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
Pythagoras Plato and some of Aristotle's Followers acknowledged neither Beginning nor End of the World but also some of the Christian Philosophers have ridiculed the Chronologers for attempting to determine any certain Season of the Year for the Creation of the World looking upon it as a frivolous Question and not worth the Enquiry of the Learned it being say they evident that the Times of the Seasons vary in the World according to the different Climates But whilst these Gentlemen pretend to ridicule the Chronologers they make themselves ridiculous to all the World For tho' it be undeniable that pursuant to the Spherical Disposition of the Terrestrial and Celestial Globes there must needs be observed at one and the same time a great Variety of Seasons in different Climates yet does not that in the least affect the Chronologers who without the least respect to the Season determine their Times by the Ingress of the Sun into the Cardinal Points of the Zodiack § 2. The Gentiles were as little sollicitous It is not impossible to find out the time of the Creation of the World about the Year it self as the time of the year when the World was created According to Censorinus (a) De D. N. c. 21. Varro did contribute three several Intervals of time the first from the beginning of the World to the Deluge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second to the Olympiad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the third 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Ptolemy (b) Lib. 3. magr Construct himself reprehends those who pretend to determine the true Epocha of the World But the Gentiles are not the people only that exclaim against the Presumption of the Chronologers in pretending to remedy an Evil which they look upon as incurable There are also not a few among the Christians who consider this Aera no otherwise than the Gordian Knots not to be dissolved by Human Art Of this Opinion are Gabriel Rollenhagius Gerard John Vossius Nicolaus Mullerus and Dionysius Petavius (c) Ratio temp part 2. c. p. But among all the rest no body inveighs so much against the Chronologers upon this score as Isaac Pierius in his Treatise concerning the Prae-Adamites I cannot altogether agree in my Opinion with those who would persuade us that Scaliger's Epocha of the World is so demonstratively proved as to be past all Contradiction Nevertheless I could on the other hand never find any Satisfaction in Scepticism It is therefore my Opinion 1. That all the Characters alledged as such by Scaliger are not equally Authentick some of them being certain others uncertain 2. Among the Characters that of the Interval which we have said to be betwixt the time of the Epocha of the World and the Dionysian Aera of Christ ought to be preferred before the rest 3. That tho all the Characters of Scaliger are not infallible yet are they more certain than those introduced or made use of by his Adversaries 4. To conclude of the Validity of these Characters they ought to be all taken together no Judgment being to be given of all from the Uncertainty of one in particular § 3. There has been as much Dispute among Of the particular Intervals betwixt the Epocha of the World and the Dionysian Aera of Christ the Chronologers concerning the true Method and Order of the particular Intervals as about the whole Interval it self betwixt the Epocha of the World and the Dionysian Aera of Christ I agree with these who range them in the following Order  Years From the Creation of the World to the Deluge are (d) Gen. 5. 3. seq 7. 6. 1656. From thence to the Birth of Abraham (e) Gen. 11. 11. seq 292 From thence to the Vocation of Abraham (f) Gen. 12. 4. 75 From thence to the departure of the Jews out of Aegypt (g) Ex. 12. 40. Gal. 3. 17. 430 From thence to the 4th year of the Reign of Solomon or the Building of the Temple (h) 1 Reg. 6. 1. 480 From thence to the Reign of Jeroboam (i) 1 Reg. 11. 42. 36 From thence to the End of the years of the Sins of the House of Israel (k) Ezec. 4. 5. 390 From thence to their Return out of their Captivity 11 years subtracted from 20 so many being to be counted betwixt the Captivity of Jechoniah and Zedekiah (l) Jer. 39 13. 59 From Cyrus to the second year of Darius Nothus according to the Monuments of prophane History 110 From thence to the Destruction of the second Temple (m) Dan. 9. 490 Therefore from the Creation of the World to the Destruction of the 2d Temple must be counted 4018 And whereas the second Destruction of Jerusalem hapned in the year of the Aera of Christ 69 The whole Interval betwixt the Creation of the World and the vulgar Aera of Christ remains 3949 § 4. It being evident that this Account is Reasons for the maintaining of any Hypothesis founded upon the Testimony of the Holy Writ till the time of the Destruction of the second Temple and that we have but once call'd to our Aid the ancient and true Monuments of prophane History I see no reason why the same should not carry along with it at least a great Probability For granted what is objected by some that a Difference ought to be allowed betwixt the Years and Days at the time of the Patriarchs and ours this does not destroy the whole Certainty of these Intervals of Years it being by the Consent of the Learned put long ago beyond all Question that the Years mentioned by Moses in the first Book of his History were either Solar or Luna-Solar Years or at least not much different from the Solar and consequently from the Julian Year of which we shall have occasion to say more hereafter in the Epocha of the Deluge § 5. After many Contests arisen concerning The Objection of Isaacus Vossius examined the Difference of some Years Isaacus Vossius has some time ago declared open War against the whole Body of Chronologers in his Dissertation published in the Year 1658 under the following Title A Dissertation concerning the true Age of the World where it is demonstrated that betwixt the time of the Creation of the World and the Birth of Abraham there are at least 1440 years wanting Not long after this Dissertation he published his Chronologia Sacra as he calls it where he begins the 32d Chapter with these following Words Sometime ago we have made it appear that according to the vulgar Calculation there is a Defect of no less than 1440 years from the Beginning of the World till the time of Moses Besides which it is now our Opinion which appeared doubtful to us before that 60 years more ought to be added to the said Sum Thara the Father of Abraham being born so many years later There is therefore a Defect of Fifteen whole Ages in the vulgar Calculation the time from
Scaliger not without Reason believes the World to have been created the Autumnal Aequinox and N. Moon did not happen together notwithstanding this has been contradicted by many who have been deceived by these Astronomical Tables that were not exactly congruous to the true Motions of these Luminaries Neither am I the only Person who has observed this Discrepancy betwixt the Equinoxes and the time of the N. Moon Nicolaus Mullerus has likewise acknowledged a Difference betwixt them of 15 Days Wherefore out of these several alledged Opinions and Calculations of the Astronomers it is manifest that we ought not to insist too rigorously upon the Characters of the Aequinox and N. Moon but that it is sufficient to know that the Creation of the World hapned about the time of the Aequinox and N. Moon § 10. (g) Lib. 1. Theor. c. 2. Christianus Longomontanus who has Of the Opinion of Longomontanus published the Danish Astronomy has likewise pretended to a new Character founded upon the Motion of the Apogaeum of the Sun but besides that the Point of the Apogaeum is a meer Astronomical Fiction invented for the better explaining of the several Celestial Motions It is confess'd by the Consent of the best Astronomers that the Motions depending on it are not sufficiently known to make them a Foundation of any solid Opinion (h) Lib. ◠de Sole c. 25. John Baptist Ricciolus has exhibited us a Catalogue of 17 of the ablest Astronomers who affirm this for an undeniable Truth § 11. There is a great Discrepancy betwixt Concerning the various Opinions about the Computation of this Epocha the Greeks Hebrews and modern Latin Authors about the true Computation of the Years of the World St. (i) Ad Tit. Cap. 3. Hierom did in his days already complain that even among those that had founded their Calculations from the Hebrew Text there were very few who did agree entirely in their Opinions This Variety of Sentiments has encreased since to that degree that to pretend to examine and correct the almost innumerable Differences of all these Authors would be to undertake an endless piece of Work Joannes Wolfius Sixtus Sinensis Krantzhemius Elias Reusnerus Leo Allatius Fabritius Paduanus and many others have endeavoured to make a Collection of the several Opinions concerning the Epocha of the World but upon a strict Examination we have observed that these great Men whilst they endeavoured to discover the Errors of others are unhappily fallen under several Mistakes themselves by confounding the vulgar Epocha of Christ with those supposed as such by those Authors they intended to correct To give you a small Epitome of the various Opinions of the best Astronomers on this Subject I have inserted here about half a hundred of them disposed in such an Order as that in the first Column you may find the Year of the Julian Period which has been assigned for the Epocha of the World according to the Hypothesis of each Author whose Name stands equal with the Number tho' he perhaps himself not as much as dreamt of the Julian Period The second Column shews the Interval betwixt the beginning of the World and the vulgar Epocha of Christ according to the Opinion of each Author whose Name is mentioned in the same Line with the Number Betwixt both the Columns we thought fit to insert the Number of the Cycle of the Sun that we might not be censured of pretending to give you Instructions without a right Character and that we might present the Reader with a Key to as many Chronological Treatises as there are Authors Names contained in the next following Table The World was created according to the Opinion of Y. of the Jul. Per. ☉ s. Cyc Int. till the Ep. of Chr. Alphonsus K. of Castile 5709 m. 3 25 6484 m. 9 The Author of the Sicilian Collections 7085 m. 3 1 5608 m. 9 Is Vos and the Greeks 7096 12 5598 Theophilus 7179 11 5515 The Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians 7185 m. 9 17 5508 m. 3 The Aethiopians 7194 m. 3 26 5499 m. 9 Cedrenus 7200 m. 3 4 5493 m. 9 Pandorus 7201 5 5493 Maximus the Monk 7292 m. 3 6 5491 m. 9 Sulpitius Severus 7225 1 5469 Victor Giselius in his Observations upon Sulpit. 7275 23 5419 Isod Hispalensis 7484 8 5410 Eusebius 7493 m. 3 17 5200 m. 9 Beda 7495 19 5199 Orosius and the Author of the Roman Martyrology 7496 20 5198 Marianus Scotus 521 m. 3 17 4192 m. 9 Laurentius Codomann 572 m. 3 12 4141 m. 9 Tho. Lyd. an E. Auth. 610 m. 3 22 4103 m. 9 Michael Moestlinus 634 m. 3 18 4079 m. 3 J. Bapt. Ricciolus 651 m. 3 7 4062 m. 3 Jacob Salian 660 m. 3 16 4053 m. 9 Henricus Spondanus 662 m. 3 18 4051 m. 9 William Lange 672 m. 3 28 4041 m. 9 Erasmus Reinholt 692 m. 9 20 4021 m. 3 Jacob Cappell 708 m. 3 8 4005 m. 9 John Wichman 709 m. 3 9 4004 m. 9 Edward Simson 710 m. 3 10 4003 m. 9 Jacob. Usser Armach 710 m. 9 10 4003 m. 9 Laurent Eichstadt 710  4004 Dion Petavius 730 m. 9 0 3983 m. 3 Krantzheim 740 m. 3 14 3971 m. 9 Abraham Bucholtzer 743 m. 3 15 3970 m. 9 Elias Reusnerus 744 16 3970 Christianus Matthias Joannes Cluverius 745 m. 3 17 3968 m. 9 Henricus Buntingus 746 m. 3 18 3967 m. 9 Christianus Longomontanus 747 m. 9 19 3966 m. 3 The same Author in his Hypothesis in Astronomiam Danicam 750 22 3964 Philip Melancton Peucerus and Funccius 750 22 3964 Jacob Haynlin 750 m. 9 22 3963 m. 3 Alphonsus Salmeron 756 28 3958 Joannes Georg. Herw ab Hoenburg 759 3 3955 Scaliger Calvisius Ubbo Emmius Behmius and Helvicus 764 m. 9 8 3949 m. 3 Christianus Schotanus 765 m. 9 9 3948 m. 3 Joannes Microelius 766 10 3948 Hermann Contractus 768 m. 3 12 3945 m. 9 Matthaeus Beroaldus 786 m. 9 2 3927 m. 3 Andreas Helwigius 877 m 9 9 3836 m. 3 The Jewish vulgar Computation 953 m. 9 1 3760 m. 3 David Gantz 954 2 3760 The lesser Chronicle of the Jews 1044 8 3670 CHAP. II. Of the Epocha of the Jews 1. This Epocha has the same beginning with the Creation of the World 2. It begins in Autumn in the Month Tisri 3. The years of this Epocha are Lunae-Solar years containing sometimes twelve sometimes thirteen Months 4. May consequently be compared to the Julian years 5. The first year of this Epocha was likewise the first in the Sabbatic Cycle 6. From the Beginning of this Epocha to the vulgar Dionysian Aera are 3760 Years and about four Months 7. The beginning of this Epocha falls out in the year of the Julian Period 953 in the first Month of Autumn in the first Cycle of the Sun and the third of the Moon according to the Latin Calculation 8. Wherefore if you add to the Jewish Epocha 952 To find the Year since the beginning of this Epocha Years and
