A defence of Arch-bishop Usher against Dr. Cary and Dr. Isaac Vossius together with an introduction concerning the uncertainty of chronology ... / by John Milner.

CHAP. IV. Of the time when Artaxerxes Longi∣manus begun his reign.

THE Arch-Bishop A. M. 3531 sets thè beginning of Artaxerxes's reign 9 years before the received account. He was per∣suaded to set it so soon by the Testimonies of Eusebius and Thucydides. Eusebius says that Themistocles fled to the Persians Olymp. 76. An. 4, and Thucydides accordingly refers Themi∣stocles's coming to Artaxerxes to the time be∣tween the siege of Naxos, and the noble victory which Cimon obtain'd against the Persian at Eurymedon; also he refers the beginning of Ar∣taxerxes's reign to the same time. For he says that Themistocles writ a letter then to Artaxerxes newly reigning. Thus the Arch-Bishop. Now it may be that he is singular in this opinion about the beginning of the reign

of Artaxerxes, he himself insinuates so much. It must be granted also that the time of Themistocles's flight is not agreed upon, and indeed is one great instance of the uncertain∣ty of Chronology. For Plutarch writes that Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides and many more say, that Themistocles came into Persia in the time of Xerxes: but that Cha∣ron Lamsacenus agrees with Thucydides and af∣firms that he came to Artaxerxes his son, Xer∣xes being dead; also Plutarch adds that Thu∣cydides agrees better with the Annals. Cor∣nelius Nepos also follows Thucyaides, thô he was not ignorant that others were of a dif∣ferent opinion from him. But suppose Thu∣cydides, Charon, Lamsacenus and Cornel. Ne∣pos to be certainly in the right, in affirming that Themistocles fled to Artaxerxes, yet whe∣ther it can be infer'd thence that the begin∣ning of Artaxerxess reign was so soon as the Arch-Bishop hath set it, is another question, which I shall not take upon me to determine. I shall therefore only 1. Briefly thew the in∣sufficiency of the Doctors answer to that which the Arch-Bishop alledges. 2. Take notice of an unbecoming reflection of his upon the Arch-Bishop.

The Doctors answer to the Arch-Bishop we have Part 2. l. 1. c. 11. s. 8. n. 1, 2, 3. To Eusebius he opposes Diodorus Sioul. l. 11. by whom he says it is clearly asserted that the

time of Themistocles's flight was Olymp. 77. An. 2, not Olympiad 76. An. 4. as Eusebius. To Thucydides he opposes the same Diodorus Sie. and Justin, who (as he says) clearly as∣sert that Cimons victory at Eurymedon was in the time of Xerxes. As to Themistocles's letter to Artaxerxes he says 1. The date of it is not known, possibly was not known to Thucydides himself. 2. It is not without great suspition that it was an Athenian trick, an in∣vention of Themistocles's enemies, a letter fra∣med on purpose to blast his reputation even after his death. 3. If it was true, it only evinceth this, that Themistocles lived so long an Exile abroad as to the time of Artaxerxes his reign. This is the summ of the Doctors answer. To which I reply;

1. It is not clearly asserted by Diodorus Sicul. that the time of Themistocles his flight was Olymp. 77. An. 2. He indeed speaks of it in that year, as he does also of his Ostra∣cism and death. He thought it best to dis∣patch at once all that concern'd Themistocles's fall, and so in that year he gives us an ac∣count of his Ostracism or Banishment, his go∣ing to Argos, his flight from thence to Ad∣metus, and afterwards from Admetus into Asia, his journey from thence to the Persian Court, and what befel him there, and lastly of his death. Not that all these fell out in that year, (for there was a considerable time from his

Ostracism to his coming to the Persian Court, and a considerable time again from his coming thither to his death) but it is Diodorus Sicul. his usual way to throw things thus together that belong to the same subject. As then from his mentioning Themistocles's Ostracism and death in that year, we cannot conclude that they fell out that year: so from the men∣tion of his flight in that year i: cannot be concluded, that it happen'd then. However, it is plain, that it is not clearly asserted by Diodorus Siculus, that the time of Themisto∣cles's flight was Olymp. 77. An. 2, let the Doctor say what he pleases.

2. It is very true that Diodorus Sicul. and Justin do make Cimons victory to have been in the time of Xerxes, differing therein from Thucydides, and (as is probable) following Ephorus, Dinon and others, who refer The∣mistocles's flight to the time of Xerxes: but as Cornel. Nepos rather believ'd Thucydides a∣bout the time of Themistocles's flight, because he liv'd near the time of Themistocles, and was of the same City, so may we rather be∣lieve him about the time of Cimons victory upon the same motives.

3. As to the letter with which the Doctor is so much troubled, 1. If the date of it be not known, how comes the Doctor to know it so well, as to be able to tell us that it is of the same date with the story of Themistocles's

drinking Bulls bloud? 2. Why says the Do∣ctor, that possibly the date of it was not known to Thucydides, when Thucydides plain∣ly tels us that Themistocles writ the letter after that he was come to Ephesus, being gone from thence into the midland Countries? 3. If there be so great suspition that it was an A∣thenian trick, it is strange that Thucydides and Corn. Nepos (who transcribes the letter from him) were not aware of it. It must be ac∣knowledg'd that the Doctor was very quick sented that could smell it out at such a di∣stance, when those Authors which were much nearer did not. 4. It is most strange that the Doctor should say that if it be true, it evin∣ces only this, that Themistocles liv'd so long as to the time of Artaxerxes's reign. As if the writing this letter was one of the last acts he did, whereas he writ it (as we have seen) before his coming to the Persian Court, and consequently Artaxerxes had begun his reign then. Finally should we be so libe∣ral to the Doctor as to grant that the letter is supposititious, he will gain little by it; for it is still apparent that Thucydides be∣liev'd that Artaxerxes had begun to reign be∣fore Themistocles's coming into Persia.

The Doctors unbecoming reflection upon the Arch-Bishop is in s. 8. n. 4. where he says that we must take notice that the knitting all these knots, and patching together those shreds,

as 1. Themistocles's courtly letter, 2. Euse∣bius's incongruous Annotation, 3. Ctesias's authorizing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Artabanus nothing to the purpose, these are upon design to make a boulster for the Bishops interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. Thus the Doctor. As if the Arch-Bishop foresaw that the Doctor would lay his interpretation to sleep, and so set himself to knit knots and patch shreds together to make a boulster for it. Or as if the Arch-Bishops design was to serve his Hypothesis, whatsoever became of the Truth. In the mean time the Arch-Bishops interpretation is that which very many Expositors, Ancient and Mo∣dern, have approv'd and follow'd, computing the 70 weeks (as the Arch-Bishop doth) from the 20^th of this Artaxerxes. This 20^th of Artaxerxes (according to the Arch-Bishops calculation) was An. Per. Jul. 4260, thô it is represented here by the Doctor as if the Arch-Bishop made it to be An. Per. Jul. 4261. To conclude this, I wish the Doctor had not Part 2. l. 2. §. 1. c. 9. s. 11. after a profession of all humility, insulted with such contempt and scorn over many that have la∣bour'd as much to clear the sense of that ce∣lebrated Prophecy of the 70 weeks, as he hath done to obscure and pervert it. See the 2^d chapt. of the same Book and Section.