tion of these extracts, we strongly suspect, that if we could see his whole statement, we could show, that he is throughout consistent with himself. But it is not incumbent on us to defend Bianchini. Whether his meaning has been misapprehended or not, there can be no doubt, that in the time of mean and of true new-moon, as quoted above, he is near enough to the truth. If he has made anywhere else a very different representation, he is certainly in error. This is one of the cases, where a decision is arrived at by figures; and figures, when properly used, never deceive. We shall consider it, then, incontrovertible, that in March, A. D. 28, the mean new-moon at Jerusalem was on the 14th day in the afternoon, and that the true new-moon was on the 15th day in the morning, civil time.

We now come to the consideration of the full-moon of the same year and month. Here very few words would be necessary, were it not for the novel and extraordinary method adopted by Dr. Jarvis of calculating a lunar opposition. According to the modern tables, the time of mean full-moon, March, A. D. 28, at Jerusalem, was the 29th day, 9h. 42m. 54sec. A. M., and the time of true full-moon, the same day, 4h. 48m. 56sec. A. M., civil time. This differs about three days from the time of full-moon as determined by the Canon of Victorius, where it is placed on the 26th. Dr. Jarvis undertakes to show, that the 26th was the day of March, on which this Paschal full-moon really took place; which by mere inspection, is seen to be an attempt to accomplish an impossibility. From the 14th, the time of mean new-moon, to the 26th, is but twelve days; and a full-moon can not take place after a new-moon, with so short an interval. If it should be allowed, contrary to fact, that the new-moon, as Dr. Jarvis supposes, was on the 13th of the

month, this would make the interval but thirteen days, which is still too small. Dr. Jarvis himself in his Introduction, (p. 432,) speaks of the "ordinary method of computing each lunation as 29 days, or two lunations as 59 days;" and again he furnishes a table (p. 431) "constructed on the data" of Victorius, in which fourteen days are allowed between new and full-moon. Yet in the face of all this, he proceeds boldly to his work; and it may af ford the reader some amusement to see the process by which he attains his object.

The mean time of the full-moon in question, is proved from the best sources, as we suppose, to have been the 29th day of the month in the morning. To bring this full-moon to the 26th day of the month, three days must be thrown out of the account. To effect this, Dr. Jarvis first assumes that there is a "typographical error" in Bianchini, and that the new-moon was on the 13th day. By this gratuitous supposition, one day is stricken from the list. This time of new-moon he sets down, according to astronomical notation, as 12d. 15h. 17m. 10sec.; that is, twelve complete days and a part of the thirteenth. To find the mean time of full-moon, he adds to the mean time of new-moon thus as. certained, half the mean time of the moon's "periodical" [sidereal] revolution round the earth; that is, 13d. 15h. 51m. 314sec.; which has nothing to do with the subject. What he should have added is half of the moon's synodical revolution; that is, 14d. 18h. 22m. 2sec. Dr. Jarvis himself in his Introduction, (p. 459,) adopts "the common method of computing lunar months, as consisting alternately of twenty-nine and thirty days." But by taking the moon's sidereal revolution, which is just as obvious an error as it would be to add seventy-five cents to a dollar to make two dollars, he rids himself of a second day and

some more. Next he adds together the time of mean new-moon, as he understands it, and half of the mean time of the moon's sidereal revolution round the earth, and obtains the sum, 26d. 7h. 8m. 41 sec. But as both the twelve days and the thirteen days are complete days, the twenty-six days, according to one of the plainest mathematical principles, that the sum of two numbers is of the same denomination as the numbers added, should be reckoned as complete days also. But then the time, in civil reckoning, would be the 27th day; which is still too much. He, therefore, calls this 26, the 26th day, and a third day is cancelled. By this kind of legerdemain, in direct opposition to the clearest physical and mathematical truth, as well as his own admissions, the work is done. These three days, then, which have been cashiered without "rhyme or reason," should be restored to their proper place, which will bring Dr. Jarvis into entire agreement with ourselves, as to the time of this full-moon.

But strange as the above mode of finding the time of full-moon may appear, a subsequent remark by the author is perhaps still more So. "The responsibility," he says, "of these calculations rests not on me. If not on him, we would ask, on whom does it rest? We venture to say without hesitation or qualification, that these calculations are entirely new ;-and if Dr. Jarvis will exam ine all the records of mathematical and astronomical science, from the time when the first man began to count, to the time when he himself calculated this full-moon, he can find nothing like them. This mode of calculation, he does not ascribe, as in the former case, to any thing taught him at Yale College; and this silence we believe just. From some knowledge we have of that institution, we give it as our opinion,

that any student there, who should perpetrate such an astronomical estravaganza, as we have just had under review, would be put immediately on an extra course of lessons; or what is more probable, his instructors, following the course of honest Apollonius of Alabanda, would earnestly advise him to pass at once to some employment for which he was better fitted.

