Caspian Sea the Tygris and Euphrates As to the River of Gozan I am of Fuller's Opinion that the said River is the same which is since called by the Persians Cyrus a River of Media § 6. Some of the Ancient Jewish Interpreters Of the River of Gozan maintain that this River of Gozan was the Sabbatic River the Source of which they pretend to be near Kalicut in the Indies which they say is very boisterous six days in the Week but during the Sabbath very calm But others look for it in Media § 7. One Aaron Levi alias Antonius Montezini Of the Opinion of Antonius Montezini in his Treatise writ Anno 5404 and dedicated to Manasseh Ben Israel pretends to inform the World that in the West Indies he had found out a most prodigious Number of Jews who being governed there by their own Laws to this day were separated from the other Indians by a great River But besides that this Impostor sufficiently contradicts himself in his Relations making his Fellow-Travellour sometimes a Christian sometimes a Pagan sometimes a Jew Our late Voyages into those Parts have sufficiently detected this Imposture Thus much is beyond all question that in the time of (n) L. 2. c. 5. Josephus the Israelites did not inhabit America but near the River Euphrates § 8. Philippus Mornaeus Leunclavius Genebrardus The Modern Tartars are not the Off-spring of the Ancient Jews and Postellus in his Description of Syria are of Opinion that the Turks and Tartars owe their Offspring to the Jews which they conjecture by the great Multitude of Jews living in Russia Lithuania and some other of the most Northern Parts of Europe and by some Words as those of Dan Zabulon and Naphthali which they say are used to this day among the Tartars the Etymology of which they deduce from the Syriack Tongue signifying as much as the Remainders and that of Turk as much as an Exile in the Hebrew Language But this is contrary to the most Authentick History of those Parts who deduce the Origin of the Tartars from the Scytes the Posterity of Japhat not of Shem. And concerning the Etymology of the Words they are egregiously mistaken and it seems very strange that Paulus Venetus who lived in the Court of the Great Tartar Cham and other Travellers should not have been able to hear the least of the Danites Naphthalites c. Of the Coloniâ— sent by the Assyrian to Samaria § 9. Concerning those Colonies that were sent by the Kings of Assyria into Samaria we read thus in the Holy (o) 2 Reg. 17. v. 24. Scripture And the King of Assyria brought Men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from Hava and from Hamah and from Sepharvaim and placed them in the Cities of Samaria instead of the Children of Israel and they possessed Samaria and dwelt in the Cities thereof Among all these the Chutaei were the most celebrated according to the Testimony of (p) L. 9. c. ult Josephus Colonies says he were sent out of Persia but especially from the Country bordering upon the River Cutah who fixed their Habitations in Samaria and the other Cities of Israel § 10. The great and noble Asnaphar mentioned Of Asnaphar mentioned in the Scripture in the Holy (q) Ezr. 4. v. 10. Scripture is by Reinerus Reineccius and others taken for the same with Shalmanassar by others for Sennacherib But it appears sufficiently out of the second Verse of the same Chapter of Ezra that this Asnaphar was no other than Assarhaddon CHAP. XX. Of the Epocha of NABUCHADONOSOR who is in the Holy Scripture called Nebuchadnezzar 1. The beginning of this Epocha is to be regulated in such a manner as not to be contradictory to the Holy Scripture to the before-mentioned Catalogue of the Kings of Ptolemy or the Authentick History of Berosus 2. The 4th year of King Jehoiachim is coincident with the first year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar (a) Jer. 25. v. 1. 3. It was in the 8th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar that Jehoiachim upon the Persuasion of Jeremiah the Prophet did surrender himself to that King who carried him to Babylon (b) 2 Reg. 24. v. 12. 4. The Destruction of the City of Jerusalem hapned in the 19th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar (c) 2 Reg. â—â— v. 8 â—er 5â— v. 12. 29. 5. The 37th year after the Captivity of Jehoiachim is coincident with the first year of the Reign of Evilmerodac (d) 2 Reg. 25. v. 27. Jer. 52. v. 31. 6. And the 127th year in the Nabonassarean Epocha 7. In the same year hapned the Eclipse of the Sun according to (e) Lib. 5. Ptolemy which is coincident with the 4093 d year of the Julian Period 22 d of April From whence it may be concluded that the fiâ—st year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar was coincident with the 4106th year of the Julian Period Cyc ☉ 12. ☽ 2. 