Selected quad for the lemma: word_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A79547
|
Christs birth not mis-timed: or, A cleare refutation of a resolution to a question about the time of Christ's nativity. By R.S. Pretending to evidence by scripture, that, Iesus Christ was not borne in December.
|
R. S.
|
1649
(1649)
|
Wing C3967; Thomason E538_12; ESTC R206036
|
5,199
|
9
|
day fortnight 1. The 15 day of Abib the a Course and so successively to the end of the 24 Courses it is evident that all the Courses would be gone over in 336 daies for 14 times 24 make precisely 336. But even in the Lunar year of the Hebrews without any intercalation there are contained no lesse then 354 daies So that of necessity there must be 18 daies left at the end of the yeare without any Course of Priests and consequently the daily Sacrifice must cease for the constant performance of which these Courses were instituted which of it selfe is most false or the first Course must then begin againe which is most contradictory to the first part of the Resolver's Addition viz. That the first Course alwaies begins with the first day of the first Month. But the truth is these parts of the Resolver's Addition doe not onely taken joyntly together include a manifest repugnancy which proves but one of them false but each of them severally is not onely destitute of any proofe in the Holy writ or other good authority but will appeare by it self to be false by as good authority as can possibly in such a case be had Josephus a learned Jew who was himself a Priest and one of the course of Jeiarib the onely man upon whose authority the continuation of the Order in the Courses from Solomon's institution to the destruction of the second Temple without which the very first part of the Resolver's Argument signifies nothing this Josephus I say tells us plainly that David instituted these Courses of the Priests not for a Fortnight together but a Weeke His words are these in the 11 chap. of the 7 Booke of the Jowish Antiquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. David appointed one family in its course to minister unto the Lord for 8 daies from Sabbath to Subbath He calls indeed the space of time allotted to each course 8 daies reckoning according to their manner both the day they began and the day they ended their service which is evident by the words which immediately follow them from Sabbath to Sabbath As therefore it is said Luke 2. 21. When eight daies were accomplished for the circumcising of the Child his name was called Jesus whereas he was circumcised on the 8 day and so there were but 7 compleat daies from his Nativity to his Circumcision So the Courses of the Priests are said to minister 8 daies whereas they began their service on the Sabbath ended at the same time of the day the next Sabbath which is but the space of 7 compleat daies And so they performed the service of but 7 daies Which is most evident out of a Booke of theirs extant called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sepher Maamadoth i. e. the Booke of their Services or their Liturgy which is divided into seven parts containing the Services of the 7 daies The Courses then were not for a Fortnight but for a Weeke as Theophylact upon Saint Luke hath well observed saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Solomon when he had finished the Temple appointed also the Courses that is to say the Weeks And this may be further evidenced yet even out of the word of God For at the same time that the Priests were divided into 24 Courses the Levites were divided so likewise for their attendance on the Priests 1 Chron. 23. 6. of which Josepus speaks very expressly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. David divided also the Tribe of Levi into 24 parts who by lot kept their Courses for 8 daies after the manner of the Courses of the Priests The Levites then were divided after the same manner with the Priests and kept the same Courses But the Levites Courses were but weekly as appears 1 Chron. 9. 25. And their Brethren viz. the Levites which were in their Villages were to come after 7 daies from time to time with them therefore the Courses of the Priests were weekly And this Weeke began alwaies on the Sabbath day as appeares by the words of Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Sabbath to Sabbath and out of Sepher Maaboth or their Liturgy in which are these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. And in the Sabbath they added one Benediction to the Course that went off Now being every Course began on the Sabbath day and the first day of the month began on any day of the weeke as well as the Sabbath and being all these weekly Courses were compleated in 168 daies for 7 times 24 make so many and then to begin again that there might be no intermission of the service of God therefore the first Course could not be tied to the beginning of any month much lesse to the beginning of any yeare The truth of all which any man must at first of necessity confesse who has but observed how exact the Jemes were in keeping these Courses and how loose in the observation of their Months and Yeares By all which it is clearly demonstrated as farre as matters of this nature are capable of demonstration that the severall Courses of the Priests institâ—ted by David did not continue for a fortnight together Neither did the first Course of Joiarih alwaies begin with the first Month Nisan or Abib Without which Propositions granted to be true as they are most certainly false all which the Resolver brings out of the Scripture doth nor prove any such thing as that John Baptist was conceived in June From hence I conclude that the Resolvers Argument doth not prove that our Savious was conceived in December because the Antecedent of the Argument is not proved viz. that John Baptist was conceived in June To the III. Section by way of Postscript in which he endeavoureth to shew that Saint Chrysostome was the Occasion of this Errour who supposed Zachary to be the High Priest I Answer That Saint Chrysostome did thinke Zachary was the High Priest is true and that that opinion of Saint Chrysostome is false I confesse But that that opinion was the Occasion of observing the 25 day of December for Christs Nativity I absolutely deny And this the Resolver doth not cannot prove For that which was observ'd before Saint Chrysostome's time could not be occasioned by any opinion of S. Chrysostome But the observation of the 25 of December for the Nativity of our Saviour was before S. Chrysostome's time Therefore the Observation of the 25 of December for the Nativity was not occasioned by any opinion of S. Chrysostome and consequently not by that opinion of his that Zachariah was the High Priest The major is without all Question true The minor is as certaine out of antiquity But I shall onely prove it by S. Chrysostome's owne testimony who in a Sermon preached upon this day at Antioch declares that he was not the Authour nor occasion of the Celebration of it but that he received it from the Church of Rome who by an antient tradition had long observed it his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. But heare and believe that we have received this day 25 of December from those which have exact knowledge of these things and inhabit that City Rome where the Censuals Tables were extant in which our Saviours Nativity was described 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For they which live there having a long while by an antient Tradition celebrated this day have now at last transmitted the knowledge of it to us Thus the Easterne Church and particularly S. Chrys received this day from the Western Church and conse quently S. Chrys by his errour was no occasion of the Celebration of the 25 day of December 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE END
