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 unsetled times, I know not: but being it pre­tends so farre to the Scriptures, I may have leave to feare 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 expresly 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 shew 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 Addresse, 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 joyne 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 prov'd out of Scripture to have been conceiv'd in June, I will not deny but our Saviour was conceived, and conse­quently will confesse 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 then this:

• [Page 2]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 severall places of Scripture be reduced into forme, 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 Syllogisme 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 daies 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 Syllogisme 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 Syllogisme 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 Syllogisme it is evident that the Question is not proved at all, and by this Syllogisme, if it be good, it is as evident, and I doe freely acknowledge, that the Question is by the Re­solver fully prov'd. But to this I answer,

The Minor, or second Proposition, I acknowledge, as being the Conclusion of the former Syllogisme 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 affirme the Conclusion not to be proved by this Argu­ment out of Scripture.

[Page 3]All the Scripture which is brought by the Resolver to prove the Major, are two places out of Exodus, from which it is truely collected, that Nisan, or Abib, was the first Month of the yeare: 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 it self this proves it not. Therefore the Resolver in his discourse hath not prov'd 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 confesse he addeth that of his owne, without any authority of Scripture, or any other Authour, which if it were in the Scriptures, might prove his Assertion to be of Scripture­truth, and of divine authority; or if it were in any other good Authour, might make it probable according to the authority of the Authour.

Now that which thus he adds, as I said of his own, consists of these two particulars:

• 1. That the first Course began alwaies at the beginning of the first Month of the yeare.
• 2. That each Course continued a Fortnight, and so the 24 Cour­ses made up a full compleat yeare: 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 onely not to be found, in the word of God, or in any other Authour of any antiquity, (as I presume) but is in it self considered apparently false. For, 12 Fornights doe not make an Hebrew year, nor 2 Fortnights 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 daies, for 14 times 24 make precisely 336. But even in the Lunar year of the Hebrews, without any interca­lation, there are contained no lesse then 354 daies. So that of ne­cessity there must be 18 daies left at the end of the yeare without any Course of Priests: and consequently the daily Sacrifice must [Page 4] cease, for the constant performance of which, these Courses were instituted, which of it selfe is most false: or the first Course must then begin againe, which is most contradictory to the first part of the Resolver's Addition, viz. That the first Course alwaies begins with the first day of the first Month.

But, the truth is, these parts of the Resolver's Addition doe not onely (taken joyntly together) include a manifest repugnan­cy, (which proves but one of them false) but each of them seve­rally is not onely destitute of any proofe in the Holy writ, or other good authority; but will appeare by it self 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 onely 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 Weeke. His words are these in the 11 chap. of the 7 Booke of the Jowish Anti­quities, [...]. i. e. David appointed one family in its course to minister unto the Lord for 8 daies, from Sabbath to Sub­bath. He calls (indeed) the space of time allotted to each course, 8 daies, 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 daies 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 compleat daies from his Nativity to his Circumcision: So the Courses of the Priests are said to minister 8 daies, 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 compleat daies. And so they performed the service of but 7 daies. Which is most evident out of a Booke of theirs extant, called [...] Sepher Maamadoth, i. e. the Booke of their Services, or their Liturgy; which is divided into seven parts, containing the Servi­ces of the 7 daies. The Courses then were not for a Fortnight, but for a Weeke, as Theophylact upon Saint Luke, hath well ob­served, saying, [...] [Page 5] [...], 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 daies, after the manner of the Courses of the Priests. The Levites then 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 daies from time to time with them; therefore the Courses of the Priests were weekly. And this Weeke began al­waies on the Sabbath day, as appeares 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 weeke, as well as the Sabbath, and being all these weekly Courses were compleated in 168 daies (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 lesse to the beginning of any yeare. The truth of all which any man must at first of necessity confesse, who has but observed how exact the Jemes were in keeping these Courses, and how loose in the observation of their Months and Yeares.

By all which it is clearly demonstrated (as farre as matters of this nature are capable of demonstration) that the severall Cour­ses of the Priests instit [...]ted by David did not continue for a fort­night together; Neither did the first Course of Joiarih alwaies 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.

[Page 6]From hence I conclude, that the Resolvers 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 shew, that Saint Chrysostome was the Occasion of this Errour, who supposed Zachary to be the High Priest. I Answer,

That Saint Chrysostome did thinke Zachary was the High Priest, is true: and that that opinion of Saint Chrysostome is false, I con­fesse: But that that opinion was the Occasion of observing the 25 day of December for Christs Nativity, I absolutely deny. And this the Resolver doth not, cannot prove.

For, that which was observ'd before Saint Chrysostome's time could not be occasioned by any opinion of S. Chrysostome.

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. Chrysostome, 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 cer­taine out of antiquity. But I shall onely prove it by S. Chryso­stome's owne testimony: who in a Sermon preached upon this day at Antioch, declares, that he was not the Authour nor occasion of the Celebration of it; but that he received it from the Church of Rome, who by an antient tradition had long observed it: his words are these, [...], i. e. But heare 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 Sa­viours Nativity was described. [...], For they which live there, having a long while by an antient Tradition celebrated this day, have now at last transmitted the knowledge of it to us. Thus the Easterne Church, and particular­ly S. Chrys: received this day from the Western Church, and con­se quently S. Chrys: by his errour was no occasion of the Celebra­tion of the 25 day of December. [...].