7. If therefore the 4105 years be subtracted from Any certain year given of the Jul. Period to find the beginning of this Epocha any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha and if the said 4105 years be added to the years of the Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. BEsides what the Sacred History furnishes Of the History â—f the Chaldaean Kings us withal concerning the Chaldaean Kings Ptolemy the Fragments of Berosus in Josephus Lib. 1. against Appian and those of Megasthenes in (f) Lib 9. c. 4. de praep Evang. Eusebius are such precious Monuments of Antiquity in relation to the Chaldaean Monarchy as are not sufficiently to he valued § 2. Johannes Annius an Italian Monk seeing Of the supposititious Writâ—ngs publâ—shed by Annius that the Books of Berosus Megasthenes and Manethon were in great Esteem among the Learned did endeavour to impose some fictitious Pieces under their Names upon the World to wit his Commentary upon the five Books of Berosus of the Antiquity of the World Manethon's Supplement to Berosus Megasthenes his Annals of Persia c. But his Imposture has been discover'd long ago especially by the difference there appears betwixt his Chronological Computations and those extant in the Fragments of Berosus and Megasthenes § 3. The Etymology of Nebuchadnezzar some deduce from the Chaldaean NABO which signifies Of the Etymology of Nebuchadnezzar as much as an Idol in like manner as of the Words Nebuzaradan Nabonides Nergal Sharezer c. § 4. Funccius Moestlinus and Hainlinus are of Whether Nebuchadnezzar and Nabopolassar are the same Opinion that Shalmanassar of whom Mention is made in the Holy Scripture is the same with Nabonassar mentioned by Ptolemy and that the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity ought to be fixed to the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem and consequently to the 19th year of the Reign of Nabopolassar But it is
renders Prophecies more perspicuous so it is in this case that since the time prefixed by the Angel is expired long ago the Event it self has in a great measure illustrated the Words of this Prophecy so that we need not despair of its Interpretation And since it is evident that the Angel expresly mentions both the Beginning and End of these 70 Weeks the Hypothesis of Reinoldus ought to be rejected as directly opposite to the Words of the Holy Scripture § 2. Among the Christian Interpreters (f) Hom 29. in Matth. Concerning the Interval of 7 Weeks mentioned by the Angel Origen understands by each of the Angelical Weeks seven times ten Years So that the whole Number of these 70 Weeks makes up 4900 years He fixes their beginning to the Creation of Adam and their end to the Destruction of the second Temple There are also some among the Jews who interpret these 70 Weeks of so many Jubilean Cycles and conseâ—uently make up their whole Number 3430 years But both these Opinions are so absurd and founded upon Suppositions contrary to the Phrase of the Scripture and the Nature of this Interval that there are but very few who have espoused either of these Opinions For two sorts of Weeks are only mentioned in the Scripture The first is the Week consisting of seven Days on the last of which to wit the seventh Feria the Jews were commanded to rest from their ordinary Employments in memory of the seventh day when God rested after the Creation of the Universe And besides these Weeks consisting of 7 Days we also find in the holy Scripture Annual Weeks each of which are equivalent to 7 years Of these Moses makes mention in (g) Cap. 25. ver 8. Levitieus And thou shalt number seven Sabbaths of years unto thee seventy times seven years and the space of the seven Sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years It is no very difficult Matter to determine which of these two sorts of Weeks is to be understood in this Prophecy it being evident that since the Prediction of the Angel was made in respect of a thing that was to happen not till a considerable time after these 70 Weeks could not be understood of the Common Ones but of Annual Weeks For it is said that in the Space of 7 Weeks the City was to be rebuilt which certainly could not be done in 49 Days or 7 Weeks time And the Event it self the best Interpreter of Prophecies has convinc'd us that the Edict of rebuilding the City the Appearing of the Messias and the total Destruction of the City did not happen till 490 years after which was the exact time of 70 Weeks foretold by the Angel From whence it plainly appears that the Weeks mentioned in Daniel were Annual Weeks each of which contained the Space of 7 Years and the whole Interval of 70 Weeks 490 Years Most of the Jewish Interpreters themselves are forced to agree in this Point with us that the Angel intended by these 70 Weeks 490 Years tho' they differ from us both in the Beginning and End of this Interval (h) Term. vit hum p. â—68 Menasseh Ben Israel says ex-expresly The 70 Weeks of Daniel make up 490 Years And to the same Purpose (i) Comment in Dan. Rab. Isaac Abarbinel expresses himself as also Rabbi Joseph Jacchias and Rabbi Aben Ezra and many more § 3. Julius Africanus who is supposed to have Whether these 490 years consisted of Lunar Years been the first among the Christians that traced the Chronology of the holy Scripture