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
ipsius deducit Maimon quem semper à Judaeis observatum fuisse docet quamdiu Sapientes erant in terra-Israelis hoc est ut ipse explicat ad tempora Abai Rabba Aben Ezra likewise saith upon Exod. 12. That the Lord gave commandement in the Law of keeping the Feast at the appointed time Dicit enim Observa mensem Abib ut facias Pesah Domino si tempus Abib non fuerit inventum in medio mensis faciemus Pascha mense sequente But higher then all these doth the testimony of Elias Scripturiarius bring us who as he is cited by that famous and illustrious Antiquarie Mr. Selden in his accerptis saith Praeceptum hoc sanctificandi Lunam exstabat seculis antiquissimis temporibus Noachi Abrahami patris nostri That is This precept of sanctifying the Moon was exstant in the most ancient ages even in the times of Noah and Abraham our Father And thus we have testimony for times high enough even to the times wherein mention is first made of Moneths in holy Scripture which testimonies will neither allow the Moneths in the history of the Flood to be according to the course of the Sunne nor grant that the Jewes made use of the Period of Calippus after the times of Alexander as Scaliger sometimes taught nor that in Christs time they used a Quaterdenarian Cycle as Petavius would prove from Epiphanius For as I said before according to the witnesse of the forecited authors the ancient manner was to begin the Moneth from the first sight or vision of the Moon sanctifying that day Salomon therefore would not so much as lay the foundation of the Temple on the first but on the second day of the Moneth because the first was holy For as God appointed a time for his dayly and weekly worship so he appointed generall Feasts for his monethly and yearly worship He therefore instituted the New Moons and first day of every year to be accordingly observed Blow the Trumpet saith the Psalmist in the New Moon in the time appointed on our solemn feast day For this was a statute for Israel and a law of the God of Jacob Psal 81.3 4. By which he meaneth the feast of Trumpets commanded to be celebrated on the first day of the seventh Moneth Levit. 23.24 And in the Revelation this is certain that after Christs time the Moon was trodden under foot by the Woman cloathed with the Sunne Revel 12.1 By which is signified That that typicall worship which for the dayes thereof in the law of Moses had been regulated by the course of the Moon was now in the Christian Church through the revealing of Christ laid prostrate abolished and gone the Woman therefore treadeth the Moon under her feet Nor doth the Psalmist again but justify this Lunar account saying God appointed the Moon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for feastivall seasons as Master Mede in his Comment upon the Revelation renders the place that is as the Sonne of Syrach before mentioned hath expressed it from the Moon is a signe of feasts a light that decreaseth in her perfection the moneth is called after her name Ecclus 43.7 8. And so indeed it is For in Scripture a moneth is called in the Hebrew tongue Iaerach from Jareach Luna And in Greeke the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Luna also And so in Job accordingly the moneths are called Moones as thus Quis ponetime juxta Lunas hoc est Menses antiquos Job 29.2 The moneth likewise is somtimes in the Hebrew called Hodes or Chodesch which word doth properly signifie A renovation so that Chodesch is as much as Novilunium or Renovatio lunae in regard that on the first day thereof the Moon or moneth is renewed in which sence it is used in 1 Sam. 20.5 and expounded so by David Kimhi in libro Radicum saying vocatur Hodes sive Novus quia renovatur Luna in eo die This word is also used for the whole moneth or space of time that is from one renovation of the Moon to another and hath either an adject number of dayes past since the renovation as prima luna secunda suna tertia luna decima quarta luna c. or else all the dayes are spoken of junctim and together as in Numb 11.20 ye shall not eat one day nor two dayes nor five dayes neither ten dayes nor twenty dayes but even a moneth of dayes together This therefore made Kimhi in the place before mentioned say Triginta dies junctim vocantur Hodes dies primus solus vocatur Hodes However therefore the Grecians applyed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the first day of their moneth even when they reckoned them by the light of the Sun yet it was onely proper of right belonging to the first day of such months as were rightly called moneths and accounted by the course of the Moon And so also Master Lydyat saith in his book De variis annorum formis c. 4. where speaking of the word Neomenia id est Nova luna this he addeth quae dictio licet demùm translata sit ad significandum initium qualiscunque mensis non solum lunaris primo tamen propriè de mensibus lunaribus utpote antiquissimo naturali genere mensium accipiendam neutiquam dubitari debet And thus are the Moneths fully proved to be Lunar Against which I meet with three Objections The first whereof is Object that if the moneths were Lunar then in some years there must be thirteen moneths by reason of a moneth intercalar called by the late Jews Veader or another Adar But the Scripture makes no mention of