70 years are accomplished at Babylon I will visit you Ier. 29.10 For I will rise up against them saith the Lord of hosts and cut off from Babylon the name and remnant both son and nephew saith the Lord. Esa 14.22 And againe When there commeth a Nation out of the North and layeth Babel wast then in those dayes and at that time saith the Lord the Children of Israel shall come weeping and enquiring the way to Sion Ier. 50.4 Now that no part of this could goe beyound the death of Belshazzar the third King is apparant out of Daniels prophecy For this saith he is the interpretation of the thing MENE God hath numbred thy Kingdome and finished it Dan. 5.26 Where note that if Nebuchadnezzars Kingdome were numbred and finished at the death of Belshazzar then must no part either of his Kingdome or of the 70 years be after that time for not onely were the years of the Kingdome but of the Captivity to end then their dates by Scripture depending each upon other It is therefore said in Esay that Tyrus which we know was one of them that was to bear Babels yoake shall be forgotten 70 years according the dayes of one King Esa 23.15 Which expression according to the dayes of one King is certainly meant of one Kingdome and is expounded so by a like phrase in Dan. 7.17 23. Of one Kingdome I say viz. The Kingdome of Babylon which was Nebuchadnezzars Kingdome continued onely to him his son and his sons son as was before mentioned out of Ier. 27.7 and Esay 14.22 Upon consideration of which sure it was Hist World lib. 3. c. 1. sect 4. that Sir Walter Raleigh in his History of the World could say They who meerly follow the authority of the Scripture without borrowing any helpe from others name onely three Kings viz. Nebuchadnezzar Evilmerodach and Belshazzar For which they have not onely the filence of Daniel for their warrant who names none other but even the promise of Ieremiah also precisely and in a manner purposely teaching the same Jer. 27.7 In which text be words expressing the continuance of the Chaldaean Empire and number of the Kings so as will hardly be qualified with any distinction And indeed I finde no other necessity of qualification to be used herein then such as may grow out of mens desire to reconcile the Scriptures unto prophane Authours Which desire were not unjust if the consent of all Histories were on the one side and the letter of the holy Text were single on the other side Thus he very gravely and judiciously and therefore without some handsome way of reconcilement I shall build no more upon the Authority of this Fragment of Berosus then I have hitherto done But perhaps a way may be found Suppose we then this to be propable That after Evilmerodach had reigned two years that then he gave himselfe to sloth and luxury and thereupon appointed Naragalrazar his sisters husband to be his Deputy which continued for the space of four years at the end whereof Evilmerodach either dyed or was slain by his Debuty who thereupon strove what he could to establish the Kingdome to his owne son Labosardach albeit he were a child But Nabonidus otherwise called Balthasar or Belshazzar impatient of such an injury prevailes against him For though for nine moneths space he was a little molested yet at the end thereof he was quietly possessed of his Fathers throne which he held for the space of seventeen years and was then slain at the taking of Babylon by King Cyrus who in the second year of his expedition took the City and so ended the time of Babels Kingdome in which the Nations were to serve Nebuchadnezzar his son and his sons son This I confesse would seeme something probable were all things correspondent but here is so short a time for the reign of these Kings that they will be all dead and gone before the Captivity was ended which can by no means be I remember therefore what is conjectured by the knight before mentioned in his History of the World lib. 3. cap. 1. sect 13. viz. That the seven years or six years and nine moneths given by Berosus to Evilmerodach Naragalrazar and Labosardach are not to be reckoned after the death of Nebuchadnezzar but rather before namely in the time of his Madnesse and living Wilde during which time Evilmerodach having expected the recovery of his Father about some three moneths reigned two years then Naragalrazar having put him downe rules four years and last of all Labosardach nine moneths in the end whereof Nebuchadnezzar is againe restored Which opinion though differing from that of Lyranus and Pererius who make Evilmerodach the sole Regent in his Fathers absence and is also differing from that of Josephus who speaking of Nebuchadnezzars madnesse saith none durst invade the Kingdome all those seven years yet for all that I think no wise man will lightly esteeme it for it serves better to reconcile Berosus to the Scriptures then any other opinion that hitherto hath been extant Scaliger in his Animadversions upon Eusebius expounds Berosus otherwise and saith Evilmerodach succeeded Nebuchadnezzar whom Naragalrazar slew thereby to advance his own son the nephew of Nebuchadnezzar to the Septer which himself swayed as Protectour in the minority of his son who was called Labosardach But Naragalrazar being dead and his son more fit for a Chamber then a Throne Nabonidus conspired against him slew him This Nabonidus saith Scaliger is Darius Medus and Labosardach is that Belshazzar mentioned by Daniel according to his interpretation of the Prophet out of Berosus and Megasthenes which indeed is but his interpretation who we know was in all thing singular and in most things peremptory and therefore though he scorneth all other Chronologers who subscribe not to his magisteriall Dictates yet are his bare words no warrant nor scornes good proofes to make us think his Tenets the onely true ones no not here in this now under