Sabbatic Year as the first Day of Creation was the first in the Hebdomadic Cycle For this Opinion seems not improbable when the Reason of this Cycle was not less universal than that of the Diurnal Hebdomadic Cycle Therefore the Opinion of Rob. Pontanus Cáledonius a Britain does not displease us when he asserts as much saying (p) De Sabbaticorum Annorum Period c. 2. p. 13. That the Reason of this sacred Observation preceeding by sevens has its Foundation in the Law of Nature as the Example of God himself which precedes all Laws from whence we may fairly gather that this Reason of reckoning by Sabbaths has respect to the Original of the Word and by a continual Series to be deduced from the first Sabbath That as God himself rested from the Work of Creation on the 7th Day so those Years of Rest Sabbaths and Jubile's came from the same exemplary Principle § 5. Some of the Jewish (q) Mâ—imonides c. 10. de Schemitha Jobel Rabbi's seem to The Sabbatic Cycle is a Character of certain and indubitable credit in respect of Time derogate from the Certainty of this Character when they tell us The Israelites had reckoned 17 Jubile's from the time they went into the Land of Canaan till the time they went out of it again And the Year in which they went out when the first Temple was destroyed was at the end of a seventh Year and the 36th of a Jubile For the first Temple stood 410 Years and after it was destroyed this Computation was also lost and abolished from thence the Land lay desart 70 Years and the 2 d Temple was built which stood 420 Years And in the 7th after it was rebuilt Esdras returned and restored this Aera the 2 d time And from that Year they began to reckon another Aera and made the 3 d Year of the 2 d Temple Sabbatic And they reckoned 7 Sabbatisms and consecrated the 50th Year altho' it was not Jubile yet they reckoned under the 2 d Temple so as that they did consecrate Sabbatisms Dionysius Petavius also follows Maimonides and is also of this Opinion (r) Lib. 9. de Doctrina Temp. c. 26. But as the Ignorance of the Jews in Chronological Affairs is very notorious so there 's nothing at all in this Discourse of Maimonides which would shake our Opinion that is not apparently false and argues the Author much mistaken about the Computation of Esdras at the end of 70 Years Restauration For Calvisius most truly (Å¿) Isag c. 26. says For who could suspect that the Jews in a Babylonian Captivity of 70 Years could forget their Sabbatic Years and afterwards institute others which should not be the same in order as those before the Captivity why should not the Jews as well have forgot their Sabbath Day and afterwards also institute another But this is impossible for God the Preserver of his own Institutions and Creatures would not have suffered such Set-times to have been disturbed from the Creation of the World So that the true Sabbatic Years were not changed but truly restored after the Babylonish Captivity For the Jews in that Captivity had Fields (t) Jer. 29. planted Vineyards mow'd and gather'd Grapes So that they were busied in those very things as were most proper to put 'em in mind of their Sabbatic Years Nor did their Exile endure beyond the Memory of any that were then alive At this Day where-ever they are dispersed they truly know and reckon up their Sabbatic Years How then could these forget them who had celebrated the Sabbatic Years in Judea and were returned back again into Judea to celebrate them after their Captivity But admitting they had forgot 'em yet after their Return they would have learn'd 'em again of the Samaritans who celebrated the Sabbatic Years with the Jews before the Captivity and had constantly retain'd 'em all that time for they were near Neighbours the distance betwixt Jerusalem and Samaria being not above 6 German Miles and the Nation of the Jews was very superstitious and tenacious of their Ceremonies as is well known 'T is therefore a vain thing for any one to suspect a Change in the Sabbatic Years § 6. A certain Author (u) Autor Solis Clavis Temp. itemque vindiciarum does not only conjecture Whether the Sabbatic and Jubilean Tears never had nor could have any other Form than such a mystical one wherein 343 Days are reckoned for a Tear but promises a Demonstration of the Affirmative but we deny both and our Reasons are 1. Because from the Author 's own Confession neither the Scripture nor any other ancienter Book makes mention of such a mystic Year 2. Because the six Years of Agriculture have without doubt sometimes coincided with the Solar Year For otherwise the times of Sowing and Harvest would have been uncertain 3. Because the (w) Lev 25. 9. Scripture attributes to the Jubilean and Sabbatic Years a fixt Beginning and State Thou shalt reckon says God seven Weeks of Years c. Then thou shalt cause the Trumpet to sound every where on the 7th Month on the 10th day of the same Month the Day of Expiations ye shall cause the Trumpet to be sounded throughout the whole Land From which Words Interpreters have hitherto inferr'd that the Jews ought to begin the Jubilean Years from the same 10th day of the Month Tisri whereas 't is immediately added That ye may sanctifie the 50th Year And although the Author of Mystical Computation of whom we shall speak in the next Section hath sought a Solution in the Ambiguity of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Proclamation or a Command of the Solemnity of the Jubilean Year indeed it was joined to a certain Day of the Civil Calendar whereas the Jubilean Year without any Relation to this Command took its Original elsewhere ..... How ill it becomes a Learned Man to trifle in a serious Affair For who knows not that a better Account may be given of the Beginning than of the Proclamation of the Jubilean Years who is ignorant of the Emphasis of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or who shall perswade himself that a Year should be sanctified amongst the Jews some Months before it began Maimonides speaks much juster (x) In Halacha Schemidda Vejobel c. 10. on this Subject From the beginning of the Year to the Day of Expiations the Servants were neither dismiss'd nor did they serve their Masters nor were the Fields restored What then They did eat drink and were merry and every one put a Crown upon his Head But as soon as the Day of Expiations was come the Senators of the Sanhedrin sounded Trumpets and sent away their Servants free Fields were then also restored 4. From that mystic Form which is against the Laws of Sydereal Years it would follow that it might be possible that the Product of one should maintain the Jews for three Years together against Lev. 25.
