but only from a decree to finish the re-building of the temple; and further, according to that scheme there will be a very unequal and unlikely distribution of the succession of the high-priest; for, from the ending of the Babylonish captivity to the death of Alexander, there were these six high-priests, succeeding in a direct line, from father to son, Jeshua, Joiachim, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua. And, if it were in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, as Scaliger saith, that Nehemiah had the grant for the re-building of Jerusalem, Eliashib must, at that time have been high-priest, for he is said to have been by Nehemiah, at the doing of that work; and, if we suppose him to have been high-priest, from the beginning of that reign, that is, for twenty years, before (for he was so for several years after as appears by the same book of Nehemiah) then, from the solution of the Babylonish captivity, to the first of Artaxerxes Mnemon, there would have been but two high-priests, i. e. Jeshua and Joiachim, for the space of one hundred and thirty-two years; and then, from thence, there must be four for the remaining term of eighty-one years, to the death of Alexander; at which time according to Josephus, died Jaddua also. There is, I confess, no difficulty in a succession of four in eightyone years; there are many instances of this every where; but that there should be but a succession of two, for one hundred and thirty-two years in the highpriest's office, which required the age of thirty, at the least, in the person to be admitted thereto, is not so probable, because, in this case, each must have been, at least, ninety-six years old, at his death, and, probably, much more. For, it is much more likely, that Jeshua was above thirty years old, at the solution of the Babylonish captivity; but, if he were no more, it is very unlikely, that, dying at the age of ninety, he should then have a son of no greater age than thirty, to succeed him. I am the longer upon this, because it is a difficulty upon Scaliger's scheme, that I have not seen taken notice of by any other, and makes much for your lordship's scheme; for according to that, this difficulty is wholly removed, and the suc

cession of the high-priests will fall very equal, and free from all exception. And, it is to be observed, that the years of their several high-priesthoods, as set down in the Chronicon Alexandrinum, do not only make a distribution of the successions, which is free from all such exception, but also do exactly agree with Scripture, according to your lordship's scheme; but cannot be so, according to that of Scaliger. For that Chronicon makes Eliashib to die twenty-nine years before Scaliger's scheme brings Nehemiah to Jerusalem, but to have been nine years in the priesthood, at the time of his coming thither, according to your lordship's scheme; and I look on the Chronicon Alexandrinum to have given us the truest account of the years of each high-priest, in that succession of them, which I have mentioned, and to be the best clue whereby we may be safely led through the dark history, which we have of the Jewish state, in those times.

And therefore, your lordship's scheme thus far looking fairer than any other, that hath been offered, I could wish you would apply yourself to clear it of the difficulties abovementioned; for, were that done, it would stand for ever. And this prophecy of the time of the coming of the Messias would appear to be so thoroughly fulfilled, in the coming of our Saviour, and the argument for his being the person promised herein, would be made so clear and irrefragable, that it would be no longer capable of any contradiction, either from the Jews, or any other adversaries, of our holy Christian religion. And therefore I heartily wish your lordship would be pleased speedily to publish your scheme, and to take care to clear it from the difficulties abovementioned. If you would be pleased to give me leave to propose, what I am thoroughly persuaded is the truth of the matter, and what I think would fully solve the whole, I would offer it as followeth :

1st. That those passages, which name Jaddua, in the book of Nehemiah, were all inserted, after the book was written, by those who received it into the Jewish canon, most likely, about the time of the highpriest Simon the Just, when that canon was fully fin

ished. The whole, that hath been said by others on this head, your lordship well knows, and, I doubt not, can say a great deal more upon it, fully to clear the thing, and make it thoroughly appear to be the truth, as I am fully persuaded it is; and, when this is cleared, all that is said in the first objection will be cleared also.