One thing, we are sure, must be now clear, that Dr. Jarvis's attempt to determine the year of the Crucifixion by calculating new and fullmoons, is an absolute failure. The full-moon, A.D. 28, occurred March 29th, the second day of the week, one day after that which, according to the evangelists, was the day of the resurrection; of course the Cru cifixion, if on the day of the fullmoon, could not have been on the preceding Friday, as he maintains. We would here add, that the Rev. Henry Browne, a clergyman of the church of England, in his late work, entitled, Ordo Saclorum, which Dr. Jarvis speaks of with respect, cal. culates the time of full-moon, March, A. D. 28, as we have done,—and rejects this year as the year of the Crucifixion.*

Dr. Jarvis, very properly, is careful to remind us often of our ignorance; of which, even without his friendly monitions, we are deeply sensible; and one thing of which we acknowledge ourselves ignorant, is the mode in use among the Jews, of determining the time of lunar conjunctions and oppositions. For aught we know, they might have used for this purpose a cycle, which at some periods, differed several days in its results from the true times; or they might have depended on observation, or have allowed circumstances not now well ascertained, to interfere in some years with the time of the actual return of these phenomena; so that the true times

* Page 55.

might have been antedated or postdated. Even if the learned Rabbis in the time of our Savior, had in their possession a set of rules for calculating the place of the moon with tolerable correctness, Dr. Jarvis ought not to deny, that they might have been mistaken several days in their computations; as he has himself been, with the modern improvements of astronomical science within his reach. If he is not certain how this matter was, his reasoning fails in another important point. On the supposition, that the Jews did not ascertain the conjunction and opposition of the sun and moon in correct astronomical time, even if he could show, as he can not, that it was full-moon, March 26th, A. D. 28, it would go but a little way towards proving, that this was the year of the Crucifixion. In his Introduction, he says, that the Jewish "writers maintain that they fixed the time of the new-moon only by its appearance." If this was so, the time of new-moou fixed by them in March, A. D. 28, must have been the 16th or 17th of the month, unless, which it may not be easy to show, they made some allowance,as the new-moon is not visible till one or two days after the change. The time of full-moon would be proportionally later. In conclusion, then, of this part of the subject, we say, that there is no proof that the full-moon, March, A. D. 28, was on the 26th day, that there is the highest proof that the nature of the case admits of, that this full-moon was on the 29th day,-that Dr. Jarvis has no evidence whatever, that the Jews, in the time of our Savior, ascertained the conjunction and opposition of the sun and moon by astronomical calculation; and that if they were guided, as according to his own statement, Jewish writers alledge, by the moon's "appear ance," the day which he has fixed up

* Page 459.

on for the paschal full-moon is probably still further removed from that on which he has placed it. It is the opinion of Gieseler,* as we read in his valuable Manual of Ecclesiastical History, that in consequence of the uncertainty of the Jewish calendar, it is an impossibility to as certain the Friday on which the crucifixion occurred; in which opinion we fully concur.

We should say nothing at present on the subject of Christmas, were it not that Dr. Jarvis has furnished in reference to it, a specimen of reasoning so peculiar, that it should not pass without comment. It is hardly less remarkable than his calculation of a full-moon. We had admitted, that the observance of the 25th of December as the day of the Nativity, existed very early in the church; and stated that we had no objection to what Wheatley has said respecting this day, in his work on the "Book of Common Prayer." But relying on the highest authorities in the Episcopal church, we gave it as our opinion, that the evidence that the Nativity was in fact on the 25th of December, is wholly insufficient. In the course of our remarks, we asked this question, and appended the obvious and unavoidable answer. "Is there any thing in the New Testament, either in the Evangelists, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epis tles, or the Apocalypse, from which the exact time of the Nativity can be deduced? No."

"But," says Dr. Jarvis, "I think there is; and what is more, the ancient church

thought so. The evangelists tell of Joseph and Mary's arrival in Bethlehem. St. Luke says that they went to be enrolled; and no sooner had they arrived, than the child JESUS was born, so that he also might he enrolled. The registers would show the date of his birth; and they were kept in Rome in the public archives, to which any one could have access. The church at Rome knew the day of his birth, and observed it. From these archives, the church catholic learned the true date, and the day became generally known, and as generally observed."t

Band, 1, 55. + Review, p. 84.

Such bald sophistry as this is seldom met with. What is there in the language of Luke about the 25th of December? The most that Dr. Jarvis can claim is, that Luke does not say, that the 25th of Decernber was not the day of the Nativity. Neither does he say that September was not the month of the Nativity, where Archbishop Ussher has placed it; nor does he say, that the 1st of October was not the day of the Nativity, which according to Archbishop Newcome, may be assumed as the day of this event; nor does he say, that any day of the year, where the Nativity has been placed by speculators on this subject, was not the true time. The language of Luke is equally consistent with all the opinions as to the day of the Nativity, so far as such opinions are known to us, which have ever been uttered. Any one of these opinions may be "deduced" from what Luke has said, as well as another. If it should be replied, that there is more external evidence in favor of the 25th of December, than of any other day; -then the deduction, that this is the true day, is from that evidence, and not from the narrative of Luke. As to the "registers" kept at Rome, we have yet seen no reason to believe, that any existed deserving of credit in a case like this. The testimony of St. Chrysostom is mere hearsay; and as to Tertullian,-what is his reputation for accuracy in matters of fact? Does Dr. Jarvis himself rely on what he says of the succession and reigns of the Roman emperors? Yet in this latter case, there were certainly the means of exact knowledge within the reach of this Father, of which he made, as Dr. Jarvis must admit, no proper use. It will be time enough to examine this subject further, when it is shown, that some one historian of established character for sound judgment in historical criticism, has thought the story of the "registers"

to be entitled to full credence. Till then we must leave it with the remarks in our preceding numbers.

