before the Flood The Flood as we have already seen began in the yeare of the world 1657. and continued a yeare so that it was not ended untill after the yeare of the World 1658. was begun for on the 27 day of the second Moneth was the full end thereof Two yeares after which Arphaxad was borne that is in the yeare of the world 1660. Gen. 11.10 To which yeare of the World add 35 the age of Arphaxad when Salah was borne so shall the birth of Salah be in the yeare of the world 1695 Gen. 11.12 To which add 30 the age of Salah when Heber was born so shall the birth of Heber be in the year of the world 1725. Gen. 11.14 To which add 34 the age of Heber when Peleg was born so shal the birth of Peleg be in the year of the world 1759. Gen. 11 16. To which add 30 the age of Peleg when Reu was borne so shall the birth of Reu be in the yeare of the world 1789 Gen. 11.18 To which add 32 the age of Reu when Serug was borne so shall the birth of Serug be in the year of the world 1821. Gen. 11.20 To which add 30 the age of Serug when Nahor was borne so shall the birth of Nahor be in the yeare of the world 1851. Gen. 11.22 To which add 29 the age of Nahor when Terah was borne so shall the birth of Terah be in the yeare of the world 1880. Gen. 11.24 To which add 130. the age of Terah when Abraham was borne so shall the birth of Abraham be in the yeare of world 2010. To which add 75 the age of Abraham soon after the death of Terah so shall we come to the yeare of the world 2085. and year of the Julian Period 2794 in which yeare about the beginning of May Abraham having received the promise departed out of Haran and was a Son of seventie five years old Gen. 12.4 that is he was going on in his Seventie and fifth yeare which not long after was accomplished ☟ the reckoning being here as before in the 600. yeare of Noah when the Flood began Quest The true time of Abrahams birth But why is it that Abraham is reckoned to be borne when his Father was 130. yeares old and not rather when he was seventie as the text seems to intimate Gen. 11.27 Answ Because Abraham who was a Sonne of * Gen. 12.4 75 yeares at his departure from Haran departed not thence untill his Father was dead as Saint Stephen witnesseth Act. 7.4 Now we know that his Father lived * Gen. 11.32 205. yeares from whence if we take 75 it will appeare that Abraham was not borne when Terah was Seventie as the text seemeth to intimate but when he was 130. because 75. taken out of 205 leaveth for the remainder 130. Secondly it is witnessed by the ancient testimony of the true not forged Philo who being a Jew was Ambassadour from his owne Nation to Caius Caligula witnessed I say by him that Abraham went not from Haran otherwise called Charran untill his Father was dead For it is not like saith he that any who have read the Law can be ignorant how Abraham removing from the Chaldean Land stayed in Charran and when his Father dyed there he removed also from that Land And againe He leaveth it being seventie five years old which Moses also saith in Gen. 12.4 This of Philo is a cleare testimony and well worthy of our serious acceptation for he was as ancient as the Protomartyr Stephen and understands Moses no other way then he had done Thirdly Rabbi Menasseh in his Conciliator declareth the same shewing there that their best learned Interpreters understand it so Fourthly The age of Abraham bring expressed when he came from Charran and not when he removed from Vr was for no reason but to guid us to the time his of birth by being joyned to the time of Terah's death who dyed in Charran and not in Vr Gen. 11.32 And further note that in Chaldea God appeares to Abraham and bids him Get thee out of thy Country and from thy kindred but maketh no mention of leaving his Fathers house for that he took along with him Gens 11.31 But when God cals him from Haran or Charran he then bids him depart from his Father house as well as he had done from his Country and kindred before for now he left his brother Nahor and all his Fathers house behinde him In the first Call Terah was alive to him is ascribed the conduct of that Journey from Vr to the Chaldees as if he had received the Call and had been the chiefe mover in the businesse but it is onely to shew his * Ioshua 24.2 Conversion and readinesse to goe with Abraham to whom God appeared whilst he was in Vr of the Chaldees Gen. 15.7 saying Get thee out of thy Country and from thy kindred Acts 7.2.3 See also Josh 24.2 But in the second Call Terah was dead and Abraham was 57 years old Gen. 12.1.4 Acts 7.4 And as he was 57 so his Father was 205. which sheweth still that Abraham was borne when Terah was 130. For the story in Genesis runs current and in a continuation this being the order of the words And the dayes of Terah were 205 years and he dyed in Charran and God said unto Ahraham Get thee from thy Fathers house and in thee all the Nations of the Earth shall be blessed and Abraham was 75 years old when he departed from Charran To illustrate then the whole by way of paraphrase God in Vr of the Chaldees appeared to Abraham and said unto him Get thee out from thy kindred but take thy Fathers house with thee and goe to to a Land which I shall shew thee And when Abraham told Terah of his command Terah condescended and consented And Terah took Abraham and Lot and Sarai and they went away together from Vr to Haran and dwelt there And Terah dyed in Haran And then God saith to Abraham Get thee out of thy Country and from thy kindered and from thy Fathers house also now and goe into the Land that I shall shew thee that is into Canaan whether Abraham went so soon as he departed from Charran which was in the Land of Chaldea also and not far from Vr wherefore God againe called Abraham thence to goe into Canaan Gen. 12.1 And although there was a nearer way from Vr to Canaan than to goe By Charran as in the Maps of those Countries may be seen yet because the nearest way was most dangerous and troublesome God led them about by an inhabited and safe way providing so for their infirmities as he did the like afterwards for Abrahams children Exodus 13.11.18 Beside when Joshua saith Ioshua 24.2 Our fathers beyond the River worshipped strange Gods even Terah the Father of Abraham he maketh Moses more clear and manifest viz. that to Abraham in Vr God appeared by
