CALAMUS MENSURANS: THE MEASURING REED. OR, The Standard of Time CONTAINING An exact Computation of the YEARS of the WORLD, from the CREATION thereof, to the time of the destruction of JERUSALEM by the ROMANS.  
Stating also, and clearing the hid Mysteries of daniel's 70. Weeks, and other PROPHECIES, the time of HEROD'S Reign; the Birth, Baptism and Passion of our SAVIOUR, with other Passages never yet extant in our English tongue.  
In two PARTS.  
By JOHN SWAN.  Cicero de Oratore. Nescire quid antea quam natus sis acciderit, Id semper est esse puerum. 
London, Printed for John Williams, at the Sign of the Crown in Paul's Churchyard 1653.   

To the right Honourable BOLSTERED WHITLOCKE, Lord Commissioner of the Great SEAL of ENGLAND.  
MY LORD,  
WHen I consider your Honours great employments, and what weighty thoughts and deliberations those are encumbered with, who steer at the helm of so mighty a Nation as this; I blush to think how much time I shall steal from the Public good, by diverting your Lordship's thoughts to a survey of this Chronologie; and if you please favourably to look upon it, you may make it rather a digression to your other Business, than a supply of vacant hours. For if History be called (as learnedly once she was) the Schoolemistris of life, what honour must Chronologie have, who is so near of kin to her, that she gave her both life and eyes to walk by. What emboldens me to this attempt, my Lord is, the opinion that your Nobleness is far more eminent than your Place, and you are known to be so great a Maecenas to the Muses, as men begin to despair of any miscarriage in their attempts, that are but able to entitle your Honour to their protection. I have adventured to put it forth in a plain English dress, in a phrase (not subtle enough to ensnare) but as far beneath your Excellencies, as in esteem my scant Vicarage comes short of your Honours high tribunal at Westminster. It will be no dishonour, I hope, to protect such a Work where the learned Scaliger, Petavius, Calvisius, and others, have made their Dedications as durable as the Matter they wrote of. I conceive what they have outstripped me in, by the lustre of their own Names, shall be regained by the worth of a Patron; & though I came after them in time, yet a Dwarf set upon a Giant's shoulders, may see further then he that bears him Pardon me, my Lord, if in that Chapter concerning our Saviour's Birth, I have spoken the sense of Antiquity, rather than mine own. These great alterations, which are able to arrest the eye of a sober Reader, will show you, that Providence hath left many Monarches nothing but their Name; and to some few where you cannot find their ashes, a Monument of Doing Well. But I keep you too long in the Porch; let me crave pardon for this presumption in the first place, and then I will engage myself that Posterity shall make as much of your Memory hereafter, as you can possibly pay to Antiquity at present. So wisheth  
Your Lordships truly devoted Servant, JOHN SWAN.   

To his learned friend Master JOHN SWAN, on his excellent pieece of CHRONOLOGIE.  

Brave Julius! How far distant from the, war,  
Were the just Trophies of thy Calendar.  
By that thou soughtest, but to improve thy own.  
By th'other to recall things clearly gone,  
Time is a very Fugitive; and 'twas fit  
What strength could not should be reduced by wit;  
Thus Caesar having earth enough did try,  
Homage from th'uncontrolment of the sky.   

But History stood maimed and while she stood,  
All promised succour, but few did here good,  
Till Scaliger at length one eye restored,  
And made that wonder of his wit adored  
More than his solid reason, Making known  
What Caesar of the World had left unshown,  
But this was not enough, Time straggling tried  
To find his labrinth only by thy Guide.   

Berosus, and Metasthenes, which be  
The exploded Relics in Chronoligy  
Find no reception now; Young Time is here  
In perfect Puplage to thy Calendar;  
Thou trasest all his days, and lettest him know  
He had a Nonage ere his wings could grow.  
His Infancy was Golden, by which odds  
'Twas sure enough he must descend from gods;  
Had ignorant Zeal but framed him so, than he  
(Discovered thus) had lost his deity.  
These Works thy Children are, though he devours  
His own Sons daily, yet he must spare yours.   

As untuned Songs and Music void of stops,  
Such is Chronoligy, but for humane props  
A strange confused Chaos; from whose womb  
The misty errors of disputes have come.  
By thee those mighty Heroes proudly stand  
As strict in time, as when they did Command,  
And more observed perhaps, for ancient Wars  
Can change their Monarches into naught but Stars,  
An Apotheosis was the least: But O,  
We have no Calculation but from woe.  
Farewell ye star fed tribe, for who can boast  
That Stars are fixed, one Constellation lost.  
Yet friend go on, till Saturn shall have hurled  
His youth to kiss the dotage of the World.   
John Harleston.   

To the Author upon his Speculum Mundi, and this his learned and excellent Chronologie, The Standard of Time.  

NOT long since Galilaeus did invent  
The Telescope, a prying Instrument;  
By which he did discover, as he thought  
A Lunar World, and th'Earth to wheel about  
Betwixt the Orbs of Mars and Venus; strange!  
And Sol stand still! This is a monstrous change,  
Which I not understand, and think none can,  
Unless he be a mere Copernican.  
Indeed I've seen such things to come to pass  
Sometimes by help of Galilaeus Glass  
As Jovial Stars, and Saturnine beside  
About their Globes most wonderfully glide,  
And Solar spots, and Venus like the Moon  
To wax, and wain, and do as she hath done.  
All these are true: But laying them aside  
A clearer glass at last I have espied  
Wherein the Face of all the World is seen.  
What is, and like to be, and what hath been,  
So rarely polished, so acutely penned,  
It may be stained, or cracked, but none can mend;  
It much delights me, and do learn thereby  
To know myself, at least to rectify  
My Judgement; For in truth there doth abound  
Things fit for knowledge easy, yet profound.  
Another Treatise now our Swan-like Pen  
Is pleased to publish, fit for learned men,  
Wherein the course of Time from the Creation,  
Is truly measured, and Christ's birth, and passion,  
The secret meaning of deep Prophecies  
Are now unfolded, and their Mysteries  
Discovered, Scaliger, we shall not need,  
If once we do obtain this Measuring Reed.  
Then thank our Author, a most learned man,  
Sure when he dies, He will sing like the Swan.   
JOHN BOOKER.   

A TABLE of the Contents in the several CHAPTERS and Sections contained in this First PART.  

Chapter I. COntaining a brief Preface to the Reader, Page 1.  
CHAP. II. Of the time of the Year in which the World was Created. p. 3.  
CHAP. III. That the Jews or Hebrews, as well of old, as of lattertimes, accounted their Months by the course of the Moon, p. 11  
CHAP. iv Of the ancient and Natural year, that it was measured by the course of the Sun, though the Months were reckoned by the course of the Moon, p. 19  
CHAP. V Of the Periods of time by which the years of the World may be truly reckoned. As also of the Jubilees: how to account them, where also to begin and end them. p. 25  
CHAP. VI Of the Julian Period, and how to join the years of the World thereunto, p. 33  
CHAP. VII. Other Observations concerning the Times in their Periods, until the Destruction of Jerusalem by Nabuchadnezzar, p. 35  
CHAP. VIII. The Periods again considered, and all such doubts and scruples cleared as may arise concerning the just length of any of them, together with answers to certain other questions not impertinent. p. 51.  
In the former Chapter be eight Sections.  
CHAP. VIII. Sect. 1. Of the time from the Creation to the end of the Flood, p. 51  
CHAP. VIII. Sect. 2. Of the second Period, from the end of the Flood when the face of the ground was dry, to the Promise at the time of Abraham's departure from Charran into Canaan, that it was a Period of 427. year's current, but not complete. p. 68  
CHAP. VIII. Sect. 3. Of the third Period from the promise at Abraham's departing out of Haran, to the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, that it was a Period of 430 years. p. 75  
CHAP. VIII. Sect. 4. Of the fourth Perod, from the coming out of Egypt to the beginning of the building of Solomon's Temple, that it was a Period of 479 years complete, or of 480 current, p. 78  
CHAP. VIII. Sect. 5. Of the fifth Period, from the foundation of the Temple in the fourth year of King Solomon; to the Desolation thereof by Nabuchadnezzar. In which is also shown the true and right account of the 390 and 40 years in Ezekiel, p. 87  
CHAP. VIII. Sect. 6. Of the sixth Period, from the Destruction of the Temple by Nabuchadnezzar, to the beginning of the building thereof by Zorobabel in the second year of Darius' King of Persia. In handling whereof many things of note are discussed, and Scaliger refused upon good and warrantable grounds, both out of Scripture and other good Authors. p. 106  
CHAP. VIII. Sect. 7. Of the seventh Period, from the second year of Darius Hystaspis, to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, p. 115  
CHAP. VIII. Sect. 8. Of daniel's 70 Weeks in the ninth Chapter of his Prophecy, at the 24.25, 26, and 27. verses. An exposition of them, together with a Confutation of Master Broughton, and others, concerning Olympiads and length of the Persian Monarchy, p. 124  
CHAP. IX. Of the LXX. years in the Prophecy of the Prophet Jeremy, commonly called the 70 years of Judah's Captivity, p. 155  
CHAP. X. Of the time when Tyrus and Egypt were subdued and taken by Nebuchadnessar, according to the Prophecies of Esay, Jeremy, and Ezekiel, p. 159  
CHAP. XI. Of the number of Kings that reigned in Babylon during the time of the Captivity. In the handling whereof the fragments of Berosus and Megasthenes are examined, divers errores of Scaliger discovered, and the truth laid plainly open, p. 164  
CHAP. XII. Of the first year of Cyrus, and of Darius Medus mentioned in holy Scripture. p. 174  
CHAP. XIII. Of Alexander the great, signified by the Horn between the eyes of the Goat, Dan. 8.5. p. 176  
CHAP. XIIII. Of the four horns which came up in stead of the great horn broken off, as was prophesied in Dan. 8.8, 21, 22. As also of the beginning of that Date of the Kingdom of the Greeks so often mentioned in the Books of the Maccabes, and in Josephus, p. 178  
CHAP. XV. Of the little Horn in the eighth Chapter of Daniel, at the ninth verse. And at the 2300 days that were givin it, verse 14. p. 180  
CHAP. XVI. Of the fourth Kingdom in Daniel, that it signifieth the Monarchy of the Romans, p. 182  
CHAP. XVII. Of the Times and Distances of the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey, Herod, and Titus, p. 188  
CHAP. XVIII. Of the time of Herod's reign, and of his Posterity, p. 192  
CHAP. XIX. Of a true and right year of our Saviour's Birth and Baptism, p. 202  
CHAP. XX. Of the day of Christ's birth that it was kept, and on what Day, both among the Ancients, and in the succeeding Ages, p. 212  
CHAP. XXI. Of the reign of Tiberius, and of the beginning and end of Pontius Pilat's government. As also of the Year and Day of our Saviour's Passion, p. 228  
CHAP. XXII. Of Killing the Paschal Lambs, and whether at Christ's death the Jews and our Saviour kept the Passeover upon one and the same day, p. 237  
CHAP. XXIII Wherein is showed the times of Vespasian and Titus, together with the Destruction of Jerusalem. To which Chapter is added a Chronological Table, and a Calendar for that very year wherein Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. p. 241    

CALAMUS MENSURANS: OR, The measuring Reed.  

CHAP. I.  
Gentle Reader:  
I Have undertaken a Subject which in itself cannot be enough commended: in the handling whereof I have opposed no man out of any Singularity or Spirit of contradiction, but only for the love of truth; which I doubt not but I may do, and yet arrogate to myself nothing more than is meet. History is a Subject commended I know by the most, as being the Herald of Antiquity, the Light of Truth, the Life of Memory, and the Eye of the World: but Chronology is little esteemed, few prize it according to the true value, and yet 'tis indeed the very Eye of History. Alter Historiae oculus, as one speaketh. And so another, saying, Nulla historia lucem habet sine temporum serie: No history hath Light without a right order of the Times. Nor can it be thought the Holy Spirit of God would be so exact in noting the Times (even to Months, Weeks, and Days) in the sacred story, if the careful account of them were not to be regarded. Sure I am, it can be no small confirmation of a man's faith, concerning the threaten and promises of God, and consequently of the whole Scripture, when he seethe how the Prophecies at their determined times came to be accomplished, and how the linking of one period with another makes up such a chain as cannot but mind us of the Providence of God in his Government of the World, eternally foreknowing, and wisely disposing of what should be acted in future times. 
Math. 24.15.  Our Saviour Christ mentioning the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, saith; Let him that readeth understand. 
Revel. 13.18.  And in the Revelation, He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the Beast. 
Deut. 4.32.  And in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, even the conferring the Histories of holy Scriptures, with the Narrations of other credible books is commanded, that thereby Gods do may be compared. Besides which, the exact handling of these things makes it manifest that the Being of the World happened not by chance, or was from Eternity, but that it had a beginning, and doth tend also towards an ending. So also the Prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah being hereby found to be accomplished, discovers to the Jews their blindness, and stirs them up to mind their Conversion: I might say more, and show how Scriptures seemingly jarring in point of time are here reconciled; many places cleared, especially in the Books of the Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel: but let this suffice, and be enough to show that there is great dignity and worth in Chronologie; I think not my pains therefore to be ill employed, nor shall doubt of their candid acceptation among the courteous and ingenuous, to whom I commit them; hoping they may give satisfaction to them, searching for truth as I have done. This is all that in the first Chapter I thought good to mention, having written it on purpose to be a Preface to the rest: Here therefore I put an end to it, and am to proceed now as followeth.   

CHAP. II. Showing in what part of the year the world was created.  
IN the account of times it is very necessary that there should be a proposed point or mark from whence every reckoning may take beginning; that thereby the years which have several times of beginning may the more truly be computed and compared among themselves. Wherefore it cannot be amiss to set down something concerning the time of the year wherein the world began; especially seeing among Chronologers it is usual to refer their accounts either to the current year of the world's Creation, or of our Saviour's birth. And now, concerning this, there be chief three opinions.  

SECT. I.  
For first, Mercator and some others maintain that the world was created in the very time of the Summer Solstice, and that in the beginning of time, the Sun entering Leo, gave beginning to the year.  
This (as is thought) was first hatched among the Priests of Egypt, who observing the River Nilus to overflow about the Summer Solstice, adored it for a God, esteeming the time of its inundation for an infallible beginning of divine actions in things created; and thereupon, for the beginning likewise of the year at the time of the world's Creation.  
But if this were the only cause, we may not unfitly say, that it was folly and superstition which first set this opinion abroach, and therefore he is worthy of blame who will go about to maintain it. And although Mercator in his Chronologie seems to allege some other reasons, thereby to uphold his share in it, yet his chief reason is not sufficient: for it is grounded upon that which is not granted, viz. that the flood should end about July, because in the eleventh Month, which he supposeth to be May or June, when the Olive beginneth to put forth, the Dove brought green Olive leaves unto Noah into the Ark.  
To which it is answered that the word in Gen. 7.11. which he taketh to signify green leaves, may (as Expositors witness) as well be taken for Branches, even such as hath been used to make bowers with: which (according to the translation of the Septuagint) is expressed by a word signifying a dry stalk. 
Dr. Willet.  And so saith a * Doctor in his Hexapla upon Genesis, Chapter the first, question the 17. that the word in the Original is Gnalce, which (as S. Hierome translateth it elsewhere) signifies the branches of Olives, and in the Septuagint it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a stalk without leaves.  
That therefore which the Dove brought, might be some branch of the Olive tree rather than the leaves, and so might the Flood end at the dead time of the year rather than when things were fresh and flourishing.  
But admit that the stalk or branch had leaves on it, yet it proves not that it was about May or June, when the Dove found and brought it; because it is 
Plin. lib. 16. cap. 20.  recorded of the Olive, that she joseth not her leaves as other trees do, but is green and flourishing all the year. Such leaves therefore as it had before the flood, it might have after the flood: for if they were new ones, they must needs spring out in seven days; because the Dove was sent out but seven days before, returning then as a Creature disconsolate, not finding any thing at all.   

SECT. II.  
Another opinion, is, that it was created in Autumn, and that the Sun (who is the Index of time, by whose revolution we account our years) began his course in Libra about the 26. day of October, if the reckoning be reduced to our Julian year which is now in use.  
Unto which opinion I gave my assent, when I first wrote of these things, and had for it (as I then thought) many strong and forcible reasons, which I did illustrate and lay open at large, building much upon the testimony of Josephus, whom Calvisius and others strengthen from the words of the Chaldee Paraphrast upon the first book of the Kings, the eighth Chapter, at the second verse: But was most of all drawn to be of their side by joining with them in their understanding of those texts of Moses in Exodus, Chap. 23. verse 16. and Chap. 34, verse 22, where first the Israelites are commanded to observe the feast of in gathering in the end of the year, when they had gathered in their labours out of the field; that is, the feast of Tabernacles in the seventh month: and secondly are taught, that this feast was in revolutione anni, sive evolvendo anno, in the reulution of the year or when the year is wheeled about. By which a man would think that the year both ended and began again, about the feast of Tabernacles: and that though the first month of the year mentioned, and so commanded to be called, in Exodus the 12, at the coming out of Egypt, was reckoned from the Spring; yet the year naturally did nevertheless begin from Autumn, in the seventh month from that first.   

SECT. III.  
Howbeit upon more mature deliberation, I think them to be in the right, who reckon from the Spring, and do therefore fairly lay down my former Tenet. For first, that month which began from thence, is (in the 12. chap. of Exodus) expressly called the First month of the year, as cannot be denied: The first month, not as then appointed, but confirmed, for any thing that the text affirmeth to the contrary; for seeing the Original doth not say directly, let it be the first month; it is every whit as right to understand the verb which is wanting, to be as well a verb of the Indicative, as of the Imperative mood, & of the present as well as of the future tense. Whereupon it will also follow, that Moses (by God's appointment) ordaining this month to be the first month of the year, doth make no new institution, but reneweth the old account of the Patriarches, which was discontinued in Egypt, by reason that the Egyptians indeed began their account from their month Ptho, in Autumn, when Nilus returned again into his river, as well as from that time which Mercator taketh up, when it first began to overflow: And indeed this word to you, calls them back from the custom of Egypt. For that manner of reckoning which they had seen there, was none of theirs: and therefore they being come from thence, must know that it belongs to them to reckon thus, for To you this is the beginning of months, Exod. 12.2.  
Josephus therefore had small cause to say that Moses altered the old ancient order of the year; especially, seeing he himself doth likewise (in a manner) affirm, how that the Hebrews reckoning from Autumn, do but as the Egyptians did: Besides, Josephus having an eye to the beginning of the years of Jubilee, which began from the seventh month after that month which Moses told them was the first month of the year, was the readier to think (as the modern Jews since his time have also done) that in regard of Ecclesiastical affairs the beginning of the year was altered at the coming out of Egypt; but the old ancient beginning stood still and was regarded in their affairs of civil nature: whereupon he saith that Moses did innovate nothing from the ancient rite concerning the disposing of the year for buy and sellings. In which words (me thinks) he doth a little stumble both himself and such as stick to his testimony, in regard that the Nundinations and things of that nature appertained to the Jubilee, which was not instituted until afterwards. I find therefore little in Josephus concerning this to build upon.  
The Chaldee Paraphrast also is in this the same in effect with Josephus, and is so much the more invalid, by how much the reckoning of the Chaldeans and Persians is against it: both of which Nations accounted from the Spring, and might first learn it from the Patriarches (Terah and Abraham) who we are sure lived for a great while together in Vr of the Chaldees, and taught them (at least Abraham did) the knowledge of the Stars, for so Berosus mentions: and successively ever since Astrologers have accounted the revolution of the World from the Sun's entrance into Aries; where (in token of the beginning of the year) the Persians set their God Mithras holding in his hand a naked sword.  
Saint Ambrose saith, to show that it was Spring when the World was made, the Scripture speaketh thus, Hic vobis initium mensium; this is to you the beginning of months. Nor do other of the Fathers (Eusebius, Basil, Athanasius, Cyrill of Jerusalem, Augustine, Gregory Nazianzene, Damascene, Beda, Isiodore,) besides late writters (Luther, Johannes Lucidus, Bunting, Lydiat, Polanus, Perkins, Willet, Alstedius and others) but affirm as much. Beda makes mention of a Synod holden in Palestine by Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, in which was agreed that the World was made in the Spring: yea, and among the Jews, Rabbi Joshua doth earnestly defend the same Tenet against another great Rabbi, who would that it should be made in Autumn.  
And further, whereas God blessed the creatures, and bid them increase and multiply, which blessing presently took effect, who knoweth not that for most kinds of creatures, especially the fish and foul, the fittest time to engender and increase is the Spring?  
The time of the creation is also found from the History of the Flood, which began on the seventeenth day of the second month of the year; which second month agrees not to Autumn, but to the Spring: For first, by comparing the order of Months here specified, with that order which God gave Moses command to put in practice, it will well appear that the first month was reckoned from the Spring; because it cannot be showed in any place of Scripture, when the months are reckoned in their orders, (as the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.) that they take beginning from any other time. So that as Moses accounted the first, second, third, fourth fifth, etc. from Nisan which began in the Spring, in like manner did Noah reckon from the same time. And whereas I heretofore thought that this order of the months could prove nothing, because not above four of the months were known to have names till after the Captivity; and must therefore either not be reckoned at all, or else be reckoned in order according to their number, from whencesoever the reckoning begun: I find it since to be no perfect answer: For even those four are mentioned as well by the order of their number, as by their name, even before the Captivity, when they had names to be called by, 1 Kings chap. 6. and chap. 8. Nor was it but so likewise, afterwards, both with them and some of the rest, 
1 Mac. 4.53. and chap. 9.54.  as in Josephus, and the books of Maccabees may be seen.  
And then secondly, if it had been Autumn when the Flood began, the Flood continuing much about a just and even year, it must needs end at such a time as a man would think should be neither fit for the creatures to increase and multiply, nor the earth (in those Northern parts of the world where the Ark rested) to be dried up, no nor for the grass and herbs to grow for food, the winter coming on so soon. Saint Ambrose therefore is so fully resolved concerning this, that It is not to be doubted (saith he) but that this second month was in the Spring timewhen things increase and grow, the fields bring forth, etc. and that God then sent the flood upon the wicked, when their grief should be the greater, to be punished in their abundance. Which saying of that holy Father seems to be warranted from the words of our Saviour, Matth. 24.37. For it is true according to Christ's own Testimony recorded there, that they of the old world were taken even in the midst of all their mirth.  
And as for the foresaid Texts alleged out of Exodus they may (as some think) be answered thus, viz. that the year as well as the month is naturally divided into two chief parts: the one whereof is of the year beginning or coming in; the other of the year ending or going out: for by this the year seems to be compared to a Ring, which by a diameter is divided into two semicircles, insomuch that when one half is ended by the course of the Sun from one point of the diameter to the other; the other part must needs be taken for the conversion or return until the Sun be come again to the first point where as one year endeth, the other beginneth. Now than the seventh month is fitly called the conversion or return; because the first half is then at an end, and the year entered upon his revolution or return, and so the feast of the Tabernacles (kept always in that month) was in exitu anni, in the going out of the year.  
Which answer to that Text I do in some sort approve, and could be willing to think it might fully satisfy, if the year consisted of no more than two parts: but because the year is divided into four quarters or Tekupha's, called (as I shall show you afterward) the returns of the year, I think it a more perfect answer to say; It is called the end and return of the year, not because it met then with the natural head thereof, but because all the fruit of the year was gathered in, and seed time began anew: And so it is with us, the Autumn is counted the beginning of the year for matters of husbandry; and yet we in the computation of our years begin in the Spring at the Annunciation. The year of Jubilee indeed began now, I mean at Autumn: but for all that, the month wherein it began, is not called the first month but the seventh, Levit. 25.10.  
And furthermore, whereas it is usually objected that the trees were created with ripe fruits on them, and that the world was therefore made in Autumn: it is answered; that in the Eastern parts of the world, some fruits are ripe in the Spring as well as in Autumn, as is seen by the Harvest of the Jews, which was never long after Easter. And without question Paradise had the pre-eminence to be the best place that the world afforded, and might therefore have ripe fruits sooner than the Jews had their yearly Harvest. To which may be added, that the Arabians, Syrians, or Assyrians and Chaldeans do not begin their year from Autumn, but from the Spring, as Simplicius witnesseth upon the fifth book of Aristotle's Physics.  
But they have further to object, Object. that the Law is divided into several Sections, which were all of them read over once every year, the first whereof by an old ancient custom began always from Autumn: which was to show that there was the right beginning of the year.  
But to this learned Langius hath fully answered; saying that neither was it ever defined of Moses, nor of Joshua, nor of any of the Judges, how much of the Law should be read on any Sabbath, nor from what time of the year the reading of the Law should begin again. It was indeed commanded of Moses that the people of Israel should have the words and book of the Law always before their eyes: but of that public reading it in the Synagogues, according to several Sections & Divisions, he spoke not a word. King Jehosophat is found to be the first who sent forth his Princes, to whom he joined Levits in Commission, who going through all the Cities of Judah, taught the people in the Law of God: for they always had the Book of the Law about them, 2 Chro. 17.7, 8, etc. From whence is manifest, that in those times there were no ordinary Praelections or Lectures thereof. But after the Captivity, more like it is, that Esdars (that expert Scribe) divided the Law into parts, and instituted that order of reading them which is still observed: and because when he began to read, it was the first day of the seventh month, as may be seen, Neh. 8.2. therefore ever after, the reading began from thence: and yet then, to speak truly, it is hard to say what precise proportion Ezra observed for one reading, seeing (as the third verse showeth) he read therein from morning until midday; and might therefore, rather afterwards then now, proportion the whole into several parts, if at all it were done by him.  
I conclude therefore, that (notwithstanding the strongest and best objections to the contrary) the world began at the Spring time of the year, and that on the fourth day of the first Week the Sun was in the fourth degree of Aries: which fourth day, according to the Julian year, was on the seven and twentieth day of April; on which day the Sun was created, and set in the Firmament of Heaven, as shall be further showed afterwards.  
Omnia cum vireant, tunc est nova temporis aetas:  
Sic annus per ver incipiendus erit.    

CHAP. III. That the Jews, as well of old, as of later Times, accounted their Months by the course of the MOON.  
IT is a plain and manifest truth, approved by testimony undeniable, that in that age of the World in which our Saviour Jesus Christ lived, the Jews reckoned their months by the course of the Moon; and that on the fourteenth day of that Moon which they accounted for the first month, their Pascha or Easter was. This we have recorded by an authentic Author, as ancient as those times; I mean Philo Judaeus, in his book of the life of Moses: Who speaking there of the first month, and of the Paschal solemnity observed in it, saith, as the words sound in the Latin: Hoc ipso mense, circa decimam quartam diem, cum plenus jam orbis Lunae futurus est, Paschatis solemne celebratur; that is, In this very month, about the fourteenth day, when the Moon shall be at the full, the solemn feast of the Passeover is kept. And in another place, speaking of the time when the Months began, he declareth that their beginning was from the first fight or vision of the Moon, viz. cum Sol incipit sensibili splendore Lunam illustrare; When the Sun gins to enlighten the Moon so as she may be perceived. And so also he did in the place first mentioned, calling that the Novilunium, Quod Synodum Lunarem, sive Novae cujusdam Lunae, sequitur.  
To this Author I may join Josephus, wherein is recorded that the fourteenth day of the first month of the year, called 
* Here Josephus acknowledgeth Nisau to be the first month of the year.  Nisan, was evermore while the Sun was in that sign of the Zodiac which is called Aries. Antiq. lib. 3. cap. 10.  
And as this was the course and account of the Months in those times, so in the days before; for when Jesus the son of Syrach lived (which was 230. years before Christ) there was no other Index for the appointed Feasts on certain and set days of the month, but what the Moon afforded. He therefore saith, à Luna signum esse diei festi: From the Moon is the sign of a festival day, Ecclus 43.7.  
The Author of the third book of Esdras, Ch. 1. goeth higher; for speaking of Josiah's solemn Passeover, he saith it was celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the course of the Moon; as in Hieroms Bible may be seen. The like he repeateth afterwards of another Passeover, Chap. 7. verse 10.  
Higher than thus goeth Rabbi Moses, Ben Maimon, affirming that the Months of the year were the Months of the Moon, and that in Moses his time they were so accounted; evermore beginning (as Philo before had noted) from the first sight or vision of the Moon. For the ancient manner was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even till the year of Christ 500 about which time the Sapientes Gemarae ceased, as Petavius noteth.  
And hereupon it is that learned Langius saith, Ritum hunc de sanctificanda Neomenia à temporibus antiquissimis & Mosis ipsius deducit Maimon, quem semper à Judaeis observatum fuisse docet, quamdiu Sapientes erant in terra-Israelis: hoc est, ut ipse explicat, ad tempora Abai & Rabath. Aben Ezra likewise saith, upon Exod. 12. That the Lord gave commandment in the Law of keeping the Feast at the appointed time. Dicit enim, Observa mensem Abib, ut facias Pesah Domino; & si tempus Abib non fuerit inventum in medio mensis: faciemus Pascha mense sequente.  
But higher than all these, doth the testimony of Elias Scripturiarius bring us; who (as he is cited by that famous and illustrious Antiquary Mr. Selden, in his accerptis) saith, Praeceptum hoc sanctificandi Lunam exstabat seculis antiquissimis, temporibus Noachi & Abrahami patris nostri. That is, This precept of sanctifying the Moon, was exstant in the most ancient ages; even in the times of Noah and Abraham our Father.  
And thus we have testimony for times high enough; even to the times wherein mention is first made of Months in holy Scripture, which testimonies will neither allow the Months in the history of the Flood to be according to the course of the Sun, nor grant that the Jews made use of the Period of Calippus after the times of Alexander, as Scaliger sometimes taught; nor that in Christ's time they used a Quaterdenarian Cycle, as Petavius would prove from Epiphanius: For as I said before, according to the witness of the forecited authors, the ancient manner was to begin the Month from the first sight or vision of the Moon sanctifying that day; Solomon therefore would not so much as lay the foundation of the Temple on the first, but on the second day of the Month, because the first was holy. For as God appointed a time for his daily and weekly worship, so he appointed general Feasts for his monthly and yearly worship: He therefore instituted the New Moons, and first day of every year to be accordingly observed. Blow the Trumpet (saith the Psalmist) in the New Moon: in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day. For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of Jacob, Psal. 81.3, 4. By which he meaneth the feast of Trumpets, commanded to be celebrated on the first day of the seventh Month, Levit. 23.24. And in the Revelation, this is certain, that after Christ's time the Moon was trodden under foot by the Woman clothed with the Sun, Revel. 12.1. By which is signified That that typical worship which for the days thereof in the law of Moses had been regulated by the course of the Moon, was now in the Christian Church, through the revealing of Christ laid prostrate, abolished and gone: the Woman therefore treadeth the Moon under her feet. Nor doth the Psalmist again but justify this Lunar account, saying; God appointed the Moon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for festival seasons: as Master Mede, in his Comment upon the Revelation, renders the place; that is, as the Son of Syrach before mentioned hath expressed it; from the Moon is a sign of feasts, a light that decreaseth in her perfection: the month is called after her name, Ecclus 43.7, 8.  
And so indeed it is; For in Scripture a month is called in the Hebrew tongue jaerach, from Jareach Luna. And in Greek the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Luna also. And so in Job accordingly the months are called Moons; as thus, Quis ponetime juxta Luna's: hoc est, Menses antiquos? Job 29.2.  
The month likewise is sometimes in the Hebrew called Hodes or Chodesch; which word doth properly signify A renovation: so that Chodesch is as much as Novilunium, or Renovatio lunae, in regard that on the first day thereof the Moon or month is renewed; in which sense it is used in 1 Sam. 20.5. and expounded so by David Kimhi in libro Radicum, saying; & vocatur Hodes sive Novus, quia renovatur Luna in eo die. This word is also used for the whole month or space of time that is from one renovation of the Moon to another; and hath either an adject number of days passed since the renovation; as prima luna, secunda suna, tertia luna, decima quarta luna, etc. or else all the days are spoken of junctim and together; as in Numb. 11.20. ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days: but even a month of days together.  
This therefore made Kimhi, in the place before mentioned, say; Triginta dies junctim vocantur Hodes, & dies primus solus vocatur Hodes.  
However therefore the Grecians applied the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the first day of their month, even when they reckoned them by the light of the Sun; yet it was only proper & of right belonging to the first day of such months as were rightly called months, and accounted by the course of the Moon. And so also Master Lydyat saith, in his book De variis annorum formis, c. 4. where speaking of the word Neomenia, id est, Nova luna, this he addeth; quae dictio licet demùm translata sit ad significandum initium qualiscunque mensis, non solum lunaris; primo tamen & propriè de mensibus lunaribus, utpote antiquissimo & naturali genere mensium, accipiendam neutiquam dubitari debet.  
And thus are the Months fully proved to be Lunar. Against which I meet with three Objections.  
The first whereof is, Object. that if the months were Lunar, then in some years there must be thirteen months by reason of a month intercalar, called by the late Jews Veader or another Adar: But the Scripture makes no mention of any such month; and therefore it may be concluded that of old there was no other intercalar. Adar indeed is mentioned, both in the book of Hester and elsewhere, but with no note of distinction to signify which Adar it was: whereas if there were two Adars, there would have been something added to know which of them was meant?  
Answ. And why so? it needed not, Answ. unless there had been two Adars in every year: it was only the Embolismall year which had two Adars, and not the Common year: Beside which, know also this; we find not in Scripture mention made of the thirtieth day of any month: shall we therefore conclude that no month had thirty days.  
But that the vanity of this Objection may further appear, this I say; that though the Scripture give no express mention of the month intercalar, yet some clear footings of it may be seen there. As for example, in the Prophecy of Ezekiel at the first chapter, we find that the Prophet had a vision in the fifth year of Jechoniah's Captivity, on the fifth day of the fourth month; and that after seven days more (as in the Chapters following is mentioned) he was commanded to lie on his left side 390. days, and to bear the sins of Israel; after which he must lie on his right side 40. days more to bear the iniquity of Judah: and yet in the next year, on the fifth day of the sixth month, he is said to sit again among the Elders of Israel, chap. 8.1. Which could not be, unless there were a month intercalar. For 40. days added to 390. do make 430. which was a greater space than could be any way from the twelfth day of the fourth month in the fifth year, to the fifth day of the sixth month in the following year, unless there were I say a month intercalar. Nor is this a strange collection: for though these things perhaps were done in a vision, yet that the Prophet might not tell the people a vain vision, nor deliver unto them an unwarrantable Prophecy, he must upon necessity lie hid and be absent from them so long as was the number of those days. And indeed by putting this upon trial by calculation, I find all fully cleared: For in the year of the Julian Period 4119. which was (as shall be afterwards proved) the fifth year of Jechoniah's Captivity, the first day of Nisan was on the twentieth day of March; that year therefore must be annus Embolimaeus, and have thirteen months, or 384. days. For if it had been twelve months, or 354. days, then must the first of Nisan in the following year be on the eleventh of March, which could not be because the fourteenth day thereof must not be before the Vernal Equinox, which then was on the twenty seventh day of March. And therefore the first of Nisan in the first of these two years was on the two and twentieth day of March; and in the next, on the tenth of April: so will there be space enough by the fifth day of the sixth month for all the days that the Prophet mentioneth to be accomplished; otherwise not. And thus I am glad of this objection, seeing it hath occasioned a further confirmation of the months mentioned in Scripture to be Lunar.  
The next thing objected, Object. is the History of the Flood, in which the months are found to be Solar; because from the seventeenth day of the second month, to the seventeenth day of the seventh month, were an hundred and fifty days: that is, five months of thirty days a piece.  
Whereto I answer, Answ. that this hinders nothing, as afterward, when I come to speak of the Flood, shall be plainly showed. In the mean time this I add, that twelve months of but thirty days a piece, amount in the whole to no more than 360. days: whereas in a full Solar year are more by five days and about six hours.  
But to help this, they say that the old Patriarches had either an epact of five days to be added to every year, or else that in every six years they made of those five days an intercalar month, to which also the six hours would reach in one hundred and twenty years: at which time they had also one month more than in their ordinary and common years. Now this time Scaliger saith was called by the name of Cheled, but doth very unaptly apply it to his purpose, as Petavius proves against him. For Cheled is no more appliable to an age of an hundred and twenty years, then to any other time or age, be it either more or less; and is only belonging to the time or age of man's life of what length soever it be: as may be seen in Psal. 39.5. where that very word is used. Nor again is that space of an hundred and twenty years, in the sixth chapter of Genesis, spoken for any other purpose then to show the patience and long suffering of the Lord to the old World; which the Apostle Peter calleth the waiting of God on them in the days of Noah, while the Ark was preparing 1 Pet. 3.20. Beside which, this is also certain; that if the sixth year forementioned, were to have an intercalation in respect of the six hours, there would be two intercalar months together; I mean in every one hundred and twentieth year, as is apparent by dividing the said year by six. For 120. divided by six, hath twenty times six in it, and nothing remaining: whereupon will further follow, that in every one hundred and twentieth year must be 420. days; which were very absurd to grant. Nay further, were it so that the ancient Patriarches to avoid this absurdity, should be thought to reckon the five days at the end of every year, and defer the six hours till the one hundreth and twentieth year, by the which time those hours amount to the space of one month; yet still is all built but upon conjecture: and that so weakly as there is little or no show of probability in it; for if there were, than would there be from the Creation to the Flood no odd years, but equal divisions of 120. years apiece: which we know is otherwise, in regard that when we divide the year of the Flood by 120. we have 95. remaining. They therefore reckon far better who do not only account an Epact of five days at the end of every common year, but do also intercalate a day in every fourth year, making the Epact then to be six, which in the common year was but five. Howbeit this still is no better than mere conjecture, and cannot clearly be affirmed to be so indeed till after ages; and then, not so among the Jews, but among some other Nations: for the month among the Jews was Lunar, as by the words used in Scripture for a month (beside our other proofs) already mentioned, doth well appear.  
But thirdly, Object. it is objected out of the seven and twentieth Chapter of the first book of the Chronicles, that David appointed twelve Captains of ordinary Legions to be over the Provinces, into which the whole body of the Kingdom was divided, and these to serve in their courses severally throughout the twelve months of the year. Or rather thus; King David appointed twelve Captains of ordinary Legions to be the lifeguard of his person, and these to serve severally in their courses throughout the twelve months of the year; no more months being mentioned: for according to the number of the months, so was the number of the Captains. Solomon likewise appointed as many Stewards to provide provision for the royal Family, and these (as the former) to serve severally throughout the twelve months of the year; as in the fourth Chapter of the first book of the Kings may be seen. The year therefore in those times had no more than twelve months: for if there were thirteen, then for one month's space, both the King's person must be unprovided of a Guard, and the royal Family destitute likewise of Provisions for their sustenance.  
Scaliger I remember, Answ. once made this Objection, but afterwards (upon his better thoughts) he cried out against it, saying; Ridicula est objectio, 
Scal. in Isag. can.  It is a ridiculous objection: and an objection, qua pertinaces contendunt, mensem veterem Hebraeorum lunarem non fuisse. And indeed, he might well cry out against it: For this objection is the same in effect with that to which I answered first. And therefore this I say, that these Captains and Officers for their number in relation to the twelve months of the year, were according to the course of the common and ordinary years which had no more than twelve months: but in the Embolismall year were 13. months nevertheless; and how that odd month was supplied, is not at all in Scripture declared. The Jews say that the month intercalar was esteemed but as momentum temporis, a point of time, and in it they judged no civil matter: we may therefore be induced to think it probable, that he whose Office fell to the twelfth month in the common year, did likewise supply the service of the thirteenth month in the Embolismall year, and yet in the institution of their Offices no more be mentioned then every man to serve his month. For as Wolphius speaketh, certè major habenda fuit annorum communium ratio, quia plures sint, quam Embolimaeorum. The like to which is also common with us in our year: for whereas we intercalate a day in every fourth year; the day intercalated, and the day before it, are both esteemed as one, both for matters of Law, Fairs, and the like.  
And thus is this objection likewise answered: here therefore I conclude this Chapter.   

CHAP. IU. Of the ancient and natural Year, that it was measured by the course of the Sun, though the Months were reckoned by the course of the Moon  
AS the Ancients reckoned their Months by the course of the Moon; which I have already proved: so they reckoned their year by the course of the Sun; qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & proprie annus dicitur, saith Petavius, lib. 1. c. 8. 
Petau. lib. 2. de Doct. Temp. cap. 27.  And in another place, this they do, saith he, necessario, ut aequinoctia, caeterosque cardines, quas Tekuphas appellabant, observare possent, ut ne XIV. Nisan aberraret. Which is but what the Jews themselves have registered in their Thalmud; for if the Tekupha of Nisan fall into the sixteen day or after, that year must be intercalar. And so saith R. Moses, Ben Maimon, cap. 4. Kiddusch, §. 2. Petavius thereupon affirmeth further, that the month is from the proper motion of the Moon: but the year properly taken, and naturally, is of the Sun; being defined from the simple conversion thereof. Annum cum dicimus, propriè Solarem intelligimus: cum vero Mensem, lurarem. lib 1. c. 8. In which Book and Chapter he also saith, that other Nations as well as the ancient Jews, when they came to the natural measure of any stable or fixed thing, used the Solar year.  
This then is the true and natural year, and in the Scripture called a year of days: as may be seen in Jere. 28.3. For there that which we translate, within two full years; is in the Original, within two years of days. The like to which is also in the eleventh verse of the same Chapter: and in the first book of Maccabees, the first chapter, at the thirtieth verse.  
Expositors therefore have observed, 
See Ainsworth on Gen. c. 1. ver. 14. and Gibbens, c. 5. Quest. 2.  that a year hath the name in the Hebrew from Shanah, signifying a changing or Iteration; which is in regard of the Suns returning after a years end, to the same point of heaven where it first began: even as the month is derived from Chodesch, which signifieth to Renew; because at the months end the Moon is again renewed; as in the former chapter hath been proved. Neither is it found in any place of Scripture, that these names or words are the one of them taken to signify the other; but by the one is meant a year, and by the other a month. Although therefore the popular or vulgar year might be measured by months; commonly twelve, and sometimes thirteen: yet the fixed and natural year, by which the months were always regulated, was measured by the course of the Sun, and was a year of days; as in that before mentioned out of the Prophet Jeremy well appeareth.  
Now this year was evermore divided according to the Tekupha's or Quarters of it; as is still observed by the Jews to this very day: who being zealous to maintain the Customs of their Ancestors, do not only measure their months by the course of the Moon, but their year by the course of the Sun, which they divide by four Tekuphs or Quarters. The first whereof belonged to the first month, which was Abib, called afterward Nisan: the second to the fourth month, called afterward Thamuz: the third to the seventh Month, called afterward Tisri; and the fourth to the tenth month, called afterward Tebheth. So that on what day soever of our Julian year that Tekupha happened which pointed out the Vernal Equinox, from thence must the year be reckoned as from its natural head; for there the last year ended and the next began.  
Nor are these Tekuphahs but mentioned in the Scripture: as the Tekupha of the Spring Quarter at the Vernal Equinox when Kings go forth to battle, 2 Sam. 11.1. which as Moses saith, was in the head or first Month of the year, 
* By which I mean, that the Month belonging to that Tekupha is there called the first Month of the year.  Exod. 12.2. The Tekupha of the Summer Solstice, when Jeochniah was carried captive, 2 Chron. 36.10. The Tekupha of the Autumnal Equinox, at the return and end of the year for Husbandry affairs, and beginning of the Jubilee, Exod. 23.16. Leu. 25.10 and Exod. 34.22. Only the Tekupha of the Winter Solstice is not so plainly described; and yet some think it to be in Ezek. 40.1. But however, whether it be or no, it is not much material: for having three, the fourth is not to be denied; in regard that as one Equinox is opposite to another, so is the one Solstice also opposite to the other.  
It was sometimes the opinion of Joseph Scaliger that only one Tekupha could be found in Scripture: but percieving that to be an erronous conceit, he plainly said Judaeos nihil antiquius habere Tekupharum, sive quadrantum quatuor observatione. Against which, though Petavius excepteth, yet thus much I find in him, as a thing which he granteth, saying; Tekupha nihil aliud est quam Conversio, sive cardo anni quadruplex, Lib. 2. c. 45. which is as much as he shall need to grant in this particular: for if the Tekupha be cardo anni quadruplex, then may we justly conclude it to be cardo anni, quando Sol primum quatuor signorum ingreditur, Arietis, Cancri, Librae, Capricorni.  
These Tekupha's in the beginning of the World, if they be reduced to the course of our Julian year, were, the first of them on the 23. day of April in the Evening, when the 24. day was begun according as the Jews account; the second on the 25. day of July; the third on the 27. day of October; the fourth and the last on the 25. day of January; by which I mean that there the fourth or last Quarter of the year began, and was not ended till the 23. day of April next after was finished. And why they be not still on those days, is because the Equinoctial and Solstitial points have anticipated and not kept their places on those days and Months they were at the first: which anticipation is not in regard of any error or irregularity that is in the motion of the Sun, but because the Julian year agreeth not thereunto, but is a little longer than of right it should be: For the true Solar year (in the mean measure thereof) doth not consist of 365. days and full six hours; but rather of 365. days five hours, 48 minutes, 39 seconds, and 41 thirds. By which length of the Tropical year, we find in one year an anticipation of eleven minutes, twenty seconds, and nineteen thirds: which though it be at the first but a little, will nevertheless in many years amount to the number of no few days, as we see it doth. For by the end of 127 years will be twenty four hours gained, with thirteen thirds: thereby declaring that the day of the Vernal Equinox in the beginning of the World, even till 95 years were ended, was in the common years on the 23 day of April, though it be now on the tenth day of March; and the Autumnal Equinox on the 27 day of October, though it be now on the 13 day of September: Thus I say it was in the common years, though in the Bissextile one day sooner.  
And why I allow but ninty five years at the first for the alteration of a day, is not because twenty four hours are gained in that time, but because the time of the first Equinox was at the 
* At which. time the first day of the World began, reaching the very evening of the 2 c. day.  evening of the 23 day: And therefore though at the first, ninty five years will bring the Equinox to a new day according to the Julian account, which gins the day from Midnight; yet afterwards we must not reckon that these Tekupha's change their places so as to be on a new day after the same account, till the end of the 127 years after.  
I conclude therefore (this rule observed) that the Tekupha's change their places one day by the end of 127 years, and must be therefore set either backward or forward, according to the time propounded wherein we seek them: which the late Jews not observing, have them now not in their right places, although by them they still divide the year into four Quarters.  
But of this enough: only let me add a Table, therein to show how much the anticipation cometh to in any year desired, from one to six thousand: And after that another Table for the more ready finding the particular day of either Equinox.  

A Table by which may be found how much the Equinoctial anticipateth in any year desired, from one to six thousand.  Years. Days. Hours. Minutes. Seconds. Thirds. 1 0 0 11 20 19 2 0 0 22 40 38 3 0 0 34 0 57 4 0 0 45 21 16 5 0 0 56 41 35 6 0 1 8 1 54 7 0 1 19 22 13 8 0 1 30 42 32 9 0 1 42 2 51 10 0 1 53 23 10 20 0 3 46 46 20 30 0 5 40 9 30 40 0 7 33 32 40 50 0 9 26 55 50 60 0 11 20 19 0 70 0 13 13 42 10 80 0 15 7 5 20 90 0 17 0 28 30 100 0 18 53 51 40 120 0 22 40 38 0 127 1 0 0 0 13 200 1 13 47 43 20 300 2 8 41 35 0 400 3 3 35 26 40 500 3 22 29 18 20 600 4 17 23 10 0 700 5 12 17 1 40 800 6 7 10 53 20 900 7 2 4 45 0 1000 7 20 58 36 40 2000 15 17 57 13 20 3000 23 14 55 50 0 4000 31 11 53 26 40 5000 39 8 52 3 20 6000 47 5 50 40 0  

Another TABLE more readily to find the day of either Equinox, by knowing either the year of the WORLD, year of the Julian Period, or common year of CHRIST.  Year of the World Year of the Julian Period. Vernal Equinox Autumnal Equinox Year of Christ. 1 710 April 23 October 27 0 96 805 April 22 October 26 0 223 932 April 21 October 25 0 350 1059 April 20 October 24 0 477 1186 April 19 October 23 0 604 1313 April 18 October 22 0 731 1440 April 17 October 21 0 858 1567. April 16 October 20 0 985 1694 April 15 October 19 0 1112 1821 April 14 October 18 0 1239 1948 April 13 October 17 0 1366 2075 April 12 October 16 0 1493 2202 April 11 October 15 0 1620 2329 April 10 October 14 0 1747 2456 April 9 October 13 0 1874 2583 April 8 October 12 0 2001 2710 April 7 October 11 0 2128 2837 April 6 October 10 0 2255 2964 April 5 October 9 0 2382 3091 April 4 October 8 0 2509 3218 April 3 October 7 0 2636 3345 April 2 October 6 0 2763 3472 April 1 October 5 0 2890 3599 March 31 October 4 0 3017 3726 March 30 October 3 0 3144 3853 March 29 October 2 0 3271 3980 March 28 October 1 0 3398 4107 March 27 Septemb. 31 0 3525 4234 March 26 Septem. 29 0 3652 4361 March 25 Septem. 28 0 3779 4488 March 24 Septem. 27 0 3906 4615 March 23 Septem. 26 0 4033 4742 March 22 Septem. 25 29 4160 4869 March 21 Septem. 24 156 4287 4996 March 20 Septem. 23 283 4414 5123 March 19 Septem. 22 410 4541 5250 March 18 Septem. 21 537 4668 5377 March 17 Septem. 20 664 4795 5504 March 16 Septem. 19 791 4922 5631 March 15 Septem. 18 918 5049 5758 March 14 Septem. 17 1045 5176 5885 March 13 Septem. 16 1172 5303 6012 March 12 Septem. 15 1299 5430 6139 March 11 Septem. 14 1426 5557 6266 March 10 Septem. 13 1553 5684 6393 March 9 Septem. 12 1680   

CHAP. V Of the Periods of Time by which the Years of the World may be truly reckoned. As also of the Jubilees; how to account them, where also to begin and end them.  
THe first Period is from the beginning of the Creation, in the latter end of October, to the end of Noah's Flood; and containeth the number of 1657. years complete: the full end not being till the year 1658. was begun.  
The second is from the end of the said Flood when Noah came out of the Ark, to the promise made to Abraham at the time of his departure from Charran into Canaan; and is a Period of 
* Which in adding the Periods together must be added to 1658 and not to 1657.  427. years almost ended.  
The third is from the promise, at Abraham's departure from Charran, to the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, and doth contain the just number of 430. years.  
The fourth is from the coming out of Egypt till King Solomon began the building of the Temple, in the fourth year of his reign; and is a Period of 479. years complete, or of 480. begun.  
The fifth is from the first founding of the Temple to the destruction thereof by Nabuchadnezzar, in the ninteenth year of his reign almost ended, in the first year of the 48. Olympiad; and is a Period of 423. years, and about 103. days.  
The sixth is from thence to the time that zerobabel began again to build it, in the second year of Darius' King of Persia; and is a Period of 68 years and some days more.  
The seventh is from thence to the beginning of daniel's LXX. weeks, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when Jerusalem was again fully restored, and the walls thereof built up and finished by Nehemiah, in a straight of time: this being a Period of 65. years, as shall be afterwards proved.  
The eighth is from thence to the beginning of Christ's Ministry, in the seventy and fourth Julian year, at the Autumn of the year of the Julian Period 4742. and is a Period of 483. years: called by Daniel Seven weeks and Sixty two weeks, as is recorded Dan. 9.25. These seven and sixty two make sixty nine, and end at Autumn: but Christ was baptised on the sixth of January before. In the beginning therefore of the seventieth (or last) week exactly, between the first and second Passeover after his Baptism, when his Harbinger John had now finished his message, and was cast into Prison, (a time precisely and purposely noted in the Evangelicall story) Christ first began to preach in Galilee the Gospel of the Kingdom, and proclaimed himself to be the MESSIAH. For after John was put in Prison, saith Mark 1.14. Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The time is fulfilled (that is, as Master Mede expounds it, the last Week of the seventy is come) and the Kingdom of God is at hand. From that time (saith Matthew cap. 4.17.) Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. This was that day whereof Christ himself said at Nazareth, that that Scripture was fulfilled: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor, etc. and to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, Luke 4.18.19. This the time and place whence Saint Peter reckoned the beginning of Christ's Prophecy in his Sermon to Cornelius: That word (saith he) which was published through out all Judea, and began from Galilee after the Baptism which John preached, etc. Acts 10.37. Learned Scaliger also here hath well observed: For though he expound daniel's Weeks otherwise then I have done; yet this he saith, Dimidium autem Septimanae pertinet ad praedicationem Messiae, quod nemo ignorat: 
Scal. De Emend. temp. lib. 6. edit. 1.  Praedicatio autem non a Baptismo incipit, quod hactenus omnibus persuasum fuit, sed à vinculis Johannis Baptistae. Thus he; Who hereupon accounteth from the imprisonment of John, to the Resurrection of Christ, three years and a half; saying, A vinculis Johannis & praedicatione ad Resurrectionem, anni tres cum semisse. And again, Male hactenus tempus Praedicationis a Baptismo definitum. Thus in his first Edition: and in his second, thus; Hinc incipit (saith he) praedicatio Christi. Meaning that from the imprisonment of John, between the first and second Passeover, was the beginning of Christ's preaching.  
The ninth is from hence to the Passion of Christ, in the middle of this last week, and is a Period of three years and six months: For in the fourth year of this week (three years and an half after Christ Jesus began his Prophecy) being made our High Priest, he offered himself upon the Cross a Sacrifice for Sin, was dead, buried, and risen again: Then ascended up into heaven to be installed, and to sit at the right hand of God, and from thenceforth to reign till he have subdued all his enemies under his feet. The time of this Period is confessed even by some among the Jews: three years and a half the glory of God stood upon Mount Olivet and preached, saying, Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near; as Rabbi Janna noteth.  
The next to this is the tenth Period, and is from the Passion of Christ to the end of the last Jubilee at the Autumn of the year foregoing the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, containing the number of thirty six years and and a half, or thereabout.  
This Rest or Jubilee was the last that ever the Jews saw in their own Land: for in the next year after it was ended, their Temple and City was utterly destroyed, and they themselves cast out, even in the year of the World 4074. and year of the Julian Period 4783. Which year was also the seventieth year of Christ, according to the common account: the 115. Julian year, the second year of Vespasian, and year of Rome built 822.  
And surely the Providence of God herein is clearly seen: for as they began their account for Rests and Jubilees in the last year of Moses, six months before they passed over Jordan, when they had conquered and began to possess a part of that Land which God had given them for their Tribes to inherit: So in like manner this reckoning ended with them when the time was at hand that it should be taken away from them, and they cast out till the time of the fullness of the Gentiles come, Luke 21.24. And to this, in one place, doth Scaliger well agree: for though in his fifth book De emendatione Temporum, he gins this reckoning in the seventh year after they came into Canaan; yet afterward in his seventh book, in his notes upon that Calendar called Computus Judaicus, he plainly saith; Ingressus Israelis in terram, est primus annus Septimanae. That is, the entrance of Israel into the Land, is the first year of the Week: And so I account; for the first year of the first Week was not ended until the Autumn next after Joshua conducted the people of Israel over Jordan.  
This last year of Moses was in the year of the Julian Period 3263. 
Num. 32.33.  when the Kingdom of Sihon King of the Amorites, and the Kingdom of Og King of Bashan, was conquered and given to the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, and to half the tribe of Manasseth the Son of Joseph for a possession: this conquest being about six months before Joshua passed over Jordan, as Codoman noteth. The seventh year from hence inclusively, was therefore the beginning of the first year of Rest, in the year of the julian Period 
* And was the year of the Jews Period 2317.  3269. And the seventh seven in like manner the first jubilee, in the year of the same Period 3311. and year of the World 2602.  
But if it be so, that every Seventh Seven must be a jubilee, Quest. then how could the jubilee be the fiftieth year.  
Well enough: Answ. For though the jubilee fell always into the Seventh Seven, yet nevertheless it was the fiftieth year by including that year from whence the nine and forty exclusively were accounted. For if the year of jubilee be reckoned otherwise, the commandment concerning the years of Rest for the Land could not be observed, but the whole order would be disturbed, and the eighth year in every jubilee be accounted for a year of Rest, though it were indeed the first year of another Week, and a year in which they were to blow and sow their ground, Levit. 25.22. And that the manner of this reckoning may not seem strange, I will show you in a word or two some few other precedents, wherein the accounts are of the same nature. As for example: In Music we call that an eighth which exclusively is but seven, and no ways eight but by including the two extreme Notes. So also we call a Quartain Ague, which hath not four days but by including the two sick days. Christ likewise is said to arise the third day; which could not be but by including as well the day of his death and burial, as of his Resurrection: for on Friday he suffered; on Saturday was the Jews Sabbath; and on Sunday in the morning (that being the first day of the week) he arose, Math. 16.21. Mark 16.2. And thus also it must be in the account for the year of jubilee; which though it fall into the seventh Seven, is nevertheless the fiftieth year by including the two extreme terms of the reckoning.  
But if this be not enough for the clear understanding of this difficulty, know we that here (as in all numbering) two things are to be considered: The parts numbered, and the manner of numbering. The parts numbered are three: namely, The two extreme terms; and the Midst, or what is between them: The manner of reckoning, that also is threefold: The first is, when the middle numbers only are accounted, and the two extreme terms excluded. The other, when the midst with both the extreme terms are included; and under this manner of reckoning is contained whatsoever is expressed by any Ordinal number. The third and last is, when the midst and one extreme term only is included, the other (which is the first term) being excluded: and under this form of reckoning falleth the true account of all such reckon as are made by Cardinal numbers: For there be ordinal numbers, and Cardinal numbers: By Cardinal numbers we inquire how many: And by ordinal numbers we inquire of what Order the thing in question is. As for example, If the question be first concerning the number of years in a Jubilee; the answer than is, That there are but forty nine. But secondly, If the question be, of what order is the year of Jubilee, the answer than is, That it falleth into the fiftieth year: Both which the holy text doth well express. For thou shalt number unto thee (saith God unto Moses) seven Sabbaths of years, seven times seven years, and the space of seven Sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years, Levit. 25.8. In which words we have the first question resolved; namely, of the number of years in a Jubilee, That they are but forty nine. Then for the second, Moses showeth that also, at the tenth verse, saying, And ye shall hollow the fiftieth year, etc. Now that this fiftieth year was no other than the last year of the seventh Week, is plain in regard that it is a question whose resolution is by ordinal numbers, having the middle years with both the extreme terms included. That therefore which learned Junius hath noted upon this text of Moses, 
Jun. edit. 2.  is worth the marking. [And thou shalt hollow the fiftieth year] that is, saith he, The fiftieth year inclusively considered, as the Jews use to reckon. By which I doubt not but he meaneth the ancient Jews, who had seen as well the observation of the Jubilee, as of the Passeover, which Maimonides never did: and therefore the less reason had Broughton and Ainsworth to follow him in this particular; especially considering that the Period or Cycle of the Jews, 
Hillel set forth this Period, anno dom. 358. but Maimon was not till about the year of Christ 1180.  which they call Aera Mundi (set forth long before Maimon lived) will allow of no interruption of the sabbatical years, but granteth them to succeed orderly each to other: the dividing of it else by seven could never show any one true year of the Rest. And if so, then must the Jubilee necessarily fall into the seventh seven, and not into the year next after it: for if the jubilee be not till the year next after the seventh seven, then must the year next after that be accounted but for the first year of a new Week, which is manifestly false: for if that supposed first year be divided by seven, it will not have one, but two remaining. The like method is to be observed for finding the sabbatical years by dividing the year of the julian Period, in any year after the death of Moses, by seven: for if nothing remain, then doth the Autumn of the year divided begin a year of Rest or Sabbath to the Land: if one remain, then about Autumn the first year of Sowing beginneth; if two, than the second: And so of all the other years, according to what remaineth. As for example, the 150. year of the Grecians (when Eupator besieged jerusalem) was in the year of the julian Period 4551. which being divided by seven, hath one remaining: and therefore that year was Sabathicall unto the Autumn thereof, 1 Maccab. 6. joseph. Antiq. lib. 12. cap. 14. So also for the year when Simon the Father of Hyrcanus was slain, 
Joseph ontiq. lib. 13 c. 15.  it was in the year of the julian Period 4579. before the year of the Grecians 177. was ended: which year of the said Period being divided by seven, hath also one remaining; and was therefore sabbatical until the Autumn thereof. So also for the year when Herod took jerusalem, it was when M. Agrippa and L. Canidius Gallus were Consuls, in the year of the julian Period 4677. the ninth Julian year, and year of the City 716. Now this year of the said Period being likewise divided by seven, hath also one remaining; and was therefore a sabbathical year, or year of Rest, from the Autumn before until the Autumn thereof: and so josephus showeth, in his Antiquities, l. 14. c. 28. By which three examples all the other sabbathical years are known to be rightly fixed, and may be evermore found by the method aforesaid: yea though the head of their reckoning should not take place, until either the seventh or fourteenth year of joshua.  
Some I know (and they no mean Authors) begin this account at that Division of the Land which was in the seventh year of joshua, when Caleb was eighty five years old. But because the Land was not fully divided then, nor the Tribes sent home until joshua caused a further Division to be made, and then sent the Tribes home to their possessions, therefore have others deferred the head of this reckoning till then: 
Bonfrer. in Exod. 23.12.  that is, till the fourteenth year of joshua. Bonfrerius in his Comment upon Exodus, as he is cited by Philippus in his Chronology, observes the same; saying, Duae fuerunt distributiones terrae, etc. There were (saith he) two Divisions of the Land: the one in Gilgal, about the seventh or eighth year after the entrance thereinto: the other in Shiloh some years after. At the first, the Division was but begun, not finished: yea, for certain causes put off, and to be accounted as if nothing had been done: From the latter therefore (in his judgement) the Sabbathical year ought to be reckoned. 
Philip in Chonology  Adding moreover, and saying; Hebraei idem sentiunt, qui Sabbata terrae à decimo quarto anno ab ingressu computant. Hereunto agree sundry others; as Masius, Magalianus, Menochius, and Wolphius in his first book De Tempore, 
Wolphius De Temp. pag. 61.  where he hath words to the same purpose, saying; The Sabbaths of the Holy Land neither were nor could be observed before the possession thereof: which he means to be then when it was fully divided, and the Tribes brought home to their possessions from helping their brethren, joshua 22.4.  
All this I know, and find to be the opinions of Scaliger, Bucholcerus, Calvisius, Alstedius, Armachanus, & of those other Authors aforesaid. Howbeit, because the Jubilees do afford the bestharmony, if they begin when the Jews were ready to pass over jordan into the promised Land, and end when they were ready to be cast out, I hold me to what I mentioned first. For though they who strive for the fourteenth year of Joshua have said enough to remove the head of this reckoning from the seventh of Joshua, in regard that the Land was not fully conquered then, nor the Tribes sent home till afterward: yet is not their argument strong enough to six it in the time they strive for. For if the observation of this account had been deferred so long, it had been an argument of great neglect, especially in them who had their Parts or Portions long before. The two tribes and the half had their inheritance at the very first on the other side of the river, before the other passed over Jordan; and there they left their Cattles, Wives, and Children: which happened towards the end of the last year of Moses already mentioned. After which, by such time as they were gone over, they had no more Manna, but lived on the annual fruits of the Land, and did rather (as day by day they came into their hands) husband in common the Fields, Vineyards, and Olive-yards, than spoil and waste them. And as they husbanded them in common, so by virtue of that Law which belonged to them all, they all of them (as well on the one side of the river as the other) let the Land rest by a joint consent, in the seventh year after they, or any of them, began to possess any part of it: and had at that Rest as much particularly divided among some other of the Tribes, as was then conquered: the rest of the Land being as well undivided as fully conquered until the seventh year after, which was the second seven, and thirteenth (not fourteenth) year of Joshua.   

CHAP. VI Of the Julian Period, and how to join the years of the World thereunto.  
THe Julian Period is an Astronomical Cycle artificially composed and invented by Joseph Scaliger, who by a continued multiplication of three Cycles used in the Julian year (viz. the Cycle of the Sun, Moon, and Roman Indiction) found out a Period of 7980. years, in the which those Cycles return again to their first numbers: and though by reason of that artificial composition of it we find that it reacheth beyond the first year of the World, yet is it of singular use both for the right computation of the Julian year in all Ages, even before the institution therefore by Julius Cesar, as also to record the allowed and granted distances of all times in Chronological accounts; the 4713. year thereof exactly agreeing with the year foregoing the first year of the common account of our Saviour's birth; that first year being also the first year of the first Period of Dionysius Exiguus: according to the beginning of whose first Period, we vulgarly account the year of Christ's birth, though it faileth four years of the true time, as afterward shall be showed. Adding this now as not impertinent, that by putting 709. to any year of the World, we have the year of the Julian Period: so on the contrary, by taking 709. out of any year of the julian Period, we have the year of the World as perfectly and exactly as may be; only with this Proviso, that the year of the julian Period gins on the first of January, and the year of the World not until the Vernal Equinox next after.  
And know further, that by applying this Rule to the Periods a foregoing, it will appear that the first year of the World fell into the year of the julian Period 710. The Flood into the year of the Julian Period 2366. and year of the World 1657. The Promise into the year of the Julian Period 2794. and year of the World 2085. The coming out of Egypt into the year of the Julian Period 3224. and year of the World 2515. The foundation of salomon's Temple into the year of the Julian Period 3703. and year of the World 2994. The destruction thereof by Nabuchadnezzar, into the year of the julian Period 4126. and year of the World 3417. The second year of Darius' King of Persia into the year of the julian Period 4194. and year of the World 3485. The beginning of daniel's seventy Weeks into the year of the Julian Period 4259. and year of the World 3550. The first year of Christ's Ministry into the year of the Julian Period 4742. and year of the World 4033. The passion of Christ into the year of the Julian Period 4746. and year of the world 4037. And last of all the Destruction of jerusalem by the Romans into the year of the Julian Period 4783. and year of the World 4074.   