Eusebius according to the Opinion of Scaliger and Gerhardus Johannes Vossius having transcribed out of his Works entire Pages in his Chronology This Africanus and after him Theodoretus with several others are of Opinion that these 490 years are to be understood of Lunar Years which make 475 Solar Years Dionysius Carthusianus who according to Rob. Bellarminus flourished about the year of Christ 1450 affirms that this Opinion was received in the Scholastick History and by those Doctors of the Church that profess themselves Followers of Beda But these Interpreters have been misguided by the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which not only in the vulgar Translation but also in the time of Tertullian has been translated are abbreviated For Tertullian in his Book written against the Jews in the Chapter of the Passion of Christ and the Destruction of Jerusalem cites the Words of the Angel in the following manner Seventy Weeks are abbreviated upon thy People and upon thy Holy City to finish the Transgression and to make an End of Sins and to make Reconciliation for Iniquities and to bring in everlasting Righteousness Which has misguided these Interpreters into this Error That not the common Years but such as are shorter than the rest ought to be understood in this Prediction In which Sence Carthusianus says These Weeks are said to be shortened not so as to be lessened in their Number but in Quantity because the Lunar Year falls 11 Days shorter than the Solar Year But these Interpreters have missed the true Meaning of the Original Text which does not imply so much a Shortening Lessening or Abbreviating as the Determination of certain exact Intervals of time So that it remains unquestionable that the Angel in this Prophecy did speak of the Solar Years and at the same time exactly determined the Beginning and the End of this Interval See Corn. à Lapide upon this Passage § 4. That the Beginning of this Interval Whether the beginning of this Interval is to be fixed to the time of that solemn Edict of rebuilding the City ought to be fixed to the time of that solemn Edict of rebuilding the holy City appears most evidently from the Words of the Angel in (k) Cap. 9. v. 25. Daniel Know therefore and understand that from the publishing of the Commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem c. according to the Translation of Junius and Tremellius or from the going forth of the Commandment as Pagninus and Luther have translated it And that thereby was intended the rebuilding of a City which was formerly destroyed is evident from the Words and the whole Scope of the Prophetick Text the Angel having spoken these Words as God's Answer to the Prayers of Daniel which were as follows Now therefore O our God hear the Prayer of thy Servant and his Supplications and cause thy Face to shine upon thy Sanctuary that is desolate for the Lord's sake I cannot therefore but be surprized to see some of the Fathers look for the Beginning of this Interval any where else than where is is fixed by the Angel especially what could move Origen to go back as far as Adam and as we have said before to make the Number of these Weeks amount to 4900 years Thus (m) Lib. contra Jud. Tertullian with several others of the Ancients and among the modern Writers Raymondus and Andreas Helvicus
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
Julian year as a constant and acurate rule of their times whence it happens that they do not only refer to the Julian Calendar those things which came to pass after it's first Institution but by way of prolepsis make use of the same from the beginning of the World nay before the beginning it self and that for 3 Reasons 1st Because this sort of year is universally known and as equally fitted to the Egyptian and Nabonassarean as other years 2ly That after the Nabonassarean it is the most plain and easie of any 3dly Because the same Months in this year have the same changes of the Seasons fixed which and other like Reasons induced that famous Mathematician Kepler to lay aside the Gregorian and make use of the Julian in his Tables of Heavenly Bodies nay and Petavius tho' very much addicted to the Gregorian Stile cannot but give the Julian this Character viz the Julian year says he when fitted to use is the most agreeable to the Nature of things since that comes as near as can be to the course of the Sun and is no less fit to Register the times for which reason it is made use of in the Chronicles and Annals of most Writers and that not only in recording of things since its Institution but before nay from the beginning of the World it self Wherefore for example sake when they would assign the Eclipses of the Sun or Moon or the Wars of Cities and Kingdoms and their famous Actions in their years and seasons they always make use of the Julian Years and Months as if they were then used by them which by Anticipation and a sort of fiction they institute by which ours will more easily agree with them being fitted to the common times Nor will