then Abraham For at the destruction of Sodome Abraham being then * At which time Abrahams body was said to be dead but was revived by the power of God not onely for the generation of Isaac but for further procreation as appeareth Gen. 25. 99 years old when the daughters of Lot lay with their Father they said of him that he was an old man Set then the birth of Abraham before Harans and how can any of these things be Beside the time from the Flood to Terah's seventieth year was too short to have the world so full of People and Kingdomes as it was in Abrahams time Hist of the World lib. 2. page 190. For in Abrahams time and long before as it is excellently observed by Sir Walter Raleigh all the then known parts of the World were peopled All regions and countries had their Kings Egypt had many magnificent Cities and so also had Palestine and all the bordring Countries yea and all that part of the World beside as farre as India And those not built with sticks but of hewen stones and defended with wals and Rampires Which magnificence needed a Parent of more Antiquity then they have supposed who place the birth of Abraham so near the Flood as Terah's seventieth year For that time even in reason is not sufficient being * It was no more then 292 lesse then 300 years All therefore considered doe make me conclude that Abraham undoubtedly was borne when Terah was 130 years old For though some frivilous objections may be made to the contrary yet it is in vaine to object against such testimonies and proofes as will passe for current any where but among the Singular and inconsiderate who are rather willing to wrangle for the upholding of their opinions then to yeeld or give over from what they first tooke up to be true For as there be some who love to keep to that which best fits their fancy so there be others who think it a discredit to let goe what they at first maintained SECT III. Of the third Period from the Promise at Abrahams departing out of Haran to the comming of the Israelites out of Egypt that it was a Period of four hundred and thirty years THis is proved by texts and testimonies out of Scripture For first Saint Paul saith expresly That the Law began * There were some odd moneths more But the Apostle leaveth out the moneths as an imperfect number 430 years after the Promise Galat. 3.17 Which that it was the same promise of Christ that Abraham had in Gen. 12. is manifest by what the same Apostle said before at the eighth verse viz. That in thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be sed agreeing therein to Moses Gen. 12.3 Now this directeth to the right reckoning but is not altogether so precise as that which we have in Exod. 12.40 For there we may perceive that the precise and exact ending of these years was not on the day that the Law was given but on the day that the Israelites came away out of Egypt The words of which Text be these And the sojourning of the Children of Israel whereby they sojourned in Egypt 30 years and 400 years which speech is altogether Elliptica oratio or a defectve speech and is thus to be supplyed namely And the sojourning of the Children of Israel whereby they sojourned in Egypt was to the end of 430 years Not that they were in Egypt so long but that they were a sojourning Nation so long the beginning whereof was in the dayes of Abraham at the time when he received the Promise as by that of the Apostle before mentioned may be seen The word Sojourning therefore here used by Moses hath relation to that time of the Promise when Abraham left his Fathers house and became a sojourner in a strange Land even the Land which God had promised to shew him and which he afterwards gave to him to be possessed by his posterity in the fourth generation after him Gen. 15.16 And now that these years are precisely and exactly so many and no more appeareth by what followeth in the next verse viz. Exod. 12.41 wherein it is said That when the 430 years were finished even on the same day all the hosts of the Lord went out from the Land of Egypt They therefore that begin this reckoning at Jacobs going thither are deceived For first Koath was one who went when Jacob went Gen. 46.11 His son was Amram Exod. 6.18.20 and Amrams son was Moses Num. 26.59 Wherefore seeing Koath was the enterer and Moses the departer the time from thence could not extend to 430 yeares for Koath lived but 133 years Exod. 6.18 Amram but 137 vers 20. and Moses was but 80 at the departure Exod. 77. All which added together make but 350. and yet some of those years must be deducted because they were not born one at the just end of anothers life but lived some while the father and the son together which deduction being made the years remaining will be yet fewer and want still more of 430. Secondly Jochabed was the mother of Moses and immediate daughter of Levi born to him in Egypt as it is Num. 26.59 Take then for a tryall the age of Moses at the departure which was * Exod. 7.7 80 years and the whole age of Levi was * Exod. 6.16 137. years and add them together so shall you have 217. Unto which number must be added 213 for the age of Jochabed or else there cannot be 430. But that this should thus hang together is impossible for Levi was born 43 years before he came into Egypt and living but 137 in all there can be but 94 taken from him and but 80 from Moses which added together make but 174. Now then supposing that the abode in Egypt from Jacobs going thither was fully 430 years it must needs be that Jochabed lived 256 years although her age be accounted but from the day of her fathers death unto the day of her sons birth But to say there is likelyhood in this were extreme madnesse For who thinks it probable that a woman in those dayes could be 256 years and yet bear a childe or that a Kings daughter would make choyce of one so old to be her Nurse Beside this womans age must be yet longer for it is not like that she was born just at her fathers death neither is it true that she dyed at her sons birth because she was chosen by Pharaoh's daughter to be his Nurse And as for Levi to prove that he was 43 years old as hath been mentioned this is well known viz. that Joseph was but four years younger then he and when Iosephs brethren came into Egypt Ioseph then was but 39 years old Levi therefore must needs be 43 at the same time because four and 39 make 43 and not live his whole time after the descending of Iacob thither Se Gen. 41.46 and compare it with Gen.
