CIcero, if euer any other was one which verified that doctrine of the blessed Apostle Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians: that the wisedome of God, of the wisest of the world was accounted foolish­nes. The learning of the Grecians, all artes per­taining to humanitie, beeing held together to vse his owne tearme in a certaine kindred be­tweene themselues hee had in great price. The knowledge thereof he admired, the professors he honoured, and by quicke conceit and sharp wit, together with earnest trauaile and diligent study therein: he grew to that ripenes of deepe knowledge and sweet speech, & wise counsell, whereby he became the rare ornament of his countrie, the precious iewell of his age, and the great glorie of the world, far beyond al before [Page 12] him, neuer ouertooke of any after him. But touching true diuinity, & the people of God, with the word of life amongst them: they were no better esteemed of him, then Paul and his prea­ching was of the learned Philosophers of A­thens; being mocked for his labour, and acoun­ted a babling toole. Let his owne mouth make proofe hereof, in an Oration which he made for Lucius Flaccus, beeing at that time accused a­mongst other matters, for detayning great summes of gold, sent yearely vpon deuotion by an vsuall custome out of Italie, and some other prouinces of Rome to Ierusalem. This action of his client, withstanding the Iewes herein; he greatly commendeth. Ierusalem, the holie and glorious seate of God his seruice, hee calleth a suspitious and backebyting Citie. The deuout worship of God, and the holy religion of the Iewes, he termeth barbarous superstition, by great contempt, in regard of the glorie and an­cient customes of the Roman Empire, & in the end he concludeth them a people not accepted of God: because they had beene ouercome by the enemie and put to their tribute. This was the reckoning which Tullie made of them, who by diuine knowledge of God his worde, were the onelie wise people in the world:Deut 4. whereby it appeareth that in his eyes the prophane lear­ning of men was deemed more excellent then the wisedome of God. Amongst his sciences [Page 13] no place was left for diuinitie. The knowledge of God his word, was too base for that compa­nie. Much better was the doome of the ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church, by the light of God his spirit, who vsed all other artes and learning, as helps and handmaids to the vnder­standing of diuine scripture, beeing Ladie and Mistris of all: to the which all humane wise­dome oweth dutie and seruice. Augustine a rare instrument for the benefite of GOD his Church, came notably furnished with much o­ther reading to the studie of diuinity. His skill therein he prooued not onely by writing of the liberall sciences: but also alleadging of Poets and other Authors, and fitting their sayinges to the phrase of holy scripture to make it more plaine; wherof one commeth now to my mind, in his bookes of speeches, taken out of a secular Author as hee termeth him. Et scuta Latentia condunt. They hide the priuie or secret lying shieldes, meaning such as not before, but after the hyding, lay secret and hid. This hee maketh serue for the vnderstanding of a like speech, in the 25. chapter of Genesis in the Greeke bible, of Esay, and Iacob, whose birth a little before was mentioned. [...] the young men grew. They were new borne babes, farre from that ripenes of yeares, to bee called young men, and therefore the action of grow­ing in this place, goeth before the young [Page 14] mens age: to signifie that being little children. At the length after much growing vp in age, they became young men. In his second booke De doctrina Christiana, hee declareth at large, that humane sciences, and the learning of the gentiles, and prophane histories, are very help­full and profitable to the vnderstanding of holy scripture. The learned father Hierom also in ma­ny places bringeth much light, & great seruice, from diuerse and sundry prophane writers, to the vnderstanding of God his woorde. In his commentaries on Esay the thirteenth chapter, declaring the true meaning of the prophets woordes there vttered concerning the desolati­on of Babylon, which other leauing the truth of historie expounded allegorically: hath these woordes. Audiuimus Medos, audiuimus Ba­bylonem, & inclytam in superbia Chaldaeorum: nolumus intelligere quod fuit, & quaerimus au­dire quod non fuit. Et haec dicimus non quòd tropologicam intelligentiam condemnemus; sed quòd spiritualis interpretatio, sequi debeat ordi­nem historiae. Quod plaerique ignorantes, lym­phatico in scripturis vagantur errore. We haue heard saith he of the Medes, wee haue heard of Babylon the glorious city of the Chaldeans; we will not vnderstand that which hath bin; but we seeke to heare that which hath not beene. Nei­ther say I this to condemne tropologicall vn­derstanding, but that spirituall interpretation [Page 15] ought to follow order of historie: which the most parte being ignorante of by mad wan­dring doe range about in the scriptures. The same father being by some blamed, as too much addict to y^e study of Secular knowledge; in an epistle of his to on Magnus a Roman O­rator, taketh vpon him the defence and com­mendation thereof, by the examples of the best and most excellent christian fathers before him. I must needes therefore greatly commend the wisedome of our forefathers, in ordering our vniuersities. VVhere young schollers are first trained vp in the studies of humanity, before they enter into God his schoole: that by that meanes comming furnished, and ready stored with many helpes from their former learning, they may find a more easie waye and speedy course in that most graue race of diuine know­ledge, which is yet behinde for them to runne. And surely so it is; and euery one shall finde the experience hereof in himselfe. It is not to be spoken, how much and how cleare light, the diligent study and reading of Latin and Greeke writers; yeeld to the knowledge of ho­ly scripture. Which by some few examples I will let the reader vnderstand. The Eleans, in time of pestilence brought vpon them by exce­ding great abundance of flies; call vpon their God Myiagrus: which being by sacrifice once appeased, all those flies forthwith perish. [Page 16] This Pline reporteth in his tenth booke the eight and twentith chapter. Whereunto for confirmation may be added, that which is re­corded by Pausanias in the first booke of his E­liaca: that Hercules sacrificing in Olympia, was mightily troubled with a huge multitude of flies; till such time as he had done sacrifice to Iupiter apomytos, by whose power all those flies were soone after dispersed. And hereof he sayth, that the Eleans vse to sacrifice [...]: that is to Iupiter Apomytos which driueth away flies. Sotinus also in his Polyhistor the second chapter, maketh menti­on of Hercules his chappell in the beefe mar­ket at Rome; into the which after sacrifice and prayer made to the God Myiagrus, hee entred by diuine power without flies. All these testi­monies serue to vnderstand the reason of the name Baalzebub, in scripture giuen to the God of Ecron, in the first chapter of the second booke of the Kings: signifying the god of flies, or the flies Iupiter (If it be true that Au­gustine affirmeth in his questions vppon the booke of iudges, that Baal is Iupiter) so cal­led as should seeme by those reportes of Pli­nie, Pausanias, and Solinus: of the power which was attributed vnto him in driuing a­way flies whereof hee is termed Myiagrus, that is a chaser of flies, and Apomyius, as it were a defender, or preseruer from flies. [Page 17] Horatius in his last Satyre, telleth of one Rufus Nasidienus, who had inuited to a great supper, Mecaenas a chiefe Lord in the Emperour Au­gustus Caesars Court; with many other noble men of Rome: that whenas in the middest of supper, the daintiest dishes being now set vpon the borde, the hangings aloft by chance sud­denly brake, and daubed that honorable com­pany with cobwebs, and powdred the costly meates and wines with filth, and filled all full of choaking dust: Posito capite, vt si filius im­maturus obisset, flere: Holding downe his head, he wept bitterly, as it had been for the vntimely death of a deare sonne. So then the casting downe of Cain his countenance in the fourth of Genesis, argued sorrow. And the virgins of Ierusalem, at the destruction of their citie, han­ging downe their heads to the ground, in the Lamentations of Ieremy the second chapter, thereby declared their conceaued griefe. The prophet Dauid at such time as he fled from his sonne Absolon, and likewise all the men that were with him; euery one couered his head and wept. Haman also being made an instrument to honour Mardochaeus, whome hee hated to the death: for sorow hasted home with his head couered, whereby some haue vnderstood no­thing else but dust and ashes laied thereon, which is a cerimonie indeed of sorow; but not meant in those places. The custome in those [Page 18] times was, not onely to lay dust on the heade in token of griefe; but also to enclose and shut vp as it were the head and face, with some cloth or vaile from mens eyes. As manie examples out of the Heathen Authors may easily shew.

Vlysses as Homer declareth, hauing heard one Demodicus sing of the glorious & worthy acts of the Grecians at Troy: couered his head and face with a cloath and wept. The souldiers of Aiax in Sophocles, hearing of the wofull case of their Captaine, for griefe of Vlysses prefermēt before him, being bestraught of minde; couered their heads with vailes. Demaratus a King of Sparta by the subtill practising of his enemies, was deposed of his kingdome, as not of the Royall blood: who after bearing Office in the Citie, and opprobriously in way of scorne, and derision, beeing asked, what it was to bee first a King and then an Officer; tooke it to the heart, and with these wordes vttered, that that questi­on should bee the cause either of much ioy, or much woe to the Lacedaemonians, couered his head and got him home. This is recorded by Herodotus in Erato.

Xenophon in his Symposiō telleth of a certaine iester called Phillip: who at a seast where Socra­tes with other graue cōpany was present, assay­ing once or twice by his ridiculous iestes to mooue them to laughter, but all in vaine: muf­led vp himselfe for sorrow and left his supper.

[Page 19] Demosthenes the famous Orator of Athens, as Plutarch writeth in his life, in a certaine Ora­tion of his before the people beeing hissed at; hied him home in great heauines with his head couered.In his 4. booke. It is recorded by Q. Curtius of Da­rius King of Persia; that hearing of his wiues death; Capite velato diu fleuit. He wept a great while hauing his head couered. That the couer was a cloath hiding the face as well as the heade, appeareth immediatlye after in these wordes:

Manantibus adhuc lachrimis, vesteque ab o­re reiecta, the teares yet trickling downe, & the cloth being cast away from his mouth, he lift vp his handes to heauen. Sisigambis that Kinges mother, was a spectacle of rare miserie. Shee lost her Father and foure score brethren, all in one day most cruelly killed by Artaxerxes O­chus. Her owne childe a mightie King the last Monarch of Persia, shee saw twice ouercome by Alexander, & in the end traiterously slaine by his owne seruants; the kingdome of Persia a ouerthrowne, her selfe Captiue: yet all these crosses she bare in some tollerable manner, so long as Alexander liued, who honoured her ex­ceedingly as his owne mother. But after his death, bereaued of all comfort, shee tare her haire, cast her bodie on the grounde, re­fused succour, and wrapping vp her heade with a vaile, euer after abstained from meat & light, [Page 20] till welcome death made an end of her woes.

Thus Dauid and Hamans couered heades, by so manie examples, of such as for extreame sor­row or shame of themselues, not abiding mens sight, muffled their faces, are cleared of doubt. And herby the vnderstanding of another place in the 53. Chapter of Esay not a little helped: where our blessed Sauiour is compared to one hiding his face. For this, as hath beene prooued, beeing an argument of an heart oppressed with griefe, is effectuall and notable, to declare that which immediatly before was spokē of Christ: despised and refused of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with griefe: whereunto the next wordes are these: [...]: That is, to interpret it aright, and as it were hiding the face from vs.

This here I may not pretermit: that this ce­remonie of the couered head is vsed sometimes in scripture, and other where in another sence. As in the 7. Chapter of Ester: where wee reade of Hamans head couered by other against his will, to signifie that now in the kings wrath hee was appointed to death. For this likewise was an ancient custome vsed of diuers Nations, to muffell vp the heads of men condemned to die: or guiltie of some grieuous crime deseruing death. Polixena king Priamus his daughter, by the sentence of Agamemnon and other Princes of Greece adiudged to die, was ledde to the [Page 21] slaughter of Vlisses, with a vaile ouer her head. As we read in the tragedie of Euripides, called Hecuba. Philotas the sonne of Parmenio one of the chiefe Princes of Alexander the great, foūd guiltie of high treason against the king: was brought before him to his answer, Capite velato hauing his head couered saith Q. Curtius in his 6. booke. Festus Pompeius, in the word Nuptias saith, that the Law commanded his head to bee couered, who had killed his Parente. Lastlye Cicero in his Oration for C. Rabirius, bringeth the verie sentence of iudgement it selfe, or ver­ses, as he termeth them, vsed of Tarquinius su­perbus, the last and most cruell king of Roome. Caput obnubito, arbori infaelici suspendito. Co­uer his head, hang him vp on a wofull tree.

Let me by thy patience (gentle Reader) pro­ceed to one argument more in this kind, and so an end. That which is told by the Euangelist of Saint Iohn Baptist eating Locusts seemed incre­dible to some, greatly doubting of that kind of meat: and therefore supposing the place to haue been corrupted by the writers fault, by some slip setting downe [...] for [...], as though his meat had not bin locusts, but choake peares.

Thus in their owne conceit they were wiser than God, by ignorance of trueth witnessed in diuers prophane Authors. Galen vpon Hipocra­tes his Aphorismes the 2. book, the 18. Chapter is one, declaring there the force, which locustes [Page 22] being eaten haue to nourish. Plinie in the 28 chap. of his 11. book saith, that among y^e Parthi­ans they were counted a pleasant meate. Strabo in his 16. booke of Geographie, maketh menti­on of a certaine people which liued of them. Bellonius in the 2. booke of his obseruations, the 88. chapter, testifieth from the report of some Authors, that in Africa they were eaten as dainties: not for Phisicke, but euen for nourish­ment. Thereby proouing it a thing not vncredi­ble, that Iohn Baptist should eat locusts. But Diodorus Siculus most fullie of all other decla­reth this in his, 4. booke: where hee telleth of certain Aethiopians called [...], that is lo­cust eaters, who neyther eat fish, nor cattel, but onely locusts continually: which at the spring time of the yeare they get in great abundance, and salt them vp to preserue them for meate.

Thus I haue giuen as it were a taste by this little, out of Plinie, Pausanias, Solinus, Horatius, Homer, Sophocles, Herodotus, Euripudes, Xeno­phon, Plutarch, Quintus Curtius, Festus, Pom­peius, Cicero, Galen, Strabo: how great seruice Heathen writers doe to the word of God, for opening the true meaning thereof. A taste I call it in regard of all that which for declaration of other matters might bee sayd herein, which were the worke of a huge volume, and great toyle.

These writers then for many partes of Scrip­ture [Page 23] are diligently to be sought into, and not as some rash braines imagine, to bee cast away as vnprofitable in the Lordes schoole house: but especially for Daniell aboue all. In other places they may seeme profitable: but heere they are necessary: euen by Hieroms iudgement, who in a preface to his commentaries on this booke af­firmeth, the manifold Histories of Greeke and Latine Authors, to bee necessary for the vnder­standing of Daniels Prophesies.

These helpes therefore I minde to vse for vn­folding the 4. last verses of the 9. Chapter of Daniell, containing an entire prophesie of the estate of the holy City after the Iewes returne, from the building thereof, vnto the vtter de­struction of the same by Vespasian the Emperor of Rome: and therein of the comming of Ie­sus Christ the Lord of life, aboue 500. yeres be­fore. Which is a most certaine argument of Di­uine wisedome in Daniell from heauen, and a proofe of that which Balthasar had heard, that the spirit of the holy Gods was in him: where­by also he foreshewed many yeares before the destruction of the Babylonian Empire by the Medes and Persians, & the Persians ouerthrow by Alexander; and the great troubles, which long after that time the Iewes suffered vnder Antiochus Epiphanes. All this skill came from God: for the knowledge and foretelling of thinges to come, is that which God onely hath [Page 24] left in his owne power, and challengeth to him­selfe in the Prophet Esay. I make knowne those things saith, God, which haue not yet hapned. The Heathen Poet Sophocles could see this, thus writing in the Tragedie of Aiax the whip bea­rer. [...]. Many things saith hee may bee knowne of men, when they see them come to passe: but of thinges to come yet vnseene, there is no prophet.

I am not ignorant that Porphyrius a Tyrian Philosopher, a wicked and vngodly Iew, of the kindred and sect of the Sadduces, an Infidell, an enemie of Christ, a hater of God and his word: who wrote fifteene bookes against the Christi­ans, to weaken and extenuate the trueth and au­thoritie of Daniels Prophesie, deuised this shift to say, that the Iewes long afore Daniels time (seeing these thinges done,) committed them to writing vnder Daniels name, thereby to win credit to their bookes.

This fine deuise of Porphyrie is nothing else but a vaine cauill: For it is well knowne, that the comming of Christ is spoken of by Dani­ell in diuers places: which can not bee saide to haue beene written by the Iewes, who first had seene the comming of Christ, seeing that they neyther at that time when hee came, acknow­ledged him, and euer since haue beene so farre from beleeuing in him, that vsually to this day [Page 25] they euen curse his memorie. Porphyrius herein hath beene answered at large by the learned Fa­thers Methodius, Eusebius, Caesariensis, and A­polinarius, withstanding his blasphemie. And Hierome for learning as noble as any, in one short sentence most wittily and pithilie, turneth all his reasoning against Daniell, for Daniell a­gainst himselfe. Porphirii impugnatio testimo­nium veritatis est. Tanta enim in hoc Propheta dictorum fides inuenta est; vt propterea incredu­lis hominibus videatur non futura dixisse: sed praeterita narrasse. Porphyrie his impugning of Daniell (saith Hierome) is a testimonie of his trueth: because the sayings of this Prophet haue beene found so certaine, and of so great credit, that therefore vnbeleeuers haue iudged him ra­ther to tell things past, thē to speak of things to come. But if there were nothing else at all to be saide: yet euen this one prophesie of Daniell which I haue in hande, touching the desolation of Ierusalem, the trueth and certaintie whereof was at the length verified by the euent it selfe, at such time as Titus destroyed the Temple, and Citty: were enough to stoppe the aduersaries mouthes. Yea though all the Infidell Porphyri­es in the world, with all their cunning shifting stand together, they shall neuer be able to auoid the force of this prophesie: but that it must needes argue a diuine spirit in Daniell. For they cannot here say, that the Iewes after they had [Page 26] seene the Temple destroyed by the Romanes, forged a prophesie thereof in Daniell his name. Because euen Christ himselfe, in the 24. of Mat­thew, alleadgeth this prophesie of Daniel con­cerning the desolation of the holy Citie, in the flourishing time thereof, about 37. yeares be­fore it was fulfilled. Whereby it is euident, that this prophesie was commonly knowne & read in the Church of God among the Iewes, as written by Daniell long before the euent had shewed the trueth thereof: So Daniell yet stan­deth a diuine prophet of the Lord, inspired with heauenly knowledge of thinges to come from aboue; and seeing that in one thing truely fore­told this is prooued of him, there is no cause at all to doubt of the rest.

This is a sure foundatiō of diuinitie, a sound stay of religion, a strong prop of faith to be re­posed in the vndoubted trueth of GOD his word, a mightie vpholder of the prouidence of God against all the Atheistes and Epicures of the world: Which Josephus verie well percei­uing, and in the end of his 10. booke of antiqui­ties, disputing against this kind of men, fetcheth his reason from the sure truth of Daniels Pro­phesies. The errour saith hee of the Epicureans hereby is reprooued, which take Gods proui­dēce in gouerning things out of this life, belee­uing the world to be carried by his owne force without a guide or ouerseer. Wherefore consi­dering [Page 27] Daniels prophesies, I cannot but con­demne the foolishnes of those men, which deny that God hath any care of mens affaires. For how could it come to passe, that the euent should answere his prophecies, if all thinges in the world were done by chance. Caluin also in the first book of his institutions: Doth not Da­niell saith he, so prophesie of thinges to come by the space of 600. yeares, as though he wrote an Historie of things alreadie done, and common­ly knowne? Good men by the diligent medita­tion hereof shall bee abundantly furnished to quiet the barking of the vngodly: for this eui­dence is clearer, then that it can be subiect to a­ny cauils.

This was the iudgement of Iosephus & Cal­uin against Atheists and prophane Epicures, to their shame and ouerthrow: taken from the cer­taintie of Daniels foreshewing things to come. Euen this one prophecie of Daniels weekes, is a verie hammer to beate them downe to the ground, and a wier scourge as it were to teare them all in peeces: And therefore of all true Christians to be had in great reuerence, and the vnderstanding therof to bee desired as pearles, and diligently sought for, as hid treasure. To the finding out hereof two thinges are most re­quisite: the one is a iust account of the times: the other, a true interpretation of the wordes in the originall tongue. If wee faile in either of [Page 28] these, there is no hope to knowne what Daniell meant by his weekes: For neither good inter­pretation alone is enough without exact chro­nologie; nor this without the other serueth much to purpose. The sundring of these two things, which must needes stand together, hath beene the cause of such turning and tossing this excellent peece of Scripture in so many mens heades, so many waies: therefore in these two thinges especially shall be the imployment of my paines; if happily thereby this noble text of Scripture may receaue some light to the clearer perceauing thereof.

Marcus Ʋarro a learned Roman, as Censo­rinus telleth in his booke De die natali, mea­sured all time by three spaces: whereof one was from the beginning of men, to the first flud: for the ignorance of the things which happened therein called [...], vnknown. The second from that floud to the first Olympiad; for many fa­bles and tales therein reported, tearmed [...], fabulous. The third & last, from the first Olym­piad to his age, containing more certaine truth of historie, & therefore called [...], historicall.

This was Varro his iudgement commended by Cicero also in his first booke of Academicall questions: where speaking to Varro hee vseth these words: Thou haste opened the age of thy countrey and ordering of times. Vnto Ʋarro herein agreed Iulius Affricanus in his third [Page 29] booke of Chronicles, (As Eusebius witnesseth in his tenth book De praeparatione Euangelica) vntill the time of the Olimpiads, saith Affrica­nus, there is no sure knowledge in the Greeke Historie, all thinges beeing confusedly written without agreement betweene themselues: But the Olimpicke times haue beene exactly hand­led of the Grecians, by reasō of regestring their acts and records therein, of no longer time then euery foure yeares space. Censorinus after him speaking of the time from the first Olimpiad; In this space, saith he, was neuer any great dis­sentiō or controuersie among writers for com­putation of time: except in some sixe or seauen yeares at the most. And euen this little that was, Varro himselfe by his great skill and diligent paines, at the length discussed, and founde out the truth, and shewed cleare light: by which the certaine number not of yeares onely, but euen of daies might be perceaued.

The Grecians, saith Chitraeus in his Chronicle, haue no certaine computation of times, and or­der of yeares before the Olimpiads. This was the iudgement of the best learned in all times, in all countries, for all kinde of skill, concerning the certaine, accoūt of time by Olimpiads vsed of the Grecians, receaued of the Romanes, fol­lowed and commended of Christians, euen the flower of thē, the most ancient Fathers, Clemens Alexandrinus. Eusebius, Hierome, Orosius, and [Page 30] other for knowledge of Gods worde most fa­mous and renowned: continued & kept from age to age, not contradicted with reason of a­nie. Except peraduenture some to shew the finenesse of their wit by Sophistrie, might ca­uill against it. For the better vnderstanding of that which hath bin, and shall hereafter be said of Olympiads; it shal not be amisse here to shew what is meant thereby.

Olympia was a certaine place of Greece, where games of running, wrestling, leaping & such like were instituted by Hercules in honor of Iupiter Olympius, wherof the place was cal­led Olympia, and the games Olympiads, & O­limpiac games, & the sports of Olympia, which after Hercules for a long time beeing disconti­nued, were at the length renewed againe by I­phitus King of that countrie, about seauen hun­dred seauentie and fiue yeares before the birth of our Sauiour Christ. Beeing so reuiued, they were from that time forward continued, by the space of a thousand yeres and more after, euery foure yeares in sommer, about the month of Iu­ly solemnized. This foure yeares space was cal­led Olympias. By these Olympiads the Grecians numbred their yeares, counting from that time wherein they were begun againe by Iphitus. As appeareth by Velleius Paterculus, Solinus, Phle­gon, Pausanius, Censorinus: who all referre the beginning thereof to Iphitus: neyther for this [Page 31] matter that I know of amongst writers, is there any doubt at all. Beyond Iphitus I cannot war­rant any certaine account of yeeres among the heathen, greatly meruailing at the folly of those men, who busie themselues in searching for sure knowledge by ordered times, many ages before.

A Christian Prince not long agoe standing much vpon his parentage, by this kinde of men was seduced. A trifling Courtier perceiuing his humor, made him beleeue that his petigree in ancient race of royall blood, might be fetch­ed from Noa his Arke: wherewith being great­ly delighted, forthwith he laid all busines aside, and gaue himselfe wholly to the searche of this thing so earnestly, that hee suffered none to in­terrupt him whosoeuer, no not Embassadors themselues, which were sent to him about most waightie affaires. Many meruailed heereat, but none durst speake their mind: till at the length his Cooke, whō he vsed sometime in stead of a foole, told him that the thing which hee went about, was nothing for his honor: for now saith he, I worship your Maiestie as a God; but if we goe once to Noas Arke, wee must there your selfe and I both be a kinne.

This saying of his foolish Cooke cast him in a dumpe, and stayed the heat of his earnest stud­dy, and brought him to a better mind, from his vaine error in deceiueable times, farre beyond [Page 32] the compasse of truth: which, as before hath bin shewed, was limited from the first Olimpiad downeward, within these limits of time by the testimonie of Varro, Affricanus, Censorinus, & the Iudgements of manie other learned men in all ages, being certaine and void of error, is the reach of Daniels weekes: yea to come nearer home by 200, yeares and more, within that part thereof, which by the learning, wisedome, and knowledge of excellent men, hath beene made most famous: that is to say from the Per­sian Monarchie, in the first yeare of Cyrus, to the second of Vespasian Emperour of Roome; wherein the Cittie of Ierusalem was destroyed, and the Iewes common wealth ouerthrowne, within the lists and compasse whereof, the ful­filling of this Prophesie is contained, euen Be­roaldus himselfe, though an aduersarie of the re­ceaued Grecians Chronologie, in his 2. booke, and 2. chapter: where hee saith, that before the times of Cyrus the Greek Histories haue no cer­tainty: seemeth to acknowledge some truth of Historie afterward: whereof he giueth this rea­son, because in Cyrus his age, were the 7. sages of Greece liuing together, one of them beeing Colon the Athenian, acquainted with Croesus King of Lydia, who fought against Cyrus. This whole space from the beginning of Cyrus his raigne, to the destruction of the holy Cittie by Titus, containeth 629. yeares from the Olim­piad, [Page 33] wherein Cyrus began, to the same season of that yeare, wherein Ierusalem, Temple, and Citie was set on fire. For the Persian kings raig­ned by the space of 230. yeares. From the death of the last King of Persia to the birth of Christ, were about 328. yeares and a halfe. And thence to the desolation of Ierusalem set on fire 70. and a halfe with two monthes, or there about.

The proofe of these three partes, in this or­der I minde to follow. But before I come to the right path, as it were of the Persian times: It shall be requisite, first to take certaine stum­bling blockes out of the readers way: whereof one is the opinion of the Hebrewe writers, who by great reason should haue been skilfull in these matters, in regard of their deliuerance from slauish captiuitie, and many other bene­fits graunted vnto them by the Persian Kinges. Some of these writers reading in the 11. of Da­niell of a fourth king to raigne in Persia; and presently after a prophesie of the ouerthrow of that Empire by Alexander the great: thought there could not possibly be any more than foure in all. The names forsooth of these foure they gather from Esdras, making mention in his fourth chapter of Cyrus, Assuerus, Artax­erxes, Darius, & then after in his seuenth chap­ter of another Artaxerxes. Now lest that Esdras should seeme by fiue names, to dissent from Daniell, speaking onely of foure kings, they [Page 34] make the first Artaxerxes to be all one with Assuerus, and because the last king of Persia, o­uercome by Alexander, in the Histories of di­uers nations was knowne by the name Darius: to make all good, they say he had likewise two names, one Artaxerxes, the other Darius. This was Aben Ezras opinion, one of the wittiest & best learned amongst them. R. Moses a Spa­niard and Priest, came somewhat nearer to the trueth, parting these two names Assuerus, and Artaxerxes mentioned in the 4. of Ezra, be­twixt two seuerall Kinges, and so by his iudge­ment they were fiue in number. Others, as R. Sadiah, and Abraham Dauison, counting Da­niels fourth king not from Cyrus, but from Da­rius the Mede inclusiuely, leaue onely three kinges for the Persian Monarchie to runne out vnder them: that is, first Cyrus, and after him Assuerus, the third and last Darius, the suppo­sed Sonne of Ester by Assuerus. But howe can this agree with Esdras in whome fiue names of the Persian Emperours are recorded? Well e­nough say they, for Assuerus & the first Artax­erxes were one and the same. And likewise Da­rius and the second Artaxerxes by Abraham Dauisons opinion. Now concerning the yeares of their raigne. Aben Ezra maketh this recko­ning of his three former kinges yeares. Cyrus to haue continued three yeares, Assuerus foure­teene, Darius twelue, the rest of that Monar­chie [Page 35] expired in Artaxerxes, whose 32. is men­tioned in scripture: but Dauison giueth to Cy­rus three, to Assuerus sixteene, to Darius 32. In whose second (as he sayeth) the Temple was builded, and himselfe slaine 30. yeares after by Alexander: But the most generall and receaued opinion seemeth to bee that which is declared in their Hebrew Chronicles Rabba and Zota: that the whole time of the Persian kingdome was 52. yeares, counted from the first of Darius the Mede: whereof 18. were spent before the building of the Temple, and 34. after.

This is the Rabbinicall stuffe of the chiefe Masters of the Hebrewes, being at ods betwixt themselues, & dissenting from others, & there­fore not without cause doth Pererius in his commentaries vppon Daniell (speaking of this chronologie of theirs) say, that it is false, fained, full of faultes, toyes, ignorance, absurditie, and vnconstancie, and altogether ridiculous, as it is indeede. Temporarius is more sharpe & bitter against them. The Thalmudists, Cabbalists, and Rabbines (saith he) are blinde in the Persian times, and the writinges of the Iewes herein plaine proofes of pittifull ignorance in them: who can reade the chronologies of the Rab­bines, their Seder Olam Rabba, their Seder O­lam Zota, their Historicall Cabbala, without laughing? Therefore the knowledge of times is not to bee fetched from the dotings of these [Page 36] men being more blinde than moules. All this which they say is true I confesse: The Church of God for other matters is much behol­ding to the Hebrew Rabbines, beeing great helps vnto vs for vnderstanding holy scripture in many places, as well of the new testament as the olde: but touching the knowledge of the Persian Empire, wherein they should haue bin most cunning, they were as blinde as beetles, no light herein amongst them for knowledge to be seene, but darkenes for ignorance enough and too much. The reason whereof is, that they wanted the key as it were of prophane Histo­ries, and secular learning, to vnlocke the shut & hid meaning of Daniels oracles. Without the which by scripture alone it cā neuer be opened. Some of them not disdaining to read the Latine and Greeke histories, by the direction of these guides went not so far astray. Iosephus in his An­tiquities prooueth it. This may suffice to cleare the right way from the first stumbling blocke.

Annius Viterbiensis hath been another to the downfall of many, setting forth certaine ancient chronicles, vnder the names of Berosus, Manetho, and Philo; and together with them, one other of the Persian Monarchie, fathered vpon Metasthenes an ancient Persian: Where­in he reckoneth the kinges of the Persian Mo­narchie, eight in number, in this order: First Cyrus, then ancient Artaxerxes Assuerus: After [Page 37] him Darius with the long hande, the fourth Darius Nothus, the fift great Artaxerxes Da­rius Meneon: the sixt Artaxerxes Ochus: the seuenth Arses: the eight & last an other Darius. The whole time of these kings he maketh 190 yeres. These books thus commended with such glorious titles of noble and ancient Historio­graphers, were in great request and much fol­lowed of many learned men, and excellent Di­uines, for a long time embracing thē as the only true Chronologie of all other, and alleadging their authorities as oracles from heauen vn­doubted and sure: beeing indeede nothing else but masking counterfaites, couered with the glorious titles of auncient and famous writers. At the length they were found out and detected by the cunning of diuers skilfull men: who searched vnto them and sifted them nearely. Volaterranus in his fourteenth book, giueth no credit vnto them. Lewes Viues in his preface to the eighteenth booke of Augustine de ciuitate dei, calleth them monsters, and dregges, & fri­uolous bookes of vncertaine Authors. Gerardus Mercator counteth of them no better than Fa­bles, and false and forged writinges. Ioseph Scaliger inueyeth sharply against them in ma­ny places, terming them lies, dreames, forged and fained stuffe. And the Author thereof him­selfe he calleth vnlearned and shameles. Iohan­nes Vargara, Beatus Rhenanus, Functius, Bero­aldus, [Page 38] Pererius, and Temporarius.

All these haue vncased these counterfait Au­thors, and taken the visardes from their faces: But especiallie aboue all the rest, the two last named Pererius & Temporarius, haue laied thē open to the wide world, to appeare that which in very deed they were. That is not y^e true Bero­sus, Mauetho, Metasthenes, & Philo thēselues: But all false, and forged out of Annius his shop of lies: Whome Temporarius therefore calleth a triffeler, a iugler, a deceauer, and the books so set forth by him, toyes, lyes, legerdemaine, witcherie, bastards, changelinges. Pererius re­prooueth Annius his childish ignorance, follie, rashnesse, arrogancie, and the writinges them­selues he termeth false, erroneous, fained, lies, deceits, with this conclusion in the end. Valeat igitur, & in perpetuū valeat haec Anniana Chro­nologia, & quae toties a viris doctis profligata & iugulata est, iaceat in posterum, sempiterna ho­minum obliuione sepulta: nec sit post hac qui eam exhumare, & ad fidem aliquam atque authori­tatem, quasi ad vitam reuocare audeat. Sat sit adhuc eam, cum non erat bene nota, imposuisse multis, nunc detectis atque in apertum prolatis fucatis eius mendaciis, & fallaciis, si quem cir­cumuenerit, ac deceperit: nimis profecto stupidū & vecordemeum fore necesse est. That is, Let this Chronologie therfore of Annius farewell, yea for euer let it farewell; and that which hath [Page 39] often bin cast down, and the throte thereof cut, let it hereafter lie buried in euerlasting forgetful­nesse: neither let any take it out of the graue, and call it backe againe into credite & authority, as it were to life. Let this be sufficient, that it hath alreadie deceaued many, whilest it was not tho­roughlie known: but now the coloured lyes and deceits thereof being detected and brought to light, If hereafter any be deceaued thereby, he must needes bee too too blockish and witlesse.

This is Pererius his censure, no otherwise in my iudgement then such forgerie and falsehood hath deserued: whereof take this as a manifest argument. Iosephus in the tenth booke of his Antiquities the 11. Chapter writeth, y^t Megast­henes [...], that is in the fourth book of his Indian affaires, making mention of Nabugodonosor: went about to prooue him, [...]; to haue passed Hercules in prowesse, and greatnes of acts: which place Peter Comestor in his Scholastical Historie vpon Daniel, vsing to proue Nabugodonoserum fortitudine & actuum magnitudine Herculem transcendisse: that Na­bugodonosor went beyond Hercules in valour and great acts, citeth Megasthenes for it in his booke of Iudgements, reading Iudiciorum by some corruption in the translation of Iosephus, crept in for Indicorum. Hereupon Annius trans­forming first Megasthenes into Metasthenes: [Page 40] and then Indica, that is Indian affaires, into Iu­dicia which signifieth iudgements: made this the title of his forged stuffe, Metasthenes his booke of the iudgement of times. This I hope is enough, if any thing can bee enough, to keepe men which haue eyes, from taking hurt at this blocke.

An other much like vnto it hath bin the con­ceited fancie of Mathew Beroald in the thirde booke of his Chronologie the eight Chapter, setting downe the Persian Kinges in this order. The first Cyrus, the next Assuerus Artaxerxes, the third Darius Assirius, the fourth Artaxerx­es Pius, the fift Xerxes: And then after him the other sixe in order, as they haue beene declared and named by other. Of these eleuen Kinges how many yeares particularlie euerie one raig­ned, it is vncertaine saith Beroaldus; but gene­rally the whole time of all was 130. yeares, be­ginning with Cyrus in the 3. yeare of the 80. O­lympiad, & the 295 of Rome. This is Beroaldus his opinion, for the kings and time of that Em­pire: much like that of Annius. In maner it is more honest, beeing not fathered on other: in matter as absurde and ridiculous, if not more; making more kinges, and fewer yeares: thrust­ing in such as neuer were knowne, and fayning names which neuer were heard of. For where was Assuerus Artaxerxes, Darius Assirius, and Artaxerxes Pius, euer spoken of by any [Page 41] Author of credit diuine or prophane? Who euer besides himself, once dreamed of an Artaxerx­es Pius to be Father to Xerxes? Or that Xerxes made warre against Greece before his Fathers death? Aeschilus a learned Poet, who florished euen in those verie times, in his Tragedie called Persa, might soone haue taught him a better lesson: raysing his father Darius long before dead, out of his graue to tell newes. Doeth not such stuffe as this deserue the tearmes of mon­sters, dregs, dreames, lyes, toyes, as well as that opinion of Annius, which euen Beroaldus him­selfe reprooueth? Is it not worthy of such a fare­wel, as that wherewith Pererius biddeth Anni­us his Chronologie adew?

These be the opinions, which in the course of Chronologie, haue to diuers learned men, been occasions of error. The vanity whereof shall yet better appeare by that which followeth, beeing layde vnto them. For as diuers sorts of cloath compared together, and held to the light, are quickly by the eye discerned, the course from the fine: So the approoued true historie of an­cient time, beeing laied to these latter conceits, will leaue an easie view for reason, and the eye­sight as it were of the minde, to iudge which is best.

