Cyrus began his reign in spring aa Ex antiquis monumentis colligerunt hoc Diodorus Siculus, Thallus, Castor, Polybius, Phlegon alijque apud Tatianum scriptorē perantiquum et doctissimum nec non apud Africanum ut refert Eusebius l 10 de Præp. Evang. Item Clemens Alexandr. 1 Strom. Cyril lib 1 cont. Iudæos Euseb. in Chron. Hieron in Dan 9. an. 1 Olymp 55, almos as all chronologers both ancient modern agree. From hence Agathias reccons the duration of the Persian Monarchy 28 years suppose to yethe final victory of Alexander over Darius at Arabia, wchwhich was Septemb ineunte an. 2 Olymp 112, but Africananus reccons it 230 years, suppose to yethe death of Darius wchwhich was a year & a half after that battel. He took Babylon overcame D Nabonadius or Darius Medes in the field an. Nabonass. 209,b Apud Hieron. in Dan. 9. & the next year towards the end of summer when Ethe waters of Euphrates were took Babylon by draining the river: whence to both wchwhich actions Ieremy ch 51 46 alludes in describing the fall of Babylon by a rumour in yethe land of yethe Chaldees at wchwhich they shall faint & the next year another rumour, violence in the land, Ruler against Ruler. After yethe death of Cyrus taking of Babylon Cyrus reigned seven years according to Xenophon. In all he regnedreigned 30 years complete & was slain by Tomyris in spring an 3 Olymp 62, anno Nabonass.

His son Cambyses reigned eight years complete including the 7 months reign of Smerdes. The time of his reign is determined by an eclips of yethe moon observed at Babylon in yethe 7th year of his reign anno Nabonass. 225 Phamenoth 17 hor. 1 ante mediam noctem (as Ptolomy out of yethe Chaldæan records monuments had relateds) wchwhich agrees to Iuly 16 an 2 Olymp 64 finiente

Darius Hystaspis began his reign in Spring about March or April an 3 Olymp. 64, & reigned 36 years & died in spring about April an 3 Olymp 73. His reign is determined by two eclipses of the Moon observed at Babylon yethe one in his 20th year an. Nabonass. 246 Epiph 28 sequente 29 quadrante horæ ante mediam noctem wchwhich agrees to November 19 an 3 Olymp 69 yethe other in his 31th year an. Nabonass 257 Tibi 3 sequente 4 semihora ante mediam noctem wchwhich agrees to April 25 an. 1 Olymp 72. Whence its manifest thasthat heis years began after Nov. 19 & before Apr 25. Yea out of Hagg. 1.1, 15 & 2.1, 10 & Zech Hagg. 1 & 2 Zech 1 it is manifest that his years began after Ian between Ian afte between Ianuary & Apr 25.

Xerxes reigned almost 21 years & was slain by Artabarus about Ianuary or February an 4 Olymp 78 8v & then Artabarus reigned seven months The battell of at Marathon was yethe 6t day of Broedromion that is

The b

Darius died in the fift year after the battel of Marathon &

Xerxes spent his first five years & something more in preparations for his expedition against Greece before he began it & began it made it in yethe time of the Olympic games an 1 Olymp 75. Calliade Athenis Archonte, 49 years before yethe beginning of yethe Pelopponesian war, 28 years after the Regifuge & Consulship of yethe first consulship of yethe first Consul Iunius Brutus Anno Vrbis Conditæ 273 Fabio et Furio loss. The passage of his l army over yethe Hellespont began in yethe end of the 4th year of yethe 74th Olympiad & took up one month & in autumn after 3 months more die munichionis 16, Plenilunio, was yethe battel at Salamis & a little after that an eclips of the Sun wchwhich by the calculation agrees to Octob 2 an. 1 Olymp 75. And almost ten years before this battel happened the battel at Marathon yethe 6t day of Broedromion that is about October Archonte Arthenis Phanippo & therefore an. 3, Olymp 72. & in the fift year after this battel was the death of Darius & beginning of Xerxes. By yethe reign of Xerxes. He began his reign therefore an. 3 Olymp 73 in spring. He reigned almost 21 years & died was slain about Ianuary or February an. 4 Olymp 78

Then reigned Artabanus seven months & was slain by Artaxerxes Longimanus, twho therefore began in Ant the end of Summer ineunte an 1 Olymp 79 for his years began before after yethe 94th Iewish month & before yethe 9th N Ezra 7.8, 9 & Nehem 1.1., & so may be referred to yethe sixt or seventh suppose about in the fift or sixt. He reigned 40 years incomplete & died in winter an. 4 Olymp 88 saith Thucydides in winter, in the seventh year of the Peloponnesian war an. 4 Olymp 88, a most certain record. For the time of that war is determined by 4 eclipses & other very certain characters.. His 20th year as Iulius Africanus out of former writers informs us was 115 years after yethe beginning of yethe Cyrus & fell in wthwith an 4 Olymp 83: Wherefore Ezra went up to Ierusalem an 43 Olymp 80 in spring, that is an. Iul. Per. 4257.