every man would lay a side all rash and inconsiderate zeale that so weighing things with an equall Ballance he may no longer be a carelesse disturber of the true and right Computation of these times But they have objections out of Scripture ☜ And first they produce the age of Mordecai Mordeca's age objected affirming that he was carried captive with Iechoniah Esth 2.5 and therefore could not live till the dayes of Xerxes to which time he must live if Xerxes were that Assuerus who married Esther To which is answered Answ That Mordecai was not carried captive but rather Kish the great Grand-father of Mordecai For thus stand the words in the place objected There was a certaine Jew at Shushan the Kings seate sth 2.5 whose name was Mordecai the son of Iair the son of Shimei the son of Kish a man of Iemini who had been carried away from Ierusalem with the Captivity c. Where the Relative who is to be referred not to the furthest Antecedent Mordecai but to the nearest Kish as may be seen in an Example much like it in 1 Chron. 2.7 where the words are And the sons of Carmi Achar the troubler of Israel who transgressed in the thing accursed And indeed to what other end should mention be made of Kish or why is the Genealogie produced no higher then to him but that thereby we may be taught that he and not Mordecai went into Captivity it was to shew by his carrying away captive how Mordecai a Jew born of him became Citizen of Shushan And so also the Apocryphall fragment in Esth 11.4 brought forth by some to prove the contrary fully sheweth saying Erat autem viz. Mordecai ex Captiva turba quam captam Nebuchadnezzar abduxerat that is Mordecai arose of that company or came of that company which Nebuchaanezzar carried Catptive Which well observed doth excellently confirme the truth of Gods Promise made to his people Ier. 24.6 namely That they should returne be built up planted and not rooted out Whereupon they were commanded tomarry wives beget children that they might increase there and not be minished Ier. 29.6 From which places itwell appeareth that the promise was made to them and their posterity the accomplishment whereof is excellently declared by this of Mordecai and Esther both of them born in the time of Captivity The truth of which is yet further manifest in regard That that Mordecai which nourished Esther was not the same who returned in the first year of Cyrus For he who nourished Esther staid still at Shushan The other returned with them who went first into the Land of Judea Neh. 7.7 It is not enough to say he gave his name to goe up but went not for what were this but to deny a plaine and expresse testimony as may be seen also Ezra 2.2 And therefore these two not being both one their opinion is still more and more weakned who strive to prove Mordecai and not Kish to be the man that was carried captive for it was common and ordinary to call divers men by one and the same name as afterwards shall be shewed Secondly they object the age of Ezra the son of Seraiah Ezra's age objected who was slaine by Nebuchadnezzar in the nineteenth year of his reigne 2 Kin. 25.18 Arguing from thence that the time of the Persian Monarchy could not be so long as is usually accounted For Ezra saw well near the whole time thereof being alive in the dayes of Johanan the father of Jaduah Ezra 10.6 Which Jaduah was high priest in the reigne of the last Darius when Alexander conquered the Monarchy and won it wholly from the Persians Neh. 12.22 See also Joseph in the eleventh book of his Antiquities at the seventh and eighth Chapters Which being so it will follow that had Ezra been begot but a day before his fathers death his age must be 250 years or thereabouts though we account not to the end of this Monarchy by almost ten years To which I answer There is ambiguity in the word Son Answ which men take properly as if Ezra had been the immediate son of Seraiah whereas he was so Seraiahs son as the Jews used to call their posterity by the name of Son even to the fifth or sixt descent As for example Josiah is said to be the father of Iechoniah Matth. 1.11 whereas the father of Ieconiah was Iehoiakim 2 Chron. 36.8 So also Zedekiah is called in * 2 Chron 36.10 one place the brother of Ieconiah and in * 1 Chro. 3.16 in another place the son of Ieconiah because he reigned next after him and yet we know that by propriety of speech he was his uncle as may be seen in 2 Kin. 24.17 So also Salathiel is called the son of Iechoniah Mat. 1.12 and yet not only did Ieconiah dye childlesse Ier. 22.30 but also Salathiel was indeed the son of Assir 1 Chron. 3.17 So also Zorobabel is said to be the * Ezra 5.2 Mat. 1.12 son of Salathiel Matth. 1.12 whereas he was not his immediate son for Zorobabel was indeed the son of Pedaiah 1 Chron. 3.19 So also the Prophet Zachariah is called the son of Iddo Ezra 5.1 whereas indeed he was the Grandchilde of Iddo and son of Barachiah Zachar. 1.1 And more nearly concerning the party objected it is not manifest that neither was he the proper and immediate son of Seraiah For though Ezra in the * viz. Ezra 7.1.2 c. place objected made good his purpose in shewing for his greater honour and renown that he came from Aaron yet he hath not precisely set downe all his Ancestours which were in that line between Seraiah and Aaron but hath omitted * viz. Amariah Ahitub Zadok Ahimaaz Azariah and Jonathan as may be seen by comparing Ezra 7.3 with 1 Chron. ca. 6 ver 7.8.9.10 six in one place and might also omit some in that other place between himselfe and Seraiah for this we finde herein to be true and certaine that Iehozadak was the immediate son of Seraiah as is expresly mentioned in 1 Chron 6.14 And therefore though Ezra were so near kindred to that stock yet it might be in a collaterall line by some that proceeded from Seraiah and yet neverthelesse be reckoned in Genealogy as if he were his son according to that before mentioned of Salathiel called the son of Ieconiah or that of Zedechia in 1 Chron. 3.16 Where though Zedechia were the Uncle yet he stands upon record as if he were the very son of Ieconiah For thus we see some brought in as sons which were indeed but near kinsmen But for all this some perhaps will say Object the difficulty of too long an age is not yet quite taken away For from the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus to the end of the Persian Monarchy were 122 years or thereabouts and therefore Ezra living till towards the end thereof will be still older then can be well allowed though he were
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
Jeremiah that Nebuchadnezzars yoke must not be endured 70 years but that within two full years it must be broken Which story is at large set downe in the 27 and 28 Chapters of Ieremiah and by Scaliger referred to the first year of Zedechia who indeed supposeth it to be the fourth year after a year of Rest of which I see no reason because the whole scope of the four and thirtieth Chapter doth demonstrate that year to be a year of Rest when Nebuchadnezzar laid his seige against Ierusalem which we know to be the ninth year of Zedechia and tenth day of the tenth moneth Ier. 52.4 Now this was in the year of the Julian Period 4124. on the seventh of Ianuary feria tertia at which time the ninth of Zedechia was still running on and was not ended till about the beginning of the fourth moneth next after Nebuchadnezzar therefore began to beseige Ierusalem on the seventh day of Ianuary in the year of the Julian Period 4124. which year was Sabbathicall from the Autumne before till the Autumne thereof and was that Sabbathicall year in which the Jews let their servants goe free in the beginning thereof thereby encouraging them to fight against the Chaldeans who then were come into the confines of Iudea ser 34.1 and fought againg the Cities thereof Ierusalem not excepted but had not yet laid their seige against it for that was not untill the time before mentioned How long this continued before the Egyptians