this it is not all that he saith For he shews how it came to pass that those Learned men did believe Moses to have been contemporary to Inachus viz. Having read of certain Sheepherds that came out of Egypt into Syria about the time of Inachus they understood this of the Israelites coming from Egypt to Canaan whereas those Sheepherds were the Phaenicians of whom Herodotus l. 1. c. 1. and l. 7. c. 89. with Stephanus Byzant in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 testifies that they came from the Red sea That it may not seem strange that the Arch-Bishop should depart from the opinion of all those Learned men I add that Eusebius did the same before him as also the greatest part of our later Chronologers But the Doctor adheres to their opinion and will by all means demonstrate the truth of it and if you will be so liberal as to grant his suppositions and that his Deductions and Tables are right then he may do something but if you be resty and will not grant him these then you will put him out of the humor of demonstrating CHAP. X. Of that Alexander King of Egypt who was reported to have made the Commonwealth of Rome his heir THE Arch-Bishop A. M. 3924. affirms that Alexander who was expell'd by the Egyptians and dy'd at Tyre and was reported to have left the Commonwealth his heir reigned at the least 15 years And for this he alledges Cicero and Suetonius see him also A. M. 3939 and 3940. The Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 13. takes notice of this and though the Arch-Bishop and he were friends a little before in the very same Chapter insomuch that he calls him the most Learned Bishop of Armagh yet he presently takes up the cudgels against him and denies that it can be prov'd by any Authorities alledg'd by the Arch-Bishop and others that the foresaid Alexander reign'd 15 years If it can be proved from any of them the Doctor thinks it must be that of Cicero Orat. 1 and 2 de leg Agrar. but to take off the force of this he urges those words in Orat. 2 Haec L. Philippum in Senatu confirmasse in memoria teneo Which words seem to the Doctor to argue that the Testament and death of Alexander and the discourses of L. Phillipus in the Senate concerning them were more then a year or two before Cicero's delivering those Orations Furthermore says the Doctor let it be granted that the death of Alexander was in the year in which the Arch-Bishop sets it yet of the time of his expulsion and how long he liv'd an Exile there is not a word to be found in any of those Authorities Thus the Doctor Who might have been more easily understood if he had set down the passages in Tullies Orations on which the Arch-Bishop relyes or directed us to the place where the Arch-Bishop hath transcrib'd them at large viz. A. M. 3940. And his snatching at the words Memoria teneo as if they argued that Alexanders death and the Speeches of L. Philippus were more then a year or two before Cicero's delivering the 2 d Oration seems to me to argue that the Doctor was at a loss for an answer For certainly a man may say properly enough I remember or retain in memory that such or such things were discoursed of by such a person though it be not more then a year or two since he discoursed of them Also the Doctors saying that of the time of Alexanders expulsion there is not a word in any of the Authorities doth more then seem to argue that he had not consulted the Testimony of Suetonius in Julio Caesare c. 11. alledg'd by the Arch-Bishop A. M. 3939 for it is manifest from him that Alexanders expulsion was at the time of Julius Caesars being AEdilis as the Arch-Bishop sets it or very shortly after it But the Doctor also produceth the generality of Historians and Chronographers and the Mathematical Canon against the Arch-Bishop He cannot imagin why the Canon should omit a King of the direct line of 15 or 16 years reign to substitute a stranger in the place of him He concludes that allowing first Cleopatra and then Alexander to have succeeded Ptolomaeus Lathurus yet because the time of their reigning was short under the length of a year therefore the Canon casts it in to the reign of Ptolem. Auletes Thus the Doctor But why doth he urge the Arch-Bishop with the Authority of the generality of Historians and Chronographers when he had told us but a little before that the Arch-Bishop did acknowledge the generality of Historians and Chronographers to be against him Thò there are very Learned men that are for him not only Petavius de doct tem l. 10. c. 46. and in Paralipomen item in Rationar Part 1. l. 4. c. 15. and Part 2. l. 3. c. 12 but also Ricciolus To. 3. p. 34 and To. 4. p. 82 and before them Paulus Manutius in Comment in Orat. 1. de leg Agrar. As to the Mathematical Canon the Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 3. acknowledges that it is not free from imperfections aud oversights and therefore promiseth to rectifie the things that seem to be amiss in it Withal he should not have told us that the time that both Cleopatra and Alexander reign'd was not the space of a year until he had offer'd some answer to the Testimony of Suetonius alleag'd by the Arch-Bishop to prove that Alexander reign'd many years Instead of answering Suetonius the Doctor takes upon him to correct Justin who in Prologo l. 39. hath these words Ut post Laphyrum filius Alexandri regnarit expulsoque eo suffectus sit Ptolomaeus Nothus Here if we will believe the Doctor Justin wrote not Ptolemaeus Nothus but Ptolemaeus novus for says he this Ptolemee was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Diodorus Sicul. testifies But I would know of the Doctor how we can conclude from his being call'd a new Dionysius or a new 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bacchus that he had also the name of a new Ptolemee I do believe that few have heard or read of a Ptolemaeus Novus before this And what necessity is there of making an alteration as to the name since it is believed that Ptolemaeus Auletes was really Nothus with which agrees that passage in Tullies Orat. 2. de leg Agrar. where he says that he who reign'd then i. e. as the Arch-Bishop and others interpret it Ptolemaeus Auletes was neque genere neque animo regio and I thought that it was upon this very account that the Doctor himself calls him a stranger CHAP. XI Of Argon who was the first King of Lydia after the Atyadae THE Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 16. falls very severely upon the Arch-Bishop I must says he advise the Reader that he beware of being imposed upon by the allegation of Herodotus ----------- As if Ninus and Belus forsooth the first founders of the Assyrian Monarchy were the Grandchildren of Hercules the Son