CHAP. VII. Other Observations concerning the Times in their Periods, until the Destruction of the Temple by Nabuchadnezzar.  
IN the year of the Julian Period 710. the Creation began; 
The Creation  as by the former Periods appeareth: The precise time of which beginning seemeth to be at the evening of the twenty three day of April. For by the primitive practice of Gods own example, the day was from evening to evening; and was so commanded also afterward by a written Law, in Leu. 23.32. To speak therefore of the divine institution of natural days, we are to say that the evening as well as the morning, is pertinent to one and the same day, but make not up the whole day: for the whole day naturally, is that which we call in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is a day of day and night together. And therefore in that phrase of Moses [the Evening and the Morning were the first Day] is a Synecdoche, by which the beginning of the night and of the day, is put for the whole night and day; a● by that before pointed at in Leviticus may be seen: for there the day is reckoned from even to even, as being that which (if we respect the progress of the World's Creation) naturally and indeed is a true day, although the artificial day be but from the Sunrising to the setting thereof.  
This being premised, I take the beginning of the Creation to be, according to the Julian account, on the twenty three day of April at evening: so that the first day of the World was not ended till the evening of the twenty fourth day. The second day was after the same manner April the twenty five. The third, April the twenty six. The fourth, April the twenty seventh: On which day the Sun, Moon and Stars were made, and set in the firmament of Heaven: The Sun probably in that part thereof which we now call the fourth degree of Aries. The fifth day was April the twenty eight. The sixth, April the twenty nine: that being the very day when the Sun and Moon were first of all in Conjunction: which was therefore the first day of the month, and might well by Adam be accounted so, because it was also the very first day that ever he saw. 
Of Adam and his fall.  Now that on this Day Adam sell, divers of the Learned (both Jews and Christians) think: but it is a Tenet scarcely probable, not only in regard of the multitude and variety of things done on the day that he was made, both before and after his Creation; but also because this sixth day concluded by Moses with these words: And God beheld all that he had made, and lo it was exceeding good: So the Evening and the Morning were the sixth day, Gen. 1.31. More like it is that Adam fell on the eight day of May toward 
* Gen. 3.8.  Evening, when the fourteenth day of the first month was ending, and the fifteenth (which was on the sixth day of the week) ready to begin: which time and day agree very well to the institution of the first Passeover, Exod. 12. as also to the eating of the last Passeover and crucifying of Christ on the sixth day of the Week, and fifteenth day of the month: For on that day Christ died, even as on that day (4037. years before) Christ was promised to Adam, who had fallen as it were the day before, towards evening; as already hath been said. In this year the Cycle of the Sun was ten, the Dominical letter B. the Cycle of the Moon seven, the Equinox at evening on the twenty three day of April when the creation began, and the New Moon (or first day of the first month) on the nine and twenty day of April feria sexta, which was the sixth day of the Week as hath been said, and is exactly true according to Calculation.  
Also, to the year of the Julian Period 2366. 
The Flood.  when the Flood came, the Cycle of the Sun was 14. the Dominical letter D. and the Cycle of the Moon ten: The Vernal Equinox was on the tenth of April, and the Autumnal on the fourteenth of October. By which is gathered that the first day of the first month, in this year of the Flood was on the twenty one day of April, feria tertia: the beginning of every month ordinarily being according to the Phasis or first vision of the Moon, which in the Land of Israel (and the parts thereabout) might for the most part be by eleven hours and thirty minutes after the time of the mean Conjunction.  
And at no time could she be hid longer than 28. hours and 30. minu. as the learned Jews have told us. Now the first day on the first Month being on the 21 day of April, showeth that the 17. day of the second Month when the Flood began, was on the fifth of June feria sexta, even on the same day of the week on which the Beasts and Man was made. So that as on the sixth day of the week both Man and Beast were created, in like manner on the very same day of week the Flood began by which they were destroyed.  
Know also that this first Month, or the first Month of this year, had but 29. days. The Second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth had 30 days a piece. The seventh 28. the last of which was on the 13 day of October. The eighth had 30. The ninth 29. The tenth 30. The eleventh 29. And the twelfth 30. the last of which was on the tenth day of April in the year of the Julian Period 2367. So that the 27 day of the second Month in the said year, was on the same day that the Flood began in the year before; even on the fifth of June, which now was Sabbath day, on the which Noah came out of the Ark and offered Sacrifice, at the very time of a full year of days after the Flood began, Gen. 8.14.  
The reason of which reckoning thus, is this: namely, 
Note this; it is no mean Character of a right time.  That though the Ancients even in the times of Noah and Abraham used to begin their Month à prima 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or from the 1. sight of the Moon; yet if the Moon could not be seen by reason of clouds, they then accounted 30 days for every such Month, though to some of them there would have been but 29 if the first sight of the Moon had been hindered.  
Now in such a wet cloudy time as we may certainly conceive it to be when the Flood came, the Moon must needs be obscured and hid for many days; not only the 40 days and nights when it reigned continually, but even to the end of the CL. on which if some rain had not fallen, but that the sky had been clear & without clouds, there would in all probability have been an abatement of the waters before those 150. days were ended: but no abatement was till then, if the words be taken as they Originally signify in Gen. 8.3.  
And now why the seventh Month here mentioned had but 28 days, is because after the 150. days were ended, the Air began to be clear, insomuch that Noah knew when to begin the next Month by sight of the Moon: upon which I believe it was that Berosus said, Noah ordered the year to the course of the Sun, and the Month to the course of the Moon. For as Wolphius truly gathereth out of Gen. 
Wolph De Temp. lib. 1. pag. 21.  8.22. Noah was not the first Author of the ancient year: but the year being somewhat interrupted by the Flood was by him brought bacl to the old ancient form, which he taught his posterity.  
But now for the finding out of this eighth Month, Noah I say knew when to begin it by the first sight of the Moon, which at Babylon and the parts thereabouts was on the 14. day of October in the year of the Julian Period 2366, after which Noah was in the Ark until the 27 day of the second Month, and then came forth, even to the fifth day of June which was a Sabbath day and a just Solar year after the Flood began.  
And note that the day on which the Ark rested upon Mount Ararat was the second day of November, in the year of the Julian Period 2366. for that was the seventeenth day of the seventh Month, and the next after the last of CL. days that the Waters prevailed. For (I said before) the waters prevailed 150. days, of which the 40 days of the continual rain were part; else how could the Ark rest on the seventeenth day of the seventh Month? we are sure enough it did, Gen. 8.4.  
But it is objected, Object. that  to this rule the Ark must rest the very day the waters began to abate: which is not like, both in regard that they were fifteen Cubits above the highest Mountains, and likewise in regard that it was above two Months after, before the tops of the highest Mountains appeared. Answ.  
Not so. The tops of the Mountains; but not the tops of the highest Mountains. For the Mountain tops appearing on the first day of the tenth Month, were rather the tops of the jower and inferior Hills, then of the highest Mountains. And for the ark resting on the Ararat two Months before; to that I answer: namely thus. The Ark was a vast body; and being so vast a body as it was, it could not choose but draw many Cubits of water. Now suppose this proportion to be XI Cubits (and so many it might well be;) And if XI. then will it follow that the bottom of the Ark could never be more than four Cubits from the tops of of the highest hills: and in one day (and less) those 4 Cubits (and more) might easily be abated. Nor may this seem strange: for though the depth from the tops of the highest Hills, to the superficies of the jower grounds, were as great as 30 furlongs (of which height they say Mount Tabor is;) yet by considering in what time that space was dried up, and drawing the abatement into a proportion, it will easily appear that even to the first day may be allowed more by fare then four Cubits. See Doctor Willet on Genesis, and there you shall find, That some who have proportioned the full time of abatement (which was from the seventeenth day of the seventh Month, to the first day of the first Month) with the space from the height to the highest Mountains, have allowed 37. Cubits and an half for every day. But Igrant not every day's abatement to be alike, because the greatest compass above must have the lesser abatement; yet nevertheless the first day might well have so much as would suffer the Ark to rest so soon as it did on the high Mountains of Ararat: upon which Moses saith it rested on the seventeenth day of the seventh Month, CL. days after the beginning of the Flood. What more concerns the Flood shall be handled afterward.  
Terah died in the year of the Julian Period 2794, 
The Promise.  and (as may be conjectured) not many days before the Promise was made to Abraham, who hereupon departed out of Haran, from his Kindred and his Father's house, when he had almost finished the seventy fifth of his age, even in the year of the World 2085. Now in this year the Cycle of the Sun was twenty two, the Dominical letter A. the Cycle of the Moon one, and the Vernal Equinox April the seventh. By which is gathered that the first day of the first month, called afterward Nisan, was one the 31. day of March, feria sexta. The next month began April the twenty nine, feria septima: The Promise might be then. After which Abraham departed out of Haran on the third or fourth of May, when the Sun was in the twenty six or twenty seventh degrees of Aries, in which place it was 430. years after on the twenty nine or thirtieth of April, when Israel came out of Egypt, as you shall see by and by in that which I am to mention next.  
For in the next place the time of the coming out of Egypt is to be considered. 
The Exodus or coming out of Egypt  This was in the year of the Julian Period 3224. and in the year of the World 2515. In this year the Equinox was on the third day of April, feria septima: The Cycle of the Sun was four, the Dominical letter C. and the Cycle of the Moon thirteen. By which is gathered that the first day of Abib or Nisan was on the sixteenth day of April, feria sexta: the Israelites therefore killed and eat the Passeover on the twenty ninth day of April, which was the fourteenth day of the month, feria quinta. After midnight they are driven out of Egypt, and sent away in haste: and therefore their coming from thence is to be reckoned on the thirteenth day of April, which was the sixth day of the Week; even as on the same day of the Week Christ purchased a better Redemption by the blood of the Cross. In all which I do much admire at the wonderful Providence of God, in disposing of the times so exactly and harmoniously: For as on the sixth day of the Week Man was made, and Christ suffered; So on the sixth day of the week Israel was delivered out of the Egyptian bondage, on the very next day after the Passeover, even as on the next day after the Passeover Christ our Passeover was sacrificed for us, 
1 Cor. 5.7.  to free us from the bon dage of Sin and Satan. In this year at this time, the Sun was in the 27. degree of Aries: Abraham therefore by an exact account (having received the promise) went out of Haran on the fourth day of May 430. years before, when the Sun was also in the same point of Heaven that he was in now. And why on the fourth of May, rather than on the thirtieth of April, was in regard of the anticipation of the Equinoctial; which, if we will reckon precisely, is to be observed, because (as hath been showed) the Julian year agreeth not exactly to the course of the Sun. But to go on: The History of the 
* Exod. 16.1.  Manna doth also well accord to this, viz. that the day of the coming out of Egypt should be on the fixth day of the week: and in that is another spark of God's Providence; witness the fifteenth day of the second Month, 
Another Character of a right time.  which by accounting nine and twenty days to the first Month, fell into the seventh day of the week on which the Israelites murmured, had Quails at even, and on the morrow morning Manna; which they gathered six days, but on the seventh day they found none, Exod. 16.26. By which we see not only the two and twentieth day of the second month was Sabbath day, but also that the first Manna fell on the first day of the Week, now called the Lords day in memory of our Saviour's Resurrection, and hath been the Christians Sabbath ever since: and for the first month to have but 29 days, 
Let this be remembered: for it is a Rule to me in all the months in every year.  is more consentaneous to the motion of the Moon, then to have 30 before the odd hours arise to a day, which is not till the second month: The first month therefore hath but 29 days, though the second hath 30. For in one month (according to the mean motion of the Moon, from one Conjunction to another) we have but 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, three seconds, and 12 thirds. I account therefore that the Israelites came out of Egypt when the nine and twentieth day of April was ending, and the thirtieth beginning. I account likewise that the first Manna fell on the thirtieth day of May, feria prima: and consequently that the nine and twentieth day of May and fifth of June were Sabbath days; the one on the fifteenth day of the second month, and the other on the two and twentieth.  
That which I shall mention next is the year of the Julian Period 3703. 
The Temple founding.  and year of the World 2994. in which year King Solomon laid the foundation of the Temple on the second day of the second month. The Cycle of the Sun was seven, the Dominical letter F. the Vernal Equinox upon the one and thirty day of March, and the Cycle of the Moon seventeen. By which is gathered that the first day of Nisan was on the last day of March, feria prima: and consequently that King Solomon began to build the Temple on the last day of April, which was the second day of the second month, feria tertia: for on the second day of the second month this great work was begun, as may be seen in 2 Chronicles 3.2. This was the fourth year of King Solomon, and after the coming out of Egypt the 480. not complete but current. For indeed there were but 479. years fully finished, which with respect had to the place of the Sun at both times, and the anticipation of the Equinoctial from the coming of Egypt to this time of the Temple, doth show the end of their reckoning to be on the twenty six or twenty seventh day of April, three or four days and no more before the Temple was founded. Thus then from the coming out of Egypt to the beginning of the building of the Temple were 479. years and about four days: it was founded therefore in the 480. year after the coming out of Egypt, as is mentioned in 1 Kings 6.1.  
The next that I shall mention is the year of the Julian Perion 3710. 
The Temple dedicated.  It was the eleventh year of King Solomon, and year when the Temple was dedicated, 1 Kings c. 6. ver. 38. and Chap. 8.2. The Cycle of the Sun was 14. the Dominical letter D. the Cycle of the Moon five, the Vernal Equinox March the 31. and the Autumnal Equinox October the fourth. By which is gathered that the first day of the seventh month called Tisri was on the fifth day of October, feria secunda; and that the Dedication began Octob. the eleventh, feria prima. This was 3000. years after the Creation, even in the year of the World 3001. The Calendar of which Month is as followeth.  
TISRI. October. Tisri, the seventh month, An. Mundi 3001. & anno Per. Jul. 3710. Cyclo ☉ 14. ☽ 5. In which Year and Month the Temple was dedicated, 1 Kin. 8.2. 1 5  E  2 6  F  3 7  G  4 8  A  5 9  B  6 10  C Sabbath-day:  7 11  D 1. The first day of the Dedication. 8 12  E 2. The second day. 9 13  F 3. The third day. 10 14  G 4. The fourth day. This (being the 10. day of the month) was the Expiation day. 11 15  A 5. The fifth day. 12 16  B 6. The sixth day. 13 17  C 7. 
☜  The 7th d. of the Dedicat. which was also Sab. Day 14 18  D 8. The 8th d. on which was a solemn Assembly, 2 Chr. 7.9 15 19  E 1. ¶ The first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, Levit. 23.24. 16 20  F 2. The second day. 17 21  G 3. The third day. 18 22  A 4. The fourth day. 19 23  B 5. The fift day. 20 24  C 6. The sixth day of the Feast, which was now Sabbath-day. 21 25  D 7. The seventh day. 22 26  E 8. The last and great day of the Feast. 23 27  F On this day (being the 23. of the month) Solomon sendeth the People away, 2 Chron. 7.10. 24 28  G  25 29  A  26 30  B  27 31  C  28 1 Novemb. D  29 2 E   
This seventh Month being ended there was nothing wanting to the Temple for the quite completing of it whereupon it is (as Codoman noteth) that in 1 Kings 6.38. the Temple is said to be finished in the eighth Month, in the eleventh year of King Solomon: That is, It was then finished in all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion and Ordinances of it both within and without. Or as the marginal reading in our last translation expresseth, It was then finished with all the appurtenances, and with all the Ordinances thereof. Which is as Bucholcerus observeth. It was dedicated (saith he) in the Month Ethanim; and in the following Month Bul it was finished with all the Utensils thereof.  
All which considered, we shall not need to drive the dedication into the twelfth year of King Solomon, as some have done: for if it were not dedicated till then, it must necessarily follow that it lay void for a whole year together after it was finished, which is very unlike.  
Beside, that this was the right year of the dedication, I can further demonstrate by the courses of the Priests which served in the Temple till Nabuchadnezzar destroyed it: for we may easily believe that in the first Sabbath of the dedication, the course of Joarib began, which we here see to be on the seventeenth day of October. To which time if we add 224. Julian years (in which space the courses return to the same day again) we shall come to the year of the Julian Period 3934. on the seventeenth day of October. After which we have 192. years more before we can come to the year of the Julian Period 4126. in which the Temple was destroyed; noting these 192. years to end on the seventeeenth day of October likewise. And in 192. years we find 417. courses with 72. days over and above: which 72 days being taken out of the number of days which were from the beginning of that year of the Julian Period to the said seventeenth day of October, do direct us to the sixth day of August which then was Sabbath day and the course of Joarib: even that course of his in which the Temple was destroyed.  
For when the Temple was destroyed it was the watch and course of Joarib, as the Jews have told us in their Seder Olam rabba: the course I say of Joarib: and IX. of Ab; which day is noted by them to be the next after the Sabbath, and the next after the Weeks end, as Master lively expoundeth the Hebrew text of that testimony.  
And thus having done with this, 
The Temple destroyed by Nabuchadnezzar.  I go on to the year of the Julian Period 4126, which was the nineteenth year of Nabuchadnezzar when the Temple and City were destroyed. The Cycle of the Sun was 10. the Dominical letter B. the Cycle of the Moon 3. and the Vernal Equinox on the 27 day of March. Calvisius I am sure, and Scaliger as I remember, reckon this Destruction of Jerusalem by Nabuchadnezzar, to be in the year of the Julian Period 4124. But they fail of the true time. For in that year the first day of the first Month could not be any day later than the 27. day of March, and that was feria quinta: whereas if it be the true time, it should be rather feria prima. Petavius is for the next year, viz. 4125. But in that year take either the Conjunction in March, or in April, and neither will serve. For the one conjunction casts the first of Nisan into the fifteenth of March, feria secunda; and the other into the thirteenth of April, feria tertia: This therefore could not be the year neither, as appeareth by the day of the week before mentioned on which the IX. day of A● must be.  
Langius, in his book De annis Christi, pitcheth upon the year of the Julian Peried 4117: but therein hath also failed of the true time; not only because he is thereupon enforced to alter the reign of Nabopollassar; but also because the 40. years that Ezekiel saith Egypt was under Babel, will thereby be ended before their right time. For Egypt had not shaken off that yoke till after Cyrus had conquered Babylon, as is more than once recorded by Xenophon, and approved therein by men of no mean learning, and particularly by Jacobus Armachanus in his Annals of holy Scripture.  
I do undoubtingly therefore conciude the right year to be the year of the Julian Period 4126. in which year the first of Nisan was on the third day of April feria prima: and the IX. of Ab. on the seventh day of August, which was also feria prima: at which time Joarib was in his course, having entered on it August the 6. feria Septima, for that the IX. of Ab was on the Eve of the Sabbath; I do not understand it otherwise then of the Eve ending the Sabbath; at which time the Enemy entered into the Temple to destroy it; even in the Course of Joarib. And thereupon it is that the Jews in mournful manner (according to the institution of their great Synedrion) use to sing thus: 
Die nona mensis Ab, bora Vespertini temporis,  
Quum essem in Vigilia mea, Vigilia Joarib,  
Introiit hostis, & Sacrificia sua obtulit,  
Ingressus est in Sanctuarium injussu Dei.   
Thus they, as their words sound in the Latin. But in this we are to note, that albeit the enemy entered into the Temple to destroy it on the ninth of Ab and course of Joarib, yet the said Temple was not burnt until the next day: for it was on the tenth day of the fifth month; as the Prophet showeth, in Jerem. 52.12. And note also that on some part of Jerusalem the fire was kindled sooner, even three days before, 2 Kings 25.8. burning from the seventh day until the tenth. For so those two texts (in Jeremiah and the second book of the Kings) may well enough be reconciled. And note last of all, that the City was broken up and Zedechia taken a full month before: viz. on the ninth day of the fourth month, 2 Kings 25.3. which (according to our Julian Calendar) was this year on the eighth day of july, feria sexta. So then, the City was broken up on the eigthh of july; and the Temple burnt on the eighth of August.  
And as for that which Scaliger allegeth out of that book of the Jews which they call Liber Angariarum, wherein is written that they fast on the fifth day of the week, as if on that day of the week the Temple was burnt by the Chaldeans. To that I answer, that as in speaking of the ninth of Ab, they do one day antedate the account of the Prophet jeremiah for the day of the month: so in like manner they do here antedate one day of the week, and make that to be on the fifth day of the week, which by comparing their testimony with another Scriptures) appeareth to be on the 6th day of the Week. For if according to the Seder Olam, the ninth of Ab were on the first day of the week, then must the seventh of Ab be on the sixth day of the week, and to be that day on which the Chaldeans began to set fire on some part of jerusalem; as already hath been showed out of 2 Kin. 25.8.  
Moreover Sealiger and some others have supposed that this year of the destruction of the Temple by Nabuchadnezzar must be sabbathical from the Autumn before: and this they say the Prophet Jeremy confirmeth, in the 28. chapter of his prophecy, at the first verse: where he showeth that when Zedechia began to reign, it was the fourth year; which they take to be the fourth year of a week from the Autumn before. And if so, then will the fourth year of his reign be sabbathical till the Autumn thereof: and if his fourth year, than his eleventh or last year in like manner. Nor was this (say they) but that year of Rest which the same Prophet mentions in the 34 chapter of his prophecy, where we read that when Nabuchadnezzar had raised his siege from Jerusalem to go against the King of Egypt, the Jews took again their Man-servants and Maide-servants, which they had a little before set at liberty, because it was a sabbathical year, and would not let them go free as the Law required in Deut. 15.12.  
To which I answer, that the clearing of this dependeth upon the resolution of that doubt which concerneth that year in which the false Prophet Hananiah resisted Jeremiah, and died because he taught rebellion against the Lord, and persuaded the people (contrary to the prophecy of Jeremiah) that Nebuchadnezars yoke must not be endured 70 years, but that within two full years it must be broken. Which story is at large set down in the 27 and 28 Chapters of jeremiah, and by Scaliger referred to the first year of Zedechia, who indeed supposeth it to be the fourth year after a year of Rest: of which I see no reason, because the whole scope of the four and thirtieth Chapter doth demonstrate that year to be a year of Rest when Nabuchadnezzar laid his siege against jerusalem; which we know to be the ninth year of Zedechia, and tenth day of the tenth month, jer. 52.4. Now this was in the year of the Julian Period 4124. on the seventh of january feria tertia; at which time the ninth of Zedechia was still running on, and was not ended till about the beginning of the fourth month next after. Nabuchadnezzar therefore began to beseige jerusalem on the seventh day of january in the year of the Julian Period 4124. which year was sabbathical from the Autumn before till the Autumn thereof, and was that sabbathical year in which the Jews let their servants go free in the beginning thereof, thereby encouraging them to fight against the Chaldeans who then were come into the confines of judea, 
ser. 34.1.  and fought againg the Cities thereof, jerusalem not excepted, but had not yet laid their siege against it: for that was not until the time before mentioned. How long this continued before the Egyptians came with an Army to succour Zedechia, by raising this first siege, is not expressed: 
Jer. 37.5.  but that they came, and that the siege thereupon was raised, is certain. This when the Jews perceived, and saw that the Chaldeans were gone from them to fight against the Egyptians, 
Jer. 37.10.  they took their freed servants again into bondage, vainly persuading themselves that the Chaldeans would come back no more, which proved fare otherwise. For Nabuchadnezzar having put to flight the Army of Pharaoh, returns again to jerusalem, and on the fourth day of May, in the year of the Julian Period 4125. renews his siege against it, 
* viz. by reckoning, first 390. and then forty days, Ezek. 4.5.6. for these put together do make 430. & end on the eighth day of July: they must therefore begin on the fourth of May in the year next before that year in which they ended.  430. days before the City was broken up, as may be gathered out of the fourth Chapter of Ezekiel. This fourth day of May was on the two and twenty day of the second month, feria tertia: from whence the siege continued without any further interruption until the City was taken, which was (as I said before) on the eighth day of July. When therefore we read in jer. 32.1.2. that Nebuchadnezars Army lay before jerusalem in the tenth year of Zedechia, and eighteenth year of Nabuchadnezzar, it is to be understood of his lying against it after this renewing of his siege, and before the beginning of the fourth month: for about the end of the third month, or beginning of the fourth, was the beginning of Zedechia's eleventh year, and likewise of all the other years of his reign; insomuch that his ninth year began at the same time, in the year of the Julian Period 4123 and was sabbathical from the Autumn thereof, until the Autumn next after. From whence I conclude that if any part of Zedchia's ninth year was sabbathical, then could to his first year be the fourth after a Rest, but the sixth. Hananiah therefore died in no other than the fourth year of Zedechia, having resisted the Prophet jeremiah from the beginning of Zedechia's reign till then; as jearned junius, in his Annotations upon the place, well observeth.  
And as for the burning of the Temple, take this note further; viz. that the Temple was burnt before the full end of Nebuchadnezars ninteenth year. 2 Kin. 25.8. For though at that time Zedechia had reigned eleven years complete, yet was not Nebuchadnezars ninteenth year fully finished, in regard that Nabuchadnezzar began his reign something later in the year than Zedechia did: for Zedechia began about the beginning of the fourth month, and Nabuchadnezzar began not till after the seventh day of the fifth month at the soon, whose first year was in the end of Jehoiakims third year and beginning of his fourth, in the year of the Julian Period 4107. at the Summer time of that year: For in the Spring time of the year of the Julian Period 4104. towards the end of the second month, josiah was slain; 
Dan. 1.1. Jer. 25.1. Towards the end of the third the siege began: but not till the fourth was entered did God give Jehoiakim into the hands of Nabuchadnezzar. 2 Chro 36.6.  after whom jehoahaz reigned three months: Then, in the Summer time of the same year, jehoaikim began; in the end of whose third year, and beginning of his fourth, was the first year of Nabuchadnezzar, as comparing the Prophet Daniel to the Prophet jeremy may be seen: at which time his Father was alive, as Berosus showeth. Moreover, in this year in the ninth month (and that's the reason why the Jews fast then) God gave jehoiakim into the hands of Nabuchadnezzar: he was thereupon his prisoner, and bound in chains to be carried to Babylon, but went not; for afterwards, by an argreement of servitude, he was released and sent home, viz. in the 
* But not till near the entering of the Spring quarter.  beginning of the year of the Julian Period 4108. and so became his servant 2 Kings 26.1. from whence the 70 years in jeremy do undoubtedly take their beginning, jer. cap. 25.2. and cap. 29.10. After this, Nabuchadnezzar prosecuting his victories, takes all that belonged to the King of Egypt, between the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates: and in the mean while his Father died, after he had reigned one and twenty years, as Berosus and Ptolemy in his Mathematical Canon have declared. And now upon this Nabuchadnezzar is sent for home into Babylon, where he takes the whole Empire upon him, and reigneth from hence 43 years, as is testified by the Authors aforesaid: of which, more shall be spoken 
* viz In cha. 11. An Eclipse in the fifth year of Nabopollassar.  afterward.  
And note that in the Julian Period 4093. was an Eclipse of the Moon, noted by Ptolemy to be in the year of Nabonassar 127. and fifth year of Nabopollassar; and so indeed there was. For though in this year of the Julian Period the sixth year of Nabopollassar began, yet the Eclipse was whilst the fifth year was still running on: for the Eclipse was on the 23 day of April, 29 minutes past five in the morning; the sixth year not beginning until some time after.  
Shall I add any thing more? 
A list of the Kings of Babylon from the beginning of Nabonassar.  then take a list of the Kings of Babylon and their years from the beginning of Nabonassar, till the death of Nabuchadnezzar; which is as followeth.  
Nabonassar began in the year of the Julian Period 3967. and reigned 14 years. Nadius two, Chozirus and Porus five, Ilulaeus five, Mardokempadius 12. Arcianus five. An Interregnum two, Belithus three; Apronadius six, Regebelus one, Mesessimordachus four; An Interregnum eight; Assaradinus 12 complete, or 13 current. Saosduchaeus 20: his first was in the thirteenth or last of Assaradinus. Then Chyniladanus 22, Nabopollassarus 21. And after him Nabuchadnezzar 43. He reigned as it were 
* Or one year and some odd months.  two years with his Father; which, with the 43 after him, ammount to 44 and some odd months.  
The rest of the Kings after Nabuchadnezzar until Cyrus shall be mentioned afterwards. Here therefore now is the end of this Chapter.   

CHAP. VIII. The Periods again considered, and all such doubts and scruples cleared as may arise concerning the just length of any of them: together with Answers to certain other Questions not impertinent.  

SECT. I. Of the time from the Creation to the end of the Flood.  
THat the Flood came in the year of the World 1656. is granted by almost all Chronologers: only some few have cast it into the year 1657. which I also take to be the right year, and have so accounted it: And that for these reasons.  
First because it came not till Methuselah was dead; who being born in the year of the World 688. (as by the ages of the patriarchs well appeareth) and living 969. years, must needs be a live till the year of the World 1656. was ended: The Flood therefore came not till the year of the World 1657. It is but a fabulous fancy to say that this Patriarch was alive and taken into Paradise: for unless his abode were with Noah in the Ark, the Waters of the Flood could not but drown him. But as his name in the Hebrew signifieth, He dyeth, and the Emission or Dart (meaning the Flood) cometh.  
Secondly, Noah was born (as doth also well appear by the ages of the Patriarches) in the year of the World 1057. and lived 950 years: he died not therefore till the year of the World 2007. was begun. Out of which take 350. (for so long Moses saith Noah lived after the Flood) and there will remain 1657. for the year when the Flood began.  
And thirdly, the Mathematical calculations already mentioned agree well to that year.  
But it is objected: If the Flood came not in the year of the World 1656. how then could it come in the six hundredth year of Noah; as Moses (in Gen. 7.11.) saith it did.  
Well enough, For though the Six hundreth year of Noah was not ended till after that Month in which the Flood began; yet it might be ended within some short time after. For though the years of the Patriarches (both when they begat their children, and also when they themselves died) were full and complete years: yet who can clearly prove that they were all born at one and the same time of the year. It is therefore to be observed that Moses begins not his account of their years from the punctual day of their Nativity, but rather from the beginning of the natural year nearest and next after the day of their birth, as learned Langius noteth. Patet id. (saith he) in Noacho. Anno namque quo diluvium finitum est ineunte, primo die primo mensis, statim incipiti 601 Noachi, cum tamen minime certum sit Noachum isto die aut tempore fuisse natum. Lang. l 2. pag. 253.  
Reckon therefore thus: viz. That Seth was borne to Adam when Adam was fully and completely 130. years old: that is in the year of the world 131. Gen. 5.3. To which add 105. (theage of Seth when Enos was borne) and so will the birth of Enos be in the year of the world 236, Gen. 5.6. To which add 90. (the age of Enos when Kenan was born) so shall the birth of Kenan be in the year of the world 326. Gen 5.9. To which add 70 (the age of Kenan when Mahalaleel was borne, so shall the birth of Mahalaleel be in the year of the World 396. Gen. 5.12. To which add 65 the age of Mahalaleel when Jared was borne) so shall the birth of Jared be in the year of the world 461. Gen. 5.15. To which add 162. (the age of Jared when Henoch was born) so shall the birth of Henoch be in the year of the World 623. Gen. 5.18. To which add 65. (the age of Henoch when Methuselah was born) so shall the birth of Methuselah be in the year of the world 688. Gen. 5.21. To which add 187. (the age of Methuselah when Lamech was born) so shall the birth of Lamech be in the year of the World 875. Gen. 5.25. To which add 182. (the age of Lamech when Noah was borne) so shall the birth of Noah be in the year of the world 1057. Gen. 5.29. To which add 600 years of Noah, so shall the year of the world be 1657. in the beginning whereof the six hundreth year of Noah was not quite finished, as already hath been showed. And thus we see the year of the Flood to be in the year of the World 1657, which ended not until the year 1658. was begun.  
And now for the time of the year when it began, Moses saith that it was in the second Month and seventeenth day of the Month when all the fountains of the great Deep and Windows of Heaven were opened: which second Month must be reckoned from the Spring, and not from Autumn; as in the second Chapter I have already proved. Berosus the Chaldean agreeth thereunto, saying that the Flood began on the fifteenth day of that Month, which with them was called by the name of Desius, which Month Desius is confessed by Scaliger in his Notes, page 44. to agree to that which Moses calleth the second Month: The less reason therefore had Scaliger to decline it; only he might have held to this, that though the Month were right, yet the day was wrong; for if Desius were altogether the same with that which was the second Month among the Jews, then should not the day mentioned be the fifteenth, but seventeenth, Gen. 7.10.  
Or if the Month were not altogether the same, but must have a fixed time of beginning, which Langius proveth to be on the 25 day of May; then must the Flood begin, not on the fifteenth day thereof, but on the twelfth: which day of Desius I take to be the first day of the Flood, in regard that in this year it agreeth both to the fifteenth day of the second Month mentioned by Moses, as also to the fifth day of June when the Flood began.  
But of this I shall need to say no more. That which is next, shall be an Hebrew and julian Calendar for the whole time of the Flood, accounting the beginning thereof to be in the year of the Julian Period 2366. on the fifth day of June, feria sexta.  

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood, beginning in the year of the julian Period 2366. and year of the World 1657. The Cycle of the Sun Wat 14. Teh Dominical Letter D, and the Cycle of the Moon 10.  The first Month. APRIL. The first Month, Anno Mundi 1657. 1 21  F  2 22  G  3 23  A  4 24  B  5 25  C  6 26  D The first day foe the Week. 7 27  E  8 28  F  9 29  G  10 30  A  11 1  May. B The first day of MAY. 12 2 C  13 3 D The first day of the Week. 14 4 E  15 5 F  16 6 G  17 7 A  18 8 B  19 9 C  20 10 D The first day of the Week. 21 11 E  22 12 F  23 13 G  24 14 A  25 15 B  26 16 C  27 17 D The first day of the Week. 28 18 E  29 19 F   

An Hebrew and Iluian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The second Month MAY. The second Month, Anno Mundi 1657. 1 20  G  2 21  A  3 22  B  4 23  C  5 24  D The First day of the Week 6 25  E The frist day of JUNE. 7 26  F  8 27  G  9 28  A  10 29  B ¶ On this day the Flood began, Gen. 7.11.— It was the very same day of the Week on which Man was made: which circumstance of time is worth the marking; for as on the sxth day of the Week God made both Man ad Beast, so on the same day of the Week he sends a Flood of Waters to destroy them. 11 30  C  12 31  D  13 1 June. E  14 2 F  15 3 G  16 4 A  17 5 B  18 6 C  19 7 D  20 8 E  21 9 F  22 10 G  23 11 A  24 12 B  25 13 C  26 14 D  27 15 E  28 16 F  29 17 G  30 18 A   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Yeor of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The third Month JUNE. The third Month, Anno Mundi, 1657. 1 19  B  2 20  C  3 21  D The first day of the Week. 4 22  E  5 23  F  6 24  G  7 25  A  8 26  B  9 27  C  10 28  D The first day of the Week. 11 29  E  12 30  F  13 1 July. G The first day of JULY.  14 2  A  15 3  B  16 4  C  17 5  D The first day of the Week. 18 6  E  19 7  F  20 8  G  21 9  A  22 10  B  23 11  C  24 12  D The first day of the Week. 25 13  E  26 14  F * This was the last day of the forty days that it reigned. 27 15  G On this day the forty days that it reigned were ended, but the Waters are still to prevail until these forty be 150. Gen. 7.24. Dies enim pluviarum hisce 190. diebus includendos esse, ex eo patet quod Arca quievit die xvii. Mensis septimi. Calvis. in Chronol. 28 16  A  29 17  B  30 18  C   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Food.  The fourth Month JULY. The fourth Month, Anno Mundi 1657. 1 19  D The first day of the Week. 2 20  E  3 21  F  4 22  G  5 23  A  6 24  B  7 25  C  8 26  D The first day of the Week. 9 27  E  10 28  F  11 29  G  12 30  A  13 31  B  14 1 August. C The first day of AUGUST. 15 2 D The first day of Week. 16 3  E  17 4  F  18 5  G  19 6  A  20 7  B  21 8  C  22 9  D The first day of the Week. 23 10  E  24 11  F  25 12  G  26 13  A  27 14  B  28 15  C  29 16  D The first day of the Week. 30 17  E   

An Hebrew and julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The fifth Month. AUGUST. The fifth Month, Anno Mundi 1657. 1 18  F  2 19  G  3 20  A  4 21  B  5 22  C  6 23  D The first day of the Week. 7 24  E  8 25  F  9 26  G  10 27  A  11 28  B  12 29  C  13 30  D The first day of the Week. 14 31  E  15 1 September. F This was the first day of SEPTEMBER. 16 2 G  17 3 A  18 4 B  19 5 C  20 6 D The first day of the Week. 21 7 E  22 8 F  23 9 G  24 10 A  25 11 B  26 12 C  27 13 D The first day of the Week. 28 14 E  29 15 F  30 16 G   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The six Month. SEPTEMBER The sixth Month, Anno Mundi 1657. 1 17  A  2 18  B  3 19  C  4 20  D The first day of the Week.  5 21  E  6 22  F  7 23  G  8 24  A  9 25  B  10 26  C  11 27  D The first day of the Week.  12 28  E  13 29  F  14 30  G  15 1 October. A The first day of OCTOBER.  16 2 B  17 3 C  18 4 D The first day of the Week.  19 5 E  20 6 F  21 7 G  22 8 A  23 9 B  24 10 C  25 11 D The first day of the Week.  26 12 E  27 13 F  28 14 G On this day was the Autumnal Equinox. 29 15 A  30 16 B   

An Hebrew and julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The seventh Month OCTOBER. The seventh Month, Anno Mundi 1657. 1 17  C  2 18  D The first day of the Week. 3 19  E  4 20  F  5 21  G  6 22  A  7 23  B  8 24  C  9 25  D The first day of the Week. 10 26  E  11 27  F  12 28  G  13 29  A  14 30  B  15 31  C  16 1 November. D The last of the hundred and fifty days, Gen. 7.24. 17 2 E ¶ On this day the Ark rested on Mount Ararat; from whence the Waters decreased day by day, until they were quite dried up and gone, Gen. 8.4, 5. 18 3 F 19 4 G 20 5 A 21 6 B  22 7 C  23 8 D The first day of the Week. 24 9 E  25 10 F  26 11 G  27 12 A  28 13 B   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The eighth Month. NOVEMBER The eighth Month, Anno Mundi, 1657. 1 14  C  2 15  D The first day of the Week. 3 16  E  4 17  F  5 18  G  6 19  A  7 20  B  8 21  C  9 22  D The first day of the Week. 10 23  E  11 24  F  12 25  G  13 26  A  14 27  B  15 28  C  16 29  D The first day of the Week. 17 30  E  18 1 December. F The first day of DECEMBER. 19 2 G  20 3 A  21 4 B  22 5 C  23 6 D The first day of the Week. 24 7 E  25 8 F  26 9 G  27 10 A  28 11 B  29 12 C  30 13 D The first day of the Week.  

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The ninth Month. DECEMBER. The ninth Month, Anno Mundi 1657. 1 14  E  2 15  F  3 16  G  4 17  A  5 18  B  6 19  C  7 20  D The first day of the Week. 8 21  E  9 22  F  10 23  G  11 24  A  12 25  B  13 26  C  14 27  D The first day of the Week. 15 28  E  16 29  F  17 30  G  18 31  A  19 1 January A On this day the Year of the Julian Period 2367. begins, and now the Cycle of the ☉ was 15. the Dominical Letter C, and the Cycle of the ☽ 11. 20 2 B 21 3 C 22 4 D  23 5 E  24 6 F  25 7 G  26 8 A  27 9 B  28 10 C the first day of the Week. 29 11 D   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The tenth Month. JANUARY. The tenth Month, Anno Mundi, 1657. 1 12  E On this day (being the first day of the tenth Month) the Mountain tops appeared; which must be meant of the lower sort of Hills, how else could the Ark rest upon Mount Ararat above two months before? see Gen. 8.4, 5. 2 13  F  3 14  G  4 15  A  5 16  B  6 17  C The first day of the Week. 7 18  D  8 19  E  9 20  F  10 21  G  11 22  A  12 23  B  13 24  C The first day of the Week.  14 25  D  15 26  E  16 27  F  17 28  G  18 29  A  19 30  B  20 31  C The first day of the Week.  21 1 February D The first day of FEBRUARY.  22 2 E  23 3 F  24 4 G  25 5 A  26 6 B  27 7 C The first day of the Week. 28 8 D  29 9 E  30 10 F   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The 11th Month. FEBRUARY. The eleventh Month, Anno Mundi 1657. 1 11  G  2 12  A  3 13  B  4 14  C The first day of the Week. 5 15  D  6 16  E  7 17  F  8 18  G  9 19  A  10 20  B ¶ On this day (being Sabbath day, and forth days after the appearing of the Mountain tops) Noah sendeth forth a Raven out of the Ark, which flieth up and down till the Waters were abated, and returneth into the Ark no more, Gen. 8.6, 7. 11 21  C  12 22  D  13 23  E  14 24  F  15 25  G  16 26  A  17 27  B On this day Noah sendeth forth a Dove, and she (finding no rest) returneth again, Gen. 8.9. 18 28  C  19 1 March. D  20 2 E  21 3  F  22 4  G  23 5  A  24 6  B On this day he again sendeth forth a Dove, and she reutrned to him with an Olive branch (or stalk) in her mouth; which shown the falling of the Waters, Gen. 8.10, 11. 25 7  C  26 8  D  27 9  E  28 10  F  29 11  G   

An Hebrew and julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The second Month MAY. The second Month, Anno Mundi 1658. 1 10  D  2 11  E  3 12  F  4 13  G  5 14  A  6 15  B  7 16  C The first day of the Week. 8 17  D  9 18  E  10 19  F  11 20  G  12 21  A  13 22  B  14 23  C The first day of the Week. 15 24  D  16 25  E  17 26  F  18 27  G  19 28  A  20 29  B  21 30  C The first day of the Week. 22 31  D  23 1 June. E The first day of JUNE. 24 2 F  25 3  G  26 4  A  27 5  B ¶ On this day (being Sabbath day) NOah came forth from the Ark, and offered Sacrifice, Gen. 8.14, 15. This was a full year of days after the Flood began. 28 6  C  29 7  D  30 8  E    

SECT. II. Of the Second Period from the end of the Flood when the face of the ground was dry, to the Promise at the time of Abraham's departure from Charran into Canaan, that it was a Period of 427. years almost ended.  
THis Period is proved by the age of the Patriarches after the Flood, as that before it was proved by the age of the Patriarches before the Flood.  
The Flood (as we have already seen) began in the year of the world 1657. and continued a year; so that it was not ended until after the year of the World 1658. was begun: for on the 27 day of the second Month, was the full end thereof. Two years after which Arphaxad was borne, that is, in the year of the world 1660. Gen. 11.10. To which year of the World add 35 (the age of Arphaxad when Salah was borne) so shall the birth of Salah be in the year of the world 1695, Gen. 11.12. To which add 30 (the age of Salah when Heber was born) so shall the birth of Heber be in the year of the world 1725. Gen. 11.14. To which add 34 (the age of Heber when Peleg was born) so shall the birth of Peleg be in the year of the world 1759. Gen. 11, 16. To which add 30 the age of Peleg when Reu was borne, so shall the birth of Reu be in the year of the world 1789, Gen. 11.18. To which add 32 (the age of Reu when Serug was borne (so shall the birth of Serug be in the year of the world 1821. Gen. 11.20. To which add 30 (the age of Serug when Nahor was borne) so shall the birth of Nahor be in the year of the world 1851. Gen. 11.22. To which add 29 (the age of Nahor when Terah was borne) so shall the birth of Terah be in the year of the world 1880. Gen. 11.24. To which add 130. (the age of Terah when Abraham was borne) so shall the birth of Abraham be in the year of world 2010. To which add 75 (the age of Abraham soon after the death of Terah) so shall we come to the year of the world 2085. and year of the Julian Period 2794: in which year, about the beginning of May, Abraham having received the promise departed out of Haran, and was a Son of seventy five years old; 
Gen. 12.4.  that is, he was going on in his seventy and fifth year, which not long after was accomplished, 
☟  the reckoning being here as before in the 600. year of Noah when the Flood began.  
Quest. 
The true time of Abraham's birth.  But why is it that Abraham is reckoned to be borne when his Father was 130. years old, and not rather when he was seventy as the text seems to intimate Gen. 11.27?  
Answ. Because Abraham, who was a Son of 
* Gen. 12.4.  75 years at his departure from Haran, departed not thence until his Father was dead; as Saint Stephen witnesseth, Act. 7.4. Now we know that his Father lived 
* Gen. 11.32.  205. years; from whence if we take 75, it will appear that Abraham was not borne when Terah was seventy, as the text seemeth to intimate, but when he was 130. because 75. taken out of 205, leaveth for the remainder 130.  
Secondly, it is witnessed by the ancient testimony of the true, not forged Philo, who being a Jew, was Ambassador from his own Nation to Caius Caligula; witnessed I say by him, that Abraham went not from Haran (otherwise called Charran) until his Father was dead. For it is not like (saith he) that any who have read the Law can be ignorant how Abraham removing from the Chaldean Land stayed in Charran: and when his Father died there, he removed also from that Land. And again, He leaveth it being seventy five years old, which Moses also saith in Gen. 12.4.  
This of Philo is a clear testimony, and well worthy of our serious acceptation: for he was as ancient as the Protomartyr Stephen, and understands Moses no other way than he had done.  
Thirdly, Rabbi Menasseh (in his Conciliator) declareth the same; showing there, that their best learned Interpreters understand it so.  
Fourthly, The age of Abraham bring expressed when he came from Charran, and not when he removed from Vr, was for no reason but to guide us to the time his of birth by being joined to the time of Terah's death, who died in Charran and not in Vr, Gen. 11.32. And further note, that in Chaldea God appears to Abraham, and bids him, Get thee out of thy Country and from thy kindred, but maketh no mention of leaving his Father's house, for that he took along with him, Gens 11.31. But when God calls him from Haran or Charran, he than bids him departed from his Father house as well as he had done from his Country and kindred before; for now he left his brother Nahor and all his Father's house behind him. In the first Call Terah was alive, & to him is ascribed the conduct of that Journey from Vr to the Chaldees, as if he had received the Call, and had been the chief mover in the business; but it is only to show his 
* joshua 24.2.  Conversion and readiness to go with Abraham, to whom God appeared whilst he was in Vr of the Chaldees, Gen. 15.7. saying, Get thee out of thy Country, and from thy kindred, Acts 7.2.3. See also Josh. 24.2. But in the second Call Terah was dead, and Abraham was 57 years old, Gen. 12.1.4. Acts 7.4. And as he was 57, so his Father was 205. which showeth still that Abraham was borne when Terah was 130. For the story in Genesis runs current and in a continuation, this being the order of the words: And the days of Terah were 205 years, and he died in Charran; and God said unto Ahraham, Get thee from thy Father's house: and in thee all the Nations of the Earth shall be blessed: and Abraham was 75 years old when he departed from Charran.  
To illustrate then the whole by way of paraphrase: God in Vr of the Chaldees appeared to Abraham and said unto him, Get thee out from thy kindred, but take thy Father's house with thee, and go to to a Land which I shall show thee: And when Abraham told Terah of his command, Terah condescended and consented; And Terah took Abraham, and Lot and Sarai, and they went away together from Vr to Haran, and dwelled there. And Terah died in Haran; And then God saith to Abraham, Get thee out of thy Country and from thy kindered, and from thy Father's house also now, and go into the Land that I shall show thee: that is, into Canaan; whether Abraham went so soon as he departed from Charran, which was in the Land of Chaldea also, and not far from Vr; wherefore God again called Abraham thence to go into Canaan, Gen. 12.1. And although there was a nearer way from Vr to Canaan, than to go By Charran (as in the Maps of those Countries may be seen) yet because the nearest way was most dangerous and troublesome, God led them about by an inhabited and safe way, providing so for their infirmities, as he did the like afterwards for Abraham's children, Exodus 13.11.18.  
Beside, when Joshua saith: 
joshua 24.2.  Our fathers beyond the River worshipped strange Gods, even Terah the Father of Abraham: he maketh Moses more clear and manifest; viz. that to Abraham in Vr God appeared, by whom Terah was moved to go with Abraham. Now Moses mentioneth only the appearing to Abraham, and the bringing of him out of Vr; but leaveth the speech to be gathered by the like in Genesis the twelfe, from whence Saint Stephen frameth it; saying, that after Terah's death, God biddeth him leave his Father's house, and not his Land and kindred only. And note that the family of Terah was in his house: out of which Abraham could not departed while Terah is with him, as principal of the journey. Nor doth the Hebrew text in Genesis, Chap. 12. vers. 1. but run on in plainness, thus: And God said unto Abraham. Not, for God had said. And therefore when Terah died in Haran, God said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy Country and from thy kindred, and from thy Father's house, unto the Land that I will show thee. And in a word, to take away all further cavil about these two callings of Abraham, let it be again observed that he was in his Country whilst he was at Haran as well as when he was at Vr of the Chaldees: for both these places were in one Country, in Mesopotamia, the Country between the 
* viz. Chabora & Euphrates. See Willet on Gen. c. 25. Quest. 22.  rivers, containing both Syria and Chaldea. And in that regard Abraham afterwards sending to Haran for a wife for his Son Isaac, called it his Country, and the place of his kindred, as is recorded in Gen. 24.2.10. See also Codoman in his Chronologie, 
Note this, that as it was in the birth of Noah's Sons: so also in the birth of Thares Sons.  lib. 1. cap. 3.  
But to go and give truth the more perfect lustre, let this be likewise known & well observed, that There (or Terah) being 70 years old begat the eldest of those three Sons (Abram, Nahor, and Haran) and not all of them: even as Noah had done before, who begat the eldest of his three [Sem, Ham, and Japhet] when he was 500 The eldest of them I say, and not any of them before that year: So that if Noah begat the eldest of his three, when he was 500 then Terah begat the eldest of his three when he was 70. The eldest of Noah's three, was not Sem: neither could the eldest of Terah's three, be Abraham; because the manner of speaking is used in the Genealogies of the one, which is in the Genealogies of the other. If therefore it could be proved that Sem were the eldest of Noah's children, it would be the more easily granted that Abraham was the eldest of Terah's children: but the one cannot be proved, and therefore the other may not be granted. The contrary may be found and made apparent, viz. that Sem was not the eldest, nor that any of the three was borne before Noah was 500 which being so, the like must be in the begetting of Terah's Sons; namely, that Abraham was not the eldest (though first named) nor that any of the three was borne before Terah was 70. The nameing of Sem first, and of Abraham first, doth nothing prove their Eldership: For it is no necessary consequence to say the first named in Scripture were always the eldest in blood and birth; then should jacob be elder than Esau, and Ephraim elder than Manasses: which we know to be otherwise, Gen. 28.5. and chap. 48.20. It is therefore well observed that Moses doth neither reckon the Sons of Terah, nor those of Noah, according to their Eldership, but according to their Dignity: and although they who be first named, had not the priority of Birthright; yet the Dignity of it is bestowed on them, as it was upon jacob and others: because the Scriptures honour the blessed seed and line of Christ above the rest. For in Scripture there is a threefold order of numbering men: the first is Natural; the second Personal, or of Dignity; and the third Historical. Now hereupon it was that Saint Austin said: Piety (saith he) or rather divine Election, which evermore doth carry piety and the fear of God along with it, was the thing which gave place and precedency to Sem among the children of Noah, and to Abraham among those of Terah. And indeed Abraham being the Father of the faithful, in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed, was in that respect preferred before his other brethren. When therefore Moses comes at Terah, he than ends his Genealogy, and reckons three together, as he did before when he came at Noah; only setting down the time when either of them begat the eldest of the three: And lest it might be thought that the first named was the first born, he doth show that to be otherwise; as in Sem when he begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood, for than was Sem but an hundred years old; and in Abraham when his Father died, for than was Abraham but 75 years old. The eldership among Noah's three belonged to japeth, but the dignity and prerogative belonged to Sem. For this is certain: The Flood began in the 600 year of Noab's life; and Sem two years after that was but an hundred years old, Genesis 11.10. Which being so, two must be added to 600. and then taking Sem's 100 out of 602. the remainder will not be 500, but 502, which was the true and right age of Noah at Sems' birth. The 500 year therefore is assigned for the birth of his eldest, which Moses more expressly saith was not Sem but Japhet; calling Sem the Father of the Sons of Heber, and brother of japeth the elder: Not the elder brother of japeth; as may be seen, Gen. 10.21. And of Cham (or Ham) he likewise saith, that he was a younger Son: For when Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what Cham his younger Son had done, Gen. 9.24, In which place the word younger hath relation to the other two Sons who were free from the fact: and therefore this Cham was the youngest of them all; for (as we see) it was in respect of his other brethren that he is called the younger son. And note that this also showeth, that till Noah was 500, none of all the three was born. Norwil the true reading of the text suffer it to be otherwise: For thus stand the Words. And Noah was 500 years old: and Noah begat Sem, Ham, and japeth. By which it appeareth, that unless he had lived no longer than 500 years, not any of them all could be born before that time. Draw then the Parallel, and the like will be in the children of Terah which was in those of Noah; viz. that the eldest of the three was born when their Father was 70, and this (as far as I can see any probability in the matter) must needs be Haran, who died before Terah, and had children marriageable for his two brethren; namely Milcha for Nahor, and Ischa (if she were Sarai) for Abraham. But however, whether she were Sarai, yea or no, it makes no matter: for this is certain, Lot was the Son of Haran, and not much younger than Abraham. For at the destruction of Sodom (Abraham being then 
* At which time Abraham's body was said to be dead, but was revived by the power of God, not only for the generation of Isaac, but for further procreation; as appeareth, Gen. 25.  99 years old) when the daughters of Lot lay with their Father, they said of him that he was an old man. Set then the birth of Abraham before Harans, and how can any of these things be?  
Beside, the time from the Flood to Terah's seventieth year was too short to have the world so full of People and Kingdoms as it was in Abraham's time: 
Hist. of the World, lib. 2. page 190.  For in Abraham's time, and long before (as it is excellently observed by Sir Walter Raleigh) all the then known parts of the World were peopled: All regions and countries had their Kings. Egypt had many magnificent Cities: and so also had Palestine and all the bordering Countries; yea and all that part of the World beside, as fare as India: And those not built with sticks, but of hewn stones, and defended with walls and Rampires: Which magnificence needed a Parent of more Antiquity than they have supposed, who place the birth of Abraham so near the Flood as Terah's seventieth year. For that time, even in reason, is not sufficient, being 
* It was no more than 292  less than 300 years.  
All therefore considered do make me conclude that Abraham, undoubtedly, was borne when Terah was 130 years old. For though some frivolous objections may be made to the contrary, yet it is in vain to object against such testimonies and proofs as will pass for current any where but among the Singular and inconsiderate, who are rather willing to wrangle for the upholding of their opinions, then to yield or give over from what they first took up to be true. For as there be some who love to keep to that which best fits their fancy: so there be others who think it a discredit to let go what they at first maintained.   

SECT. III. Of the third Period, from the Promise at Abraham's departing out of Haran, to the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, that it was a Period of four hundred and thirty years.  
THis is proved by texts and testimonies out of Scripture. For first Saint Paul saith expressly, That the Law began 
* There were some odd months more. But the Apostle leaveth out the months as an imperfect number.  430 years after the Promise, Galat. 3.17. Which that it was the same promise of Christ that Abraham had in Gen. 12. is manifest by what the same Apostle said before, at the eighth verse, viz. That in thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be said: agreeing therein to Moses, Gen. 12.3.  
Now this directeth to the right reckoning, but is not altogether so precise as that which we have in Exod. 12.40. For there we may perceive that the precise and exact ending of these years was not on the day that the Law was given, but on the day that the Israelites came away out of Egypt. The words of which Text be these; And the sojourning of the Children of Israel, whereby they sojourned in Egypt 30 years, and 400 years. which speech is altogether Elliptica oratio, or a defectve speech: and is thus to be supplied; namely, And the sojourning of the Children of Israel, whereby they sojourned in Egypt, was to the end of 430 years. Not that they were in Egypt so long, but that they were a sojourning Nation so long: the beginning whereof was in the days of Abraham, at the time when he received the Promise, as by that of the Apostle before mentioned may be seen. The word Sojourning therefore (here used by Moses) hath relation to that time of the Promise when Abraham left his Father's house and became a sojourner in a strange Land, even the Land which God had promised to show him, and which he afterwards gave to him to be possessed by his posterity in the fourth generation after him, Gen. 15.16.  
And now that these years are precisely and exactly so many and no more, appeareth by what followeth in the next verse, viz. Exod. 12.41. wherein it is said, That when the 430 years were finished, even on the same day, all the hosts of the Lord went out from the Land of Egypt.  
They therefore that begin this reckoning at jacob's going thither are deceived. For first Koath was one who went when Jacob went, Gen. 46.11. His son was Amram, Exod. 6.18.20. and Amrams' son was Moses, Num. 26.59. Wherefore seeing Koath was the enterer, and Moses the departer, the time from thence could not extend to 430 years; for Koath lived but 133 years, Exod. 6.18. Amram but 137, vers. 20. and Moses was but 80 at the departure, Exod. 77. All which added together make but 350. and yet some of those years must be deducted, because they were not born one at the just end of another's life, but lived some while the father and the son together: which deduction being made, the years remaining will be yet fewer and want still more of 430.  
Secondly, Jochabed was the mother of Moses, and immediate daughter of Levi, born to him in Egypt; as it is, Num. 26.59. Take then for a trial the age of Moses at the departure, which was 
* Exod. 7.7.  80 years; and the whole age of Levi was 
* Exod. 6.16.  137. years: and add them together, so shall you have 217. Unto which number must be added 213 for the age of Jochabed, or else there cannot be 430. But that this should thus hang together, is impossible: for Levi was born 43 years before he came into Egypt, and living but 137 in all, there can be but 94 taken from him, and but 80 from Moses; which added together make but 174. Now then supposing that the abode in Egypt, from jacob's going thither, was fully 430 years, it must needs be that Jochabed lived 256 years, although her age be accounted but from the day of her father's death unto the day of her son's birth: But to say there is likelihood in this, were extreme madness. For who thinks it probable that a woman (in those days) could be 256 years, and yet bear a child? or that a King's daughter would make choice of one so old to be her Nurse? Beside, this woman's age must be yet longer: for it is not like that she was born just at her father's death, neither is it true that she died at her son's birth, because she was chosen (by Pharaoh's daughter) to be his Nurse.  
And as for Levi, to prove that he was 43 years old (as hath been mentioned) this is well known; viz. that Joseph was but four years younger than he, and when josephs' brethren came into Egypt, joseph then was but 39 years old: Levi therefore must needs be 43 at the same time (because four and 39 make 43) and not live his whole time after the descending of jacob thither. Se Gen. 41.46. and compare it with Gen. 45.6.  
Thus we see how Moses is to be understood in Exod. 12.40. and consequently to account the 430. years of this Period. For the dwelling of the children of Israel who dwelled in Egypt, was 430. years: that is, Their peregrination, or their dwelling as strangers. And so the Greek translateth; which the Apostle also confirmeth, in Act. 13.17. Their dwelling (I say) as strangers, begun from the time that Abraham left his kindred and his Father's house, as already hath been proved. For though this people were not called Israelites in Abraham's time, 
☜  but afterwards: 
N. B.  yet because they proceeded out of Abraham's loins, and did evermore boast of him as their Father, and because he also (the thing which Moses aims at) was the first in their generation who sojourned in a strange land, the foresaid Text in Exodus puts no difference, but speaks of them all according to that name by which they were then called when Moses brought the seed of Abraham out of Egypt, even in the fourth generation, as God himself had formerly spoken and told it to Abraham in particular long before. And thus we have hitherto the right meaning of that text.  
Quest. Quest. But how is Moses to be understood in his number of 400. years in Gen. 15.13? doth not that cross the former account.  
Answ. Nothing at all. For there is a double sum of years mentioned concerning the seed of Abraham sojourning and afflicted; viz. 400. Gen. 15.13. and 430. Exod. 12.40. The 430. years was from Abraham's departing out of Haran to the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, as hath been proved. And the 400 was from the fifth of Isaac to that time also: for both these reckon have both one time of ending, but begin not both at once; the latter not beginning till Ishmael (who was borne of the Egyptian woman Hagar) mocked Isaac, and was cast out of Abraham's house. The Apostle makes this manifest, by calling Ismaels' mocking of Isaac persecution, Galat. 4.28. So also Moses, in saying that Abraham's seed should be evil entreated. For know this of a surety, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs: and shall serve them, and they shall entreat them evil 400. years, Gen. 15.13. meaning, that from the beginning of this affliction should be 400. years before the end of their affliction from the Egyptian bondage. For as the first manifest affliction of Ahrahams' seed began now when this son of the Egyptian woman in a strange land mocked Isaac, so it ended at the bringing of the same out of Egypt 400. years after. Not that they were afflicted all that time, but that their affliction which began now in a strange land should not be ended, nor they brought into their promised land, until the end thereof.   

SECT. FOUR Of the fourth Period, from the coming out of Egypt to the beginning of the building of King salomon's Temple, that it was a Period of 479. years complete, or of 480. year's current.  
THis is proved by a plain Text, in 1 King. 6.1, where we read thus; And it came to pass in the four hundredth and fourscore year, after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of salomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Zif which is the second Month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.  
In which Text we have the whole sum in gross, but must find the particulars elsewhere: and they are found as followeth.  
First, 40. years in the wilderness after the Israelites came out of Egypt, Deut. 1.3. Deut. 34.4.5. Josh. 1.2. Psal. 95.10. Act. 13.18.  
Secondly, 17 to the death of Joshua after Moses. For seeing all the other numbers but this may be found expressly written, this must needs be as much, as all the other (when they are gathered together) shall want of 480.  
Thirdly, from the death of Joshua to the death of Othniel, 40. Jud. 3.11.  
Fourthly, 80. after that to the death of Ehud, Jud. 3.30.  
Fifthly, 40. from thence to the death of Deborah, Jud. 5, 31.  
Sixthly, 40. after that to the death of Gideon, Judg. 8.28.  
Seventhly, Abimelech 3 years after Gideon, Judg. 9.22.  
Then Thola 23, Judg. 10.2. Jair 22. Judg. 10.3. Jeptha 6. Judg. 12.7. Ibsan 2. Judg. 12.9. Elon X. Judg. 12.9. Abdon VIII. Judg. 12.14. Samson. XX. Judg. 16.31. Heli 40. 1 Sam. 4.18. Samuel and Saul 40.10 Act. 13.21. David after Saul 40.2 Sam 5.4. Solomon after David till the founding of the Temple 4 current: for in the fourth year of his reign the Temple was founded, 1 King. 6.1.  
All which Sums being added together, amount to 480. To which I add this note, that if Solomon began in the last year of King David, as some men think, then must Joshua have 18 years for the time that he had ruled after Moses: which I also think he had.  
Quest. But if this account be true, Quest. how must we understand the 300. years in Judg. 11.26. where Jeptha saith, That the children of Israel dwelled in Heshbon and her Towns, and in Aroer and her Towns, and in all the Cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hunded years. By which it seemeth to be gathered that Jeptha judged not till 300 years after the children of Israel came out of the wilderness into the land of Canaan, at the death of Moses. And if the time from thence thither, were 300. years then must the time from the coming out of Egypt to the Temple, be more than 480. For from the first year of Jeptha to the fourth year of King Solomon, were 175. years: which added to the 40 years of the wilderness, and to the 300. after that to Jeptha, do make in all 515.  
But I answer that these 300. Answ. years are not to be reckoned from Moses death, but from the time mentioned in the beginning of Jeptha's narration, ver. 16. where the words are, But when Israel came up from Egypt, etc. From whence to the days of Jeptha were 306. years, which 6 odd years Jeptha omitted, it being not greatly material to account them so precisely; thus doth Luther understand the place, junius, Broughton and others. Broughtons' observation being this; Note (saith he) that the 40 years in the wilderness are joined as one time here, that things done in sundry parts of it be reckoned from one beginning.  
Or (as a late writer answereth) About 34 years after that Sihon King of the Amorites had fought against the predecessor of Balack the son of Zippor King of Moah, and had taken all his Land, even unto Arnon; Israel smote Sihon and all his people, & possessed his Country: Which was in the last year of Moses. From whence unto jeptha were but 266 years' current; yet by adding the years of their own possession unto Sihon's whose right they had by the Law of Conquest, jeptha did justly say, that they had dwelled in or possessed those Countries 300 years. Which indeed is the same answer that Sir Walter Raleigh giveth in his History of the World, lib. 2. cap. 13. sect. 8. But I take the first answer to be the best: leaving the Reader nevertheless to make choyc of which he pleaseth.  
Qust. Quest. But what shall we think of Saint Paul's number mentioned in Acts 13.20. where we read that after the Land was divided, God gave his people Judges by the space of 450. years till Samuel the Prophet? Verily if that time were a space of 450 years, than (what with the forty years in the Wilderness, the whole time of joshua, the forty years of Samuel and Saul, the forty of David, and the four of Solomon) the whole time from the coming out of Egypt to the Temple, will be almost 600 years.  
Answ. No, it will not: For it is answered, either that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth 400, was mistaken by the scribe and put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is but three hundred: or else that Saint Paul reckoned as they did who reckoned the years of the Oppressors so as they added them to the years of the Judges, and not included them.  
As for the first, 
Beroald. lib. 3. Chronol. c. 4.  it might be granted were it not that all Copies have 450. For we do not know (saith Beroaldus) of any Copy, either Greek or Latin, which hath 350, but (as the ordinary reading is) 450. And therefore we cannot think either that there was a fault in the scribe, or that after the Apostles time some one or other 
* Master Perkins thinketh so, in his Harmony of Scripture.  took in hand to correct the text, according to their understanding of the Book of Judges, as Master Perkins supposeth. For (as another speaketh) Non est cur dicamus omnes Codices Graecos & Latino's esse corruptos: cum suppeditat expedita conciliationis ratio.  
And therefore (according to the second solution) we may rather think that Saint Paul reckoned as they did, who took the years of the Oppressors and added them to the years of the Judges: accounting those times apart, which are of right to be included.  
As for Example: When Jabin oppressed Israel, Deborah was one who Judged at the same time, Judges 4.4. And when the Philistines oppressed, then was Samson a Judge: For (saith the text) He judged. Israel in the days of the Philistines, twenty years, judges 15.20. By which two places I doubt not but we are taught how to account the rest.  
The main objection is, how the Land can be said to have rest 40 years after the overthrow of Chusan by whom they were afflicted eight years, or eighty after the overthrow of Eglon, if part of those years it were vexed with war, and the people held by their oppressors under a miserable bondage.  
But to this I find a late writer, in his Annotations upon the place, give a fair answer; viz. That it is not unusual in the Scripture to denominate a full number of years, from that which is properly true only of the greater part of that number; as we see Gen. 35.26. Where after the naming of the twelve sons of jacob, this clause is added, These are the sons of jacob that were born to him in Padan-Aram, and yet Benjamin is mentioned amongst them, who was not born in Padan-Aram, but in the Land of Canaan; and so likewise, Acts 7.14. where it is said, that joseph sent and called his Father and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls, and yet indeed there went but threescore and ten of them at that time into Egypt, Gen. 46.27. And so again, Exod. 12.40. where it is said, that the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelled in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years, and yet they were not in Egypt after jacobs' going thither above two hundred and fifteen years. And therefore in that it is said, And the Land had rest forty years, the meaning may well be, that the Land had rest to the end of forty years, to wit, counting the forty years from the death of joshua, to the death of Othniel; and so of the rest where the like phrase is found. And so indeed Tremelius translates these words, usque ad quadragesimum annum, unto the expiration of forty years. Which is further confirmed by the like expression, in the fourteenth Chap. at the seventeenth verse, where it is said of Sampsons' wife, that she wept before him the seven days while the feast lasted: and yet the meaning is only, that she wept to the ending of those seven days, to wit, from the time he refused to tell her the meaning of his Riddle.  
Furthermore, Saint Matthews Genealogies from Rahab to David, do make it yet more manifest. For Rahab hide the spies; She was the mother of Boaz; He the father of Obed; and Obed of jesse; and jesse of David. Now though Rahab should bring forth Boaz at 80; and Boaz beget Obed at 120; and Obed jesse at 120; and jesse David at 120: yet all these far stretched ages would fall short of 450.  
How Saint Paul therefore reckoned, is apparent: and his true meaning is explained, without wrong to any text. For in mentioning 450, it is with a clause of Proviso; saying, not absolutely God gave them Judges 450 years, but as it were (or after a sort) 450 years. Which is as if it should be said, they were 450 years by adding the Judges and Opressours years together: 
Joseph Antiq. lib. 9 c. 11.  after which manner the Jews (as we see by Josephus) used to reckon these times. For Josephus setteth the building of the Temple, five hundred ninty years and one, after the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt: which in an express text of Scripture, is but 480; as at the first I shown, out of the 1 Kings 6.1. and have hitherto cleared it to be so, against all objections made to the contrary.  
Howbeit, some perhaps may not as yet be fully satisfied until I further speak my mind concerning the opinions of Codoman and Petavius, who have declined the common path, and pitched upon an Interpretation serving rather to enlarge this Period, then to open the truth of the reckoning.  
And as for Codoman, 
Codom. Chro. lib. 1. c. 17. and lib 2. quest 27 20.  he reckoneth from the death of Joshua to the death of Eli 430 years, not accounting sampson's 20 years, but under the 40 years of the Philistines. And whereas Saint Paul nameth 450, he finds 20 years to make up Saint Paul's number, to have been spent after the death of Joshua by the Seniors, before the Oppression under Chusan. After which to make all this reconcilable with the account of the 480 years in the 1 Kings 6.1. he saith we must begin to reckon them, not in the beginning, but in the ending of the journeying of the Israelites from Egypt, which he makes to be 25 years after the beginning of Othniels' government; from whence if we cast the years of the Judges with the years of Servitude, and so to these years add the 40 of Samuel and Saul, the 40 of David and the three of Solomon, we shall have the just sum of 480 years. Some texts he bringeth to prove that the Annus egressionis ex Egypto, be egressionis non incipientis, sed finitae: as in Deut. 4.45. and Psal. 114.1.3.  
And next, how their journeying should be said to have had an end, not till the 25 year after the victory of Othniel, is (saith he) because all the Tribes had not obtained their possessions till then; at which time the Danites at length seated themselves, as is declared, Judg. 18.  
And finally, whereas it is said the expedition of the Danites was when there was no King in Israel, it is because either Othniel might be dead by that time, or else that he might have refused all Sovereignty, and have betaken himself to a private life.  
But (as is excellently answered by Sir Walter Raleigh) what help of authority hath Codoman for this? 
History of the World, lib. 2. c. 13. sect. 8.  Or who did ever tell him that the conquest of Laish by the Tribe of Dan was performed in the 25 year of Othniel? Or what more hath he then his own conjecture, to show that Othniel did so renounce the office of a Judge after 25 years, that it might be truly said that there was then no King in Israel, but that every man did what was good in his own eyes? Nor is it but most improper to give date unto actions commenced long after, from an expedition finished long before. Or who will not think it strange, that the most notable account of time, serving as the only guide for certain ages in sacred Chronologie, should not take name and beginning from that illustrious deliverance out of Egypt rehearsed often by God himself as the principal of his benefits to Israel; but should rather have reference to the taking of a town by 600 men that rob a Chapel by the way, and stole from thence Idols to be their guides, as not going to work in God's name? Surely this accident upon which Codoman buildeth, hath either no time given it, or a time fare different from that which he supposeth, and is indeed rather by him placed in such a year, because it best stood with his interpretation so to have it, then for any certainty or likelihood of the thing itself.  
Nor be there but certain ages in Scripture which (as I shown before) will make against this large account.  
Beroaldus likewise hath sufficiently justified the words of Saint Paul, 
Beroald. in his Chronol. lib. 3. c. 4.  as having reference to a common opinion among the Scribes in those days, that the hunded and eleven years of the servitude, were to be reckoned apart from the 339. years ascribed to the Judges; which account the Apostle would not stand precisely to contradict, but rather chose to speak as the vulgar, qualifying it with a quasi, where he saith quasi quadringentis & quinquagentis annis, as it were 450. years. But Codoman not being thus contented, would needs have it to be so indeed, and therefore disjoins the members to make the account even: although in so doing he dasheth himself against a notable Text, on which all Authors have builded for the true account of the times from the departure out of Egypt to the foundation of salomon's Temple. This (for the most of it) is the answer of Sir Walter Raleigh to Codomans' opinion: an answer full and home enough, and doth strike to the root also of Petavius his Tenet, by whose account were 520. years from the coming out of Egypt to the Temple. 
Petau. in his Rat. Temp. par. 2. l. 2. c. 6. See him also lib. 9 c. 33. De Doctr. Tempo.   
I come therefore now to him who in answer to that in the 1 K. 6.1. saith (as Codoman before him) the Annus egressionis latè sumitur. Nos (saith he) egressionem ex Egypto pro anno illo accipimus, quo post quadragenariam in Arabiae solitudine mansionem, Chananaeam ingressi sunt Jordane trajecto. Ita enim solet interdum in sacris literis usurpari; ut Deu. 4.45.46. Ps. 114 etc. Thus Petavius in his Rationario Temporum, and in his Ninth book and 33 Chapter De Doctrina Temporum, who giveth to Joshua 14 years, to the Seniors after him 10. and includes the years of the fifth and Sixth Servitude within the years of the Judges, as not being expressly severed from them: so also Heli hath 20 of his 40 years included within the times of Samson; and in that he followeth the Septuagint, wherein Heli hath but 20 years. But the Hebrew (text which is the Original) spoileth the account of this great Chronologer, in which Heli hath not 20 but 40 years; and therefore though he be excellent in many things, yet here he must give us leave to decline him; yea, though he citys Saint Austin to defend him: for the Original is to be followed, and not the translation; all men of any learning knowing how corrupt the Septuagint is in numbers, and how differing from the Hebrew text.  
But if he will be ruled by the Septuagint for Heli, why not also for Elon the tenth Judge, who though he be in the Original Hebrew text (as may be seen, Judg. 12.11.) is not at all to be found in their translation?  
And as for Saint Austin though in the place 
* viz. lib. 17. the civet Dei. c. 13.  quoted by Petavius in his Rationario Temporum, he reckoneth the whole time of Ehud (viz. 80 years) apart, and doth not include the 18. year's Oppression under Eglon within the compass thereof: yet in 
* viz. lib. 18. the civet Dei c. 22.  another place he reckons otherwise; accounting 27. years for Joshua, and after him 329. more for the Judges till Samuel and Soul: which could not be but by including the Oppressor's years within the years of the Judges, there being nothing wanting but the 10 years of Elon to make all right, which Judge Saint Austin (by following the Septuagint) hath left quite out, though it be contrary to the truth, as I have already showed on't of Judg. 12.11. For if those 10 years were added to 329, they then would make 339. which is indeed the whole time of the Judges, that being the time which the Scripture allows them after Joshua.  
And thus we see how Petavius also as well as Codoman, goes a wrong way to work: of whom I shall need to say no more; neither had I said so much in the contradicting so eminent a man, had it not been for the love of truth.   

