is the 21 or 22 of March as was afterward and that it was thence established on the 21 by the Council of Nice and that by consequence in those times of the Apostles the formerly-receiv'd aequinox was altered from the 25 to the 22 or 21 and so also as of necessity it followes the Winter-solstice from the 25 of December to near about the 21 or 22 of the same moneth Whence also it is to be concluded that this Feast day was receiv'd as to be kept on the 25 day even before the Apostles time and that among the Disciples of our Saviour while he was yet on earth that is while in common reputation the 25. day of December was taken for the Winter-solstice Otherwise what colour were there why the consent of the Fathers should denote it by that civil Winter-solstice which was out of use in the Church both in their time and been so likewise from the times of the Apostles that is from some time after the Passion of our Saviour before which there was no need at all for the establishing of our Easter which was to be ruled by the Spring-aequinox to vary the placing of those points of the Quarters of the year But it being commonly received out of the account and Kalendar of the Gentiles that the 25. of December was the Solstice and that on the same day our Saviour was born it grew familiar it seems and so was delivered down to those Fathers that the birth-day was on the very Winter-solstice which they so often inculcate But the Apostles and Evangelists not being able perhaps in the infancy of the Church to settle the anniversary celebration of Easter until about their later times that is about 100. years after this birth carefully observed and especially St. Peter and St. Mark where the natural aequinox was according to which the Solstices ever vary and so found it in that time about the 22. or 21. of March as by exact calculation it will happen according to that before noted touching Anatolius and hence they delivered the knowledge of the change of those Quarters of the year to posterity But also because even from the very birth it self the 25. day of December had been kept or known for it notwithstanding that it was in vulgar opinion conceived to have been on the day attributed to the civil Solstice * In common reputation among the Gentiles yet would they not vary it from that day because indeed it had no reference to the Solstice which anticipated it three dayes as is before shewed but was proper to the 25. day of December onely as it was the 25. of that Moneth Although those Fathers being none of the best Astronomers thought still however the Solstice was altered in their times that at the time of the birth the natural Solstice had fallen on the 25. day and then onely they so often note it mistaking vulgar supposition delivered in the Kalendars of the Gentiles for exact calculation SECT IV. Expresse testimonies to the same purpose out of ancient History and a Confirmation from the general use in the severall Churches of Christendom NEither is this antiquity of certainty only thus proved from the common joyning the Feast with the Winter-solstice in the Fathers expressions of it but also from expresse testimonies denoting as much in relations of the ancients In which to observe first a like course as before in going upward from the time of those Fathers toward the Apostles we find that many years before the Council of Nice that is under Dioclesian this Feast was thus celebrated and that in some part of the Eastern Church also however that Church was not generally instructed in it till in St. Chrysostoms age For in the Church-story * Nicephor Calistus l. 7. c. 6. it appears that under that Emperour Anthimus Bishop of Nicomedia together with many thousand Christians were assembled to keep that feast-Feast-day when as the Emperour or his fellow-Persecutor Maximinus commanded fire to be put to the Church wherein they were assembled and that none of them should escape that would not sacrifice presently to Iupiter Victor whereupon they all willingly receiv'd the Crown of Martyrdom and in the ancient Martyrology of Rome the passion of those Martyrs is placed on the 25 of December in these words Nicomediae passio multorum millium Martyrum qui cum in Christi natali ad dominicum convenissent c. which also for the time is justified by the Greek †ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Menologie where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that is Anthimus assembling in his Church a multitude of Christians on the feast-Feast-day of Christs Birth kept the Feast with them c. But indeed the Greek Church casts this Feast of the Martyrs on the 28 of December as they do also upon other dayes the * Menol. ad dictos dies memories of St. Eugenia and St. Anastasia both which the Western Churches retain with this Birth-day on the 25 the one on the 22 the other on the 24 day But this was done by them only because the more single honour might be given both to our Saviours Birth and to those other names being so divided Vt horum solennitatem speaking of those Martyrs saith †Old Martyrol 8 Kalend Jan. Baronius celebriùs agerent cam transtulerunt As also among the Iews a Translation was often used of their feasts from one day to another that two Sabbaths or great Feasts might not concur as their * Talmud massec Rosh Hassana Doctors deliver Hence then it is enough also manifest first that by ancient testimony of the Monuments of the Church this Feast was thus observed before Constantine or that Council of Nice which was held many years after the death of Dioclesian But also to look farther upon the times preceding this Martyrdom we shall find good testimony that it was taught to posterity to be kept so even by the Apostles who knew it as a clear certainty while our Saviour was yet on earth For though they ordain'd it not in those Constitutions falsly attributed to them or in any other Writer yet might they teach it as a tradition to be receiv'd ever to the Church as they did the changing of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first of the week the solemn Renunciation of the Devil at Baptism the keeping of Easter on the Sun-day or the like quas sine ullius Scripturae instrumento as * De corona militis c. 3. Tertullian sayes solius traditionis titulo exinde consuetudinis patrocinio vindicamus To this purpose among St. Chrysostoms Works in Latine one Homily is †Edit Bass◠tom 2. hom 39. De Nativitate Domim as the Latine title is for the Greek of that Homily I have not yet seen wherein he confidently as elsewhere teaches that this day of December is the just day of that birth and for his authority brings no less than St.
ΘΕΑÎΘΡΩΠΟΣ OR God made Man A TRACT PROVING THE NATIVITY OF OUR SAVIOUR to be on the 25. of December By JOHN SELDEN that eminently-learned Antiquary late of the Inner-Temple LONDON Printed by J.G. for Nathaniel Brooks at the Angel in Corn-hill 1661. TO THE LEARNED GENTRY OF THE INNER TEMPLE WEre is not to comply with the mode of the Times an Epistle had been altogether useless for to expatiate upon his desert were but actum agere since the British world has been sufficiently sensible thereof Opus authoris nomine insignitur The Authors name in the Frontispiece commends the work above my ability and will save me a labour Now that this was the legitimate issue of famous Seldens brain is indisputable since he that is never so meanly acquainted with the style will soon acknowledge it 'T were pitty that so elaborate a Treatise should sleep in the grave of oblivion especially when there are so many persons in this age whose misguided zeal christens all that thwarts the grain of their phanatique opinions with the nick-name of superstition that do so much oppugne the subject and verity of this discourse but beyond all controversy they that peruse it must be convinced or manifest themselves obstinately stubborn 'T is a mistery to me that I could never fathom to imagine that any Levite should rely so much upon Christ for salvation and yet deny nay be offended at the celebrations of his Nativity But if either Divine or Humane authority the practise of the Primitive times or the Institution of our Holy Mother the Church of England carry strength or prevalency along with them I am confident of their recantation This abolishing of decency and solemnisations hath quite consumed the substance of Religion and the sad effects thereof have been of late years too too apparent among us Instead of endeavouring to order they did ordure the House of God Temples were turn'd into Stercoraries into a confusion But now since it hath pleas'd the Supreme Architect of Heaven and Earth that transoplves Crowns and tumbles down Diadems at his pleasure to make us meet together like so many lines in the centre that have been so long eccomrique both in the Ecclesiastique and Politique capacity there is a certainty of a resettlement of Ecclesiastique affairs according to the old and true form of the Church of England To which this Tractate if it conduce not I presume 't will no ways impede it since it is not only solid but full fraught with variety of learning insomuch that it will require three lives in the Law at least to purchase and peruse those printed pieces and manuscripts out of which he hath collected his quotations But I must not be so uncivil as to detain you too long in the Porch by a prolixe Epistle nor so injurious to withhold you from prying into the more sublime and refined sense of the Author Now if your porusall be with as much candor graâ—â—ty and moderation as the learned Selden penned it though now deceased ' will certainly force you to acquiesce with him and affirm That the day of the Nativity of our Saviour is not onely to be celebrated but also absolutely and undeniably on the 25. of December The Contents of this Tract Of the Birth-day of our SAVIOUR BRiefly of the Anniversary Celebration of birth-Birth-days The state of the Question and this Discourse digested into parts pag. 1 SECT I. The Authority of keeping it on this day both in the Eastern and Western Churches about 400. years after our Saviours and that then it was ancient in the Western Church and known also under the name of the Winter-Solstice-day which is especially here observable pag. 7 SECT II. For preparation of more particular proof of the Tradition of this Feast-day the supposition which the most Primitive Ages had touching the time of the Solstices and Aequinoxes pag. 13 SECT III. That the keeping it on this day was so receiv'd from tradition even of the eldest times since our Saviour and this justified from the Fathers supposing it to have been on the very day of the ancient Winter-Solstice pag. 21 SECT IV. Expresse testimonies to the same purpose out of ancient History and a Confirmation from the generall use in the severall Churches of Christendome pag. 32 SECT V. The common Reasons used out of the holy Text to justifie this day and how they are mistaken and therefore not used here together with what some would prove from the Scheme of his Nativity pag. 45 SECT VI. The chief Objections that are made against this day being the true time of the birth with plain answers to them pag. 56 SECT VII Some other opinions among the ancients touching it and how some of them may agree with what we have received and the rest are of no weight against it and there more especially of the ancient confusion of this Feast with that of the Epiphany pag. 77 JOANNIS SELDENI EPITAPHIUM Joannes Seldenus Heic juxta situs Natus est XVI Decembris MDLXXXIV Salvintoniae Qui viculus est Terring Occidentalis in Sussexiae Maritimis Parentibus honestis Joanne Seldeno Thomae filio è Quinis secundo Anno MDXLI nate Et Margareta filiâ Haerede unicâ Thomae Bakeri de Rushington ex Equestri Bakerorum in Cantio familiâ filius è cunis superstitum unicus Aetatis ferè LXX annorum Denatus est ultime die Novembris Anno salutis reparatae MDCLIV Per quam expectat heic Resurrectionem felicem Of the Birth-day of our SAVIOUR Briefly of the Anniversary Celebration of Birth-dayes The state of the Question and this Discourse digested into parts IN the review of the 4 Chap. having occasion to speak of the authority of the Clementines the eighth book of Constitutions attributed to the Apostles in which an expresse constitution is that the Birth-day of our Saviour should be celebrated on the 25 of December or of the ninth month as it is there called being accounted from April as the first I noted that Constitution for one character of that volum's being supposititious in regard that in the Eastern Church where those Constitutions being in Greek must by all probability have been in most use the Celebration of that day was not received on the 25 of December till the ancient tradition of it was learn'd from the Western about 400 years after Christ and some touch also I have there of the opinion of them that think that day not to be the true time of his birth This passage hath been so conceiv'd as if I had purposely call'd in question the celebration of that sacred day which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as (a) Tom. 7. edit Saviliana page 375. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Chrysostome styles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as the main fort of all happinesse and the fountain and root of all good that we enjoy and to call it in question as if I supposed it were observ'd at that time without
