A DEFENCE OF Archbishop USHER AGAINST Dr Carry and Dr Isaac Vossius, Together with An INTRODUCTION concerning the Uncertainty OF CHRONOLOGY; And an APPENDIX TOUCHING The signification of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as also Of the men of the Great SYNAGOGUE. By JOHN MILNER, S. T. B. CAMBRIDGE, Printed by J. Hayes for Benj. took, and are to be Sold by W. Graves Bookseller in Cambridge. 1694. Octob. 29. 1692. Imprimatur, Gabr. Quadring, Procan. Humf. Gower, Prof. Marg. Joh. Covel, Coll. Christ. Praefect. Ja. Johnson, Coll. Sid. Mag. THE CONTENTS CHap. I. The Introduction concerning the uncertainty of Chronology. Chap. II. Whether Lunar months were in use with the Israelites before the Babylonish Captivity. Chap. III. Of the month Dioscorinthius 2 Macc. 11. 21. Chap. IU. Of the time when Artaxerxes Longimanus begun his reign, and of the flight of Themistocles. Chap. V. Of the time when Sanchuniathon, Semiramis and Nitocris lived. Chap. VI Whether Nabonasar was the same with Belesis. Chap. VII. Whether Darius Hystaspis was the husband of Esther, also whether Artystona was Esther, and Atossa Vashti. Chap. VIII. Whether Tiglathpileser was the same with Ninus junior the successor of Sardanapalus. Chap. IX. Whether Moses was contemporary to Inachus. Chap. X. Of that Alexander King of Egypt, who was reported to have made the Commonwealth of Rome his heir. Chap. XI. Of Argon the first King of the Lydians after the Atyadae, whether he was the Son of Ninus. Chap. XII. Of AEgyptus, how many years intervened between him and Sesac 1 Kings 11. also whether he was the same with Sethosis; and of Jonathan, 1 Maccab. 9 Chap. XIII. Of the duration of the Aslyrian Monarchy, and of Herodotus, also of the Median succession. Chap. XIV. Of the duration of the said Assyrian Monarchy against Dr Js. Vossius. Chap. XV. Of the Study of Astronomy, whether it be as ancient as Nimrod, and of the Celestial Observations sent from Babylon to Greece by Aristotle's procurement. Chap. XVI. Of the Egyptian Empire, when it begun and how long it continued. Also of Constantinus Manasses. Chap. XVII. Of the Septuagint. An Appendix 1. Concerning the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether they do any where in the Scripture signify the New Moon. 2. Of the men of the Great Synagogue, and of the Books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. CHAP. 1. The Introduction. I Need not enlarge in the praises of that great ornament of his Age, See and Country, the incomparable Archbishop Usher. They that would be satisfied of the worth of that excellent person may read his Life with the Appendix to it, and more especially his Works, which sufficiently praise him in the gate: As they that would know how great an esteem the most eminent men for Piety and Learning in his time (not only in great Britain and Ireland, but also in other parts) had of him, may consult the Letters writ by them to him, and since Printed with his to them. Yet since his death several have appeared publicly against him, and some of them have treated him very unbecomingly, to say no more. Of these I shall single out the Author of the Palaeologia Chronica Dr Cary, and him whom he hath called to be his Second, viz. Dr Vossius, Both these are displeased with the Archbishop for shortening the time from the Creation of the world: but more especially Dr Cary. He is displeased with Petavius and Eusebius upon the same account, but the storm of his displeasure falls most severely upon the Archbishop. Yet this (says he) was nothing to that which Bishop Usher did since in vindication of the Masora, by a way of new righting of times and new shaping of persons, far otherwise then was ever taken notice of by any man living before. Thus Dr Carry Part 2. Bo. 2. §. 3. Ch. 17. Now (to pass by those obscure expressions New righting of times and New shaping of persons) I grant that the Archbishop may have offered some things to his Readers consideration, which no man had ever taken notice of before; but then he doth it with such candour and modesty, as (if he do err) may obtain his pardon from all ingenuous persons, And withal he confirms them with such Authorities and Arguments, as that it is not very easy for those that are not of his opinion to refute him. A further plea may be offered for him, drawn from the uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology, by reason whereof no man can state the account, especially of Ancient times so, as that one or other shall not be ready to quarrel with it. Of the uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology. I Say of the greatest part of Chronology, for I most willingly grant that part of it is certain: as 1. Whatsoever relating to Chronology is plainly expressed in sacred Writ, or may be deduced from it by a clear and undeniable consequence, that must be concluded to be certain. 2. The Chronology of Heathen writers, so far as it agrees with and is consonant to the Scripture Chronology, is also to be looked upon as certain. 3. Josephus c. Apion. l. 1. says that all men confess that Alexander the great died in the 114th. Olympiad, and if any one shall affirm that this account of his death (or any thing else, that is as universally and unanimously attested, as according to Josephus it is) is certain, I shall not gainsay. But as to other things, though some have expressed very much confidence, and seem to have firmly persuaded themselves that they had demonstrated the certainty of them: yet I think it will appear that they have rather demonstrated their uncertainty. However I doubt not but every unprejudiced Reader will be satisfied of the uncertainty of them. To manifest which, I shall not run through all the 4 Monarchies (that would be too tedious) but confine myself to the first, i. e. the Assyrian: and I the rather pitch upon it, because Dr Carry is so much displeased with Eusebius and Petavius, and especially the Archbishop, for shortening the time of that Monarchy. The method which I shall observe will be to take a view 1. Of Kingdoms, viz the Kingdom of Assyria itself and the Kingdoms contemporary to it, 2. Of persons and occurrences, and to show how uncertain an account is given of the time of all these. I begin with Kingdoms, as 1. The Kingdom of the Assyrians. Herodotus l. 1. c. 95. says that the Assyrians had held the dominion of the upper Asta 520 years, when the Medes began to break from them. Justin l. 1. c. 2, and 3. says that the Assyrians had held the Empire 1300 years, when the Medes rebelled against them. Velleius Paterc, l. 1. writes that the Empire was translated to the Medes when the Assyrians had possessed it 1070 years. Ctesias ap. Diodor. Sicul. l. 2. will have the duration of that Monarchy to have been 1360 years. Diodorus Sic. himself will have it to have been above 1400 years. Castor ap. Syncellum p. 168. allots to it An. 1280. According to Cephalion ap. Syncell. p. 167. all those that reigned after Semiramis held the Empire An. 1000 Thallus ap. Theophilum ad Autol. l. 3. and Lactantium l. 1. c. 23. affirms Belus to have been An. 322. before the Trojan war. S. August. de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 21. says that the Empire of the Assyrians was translated to the Medes after almost An. 13 5. taking the time that Belus reigned into the account. Orosius l. 1. c. 3. writes that Babylon was robbed of its wealth, King and Empire by the Medes almost 1164 years after that it was built by Semiramis. Africanus ap. Syncell. p. 92, and 165. makes the duration of this Empire (including the reign of Belus) to have been An. 1460. Finally Eusebius says that all the years of the Assyrian Empire from the first of Ninus were 1240. [Because I shall have frequent occasion to lledge Eusebius. I desire it may be observed, that when I do allege him as here without directing to the particular place, the citation is to be found in his Chronicon; and that I follow the Latin Edition of him at Basil in Folio.] We have seen what different accounts the best Writers give of the duration of the Assyrian Empire: they differ also about the number of their Kings, and of the years that several of them reigned. As to the number of the Kings, Diodorus Sicul. l. 2. reckons 30, making Sardanapalus the 30th from Ninus: whereas Velleius Paterc. l. 1. makes Sardanapalus to have sprung from Ninus and Semiramis in the 33d d descent, the Son still succeeding the Father. Eusebius reckons 36 Kings beginning with Ninus, whereas Syncellus p. 165 taking Belus into the account reckons 41. As to the time that several of the Assyrian Kings reigned Eusebius' account differs much from that of Syncellus, as this Scheme following will manifest. Juxta Eusebium. Juxta Syncellum. Manchaleus whom Syncellus calls Aschalios An. 30 An. 28 Iphereus or Spherus Reigned 20 22 Sparetus or as Syncellus calls him Spartheos' 40 42 Ascades or Ascatades 40 38 Lamprides 32 30 Sosarmus 19 22 Tauteus or Teuteus 40 44 Ophratens 20 21 Ophratanes by Syncellus called Ephccheres 50 52 Sarpanapalus 20 15 Tho' the Empire is said to have been translated to the Medes upon the overthrow and death of Sardanapalus, yet the Assyrian Monarchy is usually supposed to have continued till the beginning of the Persian: so that Nabuchadnezzar and others that were long after Sardanapalus are reckoned among the Assyrian Monarches, particularly Evilmerodach and Neriglassar or Nericassolassar to the former of whom viz. Evilmerodach Berosus ap. Joseph. c. Apion. l. 1. allots 2 years, and to the later 4; but Josephus himself Ant. l. 10. c. 12. gives to the former An 18. and to the later 40; and the Ecclesiastical Canon ap. Syncell. p. 209. assigns to the former An. 5. to the later 3. 2. The Kingdom of the Egyptians. According to Eusebius eleven of the Egyptian Dynasties were contemporary to the Assyrian Monarchy, of which the 16th is the first, and the 26th the last. Africanus ap. Syncell. p. 61. etc. and Eusebius differ much as to these Dynasties. Juxta Africanum. Juxta Eusebium. The 16 Dynasty An. 518 An. 190 The 17 Din. Continued 151 103 The 18 Din. 263 348 The 19 Din. 204 or 209 194 The 20 Din. 135 178 The 22 Din. 116 49 The 23 Din. 89 44 The 24 Din. 6 44 The 25 Din. 40 44 The 26 Din. 150 & mens. 6 168 Besides all this they differ as to the number of the Kings that were in some of the Dynasties. Juxta Africanum. Juxta Eusebium. In the 19 Din. were 6 Kings 5 Kings In the 22 Din. 9 3 In the 23 Din. 4 3 They also disagree about the number of the years that many of the Kings in these Dynasties reigned, but I must not take notice of them all: yet I cannot but observe how Herodotus and Manetho differ sometimes from one, sometimes from both of them. As in the 26th Dynasty, when Africanus and Eusebius allow to Necao the 2d only 6 years, Herodotus l. 2. c. 159. (who calls him Necos) gives him complete 16 years. So when Africanus allots to Vaphres only 19 years, Herodotus l. 2. c. 161. (by whom he is called Apries) assigns to him 25. And lastly Herodotus l. 2. c. 157. gives to Psammitichus 54 years, and l. 3. c. 10. to Amasis' 44; when Eusebius allows to the former only 44, and to the later only 42 or 43. And as to Manetho ay. Joseph. c. Apion. l. 1. the discord between him and them will appear in this following Scheme. In the 18 Dynasty Juxta Manethon. Juxta African. Juxta Euseb. Achenchres or Acherres An. 12 & men's. 1 An. 32 An. 12 Rathosis (ap. Euseb. Achoris) Reigned 9 6 9 Achencheres (ap. Afric. Chebres) 12 & men's. 5 12 16 Achencheres or Acherres 12 & men's. 3 12 8 Armesses (ap. Euseb. Remesses) 66 & mens. 2 68 Amenophis 19 & mens. 6 19 40 In the 19 Dynasty Sethos 59 51 55 Rampses or Ramphes 66 61 66 3. The Kingdom of the Sicyonians. Which continued An. 862, according to Castor ap. Euseb. (in the Basil Edition, but in Scaligers Edition it is 962, not 862.) according to St August. de civ. Dei l. 18. c. 19 An. 959: Suidas in voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says that it continued An. 900; the succession of the Sicyonian Kings which we have in Scaligers Excerpt. gr. p. 301. attributes to it An. 980, Syncellus p. 97. An. 967. So as to the particular Kings, Eusebius and Syncellus are not agreed how long several of them reigned. Juxta Eusebium. Juxta Syncellum. Telchin vel Stelchin An. 20 An. 29 Epopeus Reigned 35 32 Laomedon 40 43 Sicyon 45 42 Polybus 40 43 joachus 42 45 Phtllus 8 10 Adrastos 4 7 Zeuxippus 32 30 Add to all this that Homer Iliad. 2. ver. 572. seems to make Adrestus the first King of Sicyon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: whereas AEgialeus is usually said to have reigned first there. So Zeuxippus is usually made the last King, and yet Pausanias in Corinth. reckons Hippolytus and Lacestades after him, and so do Scaligers Excerptagr. p. 363. The same Pausanias omits the mention of Polyphides, who was the next but one before Zeuxippus according to the usual account So little agreement or certainty there is as to the very number of their Kings. 4. The Kingdom of the Argives. I need not mention that Africanus and many besides him will have Moses to have been born in the time of Inachus the first King of the Argives (see Syncellus p. 63.) and yet Eusebius makes Inachus to have been above 200 years ancienter than Moses. Eusebius also and Syncellus disagree about the time that several of Inachus' Successors reigned. Juxta Eusebium. Juxta Syncellum. Crassus or Criasus An. 54 An. 55 Phorbas Reigned 35 25 Troyphas or Triopas 46 36 Crotopus 21 24 Danaus 50 58 Lynceus 41 35 Abas 23 37 Moreover as to the succession in this Kingdom of Argos. Pausanias' in Corinth. differs both from Eusebius and Syncellus. He rekons Jasus (if not Gelanor also) among the Kings of the Argives, whereas Eusebius and Syncellus make no mention of them. He also omits Apis and Praetus, the one of which according to them, was the 3d, the other the 13th King of the Argives. And Apollodorus l. 2. agrees with Pausanias in making Pratus King of Tirinthe, not of Argos. 5. The Kingdom of Athens. From Cecrops the first King (as Eusebius Syncellus and others account him, though Pausanias in Atticis says that Actaeus reigned first, and that Cecrops succeeded him: yea he tells how some made Porphyrion to have reigned before Actaeus) to the taking Troy were 373 years according to the Marmor Arundel., about 384 according to Syncellus, almost 400 according to Eusebius de Praeparat. l. 10. c. 9 As to those that succeeded Cecrops. Juxta Eusebium. Juxta Syncellum. Oxyntes or Zyntis the 13 King An. 12 An. 10 Timoetes or Thymites the 15 King Of the Archontes that continu'a for life. Reigned 8 9 Agastus or Acatus the 2 36 35 Tersippus the 4 41 40 Phorbas the 5 31 30 Mezades or Megacles the 6 30 28 AEschylus the 12 23 14 Also to Agamestor the 11th of these Archontes for life Eusebius gives 20 years, when Syncellus allows him but 17: yet says at the same time, that others allow him 40. He also tells us that though he with Eusebius allots to Ariphron the 9th of those Archontes only 20 years, yet Africanus gives him 31. Hippomenes was one of the Archontes that were to continue for 10 years, and Eusebius, Syncellus and others give him complete 10 years: yet Suidas in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says that for a certain fact he lost the Government before the time. The 4th year of that Hippomenes was according to Pausanias in Messen. the first year of the 14th Olympiad: but according to Eusebius it was the first year of the 15th Olympiad. To the decennial succeeded annual Archontes, and the beginning of these is referred by Eusebius to the 2d year of the 24th Olympiad; but Pausanias in Messen. says plainly that there were annual Archontes in the 4th year of the 23d d Olympiad, naming Tlesias as Archon then. [I know some alter Pausanias' words so as to make him say quite the contrary; but I dare not deal so with Authors, unless I have some very good ground or valuable Copy to warrant such a change.] There is nothing more probable than that Tlesias in Pausanias is the same with him whom the Marmor Arundel calls Lysias, who was the 3d d annual Archon, for Creon was the first (as Velletus Paterc. l. I. with many more doth testify) and there was but one Archon between Creon and Lysias according to that Marble. And by the way there being a lacuna in the Marble thus (Since ---- An. 418. Lysias being Archon at Athens) perhaps it may be supplied after this manner (Since the beginning of the 2d Messenian war An. 418. Lysias being Archon at Athens) just as Pausanias saith that the Messenian war began when Tlesias was Archon there. It is true the Anonymous writer in Excerpt. gr. Scaliger. p. 318. doth place Tlesias 3 years before Creon, not two years after him: but I question whether his Authority be such as may warrant us to correct Pausanias so as to make him say the contrary to that which he doth say in our copies. However that Author doth say that the year of Creon the first annual Archon was the 3d d of the 24th Olympiad, whereas Syncellus p. 212. refers it to the 19th Olympiad, and adds that some refer it to the 25th Olympiad. In Clemens Alexand. Strom. 1. it is said that the beginning of Theseus' reign was 47 years before the taking of Troy, which agrees neither with Eusebius' account, nor that which is given by Syncellus. According to both Troy was taken in the last year of Menestheus the successor of Theseus: now according to Syncellus Theseus reigned An. 31. and Menestheus 33. according to Eusebius the former 30 years, the later 24. 6. The Kingdom of Mycenoe. Apollodorus l. 2. says that Electrion reigned at Mycenae with Taphius, but Eusebius and Syncellus make no mention of either of these: and Syncellus brings in Pelops between Euristeus and Atreus, whereas Eusebius does not mention Pelops' being King of Mycenae. We are left wholly in the dark as to the time that Perseus reigned there. To Sthenelus Perseus' successor Eusebius (in Scaligers Edition) gives 8 years, and to Eurysteus 43; but in my Edition Eusebius makes Eurysteus to have reigned An. 45. To Atreus and Thyestes Eusebius allots An. 65, Syncellus only 33. and according to Homer l. 2. v. 10. Thyestes seems to have succeeded Atreus, for he says, that Atreus dying left the Sceptre to Thyestes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To Agamemnon Syncellus p. 170. with Eusebius gives 18 years, but at the same time observes that Others do allot him 35 years, and p. 125. he says that some make him to have reigned 33 years some 30 or 28. Likewise p. 125. he says that AEgisthus reigned 7 or 17 years, and yet p. 170. he allows him only 5. Orestes according to Eusebius reigned 15 years, according to Syncellus 23, but according to Velletus Paterc. l. 1. 