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
A DEFENCE OF Arch-Bishop USHER AGAINST D r Cary and D r Isaac Vossius Together with An INTRODUCTION concerning the Uncertainty OF CHRONOLOGY And an APPENDIX TOUCHING The signification of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as also Of the men of the Great SYNAGOGUE By JOHN MILNER S. T. B. CAMBRIDGE Printed by J. Hayes for Benj. Tooke and are to be Sold by W. Graves Bookseller in Cambridge 1694. Octob. 29. 1692. Imprimatur Gabr. Quadring Procan Humf. Gower Prof. Marg. Joh. Covel Coll. Christ. Praefect Ja. Johnson Coll. Sid. Mag. THE CONTENTS CHap. I. The Introduction concerning the uncertainty of Chronology Chap. II. Whether Lunar months were in use with the Israelites before the Babylonish Captivity Chap. III. Of the month Dioscorinthius 2 Macc. 11. 21. Chap. IV. Of the time when Artaxerxes Longimanus begun his reign and of the flight of Themistocles Chap. V. Of the time when Sanchuniathon Semiramis and Nitocris liv'd Chap. VI. Whether Nabonasar was the same with Belesis Chap. VII Whether Darius Hystaspis was the husband of Esther also whether Artystona was Esther and Atossa Vashti Chap. VIII Whether Tiglathpileser was the same with Ninus junior the successor of Sardanapalus Chap. IX Whether Moses was contemporary to Inachus Chap. X. Of that Alexander King of Egypt who was reported to have made the Commonwealth of Rome his heir Chap. XI Of Argon the first King of the Lydians after the Atyadae whether he was the Son of Ninus Chap. XII Of AEgyptus how many years interven'd between him and Sesac 1 Kings 11. also whether he was the same with Sethosis and of Jonathan 1 Maccab. 9. Chap. XIII Of the duration of the Aslyrian Monarchy and of Herodotus also of the Median succession Chap. XIV Of the duration of the said Assyrian Monarchy against D r Js. Vossius Chap. XV. Of the Study of Astronomy whether it be as ancient as Nimrod and of the Celestial Observations sent from Babylon to Greece by Aristotles procurement Chap. XVI Of the Egyptian Empire when it begun and how long it continu'd Also of Constantinus Manasses Chap. XVII Of the Septuagint An Appendix 1. Concerning the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether they do any where in the Scripture signifie the New Moon 2. Of the men of the Great Synagogue and of the Books of Chronicles Ezra and Nehemiah CHAP. 1. The Introduction I Need not inlarge in the praises of that great ornament of his Age See and Country the incomparable Arch-Bishop Usher They that would be satisfied of the worth of that excellent person may read his Life with the Appendix to it and more especially his Works which sufficiently praise him in the gate As they that would know how great an esteem the most eminent men for Piety and Learning in his time not only in great Brittain and Ireland but also in other parts had of him may consult the Letters writ by them to him and since Printed with his to them Yet since his death several have appear'd publickly against him and some of them have treated him very unbecomingly to say no more Of these I shall single out the Author of the Palaeologia Chronica D r Cary and him whom he hath call'd to be his Second viz. D r Vossius Both these are displeased with the Arch-Bishop for shortning the time from the Creation of the world but more especially D r Cary. He is displeased with Petavius and Eusebius upon the same account but the storm of his displeasure falls most severely upon the Arch-Bishop Yet this says he was nothing to that which Bishop Usher did since in vindication of the Masora by a way of new righting of times and new shaping of persons far otherwise then was ever taken notice of by any man living before Thus D r Cary Part 2. Bo. 2. § 3. Ch. 17. Now to pass by those obscure expressions New righting of times and New shaping of persons I grant that the Arch-Bishop may have offer'd some things to his Readers consideration which no man had ever taken notice of before but then he doth it with such candor and modesty as if he do erre may obtain his pardon from all ingenuous persons And withall he confirms them with such Authorities and Arguments as that it is not very easie for those that are not of his opinion to refute him A further plea may be offer'd for him drawn from the uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology by reason whereof no man can state the account especially of Ancient times so as that one or other shall not be ready to quarrel with it Of the uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology I Say of the greatest part of Chronology for I most willingly grant that part of it is certain as 1. Whatsoever relating to Chronology is plainly expressed in sacred Writ or may be deduc'd from it by a clear and undeniable consequence that must be concluded to be certain 2. The Chronology of Heathen writers so far as it agrees with and is consonant to the Scripture Chronology is also to be look'd upon as certain 3. Josephus c. Apion l. 1. says that all men confess that Alexander the great dy'd in the 114 th Olympiad and if any one shall affirm that this account of his death or any thing else that is as universally and unanimously attested as according to Josephus it is is certain I shall not gainsay But as to other things thô some have expressed very much confidence and seem to have firmly perswaded themselves that they had demonstrated the certainty of them yet I think it will appear that they have rather demonstrated their uncertainty However I doubt not but every unprejudic'd Reader will be satisfi'd of the uncertainty of them To manifest which I shall not run through all the 4 Monarchies that would be too tedious but confine my self to the first i. e. the Assyrian and I the rather pitch upon it because D r Cary is so much displeased with Eusebius and Petavius and especially the Arch-Bishop for shortning the time of that Monarchy The method which I shall observe will be to take a view 1. Of Kingdoms viz the Kingdom of Assyria it self and the Kingdoms contemporary to it 2. Of persons and occurrences and to shew how uncertain an account is given of the time of all these I begin with Kingdoms as 1. The Kingdom of the Assyrians Herodotus l. 1. c. 95. says that the Assyrians had held the dominion of the upper Asta 520 years when the Medes began to break from them Justin l. 1. c. 2 and 3. says that the Assyrians had held the Empire 1300 years when the Medes rebell'd against them Velleius Paterc l. 1. writes that the Empire was translated to the Medes when the Assyrians had possessed it 1070 years Ctesias ap Diodor. Sicul. l. 2. will have the duration of that Monarchy to have been 1360 years
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
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