question For the Oracle of the Prophet points us out no other then Nebuchadnezzar Evilmerodach and Belshazzar as already hath been proved Unto which let me add that Herodotus calleth the last King of Babylon Labynitus and who was this but Nabonidus in Berosus and who was Nabonidus but Belshazzar called by the Babylonians Naboandel as saith Josephus who was Belshazzar but he whom Cyrus conquered as Xenophon plainly with the Prophet Daniel beareth witnesse Note also further that Darius Medus was a Mede by birth and not a Babylonian being Darius of the seed of the Medes Dan. 9.1 And if a Mede by birth then how could Nabonidus be Darius Medus who even in Berosus himselfe is said to be a Babylonian And as Daniel is against him so also Esay shewing that he came not to his Kingdom by Election For behold I will stur up the Medes against thee Esa 13.17 The Medes therefore assaulted Babylon and took it together with the Persians not by favour but by
 In this yeare Troy was taken and destroyed 408. yeares before the Olympiads of Iphitus and 432. before the building of Rome began as is witnessed by Diodorus lib. 14. CHAP. VIII Of the Kingdome of the Aborigines THis Kingdome was in Italy and began in the year of the Julian Period 3385. Janus was the first King he reigned 33. yeares In his time Saturn fled out of Crete into this Country as both Poets and Historiograpers witnesse The time when he came was in the 17. yeare of Janus after which he and Janus reigned about 17. yeares accounting the yeare when he came to be the first yeare of his reigne Scal. Euseb These people were called Aborigines at the first because their Originall was unknowne and yet * Dionys Hal. some say they were formerly Arcadians and came with Oenotrius Sonne of Lycan into Italy But Scaliger saith their right name was Aberrigines a multo errore from their much wandring The next King after those two before mentioned was Picus the Sonne of Saturne he reigned 37. yeares Euseb Saint Austin speaking of Picus saith that he was the Son of Saturn and first successor in the Kingdome of the Laurentines For Laurentium was the eldest City of Latium the seat of the Aborigines and the place where their Kingdome after they came into Italy was founded called Laurentum of the Laurell Wood that grew neere it Moreover it is said of Picus that he was turned into a Pye because being a great Sooth-sayer he kept such a Bird alwayes for his Augury Of which see more in Saint Aug. De civit lib. 18. cap. 15. together with the notes of Ludovicus Vives thereupon Faunus the Sonne of Picus succeeded and reigned 44. years Euseb Vives ex Dionys Helvic Dionisius saith that some held Mars to be his great Grandfather and that the Romans worshipped him with Songs and Sacrifices as their Countries Genius Latinus reigned after Faunus 36. yeares in the latter end of his reigne Aeneas came into Italy and when Latinus was dead reigned after him three years But of Aeneas more shall be spoken afterward And now see all these in their right times Yeares of the Julian Period when they beg A List of the ancient Kings of Italy before Aeneas rightly fixed 3385. Janus and Saturne 33. 3418. Picus the Sonne of Saturne 37. 3455. Faunus the Sonne of Picus 44. 3499. Latinus after Faunus 36. 3535. In this yeare Latinus dyed and Aeneas began to reigne CHAP. VI. Of the Kings of Italy after Latinus PEtavius gathers out of Dionisius that Aeneas the Successor of Laâ—inus began to reigne in Italy in the fift yeare after the destruction of Troy The first year therefore of his reigne was in the yeare of the Julian Period 3535. and yeare of the World 2826. This was about three yeares after he came into this Country for he came hither about the second or third year after that City was destroyed Soon after his comming he married Lavinia Daughter to Latinus and built Lavinium Then when Latinus was slaine in the Warre with the Rutili and leaving no issue Male behind him he succeedeth in the Kingdome but is warred against by Turnus formerly betroathed to Lavinia but in this Warre Turnus is slaine by Aeneas and hee also slain afterward in another Warre with Mezentius King of Tuscanie after he had reigned three yeares Ascanius was his Successor with whom also Mezentius waged Warre and besieged him so streightly in Lavinium that he was glad to crave for peace but could not have it unlesse upon hard conditions whereupon he sallied out suddainly and slew Lausus the sonne of Mezentius which put that Army into such a feare that Mezentius not only condiscended to peace upon equall termes but ever after remained a true friend to Ascanius His Father was Aeneas and his Mother not Lavinia but Creusa For though Lavinia were with child by Aeneas yet she was not delivered till after her Husbands death And indeed being left alone without either Father or Husband she much feared his Son Ascanius and thereupon betooke her to the chiefe Herdsman of her deceased Husband by whom she had an house built her in the Woods and was there delivered of a Sonne whom she called Silvius Posthumus Now the People knew nothing of this save onely that she was with Child Ascanius therupon is suspected to have murthered her but he to clear himselfe causeth them to be both brought from thence and provideth carefully for them For in the seven and twentieth yeare of his reigne he leaveth the City Lavinium to his Step mother and built Alba longa where he reigned to the end of 38. years from the death of Aeneas and at his death neglecting his Sonne Julus he constituted * From him all the Albanian Kings were called Silvii Silvius Posthumus for his Successor Howbeit Julus was honorably provided for and from him discended the Family of the Julii This Sonne then of Aeneas by Lavinia succeeded Ascanius and reigned after him twenty nine yeares who because he was born in a Wood