70 years. 7. The Kingdom of the Thebans. The Marmor Arundel. makes Cadmus to have come to Thebes when Amphictyon reigned at Athens, 64 years after the beginning of the reign of Cecrops: but Eusebius says that he came when Pandion was King at Athens, above 120 years after that Cecrops reigned first there; and he observes also that some do set Cadmus' reign still later, and that above 100 years, when Cecrops the 2d was King at Athens, Clemens Alexand. Strom. 1. refers the coming of Cadmus to the time when Lynceus reigned at Argos, but it is not certain when he reigned there, whether we are to refer the beginning of his reign to the 13h year of Pandions' reigning at Athens, with Eusebius, or to the 18th year of Erectheus the successor of Pandion, with Syntellus. 8. The Kingdom of the Corinthians. Diodorus Sicul. ap. Syncellum p. 179. differs much from Eusebius as to the number of years that several of the Kings of Corinth after the return of the Heraclidae reigned. Juxta Diodor. Sicul. Juxta Euseb. Aletes An. 38 An. 35 Ixion 38 37 Aristomedes 30 35 In the margin in Syncellus p. 179. to Aristomedes 35 years are assigned, and likewise in 2 Latercula in p. 180. and yet p. 185. only 31 years are allotted to him. After Automenes the Prytanes of annual Rulers continued An. 90. according to Diodor. Siculus, about An. 120 according to Eusebius. After them Cypselus obtained the Government, and after him his Son Periander. To Cypselus Aristotle Polit. l. 5. c. ult. gives An. 30. to Periander 44. but Eusebius and Syncellus allow the Father only An. 28. and Diog. Laertius in Periandro allows the Son only 40. 9 The Kingdom of the Medes. How differently the succession of the Kings of Media and the time of their several reign is represented by Herodotus l. 1. c. 96. &c, Ctesias ap. Diodor. Sicul. l. 2. Eusebius and Syncellus, will best appear by the following Scheme. Juxta Ctesiam. Juxta Eusebium. Juxta Herodotum. Juxta Syncellum. Arbaces An. 28 Arbaces An. 28 Arbaces An. 28 Mandauces 50 Sosarmus 30 Mandauces 20 Sosarmus 30 Medidus 40 Sosarmus 30 Artias 50 Cardiceas 13 Artycas 30 Arbianes 22 Deiocles 54 Deioces An. 53 Dioeces 54 Arsaeus 49 Phaortes 24 Phraortes 22 Aphraartes 51 Artynes 22 Cyaxares 32 Cyaxares 40 Cyaxares 32 Artibarnas 40 Astyages 38 Astyages 35 Astyages 38 Allyages I must not omit that though these Authors, how much soever they disagree in other things, do all concur in this, that Astyages was the last King of the Medes; yet Xenophon de Inst. Cyri. l. 1. says that Astyages had a son, who was also his Successor in the Kingdom, viz. Cyaxares. 10 The Kingdom of the Lydians. The account which Herodotus l. 1. c. 7. etc. gives of the Lydian succession differs much from that of Eusebius and Syncellus. Herodotus writes that the Heraclidae Reigned from Argon the first of them to Candaules the last 505 years; whereas Eusebius and Syncellus take notice of only 3 Kings, viz. Ardysus, Alyattes and Miles or Meles before Candaules, and the years that these 4 Kings reigned being all joined together are only 79. After Candaules those reigned who are by Herodotus called Mermnadae, and Eusebius with Syncellus agree with him as to the names and number of those that held the Kingdom, yet they descent from him altogether as to the number of the years that they held it. Juxta Herodotum. Juxta Eusebium. Gyges' An 38 An 36 To the 2 of these viz. Ardys only An. 37. are allotted by Syncellus. Ardys Reigned 49 Reigned 38 Sadyattes 12 15 Alyattes 57 49 Croesus 14 15 11. The Kingdom of the Tyrians. Tho' Syncellus p. 182 pretends that he hath the account of the Tyrian Kings which he gives us from Josephus, and it is very probable that Theophilus ad Autol. l. 3. had his from him also; vet there is not a perfect accord betwixt theirs and that which we have in Josephus c. Apion l. 1. Apud Josepyam. Apud Theophitum Ap. Syncellum. Baleazarus An. 7 An. 17 An. 17 Ithobalus Reigned 32 12 32 Badezorus 6 7 8 Matgenus or Mettenus 9 29 25 12. The Kingdom of the Macedonians. Herodotus l. 8. c. 139. names Perdiccas as the first King, and when Thucydides l. 2. says of Archelaus that as to warlike preparations he ordered things better than all the 8 Kings that were before him, he seems to consent thereto; for if Perdiccas was the first King, then there were just 8 before Archelaus. Yet Justin l. 7. c. 2. says that Perdicca reigned after Caranus, as Solinus c. 9 says that he succeeded him. Suidas concurs with Justin in making Caranus the first King, and Livy l. 45. says expressly that he reigned the first. They that please may also consult Ausonius Epist. 19 When Justin and Solinus say that Perdiccas succeeded or reigned after Caranus, if their meaning was that he succeeded Caranus immediately, they are contrary not only to Eusebius and Syncellus, but also to the marginal successions of the Macedonian Kings which we have in Syncellus p. 262; for all these do reckon two Kings; viz. Caenus and Tyrimmas between Caranus and Perdiccas. And so Theophilus ad Autol. l. 2. giving us the Genealogy of the Temenidae makes Caenus the Son of Caranus, and Tyrimmas the Son of Caenus, and Perdiccas the Son of Tyrimmas. Eusebius makes Caranus to have reigned An. 28. and to have begun his reign 36 or 37 years before the first Olympiad: but the two Successions of the Macedonian Kings ap. Syncellum, and Syncellus himself grant him 30 years, and Syncellus says that he was 18 years before the first Olympiad (or, if we will believe the marginal correction, he was 25 years before it.) Solinus c. 6. writes that Perdiccas succeeded Caranus, or was first named King in the 22d d Olympiad, but Eusebius refers the beginning of his reign to the 11th Olympiad. In that succession of the Macedonian Kings which we have in the Text ap. Syncellum p. 262, Perdiccas is omitted. As also the other Succession in the Margin doth not altogether agree with Syncellus, much less with Eusebius. To Caenus it allots 28 years; but Syncellus gives him 29, Eusebius only 12. To Argeus it gives An. 34, Syncellus only 32; but Eusebius 38. To Tyrimmas it assigns An. 45. to Perdiccas' 48. to Philip. 35. and to Aeropas' 23: when Eusebius gives to the first of these 38, to the 2d 51, to the 3d d 38, to the 4th 26. The uncertainty of Chronology as to the Kingdoms that were in the time of the first Monarchy hath appeared sufficiently. I proceed now to persons and occurrences which were in the time of that Monarchy; but the particular time when they lived or happened is very uncertain. I begin with persons, as 1. Prometheus, who according to St August. de Civ. Dei l. 18. c. 8. lived when Orthopolis was King of the Sicyonians, and Criasus King of the Argives. Tatianus and Clemens Alexand. Strom. 1. say that he lived in the time of Triopas who also reigned over the Argives. Eusebius says that some write that he was in the time of Phorbas who reigned at Argos between Criasus and Triopas; yet adds that others refer him to the time of Cecrops who was contemporary to Triopas, and that according to others he lived 60 of 90 years before Cecrops. 2. Hercules. According to the computation which we have in Clemens Alexand. Strom. 1. Herculeses institution of Olympic games preceded that of Iphitus An. 440. or above, but according to Eusebius from Hercules his instituting them to the first Olympiad were only An. 430. Velleius Paterc. l. 1. makes Hercules to have died above 40 years before that Troy was taken, but by Eusebius' account he died but about 16 years before the taking of it. By Eusebius' account also Hercules died after Euristeus, whereas our best Historians say that Euristeus survived him. Diodorus Sicul. l. 4. writes that after Hercules his death Euristheus desired to expel his Sons out of Greece, and they gave him battle and vanquished him, and Hillus one of them slew him. Thucydides l. 1. testifies likewise that Euristeus was slain by them. 3. Lycurgus. Of Lycurgus (says Plutarch in his life) nothing can be said which is certain and unquestionable, but there is the least agreement about the time when he lived. Aristotle and others say that he lived at the same time with Iphitus, and was assistant to him in ordering the Olympic games. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus say that he was Ancienter by not a few years than the first Olympiad. Timaeus will have him to have been not far from the time of Homer, and some say that he conversed with Homer. Xenophon makes him to have been about the time of the Heraclidae, and he seems to speak of those first Heraclidae that lived not long after Hercules himself. Thus Plutarch. And as to Eratosthenes he ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. declares the time from Licurgus' Tuition to the first Olympiad to have been 108 years. Tatianus says that he made his Laws 100 years before the Olympiads. But Clemens Alex. will have him to have been 150 years before them. 4. Homer. It is vulgarly known how various opinions there are about the age of Homer. Tatianus long since collected some of them. Crates (says he) will have him to have flourished before the return of the Heraclidae within 80 years after the war of Troy, Eratosthenes after 100 years from the taking Troy, Aristarchus about the jonick migration after An. 140. from the fall of Troy, Philochorus after the jonick migration Archippus being Archon at Athens An. 180. after the destruction of Troy. Apollodorus reckons 100 years after the jonick migration, and so 240 after Troy. Some say that he was a little before the Olympiads An 400. (or 407.) after the fall of Troy. Others make him contemporary to Archilochus, who was about the 23d d Olympiad, in the time of Gyges' King of the Lydians, 500 years after that Troy was destroyed. Thus far Tatianus. They that desire more to this purpose may consult Clemens Alex. Strom. I. 5. Hesiod. The like uncertainty there is as to the age wherein Hesiod lived. A. Gellius l. 3. c. 11. hath taken notice of the dispute concerning Homer and him, some making Homer the more Ancient, as Philochorus and Xenophanes; others giving the seniority to Hesiod, as Accius and Ephorus; others making them contemporaries, as Varro. Thus Gellius who l. 17. c. 1. determines that either they lived almost at the same time, or that Homer was somewhat the Ancienter. The truth is there are many besides those mentioned by Gellius that make Homer the more Ancient yea Velleius Paterculus l. 1. makes Hesiod about 120 years later than the age of Homer: but on the other side according to the Marmor Arundel. Homer was by some years later than Hesiod. Cassius ap. Gellium l. 17. c. 2. says that Homer and Hesiod were above 160 years after the Trojan war, but the Marmor Arundel. makes Homer to have been above An. 300 after the taking of Troy; and if you value Herodotus' opinion l. 2. c. 53. Hesiod and Homer were no more than An. 400 before his own time. Cornelius Nepos ap. Gellium says that Homer was but An. 160 before the building Rome. Hitherto we have taken a view of Kingdoms and some illustrious persons that were in the time of the Assyrian Monarchy. It remains that we take notice of some remarkable occurrences that were in the same time, as 1. The flood of Ogyges. St Aug. de civ. Dei l. 18. c. 8. observes that Historians are not agreed what time Ogyges himself was. Syncellus p. 148. says that some refer the flood to the time of Phoroneus King of the Argives, others to the time of Apis the successor of Phoroneus. Africanus ap. Euseb. de praepar. Evang. l. 10. c. 10. writes that it happened in the first of the 1020 years which were from Ogyges to the first Olympiad; whereas according to Eusebius there were but about 987 years from this flood to the first Olympiad. Censorinus c. 21. seems to make it to have been above 800 years before the first Olympiad. From Ogyges' flood (says he) to the reign of Inachus were about 400 years, from thence to the first Olympiad somewhat more than 400. 2. Deucalion's flood. According to Solinus c. 11. there were 600 years from the flood of Ogyges to this of Deucalion, according to Eusebius An. 237, according to Orosius l. 1. c. 7 and 9, An. 230. St August. de civ. Dei l. 18. c. 10. takes notice that Eusebius and St Hierome refer this of Deucalion to the time of Cecrops, but that Varro refers it to the time of Cranaus who was successor to Cecrops, and he might have added that Justin l. 2. c. 6. says that it was in the reign of Amphictyon who succeeded Cranaus. 3. The taking of Troy. Censorinus c. 21. hath these words, Sosibius indeed did write that there were 395, But Eratosthenes 407, Timaeus 417, Aretres 514, and besides these many have written diversely, whose very dissent doth declare that the thing is uncertain. Thus Censorinus. Now what it is about which there were so many different opinions is not clear. It may seem to be the time from the reign of Inachus (what Inachus I know not) to the first Olympiad. But learned men have thought that he intended this of the time from the taking of Troy to the first Olympiad, it being well known that Eratosthenes makes the time from the taking Troy to the first Olympiad to have been just that number of years which Censorinus mentions, viz. 407. However it be as to this, yea let it be supposed that those Learned men were mistaken in thinking that Censorinus referred to the taking of Troy in this passage; yet it cannot be denied that it is a considerable Testimony of the uncertainty of Chronology, and we shall sufficiently manifest the incertitude of the time when Troy was taken from other Authors. Velleius Paterc. l. 1. makes it to have been An. 414 or 415 before the first Olympiad (not only 407 as Eratosthenes) Solinus c. 1. An. 408, Eusebius 406 (in some Editions 405.) Very Learned men interpret the Marmor Arundel. so that it makes the interval twi'xt the taking of Troy and the first Olympiad to have been An. 434. As also they so interpret Dicaearchus ap. Apollonii Skoliasten l. 4. ver. 272. Argonaut., that he makes it to have been An. 436: for when Dicaearchus says (From the reign of Nilus to the first Olympiad An. 436) they by the reign of Nilus understand the time of the Trojan war, as perhaps by the reign of Inachus in Censorinus the same may be understood. Add hereto that the Marmor Arundel. makes Troy to have been taken An. 373 after the beginning of the reign of Cecrops, and in the 2d year of Menestheus; whereas by Eusebius' account it was taken An. 375 after the beginning of Cecrops, and in the 23d d year of Menestheus; and by Syncellus' it was taken An, 385 after the beginning of Cecrops, and in the 33d d of Menestheus. Also the Marmor Arundel. computes An. 320 from Deucalion's flood to the taking of Troy, but in Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. the very same number of years is assigned from Deucalion's flood to the rape of Helen by Paris; now according to Homer Iliad. w. ver. 765. there were 20 years between that rape of Helen and the taking Troy, and consequently from the flood of Deucalion to the taking of it there were An. 340 according to Clem. Alex., so that his computation exceeds that of the Marble An. 20. From the taking of Troy to the building of Rome were An. 432, so Dionysius Halic. l. 2. An. 433 says Solinus c. 1. An. 437 according to Velleius Paterc. l. 1. I might take notice that Clemens Alex. writes how some refer Troy's being taken to the first year of Demophoons reigning at Athens, as well as others refer it to the last year that Menestheus reigned there, as also that Constantinus Manasses makes the Trojan war to have been in David's time (saying that Priamus requested aid of him) whereas according to Eusebius it was in the time of the Judges, particularly when Abdon judged Israel: but enough hath been produced already to show how great discord there is about the year when this calamity befell Troy. There is no less difference about the time of the year (whether it was in the Spring, Summer or Autumn) as also about the month and day (of which they that please may consult Alex. Strom. 1.) and therefore Plutarch in Camillus expresseth himself very cautiously speaking of the day of the month. 4. The return of the Heraclidae. Which was 80 years after Troy's being taken says Eratosthenes ap. Clem. Alex., almost 80 years says Velleius Paterc. l. 1. By Eusebius it is referred to the time of Melanthus' reigning at Athens, but by Syncellus to the time of his Son and successor Codrus. 5. The jonick migration or the passing of the jones from Attica to that part of lesser Asia which is called jonia. Philostratus in Euphorbo p. 702. says that it was according to some 124, according to others 127 years after the war of Troy that the Athenians sent a colony into jonia, but Eratosthenes ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. makes it to have been 140 years after the expugnation of Troy; for (says he) from the taking of Troy to the return of the Heraclidae were An. 80, and from that to the jonick migration An. 60. And Strabo l. 13. seems to descent from them both, when he says that the Aeolic migration was said to be 4 generations before the jonick. Now 4 generations according to the usual account (that 3 generations are 100 years, see Herodotus l. 2. c. 142. and Clemens Alex. Strom. 1.) are above 130 years, so that the jonick migration was according to this computation above 130 years after the Aeolic, and the Aeolic was some years after the taking Troy, yea according to Strabo above 50 years. For his account of it is that Orestes was the first Author of it, but he dying, it was carried on by his Son Penthilus, who came into Thrace 60 years after the war of Troy, about the time of the coming of the Heraclidae into Peloponnesus. Thus Strabo. So that when Eratosthenes says From the taking of Troy to the return of the Heraclidae An. 80, Strabo accounts only about 60; and when Eratosthenes computes from the return of the Heraclidae to the jonick migration only An. 60, Strabo speaks of 4 generations between the Aeolic and it, and makes the Aeolic to have been about the same time with the return of the Heraclidae. 