sufficient ground and as if I were too inclining to the part of the hot-brain'd and disturbing Puritans which impiously deny the keeping of a day as an anniversary feast consecrated to the birth of our blessed Saviour from which my conscience was ever and is most clearly free For I knew first both from sacred profane Story that the anniversary dayes (b) 200 Theodos Justin de feriis Sed de hac re plenè Martinus de Roa lib. de die Natali not only of Princes but of some private men also were with frequency ever observ'd and the beginning of Cities under that name yearly celebrated and even among the Heathen those that professed such Philosophy as was nearest to true Divinity that is the Platonists were most religious in keeping their Plato's birth-day which they received by tradition to be the (c) Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. Laertius in vita Plat. c. same with Apollo's that is the 7. day of the Attique moneth Thargelion which answers to our April and this was still observed until the time of Plotinus and (d) Marsil Ficinus comment ad Plat. Sympos cap. 1. Porphyry who lived about 270 years after our Saviours birth and after the discontinuance of it for many ages it was revived in the dayes of our Grand-fathers with much solemnity in the Dutchy of Florence by Lorenzo Medices But he misplaced it in the year while he and his guests being better Platonists than Chronologers took the 7 of Thargelion to be the 7 of November As also the old trifling Astrologers committed a like fault while in the scheme (a) Firmicus Mathes lib. 6. cap. 30. of his Nativity they place the Sun in Pisces which must denote our February or the Attique Anthesterion But however an anniversary day was observ'd for his Birth so was there anciently for the birth of some false Gods for they had their certain days for the births of (b) Calend. vet Rom. à G. Herwarto naper editum c. Mars Apollo Diana Minerva the Muses Hercules and others and carefully observ'd them and for Princes and private persons even to this day a celebration is in use at the yearly returning of their Birth-days To deny therefore with that way-ward Sect such an anniversary honour to the Saviour of the World were but to think him lesse worthy of it than false Gods were esteemed by the Gentiles than Princes by their Subjects than private friends by their greater friends whose birth-dayes they yearly celebrated But of this I trust no man that truly deserves a name among Christians will make scruple Some indeed and those not a few among the learned have doubted of the just time of the birth of our Saviour which while they doubt they offer the more occasion to others to question and impugne the celebration of it as it is now setled in the Church For if that were not the true day as they argue it follows that there were no more reason save only what comes from the latter and arbitrary constitutions of the Church to keep that day than any other throughout the whole year unless also some other day were found to be the exact time of it But for my self here as I was far from questioning the duty of it so was I also from doubting of the right of Celebration of it on the very day of December whereon it is now kept And to make clear my mind here I shall now more largely according to what His Majesties most learned instructions have taught me declare the certainty of that feast as it is at this day observed even from the eldest of the Christian times and Apostolical tradition received even from the practice of his Disciples for it is one thing to deny as I have done that it was so ordained by the Apostles in those Clementines which I think all learned and ingenuous men will deny and another and far-different thing to affirm that the tradition of that day as it is now kept is both Apostolical and as ancient as the birth it self as I shall presently deliver in the deduction of the continuance of it according as it is now observed through all Christendom For although in the feast and in all others unmoveable there be the known difference of ten dayes which were taken out of Octob. in the year MDLXXXII * Constit sum Pontif. p. 775. Clavius in Kal. Greg. sive tom 5. by Pope Gregory the Thirteenth when he reformed the Julian Kalendar 'twixt us with some few other States and those which have received the Gregorian Kalendar yet both they and we agree in this that upon the 25. of that Moneth that is with us of our Julian December this feast is ever to be observed So that we meddle not here at all with any part of the differences 'twixt the Julian and Gregorian year but onely endeavour to make it certain that on this day of that Moneth December that Feast hath ever been setled in the Western Church from whence the Eastern also anciently received it For it is clear that upon what day soever of any Moneth an unmoveable feast is to be kept in our Iulian year on the same day of the Month it is to be kept in the Gregorian so that the proof here is equal for the use of both Accounts Thus appears the state of the Question and to this purpose for orders sake shall be shewed 1. The Authorities of keeping it on this day both in the Eastern and Western Churches about 400. years after our Saviour and that then it was ancient in the Western Church and known also under the name of the Winter-Solstice-day which is especially here observable 2. For preparation of more particular proof of the tradition of this Feast-day the supposition which the most primitive Ages had touching the time of the Solstices and Aequinoxes 3. That the keeping of it on this day was so received from tradition even of the eldest times since our Saviour and this justified from the Fathers supposing it to have been upon the very day of the ancient Winter-Solstice 4. Express Testimonies to the same purpose out of ancient History and a confirmation from the general use in the several Churches in Christendome 6. The chief Objections that are made against this dayes being the true time of the birth with plain Answers to them 7. Some other Opinions among the Ancients touching it and how some of them may agree with what we have received and the rest are of no weight against it And then more especially of the ancient confusion of this Feast with that of the Epiphany SECT I. The Authorities of keeping it on this day both in the Eastern and Western Churches about 400. years after our Saviour and that then it was ancient in the Western Church and known also under the name of the Winter-Solstice-day which is especially here observable FOr the first that is the Authorities of the received
use of keeping this Feast on the 25 of December 400 years after Christs Birth they are frequent in S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Augustin and others of the Fathers that liv'd about the end of those 400 years Those three especially have many Sermons appropriated to the celebration of this day and they frequently tell the people confidently that the Birth of our Saviour was on the 25 of December or the 8 Kalends of January as also that the birth of Saint John Baptist was on the 8 Kalends of July or the 24 day of June according as to this day they are observed Ecce saith (a) Serm. de Temp. 8. 10. Saint Ambrose in nativitate Christi dies crescit Johannis nativitate decrescit illo oriente lux proficit hoc nascente minuitur That is On our Saviours Birth-day the days begin to lengthen and on St. Johns to shorten for the Fathers herein supposed the 25 of December to be the Winterat what time ever the days begin to lengthen and the 24 of June to be the Summer-solstice in which they contrariwise begin to shorten and this was according to the ancienter Astronomy out of which supposition in this Feast-day the antiquity of the tradition shall be also presently confirmed And to this purpose of the Summer-solstice at St Johns Birth and of the Winter at our Saviours they apply I dispute not how well that in St. John * D. Joan. c. 3. commâ—n 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He must increase but I must be diminished So St. Augustine also Natus †D. Aug. serm ded versis 40. 59. l. 4. advers Crescon c. 37. in Psalm 132. est Johannes hodiè ab hodierno minuuntur dies natus est Christus 8 Kalend. Januarias ab illo die crescunt dies And enough to this purpose occurs in others of that * D. Hiero. in epist de celebr Pasch tom 4. age wherein these two Births were observed and only these two and that in all or the greatest part of Christendom Solius Domini saith †Serm. de fanctis 2. St. Augustine Beati Iohannis dies Nativitatis in universo mundo celebratur colitur But it being clearly plain that about this time of 400 years past after our Saviour this 25 day was so observ'd and taken generally for his Birth-day it falls next to inquire the original whence it was so taken Had those Clementines been of sufficient credit there had been no need to have made any further inquiry for then we might have thence resolved that the Apostles had ordained it and it had been fit for them that stand so much for the Authority of those Constitutions to have proved that the Apostles had done so that so they might have cleared that supposititious Volume of such a Character of falshood For doubtless had such a Constitution been published in that Volume and by the Apostles the Eastern Church had not so long been ignorant of it as it appears by St. Chrysostom they were For untill some 10 years before his Sermon †D. Chrys edit Savilianâ tom 5 fo p. 511. made upon this day especially for the truth of the time of the Feast that Church had not been generally instructed with this certainty of it for then it was newly learn'd from the Western Church in which even from Thrace to Cadiz as he tells us from such as instructed him it was so observ'd But although that Ordinance touching it in the Clementines attributed to the Apostles be supposititious yet there is great reason for us to think that the tradition of this Feast to be so kept on that day was Apostolical that is taught and deduced into the Church though not in writing both from the Apostles and first Disciples and Observers of our Saviour Quid autem saith * Advers Hares l. 3. c. 4. Irenaeus si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias And we shall here use aptly enough the very words also of Tertul. †De corona militis c. 4. speaking of divers observations in both Sacraments and other parts of Christian Religion in his time which was near the Apostles Harum aliarum ejusmodi Disciplinarum si legem expostules scripturarum nullam invenies But traditio praetendetur auctrix consuetudo confirmatrix fides observatrix But for the order of proof here it being first cleared that this tradition was about the time of those Fathers that testifie it commonly received in Christendom before we come to the particular deductions of it out of the elder ages that preceded them we shall here not untimely first note that as it was commonly received as a thing then setled so was it generally thought of as what was then very ancient So saies St. Chrysostom expresly * Serm. dict item in hom 34. tom 2. edit Basil in serm 27. de nat Jo. Baptist codem tom being instructed from learned men of the Western Church it was then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of ancient time and delivered in the Church many years before as his words are and yet saith he it is new too new in the Eastern Church because as he writes we have so lately learn'd it that is within ten years since but he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. old and very ancient in that it is even of equal age with the ancienter feast-dayes which they had received and again though it came but lately into the Eastern Church yet it was saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. well known from ancient time to those that were of the Western Church And St. Augustine also * Enarrat in Psalm 132. expresly sayes that the birth was upon this day sic tradit Ecclesia which denotes great antiquity even in his time and in * Serm. de sanct 4. another place speaking of the celebration of St. Iohn Baptists birth-day which was received with this it seems by a like tradition Hoc majorum traditione suscepimus saith he hoc ad posteros imitanda devotione transmittimus These passages alone are enough testimony that this Feast-day thus placed was reputed in those times that is about 400. years after Christ very ancient But to know how ancient it was more particularly it behoves us to look backward from those times by such degrees as that by careful observing one of them after another up towards the times of our Saviour we may be herein instructed according to the occurrence of such testimony as may make to the end of the inquiry and I doubt not but we shall so well enough at length find it receiv'd in the Church in the Western Church even from Apostolical tradition deriv'd from observation while yet our Saviour was on the earth But to begin this course of inquiry by looking back by degrees from the time of St.
