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
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
would deduce its Origin not from the time of this solemn Edict or Commandment but from that time when God foretold the rebuilding of the Temple and City by the Prophet But the Jews make themselves most ridiculous in that to invalidate the Arguments of the Christians by which they prove from this Prophecy that the Messias is already come they pretend to put this fictitious Computation upon the World that the Weeks of Daniel ought to begin with the Destruction of the first and end with the Destruction of the second Temple so that the 70 years of their Captivity during which time the Temple remained desolate is to be added to 410 years which they say is the time the 2d Temple has stood as may be seen in their Chron. Major in Rabbi Isaac Abarbinel Rabbi Isaac Ben Abraham and others of the same Stamp This Opinion is contradictory to the express Words of the Angel That from the going forth of the Commandment to restore the City these 70 Weeks are to be computed Besides that it is l Cap. 9. v. 17. absolutely false that there is an Interval of 490 years betwixt the Destruction of the first and the second Temple For as has been sufficiently demonstrated before n the Destruction of the first Temple hapned in the Year of the Julian Period 4124 whereas the second Temple was laid in Ashes in the Year of the Julian Period 4783 so that the whole Interval amounts to no less than 659 years It is also quite beyond the Purpose when the Jews pretend to explain the Words of the Angel concerning the Messiah of King Cyrus For tho' we read in (o) C. 45. v. 1. Isaiah Thus said the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus no Infetence is to be made from thence that the Word Messiah either by it self or with such Attributes as occur in this Passage of Daniel are ever applied in the Scripture to any Earthly Prince See D. Mulleri Judaism c. 10. and Constantini L'Empereur Annotat. ad Jachiâ—d § 5. We read of four several Edicts concerning Four several Edicts concerning the Rebuilding of the City occur in the Scripture the Restauration of the Jews and the Rebuilding of the Temple and City in the Holy Scripture The first we meet with is in (p) C. 1. v. 1. Ezra In the first Year of Cyrus King of Persia that the Word of the Lord by the Mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled the Lord stirred up the Spirit of Cyrus King of Persia that he made a Proclamation throughout all his Kingdom and put it also in Writing saying Thus said Cyrus King of Persia The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdoms of the Earth and he hath charged me to build him an House at Jerusalem which is in Judah Who is there among you of all his People His God be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah and build the House of the Lord God of Israel he is the God which m Ch. 22. is in Jerusalem c. The same Words we read also in the (q) C. 6. â— â—2 2â— Chronicles pursuant to the Prophecy of (r) C. â—â— Isaiah The second Mandate or Edict concerning this Restitution is describ'd likewise by (s) C 6. v. â—â— 11. 12. Ezra which being sent by Darius in the same year that the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah began to prophesie to the Governours beyond the River contains the following Words Let the Work of this House of God alone Let the Governour of the Jews and the Elders of the Jews build this House of God in his Place c. Also I have made a Decree that whosoever shall alter this Word let Timber be pulled down from his House and being set up let him be hanged thereon and let his House be made a Dunghil for this And the God that hath caused his Name to dwel there destroy all Kings and People that shall put to their Hand to alter and to destroy this House of God which is at Jerusalem I Darius have made a Decree let it be done with speed And the Prophecies of Hâ—ggai and Zachariah cited by Ezra mention expresly the second Year of Darius and the Month. for thus we read in Haggai Chap. 1. v. 1. seq In the second Year of Darius the King in the sixth Month in the first Day of the Month â—â—me the Word of the Lord by Haggai the Prophet unto Zetubbabel the Son of Shealtiel Governour of Judah and to Joshua the Son of Josedech the High Priest saying thus saith the Lâ—rd of Hosts c. Go up to the Mountain and bring Wood and build the House and I will take Pleasure in it and I will be glorified said the Lord The same Mandate is repeated by (t) C. 1. v 1. Zâ—chariah in the eighth Month of the same second Year of Darius when pursuant to God's Commandment and the Decree of the Persian King the Work was happily brought to Perfection according to the Words of Ezra (u) C. â— v. 15 16. And this House was finished on the third Day of the Month Adar which was in the sixth year of the Reign of Darius the King And the Children of Israel the Priests and the Levites and the