Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	day_n	time_n	year_n	9,302	5	4.9795	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A92878	Theanthropos: or, God made man. A tract proving the nativity of our Saviour to be on the 25. of December. / By John Selden, that eminently-learned antiquary, late of the Inner-Temple.	Selden, John, 1584-1654.; Chantry, John, d. 1662?, engraver.	1661 (1661)	Wing S2439; Thomason E1809_2; ESTC R203528	58,933	119

Isidore from whose Volumes of Councils we have these being a Spariard used the supputation by that Aera in the Titles without warrant of the original Copies But we have in the very Acts of the fourth Council of Arles use of this Aera which was also in the accounts of time at Rome as is seen in the Epistles of Pope Leo subscribed with the years of it Others denoted the years by an account from some regaining of their freedom as those of Antiochia did from Epocha 48. years before our Saviour which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so frequently spoken of in Evagrius his Church-story or from that of Seleucus or Dhilkarnun beginning after Alexanders death Others from the year of the Creation as the Greek Church others from a time that fell 283. years after our Saviour as those of Aegypt and the adjoyning Churches that is from Dioclesians persecution which in Aegypt and Aethiopia is to this day * Jos Scalig. de emendat Temp. p. 465 629. retained and by the Christians that use Arabique called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tarick Alshehuda The Epocha of the Martyrs and among the Aethiopians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amath Michrath i. The year of Grace So was also that of Spain in common use there till somewhat above 300. years since it was by special constitution abrogated and the year of our Lord made the beginning of the account of time and this alteration is by the Spanish Lawyers referred to Iohn the first King of Castile Duravit Aera usque ad tempora Iohannis primi saith † ad l. 52. partit 3. tit 18. de las escrituras Lopez qui jussit apponi annos Nativitatis Domini So also writes Azevedo * ad l. 3. Recopil l. 2. tit 1. de las leges so others of them whence it appears that anciently till long after our Saviour no account was vulgarly made by the years of his birth in which the true year might be by a continuall tradition retain'd and also that although about the time of Iustinian that is when Dionysius began his cycle the course of reckoning from the Birth was brought into use yet it was received but in few parts of Christendom that principally within Italy in the instruments it seems of the Court of Rome And it is observable here also that with us in England however our ancientest Stories of the time since Christianity both in Saxon and Latine are deduced by distinction made out of the years of our Saviour and that according to the Court of Rome our Church-proceedings and instruments belonging to that jurisdiction they have anciently had and still retain an account by those years yet the characters of time both in the pleadings and instruments of the secular jurisdiction hath been ever and is chiefly by the years only of our Sovereigns Kings or Queens so are our Records distinguished of Pleas Patents Parlaments and the like so are the instruments of conveyance and what else is of that nature In which doubtless the ancient course of computation is so retained that it shews us that none other hath been ever proper to the practice of our secular jurisidiction And although indeed at this day clearly it be not of exception or erroneous if the times in a pleading or instrument be distinguished onely by the year of our Lord yet anciently it was much stood upon under * 23 Ed 3. fol. 21 b. 24 Ed. 3. fol. 51 a. 53 b. Edward the Third when in a Writ of Annuity brought by the Prior of St. Trinity of London against an Abbot the Prior declared upon a composition bearing date in such a year of the Lord and the Defendants Counsel took exceptions to it supposing that none should declare at the Common Law of the year of our Lord but of the King but upon deliberation it was resolved good for this reason onely because the composition had onely the date of the Lord as if properly and necessarily otherwise it should have been of the year of the King And so doubtless did they think who in the times of King Henry the Third and King Iohn not onely carefully used the years of the King onely as at this day but also in Recognisances entred * Archia de temp reg Joh. Hen. 3. for payment of money a year or two after the entry they denoted the time of payment by the year of the King that should happen onely if he reigned so long as in the 41. of Henry the Third the Recognisance should bind the Recognisor to pay money in 42. or 43. of his Reign All which further consirms that the computation of time by the years of our Lord even after such time as it came at all to be in use hath not been near so vulgarly received as the anniversary celebration of the day of the birth under the name of the old civil Solstice or the 25. of December and therefore it may easily be that the very year may be uncertain for want of such a continuance of tradition which might have come to us from the time of the birth if from thence a computation received at first in the Church had continued it But the yearly celebration or memory continued even from the eldest of Christian time hath taught us the exact day of the Moneth therefore we have reason enough still to resolve on it But also for farther search into what may at all afford us any ●ertainty of the ●o●●se that Ministred at the time of St. Jol●● Co●ception if we first believe the perpetual continuance of them according to the succession in their cycles and then also the testimony of an old Jew touching the course that serv'd at the second destruction of the Temple under Vespasian shall so have another time then hath been yet mentioned for the course of Abia in the conception of St. John and by consequence another Birth-day of our Saviour if we keep still the vulgar supputation of time collected out of St. Luke That Jew is Rabbi Jose whose words in the Seder Olam * Edit Basil p. 125. Rabba are these when the Temple was first destroyed it was Evening of the Sabbath and the end also of the Sabbatical year 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is and the weekly course was that of Jehoiarib and it was day of Ab and so it was also in the time of the second destruction If we find the course of Jehoiarib fixed at the second destruction under Vespasian that is in the 70. year of the vulgar account from the birth and that about the beginning of August to which the 9. day of Ab answers From hence therefore reckon by the cycles backwards into the year that precedes the Julian year in which our Saviours birth is commonly fixed and so between the beginning of this August in the year of the destruction and the beginning of August preceding the vulgarly supposed time of the conception of St. John will

