former Royalty and reigne begun ten yeares before this time of the Actium victory For should he reigne thirty seven yeares from hence and after him Archelaus nine then where shall we finde roome for them that governed in Iudea after Archelaus was removed from his Kingdome For after Archelaus was removed from his Kingdome Antiq. lib. 17. c 15. lib. 18. c. 3. Iosephus nameth Cyrenius and Coponius as Rulers and disposers of Iudea for a season And after Coponius Marcus Ambibuchus was Ruler and after him Aanius Rufus and then dyed Augustus Ioseph antiq lib. 18. c. 3. Now lay all these together and it will necessarily follow that Herod could not begin his thirty seven years so late as the first year of the Actium fight And if not so late as the Actium fight then for those 15 of Herods age at the Pharsalian battel we must read 25. And so Suslyga Kepler and * Tirinâ—usin Sacr. Bib. Tom. 1 Tornicl in Annall others have answered namely that the forementioned age of 15 years is directly against the mind of Iosephus because he writeth * Antiq. lib. 14. c. 23. elsewhere that Herod was familiarly acquainted with the most Noble among the Romans about tenne yeares before this time which could not be properly said of a Child being between five or six yeares old We may therefore acknowledge an ancient fault in some one or other who at the first transcribed the Authors Copy writing 15. in the stead of 25. which being long agoe is still continued both in the old Manuscripts and later printed Bookes For who seeth not how easily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be written for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one signifieth 15 the other 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greeke text of Josephus where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth olim or quondam shewing that Antonius had had familiar acquaintance with Herod and Phasaelus in former times This sure cannot be denied especially seeing all the other numbers and yeares both in Herod and his succeeding Sons agree very well and may be taken up without any the least contradiction Torniellus therefore in his Annals admonisheth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vitiose scriptum est in Josepho qui ex Josepho descripserunt viz. Gorionide Photio Nicephoro Abulensi c. meaning that 15. is corruptly written in Josephus for 25 as also in those who have written out of Josephus viz. in Gorionides Photion Nicephorus and Abulensis Tirinius also in his Comment upon the holy Bible is of the same opinion and therefore he placeth the birth of Herod in the fourth yeare of the 176. Olympiad from whence to the three and fortieth Iulian year we have seventy yeares about which age Herod was when he dyed For the fourth year of the 176 Olympiad was in the year of the Iulian Period 4641. and the three and fortieth Iulian year in the year of the same Period 4711. which was 70 yeares after So also it will be if you account forty five from the yeare of the Iulian Period 4666. when the Pharsalian battell was for in that battell Herod was twenty five to which adde forty five and so shall his age be seventy in the year of the Iulian Period 4711 as hitherto hath been proved But doe I not heare it yet objected that the death of Herod will be far later then I have hitherto mentioned and that because the time of Archelaus his banishment was not till the reigne of Tiberius Iosephus and Strabo are compared to fortifie this objection For first Iosephus is witnesse that Archelaus was married to Glaphyra the daughter of Archelaus King of Cappadocia whose last husband before him had been Iuba King of Mauritania Now Iuba as is in the second place alleaged out of Strabo was alive till towards the middle of the second year of Tiberius and therefore Archelaus marrying his Widdow could not be banished till the end of the said year or beginning of the next To which I answer first that * Master Tho. Lydyat he who makes this objection is not constant to himselfe for in his Book De emendat Temp. page 162. he placeth the the banishment of Archelaus in the last year of Augustus saying that he was not banished in the 37 year of the fight at Actium but in the 37 year after Augustus had received that power and dignity which was called Tribunitia potestas and thereupon he dissenteth every way from Iosephus and gives him but eight years after his father Then in another book written on purpose to confirme the arguments of his first he would not have Archelaus banished till the dayes of Tiberius in regard of Iuba who was alive till then and whose Widdow he married as formerly hath been said But to this I have a second answer to wit that in Strabo we finde more Iuba's then one who were Kings of Mauritania about such time as the Romans were the greatest Monarchs in the World and therefore it were little lesse then great folly to distrub the times by pitching upon none but the last to be him whose Widdow Archelaus should marry We may as well say that among the Popes Gregory the first and Gregory the second were both one Or that among the Kings of England Richard the first and Richard the second were the same See therefore what Strabo saith in the end of his seventeenth and last book in the Description of Mouritania After Syphaces saith he Masinissa obtained the Kingdome and then Micipsa and his successours and in our times Iuba who was father to that Iuba who dyed lately And thus much concerning the times of Herod and his posterity The next thing to be spoken of is the birth of Christ of which in the following Chapter CHAP. XIX Of the true and right year of our Saviours birth and Baptisme HAving in the former Chapter clearly shewed the times of Herod and of his posterity it will in the next place be worth our while to inqure into the the right time of our Saviours birth Concerning which I finde a variety of opinions both among the Ancient and Moderne Writers and were it not for the time of Herods death should scarce know which to follow For first the Ancients they are divided and tell us thus When Calvisius Sabinus and Lucius Rufinus were Consuls then was Christ borne according to Sulpitius Severus in the second book of his sacred History this was in the 42 Iulian year and year of the Iulian Period 4710. But when Lentulus and Messalinus were Consuls then was Christ borne according to Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Cassiodorus Maximus Monachus and Cedrenus this was in the 43 Julian year Epiphanius and Eusebius are for the next year when Cesar the 13th time and Sillanus were Consuls this was in the 44 Julian year Dionysius Exiguus pitcheth upon the next year after when Lentulus and Piso were Consuls By which testimonies we finde how the Ancients were divided and that from
of age If therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have no relation to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must it needes be taken in the sense aforesaid and the meaning of the whole text runne thus namely that Jesus beginning to prepare himselfe for his Office calling his Disciples and to go in and out among them was about thirty years of age being as was supposed the son of Joseph And thus I have shewed not only the year of Christs birth but also the year and day of his baptisme being baptized as the Church by tradition generally holdeth on the sixth day of January in the year of the Iulian Period 4742. and yeare of the World 4032. That which is next concernes the day of his birth in the searching after which the authorities of the Ancients will be considerable though for the yeare they were at odds and could helpe us little For when they speake of the yeare they delivered but matter of opinion but in this they speake matter of practise which is to be regarded before the private fancies of later times CHAP. XX. Of the day of Christs Birth that it was kept and on what day both among the Ancients and in the succeeding Ages IF the authority of Clement in the fifth book and 12 chapter of his Apostolicall Constitutions might passe for granted we should have a testimony as ancient as the very times of the Apostles to shew that then and in those dayes the Birth day of our Saviour was observed But because many learned men make question whether those Constitutions were ever any of his I shall rather alleage a testimony out of the first book and sixth chapter of the Centuriatours or Magdeburgenses wherein is said That the Apostles and other Christians as they used other things indifferent so also they freely used Feasts Which testimony ought the rather to be regarded because the Apostle Saint Paul himselfe hath said Christ our Passeover is Sacrificed for us therefore saith he let us keepe the Feast as is written in 1 Cor. 5.7 Which words doe confirme the testimony before mentioned and is also an evidence to convince them of errour who would have Christians keep no Feast dayes at all no not so much as a day in honour to Jesus Christ the Saviour of the World The Ancients were of another minde they therefore kept such a day And in the Greek or Easterne Church they called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth in English God's appearing And indeed when Christ was born God appeared to the World by the Nativity of his sonne Which is but what the Apostle sheweth for speaking to Timothy of the Incarnation of Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour thus he saith It was God manifested in the flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 And if God manifested in the flesh then may the day thereof in that respect be fitly called Theophania The Latine or Westerne Church called it Dies Nativitatis the day of the Nativity Dies natalis Domini vel Natalitia Domini The Birth day of our Lord agreeing therein to that of the Angel in Luke 2.10 Behold I bring you glad tidings of great joy which shall be to all people For unto you is borne this day in the City of David a Saviour which is Christ the Lord. The newes then we see came first from heaven an Angel brought the first tidings of the Day by whom it was declared to be a day of great joy to all people And therefore to shew men what they should doe there was suddenly with the Angel a multitude of the Heavenly host praising God and saying Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace good will towards men Luke 2.13.14 Which very Hymne was afterwards by Telesphorus who was Bishop of Rome in the year after Christ's Passion 107 ordained to be sung in the Church on the Eve alwayes of Christs Nativity Anno Dom. 140 as is noted by Calvisius ex Sigeberto And as may be seen also in a decretall Epistle of the Authours owne setting forth if that Epistle were any of his But whether it were or no it was ancient And so all things considered it well appeareth that though the singing of this Hymne was but then appointed to be used in the Church yet the Day on whose Eve it was appointed to be Sung was observed and kept before yea even in the times of the Apostles if Polydore Virgil may be credited lib. 6. cap. 6. Next after this is the undoubted testimony of Theophilus Anno Dom. 190 who was Bishop of Cesarea in Palestine about 157 years after Christs Passion and he speaking of this day saith We ought to celebrate the Birth day of our Lord on what day soever the eight Calends of January shall happen For proofe of which See the Magdeburgenses Centur. 2. cap. 6. See also Hospinian of the Original of Christian Feasts And know moreover that the eight Calends of January was alwayes on the XXV day of December in respect of the day of the Moneth although it varieth every year in respect of the day of the week Clemens of Alexandria was much about the same time with Theophilus Anno Dom. 195 and in him mention is made of some who being more curius then others perswaded themselves that Christ's Birth Day was either on the 25 day of the Egyptian moneth Pharmuth which answereth the most part of it to April or on the 25 of Phacon which answereth in like manner to May. For Sunt qui curiosius saith he natali Domini non solum annum sed etiam diem assignant In which words saying Sunt qui curiosius me thinks it is but as if he should barely relate the opinion of some whom the ordinary Day observed would not content for they being more curious then others search after another day and that must be either in the moneth Pharmuth or Phacon but in which of these they were at a stand Thus it may be in any thing else though never so certainly known for what is there which may not be either questioned or contradicted by such as are either ignorant wilfull or have an affectation of singularity Chemnitius saith well concerning the ground of this errour that it was because they reckoned the sixth Moneth in which the Angel was sent unto the Virgin Mary not from the Conception of John the Baptist but from the beginning of the Hebrew year which began from Nisan or March near the vernall Equinox from whence the sixth Moneth is * And this in regard of the account inclusively or exclusively taken either August or September and the ninth from thence either April or May. So that this being in all probability the ground of their errour Master Lydiat had little reason to close with them in it for the time of Christ's birth For the Angel Gabrel doth directly say This is the sixth Moneth not from the beginning of the year but with her who was called
their account from their moneth Ptho in Autumne when Nilus returned againe into his river as well as from that time which Mercator taketh up when it first began to overflow And indeed this word to you calls them back from the custome of Egypt For that manner of reckoning which they had seen there was none of theirs and therefore they being come from thence must know that it belongs to them to reckon thus for To you this is the beginning of moneths Exod. 12.2 Josephus therefore had small cause to say that Moses altered the old ancient order of the year especially seeing he himselfe doth likewise in a manner affirme how that the Hebrews reckoning from Autumne doe but as the Egyptians did Besides Josephus having an eye to the beginning of the years of Jubilee which began from the seventh moneth after that moneth which Moses told them was the first month of the year was the readier to think as the modern Jews since his time have also done that in regard of Ecclesiasticall affaires the beginning of the year was altered at the coming out of Egypt but the old ancient beginning stood still and was regarded in their affaires of civill nature whereupon he saith that Moses did innovate nothing from the ancient rite concerning the disposing of the year for buyings and sellings In which words me thinks he doth a little stumble both himselfe and such as stick to his testimony in regard that the Nundinations and things of that nature appertained to the Jubilee which was not instituted untill afterwards I finde therefore little in Josephus concerning this to build upon The Chaldee Paraphrast also is in this the same in effect with Josephus and is so much the more invalid by how much the reckoning of the Chaldeans and Persians is against it both of which Nations accounted from the Spring and might first learne it from the Patriarchs Terah and Abraham who we are sure lived for a great while together in Vr of the Chaldees and taught them at least Abraham did the knowledge of the Stars for so Berosus mentions and successively ever since Astrologers have accounted the revolution of the World from the Suns entrance into Aries where in token of the beginning of the year the Persians set their God Mithras holding in his hand a naked sword Saint Ambrose saith to shew that it was Spring when the World was made the Scripture speaketh thus Hic vobis initium mensium this is to you the beginning of moneths Nor doe other of the Fathers Eusebius Basil Athanasius Cyrill of Jerusalem Augustine Gregorie Nazianzene Damascene Beda Isiodore besides late writters Luther Johannes Lucidus Bunting Lydiat Polanus Perkins Willet Alstedius and others but affirme as much Beda makes mention of a Synod holden in Palestine by Theophilus Bishop of Cesarea in which was agreed that the World was made in the Spring yea and among the Jews Rabbi Joshua doth earnestly defend the same Tenet against another great Rabbi who would that it should be made in Autumne And further whereas God blessed the creatures and bid them increase and multiply which blessing presently tooke effect who knoweth not that for most kinds of creatures especially the fish and foule the fittest time to engender and encrease is the Spring The time of the creation is also found from the History of the Flood which began on the seventeenth day of the second moneth of the year which second moneth agrees not to Autumne but to the Spring For first by comparing the order of Moneths here specified with that order which God gave Moses command to put in practice it will well appear that the first moneth was reckoned from the Spring because it cannot be shewed in any place of Scripture when the moneths are reckoned in their orders as the first second third fourth fifth c. that they take beginning from any other time So that as Moses accounted the first second third fourth fifth c. from Nisan which began in the Spring in like manner did Noah reckon from the same time And whereas I heretofore thought that this order of the moneths could prove nothing because not above foure of the moneths were knowne to have names till after the Captivity and must therefore either not be reckoned at all or else be reckoned in order according to their number from whencesoever the reckoning begun I finde it since to be no perfect answer For even those foure are mentioned as well by the order of their number as by their name even before the Captivity when they had names to be called by 1 Kings chap. 6. and chap. 8. Nor was it but so likewise afterwards both with them and some of the rest 1 Mac. 4.53 and chap. 9.54 as in Josephus and the books of Maccabees may be seen And then secondly if it had been Autumne when the Flood began the Flood continuing much about a just and even year it must needs end at such a time as a man would think should be neither fit for the creatures to encrease and multiply nor the earth in those Northern parts of the world where the Ark rested to be dryed up no nor for the grasse and herbs to grow for food the winter comming on so soon Saint Ambrose therefore is so fully resolved concerning this that It is not to be doubted saith he but that this second moneth was in the Spring timewhen things encrease and grow the fields bring forth c. and that God then sent the flood upon the wicked when their greif should be the greater to be punished in their abundance Which saying of that holy Father seems to be warranted from the words of our Saviour Matth. 