The world was at first governed by kings & kings were then both Lawgivers & Iudges & their kingdoms of small extent, no king reigning over more then his own country & people province & tribe. Ninus was the first or city wth its villages Ninus was ye first who violated this primitive constitution out of desire of dominion invaded he neighbours. And every mans Every city with its villages was a polity (as the very word still signifies) & every polity a sovereign kingdom, there being no subordination of polities before conquest untill conquest introduced subordination of polities governments. For Every father at first was a king. For ye four ages first ages so much cel{illeg}|eb|rated by ye Poets are ye ages of the four first generations of Kings \& those kings were only fathers/ Noah was ye first king Noah \is that Saturn who/ reigned in ye golden age {illeg} the division & Ham that Iupiter who reigned in ye silver age. For the|i||s| {pl} theology was originally Egyptian & the Egyptian Iupiter is Iupiter Hammon. {illeg}{illeg}No Noah reigned till ye division of ye earth between his sons. Then reigned Iupiter in {to} his own territory \lot/ till ye division thereof between his sons. Then \in {the} brazen age/ reigned Osiris & Isis with their brethren in their several lots till Chus not content with his own inheritance {illeg} invaded ye inheritance of ye sons posterity of Sem & planted his sons (as Bochartus has shewn) \in several regions/ round about ye Persian gulf from ye furthest part of Arabia felix to ye furthest part of Carmania. And with this war & the reign of the sons of Chus in their several t in their several territories began ye iron age. Nimrod was at this time planted by his father in ye land of Shinar. & there saith Moses was ye beginning of his kingdom: but not content wth this {illeg} country he went ou{illeg}t \{&} build cities there/ thence into Assyria & seated himself there planted that land wth his posterity \p{lant}ing them in several place|seate|s wch at length grew into cities./. Whence Assyria is called ye land of Nimrod, Micah. 3. And as Noa{illeg}h divided his kingdom between his sons & Chus \H{a}m/ his kingdom between his sons & Chus his kingdom between his son so doubttless the sons of Chus (Nimrod as well as ye rest) divided his kingdom be according to the law received from their fathers divided their \several/ kingdoms among their sons, & so {illeg}|o|n untill families for wan{t} of room to spread into, grew into towns & the competition between several families in ye same town made it {illeg} thought convenient altered \began to altered/ ye law of dividing the inheritance \equally/ between \all/ ye sons & brought in ye custome of giving all to ye eldest son for preserving the family in \its/ power & authority. [So then the first parents were So then \soveraign/ kings & their kingdoms were no greater then their families. Every family was a kingdom till the several fa{illeg}|m|ilies for want of \more/ room to spread into began to live together in \the same/ towns & then it became \the commerce between ye families/ /made it\ necessary \for ending all differences/ that the{illeg}|ir| fathers of ye families should appoint some one of their number to & moderate & do common justice between them \judge/ judge between them all & do ye office of a common father: & thus the first towns became cities & king <1v> doms & the fathers of families wch had hitherto been kings became elders of cities, & ye towns wch grew up afterwards wth in ye territories of any cities citty became the villages of ye city. The And from this small beginning kingdoms \at length/ grew greater \by conquest/ & governments more & more compount|d| till they arrived at ye state they are now in have ever since (whether by war or compact) grown greater & greater & governments more & more compount|d| untill ye rise of ye four Monarchies. And hence this it is come to pass \this affords a reason why/      These Monarchies were ushered in by ye Assyrian & this monarchy is that \Whence it came to pass that/ ye histories of ye first ages were \have been/ generally bu\{illeg}/ried in oblivion. For whilst kingdoms were small, {illeg} their actions \histor/ /actions\ were too numerous & too inconsiderable to deserve a lasting memory.

Chap 2. Of the first great /Assyrian\ Monarchies.

The first great Monarchy of great {ex}tent was ye Assyrian. Tis usually recconned as old as Ninus or Nimbrod or Nimrod ye founder of ye city: but this opinion having no p|b|etter foundation then ye authority of Ct ye fl \Nineve: but this opinion/ resting only upon ye authority of Ctesias \& those who borrow from him/ has been justly called in question by Sr Iohn Marsham. Nimrod By ye cities wch M|N|imrod built you may know that he follow divided his kingdom amongst his posterity Nimrods kingdom could not be like those now in being: for ye world was not then peopled. He conquered not to reign over nations, but to make room for \plant/ his posterity in a good soile, & according to ye \example of his father Chus & the/ laws of those ages left {illeg} ye soile divided amongst his children. For p he planted \built/ several cities \in Assyria/ & those cities could be nothing else at first then ye families of his children wch were pland|t|ed by him in several places & in time gr became cities wth their seven {illeg} Kings that is founded seven & those cities could be nothing {illeg} the at first then ye families of his children p wch were planted by him in several places & in time became \great/ cities & & {illeg} by their dominion grew great \greaw {sic} great/ & by consequence were {illeg} many \so many/ kingdoms. Resen. For cities grew great only by being Resen between Nineveh & Calah is called by Moses a great city & therefore was \or had been ye seat of a great Kingdom/ a great kingdom for kingdoms {illeg} distinct from yt of Nineveh. For. \Resen by For Resen as well as {illeg} Nineve {illeg} was in the time of Moses a great city For & by consequence either \then/ was or had been a great Kingdom distinct from yt of Nineve/ \For as families became cities, so/ so cities \at first/ grew great only by being the seats of Kings. Resen in Assyre|i|a was \is called by Moses/ a great city in ye time of Moses & therefore had been a great kingdom, & by consequence ye king of Nineve did not reign over all Assyria from ye beginning. \{illeg}/ His kingdom after it began to be conspicuous stood (according to Herodotus 520 years untill the F The Kingdō dominion of Nineve \Assyria/ Herodotus dates not from ye fo|i|rst founding of ye city \Nineve/ but from some later beginning. For he {saith} \accordin{g to} him/ it stood |but| 520 years untill the defection of ye Medes wch happened about /& about 120 years\ <2r> more untill Nebuchadnezzar & Cyaxeres overthrew it & so it began about 150 years before ye reign of Saul. \over Israel/ But we are not to reccon yt it stood all this time in it's greatness. The cities                                    

The city & Kingdom \& City/ of Babylon was founded by Nebonassar ab an Assyrian about 34 years before the defection of ye Medes, & peopled wth Arabians collected thither into a body from ye neighbouring regions (Isa. 23.13) These Arabians seem to be of the posterity of Chavilah ye son of Chus. For his seat was between Babylon & ye Persian gulf \compassed Babylon & on ye south & west extending from the Persian gulf \& mouth of Pasitigris/ to ye western elbow of Euphrates/ \compassed Babylon on ye south & west, lying in/ in the way from Egypt to Assyria \& extending from ye Persian gulf & mouth of the Pasitigris \or Pison/ to the south-western elbow of the Euphrates/ Gen 2.11 & 25.18. 1 Sam. 15.7.) These Arabians the Greeks & Latines called Chaulotæans whence perhaps the name of Chaldæans was given \by the Greeks/ to those in Chaldæa Babylonia. Their kings \of Babylon are s{illeg}/ were Assyrian in Ptolomies canon are called Ass Pto Ptolomy in his canon of the kings of Babylon has \But {illeg}/ the kings of Babylon were Assyrians & Medes till ye reign of Cyrus as appears by ye title of them in Ptolomies Canon of them. Whence Nabonad \Nabonadius/ ye last of them \Kings of that Canon/ Nabonadius was a Mede & all by consequence is ye same wth Darius the Mede. {illeg} \For the/ rest were Assyrians unless you will reccon \add also/ also ye ye last but one to wth Medes. In the 27th year of their kingdom began M\Mero/erodach Baladan or Mardocempad to reign & In ye 68th year of their kingdom Assarhaddon king of Assyria became king also of Babylon, & un{illeg} & reigned over both kingdoms thirteen years. {illeg} {illeg} Not long after the Kingdom of Babylon became again divided from ye Kingdom of Assyria & took away ye province of Susa with it soo wthin a few years & soon after ye happened ye war between the kingdomes of ye Med{illeg}|e|s & Assyrians & ye in{illeg}|v|a|s|si|io|n of \/ of Asia by/ ye Scythians, upon wch occasion|s| I conceive it was that ye kingdom of Babylon became again divided from ye kingdom of Assyria. For it appears \out/ of Herodotus that ye Kingdom of Babylon|ians| fell off from ye Assyrian Kingdom of ye Assyrians after the Medes. And now since Herodotus speaks of divers


The first kings were only fathers of families & their famili{es} were their kingdoms. For ye 4 first ages so much celebrated by {illeg} antiq. are ye ages of ye 4|four| first kin generations of kings. \of Saturn Saturn/ In ye golde{n} age, ree|i|gned Saturn was king \his that is Noah/ & in the silver one \his son/ Iupiter \that is Ham. Fo{r}/ \Iup. in ye silver one &c/ This philosophy Theology was Egyptian, & therefore \so yt Iu/ Iupiter \here/ is Iupiter Hammon or Chus Ham, & |this| Saturn is th his father \his father/ no Noah {illeg} In the third \brazen/ age reigned Osiris & Isis & in ye wth \& by consequence is Noah./ Noah reigned \first/ till the division of ye earth between his sons. Then reigned in his own lot till the division thereof between his ho sons & then reigned in ye brazen age reigned Osiris & Isis wth their br. – – – So then to the Ninus Nimrod or Ninus left no standing kingdom: Assyria like all other places \countries/ became at first divided into many small kingdoms among many families, When Whence f & every family was a town & a kingdom, When tow & after {illeg} \& every father a king. But/ when \towns began to hold/ many towns families grew into a the fathers made a Council & became elders of ye City & the moderator whom the|y| appointed to do justice among them all became the p{illeg}{illeg}\supplied the office/ the office of a \common/ father or king & the towns wch came up afterwards fo|b|ecame villages of ye kingdo City: & fo – For I put reccon ye same const. of {illeg} things in Assyria as in {illeg} other t|c|oum {sic}tries not only because for ye reasons above but also because ye in|th||e| scripture w{illeg}f \we/ heare nothing of ye Assyrian makes no mention of ye Assyrians for abov betwe monarchy till [ye reign of Phul: wch was] above 1300 years o|a|fter Nimrod invaded & peopled that land In ye time of ye days of Ioshua & ye Iudges Mesopotamia had a king of its \own/ (Iud     ) & therefore was not yet subject to ye king of Assyria. In ye days of David the king of Sa|o|ba reigned over part of Mesopotamia. There |is| no mention of ye Assyrians passing the river Euphrates till ye reign of Phul wch was above 1500 years after the flood, & therefore this|e| Monarchy \Kingdom of Nineve/ began not to grow great till the{illeg} about that time.


The history \& chronology/ of the two first \Babylonian/ monarchi|y|es
with respect to ye Iews \70 years captivity of/ /the Iews.\

The Iews \seem to/ know nothing \little/ more of the Babylonian & Persian Monarchies then what they have out of the Books of the old Testament, & therefore own no more kings nor years of Kings then they can find in those books. The Kings they reccon are only Nebuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, Belshazar, Darius ye Mede, Cyrus, Ahashuerus, & Darius the Persian. The last Darius they reccon to be ye Artaxerxes in whose reign Ezra & Nehemiah came to Ierusalem accounting Artaxerxes a common name of all the Persian Kings. Nebuchadnezzar, they say, reigned 45 years, eight with Iehojakim & 37 afterwards (Ier. 1.25. 2 King 25.27.) & Belshazzar reigned three (Dan. 8.1) & thence to Evilmerodach they allot 23 years to make up 71. For \because/ the Prophesy of ye 70 years being \was/ given in ye first year of Nebuchadnezzar \& the city taken (as they reccon in his second year/, they date those |70| years from ye end of the|a|t first \second/ year to ye end of Belshazzar's reign. Then to Darius ye Mede whom they reccon the first King of the Medo-Persian Empire they ascribe \but/ {illeg} one year or at most but two (Dan. 9.1) to Cyrus three years incomplete (Dan. 10.1) to Ahashuerus 12 years till the casting of Pur (Esth. 3.7) one year more till the Iews smote their enemies (ch. 9.1) & one year more till Esther & Mordecai wrote the second letter for the keeping of Purim (ch. 9.29) in all 14 years, & \& so reccon 70 years also from ye bur destruction of ye Temple & City to ye{illeg} second year of Darius Zach. 1.1, 12/ to Darius the Persian they allot 3{illeg} above 32 years (Nehem 13.6) recconing that ye Persian Monarchy during the \standing of ye/ second Temple flourished only 34 years, untill Alexander the great overthrew it. Thus ye Iews reccon in their great Chronicle calle Seder Olam Rabba. Whence its plain that we are to expect \little or/ no light from them in the history of <3v> these kingdoms but must have recourse to ye scriptures themselves compare them wth ye records of the Greeks.

Pharaoh Necho in passing through Iudea to make war upon the King of Assyria slew Iosiah & three king of Iudah & three months after captivated his son Iehoahaz & made his other son Iehojakim king in his stead, & made the land \to/ tribute {illeg} 2 King. 23. 2 Chron. 35. \The reign of the Kings of Babylon is usually recconned by the years of Nabonassar the founder of that Monarchy. these {illeg} years began in winter & the first year of Nabonassar was the 747th before year before the birth of Christ according to the vulgar account./

The |And| \Now/ ye years of Nabopolassar the father of Nebuchadnezzar are determined by an eclips of the Moon observed at Babylon in the fift year of his reign in ye 127th year of Nabonassar \the first king of Babylon/ April ye 22th as Ptolomy has recorded. He reigned 21 years & Nebuchadnezzar 43 (according to Berosus & \the canon of/ Ptolomy) & Nebuchadnezzar died in ye 37th year of Iehojakin's captivity (2 King. 25.27) & by consequence in ye 27th of Ieho Zedekiah's, & therefore Zedekiah was captivated & the city & temple burnt in the 16th or 17th year of Nebuchadnezzar & 158th year of Nabonaz|s|sar. For tit|he||y| was|er||e| burnt in \one of/ the Iewish sabbatical years a littl (Ier. 34.) in the beginning of the 11th year of Zedekiah, {illeg}midsummer \{illeg}/ a little \in the fift Iewish Month that is a month or two/ after midsummer (2 King. 25.) Nehem

Zedekiah therefore began his reign in spring in ye 148th year of Nabonassar & Iehojakim \succeeded Iehojakim/ in ye winter before. For \when/ Iehojakim \had/ reigned three months he was carried captive to Babylon in the beginning of the Iewish year (2 Chron 36.9, 10) Now {illeg}his captivity happened in the end of the eighth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar over Iudea & Zedekiah's in the beginning of |t|his|e| ninteenth year of ye same reign (2 King 24.12 & 25.8 \Ier. 32.1/) & therefore Nebuchadnezzar began to reign over Iudea about midsummer in the 140th year of Nabonassar, about two years before the death of his father Nebopolassar.

