Dicdorus Siculus as well as several others of this Author has been adulterated it being manifest that according to Ctesias the Assyrian Monarchy did not flourish much above 1300 Years Thus much is certain that Clemens Alexandrinus does not attribute more than 1300 Years to the Assyrian Monarchy out of Diodorus and Ctesias which agrees exactly with the time mentioned in the Eusebian Fragments collected by Scaliger § 3. The following Table represents a The Names and Order of the Assyrian Monarchs Catalogue of the Assyrian Monarchs according to Eusebius and Africanus till the time of Sardanapalus We have added to the Computation of Eusebius the Year of the Julian Period in which according to this Hypothesis each of these Kings began his Reign And to the Computation of Africanus likewise the Year of the Julian Period pursuant to the Opinion of Scaliger and William Lange out of which every one may choose such as he finds most suitable to his own Judgment Num. Afr. Nom. Num Reg. Euseb A. R. Eus Anni P. J. A. R. Afr. A. P. J. Scal. A. P. J. Lang. 1 1. Belus 60 2538 55 2357 2370 2 2. Ninus 52 2598 52 2412 2425 3 3. Semiramis 42 2650 42 2464 2477 4 4. Ninyas 38 2692 38 2506 2519 5 5. Arius 30 2730 30 2544 2557 6 6. Aralius 40 2760 40 2574 2587 7 7. Xer. s Bal. 30 2800 30 2614 2627 8 8. Armamith 38 2830 38 2644 2657 9 9. Belochus 35 2868 35 2682 2695 10 10. Balius 52 2903 52 2717 2730 11 11. Seth. s Alt. 32 2955 32 2769 2782 12 12. Mamythus s Maminthus 30 2985 30 2801 2814 13 13. Mâ—â—e s Ash 28 3013 28 2831 2844 14 14. Sphâ—â—us 22 3041 22 2859 2872 15 15. Mamylus s Mamythus 30 3063 30 2881 2894 16 16. Sparthaeus s Sparetus 40 3093 42 2911 2924 17 17. Ascatades 38 3133 38 2953 2966 18 18. Amyntes 45 3171 45 2991 â—004 19 19. Beiochus 25 3216 25 3036 3049 20 20. Balatores s Bellepares 30 3241 30 3061 3074 21 21. Lamprides â—0 3271 30 3091 3104 22 22. Sosares 20 3301 20 3121 3134 23 23. Lampraes 30 3321 30 3141 3154 24 24 Panyas 40 3351 45 3171 3184 25 25. Sosarmus 22 3391 42 3216 3229 26 26. Mithraeus 27 3418 27 3258 3271 27 27. Teutamus s Teutanâ—s 32 3445 32 3285 3298 28 28. Teutâ—us 44 3477 44 3317 3330 29 Arabelus   42 3361 3374 3â— Câ—aâ—aus   45 3403 3416 31 Anabus   38 3448 3461 32 Babius   37 3486 3499 33 29. Thinaeus 30 3521 30 3523 3536 34 30. Dercylus 40 3551 40 3553 3566 35 31. Eupacmes s Eupales 38 3591 38 3593 3606 36 32. Laosthenes 45 3629 45 3631 3644 37 33. Pyritiades 30 3647 30 3676 3089 38 34. Ophrataeus 21 3704 21 3706 3718 39 35. Ephachares s Ophratenes 52 3825 52 3727 3739 40 36. Ocrazeres s Acracarnes 42 3777 42 3779 3791 41 37. Sardanapal 19 3819 20 382â— 3833 The whole Time and End is 1300 3838 1484 3841 3852 § 4. Because Euscbius has left out four Kings which are inserted in the Catalogue of Africanus Concerning the difference betwixt Eusebius and Africanus and consequently his Computation falls 162 Years short of the other he has not escaped the Censures of the Chronologers (r) In â—â—imadr ad Euseb Josephus Sealiger says that Eusebius did this for no other Reason but to make the Reign of Teutamus coincident with the Trojan War On the other hand (s) â— 9 c. 12. de doct temp Petavius speaks much in the Commendation of Eusebius because he would not follow his Footsteps when he found them to be erroneous What should move says he Eusebius rather to follow Africanus than Diodorus Cresias and several other Historians who attribute no more than 1300 Years to the Assyrian Monarchy I agree thus far with Petavius as the Eusebian Catalogue is consonant to the Computation of the Holy Scriptures whereas that of Africanus relies barely upon the Computation of the Septuagint Neither ought it to be pass'd by in Silence here that the Hypothesis of Eusebius is confirmed by the Authority of (t) Lib. 2. Biâ—lioth Diodorus Siculus These are his Words The Supplies of Men sent by the Assyrians under the Command of Memnon the Son of Tithon to the Trojans deserve also to be remembred here For under the Reign of Teutamus the twentieth King after Ninyas the Son of Semiramis that ruled over all Asia the Greeks engaged in a War against the Trojans under their General Agamemnon above a thousand Years after the Assyrians had been Masters of Asia Out of these Words of Diodorus it is apparent that Eusebius was not the only Person who had made the Reign of Teutamus coincident with the time of the Trojan War though at the same time it is evident by our Hypothesis that all the ancient Historians who are of the same Opinion are in a gross Error for having mistaken Teutamus for Thinaeus § 5. It has been shewed before how Africanus Concerning the Opinion of Africanus made his Computation according to the Number of Years attributed to the Reign of each of the Assyrian Monarchs in which he has been egregiously mistaken For if 1484 Years be subtracted from the 3838 Years of the Julian Period which proved fatal to Sardanapalus the beginning of the Assyrian Monarchy will thus fall in the Year 2354 of the Julian Period a considerable time before the Deluge which did not happen till in the Year 2420 of the Julian Period But Africanus being misled into this Error by the Computation of the Greeks or the LXX Interpreters had consequently no Opportunity of making Reflexion upon the Absurdity that must needs ensue of the Assyrian Kings Reigns at the time of the Deluge It is much more to be admired how (u) Can. Isag p. 1â—1 Josephus Scaliger who in all other Matters constantly adheres to the Hebrew Computation should in this Point be so much taken with the Hypothesis of Africanus especially since according to his own Supposition the Deluge began in the Year 2420 of the Julian Period § 6. Herodotus speaks thus concerning the Assyrian Concerning the Opinion Herodorus of the Assyrâ—an Monarchy Empire After the Assyrians had ruled in Asia about 520 Years the Medians were the first who bravely asserted their Liberty after they had shaken off the Assyrian Yoke other Nations followed their Example Besides several others Jacobus Vsserius and Christianus Schotanus consent with Herodotus in this Point But Herodotus's Authority alone could never be prevailing enough with me to detract so much from all the other most ancient Historians Reputation as to look upon their Relations as so many Fables or Fictions For first according to Plutarch himself nothing is more common than for Herodotus to be in a Mistake in the Relations of these things which were transacted before his time Secondly it is worth Observation that Herodotus only made
mention of the Assyrian Empire as it was by the bye so that his Words cannot be supposed to come in Competition with the Histories of these Authors who having had the Opportunity of searching narrowly into the Transactions of the Assyrians have transmitted their Monuments to Posterity Thirdly the Words of Herodotus which follow immediately after the above-mentioned Passage in which he pretends to impose upon the World as shall be demonstrated hereafter that the Medians lived without Kings till the time of Dejoces render his Assertion concerning the Assyrian Empire very suspicious Fourthly as the Ancient City of Nineve is an unquestionable Argument for the Antiquity of its Founder Ninus so it plainly demonstrates the Ignorance of Herodotus Fifthly the Words in the above-mentioned Passage are so dubious and obscure that it is impossible for any body as much as to guess from thence at the beginning or end of the Assyrian Monarchy there being not the least mention made from who 's Kings Reign it was that Herodotus intended to begin his Computation nor by what fatal Accident and under what King a Period was put to this Monarchy Not to mention here that some are of Opinion that this Passage in Herodotus is supposititious § 7. The main Objection made against that Interval which we have set betwixt the Deluge Obâ—ection against the Intervals betwixt the Deluge and Beginning of the Assyrian Monarchy and the Epocha of the Assyrian Monarchy is how eight People that went forth out of the Ark of Noah could be sufficient to produce in so little a time so numerous a Stock as to suffice for the erecting so potent an Empire which is the reason that St. (x) L. 8. c. 22. de Civ Dei Austin has extended this Interval to a thousand Years Of the same Opinion is also (y) Diss de 〈◊〉 mund p. 257. Isaacus Vossius who ridicules those that pretend to answer this Objection by a Supposition that the Patriarchs began to procreate Children under the Age of twelve But (z) Lib. 9. c. 14. de doctr temp Dionysius Petavius has attempted another way to satisfie the World in this Scruple by supposing only which will be granted without Reluctancy by every body that they began to procreate at 17 years of Age from whence by multiplying the Number of 8 and its Product with 8 he demonstrates that a vast Number of People must needs have been procreated in two hundred sixty and one years time by so long-lived a Generation as was the first Posterity of Noah as may be seen out of the following Computation Anni â— Diluv Num. Genitorum VIII 8 XXXI 64 LIV 512 LXXVII 4096 C 32768 CXXIII 262144 CXLVI 2097152 CLXIX 16777216 CXCII 134217728 CCXV 1073741824 CCXXXVIII 8589934592 CCLXI 68719476736 § 8. There is also no small Contest among the Historians concerning the first Monarch or Who was the first Assyrian Monarch King of the Assyrians Some following the Footsteps of the Pseudo Berosus mention one Saturn who they say reigned 56 Years Others maintain that the Babylonian Empire was divided into three Principalities the first of which was that of the Chaldaeans whose first King was â—vechoos whom some will have to have been the same with Ninus The second of the Arabians whose first King was one Mardâ—centes The third of the Assyrians whose first King was Belus Of which you may consult (a) Lib 2 p. 131. Scaliger Christianus Schotanus and Isaacus Vossius in his Treatise of the second Age of the World But it appears most probable to me that the Babylonian Empire was always under the Jurisdiction of one single Monarch till the time of Sardanapalus and that Nimrod of whom mention is made in (b) C. 10. v. 9. 10. Genesis was the same Belus whose Name is so famous in prophane History 'T is true that (c) Lib. 1. Chron. Eusebius mentions also one Saturn but he adds expresly that he believes him to have been the same with Belus What concerns the two Principalities which Scaliger and Schotanus according to Africanus pretend to have been before the time of Belus they are to be look'd upon as mere Fictions as being contradictory to the Sacred Writ and the true Epocha of the Deluge it self or at least to its Universality § 9. (d) 3 Can. Isag Scaliger has made a very useful Observation The Observation â—f Scaliger concerning the Assytian Monarchy concerning the Assyrian Empire that it has been more famous for its Antiquity than its Greatness For though its Power and Extent was very vast in the Beginning yet the Assyrian Monarchs giving themselves over afterwards to all manner of Voluptuousness and becoming careless of the Publick Welfare many of the Conquer'd Nations shock off the Assyrian Yoke What is mentioned in the Books of the Judges and of the Kings in the Sacred Writ concerning the King of Babylon the Syrians and some other Nations bordering upon Palaestina not acknowledging the Jurisdiction of the Assyrian King seems to be understood not of the most ancient Assyr Monarchy when in its flourishing State under the Reigns of Nimrod and Ninus but of its later times when this Monarchy already began to be in a declining Condition Of which see Dionysius Halicarnassâ—us Lib. 1. Antiq. Rom. § 10. The Observations made concerning the Political Observations coâ—câ—rning this Monarâ—â—y Policy of the ancient Assyrian Monarchy by Rob. Bailius ought not to be pass'd by in Silence For after Ninus and Semiramis with their vast Armies had overpowered far distant Nations their Successors chief Maxims of State tended only to this How to keep what they had got not to extend their Conquests For which Reason they built the most magnificent Palace of Ninive where they always kept themselves very close being very seldom to be seen by any body but their nearest Servants whereby they imprinted into the Minds of the People an extraordinary Character of their Majesty as having something much above the common Rank of Mankind whilst they themselves devoted themselves wholly to all manner of Voluptuousness Besides this they drew every Year a vast Number of Soldiers out of the Provinces under their Jurisdiction who being quartered in and about the City of Ninive and commanded by such a one as was thought most faithful These Forces struck Terror both in the Subjects living in the Center of the Empire and the other Nations under their Jurisdiction This Army was also disbanded and the General as well as the Governours of the Provinces changed every Year whereby they took away all Opportunity of putting them in a Condition to invade the Empire Thus the Assyrian Empire continued for 1300 Years till the time of Sardanapalus when the Medians put an End to this Monarchy CHAP. V. Of the Epocha's of the Years of Abraham 1. The time of the Birth of Abraham must be look'd for in the 11th Chapter of Genesis which contains an exact Account of the Ages of the Patriarchs after the
Tatianus ought to be followed before others according to the Computation mentioned by Eusebius (a) Lib. 1. Chron. 2. According to the Testimony of these Authors but especially of Castor 372 years ought to be counted betwixt Inachus and Sthenelus the Son of Crotopus 3. The Kingdom of Argos fell after it had flourished 544 years till the time of Pelops 4. After Acrisius reigned Sthenelus 8 years He was succeeded by Euristheus who reigned 43 years Him succeeded Atreus and Thyestes who reigned 65 years after whom reigned Agamemnon whose Reign lasted fifteen years and in the last year of his Reign Troy was destroyed by the Greeks according to the Authority of the above-mentioned Authors 5. Vpon the Computation of these most ancient Authors Scaliger has founded his Calculation who affirms that the Epocha of Inachus begins in the 2857th year of the Julian Period Cyc ☉ 1. ☽ 7. 6. If therefore 2856 years be subtracted from any To find the year since the beginning of this Epocha certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the Beginning of this Epocha and if on the other hand the said Number be added to 2856 years the Product must be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. WE did judge it not beyond our purpose The Antiquity of this Epocha to afford a peculiar Chapter for this Epocha considering the Antiquity and famous Transactions of these Kings on whose History depends in a great measure that of the Destruction of Troy And tho' the Sicyonians were also in former Ages in great Renown among the Greeks yet if we rely upon the Authority of Pausanias the first contended for the Priority with all the rest § 2. There are some who deduce the Origin The Origin of the Argivi of the Argivi ou◠of Aegypt but with the same Uncertainty as most other Nations Inachus their first King however has been very famous in the ancient History as among others may appear out of these following Lines of (b) Lib. 2. Carm. Od. 3. Horace Dives ne prisco natus ab Inacho Nil interest an pauper infima De gente sub dio moreris Victima nil miserantis orci Omnes eodem cogimur Omnium Versatur urna serius ocyus Sors exitura nos in aeternum Exilium impositura Cymba § 3. The Names and the Kings of Argus and The Names and Order of the Kings of Argus the time of their several Reigns is expressed in the following Table in which we have followed the Footsteps of Eusebius in imitation of Scaliger and Petavius unto which is added the year of the Julian Period in which each of these Kings began his Reign Names of the Kings Time of their Reigns Julian Period According to Pausanias Inachus 50 2857  Phoronaeus 60 2907 Phoroneus Apis. 35 2967 Argus Argus 70 3002 Pirasus Criasus 64 3072 Phorbas Phorbas 35 3126 Tropas Triopas 46 3161 Jasus Crotopus 21 3207 Crotopus Sthenelus 11 3228 Sthenelas Danaus 50 3239 Gelanor Lynceus 41 3289 Danaus Abas 23 3330 Lynceus Proetus 17 3353 Abas Acrisius 31 3370 Acrisius Stheneleus 8 3401 c. Euristheus 43 3409  Ath. Thyestes 65 3452  Agamemnon 15 3517  § 4. The Ancients are much divided in their Various Opinions concerning the Chronology of these Kings Opinion concerning the Chronology of these Kings for Pausanias Hyginus and Clemens Alexandrinus disagree with Eusebius and those other above-mentioned Authors Pausanias mentions several Kings not named by Eusebius and omits others who is followed by Hyginus and according to the Computation of Clemens Alexandrinus there are no more than 400 years to be computed from the beginning of this Epocha till the time of the Destruction of Troy Tho' it cannot be denied that Pausanias has been industrious in collecting the History of the Graecian Kings yet considering that his Relation is not free from Fables and incompleat the Times of the Reigns of each of these Kings being left out we have all the Reason in the World to prefer the Authority of Eusebius in this Case CHAP. VIII Of the Epocha of Cecrops the first Founder of the Kingdom of Athens and his Successors 1. For want of more ancient Monuments of Antiquity concerning the Epocha of Cecrops its Origin must be investigated partly out of Eusebius partly out of the Asiatick Chronicle which being come to light but some years ago is known by the Name of Marmora Arundeliana 2. The time of Cecrops is coincident with that of Moses according to (a) In Chron. Eusebius and Eustachius (b) In Hexamer Bishop of Antiochia 3. According to Eusebius there are 375 years from the beginning of the Reign of Cecrops till the time of Mnestheus 4. According to Pausanias the same Number of years ought to be accounted from thence to the Destruction of Troy 5. The Succession of these Kings ought to be regulated in such a manner as to make the Destruction of Troy coincident with the last times of the Reign of Mnestheus the said City being taken by the Greeks in the 22 d year of his Reign according to the Marmora Arundeliana 6. According to the Computation of Clemens Alexandrinus Theseus reigned near fifty years before the Destruction of Troy 7. Vpon these and other Characters Scaliger has founded his Computation of the beginning of the Government of Athens which at first being Monarchical began in the 3158th year of the Julian Period Cyc ☉ 22. ☽ 4. 8. If therefore 3157 years be subtracted from any To find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the true year since the beginning of this Epocha and if the same Number of 3157 be added to the years of the Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THE Athenian Monarchy is commonly Th◠several Dynasties of the Athenians distinguished into three several Classes the first being of their Kings the second of their Archontes or Princes who reigned during Life the third of their Decennial Archontes a Catalogue of which may be seen in the following Chronological Table according to Scaliger out of Eusebius and the Animadversions of Petavius The first Dynasty of the Athenian Archontes Num. Reg. An. Reg. Scal. Pe. Jul. An. Reg. Petav. P. Jul. 1. Cecr Diphyes 50 3158 50 3156 2. Cranaus 9 3208 9 3206 3 Amphyction 10 3217 10 3215 4. Erychtonius 50 3227 50 3225 5. Pandion 40 3277 40 3275 6. Erichteus 50 3317 50 3315 7. Cecrops II. 40 3367 40 3365 8. Pandion II. 25 3407 25 3405 9. Aegeus 48 3432 48 3430 10. Theseus 30 3480 30 3478 11. Mnestheus 23 3510 23 3508 12. Demophoon 33 3533 33 3531 13. Oxynthes 12 3 12 3564 14. Aphydas 1 3578 1 3576 15. Thymoetes 8 3579  3577 16. Melanthus 37 3587 37 3585 17. Codrus 21 3624 21 3622 The second Dynasty of the Athenian
Reg. 6. v. 1. 4. The same 44th year is the year of the building of the Temple of Solomon (d) 1 Reg. 6. v. 1. 5. The 81st year of this Epocha is the first of the Reign of Jeroboam and of the 390 years of the Iniquity of the House of Israel because Solomon and his Father reigned each 40 years (e) Ezec. 4. v. 5. 6. The Reigns of the Successors of David in both Kingdoms ought to be regulated according to the true Synchronism of the sacred Writ the years of their Reigns being involved in no small Difficulties From whence it is apparent that the first year of David 's Reign is coincident with the 3654th year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 14. ☽ 6. 7. If therefore the 3653 years be subtracted from To investigate the Year since the beginning of this Epocha any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha and if 3653 be added to the Number of years of this Epocha the Product is the year of the Julian Period § 1. THE Interval betwixt the 3260th year of Difficulties concerning the Nativity â—f David the Julian Period when the Jews first conquered Palestine and the 3624th year of the Julian Period when David was born being of above 360 years and to be divided betwixt Salmon Boatz Obed and Jesse involves the Nativity of David in no small Difficulty For the Genealogy of the Ancestors of David is thus represented (f) Ruth 4. v. 2â— seque And Nashon begot Salmon and Salmon begot Booz and Booz begot Obed and Obed begot Jesse and Jesse begot David So that every one of these must be supposed to have begot Children when they were near 100 years old it being evident that Nashon entred Palestine with Joshua (g) Numb 1. v. 7. c. â— v. 3. c. 7. v. 12. Lyra Salianus Genebrardus Catharinus Jansenius Esthius and their Proselytes to remove this Difficulty have substituted two more of the same Name with Boaz but in vain since the same Genealogy is repeated in three several other Places to wit 1 Chron. 2. v. 11 12. in St. Matth. 1. v. 4. in St. Luke 3. v. 32. Our Opinion is that without having Recourse to these Tergiversations it may rationally be supposed that the Ancestors of David begot Children in their old Age as it is evident in Boatz out of the Book of Ruth (h) C. 3. v. 10. and in Obed out of 1 Sam. 17. v. 12. § 2. There being a seeming Contradiction in Difficulties concerning the Kings of Judah Israel the Chronological Computation of these Kings in the Hebrew Text Dionysius Petavius Alstedius Torniellus Buntingus and several others believe the same to have been adulterated But this being the way to dissect but not to dissolve the Knot it will be more convenient to find out some other way to reconcile these Differences It is therefore observable that in this Chronology sometimes the incompleat years are taken for compleat ones as for Instance when Ieroboam is said to have reigned 22 years is to be understood of 21 compleat years at the beginning of the 22d Thus it is also to be taken with the 24 years attributed to (k) 1 Reg. 15. v. 33. Baasha instead of 23 with the 12 years of (l) 1 Reg. 16. v. 23. Amri instead of 11 c. In other Places instead of the incompleat years expressed the compleat ones ought to be understood As for Instance when it is said that (m) 1 Reg. 15. v. 9. Asa began his Reign in the 20th year of the Reign of (i) 1 Reg. 14. v. 20. Jeroboam is to be taken in this sense that he began his Reign at the beginning of the 21st year of Jeroboam In some Passages it appears that several but especially Father and Son reigned at the same time so it is said of (n) 1 Reg. 15. v. 25. Nadab that he reigned in the first year together with his Father Jeroboam Of (o) 1 Reg. 16. v. 8. Ella that he reigned at the same time with his Father Baasha The same is said of (p) 1 Reg. 22. v. 52. Ahaziah and Ahab of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram 2 Reg. 3. v. 1. Of this there is an evident Example in (q) 1 Reg. 16. v. 21. Amri who is said to have reigned 12 years to wit including the time that Thibni assumed the Royal Dignity It is further observable that in the Chronology of these Kings the Computation begins not always from the beginning of their Reigns but from some remarkable Epocha or Revolution As it is said that (r) 2 Chron. 16 v. 1. Baasha came up against Ramah in the 36th year of the Reign of Asa when it is evident that he died in the six and twentieth year of the Reign of Asa (s) 1 Reg. v. 6. 8. some interpret thus that here is to be understood the 36th year since the Division of the Kingdom after Solomon's Death as if it had been expressed thus In the thirty sixth year after the Division of the Kingdom of which Asa was King There are also some Footsteps of certain Vacancies of the Throne betwixt Amaziah and Azariah the Kings of Judah and betwixt Jeroboam and Zacharias Kings of Israel All which we leave to the Choice and Decision of the judicious Reader § 3. There is no better way to reconcile the How to reconcile these Differences Chronological Differences about the Kings of Judah and Israel than by making a due Comparison betwixt the Synchronisms and Combinations of Years of the several Kings of both these Kingdoms The following two Tables exhibit at the same instant the Mutual Connection of the Reigns of these Kings according to the Tenure of the Sacred Scriptures But because the Years of their Reigns are not always correspondent to this Connection I have added those other Years which by reason of their Usefulness in reconciling these Differences I have called the Chronological Years An. P. J. Succession of the Kings Scrip. Years of the Kings of of Judah of Israel Jud. Israel 3654 1 David  40  3694 1 Solomon  40  3734 1 Rehoboam 1 Jeroboam 17 22 3751 1 Abijam 18 3  3753 1 Asa 20 41  3754 2 1 Nadab  2 3755 3 1 Baasha  24 3778 26 1 Ella  2 3779 27 1 Simri   3783 31 1 Amri   3790 38 1 Ahab  12 3793 1 Jehoshaph 4 25 22 3809 17 1 Ahaziah  2 3810 18 1 Jehoram  12 3814 1 Jehoram 5 8  3821 1 Ahaziah 12 1  3822 1 Athaliah 1 Jehu 6 8 3828 1 Jehoash 7 40  3850 23 1 Jehoahat  17 3864 37 1 Joash  16 3865 1 Amaziah 2 29  3879 15 1 Jerob II  41 3905 1 Azariah 27   3942 38 1 Zacharias 52 6 m. 3943 39 1 Shallum  1 m. 3943 39 1 Menahem  10 3954 50
4. v. 5. seq 1. The beginning of the Epocha of these 390 years must be fixed at the time of the General Defection of the People of Israel under the Reign of their King Jeroboam of whom it is said frequenth in the Holy Scripture that he made Israel tâ— sin But the utmost Period of this Epocha must not be extended beyond the Destruction of the Temple of Solomon this being the Intention of the Prophetical Vision as is manifest out of Ver. 1 2 7 13 c. 2. Accordingly we affirm the first year of this Epocha of 390 years to have been coincident with the 3734th year and the last year of the same Epocha with the 4124th year of the Julian Period 3. If therefore you subtract from any certain Sum To find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha of years of the Julian Period 3733 years the Residue shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha And if you add the known time of this Epocha to the said 3733 years the Product will be equivalent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. BVcholzerus Creutzhemius and some others The Beginning and End of this Epocha begin this Epocha from the fourth year of Rehoboam and Jeroboam for which they alledge 2 Chron. 11. v. 17. Tremellius begins it from the time that Solomon turned his Heart from the Lord as Funccius Codomannus and some others extend its Period till the 23d year of Nebuchadnezzar or the 5th after the Destruction of the Temple But they neglected to take notice that Ezechiel in this Passage speaks particularly of the Iniquity of the House of Israel separately from that of Judah § 2. It being expresly said that (a) 1 Reg. 6. v. 1. Solomon How long after the building of the Temple this Epocha began began to build the Temple in the 4th year of his Reign and it being likewise evident that he reigned in all 40 years it must of necessity follow that the first year of Jeroboam who at the same time with Rehoboam immediately succeded Solomon was the 37th year after the beginning of the Building of the Temple and consequently the 2734th year of the Julian Period CHAP. XV. Of the End of the Reign of Sardanapalus and the Epocha of the Median Empire 1. Sardanapalus was the last and according to Diodorus Siculus the five and thirtieth Assyrian Monarch of the same Family with Ninus descended in a direct Line and uninterrupted Succession from Father to Son of which see Velleius Paterculus 2. This Sardanapalus being besieged in the City of Ninive by Arbaces was in the third year of the Siege forced to burn himself Diodorus Siculus (b) 1 Reg. 11. v. 4â— 3. This Disaster hapned in the 20th year of his Reign 4. From the time of the beginning of the Assyrian Monarchy till the fatal End of Sardanapalus are computed 1300 years as has been demonstrated before in the Chapter of the Epocha of the Assyrian Monarchy 5. Arbaces was the first Founder of the Monarchy of the Medes and according to Ctesias Diodorus and Eusebius reigned 18 years who 6. give the following Account of the Succession of the Kings of Media  Years 1. Arbaces reigned 18 2. Mandauces 50 3. Sosarmus 30 4. Artycas 50 5. Arbianes otherwise Cardiaceas 22 6. Arsaees otherwise Dejoces 40 7. Artynes otherwise Phraortes 22 8. Astibaras otherwise Cyaxares 40 9. Apandas otherwise Astyages 35 7. The Period of the Empire of the Medes is to be fixed in the first year of the Epocha of Cyrus the Founder of the Persian Monarchy about the year 4155 of the Julian Period after it had flourished 317 years 8. Cyaxares the last King but one of the Medes began his Reign in the 2 d year of the 37th Olympiad according to (a) In Chron. Euseb and reigned 40 years See Ctes and Herodot 9. Vnder the Reign of Cyaxares the last King but one or the Reign of Astyages the last King of Media there hapned a very remarkable Eclipse of the Sun Of which (b) Lib. 1. Herodotus speaking of Cyaxares This is he who being engaged in a War with the Lydians when they were in the very heat of Battle the Day turned into Night (c) Lib. 1. Stromat Clemens Alexandrinus makes also mention of the same Eclipse Eudemus says he in his Astrological History affirms that Thales did foretell that great Eclipse of the Sun which hapned at the time when the Medes and Lydians were engaged in a bloody Battle under the Reigns of Astyages the Son of Cyaxares over Media and of Alyattes the Father of Croesus over Lydia From whence it may be concluded that the Disaster of Sardanapalus hapned about the year 3839 of the Julian Period which was also the first of the Reign of Arbaces that he was succeeded by Mandauces in the year 3866 of the Julian Period that about the year 3916 of the Julian Period Sosarmus began his Reign whose Successor in the year 3946 was Artycas who in the year 3997 was succeeded by Cardiaceas that after him in the year of the Julian Period 4019 Dejoces began his Reign in the year 4058 Phraortes in the year 4081 Cyaxares and in the year 4121 Astyages and that lastly the Empire of the Medes ended with Astyages in the year 4155 of the Julian Period Now therefore by subtracting the several above-mentioned Numbers of years of these Kings from any certain year of the Julian Period the true time of each of them since the beginning of their Reigns may be investigated as may sufficiently be seen out of the foregoing Examples § 1. SVidas and some others have endeavoured to The Etymology of Sardanapalus deduce the Etymologies of Sardanapalus from the Greeks but in my Opinion Reinerus Reineccius and many more have with more Reasons sought for its Orignal among the Assyrians to wit from SAR DAN and NIPHIL which three Words signifie GREAT LORD and CONQUEROR which Title they say he assumed in the same manner as Attila called himself the SCOURGE OF GOD and Mahomet the Turkish Emperor assumed the Title of TERROR OF THE WORLD § 2. The Effeminacy of Sardanapalus proved The Occasion â—â—â—he Revolution in the Assyrian Empire the Occasion of the Ruin of the Assyrian Monarchy For Arbaces Governour of Media being admitted into his Presence as he was sitting among his Concubines in Womens Apparel handling his Needle like the rest took a Resolution from that time to withdraw himself from under the Jurisdiction of so Effeminate a Prince and being encouraged afterwards by the Hopes of Success by an Aegyptian Priest famous for his Skill in Astrology he put his Designs in Execution and in a bloody War at last vanquished this Monarch and became Master of the Empire § 3. (d) Bibl. Histor Schotanus is of Opinion that Sardapalus Sardanapalus is not the same Name with Asser-Haddon is the same with Asser-Haddon who is mentioned 2 Reg. 19. v. 37.