165 21 to Lamech 187 187 25 to Noah 182 188 28 to the Deluge 600 600 Gen. 7. 6 Sum of the Years before the Deluge 1656 2262  § 4. Both the ancient and modern Authors are Various Opinions concerning this difference extremely divided in their Opinions concerning this vast Disproportion betwixt the Hebrew and Greek Text. (m) Lib. 19. c. 43. de Civ Dei St. Austin is of opinion that sâ—me being pre-possessed with an Opinion that the Years of the Patriarchs were to be understood of Lunar or Monthly Years had inserted these Alterations in the Version of the LXX Interpreters Mâ—rin with some others on the other hand maintain that the Hebrew Text is corrupted But among all the modern Authors Isaacus Vossius and Bryon Walton plead strongly for the Authority of the Greek Version and accuse all the Chronologers of a most manifest Error for having left out above fifteen Ages in their Computation of the Age of the World If Moses should rise again says (n) P. 248. Vossius in our Days he would not be able to understand one Word of the Jewish Books they having got their Letters from the Chaldaeans their Points and Accents from the Massoreths Vossius goes yet further alledging that not only the Letters but the Sense it self is corrupted not only by the Carelessness of the Transcribers but especially by the inveterate Malice of the Jews His Words containing the whole Substance of his New Hypothesis are these He says he that has a desire to attain to the Vnderstanding of the true sense of the Holy Writ ought not to make the least Reflection upon the Vowels which are inserted by the Massoreths But if any use is to be made of them et all it must be done by correcting them according to the Translation of the LXX Interpreters Thâ—â— is the true Text whose Authority is founded upon the Approhation of the most ancient Jews the Evangelists the Apostles and the whole Primitive Church To give my real Sentiment in this weighty Affair considering the great Reputation established by the Approbation of Antiquity of the undoubted Skill of the LXX Interpreters in the Hebrew and Greek Languages and their unquestionable Fidelity and Sincerity they ought not to be bereaved of their due Praise if we were well assured that this Version was transmitted to Posterity without any Alteration But those who accuse the Chronologers with so much Boldness would have done well to have been fully satisfied first whether the Hebrew Text or the Greek Version was adulterated especially since the last is called by many in Question nay even looked upon as supposititious Of which Opinion is the Learned Bp of Armagh who in a particular Treatise pretends to demonstrate that the true Version of the LXX Interpreters was always kept close in the Alexandrian Library no body being permitted to read much less to transcribe it That after the Burning of the said Library another had been compiled and substituted in the room of that of the LXX Interpreters about the time of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus which being approved of as genuine by some was received by the Apostles and their Disciples in the Church T is true Armâ—chanus has not many Followers in this Opinion but there are not wanting such as believe that we have only Fragments of the true Version of the LXX Interpreters left now a-days the rest being only Additions which are put upon the World under the same Name It appears to me says (o) Lib. 2. c. 6. de V. D. Bellarmine probable that the Version of the LXX Interpreters is as yet extant but so much vitiated and corrupted that it is scarce to be known And which way are we assured that the said Translation was made from the Hebrew For if it was done from the Samaritan only it carries not the same Weight with it as if it had been taken from the Original § 5. The Arguments which Vossius alledges in The Arguments of Vossius for his Hypothesis behalf of the Translation of the LXX Interpreterpreters and its Preference before the Hebrew Text may be comprehended under three several Heads the first is the Authority and Consent of most Nations as the Aegyptians Chinese and others The second is the Authority of all the Fathers of the Primitive Church Those who follow the common Compution (p) Dissert de aetat mundi p. 257. says he rely barely upon the Authority of the Rabbins but we upon the the true sense of the Hebrew Text before it was adulterated by the Jews We rely I say upon the Authority of the LXX Interpreters of all the Fathers and the whole primitive Church together with the Consent of all the most ancient Nations The third Objection is that the Intervals related in the Genealogies of so numerous an Offspring are in no wise proportionable to their vast Number The first Objection has been already answered by us in the first Chapter The second is resolved by (q) De Nat. Christi p. 250. Gerard John Vossius the Father of Isaacus Vossius who says that the Intention of the Primitive Fathers and Councils being merely to promote those things which properly belong to the advancing of the true Christian Faith were not willing to enter into Disputes about these indifferent Matters but retain'd the Translation of the LXX Interpreters for the better Conveniency of such as were not versed in the Hebrew Tongue In the third he relies upon a false Supposition as if the ancient Fathers had not had a more numerous Offspring than what is expresly set down in the Books of Moses whereas the Scripture only gives us some of their Genealogies not an entire Catalogue of their Posterity as has been well observed by (r) De Civ Dei l. 15. c. 15. St. Austin § 6. Petavius with some of his Adherents Whether the 1656 Years till the Deluge were compleat Years call in question whether the 1656 Years mentioned by Moses to have been betwixt the Creation of the World and the Deluge were compleat Years But Scaliger Henr. Buntingus Sethus Calâ—iâ—â—s Behmius Frankenbergius and William Lange positively affirm it First because of the Age of Methusalem it being said (s) Gen. â— v. 26. that Methusalem after he begot Lamech lived 782 Years But if the Deluge began in the six hundredth Year of Nâ—â—â—'s Age Methusalem could not have lived above 781 years for Lamech lived 182 Years when he begat (t) Gen. 5. v. 28. Noah If to these be added 599 Years which our Adversaries pretend to have been the Age of Noah at the time of the Deluge the whole Product will amount to 781 Years which is contrary to the express Words of Moses Secondly because Moses makes use of a Phrase in this Place which always comprehends the Number of compleat Years Thirdly because the subsequent Intervals confirm it § 7. Henricus Buntingus and Jacobus Hainlinus Whether the Deluge began in the Spring but above
to gather all the Creatures in the Ark if there had been enough left in other Places To all this may be added the general Consent of the Gentiles who tho' they have mixed their Relations of the Deluge with many of their Fables and Fictions yet all agree in this Point that it has been universal It is for this reason I cannot sufficiently admire how the Learned (f) L. 18. c. 8. de Dei. St. Austin could be so much overseen as to declare that there were not the least Footsteps of this Deluge to be met with in the Greek and Latin Authors the contrary of which has been sufficiently demonstrated by (g) Lib. 1. de Relig. Hugo Grotius d Gen. 6. v. 5. 7. CHAP. IV. Of the Chaldaean Epocha and the Reigns of the Assyrian Monarchs 1. The principal thing to be taken care of in this Epocha is not to fix its beginning beyond that of the Deluge 2. To be very cautious in contradicting the Authority of Cresias Cnidius Diodorus Siculus Aemilius Sura Castor Eusebius and some other Ancient Historians 3. Care ought also to be taken that the time of this Epocha be not contracted into too narrow a Compass it being evident out of the Holy Scripture that the Chaldaean and Assyrian Monarchy is very ancient 4. The beginning of the Chaldaean or Babylonian Aera ought to be fixed at same remarkable time or other mentioned in their History either from the first Foundation of their Capital City or the Original of that Monarchy 5. From the Beginning and first Institution of the Chaldaean Aera till the time of Alexander the Great are computed 1903 Years according to Callisthenes Because says (h) Aristoc de Coel. Libr. Simplicius these Astronomical Observations which Callisthenes pursuant to the Instructions received from Aristotle had sent to Babylon were not then to be met with in Graecia which as Porphyrius affirms were preserved 1903 Years to wit till the Times of Alexander the Great 6. The Assyrian Monarchy has lasted near 1300 years according to Cresias Cnidius and (i) Lib. 2. Bibl. Diodorus Siculus Aemilius Sura in Velleius Paterculus Trogus in Justin (k) In Chron. Eusebius (l) C. 17. c. 21. de civ Dei St. Austin 7. The Assyrian Monarchy did already flourish at the time of Abraham according to the Testimony of (m) L. 11. Ant. c. 10. Josephus who speaking about the Expedition of Abraham undertook against the four Kings says that it hapned at the time when the Assyrians were Masters of Asia 8. It seems very probable that the Assyrian Monarchy began in the times of Phaleg about which time also hapned the Confusion of Tongues (n) Gen. c. 11. v. 9. 9. All the ancient Histories both of the Greeks and Barbarians agree in this point that the first Monarch of all Asia was Ninus the Son of Belus the Founder of the Capital City of the Assyrians of the same Name 10. Ninus was not absolutely the first King over the Chaldaeans and Assyrians but Belus reigned before him according to Castor in Eusebius We have only mentioned Belus but have begun our History with the Reign of Ninus 11. The Assyrian Monarchy began to flourish about the same time when Babylon was either built or enlarged and made the Royal Seat of that Empire where Nimrod kept his Residence as is manifest out of (o) C. 10. v. 10. Genesis and (p) L. 1. Ant. c. 5. Josephus All the prophane Historians seem to agree in this that Babylon was built by Belus concerning which Abydenus with Eusebius says Belus built the Walls of Babylon And Dorotheus Sidonius in Julius Firmicus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ancient City of Babylon the Work of Belus the Tyrian q Scr. Evang. L. 9. c. 4. (k) L. 5. c. 1. Curtius makes mention of the Royal Residence of Belus (l) L. 23. c. 20. Ammianus Marcellinus of the Temple of Belus (m) L. 1 â— â—6 Pliny of the Sepulch of Belus 12. The Observations therefore mentioned by Porphyrius to have been made at Babylon were begun in the Year of the Julian Period 2481 and the Assyrian Monarchy was founded by Nimrod or Belus in the Year of the Julian Period 2538. Any Year of the Julian Period given to find the Year sincâ— the Beginning of this Epocha 13. If therefore you subtract 2480 Years from any Year of the Julian Period the Remainder will be the Year of the Chaldaean Epocha and if in like manner you subtract 2537 Years from the same Year of the Julian Period the Superplus will shew the Year since the Beginning of the Assyrian Monarchy § 1. THere are not a few who call in question Concerning the Authority of Ctesias Cnidius the Authority of Ctesias Cnidius concerning the Chronology of the first Monarchy I am not says (n) In Bibl. de Sec. mund aet p. 12â— Christianus Schotanus of the same Opinion with Ctesias tho' I am not ignorant that most Historians have declared for him Two Objections are made against his Authority First because Plutarch did in his time accuse him of Falshood in his Writings and (o) Câ—d 72. Photius says that his Books are filled up with Fables Secondly Because Herodotus has lived a considerable time before Ctesias and consequently has a Prerogative before him But neither of these two are sufficient to destroy the Authority of Ctesias For as to the first Plutarch and some others of the ancient Historians have objected as many Errors to Herodotus as Ctesias Neither see I any Reason why a whole History should be rejected by reason of some few Errors especially when we are destitute of others from whence we might receive better Instructions and that Plutarch did not call in question his whole History but only some particular Passages As to the second it is observed that Ctesias though he lived after Herodotus yet being conversant in Persia and Assyria and having the Opportunity of inspecting their Records and Annals ought to be preserred before him There being besides this but forty Years difference betwixt the Computation made by Herodotus and that of Ctesias it is much more safe to follow the latter till Herodotus's Followers can shew us more Authentick Monuments of Antiquity which I much question How to reconcile two several Possages of Ctesias whether they will ever be able to effect § 2. Diodorus Siculus out of Ctesias gives us two different Computations concerning the time of the Assyrian Monarchy Of the first he says thus (p) Lib. 2. Bibl. p. 7â— â—dit Rhodomic Vnder the Reign of Sardanapalus the Assyrian Monarchy after it had flourished 1360 Years according to Ctesias Cnidius Lib. 2. was devolved to the Medians Of the second he has these Words (q) Codemâ—n Lib. p â—â— Thus the Assyrian Empire which from the time of Ninus had lasted 1400 Years was destroyed by the Medians To resolve this Difficulty it seems that the last Passage of
