Reg. 6. v. 1. 4. The same 44th year is the year of the building of the Temple of Solomon (d) 1 Reg. 6. v. 1. 5. The 81st year of this Epocha is the first of the Reign of Jeroboam and of the 390 years of the Iniquity of the House of Israel because Solomon and his Father reigned each 40 years (e) Ezec. 4. v. 5. 6. The Reigns of the Successors of David in both Kingdoms ought to be regulated according to the true Synchronism of the sacred Writ the years of their Reigns being involved in no small Difficulties From whence it is apparent that the first year of David 's Reign is coincident with the 3654th year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 14. ☽ 6. 7. If therefore the 3653 years be subtracted from To investigate the Year since the beginning of this Epocha any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha and if 3653 be added to the Number of years of this Epocha the Product is the year of the Julian Period § 1. THE Interval betwixt the 3260th year of Difficulties concerning the Nativity â—f David the Julian Period when the Jews first conquered Palestine and the 3624th year of the Julian Period when David was born being of above 360 years and to be divided betwixt Salmon Boatz Obed and Jesse involves the Nativity of David in no small Difficulty For the Genealogy of the Ancestors of David is thus represented (f) Ruth 4. v. 2â— seque And Nashon begot Salmon and Salmon begot Booz and Booz begot Obed and Obed begot Jesse and Jesse begot David So that every one of these must be supposed to have begot Children when they were near 100 years old it being evident that Nashon entred Palestine with Joshua (g) Numb 1. v. 7. c. â— v. 3. c. 7. v. 12. Lyra Salianus Genebrardus Catharinus Jansenius Esthius and their Proselytes to remove this Difficulty have substituted two more of the same Name with Boaz but in vain since the same Genealogy is repeated in three several other Places to wit 1 Chron. 2. v. 11 12. in St. Matth. 1. v. 4. in St. Luke 3. v. 32. Our Opinion is that without having Recourse to these Tergiversations it may rationally be supposed that the Ancestors of David begot Children in their old Age as it is evident in Boatz out of the Book of Ruth (h) C. 3. v. 10. and in Obed out of 1 Sam. 17. v. 12. § 2. There being a seeming Contradiction in Difficulties concerning the Kings of Judah Israel the Chronological Computation of these Kings in the Hebrew Text Dionysius Petavius Alstedius Torniellus Buntingus and several others believe the same to have been adulterated But this being the way to dissect but not to dissolve the Knot it will be more convenient to find out some other way to reconcile these Differences It is therefore observable that in this Chronology sometimes the incompleat years are taken for compleat ones as for Instance when Ieroboam is said to have reigned 22 years is to be understood of 21 compleat years at the beginning of the 22d Thus it is also to be taken with the 24 years attributed to (k) 1 Reg. 15. v. 33. Baasha instead of 23 with the 12 years of (l) 1 Reg. 16. v. 23. Amri instead of 11 c. In other Places instead of the incompleat years expressed the compleat ones ought to be understood As for Instance when it is said that (m) 1 Reg. 15. v. 9. Asa began his Reign in the 20th year of the Reign of (i) 1 Reg. 14. v. 20. Jeroboam is to be taken in this sense that he began his Reign at the beginning of the 21st year of Jeroboam In some Passages it appears that several but especially Father and Son reigned at the same time so it is said of (n) 1 Reg. 15. v. 25. Nadab that he reigned in the first year together with his Father Jeroboam Of (o) 1 Reg. 16. v. 8. Ella that he reigned at the same time with his Father Baasha The same is said of (p) 1 Reg. 22. v. 52. Ahaziah and Ahab of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram 2 Reg. 3. v. 1. Of this there is an evident Example in (q) 1 Reg. 16. v. 21. Amri who is said to have reigned 12 years to wit including the time that Thibni assumed the Royal Dignity It is further observable that in the Chronology of these Kings the Computation begins not always from the beginning of their Reigns but from some remarkable Epocha or Revolution As it is said that (r) 2 Chron. 16 v. 1. Baasha came up against Ramah in the 36th year of the Reign of Asa when it is evident that he died in the six and twentieth year of the Reign of Asa (s) 1 Reg. v. 6. 8. some interpret thus that here is to be understood the 36th year since the Division of the Kingdom after Solomon's Death as if it had been expressed thus In the thirty sixth year after the Division of the Kingdom of which Asa was King There are also some Footsteps of certain Vacancies of the Throne betwixt Amaziah and Azariah the Kings of Judah and betwixt Jeroboam and Zacharias Kings of Israel All which we leave to the Choice and Decision of the judicious Reader § 3. There is no better way to reconcile the How to reconcile these Differences Chronological Differences about the Kings of Judah and Israel than by making a due Comparison betwixt the Synchronisms and Combinations of Years of the several Kings of both these Kingdoms The following two Tables exhibit at the same instant the Mutual Connection of the Reigns of these Kings according to the Tenure of the Sacred Scriptures But because the Years of their Reigns are not always correspondent to this Connection I have added those other Years which by reason of their Usefulness in reconciling these Differences I have called the Chronological Years An. P. J. Succession of the Kings Scrip. Years of the Kings of of Judah of Israel Jud. Israel 3654 1 David  40  3694 1 Solomon  40  3734 1 Rehoboam 1 Jeroboam 17 22 3751 1 Abijam 18 3  3753 1 Asa 20 41  3754 2 1 Nadab  2 3755 3 1 Baasha  24 3778 26 1 Ella  2 3779 27 1 Simri   3783 31 1 Amri   3790 38 1 Ahab  12 3793 1 Jehoshaph 4 25 22 3809 17 1 Ahaziah  2 3810 18 1 Jehoram  12 3814 1 Jehoram 5 8  3821 1 Ahaziah 12 1  3822 1 Athaliah 1 Jehu 6 8 3828 1 Jehoash 7 40  3850 23 1 Jehoahat  17 3864 37 1 Joash  16 3865 1 Amaziah 2 29  3879 15 1 Jerob II  41 3905 1 Azariah 27   3942 38 1 Zacharias 52 6 m. 3943 39 1 Shallum  1 m. 3943 39 1 Menahem  10 3954 50
of Nabonnedus according to Berosus 3. From the first year of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus till the beginning of the Reign of Cambyses according to the Celestial Characters mentioned by Ptolemy are accounted 9 years 4. From the beginning of the Nabonassarean Epocha till the time of Cyrus are accounted by Ptolemy 209 years From these Characters it is concluded that the first year of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus mention'd in Prophane History was coincident with the 4176th year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 4. ☽ 15. If therefore 4175 years be added to any certain year To find out the year since the Beginning of this Epocha of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus according to the Calculation of the Prophane Historians the Product will shew the year of the Julian Period And if the said 4175 years be subtracted from the known year of the Julian Period the Residue will shew the year since the Beginning of this Epocha § 1. THere are some who don 't allow of any Whether the Babylonian and Persian Epocha of Cyrus be the same difference betwixt the Persian and Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus but maintain that in one and the same year he made himself Master of Persia Media Assyria and Babylon which being repugnant to all the best Monuments of Antiquity it is a Wonder to me how some among the Learned could be misguided into this Opinion § 2. There are some who affirm that Balthasar Whether Balthasar was the last King of Babylon was the last King of Babylon who was vanquished by Cyrus in Conjunction with Darius the King of the Medes being misguided by the Authority of (a) Lib. 10. c. 12. Ant. Josepus whose Words are as follows Abilamerodach died in the 18th year of his Reign and was succeeded by his Son Niglisar who reigned 40 years After his Death succeeded his Son Labosordach who dying about 9 Months after the Kingdom was devolved to Balthasar whom the Babylonians call Naboandel He was engaged in a bloody War against Cyrus King of Persia and Darius King of Media and whilst he was besieg'd in Babylon was surprised by a most prodigious Vision and not long after both Balthasar and the City fell into the Hands of Cyrus King of Persia who took Babylon in the 17th year of the Reign of Balthasar c. But Josephus is mistaken in this Relation as may appear out of the Fragments of the true Berosus inserted by (b) Lib. 1. contra App. Josephus himself For Labosordach mentioned by Josephus is the same with Balthasar Neither hapned the Conquest of Cyrus under his Reign Neither did Darius the Median conquer the Kingdom of Babylon But according to Berosus and Megasthenes was declared King of the Babylonian Empire § 3. It is also called in Question by some whether Darius the Median mentioned in the Scripture Whether Darius Medus is the same with Nabonnidus is the same with Nabonnidus mentioned by Herodotus and other Historians because that Nabonnidus is called by Berosus the Babylonian but Darius is surnamed in the Scripture the Median But since Darius is mentioned in the Scripture as the immediate Successour of Belsazar who in prophane History is called Labosoradach and that the other Historians have made Nabonnidus or Laponytus as Herodotus calls him it seems more than probable that these two Names belong to one and the same Person especially since Megasthenes says of the Babylonians They declared Nabonnichus a Foreigner their King § 4. Henricus Buntingus with some others Of the Opinion of Xenophon concerning Darius Medus relying upon the Authority of Xenophon would make this Darius Medus the same with Cyaxares mentioned in prophane History But concerning the Authority of Xenophon we have spoke sufficiently before § 5. There are also many learned Authors who being misled by Josephus would have this Darius Medus was not the Son of Astyages Darius to have been the Son and Successor of Astyages and Uncle to Cyrus But tho' Darius was originally of Media (c) Dâ—n 9. ver 1. yet he is not called King of Media but of Chaldaea And Justin sufficiently contradicts this Opinion when he says Astyages had no Male Issue § 6. According to Berosus whose Fragments are inserted by Josephus Cyrus after he had vanquished Of the Conquest of Babylon Darius besieged the City of Babylon which being well provided with Provisions sufficient to sustain a long Siege the Inhabitants bid Defiance to the Persians who at last having found means to drain the River of Euphrates which runs through the City by diverting its Course into the adjacent Marshes surprised the City Herodotus relates that the Persians the better to put their Design in Execution had pitch'd upon a Day which being one of the Festivals among the Babylonians they were bufied in Dancing and other Jollities The Prophet (d) Cap. 44 v. 27. Isaiah seems to have foretold this Derivation of the River of Euphrates when he says of Cyrus That saith to the Deep be dry and I will dry up thy Rivers as the Conquest of Babylon in the Absence of their King was foretold by (e) C. 51. v. 31. Jeremiah One Post shall run to meet another and one Messenger to meet another to shew the King of Babylon that his City is taken at one End and that the Passages are stopâ— and the Reeds they have burnt with Fire and the Men of War are affrighted c. § 7. There is also a Contest among the Chronologers Whether Cyrus conquered Babylon before Croesus whether Cyrus conquer'd the Babylonian Empire after he had vanquished Croesus or before Justin relates that Croesus assisted the Babylonians against Cyrus who after the Conquest of Babylon marched into Lydia against Croesus who was vanquished and taken Prisoner by him But Herodotus says expresly that Cyrus vanquished Croesus before the Conquest of Babylon and Eusebius (f) Chronic. and Julius Solinus Cap. 7. agree in Opinion that the Conquest of Lydia hapned in the first year of the 58th Olympiad (g) C. 25. v. 26. Jeremiah seems to favour the last when after he had mentioned all the other Kings before he says thus of the King of Babylon And the King of Sheshach shall drink after them § 8. Some of the Chronologers make the first Of the first year of Cores mentâ—on'd in the Scriptures year of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus coincident with the same year which is in the Scriptures called the First Year of Cores They alledge in their behalf that to reckon backwards from the fourth year of King Jehoiachim when according to the Opinion of some the Flower of the Jewish Nation was carried into Captivity by Nebuchadnezzar to the first year of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus compleats exactly the time of 70 years and that the Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus and his Deliverance of the Jews out of their Captivity is agreeable to the Prophecy of (h) C. 25. v. 12. Jeremiah
4. Agesias was Archon at Athens in the same year that Alexander died See Diodor. Sicul. Arrian 5. In the same year were Consuls of Rome C. Poetelius and L. Papyrius See Diodorus Siculus 6. In the same year was the 114th Olympiad celebrated where Micinas of Rhodes carried the Day (e) L. 1. contr Appion Josephus Diodor. Sic. (f) L. 7. Arrian (g) L. 8. demonstr Evang Eusebius 7. Alexander died 236 years after Cyrus who began to reign over Persia at the Beginning of the 55th Olympiad Euseb L. cit 8. From the Beginning of the Nabonassarean Epocha till the Death of Alexander are computed 424 years according to (h) L. 3. Ptolemy 9. The year of the Christian Aera 238 was the 562 d after the Death of Alexander according to (i) de D. N. c. 21. Censorinus 10. 1214 years after the Death of Alexander there was a Solar Eclipse observed at Aracta both the great Luminaries being in the Sign of the Lion and that the same Eclipse hapned in the year of Christ 891 on the 8th day of August about Noon is manifest from the Ecliptical Calculations Albategn 11. The Death of Alexander is thus related by (k) Vit. Alex. Plutarch On the 18th day of the Month Daesius being seized with a Fever he remain'd all that Night in the Bath The next day after Bathing he hept his Bed-Chamber where he played at Tables with Medius Having bathed again at Night and assisted at the Sacrifice he eat with much Eagerness The same Night his Fever return'd again The 20th day of the Month after having bathed again he assisted at the Solemn Sacrifice and being laid down in the Bath he pass'd his time with a certain Commander of a Ship who gave him a Relation of his Voyage and of what he had observed otherwise most remarkable in the Ocean The 21st being pass'd in the same manner his Fever encreased towards Night And the next day the Fever growing more violent he was carried from thence to another Place near the great Bath where he entertain'd himself with the Generals of his Army giving his Orders to them On the 24th day his Fever still encreasing he would assist at the Sacrifice whither he was forced to be carried and ordered the Generals and other Chief Men to tarry within the Court and that the Colonels and Captains should keep Guard without the Gates On the 25th he was carried into one of the inner Apartments of the Castle where he slept a little But his Fever did not diminish When the Generals came to attend him he had already lost the Use of his Tongue which continued thus on the 26th The Macedonians believing him to be dead came in a tumultuous manner to the Gates and having forced those that attended to admit them within the King's Apartment they all passed one by one without their Arms by his Bed On the same day Python and Seleucus were dispatch'd to the Temple of Serapis to consult the Oracle whether Alexander should be conveyed thither But they received for Answer that they should not remove Alexander from the Place he then was in On the 28th towards Night he died Thus it is recorded in the Diary 12 It is very probable that the Month Daesius of the Macedonians was in the same Year coincident with the Month Thargelion of the Athenians of which these are the Words of Aelianus (l) L. 2. c. 35. Var. Hist It is reported also that Alexander was born and died on the self-same Day being the 6th of the Month Thargelion 13. After the Death of Alexander and many and long Debates among the Generals Aridaeus the Son of Philip who also had taken the Name of Philip was by the Majority of Suffrages constituted King and Perdiccas unto whom Alexander when at the Point of Death had given his Ring was chosen Regent pursuant to which all the Governours of the Provinces and other principal Officers were ordered to obey their Commands This was done in the same year when Cephisodorus was Archon of Athens Diod. Sic. L. 68. From these Characters it is evident that Alexander died in the Spring of the 4391st year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 23. ☽ 2. and that from the same year about the Summer Season when another Archon succeeded at Athens the Philippean Period had its Beginning If therefore from any certain year of the Julian To investigate the year sinâ—e the beginning of these Epoc. Period given 4390 years and 3 Months be subtracted the Residue shews the year since the Death of Alexander the Great To find out the Year since the Beginning of the Philippean Period several Months more must be subtracted And if the same Number of Years and Months be added to the year since the Beginning of these Epocha's the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THere is some Dispute about the true About what time Alexander died time of the Death of Alexander the Great For A. Gellius allots no more than 11 years for the Reign of Alexander whereas (m) L. 15. Strabo accounts as many after his last Victory obtained against Darius But neither of these two are of sufficient Authority to counterbalance what has been said before concerning the true time of his Death § 2. It is also call'd in question whether his How Alexander died Death was occasioned by Poison or Debauchery Of the first Opinion is (n) L. 16. c. 16. Justin He was says he vanquished at last not by the Bravery of his Enemies but by the Perfidiousness of his own Friends and Subjects And Curtius (o) L. 10. says expressly It was believed that his Death was occasioned by Poison c. But (p) Vit. Alex. Plutarch says that this Account of his being made away by Poison was look'd upon as a Fiction because his Body shew'd not the least Marks of it after his Death tho' it laid several Days exposed to the Heat of the Sun whilst the Contentions lasted among the Generals § 3. After the Death of Alexander the whole The Change of Affairs after the Death of Alexander Body of this vast Empire was torn in many Pieces among which four Kingdoms are the most remarkable pursuant to the Vision of Daniel For Ptolemy seized Egypt Seleucus Babylon Antigonus the Lesser Asia and Antipater Macedonia and Greece § 4. The Histories of these Times make Mention of two Philips the first Philip the Son Who was that Philip that gave the Name to the Philippean Period of Amyntas II. Father to Alexander the Great the second Aridaeus the natural Brother of Alexander Scaliger Christmannus Serarius and others attribute the Origin of this Epocha to the first But the same having been unknown till after the Death of Alexander the Great it appears more probable to me that it owed its first Off-spring to Philip the Brother of Alexander who was born of Philinna a Thessalian Lady and Mistress
the Siege and the whole War taking of the City of Jerusalem there perished of the Jews 1100000 which is confirmed by (u) In Chron. Eusebius (x) L. 7. c. 6. Orosius and Sulpitius Severus But J. Lipsius has computed the whole Number of the Jews slain and taken Prisoners in their Civil and Foreign Wars within the space of the last 7 Years in the following manner At Jerusalem by the Command of Florus 630 At Caesarea by the Inhabitants 20000 At Scythopolis 13000 In Askalon 2500 At Ptolemais 2000 At Alexandria 50000 At Damascus 10000 At the taking of Joppa 8400 In the Mount Cubulon 2000 In the Battle near Ascalon 10000 By Surprise 8000 At Aphac 15000 In the Mount 〈◊〉 11600 At Iotap 30000 At the taking of Joppa a second time 4200 Near Taricha 6500 At Gamala 9000 In their Flight from Giscala slain 2000 Taken 3000 Of those of Gadar slain 13000 taken 2200 Slain in Idumaea 10000 At Gera 1000 At Macheron 1700 In the Forest of Jardes 3000 In the Castle of Massada 960 At Cyrene 3000 During the Siege of Jerusalem 1000000 made Prisoners 97000 The whole Number 1339690 § 9. According to the Latin Version of the Whether the Kingdom of the Jews â—â—ased with the Destruction of Jerusalem Chronicon of Eusebius translated by St. Hierome and the Chronicle of the before-mentioned Rabbi David Ganz the Royal Dignity was quite abolished among the Jews at the time of the last Destruction of the Temple which is contradicted by Scaliger who demonstrates by a certain Coin with this Inscription Post captam Judaeam adhuc erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Agrippa did not die in the 3d Year of the 212th Olympiad We agree thus far with Scaliger That Agrippa did retain the Royal Title after the Destruction of Jerusalem of which Photius in (y) Cod. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has these following Words The Chronicle of Justus Tiberiensis was read which had for its Title THE HISTORY OF JUSTUS TIBERIENSIS OF ALL SUCH AS WERE CROWNED KINGS OF THE JEWS This Author was a Native of Tiberias a City in Galilee which has given him his Sirname He begins his History with Moses which he continues till the Death of Agrippa the 7th King of the Family of Herod and the last of the Jewish Kings He received the Crown under the Reign of Claudius his Power encreased by Nero and became more potent under Vespasian He died in the third Year of the Reign of Trajan with which Year he concludes his History But it is very evident out of several Passages in Josephus that Agrippa was neither King of the Jews nor Jerusalem For he allows him not the least Authority over Judaea unless what concerned the (z) L. 20. c. 8. Ant. Temple but says (a) L. 20. c. 3 5. that by the Favour of Claudius he was put in the Possession of the Kingdom of Chalcis and by Nero regaled with the Cities of Tiberias Tarichaea and Julia with 14 other Towns of less Note And that the whole Judaea the greatest part of Galilee and Samaria was under the Jurisdiction of the Roman Praefects is according to the Testimony of Josephus past all Dispute CHAP. XLIII Of the Epocha of Dioclesian which is commonly called by the Aegyptians the AERA OF MARTYRS by Eusebius the AERA 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of Persecution by the Aethiopians the AERA OF GRACE and by the Mahometans the AERA ELKUPTI 1. The Aera of Dioclesian begins in the same Year that Dioclesian after the Death of Carus and Numerianus was declared Emperour 2. The Emperour Dioclesian entred Nicomedia in Triumph on the 15th day of September and the first of January following appeared in publick as Consul 3. About that time Carinus the 2 d time and Numerianus were Roman Consuls who were succeeded by Dioclesian already declared Augustus and Aristobulus This is not only thus related in the Chronicon Alexandrinum but also by (a) Lib. 23. Ammianus Marcellinus who says expresly that when Dioclesian was Consul with Aristobulus he was dignified with the Title of Augustus And thus we find it recorded in the Publick Records called Fasti Capitolini IMP. CAES. C. AVRELIO DIOCLESIANO AVG. II ..... ARISTOBVLVS 4. The 3 d Indiction then began with the Month of September according to the Chronicon Alexandrinum 5. The first year of the Reign of Dioclesian is coincident with the 2301st year of the Epocha of Abraham unto which if 2696 years be added the Product shews the year of the Julian Period as has been demonstrated before according to Euseb in Chron. 6. In the 89th year since the Beginning of the Reign of Dioclesian says (b) L. 10. Ep. 83. ad Epiph. St. Ambrose the Full Moon falling then out upon the 21st day of March we did celebrate Easter upon the last day of March Those of Alexandria and other Places in Aegypt the Full Moon happening with them on the 28th day of the Month Phamenoth did celebrate their Easter on the 5th day of the Month Pharmuth which was like among us the last day of March Again in the 93d year since the Beginning of the Reign of Dioclesian it being then Full Moon on the 14th day of the Month Pharmuth and Sunday they celebrated Easter on the next following 21st day of the same Month which according to our Calendar is the 14th day of April 7. The 92 d year since the Beginning of the Reign of Dioclesian is coincident with the 12th year of the Reign of Valentinian and Valens and the 8th of Gratian. 8. It was in the 248th year since the Beginning of the Reign of this Tyrant when Dionysius sirnamed Exiguus first began his Paschal Cycle according to Dionysius Exiguus himself in his first Epistle mentioned by (c) Append. de Doct. Temp. Dionysius Petavius Consult also (d) C. 45. de Rat. Temp. Beda 9. The Aegyptians began the Years of the Aera of DioclesianI with the Month Thot being our 29th day of August 10. In the same Year that Dioclesian a second time and Aristobulus were Consuls at Rome Carinus Margo was slain and Dioclesianus was exalted to the Empire Thus says (e) In East Idacius 11. In the 19th year of the Reign of Dioclesian in the Month Dystius which is among the Romans the Month of March Easter being near at Hand the Emperour caused a Proclamation to be published that all the Churches should be pulled down and laid level with the Ground that all their Papers should be burnt and the Christians be deprived of all their Places and Dignities and that such among them as persevered in their Faith should be accounted infamous and be made Slaves Of which see Eusebius (f) L. 8. c. 3. Hist Eccl. Metrophanes and Alexander in (g) Cod. 256. Photius as likewise Ignatius the Patriarch of Antioch of which mention is made by Scaliger (h) L. 5. p. 49â— de Em. Temp. 12. In the same year being
