SECT. 1.

THat distinction of Times (which we have noted before) namely to distinguish betwixt the time of the Beasts Tyranny, and the time of the fourth Monarchy, being the founda­tion of this Enquiry, and that only which can pro­duce a Scripture Harmony of all those mystical Numbers that bear any relation to the Question in hand, it is necessary that we should here make it our rule to walk by.

Now of these two, as the time of the Beasts Reign is to expire first, the time of the fourth Monarchy some years after; So shall I in this [Page 22]Enquiry first, begin with the first, viz. the time of the Beasts Tyranny?

And so the Grand Question is:

Quest. When, or with what time are we to put a period to Antichrists Tyranny.

The onely ground we have to go upon to re­solve this great Question, is, Daniels one thousand two hundred and ninety dayes, Johns two and forty months, his one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes.

The first, viz. Daniels one thousand two hun­dred and ninety dayes prove not this directly; for their aime is at another thing, viz. the beginning of the Jews delivery, but by consequence onely at the end of Antichrists Reign, and the begin­ning of the Jews delivery, which fall out at a point; I shall therefore (having also spoken sufficiently to that number. Key, Thesi 20.) wave it here, and wholly insist upon Johns numbers of two and forty months, one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, both which tend directly to prove the thing in hand; only with this difference; the one, viz. the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, sets forth the time in reference to the Churches suffering state within this time; the other, viz. the two and forty months in reference to Antichrists rage and tyranny throughout this time: yet both (I say) have a direct tendency to prove the thing, and answer our Question. And (as Mr. Mede hath excellently observed) Anti­christs time is set forth by months, which are governed by the Moon, because the worshipping of Idols, and every sin and error is of the power [Page 23]of darknesse and night, wherein the Moon ruleth; but the Churches time by dayes, because true Re­ligion is compared to the light, and to the day, of which the Sun is the Ruler.

SECT. 2.

That both Dayes and Months are Prophetical, is clear, because (as Mr. Mede in his Comment upon Rev. 11. vers. 3. well reasons) if (saith he) the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes be to be understood of natural dayes, then are the three dayes and a half, assigned afterwards to the death of the Witnesses, to be so understood also, they being part of the one thousand two hundred and sixty; but they cannot be so taken, because the things foretold to be done within the three dayes and a half, will no way agree to three dayes and a half of natural dayes; the one therfore being Prophetical, the other must also. Withall the very things spoken of the Beast, and the Wit­nesses, have already taken up neer as much time as two and forty Prophetical months, one thousand two hundred and sixty Prophetical dayes, a­mounts to. I conclude, therefore the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes; the two and forty months, are Prophetical Dayes and Months.

SECT. 3.

The Dayes and Months being Prophetical, the Question now would be, Where are we to begin these numbers? Before I can take this Question in [Page 24]hand, there is yet something of more general concernment to be noted by the way, as,

First, Let it be observed, that the two and forty months are twice spoken of. 1 Forty two months of the Beasts continuance, Rev. 13.5. 2 Forty two months of treading underfoot the holy City, Chap. 11.2. Each two and forty months are one and the same in respect of beginning and ending. The difference between them is onely this, the first chiefly mentions the time allowed to the Beast to reign and domineer; the second the work that he shall do within this time, viz, Tread down the Holy City. And indeed that these two must be­gin and end together, is clear; for were the tread­ing underfoot the Holy City to have its begin­ning either some time before the rise of the Beast, or some time after, and that as a distinct two and forty months from the other, then considering that the Beast must rage, and tyrannize two and forty months, in all which time the Holy City is trampled underfoot, the time (though ever so little) that we adde either before or after, will make the time of treading underfoot the Holy City to amount to more then two and forty months, which is the very time, and no longer, that the Holy City is to be trodden underfoot. The one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, we have likewise twice spoken of. First one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Womans flight into the Wildernesse, Chap. 12.6. Secondly, one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Witnesses prophesying in Sackcloth. Chap. 11.3. These two (as the other) are likewise one and [Page 25]the same, both for beginning and ending, the one (making mention of the state of the Church more in general) setteth forth the place where the Church of God all the one thousand two hun­dred and sixty dayes should abide, viz. in some obscure corners of the world, as in a Wildernesse; the other (pointing at the state of the Witnesses in particular, which are not the whole Church, but a part onely, and this I take to be the main difference betwixt the eleven and twelve Chap­ters of the Revelations) tells us, the work Christs Witnesses should be employed in, notwithstand­ing this their retirement, together with the Church into blind and obscure holes and corners, in this time of the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, which is, they Prophesie, though in Sackcloth, i. e. in a poor oppressed sorrowfull condition, through grief, to see all this time the Holy City trampled underfoot by the Beast. And indeed that these two also must be one and the same both for beginning and ending, is evi­dent for the very same reason, as the former, be­cause if the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Womans flight into the Wildernesse, were to begin sooner or later then the one thou­sand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Wit­nesses prophesying in Sackcloth, then (as I said of the other) seeing the Witnesses wear their sackcloth all the time the Church abides in the wildernesse, the added time whether before or after, would make the time of the Witnesses pro­phesying in sackcloth to surmount the number of one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes.

Now in the next place it would be farther en­quired into, First whether the two and forty months, and the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, are a different time? or whether both make up but one and the same number of yeers? Secondly, whether in case the same number of yeers be found in both, are we to conceive of either as beginning and ending together? or whether is any one to begin before the other?

To the first, I answer, That we are to conceive the time to be one and the same in both; the two and forty mouths, the one thousand two hundred and six­ty dayes making both up but one and the same number of years. Not to insist upon what Expositors gene­rally say, that two and forty months, reckoning thirty dayes to a month, which is the Grecian ac­count, make up the just summe of one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes; to me it appears that the thing I am speaking of must be so, and cannot be otherwise, and that upon the former account still; because were the two and forty months a time longer then the other, then the Beasts reign and treading underfoot the Holy City, being to continue two and forty months (which two things are the main cause why the Woman betakes her self to the Wildernesse, and the Witnesses continue there with here in a mourn­ful posture prophesying in sackcloath) the Womans continuance in the wildernesse, and the Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth should (the cause still remaining) be above one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes. Or were the two and forty months a shorter time, then should the [Page 27]flight of the Woman into the wildernesse, and the Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, which continues no longer then the time of the Beasts rage, and trampling the Holy City (that being (as I have said) the cause of the other, which ta­ken away, the effect ceaseth) not be so long as one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes. See­ing therefore it cannot be either a longer time, or a shorter, we must conclude one and the same number of years to be included in both.

To the second I answer, That we are without doubt to conceive of it, that the two and forty months, the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes (making up but one and the same number of years) are to be­gin and end together. My reason is still what I have urged; because should we suppose the two and forty months to begin either sooner or later then the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, as a time distinct, and to be considered by it self; it will then necessarily follow, seeing all the time of the Beasts tyranny, and treading un­derfoot the Holy City, the Woman is to be in the wildernesse, and the Witnesses to prophesie in sackcloth, that by reason of the time which must be addedeither before or after, to make up the two and forty months compleat, the Womans con­tinuance in the wildernesse, and the Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth should be above one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes.

The conclusion is, That the two and forty months, and the one thousand two hundered and sixty daies, are one and the same, and also begin and end to­gether.

SECT. 1.

IT being cleared in the former Chapter that both Months and dayes are Prophetical; and also that the two and forty months of the Beasts continuance, the two and forty months of tread­ing underfoot the Holy City; the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Womans abode in the wildernesse, the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Witnesses pro­phesying in sackcloth, do all make up but one and the same number of years; and also are one and the same both for beginning and ending; it comes next to be considered, where we are to be­gin this Epock of two and forty months, one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes.

Amongst the variety of opinions which are extant of Writers ancient and modern, there are but three, save the opinion of our worthy Ger­man Author, from whom, though I judge, by comparing mystical numbers together, that I see reason to vary somewhat, yet is not the variance such as deserves a contest; I say besides him, there are but three that have so much colour of reason for their opinions, as that there will be any need of bringing them to the Touchstone. And these are,

1 Those who begin the Epock with the time of Constantine the Great.

2 A late Writer who begins with the time of Pope Leo the first.

3 Others who begin with the time when Bo­niface was created universal Bishop by Phocas.

As for the first, viz. the opinion of those who begin from the time of Constantine the Great (some of that opinion fixing upon the year 304. others differ as to a few years, yet keep within the com­passe of 300. and 316.) I say not (in answer to it) that the very foundation of this opinion is a mistake, viz. That the two Witnesses are the Scrip­tures of the Old and New Testament.

But my reasons against it are:

1 Because by this opinion, the Harmony of the mysti­cal numbers is destroyed; for if the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, and the two and forty months begin with Constantines time, then is it not possible to bring the one thousand two hundred & sixty dayes, the two and forty months to concur in their end with Daniels one thousand two hundred and ninety (which must be upon the grounds laid down in our Key, Thesi 17.) unlesse we shall finde some action which may be accounted a fit Head for the one thousand two hundred and ninety daies, thirty years above Constantine; and in case this should befound, yet then will not the one thousand three hundred thirty five (which begins from the same Head with the one thousand two hundred and ninety) concur in their end with the two thou­sand three hundred (which also must be for our reasons, Key, Thesi 34.) unlesse some other begin­ning and carrying on of that great number, may upon approved grounds be found, which will [Page 32]notwithstanding bring the two thousand three hundred dayes to end at the same point with the one thousand three hundred thirty five.

2 Because (setting the Harmony wholly aside) by this computation the seventh Government in the Roman Empire, viz. by Christian Emperors, which is that John calls a Government yet to come (Rev. 17.10. There are seven Kings (i.e. distinct kinds of Government) five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come) is either wholly cut off, or else confounded with the Beasts: For this Government did not be­gin till Constantines time; now if we thence also begin the two and forty months of the Beast, then do we (I say) leave no room for the seventh kind of Government; so that either it must be cut off, or confounded with the Beasts. That it should be cut off, cannot be; for the Text saith expresly, it was to come, i.e. as really to have a being as the five fallen had had, and the sixth then in being had. That we should confound it with the Beasts, may not be.

First, because this Government is to continue a space before the rise of the Beast, And when it com­eth, it must continue a short space. This short space must either be meant of the time before the Beasts Kingdome, or the time of his Reign. If the time of his Reign be meant, and so the seventh Government, and his Reign be made one; how then is it called a short space? seeing the time allotted to the Beast is a long time, two and forty months; one thousand two hundred and sixty years; yea how is it called a short space comparatively with the sixth or former Government, which continued [Page 33]not half, nay not one third part of this time? this Government therefore must be distinct from the Beasts.

Secondly, because the Beasts Government as relating to this, is called the eighth, vers. 11. And the Beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth. Though the Beast in respect of his Seat and the Civil power he exerciseth, which power did re­side in all the former Governments, is said to be of the seven; and accordingly hath seven Heads, i.e. Rome the Seat of, and the Civil power of all the former Governments, yet is he not called the Se­venth, but of the seven, because successively, and in order he followeth the seventh, and his Go­vernment comes in as the eighth, being a Go­vernment distinct from the seventh, and all these­veral Governments before him; For which reason we may not confound the Beasts Government with the seventh, which yet this opinion either doth, or shuts wholly out, neither of which can stand with truth.

3 Because according to this supputation, the time is expired above a hundred years since. And be­ing so;

1 How comes it to passe that yet of late yeers the Holy City hath been so trodden underfoot? Saints for Religion sake driven to flight, as it hath been with us here in England; yea so many killed, and put to death, as have been in Germany, the Low-Countries, France, and all this within much lesse time then one hundred yeers, yea the greatest part of it not half the time? Certainly whilst the Wo­man is driven from one corner of the world to [Page 32]the other to hide her self, and her children are cru­elly killed & massacred, we cannot look upon her as come out of the wildernesse; whilst Antichri­stian injunctions and superstitions are set up, and imposed instead of the pure worship of Christ, who will say the treading underfoot of the Holy City is at an end? and have not these things been more or lesse, within lesse then twenty, I may say within lesse then half this twenty years? I would I could not say at this present.

2 How also comes it to passe that so many years since the expiring of this time, the Beast hath escaped, and neither been killed with the sword, nor led into captivity, seeing it is said of him that at the end of his Reign his two and forty months expired, He that leadeth into Captivity shall be led into Cap­tivity, he that killeth with the sword, shall be killed with the sword, Rev. 13.10. If it be said, Christ hath these many yeers ever since Luthers time in a spiritual manner with the sword of his mouth been killing and captivating the Beast; I answer, true; But what hath been done against him by a Civil sword, or towards a Civil captivating of him, which is the Sword and Captivity here spo­ken of? For observe such a Sword as he hath killed the Saints with, and such a Captivity as he hath exposed them unto, such a Sword, and such a Captivity (it being brought upon him by God in a way of retaliation) shall himself suffer by, and be exposed unto; but the one hath been Civil, therefore shall the other also. If it be replied, was not this done some years since in Germany by Gustavus Adolphus? Answ. Grant it so to be; Yet [Page 33]doth that fall many years too late; the one thousand two hundred and sixty (according to this opini­on) being expired long before his time; but now no sooner is the time expired, but instantly, Hee that leadeth into Captivity is led into Captivity, Hee that killeth with the Sword is killed with the Sword; Neither the German War therefore, nor any that hath been since will at all help this opinion. 2. If the Wan of the Swedish King in Germany were a killing the Beast with the Sword, a leading him into Captivity, then most certainly, since, he is risen, and come out of Captivity again; but let us assure our selves, that when Christ kills the Beast with the Sword, he shall have no resurrection; when he leades him into captivity, no return.