and after his Fathers death had this name of Silvius Posthumus The next after him was Aeneas Silvius he reigned one and thirty yeares After him was Latinus Silvius who reigned 51. yeares For if that which was the first year of Numitor was also the first yeare of Romulus as Saint Austin saith it was then must the time of this mans reigne be rather 51. then 50. yeares And note that of him the people were called Latines Alba Silvius succeeded and reigned 39. yeares Then Silvius Athys 24. Capis Silvius 28. Calpetus Silvius 13. Tiberinus Silvius 8. Of him the River came to be called Tiber because it was his hap to be drowned in it Agrippa Silvius succeeded and reigned 40. yeares After him was Aremulus otherwise called Alladius Silvius who having reigned 19. yeares was with Palace wherein he lived swallowed up because he strived to imitate the Thunder Next after him was Aventinus Silvius 37. Then Proca Silvius 23. Amulius Silvius 44. And last of all Numitor one which was also the first yeare of Romulus And now see them in their right times Yeares of the Julian Period when they beg A Catalogue of the Kings after Latinus ex Eusebio all of them fixed in their right times 3535. Aeneas 3. 3538. Ascanius 38. 3576. Silvius Pasthumus 29. 3605. Aeneas Silvius 31. 3636. Latinus Silvius 51. 3687. Alba Silvius 39 3726. Silvius Athys 24. 3750. Capis Silvius 28. 3778. Calpetus Silvins 13. 3791. Tiberinus Silvius 8. 3799. Agrippa Silvius 40. 3839. Aremulus sive Alladius 19. 3858. Aventinus Silvius 37. 3895. Proca Silvius 23. 3918. Amulius Silvius 44. 3962. Nunitor 1. Which was also the first yeare of Romulus and yeare when the foundation of Rome was laid CHAP. X. Of the British Kings that reigned in England from Brute to the time of Julius Caesar and after BRute the first King of the Brittaines arrived here in this Iland according to the common
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.
27. even when the worst of Winter was past which in one place of Josephus is translated rigor hyemis as thus ubi autem rigor hyemis cessit c. and in another place ubi tempestas desaeviit Now we know that even in our Northerne Climate the worst of Winter is past long before Aprill which in hotter Countries must be passed sooner then with us by far I reckon therfore that Herod came against Jerusalem in the beginning of February and laid seige against it and that the Iews resisted him for five months space before he took it for he took not the City till the 22 of June next after which was the three and twentieth of Sivan and Sabbath day as well in this year as in that when Pompey took it the authorities else of Dion and Xiphilin will be nothing worth no nor the authority of Iosephus for the Sabbathical year which was running on whilst the City was beseiged and withall was not ended when Herod had taken it which well regarded will give no leave to that opinion maintaining that he took it not till the tenth day of the seventh moneth called Tisri as I have already shewed Note also further Antig. lib. 14. cap. 28. that on the fortieth day after Herod returned from the marriage of Mariamne and that he and Sosius both of them bent their forces against the City the first Wall was taken fifteen dayes after that the second for so I understand Iosephus in those particulars But that it were three moneths after this before the Temple and upper City was taken I cannot think for the Porches and outward Temple were taken and burnt even when the second wall was taken and then quickly after the fury of the Souldiers set them on work to take the rest sparing neither sex nor age as Iosephus also sheweth This was saith he in the hundreth and seven and twentieth year of the Assamonaean Family but how we must account these years I doe not well understand unlesse it be that we are to begin our account in the 150 year of the Greekes which was in the year of the Iulian Period 4551. for then did Antiochus Eupator make a Covenant though he quickly broke it with Judas Maccabeus and the rest of the Iews that they should enjoy their Laws and Liberties as formerly they had done 1 Macc. 6.58 And indeed there is reason to reckon from hence seeing the end of these years is fixed in the death of Antigonus when Herod and Sosius took Jerusalem And now also for the time when Titus took and destroyed this City it must be one hundred and seven years after Herod had taken it and these 107 not compleate but current For Jerusalem was destroyed as saith Iosephus by the Romans one hundred and seven years after Herod had taken it yet so Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. as the destruction thereof by Titus must fall into the second year of Vespasian as he againe declareth De bello Iudaic lib. 7. cap. 10. and cap. 18. The time therefore when Titus destroyed it will fall into the year of the Iulian Period 4783 which was in the hundreth and seventh year after it was taken by Herod and Sosius For whereas Herod took it towards the latter end of Iune in the year of the Iulian Period 4677 the Temple was burned by Titus his Soldiers in August in the year of the same Period 4783 and the City in September next after the second year of Vespasian being begun on the Kalends of Iuly before For there were saith Xiphilin from the death of Nero who dyed on the ninth of Iune to the beginning of Vespasian one year and two and twentie dayes But of this destruction of Ierusalem by Titus I shall speake more afterwards in the last Chapter I come therefore now to shew the true time of Herods reigne CHAP. XVIII Of the time of Herods reigne and of his Posterity IT was near about such time as the Romans were growing into a full Monarchy that Herod the great the son of Antipater came to his Kingdome He had a reigne of 37 years from that time wherein he was declared King by the Senate and of 34 from the