Philopater 17 543 119 Epiphanes 24 567 143 Philomater 35 602 178 Euergetes II. 29 631 207 Soter 36 667 243 Dionysius 29 696 272 Cleopatra 22 718 294 V. Of the Roman Kings  Anni Regn. Nab. Philipp Augustus 43 761 337 Tiberius 22 783 359 Caius 4 787 363 Claudius 14 801 377 Nero 14 815 391 Vespasianus 10 825 401 Titus 3 828 404 Domitianus 15 843 419  Phil. Nab. Phil. Nerus I. 1 844 420 Trajanus 19 863 439 Adrianus 21 884 460 Antoninus 23 907 483 CHAP. XIX Of the Epocha of the Conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians and the Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel 1. Samaria the Capital of the whole Kingdom of Israel was taken by the Assyrians in the sixth year of Hezekiah King of Judah (a) 2 Reg. 18. v. 10. 2. In the ninth year of the Reign of Hosea King of Israel (b) 2 Reg. 17. v. 1. 3. Vnder the Reign of Shalmanassar King of Assyria (c) Ibid. 4. Some time before Sennacherib who in the 14th year of the Reign of Hezekiah came up against the City of Jerusalem (d) 2 Reg. 18. v. 13. 5. As likewise before the time of (e) 2 Reg. 19. v. 37. Assarhaddon the Son of Sennacherib who transferred the Royal Seat of the Assyrian Kings from Ninive to Babylon For the Successour of Hezekiah Manasseh was carried by the King of Assyria to Babylon (f) 2 Chr. 33. v. 11. 6. King So reigned at that time in Egypt as is apparent out of 2 Reg. 17. v. 4. 7. From whence we conclude that the Conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians hapned in the year of the Julian Period 3991 Cycl ☉ 15. ☽ 1. If therefore from any certain year of the Julian Period To investigate the Year since thâ— beginning of this Epocha be subtracted 3390 years or the same Number be added to any certain year of this Epocha the Residue of the one and the Product of the other will shew the year either of the time since the Beginning of this Epocha or of the Julian Period § 1. IT has been controverted among the Chronologers Whâ— was Shalmanassar who this Shalmanassar was that conquer'd Samaria (g) Chron. part 2. Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus confound him with Sennacherib Funccius Buntingus Mercator and several other of the most Learned Modern Chronologers affirm this Shalmanassar to have been the same Nabonassar of which mention is made by Ptolemy But this Opinion has been sufficiently refuted by (h) De Emend Temp. Scaliger by Calvisius and Behmius The Celestial Characters fixed by Ptolemy to the Times of Nabonassar having not the least Relation to this Hypothesis § 2. There arises also another Controversie Of the Synchronism of Hosea and Ahaz concerning (i) 2 Reg. 15. v. 30. Hosea who is said to have slain Pekah in the 20th year of Jotham and to have succeded him in the Kingdom The 20th year of the Reign of Jotham was questionless the 4th of the Reign of Ahaz who reigned 16 years So that Hosea began to reign in the 4th year of Ahaz But it being said 2 Reg. 17. v. 1. that in the 12th year of Ahaz Hosea began to reign the Question is how the beginning of his Reign can be fixed both in the 4th and 12th year of Ahaz Unto which it is answer'd that the beginning of the Reign of Hosea may be considered in a double respect For from the 4th year of Ahaz till his 12th he reigned as Sovereign whereas after the said 12th year he was tributary to the King of (k) 2 Reg. 18. v 1-9 10. Assyria § 3. There is no less Dispute among the Chronologers concerning So the King of Egypt of Of King So mention'd in the H. Scriptuâ—e whom mention is made in the Scripture whom some call Bochorin Saitin others by another Name But I take it for granted that Cambyses King of Persia did according to Eusebius and Herodotus conquer Egypt in the 5th or 6th year of his Reign which according to Ptolemy was the 225th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha or the 4191st year of the Julian Period I will in the following Table give you a Catalogue of the Egyptian Kings which from the year 4191 to count backwards have reigned till the year of the Julian Period 3991 when the Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel hapned from whence it will appear that at that time Sabacus the King of Aethiopia reigned in Egypt In the first Column you will see the Names and in the second the Times of the Reigns of these Kings in the third the year of the Julian Period when they began to reign and in the fourth the last year of each of their Reigns in the fifth you will find the several Places cited out of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus which confirm our Assertion The Pages are cited out of Herodotus according to the Edition of Henricus Stephanus An. 1592 and out of Diodorus Siculus according to the Edition of Laurentius Rhodomannus An. 1604. Names of the Kings An. Reg. Init. An. Per. Jul. Fin. An. Pe. Jul. Testimony of Psammenit 0 4190 4191 Herod p. 187 Amasis 44 4147 4190 186 Apries 25 4122 4147 173 Psammis 6 4116 4122 173 Necas 17 4099 4116 172 Psammetic 54 4045 4099 171 Dodecharc 15 4030 4045 Diodor. 59 60 Interregn 2 4028 4030 Di dor 59 Sabacus 50 3978 4028 Herod 161 § 4. (l) Lib. 9. c. 14. Ant. Josephus affirms that the Israelites were How many years the Kingdom of Israel flourished forced to quit their Country 947 years after their going out of Egypt 800 years after the Death of Joshua and 260 years 7 months and 7 days after the Division of the Kingdom under Jeroboam But the Computation of Josephus is contradictory to it self For according to his Calculation from the time of the Israelites going out of Egypt the Destruction of that Kingdom must have hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4163 and consequently later But according to his Computation from the time of the Distribution of the Kingdom this Destruction must have hapned in the year of the Julian Period 3973 and consequently sooner than our Epocha It is therefore our Opinion that according to the Table of the Kings of Judah and Israel which we have given heretofore the whole Duration of the Kingdom of Israel from the time of Jeroboam till the Destruction by the Assyrians was only of 257 years § 5. Concerning the Place whither the ten Tribes of Israel were carried into Captivity we read Whither the Israelites were carried thus in the Holy (m) â— Reg. 17. v. 6. 18. v. 10. Scripture The King of Assyria did carry away Israel into Assyria and put them in Habah and in Habor by the River of Gozan and in the Cities of the Medes From whence we conjecture that the Israelites were dispersed in Assyria and Media and more especially in those Provinces bordering upon the
sufficiently apparent out of Berosus that Nabuchodonosor the Son of Nabopolassar carried the Jews into Captivity and that Nabuchodonosor is the same with Nebuchadnezzar § 5. And there is an exact Harmony in the Of the time of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar Computation of the years of Nebuchadnezzar betwixt the Holy Scripture and the Fragments of Berosus to wit of 43 years For the first year of the Captivity of Jehoiachim was the eighth of (r) 2 Reg. 24. v. 12. Nebuchadnezzar and the 37th of his Captivity was coincident with the first year of (ſ) 2 Reg. 25. 27. Jer. 52. v. 35. Evilmerodach From whence it is evident that the foregoing year being the 36th of the Captivity of Jehoiachim was the 43d and last of Nebuchadnezzar § 6. Besides there is a remarkable Difference in Of the difference of the Names of the Chaldaean Kings the Names of these Kings betwixt the Sacred and prophane History But it appears sufficiently out of the History of Danicl that it was the Custom of the Chaldaeans to change their Names § 7. There is no question that during the Of the Vacancy in the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar Septennial Vacancy of the Throne under the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar when he was driven from among the Sons of Men (i) Daniel 5. v. 21. the Queen in Conjunction with the chief Men of the Kingdom had the Supreme Administration of Affairs Herodotus speaks much in Commendation of a certain Baylonian Queen called Nitocris which perhaps may have been the Queen Consort of Nebuchadnezzar § 8. There is also some difference in the Annals Of the difference in the Annals of these Kings of the Babylonian Kings for the same year which Daniel calls the third of Jehoiachim is called by Jeremiah the fourth of Jehoiachim And in the Ptolemaean Catalogue Nabopolassar has no more than 21 years assign'd him for his Reign whereas in the Fragments of Berosus his Reign is extended to 29 years Unto which we answer that First sometimes the incompleat years are taken for the Compleat ones Secondly that sometimes two have reigned together at the same time And Thirdly that the Historians have not always been careful alike in setting down the exact Number of years CHAP. XXI Of the Epocha and Intervel of the 70 years of the Babylonian Captivity mentioned 2 Chron. 36. v. 20 21. Jer. 25. 11. c. 29. v. 10 c. 1. This Epocha or Interval ought to be limited according to the Testimony of the Holy Scripture in the Chronicles Jeremiah and Ezekiel 2. The Beginning of this Epocha ought to be fixed to that time when the greatest part of the Jewish Nation together with their King were carried into Captivity 3. When these were carried away Captives to whom Jeremiah writ his Epistle from the 1st Verse to the 11th of the 24th Chapter 4. When those were carried away Captives of whom many returned afterwards ibid. (a) Cap. 25. v. 5. 5. When King Jehoiachim was carried into Captivity to wit in the 8th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar (b) 2 Reg. 24. v. 12. 6. It was the 9th year of the Captivity when the Babylonian King sate down before Jerusalem which was likewise the 9th of the Reign of Zedekiah (c) Jer. 39. v. 1. 7. The first year of the Destruction of the Temple was the 12th of the Captivity (d) Ezek. 33. v. 21. 8. The 21st year of the Captivity was coincident with the 4th year of the Desolation of the Temple of Solomon (e) Ezek. 40. v. 1. 9. The 5th year of the Captivity seems to be made coincident with the 30th year of Nabopolassar by Ezekiel (f) C. 1. v. 1 2. 10. In the 70th and last year of the Captivity Cyrus was Monarch not only over Persia but also over Babylon and of almost all Asia so that he might well make use of these Words The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdoms of the Earth (g) Ezr. 1. v. 2. From whence we conclude that the first year of the Captivity hapned in the year 4113 of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 25. ☽ 9. and that the said Interval ended in the year 4183 of the Julian Period If therefore 4113 or 4183 years be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian Period the To investigate the Beginning and End of this Epocha Residue shews the year since the Beginning or End of this Interval And if the said Numbers be added to the years of the Beginning or End of this Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THere are some who begin this Epocha Of the differences concerning the true beginning of this Epocha of the 70 years Captivity in the 13th year of Josiah which they end with the first year of the Persian Epocha or the Reign of Cyrus They have been mis-led into this Error because Jeremiah mentions the 13th year of Josiah from which time they pretend are to be computed 70 years to the beginning of the Persian Epocha But it being evident that in the 70th year after the 13th of Josiah Cyrus tho' at that time King of Persia yet was not Sovereign of Babylon how could he without the Approbation of the King of Babylon release the Jews from their Captivity § 2. Behmius Dionysius Petavius Robertus Bailius Whether they began with the 3 d or 4th year of Jehoiachim Vossius Simson Beroaldus with their Followers fix the Beginning of this Epocha in the 3d or 4th year of King Jehoiachim but it appears to me that (h) 1 Chron. 36. v. 6. Jehoiachim was never carried to Babylon as a Captive but that during the eleven years of his Reign he only was tributary or under the Subjection of (i) Dan. 1. v. 1. Nebuchadnezzar (k) 2 Reg. 24. v. 1. who also made War upon his Son because the Father had refused to obey his Commands so that it was (l) 2 Reg. 24. v. 12. Jehciachim who with the whole Royal Family and many thousand other Jews was carried into Captivity There is but one Objection of some Moment against us which is that if the Beginning of this Interval of 70 years be computed from the Captivity of Jehoiachim the same will not exactly be correspondent in its Period with the Epocha of Cyrus but this Objection will be answered hereafter in its proper Place when we shall treat of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus § 3. Eusebius (m) In Chron. Sulpitius Severus Johannes Whether from the first Destruction of Jerusalem Funccius and Hainlinus begin this Epocha of 70 years from the time of the first Destruction of the City of Jerusalem but they have been sufficiently refuted by (n) Man Chronol p. 107. Johannes Behmius Besides that Funccius has founded this Hypothesis upon another no less erroneous than this to wit that Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in Scripture is the same with King Nabopolassar
of Ptolemy § 4. Those who maintain that the Beginning Of the pretended difference betwixt Jeremiah and Ezekiel of the 70 years Captivity is to be fixed in the 4th year of Jehoiachim pretend that the two Prophers Jeremiah and Ezekiel differ in their Computation as to the Beginning of this Captivity to evince which they have invented four several Transmigrations of the Jews But without entring upon a Dispute concerning the Reality of these several Captivities they alledge it seems very improbable that Ezekiel who was cotemporary with Jeremiah and writ his Prophefie after him should have inserted a different Computation from the first and have relinquished a certain establish'd Epocha to introduce a new one which could not but involve their Prophesies in great Obscurity and Difficulties The Character which Ezekiel fixes to his Epocha when he calls it Our Captivity puts the Matter beyond question § 5. There is also some Dispute concerning the Of the Passage in Zechariah Concerning the 70 years 70 years mentioned by Zechariah (o) C. 1. v. 12. c. 7. v. 5. The Words are as follows O Lord of Hosts how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the Cities of Judah against which thou hast had indignation these 70 years And When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh Month even these 70 years And since (p) C. 1. v. 1. 7. Zecharias lived at the time of Darius and in the 2d year of his Reign had this Vision and seems to fix the last Period of the 70 years Captivity to his time some have from thence taken occasion to begin this Epocha from the total Destruction of the City of Jerusalem But if we consult the original Text it will be apparent that the Prophet does not speak of the 70th year but of 70 years which were past before the time of the Prophet Zechariah CHAP. XXII Of the Epocha of the Destruction of the Temple of Solomon 1. The Destruction of this Temple hapned in the 11th and last year of King Zedekiah (a) 2. Reg. 25. v. 2. Jer. 34. v. 2. c 52. v. â— 2. And in the 11th of the Captivity of Jehoiachim when Ezekiel was likewise carried away to Babylon who in the next following being the 12th of the Captivity was informed of the Destruction of the City (b) Ez. 33. v. 2â— 3. And in the 19th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar (c) 2 Reg. 25. v 8. Jer. 32 v. 1. c. 52. v. 12. 4. The year of the Destruction of the Temple was the last of the Interval of the 390 years of the Iniquity of the House of Israel so that the last year of this Interval is coincident with the Destruction of the Temple of Solomon (d) Ez 4. v. 5. 5. In the same year the Jews made a Covenant to observe the Sabbatic Year in proclaiming Liberty to their Men-Servants and Maid-Servants according to God's Institution (e) Dâ—ut 15. v. 13. Jer. 34. 6. The year of the Destruction of the Temple â—â— coincident with the third year of the 57th Olympiad according to (f) Chron. lib. post Eusebius 7. By the unanimous Consent of the most authentic Historians and Chronologers whose Computations are founded upon the true Connection of the before-enumerated Epocha's and the Catalogue of the Kings of Judah the Destructian of the Temple of Solomon hapned in the 428th year after it was begun to be built 8. It hapned at the same time when VAPHRES whom Herodotus calls Apries reigned in Egypt according to Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius whose Fall is described by Herodotus consonant to the Prediction of Jeremiah who calls this King Pharaoh-hophra (g) C. 44. v. 30. 9. The Temple of Jerusalem was laid in Ashes betwixt the 9th and 10th day of the Month Ab the fifth Month in the Ecclesiastical Year (h) Jer. 52. v. 12. 10. The first Destruction of the Temple hapned on the same day of the Month that the second Temple was burnt by the Roman Soldiers (i) Jos l. 7. c. 9. 10. From whence we conclude that the Destruction of the Temple of Solomon hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4124 Cycl ☉ 8. ☽ 1. on the 1st day of August â—n the 6th Feria If therefore 4123 years and 7 months be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian the Residue shews the year since this Epocha And if the Number of 4123 years and 7 months be added to the known year of this Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. AS it is evident out of Jeremiah Chap. 34 The Destruction of the Temple hapned in the Sabbatic Year that the year of the Destruction of the Temple was a Sabbatic Year So (k) Aâ—nal Sacr. Laurentius Codomannus Michael Moestlinus and Jacobus Hainlinus make the same year a Jubilean Year But their Hypothesis being founded upon the Manumission of Servants which according to the Mosaic Law was not only performed in the Jubilean but also in the Sabbatic Year is not convincing enough to make us adhere to their Opinion For it is expresly said in Deut. 15. 1. 12. And if thy Brother â— Hebrew Man or Hebrew Woman be sold unto thee and serve thee six years then in the seventh thou shalt let him go free from thee See Behmius L. 1. Manud Chron. p. 79. § 2. Concerning the Synchronism of the Of Vaphres the Egyptian King Egyptian King VAPHRES and the Destruction of Jerusalem both Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius do agree For the first makes the second year of this King coincident with the seventh year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the second makes the seventh year of the Reign of Vaphres coincident with the second year of the forty seventh Olympiad with the eleventh year of the Reign of Zedekiah with the eighth of Astyages and the eighteenth of Tarquinius Priscus besides that the History of this King agrees exactly with the Prophesie of Jeremiah (l) Cap. 44. v. 30. Thus saiâ—â— the Lord Behold I will give Pharaoh-hophra King of Egypt into the Hand of his Enemies aâ—â— into the Hand of them that seek his Life c. For according to (m) Lib. 2. Herodotus he was taken Prisoner by Amasis who headed his rebellious Subjects and was strangled by him CHAP. XXIII Of the Persian Epocha of Cyrus 1. Cyrus began his Reign in Persia in the 35th year of the Reign of Astyages according to Herodotus 2. In the 29th or 30th year before his death according to Herodotus and Ctesias 3. In the first year of the 55th Olympiad according to Diodorus Thallus Castor Polybius Phlegon cited by (a) Lib. 10 de Praep Evang. Eusebius 4. The seventh year of Cambyses which was the 37th since the beginning of this Epocha was the 225th of the Nabonassarean Epocha at what time there was an Eclipse of the Moon according to (b) Lib. â— Ptolemy 5. The 20th year of
Artaxerxes Longimanus But we differ from them in the Computation of these 20 Years which we begin not from the time of the Death of Xerxes but from the time he was made his Consort in the Empire So that the Beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes admits of a two-fold Explication one to be fixed in the 12th year of the Reign of Xerxes in the Year of the Julian Period 4240 the other immediately after his Death in the Year of the Julian Period 4249 Artaxerxes having reigned as a Consort with his Father near 10 years or at least enjoyed the Title of a King And soon after The 20th Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes to reckon from its first Beginning is coincident with the 4259th Year of the Julian Period with the 2 d Year of the 81st Olympiad with the Year of the World 3529. If the Epocha of the 70 Weeks or of 490 Years be begun from this 20th Year of his Reign its Period is coincident with the Year of the Julian Period 4748 with that of the World 4018 which is coincident with the 4th Year after the Passion of Christ So that in the third Year of the 30th Week the MESSIAH was cut off For the Prophecy of this Interval of 70 Weeks ought not to be interpreted thus as if the Mystery foretold by it was not to be accomplished till the total Expiration of these Weeks But it is sufficient that its Accomplishment is to be looked for in the last Week of this Interval though not brought quite to its final Period Thus far Petavius Against this Hypothesis built upon the erroneous Supposition that Artasasta mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah is the same with Artax Longimanus the Arguments alledged in the preceding Paragraph may take place for the most part Besides which we will insert the following Objections in Contradiction of this erroneous Opinion First The Edict of Artaxerxes whether Longimanus or Memor had only a Relation to the repairing the Walls and Ditches of the City that was rebuilt before But the Angel mentions expresly the Words of Rebuilding of Jerusalem And it appears very improbable to me that the Holy Scripture should have pass'd by the Epocha of Rebuilding the City and in lieu of it substituted that from the Rebuilding of the Walls Secondly It was foretold by the Angel that the Streets and Walls of the City were to be accomplished in the space of 7 annual Weeks But if the Epocha of 70 Weeks is to be begun from the 20th Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes how are these 49 Years to be computed (u) Cap. 13. ver 6. Nehemiah being according to his own Testimony returned from Jerusalem in the 32d Year of Artaxerxes Thirdly if these 70 Weeks must begin in the 20th Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus their Period must be coincident with the Year 4760 of the Julian Period in which Year hapned neither the Passion of Christâ— or the Destruction of Jerusalem For Art Longimanus began his Reign according to Ptolemy and the other ancient Chronologers in the Year of the Nabonassarean Epocha 284 So that the 20th Year of his Reign was coincident with the 304th Nabonassarean Year or the 4270th Year of the Julian Period unto which if 490 Years be added it produces 4760 of the Julian Period But it is sufficiently demonstrated in another Place that Christ suffered Death in the Year of the Julian Period 4746 and that the last Destruction of Jerusalem hapned in the 70th Year of Christ or in the 4783 Year of the Julian Period From whence it is evident that this Computation from the 20th Year of the Reign or Art Longimanus which has as I suppose also induced (x) Lib. 10. c 2â— de Doct. Temp. Petavius to confess concerning this fabulous Invention That this Opinion was not in the least mentioned in any of the Ancient Historians And supposing that Xerxes in the 12th Year of his Reign when he was preparing for his Grand Expedition against Greece did according to the Custom of the ancient Persian Monarchs nominate Artaxerxes his Successour no Inference can be made from thence that the same Artaxerxes did 7 years after being the 18th Year of the Reign of Xerxes exercise an absolute Royal Authority when Xerxes was at home in Person Neither can it be alledg'd that Artaxerxes when he granted his Patent to Ezra could act otherwise than a Sovereign and only as a Titular King the said Objection being contradictory to the Words of the said Royal Diploma recited in (y) C. 7 v. 11 12. seq Ezra Artaxerxes King of Kings unto Ezra c. I make a Decree that all they of the People of Israel and of his Priests and Levites in my Realm which are minded of their free Will to go up to Jerusalem go with thee For asmuch as thou art sent of the KING and of his seven Counsellours to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of thy God which is in thine hand and to carry the Silver and Gold which the KING and his Counsellours have freely offer'd c. And soon after (z) Ezra 7. ver â—1 And I even I Artaxerxes the King do make a Decree to all the Treasurers which are beyond the River that whatsoever Ezra shall require of you it be done speedily unto an hundred Talents of Silver c. From whence it appears that in the 7th year of Artaxerxes mentioned in the Scripture there reigned no other Monarch in Persia which induces me to argue thus If Xerxes had had an Intention to make his Son Artaxerxes his Consort in the Empire he would have done it at that Juncture of time when he was undertaking his Expedition against Greece But this was not done at that time Therefore Artaxerxes c. The Major Proposition proves it self that Juncture of time when the King with the Chief Men of the Empire were to go upon an Expedition remote from the Empire being the fittest of all to nominate a Successour The Minor is granted by Petavius himself when he makes the first year of Artaxerxes coincident with the 12th Year of the Reign of Xerxes I argue further If it be true that after the Death of Xerxes there was a Contest about the Succession in the Empire betwixt Darius the eldest Son of Xerxes and Artaxerxes his younger Son who by the Assistance of Artapanus obtained the Imperial Crown it follows that the said Artaxerxes was not constituted King a good many years before his Father's Death or that he quietly exercised the Royal Sovereign Prerogatives But according to the Testimony of Diodorus Siculus Ctesias and other Historians the first is true Therefore also c. The Opinion of Is Vos has so little Resemblance to Truth that I cannot but stand amazed how a Man of Sense and who besides this pretends to a considerable share of Learning could fall into so many Errors at a time which scarce deserve an Answer § 16. Those who anticipate the
1. 6 31 0 Longit. Solis 9 16 14 32 Anomal Solis 7 8 8 6 Longit. Lunae 5 27 49 17 Anom Lunae 7 13 10 19 Latit Lunae 5 26 50 2 Prostaphaer Aeq subtr   16 10 Prostaph Solis add  1 18 0   Hor ′ ″ Prostaph Lunae add  3 28 47 Locus Solis verus in ♄  17 16 24 Locus Lunae verus in ♋  17 16 23 Latit Lunae Austral   1 38 Semidiameter Vmbrae   45 16 Semidiameter Lunae   16 49 Pars Lunae deficiens   61 30 Digiti Ecliptici 21 Min. 34 Motus Lunae horarius   32 59 Scrupula Incidentiae morae dimidiae   62 4 Tempus Incidentiae  1 52 54 Initium Eclipsis Hierosolymis p. merid 8 Jan. 11 21 17 Medium  13 14 11 Finis  15 7 5 Duratio  3 45 48 Latit ☽ ad init Bor.   4 7 Latit ☽ ad sinem Austr   7 22 § 8. Baronius objects against Josephus that he has left out nine years in the whole Computation of Concerning Baronius his Computation of the Reign of Herod the years of the Reign of Herod And because it is related by (x) L. 7. c. 8. Ant. L. 14. c. 17. L. 1. c. 21. de Bell. Jud. Josephus that he died when he had lived 70 years and that he had received the Government of Galilea in the 15th year of his Age from whence he concludes that the 37 years mentioned by Josephus ought to begin with that time when Augustus gave him the Title of King being not permitted to reckon the preceding Years among his Reign and that consequently the first of the 37 years was coincident with the 15 Julian Years in which happened the Battle near Actium when Augustus was the third time and Messala Consuls of Rome in the 2d year of the 178th Olympiad So that the Nativity of Christ hapned at the Beginning of the 29th year of this Epocha and Herod's Death in the 8th year of Christ Tho. Lyddiot has for the greatest part followed the Footsteps of Baronius But this Opinion is founded upon such Suppositions as are altogether groundless no Inference being to be made from Herod's being confirmed in the Kingdom by Augustus that he was deprived of the Royal Title and Dignity before the Phrase Confirmare aliquem in Regno not implying among the Romans to create one a King which is manifest from thence that Herod had before obtained the Royal Dignity by the mutual Consent of Anthony and Augustus and the Approbation of the Senate § 9. The Words spoken by the Jews to our Saviour Forty and six years was this Temple in Concerning the 46 years mentioned in St. Joh. c. 2. v. 20 building have puzzled the Interpreters some of whom have explained them of the Temple built by Zorobabel but it is evident from the History of Herod that they spoke in this Passage of the Temple that was rebuilt by Herod which was begun in the 18th year of his Reign and in its Height in the 28th year of his Reign and not brought to its Perfection till 46 years after the first Preparations were made for this great Structure There is one Objection against it which is that (a) L. 1◠c. 14. Ant. Josephus says in another Place that the Temple of Herod was built in 18 Months which is to be understood from its outward Parts tho' there are also some who interpret the Interval of 46 years betwixt the 18th year of the Reign of Herod and the first year after the Baptism of Christ thus that the Structure of the Temple was interrupted for some time § 10. (b) L. 2. c. 4. Saturn Macrobius is the only Person among Whether mention is made of the Murther of the Children by Herod in prophane History the Prophane Historians who makes mention of the Murther of the Children by Herod in these Words Augustus having understood that among the Male Children under two years of Age which were slain in Syria by the Command of Herod his own Son had been among their Number he said It is much better to be the Hog than the Son of Herod There are not wanting such as look upon this as a meer Fiction Others refer these Words of Augustus to the Murther of his Son Antipater others to another Son of his under two years of Age who was slain among the rest at Bethlehem and that Antipater's Murther hapned after that of the Male Children which is evident from (c) L. 1. c. 8. Hist Eccles Eusebius and (d) L. 7. c. 8 9. Ant. Josephus the first of which says expresly that the Murther of the Children of Bethlehem was committed before Herod fell ill and the last affirms that Antipater was not slain till five days before his Death § 11. Scaliger admires what could induce Josephus did not mention this Murther of the Male Children Josephus to pass by in Silence this Murther of the Children under two years of Age at Bethlehem in the History of Herod which is not only excused but defended by (e) P. 159. Chr. Sacr. Isaac Vossius who alledges in his Behalf that after so many Cruelties and Murthers of Wives Sons Relations and Friends committed by Herod Josephus looks upon this as so inconsiderable as scarce to deserve a Place in his History But that this Murther was not so inconsiderable as Vossius would persuade us is sufficiently testified by (f) C. 2. v. 16 17 18. St. Matthew in the following Words Herod slew all the Children that were at Bethlehem and in all the Coasts thereof from two years old and under c. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet saying In RAMA was there a Voice heard LAMENTATION and WEEPING and GREAT MOURNING Rachel weeping for her Children and would not be comforted because they are not § 12. The common Opinion is that our At what time hapned this Murther of the Children at Bethlehem Saviour was born on the 25th day of December and that on the 13th day after being the 6th of January the Wise Men came to Jerusalem and from thence went directly to Bethlehem where having paid their Adoration and being warned of God they returned homewards immediately after and that Herod seeing himself mocked by the Wise Men had thereupon perpetrated that Piece of Cruelty against the Children at Bethlehem so that the whole was transacted before the Purification of the Virgin Mary in the first Month of the forty fourth Julian Year But if the Matter be duly weighed we shall find that this Computation is in no wise agreeable to the true Chronological Circumstances For whether these Wise Men came out of Arabia or Persia certain it is that they could not perform so great a Journey in 13 Days after the Apparition of the Star which according to the Evangelist was the SIGNAL