Before all this, Pharaoh Necho in passing through Iudea to make war upon ye King of Assyria (for so the King of Babylon is sometimes called \& take from him Carchemish by Euphrates a town of Mesopotamia by Euphrates/ slew Iosiah, King of Iudah & three months after \when he had beaten the Assyrians & taken Carchemish wth ye adjacent regions from them/ captivated his son Ieho Iehoahaz & made his other son \the successor of Iosiah & made/ Iehojakim king in his stead & put ye land to tribute (2 King. 23. 2 Chron 35) whence Iehojakim began his reign in summer. |for in the 137th year of Nabonassar. For he reigned 11 years incomplete & his fourth year fell < insertion from f 4r > in wth ye first of Nebuchadnezzar over Iudea (Ier 25.1.) < text from f 3v resumes > | About this|e| time < insertion from f 4r > \beginning/ of the reign of Iehojakim when Pharaoh warred against Carchemish Assuerus or Cyaxeres King of the Medes &|a|ssisted by Nebuchadnezzar made war \also/ upon the King of Assyria, destroyed Ninive, & ruined the Kingdom \(Tobit. 14.15)/ & left ye western \southern & western/ part thereof to ye King of Babylon, who thereupon < insertion from the left margin of f 4r > who thereupon sent his son Nebb|u|chadnezz wth an army against Syria & Phœnicia wch had revolted to the King of Egypt, & invited the King of the Medes \to his assistance/. Berosus tells us ye story as if {illeg} ye Prefect of Egypt Syria & Phœnicia had revolted from ye King of Babylon \& Nebuchadnezzar was sent to rescue him/: but Egypt was not yet conquered by any foreign Kingdom, & therefore had no Prefect. Berosus should have said ye King of Egypt to whom Syria & P{}nicia had revolted. Nebuc{h}adnezzar s{illeg}re < insertion from the right margin of f 3v > ‡ therefore being sent by this father to recover these Provinces invited \{illeg}/ the King of the Medes Astibares ({illeg} Assuerus or Cyaxeres) the king of ye Medes to the|i||s| was|r| against (as a[1] Alexander Polyhistore relates) & the third year of Iehojakim & invaded {illeg} entred|in||g| {illeg} these Provinces wth an army, beseiged Ierusalem, tooke it, spoiled the Temple & reduced ye Kingdom of Iudah |in|to servitude: & the next year routed the army of Pharaoh – – – < text from the left margin of f 4r resumes > < text from f 4r resumes > set a President over Syria & Phœnicia & then upon a revolt of the President, \or rather a re{illeg}/ {illeg} \sent his son Nebuchadnezzar/ wth an army into Syri|those|a \parts. Nebuchadnezzar therefore/ in ye third year of Iehojakim & \coming into Syria/ beseiged Ierusalem & took it & spoiled ye Temple & reduced ye Kingdō of Iudah into subjection servitude < text from f 3v resumes > time was Ninive destroyed by \the joynt forces of Nebuchadnezzar &/ Assuerus or Cyaxeres King of the Medes |being assisted by Nebuchadnezzar made war upon the King of Assyria & destroyed Ninive & left his dominion in Sy < insertion from f 4r > ria & Phœnicia to Nebuchadnezzar, who thereupon set a President over them & then upon a < text from f 3v resumes > | (Tobit 14.15) & then in the third year of <4r> Iehojakim came Nebuchadnezzar against the|Syr||i|E|a|gyptians & took Ierusalem spoiled the Temple reduced the kingdom \of Iudah/ into servitude & the next year routed the army of Pharaoh at \Carchemish by/ Euphrates & took from ye King of Egypt all that pertained to him from Euphrates to ye river of Egypt. (Dan. 1.1. Ier. 46.2. 2 King. 24.1, 7) & whilst he was pursuing these victories heard of the death of his father Nabopolasser, & thereupon returned to Babylon leaving his army wth his servants (|as| a[2] Berosus {illeg} apud Euseb apud Iosephum {illeg} Now Iehojakim reigned eleven years incomplete & therefore began his reign in ye summer of ye 137th of Nabonassar. For ye first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar over Iudea was the fourth year of Iehojakim (Ier. 25.1) \Thus by the fall of Babylon the Kingdom of Assyria did the Kingdoms of Media & Babylon grow great together. But Babylon prosecuting its/ |vic|tories further grew the greater & there therefore is recconed the first Monarchy. It comprehended Susiana, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, \Phenicia/ /Phenicia Idumea, Moab, Ammon\ & part of Arabia & some add part of Afric.

When Nebuchadnezzar was thus become            & this was the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar over Iudea & Syria

Now in ye first year of this his reign wch was & \Nebuchadnezzars this reign over Iudea wch was/ ye fourth of Iehojakin's, Ieremiah prophesied that the land should serve the King of Babylon 70 years, & that at ye end of 70 years God would punish the King of Babylon & make ye land of ye Chaldeans desolate (Ier. 25.1) & that that region \thereby bring back/ the Iews should \thereupon return/ from captivity (Ier 29.10) To ye year of Nabonassar \140/ in wch their servitude began add 70 years & the dominion of Babylon will end in the year 210. And so it did \according to ye Canon of Ptolomy. For this is ye first year of Cyrus in Babylon \according to the Canō//. For F Cyrus by ye common consent of all Chronologers \Diodorus, Thallus, Castor, Phlegon, Polybius, Phlegon, Tatian, Africanus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Ierome Cyrill./ began his reign in Persia in spring Win|he|n ye first year of ye 55t Olympiad was above half run out \by consequence in ye 189th year of Nabonassar/ & reigned full 3{illeg} third|t|y years, the nine last of wch (according to Ptolomies ye canon) were over I|B|abylon & therefore began in ye 210th year of Nabonassar & ended in ye 219th year, as also ye Canon represents. N{illeg}

The same account may be gathered \also/ from ye two last reign of ye intermediate Kings. For Iehojakin |Zedekiah| \Iehojakin/ was captivated in ye {illeg} \149th/ year of Nabonassar as above & \Evilmerodach succeeded his f{illeg} father/ Nebuchadnezzars di{illeg} /in spring\ in the 37thth year of his \Iehojakins/ Captivity, (as above \2 King 25.37/) & that is in ye /& by consequence in ye\ 1{illeg}6th /45t\ year of Nabonassar|uchadne||zzars| /reign over Iudea\ For ye years of Nabonassar now began in December Evilmerodach|H|e reigned three years according to ye Canon or two according to Berosus, & {illeg} \After him reigned/ Belshazzar 5 \years/ according to ye Canon or 4 years {illeg} & 9 months according to Berosus, & \then reigned/ Darius the Mede 17 years ‡ < insertion from f 4v > ‡according to both, & all these years make up 69 or 70 unto yee reign of {illeg} Cyrus.

The same account may be gathered from ye reign of the kings of Tyre.For in ye 11th year of Iehojakins captivity Ezekiel ye in ye \some months/ after ye news of {illeg} ye destruction I|of| Ierusalem {illeg} & therefore in ye \159th/ year of Nabonassar Ezekiel predicted \prophesied/ that Nebuchadnezzar {illeg} should \come &/ beseige Tyre (Ezek. 26.) & |For| a[3] mentions that the {illeg}e relates out of the Phœniceā records that Tyre was beseiged by Nebuchadnezzar 13 yearstogether & in ye reign of its King Ithobalus. And Ezekiel in ye 11th year of Iehojakims captivity \that is in the 19th of Nebuchadnezzars reign/ some months after the destruction of Ierusalem & therefore in ye 149th year of Nabonassar prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar should come & beseige it & in ye 27th (Ezek 26) & in {illeg} for 27th \middle of the 27th year of the same captivity or a little before (Ezek/ year of ye same captivity in ye first month & by consequence {illeg} the beginning of that is in ye 175th \35th/ year of Nabonassar \Nebuchadnezzar/ in spring, some after Tyre was taken, Iudah Ezekiel prophesied that because Nebuchadnezzars army had served a hard service at Tyre without any reward they should have ye spoil of Egypt (Ezek 29.17.) And therefore the th thirteen years Seige \{illeg}/ was between these {illeg} two periods & ended not many months \long (suppose half a year \suppose about a year// before the last. Suppose it ended w \Suppose it ended with Nebuchadnezzars 34th year./ At the taking of the city. Ithobales their king was slain (Ezek 28.) & after him \(according to the Tyrian records/ reigned Baal & others |Now this seige began some months after ye 11th year of Iehojakin's captivity (Ezek. 26.) & before ended before \about/ ye {illeg} of Ieho \beginning/ th{illeg}|e| 27th year of ye \same/ captivity or a little before (Ezek. 29.17 \that is about the beginning of ye 35t year of Nebuchadnezzars reign over Iudah/) & in ye end thereof, Ithobalus their king was slain (Ezek. 28) & after him according to d ye Tyrian records reigned Baal &others as in the as in ye following table.|

Nebuchadnezzar34 years 2|3| months
Bal|a|l –10 years
Ecnibalus & Chelbes1 year
Abbarus –0 years 3 months
Mytgonus & Gerastratus6 years
Balatorus –1 year
Merbalus –4 years
Iromus – 13 1/2 20 20 years
Summ76 1/2 42 36 years 3 months

|Now| In ye 14th year of Iromus \say {illeg} Iosephus the Tyrian records,/ ( suppose in ye middle of ye year ) the reign of Cyrus began in Babylonia. Subduct therefore 6 1/2 1/2 years \& {illeg} some months/ from 4{illeg}|76|1/2 y, 35 & ye residue {illeg} 39|6| y ye add to ye beginning of ye 34 th year of {illeg} Nebuchadnezzar & ye wil & there will remain 70 for ye reign of the Kings of Babylon over Iudea untill Cyrus as a {illeg} These \Tyrian/ records \here cited/ you may s{illeg}            Iosephus contra Appionē

Some date ye 70 years from ye captivity of Iehojakim others from that of Zedekiah: but they are \plainly/ ye duration of the reign of ye King of Babylon over Iudah \& the nations the rest of ye nations/ & ended wth his fall & wth ye first year of Cyrus, 2 Chron 36.21, 22. Ier 25.1, 12

Now its very remarkable that this prophesy was ye cause of its own fulfilling. Ieremy Isaiah whor two hundred years before \called Cyrus by name &/ pre|o|dictedphesied that God saith|d| {illeg} Cyrus is of him, Cyrus is my shepherd he shall perform all my pleasure even saying to Ierusalem \thou shalt be built/, & to ye Temple, Thy foundation shall be laid &c Isa. 44.28. & Ieremy predicted the time of|wh||en| Cyrus should conqueri|st|ing Babylon & restoring the Iews \do this/ & these things {illeg}b prophesis being made known to Cyrus he presently put #|# forth a d{illeg} with {illeg} proclamation throughout all his kingdom \in writing/, saying Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia, The lord God of heaven hath given me all ye Kingdoms of the earth & he hath charged me to build him a house at Ierusalem wch is in Iudah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him & let him {illeg} go up &c. Ezra 4.3. 2 Chron . 36.23.|

< text from f 4r resumes > <5r>

Chap. 2.
The history & Chronology off the Persian Monarchy
with respect to the Iews

|At ye captivity of the 10 tribes the Medes were subject to ye \King of/ Assyrias (2 King17.6) but afterwards revolted & became a distinct kingdom \revolted & at {illeg}/ but a little after when Sennacherib lost his army in Iudea & returning \back/ to Niv|n|ive was |s|h|l|a{illeg}in by his sons,| The {illeg} last kings of the Medes before Cyrus were recconned Dejoces, Phraortes, Cyaxeres & Astyages. Phraortes ortes perished in a war against ye king of Assyria, \Kingdom of the Medes was at first \originally a branch of the Assyrian Monarchy. At first it was/ of no very great extent. Their first king who began to enlarge the kingdom was Phraortes. A He conquered ye Persians & &|m|ade war upon the King of Assyria & took Susa from him but was slain in battel. His son/ Cyaxeres pursuing the war beseiged Ninive in the beginning of his reign but in ye seige was opprest by a great inundation of Scythians who from that time reigned over Media for 28 years together, but then were slaughtered & opprest by Cyaxeres inviting them to a feast slew them in drink & was|hav|ing recovered his kingdom returned to renewed ye war against Ni the king of Assyria & by ye assistance of Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Nineve as above. \{illeg} Ctesias & Alexander P{illeg}|o|lyhistor call him Astirbares that is Astivares or Assueris. For he is that Assuerus who \with Nebuchadnezzar/ conquered Ninive &|(| Tobit. 14.15) & whose younger son Darius succeeded Belshazz in ye Kingdom of Babylon./ He reigned 3|4|0 years & Astyages \35/ according to Herodotus /hs|i|s /eldest\ son reigned after him\, or 38 \years/ according to Eusebius & Syncellus, or 40 according {illeg}|t|o a ch{illeg} canon printer by Scaliger in ye 2d book of his Isagogical canons, & then was conquered by \was conquered by/ Cyrus in the first y first year of his reign from this conquest the 30 years reign of Cyrus are dated {For} Cy{illeg} Cyrus was conquered in the beginning the reign o Cyrus th \in the 189th year/ in ye 189th year of Nabonassar. in ye very beginning For ye 30 years reign of Cyrus is|are| dated from this conquest. Subduct ye 80 years reign of Cyaxa|e|res & Astyages, & the first great \beginning of ye reign/ of Cyaxeres & {illeg} inundation of ye s|S|cythians will be |in| ye 109th year of Nabonassar & ye slaughter of ye Scythians in ye 137th year & the fall \ruin/ of Ninive a year or two after will fall on ye first or 2d year of Iehojakim's reign as we assigned a it ought to do by ye history thereof given above. The Kingdom of ye Medes thus grown great \by the conquest of Assyria/ stood about 50 years till ye reign of \it was conquered by/ Cyrus. \He|i||s| was the son of \mother was/ Mandane the daughter of Astyages King of Medea & his Fathe/ < insertion from f 5r > ‡ He was ye son of Cambyses a Persian & of Mandane \or M{illeg}. For she was/ the daughter of Astyages \{illeg}/ king of ye Medes , & Persians & Persians. By causing a defection of the Persians he made war upon Astyages & by conquering him founded no new kingdom but only translated ye government from the \Province of the/ Medes to yt of ye Persians. Whence the Medes & Persians are constantly recconed by Daniel <5v> as one kingdom.# < insertion from f 6v > # This is confirmed by Æschylus who |f|llived|ouris||hed| in the reigns of D{illeg}|a|ri{illeg}|us| Hystaspis & Xerxes.|,| Fo & recconing ye Kings of this Monarchy down in order to Xerxes beging with Phraortes \the Medes/ Phraortes as if yeMedes |they| & the Persians were kings of one & ye same kingdoms|e|

Μῆδος γάρ μἦ ὁ πρῶτος ηγημ||ν στρατοῦ.

Τὸ δὲ ἄστυ Σύ|ού|σων ἐξεκείνωσε πεσόν.

Ἄλλος δε ἐκε|ί|νου παῖς τὸ δ' ἔργον ἤνυσε.

Τρίτος δ' ἀπ' ἀυτοῦ Κυρος, ἐυδάιμον ἀνήρ. &c

He that first led ye army was a Mede

He emptied the falling city of Susa

The next who was his son finished this|e| work

The third from him was Cyrus a happ{illeg}y man.