came with an Army to succour Zedechia by raising this first seige is not expressed Jer. 37.5 but that they came and that the seige thereupon was raised is certaine This when the Jews perceived and saw that the Chaldeans were gone from them to fight against the Egyptians Jer. 37.10 they took their freed servants againe into bondage vainely perswading themselves that the Chaldeans would come back no more which proved farre otherwise For Nebuchadnezzar having put to flight the Army of Pharaoh returns againe to Ierusalem and on the fourth day of May in the year of the Julian Period 4125. renewes his seige against it * viz. by reckoning first 390. and then forty dayes Ezek. 4.5.6 for these put together doe make 430. end on the eighth day of July they must therfore begin on the fourth of May in the year next before that year in which they ended 430. dayes before the City was broken up as may be gathered out of the fourth Chapter of Ezekiel This fourth day of May was on the two and twenty day of the second moneth feria tertia from whence the seige continued without any further interruption untill the City was taken which was as I said before on the eighth day of July When therefore we read in Ier. 32.1.2 that Nebuchadnezzars Army lay before Ierusalem in the tenth year of Zedechia and eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar it is to be understood of his lying against it after this renewing of his seige and before the beginning of the fourth moneth for about the end of the third moneth or beginning of the fourth was the beginning of Zedechia's eleventh year and likewise of all the other years of his reigne insomuch that his ninth year began at the same time in the year of the Julian Period 4123 and was Sabbathicall from the Autumne thereof untill the Autumne next after From whence I conclude that if any part of Zedchia's ninth year was Sabbathicall then could to his first year be the fourth after a Rest but the sixth Hananiah therefore dyed in no other then the fourth year of Zedechia having resisted the Prophet Ieremiah from the beginning of Zedechia's reigne till then as Iearned Iunius in his Annotations upon the place well observeth And as for the burning of the Temple take this note further viz. that the Temple was burnt before the full end of Nebuchadnezzars ninteenth year 2 Kin. 25.8 For though at that time Zedechia had reigned eleven years compleat yet was not Nebuchadnezzars ninteenth year fully finished in regard that Nebuchadnezzar began his reigne something later in the year then Zedechia did for Zedechia began about the beginning of the fourth moneth and Nebuchadnezzar began not till after the seventh day of the fifth moneth at the soonest whose first year was in the end of Jehoiakims third year and beginning of his fourth in the year of the Julian Period 4107. at the Summer time of that year For in the Spring time of the year of the Julian Period 4104. towards the end of the second moneth Iosiah was slain Dan. 1.1 Jer. 25.1 Towards the end of the third the seige began but not till the fourth was entred did God give Jehoiakim into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar 2 Chro 36.6 after whom Iehoahaz reigned three moneths Then in the Summer time of the same year Iehoaikim began in the end of whose third year and beginning of his fourth was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar as comparing the Prophet Daniel to the Prophet Ieremy may be seen at which time his Father was alive as Berosus sheweth Moreover in this year in the ninth moneth and that 's the reason why the Jews fast then God gave Iehoiakim into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar he was thereupon his prisoner and bound in chaines to be carryed to Babylon but went not for afterwards by an argreement of servitude he was released and sent home viz. in the * But not till near the entring of the Spring quarter beginning of the year of the Julian Period 4108. and so became his servant 2 Kings 26.1 from whence the 70 years in Ieremy do undoubtedly take their beginning Ier. cap. 25.2 and cap. 29.10 After this Nebuchadnezzar prosecuting his victories takes all that belonged to the King of Egypt between the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates and in the mean while his Father dyed after he had reigned one and twenty years as Berosus and Ptolomy in his Mathematical Canon have declared And now upon this Nebuchadnezzar is sent for home into Babylon where he takes the whole Empire upon him and reigneth from hence 43 years as is testified by the Authours aforesaid of which more shall be spoken * viz In cha 11. An Eclipse in the fifth year of Nabopollassar afterward And note that in the Julian Period 4093. was an Eclipse of the Moon noted by Ptolomy to be in the year of Nabonassar 127. and fifth year of Nabopollassar and so indeed there was For though in this year of the Julian Period the sixth year of Nabopollassar began yet the Eclipse was whilst the fifth year was still running on for the Eclipse was on the 23 day of Aprill 29 minutes past five in the morning the sixth yeare not beginning untill some time after Shall I add any thing more A list of the Kings of Babylon from the beginning of Nabonassar then take a list of the Kings of Babylon and their years from the beginning of Nabonassar till the death
45.6 Thus we see how Moses is to be understood in Exod. 12.40 and consequently to account the 430. years of this Period For the dwelling of the children of Israel who dwelled in Egypt was 430. yeares that is Their peregrination or their dwelling as strangers And so the Greeke translateth which the Apostle also confirmeth in Act. 13.17 Their dwelling I say as strangers begun from the time that Abraham left his kindred and his Fathers house as already hath been proved For though this people were not called Israelites in Abrahams time ☜ but afterwards N. B. yet because they proceeded out of Abrahams loynes and did evermore boast of him as their Father and because he also the thing which Moses aymes at was the first in their generation who sojourned in a strange land the foresaid Text in Exodus puts no difference but speaks of them all according to that name by which they were then called when Moses brought the seed of Abraham out of Egypt even in the fourth generation as God himselfe had formerly spoken and told it to Abraham in particular long before And thus we have hitherto the right meaning of that text Quest Quest But how is Moses to be understood in his number of 400. yeares in Gen. 15.13 doth not that crosse the former account Answ Nothing at all For there is a double summe of yeares mentioned concerning the seed of Abraham sojourning and afflicted viz. 400. Gen. 15.13 and 430. Exod. 12.40 The 430. yeares was from Abrahams departing out of Haran to the comming of the Israelites out of Egypt as hath been proved And the 400 was from the fifth of Isaac to that time also for both these reckonings have both one time of ending but begin not both at once the latter not beginning till Ismael who was borne of the Egyptian woman Hagar mocked Isaac and was cast out of Abrahams house The Apostle makes this manifest by calling Ismaels mocking of Isaac persecution Galat. 