5. The building Carthage. It was 50 years before the expugnation of Troy, so Appian de bello Punico, only 38 years before it says Philistus ap. Euseb., and in Scaligers edition only 32. But very many say that it was after Troy's being taken; An. 143 after it say some, An. 175 say others, An. 338, say others: these 3 differing accounts are taken notice of by Eusebius, and the account given by Josephus c. Apion. l. 1. that it was An. 143 and 8 months after the building of Solomon's Temple, will not agree with any of these. Nor will these that follow, viz. that of Velleius Paterc. l. 1. that it was 65 years before Rome's being built, and Servius' in Virgil AEneid. 1. that it was 70 years before it, or Justins l. 18. c. 6. that it was 72 before it, or lastly Timaeus' ap. Dionys. Halic. that it was 38 years before the first Olympiad. 7. The first Olympiad. That is accounted the first Olympiad in which Coraebus was Victor, and Plegon in Fragment. accounts that the 28th Olympiad, with whom Aristodemus and Polybius ap. Syncellum p. 196. seem to agree: but Callimachus ap. Syncell. says that Coroebus overcame in the 14th Olympiad from Iphitus. Syncellus p. 199. says that the first Olympiad was the 45th year of the reign of Uzziah King of Judah, Eusebius makes it to have been the 50th year of that King; but St Cyril c. Julian. l. 1. refers it to the reign of Jotham the Son of Uzziah, as Africanus did before him if we believe Eusebius; though Syncellus p. 197. would persuade us that Africanus referred it to the reign of Ahaz the Son of Jotham. 8. The building of Rome. Touching the uncertainty of the time when this City was built I shall transcribe the words of Solinus c. 1. Cincius (says he) thought it was built in the 12th Olympiad, Pictor in the 8th, Nepos and Lutatius following the opinion of Eratosthenes and Apollodorus in the 2d year of the 7th Olympiad, Pomponius Atticus and M. Tullius in the 3d d of the 6th Olympiad. Thus Solinus, who also delivers his own opinion different from all these, that it was built in the first year of the 7th Olympiad. They that please may also consult Dionysius Holy. who has collected many various opinions of both Greek and Roman writers about it. I might instance in other occurrences, particularly in the Eclipse foretold by Thales, as to which they cannot agree either in what Olympiad or in what Kings reign it happened, Herodotus l. 1. c. 74. and Eudemus ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. saying that it was in the time of Cyaxares King of the Medes, but Solinus c. 16. and Eusebius in the reign of his Son Astyages: but I forbear. All this time I have confined myself to the Assyrian Monarchy, and only observed how more ancient Writers disagree in their accounts of time, for it would be endless if I should go about to show the discord that there is among our 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 myself 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 36th year of Azariah or Uzziah King of Judah, Scalig. de Emend. l. 5. de initio Olympiadum Edit. 2. The first Olympiad was in the 37th 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 died in An. Nabonassar 152, Scalig. in Fragment. p. 11. and in Canon. Isagog. l. 3. Nabopolassar reigned only 19 years, Scalig. de Emend. l. 5. de initio Nebucbodon. Edit. 1. Nabopolassar reigned 29 years complete and died in the 30 of his reign Scalig. in Fragment. p. 10 and 11. Nabopolassar died in the beginning of the 29 year of his reign, Scalig. de Emend l. 5. de initio Nabopolassar Edit. 2. The beginning of Nebuchadnezars reign was An. Per. Jul. 4107, Scalig. de Emend. l. 5. de initio Nabuchodonosor. Edit. 1. The first year of Nabuchadnezzar was An. Per. Jul. 4106, Scal. de Emend. l. 5. de initio Nabuchodon. Edit. 2. Nabuchadnezzar reigned 7 years with his Father, Scalig. de Emend. l. 5. de initio Nebuchod. Edit. 2. Nabuchadnezzar reigned almost 13 years with his Father, Scalig. in Fragment. p. 14. Nebuchadnezars death was An. Nabonassar 185, Scaliger de Emend. l. 5. de initio Nahuchod. Edit. 2. Nabuchadnezzar died 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, Petau. de doctrina temporum l. 9 c. 16. The Kingdom of the Sicyonians begun An. Per. Jul. 2550, Petau. de. doct. temp. l. 13. Inachus begun to reign An. Per. Jul. 2856, 179 years after the birth of Abraham, Petau. de doctr. temp. l. 9 c. 18. Inachus' reign begun An. Per. Jul. 2857. in the 6th year after the death of Abraham (i e. 181 after his birth) Petau. Rationar. part. 2. l. 2. c. 5. The 7th year of Pygmalion was An. Per. Jul. 3822, Petau. de doctr. temp. l. 9 c. 62. The 7th of Pygmalion was An. Per. Jul. 3825, Petau. Rationar. part 2. l. 2. c. 13. The first Olympiad was An. 776, before the birth of Christ, Petau. Rationar. part 1. l. 2. c. 5. The first Olympiad was An. 777, before our Saviour's birth, Petau. Rationar. part 2. l. 1. c. 11 and l. 3. c. 1 and 2. Nebucbadnezzar begun the siege of Tyre An. Per. Jul. 4122, Petau. Rationar. part 2. l. 2. c. 13. The siege of Tyre by Nabuchadnezzar begun An. Per. Jul. 4123, Petau. 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 Petau. 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 the 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 World's 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 applied to many other Epocha's, about which Chronologers dispute with very great earnestness. I have enlarged the more upon this subject, because of the great necessity and usefulness of men's being convinced of this uncertainty of Chronology of which we treat; which will appear, if we consider the many mischiefs which have been occasioned by the want of such conviction. From the want of this have proceeded many eager disputes about matters appertaining to Chronology, and those managed with the greatest wrath and bitterness imaginable. If Syncellus had been convinced 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 convinced of it, and seriously considered it, it would have prevented the heats between Scaliger, and the Germane Divines, and Scaliger would not have fallen so foul upon our Mr 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 burdened with many tedious and voluminous writings, such as Scaligers two Editions of his De emendatione Temporum, and his Canon's Isagog. etc. also Petavius' 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 Chronological niceties, had been employed in more useful Studies, they might have been very serviceable both to the time in which they lived, and also to future generations. Therefore seriously weighing these and the like mischiefs occasioned by the want of such conviction and consideration, I thought that I could not do any thing more necessary and beneficial, then to endeavour to convince men of the uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology. CHAP. II. Whether Lunar Months were in use with the Israelites before the Captivity of Babylon. Dr. Carry part 1. l. 1. c. 12. singles a passage out of Archbishop Oshers Preface to his Annals, in which he says that it cannot be proved that the Israelites used Lunar months before the Babylonish Captivity, but their year consisted of 12 equal months, every month having 30 days, and 5 days being added at the end of the 12th month in every common year, 6 days every 4th or Leap-year. Thus the Archbishop. The arguments wherewith the Doctor opposeth this are either from authority or reason. His authorities are 1. The Penmen of holy Scripture. 2. Other Writers. 1. The Scriptures which the Doctor produceth are Num. 10. 10. 28. 11. 1 Sam. 20. 1, 4, 5, 27, 34. 2 Kings 4. 23. 2 Chron. 8. 12, 13. Psal. 81. 3. Ezek. 45. 17. 46. 3, 6. It is evident (says he) from one or more of these Texts that the Lunar month was in popular use, particularly from 1 Sam. 20. If you ask him how it is evident from one or more of these Texts, all that he says to this purpose is 1. That the beginnings of the months in the letter of the Law (i. e. Num. 10. and 28.) are interpreted by the Psalmist (Psal. 81.) to be the New moons. 2. That the Septuagint thought so doubtless, who use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these places. 3. That these Texts do certainly mark out the New moon to be a day of solemnity. 4. That the morrow after the New Moon is called the 2d day of the month. And now we have the whole strength of the Doctor's argument from Scripture. To which I answer 1. None of those four propositions is evident, and consequently they cannot make it clear that Lunar months were in popular use before the Captivity. I grant that if the Translations of the Scripture were authentic, then three of the foresaid propositions would be evident, viz. all except the 2d d: but if we must have recourse to the Original, than the other three are no more evident than it. For instance, The first proposition is that the beginnings of the months Num. 10 and 28. are interpreted Psal. 81. to be the New Moons: now the Hebrew words for The beginnings of the months are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 28. 11. and the Hebrew word which is translated the New Moon Psal. 81. 3. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to say that an expression that is more plain is interpreted by one that is more obscure. But let it be supposed (though not granted) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than we may say that the beginning of the month is interpreted by the first day of the month; for the first day of the month is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Kimchi both in his Radices and in his Comment upon Psal. 81. 3: and therefore instead of Blow the Trumpet in the New Moon, we may Translate it, Blow the Trumpet in the first day of the month. Thus it appears that the first proposition is not evident, and upon the very same account the 3d d and 4th propositions are not. For in all the Texts which the Doctor hath alleged for confirmation of those propositions (viz. 1 Sam. 20. 5, 27, 34. 2 Kings 4. 23. 2 Chron. 8. 13. and Ezek. 45. 17. 46. 3, 6.) the Hebrew word is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in 1 Sam. 20. 27, 34. signifies the month (and is rendered so by our Translators) in the rest of the places it may signify the first day of the month, or (which is the same) the New month, though in our Bibles it is rendered in every one of them the New moon. So (to run over the Texts) we may read To morrow is the first day of the month or the New month, 1 Sam. 20. 5. It is neither the first day of the month nor the Sabbath, 2 Kings 4. 23. On the first days of the month, 2 Chron. 8. 13, and Ezek. 45. 17. 46. 3. and finally, In the day of the New Month, Ezek. 46. 6. So that it is the first day of the month which these Texts do mark out to be a solemn day, and the day after it is reckoned the 2d day of the month: but it will not be easily made out that the New Moon is mentioned in any of those places. I acknowledge that this account of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not agree with that which the Doctor gives of it, but his account will be fully examined in the Appendix. It remains that I examine the Doctors 2d proposition, which is that the 70 who use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all those places (viz. Num. 10. 10. 28. 11. and Psal. 81. 3.) doubtless thought that the beginnings of the months Num. 10. and 28. are interpreted by the New Moons Psal. 81. Now I deny, that this consequence is evident, or that from their using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all those places it can be evidently deduced that they thought so as the Doctor says they did. We may rather conclude from it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 81. signifies (not the New Moon but) the first day of the month. For the beginnings of the months are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Num. 10. and 28. and then why should we not think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same signification Psal. 81. 3: But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will also be considered more fully in the Appendix. 2. Suppose that it was evident that the New Moon is marked out to be a day of solemnity, it doth not follow that the Lunar month was in popular use (which is the thing in question) for the New Moon might be observed as a solemn day, on what day soever of their month it happened; though it fell out toward the middle or end of their month as well as if their month began with it. Again suppose that it was evident, that the marrow after the New Moon is reckoned the 2d day of the month 1 Sam. 20, 5, 27, 34. yet it cannot be thence concluded that the Israelites used Lunar months; for the morrow after the New Moon might fall out at that time to be the 2d day of the month, though at other times it was on other days of it. Thus his Text on which he chiefly relies, viz. 1 Sam. 20. fails him upon a double account, 1. It is not evident that the morrow after the New Moon is reckoned the 2d day of the month. 2. If it was, the use of Lunar months cannot be concluded from it. This may suffice for answer to his argument from Scripture. 2. As to the Doctor's argument from the authority of other Writers, he says that All the Doctors, Ancient and Modern, Jews and Christians (except Kepler, Petavius and Bishop Usher) were of opinion that the Jewish year after the Israelites departure out of Egypt was Lunar. Now what shall we say to this confident assertion? The least that we can say is, that it might have been expected that so great an undertaker in Chronology should have acquainted himself with Chronographers better than it seems he hath done. If he had more diligently consulted them, he would have found Massaeus and Temporarius very positive for Solar years. It is manifest that the Scripture always every where useth Solar years and equal months consisting of 30 days, so Massaeus Chronicorum l. 1. in fin. It cannot be doubted but that both in Sacred and profane History we are to understand Solar years, the days of every year being 365¼, so Temporarius Chronolog. Demonstr. l. 3. Harvillaeus also in Isagog. Chronolog. l. 1. s. 11. p. 116. declares that he inclines chiefly to this opinion. I incline (says he) more especially to the 5th opinion, viz. (as he expresses it a little before p. 112, 113.) that till the Captivity of Babylon the years are to be understood to be Solar, consisting of 12 equal Solar months of 30 days with the addition of 5 days, and also of one more every 4th year. And finally doth not Scaliger sometimes seem to incline to this opinion? as in his De emendat. Temp. l. 3. de anno priscorum Hebraeorum Abrahameo, where he says that always even after the coming out of Egypt there were 5 days added at or near the Equinox, as is sufficiently known by that which is disputed above out of Moses. And that moreover the first day of the month is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, although there was no New moon on that day, no more than there was on the first days of the Egyptian months. Also a little before this he says that the sacred History testifies that David and Solomon did appoint 12 Officers according to the number of the 12 months of the year, see 1 Kings 4. 7. etc. 1 Chron. 27. 1. etc. The same Scaliger de emend. l. 3. p. 637. says that when the Jews received the form of the Alexandrean year and the Calippick Period, together with them they also received the Lunar year. Thus Scaliger, who in all these particulars viz. that the Jews received the Lunar year after the Captivity, that they superadded 5 days after their coming out of Egypt, that their year consisted of 12 months, and that they called the first day of the month 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although the New moon did not happen on that day, no more than it did on the first days of the Egyptian months, agrees very well with Archbishop Usher. It appears then that Kepler and Petavius, are not the only persons that have inclined to the Arch-Bishops opinion, and that it had been more prudent, if the Doctor had forborn that expression that all the Doctors except those two were against him. Thus we have considered the Doctor's Arguments from Authority. 3. His Argument from Reason is very long, and they that would see it at large may consult the Doctor himself Part. 1. l. 1. c. 12. beginning towards the end of sect. 5. and reading on to sect. 8. I shall only give a Summary of it. He says that it is not denied that before Christ's time the Lunar year was in popular use. If then we hold that they used the solar year before the Captivity, 1. He says us necessary that we show when, in what age and by what means the change from Solar to Lunar was effected. 