After Artaxerxes reigned Xerxes II two months, Sogdian 7 months & Darius Nothus 19 years. He died an 4 Olymp 93 & then succeeded reigned Artaxerxes Mnemon who reigned 43 years. Ochus Artaxerxes Ochus 23 years Arses 3 years & Darius Codomanus almost 5 years He was conquered by Alexander wthwith great an 2 Olymp 112 Kal. Octob. & died towards the end of the next Olympic year.

up wthwith wthwith Zerubbabel & were 24 in number (Nehem 12.) are found subscribed to the above mentioned lCovenant made at ytthat reading of the law Nehem 10. And lastly that yethe 11th chapter of Nehemiah is recited in 1 Chron. 9, & wthwith some variety & reading, & there those who came one of ten by lot to dwell at Ierusalem are called the went by lot to dwell in the cities are called the first inhabitants after yethe upon yethe after the captivity. And amongst those who were by then by lot to dwell at Ierusalem are recconed Mittamiah the Levite who was over the thanksgiving & the porters Shallum, Akkub, Talmon 1 Chron. 9. 15, 17 Nehem 11.17, 19 who came up at first wthwith Zerubbabel Ezra 2.42. Nehem 12.8.

So then if we would understand fully the history of yethe Iews at their first return in the reign of Cyrus, you we must conform compare this part of the book of Nehemiah wthwith the book of Ezra, & inserting & consider how both may be set together so as joyntly make up one entire history. And this will be done by inserting the 11th chapter of Ez Nehemiah between the two last verses of yethe 2d chapter of Ezra & yethe 8th 9th & 10th chapters of Nehemiah between yethe 6th & 7th verses of the third chapter of Ezra. For so yethe whole story will be read in continued order of time. And and bBy the first insertion you will understand how the people who came up to Ierusalem wthwith Zerubbabel went thence by lot into their cities & dwelt there till yethe seventh month came as is exprest in yethe last verse of yethe 2d chapter of Ezra & first of yethe 3d: & by yethe second insertion you will understand how the Priests & people, in setting up yethe altar & beginning on offering sacrifices from yethe first day of yethe 7th month, to offer sacrif & & keepingobserving yethe feast of Tabernacles, as is described in the third chapter of Ezra, were instructed therein out of the law of Moses publickly read to them at the same time by Ezra . & how Ezra refers For Ezra refers For to this reading of the law in saying: They built the altar of yethe God of Israel to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses yethe man of God – They kept also yethe feast of Tabernacles, as it is written. Ezra 3.2, 4.

The second observation I would make is for clearing up yethe history of yethe Iews in yethe reigns of Darius & Artaxerxes: & it is that that the Letters of their enemies to Artaxerxes was written the middle part of the fourth chapter of Ezra concerning Ahashuerus & Artaxerxes, that is from yethe 6t verse to yethe 26t inclusively, is a fragment of history inserted by some mistake of yethe scribe in a wrong place of the book of Ezra & ought rather to have been added to yethe end of the book. Arend my reasons for th are these. First I consider that the first book of Nehemiah is made up almost wholy of several parcells of yethe book39r books of Ezra & Nehemiah set together in another order, & intermixed & intermixed wthwith yethe story of yethe three young men speaking wise sentences & wthwith the story by & of of the three young men speaking wise sentences Whence I conclude that when Antiochus Epiphanes had caused yethe sacred books to be burnt & the all those to be put to death who concealed them:, & the Macchabees afterwards recollected what they could had escaped could be found had escaped: somebody meeting wthwith fragments of yethe books of Ezra & Nehemiah set them together in in that order we have find in yethe first book of Esdras: & by consequence that the fragments out of wchwhich that books was composed were genuine scripture excepting the story of yethe three young men. First I consider yethe the first book of Esdras is nothing else then the genuine book of Ezra interpoled between the first & second & third chapters wthwith the letter wthwith yethe letter to Artaxerxes & yethe Kings answer & wthwith yethe story of the three young men speaking wise sentences & augmented in the beginning wthwith part of yethe second book of Chronicles & in yethe end wthwith a fragment of yethe book of Ezra Nehemiah. Omit these interpolations & additions & you have in this book of Esdras an ancient trangslation of the genuine originall book of Ezra into greek: & in this translation all yethe above mentioned middle part of yethe 4th chapter conteining concerning th is wanting. I conceive therefore that when Antiochus Epiphanes caused yethe sacred books to be burnt & all men to be slain who concealed them :, & the Macchabees recolledcted what had escaped; there were found certain two fragments of history wchwhich they relating to yethe Persian Monarchy, wchwhich the Iews knew not how better to dispose of then by inserting them into yethe book of Ezra. Some therefore inserted them between the first & second chapters of this book, & this was the originall of the book of Ezsdras. Others Others (whether the Sanhedrin or any of yethe scribes) rejecting the story of yethe three young men speaking wise sentences as spurious, inserted only the fragment concerning Ahashuerus & Artaxerxes into yethe middle of yethe fourth chapter & this as a genuine piece of his record, & this I take to be the original of yethe book of Ezra as we now have it. Nor is it strange that And by the like accident I conceive it is. that the book yethe book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel & the books of the Prophets cited in yethe book of Kings & in that of yethe Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah are lost. lost & that a fragment of yethe prophesies of Isaiah are now found added to yethe end of yethe book of Zachary & theat in yethe 1st book of Samuel the story of Davids playing before Saul to drive away his evil spirit & becoming his410r his armour-bearer & Saul's loving him greatly has been set inserted before the story of Davids killing Goliah when Saul knew him not but asked again & again whose so he was. [And so in yethe new Testament Criticks have observed that the words For thine is the kingdom yethe power & yethe glory have been added in mMatthew to the Lords prayer & ytthat yethe story of yethe woman taken in adultery to I inserted in Iohn's gGospel & Mark's Gospel augmented by the 12 last verses & by consequence Matthews by yethe last chapter. For had Matthe Fou Matthew written yethe story of the resurrection Ma Mark who copies after him would scarce have omitted it. And this Origen seems to have been aware of when he commented on all Matthew but yethe last chapter. However these fr addition being ancient records approved by the Church we receive them as of yethe same authority wthwith yethe rest of yethe books & only questi reserve a liberty of interpretation where any of them has been inserted in a wrong place.]