the Siege and the whole War taking of the City of Jerusalem there perished of the Jews 1100000 which is confirmed by (u) In Chron. Eusebius (x) L. 7. c. 6. Orosius and Sulpitius Severus But J. Lipsius has computed the whole Number of the Jews slain and taken Prisoners in their Civil and Foreign Wars within the space of the last 7 Years in the following manner At Jerusalem by the Command of Florus 630 At Caesarea by the Inhabitants 20000 At Scythopolis 13000 In Askalon 2500 At Ptolemais 2000 At Alexandria 50000 At Damascus 10000 At the taking of Joppa 8400 In the Mount Cubulon 2000 In the Battle near Ascalon 10000 By Surprise 8000 At Aphac 15000 In the Mount 〈◊〉 11600 At Iotap 30000 At the taking of Joppa a second time 4200 Near Taricha 6500 At Gamala 9000 In their Flight from Giscala slain 2000 Taken 3000 Of those of Gadar slain 13000 taken 2200 Slain in Idumaea 10000 At Gera 1000 At Macheron 1700 In the Forest of Jardes 3000 In the Castle of Massada 960 At Cyrene 3000 During the Siege of Jerusalem 1000000 made Prisoners 97000 The whole Number 1339690 § 9. According to the Latin Version of the Whether the Kingdom of the Jews â—â—ased with the Destruction of Jerusalem Chronicon of Eusebius translated by St. Hierome and the Chronicle of the before-mentioned Rabbi David Ganz the Royal Dignity was quite abolished among the Jews at the time of the last Destruction of the Temple which is contradicted by Scaliger who demonstrates by a certain Coin with this Inscription Post captam Judaeam adhuc erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Agrippa did not die in the 3d Year of the 212th Olympiad We agree thus far with Scaliger That Agrippa did retain the Royal Title after the Destruction of Jerusalem of which Photius in (y) Cod. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has these following Words The Chronicle of Justus Tiberiensis was read which had for its Title THE HISTORY OF JUSTUS TIBERIENSIS OF ALL SUCH AS WERE CROWNED KINGS OF THE JEWS This Author was a Native of Tiberias a City in Galilee which has given him his Sirname He begins his History with Moses which he continues till the Death of Agrippa the 7th King of the Family of Herod and the last of the Jewish Kings He received the Crown under the Reign of Claudius his Power encreased by Nero and became more potent under Vespasian He died in the third Year of the Reign of Trajan with which Year he concludes his History But it is very evident out of several Passages in Josephus that Agrippa was neither King of the Jews nor Jerusalem For he allows him not the least Authority over Judaea unless what concerned the (z) L. 20. c. 8. Ant. Temple but says (a) L. 20. c. 3 5. that by the Favour of Claudius he was put in the Possession of the Kingdom of Chalcis and by Nero regaled with the Cities of Tiberias Tarichaea and Julia with 14 other Towns of less Note And that the whole Judaea the greatest part of Galilee and Samaria was under the Jurisdiction of the Roman Praefects is according to the Testimony of Josephus past all Dispute CHAP. XLIII Of the Epocha of Dioclesian which is commonly called by the Aegyptians the AERA OF MARTYRS by Eusebius the AERA 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of Persecution by the Aethiopians the AERA OF GRACE and by the Mahometans the AERA ELKUPTI 1. The Aera of Dioclesian begins in the same Year that Dioclesian after the Death of Carus and Numerianus was declared Emperour 2. The Emperour Dioclesian entred Nicomedia in Triumph on the 15th day of September and the first of January following appeared in publick as Consul 3. About that time Carinus the 2 d time and Numerianus were Roman Consuls who were succeeded by Dioclesian already declared Augustus and Aristobulus This is not only thus related in the Chronicon Alexandrinum but also by (a) Lib. 23. Ammianus Marcellinus who says expresly that when Dioclesian was Consul with Aristobulus he was dignified with the Title of Augustus And thus we find it recorded in the Publick Records called Fasti Capitolini IMP. CAES. C. AVRELIO DIOCLESIANO AVG. II ..... ARISTOBVLVS 4. The 3 d Indiction then began with the Month of September according to the Chronicon Alexandrinum 5. The first year of the Reign of Dioclesian is coincident with the 2301st year of the Epocha of Abraham unto which if 2696 years be added the Product shews the year of the Julian Period as has been demonstrated before according to Euseb in Chron. 6. In the 89th year since the Beginning of the Reign of Dioclesian says (b) L. 10. Ep. 83. ad Epiph. St. Ambrose the Full Moon falling then out upon the 21st day of March we did celebrate Easter upon the last day of March Those of Alexandria and other Places in Aegypt the Full Moon happening with them on the 28th day of the Month Phamenoth did celebrate their Easter on the 5th day of the Month Pharmuth which was like among us the last day of March Again in the 93d year since the Beginning of the Reign of Dioclesian it being then Full Moon on the 14th day of the Month Pharmuth and Sunday they celebrated Easter on the next following 21st day of the same Month which according to our Calendar is the 14th day of April 7. The 92 d year since the Beginning of the Reign of Dioclesian is coincident with the 12th year of the Reign of Valentinian and Valens and the 8th of Gratian. 8. It was in the 248th year since the Beginning of the Reign of this Tyrant when Dionysius sirnamed Exiguus first began his Paschal Cycle according to Dionysius Exiguus himself in his first Epistle mentioned by (c) Append. de Doct. Temp. Dionysius Petavius Consult also (d) C. 45. de Rat. Temp. Beda 9. The Aegyptians began the Years of the Aera of DioclesianI with the Month Thot being our 29th day of August 10. In the same Year that Dioclesian a second time and Aristobulus were Consuls at Rome Carinus Margo was slain and Dioclesianus was exalted to the Empire Thus says (e) In East Idacius 11. In the 19th year of the Reign of Dioclesian in the Month Dystius which is among the Romans the Month of March Easter being near at Hand the Emperour caused a Proclamation to be published that all the Churches should be pulled down and laid level with the Ground that all their Papers should be burnt and the Christians be deprived of all their Places and Dignities and that such among them as persevered in their Faith should be accounted infamous and be made Slaves Of which see Eusebius (f) L. 8. c. 3. Hist Eccl. Metrophanes and Alexander in (g) Cod. 256. Photius as likewise Ignatius the Patriarch of Antioch of which mention is made by Scaliger (h) L. 5. p. 49â— de Em. Temp. 12. In the same year being
the 19th of the Reign of Dioclesian and the first of the Persecution Dioclesian was the 8th time and Maximianus the 7th time Roman Consuls according to Idacius 13. The year when Dioclesian began the Persecution against the Christians was coincident with the 351st year since the Beginning of the Antiochian Epocha according to Eusebius in Chron. 14. In the 2 d year of the Persecution Dioclesian did abdicate himself at Nicomedia and Maximin at Milan See (i) L. 8. c. 8. Hist Eccl. Eus Idac. Eurrop 15. It was in the 3 d year of the Persecution raised against the Christians by Domitian when Constantius died according to Metrophanes and Alexander in (k) Cod. 256. Photius But the time of the Death of Constantius is thus expressed by (l) L. 1. c. 1. Socrates Constantius was proclaimed King in Britain instead of his Father Constantius in the first year of the 271st Olympiad on the 25th day of July 16. In the 4th year of the Persecution Constantine began his Reign according to Euseb in Chron. 17. In the 19th year of the Reign of Dioclesian in the Month of March in Easter time the Christian Churches were pulled down according to St. Hierom in Chron. Euseb From these and innumerable other Characters too many to be inserted here it is evident that Dioclesian was declared Augustus in the year of the Julian Period 4997 Cycl ☉ 13. ☽ 19. on the 17th day of September and that the Aegyptians began this Aera on the 29th day of August and that the Persecution against the Christians began in the year of the Julian Period 5016 Cycl ☉ 4. ☽ 19. in the Month of March If therefore 4996 years and 8 Months be subtracted How to find out any year of these Epocha's from any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of the Aera of Dioclesian And if in the same manner 5015 Years and 3 Months be subtracted the Residue will be correspondent to the year since the Beginning of the Persecation raised by Dioclesian against the Christians But if you desire to investigate the Year of the Julian Period you must add the above-mentioned Number of Years and Months to the known Year of these Epocha's § 1. (m) L. 5. de Em. Temp. p. 494. SCaliger is of Opinion that this Epocha Whether this Epocha begins with the Reign of Dioclesian began three years or more before Dioclesian was declared Emperour and Augustus but in my Opinion he has been misguided in this Point by Aurel. Cassiodorus who has confounded in so miserable a manner the Years of the Reign of Dioclesian that there is not the least Reason to follow his Footsteps § 2. The Ancients were for the most part of this Opinion that the Epocha of Dioclesian had Whether the Ancients began this Epocha from the time of the Persecution its Beginning from the time of the Persecution raised by this Tyrant against the Christians as may be seen out of the (n) L. 5. p. â—â—6 de Em. Temp. Epistle of Ignatius the Patriarch of Antiochia written to Scaliger upon this Account You are also says he very desirous to be informed concerning the AERA of MARTYRS used among the Aegyptians its true Origin and Denomination You must know then that it has its Beginning from the 19th Year of the Reign of that impious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King Dioclesian at which time he raised the most Violent Persecution against the Christians ordering their Churches to be demolished and that such as refused to pay Adoration to the Idols should be killed Pursuant to this Edict there were alone in Aegypt one hundred and forty four thousand and seven hundred Believers sacrificed to his Fury From which time began the AERA ELKUPTI or the AERA of MARTYRS whose Blood was shed by Dioclesian But it is apparent that this Patriarch is under a Mistake and that he has confounded the Year of the Beginning of his Reign with that of his Persecution against the Christians And it is not altogether improbable but that the Aegyptians to abolish the Memory of this Tyrant have changed this Epocha which had borrowed its Name from Dioclesian into that of the MARTYRS § 3. There is no great Difficulty in finding The Congruity betwixt the Months of this Epocha and the Julian Months out the Congruity there is betwixt the Months of this Epocha and the Julian Months if it be taken into Consideration that the Years of the Aera of Dioclesian or of the MARTYRS both in respect of their Quantity and the Order of the Bissextiles or Leap-Years agree for the most part with the Julian Years For they do like us intercalate a Day at certain times The whole Difference lies in the Quantity of the Months and the Beginning of the Year For the Aegyptians have made their Months all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and begin their Year with the 29th day of August adding to the common Year after the Month Mesori five Epagomena's and to the Leap-Year six Epagomena's The â—ollowing Table shews the true Connection betwixt ours and the Aegyptian Months Incidit Neomenia Mensis 1. Thoth in 29 Augusti 2. Paophi 28 Septembr 3. Athyr 28 Octobr. 4. Chojac 27 Novembr 5. Tybi 27 Decembr 6. Mechir 26 Januarii 7. Phamenoth 25 Februarii 8. Pharmuti 27 Martii B. 26. 9. Lachon 26 April B. 25. 10. Payni 26 Maii B. 25. 11. Epiphi 25 Junii B. 24. 12. Mesori 25 Julii B. 24. 1. Epagomen 24 Augusti B. 23. 2. Epagomen 25 Augusti B. 24. 3. Epagomen 26 Augusti B. 25. 4. Epagomen 27 Augusti B. 26. 5. Epagomen 28 Augusti B. 27. 6. Epagomen Init. Anni B. 28. Aug. CHAP. XLIV Of the Epocha of Constantine the Great and the Transactions under his Reign 1. Constantine the Great was immediately after the Death of his Father Constantius Chlorus both by his Testament and the Approbation of the Souldiery proclaimed Caesar (a) L. 1. de Vit. Const M. Eusebius 2. Constantius Chlorus died on the 23 d day of July when Constantius Caesar and Maximianus Jovius were both the 6th time Roman Consuls at the time of the 10th Indiction See Chron. Alexandrinus Idacius and (b) L. 1. c. 1. Socrates 3. The first Year of Constantine the Great iâ— coincident with the 4th Year of the 10th Persecution raised by Dioclesian against the Christians Hieron in Chron. 4. This Persecution began in the Year of the Antiochian Aera 351 in the 19th year of the Reign of Dioclesian when Dioclesian Augustus was the 8th time and Maximianus Herculius the 7th time Roman Consuls See (c) Chron. Alex. Eusebius 5. The Year in which the Tyrant Maxentius was vanquished was the 6th year after the Death of Constantius Chlorus and likewise of the Reigns of Maxentius and Constantine the Great Maxentius says the Panegyrist speaking to Constantine the Great having squander'd away whole six years in Idleness made his Birth-day remarkable
has been left us by Antiquity of the Destruction of Troy ought to be looked upon as fabulous neither the true History be commaculated with the Fictions of the Poets 2. Care ought to be taken that the time of the Destruction of Troy be not confounded with that of the beginning of the War it being evident out of (a) L. 2. Aenied Virgil that it was not taken till after a War of ten years captique dolis lachrymisque coactis Quos nec Tydides nec Larissaeus Achilles Non anni domuere decem non mille carinae The whole War lasted ten Years six Months and twelve Days 3. According to the Testimony of Timaeus in Censorinus from the first Olympiad which began in Summer to account backwards to the Time of the beginning of the Trojan War are 417 years 4. From the Destruction of Troy to the first Olympiad are 408 years From the Trojan War says (b) L. 1. Bib. Diodorus Siculus to the time of the Return of the Heraclides I compute 80 years from thence to the first Olympiad 328 years 5. Soon after the Destruction of Troy Aeneas with some of his Countrymen arrived in Italy from whom the People of Rome had their first Off-spring according to St. (c) L. 3. c. 2. de Civ Dei c. â— Austin It ought not to be pass'd by in Silence here says Solin* that Aeneas in the second year after the Destruction of Troy came into Italy with 600 of his Countrymen and pitched his Tents near Laurentum 6. The Arcades Pelasgi Epeans and Eleans as also the Trojans were those Nations that laid the first Foundation of Rome in the 402 d year after the Destruction of Troy in the 7th Olympiad according to (d) Rom. Anâ— L. 2. Dionysius Halicarnassaeus and Velleius Paterculus 7. The Trojan War and the Destruction of that City hapned under the Reigns of Priamus King of Troy and of Menelaus King of Lacedaemon the first had a Son called Alexander otherwise Paris who carried away Helen from her Brother Agamemnon 8. The Destruction of Troy hapned in the last year of the Reign of Agamemnon according to (e) L. 2. Chr. 11. Eusebius 9. Mnestheus King of Athens was present in the Trojan War according to (f) L. 1. Strom. Clemens Alexandrinus 10. From the Nativity of Moses till the Destruction of Troy are near 400 years as (g) L. 10. de prâ—p Evang. Cap. â— Eusebius has computed it 11. From the Destruction of Troy to the End of the Peloponnesian War when the Athenians obtained the Principality in Greece are according to the Computation of (i) Lib. 14 Diodorus Siculus 779 years 12. From the Destruction of Troy till the year which preceded the beginning of the Reign of Agathocles the Tyrant are computed 866 years But Agathocles began to reign at Syracusa when Demogenes was Archon or Prince of Athens and L. Photius and M. Tostius Consuls of Rome (k) Diod. Sic. Bibl. l. 19. 13. From the Destruction of Troy till the time of Lactantius who writ in the year 287 after the Birth of Christ are 1470 years according to (l) L. 1. de fals Relig. Lactantius himself 14. All the Ancients agree in Opinion that the Destruction of Troy hapned in the beginning of the Summer Quarter as among others is evident out of (m) L 3. Aeneid Virgil. Postquam res Asiae Priamique evertere gentem Immeritam visam superis ceciditque superbum Ilium omnis humo fumat Neptunia Troja Diversa exilia desertas quaerere terras Auguriis agimur divûm classemque sub ipsa Antandro Phrygiae molimur montibus Idae Incerti quo fata ferant ubi sistere detur Contrahimusque viros VIX PRIMA INCEPERAT AESTAS Et Pater Anchises dare fatis vela jubebat 15. The Month of Thargelion was always accounted unfortunate among the Barbarians because on the four and twentieth day of this Month Troy was believed to have been taken according to Ephorus Callisthenes Damasthes Philarchus and Plutarch in the Life of Camillus 16. The time of the Day when the victorious Greeks entred the City of Troy is indigitated by (n) Lib. 2. Aen. Virgil. Vertitur intereà coelum ruit Oceano nox Involvens umbra magna terramque populumque Myrmidonumque dolos Fusi per moenia Teucri Conticuere Sopor fessos complectitur artus Et jam Argiva phalanx instructis navibus ibat A Tenedo tacitae per amica silentia Lunae Littora nota perens And soon after Invadunturbem somno vinoque sepultam 17. From what has been alledged upon the Authority of the best Historians it may probably be inferr'd that the Destruction of Troy hapned in the 3530th year of the Julian Period Cyc ☉ 2. ☽ 15. in the Night betwixt the 11th and 12th day of June 18. If therefore 3529 years and five Months be subtracted To find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha from any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha and if the said 3529 years be added to the year of the said Epocha the Product must be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. HOW famous soever the Destruction of Whether the Destruction of Troy be only a Fable Troy is both among the Greek and Latin Historians yet there are some who either call the whole or the greatest part of what the Ancients have left us concerning it in question Among the first of those was Dio. Chrysostomus who relying upon the Authority of a certain Aegyptian Priest relates that it appeared out of the Ancient Aegyptian Monuments that Helen had been the Daughter of Tyndareus King of Sparta and was married to Alexander the Son of Priamus King of Troy That the Greeks out of a Motive of Jealousie of the Greatness and Power of Troy had entred into a Confederacy against Priamus but with very ill Success the Trojans having gotten the better of the Greeks in several Engagements in one of which Achilles was slain by Hector One Metrodorus of Lampsacus introduced by Tatianus denies that there were ever such Persons living as Hector Achilles Agamemnon Helen and Paris and that these Names had been only inverited by the Poets to adorn their Fictions (o) Ital. Ant. Lib. 3. Philippus Cluâ—erius does not absolutely contradict the Destruction of Troy but speaks much in Commendation of Dio and absolutely rejects the Relation of Aeneas coming into Italy But tho' it be undeniable that the Greeks have not been the most exact in their Annals which have been much adulterated by the fabulous Relations of their Poets yet this cannot be alledged as a sufficient Reason for the rejecting so considerable a part of History confirmed by the Authority not only of the Greeks but of the Latins and most other Nations It is unquestionable that the Ruines of Troy are undeniable Arguments of its former Greatness which our Adversaries to save themselves
and in Es 37. 38. to have been the Son of Sennacherib But there are many Reasons to the contrary For it is related of Sardanapalus that he lived a very odious and effeminate Life according to that noted Epitaph of the Greek Poet Chaerilus Cum te mortalem nôris praesentibus exple Deliciis animum post mortem nulla voluptas Namque ego cinis ecce Nini Rex maximus olim Haec habui quae edi quaeque exaturata libido Hausit at illa jacent multa praeclara relicta Whereas Asser-Haddon when he began to take the Administration of the Kingdom in hand found it in a very ill State and was forced to wage long and bloody Wars with the Murtherers of his Father Herodotus upon whose Authority Schotanus so much relies relates that under the Reign of Sardanapalus the Medians having shaken off the Assyrian Yoke enjoyed for many Years their own Laws and Liberty free from the Oppression of their Kings till at last Dejoces reduced them under a more strict Subjection But from the time that Asser-Haddon succeeded his Father in the Empire being the 14th of Hiskiah and 3999th of the Julian Period there was but a slender Interval till the Reign of Dejoces And since it is evident that both Sardanapalus and Sennacherib were not unknown to (e) Lib. 2. 2 Reg. 15. v. 19. Herodotus it is very improbable that he should not have mentioned the Son § 4. Annius and (f) Op. Chron. L. 1. p. 105. 2 Chron. 5. v. 26. Robertus Bailius are of Concerning the Division of this Monarchy Opinion that after the Death of Sardanapalus the Assyrian Monarchy was divided betwixt Belochus or Belesis and Arbaces so that the first had for his share Babylon and the last Media and Persia But this is absolutely contradicted by Diodorus Siculus who says that this Belochus being a Babylonian Priest such as they call Chaldaeans famous for his great Skill in judiciary Astrology who had foretold Arbaces the Conquest of the Assyrian Empire was afterwards by him made Prefect or Governour of Babylon § 5. The Followers of Annianus among whom are Sleidan and Nicholaus Reusnerus are Whether 〈◊〉 was the same with Belochus of Opinion that Phul of whom mention is made in the (g) Isag p. 195. Holy Scripture was the same Belochus mentioned by Annianus to have been Monarch of Babylon But the contrary may be demonstrated if it be considered that Sardanapalus lived about the year 3839 of the Julian Period and that Menahem the King of Israel was made tributary to Pul the King of Assyria in the year of the Julian Period 3943 which is above 100 years difference Besides that Pul is dignified with the Title of King whereas we have shewed already that Belochus or Belesis was only Governour of Babylon § 6. Some are very sollicitous about the History of these Assyrian and Chaldaean Kings of How to reconcile the Sacred History concerning those Kings after the Death of Sardanapalus whom mention is made in the Scripture after the Death of Sardanapalus to which I answer that it is very probable that after the Death of Arbaces the Assyrians might in some measure recover their ancient Liberty and be governed by their own Kings tho' scarce any Footsteps of them are to be found in prophane History of which Orosius has given us this Compendious Account (h) L. 1. c. 19. Thus was the Assyrian Monarchy transferred to the Medes but soon after heavy Wars were carried on among these Nations with various Success which to particularize here is beyond our Purpose sometimes the Schytes sometimes the Chaldaeans got the upper hand but the Empire was at last devolved again to the Medes § 7. Herodotus with some of his Followers Dejoces was not the first King after Sardanapalus make Dejoces the first Monarch of the Median Empire But as has been alledged before there are other Authors who having been more careful in inspecting the Authentick History of the Assyrians ought to be preferr'd in this Point before Herodotus We have alledged the Words of Diodorus Siculus concerning Arbaces before whose Testimony is confirmed by (i) L. 1. c. 3. 4. Justin who says expresly that Arbactus Arbaces formerly Governour of Media was made King after Sardanapalus And this seems also the most probable if it be taken into Consideration that a Democratical Government appeared in all Ages contrary to the Genius of the Asiaticks So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Medes was used as a Proverb among the Poets according to Lucan Felices Arabes Mediique Eoaque tellus Quam sub perpetuis tenuerunt fata Tyrannis And Virgil (k) Lib. Georg. 4. speaks to the same purpose when he describes the Nature of the Bees Praeterea Regem non sic Aegyptus ingens Lydia nec populi Parthorum aut MEDVS Hydaspes Observant rege incolumi mens omnibus una est c. The Observation made by Reinerus Reineccius upon this Passage of Herodotus seems to be very agreeable to the Truth to wit that perhaps the Medes enjoyed a great share of Liberty under their first Kings which by degrees being degenerated into a Licentiousness Dejoces was the first who re-established the Royal Prerogative and Authority § 8. The Eclipse of the Sun mentioned before out of Herodotus and Clemens Alexandrinus has Concerning the Solar Eclipse mentioned by Herodotus been like the Pomum Eridis among the Astronomers and Chronologers there being as many Opinions as Heads about it too many to be enumerated here but have before all the rest chosen that of Clemens Alexandrinus and Pliny who affirm that this Eclipse of the Sun did not happen as Herodotus relates under the Reign of Cyaxares but under Astyages in the year of the Julian Period 4129 on the 28th of May towards Sun-set which appeared the more terrible to the Medes and Lydians engaged in the Heat of Battle the nearer the Sun was to its Period § 9. The following Table shews the Congruity The Congruity betwixt the Reigns of these Kings with the Jul. Period betwixt the Reigns of each of the Median Kings and the years of the Julian Period according to our and Petavius's Computation unto which we have added the Calculations of Joseph Scaliger and William Lange somewhat different from ours Number and Names of the Median Kings Ann. Regn A. P. J. No. A. P. J. Sc. A. P. J. La. 1 Arbaces 28 3838 3841 3852 2. Mandauces 50 3866 3869 3880 3. Sosarmus 30 3916 3919 3930 4. Artycas 50 3646 3949 3960 5. Arbianes s Card. 22 3996 3999 4010 6. Dejoces s Arsaees 40 4018 4021 4032 7. Phraort s Artyn 22 4058 4061 4072 8. Cyaxeres s Astibar 40 4080 4083 4093 9. Astyages s Apand 35 4120 4123 4132 Finis  4155 4163 4167 CHAP. XVI Of the Olympiad Epocha 1. An Olympiad is an Interval of four Greek Years of different Length at the Expiration of which the Olympiad
Caspian Sea the Tygris and Euphrates As to the River of Gozan I am of Fuller's Opinion that the said River is the same which is since called by the Persians Cyrus a River of Media § 6. Some of the Ancient Jewish Interpreters Of the River of Gozan maintain that this River of Gozan was the Sabbatic River the Source of which they pretend to be near Kalicut in the Indies which they say is very boisterous six days in the Week but during the Sabbath very calm But others look for it in Media § 7. One Aaron Levi alias Antonius Montezini Of the Opinion of Antonius Montezini in his Treatise writ Anno 5404 and dedicated to Manasseh Ben Israel pretends to inform the World that in the West Indies he had found out a most prodigious Number of Jews who being governed there by their own Laws to this day were separated from the other Indians by a great River But besides that this Impostor sufficiently contradicts himself in his Relations making his Fellow-Travellour sometimes a Christian sometimes a Pagan sometimes a Jew Our late Voyages into those Parts have sufficiently detected this Imposture Thus much is beyond all question that in the time of (n) L. 2. c. 5. Josephus the Israelites did not inhabit America but near the River Euphrates § 8. Philippus Mornaeus Leunclavius Genebrardus The Modern Tartars are not the Off-spring of the Ancient Jews and Postellus in his Description of Syria are of Opinion that the Turks and Tartars owe their Offspring to the Jews which they conjecture by the great Multitude of Jews living in Russia Lithuania and some other of the most Northern Parts of Europe and by some Words as those of Dan Zabulon and Naphthali which they say are used to this day among the Tartars the Etymology of which they deduce from the Syriack Tongue signifying as much as the Remainders and that of Turk as much as an Exile in the Hebrew Language But this is contrary to the most Authentick History of those Parts who deduce the Origin of the Tartars from the Scytes the Posterity of Japhat not of Shem. And concerning the Etymology of the Words they are egregiously mistaken and it seems very strange that Paulus Venetus who lived in the Court of the Great Tartar Cham and other Travellers should not have been able to hear the least of the Danites Naphthalites c. Of the Coloniâ— sent by the Assyrian to Samaria § 9. Concerning those Colonies that were sent by the Kings of Assyria into Samaria we read thus in the Holy (o) 2 Reg. 17. v. 24. Scripture And the King of Assyria brought Men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from Hava and from Hamah and from Sepharvaim and placed them in the Cities of Samaria instead of the Children of Israel and they possessed Samaria and dwelt in the Cities thereof Among all these the Chutaei were the most celebrated according to the Testimony of (p) L. 9. c. ult Josephus Colonies says he were sent out of Persia but especially from the Country bordering upon the River Cutah who fixed their Habitations in Samaria and the other Cities of Israel § 10. The great and noble Asnaphar mentioned Of Asnaphar mentioned in the Scripture in the Holy (q) Ezr. 4. v. 10. Scripture is by Reinerus Reineccius and others taken for the same with Shalmanassar by others for Sennacherib But it appears sufficiently out of the second Verse of the same Chapter of Ezra that this Asnaphar was no other than Assarhaddon CHAP. XX. Of the Epocha of NABUCHADONOSOR who is in the Holy Scripture called Nebuchadnezzar 1. The beginning of this Epocha is to be regulated in such a manner as not to be contradictory to the Holy Scripture to the before-mentioned Catalogue of the Kings of Ptolemy or the Authentick History of Berosus 2. The 4th year of King Jehoiachim is coincident with the first year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar (a) Jer. 25. v. 1. 3. It was in the 8th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar that Jehoiachim upon the Persuasion of Jeremiah the Prophet did surrender himself to that King who carried him to Babylon (b) 2 Reg. 24. v. 12. 4. The Destruction of the City of Jerusalem hapned in the 19th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar (c) 2 Reg. â—â— v. 8 â—er 5â— v. 12. 29. 5. The 37th year after the Captivity of Jehoiachim is coincident with the first year of the Reign of Evilmerodac (d) 2 Reg. 25. v. 27. Jer. 52. v. 31. 6. And the 127th year in the Nabonassarean Epocha 7. In the same year hapned the Eclipse of the Sun according to (e) Lib. 5. Ptolemy which is coincident with the 4093 d year of the Julian Period 22 d of April From whence it may be concluded that the fiâ—st year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar was coincident with the 4106th year of the Julian Period Cyc ☉ 12. ☽ 2. 7. If therefore the 4105 years be subtracted from Any certain year given of the Jul. Period to find the beginning of this Epocha any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha and if the said 4105 years be added to the years of the Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. BEsides what the Sacred History furnishes Of the History â—f the Chaldaean Kings us withal concerning the Chaldaean Kings Ptolemy the Fragments of Berosus in Josephus Lib. 1. against Appian and those of Megasthenes in (f) Lib 9. c. 4. de praep Evang. Eusebius are such precious Monuments of Antiquity in relation to the Chaldaean Monarchy as are not sufficiently to he valued § 2. Johannes Annius an Italian Monk seeing Of the supposititious Writâ—ngs publâ—shed by Annius that the Books of Berosus Megasthenes and Manethon were in great Esteem among the Learned did endeavour to impose some fictitious Pieces under their Names upon the World to wit his Commentary upon the five Books of Berosus of the Antiquity of the World Manethon's Supplement to Berosus Megasthenes his Annals of Persia c. But his Imposture has been discover'd long ago especially by the difference there appears betwixt his Chronological Computations and those extant in the Fragments of Berosus and Megasthenes § 3. The Etymology of Nebuchadnezzar some deduce from the Chaldaean NABO which signifies Of the Etymology of Nebuchadnezzar as much as an Idol in like manner as of the Words Nebuzaradan Nabonides Nergal Sharezer c. § 4. Funccius Moestlinus and Hainlinus are of Whether Nebuchadnezzar and Nabopolassar are the same Opinion that Shalmanassar of whom Mention is made in the Holy Scripture is the same with Nabonassar mentioned by Ptolemy and that the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity ought to be fixed to the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem and consequently to the 19th year of the Reign of Nabopolassar But it is