2. He wonders that neither Josephus nor any other did take any notice of it. 3. He affirms that the Jews would not suffer such a change. Now for answer to these. As to the first, Why is it necessary to show when and in what age this change was made, when the Doctor himself tells us that some have done it already? They set it (says he s. 6.) after Alexander's time, under the Government of the Seleucidae. Besides have not many innovations and corruptions crept into particular Churches, and yet we do not think ourselves obliged to show the precise time that they first sprung up? As to the 2d, Why doth the Dr wonder that Josephus and others take no notice of this change, when he himself holds that after the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt there was the same change of the year from Solar to Lunar, and yet they have taken no notice of that? The Doctor says in the beginning of s. 15. that when the Israelites were in Egypt their reckoning was according to the Solar year, but after their coming out of Egypt he maintains against the Archbishop that they used the Lunar year; now where is this change taken notice of by Josephus? Josephus Ant. l. 1. c. 4. and l. 3. c. 10. says that they were commanded to keep the Passover on the 14th Moon in the month Nisan, and that Moses appointed Nisan to be the first month with reference to their Feasts and the things pertaining to Divine worship; but as to buying and selling and the rest of the dispensation of the year he made no alteration, but retained the first rite, form or order. These are the words of Josephus. So that if from hence that Moses appointed Nisan to be the first month with reference to Feasts, etc. and the Passover to be kept on the 14th Moon in that month, it can be necessarily concluded that he changed the year from Solar to Lunar, so that in saying the one Josephus in effect says the other, then indeed he doth take notice of that change; but if it cannot be certainly concluded (that Moses made such a change) from those words of Josephus (as I am well assured it cannot) than he hath taken no notice of it. I have insisted upon this the longer because of that which the Doctor says s. 5. of Josephus and Philo Judaeus. He says that they plainly signify that the year even of old time from Moses was Lunar, and imply somewhat more, namely this, that there was never any question made of it before their time. Now I would gladly be informed where they either plainly signify the one, or imply the other. I have produced Josephus' words already. Philo Judaeus de vita Mosis having said that Moses made the beginning of the vernal Equinox the first month, adds, In this month about the 14th day, the Moon being about to be at the Full, the Feast of the Passover is celebrated, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense, so that Philo speaks of that which was done in his time. Withal if he had spoken of the old time from Moses, he neither plainly signifies that the year was then Lunar, nor implies that there was never any question made of it. The 3d d particular remains, which is that the Jews would not suffer such a change. The Doctor useth many words to prove this, the sum whereof is this. The Jews (says he) believed that their ancient custom as to the time of beginning the year and observing the Passover was of Primitive Divine institution, or bound upon them by Divine Law; and therefore they would not suffer a change of it. To which I answer, that if this be understood more generally of their custom of beginning the year with the month Nisan, and observing the Passover upon the 14th of that month, it will be granted that they believed it to be of Divine Institution. But if we descend to particulars, as that the first day of Nisan or their New years day was to be always that day which answered to such or such a day in our Calendar, or what other day you please; or that the day of the Passover was always to be that day which answered (suppose) to our 4th of May, I cannot say that the Jews believed that this was of Divine Institution, and the Doctor should have proved it otherwise then by saying Questionless they must believe so. Yea, I could tell him that some Jews have believed, that the precept for beginning the year with the month Nisan was only temporary, and did not oblige them always to account it the beginning of months. CHAP. III. Of the month Dioscorinthius, 2 Mac. 11. 21. THE month Dioscorinthius seems to have been mensis embolimus in Anno Chaldaico, i. e. a month superadded in the Chaldaean year, and interposed between Dystrus and Xanthicus, in which month Xanthicus the letters from the King and the Romans to the Jews were written; so the Archbishop A. M. 3841. The Doctor p. 84. falls upon him very insultingly for this. Upon consideration of the premises (says he) we may ask the question what then becomes of that conceit of Dioscorinthius as if it should be the Embolimaear month? Thus the Doctor. Now 1. Suppose it was only a conceit, why does the Doctor single out the Archbishop as if it was peculiarly his? especially when the Archbishop expresses himself so cautiously and modestly, saying only that it seems to be so. Scaliger de emend. Temp. l. 2. de periodo Syromacedonum Alexandrea Salianus A. M. 3891. and Menochius in loc. are all of the Arch-Bishops opinion; yet we hear nothing of them, but the Archbishop alone must be arraigned and tried, and the opinion (or conceit, for so the Doctor will needs call it,) condemned. Now if you ask upon what evidence or grounds the opinion is condemned, the Doctor tells us it is upon consideration of the premises; and if we would know what those premises are, we must look back to the beginning of the 25th section in that 84th page which I alleged above. Also that we may the better understand that which the Doctor would be at, we must observe that in 2 Mac. 11. 21. the date of Lysias' letter is thus expressed; The 148th year the 24th day of the month Dioscorinthius. Now the sum of that which the Doctor says is this, That according to his Tables the 147th year of the Seleucidae was Embolimaear (as he calls it) i. e. a year in which one month was superadded. Yet (says he) according to popular estimation (and that very just and good) not the 147th but the 148th was Embolimaear. Then he adds in sect. 26. Whether the year 147 or 148 were Embolimaear it matters not, once I cannot see how the year 149 could be such; And I speak of the 149 year Jewish reckoning according to our Tables, which in the Chaldaean account was the 148 according to the date of Lysias' letter 2 Mac. 11. Thus the Doctor. So that in short which year was Embolimaear he knows not, but resolves that the 149 or 148 according to 2 Mac. 11. could not be such, that he might conclude against the Archbishop that Dioscorinthius was not mensis Embolimus, a superadded month. But it may be said that the Doctor gives a reason why the 149 year could not be Embolimaear, because then the vernal New moon in the 150 year must be set over to the 15 of April. To which I answer, that (possibly) according to the Doctor's Tables it must have been set so late, but who will regard his Tables, when he himself hath told us, that an account differing from that in his Tables, may be very just and good, and agree very well with the truth, though not with the precise strictness (as he expresses it) of those his Tables? Besides his Tables have reference to the Jewish year, whereas the Archbishop speaks expressly of the Chaldaean year, and that which the Doctor calls the 149 i e. the 148 in 2 Mac. 11. might be an intercalary year in the Chaldaean account, though not in the Jewish. Therefore the consideration of the Doctor's premises does not persuade us to sleight the Arch-Bishops conjecture so much as he doth. But 2. What if we should ask now What will become of the Doctor's conceit, that Dioscotinthius was that month which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? especially when we consider that it engageth him to say that Lysias' letter to the Jews was of a later date than the King's letter to them; the King's letter bearing date April 9, Lysias' June 16 after (according to his reckoning) than which scarce any thing can seem to me more incredible. When the King himself had by letter certified the Jews that he granted their desire, can any one imagine that Lysias should write above two months after, only to signify the same thing to them? If the Doctor had only said that Lysias' letter to the Jews was of later date than the King's letter to him, he had said that which is no less probable than the other is improbable. For I make account that Lysias first informed the King what the Jews desired, than the King writ to him to certify them that he granted their desire (a copy of this letter we have a Mac. II. 22, etc.) Lysias having received that letter, writes to the Jews as the King directed him, and his letter bears date the 24 of Dioscorinthius. Lastly the King himself writ a letter to the Jews dated the month following (according to the Archbishop) Xanthicus the 15, which he sent with Menelaus (by whom also he had been acquainted with the desire of the Jews) to give them-full assurance, that he granted their request. In this there is nothing improbable. But that the King should give order to Lysias to write to the Jews, and that he should not do it till above two months or three months perhaps after, is that which I can by no means subscribe to. To conclude, it cannot be determined certainly what month it was, whether Dystrus, as Serarius thought, or Dius as Grotius, or Dystro-Xanthicus as the Archbishop: but of all the conjectures which I have seen, the Doctor's conjecture seems to be the least probable. CHAP. IU. Of the time when Artaxerxes Longimanus begun his reign. THE Archbishop A. M. 3531 sets thè beginning of Artaxerxes' 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' coming to Artaxerxes to the time between the siege of Naxos, and the noble victory which Cimon obtained against the Persian at Eurymedon; also he refers the beginning of Artaxerxes' reign to the same time. For he says that Themistocles writ a letter then to Artaxerxes newly reigning. Thus the Archbishop. 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' 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, though 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 inferred thence that the beginning of Artaxerxess reign was so soon as the Archbishop 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 Archbishop alleges. 2. Take notice of an unbecoming reflection of his upon the Archbishop. The Doctor's answer to the Archbishop 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' 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' 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 suspicion that it was an Athenian trick, an invention of Themistocles' 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 sum of the Doctor's 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 concerned Themistocles' 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 befell 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' 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 happened then. However, it is plain, that it is not clearly asserted by Diodorus Siculus, that the time of Themistocles' 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' flight to the time of Xerxes: but as Cornel. Nepos rather believed Thucydides about the time of Themistocles' flight, because he lived 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' drinking Bulls blood? 2. Why says the Doctor, that possibly the date of it was not known to Thucydides, when Thucydides plainly tells 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 suspicion 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 acknowledged that the Doctor was very quick scented 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 lived so long as to the time of Artaxerxes' 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 believed that Artaxerxes had begun to reign before Themistocles' coming into Persia. The Doctor's unbecoming reflection upon the Archbishop 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' courtly letter, 2. Eusebius' incongruous Annotation, 3. Ctesias' authorising 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Artabanus nothing to the purpose, these are upon design to make a bolster for the Bishop's interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. Thus the Doctor. As if the Archbishop foresaw that the Doctor would lay his interpretation to sleep, and so set himself to knit knots and patch shreds together to make a bolster for it. Or as if the Arch-Bishops design was to serve his Hypothesis, whatsoever became of the Truth. In the mean time the Arch-Bishops interpretation is that which very many Expositors, Ancient and Modern, have approved and followed, computing the 70 weeks (as the Archbishop doth) from the 20th of this Artaxerxes. This 20th of Artaxerxes (according to the Arch-Bishops calculation) was An. Per. Jul. 4260, though it is represented here by the Doctor as if the Archbishop made it to be An. Per. Jul. 4261. To conclude this, I wish the Doctor had not Part 2. l. 2. §. 1. c. 9 s. 11. after a profession of all humility, insulted with such contempt and scorn over many that have laboured as much to clear the sense of that celebrated Prophecy of the 70 weeks, as he hath done to obscure and pervert it. See the 2d chapt. of the same Book and Section. CHAP. V. Of the time when Sanchuniathon, Semiramis and Nitocris lived. THE Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 18. s. 11. tells us, that the world is made to believe, that Semiramis was in the time of the Trojan war, or near thereabouts according to Sanchuniathon. This is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which he speaks in the same sect., which (says he) bears itself out upon the name of Semiramis, and the credit of Sanchuniathon. And in the margin he citys Bishop Usher for all this. Now it is true that the Archbishop A. M. 2789 will have Semiramis to have been in the time of the Trojan war or thereabouts; but I would know where it is that the Archbishop alleges Sanchuniathon for this, or reports it upon the credit of Sanchuniathon. It is not Sanchuniathon that the Archbishop alleges, but Porphyry, as cited by Euseb. de Praepar. Evang. l. 1. and 10, who says that Sanchuniathon was contemporary to Semiramis, and that she is said to have been either before the Trojan affairs, or about the same time with them. But let this strange oversight be passed by. To Sanchuniathon and the Archbishop the Doctor opposes Herodotus, who (as the Doctor would make us belive in this s. 11) reckons Semiramis to have been 520 years after the siege of Troy. But if we read on and peruse the 12th sect., it will appear that he is not serious in it. For though here after having spent many words about it, he concludes, that this is most certainly the reckoning of Herodotus; yet there he says that it is not imputable to Herodotus but his transcriber, who writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The meaning of this is, that if Herodotus had indeed said that Semiramis was only five generations before Nitocris (as it is in our copies, see Herodotus l. 1. c. 184.) then the Doctor thinks that it would have followed, that by Herodotus' account Semiramis had been 520 years after the siege of Troy: but (says the Doctor) our copies are faulty, and 50 being put instead of 5 we must read that Semiramis was Fifty generations before the other. The question than will be, whether we must follow our copies, or the Doctor's correction, who produceth no other authentic copy to warrant it. Yea but the Doctor will demonstrate that this correction must be admitted. Let us (says he) rate these 50 generations by Herodotus' rule (which is that 3 generations are 100 years) the product will be An. 1666. Let these be deducted from 4160 the age and time of Nitocris, the remainder is 2494. which falls just with the time of Semiramis her reign, the 35th year of her reign, according to the years of the Julian Period described in our Scheme. These are the Doctor's words, who triumphantly concludes, This is a demonstration, I must insist upon it, taken from Herodotus, a demonstration that Herodotus is on our side contra gentes. And I would have given the Doctor leave to have been transported thus, if he had proved these three things, 1. That the age and time of Nitocris was An. Per. Jul. 4160. 2. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place of Herodotus is to be taken in that sense in which three generations make a Century, 3. That his Scheme is a right Scheme. But if he fail in the proof of any one of these, what becomes of the demonstration, which he must insist upon, and which occasioned such triumph. 1. The Doctor in his demonstration (as he calls it) takes it for granted that An. Per. Jul. 4160. was the age and time of Nitocris, whereas in sect. 11. he was more cautious, and only said it was about that year. And yet he brought neither Authority nor reason to satisfy us that it was about that year, unless his saying without doubt it must be so, be Authority enough. 2. He takes it for granted, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Herodotus l 1. c. 184. is to be taken in that sense in which three generations are accounted 100 years, whereas it hath various significations, and we may observe in Herodotus l. 2. c. 142. where he says that three generations are 100 years, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is still joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now this addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth determine the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that there it plainly signifies a generation of men. But here where the speech is of Semiramis, we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any such addition to determine its signification. 