SECT. V Of the fifth Period, from the foundation of the Temple in the fourth year of King Solomon, to the Desolation thereof in the nineteenth year of Nabuchadnezzar. In which is also shown the true and right account of the 390. and 40 years in Ezekiel.  
THis next Period is the time that the Temple stood, and is a Period of 423. years, three Julian Months, and about eight days; beginning in the year of the Julian Period 3703. and ending in the year of the same Period 4126. which space is thus gathered; namely by the time after the fourth year of King Solomon to the first year of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin: 
Ezek. 4.5.  after which were 390. years taught us by Ezekiel in the fourth Chapter of Ezekiel his Prophecy: at the end whereof the Land is left desolate of all her Inhabitants, in the three and twentieth year of Nabuchadnezzar, almost 427. years after the Temple began to be built. For the first year of Jeroboam was 
* Because K. Solomon reigned 40. years and but 3, before he began to build the Temple.  37 years after King Solomon began to lay the foundation: to which if we add 390. we have 427. Now out of this number we must deduct 4 (because the Temple was burnt in the nineteenth year of Nabuchadnezzar as appears 2 King. 25.8.9.) and then there will remain 423. the whole time of the years that the Temple stood. And as for the Months and days that were more, they were I say three julian Months and about eight days: for King Solomon laid the foundation on the last day of April, and on the eighth of August it was destroyed. And then again, that there were 37 years from the fourth of King Solomon to the beginning of the 390. years of Ezekiel in the first year of jeroboam when he concluded for the setting up of his Idolatry, is true: for indeed there were 37 years, threesore days and one: For (as I said before) King Solomon laid the foundation of the Temple on the last day of April in the year of the julian Period 3703. and jeroboam concluded with his Council for the the setting up of his Idolatry on the last day of june, which was the three and twentieth day of the third month in the year of the Period julion 3740: from whence to the last of June in the year of the julian Period 4130 were 390 years. In that year therefore 4130, about the later end of june, before the full end of the 23 year of Nabuchadnezzar, the 390 years of the sin of Israel, and the 40 years of the sin of judah ended. For we may not think that these 390 began precisely on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, when jeroboam instituted a Feast for the worship of his golden Calves, but rather before in the same year, viz. when he and his Council had concluded for the making of them, or being made when he first set them in open view, and said, Behold thy Gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt, 1 Kin. 12.28. which without scruple I take to be on the 23 day of the third month, as is aforesaid; on which day the Jews fast, because of this which jeroboam did.  
And note further, that the reason why I say these 390 years end not until near four years after the Temple was destroyed, is because Nabuchadnezzar had not done all that he was to do against jerusalem, until the 23 year of his reign, at which time that small remnant which was left in the Land with Gedaliah, 
Joseph Antiq. lib. 10. c. 11.  was carried away, the number than carried being 745, as is recorded, Jer. 25.15. For now at this time (being about four years after the Temple was burnt) Nebuzaradan a Captain of the guard was sent by Nabuchadnezzar to carry all away; which he did: and so there was none of the posterity of Israel left remaining in the Land to provoke the Lord, either by their sins which they learned of Manasses, or by their sins of that Idolatry which they learned of jeroboam 390 years before. For albeit the Kingdom of Israel ceased to be in the ninth year of Hoshea, yet there this reckoning of 390 may not end, but is still accounted till a full end be made, and that the Lord 
* 2 Kin. 23.27.  remove judah out of his sight as well as Israel; some relics of Israel remaining among those of judah till the whole number of 390 was accomplished: beyond which time, God in that holy Land of Promise would not endure the sin of Israel any more, which coming from jeroboam had infected even them of judah too, 2 Kings 17.16.19. and therefore could not be throughly rooted out until all (as well of judah as of Israel) were carried out of that good Land given to their Fathers many hundred years before.  
This again is proved by another number; 
Ezek. 4.6.  a number of 40 years, taught us also by Ezekiel. For albeit the number of 390 (as it is whole) hath relation to both houses, yet 40 years of that reckoning are in more particular, pertinent only to the house of judah, the thirtieth year whereof agreeth with the fifth year of Zedechia, Ezekiel 1.1. and therefore the last must needs reach to the 23 of Nabuchadnezzar, and the first begin in the eighteenth of josiah: from which year the whole number of these 40 years are undoubtedly to be accounted. For in that year Huldah the Prophetess did foretell the inevitable destruction of judah, 2 Kin. 22, 3, 15, 16, etc. Then did josiah celebrate a solemn Passeover; then was it that the book of the Law, which had been lost, was found and read: at the hearing whereof the good King wept, the people (for their Sins) being threatened with Captivity. But from that evil to come Josiah had a promise to be taken away before it came: whose Godly courses should have moved his godless Subjects; But they (though bade before) growing then to be worse and worse, are fitly said to begin this burden of their 40 years' sin, declining so far from a wished Conversion, that finally they fell into a dismal destruction. Yea then was it that the Altar in Bethel was destroyed; and so, as the 390 years began in that year when Jeroboham caused the said Altar to be built: in like manner these 40 years began in that year wherein Josiah caused it to be beaten down. For though it were a time of Reformation in respect of what Josiah did, yet not being followed on by the people and Kings after him (though threatened by Huldah with destruction) it is of all things herein the most probable that Ezekiel was moved to have respect thereunto, when he was commanded to set apart 40 years from his 390, and appropriate them to Judah in more particular than when he joined the sins of Israel and Judah both together.  
All which is likewise seen in the fifth Chapter of Ezekiel: for the Prophet there by shaving his head, and parting the hair, showeth Judah's case. One part he burnt with fire: another part he cut with a sword: a third part he scattered into the wind: One part he bound up; and soon after he burned even that part also. So Jerusalem with her Inhabitants should perish by fire & sword, with other miserable destructions: And albeit a small remnant was left for a while with Gedaliah, yet soon after they also shall be brought to nothing; which accordingly came to pass in the three and twentieth year of Nabuchadnezzar, when clean riddance is made of all out of their own Land, signified by that part of hair which for a time was bound up, and at the last taken and burnt.  
Finally, the length of this Period is likewise proved by two sabbathical years; the one in the days of Hezekia, the other in the days of Zedechia Kings of Judah: and both these noted in Scripture; the one by the Prophet Esay, Chapter 37. verse 30. The other by the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapter 34. verse 8.  
That which the Prophet Esay mentions began in the eighteenth year of Hezekia, in the year after the Temple was founded 302, and year of the Julian Period 4004, and was sabbathical till the Autumn next after: at which time they sowed their fields which had rested from the Autumn before, as the law required. For this we are to note, That that expedition which Senacharib began against the Kingdom of judah and Jerusalem in the latter end of the 14 year of Hezekia was an expedition of 
* Esay 20.3.4.  three years, and intended chief the invading of Egypt: and therefore ended not till after the harvest time of the year of the Julian Period 4004 when his host was slain by an Angel. For in the year of the same Period 4001 (the fourteenth year of Hezekia tending towards an end) Senacharib began it, and invaded some part of the Kingdom of Judah first, where he took no few of the defenced Cities thereof, Esa. 36.1. About which time Hezekia fell sick, and upon his recovery had a promise not only that his life should be prolonged for fifteen years, but also that he and his City should be delivered out of the hand of the Assyrian, Esay 38.5.6. Which story is indeed mentioned after the death of Senacharib, but in general terms in respect of the time; as thus: In diebus illis, In those days: Petavius therefore had no just cause to blame Torniellus for his account herein. And as God had made this promise, so he accomplished it, and drew away Senacharib into Egypt, where he encountered with Sethon the King thereof in the year of the Julian Period 4002, and came not into Judea again until the year 4004: the harvest of which year was thereupon spoilt and trodden out in the fields. The next year had no harvest at all by reason of the year of Rest which began at the Autumn before. But in the year 4006 there was an harvest again: as was foretold in Esay 37.30. And thus is that place in Esay to be understood.  
The other sabbathical year began in the ninth year of Zedecbia 119. years after the former: This was in the year of the Julian Period 4123. In the next year the tenth of Zedechia began: In the next after that (viz. in the year of the Julian Period 4125.) his eleventh, & ended not till about the beginning of the fourth Month in the year after, viz. in the year of the Julian Period 4126. in which year, before the full end of Nebuchadnezars nineteenth year of reign, and soon after the end of Zedechias eleventh year, the Temple was burnt, having then stood 423. years, three julian Months and about eight days. And why I say were 119 years from the eighteenth of Hezechia to the ninth of Zedechia, is because Hezechia (who reigned 29 years) reigned 11 after his eighteenth year, Manasses 55. Amon 2. Josiah 31. Jehoahaz 3. Jehoiakim 11 years. Jechoniah 3 Months, and Zedechia 11 years: whose last year was (as I have already said) fully finished before the fifth month, in the which the Temple was burnt. And why also from the fourth of Solomon to the eighteenth of Hezechia were three hundred years and one complete, is in regard that the reigns of the Kings of Judah and Israel (rightly compared each with other) do make it so, as in the following Table may be seen.  
Years of the julian Period. Years of the World. Ye. Of rest & Jubilees Years of the Temple. A Table of the Years of the Kings of JuDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stood. 3703 2994 7 7 1 4 ¶ In this Year, on the second day of the second Month, King Solomon began to build the Temple. At the seventh Month the ninth Jubilee began: See 2 Chron. 3.2. 3704 2995 1 Jub. ix. 2 5 3705 2996 2  3 6 3706 2997 3  4 7 3707 2998 4  5 8  3708 2999 5  6 9  3709 3000 6  7 10  3710 3001 7 1 8 11 In this Year (at the seventh month) the Temple was Dedicated, 1 Kings 8.2. It was in the beginning of a Year of Rest. 3711 3002 1  9 12 3712 3003 2  10 13 3713 3004 3  11 14  3714 3005 4  12 15  3715 3006 5  13 16  3716 3007 6  14 17  3717 3008 7 2 15 18  3718 3009 1  16 19  3719 3010 2  17 20  3720 3011 3  18 21  3721 3012 4  19 22  3722 3013 5  20 23 About this time King Solomon finished the Buildings of his own House, 2 Chron. 8.1. 3723 3014 6  21 24 3724 3015 7 3 22 25 3725 3016 1  23 26  3726 3017 2  24 27  3727 3018 3  25 28  3728 3019 4  26 29  3729 3020 5  27 30  3730 3021 6  28 31  3731 3022 7 4 29 32  3732 3023 1  30 33 About this time (as is supposed) salomon's strange Wives & Concubines entice him to Idolatry; but before he died he repent, and (among his other Books) writeth that of the Preacher, as a recantation for his former errors and sins that he had committed: and having reigned forty years, died in the year of the World 3031. 3733 3024 2  31 34 3734 3025 3  32 35 3735 3026 4  33 36 3736 3027 5  34 37  
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Ye. Of rest & Jub. Ye. Of the Temple A Table of the Kings of JUDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stood. 3737 3028 6  35  3738 3029 7 5 36    3739 3030 1  37  The KINGDOM divided.  Kings of Judab. Kings of Israel. 3740 3031 2  38 1 Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned over Judah 17. years, 1 Kin. 24.21.  1 jeroboam reigned over Israel 22. years, 1 Kin. 14.20. the last of which years was incomplete as appeareth by the reign of his son Nadab. Salomons idolatry caused by his strange Wives & Concubines together with Rehoboams tyranny, was the cause of this rent or division. 3741 3032 3  39 2  2 3742 3033 4  40 3  3 3743 3034 5  41 4  4 3744 3035 6  42 5 In this year Sesac King of Egypt made an inroad to Jerusalem, and spoiled the Temple, carrying from thence the Treasures, the golden Shields, etc. as it is in 1 Kin. 14, 25, 26. and in 2 Chron. 12.9.  5 3745 3036 7 6 43 6  6 3746 3037 1  44 7  7 3747 3038 2  45 8  8 3748 3039 3  46 9  9 3749 3040 4  47 10  10 3750 3041 5  48 11  11 3751 3042 6  49 12  12 3752 3043 7 7 50 13  13 3753 3044 1 Jub. x. 51 14  14 At the 7th month of this year the tenth jubilee began. 3754 3045 2 52 15  15 3755 3046 3  53 16  16 3756 3047 4  54 17  17  3757 3048 5  55 1 Abiah the son of Rahoboam reigned three years complete, 1 Kin. 15.1.  18  3758 3049 6  56 2  19  3759 3050 7 1 57 3  20  3760 3051 1  58 1 Asa the son of Abiah reigned 41 years, 1 Kin. 15.9. He began in the latter part of Jerobeams 20th year, as appeareth  21  3761 3052 2  59 2  22 Nadab began in the second of Asa, and reigned two years, 1 King. 15.25. Baasa 3762 3053 3  60 3 1 1 3763 3054 4  61 4 2 2 3764 3055 5  62 5  3  
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Ye. Of Rest & Jub. Ye. Of the Temple. A Table of the Kings of JUDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stood. Kings of Judah. Kings of Israel. 3765 3056 6  63 6 by the reign of Nadab, which else would have ended as soon as his fathers: and yet the Text saith he reigned 2 years after him; and so he did, viz. 2 year's current, which is to be a rule for some of the rest. 4  killeth Nadab in the third of Asa, & reigned 24 years, 1 Kings 15, 28, 33. 3766 3057 7 2 64 7 5  3767 3058 1  65 8 6  3768 3059 2  66 9 7  3769 3060 3  67 10 8  3770 3061 4  68 11 9  3771 3062 5  69 12 10  3772 3063 6  70 13 11  3773 3064 7 3 71 14 12  3774 3065 1  72 15 * This was that famous year of Asa, where in he demolished the Idols, and restored the true worship of God in his Land, 2 Chron. 15.10. 13  3775 3066 2  73 16 14  3776 3067 3  74 17 15  3777 3068 4  75 18 16  3778 3069 5  76 19 17  3779 3070 6  77 20 18  3780 3071 7 4 78 21  19  3781 3072 1  79 22  20  3782 3073 2  80 23  21  3783 3074 3  81 24  22  3784 3075 4  82 25  23  3785 3076 5  83 26  24. 1 Ela 2. he beg. In 26. Asa 3786 3077 6  84 27  1 2 Zimri, 3787 3078 7 5 85 28  2  Tibni, See 1 K. 16.10 3788 3079 1  86 29  3  Omri, 3789 3080 2  87 30  4  3790 3081 3  88 31  5  In this year (being the 31 of Asa) Omri gins to reign alone; he buildeth Samaria, and keeps his Court there, as did also the other Kings of Israel after him ● See 1 Kin. 16.23. 3791 3082 4  89 32  6  3792 3083 5  90 33  7  3793 3084 6  91 34  8  3794 3085 7 6 92 35  9  3795 3086 1  93 36  10  3796 3087 2  94 37  11  3797 3088 3  95 38  12. 1 Achab 22. he began in the 38. of Asa, 1 Kin. 16.29. in his time Jericho was built. 3798 3089 4  96 39  2  
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Ye. Of Rest & Jub. Ye. Of Rest & Jub. A Table of the Kings of JUDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stoood. Kings of Judah. Kings of Israel. 3799 3090 5  97 40  Jehosaphat 25. years, 1 Kin. 22.41. He began in the 4th year of Achab, viz. in the latter part thereof, 1 Kin. 22.41.  3  3800 3091 6  98 41   4  3801 3092 7 7 99 1   5  3802 3093 1 Jub. 100 2   6  3803 3094 2 xi. 101 3   7  3804 3095 3  102 4   8  3805 3096 4  103 5  9  3806 3097 5  104 6  10  3807 3098 6  105 7  11  3808 3099 7 1 106 8  12  3809 3100 1  107 9  13  3810 3101 2  108 10  14  3811 3102 3  109 11  15  3812 3103 4  110 12  16  3813 3104 5  111 13  17  3814 3105 6  112 14  18  3815 3106 7 2 113 15  19  3816 3107 1  114 16  20  3817 3108 2  115 17  Jehosaphat decreeth that the Kingdom sal be Jorams, because he was his eldest; but to his other Sons he given Gifts, 2 Chron. 21.3.  21  3818 3109 3  116 18  1 22 Achazia two years, 1 Kin. 22.51. 3819 3110 4  117 19  2 1 3820 3111 5  118 20   2 jehoram 12. he began in the eighteenth ve. Of Jebosaphat, viz. in the latter part there of, 2 Kin. 3.1. 3821 3112 6  119 21   3 3822 3113 7 3 120 22  4 3823 3114 1  121 23 1 Jehoram 8. he began in the fift year of Jehoram King of Israel, 2 King. 8.16.  5 3824 3115 2  122 24 2  6 3825 3116 3  123 25 3  7  3826 3117 4  124  4  8  3827 3118 5  125  5  9  3828 3119 6  126  6  10  3829 3120 7 4 127  7  11  3830 3121 1  128 1 8 Achaziah, 2 Kin. 8.25 26. Athalia seven years current: see 2 Kin. 11.4  12  3831 3122 2  129  1  1 Jehu 28 years, 2 Kin. chap. 9 he and Athalia began both in one year. 3832 3123 3  130  2  2  
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Years of Rest and Jubilees. Years of the Temple. A Table of the Kings of JUDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stood.      Kings of Judah. Kings of Israel. 3833 3124 4  131  3  3  3834 3125 5  132  4  4  3835 3126 6  133  5  5  3836 3127 7 5 134  6  6  3837 3128 1  135 1 7 joash 40. he began in the seventeenth of jehu king of israel, 2 kings 11.4. 7  3838 3129 2  136 2  8  3839 3130 3  137 3  9  3840 3131 4  138 4  10  3841 3132 5  139 5  11  3842 3133 6  140 6  12  3843 3134 7 6 141 7  13  3844 3135 1  142 8  14  3845 3136 2  143 9  15  3846 3137 3  144 10  16 Carthage built. joseph. 3847 3138 4  145 11  17  3848 3139 5  146 12  18  3849 3140 6  147 13  19  3850 3141 7 7 148 14  At the Autumn of this year the twelfth Jubilee began. 20  3851 3142 1 Jub. xii. 149 15  21  3852 3143 2 150 16  22  3853 3144 3  151 17  23  3854 3145 4  152 18  24  3855 3146 5  153 19  25  3856 3147 6  154 20  26  3857 3148 7 1 155 21  27  3858 3149 1  156 22  28  3859 3150 2  157 23  1 Jehoahaz 17. he began in the 23 year of joash K. of judah, 2 K. 13.1. the Syrians vexed him very much.  3860 3151 3  158 24  2  3861 3152 4  159 25  3  3862 3153 5  160 26  4  3863 3154 6  161 27  5   
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Years of Rest and Jubilees. Years of the Temple. A Table of the Kings of JUDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stood.     Kings of Judah. Kings of Israel. 3864 3155 7 2 162 28  6  3865 3156 1  163 29  7  3866 3157 2  164 30  8  3867 3158 3  165 31  9  3868 3159 4  166 32  10  3869 3160 5  167 33  11  3870 3161 6  168 34  12  3871 3162 7 3 169 35  13  3872 3163 1  170 36  14  3873 3164 2  171 37  15  3874 3165 3  172 38  16 1 Joash 16. he began in the latter part of the 37. year of Joash King of Judah, 2 Kin. 13.10. 3875 3166 4  173 39  17 2 3876 3167 5  174 40 1 Amaziah began in the latter part of the second year of Joash King of Israel, and reigned 29 years 2 King. 14.1. at the end whereof he is slain by the People of Lachish, 27. year's currant after Jeroboam's Father recovered the Kingdom of Israel from the Syrians; and in that regard Azariah (the son of this Amaziah) is said to begin his reign in the 27 year of Jeroboam, 2 K. 15.1, 2. that is, in the 27 year of Jeroboams Kingdom recovered, which his father recovered from the Syrians about the sixth year of his reign, according to the saying of Elisha, 2 K. 13.14. Like to this is that  3 3877 3168 6  175 2  4 3878 3169 7 4 176 3  5  3879 3170 1  177 4  6 Here Joash recovers his Kingdom from the Syrians, 2 K. 13.25. 'tis thought that going to this War he took in his son Jeroboam as partner with him in the Empire: whereupon it came to pass that Azariah is said to begin his reign in the 27. year of Jeroboam, 2 Kin. 15.1. Thus some. But see the other column. 3880 3171 2  178 5  7 3881 3172 3  179 6  8 3882 3173 4  180 7  9 3883 3174 5  181 8  10 3884 3175 6  182 9  11 3885 3176 7 5 183 10  12 3886 3177 1  184 11  13 3887 3178 2  185 12  14 3888 3179 3  186 13  15 3889 3180 4  187 14  16  3890 3181 5  188 15 1  Jeroboam the second 41 he began in the 15 year of Amaziah King of Judah, 2 King. 14.23. from which year he reigned 3891 3182 6  189 16 2  3892 3183 7 6 190 17 3  3893 3184 1  191 18 4  3894 3185 2  192 19 5   
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Years of Rest and Jubilees. Yeeers of the Temple. A Table of the Kings of JUDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stood. Kings of Judah. Kings of Israel. 3895 3186 3  193 20 of the 36. year of Asa, mentioned in the second Book of the Chronicles, chap. 16 ver. 1. where Baasa is alive, and diverted from building of Ramah: which if it be understood properly, cannot be true. 6 his 41. years, ibid. See also Petau. De Doctr. Temp. l. 9 c. 55. 3896 3187 4  194 21 7 3897 3188 5  195 22 8 3898 3189 6  196 23 9  3899 3190 7 7 197 24 10 The XIII. jubilee. 3900 3191 1 Jub. xiii. 198 25 11  3901 3192 2 199 26 12  3902 3193 3  200 27  13  3903 3194 4  201 28  14  3904 3195 5  202 29  15  3905 3196 6  203 1 Azariah began in this year; he was otherwise called Vzziah, and reigned 52. years, 2 Kin. 15.1. 16  3906 3197 7 1 204 2 17  3907 3198 1  205 3 18  3908 3199 2  206 4 19  3909 3200 3  207 5 20  3910 3201 4  208 6  21  3911 3202 5  209 7  22  3912 3203 6  210 8  23  3913 3204 7 2 211 9  24  3914 3205 1  212 10  25  3915 3206 2  213 11  26  3916 3207 3  214 12 If the 27th year of jeroboam, for the beginning of Azariah, be taken properly for the 27th year of his own reign, then must Azariah be 11 years of his 52 under tutors before he took upon him the administration of the 27  3917 3208 4  215 13 28  3918 3209 5  216 14 29  3919 3210 6  217 15 30  3920 3211 7 3 218 16 31  3921 3212 1  219 17 32  3922 3213 2  220 18 33  3923 3214 3  221 19 34  3924 3215 4  222 20 35  3925 3216 5  223 21 36   
Years of the julian Period. Years of the World. Years of Rest and Jubilees. Yeeers of the Temple. A Table of the Kings of JUDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stood. Kings of Judah. Kings of Israel.  3926 3217 6  224  22 Kingdom; and so Codoman in his Chronology, lib. 3. cap. 7. 37  3927 3218 7 4 225  23 38  3928 3219 1  226  24 39  3929 3220 2  227  25  40  3930 3221 3  228  26  41  3931 3222 4  229  27  1 After the death of Jeroboam there was no King in Israel till the 38. year of Azariah King of Judah, 2 King. 15.8. and therefore here must be an interregnum of twelve years: Hoseae the prophet speaks of it in the tenth chapter of his prophecy, at the first and third verses.  3932 3223 5  230  28 Esay began to Prophesy. 2  3933 3224 6  231 Olympiads.  29 3  3934 3225 7 5 232  30  4  3935 3226 1  233  31  5  3936 3227 2  234  32  6  3937 3228 3  235  33  7  3938 3229 4  236 1. 1 34 the first year of the first Olympiad. 8  3939 3230 5  237 2  35 9  3940 3231 6  238 3  36  10  3941 3232 7 6 239 4  37  11  3942 3233 1  240 1 2 38  12  3943 3234 2  241 2  39  1 Zachary and Shallum. Menahen began in the latter part of the 39 year of Azariah, after he had slain Shallum; he reigned ten years, 2 Kin. 15.14, 17.  3944 3235 3  242 3  40  1  3945 3236 4  243 4  41  2  3946 3237 5  244 1 3 42  3  3947 3238 6  245 2  43  4  3948 3239 7 7 246 3  44 The XIV. Jubilee. 5  3949 3240 1  247 4  45  6  3950 3241 2  248 1 4 46  7  3951 3242 3  249 2  47  8  3952 3243 4  250 3  48  9  3953 3244 5  251 4  49  10 Pekaia 2. he began in the 50 year of Azariah, 2 Kin. 15.27.  3954 3245 6  252 1 5 50  1  3955 3246 7 1 253 2  51  2  3956 3247 1  254 3  52  1 Peka 20. he began  
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Years of Rest and Jubilees. Olimpiads. Yees of the Temple. A Table of the Kings of JUDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stood.   Kings of Judah. Kings of Israel.  3957 3248 2  4  255 1  Jotham the son of Azariah begun his reign in the second year of Peka King of Israel, & reigned sixteen years, 2 Kin. 15.33. 2 in the 52. year of Azariah, 2 Kin. 15.27.  3958 3249 3  1 6 256 2  3  3959 3250 4  2  257 3  4  3960 3251 5  3  258 4  5  3961 3252 6  4  259 5  6  3962 3253 7 2 1 7 260 6  7 In this year begun the Building of Rome by Romulus, on the 21. day of April; and on the 27. of July next after, the seventh Olympiad began.  3963 3254 1  2  261 7  8  3964 3255 2  3  262 8  9  3965 3256 3  4  263 9  10  3966 3257 4  1 8 264 10  11  3967 3258 5  2  265 11  This was the first year of the Aera of Nabonassar: he reigned fourteen years. Ptol. 12  3968 3259 6  3  266 12  13  3969 3260 7 3 4  267 13  14  3970 3261 1  1 9 268 14  15  3971 3262 2  2  269 15  16  3972 3263 3  3  270 16 1 Achas began in the seventeenth year of Peka King of Israel, and reigned sixteen years, 2 King. 16.1. 17  3973 3264 4  4  271 2  18  3974 3265 5  1 10 272 3  19  3975 3266 6  2  273 4  20  3976 3267 7 4 3  274 5  1 Hoshea killeth Peka in this year, being the fift year of Achas, and the twentieth year since the beginning of Jotham's reign; from which time till the twelfth of Achas, he was unsettled in his Kingdom, and no absolute King till then: See 2 Kin. 15.30. & ch. 17.1. Egypt.  3977 3268 1  4  275 6  2  3978 3269 2  1 11 276 7  3  3979 3270 3  2  277 8  4  3980 3271 4  3  278 9  5 41  3981 3272 5  4  279 10  6 42  3982 3273 6  1 12 280 11  7 43  3983 3274 7 5 2  281 12  8  44  3984 3275 1  3  282 13  1 ¶ Here Hoshea began to reign, viz. in the latter part of the twelfth year of Achas, and reigned nine years, 2 Kin. 17.1. 1 Sabaccon 8.  3985 3276 2  4  283 14  2 2  3986 3277 3  1 13 284 15  3 3  3987 3278 4  2  285 16 1 Ezekias began in 4  4   
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Years of Rest and Jubilees. Olympiads. Yees of the Temple. A Table of the Years of the Kings of JUDAH and ISRAEL, during the time that the Temple stood.  Kings of Judah. Kings of Israel. 3988 3279 5  3  286 2 the end of Hoshea's third year, and reigned 29. years, as may be seen in the second Book of Kings, chap. 18. 5  5  3989 3280 6  4  287 3 6  6  3990 3281 7 6 1 12 288 4 7  7  3991 3282 1  2  289 5 8  8  3992 3283 2  3  290 6 9 Here the Kingdom of Israel ended. 1 Sethon or Sevechus 14. 3993 3284 3  4  291 7  2 3994 3285 4  1 13 292 8  3 3995 3286 5  2  293 9  4 3996 3287 6  3  294 10  5 3997 3288 7 7 4  295 11 At Autumn the XV. Jubilee began. 6  3998 3289 1 Jub. xv. 1 14 296 12  7  3999 3290 2 2  297 13  8  4000 3291 3  3  298 14  9  4001 3292 4  4  299 15 Sennacharib invades Judea, the 14 year of Ezekia almost ended 10  4002 3293 5  1 15 300 16 In this year he invades Egypt, viz. in the 11. year of Sethon King of Egypt. 11  4003 3294 6  2  301 17 12  4004 3295 7 1 3  302 18 In this year he returns into Judea again, and hath 185000 of his Soldiers slain by an Angel, 2 Kin. 18.13. & chap. 19.35. Herodotus heard of these things in Egypt, but they were greatly corrupted, telling us how a great multitude of Mice came into the Army of Sennacherib in the night, and did so gnaw the Bows, Quivers and straps of his men's Armour, that they were glad to fly away the next morning, etc. Herod. lib. 2. 13  4005 3296 1  4  303 19 14  4006 3297 2  1 16 304 20 1 Tharachus 18. 4007 3298 3  2  305 21 2 4008 3299 4  3  306 22 3 4009 3300 5  4  307 23 4 4010 3301 6  1 17 308 24 5  4011 3302 7 2 2  309 25 6  4012 3303 1  3  310 26 7  4013 3304 2  4  311 27 8  4014 3305 3  1 18 312 28 9  4015 3306 4  2  313 29  10  4016 3307 5  3  314 1 Manasses 55. years, 2 Kin. 21.1. he was one while a very wicked King, but repent 11  4017 3308 6  4  315 2 12   
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Rests and Jubilees. Olympiads. Years of the Temple. Kings of Judah. Fgypt. Things of Note in the continuation of the TABLE.       4018 3309 7 3 1 21 316 3 13  Me●● Babylom. afterwards, 2 Chr. 33.11, 12. The Jews say that he caused the Prophet Esay to be sawen asunder in the twelfth year of his reign.  4019 3310 1  2  317 4 14   4020 3311 2  3  318 5 15  17 6   4021 3312 3  4  319 6 16  18 1  Rigebelns 1.  4022 3313 4  1 22 320 7 17  19 1 Mefessimordachus 4. Rigebelus in Babylon one year. Ptol.  4023 3314 5  2  321 8 18  20 2 Mesessimordachus in Babylon 4 years. Ide. 4024 3315 6  3  322 9  Anarchia 2. XII. Captains 15. 21 3  4025 3316 7 4 4  323 10 2 22 4  4026 3317 1  1 23 324 11 1 23 1  An Interregnum 8. An Interregnum in Babylon, which lastre eight years. Ide.  4027 3318 2  2  325 12 2 24 2   4028 3319 3  3  326 13 3 25 3   4029 3320 4  4  327 14 4 26 4   4030 3321 5  1 24 328 15 5  27 5  Bellarmine setteth the imprisonment of Manasses in this year.  4031 3322 6  2  329 16 6  28 6   4032 3323 7 5 3  330 17 7  29 7  4033 3324 1  4  331 18 8  30 8  4034 3325 2  1 25 332 19 9  31 1 Asaradinus 13. currant. At the end of the interregnum in Babylon, Assaradinus began, having reigned before in Nineveh, and was (as is probable) Asserhaddon the son of Sennacharib.  4035 3326 3  2  333 20 10  32 2  4036 3327 4  3  334 21 11  33 3  4037 3328 5  4  335 22 12  34 4 In this year according to the Seder Olam Rabath (cited by Kimchi on the fourth chapter of Ezekiel) Manasses was led into Captivity.  4038 3329 6  1 26 336 23 13  35 5  4039 3330 7 6 2  337 24 14  36 6  4040 3331 1  3  338 25 15  37 7  4041 3332 2  4  339 26 1 Psammiticus 54 38 8  4042 3333 3  1 27 340 27 2 39 9 The Author of the great Hebrew Chronologie (cited by Sir Walter Raleign) saith, Manasses was imprisoned in this year, being the 27th. year of his reign.  4043 3334 4  2  341 28 3 40 10   4044 3335 5  3  342 29 4 41 11   4045 3336 6  4  343 30 5  42 12   4046 3337 7 7 1 28 344 31 6  43 13 Saosduchinus in the Book of Judith  
Years of the Julian Peried. Years of the World. Rests and Jubilees. Olympiads. Egypt. Medes. Babylon. Years of the Temple. Kings of Judah. Things of Note in the continuation of the TABLE.  4047 3338 1 Jub. xuj. 2  7 44  2 Saosduchinus 20. 345 32  is called Nabuchadonosor, as by the very time of his reign appeareth.  4048 3339 2 3  8 45  3 346 33   4049 3340 3  4  9 46  4 347 34  4050 3341 4  1 28 10 47  5 348 35  4051 3342 5  2  11 48  6  349 36  4052 3343 6  3  12 49  7  350 37  4053 3344 7 1 4  13 50  8  351 38  4054 3345 1  1 29 14 51  9  352 39  4055 3346 2  2  15 52  10  353 40  4056 3347 3  3  16 53  11  354 41  4057 3348 4  4  17 1 Phraortes 22. 12  355 42  Diocese (otherwise called Arphavad) slain this year. 4058 3349 5  1 30 18 2 13  356 43  Holophernes slain in this year, being the next after the death of Diocese.  4059 3350 6  2  19 3 14  357 44   4060 3351 7 2 3  20 4  15  358 45  4061 3352 1  4  21 5  16  359 46  4062 3353 2  1 31 22 6  17  360 47  4063 3354 3  2  23 7  18  361 48  4064 3355 4  3  24 8  19  362 49  4065 3356 5  4  25 9  20  363 50  4066 3357 6  1 32 26 10  1 Chyniladanus 22. 364 51  4067 3358 7 3 2  27 11  2 365 52  4068 3359 1  3  28 12  3 366 53  4069 3360 2  4  29 13  4 367 54  4070 3361 3  1 33 30 14  5  368 55  4071 3362 4  2  31 15  6  369 1 Amon 2. Amon the son of Manasses two years 2 Kings 21.19.  4072 3363 5  3  32 16  7  370 2  4073 3364 6  4  33 17  8  371 1 Jostah 31. Josiah succeeded his Father Amon, and reigned after him 31. years, 2 Kings 22.1.  4074 3365 7 4 1 34 34 18  9  372 2  4075 3366 1  2  35 19  10  373 3   
Years of the julian Period. Years of the World. Rests and Jubilees. Olympiads. Egypt. Medes. Babylon. Years of the Temple. Kings of Judah. Things of Note in the continuation of the TABLE. 4076 3367 2  3  36  20  11  374 4  4077 3368 3  4  37  21  12  375 5  4078 3369 4  1 36 38  22  13  376 6  4079 3370 5  2  39  1 Cyaxares 40. 14  377 7  4080 3371 6  3  40  2 15  378 8  In this year Josiah is said to seek after the God of David, and did openly show his zeal, though he were but young, 2 Chron. 34.3.  4081 3372 7 5 4  41  3 16  379 9   4082 3373 1  1 37 42  4  17  380 10   4083 3374 2  2  43  5  18  381 11  ezekiel's 40. years.   4084 3375 3  3  44  6  19  382 12   In this year josiah began to suppress Idolatry, 2 Chron. 34.3.  4085 3376 4  4  45  7  20  383 13    4086 3377 5  1 38 46  8  21  384 14   4087 3378 6  2  47  9  22  385 15   4088 3379 7 6 3  48  10  1 Nabopollassar 21. 386 16   Nabopollassar (the Father of Nabuchadnezzar) began in this year.  4089 3380 1  4  49  11  2 387 17    4090 3381 2  1 39 50  12  3 388 18  1  In this year was Iosiah's solemn Passover, 2 Kin. 23.22.  4091 3382 3  2  51  13  4 389 19  2   4092 3383 4  3  52  14  5  390 20  3  4093 3384 5  4  53  15  6  391 21  4  In this year an Eclipse of the Moon on the 23. day of April, 29. min. past 5. in the morning, at which time the fifth year of Nabopollassar was not ended, as is noted by Ptolomey.  4094 3385 6  1 40 54  16  7  392 22  5 Ezekiels 390.  4095 3386 7 7 2  1 Necho 17. 17  8  393 23  6  4096 3387 1 Job. xvii. 3  2 18  9  394 24  7  4097 3388 2 4  3 19  10  395 25  8  4098 3389 3  1 41 4  20  11  396 26  9  4099 3390 4  2  5  21  12  397 27  10  4100 3391 5  3  6   13  398 28  11 361  4101 3392 6  4  7   14  399 29  12 362  4102 3393 7 1 1 42 8   15  400 30  13 363  4103 3394 1  2  9   16  401 31  14 364  4104 3395 2  3  10   17  402 1● 15 365 josiah slain in the spring, jehoahaz  
Years of the julian Period. Years of the World. judah. Babylon. Egypt. Rests and Inbilees Ezekiel's 390. Ezekiel's 40. Year of the Temple Things of Note in the continuation of the TABLE. Olympiads. 4105 3396 2 Jehoiakim 11. 18  11  3  366 16 403 succeedeth, & reigned three months: then Jehoiakim 11 years, 2 Kin. 23.36 4  4106 3397 3 19  12  4  367 17 404 1 43 4107 3398 4 20 1 Nabuchadnezzar. 13  5  368 18 405 Nabuchadnezzar gins in the end of jehoiakims third year, and beginning of his fourth, Dan. 1.1. & jer. 25.1. at which time his father was alive, as josephus out of Berosus showeth. 2  4108 3399 5  21 2 14  6  369 19 406 3  4109 3400 6  3 15  7 2 370 20 407 4  4110 3401 7  4 16  1  371 21 408 1 44 4111 3402 8  5  17  2  372 22 409 2  4112 3403 9  6  1 Psammis 6. 3  373 23 410 3  4113 3404 10  7  2 4  374 24 411  4  4114 3405 11  8  3 5  375 25 412  1 45 4115 3406 1 Zedechiah 11.  9  4  6  376 26 413 Zedekiah began about the beginning of the fourth month, and reigned eleven years complete, and some few days more, jer. 52. 2  4116 3407 2  10  5  7 3 377 27 414 3  4117 3408 3  11  6  1  378 28 415 4  4118 3409 4  12  1 Apries 25. 2  379 29 416 1 46 4119 3410 5  13  2 3  380 30 417 2  4120 3411 6  14  3 4  381 31 418  3  4121 3412 7  15  4  5  382 32 419  4  4122 3413 8  16  5  6  383 33 420  1 47 4123 3414 9  17  6  7 4 384 34 421 At Autumn a year of Rest began, and was that Rest metioned jer. 34.8. 2  4124 3415 10  18  7  1  385 35 422 3  4125 3416 11  19  8  2  386 36 423 4  4126 3417 * ¶  20  9  3  387 37  * ¶ In this year the Temple destroyed by Nabuchadnezzar before the full end of his 19th year, 2 Kin. 25.8. It was is the first year of the 48. Olympiad. 1 48 4127 3418 —  21  10  4  388 38  2  4128 3419 —  22  11  5  389 39  3  4129 3420 —  23  12  6  390 40  4  4130 3421 **  24  13  7 5  ** In this year (before the beginning of the four and twentieth year of Nabuchadnezzar) the 390. and 40. years of Ezekiel ended, Ezek. chap. 4. & jer. 52.30.  49   

SECT. VI Of the sixth Period, from the destruction of the Temple by Nabuchadnezzar, to the beginning of the building thereof again by Zorobabel in the second year of Darius' King of Persia.  
THis next Period is the time that the Temple lay waste, and is a Period of 68 years complete; the first whereof began in the year of the Julian Period 4126, and the last was ended in the year of the same Period 4194, which was the first year of the 65 Olympiad, the 228 of Nabonassar, and second of Darius the son of Hystaspis.  
This the Prophet showeth, Zach. 1.12. Where he telleth that the second year of that Darius who gave order by his Edict for the building again of the Temple, was the seventieth year from the desolation of the Cities of Judah and jerusalem. For Oh Lord of Hosts (saith he) how long shall it be before thou takest pity on Jerusalem, and on the Cities of Judah, with which thou hast been angry: This is the seventieth year. Thus that Prophet: In which words we are to note, first that these 70 years, at the time mentioned, were not complete, but current; And secondly that they are to begin at the demonstration of God's wrath fully and firmly fixed against the Cities of judah and jerusalem: which I take to be then when the Jews were made to see and perceive that their great hopes of help from Egypt were become frustrate and void, Pharaoh's Army being beaten back from the succour of jerusalem by the Chaldeans, who put that Army to flight, and then returned again to jerusalem, against which they then laid that siege, which from thenceforth continued without any further interruption until the City was taken. Now this return I have already noted to be on the fourth day of May, in the year of the Julian Period 4125: from whence to the fourth of May in the year of the same Period 4195 are fully 70 years. But because these years were not complete at the time when the Angel made mention of them, we shall not need to descend so low as the fourth of May on which they were ended, but rather and indeed have recourse (as the seventh verse showeth) to the 24 day of the eleventh month, whilst the second year of Darius was still running on: and so doing we shall come as I take it, to the twelfe day of February which was before the fourth day of May before mentioned; at which time not only was the seventieth year unfinished, but also the second of Darius was not ended: for the years of Darius did so begin and end, as one year of his reign did certainly partake with two years of the Julian Period. And therefore though the second year of Darius here mentioned began in the year of the Julian Period 4194, yet it was not ended in that year, but at the least did reach beyond March in the year 4195; as appeareth by the third day of Adar which was about the tenth day of March in that year when this Temple was finished. See Ezr. 6.15.  
And thus is this a plain proof: howbeit I find it contradicted by Joseph Scaliger, not only in his Animadversions upon Eusebius, but 
* lib. 6. De Emendat. Tempor.  elsewhere; affirming that the Temple was not restored until the second year of Darius Nothus, near an hundred years later than this second of Darius Hystaspis.  
But what though Joseph Scaliger thinketh so? Josephus the Jew thought otherwise; so did the ancient Christian Fathers, Clemens, Eusebius, Augustine, Hierom, and others. Severus Sulpitius indeed is of Scaligers side, and so doth Tertullian also confusedly seem to be, beside many other late writers, who take part with Scaliger: but we may justly call them all into question with him in this particular; not out of any Spirit of contradiction, but for the advancement of a more likely truth. For what saith the Prophet Haggai, c. 2. v. 3? Who is he among you who saw this House in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? Is it not in your eyes, in comparison of it, as nothing? yet now be strong, etc. By which words we see that both Houses must be in the memory of a man, and some must be then alive who saw both: which in the second of Nothus, upon due consideration, will be scarce thought probable.  
The like may be also thought concerning the ages of Zorobabel and Joshua, who were in office in the first year of Cyrus, and so continued till the Temple was built, and after: but from the first year of Cyrus to the second of Darius Nothus, were an hundred and thirteen years; and from the destruction of the Temple in the nineteenth of Nabuchadnezzar, to the same time, an hundred sixty and five years: to which must be added such a competent number of years more as shall make them who are officers capable of office, and the other apt to remember from the time that we account; and so to remember, as that they be able to judge between the glory of the one House, and the glory of the other House, which a child of few years could not do. And note that these distances are thus, in regard that the ninteenth of Nabuchadnezzar was in the year of the Julian Period 4126; the first of Cyrus over Babylon, in the year of the Julian Period 4178; and the second of Darius Nothus, in the year of the Julian Period 4291.  
But the adverse party have answered. And first (say they) we mistake the Prophet Zachary. For although he speaketh of 70 years in the days of Darius, yet he doth not mean that those 70 years ended but then. His meaning rather is, that the Jews had endured the 70 years of Captivity which were prophesied of, and yet they saw not the full restitution of their City and Country: and therefore saith the Angel, Domine, quousque? Lord, How long? etc. As if he should say, The 70 years for the desolation of Jerusalem are long since ended, and wilt thou still be angry with thy people?  
Which answer though it may a little colour the business, is nothing at all convincing: for the words of the Text do plainly show that the last of those years was but then when the Prophet had his vision: and therefore saith the Angel, This is the seventieth year. Which (as at the first verse appeareth) was even then when the word of the Lord came to Zedechiah in the second year of Darius. To which reply 
* lib. 12. De Doctr. Temp. cap. 24.  Petavius well accordeth, saying; Haec est certissima loci hujus interpretatis, This is a most certain interpretation of the place. And so also Cluverus, in his Computo Chronologico. Nor is this but confirmed further out of Zach. 2.4. where the said Prophet Zachary is called a young man, even in the days of that Darius who made an Edict for the building of the Templ; eand yet this Zachary was one who prophesied before, among them that prophesied in the second year of Cyrus, when the foundation first was laid, after the Captivity, that it might be built; as may be gathered out of the eighth Chapter of the same Prophecy, at the ninth verse. And if but a young man in Darius his time, and yet a Prophet before when Cyrus reigned, in whose second year the foundation of this Temple was laid, how can it be that the time for the building of it should be so late as the reign of Darius Nothus? for if Zachary lived till then, he must not be young, but very old, Zacha. 8.9.  
Beside, in the seventh chapter of the same Prophecy, at the first and fifth verses, the Prophet again speaks of 70 years in the fourth year of Darius, which being accounted from the year of the Julian Period 4126. (when both City and Temple were destroyed) do end exactly in the fourth year of Darius, as is required, not Nothus, but Hystaspis.  
2. Go we on therefore to the next, Neither is it granted (say they) that the Prophet Haggai speaketh of any who had seen both Temples. For by an usual manner of speaking the phrase of the Prophet imports but this: namely, That if any were alive who had seen the former Temple, he would take this latter as nothing to that. For when the Prophet saith, who is he among you, etc. he doth but express himself as our Saviour did in the Parable of the lost sheep, Luke 15.4. saying, which of you having an hundred sheep, etc. that is, If any among you having an hundred sheep, Matth. 18.12. Thus they answer. But here is no Parable; nor will the words admit of any such gloss. For the Prophet speaketh to them in the second person, saying: Is it not in your eyes? that is, In yours which did know and see the other Temple. This is the plain sense without any wresting or flying from that which was spoken properly to what was spoken Parabolically. One therefore saith Sed hoc festivum est; & nulla responsione dignum, quod locum allegatum Haggaei prophetae in modum Parabolae accipiunt. 
Pawell in his Concil. Chro. pag. 114. 115.  And a little after, Nullibi verbum hic substantivum subjunctivi modi in tempore imperfecto, cum particula conditionali. But I can prove it further; For they were (saith Ezra) the children of the Captivity who as soon (as the Temple was built) kept the Passeover upon the fourteenth day of the first Month, Ezr. 6.19. And if the children of the Captivity, than not the children of a new Age; as by and by shall be further manifest. And if not the children of a new Age; then they were such as had seen as well the former as the latter house.  
3. Come we then to the next: to which they answer, That the Ages of Joshua and Zorobabel, though extended as far as Darius' Nothus, were not so long but that they might live till then.  
So say I; they might live so long; But that they did, is very improbable: and most of all that they should live so long fit for action and public employment. For by this account they must be in office together 117. years at the least, from the first of Cyrus to the sixth of Darius Nothus: but how old they were when they entered on their office, how long in it before the Captivity ended, or at what time they died after the Temple was finished, is not declared. And indeed it is too much to grant, without better evidence, that in an hundred & seventeen years and more should be but one high Priest, and that in the times following (being about 115. years) till the end of this Monarchy there should be five; as may be seen Neb. 12.10. I take therefore this proportion of time to be as true as that other assertion of theirs annexed hereunto, That in 150 years (for so long must be by them till Nehemiah came up) there should be but one governor, namely Zerobabel; and that Nehemiah was the next after him, none coming between: whereas the truth is, there were some between & such as had oppressed the people, mentioned by Nehemiah, though not named who they were, Neh. 5.15.  
Beside, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah demanded in what case they were at Jerusalem, who were the remnant of the Captivity, Neh. 1.2, 3. And if so long after the building of the Temple, as the twentieth of Artaxerxes a remnant of them who went into Captivity were still alive, the difficulty increaseth, and cannot be removed but by yielding to them who stand (as they ought) for the second year of Darius the son of Histaspis. Which reply I shall confirm yet further by what is afterward mentioned by Nehemiah c. 7. v. 4. where he confesseth that the people in the City, in the twentieth of Artaxerxes aforesaid, were but few, and therefore many houses still unbuilt; giving thereby great suspicion still to this supposed lengeh of time. For when they returned out of Captivity, 
* Ezra 2.64.  Ezra saith there were 42360. of them, beside their man-servants and their maidservants, of whom there were 7337. which added to the other do make 49697 in all. Now that in 150 years (for so long must be to the twentieth of Artaxerxes who was after Darius Nothus) this company should be no better increased, but that Nehemiah must complain of an empty City, is a thing very unlike, considering the natural fruitfulness of that Nation, and those infinite multitudes whereunto they grew within 40 years after in spite of the continual wars which daily did consume them.  
But perhaps you will say, the other Cities had emptied this, and therefore there were but few. Surely not: for (as may be gathered out of the eleventh Chapter of Nehemiah) those Cities about Jerusalem had but 30440. in them; because the Tithe, 
Neh. 11.1.  which was chosen by lot out of every company, amounted but to 3044.  
There were therefore before this Tything was made, more in Jerusalem for the part (considering the company which came up at the first) than in the other Cities: which number surely would have been so much increased by Nehemiahs' time, that he should not have needed to have complained for lack of inhabitants, if the time had been so long as Scaliger and his followers would make it.  
But they object further concerning the time of this Temple, that it could not be till the days of Darius Nothus, because the decree which Cyrus made concerning it was forgotten; witness the great search that was made about it, no man alive being able to remember it.  
To which I answer, that the Adversaries of the Jews would be sure to carry the matter against them as cunningly as they could; and therefore having recourse to a King newly come to his throne, they might and did desire search to be made among the Rolls, hoping that either Cyrus had not registered the Decree that he made (especially seeing it concerned not his own people) or else that it might be lost through negligence; or else these might be other and younger Adversaries than those who at the first withstood the building; & therefore on their own knowledge could not remember it. Nay though there might be enough alive who could easily remember the departing of the Jews home again into their own Country; yet that the building of their Temple was granted by Decree, and that Decree registered, but few regarded; and indeed might rather think there was no such thing then that there was, because the building was hindered in Cyrus his life time, as the Prophet Daniel showeth. For in the third year of Cyrus, the Prince of Persia withstood it, Dan. 10.1.13.  
But they have this to object, That for all this it must be Darius' Nothus who restored the Temple, and not that other Darius the son of Hystaspis, because (as Ezra, c. 4.) it must be such a Darius as had an Artaxerxes before him, and an Artaxerxes after him: which none of the Kings of Persia had but Darius Nothus.  
To which is answered, that Cambyses succeeding his Father in the throne is called by Ezra, c. 4. vers. 6. by the name of Ahasuerus, which was his Imperial name; and was so called as being the first that obtained the Persian Monarchy by the right of inheritance: for such (saith Master Lydiat) is the signification of the word Ahasuerus or Assuerus. Nor will Scaliger himself but confess that it was ordinary with these Kings to change their names when they took the Government of the Empire upon them, as Cluverus observeth in his Computo Chronologico. Cambyses therefore is not unfitly taken for Ahasuerus, Ezra 4.6. Next after whom was Magus the Magician, who reigned under the name of the brother of Cambyses, the other son of Cyrus, called by Ctesias (not Smerdis, as in Herodotus, but) Tanyoxarces, or Tanyoxerxes: the same sure which Ezra calleth Artaxerxes, or Arthashast, Ezra 4.7. So that thus we have the first Artaxerxes, he who was before Darius. And as for the other after him, we need not make question but he was Artaxerxes Longimanus: For though Longimanus did not immediately succeed Darius, yet was he the first King after him who shown favour in the restoring Jerusalem.  
If they say the reign of the Magician was too short to have any hand in the hindering the building of the Temple; I answer, it was not so short as some may imagine: for though he reigned but seven months after the death of Cambyses, yet was not that the whole time of his reign: for he sat in the throne a good while before, even most of the time that Cambyses was out of Persia making war in Egypt and in Ethiopia, and against the Ammonians.  
To all which, Petavius well accordeth, in his twelfth book and 25 Chapter, De Doctrina Temporum: where noting the Kings of Persia in that order wherein they stand in the book of Ezra, thus he saith; The first is Cyrus, than Assuerus, cap. 4.6. to whom the Jews were accused. Then Artaxerxes, verse 7. who also favoured the Jews enemies, and forbade the building of the Temple. Afterwards Darius, cap. 5. in whose second year the Temple is restored. And after him Artaxerxes.  
That Artaxerxes (saith he) who is mentioned next after Assuerus, was not Longimanus; but either the same with Assuerus, as Josephus thinketh: supposing Cambyses to be signified by both those names; to whom Torniellus agreeth. Or else to speak truly, Assuerus is Cambyses; and Smerdis (the Magician) Artaxerxes, who cunningly held the Empire eight months after Cambyses: and hath some of his acts remembered by Herodotus; as that he should free his subjects from tribute, and grant them a cessation from military employments for the space of three years, yea even for almost six years did this personated brother of Cambyses lie hid saith Ctesias, and carried himself so cunningly as if he had been Tanyoxerces indeed, whom Herodotus call Smerdis. Quare & ad hunc trahi non immerito potest, quod in Esdra legitur; Praefectos adversus Judaeos literas ad Artaxerxem dedisse. Petau. De Doctr. Tempor. lib. 12. c. 25. Learned Langius likewise assenteth hereunto, and hath lately declared himself against Scaliger in this particular. Quid enim vetat (saith he) reliquorum Regum more, & hos, cum imperium capescerent, nomen mutasse: & ex Cambyse Oxyarem, sive Assuerum; ex Smerde supposititio (quem Ctesias Tanyoxarcen vocat) Artoxarcen factum fuisse? Thus he, with much more to the same purpose, in his second book and ninth Chapter, De annis Christi.  
And thus in this Section I have showed the true time of the building of Zorobabels' Temple, and proved it to be (not in the days of Darius Nothus, but) in the days of Darius the son of Hystaspis, who began his reign in the year of the Julian Period 4193, which was fifteen years after Cyrus proclaimed liberty for the Jews to return home again into their own Country: Which account doth exactly agree to the Celestial Observations of Ptolemy, joining the twentieth year of this Darius with the 246 of Nabonassar, as also the one and thirtieth with the 257 of Nahonassar: the first whereof was in the year of the Julian Period 4212, and the next in the year of the same Period 4223. In both which years the Moon is noted by him to be Eclipsed: The first, according to our Julian account, was on the nineteenth day of November; And the other on the 25 of April. Before which there is another Eclipse noted by him, in the seventh year of Cambyses, whereto he joineth the 225 of Nabonassar, and was in the year of the Julian Period 4191. The first of Darius Hystaspis must therefore needs be in the year of the said Period 4193.   

SECT. VII. Of the seventh Period, from the second year of Darius Histaspis to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.  
THis seventh Period is a Period of 65 years: which I cannot better demonstrate then by running through the reigns of all the Kings of Persia, from the first of Cyrus to the end of the last Darius whom Alexander conquered.  
I begin then with Cyrus, who by the consent of all Authors began to reign in the first year of the 55 Olympiad; viz. in the latter part thereof, which was in the year of the Julian Period 4155, at the Summer time whereof the second year of the said Olympiad began. He reigned 30 years, as Ctesias and most Authors write: of which, seven were over Babylon according to Xenophon; or nine according to Ptolemy in his Mathematical Canon of the Kings of Babylon. But I like best to follow Xenophon.  
The next after Cyrus was Cambyses, who had some kind of Dominion in the third year of Cyrus, as Daniel showeth; but from his Father's death (who died in the year of the Julian Period 4185) to his own death, he had but seven years and five months, as it is testified by Herodotus, and confirmed by Ptolemy. In Ctesias his fragment we find 18: which I believe to be a corruption, and should more rightly be eight; the last of which was incomplete, as by the seven years and five months noted in Herodotus well appeareth.  
This King Cambyses went to war in Egypt in the third year of the sixty third Olympiad, which was in the year of the Julian Period 4188; as Diodorus showeth, lib. 2. during which time of his war there, and in Ethiopia, and against the Ammonians, his Kingdom at home was governed partly by his own brother Tanyoxerxes, and partly by one of the Magoi of Persia who slew his brother and then counterfeited his person, and under the veil of his name held the Empire till the death of Cambyses and seven months after, at which time the chief Nobles of Persia discovering the fraud slew him, and advanced Darius the son of Hystaspis to the throne in the year of the Julian Period 4193.  
The next therefore that reigned after this counterfeit brother of Cambyses, was Darius the son of Hystaspis; the years of whose reign are so diversely computed by sundry Authors as that it may seem hard to say how long he reigned: For Tertullian, lib. contra Judaeos, gives him but ninteen years; the Marmora Arundelliana 28; Orosius 30; Ctesias 31; Julianus Toletanus 34; Herodotus 36; and Clemens of Alexandria 46. In which diversity, all the help that we have is from Herodotus; who, though he give him 36 years, doth nevertheless declare that he died in the fifth year after the Marathon war: which war was not till the second year of the seventy second Olympiad, in which was the one and thirtieth year of his reign: And therefore the whole time of his reign could be but 34 years complete, as Julianus Toletanus reckoneth; And of these he reigned but 33 before his son Xerxes was taken in to reign with him, as in Herodotus again appeareth, lib. 7.  
Xerxes therefore began in the year of the Julian Period 4226, and (as Diodorus saith) reigned something more than twenty years: after whom Artabanus (by whom Xerxes was slain) continued seven months, and at the end thereof Artabanus also being slain, Artaxerxes Longimanus began to reign alone, and died not until the seventh year of the Peloponnesian War in the winter time thereof; viz, in the year of the Julian Period 4289 almost finished; as both Thucydides and Diodorus witness, Thucid. lib. 4. Diodor. lib. 11. Ctesias therefore was right in giving 42 years to this King after the death of Artabanus.  
But we are to note that this Artaxerxes had a twofold beginning to reign: The one, some years before his Father Xerxes died: The other after his Father's death, when he had slain Artabanus, who slew his Father seven months before. From the first he reigned 49 years: and from the second but 42, as hath been showed. The first began in the year of the Julian Period 4240 towards the end thereof, even before the beginning of the seventh month: the other, in the year of the same Period 4247.  
Thucydides hath an eye to the first of these, and so have the holy Scriptures in accounting the years of this King: but other old Authors generally account from the latter time, when he began to reign alone; in which Diodorus a little differeth from Ctesias, and hath therefore but 40 years in the stead of 42.  
But now why this King should begin in his Father's life time, and so soon as I have mentioned, is in regard of what we find storied concerning the banishment of Themistocles the Athenian, who being expelled out of Athens by his unthankful Countrymen and Citizens, fled to the King of Persia for succour in the second year of the seventy seventh Olympiad, as Diodorus casts the time: and then we are sure Xerxes was living, because the time of his reign was something more than twenty years. Diodorus hereupon saith that Themistocles came to Xerxes, and so do some others; but Thucydides who was near those times, as also Plutarch, Charon Lampsacenus, and Aemilius Probus have witnessed that he came to Artaxerxes of late having begun to reign. And if to Artaxerxes of late having begun to reign, it must needs follow that Artaxerxes had a beginning before the second year of the 77 Olympiad, which (as appeareth by the account of daniel's 70 Weeks) was in the year of the Julian Period 4240 about the sixth month, which among the Jews was called Elul: and living after that till the seventh year of the Peloponnesian War, must needs have a longer time of reign from this beginning then either forty or two and forty years.  
But for a more clear demonstration, and so to reconcile these Authors that they may speak true on either side, let me add out of Petavius, namely, That Themistocles being banished came to come to Xerxes' King of Persia, as Diodorus and divers other Story-writers declare; and finding Xerxes busied in some expedition, or not in the City which was the seat of his Kingdom, he sent letters to his son Artaxerxes who of late had begun to reign, as Thucydides showeth. For in this respect Story-writers may indifferently relate that he fled as well to the one as the other: and our conclusion from hence may be, that he fled to the Persians, Xerxes yet living, when Artaxerxes was already taken in to reign with him in the Empire, as being the next that was to reign alone after him. Thus Xerxes also began to reign before Darius died, as hath been proved out of Herodotus. 
Petay. lib. 12. cap. 25.  For according to a Law among the Persians, when the King went to war abroad, he did for the most part appoint and constitute one of his sons for his successor; from which time some Authors account the years of such an one's reign, whilst others account but from the time of his Father's death. And in the Kingdom of Babylon, Nebuchadnezars reign began after the same manner, as by Berosus compared with holy Scripture may be seen. This was usual also among the Kings of Judah and Israel, as by the Scripture alone is: manifest: which not observed, hath caused many gross mistakes concerning the right reckoning of their reigns.  
Eusebius mentions the flight of Themistocles two years' sooner than Diodorus doth, who therefore casteth it into the fourth year of the seventy sixth Olympiad, which was in the year of the Julian Period 4241, and then was the first year of Artaxerxes still running on by my account.  
This of Eusebius I find approved by a late learned writer, Jacobus Armachanus in his Annals of holy Scripture; who says that it agrees conveniently enough to the tradition of Thucydides, which setteth the coming of Themistocles to Artaxerxes between the siege of Naxus and that noble victory gotten by Cimon over the Persians at Eurimedon; and doth withal place the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes between those bounds. For 
* viz. Thucydides.  he said, Themistocles then sent letters to Artaxerxes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of late having begun to reign; by which he both desired his friendship, and also promised his own aid to him against the Greeks'. From which is found out the true beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes, and is from hence proved not to be so late by nine years as is commonly accounted. Thus he, in his Annals I say of holy Scripture: which when I saw, I was not a little confirmed in my judgement. For though I accounted thus, long before I ever read any thing of his in this kind; yet for my better confirmation herein, I was glad to meet with the concurrence of so eminent a man: from whom though I  much in the ancient account of the Hebrew months and year, as also in some other particulars; yet here (as in many things elsewhere) I cannot but embrace him with much gladness, and shall ever esteem him (as sure enough he is) a man of excellent parts, great industry, piety, and much learning, worthy to be accounted among the number of those whose memories are precious after their deaths.  
But to return: There is moreover a passage mentioned by Petavius, out of Justin, to show the occasion of this beginning, as may be seen in his Doctrina Temporum, lib. 10. c. 25. where he also answereth to what Pererius objecteth against it. And indeed it is probable that when Xerxes (upon the death of Pausanias, who should have betrayed Greece to the Persians, but was discovered) went about to renew his war against the Grecians that then he took this his son Artaxerxes to reign with him, and to be his next successor, which Artabanus afterwards would have hindered and made void, but could not.  
The next after this Artaxerxes was Xerxes the second who reigned two Months, or (as Ctesias saith) 45 days. After whom Sogdianus had seven or eight Months more: And when Sogdianus was dead, Darius Nothus (in the year of the Julian Period 4290) began to enter upon those XIX. years which Diodorus saith was the time of his reign: according to whom I reckon the years of all the other Kings in this Monarchy to the end thereof. And must therefore give to Artaxerxes Mnemon after the death of Nothus 43 years. To Artaxerxes Ochus after the death of Mnemon 23. To Arses after Ochus 3. And to Darius Codoman after Arses 6.  
And thus we have all the Kings of this Monarchy together with the years of their reign: and do thereby find the death of the last of them to be in the year of the Julian Period 4384. But for a more clear demonstration, see the Table following.  
Y. of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Rests & Jubilees Captivity. Olympiads. Egypt. Babylon Lydians Medes. Persians A Perfect Table for the better understanding of some of the former and following Passages. 4131 3422 1  24 2 14  25  35  13  CYRUS over Persta. *  This was the 24th year of the Captivity, the fourteenth year of Apries King of Egypt, the 25th year of Nabuchadnezzar King of Babylon, the 35. of Halyattes King of Lydia, and the thirteenth of Astyages King of Media. 4132 3423 2  25 3 15  26  36  14   4133 3424 3  26 4 16  27  37  15   4134 3425 4  27 1 17  28  38  16   4135 3426 5  28 2 18  29  39  17   4136 3427 6  29 3 19  30  40  18   4137 3428 7 6 30 4 20  31  41  19   4138 3429 1  31 1 21  32  42  20    4139 3430 2  32 2 22  33  43  21    4140 3431 3  33 3 23  34  44  22    4141 3432 4  34 4 24  35  45  23   Tyrus is yielded to Nabuchadnezzar, and Egypt is conquered soon after, continuing under Babel forty years. 4142 3433 5  35 1 25 Amafis 45. 36  46  24   4143 3434 6  36 2 1 37  47  25   4144 3435 7 7 37 3 2 38  48  26   4145 3436 1 Jub. xviii. 38 4 3 39  49  27  1 * Nabuchadnezzar is seven years mad. 4146 3437 2 39 1 4  40  50  28  2 4147 3438 3 40 2 5  41  51  29  3  4148 3439 4 41 3 6  42  52  30  4  4149 3440 5 42 4 7  43  53  31  5  4150 3441 6 43 1 8  44  54  32  6  4151 3442 7 1 44 2 9  45  55  33  7  4152 3443 1  45 3 10  1 Evilmerodaeh 12. 56  34   Evilmerodach began in this year, and reigned twelve years. Sulpit. 4153 3444 2  46 4 11  2 57  35   4154 3445 3  47 1 12  3 1 Crefus 14. 1 Cyaxares secundus.  Astyages being dead, Cyaxares began. Xenoph. 4155 3446 4  48 2 13  4 2 2 1  In this year Cyrus is made General of the Persian and Median Forces; from which time his thirty years of reign are to be accounted. 4156 3447 5  49 3 14  5  3 3 2  4157 3448 6  50 4 15  6  4  4 3  4158 3449 7 2 51 1 16  7  5  5 4  4159 3450 1  52 2 17  8  6  6  5  4160 3451 2  53 3 18  9  7  7  6   4161 3452 3  54 4 19  10  8  8  7   4162 3453 4  55 1 20  11  9  9  8   4163 3454 5  56 2 21  12  10  10  9   4164 3455 6  57 3 22  1 Belshazzar 14. 11  11  10  Evilmerodach being slain in battle, Belshazzar began, and reigned 14. years. Sulpit. 4165 3456 7 3 58 4 23  2 12  12  11  4166 3457 1  59 1 24  3 13  13  12  4167 3458 2  60 2 25  4 14  14  13  In this year Cyrus conquers Croesus, and possesseth his Kingdom. 4168 3459 3  61 3 26  5  15  14  4169 3460 4  62 4 27  6  16  15   4170 3461 5  63 1 28  7  17  16    
Y. of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Rests & Jubilees Olympiads. Persians Medes. Egypt. Babylon Captivity. A Perfect Table for the better understanding of some of the former and following Passages. 4171 3462 6  2  17 18 29 8  64  4172 3463 7 4 3  18 19 30 9  65  4173 3464 1  4  19 20 31 10  66  4174 3465 2  1 60 20 21 32 11  67  4175 3466 3  2  21 22 33 12  68  4176 3467 4  3  22 23 34 13  69  4177 3468 5  4  23 24 35 14 Cyrus 7. 70  4178 3469 6  1 61 24 25 36 1 Babylon is taken by Cyrus, and the seventy years of the Captivity are ended, even in this first year of Cyrus, which was also the first of Darius-Medus. 4179 3470 7 5 2  25  37 2 4180 3471 1  3  26  38 3  4181 3472 2  4  27  39 4  4182 3473 3  1 62 28  40 5  Egypt shakes off all subjection to the Kingdom of Babylon, forty years after Nabuchadnezzar conquered it, Ezek. 29.13. Jer. 46.26. 4183 3474 4  2  29  41 6  4184 3475 5  3  30  42 7  4185 3476 6  4  43 1 Cambyses 7. & 5 m. Cyrus' being dead, Cambyses began to reign alone, and reigned from hence seven years and five months. Herodot. 4186 3477 7 6 1 63  44 2 4187 3478 1  2  45 3 4188 3479 2  3  6 4 Cambyses conquers Egypt; and being absent from home, hath his Kingdom governed by the Magoi of Persia, when they had slain his brother. 4189 3480 3  4  m 5 4190 3481 4  1 64  6  4191 3482 5  2  7  4192 3483 6  3  8  Magus seven months after Cambyses. 4193 3484 7 7 4  1 ¶ Darius Hystaspis 34. Darius' the son of Hystaspis 34 years. 4194 3485 1 Jub. nineteen. 1 65  2  Haggai and Zachary Prophecy in this year and exhort to the building of the Temple. 4195 3486 2 2  3   4196 3487 3 3  4   4197 3488 4  4  5   4198 3489 5  1 66  6  4199 3490 6  2  7  in this year (before the sixth year of darius was ended) the building of the temple was finished on the third day of the month adar ezra 6.15. 4200 3491 7 1 3  8  4201 3492 1  4  9  4202 3493 2  1 67  10  4203 3494 3  2  11  4204 3495 4  3  12  4205 3496 5  4  13  4206 3497 6  1 68  14  4207 3498 7 2 2  15  4208 3499 1  3  16  4209 3500 2  4  17  4210 3501 3  1 69  18   
Y. of the Julian Period. Teers of the World. Rests & Jerbilees Olympis. Persians. A perfect Table for the better understanding of some of the former and following Passages. 4211 3502 4  2 19  4212 3503 5  3 20 ☽ In this year (being the 246 of Nabonassar) Ptolemy notes an Eclipse of the Moon, which by the Julian Calendar was on the nineteenth of November: It was, as he also saith, in the twentieth year of Darius Hystaspis.  4213 3504 6  4 21   4214 3505 7 3 170 22   4215 3506 1  2 23   4216 3507 2  3 24   4217 3508 3  4 25  4218 3509 4  171 26  4219 3510 5  2 27  4220 3511 6  3 28  4221 3512 7 4 4 29  4222 3513 1  172 30  4223 3514 2  2 31 ☽ Here again Ptolemy notes another Eclipse of the ☽ in the 31 of Darius, and year of Nabonassar 257. it was by the Julian Calendar April 25.  4224 3515 3  3 32   4225 3516 4  4 33   4226 3517 5  173 34 1 Xerxes 20. ¶ In this year Xerxes began to reign, and reigned somewhat more than twenty years. Diod. This King in the Book of Esther is called Ahasuerus, as is supposed, and thought to be the Husband of Esther. Scalig.  4227 3518 6  2 ARTAXERXES from hence 49.  2  4228 3519 7 5 3 3  4229 3520 1  4 4   4230 3521 2  174 5   4231 3522 3  2 6  4232 3523 4  3 7  4233 3524 5  4 8  In this year Xerxes began to move towards Greece.  4234 3525 6  175 9  In this year he cometh into Greece with his huge Army, and is quickly beaten home again. Petau. lib. 13.  4235 3526 7 6 2 10   4236 3527 1  3 11   4237 3528 2  4 12  4238 3529 3  176 13  4239 3530 4  2 14  4240 3531 5  3 1 15  In this year (about the sixth month) Artaxerxes Longimanus began first of all to reign; he reigned till the seventh year of the Peloponnesian War, dying in the Winter time thereof, and had therefore from hence 49 years of reign, though from the death of Artabanus but 42 Ctes.  4241 3532 6  4 2 16   4242 3533 7 7 177 3 17   4243 3534 1 Jub. xx. 2 4 18   4244 3535 2 3 5 19   4245 3536 3  4 6 20  4246 3537 4  178 7 7 m Artabanus (after Xerxes) seven months. 4247 3538 5  2 8 1 Artaxerxes 42. In this year,  ethe seventh of Artaxerxes was ended, Ezra having obtained a Commission from the King, (who now began to reign alone) beginneth his journey to Jerusalem on the first day of the first month, Ezr. 7.9  4248 3539 6  3 9 2  4249 3540 7 1 4 10 3  4250 3541 1  179 11 4   
Y. Of the Julian Peiod. Yerrs of the World. Rests & juhilees. Olympiads. Persians A perfect tAble for the better understanding of some of the former and following Passages. 4251 3542 2  2 12 5   4252 3543 3  3 13 6   4253 3544 4  4 14 7   4254 3545 5  180 15 8   4255 3546 6  2 16 9   4256 3547 7 2 3 17 10   4257 3548 1  4 18 11   4258 3549 2  181 19 12  In this year, on the sixth day of October (which was the 10th day foe the seventh month, the Sun being then in 7th d. of Libra) the first year of daniel's Weeks began. For in Dan. 9.25. the Angel showeth that they were to begin from the executionof the Decree of build again Jerusalem; which was not till the twentieth year of ARtaxerxes Longimanus, when God stirred up Hananis with certain other men of Judah, to go up to Shushan to Nehemiah, who related unto him the woeful condition Jerusalem still was in: he thereupon (after he had fasted and prayed) besought the King's leave and favour that he might go and build the City; which was granted. From hence herefore (even from the beginning of the these men's journey to Shusban) the precise account of these Weeks beginenth, which hereupon casteth the just middle of the last week into the year of the Julian Period 4746. and layeth it exactly on the third day of April: For form the sixth of October in this year, when the Sun was in the seventh degree of Libra, to the their dof October in the year of the Julian Period 4745. when the Sun was also in the seventh degree of Libra, were 486. years; to which add 182. days, and so we come to the third of April in the year of the same Period 4746 in which year, and on which very day our Saviour suffered. 4259 3550 3  2 20 13   4260 3551 4  3 21 14   4261 3552 5  4 22 15   4262 3553 6  182 23 16   4263 3554 7 3 2 24 17   4264 3555 1  3 25 18   4265 3556 2  4 26 19   4266 3557 3  183 27 20   4267 3558 4  2 28 21   4268 3559 5  3 29 22   4269 3560 6  4 30 23   4270 3561 7 4 184 31 24   4271 3562 1  2 32 25   4272 3563 2  3 33 26   4273 3564 3  4 34 27   4274 3565 4  185 35 28   4275 3566 5  2 36 29 Years of the Peloponnesian War.  4276 3567 6  3 37 30  4277 3568 7 5 4 38 31  4278 3569 1  186 39 32  4279 3570 2  2 40 33  4280 3571 3  3 41 34  4281 3572 4  4 42 35  4282 3573 5  187 43 36  4283 3574 6  2 44 37 1 This was the first year of the Peloponnestan War; it began at the Spring: witness that great Eclipse of the Sun which was on the fourth of August next after. This War lasted 27. years.  4284 3575 7 6 3 45 38 2  4285 3576 1  4 46 39 3  4286 3577 2  188 47 40 4  4287 3578 3  2 48 41 5  4288 3579 4  3 49 42 6  4289 3580 5  4 2m 8m 7 Xerxes the 2 d two months, after whom Sogdianus 8 m. 4290 3581 6  189 1 ¶ 8 In this year Darius Nothus began, and reigned 19 year's   

