moved with the authority of it, where it calls a Median the pride and confidence of the Assyrians, as where it tells of Nebuchadnezzar's own vanishing away. Indeed that same title of half an ass, by which he calleth Cyrus, makes me to suspect the fable as cunningly forged out of Apollo's oracle, wherein he termeth him a mule, because his parentage was more noble on the mother's side, than on the father's; as mules are begotten by asses upon mares. And thus much in answer of the two principal foundations whereon this opinion is built. As for the concinnity and coherence which it hath within itself, I easily allow it. But this proves nothing, for mere fictions have not wanted these commendations: neither can any man believe that one so judicious, industrious, and deeply learned as Joseph Scaliger, would over-shoot himself in setting down repugnancies.

It now remaineth to examine the agreement of this with the scriptures, from which there is no appeal. And herein it seems that Scaliger, well knowing his own sufficiency, hath been little careful to satisfy men that would frame arguments against him. For if the prophecy of Daniel were true, that the kingdom of Balthasar was divided, and given to the Medes and Persians, either we must think that Darius of the Medes was not Nabonidus, or else we must bethink ourselves what Persian it might be that shared the kingdom with him. For it is not more certain, that Balthasar lost his life and kingdom, than that his kingdom was divided and given to the Medes and Persians. Neither did the Medes and Persians fall out and fight for it, as by supposing Nabonidus to have been Darius, they should be thought to have done; but these two nations did compound the body of that empire, and were accounted as lords over all the subject provinces, insomuch that the Greek historians did commonly call those wars which Darius, and after him Xerxes, made

upon Greece, the wars of the Medes. Yea, to clear this point, even Daniel himself resembles that king, with whom Alexander fought, unto a ram with two horns, calling him the king of the Medes and Persians. Wherefore the whole nation of chronologers were not to have been condemned by Joseph Scaliger, for maintaining upon such good grounds, that Darius of the Medes was partner with Cyrus in his victories, and not a Chaldæan king by him subdued. Neither was Josephus to be the less regarded for affirming that Balthasar was destroyed by Darius of the Medes, and his nephew Cyrus; though herein he varied from Berosus, and others, whose authority elsewhere he gladly citeth. For Josephus had no reason to believe any man's faith or knowledge of those times half so well as Daniel's, whom I believe that he understood as far as was needful in this case. Lawful it was for him to allege all authors that had any mention, though imperfect, of the same things that were contained in the writings of the Jews, to whose histories thereby he procured reputation in the Roman world, where they were strangers, and might seem fabulous. Even so do Eusebius, and other Christian writers, willingly embrace the testimonies of heathen books making for the truth in some particulars; yet will they not therefore be tried in general by the self-same ethnick philosophers, but leave them where they are against the truth, as Josephus in this case hath left Berosus. And thus much I thought it meet to say of Scaliger's opinion in this point; holding nevertheless in due regard his learning and judgment, which, if in some things it had not failed, the miracle had been very great.

2 Daniel viii. 20.

SECT. VI.

What may be held as probable of the persons and limes of Nabuchodonosor's successors.

Ir now remains that I freely acknowledge mine own weakness, who cannot find how the seventy years of captivity are to be divided among them which reigned in Babylon, though I find that the distribution made of them, in such way as is already rehearsed, be ill agreeable to the holy scriptures. Wherefore I may truly say with Pererius, that we ought liberally to pardon those whose feet have failed them in the slippery ways of chronology, wherein both learning and diligence are subject to take a fall at one time or other, by ignorance, forgetfulness, or heedless reckoning. Yet will I adventure to deliver my opinion, wherein the judgment of Lyra and others (holding those only to have reigned over the Chaldæans, whose names are found in the scriptures) appears more conformable to reason and account of time, than any of the other sentences or conjectures before rehearsed. Not that I will take upon me to defend Lyra's conjectures, when he supposeth by Niglissar and Labosardach to be meant the same persons which are called in scripture Evilmerodach and Balthasar (for this can by no good colour be maintained,) but only to shew that the kings by him cited are likely to have occupied the whole time of seventy years. First, therefore, let us consider the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, in whose eighteenth year Jerusalem was taken and sacked, but in his nineteenth laid utterly desolate.

Most writers have given to him forty-three years of reign, following therein Berosus. There are who have added one year more; and some have made it up forty-five. To dispute about the certainty were

needless; for in shewing by what length of time the scriptures measure him, we shall shew the certain truth.

Manifest it is, that the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar' is joined with the eleventh of Zedekiah; as also that his eighth year was the first year of Jechoniah's captivity; the reign of Zedekiah occupied all the mean space, being of eleven years. This is generally agreed upon, so that it needs no further proofs. As for the beginning of his successor Evilmerodach, it was in the thirty-seventh year of Jechoniah's captivity; so that Nebuchadnezzar after his eighth year, (which was the first of Jechoniah's bondage,) reigned thirty-five whole years, and peradventure a good part of the thirty-sixth, forasmuch as Jechoniah was enlarged with so great favour, not until the end of the year. Subtracting therefore out of these forty-four, which Nebuchadnezzar's reign did well near occupy, those eighteen years of his which passed away before the captivity of Judah, and ruin of the city, we have remaining twenty-six years of the seventy, that were almost wholly spent when his son began to reign.

It is now to be considered how the remainder of the seventy years were divided between the kings ruling in Babylon until the first of Cyrus. A question more difficult, (as I said before,) than greatly needful; the whole sum being certain, and the distinction of times affording no benefit in knowledge of their actions, who were slothful princes. Neither can any man the more justly suspect the beginning or end of the whole seventy years, for that the distribution of some part of them is only conjectural; seeing that none who gives any other terms to their beginning or end, hath refused to follow both unlikely and desperate conjectures in dividing them. I will therefore be bold to do as others have done;

1

2 Kings ii. 5 8. Jer. li. 12. 2 Kings xxiv. 12. 2 2 Kings xxv. 27.

Jer. lii. 31.

knowing well before-hand, that whosoever shall discover my error, must do me the pleasure, (which I could rather wish in a case more material,) of making me to understand the truth.

Of the forty-four years remaining in account at Nebuchadnezzar's death, we are to take away the last, which was the first of Darius the Mede, and then having authority good enough to warrant us from blame of presumption, in giving seventeen years to Balthasar, we find left in our hands to bestow upon Evilmerodach, twenty-six years. Of the year belonging to Darius the Mede, I have already spoken what I thought sufficient, in delivering my opinion of the beginning and continuance of this captivity. That Balthasar did reign seventeen years, we have the authority of Josephus, before cited in express words; we have also the general consent of all, or the most late writers, interpreting Berosus's Nabonidus, who reigned so long, and Balthasar, to have been one. But nothing moved me so much to believe this tradition, as first, those evident places in Daniel3, shewing that in the third year of Balthasar, he followed the king's business, and yet was forgotten ere the end of his reign, (a proof sufficient of no few years passing under this man, especially seeing it is no where found that Daniel's employments took end either that year or the next;) secondly, the consideration of Cyrus's wars against the Assyrians, which beginning with the death of this man's father, and being always prosperous, could hardly have occupied any longer time, though we make large allowance to his deeds in the lower Asia, which fell out in the mid-way. I have already shewed, that there appears in the scriptures likelihood enough to make it credible that the reign of Evilmerodach was not short; and that men of great judgment have found it most probable that he was a king twenty, three years. More, I think, they would have allow

3 Dan. viii. 1: 27. & i. 11, 12, 13. Jer xxvii. T.