2d. As to the other difficulty, which is about the age of Sanballat, it all arising from the inconsistency, which is between the Scripture account, and Josephus' account of the time in which this man lived, if you give up the profane writer to the sacred (as must always be done, where they cannot consist together) there is an end of this matter. And that Josephus, in his bringing down the time of Sanballat to the reign of Alexander the Great, was wholly out, is no hard matter to prove. For it is plain to me, he follows herein the tradition of his countrymen the Jews; whose account, concerning the Persian monarchy, is altogether false and absurd; for they make the whole continuance of it, from the first of Cyrus, to the first of Alexander, to be no more than fifty-two years: that the Darius, in whom it ended, was the Darius, whom we call Darius Hydaspes; that he was the son of Esther, by Cambyses, whom they make to be the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther; that this Darius was called also Artaxerxes (which they will have to be the common name of the Persian kings,) as Pharaoh was of the Egyptian, and that it was in the twentieth year of his reign, that Nehemiah re-built Jerusalem; and that, sixteen years after, was the end of that empire, and the beginning of the Macedonian. And, although Josephus, who had looked into the Greek historians, could not swallow all this absurd stuff; yet it seems plain to me, he came into so much of it, as was the cause of his error, in this matter of Sapballat. For, although he doth not make Cambyses to be the Ahasuerus of Esther, but carries down that story to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, yet it is clear to me, he makes the Darius, that next succeeds, to be the Darius, whom Alexander conquered; for he is the last he makes any mention of, in the succession

of the Persian kings. After Artaxerxes Longimanus, he immediately names Darius, and, after him, none other. And, according to this account, the Sanballat of the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and the Sanballat in the time of the last Darius, may, very consistently, be made the same man; for there will be, according to this reckoning, very few years between them. The truth of the matter, I take to have been thus: the Sanballat, who would have hindered the re-building of Jerusalem, was the same, who is said, Neh. xiii, 28, to have been father-in-law to one of the sons of Joiada, the high-priest; that Manasseh, who was the son-in-law, was the immediate son of Joiada, as the Scripture saith, and not the grandson, as Josephus saith; that this marriage was made, while Nehemiah, in the twelfth year of his government (which was the thirty-second of Artaxerxes) was gone into Persia to the king; and that, for this reason, on his return, he drove him away from officiating any longer in the temple; whereon, he, retiring to Samaria, about five or six years after, obtained leave, by Sanballat's interest, at the Persian court, to build the temple on mount Gerizim; which the Jewish chronology running into the time of Alexander, Josephus, for that reason, sets it down as done in the time of Alexander; and this, I verily believe, was the whole authority he had for it. And, that he should make such a mistake in those times, is no wonder, since there may be others observed in him, of the same times, altogether as gross, of which your lordship takes notice in your paper.

I beg your lordship's pardon, that I have transgressed so long upon your patience, with this tedious paper. I humbly offer it to your consideration: and I am, my lord, your most dutiful humble servant,

HUMPHREY PRIDEAUX.

P. S. And, I beg leave, further to observe to your lordship, that, whereas Josephus placeth the ceasing of the spirit of prophecy, in the last year of that Artaxerxes, from whom, according to your lordship's scheme, Ezra and Nehemiah had their commission; all the Jewish writers do so too, telling us, that Ezra,

Haggai, Zachary, and Malachi, all departed out of this life on that year; and that the spirit of prophecy departed with them. But they make that year to be the last of the Persian monarchy, and the very same, in which Alexander came to Jerusalem, and Sanballat obtained that grant for a temple on mount Gerizim, which Josephus tells us of. And therefore it is plain, to me, that Josephus, in bringing down this matter of Sanballat as low as the time of Alexander, followed the false chronology of his countrymen, the Jews, and not that true computation, which your lordship reckons by.

1

TO FRANCIS GWYNN, ESQ. AT FORD ABBEY, NEAR CRUCKERN.

Sir, I have received the letter you honoured me with; and you should sooner havé received an answer to it, had I been in a condition to give it; for I am so broken by age and infirmity, that I have few intervals of health to enable me to do any thing.

I have, indeed, often said, that there is wanting a good history of the East, from the time of Mahomet; and that there are sufficient materials to be had for it, from the writings of the Arabs, of which there is a great treasury at Oxford, especially since the addition of Dr. Pocock's MSS. But I could not say much of the Mamalucs, of whom I know no author, that has written in particular; neither did they deserve that any should.

For they were a base sort of people; a Colluvies of slaves, the scum of all the East, who, having treacherously destroyed the *Jobidæ, their masters, reigned in their stead; and, bating that they finished the expulsion of the western Christians, out of the East, (where they barbarously destroyed Tripoli, Antioch, and several other cities) they scarce did any thing worthy to be recorded in history. The beginning of their empire was, A. D. 1250, and it ended in the year 1517, which was the eighth year of the reign of our king Henry the Eighth; so that their empire, in Egypt, lasted two

See Dr. Prideaux' Life of Mahomet, p. 164.