any such moneth and therefore it may be concluded that of old there was no other intercalar Adar indeed is mentioned both in the book of Hester and elsewhere but with no note of distinction to signifie which Adar it was whereas if there were two Adars there would have been something added to know which of them was meant Answ And why so it needed not Answ unlesse there had been two Adars in every yeare it was onely the Embolismall yeare which had two Adars and not the Common year Beside which know also this we finde not in Scripture mention made of the thirtieth day of any moneth shall we therefore conclude that no moneth had thirty dayes But that the vanity of this Objection may further appeare this I say that though the Scripture give no expresse mention of the moneth intercalar yet some cleare footings of it may be seen there As for example in the Prophecy of Ezekiel at the first chapter we finde that the Prophet had a vision in the fifth year of Jechoniah's Captivity on the fifth day of the fourth moneth and that after seven dayes more as in the Chapters following is mentioned he was commanded to lie on his left side 390. dayes and to beare the sins of Israel after which he
that Division of the Land which was in the seventh year of Ioshua when Caleb was eighty five years old But because the Land was not fully divided then nor the Tribes sent home untill Ioshua caused a further Division to be made and then sent the Tribes home to their possessions therefore have others deferred the head of this reckoning till then Bonfrer in Exod. 23.12 that is till the fourteenth year of Ioshua Bonfrerius in his Comment upon Exodus as he is cited by Philippus in his Chronology observes the same saying Duae fuerunt distributiones terrae c. There were saith he two Divisions of the Land the one in Gilgal about the seventh or eighth year after the entrance thereinto the other in Shiloh some years after At the first the Division was but begun not finished yea for certaine causes put off and to be accounted as if nothing had been done From the latter therefore in his judgement the Sabbathical year ought to be reckoned Philip in Chonology Adding moreover and saying Hebraei idem sentiunt qui Sabbata terrae à decimo quarto anno ab ingressu computant Hereunto agree sundry others as Masius Magalianus Menochius and Wolphius in his first book De Tempore Wolphius De Temp. pag. 61. where he hath words to the same purpose saying The Sabbaths of the Holy Land neither were nor could be observed before the possession thereof which he meanes to be then when it was fully divided and the Tribes brought home to their possessions from helping their brethren Ioshua 22.4 All this I know and finde to be the opinions of Scaliger Bucholcerus Calvisius Alstedius Armachanus of those other Authors aforesaid Howbeit because the Jubilees doe afford the bestharmony if they begin when the Jews were ready to passe over Iordan into the promised Land and end when they were ready to be cast out I hold me to what I mentioned first For though they who strive for the fourteenth year of Joshua have said enought to remove the head of this reckoning from the seventh of Joshua in regard that the Land was not fully conquered then nor the Tribes sent home till afterward yet is not their argument strong enough to six it in the time they strive for For if the observation of this account had been deferred so long it had been an argument of great neglect especially in them who had their Parts or Portions long before The two tribes and the halfe had their inheritance at the very first on the other side of the river before the other passed over Jordan and there they left their Cattell Wives and Children which happened towards the end of the last year of Moses already mentioned After which by such time as they were gone over they had no more Manna but lived on the annuall fruits of the Land and did rather as day by day they came into their hands husband in common the Fields Vineyards and Olive-yards then spoyle and wast them And as they husbanded them in common so by virtue of that Law which belonged to them all they all of them as well on the one side of the river as the other let the Land rest by a joynt consent in the seventh year after they or any of them began to possesse any part of it and had at that Rest as much particularly divided among some other of the Tribes as was then conquered the rest of the Land being as well undivided as fully conquered untill the seventh year after which was the second seven and thirteenth not fourteenth year of Joshua CHAP. VI. Of the Julian Period and how to joyn the years of the World thereunto THe Julian Period is an Astronomical Cycle artificially composed and invented by Joseph Scaliger who by a continued multiplication of three Cycles used in the Julian year viz. the Cycle of the Sun Moon and Roman Indiction found out a Period of 7980. years in the which those Cycles returne againe to their first numbers and though by reason of that artificiall composition of it we finde that it reacheth beyond the first year of the World yet is it of singular use both for the right computation of the Julian year in all Ages even before the institution therefore by Julius Cesar as also to record the allowed and granted distances of all times in Chronological accounts the 4713. year