the Reader be tired in observing the different sorts of years For Petavius saith that it is the most exact Account of time and easiest to be made use of and which beyond all others is most fitted to common use and cometh nearer to the Revolution of the Sun than any other sort of year whatever and these and many other Reasons there are why the Julian year should in general be explain'd being likewise the Receptacle of all other Epocha's § 12. The Ancients did not add at the end Of the Bissextile of the year that whole day arising from the 4 times 6 hours but to February reckoning the 6 of the Calends of March twice over yet still accounting those two Days for one in which sense Celsus (c) De Verb. sig L. 2. takes it For says he it matters not whether it be on the former or the latter days since that those are but accounted one which Marcellinus notes was always thought by the Romans unfortunate § 13. Since a Julian year is taken to be 365 The difference between a Solar Tropical and a Julian year days 6 hours and the Solar Tropical mean years according to Longo-montanus to be 365d 5b 48′ 55″ it thence appears that the difference of quantity between them following the said Longomontanus's Hypothesis is but 11′ 5″ which Chronologers usually call the Civil Equinoctial Procession and that because in so much time the places of the Equinox do vary in the Julian year by which means in the space almost of 130 years the Equinoctial and Solstitial points seem to go backward a whole day § 14. As to the space of time of the great Of the great Canicular year Canicular year which is called the Stoick or Cynick period Censorinus gives us this account of it f The Moon says he belongs not to the Egyptian year which we call Canicular because it begins the first day of the Month they call the Thoth when the Dog-Star arises For their Civil d De Die Nat. c. 18. year has only 365 days without any intercalatory day therefore the space of 4 years with them is almost a day less than the Natural 4 years by which it happens that in the year 1461. it revolves to the same place This year is by some called Heliacal as belonging to the Moon and by others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 15. As the Heathens were destitute of the Of Plato's great year light of Scripture and consequently of the Original of the World so they err strangely about its end The great year of Plato was a very notable fiction The Stoicks as well as the Platonicks thought that the World must have naturally an end when all the Stars were again revolved to the same point but what Period of years this Revolution may require is not as yet known even Kepler himself despairs of the Possibility of this invention when he asserts that the Motion of the Stars are incommensurable with themselves § 16. Lastly as to Aristotle's Greatest year some Of Aristotle's greatest year confound it with Plato's great year from which notwithstanding it differs which Censorinus further thus speaks of There is says he another year that Aristotle calls the greatest rather than the great which the Spheres of the Planets constitute when they come together to the same places where they were before the Winter of which made the Worlds Deluge and its Summer will make the last Conflagration c. but Marsilius makes mention of another real year in which the Soul of Man finishes its Circuit of Transmigration which time they say is perform'd in 12000 years to 3 of which years the great year of the World is equal consisting of 36000 years wherein the Anima Mundi performs its Course but Peter of Aliacus the Cardinal does otherwise determine the Quantity of the great year for says he as from the beginning of Aries to the end of Virgo is equal to the half of that space which is from the beginning of Libra to the end of Pisces so ought there to be from the Birth of Christ to the end of the World as much time as was from Adam or the Creation of the World to the coming of our Saviour this space was 5260 years therefore according to him from the beginning of the World to the end will be 10400 all the Stars finishing their Courses c. CHAP. VII Of the Epacts 1. Vnder the Name of Epacts we usually understand the Difference between a Lunar and Julian year 2. The Epacts are either Civil or Astronomical 3. The Civil Epacts are days intercepted between the common Julian year of 365 days and the Lunar taken at large of 354 days hence the Annual Epacts consist of 11 days except in every 19 year in which there are 12. 4. The Astronomical Epacts may be termed those Days Hours and Minutes which are intercepted between the common Lunar year and the mean or equal Julian year which are 10d 12h 11′ 22″ 16‴ § 1. THe word Epact is derived from the Greek The Etymology of the Epacts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which besides other things signifies to intercalate In which sense Plutarch in Numa uses it and in the Egyptian
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
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