Sr Iohn Marsham would hence infer that the first kings before Cyrus there were two kings of Persia \of ye stock of the Medes/ distinct from the kings of the Medes , the first of wch was Darius the Mede & because Xenophon calls ye two first kings Astyages & Cyaxares & Cedrenus confounds Astyages & Darius Medus wth the sons of Ahasuerus wth one another, Sr Iohn concludes yt ye first king called Medus a Mede by Æschylus was Darius the Mede & that there were at this time two Astyages & two Cyaxares, the one reigning over the Medes ye other over the Medo-Persians. But this is |thus to divide the kingdom of ye Medes & Persians & unite those of the Persian & Babylonians before Cyrus ye reign of Cyrus is| a fa{illeg}|n|sy without any foundation in antiquity. The meaning of Æeschylus is plainly this that in ye Kingdom then reigning flourishing the king Phraortes \King of the Medes/ was the first King who began began to conquer was Phraortes the King of ye Medes. |was founded by the Kings of the Medes the first of wch who began to conquer was Phraortes| He conquered ye Persians \as Herodotus affirms/ & so became the first King of the Persians in that Monarchy. The second was Cyanes|r||es| his son who finished ye war against ye Kingdom of Assyria wch his father \had/ bega|u|n. And then (after Astyages whom Æschylus omits) reigned {illeg} Cyrus the Persian{illeg}s Cyrus & this rest successors.

Now because this Kingdom consists of two Provinces the northern of the Medes & the southern of the Persians, whereof the one rose up after ye other, therefore Daniel represents it by a Beare wch raised himself up on one side & by a Ram wth two horns whereof the lowe (that of ye Medes) rose up first. < text from f 5v resumes > Because this kingdom consisted of two provinces the northern of the Medes & ye southern of ye yePersians where|of| the one rose up after ye other, it is represented in Daniel by a Beare wch raised himself up on one side. This kingdom conquered first {illeg} thre other great Kingdoms & therefore is represented by a Beare holding three ribbs in his mouth between his teeth. First Cyrus made war upon Cræsus King of that ancient, &|r|ich p|&| pot flourishing \potent/ kingdom of Lydia & thereby propagated his dominion as|in|to the lesser as|A|sia as far as ye Euxine Sea & Hellespont. The he conquered his Vnke Darius who who upon ye fall of the Medes had escaped to Babylon & was there \in the 4th year of Cyrus/ conspiring wth ye nobles against Belshazzar was made \as Berosus relates, was by their common consent made/ king. of Bab in his room. This is ye second rib. The third is the Kingdom of Egypt. This kingdom was invaded by Nebuchadnezzar b|&| made tribute to Babylon but not ruined. It enjoyed its own Kings till the|Ca|mbyses ye 2nd King of Persia invaded it & made it a Province of ye Persian Monarchy, & therefore is justly recconned a distinct rib from that of Babylon. < text from f 5r resumes > & then ye Kings of Persia reigned as in the following table.

began to reignreiged {sic} years
Cyrus –in spring an. Nabonass an. Nabonass. 189 in spring30
Cambyses. – |smerdes|in spring 219 in spring8
Smerdes \7 months/
Darius Hystaspis –in spring 227 in spring36
Xerxes. – |Artabanus|in spring 263 in spring21
Artaxerxes|banus| Longimanus \7 months/
Artaxerxes Longimanusin summer 284 in summer41
Xerxes II {illeg} year – \Sogdian/
Sogdian seven months
Darius Nothus –in summer 32519
Artaxerxes Mnemonin summer 34443
Ochus –38723
Arses –4103
Darius Codomannus –4135
Alexander the great417 Octob. 2

Smerdes reigned seven m reigned 5 months, Artabanus & Sogdian each of them seven & Xerxes II e{illeg} two monthsaccording to some & a year according to others but \but/ the short reigns of these kings are \in summing up the years of all the kings/ n|d|o not use to be recconned apart in summing up ye years of the Kings but are included in the reigns of their predecessors. Some allot only two months to the reign Xerxes II but then the rea|i|gn of his predecessor Artaxerxes must be recconned only 40 years & the reign of his successor Darius Nothus dated not from ye end of \must end/ not at ye same time wth ye Peloponnesian was|r| as Diodorus affirmsms {sic} it did but in the summer before. Eusebius take|s| 3 years from {illeg} the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon & gives them to Ochus. The monarchy was translated to ye Greeks by the battel at Arbela Octob 2 o|i|n the year of Nabonassar 417, but Darius was not slain till a year & some months after. Whence Agathias Africanus reccons that ye Monarchy stood 230 years & Agathias 228.

The beginning of Cyrus years of Cambysis & Darius \Hystaspis/ are fully determined by three eclipses made \observed/ at Babylon & recorded by Ptolomy: those of Xerxes by the battle at Marathon four years & some months before ye death of Darius & by ye transit \passage/ of Xerxes over the Hellespont to invade Greece 4 in the beginning of his sixt year in the time of the Olympic games: those of Artaxerxes Longimanus by ye coincidence of his fourth \twentyth/ year wth ye 4th year of the 83d Olympiad as Africanus informs us & by the news of his death coming to Athens in winter in the seventh year of the Peloponnesian war as Thucydes \a writer of those times/ has recorded: those of Darius Nothus by the coincidence of his 13th year or some \the win/ part thereof \in winter/ wth ye 20th year of the Peloponnesian war as Thucydides has {illeg} a writer of those times has left upon record. also set down, & by his death a little after ye end of that war in ye same Olympic year as Diodorus informs us. For ye war began in April an. 1 Olymp 87, lasted 27 years & end April 14th an 4 Olymp 93. All these things are so well determined by Eclipses & other records of good credit & so far agreed upon by Chronologers that I do not think it material to enter into any dispute about them.

The difficulty is to agree the Iewish history set down in Ezra & Nehemiah, wth the history of these kings written \by other the Greeks & Latins/ For some would have the Temple to be built in the <6r> reign of Darius Nothus s|&| ye city in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon; others refer these things to ye reigns of Darius Hystaspis & Artaxerxes Longimanus. The latter opinion I take to be true & thereupon ground erroneus i but because divers are of ye former opinion & thereupon ground {illeg} erroneus|ou| interpretations of Daniels weeks, I shall \now/ for setling the true interpretation of so important a prophesy \& clearing up the history of the books of Ezra & Nehemiah/ shew that ye latter opinion is the truth, & for this end I shall premise the two following observations.

Obs. 1. All the middle part of the Book of Ezra & Nehemiah from ye 5t verse of the seventh chapter to the 9th verse of the twelft conteins the history of what was done at Zerubbabel's return from captivity in the reign of Cyrus.


Chap {illeg}
The History of ye {Per}sian Monarchy wth respect to
{th}e Iews.

The Iews have {t}he history of this Monarchy only during the reign of Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspis, Xerxes, \&/ Ataxerxes Longimanus & Darius. For so far only do Ezra & Nehemiah produce i{t.} The last rest of ye Kings are Darius Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Artaxerxes Ochus, Arses & Darius Codomanus. The \two/ lax|s|t Artaxerxes the Iews confound wth Ax|r|taxerxes Mnemon \Longimanus/ & the last Darius wth Darius Nothus & so make the Persian Monarchy shorter by many years then it was. |Between \For they reccon it stood but 125 \about 100/ years: wch number if dated from ye return of ye/ captivity under Cyrus, {ends} (wch Daniel calls his first year) ends scarce reach{illeg}|es| \{illeg}/ to the reign of Darius Nothus but if dated from ye taking of Babylon by Cyrus, it ends wth ye {illeg}th year of this king Darius.| ||

To adjust the histories of Ezra & Nehemia to ye reigns of the Persian kings has hitherto puzzelled all chronologers Some will For detecting ye truth I shall make ye two following Observations |Some think that the Temple was build in the reign of Darius Hystaspis & yt Ezra & Nehemiah came to Ierusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon \Longimanus/, but know not how to make it out: others refer these things to ye of Darius Nothus & Artaxerxes Mnemon. For detecting ye truth & I shall make ye two following Observations|

First that the 7th chapter of Nehemia all ye middle part of Nehemiah|'s book| from chap 7. v. 5 to chap 12 v.9 conteins the history of what was done upon \at/ the fir return from captivity under Zerubbabel in ye reign of Cyrus. For the 7th chapter from v 5 to ye end Nehemiah tells you he took it out of ye register of those who came up at first Nehem 7.5, & then out of that register first recites the second chapter of Ezra, then \& {illeg} after that/ the history of reading the law & sealing a Covenant in ye seventh \month/ after their return when they set up ye altar \& be{illeg}|ga|nt {illeg}|to| {illeg} sacrificed/ & |to| ke|e|pt ye feast feast of Tabernacles Nehem 8. 14 E according to what they found written in the law of Moses. Nehem 8.14 Ezr. 3.2, 4. Then he recites the distribution of ye \in {illeg} the 11th chapter / how the people who came out of captivity \wth Zerubbabel/ to Ierusalem were distributed cast lots to dwell one i|o|f ten in Ierusalem & ye other nine parts in ye other cities: {illeg} & lastly in the beginning of ye 12th chapter is a register of the chief of Priests & Levites who came \up from captivity/ with Zerrubbabel \& Ieshua/ to Ierusalem at|s| tis there exprest. {illeg}

For clearing up this Observation I need only tell you yt when Ezra read ye law the Levites who made ye people understand it were ye fir chief fathers first of those chief fathers among of those who return came up wth Zerubbabel & Ieshua as you may see by comparing their names Nehem. 9.5. \& 12.8 &/ Ezra 2.40, & 3.9 & that \the names of/ all the chief fathers of ye Priests & Levites who then came


The true chronology of ye Persian Kings is as follows

Cyrus began his reign in spring a[4] an. 1 Olymp 55, almos as all chronologers both ancient modern agree. From hence Agathias {r}eccons the duration of the Persian Monarc{hy} 28 years suppose to ye final victory of Alexan{der} over Darius at Arabia, \wch was {illeg} Septemb{illeg} ineunte/ an. 2 Olymp 112, but {A}fricananus reccons \it/ 230 years, suppose to ye death of Darius wch was a year & a half after that battel. He took Babylon overcame D Nabonadius or Darius Medes in the field an. Nabonass. 209,[5] & the next year towards the end of summer when E|t|he waters of Euphrates were took Babylon by draining the river: whence \to both wch actions/ Ieremy ch 51 46 alludes in describing \the fall of Babylon by/ a rumour in ye land of ye Chaldees at wch they shall faint & the next year another rumour, violence in the land, Ruler against Ruler. After ye death of Cyrus taking of Babylon Cyrus reigned seven years according to Xenophon. In all he regned {sic} 30 years complete & {illeg} 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 ye moon observed at Babylon in ye 7th year of his reign anno Nabonass. 225 Phamenoth 17 hor. 1 ante mediam noctem (as Ptolomy out of ye Chaldæan records monuments had related|s|) wch 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 ye one in his 20th year an. Nabonass. 246 Epiph 28 sequente 29 quadrante horæ ante mediam noctem wch agrees to November \19/ an 3 Olymp 69 ye other in his 31th year an. Nabonass 257 Tibi 3 sequente 4 semihora ante mediam noctem wch agrees to April 25 an. 1 Olymp 72. Whence its manifest thas {sic} he|i|s 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 {illeg}|78| <8v> & then Artabarus reigned seven months The battell of at Marathon was ye 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 ye time of the Olympic games an 1 Olymp 75. Calliade Athenis Archonte, 49 years before ye beginning of ye Pelopponesian war, 28 years after the Regifuge & Consulship of ye first consulship of ye first {sic} Consul Iunius Brutus Anno Vrbis Conditæ 273 Fabio et Furio loss. The passage of his l army over ye Hellespont began in ye end of the |4th| year of ye 74th Olympiad & took up one month & in autumn after 3 months more die munichionis 16, Plenilunio, was ye battel at Salamis & a little after that an eclips of the Sun wch by the calculation agrees to Octob 2 an. 1 Olymp 75. And almost ten years before this battel happened the battel at Marathon ye 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 ye 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, t|w|ho therefore began in Ant{illeg} \the end of Summer ineunte/ an 1 Olymp 79 for his years began before \after/ ye 9|4|th Iewish month & before ye 9th N Ezra 7.8, 9 & Nehem 1.1., {illeg} & so may be referred to ye 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 ye beginning of ye Cyrus & fell in wth an 4 Olymp 83: |Wherefore Ezra went up to Ierusalem an 4|3| Olymp {illeg}|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 {illeg} Artaxerxes Ochus 23 years Arses 3 years & Darius Codomanus almost 5 years He was conquered by Alexander wth great an 2 Olymp 112 Kal. Octob. & died towards the end of the next Olympic year.


up wth \wth/ Zerubbabel \& were 24 in number {illeg} (Nehem 12.) are found / subscribed |to| the above mentioned l|C|ovenant made at yt reading of the law Nehem 10. And lastly that ye 11th chapter of Nehemiah is recited in 1 Chron. 9, & wth some variety & reading, & there those who came one of ten by lot to dwell at Ierusalem are called the went by lot {illeg} to dwell in the cities are called the first inhabitants after ye upon ye 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 wth Zerubbabel Ezra 2.42. Nehem 12.8.

So then if we would understand fully the history of ye Iews at their \first/ return in the reign of Cyrus, you \we/ must conform \compare/ this part of the book of Nehemiah wth {illeg} 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 ye 2d chapter of Ezra & ye 8th 9th & 10th chapters of Nehemiah between ye 6th & 7th verses of the third chapter of Ezra. For so ye whole story will be read in continued order of time. And and b|B|y the first insertion you will understand how the people who came |up| to Ierusalem \wth Zerubbabel/ went thence by lot into their cities & dwelt there till ye seventh month came as is exprest in ye last verse of ye 2d chapter \of Ezra/ & first of ye 3d: {illeg} & by ye second \insertion/ you will understand how the Priests & people, in setting up ye altar & beginning on \offering sacrifices from/ ye first day of ye 7th month, to offer sacrif & \& keeping/observing ye 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 {illeg}. & how Ezra refers \For Ezra refers For/ to this reading of the law in saying: They built the altar of ye God of Israel to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses ye man of God – They kept also ye feast of Tabernacles, as it is written. Ezra 3.2, 4.