rest of the Children of the Captivity kept the Dedication of this House with Joy The third Edict is likewise described by (x) C. 7. v. â— sâ—qâ— Ezra This Ezra went up from Babylon and the King granted him all his Request according to the Hand of the Lord his God upon him And there went up some of the Children of Israel and of the Priests and the Levites and the Singers and the Porters and the Nethinims unto Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes the King And he came to Jerusalem in the 5th Month which was in the 7th Year of the King This Decree of King Artaxerxes granâ—s full Liberty to the Jews to return to Jerusalem and exempts all the Priests Levites and other Ministers of the House of God from Toll Tribute or Custom The fourth Edict concerned particularly Nehemiah (y) Ezr. â— v. 13. 24. who in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes got leave to go to Jerusalem with the King's Letter to the Governours beyond the River and unto Asaph the Keeper of the King's Forests that he should give the Jews Timber to make Beams for the Gates â—f the Palace which appeâ—tâ—ineth to the House and for the Wall of the City and for the House he was to enter into as may be seen more at large in Nehemiah Chap. 2. from the 1st to the 9th Verse And these are the four several Mandates concerning the Restauration of the Jews and the Rebuilding of the Temple and City unto one of which the Beginning of these 70 Weeks mâ—st be fixed For the better understanding of the different Opinions of the Chronologers concerning the Time and Reigns of these Kings unto whom the said Mandates are ascribed we have
sufficiently apparent out of Berosus that Nabuchodonosor the Son of Nabopolassar carried the Jews into Captivity and that Nabuchodonosor is the same with Nebuchadnezzar § 5. And there is an exact Harmony in the Of the time of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar Computation of the years of Nebuchadnezzar betwixt the Holy Scripture and the Fragments of Berosus to wit of 43 years For the first year of the Captivity of Jehoiachim was the eighth of (r) 2 Reg. 24. v. 12. Nebuchadnezzar and the 37th of his Captivity was coincident with the first year of (ſ) 2 Reg. 25. 27. Jer. 52. v. 35. Evilmerodach From whence it is evident that the foregoing year being the 36th of the Captivity of Jehoiachim was the 43d and last of Nebuchadnezzar § 6. Besides there is a remarkable Difference in Of the difference of the Names of the Chaldaean Kings the Names of these Kings betwixt the Sacred and prophane History But it appears sufficiently out of the History of Danicl that it was the Custom of the Chaldaeans to change their Names § 7. There is no question that during the Of the Vacancy in the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar Septennial Vacancy of the Throne under the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar when he was driven from among the Sons of Men (i) Daniel 5. v. 21. the Queen in Conjunction with the chief Men of the Kingdom had the Supreme Administration of Affairs Herodotus speaks much in Commendation of a certain Baylonian Queen called Nitocris which perhaps may have been the Queen Consort of Nebuchadnezzar § 8. There is also some difference in the Annals Of the difference in the Annals of these Kings of the Babylonian Kings for the same year which Daniel calls the third of Jehoiachim is called by Jeremiah the fourth of Jehoiachim And in the Ptolemaean Catalogue Nabopolassar has no more than 21 years assign'd him for his Reign whereas in the Fragments of Berosus his Reign is extended to 29 years Unto which we answer that First sometimes the incompleat years are taken for the Compleat ones Secondly that sometimes two have reigned together at the same time And Thirdly that the Historians have not always been careful alike in setting down the exact Number of years CHAP. XXI Of the Epocha and Intervel of the 70 years of the Babylonian Captivity mentioned 2 Chron. 36. v. 20 21. Jer. 25. 11. c. 29. v. 10 c. 1. This Epocha or Interval ought to be limited according to the Testimony of the Holy Scripture in the Chronicles Jeremiah and Ezekiel 2. The Beginning of this Epocha ought to be fixed to that time when the greatest part of the Jewish Nation together with their King were carried into Captivity 3. When these were carried away Captives to whom Jeremiah writ his Epistle from the 1st Verse to the 11th of the 24th Chapter 4. When those were carried away Captives of whom many returned afterwards ibid. (a) Cap. 25. v. 5. 5. When King Jehoiachim was carried into Captivity to wit in the 8th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar (b) 2 Reg. 24. v. 12. 6. It was the 9th year of the Captivity when the Babylonian King sate down before Jerusalem which was likewise the 9th of the Reign of Zedekiah (c) Jer. 39. v. 1. 7. The first year of the Destruction of the Temple was the 12th of the Captivity (d) Ezek. 33. v. 21. 