never heard of any Danites or Napthalites in that Country. 'Tis true, the Tartars were circumcised before Mahomet's time, but that does not prove 'em Jews, no more than the Egyptians, who were likewife circumcifed. Nor does the plenty of fews in the Northern Countries adjacent to Tartary, argue any thing elfe, than that they refort to thofe Countries where they meet with the leaft oppreffion.

maria.

S. 9. Concerning thofe Colonies that were fent by of the Colothe Kings of Allyria and Samaria, we read thus in ny fent by the Holy Scripture, 2 Kings 17. v. 24. And the King the Affyriof Affyria brought Men from Babylon, and from Cuans to Sathah, and from Hava, and from Hamah, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the Cities of Samaria, inftead of the Children of Ifrael, and they poffeffed Samaria, and dwelt in the Cities thereof. Among all these the Chutaans were the most celebrated, according to the Teftimony of Jofephus L. 9. c. ult. Colonies, fays he, were fent out of Perfi', but especially from the Country bordering upon the River Cutah, which fixed their Habitations in Samaria, and the other Cities of Ifrael. And thefe Cuthæans were mortally hated by the Jews.

§. 10. The great and noble Afnaphar mentioned in of Afnathe Holy Scripture, Ezr.4.v. 10. is by Reinerus Rei-phar men neccius and others, taken for the fame with Shalmanaf tioned in far, by others for Sennacherib, but it appears fuffici- the Scripently out of the fecond Verfe of the fame Chapter of ture. Ezra, that this Afnaphar was no other than Affarhaddon.

6.11.Tho' 'tis plain that the deftruction of Samaria Ifaiah's happen'd about twenty odd years after the first year of Prophecy the Reign of Ahaz; yet Ifaiah in that very Reign Pro- Ef. 7. 8. phecies c. 7. v. 8. That 'twould then be 65 years before reconciled Ephraim fhould be deftroyed from being a People. To with our refolve this feeming contradiction, the English Com-affertion. mentators alledge, that there continued fome remains of the Ifraelitick Republick for 30 years after the deftruction of Samaria. But the Hiftory of the deftrution of Samaria not favouring that allegation, we choose to say with Hieronymus, that the Prophet here means that 65 years would elapfe between the noted Prophecy of Amos (published Amos c. 1. v. 1. c. 5. v. 1, 2.) and the deftruction of Samaria therein foretold.

СНАР.

CHAP. XX.

Of the Epocha of NEBUCHADONOSOR, who in the Holy Scripture is called Nebuchadnezzar.

RULES.

3. It

I. The beginning of this Epocha is to be regulated in fuch a manner as not to be contradictory to the Holy Scripture, to the before-mentioned Catalogue of the Kings of Ptolemy,or to the Authentick HiStory of Berofus. 2. The fourth year of King Jehoiakim is coincident with the first year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. 25. I. was in the 8th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar, that Jehoiachin, upon the perfuafion of Jeremiah the Prophet, furrender'd himself to that King, who carried him to Babylon, 2 Kings 24. 12. 4. The Destruction of the City of Jerufalem hapned in the 19th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings 25. 8. Jer. 52. 12, 29. 5. The 37th year after the Captivity of Jehoiachin is coincident with the first year of the Reign of Evilmerodac, 2 Kings 25. v. 27. 6. and with the 127th year of the Nabonaffarean Epocha. 7.In the fame year hapned an Eclipfe of the Moon, actording to Ptolemy Lib. 5. which was coincident with, the 22d of April, in the 4093 year of the Julian Period.

II. From thefe Characters we gather that the first year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar was concident with the 4106th year of the Julian Period, Cycle

O. 12. ). 2.

III. If

267 III. If therefore the 4105 years be fubtracted from Any cerany certain year of the Julian Period, the Refidue tain year fhews the year fince the beginning of this Epocha; the Jul.Pegiven of and if the faid 4105 years be added to the years of riod to find the Epocha, the Product will be correfpondent to the the beyear of the Julian Period. ginning of

this Epo

cha.

§. 1.BEfides what the Sacred Hiftory furnishes us of the Hiwithal concerning the Chaldean Kings, Pto- ftory of the lemy, the Fragments of Berofus in fofephus Lib. 1. Chaldean against Appion, and thofe of Megasthenes in Eufebius, Kings. Lib.9.c.4. de prap. Evang. are fuch precious Monunuments of Antiquity in relation to the Chaldean Monarchy, as are not fufficiently to be valued.

§. 2. Fohannes Annius an Italian Monk, feeing that of the fipthe Books of Berofus, Megasthenes and Manethon were pofititious in great efteem among the Learned, has endeavour'd Writings to impofe fome fictitious pieces under their Names up- publified by Annius. on the World; to wit, the five Books of Berofus of the Antiquity of the World, Manethon's Supplement to Berofus, Megafthenes his Annals of Perfia, &c. with his Commentary upon 'em. But this Imposture has been difcovered long ago, especially by the difference that appears betwixt his Chronological Computations, and those extant in the fragments of Berofus and Megafthenes.