The second observation I would make is for clearing up ye history of ye Iews in ye 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 ye 6t {illeg} verse to ye 26t inclusively, is a fragment of history inserted by some mistake of ye scribe in a wrong place of the book of Ezra & ought rather to have been added to ye end of the book. Are|n|d my reasons for th are these. First I consider that the first book of Nehemiah is made up \almost wholy/ of several parcells of ye <9r> books of Ezra & Nehemiah set together in another order, |& intermixed| & intermixed wth ye story of ye three young men speaking wise sentences \& wth the story by & of of the three young men speaking wise sentences/ Whence I conclude that when Antiochus Epiphanes had caused ye sacred books to be burnt & the all those to be put to{illeg} death who concealed them:|,| & the Macchabees afterwards recollected what they could had escaped could be found \had escaped/: somebody meeting wth fragments of ye books of Ezra & Nehemiah set them together in in {sic} that order we have find in ye first book of Esdras: & by consequence that the fragments out of wch that books was composed were genuine scripture excepting the story of ye three young men. First I consider ye the first book of Esdras is nothing else then the genuine book of Ezra interpoled between the \first &/ second & third chapters wth the letter wth ye letter to Artaxerxes & ye Kings answer & wth ye story of the three young men speaking wise sentences & augmented in the beginning wth part of ye second book of Chronicles & in ye end wth a fragment of ye book of Ezra Nehemiah. Omit these interpolations & additions & you have in this book of Esdras an ancient trang|s|lation of the genuine \originall/ book of Ezra into greek: & in this translation {illeg}|a|ll ye \above mentioned/ middle part of ye 4th chapter conteining concerning th is wanting. I conceive therefore that when Antiochus Epiphanes caused ye sacred books to be burnt & all men to be slain who concealed them :|,| & the Macchabees recolled|c||ted| what had escaped; there were found certain \two/ fragments of history wch {illeg} they \relating to ye {illeg} Persian Monarchy, wch the Iews/ knew not how better to dispose of then by inserting them into ye book of Ezra. Some therefore inserted them between the first & second chapters of this book, & this was the originall of the book of Ez|s|dras. Others {illeg} Others (whether the Sanhedrin or any of ye scribes) rejecting the story of ye three young men speaking wise sentences as spurious, inserted only the fragment concerning Ahashuerus & Artaxerxes into ye middle of ye fourth chapter & this as a genuine piece of his record, & this I take to be the original of ye 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 \ye book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel \& the books of the Prophets cited in ye book of Kings & in that of ye Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah are lost./ {illeg} lost {sic} & that a fragment/ of ye prophesies of Isaiah are now found added to ye end of ye book of Zachary & the|a||t| in ye |1st| book of Samuel the story of Davids playing before Saul to drive away his evil spirit & becoming <10r> 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 ye new Testament \Criticks have observed that/ the words For thine is the kingdom ye power & ye glory have been added in m|M|atthe{illeg}|w| to the Lords prayer & yt ye story of ye woman {illeg}|t|aken in adultery to I inserted in Iohn's g|G|ospel & Mark's Gospel augmented by the 12 last verses & by consequence Matthews by ye last chapter. For had Matthe Fou Matthew written ye story of the resurrection Ma Mark {illeg}|w|ho copies after him would scarce have {illeg} omitted it. And this Origen seems to have been aware of when he commented on all Matthew but ye last chapter. However these fr addition being ancient records approved by the Church we receive them as of ye same authority wth ye rest of ye 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, {illeg} I take to have been a lo{illeg}|se| F fra fragment \piece of history/ inserted to both books in the times of the Maccabees, & thins|k| it ought rather to have{illeg} been added to ye end of ye book, For by inserting it & that for these reasons. First because by inserting it in the middle of the fourth chapter ye story of building the Temple is interrupted. F It concerns only the building of ye City & so respects the time after the Temple was finished. Secondly because a \the letter to Artaxerxes/ was written against tho|e|se \Iews/ who came up from captivity in his re|i|gn, that is & by consequence against Ezra & those whom he brought up \came up with him./ For ye letter to Artaxerxes runs thus: Be it known unto the King that the Iews is|w|ch came up from thee to us are come up unto Ierusalem building the rebellious & bad {illeg}|c|ity & have set up ye walls thereof & joyned the foundations. \/ < insertion from f 9v > ✝ These Iews I say must be Ezra & his companions because these|y| were the others w only Iews who came up from Astaxerxes {sic}. < text from f 10r resumes > Thirdly because after Artaxerxes in answer to their letter commanded wrote back \when the enemies of the Iews received the Kings aw|n|swer/ that the City should not be built till he gave another commandment, the|y| Iews enemies of ye Iews who went up \in hast/ to Ierusalem & made unto the|se| Iews & made them cease by force & power, {illeg}|t|hat is by force of arms, & by consequence burnt demolished the wall they had been build{illeg}|i|ng. And this happened soon <11r> \after/ Ezra's return from captivity.|,| For the about the nineteenth year of Artaxerxes. For the news thereof came first to ye ears of Nehemiah at Susan in ye twen neare the \at Susan the Palace/ in the twentith year of ye Ke|i|ng near the beginning of ye year. And it came to pass, saith he, in the month Chislen in the twentith year as I was at|in| shushan ye 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 ye year/ the news came first to {illeg}|y|e ears of Nehemiah in Shushan ye Palace that ye remnant of ye captivity of the in Iudea were in great affliction & reproach & ye wall of Ierusalem broken down & the gates thereof burnt wth fire. Nehem. 1. |This news coming ‡| < insertion from f 11v > ‡ coming fresh at this time to ye ears of Nehemiah makes it certain that the Iews did atte who came up wth Ezra did attempt to repair the city & were by oppress \hindred by/ their enemies b|&| brought into affliction & reproach & the walls burnt \broken down/ & ye gates burnt wth fire & of these things we have no other account then in that fragment. < text from f 11r resumes >

So their|n| this fragment should have been added to ye end of the book of Ezra as a conclusion of his government & an introduction to yt of Nehemiah \& perhaps it was, broken of from thence in the reign of Antiochus Epihanes./. But if any man think otherwise, he may take ye 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 ye Temple was hindred all ye days of Cyrus untill ye reign of Darius Hystaspis in whose reign it was built, & that after how \after/ so soon as this king was dead who favoured ye 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 ye letter mentions (that is \{illeg}/ Ezra & the|o|se wh{illeg}|o| came up wth 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 His|y|staspis by the prophesying of Haggai Haggai & Zecchary. This interpretation clears up the whole history \takes away all disputions/ & makes it consistent wth 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 ye {illeg} reign of Darius Hystaspis & that Ezra & Nehemiah came to Ierusalem in the {illeg} reign of <12r> ‡ coming \fresh/ at this time to the Artaxerxes Longimanus & that for these reasons.

First because they that refer these things to ye 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 Xexes {sic} & Artaxerxes Longimanus: & we have already proved yt 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 hape|p|en in ye reigns of more \then one/ Artaxerxes|,| then one I do not understand.

Secondly the second year of yt Darius in whose the temple was built reign ye temple was built, was the wch 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 ye reigne of Darius Hystaspis. For his second year was ye 70th from ye final captivity of Iudea & burning of ye Temple.

Thirdly if the {illeg} Temple was not finished till the reign of Darius Nothus, then Zerubbabel must have continued captain of the Iews, & Ieshua \their/ high Priest, from ye return of ye captivity under Cy first year of Cyrus to ye sixt of D this d|D|arius, that is 112 years together, wch is incredible, &most certainly false. For the High Priesthood of Ieshua was but of an ordinary length as you may know by comparing it wth the Pr & that of his son Iojakin with the contemporary Priesthoods of ye other \chief/ in{illeg}|Pr|iests. For in yt|e| \Cheif Priest/ {illeg} Priests wch went up wth Ie Z from captivity wth Zerubbabel & <13r> Ieshua were Serajah, Ieremiah, Ezra, Amariah, M{illeg}|a|lluch or Ma|e|licu, Hattush, Shechaniah or Shebaniah, R{illeg}ehum or Harim, Meremoth or Merai|j|oth, Iddo, Ginnetho, Abi{illeg}|j|ah, 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 S|I|eshua that is in ye days of his High Priesthod {sic} the chief Priests were \all/ the eldest sons of all ye Priests now name ye chief Priests now named, vizt, Merajah ye son of Serajah, Hananiah ye son of Ieremiah, Meshullam the son of Ezra, Iehohanan the son of Amariah, Ionathan the son of Melicu, I|o|seph ye son of Shebaniah, &c Adnach ye son of Harim Helkai ye son of Merajoth, &c Zechariah ye 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/ ye fathers & of the high Priesthood of his son Iojakim wth ye high Priesthood of all their eldest sons is a demonstration that ye 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/ 201|8| years: & in all this th time the Iews had six High Priests succeeding from father to son, namely Ieshua Iojakim, Eliaship|b|, 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 ye 2d year of Artaxerxes Longimanus & end in his 36th year Ionathan saith Iosephus was high Priest 34 years & Iaddua 20 years whereof ye last 10 years fell in wth ye greek Monarchy subduct ye other 44 years from ye duration 201 & the remainder 157 divide equally between the first four High Priests alotting \about/ 39 years to ye Hight Priesthood of each \the last of wch saith Iosephus died about the same time wth Alexander or a year of two after \soon after/. Let the Priesthood of each by an equal division of the {illeg} \whole/ time among them be recconed about 3{illeg}|5| years in length & the/ & the High Priesthood of Eliashib will begin wth ye {illeg}{illeg}|5|th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus & end wth ye {illeg}|39|th of Darius Nothus \the same King/ : And this agrees well wth the truth. For Eliashib was high Priest when Nehemiah repaired the wall Nehem 3.1, \in ye 20 {sic} year of this Artaxerxes Nehem. 3.1/ & continued High Priest for some time after ye \his/ 32th year of this Artaxerxes Nehem 13.7, 28. But if you make Eli & Nehemiah was governour \{illeg}/ {illeg}|a|ll the|is| days \Priesthood of/ of this Eliashib time. But if you make Nehemiah g|G|overnour <14r> in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon; the P|H|igh Priesthood of Eliashib will reach some time beyond thes 32th year of that king & so there w{illeg} the Pr Priesthood of the three first b|H|igh Priests will take up {illeg} 156|60| years & those of the five last but 50 years wch is too unequal a division. For the as ye high Priesthood of Ieshua was contemporary to the Priesthoods of ye fathers who came up with him out of Captivity & ye high Priesthood of his son Iojakim wth 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  {sic} Shemaiah was one of the chief Priests at wth dedication of the wall Nehem 12.35 |, &| & {illeg} 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 wth Zerubbabel in the days \reign/ of Cyrus & were then chief fathers of their houses. I me{illeg} For he found F For when he came up to Ierusalem he founded the \delivered the holy vesse/ Iozabad ye son of Ieshua & Noadiah the son of Binnui were chief among ye Levites, Ezra 8.33 & their when Zerubbabel came up their fathers Ieshua & Binnui were chief fathers {illeg} 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 ye first return of ye captivity under Zerubbabel in ye reign of Cyrus was Priest & scribe & read ye law to ye P people Nehem. 8. 9|2|, 4, 9. He was ye son of Serajah the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah the son of Shallum &c & his father Sa|e|rajah 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 ye 28th of Artaxerxes Longimanus is 152 years when he was w{illeg}|i|th Nehemiah at ye dedication of ye wall are 152 years. {illeg} So old therefore was Ezra at that time but if you produce his age to ye 28th of Artaxerxes <15r> Mnemon you will make him 210 years old|.| wch is incredible Again Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah was Tirshatha at Zerubbabels return from captivity in ye first year of Cyrus Nehem 8.9 & 10.1 & 2 Ezra |2,| 63 compared wth 1 Esdr. 5.40. from wch time to ye 3{1}|2|d|t||h| year of Artaxerxes Mnemon Longimanus are 99 years & to ye 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 ye 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 ye reasons for placing ye Er|z|ra & Nehemiah in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus & ye building of the Temple in that of Darius Hystaspis are exceeding strong . But & convincing. {illeg}|An|d now I will shew you yt ye reasons to ye contrary are as weak. For ye two \of/ chiefe are these |only| \there are only these two of any moment./ First say they Ezra in his fourth \& fift{illeg}/ chapters names the Kings of Persia in this order \Cyrus,/ Darius, Ahashuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Artaxerxes & refers the building t|o|f the temple to ye 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 alt|r|eady shewn \proved/ that the last Darius here named is the same wth ye first & ye last Artaxerxes the same with the first. The other Argument \reason is {sic}/ is that Sanbab|l|lat wth his daughter & son in law mentioned Nehem 13.28 were alive in the reigns of Darius Codomnnus & that Sanballat \Alexander ye gr/ |by| \revoling from Darius &/ assisted|ing| Alexander ye 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 ye reign of Darius. But I told you that ye 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 {illeg} making Darius Hystaspis, Artaxerxes Longimanus & Darius Codomannus as I told you to be one & ye same king & reading in Nehemiah that after ye 32th year of this King, Nehemiah chased from he|i|m the son of Iehojada ye 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 ye 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 relate{illeg}|s|. Whether l{illeg}|And| whether he did \as he/ this soon after \suppose/ in the beginning of ye reign of Darius Nothus \to satisfy & retain his Son/ or staid an g age till ye reign of Darius Codomannus & then built t|i| 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/ <16r> tiquity of their Temple <15v> The Iews read in Nehem & Alexander the great as IoBut thesephus relates |wch could not well have been, had they flourished in the reigns of Artaxerxes Longimanus.|. But this I take to be a mistake of ye Iews \founded upon their erroneous chronology./. They read in Nehemiah that after ye 32th year of Artaxerxes Nehemiah chased from him the son of one of ye son of Iehojada ye son of Eliashib ye High Priest. & {illeg}|be|cause he had married ye daughter of Sanballat. They had also at{illeg}y tradition that Sanballat to retain his son in law with his daughter & requite him for ye loss of the Priesthood promised to get leave of the king of Persia to built|d| him a new Temple \for him/ on mount Gerazim. And he whilst they made Darius Hystaspis, Artaxerxes, \Darius Nothus/ & Darius Codomannus to be one & ye same king they were necess reigning but 36 years (as we told you above) they were necessitated to refer these things to ye four \two or three/ last years of Darius Codomannus wherein Alexander ye great made war upon it|hi|m, & by consequence to refer ye building of ye Temple on mount Gerazim to mix this story with the wars of Alexander & make that ye Temple \of ye Samaritas|n|s of the Samaritan on mount Gerazim/ built by |Alexan|his|ders| authority consens|t| & without y & go the {illeg} ye story as if Sanballat {illeg} assisted him in those wars Now {sic} |For the{illeg} Iosephus tells us that Sanballat was sent by the last Darius (him whom Alexander vanquished) to be governour of Samariæ|a|, & therefore erred wth ye \erring/ Iews he refe{illeg}rrin|ed|g ye whole story of this Darius Nehemiah & Sanballat to the reign of this Darius.|

If this answer \do not/ satisfy, not you as it doth{illeg} I shall back it wth another. {illeg} A learned Prelate has observed that S San \the/ Sanballat of mentioned by \mentioned by/ Nehemiah was a Horomite, that is, a Moabite of ye city Horonaim (Ier. 48.3, 5, 34) but he mentioned by Iosephus was a Cuthean |as Io < insertion from f 16r > sephus affirms) < text from f 15v resumes > | that is \a Samaritan/ from Cutha or Susiana beyond Euphrates: & that Iaddus, this the br & ye son in law of the latter his brother. If you these were not ye 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 ye Iews. And yet without allowing this you ma|u|st make one & ye same Ezra Priest & scribe from ye \first &/ second year|s| of Cyrus when he \returned from captivity (Nehem < insertion from f 16r > .12.1) & < text from f 15v resumes > / read the law to all ye people (Nehem 8) {illeg}till \untill/ ye 28th \year/ of Artaxerxes when \Mnemon, when (according to your hypothesis)/ he was at ye dedication of ye wall (Nehem 12.36) that is for 1{illeg}9|60| years together {illeg} & all this time you must make one & the same Nehemiah Tirshatha & & Governor by fits from ye same return first & second year of Cyrus when he returned from ye captivity \(Ezra 2.20)/, was Tirshatha or Governor & {illeg} (Ezra 2.63) & signed ye covenant (Ezra {illeg}|2|. {illeg}|2|, \63, compared wth 1 Esdr. 5.40, {illeg}/ {illeg} till after wth 32th year of the same Artaxerxes, \(Ezra 13.)/ that is for above 164 years together. So you see your objection is answered with a{illeg} greater against you.