The fragment therefore concerning Ahashuerus & Artaxerxes being inserted in one place in Ezra & in another in Esdras, I take to have been a lose F fra fragment piece of history inserted to both books in the times of the Maccabees, & thinsk it ought rather to have been added to yethe end of yethe book, For by inserting it & that for these reasons. First because by inserting it in the middle of the fourth chapter yethe story of building the Temple is interrupted. F It concerns only the building of yethe City & so respects the time after the Temple was finished. Secondly because a the letter to Artaxerxes was written against thoese Iews who came up from captivity in his reign, that is & by consequence against Ezra & those whom he brought up came up with him. For yethe letter to Artaxerxes runs thus: Be it known unto the King that the Iews iswchwhich came up from thee to us are come up unto Ierusalem building the rebellious & bad city & have set up yethe walls thereof & joyned the foundations. ✝ 9v✝ These Iews I say must be Ezra & his companions because thesey were the others w only Iews who came up from AstaxerxesArtaxerxes. Thirdly because after Artaxerxes in answer to their letter commanded wrote back when the enemies of the Iews received the Kings awnswer that the City should not be built till he gave another commandment, they Iews enemies of yethe Iews who went up in hast to Ierusalem & made unto these Iews & made them cease by force & power, that is by force of arms, & by consequence burnt demolished the wall they had been building. And this happened soon after511r after Ezra's return from captivity., For the about the nineteenth year of Artaxerxes. For the news thereof came first to yethe ears of Nehemiah at Susan in yethe twen neare the at Susan the Palace in the twentith year of yethe Keing near the beginning of yethe year. And it came to pass, saith he, in the month Chislen in the twentith year as I was atin shushan yethe Palace, that Hanam one of my brethren came, he & certain men of Iudah, & I asked them concering the Iews For in the twentith year of the King near the beginning of yethe year the news came first to yethe ears of Nehemiah in Shushan yethe Palace that yethe remnant of yethe captivity of the in Iudea were in great affliction & reproach & yethe wall of Ierusalem broken down & the gates thereof burnt wthwith fire. Nehem. 1. This news coming ‡ 11v‡ coming fresh at this time to yethe ears of Nehemiah makes it certain that the Iews did atte who came up wthwith Ezra did attempt to repair the city & were by oppress hindred by their enemies b& brought into affliction & reproach & the walls burnt broken down & yethe gates burnt wthwith fire & of these things we have no other account then in that fragment.

So theirn this fragment should have been added to yethe end of the book of Ezra as a conclusion of his government & an introduction to ytthat of Nehemiah & perhaps it was, broken of from thence in the reign of Antiochus Epihanes.. But if any man think otherwise, he may take yethe book of Ezra as now is & only put upon it this interpretation that Ezra relates first in the 4th chapter first how the building of yethe Temple was hindred all yethe days of Cyrus untill yethe reign of Darius Hystaspis in whose reign it was built, & that after how after so soon as this king was dead who favoured yethe Iews, was dead, their enemies conspired against them afresh to hinder the building of the city & for that end wrote against them first in the beginning of the reign of his son & successor Ahashuerus, (that is Achsweros, or Axeres or Xerxes) in the be g & then in the reign of his sucessor Artaxerxes Longimanus when the Iews whose returned came up from this King to Ierusalem as yethe letter mentions (that is Ezra & theose who came up wthwith him) were building the Cit walls, & that Ezra so soon as he has related these things returns back to relate how the Temple was built by the prophesying of Haggai & Zecchary & finished in the reign of Darius Hisystaspis by the prophesying of Haggai Haggai & Zecchary. This interpretation clears up the whole history takes away all disputions & makes it consistent wthwith the history of the Persian monarchy as it is recorded by the Greeks.