SECT. VIII. Of daniel's seventy Weeks, in the ninth Chapter of his Prophecy, at the 24.25.26. and 27. Verses.  
I Shall need to say nothing of the seventh Period more than what hath been already in the former Section, and Table annexed to it. I come therefore to the eighth which takes beginning the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the year of the Julian Period 4259, and endeth at the beginning of Christ's Ministry in the year of the same Period 4742. This is a Period of 69 Weeks, 
Petavius De Doctr. Temp. lib. 12. c. 35.  or of 483 years accounted from the Execution of the Decree for the restoring and building of Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, vers. 25. Of which Petavius speaketh excellently, in these words, saying; Sexaginta novem hebdomades desinunt in Christum Ducem; non nanscentem quidem, sed in lucem apertumque prodeuntem, seque ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, atque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accingentem; hoc est in Baptismum ipsius, qui anno primo septuagesimae hebdomadis incurrit. Meaning in effect the same that I do: for though he applies the end of the 69 Weeks to the Baptism of Christ; yet he saith as well that they end at Messiah the Prince: namely, not at the time when he was borne, but when he came abroad and shown himself openly, beginning to dispose of his hid treasures, and to preach the Gospel in the Synagogues of Galilee; which was not until the very end of these 69 Weeks (made up of seven and sixty two) and beginning of the seventieth. For (as before I noted, in the fifth Chapter) after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and saying; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The time is fulfilled (that is, the last Week of the seventy is come) and the Kingdom of God is at hand, Mar. 1.14. In the middle of which last week, the Messiah (Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour) was slain, vers. 26. And by the end of it, the Covenant was confirmed with many of the Jews, verse 27. Immediately after which time, the Apostles turn to the Gentiles, Acts 10.1. and Acts 11.18.  
They were all of them Weeks (not of Days, but) of years; according to the custom of Prophetical Days, and years of Jubilee: there being seven Weeks in 49 years, as is seen in Levit. 25.8. Whereupon it followeth, that in seventy Weeks are 490 years. There can be no doubt of this: I may therefore go on; and for the more clear understanding of what I have already briefly touched, set down the words of the text, in each verse, at large.  
Ver. 24. Seventy Weeks is cut out upon thy people, and upon thy holy Cities, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up Vision and Prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy.  
Ver. 25. Know therefore and understand, that from the Out-going of the word to return and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven Weeks, and threescore and two Weeks: it shall be built again, Street and Wall, even in the straight of times.  
Ver. 26. And after the threescore and two Weeks, shall Messiah be slain, but not for himself: wherefore the Prince's people to come shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary, and the end thereof shall be with a Flood, and unto the end of the War desolations are determined.  
Vers. 27 But in one week he shall confirm the Covenant with many; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the Sacrifice and the Oblation to cease: and by a Wing of abominations making desolate, he shall flow upon the desolate, even until the Consummation determined.  
These be the words of the Prophecy, carefully translated: which in the next place I think fit to open and explain, noting upon them as followeth.  
Vers. 24. [Seventy week's is cut out] By which phrase is meant, that the full and just number of 70 weeks is cut out. For when a Verb singular is joined to a Substantive plural, it teacheth in Hebrew that an exact account is then in every part thereof fully intended.  
Thy people] that is, Thy Country men the Jews; as may be seen in the first Chapter of Ruth, at the tenth verse: where the Jews are called Naomies' people. The like is also in the third Chapter of the Lamentations at the fourteenth verse; where Jeremy complaining, saith, He was a laughing stock to all his people.  
Thy Holy City] this means Jerusalem, Esa. 52.1. Matth. 4.5. so called because it was the special place consecrate to the holy worship of God. This Prerogative of being called The holy City, it was to retain (as here appeareth) until the full end of these 70. weeks: And therefore when Christ came, Salvation was first tendered to the Jews. They in general made light of it, and put Christ to death: howbeit the covenant of the Gospel was confirmed with many of them during the time of the last week; which being ended, their Prerogative ceased, and thereupon the Apostles turn to the Gentiles, to whom the Gospel began not to be preached until three years and an half after Christ's Passion, at which time every one of the Seventy weeks were fully ended. Now this holy City was called daniel's City, either because he was born there or because that was the place of his bringing up, or in which he dwelled till he was carried away Captive. Thus Capernaum is called Christ's City because he dwelled in it, Matth. 9.1. and Mar. 2.3. So also Rogelim was the city of Barzil. lai, 2 Sam. 19.38.  
To finish transgression and to make an end of sin] Or as some render it; To consume wickedness, and to abolish Sins: following therein the margin Hebrew, as an exposition for plainness. The text is to seal, or to make an end of Sin rather;  finem accipiat peccatum, that sin may have an end: as Saint Hierom interprets it & is approved, therein by a great Hebrician, who saith that according to the true reading of the words, they signify properly to consume, finish or end Sin. This was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who was that Lamb of God which taketh away the Sins of the world, Joh. 1.29. To which agreeth that of the Apostle, Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Rom. 6.18. And again, But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away Sin, by the Sacrifice of himself, Hebr. 9.26.  
And to make reconciliation for iniquity] This Christ did by appeasing and pacifying the wrath of God against sin: and it was an effect of his passion. For by his death we are reconciled unto God, Rom. 5.10. Coloss. 1.20.  
And to bring in everlasting righteousness] This Christ Jesus also did. For by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption, Hebr. 9 12.  
And to seal up vision and prophet] Meaning, that Messiah shall make good, fulfil and perform all the prophecies that were of him, of his Passion and resurrection, putting an end to them all, and that therefore we ought to look for no other, Luke 18.31. This we are also taught in the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, at the first verse. where the Apostle saith, God who at sundry times, and in divers manners spoke in time passed unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last times spoken unto us by his son.  
And to anoint the most Holy] Or the Holiness of Holiness: that is, the most holy. This is also meant of Christ, who was endued with the Holy Ghost without measure: even a very fountain of holiness was in him, of whose fullness we have all received, Joh. 3.34. Joh. 1.16. and 1 Cor. 1.30.  
In the time of the Law, the Kings, Priests & Prophets, when they first took their Offices upon them, were anointed with holy oil. And this was the Ceremony of consecrating them to the service of God in those callings. Now Christ was both King, Priest, and Prophet: he had in himself alone all those dignities at once together, to the which others were anointed severally; and is therefore called by way of eminency, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Messiah, that is, the anointed. For though he were anointed with no material oil, yet he was spiritually anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, Psal. 45.7. that is, with the holy Ghost. And hereupon it is that Saint John saith, Ye have an ointment from him that is holy, 1 Joh. 2.20, 22.  
Neither doth Christ himself but say as much: and thereupon when he began to preach, he showeth how the Prophet Esay pointed at him in this, Luke 4.18. It was an excellent saying therefore of Clemens of Alexandria: Our Lord Christ (saith he) the holy of holies, who came and fulfilled Vision and Prophet, was anointed in the flesh with the Spirit of his Father whose material anointings therefore of the Law; were nothing else but types & figures of this spiritual anointing of Christ, as Mr lively concludeth. And I would to God he had kept him close to this in his interpretation of the next verse: for it is as clear as the Sun at noon that there is but one and the same Messiah spoken of through out his Prophecy.  
And thus have we seen the generality of daniel's weeks. Now followeth a more special and particular handling them, divided into three parts in the verses following.  
Vers. 
The beginning of the 70 Weeks.  25. From the out-going of the word] This is commonly understood of the publishing or proclaiming of a decree by some of the Kings of Persia (either Cyrus, Darius or Artaxerxes for the restoring and building again of jerusalem. But more likely it is, that this out going of the word, should be rendered from the executing of the word or Decree for the return and building of jerusalem; that is (as the Hebrew phrase signifyeth) for the building again of jerusalem. Cyrus' made such a decree; in which, though 
* Ezr. 1.2, 3, 4. and Chro. 36.22, 23.  Ezra mentions only the Temple, as the chief part of the City: yet Esay showeth, that even the building of the City was included; as is plain by what is written in the four and fortyeth Chapter of his Prophecy, at the 28 verse; and in the Chapter next after, at the 13 verse. Darius' seconded this, when after Cyrus his time, the building was hindered, making the foresaid decree of Cyrus the ground of his favour and assistance. After which Ezra comes up, and by virtue of a commission granted to him from Artaxerxes Longimanus (in the seventh year of his reign) doth much good, 
Ezr. chap. 6. Ezr. chap. 7.  and goeth fairly on in repairing the desolations and wall (as is mentioned Ezr. 9.9.) but could not effect the whole business: for the Adversaries of the jews prevailed still against them. And therefore 13 years after all this, news is brought to Nehemiah at Shushan by Hanani and certain men of judah, that the jews were still in great affliction and reproach: for the wall of jerusalem was broken down, 
Neh. 1.2.3.4.  and the gates thereof burnt with fire. At the hearing whereof Nehemiah sat down & wept, and mourned certain days, and prayed before the God of heaven. After which prayer, because he was the King's Cupbearer, he was to attend upon his place: 
Neh. 2.5.6. etc.  and being observed to look heavy and sad in the presence of the King, the King demanded the reason; which he told him: and thereupon obtained leave and authority with letters of Commission from him to go up unto judah (the City of his father's Sepulchers) that he might build it; as may be seen in the first and second Chapters of Nehemiah. This was in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes afore mentioned: at which time Nehemiah came up and prevailed so fare against the Adversary, that the work went on, and a tithe was taken out of other Cities to come and dwell at jerusalem, the building whereof was never after hindered any more but by the end of the Seven Weeks (mentioned afterwards) was brought to perfection.  
And hereto agreeth Petavius saying; Exitus sermonis non Edicti solùm pronounciatio est, sed executio, lib. 12. De Doctr. Temp. cap. 35. And in the same book, at the 32 Chapter, speaking first of the common acceptation of the word, and showing how thereby the beginning of these Weeks is drawn to sundry times, by reason of several go forth of the Word, he concludeth and saith; At ego vocabulum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non solam arbitror edicti promulgationem, sed amplius aliquid esse: nempe id quod Latina vox proprie significat, veram ac seriam decreti illius executionem, etc. Meaning, That that which we commonly read from the going forth of the Word, is of larger extent than so; and doth therefore stand to express that which the Latin word Exitus properly signifieth, viz. A true and serious execution of the Decree for the building again of Jerusalem. And thus do I also understand it; only with this difference: By the Decree I understand that which was first set forth, even by Cyrus; for though it was seconded once and again, yet not fully executed till the days of Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, as I have already showed.  
Or however, be the reading according to the common acceptation, yet it must be with reference to the building again of Jerusalem, as the Original intendeth: and so we are still directed to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, when Nehemiah came up and built (not the Temple, but) the City for which he petitioned, even the City of his Father's Sepulchers, Neh. 2.5. And for this the King sent letters to the Governors beyond the River, and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the King's Forest: in which the word may very well be said to go forth for the building again of Jerusalem.  
So that both ways we are directed to one and the same time for the beginning of these Weeks.  
But for my part I like best of the first exposition. For (as is observed by others, as well as Petavius) it is genuina interpretatio, a genuine interpretation: nempe ut dicamus ex quo tempore res illa, quam Deus per Propehtas suos praedixerat, & quam Reges Persarum Edictis sanciverant, effecta est reddita, remotis omnibusremoris. So that Ab Exitu Verbi, is as much as Ex quo Verbum prodiit; id est, in effectum producta est.  
And thus much for the Out-going of the Word, by which we are taught where to begin the first year of daniel's Weeks.  
[To return and build Jerusalem] that is, To build again Jerusalem: for so the Hebrew phrase signifieth. As for Example: Isaac returned and digged the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his Father: for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham, Gen. 26.18. By which is meant, that he digged them again. Rursus fodit: so saith Saint Hierom. To which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Septuagint, well agreeth: and is therefore translated in our Bibles, Isaac digged again.  
So also in the fixed Chapter of Zachary, at the first verse: I returned and lifted up mine eyes and saw; That is, Lifting up mine eyes I saw again, as Tremelius translates the place.  
So also in the first Chapter of Malachi, at the fourth verse, We will return and build the desolate places: that is, We will build again the desolate places. And so here. To return and build jerusalem, is as much as to say, To build again jerusalem: and is therefore so interpreted by Saint Hierom, in his Comment upon the place. Which being well observed, will discover the gross mistake of those Expositors,, who imagine that the Angel speaks here concerning the return of the people out of the Captivity of Babylon, and that therefore the 70 Weeks must begin in the first year of Cyrus. But beside their mistake of the Hebrew phrase, the very time from thence to Christ will be against them.  
For should the Weeks begin at the first year of Cyrus his Monarchy, 
The Weeks begin not in the first year of Cyrus.  they would be ended long before Christ was born: but that may not be; for they must reach full three years and a half beyond his Passion; as is plainly manifest by the verses following.  
But to help this, some are bold to cut off at one blow no less then near a hundred years from the Persian Mornarchy, as if they had traitorously crept into the Chronology of those times: an easy way to make their accounts even, but no sure stay for truth to rest upon.  
I know and have seen their choicest arguments to uphold this tottering building, but by diligent search have found themfrivolous, there being nothing either in Beroaldus, Broughton, More, or others of them, but may be easily answered. But I list not to trifle away much time about them: Only in few words I shall say not only that the full current of Authors do begin the reign of Cyrus over Persia in the 55 Olympied, but even Thucydides (who wrote of the Peloponnesian War, saw it from the beginning to the end, was an Athenian Gentleman, a Captain in it, and Author for certain truth of History, and perfect reekoning of times most excellent: whose Works Demosthenes the famous Orator of Athenes Copied out with his own hands no less than eight times, as Lucian reporteth) he I say reckoneth from the Marathon fight in the latter end of Darius Hystaspis his reign, to the end of the Peloponnesian War 85 years: that is to say, ten to the invading of Greece be Xerxes, and 50 thence inclusively to the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, with 27 more to the end thereof. Now, that we may know how to place these in their right times, Xenophon (being the next after Thucydides) hath taught us that the four and twentieth year of the Peloponnesian War must be joined with the first year of the 93 Olympiad. Whereupon it must needs follow that the firstyear of this War began in the end of the first year of the 87 Olympiad: and the War of Xerxes in the first year of the 75 Olympiad: and the fight at Marathon in the end of the second year of the 72 Olympiad. Nor doth Thucydides but tell us as much; 
Thucid. lib. 2.  For as he declareth, the beginning of the Peloponnesian War was in the fifteenth year of that League which after the taking of the Island of Eubaea was made for 30 years to come, Aenesias being then Major of Sparta, and Pythodorus of Athens, the year of their Majorality now within two months expired, in the beginning of the Spring. Now the time of this League is referred by Pausanias (in the first of his Eliaca) to the third year of that Olympiad wherein Criso of Himaera won the race: which (according to 
* Antiq. Rom. lib. 10. prope finem, & li. 11. in princio. Lib. 2.  Dionysius Halicarnasseus) was the eighty third Olympiad. Account therefore 15 years from the third year of the 83 Olympiad, and the beginning of this War will fall into the latter end of the first year of the 87 Olympiad; where also 
* Perk. Harm. Script.  Diodorus Siculus hath placed the Majorality of Pythodorus, in the end whereof Thucydides beginneth that War. Which is also confirmed by an Eclipse of the Sun mentioned by Thucydides, and by Mathematical Calculation found to be then; beside other Eclipses, in some of the following years of the said War, fitly agreeing. These Charcters are regarded of the Learned, and not unfitly called Gharecteres infallibilies, & veré Bases Chronologiae fallere nesciae: Of which Master Perkins speaketh further, saying: Qui haec fictitia putoverit, eundem oportet Astronomiam omnem logisticam à radicibus revellere, etc. And a little after, Eo hoc mihi (saith he) documento est, initium Hebdomadum Danielis haud esse aptanduin annis vel Cyri, vel Darii Hystaspis: quia tunc Historiae humanae fere omnes, & Astronomicae observationes, ut supposititiae, fuerint negandae.  
Also, do not those Marmora Arundelliana, brought out of Asia hither, prove speaking stones to stop the mouths of those who rashly reject the allowed Antiquity of these times, and by proofelesse proofs cut off as many years from this Monarchy as they please? The Author of those Marbles was of no small standing, 500 years and more before Eusebius; and none among the Greek Historiographers more ancient than he, excepting Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, as Master Selden, that learned Antiquary of our times, hath plainly proved. Who, out of the said Marbles hath gathered, that Craejus began his reign in the first year of the 56 Olympiad; that Cyrus took Sardes in the third year of the 58 Olympiad; that the fight at Marathon (in quo Persarum clades, & Atheniensium victoria) was in the second year of the 72 Olympiad; that Xerxes went to War in Greece in the fourth year of the 74 Olympiad; That in the next year he was overthrown at Plataea, the fire of Aetna than first of all breaking out; and that the fight at Leuctra was in the second of the 102 Olympiad.  
Men than I see may cavil without cause, and make a disturbance in the Chronology of these times, but not prevail in what they strive for; no not with all the help Beroaldus and Master Broughton can afford them. To which let me add, how grossly they have been mistaken, not well observing how childishly they have shrunk the successions of sundry Lives. For when it is said that one man lived in such and such a man's days, they presently and rashly take their years and ages to be equal: which is in effect as if they should deny that ayoung man might not live in an old man's time, or that a grave Philosopher might not have a young Pupil, or that an aged Father might not sometimes beget a son in the time of his age, or that it was incredible to grant an hundred years for any man to live. All which are but poor shifts, little or nothing to the purpose, although at the first sight some perhaps may highly prise them.  
And so also for Olympiads; Broughton I confess hath gathered together many scattered fragments, chiefly out of Suidas, by which he thinks to overthrow the credit of Olympiads, and cast the handmaid out of service. But I answer, one Swallow is not enough to proclaim a Summer; nor be things done without care, able to prevail against the truth. Suidas in this deserves no better credit, unless we account him an expert Archer who kills a Crow by chance. In a word, most of his numbers were negligently corrupted, or were at the first not carefully gathered. And so also may we say of other Authors, who writ of such things as these are, only by the way, and not on purpose: Neither have some but oftentimes mistaken Suidas, taking his meaning in a wrong sense; chiefly when things are thought to be contemporary, which indeed are very far asunder: or if at all contemporary, but only in part; as I have already showed. And further, for Olympiads, that which hath caused others to deliver wrong collections from them, was because they did not follow the common course which was most usual in that kind of reckoning: for whilst from the beginning of sundry Games, they had a Series or order of sundry years, the fiftieth from one thing might be the 25th from another thing. And so Pausanias showeth, that there were at the least a dozen several Games, and Game-rulers accordingly, set up at several times far distant the one from the other: which not well regarded might make a confused Chaos amongst careless Authors. The truth therefore is, That that account which was most common, was least faulty: for it had but one head from whence to reckon, & was set forth in Tables by Hyppias of Elis, received also generally in Computations; yea even by Plutarch them self, although in the Life of Numa he moved some scruple about it: in which he seemed to savour of an usual custom of the Academical Sect, which was always ready furnished to dispute on either side, either pro or contra, either for or against the truth.  
I grant indeed that the ancientest of Antiquities among humane Authors cannot but be full of error: but this was rather in the times before the Olympiads then afterwards, as Marcus Varre a learned Roman well observeth; concluding the times after to be more certain and Historical, because then the times began to be recorded veris testatisque literarum Monumentis, as one rightly speaketh.  
Unto Varro agreed Julius Africanus, another ancient 
* He was a Christian Writer.  Author, who in the third book of his Annals (as Eusebius witnesseth in his tenth book De praeparat. Evangelica) writeth, that until the Olympiads there was no sure knowledge in the Greek History, all things being confusedly written without agreement between themselves: but after the Olympiads, because their acts were diligently registered within the limits of every four years' space, no confusion of times was found amongst them.  
After whom Censorinus also saith, that after the first Olympiad there never was any great dissension or controversy among Writers for Computation of time; except in some six or seven years at the most. Or if in some particular the difference perhaps might be something more, yet by comparing Author with Author, and circumstance with circumstance, I cannot but think that men of judgement may not only correct corrupted Copies, but even reconcile the most material disagreements, or at the least show how and wherein an Author sometimes hath been mistaken.  
In a word, this reckoning by Olympiads hath been allowed, followed, and commended by even the very flower and chief of the ancient Fathers; as by Clemens of Alexandria the Master of Origen, Julius Africanus aforementioned, Fusebius, Hierom, Augustine, Orosius, and others both pious and learned Christians. And among these, let me for a conclusion mention what Saint Augustine saith in Commendation of them, in his second, book and 28 Chapter De Doctrina Christiana: showing, That the observation of Olympiads is a great help for the understanding of many sacred questions, and explanations of matters Ecclesiastical; Nam & per Olympiadas (saith that Father there) & per Consulum nomina, multa saepe quaeruntur anobis. And a little before; Nos adjuvat (saith he) ad Sanctos libros intelligendos.  
I would therefore that every man would lay a side all rash and inconsiderate zeal, that so weighing things with an equal Balance, he may no longer be a careless disturber of the true and right Computation of these times.  
But they have objections out of Scripture. 
☜   
And first they produce the age of Mordecai, 
Mordeca's age objected.  affirming that he was carried captive with jechoniah, Esth. 2.5. and therefore could not live till the days of Xerxes: to which time he must live, if Xerxes were that Assuerus who married Esther.  
To which is answered, Answ. That Mordecai was not carried captive, but rather Kish the great Grandfather of Mordecai. For thus stand the words in the place objected: There was a certain Jew at Shushan the King's seat, 
sth. 2.5.  whose name was Mordecai the son of jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a man of jemini, who had been carried away from jerusalem with the Captivity, etc. Where the Relative [who] is to be referred not to the furthest Antecedent, Mordecai: but to the nearest, Kish; as may be seen in an Example much like it, in 1 Chron. 2.7. where the words are, And the sons of Carmi, Achar, the troubler of Israel, who transgressed in the thing accursed.  
And indeed to what other end should mention be made of Kish, or why is the Genealogy produced no higher than to him, but that thereby we may be taught, that he, and not Mordecai, went into Captivity? it was to show by his carrying away captive, how Mordecai a Jew, born of him, became Citizen of Shushan. And so also the Apocryphal fragment, in Esth. 11.4. (brought forth by some to prove the contrary) fully showeth, saying: Erat autem (viz. Mordecai) ex Captiva turba, quam captam Nabuchadnezzar abduxerat: that is, Mordecai arose of that company (or came of that company) which Nebuchaanezzar carried Catptive. Which well observed, doth excellently confirm the truth of Gods Promise made to his people, jer. 24.6. namely, That they should return, be built up, planted, and not rooted out: Whereupon they were commanded tomarry wives & beget children, that they might increase there, and not be minished, jer. 29.6. From which places itwell appeareth, that the promise was made to them and their posterity: the accomplishment whereof is excellently declared by this of Mordecai and Esther, both of them born in the time of Captivity.  
The truth of which is yet further manifest, in regard That that Mordecai which nourished Esther, was not the same who returned in the first year of Cyrus: For he who nourished Esther stayed still at Shushan; The other returned with them who went first into the Land of Judea, Neh. 7.7. It is not enough to say, he gave his name to go up, but went not; for what were this but to deny a plain and express testimony, as may be seen also, Ezra 2.2. And therefore these two not being both one, their opinion is still more and more weakened, who strive to prove Mordecai and not Kish, to be the man that was carried captive: for it was common and ordinary to call divers men by one and the same name; as afterwards shall be showed.  
Secondly, they object the age of Ezra the son of Seraiah, 
Ezra's age objected.  who was slain by Nabuchadnezzar in the nineteenth year of his reign, 2 Kin. 25.18. Arguing from thence that the time of the Persian Monarchy could not be so long as is usually accounted. For Ezra saw well near the whole time thereof, being alive in the days of Johanan the father of Jaduah, Ezra 10.6. Which Jaduah was high priest in the reign of the last Darius, when Alexander conquered the Monarchy and won it wholly from the Persians, Neh. 12.22. See also Joseph. in the eleventh book of his Antiquities, at the seventh and eighth Chapters. Which being so, it will follow that had Ezra been begot but a day before his father's death, his age must be 250 years or thereabouts, though we account not to the end of this Monarchy by almost ten years.  
To which I answer, There is ambiguity in the word Son, Answ. which men take properly, as if Ezra had been the immediate son of Seraiah: whereas he was so Seraiahs' son, as the Jews used to call their posterity by the name of Son, even to the fifth or sixth descent. As for example: Josiah is said to be the father of jechoniah, Matth. 1.11. whereas the father of jeconiah was jehoiakim, 2 Chron. 36.8. So also Zedekiah is called in 
* 2 Chron 36.10.  one place the brother of jeconiah, and in 
* 1 Chro. 3.16.  in another place the son of jeconiah, because he reigned next after him; and yet we know, that by propriety of speech he was his uncle, as may be seen in 2 Kin. 24.17. So also Salathiel is called the son of jechoniah, Mat. 1.12. and yet not only did jeconiah die childless, jer. 22.30. but also Salathiel was indeed the son of Assir, 1 Chron. 3.17. So also Zorobabel is said to be the 
* Ezra 5.2. & Mat. 1.12.  son of Salathiel, Matth. 1.12. whereas he was not his immediate son: for Zorobabel was indeed the son of Pedaiah, 1 Chron. 3.19. So also the Prophet Zachariah is called the son of Iddo, Ezra. 5.1. whereas indeed he was the Grandchild of Iddo, and son of Barachiah, Zachar. 1.1. And more nearly concerning the party objected: it is not manifest that neither was he the proper and immediate son of Seraiah. For though Ezra in the 
* viz. Ezra 7.1.2. etc.  place objected made good his purpose, in showing (for his greater honour and renown) that he came from Aaron: yet he hath not precisely set down all his Ancestors which were in that line between Seraiah and Aaron, but hath omitted 
* viz. Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz, Azariah, and Jonathan: as may be seen by comparing Ezra 7.3. with 1 Chron. ca 6 ver. 7.8.9.10.  six in one place, and might also omit some in that other place between himself and Seraiah: for this we find herein to be true and certain, that jehozadak was the immediate son of Seraiah, as is expressly mentioned in 1 Chron 6.14. And therefore though Ezra were so near kindred to that stock, yet it might be in a collateral line by some that proceeded from Seraiah, and yet nevertheless be reckoned in Genealogy as if he were his son; according to that before mentioned of Salathiel, called the son of jeconiah; or that of Zedechia, in 1 Chron. 3.16. Where, though Zedechia were the Uncle, yet he stands upon record as if he were the very son of jeconiah: For thus we see some brought in as sons, which were indeed but near kinsmen.  
But for all this some perhaps will say, Object. the difficulty of too long an age is not yet quite taken away. For from the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus, to the end of the Persian Monarchy, were 122 years or thereabouts: and therefore Ezra living till towards the end thereof, will be still older than can be well allowed, though he were born after the Captivity, and were not the immediate son of Seraiah.  
To which I answer, Answ. that he was alive indeed in the days of johanan, and wrote the Books of the Chronicles to his time; as appeareth, Ezra 10.6. and Neh. 12.23. yet nevertheless he reached not to the end of the Monarchy by fare: not further then the days of Darius Nothus, Neh. 12.22. which could not be much more than 50 years after the time that he came away from Babylon to jerusalem: at which time suppose he were 40 years old, then should his whole time want ten of an hundred; which age no man of judgement would conclude to be improbable, but likely and probable enough. And herein Cluverus is to be applauded, who speaking of the high priests that were in the times of this Monarchy, saith thus; jehoshua was in that office 
* Ezra. cap. 2. and cap. 5.  under Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius Hystaspis; joiakim under Xerxes and in the forepart of Artaxerxes his reign, Ezra 8.33. Neh. 12.10. Eliashib after him till the twentieth of the same King and something lower, Neh. 3.1. joiada after him in the residue of Artaxerxes his reign, and in the forepart of Darius Nothus. jonathan after him in the 
* Neh 12.10.23.  residue of Darius Nothus, and under 
* Joseph. lib. 11. cap. 7.  Artaxerxes Mnemon. And last of all, jaduah under Ochus, Arses, and Darius Codoman, Joseph. lib. 11. cap. 8. All which proportions are so congruous and well agreeing to the stories of Ezra and Nehemiah, that no man I think who is serious will ever go about to alter them: except it be to make Jaduah's time fall also into a part of Mnemon's.  
But they have still to urge: 
Nehemiah's age objected.  and in the next place they object the age of Nehemiah, which must be longer than the length of this Monarchy; because (say they) at the beginning of it he was of fit age to be the Jews Captain and one of their Conductours home from Babylon: and living in the end of it, he wrote of their last Darius, and of Jaduah the High Priest who met and appeased mighty Alexander. For the proof of which we are directed to Ezra 2.2. Neh. 7.7. Neh. 12.22. and to Josephus, lib. 11. cap. 8.  
To which I answer, Answ. That that Nehemiah who was in the beginning of this Monarchy, was not the same who lived something towards the end of it, nor ever was sent to build the Walls of Jerusalem by Artaxerxes. For [first] that Nehemiah who was in the first of Cyrus, returned home at the end of the Captivity, Ezra 2.2. Neh. 7.7. Whereas this, who was servant to Artaxerxes, went not home till the Walls of Jerusalem were to be built, Neh. 2.5.8. Secondly, it was a common thing among the Jews to call more than one by the same name; as is evident almost in every Catalogue where Catalogues are recorded. As for example: In Neh. 12.1. there is an Ezra who returned with Zorobabel; and in Ezra 7.1. another who came not up until the days of Artaxerxes. Also, in Ezra 2.2. and Neh. 7.7. there is a Mordecai who returned in the first of Cyrus; and in Esther 2.5. another who lived at Shushan and nourished Esther: For if esther's Mordecai had returned with Zorobabel, he would not have dwelled at Shushan and trained up Esther among the Heathen but rather in the Holy Land among the people of God. Also, See the first book of the Chronicles, the Catalogues in Ezra and Nehemiah, and then amongst the multitude of persons, many are known by one name. A Jeremiah which (even Speed himself will say) was not Jeremiah the Prophet, Neh. 10.2. A Daniel likewise, though not the same who was cast into the Den of Lions, Neh. 10.6. A Seraiah also, though not the same who was slain by Nabuchadnezzar, Ezra 2.2. And in 1 Chron. chap. 6. two Abitubs, two Zadockes, and three Azariabs in one line.  
And so also for Nehemiah, he who came up in the first of Cyrus, was not Nehemiah the famous, but another of the same name. For I find three Nehemiahs in the History of these times: One, mentioned Ezra 2.2. Neh. 7.7. Another who returned in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, cap. 1. and cap. 2. And a third differing from all these. Nehe. 3.16. For Nehemiah the great was Nehemiah the sone of Hachaliah; but this other was Nehemiah the son of Azbuck, the Ruler of the half part of Bethzur.  
So then Nehemiah was not in the beginning of this Monarchy. And as not in the beginning, so neither in the end of it he was indeed in the days of Darius: but this was not the last Darius, as is commonly supposed. It was rather that Darius who reigned next after Artaxerxes Longimanus, as by the course of the History appeareth, and is so understood by Lydiat, Cluverus, Conradus, Pawell and others.  
But this you will say cannot be, in regard that Nehemiah was in the days of the High priest Jaduah, who (as josephus writeth) met and appeased mighty Alexander coming against Jerusalem, in the year before he conquered Darius Codoman, the last King of this Monarchy.  
To which Petavius answereth, 
Petavil. lib. 12. cap 25.  that Nehemiah indeed recorded the Priests and Levites so as his times; and then some one or other, coming after him, put in that of jaduah and the last Darius. The like where of is to be found in other Books of Scripture; as in the end of Deuteronomie, where those things that concern the death of Moses were written by some other. So also in the end of the Books of joshua, Tobias and jeremiah, some things are added which were not of the Authors putting in.  
But I like not of this answer so well as I like the answer of Master Lydiat in his Book De emendat Temporum, saying; that though Nehemiah maketh mention of jaduah in his Catalogue of the high Priests; yet thereby is only gathered, that writing his book in the days of Darius Nothus, and recording the High priests to that time, jaduah was borne heir to the Priesthood, and is therefore recorded among them: who afterwards succeeded his Father, and in his venerable old age came and met with Alexander.  
Like to which is also that of Cl●verus in his Computo Chronologico. or Nehemiah (saith he) non dicit se vixisse usq. ad tempus Darii ultimi, sed iste Darius, cujus meminit cap. 12.22. fuit Darius Nothus. Quod vel inde potest intelligi, quod eodem capite, v. 23. subdit, descriptos esse Sacerdotes usque ad tempora johannis, summi Pontificis. Is autem non fuit sub Dario ultimo, sed Iaddus ejus filius quem puerum videre potuit Nehemias', sed non summum Pontificem, neque etiam illud asserit. That is, Nehemiah doth not say that he lived to the time of the last Darius, but that Darius which he mentioneth, Chap. 12.22. was Darius Nothus; which we are given to understand even from that which he presently subjoineth in the same Chap. v. 23. namely, That the Priests were written to the times of johanan the chief Priest. But he was not under the last Darius; it was his son jaduah, whom Nehemiah might see being a child, but not a chief Priest: neither doth he say he did.  
So then, though Nehemiah might, and did, come low in the times of this Monarchy, yet not to the end of it by fare. For beside all this, jaduah began to be in the Priest's office 32 years at the least, before the last year of the last Darius, although he entered thereon but at the death of Mnemon; whereas no man can tell but he might be in the Priesthood some years before: and so, not only be old when he met Alexander, but also be so high in the Persian times, as Nehemiah might record him heir of the Priesthood. At which time though it were when Nehemiah was old, yet is not this granted without warrant: For, that Nehemiah lived till he was laden with age, Josephus affirmeth in his Antiquities, at the end of the fifth Chapter of the eleventh book.  
But I do ill, you will say, to mention Josephus: for by him Nehemiah (being of equal time with Sanballat) must be as low as the days of the last Darius. 
Joseph lib. 11. cap. 8.   
Whereto jansw. that though it be commonly collected from josephus, that he who resisted Nehemiah at the building of the walls of Jerusalem was the same Sanballat who obtained leave of Alexander to build a Temple on mount Garizim for his son in law Manasses; yet by Scripture records compared with his writings, it appeareth otherwise. For in Josephus, Manasses who was then the son in law to Sanballat, and cast out by a tumult of the people through the assistance of the high priest Jaduah, was the brother of Jaduah. But he whom Nehemiah mentioneth, was not the brother of Jaduah, but the brother of the father of Jaduah; and not cast out by the people assisted by the chief priest, but cast out by Nehemiah himself, as is manifest in Neh. 13.28.  
It can therefore be no absurdity to grant there were two Sanballats; the one in the days of Nehemiah, and the other in the days of the last Darius, and of Alexander magnus: which last died after the end of the Persian Monarchy, two years after the taking of Gaza, Joseph. antiq. lib. 11. c. 8.  
And thus having removed all such Scruples as may seem to hinder the beginning of daniel's weeks in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, I proceed, and go on to interpret the words following.  
Unto Messiah the Prince] This is meant of Christ Jesus our Lord; as may be seen Esa. 55.4. Psal. 2.2. joh. 1.41. For this is to be noted, that the word Messiah is never used for an Adjective being set before the Substantive, as here MESSIAH NAGID, Messiah the Prince. And therefore doth here mean no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, CHRIST THE LORD, as the Angel styles him, Luke 2.11. and is for certain a proper name in this text belonging unto him who is the Saviour of the world: who after seven weeks and threescore and two weeks was crucified upon the Cross, even in the last week of the Seventy. And note likewise, that when in other texts, it is attributed to other persons, it is then after another manner, having a Pronounce affixed, or a Substantive of the Genitive case: as, Mine anointed, Thine anointed, The anointed of God, his anointed, or The Priest which is anointed. But here is no such thing: and therefore must upon necessity mean CHRIT JESUS our Lord, and no other. Which even Rabbi Judah confesseth, in his Comment upon Daniel: alleging thereupon that saying of the prophet, in Esa 55.4. Behold I have given him for a witness to the people, a Prince and a Commander of the Nations.  
Seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks] These put together do make 69. weeks, or 483. years; whose precise end was at the beginning of Christ's Ministry: for than did Christ Jesus our Saviour [Messiah the Prince] openly manifest himself, being anointed to that office a little before when he was baptised by John in Jordan, & proclaimed then by a voice from Heaven to be the son of God. Both which fell into the year of the julian Period 4742. the one on the sixth of January, when he was baptised; the other, on the third of October, when he began his Ministry, 483. years from the beginning of the weeks. For in 69 weeks, are 69 sevens of years: and they put together do make 483. years.  
If it be objected, that the Medea distinctio, or the Hebrew point Athnah, standing in the original next after Seven weeks, are against this interpretation; my answer then is: that though there be indeed such a distinction or point there, yet the sense is not therefore to be suspended at Seven weeks, as if they might not together with the 62 make one whole number of 69. For in the first Chapter of Genesis, at the first verse, thewords and the points stand thus. In the beginning God: created the Heavens and the Earth. And yet there Athnah hath not so much as the force of a Comma.  
It would therefore be observed, that the holy Hebrew (as one saith) hath 19 Kingly accents, and eleven Servants: The Kings stay many times on the chief word or number in the sentence, whilst the servants hasten on. And although any King for the most part will make a full sense, as words be pointed in other tongues: yet sometimes not so much as a Comma:  
But why is seven separated from sixty two, Quest. and not rather 69 set down in whole number? Answ. I answer, the Angel dividing these weeks (which were 70) into sixty two, and one; sheweth what was to fall out in every of those parts. This first part thereof is for that which was done first: and because seven is fare less than sixty two, it is called after a Prophetical and obscure phrase, Astreight of times. In which first interval most like it is that the City was fully finished and set in order: That is, both public and private works and buildings; as houses, streets and ways, substituting of right Officers, with other things of the like kind. With which interpretation the interlineary Gloss agreeth, as Petavius noteth.  
Verse 26. And after 62 weeks Messiah shall be slain] That is, Sixty and two weeks after the Seven: for when the Seven weeks were ended, then were the 62. to take beginning, and the one week next after them for the confirming of the Covenant. In which one week it was that the Messiiah was slain: for as the Angel here showeth, it was after seven and sixty two; and therefore in the seventieth or last Week of the seventy. And why I say, after seven and sixty two, is because of the division: first seven, then sixty two. Which is all one with after sixty two, accounted from the end of the seven: for so without doubt the Angel meaneth. To which purpose Lansbergius noteth, saying: Non putat Angelus sexaginta duas Septimanas à principio septimanae primae, sed à fine Septimae: ut sensus sit, Christum moriturum esse Septimana Septuagesima. That is, The Angel accounteth not the sixty and two Weeks from the beginning of the first Week, but from the end of the seventh: so that the sense is, Christ was to die in the seventieth Week. But in what year of that Week, is showed afterwards.  
Shall be slain] The word in the Original is Carath, which signifieth to cut off either by banishment, or death. In the first sense Christ was cut off when the Jews said, We have no other King but Caesar, Joh. 19.15. and in the other sense he was cut off, when after their loud cries of crucify him, crucify him, they put him to death.  
But not for himself] This is likewise true of Christ, as the Prophet showeth, Esa. 53.4, 5, 6. But whether it be the right reading of this place, some make question: and do therefore render the words thus: And there shall not be unto him] that is, He shall not be; or not have any being, but be extinct and gone. Meaning, that being slain or cut off by death, he should have no longer being among the living: and so also Esay saith, He was cut off out of the Land of the living, for the transgression of my people was the stroke upon him, Esa. 53.8. All which was certainly fulfilled when Christ tasting death was not only buried, but by his enemies shut in the Sepulchre, lest he should again be seen in the Land of the living.  
And the people of the Prince to come, shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary] This is meant of the Romans under the Conduct of Titus the son of Vespasian Emperor of Rome, by whom the City of Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed: which is here foretold as a judgement to come upon the Jews for their putting Christ to death.  
And the end thereof shall be with a Flood] Meaning, that the Roman Army should be unto them as the overflowing of Waters in a Flood: and should therefore prevail against all the force that the forsaken Jews could make against them.  
And unto the end of the War desolations are determined] By which is meant, that so long as the War continued, should be nothing but desolations and destructions. Which accordingly came to pass, fast one upon another: first in one place, then in another, till all was wasted; as josephus hath at large declared, in his seventh book of the Jews War, at the first chapter, & in his sixth book at the first chapter likewise; as also in some other places of his writings. Whose relations do excellently agree with the word desolations in the plural number, here foretold by the Angel in the words of this prophecy.  
Ver. 27. One Week] This is the last week of the seventy: in which the Angel showeth, that though the Jewish Nation should be cast off, and their City and Temple destroyed; yet nevertheless the Messiah should for one whole Week Offer himself unto them, and gather many of them into the Covenant of the Gospel. This Week was therefore wholly spent in preaching to those of the Circumcision: in the forepart whereof Christ himself in his own person preached unto them; and in the latter part he also preached unto them by his Apostles, who went not unto the Gentiles till this Week was ended. For as the 70 Weeks were cut out over the People of Israel, and over the holy City, but not over the Gentiles: so also the confirming of the Covenant by Christ in this last Week of the 70, was cut out over the people of Israel, and over the holy City, but not over the Gentiles. And that not without cause: For though Christ by his death redeemed as well the Gentiles as the Jews, joh. 11.52. yet because he was in the first place promised to the Jewish Nation, and after a peculiar manner their Saviour, it was consentaneous that in the first place he should offer Salvation unto them, and confirm his Covenant with many of them, before he caused his Gospel to be spread abroad, and to take place among the Gentiles. This appeareth by that Caveat which in this Week he gave to his Apostles, when they had their first power to preach; namely, that they should not turn into the way of the Gentiles, Mat. 10.5. It appeareth also by that which himself said to the woman of Canaan, That he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Math. 15.24. And as they had this Caveat, so they heeded it very carefully, even after his death and Passion: insomuch that Peter abstained from preaching to any but the Jews, until he was taught by Vision, that the Gentiles also pertained to the society of the Church, Acts 10.1. In a word, Paul was converted about six months after the Passion of Christ; three years after which, he returned to jerusalem that he might see Peter: from whence (after he had stayed 15 days) he went into the regions of Syria, and Cilicia, and preached there to the Gentiles, Gal. 1.18. By which it appeareth, that it was full three years and an half after Christ's Passion before they began to preach to any but the Jews: and at that time this One Week was ended. For (as it followeth) Christ's death was in the middle of this very Week.  
And in the midst of the Week he shall cause Sacrifice and Oblation to cease] This was certainly done by Christ's death. For in the former verse it was said, That after threescore and two Weeks Messiah should be slain: and now in this verse is showed the very precise time of his death, viz. That it was in the middle of this Week: for than was Christ to cause the Sacrifices and Oblations to cease. Yea, all the Sacrifices of the old Testament, and the whole Legal and Typical service was then at an end, by that one Oblation of Christ upon the Cross: for nothing but the death of Christ was of efficacy to abolish the Sacrifices and Legal figures, which were but figures of him and of his Sacrifice; as may be seen by that which St Paul writeth to the Hebrews, in the ninth and tenth Chapters. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second; saith the Apostle there, Chap. 10. verse 9 Not that the Jewish Sacrifices did actually then cease: 
Peta De Doct. Temp. lib. 12. cap. 35.  but that they were de jure, or in very deed and truth then abolished, as Petavius noteth. Which also not only the last voice of Christ's dying, saying, It is finished, but even the veil of the Temple being rend in twain, from the top to the bottom, declared, Mat. 27.51. For by that Symbol Christ witnessed that he by his death abolished all the Sacrifices, and all the legal worship. For (as Lansbergius well observeth) so long as that Shadowy service of the Jews remained, 
Lansberg. in his Chronol. lib. 2. cap. 11.  the veil was between in the earthly Sanctuary: but the veil being rend, the legal Ceremonies were abrogated, and all use of the old Covenant taken away, and a passage opened for us to the Heavenly Sanctuary. But it followeth,  
And by a Wing of Abominations making desolate, he shall flow upon the desolate] Hear again after speech of the death of Christ is subjoined a threatening against the Jews for putting him to death. For by this Wing of Abominations, is meant the Army of the Romans: and that (as will appear) very significantly. For the word in the Original here translated Wing, is derived from a verb (but once found in the Hebrew Scripture) which signifies according to the Chaldee, 
Master Mede in his exposition of daniel's Weeks pa. 41.  To gather together: so also in the Arabic: in which it signifieth also, To environ or compass about; as is gallantly observed by one upon the place. Both which significations suit well to an Army; and the latter to such an Army as beleagureth a City or Fort.  
The w●rd Wing therefore used for this Army, is very pertinent. For, if we look further we shall find, shalt Saint Luke speaking of that which in Saint Mathewes Gospel is called the Abomination of Desolation, 
Mat. 24.15. and Mar. 13.14.  spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, standing in the Holy place, expoundeth it by compassing Jerusalem with Armies, Luke 21.20. By which he doth for certain mean the Army of the Romans, called here an Army of Abominations, or a people of Abominations; That is, of Gentles and worshippers of Idols: as is manifest, in regard that the Scripture often not only calleth Idols by the name of Abominations; but useth also to express and imply under the names of the Gods, the Nations themselves that worshipped them. Thus Ashtaroth is called the Abomination of the Sidonians, 2 Kin. 23.13. And in another place, The strangers with whom the children of Israel had contracted affinity, are called expressly the people of Abominations, Ezra 9.14. So here, The Army which the Angel foretold should come against jerusalem, is called a Wing (or an Army) of a people of Abominations: by which the Messiah should flow upon the Desolate; That is, upon the desolate and forsaken Jews. For in this service (though an Army of Abominations) it was the Army of the Messiah: as in a fit Parable, aiming at this Prophecy, our Saviour telleth us, Matthew 22.7.  
Even until the Consummation determined] Meaning, That the Desolation, which this Army of Abominations brought upon the Jews, should continue till the end of that time which God had determined: that is, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, Luke 21.24. For when the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (then as Saint Paul tells us) The deliverer shall come out of Zion, and all Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11.25.26.  
And thus I have now expounded this sacred Prophecy of daniel's LXX Weeks, than which there is no one Prophecy in all the whole Bible that doth more convince the Jew, nor better confirm the Christian for the coming of Christ. For when the Angel had divided the Weeks into seven and sixty two, which were to end at Messiah the Prince, then presently in the next verse he addeth, saying, And after 62 Weeks Messiah shall be slain: joining hereunto the One Week remaining; In the middle whereof the Sacrifice and Oblation was to cease; that is to be abolished or made void and of none effect by his death and Passion. Quare post sexaginta novem absolutas, in Septuagesima utique, ac postrema, Christus occidendus erat; as saith Petavius. Who hereupon concludeth, that they do in vain seek the end of these Weeks who look for it so low as the destruction of the City by the Romans. Or, as his own Words are; Frustra igitur finis alius Hebdomadibus iisce terminandis quaeritur: frustra longius à Dominica Passione summoventur ad excidium urbis, Petau. lib. 12. c. 32.  
So also Conradus Pawel, in his Concilio Chronologico; saying, Septuaginta hebdomades in annos resolutae confi ciunt quadringentos nonaginta annos; harumque hebdomadum finis praefinitus est, paucis annis post excisionem, hoc est, passionem & mortem Christi. Verba enim Oraculi apud Danielem expresse designant medium ultimae hebdomadis.  
So also Pontanus, in his Chronologie of Sabbathical years pag. 155. in these words; Quod in dimidio ipsius hebdomadis dicitur Christum facturum ut cessent Sacrificia & Oblationes, hoc dubio procul impletum est, quum ille seipsum in sacrificium offerens legales oblationes & sacrificia abolevit, in dimidio, vel circa dimidium illius hebdomadis, & de praeciso tempore mortis illius intelligendum est.  
So also Lansbergius, in his Chronologie, lib. 2, c. 11. Porro & tempus definite Angelus in quo Christus Sacrificia & Oblationes legales per mortem suam abrogaturus sit, nimirum Dimidia Septimanae septuagesimae, hoc est anno quarto ejusdem septimanae vel quando tres anni & sex menses finiuntur.  
So also Cluverus, in his Computo Chronologico; where speaking of the last week, and showing how it is divided into two parts, when he cometh to the last part, he hath these words: Alterius Semiquadriennii principium est in abrogatione hostiae & sacrificii, per Crucem & resurrectionem Christi facta: finis verò in abdicatione gentis Judaicae, & translation Evangelii ad Ethnicos. Nam sicut priori semiquadriennio Christus in propria persona Judaeos docuerat; sic posteriori per Apostolos suos & alios Doctores itidem solis Judaeis pactum paternum confirmavit. Verum cum illi repudiarent istud, & sacrificiis suis irrationalibus inhaererent, occisis insuper Stephano & aliis Christianis, monstravit Chrstus Petro per visionem, ad gentes transferendum esse regnum suum, Act. 10. & Paulum singulari miraculo conversum emisit, ut gentibus annunciaret Evangelium regni Dei.  
And now if after all this it be objected, Object. that these weeks must therefore end at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, because the Angel saith They be determined or cut out over the people and the holy City: if (I say) this be objected, my answer then is, Answ. That they be indeed determined or cut out over the people and over the holy City; but it was to finish transgression and to make an end of Sin, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and Prophet, and to anoint the most Holy. All which have manifest relation to that which Christ did in or near the last week of the 70: For near the beginning of that week Jesus Christ (that Holy of holies) was anointed with the holy Ghost in populi sui Redemptorem, for a Redeemer of his people. For although Christ always had the Spirit, yet for all that there was to be a kind of solemn anointing him to undertake that Office, witnessed by the Prophet Esa. 61.1. and performed accordingly at his Baptism when the last week was ready to begin: For then the holy Ghost came down upon him in the likeness of a Dove, the Heavens being also opened, and a voice from the Father saying, This is my well-beloved son in whom I am well pleased, Matth, 3.16.17. Luk. 3.22. After which inauguration, at the beginning of the last week, he entered on his Ministry, and began to preach deliverance to the Captives: and in the middle of the week satisfied for us on the Cross, and by his death made an end of sin, freeing us from it and putting it away by the Sacrifice of himself: as was before proved, Joh. 1.29. Rom. 6.18. Heb. 9.26  
All therefore that shall need to be now observed further, is the method of the Angel in the verse objected; speaking of that last which was done first, and of that first which was done last: which if Calvisius had well observed, he needed not have urged the anointing of the Most holy against the right ending of these weeks.  
But perhaps it will be still objected out of the 26 and 27 verses, Object. that the last week could not be the week of Christ's passion, because those verses do expressly mention the destruction of the City, and tell us of the Abomination of Desolation, which even Christ himself would should be regarded as a token or sign of the ruin of the City, Answ. Mat, 24.15.  
To which I answer, that although the destruction of the City be there mentioned, yet not because it was within the compass of the weeks, or because the end of them must be extended thither, but because the destruction of the City was to follow and fall upon the Jews as a punishment for their putting Christ to death; as in the Annotations foregoing hath been showed. It was spoken of to show the heinousness of that sin, and is foreshowed to follow as a just judgement of God for so great a wickedness, and not because it is to be included within the compass of the weeks. And of this destruction, the Abomination of Desolation was but a sign, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet: that's all; and more than that cannot be justly gathered from the places objected.  
But they further urge, Object. that though the sin of the jews was the cause of their punishment; yea, and among other sins, that of putting Christ to death: yet did not jerusalem utterly cease to be a City or Church of God till they contradicted and blaspemed the Apostolical Ministry, by persisting still in their wickedness. For when Jerusalem had condemned and crucified Christ, Saint Peter inspired by the holy Ghost saith still, To you belong the Promises, and to your children, Acts 2.39.  
True, Answ. I grant as much: for after Christ's Passion there were still three years and an half before the 70 Weeks were ended; And till then there was no tender of Salvation to the Gentiles. For in the last Week, Christ first by himself, and afterwards by his Apostles preached to the Jews; confirming a Covenant with many of them during the time of that Week: which being ended, the Apostles turn to the Gentiles, as already I have most fully and plainly proved.  
But perhaps it will be objected out of Beroaldus, Object. that the word in the Original commonly translated Middle, 
Beroald. lib. 3. cap. 8.  must be translated Half; and not Middle. So that Christ shall be said to abolish Sacrifice and Oblation, not in the Middle of the Week, but in Half of the week: which Half was not the first Half; because seventy weeks, and not sixty nine and ½ were cut out over the people and the Holy City.  
To which is answered, though the word indeed is used as well for Half as Middle; yet here it must be rendered Middle and not Halfe. For even in the text itself, Christ is said to cause to cease, or to abolish Sacrifice and Oblation. Now this action is not Actio manens and continuata, but cito transiens: for it is meant of the death of Christ, who put away sin by the death or Sacrifice of himself, abolishing legal offerings for sin, to establish his own Sacrifice and Oblation once offered upon the Cross, Heb. 9.26. chap. 10.9. Unless therefore we will make Christ's death to be a continued action, and say that he continued in that act of dying for the space of three years and an half, we must needs grant (as the truth is) that he was crucified or slain in the Middle of the Week: which the confirming of the Covenant doth fully prove.  
But saith Funccius, the Sacrifices were of right abolished when Christ was Baptised: in witness whereof there came a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, Mat. 3.17. Quasi dicat: Nulla posthac hostia, nullum Sacrificium Mosaicum mihi placebit. Which is as if it should be said, No offering, no Mosaical Sacrifice shall henceforwards please me any more.  
Whereunto is answered, that the Sacrifices of the Law did never please God otherwise then types and shadows of Christ's own Sacrifice of himself; and in that respect, Moses his Sacrifices and such types of Christ, were as well acceptable to God after his Baptism till his Passion, as before; which is plain by that in Matthew 8.3. where Christ after his Baptism bids the Leper offer the gift that Moses commanded: which (among other things) was two He Lambs, and one Ewe Lamb; as is recorded, Levit. 14.10. So that still I see the former exposition will stand, notwithstanding this Objection.  
But however, though their ending may be right, yet their beginning cannot, unless they begin in the first year of Cyrus. For if the 70 weeks begin not in the first year of Cyrus, the alogie of the 70 years of Captivity, and the seven times 70 years of liberty, cannot stand.  
To which is answered, Answ. that an analogy is a proportion, similitude, or resemblance which one thing hath unto another. Now that any intervenient time can destroy an Analogy, is (as one truly saith) a mere Paradox. For it is certain, there was a true Analogy between the Paschall Lamb in the first Passeover, and the Passion of Christ in the last Passeover, and yet we know that the one was many hundreds of years after the other. 
Joh. 3.14.  As the Serpent was lift up in the wilderness, so must the son of Man be lifted up: there was a true analogy, but many years between. As Ionas was three days and three nights in the Whale's belly, so must the son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth: 
Mat 12.40.  there also was a true analogy, but with many years again between. This objection therefore is no hindrance either to the length of the Persian Monarchy, or to the beginning of the 70 weeks, although they begin not just when 70 years of Captivity were ended.  
I conclude therefore that the beginning of the LXX Weeks was in the twentieth year of Ataxerxes Longimanus, in the year of the Julian Period 4259, on the tenth of Tisri which then was on the sixth day of October, the sun being then in the seventh degree of Libra: From whence to the beginning of Christ's Ministry, in the year of the said Period 4742. were 483 years which ended (not on the sixth of October, but) on the third, because the Sun was also then in the same point of heaven that he was at the first: which third of October was now the second day of the Week, and seventh day of the seventh Month. After this was the middle of the last Week, on the third day of April, in the year of the same Period 4746; for the third year of it ended on the third of October next before: from whence if we account 182 days (which make half a year) we shall come to the third of April & just middle of this last Week; on which very day our Saviour suffered, as afterwards shall be more fully proved. And thus, having respect to the motion of the Sun, is this account so exact as I cannot but admire to find it so.    

CHAP. IX. Of the LXX years in the Prophecy of the Prophet Jeremiah.  
HAving finished the proofs of the several Periods so far as is necessary, I come now to some other things pertinent also to Chronologie. And first of the 70 years in Jeremy, commonly called the LXX years of Judah's Captivity, which some begin in the nineteenth year of Nabuchadnezzar, at the destruction of the City and Temple: because then was not only a desolation of the Kingdom and People, but of the Fields and Grounds which were to lie desolate until the Land had enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate, she kept Sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years; as is recorded in 2 Chron. 36.21.  
But against this may be excepted, That they who reckon from hence, may as well account from a time which is four years after. For if they stand upon it to prove that there must be a Desolation, not only of the People, but of the Fields and Ground; and that the Land was to lie desolate and keep a Sabbath, free from all Inhabitants, for the full and complete time of 70 years, and that thereupon the 70 years in Jeremy could not begin till such a Desolation: if so, than this (I say) must needs fall into the three and twentieth year of Nabuchadnezzar, because the Land was not freed from all her Inhabitans till then, nor the Desolations of Judah fully finished until that year, as may be seen in Jer. 52.30.  
Nor secondly, doth that place (in 2 Chron. 36.21.) of keeping Sabbath 70 year, prove a continual Sabbath of so long time: but rather showeth, that the Land during the years of her Desolation, beginning from the absence of her inhabitants, kept a Sabbath to fill up the number of 70 years. To fill up the number; that's all. The text therefore meaneth not, as they would have, that no part of that number was begun till then: but that there should not be any people again in the Land, until the whole number of 70 years, formerly begun, should be fully finished: but where, or when they began, that text mentions not.  
Others therefore reckon from the transmigration of Jechonia, in the eighth year of Nebuchannezzar: and they build chiefly upon two grounds. The one, because the Prophet Ezekiel accounts from thence, calling the time after it, The time of our Captivity, Ezek. 40.1. The other is a proof from the Prophet Jeremy, who when he sent an Epistle to those who were carried away with Jechonia, telleth them plainly that when 70 years are accomplished at Babylon, that they shall return again, Jer. 29.10.  
But here also may be excepted, First, that the Prophets did usually date their Prophecies from some remarkable accident or other: and therefore this Prophet Ezekiel, who was carried away with Jechonia, and had Visions after he came to Babylon, could do no less than date them from the time of that Captivity. For he not only began to prophesy in the Land of Chaldea, after he was carried away thither: but also dated his Prophecies with respect to that time, and calleth it Our Captivity; because it had relation to those who were carried away at the same time when he was captivated. This is all: here therefore is no such absolute warrant for the beginning of the foresaid seventy years, as some at the first may think.  
And secondly, for that Epistle which was sent to the Captives by jeremiah, it is true indeed that they to whom he wrote were carried away with jechonia; but for all that there is nothing in it to prove that the 70 years began but then. For the Prophet in the letter to them doth not say that they should return after they had accomplished 70 years at Babylon: but (without defining any beginning or time from whence) after 70 years were accomplished. By which it appeareth plainly enough, that this alleged cannot prove the beginning of the 70 years: for we see there is no necessity to begin the reckoning of them when that Epistle was sent, but rather from the time when judah first began to be a stranger in her own Land, and to bewail her case at Babylon, which was not begun in jechonias, but in Daniel and jehoiakim, with some other of the King's seed, together with part of the Vessels of the house of God, Dan. 1.2. Which appears further to be so, in regard that the whole time of Babel's Kingdom was but 70 years, Esa. 23.15. during which time, not only the Jews, but the other neighbouring Nations were to serve the King of Babylon. These Nations (saith the Prophet jeremy) shall serve the King of Babylon 70 years: and when seventy years are fulfilled, I will make the Land of the Chaldeans a perpetual desolation, jer. 25.11.12. And again, They shall serve him, and his sons, and his son's son, jer. 27.7. Which time among these, that it was but 70 years, is clear by that before; mentioning, not only how long the Nations were to serve the King of Babylon, but also how long that Kingdom was to stand. Esay therefore saith, And it shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one King, Esa. 23.15. Which expression [According to the days of one King] is meant of one Kingdom, as appeareth by a like phrase in Dan. 7.17.23. And this one Kingdom was sure enough the Kingdom of Babylon, which was Nebuchadnezars Kingdom, continued only to him, his son, & his son's son; as already hath been said. Beside, When 70 years are accomplished at Babylon, I will visit you saith the Lord, in Ier, 29.10. And if when 70 years be accomplished at Babylon, then must the beginning be from the time of the Captivity of the first of the Jews that Nabuchadnezzar carried thither, even in the beginning of his Kingdom. And when was this, but when God had given jehoiakim into the hands of Nabuchadnezzar, with part of the vessels of the house of God? at which time not only was jehoiakim bound in fetters to be carried to Babylon, but Daniel, with certain more of the Children of Israel, and of the King's seed, and of the Princes were brought thither by Ashpenaz the master of the Eunuches, and taught there the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans, Daniel 1.3, 4.  
Nor doth the same Prophet elsewhere but understand the beginning of these years thus: For I understood (saith he) by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the Prophet, that he would accomplish 70 years in the desolations of Jerusalem, Dan 9.2. In which text the word is plural, [Desolations:] to show that the 70 years must include all the Calamities which fell upon Jerusalem by Nabuchadnezzar King of Babylon, beginning even from the first of them, and were not ended until the reign of the Kingdom of Persia; namely, when Cyrus' King of Persia had conquered Babylon, and thereupon could say, All the Kingdoms of the Earth hath the Lord God of Heaven given me, and hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, 2 Chron. 36.20.23.  
There is (saith Petavius) a double interval of 70 years expressed in the Scriptures: the one by the Prophet Jeremiah; the other by the Prophet Zachary, and is altogether strange and differing from the former. The first interval is from the first year of Nabuchadnezzar, to the two and twentieth year of Cyrus when he took Babylon: The second is from the Desolations of the Temple and City, to the second year of Darius the son of Hystaspis.  
Thus he, in his twelfth book and twenty fourth Chapter De Doctrina Temporum. And certainly he was not fare from truth in all this, as by that which I have already written may be seen. I account I confess a little otherwise, but decline not his grounds: for in the first seventy I come two years lower than the two and twentieth of Cyrus; and begin not the second when Nabuchadnezzar destroyed the City and burnt the Temple, but when he laid his last siege against Jerusalem in the year of the Julian Period 4125. of which see more in the eighth Chapter and sixth Section.  
And now of all in this Chapter hitherto, this is the conclusion: that Nabuchadnezzar being sent by his father upon an expedition into Egypt and Syria, came against Jerusalem and besieged it in the third year of Jehoiakim, & by such time at his third year was ended and his fourth a little entered, the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God. This was in the year of the julian Period 4107. in the ninth Month: by reason whereof the Jews kept a Fast in that Month; as is mentioned, jer. 36.9. The Scripture accounteth this for the first year of Nebuchadnezars reign; as well it might: for not only now was Nabuchadnezzar taken in as a consort with his father in the Empire, but also whilst he was employed in this expedition his father died, even in the twentieth year of his reign, as afterwards shall be proved. And note that jehoiakim being now taken by this rod of God's anger, to whom Judah and other Neighbouring Nations must be put in Subjection, was bound in fetters to be carried to Babylon among the other Captives [2 Chron. 36.6.] but went not: For afterwards in the way, by an agreement of servitude, he was released and sent home again, and so became his servant, 2 Kin. 26.1. This was about the Spring time of the year of the Julian Period 4108. from whence the 70 years in Jeremy began, as without all further scruple may be freely granted: especially considering that the first draught must be given to Judah, as may be seen in Jer. 25.18.29.   

CHAP. X. Of the time when Tyrus and Egypt were subdued and taken by Nabuchadnezzar, according to the Prophecies of Esay, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  
THat the Jews and other neighbouring Nations were delivered into the hands of Nabuchadnezzar in the first year of his Kingdom, already hath been proved: 
Jer. 25.9.11.  and albeit they refused to bear his yoke, yet by degrees he brought them all under.  
Jerusalem he took and destroyed in the nineteenth year of his reign, at which time Tyrus thought herself safe and secure enough. She therefore rejoiced at the fall of that great City, and is thereupon threatened with destruction: for the power and might of Nabuchadnezzar was to come against her. This was spoken in the eleventh year of Jechoniah's Captivity, which all men know was the nineteenth year of Nabuchadnezzar: and therefore till after this time there was no siege laid against Tyrus, witnessed by the Prophet Ezek. 26.1.2. and at the seventh verse most plainly. For thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus, Nabuchadnezzar King of Babylon. Where note that he was not yet come, but was after this time to come against her. Scaliger therefore casts his account amiss, when he reckoned that Tyrus was besieged and taken before the time of this threatening.  
That Tyrus was besieged thirteen years, we have it from josephus in his first book against Apion, who had it out of the Annals of the Phoenicians. These eighteen year's siege were in the reign of Ithobalus, and began in the seventh year of his reign, which was also the three and twentieth of Nabuchadnezzar, as appeareth by accounting on to the 14 year of Irom; from the 14 year of Irom must (at least in some part of it) fall into the first year of Cyrus, as joseph. here showeth: that is, into his first year over Babylon, and not into his first year over Persia. And thus will this account agree well with that already mentioned out of the 26. Chapter of Ezekiel, although it differ much from that which joseph Scaliger mainly strives for. And note also that from the time at which Tyrus began to be besieged to the death of Irom, are 54 years: which by this account is as right as can be.  
I conclude therefore that Tyrus was taken in the end of the year of the julian Period 4141. or in the beginning of the next year whilst the seven and twentieth year of Iechoniah's Captivity was still running on: for than doth Ezekiel mention the taking of it: even after a long siege and service against it; as may be seen, Ezek. 29.17.18. After which, Tyrus is to be forgotten till the end of those seventy years which were the date of Nebuchadnezars Kingdom, began from the beginning of the Captivity: as the Peophet meaneth, in Esa 23.15. A like Phrase is in Gen 11.32. and in Exod 12.40. as Philippus in his Chronologie upon that place in Esay hath observed. In oblivione eris o Tyre, 70 annis] Tyrus dicitur in oblivione futura 70 annis; non quod totos illos annos oblivio tenuerit, sed terminarit. Thus he, and thereupon refers us to Gen. 11.32. and to Exod. 12.40.  
And thus we have the right time, both for the besieging and taking of Tyrus. A list of them that reigned there is as followeth.  

The latter Kings of Tyre out of Josephus exactly accounted, and fixed in their right times.   years of their reign. The years of the Julian Period when they began to reign. 1. Ithobalus 19 — 4123 2. Baal 10 — 4142 3. Ecnibalus M. 2. — 4152 4. Chelbes M. 10. — 4152 5. Abharus M. 3. — 4153 6. Mytgonus 6 — 4153 7. Gerastus 6 — 4153 8. Belatorus 1 — 4159 9 Merbalus 4 — 4160 10. Iromus 20 — 4164  
This is the lift. By which it appeareth that Tyrus began to be besieged in the year of the Julian Period 4129. three years after the destruction of jerusalem, and a little more than 13 years before the Conquest of Egypt. For this we are to note, that about the Summer time of the year of the julian Period 4142. Nabuchadnezzar conquered Egypt, not many Months after Tyrus was taken, Ezek. 29.17, 18, 19, 20. This was the Six and thirtieth year of his reign, or five and thirtieth year ending; being also the beginning of the first year of his absolute Monarchy: before which time he had his dream of the four Monarchies. For that dream could not be in the second year of his absolute Monarchy after he had conquered Egypt; because Tyrus (as we have seen) was first conquered, & Egypt given him for his wages: but Daniel was famous before Tyrus was taken, and yet his wisdom not known till the expounding of this dream, Ezek. 28.3. and Dan. 2. In the second year therefore of daniel's service with the King he expounded this dream. For though it be said, In the reign of Nabuchadnezzar, yet are not those words to be joined with the former, in the second year, as appeareth (saith one) by the Hebrew distinction, rebiah, set over the word shetaim, Second: but to show that it was not in the Second year of Cyrus. For in the last words of daniel's first Chapter, it is said, that Daniel was to the first year of King Cyrus: Now therefore lest any should think that this was done in the second of Cyrus, direct mention is made of the reign of Nabuchadnezzar. This I thought good to touch at by the way, in regard of that mistake which is among many who account the time of this dream to be in the second year after the conquest of Egypt. More like it is that in these times Nabuchadnezzar set up his golden Image, was famous for his stately buildings, had his dream of the Tree, and twelve Months after began to be mad: which I take to be about the end of the eight and thirtieth year of his reign. For in that year I account that the first year of his madness began, which lasted seven years: at the end whereof he was restored, and died soon after. For if his death had not been soon after the end of his madness, it is thought he would have restored the Jews out of Captivity. But because it was not he that must do this, it is like God took him away, and kept them still in Captivity until the first year of Cyrus.  
And thus we have the right time also of the conquest of Egypt.  
The King that reigned there then was Apries, or (as he is called by the Prophet) Hophra, jer. 44.30. in whose two and twentieth year I think it probable that Amasis rebelled against him, which thereupon perhaps was the cause why Diodorus saith he reigned but 22 years: whereas in Herodotus we find that he reigned twenty five. And indeed it is not unlike but that Egypt was sore shaken before Nabuchadnezzar came to conquer it, which therefore helped him to effect that he came for the sooner & with the greater ease. For what with the calamity of the Cyrenian war, and what with the rebellion of Amasis thereupon, the strength and arm of Egypt was greatly broken, and so fair a way made for Nabuchadnezzar to come and conquer it, as that he might quickly and with much ease perform the work, the business in a manner being done to his hand before he came: which agrees well to the speech and phrase of the Prophet, who saith that this Country was given to him as his wages for that great service which he caused his Army to serve against Tyrus, Ezek. 29.18.19.  
And note after all this, that Egypt was not restored until the end of 40 years from hence. Ezek. 29.13. jer. 46.26. And if so, then shall Amasis have but five year's reign after he revolted from the Babylonian, by whom (as is very probable) he was entrusted with the Lieutenantship of the Country, as a reward for his rebellion against his natural Prince, in regard that he thereby helped Nabuchadnezzar there to fix his throne. For it is without question, that Amasis was neither 44 nor 55 years together King of Egypt after Apries, though Herodotus and Diodore tell us so. The truth is, the Priests of Egypt would not mention any thing of Nebuchadnezars reigning there, but did notably delude Herodotus and Diodorus with lies, coined upon a vainglorious purpose of hiding their own disgrace and bondage: and so these two being strangers to that which Nabuchadnezzar did there, because they wanted the help of holy Scripture, rested satisfied with any thing (though false) that the lying Priests would tell them. But as for us we know the contrary, and may not smother that which the word of God relateth: For thus saith the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel; Behold I will send and take Nabuchadnezzar the King of Babylon my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid, and he shall spread his royal Pavilion over them, jer. 43.10.  
But now see the list of them that reigned.  

