convention representing that church, could come together, or make any such constitution after the calamities which these fasts commemorated, till the Jews were returned from their captivity, and again settled in Judah and Jerusalem; and therefore these fasts could not begin to be observed, nor the seventy years observing of them, which Zechariah speaks of, commence till after that time. But seventy years from any time after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity will carry us much beyond the reign of Darius Hystaspes; and therefore it could not be the fourth year of Darius Hystaspes, but it must be the fourth year of the Darius, the next of that name who reigned after him in Persia, (and that was Darius Nothus,) in which these fasts were spoken of by that prophet. But the answer to all this is, that there was no need of any such formal constitution of the whole Jewish church for the observing of these fasts. The calamities which they commemorated, while fresh in memory, might be reason enough to introduce the use of them by common consent; and if not, yet what should hinder, but that the priests and elders might meet together in Babylon, while there in captivity, and, in that place, as well as if they had been at Jerusalem, hold conventions for the making of such a constitution? If the book of Baruch be to be credited in any thing, that tells us of such a convention in Babylon, held there in the time of the captivity, and of a fast appointed by it. And we find in the book of Ezekiel, which is of undoubted, because of divine authority, that the elders of Israel in Babylon met more than once to ask counsel of God from the mouth of the prophet. And when" Sherezer and Regem-Melech came to Jerusalem to ask counsel of the prophets and priests there, in the name and behalf of the Jews of Babylon, about these fasts,

I Baruch i. Although perchance this book be no more than a religious romance, yet such romances do usually so accommodate their fables to the usages and customs of the people, and times of which they treat, as not to ascribe any other to them than such as have been of known use and practice in them; and therefore these books may be of some authority for usages and customs, although not for history.

m Ezek. vii, 1; xiv, 1.

n Zech. vii, 1-3.

can we think that they were sent by any other, than a convention of the priests and elders in that place met together for this purpose? It is certain, that most of the constitutions that are now observed by the Jews, were made in the land of Babylon, by conventions of their elders, after the last destruction of Jerusalem (for all that are in the Babylonish Gemara were there made.) And why then might not a constitution for these fasts be made there also by a like convention after the first destruction of that city? and why there might not be a Sanhedrim in Babylon, during the captivity of the Jews, I cannot see. The temple service was indeed confined to Jerusalem; but the Sanhedrim was no part of it. That was a national council which might be assembled wherever the nation was. And therefore, when the whole nation of the Jews was removed into the land of Babylon, who can give a reason why this national council should not be there also, and there meet and consult together for the common interest of the nation in that land, as well as they did when they were in their own. We are told by the Jewish writers, that, from the time of Alexander the Great, there was a Sanhedrim in Alexandria in Egypt, for the sake only of a colony of the Jews that was there planted, even while Judea and Jerusalem were fully inhabited. And how much more then might there have been one at Babylon, when the whole nation was removed thither during their captivity in that land? It is plain from hence, that, in every part of this argument, Scaliger begs his principles, and therefore they can be of no force for the proof of any thing that he would infer from them. But, 2dly. That the Darius who granted this second decree could not be Darius Nothus, but must neces sarily be Darius Hystaspes, will farther appear from the part which Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governour acted in it; for they were the persons

o The Jews had in the land of Babylon three universities, Sora, Naherda, and Pombeditha, where they had their public schools, and public conventions of their principal doctors and learned men; and in these the constitutions that are in the Babylonish Gemara were all made.

p Gemarah Hierosol. in Succah, fol. 55. Gemara Babylonica in Succah, fol. 51.

q Ezra ii, 2; iii, 8, &c.

who were sent to Jerusalem with the first decree that was granted by Cyrus, and they also executed the second decree that was granted by Darius. But if this Darius was Darius Nothus, supposing Joshua to have been forty years old at the granting of Cyrus' decree, (and less at that time he could not be, he having then sons in the work of the temple of twenty years old and upward,) and supposing Zerubbabel to be thirty years old, (and a less age could not comport with his office) the former must have been one hundred and fifty-seven, and the other one hundred and forty-seven years old, when this second decree granted by Darius was executed by them; which is utterly improbable. Scaliger, to make out the probability of it, brings instances of several long-livers. I deny not, it is possible one in a century may be found, who may have reached the first of these ages, that is, that of one hundred and fifty-seven. For we have had" a Par who hath come nigh it, and a Jenkinson who hath out-lived it. But that two together, and colleagues in the same work and business, should live so long, is not likely. But, 3dly. The improbability of this will appear much farther, if we consider the words spoken by God himself in the second year of this Darius, which we have in Haggai ii, 3. Who is left among you that saw this house in its first glory? And how do you see it now? Is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing? For this text doth plainly express, that some were then alive who had seen the first temple, and well remembered the beauty and glory of it; and therefore, if this Darius were Darius Nothus, they must have been of an age much more beyond belief, than either that of Joshua, or that of Zerubbabel abovementioned. For, from the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in which the temple was destroyed, to the second of Darius Nothus, had passed one hundred and sixty-six years; and therefore, supposing these per

r Ezra v, 6. Haggai i, 2. Zech. iii, iv.