that the compiling or digesting or as he expresseth it s. 1. the bringing the whole body of Scripture and parts of it into a congruous disposition or frame so to render the same more intelligible and plain was the work of this Assembly of Holy and Wise men He adds s. 3. that he believes that this work was directed and assisted by the Spirit of God and s. 4. that this work was perfected about the time of Alexander the Great Now if we would know what it is that the Doctor aims at in all this he himself tells us in the following sections In short he would have the Books of Chronicles 6 Chapters in Ezra and a great part of two Chapters in Nehemiah to have been written by these Holy and Wise men of the Great Synagogue As to the Book of Nehemiah he is very positive I do account says he that from Neh. 11. 3. to Neh. 12. 27. all is of this kind s. 5. i. e. inserted by the men of the Great Synagogue He is no less positive s. 7. as to the second of Chronicles To me says he it appears that the Writer or Digester of this Book liv'd after Ezra's time If he had said only The Digester of it we should have taken the less notice of it but when he saith The Writer or Digester we see plainly what he would be at It is true he is not positive as to the Six Chapters in Ezra but s. 7. he questions whether they were the writing of Ezra or no thô he grants that it is evident that all the Chapters after the Sixth were his writing and signifies plainly enough that his own opinion was that they were not Now this seems to be a very bold stroke and of dangerous consequence that any man should go about to persuade the world that the Books of Chronicles and also a considerable part of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were not writ till after their death If I may use the Doctors own words What would Scaliger have said to this How would he have stood amaz'd He that was so much displeased with the German Divines who would make only some part of one Chapter in Nehemiah not to have been his writing but the insertion of a later hand would certainly have much more dislik'd such a bold attempt as this is But he would have been more highly inrag'd when he had found that nothing is offer'd which looks like an argument to make it probable that the Writers of the foresaid Books or parts of Scripture liv'd later then Ezra or Nehemiahs The Doctor saith that it is evident that the two first verses of the Book of Ezra are the very same word for word with the two last of the second Book of Chronicles But every one sees what a strange or rather wild consequence this is Because the two first verses of the Book of Ezra are the same with the two last of Chronicles therefore Six whole Chapters in Ezra were the writing of one that liv'd later then Ezra Withal how appears it that the Writer or Digester of the second Book of Chronicles liv'd after Ezra That says the Doctor may be gathered from 1 Chron. 3. 17. to the end of the Chapter But surely it cannot be gather'd from 1 Chron. 3. 17 c. that the Writer or Digester of the second Book of Chronicles liv'd after Ezra unless it can be gather'd thence that the Writer or Digester of the first Book of Chronicles liv'd later then he It must then be the Doctors meaning that the Writer or Digester of both the Books of Chronicles liv'd after Ezra's time It remains then that we examine what force there is in 1 Chron. 3. 17 c. to evince this The Doctor saith that 1 Cbron 3. 17. to the end of the Chapter mention is made of Eight generations in descent from Salathiel that must needs imply an extension of time beyond that of Ezra He brings also a Note of the Assembly of Divines to confirm this As to which Note it will suffice to observe 1. That whereas the Doctor saith Eight generations they in that Note express themselves more cautiously saying only Many generations for it is not clear how many they were 2. In it they take for granted that the generations mention'd 1 Chron. 3. extended beyond the days of Ezra when as they should have prov'd it 3. In that very Note they are manifestly against the Doctor shewing plainly that it cannot be gather'd from the mention of some generations which as they suppose were after Ezra that the Writer or Digester of the Books of Chronicles liv'd after his time for say they Ezra might by a Prophetical Spirit set them down beforehand Besides it appears from those words that they inclin'd to think that Ezra himself was the Writer of these Books But it may be said that the words immediately following do make altogether for the Doctor for they say that some other Prophet after Ezra's death might add them To which I reply that there is no agreement at all between them and the Doctor for 1. The Doctor says positively that it appears to him that the Writer or Digester of these Books of Chronicles liv'd after Ezra's time they say only that some Prophet after Ezra's death might add some generations at the end of the third Chapter of the first Book 2. They say that some Prophet after Ezra's death might add them as the death and burial of Moses is added to his last Book Deut. 34. Thus they As then it cannot be concluded from the addition of the death and burial of Moses Deut. 34 that the rest of the Book of Deuteronomy was not written by Moses so it cannot be gathered from the addition of a generation or two 1 Chron. 