CHAP. 1. The Introduction.

I Need not inlarge in the praises of that great ornament of his Age, See and Country, the in­comparable Arch-Bishop Usher. They that would be satisfied of the worth of that excellent person may read his Life with the Appendix to it, and more especially his Works, which sufficiently praise him in the gate: As they that would know how great an esteem the most eminent men for Piety and Learning in his time (not only in great Brittain and Ireland, but also in other parts) had of him, may consult the Letters writ by them to him, and since Printed with his to them. Yet since his death several have appear'd publickly against him, and some of them have treated him very unbecomingly, to say no more. Of these I shall single out the Author of the Palaeologia Chronica D ^r Cary, and him whom he hath call'd to be his Se­cond, viz. D ^r Vossius, Both these are displeas­ed with the Arch-Bishop for shortning the [Page 2] time from the Creation of the world: but more especially D ^r Cary. He is displeased with Petavius and Eusebius upon the same account, but the storm of his displeasure falls most se­verely upon the Arch-Bishop. ‘Yet this (says he) was nothing to that which Bishop Usher did since in vindication of the Masora, by a way of new righting of times and new sha­ping of persons, far otherwise then was ever taken notice of by any man living before.’ Thus D ^r Cary Part 2. Bo. 2. §. 3. Ch. 17. Now (to pass by those obscure expressions New right­ing of times and New shaping of persons) I grant that the Arch-Bishop may have offer'd some things to his Readers consideration, which no man had ever taken notice of before; but then he doth it with such candor and mo­desty, as (if he do erre) may obtain his par­don from all ingenuous persons, And withall he confirms them with such Authorities and Arguments, as that it is not very easie for those that are not of his opinion to refute him. A further plea may be offer'd for him, drawn from the uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology, by reason whereof no man can state the account, especially of Ancient times so, as that one or other shall not be ready to quarrel with it.

Of the uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology.

I Say of the greatest part of Chronology, for I most willingly grant that part of it is certain: as 1. Whatsoever relating to Chronology is plainly expressed in sacred Writ, or may be deduc'd from it by a clear and un­deniable consequence, that must be concluded to be certain. 2. The Chronology of Hea­then writers, so far as it agrees with and is con­sonant to the Scripture Chronology, is also to be look'd upon as certain. 3. Josephus c. A­pion. l. 1. says that all men confess that A­lexander the great dy'd in the 114 ^th. Olym­piad, and if any one shall affirm that this ac­count of his death (or any thing else, that is as universally and unanimously attested, as ac­cording to Josephus it is) is certain, I shall not gainsay. But as to other things, thô some have expressed very much confidence, and seem to have firmly perswaded themselves that they had demonstrated the certainty of them: yet I think it will appear that they have rather demonstrated their uncertainty. However I doubt not but every unprejudic'd Reader will be satisfi'd of the uncertainty of them. To manifest which, I shall not run through all the 4 Monarchies (that would be too tedious) but confine my self to the first, [Page 4] i. e. the Assyrian: and I the rather pitch upon it, because D ^r Cary is so much displeased with Eusebius and Petavius, and especially the Arch-Bishop, for shortning the time of that Monar­chy. The method which I shall observe will be to take a view 1. Of Kingdoms, viz the Kingdom of Assyria it self and the Kingdoms contemporary to it, 2. Of persons and occur­rences, and to shew how uncertain an account is given of the time of all these. I begin with Kingdoms, as

1. The Kingdom of the Assyrians. Hero­dotus l. 1. c. 95. says that the Assyrians had held the dominion of the upper Asta 520 years, when the Medes began to break from them. Justin l. 1. c. 2, and 3. says that the Assyri­ans had held the Empire 1300 years, when the Medes rebell'd against them. Velleius Pa­terc, l. 1. writes that the Empire was tran­slated to the Medes when the Assyrians had possessed it 1070 years. Ctesias ap. Diodor. Sicul. l. 2. will have the duration of that Mo­narchy to have been 1360 years. Diodorus Sic. himself will have it to have been above 1400 years. Castor ap. Syncellum p. 168. al­lots to it An. 1280. According to Cephalion ap. Syncell. p. 167. all those that reign'd after Semiramis held the Empire An. 1000. Thal­lus ap. Theophilum ad Autol. l. 3. and Lactan­tium l. 1. c. 23. affirms Belus to have been An. 322. before the Trojan war. S. August. [Page 5] de Civit. Dei l. 18. c. 21. says that the Em­pire of the Assyrians was translated to the Medes after almost An. 13 5. taking the time that Belus reign'd into the account. Orosius l. 1. c. 3. writes that Babylon was rob'd of its wealth, King and Empire by the Medes al­most 1164 years after that it was built by Se­miramis. Africanus ap. Syncell. p. 92, and 165. makes the duration of this Empire (including the reign of Belus) to have been An. 1460. Finally Eusebius says that all the years of the Assyrian Empire from the first of Ninus were 1240. [Because I shall have frequent occa­sion to lledge Eusebius. I desire it may be ob­serv'd, that when I do alledge him as here with­out directing to the particular place, the citation is to be found in his Chronicon; and that I follow the Latin Edition of him at Basil in Folio.]

We have seen what different accounts the best Writers give of the duration of the Assy­rian Empire: they differ also about the num­ber of their Kings, and of the years that se­veral of them reign'd. As to the number of the Kings, Diodorus Sicul. l. 2. reckons 30, making Sardanapalus the 30 ^th from Ninus: whereas Velleius Paterc. l. 1. makes Sardana­palus to have sprung from Ninus and Semira­mis in the 33 ^d descent, the Son still succeed­ing the Father. Eusebius reckons 36 Kings beginning with Ninus, whereas Syncellus p. 165 taking Belus into the account reckons 41.

As to the time that several of the Assyrian Kings reign'd Eusebius's account differs much from that of Syncellus, as this Scheme fol­lowing will manifest.

Thô the Empire is said to have been tran­slated to the Medes upon the overthrow and death of Sardanapalus, yet the Assyrian Mo­narchy is usually supposed to have continu'd till the beginning of the Persian: so that Ne­buchadnezzar and others that were long af­ter Sardanapalus are reckon'd among the Assy­rian Monarchs, particularly Evilmerodach and Neriglassar or Nericassolassar to the former of whom viz. Evilmerodach Berosus ap. Joseph. c. Apion. l. 1. allots 2 years, and to the la­ter 4; but Josephus himself Ant. l. 10. c. 12. gives to the former An 18. and to the later 40; and the Ecclesiastical Canon ap. Syncell. p. 209. assigns to the former An. 5. to the later 3.

2. The Kingdom of the Egyptians. Ac­cording to Eusebius eleven of the Egyptian Dynasties were contemporary to the Assyrian [Page 7] Monarchy, of which the 16 ^th is the first, and the 26 ^th the last. Africanus ap. Syncell. p. 61. &c. and Eusebius differ much as to these Dynasties.

Besides all this they differ as to the num­ber of the Kings that were in some of the Dynasties.

They also disagree about the number of the years that many of the Kings in these Dy­nasties reigned, but I must not take notice of them all: yet I cannot but observe how He­rodotus and Manetho differ sometimes from one, sometimes from both of them. As in the 26 ^th Dynasty, when Africanus and Eusebius allow to Necao the 2 ^d only 6 years, Herodo­tus l. 2. c. 159. (who calls him Necos) gives him complete 16 years. So when Africanus allots to Vaphres only 19 years, Herodotus l. 2. c. 161. (by whom he is call'd Apries) assigns to him 25. And lastly Herodotus l. 2. c. 157. [Page 8] gives to Psammitichus 54 years, and l. 3. c. 10. to Amasis 44; when Eusebius al­lows to the former only 44, and to the later only 42 or 43. And as to Manetho ay. Joseph. c. Apion. l. 1. the discord between him and them will appear in this following Scheme.

3. The Kingdom of the Sicyonians. Which continu'd An. 862, according to Castor ap. Eu­seb. (in the Basil Edition, but in Scaligers Edition it is 962, not 862.) according to S ^t August. de civ. Dei l. 18. c. 19. An. 959: Suidas in voce [...] says that it continu'd An. 900; the succession of the Sicyonian Kings which we have in Scaligers Excerpt. gr. p. 301. attributes to it An. 980, Syncellus p. 97. An. 967. So as to the particular Kings, Eu­sebius and Syncellus are not agreed how long several of them reign'd.

Add to all this that Homer Iliad. 2. ver. 572. seems to make Adrestus the first King of Si­cyon, [...]: whereas AEgialeus is usually said to have reign'd first there. So Zeuxippus is usually made the last King, and yet Pausanias in Co­rinth. reckons Hippolitus and Lacestades after him, and so do Scaligers Excerptagr. p. 363. The same Pausanias omits the mention of Po­lyphides, who was the next but one before Zeuxippus according to the usual account So little agreement or certainty there is as to the very number of their Kings.

4. The Kingdom of the Argives. I need not mention that Africanus and many besides him will have Moses to have been born in the time of Inachus the first King of the Ar­gives (see Syncellus p. 63.) and yet Euse­bius makes Inachus to have been above 200 years ancienter then Moses. Eusebius also and Syncellus disagree about the time that several of Inachus's Successors reign'd.

Moreover as to the succession in this King­dom of Argos. Pausanias in Corinth. differs both from Eusebius and Syncellus. He re­kons [Page 10] Jasus (if not Gelanor also) among the Kings of the Argives, whereas Eusebius and Syncellus make no mention of them. He also omits Apis and Praetus, the one of which ac­cording to them, was the 3 ^d, the other the 13 ^th King of the Argives. And Apollodorus l. 2. agrees with Pausanias in making Pratus King of Tirinthe, not of Argos.

5. The Kingdom of Athens. From Cecrops the first King (as Eusebius Syncellus and o­thers account him, thô Pausanias in Atticis says that Actaeus reign'd first, and that Cecrops succeeded him: yea he tells how some made Por­phyrion to have reign'd before Actaeus) to the taking Troy were 373 years according to the Marmor Arundel., about 384 according to Syn­cellus, almost 400 according to Eusebius de Praeparat. l. 10. c. 9. As to those that suc­ceeded Cecrops.

Also to Agamestor the 11 ^th of these Ar­chontes for life Eusebius gives 20 years, when Syncellus allows him but 17: yet says at the same time, that others allow him 40. He also tels us that thô he with Eusebius allots to [Page 11] Ariphron the 9 ^th of those Archontes only 20 years, yet Africanus gives him 31. Hip­pomenes was one of the Archontes that were to continue for 10 years, and Eusebius, Syncellus and others give him complete 10 years: yet Suidas in [...] says that for a certain fact he lost the Government before the time. The 4 ^th year of that Hippomenes was accor­ding to Pausanias in Messen. the first year of the 14 ^th Olympiad: but according to Euse­bius it was the first year of the 15 ^th Olym­piad. To the decennial succeeded annual Ar­chontes, and the beginning of these is refer'd by Eusebius to the 2 ^d year of the 24 ^th O­lympiad; but Pausanias in Messen. says plain­ly that there were annual Archontes in the 4 ^th year of the 23 ^d Olympiad, naming Tlesias as Archon then. [I know some alter Pausanias's words so as to make him say quite the contrary; but I dare not deal so with Authors, unless I have some very good ground or valuable Co­py to warrant such a change.] There is no­thing more probable then that Tlesias in Pau­sanias is the same with him whom the Mar­mor Arundel calls Lysias, who was the 3 ^d an­nual Archon, for Creon was the first (as Vel­letus Paterc. l. I. with many more doth testi­fie) and there was but one Archon between Creon and Lysias according to that Marble. And by the way there being a lacuna in the Marble thus (Since ---- An. 418. Lysias be­ing [Page 12] Archon at Athens) perhaps it may be supply'd after this manner (Since the begin­ing of the 2 ^d Messenian war An. 418. Lysias being Archon at Athens) just as Pausanias saith that the Messenian war began when Tle­sias was Archon there. It is true the Anony­mous writer in Excerpt. gr. Scaliger. p. 318. doth place Tlesias 3 years before Creon, not two years after him: but I question whether his Authority be such as may warrant us to correct Pausanias so as to make him say the contrary to that which he doth say in our copies. However that Author doth say that the year of Creon the first annual Archon was the 3 ^d of the 24 ^th Olympiad, whereas Syncel­lus p. 212. refers it to the 19 ^th Olympiad, and adds that some refer it to the 25 ^th Olympiad. In Clemens Alexand. Strom. 1. it is said that the beginning of Theseus's reign was 47 years before the taking of Troy, which agrees nei­ther with Eusebius's account, nor that which is given by Syncellus. According to both Troy was taken in the last year of Menestheus the successor of Theseus: now according to Syn­cellus Theseus reign'd An. 31. and Menestheus 33. according to Eusebius the former 30 years, the later 24.

6. The Kingdom of Mycenoe. Apollodorus l. 2. says that Electrion reign'd at Mycenae with Taphius, but Eusebius and Syncellus make no [Page 13] mention of either of these: and Syncellus brings in Pelops between Eurystheus and A­treus, whereas Eusebius does not mention Pe­lops's being King of Mycenae. We are left wholly in the dark as to the time that Per­seus reign'd there. To Sthenelus Perseus's successor Eusebius (in Scaligers Edition) gives 8 years, and to Eurysteus 43; but in my Edi­tion Eusebius makes Eurysteus to have reign'd An. 45. To Atreus and Thyestes Eusebius al­lots An. 65, Syncellus only 33. and according to Homer l. 2. v. 10. Thyestes seems to have succeeded Atreus, for he says, that Atreus dying left the Scepter to Thyestes, [...] To Agamem­non Syncellus p. 170. with Eusebius gives 18 years, but at the same time observes that O­thers do allot him 35 years, and p. 125. he says that some make him to have reign'd 33 years some 30 or 28. Likewise p. 125. he says that AEgisthus reign'd 7 or 17 years, and yet p. 170. he allows him only 5. Orestes according to Eusebius reign'd 15 years, accor­ding to Syncellus 23, but according to Vel­letus Paterc. l. 1. 70 years.

7. The Kingdom of the Thebans. The Marmor Arundel. makes Cadmus to have come to Thebes when Amphictyon reign'd at Athens, 64 years after the beginning of the reign of Cecrops: but Eusebius says that he came when [Page 14] Pandion was King at Athens, above 120 years after that Cecrops reign'd first there; and he observes also that some do set Cadmus's reign still later, and that above 100 years, when Cecrops the 2 ^d was King at Athens, Clemens Alexand. Strom. 1. refers the coming of Cad­mus to the time when Lynceus reign'd at Ar­gos, but it is not certain when he reign'd there, whether we are to refer the beginning of his reign to the 13 ^h year of Pandions reigning at Athens, with Eusebius, or to the 18 ^th year of Erectheus the successor of Pan­dion, with Syntellus.

8. The Kingdom of the Corinthians. Dio­dorus Sicul. ap. Syncellum p. 179. differs much from Eusebius as to the number of years that several of the Kings of Corinth after the re­turn of the Heraclidae reign'd.

In the margin in Syncellus p. 179. to A­ristomedes 35 years are assign'd, and likewise in 2 Latercula in p. 180. and yet p. 185. only 31 years are allotted to him.

After Automenes the Prytanes of annual Ru­lers continu'd An. 90. according to Diodor. Siculus, about An. 120 according to Eusebius. After them Cypselus obtain'd the Govern­ment, [Page 15] and after him his Son Periander. To Cypselus Aristotle Polit. l. 5. c. ult. gives An. 30. to Periander 44. but Eusebius and Syncellus allow the Father only An. 28. and Diog. Laertius in Periandro allows the Son only 40.

9. The Kingdom of the Medes. How differently the succession of the Kings of Me­dia and the time of their several reign is re­presented by Herodotus l. 1. c. 96. &c, Ctesias ap. Diodor. Sicul. l. 2. Eusebius and Syncel­lus, will best appear by the following Scheme.

I must not omit that though these Authors, how much soever they disagree in other things, do all concur in this, that Astyages was the last King of the Medes; yet Xenophon de Inst. Cyri. l. 1. says that Astyages had a son, who was also his Successor in the Kingdom, viz. Cyaxares.