3. He tells us that An. Per. Jul. 2494. falls just with the 35 year of Semiramis, according to his Scheme. So that in the upshot all depends upon his Scheme, and if that will not bear the weight of the demonstration which he builds upon it, it must fall to the ground. His Scheme we have in the end of this 18 Chapter, and to recommend it to us, he says that it is Africanus'. But how comes it then that in the beginning of the Chapter he gives us another Scheme differing from this, and tells us that that is from Africanus? About the time that Semiramis begun to reign the difference between the two Schemes is no less than 25 years. But the Doctor solves this by saying that the one is Africanus' according to Syncellus, the other according to Helvicus and Ricciolus. So that it is questionable whether of them is Africanus' (if either of them be) but there is some reason why we should rather believe Syncellus then them, because he had greater advantages for knowing what was delivered to Posterity by Africanus then they had. Add hereto that Helvicus seems not to have valued the Scheme which he gives us as from Africanus so highly as the Doctor doth; for he gives us also another 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 reigned, there can be no certainty either in the Doctor's 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 obliged to Scaliger (fragment. p. 42.) for this Criticism, or perhaps he was not willing to mention him for this reason among others, because though Scaliger thought that it should be Fifty generations, yet he differs from him in the conclusion; for he says that they amount to more than 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 Archbishop at all, who makes Semiramis to have reigned about the time of the Trojan war. For if she was but Five generations before Nitocris, and if Nitocris lived about An. Per. Jul. 4160, than 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 forementioned rule amount to no more. But to answer this briefly, Suppose that all the rest was granted, the Doctor (as I observed before) hath not proved either that Nitocris lived about An. P. J. 4160, or that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Herodotus amount to no more than 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 answered 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 joined 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 reigned. CHAP. VI Who Nabonasar was. THE Archbishop A. M. 3257. makes Belesis, who obtained 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, than 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 2d, Tho' the Doctor will not believe that Belesis was Nabonasar, this notwithstanding, it may be very true. And as to the 3d, We need not go to Herodotus for a cover, since the Doctor hath not discovered 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 Archbishop; all these set Sardanapalus more than 100 years higher than he doth. To which I shall only say, that I cannot commend the Doctor's 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, Sr W. Raleigh 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 than 100 years higher than the Archbishop doth. According to the Archbishop Sardanapalus' 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 Archbishop refer the beginning of his reign to the time of the same King of Judah, viz. Vzziah, and the Archbishop 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 than Orosius and Freculphus do, but Syncellus who goes the highest of them differs not above 66 years from the Archbishop; for from the 7 of Amaziah (who reigned 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 than 100 years higher than the Archbishop doth. The same must be said of Bucholzer, who makes Sardanapalus' his death to have happened An. 823 before Christ, when according to the Archbishop it fell out An. 748 before him. Finally Genebrard and our Mr 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 than the Archbishop sets him; for Esarhaddon did not reign before the time of Hezekiah. I may then safely conclude, that the Archbishop had no such project to bring down Sardanapalus more than 100 years lower than all Historians and Chronologers had set him. To return to Nabonasar, with the Doctor's good leave I would ask the question, Why is the Archbishop only quarrelled with for holding that he was Belesis? They that please to consult Mr Lydiats Emendatio temporum A. M. 3257 will find, that we were told the very same thing in express terms by him many years since. CHAP. VII. Of Darius Hystaspis, whether he was the husband of Esther, and of two of his wives Atossa and Artystona. THE Arch Bishop A. M. 3483 and 3490. modestly offers some conjectures concerning Darius Hystaspis, as 1. That he was Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther, 2. That Atossa was Vashti, 3. That Artystona was Esther. For this he must not escape the Doctor's lash Part 2. l. 2. s. 1. c. 4. notwithstanding that the Doctor might have known, that many learned men, as Bertram de Repub. Jud. c. 13. Carion, Melancthon, Funccius, Bunting, the Author of the Chronicon in De la Haye's Biblia magna, Fevardentius, etc. have thought that Darius Hystaspis was the husband of Esther, as well as the Archbishop; as likewise that there are not many questions about which the differing opinions are so many, as about this; Esther having been married by one or other to most of the Kings of Persia, and to some of the Kings of the Medes. Melancthon also thought that Artystona was Esther, and Atossa Vashti. As to the conjecture that Darius Hystaspis was that Ahasuerus, who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, Esther 1. 1. the Archbishop A. M. 3483 observes from Valerius Maximus l. 9 c. 2. that this Darius before he obtained the Kingdom was called Ochus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being added after his being King, he had the name Ahasuerus, as Cambyses had before him. And A. M. 3509 he says, that he is much confirmed in his opinion by that which we read of Ahasuerus Esth. 10. 1. that he laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the Isles of the sea. This (says he) agrees to Darius, who was the first that instituted the paying of tribute, when they brought gifts before: (for which he alleges Herodotus l. 3. c. 89. Strabo l. 15. Polyaenus Stratagem. l. 7. and Plutarch Apophthegmat. Regum & Imperatorum) who also subdued and ruled over the Isles in the AEgean sea (as he gathers from Thucydides l. 1. and Plato in Menexeno) whereas Xerxes after his overthrow in Greece lost those Isles, so that only Clazomenae, and Cyprus remained under the dominion of his Successors, for which we may consult Xenophon Hellenicwn l. 5. Thus the Archbishop. And what says the Doctor to all this? He dispatches it in very few words. For 1. The name Ahasuerus, 2. The dignification or title of being ruler over 127 Provinces, from India to Ethiopia, 3. The imposing tribute upon the Islands, all and every of these (says he) did as much belong to the Kings of Darius' succession, as to himself in particular; therefore nothing can be concluded certain from hence in special for Darius. Thus the Doctor. Whereunto I reply, 1. That the Archbishop never designed to conclude any thing certain from thence, he knew full well that nothing can be concluded certainly in such difficult questions as this is. 2. How appears it that all and every of these did as much belong to Darius' Successors as to himself? the Doctors own saying it is all the authority or proof that is brought for it. Possibly some have said that Ahasuerus was a common name of all the Kings of Persia, but we are not obliged to believe every bold conjecture or confident assertion. And when the Doctor says that the being Ruler over 127 Provinces belonged to Darius' Successors indefinitely, he seems to forget what he had said Part 2. l. 1. c. 20 viz. that Egypt (which was certainly one of the Provinces) did revolt from the Persians in the time of Darius Nothus, and was not reduced till the reign of Artaxerxes Ochus. And then, as to the imposing tribute upon the Islands, the Archbishop produces the Testimonies of sundry Writers to prove 1. That this Darius was the first that imposed tribute (which could not belong to his Successors.) 2. That he subdued and ruled over the Isles in the AEgean sea, which his Successors did not; for his Son Xerxes lost them upon his overthrow in Greece. But to all this the Doctor says nothing. I shall only add to that which the Archbishop hath observed of this matter, that in Herodotus l. 3. c. 96. there is express mention of the Isles paying tribute to this Darius. We are now to make trial whether the Doctor be more happy in his arguing against the Archbishop, than he hath been in answering his arguments. He objects against the Arch-Bishops conjecture, 1. That Darius was a name so well known to all the Jewish Writers, whether at Babylon, Sufa or Jerusalem, and so appropriated to him that was the Son of Hystaspis, that it would be a very strange thing to see his name suppressed by any of them. 2. That this Darius was an eminent Benefactor to the Jewish Nation from the first of his reign to his 6 year, and that it was his interest to confirm all Cyrus's decrees, and so it is not likely, that in the 12 of his reign he should so much forget himself, as at the instigation of a malapert Courtier to give commandment for the utter destruction of the people of the Jews, throughout all his Dominions. 3. That this Prince's levity in making ostentation of the Queen's beauty, and peevishness in taking so deep an offence at her refusal, and petulancy in the use of many Concubines, and lastly rashness in granting a decree for an universal massacre of the Jews, will not suit with Darius, who before he obtained the Kingdom had been one of the Seven Counsellors or Ministers of State, and was full 28 years old when he came to the Crown. Thus the Doctor. Before I return answer to all this I must premise, that the Doctor is of opinion that Artaxerxes Longimanus was the husband of Esther. Now I say that these objections make as well against Artaxerxes, as they do against Darius. The Doctor himself confesses this to be true of the 2d objection. And as to the first, Artaxerxes is a name which was as well known to the Jewish Writers as Darius. For the 3d, the levity, peevishness, petulancy, rashness and cruelty in granting a decree for a Massacre of all the Jews mentioned in it will not suit with Artaxerxes, who is commended by Plutarch for his mildness or lenity, as well as magnanimity, and by Diodor. Sicul. and others for his prudence in managing affairs at the very first. So that the Doctor is obliged to answer these objections as much as we. Besides the Doctor is guilty of not a few mistakes. 1. I cannot understand why he says in the first objection, that the name of Darius was appropriated to him who was the Son of Hystaspes, since there were two other Persian Kings that had this name, viz, Darius Nothus and Darius Codomannus; not to mention Darius the Mede. 2. I do not know how the Doctor will prove that Darius was one of the Seven Counsellors of Ministers of State before he obtained the Kingdom, especially when he was but newly come to Susa when the other conspirators against the Magis took him into their number; see Herodotus l. 3. c. 30. The same Herodotus l. 3. c. 139. tells us indeed, that he was one of Cambyses his guard, his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or satelles, but adds that he was a man of no great note. 3. Suppose it granted that the levity, peevishness and rashness noted in Ahasuerus did not suit with Darius' usual temper, yet when he was heated with Wine (see Esth. 1. 10.) that might betray him to miscarriages of this nature. It was therefore a mistake in the Doctor to think that he might conclude thence, that Ahasuerus was not Darius. I add that if cruelty was one of Ahasuerus' qualifications (as his giving commandment utterly to destroy all the Jews in all his Dominions must be confessed to be an act of cruelty) no man will acquit Darius of that, who calls to mind his merciless slaughter of all the Sons of Oeobazus, only because he desired that one of them might be permitted to stay behind, and not to accompany him in his expedition against the Sythians, Herodot. l. 4. c. 84. This may suffice for the first conjecture that Ahasuerus was Darius. For the two other conjectures, that Atossa was Vashti, and Artystona Esther, the Doctor objects that the agreement of the names Atossa and Vashti is of no moment against the authority of History and Testimony of Herodotus, who writes that Atossa was married to Darius after his obtaining the Kingdom, and that he had four children by her, and that she continued all the time of Darius to have a great power, yea all the power with him. How then (says he) is it likely that in the 3d d year of this King's reign she should be put away? And to say that Artystona was Esther, because the King had a greater kindness for her then any of his other wives, yea and that the Persian Genealogies were falsified out of envy to the Jews, this (says the Doctor) is worse than saying nothing at all. To which I answer, that the Archbishop doth not say, that the Persian Genealogies were falsified out of envy to the Jews, but only that we may think either that the Persians out of envy dissembled the parentage of Esther, or that Herodotus had not rightly understood the Persian Genealogies. Again, the Archbishop doth not insist upon the agreement of the names Vashti and Atossa, though it is true he thought as Melancthon also did that Atossa was Vashti: as he also thought with Carrion and Melancthon that Artystona was Esther; and he was the rather moved to think so, because of the singular affection that Darius bore to her, having her Image all of solid Gold; see Herodotus l. 7. c. 69. Now whether this is worse than saying nothing at all let others determine. CHAP. VIII. Of Ninus junior and Tiglathpileser. THE Archbishop A. M. 3257. declares his opinion, that Ninus the Successor of Sardanapalus mentioned by Castor apud Syncellum p. 205, 206. was the same with him who in AElian Hist. Animal. l. 2. c. 21. is called Tilgam, in 2 Kings 15. 29. and 16. 7, 10. Tiglathpileser, but in 1 Chron. 5. 6, 26, and 2 Chron. 28. 20. Tilgathpilneser. This also is disliked by the Doctor Part 2. l. 2. s. 3. c. 4. and yet all that he says against it is, that there is just as much in AElian to show that this Ninus junior was Tilgam, as there is in the Scripture to show that he was Tiglathpileser, and no more. His meaning is, that there is nothing either in AElian to show the one, or in the Scripture to show the other. To which I answer 1. That there is as much in the Scripture to show that this Ninus was Tiglathpileser, as there is in it to show that Phul was in a distance of some 85 years after this Ninus, which the Doctor confidently affirms in this Chapter. 2. Tho' there be nothing in AElian to show the one, or in the Scripture to show the other, yet they may be true. The Doctor is willing to grant that Tilgam in AElian and Tilgathpilneser in the Scripture are one and the same person, and yet there is nothing either in the one or the other to show this. 3. The Archbishop knew that there is nothing in Scripture directly to prove that Ninus junior was the same with Tiglathpileser, but the ground of his conjecture seems to have been this, that Tiglath-pileser according to the Scripture was King of Assyria at that time, when this Ninus was King of Assyria according to Heathen Writers. CHAP. IX. Of the times of Moses and Inachus. THE Doctor Part 2. l. 2. s. 3. c. 10. says that it is fairly acknowledged by the Archbishop, that it was the opinion of Tatianus, Justin Martyr, Clemens, Josephus, Justus Tiberiensi●● with others, that Moses was born in the time of Inachus, and that the migration of Israel out of Egypt was in Phoroneus' time. Wherein the Doctor hath represented the Archbishop not much amiss, for A. M. 2179. he says that the forecited Authors believed that Moses was equal i. e. contemporary to Inachus, though it was the Arch-Bishops own opinion that the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt was long after the reign of Inacbus. But if the Doctor have dealt well with him in this, I am sure he hath not done so in that which follows. For he adds that All that which he (i. e. the Archbishop) says to it is this, that his calculation, which he is sure is right, will not permit it to be so, i. e. Moses to be contempory to Inachus. Whereas the Archbishop doth not say this, and suppose that he had said it, it is not all that which he says. 1. The Archbishop doth not say this. He doth not say, that he is sure that his calculation is right. He says indeed that the right account of times doth not permit us to doubt of this, that the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt was much later than the reign of Inachus; but all that can be made of this is, that the Archbishop thought that the account of times which he followed is right; that he was sure that his calculation is right, he no where saith. And yet if he had said this, it is not much more than that which the Doctor himself says in the first words of this Chapter; I shall proceed (says he) a point beyond illustration, I shall go near to make a fair demonstration; and again in this Chapter I doubt not (says he) but my deductions are as just as any other whatsoever, for they are deduced by manifest proof. 2. Suppose that the Archbishop had said this, it is not all that he saith. For he shows how it came to pass, that those Learned men did believe Moses to have been contemporary to Inachus, viz. Having read of certain Shepherds 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 Shepherds 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 Archbishop 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, than he may do something; but if you be resty and will not grant him these, than you will put him out of the humour of demonstrating. CHAP. X. Of that Alexander King of Egypt, who was reported to have made the Commonwealth of Rome his heir. THE Archbishop A. M. 3924. affirms that Alexander who was expelled by the Egyptians, and died at Tyre, and was reported to have left the Commonwealth his heir, reigned at the least 15 years. And for this he alleges 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 Archbishop 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 proved by any Authorities alleged by the Archbishop and others, that the foresaid Alexander reigned 15 years. If it can be proved from any of them, the Doctor thinks it must be that of Cicero Orat. 1 and 2 the 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 than 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 Archbishop sets it; yet of the time of his expulsion, and how long he lived 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 Tully's Orations on which the Archbishop relies, or directed us to the place where the Archbishop hath transcribed them at large, viz. A. M. 3940. And his snatching at the words Memoria teneo (as if they argued that Alexander's death and the Speeches of L. Philippus were more than a year or two before Cicero's delivering the 2d 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 than a year or two since he discoursed of them. Also the Doctors saying that of the time of Alexander's expulsion there is not a word in any of the Authorities, doth more than seem to argue, that he had not consulted the Testimony of Suetonius in Julio Caesare. c. 11. alleged by the Archbishop A. M. 3939, for it is manifest from him, that Alexander's expulsion was at the time of Julius Caesar's being AEdilis (as the Archbishop sets it) or very shortly after it. But the Doctor also produceth the generality of Historians and Chronographers, and the Mathematical Canon against the Archbishop. He cannot imagine 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 Archbishop with the Authority of the generality of Historians and Chronographers? when he had told us but a little before, that the Archbishop 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 and oversights, and therefore promiseth to rectify the things that seem to be amiss in it. Withal he should not have told us that the time that both Cleopatra and Alexander reigned was not the space of a year, until he had offered some answer to the Testimony of Suetonius alleged by the Archbishop to prove that Alexander reigned 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 called 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 Tully's Orat. 2. de leg. Agrar., where he says that he who reigned then (i. e. as the Archbishop 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 Archbishop, 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 Grandchilds of Hercules the Son of Amphitruo, for it is that Hercules which Herodotus speaks of. And then (says he) who can choose but wonder at that of Bishop Usher in his Annals Part 1. p. 44. or A. M. 2781.) where this very Argon is made the Son of Ninus the first great Assyrian Monarch, and this grounded upon the Authority of Herodotus? And he adds that this was not a slip of the pen, but an industrious excogitation. After other words he thus concludes, That this Argon should be the Son of Ninus the Son of Belus founder's of the Assyrian Monarchy credat Judaeus Apella, non ego. Thus the Doctor. Whom the Archbishop hath thus highly offended only with these three words Argon Nini filius. He doth not say Argon the Son of Ninus the first great Assyrian Monarch or Founder of the Assyrian Monarchy. Nor doth he say The Son of Ninus the Son of Belus, though (if he had said this last) he had only transcribed the words of Herodotus l. 1. c. 7. which are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Why then doth the Doctor talk of an industrious excogitation, when the Archbishop says nothing but what he found in Herodotus? But the Doctor says that that which he found in Herodotus (particularly the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is not Herodotus his own, but the mistake of an unwary hand. In the Text of Herodotus (says he) it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now I think that the Archbishop is not to be blamed for not being so profound a Critic as to discover that Herodotus was to be thus corrected. And if he was now living, I believe he would scarce perceive, that there is so near an Affinity between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. as that an unwary hand should write the one for the other. I believe also that it would have puzzled the most learned Primate of Armagh to construe this new Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Therefore the Doctor hath obliged us by construing it himself, viz. thus, Argon the Son of Alcaeus the Son of a servant maid of Jardanus. Now can any man possibly imagine that Herodotus should express this sense in such Greek as the Doctor would thrust upon us? Therefore the Doctor is content that this should pass only for a conjecture; he also acquaints us upon what he grounds it, viz. upon this, that Alcaeus the Father of Argon is by Diodorus Sicul. called Cleolaus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the time of servitude born of a servant maid of Jardanus, so Diodo. Sic. l. 4. according to the Doctor. But 1. Diodorus only says Born of a servant maid, he doth not say Of a servant maid of Jardanus. 