thereof exactly agreeing with the year foregoing the first year of the common account of our Saviours birth that first year being also the first year of the first Period of Dionysius Exiguus according to the beginning of whose first Period we vulgarly account the year of Christs birth though it faileth four years of the true time as afterward shall be shewed Adding this now as not impertinent that by putting 709. to any year of the World we have the year of the Julian Period so on the contrary by taking 709. out of any year of the Iulian Period we have the year of the World as perfectly and exactly as may be onely with this Proviso that the year of the Iulian Period begins on the first of January and the year of the World not untill the Vernall Equinox next after And know further that by applying this Rule to the Periods a foregoing it will appeare that the first year of the World fell into the year of the Iulian Period 710. The Flood into the year of the Julian Period 2366. and year of the World 1657. The Promise into the year of the Julian Period 2794. and year of the World 2085. The comming out of Egypt into the year of the Julian Period 3224. and year of the World 2515. The foundation of Salomons Temple into the year of the Julian Period 3703. and year of the World 2994. The destruction thereof by Nebuchadnezzar into the year of the Iulian Period 4126. and year of the World 3417. The second year of Darius King of Persia into the year of the Iulian Period 4194. and year of the World 3485. The beginning of Daniels seventy Weeks into the year of the Julian Period 4259. and year of the World 3550. The first year of Christs Ministery into the year of the Julian Period 4742. and year of the World 4033. The passion of Christ into the year of the Julian Period 4746. and year of the world 4037. And last of all the Destruction of Ierusalem by the Romans into the year of the Julian Period 4783. and year of the World 4074. CHAP. VII Other Observations concerning the Times in their Periods untill the Destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar IN the year of the Julian Period 710. the Creation began The Creation as by the former Periods appeareth The precise time of which beginning seemeth to be at the evening of the twenty three day of Aprill For by the primitive practise of Gods owne example the day was from evening to evening and was so commanded also afterward by a written Law in Lev. 23.32 To
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
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
putat Angelus sexaginta duas Septimanas à principio septimanae primae sed à fine Septimae ut sensus sit Christum moriturum esse Septimana Septuagesima That is The Angel accounteth not the sixty and two Weekes from the beginning of the first Week but from the end of the seventh so that the sense is Christ was to dye in the seventieth Weeke But in what year of that Weeke is shewed afterwards Shall be slain The word in the Originall is Carath which signifyeth to cut off either by banishment or death In the first sense Christ was cut off when the Jews said We have no other King but Caesar Joh. 19.15 and in the other sense he was cut off when after their loud cryes of crucifie him crucifie him they put him to death But not for himselfe This is likewise true of Christ as the Prophet sheweth Esa 53.4 5 6. But whether it be the right reading of this place some make question and doe therefore render the words thus And there shall not be unto him that is He shall not be or not have any being but be extinct and gone Meaning that being slain or cut off by death he should have no longer being among the living and so also Esay saith He was cut off out of the Land of the living for the transgression of my people was the stroke upon him Esa 53.8 All which was certainly fulfilled when Christ tasting death was not onely buried but by his enemies shut in the Sepulcher least he should againe be seene in the Land of the living And the people of the Prince to come shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary This is meant of the Romans under the Conduct of Titus the son of Vespasian Emperour of Rome by whom the City of Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed which is here foretold as a judgement to come upon the Jews for their putting Christ to death And the end thereof shall be with a Flood Meaning that the Romane Army should be unto them as the overflowing of Waters in a Flood and should therefore prevaile against all the force that the forsaken Jews could make against them And unto the end of the War desolations are determined By which is meant that so long as the War continued should be nothing but desolations and destructions Which accordingly came to passe fast one upon another first in one place then in another till all was wasted as Iosephus hath at large declared in his seventh book of the Jews War at the first chapter in his sixt book at the first chapter likewise as also in some other places of his writings Whose relations doe excellently agree with the word desolations in the plurall number here foretold by the Angel in the words of this prophecy Ver. 27. One Weeke This is the last week of the seventy in which the Angel sheweth that though the Jewish Nation should be cast off and their City and Temple destroyed