French Episcopate. He had thus come to regard the present impasse of ecclesiastical affairs in France as a drawn battle between Ultramontanism and the great principle of National Churches; and, as a staunch Anglican Churchman, he would fain still hope that, in the working of Divine Providence, a way would be found for the great historic Gallican Church to again raise its head and resume its ancient "Gallican Liberties," to the humiliation of the Roman See with its monstrous pretensions to lord it over the other churches of Christendom.

Dr. Irving went on to say that he had had this matter forced upon his serious attention from the way in which, by perversion of history, the "Italian Mission" in this country had been pushing its way in his own neighbourhood, through an outlying settlement in Bishop's Stortford in connexion with St. Edmund's College at Ware, the modern Douai. It was a gratification to him to find that the position which he had taken up in controversy with the Romanists in the local paper for several years past-and more especially at the time of cruel, crushing treatment which the French Episcopate had to endure from Pius X. and the Curia in August, 1907-was fully supported by what Mr. Galton had put before us in his most able paper.

In conclusion he would like to ask the author of the paper if it was not a fact that the ideas of Pascal and the Port Royalists were becoming daily a greater intellectual force in the minds of thoughtful religious Frenchmen, and if he did not join in the hope that through the growth of those ideas, strengthened by the recent translation of the Bible from the original tongues into French, the religious life of the French nation might emerge from the present chaos through the evolution of an order of things on a broad and tolerant basis, such as we are familiar with in this country.

Mr. J. T. MATTHEWS and Mr. H. S. WILLIAMS also spoke, after which the CHAIRMAN put the vote of thanks, which was carried by acclamation.

Mr. GALTON replied briefly and the meeting terminated.

497TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

MONDAY, MAY 3RD, 1909.

PROFESSOR E. HULL, LL.D., F.R.S. (VICE-PRESIDENT),
IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read and confirmed, and the following candidates were elected Associates :

Rev. H. J. R. Marston, Belgrave Chapel, London.
Rev. J. H. Skrine, Oxford.

The following paper was then read by the author :

8

WAS 8 B.C.

THE DATE OF THE NATIVITY WAS

I

BY LIEUT.-COLONEL G. MACKINLAY, LATE R.A.

T is well to consider the practical usefulness of our subject, because the ready objection starts up, Dates are dry things, what possible difference can it make whether we know the exact date of the Nativity or not?

At the beginning of the sixth century it was the custom among the peoples of the old Roman Empire to date events from the time of the persecuting tyrant Diocletian, but in A.D. 532 a Christian Abbot named Dionysius Exiguus* suggested that it would be far better that the Nativity of Christ (as nearly as could then be found) should be taken as the epoch from which to count. His suggestion was agreed to and adopted by all the Christian nations of the world from that time to the present. It surely must be a matter of interest to all who date letters to know whether this starting point of modern time is correct or not.

But there are far more important reasons which appeal to the lover of Scripture, for if this date is found to be the true one, the speculations of the visionaries who assert that the Gospel narratives are mere myths must be overthrown, and the

* A New Analysis of Chronology, 1830, vol. i, p. 83, Rev. W. Hales, D.D.

consistency and truthfulness of the Scripture record will be demonstrated.

But some may say-Is it not hopeless to expect to find the exact date? Did not Scaliger* write long ago, "Diem vero definire unius Dei est, non hominis"-to determine the true day of Christ's Birth belongs to God alone, not man. Are not the best scholars still undecided about it? And is not the evidence somewhat contradictory? Have we not heard in some sermons that this date has not been revealed to us, possibly for some wise purpose. Therefore, may it not be unprofitable, vain, and even wrong to attempt to discover it?

To this it is replied, because Scaliger and others did not know the exact date of the Nativity, that is no reason why we should not find out if we can. We are nowhere told in the Scripture that the date of Christ's Birth is hidden. On the contrary, two direct historical statements are given us in the Gospel of St. Luke, which enable us to find not only the year, but also the season of the year, and several indirect statements in the Bible also point to the same conclusion. There is also good historical evidence apart from the Scriptures, witnessing to the same result.

It is true that in the past there were difficulties in determining this date, and some of the evidence appeared to be conflicting; but these difficulties have disappeared with the modern increase in historical knowledge, which is founded on the examination. and study of original documents and inscriptions discovered during recent years.

We now proceed to find, from different sources, the limits within which the Nativity must have fallen.

THE YEAR.

(a) The Nativity was between 10 B.C. and 5 B.C. according to St. Luke and Josephus.