Obj. But it may be objected, That we must of necessity begin this Epock of one thousand two hundred and sixty years as high as Constantine, if not higher; for (Rovel. 12.) it is the Dragon with seven Heads, and ten Horns, and seven Crowns on his heads; (which is the embleme of the old Roman Empire, and not the Empire of the Beast, who hath ten Crowns, and those upon his Horns, (Revel. 13.1.) that drives the Woman into the Wilderness.

I answer; This cannot be for what hath been proved already, viz. That the forty two Months, and the one thousand two hundred and sixty days, are one and the same time, which begin and end together; and how could this be, in case the one thousand two hundred and sixty days were to begin before the rise of the Beast, whilst yet the Roman Empire was ruled by the Dragon?

2 Observe the Text it self, and it will appear, [Page 34] That the act of the Dragon there mentioned, is not the driving of the Woman into the Wilderness, but another thing, viz. a lying in wait to devour her childe so soon as born, v. 4. And the Dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her childe so soon as it was born. The meaning whereof is, That the faithful, the true members and children of the Church, (which because one Body, are here represented by one Childe; and for dignity sake, or else to represent their strength in their head, Christ, a Man-childe) that in the time of Paga­nism had been oppressed by the Dragon; the Di­vel perceiving them now through Constantines means to be in a rising way, and ready as with a Rod of Iron to crush in peices his Heathenish Worship; he therefore labours by stirring up the power of the old Pagan Empire to oppose Con­stantine, to stifle this work in the beginning; but this he cannot do; Constantine prevails, and the faithful in despight of him are caught up to God, and to his Throne, i. e. set out of the reach of the Dragon through Constantines prevailing. The Church now after her sharp fiery Trial under the Pagan Emperours coming to enjoy great peace and prosperity under Constantine, it comes to passe that shee abusing her prosperity, and Jesu­ron-like now waxing fat, beginning to kick and grow wanton, her good is turned into evil, and within a short time afterwards shee begins to A­postatize from her first Principles, and instead of being cloathed with the Sun (as was the Primitive Church, ver. 1.) and having the Moon under her feet, she neglects the Sun, i. e. Christ crucified for Justification, and true Holiness through his [Page 35]Death and Sufferings, and arrayes her self with the Moon, i.e. worldly ornaments, as Dignities, Preferments, outward Riches, &c. which things a while after Constantine began to bee mightily stickled for by the Clergy generally, yea in Coun­cels also. Now when it came to be thus, the Wo­man, i. e. the true Church vanisheth away, and re­tires her self into the Wilderness; and as shee re­tires, so in her room stands up the Beast, i. e. the false Antichristian Church. But this is not done instantly, but after the Church had had prospe­rity some time, and abused it, and thereby pro­voked Christ to with-draw his presence and Spi­rit; which gone, the Church straightway dege­nerates, and shee that was before the Spouse of Christ, becomes an Antichristian Harlot.

Hence the Womans flight into the Wilderness is noted in the Text, as the very next thing after the childes being caught up to God and his Throne, ver. 5. And her childe was caught up to God, and to his Throne, ver. 6. And the woman fled into the Wilderness. Now observe, as the childes being caught up to God, and his Throne, was successive to the Dragons gaping to devour the childe, which was whilst yet the child was but in the birth; So the womans flight into the Wilderness (whence begins the one thousand two hundred and sixty days) is to be looked upon as a thing successive, as well in time as place to the childes being caught up to God and to his Throne; And so the Objection is indeed a reason for us, that we may not begin the one thousand two hundred and sixty days, ei­ther before Constantine, or with him, but must some time afterwards.

The Arguments brought from History Civil, or Ecclesiastical, to prove this fall to the ground upon the account of these two reasons.

1 Because History is only a Human testimony, and therefore to be tried by the Divine; but the Divine testimony (or testimony of Scripture) cannot be made to agree to this beginning, as our two first Reasons prove.

2 Because all that is said from History, as viz. the Story of Constantines donation of Rome, Ita­ly, &c. to Pope Silvester, the story of Queen He­lens Crosse, &c. have only the authority of Popish Writers, and not any of the Ancients to countenance them; yea, are exploded by Protestant Writers as Fables; as see Melancthon in his review of Carions Chronicle, lib. 3. Johan. Wolf. cent. 4. Simpsons Hi­story of the Church, lib. 2. cent. 4.

The Argument urged by some from the Indi­ctions (which of all Arguments from meer Histo­ry is the most plausible) tends only to prove that the Papists reckon the beginning of their King­dom from about this time. But doth it follow that therefore we are so to do? What Scripture warrant is there for such a thing, that there wee should begin the time of the Beasts reign, where the Beasts own followers begin their Kingdome? Certainly, were this a rule to walk by, there would be no difficulty at all in making up our account of the forty two Moneths, & the one thousand two hundred and sixty days; yea take it at best, it is but an uncertain Argument; for some end the O­lympiads, and begin the Indictions sooner, some later; and what strength this Argument hath in it (which in my account is but feeble) will as wel [Page 37]agree (according to some) to a more likely time, as to this; for Rosse in his History of the World saith, Lib. 3. Chap. 3. that about the year three hundred ninety five the Olympiads ceased, and the Indictions were instituted.

The conclusion of all is, That that opinion which begins the forty two Moneths, and the one thousand two hundred and sixty days with Constantine, is not that we are to cleave unto, as truth in this thing.

SECT. 2.

THe opinion of a late Writer (who hath be­stowed much labour upon our Question) is, that we are to begin this Epocha with the time of Pope Leo the first; and the particular year pitch­ed upon by our Author is the year four hundred forty two.

But though I honour the Author, yet cannot I receive his opinion.

1 Because according to it the one thousand two hundred and sixty days cannot bee made current in their end with the one thousand two hundred and ninety, unlesse thirty years upwards, of the year four hundred forty two, a Head be found for that number; which could it bee, yet cannot then the one thousand three hundred thirty five be made con­current in their end (no not according to our Au­thors own Principles, and calculation) with the two thousand three hundred.

2 Because its evident the Beast was risen above for­ty years before this time; therefore not now to rise.

The account of the wonderful Numberer, [Page 38] Dan. 8.14. doth not (as saith our Author, but without giving any substantial reason for the thing) enforce this beginning, but indeed strong­ly, if rightly computed, another, as appears from our Key.

His Human testimonies are wonderously mis­applied in point of time; for indeed not any one of those Human Rites, Superstitions, and Idola­tries, which our Author makes mention of, as crept in at this time, but had their rise, yea ap­probation too even in Councels some years high­er, as is proved in my Key, Thes. 23.

The Authors calculation of the time when the Beast shall begin to go to wrack, and that from the number of his Name, six hundred sixty six, car­ries not weight with me, because I finde the num­ber of the Beasts name put for a part or peece of the Beasts Idolatry, which the true worshippers of Jesus are to shun, and get victory over, Chap. 15.2. And I saw them that had gotten the victory over the Beast, and over his Image, and over his Mark, and over the number of his Name. But now did the number of his Name hold forth the time of his continuance, it would contrariwise bee a great part of a Saints comfort and joy to know it.

Nay further, I finde the Papals severely pu­nished by God for having to do with this Name, Chap. 14.11. And the smoak of their torment a­scendeth up for ever and ever. And they have no rest day nor night, who worship the Beast, and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. The least that can be inferred from these words, is, that [Page 39]the mark of the Beast and his name are things of neer kin the one to the other; therefore his mark, and the number of his name are both included in these words, The mark of his name. But were there any such thing intended in the number of the Beasts name, as the time of his conti­nuance, this could not be, but contrariwise, the Beasts mark, and the number of his name should be things vastly different. To say the one and the other may be intended, cannot be, unlesse we should suppose contraries, viz. Sin and Comfort, a Curse and a Blessing may be reconciled.

The conclusion is, That that opinion, which makes the two and forty months, the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes to begin A. D. 442. cannot be the minde of the Holy Ghost in this thing.

SECT. 3.

There is yet another opinion, which begins the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes with the time when Boniface was by Phocas made uni­versal Bishop. The Authors and Assertors of this opinion most of them begin about the year 600.

But this cannot be:

1 Because all the wit of man can never according to this opinion bring forth a Harmony of the mystical Numbers, i. e. make the one thousand two hun­dred and sixty dayes to end at the same point with the one thousand two hundred and ninety, and the one thousand three hundred thirty and five with the two thousand three hundred, both which must be.

2 Because it is said of the seventh kind of Go­vernment in the Roman Empire that the same was to continue but a little space, Rev. 17.10. And there are seven Kings, five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. Now when the Angel saith, It should continue but a little space, he speaks un­doubtedly with a reference to that Government that then was in being, viz. by Pagan Emperours, comparatively with which the continuance of the seventh or following Government should be but a short space. But now if the Beast who by coming in as the Eighth, puts an end to the seventh or fol­lowing Government, did not rise till about this time, then comparatively with the sixth, could not the seventh be said to continue a little space; for its continuance should be well nigh as long as the other.

3 Because according to this account, all the Horns of the Beast should be in being, and that above one hundred and forty years before yet there was any Beast; For the Beast had all his Horns (as shall appear by and by) before the year four hundred and sixty; but how monstrous and irrational a thing is it to affirm that Horns should be before, or without a Beast?

The Conclusion is, That we are not to begin the two and forty months, or the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, with the time when Boniface was created universal Bishop by Phocas.

SECT. 1.

IT will now be said, seeing I disallow all the precedent accounts, What year do I my self pitch upon for the beginning of this Epock.

I answer, The year I fixe upon, I have already stated in my Key, to be A.D. 396.

The Reasons of this fixation are,

1 Reason, Because that year, and no other can make the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes concur in their end with the one thousand two hundred and ninety; And also the one thousand three hun­dred thirty five with the two thousand and three hundred.

2 Reason, Taken from the words of the Apostle, 2 Thes. 2.3. Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the Son of perdition.

Out of which words I draw this Conclu­sion;

That the Revelation of the man of Sin was then to be, when as there should appear some eminent de­fection in the Church from its primitive purity: For the Apostle makes the falling away, to be the Revelation of the man of sin; as to say, the man of sin shall then thrust himself into the world, in, or with this falling away.

Now let us enquire when this eminent Apo­stacy from Primitive purity began, and therein undoubtedly are we to state the rise of the Anti­christian Beast.

Much as to this I have written already, Key, Thesi 23. so as that it may seem superfluous to adde any thing more. All therefore that I shall do farther, shall be onely to translate some few things of many, which I finde gathered together out of the Ancients by Joan. Wolfius in his Cente­naries, who applyes things to the particular year or time of their rise, i. e. when a discovery was first made of these corruptions, and witnesse born against them, by good men living in those first ages.

And first as for what is by him laid down in his Epistle Dedicatory,

Out of Jerome he hath these sayings, which he applies to the year 390.

Concerning the Avarice and corruption of the Clergy, Jerome thus;

Whence is this Avarice crept into the Church? the Law now perisheth from the Priest, the Vision from the Prophet.

And again, Searching (saith he) former Histories, I have not been able to find any who have so rent the Church, and seduced those of Gods Family, as those do who now go under the name of Priests; they are become a crooked snare, giving occasion to scandal in all places.

Farther, He calls the then Roman Presbytery, Scribes, Pharisees, a Synod of Pharisees; and addes, that from the Apostles dayes untill that time the [Page 43]Church grew under Persecutions, and was crowned with Martyrdome; But (saith he) at this day the same is greater in riches, and power, but lesse in vertue.

Concerning the Prohibition of Mariage Meats, &c. the said Jerome, thus;

IN HYPOCRYSIE they speak, who when they cannot contain, will seem so chaste as even to condemn Mariage, so abstemious that they judge those that use the creatures of God sparingly, when as they give up themselves to follow luxurious Ban­quets.

Our aforesaid Author alleadgeth also a saying out of Augustine, applying it to the year 399. tending to shew how greatly the Church about this time was fallen from her first purity. The testimony speaks thus, That Religion about this time was so corrupted with Traditions and humane Rites, that the very condition of the Jews under the Law was more easie then that of Christians under the Gospel.

Also under the very same year (as the next thing) he brings a testimony of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, who by an Epistle admonisheth another Bishop, that he should not load Christians with heavy Burdens, Ceremonies and Traditions, nor obtrude upon his Brethren single life.

After this he quotes Chrysostome declaming against the Bishop of Romes Purgatory, &c. which things he applies to the year 410. the recital whereof I forbear to mention.

Hitherto of what I find in our Authors Epistle.

The Book it self affords variety of the like, [Page 44]betwixt the years 390 and 400, whereof I shall onely glean up some things.

Cent. 4. A. D. 391.

Of the Clergies enriching themselves by Au­ricular Confession, he saith thus,

That when any Prince or great man confessed him­self guilty of any crime by him committed, presently by threats and perswasions he was made to beleeve that he could not be saved, unlesse he did confer on the Church a good part of his estate; or else bidding farewel to all earthly things, devolving them upon the Clergy, should betake himself to a private Monkish life; which done, he should thereby not onely be freed from Hell, but also obtain a sure certain and plentiful hope of life eternal.

A.D. 393. He saith thus, That in that very year was seen hanging in the Heavens, a burning Pillar by the space of thirty dayes. And (saith he) about this very time began humane Traditions, Monkish life, &c.

A.D. 395. He makes mention of one Amphilo­chius Bishop of Iconium, reprehending the worship­ping of Images; An Argument Image worship was up so early.

A. D. 396. He collects many things out of Epiphanius third Book, Contra Haereses, shewing how great the defection was at this time.