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
Deluge 2. The Year of the Birth of Abraham ought to be coincident with the seventieth Year of Thara (a) Gen. 11. v. 26. 3. According to the Mosaick Computation the Interval betwixt the Deluge and Abraham is of 292 Years 4. Abraham was born when the Assyrian Monarchy flourished in Asia according to St. Austin (b) L. 16. c. 17. de Civ Dei 5. The Vocation of Abraham was in the 75th year of his Age (c) Gen. 12. v. 4. 6. From the 75th year of his Age being that of his Vocation begins the Epocha of the time of the Children of Israel 's abiding in Aegypt being 430 years till the time of their going out of Aegypt from whence to reckon backwards to the Nativity of Abraham are 505 years (d) Gal. 3. v. 17. Jos L. 2. c. 6. Antiq. 7. Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (e) Gen. â—â— v. 1. 5. 8. Abraham died when he was 175 years old (f) Gen. 25. v. 7. 9. According to this Computation Abraham was born in the year 2712 of the Julian Period in the 24th Cycle of the Sun and the 16th of the Moon The Vocation of Abraham hapned in the year 2787 of the Julian Period the Birth of Isaac in the year 2812 of the Julian Period and the Death of Abraham in the year 2887 of the same Period 10. If therefore from any certain year of the Julian Any year of the Julian Period given to find the Year since the beginning of this Epochâ— Period be subtracted 2711 years for the Nativity of Abraham 2786 for his Vocation 2811 for the Birth of Isaac and 2886 years for the Death of Abraham the Residue will shew the desired year of the Epocha of Abraham On the other hand if the above-mentioned Numbers of years be added to the year of the Epocha of Abraham the Products will be correspondent to the years of the Julian Period § 1. THE following Table represents the several Of the Computation of the Interval betwixt the Deluge and the Birth of Abraham Computations of the Interval betwixt the Deluge and the Birth of Abraham From the Deluge According to the He. LXX Int. Josephus Genesis xi To Arphaxad 2 2 12 Verse 10 To Cainaan 0 135 135  Salah 35 130 130 Verse 12 Eber 30 130 130 Verse 14 Phaleg 34 134 134 Verse 16 Ragau 30 130 130 Verse 18 Serug 32 132 130 Verse 20 Nachor 30 130 132 Verse 22 Thara 29 79 129 Verse 24 Abraham 70 70 130 Verse 29 The whole Sum of years from the Del. to Abrah 292 1072 1192  Both the Computation of the LXX Interpreters and that of Josephus is taken out of Isaacus (g) Dissert de aetat Mundi c. 8 Vossius who as well as (h) Chronol Sacr. p. 108. Bryon Walton follow in the Intervals of Years both before and after the Deluge the Computation of the Greeks § 2. (i) Chron. Sacr. p. 107. Isaacus Vossius follows the Footsteps Whether Arphaxad was born in the â— d or 12th year after the Deluge of Josephus in the time of the Birth of Arphaxad being of Opinion that in Genesis 11. v. 10. where it is said Shem was an hundred years old and begat Arphaxad two years after the Deluge it should be said twelve which Error he attributes to the Carelessness of the Amanuensis For says he how else could Arphaxad have two elder Brothers Elam and Assur for among the Sons of Shem Arphaxad is mentioned in the third place And to suppose that these three Sons and perhaps as many Daughters were all born in two years time is ridiculous But the Computation of Josephus is free from all these Difficulties especially concerning the Age of Shem. To this it is answered by some that the Opinion of Vossius being contrary both to the Hebrew Text and the Translation of the Septuagint it may rationally be supposed that the two elder Brothers of Arphaxad were either Twins born in the first year after the Deluge or that Shem's Wife conceived whilst she was in the Ark and immediately after brought forth the Eldest and in a years time after the Second There are also some who believe Arphaxad to have been the First-born because it is said in Genesis 11. 2. that Shem after he begat Arphaxad begat Sons and Daughters and not before § 3. There is another difficulty in the Genealogy Of Cainan who is put betwixt Arphaxad and Salah of the Post-Diluvian Patriarchs concerning Cainan who in the Translation of the LXX Interpreters is put betwixt Arphaxad and Salah These are their Words in Gen. 10. v. 24. And Arphaxad begot Cainan Cainan begot Salah And in the 11th Chapter v. 11. And Arphaxad lived 130 years and begot Cainan And the first of Chronicles Chap. 1. v. 27. And Arphaxad begot Cainan and Cainan begot Salah Cainan is also mentioned in the 3d Chapter v. 35. of St. Luke which was the Son of Salah which was the Son of Cainan which was the Son of Arphaxad The Syriack Latin German Low-Dutch and English Translations do not only follow the Footsteps of the LXX Interpreters in this Point but also among our Modern Authors Alphonsus Salmero Augustus Torniellus Jacobus Saltanus Isaacus Vossius and Bryon Walton who relying upon the Authority of St. Luke agrees with them in Opinion But there are very weighty Reasons which have moved others to contradict this Assertion For first in the Hebrew Text no mention is made of Cainan 2. In some of the most ancient Translations of the Bible especially in the Samaritan as also by (k) Lib. 1. c. 6. ant Josephus otherwise a strict Adherer to the Chronology of the Septuagint no mention is made of Cainan 3. In some ancient Copies of the Gospel of St. Luke Cainan is likewise not mentioned as in that of Theodorus Beza where Arphaxad is put immediately after Salah which has moved Theodatus and Cartwightus the first to leave him out in his Italian the last in his Latin Translation And Vsserius cites above twelve of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers who know nothing of this Cainan 4. There are also some who are of Opinion that Salah had a double Name his second Name being Cainan and that there ought to have been no distinction in St. Luke betwixt these two Names 5. Others will have it that the LXX Interpreters have inserted this Cainan on purpose to make Moses agree with the Aegyptian History But be it as it will my Opinion is that the Computation of Moses cannot be erroneous Ger. Jo. Vossius has made this useful Observation (l) Heres 55. contra Mâ—â—chis that because neither Epiphanius nor St. Hierom (m) In Trad. Ebraic make the least mention of Cainan neither the said Cainan is to be found in the best Roman Edition of the Septuagint published by the Care of Caraffa it is very probable that in the original Manuscript of the LXX Interpreters no mention
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
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
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
reason of the Sabbath 23 XXIV 1 They come in Raphidim 24 XXV 2  25 XXVI 3 Moses strikes Water out of the Rock 26 XXVII 4 The Jews vanquish the Amalekites 27 XXVIII 5 Jethro comes to Moses 28 XXIX 6 Election of the LXX Elders 29 XXX VII  D. of the Mon. Siv Days of the Mon. of June The Feriae  1 XXXI 1 They come into the Wildern of Sinai Exod. 19. v. 1. 2 I June 2  3 II 3  4 III 4  5 IV 5  6 V 6  7 VI VII Beginning of the 40 days Moses staid 8 VII 1 upon the Mount the End of which falls in the Month of Tamuz which is observed as a Fast-day by the Jews to this day 9 VIII 2  10 IX 3  11 X 4  12 XI 5  13 XII 6  14 XIII VII  15 XIV 1  16 XV 2  17 XVI 3  18 XVII 4  19 XVIII 5  20 XIX 6  21 XX VII  22 XXI 1  23 XXII 2  24 XXIII 3  25 XXIV 4  26 XXV 5  27 XXVI 6  28 XXVII VII  29 â—XVIII 1  3â— XXIX 2  § 6. The Words in (a) Cap. 12. v. 6. Exodus and the whole Of the time when they killed the Lamb for the Passover Assembly of the Congregation of Israel shall kill it betwixt the two Evenings have met with various Interpretations Aben Ezra understands by it the Interval betwixt Sun-set and the Beginning of the Night of which Opinion is also Rabbi David Kimchi But since according to (b) L. 7. c. 17. de Bel. Judaic Josephus at the Feast of one Passover there were slain 255600 Lambs we also agree with the same Author in Opinion who asserts that the Jews used to begin at nine a-clock about three in the Afternoon with us to kill these Beasts and leave off again at eleven about five with us CHAP. X. Of the two Epocha's of the Division of the Land of Canaan among the Tribes of Israel and of their first beginning to cultivate the Ground 1. They first began from that time after they Israelites had passed the River of Jordan and made themselves Masters of the Land of Canaan (a) Numb 33. v. 51. seq 2. At which time all the Tribes had their particular inheritance assigned them (b) Numb 34. v 1. seque 3. The year of this Distribution was the 45th after the second from the time of their going out of Aegypt as is evident from the Words of (c) Jos 14. 7. 16 Caleb Forty Years was I when Moses the Servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-Barnea to espy out the Land and I brought him word again as it was in mine Heart And now behold the Lord hath kept me alive as he said the 45 years ever since the Lord spake this Word unto Moses while the Children of Israel wandred in the Wilderness and now I am this day eighty five years old (d) Vid. Num. 1. and 13. 4. The year of the Distribution of the Land was the last Sabbatick Year in the Proleptick Cycle and the following was the first in the Sabbatick Cycle according to God's Institution (e) Lev. 25. v. 2. When you come into the Land which I give you then shall the Land keep a Sabbath Rest unto the Lord Six years thou shalt sow thy Field and six years thou shalt prune thy Vineyard and gather in the Fruit thereof But in the seventh year shall be a Sabbath of Rest unto the Land a Sabbath for the Lord thou shalt neither sow thy Field neither prune thy Vineyard (f) Vid. Ex. 23. v. 10 11. and Deut 15. v. 1 c. 31. v. 9. 5. From these Characters we conclude that the year of the Division of the Land was coincident with the 3261st year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 15. ☽ 14. And that the first year of cultivating the Ground began in the Month Tisri or first Autumnal Month of the same year of the Julian Period 6. If therefore 3261 years and 9 Months be subtracted Any year given of the Julian Period to investigate the year since the beginning of this Epochâ— from any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the Year since the beginning of the Epocha of the Division of the Land of Canaan and if 3262 Years and 9 Months be subtracted from the same year of the Julian Period the Residue shews that since the beginning of the Epocha of the cultivating of the Land And if these several 3261 and 3262 years be added to the years of the before-named Epocha's the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. (g) L. 9. c. â—5 de doct temp Dionysius Petavius in Opposition to Whâ—ther the beginning of the Sabba tick Year may be gathered from the Words of Caleb Scaliger maintains that from the Words of Caleb no exact Computation can be made as to the year of the cultivating of the Land it being dubious whether the same ought to be accounted from the Beginning or End of the forty sixth year after the Departure of the Israelites out of Aegypt But besides that the Perspicuity of the Words of Caleb is an undeniable Argument against Petavius it is evident that the year of the Distribution of the Land was a Sabbatick Year and that of the cultivating of the Land the first of both the Sabbatick and Jubilean Cycles § 2. (h) L. 2. Chron. Laurentius Codomannus (i) L. 3. Johannes Different Opinions concerning the Epocha of cultivating the Ground Temporarius in his Chronological Demonstrations Jacobus Capellus and several other modern Chronologers are of Opinion that the first year of the cultivating of the Land was the fortieth after the Departure of the Israclites out of Aegypt at which time Joshua being declared Successor to Moses they passed Jordan and the Manna ceased But it seems very improbable to me that the Jews should immediately after their passing that River have begun to cultivate the Ground before they were in possession of any considerable part of it and that in a fertile Country where without question they found the Cities and Country stored with all manner of Necessaries for their Sustenance § 3. In Seder Olam or the Hebrew Chronicle published by Genebrardus which is of great Authority The Opinion of the Jews concerning it among the Jews the Author pretends to evince that the Division of the Land was not made till seven years after the six and fortieth year after the going out of Aegypt but they are mere Jewish Trifles not deserving a Place here as may be seen in (k) In Jos c. 13. quaest 14. Serrarius CHAP. XI Of the Epocha of the Destruction of TROY 1. This Epocha being much involved in Fables and Poetical Fictions the same must be carefully distinguished from the true Historical Relâ—tions so that not all that
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