These Observations being premised, I shall now affirm that the Temple was built in yethe reign of Darius Hystaspis & that Ezra & Nehemiah came to Ierusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes612r ‡ coming fresh at this time to the Artaxerxes Longimanus & that for these reasons.

First because they that refer these things to yethe reigns of Ar Darius Nothus & Artaxerxes Mnemon do not do generally agree that by Ahashuerus & Artaxerxes in the above mentioned fragment are to be understood XexesXerxes & Artaxerxes Longimanus: & we have already proved ytthat it was in the reign of this Artaxerxes that Ezra & Nehemiah came up to Ierusalem. Tis certain out of that fragment that in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus there came up a body of Iews from the King to Ierusalem & bu attempted to build the walls of the City & were forcibly hindred by an armed power of their enemies, & the walls demolished. Tis certain also that all these things happened in the reign of that Artaxerxes from / whom Ezra & Nehemiah came up. And why we should make all the very same things hapepen in yethe reigns of more then one Artaxerxes, then one I do not understand.

Secondly the second year of ytthat Darius in whose the temple was built reign yethe temple was built, was the wchwhich the temple foundation of the temple whose reign the temple was built from the ground & finished (Hagg. 2.15, 18), was the seventith of the Zedekiahs captivity from the burning of the City (Zech. 1. 12 & 7.5) & at that time there were men living who had seen the first temple, Haggai 2.3, & this agrees to the reign of Darius Hystaspis, but not at all to that cannot be applied to the reign of Darius Nothus, but agrees well to yethe reigne of Darius Hystaspis. For his second year was yethe 70th from yethe final captivity of Iudea & burning of yethe Temple.

Thirdly if the Temple was not finished till the reign of Darius Nothus, then Zerubbabel must have continued captain of the Iews, & Ieshua their high Priest, from yethe return of yethe captivity under Cy first year of Cyrus to yethe sixt of D this dDarius, that is 112 years together, wchwhich is incredible, &most certainly false. For the High Priesthood of Ieshua was but of an ordinary length as you may know by comparing it wthwith the Pr & that of his son Iojakin with the contemporary Priesthoods of yethe other chief inPriests. For in ytethate Cheif Priest Priests wchwhich went up wthwith Ie Z from captivity wthwith Zerubbabel & Ieshua713r Ieshua were Serajah, Ieremiah, Ezra, Amariah, Malluch or Maelicu, Hattush, Shechaniah or Shebaniah, Rehum or Harim, Meremoth or Meraijoth, Iddo, Ginnetho, Abijah, Miamin or Miniamin, Maadiah, Belgah, Shemajah, Iojarib, Iedajah, Sallu or Sallai, Amok, Hilkiah, Iedajah. Nehem. 12.1 And in the days of Iojakim the son of SIeshua that is in yethe days of his High PriesthodPriesthood the chief Priests were all the eldest sons of all yethe Priests now name yethe chief Priests now named, viztvidelicet, Merajah yethe son of Serajah, Hananiah yethe son of Ieremiah, Meshullam the son of Ezra, Iehohanan the son of Amariah, Ionathan the son of Melicu, Ioseph yethe son of Shebaniah, &c Adnach yethe son of Harim Helkai yethe son of Merajoth, &c Zechariah yethe son of Iddo Meshullam the son of Ginnethon, Zichri the son of Abijah, &c. Nehem 12.12. This synchronising of the High-Priesthood of Ieshua with the Priesthood of the all all yethe fathers & of the high Priesthood of his son Iojakim wthwith yethe high Priesthood of all their eldest sons is a demonstration that yethe High Priesthood of Ieshua was but of an ordinary & therefore could not possibly reach down to the reign of Darius Nothus.