3 that the rest of the Books of Chronicles was not writ by Ezra 3. The mention of adding them after Ezra's death implies that the Books to which they were added were writ before his death This Note then clearly overthrows that for which it is alledg'd by the Doctor As to the Book of Ezra the Doctor further hints that in the Preface of the Seventh Chapter which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Compilers mark is visible Thus the Doctor s. 8. As if it was visible and apparent from these words Ezra 7. 1. After these things that we owe all the Six Chapters foregoing not to Ezra himself but the Compiler Or as if Ezra having in the Six former Chapters dispatched the History of Cyrus Darius c. and now passing to that of Artaxerxes from whom he receiv'd his Commission might not use this note of connexion Now after these things How frequently do these words occur as in the History of the Old and New Testament so in all other Histories whatsoever As to the Book of Nehemiah the Doctor offers nothing at all that can tend to prove that so great a part of it as from Neh. 11. 3. to Neh. 12. 27. is not his own
late Chronologers Only it may not be amiss to represent how Scaliger is not only at variance with others but oftentimes also with himself and how his adversary Petavius is very unhappy in this respect as well as he is And in doing this I shall also confine my self to the time of the Assyrian Monarchy I begin with Scaliger Troy was taken An. 408 before the first Olympiad Scalig. de Emend temp l. 1. de Periodo Attica Edit 2. Troy was taken An. 406 before the first Olympiad Scaliger de Emend l. 5. de Ilii excidio Edit 1. The opinion that Troy was taken An. 407 before the first Olympiad is more certain by much Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de Ilii excidio Edit 2. Troy was taken An. Period Julian 3533 Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de Ilii excidio Edit 1. Troy was taken An. Per. Jul. 3531 Scalig. de Emend lib. 5. de Ilii excidio Edit 2. The first Olympiad was celebrated in the 36 th year of Azariah or Uzziah King of Judah Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Olympiadum Edit 2. The first Olympiad was in the 37 th year of Azariah Scalig. Animadv in Euseb. in An. 1241. The death of Nabopolassar was in An. Nabonassar 149 Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nebuchodonosor Edit 2. Nabopolassar dy'd in An. Nabonassar 152 Scalig. in Fragment p. 11. and in Canon Isagog l. 3. Nabopolassar reign'd only 19 years Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nebucbodon Edit 1. Nabopolassar reign'd 29 years complete and dy'd in the 30 of his reign Scalig. in Fragment p. 10 and 11. Nabopolassar dy'd in the beginning of the 29 year of his reign Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nabopolassar Edit 2. The beginning of Nebuchadnezzars reign was An. Per. Jul. 4107 Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nabuchodonosor Edit 1. The first year of Nebuchadnezzar was An. Per. Jul. 4106 Scal. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nabuchodon Edit 2. Nebuchadnezzar reign'd 7 years with his Father Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nebuchod Edit 2. Nabuchadnezzar reign'd almost 13 years with his Father Scalig. in Fragment p. 14. Nebuchadnezzars death was An. Nabonassar 185 Scaliger de Emend l. 5. de initio Nahuchod Edit 2. Nebuchadnezzar dy'd An. Nabonassar 183 Scalig. in Fragment p. 14. These are some instances of Scaligers uncertainty and inconstancy with which Petavius frequently upbraids him and had been the more excusable if he was not guilty of the like himself But his inconstancy will also appear by the following instances The Kingdom of the Sicyonians begun An. Per. Jul. 2548 Petav. de doctrina temporum l. 9. c. 16. The Kingdom of the Sicyonians begun An. Per. Jul. 2550 Petav. de doct temp l. 13. Inachus begun to reign An. Per. Jul. 2856 179 years after the birth of Abraham Petav. de doctr temp l. 9. c. 18. Inachus's reign begun An. Per. Jul. 2857. in the 6 th year after the death of Abraham i. e. 181 after his birth Petav. Rationar part 2. l. 2. c. 5. The 7 th year of Pygmalion was An. Per. Jul. 3822 Petav. de doctr temp l. 9. c. 62. The 7 th of Pygmalion was An. Per. Jul. 3825 Petav. Rationar part 2. l. 2. c. 13. The first Olympiad was An. 776 before the birth of Christ Petav. Rationar part 1. l. 2. c. 5. The first Olympiad was An. 777 before our Saviours birth Petav. Rationar part 2. l. 1. c. 11 and l. 3. c. 1 and 2. Nebucbadnezzar begun the siege of Tyre An. Per. Jul. 4122 Petav. Rationar part 2. l. 2. c. 13. The siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar begun An. Per. Jul. 4123 Petav. de doct temp l. 9. c. 63. To these we may add that Petavius makes one and the same year to answer to several years It is An. Per. Jul. 3961 in which he supposes Rome to have been built This answers to An. 752 before the birth of Christ so Petav. de doctr temp l. 9. c. 50. to An. 753 before Christ so in his Rationar part 1. l. 2. c. 7. to An. 754 before Christ so in Rationar part 2. l. 3. c. 2. Finally in the end of his Books de doct temp being about to give us the succession of the Kings in several Kingdoms he himself is pleased to acquaint us that he there gives an account of the beginning of the reigns of divers Kings somewhat different from that which he had given before in the Books themselves and this more especially in the Macedonian Kings We see then how wavering and unconstant these Learned men are in their Chronology and the