Chap 2.
The Chronology of the Books of Ezra & Nehemiah
wth respect to ye Persian Monarchy.

The Iews know nothing \more/ of the \Babylonian &/ Persian Monarchy|ie||s| but \then/ what they have out of ye books of Ezra Nehemiah & \& Daniel Haggai & Zacchary/ Esther \scripture the old Testament/ therefore own no more Kings nor years of Kings then they can find in these books. The Kings they reccon after only \are only/ Darius the Mede, {illeg} are only \Nechadnezzar, Evilmerodach, Belshazar,/ Cyrus, Ahashuerus & Darius the Persian. This Darius they reccon to be ye Artaxerxes in whose reign Ezra & Nehemiah came to Ierusalem, accounting Artaxerxes a common \name/ of ye Persian Kings. Th Darius ye Mede, they give say they, reigned \Nebuchadnezzar, they say, reigned 45 years (2 King. 25.27) \Ier. 25.1/ Belshazar three (Dan 8.1) & thence Evilmerodach 23 to make up 70 {illeg} {illeg} besides \including/ ye first year of Nebuchadnezzar in \wch/ ye prophesy of ye 70 years was given. For they reccon yt it was fulfilled by Darius \the Mede/ seizing ye Kingdome. To this Darius they assigne/ but one year Dan or at most \but/ two (Dan 9.1) |To| Cyrus three years incomplete (Dan 10.1,) Ahashuerus 12|4| (Esth. 3 7 & 9.1, {illeg} 29 &10 year{illeg}|s| till ye casting of Pur (Esth 3.7) one year more till the Iews smote their enemies (ch. 9.1) & one {illeg}|y|ear more till Esther & Mordecai confirmed wrote ye second letter for ye keeping of Purim Esth (ch. 9.29.) in all 14 years, & \to/ Darius or Artaxerxes above 32 years \they allot 32 or rather 36 years Nehem. 13.6./ so that ye Persian Empire during ye flo second Temple flourished \according to their recconing only/ 34 years {illeg} untill Alexander ye great overthrew it. Thus the Iews \reccon/ in their chief \greater/ Chronicle Sed called Seda|e|r Olam Rabba {illeg} ~ ~ ~

Iospehus out of the sacred \& other/ books reccons \only/ these kings \of Persia/ Cyrus Cambyses, Darius Hystaspis, Xerxes, Artaxerxes & Darius.|,| The three last Artaxerxes & the two last Darius's he confounds together. The time account of the Expose if {illeg} the This comes near But by ye \making but one King of Artaxerxes Longimanus, Artaxerxes Mnemon & Artaxerxes Ochus & another of Darius Nothus & Darius Codomannus. We have no perfect account of For supplying the defects of these records accounts we must have recourse to the/ records of the Greeks. \For by them {illeg}/ its certain that ye Kings re Persian Kings reigned as in ye following Table

|Nebuchadnezzar \& his successors/ in Iudea||winter an. 1 Olymp 43||70 years|
2 in PersiaTheir reigns P|b|egan th{illeg}Their reignes continued
Cyrus {1 in Babylon \& Iudea/ – – –spring. fi. an. 1 Olymp. 55 finiente /summer an 4 Olymp. 60 ineunte\30 years /7 years 2|&| {illeg} \some months/\
Cambyses & Smerdesspring. fi. an. 3 Olymp. 628 years
Darius Hystaspis –spring. fi. an. 3 Olymp. 6436 years
Xerxes & Artabanusspring. fi. an. 3 Olymp. 7321 years
Artaxerxes Longimanus /with Xerxes II & Sogdian}\autumn. \summer or. ineunte/ an. 4 Olymp. 78|9|4{illeg}|1|
Darius Nothus –Novemb \autumn/ \summer ineunte/ an. {illeg}|2| Olymp. 8|9|{illeg}|1|9 years
Artaxerxes Mnemon –I{illeg} \summer/ \Iune/ \finiente/ an. {illeg}|4| \vel in eunte an. 4/ Olymp 9343 years
Artaxerxes Ochus –an 2|3| Olymp |1|9{illeg}|04|23 years
Arses –an 2 Olymp. |1|{illeg}|10|3 years
Darius Codomannus –an {illeg}1 Olymp.|1|{illeg}|11|{illeg}5 years
Alexander ye great –Octob 2. an Olymp 112

{illeg} Cyrus beat \routed/ Darius \in ye field/ in ye 22th year of his reign & took Babylon the next year Ier. 51.46>
In ye 17th year of Nabonna|e|dus, whom Daniel calls Darius Medus, Cyrus invaded Babylonia, & Nobonna|e|du{illeg}|s| being beaten in the feit|l|d returned \fled to {sic}/ to Borsippa (as a[6] Berosus relates,) & Cyrus laid siege to Babylon. Tha|i|s was in ye beginning of ye 22th year of Cyrus: For Pl|t|olomy reccons that Cyrus \hence forward/ regned {sic} nine years after ye {framthis} over Babylonia. After after ye 17 years of Nabonnedus. \were ensured/ T{illeg} Balylon {sic} held out a b[7] long time
<17v> {& } was taken ye next year in summer (Ier 51.46) in summer (vers 39 {illeg}) in the time of a feast when they were Babylonians were dissolute & in drink (Herod l     Ier 51.39, 57) by draining ye river Euphrates (Herod. l. 1. Xenophon) & by consequence to|a|fter midsummer. For the river \by the melting of ye snow in Armenia/ overflowed|s| yearly in ye beginning of summer {illeg} but before ye end thereof in ye heat of summer grows low, & Ath & Athenæus \lib 12/ tells out of Berosa|u|s how that in ye 16 {sic} day of ye Month Lous ({illeg} \wch agrees {illeg}/ is the 4 month \same wth ye/ month Tammuz or 4th Iudaic month counted from Nisan & so agrees to or Iuly) the Babylonians kept a feast annually five days together in wch the servants ruled over their masters as in the Saturnalia. This Feast therefore by reason of its duration & ye lowness of ye river being so fit for Cyrus's purpose was probably chosen to to {sic} put his degree in execution. T|B|abylon being taken Nabonnedus surrendred himself: & {time}|from| this time Xenophon reccons that Cyrus reigned 7 years over Babylonia. This is therefore ye first year of Cyrus according to ye scriptures:|,| \& ye solution of the captivity was in the spring following/ but ye seventy years predicted by Ieremiah |ended before| ye year before when \when Cyrus invaded Babylonia/ For they were to end at ye invasion of Babylonia were to end at ye invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus Ier. 25.11, 12. & in ye 70th year & Nebucha \For/ In ye 3d year of Iehojakim Nebuchadnezzar beseiged Ierusalem & took it & car spoiled ye Temple & carried away ye vessels of ye Temple wth became Lord became Lord over Iudea Dan 1.1. 2 King. 24.1 & the next year in wth fourth year in wth next year, wch Ieremiah calls wch first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Ier. 25.1) that is this|e| first year of \of his reign/ over Iudea, Ieremiah predicted that Iudah|ea| should serve ye King of Babylon 70 years, & |yt| at ye end of 70 years God would punish ye king of Babylon & lay wast ye land of ye Chaldeans. Ier 25.11, 12. The 70 years therefore ended not wth ye return of the captivity but wth ye invasion of Chaldea by Cyrus two years before. For ye 4th year of Iojakim wch Ieremiah reccons the first year of the King of b|B|abylon & \{sic} by consequence/ of ye 70 years, began in ye 4106th year of ye Iulian period & ye 22th of Cyrus w invasion of Iude Babylonia by Cyrus was \began/ in ye 4176th year that is just \just/ in ye end of 70 years {illeg} just 70 years afterward.          just when ye 70 years were complete.

In ye {illeg}2t 4th year of Iehojakim wch was the first of Nebuchadnezzar's \reign/ over Iudea, |In the third year of Iehojakim King of Iudah came Nebuchadnezzaz against Ierusalem & took it in ye neare \in/ ye beginning of his fourth year in ye ninth month \took it/ & {illeg} reduced the Kingdom made \reduced/ ye Kingdom into servitude & took away part of ye holy vessels. Dan 1.1 2 King 24.1 Whence a fast was kept {illeg} the same next year in ye ninth month Ier 36.6, 9, 22, & the fourth & ye year of Iehojakim is by Ieremy recconned the first of Nebuchadnezzar, \Ier 25. 1/ that |is| the first year of his reign over Iudea. In this first year Ieremy| Ieremiah predicted that Iudea should serve ye Kings of Babylon 70 years & that at ye end of 70 years {illeg}|G|od should punish ye King of Babylon & lay wast the land of ye Chaldeans Ier. 25. 1, 11, 12. |And| The|i|s came to pass in ye |beginning of ye| 22th year of Cyrus \& end of the {illeg} 17th of Nabonnedus or Darius Medus/ when he|Cy||rus| invaded Chaldea & put Nabonedus to flight, & the next summer took Babylon \it/ \& beseiged Babylon./ {illeg}f Ptolomy in his Canon ascribes 9 years to Cyrus if over Babylonia & Xenophon but 7


|| 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 {illeg}|e|ight years including the seven{illeg} months reign {of S}merdes \the Magician/ Dari who succeeded him. Th Darius Hystaspis {be}gan 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 ye 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 ye 7 months reign of Artabanus & died in winter \before the finiente end of the Roman year/ I.P. 4289. {illeg} Then reigned Xerxes II two months & Sog{illeg}|d|ian 7 months wch some add to ye years of include in ye reign of Artaxerxes \sometimes {illeg} also/ & so reccon his reign 41 years \Their short reign is included in the 40 years reign of Artaxerxes of Artabanus|xerxes|. Some reccon his reign 41 years, including also ye ye {sic} 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 ye Battel of Mara Arbela wheb|r|eby ye Persian Monarchy fell, {illeg} I.P. 4383. Kal. Octob. I.P. 4383. Th

This Chronology of ye 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, T|C|lemens \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


Chap. 1.
The history of the first \& s/ Monarchy compared wth
Ieremiah's prophesy of the seventy years.

In ye 3d year of Iehojakim king of Iudah came Nebuchadnezzar & beseiged Ierusalem & took {illeg}|it| \in the winter following in ye ninth in his 4 year/ & became Lord of Iudea|ah| & carried away part of ye vessels of ye Temple to Babylon. Whence Ierem In ye next year Ieremiah prophesied that Iudah should serve ye King of Babylon 70 years & that at ye end of 7{illeg}|0| years God would \{illeg}/ The next year wch Ieremiah calls ye first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Ier 25.1) & p that is thei|e|s first year of his reign over Iudea \And They took ye city in ye 9th month in ye beginning of the Kings 4th year & there{illeg}|ore| the Iews kept a fast in that month ye next year Ier 36.6, 9, 22, & Ieremy reccons the 4th year of Iehojakim to be the first of Nebuchadnezzar that is the|Hi||s| first year over Iudea. Ier 25.11. Now in this first year/ Ieremi{illeg}|ah| prophe{illeg}|s|ided yt ye King this same year that Iudah should serve ye King of Babylon 70 years & that at ye end of 70 years God would punish ye King of Babylon & lay wast ye land of ye chaldeans (Ier. 25.11, 12) & the{re}by or soon after cause the captivity to return Ier 29.10 Dan 9.2 2 Chron 36.2{illeg} 22. These years therefore begin wth ye fourth first year of ye King of Babylon of|v|er Iudea in wch the prophesy was given & end wth ye invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus to wch ye return of ye captivity was consequent. Now Iojakim reigned eleven years of wch \above/ 3 preceded the taking of Ierusalem & eight \almost e|a|bove seven/ followed it. Then reigned Iojakim three months & ten days & \{illeg}/ when ye (Iewish) year was expired that is in ye month Nisan, \spring/ the k|K|ing of Babylon sent & carried him to b|B|abylon in thi|e| eighth year of his \own/ reign over Iude|a|h 2 King 24.12. 2 Chron 36.10. Afterwards reigned Zedekiah 11 years & took \then the {sic}/ ye city \was taken & burnt destroyed/ i|o|n ye ninth day of ye 4th month |& burnt| destroye |i|o|n ye 7th day of the fift month.| This was in \&/ ye \This was in the This was \This/ was in the 11 year of Zedekiah &/ ninteenth year of ye Nebucha Nebuchadnezzar \2 King. 25.8/ For his 18th year was ye 10th of {illeg}|Z|edekiah, Ier 3{illeg} In ye After Nebuchadnezzar reig{illeg}|{n}|ed J Evilmerod{ac}h & his first year was ye 37 of Iehojakims captivity & by consequence the 45th of Ier. 32.1. After \Evilmerodach ye son & successor of/ Nebuchadnezzar reigned \reigned/ Evilmerodach his son & {illeg} \who/ began his reign in ye 37th year of Iehojakin's captivity \2 King 25.37/ that is in ye 45t of Iehojakim's, the \&/ reigned two years, \After him{illeg} reigned/ Nigricolassar \wth Belshazer/ 4 years & |then| Belshazer alone 9 months \Belshazzar alone 9 months/, |&| Na{illeg}|b|onnedus or Darius medus 17 years, according to Megasthanes & Ptolemies Canon published by Petavius. The

Cyrus in wth \beginning of the/ 22th year of his reign & end of wth 17 year of

Darius Medus invadedbegan to reign over Iudea& reigned
& Nebuchadnezzarin winter \summer ineunte/ an 4|1| Olymp 42|3|4{illeg}|4| years 9 months
Evilmerodach –in spring \finiente/ an {illeg}|1| Olymp 542|3|
Belshazar –{illeg} in spring an 4 Olymp 544|5| years 9 months
Darius Medusin winter an 1 Olymp 5517 1/2
The siege of Babylonin        an 2|3| Olymp 60{illeg}
Cyrusin summer \ineunte/ an {illeg} Olymp 609

but ye first reccons from ye flight of Nabonnedus, ye second from ye taking of Babylon \{w}ch was a year after (Ier 51.46.)/. While Cyrus besieged Babylon Nabonnedus lay \lay/ shut \himself/ up in Ba|o|rsippa & both & by reason of the great strength of both places, the \impatient/ Iews during the se|i|ege used this Proverb: Babylon & Borsippa {illeg} had signe to signum mlu malum legi. This shews that \whence/ their|y| ca|we|re not released from captivity till the spring after ye city was taken & that they dated ye years of Cyrus from ye taking of ye City. The first year of Cyrus therefore in wch they returned was ye 23th of his reign in Persia: after wch 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 ye seven months' reign of A his successor Arta{illeg}|b|anus \is included/, {hemi} & in that of Artaxerxes Longimanus the reigns of his successors Xerxes II & Sogdian, ye first of wch reigned two months \a year/ ye other 7|s|even \months /months\/. Some reccon \for/ ye reign of this Xerxes a|b||ut| year \two months/, & so {illeg} {illeg} \put 140 years for the reign of/ Artaxerxes {illeg} Longimanus. his reign 41 years but Eusebius \Eusebius Sulpinius &/ some Authors {illeg} mentioned by Diodorus as also Eusebius put his reign but two months \& Ctesius/ who lived soon after in Persia puts his {re}ign 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 {illeg} this be done the{re} will not be 20 1/2 years between the death of Artaxerxes & that of Darius {as} there ought to be./ Eusebius m|t|akes 3 years from ye reign of ye 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 {illeg} hence Agathias reccons that ye Monarchy stood 238 years & Africanus 230|

The \beginning of Cyrus in Persia \& ye length of his reign & those of Cambyses Darius & Xerxes/ is agreed on by all chronologers ancient & modern ye/ reign|yeare|s of Cambyses & Darius are stat stated \absolutely fully determined/ by three eclipses recorded by P made at Babylon & recorded by Ptolomy: that|os||e| of Xerxes by the {illeg} battel of Marathon four|iv||e| years & some months before ye D|d|eath 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/. That|os||e| of Artaxerxes Longimanus by the coincidence of his 20th year wth {illeg} an. 4 Olymp. 83, T{illeg} by as Africanus informs us & by the news of his death being coming \out of Persia/ to Athens in winter in ye seventh year of ye Peloponnesian war \as Thucydides mentions relates/. That|os||e| of Darius Nothus by ye coincidence of his 13th year wth ye 20th of ye Peloponnesian war \as Thud|c|ydides mentions/ & by that|os||e| of Artaxerxes Mnemon by {illeg}s his beginning a little after ye end of ye|t| Peloponnesian war in ye same Olympic year \as Diodorus relates/. For ye war ended \began in April an 1 Olymp 87/ lasted 27 whole year|s| & ended about Apr. 14 An. {illeg}|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.


