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
8 Months the Sum will be equivalent to the Year of the Julian Period and if you subtract the said 952 Years and 8 Months from the Year and Month of the Julian Period the Residue shews the Year of the Jewish Epocha § 1. THIS Epocha is called the Jewish Epocha The Origin of this Epocha because the Jews commonly make use of it in their Records and Writings sometimes expressing the whole Number of Years sometimes by leaving out the Thousands of which more hereafter § 2. The Jews do as little agree in this Epocha Different Opinions among the Jews concerning this Epocha as the Christians in theirs concerning the Creation of the World as is manifestly apparent out of their Chronologies But as we Christians make use of our vulgar Aera of Christ notwithstanding the same is looked upon as erroneous by the Learned so the Jews use this Epocha of the Beginning of the World in all their Records § 3. The Jews express this Epocha sometimes How the Jews write the years of this Epocha by Letters sometimes by Numbers and very frequently abbreviated by leaving out the millennary Number As for Instance The Learned Jew Menasseh Ben Israel when he published the Hebrew Bible in our time at Amsterdam affixed to it the Year 395. Whereas if he had express'd the whole Number of Years he must have writ in the year 5395. § 4. Both the Time and Author of this Epocha Of the Author of this Epocha is unknown as well among the Jews as Christians Scaliger refers the Origin of this Epocha to the time of the Seleucides Christomannus is of Opinion that the Jews did not introduce this Epocha till after their Babylonian Thalmud There are also others who believe this Epocha to have been received among them in latter Ages as may be seen in (a) Eclog. l. 1. c. 1. Samuel Petit and (b) de Doct. Temp. l. 7. c. 17. Petavius It is our Opinion that the Jews cannot shew any sufficient Authority for the Antiquity of this Epocha § 5. We told in the preceding Chapter that the Concerning the difference betwixt the Christians and Jews in this Epocha World was created in the year 764 of the Julian Period And whereas the Jews according to their Hypothesis refer it to the year 953 of the Julian Period it is manifest that betwixt the true Epocha of Scaliger and the Jewish there is a difference of 189 years Josephus Scaliger Henricus Wolffius Robertus Pontanus and several others are of Opinion that this was only an artificial Epocha among the Jews not intended to determine the true time of the Creation of the World But I cannot find any Reason sufficient to induce me to agree with them because it has always been entituled as such and the Jews were so careful in maintaining or at least palliating this Computation of their Epocha of the World that they have industriously contracted several Intervals into a less Number of Years especially in what relates to the second Monarchy and the Interval betwixt the Destruction of the first and the rebuilding of the last Temple contrary to the ancient and undoubted Monuments of both the Sacred and Prophane History as is most evident out of the lesser Chronicle of the Jews in the Intervals set down from the Creation of the World to the Destruction of the second Temple  Years From Adam to the Deluge 1656 From the Deluge till the Division of Tongues 340 From thence till the Nativity of Isaac 52 From thence to the time of their going out of Aegypt 400 From thence till their Arrival in the Land of Canaan 40 From thence to the Babylonian Captivity 850 From thence to the rebuilding of the Temple 70 From thence to the Destruction of the second Temple 420 The total Sum from the Creation till the Destruction of the 2d Temple being 3828 From whence it is apparent that they would not have their Epocha pass for an Invention but the true Aera of the Creation of the World But there are not a few among whom is (c) Chron p. 237. Isaacus Vossius who imputes to the Jews that they did thus mutilate their Computations not till after the Destruction of Jerusalem out of a Hatred to the Christian Name when besides many other lesser Intervals they cutt off 1440 years from the true Computation extant in their most ancient Manuscrâ—pâ—s that thus by introducing a Defect of two thousand Years they might render the Coming of Christ dubious to Posterity § 6. And the Jews did not settle their Annual Of the Jewish Years Computations upon imaginary or fictitious Notions but for many Ages past were guided by the Motions of the great Luminaries Thus Maimonides says the Months of the Year are the Months of the Moon Our Years are computed by the Years of the Sun § 7. Yet Scaliger has been very anxious in finding According to which Hypothesis the Jews regulated their Years out which of the Astronomical Hypotheses the Jews have followed in their Lunae-Solar Year But in my Opinion he might have saved himself much Labour and Time if he would but haâ—e considered that the Jews had followed the Footsteps of Ptolemy as is sufficiently demonstrated by Nicholaus Mullerus in his Preface to a Treatise concerning the Lunae-Solar Years of the Jews § 8. The Names Order and Number of Days The Names and Order of the Jewish Months of the Jewish Months according to their Political Year for the Ecclesiastical Year begins with the Month Nisan are expressed in the following Table   Days I. The Autumnal Quarter consisting of   1. The Month Tisri containing 30  2. The Month Marchesvan containing 29  3. The Month Casleu containing 30 II. The Winter Quarter consisting of   4. The Month Tabeth containing 29  5. The Month Schebhat containing 30  6. The Month Adar containing 29 III. The Spring Quarter consisting of   7. The Month Nisan containing 30  8. The Month Jiar containing 29  9. The Month Sivan containing 30 IV. The Summer Quarter consisting of   10. The Month Tamuz containing 29  11. The Month Ab consisting 30  12. The Month Elul 29 § 9. And because the Jews made use of Solar years but Lunar Months they must of necessity besides the 12 ordinary Months interpose at certain Several sorts of the Jewish Years times an extraordinary one From whence it comes that they divided their Years in the common Years of 12 Months and the Embolismaean Years And whereas their Months consisted by turns of 30 and again of 29 Days the first are called the compleat the last the defective Months And to prevent any Confusion which might arise from this alternative Change in the Translation of the Feria's they were obliged either to augment or diminish the Number of Days of certain Months so that the Years of the Jews were divided into six several sorts For The