the 19th of the Reign of Dioclesian and the first of the Persecution Dioclesian was the 8th time and Maximianus the 7th time Roman Consuls according to Idacius 13. The year when Dioclesian began the Persecution against the Christians was coincident with the 351st year since the Beginning of the Antiochian Epocha according to Eusebius in Chron. 14. In the 2 d year of the Persecution Dioclesian did abdicate himself at Nicomedia and Maximin at Milan See (i) L. 8. c. 8. Hist Eccl. Eus Idac. Eurrop 15. It was in the 3 d year of the Persecution raised against the Christians by Domitian when Constantius died according to Metrophanes and Alexander in (k) Cod. 256. Photius But the time of the Death of Constantius is thus expressed by (l) L. 1. c. 1. Socrates Constantius was proclaimed King in Britain instead of his Father Constantius in the first year of the 271st Olympiad on the 25th day of July 16. In the 4th year of the Persecution Constantine began his Reign according to Euseb in Chron. 17. In the 19th year of the Reign of Dioclesian in the Month of March in Easter time the Christian Churches were pulled down according to St. Hierom in Chron. Euseb From these and innumerable other Characters too many to be inserted here it is evident that Dioclesian was declared Augustus in the year of the Julian Period 4997 Cycl ☉ 13. ☽ 19. on the 17th day of September and that the Aegyptians began this Aera on the 29th day of August and that the Persecution against the Christians began in the year of the Julian Period 5016 Cycl ☉ 4. ☽ 19. in the Month of March If therefore 4996 years and 8 Months be subtracted How to find out any year of these Epocha's from any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of the Aera of Dioclesian And if in the same manner 5015 Years and 3 Months be subtracted the Residue will be correspondent to the year since the Beginning of the Persecation raised by Dioclesian against the Christians But if you desire to investigate the Year of the Julian Period you must add the above-mentioned Number of Years and Months to the known Year of these Epocha's § 1. (m) L. 5. de Em. Temp. p. 494. SCaliger is of Opinion that this Epocha Whether this Epocha begins with the Reign of Dioclesian began three years or more before Dioclesian was declared Emperour and Augustus but in my Opinion he has been misguided in this Point by Aurel. Cassiodorus who has confounded in so miserable a manner the Years of the Reign of Dioclesian that there is not the least Reason to follow his Footsteps § 2. The Ancients were for the most part of this Opinion that the Epocha of Dioclesian had Whether the Ancients began this Epocha from the time of the Persecution its Beginning from the time of the Persecution raised by this Tyrant against the Christians as may be seen out of the (n) L. 5. p. â—â—6 de Em. Temp. Epistle of Ignatius the Patriarch of Antiochia written to Scaliger upon this Account You are also says he very desirous to be informed concerning the AERA of MARTYRS used among the Aegyptians its true Origin and Denomination You must know then that it has its Beginning from the 19th Year of the Reign of that impious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King Dioclesian at which time he raised the most Violent Persecution against the Christians ordering their Churches to be demolished and that such as refused to pay Adoration to the Idols should be killed Pursuant to this Edict there were alone in Aegypt one hundred and forty four thousand and seven hundred Believers sacrificed to his Fury From which time began the AERA ELKUPTI or the AERA of MARTYRS whose Blood was shed by Dioclesian But it is apparent that this Patriarch is under a Mistake and that he has confounded the Year of the Beginning of his Reign with that of his Persecution against the Christians And it is not altogether improbable but that the Aegyptians to abolish the Memory of this Tyrant have changed this Epocha which had borrowed its Name from Dioclesian into that of the MARTYRS § 3. There is no great Difficulty in finding The Congruity betwixt the Months of this Epocha and the Julian Months out the Congruity there is betwixt the Months of this Epocha and the Julian Months if it be taken into Consideration that the Years of the Aera of Dioclesian or of the MARTYRS both in respect of their Quantity and the Order of the Bissextiles or Leap-Years agree for the most part with the Julian Years For they do like us intercalate a Day at certain times The whole Difference lies in the Quantity of the Months and the Beginning of the Year For the Aegyptians have made their Months all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and begin their Year with the 29th day of August adding to the common Year after the Month Mesori five Epagomena's and to the Leap-Year six Epagomena's The â—ollowing Table shews the true Connection betwixt ours and the Aegyptian Months Incidit Neomenia Mensis 1. Thoth in 29 Augusti 2. Paophi 28 Septembr 3. Athyr 28 Octobr. 4. Chojac 27 Novembr 5. Tybi 27 Decembr 6. Mechir 26 Januarii 7. Phamenoth 25 Februarii 8. Pharmuti 27 Martii B. 26. 9. Lachon 26 April B. 25. 10. Payni 26 Maii B. 25. 11. Epiphi 25 Junii B. 24. 12. Mesori 25 Julii B. 24. 1. Epagomen 24 Augusti B. 23. 2. Epagomen 25 Augusti B. 24. 3. Epagomen 26 Augusti B. 25. 4. Epagomen 27 Augusti B. 26. 5. Epagomen 28 Augusti B. 27. 6. Epagomen Init. Anni B. 28. Aug. CHAP. XLIV Of the Epocha of Constantine the Great and the Transactions under his Reign 1. Constantine the Great was immediately after the Death of his Father Constantius Chlorus both by his Testament and the Approbation of the Souldiery proclaimed Caesar (a) L. 1. de Vit. Const M. Eusebius 2. Constantius Chlorus died on the 23 d day of July when Constantius Caesar and Maximianus Jovius were both the 6th time Roman Consuls at the time of the 10th Indiction See Chron. Alexandrinus Idacius and (b) L. 1. c. 1. Socrates 3. The first Year of Constantine the Great iâ— coincident with the 4th Year of the 10th Persecution raised by Dioclesian against the Christians Hieron in Chron. 4. This Persecution began in the Year of the Antiochian Aera 351 in the 19th year of the Reign of Dioclesian when Dioclesian Augustus was the 8th time and Maximianus Herculius the 7th time Roman Consuls See (c) Chron. Alex. Eusebius 5. The Year in which the Tyrant Maxentius was vanquished was the 6th year after the Death of Constantius Chlorus and likewise of the Reigns of Maxentius and Constantine the Great Maxentius says the Panegyrist speaking to Constantine the Great having squander'd away whole six years in Idleness made his Birth-day remarkable
Artaxerxes Longimanus But we differ from them in the Computation of these 20 Years which we begin not from the time of the Death of Xerxes but from the time he was made his Consort in the Empire So that the Beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes admits of a two-fold Explication one to be fixed in the 12th year of the Reign of Xerxes in the Year of the Julian Period 4240 the other immediately after his Death in the Year of the Julian Period 4249 Artaxerxes having reigned as a Consort with his Father near 10 years or at least enjoyed the Title of a King And soon after The 20th Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes to reckon from its first Beginning is coincident with the 4259th Year of the Julian Period with the 2 d Year of the 81st Olympiad with the Year of the World 3529. If the Epocha of the 70 Weeks or of 490 Years be begun from this 20th Year of his Reign its Period is coincident with the Year of the Julian Period 4748 with that of the World 4018 which is coincident with the 4th Year after the Passion of Christ So that in the third Year of the 30th Week the MESSIAH was cut off For the Prophecy of this Interval of 70 Weeks ought not to be interpreted thus as if the Mystery foretold by it was not to be accomplished till the total Expiration of these Weeks But it is sufficient that its Accomplishment is to be looked for in the last Week of this Interval though not brought quite to its final Period Thus far Petavius Against this Hypothesis built upon the erroneous Supposition that Artasasta mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah is the same with Artax Longimanus the Arguments alledged in the preceding Paragraph may take place for the most part Besides which we will insert the following Objections in Contradiction of this erroneous Opinion First The Edict of Artaxerxes whether Longimanus or Memor had only a Relation to the repairing the Walls and Ditches of the City that was rebuilt before But the Angel mentions expresly the Words of Rebuilding of Jerusalem And it appears very improbable to me that the Holy Scripture should have pass'd by the Epocha of Rebuilding the City and in lieu of it substituted that from the Rebuilding of the Walls Secondly It was foretold by the Angel that the Streets and Walls of the City were to be accomplished in the space of 7 annual Weeks But if the Epocha of 70 Weeks is to be begun from the 20th Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes how are these 49 Years to be computed (u) Cap. 13. ver 6. Nehemiah being according to his own Testimony returned from Jerusalem in the 32d Year of Artaxerxes Thirdly if these 70 Weeks must begin in the 20th Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus their Period must be coincident with the Year 4760 of the Julian Period in which Year hapned neither the Passion of Christâ— or the Destruction of Jerusalem For Art Longimanus began his Reign according to Ptolemy and the other ancient Chronologers in the Year of the Nabonassarean Epocha 284 So that the 20th Year of his Reign was coincident with the 304th Nabonassarean Year or the 4270th Year of the Julian Period unto which if 490 Years be added it produces 4760 of the Julian Period But it is sufficiently demonstrated in another Place that Christ suffered Death in the Year of the Julian Period 4746 and that the last Destruction of Jerusalem hapned in the 70th Year of Christ or in the 4783 Year of the Julian Period From whence it is evident that this Computation from the 20th Year of the Reign or Art Longimanus which has as I suppose also induced (x) Lib. 10. c 2â— de Doct. Temp. Petavius to confess concerning this fabulous Invention That this Opinion was not in the least mentioned in any of the Ancient Historians And supposing that Xerxes in the 12th Year of his Reign when he was preparing for his Grand Expedition against Greece did according to the Custom of the ancient Persian Monarchs nominate Artaxerxes his Successour no Inference can be made from thence that the same Artaxerxes did 7 years after being the 18th Year of the Reign of Xerxes exercise an absolute Royal Authority when Xerxes was at home in Person Neither can it be alledg'd that Artaxerxes when he granted his Patent to Ezra could act otherwise than a Sovereign and only as a Titular King the said Objection being contradictory to the Words of the said Royal Diploma recited in (y) C. 7 v. 11 12. seq Ezra Artaxerxes King of Kings unto Ezra c. I make a Decree that all they of the People of Israel and of his Priests and Levites in my Realm which are minded of their free Will to go up to Jerusalem go with thee For asmuch as thou art sent of the KING and of his seven Counsellours to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem according to the Law of thy God which is in thine hand and to carry the Silver and Gold which the KING and his Counsellours have freely offer'd c. And soon after (z) Ezra 7. ver â—1 And I even I Artaxerxes the King do make a Decree to all the Treasurers which are beyond the River that whatsoever Ezra shall require of you it be done speedily unto an hundred Talents of Silver c. From whence it appears that in the 7th year of Artaxerxes mentioned in the Scripture there reigned no other Monarch in Persia which induces me to argue thus If Xerxes had had an Intention to make his Son Artaxerxes his Consort in the Empire he would have done it at that Juncture of time when he was undertaking his Expedition against Greece But this was not done at that time Therefore Artaxerxes c. The Major Proposition proves it self that Juncture of time when the King with the Chief Men of the Empire were to go upon an Expedition remote from the Empire being the fittest of all to nominate a Successour The Minor is granted by Petavius himself when he makes the first year of Artaxerxes coincident with the 12th Year of the Reign of Xerxes I argue further If it be true that after the Death of Xerxes there was a Contest about the Succession in the Empire betwixt Darius the eldest Son of Xerxes and Artaxerxes his younger Son who by the Assistance of Artapanus obtained the Imperial Crown it follows that the said Artaxerxes was not constituted King a good many years before his Father's Death or that he quietly exercised the Royal Sovereign Prerogatives But according to the Testimony of Diodorus Siculus Ctesias and other Historians the first is true Therefore also c. The Opinion of Is Vos has so little Resemblance to Truth that I cannot but stand amazed how a Man of Sense and who besides this pretends to a considerable share of Learning could fall into so many Errors at a time which scarce deserve an Answer § 16. Those who anticipate the
five after he had caused his Son Antipater to be slain He reigned in all forty years Chron. Temp. Sec. 8. The 18th year of the Reign of Herod was the 15th year after his taking the City of Jerusalem and in the same year he began to rebuild the Temple which he had caused to be pulled down before See (g) L. 17. c. 10. Ant. Josephus 9. The Days that Herod reigned over all the Jews are 37 years and Herod died a Man who had been very prosperous in his Vndertakings These are the Words of the Hebrew Text of (h) L. 5. c. 41. Josephus translated by Sebastianus Munsterus from the Constantinopolitan Copy and published by Hen. Petrus in the year 1540 at Basil For the true time of the Beginning of the Reign of Herod over all the Jews must be computed from his taking the City of Jerusalem 10. When Herod 's Recovery was despaired of Judas Sariphaeus and Matthias Margalothus made their Attempt upon the Golden Eagle for which they and their Adherents were burnt alive And in the same Night hapned a Lunar Eclipse and the King grew worse See (i) L. 17. c. 8. Josephus Another such Eclipse hapned a year before the vulgar Epocha of Christ 11. The Tyrant died not many Months before the Feast of the Passover For Archelaus who by the last Will of Herod was appointed his Successour in the Kingdom did engage at the time of the Feast of the Passover with those that were risen in Rebellion to revenge the Death of Matthias and his Friends of whom after he had slain several thousands he ordered that all such as by reason of the Feast were come to Jerusalem should return to their Homes See (k) L 17. c. 11. Josephus 12. Our Saviour's Birth and the Murder of the Children of Bethlem under two years of Age of which mention is made in (l) c. 2. v. 16. Matthew hapned before the Death of Herod 13. Archelaus before he had reigned quite 9 years was despoiled of the Kingdom and banish'd into France (m) Jos l. 2. c. 6. de Bell. Jud. after which Judaea from being a Kingdom being annexed to the Province of Syria Quirinus or Cyrenus was sent thither as Governour to take their Inhabitants and to dispose of the private Estate of Archelaus Quirinus brought along with him Coponius a Commander of a Body of Horse unto whom he left the Administration of Affairs in Judaea (n) Jos l. 17. c. 1. It was in the 37th year after the Battle of Actium and the taking of Alexandria (o) Jos l. 18. c. 3. that this Taxation was made which is coincident with the 7th or 8th year of the vulgar Aera of Christ According to these Characters we conclude that the time of Herod is to be regulated in the following manner He was made Prince of Galilea about the year of the Julian Period 4667. 2. He was declared King at Rome in the Year of the Jul. Period 4674. 3. He conquered Jerusalem in the year of the Jul. Period 4684. 4. Augustus confirmed his Reign in the year of the Jul. Period 4684. 5. He rebuilt the Temple of Jerusalem about the year of the Jul. Period 4691. 6. He died in the year of the Jul. Period 4713. before the Feast of the Passover 7. His Successour was banished about the year of the Jul. Period 4721. If therefore any certain year of the Julian Period be given subtract from that year for the Beginning of the Princely Dignity of Herod 4666 years for the Beginning of his Reign 4673. years for his Conquest of Jerusalem 4676 years for his being confirmed in the Kingdom by Augustus 4683 years for the Rebuilding of the Temple 4690 years for his Death 4712 years for the Banishment of Archelaus 4720 years And if the same Numbers which have been subtracted be added to the several years known by the Residues the Products will be correspondent to the years of the Jul. Period § 1. NIch. Damascenus who was a familiar Friend Of the Family of Herod of Herod himself traces his Origin from the Babylonian Jews which tho' it has been contradicted by Josephus yet has been embrac'd by the Author of the Hebrew History cited by (p) Ad Sulp. Sever. p. 250. Drusius and among the Christians by Torniellus Africanus Eusebius Baronius Serrarius and others deduce his Origin from the Philistians of Ascalon but Josephus makes Herod an Idumean which is a Demi-Jew the Idumeans who were conquered by Joh. Hircanus having embraced the Jewish Religion which being the most probable Opinion is likewise confirmed by the Testimony of the Author of the Chronicle of the 2d Temple § 2. Is Causab Sealiger Kepleras Torniellus Herod was made Governour of Galilea in the 15th year of his Age. Spanhemius Langius and almost all the modern Chronologers accuse Josephus of a notable Error in appointing the 15th year of Herod's Age when he was made Prince of Galilea by his Father Antipater in lieu of which they would have it 25 or 26 years But the Circumstances of the whole History sufficiently evince that Josephus did commit no Mistake in putting 15 instead of 25. The only Objection is that according to Josephus himself Herod was but 15 years old at the time of the Alexandrian War and the Beginning of the Julian Epocha and in the 45th year of the Julian Epocha when he died he is said to have been 70 years old To which it is to be answered That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of by Josephus may be taken here for one of above 60 years old or else that the Text is adulterated in this Passage rather than contradict so many unquestionable Circumstances relating to this History § 3. The true time of the Death of Herod is When Herod died involved in no small Difficulties Joh. Kepl. Dion Petav. and Fred. Spanhem refer his Death to the 42d Julian Year to wit three years sooner than has been asserted by us But Herod having received the Royal Diadem in the 6th Julian Year after the Feast of the Passover from thence to the 42d Julian Year cannot be computed more than 35 years whereas Josephus expresly mentions 37 years Furthermore if Herod be supposed to have died in the 42d Julian Year it must follow that our Saviour was born in the 41st Julian Year from whence to the 74th Julian Year which is coincident with the 15th year of the Reign of Tiberius are about 33 years which according this Hypothesis must have been the Age of our Saviour which is contradicted by (q) C. 3. v. 1. 23 St. Luke and to affirm that Herod died before the Birth of Christ is contrary to the Evangelical History § 4. Those before-mention'd Authors who What Reasons are alledged against our Opinion anticipate the Death of Herod three years before us alledge in their behalf the Text of Josephus which mentions not only 37 years for the Reign of Herod
have proved before that Const the Great was proclaimed Caesar in the Year of Christ 306 which Opinion is approved of by (b) Part 2. l. â— c 11. Petav. in Ration Tempor Nevertheless the same Petavius in his Treatise de Doct. Temp. deduces the Beginning of the Reign of Const the Great from the 305th Year of Christ having read in the History of Socrates that Const the Great died in the first Year of the 271st Olympiad on the 25th day of July Scaliger affirms that Const the Great was not proclaimed Caesar till the Year of Christ 307. And (c) L. 4. c. 53 de Vit. Const Eusebius says expresly that Const the Great reigned 31 Years and some Months with whom agrees the Author of the Chron. Alexand. and Joh. Monachus who allot 31 Years and 10 Months for the Reign of this Emperor (d) L. 2. n. xvii Philostorgius affirms that he reigned beyond the 32d Year On the other hand St. Jerome Eutropius Onuphrius and many more who are of the same Opinion with us allow no more than 30 Years and 10 Months for the Reign of Const the Great and Scaliger but 29 Years and 10 Months There is no less Dispute about the Age of Const the Great Eusebius says he was not quite 64 Years old when he died there wanting a few Months and Days But Socrates Sozomenus Ruffinus Cassiodorus and a great many others affirm that Const the Great died in the 66th Year of his Age. They are also no less divided in their Opinions concerning those that were Consuls at Rome when Const the Great died Those who refer his Death to the Consulship of Felicianus and Titianus we have cited before But in the Consular Records published by Antonius Contius we find his Death coincident with the Consulship of Vrsus Lupulus and Polemius and consequently one Year later and (e) In Chron. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus with the Consulship of Constantius the 2d time and Constans and consequently two Years later And who is as much as able to enumerate much less to decide the different Opinions concerning the Reign of Const the Great Our before-mentioned Characters are the surest Guides to extricate us out of this Labyrinth § 2. Some of the Ancients were of Opinion Whether Constantine was proclaimed Caesar before his Father's Death that Constantine was proclaimed Caesar before his Father's Death which seems to be confirmed by the Authority of Eusebius when he allots 32 Years for the Reign of this Emperour And the Author of the Chron. Alexandr says expresly that the Year of the Death of Constantius was the 2d Year of Constantine And (f) In Chron. Cassiodorus speaking of the Consulship of Dioclesian the 10th time and Maximus the 7th time has the following Words Constantius not troubling himself with any Business was contented with the Title of Augustus which is the Reason that some years of his Reign are included in the Reign of his Son Constantine who as it was reported was born from Helen his Concubine c. § 3. But tho' (g) L. 1. c. 16. de Vit. Const Euseb relates that Constantine was Whether Constantine was declared Emperour and Augustus immediately after his Father's Death proclaimed Emperour and Augustus at the time of Constantius his Father's Funeral yet if we give Credit to the ancient Monuments of these Times we must conclude that Constantius either immediately after or perhaps before his Father Constantius's Death was declared Caesar but did not take upon him the Titles of Imperator or Augustus till after his Marriage with Fl. Maximiana Fausta the Daughter of Maximianus Herculeus as among others appears out of the Oration of the Panegyrist spoken in the Presence of Maximian and Constantine Augustus where among others he has these Words TIBI CAESARI ADDITUM NOMEN IMPERII And further as follows ET TIBI CONSTANTINE PER SOCERUM NOMEN IMPERII ACCREVERIT c. § 4. There is a Dispute among the Historians Whether Constantine was the first Christian Emperour whether Const the Great or the Emperour Philip sirnamed Arabs was the first Christian Emperour (h) L. 5. c. 27. Hist Eccl. Eusebius affirms that already in his time it was granted by many that this Philip had embraced the Christian Religion and (i) L. 7. c. 18. Orosius says expresly that this Philip was the first of all the Christian Emperours and that Constantine was the first Christian Emperour except Philip. On the other hand Eusebius seems to call in question the Christianity of Philip when he says that among all the other Emperours Constantine was the only one who was initiated by the holy Baptism with whom agrees in Opinion Lactantius in his Preface when he says that he was the first of all the Roman Princes who had laid aside his erroneous Opinion and was come to the true Knowledge of God and relates of this Philip Arabs that he was an Idolater Scaliger is of Opinion that in Reality he was a Pagan but pretended to be a Christian for some Reasons of State So that the best Chronologers agree in this Point that the Epocha of the Christian Emperours begins with the Reign of Const the Great § 5. Augustus having refused to accept of the The Origin of the Decennalia and Vicennalia Empire any otherwise than for the Space of ten Years was the first who instituted the Decennalia concerning which (k) L. 53. Dio Cassius has these following Words Caesar to remove from himself all Suspicion of being ambitious of the Royal Dignity so odious to the Romans but much coveted by him for which Reason he would accept of the Government of the Provinces for 10 years only adding these Words That if he could reduce them to a State of Tranquillity in a less time he would sooner abdicate the Government § 6. There is also a great Question among the Historians how long the Council of Nicaea lasted Concerning the time of the Nicaean Council Scaliger is of Opinion that it was dissolved in the 3d Year after it was called together with whom agree (l) L. 1. c. 1. de Concil Bellarminus and (m) Ad An. Chr. 338. Genebrardus but is contradicted by Baronius and Petavius Those who disagree with Scaliger alledge in their behalf the Words of Alexander and Metrophanes in (n) â—oâ— 256. Phot. which are as follows The Council being ended after three years and a half for it began on the 15th day of April and continued till three years after not only till the same Month of April but till the September next following But I look upon it as unquestionable that the End of the Council of Nicaea ought to be made coincident with the Vicennalia of Const the Great CHAP. XLV Of the Epocha and the Encoenia of NEW ROME or the City of Constantinople and the Division of the Roman Empire into the Eastern and Western Empire 1. The first year of this Epocha is coincident
