Tetrarchs of Judaea is further confirmed from Josephus his telling the same story Bell. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 10. where this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is omitted and instead thereof Antonius is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hospes eorum paternus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 friendly and benignly received by their Father Antipater which might be properly said though the two Sons were yet unborn and yet they were both in being at that time when Gabinius was Prefect of Syria But in the mean time it is past all doubt with me that Herod was not more than betwixt fifteen and sixteen years old when his Father made him Prefect of Galilee He was suppose in the sixteenth year of his Age. From whence it follows that he was not passing twenty two when he was made King of Judaea by M. Antony and the Senate which was in the fourth year of the 184. Olympiad And the consequence of this is that he was not passing fifty nine years when he died his Reign both according to Josephus himself and the ancient Fathers above-named being only thirty seven years So that he died in the first year of the 194. Olympiad and according to the Tradition of those Fathers that say Christ was born before Herod's death Christ must be born in the first year of the 193. Olympiad that is eight years sooner than the Dionysian Account has it Wherefore that Josephus may not contradict himself who expresly says in more places than one that Herod lived about seventy years of Age nor those Fathers speak so extravagantly touching the Nativity of Christ were it not desirable that there were two Epocha's of Herod's Reign to see if that will not unty this difficult knot And most certainly there is another notorious Epocha when Herod having forfeited his Crown and Kingdom by taking part with M. Antony against Augustus he was created King anew by the favour of Augustus and the Senate presently after the Victoria Actiaca viz. in the second year of the 187. Olympiad and in the thirty second year of Herod's Age according to the above-framed Compute out of Josephus Reckon from this Epocha which is the 4683. of the Julian Period to the Consulate of Nerva and Metellus and in that year Herod's sixty nine years of Age and thirty seven years of his Reign will end together And the ancient Fathers Credit which make Christ born four years before Herod's Death will thus be salved and Josephus made to speak consistently to himself that gives about seventy years of Age to Herod but only 37 years to his Reign though he makes him but betwixt fifteen and sixteen years old when his Father Antipater appointed him Prefect of Galilee Now this happy Hit and handsom Congruity and well According of such clashing Chronological Assertions may well alone be an Argument that this year of the Victoria Actiaca wherein Augustus did as it were of anew create Herod King of Judaea were the Epocha of his Reign ever after used in his Publick Acts and Records Which therefore will be another strong proof that Herod died in the Consulship of Metellus and Nerva and consequently that Christ was born four years before in the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus according to the Doctrine of the above-cited Fathers Certainly if there was ever good occasion for two several Epocha's of one King's Reign it was here For Herod having forfeited his Crown and Life too to Augustus by his siding with M. Antony against him and there being a new Creation as it were of Herod and restoring of him to the Crown what greater occasion can there be given than this he beginning as it were the World again upon a new account for a new Epocha of his Reign This was a more surprizing Change than Sosius his taking Jerusalem and Antonius his slaying of Antigonus that the Kingdom might be made more sure to Herod who was made King by the Roman Senate four years before and yet Josephus himself Antiq. Jud. lib. 15. cap. 7. makes his getting possession of Jerusalem and slaughter of Antigonus which Herod procured one Epocha of his Reign expresly there affirming that the Fight at Actium betwixt Caesar and Antonius was in the seventh year of Herod which is down-right false unless you number from that later Epocha Well therefore may this restitution of Herod to his Crown after he had forfeited all become the more solemn Epocha of the years of his Reign and well may he be thought to affect that Epocha the more to ingratiate himself with his great Patron Augustus signifying thereby that only now at length he was rightfully King since he received his Kingdom from Augustus the sole legitimate Prince of the Roman Empire Whenas on the other side if he had continued to reckon his Reign from the time he was made King by the favour of M. Antony Augustus his Enemy he might still seem to favour the Cause of Antonius and insinuate Augustus his War against him to have been unjust and soil the Glory of the Actiacal Victory That also he might please himself in and applaud his Politick modesty that he would not have his Reign to commence higher than the Monarchy of Augustus which began with the Actiacal Victory And certainly he would think it a piece of impudence in himself if he should have suffered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Josephus speaks a day of Inauguration into his Kingdom which was annually solemnized by him to be done in Honour to M. Antony and not solely to Augustus Whence it will naturally follow that it was in reference to the time that he was made King by him and so this became a most celebrated Epocha This is highly credible if not necessary and certain if we consider how Herod did all things with all the studiousness imaginable to get and keep the favour of Augustus adventuring rather to intrench upon the Sacred customs of his Religion than to omit any thing whereby to curry favour with that Emperour that gave him after the Forfeiture both his Life and Crown at once And lastly others may add to all this Hyrcanus who had an hereditary Right to the Crown being at the same time taken out of the way this Epocha upon that account also is most perfect and most proper And now as this is most reasonable in it self so Authors are found to begin the Reign of Herod from this Epocha as well as from his being made King by M. Antony and the Senate or from the Death of Antigonus As Writers also make use of those various Epocha's of Augustus his Reign sometimes reckoning it from the Consulship of Hirtius and Pansa Anno Juliano 13. sometimes from that of Pulcher and Flaccus An. Jul. 8. and other sometimes from Victoria Actiaca An. Jul. 15. and lastly sometimes from the time he accepted of the Sacrosanct Supreme Tribunitial Power An. Jul. 23. or in Calphurnius Piso's and his own eleventh Consulship Eusebius more than once makes Herod's being constituted King
of Judaea by Augustus and the Roman Senate the Epocha of his Reign For lib. 8. Demonstrationis Evangelicae Demonst 1. There he says Herod first of any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being an Alien from the Jewish race was by Augustus and the Roman Senate made King of the Jews Where therefore he plainly pitches the Epocha or the beginning of his Reign on that time that Augustus his Monarchy began which was upon the vanquishing of M. Antony in the Fight at Actium And again Demonstrat 2. he joins Herod's Reign and the Monarchy of Augustus together as commencing at the same time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But most express in the same Demonstration some pages after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After whom viz. after Hyrcanus Herod the Son of Antipater having slain Hyrcanus obtained the Kingdom of the Jews from the Senate of Rome Wherefore it is plain that Eusebius makes use of this third Epocha of the Reign of Herod letting that from Antigonus his death and his first being made King by the favour of Antony alone Epiphanius also plainly points at this Epocha in his 51. Heresie which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 22. where he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was the thirteenth year from Augustus his Reign viz. from Hirtius and Pansa till the perfect conjunction of Judaea with the Romans But he says afterward that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Coalition was perfected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Princes of Juda failed who ended with the death of Hyrcanus and Herod of the stock of the Gentiles was constituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prince or King of the Jews Which being done in the thirteenth year of Augustus his Reign from the Consulate of Hirtius and Pansa it is plain that Epiphanius places the beginning or Epocha of Herod's Reign in the year that Augustus re-established him in his forfeited Kingdom by his own Authority and the Suffrage of the Roman Senate And thirdly and lastly The ancient Graeci Fasti as T. L. has taken notice do simply and absolutely refer the beginning of Herod's Reign together with the slaying of Hyrcanus to the year of Crassus and Octavius Augustus his being the fourth time Consul a matter of four months after the Victoria Actiaca and to the eighth year of the Reign of Augustus himself viz. reckoned from the Consulship of Claudius Pulcher and Norbanus Flaccus and says he they thence compute the Reign of Herod to have been thirty seven years What can be more plain and express And what better assurance can a man desire to place the Epocha of Herod's Reign in his immediate succeeding Hyrcanus or restitution by Augustus when all things are so fitly adjusted by it as we noted before Thus we see that by computing as we ought the thirty seven years Reign of Herod from his Restitution by Augustus the end of his Reign will fall into the year of Metellus and Nerva And the Birth of Christ consequently into the year of Lamia and Geminus which is the thing was aimed at And the same thing will be brought to pass which will also further confirm the use of this Epocha in this case by proving that Herod died in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus CHAP. X. That Herod dyed in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus proved from the time of Archelaus his Marriage of Glaphyra From Dion Cassius his placing Herod 's Sons impleading one another before Augustus in the Consulship of Lepidus and Aruntius From Quirinius his confiscating Archelaus his Goods Statilius Taurus and Scribonius Libo being Consuls A gross Parepochism committed by Josephus From Philip the Tetrarchs dying Proculus and Nigrinus being Consuls From Eusebius and Sulpicius 's allotting twenty four years to Herod the Tetrarch after the Relegation of Archelaus and those twenty four years ending with the fourth of Caius Caligula From that famous Eclipse of the Moon preceding Herod 's death A Narrative of Herod 's Affairs corresponding with that Eclipse That there was such an huge Eclipse about a month before Herod 's Death in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus T. L. makes good by Astronomical Calculation The same Eclipse calculated over again by the Ptolemaick Alphonsine and Copernican Tables in N. Mulerius and found rather bigger than what T. L. declares it The gross absurdity of making the seventh of Artaxerxes the Epocha of Daniel 's Weeks it implying that Christ was baptized by John before the Baptist enired on his Ministry Lydiat 's Eclipse compared with Petavius 's as also with the Eclipses of the 4711 4712 and 4713 years of the I. P. And more particularly with that last and the ineptness thereof discovered And therefore Herod dying in the year of Lydiat 's Eclipse Christ must be born Lamia and Geminus being Consuls THAT Herod died in the Consulship of Metellus and Nerva which is the 52. Julian year or the 4720. of the Julian Period is proved thus Archelaus enjoyed his Ethnarchy of Judaea after his Father Herod's death nine years and better as is manifest out of Josephus Eusebius Epiphanius and Sulpicius Severus But the said Archelaus a little before his Relegation married Glaphyra the Widow of Juba King of Mauritania as Josephus twice testifies Whence till Juba's death the Exile of Archelaus could not be But Tho. Lydiat makes it good out of Strabo that Juba was alive in the first suppose or the second year of Tiberius or if you will in the Consulate of Statilius Taurus and Scribonius Libo Before that time Archelaus was not banished Wherefore he not reigning above nine years and a little more if we reckon to the ninth Consulate from this backward we shall fall into that of M. Furius Camillus and Sext. Non. Quintilianus into which the first year of Archelaus his Reign reaches and which immediately the Consulate of Metellus and Nerva precedes And in which therefore Herod died See T. L. his Recensio cap. 5. Secondly Dion Cassius in his Roman History in the year of Aemylius Lepidus and Lucius Aruntius Consuls writes thus Herodes Palaestinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being accused by his Brethren was banished beyond the Alpes and part of his Dition laid to the Publick Dion indeed here either for brevity sake or out of ignorance joyns the Banishment of these Brethren close to their impleading one another before Augustus presently upon their Father Herod's death but in that he makes this impleading which is at large described in Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. cap. 11. in the year of Aemylius Lepidus and Lucius Aruntius this joyns it very near to the time of Herod's death which we contend for For the Consulate of Lepidus and Aruntius immediately precedes that of Metellus and Nerva So that from this otherwise confused passage there is some glimmerings of this great Truth Thirdly Josephus tells us Antiq. Jud. lib. 18. cap. 3. that Quirinius in execution of the Tax that was concluded on in the 37. year after Augustus his Victory over M. Antony
of Clemens Alexandrinus placing the Birth of our Lord in the twenty eighth year when the Decree for the Tax first went out after Octavius had the Name of Augustus conferred upon him Five several Epocha's of Augustus his Reign any whereof directing in compute to that time of Christ's Nativity that is pointed at by the true Epocha of Daniel 's Weeks is argumentative and confirms the same That Epiphanius his twenty nine years from the perfect accord and subjection of the Jews to the Romans reach into the Consulate of Vinicius and Alfinius The great advantage the twentieth of Artaxerxes has above the seventh there being no sense of this latter to be made from any Epocha's Christ born in the forty first year of Augustus according to Irenaeus Tertullian and other Fathers which from a right Epocha reaches unto the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus A clear proof that Christ was then born out of Eusebius his Chronicon An Argument offered at by T. L. from a passage in Chrysostom 's Homily De Natali Johannis Baptistae AND thus much concerning the first way which T. L. uses to prove our Saviour born as the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks fixes it in the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus viz. from the years of the Reign of Herod his Age and the year of his Death For he dying in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus it follows by consequence the ancient Fathers putting four years distance betwixt Herod's Death and Christ's Birth that he must be born Anno 4716. P. J. Aelius Lamia and Servilius Geminus being Consuls This is punctually made out to a year by Reason and Authentick Testimonies though the History in S. Matthew tells us no more than that after Herod was dead Christ was termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Angel tells Mary Matt. 2.20 That they were dead that sought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the little Child's life From whence can only be gathered that Christ was very young when Herod died but not exactly how many years he was old then And thus it is also with that Note that Luke gives of his Nativity He does not expresly tell the very year when Christ was born but he tells us such a circumstance of his Birth that a sagacious Historian may collect the very year as Tho. Lydiat to his commendation has done namely from the Tax under which Christ was born Luke 2.2 And this is the second way that T.L. takes to prove that Christ was born in the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus For the better understanding of which Method we are first to take notice That there were three more general Taxes ordered by Augustus This Suetonius as I have noted above expresly tells us in Augustus his Life cap. 27. Recepit morum legumque regimen aequè perpetuum viz. as perpetual as his Tribunitian Power quo jure quanquam sine censurae honore censum tamen populi ter egit primum ac tertium cum Collega medium solus But in a Monument erected by him or by some body for him in Ancyra a City of either Phrygia or Galatia in Asia minor some forty two years