S. 3. The Etymology of Nebuchadnezzar fome de⋅ of the Etyduce from the Chaldean NABO, which fignifies as mology of much as an Idol, Ifa. 46. 1.The Words Nebuzaradan, NebuNabonides, Nergal Sharezer, &c. are accounted for chadnezafter the fame manner, as being derived from the Idols; Zar it being ufual among the Chaldeans to derive their proper Names from their Idols, as the Jews compounded their proper Names from the Name of God.

i

S. 4. Funccius, Maftlinus and Hainlinus are of O Whether pinion that Shalmanaflar of whom mention is made in Nebu the Holy Scripture,is the fame with Nabonaffar,menti- chadnezoned by Ptolemy; and that the beginning of the B- zar and bylonian Captivity ought to be fixed to the time of the Nabopodeftruction of Jerufalem, and confequently to the 19th Lallar are year of the Reign of Nabopelaffar, whom they there- the jame. fore take to be the fame with the Scriptural Nebuchad nezar. But it is fufficiently apparent out of Berofus

that Nebuchodonofor the Son of Nabopolaffar carried the Jews into Captivity, and that Nebuchodonofor is the fame with Nebuchadnezzar.

of the time S. 5. And there is an exact Harmony in the Comof ther ign putation of the years of Nebuchadnezzar, betwixt of Nebu the Holy Scripture and the Fragments of Berofus; chadnez- both making the length of his Reign 43 years: For

zar.

of the dif

va

Kings. of the cancy of the Torone in

the first year of the Captivity of Jehoiachin was the eighth of Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings 24. v. 12. and the 37th of his Captivity was coincident with the first year of Evilmerodach, 2 Kings 25. 27. Jer. 52. v. 31. From whence it is evident that the foregoing year being the 36th of the Captivity of Jehoiachin, was the 43d and laft of Nebuchadnezzar

§. 6. There is a remarkable difference in the Names ference of of the Chaldean Kings betwixt the Sacred and prothe Nimes phane Hiftory. But it appears fufficiently out of the of the Chal Hiftory of Daniel and his Companions, that it was dean the cuftom of the Chaldeans to change their Names. S. 7. There is no question but that during the Septennial Vacancy of the Throne under the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was driven from among the Sons of Men, Daniel 5. v. 21. the Queen in Conjunctiof Nebu on with the chief Men of the Kingdom, had the fuchadnez preme Administration of Affairs. Herodotus fpeaks much in commendation of a certain Babylonian Queen, called Nitocris, who perhaps was the Queen Confort of Nebuchadnezzar.

the Reign

zar.

of the dif. 8. There is alfo fome difference in the Annals of ference of the Babylonian Kings; for the fame year which Danithe Annals el calls the third of fehaiakim, is called by Jeremiah of these

Kings

the fourth of fehoiakim. And in the Ptolemaan Catalogue Nabopolaffar has no more than 21 years affigned him for his Reign; whereas in the Fragments of Berofus his Reign is extended to 29 years. Unto, which we answer, Firft, that fometimes current years are taken for compleat ones. Secondly, that fometimes two reigned together at the fame time, and Thirdly, that Hiftorians have not been always alike careful in. What Epofetting down the exact number of years.

cha the 30. year men

§. 9. The 30th year mentioned Ezec. 1. 1. feems to tioned E be the 30th year of the Epocha of Nabopolaffar, for zek. 1. 1. tho' Nebuchadnezzar was then on the Throne, 'tis belongs to. poffible his Father might reign with him, or at least

that

that after his Death the calculation might be continued upon the years of his Reign, as being the most

known.

CHA P. XXI.

2

Of the Epocha and Interval of the 70 years of the Babylonian Captivity mentioned Chron. 36. v. 20, 21. Jer. 25. 11. C. 29. V. 10, &c.

RULES.

I. This Epocha or Interval ought to be adjusted according the Teftimony of the Holy Scripture, in the Chronicles, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 2. The beginning of this Epocha ought to be fixed to the time at which the greatest part of the Jewish Nation, together with their King, were carried into Captivity. 3. When those were carried away Captives, to whom Jeremiah writ his Epistle, from the firft Verfe to the 11th of the 24th Chapter. 4. When those were carried away Captives, of whom many returned afterwards, ibid. and Cap. 25. v. 5. 5. When King Jehoiachin was carried into Captivity, to wit, in the 8th year of the Reign of Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Kings 24. V. 12. 6. It was in the 9th year of the Captivity that the Babylonian King fate down before Jerufalem, Ezeck. 40. 1. which was likewife the 9th of the Reign of Zedekiah, Jer.39. v. 1. 7. The first year of the Deftruction of the Temple was the 12th of the Captivity, Ezeck. 33. V. 21. 8. The 25th year of the Captivity was coincident with the 14th year of the Defolation of the Temple of Solomon, Ezeck. 40.7.1. 9.The 5th year of the Captivity feems to be made coincident with the 30th year of Nabopolaffar by Ezekiel c. 1. V. 1, 2, 10: In the 70th

ard