Concerning Image worship, Epiphanius thus.

Whence is this Image worship, and design of the Devil?

And a little after, The Images of such as never lived, do men introduce to be worshipped, having the mind adulterated from the one, and only God.

And a little after that, Be mindful my beloved children, that ye bring not Images into the Church, but bear about God alwayes in your hearts; for it is not meet that a Christian should be held by his eyes, but by the occupation of his mind.

Concerning the Virgin Mary, Epiphanius thus;

The body of Mary was truly holy, but not God. The Virgin her self was indeed a Virgin, and to be honoured, but not given us that we should worship her, she her self worshipping him who was born of her flesh.

Much more is by the aforesaid Author quoted from Epiphanius, which speaks the very same language with these, all which he applyes to the year 396. the recital whereof I forbear.

A.D. 399. To this year Wolfius makes ap­plication of many sayings of Augustine, who was made (saith Helvicus) Presb. Hyponensis, A.D. 391.

Concerning Purgatory, Augustine thus,

The Catholick faith beleeves Heaven to be the first place; the second Hell; as for a third, we are wholly ignorant, nor is it found in the Scripture.

Concerning worshipping Saints thus,

It is not our Religion to worship dead men; they are honored for our imitation sake, not to be worshipped for the sake of Religion, nor are we to consecrate Temples to them, for they will not so be honoured of us.

Concerning Faith and Works.

Good Works do not precede Justification, but follow the justified.

Concerning Peter, and the Power of the Keyes thus,

We who are called Christians do not beleeve in Peter, but in whom Peter did beleeve. And again, The Keyes of the Church are delivered to the whole Church, not to one Peter.

A little after, Augustine reprehending (saith our Author) the arrogancy of the Popes who suf­fered themselves to be called Gods, saith, He that would seem to be God, when as he is man, doth not imitate him, who when he was God, was for our sakes made man.

The aforesaid Author quoteth a saying of Gregory Nazianzene concerning Councels about this time, Cent. 4. p. 127. If truth (saith he) be spoken, I judge it best that all Councels be avoyded; for I never saw good end of any Councel, nor the abrogation of any evill thereby, but only ambition, contention, and strifes about Prerogative and Dignity.

This cloud of witnesses standing up for the truth, and that about this time is a manifest de­monstration of that great Apostacy from primitive principles and purity, which we are speaking of, to be about this very time.

If any doubt of the Testimonies themselves, or conceive I may in translating them have corrup­ted them, they may satisfie themselves by having recourse to my Author; where likewise they shall find in most things, two for one of what I have translated.

Adde hereto as a Celestial sign of this defection, and of the rise of the Antichristian Lucifer about this very time, what is by Alsted recorded, viz. That a little before this time, as namely, A. D. 383. And again, A. D. 389. were seen two Comets, [Page 47]one following the other like unto Lucifer, the like to which were never seen in any other Age. In Chro­nologia Cometarum.

Yet as concerning the defection I am speaking of, I grant that the same was in part more early. The reason whereof is this, because the mystery of ini­quity from the Apostles dayes did begin to work, and endeavour to thrust it self in, 2 Thes. 2.7.

Hence in the year 198. when Victor was Bishop of Rome, a great stir was made by him about the Celebration of Easter; but the same was oppo­sed by some Councels at that time. Alsted in Chronologia Conciliorum.

So also in the year 326. It was endeavoured in the Councel of Nice, That Bishops and Elders should refrain from their wives: But Paphnutius opposed himself to the whole Councel, urging that of the Apostle, Mariage is honourable among all men, and so far prevailed as to bring forth a de­cree of liberty, that for chastity sake such might accompany with their wives. Alsted in Chronolo­gia testium veritatis.

But now though Antichrist was more early thrusting himself forth, yet are we not thence to reckon his rise, but from that time when the Apo­stacy grew eminent, the Councels, and Ministry being more generally corrupted, which was about the aforesaid year, 396.

And certainly if at this time after all these things before mentioned were come forth, we cannot yet see the Beast in the world, but must come down lower to find him, it argues that we either shut our eyes, or are blind whilst we look for him.

The Argument then lies thus, If that falling away which is foretold should be at the time of Anti­christs Revelation, were A.D. 396. then are we there to place the Beasts rise, and accordingly thence to reckon the two and forty months, and the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes; but the Antecedent is true; therefore the consequent.

SECT. 2.

3 Reason. A third Reason of the foregoing Position may be taken from the following words of the Apostle, vers. 6, 7, 8. And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time: For the mystery of Iniquity doth al­ready work; onely he who now letteth, will let until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wick­ed be revealed. Out of which words I draw this conclusion, viz. That the man of sin, or the Anti­christ, was to be revealed, when that which then did withhold and let (viz. the Civil power of the Ro­man Empire, which would not admit of any Competitor, or the setting up of any other power equall with it, or above it) should be taken away, i.e, removed from the seventh Head (which is the last Head of the ancient Roman Beast, i.e. of Rome as it was a pure Civil state) and placed some where else.

Now before we can frame any Argument that shall have in it a concluding force, here are two things to be cleared, viz.

1 Whether this taking away be to be reckoned from the time that the Civil power of the [Page 49]Roman Empire was wholly taken off the seventh Head, and fixed some where else, or whether from the time when this began to be?

2 In case we incline to the one, or the other, what time are we to pitch upon, in which this was done?

Concerning the first, We are (as I conceive) to account from that time when this began to be done. My Reasons are,

1 Because it is proper and agreeable to the phrase of taking away, to say a thing is then taken away when as such a beginning is made as irre­sistably causeth a total removing or taking away.

It is said, Dan. 9.2. That seventy yeers were to be accomplished in the desolations of Jerusalem. These seventy yeers are to bee reckoned from the first Captivity, which was in the third yeer of Jehoiakim, Dan. 1.1, 2. 2 Chon. 36.6, 7. as is clear,

1 Because the Scriptures speaking of the se­venty years Captivity point us to Jehoiakims reign, as the time from whence we are to begin our account, Jerem. 25. vers. 1. compared with vers. 11, 12. Chap. 29. vers. 1, 2. compared with vers. 10.

2 Because Israel was to serve the King of Babylon but seventy years, Jer. 25.11, 12. These Nations shall serve the King of Babylon seventy years. And after seventy years are accomplished, I will punish the King of Babylon. Now Israels ser­vitude to the King of Babylon beginning in the [Page 50]dayes of Jehoiakim, in case the seventy years were not to be begun till afterwards, then should they serve the King of Babylon above seventy years.

3 Because Israel was to be in Babylon but the terme of seventy years, Jer. 29.10. For thus saith the Lord, that after seventy years be accomplished, I will visit you, and perform my good word towards you, in causing you to return to this place. But Israel for a considerable part of them were carried into Babylon in the dayes of Jehoiakim; if therefore we begin the seventy years afterwards, then seeing that untill the seventy years were expired, they came not out of Babylon, their being in Babylon should be upwards of seventy yeers; therefore I say that the seventy yeers of Jerusalems desolati­ons are to reckoned from the first Captivity; yet observe, their desolations then were onely begun, not perfected till nineteen years after, in the eleventh of Zedekiah, when City and Temple were destroyed, 2 Chron. 36.19. yet notwith­standing doth the Holy Ghost reckon their deso­lations and captivity from the time the same was begun, though the compleating of it was not till some yeers after.

So Dan. 7.26. Its said concerning the little Horn, the judgement shall sit, and they shall take away his Dominion: And when is this taking away? Ans. When the Ancient of dayes begins to sit, and the Thrones of the Beast begin to be cast down, though yet the final destruction of this little H [...]rn is not till afterwards, vers. 11. And observe, if the ruine of the Roman Empire in its second state under Antichrist be to be reckoned from the [Page 51]time when this begins, why not in its first likewise?

In Scripture Phrase therefore a thing is said to be taken away, when the desolating and remo­ving time is come, and the work begun, though yet the compleating of it be not till some time after.

2 Because the Beast did not take up and ex­ercise all the Civil power of the Roman Empire together, or at once, but did by little and little in­grosse the same into his own hands, as the same by degrees fell off the seventh Head. And if so, then of necessity must the Beast, who pills the seventh Head, and robs him of his power, have a being before as yet the seventh Head had lost all his power, or was totally destroyed.

3 Because if we begin not till this work was compleated, then of necessity must we extend the forty months, the one thousand two-hundred and sixty dayes, beyond Daniels two thousand three hundred, and his one thousand three hundred thirty five, both which expire A.D. 1701. but so will not the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, if we find not a beginning for them till the compleat devastation of the ancient Ro­man Empire.

To say some middle beginning may be found, must be grounded upon some such substantial reason as may enervate the force of ours; and withall be so carried on, as that the admirable Harmony betwixt Daniels numbers and Johns may be preserved.

The conclusion therefore is, That we are not to reckon this taking away from the time that [Page 52]the Civil power of the Roman Empire was fully removed from the seventh Head, but rather from the time when this began.

Our next Question is, What time are we to pitch upon when this was done?

Ans. The year before fixed 396.

1 Because at this time the Roman Empire (upon Theodosius death) became divided betwixt Arcadius and Honorius his two sons, of which see my Key, Thesi 22. This division was such that Carion treating upon the fourth Monarchy, doth here­upon prefix to the reign of Arcadius and Honorius this title, The spoyling of the fourth Monarchy.

2 Because about this very time did the Goths and Vandals invade the Roman Empire, coming in as an overflowing deluge upon divers parts of the Roman Empire. A better testimony hereof I cannot pro­duce, then by transferring hither what by the learned Mede is gathered together out of the An­cients relating to this time and thing, in his Com­ment upon the Apocalyps, Chap. 8. upon the first Trumpet.

He begins from the time of Theodosius death, which was A.D. 395. (which because the current year, we are in our account to let fall, and begin with the year following 396.) and saith thus, In this very year Alaricus with a huge host of Goths, and other Barbarians, did first break in out of Thra­cia upon Macedonia, sparing neither Towns, nor men. Thence marching forward through Thessaly, and possessing himself of the Straits of Thermipolae, he enters Greece, i.e. Achaia, the Cities whereof, be­sides Thebes and Athens, he razeth to the ground. [Page 53]He rusheth into Peloponnesus, wasteth Corinth, Argos, and Sparta. Thence he marcheth into Epi­rus where he proceeds to make the same devastations and destructions. In the following year quitting Epirus, he invadeth Achaia, and it together with Epirus, and the adjacent Provinces, he laboureth four full years cruelly to destroy with fire and ransackings; when thus for five years he had afflicted the East with mercilesse ransackings, he set his mind to in­vade the West; he passeth into Dalmatia, and Pan­nonia, those Regions he wasteth far and neer. Hear (saith he) Jerome, who then lived, bewayling the state of this deplorable time, the tempest hitherto raging. In his third Epistle, the Roman blood is daily poured out between Constantinople; and the Julian Alps: The Goth, the Sarmatian, Qua­dus, Alanus, the Huns, the Vandals, the Marco­manny, do force and take by violence Scythia, Thracia, Macedonia, Dardania, Dacia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Dalmatia, and all Pannonia. How many Matrons, how many godly Virgins, and beau­tifull noble bodies were mocking stocks to these Mon­sters? The Bishops taken, the Presbyters slain. The Roman Empire goeth to ruine. What heart thinkest thou have the Corinthians now, the Athenians, Lacedemonians, Arcadians, and all Greece, whom these Barbarians command?

But in the year following, viz. Anno Dom, four hundred and one, the same Alaricus, followed by the Goths, Alans, and Huns, about to wage Warre in Italy also, brake through Noricum, and came through the Forrest of Trent into Venice, those Ci­ties in a short time he subdued, the Emperour Hono­rius [Page 54] he besieged at Hasta, so as that all Italy thought upon quitting their Habitations. But here at length, [...] the General of Honorius, having gathered [...] Army, stopped his fury, and compelled him living once and again vanquished, and wearied with [...] Battels, to retire into Pannonia, whence he came, out of which a while after, a League being [...], and be honoured with a Military government [...] Honorius, be departed into Illyricum, a Pro­ [...] of the East.

[...]icus being quiet a little while, lest hence­ [...] [...] or any time the West should bee vacant of [...] presently in the year four hundred and four, another mentorable breaking in of the Barbarians upon Italy is attempted, Radagiso a Scythian being Captain, who with an Army of Goths, Sarmatians, and Germans, to the number of two hundred thou­sand, the Forts in the Alps being beaten down, hee passeth into the Region of Venice, Aemilia, and He­truria, he besiegeth Florence, where being by Stilicho vanquished with a great slaeughter, is taken and be­headed.

This enemy how soever terrible, in a little time, and with l [...]sse losse being taken away, forth with An­no Dom. four hundred and six, the third, and that the most grievous and deadly inrode of the Vandals and Alans, taking with them the Marcomanni, Heruli, Swedes, Alemans, Burgundians, with a rabble of other Barbarians, is made upon the West, whereby first France, then Spain, lastly Africa are taken; and afflicted with all kind of calamities; Which destructions Hierom in his eleventh Epistle hath thus partly expressed, partly implied.