his Successours p. 219 Ch. IX Of the Epocha of the Israelites leaving of Aegypt p. 224 Ch. X. Of the two Epocha's of the Division of the Land of Canaan among the Tribes of Israel and of their first beginning to cultivate the Ground 233 Ch. XI Of the Epocha of the Destruction of Troy p. 236 Ch. XII Of the Epocha of the Reign of David and his Successours in both Kingdoms of Judah and Israel p. 245 Ch. XIII Of the Epocha of the Temple of Solomon p. 253 Ch. XIV Of the Epocha of 390 Years of the Iniquity of the House of Israel mentioned in Ezekiel c. 4. v. 5. p. 260 Ch. XV. Of the End of the Reign of Sardanapalus and the Epocha of the Median Empire p. 261 Ch. XVI Of the Olympiad Epocha p. 26◠Ch. XVII Of the Epocha of the Building of Rome p. 274 Ch. XVIII Of the Nabonassarean Epocha p. 280 Ch. XIX Of the Epocha of the Conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians and the Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel p. 284 Ch. XX. Of the Epocha of Nebuchadonosor who is in the Holy Scripture called Nebuchadnezzar p. 290 Ch. XXI Of the Epocha and Interval of the 70 Years of the Babylonian Captivity mentioned in Chron. 36. p. 292 Ch. XXII Of the Epocha of the Destruction of the Temple of Solomon p. 298 Ch. XXIII Of the Persian Epocha of Cyrus p. 301 Ch. XXIV Of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus and the End of the first Monarchy p. 306 Ch. XXV Of the Epocha of the Banishment of the Roman Kings and the Establishment of the Consular Dignity p 312 Ch. XXVI Of the Epocha of the first War betwixt the Greeks and Persians or the time of the Battle fought near Marathon p. 315 Ch. XXVII Of the Expedition of Xerxes into Greece and the Epocha of the Battle of Salamis 320 Ch. XXVIII Of the Epocha of the Peloponnesian War p. 325 Ch. XXIX Of the Epocha and Interval of the 70 Weeks of Daniel mentioned in c. 9. v. 24. p. 329 Ch. XXX Of the Epocha of the Graecian Empire in Asia and the Beginning of the Epocha after the last Battle fought betwixt Alexander and Darius p. 372 Ch. XXXI Of the time of the Death of Alexander the Great and the Epocha of the Years of Philip p. 377 Ch. XXXII Of the Epocha of the Seleucides which is also called the Graecian or Alexandrian Epocha 382 Ch. XXXIII Of the Epocha and time of the Asmoneans who were afterwards called Maccabaeans p. 386 Ch. XXXIV Of the Antiochian Epocha p. 390 Ch. XXXV Of the Julian Epocha p. 393 Ch. XXXVI Of the Epocha of the time of Herod c. p. 398 Ch. XXXVII Of the Spanish Aera otherwise called the Aera of Caesar or Aera of Aera's p. 412 Ch. XXXVIII Of the Epocha of the Battle of Actium used among the Aegyptians p. Ch. XXXIX Of the Ep. of the Augustus's p. 419 Ch. XL. Of the true and vulgar Epocha of Christ p. 423 Ch. XLI Of the Epocha of the Passion of Christ p. 431 Ch. XLII Of the Epocha of the last Destruction of Jerusalem p. 442 Ch. XLIII Of the Epocha of Dioclesian p. 452 Ch. XLIV Of the Epocha of Constantine the Great p. 458 Ch. XLV Of the Epocha of New Rome or the City of Constantinople and the Division of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western p. 467 Ch. XLVI Of the Turkish Epocha commonly called the Epocha of Hegira p. 473 Ch. XLVII Of the Persian Epocha commonly called Yezdejerd p. 474 Ch. XLVIII Of the Jellalaean Epocha otherwise called the Royal Epocha and the Epocha of the Sultans p. 475 The End of the Contents AN INTRODUCTION TO THE Breviarium Chronologicum Concerning the Nature and Constitution of CHRONOLOGY DEFINITIONS 1. Chronology is a Science wherein time Quatenus Quantum is consider'd as to its use in History 2. It s Division is into General and Special 3. The General part is that which considers time in General with its divers Denominations and Characters and first of all it explains the Julian Period the common Receptacle of all Epocha's 4. The special part is that which considers time in particular by demonstrating the certainty of Epocha's and taking a view of all the Calenders or Fasti of divers Nations 5. Therefore the special part includes a review and computation of Epocha's § I. SPecial Chronology is a discipline distinct from other things its true indeed few things can be known of time its very definition being obscure according to what St. (a) Aug. 14. Confess Austin says Quid ergo est Tempus Si nemo ex me quaerat Scio si quaerenti explicare velim Nescio nor is (b) De Invent. Cicero less embarass'd in his thoughts upon it Tempus says he est id quo nunc utimur c. and because of these difficulties many are for referring all we know of time to Astronomy but I think erroneously for where-ever an Instructive Object wholly peculiar is at hand and that entire there is a certain peculiar Discipline distinct from others and such an Instructive Object is Time as the whole following discourse will evince § II. Besides Chronology has the conditions Chronology a Science requisite to intitle it to the name of a Science for there 's a Scientifick Object and its affections or properties as also Chronological characters which supply the place of Causes as if it were to be shewn that the year of Christ 1664. was the 6377th year of the Julian Period it might be done after this manner that year which has 21 for the character of the Solar Cycle 12 for the Lunar and 2 for the Cycle of Indiction that is the 6377th year of the Julian Period but the 1664th year of Christ is such Ergo c. and we shall give the Demonstrations of the same in all the Epocha's and though some err in Chronology t is the fault of the Artist not of the Art § III. And some erroneously confound History with Chronology for tho' a Chronologer considers Chronology distinct from History time for the use of History yet t is certain Chronology and History don't coincide for Chronology explains time it self and declares how it comes to be distinguished by such and such Characters But History only reports things done in time we have no demonstrations of things done in History but most certain ones of things in Chronology a Chronologer divides and characterizes time an Historian collects all passages he can to make his History compleat but we deny not these Disciplines to be useful to each other since the Historian receives the Chronologers time noted by Characters and the other his Actions as Examples Hence some say History has two Eyes Chronology and Geography which is not unlike what (c) Prolegom in Euseb Scaliger says Chronologia anima Historiae est sine quâ Historia non spirat quae quanto multit tanto Chronologia illi praestat ut corpori anima Nor has
observe Wednesday which they call Dio Fetissos and abstain from their accustomed Labours on that Day The Turks every Year observe Friday either from the Command of Mahomet or from an ancient idolatrous Custom brought from the Indians to the Arabians on which those Worship their chief Deity called Venerem CHOBAR of which Worship Jerome takes notice in the Life of Hilarius in these Words He came to Elusa says he by chance on that Day where the Anniversary had occasioned a Concourse of the People of the Town in the Temple of Venus For they worship her before Lucifer to whose Worship the whole Nation of Saracens is devoted § 11. A Common Year for Example being The Reason why all Julian Years begin not on the same Day ended which begins upon one Day the second Year begins not upon the same but the next Day after And if that should happen to be a Bissextile the second Year would have begun on the third Day after the reason of which from the Quantity of our Year is evident For the Common Year having 365 Days in it or 52 Weeks and one Day over and the Bissextile 2 Days over and above the 52 Weeks divide either 365 or 366 by 7 the Days in one Week so that if the Year begins on a Monday the last Day in the Year will be on a Monday and then the first Day of the next Year must be Tuesday § 12. Whoever will give himself the Trouble What 't is we understand by Roman Nundinae of inspecting fully into this matter may peruse (y) Lib. Saturn Cap. 16. Vide etiam Fred. Tâ—â—â—â—annum Macrob. which in short is this That upon the 8th Day not the 7th they met in the Fields to sacrifice for the Dead and consult the Country-Affairs and promulgate Laws that were establish'd and afterwards upon the ninth Day they consulted about Trade and City-Affairs and these Concourses of People were called Nundinae Some say they were instituted by Romulus Others by Servius Tullius § 13. Among other Praises of Constantine the Of the time the Roman Nundinae were abrogated and the Feriae primae substituted in their room Great this is not the least That on the Lord's Days or Sundays he commanded the Gentile Legions to pray For thus (z) Lib. 4. de Vita Constant M. Cap. 19. Eusebius When he had taught all his Soldiers to sanctifie this Day of Salvation which we call the Day of Light or Sunday he gave leisure to those who by Divine Instinct believed that they should freely frequent the Church of God and pray unto him without Molestation And others who had not yet been sensible of the Divine Doctrine he commanded by another Law That on Sundays they should go out into the Fields of the Suburbs and there use all together the same Form of Prayer upon a Signal given CHAP. III. Of the lesser Sacred Annual Character or the Sabbatic Cycle 1. The Sabbatic Cycle is a System of 7 Lunae-solar Years continually recurring instituted by God for this reason That the Earth and Men might have their Vicissitudes § 1. THE Sabbatic Years are of Divine Institution as may be seen at large Lev. 25. 2. where the Earth and the Vines were to be plough'd and gathered for 6 Years and the 7th Year to rest and not be cultivated See also Exod. 23. 11. The beginning of the Sabbatic Cycle was the 7th inclusive from the time when the Division of the Land into which the Israelites were then about to enter was to be made by (a) Exod. 46. Lot If this be observed all the Sabbatic Years will doubtless be rightly fixed and no Errors about it can happen if not we have no certain Character can be assigned us to proceed upon § 2. Calvisius (b) Isâ—g Chron. c. 25. when other Authors disagree Of those Years that are certainly Sabbatic among themselves has fixt these The 15th Year of the Reign of Hezekiah (c) 2 Kings 19. 29. King of Juda was Sabbatic The Year in which Antiochus Eupater (d) Mâ—c 6. 49. besieged Jerusalem was Sabbatic The Year in which Simon Maccabaeus was slain by (e) Josephus l. 4. c. 28. Ptolemy was Sabbatic The Year of the Captivity of Jerusalem by Herod (f) Ibid. was Sabbatic The Year before the Destruction of Jerusalem (g) Ibid. by Titus Vespasian was Sabbatic The Year of Christ 1189 was (h) Mâ—t. Pâ—tis Sabbatic The Year of Christ 1602 was (i) Jâ—daecrum Calend. Sabbatic Besides these of Calvisius others might doubtless be fixt § 3. There are (k) Lauren. Codomont l. 2. Câ—ron Quaest 40. temp l. 3. Chron. Dem. p. 103. Chronol myst in sole temp p. 22. some who tell us that the Their Opinion must be false wâ—â— assert that by the Divine Command the Sabbatic Cycle was in use among the Jews before the distrâ—bâ—tion of tâ—eir Land by Lot first Sabbatic Year of the Law was that in which the Israelites being brought by Moses to the Borders of Jewry and Land of Canaan a little after the Death of Moses began to enter and possess it under their Captain Joshua So that they will have this Cycle to begin 7 before what is assigned by Scaliger Calvisius and before these Eusebius But this agrees not with the Divine Precept For the Jews at that time did not enter into the Land of Canaan For altho' the Tribes of Reiâ—ben Gad and ½ of Menasses received the Kingdom of Sihon and Bashan from Moses yet it was not to these only but the whole People that the Divine Command was given Nor was the Land on this side Jordan properly called (l) Nunb 32. 29 30. 31 and 32. also 33. 51. also 35. 14. Canaan Nor did the Tribes inhabit it to whom it was assigned For these ought with the rest of the (m) Ibid. Tribes to pass over Jordan from whence after many Years they (n) Josh 22. 3 and 4. returned again Add to these things That Moses in Deuteronomy which Book he proposed to the People only one (o) Cap. 1. 3. Month before his Death speaks of the Land of Promise not as yet possest but to be possest Deut. 6. 10. But when the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the Land c. Therefore it can't be said Israel was entred into the Promised Land to wit Canaan before the Death of Moses § 4. Although by what precedes it is certain Whether we are to think that the Sabbatic Cycle was analogous to the Hebdomadic and consequently whether it can be of the same use in determining the first Year of the World that the Historical Beginning of the Sabbatic Cycle is to be derived from the Distribution of the Land by Lot yet we shall not reject their Opinion who think that God in ordaining this Cycle had respect to the Sabbath of Days and that therefore the first Day of the World was also the first in the
27758 D. 18 H. 7′ 0″ supposing the Quantity of one Lunation to be 29 D. 12 H. 44′ 3″ the Sum of 27759 Days are attributed to one Cycle which agrees with neither of the other being less than one by almost 10 Hours and less than another by above 18 H. But that the Examination of the Cycles and Lunae-Solar Periods may be liable to less Difficulties we have thought fit to construct the following Tables whose Use is very great and obvious I. Tab. For Solar Tropic Years Y. Sol. Trop Days H. ′ ″ 1 365 5 48 55 2 730 11 37 50 3 1095 17 26 45 4 1460 23 15 40 5 1826 5 4 35 6 2191 10 53 30 7 2556 16 42 25 8 2921 22 31 20 9 3287 4 20 15 10 3652 10 9 10 20 7304 20 18 20 30 10957 6 27 30 40 14609 16 36 40 50 18262 2 45 50 60 21914 12 55 0 70 25566 23 4 10 80 29219 9 13 20 90 32871 19 22 30 100 36524 5 31 40 200 73048 11 3 20 300 109572 16 35 0 400 146096 22 6 40 500 182621 3 38 20 600 219145 9 10 0 700 255669 14 41 40 800 292193 20 13 20 900 328718 1 45 0 1000 365242 7 16 40 2000 730484 14 33 20 3000 1095726 21 50 0 4000 1460969 5 6 40 5000 1826211 12 23 20 6000 2191453 19 40 0 7000 2556696 2 56 40 8000 2921938 10 13 20 9000 3287180 17 30 0 10000 3652423 0 46 40 II. Tab. For Julian Mean Years Y. Jul. Days Hours 1 365 6 2 730 12 3 1095 18 4 1461 0 5 1826 6 6 2191 12 7 2556 18 8 2922 0 9 3287 6 10 3652 12 20 7305 0 30 10957 12 40 14610 0 50 18262 12 60 21915 0 70 25567 12 80 29220 0 90 32872 12 100 36525  200 73050  300 109575  400 146100  500 182625  600 219150  700 255675  800 292200  900 328725  1000 365250  2000 730500  3000 1095750  4000 1461000  5000 1826250  6000 2191500  7000 2556750  8000 2922000  9000 3287250  10000 3652500  III. Tab. For Lunations Lunat Days Hours ′ ″ 1 29 12 44 3 2 59 1 28 6 3 88 14 12 9 4 118 2 56 13 5 147 15 40 16 6 177 4 24 19 7 206 17 8 22 8 236 5 58 25 9 265 18 36 28 10 295 7 20 31 20 590 14 41 3 30 885 22 1 34 40 1181 5 22 6 50 1476 12 42 37 60 1771 20 3 9 70 2067 3 23 40 80 2362 10 44 12 90 2657 18 4 43 100 2953 1 25 15 200 5906 2 50 30 300 8859 4 15 45 400 11812 5 41 0 500 14765 7 6 15 600 17718 8 31 30 700 20671 9 56 45 800 23624 11 22 0 900 26577 12 47 15 1000 29530 14 13 30 2000 59061 4 25 0 3000 88591 18 37 30 4000 118122 8 50 0 5000 147652 23 2 30 6000 177183 13 15 0 7000 206714 3 27 30 8000 236244 17 40 0 9000 365775 7 52 30 10000 295305 22 5 0 CHAP. II. Of the Period of Hipparchus 1. Hipparchus 's Period is a System of 304 years Lunar and Solar which being elapsed the Ancients thought the Reckoning by the Lunar Motion would exactly coincide again with the Solar ones 2. This Period comprehends 3760 Months and 111035 Days 3. The Sum of these Days arises from the Multiplication of the Calippic Period viz. 27759 into 4 subtracting Vnity from the Product § 1. THIS is the Author that corrected the Of the Author of this Cycle Computation of Calippus and thought of a new one His Name was Hipparchus of Nicaea in Bithynia according to Strabo or the Island of Rhodes according to Ptolemy and he made such Proficiency in Astronomy that (a) Lib. 2. c. 26. Pliny says of him Nunquam satis landatus But whether this was the same with another famous Astronomer who was called Abrahis or Abrachis according as Lucas Gauricus and Josephus Blancanus thought you may read Clavius's (b) Vide Comment ad Joan. de Sacrobosc◠Sphaeram Disputations § 2. The Age of this Astronomer is sufficiently Of the time that Hipparchus lived and published his Period fixed from his own Observations for he takes notice of a Vernal Aequinox in the 3d Year of the 150th Olympiad that it hapned upon the 30th of Messori which is October the 3d. of the Jul. Period 4552 and on the following Years he gives us other Observations whereof Ptolemy mentions 8 and the difference betwixt the first and the last is 3◠Years Therefore he flourished in the time of the third Punic War and he gave himself up to this Study from the Year 4552 to the Year 4586 according to the Julian Account in which time 't is indisputable but he must have fixed his Period § 3. He found that the Period of Calippus Of the Reason why Hipparchus corrected the Calippic Period was assumed too great by near a Quarter of an Hour so that 4 Periods being elapsed the Moon would come to the old Place again in the Solar Calendar if one Day were subtracted which he accordingly did Of this Affair Longomontanus (c) Danic Theor. l. 1. c. 2. p. 175. thus writes Meto in 304 which hapned nearly betwixt him and Hipparchus had committed an Error of 5 Days in his Cycle then because he look'd upon the Solar Year to be almost 365¼ Days because he found the Conjunction of the Sun and Moon not so precise as it should be which Calippus thought of whilst examining an Eclipse of the Moon 6 years before the Death of Alexander the Great So that he corrected Meto subtracting one Day in every 4 Cycles from whence he made his own Period of 76 Years But whereas Calippus himself had usurped that the Solar Year consisted of 365¼ Days and also in the Course of the Moon it lost something Therefore Hipparchus in like manner corrected Calippus taking from him in 4 Periods or the space of 304 Years one whole Day and consequently 5 from Meto in that time But this Error of one Day committed by Calippus Hipparchus rejected for a whole Solar Year subtracting only so much after 304 years and one Day altogether in 304 years Hence it comes to pass that the Measure of the Tropick Year 365¼ Days is lessened by Hipparchus by the 300th part of one Day that is 4′ 48″ So that time should according to him be thought but 365 D. 5 H. 55′ 12″ § 4. For if according to the Rule of the preceding That Hipparchus did not follow in his Period what he thought of in his mind Tables you examine this Period 304 Solar Tropical Years make 111033 D. 15 H. 50′ 40″ But 3760 Lunations make 111035 D. 0H 37′ 24″ So that there remains an evident Disparity and the Error is owing to this that the Quantity of the Solar Year was assumed greater than the constant Account
the beginning of the World till the Death of Moses being computed by the modern Jews to consist of 2493 years whereas the true Interval is 3993 years It will not be amiss to insert here the Defects in the same Order as they have been set down in Opposition to the Vulgar Chronology by Isaacus Vossius His Opinion is that there are wanting  Years Betwixt Adam and Seth. 100 Betwixt Seth and Enoc 100 Betwixt Cainan and Malaleel 100 Betwixt Malaleel and Jared 100 Betwixt Enoch and Methuselah 100 Betwixt the Deluge and Arphaxad 10 Betwixt Arphaxad and Cainan 100 Betwixt Cainan and Arphaxad 130 Betwixt Salem and Heber 100 Betwixt Heber and Phaleg 100 Betwixt Phaleg and Ragau 100 Betwixt Ragau and Serug 100 Betwixt Serug and Nachor 100 Betwixt Nachor and Thara 100 Betwixt Thara and Abraham 60  1500 But Vossius does not stop here but alledges several other Intervals which he says are deficient in the vulgar Chronology These are the following  Years Of the Jews after Joshua 18 The time of the Servitude of Israel under Cushan 8 The Anarchy after the Death of Othoniel ... Their Servitude under the Moabites 18 The Anarchy after the Death of Ahud ... Their Servitude under Jabin 20 The Anarchy after Deborah ... Their Servitude under the Midianites â— The Anarchy after Jair ... The Servitude under the Ammonites 18 The Anarchy after the Death of Abdon ... Their Servitude under the Philstines 4â— The Anarchy after the Death of Heli the High-Priest 2â— These and several other Defects are imputed to vulgar Chronology by Isaacus Vossius to prove which he calls to his Aid not only the Authority of the 70 Interpreters and Josephus but also the Ancient Monuments of the Aegyptians Chaldeans and Chineses which he says are of a much older Date than the vulgar Epocha's of the World and that the only way to remove all Difficulties in this kind for the future is to add a certain Number of Years to the vulgar Epocha Weâ— can be either so blind as not to see says he (n) P. 280. â—â— whi dare deny that the most proper and the only wâ—â— to convince those who make use of the Authority â—â— Prophane History in contradiction of the Sacreâ— Writ is to demonstrate the Truth of the Sacreâ— History out of the Annals of the Gentiles Bryeâ— Walton seems to be of the same Opinion with Vossius for in the Prolegomena to his Bible printed in London he declares that the Computation according to the Hebrew Text is not to be relied on but that in its stead the 70 Interpreters ought to be consulted But as we shall have Occasion to examine the Authority of the Greek Computation in that Chapter of the Epocha of the Deluge so as to what has been objected to Chronologers concerning the newly invocated prophane Antiquities I cannot but give this seasonable Caution that it appears to me the most unbecoming a Christian Philosopher to prefer the fabulous Relations of the Gentiles before the Authority of the Sacred History Besides that Vossius ought to have considered that his 15 Ages will fall much short from supplying the Difference there is betwixt the vulgar Epocha of the World and those of the Chineses and other Gentiles Neither can he be ignorant that among the Gentiles themselves Plutarch and Censorinus and among the Christians St. Austin have many years ago left it as their Opinion to the World that the years mentioned in the Chronologies of the Gentiles are not of the same length with ours § 6. But since we have said enough about the Epocha of the World according to the Computation What time of the year the World was created of the Intervals the next thing in order which is offered to our Consideration is to insert something also concerning the Four Quarters of the Year Tacitus relates that the ancient Germans knew no more than of Three Seasons of the Year But the Division of the Year into Four Cardinal Quarters has been received many Ages among most Nations The Beginning of the Spring is fixed at the time of the Ingress of the Sun into ♈ of the Summer in ♋ of the Autumn in ♎ of the Winter in ♑ The Subject of our present Enquiry is in which of these Four Cardinal Points the first Day of the World is to be fixed There is scarce any body that I know of who has taken upon him to plead for the Winter in this case unless it be (o) Lib. 1. c. 3â— Cluverius who in his German Antiquities seems to misapply the Word Hyems or Winter when he says thus Quaeritur nunc quâ tempestate initium anni fecerint Celtae veris aestatis an hyemis principio Omnino hyemis credo principio ut Aegyptii Hebraeorumque vetustissimi Nam id ipsum conditi Aevi fuit initium There are also a few Modern Authors who fix the time of the Creation of the World in the Summer But both Solinus and Macrobius relate that this was the Opinion of the ancient Aegyptians For the (p) Polyhist c. 35. first expresly says that the Aegyptian Priests had fixed the first Day of the World on the 18th of July And (q) â—n Soâ—â—n Scip. l. 1. c. 21. Macrobius aledges concerning the Aegyptians That as they were the first that applied themselves to Astronomy so they had attributed the Lion as the proper House to the Sun because says he this was considered among them as the Native Sign of the Sun Gerhardus Mercator who according to the Testimony of Buntingus was the most exact Chronologer of his time follows the Opinion of the Aegyptians in this Point because it is related in the History of the Deluge that the Dove returned with a green Olive-Leaf on the 17th Day of the 11th Month. Now if it be allowed that the Olive-Tree does not blossom but in May the Consequence is plain enough And if the 11th Month counted from the beginning of the World be correspondent to the Month of May the Month of July must of Necessity have been the first But there are many Eminent Writers who with equal Passion plead either for the Spring or Autumn Among those who set up for Patrons for the Spring (r) L. 3. Georg Virgil declares himself thus Non alios prima crescentis origine Mundi Illuxisse dies aliumve habuisse tenorem Crediderim Ver illud erat Ver magnus agebat Orbis hybernis parcebant Flatibus Euri. Of the same Opinion are Eusebius S. Ambrose S. Cyril S. Austin Beda Melancton Bucholzerus Buntingus Cedomannus Keplerus Kratzhemius Mercerius Aâ—stadius Spondanus Capellus Edward Simpson and William Lange as also Scaliger at first besides the Armenians Persians and most other Eastern Countries who all begin their Computation with the Spring But those that have declared for the Autumnal Quarter are not Inferiour in Authority to the others Those who at present occur to my Memory are (s) Ezec. c. 1. S. Jerome Nicolaus
Deluge 2. The Year of the Birth of Abraham ought to be coincident with the seventieth Year of Thara (a) Gen. 11. v. 26. 3. According to the Mosaick Computation the Interval betwixt the Deluge and Abraham is of 292 Years 4. Abraham was born when the Assyrian Monarchy flourished in Asia according to St. Austin (b) L. 16. c. 17. de Civ Dei 5. The Vocation of Abraham was in the 75th year of his Age (c) Gen. 12. v. 4. 6. From the 75th year of his Age being that of his Vocation begins the Epocha of the time of the Children of Israel 's abiding in Aegypt being 430 years till the time of their going out of Aegypt from whence to reckon backwards to the Nativity of Abraham are 505 years (d) Gal. 3. v. 17. Jos L. 2. c. 6. Antiq. 7. Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (e) Gen. â—â— v. 1. 5. 8. Abraham died when he was 175 years old (f) Gen. 25. v. 7. 9. According to this Computation Abraham was born in the year 2712 of the Julian Period in the 24th Cycle of the Sun and the 16th of the Moon The Vocation of Abraham hapned in the year 2787 of the Julian Period the Birth of Isaac in the year 2812 of the Julian Period and the Death of Abraham in the year 2887 of the same Period 10. If therefore from any certain year of the Julian Any year of the Julian Period given to find the Year since the beginning of this Epochâ— Period be subtracted 2711 years for the Nativity of Abraham 2786 for his Vocation 2811 for the Birth of Isaac and 2886 years for the Death of Abraham the Residue will shew the desired year of the Epocha of Abraham On the other hand if the above-mentioned Numbers of years be added to the year of the Epocha of Abraham the Products will be correspondent to the years of the Julian Period § 1. THE following Table represents the several Of the Computation of the Interval betwixt the Deluge and the Birth of Abraham Computations of the Interval betwixt the Deluge and the Birth of Abraham From the Deluge According to the He. LXX Int. Josephus Genesis xi To Arphaxad 2 2 12 Verse 10 To Cainaan 0 135 135  Salah 35 130 130 Verse 12 Eber 30 130 130 Verse 14 Phaleg 34 134 134 Verse 16 Ragau 30 130 130 Verse 18 Serug 32 132 130 Verse 20 Nachor 30 130 132 Verse 22 Thara 29 79 129 Verse 24 Abraham 70 70 130 Verse 29 The whole Sum of years from the Del. to Abrah 292 1072 1192  Both the Computation of the LXX Interpreters and that of Josephus is taken out of Isaacus (g) Dissert de aetat Mundi c. 8 Vossius who as well as (h) Chronol Sacr. p. 108. Bryon Walton follow in the Intervals of Years both before and after the Deluge the Computation of the Greeks § 2. (i) Chron. Sacr. p. 107. Isaacus Vossius follows the Footsteps Whether Arphaxad was born in the â— d or 12th year after the Deluge of Josephus in the time of the Birth of Arphaxad being of Opinion that in Genesis 11. v. 10. where it is said Shem was an hundred years old and begat Arphaxad two years after the Deluge it should be said twelve which Error he attributes to the Carelessness of the Amanuensis For says he how else could Arphaxad have two elder Brothers Elam and Assur for among the Sons of Shem Arphaxad is mentioned in the third place And to suppose that these three Sons and perhaps as many Daughters were all born in two years time is ridiculous But the Computation of Josephus is free from all these Difficulties especially concerning the Age of Shem. To this it is answered by some that the Opinion of Vossius being contrary both to the Hebrew Text and the Translation of the Septuagint it may rationally be supposed that the two elder Brothers of Arphaxad were either Twins born in the first year after the Deluge or that Shem's Wife conceived whilst she was in the Ark and immediately after brought forth the Eldest and in a years time after the Second There are also some who believe Arphaxad to have been the First-born because it is said in Genesis 11. 2. that Shem after he begat Arphaxad begat Sons and Daughters and not before § 3. There is another difficulty in the Genealogy Of Cainan who is put betwixt Arphaxad and Salah of the Post-Diluvian Patriarchs concerning Cainan who in the Translation of the LXX Interpreters is put betwixt Arphaxad and Salah These are their Words in Gen. 10. v. 24. And Arphaxad begot Cainan Cainan begot Salah And in the 11th Chapter v. 11. And Arphaxad lived 130 years and begot Cainan And the first of Chronicles Chap. 1. v. 27. And Arphaxad begot Cainan and Cainan begot Salah Cainan is also mentioned in the 3d Chapter v. 35. of St. Luke which was the Son of Salah which was the Son of Cainan which was the Son of Arphaxad The Syriack Latin German Low-Dutch and English Translations do not only follow the Footsteps of the LXX Interpreters in this Point but also among our Modern Authors Alphonsus Salmero Augustus Torniellus Jacobus Saltanus Isaacus Vossius and Bryon Walton who relying upon the Authority of St. Luke agrees with them in Opinion But there are very weighty Reasons which have moved others to contradict this Assertion For first in the Hebrew Text no mention is made of Cainan 2. In some of the most ancient Translations of the Bible especially in the Samaritan as also by (k) Lib. 1. c. 6. ant Josephus otherwise a strict Adherer to the Chronology of the Septuagint no mention is made of Cainan 3. In some ancient Copies of the Gospel of St. Luke Cainan is likewise not mentioned as in that of Theodorus Beza where Arphaxad is put immediately after Salah which has moved Theodatus and Cartwightus the first to leave him out in his Italian the last in his Latin Translation And Vsserius cites above twelve of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers who know nothing of this Cainan 4. There are also some who are of Opinion that Salah had a double Name his second Name being Cainan and that there ought to have been no distinction in St. Luke betwixt these two Names 5. Others will have it that the LXX Interpreters have inserted this Cainan on purpose to make Moses agree with the Aegyptian History But be it as it will my Opinion is that the Computation of Moses cannot be erroneous Ger. Jo. Vossius has made this useful Observation (l) Heres 55. contra Mâ—â—chis that because neither Epiphanius nor St. Hierom (m) In Trad. Ebraic make the least mention of Cainan neither the said Cainan is to be found in the best Roman Edition of the Septuagint published by the Care of Caraffa it is very probable that in the original Manuscript of the LXX Interpreters no mention