A List of the latter Kings of Egypt, out of Herodotus and fixed in their right times.   Years of their reign. The years of the julian Per. when they began to reign. 1. Psammiricus 54 — 4041 2. Pharaoh Necho 17 — 4095 3. Psammis 6 — 4112 4. Apries 25 — 4118 
☜    

CHAP. XI. Of the number of Kings that reigned in Babylon during the time of the Captivity.  
THe fragments of Berosus and Megasthenes, in accounting more Kings than three during the time of the Captivity, agree so ill with the Scripture as I know not how to build upon them. For they tell us of Nabuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, Naragalrasar, Labosardach, and Nabonidus: whereas in Scripture we find no more named than Nabuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, and Belshazzar. And as no more named, so no more to be named nor reckoned for Kings of Babylon during these times: For in Scripture this we find; This whole Land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these Nations shall serve the King of Babylon 70 years. And it shall come to pass when 70 years are accomplished, that I will punish the King of Babylon, and that Nation, saith the Lord, Jer. 25.11, 12. And again, All Nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son's son, until the very time of his Land come: and then many Nations and great Kings shall serve themselves of him, jer. 27.7. And when 70 years are accomplished at Babylon, I will visit you, jer. 29.10, For I will rise up against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name and remnant, both son and nephew, saith the Lord. Esa. 14.22. And again, When there cometh a Nation out of the North, and layeth Babel waste, then in those days and at that time, saith the Lord, the Children of Israel shall come weeping and enquiring the way to Zion, jer. 50.4. Now that no part of this could go beyond the death of Belshazzar the third King, is apparent out of daniel's prophecy. For this (saith he) is the interpretation of the thing: MENE, God hath numbered thy Kingdom, and finished it, Dan. 5.26. Where note, that if Nebuchadnezars Kingdom were numbered and finished at the death of Belshazzar, then must no part either of his Kingdom, or of the 70 years be after that time: for not only were the years of the Kingdom, but of the Captivity to end then, their dates by Scripture depending each upon other. It is therefore said in Esay, that Tyrus (which we know was one of them that was to bear Babel's yoke) shall be forgotten 70 years, according the days of one King, Esa. 23.15. Which expression [according to the days of one King] is certainly meant of one Kingdom, and is expounded so by a like phrase in Dan. 7.17, 23. Of one Kingdom I say; viz. The Kingdom of Babylon, which was Nebuchadnezars Kingdom, continued only to him, his son, and his son's son: as was before mentioned out of jer. 27.7. and Esay 14.22.  
Upon consideration of which sure it was, 
Hist. World. lib. 3. c. 1. sect. 4.  that Sir Walter Raleigh, in his History of the World could say; They who merely follow the authority of the Scripture without borrowing any help from others, name only three Kings, viz. Nabuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, and Belshazzar. For which they have not only the filence of Daniel for their warrant, who names none other; but even the promise of jeremiah also, precisely and in a manner purposely teaching the same, Jer. 27.7. In which text be words expressing the continuance of the Chaldaean Empire, and number of the Kings, so as will hardly be qualified with any distinction. And indeed I find no other necessity of qualification to be used herein, than such as may grow out of men's desire to reconcile the Scriptures unto profane Authors: Which desire were not unjust, if the consent of all Histories were on the one side, and the letter of the holy Text were single on the other side. Thus he, very gravely and judiciously: and therefore, without some handsome way of reconcilement, I shall build no more upon the Authority of this Fragment of Berosus, than I have hitherto done.  
But perhaps a way may be found. Suppose we then this to be propable, That after Evilmerodach had reigned two years, that then he gave himself to sloth and luxury, and thereupon appointed Naragalrazar (his sister's husband) to be his Deputy, which continued for the space of four years: at the end whereof Evilmerodach either died or was slain by his Deputy, who thereupon strove what he could to establish the Kingdom to his own son Labosardach, albeit he were a child. But Nabonidus (otherwise called Balthasar, or Belshazzar) impatient of such an injury, prevails against him: For though for nine month's space he was a little molested, yet at the end thereof he was quietly possessed of his Father's throne, which he held for the space of seventeen years; and was then slain at the taking of Babylon by King Cyrus, who in the second year of his expedition took the City, and so ended the time of Babel's Kingdom, in which the Nations were to serve Nabuchadnezzar, his son, and his son's son.  
This I confess would seem something probable, were all things correspondent: but here is so short a time for the reign of these Kings, that they will be all dead and gone before the Captivity was ended: which can by no means be.  
I remember therefore what is conjectured by the knight before mentioned, in his History of the World, lib. 3. cap. 1. sect. 13. viz. That the seven years (or six years and nine months) given by Berosus to Evilmerodach, Naragalrazar, and Labosardach, are not to be reckoned after the death of Nabuchadnezzar, but rather before; namely, in the time of his Madness, and living Wild: during which time, Evilmerodach (having expected the recovery of his Father about some three months) reigned two years: then Naragalrazar having put him down, rules four years: and last of all, Labosardach nine months; in the end whereof Nabuchadnezzar is again restored. Which opinion, though differing from that of Lyranus and Pererius, who make Evilmerodach the sole Regent in his Father's absence; and is also differing from that of Josephus, who (speaking of Nebuchadnezars madness) saith, none durst invade the Kingdom all those seven years: yet for all that, I think no wise man will lightly esteem it; for it serves better to reconcile Berosus to the Scriptures, than any other opinion that hitherto hath been extant.  
Scaliger, in his Animadversions upon Eusebius, expounds Berosus otherwise, and saith Evilmerodach succeeded Nabuchadnezzar, whom Naragalrazar slew, thereby to advance his own son, the nephew of Nabuchadnezzar, to the Sceptre, which himself swayed as Protector in the minority of his son who was called Labosardach: But Naragalrazar being dead, and his son more fit for a Chamber then a Throne, Nabonidus conspired against him & slew him. This Nabonidus (saith Scaliger) is Darius Medus, and Labosardach is that Belshazzar mentioned by Daniel, according to his interpretation of the Prophet out of Berosus and Megasthenes: which indeed is but his interpretation; who we know was in all thing singular, and in most things peremptory: and therefore though he scorneth all other Chronologers who subscribe not to his magisterial Dictates, yet are his bare words no warrant, nor scorns good proofs to make us think his Tenets the only true ones; no not here, in this now under question: For the Oracle of the Prophet points us out no other than Nabuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, and Belshazzar; as already hath been proved. Unto which let me add, that Herodotus calleth the last King of Babylon Labynitus: and who was this but Nabonidus in Berosus? and who was Nabonidus but Belshazzar, called by the Babylonians Naboandel as saith Josephus? & who was Belshazzar, but he whom Cyrus conquered? as Xenophon plainly, with the Prophet Daniel, beareth witness. Note also further that Darius Medus was a Mede by birth, and not a Babylonian, being Darius of the seed of the Medes, Dan. 9.1. And if a Mede by birth, then how could Nabonidus be Darius Medus, who even in Berosus himself is said to be a Babylonian?  
And as Daniel is against him, so also Esay; showing that he came not to his Kingdom by Election. For behold I will stir up the Medes against thee, Esa. 13.17. The Medes therefore assaulted Babylon and took it, together with the Persians, not by favour, but by violence, being assisted by Cyrus' kinsman to Darius, as Josephus writeth. And good reason had Josephus for it: 
Joseph. antiq. lib. 10. ca 12.  For the fall of Babylon was by the joint forces of two, as in another Chapter of the same Prophecy may be seen. For thus hath the Lord said unto me; Go, set a whatchman; let him declare what he seethe: And behold he saw a Chariot with a couple of horses, Esa. 21.7. and at the ninth verse; And behold here cometh a Chariot of men, and a couple of Horsemen: and he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen. But by whom is it fallen? this the second verse showeth, in these words: Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media. By which we see that the Elamites, and Medians (or the Persians and Medes) united into one body, but under two Commanders, were the people foretold to come with joint forces for the destruction of Babylon: these being that Ram with two horns, in the eighth of Daniel. For the Ram which thou sawest having two horns, are the Kings of Media and Persia, Dan 8.20. And hereupon it came to pass that at the taking of Babylon and death of Belshazzar, the Kingdom was divided among the Medes and the Persians, Dan 5.28. Howbeit the chief authority and power might be in the Medes: and therefore saith Jeremy, Make bright the arrows: gather the shields: the Lord hath raised up the Spirit of the Kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon to destroy it, Jer. 51.11. Which though it were, yet the dexterity in expediting this business, and in using that Stratagem of 
* See Xenoph. in his Cyrop. li. 7. and Jer. 51.36.  dividing the great river Euphrates, is ascribed by Xenophon unto Cyrus. Nor doth Herodotus but name him the only author and beginner of this War: the reason whereof is, because by his valour and skill the victory was gotten. Which being obtained, Cyrus forthwith entitles Darius to the Kingdom, both because he was his Uncle and also his Elder, as Saint Jerom observeth; and as Xenophon likewise gives a touch at: telling us what Cyrus first said to Cyaxares after the taking of Babylon; namely that there was provided for him in Babylon, a choice Palace with stately Edifices; that if he come thither he might keep his Court there as in his own, Xenoph. lib. 8. Which is as if it should be said he had now conquered it for him, and he might if he pleased freely receive it: agreeing therein with the Prophet Daniel, who saith that when Belshazzar was slain, Darius Medus received the Kingdom, being about threescore and two year old, Dan. 5.30.31. But then again because at this victory there were [Parsin] parters to share the Empire, not of Madai only, but also of Elam: we must know that Cyrus' King of Paras or Elam, excluded not himself, but was fellow in Empire with Darius: and so the Kingdom was divided between the Medes and the Persians, as in the hand-writing upon the wall was declared. And so likewise the Jews which were to serve the Chaldeans during the time of their Kingdom (which hath been already proved tobe 70 years) served them till the reign of the Persians, 2 Chron. 36.20. Nor was this uniting but known to those Greeks, in whom the Persian Armies are called Medes, as I shall afterwards mention. To whom the seventy Translators applied themselves, when they put for the Hebrew text Paras, the term Medes in this text of the Chronicles.  
And further, as for Nabonidas formerly mentioned, questionless he was the same with Belshazzar: for neither doth Josephus, nor Berosus, attribute to either of them more than 17 years. Nor doth Josephus tell us any other thing then that Belshazzar was by the Babylonians called Naboandel, as before was noted: a name not far differing from Nabonidus in Berosus, but differing far enough from Darius Medus. To which Josephus doth once again bear witness, in saying, that Darius, together with Cyrus his ally, destroyed the state of the Babylonians; as before was also noted: affirming moreover that he was the son of Astyages, and is otherwise called by the Greeks. And therefore in very truth, Darius Medus was not Nabonidus, but Cyaxares the second; as Xenophon plainly and perspicuously hath related.  
Beside all which, this also may be added, That the Babylonians would not be so simple to deliver their Empire to a man who was a Mede, seeing they thought not so well of the Medes as of other Nations, because the bounds of their Kingdom were enlarged far, and trenched much upon the Chaldean greatness, which made them therefore fearful and suspicious over them. To which opinion (as saith Pererius) Herodotus adds no little force; 
Perer. on Da. Herodot. lib. 1  writing that Nitocris Queen of Babylon, and mother to Labynitus, did greatly fortify the City of Babylon against the forces and invasions of the Medes. Nay more, when the Lord rendered unto Babylon, and to all the Inhabitants of Chaldea, all their evil that they had done in Zion, he then stirred up the Nations with the Kings of the Medes, and the Captains thereof, and all the Land of his Dominion, Jer. 51.24, 28. and Esa. 13.17.  
There is therefore more in it I see, than the bare delivering of the Kingdom to a man born in Media, and brought up in Babylon: 
Hist. World lib 3: cap. 2. sect. 2.3.  for as Sir Walter Raleigh truly gathered from hence, the Medes were chief actors in the subversion of the Babylonian Empire. And though the Greeks (saith he) ascribe the conquest of Babylon to Cyrus alone, yet the Scriptures teach uss that Darius was not only King of Media, and had the Persians to be his followers, but that the Army victorious over Belshazzar was his; being compounded of the strength of both Nations, to wit, the Medes and Persians, with other the vassals of Darius, which were all led under the conduct of Cyrus, who was chief General of the Army, and had the honour of the victory wholly given to him, who was the instrument preordained and forenamed by God himself for this action, even for the sake of his Church, Esa. 45.1, 2, 3, 4. And again, It is not (saith he) more certain, that Belshazzar jost his life and Kingdom, 
Ide. lib. 3. ca 1. sect. 5.  then that his Kingdom was divided and given to the Medes and Persians. Neither did the Medes and Persians fall out about it, as by supposing Nabonidus to have been Darius, they should be thought to have done; but these two Nations did compound the body of the Empire, and were accounted Lords of the subject Provinces, insomuch that the Greek Historians did commonly call those Wars which Darius, and after him Xerxes, made upon Greece, The Wars of the Medes; 
Dan. 8.20.  yea to clear this point (saith the same author still) even Daniel himself resembles that King with whom Alexander fought, unto a Ram with two horns, calling him the King of the Medes and the Persians. Wherefore (saith he) the whole Nation of Chronologers were not to have been condemned by Joseph Scaliger, for maintaining upon such good grounds, that Darius of Medes, was partner with Cyrus in his victories, and not a Chaldean King by him subdued. Neither was Josephus to be the less regarded, for affirming that Belshazzar was destroyed by Darius of the Medes, and his nephew Cyrus, though herein he varied from Berosus, and others, whose authority elsewhere he gladly citeth. For Josephus had no reason to believe any man's faith or knowledge of those times, half so well as daniel's, whom I believe that he understood, as was needful in this case. Lawful it was for him to allege all Authors that had any mention, though unperfect, of the same things that were contained in the writings of the Jews, to whose histories thereby he procured reputation in the Roman World, where they were strangers, and might seem fabulous. Even so Eusebius, and other writers, willingly embrace the testimonies of heathen books making for the truth in some particulars; yet will they not therefore be tried in general by the same, but leave them where they are against the truth; as Josephus in this case hath left Berosus. Thus that Knight.  
And as for Belshazzar: one word again of him. How is it possible that he could be the Labosardach of Berosus, seeing Labosardach was but a child, and reigned only nine months? whereas those things which are written of Belshazzar by the Prophet Daniel, are pertinent to a man, and one who had reigned several years: yea, more than three; which is the time that some give him. For first Daniel had visions in the third year of Belshazzar, and was then an officer in the King's Court, as himself declareth, Dan. 8, 1.17. and therefore must needs be known to the King. Howbeit in that year which was the last of Belshazzar, he was out of office and forgotten; as may be seen at large in the fifth Chapter of the same Prophecy, where the Queen first tells the King of him, and the King also questioneth saying, Art thou Daniel? speaking to him as a stranger, or as to one whom some long tract of time had made to be forgotten. And secondly, when this King Belshazzar made his great & fatal 
* Xenophon mentions this Feast, lib. 7. agreeing to Daniel & Jeremiah. Dan. 5. and Jer. 51.39. Herod. lib. 1. Xenoph. lib. 7.  Feast, he had his Wives and Concubines present with him: quae Puero minimè competunt, as saith Pererius. Neither doth Daniel obscurely show that Belshazzar was slain by his own people, but rather by his enemies: Or if by his own people, it was by Gadata and Gobryas, who betrayed the City and brought in Cyrus his Army. For the King had offended them before, causing Gadata to be gelded, and the son of Gobryas to be slain in hunting; as Herodotus and Xenophon tell us. And note whereas it is said in Jer. 51.31. that when the City was broken up, there were Posts and Messengers which passed to and fro to inquire and bring the King the certain news thereof; note (I say) that this was, not because the King was in some remote place out of the City, as Calvisius thinketh; but because of the distance of the Palace from the place where the enemy entered: the noise of whose coming in was so sudden and unexpected, that it could not be believed without posting to and fro to inquire and know it certainly. Which even the Prophet's words, in the place alleged, well marked, do declare. For when the Posts and Messengers went to and fro to inquire, it was to show the King of Babylon that his City was taken at one end. And at the 39 verse, the very drunken feast is foretold; at the which many were so overcome with wine that they slept: yea slept they did and waked not; for they were slain by the enemy before they awaked, and so they slept a perpetual sleep, as there the Prophet saith. Yea, and to show that Cyrus had it in his mind to set the Jews free, if once the City was taken, he caused Proclamation to be made at his very entrance into it, that all who could speak the Syriac tongue (which the Jews could) should keep within doors, and so be safe; as Xenophon showeth, lib. 7.  
By all which I see, that they who reject Xenophon and Josephus in these passages to embrace Berosus and Megasthenes, do run upon the rock of many a text in the assured word of God delvered to us by the Prophets, Esay, Jeremy, Daniel.  
There be indeed in Xenophon many things spoken highly in commendation of Cyrus, and much Rhetoric used to garnish and set forth that History, describing in Cyrus the pattern of a most Heoricall Prince: yet nevertheless the body and bulk thereof is founded upon mere Historical truth. Putting therefore apart the Moral and Politic discourse, and examining but the History of things done, it will easily appear, that Xenophon hath handled his undertaken subject in such sort, that by beautyfying the face thereof, he hath not in any sort corrupted the body: as is gallantly observed by Sir Walter Raleigh, in his History of the world, lib. 3. c. 2. Section 3.  
I conclude therefore that the last King of this Monarchy was Belshazzar, the first was Nabuchadnezzar, & the middlemost was Evilmerodach: and that the whole time among these three was 70 years, beginning from the time of daniel's Captivity, and agreement of servitude which jehoiakim made with Nabuchadnezzar, 2 Kin. 26, 1. jer. 25.2. The first of these had 44 years, as may be gathered out of Scripture; the second 12, and the third 14, as Sulpitius Severus hath told us, in the second book of his sacred History, affirming there, that so he found it an old Anonymus, wherein the times of the Kings of Babylon were recorded. And why I say Nabuchadnezzar had 44 years as may be gathered out of Scripture, is, because Jechonia was carried away Captive in the eighth year of Nabuchadnezzar, 2 Kin. 24.12. and in the seven and thirtieth year after Evilmerodach began to reign: which because it was late in that year, might make Nebuchadnezars reign to be some odd Months more than forty four years; as may be seen 2 Kin. 25.27. Berosus gives to Nabonidus 17 years, and him we have already proved to be Belshazzar: Josephus therefore saith that Belshazzar was slain in the seventeenth year of his reign: and if so, then must Evilmerodach have about 9 years; because 44, 9 and 17 will make the full number of 70.  
They that like this last account better than the former, may if they please embrace it. Or whether this or that, it is not much material: for the Scriptures have told us that God gave the empire of Babylon for 70 years, to Nabuchadnezzar, his son and his son's son: and therefore though there may be some small difference in the particulars, yet doth that hinder nothing from being satisfied in the general assured sum.  
One thing more I would gladly touch at; and this it is: the death of Nabopollassar, who was alive when Nabuchadnezzar began his expedition against Egypt and Syria, but died soon after: probably about such time as Nabuchadnezzar altered his purpose concerning Jehoiakim: For having bound him in fetters with an intent to carry him to Babylon, he agreed with him that he should become his servant, and so sent him home to Jerusalem: which I take to be in regard of the news of his Father's death. And if so, then will the reign of Nabopollassar be something short of 20 years. For whilst some give him 29 years, some Copies of Ptolomey 25, other 21, I should rather think 19 to be the truer number, which in Berosus his fragment is corruptly said to be 29. or if 20, it must be but 20 running on: and so shall both the beginning of the Captivity, and the beginning of Nabuchadnezzar after the death of his Father, be at one and the same time, viz. in the year of the julian Period 4108. Howbeit the ordinary account of Nebuch adnezzars reign is not to be taken from hence, but from the beginning of his expedition.   

CHAP. XII. Of the first year of Cyrus, and of Darius Medus mentioned in holy Scripture.  
THe first year of Cyrus mentioned in Scripture, was not the first year of his reign over Persia, but the first year of his Monarchy which began at the conquest of Babylon: and was a Date reckoned, not only by the Jews as an Aera or Epocha first began in honour of their return out of Captivity, but as the first year of a new Kingdom: in the beginning whereof the Jews indeed came out of Babylon; but the Record bearing date for this was found in a Coffer which was at Achmetha, a Provice of the Medes, in the Palace there, Ezr. 6.2. We may not therefore with Joseph Scaliger begin this Monarchy some certain years after the taking of Babylon, but at the very time thereof. For first, if there were four Monarchies one to succeed another, as we are taught in the second and seventh Chapters of Daniel: then I ask, from whence shall we reckon the beginning of the second, but from the end of the first which went before it? Or shall we say that when the one was extinguished, the other was not as yet begun? Surely no. For Nebuchadnezars Image, which represented the four Monarchies, was but one entire body, and withal an entire body: wherefore, as soon as the Head of Gold was cut off (which was at the 
* Nam ante ejus expugnationem populum ibidem captivum dimittere non potuit, neque pronunciare, data sibi esse à Deo caeli omnia regna, terrae. Regnum enim Babylonicum erat omnium potentissimum, quo nondum subacto, ipse Monarcha jure appellari nequibat. vide Cluverum.  taking of Babylon, Jer. 27.7. and chap. 50.4.) the power remained in the Arms and Breast of Silver: and well might Cyrus at that time say, All the Kingdoms of the earth were given unto him; because his power was then so great and so much increased by that conquest (in having won the destroyer, and conquered the conqueror) that other subordinate Kingdoms were as nothing to resist him. Secondly, Daniel was unto the first year of Cyrus, Dan. 1.21. that is, he continued in Babylon till that state was altered, & the Kingdom translated to Cyrus. For upon the conquest Darius took Daniel thence, and carried him to the Medes, as 
* Josep. Antiq. lib. 10. ca 12.  Josehus writeth; in which Country he was had in great honour, & made a chief officer in the Kingdom. To which testimony of josephus, even Daniel also adds no little light, seeming to point out the place of his own imprisonment among the Lions, to be in Media: For in the sixth Chapter, at the eighth verse, the Law of the Medes and Persians is urged.  
Now that this was also the first year of Darius, is apparent out of the two foremost verses of the ninth Chapter. For in the first year of Darius, Daniel understood by books that the 70 years were accomplished: which could not be, if this first of Darius had not been likewise the first of Cyrus. For not only upon the immediate dissolution of the Babylonian state did Cyrus begin, as already hath been proved out of Dan. 1.21. but even the 70. years of the Jews servitude was at an end, in which the Jews and the other threatened Nations were to serve Nabuchadnezzar, his son and his son's son; not that they were subdued all at once, but by degrees; and were not delisered out of that servitude until the end of the 70 years, which were not only to end the Captivity, but the time also of Babel's Kingdom, as in the former Chapter I have fully proved.   

CHAP. XIII. Of Alexander the great, signified by the Horn between the eyes of the Goat, Dan. 8.5.  
IN this eighth Chapter of Daniel, the Prophet relateth what he saw in a vision concerning the Persian and Grecian kingdoms. The first whereof is described by a Ram verse 4. The second by a Goat, verse 5.  
The Ram, saith the Angel, having two horns, are the Kings of the Medes and Persians, verse 20. The Goat is the King of Grecia, and the great horn which is between his eyes, is the first king, verse 21.  
This great horn than was Alexander ille magnus, Alexander the great, born 33 years before the beginning of the 114 Olympiad: at the day of whose birth the Temple of Diana at Ephesus was set on fire, which the Magicians interpreted to signify that one than was borne who should set fire on all Asia.  
At fifteen years of age he was committed by his Father to Aristotle's tuition, with whom (as justin reporteth) he spent five years in the learning of Arts and other knowledge meet for a King: and about the end of this time his Father died. Then began he to reign; and having reigned 6 years he prevailed over the Ram: and by the end of six years more he is broken off. This was when his fortunes were at the greatest, as was signified, vers. 8. for being returned from his conquest of the Indians, and purposing to pass over into Greece, and the Western parts, he died in the way at Babylon, where Ambassadors from most parts in the world expected him. Some say he was poisoned: but the most agree that he died of a surfeit which he got at a Physician's house, where having first of all glutted himself with eating, he drowned himself in extreme quaffing and carousing; through which distemper he fell into a burning fever and so died before he came again into his own Country.  
His success in Battle was admirable: for he never encountered enemy but he overcame him, never besieged City but he took it; and in three fights he overcame all the power of Asia, extending his Empire to such a wonderful largeness, that he came not only to India and the river Ganges, and to those places where Semiramis, Hercules, and Cyrus had set up Altars before him, but also conquered the more Noble parts of Europe, Syria, and Egypt: and these things done with such celerity, that he might well appear to Daniel in one of his Visions, with 
* Quia nihil fuit velocius Alexandri victoria: as Saint Hierom observeth.  wings on his back, Dan. 7.6.  
Apelles knew no such Prophecy, and yet (to signify his great swiftness and agility) he added to his Picture a Thunderbolt; and Lysippus another painter, drew him in this fashion, looking up towards Heaven, and as it were uttering these words; Jupiter, asserui terram mihi; tu assere coelum, Jupiter, I have taken the earth to myself; do thou take the Heaven. Which Poesy pleased him and gave him great content; insomuch that none afterwards might take his Picture except Lysippus: & at length growing to be more and more taken with an itch of vain glory, he called himself the son of Jupiter, arrogating such a worship to be due unto him, as was conferred on the Gods; which when calisthenes refused to give, he caused him to be killed. Howbeit, before he had glutted himself with the pleasures of Asia, he was more mild and better-minded: for (as Josephus hath recorded) meeting Jaduah the high Priest of the Jews in his Pontifical robes, 
Joseph Antiq. lib. 11. cap. 8.  he fell down before him and gave him reverence; and being asked by Parmenio why he did so, he answereth: I worship not the man, but God in the man, who in the same habit had appeared to him, and gave him encouragement to go forward in that enterprise concerning the conquest of Asia. And indeed upon this appearance he grew confident, went on courageously, and with good success, until the time came that he must be broken off, which was in the first year of the 114 Olympiad, as most Authors reckon: aster which, four other horns sprang up in his stead.   

CHAP. XIV. Of the four Horns which came up in stead of the great Horn broken off, as was prophesied Dan. 8.8.21.22.  
As also the beginning of that Date of the Kingdom of the Greeks' so often mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees, and in Josephus.  
THese four Horns were the four successors of Alexander, or rather the four Kingdoms into which his great and mighty Monarchy was divided after him: not instantly or immediately after he was dead, but by the time that his whole stock and posterity were rooted out. And for this we have the warrant of Daniel, in another place of his prophecy; namely in the eleventh Chapter, at the fourth verse: in which place is said, His Kingdom shall be divided towards the four winds of Heaven, but not to his posterity. This was not until twelve years after the death of Alexander: for than none of his posterity being left alive (neither Mother, Brother, Wife, nor child) his Captains composed the differences that were between them, by entering into a League among themselves, and began to reign; bringing the dominion of the whole, for which they strove, into four Heads: and so there were four Kingdoms, though not according to the dominion which he ruled, nor in such power as he had; Daniel showeth it, Dan. 8.22. and Dan. 11.4.  
The most eminent among these, and which had most to do with the Jews, was the Kingdom of the Syrogrecians, or the Kingdom of the Greeks' in Syria and Babylon. For Ptolemy the son of Lagus obtained Egypt, and is called (he and his successors after him) the King of the South: In the North Antigonus held Asta minor: In the West Cassander possessed the Kingdom of Macedonia: and in the East Seleucus Nicanor obtained the Kingdom of Babylon and Syria, in whose first year that date so often mentioned in the Books of the Maccahees, and in Josephus, took beginning: That in the first Book of Maccabees, on the thirteenth day of March in the year of the julian Period 4402. That in the second Book of the Maccabees, at the Spring time of the next year: between both which was another, beginning on the sixth day of September in the same year with the first. And thus we have the several heads of this Aera of Seleucus.  
The first is called Minjan staros, that is Aera Contractuum. Eusebius calleth it Aera Edessenorum: and others, the Aera of the author of the first Book of Maccabees, and is followed by Josephus. They that cast it into the 436. year of Nabonassar, are right, if they mark how they account it: which must be thus. The 436. year of Nabonassar began in the year of the julian Period 4401, on the ninth day of November, and on the thirteenth day of March next after (whilst the same year of Nabonassar was still running on) the first year of the Greeks' began. This first year therefore of the Kingdom of the Greeks' began in the year of the julian Period 4402. (as at the first was said) on the thirteenth day of March: at the Summer time of which, year entered in the first year of the 117 Olympiad.  
The second is called Aera Antiochena, seu Alexandrea, sive 
* Id est, a duobus co●●bus seu duobus imperiis, quae ex uno orientali Alexandrino enata sunt. Orig De temp p. 24. & Lydiat De emend tem. pag. 83.84.  Dilkarnaim; beginning on the sixth of September, in the same year with the former.  
The third, is Aera Chaldaica seu Macedonica, beginning in the Spring time of the following year, falling therefore into the year of the julian Period 4403. and is called the Aera of the Author of the second Book of Maccabees, followed (as I conceive) by Ptolemy, Lib. magni operis 11. cap. 7. who beginneth his account in the year of Nabonassar 437.  
In the 148 year of this Kingdom, according to the first account, Judas Maccabeus purged the Temple and the holy places, which the Heathen had polluted and defiled; building a new Altar, and restoring the Sacrifices, as is recorded in 1 Macc. 4.52, 53. This was in the year of the Julian Period 4549, and year of the World 3840, on the 25 day of Casleu. If this year were annus Embolimaeus, then must the 25 day of Casleu be on the two and twentieth or three and twentieth of November, as Calvisius reckoneth. But as I account, it was not annus Embolimaeus: and therefore the 25 of Casleu was on the 
* Because the first of Nisan was April 6. f. 1. and so it must be by reason of the Equinox.  two and twentieth day of December, f. 2. In the year next after was the beginning of a year of Rest on the 21 day of September, and is mentioned after the death of Antiochus, when Eupator besieged Jerusalem, 1 Macc. 6.48, 49. In the year therefore of the Julian Period 4550, this Sabbathical year began, and reached to the seventh month of the next year. In the year of the same Period 4578 began another: and in the year 4676, another. All of them spoken of in Josephus; and two of them in the History of the Maccabees.   

CHAP. XV. Of the little Horn in the eighth Chapter of Daniel, at the ninth verse. And of the 2300 days that were given unto it, verse 14.  
I May fitly make a difference between this little horn, and that mentioned in the seventh Chapter; because this arose out of the third Monarchy; that out of the fourth: this out of a Beast which had but four horns after the first was broken; that out of a Beast which had ten horns and trampled the other Beasts under its feet: this bore rule but 2300 natural days; that prevailed for a Time, Times, and half a Time. And albeit the third Monarchy be one while expressed by a Leopard, another while by a Goat; yet must the Leopard mean the whole Kingdom of Alexander and his successors, as well as the Goat: for the four heads on either of these Beasts proclaim as much, as will be seen more plainly afterwards. But in the mean time this I set down as certain, That the little horn here mentioned, is no other than Antiochus Epiphanes, who committed many and sundry outrages both against other Nations, and also against the people of God, proceeding in profaneness even against God himself.  
He is called a little horn, not because his Kingdom was little or mean; but because he was of a base flattering nature, having no true Princely quality or condition in him: and also because he had no title to the Kingdom at the first, being the younger brother, Seleuchus the elder having an issue male alive at the same time when he began to take the Kingdom. This was his beginning: yet afterwards he came to be famous, and was therefore called Antiochus Epiphanes, which is famous or noble; or (as some say) Epimanes, 
Jun. ex Polyb.  which is furious or mad.  
Daniel was informed concerning the mischief that he should commit; and thereupon he telleth us what he heard one of the Saints say unto another certain Saint, who was the numberer of Secrets or the wonderful Numberer, namely, That the Sanctuary and the host should be trodden under foot unto the evening and the morning two thousand and three hundred, Dan. 8.13, 14. In which number we are not to understand so many years, but natural days: for albeit a day is to be taken for a year in many reckon and prophetical predictions in Scripture, yet never when the words Evening and Morning are annexed: for than they mean but such days as are in the first Chapter of Genesis, where it is said that the Evening and the Morning were the first day. etc. For that which is a Natural day comprehendeth the day and night; or, as it is here, the Evening and the Morning.  
Howbeit in 2300 days there will arise a number of certain years, which (by accounting 365 days to a year, and thirty days to a month) will amount to six years, three months, and twenty days. And albeit there be no precise point mentioned from whence to account these six years, three months, and twenty days; yet this is certain, that their end must be fixed at the cleansing of the Sanctuary: which, as Josephus and the Authors of the first book of the Maccabees have recorded, 
Josph. Antiq. lib. 12. cap. 11. and Macc. 4.52.  was in the hundredth and forty eighth year of the Grecians. For whereas the Maccabees do expressly name the 148 year, Josephus saith it was three years after the hundredth and five and fortieth, upon the 25 day of the ninth month which is called Casleu.  
Now then from this time subtract six years, three months, and twenty days; and the head of your reckoning will fall into the hundreth & two and fortieth year, the sixth month, and fifth or sixth day of the month: about which time Antiochus (
* 1 Macc. cap. 1. ver. 13.16. and 20.  a little before he went into Egypt) gave leave to set up the fashions of the Gentiles in Jerusalem, returning again (after he had smitten that Country) in the 143 year; at which time he came in his own person against Israel with a great multitude, and entering proudly into the Sanctuary, took from thence the Golden Altar, and Candlestick of light, etc. offering many sundry outrages, as in the first book of Maccabees at the first Chapter doth well appear.  
And thus we have seen this little Horn, together with those years wherein it prevailed after it was grown and waxed great. As for that other in the seventh Chapter, it cannot be the same with this, because it arose in the days of the fourth Monarchy: of which see more in the following Chapter.   

CHAP. XVI. Of the fourth Kingdom in Daniel that it signifieth the Monarchy of the Romans.  
I Was once almost drawn to think that this fourth Monarchy ought to be taken for the divided Kingdom of the Syrians or Seleucians': but now, upon a more diligent search into the Prophecies concerning the four Monarchies, I have reason to conclude against it.  
For first the third Monarchy (being the Kingdom of the Grecians) prevailed greatly over the face of the Earth, Dan. 2.39. Howbeitthe fourth Beast or Monarchy was stronger than the third, as appeareth, Dan. 2.40. where it is compared to Iron which subdueth all things: and in Dan. 7.7. It is said to be exceeding terrible, stamping the residue under its feet: and verse 23, It shall devour the whole Earth, and shall tread it down and break it in pieces. Which if it be understood of the Seleucian or Syrian Kingdoms, is very improbable: for they (put case that we make them no part of the Grecian or third Monarchy) were nothing so strong as it; neither did they trample the residue under their feet, seeing Alexander was not conquered by them; neither did they reign so much over the whole Earth, as he had done before them, but were a great deal feebler than the Kingdom of Alexander. It is therefore said after the breaking off the great Horn, that there were four which stood up for it, being four Kingdoms of the same Nation, but not in his strength; as it is, Dan. 8.22.  
To which some have answered, Object. that this their stamping and treading under feet, is especially meant of the people of God trodden down and persecuted under Antiochus that great tyrant. Answ. But I may well think this to be nothing else but a mere evasion: for it is manifest that there was as much violence offered to Religion before, as in the days of Antiochus; witness that which Nabuchadnezzar did when he set up his Golden Image, commanding that whosoever would not fall down and worship it, should be cast into the hot fiery furnace: nay, that it must be made seven times hotter than ordinary, for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, Dan. 3.6.19. Befide, neither did Antiochus so prevail against the Jews as if he had stamped them all in pieces: for in the end they resisted him, restored their Religion, and settled the state of their Commonwealth: whereas this strength and stamping is rather meant of the Monarchies, one eating up and subduing another.  
Secondly, the Seleucians' or Syrians who succeeded Alexander, and Alexander also himself, are said to reign as Grecians, and not as two Kingdoms divers from one Monarchy. Whereupon we read in the eighth Chapter of Daniel, that the two horned Ram is expressly meant of the Medes and Persians, verse 20, and that the Goat signifieth the whole Kingdom of the Gecians, 
Dan. 8.20.21.22.  viz. of Alexonder and his successors. For, at the one and twentieth verse, The Goat is the King of Grecia, and the great horn which is betwixt his eyes, is the first King. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four Kingdoms shall stand up of that Nation, but not in his strength. If then there be a first King, there must be no more than one: and if more than one, the Monarchy could not end in Alexander: and if the Monarchy did not end with Alexander, than the Seleucian or Syrian Kings must necessarily be part of the third Monarchy: and they being part of the third Monarchy, the fourth and last is the Monarchy of the Romans.  
And now also, lest it should be thought that the third Beast of the seventh Chapter doth not likewise comprehend the whole Kingdom of Grecia, both of Alexander and his successors, the words of the sixth verse stand thus; After this I beheld, and lo there was another like a leopard which had upon his back four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads, and Dominion was given him. These wings were Emblems of Alexander's speedy conquests, together with that sudden division of one body into four parts, soon after the great horn was broken off. The four heads are his four successors; even as is seen in the eighth Chapter, and signified there by the four horns of a Goat. By which it appeareth, that both Alexander and his successors, are comprehended under both Beasts; for what the one expresseth by four heads, is in the other also meant by four horns: than which there can be nothing plainer.  
Thirdly, Antiochus Epiphanes is described by that little horn which came fourth of one of the four horns of the Goat, Chap. 8.9. Which beast is taken (as hath been already seen) for Alexander and his successors, answering to the third beast of the seventh Chapter. But if Antiochus, belonging to the Seleucian Kingdom, be a part of the third Beast, he cannot also signify the fourth or any part thereof: for then one Beast should be both the third and fourth Monarchy.  
Fourthly, the Kingdom of this fourth Beast endeth with the destruction of that little horn which came up among the ten horns, Chap. 7.11. and then the everlasting Kingdom of Christ succeedeth: but the Kingdom of the Seleucians' ended not with Antiochus; many of that line succeeded afterwards: and there was almost as many years from Antiochus Epiphanes death unto the coming of Christ, as there were from Alexander's death to Antiochus.  
Fifthly, it is said that the life of each Beast was prolonged for a certain time and season, Dan. 7.12. But Alexander's reign lasted no longer than six years and a few months, after the destruction of the second Beast, or Persian Monarchy. And in so short a season, what Periods or conversions of times could be observed?  
Sixthly, Saint John's Beast in the Revelation, is described according to the pattern of daniel's fourth Beast, having ten horns, and a mouth speaking great things, and reigning also (under the regiment of that blasphemous mouth) for the space of 42 months, or for a Time, Times, and half a Time; as may be seen in the thirteenth and seventeenth Chapters of the Revelation. Wherefore seeing one and the same Beast is described in both Prophecies, neither in Daniel, nor in the Revelation, can be signified by either of them the Kingdoms of the Seleucians' and Syrians. For look what things concerning this Beast are told to Daniel more succinctly and abstrusely, the same are revealed to Saint John more largely, and as it were with a kind of explanation. And may not the ten toes in the feet of the Image, serve as certain tokens to show, that although the Beast had always ten horns in respect of the principal Provinces under it, yet the ten horns called by the name of ten Kings are not to be looked for in the first days of the Monarchy, but in the declining estate and weakened times of the Empire, as the toes signify.  
Seventhly, it is said Dan. 2.28. There is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and hath showed to the King what shall be in the latter days. But the latter days are the days since the first coming of Christ; this time being the last hour, and the last age, 
1 Joh. 2 18.  as Saint John hath told us: whereas the Syrians or Seleucians' both begins and ended long before Christ was born. The latter days therefore were not come till they were gone, and the prolonging of their kingdom come to an end: for (as I said before) the life of each Beast was prolonged for a certain time and season, Dan. 7.12.  
Eighthly, in the days of these Kings or Kingdoms (viz. before they be all destroyed) the God of heaven shall raise up the eternal Kingdom of Christ, and of his Saints, Dan. 2.44. But if the fourth Kingdom be interpreted of the Seleucians', than these kingdoms were all extinguished before Christ's kingdom began, whether we reckon it from his first or second coming: whereas on the contrary, Christ's birth fell into the reign of the Romans; who are not utterly to be destroyed, in all and every relic, till his coming again to judgement. Which is manifest by that of Daniel also in the seventh Chapter; namely, that there shall remain some show or relics of the fourth Beast until the thrones be set, verse 9 and the Books be opened, verse 10. and till the son of Man come in the clouds of heaven, verse 13. and till he get all dominion, and honour, and Kingdoms; and that all People, Nations, and tongues may serve him, verse 14. and until the Ancient of day's cause judgement to be given, verse 22. and till his everlasting Kingdom come, which never shall have an end, verse 27. All which do properly belong unto the day of judgement, and second coming of Christ: and therefore the fourth Monarchy must needs be meant of the Roman Empire; and not of the Syrian or Seleucian Kingdom which was decayed and gone before Christ was born: for it fell first of all to Tigranes' King of Armenia; and afterwards to the Romans, in the days of Lucullus and Pompey Yea, and at the death of Cleopatra Augustus was sole Monarch, the longest survivor of the four heads and horns, being then expired in the loss of Egypt: And so the fourth Beast trampled the rest under his feet, as was foretold, Dan. 7.7.  
And note that the jews, in not expecting the coming of the Messiah until the Roman Monarchy be destroyed, have put a false gloss upon Daniel. For it is (as Helvicus well observeth) a vain interpretation which they bring. For Daniel (in chap. 2. vers. 44, 45.) doth not say that the Kingdom of the Messiah shall come after the end of the fourth Monarchy, 
Helvic. vindic. locorum S. Scripturae pag. 306. 307.  Sed durante adhuc tempore seu periodo illorum regnorum; that is, in the days of those Kingdoms, or before they be all destroyed. Ergò falsò expectant id post finem Romani imperii. Nam durante ipso quarto regno debebat regnum aliud (spirituale scilicet, & aeternum) alterius conditionis suscitari, quod est regnum Messiae. They do therefore in vain look for it after the end of the Roman Empire. For even during the fourth Kingdom, another Kingdom (to wit, a spiritual and an eternal one) of another condition was to be raised up, which is the Kingdom of the Messiah: Nor do some of their own Writings but confirm this truth: For as the same Author saith still, in libr. Sanhedrim, cap. Chelek, it is expressly written, 
Helvic. ibid.  That the son of David shall not come until a wicked Kingdom bear rule; that is saith Rabbi Solomon, the Kingdom of the Romans. And in Midras' Tillim upon the two and twentieth Psalm; Surge in Edom, id est, Romans, cum futurum est ut astare nobis facias regem Messiam, meaning, That God would cause to stand up for them in the days of the Romans, the King Messiah.  
And thus I have delivered what I think to be true concerning the fourth Kingdom in Daniel, firmly grounding upon such proofs, as in my judgement cannot but carry the whole dispute against Junius and all his followers: whom I honour both for their great learning and pains, although I cannot be their disciple in this particular.   

CHAP. XVII. Of the times and distances of the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey, Herod, and Titus.  
THat which must be the chiefest Load star in these particulars, must be the time of the taking of Jerusalem by Herod; 
Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 28.  for which Josephus gives us two plain Characters: the one, that it was besieged and taken in a Sabbathical year; viz. after it began, and before it was ended: the other that it was taken in that year when M. Agrippa and Canidius Gallus were Consuls. The time of their Consulship was in the ninth julian year, and year of the julian Period 4677, which was the fourth year of the 185 Olympiad, and year of the building of Rome 716. And indeed in that year was a year of Rest, which began from the Autumn before, and was not ended until the Autumn thereof: how then could it be taken on the tenth day of the seventh month, as Langius saith it was? I am sure it agreeth nothing at all to Josephus to say that it was taken so late in the year: for, as he hath told us, not only was it besieged in a Sabbathical year, but even after it was taken, the year of Rest was not ended, which makes him therefore say that the fields and grounds lay still untilled, and were not sown because of the year of Rest. See this in his Antiquities, lib. 15. cap. 1. and compare it with what is in lib. 14. cap. 28.  
Dion saith it was taken on the Sabbath day, lib. 49. and Josephus saith it was in the third month at such time as the jews kept a solemn Fast. The third month was Sivan, on whose three and twentieth day was a Fast observed, by reason of the Idolatry of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin. Now in this year the first of Sivan was on the 31 day of May, feria sexta: the three and twentieth of Sivan must therefore needs be on the two and twentieth day of June, feria septima, or on the Sabbath day; For the Cycle of the Sun was one, the Dominical letters G. F. and the Cycle of the Moon three.  
Seven and twenty years before this, 
Dion. lib. 37.  Pompey also took Jerusalem, even on the same day of the Month; which according to Dion and Xiphilin was then also Sabbath day. And indeed so I find it: for in the year of the julian Period 4650, the Cycle of the Sun was two, the Dominical letter E. and the Cycle of the Moon 14. By which is gathered that the first of Sivan now was on the thirtieth day of May, feria sexta: the three and twentieth therefore must be June the 21, feria septima, or Sabbath day, as the Dominical letter showeth. And herein do Josephus, Dion, and Xiphilin well accord: all of them directing us to the foresaid year of the julian Period 4650; to which if 27 be added, according to the direction of Josephus, we have then the year of the Julian Period 4677, when Herod took it, as at the first was said. And note moreover, that whereas Josephus saith when Pompey took this City, C. Antonius and M. Tull. Cicero were Consuls, that it is true of that year which I account: for though at that very time when the City was taken they were not in that office, yet in that year they began, even in the year of the Julian Period 4650, their office not expiring until the same time of the next year: which I thought good to mention, because the not observing it hath been an occasion of seeking this time one year too late. The like may be also said of the 179 Olympiad, which began also in the same year, although a little after the City was taken: for the City was taken in June; the Olympiad began not until the July next after. And as for the third month when it was taken, which learned Langius would not have to be the third month of the year, but of the siege; and thereupon directeth his Reader to Josephus De bello Judaic. lib. 1. cap. 5. where the history of the taking Jerusalem by Pompey is also related. To that I answer, that it hindereth not from accounting so as I have done; For the third month of the siege might be also the third month of the year, and is here proved to be so in regard of the day of the Fast, and day of the week, when the City was taken, yea and of the year also, which must be (by josephus his own account) 27 years distant from the taking thereof by Herod. I conclude therefore that Pompey going forth against jerusalem in Nisan, and taking it in the third month after, must needs take it in Sivan; which because it was on such a day as the jews kept a solemn Fast, must be on the three and twentieth day of the same: which three and twentieth day of Sivan was this year on the one and twentieh day of June, and on the Sabbath day, as before was said.  
Indeed when Herod took it, the siege lasted longer by the space of two months, 
De bell. Jud. lib. 1. cap. 13.  as Josephus plainly showeth. It began therefore sooner: not in Nisan (which entered not till the second of April) but some months before, 
Ibid viz. lib. 1. cap. 13. Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 27.  even when the worst of Winter was passed; which in one place of Josephus is translated rigour hyemis: as thus, ubi autem rigor hyemis cessit, etc. and in another place, ubi tempestas desaeviit. Now we know that even in our Northern Climate the worst of Winter is passed long before April, which in hotter Countries, must be passed sooner than with us by far. I reckon therefore that Herod came against Jerusalem in the beginning of February, and laid siege against it, and that the jews resisted him for five months' space before he took it: for he took not the City till the 22 of June next after, which was the three and twentieth of Sivan, and Sabbath day as well in this year as in that when Pompey took it; the authorities else of Dion and Xiphilin will be nothing worth; no nor the authority of josephus for the Sabbathical year, which was running on whilst the City was besieged, and withal was not ended when Herod had taken it: which well regarded will give no leave to that opinion maintaining that he took it not till the tenth day of the seventh month called Tisri, as I have already showed. Note also further, 
Antig. lib. 14. cap. 28.  that on the fortieth day after Herod returned from the marriage of Mariam, and that he and Sosius both of them bend their forces against the City, the first Wall was taken; fifteen days after that, the second: for so I understand josephus in those particulars. But that it were three months after this before the Temple and upper City was taken, I cannot think: for the Porches and outward Temple were taken and burnt even when the second wall was taken; and then quickly after, the fury of the Soldiers set them on work to take the rest, sparing neither sex nor age, as josephus also showeth. This was (saith he) in the hundreth and seven and twentieth year of the Assamonaean Family: but how we must account these years, I do not well understand; unless it be that we are to begin our account in the 150 year of the Greeks', which was in the year of the julian Period 4551. for then did Antiochus Eupator make a Covenant (though he quickly broke it) with Judas Maccabeus and the rest of the jews, that they should enjoy their Laws and Liberties as formerly they had done, 1 Macc. 6.58. And indeed there is reason to reckon from hence, seeing the end of these years is fixed in the death of Antigonus, when Herod and Sosius took Jerusalem.  
And now also for the time when Titus took and destroyed this City, it must be one hundred and seven years after Herod had taken it; and these 107, not complete but current. For Jerusalem was destroyed (as saith josephus) by the Romans one hundred and seven years after Herod had taken it; yet so, 
Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8.  as the destruction thereof by Titus must fall into the second year of Vespasian, as he again declareth. 
De bello judaic. lib. 7. cap. 10. and cap. 18.  The time therefore when Titus destroyed it will fall into the year of the julian Period 4783; which was in the hundreth and seventh year after it was taken by Herod and Sosius. For whereas Herod took it towards the latter end of june, in the year of the julian Period 4677; the Temple was burned by Titus his Soldiers in August, in the year of the same Period 4783, and the City in September next after; the second year of Vespasian being begun on the Kalends of july before. For there were (saith Xiphilin) from the death of Nero (who died on the ninth of june) to the beginning of Vespasian, one year and two and twenty days.  
But of this destruction of jerusalem by Titus, I shall speak more afterwards in the last Chapter. I come therefore now to show the true time of Herod's reign.   

CHAP. XVIII. Of the time of Herod's reign, and of his Posterity.  
IT was near about such time as the Romans were growing into a full Monarchy, that Herod the great, the son of Antipater, came to his Kingdom. He had a reign of 37 years from that time wherein he was declared King by the Senate, and of 34 from the taking of Jerusalem by himself and Sosius, witnessed by josephus 
* Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 26. and lib. 17. ca 10. & De bello judaic. lib. 1. cap. ult.  in sundry places of his Writings. Then after him his son Archelaus reigned nine years complete, and near the beginning of his tenth year was banished by Augustus: And in the twentieth year of Tiberius his other son Philip died; having then had a reign of 37 years after his Father, as 
* Antiq. lib. 17. cap. ultim. & lib. 18 cap. 6.  josephus again declareth. Antipas also another of his sons was Tetrarch of Galilee, which he held from the time of his Father's death until the days of Caius Caligula, who (by the means of Agrippa) banished him into France. This Antipas was he by whom the Baptist was beheaded, and under whom out Saviour suffered. Agrippa was the son of Aristobulus, and Nephew to Antipas: for Aristobulus was another of Herod's sons, who was put to death by his Father. And as for Agrippa, it was he who put james to death, and was himself eaten up of Worms. Herod King of Chalcis was this Agrippa's brother: he died in the eighth year of Claudius, and had his Kingdom given to Agrippa junior, the son of Agrippa signior, who reigned over it for the space of four years: at the end whereof the Emperor takes it away from him also, and in the stead thereof gives to him the Tetrarchships of Philip and Lysanias, etc. In them he reigned, and lived in friendship with the Romans until the third year of Trajan; and was therefore alive thirty years after the destruction of jerusalem by Titus.  
But this is not that which I aim at: for that which I chief intent to prove, is, the true time of Herod the great, before whose death our Saviour Christ was certainly borne. 
Math. 2.1.  For (as the Scripture speaketh) he was born in the days of Herod the King.  
This Herod (as I said before) had a reign of 37 years from that time wherein he was declared King by the Romans; and of 34 from the taking of Jerusalem by himself and Sosius. The first of these reckon began in the sixth julian year, when Cn. Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio were Consuls: the other, in the ninth julian year when M. Agrippa and L. Canidius Gallus were Consuls. And if so, than the last of these years must certainly begin in the two and fortieth julian year, and year of the julian Period 4710: Herod therefore died in the three and fortieth julian year, and year of the same Period 4711 before Easter, when from his first beginning he had reigned 37 years complete; and from his second, 34 years' current. Petavius strives for the year before this, and that chief in regard of an Eclipse of the Moon which was then on the thirteenth day of March: 
Kepl. in his Silua Chro. annexed to his book De novis stellis, and Petav. in his Doctr. Temper. lib. 11. cap. 1.  for in the 42 julian year was an Eclipse of the Moon on the thirteenth day of March, about three hours before Sunrising, continuing two hours & 47 minutes; the digits eclipsed being six, as Kepler & Petavius have observed. Now this they think to be that Eclipse which Josephus speaks of in his Antiquities, lib. 17. cap. 8. But in case josephus should there mean a natural Eclipse of the Moon, yet could not this be it; for there was too small a space between the thirteenth day of March, and the Easter of this year (which was on the eleventh of April) to have all those things done which Josephus mentions to be done between that time of the Moon's darkness and the death of Herod. Inter enim crematos Rabbinos & Paschatis festum, contigerunt tam multa variaque, ut ad ea non paucularum hebdomadum, sed multorum mensium tempus requiratur. 
Vossius de Te●b Na●iv. Christi.  Quod cuivis josephum legenti apertissimum erit; as saith a famons Author. Adding moreover, That every darkness and obscurity of the Moon deserves not the name of an Eclipse, unless the Earth be placed between the Sun and the Moon; howbeit it is vulgarly called an Eclipse, when, without that cause, the paleness and darkness of a Star of light, hath the show of an Eclipse: As happened at the death of 
* Maro primo Georg. Plin. lib. 2 cap 30. Et Plutarch in vita Caesaris.  julius Caesar, or when his Nephew Octavius hearing of his death came to Rome and entered the City. Of which, Calvisius also speaketh, saying; Nullibi hoc anno hisce diebus, quando Octavius urbem ingressus est, Eclipse Solis invenitur, quam anxiè inquirit Harwartus ab Hohnburg. Concludendum igitur fuisse aliquod Phaenomenon in Sole, etc. So also when Xerxes moved from Sardes, there was (as saith Herodotus) a great darkness of the Sun in a clear air; which almost all Chronologers taking to be meant of an Eclipse at that time, have grievously tormented and vexed themselves to find it out: but failing to find any at the right time, they have moved this march of Xerxes, some to one year, and some to another; that thereby they might fit it to an Eclipse, when indeed there was no Eclipse meant, but only some Phaenomenon, strange sight, or miraculous disappearing of the Sun for a season.  
Beside, if that Eclipse of the Moon in the two and fortieth julian year must serve as a true Character to show the time of Herod's death, then how shall the years of his reign be made good? for in the beginning of that year Herod had reigned but 36 years from his first beginning, and not 33 from his second beginning. The two and fortieth julian year could not therefore be the year of Herod's death; no evasion can serve to bring it up so high, but upon necessity it must be in the year next after, and that was the three and fortieth year.  
As much also do they err who bring his death down to the 44 julian year: for it is directly against the testimony of josephus to say that Herod was not made King by the Romans till a little before the end of the sixth julian year. 
Antiq. lib 14. cap. 25.26.  It was Winter time indeed when he hazarded himself upon the Seas to come to Rome where the Senate made him King; but it was not the Winter that entered near the end of the sixth julian year: for then the Olympiad was not 184, but 185. Now we know it from josephus, that Herod was made King by the Romans in the 184 Olympiad, as well as when Domitius Calvinus and Asinius Pollio were Consuls; for if we take only this and not likewise that, we lay hold but upon half our testimony: And if in the 184 Olympiad, then before the Winter which entered near the going out of their Consulships. The series therefore of the passages in josephus which concern this, 
Antiq. lib 14. c. 24 25. 26.  standeth thus; namely, that at the Pentecost of the fifth julian year Herod was in judea: at Autumn he purposed to go from Alexandria to Rome, but was hindered by a great tempest, and came not to Rome till a good part of the Winter was entered, and that the new Consuls were in their Offices; who, entering on the first day of january, tell us plainly that it was in the beginning of the sixth julian year when the Senate made him King. I commend Calvisius therefore in this particular, for he hath here faithfully delivered the mind of josephus, though he afterward wrong him as much in setting the death of Herod in the 45 julian year, which is two years after the end of those 37 years that josephus giveth him. But there was an Eclipse of the Moon in the 45 julian year, on the ninth of january at the thirteenth hour, which lasted for the space of four hours, and that's the reason why Scaliger and Calvisius kept Herod alive till then. Howbeit it is not that will serve their turn, for Herod's longest time of reign being but 37 years from his first beginning, will have him dead two years before the time that they mention, do what they can.  
And as Herod's own years be against them, so are the years also of his sons, Archelaus and Philip.  
For first, Archelaus had but nine years complete after his Father, and was banished in the tenth; and that's the reason why Josephus in one place gives him nine years, and in another place ten; telling us moreover that he was banished in the seven and thirtieth year of the Actium fight. 
Ant. l. 18. c. 3.  The seven and thirtieth year of which fight began in the fifty one julian year, on the second of September, and ended at the same time in the next year: in the beginning therefore of the 52 julian year was the banishment of Archelaus, a little after he had begun the tenth year of his reign; which still showeth the death of Herod to be at the time aforesaid. This is also further confirmed by Dion [lib. 55.] writing that Herod of Palestine being accused of his brethren, was banished beyond the Alps, when Emilius Lepidus, and Lucius Arruntius were Consuls, which was in the 51 julian year. By which difference between him & Josephus I take to be meant, that the accusation against Archelaus came to Rome near the end of the 51 julian year, and that then the Emperor decreed his banishment; but before it could be effected, and he take notice of it by being actually put out of his Kingdom, and the Precedent sent to confiscate his Goods, both the two and fiftieth julian year and tenth year also of his reign was begun. And note also further, that by this Testimony of Dion it well appeareth, that Archelaus was sometimes called Herod of Palestine, or Herod Archelaus; which is nothing strange, because others of the same stock had the like Praenomen, or forename. As for Example, his name who was the Tetrarch of Galilee when the Baptist was beheaded, and under whom our Saviour suffered, was Antipas; howbeit he was also called Herod, Luke 23.8. Also Agrippa son of Aristobulus, had not only the name of Agrippa, but of Herod, Act. 12.19. and so I do not doubt but that Archelaus was also sometimes called by the name of Herod.  
Secondly, 
Josep. of't. lib. 18, cap. 6.  Philip died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, and in the seven & thirtieth year after his Father. The twentieth of Tiberius began in the 78 julian year on the nineteenth day of August, and ended not until the same time in the next year: the death of Philip therefore was in the 79 julian year before the nineteenth of August; and consequently the death of Herod in the three and fortieth year, as at the first was proved. Scaliger did somewhat stick at these things; whereupon his conjecture was that there might be some fault in Josephus, and that for the 20 year of Tiberius we ought to read the 22; which he found warranted by Ruffinus, an ancient interpreter of Josephus. 
Keep. Silva Chronol.  But Kepler answereth, that the Greek Copies of josephus are of better credit; and that the fault therefore is in the Latin, which we may not prefer above the Greek, because the one is the Translation, the other the Original.  
Thirdly, after Philip had gotten the Tetrachship of Galilee, josephus telleth us that he built a Town, and in the honour of julia the Daughter of Augustus, called it juliada; which certainly he did whilst julia was in favour, otherwise he had transgressed against the Emperor: but julia was out of favour and banished for her foul adultery, in the four and fortieth julian year; And therefore Herod could not be alive in the beginning of the next year (as Scaliger would have him) because this Town was not built by Philip till after his Father's death.  
And as for the banishment of julia, 
Dion lib. 48.  that it was in the year aforesaid, is thus proved. She was born (saith Dion) when Marcus Censorinus and Calvisius Sabinus were Consuls; and from thenceforth flourished and lived in her Father's favour, and in the favour of the people of Rome, 
Macrob. Sat. lib. 2. cap. 5.  until (as saith Macrobius) the eighth and thirtieth year of her age.  
These men were Consuls in the seventh julian year; the eight and thirtieth from whence, was (sure enough) the four and fortieth: in which year Cesar himself was the thirteenth time Consul.  
Fourthly, josephus also testifieth, that after Herod was dead, the sons of Herod contended before Augustus concerning their Father's Heritage; and than Cajus was at Rome, and sat in judgement: but Cajus was absent and gone into Syria in the same year that julia was banished; And therefore Herod must needs be dead before that time.  
And that Cajus went so soon into Syria may thus be proved. He was borne (as Dion showeth) in that year when Apuleius and Nerva were Consuls, which was in the six and twentieth julian year: in the nineteenth year after he went into Syria, and afterwards into Armenia, returning no more; for he died in the 49 julian year when Sex Aelius and Sentius were Consuls as is testified by Paterculus. Tacitus saith, Quirinus was made an Overseer to Cajus Cesar, not being twenty years old when he went to Wars in Armenia. 
Ovid de Arte amandi, lib. 1.  Ovid gives him the same age which his Father had when he also began to be famous and enter into the Wars, which was about nineteen; according to what is found in an old Monument recording the famous deeds done by Augustus. Annos undeviginti natus exercitum privato concilio, privataque impensa c●mparavi. Where the word [undeviginti] showeth that he wanted one of twenty.  
But what need I urge these two last proofs thus far, seeing those before them are sufficient? I conclude therefore that Herod died in the forty three julian year, about the six and twentieth day of February, which was three and thirty days before Easter: for that he died so long before Easter appeareth by the great Pomp and State at his Funeral, together with some other circumstances mentioned by josephus. Three and thirty days before; that's the least, it might perhaps be forty, which will therefore make his death to be on the nineteenth day of February, feria tertia; that being the fift day of the twelfth Month Adar, thirty seven years complete from his first beginning to reign, and thirty four current from the death of Antigonus, when he and Socius took jerusalem.  
There is no objection of moment that can be made against it: howbeit because something is objected, I shall not be wanting to give an answer.  
Our Countryman Lydiat hath greatly taxed josephus, as if herein he had reckoned amiss, but it was an unjust censure. For questionless those things wherein he blameth him, and would make the world think him to be faulty, would never have been forgotten by his adversary Apion, if in them he had been worthy of blame.  
The greatest Cavil which I suppose can be urged, is out of the fourteenth book of his Antiquities, at the beginning of the seventeenth Chapter, where Herod is said to be of the age of fifteen years in the time of the Pharsalian battle, which was in the year of the City 705, and year of the julian Period, 4666. from whence he lived until he was about seventy years old: testified also by the same Author in the 17th Book of his Antiquities at the eight Chapter, and in his first Book De bello judaico at the last Chapter. From whence it followeth, that Herod died not till the year of the julian Period 4720. which was the 52 julian year when A. Licinius and Q. Caeeilius were Consuls. Which if it be true, then must not the beginning of his reign be until the first year of the Actium fight, where josephus setteth the seventh year of his reign and not the first, even the seventh of his 34 years accounted from the taking of jerusalem by him and Socius.  
Some indeed (and among them Cardinal Baronius and our Countryman Lydiat) begin the thirty seven years of his reign but then; grounding chief upon this, That that fight being ended, and the Victory falling on the side of Augustus, Herod (who had taken part with Antonius against him) came as a suppliant, laid down his Crown, and had never more taken it up if Augustus the Conqueror had not been favourable and given him leave again to wear it: so that receiving his Crown at that time from the hands of Augustus he at that time began the 37 years of his reign. A weak argument I dare boldly say; for this, at the most, was but the pardoning of his offence, and thereupon the confirming of him in his former Royalty and reign begun ten years before this time of the Actium victory. For should he reign thirty seven years from hence, and after him Archelaus nine, then where shall we find room for them that governed in judea after Archelaus was removed from his Kingdom. For after Archelaus was removed from his Kingdom, 
Antiq. lib. 17. c 15. & lib. 18. c. 3.  josephus nameth Cyrenius, and Coponius, as Rulers and disposers of judea for a season. And after Coponius, Marcus Ambibuchus was Ruler; and after him Aanius Rufus, and then died Augustus. joseph. antiq. lib. 18. c. 3.  
Now lay all these together, and it will necessarily follow, that Herod could not begin his thirty seven years so late as the first year of the Actium fight. And if not so late as the Actium fight, then for those 15 of Herod's age at the Pharsalian battle, we must read 25. And so Suslyga, Kepler, and 
* Tirin●usin Sacr. Bib. Tom. 1 &. Tornicl in Annual.  others have answered, namely, that the forementioned age of 15 years is directly against the mind of josephus, because he writeth 
* Antiq. lib. 14. c. 23.  elsewhere, that Herod was familiarly acquainted with the most Noble among the Romans about ten years before this time: which could not be properly said of a Child, being between five or six years old. We may therefore acknowledge an ancient fault in some one or other who at the first transcribed the Author's Copy, writing 15. in the stead of 25. which being long ago is still continued both in the old Manuscripts, and later printed Books. For who seethe not how easily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be written for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the one signifieth 15, the other 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the Greek text of Josephus, where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth olim or quondam: showing that Antonius had had familiar acquaintance with Herod and Phasaelus in former times. This sure cannot be denied, especially seeing all the other numbers and years, both in Herod and his succeeding Sons, agree very well, and may be taken up without any the least contradiction.  
Torniellus therefore in his Annals admonisheth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vitiose scriptum est in Josepho, & qui ex Josepho descripserunt, viz. Gorionide, Photio, Nicephoro, & Abulensi, etc. meaning that 15. is corruptly written in Josephus for 25; as also in those who have written out of Josephus, viz. in Gorionides, Photion, Nicephorus and Abulensis. Tirinius also, in his Comment upon the holy Bible, is of the same opinion; and therefore he placeth the birth of Herod in the fourth year of the 176. Olympiad; from whence to the three and fortieth julian year we have seventy years; about which age Herod was when he died: For the fourth year of the 176 Olympiad was in the year of the julian Period 4641. and the three and fortieth julian year in the year of the same Period 4711. which was 70 years after. So also it will be if you account forty five from the year of the julian Period 4666. when the Pharsalian battle was: for in that battle Herod was twenty five, to which add forty five, and so shall his age be seventy in the year of the julian Period 4711, as hitherto hath been proved.  
But do I not hear it yet objected, that the death of Herod will be far later than I have hitherto mentioned, and that because the time of Archelaus his banishment was not till the reign of Tiberius? josephus and Strabo are compared to fortify this objection. For first, josephus is witness that Archelaus was married to Glaphyra the daughter of Archelaus King of Cappadocia, whose last husband before him had been juba King of Mauritania. Now juba, as is in the second place alleged out of Strabo, was alive till towards the middle of the second year of Tiberius, and therefore Archelaus marrying his Widow, could not be banished till the end of the said year, or beginning of the next.  
To which I answer, first that 
* Master Tho. Lydyat.  he who makes this objection is not constant to himself: for in his Book De emendat. Temp. page 162. he placeth the the banishment of Archelaus in the last year of Augustus, saying that he was not banished in the 37 year of the fight at Actium, but in the 37 year after Augustus had received that power and dignity which was called Tribunitia potestas; and thereupon he dissenteth every way from josephus, and gives him but eight years after his father. Then, in another book, written on purpose to confirm the arguments of his first, he would not have Archelaus banished till the days of Tiberius, in regard of juba who was alive till then, and whose Widow he married, as formerly hath been said. But to this I have a second answer, to wit, that in Strabo we find more Iuba's then one who were Kings of Mauritania about such time as the Romans were the greatest Monarches in the World: and therefore it were little less than great folly to distrub the times by pitching upon none but the last to be him whose Widow Archelaus should marry. We may as well say that among the Pope's Gregory the first and Gregory the second were both one: Or that among the Kings of England, Richard the first and Richard the second were the same. See therefore what Strabo saith, in the end of his seventeenth and last book, in the Description of Mouritania: After Syphaces (saith he) Masinissa obtained the Kingdom, and then Micipsa and his successors; and in our times juba, who was father to that juba who died lately.  
And thus much concerning the times of Herod and his posterity. The next thing to be spoken of, is the birth of Christ: of which in the following Chapter.   