21. sequ For although mention is there made of three Years yet by no means were they compleat and separately reckoned as is evident from the Place just mentioned On the contrary 't is evident that this Hypothesis brings in a new Method destitute of all Probability For if for Example the Beginning of the Sabbatic Year should fall upon the Vernal Month Nisan which would sometimes happen the Jews could not gather the Fruits because of the Religion of the Year and consequently on the preceding Year they would hardly have given themselves the trouble of Sowing but neither was it lawful to sow about Tisri the Autumnal Month of the same Year Therefore they could not mow about Nisan the Year following It was therefore necessary for 'em to wait till they could have the Harvest of the 3d Year § 7. The Absurdity of that Opinion is The Mystic Sabbatic Cycle hence evident For admitting it the Sabbatic Years would undoubtedly be wholly deprived of their best Character when amongst the Sabbatic Years from the faithful Tradition of Historians the intercepted time divisible into aliquot Parts should not always be 2401 Days or the Quantity of a mystic Sabbatic Cycle § 8. The Author of (y) Sâ—lâ— Temp. p. â—1 in vind p. 4. the mystic Chronology The manner how the Author of mystic Chronology would prove his Opinion about the Sabbatic and Jubilean Years premises some Hypotheses which he says are founded in Scripture and which are granted by all that allow of the Old Testament whether Christians Jews or Turks 1. That God made the World in six Days 2. That on the 7th he rested from the Work of the Creation 3. That any 7th from this and consequently all the Multiples of 7 following one another in Arithmetic Progression as 7. 14. 21. 28 c. were made Sabbaths or destin'd for Rest in Memory of the preceding six Days Creation and resting on the 7th 4. Therefore if from any Sabbath we go backwards by the spaces of 7 Days or the Interval of a Week we shall at last come to that Day of Divine Rest 5. And this is an inseparable Property resulting from the Institution it self and the Divine Fact viz. That it should be a Multiple of the Time and calls back into our Memory and points at the Divine Rest and the very individual Day thereof 6. That God instituted a Sabbatic Year as wâ—ll as a 7th Day in memory of his Rest in which he also would have the same (z) Lev. 25. 4. Arithmetic Progression 7. That in the Sabbatic Years he would have observed and commanded the Observation not only of an (a) Lev. 25. 4. Arithmetic Progression but also a Geometric one viz. the Square of the Sabbatic Year or 7 7 49 Years he instituted for the Jubile 8. The Sabbatic Year ought to be neither greater nor less than the time of Labour and a Fruits or Culture of the Earth which in this Year God would have omitted 9. That time must be greater than 49 and less than 366 Days 10. That there is no Number betwixt 49 and 366 by which we can return back again to the Root 7 unless 343 viz. the Cube of 7. From these Hypotheses he says follows this Apogogic Syllogism Every memorial time of Divine Rest taken from the 7th Day of Creation ought to be multiple of the Number 7 and by a given Regression viz. both Arithmetic and Geometric in a given Proportion viz. Septuple to point out the first of the Divine Rest or the Individual 7th of the Creation But the Mosaic Sabbatic and Jubilean Years are a memorial time of Divine Rest begun on the 7th Day of the Creation Ergo c. And hence further he adds an Epistomonic Syllogism as he calls it Whatever Years ought to be multiple of the 7th Day of Creation and shew the same by a regression as well Arithmetic as Geometric must consist of some Number betwixt 49 and 366 between which 't is impossible they should be either more or less than 343 But the Sabbatic and Jubilean Years ought to be multiple of the 7th Day of Creation and shew it by a Progression as well Arithmetic as Geometric and to consist of a Number betwixt 49 and 366 Therefore 't is impossible that the Sabbatic and Jubilean Years should have either more or fewer Days than 343. 10. 10 c. This is the Basis of this mystic Computation but which is built upon the Sand For first of all our Mysteriographer puts us in mind of a strange Agreement betwixt Christians Jews and Turks in their admitting of the Old Testament But how great soever the Agreement of the two former be that of the Turks is a Dream of the Author Indeed we know the (b) Hotting in Hist Orient p. 409. Turks value the Law of Moses believe that Christ is the Son of Mary the Spirit of God his Word and his Apostle but only in such a sense as Mahomet has left them The Turks tell us of many things depraved in the old many things omitted and many added Nor do they acknowledge the History of the Creation or the first Week from the Mosaic Writings as the Christians and Jews do but are wont to report many Fables of them which that Impostor invented as when God made Adam the Throne of God Paradise c. he held in his Hand a Pen â—00 Miles long and 80 broad Besides the Turks keep not the 7th but the 6th Day of the Week holy contrary to Moses So little occasion has our Author from the Agreement of the Turks for the Foundation of any of their Hypotheses nor according to the sense of his 5th Hypothesis will meet with great Agreement betwixt the Christians and Jews The Times of our Saviour's Nativity his Circumcision of the Eremetic Fast c. are Memorials of those things which hapned long since though no one ever yet of any mystic Multiples Further the 6th 8th and 9th Hypotheses are no where extant in the Old Testament nor are they received by any Christians if you except our (c) Hanlinus Author and his Disciples nor are they granted by the Jews not to mention the Turks God had no respect to the first Sabbath in constituting this System of Years that from the 7th Day of the Creation the Quantity of the Year should be deduced by an Arithmetic and Geometric Progression there are no Footsteps of it in that place our Author has cited in Leviticus But the rest are evident So very false do we find our Author's Philosophy when we consider the (d) Lev. 26. 3 4 5. Amplitude of of the Divine Promises In short the Author of this mystic Computation has acted ignorantly when he makes one of his Limits a System of 366 Days when the Jews knew nothing of it their Annus Communis being 354 Days their Annus Embolimaeus 384 and the Mean 367. Having shewed the Falsity of these Hypotheses we easiy see
