Vol] 
the sth of tke morith Tfri.---We are 
certain, that the month Zfri anfwered 
partly to our Ogtober, and that the new 
Jnocen began the month. Now, from the 
“birth of Chriit to the year 1767, are 93 
cycles of the moon, or fo many periods 
of 19 years; and in that number of 
periods 2”. 27/. 32%, will amount to sd. 
ES". 40/, 367. In the year 1767, a new 
‘moon happened at London, Sept.23, N.S. 
or Sept.12, O.S. at 2, 48! in the morn- 
ang, that is, allowing for the difference 
of longitude, it happened at Ferufalem, 
Sept. 12, at about 5". in the morning, 
to that time add 54. 15h. ao’. 36/. and 
‘we fhall have Sept. 174. 10%. ao/. 36!. for 
the day of the new moon, when our Lord 
was born; confequently the latter end of 
our then Sept. 17th, was the beginning of 
the firft day of the Jewith month Ti; 
and therefore the 15th of that month, that 
“is, the beginning of it, the firft day of 
the feaft of Tabernacles, was the day of 
the birth of our Saviour, and was the 
jatter end of our then OStober, 1, which 
day was then our Saturday; and thus, 
our Lord was bern on the beginning of 
that Jewith day, which was afterwards 
‘the Chriftian fabbath. U pon the whole, 
then, we may conclude, that fince we have 
altered our ftyle, we ought to celebrate 
_the nativity of our Saviour on the rath 
day of October. 
All thefe proofs amount to this; that 
the vulgar era, from the 33d and rath 
year of it to the prefent time, is truly 
fettled, according to aftronomical prin- 
ciples. But the queftion we want to have 
determined Mill remains unfettled, namel V5 
whether the commencement of the Dieny- 
fian zr@ is that of the real. Chriftian cra? 
For, unlefs we could have this proved, the 
real year ef Chrift’s birth remains as un- 
certain as ever. 
he method-taken is, undoubtedly, one 
of the moft probable that can be, and -bed 
adapted to extricate us out of the difi- 
culties that embarrafs:chronology + for it: 
is only from a careful comparifon of hifory 
with eclipies, that we can hope to adjult 
the different opinions of authors upon 
thefe fubjects.. . 
_ [tis an happimefs that the theory of the. 
moon is fo weil efiablified; and that in 
fuch a nuraber of periods of 9t, 92, or 945 
the imtervals between the new. moans’ 
thowld be fo fall, and eafy to be ealcu- 
lated 5 yet this kind of proof, valuable 'as 
it is, will never afcertain the vulear ara 
te he the true one, as it ds -ceréainly 
th 
Hive of Chris Nativity. 
953 
founded upon a miftake. ‘The error that 
milled Dioxyfius, and all the world, arefe 
from a mifreprefentation of the words of 
St. Luke, ch. iii, v. 23, which fuppofes, 
that Jefus was about thirty years of age 
the 15th of Tzserius; whereas the words 
import no more, than that when jefus be- 
gan his ‘miniftry; er to thew himielf uito 
Ijrael, he was about 30 years of ape, 
which might precede ‘his baptifm twa 
years at leaft, as fome time mut have 
elapfed between his leaving Galilee, and 
coming to the fouth of Yerdan, where Fobr 
was, about that time, (that is in the 5th 
of Tiberius) preaching and baptizing.-+- 
The greatef fervice that has been done, 
is the having fixed the r5tn of Liberins 
with fome degree of certainty and pre¢i- 
fion, and confequently the year of our 
Lord’s baptifm.---For, from the account 
given by Tacitds, of the eclipfe, and the 
beginning of Taherius’s rei en, the evidence 
is as fatistactory as can be withed, namely, 
that his reign commenced the latter end of 
the rath year of the vuloar era,. ‘the 
474.2d of the Fulian period, the firt of the 
2024 Obmpiad, 982d of the building ‘of 
. a4 
Home, (C. Fujins Ceminus and L. Rubciius 
Geminus, being conftls) 776th of Nu. 
bonafar, the cycle of the moon being a7, 
of the fan ro, dom. letter ¢..(N -S.) atid. 
the firt after leap-year, . ae 
From the knowledge of the true year 
of Chrift’s baptifin, we may probably 
come with certainty alfo to the real year 
ot Chrift’s death, as mot interpretérs 
agree, that four paflovers intervened Be 
tween thofe two ‘events; and this will 
bring us to the 33d of ‘the vulgar atc, 
the very year that Eufetius has made the 
fixed point of his calculations, and which 
many learned men thought the real year 
of Chriit’s death.---But,/as there are dif- 
- ferent opinions ‘on this matter, we will. 
leave it to farther confideration, whether - 
or no thefé calculations may ‘not be ap- 
plied with advantage, in reconciling the 
difagreements we find in writers toon 
this abject, and particularly tho& of two 
a. See 
“altronomers Gr this country, Fergujog and . - 
Evmerfox, this Grit in his alronomy fays, 
tnat a Friday pallover full moon fixes the 
time of our Lord’s death. to the 4d ‘of 
April, in the 33d year of the vulgar eng, 
whereas the latter lays, that itis extremely. 
probable that his ‘paffion was in the “yéar. 
34, 0n Friday the rath day of the month 
Nifon, which; by the Julien account, 
was ond riday, the 2qd OF Apr, = 
6B | Fer 