10 The Kingdom of the Lydians. The account which Herodotus l. 1. c. 7. &c. gives of the Lydian succession differs much from that [Page 16] of Eusebius and Syncellus. Herodotus writes that the Heraclidae Reign'd from Argon the first of them to Candaules the last 505 years; whereas Eusebius and Syncellus take notice of only 3 Kings, viz. Ardysus, Alyattes and Mi­les or Meles before Candaules, and the years that these 4 Kings reign'd being all joyn'd together are only 79. After Candaules those reign'd who are by Herodotus call'd Merm­nadae, and Eusebius with Syncellus agree with him as to the names and number of those that held the Kingdom, yet they dissent from him altogether as to the number of the years that they held it.

11. The Kingdom of the Tyrians. Thô Syncellus p. 182 pretends that he hath the ac­count of the Tyrian Kings which he gives us from Josephus, and it is very probable that Theophilus ad Autol. l. 3. had his from him al­so; vet there is not a perfect accord betwixt theirs and that which we have in Josephus c. A­pion l. 1.

12. The Kingdom of the Macedonians. He­rodotus l. 8. c. 139. names Perdiccas as the first King, and when Thucydides l. 2. says of Archelaus that as to warlike preparations he order'd things better then all the 8 Kings that were before him, he seems to consent there­to; for if Perdiccas was the first King, then there were just 8 before Archelaus. Yet Justin l. 7. c. 2. says that Perdicca reign'd after Ca­ranus, as Solinus c. 9. says that he succeeded him. Suidas concurs with Justin in making Caranus the first King, and Livy l. 45. says ex­presly that he reign'd the first. They that please may also consult Ausonius Epist. 19. When Justin and Solinus say that Perdiccas suc­ceeded or reign'd after Caranus, if their mean­ing was that he succeeded Caranus imme­diately, they are contrary not only to Euse­bius and Syncellus, but also to the marginal successions of the Macedonian Kings which we have in Syncellus p. 262; for all these do reckon two Kings; viz. Caenus and Tyrimmas between Caranus and Perdiccas. And so Theo­philus ad Autol. l. 2. giving us the Genealogy of the Temenidae makes Caenus the Son of Ca­ranus, and Tyrimmas the Son of Caenus, and Perdiccas the Son of Tyrimmas. Eusebius makes Caranus to have reign'd An. 28. and to have begun his reign 36 or 37 years before the first Olympiad: but the two Successions of the Macedonian Kings ap. Syncellum, and [Page 18] Syncellus himself grant him 30 years, and Syn­cellus says that he was 18 years before the first Olympiad (or, if we will believe the mar­ginal correction, he was 25 years before it.) Solinus c. 6. writes that Perdiccas succeeded Caranus, or was first named King in the 22 ^d Olympiad, but Eusebius refers the beginning of his reign to the 11 ^th Olympiad. In that succession of the Macedonian Kings which we have in the Text ap. Syncellum p. 262, Per­diccas is omitted. As also the other Succes­sion in the Margin doth not altogether agree with Syncellus, much less with Eusebius. To Caenus it allots 28 years; but Syncellus gives him 29, Eusebius only 12. To Argeus it gives An. 34, Syncellus only 32; but Eusebius 38. To Tyrimmas it assigns An. 45. to Perdiccas 48. to Philip. 35. and to AEropas 23: when Eusebius gives to the first of these 38, to the 2 ^d 51, to the 3 ^d 38, to the 4 ^th 26.

The uncertainty of Chronology as to the Kingdoms that were in the time of the first Monarchy hath appear'd sufficiently. I pro­ceed now to persons and occurrences which were in the time of that Monarchy; but the particular time when they liv'd or happen'd is very uncertain. I begin with persons, as

1. Prometheus, who according to S ^t August. de Civ. Dei l. 18. c. 8. liv'd when Orthopolis [Page 19] was King of the Sicyonians, and Criasus King of the Argives. Tatianus and Clemens A­lexand. Strom. 1. say that he liv'd in the time of Triopas who also reign'd over the Argives. Eusebius says that some write that he was in the time of Phorbas who reign'd at Argos be­tween Criasus and Triopas; yet adds that others refer him to the time of Cecrops who was contemporary to Triopas, and that accor­ding to others he liv'd 60 of 90 years before Cecrops.

2. Hercules. According to the computation which we have in Clemens Alexand. Strom. 1. Hercules's institution of Olympick games pre­ceded that of Iphitus An. 440. or above, but according to Eusebius from Hercules his insti­tuting them to the first Olympiad were only An. 430. Velleius Paterc. l. 1. makes Her­cules to have dy'd above 40 years before that Troy was taken, but by Eusebius's ac­count he dy'd but about 16 years before the taking of it. By Eusebius's account also Her­cules dy'd after Eurystheus, whereas our best Historians say that Eurystheus surviv'd him. Diodorus Sicul. l. 4. writes that after Hercules his death Euristheus desired to expel his Sons out of Greece, and they gave him battle and vanquish'd him, and Hillus one of them slew him. Thucydides l. 1. testifies likewise that Eurystheus was slain by them.

3. Lycurgus. Of Lycurgus (says Plutarch in his life) nothing can be said which is cer­tain and unquestionable, but there is the least agreement about the time when he liv'd. A­ristotle and others say that he liv'd at the same time with Iphitus, and was assistant to him in ordering the Olympick games. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus say that he was Ancienter by not a few years then the first Olympiad. Timaeus will have him to have been not far from the time of Homer, and some say that he conversed with Homer. Xenophon makes him to have been about the time of the Heraclidae, and he seems to speak of those first Heraclidae that liv'd not long after Hercules himself. Thus Plutarch. And as to Eratosthenes he ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. declares the time from Licur­gus's Tuition to the first Olympiad to have been 108 years. Tatianus says that he made his Laws 100 years before the Olympiads. But Clemens Alex. will have him to have been 150 years before them.

4. Homer. It is vulgarly known how va­rious opinions there are about the age of Ho­mer. Tatianus long since collected some of them. Crates (says he) will have him to have flourished before the return of the Heraclidae within 80 years after the war of Troy, Era­tosthenes after 100 years from the taking Troy, Aristarchus about the Ionick migration after [Page 21] An. 140. from the fall of Troy, Philochorus after the Ionick migration Archippus being Ar­chon at Athens An. 180. after the destruction of Troy. Apollodorus reckons 100 years after the Ionick migration, and so 240 after Troy. Some say that he was a little before the O­lympiads An 400. (or 407.) after the fall of Troy. Others make him contemporary to Archilochus, who was about the 23 ^d Olym­piad, in the time of Gyges King of the Lydians, 500 years after that Troy was destroy'd. Thus far Tatianus. They that desire more to this purpose may consult Clemens Alex. Strom. I.

5. Hesiod. The like uncertainty there is as to the age wherein Hesiod liv'd. A. Gellius l. 3. c. 11. hath taken notice of the dispute concerning Homer and him, some making Ho­mer the more Ancient, as Philochorus and Xe­nophanes; others giving the seniority to Hesiod, as Accius and Ephorus; others making them contemporaries, as Varro. Thus Gellius who l. 17. c. 1. determines that either they liv'd almost at the same time, or that Homer was somewhat the Ancienter. The truth is there are many besides those mention'd by Gellius that make Homer the more Ancient yea Vel­leius Paterculus l. 1. makes Hesiod about 120 years later then the age of Homer: but on the other side according to the Marmor A­rundel. Homer was by some years later then [Page 22] Hesiod. Cassius ap. Gellium l. 17. c. 2. says that Homer and Hesiod were above 160 years af­ter the Trojan war, but the Marmor Arundel. makes Homer to have been above An. 300 after the taking of Troy; and if you value Herodotus's opinion l. 2. c. 53. Hesiod and Ho­mer were no more then An. 400 before his own time. Cornelius Nepos ap. Gellium says that Homer was but An. 160 before the build­ing Rome.

Hitherto we have taken a view of King­doms and some illustrious persons that were in the time of the Assyrian Monarchy. It re­mains that we take notice of some remarkable occurrences that were in the same time, as

1. The floud of Ogyges. S ^t Aug. de civ. Dei l. 18. c. 8. observes that Historians are not agreed what time Ogyges himself was. Syncellus p. 148. says that some refer the floud to the time of Phoroneus King of the Argives, others to the time of Apis the successor of Phoroneus. Africanus ap. Euseb. de praepar. Evang. l. 10. c. 10. writes that it happen'd in the first of the 1020 years which were from Ogyges to the first Olympiad; whereas accor­ding to Eusebius there were but about 987 years from this floud to the first Olympiad. Censorinus c. 21. seems to make it to have been above 800 years before the first Olympiad. From Ogyges's floud (says he) to the reign [Page 23] of Inachus were about 400 years, from thence to the first Olympiad somewhat more then 400.

2. Deucalions floud. According to Solinus c. 11. there were 600 years from the floud of Ogyges to this of Deucalion, according to Eu­sebius An. 237, according to Orosius l. 1. c. 7 and 9, An. 230. S ^t August. de civ. Dei l. 18. c. 10. takes notice that Eusebius and S ^t Hie­rome refer this of Deucalion to the time of Cecrops, but that Varro refers it to the time of Cranaus who was successor to Cecrops, and he might have added that Justin l. 2. c. 6. says that it was in the reign of Amphictyon who succeeded Cranaus.

3. The taking of Troy. Censorinus c. 21. hath these words, Sosibius indeed did write that there were 395, But Eratosthenes 407, Ti­maeus 417, Aretres 514, and besides these many have written diversly, whose very dis­sent doth declare that the thing is uncertain. Thus Censorinus. Now what it is about which there were so many different opinions is not clear. It may seem to be the time from the reign of Inachus (what Inachus I know not) to the first Olympiad. But learned men have thought that he intended this of the time from the taking of Troy to the first Olympiad, it being well known that Eratosthenes makes the time from the taking Troy to the first Olym­piad [Page 24] to have been just that number of years which Censorinus mentions, viz. 407. How­ever it be as to this, yea let it be supposed that those Learned men were mistaken in thinking that Censorinus refer'd to the taking of Troy in this passage; yet it cannot be de­ny'd that it is a considerable Testimony of the uncertainty of Chronology, and we shall sufficiently manifest the incertitude of the time when Troy was taken from other Authors. Velleius Paterc. l. 1. makes it to have been An. 414 or 415 before the first Olympiad (not only 407 as Eratosthenes) Solinus c. 1. An. 408, Eusebius 406 (in some Editions 405.) Very Learned men interpret the Mar­mor Arundel. so that it makes the inter­val twi'xt the taking of Troy and the first Olympiad to have been An. 434. As also they so interpret Dicaearchus ap. Apollonii Sko­liasten l. 4. ver. 272. Argonaut., that he makes it to have been An. 436: for when Dicaearchus says (From the reign of Nilus to the first Olympiad An. 436) they by the reign of Nilus understand the time of the Tro­jan war, as perhaps by the reign of Inachus in Censorinus the same may be understood. Add hereto that the Marmor Arundel. makes Troy to have been taken An. 373 after the beginning of the reign of Cecrops, and in the 2 ^d year of Menestheus; whereas by Euse­bius's account it was taken An. 375 after the [Page 25] beginning of Cecrops, and in the 23 ^d year of Menestheus; and by Syncellus's it was taken An, 385 after the beginning of Cecrops, and in the 33 ^d of Menestheus. Also the Marmor Arundel. computes An. 320 from Deucalions floud to the taking of Troy, but in Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. the very same number of years is assign'd from Deucalions floud to the rape of Hellen by Paris; now according to Homer Iliad. w. ver. 765. there were 20 years between that rape of Helen and the taking Troy, and consequently from the floud of Deu­calion to the taking of it there were An. 340 according to Clem. Alex., so that his compu­tation exceeds that of the Marble An. 20. From the taking of Troy to the building of Rome were An. 432, so Dionysius Halic. l. 2. An. 433 says Solinus c. 1. An. 437 according to Velleius Paterc. l. 1. I might take notice that Clemens Alex. writes how some refer Troys being taken to the first year of Demophoons reigning at Athens, as well as others refer it to the last year that Menestheus reign'd there, as also that Constantinus Manasses makes the Trojan war to have been in Davids time (say­ing that Priamus requested aid of him) whereas according to Eusebius it was in the time of the Judges, particularly when Abdon judged Israel: but enough hath been produc'd already to shew how great discord there is about the year when this calamity befel Troy. There [Page 26] is no less difference about the time of the year (whether it was in the Spring, Summer or Au­tumn) as also about the month and day (of which they that please may consult Alex. Strom. 1.) and therefore Plutarch in Camillus expresseth himself very cautiously speaking of the day of the month.

4. The return of the Heraclidae. Which was 80 years after Troys being taken says E­ratosthenes ap. Clem. Alex., almost 80 years says Velleius Paterc. l. 1. By Eusebius it is refer'd to the time of Melanthus's reigning at Athens, but by Syncellus to the time of his Son and successor Codrus.

5. The Ionick migration or the passing of the Iones from Attica to that part of lesser Asia which is call'd Ionia. Philostratus in Euphorbo p. 702. says that it was according to some 124, ac­cording to others 127 years after the war of Troy that the Athenians sent a colony into Ionia, but Eratosthenes ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. makes it to have been 140 years after the expugnation of Troy; for (says he) from the taking of Troy to the return of the Heraclidae were An. 80, and from that to the Ionick mi­gration An. 60. And Strabo l. 13. seems to dissent from them both, when he says that the AEolick migration was said to be 4 gene­rations before the Ionick. Now 4 generations according to the usual account (that 3 gene­rations are 100 years, see Herodotus l. 2. c. 142. [Page 27] and Clemens Alex. Strom. 1.) are above 130 years, so that the Ionick migration was accor­ding to this computation above 130 years af­ter the AEolick, and the AEolick was some years after the taking Troy, yea according to Strabo above 50 years. For his account of it is that Orestes was the first Author of it, but he dying, it was carried on by his Son Penthilus, who came into Thrace 60 years after the war of Troy, about the time of the com­ing of the Heraclidae into Peloponnesus. Thus Strabo. So that when Eratosthenes says From the taking of Troy to the return of the He­raclidae An. 80, Strabo accounts only about 60; and when Eratosthenes computes from the re­turn of the Heraclidae to the Ionick migration only An. 60, Strabo speaks of 4 generations between the AEolick and it, and makes the AEolick to have been about the same time with the return of the Heraclidae.

5. The building Carthage. It was 50 years before the expugnation of Troy, so Appian de bello Punico, only 38 years before it says Phi­listus ap. Euseb., and in Scaligers edition only 32. But very many say that it was after Troys being taken; An. 143 after it say some, An. 175 say others, An. 338, say others: these 3 differing accounts are taken notice of by Eusebius, and the account given by Jose­phus c. Apion. l. 1. that it was An. 143 and 8 months after the building of Solomons Temple, [Page 28] will not agree with any of these. Nor will these that follow, viz. that of Velleius Pa­terc. l. 1. that it was 65 years before Romes being built, and Servius's in Virgil AEneid. 1. that it was 70 years before it, or Justins l. 18. c. 6. that it was 72 before it, or lastly Ti­maeus's ap. Dionys. Halic. that it was 38 years before the first Olympiad.

7. The first Olympiad. That is accounted the first Olympiad in which Coraebus was Vi­ctor, and Plegon in Fragment. accounts that the 28 ^th Olympiad, with whom Aristodemus and Polybius ap. Syncellum p. 196. seem to agree: but Callimachus ap. Syncell. says that Coroebus overcame in the 14 ^th Olympiad from Iphitus. Syncellus p. 199. says that the first Olympiad was the 45 ^th year of the reign of Uzziah King of Judah, Eusebius makes it to have been the 50 ^th year of that King; but S ^t Cyril c. Julian. l. 1. refers it to the reign of Jotham the Son of Uzziah, as Africanus did before him if we believe Eusebius; thô Syncellus p. 197. would perswade us that A­fricanus refer'd it to the reign of Ahaz the Son of Jotham.

8. The building of Rome. Touching the uncertainty of the time when this City was built I shall transcribe the words of Solinus c. 1. Cincius (says he) thought it was built in [Page 29] the 12 ^th Olympiad, Pictor in the 8 ^th, Nepos and Lutatius following the opinion of Era­tosthenes and Apollodorus in the 2 ^d year of the 7 ^th Olympiad, Pomponius Atticus and M. Tullius in the 3 ^d of the 6 ^th Olympiad. Thus Solinus, who also delivers his own opi­nion different from all these, that it was built in the first year of the 7 ^th Olympiad. They that please may also consult Dionysius Halie. who has collected many various opinions of both Greek and Roman writers about it.