The Chronology of the Gospel.

Artaxerxes king of Persia in the seventh year of his reign sent Ezra \& the Iews from Babylon/ to Ierusalem with a commission to restore ye worship of God & teach the people his law & to set magistrates & Iudges over the land \Iudea/ wth 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 p|P|eople & Holy C|i|ty (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 ye Lamb of God] & \the/ bringing everlasting righteousness \[by the attonement & g{illeg} resurrection]/ & {illeg} sealing {illeg} the vision & Prophet & t ann{illeg}|o|inting 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, & e|i|n a sabbatical year, the seventy weeks ending each of them wth sabbatical years, as was ye manner of recconing among the Iews.|,| |& the preceeding year having 13 months that ye passion may fall on a friday.|

It was the practise of Christ to draw Parables from all things wch were before ye eyes of his hearers: & accordingly \in allusion to the Iews making their servants free/ he tells the in the feast of the seventh month wch 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 yt 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 wch the Iews released their servants/ of release \releasing servants/ or sabbatical year A.C. 34.

In the {illeg} {illeg}|1|5th year of Tiberius Iohn began to baptize, suppose in spring when ye summer was before him A.C. 29 & when his baptism was noised abroad & all the people came to him {illeg} Iesus al suppose in autumn \following/ Iesus also came to be baptized being about 30 years old when he began to manifest himself, suppose in autumn following or following. For there was six months difference      betw For Iohn was six months older then Christ & might begin 30 years was the age for thought a fit age for Priests to enter upon their ministry. Iesus after his baptism went to Cana in Galilee & to Capernaum where he spent some time & then went to Iudea, was{illeg} tempted, kept the first Passover, baptized went into ye land of Iudea baptizing \& learned there/ till Iohn was cast into prison, & th & then departed through Samaria into Galilee four months before ye harvest, & began to preach in the Capernaum & the (suppose that is in December or Ianuary) & began to preach, saying, Repent for ye kin & went thence to ye next Feast (Iohn 4. Mat 4.) This was the second Passover. Then he preached his sermon in the mount when ye Lilies were in the field & suppose in May or Iune & conversed \afterwards/ in Galilee till & in autumn or winter following passid|s| over the sea of Galilee into the Country of the Gergesens was a|i|n a great tempest, & after a while returned by sea to Capernaum in another tempest, a little before the next Passover (Iohn 6. Matt. 8 & 9) Afterwards he \& returning back to his own city preached still in Galilee, & & went about preaching/ sent his twelve disciples to preach & {illeg} in houses the cities of the Iews then went himself \also himself/ about their cite|i|es preaching till the next passover & on the chief day \sabbath/ of the second \latter second/ Passover \of this year/ or passover of the second month he went through ye corn & his disciples (Mat 12.) This was the & in seed time following he put forth the Parable of the sower & another Parable of sowing good seed & tares & a third pab|r|able of sowing mustard seed, \& in that winter heard that Iohn was beheaded in prison & his disciples returned to him/ & in winter his disciples wal the end of winter {illeg} walked on the sea to his disciples who were in a ship tossed with a tempest (Matt 14) This was a little before the next Passover (Iohn 7.1, 2) & suffered in the Passover following wch was being the fift Passover after his baptism, was in spring A.C. 34. All this I gather by comparing the Gospels of Math|t|hew & Iohn who wrote in due order of time & had \having/ seen almost all they wrote.


Luke tells us that when Christ was bapt Christ in circumcising Christ & purifying the virgin they had performed all things according to ye`law, \wch was within 40 days/ they returned into Galilee to their own city Nazareth But Matthew aquaints us that they went first into Egypt & staid there upon the death of Herod went from Egypt into Galilee & dwelt th to the city Nazareth & dwelt there Whence I gather that the time between ye birth of Christ & death of Herod was very short, perhaps not above three or four months. The Magi came to worship Christ while his parents staid at Bethlehem & in an Inn & by consequence soon after his birth, & Herod slew the children soon after {illeg} as soon as he found himself mocked of the wise men: all wch might be done wthin two months after the birth of the child. Herod \indeed/ killed all the children under two yearlings, that \is/ all that were a year old or under, but he might do it to make sure work. Now the Iews in their Calender pa|l|ace the death of Herod about ye time of the winter solstice or a few days before. I have forgotten the day of their Month. He b|d|iet|d| a linguering death & when he|i|s de|i|sease began to be thought incurable he commanded some of ye Iews for throwing down a golden eagle from the Temple were slain by his command upon a day on wch the Moon was Eclipsed. This Eclips might Such an Eclips happened in the night between Feb. 3 & Feb 4 two \a/ year & 11 months before the vulgar Æra & the summer following was spent by Herod in going to languishing under his distemper going to the hot bath beyond Iordan & doing other sending for one out of every family of the Iews & doing other things mentioned by Iosephus. Now Iosephus tells us that Herod was made king by the Roman Senate both in his Antiquities & in his Book de of ye Iewish war that Herod reigned 37 years from ye time that he was made king by ye Roman Senate & 34 from ye time that he killed Antipater, Th & took Ierusalem. The 37|4| years end in I August the 34 in These years end in Iuly a year & about 5 months before ye vulgar Æra five or six months after the above mentioned eclips & there were four or five months more to Herods death wch Iosephus neglects in recconning by round numbers of years neglects. Now And Luke saith that \when/ Christ was twelve years old wh he taugh disputed in the temple at the Passover & only that he was about {illeg} 30 years old when he was baptized, if we may \to/ suppose him born in sping {sic} about eight months before the death of Herod, \& a year & three quarters before the vulgar Æra, will answer {sic}/ {illeg}|will| answer perfectly well to the scriptures & to Iosephus. Then might shepherds be \able to/ watching their flocks all night in the fields.|,| |&| Then might the Iews go conveniently out of all Iudæa \to Ierusalem/ to be taxed there{illeg} it being neither seed time nor harvest & the weather \season/ being convenient for travelling. |But i|I|f any man had|       Now if when Nehemiah came \from Artaxerxes to build / th Ierusalem, the first eight \week of {illeg}/ years be allowed \& set apart/ for b{illeg} repairing the wall, {illeg}|se|asoning the timber, & setting up the Gates & building so much of the city as was necessary for \Governor &/ inhabitants: the street & the wall will \after that/ be built 62 weeks \of years/ untill the birth of Christ or first coming \or birth/ of the Messiah of years unto the first coming of the Messiah or birth of Iesus Christ] had rather suppose that \Christ was born at/ Christmas preceding; tis a point not worth disputing \I might reply/ that Christmas was instituted in the room of a heathen festival & so is of no authority for determining the time: but I had rather say that the {ire}{illeg} time of /{illeg}\ the year \difference of three months in time/ is a nicety not worth disputing about.

Now when Nehemiah came from Artaxerxes to {illeg} Ierusalem the first week of years after his coming be set apart for cuttin repairing the wall cutting & seasoning of timber setting {illeg}|u|p the gates & building so much of the city as was necessary for the Governour & inhabitants: the street & the wall \will have continued/ be be built. {illeg} sixty & two weeks of years unto the coming of the Messiah the Prince or birth of Iesus Christ. Nehemiah writes that the wall was finished in \the 25t day of the month Elul/ the month Elul in 52 days: but this time if recconed from Nehemiah's coming to Ierusalem is much too short for the whole performance & therefore must be recconed from the some later period. Nehemiah tells us that after the wall was built & no breaches left therein but ye doors were not yet set upon the gates, Sanballet & Gesheru sent unto him five times thinking to weaken the hands of the Iews so that the from the work so that it should not be done & then adds: So the wall was finished in ye 22th day of the month Elul in 52 days, meaning I conceive, that ye wall \remainder of the work of the wall/ was finished by setting up the doors in 52 days|.| after the breaches were made up \& after they began to set up the doors/. For he describes the making up of the breaches to be a work of time, & that when they were half made up the enemies of the <22r> Iews conspired against them & plotted to invade them {illeg} dis invade & disturb them wth an armed force. Whereupon the Iews armed themselves & continued the one half in arms the other half in the work till it was finished. And Nehemias giving an account of the things he did during ye {illeg} year his 12 years stay governmt of Iudea saith that he continued in the work of the wall & bought no land. And Iosephus saith that after they were in arms they continued in the work of the walls two years & four months & finished it in the 28th year of Artaxerxes in the 9th month: from w{illeg}|c|h time to the birth of Christ there were just {illeg} threescore & two weeks. Iudaic weeks, recconing every week to end wth a sabbatic year.

When ye Apostle Paul was newly converted he went into Arabia & returned to Damascus & three years after his conversion went to Damascuss Ierusalem to see Peter (Gal 1) & went thence through Cæsarea to Tarsus. Then ceased the persecution of the Christians & Cornelius was converted & the \{illeg}/ Gospel was preached Barnabas went f the Apostles sent Barnabas to promote ye gospel at Antioch & Barnabas went from Antioch to Tarsus & brought Paul from thence \to Antioch where they remained a year & then/ & the brethren at Antioch sent relief to those at Ierusalem about wch time Herod Agrippa killed James ye brother of Iohn & imprisoned Peter|.| at ye This was at the time of the Passover. And about the time that Paul & Barnabas returned from Antioch Herod died. He \Iospehus tells us that he died/ reigned seven years, four wth Caius & three wth Claudius & therefore \he/ died in spring A.C. 44, & Paul & Barnabas came from Tarsus to Antioch in the end of winter A.C. 43. \/|/‡ And if wee allow about four years f{illeg}t|rom| the death of Christ to the conversion of Paul for the preaching of the Gospel till \the/ martyrdom of Stephen & for the ensuing persecution carried on by P|S|aul \till his conversion/ & three years more till Saul began his journey to Ierusalem & \after/ two years| And if we allow [about four years for for ye Persecution of \thre{illeg}|e| {illeg} {illeg}|y|ears & an half or four years for ye first preaching of the gospel & the persecution of/ the Christians before \from between the death of Christ & to/ ye conversion of Paul] & \about/ two years for Pauls travelling \more for his journey/ from Damascus to Ierusalem & thence to Tarsus & for his stay at Tarsus & journey to Antioch |& a year for| \his stay at Antioch/ the Conversion of Cornelius & calle|i|ng of the Gentiles \wch happened when|{illeg}| Paul was at Tarsus \newly/ arrived at Tarsus and presently after/ will be about seven years after the death of Christ. |And| \And/ So long did the Messiah keep his covenant wth the people. Iews: & therefore it was seven years his people the Iews.

After the death of Herod Paul & Barnabas were sent \abroad from Antioch/ to preach the Gospel to both Iews & Gentiles & went to the cities of Cyprus Pamphylia Pisidia Lycaonia & returned thence to Antioch where they aboded a long time & upon some Iews contending that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised went to were sent to Ierusalem to know the {illeg}|o|pinion of the Apostles about this matter (Act. 13 & 14 & 15.) This was 14 years after the conversion of Paul (Gal. 2. ) &|Act|.15) & A.C. 51 or 52 & by consequence A.C. 51 & by consequence the common Apostles assembled in Council about this matter A.C. 52 at Ierusalem A.C. 52. \Then did Paul & Barnabas communicate to the Apostles the Gospel wch they preached to ye Gentiles & opposed ye circumcision of Titus, & then did the Apostles see that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul as that of the circumcision was to Peter & this was 14/ The did Paul & Barnabas communicate to the Apostles \assembled in Council/ the Gospel wch they preached to ye Gentiles, & opposed the circumcision of Titus, & then did the Apostles see that the Gospel of the \un/circumcision was committed to Paul as that of the circumcision was to Peter; & this was 14 years after the conversion of Paul & (Gal. 2. Act 15) & by consequence A.C. 52.|,| |& his conversion was in spring.|

After Paul & Barnabas returned to ye Counci Antioch wth ye decree sentence of the Apostles, he went with Silas through Syria & Cilia|c|ia Ph confirming the Churches & through Prygia & Galatia \& then/ they passed from Troas into Macedonia & {illeg} preched {sic} the Gospel in Philippi, & Thessalonica, Berea, Athens |&| Corinth & staid \writing from Athens his two Epistles to the Thessalonians & staying/ in Corinth 18 months {illeg}|&| |yn| returned from thence to Ierusalem ha at the time of the feast having a vow, \&/ touchin|ed|g at Ephesus in his return. And \Then/ from Ierusalem he went to Antioch & thence through Galatia & Prygia strengthening the disciples & coming to Ephesus preached three months in the Synagogue & two years more in ye school of Tyrannus & then went over the parts of Macedonia & of Greece \sending from thence his first Epistle to the Corinthians & at Pentecost left them {illeg} & went to Philippi in Macedon from whence he wrote his second Epistle to the Corinthians & then/ spend|t|ing |ye| three /winter\ months in Greece |&| returning|ed| \into through Macedonia {illeg} sailed/ from Philippi after ye days of unleavened bread & came unto them unto Troas hasting to keep the Pente be at Ierusalem \wth alms/ the day of the \next/ Pentecost, where he was apprehended. &|]| kept prisoner two years & then delivered by Festus Felix to festus who Now if we allow for these two journeys of Paul to preach the th preach the Gospel seven years, the through Asia Macedon & Greece to preach the Gospel seven yeas|r|s, 3|t|hree years for the first journey & four for the second (for less time cannot well be allowed) the imprisonment of Paul will fall upon Pentecost A.C. 59. Sooner it could not well be because the the journeys required the space of \secon Second journey took up four years & the second first/ could not take less time then seven years \up less then three/, || < insertion from f 22v > ‡ & two years more in the school of Tyrannus sending from thence his first Epistle to the Corinthians. And leaving Ephesus at Pentecost he went into Macedonia & there wrote his second Epistle to the Corinthians, & then spent the three winter months in Greece & wrote his epistle to the Romans in the end of winter. And hasting to be at Ierusalem wth alms at the day of the Pentecost with a designe to go from thence to Rome & from Rome into Spain he returned into Macedonia & sailed thence after the days of unleavened bread & landed at Tyre & went thence to Ierusalem where he was apprehended.