8. The 21st year of the Captivity was coincident with the 4th year of the Desolation of the Temple of Solomon (e) Ezek. 40. v. 1. 9. The 5th year of the Captivity seems to be made coincident with the 30th year of Nabopolassar by Ezekiel (f) C. 1. v. 1 2. 10. In the 70th and last year of the Captivity Cyrus was Monarch not only over Persia but also over Babylon and of almost all Asia so that he might well make use of these Words The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdoms of the Earth (g) Ezr. 1. v. 2. From whence we conclude that the first year of the Captivity hapned in the year 4113 of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 25. ☽ 9. and that the said Interval ended in the year 4183 of the Julian Period If therefore 4113 or 4183 years be subtracted from any certain year of the Julian Period the To investigate the Beginning and End of this Epocha Residue shews the year since the Beginning or End of this Interval And if the said Numbers be added to the years of the Beginning or End of this Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THere are some who begin this Epocha Of the differences concerning the true beginning of this Epocha of the 70 years Captivity in the 13th year of Josiah which they end with the first year of the Persian Epocha or the Reign of Cyrus They have been mis-led into this Error because Jeremiah mentions the 13th year of Josiah from which time they pretend are to be computed 70 years to the beginning of the Persian Epocha But it being evident that in the 70th year after the 13th of Josiah Cyrus tho' at that time King of Persia yet was not Sovereign of Babylon how could he without the Approbation of the King of Babylon release the Jews from their Captivity § 2. Behmius Dionysius Petavius Robertus Bailius Whether they began with the 3 d or 4th year of Jehoiachim Vossius Simson Beroaldus with their Followers fix the Beginning of this Epocha in the 3d or 4th year of King Jehoiachim but it appears to me that (h) 1 Chron. 36. v. 6. Jehoiachim was never carried to Babylon as a Captive but that during the eleven years of his Reign he only was tributary or under the Subjection of (i) Dan. 1. v. 1. Nebuchadnezzar (k) 2 Reg. 24. v. 1. who also made War upon his Son because the Father had refused to obey his Commands so that it was (l) 2 Reg. 24. v. 12. Jehciachim who with the whole Royal Family and many thousand other Jews was carried into Captivity There is but one Objection of some Moment against us which is that if the Beginning of this Interval of 70 years be computed from the Captivity of Jehoiachim the same will not exactly be correspondent in its Period with the Epocha of Cyrus but this Objection will be answered hereafter in its proper Place when we shall treat of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus § 3. Eusebius (m) In Chron. Sulpitius Severus Johannes Whether from the first Destruction of Jerusalem Funccius and Hainlinus begin this Epocha of 70 years from the time of the first Destruction of the City of Jerusalem but they have been sufficiently refuted by (n) Man Chronol p. 107. Johannes Behmius Besides that Funccius has founded this Hypothesis upon another no less erroneous than this to wit that Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in Scripture is the same with King Nabopolassar
time of this The End of the 70 Weeks is to be fixt at the time of the Destruction of the City Epocha would have this Interval of the 70 Weeks finish at the time of the last Destruction of Jerusalem for which they alledge the Words of the (a) Daniel 9. ver 26. Angel And after threescore and two Weeks shall the Messiah be cut off So that according to their Opinion these threescore and two Weeks are to be added to the seven Weeks mentioned before by the Angel which together make up 59 Weeks till the final Period of this Epocha But as we shall have Occasion to say something more about the Division of this Epocha in 7 and 62 so we grant without the least Contradiction that the Birth and Passion of the Messiah hapned in this Interval of the 70 Weeks but cannot see that the least Consequence can be drawn from the Words of the Angel to make the final Period of this Epocha coincident with the time of the Passion of Christ For the very INSCRIPTION of this Interval expresses clearly the Meaning of the (b) Dan 9 v. 24. Angel which is THE REBUILDING AND DESTRUCTION OF THE HOLY CITY Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People and upon thy Holy City And it would be very hard to suppose that the Angel should recede in his subsequent Narration from what he had intimated before in his Introduction Certainly the Relation of an Historian would be look'd upon as very incompleat who having promised in his Preface to give an Account of Matters till the last Destruction of Jerusalem should break off the Thread of his History 40 years before the said Destruction hapned Besides if we look upon the 26th and 27th