of Efther ;-all which records teftify, that the king, whofe queen was Efther, and whofe prime minifter was Haman, had the name of Artaxerxes *. On their authority, Lee, Prideaux, Whifton, &c. diffent from the Primate's hypothefis, which anticipates the hiftory of the canonical book by 59 years.

THE Contents of the first two chapters of the Hebrew Efther are a proper introduction to the seventh of the Hebrew Ezra, which history ends with the feventh year of Artaxerxes. The remaining part of Efther continues the hiftory to the 13th of the fame reign; and the book of Nehemiah opens with the 20th.

3. By the confent of all hiftorians Xerxes reigned 21 years, and Artaxerxes, after his father's demife, 41. But in the Annals, 12 years only are counted to the father, and the nine fubfequent years to the fon, and the reign of the latter extended to 51. This diftribution is arbitrary, and repugnant to history and the courfe of nature.

By curtailing the reign and life of Xerxes, contrary to the teftimony of all the hiftorians, (except Thucydides), and to Ptolemy's Canon, which refts on the firm bafis of aftronomical calculations, the Archbishop gives his own fingular hypothefis every femblance of a paradox. It is likewife incompatible with physical probability. For Juftin reports t, that Artaxerxes was,

* Jofephus in particular affert, that he was the fon of Xerxes, and therefore could be no other than Artaxerxes Longimanus.

L. iii. 1.

at

at the time of his father's death, a very young man, admodum puer; and Diodorus Siculus repeats the fame fact. He was born after his father came to the throne, for which reafon his elder brothers were overlooked in the fucceffion. Now, if the father reigned but 12 years, the fon's age did not exceed 11. But at the time of the father's death, or very foon after, the fon was married, and in the third year of his reign divorced his queen. Whereas Xerxes reigned 21 years, Artaxerxes afcended the throne at the age of 20. Thus the course of nature accords with hiftory: the chronology of the Annals offers violence to both, and incurs the cenfure of abfurdity.

No lefs controvertible is the authority of the Archbishop's poftulate, than the conclufion he meant to eftablish. According to Thucydides the flight of Themistocles into Perfia was immediately subsequent to the death of Xerxes t. Usher, in confirmation of his hypothefis, refers to the Chronicle of Eufebius, where the last year of the 76th Olympiad is faid to have been the date of Themistocle's expedition into Perfia. That however was the 13th of Xerxes. Diodorus Siculus brings it down to the 15th of the fame reign. Xerxes

* L. xi.

It is above fuggefted, that this author's teftimony, as fin. gular, is of doubtful credit. Cornelius Nepos, indeed, quotes it with approbation, though he owns that the far greater number of writers affigns an earlier date; and Plutarch relates, that Charon of Lampfacus agreed in opinion with Thucydides, though he rejects the authority of both.

therefore reigned more than twelve years; and what ever number, lefs than 21, be affumed, the objection, arifing from the premature age of Artaxerxes, remains in full force. Dodwell, in his Annals of Thucydides, reprobates, as unchronological, the computation of his author, with respect to the arrival of Themistocles in Perfia.

4. USHER'S primary object, in this anticipated date of Artaxerxes's reign, was to give his scheme of the 70 prophetical weeks the femblance of hiftorical accuracy. Suppose with him, that Artaxerxes afcended the throne of Perfia in the 13th year from his father's acceffion, his 20th will coincide, in part, with the number of the Jul. Period 4260, the firft of the 490 prophetical years. Of thefe two numbers the fum is 4750, or the fourth from the crucifixion, which was certainly the last of the 490. But if the real 20th of that reign were the true commencement of the prophetical term, the Meffiah was cut off 13 years before its termination. On the whole, the arrangement of the Annals, in this inflance, is a fallacious artifice of chronological empiricifm. Let 41 years only be allowed for the reign of Artaxerxes, including the odd months of Artabanus, the younger Xerxes, and Sogdian ;-and let 21 years full be allowed for the elder Xerxes, conformably to the unanimous reports of all the hiftorians ;-then from the date of Ezra's commiffion, on the firft of Nifan, in the feventh of the fame Artaxerxes, A. P. Jul. 4256, the interval thence to the third of Nifan 4746, is precifely 490 years 3 days.

5. As all the fabbatical years, and jubiles, hiftorically recorded in Jofephus, and the books of the Maccabees, are computed from the date of their restoration by Nehemiah *, in the 21ft of Artaxerxes; every inquifitive reader, who would perufe the facred hiftory with dif cernment, has a right to be informed, whether Nehemiah obferved the terms of the original inflitution, or introduced a new reckoning: if the latter, which of the two is the computation in the Annals?

FOR example: "When Herod and Sofius conducted the fiege of Jerufalem, the inhabitants were reduced to extreme neceffity from famine, that being a fabbatical year t." The Jewish hiftorian defines the time by two notations of infallible certainty: 1. The confulate of Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus, and the 185th Olympiad ;-the former being the 717th year of the Varronian computation, A. M. 3972; and the first of the latter, coincident, about the time of the fummer folftice, that very feason, when the city was taken by ftorm. But that year, as a return of feptenary reft, began with the time of the autumnal equinox in 3971. It is now enquired,

1. WHETHER Jofephus computed that reft from its true date, the seventh year from the partition of the country in 2568? Compendious and decifive is this problem: for 3971-2568-1403, which furplus, divided by 7, quotes 200 years of release, and the remainder denotes the third year of the then current

Chap. x. 31.

f

cycle. Evident it therefore is, that Jofephus did not count from the primary fource. Neither did the Archbishop, whofe reckoning, from the seventh year after the paffage over Jordan, excludes thofe fix years of fowing and reaping, which the ftatute did not only permit, but enjoin. By this prochronifm, one fuperfluous week of years is entered into the Annals. With every femblance of precifion, however, the year of the fiege is characterised as fabbatical. His original numbers, erroneously combined, imposed on himself, and his readers, a plaufible chronological deception, in every subsequent criterion of time. By bringing the date of the Creation too low by four years, the numerical characters of this fiege, with refpect to the age of the world, are misplaced, 3967 being fubftituted for 3971; as in fixing the time of the firft feptenary cycle, 2560 was preferred to 2568. This involuntary fallacy wears every aspect of certainty. As it arifes from the junction of incoherent numbers, let the four deficient years, in the age of the world, be replaced, (3967 +4 = 3971), and retain the Primate's date of the primary fabbatical year; an easy arithmetical operation will ascertain the fource of the mistake. Thus 3971- 2560 = 1411, quotes 201 fabbatical cycles, with a surplus of four years, a fractional part of the current cycle, at the time when Herod befieged Jerufalem. The only remaining error is the addition of one fuperfluous week of years; and this is rectified by fubftituting 2568 for 2560. Tanium feries juncturaque pollet t. The next enquiry is,