Fourthly the Persian Monarchy Chronologers reccon from the reign of D return of the Iewish captivity in the first year of Cyrus to the end death of Darius Codomanus stood Alexander the great 2018 years: & in all this th time the Iews had six High Priests succeeding from father to son, namely Ieshua Iojakim, Eliashipb, Iojada, Ionathan, Iaddua., Let the Priesthood of each by an equal division of the whole time among them be recconed about 34 years in length & the Priesthood of Eliashib will begin in yethe 2d year of Artaxerxes Longimanus & end in his 36th year Ionathan saith Iosephus was high Priest 34 years & Iaddua 20 years whereof yethe last 10 years fell in wthwith yethe greek Monarchy subduct yethe other 44 years from yethe duration 201 & the remainder 157 divide equally between the first four High Priests alotting about 39 years to yethe Hight Priesthood of each the last of wchwhich saith Iosephus died about the same time wthwith Alexander or a year of two after soon after. Let the Priesthood of each by an equal division of the whole time among them be recconed about 35 years in length & the & the High Priesthood of Eliashib will begin wthwith yethe 5th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus & end wthwith yethe 39th of Darius Nothus the same King : And this agrees well wthwith the truth. For Eliashib was high Priest when Nehemiah repaired the wall Nehem 3.1, in yethe 20th year of this Artaxerxes Nehem. 3.1 & continued High Priest for some time after yethe his 32th year of this Artaxerxes Nehem 13.7, 28. But if you make Eli & Nehemiah was governour all theis days Priesthood of of this Eliashib time. But if you make Nehemiah gGovernour in814r in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon; the PHigh Priesthood of Eliashib will reach some time beyond thes 32th year of that king & so there w the Pr Priesthood of the three first bHigh Priests will take up 15660 years & those of the five last but 50 years wchwhich is too unequal a division. For the as yethe high Priesthood of Ieshua was contemporary to the Priesthoods of yethe fathers who came up with him out of Captivity & yethe high Priesthood of his son Iojakim wthwith the Priesthoods of there immediate eldest sons so the high Priesthood of his grandson Eliashib was contemporary to the Priesthoods of their eldest grandsons F & therefore they were all but of an ordinary length. For Zechariah the son of Ionathan the son of Shemaiah was one of the chief Priests at wthwith dedication of the wall Nehem 12.35 , & & so was contemporary to Eliashib; & his father Ionathan was contemporary to chief Priest in the days of Iojakim & his grandfather I Shemaiah to in the days of Ieshua Nehem 12.6, 18. So far were these Priesthoods of these men from being of an extraordinary length that wh in the seventh year of Artaxerxes when Ezra came up to Ierusalem he found there the eldest sons of those who came up wthwith Zerubbabel in the days reign of Cyrus & were then chief fathers of their houses. I me For he found F For when he came up to Ierusalem he founded the delivered the holy vesse Iozabad yethe son of Ieshua & Noadiah the son of Binnui were chief among yethe Levites, Ezra 8.33 & their when Zerubbabel came up their fathers Ieshua & Binnui were chief fathers of their houses Ezra 2.40 & 3.9. Nehem 12.8.

Lastly if Ezra & Nehemiah be placed in the days of Artaxerxes Mnemon, their ages will be of an incredible length. For Ezra at yethe first return of yethe captivity under Zerubbabel in yethe reign of Cyrus was Priest & scribe & read yethe law to yethe P people Nehem. 8. 92, 4, 9. He was yethe son of Serajah the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah the son of Shallum &c & his father Saerajah went into captivity & was there slain in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar 2 King. 25.18, 21. 1 Chron 6.14 & from this year to yethe 28th of Artaxerxes Longimanus is 152 years when he was with Nehemiah at yethe dedication of yethe wall are 152 years. So old therefore was Ezra at that time but if you produce his age to yethe 28th of Artaxerxes Mnemon915r Mnemon you will make him 210 years old. wchwhich is incredible Again Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah was Tirshatha at Zerubbabels return from captivity in yethe first year of Cyrus Nehem 8.9 & 10.1 & 2 Ezra 2, 63 compared wthwith 1 Esdr. 5.40. from wchwhich time to yethe 312dth year of Artaxerxes Mnemon Longimanus are 99 years & to yethe 32th of Artaxerxes Mnemon 158 years, That Ezra should live 150 years & Nehemiah be Tirshatha & Governour by fits above 99 years is very much but to make yethe one live 210 years & the other be Tirshatha & governour 158 yea above 158 years is incre not to be admitted to altogether incredible.

