that the compiling or digesting or as he expresseth it s. 1. the bringing the whole body of Scripture and parts of it into a congruous disposition or frame so to render the same more intelligible and plain was the work of this Assembly of Holy and Wise men He adds s. 3. that he believes that this work was directed and assisted by the Spirit of God and s. 4. that this work was perfected about the time of Alexander the Great Now if we would know what it is that the Doctor aims at in all this he himself tells us in the following sections In short he would have the Books of Chronicles 6 Chapters in Ezra and a great part of two Chapters in Nehemiah to have been written by these Holy and Wise men of the Great Synagogue As to the Book of Nehemiah he is very positive I do account says he that from Neh. 11. 3. to Neh. 12. 27. all is of this kind s. 5. i. e. inserted by the men of the Great Synagogue He is no less positive s. 7. as to the second of Chronicles To me says he it appears that the Writer or Digester of this Book liv'd after Ezra's time If he had said only The Digester of it we should have taken the less notice of it but when he saith The Writer or Digester we see plainly what he would be at It is true he is not positive as to the Six Chapters in Ezra but s. 7. he questions whether they were the writing of Ezra or no thô he grants that it is evident that all the Chapters after the Sixth were his writing and signifies plainly enough that his own opinion was that they were not Now this seems to be a very bold stroke and of dangerous consequence that any man should go about to persuade the world that the Books of Chronicles and also a considerable part of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were not writ till after their death If I may use the Doctors own words What would Scaliger have said to this How would he have stood amaz'd He that was so much displeased with the German Divines who would make only some part of one Chapter in Nehemiah not to have been his writing but the insertion of a later hand would certainly have much more dislik'd such a bold attempt as this is But he would have been more highly inrag'd when he had found that nothing is offer'd which looks like an argument to make it probable that the Writers of the foresaid Books or parts of Scripture liv'd later then Ezra or Nehemiahs The Doctor saith that it is evident that the two first verses of the Book of Ezra are the very same word for word with the two last of the second Book of Chronicles But every one sees what a strange or rather wild consequence this is Because the two first verses of the Book of Ezra are the same with the two last of Chronicles therefore Six whole Chapters in Ezra were the writing of one that liv'd later then Ezra Withal how appears it that the Writer or Digester of the second Book of Chronicles liv'd after Ezra That says the Doctor may be gathered from 1 Chron. 3. 17. to the end of the Chapter But surely it cannot be gather'd from 1 Chron. 3. 17 c. that the Writer or Digester of the second Book of Chronicles liv'd after Ezra unless it can be gather'd thence that the Writer or Digester of the first Book of Chronicles liv'd later then he It must then be the Doctors meaning that the Writer or Digester of both the Books of Chronicles liv'd after Ezra's time It remains then that we examine what force there is in 1 Chron. 3. 17 c. to evince this The Doctor saith that 1 Cbron 3. 17. to the end of the Chapter mention is made of Eight generations in descent from Salathiel that must needs imply an extension of time beyond that of Ezra He brings also a Note of the Assembly of Divines to confirm this As to which Note it will suffice to observe 1. That whereas the Doctor saith Eight generations they in that Note express themselves more cautiously saying only Many generations for it is not clear how many they were 2. In it they take for granted that the generations mention'd 1 Chron. 3. extended beyond the days of Ezra when as they should have prov'd it 3. In that very Note they are manifestly against the Doctor shewing plainly that it cannot be gather'd from the mention of some generations which as they suppose were after Ezra that the Writer or Digester of the Books of Chronicles liv'd after his time for say they Ezra might by a Prophetical Spirit set them down beforehand Besides it appears from those words that they inclin'd to think that Ezra himself was the Writer of these Books But it may be said that the words immediately following do make altogether for the Doctor for they say that some other Prophet after Ezra's death might add them To which I reply that there is no agreement at all between them and the Doctor for 1. The Doctor says positively that it appears to him that the Writer or Digester of these Books of Chronicles liv'd after Ezra's time they say only that some Prophet after Ezra's death might add some generations at the end of the third Chapter of the first Book 2. They say that some Prophet after Ezra's death might add them as the death and burial of Moses is added to his last Book Deut. 34. Thus they As then it cannot be concluded from the addition of the death and burial of Moses Deut. 34 that the rest of the Book of Deuteronomy was not written by Moses so it cannot be gathered from the addition of a generation or two 1 Chron. 