after his first Tax not only the three Taxes but the Collegae in his first and last Tax are mentioned as also that he ordered the middle Tax himself alone The Collega in his first Tax according to that Monument in Ancyra was M. Agrippa and the Tax finished himself being the sixth time Consul and Agrippa the second His Collega in the last Tax was Tiberius and the Tax finished Lustro condito Sext. Pompeius and Sext. Apuleius being Consuls in the very year when Augustus died See Suetonius in Vita Augusti cap. 97. and In Vita Tiberii cap. 21. And that the first Tax was ordered by him and finished Agrippa being his Collega in the first Consulship of Apuleius and his own fifth and his own sixth and Agrippa's second T. L. makes clear out of Dion Cassius These things being premised let us consider the Text of S. Luke Chap. 2. And it came to pass in those days that there went out a Decree from Caesar Augustus that all the World should be taxed or enrolled Hence it is plain that it was as I may so speak an Oecumenical Tax or Enrolment thus appointed by Augustus But there is a further Character in the following verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For so it is to be read the Comma left out betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then the sense is this This is the first of the two Taxes which were carried on the times when Cyrenius was Governour of Syria Two Characters therefore here offer themselves of Christ's Birth 1. An Oecumenical Tax appointed by Augustus 2. The same Tax the first of those that were carried on by Cyrenius the times he was Governour of Syria Now that this Oecumenical Tax mentioned in S. Luke is the same with the Tax which Suetonius and the Monumentum Ancyranum say that Augustus ordered alone without a Collegue is necessarily concluded from this very Reason because it is Oecumenical For what can be more absurd than to conceive so famous or universal Tax or Enrolment as this to be left out of that Monument But now to find out the time when this Oecumenical Enrolment was It is plain in Dion lib. 55. that in the year before the Consulate of Messala and Cinna that is to say in the year when Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus were Consuls Augustus alone without a Collegue else in all likelihood he had been named to lessen the invidiousness of the thing and besides this Tax being neither the first nor the last must be the middle which he ordered alone he ended I say a Tax in the year of those two Consuls condito lustro as the Latine Phrase is The words of Dion are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. Augustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Augustus taxed those that lived in Italy and were possessed of two hundred Sestertia omitting the poorer sort and those that lived out of Italy lest they should cause any stirs And that he might not seem to do this as a Censor he was invested with Proconsular Authority for the more contentfully peracting this Tax and the Lustral Sacrifice that concluded the same It is true some may scruple here how this can be called an Oecumenical Tax when it is said to be confined to Italy But T. L. suggests that which is very rational viz. That this Tax as to the old mode of Taxes extended no further than Italy but the Enrolment of Names and Estates might reach all over and that this Oecumenical Tax was rather a Project to make his Rationarium Imperii more correct and complete for the setling a constant and perpetual Revenue out of all the Provinces of the Empire to maintain his numerous Armies and Navies than to levy such a Tax at that time in the usual sense of Taxing upon the whole Empire This T. L. makes out
the Epistle to the Church of Laodicea seems to be one instance The beginning of the Creation of God the Alpha but his main intent is to intimate thereby that he is the Omega the Ender or Finisher of what he has begun And so in the Epistle to the Church of Smyrna where he says He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death This is no Priviledge of the Smyrnean Martyrs the same being common to all Christians that are saved but its Antitheton insinuated by it is viz. the first Resurrection opposed to the second Death There is yet a third comes into my mind from what I noted above most pertinent of all Apoc. 20.15 And if that any one was not found in the Book of Life he was cast into the Lake of fire This is at the general Resurrection plainly where there is no mention made of the opposite party the righteous and their Reward but the Antitheton is to be fetched out of Daniel Chap. 12. Every one that shall be found written in the Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be saved So that Daniel and S. John as touching such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do as it were keep Tallies in several which joined together adjust the true sense and make the account clear and complete Wherefore this Prophetick Ellipsis by which one Antitheton being named we are to gather the other shows how naturally in the Apocalypse those that had not worshipped the Beast nor his image reigned c. are set in opposition to those that are doomed to shame and everlasting contempt they being mere Underlings in the Millennial Reign of Christ and so each of them understood in a Political sense And so we see from hence that there is not any just ground for making a Political sense of those that awake into eternal life though those that are doomed to everlasting contempt is to be understood Politically because it respects another Antitheton in the Apocalypse and not that which is immediately opposite in eodem genere Let but Daniel and S. John join Tallies and the account will be clear And now this it may be you will say were more easie to admit if those that awake into everlasting life had something also in eodem genere that were an Antitheton to it But I have already proved that have it or have it not it is necessarily to be understood of a Physical Resurrection not Political But for your greater ease what if I should allow that about that time that these Martyrs in the first Resurrection are awakened into everlasting life in their Heavenly bodies and so ascend into Heaven that the Ghosts of the cruel and barbarous Persecutors whether Pagan or Pagano-Christian of the Saints of God together with their chief Inspirers and Instigators thereto those Devils that were most active upon them for that work shall be thrust down into the nethermost Hell into that Dungeon of the Rephaim which the Annotator upon Lux Orientalis describes in his Annotations if you have seen the Book It 's but interpreting the casting the old Dragon and his Accomplices the Ghosts of that cruel murderous Crew of Persecutors whether Pagano-Christian or Pagan into the bottomless Pit or rather Abyss in a Physical sense and the business is done I have in my Exposition interpreted it in a Political sense which therefore may answer to those which are doomed to shame and everlasting contempt Add but this Physical sense And most Interpreters take it in such a literal sense but being ignorant or mindless of a Prophetick Henopoeia therein interpret it of one single great Devil and not in Conjunction with those of his Kingdom of Darkness But by a Prophetick Henopoeia not only the Prince of the Devils but all those Devils and evil Spirits that were active in the Pagan and Pagano-Christian Persecutions may be here understood and then their Physical detrusion into the Abyss at this time is no mean Argument that those whom they persecuted were at the same time exalted into Heaven that the other were thrust down into the nethermost Hell not able to get out thence till the Claviger of the Abyss with his Ministers brings them out again after the thousand years to exercise the sleepy Laodicean Church but to be triumphed over in the Conclusion as Pharaoh was who when he thought to have reduced the Israelites under his Bondage again was overwhelmed with a Sea of Water as Satan with all his numerous Forces Gog and Magog will be overthrown in a Lake or Sea of Fire Add I say but this Physical sense to answer in opposition to the Martyrs ascending into Heaven in their glorified bodies while those Wretches are thrust down into the nethermost Hell into the Abyss of which they are so much afraid Luke 8.31 and all is complete And this imprisoning of these disturbers of the World is very suitable and fitly falls in with the peaceful and righteous Reign of Christ upon Earth Thus much we have gained by considering the Text of