Thus you see yethe reasons for placing yethe Erzra & Nehemiah in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus & yethe building of the Temple in that of Darius Hystaspis are exceeding strong . But & convincing. And now I will shew you ytthat yethe reasons to yethe contrary are as weak. For yethe two of chiefe are these only there are only these two of any moment. First say they Ezra in his fourth & fift chapters names the Kings of Persia in this order Cyrus, Darius, Ahashuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Artaxerxes & refers the building tof the temple to yethe Darius between the two Artaxerxes., But I have & Darius Nothus say they was the only Darius between the two Artaxerxes. This argument is the foundation of their Hypothesis, & yet has nothing in it. For But I have altready shewn proved that the last Darius here named is the same wthwith yethe first & yethe last Artaxerxes the same with the first. The other Argument reason is is that Sanbabllat wthwith his daughter & son in law mentioned Nehem 13.28 were alive in the reigns of Darius Codomnnus & that Sanballat Alexander yethe gr by revoling from Darius & assisteding Alexander yethe great in his wars against Darius at the seige of Tire got leave to build the Temple in mount Gerazim for his son in law., But it is to & built it in the latter very end of yethe reign of Darius. But I told you that yethe Iews confound this Darius with Darius Nothus When In the latter end of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus Nehemiah chased from him the son of Iojada the son of Eliashib the High Iosephus has this story from the Iews & I told you that they confound Hystaspis making Darius Hystaspis, Artaxerxes Longimanus & Darius Codomannus as I told you to be one & yethe same king & reading in Nehemiah that after yethe 32th year of this King, Nehemiah chased from heim the son of Iehojada yethe son of Eliashib the High Priest because he had married the daughter of Sanballat (Nehem. 13.28) whereupon & having a tradition that Sanballat thereupon to comfort his son in law for yethe loss of the Priesthood & retain him with his daughter promised to get leave of the King of Persia to build him another Temple in mount Gerazim as Iosephus relates. Whether lAnd whether he did as he this soon after suppose in the beginning of yethe reign of Darius Nothus to satisfy & retain his Son or staid an g age till yethe reign of Darius Codomannus & then built ti by rebelling against his King Darius before the Greeks were or defeated his sons expectation till they were all grown old I leave to be considered. For my part I cant but suspect that the Iews out of hatred to the Samaritans endeavoured by this story to detract from the an conquerors tiquity tiquity of their Temple The Iews read in Nehem & Alexander the great as IoBut thesephus relates wchwhich could not well have been, had they flourished in the reigns of Artaxerxes Longimanus.. But this I take to be a mistake of yethe Iews founded upon their erroneous chronology.. They read in Nehemiah that after yethe 32th year of Artaxerxes Nehemiah chased from him the son of one of yethe son of Iehojada yethe son of Eliashib yethe High Priest. & because he had married yethe daughter of Sanballat. They had also aty tradition that Sanballat to retain his son in law with his daughter & requite him for yethe loss of the Priesthood promised to get leave of the king of Persia to builtd him a new Temple for him on mount Gerazim. And he whilst they made Darius Hystaspis, Artaxerxes, Darius Nothus & Darius Codomannus to be one & yethe same king they were necess reigning but 36 years (as we told you above) they were necessitated to refer these things to yethe four two or three last years of Darius Codomannus wherein Alexander yethe great made war upon ithim, & by consequence to refer yethe building of yethe Temple on mount Gerazim to mix this story with the wars of Alexander & make that yethe Temple of yethe Samaritasns of the Samaritan on mount Gerazim built by Alexanhisders authority consenst & without y & go the yethe story as if Sanballat assisted him in those wars Now For the Iosephus tells us that Sanballat was sent by the last Darius (him whom Alexander vanquished) to be governour of Samariæa, & therefore erred wthwith yethe erring Iews he referrinedg yethe whole story of this Darius Nehemiah & Sanballat to the reign of this Darius.

If this answer do not satisfy, not you as it doth I shall back it wthwith another. A learned Prelate has observed that S San the Sanballat of mentioned by mentioned by Nehemiah was a Horomite, that is, a Moabite of yethe city Horonaim (Ier. 48.3, 5, 34) but he mentioned by Iosephus was a Cuthean as Iosephus affirms) that is a Samaritan from Cutha or Susiana beyond Euphrates: & that Iaddus, this the br & yethe son in law of the latter his brother. If you these were not yethe Sabme Sanballats the objection is at an end. But you if you think strange there should be more Sanballats then one, I presume you will be as more unwilling to allow two Ezra's both of them Priests & scribes & two Nehemiah's both of them sons of Hachaliah & governors of yethe Iews. And yet without allowing this you maust make one & yethe same Ezra Priest & scribe from yethe first & second years of Cyrus when he returned from captivity (Nehem.12.1) & read the law to all yethe people (Nehem 8) till untill yethe 28th year of Artaxerxes when Mnemon, when (according to your hypothesis) he was at yethe dedication of yethe wall (Nehem 12.36) that is for 1960 years together & all this time you must make one & the same Nehemiah Tirshatha & & Governor by fits from yethe same return first & second year of Cyrus when he returned from yethe captivity (Ezra 2.20), was Tirshatha or Governor & (Ezra 2.63) & signed yethe covenant (Ezra 2. 2, 63, compared wthwith 1 Esdr. 5.40, till after wthwith 32th year of the same Artaxerxes, (Ezra 13.) that is for above 164 years together. So you see your objection is answered with a greater against you.