taking of Jerusalem by himself and Sosius witnessed by Iosephus * Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 26. and lib. 17. ca. 10. De bello Iudaic. lib. 1. cap. ult in sundry places of his Writings Then after him his son Archelaus reigned nine years compleat and near the beginning of his tenth year was banished by Augustus And in the twentieth year of Tiberius his other son Philip dyed having then had a reigne of 37 years after his Father as * Antiq. lib. 17. cap. ultim lib. 18 cap. 6. Iosephus again declareth Antipas also another of his sons was Tetrarch of Galile which he held from the time of his Fathers death untill the dayes of Caius Caligula who by the meanes of Agrippa banished him into France This Antipas was he by whom the Baptist was beheaded and under whom out Saviour suffered Agrippa was the son of Aristobulus and Nephew to Antipas for Aristobulus was another of Herods sons who was put to death by his Father And as for Agrippa it was he who put Iames to death and was himselfe eaten up of Wormes Herod King of Chalcis was this Agrippa's brother he dyed in the eighth year of Claudius and had his Kingdom given to Agrippa junior the son of Agrippa senior who reigned over it for the space of four years at the end whereof the Emperour takes it away from him also and in the stead thereof gives to him the Tetrarchships of Philip and Lysanias c. In them he reigned and lived in friendship with the Romans untill the third year of Trajan and was therefore alive thirty years after the destruction of Ierusalem by Titus But this is not that which I aime at for that which I chiefly intend to prove is the true time of Herod the great before whose death our Saviour Christ was certainely borne Math. 2.1 For as the Scripture speaketh he was born in the dayes of Herod the King This Herod as I said before had a reigne of 37 years from that time wherein he was declared King by the Romans and of 34 from the taking of Jerusalem by himselfe and Sosius The first of these reckonings began in the sixth Iulian year when Cn. Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio were Consuls the other in the ninth Iulian year when M. Agrippa and L. Canidius Gallus were Consuls And if so then the last of these years must certainly begin in the two and fortieth Iulian year and year of the Iulian Period 4710 Herod therefore dyed in the three and fortieth Iulian year and year of the same Period 4711 before Easter when from his first beginning he had reigned 37 years compleat and from his second 34 years current Petavius strives for the year before this and that chiefly in regard of an Eclipse of the
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
whom Terah was moved to goe with Abraham Now Moses mentioneth onely the appearing to Abraham and the bringing of him out of Vr but leaveth the speech to be gathered by the like in Genesis the twelfe from whence Saint Stephen frameth it saying that after Terah's death God biddeth him leave his Fathers house and not his Land and kindred onely And note that the family of Terah was in his house out of which Abraham could not depart while Terah is with him as principall of the journey Nor doth the Hebrew text in Genesis Chap. 12. vers 1. but run on in plainnesse thus And God said unto Abraham Not for God had said And therefore when Terah dyed in Haran God said unto Abraham Get thee out of thy Country and from thy kindred and from thy Fathers house unto the Land that I will shew thee And in a word to take away all further cavill about these two callings of Abraham let it be againe observed that he was in his Country whilst he was at Haran as well as when he was at Vr of the Chaldees for both these places were in one Country in Mesopotamia the Country between the * viz. Chabora Euphrates See Willet on Gen. c. 25. Quest 22. rivers containing both Syria and Chaldea And in that regard Abraham afterwards sending to Haran for a wife for his Son Isaac called it his Country and the place of his kindred as is recorded in Gen. 24.2.10 See also Codoman in his Chronologie Note this that as it was in the birth of Noahs Sons so also in the birth of Thares Sons lib. 1. cap. 3. But to goe and give truth the more perfect lustre let this be likwise known wel observed that Thare or Terah being 70 years old begat the eldest of those three Sons Abram Nahor and Haran and not all of them even as Noah had done before who begat the eldest of his three Sem Ham and Japhet when he was 500. The eldest of them I say and not any of them before that year So that if Noah begat the eldest of his three when he was 500. then Terah begat the eldest of his three when he was 70. The eldest of Noah's three was not Sem neither could the eldest of Terah's three be Abraham because the manner of speaking is used in the Genealogies of the one which is in the Genealogies of the other If therefore it could be proved that Sem were the eldest of Noah's children it would be the more easily granted that Abraham was the eldest of Terah's children but the one cannot be proved and therefore the other may not be granted The contrary may be found and made apparent viz. that Sem was not the eldest nor that any of the three was borne before Noah was 500. which being so the like must be in the begetting of Terah's Sons namely that Abraham was not the eldest though first named nor that any of the three was borne before Terah was 70. The nameing of Sem first and of Abraham first doth nothing prove their Eldership For it is no necessary consequence to say the first named in Scripture were alwayes the eldest in blood and birth then should Iacob be elder then Esau and Ephraim elder then Manasses which we know to be otherwise Gen. 28.5 and chap. 48.20 It is therefore well observed that Moses doth neither reckon the Sons of Terah nor those of Noah according