Daniel now let us cast our eyes upon its parallel place in the Apocalypse Chap. 20. v. 4. And I saw the Souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus c. Certainly this denotes them dead in a Physical or natural sense not Political and in what sense they are dead they must be said to be revived viz. in a Physical unless we do manifest violence to the Text. Which same violence would be offered if we did not interpret that which follows but the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished in a Physical sense too From whence it follows likewise that This is the first Resurrection must have a Physical sense also not a Political nor yet a Moral and so will answer directly to those some awakened into everlasting life in Daniel And thus the parallel places support the true sense of each other And then that which follows in the Apocalypse Blessed and holy is he that is to say Blessed in having a peculiar and separate Priviledge above others in partaking of the first Resurrection he being already secure from the second Death which is the Lake of Fire from which none are actually secured till they obtain their Heavenly bodies will have a natural and easie coherence with what preceded as also a very fit reference to that passage of the Epistle to the Church in Smyrna that interval of the Church wherein the Pagan Persecution did so rage and there were so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beheaded or otherwise martyred for the witness of Jesus He that overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death which implies by that usual Antithesis I spoke of above that he shall be made partaker of the first Resurrection and enjoy that peculiar Priviledge for his Sufferings according to the Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers This hinders me from allowing that The rest of the dead lived not again till
sound Off-spring this with Peacefulness will cause Populousness And for Plenty which depends upon the Clouds and timely and seasonable Showres they have ever been and will be at the Command of the invisible Powers in the Air. So that that will be no insititious Change in the Natural World but the effects of free Actions in those invisible Agents But that indeed of Isaiah Chap. 65.20 if not fitly interpreted may seem to argue a Change of things more than what depends upon what is Free and Moral For after God had promised he would create a new Heaven and a new Earth v. 17. he adds a little afterwards That there shall be no more thence an Infant of days nor an Old man that has not filled his days For the Child shall dye an hundred years old but the Sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed Here the Child dying an hundred years old to the heedless may import that they shall be more longaevous then than the Patriarchs before the Floud an Hundred being to a Thousand as Seven the Age of a Child to Seventy which would imply a strange Change in the Natural World indeed But to give W. A. his due he has pitched upon the most likely sense of this Verse viz. That there shall no Child ordinarily dye by any untimely death nor an Old man that has not lived so long as in the course of Nature he might well reach That the space from Childhood to old Age shall ordinarily be an hundred years c. But I deny that this argues any more than what depends upon a Divine Morality or real Regeneration in their Parents who will transmit a sound and wholesom constitution to their Posterity Which if any one of them do not improve to the like Vertue and Piety and yet by the Benefit of their Constitution live an hundred years content mainly with the things of the Animal life such a Sinner as this notwithstanding his Longaevity is accursed both because he for the present deprives himself of the enjoyments of the Divine life and must expect also but a bad Reception when he dyes into the other State The next Text of moment which he urges is Rom. 8.21 The Creature it self also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the Children of God Which he would have to argue that there will be a Change of the World Natural in the blessed Millennium as well as in the World Moral he supposing that Creature there signifies the whole sublunary Creation at least And the Apostle v. 22. says For we know that the whole Creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now Where the whole Creation is the same with the Creature it self not Christians quatenus Christians but the very Creature or Creature it self groaneth and is in pain But then it is to be understood as Dr. Hammond also will have it of the whole Humane Creature which he makes out rationally and judiciously And what Creatures but humane or Men can expect to be delivered into the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God This therefore does not respect the Jerusalem-state of the Church here on Earth but the State of the Resurrection For then only will this deliverance from the bondage of Corruption be and the attainment of the freedom of the Sons of God which is the Title of the Angels For then in our incorruptible glorified bodies we shall become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal to the Angels And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is mentioned v. 23. which we groan after and wait for viz. the redemption of our bodies that they may be glorified and made Angelical such as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have the Angels or Sons of God as is declared in the Answer to S. E. Something like this Text is that alledged out of the Acts Chap. 3.21 where S. Peter speaking of our blessed Saviour saith Whom the Heaven must receive until the Times of Restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets since the world began W. A. to give him his due manages this Text ingeniously enough to his present purpose upon supposition that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be rendred as our English Translation renders it Restitution implying thereby Restauration or Renovation But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a completed Circuit or Period properly relating to Astronomical Revolutions It signifies also the effecting of a thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore signifies either the Periodical Times that is to say the Times brought to a Period or the Times of effecting of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy Prophets Which easie sense implies no such Change in the World Natural in the Millennium as our Author would deduce therefrom And this is not my sense only on the Text but Grotius his also or something in him near akin to it As for that Isai 66.22 For as the Heavens and Earth which I will make shall remain before me saith the Lord so shall your seed and your name remain This Heaven and Earth as that Chap. 65.17 is a Political Heaven and Earth that Divine Polity which will constitute the New Jerusalem-state of the Church in which the Jews or Israelites will have a portion as long as that Polity stands which is to the end of all But I have made so much haste that I have omitted a prime Text alledged by this ingenious Author Isai Chap. 65. The Wolf and the Lamb shall feed together and the Lion shall eat straw like the Bullock and dust shall be the Serpents meat they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain saith the Lord. And a fuller description to the same purpose there is Chap. 11. which he produces to prove that there will be a Change in the World Natural in the Millennium as well as in the Moral World he urging the literal sense of these places for these three Reasons following First Because the Wolf and Lamb the Lion and Bullock are supposed to retain their Original proper Natures still For if not then the Wolf would become a Lamb and the Lion a Bullock and then in the mystical sense which he opposes it would only be that the Lamb and the Lamb would feed together and the Bullock eat straw like other Bullocks The second Reason is That we cannot well imagine for what other purpose that saying The Lion shall eat straw like an Ox should be added but only to give some account how those Creatures shall live and how they shall be fed when they shall cease to prey upon other living Creatures Which implies that the sense is literal The third is Because it is further added That dust shall be the Serpent's meat which further confirms the foregoing Reason as if the Prophet did persist in instructing us how these Creatures when their noxious properties are taken away shall feed and sustain themselves Nor