☉ The reign of Cyrus began his reign in Persia by the consent of all Chronologers bega ancient & modern began his reign in Persia in spring an 1 Olymp 55, e reigne an. Iul. Per 4155 in spring. He reigned full 30 years & was slain in spring by Tomyris in spring an. an. 3 Olymp I.P. 4185. Cambyses reigned eight years including the seven months reign of Smerdes the Magician Dari who succeeded him. Th Darius Hystaspis began his reign in spring, I.P. 4193, & reigned 36 years, & died in spring I.P. 4229. Xerxes reigned almost 21 years & died was slain by Artabanus in winter ineunte an. I.P. 4250. Artabanus reigned 7 months & then upon suspicion of treason was slain in autumn or towards yethe end of Summer by Artaxerxes Longimanus who rei the son of Xerxes. Artaxerxes therefore began his reign in autumn I.P. 4250. & He reigned 40 years including yethe 7 months reign of Artabanus & died in winter before the finiente end of the Roman year I.P. 4289. Then reigned Xerxes II two months & Sogdian 7 months wchwhich some add to yethe years of include in yethe reign of Artaxerxes sometimes also & so reccon his reign 41 years Their short reign is included in the 40 years reign of Artaxerxes of Artabanusxerxes. Some reccon his reign 41 years, including also yethe yethe reign of Artabanus. Darius Nothus began his reign in Autumn I.P. 4290, & reigned 19 years, & died in Summer I.P. 4309. Then reigned Artaxerxes Mnemon about 43 years, Artaxerxes Ochus about 23 years, Arses between 3 & 4 years & Darius Nothus almost 5 years unto yethe Battel of Mara Arbela whebreby yethe Persian Monarchy fell, I.P. 4383. Kal. Octob. I.P. 4383. Th

This Chronology of yethe Persian Empire is so well agreed upon by Chronogers & so fully ascertained determined by eclipses recorded mentioned by Ptolomy Thucydides & others & by & so fully asserted by other records of good credit. Ptolomies Canon & the testimonies of Diodorus Siculus, Thucydides Iulius Africanus, Eusebius, TClemens Tatian, Alexandrinus, Ierom Sulpitius & other ancienter authors cited by them & so well agreed upon by all Chronologers, that I do not think it needful to enter into any dispute about it.

To adjust the reigns of the Persian kings &c

In yethe 3d year of Iehojakim king of Iudah came Nebuchadnezzar & beseiged Ierusalem & took it in the winter following in yethe ninth in his 4 year & became Lord of Iudeaah & carried away part of yethe vessels of yethe Temple to Babylon. Whence Ierem In yethe next year Ieremiah prophesied that Iudah should serve yethe King of Babylon 70 years & that at yethe end of 70 years God would The next year wchwhich Ieremiah calls yethe first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Ier 25.1) & p that is theies first year of his reign over Iudea And They took yethe city in yethe 9th month in yethe beginning of the Kings 4th year & thereore the Iews kept a fast in that month yethe next year Ier 36.6, 9, 22, & Ieremy reccons the 4th year of Iehojakim to be the first of Nebuchadnezzar that is theHis first year over Iudea. Ier 25.11. Now in this first year Ieremiah prophesided ytthat yethe King this same year that Iudah should serve yethe King of Babylon 70 years & that at yethe end of 70 years God would punish yethe King of Babylon & lay wast yethe land of yethe chaldeans (Ier. 25.11, 12) & thereby or soon after cause the captivity to return Ier 29.10 Dan 9.2 2 Chron 36.2 22. These years therefore begin wthwith yethe fourth first year of yethe King of Babylon ofver Iudea in wchwhich the prophesy was given & end wthwith yethe invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus to wchwhich yethe return of yethe captivity was consequent. Now Iojakim reigned eleven years of wchwhich above 3 preceded the taking of Ierusalem & eight almost eabove seven followed it. Then reigned Iojakim three months & ten days & when yethe (Iewish) year was expired that is in yethe month Nisan, spring the kKing of Babylon sent & carried him to bBabylon in thie eighth year of his own reign over Iudeah 2 King 24.12. 2 Chron 36.10. Afterwards reigned Zedekiah 11 years & took then the yethe city was taken & burnt destroyed ion yethe ninth day of yethe 4th month & burnt destroye ion yethe 7th day of the fift month. This was in & yethe This was in the This was This was in the 11 year of Zedekiah & ninteenth year of yethe Nebucha Nebuchadnezzar 2 King. 25.8 For his 18th year was yethe 10th of Zedekiah, Ier 3 In yethe After Nebuchadnezzar reigned J Evilmerodach & his first year was yethe 37 of Iehojakims captivity & by consequence the 45th of Ier. 32.1. After Evilmerodach yethe son & successor of Nebuchadnezzar reigned reigned Evilmerodach his son & who began his reign in yethe 37th year of Iehojakin's captivity 2 King 25.37 that is in yethe 45t of Iehojakim's, the & reigned two years, After him reigned Nigricolassar wthwith Belshazer 4 years & then Belshazer alone 9 months Belshazzar alone 9 months, & Nabonnedus or Darius medus 17 years, according to Megasthanes & Ptolemies Canon published by Petavius. The

Cyrus in wthwith beginning of the 22th year of his reign & end of wthwith 17 year of

but yethe first reccons from yethe flight of Nabonnedus, yethe second from yethe taking of Babylon wchwhich was a year after (Ier 51.46.). While Cyrus besieged Babylon Nabonnedus lay lay shut himself up in Baorsippa & both & by reason of the great strength of both places, the impatient Iews during the seiege used this Proverb: Babylon & Borsippa had signe to signum mlu malum legi. This shews that whence theiry cawere not released from captivity till the spring after yethe city was taken & that they dated yethe years of Cyrus from yethe taking of yethe City. The first year of Cyrus therefore in wchwhich they returned was yethe 23th of his reign in Persia: after wchwhich he & Cyrus after their release regned almost 8 years. & Cyrus after their release reigned seven years.