pretend to have been destroyed by Earthquakes and Inundations But it appears to me unreasonable to call to our Aid the Elements to maintain the Authority of a Foreign Aegyptian Priest in Opposition to what has been asserted for Truth by so many Greek and other Historians § 2. Those that contradict the Destruction of Some Arguments for and against the Destruction of Troy Troy alledge also in their behalf that Homer was both the first Poet and Author among the Greeks It is true that all the Greek Historians whose Names have been transmitted to Posterity have lived some Ages after the Trojan War yet is it not from thence to be inferred that Homer was either the first or the only Author who has given an Account of the Expedition of the Greeks against the Trojans A certain Poet says (p) Lib. 14. c. 21. var. Hist Aelian whose Name was Syagrus lived after Orpheus who first of all brought the Trojan War into Metre And what Ovid says of Macro is a sufficient Argument that there were not wanting among the Latins who endeavoured to supply the Defects of Homer in the Trojan War These are his Words Tu canis aeterno quicquid restabat Homero Ne careant summa Troica bella manu § 3. As there are some who reject the whole Concerning the Authority of Homer History of Troy as fabulous so there are not wanting such as put Homer in the same Rank with other Historians Both are in my Opinion in an Error as is manifest out of what is related concerning the wooden Horse which though it be not only circumstantially described by Homer and Virgil but also was used in a Proverbial Sense among the Roman Orators as is manifest from these Words of Tully Out of the School of Isocrates like out of the Trojan Horse came forth a vast Number of great Men Yet (q) In At. Pausanias himself is very plain in telling the World that this Horse was nothing else but a certain Engine invented by one Epeus a Pattern of which stood in the Castle of Athens to batter the Walls of strong Cities And he adds that those who believe otherwise must needs look upon the Trojans to have been the greatest Fools and Blockheads in the World Neither does (r) L. 2. Aen. Virgil seem to have been quite ignorant of it when he introduces Laocoon speaking these following Words Aut hoc inclusi ligno occultantur Achivi Aut haec in nostros fabricata est machina muros Inspectura domos venturaque desuper urbi § 4. Some are of Opinion that the Destruction Troy was a whole Kingdom of Troy was comprehended only in one City But according to (s) L. 13. Strabo the Country under the Jurisdiction of the Trojan Kings consisting in nine large Principalities was called Troja which being invaded and conquered by the Greeks they at last made themselves Masters of Troy the Capital City which has questionless introduced this Mistake of converting this War which lasted in all ten years into a Decennial Siege § 5. This Epocha was so famous in most ancient The Destruction of Troy was much celebrated among the Ancients time that if we believe (t) Prâ—â—em â— 1. Diodorus Siculus this was the first Term unto which the Greek Historians related their most ancient and remarkable Transactions And what has rendred this Epocha the more famous to Antiquity is that the Conquest of Troy was bought with the Loss of so many brave and great Heroes from whence is arisen the Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus expressed by Catullus Troja nefâ—s commune sepulchrum Europae Asiaeque Troja virûm virtutum omnium acerba cinis § 6. The Chronologers disagree also as to the true time of this Epocha for besides the various Different Opinions concerning this Epochâ— Opinions alledged by Clemens Alexandrinus Porpoyrius has made the Destruction of Troy coincident with the Reign of Semiramis as on the contrary (u) In Chron. Cap. 34. Johannes Georgius Herwart ab Hohenâ—urgh has put no more than seven Ages betwixt the Destruction of Troy and the Epocha of Christ But to set aside these extravagant Notions there are three several Opinions more which carry with them the greatest Probability The first fixes the taking of Troy in the 3530th year of the Julian Period which is also our Opinion for Reasons alledged in the beginning of this Chapter as well as of Dionysius Petavius and Jacobus Capellus The second is of Josephus Scaliger with his Followers Calvisius and Emmius who affirm that Troy was destroyed in the year 3531 of the Julian Period on the 22d of June in the year of the World 2767. The Third Opinion is of Buntingus who maintains that the Destruction of Troy hapned in the year of the World 2787 in the year of the Julian Period 3532 on the 21st of June § 7. As the greatest part of the Trojan History is involved in great Obscurity so its time remains Kings of Troy as yet undetermined we being ignorant how long Teucrus reigned over that Kingdom Out of the following Table it will appear that from the time of Dardanus Son-in-law to Teucrus till the Destruction of Troy under Priamus there was a continual Succession from Father to Son of six Kings for 296 years  Years An. Pe. Jul. 1. King Teucrus   2. Dardanus his Son-in-law 65 3234 3. Erichtonius his Son 46 3299 4. Tros his Son 49 3345 5. Ilus his Son 40 3394 6. Laomedon his Son 44 3434 7. Priamus his Son 52 3478 From Dardanus to the Destruction of Troy 296 3530 § 8. There is also a great Dispute who was the Founder of the City of Troy or Ilium The first Founder of Troy The common Opinion is that Ilus the Son of Tros was the Founder of this City according to which Supposition Troy has not stood an Age and an half Of this Opinion is (x) L. 13. Geor. de Regn. Troj p. 174. Strabo and Conon in Photius Reinerus Reineccius with some others attribute it to Tros Others go back as far as to King Dardanus to whom they give the Honour of having laid the first Foundation of Ilium or Troy with whom consents (y) L. 5. Aen. Virgil when he says thus Dardanus Iliacae primus pater urbis auctor Electrâ ut Graji perhibent Atlantide cretus Advehitur Teucros c. CHAP. XII Of the Epocha of the Reign of David and his Successors in both Kingdoms of Judah and Israel 1. The beginning of the Reign of David is coincident with the 30th year of his Age (a) 2 Sam. 5. v. 4. 3. 2. The first year of this Epocha precedes the Death of David 40 years (b) Ibid. Chron. 3. v. 4. c. 30. v. 27. 3. The 44th year of this Epocha or the fourth of the Reign of Solomon is coincident with the 480th year after the going of the Children of Israel out of Aegypt (c) 1
1 Pekajah  2 3956 52 1 Pekah  20 Chron. Years of the Kings of Places of Scripture Jud. Israel 40  2 Sam. V. 4. 1 Chron. III. 4. c. 30. v. 27. 40 20 1 Reg. XI 42. 17  1 Reg. XIV 21. 3  1 Reg. XV. 1. 2 Chr. XIII 1. 40  1 Reg. XV. 9.  1 1 Reg. XV. 25.  23 1 Reg. XV. 33.  1 1 Reg. XVI 8.   1 Reg. XVI 15. 16.  11 1 Reg. XVI 23.  19 1 Reg. XVI 29.   1 Reg. XXII 41 42.  1 1 Reg. XXII 52.  12 2 Reg. III 1. 7  2 Reg. VIII 16. 1  2 Reg. VIII 25. 6 28 2 Reg. XI 1 2 3. c. ix 12. 35  2 Reg. XII 1.  14 2 Reg. XIII 1.  15 2 Reg. XIII 10. 40  2 Reg. XIV 1.  63 2 Reg. XIV 23. 52  2 Reg. XV. 1.  1 2 Reg. XV. 8.  0 2 Reg. XV. 13.  11 2 Reg. XV. 17.  2 2 Reg. XV. 23.  28 2 Reg. Xâ— â—7 An. P. J. Succession of the Kings Scrip. Years of the Kings of of Judah of Israel Jud. Israel 3958 1 Jothram 2 16  3973 1 Ahaz 17 16  3984 12 1 Hosea  9 3986 1 Hezekiah 3 29  3991 6 Finis   4015 1 Manasseh  55  4070 1 Ammon  2  4072 1 Josiah  31  410â— 1 Jehoahaz  55  4103 1 Jehojakim  2  4106 4 1 Nebuchad 31  4114 1 Jehoiachim 8 Nebuchad 3 m.  4114 1 Zedekiah  11  4124 11 â—9 Nebuch   Chron. Years of the Kings of Places of Scripture Jud. Israel 15  2 Reg. XV. 32. 13  2 Reg. XVI 1.  7 2 Reg. XVII 1. 29  2 Reg. XVIII 1.   2 Reg. XVIII 10. 11. 55  2 Reg. XXI 1. 2  2 Reg. XXI 19. 13  2 Reg. XXII 1. 0  2 Reg. XXIII 31. 10  2 Reg. XXIII 36.   Jer. XXV 1. 0  2 Reg. XXIV 12 8. 10  2 Reg. XXV 18.   2 Reg. XXV 38. Jer. LII 12. 29. CHAP. XIII Of the Epocha of the Temple of SOLOMON The exact time of the building of the Temple of Solomon must be determined according to the Sacred History where we read these following Words (a) 1 Reg. 6. v. 1. 10. And it came to pass in the four hundred and fourscore year after the Children were come out of the Land of Aegypt in the fourth year of Solomon's Reign over Israel in the Month Zif which is the second Month that he began to build the House of the Lord. The Interval betwixt the going out of the Israelites out of Aegypt and the time of David on which depends the Computations of the Epocha of the Temple being the fourth year of the Reign of Solomon ought to be regulated according to the Genealogy of David described in Ruth 4. 20. seq 1 Chron. 11. 11. Matth. 1. 5. where it is to be observed that Nashon who lived and died whilst the Israelites were in the Desart (b) Numb 1. v. 7. c. 7. â— 12. begot Salmon Salmon begot Boatz and Boatz begot Obed Obed begot Jesse and Jesse David This Interval ought also to be regulated in such a manner as not to be contradictory to the Words of (c) Judg. 11. v. 26. Jephtha Whilst Israel dwelled in Heshbon and her Towns and in Aroer and her Towns and in all the Cities that be along by the Coasts of Arnon three hundred years why therefore did you not recover them within that time Which Computation of Jephtha according to the Hypothesis of the time of Servitude and of the Government of the Jews under the Judges to be accounted by its self is absolutely false Betwixt the fourth year of the Reign of Solomon the first of the Epocha of the Temple till the first year of the Iniquity of Israel of which mention is made in Ezek. 4. 5. are computed 37 years because (d) 2 Chron 9. v. 10. Solomon reigned 40 years and the general Defection of Israel hapned under (e) 1 Reg. 12. v. 26. Jeroboam the first year after Solomon 's Death The first Temple was built by (f) 1 Reg. 6. v. 3â— Solomon in seven years And in the elevenh year in the Month Bul which is the eighth Month was the House finished throughout all the Parts thereof and according to all the Fashion of it So was he seven years in building of it From the time of the Foundation of the Temple of Solomon till its Destruction which hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4124 and 8 Months are 427 Years and 6 Months which Interval is calculated from the fourth year of the Reign of Solomon till the last year of Zedekiah out of the Books of the Kings and Chronicles in which Opinion agree with us not only most of the Jewish Interpreters but also among the modern Chronologers Josepus Scaliger Henricus Buntingus Sethus Calvisius Michael Moestlinus Henricus Philippi Jacobus Hainlinus and many more From these Characters may be collected the beginning of this Epocha according to which Solomon laid the first Foundation of the Temple in the year of the Julian Period 3697 in the Month of May Cycl ☉ 12. ☽ 2. and compleated the whole Structure in the 3704th year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 8. ☽ 18. in the Month of October 8. If therefore 3696 years and 4 Months be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian Period Any certain year given of the Jul. Period to find the year since the beginning of this Epocha the Residue shews the year since the beginning of the Epocha of the building of the Temple And if in like manner 3703 Years and 9 Months be subtracted from the same year of the Julian Period the Residue demonstrates the year since the finishing of the Structure of the Temple of Solomon But if to the year of either of these two Epocha's the before-mentioned Sums be added the Product corresponds to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THere are not a few among the Interpreters Different Opinions concerning the 480 years of the Holy Scripture who are of Opinion that the Calculation of the 480 years computed (g) a Reg. 6. to have been betwixt the time of the going out of the Israelites out of Aegypt till the building of the Temple by Solomon is erroneous Serrarius makes this Interval instead of 480 680 years others would have it 580 years among whom are Melchior Canus Johannes Walterus Nicholaus Raimarus and Hugo Grotius But besides that this pretended Adulteration of the original Text is contradictory to the Providence and Promise of God this Computation of 480 years is confirmed by the joint Consent of the Chaldaean the Greek of the LXX Interpreters the Latin and other Translations § 2. Others who are not so forward in Contradicting
Philopater 17 543 119 Epiphanes 24 567 143 Philomater 35 602 178 Euergetes II. 29 631 207 Soter 36 667 243 Dionysius 29 696 272 Cleopatra 22 718 294 V. Of the Roman Kings  Anni Regn. Nab. Philipp Augustus 43 761 337 Tiberius 22 783 359 Caius 4 787 363 Claudius 14 801 377 Nero 14 815 391 Vespasianus 10 825 401 Titus 3 828 404 Domitianus 15 843 419  Phil. Nab. Phil. Nerus I. 1 844 420 Trajanus 19 863 439 Adrianus 21 884 460 Antoninus 23 907 483 CHAP. XIX Of the Epocha of the Conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians and the Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel 1. Samaria the Capital of the whole Kingdom of Israel was taken by the Assyrians in the sixth year of Hezekiah King of Judah (a) 2 Reg. 18. v. 10. 2. In the ninth year of the Reign of Hosea King of Israel (b) 2 Reg. 17. v. 1. 3. Vnder the Reign of Shalmanassar King of Assyria (c) Ibid. 4. Some time before Sennacherib who in the 14th year of the Reign of Hezekiah came up against the City of Jerusalem (d) 2 Reg. 18. v. 13. 5. As likewise before the time of (e) 2 Reg. 19. v. 37. Assarhaddon the Son of Sennacherib who transferred the Royal Seat of the Assyrian Kings from Ninive to Babylon For the Successour of Hezekiah Manasseh was carried by the King of Assyria to Babylon (f) 2 Chr. 33. v. 11. 6. King So reigned at that time in Egypt as is apparent out of 2 Reg. 17. v. 4. 7. From whence we conclude that the Conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians hapned in the year of the Julian Period 3991 Cycl ☉ 15. ☽ 1. If therefore from any certain year of the Julian Period To investigate the Year since thâ— beginning of this Epocha be subtracted 3390 years or the same Number be added to any certain year of this Epocha the Residue of the one and the Product of the other will shew the year either of the time since the Beginning of this Epocha or of the Julian Period § 1. IT has been controverted among the Chronologers Whâ— was Shalmanassar who this Shalmanassar was that conquer'd Samaria (g) Chron. part 2. Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus confound him with Sennacherib Funccius Buntingus Mercator and several other of the most Learned Modern Chronologers affirm this Shalmanassar to have been the same Nabonassar of which mention is made by Ptolemy But this Opinion has been sufficiently refuted by (h) De Emend Temp. Scaliger by Calvisius and Behmius The Celestial Characters fixed by Ptolemy to the Times of Nabonassar having not the least Relation to this Hypothesis § 2. There arises also another Controversie Of the Synchronism of Hosea and Ahaz concerning (i) 2 Reg. 15. v. 30. Hosea who is said to have slain Pekah in the 20th year of Jotham and to have succeded him in the Kingdom The 20th year of the Reign of Jotham was questionless the 4th of the Reign of Ahaz who reigned 16 years So that Hosea began to reign in the 4th year of Ahaz But it being said 2 Reg. 17. v. 1. that in the 12th year of Ahaz Hosea began to reign the Question is how the beginning of his Reign can be fixed both in the 4th and 12th year of Ahaz Unto which it is answer'd that the beginning of the Reign of Hosea may be considered in a double respect For from the 4th year of Ahaz till his 12th he reigned as Sovereign whereas after the said 12th year he was tributary to the King of (k) 2 Reg. 18. v 1-9 10. Assyria § 3. There is no less Dispute among the Chronologers concerning So the King of Egypt of Of King So mention'd in the H. Scriptuâ—e whom mention is made in the Scripture whom some call Bochorin Saitin others by another Name But I take it for granted that Cambyses King of Persia did according to Eusebius and Herodotus conquer Egypt in the 5th or 6th year of his Reign which according to Ptolemy was the 225th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha or the 4191st year of the Julian Period I will in the following Table give you a Catalogue of the Egyptian Kings which from the year 4191 to count backwards have reigned till the year of the Julian Period 3991 when the Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel hapned from whence it will appear that at that time Sabacus the King of Aethiopia reigned in Egypt In the first Column you will see the Names and in the second the Times of the Reigns of these Kings in the third the year of the Julian Period when they began to reign and in the fourth the last year of each of their Reigns in the fifth you will find the several Places cited out of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus which confirm our Assertion The Pages are cited out of Herodotus according to the Edition of Henricus Stephanus An. 1592 and out of Diodorus Siculus according to the Edition of Laurentius Rhodomannus An. 1604. Names of the Kings An. Reg. Init. An. Per. Jul. Fin. An. Pe. Jul. Testimony of Psammenit 0 4190 4191 Herod p. 187 Amasis 44 4147 4190 186 Apries 25 4122 4147 173 Psammis 6 4116 4122 173 Necas 17 4099 4116 172 Psammetic 54 4045 4099 171 Dodecharc 15 4030 4045 Diodor. 59 60 Interregn 2 4028 4030 Di dor 59 Sabacus 50 3978 4028 Herod 161 § 4. (l) Lib. 9. c. 14. Ant. Josephus affirms that the Israelites were How many years the Kingdom of Israel flourished forced to quit their Country 947 years after their going out of Egypt 800 years after the Death of Joshua and 260 years 7 months and 7 days after the Division of the Kingdom under Jeroboam But the Computation of Josephus is contradictory to it self For according to his Calculation from the time of the Israelites going out of Egypt the Destruction of that Kingdom must have hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4163 and consequently later But according to his Computation from the time of the Distribution of the Kingdom this Destruction must have hapned in the year of the Julian Period 3973 and consequently sooner than our Epocha It is therefore our Opinion that according to the Table of the Kings of Judah and Israel which we have given heretofore the whole Duration of the Kingdom of Israel from the time of Jeroboam till the Destruction by the Assyrians was only of 257 years § 5. Concerning the Place whither the ten Tribes of Israel were carried into Captivity we read Whither the Israelites were carried thus in the Holy (m) â— Reg. 17. v. 6. 18. v. 10. Scripture The King of Assyria did carry away Israel into Assyria and put them in Habah and in Habor by the River of Gozan and in the Cities of the Medes From whence we conjecture that the Israelites were dispersed in Assyria and Media and more especially in those Provinces bordering upon the
of Ptolemy § 4. Those who maintain that the Beginning Of the pretended difference betwixt Jeremiah and Ezekiel of the 70 years Captivity is to be fixed in the 4th year of Jehoiachim pretend that the two Prophers Jeremiah and Ezekiel differ in their Computation as to the Beginning of this Captivity to evince which they have invented four several Transmigrations of the Jews But without entring upon a Dispute concerning the Reality of these several Captivities they alledge it seems very improbable that Ezekiel who was cotemporary with Jeremiah and writ his Prophefie after him should have inserted a different Computation from the first and have relinquished a certain establish'd Epocha to introduce a new one which could not but involve their Prophesies in great Obscurity and Difficulties The Character which Ezekiel fixes to his Epocha when he calls it Our Captivity puts the Matter beyond question § 5. There is also some Dispute concerning the Of the Passage in Zechariah Concerning the 70 years 70 years mentioned by Zechariah (o) C. 1. v. 12. c. 7. v. 5. The Words are as follows O Lord of Hosts how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the Cities of Judah against which thou hast had indignation these 70 years And When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh Month even these 70 years And since (p) C. 1. v. 1. 7. Zecharias lived at the time of Darius and in the 2d year of his Reign had this Vision and seems to fix the last Period of the 70 years Captivity to his time some have from thence taken occasion to begin this Epocha from the total Destruction of the City of Jerusalem But if we consult the original Text it will be apparent that the Prophet does not speak of the 70th year but of 70 years which were past before the time of the Prophet Zechariah CHAP. XXII Of the Epocha of the Destruction of the Temple of Solomon 1. The Destruction of this Temple hapned in the 11th and last year of King Zedekiah (a) 2. Reg. 25. v. 2. Jer. 34. v. 2. c 52. v. â— 2. And in the 11th of the Captivity of Jehoiachim when Ezekiel was likewise carried away to Babylon who in the next following being the 12th of the Captivity was informed of the Destruction of the City (b) Ez. 33. v. 2â— 3. And in the 19th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar (c) 2 Reg. 25. v 8. Jer. 32 v. 1. c. 52. v. 12. 4. The year of the Destruction of the Temple was the last of the Interval of the 390 years of the Iniquity of the House of Israel so that the last year of this Interval is coincident with the Destruction of the Temple of Solomon (d) Ez 4. v. 5. 5. In the same year the Jews made a Covenant to observe the Sabbatic Year in proclaiming Liberty to their Men-Servants and Maid-Servants according to God's Institution (e) Dâ—ut 15. v. 13. Jer. 34. 6. The year of the Destruction of the Temple â—â— coincident with the third year of the 57th Olympiad according to (f) Chron. lib. post Eusebius 7. By the unanimous Consent of the most authentic Historians and Chronologers whose Computations are founded upon the true Connection of the before-enumerated Epocha's and the Catalogue of the Kings of Judah the Destructian of the Temple of Solomon hapned in the 428th year after it was begun to be built 8. It hapned at the same time when VAPHRES whom Herodotus calls Apries reigned in Egypt according to Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius whose Fall is described by Herodotus consonant to the Prediction of Jeremiah who calls this King Pharaoh-hophra (g) C. 44. v. 30. 9. The Temple of Jerusalem was laid in Ashes betwixt the 9th and 10th day of the Month Ab the fifth Month in the Ecclesiastical Year (h) Jer. 52. v. 12. 10. The first Destruction of the Temple hapned on the same day of the Month that the second Temple was burnt by the Roman Soldiers (i) Jos l. 7. c. 9. 10. From whence we conclude that the Destruction of the Temple of Solomon hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4124 Cycl ☉ 8. ☽ 1. on the 1st day of August â—n the 6th Feria If therefore 4123 years and 7 months be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian the Residue shews the year since this Epocha And if the Number of 4123 years and 7 months be added to the known year of this Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. AS it is evident out of Jeremiah Chap. 34 The Destruction of the Temple hapned in the Sabbatic Year that the year of the Destruction of the Temple was a Sabbatic Year So (k) Aâ—nal Sacr. Laurentius Codomannus Michael Moestlinus and Jacobus Hainlinus make the same year a Jubilean Year But their Hypothesis being founded upon the Manumission of Servants which according to the Mosaic Law was not only performed in the Jubilean but also in the Sabbatic Year is not convincing enough to make us adhere to their Opinion For it is expresly said in Deut. 15. 1. 12. And if thy Brother â— Hebrew Man or Hebrew Woman be sold unto thee and serve thee six years then in the seventh thou shalt let him go free from thee See Behmius L. 1. Manud Chron. p. 79. § 2. Concerning the Synchronism of the Of Vaphres the Egyptian King Egyptian King VAPHRES and the Destruction of Jerusalem both Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius do agree For the first makes the second year of this King coincident with the seventh year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the second makes the seventh year of the Reign of Vaphres coincident with the second year of the forty seventh Olympiad with the eleventh year of the Reign of Zedekiah with the eighth of Astyages and the eighteenth of Tarquinius Priscus besides that the History of this King agrees exactly with the Prophesie of Jeremiah (l) Cap. 44. v. 30. Thus saiâ—â— the Lord Behold I will give Pharaoh-hophra King of Egypt into the Hand of his Enemies aâ—â— into the Hand of them that seek his Life c. For according to (m) Lib. 2. Herodotus he was taken Prisoner by Amasis who headed his rebellious Subjects and was strangled by him CHAP. XXIII Of the Persian Epocha of Cyrus 1. Cyrus began his Reign in Persia in the 35th year of the Reign of Astyages according to Herodotus 2. In the 29th or 30th year before his death according to Herodotus and Ctesias 3. In the first year of the 55th Olympiad according to Diodorus Thallus Castor Polybius Phlegon cited by (a) Lib. 10 de Praep Evang. Eusebius 4. The seventh year of Cambyses which was the 37th since the beginning of this Epocha was the 225th of the Nabonassarean Epocha at what time there was an Eclipse of the Moon according to (b) Lib. â— Ptolemy 5. The 20th year of
