will determine the institution at Antioch to 25 Dec. 378. After this period we have notices of that day; as at Milan in the reign of Theodosius in 390. In the year 400 Sulpicius Severus records Dec. 25 as the day of the Nativity. Augustine names that day in his work upon the Trinity. In Egypt Dec. 25 was not yet acknowledged when Cassianus published his tenth Conference. That work of Cassianus was published about A. D. 420. And yet in the Council of Ephesus A. D. 431 a homily was recited of Paulus bishop of Emesa, which had been delivered in the great Church at Alexandria before Cyril the bishop, on Dec. 25 being the day of the Nativity. This day then was appointed at Alexandria in the episcopate of Cyril (which began Oct. 412), within the years 420 and 431. That our Lord anticipated the Paschal Supper is unanswerably proved by texts of St. John quoted by Casaubon in his argument against Baronius. The Last Supper of Christ with his disciples was before the Passover. The priests went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. It was the preparation of the Passover. The sabbath day was a high day. This anticipation was necessary for the event which was to follow; for from hence it came to pass that Jesus expired upon the cross on the day and in the hour at which the Paschal Lamb was appointed to be slain. The Paschal Lamb was sacrificed towards the close of the 14th day of Nisan, and was eaten three hours afterwards in the evening on which the 15th day of Nisan commenced. The Paschal full moon was in the spring when the sun entered Aries, and the Paschal Lamb was sacrificed before the full moon. And yet the month began at the phasis of the moon. And this happens according to Newton when the moon is 18 hours old. Therefore the 14th of Nisan might begin when the moon was 13d 18h old, and 1d Oh 22m to the full. But sometimes the phasis was delayed till the moon was 1d 17h old, and then, if the 1st of Nisan was deferred till the phasis, the 14th would begin only 1h 22m before the full moon. This precision however in adjusting the month to the moon did not exist in practice. The Jews, like other nations who For Mar. 21. Vernal Equinox is Mar. 21 His effect of precession is to shift the suns place, & therefore third of the squiox, among the signs of the Zodiac. leaviny equinion at FASTI ROMANI. "Sann time of Equinoxial Right Aversion! In See Hushells definition.p.63. (art. 10s) adopted a lunar year and supplied the defect by an interSee Naut. alm. calary month, failed in obtaining complete accuracy. We know not what their method of calculation was, at the time of the Christian era. But we are not to apply to their time the modern Jewish Calendar or the cycle of 19 years; nor are we to rely upon the accounts of Maimonides writing in the twelfth century, or of other Rabbinical doctors, for the practice of the Jews in the time of Christ; nor can it be determined from their computations in what year of that period the Paschal sacrifice fell upon the sixth day of the week. They used a cycle of 84 years, which was by no means exact; and sometimes (as we learn from Epiphanius and from the author of a Paschal homily in the works of Chrysostom) they observed the passover before the Su Ferguson 1 Says equinox. If the first Passover after the Baptism was in the spring of A. D. 26, the Crucifixion and the fourth Passover are determined to the year 29; and it remains to enquire whether the Passover of that year was in March or April. The full moon of March is fixed by Mr. Cuninghame's calculation to Friday March 18 at 9h 16m P. M. If that was the Paschal moon, we obtain these dates: the 14th of Nisan began at 6 P. M. of March 17 and the 15th of Nisan at 6 P. M. March 18, 3h 16m before the full moon; and the Paschal Lamb was slain at 3h P. M. of Friday March 18, 6h 16m before the full moon. It is no insurmountable objection that this was three days before the equinox; for we have seen from the preceddaying testimonies that a Jewish Passover was sometimes celefirst mouthbrated before the equinox, and, as Mr. Benson properly remarks, in the Mosaic Law there is no injunction which refers to the equinox at all. It has been objected however that March 18 is inadmissible, because if the 16th of Nisan is at March 20 the corn would not be ripe for an offering. But the Law seems only to require that when the sheaf was offered on the 16th of Nisan the barley should be in the ear. That it could be ripe enough to be reaped and used as food at that early season is scarcely credible. If the passover had been delayed until ripeness in this latter sense had been attained, not only a full moon at the equinox would have been excluded, but many vernal full moons after the equinox; and yordamenty ou 16 19 on that occasin a the 19th no. the 16th began wg. how A.D. 261 fully discussed in Braon's ordo- Ch I, on From Equinox. Mar 21, to mar 31.10? 1 For Table of Equinoxes, see Hales Chron. I.157. 6 ap: 15 15 KINGS OF PARTHIA. 327 25. after Equinox. confound by adams calculation on Equinox of B.c.552. it could rarely happen that the Passover could be celebrated 17th of April. We are now to consider the full moon of April in A.D. 29. 0100 The 17th of April fell upon Sunday in A. D. 29, and, as the crucifixion was upon the 6th day of the week, we obtain the following positions. The 1st of Nisan commenced at 6h quite unlikely P. M. April 1, at 21h 38m before the new moon according to Mr. Cuninghame; the 14th of Nisan at 6h P. M. of Thurs- nearly 2 day day April 14; the Paschal Lamb was slain at 3 P. M. of full moon Friday Ap. 15, 1d 19h before the full moon. Mr. Browne Browse prefers Friday March 18 as incline to the later date, and assigned to Friday April 15. 