Other discoveries are made by Dr. Jarvis in the Gospels. He says, "the evangelists tell of Joseph and Mary's arrival in Bethlehem." Which of the evangelists, except Luke, says any thing of this “arrival?" He adds-"St. Luke says that they went to be enrolled; and no sooner had they arrived, than the child Jesus was born, so that he also might be enrolled." But where has he learned this? All which appears from Luke is, that the child Jesus was born, while his parents "were there," that is, in Bethlehem. For aught that is said by the evangelist, this birth might have occurred after the enrollment. That "the child Jesus was born, so that he also might be enrolled," is not said by Luke; he speaks only of the enrollment of Joseph and Mary. If the child Jesus was enrolled, this fact must be substantiated by some other author. ity. These are given as specimens of the general looseness and inaccuracy of Dr. Jarvis's statements. His pen at times seems to run entirely at random.

But where

We had referred to the writings of the Apostolical Fathers, of Justin Martyr and of the younger Pliny as containing nothing on the subject of Christmas. This reference, Dr. Jarvis is pleased to denominate "purely ridiculous." are we to look for evidence, whether such a festival existed, if not in Christian authors, or in a heathen author like Pliny, when speaking of the early Christians and their observances? Would he send us to the writings of the Jews? But what superior claim have these as authori ties on such a question? And if we are not to go to Christians, Heathen or Jews,-where are we to look for satisfactory information respecting the antiquities of the Christian

Chap. ii, 6.

church? Besides, these writers referred to, certainly are minute in their specifications, exhortations, and directions. The first day of the week is mentioned as the day of Christian assemblies; the mode of worship, and the existence of religious teachers, are alluded to, with greater or less particularity;-and what more natural, what more a matter of course, than that there should be some intimation in the same writers, of the observance of the great Festival of the Nativity, if practiced in their time? Their silence is highly significative. Dr. Jarvis ought rather, as we should judge from his common mode of reasoning, to infer that what he calls "the old leaven of Puritanism," was "working" in some unaccountable way thus early; and that the Fathers of the primitive church were kept back from noticing Christmas, "because there was not chapter and verse in the New Testament which said, in so many words, that Christ was born on the 25th of December.". Dr Jarvis, if he had lived, with his present opinions, in the first or second century, would surely not have been influenced by such narrow views; and we may safely conclude, that in any treatise of his on the church, he would not have been guilty, any more than now, of so strange an oversight as to say nothing of Christmas. Where, moreover, are we to look for the opinions and practices of any modern denomination of Christians, with greater assurance of arriving at the truth, than in the writings of their own authors, and of cotemporary authors not of their sect? and if these show nothing respecting some doctrine or observance, and contain no allusion to either;-is it not a plain, a necessary inference, that the doctrine or observance in question, probably does not exist in that church, and has not in the estimation of its members, any great prominency and importance? For Dr. JarVOL. VI.

49

66

vis to object, therefore, to drawing, from the silence of early writers, any inference as to the probability of some observance or non-observance in the primitive church, is, to use his own language, more than ridiculous;"-it is very much like trifling with the understanding of his readers. Will he in his forthcoming volume make no deductions in any case from the silence of the Fathers? We have before observed, that the Apostles were Jews;-and that the observance of birth-days was foreign to their manners. From this also we infer that the celebration of the 25th of December was not one of the earliest Christian institutions. As to distinguishing this day and other similar days by stated religious rites, we have said nothing against it. All which we have insisted on, is sanctioned by the highest authorities in the Episcopal church, and in other communions, where Christmas is celebrated.

We had asked another question to which we had likewise given an answer,-as follows. "Does St. Augustine, in his enumeration of the Christian Festivals of his time, make particular mention of Christmas? No."-Dr. Jarvis does not controvert the correctness of our reply; but he insists upon what we never denied, that St. Augustine testifies fully to the 25th of Decem. ber as the day of the Nativity, and that "there are extant thirteen of his sermons for that Festival." But it was not our object to show, that St. Augustine was ignorant of Christmas. We had fully admitted, that this Festival "was very early observed in the primitive church," and, of course, that it must have been known to him. In our first notice of Dr. Jarvis's work, we alluded to St. Augustine's catalogue, not as proof, that the author of it did not believe the Nativity to have been on the 25th of December, but as evidence, that Christmas was probably "more lately introduced,