yet neverthelesse the Messiah should for one whole Week Offer himselfe unto them and gather many of them into the Covenant of the Gospel This Week was therefore wholly spent in preaching to those of the Circumcision in the forepart whereof Christ himselfe in his own person preached unto them and in the latter part he also preached unto them by his Apostles who went not unto the Gentiles till this Week was ended For as the 70 Weekes were cut out over the People of Israel and over the holy City but not over the Gentiles so also the confirming of the Covenant by Christ in this last Week of the 70 was cut out over the people of Israel and over the holy City but not over the Gentiles And that not without cause For though Christ by his death redeemed as well the Gentiles as the Jews Ioh. 11.52 yet because he was in the first place promised to the Jewish Nation and after a peculiar manner their Saviour it was consentaneous that in the first place he should offer Salvation unto them and confirm his Covenant with many of them before he caused his Gospell to be spread abroad and to take place among the Gentiles This appeareth by that Caveat which in this Week he gave to his Apostles when they had their first power to preach namely that they should not turn into the way of the Gentiles Mat. 10.5 It appeareth also by that which himselfe said to the woman of Canaan That he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Math. 15.24 And as they had this Caveat so they heeded it very carefully even after his death and Passion insomuch that Peter abstained from preaching to any but the Jews untill he was taught by Vision that the Gentiles also pertained to the society of the Church Acts 10.1 In a word Paul was converted about six moneths after the Passion of Christ three years after which he returned to Ierusalem that he might see Peter from whence after he had stayed 15 dayes he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia and preached there to the Gentiles Gal. 1.18 By which it appeareth that it was full three years and an half after Christ's Passion before they began to preach to any but the Jews and at that time this One Weeke was ended For as it followeth Christs death was in the middle of this very Week And in the midst of the Weeke he shall cause Sacrifice and Oblation to cease This was certainly done by Christs death For in the former verse it was said That after threescore and two Weeks Messiah should be slain and now in this verse is shewed the very precise time of his death viz. That it was in the middle of this Weeke for then was Christ to cause the Sacrifices and Oblations to cease Yea all the Sacrifices of the old Testament and the whole Legall and Typicall service was then at an end by that one Oblation of Christ upon the Crosse for nothing but the death of Christ was of efficacie to abolish the Sacrifices and Legall figures which were but figures of him and of his Sacrifice as may be seen by that which St Paul writeth to the Hebrewes in the ninth and tenth Chapters He taketh away the first that he may establish the second saith the Apostle there Chap. 10. verse 9. Not that the Jewish Sacrifices did actually then cease Peta De Doct. Temp. lib. 12. cap. 35. but that they were de jure or in very deed and truth then abolished as Petavius noteth Which also not onely the last voyce of Christs dying saying It is finished but even the vaile of the Temple being rent in twaine from the top to the bottome declared Mat. 27.51 For by that Symbol Christ witnessed that he by his death abolished all the Sacrifices and all the legall worship For as Lansbergius well observeth so long as that Shadowie service of the Jews remained Lansberg in his Chronol lib. 2. cap. 11. the vaile was between in the
God at which time not onely was Iehoiakim bound in fetters to be carryed to Babylon but Daniel with certaine more of the Children of Israel and of the Kings seed and of the Princes were brought thither by Ashpenaz the master of the Eunuches and taught there the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans Daniel 1.3 4. Nor doth the same Prophet elsewhere but understand the beginning of these yeares thus For I understood saith he by books the number of the yeares whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the Prophet that he would accomplish 70 yeares in the desolations of Jerusalem Dan 9.2 In which text the word is plurall Desolations to shew that the 70 years must include all the Calamities which fell upon Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon beginning even from the first of them and were not ended untill the reign of the Kingdome of Persia namely when Cyrus King of Persia had conquered Babylon and thereupon could say All the Kingdomes of the Earth hath the Lord God of Heaven given me and hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem 2 Chron. 