Chrysostom and the rest of the Fathers of about his age we shall first look on the time of near 100. years before them that is of Constantine the Great and the first general Council of Nice held in the year 325. at which time we shall with sufficient arguments first shew that this Feast was kept on the 25. of December as now it is and that then also from ancienter time against those which suppose the beginning of it no elder than after or about Constantine And from thence we shall go upward to the Apostles But because that hath first reference to the time of this Council and makes much otherwise also for confirmation of the antiquity of this and the celebration of the day as shall be presently shewed consists especially in observation of the name of the time under which those Fathers received denoted and celebrated it that is of the very day of the Winter-Solstice with reference to the Spring-Aequinox as to the time of the conception of our Saviour and to the Summer-Solstice and Autumn-Aequinox as to St. Iohns birth and conception it is first here requisite that we shortly open the ancient supposition which the most primitive times had touching those four beginings of the Quarters of the year which being much different from what was received both at the time of the Council of Nice and before it and somewhat is also yet retain'd in Church-cycles will make way for confirmation of the receiv'd opinion of that sacred Birth-day SECT II. For preparation of more particular proof of the Tradition of this Feast-day the supposition which the most Primitive Ages had touching the time of the Solstices and Aequinoxes THe ancient and civil supposition of the Solstices and Aequinoxes in which an express character is found of the Antiquity of this Tradition as shall be presently shewed was both before and about our Saviours Birth-day especially in the Roman Empire of another kind from that which either at this day is or at the time of the Birth was agreeable to the more accurate and naturall Astronomy I mean the supposition which was generally received in their Characters and Parapegmata which denoted both their Sacrifices Feast-days and Country-observations for matter of Husbandry For they supposed in those Calendars that the Suns entrance into the 1 degree of Aries was on the 15 Kalends of April in the Julian year that is on the 18 day of March but that the spring-aequinox was not untill the 8 Kalends of April that is the 17 of June they placed the Suns first entrance into Cancer but the Solstice on 8 Kalends that is on the 24 of June So the 15 Kalends of October or the 17 of September was their supposed time of the Suns first entrance into Libra but the Autumn-aequinox on the 8 Kalends or the 24 of September and according to these the first entrance of the Sun into Capricorn they placed on the 15 Kalends of Ianuary or the 18 of December So that the Aequinoxes and Solstices were not supposed in the first entrance or in the 1 degree of those 4 signes as at this day they are and many ages since have been but at such time as the Sun held the 8 degrees of them For the Suns proper Diurnal motion being about a degree it so fell out in their Calculation that 8 days being reckon'd from the first entrance into every of those signs as is seen in the examples on the 8 day the Sun was in the 8 degrees of those signes and then made the supposed time of Solstices and Aequinoxes The testimonies of this kind of placing in those times are frequent Ovid * Fastorum l. 6. expresly teacheth us so for the Summer-solstice But in the Calendar that is commonly joyned with him and received by others it is therein mistaken The like for all four do Pliny †Hist nat l. 2. c. 19. l. 18. c. 25. 29. Columel * De re Rusticâ c. 14. l. 11. c. 2. Vitruvius †Architect l. 9. c. 5. Martianus Capella * Nupt. Philol. Mercur. the Scholiast on Germanicus his Aratus and the Author of the fragment joyn'd with Censorinus And of the naturall forces of the two Tropiques or Solstices to this purpose Manilius †Astron l. 3. ad extrem Has quidam vires octavâ in parte reponunt Sunt quibus esse placet decimas nec defuit Autor Qui primae momenta daret fraenosque dierum Meaning that the common opinion was they were with the Aequinoxes in the eight part of their signs but that some thought them otherwise some in the tenth some as they ought in the first But this opinion of the eight parts and so by consequence of those times of the Aequinoxes and Solstices was a most ancient tradition and retained still in their Calendars or Fasti made for civil sacred and rustick use notwithstanding that the more accurate Astronomers had found it to be an errour not otherwise then at this day those which keep the Iulian and Dionysian account in the Church as we in Great Britain suppose the spring-aequinox on the 21 of March though the known Astronomy teach us that it anticipates about 11 days And as it happens in like cases they still retain'd what had been from ancient time setled in the State neglecting the corrected Astronomy and that especially because those old Calendars were already fitted to their Feasts and Sacrifices and were more known to the people who could not but have been much troubled with an innovation of the time of all their publick solemnities Neither Sosigenes in his divers amendments of the year made upon Iulius Caesars commands or the rest after him so imployed alter any thing in this supposition All which is fully expressed in that of Columella in his Precepts of Husbandry where having first spoken of the Solstices and Aequinoxes falling upon the 8 degrees of those signes he presently thus admonishes Agricult 1. p. c. 14. Nec me fallit saith he Hipparchi ratio quae docet Solstitia Aequinoctia non octavis sed primis partibus signorum confici Verum in hac ruris disciplina sequor Eudoxi Metonis antiquorumque fastos Astrologorum qui sunt aptati publicis sacrificiis quia notior est ista velus Agricolis concepta opinio He gives here the true reason why that supposition was retained but by the way is deceived in this that he takes Eudoxus and Meton to be of those ancienter Astronomers from whom it was received It is true indeed that in the old †Parap quod gemino subnectitur Parapegmata which shew us that according to Calippus and Euctemon the Solstices and Aequinoxes were at the first entrance of the Sun into the signes proper for them Eudoxus yet had otherwise placed them as for the purpose the spring-aequinox on the 6 day after the Suns entrance into Aries and the Winter-solstice on the 4 day after the 1 entrance
thence sent me through the hand of that learned and worthy Gentleman Monsieur Pierese an Advocate in the Parliament of Aix and this some two years since when 'twixt him and my self and from him to Haleander divers Letters passed touching the particulars and authority of that Calendar SECT III. That the keeping of it this day was so receiv'd from tradition even of the eldest times since our Saviour and this justified from the Fathers supposing it to have been on the very day of the ancient Winter-solstice THat ancient supposition of the Solstices and Aequinoxes being thus hitherto first opened let us in looking back by degrees first as is before proposed begin with the time of the Councel of Nice held in the year of our Saviour 325. It will so appear that before that Council this Feast was established in the Western Church and that by the generall testimony of those Fathers which with one voice suppose it as formerly placed on the very day of the Winter-solstice for had it been begun after or about the time of that Council and withall supposed to have ought to have been kept on the Winter-solstice day then doubtless would they have placed it on that day which was received in the Church to be the Winter-solstice-day after or about the same Council as at this day in the Gregorian year who doubts but that a Feast to be newly instituted on an Aequinox or Solstice or with reference to either of those times would be placed by them which have received that Reformation on the Aequinoxes or Solstices or with reference to them according as they are in the corrected Calendar and not as they fall in the Juâ—ian or Dionysian year For example also what greater testimony were there if all other were lost to prove the antiquity of that very kind of keeping the Feast of Easter as we do in our Church to be of the Primitive time than this that the Paschales termini are retain'd still according to the Spring-aequinox receiv'd in the Primitive times Now to make clear our purpose here it is also certain that about and after that Councel of Nice the Spring-oequinox according whereunto the Paschal-cycles were made was supposed in the Church upon the 21 of March as it is seen also in the Paschal-account used to this day in the Church of England so that it was become four dayes sooner than in those elder times when it fell in common opinion on the 25 day but when the Spring-aequinox was so changed and according to the change also received it could not but follow that the beginning of the other three parts of the year must also be altered that is plainly seen in the known course of the Suns motion And therefore the Solstices and the other Aequinoxes must also vary in their moneths and by a like or very * Vide sis Marcel Francolin de temp hor. canonic c. 75 76. near like difference of days anticipate as they are accordingly cited in Bede's Ephemeris who †De temp Nat. c. 28. elsewhere also admonishes us as much Therefore it must follow too that about and after that generall Councel the time of the Winter-solstice was placed and so supposed in Ecclesiastical account upon the 21 or 22 of December But if it had been so receiv'd when this Feast-day was first ordained and specially placed on the Solstice-day as the Fathers generally by tradition from former times place it there had been necessary cause enough to have had it fallen yearly three or four days sooner than it did both in the Primitive times and at this day that is on the 21 or 22 of the same moneth By consequence it was then ordained or receiv'd in the Church at such time as the Winter-solstice was not supposed on the 21 or 22 day of the same moneth but on the 25 that is at least before that Councel of Nice or Constantine the Great howsoever too rashly some have delivered * Jos Scal. de emendat Temp. l. 6. p. 510. Calvisius Isagog chron c. 46. of it that post seculum Constantim Romae haec observatio instituta est Neither can Objection have power here which perhaps may obviously be brought to impugne this kind of argument that is that it might notwithstanding be ordained first in the later part of the primitive times or after Constantine or that Council in such sort that it might be placed on the day of the Solstice that was received at the time of the birth that is the 25. day and not that which the received account had so innovated for this Objection is partly answered before in the passage of Feasts at this day to be ordain'd with reference to the Solstices in the Gregorian Calendar and besides if the Church about this time after Constantine had regarded in a new Institution the Solstice of the time of the birth according as it was then to be found in the Moneth it must be that they either regarded the true and natural or the receiv'd and civil Solstice For the first if they had been so curious as to have sought what the true place of the Winter solstice to this purpose had been in the age of that birth as they had indeed sought for the true Aequinox of their own time for their direction of Easter they had found that the true Solstice anticipated the 25. day about two dayes for by the most accurate calcularion to the noon of the Meridian of Bethlehem on the 25. of December in the year commonly attributed to the birth of our Saviour the Sun was in the second degree of Capricorn and some minutes over as * Comment ad Ptolem. quadripartit l. 2. com 54. Vide sis Clavium ad cap. 1. Joh. de Sacro bosco Alter quidem Colurus p. 297. edit 4. 1602. Cardan also places it in the scheme of that nativity whence it must clearly follow that about the 23. day was the very point of the Winter-solstice the diurnal true motion of that time of the year in the Perigaeum being somewhat more than a degree No place was then for this true Solstice in such their consideration of the birth-time if they had thus inquired after it unless they would have instituted the Feast under that name of time on the 23. day and not on the 25. For the second what colour have we to think that they should in those times have retain'd the old supposition of the civil Solstice for their Institution of this Feast-day and yet so carefully alter the formerly-received aequinox for Easter This of the birth being as the head and rule of the chiefest immoveable Feasts as that of the Passion and Resurrection is of the moveable Would they have retained the same error upon Institution of a new Feast which with so much curiosity they corrected in establishing the certainty of an old one It rests firme therefore that whensoever it was first instituted for anniversary celebration it