First for the kinges of Persia who they were that raigned therein. The name of the first to be Cyrus, is agreed of all. The second was Camby­ses, [Page 42] heire thereunto as wel by birth as his fathers will. The next lawfull king after him was Da­rius: whose father Histaspis, as Seuerus Sulpiti­us in his second booke of the holy Historie wri­teth, was cosen German to Cyrus. The fourth king succeeding to the imperiall Crowne of Persia, was Xerxes the sonne of the same Da­rius. Then the other sixe in order; of whom a­mongst writers, that I know of, there is no con­trouersie at all. The first foure kinges here na­med, in that order succeeding one another, haue beene so recorded by those names vnto vs, of most ancient Poets, and noble Historiogra­phers, which eyther liued in the dayes of the said kinges, or els came very neare vnto them, and so haue bin deliuered from hand to hand, and from age to age, to this day continued by a long successiō of the most skilfull men for lear­ning, that euer haue beene: whether rightly or no let reason scan. First the dominion of the Persians was large and wide, and contained manie countries. A great part of India, all Me­dea, Parthia, Babilonia, Chaldea, Hyrcania, Ar­menia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Phaenicia, all the land of Israell and Iuda, all Egypt, and much of Lybia, all Syria, and the lesse Asia; wherein also they had their imperiall seate at Sardes a Cittie of Lydia, the kinges of Persia oftentimes mak­ing their abode therein. And continuallie theyr deputies in their absence, most of the Kinges [Page 43] blood or alliance. Besides Cyprus, and manie other Ilands. To be short, it reached from Per­sia all a long, so neare Greece and Europe, that there was no land left to part them, but the Sea called Aegeum. And that in some place so nar­row, as a bridge hath beene made ouer it from brinke to brinke, not a mile long, with continu­al recourse and traffique betweene them. These were the places of this Monarchie, of all other for wisedome and prowesse most famous.

The times therof, by the singuler knowledge & vertues of excellent mē, were no lesse noble. The seauen wise men of Greece so renowmed, Thales of Miletus, Solon the Athenian, Chilon the Lacedaemonian, Pittacus of Mytilene, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindia or Caria, and Pe­riander the Corinthian, all much of one stan­ding, about the time of Cyrus. Besides them Pherecides the Syrian, and Pythagoras both for deepe knowledge wondered at, Zenophanes, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Anaximines, Philo­sophers. Aeschilus, Anacreō, Pindarus, Simoni­des Poets. Theagines, Hecataeus, Dionisius, He­rodotus, Storie writers. Partlie in the dayes of Cambyses and Darius: partly in the time of Xerxes: Then Socrates, Thucidides, Euripi­des, Sophocles, Democritus, Hippocrates, vnder Artaxerxes, and his sonne Darius Nochus, a­bout the times of the Peloponesian war. Plato and Xenophon, were Socrates his schollers, who [Page 44] continued towards the end of y^e Persiā Monar­chie, with Isocrates, whose schollers were Theo­pompus and Ephorus, both historiographers, so contrarie one to another by their masters cen­sure, that the one needed a spur to set him on; the other a bridle to hold him in. Aristotle and Demosthenes saw the end. Many of these were borne, & dwelling in those places which were vnder the Persian gouernment; and payed tri­bute vnto them.

In these places and times so furnished, and bewtified with these worthy ornaments, marke the wayes and meanes, whereby the kings of Persian made their names known & preserued their memorie. By proclamation whereof we haue an example in the first of Esra. Thus sayeth Cyrus king of Persia and so forth. By letters to and fro, wherof are to be seene in the same book and Thucidides, and other: making mention by name who sent them, and to whom. By immu­nities & priuiledges as in the seuenth of Esra. By ambassage whereof manie examples are reade in Herodotus. Cambyses sent to the Aethiopian king, and Darius to the Grecians: By leagues and couenants of peace, as we read in Thucidi­des. By coynes, as the peeces of gold coyned by Darius Histaspis, thereof called Darikes. By e­rected monumentes. The same king going to war against Scithia, erected at Bosphorus two pillers with two inscriptions, one in Greeke, the [Page 45] other in the Assyrian language, thereon engra­ued; declaring the Nations which went with him: And at the riuer Toarus in Thracia, an o­ther with this inscription: HITHER CAME DARIVS THE SONNE OF HYSTASPES KING OF THE PERSIANS, LEADING HIS ARMIE AGAINST THE SCYTHI­ANS, as Herodotus declareth in Melpomine. By Cities and Riuers called of their names Cyro­polis of Cyrus, Cambysene of Cambyses, Xerxe­ne of Xerxes; Cyrus a riuer in Scythia, & Cam­byses an other. In Ʋolaterranus, Pomponius, Mela, Plinie, Strabo, by their pictures. Man­drocles painted Darius sitting in a thorne, after the manner of the Medes: and conueying ouer his Armie, which he dedicated to the Temple of Iuno, with mention of Darius his name. By their Images: and those remayning many ages after. Plutarch in Alexanders life, telleth that Alexander seeing the Image of Xerxes throw­en downe by the company pressing into the kinges Pallace of Persia; stayed at it, and spake vnto it, as it had beene aliue. Lastly, by their Tombes, testifying their names to the worlde after their death: being a thing desired of al euen of meane account, and willinglie yeelded of kinde posteritie, that the memorie of their name may endure, and not die with themselues. Stra­bo in the fifteenth booke of his Geographie from Aristobulus, and Onesicritus, recordeth [Page 46] that the toombe of Cyrus was found by Alex­ander, so many yeares after his death preserued, with an inscription testifying who he was. And that Darius also had the like memoriall.

The names then of the Persian kings could not possibly bee hid, by so many meanes being made knowne in flourishing times, and lear­ned ages, and places of knowledge, and with­all their Courtes frequented with many noble Grecians, for vertue and birth. Hippias, and Demaratus, whereof the one had been king of Sparta; the other tyrant of Athens: Metiochus the eldest sonne of Miltiades, Democedes a fa­mous Phisition of Croton in Italie, who healed king Darius and his wife Atossa of grieuous paines, and diuers other which were too long to rehearse, to omit many braue soldiers of Greece seruing them in their warres.

Now let the Reader vse his skill for choice of the names, and number of the kinges betwixt Cyrus and Xerxes. Whether with Beroaldus he wil haue these three; Assuerus Artaxerxes, Da­rius Assyrius, and Artaxerxes Pius, in so many ages neuer knowne or read of in any author of reckoning: or only these two; Cambyses, and Darius Histaspis from Theagines of Rhegium, and Hecateus of Miletus, storie writers: the one vnder Cambyses, the other vnder Darius, deli­uered vnto vs by continual succession, from age to age, by the space of two thousand yeares and [Page 47] more, by the carefull diligence of the best hi­storiographers, that euer haue bin in the world, without any disagreement or controuersie a­mongst them. Thus much for the kings now concerning their yeares.

That the beginning of Cyrus was the first yeare of the 55. Olympiad, is agreed of all: the first yeare of Cyrus, sayeth Codomon in his chro­nicles; of all writers is applied to the first of the 55. Olympiad. Ioseph Scaliger prooueth it by two testimonies in his fift booke de emendati­one temporum. How manie ancient and learned writers so euer saith Scaliger, haue accounted times, euery one of them hath cast the first of Cyrus, to the first of the 55. Olympiad. Diodo­rus Siculus, Thallus, Castor, Polybius, Phlegon; as the most auncient and learned Author Tati­anus writeth. Africanus also in Eusebius testi­fieth the same in these wordes. After the 70. yeres of captiuitie, Cyrus raigned ouer the Per­sians that yeare wherin the 55. Olympiad was celebrated, as may appeare by the Libraries of Diodorus, and the Histories of Thallus and Ca­stor, and besides of Polybius and Phlegon, yea of other also who regarded Olympiads, for the time is agreed vpon of all. This therefore for the beginning of the Persian Monarchie beeing so generally testified, may suffice. If any here doe aske in what part of that yeare Cyrus began to raigne, it is gathered from the same Africanus [Page 48] probablie in the third booke of his Chronicles: where, as Eusebius testifieth of him, in his tenth booke de praeparat. Euang. hee reckoned from the first Olympiad to Cyrus, 217. yeres. Which is not otherwise true, except Cyrus begin to­ward the end of that yeare. Againe, in the fift booke of his Chronicles, making the fourth yeare of the 83. Olympiad, the fifteenth of the Persian Monarchie; as we read in the same Eu­sebius his eight booke de demonstrat. Euang. he leaueth the beginning of Cyrus to the first yeare of the 55. Olympiad, nere the end thereof: as euery one may easily perceiue.

The beginning thus made manifest, wee are now further to search the end of that Empire: Which beeing once likewise founde maketh knowne the continuance thereof. Alexander the great was the man which ouerthrew that Empire: whose death by the testimonies of Diodorus Siculus in the seuenteenth book of his Historicall Liberarie, Arrhianus in his seuenth booke, and Eusebius in his Chronicles, is set in the hundred and fourteenth Olympiad. What say I Diodorus, Arrhiamus, Eusebius, when as all, whosoeuer wrote of those times, agree here­in, by Gerardus Mercator his report in his Chronicles? The death of Alexander, saith he, of all writers is noted to haue happened in the hundred and fourteenth Olympiad, when He­gesias was chiefe ruler at Athens. If this testimo­nie [Page 49] of Mercator be of lesse importance, in re­gard of the late time wherein he liued; Iosephus an ancient Author of credit and skill, in his first book against Appian beareth him record, very constantly affirming this to be verified by the vniuersall consent of all writers; y^t Alexander died in the hundred and fourteenth Olympiad. This is somewhat, but not altogether inough, except we can learne in what part of that first yeare of the same Olympiad hee died. For the knowledge of this we are beholding to Euse­bius. Whose words are these in his eight booke de demonstratione Euangelij. [...]. That is in English thus much, Alexander ended his life in the beginning of the hundred & four­teenth Olympiad.

Making then our account frō the fiue & fif­tieth Olympiad, to the beginning of the hun­dred & fourteenth, wherein the light of Mace­donia was put out; wee finde the space of two hundred thirtie and sixe yeares between appro­ued not by weake coniectures, friuolous con­ceits, or trifling toyes, but a strong consent of writers, which as Iosephus in his 1. book against Appian, is a sure token of vndoubted truth; when they all agree. Six yeares and about three quarters before Alexanders death, the Persi­ans had beene by him subdued, receiuing as great a blow, as euer before other Nations had [Page 50] receiued from them; their power now beeing brought to an end. How is this proued? The yeare is declared by Diodorus, the second of the hundred and twelfth Olympiad, the month by Arrhi [...]mes, October, the day by Plutarch is found the first of that month. This was the vn­happie yeare of the Persian ouerthrow, the wo­full month of their fall, and the sorrowfull day of king Darius his vndoing, who after this vic­tory was contemned of his men, forsaken of his souldiers, betraied by his seruants, made a slaue to his Captaines, in most base manner shut vp within a vile waggē, couered with filthie skins, as it were in a prison, and so carried about at their pleasure. In the end they stabbed him with many woundes, and left him for dead, slew the waggener, thrust the beasts through with darts, which wanting a guide strayed from the high way about halfe a mile. Where one of Alexan­ders souldiers going to drinke, by chance espi­ed the waggen, & comming vnto it found the king now drawing on; who first craued of him a little water. After he had drunke, acknowledg­ing this for the last miserie of his wretched e­state, that hee was not able to requite his kind­nes, and withall wishing well to Alexander for the great honour which hee had done to his wife and children, hee ended his life in the third yeare of the hundred and twelfth Olympiad, as appeareth by Diodorus Siculus, and Arrhia­mes; [Page 51] who further hath set downe the moneth Hecatombeon, beeing the season of the Olym­pick sports, and answering partly to our Iune, and partly Iulie: This was the tragicall end of that mightie king, making proofe of the bric­kle estate of Princely pompe, and the vnstayed stay of worldly glorie, wherein he liued neere sixe yeares.

These limits thus bounded of the Persian Empire, that is to say, the fiue & fiftieth Olym­picke exercise for the beginning, and the entrie of the third yere of the hundred and twelfth for the end, giue sure euidence of the whole con­tinuance to be two hundred and thirtie yeares, if we begin from the fiftie and fiue Olympiad; if from the end about nine or ten monethes after in the spring of the yeare, when Cyrus began to raigne as is probable and likelie, by that which before hath beene declared, two hundred and nine and twentie yeares with two or three months. And thus they are deuided among the Persian kinges.

Cyrus raigned thirtie yeares, recorded by two auncient Historiographers liuing in the Persian times, in their Persian Histories; Dio­nisius and Ctesias; Cicero also in his first booke De diuinatione, Iustin, Clemens Alexandri­nus 1. Strom. Eusebius in his Chronicle, Hie­rom on the seauenth of Daniel, Beda in his book De sex aetatibus confirme the same: and [Page 52] Orosius in his second booke against the Hea­then, bringeth Tomyris the Queene of Scythia, after she had slaine Cyrus in battaile & throwen his head into a vessell of blood, insulting ouer him with this speech: Now fill thy selfe with blood, which could neuer yet satsifie thee this thirtie yeares. This had been foreshewed to Cy­rus by a dreame, as Cicero from Dionisius re­porteth. VVherein the sunne appearing at his feete, and Cyrus catching at it thrice with his handes, euerie time it trowled it selfe away. Which the skilfull Magi of Persia interpreted of thrice ten yeares raigne.

Cambyses succeeded him, the time of whose raigne was seauen yeres & fiue months: which together with the seauen monethes more of Smerdis the vsurper, and counterfait brother of Cambyses, made vp eight yeares, as Herodotus declareth in Thalia.

Darius Histaspis ruled by the space of full sixe and thirtie yeares, as Herodotus writeth, & Eusebius in his Chronicles, and Seuerus in his second booke. Xerxes in the second yeare of his raigne subdued the Aegyptians, and in the sixt inuaded Greece with an innumerable ar­my, yet driuen to flie by a few. In the 16 yeare after, and one and twentieth of his raigne, being the last yere of the seauentie and eighth Olym­piad, as Diodorus Siculus declareth by his cow­ardise and corrupt life, hee growing into con­tempt [Page 53] with his Nobles was slaine: Many wri­ters giue him one and twentie yeares. Seuerus, Beda, Eusebius, Clemens Alexandrinus, 1. Stromatum hath [...] for [...] twentie six for twen­tie one: an easie slip in writing far from the en­diters minde.

Artaxerxes the long handed was his sonne, who held that Monarchie by the space of fortie yeares; witnessed by Diodorus Siculus in his e­leuenth and twelfth bookes; Eusebius, Hierom, Isidorus, Beda, with other.

Xerxes and Sogdianus after him enioyed the Empire one yeare betweene them both.

The next was Darius Nothus, holding the imperiall crowne ninteene yeares, as Diodorus Siculus, Tertullianus against the Iewes, Eusebi­us, Isidorus, Seuerus, Beda and other declare.

Artaxerxes Mnemon succeeded him, and continued in his gouernment the longest of all other; euen three and fortie yeares, my Author is Diodorus in two places: first in the ende of his thirteenth book, and againe in his fifteenth; who likewise witnesseth that Artaxerxes O­chus his successor ruled three & twentie yeres: which is confirmed by the testimonie of Sulpi­tius in his second booke.

The last but one was Arses, continuing three yeares in his Empire by Sulpitius. In whose death the bloud Royall from Cyrus, was extin­guished; all his brethren and children by cruell [Page 54] treason beeing made away. A iust reward of his father Ochus, his Tigerlike, and Woluish cruel­tie in murthering his Princesse.

The last of all was Darius Codomanus, an v­surper rather than a lawfull heire, who of all the rest had the hardest hap in his imperiall state, receiued by wrong, continued in toyle, ended in woe, after sixe yeares, which by Eusebius, Isi­dorus, Hierom and others, was the time of his raigne.

The whole number and generall summe of all from first to last, is two hundred and thirtie yeares; so by this reckoning of euerye seuerall kings raigne, is found nine or ten monethes in the whole aboue the Olympick account, from the end of the first yeare of the 55. Olympiad. These months must bee taken partly from the one and twentieth of Xerxes beeing not fullie expired, as appeareth by Diodorus Siculus, gi­uing him not ful one & twentie: yet [...] more than twentie. And partlye from Arses; whome Bagous a faithles Eunuche poysoned, [...]. that is, nowe raigning the third yeare, saith Diodorus about the be­ginning of his seuenteenth book, thereby signi­fying that it was not fully compleat; and part­ly also from the sixt of the last Darius which was not whollie & perfectly finished. For Ar­taxerxes Mnemon begun his raigne in the end of the Peloponnesian warre, or a little after in [Page 55] the month of Aprill, as may bee gathered by Diodorus Siculus, in the end of his thirteenth booke, compared with Thucidides. Thucidi­des saith it begun in the beginning of the spring two months before the yeares end: which time by Codoman and others skill, fell to the first of Aprill. It lasted (saith Thucidides) seuen and twentie yeares, and some few dayes more. Da­rius died after the peace made betweene the A­thenians and the Lacedemonians, saith Dio­dorus Siculus, meaning that peace which made an end of the warre.

Giuing therefore him three and fortie, and Ochus three and twentie, and Arses three, all perfect; they must end about that season in the first yeare of the hundred and eleuenth Olym­piad. Arses I graunt reached to that yeare, yet not to that moneth of Aprill by a good while. For Philip king of Macedonia, was slaine by Pausanias in that hundred and eleuenth Olym­piad the first yeare thereof, witnesses Arrhia­mes and Diodorus, and that in winter about the foure and twentie of Ianuarie, as Chitraeus affir­meth in his Chronologie. But Arses was poy­soned, and Darius had succeeded him, while Philip was yet a liue; and had purposed to haue made warre against him, as Diodorus wri­teth. Hereby it is euident that neither Arses his three yeares, nor Codomans sixe yeares could be fully ended, seeing that he was slaine in sum­mer, [Page 56] about the beginning of the third yeare of the hundred and twelfth Olympiad, as appea­reth by Arrhiames.

Thus are found from the beginning of the fiue and fiftieth Olympiad, to the death of the last Monarch of Persia, two hundred and thirtie yeares. And from Cyrus thither two hundred and nine and twentie yeares, and more by gesse about two or three moneths. And lastly from Cyrus to Darius, now the second time by A­lexander vanquished, in which conquest ma­ny make an ende of the Persian Empire, two hundred and eyght and twentie yeares and a halfe.

These times of the Persian Monarchie, being I know not by what mishap brought into que­stion and great controuersie among the lear­ned, and withall of great importance for the vn­derstanding of God his word; haue neede to bee strengthened with all force that may bee. And therefore I will yet make further search for stayes and props as it were to vpholde them.

Eusebius in his tenth booke, de Preparatione Euangelica saith, that the second yeare of Da­rius Hystaspis, was the first of the threescore and fift Olympiad, so found iust by the former reckoning. The warre of Xerxes, that Darius his sonne, and Nephew to Cyrus, of all other was the most famous. Who led against Greece the greatest armie that euer was heard of before [Page 57] or after, of twentie hundred thousand fighting souldiers; for the huge multitude thereof drin­king running riuers drie, and as Cicero saith, walking vpon the Seas, and sayling on the land: because that hee digged through great moun­taines, to make the seas meete for his nauie to passe. And in other places of the sea, made bridges to goe ouer a foote. Leonides a valiant king of Sparta, to the wonder of all ages fol­lowing, onely with foure thousand men, en­countred, resisted, and fought with that pow­erfull hoste, at the straights of Thermopylae. Xerxes at the first sent fifteene thousand, then twentie thousand, and last of all fiftie thousand against them. At euery time making choyce of better men then before. First begun the Medes, bearing hatefull mindes against the Gre­cians with desire of reuenge; for the slaughter of their kinsemen a little before at Marathon. Next after them fought the Persian souldiers themselues, in whom the Persian king of all o­ther nations vnder him reposed most confi­dence. Yea of these Persians were chosen the most valiant men amongst them all, called the immortals; because their number neuer decay­ed. Last of all was a choyce companie of the chiefest men of all the whole hoast, for stoute­nes, valour and courage, picked out from the rest. And they also stirred vp by great promi­ses of rich rewards. All these fighting against [Page 58] that handfull of the Grecians had like successe: a great number was slaine; many wounded, the rest put to flight. Xerxes maugred, thus stay­ed by a few from passing further into Greece, was at his wits ende, till such time as one of that countrey had informed him of another way, by which some of the armie came vpon the backe of Leonides, and so inclosed him on both sides, which Leonides hauing intelligence of by a secret friend a little before, sent all the rest of his companie home sauing fiue hundred. These he encouraged, and the more to enable them for battell, exhorted them to dine before, with resolued mindes to take their supper a­mong the dead. Which done, and night come, they inuaded the Persian campe, came to the kings Pauilion, slew all that were in it, wandred to and fro seeking the king, who a little before had got himselfe away, and killing on both sides as they went. The Persians in the darke not discerning the matter, were greatly ama­zed, ran out of their tents they wist not whether, fearing nothing so much as this, that the whole power of Greece had set vpon them. In this hurlie burlie they slew one another, till the day light bewrayed the trueth, when Leonides with his souldiers fought still. At the length weari­ed with ouercomming, and oppressed on eue­ry side with mayne force of that powerfull number; they dyed in the middest of their ene­mies [Page 59] with glorie, hauing slaine to the number of twentie thousand.

The battailes wherein Xerxes had this wel­come into Greece, many olde writers with great agreement refer to the beginning of the seuentie and fiue Olympiad. Diodorus in his eleuenth booke writeth, that Xerxes warred a­gainst Greece in the first yeare of the seuentie and fiue Olympiad, Callias then being Maior of Athens. Dyonisius Halicarnassaeus in the beginning of his ninth booke agreeth hereun­to; naming that very yeare of the same Olym­piad, and the same Maior of Athens, for the time of Xerxes fighting against Greece. Euse­bius also in his Chronicles hath a plaine confir­mation hereof, referring to the first yeare of this seuentie and fiue Olympiad, that battaile wherin Xerxes his power by sea fought against the Athenians, and tooke a most shamefull o­uerthrow. Diogenes Laertius in the life of So­crates writeth, that in the time of Callias his gouernement at Athens, in the first yeare of the seuentie fiue Olympiad, the Poet Euripides was borne; Suidas nameth the very day of his birth, euen that wherein Xerxes his nauie was ouer­come by the Grecians at Salamis. The same Laertius reporteth from ancient Historiogra­phers, that Anaxagoras being borne in the se­uenty Olympiad, was twentie yeares old when Xerxes passed into Greece, and Callias ruled at [Page 60] Athens: thereby giuing vs to vnderstand that by the receiued opinion of former ages, Xerxes inuading Greece, and Callias his Maioraltie at Athens, fell to the first yeare of the 75. Olym­piad. In like manner Pindarus, borne in the 65. Olympiad, and at Xerxes his warre fortie yeare olde by Suidas record, approueth the trueth of that account. Who so list to make triall shall easilie see an exact agreement betwixt this O­lympiad and the yeares of Xerxes before re­hearsed. Africanus in the fift booke of his Chronicles, affirming that the fourth of the 83. Olympiad, was the 20. of Artaxerxes Longi­manus, and the 115. of the Persian kingdome, maketh all good.

The Athenians after the Persians ouerthrow, and Xerxes his flight out of Grecia grew migh­tie, hauing by their great nauie obtained the rule of the sea, and subdued many people of Greece. Whereupon the Lacedemonians, who dwelt in that part of Greece which was called Peloponnesus, suspecting their power, and fled vnto for ayde, tooke parte against them; which in the ende was the occasion of that long and fierce warre betweene the Athenians and the Lacedemonians, called the Peloponnesian war. The one people spoyling by sea, the other by land: so that by this means the Grecians which most gloriouslie had triumphed in many bat­tailes ouer the mightie Monarchs of the world, [Page 61] were now brought low, and pittifullie wasted in most lamentable manner, turning their forces from the common enemy to their ruine against themselues: the continuance, beginning, and ende of this warre is most exactly described by Thucidides an Athenian Gentleman, the pen­ner thereof, who flourished in that time and saw the warre with his eyes, from the beginning to the end; yea was a chiefe captaine therein, a writer for certaine trueth of historie, and per­fect reckoning of time most excellent, and of such account in the ages following, that euen the best followed him, and gaue credite vnto him. Demosthenes the famous Orator of A­thens tooke paines to coppie out his bookes eyght times with his owne hand, as Lucian re­porteth. This exact historiographer, in the en­trie of his second booke, telleth that this warre begunne in the fifteenth yeare of the league, which after the taking of Eubaea was made for thirtie yeares to come, Aenesias being then Ma­ior of Sparta, and Pythodorus of Athens, and the yeare of their Maioraltie now within two moneths expired, in the beginning of the spring. For the better vnderstanding of these wordes, concerning the taking of Eubaea, and the thirtie yeares league, I will briefely touch the historie.

Eubaea was an Iland neere vnto Greece, in the Aegean sea, which hauing been subiect and [Page 62] tributarie to the Athenians; at the length spy­ing their opportunity, by reason of a great ouer­throw of the Athenians in Baeotia, and the La­cedemonians holding against them; by which their power was greatly weakened, fell from them, refusing to serue them, or pay them tri­bute any longer. For this cause Pericles a noble man of Athens, was sent against them with a great hoast, who once againe subdued them. And a little after their returne from Eubaea, now the second time by Pericles so conquered; a league was made betweene the Athenians and the Lacedemonians, to endure for thirtie yeares following. The articles and couenants of this league were grauen in a pillar of brasse set in Olympia, as Pausanias recordeth in the first of his Eliacx, where hee also declareth the time thereof to be the third yeare of that Olympiad, wherein Criso of Himaera won the race. Now that that Olympiad wherein Criso of Himaera won the race, was the 83. we haue the testimo­nie of Dionysius Halicarnassaeus in the ende of his tenth of Roman antiquities, and the begin­ning of the eleuenth. Hereof it followeth by Thucidides compared with other writers; that the Peloponnesian sturres began in the first yere of the 87. Olympiad; for that is iust the 15. yeare from the third of the 83. wherein the thir­tie yeares league was made. Againe, for cleerer confirmation hereof, Diodorus Siculus in his [Page 63] twelfth booke hath left in recorde, that the yeare of Pythodorus his Maioraltie at Athens, in the ende whereof Thucidides beginneth that war, was the first of the 87. Olympiad.

This therefore I holde for a certaine trueth, that the beginning of the Peloponnesian warre happened in the first yeare of the 87. Olympi­ad, toward the end thereof, about the beginning of Aprill, so as the Olympicke exercises of that yeare, were solemnized the sommer before go­ing: and the 4. 8. 12. 16. 20. 24. 28. sommers of that war were Olympicke yeares; which of the fourth and the twelfth is plainly testified by Thucidides himselfe in the third and fift bookes of his historie. In the seuenth yeare of this war Thucidides telleth, that Artaxerxes died in winter; which for the certaine knowledge of the Persian times, is a most excellent place, a sure fort, a sound argument, a cleere testimo­nie, a strong proofe from him, which liued at that time, was as olde as the thing it selfe which he telleth, saw the effect with his eyes, studied from his heart to set forth the trueth. If the for­mer account be agreeable to this testimonie of Thucidides, as it is most precisely, I see no cause why it may not triumph ouer all aduersaries, how powerfull and how well learned soeuer. Marke then the agreement.

Xerxes his 21. wherein he dyed, was saide to be the fourth of the 78. Olympiad. Artaxerxes [Page 64] raigned 40. which being numbred from that yeare of his fathers death, bring vs iust to the fourth of the Olympian, and the seuenth of the Peloponnesian war; the set time of Artax­erxes his death by Thucidides: who best of all other writers now extant in the world, knew the certaine trueth of it, and for credite in this matter, hee hath none comparable vnto him. The same Thucidides making the 20. of the Peloponnesian war, to be the thirteenth of Da­rius Nothus, confirmeth it once againe. For ad­ding thirteene of that war vnder Darius, to se­uen vnder Artaxerxes, that number is made vp. The continuance and ende of this war, by the same Thucidides is shewed in his fift booke: where hee declareth the whole time of that war to haue been 27. yeares, to the ouerthrow of the Athenian Empire, and the taking of their hauen Pyreus by the Lacedemonians, and their associates. Of this had gone a Prophesie long before in many mens mouthes: which himself with his owne eares many times had heard; that it should endure thrise nine yeares: which is confirmed by Diodorus Siculus, very plaine­ly affirming that war to haue lasted 27. yeares, in two places: first in his twelfth booke, trea­ting of the beginning of that war, and after in his thirteenth booke, speaking of the last yeare thereof, which hee saith was the last of the 93. Olympiad, as in deede it was: for 27. yeares ad­ded [Page 65] to the first of the 87. Olympiad, wherein it began, make an end of it in the fourth of the 93.

After Thucidides followed Xenophon, who from the one and twentie yeare of that warre where Thucidides left, continued in writing the course of that Historie to the ende: a man liuing in those dayes carefull of the truth, and skilfull in Historie, commended euen by Bero­aldus himselfe, though otherwise an aduersa­rie of the true ancient Chronologie, and Histo­rie of those times: In the fifth Chapter of his fourth book, Xenophon saith Beroaldus, writeth that the gouernment of Athens was commit­ted to a few in that Olympick yeare, wherein Crocinus the Thessalian won the race, but which Olympiad it was in number hee decla­reth not: Which if he who then liued, and pre­pared himselfe for seruice had done; hee had rid vs of much trouble. Let vs see therefore what help is giuen by this excellent writer to ease vs herein.

In his first booke of Greeke affaires, this first hee setteth downe verie flatlie, that the yeare wherein Enarchippus at Sparta, and Enctemo at Athens were Maiors, was the first of the 43. Olympiad, wherein Eubotas the Cyrenian won the race, and a new game of yoaked hor­ses called Synoris was first ordayned, at that time won by Enagoras of Elis, where lest anie [Page 66] might think Xenophon to haue bin deceiued, we haue for further warrant, the testimonie of Pau­sanias in the first booke of Eliacx. The running (saith hee) of two horses of ripe age called Sy­noris, was instituted in the 93. Olympiad, wher­in Euagoras the Elian got the victorie. Nowe this being made plaine by Xenophon, that E­narchippus was gouernour of Sparta in the first yeare of the 93. Olympiad; if it can bee further shewed by him, in what yere of the Peloponne­sian warre the same Enarchippus ruled at Spar­ta; we shall easilie perceiue by euident directi­on from this worthie Author, to what yeare of euery Olympiad, the beginning, midst, & end­ing, and euery particular yeare of that war ap­pertaineth.

To shew this we haue a Catalogue of all the chiefe Spartan Magistrates, which bare Office in euery yeare of that warre called Ephori, set downe by Xenophon in order by their names, in the second booke of his Greeke Historie in these words. The first (saith Xenophon) was Ae­nesias vnder whome the warre began in the 15. yeare of the 30. yeares league, made after the taking of Eubaea. After him succeeded these, Borasidas, Isanor, Sostratidas, Exarchus, Agesi­stratus, Agenidas, Onomacles, Zeuxippus, Pity­as, Pleistolas, Cleiomachus, Ilarchus, Leon, Chae­ridas, Patesiades, Cleosthenes, Lycarius, Exe­ratus, Onomantius, Alexippidas, Misgolaidas, [Page 67] Isias, Aracus, Enarchippus, Pantacles, Piteas, Archytas, Endius. In whose time Lysander ha­uing done the exploits before rehearsed sayled home. By this Catalogue of the Lacedemoni­an Maiors, it is manifest that Xenophon for ac­count of time, in this warre agreeth most exact­ly with Thucidides. The war began in the nine months end of Aenesias the first Ephorus, and ended at the pulling downe the walles of Pyre­us, 27. yeares after, which reach to the nine months end of the 28. Ephorus; so that from the beginning of the second Ephorus, neere three months after the beginning of the warre, to the end of the 28. Ephorus, nere three months after the end of that war; are likewise iust 27. yeares, perfectly and fully compleat.

And is it not euen so by Xenophon? doth not hee declare the throwing downe the walles in the hauen Pyraeus to haue happened toward the end of Archytas his gouernment at Spar­ta? And are there not full and euen 27. yeares from the beginning of Brasidas, the second E­phorus to the end of Architas, who by Xeno­phons number in that Catalogue was the 28? Is there any beetle so blind, which cannot per­ceiue this exact agreement betwixt Xenophon and Thucidides, for the account of those yeares?

The Peloponnesian warre as may be gathe­thered by Thucidides, begun with the spring [Page 68] about the first of Aprill toward the end of Ae­nesias his yere. Brasidas succeeding him begun his yeare about the beginning of the next som­mer, beeing the first of that warre. The second sommer fell to the third Ephorus, and so in or­der with the rest. The eleuenth Ephorus by Xe­nophons beadroule was Pleistolas, for the tenth sommer: which is verified also by Thucidides, in his fift booke, speaking of a league made be­twixt the Athenians and the Lacedemonians in the end of Pleistolas his Maioraltie at Sparta before the sommer of the eleuenth yeare. The 21. Ephorus recited by Xenophon for the 20. sommer, is Alexippidas. The trueth whereof is witnessed and confirmed by Thucidides like­wise in his eight booke, wherein hee telleth that in the twentieth yere of the Peloponnesian warre a peace was concluded betweene Tissa­phernes Lieutenant of Asia, and the Lacede­monians in the plaine of Meander, Alexippi­das then being Ephorus of Sparta. The next af­ter Alexippidas, for the 21. yeare there named, is Misgolaidas, for the 22. Isias, for the 23. A­racus. Then after them followeth Enarchippus the fiue and twentieth Ephorus for the 24. yeres sommer. This Enarchippus being first placed in the beginning of the 93. Olympiad, and after by his Catalogue found in the 24. yeare of the Peloponnesian war; leaueth this cleere by Xe­nophons meaning, that the 24. yeare of that war [Page 69] beginning with sommer, was the first of the 93. Olympiad. The three Ephori after E­narchippus, succeeding in the other three yeares of that Olympiad set downe by Xenophon in or­der, not onely in his table, but euen in the con­text of his Historie, for three seuerall yeares are these. Pantacles, Pyteas, & Archytas, in whose time the Athenians beeing conquered by Ly­sander, were driuen to yeeld. The next yeare af­ter was the first of a new Olimpiad, so acknow­ledged most truely, and verie orderly by Xeno­phon himselfe, in his second booke; where ha­uing declared the thinges done vnder Archy­tas. In the yeare following (saith hee) was that Olympiad wherin Crocinus the Thessalian won the race, Endius then bearing office at Sparta, and Pythodorus ruling at Athens. Now if anye aske which Olympiad this was in number; that most manifestlie appeareth by the former, namely expressed to haue beene the 93, so that it needed not againe for the next expresly to say y^t it was the 94. which had bin nothing els but recocta crambe, according to the prouerb, Col­worts sodden againe. Furthermore Xenophon not far frō the begining of the 2. book writeth, that the nauie of the Lacedemoniās was deliue­red to Lysander. Whē 25. yeres of the war were past and gone, which must needes be in the 29. yeare. Immediatlie after hee addeth that in that yere Cyrus killed two of his kinsemen, for not [Page 70] holding their handes within a muffe when they met him, as was vsed to be done to kings, in to­ken of honour and loyall dutie for their greater securitie, that they might bee void of all suspiti­on & feare of harme. And then followeth that the next yeare after which must needes bee the 27. and last, Archytas was Ephorus of Sparta.

Thus from Xenophon wee learne, that which Beroaldus wished, the 24. and 27. yeres of the Peloponnesian warre yoaked the one with the first, the other with the last of the 93. Olympi­ad, which for sound knowledge of the Persian times, to discerne them a right is very material, and a sure bulwarke for defence of my former Chronologie. Whereby was proued that Cyrus begun in the first of the 55. Olympiad towarde the end, from which time to the fourth of the 93 nere ended are 155. yeares. That is to say. 30 of Cyrus, 8 of Cambyses, 36 of his successor, of Xerxes 21. of Artaxerxes 40. & with that of Xerxes, and Sogdianus included 20. of Da­rius Nothus; whose raigne ended almost toge­ther with the Peloponnesian warre, as before hath beene declared by the testimonie of Dio­dorus Siculus, and appeareth by Thucidides making his thirteenth, the twentieth of the warre.

Erastosthenes an auncient writer in the time of Ptolomeus Euergetes (a man to vse Plinie his terme) cunning in the subtiltie of all learning [Page 71] and approued of all (so Plinie testifieth of him in his second booke) set forth certaine rules of Chronologie; which Dionisius Halicarnasseus for the truth thereof, & exact reckoning great­ly commendeth in his first book of Roman an­tiquities. These rules haue beene preserued vnto this age by the carefull diligence of the ancient learned father Clemens Alexandrinus. 1. Strom. From the first Olympiad to Xerxes passing into Greece, he accounted 297. yeares: thence to the beginning of the Peloponnesian warre 48. and after to the end and dissolution of the A­thenians common wealth 27. all these gathe­red together are 372. from the first Olympiad, so saieth Eratosthenes, agreeing with Xeno­phons reckoning to Archytas his Maioraltie at Sparta ended with that warre and the fourth of the 93. Olympiad. For 93. Olympiads are foure­score & thirteene times foure yeres, that is the number of Eratosthenes 372. From which summe 54. Olympiads, contayning 216. before that wherein Cyrus begun, being taken awaie; with almost one yeare more from the begin­ning of it to Cyrus, there remaineth for the Per­sian Monarchie to the end of the Peloponnesian warre 155. yeares before spoken of.