4.28 So also Moses in saying that Abrahams seed should be evill entreated For know this of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs and shall serve them and they shall entreat them evill 400. yeares Gen. 15.13 meaning that from the beginning of this affliction should be 400. years before the end of their affliction from the Egyptian bondage For as the first manifest affliction of Ahrahams seed began now when this son of the Egyptian woman in a strang land mocked Isaac so it ended at the bringing of the same out of Egypt 400. yeares after Not that they were afflicted all that time but that their affliction which began now in a strange land should not be ended nor they brought into their promised land untill the end thereof SECT IIII. Of the fourth Period from the comming out of Egypt to the beginning of the building of King Salomons Temple that it was a Period of 479. yeares compleat or of 480. yeares current THis is proved by a plaine Text in 1 King 6.1 where we read thus And it came to passe in the foure hundredth and fourescore yeare after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt in the fourth yeare of Salomons reigne over Israel in the moneth of Zif which is the second Moneth that he began to build the house of the Lord. In which Text we have the whole summe in grosse but must finde the particulars elsewhere and they are found as followeth First 40. yeares in the wildernesse after the Israelites came out of Egypt Deut. 1.3 Deut. 34.4.5 Josh 1.2 Psal 95.10 Act. 13.18 Secondly 17 to the death of Joshua after Moses For seeing all the other numbers but this may be found expresly written this must needs be as much as all the other when they are gathered together shall want of 480. Thirdly from the death of Joshua to the death of Othniel 40. Jud. 3.11 Fourthly 80. after that to the death of Ehud Jud. 3.30 Fifthly 40. from thence to the death of Deborah Jud. 5 31. Sixthly 40. after that to the death of Gideon Judg. 8.28 Seventhly Abimelech 3 yeares after Gideon Judg. 9.22 Then Thola 23 Judg. 10.2 Jair 22. Judg. 10.3 Jeptha 6. Judg. 12.7 Ibsan 2. Judg. 12.9 Elon X. Judg. 12.9 Abdon VIII Judg. 12.14 Sampson XX. Judg. 16.31 Heli 40. 1 Sam. 4.18 Samuel and Saul 40.10 Act. 13.21 David after Saul 40.2 Sam 5.4 Salomon after David till the founding of the Temple 4 current for in the fourth yeare of his reigne the Temple was founded 1 King 6.1 All which Summes being added together amount to 480. To which I add this note that if Salomon began in the last yeare of King David as some men thinke then must Joshua have 18 yeares for the time that he had ruled after Moses which I also thinke he had Quest But if this account be true Quest how must we understand the 300. yeares in Judg. 11.26 where Jeptha saith That the children of Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her Townes and in Aroer and her Townes and in all the Cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon three hunded years By which it seemeth to be gathered that Jeptha judged not till 300 yeares after the children of Israel came out of the wildernesse into the land of Canaan at the death of Moses And if the time from thence thither were 300. yeares then must the time from the comming out of Egypt to the Temple be more then 480. For from the first yeare of Jeptha to the fourth yeare of King Salomon were 175. years which added to the 40 yeares of the wildernesse and to the 300. after that to Jeptha doe make in all 515. But I answer that these 300. Answ yeares are not to be reckoned from Moses death but from the time mentioned in the beginning of Jeptha's narration ver 16. where the words are But when Israel came up from Egypt c. From whence to the dayes of Jeptha were 306. years which 6 odd yeares Jeptha omitted it being not greatly materiall to account them so precisely thus doth Luther understand the place Iunius Broughton and others Broughtons observation being this Note saith he that the 40 yeares in the wildernesse are joyned as one time here that things done in sundry parts of it be reckoned from one beginning Or as a late writer answereth About 34 years after that Sihon King of the Amorites had fought against the predecessour of Balack the son of Zippor King of Moah and had taken all his Land even unto Arnon Israel smote Sihon and all his people possessed his Country Which was in the last year of Moses From whence unto Ieptha were but 266 years current yet by adding the years of their owne possession unto Sihon's whose right they had by the Law of Conquest Ieptha did justly say that they had dwelt in or possessed those Countries 300 years Which indeed is the same answer that Sir Walter Raleigh giveth in his History of the
earthly Sanctuary but the vaile being rent the legall Ceremonies were abrogated and all use of the old Covenant taken away and a passage opened for us to the Heavenly Sanctuary But it followeth And by a Wing of Abominations making desolate he shall flow upon the desolate Here againe after speech of the death of Christ is subjoyned a threatning against the Jews for putting him to death For by this Wing of Abominations is meant the Army of the Romans and that as will appeare very significantly For the word in the Original here translated Wing is derived from a verbe but once found in the Hebrew Scripture which signifies according to the Chaldee Master Mede in his exposition of Daniels Weeks pa. 41. To gather together so also in the Arabick in which it signifieth also To environ or compasse about as is gallantly observed by one upon the place Both which significations sute well to an Army and the latter to such an Army as beleagureth a City or Fort. The wâ—rd Wing therefore used for this Army is very pertinent For if we looke further we shall finde shat Saint Luke speaking of that which in Saint Mathewes Gospel is called the Abomination of Desolation Mat. 24.15 and Mar. 13.14 spoken of by Daniel the Prophet standing in the Holy place expoundeth it by compassing Jerusalem with Armies Luke 21.20 By which he doth for certain meane the Army of the Romans called here an Army of Abominations or a people of Abominations That is of Gentles and worshippers of Idols as is manifest in regard that the Scripture often not onely calleth Idols by the name of Abominations but useth also to expresse and imply under the names of the Gods the Nations themselves that worshipped them Thus Ashtaroth is called the Abomination of the Sidonians 2 Kin. 23.13 And in another place The strangers with whom the children of Israel had contracted affinity are called expresly the people of Abominations Ezra 9.14 So here The Army which the Angel foretold should come against Ierusalem is called a Wing or an Army of a people of Abominations by which the Messiah should flow upon the Desolate That is upon the desolate and forsaken Jews For in this service though an Army of Abominations it was the Army of the Messiah as in a fit Parable ayming at this Prophecy our Saviour telleth us Matthew 22.7 Even untill the Consummation determined Meaning That the Desolation which this Army of Abominations brought upon the Jews should continue till the end of that time which God had determined that is untill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled Luke 21.24 For when the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled then as Saint Paul tels us The deliverer shall come out of Sion and all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.25.26 And thus I have now expounded this sacred Prophecy of Daniels LXX Weekes then which there is no one Prophecy in all the whole Bible that doth more convince the Jew nor better confirme the Christian for the comming of Christ For when the Angel had divided the Weekes into seven and sixty two which were to end at Messiah the Prince then presently in the next verse he addeth saying And after 62 Weekes Messiah shall be slain joyning hereunto the One Week remaining In the middle whereof the Sacrifice and Oblation was to cease that is to be abolished or made void and of none effect by his death and Passion Quare post sexaginta novem absolutas in Septuagesima utique ac postrema Christus occidendus erat as saith Petavius Who hereupon concludeth that they doe in vaine seek the end of these Weekes who look for it so low as the destruction of the City by the Romans Or as his owne Words are Frustra igitur finis alius Hebdomadibus iisce terminandis quaeritur frustra longius à Dominica Passione summoventur ad excidium urbis Petav. lib. 12. c. 32. So also Conradus Pawel in his Concilio Chronologico saying Septuaginta hebdomades in annos resolutae confi ciunt quadringentos nonaginta annos harumque hebdomadum finis praefinitus est paucis annis post excisionem hoc