the Reign of Darius Hystalpes being the 58th since the Beginning of the Reign of Cyrus in Persia is coincident with the 246th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha when there hapned another Eclipse of the Moon according to Ptolemy 6. The 31st year of the same Darius Hystaspes or the 69th since the beginning of the Persian Epocha of Cyrus was the 257th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha when according to Ptolemy there hapned another Eclipse of the Moon 7. The ancient Persian Empire to reckon from the first year of the Reign of Cyrus did stand 728 years according to Agathias From these Characters we conclude that the first year of the Reign of Cyrus was coincident with the 4155 year of the Julian Period or at least with the latter End of the 4154th year Cycl ☉ 10. ☽ 13. If therefore 4154 years be subtracted from any certain To investigate the year since the beginning of this Epocha year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of the Persian Epocha of Cyrus Or if 4154 years be added to the known year of the said Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. BEroaldus with some others is of Opinion Of the Vncertainty of the ancient Persian History that the ancient History of the Persian Empire is involved in so many fictitious Relations by the Greeks that it is less difficult in our Eye to judge of the Truth of that History than it was at the times of Herodotus Josephus Manetho Megasthenes or Ctesias to whom we are beholding for the most ancient Monuments of Antiquity in the Persian History Yet they seem to be too severe in their Judgment it being beyond all question that these as well as many others of the ancient prophane Historians have confirmed their Computations by undeniable Celestial Characters and therefore not to be absolutely rejected by reason of the Mixture of some fabulous Relations § 2. There is not any other Epocha which is Of the Certainty of the Beginning of this Epocha so well established by the General Consent of all the ancient Historians in reference to the time of the Olympiad than the Persian Epocha of Cyrus who all agree that Cyrus began his Reign in Persia at the time when the fifty five Olympiad Games were celebrated in Gracia § 3. But concerning the time of his Reign Of the Reign of Cyrus and of his Death there are various Opinions Lucianus allots him a hundred years and (c) Lib. 1. de Diâ—in Cicero threescore and ten of which he reign'd 30 years But as this Epocha is founded upon the time of his Reign So it is sufficient for us to know that according to Ctesias Dionysius Justin Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus Cyrus reigned in all 30 years Herodotus speaks of 29 and Sulpitius of 31 years § 4. There is a remarkable Difference betwixt the Chronological Computations of Xenophon Concerning the different Opinions of Xenophon and Herodotus about Cyrus and Herodotus concerning the Reign of Cyrus For Xenophon makes Astyages the last but one among the Median Kings whereas Herodotus affirms him to have been the last Xenophon relates that Astyages died in Peace when Cyrus was but very young leaving the Kingdom to his Son Cyaxares but Herodotus says that Cyrus conquered Astyages Xenophon says that the Father of Cyrus was one of the Princes of Persia descended from Perseus and that he had all the Advantages of a most generous Education in his Father's and Grandfather's Court whereas Herodotus makes him the Son of one Cambyses of an ignoble Birth and that without the Knowledge of his Grandfather he was educated among the Shepherds Xenophon allots no more than 11 years for the Reign of Cyrus but Herodotus 29. The first says he died upon his Bed the last that he was slain in the War against Tomyris the Queen of the Massagetes In answer to which we will alledge the Words of Cicero Cyropoedia Xenophontis non ad fidem historicam sea ad effigiem justi imperii atque optimi principis est conscripta § 5. The Dispute is no less great among the Of the Succession of Cyrus and Daratron of the Persian Empire Chronologers concerning the Succession and true Computation of the years of the Persian Monarchs in order to reconcile the Prophane History with the Sacred Writ The Jews allow of no more than four Persian Kings mentioned in the Scripsures Beroaldus and his Followers don't contract the Persian Monarchy into so narrow a Compass allowing 130 years to this Empire but cannot agree in the Chronological Computation and what Character to allot to each of these Monarchs as may be seen out of the following Table set down by Beroaldus Cyrus Major 2. Assuerus Artaxerxes 3. Darius Assyrius 4. Artaxerxes Pius 5. Xerxes the Terror of Greece 6. Artaxerxes Longimanus 7. Darius Nothus 8. Artaxerxes Mnemon 9. Ochus 10. Arses otherwise Arsanes 11. Darius Codomannus Brother of Arsanus Son of Ochus But if we follow the Footsteps of the Ptolemean Catalogue of Herodotus Thucydides Ctesiâ—â— Justin Diodorus Berosus and many others the following Table gives an exact Account of the Succession and Chronology of the Persian Kings  Compleat Years 1. Cyrus Major 29 2. Cambyses cum Magis 8 3. Darius Hydaspes 34 4. Xerxes 21 5. Artaxerxes Longimanus 43 6. Darius Nothus 19 7. Artaxerxes Mnemon 43 8. Ochus 23 9. Arses 3 10. Darius Codomannus 5 The Total Sum of the Years of the Persian Kings 228 § 6. The Character mentioned by (d) In Vit. Alexand. Of thâ— last Period of the Persian Monarchy Plutarch in the last year of the Reign of Darius Codomannus much strengthens our Opinion concerning the Duration of the Persian Empire For he says That at that very time when the last Battle was fought betwixt Darius and Alexander there hapned an Eclipse of the Moon which according to the true Astronomical Calculation was in the 446th Olympian Year or in the second year of the 112d Olympiad on the twentieth day of September which evidently proves the Mistake of Beroaldus who affirms that the Death of Darius hapned in the first year of the 113th Olympiad If therefore a true Balance be made betwixt the 217th Olympian Year being the first of the 55th Olympiad when Cyrus began to reign in Persia and the 446th Olympian Year it will demonstratively appear that the Persian Empire according to our Assertion flourished about 228 or 229 years CHAP. XXIV Of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus and the End of the first Monarchy 1. Cyrus put an End to the first Monarchy by the Conquest of Babylon under the Reign of Darius Medus who being called in prophane History Nabonnedus succeeded Balthasar in the Babylonian Empire according to Berosus Herodotus Ptolemy and many others 2. Cyrus marched with a vast Army out of Persia and after having carried Fire and Sword thro' Asia attack'd Babylon in the 17th year
of Nabonnedus according to Berosus 3. From the first year of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus till the beginning of the Reign of Cambyses according to the Celestial Characters mentioned by Ptolemy are accounted 9 years 4. From the beginning of the Nabonassarean Epocha till the time of Cyrus are accounted by Ptolemy 209 years From these Characters it is concluded that the first year of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus mention'd in Prophane History was coincident with the 4176th year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 4. ☽ 15. If therefore 4175 years be added to any certain year To find out the year since the Beginning of this Epocha of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus according to the Calculation of the Prophane Historians the Product will shew the year of the Julian Period And if the said 4175 years be subtracted from the known year of the Julian Period the Residue will shew the year since the Beginning of this Epocha § 1. THere are some who don 't allow of any Whether the Babylonian and Persian Epocha of Cyrus be the same difference betwixt the Persian and Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus but maintain that in one and the same year he made himself Master of Persia Media Assyria and Babylon which being repugnant to all the best Monuments of Antiquity it is a Wonder to me how some among the Learned could be misguided into this Opinion § 2. There are some who affirm that Balthasar Whether Balthasar was the last King of Babylon was the last King of Babylon who was vanquished by Cyrus in Conjunction with Darius the King of the Medes being misguided by the Authority of (a) Lib. 10. c. 12. Ant. Josepus whose Words are as follows Abilamerodach died in the 18th year of his Reign and was succeeded by his Son Niglisar who reigned 40 years After his Death succeeded his Son Labosordach who dying about 9 Months after the Kingdom was devolved to Balthasar whom the Babylonians call Naboandel He was engaged in a bloody War against Cyrus King of Persia and Darius King of Media and whilst he was besieg'd in Babylon was surprised by a most prodigious Vision and not long after both Balthasar and the City fell into the Hands of Cyrus King of Persia who took Babylon in the 17th year of the Reign of Balthasar c. But Josephus is mistaken in this Relation as may appear out of the Fragments of the true Berosus inserted by (b) Lib. 1. contra App. Josephus himself For Labosordach mentioned by Josephus is the same with Balthasar Neither hapned the Conquest of Cyrus under his Reign Neither did Darius the Median conquer the Kingdom of Babylon But according to Berosus and Megasthenes was declared King of the Babylonian Empire § 3. It is also called in Question by some whether Darius the Median mentioned in the Scripture Whether Darius Medus is the same with Nabonnidus is the same with Nabonnidus mentioned by Herodotus and other Historians because that Nabonnidus is called by Berosus the Babylonian but Darius is surnamed in the Scripture the Median But since Darius is mentioned in the Scripture as the immediate Successour of Belsazar who in prophane History is called Labosoradach and that the other Historians have made Nabonnidus or Laponytus as Herodotus calls him it seems more than probable that these two Names belong to one and the same Person especially since Megasthenes says of the Babylonians They declared Nabonnichus a Foreigner their King § 4. Henricus Buntingus with some others Of the Opinion of Xenophon concerning Darius Medus relying upon the Authority of Xenophon would make this Darius Medus the same with Cyaxares mentioned in prophane History But concerning the Authority of Xenophon we have spoke sufficiently before § 5. There are also many learned Authors who being misled by Josephus would have this Darius Medus was not the Son of Astyages Darius to have been the Son and Successor of Astyages and Uncle to Cyrus But tho' Darius was originally of Media (c) Dâ—n 9. ver 1. yet he is not called King of Media but of Chaldaea And Justin sufficiently contradicts this Opinion when he says Astyages had no Male Issue § 6. According to Berosus whose Fragments are inserted by Josephus Cyrus after he had vanquished Of the Conquest of Babylon Darius besieged the City of Babylon which being well provided with Provisions sufficient to sustain a long Siege the Inhabitants bid Defiance to the Persians who at last having found means to drain the River of Euphrates which runs through the City by diverting its Course into the adjacent Marshes surprised the City Herodotus relates that the Persians the better to put their Design in Execution had pitch'd upon a Day which being one of the Festivals among the Babylonians they were bufied in Dancing and other Jollities The Prophet (d) Cap. 44 v. 27. Isaiah seems to have foretold this Derivation of the River of Euphrates when he says of Cyrus That saith to the Deep be dry and I will dry up thy Rivers as the Conquest of Babylon in the Absence of their King was foretold by (e) C. 51. v. 31. Jeremiah One Post shall run to meet another and one Messenger to meet another to shew the King of Babylon that his City is taken at one End and that the Passages are stopâ— and the Reeds they have burnt with Fire and the Men of War are affrighted c. § 7. There is also a Contest among the Chronologers Whether Cyrus conquered Babylon before Croesus whether Cyrus conquer'd the Babylonian Empire after he had vanquished Croesus or before Justin relates that Croesus assisted the Babylonians against Cyrus who after the Conquest of Babylon marched into Lydia against Croesus who was vanquished and taken Prisoner by him But Herodotus says expresly that Cyrus vanquished Croesus before the Conquest of Babylon and Eusebius (f) Chronic. and Julius Solinus Cap. 7. agree in Opinion that the Conquest of Lydia hapned in the first year of the 58th Olympiad (g) C. 25. v. 26. Jeremiah seems to favour the last when after he had mentioned all the other Kings before he says thus of the King of Babylon And the King of Sheshach shall drink after them § 8. Some of the Chronologers make the first Of the first year of Cores mentâ—on'd in the Scriptures year of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus coincident with the same year which is in the Scriptures called the First Year of Cores They alledge in their behalf that to reckon backwards from the fourth year of King Jehoiachim when according to the Opinion of some the Flower of the Jewish Nation was carried into Captivity by Nebuchadnezzar to the first year of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus compleats exactly the time of 70 years and that the Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus and his Deliverance of the Jews out of their Captivity is agreeable to the Prophecy of (h) C. 25. v. 12. Jeremiah
would deduce its Origin not from the time of this solemn Edict or Commandment but from that time when God foretold the rebuilding of the Temple and City by the Prophet But the Jews make themselves most ridiculous in that to invalidate the Arguments of the Christians by which they prove from this Prophecy that the Messias is already come they pretend to put this fictitious Computation upon the World that the Weeks of Daniel ought to begin with the Destruction of the first and end with the Destruction of the second Temple so that the 70 years of their Captivity during which time the Temple remained desolate is to be added to 410 years which they say is the time the 2d Temple has stood as may be seen in their Chron. Major in Rabbi Isaac Abarbinel Rabbi Isaac Ben Abraham and others of the same Stamp This Opinion is contradictory to the express Words of the Angel That from the going forth of the Commandment to restore the City these 70 Weeks are to be computed Besides that it is l Cap. 9. v. 17. absolutely false that there is an Interval of 490 years betwixt the Destruction of the first and the second Temple For as has been sufficiently demonstrated before n the Destruction of the first Temple hapned in the Year of the Julian Period 4124 whereas the second Temple was laid in Ashes in the Year of the Julian Period 4783 so that the whole Interval amounts to no less than 659 years It is also quite beyond the Purpose when the Jews pretend to explain the Words of the Angel concerning the Messiah of King Cyrus For tho' we read in (o) C. 45. v. 1. Isaiah Thus said the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus no Infetence is to be made from thence that the Word Messiah either by it self or with such Attributes as occur in this Passage of Daniel are ever applied in the Scripture to any Earthly Prince See D. Mulleri Judaism c. 10. and Constantini L'Empereur Annotat. ad Jachiâ—d § 5. We read of four several Edicts concerning Four several Edicts concerning the Rebuilding of the City occur in the Scripture the Restauration of the Jews and the Rebuilding of the Temple and City in the Holy Scripture The first we meet with is in (p) C. 1. v. 1. Ezra In the first Year of Cyrus King of Persia that the Word of the Lord by the Mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled the Lord stirred up the Spirit of Cyrus King of Persia that he made a Proclamation throughout all his Kingdom and put it also in Writing saying Thus said Cyrus King of Persia The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdoms of the Earth and he hath charged me to build him an House at Jerusalem which is in Judah Who is there among you of all his People His God be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah and build the House of the Lord God of Israel he is the God which m Ch. 22. is in Jerusalem c. The same Words we read also in the (q) C. 6. â— â—2 2â— Chronicles pursuant to the Prophecy of (r) C. â—â— Isaiah The second Mandate or Edict concerning this Restitution is describ'd likewise by (s) C 6. v. â—â— 11. 12. Ezra which being sent by Darius in the same year that the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah began to prophesie to the Governours beyond the River contains the following Words Let the Work of this House of God alone Let the Governour of the Jews and the Elders of the Jews build this House of God in his Place c. Also I have made a Decree that whosoever shall alter this Word let Timber be pulled down from his House and being set up let him be hanged thereon and let his House be made a Dunghil for this And the God that hath caused his Name to dwel there destroy all Kings and People that shall put to their Hand to alter and to destroy this House of God which is at Jerusalem I Darius have made a Decree let it be done with speed And the Prophecies of Hâ—ggai and Zachariah cited by Ezra mention expresly the second Year of Darius and the Month. for thus we read in Haggai Chap. 1. v. 1. seq In the second Year of Darius the King in the sixth Month in the first Day of the Month â—â—me the Word of the Lord by Haggai the Prophet unto Zetubbabel the Son of Shealtiel Governour of Judah and to Joshua the Son of Josedech the High Priest saying thus saith the Lâ—rd of Hosts c. Go up to the Mountain and bring Wood and build the House and I will take Pleasure in it and I will be glorified said the Lord The same Mandate is repeated by (t) C. 1. v 1. Zâ—chariah in the eighth Month of the same second Year of Darius when pursuant to God's Commandment and the Decree of the Persian King the Work was happily brought to Perfection according to the Words of Ezra (u) C. â— v. 15 16. And this House was finished on the third Day of the Month Adar which was in the sixth year of the Reign of Darius the King And the Children of Israel the Priests and the Levites and the rest of the Children of the Captivity kept the Dedication of this House with Joy The third Edict is likewise described by (x) C. 7. v. â— sâ—qâ— Ezra This Ezra went up from Babylon and the King granted him all his Request according to the Hand of the Lord his God upon him And there went up some of the Children of Israel and of the Priests and the Levites and the Singers and the Porters and the Nethinims unto Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes the King And he came to Jerusalem in the 5th Month which was in the 7th Year of the King This Decree of King Artaxerxes granâ—s full Liberty to the Jews to return to Jerusalem and exempts all the Priests Levites and other Ministers of the House of God from Toll Tribute or Custom The fourth Edict concerned particularly Nehemiah (y) Ezr. â— v. 13. 24. who in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes got leave to go to Jerusalem with the King's Letter to the Governours beyond the River and unto Asaph the Keeper of the King's Forests that he should give the Jews Timber to make Beams for the Gates â—f the Palace which appeâ—tâ—ineth to the House and for the Wall of the City and for the House he was to enter into as may be seen more at large in Nehemiah Chap. 2. from the 1st to the 9th Verse And these are the four several Mandates concerning the Restauration of the Jews and the Rebuilding of the Temple and City unto one of which the Beginning of these 70 Weeks mâ—st be fixed For the better understanding of the different Opinions of the Chronologers concerning the Time and Reigns of these Kings unto whom the said Mandates are ascribed we have
given you in the following Table a Catalogue of the Persian Kings according to the Computation of Ptolemy the Manuscript of which was first found at London in England and from thence sent over into Germany by Mr. Overall We have added the years of the Julian Period and all those Passages in the holy Scripture where mention is made according to our Opinion of these Kings An. Reg. In. Per. Jul. Cyrus 9 4176 Ezr. c. 1. v. 1. Cambyses 8 4185 Dan. c. 11. v. 2. Magus Darius Hystaspis 36 4193 Dan. c. 11. v. 2. Xerxes I. 21 4229 Dan. c. 11. v. 2. Ezr. c. 4. v. 6. Est c. 1. v. 1. Artaxerxes I. iâ— Longimanus 41 4250 Ezr. c. 4. v. 7. Darius II. five Nothus 19 4291 Ez. c. 4. v. 24. c. 6. v. 12. Hag. c. 1. v. 1. Zec. c. 1. v. 1. Artaxerxes II. or Mnemon 46 4310 Ezr. c. 7. v. 1. 12. Neh. c. 2. v. 1. Ochus 21 4356  Arostus or Arses 2 4377  Darius III. or Codomannus 4 4379 Neh. c. 12. v. 22. § 6. There are not a few both among the Ancient Whether the Beginning of this Epocha ought to be fixed to the time of the Solution of the Babylonian Captivity and Modern â—nterpreters who would have this Epocha of the 70 Weeks begin from the time of the Edict of Cyrus of which mention is made by (z) C 1. v. 1. sequ Ezra and in the (a) 2 Chr. c. 3â— v. 23. Chronicles Among the Ancients Clement of Alexandria patronizes this Opinion before all others and of the Modern Authors David Paraeus Constantine L'Empereur and (b) Chr Sacr. p. 183. Johannes Wichmannus especially (c) Chr. l. 3. c. 7. Matthaeus Beroaldus and Beroaldus Broughton an Englishman unto which Opinion also the Dutch Interpreters seem to incline as appears out of their Original Annotations heretofore mentioned but without any Probability of Truth For first the Prophecy mentions such a Decree as was to be put in Execution from the very beginning of these 70 Weeks And it is evident that the Mandate of Cyrus did not take immediately the intended Effect as may be seen in (d) C. 4. v 4. 5. Ezra when he says The People of the Land weakened the Hands of the People of Judah and troubled them in building and hired Councellours against them to frustrate their Purpose all the Days of Cyrus King of Persia even unto the Reign of Danius King of Persia It was 2dly foretold by the Angel that the Streets and the Walls of the City were to be built again in the space of the 7 first Weeks which it is evident was not accomplished in 49 years after the Edict of Cyrus for thâ— we should allow never so many years to the Reign of Cyrus after the Solution of the Babylonian Captivity it will nevertheless be impossible to make the Time when Nehemiah finish'd the Walls in the 32d year of the Reign of Artaxerxes fall within the Compass of seven Annual Weeks or 49 Years See Nehemiah c. 13. v. 6. 3dly The whole Structure of Beroaldus's Artificial Hypothesis is built upon a very weak Foundation to wit that the End of these 70 Weeks is to be compleated with the Death of Christ contrary to the Intention of the Angel when he says of this Interval Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People and upon thy Holy City 4thly Unless we will positively contradict all the Persian Greek and Roman Annals it is impossible to reduce the Interval from Cyrus till the Passion of Christ to 490 years For supposing with Beroaldus that Christ suffered in the 33d year of his Age in the 4th year of the 202d Olympiad in the year 784 from the Building of the City of Rome in the 18th year of the Reign of Tiberius in the year of the World 3961. Supposing I say that according to the Synchronisms of Beroaldus Christ suffered in the year of the Julian Period 4745 the Beginning of these 70 Weeks and according to the Hypothesis of Beroaldus the Solution of the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews must be coincident with the year of the Julian Period 4255 when Cyrus was dead long before the Interval from the Beginning of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus till the 18th year of the Reign of the Emperour Tiberius comprehending no less than 569 years as most evidently appears out of the following Table According to the Computation of Ptolemy strengthened by innumerable Chronological Characters it appears that  Years Cyrus reigned 9 Cambyses reigned 8 Darius I. reigned 36 Xerxes reigned 21 Artaxerxes I. reigned 41 Darius II. reigned 19 Artaxerxes II. reigned 4â— Ochus reigned 21 Arostus reigned 2 Darius III. reigned 4 Alexander the Great reigned 8 Philippus Aridaeus reigned 7 Alexander reigned 12 Ptolemaeus Lagus reigned 20 Ptolemaeus Phiâ—adelphus reigned 38 Evergeâ—es reigned 25 Philopater reigned â—7 Epiphanus reigned 24 Philomater reigned 35 Evergeâ—es II. reigned 29 Soter reigned 36 Dionysius reigned 29 Cleopatra reigned 22 Augustus reigned 43 Tiberius reigned 17  Sum 569 § 7. Those who pretend to fix the Beginning Some reject the Authority of the ancient Hâ—storians concerning the Persian Monarchs of these 70 Annual Weeks to the first year of Cyrus and their End to the time of the Passion of Christ make use of this Method that they reject the Authority of all the most ancient prophane History and allow of no other Persian Kings but what are mentioned in the Sacred History of these Times (e) 〈◊〉 3. cap. 8. Beroaldus says thus Both out Modern and Ancient Prophane Historians are ignorant of the time of the Persian Monarchy or how many Kings swayed the Sceptre over that vast Empire as is very evident from their various and dubious Relations But we that are informed by the Holy Scripture concerning the first Persian Monarchs and know the rest out of the Ancient Monuments of Prophane History are in a better Capacity to give a solid Judgment of these Times than ever could be expected from Herodotus Josephus Manctho Metasthenes or Ctesias upon whose Authority the most rely upon in the History of these Times And there are others also who are more rigorous in their Judgment in not allowing the Ancient Monuments of Prophane History the least Certainty as to this Point and denying every thing that is not expresly mention'd concerning these Monarchs in the Sacred History We don 't in the least blame these Authors for extolling and maintaining the Authority of the Sacred History but judge it more safe to keep the middle Way For it would be of very ill Consequence under the specious Pretence of a pious Intention to reject such things as have been received by the joint Consent of most Historians and Chronologers and to call in question the whole Histories of those Historians who lived next to these times to wit Herodotus Thucydides Xenophon Ctesias Cnidius whose Monuments are transmitted to Posterity and remaining to this day or Theopompus Ephorus
at it there being not wanting Examples in the Holy Scripture that several Persons but especially Those whom God had chosen Instruments to rule his People and Church have lived above 130 years And don 't we see in our Age some who attain to the Age of 120 years and are in their full Senses But what is most remarkable is that Petavius who is the main Champion against ours and Scaliger's Opinion and looks upon the Age of Zorobabel as a thing very improbable is very liberal in attributing at least the same Age to Sanballat For (z) Lib. 13. de Doctr. Temp. Petavius himself makes Nehemiah's Journey into Palaestine coincident with the 4259th year of the Julian Period and it is evident out of (a) C. 4. Nehemiah that the before-mentioned Sanballat flourished about the same time Now according to Petavius's own Hypothesis Alexander besieged Tyrus in the year of the Julian Period 4382 so that from the time of Nehemiah's Journey into Palaestine when Sanballat flourished till the taking of Tyrus after a Siege of 7 Months are to be accounted 123 years For the before-named Sanballat assisted in the Siege of Tyrus and died not long after in Alexander's Camp in the Siege of Gaza as may be seen more at large in (b) L. 12. c. â— Ant. Josephus From whence it is evident that supposing this Sanballat but 27 years old at the time of Nehemiah's Journey into Palaestine he was 150 years old when he died and consequently Petavius contradicts his own Opinion But there is something peculiar in the Age of Zorobabel and Joshua which is so far from carrying with it the least Improbability that long Life was promised as a particular Benefit from God to all such as should return from the Babylonian Captivity according to c Zechariah Thus saith the LORD of Hosts There shall yet old Men and old Women dwell in the Streets of Jerusalem and every Man with his Staff in his hand for very Age. Many Examples might be produced of such Persons as have lived to a great Age in Scaliger's Behalf But for Shortness â— C. â— v. 4. sake we are willing to pass them by in Silence and refer the Reader to other Historians § 10. Those who pretend that the Son of The Interval of above 100 years is not contradictory to our Opinion Darius Hydaspis is to be understood in the above-mentioned Passages of Ezra and the other Prophets alledge against us that it is very improbable that the Inhabitants of the Country should have nourished their Hatred against the Jews for 110 years this being the Interval from the Edict of Cyrus to the 2d year of the Reign of Darius Nothus But I cannot see the least Improbability why the Inhabitants of the Country who were profess'd Enemies of the Jews and envious of their Prosperity should not have propagated their Hatred to their Posterity Wherefore I cannot but agree once more with (d) L. 6 p. 594. de Em. Temp. Scaliger That since Nehemiah himself confesses that in the 20th year of the Reign of Artaxerxes he was for a considerable time employed in searching into and finding out the true Genealogies of such of the Jews as returned with Zorobabel and that the same is confirmed by Ezra who says that Darius Nothus ordered the Royal Libraries and Records to be searched to find out the Edict of Cyrus Nothing can be more evident than that there were a very few living at that time of those who returned with Zorobabel that could give a verbal Account of their Descent and that the Edict of â—rrus was of so ancient a Date as to be past the Memory of Men. § 11. Those who are not pleased with Scaliger's Whether the Passage in Zechariah be contradictâ—â—â—â— to 〈…〉 Chronological Computation alledge among other Matters against him that the following Passage in (e) C. 1. v. 12. Zechariah contradicts his Hypothesis concerning Darius Then the Angel of the LORD answered and said O LORD of Hosts how long wilt thou not have Mercy on Jerusalem and on the Cities of Judah against which thou hast had Indignation these threescore and ten years From whence they draw the following Consequence That since from the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem till the second year of Darius Nothus are elapsed above 70 years the Restauration of the Temple is not to be referred to that King's Reign But Scaliger has answered them very well that this Passage of Zechariah is as little agreeable to their Opinion concerning Darius Hydaspis since these 70 years differ as well from the time of Darius Hydaspis as of the second year of Darius Nothus He adds therefore that those 70 years of which mention is made by the Angel in Zechariah begin about the 29th or 30th year of the Reign of Darius Hydaspis when the Jews were forely oppressed by their Enemies and their Condition grew worse after the Death of the said Darius about the beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes as may be seen more at large in (f) C. 4. v. 5. c. 6. Ezra § 12. And thus having given you an Account of The Beginning of the 70 Weeks is to be fixed in the 2 d year of Darius Nothus the different Opinions among the Chronologers concerning Darius we will now proceed to the main Point in question and endeavour to prove by the following Arguments that the Beginning of this Interval of the 70 Annual Weeks ought to be made coincident with the second year of Darius Nothus 1. At what time was issued the most solemn and peremptory Mandat of the Restauration of the City and the Sanctuary in respect of which she is called the Holy City which was put in Execution accordingly from that time ought to begin the Computation of the 70 Weeks mention'd in Daniel But in the second year of the Reign of Darius Nothus such a solemn and peremptory Mandat was issued forth Therefore the 70 Weeks mentioned in Daniel c. The Major Proposition is evident from the Words of the Angel It was requisite that that same Edict from the issuing forth of which were to begin these 70 Weeks should have some peculiar Prerogative above all the others which was that pursuant to this Edict the Jews rebuilt their City and Temple which they had not been able to effect hitherto tho' back'd by others The Minor Proposition is sufficiently proved out of Haggai Zachariah and Ezra from whence it is evident that the Decree made in the second year of Darius Nothus was the most solemn Edict in respect of God who caused the same to be published by the Prophets Haggai and Zachariah in respect of the King of Persia who not only positively commanded the Restauration of the Temple but also threatned those who should oppose the Jews in this Undertaking and likewise furnished the necessary Charges and lastly in respect of the happy Success which was owing to the Decree of Darius it being said in
