Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	king_n	reign_v	year_n	3,370	5	5.8258	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50872	A defence of Arch-bishop Usher against Dr. Cary and Dr. Isaac Vossius together with an introduction concerning the uncertainty of chronology ... / by John Milner.	Milner, John, 1628-1702.	1694 (1694)	Wing M2080; ESTC R26843	62,754	136

late Chronologers Only it may not be amiss to represent how Scaliger is not only at variance with others but oftentimes also with himself and how his adversary Petavius is very unhappy in this respect as well as he is And in doing this I shall also confine my self to the time of the Assyrian Monarchy I begin with Scaliger Troy was taken An. 408 before the first Olympiad Scalig. de Emend temp l. 1. de Periodo Attica Edit 2. Troy was taken An. 406 before the first Olympiad Scaliger de Emend l. 5. de Ilii excidio Edit 1. The opinion that Troy was taken An. 407 before the first Olympiad is more certain by much Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de Ilii excidio Edit 2. Troy was taken An. Period Julian 3533 Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de Ilii excidio Edit 1. Troy was taken An. Per. Jul. 3531 Scalig. de Emend lib. 5. de Ilii excidio Edit 2. The first Olympiad was celebrated in the 36 th year of Azariah or Uzziah King of Judah Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Olympiadum Edit 2. The first Olympiad was in the 37 th year of Azariah Scalig. Animadv in Euseb. in An. 1241. The death of Nabopolassar was in An. Nabonassar 149 Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nebuchodonosor Edit 2. Nabopolassar dy'd in An. Nabonassar 152 Scalig. in Fragment p. 11. and in Canon Isagog l. 3. Nabopolassar reign'd only 19 years Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nebucbodon Edit 1. Nabopolassar reign'd 29 years complete and dy'd in the 30 of his reign Scalig. in Fragment p. 10 and 11. Nabopolassar dy'd in the beginning of the 29 year of his reign Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nabopolassar Edit 2. The beginning of Nebuchadnezzars reign was An. Per. Jul. 4107 Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nabuchodonosor Edit 1. The first year of Nebuchadnezzar was An. Per. Jul. 4106 Scal. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nabuchodon Edit 2. Nebuchadnezzar reign'd 7 years with his Father Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nebuchod Edit 2. Nabuchadnezzar reign'd almost 13 years with his Father Scalig. in Fragment p. 14. Nebuchadnezzars death was An. Nabonassar 185 Scaliger de Emend l. 5. de initio Nahuchod Edit 2. Nebuchadnezzar dy'd An. Nabonassar 183 Scalig. in Fragment p. 14. These are some instances of Scaligers uncertainty and inconstancy with which Petavius frequently upbraids him and had been the more excusable if he was not guilty of the like himself But his inconstancy will also appear by the following instances The Kingdom of the Sicyonians begun An. Per. Jul. 2548 Petav. de doctrina temporum l. 9. c. 16. The Kingdom of the Sicyonians begun An. Per. Jul. 2550 Petav. de doct temp l. 13. Inachus begun to reign An. Per. Jul. 2856 179 years after the birth of Abraham Petav. de doctr temp l. 9. c. 18. Inachus's reign begun An. Per. Jul. 2857. in the 6 th year after the death of Abraham i. e. 181 after his birth Petav. Rationar part 2. l. 2. c. 5. The 7 th year of Pygmalion was An. Per. Jul. 3822 Petav. de doctr temp l. 9. c. 62. The 7 th of Pygmalion was An. Per. Jul. 3825 Petav. Rationar part 2. l. 2. c. 13. The first Olympiad was An. 776 before the birth of Christ Petav. Rationar part 1. l. 2. c. 5. The first Olympiad was An. 777 before our Saviours birth Petav. Rationar part 2. l. 1. c. 11 and l. 3. c. 1 and 2. Nebucbadnezzar begun the siege of Tyre An. Per. Jul. 4122 Petav. Rationar part 2. l. 2. c. 13. The siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar begun An. Per. Jul. 4123 Petav. de doct temp l. 9. c. 63. To these we may add that Petavius makes one and the same year to answer to several years It is An. Per. Jul. 3961 in which he supposes Rome to have been built This answers to An. 752 before the birth of Christ so Petav. de doctr temp l. 9. c. 50. to An. 753 before Christ so in his Rationar part 1. l. 2. c. 7. to An. 754 before Christ so in Rationar part 2. l. 3. c. 2. Finally in the end of his Books de doct temp being about to give us the succession of the Kings in several Kingdoms he himself is pleased to acquaint us that he there gives an account of the beginning of the reigns of divers Kings