Innumerable (saith he) and most fierce Nations have taken all France, whatsoever is betwixt the Alps and the Pyrenaean Mountains, which is inclosed with the Ocean and the Rhone; the Quadus, the Van­dals, Sarmatians, the Alans, Gipides, Heruli, Saxons, Burgundians, Alemans, and Pannonian enemies have destroyed; Mentz is taken, and plun­dered, and many thousand slain in the Church; the Vangions with strong siege destroyed the strong City of Rhemes, the Ambians, Attrebates, Morini, Tor­nacus, Nemete, Argentoratus translated into Ger­many, Aquitane, and the Provinces of Novem Populorum, Lions, and Narbone, a few Cities ex­cepted, all are ruined. I cannot make mention of To­lose without tears, which that it is not yet ruined, is for the sake of that holy Bishop Exuperius; Spain it self now ready to perish trembles, Rome buyes her life with gold. Hitherto Master Mede, p. 71, 72, 73, 74.

Now upon the whole, observe, it being a thing expresly fore-told, Revel. 13.1. that the Anti­christian Beast should have his rise out of the Sea, i. e. from a confluence of People and Nations, the rise of Antichrist cannot more aptly be applied to any time then this, of these barbarous Nations o­ver-flowing in this wonderfull manner the Roman Empire.

3 Because suddenly after the year three hundred ninety six (as the issue of this invasion) the Civil power of the Empire began by little and little to bee transplanted from the seventh Head, and to be seated in the Horns. Now, as it is an evident Argument that the Empire was going to decay, when there [Page 56]began to be a removall of the Civil power and au­thority from the Head to the Horns; so is it also as clear an Argument that the Beast was now ri­sing; for it is the Beasts Horns that have Crowns upon them, the Dragons have none. But of this more in my next.

From the whole I frame this Argument; The forty two Months, and the one thousand two hundred and sixty days are there to begin where the Civil pow­er of the Roman Empire began to go to decay, or to be taken away. But this was Anno Dom. three hundred ninety six. Ergo.

SECT. 1.

A Fourth Argument, to prove that wee are to begin the time of the Beast in all likelihood with the year before stated, may be taken from the time of the rise of the Horns; some of the Horns did suddenly after this year appear. For this see Al­sted in Chronologia regnorum veterum. Rosse History of the world, Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Sigonius (as I finde him quoted by Mr. Mede, cl. p. 79.) of the We­stern Empire, Lib. 10. & 11.

To these let me adde; Our German Author in his Cla. p. 127. testifieth, that Anno Dom. four hun­dred [Page 57]and three, some Horns did appear. Mr. Ar­cher in his Personal Reign, p. 44. saith, That about the year four hundred, or four hundred and six, some of the ten Kingdoms in Europe began to rise. Mr. Woodcock of the two Witnesses, p. 81. saith. That Anno Dom. four hundred and ten, when Alaricus took Rome, severall of the ten Horns even in that very year began to appear.

Mr. Medes own opinion is, That all the ten Horns were in being in the year four hundred fifty six, the Empire in that year appearing divided in­to ten Kingdoms, which together with the names of the People, and of the Kings, and Provinces over which they reigned, are by him laid down in this following Table, Cl. p. 80.

Some things by way of explication of the Table are added by Mr. Mede, which I omit, referring the Reader where any doubt ariseth to the Au­thor himself for satisfaction.

Now to make our Argument the more firm, let it be observed, That we are to place the rise of the Beast before the rise of the Horns; the Horns there­fore having being, some so early as the years four hundred, four hundred and three, four hundred and six, &c. yea being compleat, having their perfect number, Anno Dom. four hundred fifty six, the rise of the Beast must be placed somewhat more early; and therefore it is not amisse that I have pitched upon the year three hundred nine­ty six.

Now that the rise of the Beast must be before the rise of the Horns, is evident;

1 Because the ten Horns with Crowns upon them are the Horns of the Antichristian Beast, and no o­ther. This being so, the Antichristian Beast must necessarily be before his Horns; for how im­proper, yea absurd would it bee to say, That Horns should grow before, or without a Beast? To say, The Horns are the same which were grown before, only the Beast puts Crowns upon them, which before they had not, helps not the [Page 60]thing, for if the Beast crown the Horns, then is he before any of the Horns are crowned; that which is not, cannot adde to another thing.

2 Because the rise of the Beast is to bee reckoned from that point of time, in which the Civil power of the Roman Empire began to be taken away, as hath been proved already; but now none of the Crow­ned Horns arise till a while after, the Horns get­ting Crowns, i.e. a Civil power to themselves, by the devastation of the seventh Head, i. e. pil­ling the Empire of its Civil power.

3 Because the words of the Holy Ghost, Rev. 17.12. import as much; for speaking of the Beast and his Horns, its said, These receive power as Kings one hour, (or in one hour; so Pareus in his Comment upon the Re­velation reads it) with the Beast. Observe, not the Beast receives power with them, but they with the Beast; intimating clearly, that notwithstanding the Beasts rise is not long before the Horns, there­fore both rise as it were in one hour, that is, with­in a little time of each other, yet the Beast hath being first, and is instrumentally the cause of help­ing the Horns to their Diadems or Kingly power, to whom therefore as ingaged they adhere, giving their power and strength to him again, vers. 13. i.e. laying it out for him, who was a special means of helping them to it.

SECT. 2.

Ob! But it may be objected, That Daniel saw the rise of this little Horn (namely Antichrist) after the rise of the other Horns, Dan. 7.8. I consi­dered [Page 61]the Horns, and behold there came up among them another little Horn, vers. 24. And the ten Horns out of this Kingdom are ten Kings that shall arise, and another shall arise after them.

Ans. Three opinions there are of this little Horn, which if either of them might be admit­ted, would easily quit our hands of this Ob­jection.

The first is that which interprets it of Antiochus Epiphanes; but as touching this I shall say no­thing til I come to my Third part.

Two other opinions there are embraced at this day by men of great light, learning, and worth, whom I would not thwart, were it not but that this Prophecy of Daniels little Horn is so materi­all, that an error here turns the streams of all Da­niels Prophecies out of their proper channel; and because the best men, and men of greatest Light may have their particular mistakes, I hope it will not be grievous or offensive to any, if for truths sake I bring the principles of those, whose light in other things I esteem above my own, as to this particular thing, to the touch-stone.

Yet ere I come to examine either opinion, I shall in order thereunto premise these few things.

1 That all Daniels Prophecies, viz. That of the great Image, chap. 2. Of the four Beasts and lit­tle Horn, chap. 7. Of the Ram, Hee-Goat and little Horn, chap. 8. Of the Kings of the North, and Kings of the South, chap. 11. have but one and the same end.

2 That the last thing in each of these is the [Page 64]description of the Fourth or Roman Monarchy.

These two Principles are so clear and unque­stionable upon the grounds, that not my self on­ly, but also those good men go, from whom yet (as to their opinions of the little Horn) I vary, yea from the plain scope and expressions of each Prophecy, that to insist upon particular proof, were but to multiply words.

3 That the Fourth or Roman Monarchy consist­ing of two States; 1 A pure Civil State, 2 A mixt State, partly Civil, partly Ecclesiastical; hath therefore in each of Daniels Visions and Prophe­cies a two-fold representation suitable to its two-fold state. In that of the Great Image, the Roman Mo­narchy (which is signified by the leggs and feet of that Image) is first represented as a pure Civil State, by the leggs of Iron, breaking in peeces and subduing all things, vers. 40. as a mixt State, by the feet and toes of the Image, which are part of Iron, part of Potters clay, ver. 41.

In the second Vision of the fourth Beast, the Roman Monarchy, signified by the fourth Beast, is represented in two States. 1 As a Civil State, and so it is a Beast dreadfull, terrible, strong ex­ceedingly, having great Iron teeth, devouring and breaking in peeces, vers. 7.2. As a mixt State, and so a raging blasphemous little Horn, ver. 8.21.25.

In the third, chap 8. the Roman Monarchy (re­presented by the little Horn, vers. 9.) hath two States; 1 A Civil State, and so it is a little Horn waxing great in a way of conquest, subdu­ing Nations to it self, vers. 9. 2 A mixt State, [Page 65]and so it is a little Horn, waxing great in a way of opposition to the truths, people, and worship of God, ver. 10, 11, 12.24, 25.

In the fourth and last Prophecy, the Roman Monarchy hath two States; 1 A Civil State, and so it is that terrible potent King of the North, chap. 11. vers. 14. to 21. 2 A mixt State, and so it is that vile Person, vers. 21. whose descripti­on and acts are continued to ver. 40.

This I take to be (and I doubt not but he who thorowly weighs each Prophecy will, yea must in this be of my minde) the true state of the Roman Monarchy, as the same is set forth in all the Pro­phecies of Daniel.

Hence fourthly, It follows upon the former, That the little Horn, chap 7. signifying the mixt State of the Roman Monarchy, and the mixt State of the Roman Monarchy being also the thing signi­fied chap. 2. by the feet and toes of the great I­mage, chap. 8. by the little Horn there mentioned in his second waxing great, chap. 11. by the vile Person; Hence I say, it follows, That the feet and toes of the great Image, chap. 2. the little Horn, ch. 7. the little Horn in its second waxing great. chap. 8. and the vile person cha. 11. are all one and the same thing. What therefore is affirmed of the little Horn, chap. 7. must bee of all the rest.

This premised, I come now to the opinions themselves.

The first opinion is that which interprets this little Horn of Mahomet, at least-wise as to the special accommodation. The rage of this little Horn against the Saints to be specially meant of [Page 64]the Turks Tyranny over, and oppression of the Jews.

But this opinion cannot I receive, because it seems to me to be inconsistent with all the four fore­going Prophesies.

1 for the Prophesie of the great Image, its inconsistent with that; for the feet of the great Image (the same with the little Horn) are to be understood of such a power, as First, is made up of a mixture, and that of things contrary, as iron and clay. Secondly, it is such a power as consists of ten parts, which ten parts are represented by the ten Toes, vers. 42. Now neither of these Characters either do, or will agree to the Empire of the Great Turk, but both are punctually ful­filled in the Kingdome of Antichrist, which first is made up of a Civil and Ecclesiastical power moulded together; secondly, consists of ten Horns i.e. so many Kingdomes, Rev. 17.12.16.

2 For the Prophesie Chap. 8. The proud He, there spoken of (who is the same with this little Horn) is said to cast down some of the host of hea­ven, and of the stars to the ground, and to stamp upon them, vers. 10. to take away the daily sacrifice, throw down the place of his Sanctuary, cast down the truth to the ground, vers. 11.12. Yea, he is also said to understand dark sentences, vers. 23. to be mighty, but not by his own power, to destroy wonder­fully, to destroy the mighty and holy people, vers. 24.

None of these Characters (which are all the Characters of the little Horn) either will, or can agree to any act of the Turk put forth towards the Jews, for,

1 The Jews in the state they are in, and have been in these many years, cannot be called The Host of Heaven, i. e. The true worshippers of God, as the phrase signifies.

Neither secondly, can the casting down and trampling the Jews be called A casting down of stars, and trampling upon them. The Officers of the Christian Churches are called Stars, Rev. 1.20. The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Chur­ches; but where in any Prophesie relating to the Church of the New Testament, from the day the Jews were broken off, till this day, are the Jewish Doctors and Rabbins called Stars?

Neither thirdly, can the Turks sitting over the material Temple, viz. the place of it at Jerusalem, be in a true sense called the taking away of the daily sacrifice, and a throwing down the place of his San­ctuary. If it be said, by sitting there, he hinders men from embracing the Messiah, so he doth by sitting in Constantinople, and therefore his sitting there may as properly in that sense (though Jeru­salem were not under his power) be called a ta­king away of the dayly sacrifice, and casting down the place of Gods Sanctuary.

Neither fourthly, can his opposing the Mo­saical worship be termed a casting down the truth to the ground, seeing God hath cast down that al­ready, and owns it for his truth no longer.

Neither fifthly, will it agree to Mahomet to entitle him a King understanding dark sentences, whose birth and education was poor and mean, and so far was he from learning and high specu­lations (which Antichrist not onely pretends to, [Page 66]but is also furnished with) as that indeed he had nothing lesse.

Neither sixthly, doth it agree to the Turk to term him mighty, but not by his own power; seeing his might lies in no other power but his own; but it is an excellent description of the Romish Antichrist, who whilst he would make the world beleeve that he is Christs Vicar, and a spiritual creature, doth yet lift up and exercise, and be­comes mighty thereby, a Civil sword, which in­deed he hath nothing to do with.

Neither seventhly, can it be said of the Turk that he hath destroyed wonderfully, i.e. more then any before him; and this wonderful destruction, to be a destruction of the mighty and holy people; seeing it is a thing rare with the Turk upon a meer account of Religion (what to increase his Empire he hath done, is but what others have done) to destroy men. But now what the Ro­mish Antichrist in this kind hath done, is notori­ously known. If it be said, he hath destroyed by the poyson of his Religion more then ever any be­fore him.

Its answered, but not the holy people, the holy people are kept by God, and therefore safe from the inchantments of Satan. To understand it of the Jews, will neither agree to them, either in the state they were in, when Daniel saw this Vision, nor the state they are in at present. Not the for­mer, because then they were not the mighty people; for they were a people in Captivity; not the latter, because now they are not the holy people, being a people as yet rejected of God.

3 For the Prophesie Chap. 11. The vile per­son (the same with the little Horn) is said to have indignation against the holy Covenant, vers. 30. to cause the understanding people, who shall instruct many, to fall by the sword, the flame, by captivity and spoyl many dayes, vers. 33. The following Cha­ractors of this King, I shall take up, and shew whose they are, in answering the other opinion of this little Horn.

As for these two we have named, how will they, or can they agree to the Turk.

