the account of the eclipse, and say, as Lamy does, that it was only a paleness or obscurity, which was no real eclipse of the moon; which, I believe, will appear very unreasonable to all

astronomers.

n

These are the three principal opinions concerning the time of Herod's death: and these the main arguments for, and objections against them. I presume it appears to the reader, from particulars alleged from Josephus and Dio, that Herod did not die before the year 750, nor survive the year 751: and that he died a short time before the Jewish passover of one of these years. It follows, that if Herod died in 750, he died three years and nine months before the vulgar christian æra, which commences January 1, A. U. 754 : if at the time above mentioned, in the year 751, then he died about two years and nine months before the said æra. Which is the truth, I am not able to determine.

* Ην δε το πενθος εκ ὑπεταλμενον, αλλ' οιμωγαι διαπρύσιοι, και θρηνος εγκέλευτος, κοπετοι τε περιηχέντες όλην την πολιν. De B. l. ii. c. 1. sect. 2. Vid. et Ant. 1. xvii. c. 9. sect. 1.

De B. 1. i. c. 32. fin. Ant. 1. xvii. c. 5. fin.

m De B. ibid. c. 33. sect. 7, 8. Ant. ibid. c. 7. &c. 8. sect. 1.

n Ubi supra, sect. 6.

END OF THE FIRST PART.

THE

CASE OF THE DEMONIACS

MENTIONED IN THE

NEW TESTAMENT:

FOUR DISCOURSES UPON MARK V. 19.

WITH AN

APPENDIX,

FOR FARTHER ILLUSTRATING THE SUBJECT.

[FIRST PUBLISHED IN MDCCLVIII.]

6

PREFACE.

But

THESE discourses were preached to a small but attentive audience, in 1742. In the year 1737, were published by a learned author, An Enquiry, and a Further Enquiry, into the meaning of Dæmoniacs in the New Testament." as the subject had much employed my thoughts, and the plan had been drawn up a good while before, I did not discern any sufficient reason for laying it aside.

The publication of these discourses has been often desired by divers of those that heard them, and by others. They who know how I have been engaged, need not be told the reason of the delay. They might have been put into one continued dissertation, but then the practical observations must have been struck out; which I was unwilling to have done. And in their present form they must remain, for a while at least, a monument, that any subject, tending to illustrate the scriptures, may be treated in christian assemblies, if it be done with modesty and discretion. These Discourses, with the Appendix, may be reckoned a Supplement to the first part of the Credibility of the Gospel History.

DISCOURSE 1.

MARK V. 19.

Howbert Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them, how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on

thee.

IT is now some years since I explained and improved, as I was able, the history of our Lord's miracles, recorded in the gospels. I think that very few were entirely omitted, which are particularly related, except this in the country of the Gadarenes. And I always intended to consider this likewise, though it has been long deferred. As life, through the Divine goodness, is still preserved, I propose now to consider this history, which, with some few differences only, is found in three several evangelists, Matt. viii. 28–34; Mark v. 1-20; Luke viii. 26-39.

I. In the first place, I shall consider distinctly this whole narration, comparing together the several evangelists as we go along.

II. After which I intend to make some remarks upon this miracle, and the history of it.

I. In the first place, I shall distinctly consider the whole of this narration, comparing the several evangelists as we go along.

The time of this miracle may be in some measure perceived by the connexion: in all the three evangelists, it is preceded by an account of our Lord's crossing the sea of Galilee, with his disciples, and laying a tempest, which they had met with in their passage.

St. Luke had before given an account of divers of our Lord's discourses, ch. viii. 19, 22, 26, "Then came unto him his mother, and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. Now it came to pass on a certain day, that he went into a ship with the disciples. And he said unto them, Let us go unto the other side of the lake.And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee."

St. Mark also, having related divers of our Lord's discourses, says, "And the same day, when even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.