Diodorus Siculus was a man of wonderfull paines, and exceedingly precise in exact com­putation. He spent thirtie yeares in making his Historie, from Sicilie his natiue countrie hee [Page 72] trauailed into Egypt, and the greatest part of Asia, and Europe to search the trueth of those thinges which hee wrote. A diligent reader of all the auncient writers before him from Hero­dotus, and other before and after succeding in order, whom hee hath followed in the matters which he telleth. And therefore not vnfitly the title of his worke is called, not a Historie but a Librarie. Iustinus Martyr called him the most famous Historiographer of the Grecians. Eusebius commendeth him by the name of a notable man, in great request among the lear­ned. But Henry Stephen aboue all other prai­seth him exceedingly, giuing him that place & degree amongst the learned Historiographers, which the sunne hath amongst the starres; in re­gard of exact defining those thinges which he writeth of by ordered times. This writer there­fore confirming all those thinges before spoken of touching the kings of Persia, and the time of their raigne may be in steed of many: so as in him alone we may see the iudgement not onely of Herodotus, Thucidides, Xenophon; but also of Callisthenes, Duris, Timaeus, Philiscus, Theo­pompus, Ephorus, and other by him diligentlie read, perused and cyted, which at this day are not any where found.

It were infinite to bring all that might bee said out of Authors for the verefying of this Chronologie: tedious to be read, & toylesome [Page 73] to be written. Therefore passing ouer many te­stimonies of diuers writers, I will now come to the Roman Storie, to see if it likewise by agree­ment of time, may auaile any thing to fortifie those limits and bounds, which haue beene set for the Persian kings.

The Romanes in continuance of time be­came Lordes of Greece, where the Olympicke sports were celebrated. And therefore it could not otherwise bee, but that they knew well e­nough how the yeares of their Citie were an­swerable to the Olympick reckoning of the Grecians. Polybius of Megalopolis a Cittie in Arcadia, neere as auncient as Eratosthenes, by Cicero accounted amongst the best authors, for worthinesse & credit commended by Iosephus, by Velleius Paterculus honoured with this te­stimonie, that he was a man excelling in wit, had in great estimation, and followed by Liuie and other: in the third booke of his historie af­firmeth, that the first Consuls of Rome were 28. yeares before the passage of Xerxes into Greece, which was in the end of the last yeare of the 74. Olympiad, as appeareth by that which before hath bin declared. Hereof it fol­loweth, that the first of the 68. Olympiad bee­ing the 14. of Darius Histaspis, was that wher­in the new gouernment of that Cittie by Con­suls was established. Whereas before it had bin gouerned by kings for the space of 244. yeares [Page 74] from the first building thereof, vnto this time adding 28. yeares, or seauen Olympiads more. We come toward the end of the last yeare of the 74. Olympiad, & being the 272. of Rome, wherin Xerxes passed into Greece, as Polybius testifieth; the next yeare after was the first of the 75. wherein Xerxes with his great armie was ouercome, as before hath bin prooued.

The truth hereof is verified by A. Gellius in the last chapter of his seuenteenth book, where he writeth that Xerxes was ouercome by The­mistocles at Salamis foure yeres before the con­sulship of Menenius Agrippa, and Horatius Puluillus, wherein a great kinred of noble Ro­mans called Fabij, to the number of 306. ha­uing taken vpon them at their owne charge to fight against a certaine people, were slaine by the subtiltie of their enemies, circumuented at the riuer Cremera: for this is declared by the Romane histories, to haue fallen out in the 277 yeare of Rome, and the 33. from the banish­ment of the kings.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his fift booke of Romane antiquities, reckoneth sixteene yeares betwixt Brutus one of the first Consuls death in the end of his yeare, and the Marathon fight, referring the battaile at Marathon to the seuenteenth yeare after Brutus his buriall, and the eighteenth after the kings driuen out of the Citie, wherein Gegainus, Macerinus, and Mi­nutius [Page 75] Augurinus were Consuls.In his 7. Booke. Which by constant agreement of almost all authors, hee sayeth was in the second yeare of the 72. Olym­piad. So he maketh the 31. of Darius Histas­pis, and the 262. of Rome, and the second of the 72. Olimp. all one yeare: as it was indeede most exactly agreeing to the testimony of Po­lybius before rehearsed, and the Greeke Chro­nologie of the Persian kings and the Olympick reckoning. A. Gellius in the place aforenamed saith, that the Marathon battell happened in the 260. yeare of Rome: which is likewise true ac­cording to his beginning of the yeares of that City, as afterward shall appeare.

Liuie the famous Latine writer of the Ro­mane historie, in the end of his fift booke tel­leth, that the Frenchmen and Swichers hauing inuaded a certaine people of Italie, were by a noble ambassage from Rome intreated to de­part, without hurting their friends and associats hauing no cause offered to doe it. This verie stoutly they refused to doe, except they might haue part of that countrie graunted vnto them to dwell in: a thing thought vnreasonable, that by force of armes & dint of sword they should go about to take that which pertained nothing vnto them. Whereuppon they fell to a fierce and sharpe battaile, wherein the Roman Em­bassadors contrarie to the law of armes, tooke part with their associate neighbours against [Page 76] them: yea killed one of their chiefe captaines. At the first the French by their legates com­plained, & receiuing no amendes for the wrong done vnto them; their heartes were so stirred, that presently without any more adoe they tur­ned their force against Rome, going in all haste to inuade it. About eleuen mile from the Citie, they were met withall by the Romans, who be­ing put to flight, fled the greatest part to other places, a few to Rome; which was so interpre­ted by the Citizens, as though all the rest had beene slaine; being astonished with feare, they had no regard to shut their gates. At the length they sent a certaine number of the stoutest and strongest mē into their Castle called the Capi­toll, well appointed with victuals and weapons to defend it. The aged Senators being resolued to hazard their liues, & to bequeath themselues to the sword, went home, sate downe in theyr robes at the entrie of their houses in open sight of their enemies, who meruailed thereat: yet v­sing no crueltie, till one of them for stroaking M. Papirius an old Senator, his beard was rapt on the pate for his labour with an iuorie staffe. Then began the slaughter, first of him, after of the rest; the Citie they sacked and burned, all but the Capitoll, which had bin taken also by them in the night climing vp, had not the kea­king of Geese in time bewrayed their intent. This calamitie happened to the Romans in [Page 77] the 365. yeare of Rome, as we reade in Liuie: which by auncient registers and recordes of the Censors, of long time preserued in their poste­ritie, from father to childe by many ages, was testified to be the 121. yeare from the last kings raigne. These records Dionysius Halicarnassaus read and saw with his eyes. This 121. after the Consuls, with 244. before them, make vp Li­uies number 365.

Now that Rome was taken of the Swichers in the beginning of the 98. Olympiad, is proo­ued by great agreement of learned writers in the first booke of the same Dionysius, which from the 68. wherein the Consuls began, is iust the 121. yeare. Adding hereunto the yeares be­fore the 68. Olympiad, to the beginning of the Persian Monarchie in the 55. and those after the 98. Olympiad, to the ende thereof in the third of the 112. all agree. The Olympick rec­koning of the Persian times is iustified by the Romaine Historie.

Polybius in his third book telleth, that L. Ae­mylius being Consul of Rome, was sent into Il­lyrium with an armie in the first yeare of the 140. Olympiad. At what time Annibal set for­ward in Spayne to besiege Sagunt, which by the Roman historie is found the 533. of y^e citie. Of these 533. one hundred and eleuen were be­tweene the death of the last king of Persia and that setting forth of L. Aemylius. And 192. of [Page 78] them were from the beginning of Rome, with the seuenth Olympiad to Cyrus. There remay­neth for the Persian Empire 230. yeares, which space for it before hath been declared, and now once againe prooued by the yeares of Rome.

One proofe more of the testimonie frō Hea­uen, and so an end: Time is of the Philosophers defined to be the measure of the heauenly mo­tion; the course and mouing whereof being alwaies certaine & vniforme, without disorder or going astray, how so euer it is with men, there can be no error in it. By that measure is knowne the length from one Solstitium to an­other, from eclips to eclips, exactlie without missing a daye or an houre. Astronomie, saith Temporarius, teacheth what space of Heauen, the Sunne, the Moone, and other Starres, runne out in an houre, a daye, a moneth, a yeare, yea many thousand yeares, and defineth the spaces from one eclips to another most perfectlie; so as one of them being once found, we cannot after for the times following be deceaued in a daye. Ptolomie a learned Aegyptian, of a deepe and long reach in the knowledge of Astrono­mie, and other Mathematicall sciences, in his Almagest hath recorded diuers eclipses of the Moone of ancient time preserued amongst them, from the beginning of Nabonasars raigne, long before the Iewes captiuitie in Ba­bylon: which Censorinus in his booke, de die [Page 79] natali, speaking of, saith. Ʋt à nostris ita ab Aegyptijs, quidam aenni in literas relati sunt, quos Nabonozaru nominant; quod à primo e­ius imperij anno consurgant As (saith he) of our men, so of the Aegyptians, certaine yeares haue been committed to writing, which they call Nabonasars, because they rise together with the beginning of this Empire. One of these eclipses there by him so registred, happened in the se­uenth yeare of Cambyses, about the 16. daye of Iulie, 224. yeares, and 140. dayes after the beginning of Nabonasar, which was the sixe and twentie daye of Februarie, in the first yeare of the eyght Olympiad, and the fift yeare of Rome. Another by the same Ptolomie recorded, was in the yeare wherein Phanostratus was Maior of Athens, 365. yeares, with 112. dayes after Nabonasars coronation, which leade vs to the eyghteenth daye of Iune, in that yeare of Phanostratus now very neere spent. The di­stance of these ecclipses, by examination is found full a hundred one and fortie yeares with­in one moneth. So much time by the course of Heauen ran out, from the sixeteenth daye of Iu­lie, in the seuenth of Cambyses, being the second yeare of the 64. Olympiad; to the eyght daye of Iune, in the yeare of Phanostratus, which Diodorus Siculus very truely setteth in the se­cond of the 99. Olympiad, yet blamed for it by Temporarius in his third booke of Chronolo­gicall [Page 80] demonstrations: who striueth for that yeare of Phanostratus to be the third of the na­med Olympiad but all in vaine. Heauen it selfe giueth sentence against him, and verifieth the testimonie of Diodorus, making the very same number neither more nor lesse.

Meto, a skilfull and learned Astronomer, as Ptolomie in the third booke of his Almagest declareth in the 316. yeare of Nabonasar, the 21. daye of the Aegyptian moneth Pha­menoth, answerable by our computation to the 28. day of Iune, Apsendes then ruling at Athens, obserued the Astronomicall poynte of summers beginning, called Solstitium, which in this our age is about the eleuenth of that mo­neth, the Sunne then entring into the tropicke of Cancer. So great alteration in the space of 2020. yeares is bred betwixt our time and theirs, for want of exact appoynting and right ordering of the leape yeare. From that time to the end of the 50. yeare of Calippus his first pe­riod: Hipparchus an excellent Mathematici­an, a man whome nature made partaker of her secrets, as Plinie writeth of him; gathered a per­fect summe of 152. yeares. That this period of Calippus began with the third yeare of the 112. Olympiad, it is agreed by cleere con­sent of many writers. For about that time Da­rius was slaine, and thereby this period of Ca­lippus began together with Alexanders Mo­narchie, [Page 81] now by the death of Darius establi­shed in his hands, without clayme of any. In memorie whereof this period was ordayned, and the account of yeares after taken from that head.

The 50. yeares then of this period being ta­ken from the former summe, there remaynes 102. yeares from the end of Apsendes his go­uernement, to the death of the last king of Per­sia: which by the recorde of auncient writers is so acknowledged and verified, placing Ap­sendes in the last of the 86. Olympiad (which was the 32. yeare of Artaxerxes the long han­ded) and the slaughter of Darius in the third of the 112. These 102. with 127. and some odde moneths from Cyrus to the 32. of that Artax­erxes included, containe the receaued time of the Persian kings, 229. yeares with some few moneths more to the beginning of Alexanders Monarchie, at the last Persian kings death. Which euen that most famous eclipse of the very next yeare before, wherewith Alexanders souldiers were scared, eleuen dayes before his last battaile against Darius; putteth out of doubt. For from that in the seuenth of Camby­ses before spoken of, to this Astronomical com­ming by exact calculation, findeth 192. yeares and 66. dayes. Which with the time following from the last eclipse to Darius his death, and the yeares of Cambyses and Cyrus before the [Page 82] first Eclips, make vp that full reckoning.

Thus the glorious seruant of all the worlde the Sunne, which among other seruices to the vse and behoofe of men (whereof he tooke his name in the holy tongue to be called [...], which signifieth a minister or seruant (according to that in the fourth of Esdras: God commanded the Sunne, the Moone and Starres, that they should serue man) hath this for one appointed vnto him, to be for times, and yeares, and dayes. Euen this Chronologer I say, of all other with­out exception most true and sure, witnesseth for Herodotus, Thucidides, Xenophon, Eratost­henes, Polybius, Diodorus, and other writers of auncient time; if they bee not for credit suffici­ent of themselues, that their Chronologie of the Persian yeares is good; the mouth of Hea­uen which cannot lie hath approued it.

The trueth for this poynt being thus opened; it now remayneth to see what may be brought against it, and to remoue some doubtes, as it were mists from the readers eyes.

Dionysius Halicarnassaeus in the preface to his first booke of antiquities, affirmeth that the Persians continued not aboue 200. yeares in their soueraigntie. It is true being accounted from the death of Cyrus, who by the space of thirtie yeares was occupied in winning that Empire; and being once wonne, they kept it neere 200. yeares after.

[Page 83] Ioseph Scaliger a man of rare giftes, a great light of this age; one whome the Churche of GOD for his paines, is much beholding to, in his fift booke de emendatione temporum, speaking of Xerxes his passage into Greece, is so vncertaine and wauering in this poynt, that it is hard to finde in what iudgement he rested. For first hee maketh it a thing vndoubted, that Xerxes passed into Europe in the ende of the fourth yeare of the 47. Olympiad: and in the beginning of the 75. fought at Thermopylae: then a little after hee thinketh that passage of Xerxes to haue happened the yeare before, that is to saye, in the end of the third yeare of the 47. Olympiad, being moued thereunto by the au­thoritie of Herodotus and Thucidides. The one euen Herodotus in Polymnia, making mention of an eclipse of the Sunne, at such time as Xerx­es marched forward with his hoast from Sardes toward Europe in the spring time of the yeare: which by Scaligers calculation fell to the third yeare of the 74. Olympiad, and so Xerxes his battailes in Greece to the fourth yeare of it. The other, that is Thucidides in his first booke, writing that the Persians once againe inuaded Greece in the tenth yeare after the Marothon field, which being fought in the second yeare of the 72. Olympiad, the tenth after it, is the fourth of the 74. Againe, contrarie to both these sentences, he yet alleageth another from [Page 84] Eratosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, and Plutarch, three worthy men for skil, who referred Xerxes his passage into Greece to the first yeare of the 75. Olympiad: and this he approueth most of al in the chapter of the first Consuls. Thus Ioseph Scaliger [...], that is, dissoluing one doubt by another as one saieth, leaueth his reader in the briers; which I will assaye to helpe him out of either all or some, if happely I can.

First therefore concerning Herodotus, it is euident and playne by his testimonie, that Xerxes fought his battailes in Greece, in the first yeare of the 75. Olympiad; because he maketh account of 80. yeares from the first of Cyrus thether: and if this bee not enough, the same Author in playne wordes declareth, that the games of Olympia were celebrated about that very time, wherein Leonides resisted his huge hoast, and stopped their passage. First in Polym­nia speaking of this matter, he sayeth, that the time of the Olympiad fell out together with that busines. Againe in Vrania he confirmeth it, telling that as Xerxes marched forward from Thermopylae, certaine Grecians came vnto him offering their seruice, who being as­ked what the Grecians then were about, an­swered that they kept and beheld the Olympi­an games, the winners whereof receiued an Oliue crowne: which one Tigranes a noble [Page 85] Lord of Persia hearing, presently burst forth in­to this speech: What worthie men are wee brought to fight against; which striue not for money, but vertue and prowesse. This then by Herodotus his owne mouth being thus made cleere, that the yeare of Xerxes fighting in Greece, was an Olympicke yeare, it could not possibly be in Herodotus iudgement, as Scali­ger would haue it, the fourth yeare of the 74. Olympiad. Moreouer, Herodotus writeth in V­rania, that Callias was then Maior of Athens, when Xerxes tooke that Citie and burned it, which yeare of Callias his Maioraltie at A­thens, being the first of the 75. Olympiad, as hath been sufficiently alreadie declared by the testimonies of Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius Halicarnassaeus, Diogenes Laertius, and Sui­das, what doth it else but make further proofe of the same Herodotus his meaning against Scali­ger? But what shall we then say to the eclipse of the Sunne, mentioned by Herodotus, which as Scaliger writeth, prooueth that warre to haue been sooner by one yeare? H. Bunting dissol­ueth this doubt, by acknowledging that eclips to haue happened in the spring time of that yeare, wherein Xerxes went to Sardes, which Herodotus by some error as he thinketh, trans­posed to the yeare following, when Xerxes went from Sardes into Greece, an easie slip in Historie.

[Page 86]Now to come to Thucidides, whereas hee writeth that the tenth yeare after the Persians ouerthrow at Marathon, they came againe with a huge armie to subdue Greece; he mea­neth that yeare to be the tenth, wherein Xerxes hauing gathered his armie together, marched to Sardes: which was the very beginning of that warre, for that was the first leading of his armie against the Grecians: and in that yeare he made a bridge from Asia to Europe, for the passage of his armie ouer, and digged downe the hill Atho, to make the seas meete for his Ships to passe through, and sent his Ambassa­dors into Greece, to demaunde land and wa­ter; which was a kinde of proclayming warre against such as refused to be subiect vnto him. These things all were done in the tenth yeare after the Marathon fight: and in the next which was the first of the 75. Olympiad, were Xerxes his battailes fought at Thermopylae, and other places of Greece, being the eleuenth from that Marathon warre, euen so acknowledged by Scaliger himselfe in that booke, in the chapter of the Persians ouerthrowe at Marathon; how­soeuer after he seemeth to be of another opini­on, and to make it the tenth, not vnderstanding Thucidides aright.

Yea but Eratosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, and Plutarch, three excellent writers, referred the passage of Xerxes into Greece, to the first [Page 87] yeare of the 75. Olympiad, and so his battaile at Thermopylae, to the second yeare thereof. Era­tosthenes indeede I graunt, reckoning from the first Olympiad to Xerxes passing into Greece 297. yeares, reacheth to the beginning of the second yeare of the 75. Olympiad, and goeth a yeare further then other. Yet so as if any thing be here amisse, it is mended in his next account, from Xerxes to the Peloponnesian warre, the distance whereof he maketh 48. yeares; which with the former 297. are in all 345. from the first Olympiad, to the first summer of the Pelo­ponnesian warre: which is a most perfect rec­koning receiued and agreed on, so there is no great matter of difference.

Now touching Diodorus Siculus, his words are so manifest against that assertion of Scali­ger, as maketh me meruaile that he should be so deceiued in mistaking them. First the worde which he vseth is [...], he warred, or led his armie, being much more large then he passed ouer. Againe hauing described the yeare by the number of the Olympiad 75. the first yeare thereof, and the chiefe officer of Athens Callias, and the Romane Consuls: he setteth downe for that yeare so described, the battailes of Xerxes at Thermopylae, at Artemysium, at Salamis, and his flying out of Greece, and the leauing of Mardonius there with a great hoast. And in the second yeare of that Olympiad, being the [Page 88] yeare of Xantippus his Maioraltie at Athens; he placeth the victory of Pausanias against Mar­donius at Plateae, and the departure of Xerxes from Sardes to Susa, after the ouerthrow of his forces by sea and by land: so that there is no doubt at all by Diodorus Siculus, but that Xerxes his fighting at Thermopylae, happened in the first yere of the 75. Olympiad, according to the testimonies and consent of auncient Hi­storiographers before declared.

As for Plutarch, howsoeuer that is gathered of his wordes in one place there cited by Scali­ger: yet otherwhere he sheweth himselfe of an­other minde: For in the life of Aristides, the battell at Plateae which happened the very next yeare after Xerxes his discomfiture, hee refer­reth to the second of that Olymp. that by the iudgement of Scaliger himselfe so expounding the place, in his first booke treating of the The­ban period. If then the next yeare after Xerxes inuading Greece be the second of the 75. O­lympiad by Plutarch; needes must the yeare of Xerxes fighting in Greece, by him bee the first, which is agreeable to others Chronologie and the verie trueth.

The same Plutarch in the life of Numa ma­keth some doubt of the Olympick reckoning, beeing committed to writing in regard of the beginning thereof verie late, by Hyppias of E­lis, without any sure ground, whereunto of ne­cessitie [Page 89] we must yeeld credit. This obiection is answered by Temporarius in his Chronologie, that though it were graunted that Hyppias er­red in setting downe the true and exact time of the first Olympiad, yet that hindereth the true Chronologie and order of times following no­thing at all, which is very true: for set the case, that that Olympiad which Hyppias made the 40. in number, was not so much, but onely the 30. and so the first, 40. yeares short at the least of his account. It is not a pin matter. The order and account of the times comming after for all that, may be most perfect and sure without mis­sing one minute, which I wil declare by a fami­liar example. The yeare wherein our gracious Queene began her happie raigne, according to the computation of the Church of England, was the 1558. of our Lorde, but in truth the 1558. & this yere by our account 1597. is in ve­ry indeed by exact reckoning 1598. The cause wherof was the errour of Dionysius, called Par­uus Abbas, who was the first inuenter of this account, supposing Christs birth to haue beene later by one yeare then indeede it was: and so making that the first of our Lorde, which was the second; as is confessed and acknowledged of the best learned and most skilfull Chro­nologers of our age. This error in the first yeare of Christ, is no let at all to the exact reckoning of all the yeres following. For there is the same [Page 90] distance of yeares, from the 1558. to the 1597. by the vsuall account: which is from the 1559, to the 1598. by the true account. Yet to speake my minde, howsoeuer Dionysius missed in the reckoning of the yeares of Christ; I hold it out of controuersie that Hippias erred not, vnto whose time the memory of the Olympiads had beene preserued, from foure yeares to foure yeares, from the beginning thereof, in times of knowledge, & places of fame, where was great concourse of people keeping the account ther­of, not in their mindes onely, but also in wri­tinges as is most like. And whether hee erred or no; for the Persian times and after it is no mat­ter, as I haue declared before, seeing the error in the first is constant in all the rest, if any error haue beene.

Therefore Plutarchs doubt for any thing that I can see, had no reason at all, but seemeth to sauour of an vsuall custome of the Academi­call sect, which was alwaies readie furnished to dispute on eyther side, pro or contra, eyther for the truth or against it. For this is most certaine that hee followeth that reckoning by Olympi­ads himselfe in many places, as giuing credit thereunto and making no doubt thereof. In his treatise of the ten Orators he saith, that Andoci­des was borne in the 78. Olympiad, when Theogenides was gouernour of Athens. And that Callias was gouernour in the 92. Olympi­ad, [Page 91] and that Isocrates was borne vnder Lysima­chus in the 86. Olymp. 22. yeares after Lysias, whose birth he setteth in the second of the 80. Olympiad, in the yeare of Philocles: all which reckonings agree very perfectly to the ancient Olympick account, and the Histories of Thu­cidides, Xenophon, and Diodorus Siculus. Pli­nie in the fourth Chapter of his 36. booke hath these wordes; Marmore scalpendo primi om­nium inclaruerunt Dipoenus & Scyllis, geniti in Creta insula etiamnum Medis imperitanti­bus: Priusquam Cyrus in Persis regnare incipe­ret, hoc est Olympiade circiter quinquagesima. The first of all other for grauing of marble were famous Dipoenus & Scyllis, born in the Iland of Creta, whilst yet the Medes bare rule; before Cyrus began to raigne in Persia, that is about the 50. Olympiad. Hereof Matthew Beroald in the second Chapter of his booke of Chrono­logie gathereth, that Cyrus began in the 50. O­lympiad by Plinies testimonie, herein dissent­ing from other, who placed his beginning in the 55 but whosoeuer commeth with an euen minde to the truth, may easilie perceiue another meaning in Plinie, & that the words hoc est O­lympiade circiter 50, ought not to be referred to that which is said of Cyrus, priusquam reg­nare inciperet, before he began to raigne; but the former part of the sentence giuing vs this to vnderstand the time wherin Dipoenus & Scyl­lis [Page 92] were famous engrauers in Marble, to haue beene about the 50. Olympiad in the dayes of the Medes Soueraigntie before Cyrus had got it away from them to the Persians. Thus no dis­sention at all betweene Plinie and other, but great agreement is found.

Much other such like stuffe is brought of Be­roaldus from diuers authors, by cold coniectu­res, not any sure knowledge: all for the most part in that kind as maketh either against him­selfe, or nothing for him. Pericles being a yong man, was of some of the aged sort in Athens thought to fauor Pisistratus the tirant in coun­tinance & speech, as Plutarch telleth in his life, which could not bee as Beroaldus supposed, except the old men who had knowne Pisistra­tus, had at that time beene a hundred yeres old. A thing in his iudgement vnlike to bee true. It is not so vnlike, as strange that a man of his learning and reading should iudge so of it; see­ing that we read of many examples of men of those yeares. Valerius Corninus, who was Con­sull of Rome six times, liued full out a hundred yeares, and likewise Metellus Pontifex. Soli­nus in his Polihistor telleth, that Masinissa be­got his Sonne Methymnus at 86. yeres age. In the time of Claudius Caesar, one T. Fullonius of Bononia, was found to be 150. yeres of age, which in Lydia was a common thing, as by Mutianus is reported. Terentia the wife of Ci­cero [Page 93] liued 107. Clodia 115. Many other by Plinie are recorded in his seuenth booke the 48 49, 50, Chapters, in diuers countries betweene a hundred, and a hundred and 50. yeares olde. But of all other one Xenophilus liuing 105. yeares without anie disease or hurt of his bo­die, was wondred at. That Gorgias Leonti­nus a famous Oratour much about that time with Pericles, liued 109. yeares, wee haue the testimonie of Appolodorus his Chronicles in Diogenes Laertius, within one yere acknow­ledged also by Plinie. Euen in this our age at home in our own countrie, it is no strange thing to find examples of such as liued out that time, which Beroaldus accounted so incredible, that he could not perswade himselfe of it to be true: but his incredulitie is no proofe to weaken the credit of credible writers. But I will not strike with him for this to graunt it a thing vncredi­ble, let vs examine his reckoning.

Pericles died in the third yeare of the 87. O­limpiad (not the 88. as Beroaldus saith) before his death he had beene one of the chiefe gouer­nours of the Athenian common wealth fortie yeares. This Cicero teacheth in his third booke de oratore: so the beginning of his authoritie falleth to the three yeares (not of the 78. as Be­roaldus would) but the 77. Olympiad. About that time some olde men gaue this iudgement of him, that he was like Pisistratus: and might [Page 94] not that be done but of such as were then a 100 yeres old? surely yes; for Pisistratus died not past threescore yeares before: whereof 22. had pas­sed from the Marathon battaile, and 20. more from the expelling of Hippias out of Athens, declared by Thucidides, and 18. before from the beginning of Hippias who succeded Pisi­stratus. Yet some more besides these must bee added to the old mens age to haue knowledge of Pisistratus in his life time to deale liberally, let that time be twentie yeres before the death of Pisistratus: so their age is left foure score yeres very vsuall at this day in diuers lusty men, although I would haue this obserued which Plutarch writeth, that iudgement to haue bin giuen of Pericles when hee was a young man, whereby some aduantage yet might farther be taken if it were a matter worth the standing vpō. Aelianus in his third book, the 21. chapter (saith Beroaldus) telleth of Themistocles, that being a childe, and as hee came from Schoole meeting Pisistratus the tyrant, was willed by his ouerseer attending vpon him to goe out of the way: which he refused to doe, and asked if there were not roome enough for him besides. Whereunto is repugnant that which Iustin telleth in his second booke, that Themistocles was a young man at the Marathon war, when he must needes be at the least 66. yeares olde, if Aelianus say true: for the sonnes of Pisistratus [Page 95] after their fathers death raigned 36. yeares, wit­nessed by Herodotus in his fift booke, then af­ter were twentie more to the Marathon fight; and before Themistocles could in such an an­swer shew so stoute a minde against the ti­rant, it is like he was ten yeares of age.

Beroaldus here also in his account is decei­ued, mistaking Herodotus, who in Terpsichore indeede affirmeth, that the Pisistratan stocke raigned 36. yeares: yet not meaning thereby as Beroaldus would faine haue it, that Pisistra­tus his children raigned so long after their fa­thers death; but that the whole time of father and sonne was in all so much. This appeareth by Aristotle, an author for credit very suffici­cient, in the fift booke of his politickes the twelft chapter, making the whole raigne of the Pisistratan stocke 35. yeares, that is 17. of Pi­sistratus himselfe, and 18. after of his children. And so is Herodotus to be vnderstoode, giuing them 36. in all, onely differing from Aristotle in a yeare. Whereby it may be thought that Pi­sistratus raigned some few moneths more a­boue 17. yeares: so his reckoning comes short by almost twentie yeares. Againe, there was an­other Pisistratus the sonne of Hippias, and Grand childe to the elder Pisistratus before spoken of, who in the yeare of his Maioraltie, dedicated in the market place at Athens, the Altar of the twelue Gods, as Thucidides wri­teth [Page 96] of him in his sixt booke. And this in my iudgement is the man, to whome that Historie in Aelianus may be fitly applied, and stand ve­ry well with that which Iustin hath concerning Themistocles fighting at Marathon.

Yea but Plinie in his 34. booke writeth, that the Athenians the same yeare wherein the kings of Rome were driuen out, being the fourth of the 67. Olympiad, set vp y^e images of Harmodi­us and Aristogiton, who had killed Hipparchus the tyrant: farre wide from that which Dionysius telleth in his sixt booke, that Hipparchus was ruler at Athens in the 71. Olympiad. What say you to that? Nothing, but that Beroaldus be­ing belike ashamed of his follie in bringing such an argument, calleth it in againe as it were, by answering that it was another Hipparchus which Dionysius speaketh of. Another argu­ment he taketh from Dionysius Halicarnassae­us in his fift booke, making the warre at Mara­thon later by sixteene yeares then the death of Brutus; thereby referring the yeare to the fourth of the 71. Olympiad, which by Cicero seemeth cast to the 73. wherein Coriolanus a Senator of Rome made warre against it. Here we haue no­thing but vntrueth vpon vntrueth, fit groundes for such a rotten building: for sixteene yeares after that of the first Consuls, which was by Di­onysius the first of the 68. Olympiad, in the end whereof Brutus was slaine, reach not to the [Page 97] fourth of the 71. but to the second of the 72. Olympiad: wherein the same Dionysius in plaine words placeth that warre. As for that of Coriolanus against Rome, it happened in deed in the first of the 73. Olympiad, onely three yeares after the other. And therefore Cicero in his Brutus affirming, not that this of Coriola­nus was at the same time, with that other of the Persians, but almost at that time, speaketh a trueth, dissenting nothing at all from Diony­sius.

It followeth in Beroaldus: the same Diony­sius in his ninth booke, Diodorus Siculus agree­ing vnto him saith, that Xerxes went to warre against Greece in the 75. Olympiad, when Cal­lias gouerned Athens: that is twelue yeares af­ter the Marathon fight being past, to that of Xerxes at Salamis: Glossa corrumpit textum, the glosse here marreth the text with a manifest vn­trueth: for neither Dionysius nor Diodorus maketh aboue eleauen yeares distance betwixt those battailes, the one placed in the second of the 72. Olympiad, the other in the first of the 75, almost in the beginning thereof. Now let any man count the distance betweene, on his fin­gers ends, and see if he can finde twelue yeares. But to omit this and come to the purpose: Ge­lo was at the time of Xerxes his warre by Pau­sanias and Herodotus tyrant of Syracusae. And Gelo tyrant of Syracusae, by Plutarch in the life [Page 98] of Lysias the Orator, in the second of the 82. O­lympiad. So the war of Xerxes must by this rec­koning come backe neere 30. yeares after the 75. Olympick sport. Plutarchs words are these, [...]. That is in English thus much, Lysias an exceeding rich man, was the sonne of Cephales, grand childe of Lysanias, the sonne of Cephales: his father Cephales was a Syracusian borne, and flitted to Athens for loue, partly of the citie, and partly of Pericles the sonne of Xanthippus, who perswaded him thereto being his friend and host: or as some say, for that hee was driuen from Syracusae, at such time as it was subiect to the tyrannie of Gelo. He mea­neth that Lysias was borne. Being borne at Athens vnder Philocles, the next ruler after Phrasicles, hee was first brought vp with the noblest children of the Athenians, about the second yeare of the 83. Olympiad. Afterward being fifteene yeares olde, he went to Thuriae, a citie of Italie, Praxiteles then being Maior of Athens, as followeth there in Plutarch. Philo­cles was Maior at Athens in the second yeare of the 80. Olympiad, as Diodorus declareth. Then was Lysias borne, and being about eyght yeres [Page 99] olde in the second yeare of the 82. Olympiad, he was brought vp with other noble mens chil­dren in Athens: and therein continued till the yere of Praxiteles his gouernement, which was the first of the 84. Olympiad, as we reade in the same Diodorus, and the fifteenth of Lysias his birth. Where can Beroaldus now finde in this place of Plutarch, that Gelo was tyrant of Syra­cusae, in the second yeare of the 82. Olympiad? What meant he so cōfidently to burst forth in­to this cōplaint? Tam incerta sunt apud aut ho­res rerum istarum tempora: So vncertaine are the times of these matters: what reason had hee for it? For hee that vnderstandeth Greeke, and compareth Plutarchs owne words, with that which Beroaldus gathereth by them, will bee a­shamed (I beleeue) of such an interpreter, being so blinded with conceited affection that hee seeth not what is written, and careth not what he saith. Plutarch doth notablie in this place confirme the receiued ancient Chronologie of the Greekes: so farre he is by any disagreement from weakening their credite.

Let vs now examine one or two other pla­ces of Beroaldus concerning the time of Xerxes fighting in Greece. In the eyght chapter of his third booke, Pausanias, sayth Beroaldus, telleth in his Arcadikes, that Xerxes then passed into Greece when Gelo gouerned at Syracuse, which is likewise witnessed by Herodotus in his se­uenth [Page 100] booke. But that same Pausanias in his Eliaca affirmeth, that Gelo held the gouernment of that citie in the second yeare of the 72. O­lympiad. Except it be a strange thing that one king should continew his raigne by the space of twelue yeares. This argument of Beroaldus is not worth a rush to proue disagreement be­tweene ancient writers, referring Gelo his tira­nie some to the second of the 72. Olympiad, o­ther to the first of the 75. when Xerxes passed into Europe, for the beginning of his domini­on was about the second of the 72. Olympiad, as Dionisius Halicarnassaeus declareth in the seauenth booke of his Roman Antiquities. And the end thereof in the 75. Olympiad the thirde yeare thereof, as Diodorus witnesseth in the e­leauenth booke of his Historicall librarie: So both might stand together well enough.

Beroaldus hath yet more matter from Pausa­nias in his Eliaca, who referreth the ouerthrow of Mardonius at Plateae, the next yeare after Xerxes inuaded Greece, to the 75. Olympiad: whereas Diodorus Siculus saith, that Xerxes in that Olympiad inuaded Greece, both can not bee true. The worde Olympias pertaineth sometime to the game itselfe celebrated euerie first yeare of the foure, as where Solinus telleth that the 207. Olympias was in the publike acts recorded to be in the 801. yeare of Rome, wherein Pompeius Gallus & Q. Veranius were [Page 101] Consuls, and Eratosthenes in Clemens Alexan­drinus accounteth from the first Olympiad to the passage of Xerxes into Greece 297. yeares. Xenophon also in his Historie of the Greeke af­faires writeth, that the next yeare after Dionysi­us had got the kingdome of Syracusae, happe­ned that Olympias wherein Pythodorus was Maior at Athens. In all these places Olympias is taken for one yeare onely, and that the first of the foure: in which sence Diodorus vsed it, where hee saith that Xerxes inuaded Greece in the 75. Olympiad. Now, because that from one Olympias to another were foure yeares com­plete; the word is also vsuallie taken for that whole space of foure yeares, betwixt one and a­nother, not much vnlike that which we read in blessed Lukes gospell of the proude Pharisie, boasting of his fasting twice in a sabboth, ta­king one day of the weeke for all the weeke, from the beginning to the end. So it is vsed of Solinus, writing that Rome was builded in the first yeare of the seauenth Olympiad, and when the seauenth Olympiad began, and Iosephus in the last chapter of his fourteenth booke of An­tiquities, saith that Herode tooke Ierusalem in the 185. Olympiad, hee meaneth the whole foure yeares space of that Olympiad, for that was done in the last yeare thereof. In this sence that saying of Pausanias is true concerning Mardonius his ouerthrow at Plateae in the 75 [Page 102] Olympiad, and so no discord proued.