or six years after his Conference with Themistocles How Diodorus came to be wheedled into this mistake Ctesias Cnidius his Authority to be preferred before Herodotus touching the term of years that Darius Hystaspis reigned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hecataeus Milesius writ through the oscitancy of the Scribe Or five years added to the Reign of Darius Hystaspis wittingly by Herodotus to exercise his wit and invention thereon to please the Reader A further weight added to the Authority of Ctesias Cnidius in this point from the second Postulatum BUT there is one more besides those four that Plutarch names taken notice of by Petavius which I must confess this Salvo will not reach and that is Diodorus Siculus who placing the flight of Themistocles in the second year of the 77. Olympiad does notwithstanding place the death of Xerxes in the fourth year of the 78. Olympiad so that Xerxes according to him lived five or six years after his Conference with Themistocles in Persia Wherefore here we must ingenuously confess that Diodorus has committed a mistake though otherwise a very creditable Historian But it is a consequential mistake to a more primitive Errour which he had imbibed from Herodotus who makes Darius Hystaspis to have reigned five years longer than in truth he did Which therefore must needs shove down the beginning of Xerxes his Reign whom all are agreed to have reigned but about twenty years and consequently the beginning of Artaxerxes's Reign five years lower than in truth it was But though this must be acknowledged an errour in Diodorus yet we are to pardon him from that modest deference he gave to the Authority of Herodotus he being reputed Parens Historiae as Tully calls him the Father of History and also because by his happy discovery of the true time of Themistocles's flight to the King of Persia he has again rescued us from that inveterate Errour of Herodotus Charon and Thucydides two unexceptionable and irrefragable Authors and elder than all that have related to the contrary affirming that it was Artaxerxes Longimanus that Themistocles came to and that at the beginning of his Reign But this coming of Themistocles Diodorus assures us was in the second year of the 77. Olympiad And therefore it is apparent that Xerxes died five or six years earlier in the series of time than Diodorus makes him though acknowledged by all to have reigned twenty years or thereabout Whence his Father Darius Hystaspis must of necessity not have reigned above thirty one years or thereabout as Ctesias Cnidius also affirms he did not who being Physician to Artaxerxes Memor had the opportunity to know the truth of these things better than Herodotus And it seems a special piece of Providence though length of time or carelesness of Transcribers may have corrupted other numberings of his that this of the Reign of Darius Hystaspis has been kept unviolated it agreeing so well with the undeniable Testimonies of Charon and Thucydides such ancient Writers Hecataeus Milesius indeed is something ancienter than Charon he flourishing in the beginning of the Reign of Darius Hystaspis and being longaevous may well reach many years beyond his Reign and if his History for some make this Hecataeus the Parent of History and Herodotus to have gleaned from him was kept incorrupt without mistakes of the Transcribers and so came to Herodotus his hand it might have been a safe direction touching the years of Darius his Reign But Thomas Lydiat conceits that the carelesness of the Scribes may have writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it being but the change of one letter And truly if it was verbatim in Hecataeus as Herodotus sets it down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had it been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being of such a full and swelling sound and sense and that which immediately followed it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so little lank and dwindling the drowsie phancy of the Scribe might heedlesly suggest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being too lazy to mend it or too mindless to observe the errour pass it glibly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a slight Salvo as this is more for the credit of Herodotus than to phansie that he would willingly produce the Reign of Darius about five years longer than in truth it was that he might give him room enough to make vast preparations for War against the Greeks after his defeat at Marathon and so have occasion to bring in the pretty story of Demaratus assisting Xerxes in his pleading for Succession in the Kingdom that his Father Darius as the Persian use is would declare him his Successor himself being now to go out suddenly on a foreign Expedition and that in the heat of all these things and vast preparations and eager purpose of revenging himself on his Enemies and recovering his Credit he might die just in the very nick of time when he intended to have strutted out with a mighty Army and atchieved glorious Exploits What can be better contrived for the moving of passion in the Reader which is the pleasure of History And Herodotus may well seem to be the very Homer of Historians and that his nine Books are not named after the Names of the nine Muses for nothing And Harpocration or Aelius would easily surmise so and Gerard Vossius tells us that Strabo's judgment is that this was the scope of Herodotus his writing Vt Poetarum modo oblectaret lectorem suum atque eam esse causam cur multa asperserit à fide aliena And he has given us a Specimen of his Art and Cunning in adding five years to Darius his Reign wherein nothing was done no Expeditions actually undertaken against foreign Nations but only as he is pleased to feign huge preparations made whereby this figment of his five years longer reigning than Ctesias Cnidius makes him was the less liable to discovery For if there had been a War actually made against any Foreign people it would have been noted amongst them who it was that made the War Darius or his Son Xerxes but this not being to be done it made him the more secure in his witty fiction Wherefore it is apparent that the Authority of Ctesias is to be preferred before Herodotus's in this point It comporting also so well with the Epocha of Artaxerxes Longimanus's Reign which unless it be fixt in the second year of the 77. Olympiad the Epocha of Daniel's Weeks cannot commence with the twentieth of Artaxerxes which is above demonstrated must be the true Epocha of the Weeks Whence we must conclude by the second Postulatum that as to the years of Darius his Reign Ctesias who makes them thirty one years is nearer the right than Herodotus that makes them thirty six CHAP. VI. A passage in the Proem of Thucydides compared with Ctesias
at Actium sold and confiscated the Goods of Archelaus Now as Suetonius notes in his Life cap. 27. Censum populi ter egit Augustus primum tertium cum Collega medium solus This Collega or Yoke-fellow in Office was Tiberius in the third Tax which must necessarily be here meant Herod being alive in the two former But this third was even in the very close of Augustus his days who died Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius being Consuls But as T. L. makes out by History see his Recensio cap. 15. was executed in the Consulship of Statilius Taurus and Scribonius Libo Wherefore Quirinius confiscating Archelaus his Goods in that year it is an Argument that then was the time of his Relegation which is a matter of nine or ten years from the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus whence again it is manifest that Herod died when they two were Consuls It 's true here Josephus makes this Tax to be in the 37. year of Augustus his Monarchy which is a contradiction to the time of this third Tax but it is a mere Parachronismus or rather Parepochismus the taking one Epocha for another that of Augustus his Monarchical Reign the Actiaca Victoria for the time of his accepting of the Sacrosanct and absolute Sovereign Tribunitian Power which was not till nine years after the Victoria Actiaca namely when himself was the eleventh time Consul Take but that Epocha and all runs smooth but without it this passage of Josephus is a contradiction to it self And yet this passage compared with the story of Glaphyra does notably confirm the true time of Herod's death that it was in the Consulship of Metellus and Nerva Fourthly Josephus in the same eighteenth Book Chap. 6. tells