the Reign of Darius Hystalpes being the 58th since the Beginning of the Reign of Cyrus in Persia is coincident with the 246th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha when there hapned another Eclipse of the Moon according to Ptolemy 6. The 31st year of the same Darius Hystaspes or the 69th since the beginning of the Persian Epocha of Cyrus was the 257th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha when according to Ptolemy there hapned another Eclipse of the Moon 7. The ancient Persian Empire to reckon from the first year of the Reign of Cyrus did stand 728 years according to Agathias From these Characters we conclude that the first year of the Reign of Cyrus was coincident with the 4155 year of the Julian Period or at least with the latter End of the 4154th year Cycl ☉ 10. ☽ 13. If therefore 4154 years be subtracted from any certain To investigate the year since the beginning of this Epocha year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of the Persian Epocha of Cyrus Or if 4154 years be added to the known year of the said Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. BEroaldus with some others is of Opinion Of the Vncertainty of the ancient Persian History that the ancient History of the Persian Empire is involved in so many fictitious Relations by the Greeks that it is less difficult in our Eye to judge of the Truth of that History than it was at the times of Herodotus Josephus Manetho Megasthenes or Ctesias to whom we are beholding for the most ancient Monuments of Antiquity in the Persian History Yet they seem to be too severe in their Judgment it being beyond all question that these as well as many others of the ancient prophane Historians have confirmed their Computations by undeniable Celestial Characters and therefore not to be absolutely rejected by reason of the Mixture of some fabulous Relations § 2. There is not any other Epocha which is Of the Certainty of the Beginning of this Epocha so well established by the General Consent of all the ancient Historians in reference to the time of the Olympiad than the Persian Epocha of Cyrus who all agree that Cyrus began his Reign in Persia at the time when the fifty five Olympiad Games were celebrated in Gracia § 3. But concerning the time of his Reign Of the Reign of Cyrus and of his Death there are various Opinions Lucianus allots him a hundred years and (c) Lib. 1. de Diâ—in Cicero threescore and ten of which he reign'd 30 years But as this Epocha is founded upon the time of his Reign So it is sufficient for us to know that according to Ctesias Dionysius Justin Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus Cyrus reigned in all 30 years Herodotus speaks of 29 and Sulpitius of 31 years § 4. There is a remarkable Difference betwixt the Chronological Computations of Xenophon Concerning the different Opinions of Xenophon and Herodotus about Cyrus and Herodotus concerning the Reign of Cyrus For Xenophon makes Astyages the last but one among the Median Kings whereas Herodotus affirms him to have been the last Xenophon relates that Astyages died in Peace when Cyrus was but very young leaving the Kingdom to his Son Cyaxares but Herodotus says that Cyrus conquered Astyages Xenophon says that the Father of Cyrus was one of the Princes of Persia descended from Perseus and that he had all the Advantages of a most generous Education in his Father's and Grandfather's Court whereas Herodotus makes him the Son of one Cambyses of an ignoble Birth and that without the Knowledge of his Grandfather he was educated among the Shepherds Xenophon allots no more than 11 years for the Reign of Cyrus but Herodotus 29. The first says he died upon his Bed the last that he was slain in the War against Tomyris the Queen of the Massagetes In answer to which we will alledge the Words of Cicero Cyropoedia Xenophontis non ad fidem historicam sea ad effigiem justi imperii atque optimi principis est conscripta § 5. The Dispute is no less great among the Of the Succession of Cyrus and Daratron of the Persian Empire Chronologers concerning the Succession and true Computation of the years of the Persian Monarchs in order to reconcile the Prophane History with the Sacred Writ The Jews allow of no more than four Persian Kings mentioned in the Scripsures Beroaldus and his Followers don't contract the Persian Monarchy into so narrow a Compass allowing 130 years to this Empire but cannot agree in the Chronological Computation and what Character to allot to each of these Monarchs as may be seen out of the following Table set down by Beroaldus Cyrus Major 2. Assuerus Artaxerxes 3. Darius Assyrius 4. Artaxerxes Pius 5. Xerxes the Terror of Greece 6. Artaxerxes Longimanus 7. Darius Nothus 8. Artaxerxes Mnemon 9. Ochus 10. Arses otherwise Arsanes 11. Darius Codomannus Brother of Arsanus Son of Ochus But if we follow the Footsteps of the Ptolemean Catalogue of Herodotus Thucydides Ctesiâ—â— Justin Diodorus Berosus and many others the following Table gives an exact Account of the Succession and Chronology of the Persian Kings  Compleat Years 1. Cyrus Major 29 2. Cambyses cum Magis 8 3. Darius Hydaspes 34 4. Xerxes 21 5. Artaxerxes Longimanus 43 6. Darius Nothus 19 7. Artaxerxes Mnemon 43 8. Ochus 23 9. Arses 3 10. Darius Codomannus 5 The Total Sum of the Years of the Persian Kings 228 § 6. The Character mentioned by (d) In Vit. Alexand. Of thâ— last Period of the Persian Monarchy Plutarch in the last year of the Reign of Darius Codomannus much strengthens our Opinion concerning the Duration of the Persian Empire For he says That at that very time when the last Battle was fought betwixt Darius and Alexander there hapned an Eclipse of the Moon which according to the true Astronomical Calculation was in the 446th Olympian Year or in the second year of the 112d Olympiad on the twentieth day of September which evidently proves the Mistake of Beroaldus who affirms that the Death of Darius hapned in the first year of the 113th Olympiad If therefore a true Balance be made betwixt the 217th Olympian Year being the first of the 55th Olympiad when Cyrus began to reign in Persia and the 446th Olympian Year it will demonstratively appear that the Persian Empire according to our Assertion flourished about 228 or 229 years CHAP. XXIV Of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus and the End of the first Monarchy 1. Cyrus put an End to the first Monarchy by the Conquest of Babylon under the Reign of Darius Medus who being called in prophane History Nabonnedus succeeded Balthasar in the Babylonian Empire according to Berosus Herodotus Ptolemy and many others 2. Cyrus marched with a vast Army out of Persia and after having carried Fire and Sword thro' Asia attack'd Babylon in the 17th year
And it shall come to pass when 70 years are accomplished that I will punish the King of Babylon and that Nation saith the Lord for their Iniquity and the Land of the Chaldaeans and will make it perpetual Desolations But I must needs give the Preference to the Opinion of Scaliger who makes a difference betwixt these two Aera's For it being evident out of (i) C. 24. v. 1 2. c. 33. v. 21. c. 40. v. 1. Ezekiel and several other Passages alledged before of the Holy Scripture that the End of the 70 years Captivity mentioned under the first year of Cores must be accounted backwards to the time of Jehoiachim This time is in no wise agreeable to the Calculation of Berosus's and Ptolemy's Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus There is also another Objection to be made against this first year of the Babylonian Epocha to wit that since by the Consent of most Historians Cyrus reigned 9 years after it is very probable that the Jews would not have neglected in all this time to rebuild the Temple especially since it is evident out of (k) C. 2. v. 3. Ezra that Cyrus never recalled the said Edict For which Reason it appears more probable that the first year of Cores mentioned in the Scripture was not long before his Death it being else very difficult to imagine how Cambyses the Successour of Cyrus could have prevented the same Edict to be put in Execution And here it is very observable that in prophane History the year when Cyrus entred the Babylonian Empire and vanquished Darius is expresly mentioned but the Conquest of the City of Babylon which in all Probability tâ—anscend a considerable time is pass'd by in silence From whence it is apparent that the Prophane Historians fix the Beginning of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus to that time when he vanquished Darius But it seems as if the Holy Scripture understood by the first year of Cores the same year when he made himself Master of the Capital City of Babylon as it is with the Aera Actiaca which some begin from the Battle of Actium others from the Conquest of Alexandria There is also another Observation to be made That the Words in the Original Text do not expresly denote the First Year of Cores but rather One of the Years of Cores which I wonder how it should slip the Observation of so many Interpreters CHAP. XXV Of the Epocha of the Banishment of the Roman Kings and the Establishment of the Consular Dignity The Characters of this Epo ha are 1. The Banishment of the Roman Kings and the Establishment of the Liberty of the People of Rome 2. The Establishment of the Consular Dignity in Rome 3. The Interval of 244 years betwixt the Epocha of the Building of the City of Rome and this Epocha as may be gathered from Livy Messala Corvinus and several other Roman Historians 4. The first Consulate of L. Junius Brutus and L. Tarquinius Brutus the last of which enjoyed this Dignity but for a very little time being obliged to abdicate himself from the Consulate by reason of his Name and Affinity with the Royal Family and was succeeded by P. Valerius Poplicola 5. The Kings were banished Rome at the same time that those of Athens were delivered from the Tyranny of the Pisistratides according to Pliny Lib. 34. c. 4. 6. The first Tarentin Games after the Banishment of the Roman Kings were instituted by Valerius Poplicola according to the Testimony of Valerius Antias in Censorinus c. 17. 7. Pythagoras of Samus was in Italy at the same time when L. Brutus freed his Native Country from the Tyranny of the Roman Kings Cic. Tusc 4. 8. Soon after the Banishment of the Roman Kings the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was dedicated by M. Horatius Pulvillus who was chosen Colleague to Poplicola after the Death of Brutus who was slain in the Field according to (a) Histor l. 3. Tacitus and (b) L 5. c. 1â— Valerius Maximus 9. The 6th Day of the Calends of March Tarquin the last of the Roman Kings was forced to leave the City the Banishment of the Roman Kings being by the ancient Roman Historians fixed to that day These and innumerable other Characters shew the year of this Epocha to have been coincident with the year 4206 of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 6. ☽ 7. in the Beginning of the Spring which time we look upon as to be unquestionably in reference to the Banishment of the Roman Kings If therefore from any certain year given of the Julian Period be subtracted 4205 years and 2 Months the Any year given of the Julian Period to find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha Residue shews the year since the Banishment of the Roman Kings And if the before-mentioned Sum be added to the year of the said Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THE ancient Historians make mention of these seven following Roman Kings  Years 1. Romulus who reigned 37 A Vacancy of the Throne which lasted 1 2. Numa Pompilius who reigned 43 3. Tullus Hostilius who reigned 27 4. Ancus Martius who reigned 24 5. Tarquinius Priscus who reigned 38 6. Servius Tullius who reigned 44 7. Tarquinius Superbus who reigned 25 The Sum 244 § 2. The Occasion of the Banishment of the Roman Kings and the Establishment of the Consular Government mentioned by Livy Florus Aurelius Victor and other Roman Historians is contracted by (c) L. 2. de Fin. Cicero in these following Words Lucretia being ravished by the King's Son laid violent Hands upon her self The Grief conceived at so extraordinary an Action by the People of Rome proved the real Cause of the Liberty of their City under the Conduct of Brutus § 3. The Annual Government of the Roman Consuls being looked upon as so many Characters of Time by the Ancients have been very industrious in ordering the Catalogue of these Consuls but they all are fallen short from what has been done in this kind since in the year 1547 the Publick Records called Tabulae Capitolins were found at Rome which as it is supposed were first collected by Verrius Flaccus Grammaticus by Command of the Senate and afterwards published under the Reign of Augustus Cuspinianus Carolus Sigonius and Onuphrius Panvinius had the chief Management in restoring and ordering this Catalogue but notwithstanding all their Ingenuity and Industry have not been able to supply the Defect of four Pair of Consuls that were wanting in these Records I cannot but agree with Calvisius in this Point who attributes this Defect of these four Pair of Consuls to the Irregularity of the Ancient Roman Calendar CHAP. XXVI Of the Epocha of the first War betwixt the Greeks and Persians or the time of the Battel fought near Marathon 1. All the Ancient Authors who have made mention of this War agree that the Persians and Greeks were first engaged in War after the burning of the City
of Sardis and the Banishment of the Pisistratides from Athens 2. The Battel of Marathon was according to Thucydides fought in the 20th year after the Banishment of Hippias from Athens 3. At which time Darius Hystaspes Father of Xerxes reigned over Persia whose Generals were Datis and Attaphernes Son to Attaphernes Brother of Darius and the Athenians had chosen Miltiades their General as may be seen in Herodotus Plutarch Justin Cornelius Nepos and a great many others 4. This Defeat of the Persians hapned in the fifth or sixth year before the Death of Darius So that the Battel of Marathon was fought in the 31st year of the Reign of Darius Hystaspes according to Herodotus 5. In the same 31st year of Darius there hapned a notable Eclipse of the Moon which Ptolemy observes to have been in the Night betwixt the third and fourth day of the month Tybis in the year of the Julian Period 4223 on the 25th of April the 4th Feria 6. The Athenians obtained this signal Victory when Phanippus was Archon or Prince of Athens who was succeeded by Aristides as may be seen in (e) In Vit. Arist Plutarch After Phanippus says he under whose Government the Athenians vanquished the Persians near Marathon Aristides was constituted Archon 7. At the same time Macerinus and Augurinus were Consuls at Rome according to Sulpitius Severus 8. The Battel of Marathon was fought in the 16th year after the Death of Brutus who freed his Native Country from the Kingly Government according to Dionysius Halicarnassaeus 9. Of this Expedition (f) L. 3. de Leg. Plato with whom agree (g) Lib. 1. Thucydides and (h) Orâ—t 31. Lysias has the following Words About ten years before the Sea-Fight near Salamis Datis came with the Persian Fleet into Graecia by the Order of Darius who had expresly commanded him under pain of Death to conquer and carry away Captives the Eretrians and Athenians 10. The Athenians obtained this Victory over the Persians towards the End of the 260th year after the Building of the City of Rome according to the Observations of (i) Lib. 17. c. 21. A. Gellius and Sulpitius Severus 11. The Battel of Marathon was fought either before or just at the time of the Full Moon as is evident out of what (k) Lib. 6. Herodotus has observed concerning the Lacedaemonians who at the Request of Phidippus were to assist the Athenians These are his Words The Lacedaemonians were not unwilling to assist the Athenians against the Persians but they were not at that time in a Condition to put it immediately in Execution being forbidden by their Laws it and being the ninth Day of the Month on which day the Soldiers refused to march as being just upon the Point of the Full Moon 12. (l) In Camill. Plutarch observes that the Battle of Marathon was fought on the 6th day of the Month Boëdromion and inserts a whole Catalogue of Days of the Month Boëdromion which prov'd fatal to the Persians On the 6th day of the Month Boëdromion says he the Persians were defeated by the Greeks at Marathon on the 3d of the same Month near Plataeas on the same day near Mychale on the 26th at Arbelas The Athenians vanquished the Persians at Sea near Naxus under the Command of Chabrias their General near the Full Moon of the Month of Boëdromion and near Salamis on the 20th day of the same Month. According to the several Observations and Testimonies of the Ancient Historians concerning this Signal Victory we agree with Scaliger that this Battle was fought in the year of the Julian Period 4223 Cycl ☉ 23. ☽ 5. towards Autumn or about the time of the Full Moon in August which hapned in that year on the 21st day of the same Month which Scaliger being misguided by the Athenian Years has fixed on the 5th day of October If therefore from any certain given year of the Julian Any certain year given of the Julian Period to find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha Period be subtracted 4222 years and seven Months the Residue shews the year since the Victory obtained at Marathon Vnto which if the above-mentioned Sum be added the Product is correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THE War betwixt the Greeks and Persians The Occasion of the War betwixt the Persians and Greeks was occasioned thus The Ionians inhabiting the Sea-Coasts of Asia had rebelled against Darius and being assisted by the Athenians had burnt the City of Sardis which so incensed Darius that he ordered one of those who attended him at Supper to repeat every day thrice these Words MY LORD REMEMBER THE ATHENIANS Another Cause was the Banishment of the Pisistratides by the Athenians who also grossly abused the Ambassadors sent by Darius Hippias who was descended from the Family of the Pisistratides and likewise banished Athens was not idle in improving these Opportunities to his Advantage and to stir up Darius against the Athenians which at last turned to his own Destruction he being stain in the Battle of Marathon as is evident out of (m) L. 2. c. 9. Justin and (n) Ad Attic. 9. Ep. 12. Cicero § 2. Those who have left us the History of these Times affirm that Darius sent a Fleet of The vast Army of Darius 600 Ships into Greece under the Command of Datis a Median by Birth and Artaphernes the Son of his Brother Artaphernes who together with Hippias and an Army of 200000 or as some will have it 300000 Foot and 10000 Horse invaded Greece but with very ill Success Of which Herodotus Justin Probus and others may be consulted § 3. The Athenians who saw themselves Of the Bravery of the Athenians not in a Condition to oppose a proportionable Force to that of their Enemies yet did not lose Courage but having gathered what Forces they could both of their own and amongst the Plataeans who were the only People that assisted the Athenians they with 10 or 11000 Men courageously encountred the Persians which Heroick Action of the Athenians is very pathetically represented by (o) Orat. 3â— Lysias the Athenian and one of the ten Orators of Greece Neither ought it to be pass'd by in Silence what is observed by (p) Dissert 14. Maximus Tyrius to wit that the Athenian Forces were for the most part composed of Country Fellows who at the News of the Enemies landing at Marathon flock'd in from the adjacent Countries to defend their Native Country against so powerful an Invasion § 4. Sethus Calvisius is of Opinion that Plutarch Whether the Battle of Marathon was fought â—â— the 6th day of the Month Boëdromion was mistaken in his Relation when he says that the Battle of Marathon was fought on the sixth day of the Month Boëdromion because says he this Battle hapned just at the N. Moon but in the Athenian Years the F. Moon could not happen on the sixth day of the
is the same of whom it is said that he obstructed the Rebuilding of the Temple and by his Edicts shewed himself an Enemy to the Jews Therefore Artaxerxes Longimanus c. The Major Proposition proves it self The Minor is evident from the Words of Ezra cited before out of his 4th Chapter 3. The same Artasasta or Artaxerxes from whose Reign till the time of Alexander the Great there is a larger Interval of Years than is suitable to the Age of Men and particularly to that of Sanballat and Nehemiah according to the Judgment of those of a contrary Opinion is not to be supposed to be the same mentioned by Ezra and Nehemiah But from the Reign of Artaxerxes sirnamed Longimanus till the time of Alexander the Great there is a larger Interval of Years than is suitable to the Age of Men but especially to that of Sanballat and Nehemiah even according to the Judgment of those of a contrary Opinion Therefore Artaxerxes Longimanus c. The Major Proposition is 1st evident from thence that Sanballat did flourish in the time of Nehemiah (p) Neh. 4. Jos Lib. 12. c. 8. Ant. about the year of the Reign of Artaxerxes XXVI and likewise served under Alexander the Great 2dly That Nehemiah was also living still about the time of Alexander the Great is manifest from thence that he makes mention in his 12th Chapter in the 11th Verse of Jaddua whose meeting with Alexander the Great is famous among the Jews Corn. à Lapide and his Adherents have found out this Exception That this part of the Book of Nehemiah was not writ till after his Death and that Nehemiah might have seen Jaddua not when he was High Priest but when as yet in his tender Years But the first Objection has not so much as the least Probability in it the whole Content of the Words of Nehemiah sufficiently evincing that both the preceding and following Words of the Relation concerning Jaddua could be writ by no body but Nehemiah himself And which way can it rationally be supposed that Nehemiah did not know Jaddua when it is expresly said that he removed Manasseh the Brother of Jaddua from his Person because he was Son-in-Law to Sanballat See Nehemiah Chapt. 13. v. 28. and Josephus Lib. 13. But to take away all further Scruple it is said These were the chief Men in the time of Nehemiah And what is more absurd and ridiculous than to suppose that Children were inserted in the Catalogue of the Principal Men. The Minor Proposition is proved by the Interval of Time betwixt Artaxerxes Longimanus and Alexander the Great For supposing Sanballat to have been 30 years of Age in the 20th year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus by adding the several Years of the Reigns of the Persian Kings to it according to the Catalogue of these Kings we may without much Difficulty investigate the Age of both these Persons In the 20th year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus Nehemiah and Sanballat are supposed to be 30 years of Age. Add to these the remaining Part of Artaxerxes Longimanus his Reign Years  21 The Reign of Darius Nothus 19 Of Artaxerxes Memor 46 Of Ochus 21 Of Arostus 2 Of Darius Codemannus 4 Thus Nehemiah and Sanballat at the time of Alexander the Great were 143 Years of Age. 4. The same Artaxerxes is understood by Ezra and Nehemiah from the 20th year of whose Reign to count backwards to Cyrus are elapsed so many years as are sufficient to obliterate the Genealogies of those that returned out of the Babylonian Captivity But this may fitly be applied to Artaxerxes Memor Therefore c. The Major Proposition is proved out of the 7th Chapter of Nehemiah The Minor derives its Certainty from the before-mentioned Catalogue Neither have our Adversaries any thing else to object against this Argument but the Longaevity of Nehemiah and Sanballat which has been sufficiently answered before § 14. Joh. Funccius Henr. Buntingus Lansbergius Whether this Computation of Daniâ—l ought to begin with the time of the Edict of the 7th year of Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezr. 7. v. 6. and many of their Followers are of Opinion that the beginning of these 70 Weeks ought to be fixed to the time of the Edict of the 7th year of Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra Funccius appoints its Beginning exactly on the 12th day of March when Ezra and the Jews began their Journey from the River Ahava towards Jerusalem but their Hypothesis is founded upon a wrong Basis by confounding Artax Longimanus with Artax Memor Besides that in the 7th year of this Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra understand which of the two you will no particular Command or Edict was issu'd for rebuilding the Temple and Holy City but only for the Return of the Remainders of the Jews to Jerusalem under the Direction of Ezra And since according to their own Hypothesis the Structure of the Temple was compleated before to wit in the 6th year of the Reign of Darius Hystaspis it is evident that this Edict cannot have any Relation to that mentioned by the (r) Daniel 9. ver 25. Angel Lansbergius to avoid this Contradiction has invented this Expedient That the two several Mandates or Edicts issued by Artaxerxes one in the 7th year of his Reign concerning the RESTAVRATION of the Jews under the Direction of Ezra the other in the 20th year of his Reign concerning the Rebuilding of JERVSALEM under the Direction of Nehemiah ought to be joined together and what is wanting in one to accommodate the whole to the Words of the Angel must be supplied out of the other But how can it be conceived that a certain Number of Years can be determined and fixed to the End of a certain Term beginning from such different times as is the 7th and 20th years of Artaxerxes This Arithmetical Nicety of Lansbergius I confess is past my Apprehension nothing being more certain than that those who attribute a double Beginning to these 70 Weeks must at the same time acknowledge a double Period or End which is contradictory to the Words of the Angel who mentions only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Edict or Mandate not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edicts § 15. Africanus and Theodoretus and among our Whether the Beginning of this Computation is to be fixt 〈◊〉 time of the 20th year of Artaxerxes Modern Authors Tho. Lydiott Joh. Temporarius Corn. à Lapide Joh. Vossius and others who interpret the Words in Ezra and Nehemiah of Artasasta or Artax Longimanus begin this Epocha of the 70 Weeks with the 20th year of this Reign when Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem to rebuild the Walls and Gates of the City But above all the rest (Å¿) L. 12. c. 32. de Doct. Temp. Dionys Petav. patronizes this Opinion which however he explains in a peculiar manner We do says he agree for the most part with those who begin these 70 Weeks with the 20th Year of the Reign of