denied but that the Jews followed the Roman Custom when the Jewish Policy began to decline § 5. Yet the famous Scaliger (d) L. 7. dâ— Em. Tem. p. 637. is of opinion Another sort of Vâ—gâ—ls that the Jews as well as the Romans and Greeks divided their Night and Day into four Parts and called those Quarters the Vigils the first of which as he says was from Sun-set to Midnight The second also called the Middle as being betwixt the two Suns viz. the Setting of the one and Rising of the other was from Midnight to the Sun-rise After these was the Morning-Watch which began at Sun-rise and continued till Noon The last continued from Noon till Sun-set § 6. But the Romans distinguished their Night How the Romans divided the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Day by various Names some of which we find in the twelve Tables and others elsewhere the Beginning and End was Midnight after followed the Night after this the Cock-crow after this the Dead of the Night after this before Day after this Day-break after this the Morning after this the Forenoon then Noon after this the Afternoon then late after this the Evening then Twilight after this Candle-light after that Bed-time after that far in the Night then to Midnight and so Midnight again § 7. However we are yet in the dark as to How they and the Greeks agreed in this matter the Greeks agreeing with the Romans although it is no doubt but that in the time of War the Romans divided their Night into four Parts and some think that the Greeks imitated them herein tho' many Places in ancient Writings seem to contradict it From which it appears that the Greeks divided their Day and Night rather into three than four Parts as appears by Seneca in Thyeste where the Chorus is introduced thus Quo terrarum c. And in Andromache thus Partes ferè nox aima transierat duas Sen. Trag. Clarumque septem verterant stellae jugum c. And the Scholiast very clearly on the 10th Iliad of Homer For as the Poet divided the Day into three Parts viz. into Morning Noon and Evening so does he the Night 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he would have the Hom. Iliâ—d Night to consist of Three Vigils CHAP. IV. Of the Days 1. A Day is that Space of time wherein the Sun in its rising and setting performs either an entire Course or a certain Part of the Globe 2. It is commonly divided into Natural and Civil 3. That Space of time is called the Natural Day which passeth betwixt Sun-rise and Sun-set 4. The Civil Day is that which contains one Revolution of the Heavens and so including also the Night distinct from the Natural Day whence the Greeks call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. Days also are either Holy-Days or not 6. Holy-Days are those wherein Business is laid aside which the Romans formerly called Nefasti 7. And those are made holy either by Divine or Humane Authority 8. Some People by Divine Right observe Sundays and other Holy-Days 9. But many Nations by Humane Imposition did heretofore vainly observe several Days and do at this time as may appear in the ensuing Discourse and the various ways of chusing them 10. Those that are not Holy-Days but Work-Days are also called Fasti being those wherein the solemn Offices are not performed either to the true God or the false Gods of the Gentiles § 1. THose that call that Space of time a The reason of the Natural and Civil Day Natural Day wherein the Sun is upon the Horizon are chiefly moved thereto because Nature and not Art effects that Day but those that would have it an entire Revolution of the Sun alledge that Nature intends a perfect Circulation likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called a civil Day because that the Citizens were wont to use it in dating their Contracts and other Civil Actions and again they call the Suns staying upon the Horizon an Artificial Day since that it 's then convenient for Artificers to do their Work and as some will add because the Differences of such days cannot be made but by the Workmanship of Almighty God and may be understood by the use of an Artificial Sphere § 2. But an Artificial Day is not taken in the same Not the same with all Authors Sence by all Authors for what in Chronology we call a Natural Day the same the Astronomers usually term an Artificial and what we call a Civil they call Natural § 3. The measure of the Civil Day according to The measure of a Civil day Chronologers and the Natural according to Astronomers is by the daily Motion of the Sun round the Earth or as Astronomers do otherwise speak it is an entire Revolution of the Aequator with so much over as answereth to the Suns own Motion receding in the mean time on the Ecliptick whence the Complements are unequal The mean ones are 59′ 8″ in time 3′ 57″ by which part of