that Philippus the Tetrarch died the 37. year of his Reign 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where Ruffinus an ancient Interpreter of Josephus ascribing to Philip the Tetrarch thirty two years does fairly insinuate that we should read in the Greek Copy not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thirty one years viz. thirty one years current Now as T. L. affirms and Helvicus also consents thereto Tiberius and Philip died in the same year viz. Proculus and Nigrinus being Consuls in which very year Petavius places the death of Tiberius Number therefore thirty one years from Proculus and Nigrinus and they will end in the Consulship of Nerva and Metellus in which we contend that Herod the Father of Philip died Fifthly Eusebius in his Chronicon Num. MM XXX and Sulpicius Severus lib. 2. Histor Sacr. give twenty four years to Herod the Tetrarch after the Relegation of Archelaus Now Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 19. in the last Chapter making out the seven years of Agrippa's Reign writes thus Four years says he he reigned in Caius Caesar's time three years of which he enjoyed the Tetrarchy of Philip but in the fourth year there was added to him the Tetrarchy of Herod and three years more he reigned in the time of Claudius Caesar Whence it is manifest from this exquisite and punctual account of these seven years Reign of Agrippa that Herod the Tetrarch's Reign ended with the fourth year of Caius Caligula From which year reckoning the 24 years of Herod's Reign after the Exile of Archelaus and adding thereto the nine or ten years of Archelaus his Reign after his Father Herod's death and it will reach to the Consulate of Metellus and Nerva at what time Herod the Son of Antipater died Sixthly and lastly For a further confirmation of this Truth that Herod died in the Consulate of Metellus and Nerva let us add that notable Argument which T. L. draws from the Eclipse that Josephus takes notice of as happening a little before Herod's death And it is worth the observing that it is the only Eclipse which that Historian has set down in all his History Which argues not only the seasonableness of its appearing but the extraordinary greatness thereof else it had not stuck in the minds of the Beholders so firmly that the Fame thereof might cause Josephus to record it when he records none besides The Narrative is briefly this Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 8. There he tells us that Herod being desperately ill beyond all hope of Recovery which caused some Zelots for the Law to pull down the golden Eagle which Herod had erected over the greater Gate of the Temple of which bold Feat the two Matthias's were the one suspected the other found guilty Herod says he depriving Matthias the High-Priest of his High-Priesthood he burnt the other Matthias who was the Author of the Sedition together with Judas and other of his Accomplices alive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Moon that very same night in which they were burnt suffered an Eclipse For it naturally implies that they were burnt that night as well as the Moon was then Eclipsed Now for the time of year when this Eclipse happened it is plainly set down in the eleventh Chapter that it was the Full Moon immediately preceding the Full Moon at which they keep their Passeover viz. the first Full Moon of their month Abib or Nisan so that Herod died within a month after he had burned Matthias and Judas and other Confederates in pulling down and demolishing the golden Eagle that he had dedicated and set up over the great Gate of the Temple Nor can any one that will impartially consider the nature of these things that are said to be done by himself while alive or by others after his death betwixt those two Full Moons and the scantness of the Country of Judaea and the smalness of the time requisite for the doing of them but he must needs conceive that Herod died betwixt these two Full Moons the Eclipsed one and Paschal else they must protract his life near to the next Paschal Moon and make him live in a manner a whole year longer which is hugely dissonant from the Narrative of Josephus Now that there was such an huge Eclipse not only at such a season of the year but at a fit time of the night when mens spirits were more than ordinarily awakened in an hurry upon the burning those Zelots for their Law who haply might be brought out to be burnt about seven or eight a clock of the Night as Nero is said to have burned the Christians in the night-season T. L. does make good by Astronomical Calculation that such an Eclipse so circumstantiated did happen in the year when Nerva and Metellus were Consuls which is the third year of the 196. Olympiad and the 52. Julian Year and the 4720. Year of the Julian Period viz. when Metellus and Nerva were Consuls according to Helvieus and Petavius as well as T. L. And this year T. L. in his Recensio finds by Compute Primâ vigiliâ Noctis insecutae vicesimum diem Februarii medium Plenilunium contigisse unâ viginti horis ac quinquaginta quinque scrupulis sexagenariis transactis à praecedente primi diei septimanae
Leowardia at seven a Clock 12 minutes past Midnight but at Jerusalem at nine a Clock 48 minutes à media nocte that is within a very little of ten a Clock in the Morning and therefore not possible to be seen by the Inhabitants of Jerusalem but rather by their Antipodes In the Year 4713. Cornelius Lentulus and Calphurnius Piso being Consuls there is indeed an Eclipse Jan. 10. that for bigness may compare with that under Nerva and Metellus but not for seasonableness For it is neither the immediately preceding Plenilunium to the Paschal and being so in the Winter it ill suits with Herod's being advised by his Physicians to make use of the Waters of Callirrhoe beyond Jordan and the beginning of it is not till after twelve a Clock at Night when people are gone to bed And in the same year on the sixth of July there is a considerable Eclipse but it falling out near Noon-time at Jerusalem it is plain it is little to the purpose The Eclipses of these four years of the Julian Period I have considered because the ancient Fathers relate that Herod lived four years after the Birth of Christ and we see that in all the Eclipses that happened after the Birth of Christ fixt in the Year 4709. P. J. where they must fix it that make the Epocha of Daniel's Weeks the seventh of Artaxerxes till the Year 4713. which is the fourth after the Birth of Christ so fixed that there is none that can stand in competition with that Eclipse that happened Anno P. J. 4720. Nerva and Metellus being Consuls The most plausible is that of Jan. 10. Cornelius Lentulus and Calphurnius Piso being Consuls But besides other incongruities in it which I noted before though it be removed enough to be the fourth year after Christ's Nativity according to the Opinion of the ancient Fathers yet it is removed too much from the end of Herod's Reign from his being constituted King by the Favour of M. Antony and the Senate For his thirty seven years of reigning expire in the 4710. year P. J. and this makes him live three years after Which nulls the Authority of Josephus on which they build and thwarts the Current of History Wherefore it is an invincible Argument from the Eclipse in the Consulate of Nerva and Metellus that Herod died that year and that Christ according to the Opinion of the ancient Fathers was born four years before in the Consulate of L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus which was the thing to be proved CHAP. XI Josephus his inconsisteney with himself in matters of Chronologie The first Objection taken out of passages in him against Herod 's dying Metellus and Nerva being Consuls that plainly imply that he reigned but thirty seven years in all and that from his first being made King by the favour of M. Antony The second Objection from Antipater 's sending his Children to the King of Arabia when he began his War with Aristobulus which was in the first year of the 178. Olympiad Whence Herod is concluded twenty five years old when he was made Prefect of Galilee In order to an Answer two assured parcels of Josephus his Materia Historica are premised The first that Herod was but fifteen years old when he was made Prefect of Galilee several other passages in Josephus complying therewith The second that he was about seventy years of Age and had reigned but thirty seven when he dyed No occasion for Josephus to mistake in the former parcel but a very obvious one in the latter That