CHAP. XIX. Of the true and right year of our Saviour's birth and Baptism.  
HAving in the former Chapter clearly shown the times of Herod and of his posterity, it will in the next place be worth our while to inqure into the the right time of our Saviour's birth.  
Concerning which I find a variety of opinions, both among the Ancient and Modern Writers; and were it not for the time of Herod's death, should scarce know which to follow.  
For first, the Ancients: they are divided and tell us thus. When Calvisius Sabinus and Lucius Rufinus were Consuls, than was Christ borne, according to Sulpitius Severus in the second book of his sacred History: this was in the 42 julian year, and year of the julian Period 4710. But when Lentulus and Messalinus were Consuls, than was Christ borne, according to Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cassiodorus, Maximus Monachus, and Cedrenus: this was in the 43 Julian year. Epiphanius and Eusebius are for the next year, when Cesar the 13th time and Sillanus were Consuls: this was in the 44 Julian year. Dionysius Exiguus pitcheth upon the next year after, when Lentulus and Piso were Consuls.  
By which testimonies we find how the Ancients were divided, and that from them may be gathered four several years for the birth of Christ.  
And as for the Moderns; Dekerius and Petavius are for the one and fortieth Julian year: Kepler for the fortieth; and M. Antonius Capellus Franciscanus for the nine and thirtieth.  
Scaliger goeth along with them who pitch upon that year when Lentulus and Messalinus were Consuls; Bucholcerus followeth Epiphanius and Eusebius, and so do many others. But that which is the latest taken up, is the 48 Julian year, three years latter than the common account; and is mainly defended by Master Thomas Lydyat, both in his book De Emendatione Temporum, as also in another book written on purpose to confirm it.  
Thus they. But I for my part shall absolutely rely upon none of them: for no authority without good ground can be sufficient. And therefore my course herein shall be this; that having already (out of 
* Herodis imperium, & res ab e●gestas, primus & antiqu●ssimus omnium, qui quidem extant, Josephus in historiam retulit: reliqui, eadem comm●ntati postea sunt, ex ejus fontibus rivulos suos duxerunt. Et tamen incredibile est quantum ab authore ipso, magistroque su● dissentiant; ex quo intolerabiles quidam in historiam errores perturbationesque sunt infusae. Petau. Doctr. Temp. lib. 11. cap. 1.  Josephus) found the true time of Herod's death, I shall next seek for the birth of Christ in some year before it, as by Scripture I am directed: And if in that I can have any of the Ancients to guide me, I shall gladly embrace them, otherwise not.  
Or to make my way the more plain, I shall first note the year of Herod, in which the Ancients say Christ was borne. Secondly the year of Augustus; and Thirdly, the time of the general taxing, when all the world under the Roman Empire went to be taxed. For as in Saint Matthew we read, that he was borne in the days of Herod the King, Mat. 2.1. So in Saint Luke we read, that it was in the days of Augustus, when the Decree was gone forth that all the World should be taxed, Luke 2.1.  
And for the first, we have the testimony of Epiphanius and Severus Sulpitius, expressly noting that the three and thirtieth year of Herod to be the time of our Saviour's birth: Which will be proved true, if it be rightly taken: For it might very well be his three and thirtieth year, not from his first beginning to reign, but from the time that he & Sosius took Jerusalem; else should Christ be 36 years old when he was baptised, which is certainly false. Herod therefore could not be alive four years after the birth of Christ, although Epiphanius as well as Sulpitius hath written so; for they having an eye only to his 37 years, mistook themselves in this particular, & thereupon have cast the years of Christ afterwards into wrong years of Archelaus and Antipas, as is plainly manifest.  
As for the second, Tertullian and Saint Hierom point us to the 41 year of Augustus. But from whence must this 41 year be accounted? Saint Hierom joins it with the 28 year of Augustus, and yet seems to compute both that 28 year, and the 41 year, from one time; which is very absurd. Tertullian accounts it from the death of Cleopatra, not only against the truth of the thing itself, but also against his own reckoning; who writeth that after this, Augustus lived fifteen years, and yet reigned but 43 after Cleopatra. From which confused & contradictory accounts of theirs it well appeareth, that albeit they found in some ancient Rolls & public Records of the Romans, that there was a general taxing of the World by Augustus about such a year as boar the date of an one and 40th year, yet from whence to derive the right head of their reckoning they were either careless or altogether ignorant. I should therefore think, that by this 41 year was meant the 41 julian year: for with that, the three and thirtieth year of Herod (before mentioned) doth exactly accord. Jrenaeus, more ancient then either of these, affirms it to be about the 41 year of Augustus. For Natus est Dominus noster (saith he) circa primum & quadragesimum annum Augusti imperii, lib. 3. contra. haeres. cap. 25. And in this, he is none of the worst Authors: for Christ being born on the 25 day of December, and in the 33 year of Herod, was born in the latter end of the 41 Julian year, and so near the beginning of the 41 year of Augustus from the death of Julius Cesar, that there were but seven days wanting to make his birth fall fully into it. I conclude therefore from hence, that the first year of Christ was (for the most part of it) in the 41 year of Augustus, and that Christ was born but seven days before that year took beginning. For he was born in the 41 julian year, on the 25 day of December: that day being accknowledged and kept for the day of his Nativity throughout many ages long before our times, as in the Chapter next following shall be showed.  
Come we then now to the third and last thing that I noted to be a director to us in this particular: I mean the time of the general taxing, when all the World under the Roman Empire went to be taxed. In the searching after which, this I find; viz. that in all the time of Augustus, there were only three general taxings: and in one of those three it must need be that Christ was born; witness the words of Saint Luke, saying, There went out a Decree from Augustus that all the World should be taxed, Luke 2.1. By which words it appeareth that we must not seek for Christ's birth at the time of a particular taxing, but at a such time as there was a general taxing. And that there were three such taxings in the days of Augustus, is testified by Suetonius in the life of the said Emperor, about the end of the seven and twentieth Chapter; where he telleth us that Augustus made three general taxings. Censum populi ter egit; primum ac tertium cum Collega; medium 〈◊〉. The first of these was too soon for the birth of Christ: for it was (as Dion showeth, lib. 52. & lib. 53.) when Cesar Augustus the fifth time, and Sextus Apuleius were Consuls; viz. in the seventeenth Julian year, and year of the City 724, which was but the twelfth year of Herod's reign after his first beginning, and 56 years before the fifteenth year of Tiberius. And as for the last, it was too late: for when that began, Herod had been sixteen years dead well nigh. It followeth therefore that Christ must needs be born in the time of the middle taxing: for if the first were too soon, and the last too late, then must the birth of our Saviour be for certain in that which was between both.  
Kepler referreth the beginning of it to the 36 Julian year, when those incredible Conquests of Drusus, Tiberius, and L. Piso had purchased a peace to the Empire: But he was deceived in his reckoning without all question. For first, when this taxing began, Cyrenius (or as he is otherwise called, Quirinius) was Precedent of Syria, which could not be until the fifth year after his Consulship; for until such a time not any who had been Consul, could be sent as an Officer into the Provinces, as Suetonius and Dion tell us: and therefore until then Quirinius was not Precedent of Syria.  
Secondly, there is in very good Authors mention made of an old Monument of Stone recording the famous deeds of Augustus, wherein these three taxings are recorded: and although age hath somewhat eaten into it, and in certain places worn out some pieces of the words, yet it well appeareth that the Middle taxing was about the Consulship of one whose name was Asinius. For when the Monument speaketh of that Taxing, although some of the letters be wanting, yet we find sinio Cos. By which is meant Asinio Cos. That is, Asinius being Consul: for if the letter A. be put to sinio, it will upon necessity be so. And indeed where was there a Consul, or what was his name who had that termination, but Asinius?  
Well, but what Asinius was this? In the 38. julian year we find one called by the name of Cajus Asinius Gallus, who was then Consul with Cajus Martius Censorinus: After whom there was none of that name Consul till after Herod was dead. This then declareth that here was the beginning of that taxing, within the compass whereof Christ was born. For first, though Dion omitteth to tell us in what year this Middle Taxing was, yet doth his silence hinder nothing; for by these Characters we find it. Secondly this was the fifth year after the Consulship of Quirinius. And thirdly, we find a passage in Tertullian, by which we are pointed to the days of Sentius Saturnius: which is not impertinent. For Saint Luke doth not say that our Saviour's birth was under the taxing made by Cyrenius, but rather that Cyrenius first began the taxing, or that it was first made when Cyrenius was Precedent of Syria. To which Suidas well accordeth, saying; Augustus obtaining a Monarchy, appointed twenty men of honest life and conversation, whom he sent throughout his Provinces to tax the people & their substances, of which they were to give an account in public: and this he first began when Quirinius, or (as Saint Luke calleth him) Cyrenius was Precedent of Syria. By all which it well appeareth, that as this Taxing began in some part of the 38 Julian year, so it was depending and not ended until the 42 Julian year, which was the 28 year of the Actium fight, & the year next after the birth of Christ. For if the testimony of Tertullian, in his fourth book and 19 Chapter, against Martion, formerly mentioned, be understood otherwise, it must needs clash with the holy Scripture: which upon such terms may by no means be admitted.  
Nor doth this hitherto mentioned, concerning the year of Christ's birth, but agree well with the time of the slaughter of the Innocents' at Bethlem, and the parts thereabouts; which (as appeareth by Scripture) was in the second year after either the conception or birth of Christ: For Herod having inquired diligently of the Wise men at what time the Star appeared to them, was punctually informed of the time thereof: and thereupon when (a little before his death) he put in practise his bloody purpose of slaying the infants, he slew them who were of two years old and under, according to the time that he had diligently inquired of the Wisemen, who came not to Jerusalem in the second year after Christ was born, but in the same year, even before the day of Mary's Purification. For first, when they came, they inquired for Christ under the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which word properly taken is to be understood of a child newly born, and is so used to express the birth of Moses, in Heb. 11.23. Secondly, when in the form of their inquiry they say, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? it is more properly to be understood of a King lately born, then of one born some certain years before. Thirdly, when they made this inquiry, all Jerusalem was troubled as at some new thing, of which they had heard nothing before: whereas at the time of the Purification he was proclaimed openly in the Temple, where were enough to take notice of him, and to spread the fame thereof abroad to others. Then did good old Simeon take him up in his arms, and hold him forth as the glory of God's people Israel, because he was born among them: and likewise as a light to lighten the Gentiles, because in these Wisemen he shown them the way unto him. Fourthly and lastly, when the Wisemen came, they found him at Bethlehem, where he was not to be found after the time of his mother's Purification: for (as Saint Luke telleth us) after his parents had in that duty of theirs, performed all things according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own City Nazareth, that is, They went back again 
* Hoc est postquam Maria & Joseph omnia illa adimplerunt, quae secundam legis praec●pta ad ritum purificationis spectabant, saith one.  now to that very place from whence they departed when they went to Bethlehem, the City of David, to be taxed; as may be seen Luke 2, 4, 39 Saint Matthew I grant passeth this over in silence, and writes as if Joseph and Mary came not with Jesus to Nazareth until they had been in Egypt: But that (saith Theophilact) which Matthew was silent in, 
Theoph. in Matth. c. 2.  Saint Luke supplied. Disce igitur qued quae siluit Matthaeus, dicit Lucas.  exempli gratia, Postquom natus est, implevit quadraginta dies, deinde descendit in Nazareth, haec dicit Lucas. Matthaeus autem dicit post haec, quòd fugerit in Aegyptum, deinde venerit ab Aegypto in Nazareth. Non dissident ergo inter se. Nam Lucas dicit descensum à Bethlehem in Nazareth. Matthaeus autem postea reditum ab Egypto in Nazareth. Thus that Father.  
Well, but though the coming of the Wisemen was while Mary lay in at Bethlehem; yet (as I said before) the slaughter of the Infants was not until the second year after the Star appeared, as is plain out of the Text, telling us of what age they were that Herod slew; 
Mat. 2.7.16.  and that his slaughter of them was, according to the time that he had diligently inquired of the Wisemen. Now his inquiry was of the time of the Stars appearing; according whereunto he ordered that the male Children of such an age as he knew well agreed thereto, should be massacred both in Bethlem and the parts thereabout, by his bloody men of war. And thereupon he slew all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, à bimatu & infra, from the age of two 
* Bimatus signifieth one who is of the age of two years, as having finished his first year and his going on in his second.  years and under: using therein such circumspection, as that if Christ was either as old now as by the Wiseman's relation he seemed to be, or hid among those that were younger, he might be sure not to fail in the slaughter of him: no, though he were not in Bethlehem, but in the parts thereabout. But what Policy Herod might have in deferring the execution of his purpose thus long, I cannot easily perceive: he was politic enough we see when he went about it, and might have some politic end propounded to himself too, why he would not do it presently after he saw that he was mocked of the Wisemen, though it be not laid open for every eye to discern. But be his policy herein what it would, I do believe there was an overruling Providence that went along with it, and was as much unknown to Herod, as was the cause, why Herod deferred the slaughter unknown to others. For the longer it was before Mary was forced to fly with her child into Egypt, the more was their strength and fitness for such a journey: nor could their stay there be overlong, if they went but late, and so be the better able to endure the hardship of a strange Country. Sabellicus saith that Herod was necessitated to defer this slaughter thus long, by reason that he was forced to go to Rome, and there to purge himself before Cesar of those accusations which his own Sons brought against him; which is not unlike: until therefore he had done that, and was come back again, he could not slay these Innocents'. But that being done, and he come home again, his anger which he had before conceived against the Wisemen for mocking him, and his purpose to murder Christ for fear he should get his Kingdom from him, put him upon the execution of this Massacre.  
And thus I doubt not but I have found out the right year of our Saviour's birth; which was the 41 Julian year, the 33 year of Herod, the 40 year of Augustus, the fourth year of the 193 Olympiad, the year of the Julian Period 4709, and year of World 4000 Object. But now perhaps some will object against me the age of Christ when he was baptised by John in Jordan, affirming from the words of Saint Luke in the third Chapter of his Gospel, 
Luke 3. ver. 1. and ver. 23.  that in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Christ was but thirty years old, and that therefore he could not be born sooner than the third year of the 194 Olympiad, which was in the 44 Julian year, and year of the Julian Period 4712.  
To which I answer, Answ. that Saint Luke speaks no more of Christ's thirtieth, then of his nine and twentieth, one and thirtieth or two and thirtieth year. For in the text alleged Saint Luke only saith, that Jesus was about thirty years of age; populari modo loquendi, by a common phrase of speech not seldom used in such numbers as are Numeri rotundi, Round or Even numbers; and is when the thing mentioned falleth out to be by a precise account nearer to the number named then to the next round number after it. Let therefore that text of Saint Luke be well observed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Jesus himself was about thirty years of age: where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 takes away all scruple for concluding from thence of any certainty of just thirty and no more, seeing according to that doubtful phrase it might be either more or less. Now here it could not be less, but more; Christ else would be borne after Herod was dead: which we know for certain cannot be. And indeed if we look into Ignatius we shall find it so: for he was an ancient Martyr, and one who had seen Christ in the flesh; from whose testimony we are taught that Jesus was not baptised by john in Jordan until after three Decades of years: but how long after he doth not tell us. If it were just at the end of them, then whereto shall the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serve in the text aforesaid? or if necessarily within some few days after three Decades were fulfilled, then shall we restrain it more strictly than is usual in that common phrase of speech which is often used in round or even Numbers, such as is this here in this place: especially there being no necessity through any attending circumstance to compel us. Seeing therefore neither the word itself, nor the common phrase of speech do absolutely tie us, nor the circumstance of time for Herod's death will give us leave here so to take it, there is no reason to the contrary but that it may be taken otherwise; and not only that it may, but that here it must, although the text be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
My conclusion then is this, that Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour was baptised when he was two and thirty years old, with thirteen days over and above, being baptised on the sixth day of January in the 74 julian year, and year of the Julian Period 4742. when two the Gemini were Consuls, and whilst the fifteenth year of Tiberius was still running on, for it ended not until the nineteenth day of August next after.  
And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which followeth in Saint Luke's text, signifying incipiens or beginning; it meaneth not that Jesus was beginning to be about 30 years of age; but rather and indeed, that beginning [or when he began] he was about thirty years of age, that is, when he began to prepare himself for his office, calling his Disciples, and to go in and cut among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incipiens à baptismate Johannis, beginning from the baptism of john; as Saint Luke hath elsewhere told us, namely, in Act. 1.21.22.  
Participium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, faith one, 
Lydiat de emend. & alibi.  videtur dictum de coepta à Baptismo publica functione illa triplici ministerii, officii & muneris, nempe Prophetici, Sacerdotalis, & Regii, ad quam Christus ante jacta mundi fundamenta destinatus erat, & propter quam tandem carnem humanam assumpserat, potius quam de annoaetatis ipsius ut multi intelligunt. 
Sca. de emend. l. 6. Petau. lib. 11.  Neither doth Joseph Scaliger think it probable that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aught to be referred to the thirty years, but put absolute by itself. Petavius also findeth by the time of Christ's birth that he must be above thirty years old at the time of John's baptism. Learned Weemse assenteth also to Scaliger: for, in his Christian Synagogue, speaking of Stigmatologie or right pointing of Scripture, he saith that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be construed with the Genitive case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and therefore he termeth this to be the wrong reading, namely, And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age. If therefore the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have no relation to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, then must it needs be taken in the sense aforesaid; and the meaning of the whole text run thus; namely, that Jesus beginning to prepare himself for his Office, calling his Disciples, and to go in and out among them, was about thirty years of age; being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.  
And thus I have showed not only the year of Christ's birth, but also the year and day of his baptism, being baptised (as the Church by tradition generally holdeth) on the sixth day of January, in the year of the julian Period 4742. and year of the World 4032.  
That which is next, concerns the day of his birth: in the searching after which, the authorities of the Ancients will be considerable, though for the year they were at odds and could help us little. For when they speak of the year, they delivered but matter of opinion; but in this they speak matter of practice, which is to be regarded before the private fancies of later times.   

CHAP. XX. Of the day of Christ's Birth, that it was kept, and on what day, both among the Ancients, and in the succeeding Ages.  
IF the authority of Clement (in the fifth book and 12 chapter of his Apostolical Constitutions) might pass for granted, we should have a testimony as ancient as the very times of the Apostles, to show that then and in those days, the Birth day of our Saviour was observed.  
But because many learned men make question whether those Constitutions were ever any of his, I shall rather allege a testimony out of the first book and sixth chapter of the Centurioators or Magdeburgenses, wherein is said; That the Apostles and other Christians, as they used other things indifferent, so also they freely used Feasts. Which testimony ought the rather to be regarded, because the Apostle Saint Paul himself hath said; Christ our Passeover is Sacrificed for us; therefore (saith he) let us keep the Feast: as is written, in 1 Cor. 5.7. Which words do confirm the testimony before mentioned, and is also an evidence to convince them of error, who would have christian's keep no Feast days at all: no, not so much as a day in honour to Jesus Christ the Saviour of the World.  
The Ancients were of another mind: they therefore kept such a day. And in the Greek or Eastern Church they called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which signifieth in English, God's appearing. And indeed when Christ was born, God appeared to the World by the Nativity of his son. Which is but what the Apostle showeth: for speaking to Timothy of the Incarnation of Christ Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, thus he saith; It was God manifested in the flesh, 1 Tim. 3.16. And if God manifested in the flesh, then may the day thereof, in that respect, be fitly called Theophania.  
The Latin or Western Church called it Dies Nativitatis; the day of the Nativity: Dies natalis Domini, vel Natalitia Domini; The Birth day of our Lord; agreeing therein to that of the Angel in Luke 2.10. Behold I bring you glad tidings of great joy which shall be to all people: For unto you is borne this day, in the City of David, a Saviour which is Christ the Lord.  
The news than we see came first from heaven: an Angel brought the first tidings of the Day; by whom it was declared to be a day of great joy to all people. And therefore (to show men what they should do) there was suddenly with the Angel a multitude of the Heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men, Luke 2.13.14. Which very Hymn was afterwards by Telesphorus (who was Bishop of Rome in the year after Christ's Passion 107) ordained to be sung in the Church on the Eve always of Christ's Nativity; 
Anno Dom. 140  as is noted by Calvisius ex Sigeberto: And as may be seen also in a decretal Epistle of the Authors own setting forth, if that Epistle were any of his. But whether it were or no, it was ancient: And so all things considered, it well appeareth, that though the singing of this Hymn was but then appointed to be used in the Church, yet the Day (on whose Eve it was appointed to be Sung) was observed and kept before; yea even in the times of the Apostles, if Polydore Virgil may be credited, lib. 6. cap. 6.  
Next after this is the undoubted testimony of Theophilus, 
Anno Dom. 190  who was Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about 157 years after Christ's Passion: and he, speaking of this day, saith; We ought to celebrate the Birth day of our Lord, on what day soever the eight Calends of January shall happen. For proof of which, See the Magdeburgenses, Centur. 2. cap. 6. See also Hospinian of the Original of Christian Feasts. And know moreover, that the eight Calends of January was always on the XXV day of December, in respect of the day of the Month, although it varieth every year in respect of the day of the week.  
Clemens of Alexandria was much about the same time with Theophilus: 
Anno Dom. 195  and in him mention is made of some, who being more curius then others, persuaded themselves that Christ's Birth Day was either on the 25 day of the Egyptian month Pharmuth (which answereth, the most part of it, to April) or on the 25 of Phacon, which answereth in like manner to May. For, Sunt qui curiosius (saith he) natali Domini non solum annum sed etiam diem assignant. In which words, saying, Sunt qui curiosius: me thinks it is but as if he should barely relate the opinion of some, whom the ordinary Day observed would not content: for they being more curious than others, search after another day; and that must be either in the month Pharmuth or Phacon: but in which of these, they were at a stand. Thus it may be in any thing else, though never so certainly known: for what is there which may not be either questioned or contradicted by such as are either ignorant, wilful, or have an affectation of singularity? Chemnitius saith well concerning the ground of this error, that it was because they reckoned the sixth Month (in which the Angel was sent unto the Virgin Mary) not from the Conception of John the Baptist, but from the beginning of the Hebrew year which began from Nisan or March, near the vernal Equinox: from whence the sixth Month is 
* And this in regard of the account, inclusively or exclusively taken.  either August or September, and the ninth from thence either April or May. So that this being in all probability the ground of their error, Master Lydiat had little reason to close with them in it for the time of Christ's birth. For the Angel Gabrel doth directly say, This is the sixth Month (not from the beginning of the year, but) with her who was called barren; that is from the Conception of John the Baptist, Luke 1.36.  
The next may be a proof out of the Writings of that godly Martyr Cyprian, 
Anno Dom. 240  who in his Treatise of the Nativity showeth the great joy that was in his time on the day of Christ's birth, called by him the day of the Nativity of Christ. He was Bishop of Carthage, and flourished about the year of our Lord 240: who was so good a man, and so dear to the people of his Church, that when he went to suffer Martyrdom, they cried out and said, Moriamur simul cum sancto Episcopo, Let us also die with our holy Bishop.  
And in the days of Dioclesian the Tyrant, 
Anno Dom. 284.  who began to reign in the year of our Lord 284, there was a great multitude of Christians burned together in a Church at Nicomedia a City of Bithynia, by the command of that bloody Emperor, even when they were met together there to celebrate the day of that Festival, as is noted by Nicephorus in the seventh book, and sixth chapter of his Ecclesiastical History.  
Nor was the Feast of the Annunciation (and consequently the Feast day of Christ's birth) but observed in the days of Athanasius: as Master Isaacson noteth in his Chronologie, 
Anno Dom. 350.  Anno Dom. 350.  
The same Author likewise showeth (Anno Dom. 361.) how Julian feigning himself to be a Christian, 
Anno Dom. 361.  kept the Feast of the Epiphanie with the Christians.  
In the time of Nazianzen, 
Anno Dom. 377.  the same Feast is also noted to be kept; as also the custom of Parents standing by at their children's Baptising. Ide. anno 377. 
Greg. Naz. Orat. 38.  But that which is most pertinent, is what the said Father speaketh in an Oration of his, on the day of Christ's birth: saying, I am confident that the heavenly powers do also this present day celebrate the Feast together, and leap exceedingly for joy, if at all they be endued with the love of God and Men.  
Ambrose lived in his time; and in him we find these words. Length of Nights (saith he) had possessed the whole day, had not the coming of Christ shined gloriously in the very shortness of days, Serm. 13. And why that Father saith, in the very shortness of days, is, because in the time of Augustus (under whom we know Christ was born) the shortest day was on the 25 of December, as Pliny observeth.  
Hierom saith, 
Anno Dom. 385.  that the day kept in memory of our Lord's Nativity, is the Day on which the ancient report runs he was borne. Dies, qua traditur natus.  
Augustine also saith, 
Anno Dom. 420.  John was born (as the Church by tradition teacheth) on the eighth Calends of July (or 24th day of Juno) even when the days begin to shorten: but our Lord was born on the eighth Calends of January (or 25th day of December) even when the days begin to lengthen. For as John himself hath confessed, He must increase, but I must decrease, John 3.30. See August. in Psalm. 132. Et. lib. 3. de Trinit. cap. 5.  
Orosius saith, 
Anno Dom 425  Christ was born on the twenty fifth day of December, when all increases of the ensuing year do first begin. lib. 7. cap. 2.  
But before either Augustine or Orosius, 
Anno Dom. 398  chrysostom gave notice of this day, affirming it to be on the eighth Calends of January, six Months after the eighth Calends of July. For though the Eastern or Greek Churches at the first observed the sixth day of January (and that's the reason why Epiphanius, who lived about twenty years before chrysostom, mentioned that day) yet they changed their opinion, and embraced the former observed in the Western or Latin Churches on the 25. day of December: which though it were new to them of Constantinople (where this father was Bishop) when it came first among them, because they had not observed it before, was nevertheless acknowledged by him who was the eye of that and other Churches (as Isidor Pelusiota calleth him) to be ancient, and long before observed by them of the West, from whom the Eastern Churches first had it.  
Ab illis (saith he) qui exactè haec norunt, 
Chrysostom homil. in Natalem Domini. quae est XXXI. ex 71 illis a Frontone Ducaeo editis Tomo de diversis N. T. locis pag. 466.  quique illam whem (Romam scilicet) inhabitant, hunc diem accepimus. Nam illi ipsi qui istic degunt jam à superioribus temporibus, & ex antiqua traditione, ipsum celebrantes, ad nos usque illius notitiam transmiserunt. That is, We have received this day from them who know these things exactly, and who inhabit the City; namely, Rome. For they who live there now from the times of old, and out of ancient tradition celebrating it, have transmitted the knowledge thereof to us.  
These are the testimonies of the Ancients, 
A new: opinion first published by Beroaldus, Anno Dom. 1577.  according whereunto the succeeding ages of the Church (both before and since the Reformation) have precisely and exactly walked. And yet let me not forget that some of late years have striven to introduce a new opinion, not once so much as dreamt of until Beroaldus published his book of strange Chronologie; which was not until the year of our Lord 1577. This new opinion is, that Christ should be borne in September, or when the Sun entering into Libra made the second Equinoctial.  
Scaliger had done well if he had confuted it: but he, as also his Scholar Calvisius, endeavoured the contrary, adding their strength to uphold it, although upon as weak grounds as he that first set it abroach.  
The best argument that they have, is built upon the courses of the Priests, which Beroaldus accounteth from their first time in the days of King David, and beginneth at Joarib; thinking, because there were 24 courses in all, that therefore two Courses were appointed for every Month. And indeed Joaribs Course was the first of all the Courses, which Beroaldus beginneth in March, and without any respect at all to any interruption, continueth his account from thence ever after. But this is strange: for not only were the Courses interrupted, but even the beginning of them is fixed by him in an uncertain time; unless he were sure that it was in March when David first appointed them: of which I am sure he neither was nor could be.  
Scaliger also gins at Joarib, and accounteth but from the time when the Courses of the Priests were restored by Judas Macchabeus in the 148. year of the Grecians, on the 25 day of Casleu; thinking because the Shewbread was changed every Sabbath day in the morning, that therefore every Course had but his week of Service. Which for the time of their service is probable enough, and may be granted; as may be seen in 2 King. 11.7. and in 2 Chron 23.4. But why, when judas purged the Temple, and restored the Courses, Scaliger should then begin his account at joarib, without any proof at all to warrant it, is altogether as uncertain as at the first to begin them in March. For who knoweth but judas might restore them so, as they began again (at the time when he restored them) where they were interrupted and broken off by Anciochus: and at whose Course that was, is not where recorded by any Author.  
Nor will the Calendar of the Courses, set forth by Master Lightfoot in his Harmony of the four Evangelists, serve the turn. For [first] it is but upon conjecture that he beginneth the first Course on the next Sabbath day after the Feast of Tabernacles. Secondly, by making the Courses keep their constant round in such order as he accounts them, he maketh the Course of Bilgah (which was the fifteenth Course) to be in that part of the fifth Month, where should be the Course of joarib: For when Nabuchadnezzar destroyed the first Temple at jerusalem, it was (as the jews bear witness) the watch or Course of joarib. Now the Course of joarib was not the fifteenth, but the first Course, 1 Chron. 24.7. Thirdly, he makes the Course of Gamul, in the end of the sixth Month, to have but four days: which should have seven as well as the rest. And last of all were his Calendar perfect, it could be so but for one year; because that day of the Month which is Sabbath day in this year, will not be so in the next: which together with the three weeks of the there great Feasts (in which he telleth us there was no distinct course that served, but all the Courses served indifferently together) will make a great and manifest alteration every year.  
It is therefore the best and only way to come to the knowledge of these Courses by accounting them bacl from the time that the second Temple was destroyed by the Romans, at which time was the week and Course of joarib; as is witnessed by the jews, in their ancient Chronicle called Seder Olam rabba. For seeing the Courses were interrupted often before the days of judas Maccabeus, but never after till the destructiof the Temple by the Romans, there can be no better way then to account back from thence. And so doing, I find that joaribs Course, in the fortieth julian year (the year that the Baptist was conceived) began on the fourteenth day of August which was the nine and twentieth day of the fifth Month, feria septima. And joaribs Course beginning then, Abijahs Course (to which Zacharias belonged) must needs begin on the second day of October, which was the nineteenth day of the 7th Month foria septima. on the 8th of October was the last day of this Course: at the night whereof, or on the night after when the Sabbath was ended (which we know was but from Even to Even) the Baptist was conceved, and born 258 days after, viz. on the 24th day of june in the 41 julian year. And note that this is the soon time for a Child to be borne in a birth that is ordinary. For in ordinary births (and such this was, Luke 157.) carried on according to the course of Nature, the continuance of the infant in the Mother's Womb dependeth much upon the place of the Moon at the time of the conception, as they know who are any thing at all acquainted with Hermes his Trutina, in which may be seen, that as the shortest time is 258. days; so the middle time is 273. days, and the longest time is 288. days. Now Christ's time of abode in the Virgin's Womb was neither of the longest time, nor of the shortest time, 
Luke 1.36.  but much about the middle time. For in the sixth Month after the Baptists conception, (viz. five Months and nineteen days) our Saviour Jesus Christ was conceived, on the 25 day of March, in the 41 julian year, which in that year was the 
* And was also the Sabbath day.  seventeenth day of the first Month. From whence to the 
* The day of his birth was on the second day of the week even as he himself was the second Person of the holy Trinity: and as the second day of the week, so the 27 day of the tenth Month. Beroald. in his Chrono. lib. 3. cap. 8.  day of his birth were 275. days complete, as many as are from the 25. of March to the 25 of December. Saint Austin nameth 276 days, which must be understood of so many day's current: for so long Christ remained in the Virgin's Womb as the Church (saith he) had it by tradition. Aug. lib. 4. de Trin. cap. ult.  
And as for that which Beroaldus hath further concerning the Indictions which began on the 24 of September, and were instituted to bear account of the payment of tribute, it is an argument very absurd. For when Christ was born, the Indictions were not known, but were instituted above 300 years after, at which time they were invented, even in the seventh year of Constantine the great, and in the year of the common Aera of Christ's birth 312. Why should they therefore be alleged to show the times of Christ's birth? Because (saith Beroaldus) they concerned the Taxes and Tributes of the Empire; and beginning on the 24 day of September, they show that to be the day of Christ's birth, when the decree went forth from Augustus that all the World should be taxed. This is strange, and more absurd still then before: For if the issuing forth of Caesar's Decree and our Savious birth were on one and the same day, then must the Decree fly above a thousand miles in one day; as far as from Rome to Nazareth: And after that (in the same day still, Mary must travel with Joseph about 95 miles, before she be delivered; even as far as from Nazareth to Bethlehem. By which cluster of absurdities all men may see that Beroaldus might have been better advised then to use this as an argument to prove Christ's birth to be on the 24 day of September.  
As weak also is that objection concerning the Shepherds keeping watch over their Flocks by night, Luke 2.8. For the temperature of the Land of Canaan in the dead of Winter, is nothing like the Winter in our cold Northern Countries, but warm enough for their Cattles to lie abroad, and consequently for the Shepherds to keep watch over their Floks by night. For there, in that Country, they began their Harvest at Easter in the Month of Abib or Nisan, 
Levit. 23.5.6.10. compared with Deut. 16.1.9.10. see also Josephus and Chemnit. Har. Evang. Prolegom. c. 3.  as may be proved out of the Scriptures: offering a sheaf of the first fruits thereof yearly on the second day after the Passeover. This also Josephus showeth in the third book of his Antiquities at the tenth Chapter: and Chemnitius, in the Prologomena to his Harmony, Chapter the third. Their Winter therefore must needs be far warmer than Winter is with us: which even the situation of their Country, both in respect of the Longitude and the Latitude that it hath, declareth. As for Longitude, it is placed betwixt the degree 64, 32 minutes, and the degree 69, and ten minutes: And as for the Latitude or Elevation, it is found to extend itself from the degree 30, and 52 minutes, unto the degree 33, and 44 minutes. So that all things considered, their Sheep were not only abroad in Winter when Christ was born, but might also have young Lambs, for the safety whereof the Shepherds were watching over their Flocks by night. For even we ourselves, in our cold Countries, have seen young Lambs in December, as cannot be denied.  
I conclude therefore, that there is no just cause (for any thing that can be alleged against it) why we should departed from the ancient and received opinion of Christ's birth on the 25 day of December.  
And now see a Calendar for that year in which john the Baptist was conceived.  

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the fortieth Julian Year, in which the Baptist was conceived; wherein the Courses of the Priests are set down in their places, and found to be so by accounting them back from the time of the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans; the Cycle of the Sun in this year being four, and the Cycle of the Moon 15.  January Da. of the we The bet the X. Month. The fortieth Julian Year. February D. of the week Shebet the XI. Month. The fortieth Julian Year.  1 A 6 11  1 D 2 12  2 B 7 12  Hezir, the 17th course 2 E 3 13  3 C 1 13  3 F 4 14  4 D 2 14  4 G 5 15  5 E 3 15   5 A 6 16  6 F 4 16  6 B 7 17  Gamul, the 22th course  7 G 5 17  7 C 1 18  8 A 6 18  8 D 2 19  9 B 7 19  Aphses, the 18. course 9 E 3 20  10 C 1 20  10 F 4 21  11 D 2 21  11 G 5 22  12 E 3 22  12 A 6 23  13 F 4 23  13 B 7 24  Delaiah, the 23th course. 14 G 5 24  14 C 1 25  15 A 6 25  15 D 2 26  16 B 7 26  Pethabiah, the 19th course. 16 E 3 27  17 C 1 27  17 F 4 28  18 D 2 28  18 G 5 29  19 E 3 29  19 A 6 1 Adbar the XII. Month.  20 F 4 30  20 B 7 2 Maaziah, the 24th course  21 G 5 1 Shebet the XI. Month.  21 C 1 3  22 A 6 2  22 D 2 4  23 B 7 3  23 E 3 5  24 C 1 4  24 F 4 6  25 D 2 5  25 G 5 7  26 E 3 6  26 A 6 8  27 F 4 7  27 B 7 9  ¶ jearib, the first. course. 28 G 5 8  28 C 1 10  29 A 6 9  30 B 7 10  jachin, the 21. course  31 C 1 11   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the fortieth Julian Year, in which the Baptist was conceived; wherein the courses of the Priests are set down in their places, and found to be so, by accounting them back from the time of the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans.  March. D. of the week Adar. the XII. Month. The fortieth julian Year. April. D. of the week Nifan the first Month. The fortieth Julian Year.  1 D 2 11  1 G 5 12  2 E 3 12   2 A 6 13  3 F 4 13  3 B 7 14  Mijamin the sixth course. 4 G 5 14  4 C 1 15  Pascha or Easter.  5 A 6 15  5 D 2 16  6 B 7 16  jedaiah, the second course. 6 E 3 17  7 C 1 17  7 F 4 18  8 D 2 18  8 G 5 19  9 E 3 19  9 A 6 20  10 F 4 20  10 B 7 21  Hakkoz the seventh course. 11 G 5 21  11 C 1 22  12 A 6 22  12 D 2 23  13 B 7 23  Harim, the third course. 13 E 3 24  14 C 1 24  14 F 4 25  15 D 2 25  15 G 5 26  16 E 3 26  16 A 6 27  17 F 4 27  17 B 7 28  Abijah the eighth course  18 G 5 28  18 C 1 29  19 A 6 29  19 D 2 1 〈◊〉 the second Month.  20 B 7 30  Seorim, the fourth course. 20 E 3 2  21 C 1 1 Nifan the first Month.  21 F 4 3  22 D 2 2  22 G 5 4  23 E 3 3  23 A 6 5  24 F 4 4  24 B 7 6 Jeshua the 9th course  25 G 5 5  25 C 1 7  26 A 6 6  26 D 2 8  27 B 7 7  Malchijah, the fifth course. 27 E 3 9  28 C 1 8  28 F 4 10  29 D 2 9  29 G 5 11  30 E 3 10  30 A 6 12  31 F 4 11   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the fortieth Julian Year, in which the Baptist was conceived; wherein the courses of the Priests are set down in their places, and found to be so by accounting them back from the time of the Destruction of the second Temply by the Romans.  May. D. of the week 〈◊〉 the second Month. The fortieth Julian Year. june. Week Dayet. Sivan the third Month. The fortieth julian Year. 1 B 7 13  1 E 3 14  2 C 1 14  2 F 4 15  3 D 2 15  3 G 5 16  4 E 3 16  4 A 6 17  5 F 4 17  5 B 7 18  Bilgah, the fifteenth course. 6 G 5 18  6 C 1 19  7 A 6 19  7 D 2 20  8 B 7 20  8 E 3 21  9 C 1 21  9 F 4 22  10 D 2 22  10 G 5 23  11 E 3 23  11 A 6 24  12 F 4 24  12 B 7 25  Immer, the sixteenth course. 13 G 5 25  13 C 1 26  14 A 6 26  14 D 2 27  15 B 7 27  15 E 3 28  16 C 1 28  16 F 4 29  17 D 2 29  17 G 5 1 Tamnuz the fourth Month.  18 E 3 30  18 A 6 2  19 F 4 1 Sivan the third Month.  19 B 7 3 Hezir, the seventeenth course 20 G 5 2  20 C 1 4  21 A 6 3  21 D 2 5  22 B 7 4 Huppah, the thirteenth course, and Feast of Pentecost. 22 E 3 6  23 C 1 5 23 F 4 7  24 D 2 6 24 G 5 8  25 E 3 7  25 A 6 9  26 F 4 8  26 B 7 10  Aphses, the eighteenth course. 27 G 5 9  27 C 1 11  28 A 6 10  28 D 2 12  29 B 7 11  Jeshabeab, the four-teenth course. 29 E 3 13  30 C 1 12  30 F 4 14  31 D 2 13   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the fortieth Julian Year, in which the Baptist was conceived; wherein the Courses of the Priests are set down in their places, and found to be so by accounting them back from the time of the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans; the Cycle of the Sun in this year being four, and the Cycle of the Moon 15.  July. Da. Of the we. Tammuz the iv Month. The fortieth Julian Year. August. D. of the week Ab the V Month. The fortieth Julian Year.  1 G 5 15  1 C 1 16  2 A 6 16  2 D 2 17  3 B 7 17  Pethahiab, the 19th course. 3 E 3 18  4 C 1 18  4 F 4 19  5 D 2 19  5 G 5 20  6 E 3 20  6 A 6 21  7 F 4 21  7 B 7 22  Maaziah, the 24th course. 8 G 5 22  8 C 1 23  9 A 6 23  Jehezekel, the 20th course. 9 D 2 24  10 B 7 24  10 E 3 25  11 C 1 25  11 F 4 26  12 D 2 26  12 G 5 27  13 E 3 27  13 A 6 28  14 F 4 28  14 B 7 29  ¶ joarib, the first course. 15 G 5 29  Jachin, the 21th course. 15 C 1 1 Elul the VI Month.  16 A 6 30  16 D 2 2  17 B 7 1 Abbess the fifth Month.  17 E 3 3  18 C 1 2  18 F 4 4  19 D 2 3  19 G 5 5  20 E 3 4  20 A 6 6  21 F 4 5  21 B 7 7  jedaiah, the second course. 22 G 5 6  22 C 1 8  23 A 6 7  Gamul, the 22th course. 23 D 2 9  24 B 7 8  24 E 3 10  25 C 1 9  25 F 4 11  26 D 2 10  26 G 5 12  27 E 3 11  27 A 6 13  28 F 4 12  28 B 7 14  Harim, the third course.  29 G 5 13  29 C 1 15  30 A 6 14  Delaiah, the 23th course. 30 D 2 16  31 B 7 15  31 E 3 17   

In Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the fortieth Julian Year, in which the Baptist was conceived; wherein the courses of the Priests are set down in their places, and found to be so, by accounting them back from the time of the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans.  Septemb. D. of the week ●●ul the V Month. The fortieth julian Year. October. D. of the week Tisri the 7th Month. The fortieth Julian Year.  1 F 4 18  1 A 6 18  Abijah, or Abia, the eighth course  2 G 5 19  2 B 7 19   3 A 6 20  3 C 1 20  In this Course Zacharias had the tidings of the Birth of John the Baptist, and probobly on the first day thereof, Luke 1.1. which was just nine months before he was born, and seven days before Elizabeth conceived him.  4 B 7 21  Seorim, the foruth course. 4 D 2 21   5 C 1 22  5 E 3 22   6 D 2 23  6 F 4 23   7 E 3 24  7 G 5 24   8 F 4 25  8 A 6 25   9 G 5 26  9 B 7 26  Jeshua the 9th course  10 A 6 27  10 C 1 27  In the night foregoing this day, the Baptist was conceived, and born 258 days after, viz. on the 2●. Of June, which in the 1 Julian year was the 20. day of the fourth month, Jeria septima.  11 B 7 28  Malchijah, the fifth course. 11 D 2 28   12 C 1 29  12 E 3 29   13 D 2 30  13 F 4 1 M●●●h●s●an the eighth Month.  14 E 3 1 Tisri the seventh Month. The feast of Trum pets. 14 G 5 2  15 F 4 2  15 A 6 3  16 G 5 3  16 B 7 4 Shechaniah, the 10. course. 17 A 6 4 Mijamin the sixth course. 17 C 1 5  18 B 7 5  18 D 2 6  19 C 1 6  19 E 3 7  20 D 2 7  20 F 4 8  21 E 3 8  21 G 5 9  22 F 4 9  22 A 6 10  23 G 5 10  The day of Expia●on. 23 B 7 11  Eliashib, the 11th course. 24 A 6 11  24 C 1 12  25 B 7 12  Hakkoz the seventh course. 25 D 2 13  26 C 1 13  26 E 3 14  27 D 2 14  The first day of the Feast of Tabernacles; before the end of which Feast was Zacharias his Lot. 27 F 4 15  28 E 3 15  28 G 5 16  29 F 4 16  29 A 6 17  30 G 5 17  30 B 7 18  Jakim the twelfth course.   31 C 1 19   

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the fortieth Julian Year, in which the Baptist was conceived; wherein the courses of the Priests are set down in their places, and f●und to be so by accounting them back from the time of the Destruction of the second Temple by the Romans.  Novemb. D. of the week Marches●an the eighth Month.  The fortieth Julian Year. Decemb. Week Days. Chasseu the ix. Month.  The fortieth julian Year.  1 D 2 20  1 F 4 20  2 E 3 21  2 G 5 21  3 F 4 22  3 A 6 22  4 G 5 23  4 B 7 23  Hezir, the seventeenth course. 5 A 6 24  5 C 1 24  6 B 7 25  Huppah, the thirteenth course. 6 D 2 25  The Feast of Dedication instituted by Judas Maccabeus 159 years before this time, and was then in that year when it was appointed on the 22 of December.  7 C 1 26  7 E 3 26   8 D 2 27  8 F 4 27   9 E 3 28  9 G 5 28   10 F 4 29  10 A 6 29  11 G 5 30  11 B 7 1 Thebeth the tenth Month. Aphses, the eighteenth course. 12 A 6 1 C 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ninth Month.  12 C 1 2  13 B 7 2 Jeshabeab, the fourteenth course. 13 D 2 3  14 C 1 3  14 E 3 4  15 D 2 4  15 F 4 5  16 E 3 5  16 G 5 6  17 F 4 6  17 A 6 7  18 G 5 7  18 B 7 8  Pethaniah the 19th course. 19 A 6 8  19 C 1 9  20 B 7 9  Bilgah, the fifteenth course. 20 D 2 10  21 C 1 10  21 E 3 11  22 D 2 11  22 F 4 12  23 E 3 12  23 G 5 13  24 F 4 13  24 A 6 14  25 G 5 14  25 B 7 15  Jebezekel the 20th course. 26 A 6 15  26 C 1 16  27 B 7 16  Immer, the sixteenth course. 27 D 2 17  28 C 1 17  28 E 3 18  29 D 2 18  29 F 4 19  30 E 3 19  30 G 5 20   31 A 6 21    

CHAP. XXI. Of the reign of Tiberius, and of the beginning and end of Pontius Pilate his Government. As also of the year and day of our Saviour's Passion.  
TAcitus, in the 15 Book of the tenth Chapter of his Annals, speaking of the Christians, saith: The Author of that name was Christ, who in Tiberius' reign was put to death under Pontius Pilate procurator of judaea. But in what year of Tiberius or Pontius Pilate, he doth not show.  
Some I find who would have the beginning of Tiberius be before the death of Augustus; and so would have then two Emperors to reign at once: for which they chief build upon the testimony of Velleius, who saith that before Augustus died Tiberius was equalled with him in command. But to begin the reign of Tiberius upon this mistaken ground, is to unjoint the settled times, and make old Authors speak that which they never meant. For (as Petavius well observeth) the Proconsular dignity was given without the Empire: and never were two men Emperors together till Aurelius Antonius his time. And therefore though Tiberius was equalled in command with Augustus, some time before Augustus died, yet it was but in some things; which dignity was bestowed upon him not as Emperor, but as he was a gallant General over the Army, and like to be the next succeeding Emperor. This, even Velleius showeth, who accounts but 16 years from the beginning of Tiberius as Emperor, to the Consulship of M. Vinitius and C. Cassius: the seventeenth year therefore of his reign began in the time of their Consulship, which was in the 75 julian year. Tacitus declaring moreover, not only how loath Tiberius was (which also Velleius showeth) to take the Empire upon him when Augustus was dead; but also how fearful his Mother Livia was, lest any other should get into the Empire before him. This again may be seen in Tacitus, by the tenth year of Tiberius, for when Tiberius had reigned nine years, than was C. Asinius and C. Antistius the Consuls; viz. in the 68 julian year. The beginning therefore of Tiberius is certain, and may not be set either here or there, as men upon false persuasions shall be pleased; but must be accounted from the death of Augustus, and no sooner. For though it were usual among the Kings of Persia to have their years accounted from such time as they began to be Copartners with their Fathers in the Empire; as Ciesias, compared with other Authors, maketh manifest; and as was also among the Kings of judah and Israel: yet that it was so among the Romans, or that two were Emperors together till Aurelius Antonius his time, we do not find. Now Augustus we know died (as Velleius, Dion, and all others testify) when Sextus Pompeius, and Sextus Appuleius were Consuls, on the nineteenth day of August, in the 59 julian year, and year of the julian Period 47 27: there therefore we must begin the first year of Tiberius who reigned 22 years, seven months, and seven days; and died when Cn. Proculus and Pontius Nigrinus were Consuls, on the 26 day of March, in the 82 julian year, and year of the julian Period 4750. By which it appeareth that the Passion of Christ must necessarily be in some year after the 74 julian year, and before the 82.  
By Orosius his account it must be in the 75 julian year. For Sejanus perished in the 76 julian year, as cannot be denied: & according to Orosius Christ must suffer before the fall of Sejanus. For, in his seventh Book and fourth Chapter, we read, That when Tiberius had heard what Pilate related to him of the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and that thereupon Tiberius would that the Senate should Canonize Christ for a God, the Senate would not but stood against it, and so (saith he) did Sejanus, who shown himself a great enemy to the Christian profession: whereupon it came to pass that an Edict was made for the rooting of all Christians out of the City. Thus saith Orosius: and therefore by him, Christ must suffer not one jot later than the 75 julian year, in the year of the julian Perion 4743, when M. Vinitius and C. Cassius were Consuls: in whose Consulship, Epiphanius also setteth Christ's Passion. But this is false, as appeareth not only by the several Passovers mentioned by Saint John after Christ's Baptism, to the day of his death, but also by the silence of other Authors. And therefore the testimonies of Orosius concerning Sejanus cannot stand good, for being a matter of story, he must have it from them who wrote before him, but that he hath not. For Tertullian makes no mention of it, nor Eusebius: and yet they speak how Tiberius would have had Christ Canonised for a God by the Senate, when Pilate had related to him the Passion and Resurrection of Christ. I find indeed that Sejanus (like another Haman) did earnestly endeavour and desire it of the Emperor, that the whole Nation of the Jews might be rooted out; as Eusebius relateth out of Philo the Jew: And from hence sure it was that Orosius mistook himself, and applied that to the Christians after Christ's Passion, which was pertinent to the Jews before Christ's Passion.  
Tertullian saith, Christ was baptised in the twelfth year of Tiberius, and crucified in the fifteenth when the two Gemini were Consuls: this was in the 74th Julian year. Epiphanius maketh Christ about 29 years old when he was baptised, and nameth junius Silanus and Silius Nerva to be Consuls then; which was one year sooner than the Consulships of the Gemini: which two Gemini, albeit they were Consuls but in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, are said not only by Teriullian, but by julius Africanus, Lactantius, Saint Austin, Sulpitius, Cedrenus and others, to be Consuls when Christ was crucified. This I believe they took up from what Clemens of Alexandria held before them: for it was the opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 1. that Christ lived fifteen years under Augustus, and as many under Tiberius; in all 30: In the last whereof he preached and suffered. For which opinion he had none before him that he followed but the Gnostickes, and no other than a mistaken ground to uphold it. His ground was in Esay, chap. 61.2. Concerning the Acceptable year of the Lord which Christ was to preach. Which I say was a mistaken ground: For though it be true that Christ indeed proclaimed that year in the sense that the Prophet meant it, and in the first year after his Baptism when he preached at Nazareth shown that it was come, as we read in Luke 4.19. Yet that he therefore preached but one year, is such an extreme mistake, that it is a wonder any who had read the Gospels, should not see to avoid it. Origen erred much after the same manner: for lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cap. 1. thus he saith; Anno & aliquot mensibus, docuit. He taught one year and some odd months: which is also false; for it is certain that the Baptist began not to preach and baptise, until the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Luke 3.1. and that Christ was presently put to death after john began, is very justly denied. For he must increase, saith John, but I must decrease, John 3.30. Which words John spoke after there had been one Passeover since the Baptism of Christ, john 2.23. Beside which, the same Evangelist expressly nameth two more; the last whereof was that in which Christ suffered, as may be seen in john 6.4. and chap. 13.1. But of the Passovers more shall be spoken by and by.  
Among late Writers the greatest part go along with Eusebius, who maketh choice of the eighteenth year of Tiberius for the year of Christ's Passion. Scaliger (more rightly) is for the nineteenth year, and year of the julian Period 4746. Petavius saith Christ was baptised in the year of the julian Period 4742, and crucified in the year of the same Period 4744, even in the third Passover after his Baptism: for he was baptised on the sixth day of january, as Epiphanius saith. And as for the day of his Passion, he referreth it to the 23 day of March: therein following Irenaeus, lib. 2. cap. 38. Apollinaris of Laodicea apud Hieron, in 9 Dan. Origen, cap. 2. cont. Cells. Epiphanius, Haeres. 51. Which also a Council held at Caesaria, Anno Dom. 197, under Victor Bishop of Rome declareth. The 23 day of March was indeed in that year which Petavius mentioneth on the sixth day of the Week, but the Passeover was not until three or four days after: and therefore how could Christ suffer on the 23 day of March in the year of the julian Pe. 4744.  
Scaliger is for the third of April: and Paulus Forosemproniensis for the thirtieth of March, in the six and thirtieth year of Christ, according to the common account, even whilst the 22 year of Tiberius was still running on, which was in the 81 julian year, and year of the julian Period 4749, when Q. Plautius and Sextus Papinius were Consuls. This last is taken up by Master Lydyat, and mainly defended by him: but all in vain.  
For not only was Christ crucified whilst Tiberius was alive, but also whilst Pontius Pilate was in office. Now Pontius Pilate was certainly out of office before the Easter of the eighty first julian year, and therefore that could not be the year of Christ's Passion. For as Tacitus showeth, Vitellius came into Syria towards the end of the 
* viz. when C. Cestius and M Servilius were Consuls, Taci. lib. 6.  eightieth julian year: before whom Pilate was accused, and was sent to Rome to defend his cause before the Easter of that year in which Vitellius was at jerusalem; as appeareth out of josephus, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, at the fifth and sixth Chapters. Before which time of his being sent away, he had been Precedent of judaea ten whole years, and did succeed in that office Valerius Gratus whom Tiberius soon after the beginning of his Empire, at the death of Augustus, sent to rule and govern that Province, which he did for the space of eleven years; as josephus again declareth. Take then eleven of Gratus, and ten of Pilate, and add them each to other, so we have 21 years. Which one and twenty being added to the 59 julian year, in the latter part whereof Tiberius began, will make it appear that Pilate departed from his Province in the end of the eightieth julian year; or however, before the Easter of the eighty first. For Vitellius, after he had commanded Pilate to go away to Rome, and had set Marcellus over his Province, came to the solemn feast of the 
* This was in the 81. Jul an year, when Quint. Plavii. and Sex. Papinius were Consuls.  Passeover at jerusalem, and gave leave to the chief Priests to keep the holy Robe, as josephus also showeth. After which time he received letters from Tiberius of making peace with Artabanus: which he did, and wrote thereof to Tiberius. But Herod the Tetrarch prevented his intelligence, and had wrote of all to the Emperor before him: Whereupon Tiberius wrote back again to Vitellius that he knew all the whole business already, having had notice thereof by the Letters of Herod. Now these things being thus certified each to other after Easter, could not be done in the eighty second Julian year: for before the Easter of that year Tiberius died. And if not in the eighty second Julian year, then must they necessarily be done in the year before; viz. in the 81. And if in the eighty first, than could not that be the year of Christ's passion: for at the Easter time of that year when our Saviour suffered, Pilate was in full power; which made him therefore say, Knowest thou not that I have Power to Crucify thee, and have Power to release thee? joh. 19.10. This he spoke in the seventy eight Julian year, about two years before he departed his Province, as will easily appear to him who computeth the times aright, and as I shall after show more fully and clearly to every eye.  
For by the Passovers already mentioned out of the Gospel of Saint john, it is most plainly manifest that the first year wherein we can but think of searching for our Saviour's Passion, must be the 76 julian year: for the three Passovers in Saint john, after the fifteenth year of Tiberius when Christ was baptised, will certainly reach thither. That year therefore is the first year wherein we must search: and if upon the search we can find that the fifteenth day of Nisan falleth on the sixth day of the week, then may that be the year of his Passion, and the Passovers after his Baptism till his death be no more than three. But upon the search, the fifteenth day of Nisan in that year is found to be on the third day of the week: that therefore could not be the year, nor those the just number of the Passovers. For though Saint john hath clearly and expressly mentioned but three, yet for all that we are not tied from searching after more. For as it is certain that all things which Jesus did are not written: so also it is as certain that all things which are written of him in the Gospels, are not recorded by one Evangelist.  
And again why I name the fifteenth day of Nisan (when the Passover was kept) to be on the sixth day of the week at Christ's Passion, is because he arose from the dead on the first day of the week, and on the third day after his death. That it was on the first day of the Week, is manifest by all the four Evagnelists, chief by St Mark, in his 16th. Chap. at the ninth verse. And that it was likewise on the third day after his Passion, is as manifest by a whole multitude of Scriptures. As for example, in Matthew 16.21. from that time forth began Jesus to show unto his Disciples, how that he must go into Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the Elders and chief Priests, and Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. And in the next Chapter at the 23. verse, they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And in the 20 Chapter at the nineteenth verse, They shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to curcifie him, and the third day he shall rise again. And in Mark 9.31. he taught his Disciples, and said unto them. The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. And in the next Chapter, at the 34 verse: They shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him, and the third day he shall rise again. And in Luke 9.22. The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the Elders, and chief Priests, and Scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day. And in the eighteenth Chapter at the 33. verse. They shall scourge him and put him to death, and the third day he shall rise again. And in the four and twentieth Chapter, at the seventeenth verse, The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of Sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And in Act. 10.40. Him God raised up the third day, and shown him openly. And in 1. Cor. 15.4. That he was buried, and that he risen again the third day according to the Scriptures.  
In which last Testimony note I pray you, not only what the Apostle maintaineth, but how; namely; That the rising of Christ from the dead on the third day, is according to the Scriptures. If there be any text of Scripture which at the first fight may seem to say, Christ risen not till after the third day, it is to admit of an interpretation, that thereby it may be like the other Scriptures. As for example, in Mark 8.31. the phrase is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, post tres dies, after three days, as it is usually translated. Where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Mat. 16.26. Mar. 14.22. Luke 22.20.  is not to be taken for post, after: but for intra, within. As it should be said, They shall put him to death, and within three days he shall rise again. Now this appeareth by Deut. 14.28. compared with Deut 26.12. A like phrase is in Luke 2.46. as the context declareth. That also which Matthew and Mark do say concerning the institution of the holy Supper, that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we must not translate, After Supper; but inter coenandum, whilst they were at Supper. ' The Pharisees also who told Pilate what Christ would do after his three days, understood the Phrase but of the third day: for no longer did they desire that the Sepulchre should be watched, Mat. 27.63. And indeed Christ had said the same before in words plain enough: for saith he, Destroy this Temple, and within three days I will raise it up, john 2.19. This is that time to which the Prophet pointed, when he said; After two days he will revive us, in the third day he will raise us up, & we shall live in his sight, Hos. 6.2. Upon which words one observeth this; vivificat nos post duos dies, & tertio die eriget, ut vivamus coram ipso: quia in Christo & cum Christo pater caelestis nos nipote membra Christi ex mortuis suscitavit, Ephes. 2.5.6. By which we see that the Resurrection is certainly bounded within the compass of three days, and not to be expected afterward.  
The only place remaining to be objected against it, is in Mat. 12.40. where our Saviour saith; As Ionas was three days and three nights in the Whale's belly, so must the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Which words are also to be interpreted; they agree not else to the other Scriptures.  
Know therefore that by three days and three nights, we are to understand three natural days, accounted from Evening to Evening; as the Jews use to reckon; in which respect the day and the night are confounded, and both of them made but one. By the three days then and the three nights, we are (I say) to understand three such days, in the last where of Christ arose: for by a Senecdoche we reckon that done after three days, which is done but after the third day is begun. The first of these three days was the sixth day of the Week, and the fifteenth day of Nisan, and was from one Sunsetting to another. For before the fifteenth day of Nisan was quite out, Christ was crucified dead and buried. The second day began at the Sunsetting next after, during which time was the Sabbath.  
The third and last began at the end of the former, and was the first day of the week: in the morning whereof very early Christ arose; And all this according to the Scriptures.  
But I go on, and am to search next into the 77 julian year; at the Easter whereof must be a fourth Passover since Christ's Baptism: which if it be found to fall on the Sixth day of the week, may be the year of his Passion. But I find it otherwise: for in the 77 julian year the fifteenth of Nisan was on the first or second day of the week, and not on the Sixth day. This therefore could not be the year of Christ's Passion, no more than the former.  
The year next after this was the 78. julian year, and year of the julian Period 4746. which will be found to be the very year we seek after. For in this year the fifteenth of Nisan was for certain on the Sixth day of the week, being the third day of April and day of the fifth Passover which is mentioned by all the four Evangelists, not one of them omitting it. The year that followeth, affordeth no such Character: no, nor the year next after that. This therefore must needs be the year of Christ's death; which being in this year, was on the third day of April: the Cycle of the Sun was 14, the Dominical letter D. and the Cycle of the Moon 15. It was the nineteenth year of Tiberius, the fourth year of the 202. Olympiad, the 33 year of Christ according to the common account: but according to the true time of his birth, the seven and thirtieth; and year of the World 4037.  
And thus we have no fewer than five Passovers from the time that Christ was baptised, to the time that he suffered: which though they be not all of them mentioned by one Evangelist; yet out of them all they may be gathered.  
Between the first and second of these Passovers, it was that john the Baptist was cast into prison: and then was the full beginning of Christ's Ministry. For now was the course of his forerunner accomplished, and therefore now must Christ be only looked upon as the Messiah; here being the first beginning of the last week of the Seventy: from whence our Saviour preached three years and an half, before he suffered. For though there were some Testimonies and manifestations of Christ before, yet was not the time of the Messiah fully come till now, Mark 1.14.15. And thus much for the year and day of Christ's Passion. Only a Question or two would be resolved: of which in the following Chapter.   

CHAP. XXII. Of killing the Paschal Lambs, and whether at Christ's death the Jews and our Saviour kept the Passover upon one and the same day.  
IT is recorded by Maymonides, that no Pascha might be kept but of those Lambs which were killed by the Priests in the Temple.  
But that was not so: as appeareth by the Testimony of Philo Judaeus, who expressly writeth, 
Philo in vita Mosis, et in Libro de Decalogo.  that in the Paschal festivity all the Jews exercised the Priest's office, in regard that every one at his own home might Sacrifice the Lamb. Thus he; a man who had seen the observation of many a Passover, which Maymonides never did. For Philo Judaeus lived in Christ's time; but Maymonides was not till a long time after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Master Broughton therefore and Ainsworth followed Rambam or Maymonides too confidently in this particular: as also in that of the Chagigah, which they say was a voluntary sacrifice, and not of command: for it was commanded, we as may see Deut. 16.2. There might indeed no Paschal Lamb be s●●in, but at Jerusalem; and that's the reason why the Jews now observe no Passover: and in the Temple were some Lambs likewise slain by the Priests, but it was for them who came out of the Country to keep the Feast. For the Inhabitants of the City were at their own choice, and might take a Lamb and kill it at their own houses; how else could they exercise the Priest's office in this Sacrifice of the Lamb, which Philo Judaeus saith they did?  
They who say our Saviour (in the year when he suffered) kept not the Passover on the same day with the jews, ground their tenet upon these texts. First upon that of Saint john, Chapt. 19 vers. 14. where the day on the which Christ was put to death is expressly called The preparation of the Passover. And in the Chapter before, at the 28 verse, The jowes themselves went not into the Judgement Hall, lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Passover. And in Matthew 27.62. the day after Christ's death and burial, is called the day that was next after the preparation. And in joh. 19.31. The jews because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the Cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was an high day) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Which texts seem to prove that for which they are cited.  
Notwithstanding all which, some there be who upon good grounds maintain the contrary, and are very confident that the jews and Christ kept one and the same day: And for proof thereof they allege these places. First, Mat. 2.6.2. You know (saith Christ to his Disciples) that after two days is the Passover: and the Son of Man is given up to be crucified. 
The Evangelists do here call the 14 of Nisan the day of unleavened bread, because on that day as soon as dinner was over the people cast all leaven out of their houses.  Which speech importeth a general agreement for the Passover. And so much saith Saint Mark chap. 14. vers. 12. On the first day of the * unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover, two of his Disciples said: where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover. And in Luk. 22.7.8. Then came the day of unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and john, saying, Go and prepare us the Passover that we may eat. In which texts by the words [when they sacrificed the Passover, and when the Passover must be killed] is also shown that three was a general agreement for the time of the Passover, 
which must be done before the Lamb was slain: at the eating whereof they first of all began to eat unleavened bread, & so continued for the space of 7 days, Exod. 12.8.15. and Deut. 16.4.  and that our Lord and all the jews kept one and the same day for the kill and eating the Lamb.  
And therefore to that in john 18.28. they answer, that there is meant not the eating of the Paschal Lamb, but the Ox, or the flesh of the Chagigah Passover, which was added to the former, and commanded in Deut. 16.2. where it is written thou shalt sacrifice a Pascha unto the Lord, of the Flock, and of the Herd. The practice whereof was notably seen in that solemn Passover which Josiah kept, 2 Chron. 35.7. The eating of this was for two days and one night, as saith Maymonides. Or else in the text objected is to be understood the eating of the Loafes of Sweetbread, which was to be observed for an whole week together. For as one observeth upon Luke 22.7. the word Pascha, used for the Passover, is taken many ways: As first, for the Paschal Lamb, Mark 14.12. Secondly, for the whole week of Sweetbread, or of the Paschal solemnity which lasted seven days, Act. 12.3.4. Thirdly for the Paschal solemnity of the sixth day. Fourthly, for the hour of immolation & eating of the Paschal Lamb, Mark 14.1. Fifthly, for whatsoever meat or bread belonging to the Feast, the jews eat during the solemnity thereof, john 18.28. where the story telleth us, They would not go into the Judgement Hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover: that is saith he Azimos' Panes, The unleavened Bread belonging to the Passover. Sixthly, for that which was figured by the Passover, to wit, Christ, 1 Cor. 5.7. And Seunthly, for the Festivity of the Paschal cheer, 2 Chron. 35.7.18. If therefore the word Pascha might be taken these many ways, there is no necessity to tie us absolutely to conclude, that in john 18.28. the jews meant what they said of eating the Passover, to be understood of the Lamb rather than of any other thing eaten by them at that Feast.  
But how will that place in job. 19.14. be answered; where the day of Christ's death is called the Preparation of the Passover? It is called there the Preparation of the Passover; not in regard of the Passover, but in regard of the Sabbath in the Passover, as Master Perkns observeth. In Mark therefore, chap. 15. verse 42. it is called the Preparation (not of the Passover, but the preparation) which went before the Sabbath. And in Luke 23.54. It was the Preparation (saith the Evangelist) and the Sabbath drew on. Which Sabbath was an high day, because of the Chagigah Passover which was then to be eaten, ae well as on the day before. Or else thus: The forenoon of the day of Christ's death was the Preparation to the eating of the Passeover Bullocke; and in the afternoon was the Preparation of the Sabbath. And thus is this Text answered.  
From it also appeareth, that the translation of days which Scaliger speaketh of, was not in use so soon as these times. For though the late jews tell us that the constitutions thereunto belonging, were set forth by Eleazar in the beginning of the second Temple, and that they have a book treating of the motion of the Sun & the Moon, said to be written by Rabbi Gamaliel, in which this translation of days is confirmed: although I say they tell us these things, yet will the whole be found inventions of a later age.  
For when the Authors of the Mischna and Thalmud lived, the sixteenth day of Nisan might be on the Sabbath day, as is written Cod. Pesachim, cap. 7. And if the sixteenth were and might be Sabbath day, than both was and might the fifteenth be feria sexta: as it was in this year of our Saviour's Passion.  
Learned Langius hath gallantly declared this: howbeit he agreeth with those who say Christ and the jews kept not one and the same day. And the reason of their difference he taketh to be in regard of two chief Sects among the jews, viz. the Karraeans, and the Thalmudists: who though they both began their Months according to the Phasis or Vision of the Moon, yet in regard of the manner of their observation they did sometimes differ a day each from other; insomuch that that which to the Karraeans was the second day of the Month, The Thalmudists accounted but the first. And so it was (saith he) in that year when Christ suffered. Now Christ following the Karraeans, did therefore eat the Passover one day sooner than the rest of the jews who followed the Thalmudists. But I doubt much of the truth of this opinion, not only because all the jews kept one and the same day, as I have already showed; but also because it maketh Christ's Passion (as he accounts the difference, now and in this year) to be on the Thursday, and fifth day of the week, which is contrary to the Scriptures, and to all the Creeds of the Christian Church.  
I confess him indeed to be a man of full deep learning, much reading, and great knowledge in the Tongues: but in this I do believe he will have but few to follow him; especially considering what the Apostle saith, in 1 Cor. 15.4. namely, That Christ risen again the third day, according to the Scriptures: whereas by his opinion, he must not arise until the fourth day. If then the third be according to the Scriptures, the fourth is not, but is to be refused of all them who will be guided by the Scriptures.   

CHAP. XXIII. The times of Vespasian and Titus, together with the Destruction of Jerusalem.  
WHen the reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius had well near measured the length of a year, than was Vespasian advanced to the Empire: in the second year of whose reign his son Titus destroyed the City and Commonwealth of the Jews; this destruction falling out to be in the year of the julian Period 4783. and seventyeth year of Christ according to the Vulgar and common account. The Ancients (as Egesippus, Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius, Hierom, and others) say that it was 40 years after Christ's Passion: and the reason of that I take to be, because many of the Fathers accounted Christ's Baptism to be in the twelfth year of Tiherius, and his Passion in the fifteenth; which was certain an absolute error, as I have already plainly showed. I take it therefore for granted that this was the year when Jerusalem was destroyed, and have already proved it so in the seventeenth Chapter.  
It was without doubt a dismal overthrow; and sundry were the Signs and tokens that went before it: of which we read at large in Josephus De bello Judaico, lib. 7. cap. 12. as also in Eusebius his eclesiastical History, lib. 3. cap. 8.  
There was a terrible blazing Star or Comet fashioned like a Sword, which for a years space, in threatening manner hung over the City.  
The Moon suffered an Eclipse for twelve nights together. Before the War, in the Feast of Sweetbread, upon the eighth day of April in the night a clear light as bright as day was seen in the Temple, abiding the full space of half an hour. And upon the same Feast, day a Calf being prepared for the Sacrifice, brought forth a Lamb in the middle of the Temple. The East Gate of the inward Temple, being a Gate of Brass, fast locked and barred, opened by its own accord; this was about the middle of the night and much labour there was to shut it up again. Some few days after, upon the 21. day of May a little before Sunsetting, in the Skies were seen Armies of men fight, and Horses and Chariots running too and fro. And on the day of Pentecost the Priests entering into the Temple according to their custom, heard a terrible voice sounding out these words Let us go hence. But that (saith Josephus) which was more terrible than all these, was the cry of one Josus the son of Anani; He was a man of the common sort of people, and brought up in the Country, who in the days of Albinus the Roman Governor of Judea & Jerusalem, at the Feast of Tabernacles (four years before the beginning of their Wars) suddenly as he was in the Temple began to cry after this manner; A voice from the East, a voice from the West, a voice from the four Winds, a voice against. Jerusalem and the Temple, a voice against the Bridegrooms and Brides, and a voice against the whole multitude of the City. In which manner he continued crying day and night, up and down the streets, without any hoarseness or weariness, for the space of seven years and five Months, but chief on the Feast days; neither cursing them that hurt him, nor thanking them that relieved him: and being brought before the Deputy by the Magistrates and Nobles of the City, they whip this flesh to the very bones, for which he neither wept nor craved mercy, but at every stroke cried Woe, woe to Jerusalem: and at last climbing up upon the Walls, when the City was besieged, he adds these words, And woe also to mine oneself; upon the uttering whereof he was presently slain by the Enemies with a stone cast at him out of an Engine.  
These and the like tokens were signs that God gives warning before he punisheth; whereupon saith chrysostom, in his 46 Homily upon Saint Matthew, God doth not punish a Nation or a City so soon as they offend, but suspends his punishment for many generations; and one while commandeth, another while threatneth, and sometimes addeth a small correction; that by how much the longer he hath expected, by so much his judgements may be the more just, and their punishment the more deserved. Oh Jerusalem, 
Mat. 23.37  Jerusalem. (therefore saith our Saviour) thou that killest the Prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy Children together, even as a Hen gathereth her chickens under her Wings, but ye would not: And hereupon it came to pass that that City which seemed as a thing impregnable, was taken by the Romans on the seventh day of Elul (which in this year was on the first of September, and seventh day of the week) and on the day following it was burnt and destroyed and made so ruinous that quickly after it was wholly demolished and cast down, there not being one stone left upon another; therein fulfilling the Prophecy of Christ, in Luke 19.43, 44.  
And hereupon it is that Dion Nicaeus, in the life of Vespasian, saith; Jerusalem was taken on the Sabbath day: Die Saturni Judaeis sacro.  
This was in the CXV. julian year, the 4783. of the julian Period, the second of the 212. Olympiad, the 822. of Rome, the 818. of Nabonassar, the 74. year of Christ according to the true (not common) account, and year of the World 4074. It was also since the Israelites came out of Egypt 1559. years complete; and since the two Tribes and an half entered on their possessions, 1520.  
That which followeth, and with which I intent to conclude, is a Table of some remarkable passages: and after that a Calendar for the year of this dismal desolation; even for the year when Tives took this gallant City. To which Calendar I shall add the Courses of the Priests out of the Seder Olam, according as their lot had cast them for their service in the Temple. All which will add great light to some former passages, as the ingenious Reader cannot but grant.  
Years of the Jullan Period. Years of the world Olympriads. Rome's Years. Flests & Jubiker. Julian Years Emperors. The double reigh of Herod Agivon. The TABLE.    Consuls. Things memorable.  4674 3965 1 185 713 5  6 5 1  Years of the Actium Fighe. Domit. Calvinm, Asaniut Pollio Herod made K. by the Romans, & reigned 87. years.  4675 3966 2  714 6  7 6 2  Martius & Calvisius Sabinus.  4676 3967 3  715 7 6 8 7 3  Ap. Claudius & C. Nobanus. A year of Rest gins.  4677 3968 4  716 1  9 8 4  1  M. Agrippa, & L. Canidius.  4678 3969 1 186 717 2  10 9 5  2  L. Gellius, & M. Cocceius. Herod takes Jerusalem this Year, before the year of Rest is ended; and therefore not so late as the 10 day of the Teventh month. From hence he reigned 34. years.  4679 3970 2  718 3  11 10 6  3  L. Cornificius, & Sex. Pompeius  4680 3971 3  719 4  12 11 7  4  Libo and Sempronius.  4681 3972 4  720 5  13 12 8  5  Aug. Ces. 2. & L. Volat. Tull.  4682 3973 1 187 721 6  14 13 9  6  Domitius Abn, & C. Sossius.  4683 3974 2  722 7 7 15 14 10  7  1 Aug. Ces. 3. & M. Valer. Mess The Actium Fight Septemb. 2.  4684 3975 3  723 1 Jub. Xxix 16 15 11  8  2 Aug. Ces. 4. & M. Li. Crassus.  4685 3976 4  724 2 17 16 12  9  3 Aug. Ces. 4. Here was the firstgeneral Taxing made by Augustus.  4686 3977 1 188 725 3 18 17 13  10  4 Aug. Cess. 6. & M. Vip. Agrip. 2.  4687 3978 2  726 4  19 18 14  11  5 Aug. Ces. 7. & M. Vip. Agrip. 3. Here began they eers called Anni Augustorum.  4688 3979 3  727 5  20 19 15  12  6 Aug. Cess. 8. & Statil. Taurus.  4689 3980 4  728 6  21 20 16  13  7 Aug. Ces. 9 & M. Jun. Syllan.  4690 3981 1 189 729 7 1 22 21 17  14  8 Aug. Ces. 10. & Norbanus.  4691 3982 2  730 1  23 22 18  15  9 Aug. Ces. 11. & Calpburs. Piso. Here began the first year of the tribunitial Power.  4692 3983 3  731 2  24 23 19  16  10 Mr. Maneellus, & L. Aruntius.  4693 3984 4  732 3  25 24 20  17  11 M. Lollius, & Q. Leipidut.  4694 3985 1 190 733 4  26 25 21  18  12 M. Apulius, & P. Sitius Ner. Hereod gins to build Caesarea, twelve years before the death of DRusus.  4695 3986 2  734 5  27 26 22  19  13 Saturnius & Q. Lueretius.  4696 3987 3  735 6  28 27 23  20  14 Cn. Lentulus, & P. Lentulus.  4697 3988 4  736 7 2 29 28 24  21  15 Cajus Furnins, & Cajus Junius Herod gins to build the Temple 46 year, before the first Passover after Christ's Baptism, John 2.20.  4698 3989 1 191 737 1  30 29 25  22  16 L. Domitius, & P. Scipio.  4699 3990 2  738 2  31 30 26  23  17 Marcus Livius, & L. Piso.  4700 3991 3  739 3  32 31 27  24  18 M. Crassus, & Cor. Lentulus.  4701 3992 4  740 4  33 32 28  25  19 Tib. Nero, & Quint. Varus.  4702 3993 1 192 741 5  34 33 29  26  20 M. Messala, & P. Sul. Qurinus.  4703 3994 2  742 6  35 34 30  27  21 Q. Aelius, & Paulus Faubus. The true years of Christ.  4704 3995 3  743 7 3 36 35 31  28  22 Tib. Aritonius & Q. Max. Fabius  4705 3996 4  744 1  37 36 32  29  23 Drusus Neto, & Quinctius.  4706 3997 1 193 745 2  38 37 33  30  24 Of Maritius & Cajus Asmius. The seoond general Taxing began, but ended not till after Christ was boru.  4707 3998 2  746 3  39 38 34  31  25 Tib. Nero, & Calphur. Piso.  4708 3999 3  747 4  40 39 35  32  26 D. Laeius, & C. Antistuius.  4709 4000 4  748 5  41 40 36  33  27 Aug. Ces. 12. & L. Sylla. In this year Christ was born, Anno Mundi 〈◊〉. 1  4710 4001 1 194 749 6  42 41 37  34  28 C. lois. Sab. & L. Rufinus. 2  4711 4002 2  750 7 4 43 42 1 Archelaus. 1 Anrlpai. 29 C. Lentulus, & M. Messalinus. Herod died and Archelaus sueceedeth; Philip also, and Antipas. 3  4712 4003 3  751 1  44 43 2 2 30 Aug. Ces. 13. & M. Plautius Syl. 4  4713 4004 4  752 2  45 44 3 3 31 Cor. Lentulus, & Calph. Piso.   
Years of the Julian Period. Years of the World. Olympiads Roms ye. Kests and Jubilees. Julian ye. Emperors. Actium. Aichelaus. Yee's of Christ. Consuls. Things memorable.  Com. True. 4714 4005 1 195 753 3  46 45  32  4  1 5 Cajus & Aemilius Paulus. Here we begin the first year of the common Aera of Christ's Nativity. 4715 4006 2  754 4  47 46  33  5  2 6 Alfinius & Vinitius. 4716 4007 3  755 5  48 47  34  6  3 7 L. Aelius & M. Servilius. 4717 4008 4  756 6  49 48  35  7  4 8 Sex. Aelius & C. Sent. Satur. 4718 4009 1 196 757 7 5 50 49  36  8  5 9 Corn. Cinna, & L. Valerius.  4719 4010 2  758 1  51 50  37  9  6 10 L. Aruntius, & M. Lepidus. Archelaus is banished, & Copenius is sent to govern Indea; after whom was Marcus Ambibuchus; after him Anius Rofus, in whose time Augustus died. 4720 4011 3  759 2  52 51  Roman Precedents.  1 Coponius. 7 11 A. Licinius, & Q. Caecilius. 4721 4012 4  760 3  53 52   2 8 12 M. Furius, & Sex. Nonius. 4722 4013 1 197 761 4  54 53   3  9 13 Q. Sulpit. & C. Poppaeus. 4723 4014 2  762 5  55 54   1 Amb. 10 14 Dolabella & Syllanus. 4724 4015 3  763 6  56 55   2 11 15 T. Statilius, & M. Lepidus. 4725 4016 4  764 7 6 57 56   1 Rusu●. 12 16 Germanicus & Fonteius.  4726 4017 1 198 765 1  58 57   2 13 17 Silius & Plancus.  4727 4018 2  766 2  59 1 Valerius 23. currant.  3  14 18 Sext. Pompeius, & Sex. Apuleius. Augustus dieth, Aug. 19 and Tiberius succeedeth him, by whom Valerius Gratus is sent; after whom was Pantius Pilose ten years, and somewhat above. 4728 4019 3  767 3  60 2 1 Valerius Gratus 11. Antipas his Years continued. 18  15 19 Drusus & Norbanus. 4729 4020 4  768 4  61 3 2 19  16 20 Statilus & Scribonius. 4730 4021 1 199 769 5  62 4 3 20  17 21 C. Caeilius, & L. Pomponius. 4731 4022 2  770 6  63 5 4 21  18 22 Tib. Cesar & Germanicus. 4732 4023 3  771 7 7 64 6  5 22  19 23 M. Junius, & L. Norbanus. 4733 4024 4  772 1 Jub. xxx. 65 7  6  23  20 24 M. Messals, & Aurel. Cetta.  4734 4025 1 200 773 2 66 8  7  24  21 25 Tiberius & Drusus.  4735 4026 2  774 3  67 9  8  25  22 26 D. Hatterius, & C. Sulpitius.  4736 4027 3  775 4  68 10  9  26  23 27 C. Asinius, & C. Antistius.  4737 4028 4  776 5  69 11  10  27  24 28 Seru. Corn. & L. Vitcllines.  4738 4029 1 201 777 6  70 12  11  28  25 29 Asinius & Lentuius. Pilate beginneth about the beginning of this, or end of the former year. 4739 4030 2  778 7 1 71 13  1 Pontius Pilate 10.  29  26 30 Corn. Lent. & C. Calvisius. 4740 4031 3  779 1  72 14  2  30  27 31 M Crassus, & C. Piso.  4741 4032 4  780 2  73 15  3  31  28 32 Ap. Junius, & Pub. Silius. Christ baptised by John in this year, Jan. 6. 4742 4033 1 202 781 3  74 16  4  32  29 33 Rubel. Gem. & Fusins Gem. 4743 4034 2  782 4  75 17  5  33  30 34 M. Vinitius, & L. Cassius.  4744 4035 3  783 5  76 18  6  34  31 35 Tiber. Ces. & Aelius Sejanus.  4745 4036 4  784 6  77 19  7  35  32 36 Dom. Ahenob. & Aulus Vitellius In this year, on the third of April, our Saviour Jesus Christ was Crucified. 4746 4037 1 203 785 7 2 78 20  8  36  33 37 Sulp. Galba, & Corn. Silvius. 4747 4038 2  786 1  79 21  9  37  34 38 P. Fabius, & Luc. Vitellius. 4748 4039 3  787 2  80 22  10  38  35 39 C. Sestius, & M. Servilius.  4749 4040 4  788 3  81 23  0  39  36 40 Platius & Papienus. At the seventh month of this year was the full end of Daniel's LXX. Weeks; where also I conclude this Table: It might have eeub extended further, but to avoid tediousness, I thought good to end it here.  
All that I have to say more, before I come to the Calendar, is a note upon a passage or two in Josephus: the one hath place in this Table: the other concerns the Calendar. That which belongs to this Table, is what Josephus mentions in the sixteenth book and ninth Chapter of his Antiquities, concerning the great solemnity which was at the dedication of Caesarea, & that it was in the tenth year after the beginning of the building thereof, to wit, in the eight and twentieth year of Herod, and in the 192. Olympiad: which is generally understood of the first year thereof, in regard of the many sports and games used when this City was dedicated. Now upon this ground it is that Lansbergius beginneth not the first year of Herod until the next year after the Confulships of Domitius Calvinus, and Asinius Pollio: and setteth not the taking of Jerusalem by him and Sosius until the year of the City 717, which was the tenth julian year, and year when L-Gellius and M-Cocceius were Consuls.  
But surely that wherein josephus himself was mistaken, can be no sure ground for others to build upon: it will appear so out of his fifteenth Book and thirteenth Chapter. For there we find that the Dedication of Cesaraea was in the twelfth year after it began to be built; which must therefore make it to be in the thirtieth year of Herod: and this, not the thirtieth since he first began to reign, but the thirtieth since the death of Antigonus, at the taking of jerusalem. And as for the Olympiad, that will also appear to be 193, in the first year whereof was the thirtieth year of Herod as aforesaid. And why 193, is in regard Caesarea was not dedicated after it was built until Drusus was dead, as josephus also in the place above cited hath declared. Now Drusus was Consul, and alive in the fourth year of the 192, Olympiad, but died in the same year, as Velleius showeth, lib. 2. cap. 97. All which considered, will make it very plain and manifest that I have rightly explained josephus in this particular; as also that the building of the Temple by King Herod, was not begun until his twentieth year: for there must be as much difference between the true and ordinary account, as is between ten and twelve.  
That which concerns the Calendar, is nothing else but the joining of several Months together; which without wrong to josephus, cannot be understood of the Hebrew and julian Months, but of the Hebrew and Macedonian Months: for their day's accord in the Calendar, but not the other.  
The Calendar is for the year of the julian Period 4783. when Jerusalem (as I have already said) was destroyed by the Romans. The Cycle of the Sun then was 23, the Dominical letter G. and the Cycle of the Moon 14. By which is gathered that the first day of the first Month, namely Nisan, was on or near the last day of March: for the mean conjunction of the Luminaries at Jerusalem was on the thirtieth day of March, 24 minutes past two in the afternoon; And therefore the Month being according to the Vision of the Moon, could not begin until the next day at the soon. And so also for the fifth Month Ab, the Conjunction was on the six and twentieth day of July, about 24 minutes past five in the afternoon: the first day of Ab was not therefore till the twenty seventh day: and consequently the ninth of Ab not till the fourth of August, which day was Sabbath day. But the ninth of Ab, faith Scaliger, was feria prima: agreeing therein to the testimony of Rabbi Iose, who writeth that the Temple was destroyed by Titus on the ninth of Ab and evening of the Sabbath day; 
See Master Lively in his Persian Monarchy, p. 151.  which I understand of the evening ending the Sabbath. Which also the Seder Olam Rabath showeth, saying; when the first Temple was destroyed, that day was the next after the Sabbath, and the next after the week's end, and the Course of jehoiarib, and the ninth of Ab: and in like manner was it at the destruction of the second Temple. We have already found it to be so at the destruction of the first Temple: and by these testimonies it should be so at the destruction of the second Temple. And indeed the late time of the day when the Luminaries were in Conjunction, do rather cast the beginning of the fifth Month into the day that the Seder Olam noteth, then into the day before Scaliger therefore makes here a two fold calculation: and approves best of that which makes the ninth of Ab to be on the first day of the week. I shall therefore begin the first day of the first Month on the first of April: and the first of Ab on the 28th day of july; as in the Calendar following may be seen. And why I give it the title of a Macedonian Calendar, is because the jews accounted the Macedonian Months as they did their own: changing them as other people did, who had been 
* Postquam vero Menses bi Macedonum una oum victoribus in Asiam penetraverunt, mutationem quandamsubi●re. Quamvis enim apud plurimos Graeiorum tales manerent, quales principio suerant: ab aliis tamen immutati sunt, et ad cujusvis populi annum civilem accommodati. Quip Judaei, quibus Neomenia non à jugo, sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dependebat, etiam Mecedonum Menses inde inchoanent. Hanc obcausam menses Judaici Macedonici ita inter se conferuntu, ut plane pro iisdem habeantur. Quartus decimus namque Nisan apud Josephum cum 14. Xanthici, & quartus decimus Tisri dum quarto decimo Hyperberetaei plane conveniunt. Larg De annis Christi, lib. 1. pag. 184.  conquered by the Grecians to make them serviceable to their own account. This we may see in the Antiquities of josephus, lib 3. c. 10.  