to their Eldership but according to their Dignity and although they who be first named had not the priority of Birthright yet the Dignity of it is bestowed on them as it was upon Iacob and others because the Scriptures honour the blessed seed and line of Christ above the rest For in Scripture there is a three-fold order of numbring men the first is Naturall the second Personall or of Dignity and the third Historicall Now hereupon it was that Saint Austin said Piety saith he or rather divine Election which evermore doth carry piety and the feare of God along with it was the thing which gave place and precedency to Sem among the children of Noah and to Abraham among those of Terah And indeed Abraham being the Father of the faithfull in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed was in that respect preferred before his other brethren When therefore Moses comes at Terah he then ends his Genealogie and reckons three together as he did before when he came at Noah onely setting downe the time when either of them begat the eldest of the three And lest it might be thought that the first named was the first born he doth shew that to be otherwise as in Sem when he begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood for then was Sem but an hundred years old and in Abraham when his Father dyed for then was Abraham but 75 years old The eldership among Noah's three belonged to Iapeth but the dignity and prerogative belonged to Sem. For this is certaine The Flood began in the 600 year of Noab's life and Sem two years after that was but an hundred yeares old Genesis 11.10 Which being so two must be added to 600. and then taking Sems 100 out of 602. the remainder will not be 500 but 502 which was the true and right age of Noah at Sems birth The 500 year therefore is assigned for the birth of his eldest which Moses more expresly saith was not Sem but Japhet calling Sem the Father of the Sons of Heber and brother of Iapeth the elder Not the elder brother of Iapeth as may be seen Gen. 10.21 And of Cham or Ham he likewise saith that he was a younger Son For when Noah awoke from his wine he knew what Cham his yonger Son had done Gen. 9.24 In which place the word younger hath relation to the other two Sons who were free from the fact and therefore this Cham was the youngest of them all for as we see it was in respect of his other brethren that he is called the younger son And note that this also sheweth that till Noah was 500 none of all the three was born Norwil the true reading of the text suffer it to be otherwise For thus stand the Words And Noah was 500 years old and Noah begat Sem Ham and Iapeth By which it appeareth that unlesse he had lived no longer then 500 years not any of them all could be born before that time Draw then the Parallel and the like will be in the children of Terah which was in those of Noah viz. that the eldest of the three was born when their Father was 70 and this as far as I can see any probability in the matter must needs be Haran who dyed before Terah and had children marriageable for his two brethren namely Milcha for Nahor and Ischa if she were Sarai for Abraham But however whether she were Sarai yea or no it makes no matter for this is certaine Lot was the Son of Haran and not much younger
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
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
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
Baptisme when the last weeke was ready to begin For then the holy Ghost came downe upon him in the likenesse of a Dove the Heavens being also opened and a voice from the Father saying This is my welbeloved sonne in whom I am well pleased Matth 3.16.17 Luk. 3.22 After which inauguration at the beginning of the last weeke he entred on his Ministry and began to preach deliverance to the Captives and in the middle of the weeke satisfied for us on the Crosse and by his death made an end of sinne freeing us from it and putting it away by the Sacrifice of himselfe as was before proved Joh. 1.29 Rom. 6.18 Heb. 9.26 All therefore that shall need to be now observed further is the method of the Angel in the verse objected speaking of that last which was done first and of that first which was done last which if Calvisius had well observed he needed not have urged the annointing of the Most holy against the right ending of these weekes But perhaps it will be still objected out of the 26 and 27 verses Object that the last weeke could not be the weeke of Christs passion because those verses do expresly mention the destruction of the City and tell us of the Abomination of Desolation which even Christ himselfe would should be regarded as a token or signe of the ruine of the City Answ Mat 24.15 To which I answer that although the destruction of the City be there mentioned yet not because it was within the compasse of the weekes or because the end of them must be extended thither but because the destruction of the City was to follow and fall upon the Jewes as a punishment for their putting Christ to death as in the Annotations foregoing hath been shewed It was spoken of to shew the hainousnesse of that sin and is foreshewed to follow as a just judgement of God for so great a wickednesse and not because it is to be included within the compasse of the weekes And of this destruction the Abomination of Desolation was but a signe spoken of by Daniel the Prophet that 's all and more then that cannot be justly gathered from the places objected But they further urge Object that though the sinne of the Iewes was the cause of their punishment yea and among other sinnes that of putting Christ to death yet did not Ierusalem utterly cease to be a City or Church of God till they contradicted and blaspemed the Apostolicall Ministery by persisting still in their wickednesse For