I might instance in other occurrences, par­ticularly in the Eclipse foretold by Thales, as to which they cannot agree either in what Olympiad or in what Kings reign it happen'd, Herodotus l. 1. c. 74. and Eudemus ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. saying that it was in the time of Cyaxares King of the Medes, but Solinus c. 16. and Eusebius in the reign of his Son Astyages: but I forbear.

All this time I have confin'd my self to the Assyrian Monarchy, and only observ'd how more ancient Writers disagree in their accounts of time, for it would be endless if I should go about to shew the discord that there is among our late Chronologers. Only it may not be amiss to represent how Scaliger is not only at variance with others, but oftentimes also with himself: and how his adversary Petavius is very unhappy in this respect as well as he is. [Page 30] And in doing this I shall also confine my self to the time of the Assyrian Monarchy. I be­gin with Scaliger.

These are some instances of Scaligers un­certainty and inconstancy, with which Peta­vius [Page 31] frequently upbraids him, and had been the more excusable, if he was not guilty of the like himself. But his inconstancy will also appear by the following instances.

To these we may add that Petavius makes one and the same year to answer to several years. It is An. Per. Jul. 3961, in which he supposes Rome to have been built. This answers to An. 752 before the birth of Christ (so Petav. de doctr. temp. l. 9. c. 50.) to An. 753 before Christ (so in his Ratio­nar. part. 1. l. 2. c. 7.) to An. 754 before Christ (so in Rationar. part 2. l. 3. c. 2.) Fi­nally in the end of his Books de doct. temp. being about to give us the succession of the Kings in several Kingdoms he himself is pleased [Page 32] to acquaint us, that he there gives an ac­count of the beginning of the reigns of di­vers Kings somewhat different from that which he had given before in the Books themselves, and this more especially in the Macedonian Kings.

We see then how wavering and uncon­stant these Learned men are in their Chro­nology, and the great cause of their incon­stancy is the uncertainty of it. This uncertainty Petavius acknowledges as to the time of the creation of the World. The number of the years from the Worlds creation to this time neither is certainly known, nor can be without a Divine Revelation. These are the words of Pe­tavius de doct. temp. l. 9. c, 2. which may be appli'd to many other Epocha's, about which Chronologers dispute with very great earnest­ness.

I have inlarged the more upon this subject, because of the great necessity and usefulness of mens being convinc'd of this uncertainty of Chronology of which we treat; which will appear, if we consider the many mischiefs which have been occasion'd by the want of such conviction. From the want of this have pro­ceeded many eager disputes about matters ap­pertaining to Chronology, and those manag'd with the greatest wrath and bitterness imagi­nable. If Syncellus had been convinc'd of this uncertainty, he would have been more fa­vourable [Page 33] to Eusebius, and not taken all occa­sions of reprehending him, and that many times in very rude and unbecoming language. Had others after him been throughly convinc'd of it, and seriously consider'd it, it would have prevented the heats between Scaliger, and the German Divines, and Scaliger would not have fallen so foul upon our M ^r Lydiat, endeavour­ing to expose him, and triumphing over him with the greatest scorn and contempt. In like manner he treated all others that opposed him, or only dissented from him, inveighing against every one that did not fall down and worship every imagination of his; not sparing either Ancient Writers or Modern, but passing the severest censures upon both. The considera­tion of this uncertainty might also have pre­vented the scuffles between Is. Vossius and his Countrymen that set themselves so fiercely a­gainst him. Add hereto that if this uncer­tainty had been duly considered, the World would not have been burthen'd with many tedious and voluminous writings, such as Sca­ligers two Editions of his De emendatione Tem­porum, and his Canones Isagog. &c. also Pe­tavius's two Volumes De doctrina Temporum. Finally, for want of the consideration of this not a few have spent a great part of their life in the study of Chronology, and many of them men of extraordinary parts and great diligence; so that if the time and industry, which they [Page 34] laid out upon Chronological niceties, had been imploy'd in more useful Studies, they might have been very serviceable both to the time in which they liv'd, and also to future gene­rations. Therefore seriously weighing these and the like mischiefs occasion'd by the want of such conviction and consideration, I thought that I could not do any thing more necessary and beneficial, then to endeavour to convince men of the uncertainty of the greatest part of Chronology.

CHAP. II. Whether Lunar Months were in use with the Israelites before the Captivity of Babylon.

Dr. Cary part 1. l. 1. c. 12. singles a pas­sage out of Arch-Bishop Oshers Pre­face to his Annals, in which he says that it cannot be proved that the Israelites used Lu­nar months before the Babylonish Captivity, but their year consisted of 12 equal months, eve­ry month having 30 days, and 5 days being added at the end of the 12 ^th month in eve­ry common year, 6 days every 4 ^th or Leap-year. Thus the Arch-Bishop. The arguments wherewith the Doctor opposeth this are either [Page 35] from authority or reason. His authorities are 1. The Penmen of holy Scripture. 2. Other Writers. 1. The Scriptures which the Doctor produceth are Num. 10. 10. 28. 11. 1 Sam. 20. 1, 4, 5, 27, 34. 2 Kings 4. 23. 2 Chron. 8. 12, 13. Psal. 81. 3. Ezek. 45. 17. 46. 3, 6. It is evident (says he) from one or more of these Texts that the Lunar month was in po­pular use, particularly from 1 Sam. 20. If you ask him how it is evident from one or more of these Texts, all that he says to this purpose is 1. That the beginnings of the months in the letter of the Law (i. e. Num. 10. and 28.) are interpreted by the Psalmist (Psal. 81.) to be the New moons. 2. That the Septuagint thought so doubtless, who use the word [...] in these places. 3. That these Texts do certainly mark out the New moon to be a day of solemnity. 4. That the morrow after the New Moon is call'd the 2 ^d day of the month. And now we have the whole strength of the Doctors argument from Scripture. To which I answer 1. None of those four propositions is evident, and consequently they cannot make it clear that Lunar months were in popular use before the Captivity. I grant that if the Translations of the Scripture were authentick, then three of the foresaid propositions would be evident, viz. all except the 2 ^d: but if we must have recourse to the Original, then the other three are no more evident then it. For instance, [Page 36] The first proposition is that the beginnings of the months Num. 10 and 28. are interpreted Psal. 81. to be the New Moons: now the He­brew words for The beginnings of the months are [...] Num. 28. 11. and the He­brew word which is translated the New Moon Psal. 81. 3. is [...], and to say that [...] is interpreted by [...] is to say that an expression that is more plain is interpreted by one that is more obscure. But let it be sup­posed (thô not granted) that [...] is interpreted by [...], then we may say that the beginning of the month is interpreted by the first day of the month; for the first day of the month is called [...] says Kim­chi both in his Radices and in his Com­ment upon Psal. 81. 3: and therefore instead of Blow the Trumpet in the New Moon, we may Translate it, Blow the Trumpet in the first day of the month. Thus it appears that the first proposition is not evident, and upon the ve­ry same account the 3 ^d and 4 ^th propositions are not. For in all the Texts which the Doctor hath alledg'd for confirmation of those propositions ( viz. 1 Sam. 20. 5, 27, 34. 2 Kings 4. 23. 2 Chron. 8. 13. and Ezek. 45. 17. 46. 3, 6.) the Hebrew word is also [...], which in 1 Sam. 20. 27, 34. signifies the month (and is rendred so by our Transla­tors) in the rest of the places it may signifie the first day of the month, or (which is the [Page 37] same) the New month, though in our Bibles it is rendred in every one of them the New moon. So (to run over the Texts) we may read To morrow is the first day of the month or the New month, 1 Sam. 20. 5. It is neither the first day of the month nor the Sabbath, 2 Kings 4. 23. On the first days of the month, 2 Chron. 8. 13, and Ezek. 45. 17. 46. 3. and finally, In the day of the New Month, Ezek. 46. 6. So that it is the first day of the month which these Texts do mark out to be a solemn day, and the day after it is reckon'd the 2 ^d day of the month: but it will not be easily made out that the New Moon is men­tion'd in any of those places. I acknowledge that this account of the signification of the word [...] doth not agree with that which the Doctor gives of it, but his account will be fully examin'd in the Appendix. It remains that I examine the Doctors 2 ^d proposition, which is that the 70 who use the word [...] in all those places ( viz. Num. 10. 10. 28. 11. and Psal. 81. 3.) doubtless thought that the beginnings of the months Num. 10. and 28. are interpreted by the New Moons Psal. 81. Now I deny, that this consequence is evident, or that from their using the word [...] in all those places it can be evidently deduc'd that they thought so as the Doctor says they did. We may rather conclude from it that [...] Psal. 81. signifies (not the [Page 38] New Moon but) the first day of the month. For the beginnings of the months are call'd [...] or [...], Num. 10. and 28. and then why should we not think that [...] hath the same signification Psal. 81. 3: But the word [...] will also be considered more fully in the Appendix.

2. Suppose that it was evident that the New Moon is mark'd out to be a day of so­lemnity, it doth not follow that the Lunar month was in popular use (which is the thing in question) for the New Moon might be ob­serv'd as a solemn day, on what day soever of their month it happen'd; though it fell out toward the middle or end of their month as well as if their month began with it. A­gain suppose that it was evident, that the marrow after the New Moon is reckoned the 2 ^d day of the month 1 Sam. 20, 5, 27, 34. yet it cannot be thence concluded that the Israelites used Lunar months; for the mor­row after the New Moon might fall out at that time to be the 2 ^d day of the month, though at other times it was on other days of it. Thus his Text on which he chiefly relies, viz. 1 Sam. 20. fails him upon a double account, 1. It is not evident that the morrow after the New Moon is reckon'd the 2 ^d day of the month. 2. If it was, the use of Lunar months cannot be concluded from it. This may suf­fice for answer to his argument from Scripture.

2. As to the Doctors argument from the authority of other Writers, he says that All the Doctors, Ancient and Modern, Jews and Christians (except Kepler, Petavius and Bishop Usher) were of opinion that the Jewish year after the Israelites departure out of Egypt was Lunar. Now what shall we say to this con­fident assertion? The least that we can say is, that it might have been expected that so great an undertaker in Chronology should have acquainted himself with Chronographers better then it seems he hath done. If he had more diligently consulted them, he would have found Massaeus and Temporarius very positive for So­lar years. It is manifest that the Scripture al­ways every where useth Solar years and equal months consisting of 30 days, so Massaeus Chronicorum l. 1. in fin. It cannot be doubted but that both in Sacred and profane History we are to understand Solar years, the days of every year being 365¼, so Temporarius Chro­nolog. Demonstr. l. 3. Harvillaeus also in Isagog. Chronolog. l. 1. s. 11. p. 116. declares that he inclines chiefly to this opinion. I incline (says he) more especially to the 5 ^th opinion, viz. (as he expresses it a little before p. 112, 113.) that till the Captivity of Babylon the years are to be understood to be Solar, consisting of 12 equal Solar months of 30 days with the addition of 5 days, and also of one more every 4 ^th year. And finally doth not Scali­ger [Page 40] sometimes seem to incline to this opinion? as in his De emendat. Temp. l. 3. de anno pri­scorum Hebraeorum Abrahameo, where he says that always even after the coming out of E­gypt there were 5 days added at or near the E­quinox, as is sufficiently known by that which is disputed above out of Moses. And that moreover the first day of the month is called [...] which signifies [...], although there was no New moon on that day, no more then there was on the first days of the Egyptian months. Also a little before this he says that the sacred History testifies that David and Solomon did appoint 12 Officers according to the number of the 12 months of the year, see 1 Kings 4. 7. &c. 1 Chron. 27. 1. &c. The same Scaliger de emend. l. 3. p. 637. says that when the Jews received the form of the Alexandrean year and the Calippick Period, to­gether with them they also receiv'd the Lu­nar year. Thus Scaliger, who in all these particulars viz. that the Jews receiv'd the Lunar year after the Captivity, that they su­peradded 5 days after their coming out of E­gypt, that their year consisted of 12 months, and that they call'd the first day of the month [...] although the New moon did not happen on that day, no more then it did on the first days of the Egyptian months, agrees very well with Arch-Bishop Usher. It appears then that Kepler and Petavius, are not the only persons [Page 41] that have inclin'd to the Arch-Bishops opinion, and that it had been more prudent, if the Doctor had forborn that expression that all the Doctors except those two were against him. Thus we have consider'd the Doctors Arguments from Authority.

3. His Argument from Reason is very long, and they that would see it at large may consult the Doctor himself Part. 1. l. 1. c. 12. beginning towards the end of sect. 5. and reading on to sect. 8. I shall only give a Sum­mary of it. He says that it is not deny'd that before Christs time the Lunar year was in po­pular use. If then we hold that they used the solar year before the Captivity, 1. He says us necessary that we shew when, in what age and by what means the change from Solar to Lunar was effected. 2. He wonders that neither Josephus nor any other did take any notice of it. 3. He affirms that the Jews would not suffer such a change. Now for answer to these.

As to the first, Why is it necessary to shew when and in what age this change was made, when the Doctor himself tells us that some have done it already? They set it (says he s. 6.) after Alexanders time, under the Government of the Seleucidae. Besides have not many innovations and corruptions crept into particular Churches, and yet we do not think ourselves oblig'd to shew the precise time that they first sprung up?

As to the 2 ^d, Why doth the D ^r wonder that Josephus and others take no notice of this change, when he himself holds that after the de­parture of the Israelites out of Egypt there was the same change of the year from Solar to Lu­nar, and yet they have taken no notice of that? The Doctor says in the beginning of s. 15. that when the Israelites were in Egypt their rec­koning was according to the Solar year, but after their coming out of Egypt he maintains against the Arch-Bishop that they used the Lunar year; now where is this change taken notice of by Josephus? Josephus Ant. l. 1. c. 4. and l. 3. c. 10. says that they were com­manded to keep the Passover on the 14 ^th Moon in the month Nisan, and that Moses appoint­ed Nisan to be the first month with refe­rence to their Feasts and the things pertain­ing to Divine worship; but as to buying and selling and the rest of the dispensation of the year he made no alteration, but retain'd the first rite, form or order. These are the words of Josephus. So that if from hence that Mo­ses appointed Nisan to be the first month with reference to Feasts, &c. and the Passover to be kept on the 14 ^th Moon in that month, it can be necessarily concluded that he chang'd the year from Solar to Lunar, so that in say­ing the one Josephus in effect says the other, then indeed he doth take notice of that change; but if it cannot be certainly concluded (that [Page 43] Moses made such a change) from those words of Josephus (as I am well assured it cannot) then he hath taken no notice of it. I have in­sisted upon this the longer because of that which the Doctor says s. 5. of Josephus and Philo Judaeus. He says that they plainly sig­nifie that the year even of old time from Mo­ses was Lunar, and imply somewhat more, namely this, that there was never any que­stion made of it before their time. Now I would gladly be inform'd where they either plainly signifie the one, or imply the other. I have produc'd Josephus's words already. Phi­lo Judaeus de vita Mosis having said that Mo­ses made the beginning of the vernal Equinox the first month, adds, In this month about the 14 ^th day, the Moon being about to be at the Full, the Feast of the Passover is cele­brated, [...] in the present tense, so that Philo speaks of that which was done in his time. Withal if he had spoken of the old time from Moses, he neither plainly sig­nifies that the year was then Lunar, nor im­plies that there was never any question made of it.

The 3 ^d particular remains, which is that the Jews would not suffer such a change. The Doctor useth many words to prove this, the summ whereof is this. The Jews (says he) believ'd that their ancient custom as to the time of beginning the year and observing the [Page 44] Passover was of Primitive Divine institution, or bound upon them by Divine Law; and therefore they would not suffer a change of it. To which I answer, that if this be under­stood more generally of their custom of be­ginning the year with the month Nisan, and observing the Passover upon the 14 ^th of that month, it will be granted that they believ'd it to be of Divine Institution. But if we de­scend to particulars, as that the first day of Nisan or their New years day was to be al­ways that day which answered to such or such a day in our Calendar, or what other day you please; or that the day of the Passover was always to be that day which answered (sup­pose) to our 4 ^th of May, I cannot say that the Jews believ'd that this was of Divine In­stitution, and the Doctor should have prov'd it otherwise then by saying Questionless they must believe so. Yea, I could tell him that some Jews have believ'd, that the precept for beginning the year with the month Ni­san was only temporary, and did not oblige them always to account it the beginning of months.

CHAP. III. Of the month Dioscorinthius, 2 Mac. 11. 21.