s Ezra iii, 8, 9.

t De Emendatione Temporum, lib. 6, p. 603, and in Animadversionibus ad Chronologica Eusebii, sub anno 1497, p. 97.

u Par lived to the age of one hundred and fifty-two, and Jenkinson tọ that of one hundred and sixty-nine. See Sir William Temple's Tracts.

sons, who are here said to have seen the first temple, and remembered the glory of it, had been then seven years old, (which is the lowest that can be allowed for such a remembering,) they must have been of the age of one hundred and seventy-three in the second year of Darius Nothus. And who can think it likely, that many (as the text seems to express,) or any at all among the people, should then be found of so great an age? Scaliger himself thinks this improbable; and therefore to evade the strength of the argument, which is from hence brought against him, he would turn the words of the sacred text to speak thus, Oh! if any among you had seen the glory of the first house, &c. But the text will not bear this interpretation. 4thly. The series of the kings of Persia, as mentioned in Ezra, plainly makes the Darius, who granted this second decree in favour of the Jews, to be the fourth that reigned in that empire; and the fourth king therein all agree was Darius Hystaspes; for after Cyrus, who was the first, succeeded Cambyses the second, and after him was the Magian the third, and then was Darius Hystaspes the fourth. And in the same order are these things mentioned in Ezra in respect to the temple and the rebuilding of it; for hey tells us, that, during the reign of Cyrus, though he had granted a decree for the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, yet the work was discouraged all his reign, through the fraud of his officers, corrupted by the bribes of the Samaritans; that, in the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus, who next succeeded (i. e. Cambyses,) the king himself, being wrote to, discouraged the work, but made no decree against it, out of respect, it is supposed, to his father's decree, which was for it. But Artaxerxes, the next that reigned, (i. e. the Magian,) having no such regard to what Cyrus had ordered, made a decree against the work; whereon it wholly ceased (which it had not done before) for the space of two years, until the second year of Darius. This

x De Emendatione Temporum, lib. 6, p. 603.

y Ezra iv, 5, 6, 7.

z So saith the writer of the first apocryphal book of Esdras, v, 73. And although he be an apocryphal writer, and is, in most things where he doth not translate from the canonical book of Ezra, very fabulous, yet, in this

Darius, therefore, must be Darius Hystaspes, and none other; for he it was that was the fourth of those kings that reigned over the Persian empire. And the prophecy of Daniel (ch. xi,) helps to make this out; for there (ver. 2,) the words are, "There shall stand up yet three kings in Persia, and the fourth shall be far richer than they all, and by his strength, through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia." By which it appears, that the four kings here spoken of were those who were to reign in Persia after him that was then reigning: and he that was king of Persia at that time was Cyrus. And it is, from the same words, most manifest, that the fourth was Xerxes; and therefore, according to this place of Scripture, there were between Cyrus and Xerxes three kings in Persia: and Herodotus and other historians say the same, and thus name them, 1. Cambyses; 2. Smerdis, the Magian; and, 3. Darius Hystaspes; and therefore, since the Scripture doth name in the same order, after Cyrus, these three as kings of Persia, 1. Ahasuerus; 2. Artaxerxes; and, 3. Darius, no doubt they were the same persons; and this Darius, the third of them, was he that granted the second decree for the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem. But, against all this, the short time that was between the granting of the first decree by Cyrus, and the sec ond year of Darius Hystaspes, is made an objection; and they being men of great name who have thought it of weight, it must not be passed over without an answer, although otherwise it seems not worthy of any. They urge it thus: from the time of the granting of Cyrus' decree, to the second of Darius Hystaspes, were no more than sixteen years; and therefore, if it were then that the resuming of the work of the temple gave occasion for the searching of the records for this decree, and it were that Darius who, on the finding of the decree, granted a confirmation of

particular, he may well be supposed to deliver himself according to the received tradition of the age in which he lived, and the histories then extant; and this was very ancient; for it is certain he wrote before Josephus; and an ancienter evidence than this we cannot have from any writer, since the Scriptures of the Old Testament, concerning this matter.

a Ezra vi.