Common Year was divided into  Days 1. The abounding Year containing 355 2. The common Year containing 354 3. The defective Year containing 353 The Embolismaean Year was likewise divided into  Days 4. The abounding Year containing 385 5. The common Year containing 384 6. The defective Year containing 383 These Varieties of Years proceeding from the Interpolation of Days affected only the three Months Adar Marchesvan and Casleu For in the Embolismaean Year there were two Months of Adar and in the abounding Year the Month Marchesvan was always compleat as in the defective Year the Month Casleu was always defective So that in the first there were always three successive compleat Months in the last always three successively defective CHAP. III. Of the Epocha of the Deluge 1. This Epocha ought in all respects to be congruous to the Hebrew Text written by Moses 2. According to the 5th and 7th Chapters of Genesis the Distance betwixt this Epocha and that of the World ought to be 1656 years 3. It must agree in all respects with the other Intervals of Time till the Beginning of the Vulgar Christian Epocha which contains 2293 years 4. Care is to be taken that none of the Patriarchs be involved in the Waters of the Deluge 5. Thus it will fall in the Year of the Julian Period 2420 in Autumn in the Cycle ☉ 12. ☽ 7. 6. And since therefore there are 2419 years and near How to investigate the years since the Deluge 10 months difference betwixt the Beginning of the Julian Period and the Epocha of the Deluge if the said Sum be added to the Number of years since the Deluge the Product will be exactly correspondent to the Year of the Julian Period But if the above said Number of Years and Months be subtracted from the whole Product the Residue shews the Year and Month of the Epocha of the Deluge § 1. PLiny in his Natural History (a) Bibl. l. 1. Diodorus Whether the years of the Patriarchs were monthly years Siculus as likewise (b) Saturn l. 1. Macrobius with many others relate that among the Aegyptians their Years were in most ancient times sometimes of one Month sometimes of two three or four Months which has perhaps moved Varro according to (c) L. 2. c. 13. Lanctantius his Testimony to interpret the Computation of Moses not of Solar but Lunar Years But this may be sufficiently confuted by that Mention is made in (d) Gen. 8. 13. Genesis of the first second and seventh Months which destroys this Notion (e) 14. 8. Gen. 7. v 11. c. 8. 5. Besides that according to this Supposition the Patriarchs must have procreated Children at the Age of five six and seven Years as is most evident in (f) Gen. 11. 26. Thara the Father of Abraham who is said to have begot Abraham in the 70th Year of his Age. § 2. And as most Chronologers agree in this Point Whether they were Soâ—â—r or Luâ—ae-Solar years that the Years used by the Patriarchs have not been much different from those in the Julian Calendar so they are divided in their Opinions whether in those Ancient Times they made their Computations by Lunae-Solar or Solar Years The Jews are of Opinion that the Year of the Deluge was the same with their ordinary Year conâ—isting of 12 Months according to the Motion of the Moon Some of their Rabbi's have been vain enough to pretend to persuade the World that during the time of the Deluge the two great Luminaries did not appear above that Hemisphere and that Noah did distinguish the Times of the Days Nights Months and Years partly by the Natural Instinct that was in some Beasts within the Ark of distinguishing the Times as in the Ass Cock Turkey c. partly by a certain Gem of the same Nature with that by which they say Moses knew the exact difference of Times when he conversed with God for 40 Days There are not a few among the Christians but especially Henricus Buntingus and William Lange who agree with the Jews in this Supposition concerning the Lunae-Solar Years But Scaliger is quite of another Sentiment being perswaded that before the Babylonian Captivity there were not the least Footsteps of these Lunae-Solar Years to be met with in the Holy Scripture because it is said of David and Solomon That they had twelve Officers which provided Provisions for the King and his Houshold each Man made Provision for his Month in the Year And that therefore if the Lunae-Solar Year had been in use among the Jews of that time there must have been thirteen Officers by reason of the Embolismaean Year consisting of thirteen Lunar Months It is for this Reason that Scaliger as well as Johannes Behmius Vbbo Emmius Sethus Calvisius and others plead for the Solar Year at the time of the Deluge each Month like the Aegyptians consisting of 30 days with an Addition of five Days at certain Intervals I must confess 't is of no great Consequence as to the Historical Truth whether we admit the Lunae-Solar or Solar Years yet It cannot be denied but that there are strong Probabilities to be met with in the History of the Deluge which appear in behalf of the Solar Years It is said in g Genesis That on the 17th day of the second Month all the Fountains of the Cap. 7. v. 11. Earth and