THE month Dioscorinthius seems to have been mensis embolimus in Anno Chal­daico, i. e. a month superadded in the Chal­daean year, and interpos'd between Dystrus and Xanthicus, in which month Xanthicus the letters from the King and the Romans to the Jews were written; so the Arch-Bishop A. M. 3841. The Doctor p. 84. falls upon him very insultingly for this. Upon con­sideration of the premises (says he) we may ask the question what then becomes of that conceit of Dioscorinthius as if it should be the Embolimaear month? Thus the Doctor. Now 1. Suppose it was only a conceit, why does the Doctor single out the Arch-Bishop as if it was peculiarly his? especially when the Arch-Bishop expresses himself so cau­tiously and modestly, saying only that it seems to be so. Scaliger de emend. Temp. l. 2. de periodo Syro-Macedonum Alexandrea Salianus A. M. 3891. and Menochius in loc. are all of the Arch-Bishops opinion; yet we hear no­thing of them, but the Arch-Bishop alone must be arraign'd and try'd, and the opinion (or conceit, for so the Doctor will needs call [Page 46] it,) condemned. Now if you ask upon what evidence or grounds the opinion is condemn'd, the Doctor tells us it is upon consideration of the premises; and if we would know what those premises are, we must look back to the beginning of the 25 ^th section in that 84 ^th page which I alledg'd above. Also that we may the better understand that which the Doctor would be at, we must observe that in 2 Mac. 11. 21. the date of Lysias's letter is thus express'd; The 148 ^th year the 24 ^th day of the month Dioscorinthius. Now the summ of that which the Doctor says is this, That according to his Tables the 147 ^th year of the Seleucidae was Embolimaear (as he calls it) i. e. a year in which one month was superadded. Yet (says he) according to popular estimation (and that very just and good) not the 147 ^th but the 148 ^th was Embolimaear. Then he adds in sect. 26. Whether the year 147 or 148 were Em­bolimaear it matters not, once I cannot see how the year 149 could be such; And I speak of the 149 year Jewish reckoning according to our Tables, which in the Chaldaean account was the 148 according to the date of Lysias's letter 2 Mac. 11. Thus the Doctor. So that in short which year was Embolimaear he knows not, but resolves that the 149 or 148 according to 2 Mac. 11. could not be such, that he might conclude against the Arch-Bishop that Dioscorinthius was not mensis Emboli­mus, [Page 47] a superadded month. But it may be said that the Doctor gives a reason why the 149 year could not be Embolimaear, because then the vernal New moon in the 150 year must be set over to the 15 of April. To which I answer, that (possibly) according to the Doctors Tables it must have been set so late, but who will regard his Tables, when he himself hath told us, that an account dif­fering from that in his Tables, may be very just and good, and agree very well with the truth, thô not with the precise strictness (as he expresses it) of those his Tables? Be­sides his Tables have reference to the Jewish year, whereas the Arch-Bishop speaks express­ly of the Chaldaean year, and that which the Doctor calls the 149 i. e. the 148 in 2 Mac. 11. might be an intercalary year in the Chal­daean account, thô not in the Jewish. There­fore the consideration of the Doctors premises does not perswade us to slieght the Arch-Bishops conjecture so much as he doth. But

2. What if we should ask now What will become of the Doctors conceit, that Diosco­tinthius was that month which is called [...]? especially when we consider that it ingageth him to say that Lysias's let­ter to the Jews was of a later date then the Kings letter to them; the Kings letter bear­ing date April 9, Lysias's June 16 after (ac­cording [Page 48] to his reckoning) then which scarce any thing can seem to me more incredible. When the King himself had by letter certi­fi'd the Jews that he granted their desire, can any one imagin that Lysias should write above two months after, only to signifie the same thing to them? If the Doctor had on­ly said that Lysias's letter to the Jews was of later date then the Kings letter to him, he had said that which is no less probable then the other is improbable. For I make ac­count that Lysias first inform'd the King what the Jews desir'd, then the King writ to him to certifie them that he granted their desire (a copy of this letter we have a Mac. II. 22, &c.) Lysias having received that letter, writes to the Jews as the King directed him, and his letter bears date the 24 of Diosco­rinthius. Lastly the King himself writ a let­ter to the Jews dated the month following (according to the Arch-Bishop) Xanthicus the 15, which he sent with Menelaus (by whom also he had been acquainted with the desire of the Jews) to give them-full assurance, that he granted their request. In this there is nothing improbable. But that the King should give order to Lysias to write to the Jews, and that he should not do it till a­bove two months or three months perhaps af­ter, is that which I can by no means sub­scribe to.

To conclude, it cannot be determin'd cer­tainly what month it was, whether Dystrus, as Serarius thought, or Dius as Grotius, or Dystro-Xanthicus as the Arch-Bishop: but of all the conjectures which I have seen, the Do­ctors conjecture seems to be the least pro­bable.

CHAP. IV. Of the time when Artaxerxes Longi­manus begun his reign.

THE Arch-Bishop A. M. 3531 sets thè beginning of Artaxerxes's reign 9 years before the received account. He was per­suaded to set it so soon by the Testimonies of Eusebius and Thucydides. Eusebius says that Themistocles fled to the Persians Olymp. 76. An. 4, and Thucydides accordingly refers Themi­stocles's coming to Artaxerxes to the time be­tween the siege of Naxos, and the noble victory which Cimon obtain'd against the Persian at Eurymedon; also he refers the beginning of Ar­taxerxes's reign to the same time. For he says that Themistocles writ a letter then to Artaxerxes newly reigning. Thus the Arch-Bishop. Now it may be that he is singular in this opinion about the beginning of the reign [Page 50] of Artaxerxes, he himself insinuates so much. It must be granted also that the time of Themistocles's flight is not agreed upon, and indeed is one great instance of the uncertain­ty of Chronology. For Plutarch writes that Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides and many more say, that Themistocles came into Persia in the time of Xerxes: but that Cha­ron Lamsacenus agrees with Thucydides and af­firms that he came to Artaxerxes his son, Xer­xes being dead; also Plutarch adds that Thu­cydides agrees better with the Annals. Cor­nelius Nepos also follows Thucyaides, thô he was not ignorant that others were of a dif­ferent opinion from him. But suppose Thu­cydides, Charon, Lamsacenus and Cornel. Ne­pos to be certainly in the right, in affirming that Themistocles fled to Artaxerxes, yet whe­ther it can be infer'd thence that the begin­ning of Artaxerxess reign was so soon as the Arch-Bishop hath set it, is another question, which I shall not take upon me to determine. I shall therefore only 1. Briefly thew the in­sufficiency of the Doctors answer to that which the Arch-Bishop alledges. 2. Take notice of an unbecoming reflection of his upon the Arch-Bishop.

The Doctors answer to the Arch-Bishop we have Part 2. l. 1. c. 11. s. 8. n. 1, 2, 3. To Eusebius he opposes Diodorus Sioul. l. 11. by whom he says it is clearly asserted that the [Page 51] time of Themistocles's flight was Olymp. 77. An. 2, not Olympiad 76. An. 4. as Eusebius. To Thucydides he opposes the same Diodorus Sie. and Justin, who (as he says) clearly as­sert that Cimons victory at Eurymedon was in the time of Xerxes. As to Themistocles's letter to Artaxerxes he says 1. The date of it is not known, possibly was not known to Thucydides himself. 2. It is not without great suspition that it was an Athenian trick, an in­vention of Themistocles's enemies, a letter fra­med on purpose to blast his reputation even after his death. 3. If it was true, it only evinceth this, that Themistocles lived so long an Exile abroad as to the time of Artaxerxes his reign. This is the summ of the Doctors answer. To which I reply;

1. It is not clearly asserted by Diodorus Sicul. that the time of Themistocles his flight was Olymp. 77. An. 2. He indeed speaks of it in that year, as he does also of his Ostra­cism and death. He thought it best to dis­patch at once all that concern'd Themistocles's fall, and so in that year he gives us an ac­count of his Ostracism or Banishment, his go­ing to Argos, his flight from thence to Ad­metus, and afterwards from Admetus into Asia, his journey from thence to the Persian Court, and what befel him there, and lastly of his death. Not that all these fell out in that year, (for there was a considerable time from his [Page 52] Ostracism to his coming to the Persian Court, and a considerable time again from his coming thither to his death) but it is Diodorus Sicul. his usual way to throw things thus together that belong to the same subject. As then from his mentioning Themistocles's Ostracism and death in that year, we cannot conclude that they fell out that year: so from the men­tion of his flight in that year i: cannot be concluded, that it happen'd then. However, it is plain, that it is not clearly asserted by Diodorus Siculus, that the time of Themisto­cles's flight was Olymp. 77. An. 2, let the Doctor say what he pleases.

2. It is very true that Diodorus Sicul. and Justin do make Cimons victory to have been in the time of Xerxes, differing therein from Thucydides, and (as is probable) following Ephorus, Dinon and others, who refer The­mistocles's flight to the time of Xerxes: but as Cornel. Nepos rather believ'd Thucydides a­bout the time of Themistocles's flight, because he liv'd near the time of Themistocles, and was of the same City, so may we rather be­lieve him about the time of Cimons victory upon the same motives.

3. As to the letter with which the Doctor is so much troubled, 1. If the date of it be not known, how comes the Doctor to know it so well, as to be able to tell us that it is of the same date with the story of Themistocles's [Page 53] drinking Bulls bloud? 2. Why says the Do­ctor, that possibly the date of it was not known to Thucydides, when Thucydides plain­ly tels us that Themistocles writ the letter after that he was come to Ephesus, being gone from thence into the midland Countries? 3. If there be so great suspition that it was an A­thenian trick, it is strange that Thucydides and Corn. Nepos (who transcribes the letter from him) were not aware of it. It must be ac­knowledg'd that the Doctor was very quick sented that could smell it out at such a di­stance, when those Authors which were much nearer did not. 4. It is most strange that the Doctor should say that if it be true, it evin­ces only this, that Themistocles liv'd so long as to the time of Artaxerxes's reign. As if the writing this letter was one of the last acts he did, whereas he writ it (as we have seen) before his coming to the Persian Court, and consequently Artaxerxes had begun his reign then. Finally should we be so libe­ral to the Doctor as to grant that the letter is supposititious, he will gain little by it; for it is still apparent that Thucydides be­liev'd that Artaxerxes had begun to reign be­fore Themistocles's coming into Persia.

The Doctors unbecoming reflection upon the Arch-Bishop is in s. 8. n. 4. where he says that we must take notice that the knitting all these knots, and patching together those shreds, [Page 54] as 1. Themistocles's courtly letter, 2. Euse­bius's incongruous Annotation, 3. Ctesias's authorizing [...] Artabanus nothing to the purpose, these are upon design to make a boulster for the Bishops interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. Thus the Doctor. As if the Arch-Bishop foresaw that the Doctor would lay his interpretation to sleep, and so set himself to knit knots and patch shreds together to make a boulster for it. Or as if the Arch-Bishops design was to serve his Hypothesis, whatsoever became of the Truth. In the mean time the Arch-Bishops interpretation is that which very many Expositors, Ancient and Mo­dern, have approv'd and follow'd, computing the 70 weeks (as the Arch-Bishop doth) from the 20 ^th of this Artaxerxes. This 20 ^th of Artaxerxes (according to the Arch-Bishops calculation) was An. Per. Jul. 4260, thô it is represented here by the Doctor as if the Arch-Bishop made it to be An. Per. Jul. 4261. To conclude this, I wish the Doctor had not Part 2. l. 2. §. 1. c. 9. s. 11. after a profession of all humility, insulted with such contempt and scorn over many that have la­bour'd as much to clear the sense of that ce­lebrated Prophecy of the 70 weeks, as he hath done to obscure and pervert it. See the 2 ^d chapt. of the same Book and Section.

CHAP. V. Of the time when Sanchuniathon, Se­miramis and Nitocris liv'd.

THE Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 18. s. 11. tells us, that the world is made to be­lieve, that Semiramis was in the time of the Trojan war, or near thereabouts according to Sanchuniathon. This is that [...] and [...] of which he speaks in the same sect., which (says he) bears it self out up­on the name of Semiramis, and the credit of Sanchuniathon. And in the margin he cites Bishop Vsher for all this. Now it is true that the Arch-Bishop A. M. 2789 will have Se­miramis to have been in the time of the Tro­jan war or thereabouts; but I would know where it is that the Arch-Bishop alledges San­chuniathon for this, or reports it upon the cre­dit of Sanchuniathon. It is not Sanchunia­thon that the Arch-Bishop alledges, but Por­phyry, as cited by Euseb. de Praepar. Evang. l. 1. and 10, who says that Sanchuniathon was contemporary to Semiramis, and that she is said to have been either before the Trojan affairs, or about the same time with them. But let this strange oversight be past by. To Sanchuniathon and the Arch-Bishop the Do­ctor opposes Herodotus, who (as the Do­ctor [Page 56] would make us belive in this s. 11) rec­kons Semiramis to have been 520 years af­ter the siege of Troy. But if we read on and peruse the 12 ^th sect., it will appear that he is not serious in it. For thô here after having spent many words about it, he concludes, that this is most certainly the reckoning of Herodo­tus; yet there he says that it is not imputable to Herodotus but his transcriber, who writ [...] instead of [...]. The meaning of this is, that if Herodotus had indeed said that Semira­mis was only five generations before Nitocris (as it is in our copies, see Herodotus l. 1. c. 184.) then the Doctor thinks that it would have follow'd, that by Herodotus's account Semiramis had been 520 years after the siege of Troy: but (says the Doctor) our copies are faulty, and 50 being put instead of 5 we must read that Semiramis was Fifty genera­tions before the other. The question then will be, whether we must follow our copies, or the Doctors correction, who produceth no other authentick copy to warrant it. Yea but the Doctor will demonstrate that this cor­rection must be admitted. Let us (says he) rate these 50 generations by Herodotus's rule (which is that 3 generations are 100 years) the product will be An. 1666. Let these be deducted from 4160 the age and time of Ni­tocris, the remainder is 2494. which falls just with the time of Semiramis her reign, the 35 ^th [Page 57] year of her reign, according to the years of the Julian Period describ'd in our Scheme. These are the Doctors words, who triumphant­ly concludes, This is a demonstration, I must in­sist upon it, taken from Herodotus, a demon­stration that Herodotus is on our side contra gentes. And I would have given the Doctor leave to have been transported thus, if he had prov'd these three things, 1. That the age and time of Nitocris was An. Per. Jul. 4160. 2. That the word [...] in this place of He­rodotus is to be taken in that sense in which three generations make a Century, 3. That his Scheme is a right Scheme. But if he fail in the proof of any one of these, what becomes of the demonstration, which he must insist upon, and which occasion'd such triumph.

1. The Doctor in his demonstration (as he calls it) takes it for granted that An. Per. Jul. 4160. was the age and time of Nito­cris, whereas in sect. 11. he was more cau­tious, and only said it was about that year. And yet he brought neither Authority nor reason to satisfie us that it was about that year, unless his saying without doubt it must be so, be Authority enough.

2. He takes it for granted, that the word [...] in Herodotus l 1. c. 184. is to be taken in that sense in which three generations are accounted 100 years, whereas it hath various significations, and we may observe in Hero­dotus l. 2. c. 142. [Page 58] where he says that three generations are 100 years, that the word [...] or [...] is still joyn'd with [...], as [...], and [...], and [...]. Now this addition of [...] doth determine the signification of the word [...], so that there it plainly signifies a generation of men. But here where the speech is of Semiramis, we have [...] without any such addition to de­termine its signification.

3. He tells us that An. Per. Jul. 2494. falls just with the 35 year of Semiramis, ac­cording to his Scheme. So that in the upshot all depends upon his Scheme, and if that will not bear the weight of the demonstration which he builds upon it, it must fall to the ground. His Scheme we have in the end of this 18 Chapter, and to recommend it to us, he says that it is Africanus's. But how comes it then that in the beginning of the Chap­ter he gives us another Scheme differing from this, and tells us that that is from Africanus? About the time that Semiramis begun to reign the difference between the two Schemes is no less then 25 years. But the Doctor solves this by saying that the one is Africanus's ac­cording to Syncellus, the other according to Helvicus and Ricciolus. So that it is questio­nable whether of them is Africanus's (if ei­ther of them be) but there is some reason [Page 59] why we should rather believe Syncellus then them, because he had greater advantages for knowing what was deliver'd to Posterity by Africanus then they had. Add hereto that Helvicus seems not to have valu'd the Scheme which he gives us as from Africanus so high­ly as the Doctor doth; for he gives us also another Scheme out of Justin, and observing that Justin makes the Assyrian Empire to have continued only 1300 years, he adds that this comes nearer to the Scripture, and again that it agrees very well both with the Scripture and with the AEra Babylonica. In a word, unless there was a better accord among Histo­riographers about the time of the duration of that Empire, about the number of the Kings and of the years that they reign'd, there can be no certainty either in the Doctors Scheme, or in any other whatsoever. It is plain then that he hath fallen far short of demonstrating that we must read Fifty generations instead of five.