when Jerusalem had condemned and crucified Christ Saint Peter inspired by the holy Ghost saith still To you belong the Promises and to your children Acts 2.39 True Answ I grant as much for after Christs Passion there were still three years and an halfe before the 70 Weekes were ended And till then there was no tender of Salvation to the Gentiles For in the last Week Christ first by himselfe and afterwards by his Apostles preached to the Jews confirming a Covenant with many of them during the time of that Week which being ended the Apostles turne to the Gentiles as already I have most fully and plainly proved But perhaps it will be objected out of Beroaldus Object that the word in the Original commonly translated Middle Beroald lib. 3. cap. 8. must be translated Halfe and not Middle So that Christ shall be said to abolish Sacrifice and Oblation not in the Middle of the Week but in Halfe of the week which Halfe was not the first Halfe because seventy weekes and not sixty nine and ½ were cut out over the people and the Holy City To which is answered though the word indeed is used as well for Halfe as Middle yet here it must be rendred Middle and not Halfe. For even in the text it selfe Christ is said to cause to cease or to abolish Sacrifice and Oblation Now this action is not Actio manens and continuata but cito transiens for it is meant of the death of Christ who put away sin by the death or Sacrifice of himselfe abolishing legall offerings for sin to establish his owne Sacrifice and Oblation once offered upon the Crosse Heb. 9.26 chap. 10.9 Unlesse therefore we will make Christs death to be a continued action and say that he continued in that act of dying for the space of three years and an halfe we must needs grant as the truth is that he was crucified or slaine in the Middle of the Weeke which the confirming of the Covenant doth fully prove But saith Funccius the Sacrifices were of right abolished when Christ was Baptized in witnesse whereof there came a voice from heaven saying This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased Mat. 3.17 Quasi dicat Nulla posthac hostia nullum Sacrificium Mosaicum mihi placebit Which is as if it should be said No offering no Mosaicall Sacrifice shall henceforwards please me any more Whereunto is answered that the Sacrifices of the Law did never please God otherwise then types and shadowes of Christs owne Sacrifice of himselfe and in that respect Moses his Sacrifices and such types of Christ were as well acceptable to God after his Baptisme till his Passion as before which is plain by that in Matthew 8.3 where Christ after his Baptisme bids the Leper offer the gift that Moses commanded which among other things was two Hee Lambes and one Ewe Lamb as is recorded Levit. 14.10 So that still I see the former exposition will stand notwithstanding this Objection But however though their ending may be right yet their beginning cannot unlesse they begin in the first year of Cyrus For if the 70 weeks begin not in the first year of Cyrus the alogie of the 70 years of Captivity and the seven times 70 years of liberty cannot stand To which is answered Answ that an analogie is a proportion similitude or resemblance which one thing hath unto another Now that any intervenient time can destroy an Analogie is as one truely saith a meere Paradox For it is certain there was a true Analogie between the Paschall Lamb in the first Passeover and the Passion of Christ in the last Passeover and yet we know that the one was many hundreds of years after the other Joh. 3.14 As the Serpent was lift up in the wildernesse so must the son of Man be lifted up there was a true analogie but many years between As Jonas was three dayes and three nights in the Whales belly so must the son of Man be three dayes and three nights in the heart of the Earth Mat 12.40 there also was a true analogie but with many years again between This objection therefore is no hindrance either to the length of the Persian Monarchy or to the beginning of the 70 weeks although they begin not just when 70 years of Captivity were ended I conclude therefore that the beginning of the LXX Weeks was in the twentieth year of Ataxerxes Longimanus in the year of the Julian
had purchased a peace to the Empire But he was deceived in his reckoning without all question For first when this taxing began Cyrenius or as he is otherwise called Quirinius was President of Syria which could not be untill the fifth year after his Consulship for untill such a time not any who had been Consul could be sent as an Officer into the Provinces as Suetonius and Dion tell us and therefore untill then Quirinius was not President of Syria Secondly there is in very good Authours mention made of an old Monument of Stone recording the famous deedes of Augustus wherein these three taxings are recorded and although age hath somewhat eaten into it and in certaine places worne out some pieces of the words yet it well appeareth that the Middle taxing was about the Consulship of one whose name was Asinius For when the Monument speaketh of that Taxing although some of the letters be wanting yet we finde sinio Cos By which is meant Asinio Cos That is Asinius being Consul for if the letter A. be put to sinio it will upon necessity be so And indeed where was there a Consul or what was his name who had that termination but Asinius Well but what Asinius was this In the 38. Iulian yeare we finde one called by the name of Cajus Asinius Gallus who was then Consul with Cajus Martius Censorinus After whom there was none of that name Consul til after Herod was dead This then declareth that here was the beginning of that taxing within the compasse whereof Christ was born For first though Dion omitteth to tell us in what year this Middle Taxing was yet doth his silence hinder nothing for by