36.20.23 There is saith Petavius a double intervall of 70 yeares expressed in the Scriptures the one by the Prophet Jeremiah the other by the Prophet Zachary and is altogether strange and differing from the former The first intervall is from the first yeare of Nebuchadnezzar to the two and twentieth year of Cyrus when he tooke Babylon The second is from the Desolations of the Temple and City to the second yeare of Darius the sonne of Hystaspis Thus he in his twelfth booke and twenty fourth Chapter De Doctrina Temporum And certainly he was not farre from truth in all this as by that which I have already written may be seen I account I confesse a little otherwise but decline not his grounds for in the first seventy I come two years lower then the two and twentieth of Cyrus and begin not the second when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the City and burnt the Temple but when he laid his last siege against Jerusalem in the yeare of the Julian Period 4125. of which see more in the eighth Chapter and sixth Section And now of all in this Chapter hitherto this is the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar being sent by his father upon an expedition into Egypt and Syria came against Jerusalem and besieged it in the third year of Jehoiakim by such time at his third year was ended and his fourth a little entred the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand with part of the vessels of the house of God This was in the year of the Iulian Period 4107. in the ninth Moneth by reason whereof the Jews kept a Fast in that Moneth as is mentioned Ier. 36.9 The Scripture accounteth this for the first yeare of Nebuchadnezzars reigne as well it might for not only now was Nebuchadnezzar taken in as a consort with his father in the Empire but also whilst he was employed in this expedition his father died even in the twentieth year of his reigne as afterwards shall be proved And note that Iehoiakim being now taken by this rod of Gods anger to whom Judah and other Neighbouring Nations must be put in Subjection was bound in fetters to be carried to Babylon among the other Captives 2 Chron. 36.6 but went not For afterwards in the way by an agreement of servitude he was released and sent home againe and so became his servant 2 Kin. 26.1 This was about the Spring time of the yeare of the Julian Period 4108. from whence the 70 years in Jeremy began as without all further scruple may be freely granted especially considering that the first draught must be given to Judah as may be seen in Jer. 25.18.29 CHAP. X. Of the time when Tyrus and Egypt were subdued and taken by Nebuchadnezzar according to the Prophecies of Esay Jeremiah and Ezekiel THat the Jews and other neighbouring Nations were delivered into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar in the first yeare of his Kingdome already hath been proved Jer. 25.9.11 and albeit they refused to beare his yoake yet by degrees he brought them all under Jerusalem he tooke and destroyed in the nineteenth yeare of his reigne at which time Tyrus thought her selfe safe and secure enough She therefore rejoyced at the fall of that great City and is thereupon threatned with destruction for the power and might of Nebuchadnezzar was to come against her This was spoken in the eleventh year of Jechoniah's Captivity which all men know was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar and therefore till after this time there was no siege laid against Tyrus witnessed by the Prophet Ezek. 26.1.2 and at the seventh verse most plainly For thus saith the Lord God Behold I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon Where note that he was not yet come but was after this time to come against her Scaliger therefore casts his account amisse when he reckoned that Tyrus was besieged and taken before the time of this threatning That Tyrus was besieged thirteene years we have it from Iosephus in his first book against Apion who had it out of the Annals of the Phoenicians These eighteen yeares siege were in the reigne of Ithobalus and began in the seventh yeare of his reigne which was also the three and twentieth of Nebuchadnezzar as appeareth by accounting on to the 14 year of Irom from the 14 year of Irom must at least in some part of it fal into the first year of Cyrus as Ioseph here sheweth that is into his first year over Babylon and not into his first yeare over Persia And thus will this account agree wel with that already mentioned out of the 26. Chapter of Ezekiel although it differ much from that which Ioseph Scaliger mainly strives for And note also that from the time at which Tyrus began to be besieged to the death of Irom are 54 yeares which by this account is as right as can be I conclude therefore that Tyrus was taken in the end of the yeare of the Iulian Period 4141. or in the beginning of the next year whilst the seven and twentieth year of Iechoniah's Captivity was still running on for then doth Ezekiel mention the taking of it even after a long siege and service against it as may be seen Ezek. 29.17.18 After which Tyrus is to be forgotten till the end of those seventy yeares which were the date of Nebuchadnezzars Kingdome began from the beginning of the Captivity as the Peophet meaneth in Esa 23.15 A like Phrase is in Gen 11.32 and in Exod 12.40 as Philippus in his Chronologie upon that place in Esay hath observed In oblivione eris ô Tyre 70 annis Tyrus dicitur in oblivione futura 70 annis non quod totos illos annos oblivio tenuerit sed terminarit Thus he and thereupon referrs us to Gen. 11.32 and to Exod. 12.40 And thus we have the right time both for the besieging and taking of Tyrus A list of them that
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
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