was in such an Age as had the supposition of the Winter-solstice being on the 25. day of December yet retain'd in the Church otherwise what dependence were there 'twixt the name of the Feast and the Solstice But that dependence is by the consent of the Fathers fully testified as a tradition of former times and the latest Age which in the Church retain'd that supposition must at least be before the Council of Nice as is already shewed therefore at least the Institution of it must precede that Council This being hitherto deduced it will in the next degree of searching backward follow also if we can prove the received supposition of the Church touching the time of the Winter-solstice to have been long before this Council agreeable to that which here is shewed to the time of it that the first observation or Institution of this Feast under the name of the Solstice upon the 25. day was also long before that Council Now as the Spring-aequinox changed from the 25. to the 21. so did the Winter-solstice of necessity change also as is before shewed But the Spring-aequinox was also at least some 50. years before that Council upon the 21. or 22. of March by the received supposition of them from whose direction the Church-cycles were principally guided that is of the Aegyptians and especially those of Alexandria so is the express * Apud Euseb hist eccles l. 7. c. 26. testimony of Anatolius born and bred in Alexandria but Bishop of Laodicea in the time of Aurelian about 270 years after our Saviour He shews that then the 11 Kalends of April that is the 22 of March was the supposed Aequinox which agrees well enough with that of the 21 if regard be had to that variation which the houres out of which the Leap-year is made must of necessity be a cause of as Bede †In epist ad Wichred de Paschatis celebration◠tom 2. withall in explanation of Anatolius hath taught us The same Bede well admonishing that it was Regula Niceno probato Concilio not statuta * Wilfrid apud Bedam hist Angl. l. 3. c. 25. to have that time receiv'd for the Spring-aequinox And indeed the very words of the Epistles sent out of that Council touching it and the Church-stories plainly prove it to have been generally known and receiv'd in the Church both of the West North South and part of the East long before In Constantines Epistle †Euseb de vita Constant l. 3. c. 18. Socrat. hist l. 5. c. 21. Nicephor l. 12. c. 33. to the Churches of Christendom sent presently upon the Council it is expressed that it was so generally received before and Ruffinus speaking of the Council tells us that * Hist eccles l. 10. c. 6. De observatione Paschae antiquum Canonem per quem nulla de reliquo varietas oriretur tradiderunt Nothing therefore can be clearer then that the aequinox of the 21 or 22 of March according to the difference before noted was ancient in the traditions of the Church long before the Nicene Council Otherwise they had as well in expresse terms innovated the aequinox as established uniformity in observing their Easter by it Therefore also was the Winter-solstice about the 21 or 22 of December in the traditions of the Church long before that Council then what follows hence touching the institution of the Feast which we inquire after is according to the former inferences most apparent for so much time as those testimonies reach back unto To go farther up in a third degree it will be also justified that the Aequinox and by consequence another Winter-solstice then that of the 25 day of December was not only ancienter then the Nicene Council in the Church-cycles but also equal to the Apostles times For although we find in the Church-story great differences of the Primitive times touching the keeping of Easter and divers cycles and Canons made for it yet those differences are chiefly about the day of the week whereon it should be kept as between the Tessareskaidecatoi and the Churches of the West but never in any testimony of credit about the diversity of supposition of the Aequinox that directs it otherwise than according to that in Anatolius which stands with the received time of the 21 of March as is already noted I say in any testimony of credit for under favour of the learned I conceive not that attributed to Theophilus Bishop of Caesaria and published at the end of Bedes Epistle to * Tom 2. p. 232 edit Colon. Wichred where the 25 day is supposed for the Aequinox to be other then supposititious the whole shape of it hath the Character of counterfeiting But the Aequinox is still for ought appears supposed the same in that Controversie about Easter had under * Euseb eccles hist l. 5. c. 22. c. Pope Victor about the year CXC as it was in the Council of Nice and the same also before Victor even up to the time of the Apostles What else is denoted in that of Proterius Patriarch of Alexandria to P. Leo the First where he tels †Apud Bed de temp rat c. 42. Vide sis Ceolfrid apud eund hist eccl l. 5. c. 22. him that St. Mark had taught the Aegyptians according as he had learned from St. Peter that Easter was to be observed after the XIV moon of the first moneth the first moneth here was known by the spring-aequinox of which if they had not been agreed as much trouble or more would have been in establishing of that as there was in clearing what day of the week the sacred Feast of Easter was to be kept on The like is affirmed of the Apostolical tradition of that uniform celebration of Easter by Ceolfrid in his Epistle to Naitan King of the Picts And to confirm more fully that the observation of it established by the Nicene Council was such as had been even from the beginning of Christianity or the Apostles time the very words of the Epistle sent by that Council to the Churches of Aegypt and Africk are that now the controversie was ended touching Easter and that those of the Eastern Church that had before followed the Iews in observing it on the XIV Moon did hold it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Socrat. bist eccles l. 1. c. 6. i. Agreeable to the Romans to us and to all you who from the beginning observe Easter as we do or Consone cum Romanis vobiscum cum omnibus ab initio Pascha custodientibus as Cassiodore anciently translated it †Hist Tripart l. ◠c. 12. which shews also that in Socrates he read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is from the beginning as some Copies are and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. from ancient time as in others the reading is It followes therefore that even from the beginning that is from the Apostles time the same Spring-aequinox was receiv'd in the Church that
Peters testimony Petrus are the words qui hic fuit cum Joh. qui hìc fuit cum Jac. nos in occidente docuit which hath plain reference to that before noted out of his long Oration for the same matter where he tells * Edit Savil tom 5. p. 512. us also that in the controversies of those times touching this Feast such as defended it as what ought to be kept on this day justified that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Very ancient and from old time known and famous from Thract to Cadis that is in the whole Western Church To these may be added that of Euodius whom Nicephoras calls the Successor of the Apostles and it is delivered †Suid in verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was ordained by St. Peter himself in Antioch that we may so distinguish him from that other Euodius Bishop of Vzalis * Cujus nomini ascribuntur opera aliquot ad sin tom 10. D. Aug. subjuncâ—â— edit Lovaâ—â—ensi in St. Augustines time he in an Epistle touching the times of the Passion of our Saviour of St. Stephens Martyrdome of the death of the blessed Virgin and the like sayes expresly of her as the Latine is in * Eccles bist l. 2. c. 3. Nicephorus translated by Langius for neither have I the Greek of him Peperit autem mundi ipsius lucem annum agens quindecimum 25. die mensis Decembris And likewise in an old Greek Author the Book being written about the time of Pope Honorius the First in the Library of St. Mark 's in Florence express testimony is Apostolos memoriae prodidisse Christum ex Virgine natum Bethlemae 25. Decembris as Albertus Widemonstadius of his own sight witnesseth in his Notes on that impious Book called Mahomets Divinity and brings also Hesychius his authority to the same purpose And to these may be added Cedren Orosius and some ancient Manuscripts Fasti cited by Cuspinian upon Cassiodore and there is authority also †Catholicus Armeniorum in legatione ad Arvienios malè legitur 20 Dec. tam. in Biblioth Patrum edit Paris tom 3. p. 864. quam in edit Colon. tom 12. part 1. p. 891. Nam Graece erat â—e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod videre est apud Jos Scalig. in Isagog chron l. 3. p. 30. that however Epiphamus in his Works have another designation of the day of this birth as anon is shewed yet out of the Monuments of the Jews he learned and then taught that this was the very day which they say was justified also by some Writers brought to Rome from Jerusalem by Titus which also is strengthened by that of St. Chrysostome when he sayes * Tom. 5. eait Savil. sol 12. expresly that in publick Records kept at Rome in his age the exact time of the description under Quirinus spoken of by St. Luke which could not but be a special character of the time of our Saviours birth was expressed and then he goes on But what is this to us saith he that neither are at Rome nor have been there that so we might be sure of it yet hearken saith * Ibid. p. 513. he and doubt not for we have received the day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. from those which accurately know these things and dwell at Rome And that they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. having from ancient time and old tradition celebrated it have now also sent us the knowledge of it This is likewise confirmed by an old barbarous Translation of what was taken out of Africanus and Eusebius and published in the noble Scaliger's Thesaurus Temporum where the words are Aug. Sylvano Coss Dominus noster Jesus Christus natus est sub Augusto 8. calendas Ianuarias and then In ipsa die in qua natus est pastores viderunt stellam Chuac 28. which should rather be 29. for so agrees the 25. of December to that of the Aegyptian Choiac which the Author means And Prudentius upon the day supposing the †In hymn ad calend 8 Jan. old tradition of the concurrence of the Solstice with it Quid est quod arctum circulum Sol jam recurrens deserit Christusne terris nascitur Qui lucis auget tramitem Hic ille natalis dies Quo te Creator ardâ—us Spiravit limo indidit Sermone carnem glutinant And of later times the Authorities are infinite These testimonies being compared with the consent of the Fathers that about 400. years after Christ have written that it was ancient as is already shewed and being confirmed by the arguments made against the supposed later institution of it out of the place of the received Winter-solstice enough manifest the antiquity and certainty of this ancient feast-Feast-day according as we now observe it and that even from the age wherein it first brought forth the redemption of Mankind And to these we may adde the consent of Christian Churches ever since about those 400. years for after that the Eastern or Greek Church of Asia had learned the truth of it from the Western as is delivered this celebration of it yearly increased and grew still more famous through Christendom so expresly St. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith * Panâ—g in di 〈…〉 dit Sav. l. to n. 5. p. 512. he i.e. Every year it increased and grew more famous But indeed because in some places it was not as yet so received but that old erroreous opinion touching it as it happens in like cases and shall anon be more particularly shewed still held there place among some that were too wayward to be brought to prefer truth newly discovered to them before their own errors therefore about 100. years after St. Chrysostome it was expresly ordained by the Emperour Iustin if my Author deceive not that in every place of the Christian world it should be thus observed My Author here is Nicephorus * Hist eccles l. 17. c. 28. Calistus who as the Translation of him is tells us first of Iustinian that he Primùm Servatoris exceptionem that is the Hypatants which in our Western Church is the Purification of the blessed Virgin totâ— orbe terrarum festo die honorare instituit and then he addes sicut Iustinus de sancta Christi nativitate fecit And according hereto are the Kalendars and Book of Divine service not onely of the Western which are every where common but of the Eastern Churches also In the Menology of the Greek Church in December 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. On the 25. of the same moneth the Feast of the Incarnation of our Lord and God and Saviour Iesus Christ and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is The Virgin Mary brought forth our Saviour on the 25. day Other Volumes of their Divine service as their Apostolo-Evangela and the like enough shew this also And for other Churches which are not under the name of the Greek as those of Antioch or
Syriae of Aethiopia and of Elcopti or Aegypt although we have not their Calendars published with such exactness of the placeing of their feasts as we have those of the Greek Church yet have we testimonies enough of them also whence we may collect that they agree with us in this anniversary celebration As first for that of Antioch they keep * Wid monstad in epist subnexâ Test Syriac vide sis computum Antioch a pud Jos Scalig. l. 7 de emendat tomo p. 670. this birth upon the same day with us in their Moneth Canun the former and in Alfragan as he is translated we read in his enumeration of the Syriack Moneths Canun prior 31. dierum cujus 25. nox vocatur nox Nativitatis So in the Aethiopian Church on the 29. of their Moneth †Jos Scalig. dicto l. p. 650. Thachsasch they kept it which agrees alwayes with the 25. of our December though their Intercalation falling before ours and in their Mascharum or our August changes the day of the Week every Leap-year into the next after what we keep And for that of Elkopti we see in a short description of their account received from an Aethiopian * Apud Scalig. diste l. p. 661. Priest that their Almolad or the feast of the Nativity is placed against their Moneth Chiach which answers to our December and the succession of their Feasts is just as in the Syriack account and therefore reason enough is that thence we collect the very dayes in both to be the self-same And to conclude here what greater testimony can there be that it was received into the Church even from the Disciples and Apostles of our Saviour than this that it was so anciently observed and hath been ever since so generally received through Christendom for so of the like things that great Father St. Augustine pronounces * Epist ad Januarium 118. Illa quae non scripta saith he sed tradita custodimus quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur dantur intelligi vel ab ipsis Apostolis vel à plenariis Conciliis quorum est in Ecclesiâ saluberrima authoritas commendata atque statuta retineri Sicuti quod Domini Passio Resurrectio Ascensio in coelum adventus de coelo Spiritus Sancti anniversaria solennitate celebrantur si quid aliud tale occurrerit quod servatur ab universâ quacunque se diffundit Ecclesia All such things he supposes either delivered by the Apostles or ordained by general Councils for Councils here we have no testimony that they ordained it therefore it rests by this argument that we derive it from the eldest tradition that may be in Christianity But we end here this inquiry and resolve with that old Hymne of St. Ambrose used in the service of this day in the Church of Rome Sic praesens testatur dies Currens per anni circulum Quod solus à sede Patris Mundi salus adveneris Hunc coelum terra hunc mare Hunc omne quod in eis est Auctorem adventûs tui Laudans exultat cantico Neither find I any Christian Church that in the later ages hath otherwise celebrated it save onely that of the Armenians who * Cathalicus Armeniorum in legat ad Arm. retained an ancient custom of confounding it with the Epiphany and that to the time of Manuel Comnenus which is about 440. years since and perhaps yet do of which confusion of those feasts more in the last Paragraph But because in these proofs hitherto declared the common and most received grounds and reasons brought for it out of the holy Text and some other are omitted as also on the other side some objections are made in later times against it and that by such as bear even the greatest names in the state of Learning and some ancient testimonies also impugne what we have hitherto concluded It follows next lest the inquiry should seem done with too much negligence that we both consider of those common grounds and reasons and then shew why they were not here used and furthermore that we give such answer to those objections and ancient testimonies as that they may not at all hinder the credit of those arguments which before have so demonstratively justified it SECT V. The common Reasons used out of the holy Text to justifie this day and how they are mistaken and therefore not used here together with what some would prove from the Scheme of his Nativity OF those which have generally received it the Ancients about 400. years after it have striv'd to fetch reasons for it out of the holy Writ being unhappily not contented to rely wholly upon the tradition and some of later time justifie it by Astrological observations both being deceived the first by mis-understanding the Text the other by too much mingling their errors in the consideration of Nature with the thoughts of this most sacred birth-day For those Ancients they knew out of * Lev. 16. 23. Moses that the High Priest did onely once every year enter into the Holiest place or the Sanctum Sanctorum and this is ordained to be on the 10. day of the 7. Moneth that is the Feast of Kippurim or Expiations in Tisri Then out of St. Luke they supposed that the Angel appeared to Zachary being High Priest and sacrificing there on the same day which they would make agree with the 24. of September although for the very day they have somewhat differed in the Eastern Church and some have also * Stephanus Gobarus Trith apud Photium cod 232. supposed the conception in October some in November and that on the night following Zachary's Wife Elizabeth conceived St. John Baptist as the Apostle foretold him From hence according to the Evangelist they accounted 6. Moneths at the end of which time the blessed Virgin Mary conceived that time falls into the 25. of March from whence 9. Moneths being accounted the common time of a birth the 25. of December found the very birth-day of our Saviour This is the summe of the calculation us'd out of the holy Text by the †D. Chrysostom in sape laudato Panegyrico Anastasius Antiochenus Cedrenus chronici Alexandrini autor c. Ancients although not without some confusion of Moneths while by reason of application of old Lunar Moneths to the Roman which are Solar they confound herein sometimes April with March and September with October That other sort which would prove it by Astrology shews us the Scheme of this Nativity erected for the altitude and Meridian of Bethlehem to the midnight following the 25. of December and then telling how wonderfully it is by the Rules of that Art agreeable to so wonderful a birth and anticipating some part of the accusation they might justly look for they declare themselves that they mean not that any thing touching his Divinity his Miracles his Holiness of life or sending forth the Gospel depended at all on the Stars but
they say that as naturally he was of the best temperature and exactest beauty and had continuall health and so singular gravity of aspect Sic etiam Deus optimus gloriosus as Cardan's * Ad Ptolem. Tetrabib l. 2. text 54. words are optimâ constitutione astrorum atque admirabili Genesin illius adornavit which constitution of the Heavens if the Almighty sayes he had not to this purpose ordained to have concur'd and have been observed one of these two things had happened either that the very day and hour and minute of the hour of that birth had not been so constantly and diligently ever kept in the Church or else that all the significations in the Scheme had not been adeo singularia as he writes magnifica gloriosa tanto concursu digna tum vero omnibus quae successerunt de vitae sanctitate de morum gravitate c. adeo congruentia ut nil exactius possit excogitari and after the particulars largely declared he too boldly concludes against such as justly enough impugne the art of Astrology as groundless with this that they can now have nothing else left to speak against it as Ptolomy teaches it than this onely that they should perhaps object that Ptolomy to gain credit to the profession wrote his whole Quadripartite according to the agreement 'twixt this Scheme which it is most likely he never saw and the parts of our Saviours life denoted by it than which saith he as he well might nothing can be more absurd But out of this we may easily see that such as stand upon those learned errors cannot but think with him that the very day and hour of this birth is fully confirmed by that Scheme Neither is there cause so their grounds were certain but that they might hence conclude also that this were the very time although no other testimony were extant of it For what want they in this pretence of that knowledge of the ancient Tarutius who was able as he made some learned men believe not onely to foretell out of the Scheme of a Nativity but also to find out of the circumstances of any life and fortune the very point of the birth and so frame the Scheme it self as Plutarch sayes he did both in the search after Romulus his birth-day and the first foundation of Rome and the finding the exact Scheme is the same with finding the exact time of the birth which those Astrologers it seems think they have done as well out of the congruity as they suppose of the Scheme to what they apply it as out of any testimony or tradition of the Church But the truth is that both this of some Astrologers and that other of calculation out of the holy Text deserve nor place nor name of reason to this purpose For that of the Calculation of the months out of the holy Text the chief ground on which it insists and which being taken away it all become meerly vain is that of Zacharias being a High-Priest and in his sacrificing in the holiest place or Sanctum Sanctorum or in the Oracle as the names of it are varied For a sacrifice in that place was only in that feast of Expiation that is the 10 of Tisri or 7 month and this only by the High-Priest But it is most clear that Zacharis was no High-Priest but only one of those 24 courses or stations of Priests which weekly served at the Temple For David distinguished the * 1 Paral. 