none of the five Children mentioned in the second Objection were those sent to the King of Arabia That it is a contradiction to what Josephus elsewhere says of Phasaelus and Herod If Josephus meant those five that it is upon his having committed a Parepochism to which his second Historical Parcel lay obnoxious Whence his Testimony to his first parcel preponderates that to the second and its repugnancy with the time of Christ's Baptism and true Epocha of Daniel 's Weeks demonstrates him to have missed the right Epocha of Herod 's Reign which with ease reconciles all these clashings AND thus we have seen with what firmness and steadiness this Demonstration has been carried on for the fixing of Christ's Nativity in the Consulate of Lamia and Geminus if Historians themselves were so firm and fixt or rather so consistent in their Assertions as not to speak repugnantly to themselves This I speak in reference to Josephus who makes Herod but fifteen years old when Antipater made him Prefect of Galilee And he makes him reign but thirty seven years from his being made King by M. Antony and the Roman Senate and yet to have reached to be about seventy years of Age. This therefore is one of the two great Objections which is brought against Herod's dying in the year of Metellus and Nerva and that notable Eclipse above taken notice of viz. That Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. cap. 8. expresly declares that Herod in that desperate sickness of which he died was upon seventy years of Age which he repeats again lib. 1. cap. 21. De Bello Judaico And yet Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. cap. 10. five days after he had setled his Will and put to death his Son Antipater Herod says he dyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the very same thing he repeats again lib. 1. cap. 21. De Bello Judaico but more perfectly as to that of his being made King by the Roman Senate For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was left out before is put in here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From which places it is collected that though Herod was about seventy years of Age when he died yet he reigned but thirty seven years from the time that he was declared King of Judaea by the Romans upon the procurement of M. Antony and not from that time that the Roman Senate and Augustus made him King upon the Forfeiture of his Kingdom because it is said in both places that it was thirty four years from the death of Antigonus as well as thirty seven from his being made King by the Favour of the Roman Senate for that is understood by Romans in these places and there is three years distance betwixt Antigonus his death and that Whence say they it is manifest that Herod did not die in the Year 4720. P. J. Metellus and Nerva being Consuls but in the Year 4710. in the Consulship of Sabinus and Rufus and that Herod was not fifteen years of Age when he was made Prefect of Galilee by his Father Antipater but twenty five The second Objection or rather the Confirmation of this former is taken out of Josephus Antiq. Jud. lib. 14. cap. 12. where describing the Family of Antipater he says that of his Wife Cypris he had four Sons and a Daughter Phasaelus and Herod who was afterward King Josephus and Pheroras and lastly Salome a Daughter And whereas he did affect the acquaintance and friendship of
he grosly contradicts himself and wherein he was more obnoxious to Errour than in the other part of the Contradiction That this story of Caius his Precedence in the above-named Council is no rash fiction of Josephus but handsomly furmised upon his committing that notable Parepochism touching Herod 's Reign WE have seen how agreeable that time of the Nativity of Christ viz. the Consulship of Lamia and Geminus which the true Epocha of Daniel's Weeks from the twentieth of Artaxerxes points at is to History We should now show in like manner how agreeable to History the Times of Christ's Manifestation or Baptism and of his Passion are to be found But we must first answer an Objection or two that seem of great moment against a chief Argument we have made use of namely the last but one which is grounded upon the time of Caius Caesar's Expedition into the East when he was made Governour of Syria and sent to conclude a Peace with Phraates King of the Parthians after which it is concluded on all sides that he never returned again to Rome but died in the way when he was returning thither and supposes that he undertook this Expedition before the Death of Herod Now the main Objections against this is First That if Caius had took his Journey into the East while Herod was alive sith he mought needs sail by Judaea that Josephus would not have failed to record Herod's Civilities and Attendances on him as he does those done to Augustus and Agrippa when they passed by And then Secondly That Josephus expresly affirms both in his De Bello Judaico and also in his Jewish Antiquities That Caius was at Rome after the Death of Herod present at that Meeting called about the dividing Herod's Kingdom amongst his Sons upon his decease And therefore Caius his Expedition into the East being Anno Jul. 44. according to T. L. himself and Herod dead the year before or at least the same year and Christ born at least the year before that or sooner suppose Anno Jul. 43 or 42. Christ will be born five or six years before the Consulship of L. Aelius Lamia and M. Servilius Geminus And yet the words of Josephus are express De Bello Judaico lib. 2. cap. 1 or 4. according to the Greek There says he speaking of this matter that Augustus considering the Largeness of the Revenues of Herod's Kingdom and the Numerousness of his Posterity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words in his Antiq. Jud. lib. 17. cap. 11. he varies thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the sense is perfectly the same nor need 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former be turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Answer to which two Objections we are first to consider whether Josephus though he be a worthy Writer and a Man questionless of neat Wit and Contrivance yet whether he be so watchful diligent and consummate an Historian that we must pin our belief on him in every thing he writes For we have observed in our eleventh Chapter how repugnantly he has written to himself touching the Age of Herod and years of his Reign Petavius in his Rationarium Temporum does not think him so infallible careful or diligent but that he cries out Part 2. lib. 3. cap. 5. Hîc verò Josephi mira est oscitantia qui illos ipsos unde hanc Historiam descripsit auctores incuriosè legit but how rightfully I will not here determine And for the defectuousness of his History T. L. seems justly to complain thereof when he wholly omitted the Expedition of Caius Caesar into the East which yet is a thing as memorable as any thing almost in that Age and the Peace which he there concluded with the Parthian was the occasion of Augustus his shutting Janus his Temple the third time Nor must we omit what T. L. takes notice of in his Recensio cap. 15. That Josephus in his Antiquities lib. 18. cap. 3. affirms that that Tax in which Quirinius Governour of Syria sold and confiscated the Goods of banished Archelaus fell in the 37. year of the Victoria Actiaca whenas it is impossible but this should be the third of those three that Augustus decreed forasmuch as the second was carried on and finished Aelius Catus and Sentius Saturninus being Consuls as has been above demonstrated that is to say in the 34. year of the Victoria Actiaca Herod Archelaus his Father being then living as is manifest out of Sacred Writ But the third and last Tax was finished a little before Augustus his Death Pompeius and Apuleius being Consuls in the 44. year of the Victoria Actiaca Wherefore it is plain that either out of ignorance or oscitancy Josephus as I have noted before has committed a Parepochismus and taken the Epocha of Augustus his Monarchy simply so understood from the time he reigned alone for the Epocha of his absolute Monarchy when he was invested with that most Sovereign and Sacrosanct Tribunitian Power which was nine years after the Victoria Actiaca From that Epocha only it is true that the Tax in which Quirinius sold and confiscated Archelaus his Goods fell in the 37. year of Augustus his Monarchy In which though the description was made yet the Execution was some two years afterwards See T. L. in that Chapter where he fully makes out the