Now if fo{illeg}|r| {illeg}|the|se two journes|y||s| of Paul through Asia Macedonia & {sic} Greece we allow seven years, the imprios|so|nment of Paul will fall upon Pentecost A.C. 59. Not Sooner it could not be because the second journey took up four years & the first could not take up less then three: nor later because < text from f 22r resumes > nor later because he was a prisoner two years before Festus Felix delivered him to Festus & spent ye autumn & winter following \in his voyage to Rome/ arriving at Rome |there| in spring & apr at Rome \the/ spent \there/ two whole years \more at Rome/ in his own hired hos|u|se teaching with all confidence, no man forbi{illeg}|d|ding him. And this was \done/ before the|a||t| burning /sharp persecution\ <23r> of R the Christians \at Rome wch was/ occasioned by the burning of Rome A.C. in the Co \that City in/ Iune in the Consulship of Lecanius Bassus & Licinius Cressus (as Tacitus writes [8]) A.C. 64 in ye 10th year of Nero A.C. 64. T This Persecution therefore put an end to \Pauls teaching freely & to/ the \writing of the/ Acts of the Apostles, it being unsafe for Luke to describe that persecution. \what was then done by Nero/

Iosephus \in the end of his Antiquities saith that 56 year of this age was the 13 year of Domitian &/ in his own life written by himself tells us that he was born in the first year of Caius Cæsar & in \that after/ the 26t year of his age own age \he/ sailed to Rome to sollicit the cause of some Priests \of his acquaintance/ whom Felix governour of Iudea |had| sent {illeg} prisoners thither. He went to Rome therefore in the year \the end of/ summer A.C. 62|3|: For the first year of Caius began in March A.C. 37. And of the Prisoners went sent to Rome the year before Iosephus {illeg} the government of Felix will end & that of Festus began A.C. 6{illeg}|1| as above. And therefore Felix \& the 13 of Domitian in August A.C. 93.|||‡& in his voyage he suffered shipwrack.| Before he went he heard that the prisoners lived an abstemious & religious life at Rome & therefore they went thither a year or two Before he went ahead from them & therefore went the year after him & before him. If two years they before {illeg} him then Felix/ was succeeded by Festus A.C. 61 as above & sent the Prisoners to Rome in the very end of his government, the year before Iosephus went thither to sollicit their cause. They might go to Rome in autumn \& be some of those Prisoners whe|o| went/ perhaps in the same ship wth Paul|.| there being other passengers in the Ship & Iosephus might not be able to follow them till the next spring: but it is not likely that he would neglect his friends above a year. \Iosephus returned from Rome before the burning of that city A.C. 64, because he makes no mention of that fire. When Iosephus returned to Ierusalem he found his the / < insertion from f 23v >   When Iosephus returned to Ierusalem he found |t|hi|e| Iews inclining to make a defection from the Romans, & endeavoured to disswade them from sedition but without success. Wherefor fearing least they should take him for an enemy he ret & kill him he & seing the castle Antonia in their possession he retired into the |inner| Temple till the death of Manahem (Ioseph. in vita.) The the castel Antonia was taken by the t{illeg} seditious Iews Aug 15 in the first year of Florus & 11th of Nero A.C. 65 & Menahem was killed in September following. Whence it may be gathered that Menahem \Iosephus/ did not return from {illeg} Rome bef before the year 64. The Iews were \not/ displeased wth the government of Albinus, but continued quied till Flor his successor Florus by his exceeding great cruely|t|y & injustice exasperated them beyond measure: yet they complained not of him to|i||ll| Cestius Gallus \Governour of Syria/ came to the Passover A.C. 65. In the days of Felix the Iews & Gentiles had a controvery|s||y| about the city Cæserea each claiming a right to it, & Felix in the end of his government referred the matter to Nero & at \about/ the time of this Passover Nero gave judgment for the Gentiles & letters arrived of the certifying the decree: wch much inflamed the Iews against the Romans. And i|I|n the beginning of May Florus came wth an a{illeg}y armed force against them & slew many of them. In {illeg} August they seized the Castle of Antonia & in September Ma|e|nahem was slain. This was in the first year of Florus & 11th of Nero A.C. 65. Whence \W|&| in the following spring the war began. From all wch/ it may be gathered that the time between the government of Fl|e|lix & that of Florus was short {illeg}|&| that the return of Iosephus from Rome was not before suits well \best/ with the year 64 & could not be sooner. < text from f 23r resumes >

< insertion from f 22v >

After ye death of Herod Agrippa, his kingdom was reduced into a province & Cuspius Fadus made Procurator thereof. Fadus was succeeded by Tiberius Alexander & he by Cumanus was made governour of Syria \Iudea & Samaria/ in ye 8th year of Claudius & \Cumanus by/ Felix in the 11th (Ioseph. bell. Iud. {illeg}|A|ntiq. l. 20) & Paul was brought before him \Felix/ when he had been governour there may years (Act.      ) & th{illeg} & {since} he \& two years after Felix/ was succeeded by Festus A.C. 61, he was governour \& by consequence in the 7th year of Nero being governour/ ten years. When Paul was sent by Festus to Rome the Iews who had laid wait for his life, being disappointed of their hope converted their rage against Iames the brother of or Lord & Bishop of Ierusalem & at the passover, Festus being dead newly dead, threw him down from a pinnacle of the Temple & slew him A.C. 63. (Euseb. Hist l. 2. c. 23) \He was slain therefore at the Passover in the 8th year of Nero/ Albinus succeeded Festus \before summer/ & was succeeded by Florus in the 11th year of Nero A.C. 65. At tha|e|t Feast of that Passover /Tabernacles\ \wch was four years before the Iewish wa < insertion from f 23r > r & by consequence < text from f 22v resumes > / in wch the Iews slew Iames, a {illeg} \certain/ man began to cry[9] Wo to Ierusalem & the Temple \& people/ & {illeg} continued that cry \seven years & four months/ without intermission & without g{illeg}|r|owing \hoarse or weary/ or saying any thing else & in the time of siege of the Temple concluded with saying {illeg} \end of the war cried Ierusalem/ Wo to me also, being \& was/ immediatly \killed/ with a stone shot out of an engin. [Eusebius Ierome & others place the death of Iames in the seventh year of Nero, wch is a year sooner then in this recconing.] The first four years preceded the Iewish war \(as Iosephus tells us)/ & the war lasted only three years & five months more. the Ierusalem being taken. Sept 8 \in the second year of Vespasian/ A.C. 69, in the end of the sabbatic year For Iosephus telling that in this war there were 97000 Iews taken & 1100000 slain adds that most of these were Iews from of foreign regions. For coming to the from all regions to the feast of unleavened bread, they were de suddenly deteined by the war & by the & at first by the straitness of the city occasioned a plague & famin soon after a famin. The war therefore commenced at the Passover A.C. 66 & it ended with the taking of Ierusalem Sept 8 in the second year of Vespasian A.C. 69 in the end of the Sabbatic year & so lasted half a Iewish week of years.

< text from f 23r resumes >

Eusebius \or rather his interpolator Ierome/ allots eight years to Festus & his successor Albinus.|,| For wch is five years to much. For Albinus was succeeded by florus in the 11th year of Nero A.C. 65 & in the second year of Albinus & 12th or Nero the Iewish war began in May \in ye 2d year of Albinus & 12t of Nero (according to Iosephus )|w|ho knew what he wrote./ & Peter & Paul were martyred the next year {illeg} Iune 29.

The gospel of the circumcision being committed to Peter, he & the other Apostles of the circumcision continued in Iudæa tak & the neighbouring regions, taking care of the Churches of the Iews {illeg} till those converted Iews |Churches| {seeing} \converted Iews (as was their duty) till those Churches/ fled from ye Iewish war, & {illeg} escaped in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia minor, Greece & Italy. by wch they \& by it/ were dispersed into all the world.

Iustin Martyr & Irenæus say that Simon Magus came to Rome in the reign of Claudius & exercised juggling tricks there. Pseudo Clemens adds that he endeavoured there to fly & brake his neck by the prayers of Peter. Whence Eusebius or rather his interpolator Ierom has recorded that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius. But Peter was in the Council of the Apostles at Ierusalem in ye 12 year of Claus|s| & soon after was reprehended by Paul at Antioch \& about that time Claudius banished all Iews from Rome/; & Cyril bishop of Ierusalem, Philastrius, Sulpitius, Prosper, Maximus Taurinensis, & Hegesippus junior place this|at| victory of Peter \{illeg}/ in the reign of Nero. For the ancienter tradition was that Peter came to Rome in the reign of this Emperor as you may see in Lacatantius. \/ < insertion from f 22v > When Paul was returning from Corinth to Rome he
✝ When Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, wch was in spring, at his returning from Corinth to Rome \the wch {illeg} beginning of spring/ \the end of/ \March Ierusalem/ A.C. 59, he saluted above 20 of the chief Christians at Rome by name without naming Peter. After the burning of Rome Paul was {illeg}ted \brought/ before Nero & |after| when he was brought before him the second time \that/ he wrote his second Epistle to Timothy then at Ephesus \& desiring him to come to Rome \wth Mark/ before winter & tells him/ & tells Timothy that Demas is|w|as gone to Thessalonica Crescent|s| to Galatia Titus to Dalmatia \Tychicus to Ephesus [wth an Epistle]/ & only Luke was with him; & therefore Peter was not yet arrived at Rome F \this Epistle was writ in spring A.C. 60 &/ that, he wrote his second Epistle to Timothy in wch he tells him desiring him to come to Rome before winter w{illeg} before winter & bring with Mark with him & tells him that Demas had forsaken him & was gone to Thessalonica, Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia, T{illeg}ychicus to Ephesus [wth an Epistle] & only Luke was with him: and therefore this Epistle \to Timothy/ was writ in sp\r/e|i|ng & in the year 65, & when it was & Mark & Peter were not yet arrived at Rome & the first epistle of Peter in wch Mark is mentioned was written after this year. When Eusebius[10] tells us \of a tradition/ that after the martyrdom of Iames the brother of or Lord & bishop & the taking of Ierusalem wch presently followed \then/ the Apostles & disciples wch survived came together from all places & with one consent made Symeon the son of Cleopas Bischop of Ierusalem in tha|e|t room of Iames. He should have put this election four years before the war began. For Iames was martyred at that {illeg}t time, & not immediately before the & the Apostles were so dispersed by the war that they could not come together afterward. < text from f 23r resumes > Chrysostom tells us that the Apostles continued long in Iudea & the being driven out by the Iews went to ye Gentiles. This dispersion was in the first year of \before/ the Iewish w{illeg}|a|r \began/ when the Iews as Iosephus tells us, began to be tumultuous & violent in all places \& Florus coming with an armed force to Ierusalem slew many of them & the Gentiles at Cæsarea & in all Syria & divers cities of Phœnicia & at Alexandria in Egypt {illeg} slew them \in great multitudes/ as public enemies. And \For/ at the same time they suspected also the Iudaizing Gentiles & tho they did not kill them rashly yet they were afraid of them. I suppose Iosephus means the Christians. All/ All ages agree that the Apostles were dispersed into several regions at once, & Origen has set down the time, telling us that in the beginning of the Iudaic war the Apostles & disciples of or Lord were scattered into all nations, Thomas into Parthia, Andrew into Scythia, Iohn into Asia, & Peter first into Asia were he preacht to the dispersion & thence into Italy; And Dionysius Conrinthius saith that Peter went from Asia by Corinth to Rome; & all antiquity agree that Peter & Paul were martyred at Rome in the end of Nero's reign. Mark went with Timothy to Rome (2 Tim 4.11 & Colos. 4.10.) & Sylvanus was Paul's assistant, & by these companions of Peter y mentioned in his first Epistle you may know that he wrote from Rome: & \even/ all antiquity agree that in this Epistle he understood Rome by Babylon. This Epistle was written to the strangers <24r> strangers scattered throughout Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia & b|B|ithynia & in the epistle exhorts them to endure wth patience \constancy/ & chearfulness the fiery f|t|rial & \or/ persecution wch they were under. And therefore it was written after the converted Iews under the care \& charge/ of Peter were \nearly/ fled from Iudea into those provinces of Asia & {illeg} were there in affliction by reason of the Iewish war. For when the Iews by their extravagant seditions in Iudea provoked the Romans to make war upon them, its reasonable to beleive that the Romans looked upon the Iews throughout all the Empire as public enemies & therefore treated them as such. \the troubles in Iudea & Syria & escaping & escaping into those provinces of Asia under the Gentiles h & into those provinces of Asia, were there in affliction under the Gentiles who at this time looked upon all the Iews as public enemies/ The second Epistle of Peter was written to the same dispersed strangers wth the first (2 Pet. 3.1) & therein he saith that Paul had writ of the same things to them & also {illeg} [in his Epistle] to them & also in his other all his epistles, speaking in them of these things (2 Pet. 3.15, 16.) Paul did therefore write an Epistle to these strangers. And as there is no other Epistle to them, besides that inscribed to the Hebrews so in this epistle there is (Chap. 10, 11, 12) you will find at large all those things wch Peter had been speaking of & refers unto, & particularly the pr|a|ssing away of the old heaven & earth & establishing an inheritance immoveable wth an exhortation to grace because God (to the wicked) is a consuming fire. Heb. 12.25, 26, 28, 29. In this Epistle Paul tells the \exhorts ye/ Hebrews that to (as Peter does in his epistles) to endure the chastening they lay under & tells them them {sic} that they had not yet resisted unto blood, & & tells them that ye brother Timothy was set at liberty wth whom, if he came shortly to them from Italy, he would also come & see them. Whence I gather that these Hebrews were the strangers in the Provinces of Asia to whome Peter wrote, the Hebrews in Iudea having no concern nor acquaintance with Timothy, & that this epistle was written one or two years later then ye second Epistle to Timothy, & that Paul as well as Timothy was set at liberty before he wrote it.