38m before the new moon is not improbable, when we consider the inaccuracy of ancient cycles. The Attic years of Meton had greater variations, even in the beginning of his cycle. по шассичалу my focus of times. the day of the Crucifixion. I in this - the Sun was in Aries" Aulig, B. 111. ch.10 v.l.p. 334 Joseph vol. 1. p. 147. § 6. KINGS OF PARTHIA.—KINGS OF PERSIA. Arsaces founded the Parthian Empire about B. C. 250. He first acquired Parthia and then Hyrcania. His successors gradually extended their dominion over the adjacent provinces until it included almost all the countries East of the Euphrates which had belonged to the old Persian Monarchy. The empire of the Arsacida under about 28 kings subsisted 475 years, from the rise of Arsaces in the consulship of L. Manlius Vulso C. Atilius Regulus B. C. 250b to the overthrow sea. a Parthia was a mountainous tract on the South Eastern border of the Caspian b See F. Rom. Vol. 2 p. 243 note a. If it was Mar. 18 it was before the squinox - approudly ascunse les. If ap. 15 it was 13.19h before full The former two makes the Equinox & resurrr day agree. of Artabanus by Artaxerxes in the beginning of A. D. 226, at the close of the fourth year of Alexander Severus. Each of the Parthian kings in addition to his own name assumed the name of the founder Arsaces. This appears from Strabo and Justin, and from the coins of the Parthian kings. I Arsaces. The two years ascribed to Arsaces by Arrian, if reckoned from his first appearance, are too short a space for his acts. They were probably dated from his ultimate success in the reign of Seleucus Callinicus about B. C. 245. 244. II Tiridates. The son of Arsaces according to Justin; his brother according to Arrian. Arsaces, whose war with Antiochus in B. C. 209 is described by Polybius, was Tiridates. If we date the 37 years of Tiridates from B. C. 244, they will include that war of the year 209, and agree with Polybius and Justin. III Priapatius, the third king, reigned 15 years. If his 15 years begin at B. C. 207, they may terminate in B. C. 192. IV Phrahates I, the fourth Arsaces according to Justin, succeeded his father about B. C. 192. He subdued the Mardi, and was succeeded by his brother Mithridates. V Mithridates I, Arsaces V according to Justin, succeeded his brother Phrahates I. He conquered Media, Elymæa, and from the Indian Caucasus to the Euphrates, and in India the provinces under Porus. VI Phrahates II, son of Mithridates, succeeded within B. C. 138— 130. Which gives about 60 years for the two reigns of Phrahates I and Mithridates I. After a short reign he was slain by his Greek soldiers. VII Artabanus I, son of Priapatius. The three reigns which came between the death of his father and his own elevation might make him 65 years old at his accession. VIII Mithridates II magnus. The son of Artabanus. The five kings, from Phrahates I to Mithridates II inclusive, occupy less than 120 years, giving an average of less than 24 years to each reign. The collective reigns of the three last are 60 years, which terminate about B. C. 75, when the accession of Sanatruces is fixed by testimonies. IX Sanatruces. Contemporary with Lucullus. He died within Ol. 177 B. C. 72-68. He was lately dead in B. C. 66. The seven years of his reign might be B. C. 75-68. Sanatruces is the ninth Arsaces. X Phrahates III Theus succeeded about B. C. 68. He was slain by his sons. XI Mithridates III, brother of Orodes, was expelled for his cruelty and slain by Orodes. The civil war between the two brothers is fixed by Appian to B. C. 57 or 56. Wherefore the two reigns of Phrahates III and Mithridates III occupied about 12 years, B. C. 68–57. XII Orodes brother of Mithridates III. His reign may be placed at B. C. 55-37. He slew Crassus in B. C. 53, and his son Pacorus was slain by Ventidius in B. C. 38, after whose death Orodes appointed Phrahates his successor, by whom he was murdered in the year following. XIII Phrahates IV began to reign in B. C. 37. In B. C. 20 he restored the Roman prisoners and standards to Augustus. He was slain about A. D. 13 by his son Phraataces. Phrahates IV therefore reigned about 52 years. XIV Phraataces, soon after he had murdered his father, was slain by the Parthian nobles, who appointed Orodes king. But he is soon slain and Vonones is appointed. XV Orodes II. See Arsaces XIV. XVI Vonones I son of Phrahates IV was chosen king in A. D. 16. See F. H. III p. 301 h. 2nd ed. He also was soon deposed by the Parthians. He first fled into Armenia, and then took refuge with Silanus the Roman governor of Syria. Tiberius afterwards caused him to be put to death. XVII Artabanus II began to reign in A. D. 17. His transactions with the Romans in A. D. 34. 35 are related by Tacitus. He had also another conference with the Roman governor of Syria, Vitellius, in the reign of Caligula A. D. 37. Artabanus was twice expelled by the Parthian satraps and twice restored, First, in A. D. 35, 36, when Tiridates was set up against him. In another rebellion one Cinnamus was appointed king; but Artabanus was restored and reigned till his death, which happened a short time afterwards. We have no evidence to shew the precise year of his death. The revolt of Cinnamus was after A. D. 37, and Artabanus II probably died in the beginning of the reign of Claudius. XVIII Gotarzes, son of Artabanus II, slew his brother Artabanus, and was expelled by his brother Vardanes. The city of Seleucia, which had asserted its independence in A. D. 41, and held it during the reign of Gotarzes, surrendered to Vardanes in the seventh year after its revolt. Uu |