As for Polybius, from whom hee gathereth the warre of Xerxes to haue been in the third yeare of the 74. Olympiad; there is no such matter. Beroaldus was deceiued in his recko­ning, I haue brought the place of Polybius be­fore, and declared his meaning.

Oebotas, a man of Achaea wonne the race in the sixt Olympiad, who for so glorious a victo­rie receiuing not that honour of his countrie­men which he looked for at their hands, and in his owne iudgement had deserued; conceaued such discontentment thereat, that hee euen cur­sed them, praying that neuer any of the Achae­ans more might win any Olympicke game a­gaine: which so fell out for a long time, till at the length by the councell of Apollo his Oracle, they had in honour of Oebotas erected a piller for an eternall monument of his vertue, with an inscription testifying the same; which was per­formed vnto him in the 80. Olympiad, as Pau­sanias telleth in his Achaica and Eliaca: who for that cause meruaileth at the report of some Gre­cians, who saide that Oebotas fought against Mardonius in the 75. Olympiad, and thinketh it vncredible, as hee might well enough, that a man hauing wonne the race in the sixt Olympi­ad, should bee a fighting Souldier neere two hundred and fourescore yeares after. What is here now in Pausanias to be seene, which in his [Page 103] owne perswasion doth not confirme the trueth of the Olympicke Chronologie, rather then make against it any way? For the great credite which he put therein, nothing doubting of the true reckoning of so many yeares betweene, bred that meruailing in him, and made him think that Oebotas which fought against Mar­donius in the 75. Olympiad, to haue been some other of that name, rather then the ancient race winner in the sixt Olympiad. It was true, that by some they were supposed one and the same, but by such as Pausanias iudged fooles for their labour. Their folly stirred him neuer a whit from the true receiued account of Olympicke yeares. Of the certaintie whereof, what a setled and grounded perswasion he had may appeare by this, that in diuers places he maketh mention of Olympicke recordes and registers which himselfe saw and read, wherein he testifieth the memorie of the Olympiads to haue been pre­serued by the Eleans, in whose countrie those games were kept, and that with such care and diligence, that from the first in Iphitus his time, to the Emperor Nero, not one of them all was missing: this hee witnesseth in his Phocica, much auayling to the credite of that account.

Another obiection in Beroaldus is concer­ning the time of the Peloponnesian warre, of which saith he, both beginning and end is vn­certaine, by the dissention of authors betweene [Page 104] themselues. Plinie referreth the time of it to the fourth of the 81. Olympiad, and A. Gellius to the first of the 89. and Diodorus Siculus to the third of the 87. So saith Beroaldus. If truelie, there is great ods between them. Plinies words in the thirtie booke and first chapter are these: Plenumque miraculi & hoc, pariter vtras (que) ar­tes effloruisse, medicinam dico magicenque: ea­dem aetate illam Hipocrate, hanc Democrito il­lustrantibus circa Peloponnesiacum Graeciae bel­lum, quod gestum est a 300. vrbis nostrae anno. This also saith Plinie is much to bee meruailed at, that both the arts flourished together; I meane Phisicke and Magick, in the same age Hippocrates teaching the one, and Democritus the other about the Peloponnesian warre in Greece, which was made since the 300. yeare of the Cittie. That warre began about the 32. yeare of Rome, and therefore Plinie saying that it was after the 300. saith, that which is true, not purposing there to set downe by a straight and exact account, the verie iust yere wherein it be­gan: but to gesse much about the time by an e­uen & readie number keeping within the com­passe of truth.

In A. Gellius the 21. chapter of his seauen­teenth booke wee reade. Bellum inde in terra Graeciae maximū Peloponnensiacum, quod Thu­cidides memoriae mandauit, caeptum est circa annum fere post conditam Romans trecentesi­mum [Page 105] vigesimum nonum. That is, Afterwarde the great war of the Peloponnesians, in the land of Greece, which Thucidides committed to memorie, began here about the 329. yeares af­ter the building of Rome. What is the cause of this difference betwixt Gellius and other? Sure­ly not any fault of the authors iudgement, but onely a slippe of the writers pen, putting vigesi­mum nonum in stead of decimum nonum. 29. for 19. as may bee prooued by two reasons: First because immediatlie after those wordes, Gellius together with the beginning of that warre yoketh the yeare wherein A. Posthumi­us was Dictator of Rome, who killed his own son, for that with great courage he went some­what further in fighting against the enemie thā his father had appointed. This yeare of A. Post­humius his Dictatorship, by Liuie is the 323. of Rome: but by A. Gellius & some other set­ting the building of that Cittie in the second yeare of the seauenth Olympiad, and the first Consuls in the 242. of Rome, it is the 320. run­ning together with the first yeare of the Pelo­ponnesian war for the greatest part of it, though not wholly, because the war began somewhat before in the 319. Another reason may bee ta­ken from that which followeth a little after in the same chapter, concerning the time of the new gouernment of the Athenian common wealth by 30. tyrants, being as wee are taught [Page 106] by Xenophon the 28. yeare of the Peloponnesi­an war, which A. Gellius referreth to the 347. of Rome, from which summe 28. according to Xenophons reckoning, being taken away there remayneth the 319. of the Citie for the begin­ning of that warre. As for Diodorus Siculus, it is vntrue that he referred the beginning of that warre to the third of the 87. Olympiad: for in flat wordes hee acknowledgeth Thucidides the cheefe of all other authors for it, to referre it to the first of that Olympiad: neither is there against it in Diodorus anie thing to be found.

As the beginning of that war is vncertaine, so the end hath as much controuersie. I thinke euen so, that is iust none at all, if Authors may bee suffered to speake for themselues, to open their meaning, and declare their minde: but let vs see this great controuersie. The greatest part of authors, saith Beroaldus, taught that war to haue continued 27. yeares. Yet Aemilius Pro­bus saith, it lasted but 26. And Xenophon giueth it 28. and a halfe, here is great ods. The wordes of Aemilius probus are these in the life of Ly­sander: Lysander Lacedaemonius magnam reli­quit sui famam, magis foelicitate quàm virtu­tem partam. Athenienses enim in Peloponnesi­os sexto & vicessimo anno bellum gerentes con­fecisse apparet. Id qua ratione consequutus sit latet. Non enim virtute sui exercitus, sed im­modestia factum est aduersariorum. Quid quod [Page 107] dicto audientes suis imperatoribus non erant, dispalati in agris relictis nauibus in hostium peruenerunt potestatē? Quo facto Athenienses se Lacedaemoniis dediderunt. Lysander the La­cedemonian (saith he) left a great fame of him­selfe, which he got rather by good lucke then prowesse: for it is well knowne that he subdu­ed the Athenians, hauing made warre against the Peloponnesians sixe and twentie yeres, but how hee obtained, this is not so apparent: for this happened not by the manhood of his owne armie: but the disorder of the Athenians, who not ruled by their captaines, but scattered a­broad from their ships, came into their enemies power; which being done the Athenians yeeld­ed themselues. There are three seuerall times set downe by good Authors for the end of this warre. One was Lysanders victorie by sea a­gainst the Athenians at a towne in Hellespont called Aegos Potamoi, that is, Gotes floud, where Lysander espying his oportunitie, when the Athenians leauing their ships had gone to the townes there about for prouision of victu­als, sodainely set vppon them, and tooke to the number of a hundred and foure score, euerie one except eight or nine, which by flight esca­ped away. Hee tooke also 3000. men with their Captaines, besides a great number slaine, which thing being done & the spoyle taken, he returned with minstrelsie and great mirth; hau­ing [Page 108] as Plutarch saith, atchieued a great matter with a litle labour, and in an houre space made an end of a long warre. From the beginning of the war to this ouerthrow, whereby the Athe­nians power was nowe so weakned, that they could not hold out any longer, and so an ende made of that warre as Plutarch writeth: where about 26. yeares, and therefore Aemilius Pro­bus respecting that time, as by his owne words manifestly appeareth, his account is true.

Thucidides with the greatest part of writers for the end of that warre goe about a yeare fur­ther, to the peace concluded with the Atheni­ans, and the pulling downe of their walles: so making the continuance 27. as before is proo­ued. So there is as much disagreement between these two times set for the Peloponnesian war, the one by Thucidides, the other by Aemilius Probus: as there is difference betwixt these two waies, the one from London to Ware, the other from London to Hodsdon, and thence to Ware.

If meaning may be taken without cauelling at wordes, the like may bee sayd of Xenophon: not withstāding what soeuer Beroaldus bring­eth against y^e credit of his historie before spo­ken of, in regard of some coruptiō, which in his pinion hath happened in the notes and num­bers of Olympiads and yeares. Xenophon (saith hee) referreth the 93. Olympiad to that yeare [Page 109] wherein Enarchippus was Ephorus at Sparta. After whom in the same historie the next is na­med Pantaeles, ordeyned Ephorus in y^e 22. yere of the Peloponnesian warre: which beeing so the yeare of Enarchippus, that is Pantacles, Pyteas, Archytas, Endicus: in whose yeare Ly­sander, the war being ended, and the walles of Athens throwen downe, returned home; by this meanes it must expire at the 25. yeres end. Contrarie whereunto Xenophon affirmeth in plaine wordes, that Lysander went home after 28. yeares and sixe months, an end being made of that war in the 29. yeare thereof: for which cause he also numbereth 29. Spartan Magistrats vnder whom the warre continued.

Thus far Beroaldus, for answere whereunto I will first set downe the wordes of Xenophon as they lie: whereby it may appeare what Xeno­phons meaning was. In the first place speaking of Enarchippus his yeare, he vseth these wordes. [...] &c. And this yeare saith Xenophon expi­red, wherein the Medes also rebelling against Darius king of the Persians became his sub­iects againe. In the yeare following the temple [Page 110] of Minerua in Phocaea by the fall of a thunder­bolt was set on fire. After winter was ended Pantacles being Ephorus, and Antigenes bea­ring rule at Athens. In the beginning of the spring, when 22. yeares of the warre were past, the Athenians sayled to Proconesus with all their Armie. Thence moouing to Chalcedon and Byzantium, &c. In their wordes are con­tained the acts of three diuers yeres. One of the Medes rebellion against Darius, which was the 24. Another of Mineruas temple burning when Pantacles was Ephorus; beeing the yeare following, that is the 25. The third of the A­thenians sayling to Proconnesus after 22. yeres past of the Peloponnesian war, which was the 23. and therefore before these wordes. In the beginning of the spring, &c. I haue set a full point to distinguish them from the former, as pertayning to a diuers yeare: for here Xenophon goeth backe againe to that which had happe­ned two yeares before. A thing vsuall enough in writers, when they will make their historie with more consequence & coherence the bet­ter hang together, to goe backe from one mat­ter to another before omitted, and so to prose­cute it on an end without interruption. I need not goe farre for examples in Xenophon him­selfe, if it were a thing to be stood vpon.

This for Xenophons meaning after some dili­gent reading and perusing the place was my [Page 111] iudgement, wherin afterward I was more con­firmed by Diodorus Siculus and Codoman. For Codoman in the fourth booke of his Chronolo­gie, very flatlie affirmeth that these wordes in Xenophon; In the beginning of the spring, &c. begin the 23. yeres of the Peloponnesian war: yea he is so farre from thinking with Beroaldus the yeare of Pantacles gouerning, though im­mediatly before mentioned to be all one with this: that he remooueth it two yeares off, pla­cing one whole yeare betwixt them as I doe: yet differing herein that he placeth Pantacles in the 21. yere, which was his error, as more plain­ly by God his assistance shall appeare hereafter. But the testimonie of Diodorus Siculus an aun­cient Historiographer, is much more notable, who in his thirteenth booke referreth these acts which heere in Xenophon begin after the 22. yeare of the warre, to the 23. of the same two yeares before the Magistracie of Pantacles, which by Diodorus is set downe in the 25. yere thereof, which without all question is most vn­doubtedly true; and shewed by Xenophons ta­ble of the Spartan gouernours euidently and plainely, as euery one whose sight is not dimme with a cauelling affection and wilfull wrang­ling may very clearely see it.

If any thing in the writing of Xenophons hi­storie by corruptiō of numbers be amisse, as for my part, I thinke there is none at all, if hee bee [Page 112] well vnderstood: yet for one thing amisse, an­other which is true must not bee forsaken. Let that which is right be so still, and not cast away for that which is wrong. Xenophons table is sure, and hath the consent of excellent Authors to approue it.

Thucidides from the Marathon war, which by the learned is set in the second sommer of the 72. Olympiad, to the end of the Pelopon­nesian warre, maketh account of 87. yeares, that is to say, 10. to Xerxes inuading Greece, and 50. thence to the Peloponnesian war, with 27. more to the end thereof, which from the se­cond of 72. fill vp Xenophons number of 93. Olympiads. In the last whereof by Xenophon were gouernours of Athens; first, Enctemo, then Antigones, next Callias, the fourth and last A­lexias.

Let vs here a little examine how Dionysius Halicarnassaeus, in the seauenth booke of his Roman Antiquities agreeth to these, there hee writeth that Callias ruled at Athens, in the third yeare of that 93. Olympiad, which is so by Xe­nophon. Moreouer that the next before Callias for the second yere of that Olympiad, was An­tigenes, found true in the like manner by Xeno­phon, and lastlie from the second yere of the 72 Olympiad, wherein the Marathon battell was fought, to that yeare of Callias he gathereth 85. yeares: which with that yeare of Callias, & the [Page 113] other following of Alexias, make vp exact­ly the iust reckoning of Thucidides his 87.

Diodorus Siculus for Xenophons meaning may take all doubt away, & end the controuer­sie, who agreeing with Xenophon in the num­ber as well of Olympiads, as yeares of the Pelo­ponnesian warre, referreth the 24. of that war to the first of the 93. Olympiad, as Xenophon doeth, and in all the other yeares thereof wri­teth accordingly: wherefore the opinion of Beroaldus concerning the corruption of Xeno­phons numbers, I hold as true as his interpreta­tion of 22. yeares for the next after 22. beeing past.

Now touching the second place of Xenophon, making the warre of longer continuance then Thucidides doeth: it no way hindereth the a­greement of the Chronologie of those times, if his wordes be well waied in the second booke of his Greeke Historie: where after hee had de­clared in the last yeare of that warre, the glori­ous victorie of Lysander against the Athenians at Gotes floud, and the besiege of that City by sea and by land, whereby they were driuen to yeeld and giue vp their shippes to the Lacede­monians, and to throw downe their long wals in the hauen Pyreus; hee addeth that the next yeare after happened that Olympiad, wherein Crocinas the Thessalian won the race, and En­dius in Sparta, Pythodorus in Athens were [Page 114] chiefe officers: In which the fame of the Atheni­an common wealth was changed, and the go­uernment of the Cittie committed to thirtie, who by their cruell tyrranie in the space of eight months, killed more than before by warre had died in ten yeares. This being done saith Xeno­phon, Lysander sayled to Samus, and tooke it, and restored the old inhabitants and driue out the new, & after returned home to Lacedemo­nia with a great bootie in the end of summer, 28. yeares and sixe months of that warre being then expired: In which time were 29. Magi­strates called Ephori: The first of them being Aenesias, vnder whō the war began, & the last Endius, in whose time Lysander sayled home. Here Xenophon fetcheth the beginning of that warre further than Thucidides, euen from the beginning of the first Ephorus, and for the end most apparantly goeth likewise beyond him to Lysanders winning of Samus, & setting order in it in the yeare of the 29. Ephorus: yea fur­ther yet hee stretcheth it, euen to Lysanders comming home; vnto which time reckoning from the beginning of Aenesias wee finde 28. yeares and a halfe.

Againe Beroaldus obiecteth dissention of Authors touching the beginning of Dionysius his tyrranie; some referring it to the third of the 93. Olympiad, some to the fourth. A waightie reason sure for a little difference of one yeare in [Page 115] Xenophon from other in one thing to ouer­throw the credit of all ancient writers in an o­ther by vniuersall consent established & agreed vpon, and yet this little difference may bee ra­ther in shew then indeede; seeing it is a thing well knowne and confessed, that diuers wri­ters begin their yeares diuerslie: some halfe a yeare, some verie nere three quarters before o­ther; as Gerardus Mercator prooueth in his Chronologie: but howsoeuer it were graunted that here in one yeare, there were flatte contra­diction betweene them: yet it is a ridiculous toy by one yeres difference to cut off a hundred from the Persian Monarchie.

I but A. Gellius hath yet a contrarie opini­on to both the former, laying the gouernment of Dionysius on the 346. yere of Rome, which was the second of that Olympiad. In Gellius we reade not 346. but 347. so that if the 346. of Rome be the second of the 93. Olympiad, then the 347. is the third thereof, and therefore good agreement between the Storie writer of Hali­carnassus and him. The Attick nights were be­like too dark for Beroaldus his eyes, to see what the enditer layed vp in that place, whereunto I haue giuen light before to perceiue his minde.

It followeth in Beroaldus. It is reported of Euripides and Sophocles, that they both died in one yeare, that is the fourth of the 92. Olympi­ad: whereof may be gathered, the 30. tyrants set [Page 116] ouer Athens by Lysander, and the ende of the Peloponnesian warre to haue beene in the first of the 93. because the death of Sophocles is knowne to haue happened about that time. By whome is this reported? It were to bee wished that he had beene named. Manie I am sure they cannot be, and I thinke no one ancient Author at all can be found, who plainely hath said it: so as it may appeare to haue proceeded of iudge­ment in him, and againe if any can bee founde, who of iudgement set them both together so high: yet that might bee well enough without misplacing the thirtie tyrants, from the first of the 94. Olympiad, to the first of the 93. Let vs goe on to the rest.

Solinus telleth that Pythagoras came into I­talie in the time of the first Consuls. Gellius in the time of Tarquinius superbus, which might bee the yeare before. Dionysius saith that hee taught in Italie after the 50. Olympiad, which dissenteth neyther from that former saying of Solinus, nor the other of Gellius, because the ti­mes by them named, were both after the 50. O­lympiad. Diogenes Laertius writeth, that hee flourished in the 60. Olympiad. All this touch­ing the time of Pythagoras wherein he liued & taught, may stand well enough without disa­greement. Plinie putteth him backe from the time named by Solinus an hundred yeares and more. And Beroaldus bringeth him as ma­ny [Page 117] or more forward euen to the Peloponnesian warre, by his opinion begun about the 94. O­lympiad: which beeing so, needes must Cyrus also bee pulled forwarde in some proportion from the 55. Olympiad to the 80.

Betweene these two extreamities of opinion concerning the age of Pythagoras, the one of Plinie, the other of Beroaldus; in my iudgement medium tenuêre beati, the merry meane is best as we see, especially beeing approoued by a farre greater number of the learned.

But let vs examine his proofe that Pythago­ras was so late. His first reason is brought from the authoritie of Eusebius, who in his tenth book De praeparatione Euangelica, writeth that Xenophons and Pythagoras were in the same times with Anaxagoras, who came within the compasse of the Peloponnesian war. If an old man may liue at the same time with a young man, this is no good proofe to bring Pythago­ras to the Peloponnesian warre, because Euse­bius sayde that Anaxagoras, in whose time Py­thagoras liued was in it. Let Eusebius bee his owne interpreter in his Chronicles, where hee putteth the matter out of doubt, setting the death of Pythagoras threescore and foure yeres at the least before the beginning of the Pelo­ponnesian war, & yet withall, making Anaxa­gorus who saw that war to flourish in his dayes. Another reason of his much like to the former [Page 118] is this. Pythagoras with diuers of his acquain­tance beeing in the house of Milo: certaine enemies in desire of reuenge vppon some con­ceiued griefe, burned it ouer their heads, where Lysis & Archytas, two of Pythagoras his schol­lers at that time escaped. This Lysis after be­came teacher of Epaminondas the valiant The­ban Captaine, who fighting at Mantine in the second yeare of the 104. Olympiad aboue 40. yeres after the Peloponnesian war was slaine.

And what of all this? I know his conclusion, that this being so late an age wherein Epami­nondas died, whose master was Lysis one of Pythagoras his schollers: It must needes be that Pythagoras himselfe reached to the time of the Peloponnesian warre somewhat nere to Epa­minondas, and when was that warre? the end of it, if we may beleeue Beroaldus, was about the 100. Olympiad, and by that meanes Pythago­ras must bee brought to the 94. at the least wherein it began, not much aboue 40. yeares before the raigne of king Phillip of Macedo­nia, the Father of Alexander the great.

If I should stand to number all the absurdi­ties which would follow of this position (ac­cording to that which Aristotle saith, that one absurde thing graunted, many other follow vp­pon it) it were a tedious thing to write or read; except peraduenture that beeing so ridiculous in themselues, the moouing of laughter might [Page 119] some way ease the readers toyle.

But leauing this I will declare that the di­stance of time made by auncient writers, be­tweene Pythagoras his teaching, and Epami­nondas his learning of Lysis; can no way hin­der, but that Pythagoras may stand well e­nough still in that place, where they haue set him. His death by Eusebius is put in the last yere of the 70. Olympiad. At which time Lysis his scholler might bee 16. yeares of age, and liue fourescore and eight yeares after, till hee was 104. yeares old in the beginning of the 93. O­lympiad. When Epaminondas might be of the age of sixteene yeares, instructed before of Ly­sis in his old age. What one thing is there heere incredible, or not vsuall in those times? Gorgi­as Leontinus much about the same times with Lysis, liued a hundred and nine yeares, which before hath beene shewed with diuers other like examples, and Aemilius Probus in the life of Epaminondas testifieth of him, that beeing a yong man, hee was instructed in Philosophie by Lysis in the time of his graue and seuere old age. Philosophiae praeceptorem habuit Lysim Ta­rentinum, Pythagoreum: cui quidem sic fuit de­ditus, vt adolescens tristem & seuerum senem omnibus aequalibus suis in familiaritate antepo­suerit, saith Aemilius. Thus Beroaldus his sharpe assault against the Chronologicall forte of the Grecians account, hath not so preuailed [Page 102] to batter it, but that it can defend it selfe a­gainst the enemie.

Let vs now see with what successe hee hath oppugned the Latine Storie, against this hee fighteth with two weapons, one taken from the Roman Decemuirs, the other borrowed of the Frenchmen at their sacking of Rome, in the 302. yeare of Rome, wherein L. Menenius, & P. Sestius were Consuls, towardes the ende of their COnsulship, certaine Commissioners cal­led Decemuiri, were chosen by the people to the gouernment of the Citie and the making of Lawes, against the next yere now approch­ing, beeing the 303. of the Citie. Hereof is that difference and dissention of some Authors be­tweene themselues alleadged by Beroaldus: some referring the Decemuirs to the 302. yeare of Rome, respecting the time wherein they were elected, as Solinus and Liuie, some to the 303. because that was the yeare wherein they first executed that new authoritie, beeing ap­pointed and chosen vnto it in the end of the former yeare. As Dionysius Halicarnassaeus in his eleuenth booke declareth. Besides Ʋarro & Onuphrius As for A. Gellius and some other, naming the 300. yeare of Rome for the De­cemuirs, the cause thereof is manifest; that some make the time of the kings of Rome not 244. but onely 241. yeres, and those began from the second of the seauenth Olympiad, not the first, [Page 121] that is from the end of the building of Rome, when Romulus tooke vpon him to be king. By their opinion there are two yeres fewer than o­ther account of; so that their 300. is the 302. of other, whereof I haue spoken before, by reason of some like examples in Gellius, who followed that reckoning: so there is no difference be­tweene these indeed, but onely in shew and di­uers respects. These ten Commissioners held that authority by the space of two whole yeres. In the latter whereof being the 304. of the Ci­tie, Virginia a beautifull maide of Rome was slaine by her own Father, with a butchers knife taken from his stall in the open streete, rather then that shee should satisfie the filthie lust of Appius Claudius one of the ten, who by great violence and open wrong went about it. Cice­ro in his second booke de finibus, writeth that this happened in the threescore yeare after the beginning of the first Consuls, which was not the 301. of Rome as Beroaldus saith, making dissention betweene Authors where there is none at all, but the 304. for adding threescore to the 244. wherein the last king was expelled, the summe is 304.

But what shall we say then to Dionysius Hae­licarnassaeus, who is contrarie to himselfe in his second book, affirming those ten Cōmissioners to haue beene in the 300. yeare of Rome? Euen this, that it is an increase of Beroaldus his vn­truths: [Page 122] for there speaking of the Lawes which Romulus the first king ordained, and namely of that whereby it was made lawfull for a father to sell his owne child: that this Law saith hee, was not made by the Decemuirs, who three hundred yeres after were appointed to that bu­sinesse, it is gathered by this ordinance of Nu­ma. Patri post hac nullum ius esto vendendi filium; let it not be lawfull hereafter for the fa­ther to sell his sonne. It is manifest in this place that the 300. yeare is accounted, not from the building of the Citie: but from the time where­in Romulus established the common wealth with lawes, which was after the foundation of the Citie layed. Otherwise this historiographer most vndoubtedly, perfectly, and exactly de­clareth the yere of their authoritie to be the 303 of the Citie.

Thus there is no cause at all for Beroaldus so earnestly, & with such heat, to complaine of great ignorance, and disagreement in these Au­thors one from an other, beeing in truth at great concord betweene themselues, and dissenting only in shew, and yet all the dissention which he nameth, if it were so indeede, consisteth within the space of three or foure yeares betwixt 300. and 303.

But that all these are wide from the true time of the Decemuirs, in his opinion aboue three­score yeares: hee can prooue both by prophane [Page 123] storie, and holy scripture.

If Beroaldus can doe this, I will say hee is a cunning iugler, let vs see how. Hermodorus the Ephesian, the interpreter of the Decemuirs lawes, was acquainted with Heraclitus, and flourished in his dayes, and Heraclitus citing the writings of Pythagoras, must needes be af­ter Pythagoras. Againe Pythagoras reached to the times of the Peloponnesian warre, as may be prooued by this, that Lysis one of his famili­ar friendes, instructed Epaminondas in Philoso­phie, who died long after that warre. Heereof we may conclude that Heraclitus, and Hermo­dorus his friende with him flourished in the time of the Peloponnesian warre, and that the Decemuirs lawes are there to bee placed.

The fingering of this feate is too grosie to deceiue any mans eyesight, who is but carefull to marke somewhat nerelie. First this is an vn­prouing proofe, that Heraclitus was later than Pythagoras, because hee alleadgeth some sen­tence out of his workes, for it is an vsuall thing for those which are of one standing, as wee say, and equall in time, to read the bookes one of another. Cicero liued in the same age with Varro, yet notwithstanding he had recourse to his writings, and alleadged vppon occasion the contents thereof.

The other argument touching Pythagoras his reaching to the Peloponnesian warre, by [Page 124] Lysis and Epaminondas, being the mayne rea­son of all, is as vayne as that; which a little be­fore I haue made playne.

Lastlie though it were graunted, that Hera­clitus and Hermodorus were in the time of the Peloponnesian warre: yet for all that the De­cemuirs lawes might be before that time inter­preted by the same Hermodorus; as well as Ma­ster Beza his first interpretation of the new Te­stament, was many yeares before the late ta­king of Calis by the Spanyards; and yet the same light of God his Church at those dayes still shining therein. This is such a sorie Sorites, as maketh me meruaile what conceite came in Beroaldus his head to bring it. As likewise that colde coniecture out of Liuie which followeth concerning the twelue tables of the Decem­uirs lawes, to be in the 370. yeare of Rome, is as farre and further from Liuies minde, in playne wordes otherwhere declared, as threescore is from three.

The second weapon wherewith Beroaldus fighteth against the Latine historie, is some doubt concerning the time of the French mens taking Rome, in y^e 365. yeare from the building of that citie, and the first of the 98. Olympiad. For Plutarch in the life of Camillus, hauing de­clared the receaued opinion concerning the time thereof, that it happened a few more then 360. yeares after Rome was builded, addeth [Page 125] this doubting speech: If it seeme credible, that an exact account of these times had been so long preserued; seeing that euen the confusion of that time, hath brought some doubt and con­trouersie to other later.

Plutarch least hee should seeme without cause to haue made that doubt, bringeth this reason: that the fame and rumor of that warre wherein Rome by the French was taken, pre­sentlie was spread abroad in Greece, and came to the eares of Heraclides Ponticus, and Ari­stotle: whereby may bee gathered that it hap­pened in the time of king Phillip of Macedo­nia, in whose dayes those authors liued saith Beroaldus. The raigne of this king began about the 105. Olympiad, seuen and twentie yeares after the common receaued time of that taking of Rome set by other, and endured full foure and twentie yeares.

For answer to this doubt, I am to let the rea­der vnderstand, that the French men disconten­ted, and vnquiet in minde for their ill successe at their taking of Rome, being driuen out a­gaine, and all their pray taken from them by Marcus Furius Camillus, came diuers times after into Italie, and namely in the 406. yeare of Rome, being the fourteenth of Philip the Macedonian King; when Aristotle was a­bout foure and thirtie yeares olde. In this yeare Lucius Furius Camillus being Consull, and [Page 126] he alone Consull after his fellowes death: the French inuaded Italie with a mightie power. Amongst them one at that time for stature of bodie passing other, chalenging any one of the Romane hoste whosoeuer durst fight with him, was with the Consuls leaue set vpon by M. Va­lerius, a valiant Captaine. In this combate a ra­uen came suddainely to the Romane champi­on, and sat vpon his Helmet, and flew vpon the French man, against his face with bill and ta­lents fighting, till at the length being greatly a­mazed thereat, he was slaine by Valerius. Who thereof tooke name to bee called Coruinus, in memorie of the rauens fighting for him; which was interpreted to haue come from God. The French men after the death of their champion so miraculouslie slaine, were discomfited and fled, and durst not of a long time after come a­gainst the Romans. And this was the battaile by all likeliehoode, which Aristotle and Hera­clides Ponticus spake of. For it is confessed by Plutarch himselfe, that the conquerer of the French at that time was called Lucius in Ari­stotle; which agreeth to this time wherein Lu­cius Camillus was Consull alone, and conque­rer: not to the taking of Rome, when Marcus Camillus, father to this man had giuen them the ouerthrow.

As for the taking of Rome then mentioned by Heraclides and Aristotle, which was by a [Page 127] rumor and vncertaine reporte noysed abroad: the cause thereof might bee, that they were the same people then vanquished, who be­fore had taken it. So it is true in regarde of the men.

One argument more is yet behinde, reser­ued as may seeme to the last place, as of all the rest most forcible to disturbe the set boundes of the Peloponnesian warre, and thereby those of the Persian Empire. The force of this ar­gument in the conceite of Beroaldus is so strong and pythie, as that it cannot possibly suffer the ancient accounte of those times to stand. Let vs (saith Beroaldus) first set downe, that which is reported by Polybius a graue author in his first booke: that the Lacedemo­nians hauing gotten the soueraigne Empire of Greece, by their victorie against the Atheni­ans, in the ende of the Peloponnesian warre, scarse held it by the space of twelue yeares after. In the next place this wee are to knowe, that the same Lacedemonians were spoyled of that their Empire by the Thebans, in the famous battaile fought betweene them at Leanctra, in the second yeare of the 102. Olympiad: whereof this for a certaintie followeth; that the Peloponnesian warre ended about the time of the 100. Olympiad. For it is manifest by Xenophon, that the ende of it was in an Olym­picke yeare.

[Page 128]This is the reason of all other so sure, vndoub­ted, and strong, in the opinion of Beroaldus: but in very deede as friuolous, ridiculous, and chil­dish, as euer any was framed. To make good my saying, let the author himselfe speake with his owne words: which be these, not farre from the beginning of his first booke. [...]. The Lacedemonians (sayth Polybius) stri­uing many yeares for the soueraignetie of Greece, after they had once gotten it, kept it scarselie twelue yeares entire without trouble and losse. Indeede if Polybius had sayde, that the Lacedemonians had quite and cleane lost their whole dominion, within twelue yeares after they had obtained it, as Beroaldus maketh him say, the reason which hee vseth had been good, to bring the ende of the Peloponnesian warre within three yeares of his reckoning: (so much hee is wide after his wonted manner) for they were wholie spoyled of that cheeftie, by Epa­minondas, generall of the Theban armie, in the second of the 102. Olympiad. From which the twelfth yeare backward, is the third before the 100. Olympiad, and the second of the 99.

But there is as much difference betwixt the authors word [...], and the interpretation of Beroaldus: as betweene breaking a mans head and killing him out right. It is true, and that [Page 129] which Polybius ment, that the Lacedemoni­ans, about twelue yeares after Lysanders victo­rie against the Athenians at Aegos Potamoi, whereby they became Lordes of Greece, lost much of their dominion by the valour of Conon an Athenian Captaine, who ouercame the La­cedemonians in a battel by sea, & toke fiftie of their shippes, and 500 of their men, whereby diuers Cities fell from the Lacedemonians vnto him as Diodorus Siculus declareth in his four­teenth booke, yet for all this they stood still, & recouered much again afterward, til at y^e length they were vtterly dispossessed of all by the The­bans, who gaue them a deadly blow. Heereby it appeareth that it was no part of Polybius his meaning, to make only twelue yeares from the end of the Peloponnesian war, to the Lacede­monians vtter ouerthrow: but to that conquest of Conon ouer them by sea fight before spoken of.

And if this bee not enough to make that ap­peare sufficiently, Polybius himselfe yet once a­gaine shall make it manifest, and all gainesay­ers as dumbe as a fish, which would gather by his testimonie, that the fielde at Leuctra was fought within 12. yeares after the Peloponnesi­an warre: for within one leafe after the former sentence, he declareth that the battaile at Leu­ctra was nor twelue, but 34. yeares after that o­ther at Aegos Potamoi, whereby they won the [Page 130] soueraigntie of Greece that is to say, 18. to the Frenchmens taking of Rome, and sixteene more afterwarde to the fight at Leuctra, and that not obscurely or in a riddle: but very flatly in plaine words, though not vnderstood by the Bishop of Sipontū, who for these words of Po­lybius, [...] that is after the battaile by sea at Aegos Potamoi, translated Post Xerxem a Cymone superatum. After Xerx­es was ouercome by Cymon, which was long before the time spoken of by Polybius, and no part of his meaning at all.

By this one place may bee seene what into­lerable shifting hath beene vsed of Beroaldus to make his matter good, affirming Authors to say that which they neuer meaned, yea which they are as flat and plaine in manifest words a­gainst, as may be. But euery vaine color, & de­ceiueable shew is good enough for such as are disposed to wrangle out new deuises by cauel­ling Sophistrie.

As for that which followeth out of Xeno­phon to prooue that assertion of Beroaldus, it hath neyther head nor foote, and is vnworthie of an answere, and therefore I purpose not to trouble the reader with my confuting such pal­trie stuffe, except peraduenture some will pro­fesse to frame it into an argument of some shew or color at the least, then will I also professe my skill to answere it, and to turne all against him [Page 131] for the truth; as knowing Xenophon to haue no­thing for his conceited opinion, but much a­gainst it.

Hitherto I haue particularly answered all the Sophisticall elcnchs, and reasonlesse reasons, & vnproouing proofes of Beroaldus out of pro­phane Histories, one by one, wherewith to the trouble of God his Church, and the darkening of his worde, hee hath stuffed so many papers, without leauing any one to my knowledge vn­answered, except the last out of Xenophon for the cause before declared. Touching his scrip­ture proofe so often vrged against the auncient Chronologers of the Persian times, it shall by God his assistance appeare hereafter how vain it is. And thus much touching the first part con­cerning the chronologie of the Persian Monar­chie.

Now followeth the second, contayning 328. yeares and a halfe, not much vnder or ouer from the death of the last king of Persia, to our Sa­uiour Iesus Christ, the proofe hereof is good: for that Christ our blessed Redeemer was borne in the third yeare of the 194. Olympiad, Euse­bius, to omit the testimonies of other Fathers, declareth in his Chronicles, at this yeare and O­lympiad writing thus. Iesus Christ the sonne of God was borne in Bethleem of Iuda, in which yeare the saluation of Christians began: which therefore is also counted the first yeare of the [Page 132] Christians saluation. Darius the last king of the Persians was slaine, neere the beginning of the third yeare of the 112. Olympiad. The di­stance is the number before declared. The same is prooued by the Chronologicall Historie of the yeares of Rome; the building whereof by Solinus, Dionysius, Eratost henes, and other lear­ned Authors, is set in the first yeare of the sea­uenth Olympiad, the trueth whereof is testified by olde marble monuments digged out of the ground, and as Solinus writeth, was confirmed euen by the publike acts & registers of Rome: wherein the 207. Olympiad was recorded to be in the 801. yeare of Rome, when Pompeius Gallus, and Q. Ʋeranius were Cousuls: this Be­roaldus himselfe acknowledgeth, and bringeth reason for it. By this account then the third of the 194. Olympiad, wherein the birth of Christ is put, should be the 751. of Rome, let vs now examaine whether this be so or no.