est passionem mortem Christi Verba enim Oraculi apud Danielem expresse designant medium ultimae hebdomadis So also Pontanus in his Chronologie of Sabbathical years pag. 155. in these words Quod in dimidio ipsius hebdomadis dicitur Christum facturum ut cessent Sacrificia Oblationes hoc dubio procul impletum est quum ille seipsum in sacrificium offerens legales oblationes sacrificia abolevit in dimidio vel circa dimidium illius hebdomadis de praeciso tempore mortis illius intelligendum est So also Lansbergius in his Chronologie lib. 2 c. 11. Porro tempus definit Angelus in quo Christus Sacrificia Oblationes legales per mortem suam abrogaturus sit nimirum Dimidia Septimanae septuagesimae hoc est anno quarto ejusdem septimanae vel quando tres anni sex menses finiuntur So also Cluverus in his Computo Chronologico where speaking of the last week and shewing how it is divided into two parts when he commeth to the last part he hath these words Alterius Semiquadriennii principium est in abrogatione hostiae sacrificii per Crucem resurrectionem Christi facta finis verò in abdicatione gentis Judaicae translatione Evangelii ad Ethnicos Nam sicut priori semiquadriennio Christus in propria persona Judaeos docuerat sic posteriori per Apostolos suos alios Doctores itidem solis Judaeis pactum paternum confirmavit Verum cum illi repudiarent istud sacrificiis suis irrationalibus inhaererent occisis insuper Stephano aliis Christianis monstravit Chrstus Petro per visionem ad gentes transferendum esse regnum suum Act. 10. Paulum singulari miraculo conversum emisit ut gentibus annunciaret Evangelium regni Dei And now if after all this it be objected Object that these weekes must therefore end at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans because the Angel saith They be determined or cut out over the people and the holy City if I say this be objected my answer then is Answ That they be indeed determined or cut out over the people and over the holy City but it was to finish transgression and to make an end of Sinne to make reconciliation for iniquity to bring in everlasting righteousnesse to seale up vision and Prophet and to annoint the most Holy All which have manifest relation to that which Christ did in or near the last week of the 70 For near the beginning of that week Jesus Christ that Holy of holies was annointed with the holy Ghost in populi sui Redemptorem for a Redeemer of his people For although Christ alwayes had the Spirit yet for all that there was to be a kind of solemne annointing him to undertake that Office witnessed by the Prophet Esa 61.1 and performed accordingly at his
Passover to be understood of the Lamb rather then of any other thing eaten by them at that Feast But how will that place in Iob. 19.14 be answered where the day of Christs death is called the Preparation of the Passover It is called there the Preparation of the Passover not in regard of the Passover but in regard of the Sabbath in the Passover as Master Perkns observeth In Marke therefore chap. 15. verse 42. it is called the Preparation not of the Passover but the preparation which went before the Sabbath And in Luke 23.54 It was the Preparation saith the Evangelist and the Sabbath drew on Which Sabbath was an high day because of the Chagigah Passover which was then to be eaten ae well as on the day before Or else thus The forenoon of the day of Christs death was the Preparation to the eating of the Passeover Bullocke and in the afternoone was the Preparation of the Sabbath And thus is this Text answered From it also appeareth that the translation of dayes which Scaliger speaketh of was not in use so soone as these times For though the late Iewes tell us that the constitutions thereunto belonging were set forth by Eleazar in the beginning of the second Temple and that they have a book treating of the motion of the Sun the Moon said to be written by Rabbi Gamaliel in which this translation of dayes is confirmed although I say they tell us these things yet will the whole be found inventions of a later age For when the Authors of the Mischna and Thalmud lived the sixteenth day of Nisan might be on the Sabbath day as is written Cod. Pesachim cap. 7. And if the sixteenth were and might be Sabbath day then both was and might the fifteenth be feria sexta as it was in this year of our Saviours Passion Learned Langius hath gallantly declared this howbeit he agreeth with those who say Christ and the Iewes kept not one and the same day And the reason of their difference he taketh to be in regard of two chief Sects among the Iewes viz. the Karraeans and the Thalmudists who though they both began their Moneths according to the Phasis or Vision of the Moon yet in regard of the manner of their observation they did sometimes differ a day each from other insomuch that that which to the Karraeans was the second day of the Moneth The Thalmudists accounted but the first And so it was saith he in that year when Christ suffered Now Christ following the Karraeans did therfore eat the Passover one day sooner then the rest of the Iewes who followed the Thalmudists But I doubt much of the truth of this opinion not only because all the Iewes kept one and the same day as I have already shewed but also because it maketh Christs Passion as he accounts the difference now and in this yeare to be on the Thursday and fifth day of the weeke which is contrary to the Scriptures and to all the Creeds of the Christian Church I confesse him indeed to be a man of full deepe learning much reading and great knowledge in the Tongues but in this I doe beleeve he will have but few to follow him especially considering what the Apostle saith in 1 Cor. 15.4 namely That Christ rose againe the third day according to the Scriptures wheras by his opinion he must not arise untill the fourth day If then the third be according to the Scriptures the fourth is not but is to be refused of all them who will be guided by the Scriptures CHAP. XXIII The times of Vespasian and Titus together with the Destruction of Jerusalem WHen the reignes of Galba Otho and Vitellius had well neare measured the length of a year then was Vespasian advanced to the Empire in the second yeare of whose reigne his sonne Titus destroyed the City and Common-wealth of the Jewes this destruction falling out to be in the yeare of the Iulian Period 4783. and seventyeth yeare of Christ according to the Vulgar and common account The Ancients as Egesippus Clemens of Alexandria Eusebius Hierom and others say that it was 40 yeares after Christ's Passion and the reason of that I take to be because many of the Fathers accounted Christ's Baptisme to be in the twelfth yeare of Tiherius and his Passion in the fifteenth which was certaine an absolute error as I have already plainly shewed I take it therefore for granted that this was the yeare when Jerusalem was destroyed and have already proved it so in the seventeenth Chapter It was without doubt a dismall overthrow and sundry were the Signs and tokens that went before it of which we read at large in Josephus De bello Judaico lib. 7. cap. 12. as also in Eusebius his Eclesiasticall History lib. 3. cap. 8. There was a terrible blazing Starre or Comet fashioned like a Sword which for a years space in threatning manner hung over the City The Moon suffered an Eclipse for twelve nights together Before the Warre in the Feast of Sweet-bread upon the eighth day of April in the night a clear light as bright as day was seene in the Temple abiding the full space of halfe an houre And upon the same Feast day a Calfe being prepared for the Sacrifice brought forth a Lamb in the middle of the Temple The East Gate of the inward Temple being a Gate of Brasse fast locked and barred opened by its own accord this was about the middle of the night and much labour there was to shut it up againe Some few dayes after upon the 21. day of May a little before Sun-setting in the Skies were seen Armies of men fighting and Horses and Chariots