great cause of their inconstancy is the uncertainty of it This uncertainty Petavius acknowledges as to the time of the creation of the World The number of the years from the Worlds creation to this time neither is certainly known nor can be without a Divine Revelation These are the words of Petavius de doct temp l. 9. c 2. which may be appli'd to many other Epocha's about which Chronologers dispute with very great earnestness I have inlarged the more upon this subject because of the great necessity and usefulness of mens being convinc'd of this uncertainty of Chronology of which we treat which will appear if we consider the many mischiefs which have been occasion'd by the want of such conviction From the want of this have proceeded many eager disputes about matters appertaining to Chronology and those manag'd with the greatest wrath and bitterness imaginable If Syncellus had been convinc'd of this uncertainty he would have been more favourable to Eusebius and not taken all occasions of reprehending him and that many times in very rude and unbecoming language Had others after him been throughly convinc'd of it and seriously consider'd it it would have prevented the heats between Scaliger and the German Divines and Scaliger would not have fallen so foul upon our M r Lydiat endeavouring to expose him and triumphing over him with the greatest scorn and contempt In like manner he treated all others that opposed him or only dissented from him inveighing against every one that did not fall down and worship every imagination of his not sparing either Ancient Writers or Modern but passing the severest censures upon both The consideration of this uncertainty might also have prevented the scuffles between Is. Vossius and his Countrymen that set themselves so fiercely against him Add hereto that if this uncertainty had been duly considered the World would not have been burthen'd with many tedious and voluminous writings such as Scaligers two Editions of his De emendatione Temporum and his Canones Isagog c. also Petavius's two Volumes De doctrina Temporum Finally for want of the consideration of this not a few have spent a great part of their life in the study of Chronology and many of them men of extraordinary parts and great diligence so that if the time and industry which they laid out upon
two months or three months perhaps after is that which I can by no means subscribe to To conclude it cannot be determin'd certainly what month it was whether Dystrus as Serarius thought or Dius as Grotius or Dystro-Xanthicus as the Arch-Bishop but of all the conjectures which I have seen the Doctors conjecture seems to be the least probable CHAP. IV. Of the time when Artaxerxes Longimanus begun his reign THE Arch-Bishop A. M. 3531 sets thè beginning of Artaxerxes's reign 9 years before the received account He was persuaded to set it so soon by the Testimonies of Eusebius and Thucydides Eusebius says that Themistocles fled to the Persians Olymp. 76. An. 4 and Thucydides accordingly refers Themistocles's coming to Artaxerxes to the time between the siege of Naxos and the noble victory which Cimon obtain'd against the Persian at Eurymedon also he refers the beginning of Artaxerxes's reign to the same time For he says that Themistocles writ a letter then to Artaxerxes newly reigning Thus the Arch-Bishop Now it may be that he is singular in this opinion about the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes he himself insinuates so much It must be granted also that the time of Themistocles's flight is not agreed upon and indeed is one great instance of the uncertainty of Chronology For Plutarch writes that Ephorus Dinon Clitarchus Heraclides and many more say that Themistocles came into Persia in the time of Xerxes but that Charon Lamsacenus agrees with Thucydides and affirms that he came to Artaxerxes his son Xerxes being dead also Plutarch adds that Thucydides agrees better with the Annals Cornelius Nepos also follows Thucyaides thô he was not ignorant that others were of a different opinion from him But suppose Thucydides Charon Lamsacenus and Cornel. Nepos to be certainly in the right in affirming that Themistocles fled to Artaxerxes yet whether it can be infer'd thence that the beginning of Artaxerxess reign was so soon as the Arch-Bishop hath set it is another question which I shall not take upon me to determine I shall therefore only 1. Briefly thew the insufficiency of the Doctors answer to that which the Arch-Bishop alledges 2. Take notice of an unbecoming reflection of his upon the Arch-Bishop The Doctors answer to the Arch-Bishop we have Part 2. l. 1. c. 11. s. 8. n. 1 2 3. To Eusebius he opposes Diodorus Sioul l. 11. by whom he says it is clearly asserted that the time of Themistocles's flight was Olymp. 77. An. 2 not Olympiad 76. An. 4. as Eusebius To Thucydides he opposes the same Diodorus Sie and Justin who as he says clearly assert that Cimons victory at Eurymedon was in the time of Xerxes As to Themistocles's letter to Artaxerxes he says 1. The date of it is not known possibly was not known to Thucydides himself 2. It is not without great suspition that it was an Athenian trick an invention of Themistocles's enemies a letter framed on purpose to blast his reputation even after his death 3. If it was true it only evinceth this that Themistocles lived so long an Exile abroad as to the time of Artaxerxes his reign This is the summ of the Doctors answer To which I reply 1. It is not clearly asserted by Diodorus Sicul. that the time of Themistocles his flight was Olymp. 