the Windows of Heaven were opened and (h) Cap. 8. v. 3. that the Waters began to abate after the end of an hundred and fifty Days (i) Cap. ib. v. 4. and that the Ark rested on the seventeenth Day of the seventh Month. From whence it is evident that these could be no Lunar Months each of which consisting only of 29 Days and 12 Minutes could not make up the Number of 150 Days It is therefore most probable that they regulated themselves at that time according to the same Calendar which afterwards was called the Aegyptian each Month of which contained exactly 30 Days and at the end of every Year an Addition was made of five Days besides that at the end of every Age consisting of 120 Years of which also mention is made in (k) C. 6. v. 3. Genesis there used to be a further Addition of fix other Days In which point also (l) Lib. 9. C. 9 de Doct. temp Dionysius Petavius seems to agree with Scaliger though in most other Matters he is contradictory to his Opinion § 3. The following Table represents the vast Disproportion betwixt the Greeks on the one and Dâ—ffâ—rence betwixt the Hebrew and Greek Computations the Hebrews and Latines on the other side concerning the Number of Years of the Antediluvian Patriarchs According to the Hebrews Years LXX Int  From the Creation to Seth are 130 230 Gen. 5. v. 3 From thence to Enoch 105 205 6 From thence to Cainan 90 190 9 to Mahaleel 70 170 12 to Jared 65 165 15 to Enoch 162 162 18 to Methuselah 65
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
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
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
living such among them as were able to give an Account of their own Descent What can be more absurd When we therefore read of Darius that he ordered the Records to be searched and of Nehemiah that he was obliged to inspect the Genealogies we may rationally conclude with Scaliger that the Edict of Cyrus was not a thing of a late Date at that time when Darius was petitioned about the Rebuilding of the Temple and that consequently it could not be Darius Hydaspis who was coetaneous with Cyrus but Darius Nothus who granted Liberty to the Jews to rebuild their Temple Fourthly The Words in Haggai and Zechariah are to be understood of the same Darius who was at least the third after Cyrus it being evident from the following words of (p) Cap. 4. ver 5 6 7. Ezra that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes reigned betwixt Cyrus and this Darius and that under both their Reigns the Building of the Temple was obstructed These are his Words And the People of the Land hired Counsellours against the People of Judah to frustrate their Purpose all the Days of Cyrus King of Persia even unto the Reign of Darius King of Persia And in the Reign of Ahasuerus in the Beginning of his Reign wrote they unto him an Accusation against the Inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem And in the Days of Artaxerxes writ Bishlam Mithridat Tabeel and the rest of their Companions unto Artaxerxes King of Persia and the Writing of the Letter was written in the Syrian Tongue and interpreted in the Syrian Tongue And in the 17th and following Verses of the same Chapter may be read the Answer of Artaxerxes forbidding the Rebuilding of the Temple But betwixt Cyrus and Darius Hydaspis there reigned but one lawful King which was Cambyses wherefore the Words of Ezra both in this Passage and in the 6th Chapter v. 1. 15. cannot be understood from the Son of Hydaspis Whereas on the other Hand Darius Nothus having reigned betwixt the two Artaxerxes's to wit Artaxerxes Longimanus and Artaxerxes Mnemon all the Circumstances of the Holy Text concur for his Reign Notwithstanding the unquestionable Perspicuiry of this Argument Dionysius Petavius has found out another Objection against Scaliger which has been embrac'd and promoted by some of his Followers Among the rest a certain Modern (q) Author Periâ—â—li 〈◊〉 Author has the following Words This Cambyses this Smerdes the Son of Cyrus either true or supposititious we believe to have been the same with Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes mention'd in the Scripture as appears out of the Words of (r) C. 2. v. 2. Daniel where it is said That after Cyrus till the time of Artaxerxes there reigned three Kings over Persia which would not be agreeable to the Catalogue of the Persian Kings if Smerdes were not numbred among them The Objection that there is to the Congruity both in the Letters and Syllables betwixt Artaxerxes and Cambyses and Ahasuerus and Smerdes is of little Moment For Cambyses and Smerdes were their Names when they lived yet in a private Condition â—or were perhaps their Sirnames which afterwards when they attained the Royal Dignity were changed and transmuted into those of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes So according to (s) L. 11. c. 6. Ant. Josephus the Son of Xerxes was by his Father called Cyrus by the Greeks Artaxerxes and in the Scripture Ahasuerus and if we may rely upon the Testimony of Seder Otam (t) C. 30. Rabba the Persians called all their Kings Artaxerxes Thus fat those who would have Darius mentioned in â— Ezra and by the other Prophets to have been the Son of Hydaspis which is in no wise agreeable to the true Computation of the History of these Times And to make Artaxerxes the same with Cambyses and Ahasuerus the same with Smerdes is an unaccountable Way of arguing It is undeniable that among the Persian Kings there was a Supposititious or Pseudo-Smerdes but that he should be the same Ahasuerus mentioned in Scripture is not alone very improbable but absolutely contradictory to Truth it being manifest out of Herodote that this Magus did reign only a few Months which time he bestowed in settling himself in the Throne which he had usurped not in oppressing the Jews And what is related of Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther has very little or no Relation to the Pseudo-Smerdes this Impostor having never appear'd in publick during his short Reign which lasted only a few Months not 7 Years as it is said of Ahasuerus (u) Esth 2. v. 16. It is also very evident from all the Circumstances of the Original Text in Ezra that in those ancient times for what hapned since in that kind we will not pretend to dispute at this time all the Persian Kings were called Artaxerxes's or Artasastas's or Ahasuerus's There are likewise some who maintain that Ezra did by Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus understand one and the same King of Persia but contrary to the Tenure of the Sacred History which assigns them not only different Names but also different Actions For under the Reign of Ahasuerus divers Accusations were brought against the Jews but without Success Whereas in the time of Artaxerxes the Jews were pursuant to a Royal Mandat publickly oppos'd in the building of the Temple by their Enemies Fifthly If according to our Opinion by this Darius is to be understood Darius Nothus and the Beginning of these 70 annual Weeks be fixed in the second year of his Reign this Interval as described by the Angel Gabriel will by a just Computation founded upon undeniable Chronological Characters amount exactly to 490 years till the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem Wherefore we conclude with the Words of (x) Lib. 7. p. 591. de Emend Temp. Scaliger It is says he very apparent that this Darius in the second year of whose Reign the Rebuilding of the Temple was begun afresh must be Darius Nothus who reigned betwixt the two Artaxerxes's viz. Art Machrocire or Longimanus and Artaxerxes Mnemon or Memor The Predecessor of Artaxerxes Longimanus could be no other Person but Xerxes who is called Oxyares in the Scripture which was his Name before he obtained the Royal Dignity § 9. Those who differ from us in Opinion The Age of Zorobabel and Joshua are not contradictory to our Opinion concerning this Darius mentioned by Ezra make among others this Objection That our Hypothesis is not agreeable to the Age of Zorobabel and Joshua which Objection being answered very succinctly by (y) Lib. 6. p. 603. de Em. Temp. Jos Scalig. I think it not beyond our Purpose to insert his Words They make says he this Objection because from the time of the Edict of Cyrus when Zorobabel and Joshua were sent to Jerusalem till the 2d year of the Reign of Darius Nothus are less or more 106 years And say they how could they be living after 106 years But for my part I see no great Occasion why they should so much wonder
at it there being not wanting Examples in the Holy Scripture that several Persons but especially Those whom God had chosen Instruments to rule his People and Church have lived above 130 years And don 't we see in our Age some who attain to the Age of 120 years and are in their full Senses But what is most remarkable is that Petavius who is the main Champion against ours and Scaliger's Opinion and looks upon the Age of Zorobabel as a thing very improbable is very liberal in attributing at least the same Age to Sanballat For (z) Lib. 13. de Doctr. Temp. Petavius himself makes Nehemiah's Journey into Palaestine coincident with the 4259th year of the Julian Period and it is evident out of (a) C. 4. Nehemiah that the before-mentioned Sanballat flourished about the same time Now according to Petavius's own Hypothesis Alexander besieged Tyrus in the year of the Julian Period 4382 so that from the time of Nehemiah's Journey into Palaestine when Sanballat flourished till the taking of Tyrus after a Siege of 7 Months are to be accounted 123 years For the before-named Sanballat assisted in the Siege of Tyrus and died not long after in Alexander's Camp in the Siege of Gaza as may be seen more at large in (b) L. 12. c. â— Ant. Josephus From whence it is evident that supposing this Sanballat but 27 years old at the time of Nehemiah's Journey into Palaestine he was 150 years old when he died and consequently Petavius contradicts his own Opinion But there is something peculiar in the Age of Zorobabel and Joshua which is so far from carrying with it the least Improbability that long Life was promised as a particular Benefit from God to all such as should return from the Babylonian Captivity according to c Zechariah Thus saith the LORD of Hosts There shall yet old Men and old Women dwell in the Streets of Jerusalem and every Man with his Staff in his hand for very Age. Many Examples might be produced of such Persons as have lived to a great Age in Scaliger's Behalf But for Shortness â— C. â— v. 4. sake we are willing to pass them by in Silence and refer the Reader to other Historians § 10. Those who pretend that the Son of The Interval of above 100 years is not contradictory to our Opinion Darius Hydaspis is to be understood in the above-mentioned Passages of Ezra and the other Prophets alledge against us that it is very improbable that the Inhabitants of the Country should have nourished their Hatred against the Jews for 110 years this being the Interval from the Edict of Cyrus to the 2d year of the Reign of Darius Nothus But I cannot see the least Improbability why the Inhabitants of the Country who were profess'd Enemies of the Jews and envious of their Prosperity should not have propagated their Hatred to their Posterity Wherefore I cannot but agree once more with (d) L. 6 p. 594. de Em. Temp. Scaliger That since Nehemiah himself confesses that in the 20th year of the Reign of Artaxerxes he was for a considerable time employed in searching into and finding out the true Genealogies of such of the Jews as returned with Zorobabel and that the same is confirmed by Ezra who says that Darius Nothus ordered the Royal Libraries and Records to be searched to find out