is the same of whom it is said that he obstructed the Rebuilding of the Temple and by his Edicts shewed himself an Enemy to the Jews Therefore Artaxerxes Longimanus c. The Major Proposition proves it self The Minor is evident from the Words of Ezra cited before out of his 4th Chapter 3. The same Artasasta or Artaxerxes from whose Reign till the time of Alexander the Great there is a larger Interval of Years than is suitable to the Age of Men and particularly to that of Sanballat and Nehemiah according to the Judgment of those of a contrary Opinion is not to be supposed to be the same mentioned by Ezra and Nehemiah But from the Reign of Artaxerxes sirnamed Longimanus till the time of Alexander the Great there is a larger Interval of Years than is suitable to the Age of Men but especially to that of Sanballat and Nehemiah even according to the Judgment of those of a contrary Opinion Therefore Artaxerxes Longimanus c. The Major Proposition is 1st evident from thence that Sanballat did flourish in the time of Nehemiah (p) Neh. 4. Jos Lib. 12. c. 8. Ant. about the year of the Reign of Artaxerxes XXVI and likewise served under Alexander the Great 2dly That Nehemiah was also living still about the time of Alexander the Great is manifest from thence that he makes mention in his 12th Chapter in the 11th Verse of Jaddua whose meeting with Alexander the Great is famous among the Jews Corn. à Lapide and his Adherents have found out this Exception That this part of the Book of Nehemiah was not writ till after his Death and that Nehemiah might have seen Jaddua not when he was High Priest but when as yet in his tender Years But the first Objection has not so much as the least Probability in it the whole Content of the Words of Nehemiah sufficiently evincing that both the preceding and following Words of the Relation concerning Jaddua could be writ by no body but Nehemiah himself And which way can it rationally be supposed that Nehemiah did not know Jaddua when it is expresly said that he removed Manasseh the Brother of Jaddua from his Person because he was Son-in-Law to Sanballat See Nehemiah Chapt. 13. v. 28. and Josephus Lib. 13. But to take away all further Scruple it is said These were the chief Men in the time of Nehemiah And what is more absurd and ridiculous than to suppose that Children were inserted in the Catalogue of the Principal Men. The Minor Proposition is proved by the Interval of Time betwixt Artaxerxes Longimanus and Alexander the Great For supposing Sanballat to have been 30 years of Age in the 20th year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus by adding the several Years of the Reigns of the Persian Kings to it according to the Catalogue of these Kings we may without much Difficulty investigate the Age of both these Persons In the 20th year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus Nehemiah and Sanballat are supposed to be 30 years of Age. Add to these the remaining Part of Artaxerxes Longimanus his Reign Years  21 The Reign of Darius Nothus 19 Of Artaxerxes Memor 46 Of Ochus 21 Of Arostus 2 Of Darius Codemannus 4 Thus Nehemiah and Sanballat at the time of Alexander the Great were 143 Years of Age. 4. The same Artaxerxes is understood by Ezra and Nehemiah from the 20th year of whose Reign to count backwards to Cyrus are elapsed so many years as are sufficient to obliterate the Genealogies of those that returned out of the Babylonian Captivity But this may fitly be applied to Artaxerxes Memor Therefore c. The Major Proposition is proved out of the 7th Chapter of Nehemiah The Minor derives its Certainty from the before-mentioned Catalogue Neither have our Adversaries any thing else to object against this Argument but the Longaevity of Nehemiah and Sanballat which has been sufficiently answered before § 14. Joh. Funccius Henr. Buntingus Lansbergius Whether this Computation of Daniâ—l ought to begin with the time of the Edict of the 7th year of Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezr. 7. v. 6. and many of their Followers are of Opinion that the beginning of these 70 Weeks ought to be fixed to the time of the Edict of the 7th year of Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra Funccius appoints its Beginning exactly on the 12th day of March when Ezra and the Jews began their Journey from the River Ahava towards Jerusalem but their Hypothesis is founded upon a wrong Basis by confounding Artax Longimanus with Artax Memor Besides that in the 7th year of this Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra understand which of the two you will no particular Command or Edict was issu'd for rebuilding the Temple and Holy City but only for the Return of the Remainders of the Jews to Jerusalem under the Direction of Ezra And since according to their own Hypothesis the Structure of the Temple was compleated before to wit in the 6th year of the Reign of Darius Hystaspis it is evident that this Edict cannot have any Relation to that mentioned by the (r) Daniel 9. ver 25. Angel Lansbergius to avoid this Contradiction has invented this Expedient That the two several Mandates or Edicts issued by Artaxerxes one in the 7th year of his Reign concerning the RESTAVRATION of the Jews under the Direction of Ezra the other in the 20th year of his Reign concerning the Rebuilding of JERVSALEM under the Direction of Nehemiah ought to be joined together and what is wanting in one to accommodate the whole to the Words of the Angel must be supplied out of the other But how can it be conceived that a certain Number of Years can be determined and fixed to the End of a certain Term beginning from such different times as is the 7th and 20th years of Artaxerxes This Arithmetical Nicety of Lansbergius I confess is past my Apprehension nothing being more certain than that those who attribute a double Beginning to these 70 Weeks must at the same time acknowledge a double Period or End which is contradictory to the Words of the Angel who mentions only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Edict or Mandate not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edicts § 15. Africanus and Theodoretus and among our Whether the Beginning of this Computation is to be fixt 〈◊〉 time of the 20th year of Artaxerxes Modern Authors Tho. Lydiott Joh. Temporarius Corn. à Lapide Joh. Vossius and others who interpret the Words in Ezra and Nehemiah of Artasasta or Artax Longimanus begin this Epocha of the 70 Weeks with the 20th year of this Reign when Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem to rebuild the Walls and Gates of the City But above all the rest (Å¿) L. 12. c. 32. de Doct. Temp. Dionys Petav. patronizes this Opinion which however he explains in a peculiar manner We do says he agree for the most part with those who begin these 70 Weeks with the 20th Year of the Reign of
five after he had caused his Son Antipater to be slain He reigned in all forty years Chron. Temp. Sec. 8. The 18th year of the Reign of Herod was the 15th year after his taking the City of Jerusalem and in the same year he began to rebuild the Temple which he had caused to be pulled down before See (g) L. 17. c. 10. Ant. Josephus 9. The Days that Herod reigned over all the Jews are 37 years and Herod died a Man who had been very prosperous in his Vndertakings These are the Words of the Hebrew Text of (h) L. 5. c. 41. Josephus translated by Sebastianus Munsterus from the Constantinopolitan Copy and published by Hen. Petrus in the year 1540 at Basil For the true time of the Beginning of the Reign of Herod over all the Jews must be computed from his taking the City of Jerusalem 10. When Herod 's Recovery was despaired of Judas Sariphaeus and Matthias Margalothus made their Attempt upon the Golden Eagle for which they and their Adherents were burnt alive And in the same Night hapned a Lunar Eclipse and the King grew worse See (i) L. 17. c. 8. Josephus Another such Eclipse hapned a year before the vulgar Epocha of Christ 11. The Tyrant died not many Months before the Feast of the Passover For Archelaus who by the last Will of Herod was appointed his Successour in the Kingdom did engage at the time of the Feast of the Passover with those that were risen in Rebellion to revenge the Death of Matthias and his Friends of whom after he had slain several thousands he ordered that all such as by reason of the Feast were come to Jerusalem should return to their Homes See (k) L 17. c. 11. Josephus 12. Our Saviour's Birth and the Murder of the Children of Bethlem under two years of Age of which mention is made in (l) c. 2. v. 16. Matthew hapned before the Death of Herod 13. Archelaus before he had reigned quite 9 years was despoiled of the Kingdom and banish'd into France (m) Jos l. 2. c. 6. de Bell. Jud. after which Judaea from being a Kingdom being annexed to the Province of Syria Quirinus or Cyrenus was sent thither as Governour to take their Inhabitants and to dispose of the private Estate of Archelaus Quirinus brought along with him Coponius a Commander of a Body of Horse unto whom he left the Administration of Affairs in Judaea (n) Jos l. 17. c. 1. It was in the 37th year after the Battle of Actium and the taking of Alexandria (o) Jos l. 18. c. 3. that this Taxation was made which is coincident with the 7th or 8th year of the vulgar Aera of Christ According to these Characters we conclude that the time of Herod is to be regulated in the following manner He was made Prince of Galilea about the year of the Julian Period 4667. 2. He was declared King at Rome in the Year of the Jul. Period 4674. 3. He conquered Jerusalem in the year of the Jul. Period 4684. 4. Augustus confirmed his Reign in the year of the Jul. Period 4684. 5. He rebuilt the Temple of Jerusalem about the year of the Jul. Period 4691. 6. He died in the year of the Jul. Period 4713. before the Feast of the Passover 7. His Successour was banished about the year of the Jul. Period 4721. If therefore any certain year of the Julian Period be given subtract from that year for the Beginning of the Princely Dignity of Herod 4666 years for the Beginning of his Reign 4673. years for his Conquest of Jerusalem 4676 years for his being confirmed in the Kingdom by Augustus 4683 years for the Rebuilding of the Temple 4690 years for his Death 4712 years for the Banishment of Archelaus 4720 years And if the same Numbers which have been subtracted be added to the several years known by the Residues the Products will be correspondent to the years of the Jul. Period § 1. NIch. Damascenus who was a familiar Friend Of the Family of Herod of Herod himself traces his Origin from the Babylonian Jews which tho' it has been contradicted by Josephus yet has been embrac'd by the Author of the Hebrew History cited by (p) Ad Sulp. Sever. p. 250. Drusius and among the Christians by Torniellus Africanus Eusebius Baronius Serrarius and others deduce his Origin from the Philistians of Ascalon but Josephus makes Herod an Idumean which is a Demi-Jew the Idumeans who were conquered by Joh. Hircanus having embraced the Jewish Religion which being the most probable Opinion is likewise confirmed by the Testimony of the Author of the Chronicle of the 2d Temple § 2. Is Causab Sealiger Kepleras Torniellus Herod was made Governour of Galilea in the 15th year of his Age. Spanhemius Langius and almost all the modern Chronologers accuse Josephus of a notable Error in appointing the 15th year of Herod's Age when he was made Prince of Galilea by his Father Antipater in lieu of which they would have it 25 or 26 years But the Circumstances of the whole History sufficiently evince that Josephus did commit no Mistake in putting 15 instead of 25. The only Objection is that according to Josephus himself Herod was but 15 years old at the time of the Alexandrian War and the Beginning of the Julian Epocha and in the 45th year of the Julian Epocha when he died he is said to have been 70 years old To which it is to be answered That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of by Josephus may be taken here for one of above 60 years old or else that the Text is adulterated in this Passage rather than contradict so many unquestionable Circumstances relating to this History § 3. The true time of the Death of Herod is When Herod died involved in no small Difficulties Joh. Kepl. Dion Petav. and Fred. Spanhem refer his Death to the 42d Julian Year to wit three years sooner than has been asserted by us But Herod having received the Royal Diadem in the 6th Julian Year after the Feast of the Passover from thence to the 42d Julian Year cannot be computed more than 35 years whereas Josephus expresly mentions 37 years Furthermore if Herod be supposed to have died in the 42d Julian Year it must follow that our Saviour was born in the 41st Julian Year from whence to the 74th Julian Year which is coincident with the 15th year of the Reign of Tiberius are about 33 years which according this Hypothesis must have been the Age of our Saviour which is contradicted by (q) C. 3. v. 1. 23 St. Luke and to affirm that Herod died before the Birth of Christ is contrary to the Evangelical History § 4. Those before-mention'd Authors who What Reasons are alledged against our Opinion anticipate the Death of Herod three years before us alledge in their behalf the Text of Josephus which mentions not only 37 years for the Reign of Herod
of the Age of our Saviour and several other Ecclesiastical Characters before-mentioned § 5. There is not the least Question but that Dionysius sirnamed Exiguus a Native of Scythia Whether Dionysius Exiguus was the first Author of this Epocha and a Roman Abbot was the first Author of the Vulgar Aera of the Nativity of Christ about the Year 527 the Ancients accounting their Years before that time either from the Building of the City of Rome from the Consuls or the Emperour Dioclesian or from the first Indiction See W. Langius (d) L. 1. c 1. de An Christi § 6. In the Roman Martyrology published by the Conterning the Synchronism◠mentioned in the Roman Martyrology Authority of Pope Gregory XIII and revised by the Command of Pope Vrban VIII we find these following Words which are every year on the 25th day of December read in publick In the Year since the Creation of the World when God created Heaven and Earth 5199 And since the Deluge in the 2957th and the Birth of Abraham in the 2015th year From Moses and the time of the Israelites leaving of Aegypt in the 1510th And from the time of David 's being anointed King in the 1032 d Year In the 42 d annual Week of Daniel In the 194th Olympiad In the 752 d Year since the Building of Rome in the 42 d Year of the Reign of the Emperor Oct. Augustus when the whole World was blessed with Peace In the 6th Age of the World Jesus Christ Eternal God and Son of the Eternal Father conceived from the Holy Ghost 9 Months after his Conception was born in Bethlehem of Judaea from the Virgin Mary But the Roman Catholick Writers themselves acknowledge the many Contradictions contained in the Synchronisms of this Martyrology as may be seen in Baronius and Dionysius Petavius and may be easily refuted out of several of the preceding Chapters § 7. There being neither the Day nor the The different Opinions concerning the Month and Day of the Nativity of Christ Month of the Nativity of Christ mentioned in the Holy Scripture this has given Occasion to several different Opinions For 1. there are not a few among whom is Tho. Lydiott who maintains Christ to have been born in the Spring which Opinion was already embraced by some at the time of Clemens Alexandrinus and Paulus a Bishop of Middleburgh (e) L. 19. c. 4. in his Treatise of the Day of the Passion of Christ presented to the Emperour Maximilian pretends to fix the Day of the Nativity of Christ on the 25th of March exactly at the time of the Vernal Aequinox 2. There are others who affirm that our Saviour was born in Autumn which Opinion however they pretend to prove by different Arguments For Beroaldus calls to his Aid the half Annual Week mentioned by Daniel (f) C. 9. and the Sabbatick and Jubilean Years and the Feasts of Expiation which had their Beginnings in Autumn but Josephus Scaliger has recourse to the Levitical Order instituted by David (g) 1 Chr. c. 23 v. 27. c. 25. v. 7. from whence he deduces the time of the Ministry of Zacharias and from thence the Conception of John the Baptist and consequently his Birth and the Nativity of our Saviour 3. Others are of Opinion that Christ was born on the 6th day of January which makes Scaliger in his Animadversions upon Eusebius affirm that the whole Christian Church in the East did at the time of Eusebius and in the preceding and next following Age believe that Christ was born on the 6th day of January and according to (a) Col. 10. Cassianus the Aegyptians did celebrate the Nativity of Christ on the same day Last of all the most general Opinion is that Christ was born on the 25th day of December which being maintained by many Learned Men and among them by St. Chrysostom is received in our Churches and is most agreeable to my Judgment CHAP. XLI Of the Epocha of the Passion of Christ 1. Christ suffered after he had for some time after his solemn Inauguration by the Holy Ghost described by (b) C. 3. St. Luke taught upon Earth both by his Words and Deeds it being evident out of the History of the Gospel and especially out of the Parable of the fruitless Fig-Tree mentioned by (c) C. 13. v. 7. St. Luke that our Saviour after the Beginning of his Ministry was several times present at the Solemnity of the Passover 2. Christ suffered when Josephus Caiaphas was High-Priest among the Jews as is manifest out of (d) C. 11. v. 49. St. John (e) C. 3. v. 2. St. Luke and (f) C. 4. v. 6. the Acts which Dignity he enjoyed from the eighth Year of the Reign of Tiberius and from the 4741st year of the Jul. Period till the 15th year of the Reign of Tiberius and the 4748th year of the Jul. Period when according to Josephus (g) L. 18. c. 3. 6. Antiq. he was deposed by Vitellius and Jonathan the Son of Annas substituted in his Place 3. Christ suffered when Pilate was Praefect of Palaestine according to the Testimony of the Evangelists and (h) L 18. c. 4. Josephus The first Founder of this Name says Tacitus (i) L. 15. Annal. was Christ who under the Reign of Tiberius was put to Death by Pontius Pilate then Governour of Palaestina But Pontius Pilate was 10 years Praefect of Palaestina to be counted backwards from the Death of Tiberius to wit from the Year of the Jul. Period 4740 till the Year of the Julian Period 4750. Vitcllius says Josephus (k) L. 18. c. 5. Antiq. having made his Friend Marcellus Governour of Judaea ordered Pilate to return to Rome to answer before Caesar concerning such Matters as were objected against him by the Jews Thus after he had governed the Province for whole 10 years being forced to submit to the Orders of Vitellius he undertook a Journey to Rome but before he could reach the City Tiberius died 4. When Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee (l) Luk. 23. v. 6. who afterwards in the 4th year of the Reign of Caius was banished and Agrippa was substituted in his Place See Josephus (m) L. 19. c. 7. Ant. 5. When the Full Moon of the Passover was coincident with the 6th Feria and when our Saviour eat the Passover with his Disciples See (n) C. 19. v. 31. St. John (o) C. 15. v. 42. St. Mark and (p) C. 23. v. 56. St. Luke 6. In the same year that hapned that notable Eclipse mentioned by the Evangelist (q) Mat. 27. v. 45. Luk. 23. v. 45. in the following Words From the 6th Hour there was Darkness over all the Land unto the 9th Hour And concerning which Eclipse Phlegon Trallianus has left a remarkable Observation to Posterity In the 4th Year says he of the 202d Olympiad there hapned the greatest Eclipse that ever was known before For
next Conjunction following 9. The Month of Illumination is that Space of time intercepted betwixt the first Day whereon the Moon is seen after her Conjunction with the Sun and the last Day of her being visible 10. The Solar Month is that Space of time wherein the Sun runs through one of the twelve Signs of the Zodiack in its proper Motion 11. A Civil Month is a System of Days which different Nations differently observe in their Civil Affairs as it best pleaseth them § 1. AS to the Etymology of a Month it is The Etymology of the Word observable that in almost every Language it is derived from the Moon as among the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth as well the Moon as a Month. Among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same thing Cicero derives the Latin Word Mensis (a) Lib. 2. de Nat. Deor. from the Courses of the Moon since they make Spaces which the German Word Monat and our Word Month both derived from the Moon do likewise denote § 2. From which it appears that the Hebrews The Ancient Form of Months Greeks Latins and Germans observed the Course of the Moon For although Arguments deduced from Etymologies of Words are but of little force yet they are strengthened if joined with other Proofs especially if we take notice of the extraordinary Aptness of the Hebrew Language and its Harmonical Communion with those others mentioned before whence Julian in that Hymn dedicated to the King of Kings says That all the Months with all other Mortals are numbred from the Moon save we only and the Aegyptians who compute our Days of the Year by the Motion of the Sun Neither was the Lunar Month unknown long since to the Romans tho' the Apostate excepts them since that the true time in respect of Parturition which with them was ten Months seems to be the same with these In which Sense these Lines of Ovid are to be understood Annus erat decimum cum Luna receperat Orbem Hic numerus magno tunc in honore fuit Seu quia tot digiti per quos numerare solemus Seu quia bis quino foemina mense parit § 3. As to the Mystick Months consisting of 49 or 7 times 7 Days although there can be Of Mystick Months no Nation so barbarous as wholly to lay aside all Analogy with the Motion of the Heavenly Bodies in appointing their Times yet the Author of this Mystick Chronology spares not to lay it on the Jews themselves and though these are foolishly asserted or rather foolishly feigned yet is this Opinion maintained with great Absurdities For nothing can be so unreasonable as that God who created the Luminaries for set-times Years and Months should teach a People peculiar to himself any other thing Neither is the fore-mentioned Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived from the Moon of so late a Date Beside who knows not that the Jews in the chief Feast of their Passover observe the Moon and always celebrate the Feast on the Full Moon and that on the 15th Day of the first Month. But suppose the Jews had their Mystical Month consisting of 49 Days yet this Number of Days have no Agreeableness with the Lunar Motion So that instead of Full Moon you will have nothing but mere Darkness Nor do the Writers of the Old Testament oppose this Truth who doubtless were sacred and holy Persons and these speaking of Sacred and Divine things have made mention of the 8th and other Months beyond the 7th So that if only this must be thought a Mystery by reason of the Number 7 contrary to the Sentiments and Opinions of all Men why did not this Mystery-Expounder likewise surmise the same thing of a Day of 7 Hours and of Hours of 7 Minutes and so further on § 4. We here again mention the Periodical Of a Periodical Month. Month lest due Consideration should be wanting as to its Use whence Kepler calleth the Periodical Month the Physicians Critical Month as to the Quantity of which it is indeed unequal and can be found no otherwise than by Astronomical Calculation by which it will appear that its mean Motion is performed in 27 Days 7 Hours 43 Minutes 5 Seconds § 5. The difference between a Periodical and The difference of a Periodical and Synodical a Synodical Month is because the first is called Periodical only in respect of the Moon 's Orbit but Synodical in respect of its Conjunction with the other Luminaries And because the Sun from the time of its Conjunction does not continue in the same Place of the Zodiack but moves forwards towards the East it causes that the Moon finishing its Course does not find the Sun again in the same Point it left him but is removed almost a whole Sign from its former Place and that it might overtake the Sun again it plainly appears that a certain Space of time is requisite besides the Periodical to make up the Synodical Month. § 6. But as to the true Quantity of the Synodical Of a Synodical Month. Month we are to gather it from Astronomers who study its Motion as Chronologers the Time in which the Motion is made however since a Synodical Month is apparently unequal we shall content our selves with the enumerating from several Authors the mean Motion as they call it of which Tycho Brale's we take to be the most Genuine They are these   d. h. ‑ ‑ 1 Cleostratus 29 12 00 00 00 00 00 00 2 Harpalus 29 12 50 54 33 00 00 00 3 Eudoxus 29 12 43 38 11 00 00 00 4 Cipparchus 29 12 44 03 15 44 39 04 5 Calippus 29 12 44 12 45 57 26 49 6 Metonis 29 12 41 26 48 30 38 18 7 Ptolomy 29 12 44 31 20 00   8 Alphonsus 29 12 44 03 03 00   9 Tubul Prut 29 12 44 03 09 00   10 Tycho Brahe 29 12 44 03 09 00   § 7. The Quantity of a Synodical Month is not the same at all times for in the Summer Synodical net always the same Solstice◠when the Sun seems to move slowest the Synodic Month appeareth less being about 29 Days 6 Hours and 42 Minutes But in the Winter when the Sun's Motion seems faster the Moon follows the Sun in a slower Space for which reason the Synodical Month then seems greater viz. 29 Days 19 Hours and 37 Minutes as some Astrologers do observe So that what has been said in the preceding Section about a Synodical Month is to be understood as to the mean from which the true differs sometimes 14 Hours and so is either greater or less § 8. Some Months we have called Pleni and others Cavi the Pleni are those that consist of Of the Months Pleni and Cavi 31 Days the Cavi of 30 and these two in the Lunar Year or Lunae-Solar are placed alternately by reason of the Dependence of
observe Wednesday which they call Dio Fetissos and abstain from their accustomed Labours on that Day The Turks every Year observe Friday either from the Command of Mahomet or from an ancient idolatrous Custom brought from the Indians to the Arabians on which those Worship their chief Deity called Venerem CHOBAR of which Worship Jerome takes notice in the Life of Hilarius in these Words He came to Elusa says he by chance on that Day where the Anniversary had occasioned a Concourse of the People of the Town in the Temple of Venus For they worship her before Lucifer to whose Worship the whole Nation of Saracens is devoted § 11. A Common Year for Example being The Reason why all Julian Years begin not on the same Day ended which begins upon one Day the second Year begins not upon the same but the next Day after And if that should happen to be a Bissextile the second Year would have begun on the third Day after the reason of which from the Quantity of our Year is evident For the Common Year having 365 Days in it or 52 Weeks and one Day over and the Bissextile 2 Days over and above the 52 Weeks divide either 365 or 366 by 7 the Days in one Week so that if the Year begins on a Monday the last Day in the Year will be on a Monday and then the first Day of the next Year must be Tuesday § 12. Whoever will give himself the Trouble What 't is we understand by Roman Nundinae of inspecting fully into this matter may peruse (y) Lib. Saturn Cap. 16. Vide etiam Fred. Tâ—â—â—â—annum Macrob. which in short is this That upon the 8th Day not the 7th they met in the Fields to sacrifice for the Dead and consult the Country-Affairs and promulgate Laws that were establish'd and afterwards upon the ninth Day they consulted about Trade and City-Affairs and these Concourses of People were called Nundinae Some say they were instituted by Romulus Others by Servius Tullius § 13. Among other Praises of Constantine the Of the time the Roman Nundinae were abrogated and the Feriae primae substituted in their room Great this is not the least That on the Lord's Days or Sundays he commanded the Gentile Legions to pray For thus (z) Lib. 4. de Vita Constant M. Cap. 19. Eusebius When he had taught all his Soldiers to sanctifie this Day of Salvation which we call the Day of Light or Sunday he gave leisure to those who by Divine Instinct believed that they should freely frequent the Church of God and pray unto him without Molestation And others who had not yet been sensible of the Divine Doctrine he commanded by another Law That on Sundays they should go out into the Fields of the Suburbs and there use all together the same Form of Prayer upon a Signal given CHAP. III. Of the lesser Sacred Annual Character or the Sabbatic Cycle 1. The Sabbatic Cycle is a System of 7 Lunae-solar Years continually recurring instituted by God for this reason That the Earth and Men might have their Vicissitudes § 1. THE Sabbatic Years are of Divine Institution as may be seen at large Lev. 25. 2. where the Earth and the Vines were to be plough'd and gathered for 6 Years and the 7th Year to rest and not be cultivated See also Exod. 23. 11. The beginning of the Sabbatic Cycle was the 7th inclusive from the time when the Division of the Land into which the Israelites were then about to enter was to be made by (a) Exod. 46. Lot If this be observed all the Sabbatic Years will doubtless be rightly fixed and no Errors about it can happen if not we have no certain Character can be assigned us to proceed upon § 2. Calvisius (b) Isâ—g Chron. c. 25. when other Authors disagree Of those Years that are certainly Sabbatic among themselves has fixt these The 15th Year of the Reign of Hezekiah (c) 2 Kings 19. 29. King of Juda was Sabbatic The Year in which Antiochus Eupater (d) Mâ—c 6. 49. besieged Jerusalem was Sabbatic The Year in which Simon Maccabaeus was slain by (e) Josephus l. 4. c. 28. Ptolemy was Sabbatic The Year of the Captivity of Jerusalem by Herod (f) Ibid. was Sabbatic The Year before the Destruction of Jerusalem (g) Ibid. by Titus Vespasian was Sabbatic The Year of Christ 1189 was (h) Mâ—t. Pâ—tis Sabbatic The Year of Christ 1602 was (i) Jâ—daecrum Calend. Sabbatic Besides these of Calvisius others might doubtless be fixt § 3. There are (k) Lauren. Codomont l. 2. Câ—ron Quaest 40. temp l. 3. Chron. Dem. p. 103. Chronol myst in sole temp p. 22. some who tell us that the Their Opinion must be false wâ—â— assert that by the Divine Command the Sabbatic Cycle was in use among the Jews before the distrâ—bâ—tion of tâ—eir Land by Lot first Sabbatic Year of the Law was that in which the Israelites being brought by Moses to the Borders of Jewry and Land of Canaan a little after the Death of Moses began to enter and possess it under their Captain Joshua So that they will have this Cycle to begin 7 before what is assigned by Scaliger Calvisius and before these Eusebius But this agrees not with the Divine Precept For the Jews at that time did not enter into the Land of Canaan For altho' the Tribes of Reiâ—ben Gad and ½ of Menasses received the Kingdom of Sihon and Bashan from Moses yet it was not to these only but the whole People that the Divine Command was given Nor was the Land on this side Jordan properly called (l) Nunb 32. 29 30. 31 and 32. also 33. 51. also 35. 14. Canaan Nor did the Tribes inhabit it to whom it was assigned For these ought with the rest of the (m) Ibid. Tribes to pass over Jordan from whence after many Years they (n) Josh 22. 3 and 4. returned again Add to these things That Moses in Deuteronomy which Book he proposed to the People only one (o) Cap. 1. 3. Month before his Death speaks of the Land of Promise not as yet possest but to be possest Deut. 6. 10. But when the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the Land c. Therefore it can't be said Israel was entred into the Promised Land to wit Canaan before the Death of Moses § 4. Although by what precedes it is certain Whether we are to think that the Sabbatic Cycle was analogous to the Hebdomadic and consequently whether it can be of the same use in determining the first Year of the World that the Historical Beginning of the Sabbatic Cycle is to be derived from the Distribution of the Land by Lot yet we shall not reject their Opinion who think that God in ordaining this Cycle had respect to the Sabbath of Days and that therefore the first Day of the World was also the first in the