1 What holy Covenant is that which he hath in­dignation against? If the Levitical Covenant, God owns not that for the Holy Covenant any longer; but put case he did, what particular indignation doth the Turk expresse against that Covenant, when as a great part of his Religion is founded upon it? If the Gospel-Covenant, then must this indignation of his be not against Jews, but Christi­ans; for they are the children of this Covenant; and if so, then are we off of our Argument, and we must rather of the two conclude the Romish Antichrist to be this vile person, then the Turk; for he, and not the Turk, is the great and princi­pal oppressor of these.

As for the second, what understanding people are they who are said to instruct many, that through sword, flame, captivity, and spoyl, fall by the hand of the Turk? Can they be the Jews as such? None will say so. Are they Chri­stians? then are these things in a more especial manner to bee applyed to the Romish Anti­christ than the Turk; for the understanding [Page 68]people who have been the instructers of many, have fallen ten to one, I might say a hundred to [...]e, more by his hand then ever have fallen by the hand of the Turk. Nay when did ever yet the Turk make a war upon, raise a persecution a­gainst the understanding people meerly upon this account because they were such? But this hath been the practice of the Romish Antichrist throughout all ages.

4 For the Prophesie it self, Chap. 7. This in­terpretation of the little Horn agrees not to it, neither to the Characters of the little Horn menti­oned in it, nor to the time of his continuance.

1 Not to the Characters, the little Horn is said, to make war with the Saints of the most High, vers. 21. to wear out the Saints of the most High, vers. 25. How doth he wear them out?

Answ. Partly by inward grief to hear his blas­phemies, partly by outward sufferings, persecuti­ons, martyrdomes.

But now as to the first, The Turkish oppression of the Jews by detaining their land from them (which he hath done divers hundred years) cannot be called a making war with the Saints of the most High; for the Jews from the day he first had their land to this, have been a people rejected by God, and therefore cannot in the condition they are in, and have stood in a long time, be considered as the Saints of the most High.

As for the second, The Turk cannot be said in either of the forementioned respects, to wear out the Jews; For first, They grieve not, nor (as yet) are their souls worn out to hear his blasphemies. Secondly, They have not been by him persecuted [Page 69]and martyred for Religion sake meerly, but are owned and countenanced in his Dominions.

2 Not to the expressions used by the Holy Ghost to set forth the time of his continuance; For the time of his continuance is expressed by a time, times, and dividing of time, vers. 25. which words being spoken in the Gentile Dialect, and signifying the very time of the black day of the Gentile Churches, Revel. 12.14. seems to me clearly to argue, that this little Horn is such a one as should Tyrannize over the Gentile Churches, not the Jews; and this agrees not to the Turk, but the Ro­man Antichrist.

So that we see that this interpretation will not agree to any one of all Daniels Prophesies.

Yet here let me say, that thus far I go up with the Assertors of this opinion, as to beleeve, that the Prophesies of the Old Testament, as touch­ing the glorious restitution of the Church, do more directly and immediately look towards the Jews; yet with this Proviso, that this rule is appliable to such Prophesies only as relate to the time of the Jews coming in: But now this Pro­phesie of Daniels little Horn, and his blasphe­mies, his rage against the Saints, relate to another time, namely that time in which the Jews are re­jected; for the coming in of the Jews is not till the end of the time, times, and a half, which is the time where the little Horns dominion ceaseth. It therefore follows, that all the time of the little Horns blasphemy and tyranny, the Jews are a people rejected, and are not received till the day where a period is put to his reign; therefore al­though [Page 70]Prophesies that relate to the time of their restitution have a look firstly to that people, yet not this Prophesie, which relates to the time of their rejection.

But indeed our Rule in Daniels Prophesies must be this, viz. That the scope of the Holy Ghost in Daniel is to represent the state of things in the world from Daniels time to the end, with a special reference still to Gods Church and people in it. This being so, it follows that so long as the Jews remained a Church, so long did the things foretold primarily respect them; when they are broken off, and the Gentiles, Gods chosen people, throughout that period, do the things foretold primarily respect the Gentiles; when the Jews are grafted in again, then shall the things, as at first, so now again, be primarily fulfilled to them. So that (I say) although Prophesies which relate to the time of the Jews coming in do primarily look to that people, yet is the case otherwise as to those Prophesies which relate to the times be­twixt their breaking off, and their receiving again.

And although the name Antichrist is appliable all the time of the Jews rejection to none but the Ro­man Antichrist, the only Persecutor of the Gentile Saints; yet this I readily grant, if we speak of the time after the Jews come in, that the name Anti­christ shall be as well, and as properly appliable at that time to the Turk, as to the Romish Antichrist (which consideration affords answer as to all those agreements (some make) betwixt Pope and Turk) and this seems to me to be the great [Page 71]and only thing intended, Dan. 11. vers. 40. to the end, which place I shall a little open, chiefly to let light into that Prophesie, which (in my appre­hension) is generally mistaken.

The great knot of that Prophesie, is, Whom we are to understand by the King of the North, and who by the King of the South. Now for the untying hereof, we are to consider, that these titles the King of the North, and the King of the South, are not appliable to two parties or people only, but to divers parties and people; For this Chapter carries us through the second, third, and fourth Monarchies, and takes in the beginning of the fifth; so that here is very frequently a change of persons, though the old names are still retained, King of the North, and King of the South.

Now the reason of the names, in understanding which lyes the chief mystery, and the very Key of the Prophesie, is taken from the situation of parties, that party in every change, contest, skir­mish here mentioned, whose situation was more Northerly, goes ever under the title of the King of the North; that party whose situation was more Southerly, under the title of the King of the South.

So in the very first contest, where these names are used, which was betwixt Alexanders two chief Captains after his death, and the division of the Grecian Monarchy: the Race of the Lagidae, so called from Ptolomeus the son of Lagus, the first of that Race, is called the King of the South, vers. 5. because their situation was in Egypt and Africa, which lay more towards the South. The [Page 72]Race of the Seleucidae, so called from Seleucus Ni­canor, the first of them, are called the King of the North, vers. 6, 7. because they were situated in Assyria, Babylon, and other parts of Assa, which did border somewhat more upon the North, then the other.

So in the next contest which begins with the beginning of the Roman Monarchy, the parts first assaulted and invaded by the Romans when they were reaching after the Monarchy, as Macedon, Egypt, Judea, &c. are called the King of the South, vers. 14. because these Countries were situated Southward from Italy and Rome, and the Romans invading are called King of the North, vers. 15. because of their Northern situation.

And here by the way, give me leave to ob­serve what a notable mark the Holy Ghost hath left us in this close transition from the Grecian Monarchy to the Roman, to give us light where in this Prophesie we are to begin the Roman Mo­narchy, which otherwise, considering how things all along hang as it were in a chain, were a thing most difficult to find; vers. 14. And in those dayes many shall stand up against the King of the South, which is a most proper description of the Roman Monarchy in its first rise, and seems to point them out from all the people in the world; for it is observable of them that at the time they were growing into a Monarchy, they were governed by a Senate, consisting of many persons, which many also, to shew us that they are to be understood of such a many as do yet make up but one Representative bony, are [Page 73]therefore in the next Verse called the King of the North. The words in the close of the fourteenth Verse, They shall fall, which may seem to make this Exposition doubtfull, do not relate to the many standing up against the King of the South in the beginning of the Verse, but to the robbers of thy people in the end, which are not the Ro­mans, but another people opposing the Romans in the beginning of their Monarchy, and falling be­fore them.

So likewise in the controversie afterwards be­twixt the vile Person Antichrist, and the Turks and Saracens, which began about the year one thousand ninety six, the Turks upon whom the vile person makes War, are called the King of the South, vers. 25. because their situation lay Sou­therly from Rome; and Antichrist is King of the North, because his Seat was situated most Nor­therly.

This Light gained, sets open a window to that which follows, from verse forty to the end of the Chapter. For the better understanding whereof let it be noted, That these six last verses do set forth the very last part of that Tragedy that now for a long time together had been acting upon the Stage of the World; and they are not (as is most generally thought) a repetition of things before delivered, but indeed a continuation of the Prophecy, and that from that very point of time where Antichrists Tyranny, which is the thing described in the fore-going verses, ends. The description of Antichrists rage in the fore-going verses brings us down to the very end of the forty two moneths, the one thousand two [Page 74]hundred and sixty days, now with the end of that time begins this Prophecy, which carries things on, but with a special respect to the Jews untill Christs coming.

Hence the time is particularly noted to be the time of the end, vers. 40. At the time of the end shall the King of the South push at him; and in this sence, viz. for the very concluding time, and shutting up of the things here fore-told, is this phrase used throughout this Prophecy, vers. 27. The end shall be at the time appointed, vers. 35. even to the time of the end, because it is yet for a time ap­pointed, ch. 12. v. 4. Seal the Book even to the time of the end, vers. 6. How long shall it be to the end of these Wonders? vers. 8. What shall be the end of these things? So vers. 9, 13. all verifying our sense.

Now we are here to remember what I have proved in my Key, That the one thousand two hundred and ninety days (the time of the Jews first stirring) concur in their end with the forty two months, the one thousand two hundred and six­ty days. This noted, things lie thus. The fore­going verses brings us down to the end of the for­ty two months, with which time ending, ends likewise the one thousand two hundred and nine­ty days. Now do the Jews stir, and get their own Land, which Land of theirs, because it lies Southward from Rome, the Seat of the Beast, and Constantinople likewise the Seat of the Turk, the new-stirring Jews in opposition to these take this name, King of the South. The Jews, this new King of the South, being gotten into their Land, push at the Turk and Pope both; at the one upon [Page 75]a Civil account; at the other upon a Christian, or at leastwise as favourers of the Gentile Saints. This makes Pope and Turk (though sometimes before they had been quarrelling with each other, not herein serving any design of Christ so much as their own Lusts; for though they quarrelled, yet it is said of them, vers. 27. That both their hearts were set to doe mischief) now at last gaspe to joyn hands; and as Herod and Pilate, the one a coun­terfeit Jew, the other a professed Heathen, dead­ly enemies to each other before, became friends in opposing Christ; so shall Antichrist and the Turk, the one a counterfeit Christian, the other an open Pagan, who till this day lived by one a­nother as enemies, be now reconciled and made friends, yea become one in opposing Christs Cause, in doing which they shall fall together. This combination of these two grand Enemies as chief, goes under the name of the King of the North, because either of them (as I have said) are Northerly situated from Jerusalem. These combined shall come with great fury into the Land of Judea, and the Countries adjacent, as Aegypt and Aethiopia, who shall at this day fa­vour the Jews, Isa. 19.23, 24, 25. Here shall be­gin the Jews black and terrible day of trouble; for this raging King of the North, filled with out­rage to see a new Enemy risen up against him, and the more because of tidings he hears from the East and the North, vers. 44. which tidings in likelihood is news brought to him of those Gentile Saints (who having been instruments of setting the Jews at first in their own Land, and upon [Page 76]that, having done their work, being returned home) now hearing this, march up again from the Northern parts to assist the Iews, and toge­ther therewith also tidings of other Iews coming up to their Land from the Eastern Countries. This news sets him in a great rage, and to the end that he may dispatch one party first, before the other can get up, he marcheth with wonderful fury, resolving to destroy all, into Iudea, and up to Ie­rusalem, pitching his Tents in the holy Moun­tain, i. e. laying close siege to Ierusalem, as Ioel 3.1, 2, Zach. 12.2, 3. by which the Iews shall be brought into such straits as never was any peo­ple in the world. Now in the day of their greatest straits, when the Enemies rage, and their straits shall be at the highest, shall Michael stand up, i. e. Christ appear, as Chap. 12.1. Zach. 14.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. who instantly upon his appearing pours out the seventh Vial upon all these his enemies, now ga­thering and gathered together, by which they shall come to their end, and none shall help them, verse last.

Thus this last verse brings us to the point of Christs Personal appearance, which more fully is opened in the following Chapter, ver. 1. all that fol­lows afterwards to the end of the twelfth Chapter, is not of things succeeding, but only, first a rehear­sall of the state of the Jews in the time of their first stirring, (the handling whereof, that no inter­ruption might be caused in the Story, is omitted till the discourse was come to an end) which is set forth by a resurrection, ver. 2, 3. the same with E­zekiels resurrection of the dry bones, Chapter 37. [Page 77]And afterwards a revealing to Daniel the time of these things, (viz. their first stirring, and their compleat deliverance by the appearance of Christ;) which is set forth by two mysticall num­bers, of which I have discoursed at large in Gene­ration work, Part 3. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. and in my Key, Thes. 17. Thes. 34.

Thus much by way of answer to the first opi­nion concerning the little Horn, in answering which I have been led into some things a little out of the way, but not unprofitable.

SECT. 3.

THere is likewise another opinion of this little Horn, viz. That this little Horn signifies the late King Charls, as some; or the whole Norman race, as others; of these two, as touching the first, I must confesse, I have wondered with my self, how any should once imagine that the Holy Ghost be­ing now giving Daniel information how things should be agitated in the World from that time untill the time of the end, should at once leap o­ver all the time from the beginning of the Roman Monarchy, which was long before Christ, untill the time of King Charls, the whole amounting to well nigh two thousand years; considering too, that the whole Prophecy of the Revelations in a manner consists upon things to be fulfilled within this time; and it is wonderfull that throughout this time, a time so remarkable for observation as never any before it, the Holy Ghost, when too (as I say) he was in a way of informing Daniel, [Page 78]should shut up all in silence, as if nothing from the time the Roman Monarchy began, were trans­acted or done in the world worthy to bee noted, till King Charls arose.