24.37 For it is true according to Christs own Testimony recorded there that they of the old world were taken even in the midst of all their mirth And as for the foresaid Texts alledged out of Exodus they may as some thinke be answered thus viz. that the yeare as well as the moneth is naturally divided into two cheife parts the one whereof is of the year beginning or coming in the other of the year ending or going out for by this the year seems to be compared to a Ring which by a diameter is divided into two semicircles insomuch that when one halfe is ended by the course of the Sun from one point of the diameter to the other the other part must needs be taken for the conversion or returne untill the Sun be come againe to the first point where as one year endeth the other begineth Now then the seventh moneth is fitly called the conversion or returne because the first halfe is then at an end and the year entred upon his revolution or returne and so the feast of the Tabernacles kept alwayes in that moneth was in exitu anni in the going out of the year Which answer to that Text I doe in some sort approve and could be willing to think it might fully satisfie if the
year consisted of no more then two parts but because the year is divided into four quarters or Tekupha's called as I shall shew you afterward the returnes of the year I think it a more perfect answer to say It is called the end and returne of the year not because it met then with the naturall head thereof but because all the fruit of the year was gathered in and seed time began anew And so it is with us the Autumne is counted the beginning of the year for matters of husbandry and yet we in the computation of our years begin in the Spring at the Annuntiation The year of Jubilee indeed began now I meane at Autumne but for all that the moneth wherein it began is not called the first moneth but the seventh Levit. 25.10 And furthermore whereas it is usually objected that the trees were created with ripe fruits on them and that the world was therefore made in Autumne it is answered that in the Eastern parts of the world some fruits are ripe in the Spring as well as in Autumne as is seen by the Harvest of the Jews which was never long after Easter And without question Paradise had the preheminence to be the best place that the world afforded and might therefore have ripe fruits sooner then the Jews had their yearely Harvest To which may be added that the Arabians Syrians or Assyrians and Chaldeans do not begin their year from Autumn but from the Spring as Simplicius witnesseth upon the fifth book of Aristotles Physicks But they have further to object Object that the Law is divided into severall Sections which were all of them read over once every year the first whereof by an old ancient custome began alwayes from Autumne which was to shew that there was the right beginning of the year But to this learned Langius hath fully answered saying that neither was it ever defined of Moses nor of Joshua nor of any of the Judges how much of the Law should be read on any Sabbath nor from what time of the year the reading of the Law should begin againe It was indeed commanded of Moses that the people of Israel should have the words and book of the Law alwayes before their eyes but of that publique reading it in the Synagogues according to severall Sections Divisions he spake not a word King Jehosophat is found to be the first who sent forth his Princes to whom he joyned Levits in Commission who going through all the Cities of Judah taught the people in the Law of God for they alwayes had the Book of the Law about them 2 Chro. 17.7 8 c. From whence is manifest that in those times there were no ordinary Praelections or Lectures thereof But after the Captivity more like it is that Esdars that expert Scribe divided the Law into parts and instituted that order of reading them which is still observed and because when he began to read it was the first day of the seventh moneth as may be seen Neh. 8.2 therefore ever after the reading began from thence and yet then to speak truely it is hard to say what precise proportion Ezra observed for one reading seeing as the third verse sheweth he read therein from morning untill mid-day and might therefore rather afterwards then now proportion the whole into severall parts if at all it were done by him I conclude therefore that notwithstanding the strongest and best objections to the contrary the world began at the Spring time of the year and that on the fourth day of the first Week the Sun was in the fourth degree of Aries which fourth day according to the Julian year was on the seven and twentieth day of April on which day the Sun was created and set in the Firmament of Heaven as shall be further shewed afterwards Omnia cum vireant tunc est nova temporis aetas Sic annus per ver incipiendus erit CHAP. III. That the Jews as well of old as of later Times accounted their Moneths by the course of the MOON IT is a plaine and manifest truth approved by testimony undeniable that in that age of the World in which our Saviour Jesus Christ lived the Jews reckoned their moneths by the course of the Moon and that on the fourteenth day of that Moone which they accounted for the first moneth their Pascha or Easter was This we have recorded by an authentique Author as ancient as those times I meane Philo Judaeus in his book of the life of Moses Who speaking there of the first moneth and of the Paschal solemnity observed in it saith as the words sound in the Latine Hoc ipso mense circa decimam quartam diem cum plenus jam orbis Lunae futurus est Paschatis solemne celebratur that is In this very moneth about the fourteenth day when the Moon shall be at the full the solemne feast of the Passeover is kept And in another place speaking of the time when the Moneths began he declareth that their beginning was from the first fight or vision of the Moon viz. cum Sol incipit sensibili splendore Lunam illustrare When the Sun begins to enlighten the Moon so as she may be perceived And so also he did in the place first mentioned calling that the Novilunium Quod Synodum Lunarem sive Novae cujusdam Lunae sequitur To this Authour I may joyne Josephus wherein is recorded that the fourteenth day of the first moneth of the year called * Here Josephus acknowledgeth Nisau to be the first moneth of the year Nisan was evermore while the Sun was in that signe of the Zodiack which is called Aries Antiq. lib. 3. cap. 10. And as this was the course and account of the Moneths in those times so in the dayes before for when Jesus the son of Syrach lived which was 230. years before Christ there was no other Index for the appointed Feasts on certaine and set dayes of the moneth but what the Moon afforded He therefore saith à Luna signum esse diei festi From the Moon is the signe of a feastivall day Ecclus 43.7 The Author of the third book of Esdras Ch. 1. goeth higher for speaking of Josiah's solemne Passeover he saith it was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first moneth according to the course of the Moon as in Hieroms Bible may be seen The like he repeateth afterwards of another Passeover Chap. 7. verse 10. Higher then thus goeth Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon affirming that the Moneths of the year were the Moneths of the Moon and that in Moses his time they were so accounted evermore begining as Philo before had noted from the first sight or vision of the Moon For the antient manner was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even till the yeare of Christ 500. about which time the Sapientes Gemarae ceased as Petavius noteth And hereupon it is that learned Langius saith Ritum hunc de sanctificanda Neomenia à temporibus antiquissimis Mosis
must lie on his right side 40. dayes more to beare the iniquity of Judah and yet in the next year on the fifth day of the sixth moneth he is said to sit againe among the Elders of Israel chap. 8.1 Which could not be unlesse there were a moneth intercalar For 40. dayes added to 390. doe make 430. which was a greater space then could be any way from the twelfth day of the fourth moneth in the fifth year to the fifth day of the sixth moneth in the following year unlesse there were I say a moneth intercalar Nor is this a strange collection for though these things perhaps were done in a vision yet that the Prophet might not tell the people a vaine vision nor deliver unto them an unwarrantable Prophecy he must upon necessity lie hid and be absent from them so long as was the number of those dayes And indeed by putting this upon tryall by calculation I find all fully cleared For in the year of the Julian Period 4119. which was as shall be afterwards proved the fifth yeare of Jechoniah's Captivity the first day of Nisan was on the twentieth day of March that year therefore must be annus Embolimaeus and have thirteen moneths or 384. dayes For if it had been twelve moneths or 354. dayes then must the first of Nisan in the following year be on the eleventh of March which could not be because the fourteenth day thereof must not be before the Vernall Equinox which then was on the twenty seventh day of March. And therefore the first of Nisan in the first of these two years was on the two and twentieth day of March and in the next on the tenth of Aprill so will there be space enough by the fifth day of the sixth moneth for all the dayes that the Prophet mentioneth to be accomplished otherwise not And thus I am glad of this objection seeing it hath occasioned a further confirmation of the moneths mentioned in Scripture to be Lunar The next thing objected Object is the History of the Flood in which the moneths are found to be Solar because from the seventeenth day of the second moneth to the seventeenth day of the seventh moneth were an hundred and fifty dayes that is five moneths of thirty dayes a peece Whereto I answer Answ that this hinders nothing as afterward when I come to speake of the Flood shall be plainly shewed In the meane time this I adde that twelve moneths of but thirty dayes a peece amount in the whole to no more then 360. dayes whereas in a full Solar year are more by five dayes and about six hours But to help this they say that the old Patriarchs had either an epact of five dayes to be added to every year or else that in every six years they made of those five dayes an intercalar moneth to which also the six houres would reach in one hundred and twenty years at which time they had also one moneth more then in their ordinary and common years Now this time Scaliger saith was called by the name of Cheled but doth very unaptly apply it to his purpose as Petavius proves against him For Cheled is no more applyable to an age of an hundred and twenty years then to any other time or age be it either more or lesse and is onely belonging to the time or age of mans life of what length soever it be as may be seen in Psal 39.5 where that very word is used Nor again is that space of an hundred and twenty years in the sixth chapter of Genesis spoken for any other purpose then to shew the patience and long suffering of the Lord to the old World which the Apostle Peter calleth the waiting of God on them in the dayes of Noah while the Ark was preparing 1 Pet. 3.20 Beside which this is also certaine that if the sixth year forementioned were to have an intercalation in respect of the six hours there would be two intercalar moneths together I meane in every one hundred and twentieth year as is apparant by dividing the said year by six For 120. divided by six hath twenty times six in it and nothing remaining whereupon will further follow that in every one hundred and twentieth year must be 420. dayes which were very absurd to grant Nay further were it so that the ancient Patriarchs to avoid this absurdity should be thought to reckon the five dayes at the end of every year and defer the six houres till the one hundreth and twentieth year by the which time those houres amount to the space of one moneth yet still is all built but upon conjecture and that so weakly as there is little or no shew of probability in it for if there were then would there be from the Creation to the Flood no odd years but equall divisions of 120. years apiece which we know is otherwise in regard that when we divide the year of the Flood by 120. we have 95. remaining They therefore reckon far better who doe not onely account an Epact of five dayes at the end of every common year but doe also intercalate a day in every fourth year making the Epact then to be six which in the common year was but five Howbeit this still is no better then meer conjecture and cannot clearely be affirmed to be so indeed till after ages and then not so among the Jews but among some other Nations for the moneth among the Jews was Lunar as by the words used in Scripture for a moneth beside our other proofes already mentioned doth well appeare But thirdly Object it is objected out of the seven and twentieth Chapter of the first book of the Chronicles that David appointed twelve Captaines of ordinary Legions to be over the Provinces into which the whole body of the Kingdome was divided and these to serve in their courses severally throughout the twelve moneths of the year Or rather thus King David appointed twelve Captains of ordinary Legions to be the life-guard of his person and these to serve severally in their courses throughout the twelve moneths of the yeare no more moneths being mentioned for according to the number of the moneths so was the number of the Captains Salomon likewise appointed as many Stewards to provide provision for the royal Family and these as the former to serve severally throughout the twelve moneths of the year as in the fourth Chapter of the first book of the Kings may be seen The year therefore in those times had no more then twelve moneths for if there were thirteen then for one moneths space both the Kings person must be unprovided of a Guard and the royall Family destitute likewise of Provisions for their sustenance Scaliger I remember Answ once made this Objection but afterwards upon his better thoughts he cryed out against it saying Ridicula est objectio Scal. in Isag can It is a ridiculous objection and an objection qua pertinaces contendunt mensem veterem Hebraeorum lunarem