By the way, the Doctor forgot to tell us that he was oblig'd to Scaliger (fragment. p. 42.) for this Criticism, or perhaps he was not willing to mention him for this reason a­mong others, because thô Scaliger thought that it should be Fifty generations, yet he differs from him in the conclusion; for he says that they amount to more then 1666 years, and being computed backward end in the [Page 60] reign (not of Semiramis, but) of Ninus himself.

But it may be said, If we retain the usual reading, it will not help the Arch-Bishop at all, who makes Semiramis to have reign'd a­bout the time of the Trojan war. For if she was but Five generations before Nitocris, and if Nitocris liv'd about An. Per. Jul. 4160, then Semiramis must have been 500 years at the least after the siege of Troy, since accor­ding to this account she was only 166 years before Nitocris, for Five generations according to the foremention'd rule amount to no more. But to answer this briefly, Suppose that all the rest was granted, the Doctor (as I ob­serv'd before) hath not prov'd either that Nitocris liv'd about An. P. J. 4160, or that [...] in Herodotus amount to no more then 166 years. All his proof for the for­mer is that, Without doubt it must be so. For the later he brings a rule out of Hero­dotus l. 2. c. 142. to which I have already answer'd that it is not necessary that [...] should have the same signification in Hero­dotus l. 1. c. 184. that it hath l. 2. c. 142; especially when the word [...] or [...] is joyn'd with it in the later place, not in the former. But further [...] amongst other things signifies an Age, Seculum, (see the Lexicon Graecolatinum vetus) yea the Doctors great friend Is. Vossius says that it not only [Page 61] signifies an Age or 100 years, but sometimes above 100 years, Imo etiam 100 aliquando uti est apud Theophrastum, vel etiam 110 an­norum intervallum continet [...] ut docet Phle­gon. They are the words of Vossius con. Hor­nium Castigat. ad c. 6. Now the word being interpreted in this sense, Herodotus says that Semiramis was 550 years before Nitocris, and so rather confirms the Arch-Bishops o­pinion concerning the time when Semiramis reign'd.

CHAP. VI. Who Nabonasar was.

THE Arch-Bishop A. M. 3257. makes Belesis, who obtain'd the Kingdom of Babylon after the death of Sardanapalus, to be the same with him whom Hipparchus, Ptole­maeus and Censorinus call Nabonasar. The Do­ctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 17. falls foully upon him for this, and yet hath very little to say a­gainst it. That which he doth say is 1. That there is a project in it, viz. to bring down Sardanapalus 100 years and more lower in time, then all Historians and Chronologers before did set him. 2. That he will not be­lieve it. 3. That Herodotus hath no cover [Page 62] for this dish. Now for answer to these par­ticulars, I need not insist upon any of them but the first. For as to the 2 ^d, Thô the Doctor will not believe that Belesis was Na­bonasar, this notwithstanding, it may be very true. And as to the 3 ^d, We need not go to Herodotus for a cover, since the Doctor hath not discover'd any nakedness in the Arch-Bishops opinion. The first then only remains, in which the Doctor hath brought forth all the Historians and Chronologers that were be­fore him against the Arch-Bishop; all these set Sardanapalus more then 100 years higher then he doth. To which I shall only say, that I cannot commend the Doctors prudence in using this large expression, All Historians and Chronologers, for I can affirm that there are some who do not set Sardanapalus so high as he pretends. Bibliander refers the begin­ning of the reign of Sardanapalus to the 25 year of Amaziah King of Judah, S ^r W. Raw­leigh to his 21, Funccius and Salianus to his 20, Torniellus to his 19, Constantinus Phry­gio and Bunting to his 18, Eusebius to his 16, Gordon to his 13 or 14, Simson to his 10, Syncellus to the 7, and Freculphus to the time of Azariah or Vzziah the Son and Suc­cessor of Amaziah, Orosius l. 1. c. 19 to the 64 year before the building of Rome. Now there is not one of all these that sets Sarda­napalus more then 100 years higher then the [Page 63] Arch-Bishop doth. According to the Arch-Bishop Sardanapalus's reign begun 19 years before the building of Rome, and according to Orosius it begun but 64 years before it, the difference between them is only 45 years. Freculphus and the Arch-Bishop refer the be­ginning of his reign to the time of the same King of Judah, viz. Vzziah, and the Arch-Bishop particularly to Vzziahs 44 year, and so they cannot differ above 43 years. They that make him to have begun his reign in the time of Amaziah do indeed set him higher then Orosius and Freculphus do, but Syncel­lus who goes the highest of them differs not above 66 years from the Arch-Bishop; for from the 7 of Amaziah (who reign'd but 29 years in all, 2 Kings 14. 2. and 2 Chron. 25. 1.) to the 44 of Vzziah there are no more, unless it be admitted that there was an interregnum. And it must be a very long in­terregnum of almost 40 years, to make the distance twixt the 7 year of the Father to the 44 year of the Son to have been above 100 years. Add hereto that Bede who re­fers the death of Sardanapalus to the time of Vzziah, and so the Chronicon at the end of De la Hays Biblia magna which refers it to the 9 year of the same Vzziah, do not set him more then 100 years higher then the Arch-Bishop doth. The same must be said of Bu­cholzer, who makes Sardanapalus's his death [Page 64] to have happen'd An. 823 before Christ, when according to the Arch-Bishop it fell out An. 748 before him. Finally Genebrard and our M ^r Lydiat, who will have Saraanapalus to have been the same with Esarhaddon Isa. 37. 38. or Assaradon-Pul (as they call him) do bring down Sardanapalus many years lower then the Arch-Bishop sets him; for Esarhad­don did not reign before the time of Heze­kiah. I may then safely conclude, that the Arch-Bishop had no such project to bring down Sardanapalus more then 100 years lower then all Historians and Chronologers had set him.

To return to Nabonasar, with the Doctors good leave I would ask the question, Why is the Arch-Bishop only quarrell'd with for holding that he was Belesis? They that please to consult M ^r Lydiats Emendatio temporum A. M. 3257 will find, that we were told the very same thing in express terms by him ma­ny years since.

CHAP. VII. Of Darius Hystaspis, whether he was the husband of Esther, and of two of his wives Atossa and Artystona.

THE Arch Bishop A. M. 3483 and 3490. modestly offers some conjectures con­cerning Darius Hystaspis, as 1. That he was Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther, 2. That A­tossa was Vashti, 3. That Artystona was Esther. For this he must not escape the Doctors lash Part 2. l. 2. s. 1. c. 4. notwithstanding that the Doctor might have known, that many learn­ed men, as Bertram de Repub. Jud. c. 13. Ca­rion, Melancthon, Funccius, Bunting, the Au­thor of the Chronicon in De la Haye's Biblia magna, Fevardentius, &c. have thought that Darius Hystaspis was the husband of Est­her, as well as the Arch-Bishop; as likewise that there are not many questions about which the differing opinions are so many, as about this; Esther having been married by one or other to most of the Kings of Persia, and to some of the Kings of the Medes. Melancthon also thought that Artystona was Esther, and Atossa Vashti.

As to the conjecture that Darius Hystaspis was that Ahasuerus, who reign'd from India [Page 66] to Ethiopia over 127 provinces, Esther 1. 1. the Arch-Bishop A. M. 3483 observes from Valerius Maximus l. 9. c. 2. that this Da­rius before he obtained the Kingdom was cal­led Ochus [...], to which [...] being added after his being King, he had the name Aha­suerus, as Cambyses had before him. And A. M. 3509 he says, that he is much con­firm'd in his opinion by that which we read of Ahasuerus Esth. 10. 1. that he laid a tri­bute upon the land, and upon the Isles of the sea. This (says he) agrees to Darius, who was the first that instituted the paying of tribute, when they brought gifts before: (for which he alledges Herodotus l. 3. c. 89. Strabo l. 15. Polyaenus Stratagem. l. 7. and Plutarch Apophthegmat. Regum & Impera­torum) who also subdu'd and rul'd over the Isles in the AEgean sea (as he gathers from Thucydides l. 1. and Plato in Menexeno) where­as Xerxes after his overthrow in Greece lost those Isles, so that only Clazomenae, and Cy­prus remain'd under the dominion of his Suc­cessors, for which we may consult Xenophon Hellenicwn l. 5. Thus the Arch-Bishop.

And what says the Doctor to all this? He dispatches it in very few words. For 1. The name Ahasuerus, 2. The dignification or title of being ruler over 127 Provinces, from India to Ethiopia, 3. The imposing tri­bute upon the Islands, all and every of these [Page 67] (says he) did as much belong to the Kings of Darius's succession, as to himself in particular; therefore nothing can be concluded certain from hence in special for Darius. Thus the Doctor.

Whereunto I reply, 1. That the Arch-Bishop never design'd to conclude any thing certain from thence, he knew full well that nothing can be concluded certainly in such difficult questions as this is. 2. How appears it that all and every of these did as much belong to Darius's Successors as to himself? the Doctors own saying it is all the autho­rity or proof that is brought for it. Possibly some have said that Ahasuerus was a common name of all the Kings of Persia, but we are not obliged to believe every bold conjecture or confident assertion. And when the Do­ctor says that the being Ruler over 127 Pro­vinces belong'd to Darius's Successors indefi­nitely, he seems to forget what he had said Part 2. l. 1. c. 20 viz. that Egypt (which was certainly one of the Provinces) did revolt from the Persians in the time of Darius No­thus, and was not reduc'd till the reign of Artaxerxes Ochus. And then, as to the im­posing tribute upon the Islands, the Arch-Bishop produces the Testimonies of sundry Writers to prove 1. That this Darius was the first that impos'd tribute (which could not belong to his Successors.) 2. That he sub­du'd [Page 68] and rul'd over the Isles in the AEgean sea, which his Successors did not; for his Son Xerxes lost them upon his overthrow in Greece. But to all this the Doctor says nothing. I shall only add to that which the Arch-Bishop hath observ'd of this matter, that in Hero­dotus l. 3. c. 96. there is express mention of the Isles paying tribute to this Darius.

We are now to make tryal whether the Doctor be more happy in his arguing against the Arch-Bishop, then he hath been in answer­ing his arguments. He objects against the Arch-Bishops conjecture, 1. That Darius was a name so well known to all the Jewish Wri­ters, whether at Babylon, Sufa or Jerusalem, and so appropriated to him that was the Son of Hystaspis, that it would be a very strange thing to see his name suppress'd by any of them. 2. That this Darius was an eminent Benefactor to the Jewish Nation from the first of his reign to his 6 year, and that it was his interest to confirm all Cyrus's decrees, and so it is not likely, that in the 12 of his reign he should so much forget himself, as at the in­stigation of a malapert Courtier to give com­mandment for the utter destruction of the people of the Jews, throughout all his Do­minions. 3. That this Prince's levity in ma­king ostentation of the Queens beauty, and peevishness in taking so deep an offence at her refusal, and petulancy in the use of many Con­cubines, [Page 69] and lastly rashness in granting a de­cree for an universal massacre of the Jews, will not suit with Darius, who before he obtain'd the Kingdom had been one of the Seven Coun­sellers or Ministers of State, and was full 28 years old when he came to the Crown. Thus the Doctor.

Before I return answer to all this I must pre­mise, that the Doctor is of opinion that Ar­taxerxes Longimanus was the husband of Esther. Now I say that these objections make as well against Artaxerxes, as they do against Darius. The Doctor himself confesses this to be true of the 2 ^d objection. And as to the first, Ar­taxerxes is a name which was as well known to the Jewish Writers as Darius. For the 3 ^d, the levity, peevishness, petulancy, rashness and cruelty in granting a decree for a Massa­cre of all the Jews mention'd in it will not suit with Artaxerxes, who is commended by Plutarch for his mildness or lenity, as well as magnanimity, and by Diodor. Sicul. and others for his prudence in managing affairs at the very first. So that the Doctor is oblig'd to answer these objections as much as we. Be­sides the Doctor is guilty of not a few mistakes. 1. I cannot understand why he says in the first objection, that the name of Darius was ap­propriated to him who was the Son of Hy­staspes, since there were two other Persian Kings that had this name, viz, Darius No­thus [Page 70] and Darius Codomannus; not to men­tion Darius the Mede. 2. I do not know how the Doctor will prove that Darius was one of the Seven Counsellers of Ministers of State before he obtain'd the Kingdom, espe­cially when he was but newly come to Susa when the other conspirators against the Magi took him into their number; see Herodotus l. 3. c. 30. The same Herodotus l. 3. c. 139. tells us indeed, that he was one of Cambyses his guard, his [...] or satelles, but adds that he was a man of no great note. 3. Sup­pose it granted that the levity, peevishness and rashness noted in Ahasuerus did not suit with Darius's usual temper, yet when he was heated with Wine (see Esth. 1. 10.) that might betray him to miscarriages of this na­ture. It was therefore a mistake in the Doctor to think that he might conclude thence, that Ahasuerus was not Darius. I add that if cruelty was one of Ahasuerus's qualifications (as his giving commandment utterly to de­stroy all the Jews in all his Dominions must be confess'd to be an act of cruelty) no man will acquit Darius of that, who calls to mind his merciless slaughter of all the Sons of Oeo­bazus, only because he desir'd that one of them might be permitted to stay behind, and not to accompany him in his expedition a­gainst the Sythians, Herodot. l. 4. c. 84. This may suffice for the first conjecture that Ahasue­rus was Darius.

For the two other conjectures, that Atossa was Vashti, and Artystona Esther, the Doctor objects that the agreement of the names A­tossa and Vashti is of no moment against the authority of History and Testimony of He­rodotus, who writes that Atossa was married to Darius after his obtaining the Kingdom, and that he had four children by her, and that she continu'd all the time of Darius to have a great power, yea all the power with him. How then (says he) is it likely that in the 3 ^d year of this Kings reign she should be put away? And to say that Artystona was Esther, because the King had a greater kindness for her then any of his other wives, yea and that the Persian Genealogies were falsifi'd out of envy to the Jews, this (says the Doctor) is worse then saying nothing at all. To which I answer, that the Arch-Bishop doth not say, that the Persian Genealogies were falsifi'd out of envy to the Jews, but only that we may think either that the Persians out of envy dissembled the parentage of Esther, or that Herodotus had not rightly understood the Per­sian Genealogies. Again, the Arch-Bishop doth not insist upon the agreement of the names Vashti and Atossa, thô it is true he thought as Melancthon also did that Atossa was Vash­ti: as he also thought with Carion and Me­lancthon that Artystona was Esther; and he was the rather mov'd to think so, because of [Page 72] the singular affection that Darius bare to her, having her Image all of solid Gold; see He­rodotus l. 7. c. 69. Now whether this is worse then saying nothing at all let others determine.

CHAP. VIII. Of Ninus junior and Tiglathpileser.

THE Arch-Bishop A. M. 3257. declares his opinion, that Ninus the Successor of Sardanapalus mention'd by Castor apud Syn­cellum p. 205, 206. was the same with him who in AElian Hist. Animal. l. 2. c. 21. is call'd Tilgam, in 2 Kings 15. 29. and 16. 7, 10. Tiglathpileser, but in 1 Chron. 5. 6, 26, and 2 Chron. 28. 20. Tilgathpilneser. This al­so is disliked by the Doctor Part 2. l. 2. s. 3. c. 4. and yet all that he says against it is, that there is just as much in AElian to shew that this Ninus junior was Tilgam, as there is in the Scripture to shew that he was Tiglathpileser, and no more. His meaning is, that there is nothing either in AElian to shew the one, or in the Scripture to shew the other. To which I answer 1. That there is as much in the Scripture to shew that this Ninus was Tiglathpileser, as there is in it to [Page 73] shew that Phul was in a distance of some 85 years after this Ninus, which the Doctor con­fidently affirms in this Chapter. 2. Thô there be nothing in AElian to shew the one, or in the Scripture to shew the other, yet they may be true. The Doctor is willing to grant that Tilgam in AElian and Tilgathpilneser in the Scripture are one and the same person, and yet there is nothing either in the one or the other to shew this. 3. The Arch-Bishop knew that there is nothing in Scripture directly to prove that Ninus junior was the same with Tiglathpileser, but the ground of his conje­cture seems to have been this, that Tiglath­pileser according to the Scripture was King of Assyria at that time, when this Ninus was King of Assyria according to Heathen Wri­ters.