time the Solar days exceed the day of the Primum Mobile § 4. The difference of a Natural day from The difference 〈◊〉 the Civil consisteth in their equality and inequality some calling those that are unequal Natural days and those that are equal Civil though very absurdly for those that dwell under the Aequator have all Natural days equal and if we should speak truly Civil days are not equal by reason of the inequality of what is added so if a Country just under the Pole was habitable its Inhabitants would have their Natural day neither equal nor unequal for it is called equal or unequal in respect of each other however they would know no other day till the year was past Yet it is true in an Oblique Sphere for its Inhabitants would have their Natural days unequal whence Ovid when he would describe an impossibility says Longa dies citior brumali tempore noxque Lib. de Pâ—nto 2. Tardior hybernâ solstitialis erit And heretofore also Boetius Tu Frondifluae frigore brumae Stringis lucem breviore rotâ Tu cum fervida venerit aestas Agiles noctis dividis horas § 5. Yet all Civil days are equal and precisely All Civil days precisely 24 hours 24 hours for in that time an entire Revolution of the Aequator from rising to setting is performed but because the Sun like other Stars whilst it turns round so quickly upon the Aequator hastens towards its rise performing its mean daily course in 59′ 8″ but the space is unequal and hence the former degree of the Ecliptick together with a degree of the Aequator being come to the Meridian the Sun wants some little space to compleat which a little part of time should be added besides 24 hours which by reason of the Suns apparent unequal Motion will be unequal as above but this is fully rectified by the Famous Astronomer Mr. Flamsted in his Calculation of the following Table of
Lyra almost all the Jewish Writers but especially Josephus (t) L. 1. anâ— c. 4. Menasseh ben Israel (u) Con p 18â— who cites a great Number of his own Country-men Alphonsus Testatus Torniellus Scaliger Petavius Helvicus Bhemius Maestlinus Vobo Emmius Calvisius Philippus Cinverius Jacobus Vsserius Joannes Temporarius Hainlinus Helwigius all the Russians and other modern Nations to which Opinion we also subscribe § 7. And we will alledge here in short the Arguments Reasons elledged fâ—r 〈◊〉 Assertion which commonly are or may be made use of for the Confirmation of this Opinion among which are some of the Rabbi's which contain more Vanity than Certainty 1. Because the Patriarchs in most ancient times always began the Year in Autumn and that therefore the Jews would not without an express Command begin their Ecclesiastical Year in the Month of Nisan 2. Because the Time of gathering the Fruits of the Earth which without doubt was in Autumn in Palestine is called the Revolution of the Year in the Holy Scripture 3. Because it is said (x) Exod. 23. c. 16. 34. c. 22. that the Deluge began in the second Month to wit in respect of the Years from the beginning of the World And the same is mentioned by (y) L. 1. c. 4. Josephus to have been Marchesvan or the second in Autumn 4. Because the Sabbatic and Jubilean Years began in Autumn which being instituted for to let the Grounds rest during that time this Ordination of God would appear not so suitable if the Creation of the World had begun in the Spring 5. Because the Day of Expiation to be celebrated on the 10th Day of the Month Tisri seems to be instituted in Remembrance of the Fall of Adam But if Adam's Fall did happen in Autumn consequently the Creation of the World began about the same time 6. Because according to the most ancient Institution of the Jews the Story of the Creation of the World was to be read in the same Month Tisri 7. Because the (z) In 3 Reg. 8. vâ—a 2. Chaldean Interpreter asserts that the first Autumnal Month has also been the first of the World 8. Because there seems to be the same Relation betwixt Darkness and Light as there is betwixt Autumn and the other Seasons of the Year But Darkness was before Light and by consequence Autumn before the rest 9. Because it is said of the Trees That they contained their Seed within them which seems not to be so congruously applied to the Spring as to the Autumn 10. Because Rabbi Eliezer and some other Jews by transposing the first Word of Genesis interpret it thus according to their Cabbala § 8. Dionysius Petavius affirms that God commenced Whether the World was created about the time of the N. Moon the great Work of Creation in the year of the Julian Period 730 on the 20th day of October on the first Feria and that the Moon was at the full on the 27th of October on the second Feria some Hours after Midnight and that consequently on the fourth day being the 29th of October when the Moon was created it appeared somewhat in its Decrease But it appears more probable to me that the World or at least the great Luminaries were created about the New Moon so that our first Parents saw the Moon Cornicular before the first Quarter and thus encreasing till the Full Moon whereas if it be supposed that the Creation of the World was begun in the Full Moon they must have seen the Moon first in its Decrease and afterwards in its Increase and consequently in its retrograde Course § 9. The Arguments arising among the Chronologers Of the difference among the Chronologers concerning the Lunae-Solar Characters concerning the Lunae-Solar Characters at the time of the Creation of the World may conveniently be divided into several Classes For there are some who altogether reject the Consideration of these Characters among whom one of the chiefest is