somewhat different from that which he had given before in the Books themselves and this more especially in the Macedonian Kings We see then how wavering and unconstant these Learned men are in their Chronology and the great cause of their inconstancy is the uncertainty of it This uncertainty Petavius acknowledges as to the time of the creation of the World The number of the years from the Worlds creation to this time neither is certainly known nor can be without a Divine Revelation These are the words of Petavius de doct temp l. 9. c 2. which may be appli'd to many other Epocha's about which Chronologers dispute with very great earnestness I have inlarged the more upon this subject because of the great necessity and usefulness of mens being convinc'd of this uncertainty of Chronology of which we treat which will appear if we consider the many mischiefs which have been occasion'd by the want of such conviction From the want of this have proceeded many eager disputes about matters appertaining to Chronology and those manag'd with the greatest wrath and bitterness imaginable If Syncellus had been convinc'd of this uncertainty he would have been more favourable to Eusebius and not taken all occasions of reprehending him and that many times in very rude and unbecoming language Had others after him been throughly convinc'd of it and seriously consider'd it it would have prevented the heats between Scaliger and the German Divines and Scaliger would not have fallen so foul upon our M r Lydiat endeavouring to expose him and triumphing over him with the greatest scorn and contempt In like manner he treated all others that opposed him or only dissented from him inveighing against every one that did not fall down and worship every imagination of his not sparing either Ancient Writers or Modern but passing the severest censures upon both The consideration of this uncertainty might also have prevented the scuffles between Is. Vossius and his Countrymen that set themselves so fiercely against him Add hereto that if this uncertainty had been duly considered the World would not have been burthen'd with many tedious and voluminous writings such as Scaligers two Editions of his De emendatione Temporum and his Canones Isagog c. also Petavius's two Volumes De doctrina Temporum Finally for want of the consideration of this not a few have spent a great part of their life in the study of Chronology and many of them men of extraordinary parts and great diligence so that if the time and industry which they laid out upon

of Amphitruo for it is that Hercules which Herodotus speaks of And then says he who can chuse but wonder at that of Bishop Usher in his Annals Part 1. p. 44. or A. M. 2781. where this very Argon is made the Son of Ninus the first great Assyrian Monarch and this grounded upon the Authority of Herodotus And he adds that this was not a slip of the pen but an industrious excogitation After other words he thus concludes That this Argon should be the Son of Ninus the Son of Belus founders of the Assyrian Monarchy credat Judaeus Apella non ego Thus the Doctor Whom the Arch-Bishop hath thus highly offended only with these three words Argon Nini filius He doth not say Argon the Son of Ninus the first great Assyrian Monarch or Founder of the Assyrian Monarchy Nor doth he say The Son of Ninus the Son of Belus though if he had said this last he had only transcrib'd the words of Herodotus l. 1. c. 7. which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why then doth the Doctor talk of an industrious excogitation when the Arch-Bishop says nothing but what he found in Herodotus But the Doctor says that that which he found in Herodotus particularly the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Herodotus his own but the mistake of an unwary hand In the Text of Herodotus says he it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now I think that the Arch-Bishop is not to be blamed for not being so profound a Critick as to discover that Herodotus was to be thus corrected And if he was now living I believe he would scarce perceive that there is so near an Affinity between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that an unwary hand should write the one for the other I believe also that it would have puzzled the most learned Primate of Armagh to construe this new Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore the Doctor hath oblig'd us by construing it himself viz. thus Argon the Son of Alcaeus the Son of a servant maid of Jardanus Now can any man possibly imagine that Herodotus should express this