Others Opinion concerning the same the Authority of the Sacred Writ and yet disagree with us in our Hypothesis are of Opinion that in the above-mentioned (h) Ibid. Computation of 480 years betwixt the time of the Israelites leaving of Aegypt and the Epocha of the Temple of Solomon are only accounted the years of each of the Judges that ruled over Israel without including the several Intervals of their Bondage oâ— Anarchies Ludovicus Capellus is of this Opinion but above all others (i) Isag Châ—on c. 7. Gerhardus Johannes Vossius patronizes this Fiction alledging from the Authors of the Sacred History his Intention had been only to give an Account of those times the Israelites were governed by Moses Joshua the Judges and Kings without taking any Notice of those Intervals when the Israelites lived in Servitude the Memory of which could not but be very dreadful to them But this appears to me a very frivolous Reason since I cannot see why the Time and Interval might not be inserted with as much Ease as the Relation of the Servitude it self Besides that according to this Supposition both the Time and Circumstances of the Destruction of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah must have been pass'd by in Silence they being much more dreadful than the Anarchies and Intervals of Servitude of the Israelites § 3. There are also others who maintain that the Some begin this Interval from another time the Computation of these 480 years ought to be interpreted not from the time they passed thro' the Red Sea but from the time of the Distribution of the Land of Canaan by Lot which Interpretation they pretend to prove to be consonant to the Sacred Historical Phrase from the Words in Deuterenomy 4. v. 44 45 46. And this is the Law which Moses set before the Children of Israel These are the Statutes and Testimonies and the Judgments which Moses spake unto the Children of Israel after they came forth out of Aegypt on this side Jordan in the Valley over against Beth-peor in the Land of Sihon King of the Amorites who dwelt at Heshbon whom Moses and the Children of Israel smote after they were come forth our of Aegypt They add to this a Parallel Passage out of the 115th Psalm v. 1 2 3. When Israel went out of Aegypt the House of Jacob from a People of strange Language Judah was his Sanctuary and Israel his Dominion the Sea saw it and fled Jordan was driven back Which has induced Lautentius Codomannus to affirm the above-mentioned Term of 480 years had its Beginning not till that time when the Tribe of Dan had its peculiar Inheritance assigned to them according to which Supposition he computes from the first beginning of the Israelites leaving of Aegypt 599 years and Sabellicus Melchior Canus and Michael Moestlinus account 592 years Dionysius Petavius (k) Lib. 9. de Doctr. Temp. computes 520 years by adding 40 years the Israelites were in the Desart to the 480 years But Petavius as well as the other above-named Chronologers have put a wrong Sence upon the Phrase of the whole Scripture in these two Passages of Deut. 4. and Psalm 114 which they alledge as Parallel to one another there being not intended the least distinct Account of the time of the Israelites going out of Aegypt but only mentioned in general Terms it being evident that the going out of the Israelites out of Aegypt is in the Scripture Phrase to be understood from the time of their passing through the Red Sea As for instance in Numb 33. v. 38. it is said And Aaron the Priest went up into Mount Hor at the Commandmont of the Lord and died there in the fortieth year after the Children of Israel were come out of the Land of Aegypt in the first day of the fifth Month. § 4. Dionysius Petavius and some others who pretend to enlarge this Computation of 480 years alledge that it is contradictory to the Calculation Whether this Computation of 480 years be contradictory to the Sacred Writ of the times of the Judges and Intervals of Bondage of the Israelites But these Gentlemen have neglected what has long ago been observed by some Interpreters that the Intervals of the Bondage of the Israelites are included in the times of their Judges and that sometimes several Tribes have had their several Judges so that two or more have been their Heads at the same time To confirm which let us look into the Book of the Judges c. 4. v. 2. where it is related that the Israelites lived in Subjection undeâ— Jabin twenty years and yet in the 4th Verse it is added And Deborah a Prophetess the Wife of Lapidoth she judged Israel at that time Who can be so much beyond himself as to suppose that the twenty years of their Bondage ought to be separately computed besides the time of Deborah which is confirmed by another Passage in the the same Book where it is said of Sampson (l) Judges 15. 20. be judged Israel in the days of the Philistines 20 years § 5. Though it be not always requisite in How the 480 years were divided between the Kings and Judges a Chronologer to give an exact Account of all the particular Intervals of time when the whole is beyond Question yet for the better Satisfaction of the Curious we will represent in the following Table several Opinions of some of our modern Chronologers concerning these Intervals From the time of the going out of the Israelites out of Aegypt are computed Years according to  Petavius Is Vos Wil. Lang. Ours Scripture Proofs Moses 40 40 40 40 Numb 14. v. 33. Joshua 14 26 14 17  The Seniors 10  13   Bondage under      Chushan 8 8 8   Othniel 40 40 40 40 Judg. 3. v. 10. Servit under the Moab 18 18 0   Ehud 80 80 80 80 Judg. 3. v. 20. Bond. under Jabin 20 20 0   Deb. Bar. 40 40 40 40 Judg. 4. v. 4. Servit under the Midian 7 7 0   Gideon 40 40 40 40 Judg. 8. v. 32. Abimelech 3 3 40 3 Judg. 9. v. 22. Thola 23 23 3 23 Judg. 10. v. 2. Jair 22 22 23 22 Judg. 10. v. 3. Servit under the Ammonit 0 18 22   Jephtha 6 6 18 6 Judg. 12. v. 7. Ibzan 7 7 6 7 Judg. 12. v. 9. Elon 10 10 7 10 Judg. 12. v. 11. Abdon 8 8 18 8 Judg. 12. v. 14. Bond. under the Philist 0 40 20   Sampson 20 20 3 20 Judg. 15. v. 20. Eli 20 40  40 1 Sam. 4. v. 18. Sam. Saul 40 32 20 40 Acts 13. v. 21. David 40 40 20 40 2 Sam. 5. v. 4. Solomon 4 3 4 4 1 Reg. 6. v. 1. Sum 520 667 479 480  CHAP. XIV Of the Epocha of the three hundred and ninety years of the Iniquity of the HOVSE of Israel mentioned in Ezec. Chap.
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
Month Boëdromion But this Objection being founded upon the Supposition of Scaliger concerning the Athenian Years which has not met with an entire Approbation from those who are the most skilful in the Graecian Antiquities we cannot agree in this Point with Scaliger's Opinion who assigns the Month of October for the Battle of Marathon But it seems very improbable that the Persians not used to the Rigour of the Winter Season should have chosen the Month of October for so great an Expedition before the Month of Boëdromion which is accounted among the Summer Months by the Athenians CHAP. XXVII Of the Expedition or Descent of Xerxes into Greece and the Epocha of the Battel of Salamis 1. Xerxes the Son of Darius to revenge the Disgrace received by his Father at Marathon resolved to prosecute the War begun in his Father's time against Greece For which purpose after vast Preparations made for five years together he began his Expedition against Greece in the sixth year according to (a) Lib. 2. c. 10. Justin 2. Xerxes after he had conquered Egypt of which he had made his Brother Achamenes Governour invaded Greece at the Instigation of Mardonius according to (b) Lib. 7. Horodotus 3. This Descent was made on the same year that Calliades was Archon at Athens according to Herodotus Dionysius Halicarnassaeus and Diodorus Siculus 4. It was made in the same year that the 75th Olympiad was celebrated among the Eleans where Assylus of Syracusa won the Race according to Diodorus Siculus 5. It hapned in the year 297. after the first Olympiad according to the Testimony of Eratosthenes in Clemens Alexandrinus 6. Besides that total Eclipse of the Sun which hapned in the same year that Xerxes began his Expedition against Greece (c) Herod L. 7. and was observed by the Persians in the Spring as they were ready to break up from Sardis There hapned also another Eclipse of the Sun which being observ'd by Cleombrotus as he was performing his Sacrifice he returned with those Forces that were sent to post themselves in the Isthmus â—â— Sparta (d) Her Lib. 9. 7. The Battel of Salamis was fought ten years after that of Marathon according to Plato Thucydides and Lysias 8. The Defeat of the Persians near Salamis hapned in the same year that Caesus Fabius and Sp. Fâ—sius Furus were Consuls at Rome according to Dionysius Halicarnassaeus (e) Lib. 9. 9. The Battel of Salamis was fought about the time that the Greeks solemnized their Feast called Mysteria as may be gathered from (f) Lib. 8. Herodotus 10. The Day on which this Battle was fought was the 20th day of the Month of Boëdromion as has been observed by Plutarch cited in the foregoing Chapter From whence may be concluded that the Battle of Salamis hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4234. Cycl ☉ 6. ☽ 16. in Autumn and that Xerxes â—â—de his Descent in the Spring If therefore from any 〈◊〉 given of the Julian To investigate the Tear since the beginning of this Epocha Period be subtracted 4233 years and eight Months the Residue shâ—ws the year since the beginning of this Epocha And if the said Sum be added to the year of this Epocha 〈◊〉 Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THE Historians differ in their Relations Of the vast Number of the Forces transported by Xerxes into Greece concerning the Number of Forces which Xerxes transported into Greece yet so that according to the most modest Computation they allow them to have been 700000 at least whereas the most make them amount to an almost incredible Number For Herodotus says the Persian Army consisted of 2310007 Foot and 80000 Horse not comprehending the Servants and others that followed the Army Justin says Xerxes had brought together an Army of 700000 Men out of Persia besides 300000 Auxiliaries so that it was not without Reason said from his Army that they consumed and dreined whole Rivers and that all Greece was not big enough to contain them (g) Vit. Themist Probus makes his Army to consist of 700000 Foot and 40000 Horse and (h) Orâ—t 3â— Lysias represents the Number of the Persians transported into Greece by Xerxes as incredible This Expedition therefore having been of such an extraordinary Moment and the Defeat of so vast an Army proportionable to the Greatness of the Enterprize what wonder if this was look'd upon as one of the most memorable Epocha's in the ancient times The most memorable Engagements betwixt the Persians and Greeks § 2 The first Engagement after the Descent made by Xerxes in Greece betwixt the Greeks and Persians hapned at Thermopylae where Leonidas the Spâ—câ—â—n General and King did encounter the whole Force of Asia and notwithstanding he was foretold by the Oracle that he should lose the Day he animated his Soldiers in the following Words Let us Fellow-Soldiers dine as if we were to sup together in the other World Leonidas was slain in the Engagement by the Persidy of the Inhabitants of the Place who had betrayed the Avenues and Passages to the Enemy but the Persians did not purchase this Victory without the Loss of 20000 Men on their side The Tombs of the Lacedaemonians were adorned with the following Epigram of Simonides as it is to be found in Latin in (k) I. 9. Cicero Dic hospes Spartae nos te hic vidisse jacentes Dum sanctis patriae legibus obsequimur The next Encounter hapned near Artemisium where both Parties having fought with almost equal Fortune the Greeks under Conduct of Themistocles drew the Persians into the Streights of Salamis where they were entirely routed Notwithstanding which the Greeks and Persians came to another Engagement in the next following year near Plateae a City of Boeotia where Mardonius at the Head of an Army of 200000 Foot and 20000 Horse was slain in the Field with a great Number of Persians as may be seen more at large in l Herodotus in (m) L. 11. c. l. 9. Diodorus Siculus in (n) In Lacon Strabo and Pausanias On the same day hapned that memorable Sea-Fight betwixt the Greeks and Persians near Mycale wherein the first were likewise victorious after which the Persians were so far from being able to recover their Loss that they were forced in their Camp and afterwards Xerxes and his Successours lost all the strong Holds they were possessed of in those Parts § 3. After which unfortunate Battel of Salamis The Flight of Xerxes Xerxes sought his own Safety in a most ignominious Flight leaving so vast an Army without a Head And he who had covered the Sea not long before with his Fleet now satisfied himself with a small Fisher-Boat which after it had been for some time tossed up and down by the tempestuous Weather at last conveyed him to the Asiatick Shoar where being despised by his Subjects he was unfortunately murthered by Arbanus i Tusc quaest L. 1.