3 that the rest of the Books of Chronicles was not writ by Ezra 3. The mention of adding them after Ezra's death implies that the Books to which they were added were writ before his death This Note then clearly overthrows that for which it is alledg'd by the Doctor As to the Book of Ezra the Doctor further hints that in the Preface of the Seventh Chapter which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Compilers mark is visible Thus the Doctor s. 8. As if it was visible and apparent from these words Ezra 7. 1. After these things that we owe all the Six Chapters foregoing not to Ezra himself but the Compiler Or as if Ezra having in the Six former Chapters dispatched the History of Cyrus Darius c. and now passing to that of Artaxerxes from whom he receiv'd his Commission might not use this note of connexion Now after these things How frequently do these words occur as in the History of the Old and New Testament so in all other Histories whatsoever As to the Book of Nehemiah the Doctor offers nothing at all that can tend to prove that so great a part of it as from Neh. 11. 3. to Neh. 12. 27. is not his own
hand-writing but the adjection of another hand Now to return to the men of the Great Synagogue The Doctor says s. 2. that S. Hierome calls them the 24 Elders But thô the Doctor is guilty of several very great and unhappy mistakes yet I think there is scarce any thing in which he hath erred more strangely then in this For there is not the least mention of the Great Synagogue in all that Preface of S. Hierome to the Book of Ezra which the Doctor alledgeth S. Hierome is speaking of Canonical and Apocryphal Books and by his 24 Elders we are to understand the 24 Canonical Books of the Old Testament This will be made clear if we compare the words in that Preface to Ezra with a passage in his Prologo Galeato or Praefat in librum Regum as also in his Comment upon Ezek. 43. In his Prolog Galeat having spoken of the 24 Books of the Old Testament he immediately adds Quos sub numero 24 Seniorum Apocalypsis Joannis inducit adorantes agnum coronas suas prostratis vultibus offerentes c. In his Comment on Ezek. 43. he hath these words Vel 24 libri veteris Instrumenti debent accipi qui habebant citharas in Apocalypsi Joannis coronas in capitibus suis. Now please to compare with these the words in Praefat. in Ezram which the Doctor refers to I shall transcribe them at large Nec quenquam moveat says he quod unus à nobis liber editus est nec Apocryphorum tertii quarti libri somniis delectetur quia apud Hebraeos Esdrae Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur quae non habentur apud illos nec de 24 Senibus sunt procul abjicienda I hope it is now plain that S. Hierome hath no respect to the men of the Great Synagogue but to the 24 Elders in the Revelation whom he interprets to be the 24 Canonical Books of the Old Testament And his meaning in those words Nec de 24. Senibus sunt procul abjicienda is that they which are not of those 24 Books are to be rejected as Apocryphal Add hereto that they reckon 12 as the heads and chief of the men of that Synagogue but I do not find that any of the Jewish Writers reduce the whole number of them to 24. They usually make them to have been 120 but in Cozri Part 3. it is said that they were not numbred or could not be numbred for multitude The Doctor further saith s. 2. that for the saying of the later Jews that Haggai and Zachary were of this number and Ezra the Head of this Assembly he accounts it a very Fable To which I shall only say 1. He may account so of it if he pleases for there want not those who account the whole story concerning the Great Synagogue to be no other they think that the Jews feign'd that there was such an Assembly that they might father their Traditions upon it But the Doctor will not allow of this for it overthrows a great part of that which he saith in this and some other Chapters 2. No man as far as I know requires it to be believ'd as a certain truth For though some eminent Jewish Writers as Maimonides in his Preface to his Book Iad and in his Preface