CHAP. IX. Of the times of Moses and Inachus.

THE Doctor Part 2. l. 2. s. 3. c. 10. says that it is fairly acknowledged by the Arch-Bishop, that it was the opinion of Ta­tianus, Justin Martyr, Clemens, Josephus, Justus Tiberiensi [...] with others, that Moses was born in the time of Inachus, and that the [Page 74] migration of Israel out of Egypt was in Pho­roneus's time. Wherein the Doctor hath re­presented the Arch-Bishop not much amiss, for A. M. 2179. he says that the forecited Authors believ'd that Moses was equal i. e. contempo­rary to Inachus, thô it was the Arch-Bishops own opinion that the departure of the Is­raelites out of Egypt was long after the reign of Inacbus. But if the Doctor have dealt well with him in this, I am sure he hath not done so in that which follows. For he adds that All that which he ( i. e. the Arch-Bi­shop) says to it is this, that his calculation, which he is sure is right, will not permit it to be so, i. e. Moses to be contempory to Ina­chus. Whereas the Arch-Bishop doth not say this, and suppose that he had said it, it is not all that which he says.

1. The Arch-Bishop doth not say this. He doth not say, that he is sure that his cal­culation is right. He says indeed that the right account of times doth not permit us to doubt of this, that the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt was much later then the reign of Inachus; but all that can be made of this is, that the Arch-Bishop thought that the account of times which he follow'd is right; that he was sure that his calculation is right, he no where saith. And yet if he had said this, it is not much more then that which the Doctor himself says in the first [Page 75] words of this Chapter; I shall proceed (says he) a point beyond illustration, I shall go near to make a fair demonstration; and again in this Chapter I doubt not (says he) but my deductions are as just as any other what­soever, for they are deduc'd by manifest proof.

2. Suppose that the Arch-Bishop had said this, it is not all that he saith. For he shews how it came to pass, that those Learned men did believe Moses to have been contemporary to Inachus, viz. Having read of certain Sheep­herds that came out of Egypt into Syria a­bout the time of Inachus, they understood this of the Israelites coming from Egypt to Canaan; whereas those Sheepherds were the Phaenicians, of whom Herodotus l. 1. c. 1. and l. 7. c. 89. with Stephanus Byzant. in [...] testifies that they came from the Red sea.

That it may not seem strange, that the Arch-Bishop should depart from the opinion of all those Learned men, I add that Eusebius did the same before him, as also the greatest part of our later Chronologers. But the Doctor adheres to their opinion, and will by all means demonstrate the truth of it, and if you will be so liberal as to grant his suppositions, and that his Deductions and Tables are right, then he may do something; but if you be resty and will not grant him these, then you will put him out of the humor of demonstrating.

CHAP. X. Of that Alexander King of Egypt, who was reported to have made the Com­monwealth of Rome his heir.

THE Arch-Bishop A. M. 3924. affirms that Alexander who was expell'd by the E­gyptians, and dy'd at Tyre, and was reported to have left the Commonwealth his heir, reigned at the least 15 years. And for this he alledges Cicero and Suetonius; see him also A. M. 3939 and 3940. The Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 13. takes notice of this, and though the Arch-Bishop and he were friends a little before in the very same Chapter (insomuch that he calls him the most Learned Bishop of Armagh) yet he presently takes up the cud­gels against him, and denies that it can be prov'd by any Authorities alledg'd by the Arch-Bishop and others, that the foresaid A­lexander reign'd 15 years. If it can be pro­ved from any of them, the Doctor thinks it must be that of Cicero Orat. 1 and 2 de leg. Agrar., but to take off the force of this, he urges those words in Orat. 2 Haec L. Philip­pum in Senatu confirmasse in memoria teneo. Which words seem to the Doctor to argue, that the Testament and death of Alexander, [Page 77] and the discourses of L. Phillipus in the Se­nate concerning them, were more then a year or two before Cicero's delivering those Ora­tions. Furthermore (says the Doctor) let it be granted that the death of Alexander was in the year in which the Arch-Bishop sets it; yet of the time of his expulsion, and how long he liv'd an Exile, there is not a word to be found in any of those Authorities. Thus the Doctor.

Who might have been more easily under­stood, if he had set down the passages in Tullies Orations on which the Arch-Bishop re­lyes, or directed us to the place where the Arch-Bishop hath transcrib'd them at large, viz. A. M. 3940. And his snatching at the words Memoria teneo (as if they argued that Alexanders death and the Speeches of L. Phi­lippus were more then a year or two before Cicero's delivering the 2 ^d Oration) seems to me to argue that the Doctor was at a loss for an answer. For certainly a man may say pro­perly enough, I remember or retain in memory that such or such things were discoursed of by such a person, though it be not more then a year or two since he discoursed of them. Al­so the Doctors saying that of the time of A­lexanders expulsion there is not a word in a­ny of the Authorities, doth more then seem to argue, that he had not consulted the Testi­mony of Suetonius in Julio Caesare. c. 11. al­ledg'd [Page 78] by the Arch-Bishop A. M. 3939, for it is manifest from him, that Alexanders expulsion was at the time of Julius Caesars being AEdilis (as the Arch-Bishop sets it) or very shortly after it.

But the Doctor also produceth the genera­lity of Historians and Chronographers, and the Mathematical Canon against the Arch-Bishop. He cannot imagin why the Canon should o­mit a King of the direct line of 15 or 16 years reign, to substitute a stranger in the place of him. He concludes that allowing first Cleopatra and then Alexander to have succeed­ed Ptolomaeus Lathurus; yet because the time of their reigning was short, under the length of a year, therefore the Canon casts it in to the reign of Ptolem. Auletes. Thus the Doctor.

But why doth he urge the Arch-Bishop with the Authority of the generality of Hi­storians and Chronographers? when he had told us but a little before, that the Arch-Bishop did acknowledge the generality of Historians and Chronographers to be against him? Thò there are very Learned men that are for him, not only Petavius de doct. tem. l. 10. c. 46. and in Paralipomen. item in Rationar. Part 1. l. 4. c. 15. and Part 2. l. 3. c. 12, but also Ricciolus To. 3. p. 34, and To. 4. p. 82, and be­fore them Paulus Manutius in Comment. in Orat. 1. de leg. Agrar. As to the Mathema­tical Canon, the Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 3. [Page 79] acknowledges that it is not free from imper­fections aud oversights, and therefore promi­seth to rectifie the things that seem to be amiss in it. Withal he should not have told us that the time that both Cleopatra and A­lexander reign'd was not the space of a year, until he had offer'd some answer to the Testi­mony of Suetonius alleag'd by the Arch-Bishop to prove that Alexander reign'd many years.

Instead of answering Suetonius, the Doctor takes upon him to correct Justin, who in Prologo l. 39. hath these words, Ut post La­phyrum filius Alexandri regnarit, expulsoque eo suffectus sit Ptolomaeus Nothus. Here (if we will believe the Doctor) Justin wrote not Ptolemaeus Nothus, but Ptolemaeus novus; for (says he) this Ptolemee was called [...], as Diodorus Sicul. testifies. But I would know of the Doctor, how we can conclude from his being call'd a new Dionysius or a new [...] or Bacchus, that he had also the name of a new Ptolemee. I do believe that few have heard or read of a Ptolemaeus Novus before this. And what necessity is there of making an alteration as to the name? since it is believed that Ptolemaeus Auletes was really Nothus, with which agrees that passage in Tullies Orat. 2. de leg. Agrar., where he says that he who reign'd then ( i. e. as the Arch-Bishop and others interpret it Ptolemaeus Auletes) was neque genere neque [Page 80] animo regio, and I thought that it was up­on this very account that the Doctor himself calls him a stranger.

CHAP. XI. Of Argon who was the first King of Lydia after the Atyadae.

THE Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 16. falls very severely upon the Arch-Bishop, I must (says he) advise the Reader that he be­ware of being imposed upon by the allega­tion of Herodotus----------- As if Ninus and Belus forsooth, the first founders of the Assy­rian Monarchy, were the Grandchildren of Her­cules the Son of Amphitruo, for it is that Her­cules which Herodotus speaks of. And then (says he) who can chuse but wonder at that of Bishop Usher in his Annals Part 1. p. 44. or A. M. 2781.) where this very Argon is made the Son of Ninus the first great Assy­rian Monarch, and this grounded upon the Authority of Herodotus? And he adds that this was not a slip of the pen, but an in­dustrious excogitation. After other words he thus concludes, That this Argon should be the Son of Ninus the Son of Belus founders [Page 81] of the Assyrian Monarchy credat Judaeus Apella, non ego. Thus the Doctor.

Whom the Arch-Bishop hath thus highly offended only with these three words Argon Nini filius. He doth not say Argon the Son of Ninus the first great Assyrian Monarch or Founder of the Assyrian Monarchy. Nor doth he say The Son of Ninus the Son of Belus, though (if he had said this last) he had on­ly transcrib'd the words of Herodotus l. 1. c. 7. which are these [...]. Why then doth the Doctor talk of an industrious excogitation, when the Arch-Bishop says nothing but what he found in Herodotus? But the Doctor says that that which he found in Herodotus (particularly the words [...]) is not Herodotus his own, but the mistake of an unwary hand. In the Text of Herodotus (says he) it was not [...], but [...]. Now I think that the Arch-Bishop is not to be blamed for not being so profound a Critick as to discover that Herodotus was to be thus corrected. And if he was now living, I believe he would scarce perceive, that there is so near an Affinity be­tween [...] and [...]. as that an unwary hand should write the one for the other. I believe also that it would have puzzled the most learned Primate of Ar­magh [Page 82] to construe this new Greek [...]. Therefore the Doctor hath oblig'd us by construing it himself, viz. thus, Argon the Son of Alcaeus the Son of a servant maid of Jardanus. Now can any man possibly imagine that Herodotus should express this sense in such Greek as the Doctor would thrust upon us?

Therefore the Doctor is content that this should pass only for a conjecture; he also ac­quaints us upon what he grounds it, viz. up­on this, that Alcaeus the Father of Argon is by Diodorus Sicul. called Cleolaus [...] in the time of servitude born of a servant maid of Jardanus, so Diodo. Sic. l. 4. according to the Doctor. But 1. Dio­dorus only says Born of a servant maid, he doth not say Of a servant maid of Jardanus. 2. How appears it that Alcaeus was the Fa­ther of Argon? Diodorus doth not say that either Alcaeus or Cleolaus was his Father; and Herodotus says that Argon was the Son Ni­nus. 3. How appears it that Alcaeus is by Diodor. Sic. call'd Cleolaus? The ground then of the Doctors conjecture thus failing him, and the conjecture being in it self very im­probable (to say no more) he had certainly done much better, if he had suppress'd both of them.

The Doctor very confidently affirms, that the Hercules of whom Herodotus speaks, who [Page 83] was the Father of Alcaeus, and according to the Doctor, the Grandfather of Argon, was Hercules the Son of Amphitruo. But Hero­dotus doth not say that he was the Son of Amphiatruo, and the Doctor doth not offer any proof of it. In the mean time this ar­gument may be offer'd against it. If Hercu­les the Son of Amphitruo was born but a lit­tle before the Trojan war, and if Argon be­gun his reign over the Lydians before that war, then it is not probable that Hercules the Son of Amphitruo was the Grandfather of Ar­gon. But the former, viz. that Hercules the Son of Amphitruo was born but a little be­fore the Trojan war, is expressly affirm'd by Diodorus Sic. l. 3. in fin., and the Doctor himself grants the later; for in his Canon at the end of his book p. 43 and 45. he sets the beginning of Argons reign 28 years before the destruction of Troy. This knot the Doctor is forc'd to cut, because it was not to be loos'd; and so let Diodorus Sic. say what he will, he sets the birth of this Hercules 85 years be­fore the Trojan war; see his Canon p. 41 and 45. Also he would have Alcaeus to have been born some short time after the Argo­nautical expedition, forgetting that which he says of Alcaeus in the margin, that he is call'd Cleolaus by Diodorus Sic. and that Cleolaus was born in the time of Hercules's servitude viz. to Omphale, which was long after the [Page 84] expedition of the Argonautae; see Diodor. Sit. l. 4. Add hereto that the Doctor makes Her­cules to have been about 58 years of age when Argon begun his reign, whereas in Euseb. Chron. Hercules is said to have liv'd only 52 years in all, and that there were some who did not allow him so many. Lastly, the Doctor will have the expedition of the Argonautae to have been long before that Eurystheus first reign'd (see Part 2. l. 1. c. 8.) whereas Diodorus Sic. l. 4. p. 153 and 156. makes that expedition to have been long after Eurystheus's first being King, viz. after that Hercules had perform'd the 8 ^th task or labour that he enjoyn'd him. In these difficulties the Doctor hath intangled himself by holding that the Hercules in Herodotus must be Hercules the Son of Amphitruo, where­as we may suppose him to be another (for Diodorus Sic. l. 3. says that there were three Hercules's, and Cicero de nat. Deor. l. 3. writes that there were Six) and that the Heraclidae that were Kings of Lydia descended from that other Hercules, but the Heraclidae that ma­ny years after setled in Peloponnesus were the posterity of this Hercules who was the Son of Amphitruo.

CHAP. XII. of AEgyptus, and how many years in­terven'd between him and Sesac, 1 Kings 11. also whether he was the same with Sethothis; and of Jona­than, 1 Maccab. 9.

THE Doctor Part 2. l. 1. c. 20. says that the Arch-Bishop makes 506 years to have interven'd from the beginning of the reign of Sethosis to the reign of Sesac, 1 Kings 11. 40; but according to the Doctor only 451 years were between them. In this he relyes upon the authority of Africanus, whose Numbers (generally speaking) he prefers be­fore Eusebius's, whom (as he tells us) the Arch-Bishop follows, saving that with Jose­phus he gives four years more to Sethosis then Eusebius doth. But a brief answer to this will suffice. For as the Doctor only says that generally speaking Africanus is to be prefer'd (which implies that he is not always) so he himself in this very account doth not follow Africanus, but says expressly that Africanus may be rectifi'd as well as Eusebius. The Doctor pretends that he differs only two years from him, but take Africanus as he is repre­sented by Syncellus, without Goars alterations, [Page 86] and he differs above 20 years from him. Besides the Arch-Bishop is misrepresented by the Do­ctor, for the Doctor says that according to the Arch-Bishop, that interval of time from the first of Sethosis to the first year of Sesac was 506 years, whereas the Arch-Bishop makes it to have been 513 years; for according to him Sethosis begun his reign An. Per. Jul. 3223. (not 3230 as the Doctor would persuade us) and Sesac begun his An. Per. Jul. 3736.

In the very same Chapter the Doctor will not allow that AEgyptus was the same with Sethosis, as the Arch-Bishop An. Per. Jul. 3232 will have him to have been; but Se­thosis was the Son of AEgyptus, if the Do­ctor be in the right. Yet the Doctor con­fesseth that herein he differs from several o­thers as well as from the Arch-Bishop, and I am apt to think that in making Sethosis the Son of AEgyptus he is singular; neither Euse­bius nor Syncellus hath any cover for this dish, if I may use the Doctors own expression. Yea the Doctor contradicts Eusebius and Syn­cellus as well as the Arch-Bishop, for they say that Armais was the same with Danaus, and Ramasses the same with Egyptus; but the Doctor supposes Danaus and AEgyptus to have been other persons, and of another family. As to Sethosis the Arch-Bishop transcribes the words of Manetho ap. Joseph. c. Apion. l. 1. who says that Sethosis was call'd AEgyptus, [Page 87] and his brother Armais Danaus; who also distinguisheth Armais the brother of Sethosis from a former Armais that reign'd long be­fore him.

The Doctor Part 2. l. 2. s. 2. c. 1. says that whereas Josephus Ant. l. 13. 5. writes that Jonathan received the Stole four years after the death of Judas, Bishop Usher round­ly censures this as an ofcitancy in him. Thus the Doctor. But I wish he had produc'd the words in which the Arch-Bishop roundly cen­sures it as an oscitancy. Tis true A. M. 3852. he calls it an errour, but withall as he tells us what led Josephus into that errour, so he makes him so ingenuous as afterwards (viz. Ant. l. 20. c. 8.) to retract that which in­duc'd him into it.