what Answer ought to be given to the Discoverer of such Paralogisms in which there is not the least Probability § 8. Although the Divine Wisdom is inscrutable Of the chief Reasons why the Sabbatic Cycle was instituted yet we ought not to reject their pious Opinions who observe these as Reasons of such a Divine Institution (f) Com. in Lev. 1. God 2. the Earth 3. the Poor 4. Strangers 5. Brutes 6. Servants 7. Debtors 8. all the Israelitâ—s promiscuously § 9. 'T is the allowed Opinion of (e) Ex. 23. 11. Lev. 25. 4. Deut. 31. Dr. D. Walth spong Mos Alphons In the 7th Year the First-Fruits were consecrated to God and the Tyâ—hes to the Priests Abulensis Episcopus That the Oblation of First-Fruits did not cease because though the Fruits were not gathered in for the use of their Masters as being common for any one yet the Right of their Fields did belong to them or the Privilege or Excellency as some say before all others So that it 's probable they might gather the First-Fruits and offer some part to the Priests But as to the Tenths the Priests had nothing to complain of if in that Year wherein the Fruits were not gathered that they might be preserved for their Masters Use they did not receive the Tenths 1. Because in that Year wherein God did bestow as much as was necessary for three Years the Tenths of the Priests were multiplied 2. Because it was free for them in common with poor Persons and Strangers to enjoy the Benefit of such gathering provided they laid 'em not up in Barns or Granaries § 9. So long as the Jews lived in obedience to Of the Streights that every â— year reduced the Jews to the Law they wanted not abundance of Encrease but when they began to rebel and grow stubborn they sufficiently experienc'd what things God had forbidden the Transgressors of his Laws For when their Conquerors impos'd Tributes upon them they could not discharge 'em on the 7th Year Josephus often mentions this Calamity and his Relation about Alexander the Macedonian sufficiently proves it For when at Jerusalem he had learnt that a Graecian should have the Government of the Persians glad of the Prophecy as to be fulfilled in him he bid the Jews ask some great thing of him to whom they answered he could give nothing greater than a Relaxation of the Tributes for the 7th Year and that was their (g) Vid Cunâ—â—m de Repub. Jud l. 1. c. 4. l. Request CHAP. IV. Of the greater sacred Annual Character or the Jubilean Cycle 1. The Jubilean Cycle is a System of 7 Sabbatic Cycles or 49 Lunae-Solar Years continually recurring and for this end divinely instituted that in the Judaic Republic the Wealth of a jew should not oppress the rest but that the Good of the Tribes should always be immovable as also that the Years of Servitude might cease § 1. THE Word Jubile is not à Jubilo as those Why this Cycle and first of all its last year should be called a Jubile little read in Hebrew suppose nor from the rustic Inclamation of the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but either from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Word signifies a Ram because this Solennity was promulgated with a h Ram's Horn or else from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Root signifies a bringing back and that as Serarius notes upon Joshua with a certain singular Emphasis of Joy and Mirth § 1. (b) In Annalib â—d An. 1584 Numb 2 3. Torniellus supposes it probable that Whether we have yet any Footsteps of the Observation of the Jublâ—ean Year the Jews never observed any Jubilean Year before the Babylonian Captivity But we dare not assert so much whereas not only in the time of Joshua but the pious Kings as David Joshaphat and others it s very probable they would have some respect to the Reason of such a Divine Institution In the 2d Kings (c) v. 1. sequ the Jubilean Year seems to be described when K. Joram graciously gave the Shunamitish Woman a Josh 6. 5. those Privileges that were proper to a Jubilean Year and yet the Circumstances of History seem to render this Opinion suspected For Joram lived about the Year 3053 and in 3061 was killed by Jehu in which 8 Years no Jubile could happen Perhaps that in Ezech. 29. 17 more probably refers to a Jubile where he makes mention of a 27th Year For I cannot see how that can relate to any other Epccha at this time known Of which more hereafter § 3. Whereas 't is very certain we have not The Jubilean Cycle consisted of 49 Years so many Jubilean as Sabbatic Years And therefore from the latter we can scarce judge of the Jubilean Cycle From hence it happens that Chronologers so little agree about the Quantity of this Cycle but dispute with the greatest Heats of these Darknesses of the ancient Laws Of the five Opinions about this matter the first is That the Jubilean Cycle consisted of 50 (d) Here. Sain ad an 2544. Serarius ad Josh 13. Pareus Cor. â— Lap. iâ— Lâ—v. 25. Years the second is that of the famous William Langius who (e) L. de an Christi c. 11. p. 138 seq contends that the Jubilean Year depended upon the Sabbatic ones yet so that after the Expiration of â—7 annual Sabbatic Years the same was one with the 50th so that the Jubilean Year was always the first in the Annual 7 The third is the Opinion of our Mystic Chronologer who makes the Jubilean Cycle to be of 45 Julian Years and 271 Days over The fourth Opinion is theirs (f) Jos Scal Buntingus Mesilinus Codomannus Mercator Calv. Ubbo Fâ—â—mius Helvicus B. Thummius B. Behmius Spanhemius Petavius Cloppenburgius Junius Tremellus and many more who assert the Jubilean Year was the same with 7 times the 7th Year or 7 times the Sabbatic Year and so the Jubilean Cycle precisely made 49 Years The fifth Opinion is only proposed as probable by the same Cloppenburgius (g) Schol. Sacrit p. 42. where he supposes impossible for the Jews to mix their Computation and reckon both by 49 and 50 Years which he supposes very easie for 'em to do the great Period of Jubilean Years being admitted which is made by multiplying 49 into 50 whose Product makes that Period 2450. We assent to their Opinion who assert the Jubilean Cycle to consist of 49 Lunae-Solar Years For besides that the Sabbatic Year had many Privileges in common with the Jubilean Year which is inferr'd from the Biblic Style the Consent of the Jews and Rabbi Adda's Calendar it would follow also that if the Jubilean Year was different from the Sabbatic the Earth would rest for two whole Years and the Jews must sustain themselves with the Produce of one Year for four Years together which seems wholly repugnant to the Sense of the Divine Command Nor does it
2 former within 4 Months almost To these may be added the Antiochian which (r) Canon Isâ—gog p. 2â—5 Scaliger by the Authority of Causabon and the Patriarch Ignatius certainly determines Of the reason why the Roman Eâ—perors wouâ—d have this Cycle of Indictions known iâ— the Common People to the Month of May. § 6. We are commonly wont to preserve those things which appear useful to us In like manner the Caesars when at the stated times of Indictions their Treasuries were encreased ordained that the Character of Indiction should be noted in the publick Instruments Thus we read what the Emperor Justinian commanded in the 47th Novelia Whence we oblige those who minister in Affairs or where-ever any Acts are performed and the Notaries who write their Instruments in any Form in this great City and in all other Nations whom God has subjected to us that they thus begin In the third Year of the Empire of the most Sacred Emperor Augustus c. and afterwards to name those Consuls which are in that Year and in the third place the Indiction the Month and the Day So the Time shall be preserved in all Affairs And these things are to be fixt in Writings for the Memory of the Empire the Order of the Consulate and other Observations What it was that the Subjects of the Roman People were to pay 'em at the Expiration of this Quindecennial Time that may be interposed § 7. And 't was not for the sake of Remissions but of collecting Subsidies that those Indictions were chiefly constituted but what and in what Order the Subjects of the Roman People were to bring the Ancients have not remarked Elegius Noviomensius Episcopus who flourish'd about the middle of the 7th Age in the 2d (Å¿) Sixteen of these Hâ—mil are extant in Biblioth Patrum Hom. speaks of divers Tributes as the Moderns after him according to divers Lustrums in which the Cycle of Indictions was finished In the first Lustrum there was a Tribute of Gold collected In the second one of Silver and in the third one of Brass And the Annotator upon the 47th Novella delivers the manner very different Anciently says he the Romans in every 15 Years received a Tribute from the whole World In the first 5 Years Iron to make Armour for the Roman Soldiers In the 2 d Silver out of which the Soldiers were to be paid their Wages In the 3 d Gold which was laid up in the Treasury for the Roman Republick But since the Writers of the following Age make mention of this Matter in so different a manner that we can hardly believe this Tradition CHAP. VIII Of the Character of the Roman CONSVLATE 1. The Roman Consulate is a Character wherein two Roman Consuls were named whence we come to the Knowledge of anything done in that time § 1. THE Reason of the Roman Consulate being mentioned among the Characters of Times is because both Latin and Greek Writers by namâ—ng two Consuls were wont to Of the reason why we mentiâ—n the Roman Consulate among the Charâ—cters â—f the Times fix the times of things done and that by a most ancient Custom which Lucan intimates while he calls these Years Consular Years And amongst the Latins Pacatus in a Panegyric delivered to Theodorus Emperor of Rome speaks remarkably A certain Captain is promoted to perform the Discipline of Sieges a Prefect is preferr'd to look after a Province a Consul is created to give a Name to the Year c. § 2. After the Ravishment of Lucretia by Of the time in which the Offâ—â—e Dignity and Character of a Consul 〈…〉 in use 〈◊〉 the Romans the Son of Tarquinius Superbus the Romans having abolished the Regal Dignity created Consuls to govern the Empire rather to consult with than to domineer over their Liberty or one King two Consuls were created that if one should prove bad the other having equal Power might restrain him And 't was the Pleasure of the People that they should not enjoy the Empire above one Year lest a Continuation of their Power should render them insolent but they were always civil knowing that after one Year they should be deprived of all again (a) Vide Florus l. 1. c. 9. § 3. Lipsius (b) De Magistrat Veteris Romani Populi c. 7. disputes about this and those What it is we ought to understand by the Name and Office of Consuls who derive their Name from the End or Design of it which was to consult and provide for the Citizens (c) Flor. Lib. 1. c. 9 Others derive their Name from their Office which is to consult that is ask the Senate Others interpret 'em à judicando which in the sense of Quintilian (d) Lib. 1. c. 9. is the same thing as consulendo from whence this Proverb boni consulas i. e. judices But the Judgment of Lipsius about this Diversity is that the first Etymology is more popular the third more subtle the middle more true because 't was the Business of a Consul to interrogate and refer to the Senate as Livius (e) Lib. 7 hath written 't was his part to enquire into their Judgment Cicero (f) Lib. 3. de Leg. also says Let there be two in the Regal Empire and let 'em be called Praetors Judges Consuls à Praeeundo Judicando Consulendo Let 'em have the chief Power of the Militia Let 'em obey no one Let the Safety of the People be their Supreme Law c. § 4. As to the time of the Year the Consuls Of the time of the year in which the Roman Consuls undertook the Consulate began we find great Variation according to the Diversity of Times which does not a little disturb Universal History we shall alledge some from Dionysius Halicarnassaeus and Livius First of all therefore who is he that cannot gather from the Character of the (g) Regifugium was a Feast amongst the Romans Regifugium held on the 6th of the Calends of March that the Election of Consuls fell upon February For the Consuls followed the Kings as is the Common Opinion The Successors of the first Consuls began their Consulate on the Ides of March on the Ides of May on the 3d of the Ides Sextil on the Ides of Sextil on the Ides of December on the Calends Sextil on the Calends of September c. as is evident from the two Writers above-mentioned At length the Custom obtained that the Calends of January were destined for the Consulate lest the Years of the Curulean Magistrates especially the Consuls should differ from the Civil or Common Years at which time we dare not say that the Heads of the Roman Republick undertook the Affair 'T is the Opinion of Justus Lipsius that from the Year 598 the (h) Epitome Liviana c. 47. Calends of January were sacred for the Change of the Consuls Nor in the Times of (i) Lib. 4. de Pont. Eleg. 9. Ovid was it
Common Year was divided into  Days 1. The abounding Year containing 355 2. The common Year containing 354 3. The defective Year containing 353 The Embolismaean Year was likewise divided into  Days 4. The abounding Year containing 385 5. The common Year containing 384 6. The defective Year containing 383 These Varieties of Years proceeding from the Interpolation of Days affected only the three Months Adar Marchesvan and Casleu For in the Embolismaean Year there were two Months of Adar and in the abounding Year the Month Marchesvan was always compleat as in the defective Year the Month Casleu was always defective So that in the first there were always three successive compleat Months in the last always three successively defective CHAP. III. Of the Epocha of the Deluge 1. This Epocha ought in all respects to be congruous to the Hebrew Text written by Moses 2. According to the 5th and 7th Chapters of Genesis the Distance betwixt this Epocha and that of the World ought to be 1656 years 3. It must agree in all respects with the other Intervals of Time till the Beginning of the Vulgar Christian Epocha which contains 2293 years 4. Care is to be taken that none of the Patriarchs be involved in the Waters of the Deluge 5. Thus it will fall in the Year of the Julian Period 2420 in Autumn in the Cycle ☉ 12. ☽ 7. 6. And since therefore there are 2419 years and near How to investigate the years since the Deluge 10 months difference betwixt the Beginning of the Julian Period and the Epocha of the Deluge if the said Sum be added to the Number of years since the Deluge the Product will be exactly correspondent to the Year of the Julian Period But if the above said Number of Years and Months be subtracted from the whole Product the Residue shews the Year and Month of the Epocha of the Deluge § 1. PLiny in his Natural History (a) Bibl. l. 1. Diodorus Whether the years of the Patriarchs were monthly years Siculus as likewise (b) Saturn l. 1. Macrobius with many others relate that among the Aegyptians their Years were in most ancient times sometimes of one Month sometimes of two three or four Months which has perhaps moved Varro according to (c) L. 2. c. 13. Lanctantius his Testimony to interpret the Computation of Moses not of Solar but Lunar Years But this may be sufficiently confuted by that Mention is made in (d) Gen. 8. 13. Genesis of the first second and seventh Months which destroys this Notion (e) 14. 8. Gen. 7. v 11. c. 8. 5. Besides that according to this Supposition the Patriarchs must have procreated Children at the Age of five six and seven Years as is most evident in (f) Gen. 11. 26. Thara the Father of Abraham who is said to have begot Abraham in the 70th Year of his Age. § 2. And as most Chronologers agree in this Point Whether they were Soâ—â—r or Luâ—ae-Solar years that the Years used by the Patriarchs have not been much different from those in the Julian Calendar so they are divided in their Opinions whether in those Ancient Times they made their Computations by Lunae-Solar or Solar Years The Jews are of Opinion that the Year of the Deluge was the same with their ordinary Year conâ—isting of 12 Months according to the Motion of the Moon Some of their Rabbi's have been vain enough to pretend to persuade the World that during the time of the Deluge the two great Luminaries did not appear above that Hemisphere and that Noah did distinguish the Times of the Days Nights Months and Years partly by the Natural Instinct that was in some Beasts within the Ark of distinguishing the Times as in the Ass Cock Turkey c. partly by a certain Gem of the same Nature with that by which they say Moses knew the exact difference of Times when he conversed with God for 40 Days There are not a few among the Christians but especially Henricus Buntingus and William Lange who agree with the Jews in this Supposition concerning the Lunae-Solar Years But Scaliger is quite of another Sentiment being perswaded that before the Babylonian Captivity there were not the least Footsteps of these Lunae-Solar Years to be met with in the Holy Scripture because it is said of David and Solomon That they had twelve Officers which provided Provisions for the King and his Houshold each Man made Provision for his Month in the Year And that therefore if the Lunae-Solar Year had been in use among the Jews of that time there must have been thirteen Officers by reason of the Embolismaean Year consisting of thirteen Lunar Months It is for this Reason that Scaliger as well as Johannes Behmius Vbbo Emmius Sethus Calvisius and others plead for the Solar Year at the time of the Deluge each Month like the Aegyptians consisting of 30 days with an Addition of five Days at certain Intervals I must confess 't is of no great Consequence as to the Historical Truth whether we admit the Lunae-Solar or Solar Years yet It cannot be denied but that there are strong Probabilities to be met with in the History of the Deluge which appear in behalf of the Solar Years It is said in g Genesis That on the 17th day of the second Month all the Fountains of the Cap. 7. v. 11. Earth and the Windows of Heaven were opened and (h) Cap. 8. v. 3. that the Waters began to abate after the end of an hundred and fifty Days (i) Cap. ib. v. 4. and that the Ark rested on the seventeenth Day of the seventh Month. From whence it is evident that these could be no Lunar Months each of which consisting only of 29 Days and 12 Minutes could not make up the Number of 150 Days It is therefore most probable that they regulated themselves at that time according to the same Calendar which afterwards was called the Aegyptian each Month of which contained exactly 30 Days and at the end of every Year an Addition was made of five Days besides that at the end of every Age consisting of 120 Years of which also mention is made in (k) C. 6. v. 3. Genesis there used to be a further Addition of fix other Days In which point also (l) Lib. 9. C. 9 de Doct. temp Dionysius Petavius seems to agree with Scaliger though in most other Matters he is contradictory to his Opinion § 3. The following Table represents the vast Disproportion betwixt the Greeks on the one and Dâ—ffâ—rence betwixt the Hebrew and Greek Computations the Hebrews and Latines on the other side concerning the Number of Years of the Antediluvian Patriarchs According to the Hebrews Years LXX Int  From the Creation to Seth are 130 230 Gen. 5. v. 3 From thence to Enoch 105 205 6 From thence to Cainan 90 190 9 to Mahaleel 70 170 12 to Jared 65 165 15 to Enoch 162 162 18 to Methuselah 65
was likewise made of Cainan § 4. The Words of Moses concerning the Whether the Birth of Abraham was â—oincident with the 70th Year of Thara Nativity of Abraham are as follows (n) Gen. 11 v. 2â— And Thara lived 70 years and begat Abraham Nachor and Haran From which Words the Chronologers conclude that Abraham was not above 70 years younger than his Father Thara 1. Because Moses having been so exact in mentioning the 75th year of the Age of Abraham as also the 86th (o) Gen. 16. v. 16. and the (p) Gen. 12. 4. and 17. v. 24. 99th it seems very improbable he should have neglected that of his Nativity 2. Because in the Catalogue of the Children of Thara he gives the Preference to Abraham In 1 Chron. 1. v. 28. Israel is put before Ismael his elder Brother but what wonder if he had the Preference given him before the Son of his Father's Maid Otherwise it is observable that the Scripture always relates the Genealogy of those born in Wedlock in the same Order as they were born This is manifest in the Children of Rachel who though much beloved by their Father yet are inserted according to the time of their Nativities And even he who had sold the Prerogative of his Birth-right yet is mentioned as the eldest in the Sacred History 3. Because Abraham seemed to be startled at the Promise made him looking upon it as an Example without a Parallel to be blessed with a Son when he was 100 years old (r) Gen. 17. v. 17. But it is not probable that Abraham would have considered it as a miraculous thing if he himself had been born according to the Opinion of some in the 130th year of his Father Thara's Age. § 5. And there arises another Difficulty in the Of the time of the Departure of Abraham out of Haran Sacred Chronology concerning the time of the Departure of Abraham out of Haran it being said by Moses that (s) Gen. 12. v. 4. Abraham was 75 years old when he departed out of Haran and by St. (t) Acts 7. v. 4. Stephen that he removed from thence when his Father was dead From whence it is evident that if 70 years of Thara when he begat Abraham be added to 75 the Age of Abraham when he removed out of Haran the Product will be 145 years whereas (u) Gen. 11. v. â—2 Moses says of Thara that his Days were 205 years and that he died in Haran Which has moved St. Hierom and Scaliger to look upon this Question as the Gordian Knot Others among whom are Nicholas de Lyra Calvinus Cajetanus Martyr Torniellus Musculus Beroaldus Salianus Pareus Junius Henricus Philippi Jacobus Capellus Ludovicus Capellus Temporarius Vsserius Isaacus Vossius and several more pretend to resolve this Knotty Question by asserting that Abraham was begot by Thara when he was 130 years old and that the Words in Genesis Thara lived 70 years and begat Abraham Nahor and Haran are to be understood thus That Thara was 70 years old when he began to beget Children among whom was Abraham who had the Preference as being the Father of the Believers Nahor the First-born and Haran the Second but the Dissolution of this Gordian Knot is owing to St. Austin who is of Opinion that Abraham did at least depart twice out of Haran but did not fix his Habitation in Canaan till the second time With St. Austin agree in this Point Brentius Gesnerus Pererius Cornelius à Lapide Alphonsus Tostatus Lorinus Robertus Bailius Dionysius Petavius and others § 6. Eusebius in his Computation of the years Of the erroneous Computation of Eusebius of Abraham is fallen into an Error when he affirms the Interval of time betwixt the beginning of the Julian Period and the Nativity of Abraham to have been 2696 years and 9 months whereas according to the Calculation of the Hebrew Text the same hapned in the year 2712 which is the true Reason that some who were not sensible of this erroneous Computation of Eusebius have been mis-guided in many of the following Epocha's § 7. There are some who are of Opinion that Abraham is mentioned in Prophane History not the least Footsteps of this Epocha of Abraham are to be found in prophane History But these may be convinced of their Mistake by (x) L 1. c. 8. Ant. Josephus who alledges the Words of the true and ancient not the supposititious Berosus In the tenth Generation after the Deluge there lived a just and great Man among the Chaldaeans who among other things was well versed in Astronomy And in (y) L. 36 c. 2. Justin we find the Testimony of Trogus Pompeius The Jews says he have their Offspring from Damascus a famous City of Syria their Kings were Abraham and Israel See also Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius L. 13. c. 12 (z) Strom. V. CHAP. VI. Of the Epocha of the CCCCXXX Years the Jews sojourned in Aegypt of which mention is made in Exodus 12. Verse 40. 1. The beginning of this Epocha must be congruous to the time of that solemn Promise mentioned in (a) C. 12. v. 3. c. 15. ad Gal. 3. v. 17. Genesis to have been made to Abraham 2. Due Regard ought to be had to the Age of the Forefathers of Moses as described in Exodus (b) C. 6. v. 19 20. 3. The End of it must be coincident with the time of their leaving of Aegypt 4. The Number of the Generations of the Levitical Families recited in the above-mentioned Places ought also carefully to be observed 5. The same Respect must be had to the other Intervals 6. Care must be taken that not any thing be inferr'd contradictory to the Testimony of Josephus in his 2 d Book of Antiquities Chap. 5. They left says he Aegypt in the Month of Xanthicus in the 430th Year after the Coming of our Father Abraham into Canaan and in the 215th Year after the Migration of Jacob into Aegypt Moses was then in his 30th Year of Age and his Brother Aaron three years elder than he 7. Accordingly we affirm that the first year of this Epocha was coincident with the 76th year of the Age of Abraham which was the 2787th year of the Julian Period Cycle ☉ 15. ☽ 13. and its End in the Year 3217 of the Julian Period 8. If therefore 2780 years be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue Any year given of the Julian Period to find the year since the beginning of this Epocha will shew the year of this Epocha But if the same be added to any certain year of this Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period There is not any Certainty concerning the Months they being not mentioned in the Holy Scripture for the Traditions of Rabbi Solomon who asserts that God did make his Covenant with Abraham in the Month of Nisan is no more Authentick than the
Archontes Num. Princip An. Reg. Scal. Pe Jul. An. Reg. Petav. Pe. Jul 1. Medon 20 3645 20 3644 2. Acastus 36 3665 36 3664 3. Archippus 19 3701 19 3700 4. Thersippus 41 3720 41 3719 5. Phorbas 31 3761 31 3760 6. Megacles 30 3792 30 3791 7. Diogenetus 28 3822 28 3821 8. Phereclus 19 3850 19 3849 9. Ariphron 20 3869 20 3868 10. Thespieus 27 3889 27 3888 11. Agamestor 20 3916 20 3915 12. Aeschylus 23 3936 23 3935 13. Alcmaeon 2 3959 1 3958 The third Dynasty of the Decennial Athenian Archontes Num. Princip An. Reg. Scal. Pe. Jul. An. Reg. Petav. Pe. Jul. 1. Charops 10 3960 10 3960 2. Aesimides 10 3970 10 3970 3. Clidicus 10 3980 10 3980 4. Hippomenes 10 3990 10 3990 5. Leocrates 10 4000 10 4000 6. Apâ—andrus 10 4010 10 4010 7. Eryxias 10 4020 10 4020 § 2. There is a difference of 20 years in the Difference in the Chronology concerning this Epocha Chronological Computation of Eusebius and that of the Arundeliana Marmora concerning the beginning of this Epocha the last putting the beginning of the Reign of Cecrops so many years before the other which difference betwixt these two ancient Historians is scarce to be decided in our times Concerning some other Difficulties in the Chronology of the Athenian Kings Petacius (c) In Ration p. 112. may be consulted § 3. There are also various Opinions about The Etymology of Diphyas as the Sirname of Cecrops the Etymology of the Word Diphyes the Sirname of Cecrops Some will have him to have been a Monster as (d) L. 3. Apollodorus others of a Human Shape but a prodigious Bulk According to (e) Chron. Par. prior Eusebius he was called Diphyes either by reason of his Tallness or because he was born an Aegyptian and understood both that and the Greek Tongue Demosthenes says that he was reputed to have been half a Man and half a Dragon because he was compared for his Prudence to a Man for his Strength to a Dragon § 4. After the Decennial Princes annual Governours The Annual Magistrates of Athens were introduced at Athens according to (f) Chron. ad Olym. 24. Eusebius and Pausanias Nine of the principal Men of the City were elected yearly to have the Administration of the Government He that was the Governour in chief and in whose Name all Affairs of Moment were transacted was called Archon Eponymus the six following Thesmodethae the eighth a King the ninth Polemarchus of which Postellus may be consulted CHAP. IX Of the Epocha of the Israelites leaving of Aegypt 1. The Beginning of this Epocha was at the Entrance of the 431st year of the sojourning of th Israelites in Aegypt which Interval was its first Origin to the Vocation of Abraham (a) Exod. 12. v. 40. 2. The same year was the 480th to count backward from the beginning of the Epocha of Solomon (b) Gal. 3. v. 16 17. 3. It was likewise the 46th year before the Distribution of the Land of Canaan by Lot which was the first Sabbatic and Jubilean Year (c) 1 Reg. 6. v. 1. 4. Moses was at the time of the Israelites going out of Aegypt 80 years of Age (d) Exod. 7. v. 8. 5. The Month when the Israelites went out of Aegypt was the first in the Ecclesiastical year of the Jews called Nisan and began the New Moon next to the Vernal Aequinox (e) Exod. 12. v. 2. 6. The Day of their going out of Aegypt was on the Full Moon the 15th of Nisan beginning in the Evening of the Passover (f) Numb 33. v. 3. 7. In the Hebdomadic Cycle it has for its Character the fifth Feria because the 22 d Day of the Month Jiar was the seventh Feria (g) Exod. 16. v. 1. sequ 8. According to these Characters it is evident that the Jews kept their Passover in the 3217th year of the Julian Period Cyc ☉ 25. ☽ 6. on the 16th day of April about Sun-set and went forth out of Aegypt very early the next Morning and kept their Sabbath on the 23 d day of May when they collected the Manna and on the 5th day of June the Law was promulgated in the Mount of Sinai (h) Ex. 19. v. 20. 9. If therefore 3216 years and 3 Months be subtracted To find out the Year since the beginning of this Epocha from any certain Year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha And if this Residue be added to these 3216 years the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THere are some who maintain that the year of the going of the Children When the Sabbatic Year began of Israel out of Aegypt has been the third in the Sabbatic and Jubilean Cycle But (i) Diss de Agn. Pasch § â—4 Dorsheus has sufficiently demonstrated that the true Origin of the Sabbatic Year is not to be looked for till 46 years after when the Israelites being put in the Possession of the Land of Canaan distributed the same among themselves by Lot § 2. And Moses does not make an exact Mention The Jews went out of Aegypt on the 15th of Nisan of the time of the New Moon next following after the Vernal Aequinox in the beginning of the Month of Nisan but most of the ancient Writers agree in this Hypothesis with the modern Authors that the Passover which was instituted at the time of their going out of Aegypt was celebrated by the Jews on the 15th Day of the Month of Nisan when the Moon was at the Full as has been sufficiently demonstrated by (k) Lib. 3. c. 10. Antiq. Josephus by Philo who was contemporary with Christ in many Places by (l) Lib. 7. c. 31. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History and among the Moderns by (m) Lib. de nat rer c. 61. Beda § 3. Moses is also silent as to the exact time The celebrated the Passover at the time of the F. Moon of the Full Moon when the Jews celebrated the Passover but since he has been very careful in mentioning the End of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth day of the Month of Nisan For the celebrating of the Passover it seems in my Opinion to include the Character of the F. Moon Of this Opinion are (n) â—iâ— 3. Hist Nicephorus Beda and (o) Lib. 3 de vit Mos Philo. § 4. There is likewise a Dispute betwixt the Whether they celebrated it on the â— th or 15th day of Nisan Chronologers and betwixt these and the Interpreters of the Holy Scripture whether the time of the Passover which is the beginning of the Epocha of the Israelites going out of Aegypt ought to be fixed on the fourteenth or fifteenth day of the Month of Nisan It is our Opinion that the Ancient Jews did celebrate their Passover in the Evening at the end of