2. How appears it that Alcaeus was the Father of Argon? Diodorus doth not say that either Alcaeus or Cleolaus was his Father; and Herodotus says that Argon was the Son Ninus. 3. How appears it that Alcaeus is by Diodor. Sic. called Cleolaus? The ground then of the Doctors conjecture thus failing him, and the conjecture being in itself very improbable (to say no more) he had certainly done much better, if he had suppressed both of them. The Doctor very confidently affirms, that the Hercules of whom Herodotus speaks, who was the Father of Alcaeus, and according to the Doctor, the Grandfather of Argon, was Hercules the Son of Amphitruo. But Herodotus doth not say that he was the Son of Amphiatruo, and the Doctor doth not offer any proof of it. In the mean time this argument may be offered against it. If Hercules the Son of Amphitruo was born but a little before the Trojan war, and if Argon begun his reign over the Lydians before that war, than it is not probable that Hercules the Son of Amphitruo was the Grandfather of Argon. But the former, viz. that Hercules the Son of Amphitruo was born but a little before the Trojan war, is expressly affirmed by Diodorus Sic. l. 3. in fin., and the Doctor himself grants the later; for in his Canon at the end of his book p. 43 and 45. he sets the beginning of Argons' reign 28 years before the destruction of Troy. This knot the Doctor is forced to cut, because it was not to be loosed; and so let Diodorus Sic. say what he will, he sets the birth of this Hercules 85 years before the Trojan war; see his Canon p. 41 and 45. Also he would have Alcaeus to have been born some short time after the Argonautical expedition, forgetting that which he says of Alcaeus in the margin, that he is called Cleolaus by Diodorus Sic. and that Cleolaus was born in the time of Herculeses servitude viz. to Omphale, which was long after the expedition of the Argonautae; see Diodor. Sit. l. 4. Add hereto that the Doctor makes Hercules to have been about 58 years of age when Argon begun his reign, whereas in Euseb. Chron. Hercules is said to have lived only 52 years in all, and that there were some who did not allow him so many. Lastly, the Doctor will have the expedition of the Argonautae to have been long before that Euristeus first reigned (see Part 2. l. 1. c. 8.) whereas Diodorus Sic. l. 4. p. 153 and 156. makes that expedition to have been long after Eurystheus' first being King, viz. after that Hercules had performed the 8th task or labour that he enjoined him. In these difficulties the Doctor hath entangled himself by holding that the Hercules in Herodotus must be Hercules the Son of Amphitruo, whereas we may suppose him to be another (for Diodorus Sic. l. 3. says that there were three Herculeses, and Cicero de nat. Deor. l. 3. writes that there were Six) and that the Heraclidae that were Kings of Lydia descended from that other Hercules, but the Heraclidae that many years after settled in Peloponnesus were the posterity of this Hercules who was the Son of Amphitruo. CHAP. XII. of AEgyptus, and how many years intervened between him and Sesac, 1 Kings 11. also whether he was the same with Sethothis'; and of Jonathan, 1 Maccab. 9 THE Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 20. says that the Archbishop makes 506 years to have intervened from the beginning of the reign of Sethosis to the reign of Sesac, 1 Kings 11. 40; but according to the Doctor only 451 years were between them. In this he relies upon the authority of Africanus, whose Numbers (generally speaking) he prefers before Eusebius', whom (as he tells us) the Archbishop follows, saving that with Josephus he gives four years more to Sethosis then Eusebius doth. But a brief answer to this will suffice. For as the Doctor only says that generally speaking Africanus is to be preferred (which implies that he is not always) so he himself in this very account doth not follow Africanus, but says expressly that Africanus may be rectified as well as Eusebius. The Doctor pretends that he differs only two years from him, but take Africanus as he is represented by Syncellus, without Goars alterations, and he differs above 20 years from him. Besides the Archbishop is misrepresented by the Doctor, for the Doctor says that according to the Archbishop, that interval of time from the first of Sethosis to the first year of Sesac was 506 years, whereas the Archbishop 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 Archbishop 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 Archbishop, 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 Archbishop, 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 Archbishop transcribes the words of Manetho ap. Joseph. c. Apion. l. 1. who says that Sethosis was called AEgyptus, and his brother Armais Danaus; who also distinguisheth Armais the brother of Sethosis from a former Armais that reigned 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 produced the words in which the Archbishop roundly censures it as an oscitancy. 'tis true A. M. 3852. he calls it an error, but withal as he tells us what led Josephus into that error, so he makes him so ingenuous as afterwards (viz. Ant. l. 20. c. 8.) to retract that which induced him into it. CHAP. XIII. Of the duration of the Assyrian Monarchy, and of Herodotus, also of the Median Succession. THat by which the Archbishop hath most disobliged the Doctor is still behind, viz. his shortening 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 Archbishop, calling it the modelling a new Chronology, and ask what Scaliger, Eusebius and Africanus would have said, if they had heard of this adventure, how (says he) would they have stood amazed? In this heat he runs on till he is out of breath, and not content with this he brings in Isabella Uossius inveighing against the Archbishop in like manner. At last he begins to think it necessary to give some satisfactory answer to Herodotus, on whom the Archbishop 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 Archbishop after Arbaces, who delivered 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 Archbishop 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' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he understands a perfect Anarchy. But what if the Doctor himself prove to be mistaken in thinking that the Archbishop intended to conclude that there were no Kings only from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Herodotus' not mentioning any? Herodotus writes that Rapines and other lawless pranks growing more and more rife among them, some advised that they should set over themselves a King, that they might be governed by good Laws, etc. So they were persuaded to submit to Kings, and presently entered into consultation about the person whom they should choose. 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. 'Tis 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 Archbishop saw no reason why his authority should be preferred to that of Herodotus. This for the Median succession; only I must add, that the Doctor makes the Archbishop to shorten it by 167 years, whereas the Arch Bishop makes the duration of it but 130 years shorter than the Doctor himself doth; for from Arbaces' freeing the Medes from the Assyrian yoke to the end of Astyages' reign the Archbishop 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 Archbishop allots only 520 years, grounding himself (says the Doctor) upon Herodotus. And it is very true, that the Archbishop alleges 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 Archbishop also alleges Appian in Praefat., who says that the three greatest Empires of the Assyrians, Medes and Persians altogether did scarce make up the sum 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, than he craves leave to note some mistakes, and at last he will bring the business to account. As to the mistakes, the Archbishop is only concerned in two of them, viz. the first and the third. The first is, the Archbishop supposes that the Assyrian Monarchy old expire at the time of the Medes defection. The third is, that he supposes that Herodotus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a perfect Anarchy. To the latter of which it hath been answered already, that the Archbishop is not concerned whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessarily denotes an Anarchy or no, for there are other passages in Herodotus (transcribed by me a little above) from which the Archbishop might gather that the Medes had no King at that time, and it is the Doctors mistake to think that the Archbishop concluded it from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only. As to the other mistake imputed to the Archbishop, viz. the supposing that the Assyrian Monarchy did expite at the time of the Medes defection, I grant that the Archbishop 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 obtained the Kingdom of Babylon. But they had still a large Empire or Government, as the Archbishop 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 Archbishop had said that it was; whereas the Archbishop says plainly that the Government was not extinct, though the Monarchy was. And now the Doctor will bring the business to account. He says that Herodotus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Doctor's meaning is that whereas the Archbishop conceived that the defection of the Medes and the beginning of Herodotus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 allege 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 dreamed that the Medes continued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the space of 1000 years. 3. These accounts do not agree with the Doctors own Catalogues of the succession of the Assyrian Monarches, 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' 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 tampered with, and that he wrote 1500, not 520, as our copies have it. And I coufess that this is a very easy 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 waved both these answers, and either turned 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 Dr 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 reigned in the 58 year after the Flood. 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 Flood. Hereupon Vossius in Castigat. ad. c. 8. inveighs against the Archbishop 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 Archbishop allegeth, and who saith that first the Medes begun to revolt from the Assyrians when they had enjoyed 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 continued 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 possessed 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 alleges Dionysius Harlicarn. l. 1. who refers the Empire of the Assyrians to the fabulous times, and says that the Assyrians possessed 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 alleges Strabo l. 11. who says that the Antiquities of the Persians, the Medes and the Syrians do not obtain much credit, because of the fabulousness of the Writers of them. Vossius in Castiga. Auctario ad Effug. 31. tells Hornius, that if he had considered the place in Herodotus, he would not have asked where he had his Paulatim. Also he makes Hornius to argue from Dionysius Hal. thus, If that Kingdom was in a fabulous age, than it was fabulous. Now (says Vossius) this is as if any one should say, The Greeks called all the time before the Olympiads fabulous, therefore the things that are written of Moses and Samson are fables. He observes also that Diodorus Sic. relating the opinion of Herodotus sets down 500 years (not 520) and adds that he approves of Sr John Marsham's conjecture that in Herodotus we are to read 1500 years instead of 520, as he will have us to read in Diodor. Sic. 1500 instead of 500, otherwise (says he) Diodor. Sic. would not have passed over that place in Herodotus without a reprehension. Hornius in Defensionis Auctario Def. 31. only remarks how prudent Vossius was in taking no notice of the place in Strabo, and how liberal in adding 1000 years to the Annals of Herodotus and Diodorus Sic., as well as bold in correcting two Authors at once. I shall not take upon me to determine whether Vossius or Hornius have the better in this scuffle; only I observe 1. That Vossius not only takes no notice of the place in Strabo, but also he takes no notice of Hornius' argument from Dionysius Hal. viz. this, Dionysius Hal. says, that the Assyrians had the dominion of a certain small part of Asia, and this (as Hornius thought) doth not very well agree with that which others relate concerning the vast dominion of Ninus, Semiramis and their successors. And so from Strabo's words we may well gather, that no great credit is to be given to the long series or succession of Assyrian Kings which some give us. For by Syrians, Strabo meant Assyrians; so Herodotus l. 7. c. 63. tells us that they are by the Greeks called Syrians, whom the Barbarians called Assyrians; and so Cicero Tuscul. qu. l. 5. calls Sardanapalus King of Syria, whom De finib. bon. & mal. l. 2. he calls King of Assyria; and so Justin l. 1. c. 2. Assyrii qui postea Syri dicti sunt. 2. That Hornius doth not argue in such manner as Vossius would persuade us, viz. The Assyrian Empire was in a fabulous age, therefore it was fabulous, but the argument should have been formed thus, Dionysius Hal. refers the time of the Assyrian Monarchy, or part of it, to the age which is accounted fabulous, 'tis probable therefore that many things which Heathen Writers say of the Assyrian Kings, their number, names, etc. are fabulous. So that it is an odious comparison which Vossius makes, when he speaks of Moses and Samson; as if because we are not obliged to believe every thing that is delivered in profane History, the like may be inferred concerning the Sacred Records. 3. I think that Hornius had very good reason to ask Vossius where he had his Paulatim; for Herodotus only says that the Medes begun to revolt, he doth not say that they begun to revolt by little and little (as Vossius doth) nor is there any thing in Herodotus which intimates this. There is that which plainly intimates the contrary, viz. that they revolted together; for it follows in Herodotus, that they gave the Assyrians battle and worsted them, which they could not have done, if they had not all joined their force together. 4. When Vossius in Castigat. Auctario ad Effug. 31. says that the Archbishop relies solely on Herodotus, I am tempted to question whether Vossius consulted the Archbishop, though he pretends to confute him; for it is apparent that the Archbishop A. M. 2737. alleges Appian as well a Herodotus. 5. But that which is most strange is still behind, that any man should have the confidence to make such an alteration in the Text of both Herodotus and Diodorus Sic. as Vossius doth. He is displeased with the Archbishop for shortening the Assyrian Monarchy without any Authority (for so he pretends) that he then should take upon him in such sort to correct two Authors at once without the Authority of any Copy either Manuscript or Printed, yea without any Authority whatsoever, is the strangest thing imaginable. Certainly this that the 1000 years which Vossius adds are not found in Diodor. Sic. where he transcribes Herodotus, is a stronger argument that they were not in the copies of Herodotus which he had, and so not in the ancient copies, than any that can be brought to prove the contrary. It will be said perhaps, that it was not without either reason or authority that Vossius made this Emendation. As to Authority, Sr John Marsham in his Diatriba p. 35. had declared his opinion, that in Herodotus we are to read 1500 instead of 520. And then for reasons 1. It is plain that there is an error in the copies either of Herodotus or Diodor. Sic., for when the one hath 520 years, the other hath only 500 2. If Diodor. Sic. had found 520 in Herodotus, he would not have passed it over without a reprehension: thus Vossius in Castigat. Auctar. ad Effug. 