Centuries at leaft. Dr. Cave indeed feems to think, that this Practice was no where obferved but in the Eaft, and that only till they were better informed by the Churches in the Weft. But furely this Remark was not well confidered. For where would you seek for the Original of a Christian Practice but where Christianity itself had it's Original, in the Eaft? The Doctrines of our Religion flowed from this Spring, and therefore the Apoftolical Usages, it may fairly be prefumed, were derived from no other Sources. And this indeed Dr. Cave himself seems to be fenfible of, when fpeaking of the Controverfy in the Church about the Time of celebrating our Lord's Refurrection; for there he feems to allow, that the Western Churches pretended only an Apoftolical Tradition in oppofition to the Churches of the Eaft. The first Account we have of the Obfervation of Chrift's Nativity on the twenty fifth Day of December afcends no higher than to the Days of Pope Julius in the middle of

Dr. Cave's Primitive Chriftianity, P. 119.

the

the third Century. And Chryfoftom in a Sermon pronounced profeffedly on the Occafion acknowledges, that the Custom was brought from Rome abont ten Years before. The Arguments used by this Father of the Church to prove that the twenty fifth Day of December was really the Day of our Saviour's Nativity are fuch, that in Mr. Nelson's Opinion there is little Reason to doubt but that the Day, which has always been observed in the Church of England, is the very Day: Yet whoever carefully examines will find, that the good Father depends upon Rhetorick more than Reason for the Proof of his Point. He cites no antient Record for it; and what he calls his Demonstration of the Point in Question is founded on a grofs Miftake, that Zacharias the Father of John was high Priest, and was entered into the holy of bolies, when the Angel Gabriel appeared to him. It is evident from a fingle Glance upon the History of this Fact in St. Luke, that Zacharias on the contrary was a common Fafts and Festivals, P. 60,

Prieft

Priest and of the Class of Abia, one of the twenty four which David (1. Chron. xxiv. 10.) appointed for the Temple Service "each Courfe being divided into feven Claffes, " and each Class ferving it's Day at the Temple, and each Prieft of that Class having "his Part in the Service appointed him by "Lot." The Conclufion therefore drawn by Chryfoftom for the Establishment of our Saviour's Birth on the twenty fifth of December is as groundless as the Affertion upon which it is built.

It is at prefent univerfally agreed amongst the learned, that the common Æra, or Reckoning from the Birth of Chrift far from being exact falls short of the true Account, by two Years as Baronius and Scaliger think, by five Years according to Petavius, a very exact Chronologer, or even fix accord ing to the Opinion of fome others. Now this Difference, as Dr. Prideaux observes,

+ Dr. Prideaux's Connection, Vol. 4 P. 913.

But

arofe from hence, that this Reckoning was not brought into Ufe till the five hundred and twenty seventh Year after the Birth of Christ So that a Mistake in fixing the first Year of it is not to be wondered at. had the Month, and the Day of the Month, when this glorious Event came to pass, been precisely mentioned according to the Jewish Account of Time, we should not yet have been enabled thereby to have determined the precife Time of this Event according to our own Way of Reckoning. The Reason of this is given by the fame learned † Dean Prideaux, who was a Mafter in this Way. For till the Year three hundred and fixty after our Lord's Birth the Jews had no certain Rules of Reckoning. Their Months were Lunar ones; fo that their Year fell fhort of our's by eleven Days. Hence their Year began eleven Days too foon; and this obliged them to infert a Month extraordinary once in every third Year, and sometimes in two years, as the Situation of the Equinox

required

required it, in order to the proper Obfervation of the Paffover. But this Intercalation they did not always exactly make, varying often from the Aftronomical Truth. And this having been their Way, till Rabbi Hillel about the Middle of the fourth Century fixed the Jewish Calendar upon the certain Foundations of Aftronomy, "we cannot," as the learned + Dean obferves, " when we "find the Day of any Jewish Month men"tioned in the Scriptures, or in Jofephus, "reduce it exactly to it's Time in the Julian

1

Year, or there fix it any nearer, than with"in the Compafs of a Month fooner or "later."

With all these Difadvantages let us enquire how far we may be able to fix the Time of our bleffed Lord's Nativity. And here, fince Conjecture is to fupply the Place of Knowledge, no more can be expected than ingenious Gueffes. Our very learned Lightfoot, who was a great Master of Rabbinical Learning, is of Opinion, that the Time

Preface to Vol. I. P. 14.