pretend to have been destroyed by Earthquakes and Inundations But it appears to me unreasonable to call to our Aid the Elements to maintain the Authority of a Foreign Aegyptian Priest in Opposition to what has been asserted for Truth by so many Greek and other Historians § 2. Those that contradict the Destruction of Some Arguments for and against the Destruction of Troy Troy alledge also in their behalf that Homer was both the first Poet and Author among the Greeks It is true that all the Greek Historians whose Names have been transmitted to Posterity have lived some Ages after the Trojan War yet is it not from thence to be inferred that Homer was either the first or the only Author who has given an Account of the Expedition of the Greeks against the Trojans A certain Poet says (p) Lib. 14. c. 21. var. Hist Aelian whose Name was Syagrus lived after Orpheus who first of all brought the Trojan War into Metre And what Ovid says of Macro is a sufficient Argument that there were not wanting among the Latins who endeavoured to supply the Defects of Homer in the Trojan War These are his Words Tu canis aeterno quicquid restabat Homero Ne careant summa Troica bella manu § 3. As there are some who reject the whole Concerning the Authority of Homer History of Troy as fabulous so there are not wanting such as put Homer in the same Rank with other Historians Both are in my Opinion in an Error as is manifest out of what is related concerning the wooden Horse which though it be not only circumstantially described by Homer and Virgil but also was used in a Proverbial Sense among the Roman Orators as is manifest from these Words of Tully Out of the School of Isocrates like out of the Trojan Horse came forth a vast Number of great Men Yet (q) In At. Pausanias himself is very plain in telling the World that this Horse was nothing else but a certain Engine invented by one Epeus a Pattern of which stood in the Castle of Athens to batter the Walls of strong Cities And he adds that those who believe otherwise must needs look upon the Trojans to have been the greatest Fools and Blockheads in the World Neither does (r) L. 2. Aen. Virgil seem to have been quite ignorant of it when he introduces Laocoon speaking these following Words Aut hoc inclusi ligno occultantur Achivi Aut haec in nostros fabricata est machina muros Inspectura domos venturaque desuper urbi § 4. Some are of Opinion that the Destruction Troy was a whole Kingdom of Troy was comprehended only in one City But according to (s) L. 13. Strabo the Country under the Jurisdiction of the Trojan Kings consisting in nine large Principalities was called Troja which being invaded and conquered by the Greeks they at last made themselves Masters of Troy the Capital City which has questionless introduced this Mistake of converting this War which lasted in all ten years into a Decennial Siege § 5. This Epocha was so famous in most ancient The Destruction of Troy was much celebrated among the Ancients time that if we believe (t) Prâ—â—em â— 1. Diodorus Siculus this was the first Term unto which the Greek Historians related their most ancient and remarkable Transactions And what has rendred this Epocha the more famous to Antiquity is that the Conquest of Troy was bought with the Loss of so many brave and great Heroes from whence is arisen the Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus expressed by Catullus Troja nefâ—s commune sepulchrum Europae Asiaeque Troja virûm virtutum omnium acerba cinis § 6. The Chronologers disagree also as to the true time of this Epocha for besides the various Different Opinions concerning this Epochâ— Opinions alledged by Clemens Alexandrinus Porpoyrius has made the Destruction of Troy coincident with the Reign of Semiramis as on the contrary (u) In Chron. Cap. 34. Johannes Georgius Herwart ab Hohenâ—urgh has put no more than seven Ages betwixt the Destruction of Troy and the Epocha of Christ But to set aside these extravagant Notions there are three several Opinions more which carry with them the greatest Probability The first fixes the taking of Troy in the 3530th year of the Julian Period which is also our Opinion for Reasons alledged in the beginning of this Chapter as well as of Dionysius Petavius and Jacobus Capellus The second is of Josephus Scaliger with his Followers Calvisius and Emmius who affirm that Troy was destroyed in the year 3531 of the Julian Period on the 22d of June in the year of the World 2767. The Third Opinion is of Buntingus who maintains that the Destruction of Troy hapned in the year of the World 2787 in the year of the Julian Period 3532 on the 21st of June § 7. As the greatest part of the Trojan History is involved in great Obscurity so its time remains Kings of Troy as yet undetermined we being ignorant how long Teucrus reigned over that Kingdom Out of the following Table it will appear that from the time of Dardanus Son-in-law to Teucrus till the Destruction of Troy under Priamus there was a continual Succession from Father to Son of six Kings for 296 years  Years An. Pe. Jul. 1. King Teucrus   2. Dardanus his Son-in-law 65 3234 3. Erichtonius his Son 46 3299 4. Tros his Son 49 3345 5. Ilus his Son 40 3394 6. Laomedon his Son 44 3434 7. Priamus his Son 52 3478 From Dardanus to the Destruction of Troy 296 3530 § 8. There is also a great Dispute who was the Founder of the City of Troy or Ilium The first Founder of Troy The common Opinion is that Ilus the Son of Tros was the Founder of this City according to which Supposition Troy has not stood an Age and an half Of this Opinion is (x) L. 13. Geor. de Regn. Troj p. 174. Strabo and Conon in Photius Reinerus Reineccius with some others attribute it to Tros Others go back as far as to King Dardanus to whom they give the Honour of having laid the first Foundation of Ilium or Troy with whom consents (y) L. 5. Aen. Virgil when he says thus Dardanus Iliacae primus pater urbis auctor Electrâ ut Graji perhibent Atlantide cretus Advehitur Teucros c. CHAP. XII Of the Epocha of the Reign of David and his Successors in both Kingdoms of Judah and Israel 1. The beginning of the Reign of David is coincident with the 30th year of his Age (a) 2 Sam. 5. v. 4. 3. 2. The first year of this Epocha precedes the Death of David 40 years (b) Ibid. Chron. 3. v. 4. c. 30. v. 27. 3. The 44th year of this Epocha or the fourth of the Reign of Solomon is coincident with the 480th year after the going of the Children of Israel out of Aegypt (c) 1
1 Pekajah  2 3956 52 1 Pekah  20 Chron. Years of the Kings of Places of Scripture Jud. Israel 40  2 Sam. V. 4. 1 Chron. III. 4. c. 30. v. 27. 40 20 1 Reg. XI 42. 17  1 Reg. XIV 21. 3  1 Reg. XV. 1. 2 Chr. XIII 1. 40  1 Reg. XV. 9.  1 1 Reg. XV. 25.  23 1 Reg. XV. 33.  1 1 Reg. XVI 8.   1 Reg. XVI 15. 16.  11 1 Reg. XVI 23.  19 1 Reg. XVI 29.   1 Reg. XXII 41 42.  1 1 Reg. XXII 52.  12 2 Reg. III 1. 7  2 Reg. VIII 16. 1  2 Reg. VIII 25. 6 28 2 Reg. XI 1 2 3. c. ix 12. 35  2 Reg. XII 1.  14 2 Reg. XIII 1.  15 2 Reg. XIII 10. 40  2 Reg. XIV 1.  63 2 Reg. XIV 23. 52  2 Reg. XV. 1.  1 2 Reg. XV. 8.  0 2 Reg. XV. 13.  11 2 Reg. XV. 17.  2 2 Reg. XV. 23.  28 2 Reg. Xâ— â—7 An. P. J. Succession of the Kings Scrip. Years of the Kings of of Judah of Israel Jud. Israel 3958 1 Jothram 2 16  3973 1 Ahaz 17 16  3984 12 1 Hosea  9 3986 1 Hezekiah 3 29  3991 6 Finis   4015 1 Manasseh  55  4070 1 Ammon  2  4072 1 Josiah  31  410â— 1 Jehoahaz  55  4103 1 Jehojakim  2  4106 4 1 Nebuchad 31  4114 1 Jehoiachim 8 Nebuchad 3 m.  4114 1 Zedekiah  11  4124 11 â—9 Nebuch   Chron. Years of the Kings of Places of Scripture Jud. Israel 15  2 Reg. XV. 32. 13  2 Reg. XVI 1.  7 2 Reg. XVII 1. 29  2 Reg. XVIII 1.   2 Reg. XVIII 10. 11. 55  2 Reg. XXI 1. 2  2 Reg. XXI 19. 13  2 Reg. XXII 1. 0  2 Reg. XXIII 31. 10  2 Reg. XXIII 36.   Jer. XXV 1. 0  2 Reg. XXIV 12 8. 10  2 Reg. XXV 18.   2 Reg. XXV 38. Jer. LII 12. 29. CHAP. XIII Of the Epocha of the Temple of SOLOMON The exact time of the building of the Temple of Solomon must be determined according to the Sacred History where we read these following Words (a) 1 Reg. 6. v. 1. 10. And it came to pass in the four hundred and fourscore year after the Children were come out of the Land of Aegypt in the fourth year of Solomon's Reign over Israel in the Month Zif which is the second Month that he began to build the House of the Lord. The Interval betwixt the going out of the Israelites out of Aegypt and the time of David on which depends the Computations of the Epocha of the Temple being the fourth year of the Reign of Solomon ought to be regulated according to the Genealogy of David described in Ruth 4. 20. seq 1 Chron. 11. 11. Matth. 1. 5. where it is to be observed that Nashon who lived and died whilst the Israelites were in the Desart (b) Numb 1. v. 7. c. 7. â— 12. begot Salmon Salmon begot Boatz and Boatz begot Obed Obed begot Jesse and Jesse David This Interval ought also to be regulated in such a manner as not to be contradictory to the Words of (c) Judg. 11. v. 26. Jephtha Whilst Israel dwelled in Heshbon and her Towns and in Aroer and her Towns and in all the Cities that be along by the Coasts of Arnon three hundred years why therefore did you not recover them within that time Which Computation of Jephtha according to the Hypothesis of the time of Servitude and of the Government of the Jews under the Judges to be accounted by its self is absolutely false Betwixt the fourth year of the Reign of Solomon the first of the Epocha of the Temple till the first year of the Iniquity of Israel of which mention is made in Ezek. 4. 5. are computed 37 years because (d) 2 Chron 9. v. 10. Solomon reigned 40 years and the general Defection of Israel hapned under (e) 1 Reg. 12. v. 26. Jeroboam the first year after Solomon 's Death The first Temple was built by (f) 1 Reg. 6. v. 3â— Solomon in seven years And in the elevenh year in the Month Bul which is the eighth Month was the House finished throughout all the Parts thereof and according to all the Fashion of it So was he seven years in building of it From the time of the Foundation of the Temple of Solomon till its Destruction which hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4124 and 8 Months are 427 Years and 6 Months which Interval is calculated from the fourth year of the Reign of Solomon till the last year of Zedekiah out of the Books of the Kings and Chronicles in which Opinion agree with us not only most of the Jewish Interpreters but also among the modern Chronologers Josepus Scaliger Henricus Buntingus Sethus Calvisius Michael Moestlinus Henricus Philippi Jacobus Hainlinus and many more From these Characters may be collected the beginning of this Epocha according to which Solomon laid the first Foundation of the Temple in the year of the Julian Period 3697 in the Month of May Cycl ☉ 12. ☽ 2. and compleated the whole Structure in the 3704th year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 8. ☽ 18. in the Month of October 8. If therefore 3696 years and 4 Months be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian Period Any certain year given of the Jul. Period to find the year since the beginning of this Epocha the Residue shews the year since the beginning of the Epocha of the building of the Temple And if in like manner 3703 Years and 9 Months be subtracted from the same year of the Julian Period the Residue demonstrates the year since the finishing of the Structure of the Temple of Solomon But if to the year of either of these two Epocha's the before-mentioned Sums be added the Product corresponds to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THere are not a few among the Interpreters Different Opinions concerning the 480 years of the Holy Scripture who are of Opinion that the Calculation of the 480 years computed (g) a Reg. 6. to have been betwixt the time of the going out of the Israelites out of Aegypt till the building of the Temple by Solomon is erroneous Serrarius makes this Interval instead of 480 680 years others would have it 580 years among whom are Melchior Canus Johannes Walterus Nicholaus Raimarus and Hugo Grotius But besides that this pretended Adulteration of the original Text is contradictory to the Providence and Promise of God this Computation of 480 years is confirmed by the joint Consent of the Chaldaean the Greek of the LXX Interpreters the Latin and other Translations § 2. Others who are not so forward in Contradicting
their first Offspring to the City of Troy otherwise called Ilium (k) Lib. 1. c. 4. And in another Place The City of Troy says he the Mother of the People of Rome Accordingly there have not been wanting who have deduced the Genealogy of Romulus and Remus from Aeneas and his Posterity of which we have given a Scheme in the following Table according to the Sentiment of the Poet Haec domus Aenaeae câ—nctis dominabitur oris Et nati natorum qui nascentur ab illis Tros is said to have had three Sons to wit Ilus K. of Troy Ganymedes and Assaracus From whom descended Capys Anchyses Aeneas whose first Wife was Creusa the Daughter of K. Priamus the 2 d Lavinia Daughter to K. Latinus Ascanius who succeeded his Father IULUS who was a Priest Sylvius K. after his Brother Ascanius Aeneas Sylvius Latinus Alba. Atys Capys Capetus Tiberinus Agrippa Aventinus Procas Numitor expell'd by his Brother Aegestus Rhea a Vestal Virgin Romulus Remus Amulius Alladius § 5. The Ancient Roman Year consisted of ten Months only and these neither Lunar nor Solar Of the year instituted by Romulus ones but regulated at the Pleasure of their first Founder March was the first of 31 days April the second of 30 days the third was May of 31 days the fourth June of 30 days Quinctilis was the fifth of 31 days Sextilis the sixth of 30 days the seventh was September of 30 days the eighth October of 31 days November the ninth of 30 days and December the tenth of 31 days The whole year consisting of 304 days Fenestellus Licinius Macro and Scaliger are of Opinion that from the time of Romulus the Roman Year was divided into twelve Months But there are so many of the most Ancient Authors who confirm by their Authority our Assertion that it would be superfluous to alledge them here we will only take notice of the Words of (k) Lib. 1. Fastor Ovid Tempora digereret cum conditor urbis in anno Constituit menses quinque bis esse suo Scilicet arma magis quam sidera Romule noras Curaque finitimos vincere major erat Est tamen ratio Caesar quae moverit illum Errorémque suum quo tueatur habet Quod satis est utero matris dum prodâ—ret infans Hoc anno statuit temporis esse satis Per totidem menses à funere conjugis uxor Sustinet in vidua tristia figna domo And considering that the Genius of Romulus appear'd more inclin'd to warlike Exploits than Astronomy it is no great Wonder if he introduc'd such an irregular Form of the year which by reason of its Inconveniencies was alter'd by Numa Pompilius § 6. The City of Rome has at several times Hâ—w lâ—ng Râ—me flourished felt the direful Effects of many dangerous Revolutions but especially when Alaric after a long Siege being at last become Master of it ruined it with Fire and Sword where the Goths exercised such unheard of Cruelties against the Inhabitants as if they intended as Johannes Mariana (l) Lib 4. de reb Hisp expresses it to revenge upon them all the Injuries the World had received in former Ages from the Hands of their Ancestors CHAP. XVIII Of the NABONASSAREAN EPOCHA 1. This Epocha is founded upon so-many Characters as are too many to be inserted here We will only take notice of two sorts Among the first are to be accounted many Eclipses related by Prolemy To the second Class belongs the Computation of this Epocha with Respect to many others by (m) Lib. de D. Nat. c. 21. Censorinus 2. From whence it appears that this Epocha begun in the year of the Julian Period 3967 Cycl ☉ 19. ☽ 15. on the 26th day of February on the fourth Feria in the Afternoon But because there is some Difference betwixt the years of this Epocha and the Julian years the Nabonassarean years consisting exactly of 365 days the Connection of these two cannot conveniently be treated of in this place § 1. THE Historians who have frequently made use of this Epocha yet are silent The first Foundation of this Epocha both as to the Author and the Occasion of its Origin Thus much is certain that its Beginning was either fixed to some remarkable Revolution or great Victory The Opinion of Dion Petav. seems not very improbable to wit that the Babylonians rebelling against the Medes had chosen for their King one Nabonassar whose Successors afterwards subdu'd again both the Medes and Assyrians § 2. Concerning the Name and Author of Of its Founder this Epocha there is no small Dispute among the Interpreters It s Origin is without question from the Chaldaean for NABO signifies (b) Psal 46. v. 1. as much as an Idol in the Chaldaean Tongue from whence Nebuchodonosor Nebuzaradan Nabonid c. are derived It is also beyond all question that Nabonassar has been King of Babylon but what Funccius Mercator and others have affirm'd him to have been the same with Salmanassar and Sardanapalus is contrary to Truth § 3. As the Disposition of the Nabonassarean years owes its Offspring to the Aegyptians so The Vsefulness of this Epocha and the Successors of Nabonassar many of the Ancient Historians but especially Ptolemy make frequently use of this Epocha in their Computations so that there is scare any one Epocha which is likely to be of more use to those that are curious in Chronology than this especially since that an Authentick Catalogue of these Kings has been publish'd out of a Greek Manuscript of Ptolemy wherein you may see the true Connexion of the years of the Reigns of these Kings with the years of the Nabonassarean Epocha And this Catalogue being look'd upon as one of the most Authentick Pieces in Chronology unto which we shall have occasion to have Recourse at several times hereafter I judged it not beyond our Purpose to insert here without any Alteration this excellent Monument of Antiquity The Catalogue of the Kings of Assyria and Media  Anni Regn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nabonassar 14 14 Nadius 2 16 Chinzirus and Porus 5 21 Jugaeus 5 26 Mardocempadus 12 38 Arcianus 5 43 Abasileutus I. 2 45 Belibus 3 48 Apronadius 6 54 Rigebelus 1 55 Mesessimordacus 4 59 Abasileutus II. 8 67 Assaradinus 13 80 Saosducheus 20 100 Chyniladanus 22 122 Nabopolassarus 21 143 Nabocolassarus 43 186 Ilvarodamus 2 188 Niricassolassarus 4 192 Nabonadius 17 209 II. The Kings of Persia  Anni Regn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyrus 9 218 Cambyses 8 226 Darius I. 36 262 Xerxes 21 283 Artaxexres I. 41 324 Darius II. 19 343 Artaxerxes II. 46 389 Ochus 21 410 Arostus 2 412 Darius III. 4 416 III. The Graecian Kings   Nab. An. Phi. Alexander M. 8 424 4 Philippus Aridaeus 7 431 7 Alexander Aegus 19 443 19 IV. The Graecian Kings over Egypt Ptolemaeus Lagus 20 463 39 Ptolemaeus Philadelphus 38 501 77 Euergetes I. 25 526 102
And it shall come to pass when 70 years are accomplished that I will punish the King of Babylon and that Nation saith the Lord for their Iniquity and the Land of the Chaldaeans and will make it perpetual Desolations But I must needs give the Preference to the Opinion of Scaliger who makes a difference betwixt these two Aera's For it being evident out of (i) C. 24. v. 1 2. c. 33. v. 21. c. 40. v. 1. Ezekiel and several other Passages alledged before of the Holy Scripture that the End of the 70 years Captivity mentioned under the first year of Cores must be accounted backwards to the time of Jehoiachim This time is in no wise agreeable to the Calculation of Berosus's and Ptolemy's Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus There is also another Objection to be made against this first year of the Babylonian Epocha to wit that since by the Consent of most Historians Cyrus reigned 9 years after it is very probable that the Jews would not have neglected in all this time to rebuild the Temple especially since it is evident out of (k) C. 2. v. 3. Ezra that Cyrus never recalled the said Edict For which Reason it appears more probable that the first year of Cores mentioned in the Scripture was not long before his Death it being else very difficult to imagine how Cambyses the Successour of Cyrus could have prevented the same Edict to be put in Execution And here it is very observable that in prophane History the year when Cyrus entred the Babylonian Empire and vanquished Darius is expresly mentioned but the Conquest of the City of Babylon which in all Probability tâ—anscend a considerable time is pass'd by in silence From whence it is apparent that the Prophane Historians fix the Beginning of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus to that time when he vanquished Darius But it seems as if the Holy Scripture understood by the first year of Cores the same year when he made himself Master of the Capital City of Babylon as it is with the Aera Actiaca which some begin from the Battle of Actium others from the Conquest of Alexandria There is also another Observation to be made That the Words in the Original Text do not expresly denote the First Year of Cores but rather One of the Years of Cores which I wonder how it should slip the Observation of so many Interpreters CHAP. XXV Of the Epocha of the Banishment of the Roman Kings and the Establishment of the Consular Dignity The Characters of this Epo ha are 1. The Banishment of the Roman Kings and the Establishment of the Liberty of the People of Rome 2. The Establishment of the Consular Dignity in Rome 3. The Interval of 244 years betwixt the Epocha of the Building of the City of Rome and this Epocha as may be gathered from Livy Messala Corvinus and several other Roman Historians 4. The first Consulate of L. Junius Brutus and L. Tarquinius Brutus the last of which enjoyed this Dignity but for a very little time being obliged to abdicate himself from the Consulate by reason of his Name and Affinity with the Royal Family and was succeeded by P. Valerius Poplicola 5. The Kings were banished Rome at the same time that those of Athens were delivered from the Tyranny of the Pisistratides according to Pliny Lib. 34. c. 4. 6. The first Tarentin Games after the Banishment of the Roman Kings were instituted by Valerius Poplicola according to the Testimony of Valerius Antias in Censorinus c. 17. 7. Pythagoras of Samus was in Italy at the same time when L. Brutus freed his Native Country from the Tyranny of the Roman Kings Cic. Tusc 4. 8. Soon after the Banishment of the Roman Kings the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was dedicated by M. Horatius Pulvillus who was chosen Colleague to Poplicola after the Death of Brutus who was slain in the Field according to (a) Histor l. 3. Tacitus and (b) L 5. c. 1â— Valerius Maximus 9. The 6th Day of the Calends of March Tarquin the last of the Roman Kings was forced to leave the City the Banishment of the Roman Kings being by the ancient Roman Historians fixed to that day These and innumerable other Characters shew the year of this Epocha to have been coincident with the year 4206 of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 6. ☽ 7. in the Beginning of the Spring which time we look upon as to be unquestionably in reference to the Banishment of the Roman Kings If therefore from any certain year given of the Julian Period be subtracted 4205 years and 2 Months the Any year given of the Julian Period to find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha Residue shews the year since the Banishment of the Roman Kings And if the before-mentioned Sum be added to the year of the said Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THE ancient Historians make mention of these seven following Roman Kings  Years 1. Romulus who reigned 37 A Vacancy of the Throne which lasted 1 2. Numa Pompilius who reigned 43 3. Tullus Hostilius who reigned 27 4. Ancus Martius who reigned 24 5. Tarquinius Priscus who reigned 38 6. Servius Tullius who reigned 44 7. Tarquinius Superbus who reigned 25 The Sum 244 § 2. The Occasion of the Banishment of the Roman Kings and the Establishment of the Consular Government mentioned by Livy Florus Aurelius Victor and other Roman Historians is contracted by (c) L. 2. de Fin. Cicero in these following Words Lucretia being ravished by the King's Son laid violent Hands upon her self The Grief conceived at so extraordinary an Action by the People of Rome proved the real Cause of the Liberty of their City under the Conduct of Brutus § 3. The Annual Government of the Roman Consuls being looked upon as so many Characters of Time by the Ancients have been very industrious in ordering the Catalogue of these Consuls but they all are fallen short from what has been done in this kind since in the year 1547 the Publick Records called Tabulae Capitolins were found at Rome which as it is supposed were first collected by Verrius Flaccus Grammaticus by Command of the Senate and afterwards published under the Reign of Augustus Cuspinianus Carolus Sigonius and Onuphrius Panvinius had the chief Management in restoring and ordering this Catalogue but notwithstanding all their Ingenuity and Industry have not been able to supply the Defect of four Pair of Consuls that were wanting in these Records I cannot but agree with Calvisius in this Point who attributes this Defect of these four Pair of Consuls to the Irregularity of the Ancient Roman Calendar CHAP. XXVI Of the Epocha of the first War betwixt the Greeks and Persians or the time of the Battel fought near Marathon 1. All the Ancient Authors who have made mention of this War agree that the Persians and Greeks were first engaged in War after the burning of the City
4. Agesias was Archon at Athens in the same year that Alexander died See Diodor. Sicul. Arrian 5. In the same year were Consuls of Rome C. Poetelius and L. Papyrius See Diodorus Siculus 6. In the same year was the 114th Olympiad celebrated where Micinas of Rhodes carried the Day (e) L. 1. contr Appion Josephus Diodor. Sic. (f) L. 7. Arrian (g) L. 8. demonstr Evang Eusebius 7. Alexander died 236 years after Cyrus who began to reign over Persia at the Beginning of the 55th Olympiad Euseb L. cit 8. From the Beginning of the Nabonassarean Epocha till the Death of Alexander are computed 424 years according to (h) L. 3. Ptolemy 9. The year of the Christian Aera 238 was the 562 d after the Death of Alexander according to (i) de D. N. c. 21. Censorinus 10. 1214 years after the Death of Alexander there was a Solar Eclipse observed at Aracta both the great Luminaries being in the Sign of the Lion and that the same Eclipse hapned in the year of Christ 891 on the 8th day of August about Noon is manifest from the Ecliptical Calculations Albategn 11. The Death of Alexander is thus related by (k) Vit. Alex. Plutarch On the 18th day of the Month Daesius being seized with a Fever he remain'd all that Night in the Bath The next day after Bathing he hept his Bed-Chamber where he played at Tables with Medius Having bathed again at Night and assisted at the Sacrifice he eat with much Eagerness The same Night his Fever return'd again The 20th day of the Month after having bathed again he assisted at the Solemn Sacrifice and being laid down in the Bath he pass'd his time with a certain Commander of a Ship who gave him a Relation of his Voyage and of what he had observed otherwise most remarkable in the Ocean The 21st being pass'd in the same manner his Fever encreased towards Night And the next day the Fever growing more violent he was carried from thence to another Place near the great Bath where he entertain'd himself with the Generals of his Army giving his Orders to them On the 24th day his Fever still encreasing he would assist at the Sacrifice whither he was forced to be carried and ordered the Generals and other Chief Men to tarry within the Court and that the Colonels and Captains should keep Guard without the Gates On the 25th he was carried into one of the inner Apartments of the Castle where he slept a little But his Fever did not diminish When the Generals came to attend him he had already lost the Use of his Tongue which continued thus on the 26th The Macedonians believing him to be dead came in a tumultuous manner to the Gates and having forced those that attended to admit them within the King's Apartment they all passed one by one without their Arms by his Bed On the same day Python and Seleucus were dispatch'd to the Temple of Serapis to consult the Oracle whether Alexander should be conveyed thither But they received for Answer that they should not remove Alexander from the Place he then was in On the 28th towards Night he died Thus it is recorded in the Diary 12 It is very probable that the Month Daesius of the Macedonians was in the same Year coincident with the Month Thargelion of the Athenians of which these are the Words of Aelianus (l) L. 2. c. 35. Var. Hist It is reported also that Alexander was born and died on the self-same Day being the 6th of the Month Thargelion 13. After the Death of Alexander and many and long Debates among the Generals Aridaeus the Son of Philip who also had taken the Name of Philip was by the Majority of Suffrages constituted King and Perdiccas unto whom Alexander when at the Point of Death had given his Ring was chosen Regent pursuant to which all the Governours of the Provinces and other principal Officers were ordered to obey their Commands This was done in the same year when Cephisodorus was Archon of Athens Diod. Sic. L. 68. From these Characters it is evident that Alexander died in the Spring of the 4391st year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 23. ☽ 2. and that from the same year about the Summer Season when another Archon succeeded at Athens the Philippean Period had its Beginning If therefore from any certain year of the Julian To investigate the year sinâ—e the beginning of these Epoc. Period given 4390 years and 3 Months be subtracted the Residue shews the year since the Death of Alexander the Great To find out the Year since the Beginning of the Philippean Period several Months more must be subtracted And if the same Number of Years and Months be added to the year since the Beginning of these Epocha's the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THere is some Dispute about the true About what time Alexander died time of the Death of Alexander the Great For A. Gellius allots no more than 11 years for the Reign of Alexander whereas (m) L. 15. Strabo accounts as many after his last Victory obtained against Darius But neither of these two are of sufficient Authority to counterbalance what has been said before concerning the true time of his Death § 2. It is also call'd in question whether his How Alexander died Death was occasioned by Poison or Debauchery Of the first Opinion is (n) L. 16. c. 16. Justin He was says he vanquished at last not by the Bravery of his Enemies but by the Perfidiousness of his own Friends and Subjects And Curtius (o) L. 10. says expressly It was believed that his Death was occasioned by Poison c. But (p) Vit. Alex. Plutarch says that this Account of his being made away by Poison was look'd upon as a Fiction because his Body shew'd not the least Marks of it after his Death tho' it laid several Days exposed to the Heat of the Sun whilst the Contentions lasted among the Generals § 3. After the Death of Alexander the whole The Change of Affairs after the Death of Alexander Body of this vast Empire was torn in many Pieces among which four Kingdoms are the most remarkable pursuant to the Vision of Daniel For Ptolemy seized Egypt Seleucus Babylon Antigonus the Lesser Asia and Antipater Macedonia and Greece § 4. The Histories of these Times make Mention of two Philips the first Philip the Son Who was that Philip that gave the Name to the Philippean Period of Amyntas II. Father to Alexander the Great the second Aridaeus the natural Brother of Alexander Scaliger Christmannus Serarius and others attribute the Origin of this Epocha to the first But the same having been unknown till after the Death of Alexander the Great it appears more probable to me that it owed its first Off-spring to Philip the Brother of Alexander who was born of Philinna a Thessalian Lady and Mistress