31. But his principal argument is in his Answer to Christianus Schotanus, and it is this; If we read 1500 in Herodotus, than he will agree not with Ctesias only, but also with Dinon, Polybius, Thallus, Alexander Polyhistor, Castor, Diodorus Sic., Africanus and innumerable others. To all this I return answer, 1. Sr John Marsham did long since in his Chronicus Canon p. 489. in express words retract that which he had written in his Diatriba concerning the substituting of 1500 instead of 520, for (says he) it doth not agree with the mind of Herodotus. 2. As to the first reason, Suppose that there is an error either in Herodotus or Diodor. Sic., it doth not follow that there is an error in both, as Vossius will have it. And if a careless Amanuensis left out 20 years in transcribing Diodor. Sic., we cannot conclude thence that several amanuensis should be so wretchedly careless as to leave out 1000 years, both in Herodotus and Diodor. Sic. I add that perhaps there is no error at all, but Diodor. Sic. thought it enough to set down the round number 500 years. To the second reason from Diodor. Sic. his not reprehending Herodotus, I answer, that it was his business only to report what Herodotus and Ctesias had writ, not to reprehend either of them. In answer to his third and principal reason I only say, that when we have substituted 1500 instead of 520 in Herodotus, he will not agree so well with the Authors mentioned by Vossius as he pretends. Ctesias ap. Diodor. Sic. l. 2. will have the duration of the Assyrian Monarchy to have been 1360 years. Castor ap. Syncell. p. 168. allots to it An. 1280. Thallus ap. Theophilum ad Autol. l. 3, & Lactantium l. 1. c. 23. affirms Belus to have been 322 years before the Trojan war. Agathias de Imper. & reb. gest. Justiniani l. 2. seems to say that Alexander Polyhistor writ, that from the beginning of Ninus' reign that Empire continued 1306 years. The same Agathias makes Diodor. Sic. to agree with Ctesias, though in our copies of Diod. Sic. he differs from him, saying that it continued more than 1400 years. Afrioanus according to Helvicus and Ricciolius allows 1484 years to the duration of it, but according to Syncellus only 1460. Now suppose that we ought to substitute 1500 instead of 520, how would Herodotus still agree with these Authors, who do not agree among themselves, and who do not (any of them) come up to 1500 years? As to Dinon and Polybius, I know not where it is that they speak of the Assyrian Empires duration, and as for Vossius' innumerable others, I do not know who they are. I conclude then, that there is neither reason nor Authority to warrant such an alteration in Herodotus and Diodorus. I must not forget to take notice, that Vossius opposes Ctesias to Herodotus, and yet at the same time, wholly destroys Ctesias' authority in that which he writes concerning the Assyrian Monarchy, for (says Vossius Castigat. in c. 10.) though very much is attributed to his authority in the Persian affairs, yet he is a most lying Writer in other things. Besides, the instances which Vossius gives of Ctesias' dissenting from Herodotus do concern the Kingdom of the Medes, not the Assyrian Empire of which we speak. I shall only add, that Mr John Gregory informs us of a Chronological Abstract in MS, which makes Thourias (who was also called Ares) to have succeeded Ninus, and after that Thourias he placeth lame, and then Sardanapalus. This Thourias or Ares (as the said M Gregory acquaints us) is supposed to be the same with him whom Africanus calls Arius. See Suidas in voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for it is evident that Suidas'. Thouras and Thourias in the MS are the same. CHAP. XV. Of the study of Astronomy, whether it be as ancient as Nimrod, and of the Celestial Observations sent into Greece by Aristotle's procurement. VOssius Castigat. ad c. 10. says, that it is very absurd to think that the knowledge of the Stars is as ancient as Nimrod. For (says he) Terah and Abraham were the first that were skilled in that science. Of Abraham, Berosus testifies that he was expert in it, and Eupolemus that he was, the Inventor of it. And Philo L. de Nobilitate witnesses very clearly concerning both. The Archbishop A. M. 1771. gathers from Porphyry ap. Simplicium l. 2. de caelo, that this science is as ancient as Nimrod. Porphyry says that when Alexander had taken Babylon, Calisthenes sent from thence into Greece Astronomical observations of 1903 years. Now (says the Archbishop) from the time of Nimrod (which was 115 years after the Flood) to Alexander's taking Babylon, were 1903 years, and so the Babylonians begun to make their Astronomical observations in the time of Nimrod. To this what says Vossius? He denies that Nimrod could begin to reign so soon as in the 115 year after the Flood. He says that the beginning of those 1903 years was almost 1000 years later than the Flood, in the 124 year of Terah, Thus Vossius. Hornius in Defension, Disserta. Def. 24. answers, that Berosus only saith that Abraham was skilled in the knowledge of the heavenly bodies, and that it doth not follow from thence that he was the Inventor of it, since he might learn his skill from the Chaldeans. Eupolemus, indeed, says, that he was the Inventor of it, but (says Hornius) he brings no Authority for the confirming his assertion. As to Philo, Hornius says that he favoured his cause and Nation. He adds that the knowledge of Astronomy was before the Flood, and was delivered by Ham to Chus and Nimrod. And in his Dissertation de AEtate Mundi c. 10. Hornius, to show that Nimrod might begin his reign An. 115. after the Flood, supposes that Chus was born in the first or second year after it, and that at the age of 35 he might beget Nimrod. Vossius in Castigat. Auctor. Effug. 24. replies that Abraham could not learn Astronomy of the Chaldeans, for there were no Chaldeans at that time. And he tells Hornius, that he is very absurd in making Ham, Chus and Nimrod to have been Astronomers, when he will not allow that Abraham was skilled in that science. As to Eupolemus, Vossius says that he did not ascribe the invention of Astronomy to Abraham without authority, for Berosus and the Egyptians had said almost the same before him, adding that Philo, Josephus, and many of the Fathers do also confirm it. Finally Hornius in Auctario Defence. brings the Testimony of Alexander Polyhistor ap. Euseb. de Praeparat. l. 9 who ascribes the invention of Astronomy to Enoch, as also of Josephus, saying that Astronomy and Geometry were invented before the Flood. And he tells Vossius, that Kircher had proved that Ham, Chus and Nimrod were skilled in Astronomy by as good Testimonies, as he had produced to prove that Abraham was the Inventor of it. Thus far Vossius and Hornius. I shall only observe a few particulars, as 1. Vossius says that it could not be that Nimrod should begin his reign An. 115. after the Flood, but offers no reason why it could not be; nor yet doth he give any answer to that which Hornius had said to make out the possibility of it. 2. When Vossius says that Abraham could not learn Astronomy of the Chaldeans, for there were no Chaldeans in his time, he merely trifles; for Hornius in Dissertat. de aetate Mundi c. 10. had plainly declared, that by Chaldeans he meant Babylonians, and would not contend about Names. 3. When Vossius says that the beginning of the 1903 years was almost 1000 years after the Flood, in the 124 year of Terah; he insinuates that the 124 of Terah was also almost 1000 years after the Flood. Now this will in no wise agree with his Chronologia sacra, for according to that neither the beginning of the 1903 years, nor the 124 year of Terah can be said to have been almost 1000 after the Flood, for both of them were above 1000 years after it. The 124 of Terah in that Chronology is made to have been 1186 years after the Flood, and the beginning of the 1903 years (counting backward from Alexander's taking Babylon) must be according to that Chronology about 1259 years later than the Flood. So that though Vossius disputing against the Archbishop, will have the beginning of the 1903 years to have been in the 124 year of Terah, yet in his Chronology he makes the beginning of those years about 73 years later than that year of Terah. But that which is most necessary is to examine the Authorities produced by Vossius against the Archbishop, which I shall do briefly. The first is Berosus, who says, that in the 10th generation after the Flood, there was among the Chaldeans a just and great man, that was expert in the knowledge of the heavenly bodies; thus Josephus alleges him Ant. l. 1. c. 8. believing that the just and great man, of whom Berosus speaks, was Abraham. Another of Vossius' witnesses is Philo de Nobilitate, who says, that the Father of the Jews was a Chaldean by Nation, born of a Father that was skilled in Astronomy; so that Philo testifies of Terah Abraham's Father, that he was skilled in that Science; but that he doth there witness the same of Abraham (as Vossius pretends) I do not find: yet Vossius might have cited other places in which he doth, as l. de Gigantibus and l. de Abrahamo. Josephus is alleged also, who l. 1. c. 9 says, that Abraham taught the Egyptians Astronomy. The Egyptians themselves, and many of the Fathers, are also called in as witnesses, Vossius says that the Egyptians confess, that they learned Astronomy of the Chaldeans; but as to the Fathers, he tells us not either what Fathers should testify any thing, or where they should do it. Yet I freely grant, that some of the Fathers say as much as some of his witnesses do, as S. Basil in Isa. 13. who ascribes the invention of this science to the Chaldeans, and S. Greg. Nazianzen Orat. 3. who attributes it to the Babylonians. But now what do all these Testimonies make to Vossius' purpose, who should prove that Terah and Abraham were the first Inventors of Astronomy, or the first that studied and taught it? Some say that Abraham had the knowledge of Astronomy, and one adds that the Egyptians learned it of him; as another saith, that Terah was skilled in this science; but none of them say that Terah and Abraham were the first Inventors of it. Indeed Eupolemus ap. Euseb. de Praeparat. l. 9 c. 17 very plainly testifies that Abraham invented Astronomy, and instructed the Phanicians and Egyptians in that Science; but as he is but a single witness, so he withal affirms that Enoch was the first Inventor of it, and whereas the Greeks attribute the invention of it to Atlas, Eupolemus informs us that Atlas was Enoch. This concerning Enoch is confirmed by the Testimony of Alexander Polyhistor abovementioned, and of Josephus l. 1. c. 3. CHAP. XVI. Of the Egyptian Empire, when it begun, and how long it continued. Also of Constantinus Manasses. VOssius in Dissertat. de aetate Mundi c. 5. says that the Egyptian Dynasties were some Ages before Abraham's time. But Hornius in his Dissertat. c. 8. tells him that this is false. For (says he) according to the Arch-Bishops computation, the beginning of the Egyptian Empire was A. M. 1816, and Abraham's birth was A. M. 2008, so that that Empire was not full two Ages more ancient than Abraham's time. And yet within that space of time there might be several Dynasties. Vossius Castigat. ad c. 11. replies, that the Arch-Bishops computation relies wholly upon the Authority of Constantinus Manasses, and his Putidissimum Chronicon (as he calls it.) He adds that this Constantinus Manasses makes that Abimelech, which fell in love with Sarah Abraham's wife, to have been the first King of Egypt; how then (says he) can the Archbishop prove from him that the Kingdom of Egypt begun almost two Ages before Abraham? Further, whereas that Constantine writes that the Egyptian Empire continued 1663. years, the Archbishop errs in referring the end of that Empire to the reign of Cambyses, for Egyptian Kings did reign after Cambyses to the time of Alexander the great. Now let the time from Abraham to Alexander be computed, and the number of the years, according to the computation of the Greeks, will be found to agree with that which Constantine mentions. Eusebius makes the destruction of the Egyptian Empire to have happened 1666 years after Abraham. Hornius in Defensio. 30. rejoins, that the Arch-Bishops computation doth not rely solely upon the Authority of that Constantine, but also upon this, that Mizraim lead Colonies into Egypt about the time, when according to the Arch-Bishops calculation, the Egyptian Empire did begin. He asks why Egypt is called the land of Mizraim, if the Egyptian Empire was not founded by him. He tells Vossius that his Father did not judge Constantinus Manasses to be a despicable Writer, and that in Janus Douza his account his Chronica are accuratissima (not putidissima.) He adds that the end of the Egyptian Empire is by the Archbishop rightly referred to Cambyses, for though the Egyptians rebelled afterwards, they were presently subdued together with their Kings. And whereas Vossius speaks of the time of Alexander the great, he says that Ochus recovered Egypt 13 years before that Alexander was King of Macedonia. Vossius in Castigat. Auctar. ad Effug. 30. says that Eight Egyptian Kings reigned successively after the time of Cambyses (as Diodorus and others testify) and that Alexander was Seven years old when Ochus recovered Egypt, and that Eusebius An. 1666 hath these words AEgyptiorum regnum destructum. Hornius in Defence. Auctar. Def. 30. says, that when we speak of the time of Alexander the Great, we understand the time of his reign, or after that he came to be King. When he was a boy of the age of Seven years, he was not Alexander the Great. Thus this matter was debated betwixt Vossius and Hornius. I shall only remark 1. That Hornius hath rightly observed, that the Archbishop was induced to refer the beginning of the Egyptian Empire to the time of Mizraim, not only by the Authority of Constant. Manasses, but also by that (which Vossius says that he never denied) viz. that Mizraim was the Founder of that Empire. 2. That I do not look upon it as a necessary consequence, because Eusebius reckons 1666 years from Abraham to the end of the Egyptian Empire, and Constant. Manasses reckons 1663. years from the beginning of that Empire to the end of it, that therefore Constant. Manasses makes it to have begun in the time of Abraham, and to have ended at the time when Eusebius says that it was destroyed. 3. It is manifest that Constant. Manasses makes the Kingdom of the Egyptians to have begun before Abraham's time, for he says that it begun when there were only Seven generations after the Flood, and so according to him it begun before the time of Serug, for he says that Serug was the Eight after the Flood. In like manner he says that Abraham and Belus were not many generations after the beginning of the Egyptian Empire, and doth not this plainly imply that Abraham was some generations after it: 4. I cannot sufficiently admire that Vossius should make Constant. Manasses to say, that the Abimelech who fell in love with Sarah, was the first King of Egypt, whereas he only saith that he was King at the time of Abraham's sojourning there. It is true, that he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but 1. it is 9 or 10 verses before his mentioning Abimelech that he hath these words, 2. His meaning in them is only this, that a King was first in Egypt. That this is the sense of the words is manifest, for they are a repetition of that which he had said plainly before, that the Egyptians were the first that were governed by Kings, and paid tribute. And as some proof of this, he tells us that Abraham found a King in Egypt when he came thither, whereas the foundation of the Kingdom of the Assyrians was first laid in Abraham's time by Belus, so that there were Kings in Egypt before the Founding the Assyrian Empire. Vossius therefore did strangely mistake the meaning of Constant. Manasses. 5. If according to Constant. Manasses the Kingdom of the Egyptians begun some generations before Abraham, and continued only 1663. years, than (whether we follow Eusebius' account, or Vossius' own in his Chronologia sacra) according to him the end of it was before the birth of Alexander the Great. Lastly, all the time that Vossius' Eight Egyptian Kings after Cambyses reigned, is computed to have been not much above 60 years, so that Hornius did not err very much in saying, that the Egyptians were presently subdued with their Kings. CHAP. XVII. Of the Version of the Septuagint. VOssius in his Epistle Dedicatory to Slingelandius prefixed to his Castigations of Hornius, says, that the Archbishop in his Treatise concerning the Version of the LXX doth endeavour to show, that the true Translation of the LXX lay hid in the Alexandrian Library, not read and transcribed by any person; and at last perished in the fire which consumed the Library itself. Thus Vossius. Now it is not doubted (as I suppose) but that the Original copy was laid up in the Alexandrian Library, and was consumed there together with the Library itself: so that the only thing in Question is, whether Vossius doth affirm truly that the Archbishop endeavours to show that it so lay hid in that Library, as that it was not read or transcribed by any person. To which I say that the Archbishop is so far from endeavouring to show this, that chose he says plainly, that some Copies of that Translation were extant in the hands of private persons after that Philadelphus's Library was burnt, in the former Alexandrian War; which could not be, if that Translation had lain hid so as that it was not seen or transcribed by any. I shall produce the Arch-Bishops own words Licet in privatorum manibus (post incensam priori bello Alexandrino Philadelphi Bibliothecam) veteris illius LXX Seniorum Versionis adhuc exempla extarent; so the Archbishop De Editione LXX Interpretum c. 3. Again in the same Chapter Evanescente paulatim, quae in privatorum tantum manibus habebatur, Pentateuchi à 72 Senioribus facta interpretatione. Now if it so lay hid as that it was not copied out by any person, I would gladly know how private hands came to have Copies of it: I acknowledge that it is very usual with persons engaged in any controversy to misrepresent the opinion of their adversary (as Vossius hath here misrepresented the Arch-Bishops) to the end that they may more easily expose it, and make it appear more absurd and ridiculous in the eyes of such Readers, as take things upon trust, not having opportunity, or not being willing to be at the pains of examining them: but what Apology can be made for so disingenuous a practice, I know not. An APPENDIX. THough Vossius and Dr Carry were displeased with Archbishop Usher, yet they both grant that he was a Learned man; and his Annals, in defence of which I have presumed to appear, and which I make bold to recommend to such as shall apply themselves to the Study of Sacred and Profane History, do sufficiently proclaim him to have been such. I acknowledge that several things appertaining to Chronology are interspersed in them, but he doth not dwell upon them, or trouble the world with tedious and eager disputes about them: And if he go sometimes out of the ordinary road of Chronographers, yet he doth not this out of any affectation of singularity, nor doth he passionately espouse his opinions, but modestly offers some conjectures to his Readers consideration, briefly hinting the Reasons or Authorities upon which he grounds them. In answering Dr Cary's objections against the Arch-Bishops opinion concerning the Months and Year which was in use among the Hebrews Chapt. 