The yeare after Caesars death, wherein Hersi­us and Pansa were Consuls, & Augustus be­gan his raigne, as Eusebius in his Chronicles, & Ioseph Scaliger in his fift book De emendatio­ne temporum declare, was the 710. of Rome, so witnessed, not onely by Solinus in his Polyhi­stor, but euen the very ancient Marble monu­ments also, wherein was engrauen his record, at the 710 yeare of the Citie. In Pansae occisi lo­cum factus est C. Iulius. C.F.C.N. Caesar. Qui [Page 133] posteà imperator Caesar Augustus appellatus est. That is, in the place of Pansa being slaine, Cai­us Iulius Caesar, the sonne of Caius, the grand­child of Caius, was made Consull, who after was called the Emperour Caesar Augustus. In the 42. yeare of Augustus his raigne, the first thereof beeing that 710. of Rome, was our Sa­uiour borne. This wee are taught by Eusebius, not onely in his Chronicles, but also very plain­ly in the second chapter of the first booke of his Ecclesiasticall historie. It is verified also by E­piphanius, and Onuphrius, 51. Haeresi. setting the time of Christ his birth, in the thirteenth Consulship of Augustus with M. Plantius Silanus, which was iust the 42. yeare from the beginning of that, wherein Hersius and Pansa were Con­suls, and Augustus began his raigne; as the Ro­man histories with great agreement declare, ad­ding then these 42. of Augustus, to 709. more past before to the building of Rome: wee haue that which by examination we sought, that is, the birth of Christ in the 751. yeare of Rome, agreeably to the Olympicke reckoning, from which 423. before Darius his death, being de­ducted, there remaines 328. yeres from the Per­sian Monarchie to Iesus Christ, with some fiue or sixe months more, betwixt the sommer sea­son wherein Darius died, and the time of win­ter wherein Christ was borne.

An other proofe we haue from learned wri­ters [Page 134] in Clemens Alexandrinus, 1. Strom. ac­counting 294. yeares from the death of Alex­ander, to the victorie of Augustus Caesar a­gainst Antonius; when he slew himselfe, and Augustus nowe the fourth time was Consull: which wordes by them are there added for di­stinctions sake, to make it knowne what victo­rie they spake of: For when as now a long time Augustus and Antonius had together gouer­ned the Roman Empire: at the length falling at variance, they made open warre one against another, and fought betweene them by sea, that famous battail at Actium a promontorie of E­pirus nere Greece, the second day of Septem­ber from fiue of the clocke in the morning to seauen at night; wherein Antonius with his glorious wife Cleopatra Queene of Aegypt, was discomfited and fled. This was done in the 722 yeare of Rome, and the second of the 187. O­lympiad, and the time of Augustus Caesars third Consulship with Valerius Messala Cor­uinus. The next yeare after, Caesar nowe the fourth time beeing Consull with M. Licinius Crassus, went against Antonius and Cleopatra into Aegypt: where with happy successe he won from him a Citie of Egypt nere Lybia, called Paraetonium, and againe a little after, ouercame him at Pharus, and once againe euen in that fight, wherein hee put great confidence of his goodly horses he was put to a shamefull foyle. [Page 135] His onely refuge now left, whereby hee hoped to stand, was his nauie, which when Antonius the first day of August betimes in the morning was now preparing to battell, all fel away from him to Caesar: whereat Antonius conceauing deadly griefe, hasted to his Pallace, and a little after seeing Caesar comming flat against him, & the citie troubled, slew himselfe. Cleopatra al­so not obtaining so much fauour of Augustus, as she eyther looked for, or desired; opened her left arme to the byting of a poysonfull Serpent, and so ended her life.

Augustus (his enemies now being slain) got Alexandria and the rest of Egypt with no great adoe, and thenceforth had the whole go­uernment of all the Roman Soueraigntie, be­fore the end of the same month, which thereof was named Augustus, beeing before that time called Sextilis of the number, beeing the sixt from March. Augustus Caesar, (saith Xiphilinus) called the moneth Sextilis by the newe name of Augustus, because hee was first made Con­sull, & got many victories therein: But in Ma­crobius more plainely, and especially amongst other causes of that moneth so to be termed in the honor of Augustus, this is one set downe, that therein Egypt was first subdued to the Ro­mans. These be the victories then, which those ancient Chronologists in Clemens Alexandri­nus, make the end of 294. yeres, from the death [Page 136] of Alexander, respecting their beginning with the moneth of August, and somewhat before: For Alexander died towardes the end of Iulie, in the verie entrie of the 114. Olympiad: So that to and fro the same season of the yeare, the distance being reckoned, was iust so much, that is to say 294. yeares, which is likewise verified by an eye witnesse of those times, whereof hee writeth, and flourishing in them, that is, Dio­nysius Halicarnassaeus, who in the Preface to his Roman antiquities, telleth not by hearesay, but of knowledge, that he came into Italy when Augustus Caesar had made an ende of ciuill warres, about the middest of the 187. Olym­piad. The time which he meaneth, was that be­fore declared of Augustus Caesars conquest o­uer Antonius in Egypt, in the moneth of Au­gust, not farre from the beginning of the third yere of that Olimpiad which he nameth: being indeed (as hee saith) neere the middest of that foure yeares Olympick space, vnto which ac­counting from the first yere of the 114. where­in Alexander died, we finde that number of the former Authors in Clemens euen 294. yeres.

The truth hereof is yet further confirmed by Ptolomie, for exact accoūt of times exceeding skilfull, who in the third book of his Almagest, maketh the distance betweene the death of A­lexander and the Monarchie of Augustus 294. [Page 137] Egyptian yeares. The account whereof began with the beginning of their first moneth called Toth, as Censorinus declareth in his booke de die natali, and Ioseph Scaliger in diuers places, which at that time fell about the twelfth day of our Nouember. So long after the sommer sea­son wherein Alexander died, the Egyptians began their account of yeares after his death. These 294. Egyptian yeres from the twelfth of Nouember, expire not in the twelfth of No­uember againe, but in the 29. day of August be­fore, and reach iust as farre as the same num­ber of Roman yeares doth, being begun from the 29. day of August before going. The cause whereof is this, that the Egyptian yeare is shor­ter then the Roman by six houres, or one fourth part of a day, which in so many yeres breedeth the losse and difference of threescore and thir­tie dayes and a halfe.

So there is no disagreement betweene the old writers in Clemens reckoning after the Ro­man manner, and Dionysius following the Greeke account, and Ptolomie numbring by the vsuall custome of the Egyptians: except this, that Ptolomie respected the verie end of that war, in the taking of Alexandria & Egypt in theende of that month after Antonius was slaine, the other goe somewhat hier to the be­ginning of it, wherein Antonius by the falling away of his nauie was quite vndone, and not [Page 138] able to stand out any longer. Vnto these 294. yeares betweene the Monarchies of Alexan­der and Augustus, sixe more being added, which had passed before Alexanders death, to the end of Darius, the number is made 300. yeares.

For the truths sake I may not here omit one error of Ioseph Scaliger, notwithstanding the reuerence and loue which I beare him, in re­garde of his fruitefull paynes employed to the benefite of learning, and aduauncement of knowledge, whereby he hath well deserued of God his Church; in his fift booke de emendatio­ne temporū, speaking of that victorie of Augu­stus Caesar at Actium, which as (he saith) hapned in the third Consulship of Augustus Caesar, with Valerius Messala Coruinus, hee affirmeth that Ptolomie counteth vnto it from Nabona­sars coronation 718. yeares fullie compleat, which commeth short of my reckoning by a yeare: Ptolomie indeede counteth from Nabo­nasars coronation to the death of Alexander 424. yeares, and thence to Augustus his Mo­narchie 294, which in all make 718. yet not na­ming the conquest at Actium for the ende of those yeares; for that was obtayned in Septem­ber, as Dio testifieth, beyond the compasse of Ptolomies precise reckoning, by foure or fiue dayes in regarde of the moneth. But to let that passe, it is plaine euen by his owne testimonie a [Page 139] little before in the same booke, in the chapter where he treateth of the first Thoth of the yeares of Alexanders death, that hee was deceaued here in his reckoning. His words there be these, Alexander decessit anno 424. diebus aestiuis. Thoth vero sequens est initium annorū à morte eius Nouemb. 12. feria prima, anno periodi Iu­lianae 4389. anno primo Olymp. 114. that is, Alexander departed in the 424. yeare, mea­ning of Nabonasar, in the sommer time. But the Thoth following, is the beginning of the yeares from his death, in the twelft of Nouem­ber, the first daye of the weeke, in the 4389. yeare of the Iulian period, in the first yeare of the 114. Olympiad. Let any now make the rec­koning of 294. Egyptian yeares, from the twelft of Nouember, in the first yeare of the 114. Olympiad, and hee shall stay and make his rest toward the ende of August, in the third yeare of the 187. Olympiad: which was the yeare of Augustus Caesars fourth Consulship, wherein he got the sole Empire of Rome into his hands, by the death of Antonius, as before is shewed, and not of his third Consulship wherein hee got the victorie against Antonius at Actium, as Scaliger would haue it. Ptolomie therefore counteth from Alexanders death, not to the victorie at Actium, as Scaliger saith, but to Augustus his Monarchie, or to vse Ptolo­mies owne word, [...], that is, his kingdome; [Page 140] which he had not entire till such time as Anto­nius was dispossessed of all.

Likewise whereas Scaliger saith, that the E­gyptian nauie was ouercome at Actium by Augustus, in the time of his third Consulship with Coruinus, and that in the sixteenth Iulian yeare: it cannot possiblie be so, because the six­teenth Iulian yeare began together with the fourth Consulship of Augustus. The first Iuli­an yeare was the very next before Caesars death, beginning at Ianuarie, in the 708. of Rome, and the third yeare of the 183. Olympiad, as Censorinus teacheth. Foure Olympiads, that is, sixteene yeares thence continued, bring vs to the third of the 187. Olympiad: wherein Au­gustus was Consull the fourth time, and his fel­low Consull with him was Licinius Crassus, so as no part of it could fall to that battaile at Ac­tium, except we wil make it twice fought, once in the third Consulship of Augustus, and a­gaine in his fourth the yeare after.

The grounde of this error of Scaliger, was misunderstanding of Censorinus, as may be e­uidentlie seene in his third booke, in the chapter of the Egyptian Actiac yeare, where his words are these: Censorinus ait annum Augustorum Actiacum 267. esse 1014. Iphiti & 986. Na­bonosari: that is, Censorinus saith, that the 267 Actiac yeare of the Augusts, was the 1014. of Iphitus, and the 986. of Nabonasar. Censorinus [Page 141] neither saide it nor thought it: hee maketh no mention of any Actiac yeare at all, but onely affirmeth that the 986. of Nabonasar was the 265. of the yeares called Augusts: the begin­ning whereof was taken from Augustus his seuenth, and Ʋipsanius his third Consulship ac­counted of the Egyptians the 267. Quia bien­nio ante in potestatem ditionemque populi Ro­mani venerunt, because they became subiect to the power & dominion of the people of Rome two yeares before (saith Censorinus) speaking not of the victorie at Actium, but of the subdu­ing of Egypt: which after the death of Antoni­us, was conquered to the Romane Empire, and made a prouince a yeare after that ouerthrow of Antonius at Actium.

Therefore I see no cause why my former reckoning ought not to bee receaued as vn­doubtedly true (whatsoeuer Scaliger may seeme to haue to the contrarie or any other:) that is to saye, that from the death of Alexander to the Monarchie of Augustus, in the yeare of his fourth Consulship, were 294. yeares: and from the slaughter of the last king of Persia, in the third yeare of the 112. Olympiad, which made Alexander an vndoubted Monarch, to the third of the 187, wherein the death of Antonius did the like to Augustus, were 300. yeares.

Now that Iesus Christ was borne in the 28. yeare of the Monarchie of Augustus, wherein [Page 142] after Antonius his death, he ruled alone with­out the part taking or fellowship of any other with him therein, wee haue the testimonie of Clemens Alexandrinus. 1. Stromat. Eusebius in the first booke of his Ecclesiasticall Historie, in plaine words confirming it., In the 42. yeare saith he, of the raigne of Augustus, and the 28. after the subdewing of Egypt, and the death of Antonius and Cleopatra, in whom the raigne of the Egyptian kings, called Ptolomies was extinct; our Lorde and Sauiour Iesus Christ was borne in Bethleem of Iuda, Cyreneus be­ing gouernour of Syria, and so forth.

The 42. yeare of Augustus his parted raigne was all one with the 28. of his lone raigne. That began in the 710. of Rome: these 14. yeres after in the 724. of Rome; being the fifteenth of Augustus from his first beginning. For though the ciuill warres were ended by the death of Antonius, and the subdewing of Egypt, in the fourteenth yeare of Augustus, in the mo­neth of August: yet the yeares of his Monar­chie after the manner of the Romans, began to bee reckoned from Ianuarie following, in the beginning of the next yeare, being his fifteenth. [...]. Augustus the king of the Romanes attayning the fifteenth yeare of his raigne, got Egypt and the rest of the world, saith Eusebius in his eyght [Page 143] booke, de demonstratione Euangelij. And in his Chronicles likewise hee beginneth the Monarchie of Augustus from the same his fif­teenth yeare. For foureteene yeares then past, being added to 28. following, the number is 42.

The same beginning of Augustus his Mo­narchie from that yeere, is confirmed by Pau­lus Orosius in the sixt booke of his Historie a­gainst the Gentiles. Where hauing declared in the nineteenth chapter of that booke, that Antonius and Cleopatra now forsaken of their nauie, which in the beginning of August, had turned to Caesar, for griefe slew themselues: And that Caesar after passed from thence into Syria by land, and then into Asia, and at length by Greece into Italie: in the next chapter im­mediatly he addeth that Augustus Caesar in the yeare following, wherein himselfe now the fift time and L. Apuleius were Consuls, the sixt daye of Ianuarie, entred into Rome with three triumphes. Atque ex eo die summa rerum ac potestatem penes vnum caepit esse & mansit, quod Graeci Monarchiam vocant. And from that daye saith Orosius, the soueraigntie and cheefe power called of the Grecians, a Mo­narchie begun to be in one mans hand, and so remained.

Ioseph Scaliger I can but maruaile at, in his sixt book de emendatione temporum, affirming [Page 144] that Christ our Lorde was borne in the seuen and twentie yeare after the victorie at Actium, which is short of the time by mee set for his birth in the 42. of Augustus, by two yeares and more. For the yeare of Christs birth was the 30. at the least after the Actiac victorie 29. full yeares beeing past and almost foure mo­neths.

Now touching the moneth and daye of our Sauiours birth: I see no cause why we ought to referre that constant opinion of ancient Fa­thers, that it was the 25. of December, recea­ued of Augustine, Orosius, Chrysostom, and other, from them continued nowe by many ages to this daye, except direct proofe can be brought to the contrarie. Which Beroaldus af­ter his wonted manner goeth about, in the se­cond chapter of his fourth booke of Chroni­cles affirming in plaine words, that our Lorde Iesus Christ was borne in the middest of the moneth September, when the daye and night is of one length.

His reason to proue that assertion of his, is in this manner. Christ preached three yeares and a halfe before his death, this is prooued by the words of Daniel in his ninth chapter. Hee shal confirme y^e couenant to many one weeke, and halfe that weeke shall abolish sacrifice and offering: which saith Beroaldus, is to be vnder­stoode of Christ, preaching three yeares and a [Page 145] halfe from his baptizing to his death. Now that his baptisme begun together with the 30. yeere of his age, is testified by Luke in his third chapter the 23. verse where Christ is sayd to haue entred the 30. yeere of his age when he was baptized. The end of the last halfe yeere wherein Christ dyed, being the 14. day of the Iewes Nisan and of our March: Leaue as well the begining thereof, as consequently the birth of Christ, to the 14. of September.

In deede if those his interpretations of Daniel and Luke in these places, were both of them certaine and cleare, as he sayeth they are, his proof were good: but if either of them faile, his reason is not worth a strawe. And so farre they are from being both certaine, that neither of them both is sure: Scaliger maketh it an vn­doubted thing, that they are otherwise to bee vnderstood, referring the wordes of Daniell to the beseging and warre against Ierusalem by the Romanes, and making the time of Christes preaching, not three yeeres and a halfe but full foure. Beda and Ignatius made it onely three yeeres after his baptisme. And Apollinaris with diuers other eyther on or two at the most. And as for the wordes of Luke, a precise & exact be­ginning of the thirtie yeere of Christes age can not be gathered of them. Seeing hee vseth the word [...], importing a doubtfull and imperfect number, wherevnto somewhat, more or lesse, [Page 146] may be added or taken away, and signifying that Christ begunne to bee about thirtie yeeres of age at the time of his baptisme: As in our English bible it is well translated, and so vnder­stood by Epiphanius, and Iustinus Martir, and Augustine, with some other of the ancient fa­thers.

Wherfore this his best reason is too weake to pull backe the receaued time of Christes birth, from the 25. day of December, to the 14. of September.

An other argument of his is taken from the custome of the Greeke and the Egyptian chur­ches, beginning their yeare from September. Whence also the indictions haue their begin­ing. This (saith Beroaldus) they did because they knew that Christ was borne in the middest of September. And how proueth he that? Beroal­dus for sooth sayth so. The mans bare yea was enough belike to perswade the simple and vn­skilfull. Other reason he bringeth none at all, either from authoritie or otherwise. Neither in deed do I see how he could possibly bring any. For it is a thing held without controuersie, that the cause of the yeres beginning in the midst of September, was the memorie not of Christes birth, but of the glorious conquest of Alex­ander against Darius at Gaugamela, retained long after euen in the Greeke church. Which Scaliger out of Epiphanius declareth in his se­cond [Page 147] booke, De emendatione temporum; the chapter of Calippus his period beginning in Autumne; and also in his fift booke, the chapter of the councell of Nice which by So­crates was set downe to haue bene in the 636. yeere of Alexander.

But what shall we need goe further then to Beroaldus himselfe for confirmation hereof, who euen in the verie next Chapter before go­ing, had prooued by the Greeke Canons, & the first Tome of councels printed at Paris, that the Greeke church counted their yeres from Alex­ander. If the Greeke church counted frō Alex­ander, and that accompt of Alexanders yeeres begun in the Equinoctiū of Autumne, as Sca­liger teacheth, about mid September; how can the cause and custome of this reckoning be re­ferred to Christs natiuitie? as for the Egyptians, the first month of their yeere called Thoth, be­fore they were subdewed by Augustus, went through all the monthes and seasons of the yere some times in Februarie, after in Ianuarie, and so in order to Februarie againe. But after An­tonius and Cleopatra were ouerthrowen, and Egipt made one of the Roman prouinces, won by Augustus Caesar in the month of August; the first of their Thoth was not the 14. of Sep­tember, nor any part of it, but the 29. of Au­gust; and that in memorie not of Christ his birth being yet vnborne, but of Augustus his [Page 148] victory therein against the Egyptians. Where­of also as before hath beene shewed the mo­neth Sextilis, tooke a new name to bee called August.

Now follow the indictions, which begunne about the 24. of September, and therefore by Beroaldus made likewise an argument of Christes birth in that month. Constantine af­ter the death of his father Constantius, who died here in England at Yorke, obtayned the empire of Rome in the yeere of Christ 312. The time of his coronation being the 24. of September, was celebrated with much ioy, and great solemnitie, and many sportes and games against that time proclamed: thereof called an Indiction, that is, a proclaming. And from that day in memorie thereof, a new accompt of yeeres begunne by that terme of Indiction. This accompt the church also obserued. Yet beginning it later with the month Ianuarie fol­lowing, to make it agree with the yeeres of Christ. Therefore this argument of all other is most forcible against that, which Beroaldus being blinded with a new fangled conceipt brought it for; as euerie one may see which will open but indifferent eyes. For the 24. of Sep­tember, was 11. or 12. dayes after the aequinoc­tium: wherein he setteth Christ his birth; and the cause thereof Constantine crowned, not Christ borne. And because the time of Christ [Page 149] his birth was in those dayes celebrated and kept in winter and the beginning of the yerae of Christ in the first of Ianuarie, as now at this day it is with vs: the holy and zealous Christian fa­thers of that age in honour of Christ, changed the time of that Indiction from the 24. of Sep­tember to the first of Ianuarie. Thus it pleaseth the God of truth to blind the aduersaries therof, that they may fight against themselues which striue against it.

His last proofe is fetched from the course of Abiah, whereof Zacharie Iohn Baptists father was, as the Euangelist Luke testifieth in the fift verse of his first chapter. There were 24. cour­ses of the Priests, seruing in the Temple at Ieru­salem, two families or courses appointed for euerie moneth, in the first of Chronicles the 24 Chapter, (saith Beroaldus) the first of these courses began most like in March, as other ho­ly thinges pertaining to the temple did: so the course of Abiah beeing the eight, falleth to Iune. In that moneth vnto Zacharie seruing in the Temple, was foretold the birth of Iohn Bap­tist by an Angell. About that time then his wife Elizabeth conceaued, and sixe moneths after the blessed virgin Marie, as is gathered by the 26. & the 36. verses of the first chapter of Luke: So the time of Christ conceaued falleth to De­cember, and the ninth moneth after for his birth is September. All these linkes hang together [Page 150] but vpon bare likelyhoods. One that the Priests courses of seruice began in March: the other, that two courses were appointed for euery mo­neth, neyther of them both is certaine, Bero­aldus himselfe in that chapter witnesse. Zacha­rias quidem ad Abiae familiam pertinebat, cui forte octauo loco ministerium obeundum erat in sacrario: Sed quando aut quamdiu non intelli­gitur a nobis. Zacharias (saith he) pertained to the course of Abiah, to whose lotte the eight course of seruing in the Temple fell, but when and how long wee know not. That which hee saith of the vncertaintie of these thinges is most true: for it may bee that the courses began pre­sently at that time, wherein they were first ap­pointed, which is vnknowne to vs. And if they did begin at the first with March, yet the next beginning must needes be changed if the times of their seruice were equall, because twelue moneths of the sunne are not euen all alike in dayes. It may be also, that euerie course had his wecke of seruice, which in my iudgement is most like to be true.

But to take all doubte away concerning the beginning of the first course of Iehoiarib, and his posteritie: wee haue a plaine testimo­nie in the Hebrewes auncient Chronicle called [...] seder olam rabba, in the last chapter thereof, against that coniecturall likelyhood of Beroaldus, for the beginning of those courses in [Page 151] March, in this manner: [...]: That is, whē the first temple was destroyed. That day was the next after the sabbaoth, and the next after the weekes end, & the course of Iehoiarib, & the ninth of Ab, and in like manner was it at the destruction of the second temple. If Iehoiaribs course as there it is witnessed, being the first of all the 24. fell about the ninth day of the Iewes fifth moneth called Ab, which in some part is answerable to our Iulie: then by no meanes could the eight course of Abiah, in that order fall to Iune, beeing the fourth moneth.

Thus all Beroaldus his coursing of Abiahs course, yeeldeth him no more help, nor maketh any whit more for his purpose, then the rest of his wise reasons, as children say, and therefore by them no let, but that the receiued opinion of ancient fathers so long continued in God his Church, touching the birth of Christ in the 25. day of December, may bee still retained for a­ny thing that yet is prooued to the contrarie.

Wherefore I conclude that our glorious Lord and Redeemer Christ Iesus, blessed be his name and his memorie for euer, was borne in the third yeare of the 194. Olympiad, and the 751. of Rome, now within sixe dayes or there about expired, wherein Augustus Caesar the 13 time was Consull, & M. Plautius Silanus with [Page 152] him, 328. yeres & almost a halfe after the Per­sian Monarchie, and so end the second part of the compasse and boundes which haue bin set for Daniels weekes.

The third and last part therof only remayn­eth frō Christ his birth, to the destruction of Ie­rusalem by the Romans: which som of the an­cient Fathers,1. Stroae. as Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius in his Chronicles, and P. Eberus in his historie of the Iewes referre to the 73. yeare of Christ, and the third yeare of the 212. O­lympiad, going further than the true acount permitteth almost by two yeares: As Fun­ctius in the fift booke of his commentaries vp­on his chronologie declareth, and Ioseph Scali­ger in his fift booke de emendatione temporum, where they shew the cause of this errour, to bee the confused raigning of diuers Emperours to­gether at one time, Galba with Nero, Otho with Galba, Vitellius with Otho, and Ʋespasian with Vitellius: So that whereas Vitellius is said to haue raigned in all seauen monethes, two of them and more were spent in the Soueraigntie of Otho, and foure at the least in the raigne of Vespasian. Hence came that ouershooting by sundring those times, which were confounded in themselues, and so reckoning the same yeres twice or thrice ouer in the seuerall raignes of di­uers Emperours.

Functius himselfe came somewhat nearer [Page 153] the mark, in placing that ouerthrow of the holy Citty, in the second yeare of that Olympiad, which is true: yet making it the 72. of Christs birth; he therein erreth, and is at strife with him­selfe; for how can this possibly stand, that the second sommer of the 212. Olympiad, should be the 72. yere from the third winter of the 194 Olympiad wherein Christ was borne.

H. Bunting in his Chronologie did hit the marke right, affirming that Ierusalem was de­stroyed in the 71. yeare of Christ, the 822. of Rome, Vespasian the second time, and his Son Titus being Consull the second yere of the 212 Olympiad. The day wherein the Temple was set on fire by Iosephus is obserued euen the 10. of August. Conflagrante nouissimo templo nu­merabantur a nauitate Christi 70. anni cum di­ebus 221. From the natiuitie of Christ to the burning of the last Temple were 70. yeres and 200. and one and twentie dayes, saith Lau­rence Codoman in his Chronicles of holy scrip­ture, which is most certainely true, and confir­med of him againe in the fourth booke of his chronologie toward the end of the 29. chapter: where notwithstanding he also hath his errour, in numbring 105. yeres to that time from the beginning of Herods raigne at his taking of Ierusalem, beeing at the least 106. full yeares, with three weekes ouer: For Ierusalem was ta­ken of him about the beginning of the fourth [Page 154] yeare of the 185. Olympiad. Wherein M. A­grippa and Canidius Gallus were Consuls, the seauenteenth day of the Iewes fourth month called Tamuz, answering in parte to our Iune and partlie to Iulie, as appeareth by Iose­phus in the end of his fourteenth book of anti­quities, compared with Ben Gorion his fourth booke the 23. chapter. The Temple by Titus his souldiers was fired the ninth day of their next moneth called Ab, as we read in the end of his seder olam rabba, and the eight day of the next moneth following, the Citie it selfe was set on fire by them. Vnto which time Iosephus from Herods beginning before mentioned, coun­teth 107. yeares in his 20. booke of Antiquities the eight chapter, beeing no more but 106. yeres with seauen weekes more: Therefore ac­cording to the vsuall custome of Historiogra­phers, he reckoneth a part of the last yeare for the whole, and his meaning is, that the burning of the citie hapned in the 107. yere after Herods beginning to raigne, and that the distance be­twixt the one and the other was 107. yeres run­ning on, so as the last of them was not yet com­pleat.

By that which hitherto hath beene prooued, it appeareth that from the beginning of the Persian Monarchie, and the first yeare of Cyrus, to the end of the Iewes common wealth in the second of Ʋespasian; were 628. yeares, & [Page 155] so much time more as had past, partly before the second yeare of the 55. Olympiad to the beginning of Cyrus, and partlie after the end of the first yeare of the 112. Olympiad, to the eight of September following: wherein the ho­lie City of God (Ierusalem) was set on fire, & that if account be made from the entrie of that 55. Olympiad to the time wherein the Citie was burned, the whole space is euen 629. yeres with some two monethes more or there a­bouts.

Thus I end my reckoning of the times with­in the compasse, whereof Daniels weeks haue runne out their course, which is the first help re­quisite to the vnderstanding of Daniels mea­ning.

The second now followeth, that is a true in­terpretation of his wordes: for though the ful­filling of those weekes, is contained within the reach of those 629. yeares and odde monethes before spoken of: yet in what time thereof they began or ended, that is a controuersie, to the discussing whereof this second help may hap­pely bring some light.

FOr the plainer vnderstanding and proofe of this interpretation I haue thought good to set downe cerraine annotations there­on where need shall require.

In the 24. verse. weekes.] The Hebrew word [...] signifieth a weeke, or as wee also terme it a sennet or seuenet, which better fitteth the He­brew, hauing that force, as likewise [...] in Greeke, and septimana in Latine, all so called of the number of seauen: but it is to bee obser­ued that the Hebrew word here vsed, signifieth sometime the space of seauen dayes; as here in this prophesie the tenth chapter, and second verse: where Daniel saith that hee mourned [...] three weeks or seuenets of dayes, and in the sixteenth of Deuteronomie the ninth verse: where commandement is giuen from Easter to Whitsontide to number seuen weeks or seuenets, [...]: And sometime it con­taineth seuen yeres, as in the 29. chapter the 27 verse of Genesis, [...] fulfill her seuenet, and then shee also shall bee giuen vnto thee for the seruice which thou shalt serue me yet seuen yeares more. The Greeke word [...] in appro­ued Authors is in like manner vsed not onelie for seauen dayes, but also euen for seuen yeares space, and namely in the end of the seauenth [Page 158] booke of Aristotles politikes, where mention is made of such as deuided ages by seuenets of yeares. [...]. M. Varro also in his first booke of Images writing, se iam duodecimam annorum hebdomadam in­gressum esse. That hee had now entred into the 12. sennet of yeares, expresseth it more plaine­ly and fullie. In this signification I take the worde in this place, vnderstanding by 70. se­uenets 490. yeares, hauing proofe thereof from holy Scripture and prophane writer. As for those which stretch the worde further to a se­uenet of tents or Iubilies or hundreds of yeeres as some haue done: their opinion hath neither warrant from God his word nor any likelihood of trewth.

Are determined,] The word [...] signifie­th properly to cut, and by a metaphor from thence borowed to determine as hereafter I shal haue occasion to declare.

The Reader is here to know that in the He­brew we haue word for word. Seuentie weekes is determened: A verbe singular being ioyned with a nowne plurall, by an vsuall custome of the holy tongue, when a thing spoken in gene­rall is to bee applied to euerie part. As in the twelft chapter of Iob the seuenth verse: Aske the beastes and it shall teach thee, that is, euerie one of them shall teach thee. And in the Pro­uerbes of Salomon the third chapter, the 18. [Page 159] verse, in their originall tongue. They which holde wisdome, is made blessed, that is to saye, they are made blessed euery one of them. So here the same kinde of speech being vsed, 70. weekes is determined, importeth thus much, that euerie one of those weekes particularlie from the first to the last shall bee precisely and absolutely complet. Which force contained in these wordes I might not omitte. In English thus it may be expressed. Seuentie weekes euery one are determined vpon thy people.

Thy people] that is thy countreymen the Iewes for this is a common speech often vsed in the hebrew tongue, to call that people mine of which I am one. As in the first chapter of Ruth the 15. verse. the Moabites are called the people of Orpha a woman of Moab: Thy sister is gone backe to her people. So in the 10. verse of that chapter the Iewes are called Na­omies people. We will returne to thy people with thee. And the same Ieremies people in the lamentations the 3. chapter and 14. verse where he complaineth, that he was a laughing stocke to all his people. Here then in like manner by Daniels people are vnderstoode the Iewes whereof he was.

And vpon thy holy citie] The holy citie is Ierusalem mentioned in the nexte verse so cal­led, because it was the place consecrate to the holy worship of God. Esa the 52. chapter & 1. [Page 160] verse put on thy bewtifull garmentes O Ierusa­lem holy citie. And in the 4. chapter of Math. the 5. verse, the diuell caried him to the holy ci­tie, and set him vpon a pinacle of the temple. But why is it called Daniels citie? was it because God had forsaken it, as though it were now to be called any others rather then Gods citie? So the learned father Hierom thought, but herein deceaued. For being a holy citie it must nedes bee also Gods citie. It was rather cal­led Daniels citie, ether of his birth or brin­ging vp therein. As in the ninth chapter of Mathew Capernaum is called Christs citie be­cause he dwelt in it. And Rama in the first book of Samuel the first chapter is called the citie of Elcana and the citie of Samuel in the 28. chap. of that booke. And Rogelim the citie of Bar­zillai, in the second of Samuel the 19. the 38. verse. Let me die (sayeth he) in my owne citie.

By this which I haue sayde of Daniels people and Daniels citie, it may appeare howe wide Hierom shot from the marke, with some other of the ancient fathers interpreting it as though God had forsaken both: and giuen them ouer as well the Iewes as Ierusalem.

To end sinne] [...] being as the Maso­rites terme it the [...], keri, of these wordes that is the true reading thereof; signifieth properly to consume finish or end sinne. And therefore Hieroms interpretation, Vt finem accipiat pec­catum [Page 161] that sin may haue an end, is good. Nei­ther doe I se how that other of sealing vp sinnes can heere be warranted.

This abolishing and finishing of sinne, was wrought and fulfilled by our blessed Lord and redeemer Christ Iesus. He was that vnspotted lambe of God which tooke away the sinnes of the world, the first of Iohn, the 29. verse. In the end of the world he once appeared to put away sinne, by the sacrifice of himselfe. Hee was once offered to take away the sinnes of many. Heb. 9.26.28. He washed vs from our sinnes in his blood. In the first of the Reuela­tion the 3. ver. He deliuered vs from sinne. By him the bodie of sinne is destroied, we are dead to sinne, that it should not haue dominion ouer vs. See the 6. chapter. to the Romans 6.11.14.18. verses. Hee condemned sinne in the flesh. Whosoeuer is borne of God can not sin. Christ therefore fulfilled this heere spoken of by Daniell, that is to say,Rom 8.3. 1. Ioh. 3.9. made an end of sinne two wayes, first in iustifying vs from sinnes past, and quitting vs from the guilte thereof. And secondly in sanctifying vs from sinnes to come, so as though wee afterward sinne: yet wee cannot be seruantes vnto it. Neither of them was or could bee performed by the lawe. For the lawe causeth wrath.Rom. 4. Heb. 10.1. Heb. 10.4.11. It could neuer sanctifie the commers thereunto. The sacrifices thereof could not take awaye sinnes. Iesus [Page 162] Christ onely was the fulfiller hereof according to the saying of Ezechiel the prophet in his 36. chapter the 35. verse: I will powre cleane water vpon you and clense you from all your filthynesse. A new harte also will I giue you, and a new spi­rit will I put within you: and J will take away the stonie hart out of your body, and I will giue you a harte of flesh. And I will cause you to walke in my statutes, and ye shall keep my iudge­ments and doe them

And to make reconciliation for iniquitie] by appeasing and pacifiyng God his wrath against sinne. Which was the effect of Christ his death offering vp him selfe an acceptable sacrifice to God for the sinnes of the world. [...]om. 5.10. [...]om. 5.1. By his death we are reconciled to God. VVe haue peace to­ward God through Christ.

To bring euerlasting righteousnesse.] The de­claration hereof we haue in the epistle to the Hebrewes from the 12. ver. of the 10. chap. vnto the end of the 18. verse of the same. There wee are taught that by the sacrifice of Christ Iesus once offered, remission of sinnes is obtained for euer: so as after there can be no other propitia­torie oblation for them.

Here therefore the euerlasting righteousnes of Christ, is opposed to the righteousnesse of the law, to the obtaining whereof dayly sacri­fices were offered. But Christ hauing once made reconciliation for our sinnes by his blood: ther­by [Page 163] purchased vnto vs euerlasting saluation and righteousnesse, which in the 9. chapter and 12. ver. of that Epistle is called euerlasting redemp­tion. The priesthood of christ is euerlasting.Heb. 7.24. Heb. 9.11. Heb. 8.2. & 9.11.12. And of good thinges to come euerlasting. His sa­crifice once for all euerlasting. And the sanc­tuarie into which he entred euerlasting. And lastly the saluation, redemption, and righteous­nesse, which he purchased for vs is euerlasting. So there is great difference betwene the Leuiti­call priestes and Christ, and betweene their oblations and his sacrifice. Of this effect in bringing righteousnesse, he hath this name to be called the Lorde our righteousnesse in the 23. chapter of the prophet Ieremie: the reason whereof is giuen by the blessed Apostle in the first epistle to the Corinthians the first chapter and 30. verse; where hee sayth, that Christ was made righteousnesse vnto vs.

To seale vp vision and prophet.] A testament or couenant in writing is neuer sure before the seale be set vnto it. That maketh all good. That confirmeth and giueth strength. And therfore by a metaphor or borrowed speach; to seale vp vision and prophecie, is as much as to confirme the same. So the word is taken in the 3. chapter of Iohns gospell and 33. verse. He which receaueth his testimonie hath sealed vp, that God is trewe, that is confirmed.

Whatsoeuer in the old testament had been [Page 164] foretold and promised by the holy prophets of God concerning Christ his birth, his redeeming the elect from thrall, and sauing from sinne, his forerunner, his preaching, his miracles, his hu­mility, betraying for money, death, resurrecti­on, ascnceon, and glorious kingdome, were all most certainly performed by him in their dew time. The verifying and fulfilling whereof, was as it were a seale for sure confirmation of the vndoubted truth thereof. And for this cause the time of vision and prophet, is li­mited to the comming of Christ and the cleare preaching of the gospel in his kingdome, wher­by he was to verifie, confirme and fulfill the same. This we are taught in the beginning of the epistle to the Hebrewes in these wordes. God in times past spake often and many wayes to the fatheres by the prophets. But in these last dayes he hath spoken to vs by his sonne.