Day of the 12th Month should be celebrated which Month is called in the Syrian Tongue ADAR this contradicts the Opinion of Scaliger and Petavius For if at that time the Month of ADAR was the last it follows that the Month of NISAN was the first they beginning their Year with the Spring For the rest those Authors who mention this Epocha make use sometimes of the Nabonassarean Years sometimes of the Julian Years of which see (m) L. 10. c. 40. de Doct. Temp. Dionysius Petavius CHAP. XXXIII Of the Epocha and time of the Asmoneans who were afterwards called Maccabeans 1. This Epocha must be regulated according to the true Succession of Mattathias Judas Maccabeus Jonathan Simon c. as expressed in the Books of the Maccabeans and by Josephus 2. Mattathias began to be famous about that time when Antioc Epipha 3. The same Mateathias died in the 146th year of the Graecian Epocha (a) 1 Mac. 2. v. 70. 4. In the 148th year of the same Epocha Judas Maccabeus Son of Mattathias rendred himself famous by restoring the Levitical Service among the Jews (b) 1 Mac 4. v. 52. 5. In the 152 d year of the Graecian Epocha Jud. Maccab. was slain in the Battle fought against Bacchides and was succeeded by his Brother Jonathan (c) 1 Mac. 9. v. 3. 18. 28. 6. Jonathan being murdered by the Treachery of Tryphon (d) 1 Mac. 12. v 48. Simon his Brother was made Prince over the Jews and fought with such Success against the Gentiles that it was under his Government said of the Jews (e) 1 Mac. 1â— v. 41 42. In the 170th Year the Israelites were delivered from the Yoke imposed upon them by the Heathens And from that time on they used to write in their Inscriptions IN THE FIRST YEAR OF SIMON THE CHIEF HIGH-PRIEST GENERAL AND PRINCE OF THE JEWS 7. The 172 d year of the Graecian Epocha was coincident with the 3 d year of Simon the Chief High-Priest (f) 1 Mac. 1â— v. 27. 8. The Epocha of Simon began with the Ecclesiastical Year or in the Spring (g) 1 Mac. 13. v. â—1 9. The last of the Asmonean Race was Antigonus the Son of Aristobulus the Brother of Hyrcanus whom Antonius caused to be nailed to the Cross which was the first Instance of that kind of Execution of a King among the Romans and after he had been well scourged to be strangled See (h) L. 14. Antiqu. c 29. Jos and (i) L. â—9 Dio. 10. The Government of the Asmoneans till the Death of Antigonus lasted 126 years and was succeeded by Herodes sirnamed the Great See (k) L. 14. c. ult L. 15. c. 1. Ant. L. 1. c. 13 de Bel. Jud. Jos and (l) L. 1. c. 3. de Excid Hierosol Hegesippus From these Characters it is evident that the Asmonean Race flourished about the year of the Julian Period 4548 Cycl ☉ 12. ☽ 7. at which time Mattathias died That in the 4549th year of the Julian Period Jud. Maccab. acquired immortal Glory among the Jews by restoring their publick Service and that he was slain in the year of the Julian Period 4555 And lastly that the Epocha of Simon had its Beginning in the year 4571 of the Julian Period How any certain year of the Julian Period may How to find out any year of these Epocha's be conveniently connected with the years of these Epocha's is sufficiently evident from what has been said upon this Point in the preceding Chapters to wit for the year since the Death of Mattathias must be subtracted 4547 years for the year since the Restauration of the Levitical Service by Judas 4548 years and for the year of the Epocha instituted in honour of Simon must be subtracted 4570 years and three Months c. § 1. THE Words of Josephus where he relates the Family of Mattathias being The Derivation of the Name of the Asmoneans ambiguous some have made the Word Asmonean a proper Name others an Appellative It is I think sufficient for us to know that the Word Asmonean signifies as much in the Hebrew as Great Men and Governours in which Sence it is explained by Rabbi Kimchi § 2. Many who insist upon the Promise of Of which Tribe the Asmoneans were descended the Scepter of Judah would have the Asmoneans descended from the Tribe of Judah of which Opinion are Genebrardus and Baronius But the last of these two has changed his Opinion in his last Edition of his Annals it being evident out of the Books of the Maccabeans (m) 1 Mac. 2. v. 1. c. 14. v. 29. that the Asmonean Family was descended from the Tribe of Levi which is likewise agreeable to the Genealogy of Josephus (n) L. 12. c. 8. What is alledged by some of the Asmonean Race to be descended on the Mother's side from the Family of David is of no great Consequence it being not customary among the Jews to let the Succession pass to the Females § 3. Judas the Son of Mattathias was the first How they were called Maccabeans afterwards who was sirnamed the Maccabean (o) 1 Mac. 2. v. 3. But concerning the Interpretation of this Word there are diverse Opinions (p) L. 3. Art Cab. Johan Reuchlinus and Serrarius would have it to have been an Inscription in the great Standard of Judah and to signifie as much as WHO IS LIKE UNTO THE LORD AMONGST THE GODS And that Judas from thence had received the Sirname of Maccabean But (q) L. 2. 13. misc Fullerus interprets it THROUGH ME IS THE PLAGUE to wit in Reference of the refractory Gentiles and Apostates § 4. Many Learned Men are of Opinion The Administration of the Government was in the Tribe of Levi before the Asmoneans that the supreme Administration of the Government among the Jews was not lodged in the Tribe of Levi till the time of the Asmonean Family but contrary to Truth For (r) L. 20. c. 8. Josephus says expresly that after the Return of the Jews to Jerusalem by the Command of Cyrus Jesus the Son of Josedec was High-Priest WHO says he AND WHOSE POSTERITY in all Fifteen governed the Jewish Commonwealth till the time of Antiochus Eupator St. Jerome (s) In Jer. c. 22. in Ez. c. 21. consents with Josephus and (t) In C. 1. Ez. Lyra has the following Words God governed his People after they had taken Possession of the Land of Promise by three different Forms of Government First by the Judges of which in the Book of the Judges Secondly by the Kings of which in the Book of the Kings Thirdly by the High-Priests from their Return out of the Babylonian Captivity till Christ And it is remarkable what is related by (u) L. 11. c. 8. Josephus that when Alexander the Great stood in need of the Assistance of the Jews at the Siege of Tyrus he directed his Letters written for that Purpose to Jaddua the
Et nova de gravido palmite gemma tumet c. After having said much more in Praise of the Spring the Poet makes this Answer Bruma novi prima est veterisque novissima Solis Principium capiunt Phoebus annus idem § 5. The Year which preceded the first Julian Of the Year of Confusions Year was called the Year of Confusion because it consisted by reason of the Neglect of the Intercalations of 15 Months or 445 Days as is evident from the Words of Censorinus Caesar says he when High-Pontiff of Rome in his third Consulship and in the first of Emil. Lepidus to correct what had been neglected before intercalated two Months consisting of 67 Days betwixt the Months of November and December having already added 23 Days to the Month of February and this made that Year to consist of 445 Days And (c) Vit. Caes Suetonius represents the Correction of Caesar in the same manner from all which it is evident that the Year of Confusiâ—â— began on the 14th day of October in the Year of the Julian Period 4667. § 6. Though Caesar had been very careful in appointing the exact time of Intercalation yet The Correction of the Julian Tears Caesar having been slain in the second year of this Epocha out of Ignorance of those who had the Management of the Calendar these Intercalations were made sooner than it ought to have been which induced Octavius Augustus to undertake the Reformation of these Julian Years which is thus related by Macrobius The Priests says he have given Occasion to a new Error by their Intercalations For whereas they ought to have intercalated that Day which is made up out of four times 6 Hours at the latter End of each 4th year at the Beginning of the 5th they did make this Intercalation at the Beginning of each 4th year This erroneous Intercalation was continued for 36 years together in which time 12 Days were intercalated instead of 9. This Mistake was likewise corrected by Augustus who ordered that the 12 next following years should not be intercalated that these three Days which by the Over-hastiness of the Priests were introduced might be swallowed up thus in this Interval Afterwards he ordered pursuant to Caesar 's Intention that at the Beginning of each 5th year one Day should be intercalated and that this should for an everlasting Remembrance be cut in Brass § 7. It is undeniable that there is some Mutation in the Ingress of the Sun into the Celestial Whether the Julian Years need another Correction Points and that likewise the Feasts of Easter have been misplaced in the Old Calendar Nevertheless I cannot see any sufficient Reason which should induce us to approve of the Gregorian Correction or any other but rather to retain the ancient Form of the Year as in the times of Julius Caesar and without cutting off a Day by reason of the Preceding Equinoxes to investigate the Plenilunium Paschale out of the most exact Astronomical Tables and to â—ix the Feast of Easter on the first Feria next ensuing the said Plenilunium thus following the Footsteps of both the Emperours Julius and Constantine For it is well known that the first regulated the Publick and Civil Records according to the Motion of the Sun in which he followed the Opinion of Sosigenes and his Solar Year We have before us the Examples of many great Mathematicians and of Ptolemy himself who did not reject the Fasti Nabonassarei tho' in the same no Account was made of the Hours belonging to the Solar Year and what should move us to pretend to any new Alterations in the Julian Calender which agrees much more with the Celestial Motions For what Detriment is it to the Common-wealth if â—â—e Equinox be fixed now on the 9th or 10th Day of March which in the times of Julius Caesar used to fall out upon the 23d Day of the same Month On the other hand what a Confusion would it be if by rejecting the Julian Year we should be put under a Necessity of rendring useless all the Astronomical Tables and the Julian Period For which Reason it is that Johannes Keplerus who was Mathematician to three Emperours when he compiled his Tabulas Rudolphinas did not follow the Method of Gregorius but retained the Julian Computation Neither need we like Gregorius be at the Charge of many thousand Pounds to find out the Paschal Plenilunes the same being without great Difficulty to be investigated out of the Astronomical Tables where the Equinoxes and Plenilunes have their exact appointed times To be short as the Church does not impair the Civil Power so the Feasts need not interfere with the Imperial Records especially at this time when we may make use of the Words of the (a) Col. 2. v. 16 17. Apostle Let no Man judge you in respect of any Holy Day or the New Moon or of the Sabbath-Days which are a Shadow of things to come CHAP. XXXVI Of the Epocha of the time of Herod and the Reigns of the Foreign Kings over the Jews 1. Herod who afterwards was sirnamed the Great was by Antipater declared Prince of Galilea when he was scarce 15 years of Age. (b) L. 14. c. 17. Antiq. L. 1. c. 8. de Bell. Jud. Josephus 2. This was done after Julius Câ—â—â—r had put a happy Period to the Alexandrian War and had conferr'd great Honours upon Antipater the Father of Herod (c) L. â—4 c. 15. 17. Ant. Jos 3. This same Herod solliciting for Succours against the Parthians was by Anthony and Augustus with Consent of the Senate and People of Rome declared King of Judaea in the 184th Olympiad when C. Domit. Calv. the second time and C. Asin Pollio were Consuls of Rome whose Consulate was coincident with the Year before Christ 40 according to the vulgar Epocha See (d) L. 19. v. 26. Jos 4. The City of Jerusalem was besieged and taken by Herod and Sosius in the Sabbatick Year when M. Agrippa and Canid. Gallus were Consuls at Rome in the 185th Olympiad in the third Month on the Day of their great and solemn Fast on which Day the said City was likewise taken by Pompey 27 years before See (e) L. 14. c. 18. Ant. Josephus These Characters shew the taking of this City to have been coincident with the 37th year before Christ 5. The Battle betwixt Anthony and Augustus was fought near the Promontory of Actium in the 7th year after Herod had taken the City of Jerusalem according to Josephus (f) L. 15. c. 17. which Battle hapned in the 31st year before Christ and in the 15th Julian Year as shall be shewn hereafter 6. Herod was confirmed in the Kingdom and had the Crown which he had laid down of his own accord restored to him when Augustus marched into Egypt which was in the 2 d year after the Battle of Actium and the 30th year before Christ 7. Herod lived but eight Days Josephus says
of the NEW-BORN KING considering especially the Inconveniencies of the Winter Season It is also worth Observation what is related by the Evangelist (g) Matth. 2. That Herod flow all the Children that were two years old and under Herod had been questionless informed by the Wise Men that they had been near a whole Year upon their Journey since the time of the Apparition of the Star which induced Herod to cause all the Children of two years old and under to be slain So that it may be more probably concluded from the Words of the (b) Matth. 2. v. 16. Evangelist that Christ was at that time about one year old than that he was of a few Days and that the Wise Men did not come to adore Christ in his Cradle a considerable time after the Purification of his Mother about the Beginning of the second Year of Christ and the forty fifth Julian Year CHAP. XXXVII Of the Spanish Aera which is otherwise called the Aera of CAESAR and the Aera of Aera's 1. This New Aera was introduced in Spain at that time when after the Death of C. Jul. Caesar who had conquered Spain Caesar Octav. M. Anton. and M. Aemil. Lep. were Masters of the Roman Empire 2. After they had with their joint Forces overthrown Brutus and Cassius in that bloody Battle of Philippi 3. After they had divided the Provinces of the Roman Empire betwixt them a second time of which Division see (a) L. 48. Dio Cassius 4. This Division of the World was made in the Year since the Building of the City 714. 5. When Domit. Calv. and C. Asin Pollio were Roman Consuls according to Dio and (b) L. 3. c. 24. de reb Hisp Joh. Mariana 6. In the 438th Year of this Aera in September under the Reigns of Arcadius and Honorius Roman Emperours and Flav. Stilico and Flav. Aurel. Roman Consuls the first Council composed of 19 Bishops was held at Toledo against the Heresie of Priscillianus as is evident out of the Inscriptions of the Decrees of this Council cited by Alph. Villadiego 7. In the 440th year of the Spanish Aera Arcadius and Honorius were the fifth time Consuls of Rome and in the same year hapned an Eclipse of the Sun in November 8. In the year 447 of the Spanish Aera the Alani Vandals and Suevians entred Spain Idat. in Chronol 9. (c) L. 3. contr Jud. Jul. Pomerius Bishop of Toledo says thus It is no difficult Matter to investigate the Year since the Nativity of Christ For this Aera was invented 38 years before the Birth of Christ and we now account the 624th Year of this Aera If therefore 38 years this being the Interval betwixt this Aera and the Nativity of our Saviour be subtracted from thence the Residue is 586 years From these and other Characters too many to be mentioned here it is manifest that the Spanish Aera begun with the first of January in the year of the Julian Period 4676 Cycl ☉ 28. ☽ 2. If therefore 4675 years be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue To investigate the year since the beginning of this Epocha shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha and if the said 4675 years be added to the known year of this Aera the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. (d) L. 5. p. 445. de Em. Temp. JOsephus Scaliger who follows the Footsteps of (e) L. 48. â—ist Rom. Dion affirms that the Spaniards How this Aera was introduced in Spain would not receive this Aera till they received a signal Overthrow from the Proconsul Domitius Calvinus But it being evident out of the same Dion that this Defeat did not happen till in the second year of this Aera it is much more probable to aquiesce in the Relation of Joh. Mariana that the Spaniards followed in this Aera the Footsteps of the Antiochians and Aegyptians who about 11 years after the Death of Cleopatra began to compute their years from the Reign of Augustus to shew their ready Submission and Obedience to their new Prince § 2. The Provinces of the Roman Empire were at two several times divided betwixt the This Aera was introduced at the time of the 2 d Division of the Empire Triumviri In the first Division Octavius had for his share Italy Africa Sicily and Sardinia Lepidus Spain and Gallia Narbonensis Anthony the whole Gallia on both sides of the Alps which Division was made according to (f) L. 46. Dion in the year since the Building of the City 711. Some begin this Aera with this first Division which hapned in the 4th year after the Death of Caesar but according to the Chronological Circumstances the same may be with more Certainty referr'd to the second Division which was made in the 6th year after Caesar's Death § 3. This Aera is generally made use of in the Acts and Decrees of the Synods and other Spanish The Vsefulness of this Aera Inscriptions the most famous Synods of Spain and Africa being distinguished and described according to the Computation of the Spanish Aera § 4. (g) L. 3. c. 24. de reb Hisp Joh. Mariana observes that the Use of When the Vse of this Aera ceased this Aera ceased in the year of Christ 1383 under John I. King of Castile in whose stead was introduced the Aera of Christ following in this Point the Example of those of Valentia and Portugal CHAP. XXXVIII Of the Epocha of the Battle of Actium used among the Aegyptians 1. Octavius took up Arms against Anthony who having receded from the Rules agreed upon betwixt the Triumviri and being entangled in the Snares of Cleopatra had given unto her to the no small Detriment of the whole Roman Empire the Provinces of Phoenicia Syria Cyprus a great part of Sicily of Judaea and that part of Arabia Nabataea that extends its self towards the Ocean 2. After the Death of Sext. Pompeius the King of Armenia was taken Prisoner and the other Nations which were engaged in War against Caesar were forced to submit and the Parthians restored to a peaceable Condition 3. The chiefest Motive which induced Caesar to arm against Anthony was that he had understood that Anthony had called Caesario in his last Will the Son of Julius Caesar and had ranged him amongst the Family of the Caesars 4. This Civil War betwixt Caesar and Anthony begun after the Philippean Perusian and Sicilian Wars when Cn. Domitius and C. Sossius were Roman Consuls both of the Anthonian Faction 5. In the same year that the Battle of Actium was fought Caesar was the third time and Vai Messala Roman Consuls See (a) L. â—0 Hist Rom. Dio Cassius (b) Vit. Antoniâ— Plutarch (c) In Octav. August Suetonius Florus Eutropius Orosius and others 6. The Battle of Actium was fought in the 7th year of the Reign of Herod at
Strangers § 8. But the Chronologers are divided in their The Authors differ about the Beginning of this Epocha Opinions concerning the true Beginning of the Encoenia of New Rome Some there are who make them coincident with the same Year the Council of Nicâ—a was finished among whom is (k) L. 8. c. 26. Nicephorus Callisthus who has been severely reprimanded upon this Account by Camerarius Others differ two Years from our Opinion induced by the Authority of Cassiodorus who says that under the Consulship of Pacatianus and Hilarianus the City of Byzantium was called Constantinople after Const the Great But (l) Ad An. Chr. 330 Coesar Baronius has sufficiently demonstrated that Cassiodorus was led into this Error by his wrong Computation of the Years of the Reign of Constantine Some recede but one Year from our Assertion making the Encoenia of Constantinople coincident with the Year 331 of Christ and with the Consulship of Annius Bassus and Ablabius Aegyptius concerning which (m) Fast Cons Onuphrius cites these following Words HOC ANNO ANTE DIEM V. EID. MAI. CONSTANTINOPOLIS NOVA ROMA AB IMPERATORE CAESARE CONSTANTINO MAXIMO PIO FELICE AUGUSTO DEDICATA EST. But Onuphrius's Opinion being not agreeable to the Relations of the ancient Historians deserves in no wise any Preference before ours which is founded upon the Authority of the best Monuments of Antiquity § 9. To reconcile the different Opinions How to reconcile these Differences concerning the Beginning of this Epocha it is to be observed that those that fix its Beginning sooner than we have begun their Computation from the time its first Foundation was laid by Constantine which was some Years before its Consecration Whereas those who reduce this Epocha from the 28th Year of the Reign of Constantine have had respect to the time of its full Perfection some Years after its Consecration as evidently appears from the Words of (n) L. a. c. 9. Philostorgius who relates it to that time when Constantinople appeared in its full Glory so as to contend for the Superiority with Rome it self But as to the Opinion of Georgius Codinus Curopalates who in his Origines Constantinopolitanae published by Georgius Doâ—sa makes the Beginning of this Epocha coincident with the 12th year of the Reign of Constantine it does not deserve an Answer § 10. The Design of Const the Great to increase Concerning the Division of the â—â—man Empire the Power and Strength of the Empire by Old and New Rome one in the Western the other in the Eastern Part of the Empire proved very pernicious in the End this unadvised Division having exposed the Empire to Ruin and Destruction And it has been well observed by (o) C. 40 de Comit. Onuphrius that Const the Great by removing the 15 Legions that guarded the Borders of the Danube and Rhine had invited the barbarous Nations of the Goths Alans Burgundians and Franks to over-run the Western Empire CHAP. XLVI Of the Turkish Epocha commonly called the Epocha of Hegira This Epocha begins from the time of the Flight of Mahomet from Meccha which without Contradiction hapned in the Year of Christ 602 or in the Year of the Julian Period 5335 on the 16th day of July on the 6th Feria But this Epocha being composed of Lunar Years consisting of 354 Days 8 Hours and 864 Scruples its Connection is very difficult with the Julian Years § 1. SOme are of Opinion that this Epocha owes its Offspring to Hagar from whence the The Origin â— this Epocha Turks deduce their Origin But it seems more probable that the same has its Beginning from the time of the Flight of their Prophet Mahomet from the City of Meccha Consult Hottin in Hist Orient p. 260. seq § 2. The Turks compute their Years by 12 The twelve Months of the Turks Months whose Names are thus express'd by Gravius 1. Moharram 2. Safar 3. Rabia prior 4. Rabia poster 5. Jomada Prior. 6. Jom Posterior 7. Rajab 8. Schaaban 9. Ramadan 10. Schavval 11. Dulkaadah 12. Dulheggiah CHAP. XLVII Of the Persian Epocha called commonly YEZDEJERD 1. The Years of the Persian Epocha are equivalent to the Nabonassarean or ancient Aegyptian Years 2. This Epocha derives its Name from Yezdejerd the Son of Schariar the last Persian King 3. The Graecian Epocha precedes the Persian 344324 Days and the Arabian is 3624 Days before the Persian Epocha according to the Testimony of Ulug Begg an Indian Prince on both Sides of the River Ganges 4. The Persian Aera is coincident with the 1379th Year and 3 d Month or 90 Days of the Nabonassarean Epocha according to Alfraganus From these Characters it is evident that this Aera began in the Year of the Julian Period 5345 on the 16th day of June on the third Feria But because the Connection of these Years with the Julian Years is very difficult by reason of their Difference it will be too long to be inserted here § 1. THE Disposition of the Years of the The Disposiition of the Years of this Epocha Persian Epocha is the same with the Nabonassarean Years every one consisting of 365 Days and their Months are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they add Five Days to the Month Aban which the Astronomers commonly insert in the latter end of the Year The Names of their Months are thus express'd by Gravius 1. Fervadin 2. Ardabahesht 3. Chordad 4. Tir. 5. Mordad 6. Sharivar 7. Mâ—her 8. Adan 9. Abur 10. Dî 11. Bâ—hmaâ—â— 12. Esfandarmod § 2. This Epocha has beyond all Question its The Origin of this Epocha Beginning from the Times of Yezdejerd or the Year of the Julian Period 5345. The only Question is whether it began with the Beginning of the Reign of this Prince or from the time of his Death Alfraganus Scaliger Christmannus and several others are for the last to wit from the time that Yezdejerd was vanquish'd and slain by Othâ—â—an near the City of Merga But the before-mentioned Vlug Begg cited by Gravius deduces its Origin from the Beginning of the Reign of this Prince CHAP. XLVIII Of the Jellalaean or Gelalaean Epocha otherwise called the Royal Epocha and the Epocha of the Sultans This Epocha began in the Year of the Julian Period 5792 on the 14th day of March at the time of the Aequinox It is composed of Solar Years consisting of 365 Days 5 Hours 49 Minutes and 53″ From whence it is evident that to investigate its Connection with the Julian Period you must subtract 5791 Years and 7 Months § 1. THIS Epocha is purely Astronomical invented For what Vse this Epocha was invented on purpose for the Conveniency of finding out the exact time of the Vernal Aequinox at which time the Persians celebrate a most solemn Festival Of which see (a) Iâ—â—n Pers part 2. p. 307. 494. Olearius § 2. The Persians make use of three several The three-fold Persian Calendar sorts of Calendars
rest of the Jewish Traditions § 1. (c) Exerc. Bibl. MOrinus and (d) Chron. sacr c. 2. p. 3. Isaacus Vossius are of Whether the Hebrew Text be corrupted concerning these 430 years Opinion that the Hebrew Text concerning the 430 years of the sojourning of the Israelites in Aegypt has been adulterated and therefore prefer the Samaritan and Greek Translations In the first it is said thus The sojourning of the Children of Israel and their Forefathers who dwelt in the Land of Canaan and Aegypt was four hundred and thirty years Whereas in the Hebrew Text it is thus express'd by Moses The sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Aegypt was four hundred and thirty years But besides the Divine Testimony of the unquestionable and most authentick Authority of the Hebrew Text (e) C. 5. v. 18. St. Matthew and St. (f) C. 16. v. 17. Luke and in other Places the Chaldaean vulgar Latin and Arabick Translations are sufficient to attest the genuine Lection of the Hebrew Text in this Place as well as the frequent Allegations of many of the most ancient Authors § 2. There are not a few who pretend to begin This Epocha has not it's beginning from the time of Jacob 's going into Aegypt this Epocha from the time of Jacob's going into Aegypt of which we read in (g) C. 46. Genesis but according to this Hypothesis it is impossible to compleat the Number of 430 years of the Israelites sojourning in Aegypt for it being said (h) Gen. 46. v. 11. that Jacob came into Aegypt with Kohath the Son of Levi if the whole Age of Kohath be computed as well as that of his Son Amram the first being of 133 the last of 137 (i) Exod. 7. v. 7. Years and the 80 Years of Moses when he spoke to Pharaoh be added to them both the whole does not exceed 350 Years which is 80 Years less than 430 Years from whence it 's evident that our preceding Computation is to be preferr'd before this it being especially confirmed by the Authority of the Jewish Rabbi's and most of the Greek and Latin Authors The Greeks according to the Translation of the LXX Interpreters whose Words are these The sojourning of the Children of Israel and their Forefathers who dwelt in the Land of Aegypt and in the Land of Canaan they and their Fathers were 450 years But the Latin Interpreters have followed in this Point the Footsteps of the two Learned Fathers St. Jerom and St. Austin These 430 years says the first (k) C. 3. Ep. ad Gal. are to be computed from the time when God said unto Abraham And in thee shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed There are to be computed says St. Austin 430 years from the 75th year of the Age of Abraham when the first Promise was made unto him by God till the time of the Children of Israel 's going out of Aegypt with whom agrees Gregorius Syncellus who affirms that the 4â—0 years of the sojourning of the Children of Israel in the Land of Canaan and Aegypt ought according to the Opinion of all the Interpreters and Historians to be computed from the 75th year of Abraham § 3. The Jewish Interpreters agree in this Point The Jews agree with our Opinion in this point in their Opinion with the Latines The true Explication says Rabbi Levi of these 430 years is to be sought for in these Words and to be begun from the time when God said unto Abraham Thy Seed shall be a Stranger in a Land that is not theirs Of the same Opinion are likewise Rabbi Solomon Seder Olam Michilta Rabah El Pharao Schemoth Rabah and Tanchuina Schemot § 4. Eugubinus Genebrardus and Gerhardus Johannes The Opinions of Eugubinus Genebrard and G. J. Vos refuted Vossius begin this Epocha from the time of the going of Jacob into Aegypt and the last from the time of Joseph's being sold into Aegypt 1. Because that in (l) Ex. 12. v. 40. Exodus and the (m) Acts 7. v. 6. c. 13. v. 16. Acts as well as in (n) Gen. 15. v. 1â— Genâ—sis there is only mention made of their dwelling in Aegypt not in the Land of Canaan 2. They look upon it as incongruous to the true Sense of the Scripture that their dwelling in Canaan should be accounted a Servitude or Exile 3. They alledge in their behalf the Passage in the History of (o) C. 5. Judith where it is said when the Earth was overwhelmed with Famine they went into Aegypt where in 400 years they encreased into an innumerable Multitude To the first Argument we have already answered with the Words of St. Austin As to the second they are extreamly mistaken in their Explication when they have put the Fore-fathers of the Israelites in the Possession of the Land of Canaan whereas according to the (p) C. 7. v. 5. Acts Abraham had no Inheritance in it no not so much as to set his Foot on And in the Epistle to the (q) Heb 11. v. 13. Hebrews they are said to have been Strangers and Pilgrims there The third may be refuted out of Vossius himself who though of a contrary Opinion yet is forced to confess that the Argument taken from the History of Judith is of no great Weight Achior being introduced by the Author there as a Foreigner who perhaps might not have a full Insight into the Transactions and Chronology of the Jews Some deduce this Epocha from the Nativity of Isaac § 5. St. (r) L. 16. c. 24. de civ Dei Austin's Words sufficiently testifie that some among the Ancients have been of Opinion that this Epocha of 430 years ought to begin with the Nativity of Isaac and some of the Jewish Interpreters have constantly affirmed the same and have of late Years been followed by Sieurs de Dieu and Ludovicus Langius the last of whom (s) L. â— c. 4. de an Christi says It is very evident that Abraham was born in the 130th year of Thara and consequently in the 2680th year of the Julian Period and that he begot Isaac when he was 100 years old which was the Seed promised to him before from whence till the time of the Promulgation of the Law are to be computed the 430 years mentioned by St. Paul (t) Gal. 3. v. 17. c. But the Hypothesis of Langius is built upon a wrong Foundation there being nothing mentioned concerning the Nativity of Isaac either in the Hebrew Text or that of St. Paul And as to what relates to the Nativity of Abraham in the 130th year of Thara has been refuted before CHAP. VII Of the Epocha of Inachus the Founder of the Kingdom of Argos in Peloponnesus and his Successors 1. As the most Ancient Greek History owes its Foundation to the Memory of Inachus King of Argos so in fixing the beginning of the Epocha of this King the Footsteps of Castor and