of the Julian Period 4126. in which the Temple was destroyed noting these 192. yeares to end on the seventeeenth day of October likewise And in 192. yeares we find 417. courses with 72. dayes over and above which 72 dayes being taken out of the number of dayes which were from the beginning of that year of the Julian Period to the said seventeenth day of October do direct us to the sixth day of August which then was Sabbath day and the course of Joarib even that course of his in which the Temple was destroyed For when the Temple was destroyed it was the watch and course of Joarib as the Jews have told us in their Seder Olam rabba the course I say of Joarib and IX of Ab which day is noted by them to be the next after the Sabbath and the next after the Weekes end as Master Livelie expoundeth the Hebrew text of that testimony And thus having done with this The Temple destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar I go on to the year of the Julian Period 4126 which was the nineteenth yeare of Nebuchadnezzar when the Temple and City were destroyed The Cycle of the Sun was 10. the Dominicall letter B. the Cycle of the Moon 3. and the Vernall Equinox on the 27 day of March. Calvisius I am sure and Scaliger as I remember reckon this Destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar to be in the year of the Julian Period 4124. But they faile of the true time For in that yeare the first day of the first Moneth could not be any day later then the 27. day of March and that was feria quinta whereas if it be the true time it should be rather feria prima Petavius is for the next yeare viz. 4125. But in that year take either the Conjunction in March or in Aprill and neither will serve For the one conjunction casts the first of Nisan into the fifteenth of March feria secunda and the other into the thirteenth of Aprill feria tertia This therefore could not be the yeare neither as appeareth by the day of the weeke before mentioned on which the IX day of Aâ— must be Langius in his booke De annis Christi pitcheth upon the yeare of the Julian Peried 4117 but therein hath also failed of the true time not only because he is thereupon inforced to alter the reigne of Nabopollassar but also because the 40. yeares that Ezekiel saith Egypt was under Babel will thereby be ended before their right time For Egypt had not shaken off that yoke till after Cyrus had conquered Babylon as is more then once recorded by Xenophon and approved therein by men of no meane learning and particularly by Jacobus Armachanus in his Annals of holy Scripture I do undoubtingly therefore conciude the right yeare to be the year of the Julian Period 4126. in which year the first of Nisan was on the third day of Aprill feria prima and the IX of Ab. on the seventh day of August which was also feria prima at which time Joarib was in his course having entred on it August the 6. feria Septima for that the IX of Ab was on the Eve of the Sabbath I do not understand it otherwise then of the Eve ending the Sabbath at which time the Enemie entred into the Temple to destroy it even in the Course of Joarib And thereupon it is that the Jewes in mournfull manner according to the institution of their great Synedrion use to sing thus Die nona mensis Ab bora Vespertini temporis Quum essem in Vigilia mea Vigilia Joarib Introiit hostis Sacrificia sua obtulit Ingressus est in Sanctuarium injussu Dei Thus they as their words sound in the Latine But in this we are to note that albeit the enemy entred into the Temple to destroy it on the ninth of Ab and course of Joarib yet the said Temple was not burnt untill the next day for it was on the tenth day of the fifth moneth as the Prophet sheweth in Jerem. 52.12 And note also that on some part of Jerusalem the fire was kindled sooner even three dayes before 2 Kings 25.8 burning from the seventh day untill the tenth For so those two texts in Jeremiah and the second book of the Kings may well enough be reconciled And note last of all that the City was broken up and Zedechia taken a full moneth before viz. on the ninth day of the fourth moneth 2 Kings 25.3 which according to our Julian Kalender was this year on the eighth day of Iuly feria sexta So then the City was broken up on the eigthh of Iuly and the Temple burnt on the eighth of August And as for that which Scaliger alledgeth out of that book of the Jews which they call Liber Angariarum wherein is written that they fast on the fifth day of the week as if on that day of the week the Temple was burnt by the Chaldeans To that I answer that as in speaking of the ninth of Ab they doe one day antedate the account of the Prophet Ieremiah for the day of the moneth so in like manner they doe here antedate one day of the week and make that to be on the fifth day of the week which by comparing their testimony with another Scriptures appeareth to be on the 6th day of the Weeke For if according to the Seder Olam the ninth of Ab were on the first day of the week then must the seventh of Ab be on the sixth day of the week and to be that day on which the Chaldeans began to set fire on some part of Ierusalem as already hath been shewed out of 2 Kin. 25.8 Moreover Sealiger and some others have supposed that this year of the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar must be Sabbathicall from the Autumne before and this they say the Prophet Jeremy confirmeth in the 28. chapter of his prophecy at the first verse where he sheweth that when Zedechia began to reign it was the fourth year which they take to be the fourth year of a week from the Autumne before And if so then will the fourth year of his reigne be Sabbathicall till the Autumne thereof and if his fourth year then his eleventh or last year in like manner Nor was this say they but that year of Rest which the same Prophet mentions in the 34 chapter of his prophecy where we read that when Nebuchadnezzar had raised his seige from Jerusalem to goe against the King of Egypt the Jewes took againe their Man-servants and Maide-servants which they had a little before set at liberty because it was a Sabbathicall year and would not let them goe free as the Law required in Deut. 15.12 To which I answer that the clearing of this dependeth upon the resolution of that doubt which concerneth that year in which the false Prophet Hananiah resisted Jeremiah and dyed because he taught rebellion against the Lord and perswaded the people contrary to the prophecy of
Ahasuerus which was his Imperial name and was so called as being the first that obtained the Persian Monarchie by the right of inheritance for such saith Master Lydiat is the signification of the word Ahasuerus or Assuerus Nor will Scaliger himselfe but confesse that it was ordinary with these Kings to change their names when they tooke the Government of the Empire upon them as Cluverus observeth in his Computo Chronologico Cambyses therefore is not unfitly taken for Ahasuerus Ezra 4.6 Next after whom was Magus the Magician who reigned under the name of the brother of Cambyses the other son of Cyrus called by Ctesias not Smerdis as in Herodotus but Tanyoxarces or Tanyoxerxes the same sure which Ezra calleth Artaxerxes or Arthashast Ezra 4.7 So that thus we have the first Artaxerxes he who was before Darius And as for the other after him we need not make question but he was Artaxerxes Longimanus For though Longimanus did not immediately succeed Darius yet was he the first King after him who shewed favour in the restoring Jerusalem If they say the reigne of the Magician was too short to have any hand in the hindring the building of the Temple I answer it was not so short as some may imagine for though he reigned but seven moneths after the death of Cambyses yet was not that the whole time of his reigne for he sat in the throne a good while before even most of the time that Cambyses was out of Persia making war in Egypt and in Ethiopia and against the Ammonians To all which Petavius well accordeth in his twelfth book and 25 Chapter De Doctrina Temporum where noting the Kings of Persia in that order wherein they stand in the book of Ezra thus he saith The first is Cyrus then Assuerus cap. 4.6 to whom the Jews were accused Then Artaxerxes verse 7. who also favoured the Jews enemies and forbad the building of the Temple Afterwards Darius cap. 5. in whose second year the Temple is restored And after him Artaxerxes That Artaxerxes saith he who is mentioned next after Assuerus was not Longimanus but either the same with Assuerus as Josephus thinketh supposing Cambyses to be signified by both those names to whom Torniellus agreeth Or else to speak truely Assuerus is Cambyses and Smerdis the Magician Artaxerxes who cunningly held the Empire eight moneths after Cambyses and hath some of his acts remembred by Herodotus as that he should free his subjects from tribute and grant them a cessation from military employments for the space of three years yea even for almost six years did this personated brother of Cambyses lie hid saith Ctesias and carryed himselfe so cunningly as if he had been Tanyoxerces indeed whom Herodotus call Smerdis Quare ad hunc trahi non immerito potest quod in Esdra legitur Praefectos adversus Judaeos literas ad Artaxerxem dedisse Petav. De Doctr. Tempor lib. 12. c. 25. Learned Langius likewise assenteth hereunto and hath lately declared himselfe against Scaliger in this particular Quid enim vetat saith he reliquorum Regum more hos cum imperium capescerent nomen mutasse ex Cambyse Oxyarem sive Assuerum ex Smerde supposititio quem Ctesias Tanyoxarcen vocat Artoxarcen factum fuisse Thus he with much more to the same purpose in his second book and ninth Chapter De annis Christi And thus in this Section I have shewed the true time of the building of Zorobabels Temple and proved it to be not in the dayes of Darius Nothus but in the dayes of Darius the sonne of Hystaspis who began his reigne in the year of the Julian Period 4193 which was fifteen years after Cyrus proclaimed liberty for the Jews to returne home againe into their owne Country Which account doth exactly agree to the Caelestiall Observations of Ptolomie joyning the twentieth year of this Darius with the 246 of Nabonassar as also the one and thirtieth with the 257 of Nahonassar the first whereof was in the year of the Julian Period 4212 and the next in the year of the same Period 4223. In both which years the Moon is noted by him to be Eclipsed The first according to our Julian account was on the nineteenth day of November And the other on the 25 of Aprill Before which there is another Eclipse noted by him in the seventh year of Cambyses whereto he joyneth the 225 of Nabonassar and was in the year of the Julian Period 4191. The first of Darius Hystaspis must therefore needs be in the year of the said Period 4193. SECT VII Of the seventh Period from the second year of Darius Histaspis to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus THis seventh Period is a Period of 65 years which I cannot better demonstrate then by running through the reignes of all the Kings of Persia from the first of Cyrus to the end of the last Darius whom Alexander conquered I begin then with Cyrus who by the consent of all Authours began to reigne in the first year of the 55 Olympiad viz. in the latter part thereof which was in the year of the Julian Period 4155 at the Summer time whereof the second year of the said Olympiad began He reigned 30 years as Ctesias and most Authours write of which seven were over Babylon according to Xenophon or nine according to Ptolomie in his Mathematicall Canon of the Kings of Babylon But I like best to follow Xenophon The next after Cyrus was Cambyses who had some kinde of Dominion in the third year of Cyrus as Daniel sheweth but from his Fathers death who dyed in the year of the Julian Period 4185 to his owne death he had but seven years and five moneths as it is testifyed by Herodotus and confirmed by Ptolomie In Ctesias his fragment we finde 18 which I beleeve to be a corruption and should more rightly be eight the last of which was incompleat as by the seven years and five moneths noted in Herodotus well appeareth This King Cambyses went to war in Egypt in the third year of the sixty third Olympiad which was in the year of the Julian Period 4188 as Diodorus sheweth lib. 2. during which time of his war there and in Ethiopia and against the Ammonians his Kingdome at home was governed partly by his owne brother Tanyoxerxes and partly by one of the Magoi of Persia who slew his brother and then counterfeted his person and under the vaile of his name held the Empire til the death of Cambyses and seven moneths after at which time the chiefe Nobles of Persia discovering the fraud slew him and advanced Darius the son of Hystaspis to the throne in the year of the Julian Period 4193. The next therfore that reigned after this counterfeit brother of Cambyses was Darius the son of Hystaspis the years of whose reigne are so diversly computed by sundry Authors as that it may seem hard to say how long he reigned For Tertullian lib. contra Judaeos gives him
Mar. 2.3 So also Rogelim was the city of Barzil lai 2 Sam. 19.38 To finish transgression and to make an end of sinne Or as some render it To consume wickednesse and to abolish Sinnes following therein the margent Hebrew as an exposition for plainnesse The text is to seale or to make an end of Sinne rather Vt finem accipiat peccatum that sinne may have an end as Saint Hierom interprets it is approved therein by a great Hebrician who saith that according to the true reading of the words they signifie properly to consume finish or end Sin This was fulfilled by Jesus Christ who was that Lamb of God which taketh away the Sinnes of the world Joh. 1.29 To which agreeth that of the Apostle Being then made free from sinne ye became the servants of righteousnesse Rom. 6.18 And againe But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away Sinne by the Sacrifice of himselfe Hebr. 9.26 And to make reconciliation for iniquitie This Christ did by appeasing and pacifying the wrath of God against sinne and it was an effect of his passion For by his death we are reconciled unto God Rom. 5.10 Coloss 1.20 And to bring in everlasting righteousnesse This Christ Jesus also did For by his owne blood he entred in once into the holy place having obtained eternall redemption Hebr. 9 12. And to seale up vision and prophet Meaning that Messiah shall make good fulfill and performe all the prophecies that were of him of his Passion and resurrection putting an end to them all and that therefore we ought to looke for no other Luke 18.31 This we are also taught in the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews at the first vers where the Apostle saith God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last times spoken unto us by his sonne And to annoint the most Holy Or the Holinesse of Holinesse that is the most holy This is also meant of Christ who was endued with the Holy Ghost without measure even a very fountaine of holinesse was in him of whose fulnesse we have all received Joh. 3.34 Joh. 1.16 and 1 Cor. 1.30 In the time of the Law the Kings Priests Prophets when they first tooke their Offices upon them were annointed with holy oyle And this was the Ceremony of consecrating them to the service of God in those callings Now Christ was both King Priest and Prophet he had in himselfe alone all those dignities at once together to the which others were annointed severally and is therefore called by way of eminencie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Messias that is the annointed For though he were annointed with no materiall oyle yet he was spiritually annointed with the oyle of gladnesse above his fellowes Psal 45.7 that is with the holy Ghost And hereupon it is that Saint John saith Ye have an ointment from him that is holy 1 Joh. 2.20 22. Neither doth Christ himselfe but say as much and thereupon when he began to preach he sheweth how the Prophet Esay pointed at him in this Luke 4.18 It was an excellent saying therefore of Clemens of Alexandria Our Lord Christ saith he the holy of holies who came and fulfilled Vision and Prophet was annointed in the flesh with the Spirit of his Father whose materiall annointings therefore of the Law were nothing else but types figures of this spiritual annointing of Christ as Mr Livelie concludeth And I would to God he had kept him close to this in his