Master of Asia in the 5th Year of his Reign according to (b) Lib. 11. vâ—r 14. Justin 11. The same Year was the 5th Year of Darius at its Beginning Ptolemy allowing but four years for the Reign of Darius 12. Eleven Days before this last Battle fought betwixt Darius and Alexander there hapned a very remarkable Eclipse of the Moon according to (c) Vit. Alexand. Plutarch 13. The same Eclipse has been observed according to Plutarch in the Month of Boâ—dromion towards the latter End of the Summer or the Antumnal Aequinox at which time the Greeks used to celebrate the Eleusinia dedicated to Ceres of which (d) In Herc. Far. L. An. Seneca has the following Words Quantâ cum longae redit hora noctis Crescere somnos cupiens quietos Libra Phoebeos tenet aequa currus Turba secretam Cererem frequentat Et citi tectis properant relictis Attici noctem celebrare mystae Tanta per campos agitur silentes Turba c. This Eclipse hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4383 on the 20th day of September 4 little before Midnight the whole Obscuration being of 14 Inches Of which Eclipse (e) L. 2. c. 70. Pliny likewise makes mention 14. The next following Summer after the Victory obtained by Alexander near Gaugamela Calippus Cyzicenus began a new Period of 76 years as is evident from the four Observations of Timocharis upon the years 36 37 47 and 48 mentioned by (f) L. 7. c. 3. Ptolemy 15. In the same year that Calippus began this New Period Darius whilst he was gathering Recruits in Bactria and the circumjacent Provinces was made Prisoner by Bessus his own Lieutenant over the Province of Bactria who having fettered him with Golden Fetters at last murthered him when Aristophanes was Archon at Athens and Cn. Domitius and Au. Cornelius Roman Consuls In this all the Ancient Historians do agree but especially (g) Loc. Cit. Diodor. Sicul. From these Characters we conclude that the Battle of Gaugamela was fought in the year of the Julian Period 4383 Cycl ☉ 15. ☽ 13. on the first day of October and that the Period of Calippus began with the Summer of the 4384th year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 16. ☽ 14. and that Dar. Codoman the last Monarch of Persia was slain in the same year If therefore from any certain year of the Julian To find out the year since the Beginning of these Epâ—c Period be subtracted 4382 years and 9 months the Residue shews the year since the beginning of the Graecian Empire in Asia or since the Battle fought near Gaugamela And if 4383 years and six Months be subtracted in the same manner the Residue is equivalent to the year since the Beginning of the Period of Calippus or the Death of Dar. Codomannus But if to these years of these Epocha's be added the before mentioned Number of years the several Products will be correspondent to the several years of the Julian Period § 1. (h) L. 2. Hist Sacr. Pers PEtrus Bizarrus has made a very large The Occasion of this Afratic War and of the ensuing Revolution Collection of the Motives which induced Alexander the Great to engage in a War against Darius Codomannus The Remembrance of the past Injuries and Troubles the Greeks had received from the Hands of Darius Hydaspis and Xerxes the private Quarrels with the Family of Alexander who had not only been contumeliously treated by the Ambassadours of Darius and in his Letters in which he called himself the King of Kings and Alexander his Servant but also his Father's Death upon whose Head Darius had set a vast Sum of Money and had done the like to Alexander himself But the chief Motive was his immensurable Ambition to build his future Greatness upon the Ruin of the professed Enemies of his Country as may be conjectured from that Epistle writ by Alexander in Answer to the Letter of Darius mentioned by (i) L. 17. Diodorus Siculus § 2. The Battle which decided the Fate of the Asiatick Empire betwixt the Persians and In what place this Battle was fought Greeks and from whence begins this Epocha is commonly called the Battle of Arbela whilst others are of opinion that it was fought near Gaugamela It seems to be very strange how the Historians could confound these two Places which lie at about 600 Stadia from one another Of which I can give no better Account than to alledge the Words of (k) Lib. 16. Georg. p. 507. ad Caus Strabo Arbela says he is under the Jurisdiction of Babylon and situated not far from it On the other side of the River Lycus in the Plains of Aturia is the City of Ninus In the Province of Aturia is likewise the Village of Gaugamela famous for the great Victory obtained by Alexander the Great against Darius c. But the Macedomans seeing Gaugamela to be but a poor Village and Arbela a considerable Place built as it is reported by Arbelus the Son of Athmoneus they dispersed it abread that they had fought and obtained this signal Victory near Arbela which has misguided several Historians into this Error Of which consult the Notes of Freinshemius upon Curtius § 3. (l) L. 5. de Emend Temp. Joseph Scaliger is of Opinion that Whether Plutarch committed an Error in his Character of the Lunar Eclipse Plutarch committed an Error in the Character of this Lunar Eclipse mentioned before But the Matter duly weighed this Objection is made without sufficient Reason against an Historian of so extraordinary a Reputation For he does not mention expresly any certain Day of the Month Boâ—dromion but only the Feast of Eleusinia which was celebrated by the Greeks for several Days together Besides that the Constitution of the Attick Year as proposed by Scaliger and according to which he has corrected Plutarch is not sufficiently established and approved among us which is questionless the Reason that Calvisius who otherwise never fails to follow closely the Footsteps of Scaliger has not made the least Animadversions upon this Passage of Ptolemy for which Reason it is also our Opinion that this Character of so ancient an Author ought not to be rejected CHAP. XXXI Of the time of the Death of Alexander the Great and the Epocha of the Years of Philip. 1. Alexander the Great lived 32 Years and 3 Months which are to be computed from the first Year of the 106th Olympiad when Philip the Father of Alexander received the Congratulations about the Victory obtained by Sarmenio over the Illyrians according to (a) L. 7. Arrian and (b) Vit. Alex. Plutarch 2. Alexander reigned 12 Years and 7 or 8 Months according to Eratosthenes in Clement of Alexandrina (c) L. 17. Diodorus Siculus Arrian Eusebius Sulpitius Severus and 1 Maccab. c. 1. v. 8. 3. After 7 years were compleated since the Victory of Alexander over Darius Alexander died near Babylon (d) L. 2. Sulp. Severus
to K. Philip. See (q) L. 18. Bibl. Diod. Sicul. For the rest the Philippean Years were according to (r) De D. N. c. 21. Censorinus like the Nabonassarean Years CHAP. XXXII Of the Epocha of the Seleucides which is also called the Graecian and Alexandrian Epocha and of the Convenant and Therick DHILCARNAIN mentioned in the Book of the Maccabees 1. The Epocha of the Seleucides used especially among the Asiaticks owes its Name and Off-spring to Seleucus and has its Beginning at that time when the said Seleucus had made himself Master of Babylon and the Provinces of Media and Susa 2. Seleucus made himself Master of Babylon in the same Year that Polemus was Archon of Athens 3. In the same year that the 117th Olympiad was celebrated when Parmenio of Mitylene got the Victory in the Race 4. In the same year that L. Papyrius was the 5th time and C. Junius the 2 d time Roman Consuls All which Characters are related by (Å¿) C. 69. Diod. Siculus 5. In the 148th year of the Graecian Epocha Judas the Maccabean did purge the Temple of Jerusalem after its Prophanation by the Gentiles (a) 1 Mac. 4. v. 52 53. which Restauration of the Temple hapned in the first year of the 145th Olympiad according to (b) L. 12. c. 11. Ant. Josephus 6. The 150th year of this same Epocha when Antiochus Eupator besieged Jerusalem was a Sabbatick Year (c) 1 Mac. 6. v. 53. (d) Jos L. 12. c. 14. 7. After the Death of Alexander the Great Onias the High-Priest ruled at jerusalem at which time Seleucus having made himself Master of Babylon reigned sole Monarch in Asia in the 12th year after the Death of Alexander 8. From Seleucus to account backwards to Cyrus are computed 248 years These two Characters are expressed in the same Words by (e) L. 8. 6. 2. demon Evang. Eusebius 9. The Year 1194 of the Epocha Therick Dhilcarnain which in the Nurenburg Edition of Albategnius illustrated with Notes by Joh. Regiomontanus is called ADILCANARI was coincident with the 1206th year since the Death of Alexander 10. The year 1202 of the same Epocha in which hapned a notable Eclipse of the Sun was 1214 after the Death of Alexander according to (f) C. 27. 10. Mahomet the Son of Cruen in his Book de Scien Stellar And it is manifest from the Astronomical Tables that the Eclipse of the year 1202 of the Epocha Therick Dhilcarnain is coincident with the year of Christ 891 the 8th day of August 11. Nothing certain is to be determined concerning the Months of the Years of this Epocha which are in the first Book of the Maccabees frequently begun with the Month of Nisan See 1 Mac. 7. v. 1. c. 9. v. 3. c. 10. v. 1 21. c. 13. v. 22 41. c. 16. v. 14. But in the 2 d Book of the Maccabeans and those of the Jewish Historians from the Month of Tisri From whence it appears that the Beginning of this Epocha is coincident with the year of the Julian Period 4402 Cycl ☉ 6. ☽ 13. and that the Author of the first Book of the Maccabeans speaks for the most part of the Vernal Season of this year in the 2 d of the Autumnal If therefore 4401 years and 3 Months be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian Any certain year given of the Jul. Period to find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha Period the Residue shews the year since the Beginning of the Graecian Epocha according to the first Book of the Maccabeans And if 4401 Years and 9 Months be subtracted in the same manner the Residue will be equivalent to the Number of years since the Beginning of the same Epocha according to the 2 d Book of the Maccabeans § 1. (g) Lib. 15. JVstin relates that this Seleucus was the Who was Seleucus that gave Birth to this Epocha Son of Apollo and Laodice After the Death of Alexander the Great when his Empire was divided among the Generals of his Army this Seleucus had Syria for his share but being forced from thence by King Antigonus he sought for Shelter by Ptolemy King of Egypt till returning at the Head of a considerable Army he made himself Master of Babylon in Remembrance of which this Epocha was instituted § 2. The Jews call this Epocha the Aera of The Jews call this Epocha the Aera â—f the Covenant or Principalities Contracts or Covenant or the Aera of Principalities because as they say when Alexander the Great after he had made himself Master of Persia marched towards Jerusalem with an Intention to destroy that City he was met by the High-Priest Simon who otherwise is called Jaddus who having prevailed with him to alter his Intentions upon this Condition that all the Sons of the Priests that were born in the same year should be called Alexanders This Epocha was from thence called the Epocha of Contracts or Covenants as may be seen in Wilhelmus Schickardus who in his Preface to the Tarich of the Persian Kings alledges the Words of Rabbi Abraham the Levite But (h) L. 10. de Doct. Temp c 42. Petavius deservedly ridicules the Ignorance of the Jewish Interpreters who pretend that the Beginning of this Epocha was at the time when Alexander had made himself Master of Asia whereas the same did not arise till 12 years after his Death and 18 years after his Interview with the High-Priest For which Reason I prefer the Opinion of those who call this Epocha the Aera of Principalities because after the Death of Alexander his Empire was divided into many Principalities § 3. The Arabians called this Epocha of Seleucus This Epocha is called Therick Dhilcarnain â—â— the Arabians Therick Dhilcarnain and the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies as much as the Horned Epocha Christmannus is of Opinion that the Arabians and Greeks have called Alexander the Horned as being Monarch both of Orient and Occident Wilhelmus Schickardus and others maintain that he was called thus because he vanquished Darius Codomannus who by (i) C. 8. Daniel is compared to a Ram. But Scaliger's Opinion seems to be preferr'd before the rest who derives this Denomination from thence that Alexander was reputed the true Son of Jupiter Ammon and the supposiâ—itious Son of Philip For according to Schickardus himself the Arabians used to call those that pimped for their Wives and educated Bastards under the Pretence of their own Children HORN-BEASTS § 4. Joseph Scaliger and (k) L. 10. c. 43. de Doct. Temp. Dionysius Petavius Whether the Author of the 2 Book of the Maccabeans begins always these Years from the Month Tisri maintain that the Author of the 2d Book of the Maccabeans constantly begins the Years of this Epocha with the Month Tisri but it being said in the 2d Book of the (l) C. 15. v. 37. Maccabeans that it was decreed that the 13th
Day of the 12th Month should be celebrated which Month is called in the Syrian Tongue ADAR this contradicts the Opinion of Scaliger and Petavius For if at that time the Month of ADAR was the last it follows that the Month of NISAN was the first they beginning their Year with the Spring For the rest those Authors who mention this Epocha make use sometimes of the Nabonassarean Years sometimes of the Julian Years of which see (m) L. 10. c. 40. de Doct. Temp. Dionysius Petavius CHAP. XXXIII Of the Epocha and time of the Asmoneans who were afterwards called Maccabeans 1. This Epocha must be regulated according to the true Succession of Mattathias Judas Maccabeus Jonathan Simon c. as expressed in the Books of the Maccabeans and by Josephus 2. Mattathias began to be famous about that time when Antioc Epipha 3. The same Mateathias died in the 146th year of the Graecian Epocha (a) 1 Mac. 2. v. 70. 4. In the 148th year of the same Epocha Judas Maccabeus Son of Mattathias rendred himself famous by restoring the Levitical Service among the Jews (b) 1 Mac 4. v. 52. 5. In the 152 d year of the Graecian Epocha Jud. Maccab. was slain in the Battle fought against Bacchides and was succeeded by his Brother Jonathan (c) 1 Mac. 9. v. 3. 18. 28. 6. Jonathan being murdered by the Treachery of Tryphon (d) 1 Mac. 12. v 48. Simon his Brother was made Prince over the Jews and fought with such Success against the Gentiles that it was under his Government said of the Jews (e) 1 Mac. 1â— v. 41 42. In the 170th Year the Israelites were delivered from the Yoke imposed upon them by the Heathens And from that time on they used to write in their Inscriptions IN THE FIRST YEAR OF SIMON THE CHIEF HIGH-PRIEST GENERAL AND PRINCE OF THE JEWS 7. The 172 d year of the Graecian Epocha was coincident with the 3 d year of Simon the Chief High-Priest (f) 1 Mac. 1â— v. 27. 8. The Epocha of Simon began with the Ecclesiastical Year or in the Spring (g) 1 Mac. 13. v. â—1 9. The last of the Asmonean Race was Antigonus the Son of Aristobulus the Brother of Hyrcanus whom Antonius caused to be nailed to the Cross which was the first Instance of that kind of Execution of a King among the Romans and after he had been well scourged to be strangled See (h) L. 14. Antiqu. c 29. Jos and (i) L. â—9 Dio. 10. The Government of the Asmoneans till the Death of Antigonus lasted 126 years and was succeeded by Herodes sirnamed the Great See (k) L. 14. c. ult L. 15. c. 1. Ant. L. 1. c. 13 de Bel. Jud. Jos and (l) L. 1. c. 3. de Excid Hierosol Hegesippus From these Characters it is evident that the Asmonean Race flourished about the year of the Julian Period 4548 Cycl ☉ 12. ☽ 7. at which time Mattathias died That in the 4549th year of the Julian Period Jud. Maccab. acquired immortal Glory among the Jews by restoring their publick Service and that he was slain in the year of the Julian Period 4555 And lastly that the Epocha of Simon had its Beginning in the year 4571 of the Julian Period How any certain year of the Julian Period may How to find out any year of these Epocha's be conveniently connected with the years of these Epocha's is sufficiently evident from what has been said upon this Point in the preceding Chapters to wit for the year since the Death of Mattathias must be subtracted 4547 years for the year since the Restauration of the Levitical Service by Judas 4548 years and for the year of the Epocha instituted in honour of Simon must be subtracted 4570 years and three Months c. § 1. THE Words of Josephus where he relates the Family of Mattathias being The Derivation of the Name of the Asmoneans ambiguous some have made the Word Asmonean a proper Name others an Appellative It is I think sufficient for us to know that the Word Asmonean signifies as much in the Hebrew as Great Men and Governours in which Sence it is explained by Rabbi Kimchi § 2. Many who insist upon the Promise of Of which Tribe the Asmoneans were descended the Scepter of Judah would have the Asmoneans descended from the Tribe of Judah of which Opinion are Genebrardus and Baronius But the last of these two has changed his Opinion in his last Edition of his Annals it being evident out of the Books of the Maccabeans (m) 1 Mac. 2. v. 1. c. 14. v. 29. that the Asmonean Family was descended from the Tribe of Levi which is likewise agreeable to the Genealogy of Josephus (n) L. 12. c. 8. What is alledged by some of the Asmonean Race to be descended on the Mother's side from the Family of David is of no great Consequence it being not customary among the Jews to let the Succession pass to the Females § 3. Judas the Son of Mattathias was the first How they were called Maccabeans afterwards who was sirnamed the Maccabean (o) 1 Mac. 2. v. 3. But concerning the Interpretation of this Word there are diverse Opinions (p) L. 3. Art Cab. Johan Reuchlinus and Serrarius would have it to have been an Inscription in the great Standard of Judah and to signifie as much as WHO IS LIKE UNTO THE LORD AMONGST THE GODS And that Judas from thence had received the Sirname of Maccabean But (q) L. 2. 13. misc Fullerus interprets it THROUGH ME IS THE PLAGUE to wit in Reference of the refractory Gentiles and Apostates § 4. Many Learned Men are of Opinion The Administration of the Government was in the Tribe of Levi before the Asmoneans that the supreme Administration of the Government among the Jews was not lodged in the Tribe of Levi till the time of the Asmonean Family but contrary to Truth For (r) L. 20. c. 8. Josephus says expresly that after the Return of the Jews to Jerusalem by the Command of Cyrus Jesus the Son of Josedec was High-Priest WHO says he AND WHOSE POSTERITY in all Fifteen governed the Jewish Commonwealth till the time of Antiochus Eupator St. Jerome (s) In Jer. c. 22. in Ez. c. 21. consents with Josephus and (t) In C. 1. Ez. Lyra has the following Words God governed his People after they had taken Possession of the Land of Promise by three different Forms of Government First by the Judges of which in the Book of the Judges Secondly by the Kings of which in the Book of the Kings Thirdly by the High-Priests from their Return out of the Babylonian Captivity till Christ And it is remarkable what is related by (u) L. 11. c. 8. Josephus that when Alexander the Great stood in need of the Assistance of the Jews at the Siege of Tyrus he directed his Letters written for that Purpose to Jaddua the
then High-Priest CHAP. XXXIV Of the Antiochian Epocha or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chief Characters of the Antiochian Epocha are 1. The Beginning of this Epocha is coincident with that time when the Battle of Pharsalia was fought where Pompey 's Army was put to an entire Rout and he himself slain soon after through the Perfidiousness of Septimus Salvius and Achillus 2. The 2 d year of the Reign of the Emperour Leo was the 506th 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which year to wit on the fourth day of the Month Gorpiaeus the same with the Month of September by the Romans hapned a great Earthquake which shook almost all the Houses of the New City according to (a) L. 2. c. 12. Evagrius 3. In the 150th year of this Epocha under the Reign of Trajan there hapned another most terrible Earthquake mentioned by the same Evagrius 4. In the 575th year of this Epocha on the first day of the Month of Xanticus our first of April the Emperour Justin being at the Point of Death constituted Justinian his Sister's Son his Consort in the Empire according to the same (b) L. 4. c. 9. Evagrius 5. The first year of this Epocha is coincident with the 1969th year of Abraham Euseb Vpon which year Eusebius speaks concerning the Antiochian Computation 6. In the same first year of this Epocha began likewise the first INDICTION which was followed afterwards by others as it is well observed by Scaliger so that the Antiochian Years divided by 15 the Residue shews the true Character of the Cycle of Indictions From these and other Characters but especially those remarked by Evagrius it may be concluded that this Aera began in the year of the Julian Period 4665 Cycl ☉ 17. ☽ 10. in Autumn If therefore 4664 Years and 9 Months be subtracted Any certain year given of the Julian Period to fâ—â—d out the year since the beginning of this Epocha from any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the Beginning of the Antiochian Epocha § 1. IN the Chronicle of Alexandria it is observed that Liberty was proclaimed at Antiochia This Epocha began in Autumn on the 20th day of May which if it be so it follows that the Epocha of the Antiochian Liberty had its Beginning before the Battle fought betwixt Caesar and Pompey The Battle of Pharsalia being according to the Testimony (c) L. 3. B. G. of Caesar himself fought when it was near Harvest-time But most of the best Chronologers agree in this point that this Epocha had its Beginning not in the Spring but in the Autumn next preceding the Battle of Pharsalia For which Reason Scaliger and Calvisius appoint the first day of October for the Beginning of this Epocha which in my Opinion would have been better on the 22d of September this having been anciently the Beginning of the Indictions § 2. John Christopherson an Englishman a famous Why this Epocha is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Interpreter of the ancient Graecians has translated the Words of Evagrius where he makes mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Year in which Antiochia received its Name but quite beyond the Purpose Antiochia having received its Name above 260 Years before this Epocha from Antiochus besides that the Greek Word does not admit of this Explication The Opinion therefore of Scaliger appears most probable that thereby they had a Respect to the Cycle of Indictions which was begun with the first Years of this Epocha CHAP. XXXV Of the Julian Epocha The Julian Epocha begins with the Correction of the Calendar which was begun 1. When Caesar then High-Pontiff was the third time and Em. Lepidus Consuls of Rome according to (a) C. 2. De Die Nat. Cens and Dio. 2. The Julian Years owe their Offspring to the 4th Consulship of Caesar according to the same Cens Loc. Cit. 3. The 283 d Julian Year is coincident with the same Year that Ulpius and Ponticanus were Consuls at Rome and with the Year since the Building of the City 991 according to Cens Cap. 21. From whence we conclude that the first Julian Year began on the first of January in the Year of the Julian Period 4669 Cycl ☉ 21. ☽ 14. and that consequently the preceding 4663th Year was the Year of Confusion If therefore 4668 years be subtracted from any certain given year of the Julian Period the Any certain year given of the Jul. Period to find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha Residue shews the year since the Beginning of this Epocha And if to the Year of this Epocha the before-mentioned Number of Years be added the Product easily shews the Year of the Julian Period § 1. JVlius Caesar finding that the Pontiffs of Why Caesar altered the Form of the Year Rome whose Care it was to intercalate the Years which were to be Lunae-Solar Years had abused their Authority and managed this Intercalation according to their own Conveniency and to oblige their Friends according as they were inclined to lay down sooner or later their Magistracies resolved to correct this Corruption Of which see Censorinus § 2. (b) Lib. 26. Rer. Gest Ammianus Marcellinus gives an Account How this was affected at large how Caesar proceeded in the Correction of the Old Calendar The Sum and whole Basis of which is That Sosigenes did make the Solar Tropick Year consist of 365 Days and 6 Hours but that the 6 Hours were not to be accounted till all together they made up one Day which was to be added to the 4th Year on the 22d of February so that this Interval of 48 Hours was to be accounted for one and the same Day Of which see also Celsus § 3. The Year of Romulus began with the How the Months were ordered in the Julian Year Month of March according to the Poet Martis erat primus mensis Venerisque secunduâ— Haec generis princeps ipsius ille pater Tertius à Senibus Juvenum de nomine quartus Quae sequitur numero turba vocata fuit But under the Reign of Numa Pompilius the Romans were pleased to add the two Months of January and February so that January was the first of which the Poet has the following Words Primus erat Jani mensis quia janua prima est Qui sacer est imis manibus imus erat Postmodo creduntur spatio distantia longo Tempora bis quini continuâsse viri At the time of Julius Caesar therefore the same Order was observed in the Months which is retained to this day § 4. The Motive that induced Caesar to begin the Julian Year with the first of January or Why Caesar begon the Year with the first of January the Hybernal Solstice is thus represented by the Poet Dic age frigoribus quare novus incipit annus Qui melius per Ver incipiendus erat Omnia tunc florent tunc nova temporis aetas