And as to the second, Though the leap in re­gard of time will be too great to leap from the be­ginning of the Roman Monarchy untill the time of William the Conqueror, as if the Holy Ghost should in this Prophecy leap over the wonderfull revolutions attending Antichrists coming into the World, and all his rage when come in (which are things particularly noted in Daniels other Pro­phecies) and observe nothing till William the Con­queror arose; yet is the mistake greater in limit­ing the Holy Ghost, so much as this opinion doth in regard of place; for it tyes up all done within these last six hundred years to England only; so that although it allow more time then the other, yet is it as strait it in respect of place, both confining Daniels Prophecy of the little Horn, to things done in England only, which no way agrees to the scope of the Prophecy, which is to set forth the state of the whole Roman Monarchy. And why we should not as well restrain the Apocalypticall Visions, as the Visions of Daniel, to England on­ly, I see no reason to the contrary. This I am sure, If Daniels Prophecies run upon things done only in England, in case Johns doe not so too, we cannot make the one Expository of the o­ther.

But to passe these Generals, I shall here lay down some particular Reasons to prove that this opinion, take it in either dresse, will no way [Page 79]agree to the minde of the Holy Ghost in Daniel.

Reas. 1. Because this little Horn after his rise is equivalent to the fourth Beast, or Monarchy, sway­ing the same Scepter, having the same Seat, or Civil Power; (which cannot agree to the late King Charls, or the Norman Race) as is clear.

1 Because for this Reason is the Fourth Mo­narchy it self, called by the name of the little Horn, Dan. 8.9.

2 Because the fatall destruction of the fourth Beast, or Monarchy, is for the blasphemies of the little Horn, Dan. 7.11. an Argument the little Horns power did extend it self to the whole Mo­narchy, having a special influence upon the whole, both to cause it to sin, and to bring the Wrath of God upon it.

3 Because the feet and toes of the great Image, chap. 2. (the same with the little Horn) are not a particular Nation, but the fourth Kingdome or Monarchy, Dan. 2. the forty and forty one verses compared.

Reas. 2 Because the Prophecy of this little Horn being the same with the Brophecy of the vile Person, chap. 11. Let it be nakedly considered, whether the whole story of King Charls his Life, or of the whole Norman Race will, or doth afford mat­ter fit for a Comment upon Chapter 11. ver. 24 to 32.

Reas. 3 Because this opinion doth not agree to the Characters of Daniels little Horn, in any of Daniels four Prophecies.

1 For the Prophecy of the Great Image, the feet [Page 80]and toes of that Image (the same with the little Horn) denote such a power as consists principal­ly of ten Parts, set forth by the ten toes. This cannot be said of the Norman power, take it ei­ther as in the last King, or any of his Prede­cessors.

2 For the Prophecy, Chap. 8. its said of the Tyrannical King, That his power should be migh­ty, but this power none of his own; that he should destroy wonderfully, i. e. above all that ever were before him, vers. 24. That he should stand up also against the Prince of Princes, i. e. Christ Perso: nally appearing; That he should be broken without hand, vers. 25.

Now apply these to King Charls that was, or the Norman Race in generall, and see how un­suitable they are.

1 What power did he or they (I mean consi­der them as they were Kings) exercise, and be­come mighty thereby, which was none of their own?

2 How did he or they, destroy wonderfully a­bove all before them? If we take it for a destructi­on of Nations, were not others before, as Nebu­chadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander the Great, the Romans after them, farre greater destroyers of Nations than ever any of the Norman Race? but take it for a destruction of Saints, because that the following words import, He shall destroy the mighty and the holy people; and consider, whether the Pagan Emperours of Rome in the first three hundred years, and Antichrist since, who each of them have put Millions of Saints to [Page 81]death, were not greater destroyers of Saints, then the Norman Race.

3 Did ever the Norman Race oppose Christ Personally appearing? but so shall this little Horn in the end; for after all his opposition to the holy people, he stands up with an also against the the Prince of Princes.

4 Can it be said of the Norman Race their breaking was without hand, who were plucked up by the roots by a Civil power?

As for the rest of the Characters, which also belong to this little Horn, vers. 10.11, 12. Let it be considered, whether they do in a more eminent manner (for that must be said, or nothing) agree to King Charles, or the Norman Race in general, then to any other person, state, or power that ever was in the world since Daniels time.

3 For the Prophesie Chap. 11. It is said of the vile person, vers. 21. he shall come in peaceably, so did not William the Conqueror. Obtain the King­dome by flatteries, so did not Charles Stuart, who had it by succession.

Vers. 33. That Saints under him shall fall by sword, by flame, captivity, and spoyl many dayes; but in Scripture-phrase King Charles continuance cannot be called many daies, no nor the continunance of the Norman Race; for 600. years is but a short time, and not many dayes, in the account of Scripture.

Its said of him, v. 36. That he shall exalt himself and magnifie himself above every god, which is the express character of the man of sin, 2 Thes. 2.4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God. That he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished, [Page 82]which Chap. 8.19. is called the last end of indigna­tion, i.e. he shall persist in his pride and blasphe­mies till the pouring forth of the last Vial, for that is properly the last end of indignation, which An­tichrist shall do, but the Norman Race is plucked up by the roots already.

Furthermore its said of the vile person, vers. 37. That he shall not regard the desire of women, which agreeth exactly to Antichrist, who pro­fesseth and voweth chastity, forbiddeth and vili­fieth Mariage. But if things recorded be true, and in this we have little cause to be suspicious, this Character will agree to few of the Norman Race.

Again its said of him, that he shall ho­nour a God whom his Fathers knew not, vers. 38. called therefore a strange God, vers. 39. which most punctually is fulfilled in the Grand Popish Idol the Masse, an Idol never heard of in the world till Antichrist devised it, and set it up. But let it be shewn what strange God, unknown to his or their Fathers, did King Charles or any of his Predecessors set up, and worship?

4 For the Prophesie it self, Chap. 7. It is said of this little Horn, vers. 20. That his look was more stout then his fellows, i.e. more dreadful, a­mazing to those that beheld him, then the look of any of the other Horns. But now let it be im­partially considered, whether the look of King Charles that was, or his Predecessors in the Nor­man Race, were ever more dreadful and terrible to the Saints, or in particular to the Saints under their power, then the look of any of the other [Page 83]Horns! I do beleeve, yea know Histories will make the contrary appear.

To all the rest I may adde, as none of the least, the Argument urged in my Key, Thesi 39.

The head of all the Arguments brought for this opinion, take it in its first or second dress, are cut off at one blow, or with saying one word, viz. That as what is spoken of Tyrants in general, may in most things agree to every particular Tyrant; what is spoken of the whole body, in many things to every part; so what is here by Daniel spoken of Anti­christ, the Grand Tyrant, and the whole body, may in many things very fitly agree to the Nor­man Race in general, or King Charles that was in particular, they being Tyrants, and also a part of this body; yet doth it not therefore follow that the one or the other are here solely intended.

The Conclusion is, That Daniels little Horn is neither the Norman Race in general, nor King Charles in particular; But is indeed the Romish An­tichrist, to whom (had I leasure, or opportunity here to undertake the work) I doubt not through the Lords assistance, but to make it appear, that there is not a title in any of the Prophesies of Daniel, but will naturally, without forcing the Text agree, which wil not to any other opinion what soever.

SECT. 4.

But it will be said, how will we solve the Grand Objection we started at first, viz. That Daniel saw the rise of this little Horn, after the rise of the other Horns?

Ans. My answer is this, viz. That the ten Horns Daniel speaks of, among which, or after which came up the little Horn, are not the ten Horns of the Beast Antichrist, but of the Beast the fourth Monarchy. Now Antichrists Kingdome, and the fourth Monarchy differ as the part, and the whole; Antichrists Kingdome being not the fourth Monarchy, but a part or limb thereof only.

That the fourth Beast in Daniel, is not Anti­christs Kingdome, but the fourth Monarchy in general, is clear;

1 Because the fourth Beast succeeds streight­way in the room of the other three Beasts, i.e. takes the place of the three former Monarchies, so soon as the third Monarchy was dissolved. But this did not Antichrists Kingdome, whose rise was not till some hundreds of years after the dissolu­tion of the third Monarchy; yet it excellently agrees to the Roman Monarchy in general.

2 Because Daniels fourth Beast is exceeding terrible, breaks in peeces, and stamps all the other Beasts, Dan. 7.7. which thing will not agree to Antichrists Kingdome, but to the Roman Mo­narchy in general.

3 Because the fourth Beast in Daniel is diverse from all the Beasts before it, Dan. 7.3, 7. but now the description of the Beast Antichrist, Rev. 13.2. argues him to be in some things like them all; For first he is like a Leopard; And the Beast which I saw was like unto a Leopard, which is the similitude of Daniels third Beast, or the Grecian Monarchy, Dan. 7.6. Secondly, He hath feet as the feet of a Bear, And his feet were as the feet of a Bear, which is the similitude of Daniels second [Page 85]Beast, or the Persian Monarchy, vers. 5. Thirdly, His mouth is as the mouth of a Lyon, which resembles Daniels first Beast, or the Babylonian Monarchy; so that Antichrist hath the similitude of all the former Beasts; but Daniels fourth Beast is diverse from them all.

4 Because there should be no distinction be­twixt the fourth Beast, and the little Horn, in case the fourth Beast be to be understood of Anti­christs Kingdome; for that is the thing set forth by the little Horn.

5 Because the rise of Daniels fourth Beast is clearly and plainly noted to be before the rise of Antichrists Kingdome; for the rise of Anti­christs Kingdome begun in the rise of the little Horn; but the fourth Beast with all his Horns, was risen before that; how else is the little Horn said to rise among, and after the other Horns? I conclude therefore that Daniels fourth Beast is the Roman Monarchy in general, as Johns Beast, Rev. 13.1, 2. is the same only as under Antichrist.

Now this being so, it is to be noted, that the Roman Monarchy from its beginning, take it ei­ther as it was in its pure Civil state, or as it now is in its mixt Antichristian state, had ever ten Horns. As it was a pure Civil state, so was it exactly di­vided into ten parts in the dayes of Augustus Cesar, as Strabo witnesseth. And for this reason, the Dragon, which represents the old Empire, hath as well ten Horns, Rev. 12.3. as the Beast, Chap. 13.1. yet with this difference, the ten Horns of the Roman Monarchy in its first state had no Crown i.e. the Kingdomes subjected to [Page 86]the Roman Empire, whilst it remained a pure Civil state, had not Legislative power within them­selves, but rather were kept in the nature of Pro­vinces, over whom the Roman state did set titular Kings (as Herod in Christs time was the titular King of Judea, and for this reason, because so in title, they are called Kings, Dan. 7.24.) but yet did still reserve to it self the power of making and giving laws; as in Christs time, besides Herod the titular King, there was Pilate the Roman Gover­nour set over the Land to execute Laws, which Laws executed were only the Laws of Rome; and hence Christ is said to be crucified in Rome, be­cause he suffered by the Law and Power of Rome, Rev. 11.8.

And also it is for this reason, that the Dragon representing the old Empire is said to have his Crowns, not upon his Horns as the Beast, Chap. 13.1. but upon his seven Heads; that is, the Le­gislative power all the time of the old Empire is continued at Rome, built upon seven Mountains, which are these seven Heads, Rev. 17.9. Yea far­ther, it is for this reason, that John speaking of the ten Kings, as having a being even then when he wrote, saith, Chap. 17.12. that as yet they had received no Kingdome, but were afterwards to receive power as Kings, namely with the Beast, i.e. though all the ten Horns were then in being, yet were they then onely titular Kings, who had no power of making or giving Laws, this power as yet abiding upon the Heads, i.e. at Rome it self. But now the Horns of the Beast Antichrist, i.e. the Roman Monarchy as under Antichrist, have [Page 87]Crowns upon them, i.e. that Legislative power which was before upon the Heads, is now transla­ted to the Horns; every particular Kingdome, which before were but as Provinces, governed by no other Laws but such as came from Rome, hath now a power within it self to rule, and to make Laws; therefore saith John, Rev. 17.12. the ten Horns receive power as Kings with the Beast, that is, when the Roman Monarchy which then was in the hands of Emperors, and the whole governed by the Laws of Rome, shall fall in the hands of the Beast, then shall those several Kings which before were titular, only receive Kingly power, or power as Kings to make and give Laws within their own Dominions, without receiving their Laws from any foreign place or power.

Now consider the ten Horns in the first respect as they are the Horns of the Roman Empire in ge­neral (which is clearly Daniels sense, the ten Horns he speaks of being the Horns of the fourth Beast, i.e. the Empire in general; for saith he, vers. 7. It (that is the fourth Beast) had ten Horns) and it is most clear the rise of Antichrist, the little Horn, was among and after these Horns. And therefore observe the words narrowly, it is said, that at the time of the little Horns rise, three of the first are plucked up by the roots, vers. 8. what is the meaning? why this; the Roman Monarchy in either state (as I have said) had ten Horns; now upon the little Horns rise, three of the first, i.e. three of the Horns of the Roman Monarchy as con­sidered in its first state were plucked up. And hence vers. 24. The little Horn is said to be diverse from [Page 88]the first, that is, from all the Horns of this Monar­chy in its first state; For of the Horns of the Monar­chy in its second state, how is the little Horn di­verse, when as the ten Horns in this state are but a part of this little Horn, i.e. of the Roman Mo­narchy as governed by Antichrist?

And thus to understand it, unties that great knot, vers. 8. of three Horns being plucked up by the roots before the little Horn at the time of this rise: for taking three to signifie not strictly three, but divers or many (three being used because a num­ber of perfection) and how clear is it from all Hi­stories that upon the invasion made by the Goths and Vandals, with which the Beast rose, as before a considerable part of those Provinces, which were before subjected to the Roman Empire, and ruled by its Laws, were now broken off, and grew up into particular Kingdomes ruled by Laws of their own, and so by degrees the whole Legislative power crept off from the seventh and last Head to the Horns?