interpretation of the next verse for it is as clear as the Sun at noon that there is but one and the same Messias spoken of through out his Prophecie And thus have we seen the generality of Daniels weekes Now followeth a more speciall and particular handling them divided into three parts in the verses following Vers The beginning of the 70 Weekes 25. From the out-going of the word This is commonly understood of the publishing or proclaiming of a decree by some of the Kings of Persia either Cyrus Darius or Artaxerxes for the restoring and building againe of Ierusalem But more likely it is that this out going of the word should be rendred from the executing of the word or Decree for the returne and building of Ierusalem that is as the Hebrew phrase fignifyeth for the building againe of Ierusalem Cyrus made such a decree in which though * Ezr. 1.2 3 4. and Chro. 36.22 23. Ezra mentions only the Temple as the chiefe part of the City yet Esay sheweth that even the building of the City was included as is plain by what is written in the four and fortyeth Chapter of his Prophecy at the 28 verse and in the Chapter next after at the 13 verse Darius seconded this when after Cyrus his time the building was hindred making the foresaid decree of Cyrus the ground of his favour and assistance After which Ezra comes up and by vertue of a commission granted to him from Artaxerxes Longimanus in the seventh yeare of his reigne doth much good Ezr. chap. 6. Ezr. chap. 7. and goeth fairely on in repairing the desolations and wall as is mentioned Ezr. 9.9 but could not effect the whole businesse for the Adversaries of the Iewes prevailed still against them And therefore 13 yeares after all this news is brought to Nehemiah at Shushan by Hanani and certain men of Iudah that the Iewes were still in great affliction and reproach for the wall of Ierusalem was broken down Neh. 1.2.3.4 and the gates thereof burnt with fire At the hearing whereof Nehemiah sat down wept and mourned certaine dayes and prayed before the God of heaven After which prayer because he was the Kings Cup-bearer he was to attend upon his place Neh. 2.5.6 c. and being observed to looke heavie and sad in the presence of the King the King demanded the reason which he told him and thereupon obtained leave and authority with letters of Commission from him to go up unto Iudah the City of his fathers Sepulchers that he might build it as may be seen in the first and second Chapters of Nehemiah This was in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes afore mentioned at which time Nehemiah came up and prevailed so farre against the Adversarie that the worke went on and a tythe was taken out of other Cities to come and dwell at Ierusalem the building whereof was never after hindred any more but by the end of the Seven Weekes mentioned afterwards was brought to perfection And hereto agreeth Petavius saying Exitus sermonis non Edicti solùm pronounciatio est sed executio lib. 12. De Doctr. Temp. cap. 35. And in the same book at the 32 Chapter speaking first of the common acceptation of the word and shewing how thereby the beginning of these Weeks is drawne to sundry times by reason of severall goings forth of the Word he concludeth and saith
beside other Eclipses in some of the following years of the said War fitly agreeing These Charcters are regarded of the Learned and not unfitly called Gharecteres infallibilies veré Bases Chronologiae fallere nesciae Of which Master Perkins speaketh further saying Qui haec fictitia putoverit eundem oportet Astronomiam omnem logisticam à radicibus revellere c. And a little after Eo hoc mihi saith he documento est initium Hebdomadum Danielis haud esse aptanduin annis vel Cyri vel Darii Hystaspis quia tunc Historiae humanae fere omnes Astronomicae observationes ut supposititiae fuerint negandae Also doe not those Marmora Arundelliana brought out of Asia hither prove speaking stones to stop the mouths of those who rashly reject the allowed Antiquity of these times and by proofelesse proofes cut off as many years from this Monarchy as they please The Author of those Marbles was of no small standing 500 years and more before Eusebius and none among the Greek Historiographers more ancient then he excepting Herodotus Thucidides and Xenophon as Master Selden that learned Antiquary of our times hath plainly proved Who out of the said Marbles hath gathered that Craejus began his reigne in the first year of the 56 Olympiad that Cyrus took Sardes in the third year of the 58 Olympiad that the fight at Marathon in quo Persarum clades Atheniensium victoria was in the second year of the 72 Olympiad that Xerxes went to War in Greece in the fourth year of the 74 Olympiad That in the next year he was overthrown at Plataea the fire of Aetna then first of all breaking out and that the fight at Leuctra was in the second of the 102 Olympiad Men then I see may cavill without cause and make a disturbance in the Chronology of these times but not prevaile in what they strive for no not with all the helpe Beroaldus and Master Broughton can afford them To which let me add how grosly they have been mistaken not well observing how childishly they have shrunck the successions of sundry Lives For when it is said that one man lived in such and such a mans dayes they presently and rashly take their years and ages to be equall which is in effect as if they should deny that ayoung man might not live in an old mans time or that a grave Philosoper might not have a young Pupill or that an aged Father might not sometimes beget a son in the time of his age or that it was incredible to grant an hundred years for any man to live All which are but poore shifts little or nothing to the purpose although at the first sight some perhaps may highly prize them And so also for Olympiads Broughton I confesse hath gathered together many scattered fragments cheifly out of Suidas by which he thinks to overthrow the credit of Olympiads and cast the hand-maide out of fervice But I answer one Swallow is not enough to proclame a Summer nor be things done without care able to prevaile against the truth Suidas in this deserves no better credit unlesse we account him an expert Archer who kils a Crow by chance In a word most of his numbers were negligently corrupted or were at the first not carefully gathered And so also may we say of other Authours who write of such things as these are onely by the way and not on purpose Neither have some but oftentimes mistaken Suidas taking his meaning in a wrong sence cheifly when things are thought to be contemporary which indeed are very far asunder or if at all contemporary but onely in part as I have already shewed And further for Olympiads that which hath caused others to deliver wrong collections from them was because they did not follow the common course which was most usuall in that kinde of reckoning for whilst from the beginning of sundry Games they had a Series or order of sundry years the fiftieth from one thing might be the 25th from another thing And so Pausanias sheweth that there were at the least a dozen severall Games and Game-rulers accordingly set up at severall times far distant the one from the other which not well regarded might make a confused Chaos amongst carelesse Authours The truth therefore is That that account which was most common was least faulty for it had but one head from whence to reckon was set forth in Tables by Hyppias of Elis received also generally in Computations yea even by Plutarch hims selfe although in the Life of Numa he moved some scruple about it in which he seemed to savour of an usuall custome of the Academicall Sect which was alwayes ready furnished to dispute on either side either pro or contra either for or against the truth I grant indeed that the ancientest of Antiquities among humane Authours cannot but be full of errour but this was rather in the times before the Olympiads then afterwards as Marcus Varre a learned Roman well observeth concluding the times after to be more certaine and Historicall because then the times began to be recorded veris testatisque literarum Monumentis as one rightly speaketh Unto Varro agreed Julius Africanus another ancient * He was a Christian Writer Authour who in the third book of his Annals as Eusebius witnesseth in his tenth book De praeparat Evangelica writeth that untill the Olympiads there was no sure knowledge in the Greek History all things being confusedly written without agreement between themselves but after the Olympiads because their acts were diligently registred within the limits of every four years space no confusion of times was found amongst them After whom Censorinus also saith that after the first Olympiad there never was any great dissention or controversie among Writers for Computation of time except in some six or seven years at the most Or if in some particular the difference perhaps might be something more yet by comparing Authour with Authour and circumstance with circumstance I cannot but think that men of judgement may not onely correct corrupted Copies but even reconcile the most materiall disagreements or at the least shew how and wherein an Authour sometimes hath been mistaken In a word this reckoning by Olympiads hath been allowed followed and commended by even the very flower and cheife of the ancient Fathers as by Clemens of Alexandria the Master of Origen Julius Africanus aforementioned Fusebius Hierom Augustine Orosius and others both pious and learned Christians And among these let me for a conclusion mention what Saint Augustine saith in Commendation of them in his second book and 28 Chapter De Doctrina Christiana shewing That the observation of Olympiads is a great help for the understanding of many sacred questions and explanations of matters Ecclesiasticall Nam per Olympiadas saith that Father there per Consulum nomina multa saepe quaeruntur anobis And a little before Nos adjuvat saith he ad Sanctos libros intelligendos I would therefore that
born after the Captivity and were not the immediate son of Seraiah To which I answer Answ that he was alive indeed in the dayes of Iohanan and wrote the Books of the Chronicles to his time as appeareth Ezra 10.6 and Neh. 12.23 yet neverthelesse he reached not to the end of the Monarchy by farre not further then the dayes of Darius Nothus Neh. 12.22 which could not be much more then 50 years after the time that he came away from Babylon to Ierusalem at which time suppose he were 40 years old then should his whole time want ten of an hundred which age no man of judgement would conclude to be improbable but likely and probable enough And herein Cluverus is to be applauded who speaking of the high priests that were in the times of this Monarchy saith thus Iehoshua was in that office * Ezra cap. 2. and cap. 5. under Cyrus Cambyses and Darius Hystaspis Ioiakim under Xerxes and in the forepart of Artaxerxes his reigne Ezra 8.33 Neh. 12.10 Eliashib after him till the twentieth of the same King and something lower Neh. 3.1 Ioiada after him in the residue of Artaxerxes his reigne and in the forepart of Darius Nothus Ionathan after him in the * Neh 12.10.23 residue of Darius Nothus and under * Joseph lib. 11. cap. 7. Artaxerxes Mnemon And last of all Iaduah under Ochus Arses and Darius Codoman Joseph lib. 11. cap. 8. All which proportions are so congruous and well agreeing to the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah that no man I think who is serious will ever goe about to alter them except it be to make Jaduah's time fall also into a part of Mnemon's But they have still to urge Nehemiah's age objected and in the next place they object the age of Nehemiah which must be longer then the length of this Monarchy because say they at the beginning of it he was of fit age to be the Jews Captaine and one of their Conductours home from Babylon and living in the end of it he wrote of their last Darius and of Jaduah the High Priest who met and appeased mighty Alexander For the proofe of which we are directed to Ezra 2.2 Neh. 7.7 Neh. 12.22 and to Josephus lib. 11. cap. 8. To which I answer Answ That that Nehemiah who was in the beginning of this Monarchy was not the same who lived something towards the end of it nor ever was sent to build the Wals of Jerusalem by Artaxerxes For first that Nehemiah who was in the first of Cyrus returned home at the end of the Captivity Ezra 2.2 Neh. 7.7 Whereas this who was servant to Artaxerxes went not home till the Wals of Jerusalem were to be built Neh. 2.5.8 Secondly it was a common thing among the Jews to call more then one by the same name as is evident almost in every Catalogue where Catalogues are recorded As for example In Neh. 12.1 there is an Ezra who returned with Zorobabel and in Ezra 7.1 another who came not up untill the dayes of Artaxerxes Also in Ezra 2.2 and Neh. 7.7 there is a Mordecai who returned in the first of Cyrus and in Esther 2.5 another who lived at Shushan and nourished Esther For if Esthers Mordecai had returned with Zorobabel he would not have dwelt at Shushan and trained up Esther among the Heathen but rather in the Holy Land among the people of God Also See the first book of the Chronicles the Catalogues in Ezra and Nehemiah and then amongst the multitude of persons many are known by one name A Jeremiah which even Speed himselfe will say was not Jeremiah the Prophet Neh. 10.2 A Daniel likewise though not the same who was cast into the Den of Lyons Neh. 10.6 A Seraiah also though not the same who was slaine by Nebuchadnezzar Ezra 2.2 And in 1 Chron. chap. 6. two Abitubs two Zadockes and three Azariabs in one line And so also for Nehemiah he who came up in the first of Cyrus was not Nehemiah the famous but another of the same name For I finde three Nehemiahs in the History of these times One mentioned Ezra 2.2 Neh. 7.7 Another who returned in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Nehemiah cap. 1. and cap. 2. And a third differing from all these Nehe. 3.16 For Nehemiah the great was Nehemiah the sone of Hachaliah but this other was Nehemiah the son of Azbuck the Ruler of the halfe part of Beth-zur So then Nehemiah was not in the beginning of this Monarchie And as not in the beginning so neither in the end of it he was indeed in the dayes of Darius but this was not the last Darius as is commonly supposed It was rather that Darius who reigned next after Artaxerxes Longimanus as by the course of the History appeareth and is so understood by Lydiat Cluverus Conradus Pawell and others But this you will say cannot be in regard that Nehemiah was in the dayes of the High priest Jaduah who as Iosephus writeth met and appeased mighty Alexander comming against Jerusalem in the year before he conquered Darius Codoman the last King of this Monarchie To which Petavius answereth Petavil lib. 12. cap 25. that Nehemiah indeed recorded the Priests and Levites so as his times and then some one or other comming after him put in that of Iaduah and the last Darius The like where of is to be found in other Bookes of Scripture as in the end of Deuteronomie where those things that concerne the death of Moses were written by some other So also in the end of the Bookes of Ioshua Tobias and Ieremiah some things are added which were not of the Authours putting in But I like not of this answer so well as I like the answer of Master Lydiat in his Booke De emendat Temporum saying that though Nehemiah maketh mention of Iaduah in his Catalogue of the high Priests yet thereby is only gathered that writing his booke in the dayes of Darius Nothus and recording the High priests to that time Iaduah was borne heir to the Priesthood and is therefore recorded among them who afterwards succeeded his Father and in his venerable old age came and met with Alexander Like to which is also that of Clâ—verus in his Computo Chronologico or Nehemiah saith he non dicit se vixisse usq ad tempus Darii ultimi sed iste Darius cujus meminit cap. 12.22 fuit Darius Nothus Quod vel inde potest intelligi quod eodem capite v. 23. subdit descriptos esse Sacerdotes usque ad tempora Iohannis summi Pontificis Is autem non fuit sub Dario ultimo sed Iaddus ejus filius quem puerum videre potuit Nehemias sed non summum Pontificem neque etiam illud asserit That is Nehemiah doth not say that he lived to the time of the last Darius but that Darius which he mentioneth Chap. 12.22 was Darius Nothus which we are given to understand even from that which he presently subjoyneth in