the Author of the Mystical Chronology There are secondly not a few who fix these Characters depending on the Motion of the Sun and Moon a De Doctr. Temp l. 9. c. 6. on the first Day of the Mosaick Hexaemeron being of Opinion that on the same day when the Work of Creation was begun both these great Luminaries did enter into one certain Cardinal Point of the Sphere of which Opinion is also Dionysius (b) De Doctr. Temp. l. 9. c. 6. Petavius The Third Classis consists of such as appoint the Fourth Day of the Creation to the Aequinox and principal Lunar Phasis this being the Time when God created the great Luminaries Some says Jacobus Capellus begin this Time of the N. Moon and the Aequinox on the first Feria when the Light was created But it appears to me more probable that they ought to begin on the 4th Feria when the Sun was created Michael Moestlinus and Laurentius Codomannus are constant Adherers to the same Opinion In the fourth place there are also some who appropriate these Characters to the first Day of the second Week of which Opinion are (c) In Can. Chron. Vbbo Emmius and (d) L. 5. emend Temp. Scaliger Neither ought in the 5th Place the Opinion of Mr. William Lange (e) L. 2. de Enn. Christ to be pass'd by in Silence who says thus The Creation of the World was in the Spring on the first Day of the first Week of the first Month of the first Year To extricate our selves in some measure out of these Difficulties I see no better Remedy than to have Recourse to the most exact Account that can be made according to the Lunae-Solar Tables with this Caution not to insist so much upon these fictitious Motions which as Hainlinus well observed are only invented by the Astronomers for better Method's sake than upon the true and real ones Accordingly we have pursuant to the Hypotheses of the Danish Astronomy which are the Basis of our Mathematicall Tables investigated the Lunae-Solar Motions to begin with Sun-set according to the Custom of the Jews in Palestine   Oct. f. H. ′ ″ Tempus Syz. med an 764 27 2 7 36 20 Intervallum addendum    7 32 6 Tempus Syz. verae  27 2 15 8 26    Sign Gr.   Longit. ☉ med   6 2 40 30 Anomalia ☉ med   6 2 19 57 Prostaph ☉ Add.     5 11 Longit. ☽ à ☉ med   0 3 49 37 Anomal Lunae   1 19 57 32 Prostaphaer Lunae Subtr    3 44 28 Anomal Aequinoct   8 2 29 30 Prostaph Aequin Add.     24 19 Verus Locus Solis   6 3 10 6 Verus Locus Lunae   6 3 10 6 From whence it appears that on the same day of October in the year 764 of the Julian Period on which (f) Isag in Cal. Cap. 7.
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
given you in the following Table a Catalogue of the Persian Kings according to the Computation of Ptolemy the Manuscript of which was first found at London in England and from thence sent over into Germany by Mr. Overall We have added the years of the Julian Period and all those Passages in the holy Scripture where mention is made according to our Opinion of these Kings An. Reg. In. Per. Jul. Cyrus 9 4176 Ezr. c. 1. v. 1. Cambyses 8 4185 Dan. c. 11. v. 2. Magus Darius Hystaspis 36 4193 Dan. c. 11. v. 2. Xerxes I. 21 4229 Dan. c. 11. v. 2. Ezr. c. 4. v. 6. Est c. 1. v. 1. Artaxerxes I. iâ— Longimanus 41 4250 Ezr. c. 4. v. 7. Darius II. five Nothus 19 4291 Ez. c. 4. v. 24. c. 6. v. 12. Hag. c. 1. v. 1. Zec. c. 1. v. 1. Artaxerxes II. or Mnemon 46 4310 Ezr. c. 7. v. 1. 12. Neh. c. 2. v. 1. Ochus 21 4356  Arostus or Arses 2 4377  Darius III. or Codomannus 4 4379 Neh. c. 12. v. 22. § 6. There are not a few both among the Ancient Whether the Beginning of this Epocha ought to be fixed to the time of the Solution of the Babylonian Captivity and Modern â—nterpreters who would have this Epocha of the 70 Weeks begin from the time of the Edict of Cyrus of which mention is made by (z) C 1. v. 1. sequ Ezra and in the (a) 2 Chr. c. 3â— v. 23. Chronicles Among the Ancients Clement of Alexandria patronizes this Opinion before all others and of the Modern Authors David Paraeus Constantine L'Empereur and (b) Chr Sacr. p. 183. Johannes Wichmannus especially (c) Chr. l. 3. c. 7. Matthaeus Beroaldus and Beroaldus Broughton an Englishman unto which Opinion also the Dutch Interpreters seem to incline as appears out of their Original Annotations heretofore mentioned but without any Probability of Truth For first the Prophecy mentions such a Decree as was to be put in Execution from the very beginning of these 70 Weeks And it is evident that the Mandate of Cyrus did not take immediately the intended Effect as may be seen in (d) C. 4. v 4. 5. Ezra when he says The People of the Land weakened the Hands of the People of Judah and troubled them in building and hired Councellours against them to frustrate their Purpose all the Days of Cyrus King of Persia even unto the Reign of Danius King of Persia It was 2dly foretold by the Angel that the Streets and the Walls of the City were to be built again in the space of the 7 first Weeks which it is evident was not accomplished in 49 years after the Edict of Cyrus for thâ— we should allow never so many years to the Reign of Cyrus after the Solution of the Babylonian Captivity it will nevertheless be impossible to make the Time when Nehemiah finish'd the Walls in the 32d year of the Reign of Artaxerxes fall within the Compass of seven Annual Weeks or 49 Years See Nehemiah c. 13. v. 6. 