And to anoint] This interpretation of the word [...] I dare commend vpon my know­ledge to the Church of GOD for good: if e­uer any hath been good. It is sure as heauen and earth, no sillable amisse. VVhich I speake to this end that no man doubt to receaue and hold fast this for the vndoubted truth of God in this place cōcerning the annointing of Christ being an excellent point of diuinitie, whereof he euen tooke his name to bee called Messias or Christ that is annointed.Ioh. 1.42.

[Page 165]For the better vnderstanding whereof wee are to know that in time of the lawe the holy priestes, prophets and kinges, when they first tooke their offices vpon them, were annointed with holy oile. And this was the ceremonie of consecrating them to the seruice of God in those callinges. For the annointing of priestes we haue the commaundement of God in the last chapter of Exodus the 13. verse where speaking to Moses of Aaron. Thou shalt (sayeth God) annoint him and sanctifie him, that hee may minister vnto me in the priestes office. For the prophets annointing; we haue the example of Elizeus annointed by Elias to be a prophet his stead. And for kinges many testimonies. in VVhereof I wil bring onely 2. one of Dauid annointed king ouer the house of Iuda. The o­ther of Salomon annointed kinge by Tsadoc the priest and Nathan the prophet.2. Sam. 2.4.

Now Christ was the trewe high priest endu­ring for euer,1. Reg. 45. much more excellent then the priests of the law.Heb. 7.24. and 8.6. Act. 3.22. He was also that excellent prophet commaunded to be heard in al things. Lastly he is the eternall king to whome God gaue the throne of his father Dauid, Luk. 1.32.33. to raigne ouer the house of Iacob for euer, of whose king­dome shall be no end.

Christ then hauing in himselfe alone al those dignities of King, Priest, and Prophet at once together, to the which other were annoynted, [Page 166] seuerally, someone, some another, was there­fore by a certaine kinde of excellencie called [...], that is the annoynted. The Law, Priests, Prophets, and Kings were annoynted with ma­teriall holy oyle, but Christ with the spirituall oyle of the holy Ghost, which in the 45. Psalme, is called the oile of gladnes. God hath annointed thee with the oyle of gladnes aboue thy fellowes: that is with the holy Ghost: which therefore in the first Epistle of Iohn the second chapter, the 20. and 22. verses, is called an oyntment, by a translation taken from the annoyntings of the Law. Yee haue an oyntment from him that is holie.

This spirituall annoynting of Christ is spo­ken of by Esay in his 61. chapter the first verse. The spirit of the Lord is vppon mee, therefore hath hee annoynted mee: Hee hath sent me to preach good tydinges vnto the poore. Clemens Alexandrinus hereof touching Christ his an­noynting hath this saying.1. Strom. Our Lord Christ the holy of holies, who came and fulfilled Vision and Prophet, was annoynted in the flesh with the spirit of his father. Therfore those materiall annoyntings of the law, were nothing els but tipes and figures of this spiritual annoynting of Christ.

The holie of holies]. That is, the most holie; Christ was endued with the holie Ghost with­out measure. Iohn. 3.34. Euen a verie foun­taine [Page 167] of holinesse, of whose fulnesse wee are all made holie. Christ Iesus saith Paul, is made vn­to vs sanctification. Hereof in the first of Luke, 1. Cor. 1 30. the 35. verse, he is called [...]: that holie one.Ch. 7. v. 26. Hee is in the Epistle to the Hebrewes sayde to be an high Priest, holie, innocent, vndefiled, se­perate from sinners, and made higher than the heauens, and therefore not without cause in this place called most holie. The Popes holines striueth with Christ about this tittle, at least to be equal with him, challenging to himselfe the name not to bee called holie, which were e­nough for a spotted man; but that is not e­nough for him, he will bee as good as Christ, e­uen most holie, yea holinesse it selfe, or nothing at all. Well if he can say so much for himselfe to haue that title, as Gods word sayeth for Christ, let him take it: otherwise let him see howe hee can auoide Antichristian pride.

Thus the generalitie of Daniels weekes is declared, so plainely pointing out the com­ming of Christ & the effects thereof, as though hee had read the writings of the Euangelists & the Apostles, or had beene an eye-witnes in the time of Christ to the verifying and fulfilling of these thinges.

Now followeth a more speciall and parti­cular handling of them, deuided into three parts in the other three verses.

The 25. verse. The going forth of the word.] [Page 166] [...] [Page 167] [...] [Page 168] Moses in Deut. the fourth chapter, & thirteenth verse saith, That God declared vnto Israell his couenant, euen the ten wordes, and wrote them vpon two Tables of stone, meaning therby the ten commandements. Assuerus commanded his seruants to bring Vashti the Queene before him,Hest. 1.12. but she would not come at his word, that is at his commandement. When the same king had decreed that all the Iewes in his dominion should bee destroyed: For publishing thereof the Posts went out in all haste by the kinges word, which was nothing els but his comman­dement: So here by the word going forth, is to be vnderstood a commandement which then is saide to goe foorth when it is first sent to bee published and proclaimed, as in the first of E­ster the ninteenth verse. If it seeme good to the king, let a royall word goe forth from him: that is; Let a commandement by the kings autho­ritie be published. In the second chapter of this Prophet the twelfth verse. The decree went forth, & the wise men were slaine. In the second booke of the Machabies the sixt chapter, and eight verse. Thorough the counsell of Ptolo­mie there went out a commandement into the next cities of the heathen against the Iewes, to put such to death as were not conformable to the manners of the Gentiles. In the second chapter of Luke the first verse, there went out a decree from Augustus Caesar, that all the [Page 169] world should be taxed.

To build againe Ierusalem.] In Hebrew to returne & build Ierusalem. Of this a little after toward the end of this verse.

Vnto Messias the Gouernour.] The worde Messias in Hebrew [...] is as much as [...] in Greeke, and with vs annoynted: So these three in signification are all one, Messias, Christ, An­noynted. The Hebrew word in the holy Scrip­ture, attributed sometime specially to the persō of Christ Iesus our Lord, as in the first of Iohn the 42. ver. we haue found the Messias. And in the second Psalme the second verse. The Ru­lers tooke counsell together against the Lord, [...] and against his Messias or Christ, that is, against Christ Iesus our Lorde, as the place is expounded in the fourth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. Sometime more generally to a­ny annoynted Priest, as in the fourth chapter and fift verse of Leuit. [...] that is, the Annoynted Priest shall take off the bullockes blood, or to the annoynted Prophets. Touch not mine annoynted & doe my Prophets no harme. Psa. 105.15 Or lastlie to the kings and chiefe gouernours of the people. Thus Saul in the first of Samuel the 24. chapter and 7. verse, and Dauid in the 2. of Samuel the 19. chapter and 22. verse, is called the annoynted of the Lord.

The word [...] signifying any Ruler or Go­uernour, is vsed sometime of kinges, as in the [Page 170] first of Samuel the tenth chapter, the second verse, where Saul is called the Gouernour of the Lords inheritance, and in the second of Samu­el the seauenth chapter, Dauid is called the ru­ler of Gods people, and Ezechias in the second booke of the Kings the 20. chapter and fifth verse. In all those places this worde [...] is v­sed: Sometime it is giuen to other inferiour ru­lers, or gouernours: as in the 2. of Chronicles the 11. chapter and 11. verse. Hee repayred the strong holdes, and set [...] that is Gouernours therin, and in the 19. chapter and last verse of the same booke. [...] Zebadias the Ruler of the house of Iuda, shall be for the kings affaires, and in the 11. chapter of this Prophet Daniel the 22 verse, the Prince and chiefe gouernour of the Jewes is called [...]. So there is no let by the force and signification of the word, but that it may bee well referred to the chiefe ruler of the Iewes common wealth in Ierusalem after the building thereof.

Seauen weekes:] It is great pittie that this message of the holy Angell contayning a most excellent Prophesie from Gods owne mouth, should be so peruerted and depraued, as it hath beene by those which picke out this sence, as though hee said, there should be from the out­going of the commaundement to Messias 69. weekes in all. A strange interpretation & such (I dare boldly say it) as by the Hebrew text can [Page 171] neuer bee vpheld. That interpretation which I haue made leauing a stay or rest at seuen wee­kes: as the halfe sentence being past, and conti­nuing the 62. weekes with the other part of the sentence following to the end of the verse, and not referred to the former, as part of one whole number with them, by the Hebrew text is most sure and vndoubted and iustifiable against all the world: contayning that which God him­selfe in his owne wordes hath vttered, neyther more nor lesse, but the verie same which Gods Angell deliuered to Daniel by word, and Da­niel to the Church by writing in the holie tongue, and this once againe it is; From the going forth of the word, to build againe Ieru­salem vnto Messias the gouernour shall be sea­uen weekes, and threescore and two weekes it shall be builded againe street and wall, and in trouble some times. Marke the wordes, consi­der their order, and weigh well the rests. As I finde in the Hebrew so I haue Englished, that is, the truth of interpretation, be it vnderstood as it may.

It shall be builded againe.] Word for word in the original tongue is written. It shall returne and be builded: which learned Hierome verie learned lie translated thus. Iterum aedificabitur. It shall bee builded againe. This is a familiar phrase in the Hebrew peoples mouth: For proofe whereof take a view of these places.

[Page 172]First of that in Malachie the first chapter and fourth verse. We will returne & build the deso­late places. It is as much to say, as we wil build them againe, also in the 26. chapter 18. verse of Genesis. Isaak returned and digged the wels of water: which beeing digged in the dayes of Abraham, the Philistians after his death had stopped.

The meaning is therfore that he digged them againe, rightly vnderstood by the Greeke inter­preters called the 70. thus trāslating it. [...] He digged againe, Hierome agreeing thereun­to, rursus fodit. In the sixt chapter of Zacharie the first verse. I returned and lifted vp my eyes and saw, which Tremellius verie wel translated thus. Rursus attollens occulos meos vidi. Againe lifting vp my eyes I saw: That therefore which some interpreters here haue imagined, concer­ning the returne of the people from the capti­uitie of Babilon, is to vse the old prouerbe no­thing to Bacchus; an interpretation farre from Daniels purpose.

The like reason is of that before written in this verse to returne and build Ierusalem, being in sence the same which there I haue translated, and Hierome long before me: to build againe Ierusalem. Moreouer it shall be builded, impor­teth as much as if hee had said it shall continue builded, or beeing once builded it shall so re­maine by the space of 434. yeares before the [Page 173] desolation thereof come, as Saadias and Ger­shoms sonne expounded the meaning of the word.

The 26. verse, Shall Messias be cut off.] The signification of the worde [...] is much more large then to slay, as by the most part of inter­preters it is here taken, and reacheth to any cut­ting off, eyther by death, or banishment, or any other kinde of abolishing, whereby a thing be­fore in vse, afterward ceaseth. Ioel. 1.8. The new wine is cut off from your mouth. [...] Amos. 1.5. [...] I will cut off the inhabitant of Bi­keathauen, & him that holdeth the Scepter out of Betheden, and the people of Aram shall goe into captiuitie vnto Kir, saith the Lord.

And hee shall haue no beeing.] [...] And there shall not bee vnto him: that is, hee shall not be: He shall haue no beeing: he shall be ex­tinct and gone. Much like hereunto is that in the 42. of Genesis the 36. verse. Simeon is not: Ioseph is not: where the meaning is, that nei­ther of them was remaining aliue or had any being. Ieremie 31. Rachel mourned for her children because they were not. Genesis 5.24. Enoch was not because the Lord tooke him a­way. That is hee had no longer being among the liuing, a speach vsed in prophane authours. Homer. 2. Iliad.

[Page 174] For the sons of valiant Oeneus were not any lō ­ger, neither was he himself yet. And more plain­ly in the Tragedie of Euripides called Hecuba: where she bewailing the death of her son Poly­dorus. I vnderstand now (saith she) the dreame,

which I saw touching thee my child, not being anie longer in the light of heauen: Therefore the Hebrew scholiast Solomon Iarchi, thinking [...] here to be alone with [...] in other places, of all other interpreters iudged best, and the same which my selfe approoued before euer I read it in him or any other: As likewise master Fox in a sermon of his, entituled De Oliua E­uangelica vnderstandeth it so [...] saith hee, is an Hebrew phrase, whereby is signified mans life taken away, and therefore he giueth this in­terpretation thereof. Et vita priuabitur. Hee shall be depriued of life. His iudgement touch­ing the force of the worde to bee all one with [...], he shall not be, is all one with mine and that of Rabbi Solomon: yet as I vnderstand the word of cutting off somewhat more largelie of thinges abolished otherwise then by death: So this not beeing may bee referred to the go­uernment ceasing and extinguished of the go­uernour taken away, though not dead.

Of the come Gouernour.] A come gouer­nour, [Page 175] I call Presidem aduenam a deputie stran­ger, called here in the originall [...] a ruler which is come: for in the times before the de­struction of Ierusalem by the Romans, there were two rulers of the Citie, one of their owne people, a Iew by profession or birth, after their manner annointed to the gouernment of the common wealth amongst them, here named in the verse afore going [...] the annointed Prince, the other a stranger appointed Deputy by the Roman Emperour called [...] a ru­ler not borne in the country, or one of the same Nation, but a stranger come from another place. In which sence the same worde see­meth sometime otherwhere to be vsed. In the 42. of Genesis the fift verse. The sonnes of Isra­ell came to buy foode [...] among the commers, meaning other strangers which were come to Egypt. In the second booke of Chro­nicles the 30. chapter and 25. verse, [...] strangers which were come frō the Isralites are opposed to the inhabitants of Iudea. Also in the fift of Nehemias the 17. verse, [...] commers of the gentiles are set against such as were Iewes borne.

With a floud.] Ʋespasians hoste, the mightie power of the Roman enemies with great force inuaded and went through the whole land of Israell and Iuda, and as it were ouerflowing waters ouerwhelmed all. A metaphor taken [Page 176] from flouds, as in the 11. of this prophesie the 40 verse. The king of the north shall come against him with Chariots and Horsemen, & ouerflow, and passe through.

Ʋnto the end of the warre shall bee a precise iudgement of desolations.] In the time and con­tinuance of that warre, partly by the forraine e­nemies, partly by the ciuill dissentions within the citie, a great desolation of Ierusalem & Iu­da was made: many of the Iewes for the intol­lerable miserie of those times, leauing their Ci­tie and flying as far as their legges could beare them, from their owne natiue countrie into strange landes: which likewise happened in the former destruction of that land and Citie by Nabugodonosor and the Chaldeans. Ierem. 42.14. We will goe into Egypt that wee may see no more war, nor heare the sound of the Trum­pet, nor haue hunger of bread and there wil we dwell. This is it which the same Prophet bewai­leth in his Lamentations the first chapter, and third verse. Iudah went away because of affli­ction and great seruitude. Besides these which fled, many were slaine, a great number perished by famine. All the places about the Temple were burnt vp, and the Citie was made a Wil­dernesse, and a solitarie floore, as Iosephus wri­teth, who knew it so well as no man liuing bet­ter.

The same Author testifieth, that the land [Page 177] which before had beene beautified with good­lie trees, and pleasant gardens and orchards, be­came so desolate, that none which had seene Iudea before with the faire buildings therein, at the sight of such a wofull change thereof could haue contained himselfe from weeping and la­menting: For all the beautifull ornaments had beene destroyed by warre: so that if any which had knowne the place before, comming then againe vnto it on a suddaine, could not haue knowne it, but would haue asked where Ieru­salem was though present in it. This wee read in Iosephus his seuenth booke of the Iewes war, the first chapter: and the sixt book the first chap­ter, & some other places: therfore the speaking of desolations in the plurall number, here wan­teth not his force to note the multitude thereof. They were manifold, comming fast one vpon an other: first in one place, then in another, till all was wasted.

The 27. verse. One weeke.] This seemeth to pertaine not only to the couenant confirming next before in this verse mentioned, but also to all the thinges spoken of in the former verse touching Messias to be cut off, and the enemies wasting of the Citie by continuall war to the vtter desolation and ruine thereof: All these thinges came to passe in the last weeke of the 70.

[Page 178] Halfe of that weeke.] That is, of that last weeke mentioned in the next wordes afore go­ing, and not a new halfe of an other weeke be­sides the 70. For this cause the demonstratiue Article [...] ha is set before the word [...] to sig­nifie no other but the same weeke spoken of be­fore, according to the Hebrewes custome, and manner of speaking, obserued also and retained in the Greeke tongue as the learned knowe. A like example wee had in the beginning of the next verse afore going in the word [...], ha­uing the same Article, and referring vs to those same 62. weekes before spoken of and no o­ther. Touching this couenant & sacrifices abo­lished, I will by God his help in that which fol­loweth declare what I thinke.

Shall be desolation.] So I interpret the word [...] substantiuelie as the Greeke and Latine interpreters here, and the 31. verse of the 11. chapter, haue taken it, though otherwise it see­meth to haue the forme of a Participle. Wee haue like examples in the fift chapter of this booke and twelft verse where [...] signifieth an exposition, and [...] a loosing or dissoluing: so that this need not seeme strange.

Ʋtter and precise destruction.] [...]. There is in proprietie of signification some dif­ference betweene these two words, [...] signi­fieth a perfect desolation of that which is vtter­lie & wholie destroyed, [...] is referred to the [Page 179] resolute and precise determination of that vtter destruction to come. When it is precisely and certainly decreed, all hope of recalling the same being quite cut off. One respecteth the great­nes, the other the certaintie of God his venge­ance to come. Esa. 10.22. The Lord in the mid­dest of the land shall make [...] vtter de­solation and precise waste past all calling backe.

Hauing thus made first a true account and reckoning of the times wherein the fulfilling of Daniels prophecie is contained, by the helpe of prophane writers testifying the certaine truth thereof, and secondly a true interpretation of Daniels wordes, according to the originall tongue: It now remaineth by applying the one to the other, to search and examine, where the beginning and end of those 70. weekes may be found.

The greatest part of those who haue labou­red for the vnderstanding of this Prophesie: haue vnderstood the Messias here spoken of to be Iesus Christ, and first seauen weekes, then 62. that is 69. in all to bee the distance betwixt the commandement and him, referring the end of those yeares eyther to his birth, or his bap­tisme, or his death, and the beginning eyther to Cyrus, who first gaue leaue for the returne of the people and the building of the temple, or to Darius Hystaspis, who confirmed the same by [Page 180] a new decree, in the second yeare of his raigne, as they take it, mentioned in the sixt of Esdras: or lastlie to Artaxerxes the long handed, sup­posing him to be the Artaxerxes mentioned in the seauenth of Esdras, and the second of Ne­hemias; who in the twentie yeare of his raigne gaue a new commandement for the building of the walles of the Citie, and sent Nehemias about it. Though some reckō from his seuenth yeare, wherein Esdras was sent to Ierusalem by the Kinges authoritie with great priuiledges graunted.

Touching their opinion which bring the time of their yeares from Cyrus to Christ: it is with good reason confuted by Iulius Affrica­nus in the fift booke of his Chronicles, because that from Cyrus to Christ are many yeares a­boue that time, that the compasse of Daniels weeks can reach to, which may be likewise ob­iected against Darius Histaspis his second yeare: from which to Christs birth are aboue 500. yeares.

But all this reasoning of Africanus touch­eth Beroaldus no whit at all, bringing Cyrus downe from the 55. Olympiad to the 80. with­in the reach of these weeks, and so Darius Hy­staspis in proportion; if euer there were anie such Darius among the Persian kings: For Be­roaldus reckoning them al by their names, hath no one of this name amongst thē to bee found; [Page 181] but other in his stead I know not who, such as were neuer heard of before.

If these fancies had beene broched before the dayes of Africanus: his answere I beleeue would haue beene, as is vsed amongst the lear­ned contra negantes principia, against such as denie principles and grounds, not with words, but eyther with silence or hissing: as Aristo & Pyrrho were serued for making no difference betwixt riches and pouertie. Either of these an­sweres is good enough for him, who going against the streame of al antiquity & learning, neither acknowledgeth any Cyrus before the 80. Olympiad, nor any king of Persia by the name of Xerxes in proper person as king to haue inuaded Greece, & so for mee it shall rest. The true time of Cyrus his age and the Persian Monarchie, which the Reader may safely leane to, is alreadie declared.

The last opinion is of such as referre the be­ginning of the 490. yeres of Daniels Prophesie to Artaxerxes the longhanded, some reckning them from his seaūenth yeare, to the death and passion of Christ Iesus; as Functius and some other. The seuenth of that Artaxerxes was the second yeare of the 80. Olympiad, and our Sauiour suffered in the last of the 202. The di­stance betweene is 490. yeares; so that in re­gard of the time and space of yeares, this opi­nion [Page 182] would in some sort agree: if other things were answerable: but this is certaine that Es­dras was in that seauenth yeare of Artaxerxes sent to Ierusalem by the kings authoritie, with letters and many priueledges graunted vnto him, and great summes of monie for offerings and vses of the Temple: yet no decree made for the building of the Citie, eyther Temple, which had bin finished before, or walles which were made vp after by Nehemias, by speciall commandement.

Moreouer if the decree to build the Citie had beene then published in the seauenth yeare of Artaxerxes, we must from thence to Messias onelie account seauen yeares, and sixtie two as the Angell in plaine wordes declareth, which expire seauen yeeres, before the death of Christ.

Lastlie this opinion disagreeth from the Hi­storie of Ezra, where we read of an other Ar­taxerxes before this, vnder whom Ezra came to Ierusalem, which had forbidden the Iewes to proceed in the building of God his Temple, & therefore this could not bee the long handed Artaxerxes, before whome there was no king of Persia called by that name. Which reason likewise serueth to improue the next opinion here following: for manie goe somewhat lower to the 20. yere of the same Artaxerxes, wher­in a newe decree went out for the building of [Page 183] the walles of Ierusalem, as we reade in the se­cond chapter of Nehemias. This twentieth yeare of Artaxerxes, was for the most part of it answerable to the 4. of the 83. Olympiad, and the commandement giuen in the first mo­neth in the beginning of the spring: as wee reade in the second of Nehemias. From which time to the death and passion of our Sauiour in the spring time of the last yeare of the 202. Olympiad, were 477. yeares full and no more. So there wants of Daniels number thirteene yeares.

To supply this want, two waies haue bin de­uised. One by Iulius Africanus, Beda, Ruper­tus, Comestor, Pererius, and other, who thought the yeares of the Moone to bee vnderstood in this place. Which opinion, as of all other most fitlie agreeing to the true interpretation of this place, Pererius on the 9. of Daniel embraceth, and bringeth reason for it; because it is sayd in the Latin translation 70. Hebdomadae abbreui­atae sunt: that is, 70. weekes are shortened; Quo significatur annos earū hebdomadarū non esse ad longitudinem annorum solarium exigen­dos, sed ad breuitatem lunarium coarctandos. Whereby is signified that the yeares of those weekes are not to be driuen out to the length of the Sunne yeares: but to bee drawne into the shortnes of the Moone yeares, sayth Pererius.

I would it were the worst that might be said [Page 184] of this reason, to call it absurd, friuolous, foolish. It is all that and more: euen derogatorie from God and his word: which by this meanes is de­faced and thrust out of doores, and caused to giue place to the follie and error of a sillie man. For the ground of it is a decree from the Coun­cell of Trent, establishing the authoritie of the olde Latin vulgar translation, as the very au­thenticall word of God, not to bee reiected or refused of any, vpon any pretence whatsoeuer. Hereof the Papists in their expositions alleadge that translation, preferring it before the origi­nall text it selfe receiued from heauen. And hereof it is that Pererius in his exposition on this place, standeth so much vpon the word ab­breuiatae shortened: vrging it greatly for proof of his short Moone yeares. It is a proofe in­deede from the bad interpretation of a man: not warrantable from the mouth of GOD: whose word in this place is [...]: which in the holie tongue signifieth properly to cut. In that sence it is often vsed by the Hebrew writers thereof, calling a peece of a thing [...] and [...], as Camius in the second part of his Miclol, and Elias in his Tishbi testifie: where he declareth the true signification thereof by the Dutch and Italian tongues. Wherein the words to those Hebrew answerable, are in Dutch, ein schint, or ein stuck: in Italian Pez, or talio, signifying any piece of a thing cut off. It is so also expoun­ded [Page 185] by the Greeke interpreter: who here to ex­presse the Hebrew [...], hath [...], signifying to cut.

The meaning is, that so many yeares were de­termined and decreed, by a speech borrowed from things cut out: because that in determi­ning and decreeing things, the reason of mans minde, sundring trueth from falshood, & good from bad, doth by iudgement as it were cut out that which is conuenient and fit to bee done. Whereunto a like example in the same word is read in the Chaldie paraphrasis of Ester the 4. chapter & 5. verse, [...]: which in English is thus much: And Ester called for Da­niel, whose name was Hathac, by the word of whose mouth the matters pertayning to the kingdome were cut out: that is, determined and appoynted. And in other wordes of the same signification wee haue like examples. In the second chapter of Ester the first verse, King Assuerus remembred Vashti, [...] and that which was cut out vpon her: that is decreed and by iudgemēt determined to come vpon her. Also in the first booke of the Kings, the 20. chapter and 40. verse [...] So is thy iudgement, thy selfe hath cut it out: that is, thou hast by thy owne sentence deter­mined it. A phrase in Latin Authors vsuall e­nough, as when Cicero in his 4. plea against [Page 186] Ʋerres sayth, Res ad eum defertur istiús (que) me­re deciditur. The matter is referred to him and cut off after his manner: that is, determined. Theodoretus in his exposition of this place, ta­keth the Greeke word in the same sence, they are cut: that is, appoynted and decreed.

Hereby it is cleere that Pererius his reason being taken from mans interpretation, and not Gods worde, can bee no good ground for the Moone yeares to stand vpon. Let the Pope and twise so many Bishops more, in their Councell set it vp as sure as they can, God his word is more powerfull then they, to pull it downe.

Furthermore, though this were graunted vn­to him, that the Latin edition by the Councels decree hath diuine authoritie, and therefore force sufficient to proue the yeres of the moone to be vnderstood in this place by the word ab­breuiatae shortened: yet for all that, such was the mans blindnes, euen those his short yeares are yet too short to fill vp the want before spo­ken of, and to reach to the passion of Christ. For 490. yeares of the Moone make but 475. of the Sunne: which expire two full yeares at the least before Christ dyed.

I am not ignorant that Pererius would help out this matter by a distinction of inclusiuè, and exclusiuè computation. Jnclusiuè hee ter­meth when the first and last are included in the number. Exclusiuè when they are left out; and [Page 187] thinketh that the whole number in all should bee 490. Moone yeares or 477. of the Sunne, with the first and last included: and without them two onely 488. of the Moone and 475. of the Sunne betweene to be reckoned.

This is a ridiculous shift. For the Prophet doth not namely speake of 490. yeares or 477. (that is, gathered by interpreters, and not with­out some controuersie among them) but of 70. weekes. So that if the extreames, first and last, were to bee excluded, they should bee weekes, rather then yeares. Indeede if the Prophet had sayd that there were 490. or 477. yeares, from the yeare of the commandement to the yeare of Christs death: it might peraduenture haue made some cause of wrāgling about this, whe­ther the first and last yeares should be excluded or no. But heere is no such matter. The ex­treames here expressed, are the commaunde­ment to build Ierusalem for one: and the other, as it is vnderstood, the death of Christ. Now then, if the Prophet say, that from one of these extreames to the other, are 490. or 477. yeares exclusiuely: two dayes onely must bee exclu­ded, rather then two yeares. For the comman­dement was giuen in a daye, and the death of Christ happened in a daye. It were strange to make each of them of one whole yeares conti­nuance: and farre from that exact reckoning which Daniel maketh of his 70. weekes: first [Page 188] seuen: then sixtie and two: and last of all one.

Therfore Julius Africanus, who as the chiefe author of these Moone yeares, is alleadged by Pererius, neuer once dreamed of any such ex­clusiue computation. I must acknowledge that he taketh indeede this place to bee vnderstood of 490. Moone yeares: which kinde of yeares the Hebrewes vsed, as he saith. But he could not stretch them any further then to the 16. yeare of Tiberius the Emperour of Rome: which is short by two whole yeares of the time set by Pererius for the passion of our Lord, in the 18. yeare of Tiberius. And as they are short of his passion: so they goe further then his baptisme. For which cause that opinion of Africanus can no waye stande, making an ende of Daniels weekes, neither in the birth, nor the baptisme, nor the death of Iesus Christ.

Neither can that conceit of Africanus tou­ching the Moone yeares hereto be vnderstood, by that reason which he bringeth for it, that is, by the custome of the Hebrewes, be approued. Their moneths, I graunt, were in some sort ta­ken by the course of the Moone. But the conti­nuance of their yeres was euer directed by the Sunne: and that as well before the captiuitie of Babylon, as after: as may by good arguments out of holie Scripture be proued.

They were commaunded to celebrate their [Page 189] feast of vnleauened bread, yearely from the 14. day of the first moneth to the 21. thereof, an­swerable to our Aprill in part (This was accor­ding to the course of the Moone.) And withall, to keepe it yearely in that season of the yeare, wherein their barlie haruest begun: as is eui­dently to bee seene in the 23. chapter of Leuit. the 10. verse. When yee bee come into the lande which I giue vnto you, and reape the haruest thereof: then ye shall bring a sheafe of the first fruites of your haruest vnto the Priest. Which could not bee but by the course of the Sunne. Likewise seuen weekes after that feast ended, was appoynted the celebration of Whitson­tide, at the end of their haruest: which for that cause is named the Haruest feast, and the feast of first fruits, whereof an offering was brought to the Lord, Exod. 23.16. Lastly, their feast of Tabernacles euery yeare was kept in the 15. day of the 7. moneth: and withall in the ende of the yeare, after their vintage in Autumne, when all their grapes and other fruites of that season were gathered, Exod. 23.16. Deut. 16. vers. 13. It could not possiblie be, that the end of their haruest should be euery yere 7. weekes after Easter: and the end of their vintage, cal­led the end of the yeare, alwayes from time to time in the 15. day of the 7. moneth, but by the yeare of the Sunne: whose course being fini­shed brought it to passe.

[Page 190]Now that it seme not strange which I haue brought concerning the Iewes haruest begin­ning in Aprill, and ending seuen weekes after toward the ende of Maye, or not long after the beginning of Iune, because in our countries it is much latter about August: we are to knowe that Iewrie being a hotter countrie, as nearer to the equinoctiall line, and the sommer tro­pick then ours by 20. degrees, hath the haruest by reason thereof much sooner then with vs is accustomed, euen in their first month and the spring of the yeare. The Isralites went ouer Iorden the 10. day of the first month, being the time of haruest, & foure daies before their passe-ouer. The disciples of Christ in y^e 6. of Luke the first verse,Ios. 3.15. and 4.19. and 5.10. a little after Easter walking through the corne plucked the eares of corne, and rub­bed them in their handes and did eate them. VVhich argued the ripenesse of corne at that season. Plinie in his 18. booke and 18. chapter, speaking of the Egiptians, which are neere vn­to Iudea; telleth that they goe into their fieldes with the sicle a little before Aprill, and finish their haruest in May.

These feastes then euery yeare falling to the time of haruest, bring manifest proofe for the yeare of the Hebrewes, that it was ordained by the course of the Sunne. The time of the children of Israels eating Manna, in scripture is accompted 40. yeares: in the end of the 16. [Page 191] chapter of Exodus, reckoned from their depar­ture out of Egypt, Nombres the 33. chapter the 38. vers. Which number from the same sea­son of the yeare to the same, by the yeares of the sunne is most exact. For they came forth of Egipt the 15. day of the first month, in the be­ginning of barly haruest. And the very same day of the same month, in barly haruest their Manna ceased. Ios. 5.12. In the 25. chapter of Leuiticus, the Isralites are commaunded to sow their feeld, and cut their vineyardes, and gather the fruites thereof 6. yeares: and to let the 7. rest as a sabbath yeare to the Lord. And 7. of those sabbaths are accompted 49. yeares, at the end whereof in the 10. day of the 7. month began the Iubelie. These yeares most manifest­ly were yeares of the sunne. Otherwise all the fruites of those yeares could not haue been ga­thered in haruest and vintage, as God appoin­ted. For 49. yeares of the moone would verie neere haue cut off one and a halfe, the last expi­ring in winter before anie corne or other fruite were redie to be gathered therein.

Daniell himselfe toward the beginning of this chapter, made mention of the 70. yeares of captiuitie. VVhere no one, that euer I heard of, vnderstood other yeares then of the sunne. It were a strange thing, if in one chapter first speaking of 70. yeares, and after of 70. weekes of yeares, he should vnderstand diuers sortes of [Page 192] yeares one of the sunne, and an other of the moone. Augustine in his 15. booke de ciui­tate Dei the 14. chapter, disputing against the opinion of some, who were perswaded that the yeares of the ancient fathers, which liued in the first age, were not of the Sunne: vseth these wordes: Tantus tunc dies fuit, quantus & nunc est. Tantus tunc mēsis, quantus & nūc est: quem luna caepta & finita conclusit. Tantus annus, quantus & nunc est, quem 12. menses lu­nares, additis propter cursum solis 5. diebus & quadrante, consummant. The daye was as great then (sayth Augustine) as it is now. The moneth as great then as now, contained with­in the compasse of the Moones course from the beginning to the end. The yeare was then as great as now, perfected by twelue moneths of the Moone, with fiue dayes and a quarter ad­ded. Twelue moneths of the Moone with fiue dayes and a quatter more, make vp the Sunnes yeare, the same which wee now vse at this day. For euery moneth in old time, by Augustines iudgement, contained iust thirtie dayes: as is to bee seene in his fourth booke De Trinitate the fourth chapter, where he writeth thus: Si 12. menses integri considerentur, quos triceni dies complent, talem quippe mensem veteres ob­seruauerunt quem circuitus lunaris ostendit. That is, if the twelue moneths whole bee con­sidered which containe thirtie dayes a peece. [Page 193] Such was the moneth by men of olde time ob­serued, euē that which the course of the moone shewed. This is manifest by the historie of Noes floud in the seuen and eight chapters of Genesis, where we are taught that the floud be­gun the seuenteenth day of the second moneth: and the Arke rested on a mountaine of Ararat in the seuenteenth day of the seuenth moneth. Which space there by Gods holy spirit is coun­ted 150. dayes: which reckoning giueth to e­uery moneth thirtie daies a peece, neither more nor lesse.

I might bring other testimonies to confirme this custome of the Hebrewes yere, ordered by the compasse of the Sunnes mouing, if it were needfull: but I hope that which hath been sayd alreadie, is sufficient to improoue the first shift of Africanus and other, deuised by 490. short Moone yeres to cut short the time of Daniels prophesie by 13. yeares: that is, two whole weekes of the 70. within a yeare. Seeing that they can neither serue to fill vp the distance from Artaxerxes his 20. yeare, to the suffering of Christ, for which they are brought, nor yet the custome of the Hebrewes reckoning in holie Scripture will beare them.

The other shift is as bad and sillie as that, if not more. For some who could not abide that forced wresting of Moone yeares, where there is no likelihood of such to be ment, went ano­ther [Page 194] way to worke, making two beginnings, and thence two twentieth yeres of Artaxerxes his raigne. One beginning was immediatly af­ter the death of his father Xerxes in the 4. yeare of the 78. Olympiad. The other nine yeares be­fore in the 4. of the 76. Olympiad: wherein he was appoynted king by his father yet liuing, nine yeares before his death: from which the 20. is the 3. of the 81. Olympiad for the begin­ning of Daniels weekes, sayth Gerardus Mer­cator. Wherein notwithstāding he was greatly deceiued, by what error I know not. For recko­ning from the third of the 81. Olympiad, to the last of the 202. wherein Christ dyed: wee shall finde no more but 486. yeares at the most. And therefore I see not by what reason he sayth, that the 70. weekes contayning 490. yeares, begin­ning at that twentieth of Artaxerxes, expired in the death of Christ.

Temporarius therefore making two begin­nings, and two 20. yeares of Artaxerxes, as he doth, accounteth from the first twentieth 483. yeares to Christ his baptisme; which was a­boue three yeares before his passion, and so en­deth the death of Christ, three yeares and more before the end of Daniels weekes. But what reason had Mercator and Temporarius to thinke, that Artaxerxes begun to raigne whi­lest his father was yet aliue, so long before his death? This is a matter worth the examina­tion, [Page 195] being the ground of a great errour. The reason which they bring is in this manner. Themistocles the Athenian in the second yere of the 77. Olympiad, being expelled out of A­thens by his vnthankfull countrie men and ci­tizens, notwithstanding the great and wonder­full deliuerance of all Greece from the power of Xerxes king of Persia, by his wisedome and prowesse especially wrought: fled to the same Xerxes; as Ephorus, Deino, Cleitarchus, Hera­clides, Diodorus Siculus, and other storie wri­ters declare.