An Hebrew, Julian and Macedonian Calendar for the year of the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, in the year of the Julian Period 4783. The Cycle of the Sum than was 23, the Dominical letter G, and the Cycle of the Moon 14.  The first Month. April. Nisan, or (as Josephus calleth it) Xanticus. This was the first Month. 1 1 1 G Note that in the Kasender of this year, osephus joineth the Hebrew and Mecedonians Month together, and makes his account by them. And why I every where account but 29. days to the first month: See before Chap. 7. I believe it was not otherwise, until the Calendars of the later Jews came in use: in which we have indeed the sirst 30. the second 29. the third 30, etc.  2 2 2 A  3 3 3 B  4 4 4 C  5 5 5 D  6 6 6 E  7 7 7 F Abijah, The eighth course, 1 Chron. 24.10.  8 1 8 G  9 2 9 A  10 3 10 B  11 4 11 C  12 5 12 D  13 6 13 E  14 7 14 F Jeshua, The ninth course, 1 Chron. 24.11. And now was the Passeover, at which time Jerusalem. began to be besieged.  15 1 15 G  16 2 16 A  17 3 17 B  18 4 18 C  19 5 19 D  20 6 20 E  21 7 21 F Shechaniah, The tenth course, 1 Chron. 24.11.  22 1 22 G  23 2 23 A  24 3 24 B  25 4 25 C  26 5 26 D  27 6 27 E  28 7 28 F Eliashib, The eleventh course, 1 Chron. 24.12.  29 1 29 G   

An Hebrew, Julian and Macedonian Calendar for the year of the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, in the year of the Julian Period 4783.  The Jecod Marleek. May. Ijar the second Month, which with the Macedonians was Artemisius. 1 2 30 A  2 3 1 B  3 4 2 C  4 5 3 D  5 6 4 E  6 7 5 F Jakim, the twelsth course, 1 Chron. 24.12.  7 1 6 G  8 2 7 A  9 3 8 B  10 4 9 C  11 5 10 D  12 6 11 E  13 7 12 F Huppah, the thirteenth course, 1 Chron. 24.13.  14 1 13 G  15 2 14 A  16 3 15 B  17 4 16 C  18 5 17 D  19 6 18 E  20 7 19 F Jeshabeab, the fourteenth course, 1 Chron. 24.13.  21 1 20 G  22 2 21 A  23 3 22 B  24 4 23 C  25 5 24 D  26 6 25 E  27 7 26 F Bilgah, the fifteenth course, 1 Chron. 24.14.  28 1 27 G  29 2 28 A  30 3 29 B   

An Hebrew, Julian and Macedonian Calendar for the year of the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, in the year of the Julian Period 4783.  The third Month. June.   Sivan the third Month; in Josephus, Daesius.   1 4 30  C  2 5 31  D  3 6 1 June. E  4 7 2 F Sabbath day, and Pentecost. It was the sixteenth course, and course of Immer, 1 Chron. 24.14.  5 1 3  G  6 2 4  A  7 3 5  B  8 4 6  C  9 5 7  D  10 6 8  E  11 7 9  F Hezir. the seventeenth course, 1 Chron. 24.15. 12 1 10  G  13 2 11  A  14 3 12  B  15 4 13  C  16 5 14  D  17 6 15  E  18 7 16  F Aphses, the eighteenth course, 1 Chron. 24.15. 19 1 17  G  20 2 18  A  21 3 19  B  22 4 20  C  23 5 21  D  24 6 22  E  25 7 23  F Pethahiah, the nineteenth course, 1 Chron. 24.16. 26 1 24  G  27 2 25  A  28 3 26  B  29 4 27  C   

An Hebrew, Julian and Macedonian Calendar for the year of the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, in the year of the Julian Period 4783.  The fourth Month. July. Thamuz the fourth Month, which in Josephus is Panemus. 1 5 28  D  2 6 29  E  3 7 30  F Jehezekel, the 20th. course, 1 Chron. 24.16.  4 1 1 July. G  5 2 2  A  6 3 3  B  7 4 4  C  8 5 5  D  9 6 6  E  10 7 7  F Jachin, the 21th course, 1 Chron. 24.17. On the next Sabbath the course of Gamul began; it was the 22th course; howbeit, the Sacrifices ceased then through the want of Priests. 11 1 8  G  12 2 9  A  13 3 10  B  14 4 11  C  15 5 12  D  16 6 13  E  17 7 14  F On this day the Sacrifices ceased through the want of Priests; which day of their ceasing, being by calculation found to be Sabbath day, is an excellent character to prove this tobe the right year of the destruction of Jerusalem: for the Priests always entered upon the Ministration belonging to their lot on the Sabbath day. Italy (saith Lansbergius) cum familia deficiens ministerium suum in temp'o inire debuerit 17. die Panemi, consequens est 17. Panemi fuisse diem Sabati.  18 1 15  G   19 2 16  A   20 3 17  B   21 4 18  C   22 5 19  D  23 6 20  E  24 7 21  F Delaiah, the 23th course, 1 Chron. 24.18. Sabbato adjiciebant Benedictionem unam Ephemer iae illi, quae exibat. Ergo die Sabbati exibant ex ministerio, nempe. ante matutinum suffitum, in instanratione panum propositionis. Scal. Notae, pag. 55. ex lib. Liturgiarum.  25 1 22  G  26 2 23  A  27 3 24  B  28 4 25  C  29 5 26  D  30 6 27  E   

An Hebrew, Julian and Macedonian Calendar for the year of the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, in the year of the Julian Period 4783.  The fifth Month August Ab, the fifth Month: which in Josephus is Lous. 1 7 89  F Maaziah, The 24th. course, 1 Chron. 24.18. On the next Sabbath after this, was the course of Jehoiarib: For though the Sacrifices ceased before; yet there was the time of his course. 2 2 29  G 3 2 30  A 4 3 31  B 5 4 1 August C  6 5 2 D  7 6 3 E On this day the doors of the Tempin are burnt by the command of Titus, who on the day following caused it to be quenched. 8 7 4 F 9 1 5 G On this day the Romans possess the holds the Jews had In the Temple, and on the day following they set the whole Temple on fire, even on the selfsame day that the Cha'daeans burned it, 657 years before. And now was the course of Jehoiarib, as may be seen in an ancient Hebrew Chronicle called Sedar Olam rabba. This course of his begins on the fourth of August: from whence to the beginning of the fortieth Julian year before going, in which the Baptist was conceived, are 27609, days: and in so many days are 164. Orbs of courses, with 57 odd days beside. By which is found that Jehoiarib began his course in the fortieth Julian year, on the 27. day of February. His next course began 168. days after this, viz. on the fourteenth day of Augest: The eight course from whence began therefore on the second of October; as was before noted, cap. 20. 10 2 6 A 11 3 7 B 12 4 8 C 13 5 9 D 14 6 10 E 15 7 11 F 16 1 12 G 17 2 13 A 18 3 14 B  19 4 15 C  20 5 16 D On this day the Honians set their battering Rame against the upper Walls of the City, the seventeenth day before they took it. 21 6 17 E 22 7 18 F Sabbath day. 23 1 19 G  24 2 20 A  25 3 21 B  26 4 22 C  27 5 23 D  28 6 24 E  29 7 25 F Sabbath day.  

An Hebrew, Julian and Macedonian Calendar for the year of the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, in the year of the Julian Period 4783.  The fixth Month. September. Elul the sixth Month, which in Josephus is Gorpiaeus. 1 1 26  G Die Dominicus, The Lord's day; or, first day of the Week.  2 2 27  A  3 3 28  B  4 4 29  C  5 5 30  D  6 6 31  E  7 7 1 September F On this day (being Sabbath day) the City was taken; and on the day following it was burnt and destroyed, and made so ruinous, that quickly after it was wholly demolished and cast down, there not being one stone left upon another; therein fulfilling the Prophecy of Christ, in the nineteenth chapter of Saint Luke, at the 43 and 44 verses.  8 1 2 G  9 2 3 A  10 3 4 B  11 4 5 C  12 5 6 D  13 6 7 E  14 7 8 F Sabbath day.  15 1 9 G Dies Dominicus, The Lord's day.  16 2 10 A  17 3 11 B  18 4 12 C  19 5 13 D  20 6 14 E  21 7 15 F Sabbath day.  22 1 16 G Die Dominicus, The Lord's day.  23 2 17 A  24 3 18 B  25 4 19 C  26 5 20 D  27 6 21 E  28 7 22 F Sabbath day.  29 1 23 G Die Dominicus, The Lord's day.  30 2 24 A    
FINIS.  
Laus Deo:   

CALUMUS MENSURANS. The Measuring Reed. OR, The Standard of Time. CONTAINING The chief and principal Kingdoms of the WORLD, both before and after CHRIST, to the Destruction of JERUSALEM by the ROMANS.  
Wherein the names of the KINGS, and years of their reigns are noted and set down in their right times; with other things well worthy of Observation.  
The second PART.  
By JOHN SWAN.  Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations, Deut. 32.7. I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times, Psa. 77.5. 
LONDON: Printed for John Williams at the sign of the Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1653.   

The Contents of the Second PART.  

CHAP. I. OF Peleg and Jocktan, the two Sons of Heber, and of Nimrod; the beginning of whose Kingdom was at the building of Babel; from whence he went into the Land of Assyria, and founded Niniveh, etc. Page 1.  
CHAP. II. Of Ninus and his Successors. p. 7.  
CHAP. III. Of the Kingdom of Egypt, and of the Kings that reigned there. p. 15  
CHAP. iv Of the Kingdom of Sycionia, and of the Kings that reigned there. p. 24.  
CHAP. V Of the Kingdom and Kings of the Argives, and of the Mycenae that succeeded them. p. 34.  
CHAP. VI Of the Kingdom and Kings of Athens; the first whereof was Cecrops. p. 45.  
CHAP. VII. Of the Kings that reigned in the Kiagdome of Troy, before the Greeks' destroyed it. p. 54.  
CHAP. VIII. Of the Kingdom of the Aborigines. p. 55.  
CHAP. IX. Of the Kings of Italy after Latinus. p. 56.  
CHAP. X. Of the British Kings that reigned in England from Brute to the time of Julius Caesar and after. p. 59  
CHAP. XI. Containing the Dynasties of several other Kingdoms. p. 64.  
CHAP. XII. Of the Kings and other Governors of Rome from the founddation thereof by Romulus, to the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. p. 75.    

CALAMUS MENSURANS: OR, The Measuring REED.  
The second Part.  

CHAP. I. Of Peleg and Jocktan, the two Sons of Heber, and of Nimrod; the beginning of whose Kingdom was at the building of Babel: from whence he went into the Land of Assyria, and founded Niniveh, etc.  
OF Heber it is said in Gen. 10.25. And unto Heber were borne two Sons, the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days was the Earth divided; and his brother's name was Jocktan. Now this Jocktan had thirteen sons, men grown at the confusion of Tongues, as the verses following make apparent: and therefore that division of the Earth which was made at the birth of Peleg (if the text be so to be understood, as that there must be a division then) could not be the same with that which was at the confusion of Tongues; for Heber was but 34. years old when Peleg was borne, Gen. 11.16. and Jocktan (though he were borne before) could not be old enough to have any of his Sons either born, or (if borne) of age sufficient at their Uncle's birth, to be Conductors of Colonies from Babel to other Countries. The confusion of Tongues was therefore long after the birth of Peleg, and yet at the time of his birth there might be a division made of the Earth by Noah, who (when he saw his Sons and their Children begin to increase) might take in hand to divide the Earth among them, appointing to the head of each Family his place and portion: but they loathe to break company, and not willing to separate themselves each from other, departed away together from the East, where the Ark rested, to the Land of Shinar where they found a Plain that pleased them, and for a time they dwelled there, Gen. 11.1, 2. This time of their dwelling there before they began to build the Tower of Babel, might end about fourteen years after the birth of Peleg: for so long time I find between his birth and the beginning of of the Chaldaean date, which at the time when Alexander the great took Babylon (as was observed by Calisthenes the Philosopher, then present) was running on in the year thereof 1903. which was also the year of the Julian Period 4484. out of which if we take 1902. complete, the beginning of the said date will be in the year of the Julian Period 2482. There therefore upon this ground I justly fix it, and do there also (for the reasons aforesaid concerning Jocktan and his Sons) place the beginning of that Tower whose top they intended should reach unto Heaven. Perhaps they might begin the City before, but not the Tower. This Tower as Michael Glycas saith was forty years in building, which will therefore make the confusion of Tongues to be 54. years after the birth of Peleg, by which time the very youngest of Jocktans' Sons might be of age sufficient to conduct a Colony from thence according to the division of his Tongue.  
This I find to be 155. years after the Flood was ended, in the year of the World 1813. and in the year of the Julian Period 2522. And now had Nimrod reigned forty years from the beginning of the Chaldaean Date; or at least had been a mighty man among them that built this City and Tower of Babel for so long a time.  
The Scripture saith, he began to be a mighty one in the Earth, Gen. 10.8. thereby declaring that he was the first who had others under him. Which if he began to have when the Nations first began to build the City, and Tower of Babel, as we find in Josephus; then had he more under his command at that time then when Languages were confounded: And for that cause perhaps it was that afterwards he ranged further (like a mighty Hunter) to enlarge his Dominions. For after he had builded and gotten to himself Babel, Erech, Accad and Chalne in the Land of Shinar, he went out of that Land (saith Moses) into Assiria, and builded Niniveh, and the City Reh●both, and Chalah, and Resen between Niniveh and Chalah, Gen. 10.11.12. Some I know read that text otherwise; as thus, Out of that Land went Ashur and builded Niniveh. Concluding hereupon that Ashur of Sems' race, being wearied with Nimrods' cruelty, went out of Shinar into another Country which he called after his own name, and there built Niniveh with the three other Cities aforesaid. But of this there is little probability: more like it is that Nimrod (as I said before) having gotten Babel, Erech, Accad and Chalne in the Land of Shinar, was not therewithal content, but coveting more and larger territories, advanced farther, even into the Land of Assyria, and there he built Niniveh with three Cities more. For this we are to note that the Scripture names not Ashur who came of Sem to be the mighty Hunter, but Nimrod who was the Son of Cush, and the Grandchild of Cham. The margin therefore of our last Translation doth not without cause point us to that reading which at the first I mentioned; agreeing therein to learned Junius, Willet, and a great many more of good note, whom upon necessity I am bound now to follow, unless I will acquit Nimrod of that brand which the Scripture lays upon him, and by following a wrong translation lay it without other warrant upon another. This I may not do: and therefore I look upon Nimrod still as the great and mighty Hunter, who was the first that hunted out of one Country into another to enlarge his dominions.  
This he began to do eight years after the confusion of Tongues, viz. in the year of the Julian Period 2530. when the year of the World was 1821. And why I place Nimrods' going into Assyria, his building of Niniveh, and laying the foundation of a Kingdom there in this year, is because it must be about one thousand years before the destruction of Troy, as Diodorus Siculus hath told us, lib. 2. cap. 6. Now Troy (as we know) was destroyed in the year of the Julian Period 3530. at which time (as he also saith) Tautanes reigned in Assyria: Tautanes and not Semiramis; for she was rather in the Patriarch Abraham's time, when (as Josephus saith) the Assyrians had the Empire of Asia. Howbeit some have accounted otherwise: the ground of which mistake I do believe arose first from hence and came to be embraced, both because there were more Zoroasters than one, and also because there was another Semiramis later than she that reigned next after Ninus the grandchild of Nimrod. One of the Zoroasters was but six hundred years before Xerxes the Persian went with his huge Army into Greece, as Xanthus Lydius mentioned by Diogenes Laertius hath told us: another long before and was that King of the Bactrians with whom King Ninus waged war, as Diodorus and Justin out of Trogus testify. And as for Semiramis, the first was the daughter of Derceto, begotten on her by an unknown man: the other was the daughter of the second Belochus King of Assyria many years after Ninus. And therefore whereas Porphyrius allegeth out of Sanchoniato that Semiramis was not long after the days of Moses, it must be understood of the latter and not of the first Semiramis: for the latter indeed began to flourish with her Father, not above 15. years after the death of Moses, as by warrantable computation appeareth; but the former was a long time before.  
But to return again to Nimrod; he (as I said) began to lay the foundation of the Assyrian Kingdom in the year of the Julian Period 2530. from whence it continued, without any great alteration, till the year of the Julian Period 3893. in which year Sardanapalus came to his end through the conspiracy that Arbaces and Belesis made against him. For when they saw how he retired himself from his Nobles, and betook him to spin and dally with his Courtesans, they then rise up in Arms against him, and do at last drive him to sacrifice himself with his Wealth and Wenches, to Vulcan in a great pile of Wood set on fire, that in it he might die with all his Delights about him: in which only thing (saith Justin) he shown himself a man.  
This time of his death was 1238. years after Ninus began, as in Eusebius may be seen by gathering into one sum the particular years of the Kings that reigned here. And as it was 1238 years after Ninus (before whom Belus, next after Nimrod reigned sixty five years:) So was it 1363. years from the time that Nimrod came out of Shinar and founded first this Kingdom here. Herodotus I know falls far short of these numbers, but is followed by none of the Ancients, neither Ctesias, Trogus Pompeius, Diodorus Siculus, Velleius Paterculus, Josephus, Eusebius, nor Augustine. Ctesias I confess reckons 1360. from Ninus to the death of Sardanapalus: but it had been better and in a manner right, if he had reckoned from the time aforesaid when Nimrod went into Assyria, built Niniveh, and laid the foundation of this Kingdom there: for in reckoning so, I can find but three years' difference between him and myself. Trogus (or Justin out of him) reckons no more than 1300. leaving out perhaps the sixty three odd years, and speaks only of the round or even number: but gins (as Ctesias before him) from Ninus instead of beginning from the time when Niniveh was first founded. Or rather, he accounts 1300. from Ninus to the time aforesaid; instead of accounting them from Belus the Father of Ninus: for from Belus to the end of Sardanapalus, were but three years more; as will afterwards better appear.  
Diodore, in the end of his second book, saith that this Kingdom continued more than 1400. years; which is also true, if we account from the time that Nimrod (who also founded this Kingdom) began to reign at Babylon: for from thence hither were 1411. years. Velleius helpeth nothing for the beginning, but much for the ending: for by him we gather that this Kingdom ended not many more than sixty five years before the building of Rome; which upon a precise account was just sixty nine  Romulus laid the foundation thereof. Eusebeus without question had seen all these, but sought not thus narrowly into the ground of their difference: howbeit he might and did perceive they all aimed at this, to make Ninus the Establisher of the Assyrian Kingdom: At him therefore he gins his Chronology, and finds (according to the testimony aforesaid) that in the Temple of the Trojan war and when Troy was taken, Tautanes reigned in Assyria. This T●utanes (saith Diodorus) sent aid to Priamus in the time of the Trojan War, viz. one thousand Ethiopians, and as many Susians, with two hundred Chariots, and made Memnon (a Duke of Persia) General over them: This Memnon did good service, but was slain by the treason of the Thessalians. Diod. lib. 2. cap. 6. Moreover Eusebius (by some Testimony sure that he had seen) dates the time of Sardanapalus by the reigns of Ariphron and Tespieus, Archons of Athens: namely that in one of them he began to reign; and in the other he lost his life when Arbaces and Belesis risen up against him.  
I reckon therefore that Belus (who was the next King after Nimrod) began his reign in the year of the Julian Period 2590. and reigned (as Eusebius and Augustine say) sixty five years. He was a man of a more contenting disposition then his Father and employed himself most in draining the Fens about Babylon, and carrying of the water from the low grounds to make the Country the more useful: which pleasing government of his was so grateful to his Subjects, as that they even deified him, and made him the Sire of many petty gods; such as B●l, Baal, Baalberith, Baalzephon, and the like. Howbeit it is a question whether the Assyrians worshipped him for a god before his death when by the means of his warlike son Ninus he had a Temple built for him in Babylon, which in Pliny his time was standing still: who also saith of him, that he was the Inventor of Astronomy, and that the Assyrians dedicated a Jewel to him, which they call Belus his eye. He might perhaps add something considerable to Astronomy, though the Art itself was found out long before. Moreover the Chaldeans prefixed Bel, or Bal, as an Ensign of honour to their names; as Baladan, Balthasar. The carthaginians, they added it to theirs; as may beseen in the names of Asdrubal and Hannibal.  
But how long did Nimrod reign before this Belus began?  
I Answer, that he reigned eight and forty years in Babylon, and sixty years in Assyria, which together do make 108. from the beginning of the Tower of Babel, as already in what I have written by way of computation may be seen. Nor is this time of reign too long; it seems rather too short, if we consider how long men lived in those days.  
But I have done with these, of whom I have spoken more than at the first I intended: and therefore now I come to Ninus● of whom and his successors in the following Chapter.   

CHAP. II. Of Ninus and his Successors.  
THough the Assyrian Kingdom was not founded by Ninus, yet the Monarchy thereof began first in him, according to the consent of all Authors. To which purpose Sir Walter Raleigh speaketh well in his History of the World, saying; it will be found best agreeing to Scripture and to reason, and best agreeing with the story of that Age written by profane Authors, that Nimrod founded Babel, Erech, Accad and Chalne, the first works and beginning of his Empire, according to Moses; and that these being finished within the Valley of Shinar, he looked further abroad, and set in hand the work of Ninus, lying near unto the same stream that Babel and Chalne did: which work his Granchild Ninus afterward amplified and finished, as Semiramis (this Ninus his wife) did Babylon. Hence it came to pass, that as Semiramis was counted the Foundress of the City which she only finished: so also Ninus of Niniveh. For so did Nabuchodonosor vaunt himself to be the Founder of Babylon also, because he built up again some part of the Wall, over born by the fury of the River: which work of his stood till Alexander's time, whereupon he vaunted thus, Is not this great Babel that I have built, Dan. 4.27. Thus than these works of Babylon and Niniveh, begun by Nimrod in Chaldea and Assyria, Ninus and Semiramis made perfect. Ninus finished Niniveh, Semiramis Babylon wherein she thought to exceed her Husband by fare. Thus that Knight, lib. 1. cap. 10. Sect. 3. and lib. 1. cap. 12. Sect. 1.  
I shall not need therefore to answer further to objections made out of other Authors concerning the building of these Cities, as if they were to own no other Builders but Ninus and Semiramis: for it is one thing to begin, another thing to add and bring to perfection.  
Nimrod did the first, they the latter; the fame whereof, in after ages, swallowed up the memory of the first Founder, and made those Authors which knew not the holy Scripture speak as they did without distinction.  
Leaving this therefore I shall come more nearly to Ninus, 
Ninus.  who when he enlarged Niniveh imparted to it his own name: He began to reign in the year of the Julian Period 2655. and (as Eusebius saith) reigned fity two years. He caused the Statue of his Father Belus to be set up and worshipped, probably in that Temple which was built for him in Babylon: which Image of his (as some say) continued until daniel's, when it was destroyed by Darius Medus or Cyrus, upon the discovery of the Imposture of Bells Priests, shown in that Apocryphal fragment of Bell and the Dragon. Nimrod being the first, he must needs be the third King of Assyria, in whose time the dominion of the Assyrians was very large: for there was then no Kingdom so famous nor so spacious as the Assyrian▪ which was afterward increased by Semiramis after his death, as Saint Austin writeth, lib. 18. cap. 2. De Civit. Dei. Orosius also saith that this King waging War abroad, continued that course by the space of fifty years. Oros. lib. 1. cap. 4. In which I think Orosius was not altogether right, for his whole time of reign was but fifty two years; in the beginning whereof he was busied in the building of that Temple which he built in honour of his dead Father Belus, and at the first had but a small part of Asia under his command, as Dionysius Halcarnassensis saith in the first book of his Roman Antiquities, but afterward, joining in society with Ariaeus King of the Arabians, he did in seventeen years bring all Asia under his subjection, excepting the Indians and the Bactrians; and at the last the Bactrians were subdued by him, as Diodorus and Justin testify. At which time Zoroaster was King of that Country, and slain by him: of whom Saint Austin writeth, that he laughed at the time of his birth; which prodigious mirth, in the opinion of the same Father, booded him no good: for he was (saith he) as is reported the first Inventor of Magic. By which if he meaneth Natural Magic, being the knowledge of things in respect of their causes, there was no cause why he should be blamed: For (as Pliny also writeth) he not only laughed when he was born, but had also such a brain as was perceived to beat at the time of his birth; which signified some great Excellency to be in him, as appeared afterward when he was grown up: I mean if this were that Zoroaster whom Ninus slew.  
Eusebius would that Abram should be borne in the three and fortieth year of this King Ninus his reign: but note that this is not from any given or recorded Testimony that he thus placeth Abraham's birth, but from that manner of reckoning which he bringeth back from the fifteenth year of Tiberius; as may be seen in his tenth book, and third Chapter De Praep. Evang. And in that regard, though he be followed by Saint Austin and some other of the Ancients, yet a righter computation may be made by such as shall more exactly cast the times according to Scripture, and then apply the accounts thereunto following therein the Hebrew verity, and not the numbers which the Septuagint produceth.  
Next after Ninus, was his Wife Semiramis: 
Semiramis  she succeeded her Husband, and began to reign in the year of the Julian Period 2707. twelve years complete before the birth of Abram; for his birth falleth into the thirteenth year of her reign. She was the daughter of a Nymph whose name was Dercero, and was begotten on her by an unknown man; for which cause she drowned herself in the Lake Ascalon as soon as she was delivered, and left this her daughter Semiramis among the Rocks, where the wild Beasts fed her with their Milk, till Symnas the King's Shepherd found her, who took her away and brought her up. And being very beautiful, she was afterwards married to one Memnon a Noble man; by the means whereof she became acquainted with King Ninus when he besieged the City Bactras, teaching him both how to take the City, and subdue the Country. He thereupon admiring her wit, and being caught with her beauty, took her away from her Husband and married her: and she afterward to possess herself of the Throne, desired of him to have all the power of royalty put into her hands, but for the space of five days, which he granted; in which time she caused him to beslain, and then reigned after him forty two years. Diod. Euseb. She enlarged the City of Babylon to admiration, which once being like to be surprised, upon hearing of it, she rescued with her hair half hanging about her ears, not staying to dress it wholly, and therefore is so pictured.  
Next after her was her Son Zameis, 
Ninias.  otherwise called Ninias; who began in the year of the Julian Period 2749. and reigned 38. years. Euseb. He was tenderly brought up by his Mother among her Ladies, 
Aug de cipit dea lib. 18. c. 2.  and was at the last slain by him for her incestuous lust towards him, as Saint Austin noteth, saying; He did it because she bore an Incestuous lust towards him; it being also usual with her to murder those whom she had to do with. Howbeit her son would not be thus dealt withand thereupon, both to prevent her murdering of him, and also though the hatred he bore to her unnatural Act, he flew her, and reigned after thirty eight years.  
The next after him was Thuras, 
Arius.  otherwise called Arius, or (according to Moses in Genests, chap. 14.) Amraphel. For by the course of time this must needs be he, who with the rest of the confederate Princes came against Sodom, and took Lot prisoner, but was vanquished by Abraham, Haner, Eshcol, and Mamre, Gen. 14.13. Suidas saith of him, that he was a man of a fierce disposition, who bidding battle to Caucasus of the stock of Japeth, slew him: but this may be fabulous. The same Author likewise saith, that the Assyrians deified him, and worshipped his Image for a god. He began his reign in the year of the Julian Period 2787. and reigned (as saith Eusebius thirty years.  
As for the rest that follow from hence to Sardanapalus, 
Tonosconcoleros.  otherwise called Tonosconcoleros, there is little or nothing mentioned of them of them save only their bare names, years that they reigned, and that the Son (as Velleius saith) always succeeded the Father: I can therefore make no large description of them. Only let me note that Belochus the second, who began his reign in the year of the Julian Period 3279. and reigned twenty five years, was (as Eusebius writeth) the Father of the second Semiramis, who was famous in the time of his reign. Also that Tautanes (who began his reign in the year of the Julian Period 3507. and reigned thirty two years) was in the time of the Trojan War, and (as already hath been said) sent Aid to Priamus: for so Diodorus writeth. Bethese I know no other, till we come to Sardanapalus, that can have much more said of them.  
Howbeit I have something still to say, which would be mentioned here in this Chapter, wherein I treat of the Assyrian Monarchy: and this it is. Calvisius (out of Julius Affricanus) writeth, that in the eight and twentieth year of Belus the Father of Ninus aforesaid, the Kingdom of Chalea was subdued to the Kingdom of Assyria. Which I believe to be a mere mistake: For this needed not, seeing in those time, and a long while after, Chaldea end Assyria were both under one King. More like it is that in the eight and twentieth year of Belochus the first, the Chaldeans revolted from the Assyrians and reigned apart in a dynasty by themselves, 224. years. At the end whereof, viz. in the year of the Julian Period 3176. the Arahians overcame them and reigned in Chaldea until 520. years before the overthrow of Sardanapalus: for when he was overthrown by Arbaces, the Assyrians had had the whole dominion of Asia 520. years, as saith Herodotus, lib. 1. Now this seems probable, because in the 
* This 18. in Euseb. is (by my account) the 22. For where his 18. standeth there stands my 22.  eighteenth year of Cecrops (which was in the year of the Julian Period 3175.) the Chaldeans; as saith Eusebius, strove with the Phoenicians. By which is first proved, that then and at that time the Chaldeans had a distinct Kingdom by themselves: and secondly, that whilst they were at War with the Phoenicians, the Arabians came in and got it away from them; holding it from thence until the 
* viz in the year of the Julian Period 3176. which was the 23. year of Sparetus King of Assi●ia  eighth year of Sosares, King of Assyria: In which year (being the year of the Julian Period 3373.) the Assyrians have again the whole Monarchy by this account; and from thence they hold it 520. years. For, if thus we may reconcile Herodofus to other Authors his Testimony of 520. years for the time of the Assyrian Monarchy, may be embraced: otherwise not. 
* which is not from any given Testimony; but from the course of computation.   
And would you now that I set down the distinct reign of these Kings? I shall do it: but first take a List of the Kings of Assyria as they be found in Eusebius, from Ninus to to the end of Sardanapalus that Epicureous Monster; who made no matter of it to cry out and say, Ede, bibe, & lude, post mortem nulla voluptas. 
Eat, drink and play, whilst thou art here:  
For after death there's no good cheer.   
This was whilst he was in his fullest madness, causing also this Epitaph (as it is translated by Tully; for it was first written in Greek to be engraven upon his Tomb.  
Haec habeo quae edi, quae que ex saturata voluptas  
Hausit: at illa jacent multa & preclara relicta.  
What I consumed, and what my Guts engrossed,  
I have: but all the wealth I left, I lost.  
This was his Epitaph, made by himself before his trouble came: but as Aristotle saith, it was sitter to be written upon the grave of an Ox, then upon the grave of a King; And so I think: for this is he who was the very shame and Monster of men. But leaving him, see the List: it is according to what I find in Eusebius whom herein I follow. Only I have added the year of the Julian Period when each King began his reign.  

A List or Catalogue of the Kings of ASSYRIA from Ninus to Sardanapalus.  
2655. Ninus 52.  
2707. Semiramis 42.  
2749. Ninias' 38.  
2787. Arius 30.  
2817. Aralius 40.  
2857. Xerxes' 30.  
2887. Armametres 38.  
2925. Belochus 35.  
2960. Baleus 52.  
3012. Altadas 32.  
3044. Manithus 30.  
3074. Mancaleus 30.  
3104. Iphereus' 20.  
3124. Mamylus 30.  
3154. Sparetus 40.  
3194. Ascatides 40.  
3234. Amyntes 45.  
3279. Belochus 25.  
3304. Belepares 30.  
3334. Lamprides 32.  
3366. Sosares 20.  
3386. Lampares 30.  
3416. Panias 45.  
3461. Sosarmus 19  
3480. Mithreus 27.  
3507. Tautanes 32.  
3539. Tauteus 40.  
3579. Thineus 30.  
3609. Dercilus 40.  
3649. Eupales 38.  
3687. Laosthenes 45.  
3732. Piriciades 30.  
3762. Ophrateus 20.  
3782. Ophratanes 50.  
3832. Ocrazapes 41.  
3873. Sardanapalus 20.  
3893. In this year was the end of Sardanapalus.   
This is the first List; in which we have not only the number of years that each King reigned, but also the very year of the Julian Period when any of them began his reign: out of which if you take 709. you have the year of the world in the stead thereof as exactly as may be.  
Now followeth the List of the other Kings afore mentioned; namely, of the Chaldeans and Arabians, in two Dynasties. That of the Chaldeans continued 224. years, and began (as I account) in the year of the Julian Period 2952. Their first King was Evechous, he reigned six years. Their second, Chomuseolos: he reigned seven years. Their third, Poros: he reigned thirty five years. Their fourth, Nechubes: he reigned forty three years. Their fift Abios: he reigned forty eight years. Their sixth, Oniballos: he reigned forty years. Their seventh and last, before the Arabians, was Zinziros: he reigned 45. years. All which particulars put into one sum, do make 224. as before was mentioned.  
The Catalogue thereof or List of them must run thus, according to the method before in the Kings of Assyria.  
years of the jul. Per. A dynasty of the Chaldeans, which lasted two hundred twenty four years. 2952. Evechous 6. Years of his reign. 2958. Chomuseolos 7. Years of his reign. 2965. Poros 35. Years of his reign. 3000. Nechubes 43. Years of his reign. 3043. Abios 48. Years of his reign. 3091. Oniballos 40. Years of his reign. 3131. Zinziros 45. Years of his reign. 3176. In this year the Arabians began. years of the jul. Pe. A dynasty of the ARABIANS in BABYLON. 3176. Mardocentes 45. Years of his reign. 3221. Sisimardachos 27. Years of his reign. 3248. Abias' 37. Years of his reign. 3285. Anonymous 41. Years of his reign. 3326 Nabonnabos 25. Years of his reign. 3351 Anonymous alter 22. Years of his reign. 3373. In this year the Assyrians have again the whole Monarchy under them, which they hold 520. years, even uniill the overthrow of Sardanapalus.  
This dynasty, according to the common account of it, is said to continue 216. years: but indeed, when I have rightly fixed it, I cannot find above 197. years to be given unto it; unless the end of Sardanapalus be set nineteen years lower than before is mentioned; which is altogether improbable, and so fare from what Euseb: us hath set down otherwise, as I cannot but conclude against it. For if we follow Eusebius, and in the account have an eye also to Heredotus, we shall find that Arbaces (who began his reign at the death of Sardanapalus) reigned twenty eight. After him Sosarmus 30. Medidus 40. Cardiceas 13. Diocese 53. Phraortes 22. Cyaxares 40. Astyages 35.  
But these are Kings of Medea, and therefore more of them must be spoken afterwards.   

CHAP. III. Of the Kingdom of Egypt, and of the Kings that reigned there.  
THat Kingdom which by the course of time offers itself next to be considered, is the Kingdom of Egypt: in which to produce a right reckoning of the Kings that reigned there, is a thing of much perplexity. For Diodorus varies from Herodotus, Herodotus from Diodorus, and both of them from Africanus and Eusebius: which therefore made St. Austin omit the succession of these Kings. For though he were a man of incomparable diligence, a great searcher into Antiquities, and one who had read the books of Marcus Varro, which now are lost; yet he omitted the succession of the Kings of Egypt: which surely (saith a learned Author) he had not done, if there had not been less certainty in the accounts of their reigns then in the accounts of the Sycionian Argive, and Athenian Kings. One great occasion of this obscurity in the Egyptian Story, was (as the same Author also saith) the ambition of their fabling Priests; who to magnify their Antiquities, filled the Records put into their trust, with many falsities, and recounted unto strangers the names of many Kings that never reigned: Some whereof might be but Viceroys (as Joseph was) and reckoned afterward as Kings; and others, but vain inventions of the ambitious Priests, who thought it their glory to boast much of great Antiquity.  
But leaving them and their fabling, the accout which Master Lydyat bringeth (and another man more learned than he) from the Annals of Constantinns Manasses, carries with it a great probability of much truth; namely, that this Kingdom began 1663. years before Cambyses King of Persia went and subdued it to the Persian Monarchy. The due consideration of which casteth the head of our reckoning into the year of the Julian Period 2525. which (as I account) was but three years after the Confusion of Tongues. Now from this year of the Julian Period to the time that Saltis began to reign in Egypt, were an hundred and six years; as by an account taken a posteriori well appeareth.  
The beginning therefore of Saltis was in the year of the Julian Period 2631. whose time of reign was (as Josephus saith) nineteen years. Baeon succeeded, and reigned after him 44. year's Apachnas after Baeon 36. years and seven Months. Apochis after Apachnas sixty years and one. Janias' after Apochis 50. years and one month. Assis after Janias 49. years and two Months: and with him I take it for certain, that that which is commonly called the 17th dynasty was concluded; although how in this time there should be so many Dynasties, I cannot see. For from the beginning of the Kingdom to the end of the reign of this King Assis, were but 366. years; and how they should be divided into seventeen distinct and several Dynasties, I am yet to learn.  
Howbeit I shall be content to account seventeen of them to reach no further then to the time hitherto mentioned, that thereby I may the better go on with them that follow. But first see a Catalogue or List of all the Kings from Saltis, to the end of Assis, in their right times.  
Years of the julian Period when they began. Kings of Egypt as they are mentioned by Josephus. 2631. Saltis began, and had nineteen years. 2650. Baeon forty four years. 2694. Apachnas' thirty six years and seven Months. 2731. Apochis years fixty one. 2792. Janias' fifty years and one Month. 2842. Assis forty nine years and two Months. 2891. ¶ In this year was the end of the reign of Assis, and beginning of the eighteenth dynasty.  
Next after these follow the Kings that reigned in the eighteenth dynasty, as we likewise find them in Josephus; who, in his first book against Apion, reckoneth on as followeth: beginning first with Themosis otherwise called Amasis, to whom he giveth 25. years and four Months. Chebron succeeded, and had twelve years. Amenophis 20. years and seven Months. Amesses' sister to Amenophis, 21. years and nine Months. Mephres twelve years and nine Months. Mephramuthosis 25. years and ten Months. Thmosis nine years and eight Months. Amenophis 30. years and ten Months. This is he who was surnamed Memnon, or the speaking stone, because his Image (as saith Eusebius, Strabo, and others) gave a sound at the Sunrising, till the coming of Christ. The next after him was Orus, thirty six years and five Months. After Orus was Acenchres the daughter of Orus, 12. years and one month. Then Rathoris the brother of Acenchres, 9 years. His Son succeeded; his name Acencheres, and the time of his reign 12. years and five Months. Another Acencheres was after him, and reigned 12. years and three Months. Armais four years and one Month. Armesis one year, and four Months: or as he is otherwise written, Ramesses by a transposition of letters. His successor had the same name, and was Ramesses Miamun, though commonly written Armesesmiamun: the time of whose reign was sixty six years and two Months. This was that new King which knew not Joseph, as being born after his death, and willing to forget the memory of his benefits, Exod. 1.8. The hard bondage of the Children of Israel began in his time: His Daughter was Thermutis, by whom Moses was preserved; for so Josephus and Epiphanius call her.  
Amenophis succeeded next in the Kingdom of Egypt, and reigned after Amnesesmiamun, nineteen years and six Months: and not until the end thereof were the Children of Israel delivered. For though his Predecessor (who reigned long) was dead and gone yet their bondage still endured, as is noted by Moses in Exod. 2.23. where the words be these; And it came to pass after a long time, that the King of Egypt died, and the Children of Israel sighing by reason of the bondage, cried, etc. that is, they cried by reason of their hard bondage and servitude which still continued, notwithstanding the long reign of the former King was ended. Now this King (as I apsaid before) reigned nineteen years and six Months, and pears plainly to be that very Pharaoh which was drowned in the Red Sea. Nor doth Manetho but confess as much, in that which Josephus relateth out of him, in his first book against Apion. For though Manetho (like a lying Priest of Egypt) doth what he can, with fabulous reports, to colour over the matter for the credit of his Nation: yet all things well observed he hath delivered enough to show that Amenophis here mentioned was that King that followed after Moses, when he led the Children of Israel out of Egypt. Master Lydyat also showeth the same, not only by mentioning this Testimony of Manetho, but by adding thereunto that this was he Qui ab Hippotamo raptus interiisse fertur: which though it be taken as a Fable, yet (saith he, and not amiss) it is digna attentione fabula; a Table well worthy of attention.  
And thus having thus fare considered the several Kings of this dynasty, I shall in the next place present them in a perfect List or Catalogue, all fixed in their right times.  
Years of the julian Period when they beg. Kings of Egypt in the eighteenth Dynastie ex Josepho. 2891. Themosis, otherwise called Amasis, twenty five years and four months. 2916. Ghebron twelve years. 2928. Amenophis twenty years and seven months. 2949. Amesses ejus soror one and twenty years and nine Months. 2971. Mephres, twelve years and nine Months. 2984. Mephramuthosis twenty five years and ten Months. 3010. Thmosis nine years and eight Months. 3020. Amenophis thirty years and ten Months. 3051. Orus, thirty six years and five Months. 3087. Acenchres Ori Filia, twelve years and one Month. 3099. Rathoris Frater Acenchris nine years. 3108. Acencheres Rathoris Filius twelve years and five Months. 3120. Acencheres altar twelve years and three Months. 3133. Armais four years and one Month. 3137. Ramesses or Armesis one year and four Months. 3138. Ramesses or Armesesmiamun fixty fix years and two Months. 3204. Amenophis nineteen years and fix Months. 3224. In this year Amenophis was drowned in the Red-Sea whose death gave an end to this dynasty.  
The next that followed was the nineteenth dynasty: in which these Kings reigned. The first was Sethosis, whose time of reign was 51. years, Helvic ex Afric. This Sethosis (or Sethos) was Egyptus the brother of Danaus, as Manetho showeth: and is also thought to be the same whom Herodotus and Diodorus call Sesostris. This King (if he were Sesostris) is said to grow so mighty and proud, that he made his tributary Kings to draw his Chariot by turns: But it one day so happened that one of those unfortunate Princes cast his eye many times on the Chariot Wheels, and being by Sesostris asked the cause of his doing so, he replied; That the falling of that Spoke lowest, which but just before was in the height of the Wheel, put him in mind of the instability of Fortune. Which when Sesostris deeply weighed, he gave over to use that barbarous custom any more.  
Next after Sethosis (if we follow Africanus for this dynasty) Rhapsaces reigned 61. years. After him Ammenepthes 20. Then Ramases 60. After Ramases was Ammenemes 5. And last of all Thuoris 6. All which particulars being cast into one sum, do amount to 203.  
Thus than this dynasty presents itself.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. Kings of Egypt, the nineteenth dynasty: ex Africano. 3224. Sethosis began and reigned fifty one years. 3275. Rhapsaces' sixty one. 3336. Ammenepthes twenty. 3356. Ramases or Rampses sixty. 3416. Ammenemes five. 3421. Thuoris six. 3427. Here was the end of this dynasty and beginning of the next.  
The next was the twentieth dynasty; to which they who follow Africanus gives 125. but that's a number too short, as in the following reckon better known, will well appear. It is better therefore to account so many years to it as we find in Eusebius; 178. It had in it twelve Kings, accorto Africanus, but neither doth he nor Eusebius name them. Howbeit I think it probable that Cetes (otherwise called Proteus (Rampsynitus, Nileus, and those other that were before Chembis Memphites, reigned now, as we find in Diodorus. This dynasty began (as hath been said) in the year of the Julian Period 3427, and ended in the year of the same Julian Period 3605.  
The next after this was the one and twentieth dynasty: to which (not without cause) Eusebius gives 130. years, and reckoneth it in these Kings; Semendes. 26. Psusennes 41. Nephercheres 4. Amenophthis' 9 Opsochon 6. Spinaces 9 Psusennes 35.  
The first of these I take to bethe same whom other Authors call Cephrenes. The second I think to be Cheops or Chembis Memphites, who (as Diodorus saith) reigned 1000 years before the 180. Olympiad; and built the greatest of the Pyramids, which (as he also saith) was twenty years in building. Nephercheres might be Cherinus, or Mycerinus. Opsochon might be Alychis. And the last Psusennes might be Chabeas, or Vaphres the Father in Law of King Solomon.  
Or rather (which is most probable) let some of these be looked upon as Viceroys, reigning under Chembis and Chabreus; and then this dynasty will not have more than three chief Kings, though it might and did last 130. years. And they were these, Semendes or Chephrenes, to whom we may give 24. years. Chembis (or as Herodotus calls him) Cheops 50. years. Chabreus or Vaphreus; or (as he is otherwise called) Vaphres 56. years. All which sums put together, do make 130. There is no great scruple sure in all this, unless it be that Chephrenes is set before Cheops; and indeed that scruple would be removed, which cannot be unless we set him after Cheops. Take them therefore thus; that as he whom Herodotus calls Cheops, Diodorus calls Chembis: so he whom Diodorus calls Chabreus, Herodotus calls Chephrenes. The first of which (namely Cheops) reigned fifty years; the second (namely Chephrenes) 56.  
And now after all this let us proceed to List them into their right times.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. Kings of Egypt in the XXI. dynasty, set down in their right times. 3605. Smendes, or Semendes 24. 3629. Cheops otherwise called Chembis 50. 3679. Chephrenes otherwise called Chabreus or Vaphres fifty six. 3735. Here was the end of Vaphres his reign, with whom this dynasty concluded and gave way unto the next; in the beginning whereof Sesac began to reign. I therefore leave this and come to that.  
Sesac was as I said, the first King here. Some Authors call him Sesochosis; others Sesonchosis: but in the sacred Scripture he is called Shesack, or Shishak, King of Egypt; who in the fifth year of Rehoboam came up against Jerusalem, 1 King. 14.25.  
The seventy Interpreters (saith one) call him Susachim, and the Hebrew text Sesak, he reigned twenty one years, and was succeeded by his son Vsorthon, otherwise called Osorthon, whose time of reign was fifteen years. After Osorthon Scaliger and Helvicus reckon three Anonumoi, who had among them twenty five years, at the end whereof Takellothis' begins, and reigned thirteen years. After him were again three Anonumoi, to whom the forecited Authors give 42. years. All which parcels being put into one sum, do make 116. years.  
And now see them in their times.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. Kings of Egypt in the XXII. Dynanastie fitted to their right times. 3735. Sesochosis or Sesac 21. 3756. Vsorthon or Osorthon 15. 3771. Anonumoi tres 25. 3796. Takellothis' 13. 3809. Anonumoi tres 42. 3851. In this year was the end of this dynasty and the beginning of the next. Years of the Julian Period when they beg. Kings of Egypt in the XXIII. dynasty fitted to their right times. 3851. Petubastes was the first King, he reigned 40. years. 3891. Osorchos 8. 3899. Psammus 10. 3909. Ze, otherwise called Zerah (omitted by Eusebius) began in this year and reigned 31 years. This is that King whom Asa King of Judah overthrew, 2 Ch. 1.4.9.12. 3940. Here was the end of this twenty three dynasty.  
As for the Dynasties following, I shall omit the distinguishing of them in such a manner as I have done these before going. Howbeit I shall set down the reigns of the Kings in their right times, and begin first with him who is next: namely Becchorus.  
3940. Bocchorus began now and reigned 44. years. 3984. Sabaccon 8. the Scripture calls him So, 2 Kin. 17.4. 3992. Sevechus otherwise called Sethon, 14. 4006. Tharacus 18. the Scripture calls him Tirhakah. 4024. Here began an Anarchy which lasted two years Diod. 4026. Twelve Captanes begin. and reign 15. years, i'd. 4041. Psammiticus subdues them, and reigns 54 years Herod. 4095. Pharaoh Necho began and reigned 17 years i'd. 4112. Psammis 6. i'd. 4118. Arries or (as the Scripture calls him) Hophra 25. 4143. Ausasis: he had rather 45. then 55. or 44. 4188. Cambyses goes into Egypt and conquers it.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Kingdom of Sycionia, and of the Kings that reigned there.  
THe next Kingdom which by the course of time offers itself, is the Kingdom of Sycionia. It was at the first called Aegialea, from Aegialeus the first King thereof, who began to reign in the year of the Julian Period 2616. Afterwards it was called Apia, of Apis the fourth King; and then Peloponesus of Pelops, as being Peninsula Pelopis: and after that, it came to be called Sycionia of Sytion the 19th King thereof. The Sycionians (saith Pausanias') bordering upon Corinth, say that Aegialeus was their first King, that he came out of that part of Peloponesus that is called Aegialos after him and dwelled first in the City Aegialea, where the Tower stood then, where the Temple of Minerva is now.  
In a word, Sycionia at the first was but a small Region in Achia; but the Kings thereof enlarged their Dominions, through all Achaia, and made Sytion their Seat; as Ludovicus Vives noteth.  
This Kingdom continued from hence, to the death of Zeuxippus, 992. years; as I find in Eusebius. After which, Apollo's Priests reigned thirty two; even until the return of the Heraclidae, at eighty years after the destruction of Troy. And note that by this account thus fixed, the Theban War (in the days of Adrastus) will be just thirty seven years before the fall of Troy: and so Clemens of Alexandria saith it should be.  
Eusebius likewise gives us the particular reign of each King, thus, Aegialeus 52. Europa's 45. Selchin or Telchin. 20. Apis 25. Thelasion 52. Saint Austin calleth this King by the name Thelxion, and saith he had so happy a reign, that when he was dead the Sycionians adored him as a god with Sacrifices and Plays; of which it is said, they were the first Inventors. After Thelasion Aegydius reigned thirty four years. Then was Thurimachus 45. At his Tomb the Syoionians used to offer Sacrifice, as the said Father also saith. After Thurimachus was Leucippus, he reigned 53. Mossapius or Messapius 47. Eratus or Peratus 46. Plemneus 48. Or thopolis 63. Marathon 30. Marathus 20. Echyreus' 55. Corax 30. Epopeus 35, he built a Temple to Minerva, by reason of the good success he had against Nyctaeus, the Brother Lycus Tyrant of Thebes, as some suppose. Next after him was Lamedon 40. Then was Sytion 45. and of him the Country was called Sycionia. Polybus was next after him, and reigned 40. Then Janischus (whom Eusebius calls Inachus) 42. After him Phaestus 8. Adrastus (in whose time was the Theban War) 4. Polyphydes 31. Pelasgus 20. And last of all Zeuxippus 32.  
In the dynasty next after these, were the Priests of Apollo's Temple: who reigned as followeth. 

1. Archelaus 1 year.  
2. Automedon 1 year.  
3. Methodeutos' 1 year.  
4. Euneus 1 year.  
5. Theonomos 1 year.  
6. Amphiction 9 year.  
7. Charidemus 18. years, at the end whereof this Kingdom ended, even at the descent of the Heraclidae, four score years after the fall of Troy, but see them now, set all down in their right times.    
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. Kings of Sycionia to the death of Zeuxippus ex Eusebio. 2616. Aegialeus 52. 2668. Europa's 55. 2713. Selchin 20. 2733. Apis 25. 2758. Thelasion 52. 2810. Aegidius 34. 2844. Thurimachus 45. 2889. Leucippus' 53. 2942. Messapius 47. 2989. Peratus 46. 3035. Plemnaeus 48. 3083. Orthopolis 63. 3146. Marathon 30. 3176. Marathus 20. 3196. Echyreus' 55. 3251. Corax 30. 3281. Epopeus 35. 3316. Lamedon 40. 3356. Sytion 45. 3401. Polybus 40. 3441. Janiscus 42. 3483. Phaestus 8. 3491. Adrastus' 4. 3495. Polyphides 31. 3526. Pelasgus 20. 3546. Zeuxippus 32. 3578. In this Zeuxippus ended, and the Priests of Apoll's Temple began. Years of the Julian Period when they beg. The Priests of Apollo's Temple 3578. Archelaus 1. 3579. Automedon 1. 3580. Methoduetoes 1. 3581. Funeus 1. 3582. Theonomos 1. 3583. Amphictyon 9 3592. Charidemus 18. 3610. In this year (being eighty years after the destruction of Troy) this Kingdom of Sycionia ended.   

CHAP. V Of the Kingdom and Kings of the Argives, and of the Mycenae that succeeded them.  
THe Kingdom of Argos is that which is to be considered next: the first King thereof was Inachus, who reigned fifty years, and began to reign in the year of the Julian Period 2852. which was 1086. years before the first year of the first Olympiad. This King was the Father of Jo, whom Jupiter deflowered, and (perceiving that Juno espied his act) turned her into a Cow. Which is to be understood after this manner, viz. that being deflowered by Jupiter, and not knowing how to abide the fury of her Father, she fled away by Sea into Egypt, in a Ship called the Cow which Jupiter provided for her: and being there she taught the people Tillage, and the use of Letters, for which she was called by the Egyptians Isis, and Deified by them.  
The next after Inachus was Phoroneus, he reigned 60 years and was called a Judge because he made Laws to decide Controversies among his people, and was one of them that judged in a Controversy between Juno and Neptune. And hereupon some also think that Forum [the name of a place to plead in] came first from hence, but how truly (saith Vives) look they to that.  
Orosius saith that the Thelcissans and Carsathians warred upon him; but he vanquished them, and drove them to seek a new habitation by the Sea. Plato calleth him the first man, because he first taught the Greeks' civility and Husbandry. Others say as much of Argus; 
Of Ogyges and his Flood.  as I shall afterward mention, when I come to speak of him. Ogyges' reigned in Attica in this King's time, 1020. years before the first Olympiad; which therefore was in the year of the Julian Period 2918. Two and thirty years from whence (for so long Ogyges reigned, according to Cedrenus) was that great and notable Flood, which was called the Ogygian Food, both because it happened in the Country wherein he reigned, and also because he was drowned in it. For indeed the Flood which bears his name drowned him and his whole Country: which for 204 years after lay void, until Cecrops his reign there. Africanus (in Euseb. lib, 10. De praeparat. Evang. cap. 3.) reckons not so many by five years for this void space: howbeit I find by careful computation, as many as I have mentioned, and do begin Ogyges' reign 1020 years before the Olympiads, and so also doth Africanus. This Flood therefore, of which I now speak, was in the year of the Julian Period 2950. which was the 49th year of Phoroneus the second King of Argos. Eusebius placeth it much about the same time: and whereas Cedrenus accounteth. 248. years from hence to the Flood of Deucalion, I shall afterward show whether that be so or no. Deucalians Flood was great, but this was greater, extending itself to the banks of Archi-pelago or the Aegean Sea; drowding likewise the Regions of Artica about Athens, and that of Achaia in Peloponesus: at which time the Cities Helice and Bura (which were seated on the North part of Peloponesus) were also swallowed up.  
The next King after Phoroneus was Apis; he reigned thirty five years. That which some writ of this King, viz. that he went into Egypt, and dying there was called Serapis, the greatest god of Egypt, seems rather to belong to Osiris the Husband of Isis. For Apis in their language signifies an Ox, which the Egyptians worshipped either from the institution of Isis and Osiris, in regard of the use that they found out of this Beast in Tillage, or for the honour of Osiris whose soul they say went into an Ox, and remaineth continually in the Ox Apis, passing from one Apis to another: or else it was in regard that Isis gathered together the scattered members of Osiris, when Typhon had slain him, and put them into a wooden Ox covered with an Ox's hide; which when the people saw, they believed that Osiris was become an Ox, and so began to adore that, as if it had been himself.  
Next after Apis, Argus reigned: the time of his reign was seventy years. Of him the Country was called Argos, and the People Argives: For till now the Country bore the name of Peloponesus; or (as some think) was formerly called Thessalia, or Pelasgia. Homer calleth it Argos Pelasgicum, as Master Isaacson mentioneth in his Chronologie.  
It is also written that in Argus his time Greece began to 
* Namely better than before.  know Husbandry and Tillage, and that after his death he was accounted for a god, and honoured with Temples and Sacrifices; which honour a private man, one Homogyrus, had before him, because he was the first among them who ever yoked Oxen to the Blow: howbeit he was slain with Thunder, as Saint Austin noteth in the sixth Chapter of his eighteenth book De civet. Dei. But if Isis before this, carried the knowledge of these things out of Greece into Egypt, and that Phoroneus also before mentioned, was (as Plato saith) the first man, because he first taught the Greeks' civility and Husbandry; then must this which is here attributed to Argus, be understood of a more full and perfect knowledge than they had at the first: for it is easier to add then to invent, which therefore makes things come to perfection but by degrees.  
Criasus succeeded Argus, and reigned after him fifty four years. Saint Austin saith that Prometheus and his brother Arlas were famous in the days of Saphrus (otherwise called Sphaerus, or Iphaereus whilst Criasus reigned still in Argos, lib. 18 De civet. Dei, cap. 8. The first of these viz. Prometheus, is reported to have form men out of Clay: which was, because he was an excellent teacher of wisdom. And as for that fiction also, of his stealing away of Jupiter's Fire: by it is meant either that he first taught to strike Fire with a Flint; or else that his knowledge reached to the very Stars; For he was a great Astronomer, and did thereupon ascend to the Mount Caucasus, where 9with a restless desire) he used to search out the natures, motions, and influences of the heavenly bodies. His Brother was also a great Astronomer: from whence arose that Fable of his supporting Heaven with his Shoulders.  
Phorbas succeeded Criasus, and reigned after him thirty five years. This King Phorbas (in the thirteenth year of his reign took Rhodes, and cleared it from venomous Beasts, with which the Country had been infected: for which, he and his Wife were deified after their deaths, as Strabo and Eusebius tell us.  
Triopas succeeded Phorbas, and reigned after him forty six years.  
Next after Triopas was Crolopus, whose time of reign was twenty one years. In his days (as Eusebius mentioneth out of Tatianus) was Phaetous burning, and Deucalion's Flood: to which the account of Varro well agreeth: who saith that the Flood of Deucalion was in the days of Cranaus the second King of Athens, who (as I shall afterward show you) was contemporary to this King Crotopus.  
Next after Crotopus, was Stethnelas, he reigned eleven years, and was the ninth King of Argos.  
Gelanor being about to succeed him, is expulsed by Danaus, who being driven out of Egypt by his Brother, arriveth in Greece, and there gets the Kingdom of Argos, in which he reigned 50. years. For when he was driven out of Egypt, he came (as I said) into Greece among the Argives: and being come among them, he contended with Gelanor about the Kingdom; in which contention the People were to umpire. And when much was said on both sides, Danaus seemed to speak as good reason as the other: whereupon they could not determine until the next day. And on the next day a Wolf comes hurling into the Pasture, where he gins a fight with the chief Bull of the Kings Herd: which when the People saw, they attended the issue; and finding that the Wolf had the hap to kill the Bull, they gave the judgement on Danaus his side. For as the Wolf is a stranger to Man, so was Danaus to them: but because the Wolf overcame Danaus must reign, and Gelanor be expulsed. This was 382. years after this Kingdom of Argos first began. And note that this King was the first that digged Wells in Argos, who also because of the Wolf that seemed to predict his good Fortune, built and dedicated a Temple to Apollo Lycius. Finally, he was slain by his Son in Law Lynceus who reigned after him one and forty years: the Story of which is as followeth.  
This Danaus (of whom we speak) ruled first in Egypt nine years for his brother Sethosis, otherwise called Aegyptus: in which time it was told him by the Oracle, that he should one day be slain by a man who should be his Son in law. For fear of which Prediction, he refused to marry his daughters, and would not thereupon give them to the Sons of his Brother, although his Brother did earnestly desire it. For which denial (together with other things, wherein he had by his misrule, offended his Brother) Aegyptus his said Brother expelled him out of Egypt by force, and coming (as hath been said into Argos, was received there as King, in the stead of Gelanor. Thither did Aegyptus send his Sons after him, with command, either to marry his daughters, or to kill him. Which charge they pursued so well, that they forced him to condescend, that they should enjoy them; yet so, that he gave to every Daughter privately a Sword, with charge to kill their Husbands. All of them executed his will, except Hypemnestra, who discovered the Plot to Lynceus her Husband, and thereupon he saved himself by flight. Now this disobedience caused Danaus to arraign his Daughter; but she was acquit by the Argives: howbeit her Father would not release her, but kept her still in prison. After this, Lynceus returned from Egypt with so ces, slew Danaus, released his Wife Hypemnestra, and possessed her Father's Kingdom: which (as I said before) he held for the space of 41 years. The lives of the other Sisters, were spared for Hypemnestra's sake, but embarked in a Ship without Pilot, Mast, or Sail, and so committed to the mercy of the Sea: where for a time floating up and down, they are at the last (as I find in some Authors) cast upon the Isle of Albion, which was then inhabited by Giants, who on them begat Children of their own proportion. And for all this, Master Isaackson quotes Justin, Pausanias, Higinus, Virgil.  
Next after Lynceus, was the reign of Abas; he was the Father of Praetus, and Acrisius, and reigned 23. years: Of him the Argive Kings were called Abantiadae.  
Proetas succeeded Abas, and reigned 17. years. His three Daughters called the Proetides) were so extremely proud of their own beauties, that they fell mad, and were cured by Melampus with Hellebour: which ever since hath been called Melampodium. He had the one of them given him for his cure, and was married to her. And of this man Melampus, it is further said; that he understood the notes of Birds, and the voice of Beasts, as Pausanias writeth.  
Acrisius (the last King of Argos) succeeded Proetus, and reigned after him 31. years. He was accidentally slain by his Grandchild Perseus, the Son of his Daughter Danae; who thereupon forsook this Country of Argos, and founded this Kingdom at Mycenae. For we are to know that Acrisius had a daughter called Danae, whom he sequestered to a Tower, and there kept her private; because the Oracle had told him that her son should kill him. Now Jupiter hearing of the same of her beauty, and finding no means to come to her, descended (as is said) into her lap, through the roof of the Tower, in a shower of Gold, and had thereby the opportunity to get her with child: By which is meant, that he corrupted her keepers with gold, and thereupon had liberty to work his will. At last she was delivered of a son, even of this son Perseus: which when Acrisius her Father came to know, he forthwith caused her and the child to be enclosed in a Chest, and cast into the Sea. The Chest was driven upon the coast of Apulia, and taken up by Fishermen, who finding her and the child in it, presented them to Pylumnus the King, to whom she was married. Perseus after this, being grown to be a man, did many valiant exploits, and coming into Argos where he practised the throwing of the quoit, did by mischance brain his Grandfather Acrisius with one of them: and so ended the Kingdom of Argos, For when Perseus saw what he had done, he translated the Kingdom from thence to Mycenae. Some say that this accident happened whilst he endeavoured to show his Grandfather the invention of the Discus, or Leaden ball: for whilst Acrisius was more curious to see what was done, then careful to avoid the danger that might betid him, he came under the dint of what was thrown (whether Quoit, or Ball of Lead) and so was slain.  
But I must now set down the Kings already mentioned, in their right times, and present them in one List at once  thee. After which I shall proceed to the Kingdom of Mycenae: in which I shall meet with difficulty more than ordinary, because the Kings of that Kingdom are scarce rightly computed by any Author that I have seen. Petavius in his Rat. Temp. comes nearest to truth, as will be afterward showed.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. Kings of Argos to the death of Acrisius ex Eusebio. 2852. Inachus 50. Years of his reign. 2902. Phoroneus 60. Years of his reign. 2962. Apis 35. Years of his reign. 2997. Argus' 70. Years of his reign. 3067. Criasus 54. Years of his reign. 3121. Phorbas 35. Years of his reign. 3156. Triopas 46. Years of his reign. 3202. Crotopus 21 Years of his reign. 3223. Stethnelas 11. Years of his reign. 3234. Danaus' 50. Years of his reign. 3284. Lynceus 41. Years of his reign. 3325. Abas 23. Years of his reign. 3348. Praetus 17. Years of his reign. 3365. Acrisius' 31. Years of his reign. 3396. In this year the Kingdom of Argos was ended through the untimely death of Acrisius, 544. years after it began.  
I come therefore now to that of Mycenae: in the handling of which that I may account aright, I shall crave a little leave to departed away from the common path. For, as is commonly accounted, Perseus and Sthenelus had but eight years together: whereas Perseus alone had not less than one and thirty years, because mention is made of the two and thirtieth year of his reign as may be seen in Eusebius, his tenth Book, and his third Chapter De Praeparatione Evangelica. After these two, Euristheus reigned 38 say some, 43. say others. Then Atreus and Thyestes 65. and Agamemnon 15. After him Aegystus 7. Orestes 70. and last of all Tisamenus, Penthilus, and Comets 3. among them: the end whereof must be at 80. years after the destruction of Troy; as Velleius showeth, lib. 1. cap 2.  
The years of these last, after Agamemnon, I think may pass as they, are except (with Sir Walter Raleigh) I reckon six, and not seven to Aegystus; or else account some one of their years after Agamemnon to be but current. And as for Agamemnon, himself, that he should have but 15 is contrary to what Eusebius writeth in the Chapter and book aforesaid, where (agreeing with Clemens of Alexandria) he telleth us that Agamemnon reigned 18. years in the last whereof Troy was taken. Then for Atreus and Thyestes, that they together should have 65. years, is nothing probable: for (as Petavius proveth out of Thucydides and Isocrates) it is not to be doubted but that Euristeus (predecessor to them) was slain by the posterity of Hercules after Hercules himself was dead. To which (saith he) Diodorus addeth, saying; the posterity of Hercules fought against Euristeus, having Theseus and Hyllus for their Captains. Have an eye then to the time when Theseus both began and ended his reign, and see whether the time of Euristeus can possibly be thrust up so high as the 65. years of Atreus and Thyestes will crowd it. More like it is that they two between them, had not above six years: For the Scholiast of Thucydides sets down the time of the Heraclidae's first eruption into Peloponnesus, to be twenty years before the destruction of Troy; and the latter to be 80. years after it was destroyed.  
But (saith Petavius their first coming in, is to be taken two ways: For in the beginning thereof, they (with their Captains Jolaus, Theseus and Hillus) fought against Euristeus, and he being slain they enjoyed Peloponnesus for about a year, until by pestilence they were driven out. Then in the third year after, they come again (even just twenty years before the destruction of Troy) when Hyllus concluded with Atreus the successor of Euristeus, that if he (viz. Hyllus) were overcome in single fight the Heraclidae should departed to the place from whence they came, and not return into Peloponnesus again until an hundred years after. Now it so fell out that Hyllus was slain; they thereupon departed as was agreed, and return not again until the time appointed, which being an hundred years after, and yet but 80. years after the fall of Troy; must needs declare that Hyllus was slain twenty years before Troy was destroyed, viz. in the year of the Julian Period 3510 three years before which (viz. in the year of the Julian Period 3507.) Euristeus was slain. In that year therefore of his death was the first year of Atreus, who (together with his Partner in reign Thyestes) could have but six years, if Agamemnon have eighteen. And that Agamemnon had eighteen rather than fifteen, is witnessed (as I said before) by Clemens in Eusebius; who saith that Troy was taken in the eighteenth year of his reign. Nor doth Eusebius himself but record so many years for the whole reign of Agamemnon, though he wrongfully coupleth his fifteenth with the fall of Troy, which is indeed the only reason why some Authors say, that he had but fifteen years of reign. For if Troy was taken in his fifteenth year, then must that be his last, because at his return from thence he was slain by Aegystus, set on to do it by the suggestion of Clytaemnestra Agamemnon's own Wife, who in the absence of her Husband, and whilst he was at the Siege of Troy, committed Adultery with Aegystus, and now (together with him) defileth her hands with Blood, as before for the satisfying of her wicked lust, she had filthily defiled her Husband's bed; and so in conclusion adds murder and Adultery both together. But it was not the fifteenth, but eighteenth year of this gallant King when the Greeks' took Troy, according to the Testimony aforesaid: and therefore we must not account less than eighteen years for Agamemnon.  
And as for Perseus the first King of this Kingdom, mention (as I said before) is made of the two and thirtieth years of his reign: but how much he reigned longer is uncertain. Only that he began in the year of the Julian Period 3396. I am very confident, and have reason for it; For first Danaus was banished out of Egypt nine years after King Pharaoh was drowned in the Red-Sea: which therefore makes his banishment to be in the year of the Julian Period 3233. and consequently his beginning to reign in Argos in the year of the same Period 3234. Which time of Danaus' being thus fixed, serves well to direct us both to the beginning and end of the Kingdom of Argos, and consequently for the beginning of the Kingdom of Mycenae, whose first King was (as already hath been said) King Perseus, Secondly, the two and thirtieth year of Perseus before mentioned was 63. years before the expedition of the Argonauts, and therefore in the year of the Julian Period 3427. which thereupon directs us to the beginning of his reign in the year of the same Period 3396. And that it was so long before that expedition, is mentioned by Eusebius out of Apollodorus in libro de temporibus. But you will say, when and in what year was that Expedition? I answer it was in the end of the reign of Laomedon, and in the beginning of the reign of Priamus; as Helvicus hath well observed. Now Priamus we know reigned but till the destruction of Troy, which was destroyed in the year of the julian Period 3530. 408. years before the beginning of the Olympiads of Iphitus, 
Diod. lib. 14.  and 432 before Rome was built. Priamus therefore must needs begin to reign in the year of the julian Period 3490, for he reigned forty years, and no more; as Bucholcerus, out of Archilochus hath recorded. And if Priamus began to reign then, it will follow that then also was the expedition of the Argonauts: how else could it be in the end of the reign of Laomedon, and beginning of Priamus, as Helvicus saith it was.  
And thus we have the beginning and ending of the Kingdom of Argos rightly fixed, and consequently the beginning of the Kingdom of Mycenae: but how long Perseus reigned is still unknown. Probable it is that he and his son Stethlenus had together sixty six years, Euristeus 45. Atreus and Thyestes six, Agamemnon 18. Aegystus six, Orestes 70. Tisamenus, Penthilus, and Comets three: these ended in the year of the julian Period 3610. at that descent of the Heraclidae which was four score years after the fall of Troy.  
Know also that the Olympiads of Hercules began 442. years before those of Iphitus, as is reckoned by Clemens out of an old ancient Chronologer, after which he lived not above nine years, as is very probable; and therefore died in the year of the julian Period 3505. upon whose death, his children are banished by Euristeus, for fear they should deprive him of his Kingdom. But by this fear he wrought himself a mischief: for hereupon it came to pass that by two years after they came against him and destroyed him, as already hath been said.  
But now see a Catalogue of these in their right times, as near as in all probability can be gathered.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. A Catalogue of the Kings of Mycenae, probably fixed in their right times. 3396, Ferseus and Stethlenus 66. 3426. Euristhous' 45. 3507. Atrius and Thyestes 6. 3513. Agamemnon 18. 3531. Aegystus 6. 3537. Orestes 70. 3607. Tisamenus, Penthilus and Comets 3. 3610. In this year was the descent of the Heraclidae, four score years after the fall of Troy. Now also ended the Kingdom of Sycionia: For (as most Authors say) upon this return of the posterity of Hercules, the Kingdom of Mycenae was changed to Lacedaemon, and was under the government of Euristhenes: whilst that of Sytion was translated unto Corinth, and was under the government of Alethes; both these beginning much about one and the same time. Of which more shall be spoken afterward.   