3dly The whole Structure of Beroaldus's Artificial Hypothesis is built upon a very weak Foundation to wit that the End of these 70 Weeks is to be compleated with the Death of Christ contrary to the Intention of the Angel when he says of this Interval Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People and upon thy Holy City 4thly Unless we will positively contradict all the Persian Greek and Roman Annals it is impossible to reduce the Interval from Cyrus till the Passion of Christ to 490 years For supposing with Beroaldus that Christ suffered in the 33d year of his Age in the 4th year of the 202d Olympiad in the year 784 from the Building of the City of Rome in the 18th year of the Reign of Tiberius in the year of the World 3961. Supposing I say that according to the Synchronisms of Beroaldus Christ suffered in the year of the Julian Period 4745 the Beginning of these 70 Weeks and according to the Hypothesis of Beroaldus the Solution of the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews must be coincident with the year of the Julian Period 4255 when Cyrus was dead long before the Interval from the Beginning of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus till the 18th year of the Reign of the Emperour Tiberius comprehending no less than 569 years as most evidently appears out of the following Table According to the Computation of Ptolemy strengthened by innumerable Chronological Characters it appears that  Years Cyrus reigned 9 Cambyses reigned 8 Darius I. reigned 36 Xerxes reigned 21 Artaxerxes I. reigned 41 Darius II. reigned 19 Artaxerxes II. reigned 4â— Ochus reigned 21 Arostus reigned 2 Darius III. reigned 4 Alexander the Great reigned 8 Philippus Aridaeus reigned 7 Alexander reigned 12 Ptolemaeus Lagus reigned 20 Ptolemaeus Phiâ—adelphus reigned 38 Evergeâ—es reigned 25 Philopater reigned â—7 Epiphanus reigned 24 Philomater reigned 35 Evergeâ—es II. reigned 29 Soter reigned 36 Dionysius reigned 29 Cleopatra reigned 22 Augustus reigned 43 Tiberius reigned 17  Sum 569 § 7. Those who pretend to fix the Beginning Some reject the Authority of the ancient Hâ—storians concerning the Persian Monarchs of these 70 Annual Weeks to the first year of Cyrus and their End to the time of the Passion of Christ make use of this Method that they reject the Authority of all the most ancient prophane History and allow of no other Persian Kings but what are mentioned in the Sacred History of these Times (e) 〈◊〉 3. cap. 8. Beroaldus says thus Both out Modern and Ancient Prophane Historians are ignorant of the time of the Persian Monarchy or how many Kings swayed the Sceptre over that vast Empire as is very evident from their various and dubious Relations But we that are informed by the Holy Scripture concerning the first Persian Monarchs and know the rest out of the Ancient Monuments of Prophane History are in a better Capacity to give a solid Judgment of these Times than ever could be expected from Herodotus Josephus Manctho Metasthenes or Ctesias upon whose Authority the most rely upon in the History of these Times And there are others also who are more rigorous in their Judgment in not allowing the Ancient Monuments of Prophane History the least Certainty as to this Point and denying every thing that is not expresly mention'd concerning these Monarchs in the Sacred History We don 't in the least blame these Authors for extolling and maintaining the Authority of the Sacred History but judge it more safe to keep the middle Way For it would be of very ill Consequence under the specious Pretence of a pious Intention to reject such things as have been received by the joint Consent of most Historians and Chronologers and to call in question the whole Histories of those Historians who lived next to these times to wit Herodotus Thucydides Xenophon Ctesias Cnidius whose Monuments are transmitted to Posterity and remaining to this day or Theopompus Ephorus
Timâ—us Callisthenes whose Works are lost but the 〈◊〉 of them to be found in (f) Biblioth Diodorus Siculus Besides that the Reigns of these ancient Persian Monarchs are rendred illustrious to Posterity by many Celestial Characters as may beseen in (g) Almagest l. 5. c. 14. Ptolemy As to what relates to that Argument that no other of the Persian Monarchs are to be allow'd of but such as are mentioned in the Scripture (h) Chron. l. 2. p. 58. Vbbo Emmius has very well answered Hugo Broughton who patronizes the same Opinion in the following Words To prove their Hypothesis they alledge that only these Kings are named by Ezra and Nehemiah and therefore the rest mention'd in Pâ—ophanâ— History ought to be considered as supposititious If this way of arguing be allowable I see no Reason why it may not be said with the same Right The Books of the Kings and the Chronicles mention only five Assyrian Kings to wit Phul Theglaphalaâ—sar Sâ—â—â—anassar Sennacherib Asar-Hâ—â—don for Meroâ—â—â— Nabuchodonâ—sor Balshazar and Evilmerodach were Chaldaeâ—â—s not Assyrians therefore no other Kings have ruled over Assyria And thus we might proceed to the Kings of Syria and Egypt Can any thing be more weak or more vain For what is more evident than that in the History of one particular Nation no further mention used to be made of the Kings of the Neighbouring Nations than is requisite for the explaining or perfecting their Relations and that a whole Catalogue or Series of the Kings of any Nation is not to be look'd for but in the particular History of that Nation the Author intends to treat of Of which to say more would be superfluous c. § 8. One of the main Questions and the most difficult to be resolved belonging to this Point It was Darius Nothus whose Edict is mentioned Ez c. 6. is which of the three Darius's is to be understood by that Darius mentioned by Haggai Zechariah and Ezra It is well known that the first Darius is commonly sirnam'd Hystaspis the second Nothus and the third