Againe, that Artaxerxes the sonne of Xerxes raigned in Persia, at such time as Themistocles fled to the king thereof for succour, it is testi­fied by an ancient author of credit, euen Thu­cidides himselfe in his first booke of the Pelo­pōnesian warre, writing that Themistocles fly­ing by sea to Ephesus, & after going higher into Asia with a certain Persian, [...]: that is, sent letters to king Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes, who a little before begun to raigne. If Themi­stocles flying, came to Xerxes king of Persia, and sent letters to Artaxerxes his sonne then raigning also in Persia: it must needes be that Artaxerxes had been made king a good while before his fathers death: for that happened a­bout sixe or seuen yeares after the banishment of Themistocles. This is the force of their argu­ment. [Page 196] I haue heard it reported of one Doctor Medcalfe, who sometime was master of Saint Iohns Colledge in Cambridge, a man of no great learning himselfe: but for care and ear­nest endeuour euery way to aduance learning, giuing place to none. Whereby it maye bee thought that that famous Colledge hath by his meanes the better prospered and flourished e­uer since, with so great a companie of excellent Diuines and skilfull men in other knowledge. I haue (I say) heard it reported of him, that ha­uing on a certain day at supper with him some of the chiefe Seniors of the Colledge, hee sent for two Sophisters to dispute before them. The one tooke vpon him to proue that his fellowes blacke gowne was greene; requiring this only first to be granted vnto him, that if there were any greene gowne in that chamber, it was on his backe. Which was not thought vnreaso­nable: because it was euident, that there was none else had any. This then being once gran­ted, he framed the rest of his proofe in this ma­ner. That (saith he) poynting to a greene carpet on the table, there is a greene in this chamber all our eyes witnesse: and that there is gowne in it, your owne vpper garment on your backes proueth: whereof it followeth, that here amōgst vs in this chamber there is a greene gowne. Doctor Medcalfe hearing this was greatly de­lighted, and affirmed in good sadnesse that it [Page 197] was a good reason: & withall asked the iudge­ment of the Seniors there present: who smiling, commended the schollers wit.

Such a sophistication is here brought, by ioy­ning things together which ought to bee sun­dred. For neither they which tell of Themisto­cles flying to Xerxes, once euer dreamed of Artaxerxes raigning at the same time: nor Thucidides speaking of his cōming to Artax­erxes, had this in his mind to think that Xerxes should bee then aliue: which I will prooue by good witnesse. For Plutarch in the life of The­mistocles writeth thus: [...]. Thucidides, saith Plu­tarch, and Charon Lampsacenus tell that af­ter Xerxes was dead, Themistocles came to his sonne. Aemilius Probus confirmeth it in these wordes: Scio plaerósque ita scripsisse, Themisto­clem Xerxe regnante in Asiam transiisse: sed ego potissimū Thucididi credo, quòd aetate proxi­mus crat. I know, saith Probus, that many wri­ters report, Themistocles to haue passed into Asia whilest Xerxes was yet aliue: but I rather beleeue Thucidides, who was neere those times. Lastly, Lawrence Codoman in the se­cond booke of his Chronologie, is as plaine for it as may be. That (sayth he) which Thucidides testifieth in his first booke, that Themistocles fled to Artaxerxes, of late hauing begun to [Page 198] raigne: must bee vnderstoode of the Monar­chie of Artaxerxes, begun after his fathers death.

There was some difference betweene them I grant, in regard of the persons to whom, and the time when Themistocles came: some thin­king it to bee done when Xerxes was king, be­fore the raigne of his sonne. Other, when Ar­taxerxes raigned after the death of his father. But all agreed in this, that at such time as The­mistocles fled out of Greece, there was not two, but only one king of Persia: which is most certainly true.

Let the record of all histories bee sought, for the whole time of the Persian Monarchie from the beginning to the ende: it shall neuer bee found that the father and his sonne raigned to­gether. Herodotus indeed in Polymnia, not far from the beginning, telleth of a custome and lawe of the Persians, that their king going to warre, first appoynted an heire who was to suc­ceede him in the Empire. And that Xerxes was so appoynted by his father Darius, hauing pre­pared all things readie for his voyage agaynst Aegypt, to be next king after him. Yet he neuer raigned till his father was dead. [...]: when Darius was dead, sayth Herodotus, the kingdome came to his sonne Xerxes. So that if Artaxerxes, as they say, were appoynted king by his father Xerxes in his life time, it was [Page 199] but for the next place after his fathers death, to be an heire apparant and successor. Farre from that imperiall maiestie which Thucidides gi­ueth to him, calling him [...], a king newly come to his kingdome.

But for my part, weighing all circūstances, I see not any colour that Artaxerxes should be chosen so much as heire apparant by his father yet liuing: much lesse king. He had three sons by his chiefe wife Queene Amestris: first of all Darius: then two yeares after another cal­led Hystaspes: and last of all this Artaxerxes: besides two daughters, as Ctesias declareth. By the custome of the Persians it must needes bee, that he named his next heire and successor to the crowne, before his famous voyage into Greece. And who was then to be named be­fore his eldest sonne Darius? For Gerardus Mercator in his Chronology maketh it a thing past doubt, that Artaxerxes was at that time vnborne. Whereunto agreeth that which wee reade in Iustin, in the beginning of his third booke concerning the age of Artaxerxes at his fathers death: which happened about 16. yeares after his going foorth agaynst Greece. For there by Iustin he is termed admodum pu­er, a very child. If he had then been borne: yet there is no likelihood that he should haue been preferred either before Darius the eldest of all; or the next, that is Hystaspes, being elder then [Page 200] he. This deuise therefore of two beginnings and two 20. yeares of Artaxerxes, to helpe out the want of so many yeares betwixt the twen­tieth yeare of Artaxerxes and the death of Christ, is a very poore shift and altogether fri­uolous.

If plaine proofe had been brought by the testimonie of ancient writers, that the king­dome and monarchie of Artaxerxes begun whilest his father liued, and that they raigned both at once many yeares together; they had sayd somewhat to the purpose. But that is not done: It is fetched about I know not how, by vaine coniectures, and gessing, and childish wrangling and sophistrie. The reasons to work it are deceitfull, and haue nothing at all in them but a colourable shew without substance.

That therefore which Iulius Africanus wri­teth in his Chronologie the 5. booke, that if we begin to number Daniels 70. weekes from any other beginning then the 20. of Artaxerxes: [...]: neither the time will accord, and many absur­dities follow; is true as well in that yere which he excepteth, as any of the rest. Neither doe I see, how by iust chronology of the times, either the yeare of Christ his birth, or his baptisme, or his death, may serue for the 490. yeares of Da­niels 70. weekes to bee accounted vnto, from any commandement and decree giuen out by [Page 201] the Persian kinges to build Ierusalem; or how the word Messias in this place can bee applied to our Sauiour Iesus, euen by their owne expo­sition, for if the 70. weekes expire in the death of Christ, as Beroaldus with the most part and best learned thinke, why doeth Daniel reckon onely threescore and nine to Messias, except they will say that Messias is here taken for the seauenth yeare before the death of Messias, which were a strange kinde of interpretation. And as Chronologie here fitteth not for Messi­as to be vnderstood of Christ our Lord: so the verie text it selfe is against it, which maketh on­lie seuen weekes, that is 49. yeres distance from the cōmandement to Messias in plaine speech; so that it cannot bee applied to our blessed Sa­uiour without strayning and wresting, which they who so vnderstand it of Christ Iesus are driuen vnto. They are faine to vse chopping and changing, adding and taking away, contrarie to the expresse commandement of God: For first, whereas the original text after these words seauen weekes hath a rest, yea that rest which is vsuall in the middest of a sentence, to signifie a pause after halfe the verse now alreadie en­ded: this pause by them is taken away, and the wordes without anie rest at all continued with the next following, and the pause or stay made at 62. weekes in this manner: From the out go­ing of the word to build againe Ierusalem vnto [Page 202] Messias the gouernour, shalbe seauen weekes, & 62. weekes. Againe because in that interpretati­on of theirs, the wordes, and 62. weekes are se­uered from the other following, wherewith they should be ioyned, as in my interpretation before deliuered may appere, & by that meanes the sence so darkned, that of it selfe in any plaine construction of sence it cannot stand: To make somewhat of it they are faine to thruste in words of their own inuention, as for that which God sayeth, it shall bee builded againe, they say, & it shal be builded againe, thrusting in the coniunction more than ought to bee. Some put in other wordes, some change verbes into Par­ticiples, and all to make 483. yeares distance betwixt the decree and the Messias heere spo­ken of, in steed of onlie 49.

Here is great ods, what is this els but to make Gods word a wax nose to turne which waie a man list at his pleasure? How is it possible that by such kind of dealing diuine scripture should be rightly vnderstood? Howe shall the Iewes by such wresting of texts, bee made Christians and brought to beleeue that Christ is come? Here it may bee, some will say vnto mee, you make more a doe about distinctions & pauses and pointes then is need: those are small mat­ters and not so streightlie and preciselie to be looked into. I may giue men leaue to thinke as they list: but the truth is, that euen these small [Page 203] matters of distinctions and rests, are of great weight & importance to the true vnderstand­ing of God his holie word: yet bee it graunted, that as small matters they may bee neglected. Is that also a small matter to put in wordes of their owne, which the custome of the originall tongue will not beare? Well let that bee yeeld­ed to, be it a trifle not to bee stood vppon.

Though all this were graunted, and though there were no vowels nor points at all, yet euen the verie manner of the speech it selfe were e­nough to reproue their interpretation: for who euer read in the Hebrew Bible this kinde of speech; Seuen and threescore, and two for threescore and nine? It is not the custome of the ho­lie Ghost to speake after that manner. If all the Hebrew scripture from the beginning of Gene­sis, to the end of Malachie be sought through­out, no one cleare example of the like can bee found.

As for that which Pererius bringeth from the twelfth verse of the 45. chapter of Ezechi­ell: Tremellius will soone teach him, that it is in another kinde.

If therefore neither agreement of time, nor text of holy scripture permit the name Messias in this place to be referred to Iesus Christ: we are to examine what other signification of this word is more agreeable to both. It is vsed som­times of our Sauiour Christ, and sometimes [Page 204] more generally takē, as before is shewed, for a­ny annoynted Priest, Prophet, Prince, or chiefe Gouernour of the common wealth, and this is the signification, which in my iudgement best fitteth this place. And of Christian interpreters Eusebius is the man, which hath either taught me it, or guided me to it, or confirmed mee in it: who in his eight booke de demonstratione Euangelica hauing brought the expositiō of A­fricanus, vnderstanding here Christ Iesus by the name of Messias or Christ, addeth these wordes. [...]. That is; I say that the Gouernour Christ here spoken of in this text of scripture, by an other signification or acception is no other but a succession of high Priests, which after this pro­phesie, and the Iewes returne from Babilon go­uerned the people, which the scripture vsuallie calleth Christs or annoynteds.

In this number hee reckoneth Iudas Macha­baeus and his brethren, and their posteritie, who exercised a kingly gouernment ouer the Iewes, and a little after expounding these words in the 26. verse. Christ shall be cut off: who (saith he) is this Christ, but the gouernour which by suc­cession of the Priests kindred ruled the people? This Christ therfore endured all the time wher­in [Page 205] these weekes were to bee fulfilled: but so soone as they once were ended according to this prophesie, the chiefe ruler of the people of that succeeding kindred was cut off, saith Euse­bius.

This is a notable saying of Eusebius to de­clare the true meaning of the worde Messias; which may direct vs to vnderstand this most excellent prophesie aright, Theodoretus herein agreeth vnto him.

I take it somewhat more largely then Euse­bius and Theodoretus doeth, not of the Macha­bies onely, but of other chiefe rulers and kings of the Iewes common wealth, within the com­passe of these weekes, as the Hebrew scholiasts Saadias, Aben, Ezra, Iarchi, and some other ex­pounde it. Not one Hebrew writer that euer I read, vndestood their Messias by this worde, but a succession of annoynted, eyther Priestes, or Gouernours.

The decree to build Ierusalē, I take to be that which was made by Darius for the building of the temple, which was the chiefest parte of the citie. In the second yeare of that Darius, and the 6. month the first day toward the end of our August, they were commaunded in the Lordes name by his prophet Aggie, to build the holy temple of Ierusalem: as wee read in the first chapter and first verse of the prophet. After they had begun to build, the gouernours of the [Page 206] countries beyond Euphrates came vnto them to know by whose authoritie they tooke that worke vpon them,Ezra chap. 5. and 6. who answered that Cyrus had giuen them leaue to doe it long before in the first yeare of his raigne. Of this answere they certified king Darius. By whose commaunde­ment search was made: first in the recordes at Babylon: after at Ecbataua the chiefe citie of Medes, where a record touching that matter was found. Herevpon Darius made a new decree for building thereof; and sent it to the gouernours of his countries beyond Euphra­tes, charging them to permitte and helpe for­ward the building thereof.

All these thinges were not done in a little time, from the prophets sending by God a­bout that matter, to the time wherein Darius sent his decree. It asked some time to beginne the worke after the prophets warning. And then for the gouernours in other prouinces to be certified. And after themselues to come and examine the matter. At what time it is sayd that they found the worke in good forward­nesse, the beames being layde in the walles. Ezra the 5 chapter 8. verse: and after to certifie Darius: and then to search the recordes, and that in those farre places of Babylon and Ecba­taua. And lastly to send forth the new decree.

So farre as we may gesse, this time might be about some 8. or 9. monthes, and bring vs to [Page 207] the month of Aprill or Maie in the 3. yeare of Darius. And who was this Darius? In my iudgement no other but the surnamed Nothus, who was sonne to Artaxerxes Longimanus. This Artaxerxes (as Thucidides then liuing testifieth) died in the 7. yeare of the Peloponne­sian warre in winter which was the 4. of the 88. Olympiad. After him Xerxes and Sogdia­nus raigned 1. yeare. And after them this Darius whose 3. yeare at that season wherein the decree to build the temple went out, falleth to­ward the end of the 3. yeare of the 89. Olymp.

For the publishing of that decree to Messias, that is the first gouernour of the new builded citie, are accompted here by Daniel 7. weekes, contayning 49. yeares. VVhereof 17. pertained to Darius after the decree: for he raigned 19. in all. The other 32. were of Artaxerxes Mne­mon his successor. In whose 20. yeare Nehe­mias was sent to build the walles of Ierusalem, and 12. yeares after, the building of the walles being finished and the Messias or gouernour appointed, and the common wealth euery way set in order: hee returned to Artaxerxes in the 32. yeare of his raigne.

The proofe hereof is cleere by scripture. In the 5. chapter of Nehemias the 14. verse. From the time sayth Nehemias, that the king com­maunded me to be gouernour in the land of Iu­dea, from the 20. to the 32. yeare of king Ar­taxerxes, [Page 208] that is 12. yeares: I and my brethren haue not eaten the bread of the gouernour. For the gouernours before mee had beene charge­able to the people, and so forth. Also in the 13. chapter of the same booke the sixt verse. All this while (saith he) was not I at Ierusalem, for in the 32. yeare of Artaxerxes king of Babell I returned to the king.

Ioseph Scaliger in his sixt booke de emenda­tione temporum, giueth his voice with this ex­position, affirming that Darius Nothus was the king vnder whome the decree was made to build the Citie, and that from it to the streetes and walles of Ierusalem finished, were nine & fortie yeares. After which time, Nehemias di­rectis platais vrbis & vicis exaedificatis, atque omnibus rebus compositis reuersus est in Persi­dem anno Artaxerxis altero & tricesimo. Ne­hemias (saith Scaliger) so soone as the streets of the citie were directed, and the lanes builded, & all thinges set in order, returned into Persia in the two and thirtieth yeare of Artaxerxes.

It is here to be obserued y^t the Prophet spea­keth of the Messias, and the building vp of the Citie, as beginning both at one time: For ha­uing foretold that there should bee to Messias seauen weekes: it followeth immediatly after how long the Citie was to continue. The rea­son whereof is this, that there could not be con­ueniently any Princely gouernment of the com­mon [Page 209] wealth before the building of the Citie, wherein the Princes Court and Pallace should be: which Pallace for the Prince was builded by Nehemias also, as appeareth in the second of Nehemias, verse eight. Hereof it is that Sanbal­lat in a letter to Nehemias, ioyneth these two together: the building of the walles, and a king set ouer the Iewes. It is reported (saith Sanbal­lat) among the heathen, that thou & the Iewes thinke to rebell: for which cause thou buildest the wall that thou mayest bee their king accor­ding to their wordes. Thou hast also ordained Prophets to preach of thee in Ierusalem, saying there is a king in Iuda.

These two thinges then begun together, the Citie builded, and the annoynted Gouernour thereof, as also the end of both was at one time, declared in the 26. verse. After those 62. weekes shall Messias be cut off, and the Citie and Tem­ple shall the people of the come Gouernour destroy.

Thus whereas Daniel hath deuided his 70. weekes into three parts: The first of them hath his true meaning by text and time appro­ued, from the decree to build Ierusalem, to the same building finished, and the established go­uernment in it, beeing the space of 49. yeares: The second part containeth 62. weekes, where­in Ierusalem so builded with the common wealth, and state, and princely gouernment [Page 210] thereof was to continue, that is to say, from the building of the Citie finished, and the Prince or ruler appointed in the 32. of Artaxerxes Mne­mon: vnto such time as the ruine and fall of the same Citie began, which was about the nine yeare of Nero: For about that time Albinus the Roman Gouernour of Iudea & Ierusalem, by his great couetousnes and crueltie in most wofull manner oppressed the Iewes, for bribes, euen selling them to be spoyled and robbed of their goods, at the will and pleasure of most lewd ruffins and bad persons. As Josephus de­clareth in his second booke of the Iewes warre the thirteenth Chapter, inferring thereof that [...]. the seedes of Ierusalems captiuitie approching, was from that time sowne, meaning that those troubles vnder Albinus were the beginnings of the Iewes thraldome and vndoing, as indeede they were, which in the twentieth booke of an­tiquities the eight chapter, hee declareth more plainely: where hauing spoken of the great miserie of the Iewes, which they suffered by the mercilesse crueltie of Albinus, hee vseth these wordes. [...]. From that time forward saith Iosphus, especially our Citie be­gan to be sicke, and all things going then more and more to decay. The wofull calamities of Ierusalem euery day falling more and more to [Page 211] wracke after the gouernment of Albinus, by a borrowed speech hee termeth sicknes.

In the beginning of that yeare, at the feast of the Tabernacle it was, that a certaine man of the common sort brought vp in the countrie, called Iesus the sonne of Anani, as a messen­ger by diuine motion from God, to foreshew the vtter ruine and desolation of Ierusalem to come in that last weeke of the 70. which was yet behinde, in the streetes of the Citie cryed day and night; a voice from the East, a voice from the West, a voice from the foure windes, a voice against Ierusalem and the Temple, a voice against Bridegroomes and Brides, a voice against all the people. The Magistrates and Nobles of the Citie not abiding his outcries brought him before Albinus: who caused him with scourges to bee torne to the bones, when the sillie wretch neyther wept nor craued anie mercie, but at euery stroke answered woe, woe, to Ierusalem. In this manner crying hee conti­nued seuen yeres & more without anie hoars­nes or wearines: neyther cursing them that hurt him, nor thanking them that releeued him. At the length going on the walles with this crie woe, woe, to the Citie, and the Temple, & the people, hee added these wordes, woe also to my selfe, and was presently slaine with a stone hur­led by an Engine at him from the enemie be­seeging the Citie.

[Page 212]Thus the second part of this Prophesie, fore­shewing how long the Iewes common wealth after the ordering thereof should continue be­fore it began to decay, contained 62. weekes, that is, 434. yeares: for the 32. of Artaxerxes Mnemon was the fourth yeare of the 101. O­lympiad, towards the end wherof the building of Ierusalem was finished, and the Iewes com­mon wealth appointed, and the first yere of the last weeke, was the second yeare of the 210. O­lympiad, beginning toward the end of it in the spring time of the yeare. The space included containeth the full number before declared.

The third & last part is one weeke, euen the last of all the 70. wherein after the former 62. weekes expired, Messias, that is the last Ruler was cut off, and the gouernement of the Citie quite extinct, for when their last king Agrippa in the twelfth yeare of Nero, foure yeares be­fore the destruction of the Citie, went about to perswade the people to obey Florus the Roman deputie, by whose tyrannie they had beene in­comparably more vexed and oppressed, then in the time of Albinus his predecessor: The people were so stirred against him, that they could not containe themselues any longer, but threw stones at him, and droue him out of the Citie, as Iosephus declareth in the sixteene chap­ter of the second booke of the Iewes war.

If any here obiect, that Caius Caesar the Em­perour [Page 213] of Rome after the death of this Agrippas father, made Iudea a prouince to bee gouerned by a Roman Deputie, and bestowed on this A­grippa the kingdome of Chalcis, which pertai­ned to his vncle Herod; I answer that this He­rod had his kingly Pallace in Ierusalem, and ob­tained of C. Caesar for himselfe & his successors, not onely the rule and power ouer the Temple, and whole treasurie: but also authority of chu­sing the high Priests, and deposing them at his pleasure, and the calling of the iudges together, and other matters pertaining to the seruice of the Leuites and Priestes in Gods Temple; All which his Soueraignty dyed in this last weeke about foure yeres before the destruction of the Citie, yea before in the time of Albinus, in the beginning of this last weeke: anarchie and vn­rulie disorder begun to rise, and good gouern­ment to fall: which Iosephus immediatly before the worde concerning the seedes of Ierusalems thraldome sowen, in the second booke of the Iewes war the thirteenth chapter before by me cited, seemeth in this short speech to signifie [...]. Tyrranie or vsurped go­uernment was exercised by manie. This begin­ning of misrule by little and little grew to fur­ther increase, till at the length the king was dri­uen out, and not long after al other magistracy of Ierusalem was likewise abolished, all good gouernment ceased, as Iosephus in plaine words [Page 214] declareth in the fourth booke and fift chapter of the Iewes warre, that the citie was without a ruler to guide it. And in the second chapter of the fift booke: that all law of man was troden vnder foot, and the law of God made a scorne, and the lawes of nature it selfe disturbed. All things were ordered by the will of lawlesse ruf­fians, their pleasure stood for law. A most piti­full disorder and tumultuous anarchie raigned amongst them by the wilfull malice of grace­lesse rebels, appoynting iudges of their owne choyce for their turne, and creating hie priests whom they list, vile and vnworthie men: and those of such tribes, as by Gods commaunde­ment were forbidden that holie seruice.

Thus was it fulfilled and verified which Da­niel here foretold of Messias, to bee cut off after 62. weekes in the last of the 70. Whereunto he also addeth this more; that in the same weeke the citie and Temple should bee destroyed by the come gouernours people: meaning the Romane armie which wasted Ierusalem and Iudea by the space of foure yeres together con­tinually, from the 12. yeare of Nero to the end of the warre. First, Florus the Romane depu­tie begun by his intollerable couetousnes and merciles oppression, turning the peoples hearts against him to complaine of their wrongs by him sustained. Which so stirred him, that forth­with hee sought a new quarrell of greater re­uenge, [Page 215] and sent vnto Ierusalem for 17. talents of siluer to be giuen him forth of the holie trea­surie. Which being denied, he made no more adoe, but came against Ierusalem with an host of horsemen and footmen, by force and armes to obtaine his wil, and reuenge himselfe of such as had spoken against him. Being entred with­in the citie into the Deputies pallace, he cryed to his souldiers, commaunding them to spoyle the citie and slay whomsoeuer they met.

Thus Ierusalem was giuen for a prey, and the inhabitants slaine, man, woman and childe, to the number of 630. and many of the Nobles whipped and torne with scourges and cruci­fied. And not herewith content, a little after he sent for new souldiers, who once againe kil­led the poore Iewes in peaceable manner, go­ing foorth of their citie to meete and receiue them with a friendly welcome. Some were beaten downe with clubs, some troden vnder the horses feete, some choked in the great prease at the gates, many slaine with the sword. And after that, by the same Florus, was a new slaughter made of the Iewes in Caesarea. After all these troubles, Florus not yet contented, made a great complaint of the Iewes to Cestius the gouernour of Syria: who for that cause brought a great armie against Iudea, and de­stroyed many townes and villages therein, gi­uing the spoyle thereof to his souldiers. At the [Page 216] last he brought his armie in battel aray into Ie­rusalem, and burned diuers streets thereof, and made hauocke of the Iewes.

Thus was the Lords inheritance consumed and destroyed by the cruell Romanes, til at the length Ʋespasian and Titus, sent by the Empe­rour Nero, wasted all the whole lande, and brought vtter desolation vpon the Temple and citie, both burnt with fire: thereby fulfilling Daniels prophesie, and making an ende of his 70. weekes, being yeares 490. From the third of Darius Nothus, wherein the decree went out to build Ierusalem, to the ouerthrow there­of, that was the third of the 89. Olympiad, this the first of the 112. both almost expired: the space betweene is 490. yeares.

Yet for all this crueltie and hot warre of the Romanes against the Iewes, diuers of the depu­ties and generals in most friendly manner were content to make couenants of peace with ma­ny of the Iewes: who being quietly minded in fauour to the Romanes, and detesting the dis­order and lewd doings of the seditious rebels, sought their friendship. Cestius Gallus in the beginning of that warre, offered a league of friendship to the citizens of Ierusalem: which many (leauing that rebellious rout) embraced, and fled out of the citie vnto him. Likewise, Vespasian and Titus diuers and sundrie times receiued many into their friendship comming [Page 217] vnto them, and most louingly offered a faith­full league of sure peace to anie whosoeuer were desirous of it, in loue and good meaning to the Romane gouernment, and hatred of the rebels. Of which sort desiring peace, and parties of that league, was a great number not only in Ierusalem, but diuers other places.

All this is faithfully recorded by Josephus an eye-witnesse of those times: Dauisons historie also confirming the same. And this it is which the Prophet Daniel seemeth to meane, where he speaketh of a couenant to be established to many one weeke: as some expositors haue vn­derstood it, and namely R. Salomon, surnamed Iarchi, Rabbi Leui the sonne of Gershom, Aben Ezra, and R. Abraham in his Cabbala. But for my owne part, I thinke rather that it is to bee referred to the new couenant of the Gospell of Christ, by the preaching whereof in this last weeke, the beleeuing Iewes were especiallie at that time aboue al other, when so great miserie of woful destructiō was now at hand, to be con­firmed more and more in the true faith. And many also thereby then called and wonne a­new vnto it, whom it pleased the Lord of life by offering that gratious league of saluation vnto them, not only to rid from those (horrible indeede, yet temporall) troubles approching; but also to saue euerlastingly. For there was (no doubt) at that time a great companie of holie [Page 218] Saints in Ierusalem and Iewrie which beleeued in Christ: of whose deliuerance at that time the Lord had especiall care.

Although this is a thing not to bee doubted of: yet by the prouidence of God, that thereby his prouidēce ouer his church may be knowne; wee haue a notable record thereof in Eusebius the third booke of his Ecclesiasticall historie the fift chapter. The Church (sayth Eusebius) which was gathered together at Ierusalem, was commanded by an oracle from God to flit out of it to a certaine towne beyond Iorden called Pella: to the entent that those good and holie men being taken out of the citie, place thereby might be giuen to the vengeance of GOD a­gainst it and the wicked Iewes, by the destruc­tion and ouerthrow thereof.

If any here aske who there is before mentio­ned to whom these words, he shall make a sure couenant, may be referred but the Romane ge­nerall. I answere, that it is no new thing in the Hebrew tongue for the person of the doer to bee vnderstood, though not expressely spoken of before: when the transitiue verbe hath an impersonall notion. A hundred such examples might be brought, some out of the olde Testa­ment, some out of the new, some out of pro­phane authors, which I will not stand vpon, be­ing a thing well knowne and taught, euen in the Grammer rules of the holie tongue. The [Page 219] meaning is, that before the vtter destruction of Ierusalem, a holie and sure couenant should be made vnto the faithfull number of the Iewes, chosen to saluation by such ministers and in­struments as it should please God to vse for that worke in that last weeke of Ierusalem: in the one halfe or middest whereof the sacrifices appoynted in the law of God and accustomed, begun to be neglected and cease.

First they reiected al sacrifices and oblations for any stranger which was not a Iew, being before vsually from time to time wont to bee offered. And a little after in the 13. yere of Ne­ro, when Vespasian was come into Iudea and wasted the countrie: then the vnrulie rebels in Ierusalem abolished the lawfull custome of sa­crificing, appoynting priests of the common people and countrie clownes, a thing forbid­den by Gods lawe. They held the Temple and holie places, keeping themselues therein as a castle of defence: and at the length partly by the sedition within, and partly sharpe warre without, it came to passe that the priests in time of their sacrificing were slaine by darts and stones hurled from the rebels: and in the ende for want of men there was no daily obla­tion any more offered. This Iosephus declareth in the 2. booke the 17. chapter, the 4. booke the 5. chapter, the 5. booke the 9. chapter, the 6. booke the first and fourth chapters, the seuenth [Page 220] [...] [Page 221] [...] [Page 220] booke the fourth chapter of the Iewes warre. Wherfore not without cause in my iudgement may those words of Daniel, touching the sacri­fices ceasing in the middest of the last weeke, bee referred vnto these times of this warre: wherein by meanes thereof the sacrifices of the Lords house were hindered so many wayes: some were quite abolished, and others done either not by those to whom they pertained: or not so safely and freely as they ought. Yea I see not how any at all many dayes could bee offe­red, by reason of the seditious hurlie burlies in the citie, and the warre without, the sacrificers themselues oftentimes being slaine or woun­ded in the middest of their offering.

Master Iunius though hee thinke Christ Ie­sus to bee the agent and worker of these aboli­shed sacrifices: yet for all that partly he refer­reth the working thereof to the time of Ierusa­lems besieging. Impijs sacrificium & munus abolebit ex facto, quia premente obsidione vrbis destituentur commoditatibus sacrificiorum. He shall abolish (sayth Iunius, speaking of Christ) sacrifice and offering in regard of the wicked by deede, because that the besieging of the citie pressing them, they shall bee bereaued of the profits of sacrifices.

This exposition is not strayned, it is plaine, without any wresting, turning, adding, or ta­king away: the course of Heauen, and holy [Page 221] Scripture, and prophane storie, all make one ac­count, they all agree in the same reckoning: if it bee not new, all is well. For this is well sayde of an Hebrew writer, and worth the bearing in minde. [...] Better is the grape gleaning of the auncient, then the gathering of the later. Neither is it lightly to be regarded, which Iosephus in his se­cond booke against Apion affirmeth: that length of time is a most sure proofe.

For my owne part, I reuerence antiquities gray heares as much as any other, who beareth but this indifferencie to thinke that good rea­son is aboue all. For without it I would not haue her contradicted.

Wherefore least this opinion of newnesse discredite my iudgement: I am to let the reader vnderstand, that though it be not so rife as o­ther: yet it is more ancient then peraduenture may be thought. Tertullian was one of the La­tine Fathers most auncient, and very neere the Apostles, flourishing in the raigne of Seuerus the Emperor, about 200. yeares after Christes birth, and not past one hundered after the death of Iohn the Euangelist. Who in a booke of his, written against the Iewes, expounding this prophecie of Daniels weekes, beginneth the reckoning thereof from a Darius, which raigned nineteene yeares, after whome these foure succeeded one after another to the ende [Page 222] of the Persian Monarchie. First Artaxerxes, then Ochus, after him Arses, and last of all an­other Darius, who was ouercome by Alex­ander. Whereby it is manifest that he meaneth the same Darius that I doe: for the beginning of this 490. yeares. Onely herein he was decei­ued, that he supposed this Darius to be the same which is mentioned in the ninth of Daniel, and raigned ouer the Medes, when this message was brought vnto him by the Angell Gabriell. And for the ende thereof hee bringeth it to the first yeare of Ʋespasian making this conclusi­on of all his account: Ita in diem expugnatio­nis suae Iudaei impleuerunt hebdomadas 70. prae­dictas in Daniele. So the Iews (saith Tertullian) at the daye of their subdewing fulfilled the 70. weekes foretolde by Daniel.

Thus for the Persian king, vnder whom Da­niels weekes begun, there is no great difference betweene Tertullian and me: and for the time wherein they ended none at all.

After Tertullian Seuerus Sulpitius, of the same standing with Augustine, Epiphanius, & Chrysostome, a writer for skil in the Persian sto­rie deseruing great commendation, and to the true vnderstanding of Ezra, and Nehemias, & Daniels weekes bringeth such light, as is not in any ancient writer that euer I read to be found the like.

This Father in the second booke of his holy [Page 223] history speaking of Cyrus, saith that hee gaue the Iewes leaue in the beginning of his raigne to build the Temple, wherein they went a little forward, till such time as they were hindered by their enemies nere a hundred yeres after, in the raigne of Artaxerxes, who forbad them to meddle any more in that worke, which by that meanes ceased till the second yeare of Darius. The same Author after Cyrus hauing spoken of Cambyses, Darius Hystaspis, and Xerxes, pla­ceth next him that Artaxerxes; Qui templi ae­dificationē inhibuit, which forbad the building of the Temple, and then hauing set another Xerxes with his brother Sogdianus betweene, commeth to that Darius vnder whom the tem­ple was restored, and the building thereof per­fected in the sixt yeare of his raigne: From which time to the destruction of the Citie by Vespasian, he numbreth 483. yeares. His words be these, Caeterum â restitutione templi vsque in euersionem quae sub Vespasiano Consule Augusto per Titum Caesarem consummata est, anni 483. Praedictum id olim est a Daniele, qui ab instau­ratione templi ad euersionem eius 69. hebdo­madas futuras pronunciauerat: But from the restoring of the Temple, (saith Seuerus) to the ouerthrow of it, which by Titus Caesar was fi­nished vnder Ʋespasian then beeing imperiall Consull, were 483. yeares.

That was by Daniel long agoe foretold, [Page 224] who had before declared that from the resto­ring of the Temple, to the ouerthrow of it should bee 69. weekes, whereas hee saith that Daniel foretold 69. weekes to bee from the re­storing of the Temple to the destruction there­of: it is true beeing vnderstood from the com­mandement going out concerning that resto­ring, to the time wherein the desolation of the Citie, & the ouerthrow of the Iewes common wealth begun: for Daniel in plaine words fore­shewed that after 69. weeks counted from that commandement, Messias should be cut off, & the Citie and Temple destroyed, leauing the last week of the seuenty, for the accomplishing thereof: wherein by certaine degrees by little and little it was wrought by the Romans.

The ruine begun vnder Albinus his gouern­ment strait after the 69. weekes, as before hath beene prooued by one or two euident testimo­nies of Iosephus. It continued and increased more and more vnder Florus, till at the length Titus vnder his father Vespasian made a finall end and vtter vndooing of all.

Thus Seuerus Sulpitius, most manifestlie de­clareth his iudgement for the beginning of Daniels weekes, to be referred to the raigne of Darius Nothus, & the end of them to be made in the destruction of Ierusalem by Titus, not seeing how the Prophesie of Daniel might o­therwise bee vnderstood or applied, beginning [Page 225] and end to anie other kinges.

Ioseph Scaliger in his 6 booke de emendati­one temporum, acknowledgeth Darius Nothus to bee the Persian king, by whose decree the building of the temple was restored. And that from that time the accompt of Daniels weekes beginneth. The end he referreth to the destructi­on of Ierusalem. Ab instaurandis Hierosolymis incipiunt hebdomades, in Hierosolymorum ex­cidium terminantur. Neque enim frustrà caput hebdomadum ad Herosolymorium incolumita­tem pertinet, cum earum finis ad eiusdem vrbis casum et deletionem pertineat. The weekes be­ginne, sayth Scaliger, at the restoring of Ieru­salem, and end in the ouerthrowe of it. Neither is it without cause that their beginning pertay­neth to the safetie of Ierusalem, seeing that the end thereof belongeth to the fall and destructi­on of the same citie. Vnderstanding the time wherein the warre against the Iewes begun their desolation.

Lastly Iunius in the last edition of his bible, in his notes vpon the 9. of Daniell numbreth these 70. weekes, from the second of Darius Nothus, to the second of Vespasian wherein Titus destroyed Ierusalem.

Moreouer for the end of these weekes Cle­mens Alexādrinus was of the same iudgement, a man for great knowledge rare, and as anci­ent, if not more then Tertullian, whose neere [Page 226] age to the apostles I haue spoken of before. He thought them to expire in the destruction of the citie by Titus.

Also Origen in his 29. treatise vpon Mathew was of the same opinion, and Chrysostom in his 2. oration against the Iewes: To say no­thing of the Hebrew writers houlding the same, Aben Ezra, Iarchi and R. Leui Gershoms sonne in their commentaries and R. Abraham in his historical cabbala.