to Seder Zeraim set forth by D r Pocock with others do affirm that Haggai Zachary and Ezra the Scribe were of this number yet there are likewise some that make no mention of them but name others in their stead see R. Abraham ben David in his Cabala yea in Cozri Part 3. Haggai Zachary and Ezra seem very plainly to be distinguish'd from the men of the Great Synagogue 3. The Doctor gives no reason why he doth account it a very Fable perhaps then the great reason is because it will not suit with his Hypothesis And this may suffice for answer to that which the Doctor saith concerning the men of the Great Synagogue To conclude This Defence of Arch-Bishop Vsher is a further confirmation of the truth of that which I asserted in the Introduction viz. The uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology When these two great undertakers in Chronology D r Is. Vossius and D r Cary who express so great assurance in their Writings and insult so much over the Arch-Bishop and others are upon examination found to be guilty of very great mistakes and to have proceeded upon as uncertain grounds as others had done before them And yet D r Cary hath entertain'd so high an opinion of his own performance that in his Epistle Dedicatory he told King Charles the second that his Chronology speaks the truth haply better then any whatsoever of late days and in our Climate hath been found to do A little before he had said that his Chronology is a kind of Clock and so though several of late days and in our Climate too have pretended to the Art of Clockmaking or Clockmending the Doctor hath outdone them all his Clock speaks the truth haply better then any of theirs whatsoever So that henceforth there will be no need of a Scaliger de Emendatione Temporum or a Lydiats Emendatio Temporum In the same Epistle he also told King Charles that it had been under the Hammer and the File for many years and I believe that he spake the truth in it and am sorry that he laid out so much time as well as pains in an unprofitable Study neglecting that to which his Function did oblige him viz. the fitting himself rightly to understand and interpret the Scriptures That he neglected this is too apparent from the strange interpretations that he gives of sundry passages in Sacred Writ I wish that all may be warn'd by his example that so much pains and so many precious hours may not be thrown away hereafter upon Chronological Niceties ERRATA PAg. 4. lin 29. read Et Lactantium p. 6. l. 15. read Sardanapalus p. 8. l. 18. dele Comma p. 25. l. 17. dele Comma p. 36. l. 7 8. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 50. l. 16. dele Comma after Charon p. 68. l. 17. read Hystaspes p. 70. l. 30. read Scythians p. 75. l. 12 and 16. read Shepherds p. 88. l. 16. dele Comma p. 104. l. 10. dele Comma after Defensione FINIS
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
interpretation to sleep and so set himself to knit knots and patch shreds together to make a boulster for it Or as if the Arch-Bishops design was to serve his Hypothesis whatsoever became of the Truth In the mean time the Arch-Bishops interpretation is that which very many Expositors Ancient and Modern have approv'd and follow'd computing the 70 weeks as the Arch-Bishop doth from the 20 th of this Artaxerxes This 20 th of Artaxerxes according to the Arch-Bishops calculation was An. Per. Jul. 4260 thô it is represented here by the Doctor as if the Arch-Bishop made it to be An. Per. Jul. 4261. To conclude this I wish the Doctor had not Part 2. l. 2. § 1. c. 9. s. 11. after a profession of all humility insulted with such contempt and scorn over many that have labour'd as much to clear the sense of that celebrated Prophecy of the 70 weeks as he hath done to obscure and pervert it See the 2 d chapt of the same Book and Section CHAP. V. Of the time when Sanchuniathon Semiramis and Nitocris liv'd THE Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 18. s. 11. tells us that the world is made to believe that Semiramis was in the time of the Trojan war or near thereabouts according to Sanchuniathon This is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which he speaks in the same sect which says he bears it self out upon the name of Semiramis and the credit of Sanchuniathon And in the margin he cites Bishop Vsher for all this Now it is true that the Arch-Bishop A. M. 2789 will have Semiramis to have been in the time of the Trojan war or thereabouts but I would know where it is that the Arch-Bishop alledges Sanchuniathon for this or reports it upon the credit of Sanchuniathon It is not Sanchuniathon that the Arch-Bishop alledges but Porphyry as cited by Euseb. de Praepar Evang. l. 1. and 10 who says that