the same Chap. v. 23. namely That the Priests were written to the times of Iohanan the chiefe Priest But he was not under the last Darius it was his sonne Iaduah whom Nehemiah might see being a child but not a chiefe Priest neither doth he say he did So then though Nehemiah might and did come low in the times of this Monarchie yet not to the end of it by farre For beside all this Iaduah began to be in the Priests office 32 years at the least before the last year of the last Darius although he entred thereon but at the death of Mnemon whereas no man can tell but he might be in the Priesthood some years before and so not only be old when he met Alexander but also be so high in the Persian times as Nehemiah might record him heire of the Priesthood At which time though it were when Nehemiah was old yet is not this granted without warrant For that Nehemiah lived till he was laden with age Josephus affirmeth in his Antiquities at the end of the fifth Chapter of the eleventh booke But I do ill you will say to mention Josephus for by him Nehemiah being of equall time with Sanballat must be as low as the dayes of the last Darius Joseph lib. 11. cap. 8. Whereto Iansw that though it be cōmonly collected from Iosephus that he who resisted Nehemiah at the building of the wals of Jerusalem was the same Sanballat who obtained leave of Alexander to build a Temple on mount Garizim for his son in law Manasses yet by Scripture records compared with his writings it appeareth otherwise For in Josephus Manasses who was then the son in law to Sanballat and cast out by a tumult of the people through the assistance of the high priest Jaduah was the brother of Jaduah But he whom Nehemiah mentioneth was not the brother of Jaduah but the brother of the father of Jaduah and not cast out by the people assisted by the chiefe priest but cast out by Nehemiah himselfe as is manifest in Neh. 13.28 It can therefore be no absurdity to grant there were two Sanballats the one in the dayes of Nehemiah and the other in the dayes of the last Darius and of Alexander magnus which last died after the end of the Persian Monarchie two yeares after the taking of Gaza Joseph antiq lib. 11. c. 8. And thus having removed all such Scruples as may seeme to hinder the beginning of Daniels weekes in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus I proceed and go on to interpret the words following Vnto Messiah the Prince This is meant of Christ Jesus our Lord as may be seen Esa 55.4 Psal 2.2 Ioh. 1.41 For this is to be noted that the word Messiah is never used for an Adjective being set before the Substantive as here MESSIAH NAGID Messiah the Prince And therefore doth here mean no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHRIST THE LORD as the Angel stiles him Luke 2.11 and is for certaine a proper name in this text belonging unto him who is the Saviour of the world who after seven weekes and threescore and two weekes was crucifyed upon the Crosse even in the last weeke of the Seventy And note likewise that when in other texts it is attributed to other persons it is then after another manner having a Pronounce affixed or a Substantive of the Genitive case as Mine annointed Thine annointed The annointed of God his annointed or The Priest which is annointed But here is no such thing and therefore must upon necessity meane CHRIT JESUS our Lord and no other Which even Rabbi Judah confesseth in his Comment upon Daniel alleadging thereupon that saying of the prophet in Esa 55.4 Behold I have given him for a witnesse to the people a Prince and a Commander of the Nations Seven weekes and threescore and two weekes These put together do make 69. weekes or 483. years whose precise end was at the beginning of Christs Ministery for then did Christ Jesus our Saviour Messiah the Prince openly manifest himself being annointed to that office a little before when he was baptized by John in Jordan proclaimed then by a voice from Heaven to be the son of God Both which fell into the yeare of the Iulian Period 4742. the one on the sixth of January when he was baptized the other on the third of October when he began his Ministery 483. yeares from the beginning of the weekes For in 69 weekes are 69 sevens of yeares and they put together do make 483. yeares If it be objected that the Medea distinctio or the Hebrew point Athnah standing in the originall next after Seven weekes are against this interpretation my answer then is that though there be indeed such a distinction or point there yet the sence is not therefore to be suspended at Seven weekes as if they might not together with the 62 make one whole number of 69. For in the first Chapter of Genesis at the first verse thewords and the points stand thus In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth And yet there Athnah hath not so much as the force of a Comma It would therefore be observed that the holy Hebrew as one saith hath 19 Kingly accents and eleven Servants The Kings stay many times on the chiefe word or number in the sentence whilst the servants hasten on And although any King for the most part will make a full sence as words be pointed in other tongues yet sometimes not so much as a Comma But why is seven seperated from sixty two Quest and not rather 69 set downe in whole number Answ I answer the Angel dividing these weekes which were 70 into sixty two and one sheweth what was to fall out in every of those parts This first part thereof is for that which was done first and because seven is farre lesse then sixty two it is called after a Propheticall and obscure phrase Astreight of times In which first intervall most like it is that the City was fully finished and set in order That is both publike and private works and buildings as houses streets and wayes substituting of right Officers with other things of the like kind With which interpretation the interlinearie Glosse agreeth as Petavius noteth Verse 26. And after 62 weekes Messiah shall be slaine That is Sixty and two weekes after the Seven for when the Seven weekes were ended then were the 62. to take beginning and the one weeke next after them for the confirming of the Covenant In which one weeke it was that the Messiiah was slain for as the Angel here sheweth it was after seven and sixty two and therefore in the seventieth or last Week of the seventy And why I say after seven and sixty two is because of the division first seven then sixty two Which is all one with after sixty two accounted from the end of the seven for so without doubt the Angel meaneth To which purpose Lansbergius noteth saying Non
to have been condemned by Joseph Scaliger for maintaining upon such good grounds that Darius of Medes was partner with Cyrus in his victories and not a Chaldean King by him subdued Neither was Josephus to be the lesse regarded for affirming that Belshazzar was destroyed by Darius of the Medes and his nephew Cyrus though herein he varied from Berosus and others whose authority elsewhere he gladly citeth For Josephus had no reason to beleeve any mans faith or knowledge of those times halfe so well as Daniels whom I beleeve that he understood as was needfull in this case Lawfull it was for him to alleage all Authours that had any mention though unperfect of the same things that were contained in the writings of the Jews to whose histories thereby he procured reputation in the Roman World where they were strangers and might seeme fabulous Even so Eusebius and other writers willingly embrace the testimonies of heathen bookes making for the truth in some particulars yet will they not therefore be tryed in generall by the same but leave them where they are against the truth as Josephus in this case hath left Berosus Thus that Knight And as for Belshazzar one word againe of him How is it possible that he could be the Labosardach of Berosus seeing Labosardach was but a childe and reigned only nine moneths whereas those things which are written of Belshazzar by the Prophet Daniel are pertinent to a man and one who had reigned severall years yea more then three which is the time that some give him For first Daniel had visions in the third year of Belshazzar and was then an officer in the Kings Court as himselfe declareth Dan. 8 1.17 and therefore must needs be knowne to the King Howbeit in that year which was the last of Belshazzar he was out of office and forgotten as may be seen at large in the fifth Chapter of the same Prophecy where the Queen first tels the King of him and the King also questioneth saying Art thou Daniel speaking to him as a stranger or as to one whom some long tract of time had made to be forgotten And secondly when this King Belshazzar made his great fatal * Xenophon mentions this Feast lib. 7. agreeing to Daniel Jeremiah Dan. 5. and Jer. 51.39 Herod lib. 1. Xenoph. lib. 7. Feast he had his Wives and Concubines present with him quae Puero minimè competunt as saith Pererius Neither doth Daniel obscurely shew that Belshazzar was slain by his owne people but rather by his enemies Or if by his owne people it was by Gadata and Gobryas who betrayed the City and brought in Cyrus his Army For the King had offended them before causing Gadata to be gelded and the son of Gobryas to be slain in hunting as Herodotus and Xenophon tell us And note whereas it is said in Jer. 51.31 that when the City was broken up there were Posts and Messengers which passed to and fro to inquire and bring the King the certaine newes thereof note I say that this was not because the King was in some remote place out of the City as Calvisius thinketh but because of the distance of the Palace from the place where the enemy entred the noyse of whose comming in was so sudden and unexpected that it could not be beleeved without posting to and fro to inquire and know it certainly Which even the Prophets words in the place alleaged well marked do declare For when the Posts and Messengers went to and fro to inquire it was to shew the King of Babylon that his City was taken at one end And at the 39 verse the very drunken feast is foretold at the which many were so overcome with wine that they slept yea slept they did and waked not for they were slain by the enemy before they awaked and so they slept a perpetual sleepe as there the Prophet saith Yea and to shew that Cyrus had it in his minde to set the Jews free if once the City was taken he caused Proclamation to be made at his very entrance into it that all who could speak the Syriacke tongue which the Jews could should keep within doores and so be safe as Xenophon sheweth lib. 7. By all which I see that they who reject Xenophon and Josephus in these passages to embrace Berosus and Megasthenes do runne upon the rocke of many a text in the assured word of God dellvered to us by the Prophets Esay Jeremy Daniel There be indeed in Xenophon many things spoken highly in commendation of Cyrus and much Rhetoricke used to garnish and set forth that History describing in Cyrus the pattern of a most Heoricall Prince yet neverthelesse the body and bulke thereof is founded upon meere Historicall truth Putting therefore apart the Moral and Politique discours and examining but the History of things done it will easily appeare that Xenophon hath handled his undertaken subject in such sort that by beautyfying the face thereof he hath not in any sort corrupted the body as is gallantly observed by Sir Walter Raleigh in his History of the world lib. 3. c. 2. Section 3. I conclude therefore that the last King of this Monarchy was Belshazzar the first was Nebuchadnezzar the middlemost was Evilmerodach and that the whole time among these three was 70 yeares beginning from the time of Daniels Captivity and agreement of servitude which Iehoiakim made with Nebuchadnezzar 2 Kin. 26 1. Ier. 25.2 The first of these had 44 yeares as may be gathered out of Scripture the second 12 and the third 14 as Sulpitius Severus hath told us in the second booke of his sacred History affirming there that so he found it an old Anonymus wherein the times of the Kings of Babylon were recorded And why I say Nebuchadnezzar had 44 yeares as may be gathered out of Scripture is because Jechonia was carryed away Captive in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar 2 Kin. 24.12 and in the seven and thirtieth year after Evilmerodach began to reigne which because it was late in that yeare might make Nebuchadnezzars reigne to be some odd Moneths more then forty four years as may be seen 2 Kin. 25.27 Berosus gives to Nabonidus 17 years and him we have already proved to be Belshazzar Josephus therefore saith that Belshazzar was slain in the seventeenth year of his reign and if so then must Evilmerodach have about 9 years because 44 9 and 17 will make the full number of 70. They that like this last account better then the former may if they please embrace it Or whether this or that it is not much materiall for the Scriptures have told us that God gave the empire of Babylon for 70 yeares to Nebuchadnezzar his son and his sons son and therefore though there may be some small difference in the particulars yet doth that hinder nothing from being satisfied in the generall assured summe One thing more I would gladly touch at and this it is the death of Nabopollassar who was
parts of Europe Syria and Egypt and these things done with such celerity that he might well appear to Daniel in one of his Visions with * Quia nihil fuit velocius Alexandri victoria as Saint Hierom observeth wings on his backe Dan. 7.6 Apelles knew no such Prophecie and yet to signifie his great swiftnesse and agility he added to his Picture a Thunderbolt and Lysippus another painter drew him in this fashion looking up towards Heaven and as it were uttering these words Jupiter asserui terram mihi tu assere coelum Jupiter I have taken the earth to my selfe do thou take the Heaven Which Poesie pleased him and gave him great content insomuch that none afterwards might take his Picture except Lysippus at length growing to be more and more taken with an itch of vaine glory he called himselfe the son of Jupiter arrogating such a worship to be due unto him as was conferred on the Gods which when Callisthenes refused to give he caused him to be killed Howbeit before he had glutted himselfe with the pleasures of Asia he was more milde and better-minded for as Josephus hath recorded meeting Jaduah the high Priest of the Jewes in his Pontificall robes Joseph Antiq. lib. 11. cap. 8. he fell down before him and gave him reverence and being asked by Parmenio why he did so he answereth I worship not the man but God in the man who in the same habit had appeared to him and gave him encouragement to go forward in that enterprise concerning the conquest of Asia And indeed upon this appearance he grew confident went on couragiously and with good successe untill the time came that he must be broken off which was in the first year of the 114 Olympiad as most Authours reckon aster which foure other hornes sprang up in his stead CHAP. XIV Of the four Hornes which came up in stead of the great Horne broken off as was prophecyed Dan. 8.8.21.22 As also the beginning of that Date of the Kingdome of the Greekes so often mentioned in the Bookes of the Maccabees and in Josephus THese foure Hornes were the four successours of Alexander or rather the foure Kingdomes into which his great and mighty Monarchy was divided after him not instantly or immediately after he was dead but by the time that his whole stocke and posterity were rooted out And for this we have the warrant of Daniel in another place of his prophecy namely in the eleventh Chapter at the fourth verse in which place is said His Kingdome shall be divided towards the foure windes of Heaven but not to his posterity This was not untill twelve yeares after the death of Alexander for then none of his posterity being left alive neither Mother Brother Wife nor child his Captaines composed the differences that were between them by entring into a League among themselves and began to reigne bringing the dominion of the whole for which they strove into four Heads and so there were foure Kingdomes though not according to the dominion which he ruled nor in such power as he had Daniel sheweth it Dan. 8.22 and Dan. 11.4 The most eminent among these and which had most to do with the Jews was the Kingdome of the Syro-Grecians or the Kingdome of the Greekes in Syria and Babylon For Ptolomy the sonne of Lagus obtained Egypt and is called he and his successours after him the King of the South In the North Antigonus held Asta minor In the West Cassander possessed