but also attributes compleat 9 years for Archelaus after the Death of Herod If say they the Coronation of Herod hapned in the 6th Jul. Year from thence to the 42d Jul. year when Herod died are 36 years And if from the 51st Julian Year when Aemilius Lepidus and C. Arun. Nepos were Consuls at Rome and which according to (r) L. 5 Dio Cassius hapned the Banishment of Archelaus thâ— 9 years of his Reign be subtracted the Residue is correspondent to the 42d Julian Year when Archelaus succeeded his Father This they say appears further out of the Computation of the Years of Philip the younger Son of Herod The 37th year of his Age which was his last is made coincident by (s) L. 18. c. 6. Josephus with the 20th year of the Reign of Tiberius but the 20th year of the Reign of Tiberius began in September in the 78th Julian Year of which if the 36 years of Philip be subtracted the Residue is again correspondent to the 42d Julian Year when Philip succeeded his Father Herod in some Part of the Kingdom It cannot be denied that this Computation carries along with it a great Probability if the same were also agreeable to the other before-mentioned Characters According to this Hypothesis the whole Series of the History of the Jews must be called in question or else that Josephus was only misguided in the Relation of the History of Herod or else that these Errors are crept in by the Negligence of the Transcribers But the safest way is to keep to these Characters mentioned at the Beginning of this Chapter and not to reject these Demonstrations for the sake of some Niceties § 5. Laurent Suslyga and Is Vossius refer the Death of Herod to the 43d Julian Year or to Some refer the Death of Herod to the 43 d Julian Year the year of the Jul. Period 4711 But besides what has been alledged before against Keplerus and Petavius it is to be observed that these two have made but little Reflection upon the Character of the Lunar Eclipse mentioned by Josephus § 6. Alstedius Wilhelmus Langius and Wickmannus Some to the 44th year make the Death of Herod coincident with the 43d Julian Year or the year of the Jul. Period 4712 by which means they pretend to come nearer to the 37 years appropriated by Josephus to the Reign of Herod But since this Opinion labours under the same Difficulty with the former in respect of the Eclipse of the Moon I choose rather to follow the Opinion of Scaliger than to grapple in the Dark when it is left to my Choice to walk in the Light § 7. The Celestial Characters having been always Vnto what time the Lunar Eclipse is to be referred considered as the surest Guides for the Chronologers most of those Authors who dispute about the true time of the Death of Herod have endeavoured to bring that notable Eclipse of the Moon mentioned by (t) L. 17. c. â—8 Ant. Josephus within the Compass of their several Hypotheses Laurentius Codomannus (u) An. S. Script p. 69. has the following Words of this Eclipse ` In the year of the World 4133 a little before Midnight which followed the 8th day of November in the 2d year of Christ hapned that Eclipse of the Moon mentioned by Josephus in the 17th Book and 8th Chapter The next following day being the 9th day of ` November Herod the Great being then very ill c. Tho. Lydiott maintains that this same Eclipse hapned in the Beginning of the Night which followed the 20th day of February of the 52d Julian Year Joh. Keplerus and Dion Petavius declare for that Eclipse of the Moon which hapned on the 13th day of March 2 Hours and 45 Minutes after Midnight (x) C. 149. p. 75. Joh. Georg. Herwart ab Hoeâ—burg in his New and Truly Astronomical Chronology makes this Eclipse the same with that which hapned in the 47th Jul. Year and the 754th year since the Building of Rome according to Varro's Computation when on the 20th day of February the Moon was eclipsed an Hour before Midnight the Sun being at that time in the 29th Degree 51 Minutes of Aquarius Wilhelm Langius alledges that Eclipse for the true one which hapned in the 44th Julian Year in the Morning on the 20th day of January the End of which was seen at Arbela and the Middle in some more Oriental Parts But Scaliger is of Opinion that the Lunar Eclipse mentioned by Josephus near the time of the Death of Herod hapned on the 8th day of January in the 45th Jul. Year Thus has this memorable Character so industriously observed and set down by Josephus proved the Apple of Contest among the Chronologers To give the best Judgment we can in so difficult a Point it ought to be observed that those who have bestowed so much Pains in applying these Eclipâ—es to their Hypotheses have lost much Labour and Time unless the same be likewise agreeable to the other Circumstances Thus it may rationally be supposed that the Lunar Eclipse mentioned here by Josephus was visible at Jerusalem it being mentioned as a peculiar Character belonging to the History of the Jews and the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to intimate that the same hapned near Midnight not in the Evening or Morning in Opposition to Langius It is also very probable that the same was not so inconsiderable as it is made by Petavius but that it was very remarkable and worth the taking notice of by so great an Historian There is also another Circumstance worth our particular Observation that there must be betwixt this Eclipse and the ensuing Passover an Interval sufficient for the transacting all those Matters that are related in that Place by (y) L. 1. c. 21. de Bell. Jud. Josephus Herod falling dangerously ill after this Eclipse consulted the Physicians and after he had for some time used their Prescriptions he was by their Advice carried to the Bath After his Return from thence he received Letters from Rome and finding himself grow worse and worse he caused Antipater to be slain and died not till five Days after After which were celebrated the Funeral Rites with great Pomp his Corps being carried from Jericho to Herodium above 200 Stadia After all this had been transacted the Slaughter of several thousands ensued at the time of the Passover all which is not probable that it could have been done in so few Days as Keplerus and Petavius allot for this Interval So that the whole matter duly weighed Scaliger's Opinion deserves to be preferr'd before all the others of which we will give you a Scheme in the following Table   Hor. Grad ′ ″ Media 8 accidit Vranib tempore Astronom compl A. Per. Jul. 4712. 8 Jan.  15 40 21 Intervallum inter veram mediam 8 Subtr  4 17 24 Tempus apparens verae 8 Vranib 8 Jan. 11 22 57 Anomalia Aequin Sing
1. 6 31 0 Longit. Solis 9 16 14 32 Anomal Solis 7 8 8 6 Longit. Lunae 5 27 49 17 Anom Lunae 7 13 10 19 Latit Lunae 5 26 50 2 Prostaphaer Aeq subtr   16 10 Prostaph Solis add  1 18 0   Hor ′ ″ Prostaph Lunae add  3 28 47 Locus Solis verus in ♄  17 16 24 Locus Lunae verus in ♋  17 16 23 Latit Lunae Austral   1 38 Semidiameter Vmbrae   45 16 Semidiameter Lunae   16 49 Pars Lunae deficiens   61 30 Digiti Ecliptici 21 Min. 34 Motus Lunae horarius   32 59 Scrupula Incidentiae morae dimidiae   62 4 Tempus Incidentiae  1 52 54 Initium Eclipsis Hierosolymis p. merid 8 Jan. 11 21 17 Medium  13 14 11 Finis  15 7 5 Duratio  3 45 48 Latit ☽ ad init Bor.   4 7 Latit ☽ ad sinem Austr   7 22 § 8. Baronius objects against Josephus that he has left out nine years in the whole Computation of Concerning Baronius his Computation of the Reign of Herod the years of the Reign of Herod And because it is related by (x) L. 7. c. 8. Ant. L. 14. c. 17. L. 1. c. 21. de Bell. Jud. Josephus that he died when he had lived 70 years and that he had received the Government of Galilea in the 15th year of his Age from whence he concludes that the 37 years mentioned by Josephus ought to begin with that time when Augustus gave him the Title of King being not permitted to reckon the preceding Years among his Reign and that consequently the first of the 37 years was coincident with the 15 Julian Years in which happened the Battle near Actium when Augustus was the third time and Messala Consuls of Rome in the 2d year of the 178th Olympiad So that the Nativity of Christ hapned at the Beginning of the 29th year of this Epocha and Herod's Death in the 8th year of Christ Tho. Lyddiot has for the greatest part followed the Footsteps of Baronius But this Opinion is founded upon such Suppositions as are altogether groundless no Inference being to be made from Herod's being confirmed in the Kingdom by Augustus that he was deprived of the Royal Title and Dignity before the Phrase Confirmare aliquem in Regno not implying among the Romans to create one a King which is manifest from thence that Herod had before obtained the Royal Dignity by the mutual Consent of Anthony and Augustus and the Approbation of the Senate § 9. The Words spoken by the Jews to our Saviour Forty and six years was this Temple in Concerning the 46 years mentioned in St. Joh. c. 2. v. 20 building have puzzled the Interpreters some of whom have explained them of the Temple built by Zorobabel but it is evident from the History of Herod that they spoke in this Passage of the Temple that was rebuilt by Herod which was begun in the 18th year of his Reign and in its Height in the 28th year of his Reign and not brought to its Perfection till 46 years after the first Preparations were made for this great Structure There is one Objection against it which is that (a) L. 1◠c. 14. Ant. Josephus says in another Place that the Temple of Herod was built in 18 Months which is to be understood from its outward Parts tho' there are also some who interpret the Interval of 46 years betwixt the 18th year of the Reign of Herod and the first year after the Baptism of Christ thus that the Structure of the Temple was interrupted for some time § 10. (b) L. 2. c. 4. Saturn Macrobius is the only Person among Whether mention is made of the Murther of the Children by Herod in prophane History the Prophane Historians who makes mention of the Murther of the Children by Herod in these Words Augustus having understood that among the Male Children under two years of Age which were slain in Syria by the Command of Herod his own Son had been among their Number he said It is much better to be the Hog than the Son of Herod There are not wanting such as look upon this as a meer Fiction Others refer these Words of Augustus to the Murther of his Son Antipater others to another Son of his under two years of Age who was slain among the rest at Bethlehem and that Antipater's Murther hapned after that of the Male Children which is evident from (c) L. 1. c. 8. Hist Eccles Eusebius and (d) L. 7. c. 8 9. Ant. Josephus the first of which says expresly that the Murther of the Children of Bethlehem was committed before Herod fell ill and the last affirms that Antipater was not slain till five days before his Death § 11. Scaliger admires what could induce Josephus did not mention this Murther of the Male Children Josephus to pass by in Silence this Murther of the Children under two years of Age at Bethlehem in the History of Herod which is not only excused but defended by (e) P. 159. Chr. Sacr. Isaac Vossius who alledges in his Behalf that after so many Cruelties and Murthers of Wives Sons Relations and Friends committed by Herod Josephus looks upon this as so inconsiderable as scarce to deserve a Place in his History But that this Murther was not so inconsiderable as Vossius would persuade us is sufficiently testified by (f) C. 2. v. 16 17 18. St. Matthew in the following Words Herod slew all the Children that were at Bethlehem and in all the Coasts thereof from two years old and under c. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the Prophet saying In RAMA was there a Voice heard LAMENTATION and WEEPING and GREAT MOURNING Rachel weeping for her Children and would not be comforted because they are not § 12. The common Opinion is that our At what time hapned this Murther of the Children at Bethlehem Saviour was born on the 25th day of December and that on the 13th day after being the 6th of January the Wise Men came to Jerusalem and from thence went directly to Bethlehem where having paid their Adoration and being warned of God they returned homewards immediately after and that Herod seeing himself mocked by the Wise Men had thereupon perpetrated that Piece of Cruelty against the Children at Bethlehem so that the whole was transacted before the Purification of the Virgin Mary in the first Month of the forty fourth Julian Year But if the Matter be duly weighed we shall find that this Computation is in no wise agreeable to the true Chronological Circumstances For whether these Wise Men came out of Arabia or Persia certain it is that they could not perform so great a Journey in 13 Days after the Apparition of the Star which according to the Evangelist was the SIGNAL
of the NEW-BORN KING considering especially the Inconveniencies of the Winter Season It is also worth Observation what is related by the Evangelist (g) Matth. 2. That Herod flow all the Children that were two years old and under Herod had been questionless informed by the Wise Men that they had been near a whole Year upon their Journey since the time of the Apparition of the Star which induced Herod to cause all the Children of two years old and under to be slain So that it may be more probably concluded from the Words of the (b) Matth. 2. v. 16. Evangelist that Christ was at that time about one year old than that he was of a few Days and that the Wise Men did not come to adore Christ in his Cradle a considerable time after the Purification of his Mother about the Beginning of the second Year of Christ and the forty fifth Julian Year CHAP. XXXVII Of the Spanish Aera which is otherwise called the Aera of CAESAR and the Aera of Aera's 1. This New Aera was introduced in Spain at that time when after the Death of C. Jul. Caesar who had conquered Spain Caesar Octav. M. Anton. and M. Aemil. Lep. were Masters of the Roman Empire 2. After they had with their joint Forces overthrown Brutus and Cassius in that bloody Battle of Philippi 3. After they had divided the Provinces of the Roman Empire betwixt them a second time of which Division see (a) L. 48. Dio Cassius 4. This Division of the World was made in the Year since the Building of the City 714. 5. When Domit. Calv. and C. Asin Pollio were Roman Consuls according to Dio and (b) L. 3. c. 24. de reb Hisp Joh. Mariana 6. In the 438th Year of this Aera in September under the Reigns of Arcadius and Honorius Roman Emperours and Flav. Stilico and Flav. Aurel. Roman Consuls the first Council composed of 19 Bishops was held at Toledo against the Heresie of Priscillianus as is evident out of the Inscriptions of the Decrees of this Council cited by Alph. Villadiego 7. In the 440th year of the Spanish Aera Arcadius and Honorius were the fifth time Consuls of Rome and in the same year hapned an Eclipse of the Sun in November 8. In the year 447 of the Spanish Aera the Alani Vandals and Suevians entred Spain Idat. in Chronol 9. (c) L. 3. contr Jud. Jul. Pomerius Bishop of Toledo says thus It is no difficult Matter to investigate the Year since the Nativity of Christ For this Aera was invented 38 years before the Birth of Christ and we now account the 624th Year of this Aera If therefore 38 years this being the Interval betwixt this Aera and the Nativity of our Saviour be subtracted from thence the Residue is 586 years From these and other Characters too many to be mentioned here it is manifest that the Spanish Aera begun with the first of January in the year of the Julian Period 4676 Cycl ☉ 28. ☽ 2. If therefore 4675 years be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue To investigate the year since the beginning of this Epocha shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha and if the said 4675 years be added to the known year of this Aera the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. (d) L. 5. p. 445. de Em. Temp. JOsephus Scaliger who follows the Footsteps of (e) L. 48. â—ist Rom. Dion affirms that the Spaniards How this Aera was introduced in Spain would not receive this Aera till they received a signal Overthrow from the Proconsul Domitius Calvinus But it being evident out of the same Dion that this Defeat did not happen till in the second year of this Aera it is much more probable to aquiesce in the Relation of Joh. Mariana that the Spaniards followed in this Aera the Footsteps of the Antiochians and Aegyptians who about 11 years after the Death of Cleopatra began to compute their years from the Reign of Augustus to shew their ready Submission and Obedience to their new Prince § 2. The Provinces of the Roman Empire were at two several times divided betwixt the This Aera was introduced at the time of the 2 d Division of the Empire Triumviri In the first Division Octavius had for his share Italy Africa Sicily and Sardinia Lepidus Spain and Gallia Narbonensis Anthony the whole Gallia on both sides of the Alps which Division was made according to (f) L. 46. Dion in the year since the Building of the City 711. Some begin this Aera with this first Division which hapned in the 4th year after the Death of Caesar but according to the Chronological Circumstances the same may be with more Certainty referr'd to the second Division which was made in the 6th year after Caesar's Death § 3. This Aera is generally made use of in the Acts and Decrees of the Synods and other Spanish The Vsefulness of this Aera Inscriptions the most famous Synods of Spain and Africa being distinguished and described according to the Computation of the Spanish Aera § 4. (g) L. 3. c. 24. de reb Hisp Joh. Mariana observes that the Use of When the Vse of this Aera ceased this Aera ceased in the year of Christ 1383 under John I. King of Castile in whose stead was introduced the Aera of Christ following in this Point the Example of those of Valentia and Portugal CHAP. XXXVIII Of the Epocha of the Battle of Actium used among the Aegyptians 1. Octavius took up Arms against Anthony who having receded from the Rules agreed upon betwixt the Triumviri and being entangled in the Snares of Cleopatra had given unto her to the no small Detriment of the whole Roman Empire the Provinces of Phoenicia Syria Cyprus a great part of Sicily of Judaea and that part of Arabia Nabataea that extends its self towards the Ocean 2. After the Death of Sext. Pompeius the King of Armenia was taken Prisoner and the other Nations which were engaged in War against Caesar were forced to submit and the Parthians restored to a peaceable Condition 3. The chiefest Motive which induced Caesar to arm against Anthony was that he had understood that Anthony had called Caesario in his last Will the Son of Julius Caesar and had ranged him amongst the Family of the Caesars 4. This Civil War betwixt Caesar and Anthony begun after the Philippean Perusian and Sicilian Wars when Cn. Domitius and C. Sossius were Roman Consuls both of the Anthonian Faction 5. In the same year that the Battle of Actium was fought Caesar was the third time and Vai Messala Roman Consuls See (a) L. â—0 Hist Rom. Dio Cassius (b) Vit. Antoniâ— Plutarch (c) In Octav. August Suetonius Florus Eutropius Orosius and others 6. The Battle of Actium was fought in the 7th year of the Reign of Herod at
which time he was raising Forces for the Service of Anthony who having refused to accept of them ordered him to employ them against the Arabians See (d) Lib. 15. c. 6 7. Anâ— Josephus 7. The Battle of Actium was fought on the second day of September according to Dio sub initio Lib. 1. 8. In the next following year Octav. undertook the second Expedition against Anthony and Cleopatra who then laid violent Hands upon themselves This hapned when Octavius was the 4th time and M. Crassus Consuls of Rome According to (e) Loc. Cit. Dio and Aurel. Cassiodorus 9. Cleopatra laid violent Hands upon her self in the 22 d year of her Reign according to (f) In Chron. Euseb (g) Regn. Success Jornand and especially (h) Vit. Antoâ—iâ— Plutarch who says she was thirty nine years old when she died 10. Caesar reigned in Conjunction with Anthony 12 years and afterwards 44 years See Suetonius (i) Loc. Cit. 11. According to (k) In Chron. Euseb Cleopatra laid violent Hands upon her self in the 3 d year of the 187th Olympiad 12. The Actian or rather Alexandrian Epocha of the Aegyptians ought to be coincident with the THOT of Nabonassar 769 which is called the Actian THOT See Ptolemy 13. The 42 d year of Augustus was the 28th year since the Conquest of Aegypt and the Death of Anthony and Cleopatra the last of the Royal Race of the Lagidae in Aegypt after they had reigned 295 years in the same year hapned the Nativity of our Saviour See Euseb (l) Chr. L. 1. c. 5. Hist Eccles 14. The 1014th year since the Beginning of the first Olympiad and since the Building of Rome 991. The 283 d Julian Year was the 267th year since the Conquest of Alexandria See (m) C. 21. de D. N. Censorinus 15. Aegypt was conquered by Oct. Caesar in the Month of August See (n) L. 1. c. 12. Sat. Macrob. 16. Likewise Octavius made himself Master of Alexandria on the first day of August See Orosius (o) L. 6. c. 19. 17. On the same day that Caesar took Alexandria the Rhaeti were 15 years after defeated by Drusus his General See (p) L. 2. Rer. August Porphyrion which has been likewise expressed by Horace in the following Verses Nam tibi quo die Portus Alexandraea supplex Et vacuam patefacit aulam Fortuna lustro prospeâ—a tertio Belli secundos reddidit exitus Laudemque optatum peractis Imperiis decus arrogavit From these Characters it is certain that the Battle near the Promontory of Actium was fought in the year of the Julian Period 4683 Cycl ☉ 7. ☽ 9. on the 2 d day of September and that Alexandria after the Defection of Anthony 's Fleet to Caesar was taken in the next following year and that of the Julian Period 4684 Cycl ☉ 8. ☽ 10. on the first day of August and that in the same Month Cleopatra following the Example of Anthony laid violent Hands upon her self If therefore from any certain year of the Julian To investigate the Year since the Beginning of this Aera Period given be subtracted 4682 years and 8 Months the Residue shews the year since the Battle fought near Actium And if 4683 Years and 7 Months be subtracted in like manner the Residue is correspondent to the year since the Conquest of Alexandria and Aegypt by Octavius Augustus § 1. THIS Epocha which is called the Actian is taken in a three-fold Sence among the Ancient Historians For some deduce Various Computations of the Actian Aera its Origin from the Battle of Actium according to (q) L. 51. Hist Rom. Dio. Clemens Alexandrinus and some other Aegyptian Writers begin it in the next following Year from the Conquest of the City of Alexandria Since which time others have begun their Computations from the time that the Aegyptians received the Julian Year instead of the Nabonassarean which was done in the Seven hundred and twenty fourth Nabonassarean Year on the Twenty ninth of August CHAP. XXXIX Of the Epocha of the Augustus's 1. Both the Years and Name of the Augustus's owes it Origin to that time when Octav. Caesar was entitled with the Name of AUGUSTUS by the Roman Senate which Title has since been transmitted to all his Successours 2. Octavius was not sirnamed AUGUSTUS till after he had entred the City thrice in Triumph had put a Period to the Civil War restored Tranquillity to the whole Roman Empire had heaped great and many Benefits upon the City and People of Rome had fill'd up the Senate with his Friends and had the legal Administration of the Government conferr'd upon him by the Senate and People of Rome 3. At which time Octavius was the 7th time and M. Vipsan Agrippa the 3 d time Consuls of Rome See (a) L. 2. Hist Rom. Dio (b) C. 21. Censorinus and Aur. Cassiodorus 4. When Aegypt was reduced under the Roman Jurisdiction two years before (c) Loc. Cit. Censorinus 5. The Years of the AUGUSTUS'S begin with the first of January though Caesar was entitled with the Name of AUGUSTUS by L. Munatius Plancus and the rest of the Roman Citizens on the 14th of January See Censorinus with whom very nearly agrees Ovid when he says thus Idibus in magnis castus Jovis aede Sacerdos Semimaris flammis viscera libat ovis Redditaque est omnis populo provincia nostro Et tuus AUGUSTO nomine dictus avus From these Characters we conclude that the Epocha of the Augustus's and the legal Administration of the Government by the Caesars began with the Month of January in the year of the Julian Period 4687 Cycl ☉ 11. ☽ 13. If therefore 4686 years be subtracted from any certain To investigate the year since the beginning of this Epocha year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the desired Year since the Beginning of the Epocha of the AUGUSTUS'S § 1. THere is no less than 6 several Beginnings How manifold is the Beginning of this Epocha of this Epocha For some begin it with the Death of Julius Caesar others with the first year when Octavius was Consul of Rome which was in the third Julian Year Some from the time of the Triumviral Division being the 6th Julian Year others from the time of the Battle of Actium being the 15th Julian Year others from the Conquest of Alexandria and Aegypt others at last from the time Octavius received the Title of AUGUSTUS § 2. It has been said before how that the Romans The Romans and Aegyptians differ in this Epocha begin the years of Augustus from that time when Octavius received that Title But the Aegyptians being conquered two years before that time the third year of the Augustus's among the Aegyptians is the first with the Romans § 3. Suetonius gives us the Reason why Octavius Why Octavius was firnamed Augustus was firnamed Augustus in the following Words Oct. Augusti Cognomen assumpsit
Munatii Planci sententia cum quibusdamcensentibus Romulum appellari oportere quasi ipsum conditorem urbis praevaluisset ut Augustus potius vocaretur non tantum novo sed etiam ampliore cognomine quod loca quoque religiosa in quibus augurato quid consecratur augusta dicantur ab auctu vel ab avium gestu gustúve As Ennius likewise relates in the following Words Augusto augurio postquam inclyta condita Roma est And in the same Sence says Ovid L. 1. Fastor Sed tamen humanis celebrantur honoribus omnes Hic socium magno cum Jove nomen habet Sancta vocant Augusta patres augusta vocantur Templa Sacerdotum â—ite sacrata manu From hence also the Greeks call it Venerable and Sacred according to (d) Lib. 3. Dio but the Germans have committed an Error in the Etymology of this Word when they have interpreted Augustus an Increaser of the Empire § 4. I am of Opinion that it will be of no The principal Heads of the History of Augustus small Use to reduce the principal Heads of the History of Augustus to the Julian Period and the Julian Years In the Year of the Jul. Period 4651 23d of September Octavius was born In the Year of the Jul. Period 4670 in the 2d Jul. Year in the 19th Year of the Age of Octavius on the 15th of March Julius Caesar was slain and Octavius being sent by Julius who was preparing for an Expedition against the Daci and Parthians towards Apollonia returned to Rome as soon as he understood that Caesar had made him his Heir In the Year of the Jul. Period 4671 in the 3d Jul. Year Anthony was vanquish'd in a bloody Battle near Mutina In the same Year on the 19 day of August Octavius then but 21 years of Age was made Consul and on the 27th day of November Octavius Anthony and Lepidus divided the Roman Empire betwixt themselves In the Year of the Jul. Period 4672 in the 4th Jul. Year Octavius and Anthony fought against Brutus and Cassius and vanquish'd them near Philippis In the Year of the Jul. Period 4676 in the 8th Jul. Year was made the second Division of the Empire which gave Birth to the Spanish Epocha In the Year of the Jul. Period and the 10th Jul. Year Sextus Pompeius was vanquished by Caesar being strengthened by the Forces of Lepidus In the Year of the Jul. Period 4681 in the 13th Jul. Year the Jealousie that had been for some time betwixt Anthony and Caesar broke out into open Enmity In the Year of the Jul. Period 4683 in the 15th Jul. Year Anthony was overthrown by Caesar near Actium In the Year of the Jul. Period 4684 in the 16th Jul. Year Caesar conquered Alexandria and Aegypt and Anthony and Cleopatra killed themselves In the Year of the Jul. Period 4687 in the 19th Jul. Year Octavius Caesar was sirnamed AUGUSTUS Of which see Vellejus Paterculus Lib. 2. In the Year of the Jul. Period 4711 in the 43d Jul. Year in the 42d of the Reign of Augustus our Saviour was born In the Year of the Jul. Period 4727 in the 59th Jul. Year on the 19th day of August died the Emperour Octavius Augustus in the 76th Year of his Age and was succeeded by Tiberius CHAP. XL. Of the True and Vulgar Epocha of CHRIST To regulate the Epocha of the Nativity of Christ both according to the Tenure of the Sacred and Profane History these following Characters must be observed 1. Our Saviour was born in the Days of Herod the King who was succeeded by Archelaus (a) Mat. 2. v. 1. 22. 2. When Octavius Augustus was Emperour of Rome (b) Luk. 2. v. 1. 3. By whom was sent out a Decree that all the World should be taxed (c) Ibid. 4. And this Decree was made first when Cyrenius was Governour of Syria (d) Luk. 2. ver 2. 5. In the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar Pontius Pilate being Governour of Judaea and Herod being Tetrarch of Galilee and his Brother Philip Tetrarch of Iturea and of the Region of Trachonitis and Lysias the Tetrarch of Abylene Annas and Caiaphas being the High-Priests c. JESUS himself began to be about thirty years of Age being as was supposed the Son of Joseph which was the Son of Heli (e) Luk. 3. v. 1 2 23. 6. In the 6th Month after Elizabeth had conceived John by Zecharias the Priest of the Course of Abia after the Days of his Ministration were accomplished the Angel Gabriel was sent to announce to the Virgin Mary the Conception of Christ (f) Luk. 1. v. 23. 26 36. 7. Thus says Clem. Alexandrinus Our Saviour was born in the same 28th year when the fixed Decree was made by Augustus about a Taxation Which doubtless was said in Reference of what is related by (g) Lib. 1. Dio Cassius That the Day when Alexandria was taken by Augustus was ordered to be kept as an Anniversary Feast from whence was to be begun the Computation of the following Years 8. It was therefore in the 42d year of the Reign of Augustus and in the 28th after the Conquest of Aegypt and the Death of Anthony and Cleopatra that our Saviour JESUS CHRIST was born at the time of the first Taxation by Cyrenius then Governour of Syria in the City of Bethlehem of Judaea pursuant to the Prophecies of the Prophets These are the Words of (h) L. 1. c. 5. Hist Eccles Euseb with whom agree as to the Year of Augustus (i) L. 1. Haer. Clem. Alexandrinus Epiphan (k) Contr. Jud. c. 8. Tertullian (l) L. 1. c. 1. L. 7. c. 2. Paul Orosius (m) Chr. Euseb St. Hierome Isodorus Jornandes Zonaras c. 9. The Death of the Emperour Commodus hapned 194 years after the Nativity of Christ But the Emperour Commodus was murthered according to Clem. Alexandrinus (n) L. 1. Str. in the year of the Aegyptian Aera 222. His Death is describ'd by Dio Cassius (o) L. 72. H. R. 10. At the time of the Nativity of our Saviour Lentulus and Messala were Roman Consuls though there are also some who refer his Nativity to the Consulship of Augustus the 13th time and of Plautus Sylv. See Aurel. Cassiodorus Geo. Cedrenus (p) Lib. 1. Haeres Epiphan Lucius Dexter Mar. Scotus c. 11 Christ was born in the Year of the Constantinopolitan Epocha 6506 Cycl ☉ Graec. 18. ☽ 15. See Geor. Cedren 12. Christ was born on the 23 d day of December according to the vulgar Opinion which Opinion was already generally received at the time of Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea in Palaestine who lived under the Reign of Commodus and Severus And Vict. Pictav affirms that in the 3 d Age after the Nativity of Christ the same was celebrated among the Christians about the Hybernal Solstice which Custom was afterwards retained by those present at the General Councils of Baset and Florence as also the ancient Roman