running too and fro And on the day of Pentecost the Priests entring into the Temple according to their custome heard a terrible voice sounding out these words Let us go hence But that saith Josephus which was more terrible then all these was the crie of one Josus the sonne of Anani He was a man of the common sort of people and brought up in the Country who in the dayes of Albinus the Roman Governour of Judea Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles four yeares before the beginning of their Warres suddainly as he was in the Temple began to cry after this manner A voice from the East a voice from the West a voice from the four Winds a voice against Jerusalem and the Temple a voice against the Bridegroomes and Brides and a voice against the whole multitude of the City In which manner he continued crying day and night up and downe the streets without any hoarsnesse or wearinesse for the space of seven yeares and five Moneths but chiefly on the Feast dayes neither cursing them that hurt him nor thanking them that releeved him and being brought before the Deputy by the Magistrates and Nobles of the City they whip this flesh to the very bones for which he neither wept nor craved mercy but at every stroke cried Woe woe
but ninteen years the Marmora Arundelliana 28 Orosius 30 Ctesias 31 Julianus Toletanus 34 Herodotus 36 and Clemens of Alexandria 46. In which diversity all the helpe that we have is from Herodotus who though he give him 36 years doth neverthelesse declare that he dyed in the fifth year after the Marathon war which war was not till the second year of the seventy second Olympiad in which was the one and thirtieth year of his reigne And therefore the whole time of his reigne could be but 34 years compleate as Julianus Toletanus reckoneth And of these he reigned but 33 before his son Xerxes was taken in to reigne with him as in Herodotus again appeareth lib. 7. Xerxes therfore began in the year of the Julian Period 4226 and as Diodorus saith reigned something more then twenty years after whom Artabanus by whom Xerxes was slain continued seven moneths and at the end thereof Artabanus also being slain Artaxerxes Longimanus began to reigne alone and dyed not untill the seventh year of the Peloponnesian War in the winter time thereof viz in the year of the Julian Period 4289 almost finished as both Thucidides and Diodorus witnesse Thucid. lib. 4. Diodor. lib. 11. Ctesias therefore was right in giving 42 years to this King after the death of Artabanus But we are to note that this Artaxerxes had a twofold beginning to reigne The one some years before his Father Xerxes dyed The other after his Fathers death when he had slain Artabanus who slew his Father seven moneths before From the first he reigned 49 years and from the second but 42 as hath been shewed The first began in the year of the Julian Period 4240 towards the end thereof even before the beginning of the seventh moneth the other in the year of the same Period 4247. Thucidides hath an eye to the first of these and so have the holy Scriptures in accounting the years of this King but other old Authours generally account from the latter time when he began to reigne alone in which Diodorus a little differeth from Ctesias and hath therefore but 40 years in the stead of 42. But now why this King should begin in his Fathers life time and so soon as I have mentioned is in regard of what we finde storyed concerning the banishment of Themistocles the Athenian who being expelled out of Athens by his unthankfull Country-men and Citizens fled to the King of Persia for succour in the second year of the seventy seventh Olympiad as Diodorus casts the time and then we are sure Xerxes was living because the time of his reigne was something more then twenty years Diodorus hereupon saith that Themistocles came to Xerxes and so doe some others but Thucidides who was near those times as also Plutarch Charon Lampsacenus and Aemilius Probus have witnessed that he came to Artaxerxes of late having begun to reigne And if to Artaxerxes of late having begun to reigne it must needs follow that Artaxerxes had a beginning before the second year of the 77 Olympiad which as appeareth by the account of Daniels 70 Weeks was in the year of the Julian Period 4240 about the sixth moneth which among the Jews was called Elul and living after that till the seventh year of the Peloponnesian War must needs have a longer time of reigne from this beginning then either forty or two and forty years But for a more clear demonstration and so to reconcile these Authours that they may speak true on either side let me add out of Petavius namely That Themistocles being banished came to come to Xerxes King of Persia as Diodorus and diverse other Story-writers declare and finding Xerxes busied in some expedition or not in the City which was the seate of his Kingdome he sent letters to his son Artaxerxes who of late had began to reigne as Thucidides sheweth For in this respect Story-writers may indifferently relate that he fled as well to the one as the other and our conclusion from hence may be that he fled to the Persians Xerxes yet living when Artaxerxes was already taken in to reigne with him in the Empire as being the next that was to reigne alone after him Thus Xerxes also began to reigne before Darius dyed as hath been proved out of Herodotus Petay lib. 12. cap. 25. For according to a Law among the Persians when the King went to war abroad he did for the most part appoint and constitute one of his sons for his successour from which time some Authours account the years of such an ones reigne whilest others account but from the time of his Fathers death And in the Kingdome of Babylon Nebuchadnezzars reigne began after the same manner as by Berosus compared with holy Scripture may be seen This was usuall also among the Kings of Judah and Israel as by the Scripture alone is manifest which not observed hath caused many grosse mistakes concerning the right reckoning of their reignes Eusebius mentions the flight of Themistocles two years sooner then Diodorus doth who therefore casteth it into the fourth year of the seventy sixth Olympiad which was in the year of the Julian Period 4241 and then was the first year of Artaxerxes still running on by my account This of Eusebius I finde approved by a late learned writer Jacobus Armachanus in his Annals of holy Scripture who sayes that it agrees conveniently enough to the tradition of Thucidides which setteth the comming of Themistocles to Artaxerxes between the siege of Naxus and that noble victory gotten by Cimon over the Persians at Eurimedon and doth withall place the beginning of the reigne of Artaxerxes between those bounds For * viz. Thucidides he said Themistocles then sent letters to Artaxerxes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of late having begun to reigne by which he both desired his friendship and also promised his owne aide to him against the Greekes From which is found out the true beginning of the reigne of Artaxerxes and is from hence proved not to be so late by nine years as is commonly accounted Thus he in his Annals I say of holy Scripture which when I saw I was not a little confirmed in my judgment For though I accounted thus long before I ever read any thing of his in this kinde yet for my better confirmation herein I was glad to meete with the concurrence of so eminent a man from whom though I varie much in the ancient account of the Hebrew moneths and year as also in some other particulars yet here as in many things elsewhere I cannot but embrace him with much gladnesse and shall ever esteeme him as sure enough he is a man of excellent parts great industry piety and much learning worthy to be accounted among the number of those whose memories are precious after their deaths But to returne There is moreover a passage mentioned by Petavius out of Justin to shew the occasion of this beginning as may be seen in his Doctrina Temporum lib. 10.