with the five 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make up the whole common year both the Fathers and the most of prophane writers commonly used the Egyptian Moneths as fixed and not as they are wandring in the years of Nabonassar in the Almagest this of the 25. of Pachon is delivered in Clemens Alexandrinus that lived some eighty years after the * Stremat 1. Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are some also that more curiously denote not only the year but the very day also of the Birth of our Saviour which they say was on the 25. of Pachon in the 28. year of Augustus where the account is not by the common years of Augustus deduced from the death of Julius Caesar but by the years that were past from the † Vide sis Censorin de die Natali c. 21. taking of Alexandria and the death of Anthony The second that seems to differ here is in the Chronicle of * Edit Rader p. 533. Alexandria where it is delivered that the birth was on the 25 day of the Egyptian Moneth Choiac which is the 21. of the Iulian December The third is of those which supposed the day to have been † Clem. Alex. Stremat 1. on the 24. or 25. of Pharmathi that is the Moneth preceding Pachon which agrees with the 19. or 20. of April And with this may be reckoned the 4. which is found in Mahomet that saies it was upon the 23. of the Arabique Moneth Rumadhau but in what year he designes not But however in the Hagaren or Arabian year this cannot come near our December for according to that year of the Moneth Ramadhau falls in Iune and Iuly about the time of our Saviours birth Vigesimo tertio die Ramadhan are the words in the Translation of a most impious Book of his long since done by Hermannus natus est Christus filius Mariae orationes Dei super eum For the Mahumedans celebrate our Saviour as a great Prophet and his Birth of the Virgin Mary * Alcor Azoar 5. Cantacuzon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. Postel de Orbis concord l. 1. c. 3 l. 2. c. 2. ad cap. Eltur also is related in their Alcoran although with much difference from the holy Story as most other things are which occurre there with reference to either of the Testaments A fifth is of those who thought the day to be the 11 of the Egyptian Moneth Tybi that is the 6. of our Ianuary on which we celebrate the Epiphany So Epiphanius † l. 2. tom 1. haeres 51. ita etiam ad extr l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Birth-day of our Saviour that is the Epiphaby fell upon the 6. day of Ianuary being the 11. of the Egyptian Moneth Tybi which opinion is remembred by Stephanus Gobarus * Apud Phot. cod 232. Tritheithes where yet the fifth of Ianuary is in the stead of the 6. as also in some places of some Editions of Epiphanius But Stephanus plainly meant the 6. day for he interprets it by the 8. Ides of Ianuary which is the 6. day and herewith agrees the common opinion of the ancient Church of Egypt which kept the Feast of the Birth on the 6. of Ianuary so confounding it with the Feast of his Baptism Callian † Collat. 10. c. ● vid● sis Orig homil de divers 8. relates so of him Intrae Egypti regionem mos iste antiquâ traditione servatur ut peracto Epiphaniorum die quem provinciae illius sacerdotes vel Dominici Baptismi vel secundum carnem Nativitatis esse definiunt idcircò utriusque Sacramenti solennitatem non bifariam ut in occiduis provinciis sed sub unâ diei hujus festivitate concelebrant c. And other * D. Hier●● ad Ezethiel l. 1 D. Chrys tom 2 edit Erasmianâ p. 119 testimonies there are of this observation of the Feast on the 6. day with the Epiphany But there is none of these opinions but that may be either so interpreted that they may stand with what is before delivered of the 25. of December or else so shewed to insist upon false or no grounds that they are no authority at all against it For the first which casts it on the 25. of Pachan and is very ancient it may be well interpreted to agree with this of December for in consideration of it we must first remember that according to the old Iews there was among the Fathers of the Primitive times a reckoning of their Moneths as well by the order of enumeration as by proper names so that September and October were known as well by the names of the 7. and 8. Moneths as also their names denote as by their names themselves being accounted from March which was the first But the Greek Fathers frequently took April instead of March for the first Moneth of the year as we see expresly in St. † In Panegyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom in Anastasius * MS. apud Scal. deemend p. 509. Patriarch of Antioch in those Constitutions † Lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 Cedren p. 143 c. attributed to the Apostles in * Homilia 5. Macarius † Apud Photium cod 232. Stephanus Gobarus and in other testimonies of the ancients where the Iulian April is made the first as the Hebrew Moneth Nisan was and therefore also they had the very day of this Birth known by the name of the 25. day of the 9. Moneth December being the 9. from April and this kind of noting it is like enough to have deceived those which said it was on the 25. of Pachon for Pachon is the 9. Moneth reckoned from Thoth being the first among the Egyptians as December is being accounted from April so that when the tradition was delivered in those terms of the 9. Moneth no desighation being of the account of the Moneths nor of what Moneths were meant it was perhaps rashly received by some and instead of the 25. of the 9. Moneth in the Roman year account to that account of the Fathers it was apprehended to be and so by miltaking placed on the 25. of the 9. of the Egyptian year neither is this conjecture for intetpretation of the originall of that mistaking so new but the others and those which are very learned and † Herword Replerus Vide Repler de anno natali c. 15. judicious have also used it and by a like or easier way may the second which is before related be understood For though the 25. of Choiac fall upon the 21. of December taken strictly according to the Egyptian account from the first of Thoth being the 29. of August yet in regard that all December except the last five days falls within Choiac and so the very Birth-day in the same Moneth that is on the 29. of Choiac which truly answers to the 25. of December it is reason enough that we suppose that Choiac