In the eight years reign of Cambyses is included the seven months' reign of his successor Smerdes, & whence Herodotus attributes but 7 years & 5 months to Cambyses alone. So In that of Xerxes yethe seven months' reign of A his successor Artabanus is included, hemi & in that of Artaxerxes Longimanus the reigns of his successors Xerxes II & Sogdian, yethe first of wchwhich reigned two months a year yethe other 7seven months months. Some reccon for yethe reign of this Xerxes abut year two months, & so put 140 years for the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. his reign 41 years but Eusebius Eusebius Sulpinius & some Authors mentioned by Diodorus as also Eusebius put his reign but two months & Ctesius who lived soon after in Persia puts his reign more precisely 45 days, & adds that because he died so soon after his father Artaxerxes, both their corps were carried together into Persia But Diodorus assigns a year to Xerxes & Ptolomy, Clemens Alexandrinus the Chronicum Alexandrinum Nicephorus & Abulpharrius allot 41 years to Artaxerxes Xerxes & Sogdian together & unless this be done there will not be 20 1/2 years between the death of Artaxerxes & that of Darius as there ought to be. Eusebius mtakes 3 years from yethe reign of yethe reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon & gives them to Ochus. The Monarchy was translated to the Greeks by the battel at Arbela Octob. 2. an 2. Olymp 112. But Darius was not slain till above a year & some months after. And hence Agathias reccons that yethe Monarchy stood 238 years & Africanus 230

The beginning of Cyrus in Persia & yethe length of his reign & those of Cambyses Darius & Xerxes is agreed on by all chronologers ancient & modern yethe reignyeares of Cambyses & Darius are stat stated absolutely fully determined by three eclipses recorded by P made at Babylon & recorded by Ptolomy: thatose of Xerxes by the battel of Marathon fourive years & some months before yethe Ddeath of Darius, , &, by the transit of Xerxes in the beginning of his sixt year in the times of the Olympic games an 1 Olymp 75. Thatose of Artaxerxes Longimanus by the coincidence of his 20th year wthwith an. 4 Olymp. 83, T by as Africanus informs us & by the news of his death being coming out of Persia to Athens in winter in yethe seventh year of yethe Peloponnesian war as Thucydides mentions relates. Thatose of Darius Nothus by yethe coincidence of his 13th year wthwith yethe 20th of yethe Peloponnesian war as Thudcydides mentions & by thatose of Artaxerxes Mnemon by s his beginning a little after yethe end of yettheeat Peloponnesian war in yethe same Olympic year as Diodorus relates. For yethe war ended began in April an 1 Olymp 87 lasted 27 whole years & ended about Apr. 14 An. 4 Olymp. 93. & the time thereof is so well fixed by four eclipses that it cannot be disputed All these things are so well determined & agree by eclipses & other records of good credit & so fully far agreed upon by Chronologers that I do not think it material to enter into any dispute about them.

Artaxerxes king of Persia in the seventh year of his reign sent Ezra & the Iews from Babylon to Ierusalem with a commission to restore yethe worship of God & teach the people his law & to set magistrates & Iudges over the land Iudea wthwith power to punish by death or banishment or confiscation of goods or imprisonment: And by this commission the Iews in Iudea were incorporated into a City pPeople & Holy City (Ezra 7.) And from the erecting this corporation to the finishing of transgression w& making an end of sins & making reconciliation for iniquity & bringing in everlasting righteousness [by the sacrifice of yethe Lamb of God] & the bringing everlasting righteousness [by the attonement & g resurrection] & sealing the vision & Prophet & t annointing the most Holy [thence by the attonement & resurrection of the Lamb of God & making him King of Kings & Lord of Lords called the Messias] were seventy weeks of years [by the attonement & resurrection of the Lamb of God & the Christ & the giving him a name above every name & making him king of Kings & Lord of Lords the Messiah the Prince] were seventy weeks of years (Dan. 9.24.) & therefore Jesus Christ died A.C. 34, & ein a sabbatical year, the seventy weeks ending each of them wthwith sabbatical years, as was yethe manner of recconing among the Iews., & the preceeding year having 13 months that yethe passion may fall on a friday.

It was the practise of Christ to draw Parables from all things wchwhich were before yethe eyes of his hearers: & accordingly in allusion to the Iews making their servants free he tells the in the feast of the seventh month wchwhich next preceded his passion he tells the Iews that the truth shall make them free & the Iews replying that they were Abrahams seeds & never were in bondage he tells them ytthat whoever commits sin is the servant of sin & if the son shall make them free they shall be free indeed. Whence I conclude that this was the year in wchwhich the Iews released their servants of release releasing servants or sabbatical year A.C. 34.