the Kingdome of Macedonia and in the East Seleucus Nicanor obtained the Kingdome of Babylon and Syria in whose first yeare that date so often mentioned in the Bookes of the Maccahees and in Josephus tooke beginning That in the first Booke of Maccabees on the thirteenth day of March in the yeare of the Iulian Period 4402. That in the second Booke of the Maccabees at the Spring time of the next yeare between both which was another beginning on the sixth day of September in the same yeare with the first And thus we have the severall heads of this Aera of Seleucus The first is called Minjan staros that is Aera Contractuum Eusebius calleth it Aera Edessenorum and others the Aera of the author of the first Booke of Maccabees and is followed by Josephus They that cast it into the 436. yeare of Nabonassar are right if they marke how they account it which must be thus The 436. yeare of Nabonassar began in the yeare of the Iulian Period 4401 on the ninth day of November and on the thirteenth day of March next after whilst the same yeare of Nabonassar was still running on the first yeare of the Greekes began This first yeare therefore of the Kingdome of the Greekes began in the yeare of the Iulian Period 4402. as at the first was said on the thirteenth day of March at the Summer time of which year entred in the first year of the 117 Olympiad The second is called Aera Antiochena seu Alexandrea sive * Id est a duobus coâ—â—bus seu duobus imperiis quae ex uno orientali Alexandrino enata sunt Orig De temp p. 24. Lydiat De emend tem pag. 83.84 Dilkarnaim beginning on the sixth of September in the same year with the former The third is Aera Chaldaica seu Macedonica beginning in the Spring time of the following year falling therefore into the yeare of the Iulian Period 4403. and is called the Aera of the Author of the second Booke of Maccabees followed as I conceive by Ptolomy Lib. magni operis 11. cap. 7. who beginneth his account in the yeare of Nabonassar 437. In the 148 year of this Kingdome according to the first account Judas Maccabeus purged the Temple and the holy places which the Heathen had polluted and defiled building a new Altar and restoring the Sacrifices as is recorded in 1 Macc. 4.52 53. This was in the year of the Julian Period 4549 and year of the World 3840 on the 25 day of Casleu If this year were annus Embolimaeus then must the 25 day of Casleu be on the two and twentieth or three and twentieth of November as Calvisius reckoneth But as I account it was not annus Embolimaeus and therefore the 25 of Casleu was on the * Because the first of Nisan was April 6. f. 1. and so it must be by reason of the Equinox two and twentieth day of December f. 2. In the year next after was the beginning of a year of Rest on the 21 day of September and is mentioned after the death of Antiochus when Eupator beseiged Jerusalem 1 Macc. 6.48 49. In the yeare therefore of the Julian Period 4550 this Sabbathical year began and reached to the seventh moneth of the next year In the year of the same Period 4578 began another and in the year 4676 another All of them spoken of in Josephus and two of them in the History of the Maccabees CHAP. XV. Of the little
was sometimes called Herod of Palestine or Herod Archelaus which is nothing strange because others of the same stocke had the like Praenomen or forename As for Example his name who was the Tetrarch of Galilee when the Baptist was beheaded and under whom our Saviour suffered was Antipas howbeit he was also called Herod Luke 23.8 Also Agrippa sonne of Aristobulus had not only the name of Agrippa but of Herod Act. 12.19 and so I do not doubt but that Archelaus was also sometimes called by the name of Herod Secondly Josep an t lib. 18 cap. 6. Philip dyed in the twentieth year of Tiberius and in the seven thirtieth year after his Father The twentieth of Tyberius began in the 78 Iulian year on the nineteenth day of August and ended not until the same time in the next year the death of Philip therefore was in the 79 Iulian yeare before the nineteenth of August and consequently the death of Herod in the three and fortieth yeare as at the first was proved Scaliger did somewhat sticke at these things whereupon his conjecture was that there might be some fault in Josephus and that for the 20 yeare of Tyberius we ought to read the 22 which he found warranted by Ruffinus an ancient interpreter of Josephus Kep Silva Chronol But Kepler answereth that the Greeke Copies of Iosephus are of better credit and that the fault therefore is in the Latine which we may not preferre above the Greeke because the one is the Translation the other the Originall Thirdly after Philip had gotten the Tetrachship of Galile Iosephus telleth us that he built a Towne and in the honour of Iulia the Daughter of Augustus called it Iuliada which certainely he did whilst Iulia was in favour otherwise he had transgressed against the Emperour but Iulia was out of favour and banished for her foule adultery in the foure and fortieth Iulian year And therefore Herod could not be alive in the beginning of the next year as Scaliger would have him because this Towne was not built by Philip till after his Fathers death And as for the banishment of Iulia Dion lib. 48. that it was in the yeare aforesaid is thus proved She was born saith Dion when Marcus Censorinus and Calvisius Sabinus were Consuls and from thenceforth flourished and lived in her Fathers favour and in the favour of the people of Rome Macrob. Sat. lib. 2. cap. 5. untill as saith Macrobius the eighth and thirtieth yeare of her age These men were Consuls in the seventh Iulian year the eight and thirtieth from whence was sure enough the foure and fortieth in which year Cesar himselfe was the thirteenth time Consul Fourthly Iosephus also testifieth that after Herod was dead the sonnes of Herod contended before Augustus concerning their Fathers Heritage and then Cajus was at Rome and sat in judgement but Cajus was absent and gone into Syria in the same year that Iulia was banished And therefore Herod must needes be dead before that time And that Cajus went so soone into Syria may thus be proved He was borne as Dion sheweth in that year when Apuleius and Nerva were Consuls which was in the six and twentieth Iulian year in the nineteenth year after he went into Syria and afterwards into Armenia returning no more for he died in the 49 Iulian year when Sex Aelius and Sentius were Consuls as is testified by Paterculus Tacitus saith Quirinus was made an Overseer to Cajus Cesar not being twenty yeares old when he went to Warres in Armenia Ovid de Arte amandi lib. 1. Ovid gives him the same age which his Father had when he also began to be famous and enter into the Warres which was about nineteene according to what is found in an old Monument recording the famous deeds done by Augustus Annos undeviginti natus exercitum privato concilio privataque impensa câ—mparavi Where the word undeviginti sheweth that he wanted one of twenty But what need I urge these two last proofes thus far seeing those before them are sufficient I conclude therefore that Herod dyed in the forty three Iulian yeare about the six and twentieth day of February which was three and thirty dayes before Easter for that he dyed so long before Easter appeareth by the great Pompe and State at his Funerall together with some other circumstances mentioned by Iosephus Three and thirty dayes before that 's the least it might perhaps be forty which will therefore make his death to be on the nineteenth day of February feria tertia that being the fift day of the twelfth Moneth Adar thirty seven yeares compleat from his first beginning to reigne and thirty four current from the death of Antigonus when he and Socius tooke Ierusalem There is no objection of moment that can be made against it howbeit because something is objected I shall not be wanting to give an answer Our Country-man Lydiat hath greatly taxed Iosephus as if herein he had reckoned amisse but it was an unjust censure For questionlesse those things wherein he blameth him and would make the world thinke him to be faulty would never have been forgotten by his adversarie Apion if in them he had been worthy of blame The greatest Cavill which I suppose can be urged is out of the fourteenth booke of his Antiquities at the beginning of the seventeenth Chapter where Herod is said to be of the age of fifteene yeares in the time of the Pharsalian battell which was in the year of the City 705 and yeare of the Iulian Period 4666. from whence he lived untill he was about seventy yeares old testified also by the same Author in the 17th Booke of his Antiquities at the eight Chapter and in his first Booke De bello Iudaico at the last Chapter From whence it followeth that Herod dyed not till the year of the Iulian Period 4720. which was the 52 Iulian year when A. Licinius and Q. Caeeilius were Consuls Which if it be true then must not the beginning of his reigne be untill the first year of the Actium fight where Iosephus setteth the seventh yeare of his reigne and not the first even the seventh of his 34 yeares accounted from the taking of Ierusalem by him and Socius Some indeed and among them Cardinall Baronius and our Country-man Lydiat begin the thirty seven years of his reigne but then grounding chiefly upon this That that fight being ended and the Victory falling on the side of Augustus Herod who had taken part with Antonius against him came as a suppliant laid downe his Crowne and had never more taken it up if Augustus the Conqueror had not been favourable and given him leave againe to weare it so that receiving his Crowne at that time from the hands of Augustus he at that time began the 37 years of his reign A weake argument I dare boldly say for this at the most was but the pardoning of his offence and thereupon the confirming of him in his
had purchased a peace to the Empire But he was deceived in his reckoning without all question For first when this taxing began Cyrenius or as he is otherwise called Quirinius was President of Syria which could not be untill the fifth year after his Consulship for untill such a time not any who had been Consul could be sent as an Officer into the Provinces as Suetonius and Dion tell us and therefore untill then Quirinius was not President of Syria Secondly there is in very good Authours mention made of an old Monument of Stone recording the famous deedes of Augustus wherein these three taxings are recorded and although age hath somewhat eaten into it and in certaine places worne out some pieces of the words yet it well appeareth that the Middle taxing was about the Consulship of one whose name was Asinius For when the Monument speaketh of that Taxing although some of the letters be wanting yet we finde sinio Cos By which is meant Asinio Cos That is Asinius being Consul for if the letter A. be put to sinio it will upon necessity be so And indeed where was there a Consul or what was his name who had that termination but Asinius Well but what Asinius was this In the 38. Iulian yeare we finde one called by the name of Cajus Asinius Gallus who was then Consul with Cajus Martius Censorinus After whom there was none of that name Consul til after Herod was dead This then declareth that here was the beginning of that taxing within the compasse whereof Christ was born For first though Dion omitteth to tell us in what year this Middle Taxing was yet doth his silence hinder nothing for by these Characters we find it Secondly this was the fifth year after the Consulship of Quirinius And thirdly we find a passage in Tertullian by which we are pointed to the dayes of Sentius Saturnius which is not impertinent For Saint Luke doth not say that our Saviours birth was under the taxing made by Cyrenius but rather that Cyrenius first began the taxing or that it was first made wheÌ„ Cyrenius was President of Syria To which Suidas well accordeth saying Augustus obtaining a Monarchy appointed twenty men of honest life and conversation whom he sent throughout his Provinces to tax the people their substances of which they were to give an account in publick and this he first began when Quirinius or as Saint Luke calleth him Cyrenius was President of Syria By all which it well appeareth that as this Taxing began in some part of the 38 Julian year so it was depending and not ended untill the 42 Julian year which was the 28 year of the Actium fight the year next after the birth of Christ For if the testimony of Tertullian in his fourth book and 19 Chapter against Marcion formerly mentioned be understood otherwise it must needs clash with the holy Scripture which upon such termes may by no meanes be admitted Nor doth this hitherto mentioned concerning the year of Christs birth but agree well with the time of the slaughter of the Innocents at Bethlem and the parts thereabouts which as appeareth by Scripture was in the second year after either the conception or birth of Christ For Herod having inquired diligently of the Wise men at what time the Star appeared to them was punctually informed of the time thereof and thereupon when a little before his death he put in practise his bloody purpose of slaying the infants he slew them who were of two years old and under according to the time that he had diligently inquired of the Wise-men who came not to Jerusalem in the second year after Christ was born but in the same year even before the day of Maries Purification For first when they came they inquired for Christ under the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word properly taken is to be understood of a child newly born and is so used to expresse the birth of Moses in Heb. 11.23 Secondly when in the forme of their inquiry they say Where is he that is born King of the Jews it is more properly to be undestood of a King lately born then of one born some certaine years before Thirdly when they made this inquiry all Jerusalem was troubled as at some new thing of which they had heard nothing before whereas at the time of the Purification he was proclaimed openly in the Temple where were enough to take notice of him and to spread the fame thereof abroad to others Then did good old Simeon take him up in his armes and hold him forth as the glory of Gods people Israel because he was born among them and likewise as a light to lighten the Gentiles because in these Wisemen he shewed them the way unto him Fourthly and lastly when the Wisemen came they found him at Bethlehem where he was not to be found after the time of his mothers Purification for as Saint Luke telleth us after his parents had in that duty of theirs performed all things according to the Law of the Lord they returned into Galilee to their owne City Nazareth that is They went bach againe * Hoc est postquam Maria Joseph omnia illa adimplerunt quae secundam legis praecâ—pta ad ritum purificationis spectabant saith one now to that very place from whence they departed when they went to Bethlehem the City of David to be taxed as may be seen Luke 2 4 39. Saint Matthew I grant passeth this over in silence and writes as if Joseph and Mary came not with Jesus to Nazareth untill they had been in Egypt But that saith Theophilact which Matthew was silent in Theoph. in Matth. c. 2. Saint Luke supplyed Disce igitur qued quae siluit Matthaeus dicit Lucas Vt exempli gratia Postquom natus est implevit quadraginta dies deinde descendit in Nazareth haec dicit Lucas Matthaeus autem dicit post haec quòd fugerit in Aegyptum deinde venerit ab Aegypto in Nazareth Non dissident ergo inter se Nam Lucas dicit descensum à Bethlehem in Nazareth Matthaeus autem postea reditum ab Egypto in Nazareth Thus that Father Well but though the comming of the Wisemen was while Mary lay in at Bethlehem yet as I said before the slaughter of the Infants was not untill the second year after the Star appeared as is plaine out of the Text telling us of what age they were that Herod slew Mat. 2.7.16 and that his slaughter of them was according to the time that he had diligently inquired of the Wisemen Now his inquirie was of the time of the Stars appearing according whereunto he ordered that the male Children of such an age as he knew well agreed thereto should be massacred both in Bethlem and the parts thereabout by his bloody men of warre And thereupon he slew all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à bimatu infra from the age of two * Bimatus signifieth one who is