sense in such Greek as the Doctor would thrust upon us Therefore the Doctor is content that this should pass only for a conjecture he also acquaints us upon what he grounds it viz. upon this that Alcaeus the Father of Argon is by Diodorus Sicul. called Cleolaus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the time of servitude born of a servant maid of Jardanus so Diodo Sic. l. 4. according to the Doctor But 1. Diodorus only says Born of a servant maid he doth not say Of a servant maid of Jardanus 2. How appears it that Alcaeus was the Father of Argon Diodorus doth not say that either Alcaeus or Cleolaus was his Father and Herodotus says that Argon was the Son Ninus 3. How appears it that Alcaeus is by Diodor. Sic. call'd Cleolaus The ground then of the Doctors conjecture thus failing him and the conjecture being in it self very improbable to say no more he had certainly done much better if he had suppress'd both of them The Doctor very confidently affirms that the Hercules of whom Herodotus speaks who was the Father of Alcaeus and according to the Doctor the Grandfather of Argon was Hercules the Son of Amphitruo But Herodotus doth not say that he was the Son of Amphiatruo and the Doctor doth not offer any proof of it In the mean time this argument may be offer'd against it If Hercules the Son of Amphitruo was born but a little before the Trojan war and if Argon begun his reign over the Lydians before that war then it is not probable that Hercules the Son of Amphitruo was the Grandfather of Argon But the former viz. that Hercules the Son of Amphitruo was born but a little before the Trojan war is expressly affirm'd by Diodorus Sic. l. 3. in fin and the Doctor himself grants the later for in his Canon at the end of his book p. 43 and 45. he sets the beginning of Argons reign 28 years before the destruction of Troy This knot the Doctor is forc'd to cut because it was not to be loos'd and so let Diodorus Sic. say what he will he sets the birth of this Hercules 85 years before the Trojan war see his Canon p. 41 and 45. Also he would have Alcaeus to have been born some short time after the Argonautical expedition forgetting that which he says of Alcaeus in the margin that he is call'd Cleolaus by Diodorus Sic. and that Cleolaus was born in the time of Hercules's servitude viz. to Omphale which was long after the expedition of the Argonautae see Diodor. Sit. l. 4. Add hereto that the Doctor makes Hercules to have been about 58 years of age when Argon begun his reign whereas in Euseb. Chron. Hercules is said to have liv'd only 52 years in all and that there were some who did not allow him so many Lastly the Doctor will have the expedition of the Argonautae to have been long before that Eurystheus first reign'd see Part 2. l. 1. c. 8. whereas Diodorus Sic. l. 4. p. 153 and 156. makes that expedition to have been long after Eurystheus's first being King viz. after that Hercules had perform'd the 8 th task or labour that he enjoyn'd him In these difficulties the Doctor hath intangled himself by holding that the Hercules in Herodotus must be Hercules the Son of Amphitruo whereas we may suppose him to be another for Diodorus Sic. l. 3. says that there were three Hercules's and Cicero de nat Deor. l. 3. writes that there were Six and that the Heraclidae that were Kings of Lydia descended from that other Hercules but the Heraclidae that many years after setled in Peloponnesus were the posterity of this Hercules who was the Son of Amphitruo CHAP. XII of AEgyptus and how many years interven'd between him and Sesac 1 Kings 11. also whether he was the same with Sethothis and of Jonathan 1 Maccab. 9. THE Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 20. says that the Arch-Bishop makes 506 years to have interven'd from the beginning of the reign of Sethosis to the reign of Sesac 1 Kings 11. 40 but according to the Doctor only 451 years were between them In this he relyes upon the authority of Africanus whose Numbers generally speaking he prefers before Eusebius's whom as he tells us the Arch-Bishop follows saving that with Josephus he gives four years more to Sethosis then Eusebius doth But a brief answer to this will suffice For as the Doctor only says that generally speaking Africanus is to be prefer'd which implies that he is not always so he himself in this very account doth not follow Africanus but says expressly that Africanus may be rectifi'd as well as Eusebius The Doctor pretends that he differs only two years from him but take Africanus as he is represented by Syncellus without Goars alterations and he differs