And thus interpreted, this place in Daniel doth excellently point out the time of the Beasts rise; and I take it, that it is left us by the holy Ghost as a divine Character to guide us where we should end the first state of the Roman Monarchy, and be­gin its second; where we should put a period to the Roman Monarchy, as a pure Civil state, and begin it as an Antichristian; namely with the time when a remarkable breach or rupture should be made among the first ten horns, or the ten horns of the Monarchy, as in its first state; with this time, and among the horns thus broken should the [Page 89]little Horn creep up, i.e. from thence should the translation of the Monarchy be, or from thence should Antichrists Kingdom begin; so that in­deed these words are so farre from weakning what we have asserted, that they are a strong confirma­tion of our beginning, that wee have stated it a­right, in stating the rise of the Beast, Antichrist, to be with the time of the invasion of the Goths and Vandals.

Thus notwithstanding the Objection, our Ar­gument stands firm, viz. That the rise of the An­tichristian Beast is a little before the rise of his Horns; and therefore his Horns rising suddenly after the be­ginning of the one thousand two hundred and sixty days, the forty two months, the rise of the Beast him­self is stated rightly with the year three hundred ninety six.

SECT. 5.

To the Arguments already laid down, I shall adde an Argument or two more.

Arg. 1. The aforesaid ending of the one thousand two hundred and sixty days agrees most fitly to the time of killing the Witnesses; The time of the Wit­nesses killing (which is to be reckoned the last three days & a half of the one thousand two hun­dred and sixty, as see Generation Work, Part 3. Chap. 1. Sect. 4.) falls under the third Vial, and a little before the first stirring of the Jews (as is al­so there proved, Sect. 5. in the first and third con­clusions) now as the third Vial is the Vial wee at present stand under, as my discourse upon that [Page 90]Vial manifests; so the first stirring of the Iews fals to be in the year one thousand six hundred fifty six, as is proved, Key, Thesi. 20, therefore it a­grees well to the one and the other, to end the one thousand two hundred and sixty days with the year one thousand six hundred fifty six.

Arg. 2. Taken from the visibility of those very things at this day, which the Scripture hath fore-told us shall occur within the last three days and a half of the one thousand two hundred and sixty.

To give some instances.

First, The Scripture fore-tels, that within this time the Witnesses shall lie dead; Their death shall be civil, and Spiritual; Civil in being stripped of Religion, and Liberty; Spiritual, in subjecting themselves (through a spirit of cowardize upon them) to this Tyranny of the Beast, rather then to run the hazard of life in opposing him. The place of their lying dead shall be Germany; the one to be their death, the other the place, I have pro­ved, Generation Work, Part 3. Chap. 1. Sect. 7, 8. whether (considering the thing, time, and place) have we not more then a little ground to conje­cture, that the present day is the day of the Wit­nesses killing? and if so, then considering that this time is the last three days and a half of the one thousand two hundred and sixty, doth it not speak that the year we have stated as the end of the one thousand two hundred and sixty is the right, viz. Anno Dom. one thousand six hundred fifty six.

Secondly, The Scripture fore-tels, That with­in the last three days and a half of the one thousand [Page 91]two hundred and sixty, A war shall bee attempted; First, by the invisible Dragon, then by the visible, (of which read Generation Work, Part 3. Chap. 2. Sect. last) against a remnant of the Womans Seed, that shall stand up for Christ in the World, within the day that their Brethren the Witnesses lie dead, which shal be known by these two Chara­cters; 1. They shall walk in Gospel institutions. 2. Have amongst them a Spirit of Prophecy. Now whether the beginnings of the first War, and pro­babilities of the second, be not at this day more visible upon a people, having the aforesaid Cha­racters then ever heretofore, I propound as a Quaere?

Thirdly, The Scripture fore-tels that there shall be within this time a people in the World that shall favour the Witnesses, and withall be so potent as to awe the Beast (of whom mention is made, Ge­nerat. Work, Part 3. Chap. 1. Sect. 9.) Who yet setling themselves upon a worldly interest as their highest ayme, shall neither openly declare for the Wit­nesses Cause, nor against the Beast; These are cal­led, They of the People, and Nations, and Kin­dreds, and Tongues, Revel. 11.9. which cannot be interpreted the Popish party, though Rev. 17.15. they are so described, because in this place they are distinguished from the Popish party, which in the following verse are set forth by another name, viz. The dwellers on the earth. Whether or no such a people be not now to be found, I also put the question?

Fourthly, The Scripture fore-tels, That with­in this time there shall be a great League and combi­nation [Page 92]of Nations (the Beast now gathering toge­ther his Powers to defend himself, the time being come that his Dominion is to be taken away; as the Fourth Monarchy afterwards, at the end of the one thousand three hundred thirty five dayes, (when it is to go to ruine) gathers together all its power to that dreadful Battle of Armageddon to uphold it self.) Whether a Work like this be not now on foot likewise, I propound as another Quaere?

Fifthly, The Scripture fore-tels, That within this time there shall be in the World a wonderfull triumph over the dead and suppressed Witnesses, as supposing they and their Cause likewise to be now dead and sunk for ever, Revel. 11.10. Chap. 18.7. Whether doth the present time afford nothing that hath a look like this? If all these things bee found true at this day, have they not in them the weight of an Argument to prove, That wee are upon the very ending time of the one thousand two hundred and sixty days?

Arg. 3. The forty two months, the one thousand two hundred and sixty days may not be begun either higher of lower; therefore they must bee begun with the aforesaid year. That they may not bee begun any time higher, is clear, because from such be­ginnings the time is expired; but this cannot be, because the Witnesses to this very day (my opi­nion is throughout all Europe, but all must con­fesse in most places, as Germany, France, &c.) do yet wear their Sackcloth; the Woman as to this day abides in the Wilderness, the Beast as to this day, (I really think in all the ten Horns, but as to the [Page 93]greater part of them it is undeniable) doth yet continue to rage against the Saints, by persecuting them under the Notion of Hereticks, or Schisma­ticks, or Enemies to Civil Government (because they cannot but declare, That the day is come, in which God will destroy, as well his Monarchical Power, as his Spiritual, and Ecclesiastical) to tread under foot the holy City, by establishing Pow­ers not of Christ, but his own creating, to bee Lords over Gods heritage; to blaspheme God, by blaspheming (as did the wicked Pharisees) those very Works and Truths of God, counting them Erroneous, Diabolical, which yet take him at some times, when he is in his best mood, hee is convinced in his Conscience are of God; yea and fears (maugre all his opposition) that these things will prove his undoing, to tyrannize over the Na­tions, by continuing those unrighteous Laws, Customs, &c. which were at first imposed by the Beast, that by these he might like an imperious Whore sit domineering upon the waters, Revel. 17.1.15. that is, bee a Tyrant over the People. Now I say, considering that all these things are in being unto this very day (yea and that in all the ten Horns, to him that hath but half an eye to see) it cannot be that the forty two months, the one thousand two hundred and sixty days, (which are the limited time of the Witnesses wearing Sackcloth, the Womans being in the Wilderness, the Beasts rage against the Saints, treading under foot the Holy City, his blaspheming God, and his Truth, his Tyranny over the Nations) should be begun higher, then our aforesaid beginning, [Page 94]for then should we see a perfect end of those things (in part, i.e.) in some of the ten Horns at least, which yet wee see to have being and exist, yea to be maintained in every one of them; I there­fore conclude, That the forty two months, the one thousand two hundred and sixty days, cannot be begun higher then the year I have stated.

That they cannot be begun lower, is clear and manifest, because it is a monstrous absurdity to say, That all the Beasts Horns should spring up, before yet the Beast was brought forth; but (as I have proved at large in the fore-going discourse) all the Horns were come forth, but a few years lower then the stated year; therefore must the time of the Beasts rise (who naturally hath being before his Horns) be, as I have stated it, and can­not without that grosse absurdity of placing the Beast after his Horns, bee placed lower. Again, All that begin lower, do not begin from the time of Antichrists Infancy, or from the time of his first rise; (which none can or do deny, but it was as early as we have stated it; the testimonies of all the Ancients being so full, as touching the won­derful defection that was in the Church about that time;) but rather they begin from the time of his growth, either his full growth, his perfect matu­rity, or his growth in part only; but now this be­ginning is expresly against the Prophecy of the Beast, which points us to the time of the Beasts first rise, as the time whence we are to reckon his forty two months.

This we may see, Revel. 13. in vers. 5. It is said, Power was given to him to continue forty two months. [Page 95]Whence are we to reckon these forty two months? Ans. From the day he first received his power and authority from the Dragon, vers. 2. The Dragon gave him his Power, and his Seat, and great An­thority. And when was that? Ans. At the time of his first rise, vers. 1. I saw a Beast rise up out of the Sea, having seven Heads, and ten Horns, and the Dragon gave him his power, &c. Farther, Let it be considered, that the second Beast, or the Ec­clesiastical state of Antichrist is set forth under a three-fold representation in the Book of the Reve­lation, suitable to his three-fold State, viz. of In­fancy, Maturity, Old Age.

1 In his Infant state, He is a poor despicable Beast, creeping out of the earth, but not able as yet to make the Nations crouch to him, and therefore he borrows the power of the first Beast, i.e. of the Civil Magistrate, thereby to carry on his own designs, Rev. 13.11, 12.

2 In his Mature state the Beast sits as a rich proud imperious Whore upon the Nations, Revel. 17.1. compared with 15. and rides upon the back of the first Beast, or the Magistraticall power of Nations, ver. 3. ruling them, and the Nations under them, making them do even what this Beast lists.

3 In his declining state, or Old Age, hee is a false Prophet, i.e. hee counterfeits abundance of Holiness, more then indeed he hath, or ever be­fore professed; the reason where of I take to be; the first Beast through his long riding and galling of him, now begins to kick, and will by no means endure his Rider any longer; the Nations begin [Page 96]to see, that this Beast is not indeed (as they have been all along held in hand, and made beleeve) the Woman, the true Church, but a very Strum­pet, that by Whoring and Juggling hath in all Ages made her self rich, persecuted the Saints, enslaved them; this makes the Nations begin to spurn likewise at this Beast. This Beast now fear­ing a downfall, and knowing full well that if there be not some way found out to keep up his esteem with the first Beast, and the Nations, he is undone; he Proteus-like (for indeed he is a Mon­ster, never heard of in the world till Antichrists Kingdom began) changeth shapes, and as at first of a poor ragged Beast became (opportunity ser­ving him) a proud Whore; so now the Beast when he can be a ruling, commanding Whore no longer, transforms himself into a false Prophet, pretending abundance of Holinesse, that hereby he may keep up that esteem still with the first Beast, and the Nations, which once he had, but hath wel-nigh lost, through his domineering pride and imperiousness. This is the true state of the second Beast (or of Antichrist, as considered in his Ecclesiastical state) throughout the Book of the Revelations. And of this I have more fully treated, in my discourse upon the Vials, p. 101. to the 112. Now observe those who begin the Kingdom of Antichrist from the time of Anti­christs growth, or maturity, leave out the first state of the second Beast, and begin their account with his second; which certainly we must not do, but must carry our beginning so high, as to take in all the three, as the Holy Ghost hath laid them [Page 97]down; I therefore conclude, that wee may not begin lower then the aforesaid year, three hundred ninety six.

Seeing therefore that we may not begin either higher or lower, it necessarily follows that wee must begin with the year we have fixed upon, viz. three hundred ninety six; to which number ad­ding one thousand two hundred and sixty, the whole makes up one thousand six hundred fifty six.

The result of my whole discourse in this Second Part is, That the utmost period of the Beasts conti­nuance, the treading under foot the Holy City, the Womans being in the Wilderness, the Witnesses Pro­phecying in Sackcloth, all which things are concur­rent, will in greatest probability be, Anno Dom. one thousand six hundred fifty six.

Thus Iohns one thousand two hundred and six­ty days expire in the same year with Daniels one thousand two hundred and ninety. Thus likewise in that very year in which from the Creation the Flood came upon the corrupted old World, in that very year from our Redemption, cometh the flood of Gods wrath upon the Idolatrous An­tichristian world.

SECT. 1.

The common-road opinion, is, that the little Horn mentioned in this eight of Daniel is to be under­stood of Antiochus Epiphanes; the two thousand and three hundred days to be natural dayes, a day con­sisting of four and twenty hours: so the whole ma­king up six years, three months, and twenty dayes, which the Authors & Favourers of this opinion ap­ply to the time of Antiochus rage against the Jews.

Now in order to our answer hereunto, let us premise, That the Feet and Toes of the Great Image, Chap. 2. The little Horn, Chap. 7. The vile person, Chap. 11. who is described from vers. 21. to vers. 40. and the little Horn in his second state, or second waxing great, in this eighth Chap­ter, are one and the same, the very same state or person (if a particular person be here meant) is signified by all these.

And this needs no proof, because the common opinion hath granted it, by making application [Page 100]of all that the Holy Ghost hath spoken, as touch­ing either of these, to that horrible Monster An­tiochus Epiphanes; thereby plainly confessing that one and the same thing is signified in the aforesaid parts of each Prophesie.

This premised, let us examine what truth there is in this principle so much hugged and contended for by many, as the onely door of light into Daniel.