77. An. 2. He indeed speaks of it in that year as he does also of his Ostracism and death He thought it best to dispatch at once all that concern'd Themistocles's fall and so in that year he gives us an account of his Ostracism or Banishment his going to Argos his flight from thence to Admetus and afterwards from Admetus into Asia his journey from thence to the Persian Court and what befel him there and lastly of his death Not that all these fell out in that year for there was a considerable time from his Ostracism to his coming to the Persian Court and a considerable time again from his coming thither to his death but it is Diodorus Sicul. his usual way to throw things thus together that belong to the same subject As then from his mentioning Themistocles's Ostracism and death in that year we cannot conclude that they fell out that year so from the mention of his flight in that year i cannot be concluded that it happen'd then However it is plain that it is not clearly asserted by Diodorus Siculus that the time of Themistocles's flight was Olymp. 77. An. 2 let the Doctor say what he pleases 2. It is very true that Diodorus Sicul. and Justin do make Cimons victory to have been in the time of Xerxes differing therein from Thucydides and as is probable following Ephorus Dinon and others who refer Themistocles's flight to the time of Xerxes but as Cornel. Nepos rather believ'd Thucydides about the time of Themistocles's flight because he liv'd near the time of Themistocles and was of the same City so may we rather believe him about the time of Cimons victory upon the same motives 3. As to the letter with which the Doctor is so much troubled 1. If the date of it be not known how comes the Doctor to know it so well as to be able to tell us that it is of the same date with the story of Themistocles's drinking Bulls bloud 2. Why says the Doctor that possibly the date of it was not known to Thucydides when Thucydides plainly tels us that Themistocles writ the letter after that he was come to Ephesus being gone from thence into the midland Countries 3. If there be so great suspition that it was an Athenian trick it is strange that Thucydides and Corn. Nepos who transcribes the letter from him were not aware of it It must be acknowledg'd that the Doctor was very quick sented that could smell it out at such a distance when those Authors which were much nearer did not 4. It is most strange that the Doctor should say that if it be true it evinces only this that Themistocles liv'd so long as to the time of Artaxerxes's reign As if the writing this letter was one of the last acts he did whereas he writ it as we have seen before his coming to the Persian Court and consequently Artaxerxes had begun his reign then Finally should we be so liberal to the Doctor as to grant that the letter is supposititious he will gain little by it for it is still apparent that Thucydides believ'd that Artaxerxes had begun to reign before Themistocles's coming into Persia. The Doctors unbecoming reflection upon the Arch-Bishop is in s. 8. n. 4. where he says that we must take notice that the knitting all these knots and patching together those shreds as 1. Themistocles's courtly letter 2. Eusebius's incongruous Annotation 3. Ctesias's authorizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Artabanus nothing to the purpose these are upon design to make a boulster for the Bishops interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel Thus the Doctor As if the Arch-Bishop foresaw that the Doctor would lay his
Scheme out of Justin and observing that Justin makes the Assyrian Empire to have continued only 1300 years he adds that this comes nearer to the Scripture and again that it agrees very well both with the Scripture and with the AEra Babylonica In a word unless there was a better accord among Historiographers about the time of the duration of that Empire about the number of the Kings and of the years that they reign'd there can be no certainty either in the Doctors Scheme or in any other whatsoever It is plain then that he hath fallen far short of demonstrating that we must read Fifty generations instead of five By the way the Doctor forgot to tell us that he was oblig'd to Scaliger fragment p. 42. for this Criticism or perhaps he was not willing to mention him for this reason among others because thô Scaliger thought that it should be Fifty generations yet he differs from him in the conclusion for he says that they amount to more then 1666 years and being computed backward end in the reign not of Semiramis but of Ninus himself But it may be said If we retain the usual reading it will not help the Arch-Bishop at all who makes Semiramis to have reign'd about the time of the Trojan war For if she was but Five generations before Nitocris and if Nitocris liv'd about An. Per. Jul. 4160 then Semiramis must have been 500 years at the least after the siege of Troy since according to this account she was only 166 years before Nitocris for Five generations according to the foremention'd rule amount to no more But to answer this briefly Suppose that all the rest was granted the Doctor as I observ'd before hath not prov'd either that Nitocris liv'd about An. P. J. 4160 or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Herodotus amount to no more then 166 years All his proof for the former is that Without doubt it must be so For the later he brings a rule out of Herodotus l. 2. c. 142. to which I have already answer'd that it is not necessary that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have the same signification in Herodotus l. 1. c. 184. that it hath l. 2. c. 142 especially when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyn'd with it in the later place not in the former But further 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst other things signifies an Age Seculum see the Lexicon Graecolatinum vetus yea the Doctors great friend Is. Vossius says that it not only signifies an Age or 100 years but sometimes above 100 years Imo etiam 100 aliquando uti est apud Theophrastum vel etiam 110 annorum intervallum continet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut docet Phlegon They are the words of Vossius con Hornium Castigat ad c. 6. Now the word being interpreted in this sense Herodotus says that Semiramis was 550 years before Nitocris and so rather confirms the Arch-Bishops opinion concerning the time when Semiramis reign'd CHAP. VI. Who Nabonasar was THE Arch-Bishop A. M. 3257. makes Belesis who obtain'd the Kingdom of Babylon after the death of Sardanapalus to be the same with him whom Hipparchus Ptolemaeus and Censorinus call Nabonasar The Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 17. falls foully upon him for this and yet hath very little to say against it That which he doth say is 1. That there is a project in it viz. to bring down Sardanapalus 100 years and more lower in time then all Historians and Chronologers before did set him 2. That he will not believe it 3. That Herodotus hath no cover for this dish Now for answer to these particulars I need not insist upon any of them but the first For as to the 2 d Thô the Doctor will not believe that Belesis was Nabonasar this notwithstanding it may be very true And as to the 3 d We need not go to Herodotus for a cover since the Doctor hath not discover'd any nakedness in the Arch-Bishops opinion The first then only remains in which the Doctor hath brought forth all the Historians and Chronologers that were before him against the Arch-Bishop all these set Sardanapalus more then 100 years higher then he doth To which I shall only say that I cannot commend the Doctors prudence in using this large expression All Historians and Chronologers for I can affirm that there are some who do not set Sardanapalus so high as he pretends Bibliander refers the beginning of the reign of Sardanapalus to the 25 year of Amaziah King of Judah S r W. Rawleigh to his 21 Funccius and Salianus to his 20 Torniellus to his 19 Constantinus Phrygio and Bunting to his 18 Eusebius to his 16 Gordon to his 13 or 14 Simson to his 10 Syncellus to the 7 and Freculphus to the time of Azariah or Vzziah the Son and Successor of Amaziah Orosius l. 1. c. 19 to the 64 year before the building of Rome Now there is not one of all these that sets Sardanapalus more then 100 years higher then the Arch-Bishop doth According to the Arch-Bishop Sardanapalus's reign begun 19 years before the building of Rome and according to Orosius it begun but 64 years before it the difference between them is only 45 years Freculphus and the Arch-Bishop refer the beginning of his reign to the time of the same King of Judah viz. Vzziah and the Arch-Bishop particularly to Vzziahs 44 year and so they cannot differ above 43 years They that make him to have begun his reign in the time of Amaziah do indeed set him higher then Orosius and Freculphus do but Syncellus who goes the highest of them differs not above 66 years from the Arch-Bishop for from the 7 of Amaziah who reign'd but 29 years in all 2 Kings 14. 2. and 2 Chron. 25. 1. to the 44 of Vzziah there are no more unless it be admitted that there was an interregnum And it must be a very long interregnum of almost 40 years to make the distance twixt the 7 year of the Father to the 44 year of the Son to have been above 100 years Add hereto that Bede who refers the death of Sardanapalus to the time of Vzziah and so the Chronicon at the end of De la Hays Biblia magna which refers it to the 9 year of the same Vzziah do not set him more then 100 years higher then the Arch-Bishop doth The same must be said of Bucholzer who makes Sardanapalus's his death to have happen'd An. 823 before Christ when according to the Arch-Bishop it fell out An. 748 before him Finally Genebrard and our M r Lydiat who will have Saraanapalus to have been the same with Esarhaddon Isa. 37. 38. or Assaradon-Pul as they call him do bring down Sardanapalus many years lower then the Arch-Bishop sets him for Esarhaddon did not reign before the time of Hezekiah I may then safely conclude that the Arch-Bishop had no such project to bring down Sardanapalus more then 100 years lower
above 20 years from him Besides the Arch-Bishop is misrepresented by the Doctor for the Doctor says that according to the Arch-Bishop that interval of time from the first of Sethosis to the first year of Sesac was 506 years whereas the Arch-Bishop makes it to have been 513 years for according to him Sethosis begun his reign An. Per. Jul. 3223. not 3230 as the Doctor would persuade us and Sesac begun his An. Per. Jul. 3736. In the very same Chapter the Doctor will not allow that AEgyptus was the same with Sethosis as the Arch-Bishop An. Per. Jul. 3232 will have him to have been but Sethosis was the Son of AEgyptus if the Doctor be in the right Yet the Doctor confesseth that herein he differs from several others as well as from the Arch-Bishop and I am apt to think that in making Sethosis the Son of AEgyptus he is singular neither Eusebius nor Syncellus hath any cover for this dish if I may use the Doctors own expression Yea the Doctor contradicts Eusebius and Syncellus as well as the Arch-Bishop for they say that Armais was the same with Danaus and Ramasses the same with Egyptus but the Doctor supposes Danaus and AEgyptus to have been other persons and of another family As to Sethosis the Arch-Bishop transcribes the words of Manetho ap Joseph c. Apion l. 1. who says that Sethosis was call'd AEgyptus and his brother Armais Danaus who also distinguisheth Armais the brother of Sethosis from a former Armais that reign'd long before him The Doctor Part 2. l. 2. s. 2. c. 1. says that whereas Josephus Ant. l. 13. 