24. posterity of Eleazar and Ithamar by Lots for the continuall and daily service and sacrifice into 24 courses and of those courses every one had a week for attendance so that after every 24 weeks the first came to attend again as also it was in the 24 courses of the Levites their weeks in attendance alwaies ending on the morning of the Sabbath Hereof is plentifull testimony both in holy †1 Paral. 9. comm 25. Jos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. c. 11 in vita sua 2 adv Apionem writ and in the Jews Liturgies besides Joseph and the old Fathers and it is fully and shortly expressed by Eucherius Erant sortes 24 saith he sacerdotum Levitarum Janutorum qui per totidem septimanas sibi ex ordine succederent sabbato novâ turmâ intrante ad officimn post sabbatum eâ quae proximâ septimativâ ministraverat domum redeunte In these 24 courses the 8 is the family of Abia of his 8 course was Zacharie a Priest and was as * Ad l. 4. Reg. c. 23. this time in the week of his course building incense in the Temple but not in the Hoâ—â— lieft place so is the Text of St. Luke Aâ— certain Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. of the coursed of Abia speaking of Zachary and afterward as soon as the ministrations were accomplished c. what course or special dayes of ministration to be accomplished could here belong to the Priests of the Jewes But as Matthias and Flavius Josephus were * 1 Macab c. 2 comm 1 Jos in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 12. c. 8 in vita sua Priests of the Sons or course of Jehoâ—arid that is of the 1 course so was Zacharie of Abia or of the 8. Neither was any High-Priest of that age bearing any such name But he that was High-priest at the birth was Joazar and his predecessors were Joseph †Niceph. Patriarch in chronol c. Matthias Simon c. So that nothing is more certain then this that Zacharie was not High-Priest although anciently very great names were deceived while they took him to be so as St. Ambrose St. Chrysostome Anastasius Patriarch * MS. apud Jos Scalig. l. 6. p. 509. of Antioch and others expresly Zachary then being no High Priest it plainly follows that their whose calculation of Moneths here from the 10. of Tisri in which onely the High Priest entred into the Oracle proves nothing at all but supposes meerly false grounds and so no proof of the certainty of this day can be extracted out of that holy Story and Zacharies Sacrifice for ought appears there might indifferently be on any other day of the year We omit here their supposition of an exact number of dayes for the natural time of a Birth which plainly can never be known and in so clear a point thus much is too much then enough For that other reason or confirmation as they would have it out of Astrology doubtless it is most vain that we may speak no worse of it both in regard of the Art it self and also of this application of it For the Art it self though very many Authors are of it yet there is none extant of any great antiquity and of those which are very few agree to any purpose among themselves Ptolomy who is the ancientest of them whose Volumes of it are publickly extant and lived about CXL years after our Saviour varyed * Tetrabib l. 1.
comm 57 58 c. from what the Chaldeans before him had observed The Arabians as Haly Albumazar Messalath the Author of Alcabitius Zabel and such more have another Doctrine from his The Latins as Manilius and Julius Firmicus neither agree among themselves nor with others to omit the numerous differences that are in the many Volums of it written in the middle and latter ages What certainty thereof can there be in that Art whose Professors do make no other pretence then long continuance of constant observation of signes and things signified to justifie themselves and yet in truth they have no testimony of such continuance of observation And I trust that no man will think that by rationall collection only as in some other faculties without a preceding and constant observation of many ages at least it is possible to discover the nature of this or that Star or of the various policious of the Heavens which every minute produces Besides without supposition of a certainty not onely of the degrees but in some particulars of the minutes also in which this or that Planet is the Astrologer proceeds not yet it is most known that the Astronomers from whose noble search these suppositions are patiently taken by the Astrologers are herein even almost as differing among themselves as the Astrologers in denoting of effects witnesse the difference of hours in Calculation by the Alphonsine Tables from the Prutenique made according to Copernicus and of both of the restored motions of Tycho Brahe And two of the Planets Mars and Mercury which bear no small rule in the precepts of Astrology have hitherto scarce lesse conceal'd their motions and places in the Heavens then Proteus would have done his true shape Yet still what the Astronomer knows is uncertain and ingeniously confesses to be so the Astrologer for the most part slothfully believing and so fixing himself on that belief takes for his infallible ground and so deceives and is deceived in his aspects which he resolves partile when they may perhaps be platique and platique when they may be partile in his directions in the print of his Horoscope and the other three of his Figure in his Fines in his Ferdariae in his Conjunctions and in what else stands upon such exactnesse of calculation But this is no place to speak more in particular of that Art Enough hath been said of the vanity of it by Mirandula Alexander ab Angelis and others that have purposely written Volumes against it But for the application of it to this of our Saviours Birth-day it is both too groundlesse also in respect of the hour to which the Figure is erected and withall impious in the rest of the suppositions For the hour it is erected to midnight following the 29. of December for so we must understand that which Cardan designes the time by Diebus 6. saith he horis 12. ante radicem Astrologorum qui auni initium sumunt in Calendis Januariis This falls upon 12. of the clock of the night following the 25. of December But whence I wonder was Cardan so sure that this was the minute of the hour of the Birth Some indeed that among the Ancients erroneously placed it on the 6. of January took the point of midnight to be the very minute as we see out of those collections out of Stephanus Gobarus Tritheites in Photius And in some part of the Asiatique Churches especially of Syria the night of this day hath the name of the night of the Nativity which Alfragan remembers But that testimony of the Nativity cited out of an old Greek Manuscript in St. Marks Library at Florence * Ad Theolog. Muchamed not 12. by Widmonstadius saies it was hora diet sexta Hesychius there also mentioned put in on hora diei septima with which agrees that Chronicle of Alexandria or the Fasti †Editione Radertana p. 532. Siculi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the 7. hour of the day And though none of those are of credit enough to justifie the very hour yet it seems they all meant it a Birth of the day and not of the night the houres of which they also note by the name of the hours of the night neither can it be cleared in the holy Text whether it were in the night or in the day The Angel in the night saies to the Shepherds For unto you is born this day that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Saviour out of which words it were too much rashnesse to resolve whether the point of the Birth were in the night or in the day If then Cardan or his followers had been led by authority they should have rather erected the figure if at all they erected it to the 6. or 7. hour of the day that is about 12. hours before their supposed time and so the whole Scheme had been changed and Aries had been the Horoscope instead of Libra and Capricorn in mid-heaven for Cancer Besides also had the mid-night following the 25. day been the just time those which in Jewry propagated the tradition to Posterity should by all probability have deliver'd it to have been on the 26. day of the Julian December not on the 25. For by the use of the Jews their naturall days * Severus Aâ—tiochenus apud Anastas Sinast quaest 152. praeter litt sacras were accounted from Evening to Evening So that the night following the 25. was part in their account of the 26. day as also the Ecclesiasticall account of days by the Cannon-Law †Quod die dist 75. extra de feriis c. 1 Francolin de horis canonic c. 43. synod in Trullo canigo 91. and that from ancient time Neither can it for this reason alone be salved unlesse advantage of a different account of days be taken from the old use in the State of Rome whereunto Jewry was then subject For in that State the naturall day was from midnight * F. tit de feriis l. 8. Plutarch in probl Rom. 84. to midnight yet according to that too it stands but indifferent to which of the two days the Birth should be referred being thus placed in the very point of midnight which parts them Besides also the Church of Rome have taken it to have been in the night-time preceding the 25. day for they in the Vigil of the Feast celebrate the Shepheards watching and in the morning they have a special Masse with reference †Ordo Roman sed vide sis Hugo de S. Victore erudit Theol. l. 3. c. 5. to the Shepheards visitation of our Saviour at that time in the Manger So that according to their supposition that Scheme is not for the birth but for a day after In summe the hour is every way uncertain their proof therefore being thus shewed groundlesse in regard of the exact hour of the natural day which is unknown I hope there needs not much be said to justifie that the suppositions of dependence
twixt any working or significations of the Stars and that great and most sacred mystery of the Incarnation are most impious although it were so that otherwise the traditions of that art had their place As if either the common objects of sense or uncertain collections of mans weak understanding had so much to do with what but at the best we are able to apprehend by Faith onely But Cardan had herein example to follow in those who long before him had impiously referr'd the beginning of Christian * Albumazar de conjunct differ 8. tract 2 apud Rog. Bacon in opere majori M.S. ad Clem. P.P. 4. Religion to a certain number of revolutions of Saturn And therefore also he makes that Comet which in 1133. appeared in Aries under the Northern part of the Milky way and was as he supposed of Martial Jovial and Mercuriall quality to denote the Schisms and Changes of Religion which soon after fell in this Kingdom under Henry 8. For to Aries saies Ptolomy is this Island subject as to a tutelar sign And in this Nativity also that Star which St. Matthew speaks of Cardan takes for a signifying Comet and places it in the Ascendent because it seems he read in the Evangelist that the wise men saw it in the East But there is good authority among the Ancients that by collection out of the holy Text that their seeing of it in the East was a continuall seeing of it †D. August in serm 1. edit Paris edit Lovaniens tom 10. p. 431. Nicephor Calist l. 1. c. 13. for two years time before the birth in the Countries that lay East from Jewry and doubtless also it could not be of any such heights as Comets are at the lowest supposed to be neither could it have designed a particular House in Bethlem if it had been so high as to have been carried either as Stars or Comets are in the Diurnall motion of the Heavens But enough hereof is already said against him by that great Tycho Brahe with whose * Progymnasm de nova stella p. 316. words also we conclude here that Cardan and his followers plus impiè quam justâ ratione quomodocunque tandem excusent hoc asseverant ut reliqua pudet n. referra quae Astrologicis suis commentis hac de re inseruit non adducam There was reason enough therefore why neither of these first kind of arguments whereof the one is taken from a groundless calculation of Moneths