the Edict of Cyrus Nothing can be more evident than that there were a very few living at that time of those who returned with Zorobabel that could give a verbal Account of their Descent and that the Edict of â—rrus was of so ancient a Date as to be past the Memory of Men. § 11. Those who are not pleased with Scaliger's Whether the Passage in Zechariah be contradictâ—â—â—â— to 〈…〉 Chronological Computation alledge among other Matters against him that the following Passage in (e) C. 1. v. 12. Zechariah contradicts his Hypothesis concerning Darius Then the Angel of the LORD answered and said O LORD of Hosts how long wilt thou not have Mercy on Jerusalem and on the Cities of Judah against which thou hast had Indignation these threescore and ten years From whence they draw the following Consequence That since from the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem till the second year of Darius Nothus are elapsed above 70 years the Restauration of the Temple is not to be referred to that King's Reign But Scaliger has answered them very well that this Passage of Zechariah is as little agreeable to their Opinion concerning Darius Hydaspis since these 70 years differ as well from the time of Darius Hydaspis as of the second year of Darius Nothus He adds therefore that those 70 years of which mention is made by the Angel in Zechariah begin about the 29th or 30th year of the Reign of Darius Hydaspis when the Jews were forely oppressed by their Enemies and their Condition grew worse after the Death of the said Darius about the beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes as may be seen more at large in (f) C. 4. v. 5. c. 6. Ezra § 12. And thus having given you an Account of The Beginning of the 70 Weeks is to be fixed in the 2 d year of Darius Nothus the different Opinions among the Chronologers concerning Darius we will now proceed to the main Point in question and endeavour to prove by the following Arguments that the Beginning of this Interval of the 70 Annual Weeks ought to be made coincident with the second year of Darius Nothus 1. At what time was issued the most solemn and peremptory Mandat of the Restauration of the City and the Sanctuary in respect of which she is called the Holy City which was put in Execution accordingly from that time ought to begin the Computation of the 70 Weeks mention'd in Daniel But in the second year of the Reign of Darius Nothus such a solemn and peremptory Mandat was issued forth Therefore the 70 Weeks mentioned in Daniel c. The Major Proposition is evident from the Words of the Angel It was requisite that that same Edict from the issuing forth of which were to begin these 70 Weeks should have some peculiar Prerogative above all the others which was that pursuant to this Edict the Jews rebuilt their City and Temple which they had not been able to effect hitherto tho' back'd by others The Minor Proposition is sufficiently proved out of Haggai Zachariah and Ezra from whence it is evident that the Decree made in the second year of Darius Nothus was the most solemn Edict in respect of God who caused the same to be published by the Prophets Haggai and Zachariah in respect of the King of Persia who not only positively commanded the Restauration of the Temple but also threatned those who should oppose the Jews in this Undertaking and likewise furnished the necessary Charges and lastly in respect of the happy Success which was owing to the Decree of Darius it being said in
time of this The End of the 70 Weeks is to be fixt at the time of the Destruction of the City Epocha would have this Interval of the 70 Weeks finish at the time of the last Destruction of Jerusalem for which they alledge the Words of the (a) Daniel 9. ver 26. Angel And after threescore and two Weeks shall the Messiah be cut off So that according to their Opinion these threescore and two Weeks are to be added to the seven Weeks mentioned before by the Angel which together make up 59 Weeks till the final Period of this Epocha But as we shall have Occasion to say something more about the Division of this Epocha in 7 and 62 so we grant without the least Contradiction that the Birth and Passion of the Messiah hapned in this Interval of the 70 Weeks but cannot see that the least Consequence can be drawn from the Words of the Angel to make the final Period of this Epocha coincident with the time of the Passion of Christ For the very INSCRIPTION of this Interval expresses clearly the Meaning of the (b) Dan 9 v. 24. Angel which is THE REBUILDING AND DESTRUCTION OF THE HOLY CITY Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People and upon thy Holy City And it would be very hard to suppose that the Angel should recede in his subsequent Narration from what he had intimated before in his Introduction Certainly the Relation of an Historian would be look'd upon as very incompleat who having promised in his Preface to give an Account of Matters till the last Destruction of Jerusalem should break off the Thread of his History 40 years before the said Destruction hapned Besides if we look upon the 26th and 27th Verses of the 9th Chapter of Daniel it will be obvious that the End of these 70 Weeks is described in such a Manner as has a most particular Relation to the Destruction of the City by the Romans the Forerunner of which was the Abomination of Desolation cited by (c) Mat. 25. v. 15. Mark 13. v. 14. Christ out of Daniel and who could be a more excellent Interpreter of the Angelical Prediction than Christ himself § 17. Having said enough concerning our Hypothesis Concerning the Divisiâ—n of the 70 Weeks into â—â— and 62. of the Beginning and End of this Interval we must add something also concerning the Division of it These are the Words of (d) L. 6. de emend Temp. Scaliger In this Division some look for a Mystery others divide them into several Intervals so