5. writes that Jonathan received the Stole four years after the death of Judas Bishop Usher roundly censures this as an ofcitancy in him Thus the Doctor But I wish he had produc'd the words in which the Arch-Bishop roundly censures it as an oscitancy T is true A. M. 3852. he calls it an errour but withall as he tells us what led Josephus into that errour so he makes him so ingenuous as afterwards viz. Ant. l. 20. c. 8. to retract that which induc'd him into it CHAP. XIII Of the duration of the Assyrian Monarchy and of Herodotus also of the Median Succession THat by which the Arch-Bishop hath most disoblig'd the Doctor is still behind viz. his shortning the Median Succession by 167 years and the duration of the Assyrian Monarchy by many more For this the Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 18. declaims most earnestly against the Arch-Bishop calling it the modelling a new Chronology and asking what Scaliger Eusebius and Africanus would have said if they had heard of this adventure how says he would they have stood amaz'd In this heat he runs on till he is out of breath and not content with this he brings in Is. Uossius inveighing against the Arch-Bishop in like manner At last he begins to think it necessary to give some satisfactory answer to Herodotus on whom the Arch-Bishop relies and in order to this he prays us to review that which he had written in the Chapter of the Medes i. e. the 15 Chapter foregoing Herodotus speaks of no Kings of the Medes before Deioces and says that after their revolt from the Assyrians the Medes were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 governed by their own Laws Accordingly the Arch-Bishop after Arbaces who deliver'd the Medes from the Assyrian yoke so that they were now free to live by their own Laws mentions no Kings of the Medes before Deioces see the Arch-Bishop A. M. 3257 and 3294. What says the Doctor Chapt. 15. to this He says that because Herodotus speaks of no Kings before Deioces we must not argue from thence that there were none as we must not by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Herodotus speaks understand a perfect Anarchy or that during that time they had no Kings at all for says he this is disproved by the authority of Ctesias ap Diodor. Sic. who mentions both the names of several Kings and the years of their reign And so Chapt. 18. it is noted as one of the Arch-Bishops mistakes that by Herodotus's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he understands a perfect Anarchy But what if the Doctor himself prove to be mistaken in thinking that the Arch-Bishop intended to conclude that there were no Kings only from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Herodotus's not mentioning any Herodotus writes that Rapines and other lawless pranks growing more and more rife among them some advis'd that they should set over themselves a King that they might be govern'd by good Laws c. So they were persuaded to submit to Kings and presently enter'd into consultation about the person whom they should chuse Thus Herodotus l. 1. c. 97 98. From hence I think we may safely conclude that according to Herodotus they had no Kings at that time 'T is manifest that not only Vossius Castigat adc 10. but also Diodorus Sic. l. 2. did understand Herodotus thus that they were without Kings And as to Ctesias probably the Arch-Bishop saw no reason why his authority should be prefer'd to that of Herodotus This for the Median succession only I must add that the Doctor makes the Arch-Bishop to shorten it by 167 years whereas the Arch Bishop makes the duration of it but 130 years shorter then the Doctor himself doth for from Arbaces's freeing the Medes from the Assyrian yoke to the end of Astyages's reign the Arch-Bishop reckons 187 years and the Doctor reckons only 317. We now proceed to the Assyrian Monarchy to the duration of which from the beginning of the reign of Ninus to the death of Sardanapalus the Arch-Bishop allots only 520 years grounding himself says the Doctor upon Herodotus And it is very true that the Arch-Bishop alledges Herodotus l. 1. c. 95. for this who in express words saith as the Doctor translates him that the Assyrians holding the sway of the upper Asia some 520 years the Medes were the first that begun to break from them But then the Arch-Bishop also alledges Appian in Praefat who says that the three greatest Empires of the Assyrians Medes and Persians altogether did scarce make up the summ of 900 years And what says the Doctor to this He makes a short answer serve saying that there is no weight at all in it as to the purpose for which it is vouched But then he promiseth to give a satisfactory answer to Herodotus in order to which he first sets down the words of Herodotus at large both in Greek and English then he craves leave to note some mistakes and at last he will bring the business to account As to the mistakes the Arch-Bishop is only concern'd in two of them viz. the first and the third The first is the Arch-Bishop supposes that the Assyrian Monarchy old expire at the time of the Medes defection The third is that he supposes that Herodotus's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a perfect Anarchy To the latter of which it hath been
answer'd already that the Arch-Bishop is not concern'd whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessarily denotes an Anarchy or no for there are other passages in Herodotus transcrib'd by me a little above from which the Arch-Bishop might gather that the Medes had no King at that time and it is the Doctors mistake to think that the Arch-Bishop concluded it from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only As to the other mistake imputed to the Arch-Bishop viz. the supposing that the Assyrian Monarchy did expite at the time of the Medes defection I grant that the Arch-Bishop doth suppose this but deny that it is a mistake for when so large a Province as Media was revolted from them the Assyrians had not the Monarchy of upper Asia as before especially when Belesis had also obtain'd the Kingdom of Babylon But they had still a large Empire or Government as the Arch-Bishop tells us making Ninus junior to