these Characters we find it Secondly this was the fifth year after the Consulship of Quirinius And thirdly we find a passage in Tertullian by which we are pointed to the dayes of Sentius Saturnius which is not impertinent For Saint Luke doth not say that our Saviours birth was under the taxing made by Cyrenius but rather that Cyrenius first began the taxing or that it was first made wheÌ„ Cyrenius was President of Syria To which Suidas well accordeth saying Augustus obtaining a Monarchy appointed twenty men of honest life and conversation whom he sent throughout his Provinces to tax the people their substances of which they were to give an account in publick and this he first began when Quirinius or as Saint Luke calleth him Cyrenius was President of Syria By all which it well appeareth that as this Taxing began in some part of the 38 Julian year so it was depending and not ended untill the 42 Julian year which was the 28 year of the Actium fight the year next after the birth of Christ For if the testimony of Tertullian in his fourth book and 19 Chapter against Marcion formerly mentioned be understood otherwise it must needs clash with the holy Scripture which upon such termes may by no meanes be admitted Nor doth this hitherto mentioned concerning the year of Christs birth but agree well with the time of the slaughter of the Innocents at Bethlem and the parts thereabouts which as appeareth by Scripture was in the second year after either the conception or birth of Christ For Herod having inquired diligently of the Wise men at what time the Star appeared to them was punctually informed of the time thereof and thereupon when a little before his death he put in practise his bloody purpose of slaying the infants he slew them who were of two years old and under according to the time that he had diligently inquired of the Wise-men who came not to Jerusalem in the second year after Christ was born but in the same year even before the day of Maries Purification For first when they came they inquired for Christ under the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word properly taken is to be understood of a child newly born and is so used to expresse the birth of Moses in Heb. 11.23 Secondly when in the forme of their inquiry they say Where is he that is born King of the Jews it is more properly to be undestood of a King lately born then of one born some certaine years before Thirdly when they made this inquiry all Jerusalem was troubled as at some new thing of which they had heard nothing before whereas at the time of the Purification he was proclaimed openly in the Temple where were enough to take notice of him and to spread the fame thereof abroad to others Then did good old Simeon take him up in his armes and hold him forth as the glory of Gods people Israel because he was born among them and likewise as a light to lighten the Gentiles because in these Wisemen he shewed them the way unto him Fourthly and lastly when the Wisemen came they found him at Bethlehem where he was not to be found after the time of his mothers Purification for as Saint Luke telleth us after his parents had in that duty of theirs performed all things according to the Law of the Lord they returned into Galilee to their owne City Nazareth that is They went bach againe * Hoc est postquam Maria Joseph omnia illa adimplerunt quae secundam legis praecâ—pta ad ritum purificationis spectabant saith one now to that very place from whence they departed when they went to Bethlehem the City of David to be taxed as may be seen Luke 2 4 39. Saint Matthew I grant passeth this over in silence and writes as if Joseph and Mary came not with Jesus to Nazareth untill they had been in Egypt But that saith Theophilact which Matthew was silent in Theoph. in Matth. c. 2. Saint Luke supplyed Disce igitur qued quae siluit Matthaeus dicit Lucas Vt exempli gratia Postquom natus est implevit quadraginta dies deinde descendit in Nazareth haec dicit Lucas Matthaeus autem dicit post haec quòd fugerit in Aegyptum deinde venerit ab Aegypto in Nazareth Non dissident ergo inter se Nam Lucas dicit descensum à Bethlehem in Nazareth Matthaeus autem postea reditum ab Egypto in Nazareth Thus that Father Well but though the comming of the Wisemen was while Mary lay in at Bethlehem yet as I said before the slaughter of the Infants was not untill the second year after the Star appeared as is plaine out of the Text telling us of what age they were that Herod slew Mat. 2.7.16 and that his slaughter of them was according to the time that he had diligently inquired of the Wisemen Now his inquirie was of the time of the Stars appearing according whereunto he ordered that the male Children of such an age as he knew well agreed thereto should be massacred both in Bethlem and the parts thereabout by his bloody men of warre And thereupon he slew all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à bimatu infra from the age of two * Bimatus signifieth one who is