matter But I do not love to dwell on such a Theme I will only add one thing more of my own Observation Josephus in his Antiquities lib. 11. cap. 5. affirms that that Commission which was granted to Nehemiah for rebuilding Jerusalem was granted by Xerxes instead of Artaxerxes which is a gross Antonomasma And as he is out in the Name so in the Number of the years of the Reign of that Prince when he granted that Commission which he makes the twenty fifth instead of the twentieth and then in the extent of the Reign of Xerxes he makes him to reign twenty eight years contrary to Ptolemy's Canon which makes him reign but twenty one years and contrary to the Testimony of all other Historians And that which was not done till after the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus viz. the rebuilding of the Walls of Jerusalem and the Palaces thereof c. he expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things were done in the Reign of Xerxes What can be more wild and absurd But haply it will be replied That though he commit such gross mistakes in times so far removed from the Age he lived in and in Countries so much remote from his own yet he may be more exact in such things as respect his own Country and were done so near his own times as the Affairs of Herod were But though Persia was far from Judaea and the Reign of Xerxes and Artaxerxes far from the times of Josephus yet the Records of his own Country the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were near him and within his reach one would think whence he might have informed himself better and
by and it is a Fiction that all the Progeny of Herod the Great were called Herods they succeed him in their distinct Names Archelaus Herod and Philip. And Archelaus being dead Herod and Philip as surviving Tetrarchs are mentioned in their proper Names Luke 3. and so questionless this Herod in the Acts Brother to Agrippa that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eaten by worms is called by his proper Name as well as the former And we may be the more assured of it that it was not his Brother Agrippa but he because it had been an unspeakable injury to Herod to have his Name used in a wrong place if those actions of murdering John and imprisoning of Peter and acting these Cruelties to please the people and dying so execrable and ignominious a death belonged to Agrippa and not to him What can be more intolerable than such a conceit as this Besides that Josephus gives a very fair Character of Agrippa inconsistent with that Cruelty that is noted in Herod And Agrippa not guilty of that murderousness and persecution of the Church which this Herod was it must seem a very severe hand of God upon him to be so horribly punished for not rebuking the people for a Complement which signifies no more than that he seemed to them like an Angel of God who are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so they explain themselves that they look't upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not that he was thought or called by them the Eternal God but assimilated to an immortal Angel Achish 1 Sam. 19.9 says as much to David I know thou art good in my sight as an Angel of God and yet David reproves him not nor is struck by the hand of God for not reproving him All these things duly consisidered may assure any one that it was not this Agrippa that was thus eaten up with worms but Herod King of Chalcis his Brother and that whenas the story belonged to one of the two Brothers Josephus has happened out of heedlesuess or ignorance to apply that manner of death though in somewhat a depraved disguise to Agrippa that belonged to his Brother Herod as Tacitus has also happened to apply the year of Herod's death to Agrippa Such slips there will be in Historians But careful and judicious Readers of them such as T. L. was will discern where the Truth lies Seventhly therefore Forasmuch as the former journeying of S. Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem at the time when Herod died viz. in the eighth year of Claudius is about three years distant from his latter which he took to Jerusalem from Antioch about the Controversie touching Circumcision upon which occasion a Synod was called at Jerusalem where Paul also was present Acts 15. which journeying of Paul as appears from Galat. 2. was fourteen years after his Conversion as Vatablus expresly declares upon the place It is manifest that in the eleventh year of Claudius it was fourteen years since the Conversion of S. Paul Tell therefore from the eleventh of Claudius backward till you come to the fourteenth year and you fall into the second year of Caius Caligula Then therefore was Paul converted But all are agreed it was but about two years after the Passion of Christ Whence therefore again it will be found that Christ suffered in the twenty second of Tiberius and was baptized in the nineteenth year of his Reign Eighthly In the Acts Chap. 18. there Paul having departed from Athens came to Corinth and finds Aquila and Priscilla Jews lately come from Italy because Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome as Suetonius also notes in the Life of Claudius But that these Stirs and Decree were about the twelfth year of Claudius Josephus informs us Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 5. where presently upon the story of those Stirs raised in Judaea by the Jews and Samaritans several of whom were sent to answer it before the Emperour at Rome which gave Claudius occasion as Orosius intimates to make that Decree of expelling the Jews out of the City presently I say upon that story Josephus says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And having compleated the twelfth year of his Reign and therefore going on his thirteenth he bestowed Philip's Tetrarchy on Agrippa junior Newphew to Herod King of Chalcis and Batanaea and Trachonitis with Abila which was the Tetrarchy of Lysias but took from him Chalcis when he had been Ruler of it four years as succeeding his Uncle Herod who died in the eighth year of Claudius his Reign as was observed above Which shows plainly that the Stirs and the Decree against the Jews to send them packing from Rome was in the twelfth of Claudius his Reign Which Stirs of the Jews and Samaritans Tacitus Annal. lib. 12. places under the Consulship of Faustus Sylla and Salvius Otho who bore that Office in the twelfth of Claudius his Reign Wherefore Paul's departure from Athens to Corinth being not till after the twelfth of Claudius completed which is three or four years later than Spondanus Petavius and others place it they placing it in the ninth year of Claudius the Series of the Acts of Paul will bring down his Conversion about three or four years later and consequently the Crucifixion and Baptism of Christ Ninthly It is written Acts 18. v. 12. And when Gallio was Deputy of Achaia the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul c. Now there was that Enmity betwixt Claudius and Gallio the Brother of Seneca both which are famous for their scoffings at or rather uttering bitter Sarcasms against Claudius when he was dead Seneca writing a Satyr against him which he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may signifie either as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both alluding to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or being made a God after death his either being killed by a poisoned Mushrom and sent up to Heaven thereby or else by Transmigration his being after death transformed into a Fungus or Mushrom both bitter Sarcasms upon his being poisoned by Agrippina by a Mushrom which Locusta had prepared for him And Gallio's was a brief but as bitter a Sarcasm when he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Claudium unco raptum fuisse in coelum alluding to the usage of Malefactors put to death in the Prison who were dragg'd with Iron hooks into the streets and so at last cast into Tyber And that of young Nero Agrippina's Son who succeeded falls not much short of the two other who as Dion tells lib. 60. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Mushroms were the meat of the Gods forasmuch as Claudius by eating one had become a God There being therefore I say this compliance of Seneca and Gallio with Agrippina and Nero and feud and enmity against Claudius you may be sure Gallio got no preferment while Claudius was alive nor missed of it he once being dead and therefore was made Deputy of Achaia within the very first year of Nero upon Claudius his death