10th year of this War the Greeks as Thucydides relates made a Truce which was very ill observed § 4. The annual Magistracy of the Archontes The Names of the Athenian Archontes and Lacedemonian Ephori during this War at Athens and of the Lacedaemonian Ephori having both their Beginning about the time of the Aestival Solstice and the Names of the several Archontes and Ephori being look'd upon as so many Characters in the History of this War we have for the more Perspicuity's sake inserted their Names in the following Catalogue each in his due Order with an Addition of each year of the Julian Period when these Archontes and Ephori began their Magistracy being about the time of the Summer Solstice Ann. Bell. Archontes Ephori An. Pe. Jul. I. Pythodorus Aenesias 4282 II. Euthydemus Brasidas 4283 III. Apollodorus Isanor 4284 IV. Epaminon Sostratidas 4285 V. Diotimus Exarchus 4286 VI. Euclides Agesistratus 4287 VII Euthydemus Angenidas 4288 VIII Stratocles Onomacles 4289 IX Isarchus Zeuxippus 4290 X. Aminias Pityas 4291 XI Alcaeus Phstolas 4292 XII Aristion Clinomach 4293 XIII Astyphilius Ilarchus 4294 XIV Archias Leon. 4295 XV. Antiphon Chaeridas 4296 XVI Euphemus Patesiades 4297 XVII Aristomnestus Cleosthenes 4298 XVIII Chabrias Lycarius 4299 XIX Pisander Eperatus 4300 XX. Cleocritus Onomantius 4301 XXI Callias Alexippidas 4302 XXII Glalicippus Theopomp 4303 XXIII Glaucippus Isias 4304 XXIV Diocles. Aracus 4305 XXV Euctemon Evarchippus 4306 XXVI Antigenes Pantacles 4307 XXVII Callias Pityas 4308 XXVIII Alexias Archytas 4309 XXIX Pythodorus Eudicus 4310 CHAP. XXIX Of the Epocha and Interval of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel mentioned in the 9th Chapter Verse 24. 1. By these 70 Weeks are to be understood annual Weeks or an Interval of 490 years 2. During this Interval of Years the Messias was born and suffered Death Vers 24. 3. The beginning of this Epocha is to be fixed to that time when that solemn Edict of rebuilding the City of Jerusalem was made 4. The End of these 70 annual Weeks ought to be coincident with the time of the total Destruction of that City according to the Words in (a) C. 9. v. Daniel Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People and upon thy holy City and the Words of (b) C. 24. v. 15. St. Matthew When you shall see the Abomination of Desolation stand in the holy Place 5. From the beginning of this Interval or Epocha till the 32 d year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon when Nehemiah returned â—â—t of Persia ought to be accounted 7 annual Weeks â—â— 49 (c) Nehem. 13. v. 6. Years Dan. 9. v. 25. 6. Scaliger 's Opinion seems to be not improâ—â—blâ— that the first year of these 70 Annual â—â—eks was likewise the first both in the Sacred Sabbâ—tic and Jubilean Cycle For the Angel calls theâ— expresly Annual Weeks which are equivalent â—â— the Sabbatick Cycle and all together make 〈…〉 Interval of 490 Years or 10 Jubilean Cycle And what has been said of the first year of thâ— mystical Interval may likewise be applied to 〈◊〉 last Year From whence Scaliger and his Followers conclâ—â—â— that the first year of the 70 Weeks of Daniel 〈◊〉 coincident with the 4292 d year of the Juliâ—â— Period and that the last year was coinciâ—â—â—â— with the 4782 d year of the same Julian â—â—riod If therefore 4292 years be subtracted from 〈◊〉 certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shâ—â—â— To investigate the year since the beginning of this Epocha the year since the beginning of this Interval â—â— 70 Annual Weeks And if the said Suâ—â—â— added to the year of this Epocha or Interâ—â—â—â— the Product will be correspondent to the year â—â— the Julian Period § 1. NOT only the Jews look upon the Dâ—termination of the time mentioned 〈◊〉 Whether it be possible to find out the time determined by the 70 Weeks Daniel in these 70 Weeks as impossible but 〈◊〉 not a few among the Christians consider 〈◊〉 same as intangled in almost insurmountable Diâ—â—â—â—culties (d) Homil. 39. Origen Adamantius in his Explicatâ—on upon these Words of Christ in St. Matthâ—â— c. 24. When ye shall see the Abomination of Dâ—solation stand in the holy-Places makes use of tâ—â— following Expression It belongs only to Daniel aâ—◠〈…〉 Holy Men as were endowed with 〈…〉 to give the right Interpretation 〈…〉 Words and what is meant by the Abomiâ—â—â—â—on of the Desolation St. Austin was of the 〈◊〉 Opinion and could never be prevailed upâ—â— to determine any thing concerning these 70 â—eeks as may be seen out of his 80th Epistle 〈…〉 Hesychius In like manner says St. 〈…〉 I know that the Learned are divided in 〈◊〉 Opinions about this Question every one judging 〈…〉 to the best of his Vnderstanding And 〈◊〉 it is dangerous to give a positive Judgâ—â—â—â— concerning the different Opinions of so 〈…〉 Men in the Church and to prefer 〈◊〉 â—â—ntiments of some before the others I will 〈◊〉 â—â—â—ented to rehearle only the several Opiniâ—â—â—â—ving it to the Judgment of the Reader 〈…〉 Footsteps he will be pleased to follow 〈◊〉 â—â—glish Interpreters of the Bible especially 〈◊〉 â—ho have made their Animadversions upon 〈…〉 Translation follow S. Jerom's Example re 〈…〉 â—nly the Opinions of others without de 〈…〉 any thing in the matter The Dutch 〈…〉 what inclining to the Opinion of Bero 〈…〉 in their marginal Notes upon the Bi 〈…〉 the same Rule as may be seen out of 〈…〉 Words Vnto what time the Be 〈…〉 End of these 490 years is to be fixed 〈…〉 Dispute Some begin them with the 〈…〉 the Monarchy of Cyrus and would 〈…〉 with the Death of Christ which seems 〈…〉 plainest of all according to Isaiah c. 44. 〈◊〉 and c. 45. v. 13. 2 Chron. c. 36. v. 22 23. 〈…〉 v. 1. Others make the Beginning of 〈…〉 coincident with the 7th year of the Reign 〈…〉 Longimanus and their End likewise 〈…〉 of Christ Others begin from the 〈…〉 the Reign of Darius Nothus and end with the Destruction of Jerusalem All which we leave to the Determination of the Reader But among all others the Hypothesis of Reinoldus puts the Determination of this Prophecy beyond all Possibility when the better to palliate his erroneous Opinion that these 490 years ought to begin from Cyrus and end with the Messias he insinuates that by these LXX Weeks there was not intended any certain determined time but in a sense usual in the Scripture a certain Number was set for an uncertain It is undeniable that the Calculation founded upon this Prophecy concerning the 70 Weeks is involved in no small Difficulties nevertheless not such as are impossible to be surmounted For else it had been spoken in vain by the Angel KNOW THEREFORE AND VNDERSTAND if it had been beyond all possibility of being comprehended by Mortal Men And what Benefit could be supposed to accrue to Mankind from such Words as were altogether incomprehensible by Human Understanding As it is beyond all Dispute that the Event
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
Timâ—us Callisthenes whose Works are lost but the 〈◊〉 of them to be found in (f) Biblioth Diodorus Siculus Besides that the Reigns of these ancient Persian Monarchs are rendred illustrious to Posterity by many Celestial Characters as may beseen in (g) Almagest l. 5. c. 14. Ptolemy As to what relates to that Argument that no other of the Persian Monarchs are to be allow'd of but such as are mentioned in the Scripture (h) Chron. l. 2. p. 58. Vbbo Emmius has very well answered Hugo Broughton who patronizes the same Opinion in the following Words To prove their Hypothesis they alledge that only these Kings are named by Ezra and Nehemiah and therefore the rest mention'd in Pâ—ophanâ— History ought to be considered as supposititious If this way of arguing be allowable I see no Reason why it may not be said with the same Right The Books of the Kings and the Chronicles mention only five Assyrian Kings to wit Phul Theglaphalaâ—sar Sâ—â—â—anassar Sennacherib Asar-Hâ—â—don for Meroâ—â—â— Nabuchodonâ—sor Balshazar and Evilmerodach were Chaldaeâ—â—s not Assyrians therefore no other Kings have ruled over Assyria And thus we might proceed to the Kings of Syria and Egypt Can any thing be more weak or more vain For what is more evident than that in the History of one particular Nation no further mention used to be made of the Kings of the Neighbouring Nations than is requisite for the explaining or perfecting their Relations and that a whole Catalogue or Series of the Kings of any Nation is not to be look'd for but in the particular History of that Nation the Author intends to treat of Of which to say more would be superfluous c. § 8. One of the main Questions and the most difficult to be resolved belonging to this Point It was Darius Nothus whose Edict is mentioned Ez c. 6. is which of the three Darius's is to be understood by that Darius mentioned by Haggai Zechariah and Ezra It is well known that the first Darius is commonly sirnam'd Hystaspis the second Nothus and the third Codomannus Concerning the last it is put beyond all Dispute by the Consent of all the Chronologers that he had not the least Share in this Decree or Edict but about the two first the most learned Interpreters are very different in their Opinions (i) Ant. Lib. 9. cap. â— Josephus refers this Edict to Darius Hydaspis of whom he relates that being put in mind by Zorobabel of his Promise before he was King of rebuilding the City and Temple of Jerusalem and to restore all the Vessels and Utensils carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon he joyfully granted his Request commanding his Governours to conduct him and his Followers safely to Jerusalem to perfect the Structure of the Temple and ordering those of Phoenicia and Syria to furnish them with Cedars from Mount Libanon But tho' Bishop Vsher stands up in defence of the Opinion of Josephus yet his Relation renders the whole very dubious For he describes this Edict as an Effect of the Marriage betwixt Darius Hydaspis and Esther which how much contrary it is to Truth we have spoke of sufficiently before not to mention the unpardonable Mistake of Josephus when he makes those who went with Nehemiah to Jerusalem to amount to many Millions On the other hand there are very strong Motives which induce us to believe that the Edict of the Rebuilding of the Temple was made by Darius Nothus in the second year of his Reign For First it must be understood of the Reign of the same Darius when the Jews lived in Cieled Houses and the Temple laid waste which was the Reason they were afflicted with a general Scarcity (k) Hagg. 1. v. 4. c. 2. v. 16. Now there being but 12 years betwixt the Edict of Cyrus and the second year of the Reign of Darius Hydaspis it seems very improbable that in so short a time especially under the Reign of Cambyses the Jews should have built themselves Ceiled Houses and have quite laid aside that Zeal they had so lately shewn in contributing cheerfully towards the Rebuilding of the Temple (l) â—zr 2. v. 68. seq Secondly it is to be understood of the Reign of the same Darius under whose auspicious Reign the Jews after they had endured a great deal of Misery began to enjoy the Benefit of a more peaceable State pursuant to the Words of God in (m) C. 8. v. 11. seq Hag. 2. v. 9. Zechariah But now I will not be unto the Residue of this People as in the former days saith the Lord of Hosts For the Seed shall be more prosperous the Vine shall give her Fruit and the Ground shall give her Encrease and the Heavens shall give their Dew and I will cause the Remnant of this People to possess all these things and it shall come to pass that as ye were a Curse among the Heathen and House of Judah and House of Israel so will I save you and ye shall be a Blessing Fear not but let your Hands be strong For thus saith the Lord of Hosts As I thought to punish you when your Fathers provoked me to Wrath saith the Lord of Hosts and I repented not so again have I thought in these Days to do well unto Jerusalem and to the House of Judah Fear ye not But who is so little versed in the History of the Jewish Nation as to be ignorant of the many and various Calamities the Jews groaned under after the Reign of Darius Hydaspis Thirdly the above-cited Passages are to be understood of the same Darius who lived and reigned many years after the Solution of the Babylonian Captivity it being evident out of (n) Cap. 5. v. 6. Ezra that the Persian Nobles had not the least Remembrance of the Edict published in behalf of the Jews by Cyrus For which Reason it was that they were obliged to search the Royal Records But this appears in no wise agreeable to the Reign of Dar. Hydaspis there being but a few years betwixt the beginning of the Reign of Cyrus and that of this Darius who it is probable was one of the chief Persian Lords under Cyrus But this being applied to the Reign of Darius II. sirnamed Nothus there remains not the least Difficulty there being betwixt Cyrus and Darius Nothus above a hundred years For the Confirmation of which I cannot but alledge here the Words of (o) Hisâ— Univ p. â—58 Rupertus formerly Professor in the University of Altorf If it was Darius Hydaspis that granted Leave to the Jews to rebuild the Temple how is it possible that the Edict of Cyrus concerning the Restauration of the Jews could be so entirely forgotten For Darius Hydaspis was one of the principal Persian Lords under Cyrus and yet this same Darius is obliged to have Recourse to the Records Nehemiah was forced to inspect the Genealogies of those that returned with Zorobabel when at the time of Darius Hydaspis there were
(g) Eâ—â— 6. v. 1. sequ Ezra That the House was finished on the third Day of the Month Adar which was the 6th year of the Reign of Darius And this Argument is so convincing that not only the most famous modern Chronologers to wit Scaliger Vbbo Emmius Calvisius Mich. Moestlinus Franckenbergerus and many more but also some of the ablest Divines and especially Helvicus (h) C. 6. v. 16. Behmius and G. Konig Professor of Divinity in the University of Altorf with many others agree in this Point that the Beginning of these 70 Weeks ought to be fixed at the time of the Edict issued forth in the 2d year of Darius Nothus LVTHER himself tho' he was of Opinion that this Darius was the same who in prophane History is called Artaxerxes Longimanus which Error might be very pardon able when Chronology was as yet involved in many Difficulties of which it has been cleared since Nevertheless he puts it beyond all Doubt that the Interval of these 70 Weeks ought to begin with the 2d year of the same Darius when this Solemn Edict was published as may be seen in his Preface to the Prophet Haggai 2. That year which by counting backwards is coincident with the 490th year from the Destruction of the 2 d Temple is the same year where the Interval of these 70 Weeks ought to begin But the 2 d year of the Reign of Darius Nothus is the 490th year counting backwards from the Destruction of the 2 d Temple Therefore these 70 years c. The Major Proposition will be proved more at large hereafter from the Angelical Prediction and the Term prefixed by the Angel in (i) C. 9. v. 23. 26. Daniel and from a Parallel Passage in (k) C. 24. v. 15. Matthew The Minor Proposition is easie to be proved for it has been shewn before in a particular Chapter and is approved by the joint Consent of Scaliger Petavius and many others of the best Chronologers that the Destruction of the 2d Temple hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4783. If therefore from 4783 be subtracted 490 years there remains 4293 Year of the Julian Period which that it was coincident with the 2d year of Darius Nothus is thus demonstrable Artaxerxes Longimanus the Predecessour of Darius Nothus died according to (l) Can. Chron. Ptolemy in the 324th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha and the 324th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha is coincident with the 4291st year of the Julian Period If therefore the last year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus was the 4291st year and also the first of Darius Nothus it follows that the 5293d year was the second of the Reign of the same Darius 3. That time from whence by a just Computation are accounted 7 annual Weeks or 49 Years till the finishing of the Streets and Walls of the City a due Regard being also had to the subsequâ—â—â— Intervals ought to be made the Beginning of the 70 Weeks But from the 2 d year of the Reign of Darius Nothus till the finishing of the Walls and Streets of the City are computed 7 annual Weeks or 49 Years without any Prejudice to the subsequent Intervals Therefore these 70 Years c. The Major Proposition is evident from the Words of the Angel The Minor concerning the 7 annual Weeks is thus proved out of (m) C. 13. v. 6. Nehemiah Nehemiah after the finishing of the Walls returned in the 32d year of the Reign of Artaxerxes And that this was under Artax Memor we shall have Occasion to prove hereafter Darius Nothus reigned in all 19 years so that from the 2d year of his Reign till the 32d of his Successour are to be computed 49 years which exactly amounts to the Number mentioned by the Angel Of the other particular Intervals we shall say more hereafter 4. According to which Opinion the Angelical Weeks due Regard being had to other Circumstances begin and end with the Sabbatick and Jubilean Cycles that Opinion carries along with it more Probability than the others But our Opinion has this Prerogative as is mentioned in the Beginning of this Chapter Therefore our Opinion c. The Major Proposition we prove from thence that it appears very probable that when the Angel made mention of the Annual Week he made Reflection upon the Sabbatick and Jubilean Cycles these being in the Holy Scripture likewise called Weeks as has been shewn before The Minor is proved by the Calculation inserted in the 172d and following Pages of this Epitome § 13. As we have given you our Opinion concerning the Beginning of this Interval of the 70 Who was Artaxerxes 〈◊〉 by â—zâ—a and Nehemiah Weeks so we will likewise take a View of what has been maintained by others especially concerning Artaxerxes or Artasasta in the 7th year of whose Reign (n) C. 7. v. 6. Ezra went into Palestine as did (o) C. 2. v. 1. Nehemiah in the 20th year of his Reign Those who differ from us in Opinion about the Beginning of the 70 Weeks do also disagree with us concerning this Artaxerxes For those who would fix the Beginning of this Interval of 70 Weeks to the time of these Edicts mentioned by Ezra and Nehemiah understand by this Artaxerxes the same who is sirnamed Longimanus of which Opinion are Africanus Joh. Funccius Henr. Buntingus Tho. Lydiott Temporarius Dion Petav. Will. Lange Rob Baily and others On the other hand Scaliger and his Followers understand by this Artasasta Artaxerxes II the Successour of Darius Nothus the same Artaxerxes who is sirnamed Memor which Opinion we will endeavour to maintain by the following Arguments 1. By Artasasta or Artaxerxes mentioned by Ezra is to be understood the same King of Persia who reigned not only after Cyrus Ahasuerus and Darius mentioned by Ezra but also after another King of Persia of the same Name But Artaxerxes Memor and not Artaxerxes Longimanus is the same King who reigned not only after Cyrus Ahasuerus and Darius but also after another King of Persia of the same Name Therefore Artaxerxes c. The Major Proposition is evident from the Words of Ezra in the 4th Chapter where he gives an Account of the Troubles befaln the Jews under the Reigns of Cyrus Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes and again in the 7th Chapter where he mentions another Artasasta or Artaxerxes in the 6th year of whose Reign Ezra did go into Palaestine See what has been said before upon those Passages of Ezra The Minor Proposition we prove out of the Catalogue of the Persian Kings and their Succession 2. The same Artasasta or Artaxerxes of whom it is said that he obstructed the Rebuilding of the Temple and by his Edicts shewed himself an Enemy to the Jewish Nation cannot rationally be supposed to be the same whom Ezra and Nehemiah praises for his Affection and Benefits bestowed upon the Jews But Artasasta or Artaxerxes who in prophane History is sirnamed Longimanus
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
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
Catholick Writers of the Martyrologies Breviaries Diaries c. From these Characters it seems evident to me that our Saviour was born in the Year of the Julian Period 4711 Cycl ☉ 7. ☽ 18. on the 25th day of December If therefore 4711 years be subtracted from any certain Year given of the Julian Period the Residue How to investigate the Year of this Epocha shews the Year since the Beginning of this Epocha c. But there being a Difference of two whole years betwixt the vulgar Computation and this If therefore 4713 years be subtracted from any known Year of the Julian Period the Residue will be correspondent to the Year since the Beginning of this Epocha Or if the said 4713 years be added to the known year of this vulgar Epocha the Product will shew the Year of the Julian Period And if according to the Opinion of some the Computation be begun in the Year preceding the vulgar Epocha let the same be subtracted from the 4714th Year of the Julian Period and the Residue will shew the Year of the Julian Period correspondent to the Year next preceding the Nativity of Christ And if the true Year of the Julian Period be known and you would investigate the Year before the Beginning of the vulgar Epocha subtract 4714 years from the known Year of the Julian Period and the Residue will shew the Year next preceding the vulgar Epocha § 1. (q) Dubior Ev. Part 2. dub 1. FRed Spanheim (r) Syn. disp select Exc. 8. Joh. Cloppenburgius Whether it be impossible to find out the true year of the Nativity of Christ Joh. Vossius and many others are of Opinion that it is impossible to determine the true Year of the Nativity of Christ They alledge that the uncertain Beginnings of the several different Epocha's and their unequal Conceptions and uncertain Foundations together with the various Interpretations of so many Authors of Note are insuperable Difficulties They add to this the Institution of the Christian Epocha not till a considerable time after the Nativity of Christ the different Opinions and Computations concerning the Reign of Herods the Taxation of Cyrenius and the thirty Years of Christ from whence they conclude that all the Opinions of the Chronologers concerning this Epocha are founded upon false and uncertain Conjectures But we being in the Constitution of this Epocha guided by the Sacred Writ the Authority of very ancient Chronologers and the unquestionable Truth of the Celestial Characters this Epocha may be look'd upon as entangled in some Difficulties but ought not to be numbered amongst the Impossibilities § 2. The Interpreters are much divided in their Opinions concerning the Taxation under Concerning the Taxation under Cyrenius Cyrenius the main Difficulty arising from thence that at the time of the Nativity of Christ Sentius Saturninus and not Cyrenius was Governour of Syria For (s) L. 17. c. ult Ant. L. 18. c. 1. Josephus enumerates the Governours of Syria in the following Order Sentius Saturninus Quintilius Varus Quirinius Besides that he makes not the least Mention of the first Decree of Augustus at the time of the Nativity of Christ but only of the Taxation under Cyrenius after the Banishment of Archelaus and the Death of Herod To resolve this Difficulty the Interpreters have had Recourse to divers Explications Theodorus Beza pretends to correct the Text of St. Luke and to substitute the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But besides that it is of very ill consequence to correct the Sacred Text neither Porphyrius nor Julian the Apostate tho' they were not unacquainted with what is said in the New Testament concerning the Taxation of Cyrenius under the Reign of Herod never attempted to contradict it and (t) Apol. 2. pro Christ Justin Martyr alledges in his Behalf the Taxation-Books made by Cyrenius Calvin and Salmero accuse Josephus of a Mistake in the time of the Taxation of Cyrenius But to lay so gross an Error at the Door of so great an Historian is in Effect to call in question the Veracity of his whole History Neither am I of the same Opinion with Eusebius (u) L. 1. c. 5. Hist Eccl. who maintains the Taxation mentioned by (x) L. 17. c. 15. L. 18. c. 1. Josephus to have been the same with the Taxation of which mention is made by St. Luke Spanhemius having sufficiently shewn the great Difference there is betwixt them (y) Chron. c. 241. Joh. Georg. Herwart and (z) Ecl. Chr. Kepler interpret the Words of St. Luke (a) C. 2. v. 2. thus that the Genitive Case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joined with the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be taken in the Comparative Mood and signifies as much as if it had been said that this Taxation was the first and was made before Quirinius or Cyrenius was Governour or Prefect of Syria But if this had been the Sence of St. Luke he would questionless have express'd it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this being more agreeable to the Style of this Evangelist In my Opinion it is the safest way to conclude that either Cyrenius has been twice Governour of Syria or that he was sent at the time of the Nativity of our Saviour on purpose into Syria with full Power to regulate this Taxation the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implying any superiour Power and that Josephus did not make mention of it because it came perhaps never to his Knowledge § 3. This Character of the Nativity of Christ Hâ—w to reconcile the Synchronism of the 15th year of Tiberius and the 30th of Christ which ought to be considered as one of the fundamental ones of this Epocha has met with dubious Interpretations For some of them explain the Words of a St. Luke thus Jesus began to be thirty years of Age c. Whereas others would have it Jesus was about thirty years of Age to wit when he began his Ministry Of the first Opinion is Scaliger who (b) C. 3. v. 23 L. 3. Isag Chron. pretends to evince that Christ was then entring his 31st year of Age. But I am rather inclin'd to believe that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is made use of here in an Eliptick Sense and that it ought to be understood as relating to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Ministry of Christ § 4. This vulgar Epocha of the Nativity of Whether the Vulgar Epecha of Christâ— be the true one Christ was not only made use of by the Christian Writers at the time of Beda but the same has also met with a Patron among the Modern Authors in the Person of Henr. Harvil a Franciscan Fryar but to no great Purpose it being certain that the same is repugnant to the true Computation of the time of Herod and the Synchronism of the 15th year of the Reign of Tiberius and the 30th year
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
on the 6th Hour the Day was converted into Night so that the Stars appeared in the Firmament There was likewise felt a great Earthquake in Bithynia which ruined the greatest part of the City of Nicea 7. Christ suffered in the Month Nisan which was the first in the Ecclesiastical Year and on the 14th day of the same Month at the time of the Full Moon according to the Words of God (r) Exod. 12. v. 2. This Month shall be unto you the Beginning of Months it shall be the first Month of the Year to you Speak you unto all the Congregation of Israel saying In the 10th day of this Month they shall take to them every Man a Lamb according to the House of their Fathers a Lamb for an House And you shall keep it up till the 14th day of the same Month and the whole Assembly of the Congregation of Israel shall kill it in the Evening And they shall take of the Blood and strike it on the two Side-Posts and on the upper Door-Post of the Houses wherein they shall eat it And they shall eat the Flesh in that Night rost with Fire and Unleavened Bread and with bitter Herbs they shall eat it Of this same Feast of the Passover (s) L. 3. de Vit. Mos Philo has these following Words On the fourteenth day of the same Month when the Moon is at the Full the Jews celebrate their publick Feast of the Passover which the Chaldaeans call Pascha From these Characters those who adhere to the Opinion of Scaliger conclude that our Saviour did eat his last Passover 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Year of the Julian Period 4746 Cycl ☉ 14. ☽ 15 on the 3 d day of April and that on the same day according to the Jewish Computation Christ suffered Death If therefore from any certain year of the Julian Period How to find out any year of these Epocha's 4745 Years and 3 Months be subtracted the Residue shews the year since the Passion of Christ And if the said 4745 Years and 3 Months be added to the known Year of this Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the Year of the Julian Period § 1. THere are various Opinions concerning the Characters of this Epocha but those The various Opinions of the Fathers concerning this Epocha before alledged may be look'd upon as the choicest the Ecclesiastical Characters alledged by the Ancient Fathers being for the most part involved in many Errors and contradictory to themselves The most of them are of Opinion that our Saviour did not teach in publick above one Year and some Months and that he was crucified in the 2d Year after his Baptism which Opinion they found upon the Prophecy of (t) C. 61. v. 1. Isaiah The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good Tidings unto the Meek he had sent me to bind up the Broken-hearted to proclaim Liberty to the Captives and the opening of the Prison to them that are bound To proclaim The ACCEPTABLE YEAR of the LORD and the Day of Vengeance of our God to comfort all that mourn Which Prophecy is applied to Christ by (u) C. 4. v. 19. St. Luke So that many of the ancient Fathers have fixed the time of the Death of our Saviour in the 30th year of his Age and in the 15th or 16th year of the Reign of Tiberius on the 25th day of March which Opinion among the Modern Authors Ger. (x) Diss de Temp. Dom. Pass Joh. Vossius has likewise embraced But as we shall have Occasion to shew hereafter our Saviour did celebrate more Passovers after the Beginning of his publick Ministry Neither was the Paschal Full Moon coincident with the 6th Feria in that Year which is appointed by the Fathers for the Passion of Christ Neither is it agreeable to that remarkable Observation of the Eclipse by Phlegon Neither do these Fathers agree in their Opinions among themselves For Tertullian Clem. Alexandrinus Julius Africanus Lactantius and St. Austin affirm that Christ preached but one Year in publick whereas St. Jerome allows two Ignatius three and Irenaeus more years the last of them being of Opinion that Christ was 50 years old when he suffered Death From whence it appears that the Opinions of the Fathers concerning this Epocha is built upon a very uncertain Foundation § 2. Among the Ancients Beda and the Moderns Ger. Joh. Vossius have made use of this Method How many Passovers Christ celebrated after the Beginning of his Ministry to investigate the Year of the Passion of Christ from the Number of the Passovers celebrated by him after the Beginning of his Ministry tho' it be evident that the last is invoâ—ved in the same Difficulties with the first the Chronologers differing as much in their Opinion if not more concerning the last as the first For First there are some who allow of no more than one Year and a few Months after his Baptism as has been mentioned before Secondly Some allow of three Passovers after the Baptism of our Saviour among whom is Epiphanius St. Hierom Beda Nich. de Lyra Alphonsus Tostatus Pererius Maldonatus Calvinus Musculus Dionysius Petavius and Helwigius There are Thirdly others who affirm that our Saviour did celebrate four Passovers after his Baptism The first they pretend to prove out of the 2d Chapter v. 13 23. of St. John the second out of the 4th Chapter v. 35. and the 5th Chapter v. 1 of St. John the third out of the 6th Chap. v. 4. and v. 2. of St. John the 4th out of the 12th Chap. v. 1. of St. John the 22d Chap. v. 1. of St. Luke the 14th Chap. v. 1. of St. Mark and the 26th Chap. v. 1. of St. Matthew Of which Opinion are (y) Nat. ad Joh. 5. Corn. à Lapide Baronius Torniellus Beza Junius Jansenius Henr. Pâ—ilippi Hugo Grotius Franciscus Toletus Joh. Wicâ—mannus and most of the Dutch Interpreters Fourthly Scaliger Calvisius Helvicus Calixtus Wilhelm Langius Causabonus Deckerius and Rob. Bailius allot 5 Passovers after the Baptism of Christ and Jacobus Hainlinus who makes the Interval betwixt the Baptism and Passion of Christ to consist of 5 years and a half does likewise allow 5 Passovers after his Baptism Among these different Opinions we adhere as we have done frequently before to that of Scaliger But the Difficulty is how to prove this 5th Passover out of the Holy Scripture which has been attempted by some by comparing Chap. 12. v. 1. of St. Matthew with the 6th Chap. v. 1. sequ of St. Luke Also by comparing the 9th Chap. v. 51. of St. Luke with his 10th Chap. v. 8. and 38. But it is our Opinion that we need not be so very anxious in finding out the 5th Passover in the Holy Scripture since tho' the same be not expresly mentioned yet no Inference is to be drawn from thence that the same may be proved from other
where among other things Dionysius answered Apollophanes concerning this Eclipse Aut Deus patitur aut vicem Patientis deflet Either God himself suffers or else is extremely concerned about him that suffers Which contradicts the Opinions of Origenes Laur. Valla Erasmus Roterdamus and Is Peyrerius who maintain that this was only a particular Eclipse which was not observed at Athens or any other Place beyond the Horizon of Jerusalem And the Authority and Testimony of Phlegon makes it one of the most unquestionable Characters of the time of the Passion of Christ § 7. Christ suffered on the 6th Feria For the Christ suffered on the 6th Feria Day on which Christ was crucified is called by (p) C. 15. v. 42. St. Mark and (q) C. 19. v. 31. St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Preparation or the Day before the Sabbath 2. It is said that the Women staid but one Day before they came to the Sepulchre See St. Luke c. 23. 3. The Syrian and Arabick Interpreters unanimously agree that Christ suffered on the Friday as 4. do the most ancient Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers 5. It is confirmed by the Calculation of the Paschal Plenilune which was coincident with the 33d Year of Christ which Plenilune did happen that same Year on the 6th Feria All which sufficiently contradicts the Assertion of Paulus Middleburgensis and Willhelmus Langius that Christ suffered on the 5th Feria or on Thursday What they alledge for themselves that it is said in (r) C. 12. v. 40. Matthew That the Son of Man shall be three Days and three Nights in the Heart of the Earth some compute from the first Beginning of Christ's Passion others interpret it by three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 containing two Nights and one Day CHAP. XLII Of the Epocha of the last Destruction of the City of Jerusalem For the better understanding of this Epocha these following Chararacters ought to be taken into Consideration 1. The Jewish War in the fourth Year of which Jerusalem was taken began in the second year after Florus was made Governour of that Province and in the 12th year of the Reign of Nero. See (a) Lib. 20. c. ult Ant. Josephus The Jews bore it patiently says (b) L. 5. Histor Tacitus till the time when Gessius Florus was made Governour then the War began to break out when Cestius Gallus then Deputy-Governour of Syria endeavouring to force them to a Compliance they were vanquished in several Engagements 2. This Destruction of Jerusalem hapned at the time of the Expiration of the 70 Angelical Weeks which according to the Words of the Prophet (c) C. 9. v. 24. Daniel were determined upon the People and the Holy City 3. This Destruction of Jerusalem hapned in the 2 d year of the Reign of Flavius Vespafianus according to (d) L. 6. c. 47. de bell Jud. Josephus and (e) In Chron. Eusebius The Reign of Vespafian commences with the first day of July when Tiberius Alexander then Governour of Aegypt first induced the Legions to swear Fealty to Vespafian in the 2 d year after the Death of Nero For according to (f) L. 66. Dio Cassius there was an Interval of a whole Year and 22 Days betwixt the Death of Nero and the Beginning of the Reign of Vespasian I say in the same Year when the Battle was fought near Cremona and Vitellius was slain on the day of the Feast of Saturn See (g) L. 3. Tacitus And about which time hapned a notable Eclipse of the Moon which contributed not a little towards increasing the Tumult and Mutiny in Vitellius 's Army See (h) L. 65. Dio. Such an Eclipse hapned in the Year of the Vulgar Aera of Christ 69 on the 18th day of October as may be easily investigated by the Astronomical Calculations 4. It was the 2 d Year of the 212th Olympiad when the Romans made themselves Masters of the City of Jerusalem See (i) In Chron. Euseb 5. The Destruction of Jerusalem hapned in the same year that Fl. Vesp Augustus a second time and Titus were Roman Consuls See (k) L. 66. Dio Cassius 6. It was the 331st Year before the Consulship of Stilico and Aurelianus when the City of Jerusalem was taken by the Romans See Sulpit. Severus 7. Titus began the Siege of Jerusalem on the first day of the Vnleavened Bread on the 14th day of the Month Xanticus on the same day that the Jews were freed from the Aegyptian Bondage See (l) L. 5. C. 11. de Bel. Jud. Josephus 8. The Temple was laid in Ashes on the 10th day of the Month Lous on the same Day that the Temple was destroyed by Fire by the King of Babylon See (m) L. 7. c. 9 10. Josephus and Seder Olam 9. The City was taken on the 8th day of the Month Gorpiaeus and upon a Saturday which Day is in great Veneration among the Jews to this Day See Josephus and (n) L. 66. Dio Cassius From these Characters it is evident that Titus began the Siege of Jerusalem in the Year of the Julian Period 4783 Cycl ☉ 23. ☽ 14. on the 14th day of April and that the Temple was laid in Ashes on the 6th day of August in the same Year and the total Desolation of the City on the first of September If therefore from any certain Year of the Julian Period be subtracted 4782 Years and 3 Months Any certain year given of the Julian Period to find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha or 7 Months or 8 Months the Residue shews the Year since the beginning of the Siege of Jerusalem and the Destruction of the Temple and City On the other hand if to the known Years of this Epocha the before-mentioned Sum of Years and Months be added the Product will be correspondent to the Year of the Julian Period § 1. THE true Chronology of the Destruction Where we must look for the Chronology of this Epocha of Jerusalem must chiefly be looked for in the Books of Josephus he having been at the same time a Prisoner in the Roman Camp and employed by them as a Messenger to the Besieged And tho' the Jewish Rabbi's but especially Rabbi Isaac Abarbinel do exclaim against his Authority yet their Calumnies are of little Consequence against so great an Historian it being certain that the Rabbi's themselves are Ignorant as to the true time of the Destruction of their City as we shall have Occasion to shew immediately § 2. The Rabbi's in their Chronological Treatises Concerning th◠Jewish Computation of this Epocha relate this Destruction in the following Words especially in their Great Chronicle From the time of the War of Vespasian till the War of Titus are 24 Years From the time of the War of Titus till the War with Barcozbe 16 Years Thus according to Rabbi Jose the days of good Works and Sins return within one another As for Example the first
have proved before that Const the Great was proclaimed Caesar in the Year of Christ 306 which Opinion is approved of by (b) Part 2. l. â— c 11. Petav. in Ration Tempor Nevertheless the same Petavius in his Treatise de Doct. Temp. deduces the Beginning of the Reign of Const the Great from the 305th Year of Christ having read in the History of Socrates that Const the Great died in the first Year of the 271st Olympiad on the 25th day of July Scaliger affirms that Const the Great was not proclaimed Caesar till the Year of Christ 307. And (c) L. 4. c. 53 de Vit. Const Eusebius says expresly that Const the Great reigned 31 Years and some Months with whom agrees the Author of the Chron. Alexand. and Joh. Monachus who allot 31 Years and 10 Months for the Reign of this Emperor (d) L. 2. n. xvii Philostorgius affirms that he reigned beyond the 32d Year On the other hand St. Jerome Eutropius Onuphrius and many more who are of the same Opinion with us allow no more than 30 Years and 10 Months for the Reign of Const the Great and Scaliger but 29 Years and 10 Months There is no less Dispute about the Age of Const the Great Eusebius says he was not quite 64 Years old when he died there wanting a few Months and Days But Socrates Sozomenus Ruffinus Cassiodorus and a great many others affirm that Const the Great died in the 66th Year of his Age. They are also no less divided in their Opinions concerning those that were Consuls at Rome when Const the Great died Those who refer his Death to the Consulship of Felicianus and Titianus we have cited before But in the Consular Records published by Antonius Contius we find his Death coincident with the Consulship of Vrsus Lupulus and Polemius and consequently one Year later and (e) In Chron. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus with the Consulship of Constantius the 2d time and Constans and consequently two Years later And who is as much as able to enumerate much less to decide the different Opinions concerning the Reign of Const the Great Our before-mentioned Characters are the surest Guides to extricate us out of this Labyrinth § 2. Some of the Ancients were of Opinion Whether Constantine was proclaimed Caesar before his Father's Death that Constantine was proclaimed Caesar before his Father's Death which seems to be confirmed by the Authority of Eusebius when he allots 32 Years for the Reign of this Emperour And the Author of the Chron. Alexandr says expresly that the Year of the Death of Constantius was the 2d Year of Constantine And (f) In Chron. Cassiodorus speaking of the Consulship of Dioclesian the 10th time and Maximus the 7th time has the following Words Constantius not troubling himself with any Business was contented with the Title of Augustus which is the Reason that some years of his Reign are included in the Reign of his Son Constantine who as it was reported was born from Helen his Concubine c. § 3. But tho' (g) L. 1. c. 16. de Vit. Const Euseb relates that Constantine was Whether Constantine was declared Emperour and Augustus immediately after his Father's Death proclaimed Emperour and Augustus at the time of Constantius his Father's Funeral yet if we give Credit to the ancient Monuments of these Times we must conclude that Constantius either immediately after or perhaps before his Father Constantius's Death was declared Caesar but did not take upon him the Titles of Imperator or Augustus till after his Marriage with Fl. Maximiana Fausta the Daughter of Maximianus Herculeus as among others appears out of the Oration of the Panegyrist spoken in the Presence of Maximian and Constantine Augustus where among others he has these Words TIBI CAESARI ADDITUM NOMEN IMPERII And further as follows ET TIBI CONSTANTINE PER SOCERUM NOMEN IMPERII ACCREVERIT c. § 4. There is a Dispute among the Historians Whether Constantine was the first Christian Emperour whether Const the Great or the Emperour Philip sirnamed Arabs was the first Christian Emperour (h) L. 5. c. 27. Hist Eccl. Eusebius affirms that already in his time it was granted by many that this Philip had embraced the Christian Religion and (i) L. 7. c. 18. Orosius says expresly that this Philip was the first of all the Christian Emperours and that Constantine was the first Christian Emperour except Philip. On the other hand Eusebius seems to call in question the Christianity of Philip when he says that among all the other Emperours Constantine was the only one who was initiated by the holy Baptism with whom agrees in Opinion Lactantius in his Preface when he says that he was the first of all the Roman Princes who had laid aside his erroneous Opinion and was come to the true Knowledge of God and relates of this Philip Arabs that he was an Idolater Scaliger is of Opinion that in Reality he was a Pagan but pretended to be a Christian for some Reasons of State So that the best Chronologers agree in this Point that the Epocha of the Christian Emperours begins with the Reign of Const the Great § 5. Augustus having refused to accept of the The Origin of the Decennalia and Vicennalia Empire any otherwise than for the Space of ten Years was the first who instituted the Decennalia concerning which (k) L. 53. Dio Cassius has these following Words Caesar to remove from himself all Suspicion of being ambitious of the Royal Dignity so odious to the Romans but much coveted by him for which Reason he would accept of the Government of the Provinces for 10 years only adding these Words That if he could reduce them to a State of Tranquillity in a less time he would sooner abdicate the Government § 6. There is also a great Question among the Historians how long the Council of Nicaea lasted Concerning the time of the Nicaean Council Scaliger is of Opinion that it was dissolved in the 3d Year after it was called together with whom agree (l) L. 1. c. 1. de Concil Bellarminus and (m) Ad An. Chr. 338. Genebrardus but is contradicted by Baronius and Petavius Those who disagree with Scaliger alledge in their behalf the Words of Alexander and Metrophanes in (n) â—oâ— 256. Phot. which are as follows The Council being ended after three years and a half for it began on the 15th day of April and continued till three years after not only till the same Month of April but till the September next following But I look upon it as unquestionable that the End of the Council of Nicaea ought to be made coincident with the Vicennalia of Const the Great CHAP. XLV Of the Epocha and the Encoenia of NEW ROME or the City of Constantinople and the Division of the Roman Empire into the Eastern and Western Empire 1. The first year of this Epocha is coincident
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