CHAP. VI Of the Kingdom and Kings of Athens; the first whereof was Cecrops.  
THis Kingdom of Athens was situated also in Greece as well as those of Sytion, Argos and Mycenae already mentioned. The 
* The first I mean in this known Dinastie.  first King was Cecrops, from the beginning of whose reign to the death of Codrus were 490 years, as gaffarel showeth from the testimony of those, who have read no less from the Characters of the Stars. Eusebius wanteth three years of this number; the reason whereof I take to be, because he accounts no time of Interregnum between Pandion and Aegeus; of which I shall speak more by and by.  
In the mean time I begin with Cecrops, who reigned fifty years, and began in the year of the julian Period 3154. It is reported that he was of a double shape; his upper part like a man, and his lower part like a beast; but this is a fable. For he was indeed called 
* Id est. A duobus nature is constants.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but it was because he spoke two languages, saith Eusebius; as well the language of the Greecians, as the language of the Egyptians among whom he was borne, and from whom he came. Or else being taller than other men, he was as if he had the proportion of two men. Or finally, he was called Diphyes because he taught the people civility, and did also institute a strict observance of the matrimonial band and society, taking order that women should be deprived of that licentious liberty which formerly was a little too common among them: this therefore made some say, that he was man in his upper parts; but his lower were feminine, as Ludovicus Vives noteth. When he began to repair the City where he reigned; called afterward Athens: an Olive tree grew suddenly up in one place, and a fountain burst as suddenly out in another. Which prodigies drove the King to Delphos, to know the Oracles mind; whose answer was, that the Olive tree signified Minerva, and the fountain Neptune, and that the City might be called after which of these the people pleased. Hereupon Cecrops gathered all the people of both sexes together, to make their Election, the men being for Neptune, 
Aug. De. tivit. Dei, li. 18. c. 9  and the women for Minerva: now it so fell out that the women had the most voices; who thereupon named the City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is as Saint Austin saith) Minerva. Neptune being displeased herewith, spoiled the Country by 
* This was through the power of the Devil, by whom also their Oracles spoke.  inundation. And the people (to pacify him) punished the women by enacting three laws against them. First, that thenceforth no woman should be admitted to any consultation. Secondly, that none after that time should be named after the name of their mother. And thirdly, that none of their families should be named Athenae. Ludovicus Vives saith, there were three Cities of this name. The first this, in Achaia. The second, in the I'll of Euboea. And the third, in Laconia.  
The next King after Ceerops, was Cranaus, 
Deucaliens Flood.  he reigned nineyeares, and was Son in Law to Cecrops. Deucalion's Flood was in his time, as Varro saith: and, as the Marmora Arundelliana cast it, in the fourth year of his reign: which by my account falleth into the year of the Julian Period 3207. and after the Flood of Ogyges' 257. years. This Flood was in Thessaly, where Deucalion then was King: For we are to note that he reigned in Thessaly, near the mount of Pernasus; But it extended farther than so. For it wasted Italy, Greece, and the Island of Atalanta: and yet that in Ogyges' time is said to be greater. Prometheus' foretold of this Deluge: Deucalion thereupon 
* He also invented the wearing of Rings on the fourth finger, as saith Eusebius.  provided himself a kind of Vessel called Cibotium or Larnax: in which he saved them who fled to him for succour.  
The conflagration under Phaeton is said to be much about the same time, not only in Ethiopia, 
Phaeton's burning.  but in Istria a Region in Italy, and about Cumae, and the Mountains of Vesuvius. Of both which be strange Fables: as that Phaeton should set the World on fire by overthrowing the Chariot of the Sun; which indeed and truth was nothing else but an extraordinary great heat wherewith the World was vexed in those days. And as for the other, that Deucalion and his wife should be the restorers of mankind; it was nothing else but because he cherished them that fled to him for succour: for in his Boat Larnax or Cibotium, he preserved many, who otherwise had been drowned.  
Ovid (the Father of these Fables) had without doubt read the first book of Moses: but Ovid was a professed Heathen; 
Rom. 1. 2●.25.  and the Heathen (as Saint Paul telleth us) became vain in their imaginations; and thereupon, to fit their own fancy, turned the truth of God into a lie; as well in this, as in such other things as the Apostle mentioneth in his first Chapter to the Romans.  
Amphiction succeeded Cranaus, and reigned after him ten years. He finding Greece to be weak, and subject to the incursions of the Barbarians, instituted (out of the body of the whole Country) one general meeting or Assembly; which from him was called the Amphictionian Council and in it he made Laws, which (beside those that were proper to every City) were common to all, as Helvicus noteth. So that this seemeth to be the first Parliament that ever was in the world. 
The first Parliament.   
The next that reigned here was Ericthonius; who having deposed Amphyction) reigned after him 50. years. He is said to be the Inventor of Wagons, and to be the first that built a Temple to Minerva.  
Pandion (whose daughters were Progne, and Philomela) succeeded Ericthonius, and reigned after him forty years. This Pandion (in the nine and thirtieth year of his reign) warred with Labdacus' King of Thebes, being aided by Tereus the Son of Mars: for which favour Pandion gave him his daughter Progne. Of whom we read, that after Tereus had married her, he ravished her other Sister Philomela, cut out her tongue, and cast her into prison; where she wrought her story in needle work, and sent it to her Sister. Progne hereupon slew her Son Itys, whom she had borne to Tereus, and set him before her Husband to eat. Tereus upon this attempted to kill her, but she fled and escaped. Of all which Ovid fableth after this manner; viz. that whilst Tereus followed after Progne, he was turned into a Lapwing, she into a Swallow, and Philomela into a Nightingale.  
Ericthius was the next King, he succeeded Pandion, and reigned after him 50. years. His daughter Orithya was taken away and ravished by Boreas of Thrace.  
The Poets ascribe this Rape to the North wind; which was for nothing else but because Thrace was North from Athens. About which time was also the Rape of Proserpina by Orcus, or Aidoneus King of the Molossians. But whether of these was first, Eusebius showeth: but is not clear, whether they were when Ericthonius or Ericthius reigned.  
Cecrops the second reigned next after Ericthius, forty years.  
Pandion the second succeeded Cecrops, and reigned 25. years between whom and his successor, was an Interregnum of two years. For less than so there could not be, in regard the whole time of this Kingdom to the death of Codrus, was 490. which the particulars in Eusebius will not make, unless there be so many years of Interregnum; as at the first was noted.  
Aegeus was the next: he succeeded Pandion at the end of the Interregnum, and reigned after 48. years. He had (as Justin saith) two Wives. The first was Ae●●ra, by whom he had Theseus: the second was Medea, whom he married after she was rejected by Jason, and by her he had Medus, It is proble that he came to gain his Father's Kingdom by the aid of his Grandfather Pyla, King of the Magarenses. For (as Pausanias saith) when his Father was expeiled, he fled to his Wife's Father Pyla and died in his Country. The aid therefore that was granted by Pyla, was not to 〈◊〉 Pandion, but his Son Aegeus; though Sygonius writeth otherwise. Or if it were to restore Pandion, yet because he died before his restitution could be effected, it must needs be that not he, but his son was restored by it.  
After Aegeus, Theseus succeeded, and reigned thirty years: who before he was King, according to his lot was sent into Crete to be devoured of the Minotaur. For we are to know that not many years before the end of Aegeus his reign, A●●rogeus (son to Minos' King of Crect) was treacherously slain at Athens. For which fact Mi●●● risen up in Arms against the Athenians, and being too hard for them, propounded them peace upon this condition: namely, that they should every year send seven Noble young men, and as many Virgins to Crete to be devoured by the Minotaur.  
Now it came to pass that in the fourth year of this agreement, the lot fell upon Theseus the King's Son, who thereupon was sent thither in a Ship with black S●ils and Rigging, in token of the great sorrow that was in Athens at his departure; but chief in Aegeus his Father, who gave command to his Son that if his hap were so good as to slay the Minotaur, he should change his Sails from black to white at his coming home again. Now it so fell out that Theseus (by Ariadne's advice) slew the Minotaur: but at his return being overjoyed with his good fortune, forgot to alter his Sails. Whereupon it came to pass, that his Father Aegeus, looking from an high Tower, and seeing the Ship to come back with Black Sails, thought his Son to be dead: and for grief thereof he presently cast himself into the Sea, and was drowned. Which Sea wasever after called by the name of Aegean-Sea. But as for this Theseus he was Cousin German to Hercules; to whom he was assistant in many of his Labours. He it was that first of all stole away the beauteous Helena, being aided therein by Pirithous whom he must therefore aid in the like Rape: which he did. For though Helena was at this time rescued again by her brother's Castor Pollux, yet Theseus makes good his promise to Pirithous, and is assistant to him in his attempt to steal Proserpina the daughter of Aidoneus King of the Molossians: In which theft Theseus was taken Prisoner, and afterward set free by Hercules.  
Coelius Rhodiginus relates this story otherwise, and saith that her name whom these two came to steal, was Cora the daughter of Ades: and that they went to the River Acheron there to have done it. Which I like better then to call her Proserpina, because that Rape was long before this; and was either in the days of Ericthonius, or in the days of Ericthius as I have already mentioned.  
Mnestheus was the next King of Athens, who attained the Kingdom through the faction of Helen's brothers, who expelled Theseus and made him King. This Mnestheus reigned twenty four years, and died but a little before Aeneas came into Italy, as Ludovicus Vives noteth.  
Demophoon reigned next, but was none of his Son. For Demophoon was the Son of Theseus and Phaedra, who upon the death of Mnestheus recovered his Father's Kingdom, and reigned in it thirty three years: This was he who for his neglect caused fair Phillis to hang herself.  
Oxintes succeeded Demophoon, and reigned after him twelve years. His successor was Aphidas, who reigned one year. After Aphidas was Timoetes, who reigned eight years. Then after him was Melanthus, who reigned 37. years.  
The next after him was Codrus, who reigned 21. years; and was the seventeenth and last King of Athens. For the next that governed here after Codrus were the Archontes perpetui: after them, the Archontes decennales: and last of all the Archontes annui. The Archontes perpetui were for term of life and did in their succession's reign 316. years after the death of Codrus. The Archontes decennales had ten years a piece, and did reign each after other until seventy years were ended. The Archontes annui, were no other than yearly officers: whose first beginning was in the year of the julian Period 4030 which was the first year of the 24. Olympiad, and is an account commended much by Master Selden in his Marmora Arundelliana, who in that book placeth the first of these annual officers in the very same year.  
I shall not need to set down the particular names of these, until I come to show you them in their right times: which shall be now, in the following Catalogues.  
Years of the julian Period when they beg. A perfect List or Catalogue of the Athenian Kings, ex Eusebio. 3154. Cecrops 50. 3204. Cranaus 9 3213. Amphyction 10. 3223. Ericthonius' 50. 3273. Pandion 40. 3313. Ericthius 50. 3363. Cecrops secundus 40. 3403. Pandion the second 25. 3428. An Interregnum of two years began now. 3430. The end of the Interregnum, and beginning of Aegeus, whose time of reign was 48. years. 3478. Theseus' 30. 3508. Mnestheus 24. 3532. Demophoon 33. 3565. Oxintes 12. 3577. Aphydas 1. 3578. Timoetes 8. 3586. Metanthus' 37. 3623. Codrus 21. 3644.   
In this year was the death of Codrus, just four hundred and ninety year's since Cecrops the first began to reign. This was the last King of Athens, who for the good of his Country put himself into a disguise that he might be slaine. For when the Kings of Peloponnesus (who descended from Hercules) warred upon Athens, it was told them by the Oracle that they should conquer if they killed not the Atheman King: hereupon they concealed (as much as they could) the answer of the Oracle, and withal gave a strict charge that none should touch Codrus. But the Athenians hearing of this Oracle, Codrus being desirous of glory and the good of his Country, disguised himself, went into the Camp of his Enemies, and falling to brabble with the Soldiers was slain: from whence 
* Aug de civet. dei lib. 18. c. 19  came that saying of Virgil, Aut jurgia Godri. Now after this, the Athenians would have no more Kings: which was not out of any inconvenience found in the rule of Sovereignty, but in honour of Codrus, as saith a learned Knight, 
Sir Walter Raleigh lib. 2 cap. 17. Sect. 10.  in his History of the World. And indeed it might very well be so; for after Codrus had thus delivered his Country, the Athenians 
* Aug. lib. 18. cap. 19 the civet dei.  sacrificed to him as a God, and would (as I said) have after him no more Kings, for fear I think they should not be so good as he. For his worth was able to Eclipse theirs, if at any time they failed of what was required. Howbeit the Government was still in a manner Regal; for between Kings and the Archontes perpetui, was little or no difference, save only in the name. For the Princes that followed after Codrus, without regal name governed Athens during the time of their life; and so in effect were Kings, although they were called Archonts. The first of these was Medon; from whom all else, in the same dynasty, were called Medontidae: of which as followeth.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. A perfect List or Catalogue, of the Archonts of Athens, called Archontes perpetui: ex Eusebio. 3644. Medon 20. 3664. Agas●us 36. 3700. Archippus 19 3719. Tersippus 41. 3760. Phorbas 31. 3791. Mezades 30. 3821. Diognetus 28. 3849. Pheredus 19 3868. Ariphron 20. In his time Sardanapalus began to reig. 3888. Tespi●us, or Thesphorus 27. In his time Sardanapalus lost his Kingdom, as saith Eusebius. 3915. Agamnestor 20. 3935. Aeschilus 23. 3958. Alemenon 2. 3960. Here was the end of this dynasty.  Archontes decennales. 3960. Carops 10 3970. Aesimides' 10. 3980. Elidicus 10. 3990. Hippomenes 10. 4000 Leocrates 10. 4010. Absander 10. 4020. Erixias 10. 4030.   
Here the Archontes decennales ended, and the Archontes annui begins: therein agreeing to that which Master Selden commendeth in his Marmora Arundelliana, who placeth the first of these Annual officers in the very same year, as I said before.   

CHAP. VII. Of the Kings that reigned in the Kingdom of Troy, before the Greeks destroyed it.  
THe first of these Kings with whom I begin, was Dardanus the son in Law of Teucer: he began to reign in the year of the Julian Period 3234, and (as Eusebius saith) reigned 63. years. His Kingdom was in Phrygia the less, and Asia the lesser. The chief City was Troy, which he built and called it (after his own name) Dardania. Of Tros it came to be called Troy; and of Ilus, Ilium.  
Ericthonius, succeeded Dardanus, and reigned after him 46. years; Euseb Homer and Diodorus say, that he was extremely rich, and that he had 30000 Mares and their Colts continually feeding in his Pastures.  
Tros succeeded Ericthonius, and reigned after him 61. Euseb. He altered the name of Dardania and turned it to Troy, from whom the people also were called Trojans.  
Ilus was the next King: he would that the City should be called Ilium; and so was. Howbeit it lost not the name of Troy but it was known by both names. The time of his reign here was 50 years.  
Laomedon succeeded ilus, and reigned after him thirty six years Ral.  
After Laomedon was King Priamus, who reigned (not 52. but 40. years according to the best and truest account, taken by Bucholcerus out of Archilochus.  
So that all the times of these Kings, was 296. years. And now see their List rightly fixed.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. A List or Catalogue of the Kings of Troy, before it was destroyed: all of them fixed in their right times. 3234. Dardanus 63. 3297. Fricthonius' 46. 3343. Tros 61. 3404. Ilus 50. 3454. Laomedon 36. 3490. Priamus' 40 3530.   
In this year Troy was taken and destroyed, 408. years before the Olympiads of Iphitus, and 432. before the building of Rome began, as is witnessed by Diodorus lib. 14.   

CHAP. VIII. Of the Kingdom of the Aborigines  
THis Kingdom was in Italy, and began in the year of the Julian Period 3385. Janus was the first King: he reigned 33. years. In his time Saturn fled out of Crete into this Country, as both Poets and Historiograpers' witness. The time when he came was in the 17. year of Janus: after which he and Janus reigned about 17. years, accounting the year when he came to be the first year of his reign. Scal. Euseb.  
These people were called Aborigines at the first, because their Original was unknown: and yet 
* Dionys. Hal.  some say they were formerly Arcadians, and came with Oenotrius (Son of Lycan) into Italy. But Scaliger saith their right name was Aberrigines, a multo errore, from their much wand'ring.  
The next King after those two before mentioned, was Picus the Son of Saturn: he reigned 37. years. Euseb.  
Saint Austin speaking of Picus, saith, that he was the Son of Saturn, and first successor in the Kingdom of the Laurentines. For Laurentium was the eldest City of Latium, the seat of the Aborigines, and the place where their Kingdom, after they came into Italy, was founded: called Laurentum of the Laurel Wood that grew near it. Moreover, it is said of Picus that he was turned into a Pie, because (being a great Soothsayer) he kept such a Bird always for his Augury. Of which see more in Saint Aug. De civet. lib. 18. cap. 15. together with the notes of Ludovicus Vives thereupon.  
Faunus the Son of Picus succeeded, and reigned 44. years Euseb. 
Vives ex Dionys.  Helvic. Dionysius saith that some held Mars to be his great Grandfather, and that the Romans worshipped him with Songs and Sacrifices, as their Country's Genius.  
Latinus reigned after Faunus, 36. years: in the latter end of his reign, Aeneas came into Italy, and when Latinus was dead reigned after him three years. But of Aeneas more shall be spoken afterward. And now see all these in their right times.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. A List of the ancient Kings of Italy before Aeneas, rightly fixed. 3385. Janus and Saturn 33. 3418. Picus the Son of Saturn 37. 3455. Faunus the Son of Picus 44. 3499. Latinus after Faunus 36. 3535. In this year Latinus died, and Aeneas began to reign.   

CHAP. VI Of the Kings of Italy after Latinus.  
PEtavius gathers out of Dionysius, that Aeneas the Successor of La●inus began to reign in Italy, in the fift year after the destruction of Troy. The first year therefore of his reign, was in the year of the Julian Period 3535. and year of the World 2826. This was about three years after he came into this Country: for he came hither about the second or third year after that City was destroyed. Soon after his coming he married Lavinia, Daughter to Latinus, and built Lavinium. Then, when Latinus was slain in the War with the Rutili, and leaving no issue Male behind him, he succeedeth in the Kingdom: but is warred against by Turnus (formerly betrothed to Lavinia) but in this War Turnus is slain by Aeneas: and he also slain afterward in another War with Mezentius King of Tuscanie, after he had reigned three years.  
Ascanius was his Successor, with whom also Mezentius waged War, and besieged him so straight in Lavinium, that he was glad to crave for peace, but could not have it unless upon hard conditions: whereupon he sallied out suddenly, and slew Lausus the son of Mezentius which put that Army into such a fear, that Mezentius not only condescended to peace upon equal terms, but ever after remained a true friend to Ascanius. His Father was Aeneas, and his Mother (not Lavinia but) Creusa. For though Lavinia were with child by Aeneas, yet she was not delivered till after her Husband's death. And indeed being left alone without either Father or Husband, she much feared his Son Ascanius, and thereupon betook her to the chief Herdsman of her deceased Husband, by whom she had an house built her in the Woods, and was there delivered of a Son whom she called Silvius Posthumus.  
Now the People knew nothing of this, save only that she was with Child: Ascanius thereupon is suspected to have murdered her, but (he to clear himself) causeth them to be both brought from thence, and provideth carefully for them. For in the seven and twentieth year of his reign he leaveth the City Lavinium to his Step mother, and built Alba longa, where he reigned to the end of 38. years from the death of Aeneas: and at his death (neglecting his Son Julus) he constituted 
* From him all the Albanian Kings were called Silvii.  Silvius Posthumus for his Successor. Howbeit Julus was honourably provided for: and from him descended the Family of the Julii.  
This Son then of Aeneas by Lavinia, succeeded Ascanius and reigned after him twenty nine years: who because he was born in a Wood, and after his Father's death, had this name of Silvius Posthumus.  
The next after him was Aeneas Silvius: he reigned one and thirty years.  
After him was Latinus Silvius, who reigned 51. years: For if that which was the first year of Numitor, was also the first year of Romulus, as Saint Austin saith it was; then must the time of this man's reign be rather 51. then 50. years. And note that of him the people were called Latins.  
Alba Silvius succeeded and reigned 39 years. Then Silvius Athys 24. Capis Silvius 28. Calpetus Silvius 13. Tiberinus Silvius 8. Of him the River came to be called Tiber, because it was his hap to be drowned in it. Agrippa Silvius succeeded and reigned 40. years.  
After him was Aremulus, otherwise called Alladius Silvius: who having reigned 19 years, was with Palace wherein he lived, swallowed up, because he strove to imitate the Thunder. Next after him was Aventinus Silvius 37. Then Proca Silvius 23. Amulius Silvius 44. And last of all Numitor one, which was also the first year of Romulus.  
And now see them in their right times.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. A Catalogue of the Kings after Latinus, ex Eusebio: all of them fixed in their right times. 3535. Aeneas 3. 3538. Ascanius' 38. 3576. Silvius Pasthumus 29. 3605. Aeneas Silvius 31. 3636. Latinus. Silvius 51. 3687. Alba Silvius 39 3726. Silvius Athys 24. 3750. Capis Silvius 28. 3778. Calpetus Silvins 13. 3791. Tiberinus Silvius 8. 3799. Agrippa Silvius 40. 3839. Aremulus, sive Alladius 19 3858. Aventinus Silvius 37. 3895. Proca Silvius 23. 3918. Amulius Silvius 44. 3962. Nunitor 1. Which was also the first year of Romulus: and year when the foundation of Rome was laid.   

CHAP. X. Of the British Kings that reigned in England, from Brute to the time of Julius Caesar and after.  
BRute, the first King of the Britons, arrived here in this Island (according to the common opinion 1108. years before the vulgar time of the birth of Christ: which because it was about such time as Silvius Posthumus ended his reign, gave occasion to some idle headed Monks, to deliver to posterity, that Brute was his Son, and thereupon descended from the blood of the Trojans. And that this might carry with it the face of an History they stuck not to tell us that, which not Roman Writer reporteth, viz. that he should kill his own Father by chance, and thereupon forsook his own Country, to seek his fortune elsewhere. But Verstegan proves all this to be fabulous, and admireth much to see how many people have sought to derive their descents from the Trojans, and how that many foundations of Cities are reported to have laid by them. Yea (saith he) the follies of men have been such, that they have given the glory to the fugitive People, of almost all that is excellent in all Europe. This therefore would be wisely considered: for it standeth with fare more likelihood of truth, that we hold him for some 
* Alstedius saith he came into France out of Italy & was at the first a King of a people there, called Rutuli: and that he was droven thence by Aeneas.  Prince of Gallia from whence he came when he arrived here in this Island then called Albion: where conquering the present Inhabitants, he settled himself, and obtained the rule and dominion over the whole Land, which now after him the Conqueror must be called Britain. At the time of his death he divided the whole into three parts, and left them to be governed by his three Sons; Locrine, Albanact and Camber. Unto Locrine who was the eldest, he left Loegria, now called England. Unto Albanact the second Son, he allotted Albania, now called Scotland: and unto Camber, the third Son he gave Cambria, now called Wales. And all this when he had reigned twenty four years: namely, twenty after he built London, and four before. This was the first King.  
The next (as I said) was Locrine: of whom and his Successors, I intent to make no large discourse, but shall rather endeavour to set down the Kings and years that they reigned, as punctually as I can, not varying from what is commonly accounted, except upon good ground for the reconciling of this Story to other Histories. And to effect this I shall gather out of sundry Authors, the years of their reign; following no one, not further than I find just cause. For unless an eye be had not only to the times of Belinus and Brennus, but also to the time of Coilus (otherwise called Coelius, or Cecilius) I believe I shall produce no truer account than what hath been produced already, by such as have trod this path before me: from which I must here and there step a little aside, the better I say to reconcile this Story to other Histories.  
But first, if the Britons came not from the Trojans, it would be showed how the now City of London came to be called Troy novant.  
I answer, that where it hath been conceited that any Country or people have had their descent from the Trojans, there they have interpreted the names of their Cities according as in nearness of sound they came near to any thing concerning Troy: and so 
* or Trenevid.  Trenewith (which in the British Tongue, is as much as to say New town) came to be corruptly called Troy novant; that is to say new Troy, which is now (saith 
* In his Restit. of Antiq. c. 4.  Verstegan) our old London.  
This being answered, I come now to the List or Catalogue; which is as followeth.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. A Catalogue of the British Kings, probably fixed in their right times.   3606. Brute 24. He built London, and was buried there. 3630. Locrine 20.  3650. Gwendolyn 15.  36●5. Madan * 40. * He built Don caster: and was slain by Wolves and wild beasts in hunting. 3705. Mempricius 20.  3725. Ebranke * 60. * He built York: and by 20. Wives had twenty Sons and thirty daughters. 3786. Brute * Greenshield. 30.  3815. Leill * 22. * He built Carlisle, and was buried there. 3837. Rudburdibras * 39 * He built Canterbury, Shaftsbury, and Winthester. 3876. Bladud * 20. * He was a great Astronomer, and made the Baths at Caerbrand, and attempting to fly, fell down and was broken in pieces; falling upon the top of Apollo's Temple. 3896. King 40.  3936. Cordilla, or * Cordelia 5.  3941. Cunedag and Morgan 12.  3953. Cunedag alone * 33. * He built three Temples: the first to Mars, at Pexth in Scotland: the second to Mercury at Bangor in Wales, the third to Apollo in Cornwall. 3986. Rivallo * 22.  4008. Gurgustus' 15.  4023. Sicilius 49.  4072. Jago 25.  4097. Kinimachus. 54.  4151. Gorbodug 58.  4209. Ferex and * Porex 5. In the death of these two the line of Brute failed. 4214. Cloten's 50.  4264. Dunwallo * 40. He was the first King of Britain that was crowned with a Crown of Gold: and by him Blackwell Hall was built, Malmsbury and the vieth He also ordained weights & 4304. * Belinus' and Brennus 15.  4319. Belinus' alone 11.  4330. Gurngust 19  
* So called of bearing such a shield in the wars with Gaul.  
* Between her reign, and that of Queen Mary, Daughter of K. Henry the eight no woman ruled in Britain.  
* In his time it: reigned blood for: three days.  
* He built Belingsgat and the Tower of London.  Years of the Julian Period when they beg. The continuation of the former List of the British Kings.   4349. Guentholen 26. Measures and made good Laws against Theft. 4375. Coilus * 7. * He was slain in his Bed by Fergus: in reward whereof the Scots made Fergus their King. 4382. Kymor 3.  4385. Elanius * Howan 6.  4391. Morwith * 9 * This King fonght with is Monster that came out of the Irish Sea, and was slain by it. 4400. Grandabod or * Grantbodian 10  4410. Arthogaile 1.  4411. Elidurus' 3.  4414. Arthogaile again 10.  4424. Elidure again * 1. * The reigns of ●●e Kings from the death of this Elidure, are held to be very uncertain: howbeit I have assayed to set them down according to what I find in some Authors; but am not fully satisfied why Heli afterward thentioned should have but one year. 4425. Vigenius and * Peridure 7.  4432. Peridure alone * 2.  4434. Elidure again 4.  4438. Gorbonian 10.  4448. Morgan 2.  4450. Emerianus 6.  4456. Idwallan 8.  4464. Rhimo 11.  4475. Geruntius 13.  4488. Catill 10.  4498. Coel 12.  4510. Porrex 2.  4512. Cherin 1.  4513. Fulgentio 2.  4515. Eldred 1.  4516. Andragie 1.  4517. Vranius 3.  4520. Eliud 5.  4525. Dedantius 5.  4530. Detonus 2.  4532. Gurginius 3.  4535. Merian 2.  
* He was buried at Ikaldown or (as we now call it) Jekelton in Cambridgesheir. For so I find it in a very old Chronicle of England.  
* He built Cambride and Grantham.  
* He built the Town of Pickering.  Years of the Julian Period when they beg. The continuation of the former List or Catalogue of the British Kings.   4537. Bladunc 2.  4539. Capb 1.  4540. Ovinus 2.  4542. Cicill 2.  4544. Bledgebred 20.  4564. Archemall 14.  4578. Eldelus 4.  4582. Rodianus 32.  4614. Hertir or Redarius 5.  4619. Samulius 2.  4621. Penisellus 3.  4624. Pyrrhus' 6.  4630. Caporus 7.  4637. Dinellus 3.  4640. Helius * 1. * The Isle of Eley was named after his name: and the town thereof built by him. 4641. Lud 11.  4652. Cassibelan 19  4659. In this year (being the eighth of Cassibelan) Cesar came first against Britain, but was repulsed, and made no Conquest here till the next year.   4660. This was that next; the ninth of Cassibelan, the 699. of Rome, and the third year of the 181. Olympiad: it was also the 4660. year of the Julian Period, and year o● the World 3951. And now had the Britain's reigned 1055. year's current when Cesar made this conquest.   4671. Theomantius reigned next. 23.  4694. Cymbeline 35. In his time Christ was born. 4729. Guiderius 28. He denied to pay the Romans their tribute, whereupon the Emperor Claudius raised a great Army, and came against him in the year of our Lord 43. 
* He is said by some to rule 60. years, and that the years of the Kings before him ever since the death of Elidure, are uncertain in his time Cherry-Trees was first planted in this Island, as Master Is●●cson writeth in his Chronology, pag. 171.   
The next after Guiderius, was Arviragus, he reigned 28. years, and began in the year of the Julian Period 4757. In the last year but one of his reign, Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus the son of Vespasian; even in the year of the Julian Period 4783.  
And thus I have prosecuted this History of the British Kings thus fare, and listed them in their right times and order, as near as I can: and have, as you see taken my first Rise from the arrival of their first King Brutus; who coming out of France, came into this Land (then called Albion) and found no other Inhabitants in it, but some Giants which dwelled in Moutaines and Caves; these were vanquished by him and his men, the chiefest whereof was Corin, one of Brutus' strongest Champions, by whom the Giant Gogmagog was slain.  
But if this Island were once a Continent to France, as Verstegan proveth, in his 
* chap 4.  restitution of decayed Antiquities, than I do suppose the most ancient name thereof was Samothea. Afterward being made an Island by the Sea eating through that little Isthmus or neck of Land between Dover and Calais it was called Albion, from Albion a Son of Neptune as some have said; by whom and whose posterity, it was inhabited until Brute made conquest of it: which, as is commonly accounted, was in the year before Christ 1108. And there I have fixed it, even in the year of the julian Period 3606. and year of the World by my account 2897.   

CHAP. XI. Containing the Dynasties of several other Kingdoms.  
THe Kingdoms which next offer themselves to be considered, are the Kingdomee of Lacedaemon and Corinth, which began at the last descent of the Heraclidae, fourscore years after the destruction of Troy; as before in the end of the fifth Chapter was showed. Some begin them both in one year, whilst others make a years difference: which I do believe ariseth from this, that Automenes is sometimes reckoned for the last King of Corinth, and sometimes for the first Annual Officer, after the end of the second dynasty. But I for my part shall reckon Automenes for the 
* and so Eusebius also reckons  last King: after whom were Annual Officers or Princes for 124. years, as is accounted by Helvicus in his Chronologie. At the end of which years, Cypselus began to reign and reigned 28. years. Some say that he was a Tyrant: but by Sir Walter Raleigh, in his History of the World, lib. 2. cap. 28. Sect. 5. he is mentioned, not as a Tyrant, but as a quiet Prince; who notwithstanding by expelling the race of the Bachidae, made himself Lord of Corinth. After Cypselus was Periander, who was indeed a Tyrant, and reigned 44. years, according to Aristotle; dying in the fourth year of the 48. Olympiad, as saith Laertius. The death therefore of this Tyrant, and end of the Kingdom of Corinth, fell into the year of the Julian Period 4129. for then was the fourth year of the 48. Olympiad. And as for the beginning of it, that must be in the year of the same Period 3610. four score years after the fall of Troy, as already hath been said.  

See now the List.  Years of the julian Period when they beg. A List of the Kings of Corinth ex Euseb. all fixed in their right times.  3610. Athletes or Alethes 35. dynasty 1. 3645. Ixion 37. dynasty 1. 3682. Agilaus' 37. dynasty 1. 3719. Pryminas' 35. dynasty 1. Years of the julian Period when they beg. The dynasty of the Bachidae in Corinth, ex Eusebio.  3754. Bachis. 35. dynasty 2 3789. Agelas' 30. dynasty 2 3819. Eudemus 25. dynasty 2 3844. Aristemedes 35. dynasty 2 3879. Egemnon 16. dynasty 2 3895. Alexander 25. dynasty 2 3920. Phelesteus 12. dynasty 2 3932. Automenes 1. dynasty 2 3933. Annual Officers began and continued one hundred twenty four years.  4057. Cypselus 28. 4085. Periander 44. 4129. The death of Periander, and fourth year of the forty eight Olympiad.  Years of the julian Period when they beg. A List or Catalogue of the Lacedaemonian Kings taken out of Eusebius, and fitted to their right times.  3610. Euristheus 42. 3652. Agis 1. 3653. Archestratus 35. 3688. Labotes' 37. 3725. Doristus 29. 3754. Agesilaus 44. 3798. Archelaus 60. 3858. Telechus 40. 3898. Alcamenes 37. 3935. Here was the end of this List or Catalogue, in in which were seven Kings: and they among them reigned 325. year.   
The next that I shall mention, 
The reigns of the Lydians.  were the Kings of Lydia and the time of their Dynasties: the first of which I must pass over, as not knowing how to reckon it.  
The second began in the year of the Julian Period 3492. and lasted (as saith Herodotus) 505. years, even till the beginning of Gyges: but we want a continued Series of the Kings for the space of 426. years, even till the first year of Ardysus who reigned 36. years. Alyattes 14. Meles 12. Candaules 17.  
After Candaules the third dynasty began: and had in it 170 
* not complete but current.  years, divided among five Kings; and they were these. Gyges' 38. Ardis 49. Sadiattes 12. Halyattes 57 Croesus' 14.  
Scaliger gathereth out of Sosicrates a Laconian Historiographer, that Cyrus took Sardes, and subdued Croesus, 41. years after the death of Periander, who thereupon setteth the end of Croesus his Kingdom in the first year of the 59 Olympiad; the like doth Helvicus and some others. And indeed the account would fit the turn well enough, if all things else were correspondent: but because they are not, I must let it alone to them that like it. For though from the fortieth year of Periander (which was all the time that he reigned, according to Laertius) there be 41. years to the time that Cyrus subdued Croesus; yet not so many from the end of his 44. at which time he died; even in the fourth year of the 48. Olympiad, as already hath been showed. I conclude therefore that when Croesus lost his Kingdom, it was not the first year of the 59 Olympiad, but rather and indeed the first year of the 58. Olympiad, & fourteenth year of his reign. For we are not to account that last of his to be complete, but current, when this calamity fell upon him: and that it was also towards Winter, in the year of the Julian Period 4166. Which being considered I would that the reign of the Lydians be set one year higher than they be in the Table in the first Part, next after the one hundred and nineteenth Page. For there the conquest that Cyrus made of Croesus his Kingdom, standeth against the year of the Julian Period 4167: whereas here I conclude it to be in the year of the same Period 4166. when the Soldiers were ready to take up their winter quarters.  
But now see the List.  
Years of the julian Period when they beg. A List or Catalogue of the Kings of Lydia, rightly fixed. 3918. Ardysus 36. 3954. Alyattes 14. 3968. Meles 12. 3980. Candaules 17. This is he, who lost his Kingdom by showing his naked Wife to Gyges. 3997. Gyges' 38. 4035. Ardys 49. 4084. Sadiattes 12. 4096. Halyattes 57 4153. Croesus' 14. current. Cyrus' conquered him and his Kingdom in the first year of the 58. Olympiad, teste Solino: and that was in the year of the Julian Period 4166. as before was said. He had a Son who never spoke in all life till now: but now seeing a Soldier go about to kill his Father, upon a sudden passion he broke his Tongue-string, cried out and said; Oh man take heed, wilt thou kill Croesus? And from that day to his death he could speak as well as other men. Herodot.  
The next to be mentioned according to their order or course of time be the Kings of the Medes: 
The reign of the Medes.  of whom I gave notice in the latter end of the second Chapter.  
They reigned without any strict hand over their subjects, until the days of Diocese: and that's the reason why he is accounted by Herodotus, as the first King. Nor is this my opinion alone, 
Hist. World l. 2. c. 27. S. 5.  but of Sir Walter Raleigh likewise in his History of the World: saying, this Diocese was the first that ruled the Medes in a strict form, commanding more absolutely than his Predecessors had done. For they following the example of Arbaces, had given to the people so much licence, as caused every one to desire the wholesome severity of a more Lordly King. Herein Diocese answered their desires to the full. For he caused them to build for him a stately Palace; he took unto him a Guard, for the defence of his Person; he seldom gave presence which also when he did, it was with such austerity, that no man durst presume to spit or cough in his fight. By these and the like Ceremonies he bred in the people an awful regard and highly upheld the Majesty, which his Predecessors had almost let fall, through neglect of due comportments.  
In execution of his royal office, he did uprightly and severely administer justice, keeping secret spies to inform him of all that was done in the Kingdom. He cared not to enlarge the bounds of his Dominion, by encroaching upon others, but studied how to govern well his own.  
The difference found between this King, and such as were before him, seems to have bred that opinion which Herodotus delivers, that Diocese was the first who reigned in Media. Thus that Knight.  
Moreover this was he that built the great City of Echatane, which now is called Tauris; and therefore should in all likelihood be that King Arphaxad, mentioned in the book of Judith: which even the course of time approveth.  
But if he be Arphaxad, who was it that was that great Nabuchodonosor which fought against him. I answer, this seems to be Saosduchinus King of the Assyrians: about the beginning of whose twelfth year Diocese was slain. For so it is read in the first Chapter of the book of Judith, translated into Latin out of the Caldee by St. Hierom, as a worthy Author well observeth, in his laborious and learned Annals of the old Testament. In the Greek indeed we are one while directed to the twelfth year, another while to the seventeenth year of this King: but that unconstancy argues a defect in the Copy; and so I leave it, coming now to show the course of succession among these Kings of Media, who began at the death of Sardanapalus.  
Years of the julian Period when they beg. A Catalogue or List of the Kings of Media; partly out of Eusebius, and partly out of Herodotus. 3893. Arbaces 28. 3921. Sosarmus 30. 3951. Medidus 40. 3991. Cardiceas 13. 4004. Diocese 53. 4057. Phraortes 22. 4079. Cyaxares 40. 4119. Astyages 35. 4154. Here was the end of Astyages, and the beginning of the reign of Cyaxares secundus: who according to Xenophon, was the son of Astyages, and called in the sacred Prophecy of Daniel by the name of Darius Medus. He was the Uncle of Cyrus, as being Brother to his Mother; which Xenophon also showeth. Moreover we are to note, that in the book of Tobit and Daniel, Astyages the Father of this Cyaxares, is called Ahasuerus or Assuerus; as may be seen, Dan. 9.1. and Tob. 14.17.  
Next after these we are to reckon the Kings of Assyria which reigned at Niniveh after the death of Sardanapalus, 
Kings of Assyria after Sardanapalus  as those before mentioned reigned in Media. The first of them may be granted to be that King whom Castor in his Canon calleth Ninus secundus; saying (as his words sound in the Latin: Initium Chronographiae fecimus a Nino, & eam deduximus usque ad Ninum qui successionis jure accèpit Regnum a Sardanapalo. Thus he. Now this name some think was given him for the better luck sake: namely as I conceive; That as the ancient Ninus did at the first enlarge this Kingdom so as it came to be a great Monarchy: in like manner the same was hoped for by them who gave this name to this King. Or else, because he was fortunate in the enlarging of it, they said of him that he was a second Ninus: the time of whose reign is gathered out of Castor aforesaid, in the Greek Chronicle of Eusebius, to be nine years.  
His Successor I take to be the same who in the Scripture is called Phul, and came in the days of Menahem and invaded the land of Israel, 2 Kin. 15.19. and 1 Chr. 5.26. How long he reigned is not expressed any where that I know, except it be in the Writings of Annius, where we find 48. years mentioned for the time of his reign. Tiglath pilezer succeeded him, and (according to the said Author) reigned 25. years, Salmanasar 17. Senacharib 7.  
How I should contradict this Author for the reigns of these four Kings, I cannot see; except it be in the reign of Phul, who (if the rest be right) must have but 43. because after Senacharibs army was slain by the Angel, and that he thereupon went straight way home with shame to his own Country, he lived not fully fifty five days. For before 55. days were ended, he was slain by his own Sons, Adramelech and Sharezer, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, Tob. 1.21. and Esa. 37.38. If any further help could be had from other Authors, I would not be beholding to Annius for thus much: but because it cannot, it will I hope be no harm to take aim from him so fare as he thwarts no other. To the next King (namely Esarhaddon; or, as he is otherwise written, Asarhaddon) he giveth ten years, but there I leave him. For it is extremely probable that he had a longer time than so: thirty years in Niniveh; and after that, twelve years more in Babylon; In all 42. with some odd months over & above. For at the end of the eight years of Interregnum that were in Babylon, the King that began to reign there was Assaradinus, as Ptolemy calleth him in his Mathematical Canon of the Kings of Babylon: who in all probability was this Assarhaddon the Son of Senacharib, formerly mentioned.  
And now see the List.  
Years of the Julian when they began to reign. A List or Catalogue of the Kings of Assyria after Sardanapalus. 3893. Ninus junior 19 3912. Phul 43. 3955. Tiglath. pileser 25. 3980. Salmanassar 17. 3997. Senacharib 7. 4004. Esarhaddon 30. 4034. Here (as is probable) this King Esarhaddon beto reign in Babylon, after he had been King of Assyria 30. years.  
But the first of them in Babylon (whose years of reign stand upon record) since the Death of Sardanapalus, was Nabonassar: and with him Ptolemy gins his Mathematical Canon before mentioned. Howbeit, by what we find elsewhere, it may be gathered that there were Kings of Babylon after Sardanapalus, before the Aera of this King Nabonassar took beginning as in Eusebius his Chronicle may be seen, in the beginning, of the reign of Arbaces. For first, having showed how the Empire of the Assyrians was shattered in pieces by the fall of this Epicurious King, he saith that the Medes brought it home to themselves; that is, they purchased hereby their ancient Liberty: which (with reference to the opinion of Herodotus, before mentioned) he showeth to be so great, that it was as if they had no Princes to reign over them until the time of Diocese; and yet he setteth down four that reigned before him. But they, by slacking too much the reins of Sovereignty, did more hurt to the general estate of Media then the pleasure of freedom, which it enjoyed could recompense. For hereupon it came to pass that the Assyrians encroached upon their Dominions, and got away some towns from them, which they held still in the days of Salmanassar when the ten Tribes were carried away captive, as the holy Scriptures bear us witness in 2 Kin. 18.11. and elsewhere. Then secondly, the Chaldeans also prevailed, and had (saith Eusebius) successions of Kings: And so had other Nations too, who were now governed by their own proper Kings as well as they. By which it appeareth, that there were Kings of Babylon before Nabonassar: for the time from the death of Sardanapalus to the beginning of his reign, was 74 years; But who they were that reigned in that space (excepting Belesis or Belochus who was contemporary with Arbaces) is altogether unknown. Probable it is that a new race of Kings began in Nabonassar, or that he was some excellent restorer of Astronomy, and thereupon had the honour of an account of times to be instituted and observed in memory of him ever after: which began on the six and twentieth day of February, in the year of the Julian Period 3967, when the year of the World was 3258. And as for the Kings you have them before, in the first Part; even in the latter end of the seventh Chapter, page 50.  
The reigns also of the Kings of Persia, 
The Kings of Persia.  from the beginning of Cyrus, to the end of the last Darius, be likewise there, in the seventh Section of the eighth Chapter. I shall not need therefore to set them down again here in this place, but come next to the Kings of Mecedon.  
These reigned 485 years, from the beginning of Cranaus, 
The Kings of Mecedon.  to the death of Alexander Magnus: as Saint Austin rightly reckoneth, in his twelfth book, and tenth Chapte Decivitate Dei. This Cranaus began in the year of the Julian Period 3905. and reigned twenty eight years: of whom, and his Successors, in the following List.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. A List or Catalogue of the Kings of Macedon, fixed in their right times. 3905. Cranaus 28. 3933. Coenus 12. 3945. Tyrimas 38. 3983. Perdiccas' the first 51. 4034. Archaeus 38.  
Years of the julian Period when they beg. The continuation of the former List or Catalogue of the Kings of Macedon. 4072. Philippus 38. 4110. Aeropus 26. 4136. Alcetas 29. 4165. Amyntas the first 50. 4215. Alexander dives 43. 4258. Perdiccas' the second 41. 4299. Archelaus 16. 4315. Orestes 00. 4315. Aeropas', tutor to Orestes 6. 4321. Pausanias' 1. 4322. Amyntas primo 1. 4323. Argeus' 2. 4325. Amyntas again 21. 4346. Alexander 1. 4347. Alorites 3. 4350. Prediccas' 4. 4354. Philip the Father of Alexander 24. 4378. Alexander magnus 12. 4390. Here Alexander died, even in the first year of the hundreth and fourteenth Olympiad.  
And note that Perdiccas the second had a longer reign than is commonly given him: for he was alive in the sixtenth year of the Peloponnesian War, and could not therefore have less than forty one years, which number is given him by Nicomedes Acanthius, as he is cited by Master Selden in his Marmora Arundelliana. When he had reigned about twenty seven years (viz. about the third or fourth year of the Peloponnesian War) Sitalces King of Thrace came against him with a purpose to have made Philip the son of Amyntas King: but by the care of Perdicccas a Peace was made, and so Perdiccas kept his Kingdom still.  
Note also that at the death of Alexander magnus, the Grecian Monarchy was divided, and came at last to be in four chief darts; viz. Syria, Macedon, Egypt, and Asia the less: as before, in the first Part may be seen.   

CHAP. XII. Of the Kings, and other Governors of Rome from the foundation thereof by Romulus, to the Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.  
I Shown before, in the end of the ninth Chapter of this second Part, that when Romulus began to reign the foundation of Rome was laid; viz. in the year of the Julian Period 3962. at the Summer time whereof the first year of the seventh Olympiad began, 432. years after the Destruction of Troy. This was in the year of the World 3253. the sixth year of Jotham King of Judah, and the seventh of Paka King of Israel: before which time, that which now began to be a City, was but an ordinary Village. The first Government whereof was by Kings, which lasted 244. years; as in the following Catalogue may be seen.  
Years of the Julian Period when they beg. A Catalogue of the Kings of Rome, fixing them all in their right places. 3962. Romulus' 37. 3999. An Interregnum 1. 4000 Numa Pompilius 43. 4043. Tullus Hostilius 32. 4075. Ancus Martius 24. 4099. Tarqvinius Priscus 38. 4137. Servius Tullius 44. 4181. Tarqvinius Superbus 25. 4206. Here was the end of the Government by Kings.  
The next Government was of Consuls, who began in the year of the Julian Period 4206. There were other alterations afterward: but that which was most eminent was the Government of Emperors. The first whereof in some sort was Julius Cesar, by whom the Britain's were made tributary in the ninth of Cassibelan: but not till Augustus was Rome fully brought under the command of one Sovereign Imperial Monarch. He therefore properly was the first Emperor: whose death did so much grieve the people, that they wished either that he had never been borne, or else that he had never died. Tiberius succeeded him, and began in the Julian Period 4727. after his Predecessor forementioned had reigned 57 years, five months, and four days; for Cesar was slain in the Senate house (receiving there three and twenty wounds) in the year of the Julian Period 4670. on the fifteenth day of March: and Tiberius began on the nineteenth day of August, when Augustus died, even in the year of the said Period 4727 aforesaid, not long before that Eclipse of the Moon which Tacitus mentions.  
This Tiberius died on the sixteenth day of March, in the year of the Julian Period 4750, after he had reigned 22 years, six months, and 28 days.  
His successor was Caligula, who reigned three years ten months, and nine days: He was so prodigal that he spent an hundred Millions of money in three years. He deflowered his three fisters, and one of their daughters: and was also so cruel, that he wished all the people of Rome to have had but one neck, that he might cut it off at one blow. Finally, he died (being slain by Cassius, Cherea, and Sabinus the Tribune) on the 24 day of January, in the year of the Julian Period 4754.  
His Uncle Claudius succeeded him, and reighed thirteen years, eight months, and ten days. In his time was that Famine which Agabus foretold, Acts 11.28. He commanded all Jews to departed from Rome, Acts 18.2. And made Felix Governor of Judea, who was made to tremble in the presence of his Minion Drausilla, at Saint Paul's Sermon of Temperance, and Judgement to come, Acts 24.24, 25. Simon Magus lived in his time, and so played his pranks in Rome that he got to be honoured as a God.  
After Claudius, that cruel monster Nero began to reign, in the year of the Julian Period 4767, on the thirteenth day of October; at which time the aforesaid Emperor died, being poisoned by his wife Agrippina through the help of a Physician whose name was Xenophon. This Nero was a most notorious wicked man; he reigned thirteen years, seven months, and 28. days; dying by his own hand on the ninth of June in the year of the Julian Period 1681, one year and 20 days before Vespasion was made Emperor.  
Galba succeeded in the year aforesaid; whose whole time was but seven months and eight days. He was slain by Otho, who (after three months and four days) killed himself, being overcome by Vitellius, who also, after nine months is slain, and Vesprtian thereupon sole Emperor. In the second year of whose reign, that stately City and Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus, the gallant and brave son of this Emperor, in the year of the Julian Period 4783; as more at large, in my first Part and last Chapter I have declared: to which I now send you. For here I intent no more, but shall put an end now even to this Part also; giving thanks unto God, who hath brought me unto it.   
Laus Deo.  
FINIS.   

Errata.  
PAge 5. for evolvendo, read revolvendo. page 9 line 24. for be the best, read be in the best. p. 12. l. 27. read excerptis, p. 14. l. 21. r. course of the Sun. p. 15. l. 1. f. no other, r. no month, p. 16 l. 2. for twentieth r. two and tweitieth, and l. 4. f. been r. but, p. 17. l. 4. r. spoken of, p 25. cap 5. f. October r. April, p 29. f. a Quartain r. that a quartain, p. 31. l. 8. for of the Rest r. of Rest, p. 33. l. 3. r. enough, p. 36. l. 18. r. is concluded, p. 37. l. 1. f. to r. in, l. 14. f. on r. of, p 38 l. 1. r. had not been, l. 27. f. to r. on, f. a Sabbath r. Sabbath, l. 34. r. as I said, l. 37. r. as we are, pag. 39 l. 11. r. on Ararat, p. 40. lin 32. for thirteenth read thirtieth, page 42. line 42. for Egypt, read out of Egypt, page 49. line 9 for to read not, page 70. line 13. r. of the Chaldees and l. 20. f. 57, r. 75. p. 71, l. 23, r. was his house, p. 72, l. 3, r. go on, p. 75, l. 17, f. sed r. blessed, p. 76, l. 27, r. which was 137 p. 77, l. 17, r. how to account, p. 83, lin 36, r. Danites, p. 91, l. 14, r. Jehoahaz 3 months: In the Table of the Kings of Judah in Joash his reign, f. the seventeenth of Jehu, r. the seventh, p. 108, l. 37, r. Zacharia, p. 110, l. 32, r. Zorobabel, p. 112, l. 24, r. as Ezra showeth, c. 4.   


An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The twelfe Month MARCH. The twelfth Month, Anno Mundi 1657.   1 12  A  2 13  B On this day a third Dove is sent, and she returns no more; howbeit, Noah did not open the covering of the Ark until the first day of the next Month, Gen. 8.12, 13. 3 14  C 4 15  D 5 16  E 6 17  F  7 18  G  8 19  A  9 20  B  10 21  C The first day of the Week. 11 22  D  12 23  E  13 24  F  14 25  G  15 26  A  16 27  B  17 28  C The first day of the Week. 18 29  D  19 30  E  20 31  F  21 1 April. G The first day of APRIL. 22 2 A  23 3  B  24 4  C The first day of the Week. 25 5  D  26 6  E  27 7  F  28 8  G  29 9  A  30 10  B On this day was the Vernal Equinox. In Part I. the first leaf of K. is fall, put this leaf in its place.  

An Hebrew and Julian Calendar for the Year of the Universal Deluge or Flood.  The first Month. APRIL. The first Month, Anno Mundi 1658. 1 11  C On the first day of this Month Noah removed the Covering of the Ark, and looked, and behold the face of the ground was dry, Gen. 8.13. howbeit he cometh not out till God commanded him, which was not until the 27 th'. day of the next Month: For though the Waters were dried from off the Superficies of the Earth by this first day of the first Month, yet the ground was still soft, unfit for habitation, and not dry enough to be trodden on by either Man or Beast, until the twenty seventh day of the second Month, in this year of the World 1658. 2 12  D 3 13  E 4 14  F 5 15  G 6 16  A 7 17  B 8 18  C 9 19  D 10 20  E 11 21  F 12 22  G 13 23  A  14 24  B  15 25  C The first day of the Week. 16 26  D  17 27  E  18 28  F  19 29  G  20 30  A  21 1 May B The first day of MAY. 22 2 C The first day of the Week. 23 3 D  ●4 4 E  25 5 F  26 6 G  27 7 A  28 8 B  29 9 C The first day of the Week.   

A Postscript to the Reader.  
Gentle Reader,  
I Am now come towards the conclusion or end of what at my first undertaking I intended: for the close of which I have got together a few Characters Chronological Characters, which now in the last place I present unto thee: They are pertinent to what is before written in my Measuring Reed, and will serve well to confirm the whole Fabric of my foregoing computation.  
And first I will begin with Adam, of whom I have not much to say, and yet if I might not be thought too curious, I could show wi●h very much ease and probability the very day as well as the year of his death. He was not borne nor begotten, but treated in the year of the Julian Period 710, on the 29 day of April, Feria sexta, when the Sun was in the sixth degree of Aries, as I have elsewhere showed: from whence he lived (as the Scripture telleth us) 930 years, Gen. 5.5. His Death must therefore be in the year of the same period 1640, at such time as the Sun was again in the same point of Heaven, as at the first when God created him: which in this year of his death is found to be on the 22 day of April. This 22 day in the year aforesaid was on the sixth day of the week, when was also the 14 day of the first month. Adam therefore died on the same day of the week on which he was made, which was also the same day of the month on which I find it probable that he fell. To which the Testimony of Eutychius a learned Patriarch of Constantinople well agreeth, for as hath been told us by that famous and illustrious Master Selden, Adam died on the sixth day of the week, and fourteenth day of that month which was nearest to the Vernal Equinox, as learned Languius expounds that passage of his taken from Eutychius which is indeed an exposition very true. For thus stands the words in Mr. Seldens Book De Anno Judaico, if they be set down in English; And Adam died on Friday on the fourteenth day of the Moonth, which was the sixth day of the Month Nisan etc. By which sixth day of Nisan he certainly meaneth the sixth day after the Sun entered into Aries, at which time must be the fourteenth day of the Moon and sixth day of the week. All which I find to be exactly on the 22 day of April aforesaid, in the year of the Julian Period 1640, which was therefore the very day and year of Adam's death, and very beginning of the year of the World, 931.  
The further consideration of which is not only a sure character of the precise time of the creation, but also serveth to declare that the Ages of the patriarchs were full and complete years, and that therefore Noah's Flood came not in the year of the World 1656, as the most account; but in the year of the World 1657. for Methuselah must finish the years of his life before it came, as the signification of his name in the Hebrew showeth; which is, He dyeth, and the emission, or Dart cometh.  
In this year of the World (being the year of the Julian Period 2366) the seventeenth day of the second month, on which day the Flood began, was also on the sixth day of the week: which is a character likewise worth the marking. For it clearly showeth that as on the sixth day of the week, God made both Man and Beast; so on the same day of the week he sends a flood of Waters to destroy them. And as this was on the sixth day of the week; so when Noah came out of the Ark was the seventh day of the week, in the year of the Julian Period 2367. on the fifth day of June, which in that year was the 27 day of the second month and Sabbath day: at which time Noah offered Sacrifice, even at the very end of a full year of days after the flood began: which adds still something for confirmation.  
Another Character next after this confirming me yet more fully in a firm confidence of the truth of my accounts, is taken from the time of the coming out of Egypt, which I find to be on the last day of April in the year of the Julian Period 3224. which very day in that year was on the sixth day of the week, even as on the same day of the week Christ purchased a better Redemption by the blood of his cross, one thousand five hundred and two and twenty years after. In all which I do much admire at the wonderful providence of God, in disposing of the Times so exactly and harmoniously: for as on the sixth day of the week Man was made, and Christ suffered; so on the sixth day of the week Israel was delivered out of the Egyptian bondage, on the very next day after the Passover, even as on the next day after the Passeover Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, to free us from the bondage of sin and Satan.  
Nor in this year would that character which we have in Exodus, from the history of the Quails and Manna, be forgotten. For as we read in the sixteenth chapter, on the fifteenth day of the second month the people murmured for lack of meat: whereupon God sent them Quails at Even, and on the morrow morning Manna; which they gathered six days but on the seventh day they found none, Exod. 16.26. By which we see, not only that the 22 day of the month must be Sabbath day, but also that the first Manna fell on the first day of the week now called the Lords Day in memory of our Saviour's Resurrection, and hath been the Christians Sabbath ever since. Which is exactly true in the year that I account, if but 29 days be reckoned for the first month, awd 30 for the second: which (as I have showed before, in place convenient) is more consentaneous to the motion of the Moon, then to have 30 for the first, before the odd hours arise to a day; for this could not be before the second month. The first month therefore in any year hath but 29 days, the second 30, the third 29, the fourth 30 etc. For in one month (according to the mean motion of the Moon, from one conjunction to another) we have but 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, three seconds, and 12 thirds. I account therefore that the Israelites came out of Egypt, when the 29 day of April was ending, and the 30 beginning, which was Feria sexta. I account likewise that the first Magna fell on the 30 day of May, which was the 16 day of the secrnd month Feria prima: and consequently that the 29 day of of May, and fifth of June were Sabbath days; the one on the 15 day of the second month, and the other on the 22. And thus is this year truly found by the correspondence we see it hath with these characters.  
The like confirmation I find for the years in which I account the Temple to be founded and dedicated by King Solomon, and aster that burned by Nabuchadnezzar. For first it being true, that the Israelites came out of Egypt in the year of the Julian Period 3224, it must needs follow, that King Solomon laid the foundation of the Temple in the year of the same Period 3703, for it must be in the fourth year of King Solomon, on the second day of the second month, 480 year's current after the coming out of Egypt, as we are taught in the 1 Kin. 6.1. And that being the year when it was dedicated (being seven years after) must needs be in the year of the same Period 3710; which was not only seven years after, but was also the eleventh year of Solomon, as we are likewise taught it should be, in the 1 Kin. chap. 6. verse. 38. and chap. 8.2. Now this I confirm both by the time that the Temple stood, and also by the courses of the Priests which served in the said Temple till Nabuchadnezzar destroyed it. The first of these is abundantly proved by me to be 423 years and some odd months, which therefore casteth the destruction thereof into the year of the Julian Period 4126. Over and above which proofs of mine, I have seen that since which I do much admire; namely, that some of the skilful Rabbins have said and recorded it, that the same number was heretofore read in the Heavens from such letters as the Stars in their position made: For as Gaffarell a learned French man hath told us, R. Rapoll, Chomier, and Abjudan have delivered to posterity the deep secrets of a celestial writing and Reading, which discovers many strange things to them who are able to understand it: and among the rest this is one, namely, That a little before this Temple we now speak of was destroyed and burnt by Nabuchadnezzar, it was observed that eleven of the Stars that were most vertical to it, composed, for a pretty while together, five Hebrew Letters, which being joined together, made up this word (reading it from the North towards the West) Hikschich, which signifieth to reject, and forsake without any Mercy: and the number of three of them added together, amounted to 423, the very space of Time that this stately piece of building had stood. All this I find in the unheardof curiosities of James gaffarel, at the 13 chapter, which whilst I mention I look upon mine own proofs with the more confidence, and though I profess no skill in such curiosities, yet I will embrace truth wheresoever I find it.  
This then for the time of the Temple being thus, the Character which I have to confirm all else about it, is this; namely, the courses of the Priests which served in the Temple, from the first Sabbath of the Dedication, till Nabuchadnezzar destroyed it. For we may easily believe that in the first Sabbath of the Dedication, the first course (which was the course of Joarib) began, which I have elsewhere proved by the Hebrew and Julian Calendar of that year (which was the year of the julian Period 3710) to be on the 17 day of October. To which time and year if we add 224 julian years (in which space the courses return to the same day again) we shall come to the year of the Julian period 3934. on the 17 day of October. After which we have 192 years more before we can come to the year of the Julian period 4126, in which the Temple was destroyed; noting these 192 years to end on the 17 of October likewise. And in 192 years we find 417 courses with 72 days over and above: which 72 days being taken out of the number of days which were from the beginning of that year of the Julian period to the said 17 day of October, do direct us to the sixth day of August, which then was Sabbath day, and the course of Joarib: even that very course of his, in which the Temple was destroyed; as before, in the seventh Chapter, pag. 44.45, etc. may be seen.  
But I cannot forget the 423 so strangely found out by Chomier for the time of the Temple. gaffarel, out of him hath other periods not impertinent, found out also by the foresaid Reading of the Stars: as that the Kingdom of the Jews, from the beginning of the 40 years given to Samuel and Saul in the Acts of the Apostles, to the deplorable condition of Zedechia, should be 505 years, for so indeed it was, if we reckon from the beginning of the 40 year aforesaid to the time that Nabuchadnezzar laid his last siege against Jerusalem, 430 days before the City was taken. This number of 505 he saith was signified by five stars, which composed three mystical letters, out of which was made an Hebrew word whose signification was to break, cast down, and to drive out: the Number arising from those letters being 505. And why I end them at the foresaid deplorable condition of Zedechia in the time of the siege, is, ecause this position of Stars was seen thus and read a little before the Jews saw their Sceptre cast down to the ground, and their liberty quite carried Captive into Babylon: which must needs be in the year of the Julian period 4125, when Nabuchadnezzar laid his last siege against Jerusalem.  
Thus after the same manner the length of the Persian Monarchy founded by Cyrus, is said to be 208 years: in which though he may seem to differ two years from my account, which precisely alloweth but 206; yet he doth abundantly confute Beroaldus, Broughton, and such others who would make the world believe that this Monarchy lasted but 130 years or thereabouts, whereas it must be 206 at the least, and begin (according to Xenophon) seven years before the death of King Cyrus: or 208 if we account from the time that Cyrus laid the foundation thereof in conquering Asia and the whole continent about Babylon, against which he made his last expedition two years before he took it. The notice of which time is not impertinent: for even the prophet had an eye thereunto, in Jer. 51.46. Howbeit the Head of Gold was not as yet quite cut off: for that was not till Babylon was taken and Belshazzar slain: not many hours before which, there was an hand-writing upon the wall which told it. Then was as well the first year of Cyrus, as of Darius Medus, how else had Daniel been in Babylon unto the first of Cyrus, seeing upon the Conquest Darius took him with him into Media, as Josephus showeth: where he was unto the third year of Cyrus, though how much longer we know not; Dan. 10.1. Whereas therefore it is said [in Dan. 1.21.] that Daniel was unto the first year of Cyrus, it is to be understood thus; namely, That Daniel continued in Babylon till that state was altered, and the Kingdom translated to Cyrus: who made such a partition thereof between himself and Darius, as that Darius had the chief Title of honour, though he in effect had the dominion. That which we read in the fifth Chapter hath respect hereunto; for there we read, not only that Belshazzars Kingdom was divided, and given to the Medes and the Persians; but also that Darius Medus took the Kingdom, being threescore and two years old, Dan. 5.28.31. After which it seemeth probable that he lived but a while: not only because his Climacterical year was now at hand, but also in regard of the time noted in the date of daniel's Visions. For in this new State, after daniel's first Vision in the first year of Darius, when he prayed for the return of the people from their captivity, there is no more mentioned of any thing dated in the years of his Reign, but in the years of Cyrus: which if Darius had been still alive, would not have been; as is easy to go grant if we do but consider that Darius took Daniel away with him into Media as soon as Babylon was conquered, and made him there the chiefest Officer of his Kingdom. Nay more, that this first year of Darius must be the very year likewise when Cyrus released the captivity, is plain; not only because now the 70 years were accomplished, which were both the date of Nebuchadnezars Kingdom 
Dau. 5.26. Jer. 2●.  finished at the death of Belshazzar and of the people's servitude which was to be during the Reign of him, his son, and his son's son, whom Esay calleth his 
Esa. 14.22 in which place by Nephew, we are to understand the son's son. The same with that in Jer. 27.7.  Nephew: but also in regard of daniel's prayer for their Return made at this time, which was indeed the fulfilling of the condition required of God in his promise concerning their freedom. For as soon as ever God had made a promise to his people that they should come home again when 70 years began to be accomplished at Babylon, than this followeth, and is annexed as the condition of his promise; namely, that they seek him: for (as Junius renders that text) when ye shall call upon me that ye may 
Or go away.  return, and pray unto me, then will I hear you, jer. 29.10.12. which when Daniel considered, he prays earnestly to God in the behalf of the people, even in the first year of Darius, and is told by the Angel Gabrel not only that his prayer was heard, but also that the Lord had decreed a spiritual deliverance for his Church, which at the time appointed, and mentioned in the seventy weeks, should be accomplished by the death of Christ, whom Daniel calls the Messiah; as may beseen at large in the ninth Chapter of his prophecy.  
But to return again to Gaffarel and his learned Chomier, who tell us that the continuation likewise of the Grecian Kingdom is also found after the same manner, and in the Heavens pointed out to be 284 years; which was foreshowed by four Stars that made up the Verb Parad, a word which signifieth to divide; and in which the number was 284. Now this is true as well as the rest that are before mentioned, if we begin to reckon from the year of the julian period 4384 when Alexander the Great subdued 
He was the last King of the Persian Monarchy.  Darius Codoman, and end in the year of the same period 4668. when julius Caesar was created perpetual Dictator for the Romans, in whom the foundation also of their Monarchy began first to be laid, though it came to no great perfection till Augustus overcame Mark Anthony: from whence all the time after, to the destruction of jerusalem by Titus, is ninety and nine years. And at that I end. LAUS SOLI DEO.  
FINIS.