have succeeded Sardanapalus in it And yet the Doctor will prove that the Government was not extinguished as if the Arch-Bishop had said that it was whereas the Arch-Bishop says plainly that the Government was not extinct thô the Monarchy was And now the Doctor will bring the business to account He says that Herodotus's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begun about An. Per. Jul. 3000 and continued 1000 years and yet when he descends to particulars he accounts but 800 years from the beginning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the confederacy of Arbaces and Belesis and 180 years after it which two numbers do not make up 1000. But to pass by this the Doctors meaning is that whereas the Arch-Bishop conceiv'd that the defection of the Medes and the beginning of Herodotus's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the time of Arbaces he should have set it 800 years sooner about An. Per. Jul. 3000 and so the beginning of the Assyrian Monarchy 520 years before that i. e. about An. Per. Jul. 2480. Now there will not need any long answer to this since 1. The Doctor doth not alledge any Author that gives the least intimation of any defection of the Medes 800 years before Arbaces 2. No man that reads Herodotus can think that he ever as much as dream'd that the Medes continu'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the space of 1000 years 3. These accounts do not agree with the Doctors own Catalogues of the succession of the Assyrian Monarchs which he gives us in the beginning and end of this Chapter From the beginning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An. Per. Jul. 3000 or thereabouts to the confederacy of Arbaces and Belesis he accounts a space of 800 years but according to his Catalogues there were above 830 years between them He makes the Assyrian Monarchy to have begun 520 years before the beginning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was about An. Per. Jul. 3000 so that we must set the beginning of the Assyrian Monarchy about An. Per. Jul. 2480 now the Founders of the Assyrian Monarchy he makes to have been either Belus or Ninus and bids us reckon from either of them but according to the former Catalogue Belus begun his reign An. Per. Jul. 2378 Ninus An. Per. Jul. 2433 according to the later Belus's reign begun An. Per. Jul. 2353 and Ninus An. Per. Jul. 2408 now how will any of these accounts agree with the making the Assyrian Monarchy to begin about An. Per. Jul. 2480 Lastly in this account the duration of the Assyrian Monarchy is made to have been but 520 years and 800 years or three or four years more in all about 1320 years but in the former Catalogue the duration of it from Belus to the death of Sardanapalus is 1460 years in the later 1484 years and from Ninus to the death of Sardanapalus according to both Catalogues above 1400 years It seems then that the Doctor hath not brought the business to an exact account Add that according to the Doctor the Medes were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the time of Sardanapalus whereas Diodorus Sic. l. 2. plainly testifies that they were then under the Empire or Dominion of the Assyrians Therefore upon second thoughts in this very Chapter s. 13. the Doctor could be content to wave this answer and pitch upon another for which he is beholden to his friend Vossius viz. that Herodotus hath been tamper'd with and that he wrote 1500 not 520 as our copies have it And I coufess that this is a very easie way of answering If we may at pleasure without the warrant of any other copy change 520 into 1500 and 5 generations into 50 and 30 or 35 into 40 all which the Doctor doth in this Chapter we need not fear any objection from the authority of any Writer whatsoever I think that the Doctor had done much better if he had wav'd both these answers and either turn'd off Herodotus as he doth Appian or rested in that which he says before that Herodotus was fabellarum pater and not to be regarded CHAP. XIV Of the duration of the Assyrian Monarchy against D r Is. Vossius IS Vossius in Dissert de aetate Mundi c. 5. says that all those that follow the Masorites Bible do make Ninus and Semiramis to have reign'd in the 58 year after the Floud Hornius in Dissert de aetate Mundi c. 8. objects against this that Usher refers their reign to A. M. 2737 so that they were almost 11 ages after the Floud Hereupon Vossius in Castigat ad c. 8. inveighs against the Arch-Bishop for cutting off at least 8 ages from the time that was from Ninus to Sardanapalus making the whole time between them to have been only 496 years and for omitting all the Assyrian Kings from Ninyas to Sardanapalus and this without reason or authority To Herodotus whom the Arch-Bishop alledgeth and who saith that first the Medes begun to revolt from the Assyrians when they had enjoy'd the Empire of the upper Asia 520 years Vossius Castigat ad c. 10. answers that he is to be understood thus viz. that when the Empire of the Assyrians had continu'd 520 years the Medes begun to revolt from them by little and little and to become a Nation sui juris yet without Kings and that Deioces was the first that invaded the Tyranny Also to Herodotus he opposes Ctesias who begins the Kingdom of the Medes not with Deioces but Arbaces whom he makes to have possess'd the city Ninus and part of Assyria whereas Herodotus writes that Cyaxares did this a long time after Thus Vossius Hornius in his Defensio c. 31. asks Vossius where he had his Paulatim that the Medes did revolt by little and little Then he alledges Dionysius Harlicarn l. 1. who refers the Empire of the Assyrians to the fabulous times and says that the Assyrians possess'd a small part of Asia therefore says Hornius it is false which others write of the vast dominion of Ninus Semiramis and their successors Also he alledges Strabo l. 11. who