It seems to me therefore that in the very beginning of \spring in the 19th year of Nero/ \the year before/ \a little before the trouble brake out in Syria & ye year before/ \the year before/ the Iewish |war began| war \began/ when the Iews \in Iudea/ began to be very tur seditious & turbulent & Florus \Gallus/ \Florus went against Ierusalem with an armed force/ was bringing \brought/ his army against Ierusalem \|✝ & the troubles in Syria were not yet broke out.| the Apostles & their disciples being admonished from above/ that is in March or April in the 12t year of Nero A.C. 66, the {illeg} Apostles fled \& {connected} wth their disciples/ form Iudea into all parts & Peter & Iohn came wth the greatest part of their Churches \through Syria/ into the Provinces of Asia \where the Gospel had been spread. That in autumn following/. That because the Iews were very seditious in Iudea, the Romans \in Asia/ to prevent \such/ seditions \{illeg}/ in their places \Asia as were \then/ made in Iudea \&/ made/ secured their leaders \by the Iews in Asia Iudea & Syria secured the Leaders of the converted Iews & Christians/ & banished Iohn into Patmus & treated the converted Iews wth ye more hardship because they endeavoured t|b|y preaching the Gospel to bring over the heathens to their party. That about the same time that about the time that Iohn was banished into Patmus & wrote the Apocalyps Peter went on to Rome & there met with Mark whom Paul had sent for with Timothy the year before & wrote his first Epistle before |winter or in summer following| following & then Paul wrote to ye Hebrews & Peter wrote again to them \before winter/ & {illeg} summer following they were martyred Iune 29 A.C. 66 \th{illeg} A.C. 67 & soon after they were martyred much above the same time. The Calendar places their martyrdom Iun 29 & by consequence in ye 13th year of Nero Eusebius in the 14th./ \That in this time of affliction the the {sic} Apocalypse was given to Iohn & sent to the seven Churches for in the beginning of his banishment A.C. 65 as a reward & consolation for their sufferings. And that Peter went on to Corinth & thence to Rome before winter & wrote \sent/ his first Epistle the next summer & his second Epistle the summer following. And that about the time that Peter wrote these Epistles Paul & Timothy were set at liberty & Paul wrote his Epistle to the Hebrews. And soon after, he & Peter were martyred either in the 13th or 14th year of Nero./ in the 13th year of Nero A.C. 66 & second year of the Iewish war A.C. 66|7|.|,| \about a year or 13 months after Peter came to Rome./ The Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians & Philemon were written from Rome before ye second epistle to Timothy the Gospel of Matthew before in Iudea \some years/ before the dispersion, those|at| of Mark & Luke at Rome before ye martyrdome of Peter & Paul, that of Iohn at Ephesus in the reign of Domitian Luke before the |se|e|co||nd| Epistle to the Corinthians, that of Mark after that of Matthew & before that of Luke, the Acts when Paul was pri{illeg}|s|oner at Rome, |&| the Gospel of Iohn long after in the reign of Domitian.

Irenæus has set on foot an opinion that the Apocalyps was writ in the reign of Dominian....... Claudius (that is 26 years before ye death of Nero) & died before Iohn.


Christ said to Peter, Thou art Peter & upon this rock will I build my Church this was fulfilled in making Peter the first Apostle of the circumcision. Vpon this rock Christ built his Church of the Church circumcision F by the preaching of the Peter in Iudea & Syria 32 years together & {illeg} also the Church of the uncircumcision \in all nations/ by the calling of Cornelius & the Gentiles & by the flight of the Church of the circumcision into Asia {illeg} where the \seven Churches became the seven candlesticks of ye temple & the Bishops &/ teachers of the seven churches became the light of the Church Catholick represented by the lamps seven lamps wch illuminate the Temple. \As for the great city upon seven hills she has a contrary character in that prophesy & therefor Tu es Petrus belongs not to her/ The Apostles were not Bishops of single cities but appointed & had a general commission & appointed Bishops of single cities under them. Irenæus tells us that Paul made Linus the {illeg} Eusebius, e|E|piphanius tells us that the Apostles made Linus Bishop, he means of Rome, & that Linus was succeeded by Cletu Anacletus & he by Clemens \who had seen the Apostles & was their contemporary/ And \thence/ Epiphanius \wrote/ that in Rome Peter & Paul the first were Peter & Paul both Apostles & Bishops, then Linus, then Cletus then Clemens who was contemporary to Peter & Paul. Hence \thence And from this synchronism/ many of ye Romans make Clemens the immediate successor of Peter. & that Peter may be ye {prime} Bishop of Rome they leave out Paul. But Linus being the disciple of Paul was made Bishop by Paul before Peter came thither, & the Apostles had an authority superior authority & were no more Bishops of Rome the of all the other cities in the \Christian ch/ world & especially Peter who was an Apostle of the circumcision. |Hence some make Linus others And they that follow Epiphanius make Linus the successor of Peter. But Irenæus means that the Apostles made Linus Bishop under them. And therefore \Pope/ Damasus writes that the Apostles ma Peter (he should say Peter & Paul) created {illeg} \one of them/ ordeined two Bishops of Rome linus Linus æ Cletus, & appointed Clemens their successor. The truth wch his disguises is that the three first bishops of Rome were Linus Cletus & Clemens. Linus & Cletus in the days of the Apostles Clemens after their death|. But Irenæus means that the Apostles made Linus bishop under them. |Pope Damasus writes that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius & ordeined two Bishops of Rome Linus & Cletus & list Clemens his < insertion from f 25r > successor: but others say that Clemens succeeded Cletus or Anacletus in the reign of Domitian. < text from f 24v resumes > | But|And| Linus being the disciple of Paul, its probable that he was made Bishop of Rome by Paul before Peter came thither. For some make Linus & Cle Anacletus coadjutors of the Apostles. \Pope Damasus writes that Peter ordeined two bishops of Rome Linus & Cletus & Clemens his successor/ Certainly \Peter was an Apostle of the circumcision & therefor not a Bishop of the uncircumcision./ t|T|he gospel was preached first in the east. & t|T|here the Apostles spent almost all their days. They came no further westward then Greece except that Paul was a prisoner at Rome & Peter was there a year. {illeg} And this made the Gospel take much deeper root in the {illeg} Eastern Churches \then in the western/: besided that the Greeks had the scriptures in their own language & ye Latines had \them/ only in|by| {illeg} interpretation. And therefor the

Irenæus has set on foot an opinion that the Apocalyps was writ in the reign of Domitian – – – – – – – – – – Nero) & died before Iohn.


The 1000 years mentioned in this Prophesy being corruptly understood by a race & applied to carnal pleasures by a race of fals christians: Dionysius of Alexandria in opposing them thought it not enough to tell them them {sic} that they misunderstood the Prophesy but endeavoured to|al||so| to undermine its authority, complemente It was at that time universally received in the Churches so that he durst not oppose it openly, but & therefore he complemented it very highly, p|b|ut pretended that it differed in stile from the Gospel of Iohn being fuller of Hebraisms & therefore it was writ by another Iohn, wch was all one as to reject it. For if {illeg} Christ alone was worthy to receive it of the Father, \from God,/ how came he \to send it to/ another Iohn to be \as a better {illeg}/ more worthy to receive it then any of the Apostles? The followers of Dionysius therefore rejected it & grew numerous in the fourth century, but were opposed by \but/ \while/ the Latines continued still to receive |it| unanimoul|s|ly & support{e}d its credit against the Dionysians.

were martyred either in the 13 or 14th year of Nero.

Irenæus tells us that the Apostles made Linus Bishop & tha [of Rome] & that Linus was succeeded by Anacletus & he by Clemens who had seen the Apostles & was their contemporary. And thence Epiphanius writes that in Rome Peter & Paul were the first both Apostles & Bishops, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clemens. And \some/ later writers by leaving out Paul have made Peter the first Bishop of Rome & Linus the second. Whereas Irenæus meant that the Apostles (Peter & Paul or one of them) made Linus bishop under them. For the Apostles were Pope Damasus writes that Peter (he should say Peter & Paul or one of them) ordeined two Bishops of Rome Linus & Cletus & appointed Clemens to succeed him. Whence some make Linus & Cletus coadjutors of Peter & Clemens his first successor. The truth is that the Apostles had a general \unlimited/ power over all cities by wch they were able \to/ to ordein bishops \& Presbyters/ of single cities, but needed \and/ a Bishop|s| had {illeg} power only over \a limite{illeg}|d| limited \power// {sic} \of governing only/ |t|his|ei||e| one|wn| city|s| & its|the| territories \of those cities/, & Linus was the first bishop of Rome properly so called. And Linus being the disciple of Paul \& an Italian/ its probable that he was ordeined Bishop before Peter came to Rome. \For why should Rome want a Bishop so long?/ Peter was an Apostle of the circumcision & therefore no Bishop of the uncircumcion {sic}: for why should he leave his own charge to interfere wih|t|h Paul? If he was Bishop of Rome, pray, who ordeined him? If he & what \universal/ authority did the ordination give him \& why just that authority be universa \or what authority/ wch he has|d| not before?/ ? If he was not ordeined bishop of Rome \but acted there as an Apostle,/ how was he bishop of Rome more then of any other city? & how can the Bishops of Rome claim to be his successors without claiming to succeed him in his Apostleship, & by consequence to be Apostles. The Bishops of the whole world succeeded the Apostles as truly as Linus did, but not in their Apostolic authority & The Apostles gave them a limited power \over their several cities/, & Linus might succeed them with|out| the like power having a greater power then in proportion to his city. Tu es Petrus |respected Peter not as a Bishop but as an Apostle. If it relates to bishops it belongs alike to all| belongs alike to all bishops & if any have the preeminence they are the Churches origa|i|nally erected by the preaching of Peter in Phenicia & Syria \31 years together/ & |then| translated into Syr Asia minor, especially the seven Churches \of Asia/ chosen by Christ to represent the Church catholic under the type of se|th|e Temple seven Canclesticks {sic} of the Temple, whose Lamps illuminate the whole Temple. This is the Church wch was built upon a rock by the preaching of Peter & the whose Gates of Babylon \an/ shall not prevail the \Gates of Hell (the Elders in the Gates of great Babylon/ \of the/ Presbytery of the synagogue of Satan) shall not prevail against the remnant of her seed. |This Church is the glorious woman in heaven \/|

< insertion from f 24v >

‡ This church is the glorious woman in heaven & \the Temple of heaven at Ierusalem;/ Rome is the seven hilled city {illeg} in the wilderness \of Babylon, reigning over the kings of ye earth/ & these two differed from one another till the woman|,| \by/ fled|yi||ng| from ye Temple into the wilderness, changed her seat, & for the future sat upon the seven hills. Paul opposed Peter & therefore was not under his government. Much less was Iohn under the government of Linus Cletus & Clemens. nore were tho|e|se Churches of Asia under the government of those bishops while they were under the government of Iohn. nor did Iohn teach his churches to submit to the Bishop of Rome after his death: for if he had, they would have submitted; & therefore he knew nothing of the Popes supremacy. Pope Iulius was the first who began to pretend to it. Vpon a dispute arising between the Churches <25v> & |o|f Asia & those of Italy \about the keeping of Easter/. Polycarf|p| an{illeg} \very/ ancient man & one of Iohn's disciples who had conversed with several that had seen Christ & who was one of the disciples of Iohn the Apostle came to Rome & {illeg} upon discoursing the matter with Anicetus Bishop of Rome \Polycarp did not yeild, but/ both parties acquiesced in the tradition & practise of their own Churches & communicated wth one another their own way without contending further about, as Irenæus it. This was in \towards/ the end of Victors {illeg} the reign of Antoninus Pius, about the year {illeg} of Christ 16|9|8. Afterwards when Victor revived the C bishop of Rome revived the controversy & threatned to excommunicate the Churches of Asia, & the Bishops of Egypt & the west generaly certifyed that th by tra their churches by immemorial tradition kept Easter upon the Sunday following the Iewish Passover \i|o|n the same day wth ye Church of/ \&/ yet upon being put in mind of what passed between Polycarp & Anicetus, they perswaded Victor to desist & to suffer the Churches of Asia to continue {illeg} their custome as they other Ch suffered the other Churches to continue theirs, without making any further disturbance about a matter of an indifferent nature. \not disturb the peace of the the peace of the {sic} Church of about a ceremony./ All wch appears by a part of a letter of Irenæus conscried by Eusebius[11] Cum beate Polycarpus – – – inter se fruebatur. Henceforward therefore the Churches of Asia continued to keep e|E|aster on ye 14th day of the Iewish month till the Council of Nice western b|B|ishops revived the controversy & in the Cousi|n|cil of Arles A.C. 314 convened by Constantine ye great A.C. 314 decreed that Easter should be kept on the s \one &/ the same day throughout all the world & that the Bishop of Rome by his letters should signify the day to all as was usual, & the Council of Nice by the influence of Constantine the great \A.C. 325/ made the same decree, {illeg}|&| [because Egypt used to abound wth men skilled in Astronomy, they] referred it to the Bishop of Alexandria to determin the day & signify it to the Churches. And because Astronomy the ablest Astronomers were in Egypt, he signified it \the day/ also to the Bishop of Rome that ye eastern & western churches might keep Easter on the same day. In all this time the \Before the convening of th/ In \all this time the/ Churches of Asia did not submit to the Bishop of Rome: nor does it appear that the Bishop of Rome claimed any authority over them. On the contrary Polycarp & Anicetus parted good friends upon equal terms, & even the western bishops told Victor that he ought not to disturb the Churches Asia. The first Ch Bishop of Rome who began to pretend to the universal Bisho supremacy was Pope Iulius after ye death of Constantine the great. On the contrary the Western Bishops told {illeg} Victor that he ought not to molest the Churches of Asia about this matter; Polycarp & Anycetus parted good friends upon equal terms; |&| Iohn the Apostle was above all Bishops while he had \&/ governed the \Bishops of the/ Churches of Asia immediately. The Apocalyps was given by God to Christ who sent his Messenger with it to Iohn & Iohn by divine inspiration sent it to the \seven/ Churches. Here's a continual subordination of powers wthout the intervention of the Church of Rome. The Churches of Asia were so far from allowing themselves subordinate to the \powers of the/ Bishops of Rome that I do not find the Bishops of Rome themselves so far as I can find, did not begin to pretend {illeg} any power over the eastern churches till after the death of Constantine the great

< text from f 25r resumes >

Irenæus has set on foot an opinion that the Apocalyps was writ in the reign of Domitian – – – – – – – – Nero) & died before Iohn.

[1] a apud Euseb. Pr. l. 9

[2] aBerosus apud Iosephū l 9 Antiq. c. 11 & l 1 cont. App. E|&| apud Euseb l c|9| Præp. p 267.

[3] a

[4] a Ex antiquis monumentis colligerunt hoc Diodorus Siculus, Thallus, Castor, Polybius, Phlegon alij apud Tatianum scriptorē perantiquum et doctissimum nec non apud Africanum ut refert Eusebius l 10 de Præp. Evang. Item {illeg}|C|lemens Alexandr. 1 Strom. Cyril lib 1 cont. Iudæos Euseb. in Chron. Hieron in Dan 9.

[5] b Apud Hieron. in Dan. 9.

[6] a Beros. apud Iosephum cont Appion. p. 1045 See also Ier. 51.30, 31, 32.

[7] b Heri|o|dot.

[8] a Tacitus l 15

[9] Ioseph. Bell. Iud. l. 7. c. 12.

[10] Hist. l. 3. c. 11

[11] Hist. l. 5. c. 24.

© 2022 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC