CHRIST'S BIRTH NOT MISTIMED: OR, A clear Refutation of a Resolution to a Question about the time of CHRIST'S NATIVITY.  
By R. S. Pretending to evidence by Scripture, THAT, JESUS CHRIST was not borne in December.   printer's or publisher's device 
LONDON, Printed for Richard Royston, in Ivy-lane. M. DC XL. IX.   

CHRIST'S BIRTH NOT MISTIMED, etc.  
AMongst the rest of the Pamphlets, there came forth this Week, a Resolution to a Question made by the Lord CAREW, touching the true time of the Birth of CHRIST, framed by way of a Letter, and subscribed [R. S.] What operation this Resolution may have in these unsettled times, I know not: but being it pretends so fare to the Scriptures, I may have leave to fear it may have some influence on the minds of such as are not well affected to the Resolves of the Primitive times. Who being already too forward to deny all obedience to their Mother Church, where she cannot evidence her commands expressly and particularly out of the Word of God; will be greedy of an occasion or pretence to desert her in that, which may any way seem contrary to it. To prevent any such consequence, I have sent this Refutation after R. S. his Resolution, not doubting but it will clearly show the invalidity of whatsoever he hath endeavoured to bring for the confirmation of his novel Assertion.  
TO the I. Section, or Preface, I answer nothing, because it is only an Address, and pretends not to any part of the proof. Of the II. Section, the Title is this, [The true time of Christ's Nativity evidenced.] In this I desire to join issue, and deny that any Evidence of the true time of Christ's Nativity is to be found in this Section, which is the Body of his Resolution. His Argument runs thus, The Conception of John Baptist was in the Month of June. Therefore the Conception of Christ (not the Birth) was in December, the 6 Month after June.  
The consequence I acknowledge without any further dispute, and therefore shall not at all question the proof. If John the Baptist can be proved out of Scripture to have been conceived in June, I will not deny but our Saviour was conceived, and consequently will confess that he was not Borne in December.  
But the Antecedent is in no wise to be admitted, wherefore I absolutely deny that it can be proved out of Scripture that John Baptist was conceived in June, and therefore to your Argument contained in the second part of the II. Section, which endeavours to prove the Antecedent, I answer thus:  
The Argument, so much of it as is taken out of the Scriptures, is no more than this: 

The course of Abiah was the 8 course of the Priests, 1 Chr. 24. 10.  
Zacharias was of the course of Abiah, Luke 1. 5.  
After the course of Abiah, John Baptist was conceived, Luk. 1. 26.  
Nisan (or Abib) was the first month of the year, Exod, 12. 2. 13. 4.    
Now if all these Propositions, taken out of these several places of Scripture be reduced into form, the Argument will run thus, 

The course of Abiah was the 8 course of the Priests, 1 Chr. 24. 10.  
Zachariah was of the course of Abiah, Luke 1. 5. Ergo, Zachariah was of the 8 course of the Priests.    
This Syllogism I acknowledge to be very good, and therefore shall take the Conclusion for a truth: Only this I must have leave to put in by the way. If the Course remained in the same Order, in the days of Herod, in which they were instituted by K. David. For, being this cannot be proved out of the Scripture, and being possible that in so long time, and so many confusions, the order might be altered; therefore though the premises be both in the Scripture, yet the Conclusion is not altogether of Scripture Authority.  
But being Josephus hath witnessed, that the Order was not altered, I admit the Conclusion as a truth.  
Which being admitted, the next Syllogism will be this: 

The course of Zachariah was the 8 course of the Priests.  
John Baptist was conceived at the end of the course of Zachariah, Luke 1. 26. Ergo, John Baptist was conceived at the end of the 8 course of the Priests.    
This Syllogism I likewise willingly admit. But being this has not yet made an end of the Question, We must thus proceed: 

The end of the 8 course of the Priests was in June.  
John Baptist was conceived at the end of the 8 course of the Priest. Ergo, John Baptist was conceived in June.    
Without this Syllogism it is evident that the Question is not proved at all, and by this Syllogism, if it be good, it is as evident, and I do freely acknowledge, that the Question is by the Resolver fully proved. But to this I answer,  
The Minor, or second Proposition, I acknowledge, as being the Conclusion of the former Syllogism which I before admitted. But the former Proposition, or Major, I absolutely deny to be formally or virtually contained in the Scriptures, and consequently I affirm the Conclusion not to be proved by this Argument out of Scripture.  
All the Scripture which is brought by the Resolver to prove the Major, are two places out of Exodus, from which it is truly collected, that Nisan, or Abib, was the first Month of the year: So that his Argument must run thus, 

Nisan (or Abib) was the first month of the year, Exod. 12. 2. 13. 4.  
Ergo, The end of the 8 course of the Priests was in June.    
This is all which he brings out of the Scriptures to prove this Proposition, and every one sees that of itself this proves it not. Therefore the Resolver in his discourse hath not proved out of the Scriptures, that the end of the 8 course was in June, and consequently, hath not proved out of the Scriptures, that John Baptist was conceived in June, which he undertook to prove.  
But though he have not proved his Assertion out of the Scriptures, yet I must confess he addeth that of his own, without any authority of Scripture, or any other Author, which if it were in the Scriptures, might prove his Assertion to be of Scripture-truth, and of divine authority; or if it were in any other good Author, might make it probable according to the authority of the Author.  
Now that which thus he adds, as I said of his own, consists of these two particulars: 

1. That the first Course began always at the beginning of the first Month of the year.  
2. That each Course continued a Fortnight, and so the 24 Courses made up a full complete year: and consequently, that the end of the 8 Course was at the end of the 4 Mouth, which was June.    
But this addition of the Resolver, is not only not to be found, in the word of God, or in any other Author of any antiquity, (as I presume) but is in itself considered apparently false. For, 12 Fornights do not make an Hebrew year, nor 2 Fortnight's an Hebrew Month. Suppose then that the course of Joiarib, or the first course, should be the first day of Abib, and that day fortnight. 1. The 15 day of Abib the a Course, and so successively to the end of the 24 Courses, it is evident that all the Courses would be gone over in 336 days, for 14 times 24 make precisely 336. But even in the Lunar year of the Hebrews, without any intercalation, there are contained no less than 354 days. So that of necessity there must be 18 days left at the end of the year without any Course of Priests: and consequently the daily Sacrifice must cease, for the constant performance of which, these Courses were instituted, which of itself is most false: or the first Course must then begin again, which is most contradictory to the first part of the Resolver's Addition, viz. That the first Course always gins with the first day of the first Month.  
But, the truth is, these parts of the Resolver's Addition do not only (taken jointly together) include a manifest repugnancy, (which proves but one of them false) but each of them severally is not only destitute of any proof in the Holy writ, or other good authority; but will appear by itself to be false by as good authority as can possibly in such a case be had.  
Josephus a learned Jew, who was himself a Priest, and one of the course of Jeiarib; the only man upon whose authority the continuation of the Order in the Courses from Solomon's institution to the destruction of the second Temple, (without which, the very first part of the Resolver's Argument signifies nothing) this Josephus, I say, tells us plainly, that David instituted these Courses of the Priests not for a Fortnight together, but a Week. His words are these in the 11 chap. of the 7 Book of the Jowish Antiquities, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. David appointed one family in its course to minister unto the Lord for 8 days, from Sabbath to Subbath. He calls (indeed) the space of time allotted to each course, 8 days, reckoning (according to their manner) both the day they began, and the day they ended their service; which is evident by the words which immediately follow them, from Sabbath to Sabbath. As therefore it is said, Luke 2. 21. When eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the Child, his name was called Jesus; whereas he was circumcised on the 8 day, and so there were but 7 complete days from his Nativity to his Circumcision: So the Courses of the Priests are said to minister 8 days, whereas they began their service on the Sabbath; & ended at the same time of the day the next Sabbath, which is but the space of 7 complete days. And so they performed the service of but 7 days. Which is most evident out of a Book of theirs extant, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sepher Maamadoth, i. e. the Book of their Services, or their Liturgy; which is divided into seven parts, containing the Services of the 7 days. The Courses than were not for a Fortnight, but for a Week, as Theophylact upon Saint Luke, hath well observed, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Solomon when he had finished the Temple, appointed also the Courses, that is to say, the Weeks. And this may be further evidenced yet even out of the word of God. For, at the same time that the Priests were divided into 24 Courses the Levites were divided so likewise for their attendance on the Priests, 1 Chron. 23. 6. of which Josepus speaks very expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. David divided also the Tribe of Levi into 24 parts, who by lot kept their Courses for 8 days, after the manner of the Courses of the Priests. The Levites than were divided after the same manner with the Priests and kept the same Courses. But the Levites Courses were but weekly, as appears, 1 Chron. 9 25. And their Brethren, (viz. the Levites) which were in their Villages were to come after 7 days from time to time with them; therefore the Courses of the Priests were weekly. And this Week began always on the Sabbath day, as appears by the words of Josephus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from Sabbath to Sabbath: and out of Sepher Maaboth, or their Liturgy, in which are these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. And in the Sabbath they added one Benediction to the Course that went off.  
Now being every Course began on the Sabbath day, and the first day of the month began on any day of the week, as well as the Sabbath, and being all these weekly Courses were completed in 168 days (for 7 times 24 make so many) and then to begin again, that there might be no intermission of the service of God; therefore the first Course could not be tied to the beginning of any month, much less to the beginning of any year. The truth of all which any man must at first of necessity confess, who has but observed how exact the Jemes were in keeping these Courses, and how lose in the observation of their Months and Years.  
By all which it is clearly demonstrated (as fare as matters of this nature are capable of demonstration) that the several Courses of the Priests instituted by David did not continue for a fortnight together; Neither did the first Course of Joiarih always begin with the first Month Nisan or Abib, Without which Propositions granted to be true, (as they are most certainly false) all which the Resolver brings out of the Scripture doth nor prove any such thing as, that John▪ Baptist was conceived in June.  
From hence I conclude, that the resolver's Argument doth not prove that our Savious was conceived in December, because the Antecedent of the Argument is not proved, viz. that John Baptist was conceived in June.  
To the III. Section, by way of Postscript, in which he endeavoureth to show, that Saint chrysostom was the Occasion of this Error, who supposed Zachary to be the High Priest. I Answer,  
That Saint chrysostom did think Zachary was the High Priest, is true: and that that opinion of Saint chrysostom is false, I confess: But that that opinion was the Occasion of observing the 25 day of December for Christ's Nativity, I absolutely deny. And this the Resolver doth not, cannot prove.  
For, that which was observed before Saint Chrysostome's time could not be occasioned by any opinion of S. chrysostom.  
But the observation of the 25 of December for the Nativity of our Saviour was before S. Chrysostome's time.  
Therefore the Observation of the 25 of December for the Nativity was not occasioned by any opinion of S. chrysostom, and consequently, not by that opinion of his, that Zachariah was the High Priest.  
The major is without all Question true. The minor is as certain out of antiquity. But I shall only prove it by S. Chrysostome's own testimony: who in a Sermon preached upon this day at Antioch, declares, that he was not the Author nor occasion of the Celebration of it; but that he received it from the Church of Rome, who by an ancient tradition had long observed it: his words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. But hear and believe, that we have received this day (25 of December) from those which have exact knowledge of these things, and inhabit that City, (Rome) where the Censuals Tables were extant in which our Saviour's Nativity was described. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For they which live there, having a long while by an ancient Tradition celebrated this day, have now at last transmitted the knowledge of it to us. Thus the Eastern Church, and particularly S. Chrys: received this day from the Western Church, and consequently S. Chrys: by his error was no occasion of the Celebration of the 25 day of December. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
THE END.