to uphold it His ground was in Esay chap. 61.2 Concerning the Acceptable year of the Lord which Christ was to preach Which I say was a mistaken ground For though it be true that Christ indeed proclaimed that year in the sence that the Prophet meant it and in the first year after his Baptisme when he preached at Nazareth shewed that it was come as we read in Luke 4.19 Yet that he therefore preached but one year is such an extreame mistake that it is a wonder any who had read the Gospels should not see to avoid it Origen erred much after the same manner for lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. thus he saith Anno aliquot mensibus docuit He taught one year and some odd moneths which is also false for it is certaine that the Baptist began not to preach and baptize untill the fifteenth year of Tiberius Luke 3.1 and that Christ was presently put to death after Iohn began is very justly denied For he must increase saith John but I must decrease John 3.30 Which words John spake after there had been one Passeover since the Baptisme of Christ Iohn 2.23 Beside which the same Evangelist expresly nameth two more the last whereof was that in which Christ suffered as may be seen in Iohn 6.4 and chap. 13.1 But of the Passeovers more shall be spoken by and by Among late Writers the greatest part goe along with Eusebius who maketh choice of the eighteenth year of Tiberius for the year of Christs Passion Scaliger more rightly is for the nineteenth year and year of the Iulian Period 4746. Petavius saith Christ was baptized in the year of the Iulian Period 4742 and crucified in the year of the same Period 4744 even in the third Passover after his Baptisme for he was baptized on the sixth day of Ianuary as Epiphanius saith And as for the day of his Passion he referreth it to the 23 day of March therein following Irenaeus lib. 2. cap. 38. Apollinaris of Laodicea apud Hieron in 9. Dan. Origen cap. 2. cont Cels Epiphanius Haeres 51. Which also a Councell held at Caesaria Anno Dom. 197 under Victor Bishop of Rome declareth The 23 day of March was indeed in that year which Petavius mentioneth on the sixth day of the Week but the Passeover was not untill three or four dayes after and therefore how could Christ suffer on the 23 day of March in the year of the Iulian Pe. 4744. Scaliger is for the third of Aprill and Paulus Forosemproniensis for the thirtieth of March in the six and thirtieth year of Christ according to the common account even whilest the 22 year of Tiberius was still running on which was in the 81 Iulian year and year of the Iulian Period 4749 when Q. Plautius and Sextus Papinius were Consuls This last is taken up by Master Lydyat and mainely defended by him but all in vaine For not only was Christ crucifyed whilst Tiberius was alive but also whilst Pontius Pilate was in office Now Pontius Pilate was certainly out of office before the Easter of the eighty first Iulian year and therefore that could not be the year of Christs Passion For as Tacitus sheweth Vitellius came into Syria towards the end of the * viz. when C. Cestius and M Servilius were Consuls Taci lib. 6. eightieth Iulian year before whom Pilate was accused and was sent to Rome to defend his cause before the Easter of that year in which Vitellius was at Ierusalem as appeareth out of Iosephus in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities at the fifth and sixth Chapters Before which time of his being sent away he had been President of Iudaea ten whole years and did succeed in that office Valerius Gratus whom Tiberius soon after the beginning of his Empire at the death of Augustus sent to rule and governe that Province which he did for the space of eleven years as Iosephus againe declareth Take then eleven of Gratus and ten of Pilate and add them each to other so we have 21 years Which one and twenty being added to the 59 Iulian year in the latter part whereof Tiberius began will make it appeare that Pilate departed from his Province in the end of the eightieth Iulian year or however before the Easter of the eighty first For Vitellius after he had commanded Pilate to goe away to Rome and had set Marcellus over his Province came to the solemne feast of the * This was in the 81. Jul an yeare when Quint. Plauii and Sex Papinius were Consuls Passeover at Ierusalem and gave leave to the chief Priests to keep the holy Robe as Iosephus also sheweth After which time he received letters from Tiberius of making peace with Artabanus which he did and wrote thereof to Tiberius But Herod the Tetrarch prevented his intelligence and had wrote of all to the Emperour before him Whereupon Tiberius wrote back againe to Vitellius that he knew all the whole businesse already having had notice thereof by the Letters of Herod Now these things being thus certified each to other after Easter could not be done in the eighty second Julian yeare for before the Easter of that year Tiberius died And if not in the eighty second Julian year then must they necessarily be done in the year before viz. in the 81. And if in the eighty first then could not that be the year of Christ's passion for at the Easter time of that year when our Saviour suffered Pilate was in full power which made him therefore say Knowest thou not that I have Power to Crucifie thee and have Power to release thee Ioh. 19.10 This he spake in the seventy eight Julian year about two yeares before he departed his Province as will easily appear to him who computeth the times aright and as I shall after shew more fully and clearly to every eye For by the Passovers already mentioned out of the Gospell of Saint Iohn it is most plainly manifest that the first yeare wherein we can but thinke of searching for our Saviours Passion must be the 76 Iulian yeare for the three Passovers in Saint Iohn after the fifteenth year of Tiberius when Christ was baptized will certainly reach thither That yeare therefore is the first year wherin we must search and if upon the search we can find that the fifteenth day of Nisan falleth on the sixth day of the weeke then may that be the year of his Passion and the Passovers after his Baptisme till his death be no more then three But upon the search the fifteenth day of Nisan in that yeare is found to be on the third day of the weeke that therefore could not be the yeare nor those the just number of the Passovers For though Saint Iohn hath clearly and expresly mentioned but three yet for all that we are not tyed from searching after more For as it is certaine that all things which Jesus did are not written so also it is as certaine that all things which
farther even into the Land of Assyria and there he built Niniveh with three Cities more For this we are to note that the Scripture names not Ashur who came of Sem to be the mighty Hunter but Nimrod who was the Son of Cush and the Grandchild of Cham. The margent therefore of our last Translation doth not without cause point us to that reading which at the first I mentioned agreeing therin to learned Junius Willet and a great many more of good note whom upon necessity I am bound now to follow unlesse I will acquit Nimrod of that brand which the Scripture layes upon him and by following a wrong translation lay it without other warrant upon another This I may not do and therefore I look upon Nimrod still as the great and mighty Hunter who was the first that hunted out of one Country into another to inlarge his dominions This he began to doe eight yeares after the confusion of Tongues viz. in the yeare of the Julian Period 2530. when the yeare of the World was 1821. And why I place Nimrods going into Assyria his building of Niniveh and laying the foundation of a Kingdome there in this yeare is because it must be about one thousand yeares before the destruction of Troy as Diodorus Siculus hath told us lib. 2. cap. 6. Now Troy as we know was destroyed in the year of the Julian Period 3530. at which time as he also saith Tautanes reigned in Assyria Tautanes and not Semiramis for she was rather in the Patriarch Abrahams time when as Josephus saith the Assyrians had the Empire of Asia Howbeit some have accounted otherwise the ground of which mistake I do beleeve arose first from hence and came to be embraced both because there were more Zoroasters then one and also because there was another Semiramis later then she that reigned next after Ninus the grandchild of Nimrod One of the Zoroasters was but six hundred yeares before Xerxes the Persian went with his huge Army into Greece as Xanthus Lydius mentioned by Diogenes Laertius hath told us another long before and was that King of the Bactrians with whom King Ninus waged warre as Diodorus and Justin out of Trogus testifie And as for Semiramis the first was the daughter of Derceto begotten on her by an unknown man the other was the daughter of the second Belochus King of Assyria many years after Ninus And therefore whereas Porphyrius alledgeth out of Sanchoniato that Semiramis was not long after the dayes of Moses it must be understood of the latter and not of the first Semiramis for the latter indeed began to flourish with her Father not above 15. years after the death of Moses as by warrantable computation appeareth but the former was a long time before But to returne again to Nimrod he as I said began to lay the foundation of the Assyrian Kingdome in the yeare of the Julian Period 2530. from whence it continued without any great alteration till the year of the Julian Period 3893. in which year Sardanapalus came to his end through the conspiracy that Arbaces and Belesis made against him For when they saw how he retired himselfe from his Nobles and betooke him to spin and dally with his Curtizans they then rise up in Arms against him and doe at last drive him to sacrifice himselfe with his Wealth nd Wenches to Vulcan in a great pile of Wood set on fire that in it he might dye with all his Delights about him in which onely thing saith Justin he shewed himselfe a man This time of his death was 1238. yeares after Ninus began as in Eusebius may be seene by gathering into one summe the particular years of the Kings that reigned here And as it was 1238 years after Ninus before whom Belus next after Nimrod reigned sixty five years So was it 1363. yeares from the time that Nimrod came out of Shinar and founded first this Kingdome here Herodotus I know fals far short of these numbers but is followed by none of the Ancients neither Ctesias Trogus Pompeius Diodorus Siculus Velleius Paterculus Josephus Eusebius nor Augustine Ctesias I confesse reckons 1360. from Ninus to the death of Sardanapalus but it had been better and in a manner right if he had reckoned from the time aforesaid when Nimrod went into Assyria built Niniveh and laid the foundation of this Kingdome there for in reckoning so I can find but three years difference between him and my selfe Trogus or Justin out of him reckons no more then 1300. leaving out perhaps the sixty three odde years and speakes onely of the round or even number but begins as Ctesias before him from Ninus instead of beginning from the time when Niniveh was first founded Or rather he accounts 1300. from Ninus to the time aforesaid instead of accounting them from Belus the Father of Ninus for from Belus to the end of Sardanapalus were but three yeares more as will afterwards better appeare Diodore in the end of his second book saith that this Kingdome continued more then 1400. yeares which is also true if we account from the time that Nimrod who also founded this Kingdome began to reigne at Babylon for from thence hither were 1411. yeares Velleius helpeth nothing for the beginning but much for the ending for by him we gather that this Kingdome ended not many more then sixty five years before the building of Rome which upon a precise account was just sixty nine befor Romulus laid the foundation thereof Eusebeus without question had seene all these but sought not thus narrowly into the ground of their difference howbeit he might and did perceive they all aimed at this to make Ninus the Establisher of the Assyrian Kingdome At him therefore he begins his Chronology and finds according to the testimony aforesaid that in the Temple of the Trojan warre and when Troy was taken Tautanes reigned in Assyria This Tâ—utanes saith Diodorus sent aid to Priamus in the time of the Trojan Warre viz. one thousand Ethiopians and as many Susians with two hundred Chariots and made Memnon a Duke of Persia Generall over them This Memnon did good service but was slaine by the treason of the Thessalians Diod. lib. 2. cap. 6. Moreover Eusebius by some Testimony sure that he had seen dates the time of Sardanapalus by the reignes of Ariphron and Tespieus Archons of Athens namely that in one of them he began to reigne and in the other he lost his life when Arbaces and Belesis rose up against him I reckon therefore that Belus who was the next King after Nimrod began his reigne in the year of the Julian Period 2590. and reigned as Eusebius and Augustine say sixty five yeares He was a man of a more contenting disposition then his Father and imployed himselfe most in drayning the Fennes about Babylon and carrying of the water from the low grounds to make the Country the more useful which pleasing government of his was so gratefull to his Subjects as that they
even deified him and made him the Sire of many petty gods such as Bâ—l Baal Baalberith Baalzephon and the like Howbeit it is a question whether the Assyrians worshipped him for a god before his death when by the meanes of his warlike sonne Ninus he had a Temple built for him in Babylon which in Plinie his time was standing still who also saith of him that he was the Inventor of Astronomy and that the Assyrians dedicated a Jewel to him which they call Belus his eye He might perhaps adde something considerable to Astronomy though the Art it self was found out long before Moreover the Caldeans prefixed Bel or Bal as an Ensigne of honour to their names as Baladan Balthasar The Carthagineans they added it to theirs as may beseen in the names of Asdrubal and Hanibal But how long did Nimrod reign before this Belus began I Answer that he reigned eight and forty yeares in Babylon and sixty yeares in Assyria which together do make 108. from the beginning of the Tower of Babel as already in what I have written by way of computation may be seen Nor is this time of reigne too long it seemes rather too short if we consider how long men lived in those dayes But I have done with these of whom I have spoken more then at the first I intended and therfore now I come to Ninusâ— of whom and his successors in the following Chapter CHAP. II. Of Ninus and his Successors THough the Assyrian Kingdome was not founded by Ninus yet the Monarchy thereof began first in him according to the consent of all Authors To which purpose Sir Walter Raleigh speaketh well in his History of the World saying it will be found best agreeing to Scripture and to reason and best agreeing with the story of that Age written by prophane Authors that Nimrod founded Babel Erech Accad and Chalne the first workes and beginning of his Empire according to Moses and that these being finished within the Valley of Shinar he looked further abroad and set in hand the worke of Ninus lying neer unto the same streame that Babel and Chalne did which worke his Granchild Ninus afterward amplyfied and finished as Semiramis this Ninus his wife did Babylon Hence it came to passe that as Semiramis was counted the Foundresse of the City which she onely finished so also Ninus of Niniveh For so did Nabuchodonosor vaunt himselfe to be the Founder of Babylon also because he built up again some part of the Wall over born by the fury of the River which worke of his stood till Alexanders time whereupon he vaunted thus Is not this great Babel that I have built Dan. 4.27 Thus then these workes of Babylon and Niniveh begun by Nimrod in Chaldea and Assyria Ninus and Semiramis made perfect Ninus finished Niniveh Semiramis Babylon wherein she thought to exceed her Husband by farre Thus that Knight lib. 1. cap. 10. Sect. 3. and lib. 1. cap. 12. Sect. 1. I shall not need therefore to answer further to objections made out of other Authors concerning the building of these Cities as if they were to owne no other Builders but Ninus and Semiramis for it is one thing to begin another thing to adde and bring to perfection Nimrod did the first they the latter the fame whereof in after ages swallowed up the memory of the first Founder and made those Authors which knew not the holy Scripture speak as they did without distinction Leaving this therefore I