CHAP. XIII. Of the duration of the Assyrian Monar­chy, and of Herodotus, also of the Median Succession.

THat by which the Arch-Bishop hath most disoblig'd the Doctor is still behind, viz. his shortning the Median Succession by 167 years, and the duration of the Assyrian Mo­narchy by many more. For this the Doctor [Page 88] Part 2. l. 1. c. 18. declaims most earnestly against the Arch-Bishop, calling it the model­ling a new Chronology, and asking what Sca­liger, Eusebius and Africanus would have said, if they had heard of this adventure, how (says he) would they have stood amaz'd? In this heat he runs on till he is out of breath, and not content with this he brings in Is. Uossius inveighing against the Arch-Bishop in like man­ner. At last he begins to think it necessary to give some satisfactory answer to Herodotus, on whom the Arch-Bishop relies; and in order to this he prays us to review that which he had written in the Chapter of the Medes ( i. e. the 15 Chapter) foregoing. He­rodotus, speaks of no Kings of the Medes be­fore Deioces, and says that after their revolt from the Assyrians the Medes were [...] governed by their own Laws. Accordingly the Arch-Bishop after Arbaces, who deliver'd the Medes from the Assyrian yoke, so that they were now free to live by their own Laws, mentions no Kings of the Medes be­fore Deioces; see the Arch-Bishop A. M. 3257 and 3294. What says the Doctor Chapt. 15. to this? He says that because Herodotus speaks of no Kings before Deioces, we must not ar­gue from thence that there were none, as we must not by the [...] of which Herodo­tus speaks, understand a perfect Anarchy, or that during that time they had no Kings at [Page 89] all; for (says he) this is disproved by the authority of Ctesias ap. Diodor. Sic., who mentions both the names of several Kings, and the years of their reign. And so Chapt. 18. it is noted as one of the Arch-Bishops mistakes, that by Herodotus's [...] he understands a perfect Anarchy. But what if the Doctor himself prove to be mistaken in thinking that the Arch-Bishop intended to conclude that there were no Kings only from the word [...], or Herodotus's not men­tioning any? Herodotus writes that Rapines and other lawless pranks growing more and more rife among them, some advis'd that they should set over themselves a King, that they might be govern'd by good Laws, &c. So they were persuaded to submit to Kings, and presently enter'd into consultation about the person whom they should chuse. Thus He­rodotus l. 1. c. 97, 98. From hence I think we may safely conclude, that according to He­rodotus they had no Kings at that time. 'Tis manifest that not only Vossius Castigat. adc. 10. but also Diodorus Sic. l. 2. did understand He­rodotus thus, that they were without Kings. And as to Ctesias, probably the Arch-Bishop saw no reason why his authority should be prefer'd to that of Herodotus. This for the Median succession; only I must add, that the Doctor makes the Arch-Bishop to shorten it by 167 years, whereas the Arch Bishop makes [Page 90] the duration of it but 130 years shorter then the Doctor himself doth; for from Arbaces's freeing the Medes from the Assyrian yoke to the end of Astyages's reign the Arch-Bishop reckons 187 years, and the Doctor reckons only 317.

We now proceed to the Assyrian Monar­chy, to the duration of which (from the be­ginning of the reign of Ninus to the death of Sardanapalus) the Arch-Bishop allots on­ly 520 years, grounding himself (says the Doctor) upon Herodotus. And it is very true, that the Arch-Bishop alledges Herodo­tus l. 1. c. 95. for this, who in express words saith (as the Doctor translates him) that the Assyrians holding the sway of the upper A­sia some 520 years, the Medes were the first that begun to break from them. But then the Arch-Bishop also alledges Appian in Prae­fat., who says that the three greatest Em­pires of the Assyrians, Medes and Persians altogether did scarce make up the summ of 900 years. And what says the Doctor to this? He makes a short answer serve, saying that there is no weight at all in it as to the purpose for which it is vouched. But then he promiseth to give a satisfactory answer to Herodotus, in order to which he first sets down the words of Herodotus at large both in Greek and English, then he craves leave to note some mistakes, and at last he will bring the business to account.

As to the mistakes, the Arch-Bishop is on­ly concern'd in two of them, viz. the first and the third. The first is, the Arch-Bishop supposes that the Assyrian Monarchy old expire at the time of the Medes defection. The third is, that he supposes that Herodotus's [...] was a perfect Anarchy. To the lat­ter of which it hath been answer'd already, that the Arch-Bishop is not concern'd whe­ther [...] necessarily denotes an Anar­chy or no, for there are other passages in He­rodotus (transcrib'd by me a little above) from which the Arch-Bishop might gather that the Medes had no King at that time, and it is the Doctors mistake to think that the Arch-Bishop concluded it from the word [...] only. As to the other mistake imputed to the Arch-Bishop, viz. the supposing that the Assyrian Monarchy did expite at the time of the Medes defection, I grant that the Arch-Bishop doth suppose this, but deny that it is a mistake, for when, so large a Province as Media was revolted from them, the Assyrians had not the Monarchy of upper Asia as before, especially when Belesis had also obtain'd the Kingdom of Babylon. But they had still a large Empire or Government, as the Arch-Bishop tells us, making Ninus junior to have succeeded Sardanapalus in it. And yet the Doctor will prove that the Government was not extinguished, as if the Arch-Bishop had [Page 92] said that it was; whereas the Arch-Bishop says plainly that the Government was not ex­tinct, thô the Monarchy was.

And now the Doctor will bring the busi­ness to account. He says that Herodotus's [...] begun about An. Per. Jul. 3000, and continued 1000 years; and yet when he descends to particulars he accounts but 800 years from the beginning of the [...] to the confederacy of Arbaces and Belesis, and 180 years after it, which two numbers do not make up 1000. But to pass by this, the Doctors meaning is that whereas the Arch-Bishop conceiv'd that the defection of the Medes and the beginning of Herodotus's [...] was in the time of Arbaces, he should have set it 800 years sooner about An. Per. Jul. 3000, and so the beginning of the Assy­rian Monarchy 520 years before that, i. e. about An. Per. Jul. 2480. Now there will not need any long answer to this, since 1. The Doctor doth not alledge any Author that gives the least intimation of any defection of the Medes 800 years before Arbaces. 2. No man that reads Herodotus can think that he ever as much as dream'd that the Medes continu'd [...] the space of 1000 years. 3. These accounts do not agree with the Doctors own Catalogues of the succession of the Assyrian Monarchs, which he gives us in the beginning and end of this Chapter. From the beginning [Page 93] of the [...] An. Per. Jul. 3000, or thereabouts to the confederacy of Arbaces and Belesis, he accounts a space of 800 years, but according to his Catalogues there were above 830 years between them. He makes the Assyrian Monarchy to have begun 520 years before the beginning of the [...], which was about An. Per. Jul. 3000, so that we must set the beginning of the Assyrian Mo­narchy about An. Per. Jul. 2480: now the Founders of the Assyrian Monarchy he makes to have been either Belus or Ninus, and bids us reckon from either of them, but accor­ding to the former Catalogue Belus begun his reign An. Per. Jul. 2378, Ninus An. Per. Jul. 2433, according to the later Belus's reign begun An. Per. Jul. 2353 and Ninus An. Per. Jul. 2408; now how will any of these accounts agree with the making the Assy­rian Monarchy to begin about An. Per. Jul. 2480? Lastly, in this account the duration of the Assyrian Monarchy is made to have been but 520 years and 800 years or three or four years more, in all about 1320 years: but in the former Catalogue the duration of it from Be­lus to the death of Sardanapalus is 1460 years, in the later 1484 years; and from Ninus to the death of Sardanapalus, according to both Catalogues, above 1400 years. It seems then that the Doctor hath not brought the busi­ness to an exact account. Add that accor­ding [Page 94] to the Doctor the Medes were [...] in the time of Sardanapalus, whereas Dio­dorus Sic. l. 2. plainly testifies that they were then under the Empire or Dominion of the Assyrians.

Therefore upon second thoughts in this ve­ry Chapter s. 13. the Doctor could be con­tent to wave this answer, and pitch upon a­nother, for which he is beholden to his friend Vossius, viz. that Herodotus hath been tam­per'd with, and that he wrote 1500, not 520, as our copies have it. And I coufess that this is a very easie way of answering. If we may at pleasure, without the warrant of any o­ther copy, change 520 into 1500, and 5 generations into 50, and 30 or 35 into 40 (all which the Doctor doth in this Chapter) we need not fear any objection from the au­thority of any Writer whatsoever. I think that the Doctor had done much better, if he had wav'd both these answers, and either turn'd off Herodotus as he doth Appian, or rested in that which he says before that He­rodotus was fabellarum pater, and not to be regarded.

CHAP. XIV. Of the duration of the Assyrian Mo­narchy against D ^r Is. Vossius.

IS. Vossius in Dissert. de aetate Mundi c. 5. says that all those that follow the Ma­sorites Bible do make Ninus and Semiramis to have reign'd in the 58 year after the Floud. Hornius in Dissert. de aetate Mundi c. 8. ob­jects against this, that Usher refers their reign to A. M. 2737, so that they were almost 11 ages after the Floud. Hereupon Vossius in Castigat. ad. c. 8. inveighs against the Arch-Bishop for cutting off at least 8 ages from the time that was from Ninus to Sardanapalus (making the whole time between them to have been only 496 years) and for omitting all the Assyrian Kings from Ninyas to Sar­danapalus, and this without reason or autho­rity. To Herodotus, whom the Arch-Bishop alledgeth, and who saith that first the Medes begun to revolt from the Assyrians when they had enjoy'd the Empire of the upper Asia 520 years, Vossius Castigat. ad c. 10. answers, that he is to be understood thus, viz. that when the Empire of the Assyrians had con­tinu'd 520 years, the Medes begun to revolt from them by little and little, and to become [Page 96] a Nation sui juris, yet without Kings; and that Deioces was the first that invaded the Tyranny. Also to Herodotus he opposes Cte­sias, who begins the Kingdom of the Medes not with Deioces but Arbaces, whom he makes to have possess'd the city Ninus and part of Assyria, whereas Herodotus writes that Cy­axares did this a long time after. Thus Vos­sius. Hornius in his Defensio c. 31. asks Vos­sius where he had his Paulatim, that the Medes did revolt by little and little. Then he alledges Dionysius Harlicarn. l. 1. who re­fers the Empire of the Assyrians to the fabu­lous times, and says that the Assyrians pos­sess'd a small part of Asia, therefore (says Hornius) it is false which others write of the vast dominion of Ninus, Semiramis and their successors. Also he alledges Strabo l. 11. who says that the Antiquities of the Persians, the Medes and the Syrians do not obtain much credit, because of the fabulousness of the Wri­ters of them. Vossius in Castiga. Auctario ad Effug. 31. tells Hornius, that if he had considered the place in Herodotus, he would not have ask'd where he had his Paulatim. Also he makes Hornius to argue from Dio­nysius Hal. thus, If that Kingdom was in a fabulous age, then it was fabulous. Now (says Vossius) this is as if any one should say, The Greeks call'd all the time before the Olympiads fabulous, therefore the things that [Page 97] are written of Moses and Sampson are fables. He observes also that Diodorus Sic. relating the opinion of Herodotus sets down 500 years (not 520) and adds that he approves of S ^r John Marsham's conjecture that in Herodotus we are to read 1500 years instead of 520, as he will have us to read in Diodor. Sic. 1500 instead of 500, otherwise (says he) Diodor. Sic. would not have pass'd over that place in Herodotus without a reprehension. Hornius in Defensionis Auctario Def. 31. only remarks how prudent Vossius was in taking no notice of the place in Strabo, and how liberal in add­ing 1000 years to the Annals of Herodotus and Diodorus Sic., as well as bold in cor­recting two Authors at once. I shall not take upon me to determine whether Vossius or Hornius have the better in this scuffle; on­ly I observe 1. That Vossius not only takes no notice of the place in Strabo, but also he takes no notice of Hornius's argument from Dionysius Hal. viz. this, Dionysius Hal. says, that the Assy­rians had the dominion of a certain small part of Asia, and this (as Hornius thought) doth not very well agree with that which others re­late concerning the vast dominion of Ninus, Se­miramis and their successors. And so from Stra­bo's words we may well gather, that no great credit is to be given to the long series or suc­cession of Assyrian Kings which some give us. For by Syrians, Strabo meant Assyrians; so [Page 98] Herodotus l. 7. c. 63. tells us that they are by the Greeks call'd Syrians, whom the Bar­barians call'd Assyrians; and so Cicero Tuscul. qu. l. 5. calls Sardanapalus King of Syria, whom De finib. bon. & mal. l. 2. he calls King of Assyria; and so Justin l. 1. c. 2. Assyrii qui postea Syri dicti sunt. 2. That Hor­nius doth not argue in such manner as Vos­sius would persuade us, viz. The Assyrian Em­pire was in a fabulous age, therefore it was fabulous, but the argument should have been form'd thus, Dionysius Hal. refers the time of the Assyrian Monarchy, or part of it, to the age which is accounted fabulous, tis probable therefore that many things which Heathen Writers say of the Assyrian Kings, their num­ber, names, &c. are fabulous. So that it is an odious comparison which Vossius makes, when he speaks of Moses and Sampson; as if because we are not oblig'd to believe every thing that is deliver'd in profane History, the like may be infer'd concerning the Sacred Re­cords. 3. I think that Hornius had very good reason to ask Vossius where he had his Pau­latim; for Herodotus only says that the Medes begun to revolt, he doth not say that they begun to revolt by little and little (as Vos­sius doth) nor is there any thing in Hero­dotus which intimates this. There is that which plainly intimates the contrary, viz. that they revolted together; for it follows in [Page 99] Herodotus, that they gave the Assyrians bat­tel and worsted them, which they could not have done, if they had not all joyn'd their force together. 4. When Vossius in Castigat. Au­ctario ad Effug. 31. says that the Arch-Bishop relies solely on Herodotus, I am tempted to question whether Vossius consulted the Arch-Bishop, thô he pretends to confute him; for it is apparent that the Arch-Bishop A. M. 2737. alledges Appian as well a Herodotus. 5. But that which is most strange is still be­hind, that any man should have the confi­dence to make such an alteration in the Text of both Herodotus and Diodorus Sic. as Vos­sius doth. He is displeased with the Arch-Bishop for shortning the Assyrian Monarchy without any Authority (for so he pretends) that he then should take upon him in such sort to correct two Authors at once without the Authority of any Copy either Manuscript or Printed, yea without any Authority what­soever, is the strangest thing imaginable. Cer­tainly this that the 1000 years which Vossius adds are not found in Diodor. Sic. where he transcribes Herodotus, is a stronger argument that they were not in the copies of Herodotus which he had, and so not in the ancient co­pies, then any that can be brought to prove the contrary.

It will be said perhaps, that it was not without either reason or authority that Vos­sius [Page 100] made this Emendation. As to Autho­rity, S ^r John Marsham in his Diatriba p. 35. had declar'd his opinion, that in Herodotus we are to read 1500 instead of 520. And then for reasons 1. It is plain that there is an er­rour in the copies either of Herodotus or Dio­dor. Sic., for when the one hath 520 years, the other hath only 500. 2. If Diodor. Sic. had found 520 in Herodotus, he would not have pass'd it over without a reprehension: thus Vossius in Castigat. Auctar. ad Effug. 31. But his principal argument is in his Answer to Christianus Schotanus, and it is this; If we read 1500 in Herodotus, then he will a­gree not with Ctesias only, but also with Dinon, Polybius, Thallus, Alexander Poly­histor, Castor, Diodorus Sic., Africanus and innumerable others.