as to begin the first Interval of 7 Weeks with the time of the first Edict of Darius the second from thence of 62 Weeks unto which they add one at last I am against both For I see no more Mystery in the Division of this Interval of 70 Weeks than in the Division of the Shekel in Ezekiel c. Which Opinion is likewise embraced by (e) Orat. de 70 Hebd Calixtus Tho' we have for the most part agreed with Scaliger as to the Beginning and End of this Epocha yet we cannot but blame his Presumption in making so little Account of the Division of this Interval made by the Angel himself and I am perswaded that there are few who will imagine that this exact Division of the 70 Weeks in so solemn a Prophecy as this could be accidental and of no Moment See (f) Lib. 3. can 5â— Clas Philol. Sacr. And concerning the Passage in Ezekiel with an Answer to the Argument of Scaliger consult (g) Disp 10. Thes 16. Francius in Schol. Sacrif § 18. Scaliger as he makes the Beginning of Whether the 20 and 12 Weeks have a different Beginning the 70 Weeks coincident with the 2d Year of Darius Nothus and its End with the last Destruction of the City of Jerusalem So he finishes the 62 Weeks with the Passion of Christ and fixes their Beginning in the 5th Year of Artax Memor with whom agree in this Opinion Tremellius Junius and several other Modern Authors as there are not wanting on the other hand some who alledge that if the 70 and 62 Weeks had a different Beginning the Word Commandment or Edict mentioned by the Angel should have been express'd in the plural Number Those who cannot agree with the Opinion of Scaliger I would advise to fix the Beginning of these 62 Weeks in the 2d Year of Darius Nothus and to include in that Interval the 7 Weeks allotted for the Rebuilding of the Streets and Walls of the City But lest we should exceed the Bounds of an Epitome we will conclude this Chapter leaving the Determination of the Matter to every one 's own Judgment CHAP. XXX Of the Epocha of the Graecian Empire in Asia and the Beginning of the Epocha after the last Battle fought betwixt Alexander the Great and Darius Codomannus and of the Period of Calippus 1. The Origin of the Graecian Empire in Asia must be traced to that time when Alexander the Great was declared Imperator over all Greece who succeeded his Father in the Kingdom in the same Year that Eveneto was Archon at Athens and L. Furius and C. Menius were Consuls at Rome 2. Darius Codomannus began his Reign over Persia much about the same time that Alexander succeeded his Father Philip in the Kingdom of Macedonia 3. Just before the Graecian Expedition against Asia the Thebans were vanquished at which time Alexander pursuant to the Resolution taken in the Council did totally destroy the City of Thebes and thereby put all the other Graecian Commonwealths that were much inclined to revolt under a great Consternation 4. In the same Year that Ctesicles was Archon at Athens and Caius Sulpicius and Lucius Papyrius Roman Consuls Alexander marched at the Head of his Army to the Hellespont from whence having transported his Forces out of Europe into Asia he fought the Battle of Granicum 5. In the second Year of the Asiatick War when the Battle near Issus was fought Nicocratus was Archon at Athens and Caesus Duilius and L. Papyrius Consuls of Rome 6. In the third Year of this Asiatick War of the Greeks Nicocratus was Archon among the Athenians and M. Attilius and M. Valesius Consuls of Rome 7. In the same third Year and in the second before the Battle of Gaugamela was the 114th Olympiad celebrated where Grylus of Chalcedon carried the Day and in the same Year Tyrus was likewise taken by Alexander 8. In the 4th Year of this Asiatick War when Darius was vanquished at Gaugamela Aristophanes was Archon of Athens and Sp. Posthumius and T. Veturius Roman Consuls 9. In the same Year that the Battle of Gaugamela was fought Alexander after his Return from the Temple of Jupiter Hammonius founded the City of Alexandria For these Characters we are obliged to (a) Lib. 17. Diodorus Siculus which are for the most part approved by other Historians 10. Alexander after the Victory obtained over Darius near Gaugamela made himself
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
by his Death that the Tyranr might not defile that Sacred and Religious Septenary Number by entring into the 7th Year of his Reign 6. The Tyrant Maxentius was slain when Constantine and Licinius were both the 2 d time Roman Consuis in the 4th Year of the 272 d Olympiad according to St. Hierome towards the latter End of Autumn says Nazarius at the Beginning of the Winter about the Month of October in the Year of Christ 312. 7. At the time of the Decennalia of Constantine the Great that is to say in the 7th Year of his Reign he appointed his Son Constantine sirnamed Junior Caesar according to (d) L. 4. c. 40. de Vit. Const Eusebius and the Chron. Alexandrinum mentions that it hapned in the Year of Christ 316 when Sabinus and Ruffinus were Roman Consuls 8. The same Year that the Council of Nicaea was finished was coincident with the Year when Constantine the Great celebrated the Vicennalia being the Beginning of the 21st Year of his Reign See (e) L. 3. c. 14. L. 4. c. 47. de Vit. Const Euseb (f) L. 1. c. 12. Socrates (g) L. 1. c. 24. Sozomenus and Ishmael Ibn Ali a Mahometan Writer by (h) L. 1. p. 102. de Ann. Chr. Langius 9. Concerning the time of the Council of Nicaea says (i) L. 1. c. 9. Socrates it was called together as may be seen in the Annals on the 22d day of May when Paulinus and Julianus were Roman Consuls in the 636th Year after the Reign of Alexander the Great since the Beginning of the Aera of the Seleucides And the Edicts published by Constantine the Great shew these Characters to direct us to the 325th Year of Christ 10. The Council of Nicaea did not last much above one Year and according to (k) In Annal. Eutychius all the Bishops were met in the City of Nicaea within the Space of one Year and two Months 11. The before-mentioned Vicennalia are said to have been celebrated by Constantine the Great in the 2 d Year of the 276th Olympiad when Constantine was the 7th time and Constantius Roman Consuls in the Year of Christ 326. See Eus in Chron. Fast Sic. 12. In the 30th Year of Constantine the Great when Dalmatius was proclaimed Caesar Constantius the 6th time and Albinus were Roman Consuls according to St. (l) Chron. Alexandr Jerome 13. Constantine the Great died on the 20th day of May being then Witsunday according to (m) Lib. 4. c. 53. 64. in Vit. Constant Eusebius and the Chron. Alexandrinum when Felicianus and Titianus were Roman Consuls Consult Sozomen Chron. Alexandrinum and (n) Hist Tripart Idacins In the fourth Year of the 278th Olympiad at the Age of 65 Years See Chron. Alexandr 14. From the Death of Constantine the Great to count backwards to the Beginning of his Reign are computed about 31 Years according to (o) L. 1. c. 12. Socrates 30 Years and 10 Months according to Idacius and (p) In Chr. St. Jerome 30 Years 9 Months and 27 Days according to (q) In Fast Onuphrius 15. The 341st Year of Christ when Marcellus and Probinus were Roman Consuls was coincident with the 5th Year after the Death of Constantine the Great and in the same Year was held the Council of Antiochia See q Socrates (r) L. 2. c. 5. Hist Eccles From these Characters it is evident First That Constantius Chlorus died and was succeeded in the Empire by Constantine the Great in the Year of the Julian Period 5019 Cycl ☉ 7. ☽ 3. on the 25th day of July Secondly that Maxentius was vanquished in the Year of the Julian Period 5025 towards the latter End of September Thirdly That the Council of Nicaea began in the Year of the Julian Period 5038 on the 22 d day of May and lasted till the Year of the Julian Period 5039 in July at which time Constantine the Great celebrated the Vicennalia at Nicomedia and in the next Year at Rome Fourthly That Constantine the Great died in the year of the Julian Period 5050 on the 22 d day of May. If therefore from any certain year of the Julian Period given be subtracted 5018 years and 7 To investigate the Years since the Beginning of these Epocha's Months the Residue shews the year since the Death of Constantius Chlorus and the Beginning of the Reign of Constantine the Great Likewise if you would investigate the year since the Death of Maxentius and the Propagation of the Christian Doctrine throughout the whole Roman Empire subtract from any known year of the Julian Period 5024 Years and 9 Months And for the time since the Council of Nicaea 5037 years and 5 Months for the time since the Death of Constantine the Great subtract 5049 years and 5 months and the Residues will be correspondent to the years of these several Synchronisms But if to the known years of these several times before-mentioned the above-named Numbers of Years and Months be added the Products will be correspondent to the several years of the Julian Period § 1. (s) In Euseb p. 226. JOsephus Scaliger speaking of the Times of Const the Great breaks out into The History of Constantine the Great is very uncertain these Words Nothing is more uncertain than the Beginnings of these Emperours from Carus to Valentinian (t) Ad An. Christi â—06 16. Baronius is so positive in his Assertion that Const the Great was not only first proclaimed Caesar in Britain but also was a Native of that Island and was elevated to the Imperial Dignity by his Country-men that he looks upon those who pretend to contradict it little better than mad Men. Nevertheless (u) L. 4. c. 11. de magn Rom. Justus Lipsius a Man of great Judgment is of Opinion that this Emperour was born at Tharsus a City of Bithynia And there are not a few who affirm according to (x) L. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constantius Porphyrogennetus and the Manuscript of Fermicus that he was born at Naisum a City of Dacia But we will only alledge the different Opinions of the Chronologers The Author of the Chron. Alexan. says that Const Chlorus died at York when Constantius the 6th time and Maxim Jovius were Roman Consuls with whom agrees (y) In Fast Onuphrius when speaking of the Year when FL. VALERIVS CONSTANTIVS CHLORVS P. F. AVG. VI. ET GALERIVS VALERIVS MAXIMIANVS P. F. AVG. VI. were Roman Consuls he says further thus EODEM ANNO A. D. â—I KAL AVGVSTI IMP. CAESAR CONSTANTIVS AVG. MORTVVS EST. The Ancient Author of the Excerpta alledged by (z) P. 69. Scaliger erroneously refers his Death to the Consulship of Licinius and Crispus The Year of these Consuls mentioned by us is coincident with the Year since the Building of Rome 1058. But (a) L. 7. c. 17. Orosius says that Constantine began his Reign in the Year 1061 since the Building of Rome We
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
with the 25th year of the Reign of Constantine the Great according to St. Jerome and Cedrenus 2. The solemn Consecration of this City was made in the Third Indiction according to the same Cedrenus 3. When the second Feria did fall upon the 11th day of May according to the same Cedrenus and the Anonymous Author of the Chron. Alexandrinum cited by (a) P. 284. Scaliger 4. In the year of the World according to the Greek Computation 5838. according to Zonaras Cedrenus and Joh. Monachus 5. In the 2 d year of the 277th Olympiad See Chron. Eus Hieron 6. In the 360th year since the Reign of Augustus according to Suidas 7. When Gallicanus and Symmachus were Roman Consuls according to the Chronicon of Causabon cited by Scaliger 8. At the time of the 5th Indiction Mavortius being then alone Consul at Rome in the 197th year after the Building of Constantinople the Emperour Justinus did appoint Justinianus his Nephew his Successour in the Empire