Codomannus Concerning the last it is put beyond all Dispute by the Consent of all the Chronologers that he had not the least Share in this Decree or Edict but about the two first the most learned Interpreters are very different in their Opinions (i) Ant. Lib. 9. cap. â— Josephus refers this Edict to Darius Hydaspis of whom he relates that being put in mind by Zorobabel of his Promise before he was King of rebuilding the City and Temple of Jerusalem and to restore all the Vessels and Utensils carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon he joyfully granted his Request commanding his Governours to conduct him and his Followers safely to Jerusalem to perfect the Structure of the Temple and ordering those of Phoenicia and Syria to furnish them with Cedars from Mount Libanon But tho' Bishop Vsher stands up in defence of the Opinion of Josephus yet his Relation renders the whole very dubious For he describes this Edict as an Effect of the Marriage betwixt Darius Hydaspis and Esther which how much contrary it is to Truth we have spoke of sufficiently before not to mention the unpardonable Mistake of Josephus when he makes those who went with Nehemiah to Jerusalem to amount to many Millions On the other hand there are very strong Motives which induce us to believe that the Edict of the Rebuilding of the Temple was made by Darius Nothus in the second year of his Reign For First it must be understood of the Reign of the same Darius when the Jews lived in Cieled Houses and the Temple laid waste which was the Reason they were afflicted with a general Scarcity (k) Hagg. 1. v. 4. c. 2. v. 16. Now there being but 12 years betwixt the Edict of Cyrus and the second year of the Reign of Darius Hydaspis it seems very improbable that in so short a time especially under the Reign of Cambyses the Jews should have built themselves Ceiled Houses and have quite laid aside that Zeal they had so lately shewn in contributing cheerfully towards the Rebuilding of the Temple (l) â—zr 2. v. 68. seq Secondly it is to be understood of the Reign of the same Darius under whose auspicious Reign the Jews after they had endured a great deal of Misery began to enjoy the Benefit of a more peaceable State pursuant to the Words of God in (m) C. 8. v. 11. seq Hag. 2. v. 9. Zechariah But now I will not be unto the Residue of this People as in the former days saith the Lord of Hosts For the Seed shall be more prosperous the Vine shall give her Fruit and the Ground shall give her Encrease and the Heavens shall give their Dew and I will cause the Remnant of this People to possess all these things and it shall come to pass that as ye were a Curse among the Heathen and House of Judah and House of Israel so will I save you and ye shall be a Blessing Fear not but let your Hands be strong For thus saith the Lord of Hosts As I thought to punish you when your Fathers provoked me to Wrath saith the Lord of Hosts and I repented not so again have I thought in these Days to do well unto Jerusalem and to the House of Judah Fear ye not But who is so little versed in the History of the Jewish Nation as to be ignorant of the many and various Calamities the Jews groaned under after the Reign of Darius Hydaspis Thirdly the above-cited Passages are to be understood of the same Darius who lived and reigned many years after the Solution of the Babylonian Captivity it being evident out of (n) Cap. 5. v. 6. Ezra that the Persian Nobles had not the least Remembrance of the Edict published in behalf of the Jews by Cyrus For which Reason it was that they were obliged to search the Royal Records But this appears in no wise agreeable to the Reign of Dar. Hydaspis there being but a few years betwixt the beginning of the Reign of Cyrus and that of this Darius who it is probable was one of the chief Persian Lords under Cyrus But this being applied to the Reign of Darius II. sirnamed Nothus there remains not the least Difficulty there being betwixt Cyrus and Darius Nothus above a hundred years For the Confirmation of which I cannot but alledge here the Words of (o) Hisâ— Univ p. â—58 Rupertus formerly Professor in the University of Altorf If it was Darius Hydaspis that granted Leave to the Jews to rebuild the Temple how is it possible that the Edict of Cyrus concerning the Restauration of the Jews could be so entirely forgotten For Darius Hydaspis was one of the principal Persian Lords under Cyrus and yet this same Darius is obliged to have Recourse to the Records Nehemiah was forced to inspect the Genealogies of those that returned with Zorobabel when at the time of Darius Hydaspis there were
Temple was destroyed on the Eve of the Sabbath towards the latter end of the 7th Year and it was likewise in the Week of the Station of Joarib and the 9th day of the Month Ab. In the same Manner hapned the 2 d Destruction And at both times the Levites were singing the Canticle And what Canticle God our Lord will return upon their Heads their Iniquity and destroy them in their Malice c. In the other Chronological Treatise written by Rabbi David Ganz they indeed own that Expedition of Fl. Vespasian and Tit. Vespasian to have been the same but at the same time relate Matters in a very different manner concerning Josephus and the Destruction of the Temple to the 3828th Year after the Creation and the 420th Year after its first Foundation All which is a convincing Argument of the Ignorance of the Jews in relation to their own History and the Destruction of their City § 3. We have already said in the foregoing Concerning the Computation of the Fathers of this Epocha Chapter that the Fathers have too much