And surely whosoeuer readeth the place of Daniell with an euen minde, not preuented with preiudice, or blynded with affection: shall hardly find any other end wherin those se­uenets of yeares can settle their feete to rest, for hauing deuided the whole 70. into 3. partes: first he sheweth what was to be doone in seuen weekes, and then in 62. and lastly in that one which was lefte after the 62. before the end whereof, he maketh mention of Messias to bee cut off, and the citie destroyed. If Daniel hauing propounded to himselfe an exact and straight order of weekes, should first tell of Messias his cutting off in one weeke, and then of the de­struction and desolation of Ierusalem about 37 yeares after it, and then presently come backe againe to the sacrifices abolished in the same weeke which he had spoken of before, and im­mediatly after go yet once againe to that deso­lation which happened 40. yeares after verie [Page 227] neere: it were a strange kind of ridling, and farre more confuse then the vaine oracles of Del­phos; especially seeing that these clauses and partes, are ioyned and knit together by no o­ther but copulatiue coniunctions. And there­fore it is no maruell that those excellent and worthie fathers, as well as the Hebrew scho­liastes could finde no place by Daniels text for his weekes to stay in, but the ouerthrowe of the Iewes common wealth by the Romans.

The end thus appearing by their testimonie, the beginning cannot bee hid. It must needs fall to the raigne of Darius Nothus where I set it.

Hereby it appeareth, that this exposition of Daniels weekes by me brought, is neither new nor any singular deuise of my owne. I haue Eu­sebius, and Theodoretus and Aben Ezra, and, R. Abraham in his cabbala, with other hebrew writers befornamed with me for the Messias cut off, to be vnderstood of the gouenor of Ierusa­lem, R. Leui also verie neere agreeing therunto: and differing onely in this, that in stead of the annointed princes vnderstood of them by the name of Messias, he rather taketh the annointed priestes to be ment. Yea and that which is of farre greater force then all their authorities, the plaine testimonie of God his word which nū ­breth 7. weekes only to Messias and no more: as before I haue already proued by the original [Page 228] text which if Eusebius and Theodoretus had throughly knowne, as the Hebrewes their part­ners in that iudgement did, they would haue stoutly stood for it against all the world.

For the end of the weekes in the desolation of the citie, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertulli­an, Origen, Crysostom, Sulpitius, Scaliger, Iuni­us, testifie with me. And 4. of them for both beginning and end agreeing or verie little dif­fering.

I am not ignorant that though Ioseph Sca­liger referre the end of these weekes to the deso­lation of the temple: yet he vnderstandeth by the name of Messias in the 26 verse, Christ Ie­sus our redeemer to bee killed after 62. weekes, contayning yeares 434. And that these 434. yeares ended in the death of Christ, and begun in the 5. yeare of Artaxerxes Mnemon, wherein by a new decree, leaue was giuen to Esdras the priest to returne with such of his countriemen as would goe with him to Ierusalem.

I am loth to speake any thing without reue­rence and loue of so excellent a man, who hath brought much light to the true vnderstanding of this prophecie. This is all which I will say, that his opinion for this matter, wandreth far astray out of reasons path. For how can this be proued that Artaxerxes Mnemon gaue out any decree for Esdras in the 5. of his raigne, ei­ther by prophane learning or diuine scripture? [Page 229] It is sayd in Esdras, that hee went to Ierusalem in the 7. yeare of that king. And therefore by the authoritie of that place skilfull men haue layde the foundation of Daniels seuenets in the 7. yeare of Artaxerxes. How then is his fift yeare brought in for a new decree? Ab eo edic­to ad perfectionem Esdrae annus solidus interest. There was one whole yeare, sayth Scaliger, be­tweene the decree and Esdras his going. And what reason hath he for this? Surely none at all but this bare coniecture. Eo interuallo opus fuit Esdrae ad reliquias Iudaeorum per Babiloni­am, Mediam, ac Persidem sparsas colligendas. That space, sayth he, was needfull for Esdras to gather together such Iewes as were left scatte­red abroade, through Babylonia, Media, and Persia.

This is nothing els but a proofles conceipt: a fancie vnfit to build any credit or faith vpon. If such kind of gessing might stand for reason, it were a hundred fould more prone to bee ga­thered that the decree was made presently vpon his going in the verie same yeare, as Functius and other of the learned by vew of that scrip­ture haue iudged. For what matter was it for so great a man of that estimation and honor that Esdras was in, to gather 1500. speedily toge­ther. Could it possibly take a yeares preparati­on in such a willing people of themselues so rea­die to go? Or if it were so great a matter and a [Page 230] worke of so long time, could so Godly and so zealous a priest be so negligent in the Lordes businesse, that hauing a yeares warning to ga­ther a little companie together, hee should for­get the Leuites, which of al other were most ne­cessarie in regard of Gods seruice in the temple of Ierusalem? For when al were come together, no Leuit was found among them: the chiefest of all, in a whole yeares space, were neuer thought vpon, till he was in some forwardnesse on his way: then on a sudden hee sent to seeke for them. Read the 8. chapter of Esdras the 15. verse, and see how that which is there told can beare any such coniecture.

But to let that passe, it is not a yeares matter that can serue Ioseph Scaligers turne, to helpe out his deuise, and to bring this geare about. For by the iudgement almost of all the best writers, by the space of this twelue hundred yeares, our blessed Sauiour suffered toward the end of the last yeare of the 202. Olympiad: at which time was obserued, euen by prophane Authors, the strange eclipse of the Sunne, which happened at the passion of Christ. Phlegon, by the iudgement of Eusebius, an excellent ac­counter of Olympiads, in his foureteenth book writeth thus. In the fourth yeare of the 202. O­lympiad was an exceeding great eclipse of the Sunne, aboue all other that euer happened be­fore. The day at the 6. houre, that is, high noone, [Page 231] was so turned into darke night, that the starres were seene in heauen: and an Earthquake o­uerthrew many houses in Nice, a citie of Bythi­nia.

This Eusebius testifieth of Phlegon: and it a­greeth notably to the testimonie of the Euan­gelists, touching the Sunnes darkening from the 6. houre to the 9. when Christ was cruci­fied. Thence therefore numbring backward 434. yeares, from the 202. Olympiad almost at an end, we come to the second yeare of the 94 Olympiad drawing to an ende: at which time, euen by Scaligers own opinion, the third yeare of Artaxerxes Memor begun. By this meanes not one, as Scaliger sayth, but foure full yeares at the least: that is, the third, fourth, fift, and sixt yeares of Artaxerxes should haue been betweene the decree and the going of Es­dras to Ierusalem.

I know that Scaliger putteth off the time of Christs passion a yeare further then other. But if that were granted him, yet should the decree goe ful three yeares before Esdras his comming to Ierusalem. A thing vncredible and beyond all sence of reason, that leaue should be giuen Esdras to goe to the house of God, and a so­lemne decree by the kings authority published for it, and he linger and protract the time of his going three yeares after.

Besides, euen the Prophets owne words are [Page 232] altogether against this interpretation of Scali­ger, and will no wayes suffer it. For first hauing expounded the generall summe of 70. weekes for the state of Ierusalem, he deuideth them so into three parts, as that the first should bee to the building of the walles and citie finished, and then 62. for the continuing thereof so buil­ded, and after all them one more.

Who hauing the reason of a man in him, can gather any other thing by Daniels words, but that those 62. weekes spoken of, should imme­diatly follow after the first seuen, and goe next before the last one? Which being so, needes must they begin after the 32. of Artaxerxes, and end seuen yeares before the vtter ruine of Ierusalem, brought vpon it by Titus.

Moreouer, it is to be obserued, that after the first seuen, set for the restoring and building of the citie, he sayth, that the citie should be buil­ded 62. weekes streete and wall, and that after, not some other, but euen these very same 62. weekes before spoken of, should Messias bee cut off and the citie made desolate. For the de­monstratiue article in [...], hath this force, to referre vs to a knowne thing spoken of: which is likewise vsuall in the Greeke tongue. What thē can Scaliger make of this, that Christ should be killed after those 62. weekes, wherein the citie of Ierusalem continued builded street and wall? For it is well knowne that Ierusalem [Page 233] continued so builded streete and wall aboue thirtie yeares after the passion of Christ, before it begun to bee made desolate, and in all that time greatly flourished. This interpretation therefore of Scaliger hath no successe for pro­babilitie.

Another thing in Scaliger troubled me more then this: by reason of the excellencie of the man, not making any doubt of his account: Hebdomades incipientes ab edicto instaurandi templi desinunt in initio abominationis, hoc est, circa initia belli Iudaici, quo primum caedes in vrbe patrari coeptae ac templum pollui: quod tempus incurrit in finem vndecimi & initium duodecimi anni Neronis. The weekes (saith Sca­liger) beginning from the decree to restore the temple, doe end in the beginning of the abo­mination: that is, about the beginnings of the Iewes warre, when slaughters first begun to be committed in the citie, and the Temple to bee polluted: which time met with the end of the eleuenth and beginning of the twelfth yeare of Nero.

This saying of Scaliger made mee maruell, till such time as I made some doubt of his rec­koning, and called it into question. For if the 70. weekes of Daniel were (as hee sayth) ended in the beginning of Nero his twelfth yeare; my account cannot possiblie stand, drawing them on further to the vtter destruction of the holie [Page 234] citie by Titus, which happened foure yeares af­ter. This therefore is to be examined. Darius Nothus died a little before the end of the 93. Olympiad. This is agreed betweene vs, that frō the decree to his death, had passed seuenteene yeares, it is likewise agreed. For Scaliger num­bring the first seuen weekes, sayth, that after the second yeare of Darius, seuenteene yeares are left to the beginning of Artaxerxes Memor: whereunto 32. being added, the summe is 49. yeres, being the distance from the decree to the streetes ordered.

By this meanes the decree being made 17. yeares before the death of Darius, and that by his owne iudgement, must needes fall toward the end of the third yeare of the 89. Olympiad: from which time to the first yeare of the 212. Olympiad almost expired, when Titus de­stroyed the suburbs of the citie, and battered the walles with his iron rammes about the 22. day of Aprill, as Paulus Eberus writeth in his Iewish storie: about a fortnight after which time in the beginning of May, one of their wals was broken, and part of the citie entred and won, were full 490. yeares, and not 494. as Sca­ligers deceitfull account would make it. Scali­ger therefore rather prepared a way for others to come to the trueth, then came himselfe vnto it: and gaue some light to other to see the right meaning of Daniels prophesie, which himselfe [Page 235] neuer perfectly saw. By his helpe Junius sawe somewhat more, and came neerer vnto it then he: yet so as he hath likewise done that for o­ther which Scaliger did for him: that is, left somewhat behind to bee vnderstood of other, which himselfe neuer attained. Especially in the 26. verse, where it is said, that after those 62. weekes Messias shall be cut off. Where Master Iunius vseth some wresting by turning the fu­ture tence into the preterperfect, and leauing out some coniunctions, and changing other: thereby making the accusatiue case of the no­minatiue, reiecting the ancient interpretations Greeke and Latin, without any cause.

These inconueniences they are of force dri­uen vnto, who by the word Messias, doe not with Eusebius and the Hebrew expositors vn­derstand the anointed gouernours. Some may here say vnto mee: Is it not plaine by the 24. verse, that Daniel in this prophesie speaketh of Iesus Christ the redeemer of the worlde, of whose death so many singular and notable ef­fects are declared therein: of abolishing sinne, of reconciling sinners vnto the fauour of God, and bringing euerlasting righteousnesse, and fulfilling whatsoeuer had been foretold by the former Prophets of him? I answere to this, that of all other places in the old Testament touch­ing the comming of Christ, whereof there is great store, that verse of Daniel is most excel­lent [Page 236] and cleere: yet withall I deny that by the name of Messias in the verses following, Christ our Sauiour is vnderstood. For neither the true account of yeares will suffer it, nor the text of holie Scripture beare it.

But how then is it here sayd, that 70. weekes were decreed for abolishing sinne and making attonement, if Christ came not in the ende of those 70. weekes? The meaning is, that within the space of those 70. weekes, Christ by his pas­sion should worke that redemption and salua­tion from sinne and wrath to the world. As Tertullian speaketh in his booke against the Iewes: where writing of the passion of our Sa­uiour Iesus Christ, he saith that it was perfected in the time of Tiberius Caesar, Intra tempora septuaginta hebdomadarum, within the times of the seuentie weekes.

I am not ignorant that by the Hebrew wri­ters, it is a thing acknowledged and granted, that Christ came in the verie ende of those weekes. For they held that their Messias should begin to raigne at the destruction of Ierusa­lem. And therefore Rabbi Leui ben Gershom expounding those wordes of this text, to bring euerlasting righteousnesse, and to seale vp vision and prophet, referreth the fulfilling thereof to the kingdome of Christ, which hee calleth the fift kingdome, because it was to succeede the other foure spoken of before in the second and [Page 237] seuenth chapters of this prophesie.

It was an olde tradition amongst the He­brews of auncient time, receiued from the schoole of Elias, declared in their Talmud, in the treatise Sanhedrim the eleuenth chapter, and diuers other places, that the world should endure sixe thousand yeres: whereof two thou­sand should bee voyd without the lawe, two thousand vnder the law, and two thousand the time of Christ. Whereby the iudgement ap­peareth concerning the comming of Christ, that it should be at the desolation of the holie citie immediatly after the ceasing of the law. For the law then ceased, and all the ceremonies thereof ended, when Ierusalem, the seat of God his worship, according to that lawe, was de­stroyed by Titus, and neither place nor people there left anie longer for the law-seruice of God. Diuers such testimonies of the auncient Hebrewes are recorded by Philip of Morney Lord of Plessie in his book of the truth of Chri­stian Religion, the 29. and 30. chapters: wher­by he gathereth that it was a common opinion among them, that the Messias should come a­bout the destruction of the Temple. R. Hama the sonne of Hauina in the same chapter of the Talmudicall treatise before alleadged, sayd, that the sonne of David should not come, so long as any soueraigne authoritie (were it neuer so small) remained in Israel. Also R. Mili al­leadging [Page 238] Rabbi Eliezer the sonne of Simeon, sayd, that Christ should not come vntill there were a cleane riddance of all Iudges & Magi­strates in Israel. And R. Moses Haddarsan vpon the 49. of Genesis, gaue this iudgement of the Iewes Senate, consisting of seuentie Elders or Iudges called Sanhedrim; that they were not to cease before the comming of the Messias. Let vs then examine when the authoritie of those Iudges and all gouernment ceased in Ie­rusalem, that thereby wee may know the time of Christ his comming by the Hebrew writers opinion. That honorable Lord of Plessie in his booke before mentioned, hauing cited the te­stimonie of Philo in his booke of Times, to proue that Herod slew al the Sanhedrim about the 30. yeare of his raigne, affirmeth that to be the time wherein the soueraigntie and iurisdic­tion of Iuda did cease: not for a few dayes or yeares, but for a continual time. How this may stand for trueth I cannot perceiue. For to say nothing of that fained Philo, an author forged in the shop of Annius his toying braine: it is well knowne that the common-wealth of Ie­rusalem and Iewrie flourished with princely rule and other gouernment of Magistrates, yea of the very Sanhedrim themselues, aboue three score and ten yeares after that time, euen to Ie­rusalems desolation. Christ in the 30. yeare of Herod was yet vnborne: who about the 33. [Page 239] yeare of his age, in the sixteenth of Matthew, foretold to his Disciples, what he was to suffer of the Elders and chiefe Priests and Scribes. All these were gouernours and rulers of the citie; and by the name of Elders, the best interpreters haue especially vnderstood those Sanhedrim, hauing great reason for it. For these Sanhedrim were nothing els but [...] that is, 70. Elders of the great Con­sistorie or iudgemeat place in Ierusalem. As by Elias Leuita they are described in his Tish­bi. The old Rabbins in their Talmud haue bo­rowed from the Greeke tongue many words: whereof this worde [...] Sanhedrim is one, signifying a sitting of Iudges or Senatours to­gether in councell or iudgement. So it is taken in the 107. Psalme the 32. verse, by the Chaldie interpreter: where for these Hebrew wordes there vsed, [...]. Let thē praise him in the sitting, that is, the assemblie of the El­ders. The Targum hath [...], that is, Let them praise him in the sitting toge­ther of the wise: expressing the word of sitting by Sanhedrim, as Synedrion in Greeke is ta­ken. Christ therefore in the fift of Matthew, saying, Whosoeuer calleth his brother Raca, [...], shall be bound ouer to a sessions or sitting: meaneth the sitting in iudgement of the Sanhedrim; applying his speech to the manner of the ciuill iudgements [Page 240] in Ierusalem. Iosephus in his 20. booke of An­tiquities the eight chapter, telleth, that when Festus the Romane gouernour was dead, Ana­nus the high priest, [...], made the assemblie of the Iudges to sit, by whom Iames the brother of Christ, was adiudged to be stoned. This happened vnder the gouernour Albinus, not long before the destruction of the citie. Whereby may bee gathered, that magi­stracie, iudgement, and gouernment, yea the authoritie of the 70. Iudges called Sanhedrim; continued long after Herods 30. yere, and was not cut off, till the desolation of Ierusalem brought it to an end. For when the warres be­gun to worke the desolation thereof then king Agrippa, by seditious rakehels, was driuen out of it: then were the Sanhedrim deposed at the rebels will, and other base men set vp in their stead: as Josephus telleth in the fift book of the Iewes warre the first chapter. Then was the Priesthood and all good order made a moc­kerie. The rebellious cutters did what they list, no lawes to restraine them, no magistracie to punish them, no authoritie to bridle them. They ruled al at their own pleasures themselues as they would: good gouernment was turned into anarchie and disorder, and Ierusalem be­came, as Iosephus termeth it, [...], a citie without a guide.

And this it is that Daniel sayth touching [Page 241] Messias to bee cut off in the last weeke of the seuentie: meaning the rule and authoritie of the annointed gouernour, as before I haue ex­pounded the place. Thus by the iudgement of the Hebrew writers in their auncient monu­ments, the comming of Christ falleth to the fall of the Iewes common-wealth, in the ouer­throw of Ierusalem, when gouernment and au­thoritie ceased therein: which long before had been foretold by the Patriarch Iacob in the 49. of Genesis, in that old prophesie of his concer­ning the comming of Christ: The scepter shall not depart from Iuda, nor a law giuer from be­tweene his feete till Shiloh come: and him shall the people gather themselues vnto. For together with this diuine oracle of Daniel, that other most ancient and excellent prophesie of Iacob, hitherto not perfectly and cleerely, according to the true meaning therof, declared of any that I know of, may receiue light.

Many haue sought the fulfilling of that pro­phesie in the first comming of Christ at his birth: but without straying it could neuer yet be there found. For the meaning of it was, that in the tribe of Iuda should bee royall suprema­cie and gouernmēt of Magistrates, for the good of the Iewes, & vpholding of their Common­wealth, till the comming of Christ: whose new spirituall raigne, by the preaching of the Gos­pell, should abolish their old earthly kingdome [Page 242] and outward policie. So was the place vnder­stood by the Hebrew Doctors aforenamed, R. Hama, R. Mili, R. Eliezer.

The Chaldie paraphrasts both of them most excellently expound the place, which them­selues vnderstood not: being like therein vnto Ʋirgils Bees, which make honey for other, and not themselues. First Onchelos interpreteth it in this manner; A Magistrate exercising au­thoritie of the house of Iuda shall not depart, nor a Scribe of his posteritie for euer, till Christ come, to whom the kingdome pertaineth, and him shall the people obey. The other called the interpreter of Ierusalem, thus: Kings of the house of Iuda shall not faile, neither skilful law-teachers of his posteritie, vnto the time where­in the king Christ shall come: vnto whom the kingdome pertaineth, and all the kingdomes of the earth shall be subdued vnto him. If Christ came when authoritie was gone, and authori­tie went away at Ierusalems fall: needes must one comming of Christ bee referred to the o­uerthrow of that citie.

R. Moses of Tyroll & Bioces looked for the comming of Christ towards the end of the se­cond Temple: being led thereunto partly by their owne reckoning vpon Daniel, and part­ly by a text in the last chapter of the prophet Esay the seuenth verse: where it is sayd, Before her throwes came vpon her she was deliuered [Page 243] of a manchilde. Some of the Rabbines sayd, Messias was borne the very same day that the second temple was destroyed in: supposing that scripture of Esay to be therein fulfilled. In their book called Bereshith Rabba, is read this parable: As a certaine Iew was at plow, an A­rabian passing by hearing one of his oxen low, bad him vnyoke, because the destruction of the Temple was at hand. And by and by hearing also the other low, bad him vnyoke out of hād, because the Messias was alreadie come. R. A­bon in another place telling the same: What neede we (saith he) to learne it of the Arabians, seeing the text it selfe declareth it?

Iosephus in the seuenth booke of the Iewes warre, the twelfth chapter, writeth, that in the holie Scripture was found an olde prophesie, that at the time of the ouerthrow of Ierusalem, a king should come out of Iewrie, who should raigne ouer all the world: which he by flatte­ring falshood, interpreted of Ʋespasian. This prophesie in those daies was bruted abroad in many mens mouthes euery where: yea, some write that it was engrauen in an open place of the castle at Ierusalem: which (as Iosephus wri­teth) made the Iewes at that time so readie to rebell. And this was the cause that so many fained themselues to be the Messias about that time of the destruction of the Temple. Vnder Cuspius Fadus, one Theudas a iugler made the [Page 244] people beleeue that he was a prophet, & would deuide the waters of Iordan that they should goe ouer drie, as they had done long before mi­raculously, in the time of Ioshua by the power of God. And when Felix was the Romane go­uernour of Iudea, one comming out of Egypt, fayning himselfe to bee a prophet, perswaded the people if they would follow him to mount Oliuet, they should see the walles of Ierusalem fall downe. And afterward one Barcozba, so called of his lying, tooke vpon him to bee the Messias, and seduced many: but in the end per­forming not the deliuerance looked for at his hands, he was knocked on the head for his ly­ing and slaine.

All these tooke aduantage of the time, be­ing answerable to their intent, and of the peo­ples disposition, then looking for their promi­sed Christ. Moreouer, there was yet another prophesie bruted amongst them, that Doctor Hillels schollers should neuer faile till Christ were come. The youngest of them was R. Io­chaman the sonne of Zacheus, who liued to see the destruction of the Temple: and also the miracle of a great gate thereof, a little before opening of it selfe: which Iosephus speaketh of in his seuenth booke and twelfth chapter of the Iewes warre: Whereat this R. Iochaman being amazed, remembred this saying of the Prophet Zacharie in the beginning of his 11. chapter: [Page 245] Open thy gates O Libanus, and let fire consume thy cedars: applying the place to the com­ming of Christ.

Furthermore they had amongst them these olde traditions touching the tokens of Christes comming. When Christ the sonne of Dauid cōmeth, sayth R. Iudas, there shall be few wise men in Israell, and the wisdome of the scribes shall stinke, and the schooles of diuinitie shall become brothelhouses. R. Nehorai sayd that good men in Israell should bee abhorred, and mens countenaunces past shame at Christes comming. And R. Nehemias sayd, that wick­kednesse should bee multiplied without mea­sure, and nothing but vnto wardnesse and Epi­curisme amongst them. VVhat is this els but that ouerspreading of abominations which Daniell foretelleth should be in those times of the desolation of Ierusalem? which is declared as large by Iosephus, pointing out the abomi­nable doings of the Iewes at that time com­mitted against nature, and all law of God and man. The religious and holy places (sayth Io­sephus) were defiled by the vncleane feete of wicked men: The temple of God was held and kept as a tower of defence against the peo­ple by the seditious rebels: the holy ground was sprinkled with the blood of wounded men, contrarie to Gods lawe entering thereunto: strangers and towne-borne, prophane and ho­ly [Page 246] were mingled together: and the blood of diuers men being slayne, made a poole in the courtes of the Lords house. They abused the diuine vessels, annointed themselues with the holy oyle, drunke of the consecrate wine. In euerie place of the citie was spoyling and rob­berie. Burning with lust they forced women in most filthy and abominable manner for their pleasure, liuing in Ierusalem as a stewes or bro­thelhouse. At this their extreame wickednesse God was offended: and abhorred his citie, and detested his temple.

All this Josephus testifieth in diuers places. And in the 2. chapter of his 5. booke of the Iewes warre. All law of God and man (sayth he) was troden vnder foote and derided. The holy oracles of the prophets were counted no better then common fables and tales. And con­temning of the decrees their forfathers touching vice and vertue, by the euent they verified those thinges which long before had beene foretold of their countrie. For an ould prophecie, as Io­sephus witnesseth, went abrode, that then the citie should bee taken, and the temple burnt: when sedition should arise amongst them, and their own handes first defile God his sanctuarie.

Thus doe Iosephus & Daniel refer the raign­ing and ouerflowing abhominations of the Iewes, to the destruction of Ierusalem, which the Hebrew Rabbines applied to the comming [Page 247] of Christ: So that is prooued true which the Lorde of Plessie in his booke aforenamed affir­meth, that it was a common opinion among the Iewes for their Messias to come about the destruction of the Temple, which for any thing that I can see to the contrarie, may in some sort not without reason bee yeelded vnto: For two commings of Christ are declared in holy scrip­ture. The first in humilitie spoken of by Zacha­rie in his ninth Chapter. Reioyce greatly Oh daughter of Sion, bee glad O daughter of Ieru­salem, for loe thy king commeth vnto thee, e­uen the righteous and Sauiour, lowlie and sim­ple ryding vpon an Asse and a coult the fole of an Asse. The other in glorie wherein Christ came in his kingdome: whereof we read in the sixteene chapter of Mathew the last verse. Ve­rilie I say vnto you, there be some of them that stand heere, which shall not taste of death till they haue seene the sonne of man come in his kingdome, and before in the tenth chapter of the some Euangelist. You shall not finish all the Cities of Israel till the sonne of man be come. And in the twentie one chapter of Iohn. If I will that hee tarrie till I come, what is that to thee? whereof this word went abroad that this Disciple should not die.

All these speeches our Sauiour Christ vtte­red being once come alreadie, & after his first comming: wherefore that an other second [Page 248] comming of his therein is to be vnderstood, is so cleare & manifest, that it need not bee stood vpon: which in my iudgement can not to anie time more fitly agree, then that wherein the ci­tie of Ierusalem with the holie Temple of God therein was destroyed, according to the opi­nion of the Hebrewes before declared. Then Christ our Lord first begun to appeare a reuen­ging iudge against the wicked and stubborne Iewes, in punishing them for their malice a­gainst him at his death, and cruell persecution of his Church afterward, as Eusebius declareth in the third booke of his ecclesiasticall historie, the fift chapter.

Master Iunius, in his annotations on this ninth Chapter of Daniel expounding those wordes: From the going forth of the comman­dement to restore and build Ierusalem vnto Christ, shall be seuen weekes, and threescore & two weekes; referreth them to the comming of Christ, and that comming of Christ, to the last of Daniels weekes, wherein the desolation of Ierusalem began, yeelding this reason: because then Christ declared himselfe a Lord by a most seuere iudgement against Ierusalem and the Iewes, and by the benefit of the Gospell a Prince and head of the Church, which raigneth in the house of Dauid for euer.

Master Caluin in his harmonie acknow­ledgeth that by the iudgement of some exposi­tors, [Page 249] that place in the tenth of Mathew, was re­ferred to the desolation of the holie Citie made by the Romans. In the 24. chapter of Mathew, when Christ vpon the Disciples praysing of the glorious building of the Temple, had spoken of the destruction thereof to come, wherein one stone should not bee left vpon another. They asked him when those thinges should bee, and what signe should bee of his comming, and of the end of the world, ioyning these three things together, the desolation of the Temple, the comming of Christ, and the end of the world, as it were all pertayning to one time, and there­fore for that which is asked in Mathew touch­ing the signe of Christs comming, and the end of the worlde: in the other two Euangelistes Marke and Luke, this only is demanded, what signe should be of the destruction of Gods ho­lie Temple in Ierusalem: wherby may bee ga­thered that the Apostles of Christ held the o­pinion of the olde Hebrewes concerning the comming of Christ at the desolation of the Temple, and therein a change of the world: for after that the state of the old Church should be once ouerthrowne, the ancient Hebrewes loo­ked for a new worlde, as it were by the new raigne of their Messias, which in their writings they called [...] that is, the world to come, vnderstanding therby the time of Christs king­dome.

[Page 250]This appeareth in the Chaldie paraphrasis of Ionathas the sonne of Vzziell in the first of kinges the fourth chapter and 32. verse, where he calleth the daies of Christ [...] the world to come of Messias: for the Authors of the Iewes law called Talmud, treating of sacri­fices in the chapter [...] that is, the bullocke of the sinne offering contained the whole time of this life, from Adam the first man to the last that euer shall bee borne, in two worldes, which in Hebrew they call [...] The first from the beginning of thinges created to the comming of Christ. The second from that time to the resurrection of the dead. This tradition of the Hebrewes made an end of the old world in the cōming of Christ. The Disciples then asking what should bee the signe of Christs comming and the end of the world, may seeme to haue thought the verie same, and vnderstoode the same world which ended at the comming of Messias to raigne in a new world by the Gos­pell, and for this cause those times betweene the preaching of Christ and Ierusalem destroyed, were called the last dayes in the second chapter of the Actes of the Apostles the 17. verse. In the last dayes saith God, I will powre of my spirit vpon all flesh, and in the beginning of the E­pistle to the Hebrewes. In these last dayes God hath spoken vnto vs by his son. These last dayes are all one with the end of the worlde, spoken [Page 251] of by the blessed Apostle Paul, in his first Epi­stle to the Corinthians, the tenth Chapter, ele­uenth verse, calling that time the ends of the world. These things (saith he) were writtē to ad­monish vs, vpon whome the ends of the world are come, and in the Epistle to the Hebrewes the ninth chapter, and twentie sixe verse. Now in the end of the world hath Christ appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of him­selfe. That which R. Nehemias said of wicked­nesse to be multiplied against the comming of Christ, is it not in plaine wordes verified by Christ himselfe in the verie same twenty foure Chapter of Mathew the twelft verse, giuing this for one token of his comming and the de­solation of Ierusalem to be at hand, that iniqui­tie should abound and charitie wax cold? If a­ny here demaund, how the second comming of Christ can be with any reason referred to the destruction of Ierusalem, seeing that it is eui­dent by that verie same twentie foure chapter of Mathew, that the comming of Christ to iudgement at the latter day is there described, by y^e suddennes therof, by his appearing in the clouds, the gathering of the elect with the sound of a trumpet, by the doome of the iudge decla­red in the next chapter, where the same argu­ment is continued. Come yee blessed of my fa­ther, inherit yee the kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world: depart yee [Page 252] cursed into euerlasting fire, which is prepared for the diuel & his angels. I answere that the second cōming of Christ containeth his whole raigne, iurisdiction, and iudgement, in the Citie of God the heauenly Ierusalem by the gospel prea­ched, frō the desolation of y^e outward & earth­ly Ierusalem when it begun, to the end of the world at the resurrection of all flesh: so that the destruction of Ierusalem, and the latter doome, being both included within the time of Christs second comming: there is no let but that the comming of Christ may be referred to both: to one in regard of the beginning, to the other in regard of the end and consummation thereof. And this is the cause that Christ there speaking of his second comming, blendeth these two together, the desolation of Ierusalem and his last iudgement, because both pertained to one and the same kingdome of Christ. And hereof it is that respecting the beginning of that kingdome, in the destruction of Ierusa­lem, wherein hee first appeared a rauenging iudge, hee saith, that that generation should not passe till all those thinges were fulfilled. All one with that in the end of the sixteene chapter of the same Gospel. Verily I say vnto you, some of them that stand here shall not taste of death, till they haue seene the sonne of man come in his kingdome. What time was there more fit for an other comming of Christ to fall vnto [Page 253] within one generation from those wordes by him vttered a little before his death then this? what time more agreeable to that, which after his resurrection hee spake of Iohns tarrying till he came, then the downefall of the Iewes estate and the vtter desolation of their Citie, & com­mon wealth, which that Euangelist liued to see? It is not vnlike or disagreeing to reason, that then should begin the spirituall raigne of Christ ouer all Nations by the preaching of the Gospell; when the doctrine of the law with all the ceremonies thereof were vtterly abolished. That then shuld begin the heauenly kingdome of Christ, whē y^e earthly kingdom of the Iewes, and all their law gouernment was first extinct. That then should begin the inward subiection of Gods newe people the elect amongst the Gentiles, and the spirituall seruice of GOD, when the Iewes outward worship had ceased. That then should begin the spirituall Sion and new Ierusalem from heauen, when the earthly Sion and olde Ierusalem had no more being. According to the saying of Esay the Prophet in his second chapter: It shall come to passe in the last daies, that the mountaine of the Lords house shall be prepared in the top of the moun­taines, and shall be exalted aboue the hils, and all nations shall flow vnto it. And many people shall goe, and say, Come, let vs goe vp to the mountaine of the Lord, to the house of the God [Page 254] of Iacob, and he will teach vs his wayes, and we will walke in his paths: for the Law shall goe forth of Sion, and the word of the Lord from Ie­rusalem. Where, by the high mountaine of the Lords house, and the names of Sion and Ierusa­lem, is vnderstoode not any certaine earthly place, or materiall citie: but the Church of Christ ruled and guided by the preaching of the Gospell. Which the Apostle in the fourth chapter of the epistle to the Galathians, calleth [...]: that is, high Ierusalem, or Ierusa­lem which is aboue. Alluding to the former prophesie of Esay, and opposing the high Ieru­salem to the earthly and materiall Ierusalem, which begot children of bondage by the law like Agar, and mount Sinai there called the new Ierusalem, or Ierusalem that now is. For as there were two kinds of Iewes, spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Romanes the second chapter, one visible, the other secret: so there were two Ierusalems, one outward by the vi­sible ceremonies of the Law: the other in ward by the spirituall graces of the Gospell, which is Christ his Church termed the heauenly Ierusa­lem in the Epistle to the Hebrewes the twelfth chapter and 22. verse. This heauenly Ierusa­lem then begun when the earthly Ierusalem was brought to an end, being destroyed by the Romane armie and consumed by fire, and the Iewes led captiue and dispersed abroad.

[Page 255]The preaching of the gospel begun long be­fore the destruction of Ierusalem I confesse, e­uen by Christ himselfe while he liued: and con­tinewed after by the apostles for the space of 40. yeares. All this is true. Yet so as withall the outward and ciuill gouernement of the Iewes common wealth with their ceremoniall seruice and law worship remayned still all that while in the holy citie and temple of God. And therefore that preaching of Christ and his a­postles so long before, seemed rather a prepara­tion to this kingdome of Christ, then any per­fect beginning thereof. According to that manner of preaching vsed by Christ and fol­lowed of his apostles:Mat. 4.17. Mat. 10.7. repent for the kingdome of God is at hand. Meaning that Christ in his kingdome was shortly to come, euen before they should haue gone preaching throughout all the cities of Israell: as he telleth them after in the same chapter. Then was the full and cleare beginning of the new spirituall raigne of Christ ouer God his people: when the olde gouernement and outward seruice had wholly giuen place vnto it: when Christ raigned a­lone in God his church by his gospell without any fellowship or part taking with the law ther­in. For those 2. at one time could not stand together to be both of force. In this respect that which was sayd touching Christ in the 24. ver. of ending sinne and making attonement, may [Page 256] be applied to this time: bycause that although those thinges were performed before: yet then especially, and by a kind of excellencie Christ sanctified his church from sinne, and reconci­led sinners into God his fauour: when he did it alone, all the partes of the lawe therein being ended. VVhen Christ by his gospel without a­ny more law-purifyings & oblations was him­selfe all in all. When the shadow was gone and the body come into the place of it. That also of the comming of euerlasting righteousnesse, which may be vnderstood of Christ Iesus him­selfe, being called our righteousnesse in the pro­phecie of Ieremie the 23. chapter, and the first epistle to the Corinth. the first chap. doth well agree to the beginning of his raigne, whereunto his comming by the Hebrew writers especially it is referred. And the sealing of vision and pro­phet so agreeable likewise vnto it, as I se not how it could be fulfilled before. For amongst manie other thinges foretold of Christ by the prophets in former ages: his glorious king­dome was one. The time whereof euen by Christ him selfe in many speeches is set within one generation after his death: and therefore vision and prophecie was not fully & absolute­ly before that time performed. Lastly the an­nointing of the holy of holies being a ceremo­nie of consecrating kinges to their raigne of all other for the beginning of Christes kingdome [Page 257] is most fit. Thus wee see that opinion of the Hebrewes, concerning the fulfilling of this pro­phecie in the comming of Christ to raigne, re­ferred to the end of Daniels weekes in the deso­lation of Ierusalem not to be altogether strange or absurd, hauing some motiues from holy scripture to perswade vs thereto. But it is not my mind to vrge or presse any man further for the receauing or holding thereof then it shall seeme good in his own iudgement to approue. If any thinke rather that other comming of Christ in this place to bee vnderstood: that is, some part of the time wherein hee was conuer­sant with men vppon earth, from his birth to his death, it may stand wel enough in that sence which before I haue declared.

Thus by God his mercie I haue, according to my poore talent, declared my iudgement for the true vnderstanding of Daniels weekes by interpretation of his wordes, and account of the times. The beginning of the 55. Olympiad and the eight day of September, in the second yere of Vespasiā, wherin the Citie of Ierusalem was fired, by the learned haue bin made the extreme yeres for the fulfilling of that Prophe­sie. The space betweene contained, is 629. yeres and two moneths. Within this compasse some haue gone hier, some lower, for the beginning and end thereof. Of that space 230. were of the Persian Monarchies, & from the end of that [...]