on the first day of April according to Comes Marcellinus From these Characters it is evident that the Encoenia or Consecration of the City of Constantinople did happen on the 11th day of May in the 5043 d year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 3. ☽ 8. If therefore from any certain year given of the Julian Period be subtracted 5042 Years and 4 Any certain year given of the Julian Period to find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha Months the Residue shews the year since the Beginning of the Epocha of Constantinople And if the said Sum of 5042 Years and 4 Months be added to the known Year of this Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the Year of the Julian Period § 1. THIS Epocha is scarce mentioned by some Chronologers Nevertheless we judg'd Why this Epocha is treated of in particular it not for our Purpose to pass it by in Silence First because the Constantinopolitans always made a great Account of this Epocha especially in their publick Records as may be seen in (b) L. 5. de Em. Temp. Scaliger And in the Imperial Laws of (c) L. 7. de Feriis Valentinian and Theodofius we read these following Words Kalendarium quoque Januarium consuetos dies otio mancipamus His adjicimus NATALITIOS DIES VRBIVM MAXIMARUM ROMAE atque CONSTANTINOPOLIS in quibus debent jura differri quia ab ipsis nata sunt Secondly because this occasioned the greatest and most pernicious Change in the Government of the Roman Empire Thirdly because by this Innovation the Number of Patriarchs increasing this gave Birth to great and innumerable Contests among the Bishops Consult (d) C. 3. Annal. Zonar G. Codinus § 2. Suidas in his Lexicon says that the Ancients The Derivation of the Word Encoenia by the Word Encoenia understood any publick Solemnity or rather Initiation In which Sence are taken the Encoenia of the Temple of Solomon of the Maccabaeans and Emperours Among the Latines they were called Dedications or Consecrations being certain Days appointed to give Thanks to God Almighty on the Account of something of Moment brought to a happy Conclusion and to implore him for the Continuance of his Mercies Of these Consecrations consult the (e) C. 1. de Consecrationibus Jus Canonicum § 3. All the Historians agree in this Point The Derivation of the Word Byzantium that the City of Constantinople was founded by Const the Great upon the Ruines of the ancient Byzantium but they are of different Opinions concerning the Origin of this Word Most of them however agree in this that Byzantium received its Name from its Founder King Byzantes or a famous Commander at Sea called Buzes Georgius has this following fabulous Tradition That Byzantes was Son of Neptune and Cornuta the Daughter of Io a Concubine of Jupiter and that he received his Name from the Nymph Bezia who had educated him in Thrace This Byzantes says Codinus after he had made himself famous by his Exploits among those inhabiting the Mountains of Thrace founded the City of Byzantium § 4. The Oracle of Delphis had pronounced The Tradition of the Ancients concerning the City of Byzantium the following Words concerning the City and Inhabitants of the Ancient Byzantium That the Inhabitants of that City situate upon the Thracian Shoar near the Pontus Euxinus should enjoy great Happiness But they are very infamous for their Intemperance for which Reason they were sirnamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And (f) L. 3. c. 14. Hist Aelianus Varro upbraids them with Drunkenness prostituting their Wives to Strangers and Cowardice And Menander says that the Merchants of Byzantium were so much addicted to Wine that they rarely used to stir from the Bottle all Night § 5. We read of several unfortunate Wars Concerning the Destruction of the ancient Byzantium waged by the Byzantines in the ancient Histories but the two last are most remarkable In the first of these two they were according to Zonaras closely besieged by Severus which Siege they endured with a great deal of Bravery and Constancy for three Years when after a most obstinate Resistance having consumed all their Provisions and lived for some time upon Human Flesh they were forced to surrender to Severus who killed all their Soldiers and chief Men and dismantled the City But the 2d proved the total Destruction of this famous City under Gallienus who as Trebellius Pollio (g) In Gal. relates it did make such a Slaughter among the Inhabitants of Byzantium that not one Family escaped his Wrath unless it were perhaps such as hapned to be at the same time in Foreign Parts § 6. (h) L. 2. c. 2. Sozomenus affirms that Const the Great having taken a Resolution to build a City What induced Constantine to found this new City upon the Ruines of the ancient Byzantium after his own Name first attempted to lay its Foundation upon the Ruines of the Ancient Troy near the Sepulchre of Ajax but being admonished in a Dream to desist from that Enterprize he had pitched upon the old Byzantium which he fortified with very strong Walls There are others who believe that Const the Great did build this City as a Bulwark and Check to the Greatness of the Persians who were then very formidable in the East and to keep the Syrians and other Neighbouring Nations in Obedience by this potent City § 7. And Const the Great being very desirous to The Reason of the sudden Increase of this City enlarge his new City to the utmost of his Power gave all imaginable Encouragement to Strangers by his great Liberality towards them And St. Jerom observes that Const the Great was so ambitious of enlarging this City that he transferred Colonies from other Places thither (i) L. 2. c. 2. Sozomenus ascribes this sudden Encrease of Constantinople partly to the Piety of the Emperour partly to the Charity and Liberality of its Inhabitants to
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