c. 25. where he also answereth to what Pererius objecteth against it And indeed it is probable that when Xerxes upon the death of Pausanias who should have betrayed Greece to the Persians but was discovered went about to renew his war against the Grecians that then he tooke this his sonne Artaxerxes to reign with him and to be his next successour which Artabanus afterwards would have hindered and made void but could not The next after this Artaxerxes was Xerxes the second who reigned two Months or as Ctesias saith 45 days After whom Sogdianus had seven or eight Moneths more And when Sogdianus was dead Darius Nothus in the yeare of the Julian Period 4290 began to enter upon those XIX yeares which Diodorus saith was the time of his reigne according to whom I reckon the yeares of all the other Kings in this Monarchie to the end thereof And must therefore give to Artaxerxes Mnemon after the death of Nothus 43 years To Artaxerxes Ochus after the death of Mnemon 23. To Arses after Ochus 3. And to Darius Codoman after Arses 6. And thus we have all the Kings of this Monarchie together with the yeares of their reigne and do thereby finde the death of the last of them to be in the yeare of the Julian Period 4384. But for a more cleare demonstration see the Table following Y. of the Julian Period Yeers of the World Rests Jubilees Captivity Olympiads Egypt Babylon Lydians Medes Persians A Perfect Table for the better understanding of some of the former and following Passages 4131 3422 1  24 2 14  25  35  13  CYRUS over Persta *  This was the 24th yeer of the Captivity the fourteenth yeer of Apries King of Egypt the 25th yeer of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon the 35. of Halyattes King of Lydia and the thirteenth of Astyages King of Media 4132 3423 2  25 3 15  26  36  14   4133 3424 3  26 4 16  27  37  15   4134 3425 4  27 1 17  28  38  16   4135 3426 5  28 2 18  29  39  17   4136 3427 6  29 3 19  30  40  18   4137 3428 7 6 30 4 20  31  41  19   4138 3429 1  31 1 21  32  42  20    4139 3430 2  32 2 22  33  43  21    4140 3431 3  33 3 23  34  44  22    4141 3432 4  34 4 24  35  45  23   Tyrus is yeelded to Nebuchadnezzar and Egypt is conquered soon after continuing under Babel forty yeers 4142 3433 5  35 1 25 Amafis 45. 36  46  24   4143 3434 6  36 2 1 37  47  25   4144 3435 7 7 37 3 2 38  48  26   4145 3436 1 Jub xviii 38 4 3 39  49  27  1 * Nebuchadnezzar is seven yeers mad 4146 3437 2 39 1 4  40  50  28  2 4147 3438 3 40 2 5  41  51  29  3  4148 3439 4 41 3 6  42  52  30  4  4149 3440 5 42 4 7  43  53  31  5  4150 3441 6 43 1 8  44  54  32  6  4151 3442 7 1 44 2 9  45  55  33  7  4152 3443 1  45 3 10  1 Evilmerodaeh 12. 56  34   Evilmerodach began in this yeer and reigned twelve yeers Sulpit. 4153 3444 2  46 4 11  2 57  35   4154 3445 3  47 1 12  3 1 Crefus 14. 1 Cyaxares secundus  Astyages being dead Cyaxares began Xenoph. 4155 3446 4  48 2 13  4 2 2 1  In this yeer Cyrus is made Generall of the Persian and Median Forces from which time his thirty yeers of reign are to be accounted 4156 3447 5  49 3 14  5  3 3 2  4157 3448 6  50 4 15  6  4  4 3  4158 3449 7 2 51 1 16  7  5  5 4  4159 3450 1  52 2 17  8  6  6  5  4160 3451 2  53 3 18  9  7  7  6   4161 3452 3  54 4 19  10  8  8  7   4162 3453 4  55 1 20  11  9  9  8   4163 3454 5  56 2 21  12  10  10  9   4164 3455 6  57 3 22  1 Belshazzar 14. 11  11  10  Evilmerodach being slain in battel Belshazzar began and reigned 14. yeers Sulpit. 4165 3456 7 3 58 4 23  2 12  12  11  4166 3457 1  59 1 24  3 13  13  12  4167 3458 2  60 2 25  4 14  14  13  In this yeer Cyrus conquers Croesus and possesseth his Kingdom 4168 3459 3  61 3 26  5  15  14  4169 3460 4  62 4 27  6  16  15   4170 3461 5  63 1 28  7  17  16   Y. of the Julian Period Yeers of the World Rests Jubilees Olympiads Persians Medes Egypt Babylon Captivity A Perfect Table for the better understanding of some of the former and following Passages 4171 3462 6  2  17 18 29 8  64  4172 3463 7 4 3  18 19 30 9  65  4173 3464 1  4  19 20 31 10  66  4174 3465 2  1 60 20 21 32 11  67  4175 3466 3  2  21 22 33 12  68  4176 3467 4  3  22 23 34 13  69  4177 3468 5  4  23 24 35 14 Cyrus 7. 70  4178 3469 6  1 61 24 25 36 1 Babylon is taken by Cyrus and the seventy yeers of the Captivity are ended even in this first yeer of Cyrus which was also the first of Darius-Medus 4179 3470 7 5 2  25  37 2 4180 3471 1  3  26  38 3  4181 3472 2  4  27  39 4  4182 3473 3  1 62 28  40 5  Egypt shakes off all subjection to the Kingdom of Babylon forty yeers after Nebuchadnezzar conquered it Ezek. 29.13 Jer. 46.26 4183 3474 4  2  29  41 6  4184 3475 5  3  30  42 7  4185 3476 6  4  43 1 Cambyses 7. 5 m. Cyrus being dead Cambyses began to reign alone and reigned from hence seven yeers