To all this I return answer, 1. S ^r John Mar­sham did long since in his Chronicus Canon p. 489. in express words retract that which he had written in his Diatriba concerning the substituting of 1500 instead of 520, for (says he) it doth not agree with the mind of He­rodotus. 2. As to the first reason, Suppose that there is an errour either in Herodotus or Diodor. Sic., it doth not follow that there is an errour in both, as Vossius will have it. And if a careless Amanuensis left out 20 years in transcribing Diodor. Sic., we cannot con­clude thence that several Amanuenses should [Page 101] be so wretchedly careless as to leave out 1000 years, both in Herodotus and Diodor. Sic. I add that perhaps there is no errour at all, but Diodor. Sic. thought it enough to set down the round number 500 years. To the second reason from Diodor. Sic. his not re­prehending Herodotus, I answer, that it was his business only to report what Herodotus and Ctesias had writ, not to reprehend either of them. In answer to his third and principal reason I only say, that when we have sub­stituted 1500 instead of 520 in Herodotus, he will not agree so well with the Authors mention'd by Vossius as he pretends. Ctesias ap. Diodor. Sic. l. 2. will have the duration of the Assyrian Monarchy to have been 1360 years. Castor ap. Syncell. p. 168. allots to it An. 1280. Thallus ap. Theophilum ad Autol. l. 3, & Lactantium l. 1. c. 23. affirms Belus to have been 322 years before the Trojan war. Agathias de Imper. & reb. gest. Justi­niani l. 2. seems to say that Alexander Poly­histor writ, that from the beginning of Ni­nus's reign that Empire continu'd 1306 years. The same Agathias makes Diodor. Sic. to a­gree with Ctesias, thô in our copies of Diod. Sic. he differs from him, saying that it con­tinu'd more then 1400 years. Afrioanus accor­ding to Helvicus and Ricciolius allows 1484 years to the duration of it, but according to Syncellus only 1460. Now suppose that we [Page 102] ought to substitute 1500 instead of 520, how would Herodotus still agree with these Au­thors, who do not agree among themselves, and who do not (any of them) come up to 1500 years? As to Dinon and Polybius, I know not where it is that they speak of the Assyrian Empires duration, and as for Vossius's innumerable others, I do not know who they are. I conclude then, that there is neither reason nor Authority to warrant such an al­teration in Herodotus and Diodorus.

I must not forget to take notice, that Vos­sius opposes Ctesias to Herodotus, and yet at the same time, wholly destroys Ctesias's au­thority in that which he writes concerning the Assyrian Monarchy, for (says Vossius Castigat. in c. 10.) thô very much is attributed to his authority in the Persian affairs, yet he is a most lying Writer in other things. Besides, the instances which Vossius gives of Ctesias's dissenting from Herodotus do concern the King­dom of the Medes, not the Assyrian Empire of which we speak.

I shall only add, that M ^r John Gregory in­formes us of a Chronological Abstract in MS, which makes Thourias (who was also call'd A­res) to have succeeded Ninus, and after that Thourias he placeth Lames, and then Sardana­palus. This Thourias or Ares (as the said M Gregory acquaints us) is suppos'd to be the same with him whom Africanus calls Arius. [Page 103] See Suidas in voce [...], for it is evident that Suidas's. Thouras and Thourias in the MS are the same.

CHAP. XV. Of the study of Astronomy, whether it be as ancient as Nimrod, and of the Ce­lestial Observations sent into Greece by Aristotle's procurement.

VOssius Castigat. ad c. 10. says, that it is very absurd to think that the know­ledge of the Stars is as ancient as Nimrod. For (says he) Terah and Abraham were the first that were skill'd in that science. Of Abra­ham, Berosus testifies that he was expert in it, and Eupolemus that he was, the Inventer of it. And Philo L. de Nobilitate witnesses ve­ry clearly concerning both. The Arch-Bishop A. M. 1771. gathers from Porphyry ap. Sim­plicium l. 2. de caelo, that this science is as ancient as Nimrod. Porphyry says that when Alexander had taken Babylon, Calisthenes sent from thence into Greece Astronomical obser­vations of 1903 years. Now (says the Arch-Bishop) from the time of Nimrod (which was 115 years after the Floud) to Alexanders [Page 104] taking Babylon, were 1903 years, and so the Babylonians begun to make their Astronomical observations in the time of Nimrod. To this what says Vossius? He denies that Nim­rod could begin to reign so soon as in the 115 year after the Floud. He says that the be­ginning of those 1903 years was almost 1000 years later then the Floud, in the 124 year of Terah, Thus Vossius. Hornius in Defen­sione, Disserta. Def. 24. answers, that Bero­sus only saith that Abraham was skill'd in the knowledge of the heavenly bodies, and that it doth not follow from thence that he was the Inventer of it, since he might learn his skill from the Chaldeans. Eupolemus, in­deed, says, that he was the Inventer of it, but (says Hornius) he brings no Authority for the confirming his assertion. As to Phi­lo, Hornius says that he favour'd his cause and Nation. He adds that the knowledge of Astronomy was before the Floud, and was deliver'd by Ham to Chus and Nimrod. And in his Dissertation de AEtate Mundi c. 10. Hor­nius, to shew that Nimrod might begin his reign An. 115. after the Floud, supposes that Chus was born in the first or second year after it, and that at the age of 35 he might beget Nimrod. Vossius in Castigat. Auctor. Effug. 24. replies that Abraham could not learn Astronomy of the Chaldeans, for there were no Chaldeans at that time. And he tells Hor­nius, [Page 105] that he is very absurd in making Ham, Chus and Nimrod to have been Astronomers, when he will not allow that Abraham was skill'd in that science. As to Eupolemus, Vos­sius says that he did not ascribe the inven­tion of Astronomy to Abraham without au­thority, for Berosus and the AEgyptians had said almost the same before him, adding that Philo, Josephus, and many of the Fathers do also confirm it. Finally Hornius in Auctario Defens. brings the Testimony of Alexander Polyhistor ap. Euseb. de Praeparat. l. 9. who ascribes the invention of Astronomy to Enoch, as also of Josephus, saying that Astronomy and Geometry were invented before the Floud. And he tells Vossius, that Kircher had prov'd that Ham, Chus and Nimrod were skill'd in Astronomy by as good Testimonies, as he had produc'd to prove that Abraham was the Inventer of it. Thus far Vossius and Hor­nius.

I shall only observe a few particulars, as 1. Vossius says that it could not be that Nim­rod should begin his reign An. 115. after the Floud, but offers no reason why it could not be; nor yet doth he give any answer to that which Hornius had said to make out the pos­sibility of it. 2. When Vossius says that A­braham could not learn Astronomy of the Chal­deans, for there were no Chaldeans in his time, he meerly trifles; for Hornius in Dissertat. [Page 106] de aetate Mundi c. 10. had plainly declar'd, that by Chaldeans he meant Babylonians, and would not contend about Names. 3. When Vossius says that the beginning of the 1903 years was almost 1000 years after the Floud, in the 124 year of Terah; he insinuates that the 124 of Terah was also almost 1000 years after the Floud. Now this will in no wise agree with his Chronologia sacra, for according to that neither the beginning of the 1903 years, nor the 124 year of Terah can be said to have been almost 1000 after the Floud, for both of them were above 1000 years after it. The 124 of Terah in that Chronology is made to have been 1186 years after the Floud, and the beginning of the 1903 years (counting backward from Alexanders taking Babylon) must be according to that Chrono­logy about 1259 years later then the Floud. So that thô Vossius disputing against the Arch-Bishop, will have the beginning of the 1903 years to have been in the 124 year of Te­rah, yet in his Chronology he makes the be­ginning of those years about 73 years later then that year of Terah.

But that which is most necessary is to ex­amine the Authorities produc'd by Vossius a­gainst the Arch-Bishop, which I shall do brief­ly. The first is Berosus, who says, that in the 10 ^th generation after the Floud, there was among the Chaldeans a just and great man, [Page 107] that was expert in the knowledge of the hea­venly bodies; thus Josephus alledges him Ant. l. 1. c. 8. believing that the just and great man, of whom Berosus speaks, was Abraham. Another of Vossius's witnesses is Philo de Nobilitate, who says, that the Father of the Jews was a Chaldean by Nation, born of a Father that was skill'd in Astronomy; so that Philo testifies of Terah Abrahams Father, that he was skill'd in that Science; but that he doth there witness the same of Abraham (as Vossius pretends) I do not find: yet Vossius might have cited other pla­ces in which he doth, as l. de Gigantibus and l. de Abrahamo. Josephus is alledg'd also, who l. 1. c. 9. says, that Abraham taught the E­gyptians Astronomy. The Egyptians them­selves, and many of the Fathers, are also call'd in as witnesses, Vossius says that the Egyp­tians confess, that they learn'd Astronomy of the Chaldeans; but as to the Fathers, he tells us not either what Fathers should testifie any thing, or where they should do it. Yet I freely grant, that some of the Fathers say as much as some of his witnesses do, as S. Basil in Isa. 13. who ascribes the invention of this science to the Chaldeans, and S. Greg. Nazi­anzen Orat. 3. who attributes it to the Ba­bylonians. But now what do all these Testi­monies make to Vossius's purpose, who should prove that Terah and Abraham were the first [Page 108] Inventers of Astronomy, or the first that stu­died and taught it? Some say that Abraham had the knowledge of Astronomy, and one adds that the Egyptians learn'd it of him; as another saith, that Terah was skill'd in this science; but none of them say that Terah and Abraham were the first Inventers of it. Indeed Eupolemus ap. Euseb. de Praeparat. l. 9. c. 17 very plainly testifies that Abraham in­vented Astronomy, and instructed the Phani­cians and Egyptians in that Science; but as he is but a single witness, so he withal affirms that Enoch was the first Inventer of it, and where­as the Greeks attribute the invention of it to Atlas, Eupolemus informs us that Atlas was Enoch. This concerning Enoch is confirm'd by the Testimony of Alexander Polyhistor a­bovemention'd, and of Josephus l. 1. c. 3.

CHAP. XVI. Of the Egyptian Empire, when it be­gun, and how long it continued. Al­so of Constantinus Manasses.

VOssius in Dissertat. de aetate Mundi c. 5. says that the Egyptian Dynasties were some Ages before Abrahams time. But Hor­nius in his Dissertat. c. 8. tells him that this [Page 109] is false. For (says he) according to the Arch-Bishops computation, the beginning of the Egyptian Empire was A. M. 1816, and Abra­hams birth was A. M. 2008, so that that Em­pire was not full two Ages more ancient then Abrahams time. And yet within that space of time there might be several Dynasties. Vos­sius Castigat. ad c. 11. replies, that the Arch-Bishops computation relies wholly upon the Authority of Constantinus Manasses, and his Putidissimum Chronicon (as he calls it.) He adds that this Constantinus Manasses makes that Abimelech, which fell in love with Sarah Abrahams wife, to have been the first King of Egypt; how then (says he) can the Arch-Bishop prove from him that the Kingdom of Egypt begun almost two Ages before Abra­ham? Further, whereas that Constantine writes that the Egyptian Empire continu'd 1663 years, the Arch-Bishop errs in referring the end of that Empire to the reign of Cambyses, for E­gyptian Kings did reign after Cambyses to the time of Alexander the great. Now let the time from Abraham to Alexander be computed, and the number of the years, according to the computation of the Greeks, will be found to agree with that which Constantine mentions. Eusebius makes the destruction of the Egyp­tian Empire to have happened 1666 years af­ter Abraham. Hornius in Defensio. 30. re­joyns, that the Arch-Bishops computation [Page 110] doth not rely solely upon the Authority of that Constantine, but also upon this, that Miz­raim lead Colonies into Egypt about the time, when according to the Arch-Bishops calculation, the Egyptian Empire did begin. He asks why Egypt is call'd the land of Mizraim, if the Egyptian Empire was not founded by him. He tells Vossius that his Father did not judge Constantinus Manasses to be a despicable Wri­ter, and that in Janus Douza his account his Chronica are accuratissima (not putidissima.) He adds that the end of the Egyptian Em­pire is by the Arch-Bishop rightly refer'd to Cambyses, for thô the Egyptians rebell'd after­wards, they were presently subdu'd together with their Kings. And whereas Vossius speaks of the time of Alexander the great, he says that Ochus recover'd Egypt 13 years before that Alexander was King of Macedonia. Vos­sius in Castigat. Auctar. ad Effug. 30. says that Eight Egyptian Kings reign'd successive­ly after the time of Cambyses (as Diodorus and others testifie) and that Alexander was Seven years old when Ochus recover'd Egypt, and that Eusebius An. 1666 hath these words AEgyptiorum regnum destructum. Hornius in Defens. Auctar. Def. 30. says, that when we speak of the time of Alexander the Great, we understand the time of his reign, or after that he came to be King. When he was a boy of the age of Seven years, he was not A­lexander [Page 111] the Great. Thus this matter was debated betwixt Vossius and Hornius.

I shall only remark 1. That Hornius hath rightly observ'd, that the Arch-Bishop was in­duc'd to refer the beginning of the Egyptian Empire to the time of Mizraim, not only by the Authority of Constant. Manasses, but al­so by that (which Vossius says that he never deni'd) viz. that Mizraim was the Founder of that Empire. 2. That I do not look up­on it as a necessary consequence, because Eu­sebius reckons 1666 years from Abraham to the end of the Egyptian Empire, and Constant. Manasses reckons 1663 years from the begin­ning of that Empire to the end of it, that therefore Constant. Manasses makes it to have begun in the time of Abraham, and to have ended at the time when Eusebius says that it was destroy'd. 3. It is manifest that Constant. Manasses makes the Kingdom of the Egyptians to have begun before Abrahams time, for he says that it begun when there were only Se­ven generations after the Floud, and so ac­cording to him it begun before the time of Serug, for he says that Serug was the Eight after the Floud. In like manner he says that Abraham and Belus were not many genera­tions after the beginning of the Egyptian Em­pire, and doth not this plainly imply that Abra­ham was some generations after it: 4. I can­not [Page 112] sufficiently admire that Vossius should make Constant. Manasses to say, that the A­bimelech who fell in love with Sarah, was the first King of Egypt, whereas he only saith that he was King at the time of Abrahams sojour­ning there. It is true, that he hath these words [...]: but 1. it is 9 or 10 verses be­fore his mentioning Abimelech that he hath these words, 2. His meaning in them is on­ly this, that a King was first in Egypt. That this is the sense of the words is manifest, for they are a repetition of that which he had said plainly before, that the Egyptians were the first that were governed by Kings, and paid tri­bute. And as some proof of this, he tells us that Abraham found a King in Egypt when he came thither, whereas the foundation of the Kingdom of the Assyrians was first laid in A­brahams time by Belus, so that there were Kings in Egypt before the Founding the Assy­rian Empire. Vossius therefore did strangely mistake the meaning of Constant. Manasses. 5. If according to Constant. Manasses the King­dom of the Egyptians begun some generations before Abraham, and continued only 1663 years, then (whether we follow Eusebius's account, or Vossius's own in his Chronologia sacra) according to him the end of it was be­fore the birth of Alexander the Great. Last­ly, all the time that Vossius's Eight Egyptian [Page 113] Kings after Cambyses reign'd, is computed to have been not much above 60 years, so that Hornius did not erre very much in saying, that the Egyptians were presently subdued with their Kings.

CHAP. XVII. Of the Version of the Septuagint.

VOssius in his Epistle Dedicatory to Slinge­landius prefix'd to his Castigations of Hornius, says, that the Arch-Bishop in his Trea­tise concerning the Version of the LXX doth endeavour to shew, that the true Translation of the LXX lay hid in the Alexandrian Li­brary, not read and transcrib'd by any per­son; and at last perish'd in the fire which consum'd the Library it self. Thus Vossius. Now it is not doubted (as I suppose) but that the Original copy was laid up in the Alexan­drian Library, and was consum'd there toge­ther with the Library it self: so that the on­ly thing in Question is, whether Vossius doth affirm truly that the Arch-Bishop endeavours to shew that it so lay hid in that Library, as that it was not read or transcrib'd by any person. To which I say that the Arch-Bishop is so far from endeavouring to shew this, that [Page 114] contrariwise he says plainly, that some Copies of that Translation were extant in the hands of private persons after that Philadelphus's Library was burnt, in the former Alexandrian War; which could not be, if that Transla­tion had lain hid so as that it was not seen or transcrib'd by any. I shall produce the Arch-Bishops own words Licet in privatorum manibus (post incensam priori bello Alexandri­no Philadelphi Bibliothecam) veteris illius LXX Seniorum Versionis adhuc exempla extarent; so the Arch-Bishop De Editione LXX Interpre­tum c. 3. Again in the same Chapter Eva­nescente paulatim, quae in privatorum tantum manibus habebatur, Pentateuchi à 72 Seniori­bus facta interpretatione. Now if it so lay hid as that it was not copied out by any person, I would gladly know how private hands came to have Copies of it: I acknowledge that it is very usual with persons ingag'd in any controversie to misrepresent the opinion of their adversary (as Vossius hath here misrepre­sented the Arch-Bishops) to the end that they may more easily expose it, and make it ap­pear more absurd and ridiculous in the eyes of such Readers, as take things upon trust, not having opportunity, or not being willing to be at the pains of examining them: but what Apology can be made for so disingenuous a practise, I know not.