of the Age of our Saviour and several other Ecclesiastical Characters before-mentioned § 5. There is not the least Question but that Dionysius sirnamed Exiguus a Native of Scythia Whether Dionysius Exiguus was the first Author of this Epocha and a Roman Abbot was the first Author of the Vulgar Aera of the Nativity of Christ about the Year 527 the Ancients accounting their Years before that time either from the Building of the City of Rome from the Consuls or the Emperour Dioclesian or from the first Indiction See W. Langius (d) L. 1. c 1. de An Christi § 6. In the Roman Martyrology published by the Conterning the Synchronism◠mentioned in the Roman Martyrology Authority of Pope Gregory XIII and revised by the Command of Pope Vrban VIII we find these following Words which are every year on the 25th day of December read in publick In the Year since the Creation of the World when God created Heaven and Earth 5199 And since the Deluge in the 2957th and the Birth of Abraham in the 2015th year From Moses and the time of the Israelites leaving of Aegypt in the 1510th And from the time of David 's being anointed King in the 1032 d Year In the 42 d annual Week of Daniel In the 194th Olympiad In the 752 d Year since the Building of Rome in the 42 d Year of the Reign of the Emperor Oct. Augustus when the whole World was blessed with Peace In the 6th Age of the World Jesus Christ Eternal God and Son of the Eternal Father conceived from the Holy Ghost 9 Months after his Conception was born in Bethlehem of Judaea from the Virgin Mary But the Roman Catholick Writers themselves acknowledge the many Contradictions contained in the Synchronisms of this Martyrology as may be seen in Baronius and Dionysius Petavius and may be easily refuted out of several of the preceding Chapters § 7. There being neither the Day nor the The different Opinions concerning the Month and Day of the Nativity of Christ Month of the Nativity of Christ mentioned in the Holy Scripture this has given Occasion to several different Opinions For 1. there are not a few among whom is Tho. Lydiott who maintains Christ to have been born in the Spring which Opinion was already embraced by some at the time of Clemens Alexandrinus and Paulus a Bishop of Middleburgh (e) L. 19. c. 4. in his Treatise of the Day of the Passion of Christ presented to the Emperour Maximilian pretends to fix the Day of the Nativity of Christ on the 25th of March exactly at the time of the Vernal Aequinox 2. There are others who affirm that our Saviour was born in Autumn which Opinion however they pretend to prove by different Arguments For Beroaldus calls to his Aid the half Annual Week mentioned by Daniel (f) C. 9. and the Sabbatick and Jubilean Years and the Feasts of Expiation which had their Beginnings in Autumn but Josephus Scaliger has recourse to the Levitical Order instituted by David (g) 1 Chr. c. 23 v. 27. c. 25. v. 7. from whence he deduces the time of the Ministry of Zacharias and from thence the Conception of John the Baptist and consequently his Birth and the Nativity of our Saviour 3. Others are of Opinion that Christ was born on the 6th day of January which makes Scaliger in his Animadversions upon Eusebius affirm that the whole Christian Church in the East did at the time of Eusebius and in the preceding and next following Age believe that Christ was born on the 6th day of January and according to (a) Col. 10. Cassianus the Aegyptians did celebrate the Nativity of Christ on the same day Last of all the most general Opinion is that Christ was born on the 25th day of December which being maintained by many Learned Men and among them by St. Chrysostom is received in our Churches and is most agreeable to my Judgment CHAP. XLI Of the Epocha of the Passion of Christ 1. Christ suffered after he had for some time after his solemn Inauguration by the Holy Ghost described by (b) C. 3. St. Luke taught upon Earth both by his Words and Deeds it being evident out of the History of the Gospel and especially out of the Parable of the fruitless Fig-Tree mentioned by (c) C. 13. v. 7. St. Luke that our Saviour after the Beginning of his Ministry was several times present at the Solemnity of the Passover 2. Christ suffered when Josephus Caiaphas was High-Priest among the Jews as is manifest out of (d) C. 11. v. 49. St. John (e) C. 3. v. 2. St. Luke and (f) C. 4. v. 6. the Acts which Dignity he enjoyed from the eighth Year of the Reign of Tiberius and from the 4741st year of the Jul. Period till the 15th year of the Reign of Tiberius and the 4748th year of the Jul. Period when according to Josephus (g) L. 18. c. 3. 6. Antiq. he was deposed by Vitellius and Jonathan the Son of Annas substituted in his Place 3. Christ suffered when Pilate was Praefect of Palaestine according to the Testimony of the Evangelists and (h) L 18. c. 4. Josephus The first Founder of this Name says Tacitus (i) L. 15. Annal. was Christ who under the Reign of Tiberius was put to Death by Pontius Pilate then Governour of Palaestina But Pontius Pilate was 10 years Praefect of Palaestina to be counted backwards from the Death of Tiberius to wit from the Year of the Jul. Period 4740 till the Year of the Julian Period 4750. Vitcllius says Josephus (k) L. 18. c. 5. Antiq. having made his Friend Marcellus Governour of Judaea ordered Pilate to return to Rome to answer before Caesar concerning such Matters as were objected against him by the Jews Thus after he had governed the Province for whole 10 years being forced to submit to the Orders of Vitellius he undertook a Journey to Rome but before he could reach the City Tiberius died 4. When Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee (l) Luk. 23. v. 6. who afterwards in the 4th year of the Reign of Caius was banished and Agrippa was substituted in his Place See Josephus (m) L. 19. c. 7. Ant. 5. When the Full Moon of the Passover was coincident with the 6th Feria and when our Saviour eat the Passover with his Disciples See (n) C. 19. v. 31. St. John (o) C. 15. v. 42. St. Mark and (p) C. 23. v. 56. St. Luke 6. In the same year that hapned that notable Eclipse mentioned by the Evangelist (q) Mat. 27. v. 45. Luk. 23. v. 45. in the following Words From the 6th Hour there was Darkness over all the Land unto the 9th Hour And concerning which Eclipse Phlegon Trallianus has left a remarkable Observation to Posterity In the 4th Year says he of the 202d Olympiad there hapned the greatest Eclipse that ever was known before For
on the 6th Hour the Day was converted into Night so that the Stars appeared in the Firmament There was likewise felt a great Earthquake in Bithynia which ruined the greatest part of the City of Nicea 7. Christ suffered in the Month Nisan which was the first in the Ecclesiastical Year and on the 14th day of the same Month at the time of the Full Moon according to the Words of God (r) Exod. 12. v. 2. This Month shall be unto you the Beginning of Months it shall be the first Month of the Year to you Speak you unto all the Congregation of Israel saying In the 10th day of this Month they shall take to them every Man a Lamb according to the House of their Fathers a Lamb for an House And you shall keep it up till the 14th day of the same Month and the whole Assembly of the Congregation of Israel shall kill it in the Evening And they shall take of the Blood and strike it on the two Side-Posts and on the upper Door-Post of the Houses wherein they shall eat it And they shall eat the Flesh in that Night rost with Fire and Unleavened Bread and with bitter Herbs they shall eat it Of this same Feast of the Passover (s) L. 3. de Vit. Mos Philo has these following Words On the fourteenth day of the same Month when the Moon is at the Full the Jews celebrate their publick Feast of the Passover which the Chaldaeans call Pascha From these Characters those who adhere to the Opinion of Scaliger conclude that our Saviour did eat his last Passover 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Year of the Julian Period 4746 Cycl ☉ 14. ☽ 15 on the 3 d day of April and that on the same day according to the Jewish Computation Christ suffered Death If therefore from any certain year of the Julian Period How to find out any year of these Epocha's 4745 Years and 3 Months be subtracted the Residue shews the year since the Passion of Christ And if the said 4745 Years and 3 Months be added to the known Year of this Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the Year of the Julian Period § 1. THere are various Opinions concerning the Characters of this Epocha but those The various Opinions of the Fathers concerning this Epocha before alledged may be look'd upon as the choicest the Ecclesiastical Characters alledged by the Ancient Fathers being for the most part involved in many Errors and contradictory to themselves The most of them are of Opinion that our Saviour did not teach in publick above one Year and some Months and that he was crucified in the 2d Year after his Baptism which Opinion they found upon the Prophecy of (t) C. 61. v. 1. Isaiah The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good Tidings unto the Meek he had sent me to bind up the Broken-hearted to proclaim Liberty to the Captives and the opening of the Prison to them that are bound To proclaim The ACCEPTABLE YEAR of the LORD and the Day of Vengeance of our God to comfort all that mourn Which Prophecy is applied to Christ by (u) C. 4. v. 19. St. Luke So that many of the ancient Fathers have fixed the time of the Death of our Saviour in the 30th year of his Age and in the 15th or 16th year of the Reign of Tiberius on the 25th day of March which Opinion among the Modern Authors Ger. (x) Diss de Temp. Dom. Pass Joh. Vossius has likewise embraced But as we shall have Occasion to shew hereafter our Saviour did celebrate more Passovers after the Beginning of his publick Ministry Neither was the Paschal Full Moon coincident with the 6th Feria in that Year which is appointed by the Fathers for the Passion of Christ Neither is it agreeable to that remarkable Observation of the Eclipse by Phlegon Neither do these Fathers agree in their Opinions among themselves For Tertullian Clem. Alexandrinus Julius Africanus Lactantius and St. Austin affirm that Christ preached but one Year in publick whereas St. Jerome allows two Ignatius three and Irenaeus more years the last of them being of Opinion that Christ was 50 years old when he suffered Death From whence it appears that the Opinions of the Fathers concerning this Epocha is built upon a very uncertain Foundation § 2. Among the Ancients Beda and the Moderns Ger. Joh. Vossius have made use of this Method How many Passovers Christ celebrated after the Beginning of his Ministry to investigate the Year of the Passion of Christ from the Number of the Passovers celebrated by him after the Beginning of his Ministry tho' it be evident that the last is invoâ—ved in the same Difficulties with the first the Chronologers differing as much in their Opinion if not more concerning the last as the first For First there are some who allow of no more than one Year and a few Months after his Baptism as has been mentioned before Secondly Some allow of three Passovers after the Baptism of our Saviour among whom is Epiphanius St. Hierom Beda Nich. de Lyra Alphonsus Tostatus Pererius Maldonatus Calvinus Musculus Dionysius Petavius and Helwigius There are Thirdly others who affirm that our Saviour did celebrate four Passovers after his Baptism The first they pretend to prove out of the 2d Chapter v. 13 23. of St. John the second out of the 4th Chapter v. 35. and the 5th Chapter v. 1 of St. John the third out of the 6th Chap. v. 4. and v. 2. of St. John the 4th out of the 12th Chap. v. 1. of St. John the 22d Chap. v. 1. of St. Luke the 14th Chap. v. 1. of St. Mark and the 26th Chap. v. 1. of St. Matthew Of which Opinion are (y) Nat. ad Joh. 5. Corn. à Lapide Baronius Torniellus Beza Junius Jansenius Henr. Pâ—ilippi Hugo Grotius Franciscus Toletus Joh. Wicâ—mannus and most of the Dutch Interpreters Fourthly Scaliger Calvisius Helvicus Calixtus Wilhelm Langius Causabonus Deckerius and Rob. Bailius allot 5 Passovers after the Baptism of Christ and Jacobus Hainlinus who makes the Interval betwixt the Baptism and Passion of Christ to consist of 5 years and a half does likewise allow 5 Passovers after his Baptism Among these different Opinions we adhere as we have done frequently before to that of Scaliger But the Difficulty is how to prove this 5th Passover out of the Holy Scripture which has been attempted by some by comparing Chap. 12. v. 1. of St. Matthew with the 6th Chap. v. 1. sequ of St. Luke Also by comparing the 9th Chap. v. 51. of St. Luke with his 10th Chap. v. 8. and 38. But it is our Opinion that we need not be so very anxious in finding out the 5th Passover in the Holy Scripture since tho' the same be not expresly mentioned yet no Inference is to be drawn from thence that the same may be proved from other
where among other things Dionysius answered Apollophanes concerning this Eclipse Aut Deus patitur aut vicem Patientis deflet Either God himself suffers or else is extremely concerned about him that suffers Which contradicts the Opinions of Origenes Laur. Valla Erasmus Roterdamus and Is Peyrerius who maintain that this was only a particular Eclipse which was not observed at Athens or any other Place beyond the Horizon of Jerusalem And the Authority and Testimony of Phlegon makes it one of the most unquestionable Characters of the time of the Passion of Christ § 7. Christ suffered on the 6th Feria For the Christ suffered on the 6th Feria Day on which Christ was crucified is called by (p) C. 15. v. 42. St. Mark and (q) C. 19. v. 31. St. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Preparation or the Day before the Sabbath 2. It is said that the Women staid but one Day before they came to the Sepulchre See St. Luke c. 23. 3. The Syrian and Arabick Interpreters unanimously agree that Christ suffered on the Friday as 4. do the most ancient Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers 5. It is confirmed by the Calculation of the Paschal Plenilune which was coincident with the 33d Year of Christ which Plenilune did happen that same Year on the 6th Feria All which sufficiently contradicts the Assertion of Paulus Middleburgensis and Willhelmus Langius that Christ suffered on the 5th Feria or on Thursday What they alledge for themselves that it is said in (r) C. 12. v. 40. Matthew That the Son of Man shall be three Days and three Nights in the Heart of the Earth some compute from the first Beginning of Christ's Passion others interpret it by three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 containing two Nights and one Day CHAP. XLII Of the Epocha of the last Destruction of the City of Jerusalem For the better understanding of this Epocha these following Chararacters ought to be taken into Consideration 1. The Jewish War in the fourth Year of which Jerusalem was taken began in the second year after Florus was made Governour of that Province and in the 12th year of the Reign of Nero. See (a) Lib. 20. c. ult Ant. Josephus The Jews bore it patiently says (b) L. 5. Histor Tacitus till the time when Gessius Florus was made Governour then the War began to break out when Cestius Gallus then Deputy-Governour of Syria endeavouring to force them to a Compliance they were vanquished in several Engagements 2. This Destruction of Jerusalem hapned at the time of the Expiration of the 70 Angelical Weeks which according to the Words of the Prophet (c) C. 9. v. 24. Daniel were determined upon the People and the Holy City 3. This Destruction of Jerusalem hapned in the 2 d year of the Reign of Flavius Vespafianus according to (d) L. 6. c. 47. de bell Jud. Josephus and (e) In Chron. Eusebius The Reign of Vespafian commences with the first day of July when Tiberius Alexander then Governour of Aegypt first induced the Legions to swear Fealty to Vespafian in the 2 d year after the Death of Nero For according to (f) L. 66. Dio Cassius there was an Interval of a whole Year and 22 Days betwixt the Death of Nero and the Beginning of the Reign of Vespasian I say in the same Year when the Battle was fought near Cremona and Vitellius was slain on the day of the Feast of Saturn See (g) L. 3. Tacitus And about which time hapned a notable Eclipse of the Moon which contributed not a little towards increasing the Tumult and Mutiny in Vitellius 's Army See (h) L. 65. Dio. Such an Eclipse hapned in the Year of the Vulgar Aera of Christ 69 on the 18th day of October as may be easily investigated by the Astronomical Calculations 4. It was the 2 d Year of the 212th Olympiad when the Romans made themselves Masters of the City of Jerusalem See (i) In Chron. Euseb 5. The Destruction of Jerusalem hapned in the same year that Fl. Vesp Augustus a second time and Titus were Roman Consuls See (k) L. 66. Dio Cassius 6. It was the 331st Year before the Consulship of Stilico and Aurelianus when the City of Jerusalem was taken by the Romans See Sulpit. Severus 7. Titus began the Siege of Jerusalem on the first day of the Vnleavened Bread on the 14th day of the Month Xanticus on the same day that the Jews were freed from the Aegyptian Bondage See (l) L. 5. C. 11. de Bel. Jud. Josephus 8. The Temple was laid in Ashes on the 10th day of the Month Lous on the same Day that the Temple was destroyed by Fire by the King of Babylon See (m) L. 7. c. 9 10. Josephus and Seder Olam 9. The City was taken on the 8th day of the Month Gorpiaeus and upon a Saturday which Day is in great Veneration among the Jews to this Day See Josephus and (n) L. 66. Dio Cassius From these Characters it is evident that Titus began the Siege of Jerusalem in the Year of the Julian Period 4783 Cycl ☉ 23. ☽ 14. on the 14th day of April and that the Temple was laid in Ashes on the 6th day of August in the same Year and the total Desolation of the City on the first of September If therefore from any certain Year of the Julian Period be subtracted 4782 Years and 3 Months Any certain year given of the Julian Period to find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha or 7 Months or 8 Months the Residue shews the Year since the beginning of the Siege of Jerusalem and the Destruction of the Temple and City On the other hand if to the known Years of this Epocha the before-mentioned Sum of Years and Months be added the Product will be correspondent to the Year of the Julian Period § 1. THE true Chronology of the Destruction Where we must look for the Chronology of this Epocha of Jerusalem must chiefly be looked for in the Books of Josephus he having been at the same time a Prisoner in the Roman Camp and employed by them as a Messenger to the Besieged And tho' the Jewish Rabbi's but especially Rabbi Isaac Abarbinel do exclaim against his Authority yet their Calumnies are of little Consequence against so great an Historian it being certain that the Rabbi's themselves are Ignorant as to the true time of the Destruction of their City as we shall have Occasion to shew immediately § 2. The Rabbi's in their Chronological Treatises Concerning th◠Jewish Computation of this Epocha relate this Destruction in the following Words especially in their Great Chronicle From the time of the War of Vespasian till the War of Titus are 24 Years From the time of the War of Titus till the War with Barcozbe 16 Years Thus according to Rabbi Jose the days of good Works and Sins return within one another As for Example the first
by his Death that the Tyranr might not defile that Sacred and Religious Septenary Number by entring into the 7th Year of his Reign 6. The Tyrant Maxentius was slain when Constantine and Licinius were both the 2 d time Roman Consuis in the 4th Year of the 272 d Olympiad according to St. Hierome towards the latter End of Autumn says Nazarius at the Beginning of the Winter about the Month of October in the Year of Christ 312. 7. At the time of the Decennalia of Constantine the Great that is to say in the 7th Year of his Reign he appointed his Son Constantine sirnamed Junior Caesar according to (d) L. 4. c. 40. de Vit. Const Eusebius and the Chron. Alexandrinum mentions that it hapned in the Year of Christ 316 when Sabinus and Ruffinus were Roman Consuls 8. The same Year that the Council of Nicaea was finished was coincident with the Year when Constantine the Great celebrated the Vicennalia being the Beginning of the 21st Year of his Reign See (e) L. 3. c. 14. L. 4. c. 47. de Vit. Const Euseb (f) L. 1. c. 12. Socrates (g) L. 1. c. 24. Sozomenus and Ishmael Ibn Ali a Mahometan Writer by (h) L. 1. p. 102. de Ann. Chr. Langius 9. Concerning the time of the Council of Nicaea says (i) L. 1. c. 9. Socrates it was called together as may be seen in the Annals on the 22d day of May when Paulinus and Julianus were Roman Consuls in the 636th Year after the Reign of Alexander the Great since the Beginning of the Aera of the Seleucides And the Edicts published by Constantine the Great shew these Characters to direct us to the 325th Year of Christ 10. The Council of Nicaea did not last much above one Year and according to (k) In Annal. Eutychius all the Bishops were met in the City of Nicaea within the Space of one Year and two Months 11. The before-mentioned Vicennalia are said to have been celebrated by Constantine the Great in the 2 d Year of the 276th Olympiad when Constantine was the 7th time and Constantius Roman Consuls in the Year of Christ 326. See Eus in Chron. Fast Sic. 12. In the 30th Year of Constantine the Great when Dalmatius was proclaimed Caesar Constantius the 6th time and Albinus were Roman Consuls according to St. (l) Chron. Alexandr Jerome 13. Constantine the Great died on the 20th day of May being then Witsunday according to (m) Lib. 4. c. 53. 64. in Vit. Constant Eusebius and the Chron. Alexandrinum when Felicianus and Titianus were Roman Consuls Consult Sozomen Chron. Alexandrinum and (n) Hist Tripart Idacins In the fourth Year of the 278th Olympiad at the Age of 65 Years See Chron. Alexandr 14. From the Death of Constantine the Great to count backwards to the Beginning of his Reign are computed about 31 Years according to (o) L. 1. c. 12. Socrates 30 Years and 10 Months according to Idacius and (p) In Chr. St. Jerome 30 Years 9 Months and 27 Days according to (q) In Fast Onuphrius 15. The 341st Year of Christ when Marcellus and Probinus were Roman Consuls was coincident with the 5th Year after the Death of Constantine the Great and in the same Year was held the Council of Antiochia See q Socrates (r) L. 2. c. 5. Hist Eccles From these Characters it is evident First That Constantius Chlorus died and was succeeded in the Empire by Constantine the Great in the Year of the Julian Period 5019 Cycl ☉ 7. ☽ 3. on the 25th day of July Secondly that Maxentius was vanquished in the Year of the Julian Period 5025 towards the latter End of September Thirdly That the Council of Nicaea began in the Year of the Julian Period 5038 on the 22 d day of May and lasted till the Year of the Julian Period 5039 in July at which time Constantine the Great celebrated the Vicennalia at Nicomedia and in the next Year at Rome Fourthly That Constantine the Great died in the year of the Julian Period 5050 on the 22 d day of May. If therefore from any certain year of the Julian Period given be subtracted 5018 years and 7 To investigate the Years since the Beginning of these Epocha's Months the Residue shews the year since the Death of Constantius Chlorus and the Beginning of the Reign of Constantine the Great Likewise if you would investigate the year since the Death of Maxentius and the Propagation of the Christian Doctrine throughout the whole Roman Empire subtract from any known year of the Julian Period 5024 Years and 9 Months And for the time since the Council of Nicaea 5037 years and 5 Months for the time since the Death of Constantine the Great subtract 5049 years and 5 months and the Residues will be correspondent to the years of these several Synchronisms But if to the known years of these several times before-mentioned the above-named Numbers of Years and Months be added the Products will be correspondent to the several years of the Julian Period § 1. (s) In Euseb p. 226. JOsephus Scaliger speaking of the Times of Const the Great breaks out into The History of Constantine the Great is very uncertain these Words Nothing is more uncertain than the Beginnings of these Emperours from Carus to Valentinian (t) Ad An. Christi â—06 16. Baronius is so positive in his Assertion that Const the Great was not only first proclaimed Caesar in Britain but also was a Native of that Island and was elevated to the Imperial Dignity by his Country-men that he looks upon those who pretend to contradict it little better than mad Men. Nevertheless (u) L. 4. c. 11. de magn Rom. Justus Lipsius a Man of great Judgment is of Opinion that this Emperour was born at Tharsus a City of Bithynia And there are not a few who affirm according to (x) L. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constantius Porphyrogennetus and the Manuscript of Fermicus that he was born at Naisum a City of Dacia But we will only alledge the different Opinions of the Chronologers The Author of the Chron. Alexan. says that Const Chlorus died at York when Constantius the 6th time and Maxim Jovius were Roman Consuls with whom agrees (y) In Fast Onuphrius when speaking of the Year when FL. VALERIVS CONSTANTIVS CHLORVS P. F. AVG. VI. ET GALERIVS VALERIVS MAXIMIANVS P. F. AVG. VI. were Roman Consuls he says further thus EODEM ANNO A. D. â—I KAL AVGVSTI IMP. CAESAR CONSTANTIVS AVG. MORTVVS EST. The Ancient Author of the Excerpta alledged by (z) P. 69. Scaliger erroneously refers his Death to the Consulship of Licinius and Crispus The Year of these Consuls mentioned by us is coincident with the Year since the Building of Rome 1058. But (a) L. 7. c. 17. Orosius says that Constantine began his Reign in the Year 1061 since the Building of Rome We