Verses of the 9th Chapter of Daniel it will be obvious that the End of these 70 Weeks is described in such a Manner as has a most particular Relation to the Destruction of the City by the Romans the Forerunner of which was the Abomination of Desolation cited by (c) Mat. 25. v. 15. Mark 13. v. 14. Christ out of Daniel and who could be a more excellent Interpreter of the Angelical Prediction than Christ himself § 17. Having said enough concerning our Hypothesis Concerning the Divisiâ—n of the 70 Weeks into â—â— and 62. of the Beginning and End of this Interval we must add something also concerning the Division of it These are the Words of (d) L. 6. de emend Temp. Scaliger In this Division some look for a Mystery others divide them into several Intervals so as to begin the first Interval of 7 Weeks with the time of the first Edict of Darius the second from thence of 62 Weeks unto which they add one at last I am against both For I see no more Mystery in the Division of this Interval of 70 Weeks than in the Division of the Shekel in Ezekiel c. Which Opinion is likewise embraced by (e) Orat. de 70 Hebd Calixtus Tho' we have for the most part agreed with Scaliger as to the Beginning and End of this Epocha yet we cannot but blame his Presumption in making so little Account of the Division of this Interval made by the Angel himself and I am perswaded that there are few who will imagine that this exact Division of the 70 Weeks in so solemn a Prophecy as this could be accidental and of no Moment See (f) Lib. 3. can 5â— Clas Philol. Sacr. And concerning the Passage in Ezekiel with an Answer to the Argument of Scaliger consult (g) Disp 10. Thes 16. Francius in Schol. Sacrif § 18. Scaliger as he makes the Beginning of Whether the 20 and 12 Weeks have a different Beginning the 70 Weeks coincident with the 2d Year of Darius Nothus and its End with the last Destruction of the City of Jerusalem So he finishes the 62 Weeks with the Passion of Christ and fixes their Beginning in the 5th Year of Artax Memor with whom agree in this Opinion Tremellius Junius and several other Modern Authors as there are not wanting on the other hand some who alledge that if the 70 and 62 Weeks had a different Beginning the Word Commandment or Edict mentioned by the Angel should have been express'd in the plural Number Those who cannot agree with the Opinion of Scaliger I would advise to fix the Beginning of these 62 Weeks in the 2d Year of Darius Nothus and to include in that Interval the 7 Weeks allotted for the Rebuilding of the Streets and Walls of the City But lest we should exceed the Bounds of an Epitome we will conclude this Chapter leaving the Determination of the Matter to every one 's own Judgment CHAP. XXX Of the Epocha of the Graecian Empire in Asia and the Beginning of the Epocha after the last Battle fought betwixt Alexander the Great and Darius Codomannus and of the Period of Calippus 1. The Origin of the Graecian Empire in Asia must be traced to that time when Alexander the Great was declared Imperator over all Greece who succeeded his Father in the Kingdom in the same Year that Eveneto was Archon at Athens and L. Furius and C. Menius were Consuls at Rome 2. Darius Codomannus began his Reign over Persia much about the same time that Alexander succeeded his Father Philip in the Kingdom of Macedonia 3. Just before the Graecian Expedition against Asia the Thebans were vanquished at which time Alexander pursuant to the Resolution taken in the Council did totally destroy the City of Thebes and thereby put all the other Graecian Commonwealths that were much inclined to revolt under a great Consternation 4. In the same Year that Ctesicles was Archon at Athens and Caius Sulpicius and Lucius Papyrius Roman Consuls Alexander marched at the Head of his Army to the Hellespont from whence having transported his Forces out of Europe into Asia he fought the Battle of Granicum 5. In the second Year of the Asiatick War when the Battle near Issus was fought Nicocratus was Archon at Athens and Caesus Duilius and L. Papyrius Consuls of Rome 6. In the third Year of this Asiatick War of the Greeks Nicocratus was Archon among the Athenians and M. Attilius and M. Valesius Consuls of Rome 7. In the same third Year and in the second before the Battle of Gaugamela was the 114th Olympiad celebrated where Grylus of Chalcedon carried the Day and in the same Year Tyrus was likewise taken by Alexander 8. In the 4th Year of this Asiatick War when Darius was vanquished at Gaugamela Aristophanes was Archon of Athens and Sp. Posthumius and T. Veturius Roman Consuls 9. In the same Year that the Battle of Gaugamela was fought Alexander after his Return from the Temple of Jupiter Hammonius founded the City of Alexandria For these Characters we are obliged to (a) Lib. 17. Diodorus Siculus which are for the most part approved by other Historians 10. Alexander after the Victory obtained over Darius near Gaugamela made himself