contracted that Interval betwixt the time of the Baptism and Passion of Christ from whence it is evident that their Computations of the Interval betwixt the Passion of Christ and the Destruction of Jerusalem being built upon an erroneous Hypothesis no great Account is to be made upon their Opinions in this Point § 4. (o) De â—su Tab. p. 59. Joh. Jac. Hainlinus is of Opinion that Whether the Destruction of the City hapned in the 71st year of Christ the Destruction of the City of Jerusalem hapned in the 71st year of Christ and in the 4784th year of the Jul. Period But this Opinion being founded upon the Fictitious Hypothesis of his Mystical Years is directly repugnant to the Ancient History Neither is it possible to find out an Expedient to make the Month of September of the 71st year of Christ coincident with the 2d year of the Reign of Vespasian as our Author would willingly persuade the World § 5. It is a very difficult Task to explain What Months are understood by Josephus in his Relation of the Destruction of Jerusalem the Foreign Names of the Months mentioned by Josephus in his Relation of the Destruction of Jerusalem For in his 6th Book Ch. 4. (p) De Bel. Jud. he says the Siege began on the 14th day of the Month Xanticus And in the same Book in the 8th Chapter he says that the Romans made themselves Masters of the first Wall on the 5th day of the Month Artemisius Thus he frequently makes mention of the Month Lous and refers the total Desolation of the City to the 8th day of the Month Gorpiaeus It is beyond all dispute that Josephus had borrowed these Names from the Macedonians who being subdued by the Romans had been forced to change their Ancient Lunar Calendar for the Solar of the Romans The Macedonian Months do thus correspond with the Julian Audinaeus January Peritius February Dystius March Xanthicus April Artemisius May. Daesius June Panemus July Lous August Gorpiaeus September Hyperberetaeus October Dius November Apellaeus December But whether Josephus by the Names of these Macedonian Months did understand them according to the Julian Months is a great Question Ruffinus Josephus Scaliger Calvisius Archbishop Vsher and many others are of this Opinion But for my part I am rather inclined to believe that Josephus by these Macedonian Names did understand the Jewish Months For it is expresly said by Josephus that his Country-men did go out of Aegypt on the same 14th day of the Month Xanthicus when Titus began to invest the City of Jerusalem and it being unquestionable that this was the 14th of the Month Nisan there is but little Probability that Josephus intended to make this day of the Month Nisan correspondent with a certain Day of the Julian Calendar And the Characters of the Epocha of the Departure of the Jews out of Aegypt shewing most evidently that the Jews did depart out of Aegypt not on the 14th but 16th day of April we may rationally conclude that Josephus did by the Month Xanthious understand the Month Nisan on the 14th day of which Month the Feast of the Passover was constantly kept by the Jews Secondly it is not very probable that the Jews should refer the Day of the first Destruction of their Temple to any certain Day of the Julian Calendar which was not as much as thought of at that time it being mention'd by Josephus that on the 10th day of the Month Lous likewise the first Temple was destroyed by Fire I see no Reason why by the Month Lous should not be understood the Month called AB by the Ancient Jews Thus the Words of the Prophet Jeremiah (q) C. 52. v. 12. may be reconciled with the Relation of Josephus In the Month says the Prophet on the 10th day of the Month AB which was the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came Nebuzaradan Captain of the Guard which served the King of Babylon into Jerusalem and burned the House of the Lord c. According to this Hypothesis the Months are as follows Xanthicus Nisan Artemisius Giar Daesius Sivan Panemus Tamutz Lous Ab. Gorpiaeus Elul Hyperberetaeus Tisri Dius Marchesvan Apellaeus Casleu Audinaeus Tebeth Peritius Schebath Dystius Adar § 6. It is commonly supposed that Jerusalem How ofteâ— Jerusalem was taken was taken but twice and that not altogether without Reason if it be understood in reference of its total Destruction Nevertheless (r) L. 8. c. 18. de Bell. Jud. Josephus affirms that it was taken five several times before it was destroyed by Titus Jerusalem says he was taken five times before By Asoch the Aegyptian King and after him by Antiochus then by Pompey and after these by Herod and Sosias who preserved the City But before that time the King of Babylon had laid it quite desolate Which sufficiently contradicts that Vain-glorious Inscription mentioned by (s) Inscr Ant. fol. 154. Justus Lipsius which is as follows IMP. TITO CAESARI DIVI VESPASIANI F. VESPASIANO AUG PONTIFICI MAXIMO TRIB POT X. IMP. XVII COS. VIII P. P. PRINCIPI SUO S. P. Q. R. QUOD PRAECEPTIS PATRIS CONSILIISQUE ET AUSPICIIS GENTEM JUDAEORUM DOMUIT ET Uâ—BEM HIEROSOLYMAM OMNIBUS â—â—â—TE SE. DUCIBUS REGIBUS GENTIBUSQUE AUT FRUSTRA PETITAM AUT OMNINO INTENTATAM DELEVIT § 7. The Temple Destroyed by Titus is generally The Temple destroyed by Titus was the 2 d Temple called the second Temple For tho' according to (t) L. 15. c. 14. Ant. Josephus Herod did demolish the Temple and built a new one instead of it yet this being done only with an Intention to render the Structure of the Temple the more Magnificent and having no relation to its interiour Parts is therefore not called the 3d but the 2d Temple § 8. Josephus affirms that in the Siege and How many of the Jews perâ—shed in