2. I promised more fully to examine what the Doctor saith of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which promise I shall now perform; and also I shall annex a brief examination of that which the Doctor saith Of the men of the Great Synagogue. Of the signification of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. THat which Dr Carry says of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have in Part 1. l. 1. c. 12. s. 12. and it is this. One and the same word (says he) stands to signify Luna, Novilunium and Mensis. The word in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 renovavit, to make new. Hoc nomine non modo mensis i. e. 30 dies communiter & universaliter, verum etiam dies duntaxat primus Mensis, seu Calendae vocantur, quast novitatem seu renovationem dicas, Graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dixerunt. So Pagnin, Buxtorf, Schindler, etc. and R. David in Lexic. quoted by Petavius de Doct. Temp. l. 3. c. 22. vocatur autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod luna renovatur eo die, atque tricessima dies eadem appellatione censetur, & primus dies solus etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur. So that wheresoever in Scripture mention is made of such or such a day, for example the 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it may as well be rendered the 14 of the Moon, as the 14 of the Month. Thus far the Doctors own words. Now what shall we say to all this? 1. The Doctor affirms that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Moon, and would have it Translated so; and yet in his Quotations there is not one word to prove that it hath this signification, and I believe that if he consult all the Lexicons that are extant, he will not find one that saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify the Moon in all the Old Testament. I grant that in one place of the Talmud Buxtorf makes it to have this signification, as also our most diligent Dr Castle transcribing it out of him; but I do not find the words alleged by Buxtorf in the place that he directs us to, and perhaps it is not necessary to translate those words so as Buxtorf hath translated them: however the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath not this signification any where in Sacred Writ. 2. It may also be questioned whether it signify the New Moon, though most Expositors do give it this signification. I readily subscribe to the two significations which Kimchi mentions in his Radices and in his Comment. upon Psal. 81. 3. viz. that it signifies sometimes the first day of the Month, sometimes the whole Month; but when he gives this as the reason why the first day of the Month is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Moon is renewed in it, I cannot so easily assent to him, but should rather say because the Month is renewed then. The Jews in Kimchi's time and long before used Lunar Months, and so with them the Moon was renewed constantly on the first day of the Month, and this gave the Jewish Writers, and particularly Kimchi occasion to fancy, that the first day of the Month is therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Moon is renewed then; and this induced others to translate it the New Moon. But there is no necessity of translating it so, and I humbly conceive that it was much better, if in all the places where our Translators have the New Moon, we instead thereof read The first day of the Month, or The beginning of the Month, or the New Month. The Syriac hath rendered it The beginning of the Month in most of those places, as the Arabic also doth in some of them, and the Targum in 1 Chron. 23. 31. 2 Chron. 8. 13. 31. 3. and Isa. 66. 23. Kimchi also in his Radices directs us to render it The first day of the Month 1 Sam. 20. 5, 18. 2 Kings 4. 23. Isa. 66. 23. Ezek. 46. 3. But the Doctor insists upon the Authority of the LXX who translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he supposes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifies the New Moon. But why may we not translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for the LXX use both) The New Month? Why may they not be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Month as well as from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Moon? Suidas and Phavorinus interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Julius Pollux by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the Lexicon Graco-Latinum vetus it is rendered Initium mensts, as well as nova lana. It more than once in Plutarch occurs in this signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Plutare. in Romulo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Id. in Galba. All know that the Roman Calends or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plutarch's time were the beginning or first day of the Month, and had no respect to the change or renovation of the Moon. We may also observe that expression of Thucydides l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which implies that there may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when the Moon is not renewed. The same expression we meet with in Josephus Ant. l. 4. c. 4, & Epiphanius Haeres. 30. num. 32, and the like in Philo de Septenario. And in that place of Josephus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered Mensis initium by Epiphanius Scholasticus. In the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb. 10. 10. and 28. 12. answers to the words which we rightly translate The Beginnings of the Months. Finally, they that please may see what Scaliger says to this purpose, in a passage transcribed from him Chap. 2. If this interpretation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be admitted, then according to both the Hebrew and the LXX there is not the word New Moon in all the Old Testament, nor according to the Greek in the New Testament. And there seems to be very good reason, why we should admit it and prefer it before the other, and believe that God would not once name the New Moon, and then surely he would not enjoin it to be observed as a day of gladness and a solemn day, and that peculiar Sacrifices should be offered upon it, least occasion should be given to a people prone to Idolatry to worship the Moon as other Nations did. There is a remarkable passage in Origen. Homil. 23. in Numer. Quid religioni conducit novae Lunae, i. e. cum conjungitur Soli & adhaeret ei, observare festivitatem? Haec, si secundum literam considerentur, non tam religiosa quam superstitioja videbuntur. Origen could not be lief that the Israelites were commanded to observe the New Moons according to the letter, because it approached too near the Superstition or Idolatry of the Gentiles in worshipping the Moon; and therefore he interpreted the command in a Spiritual sense: But if we read (not The New Moons but) The beginnings of the Months, there will be nothing to induce any man to believe that God enjoined the observation of the New Moon. Besides it seems very reasonable that all the Texts, in which according to our Translations there is mention of the New Moon, should be interpreted by that Primitive Original Ordinance or Statute, which is recorded Numb. 10. 10. and 28. 11. Here they are enjoined to blow the Trumpet over their burnt-offerings, and the Sacrifices of their peace-offerings, and to offer two Bullocks, one Ram, and seven Lambs in the beginnings of their Months; there is not a word of the New Moons: and thus I humbly conceive it ought to be in all those other places. Before I conclude this, I must correct a mistake in Petavius by the fault of the Printer, and a greater mistake which the Doctor is guilty of whilst he would correct Petavius. Petavius de doctr. Temp. l. 3. c. 22. allegeth a passage out of Kimchi's Radices concerning the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in his translation of it when it should have been Triginta dies eadem appellatione censentur, the Printer instead of censentur puts censetur. The Doctor thinking that the mistake was not in censetur, but in the word Triginta corrects it thus Tricesima dies eadem appellatione censetur, as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified the Thirtieth day of the month, which never entered into the thoughts either of Kimchi or Petavius; for their meaning is, that all the 30 days taken together, or the whole month is sometimes signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I pass by the Doctors mistake about the signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of the men of the Great Synagogue. THE Doctor Part 2. l. 2. s. 1. c. 7. speaks of an Assembly of Holy and Wise men, which had the name of the Great Synagogue, which did immediately come after the times of the Prophets, as is testified in Pirke Aboth. S. Jerom styles them the 24 Elders, 24 Senes, in praefat. ad Esran. Malachi might be one of the times perhaps, one of the Society; but for the saying of the later Jews that Haggai and Zachary the Prophets were of this number, and Ezra the head of this Assembly, I count it a very fable. These are the Doctor's words in the forequoted chapter s. 2. And in the same section he saith, 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 lived 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 (though 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 amazed! He that was so much displeased with the Germane 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 disliked such a bold attempt as this is. But he would have been more highly enraged, when he had found, that nothing is offered which looks like an argument to make it probable, that the Writers of the foresaid Books or parts of Scripture lived later than 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 lived later than Ezra. Withal how appears it, that the Writer or Digester of the second Book of Chronicles lived 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 gathered from 1 Chron. 3. 17, etc. that the Writer or Digester of the second Book of Chronicles lived after Ezra, unless it can be gathered thence, that the Writer or Digester of the first Book of Chronicles lived later than he. It must then be the Doctor's meaning, that the Writer or Digester of both the Books of Chronicles lived after Ezra's time. It remains then that we examine what force there is in 1 Chron. 3. 17, etc. 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 mentioned 1 Chron. 3. extended beyond the days of Ezra, when as they should have proved it. 3. In that very Note they are manifestly against the Doctor, showing plainly that it cannot be gathered from the mention of some generations, which (as they suppose) were after Ezra, that the Writer or Digester of the Books of Chronicles lived after his time; for (say they) Ezra might by a Prophetical Spirit set them down beforehand. Besides it appears from those words, that they inclined 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 lived 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 than 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 alleged 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, etc. and now passing to that of Artaxerxes from whom he received 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 hand-writing, but the adjection of another hand. Now to return to the men of the Great Synagogue. The Doctor says s. 2. that S. Hierome calls them the 24 Elders. But though the Doctor is guilty of several very great and unhappy mistakes, yet I think there is scarce any thing in which he hath erred more strangely then in this. For there is not the least mention of the Great Synagogue in all that Preface of S. Hierome to the Book of Ezra, which the Doctor allegeth. S. Hierome is speaking of Canonical and Apocryphal Books, and by his 24 Elders we are to understand the 24 Canonical Books of the Old Testament. This will be made clear, if we compare the words in that Preface to Ezra, with a passage in his Prologo Galeato or Praefat. in librum Regum, as also in his Comment. upon Ezek. 43. In his Prologue. Galeat. having spoken of the 24 Books of the Old Testament, he immediately adds Quos sub numero 24 Seniorum Apocalypsis Joannis inducit, adorantes agnum, & coronas suas prostratis vultibus offerentes, etc. In his Comment. on Ezek. 43. he hath these words, Vel 24 libri veteris Instrumenti debent accipi, qui habebant citharas in Apocalypsi Joannis, & coronas in capitibus suis. Now please to compare with these the words in Praefat. in Ezram. which the Doctor refers to. I shall transcribe them at large. Nec quenquam moveat (says he) quod unus à nobis liber editus est, nec Apocryphorum tertii & quarti libri somniis delectetur, quia apud Hebraeos Esdrae Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur, & quae non habentur apud illos, nec de 24 Senibus sunt, procul abjicienda. I hope it is now plain, that S. Hierome hath no respect to the men of the Great Synagogue, but to the 24 Elders in the Revelation, whom he interprets to be the 24 Canonical Books of the Old Testament. And his meaning in those words, Nec de. 24. Senibus sunt, procul abjicienda is, that they which are not of those 24 Books are to be rejected as Apocryphal. Add hereto, that they reckon 12 as the heads and chief of the men of that Synagogue, but I do not find that any of the Jewish Writers reduce the whole number of them to 24. They usually make them to have been 120, but in Cozri Part 3. it is said, that they were not numbered, or could not be numbered for multitude. The Doctor further saith s. 2. that for the saying of the later Jews, that Haggai and Zachary were of this number, and Ezra the Head of this Assembly, he accounts it a very Fable. To which I shall only say, 1. He may account so of it if he pleases, for there want not those who account the whole story concerning the Great Synagogue to be no other; they think that the Jews feigned that there was such an Assembly, that they might father their Traditions upon it. But the Doctor will not allow of this, for it overthrows a great part of that which he saith in this and some other Chapters. 2. No man (as far as I know) requires it to be believed as a certain truth. For though some eminent Jewish Writers (as Maimonides in his Preface to his Book jad, and in his Preface to Seder Zeraim set forth by Dr Pocock, with others) do affirm, that Haggai, Zachary and Ezra the Scribe were of this number, yet there are likewise some that make no mention of them, but name others in their stead (see R. Abraham ben David in his Cabala) yea in Cozri Part 3. Haggai, Zachary and Ezra seem very plainly to be distinguished from the men of the Great Synagogue. 3. The Doctor gives no reason why he doth account it a very Fable; perhaps than the great reason is, because it will not suit with his Hypothesis. And this may suffice for answer to that which the Doctor saith concerning the men of the Great Synagogue. To conclude, This Defence of Archbishop Usher is a further confirmation of the truth of that which I asserted in the Introduction, viz. The uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology: When these two great undertakers in Chronology Dr Is. Vossius and Dr Carry, who express so great assurance in their Writings, and insult so much over the Archbishop and others, are upon examination found to be guilty of very great mistakes, and to have proceeded upon as uncertain grounds as others had done before them. And yet Dr Carry hath entertained so high an opinion of his own performance, that in his Epistle Dedicatory, he told King Charles the second, that his Chronology speaks the truth (haply) better than any whatsoever of late days, and in our Climate, hath been found to do. A little before he had said that his Chronology is a kind of Clock, and so though several of late days and in our Climate too have pretended to the Art of Clockmaking or Clockmending, the Doctor hath outdone them all, his Clock speaks the truth (haply) better than any of theirs whatsoever. So that henceforth there will be no need of a Scaliger de Emendatione Temporum, or a Lydiats Emendatio Temporum. In the same Epistle he also told King Charles that it had been under the Hammer and the File for many years; and I believe that he spoke the truth in it, and am sorry that he laid out so much time as well as pains in an unprofitable Study, neglecting that to which his Function did oblige him, viz. the fitting himself rightly to understand and interpret the Scriptures. That he neglected this, is too apparent from the strange interpretations that he gives of sundry passages in Sacred Writ. I wish that all may be warned by his example, that so much pains and so many precious hours may not be thrown away hereafter upon Chronological Niceties. ERRATA. PAg. 4. lin. 29. read Et Lactantium. p. 6. l. 15. read Sardanapalus. p. 8. l. 18. deal Comma. p. 25. l. 17. deal Comma. p. 36. l. 7, 8. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 50. l. 16. deal Comma after Charon. p. 68 l. 17. read Hystaspes. p. 70. l. 30. read Scythians. p. 75. l. 12 and 16. read Shepherds. p. 88 l. 16. deal Comma. p. 104. l. 10. deal Comma after Defension. FINIS.