CHRISTS BIRTH NOT MIS-TIMED OR A cleare Refutation of a Resolution to a Question about the time of CHRIST'S NATIVITY By R. S. Pretending to evidence by Scripture THAT IESUS CHRIST was not borne in December LONDON Printed for Richard Royston in Ivie-lane M. DC XL. IX CHRIST'S BIRTH NOT MIS-TIMED c. AMongst the rest of the Pamphlets there came forth this Week a Resolution to a Question made by the Lord CAREW touching the true time of the Birth of CHRIST framed by way of a Letter and subscribed R. S. What operation this Resolution may have in these unsetled times I know not but being it pretends so farre to the Scriptures I may have leave to feare it may have some influence on the minds of such as are not well affected to the Resolves of the Primitive times Who being already too forward to deny all obedience to their Mother Church where she cannot evidence her commands expresly and particularly out of the Word of God will be greedy of an occasion or pretence to desert her in that which may any way seem contrary to it To prevent any such consequence I have sent this Refutation after R. S. his Resolution not doubting but it will clearly shew the invalidity of whatsoever he hath endeavoured to bring for the confirmation of his novel Assertion TO the I. Section or Preface I answer nothing because it is only an Addresse and pretends not to any part of the proof Of the II. Section the Title is this The true time of Christ's Nativity evidenced In this I desire to joyne issue and deny that any Evidence of the true time of Christ's Nativity is to be found in this Section which is the Body of his Resolution His Argument runs thus The Conception of John Baptist was in the Month of June Therefore the Conception of Christ not the Birth was in December the 6 Month after June The consequence I acknowledge without any further dispute and therefore shall not at all question the proof If John the Baptist can be prov'd out of Scripture to have been conceiv'd in June I will not deny but our Saviour was conceived and consequently will confesse that he was not Borne in December But the Antecedent is in no wise to be admitted wherefore I absolutely deny that it can be proved out of Scripture that John Baptist was conceived in June and therefore to your Argument contained in the second part of the II. Section which endeavours to prove the Antecedent I answer thus The Argument so much of it as is taken out of the Scriptures is no more then this The course of Abiah was the 8 course of the Priests 1 Chr. 24. 10. Zacharias was of the course of Abiah Luke 1. 5. After the course of Abiah John Baptist was conceived Luk. 1. 26. Nisan or Abib was the first month of the year Exod 12. 2. 13. 4. Now if all these Propositions taken out of these severall places of Scripture be reduced into forme the Argument will run thus The course of Abiah was the 8 course of the Priests 1 Chr. 24. 10. Zachariah was of the course of Abiah Luke 1. 5. Ergo Zachariah was of the 8 course of the Priests This Syllogisme I acknowledge to be very good and therefore shall take the Conclusion for a truth Only this I must have leave to put in by the way If the Course remained in the same Order in the daies of Herod in which they were instituted by K. David For being this cannot be proved out of the Scripture and being possible that in so long time and so many confusions the order might be altered therefore though the premises be both in the Scripture yet the Conclusion is not altogether of Scripture Authority But being Josephus hath witnessed that the Order was not altered I admit the Conclusion as a truth Which being admitted the next Syllogisme will be this The course of Zachariah was the 8 course of the Priests John Baptist was conceived at the end of the course of Zachariah Luke 1. 26. Ergo John Baptist was conceived at the end of the 8 course of the Priests This Syllogisme I likewise willingly admit But being this has not yet made an end of the Question We must thus proceed The end of the 8 course of the Priests was in June John Baptist was conceived at the end of the 8 course of the Priest Ergo John Baptist was conceived in June Without this Syllogisme it is evident that the Question is not proved at all and by this Syllogisme if it be good it is as evident and I doe freely acknowledge that the Question is by the Resolver fully prov'd But to this I answer The Minor or second Proposition I acknowledge as being the Conclusion of the former Syllogisme which I before admitted But the former Proposition or Major I absolutely deny to be formally or virtually contained in the Scriptures and consequently I affirme the Conclusion not to be proved by this Argument out of Scripture All the Scripture which is brought by the Resolver to prove the Major are two places out of Exodus from which it is truely collected that Nisan or Abib was the first Month of the yeare So that his Argument must run thus Nisan or Abib was the first month of the year Exod. 12. 2. 13. 4. Ergo The end of the 8 course of the Priests was in June This is all which he brings out of the Scriptures to prove this Proposition and every one sees that of it self this proves it not Therefore the Resolver in his discourse hath not prov'd out of the Scriptures that the end of the 8 course was in June and consequently hath not proved out of the Scriptures that John Baptist was conceived in June which he undertook to prove But though he have not proved his Assertion out of the Scriptures yet I must confesse he addeth that of his owne without any authority of Scripture or any other Authour which if it were in the Scriptures might prove his Assertion to be of Scripture-truth and of divine authority or if it were in any other good Authour might make it probable according to the authority of the Authour Now that which thus he adds as I said of his own consists of these two particulars 1. That the first Course began alwaies at the beginning of the first Month of the yeare 2. That each Course continued a Fortnight and so the 24 Courses made up a full compleat yeare and consequently that the end of the 8 Course was at the end of the 4 Mouth which was June But this addition of the Resolver is not onely not to be found in the word of God or in any other Authour of any antiquity as I presume but is in it self considered apparently false For 12 Fornights doe not make an Hebrew year nor 2 Fortnights an Hebrew Month. Suppose then that the course of Joiarib or the first course should be the first day of Abib and that