in the holy Text the other from the vanities of Astrology were used among the proofs brought for the certainty of this Birth-day For he that endeavours to establish a truth by arguments should no less religiously abstain from false premisses than he ought carefully to meet with the sharpest objections lest while the conclusion is of it self true and would clearly appear so if no other but true grounds were used to induce it the credit of it be therefore still questioned because in the foundations whereon it is so made to insist there is such use of apparent falshoods At least he rather seems too willing than truly able to prove who so mixes truth doubts and falshood in deducing his conclusion that either some of his premisses first patiently received and credited by himself and then offered in his arguments have indeed either much more need of proof but are less proved by him than his conclusion or else are every way false and so utterly betray both the conclusion and his judgment But we leave these and go next as is before purposed to the Objections of late time made against what is hitherto concluded touching the just day of this sacred birth SECT VII The chief Objections that are made against this dayes being the true time of the birth with plain Answers to them THe Objections against this received opinion or tradition of the day made in later time are chiefly two the one taken out of the enumeration of those circular courses of the Priests divided into their 24. families as is before expressed and the other from the circumstances of the time of the year of this birth mentioned in holy Writ For the first divers Chronologers after they have according to their own fancies altered the years of account from our Saviours birth some making it one some two some three some more years ancienter than the Dionysian Epocha received in the Church then that they may settle also the very day of the birth or at least the time of the year wherein the day fell they calculate by those weekly ministrations of the 24. courses of the Priests to find out the week wherein the course of Abia of which Zachary was ministred in the Temple for then would it follow that the time of Johns conception from which the conception and birth of our Saviour was accounted would nearly if not exactly be found also For the Text is That after those dayes of his ministration his wife Elizabeth conceived and hid her self five months c. For example some here supposing in their chronology that the birth was two years before the vulgarly-received time and in the MMMMDCCXI year of the Julian period thus work in calculation to find out the time of the year when our Saviour was born they observe first that Antiochus polluted the Temple and discontinued the daily Sacrifices and so by consequence the continuance of these courses then they say that Judas Macchabeus upon the new Dedication of the Temple recontinued the daily Sacrifices and by a like consequence restored the courses and in restoring of them began with the first that is the course of Jehoiarid and this in the 25. day of the Hebrew Moneth Caslea in the MMMMDXLIX year of the Julian period which agrees with the 24. of November of that year this day fell on Munday so that the continuance of the course of Ieheiarid was according to the first constitution till the morning of the Sabbath following the next Sabbath before this new Dedication of the Temples falling so on the 22. of November From this renewing of the courses they thus reckon from the course of Ichoiarid being the first to that of Abia being the eighth must intercede 49. dayes so that the course of Abia began on the 10. of Ianuary MMMMDL year of the Iulian Period having then before supposed that the year of the birth was the MMMMDCCXI year of the Iulian Period and that the conception of St. Iohn was in the year preceding that is in the year MMMMDCCX they account over the whole cycles of those 24. courses that intercede from the course of Abia in Ianuary of the year MMMMDL and thence observe at what time the course of Abia falls again in that MMMMDCCX year of the Iulian Period thus they find that in those 160. years 349. of those courses being past the course of Abia being the last in this computation which begins at the next from it of the 349. falls exactly to
with the five 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make up the whole common year both the Fathers and the most of prophane writers commonly used the Egyptian Moneths as fixed and not as they are wandring in the years of Nabonassar in the Almagest this of the 25. of Pachon is delivered in Clemens Alexandrinus that lived some eighty years after the * Stremat 1. Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some also that more curiously denote not only the year but the very day also of the Birth of our Saviour which they say was on the 25. of Pachon in the 28. year of Augustus where the account is not by the common years of Augustus deduced from the death of Julius Caesar but by the years that were past from the †Vide sis Censorin de die Natali c. 21. taking of Alexandria and the death of Anthony The second that seems to differ here is in the Chronicle of * Edit Rader p. 533. Alexandria where it is delivered that the birth was on the 25 day of the Egyptian Moneth Choiac which is the 21. of the Iulian December The third is of those which supposed the day to have been †Clem. Alex. Stremat 1. on the 24. or 25. of Pharmathi that is the Moneth preceding Pachon which agrees with the 19. or 20. of April And with this may be reckoned the 4. which is found in Mahomet that saies it was upon the 23. of the Arabique Moneth Rumadhau but in what year he designes not But however in the Hagaren or Arabian year this cannot come near our December for according to that year of the Moneth Ramadhau falls in Iune and Iuly about the time of our Saviours birth Vigesimo tertio die Ramadhan are the words in the Translation of a most impious Book of his long since done by Hermannus natus est Christus filius Mariae orationes Dei super eum For the Mahumedans celebrate our Saviour as a great Prophet and his Birth of the Virgin Mary * Alcor Azoar 5. Cantacuzon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. Postel de Orbis concord l. 1. c. 3 l. 2. c. 2. ad cap. Eltur also is related in their Alcoran although with much difference from the holy Story as most other things are which occurre there with reference to either of the Testaments A fifth is of those who thought the day to be the 11 of the Egyptian Moneth Tybi that is the 6. of our Ianuary on which we celebrate the Epiphany So Epiphanius †l. 2. tom 1. haeres 51. ita etiam ad extr l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Birth-day of our Saviour that is the Epiphaby fell upon the 6. day of Ianuary being the 11. of the Egyptian Moneth Tybi which opinion is remembred by Stephanus Gobarus * Apud Phot. cod 232. Tritheithes where yet the fifth of Ianuary is in the stead of the 6. as also in some places of some Editions of Epiphanius But Stephanus plainly meant the 6. day for he interprets it by the 8. Ides of Ianuary which is the 6. day and herewith agrees the common opinion of the ancient Church of Egypt which kept the Feast of the Birth on the 6. of Ianuary so confounding it with the Feast of his Baptism Callian †Collat. 10. c. â— vidâ— sis Orig homil de divers 8. relates so of him Intrae Egypti regionem mos iste antiquâ traditione servatur ut peracto Epiphaniorum die quem provinciae illius sacerdotes vel Dominici Baptismi vel secundum carnem Nativitatis esse definiunt idcircò utriusque Sacramenti solennitatem non bifariam ut in occiduis provinciis sed sub unâ diei hujus festivitate concelebrant c. And other * D. Hierâ—â— ad Ezethiel l. 1 D. Chrys tom 2 edit Erasmianâ p. 119 testimonies there are of this observation of the Feast on the 6. day with the Epiphany But there is none of these opinions but that may be either so interpreted that they may stand with what is before delivered of the 25. of December or else so shewed to insist upon false or no grounds that they are no authority at all against it For the first which casts it on the 25. of Pachan and is very ancient it may be well interpreted to agree with this of December for in consideration of it we must first remember that according to the old Iews there was among the Fathers of the Primitive times a reckoning of their Moneths as well by the order of enumeration as by proper names so that September and October were known as well by the names of the 7. and 8. Moneths as also their names denote as by their names themselves being accounted from March which was the first But the Greek Fathers frequently took April instead of March for the first Moneth of the year as we see expresly in St. †In Panegyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom in Anastasius * MS. apud Scal. deemend p. 509. Patriarch of Antioch in those Constitutions †Lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 Cedren p. 143 c. attributed to the Apostles in * Homilia 5. Macarius †Apud Photium cod 232. Stephanus Gobarus and in other testimonies of the ancients where the Iulian April is made the first as the Hebrew Moneth Nisan was and therefore also they had the very day of this Birth known by the name of the 25. day of the 9. Moneth December being the 9. from April and this kind of noting it is like enough to have deceived those which said it was on the 25. of Pachon for Pachon is the 9. Moneth reckoned from Thoth being the first among the Egyptians as December is being accounted from April so that when the tradition was delivered in those terms of the 9. Moneth no desighation being of the account of the Moneths nor of what Moneths were meant it was perhaps rashly received by some and instead of the 25. of the 9. Moneth in the Roman year account to that account of the Fathers it was apprehended to be and so by miltaking placed on the 25. of the 9. of the Egyptian year neither is this conjecture for intetpretation of the originall of that mistaking so new but the others and those which are very learned and †Herword Replerus Vide Repler de anno natali c. 15. judicious have also used it and by a like or easier way may the second which is before related be understood For though the 25. of Choiac fall upon the 21. of December taken strictly according to the Egyptian account from the first of Thoth being the 29. of August yet in regard that all December except the last five days falls within Choiac and so the very Birth-day in the same Moneth that is on the 29. of Choiac which truly answers to the 25. of December it is reason enough that we suppose that Choiac