shall come more neerly to Ninus Ninus who when he inlarged Niniveh imparted to it his own name He began to reign in the yeare of the Julian Period 2655. and as Eusebius saith reigned fity two yeares He caused the Statua of his Father Belus to be set up and worshipped probably in that Temple which was built for him in Babylon which Image of his as some say continued untill Daniels when it was destroyed by Darius Medus or Cyrus upon the discovery of the Imposture of Bels Priests shewen in that Apocriphall fragment of Bell and the Dragon Nimrod being the first he must needs be the third King of Assyria in whose time the dominion of the Assyrians was very large for there was then no Kingdom so famous nor so spatious as the Assyrian which was afterward increased by Semiramis after his death as Saint Austin writeth lib. 18. cap. 2. De Civit. Dei Orosius also saith that this King waging Warre abroad continued that course by the space of fifty yeares Oros lib. 1. cap. 4. In which I think Orosius was not altogether right for his whole time of reign was but fifty two yeares in the beginning whereof he was busied in the building of that Temple which he built in honour of his dead Father Belus and at the first had but a small part of Asia under his command as Dionysius Halcarnassensis saith in the first booke of his Roman Antiquities but afterward joyning in society with Ariaeus King of the Arabians he did in seventeen yeares bring all Asia under his subjection excepting the Indians and the Bactrians and at the last the Bactrians were subdued by him as Diodorus and Justin testifie At which time Zoroaster was King of that Country and slaine by him of whom Saint Austin writeth that he laughed at the time of his birth which prodigious mirth in the opinion of the same Father booded him no good for he was saith he as is reported the first Inventor of Magicke By which if he meaneth Naturall Magicke being the knowledge of things in respect of their causes there was no cause why he should be blamed For as Plinie also writeth he not onely laughed when he was born but had also such a brain as was perceived to beat at the time of his birth which signified some great Excellency to be in him as appeared afterward when he was growne up I meane if this were that Zoroaster whom Ninus slew Eusebius would that Abram should be borne in the three and fortieth year of this King Ninus his reign but note that this is not from any given or recorded Testimony that he thus placeth Abrams birth but from that manner of reckoning which he bringeth back from the fifteenth yeare of Tiberius as may be seen in his tenth booke and third Chapter De Praep. Evang. And in that regard though he be followed by Saint Austin and some other of the Ancients yet a righter computation may be made by such as shall more exactly cast the times according to Scripture and then apply the accounts thereunto following therein the Hebrew verity and not the numbers which the Septuagint produceth Next after Ninus was his Wife Semiramis Semiramis she succeeded her Husband and began to reigne in the yeare of the Julian Period 2707. twelve years compleat before the birth of Abram for his birth falleth into the thirteenth yeare of her reigne She was the daughter of a Nimph whose name was Dercero and was begotten on her by an unknowne man for
as I have already mentioned Mnestheus was the next King of Athens who attained the Kingdome through the faction of Helen's bretheren who expelled Theseus and made him King This Mnestheus reigned twenty foure years and dyed but a little before Aeneas came into Italie as Ludovicus Vives noteth Demophoon reigned next but was none of his Son For Demophoon was the Son of Theseus and Phaedra who upon the death of Mnestheus recovered his Fathers Kingdome and reigned in it thirty three years This was he who for his neglect caused faire Phillis to hang her selfe Oxintes succeeded Demophoon and reigned after him twelve years His successour was Aphidas who reigned one year After Aphidas was Timoetes who reigned eight years Then after him was Melanthus who reigned 37. years The next after him was Codrus who reigned 21. years and was the seventeenth and last King of Athens For the next that governed here after Codrus were the Archontes perpetui after them the Archontes decennales and last of all the Archontes annui The Archontes perpetui were for terme of life and did in their successions reigne 316. years after the death of Codrus The Archontes decennales had ten years a peece and did reigne each after other untill seventy years were ended The Archontes annui were no other then yearly officers whos 's first beginning was in the year of the Iulian Period 4030 which was the first year of the 24. Olympiad and is an account commended much by Master Selden in his Marmora Arundelliana who in that book placeth the first of these annuall officers in the very same year I shall not need to set downe the particular names of these untill I come to shew you them in their right times which shall be now in the following Catalogues Years of the Iulian Period when they beg A perfect List or Catalogue of the Athenian Kings ex Eusebio 3154. Cecrops 50. 3204. Cranaus 9. 3213. Amphyction 10. 3223. Ericthonius 50. 3273. Pandion 40. 3313. Ericthius 50. 3363. Cecrops secundus 40. 3403. Pandion the second 25. 3428. An Interregnum of two years began now 3430. The end of the Interregnum and beginning of Aegeus whose time of reign was 48. years 3478. Theseus 30. 3508. Mnestheus 24. 3532. Demophoon 33. 3565. Oxintes 12. 3577. Aphydas 1. 3578. Timoetes 8. 3586. Metanthus 37. 3623. Codrus 21. 3644.  In this year was the death of Codrus just foure hundred and ninety yeares fince Cecrops the first began to reigne This was the last King of Athens who for the good of his Country put himselfe into a disguise that he might be slame For when the Kings of Peloponnesus who descended from Hercules warred upon Athens it was told them by the Oracle that they should conquer if they killed not the Atheman King hereupon they concealed as much as they could the answer of the Oracle and withall gave a strict charge that none should touch Codrus But the Athenians hearing of this Oracle Codrus being desirous of glory and the good of his Country disguised himselfe went into the Camp of his Enemies and falling to brable with the Souldiers was flaine from whence * Aug de civit dei lib. 18. c. 19 came that saying of Virgill Aut jurgia Godri Now after this the Athenians would have no more Kings which was not out of any inconvenience found in the rule of Soveraignty but in honour of Codrus as saith a learned Knight Sir Walter Raleigh lib. 2 cap. 17. Sect. 10. in his History of the World And indeed it might very well be so for after Codrus had thus delivered his Country the Athenians * Aug. lib. 18. cap. 19. de civit dei sacrificed to him as a God and would as I said have after him no more Kings for feare I think they should not be so good as he For his worth was able to Eclipse theirs if at any time they failed of what was required Howbeit the Government was still in a manner Regall for between Kings and the Archontes perpetui was little or no difference save onely in the name For the Princes that followed after Codrus without regall name governed Athens during the time of their life and so in effect were Kings although they were called Archonts The first of these was Medon from whom all else in the same Dynastie were called Medontidae of which as followeth Yeares of the Julian Period when they beg A perfect List or Catalogue of the Archonts of Athens called Archontes perpetui ex Eusebio 3644. Medon 20. 3664. Agasâ—us 36. 3700. Archippus 19. 3719. Tersippus 41. 3760. Phorbas 31. 3791. Mezades 30. 3821. Diognetus 28. 3849. Pheredus 19. 3868. Ariphron 20. In his time Sardanapalus began to reig 3888. Tespiâ—us or Thesphorus 27. In his time Sardanapalus lost his Kingdome as saith Eusebius 3915. Agamnestor 20. 3935. Aeschilus 23. 3958. Alemenon 2. 3960. Here was the end of this Dynastie  Archontes decennales 3960. Carops 10 3970. Aesimides 10. 3980. Elidicus 10. 3990. Hippomenes 10. 4000. Leocrates 10. 4010. Absander 10. 4020. Erixias 10. 4030.  Here the Archontes decennales ended and the Archontes annui began therein agreeing to that which Master Selden commendeth in his Marmora Arundelliana who placeth the first of these Annuall officers in the very same year as I said before CHAP. VII Of the Kings that reigned in the Kingdome of Troy before the Greeks destroyed it THe first of these Kings with whom I begin was Dardanus the son in Law of Teucer he began to reigne in the year of the Julian Period 3234 and as Eusebius saith reigned 63. years His Kingdome was in Phrygia the lesse and Asia the lesser The chiefe City was Troy which he built and called it after his owne name Dardania Of Tros it came to be called Troy and of Ilus Ilium Ericthonius succeeded Dardanus and reigned after him 46. yeares Euseb Homer and Diodorus say that he was extreamly rich and that he had 30000 Mares and their Colts continually feeding in his Pastures Tros succeeded Ericthonius and reigned after him 61. Euseb He altered the name of Dardania and turned it to Troy from whom the people also were called Trojans Ilus was the next King he would that the City should be called Ilium and so was Howbeit it lost not the name of Troy but it was known by both names The time of his reigne here was 50 yeares Laomedon succeeded Illus and reigned after him thirty six yeares Ral. After Laomedon was King Priamus who reigned not 52. but 40. years according to the best and truest account taken by Bucholcerus out of Archilochus So that all the times of these Kings was 296. yeares And now see their List rightly fixed Yeares of the Julian Period when they beg A List or Catalogue of the Kings of Troy before it was destroyed all of them fixed in their right times 3234. Dardanus 63. 3297. Fricthonius 46. 3343. Tros 61. 3404. Ilus 50. 3454. Laomedon 36. 3490. Priamus 40 3530.
and they were these Giges 38. Ardis 49. Sadiattes 12. Halyattes 57. Croesus 14. Scaliger gathereth out of Sosicrates a Laconian Historiographer that Cyrus tooke Sardes and subdued Croesus 41. years after the death of Periander who thereupon setteth the end of Croesus his Kingdome in the first year of the 59. Olympiad the like doth Helvicus and some others And indeed the account would fit the turne well enough if all things else were correspondent but because they are not I must let it alone to them that like it For though from the fortieth yeare of Periander which was all the time that he reigned according to Laertius there be 41. years to the time that Cyrus subdued Croesus yet not so many from the end of his 44. at which time he dyed even in the fourth yeare of the 48. Olympiad as already hath been shewed I conclude therefore that when Croesus lost his Kingdome it was not the first year of the 59. Olympiad but rather and indeed the first year of the 58. Olympiad fourteenth year of his reign For we are not to account that last of his to be compleat but current when this calamity fell upon him and that it was also towards Winter in the yeare of the Julian Period 4166. Which being considered I would that the reigne of the Lydians be set one year higher then they be in the Table in the first Part next after the one hundred and nineteenth Page For there the conquest that Cyrus made of Croesus his Kingdome standeth against the year of the Julian Period 4167 whereas here I conclude it to be in the yeare of the same Period 4166. when the Soldiers were ready to take up their winter quarters But now see the List Years of the Iulian Period when they beg A List or Catalogue of the Kings of Lydia rightly fixed 3918. Ardysus 36. 3954. Alyattes 14. 3968. Meles 12. 3980. Candaules 17. This is he who lost his Kingdome by shewing his naked Wife to Gyges 3997. Giges 38. 4035. Ardys 49. 4084. Sadiattes 12. 4096. Halyattes 57. 4153. Croesus 14. current Cyrus conquered him and his Kingdome in the first yeare of the 58. Olympiad teste Solino and that was in the yeare of the Julian Period 4166. as before was said He had a Sonne who never spake in all life till now but now seeing a Souldier goe about to kill his Father upon a suddaine passion he brake his Tongue-string cryed out and said Oh man take heed wilt thou kill Croesus And from that day to his death he could speake as well as other men Herodot The next to be mentioned according to their order or course of time be the Kings of the Medes The reigne of the Medes of whom I gave notice in the latter end of the second Chapter They reigned without any strict hand over their subjects untill the dayes of Dioces and that 's the reason why he is accounted by Herodotus as the first King Nor is this my opinion alone Hist World l. 2. c. 27. S. 5. but of Sir Walter Raleigh likewise in his History of the World saying this Dioces was the first that ruled the Medes in a strict forme commanding more absolutely then his Predecessors had done For they following the example of Arbaces had given to the people so much licence as caused every one to desire the wholesome severity of a more Lordly King Herein Dioces answered their desires to the full For he caused them to build for him a stately Palace he tooke unto him a Guard for the defence of his Person he seldome gave presence which also when he did it was with such austerity that no man durst presume to spit or cough in his fight By these and the like Ceremonies he bred in the people an awfull regard and highly upheld the Majestie which his Predecessors had almost letten fall through neglect of due comportments In execution of his royall office he did uprightly and severely administer justice keeping secret spies to informe him of all that was done in the Kingdome He cared not to enlarge the bounds of his Dominion by encroaching upon others but studied how to govern well his owne The difference found between this King and such as were before him seemes to have bred that opinion which Herodotus delivers that Dioces was the first who reigned in Media Thus that Knight Moreover this was he that built the great City of Echatane which now is called Tauris and therefore should in all likelihood be that King Arphaxad mentioned in the booke of Judith which even the course of time approveth But if he be Arphaxad who was it that was that great Nabuchodonosor which fought against him I answer this seemes to be Saosduchinus King of the Assirians about the beginning of whose twelfth year Dioces was slaine For so it is read in the first Chapter of the book of Judith translated into Latin out of the Caldee by St. Hierom as a worthy Author well observeth in his laborious and learned Annals of the old Testament In the Greeke indeeed we are one while directed to the twelfth yeare another while to the seventeenth year of this King but that unconstancie argues a defect in the Copie and so I leave it comming now to shew the course of succession among these Kings of Media who began at the death of Sardanapalus Yeares of the Iulian Period when they beg A Catalogue or List of the Kings of Media partly out of Eusebius and partly out of Herodotus 3893. Arbaces 28. 3921. Sosarmus 30. 3951. Medidus 40. 3991. Cardiceas 13. 4004. Dioces 53. 4057. Phraortes 22. 4079. Cyaxares 40. 4119. Astyages 35. 4154. Here was the end of Astyages and the beginning of the reigne of Cyaxares secundus who according to Xenophon was the son of Astyages and called in the sacred Prophecy of Daniel by the name of Darius Medus He was the Vncle of Cyrus as being Brother to his Mother which Xenophon also sheweth Moreover we are to note that in the booke of Tobit and Daniel Astyages the Father of this Cyaxares is called Ahasuerus or Assuerus as may be seen Dan. 9.1 and Tob. 14.17 Next after these we are to reckon the Kings of Assyria which reigned at Niniveh after the death of Sardanapalus Kings of Assyria after Sardanapalus as those before mentioned reigned in Media The first of them may be granted to be that King whom Castor in his Canon calleth Ninus secundus saying as his words sound in the Latine Initium Chronographiae fecimus a Nino eam deduximus usque ad Ninum qui successionis jure accèpit Regnum a Sardanapalo Thus he Now this name some thinke was given him for the better lucke sake namely as I conceive That as the ancient Ninus did at the first enlarge this Kingdome so as it came to be a great Monarchy in like manner the same was hoped for by them who gave this name to this King Or else because he was