We are told in Luke iii, 23 R.V., that Christ was "about thirty years of age" when He began His Ministry. No date before 10 B.C. would agree with this statement, even if the earliest year historically possible is assumed for the beginning of His Ministry.

The Nativity could not have been later than 5 B.C. because it must have been at least three and a half months before the death of Herod, in order to allow time for the forty days of

*Chronology, etc., vol. i, p. 93, Hales.

purification and for the departure to and stay in Egypt. Herod died shortly before Passover, 10th April, 4 B.C. This date rests on good historical evidence; Josephus states that an eclipse of the moon occurred shortly before it, and modern astronomical calculations have shown that an eclipse of the moon visible at Jerusalem took place as stated.

(b) The Nativity was between 8 B.C. and 5 B.C. (the special rule of Quirinius) according to St. Luke and Justin Martyr. The Evangelist (Luke ii, 2) and Justin Martyr* both assert that Christ was born at the enrolment under Quirinius.

The Abbot Sanclemente, Zumpt and others have shown that Quirinius exercised high office as a general commanding troops engaged in war on the borders of Syria, and Prebendary H. Browne has shown that the time was between the years 12 B.C. and 1 B.C. Sir W. M. Ramsay‡ has narrowed down this period within the limits about 8 B.C. to 5 B.C., and he has further shown that it was the Roman custom for a general engaged in a frontier war, as the direct representative of the Emperor, to rank superior to the ordinary governor who carried on his civil duties as usual. It is a strange historical fact that Quirinius was the ordinary civil governor in Syria at the next enrolment fourteen years later.

(c) The Nativity was between 9 B.C. and 7 B.C., the ordinary rule of Sentius Saturninus according to Tertullian.

Tertullian wrote,§ quoting records evidently existing in his time, "There is historical proof that at this very time (of the Nativity) a census had been taken by Sentius Saturninus." Saturninus ruled in Syria from 9 B.C. (some say from 8 B.C.) to 7 B.C.

Thus St. Luke and Justin Martyr asserted that the ruler at the time of the Nativity was Quirinius, while Tertullian stated he was Sentius Saturninus. This seeming contradiction is now explained, as it is now known that both ruled at the same time in Syria, each in his own capacity.

(d) The Nativity was 8 B.C. (the first enrolment) according to

St. Luke.

It has now been demonstrated historically that Augustus initiated a periodic enrolment throughout the Empire every

* Apol. I, 34, 46, and Trypho, 78.

+ Ordo Sæculorum, 1844. Was Christ born in Bethlehem? p. 241, Sir W. M. Ramsay. Against Marcion, Bk. IV, Ch. xix. Trans., Rev. P. Holmes, D.D.

fourteen years. The first one took place in Syria in 8 B.C. Mr. Kenyon and Mr. Bell* have recently found an old order from the Prefect in Egypt dated A.D. 104, commanding all persons living at a distance to return to their homes for the then approaching census. The analogy with Luke ii, 1-3, is obvious.

THE TIME OF YEAR.

Not only is it possible to fix the year of the Nativity but the month; even the day of the month can be determined with a high degree of probability.

A definite time in the year had evidently been fixed for the enrolment by the authorities, as the condition of the Virgin Mary proves that the choice of the day was not left to individuals.

(e) The Nativity was in warm weather, not in the winter. Lewint well wrote: "The Nativity could not have been, as commonly supposed, in the winter for several reasons: (1) The shepherds and their flocks would not be in the open air during a winter's night. According to the Talmud cattle in Judæa were usually turned out at the Passover and brought back in October‡; (2) Mary, in an advanced state of pregnancy, would not have travelled with Joseph so far as from Nazareth to Bethlehem in the winter; (3) it is highly improbable that a census, which obliged persons to take distant journeys, should have been fixed for a winter month; a more natural time would be after harvest." We must remember that snow often lies heavily on the uplands of Judæa in the winter. In 1886 the son of Dr. Jessup of Beyrût was snowed up at Bethel as late in the year as the 10th April.

(f) The first Enrolment, which fixes the date of the Nativity, was between August and October for the sake of convenience. Sir W. M. Ramsay points out that the authorities woula select some time of year after the harvest and vintage had been gathered in, and before the time of ploughing, so that the people might be at leisure to come to the enrolment.

*Luke the Physician, 1908, p. 244, Sir W. M. Ramsay, who quotes B. Museum, Papyri III, p. 24, and The Expository Times, Oct., 1907, p. 41. Prof. J. H. Moulton.

+ Fasti Sacri, 1865, p. 115.

Sheep will not feed during the heat of the day in summer, and so they must be left to graze in the open fields at night. In winter they will feed by day and they are folded at night in Palestine for protection.