was taken there for December it self so that the 25 of the one and the other-went with the Author for the same day And such examples are frequent as applying of Hebrew Arabique Greek and Egyptian Moneths to the Roman and therefore also the Translator of that Chronicle hath well expressed it prefâ—â—â—â—ing upon this reason by the 25. of December For the third and fourth neither of them having any ground at all are as easily and as reasonably denyed as affirmed nothing is brought to justifie them therefore as little will serve to confute them especially that of Mahomeâ— can have little weight here when as he is so false in the whole relation of the Birth of our Saviour in his Alcoran that he makes the Virgin Mary to be the same with Marre or Mâ—riam * Azâ—â—r 5. 29. the Sister of Aharon and talks of Zachâ—ries being three days onely dumb and of our Saviours precepts given as soon as he was born touching Prayers and Alâ—es as Robert Reading that anciently translated the Alcoran turnes it but the word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zachawath frequently occurring in the Alcoran for Alms or good works is in that place by Postellus * a De O bis concordiâ l. 2. c. 2. translated Tithes it being indeed in the Arabique Testament †Fpist ad Ebud c. 7. comm 4. expresly used for first fruits also with other impudent falshoods like the rest which are every where in that absurd Volume of his Law and there also the season of the year is noted by a tale of the Blessed Virgins having dates presently upon the Birth which as the Musulmans say * Postellus de Orbis concerdiâ l. 2. c. 2. is yet growing But for the fifth opinion which is from confounding of the Feasts of the Epiphany with this of the Birth a custom also retained in the latter ages †Catholicus Armen an legat ad Armenios in the Churches of Armenia and made by Stephanus Gobarus Treitheites in his Contrarieties of ancient opinions of the Church to be the main and as the onely one that crosses that of the 25. of December however it be so often taken clear in Epiphanius and rashly also affirmed by the Generall or Patriarch of the Armenians that all Churches had observed it so even from the Apostles yet doubtlesse there is great reason that we should think that this confusion began both without any sufficient ground and was also bred by some such mistakings as may be observed to have been in their consideration both of the name and time of the Feast of the Epiphany For their grounds besides what is in mistaking the name and circumstances of the time of this Feast there appears none that hath any colour of power of truth among those which have so noted it But for the name first of the Epiphany the Feast being anciently observed for the * Vide sis Aâ—â—m Marcelâ—â— l. 21. in â—â—â—stantio â—â—â—tano 〈◊〉 homil de 〈◊〉 8. Baptism of our Saviour in January as at this day and that in the Eastern Churches before such time as they had learned of the Western the true day of the Birth they first thought that the tradition of the Feast under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might well denote the Birth it self and so teach them that on this very day our Saviour was born for the Birth being of it self the first apparition of the Son of God in the Flesh and Epiphania denoting in the language of the then both past and present ages the apparition of a Deity as is especially noted also by the most learned Casaubon they took it at length here to denote also the first apparition of our Saviout to the World and that in the Feast-day kept on the 6. of January and so conconcluded that this was the Birth-day Now for the circumstance of the time of the Epiphany this confusion of the Feasts doubtlesse was much confirmed to them by an interpretation of a passage of Saint Luke where the Baptism of our Saviour which is celebrated in the Epiphany though Epiphanius place that also upon another day in November is delivered to have been when he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. beginning to be about 30. years of age which words are interpreted by some as if he had been of 30. complete and beginning to be 31. on that day which must so of necessity be on his birth-day And so this way also one and the same day became sacred among them to the Baptism and the Birth But all this and what other mistakings the Greek Church herein had was embraced by the most of them but till they were better informed from the Western Church and the Generall of the Armenians * In legâ—â—â—â— ad Armenâ—â—â—n expresly tells Theorianus who objects to him that Sermon of Saint Chysostom touching it that they knew not yet nor had not heard of any Sermon of St. Chrysostoms to this purpose So that want of instruction onely continued this errour among them which hath been long since reformed in the Syrian Egyptian and Ethiopian Churches as well as in the Greek as is before shewed in their agreement with us in the celebration of this Birth But for those collections out of the name of the Epiphany and circumstances of time of the Baptism it will soon appear that they justifie nothing here against the received tradition And first for that of the name of Epiphania denoting the apparition of a Deity it is otherwise enough satisfied and there was no need at all to have it restrained to the noting of the Birth-day For though the work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be used in the holy * Epist 2. ad Timoth. c. 1. comm 10. Text both for the first appearing of our Saviour or his Incarnation as also for his coming at the †Panegyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tom 5. edit Savil. p. 525. last day yet in the first institution of this Feast of the Epiphany it was used I suppose for neither but for that publick apparition or Manifestation by which the Latin Fathers denote Epiphania of him to the World at his Baptism in regard whereof he was before but privately known So expresly Saint Chrysostom whose authority is here beyond exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why then is it called Epiphanie in regard as he before had said it is not the celebration of the Birth-day but of the day of the Baptism because saith he when he was born he was not then manifested to all men but when he was baptized for till then he was unknown to the multitude and to this purpose also he brings that of Saint John I baptize with water but there standeth one among you whom ye know not speaking of our Saviour and the same Evangelist expresly I knew him not but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That he might be
manifested to Israel therefore I came baptizing with water So Saint Jerom tells * In commenâ— ad Ezechiel l. 1. us what the name of Epiphany denotes Significat saith he baptisma in quo aperti sunt Christo Coeli Epiphaniorum dies hucusque venerabilis est non ut quidem putant natalis in carne tunc enim absconditus est non apparuit Others of the Fathers have as much Hereto may be added the consent of posterity after such time as the true day of the birth was discovered to them in the Eastern Church and in a Poem as they call it used in the Service of the Epiphany in the Greek Church made by * Euchologium p. 93 b. Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem an express passage is fully to this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. We glorifie thee that art without Father of a Mother and without Mother of a Father and in a preceding Feast of the Nativity we knew thee an Infant but in this present Feast of the Epiphany we see thee at full growth appearing to be our most perfect God According whereto also St. Augustine †Serm. in Eâ—iphan 〈◊〉 diversis 64. hath express words and that often For however they had anciently in the Greek Church confounded the Feasts of the Baptism or Epiphany and the Nativity yet being admonished from the Western Church they confessed their error in this that they sever'd the commemoration of the Baptism from this of the Birth and placed the Birth on his proper day in December and yet they retained still for the Baptism the name of Epiphania which also is sometimes * Vide sis Theonhil Alexand. in edicto tom bibl Patrum edit Paris p. 161. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Menology and in the Apostoloevangela of the Greek Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. On the sixth of the same moneth the holy Theophania of our Lord Jesus Christ for then was the first publick apparition of his Godhead In the Church of Egypt also this day is severally kept by the †Comput Elcophi apud Scalig de emendat l. 7. p. 661. name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alchamim i. the Feast of Washing or Bathing Quod Ecclesia vetus Aegyptiaca baptismum eo dic iteraret sayes Ioseph Scaliger though perhaps that name may have reference to that old custom used in the Church of providing water in the night of that day for the holy uses of the whole year following which St. Chrysostom * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 edit Savil. p. 524. tom 5. remembers and is yet retained in the Greek Church as it appears by their Euchologium or Common-Prayer-Book as also in the Syriack Church which hath this Feast severed as ours here from the Birth and keeps it †iridimonstad in subaexis Tast Syriaco under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ilhada dinohora i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nazianzen calls it or the Feast of Lights and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Didinacha i. e. Of Light appearing in the East according whereto also they as others use in this Feast great store of Lights which hath reference to the very word Epiphania doubtless which denotes Enlightning also or Illumination in the Vulgar Translation of the New Testament and both in that sense as also in the other of Apparition or Manifestation it may verbally besides signifie the apparition of the Star to the Wise men Stella quae Solis rotam Vincit decore ac lumine As Prudentius of it and Sedulius of the Wise men Stellam sequentes praeviam Lumen requirunt lumine Both in their Hymnes made proper to this of the Epiphany So that the name of the Epiphany is from the ancient and primitive times fully satisfied either in that of the Baptism or in the apparition of the Star Whence also the Dutch French Italian and Spaniard note it by The day of the three Kings for so those wise men are commonly reputed to have been and also the Feast it self hath been long since after the truth learned from the Western Church observed apart by it self as having in the first observation of it no community with this of the Birth-day and that among those which before had confounded them It follows then that even by their own confession that had been the Authors of this confusion they had been deceived in application of the name of Epiphany to the birth of our Saviour and for that collection of time out of the testimony of St. Luke it is clear that no certainty of the day can be thence extracted the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. as it were about expresly excludes such certainty So St. Iohn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. it was about the tenth hour which clearly denotes not the beginning or end of the hour neither needs there farther proof of the weakness of that collection At length to conclude therefore the Authorities of the Ancients and the consent of Christian Churches for this Birth-day as it is now anniversarily kept being as before declared the mistaken reasons being rejected lest their falshoods might prejudice the clearness of the Truth the Objections of later time being answered and the different Opinions of the Ancients touching it being either groundless or not in truth opposing it it rests that we resolve on it as upon as certain and clear a Truth of Tradition as by rational inference by express testimony of the Ancients by common and continual practice of severall Churches and by accurate inquiry may be discovered FINIS These Books following are printed for Nathanael Brook and we to besold all his Shop at the Angel in Cornhill Excellent Tracts in Divinity Controversies Sermons Devotions 1. THe Catholick History collected and gathered out of Scripture Councils and ancient Fathers in answer to Dr. Vain 's Lost sheep returned home by Edward Chesensale Esq in octavo 2. Bishop Morton on the Sacrament in fol. 3. The grand Sacriledge of the Church of Rome in taking away the sacred Cup from the Laity at the Lords Table by Dr. Dan. Featly in quarto 4. Quakers cause at second hearing being a full answer to their Tenets 5. Re-assertion of Grace Vindiciae Evangelii or the Vindication of the Gospel a Reply to Mr. Anthony Burges's Vindiciae Legis and to Mr. Rutherford by Robert Towres 6. Anabaptist anatomiz'd and silenced or a Dispute with Mr. Tombs by Mr. J. Cragg where all may receive clear satisfaction A Cabinet Jewel Mans misery Gods mercy in 8. Sermons with an Appendix concerning Tithes with the expediency of marriages in publick assemblies by the same Author Mr. Iohn Cragg 7. A Glimpse of Divine Light being an explication of some passages exhibited to the Commissioners at White-hall for approbation of publick Preachers against I. Harrison of Land Chappel Laneashire 8. The Zealous Magistrate a Sermon by T. Threscos quarto 9. New Jerusalem in a Sermon for the Society of Astrologers quarto in