as I have already mentioned Mnestheus was the next King of Athens who attained the Kingdome through the faction of Helen's bretheren who expelled Theseus and made him King This Mnestheus reigned twenty foure years and dyed but a little before Aeneas came into Italie as Ludovicus Vives noteth Demophoon reigned next but was none of his Son For Demophoon was the Son of Theseus and Phaedra who upon the death of Mnestheus recovered his Fathers Kingdome and reigned in it thirty three years This was he who for his neglect caused faire Phillis to hang her selfe Oxintes succeeded Demophoon and reigned after him twelve years His successour was Aphidas who reigned one year After Aphidas was Timoetes who reigned eight years Then after him was Melanthus who reigned 37. years The next after him was Codrus who reigned 21. years and was the seventeenth and last King of Athens For the next that governed here after Codrus were the Archontes perpetui after them the Archontes decennales and last of all the Archontes annui The Archontes perpetui were for terme of life and did in their successions reigne 316. years after the death of Codrus The Archontes decennales had ten years a peece and did reigne each after other untill seventy years were ended The Archontes annui were no other then yearly officers whos 's first beginning was in the year of the Iulian Period 4030 which was the first year of the 24. Olympiad and is an account commended much by Master Selden in his Marmora Arundelliana who in that book placeth the first of these annuall officers in the very same year I shall not need to set downe the particular names of these untill I come to shew you them in their right times which shall be now in the following Catalogues Years of the Iulian Period when they beg A perfect List or Catalogue of the Athenian Kings ex Eusebio 3154. Cecrops 50. 3204. Cranaus 9. 3213. Amphyction 10. 3223. Ericthonius 50. 3273. Pandion 40. 3313. Ericthius 50. 3363. Cecrops secundus 40. 3403. Pandion the second 25. 3428. An Interregnum of two years began now 3430. The end of the Interregnum and beginning of Aegeus whose time of reign was 48. years 3478. Theseus 30. 3508. Mnestheus 24. 3532. Demophoon 33. 3565. Oxintes 12. 3577. Aphydas 1. 3578. Timoetes 8. 3586. Metanthus 37. 3623. Codrus 21. 3644.  In this year was the death of Codrus just foure hundred and ninety yeares fince Cecrops the first began to reigne This was the last King of Athens who for the good of his Country put himselfe into a disguise that he might be slame For when the Kings of Peloponnesus who descended from Hercules warred upon Athens it was told them by the Oracle that they should conquer if they killed not the Atheman King hereupon they concealed as much as they could the answer of the Oracle and withall gave a strict charge that none should touch Codrus But the Athenians hearing of this Oracle Codrus being desirous of glory and the good of his Country disguised himselfe went into the Camp of his Enemies and falling to brable with the Souldiers was flaine from whence * Aug de civit dei lib. 18. c. 19 came that saying of Virgill Aut jurgia Godri Now after this the Athenians would have no more Kings which was not out of any inconvenience found in the rule of Soveraignty but in honour of Codrus as saith a learned Knight Sir Walter Raleigh lib. 2 cap. 17. Sect. 10. in his History of the World And indeed it might very well be so for after Codrus had thus delivered his Country the Athenians * Aug. lib. 18. cap. 19. de civit dei sacrificed to him as a God and would as I said have after him no more Kings for feare I think they should not be so good as he For his worth was able to Eclipse theirs if at any time they failed of what was required Howbeit the Government was still in a manner Regall for between Kings and the Archontes perpetui was little or no difference save onely in the name For the Princes that followed after Codrus without regall name governed Athens during the time of their life and so in effect were Kings although they were called Archonts The first of these was Medon from whom all else in the same Dynastie were called Medontidae of which as followeth Yeares of the Julian Period when they beg A perfect List or Catalogue of the Archonts of Athens called Archontes perpetui ex Eusebio 3644. Medon 20. 3664. Agasâ—us 36. 3700. Archippus 19. 3719. Tersippus 41. 3760. Phorbas 31. 3791. Mezades 30. 3821. Diognetus 28. 3849. Pheredus 19. 3868. Ariphron 20. In his time Sardanapalus began to reig 3888. Tespiâ—us or Thesphorus 27. In his time Sardanapalus lost his Kingdome as saith Eusebius 3915. Agamnestor 20. 3935. Aeschilus 23. 3958. Alemenon 2. 3960. Here was the end of this Dynastie  Archontes decennales 3960. Carops 10 3970. Aesimides 10. 3980. Elidicus 10. 3990. Hippomenes 10. 4000. Leocrates 10. 4010. Absander 10. 4020. Erixias 10. 4030.  Here the Archontes decennales ended and the Archontes annui began therein agreeing to that which Master Selden commendeth in his Marmora Arundelliana who placeth the first of these Annuall officers in the very same year as I said before CHAP. VII Of the Kings that reigned in the Kingdome of Troy before the Greeks destroyed it THe first of these Kings with whom I begin was Dardanus the son in Law of Teucer he began to reigne in the year of the Julian Period 3234 and as Eusebius saith reigned 63. years His Kingdome was in Phrygia the lesse and Asia the lesser The chiefe City was Troy which he built and called it after his owne name Dardania Of Tros it came to be called Troy and of Ilus Ilium Ericthonius succeeded Dardanus and reigned after him 46. yeares Euseb Homer and Diodorus say that he was extreamly rich and that he had 30000 Mares and their Colts continually feeding in his Pastures Tros succeeded Ericthonius and reigned after him 61. Euseb He altered the name of Dardania and turned it to Troy from whom the people also were called Trojans Ilus was the next King he would that the City should be called Ilium and so was Howbeit it lost not the name of Troy but it was known by both names The time of his reigne here was 50 yeares Laomedon succeeded Illus and reigned after him thirty six yeares Ral. After Laomedon was King Priamus who reigned not 52. but 40. years according to the best and truest account taken by Bucholcerus out of Archilochus So that all the times of these Kings was 296. yeares And now see their List rightly fixed Yeares of the Julian Period when they beg A List or Catalogue of the Kings of Troy before it was destroyed all of them fixed in their right times 3234. Dardanus 63. 3297. Fricthonius 46. 3343. Tros 61. 3404. Ilus 50. 3454. Laomedon 36. 3490. Priamus 40 3530.