Sanchuniathon was contemporary to Semiramis and that she is said to have been either before the Trojan affairs or about the same time with them But let this strange oversight be past by To Sanchuniathon and the Arch-Bishop the Doctor opposes Herodotus who as the Doctor would make us belive in this s. 11 reckons Semiramis to have been 520 years after the siege of Troy But if we read on and peruse the 12 th sect it will appear that he is not serious in it For thô here after having spent many words about it he concludes that this is most certainly the reckoning of Herodotus yet there he says that it is not imputable to Herodotus but his transcriber who writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of this is that if Herodotus had indeed said that Semiramis was only five generations before Nitocris as it is in our copies see Herodotus l. 1. c. 184. then the Doctor thinks that it would have follow'd that by Herodotus's account Semiramis had been 520 years after the siege of Troy but says the Doctor our copies are faulty and 50 being put instead of 5 we must read that Semiramis was Fifty generations before the other The question then will be whether we must follow our copies or the Doctors correction who produceth no other authentick copy to warrant it Yea but the Doctor will demonstrate that this correction must be admitted Let us says he rate these 50 generations by Herodotus's rule which is that 3 generations are 100 years the product will be An. 1666. Let these be deducted from 4160 the age and time of Nitocris the remainder is 2494. which falls just with the time of Semiramis her reign the 35 th year of her reign according to the years of the Julian Period describ'd in our Scheme These are the Doctors words who triumphantly concludes This is a demonstration I must insist upon it taken from Herodotus a demonstration that Herodotus is on our side contra gentes And I would have given the Doctor leave to have been transported thus if he had prov'd these three things 1. That the age and time of Nitocris was An. Per. Jul. 4160. 2. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place of Herodotus is to be taken in that sense in which three generations make a Century 3. That his Scheme is a right Scheme But if he fail in the proof of any one of these what becomes of the demonstration which he must insist upon and which occasion'd such triumph 1. The Doctor in his demonstration as he calls it takes it for granted that An. Per. Jul. 4160. was the age and time of Nitocris whereas in sect 11. he was more cautious and only said it was about that year And yet he brought neither Authority nor reason to satisfie us that it was about that year unless his saying without doubt it must be so be Authority enough 2. He takes it for granted that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Herodotus l 1. c. 184. is to be taken in that sense in which three generations are accounted 100 years whereas it hath various significations and we may observe in Herodotus l. 2. c. 142. where he says that three generations are 100 years that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is still joyn'd with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now this addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth determine the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that there it plainly signifies a generation of men But here where the speech is of Semiramis we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any such addition to determine its signification 3. He tells us that An. Per. Jul. 2494. falls just with the 35 year of Semiramis according to his Scheme So that in the upshot all depends upon his Scheme and if that will not bear the weight of the demonstration which he builds upon it it must fall to the ground His Scheme we have in the end of this 18 Chapter and to recommend it to us he says that it is Africanus's But how comes it then that in the beginning of the Chapter he gives us another Scheme differing from this and tells us that that is from Africanus About the time that Semiramis begun to reign the difference between the two Schemes is no less then 25 years But the Doctor solves this by saying that the one is Africanus's according to Syncellus the other according to Helvicus and Ricciolus So that it is questionable whether of them is Africanus's if either of them be but there is some reason why we should rather believe Syncellus then them because he had greater advantages for knowing what was deliver'd to Posterity by Africanus then they had Add hereto that Helvicus seems not to have valu'd the Scheme which he gives us as from Africanus so highly as the Doctor doth for he gives us also another