And although more can hardly be said in an­swer hereunto then what hath been already by some worthy men of later times, who have op­posed themselves to this opinion, as Mr. Archer in his Personal Reign, The Author of Clavis Apocalyptica ad incudem revocata, but above all, the learned Parker in his Daniels Visions and Pro­phesies expounded; yet because in principles that men are wedded too (as ordinarily they are to all, be they right or wrong, that have but a crowd of learned men to Patronize them) they had rather (to use the Popish Proverb) beleeve as the Church beleeves, then look out for an Author that is con­trary to their mind. I think it worth my pains in opposition to this opinion, to present here (though I shall but multiply whilst I so do things already published) some of those Arguments that are and may be brought against it; not doubting but that those who sincerely love truth, will see reason enough to be of my mind; as for others, who fol­lowing the genius of this age, which is to be sick, sullen, and humorsome, when any truth crosseth those principles they have received by tradition from their Fore-fathers, have a principle or a [Page 101]will (I know not which I may call it) that they will not see any thing but with the eyes of their Fore-fathers, or the multitude of the learned Do­ctors of the time, let Scripture or right reason speak ever so clear or punctual; I leave such to the judgement of being yet farther blinded.

But to come to the opinion it self, the Question is, Whether doth this Prophesie, Chap. 8. run upon Antiochus Epiphanes or no? This resolved, it will be easily determined whether the dayes are Na­tural or Prophetical.

To this I answer, That Antiochus Epiphanes, notwithstanding Commentators have fearfully and shamefully stretched the Text, Reason, and the very sinews of the ancient Histories to gather up something that might colourably make the whole to agree to him, cannot be the person here meant, unlesse we look upon him as a common Tyrant and Persecutor, and so I deny not but that many things spoken of Antichrist that Grand Ty­rant and Persecutor of the Saints, may very fitly be applied to him. Yea I think withall that there might be a special design of God in it, that many of the things here mentioned should be fairly ap­pliable to him and others, that so thereby doors of mistake might be left open, and by it the Prophesie kept sealed (which otherwise in an ordinary way could not have been) untill the appointed time. And the same design seems to me to run also through the Book of the Revelations, in opening which it is very easie to mistake, if every thing which hath a plausible look, and fair colour out­wardly, may presently be taken up as an Inter­pretation.

But to passe this, and come to the thing, That this Prophesie (as holds the common opinion) should terminate in Antiochus Epiphanes, and so have its fulfilling before the first coming of Christ, cannot be.

My Reason is, Because it will not agree to the mind of the Holy Ghost in any one of Daniels four Prophesier before mentioned.

First, To begin with that of the Great Image. Chap. 2. This opinion doth no way correspond with the truth of that Prophesie.

1 Because that Prophesie runs down into the lat­ter dayes (or the end of dayes, as our new Anno­tationists upon the Bible render it) vers. 28. But there is a God in Heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the King Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter dayes. But this cannot be, should the whole have its accomplishment two hundred years before Christs birth, as this opinion doth, and must necessarily maintain; for Antio­chus Epiphanes whose Kingdome they will have to belong to the Feet and Toes (which are the ex­treme and utmost parts of the Image, and there­fore the close of the Prophesie) reigned two hundred years before the birth of Christ.

2 Because the Iron legs are called the fourth Kingdome or Monarchy, vers. 40. And the fourth Kingdome shall be strong as Iron; but this opinion which applies the legs and feet to the Race of the Seleucidae, and Antiochus Epiphanes one of that Race, makes the Iron legs and feet a part of the third Kingdome or Monarchy; for the house of the Seleucidae and Antiochus Epiphanes, are [Page 103]by Chronologers generally reckoned as a part of the third or Grecian Monarchy.

3 Because the fourth Kingdome is that which breaks in peeces all the foregoing Kingdomes and Monarchies, i.e. it subdues to it self whatsoever was before subject to any of the other Monar­chies, vers. 40. for as much as Iron breaketh in peeces and subdueth all things, and as Iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in peeces and bruise.

This also appears from vers. 35. because the stone that smites, upon its smiting, breaks the Brasse, the Silver, the Gold, as well as the Iron and Clay, though yet it smites no other but the feet of Iron and Clay, which shews that whatso­ever was in the three first parts of Gold, Silver, Brasse, was now by succession come to the Iron and Clay, which smitten, the whole is broken. But this was never done by the Seleucidae in ge­neral, nor Antiochus Epiphanes in special, there­fore cannot relate to him or them, but had a punctual fulfilling in the Roman Monarchy, which succeeded the Grecian, and swallowed up whatsoever the foregoing Monarchies pos­sessed.

4 Because in the dayes of these Kings the God of Heaven sets up his own Kingdome, vers. 44. But this Kingdome (according to the principle of those who are our Opponents, who begin it not till Christs Birth) was not set up in the dayes of the Seleucidae, nor of Antiochus Epiphanes; for the whole Kingdome of the Seleucidae, yea the whole Greek Empire (lower then which this [Page 104]opinion looks not) was utterly dissolved many years before Christs Birth.

5 Because it is Christs Kingdome, represented by the Stone, which by smiting breaks in peeces that Kingdome, which by the Feet and Toes of the Great Image is set forth, vers. 34. Thou sawest till that a Stone was cut out without hands, which smote the Image upon his feet that were of Iron and Clay, and brake them to peeces; But it was not Christs Kingdome, but the Pagan power of the Roman Empire that destroyed and brake in pee­ces the Kingdome of the Seleucidae, of which An­tiochus Epiphanes was a limb; therefore cannot the Seleucidae or Antiochus Epiphanes be understood by the Feet and Toes of the Great Image.

6 Because the stone that smiting the Great Image breaks it to peeces, cannot be Christs spiritual Kingdome, set up upon his first coming, which this opinion as it doth say, so must it, or say no­thing.

1 Because this Kingdome take its rise where the Feet and Toes are smitten; but Christs spiri­tual Kingdome did not rise till many years after the Feet and Toes, in the sense of the Patrons of this opinion, were wholly dissolved, and in being no longer.

2 Because this Kingdome cannot become a mountain filling the whole earth so long as the Great Image, i.e. Worldly powers stand, which is clear, because upon the totall dissolution of the Great Image, it becomes a Mountain, and not before, vers. 34, 35. But now Christs spiritual Kingdome may be a Mountain filling the earth [Page 105]in a spiritual sense, though the Great Image be not broken in peeces, i.e. though worldly powers are standing.

3 Because such a Kingdome is signified by the Stone as was represented by the Great Image; for the Kingdome of the Stone takes the place of the Great Image upon its dissolution. But the King­dome or Kingdomes signified by the Great Image were not spiritual, but outward; therefore such must be the Kingdome of the Stone.

4 Because such a Kingdome is here meant as must answer to Daniels scope in his answer to the Kings Dream. But if this Kingdome were spiri­tual only, then Daniel had missed the soope much; for Nebuchadnezzars thoughts run of his Mo­narchy, according to which thoughts the Dream was directed, and Daniel interpreting it, under­takes to resolve him fully: For in a word (as saith Mr. Huet whose Argument this is) Daniel intends two main points:

1 To comfort the Jews in the losse of their Kingdome and Liberty, shewing that after many changes it should be restored to them again.

2 To convince the King of his Tyranny over them, by which his third Heir should be nothing the warmer; another should take it from him, a third from him, and a fourth from him, which at length (maugre all their despight) should be re­turned to the Jews in greater glory then ever they lost it. Now whether the Spiritual King­dome of Christ doth answer this scope or no, I leave (saith he) to the judgement of the godly wise.

5 Because such a Kingdom is here intended as was to be continued to the Jews (after once they should be possessed thereof) without alteration. So the Text, It shall not be given to another people, i.e. from Daniels people; but when Christ came, and brought his Spiritual Kingdom (whiles to be meerly Spiritual) he first preached the Gospel to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, from whom notwithstanding the Gospel was taken away and given to the Gentiles.

6 Because the proper work of the Stone, to which it is appointed, is to break in peeces earth­ly Kingdoms, vers. 44 but Christs Spiritual Kingdom set up upon his first coming was not ap­pointed to any such end; for then would not Christ have commanded a subjection of the Sub­jects thereof to worldly powers.

7 And lastly, What prerogative and advance­ment had it been for the Kingdom of Christ Spi­ritual, to have broken down the Seleucidae, and other Horns of the Greek Empire, so long as a­nother Kingdom, the Kingdom of the Romans succeeded in their place to beat down the Church by the Heathen Emperours, and Antichrist, for longer space of time, and with greater and more terrible persecution then ever was before?

This opinion therefore cannot agree to Daniels first Vision, of the Great Image.

Secondly, for Daniels second Vision of the four Beasts, Chap. 7. it no way agrees to it; for it cannot be that the fourth Beast, having ten Horns, vers. 7. should be the House of the Seleucidae, or that the little Horn, vers. 8. should be Antiochus, [Page 107]Epiphanes, as this opinion holds.

I shall here oppose only the Arguments al­ledged by Mr. Parker from the learned Graserus in answer to it, as judging them sufficient, though yet if need be, there is more to be spoken.

Arg. 1 The Kingdom of the Seleucidae belongeth to the Third Beast, and is one of the four Parts into which the Grecian Kingdom was divided after A­lexanders death, expresly represented in his four wings, and four Heads, vers. 6. the truth of which interpretation will clearly appear by comparing with chap. 8.8.22. chap. 11.4. for the King of Grecia is expresly distinguished from Alexander, as the whole from the part, comprehending both him, and the quadrupartite division among his Successors, chap. 8.21, 22. therefore both he and the Seleucidae, with other his Successors, are in­cluded in the third Beast, and cannot be extended to the fourth.

2 Because these four Beasts arose successively to subdue the world, vers. 2, 3. but the Seleucidae, and other Successors of Alexander succeeded into it al­ready subdued by him.

Thirdly, The Preface prefixed to the fourth Beast, After this I saw in the night Visions, and be­hold a fourth Beast dreadfull, vers. 7. the proposing of him without a name, as an unknown Monster; the sollicitous and curious enquiry of Daniel concerning him, ver. 19. the bestowing of a farre larger & more accurate description upon him then upon the former Beasts, do plainly argue, That the fourth Kingdom here signified is farre more great and wonderful then any of the former, and [Page 108]therefore cannot be the Kingdom of the Se­leueidae.

Fourthly, The fourth Beast is said to be dread­full, and terrible, and very strong, in comparison with the Beasts going before; having Iron teeth, and Brazen nails, devouring and breaking in peeces, and stamping the residue under feet. But the Kingdom of the Seleucidae was weaker then that of Alexander, as is expresly said, chap. 8.22. and did not devour and destroy so as the former King­doms, as entring upon a world subdued already by Alexander the Great, therefore the fourth Kingdom cannot be the Kingdom of the Seleu­cidae. Thou wilt say, The fourth Kingdom is thus expressed, not in relation to the world, or State generall, but to the Jewish Church, unto which it was more terrible and stronger then the former. But it is manifest that the Iron strength is the Character of this Kingdome, distinguishing it in a generall and unlimited comparison with the Kingdoms going before. To exert in some particular place, such as Judea, more cruelty, by reason of the weaknesse of the people, and not by reason of his own absolute strength, is not a suffi­cient reason that he should be Characterised, and distinguished from the others by the character of strength and fearfulness, no more verily then the Spanish Inquisition, or Phalaris, or some o­ther Tyrant, may be superlatively compared in strength with Cyrus, Alexander, Julius Caesar, be­cause more cruell and formidable then they, in respect of some weak and not resisting persons, over whom without exertion of much strength [Page 109]they might easily exercise their tyranny. Again, their strength was not so much terrible to the Jews as Nebuchadnezzars or Hamans was; and the Jews against the Seleucidae would have vindica­ted themselves into liberty, and had defended themselves sufficiently, had not the Romans come upon them, and broken them down at last, and the Seleucidae together. Lastly, it is expresly said, That the fourth Kingdom is thus strong, irony, and terrible, not only in relation to the Jews, but also to the whole earth, vers. 23. for it devours and treads down the whole earth.

5 Because this Beast is said to bee unlike to the Beasts that were before it; whereas the Kingdom of the Seleucidae was like other Kingdoms. Some say, it was unlike in respect of the ten Horns; but these (as they will have it) are ten succeeding Kings, which in kinde and nature is ordinary to all Kingdoms. They say it is extraordinary in this respect, because some of the Aegyptian Kings are mixed in the number. But what ground is there of such a mixture? because (say they) they are described, chap. 11. Ans. But in Chapter eleven is no mention made of ten Horns, and the number there is not adaequately ten; no reason to extrude some, to intrude others, but rather con­trary to reason, as Graserus sheweth.

6 Because the fourth Beast hath ten Horns, and a little Horn arising after them, by whom three of the former were rooted out, vers. 7, 8. How will this agree to the Kingdom of the Seleucidae? They say, they are ten succeding Kings, whereof An­tiochus Epiphanes is the tenth and last, and the [Page 110]same the little Horn. Ans. But if only by suc­cession, then really in all particular differences of time it had but one Horn, and so the Kingdom might rather be said to have one Horn then ten. 2. These ten Horns here described, existed at the same time, not by succession, because the little Horn arose among them, vers. 8. and his look was more stout then his fellows, vers. 20.3. How can Antiochus Epiphanes be both the little Horn, and also the last of the ten, seeing the little Horn is said to arise besides, and after them, ver. 8.20, 24. 4. Antiochus cannot be the little Horn, because the little Horn arising, groweth greater and grea­ter, and more stately then the other Horns, vers. 2, 20 [...] whereas Antiochus was not so great as his Father Antiochus Magnus. 5. What are the three Horns, and how did they fall before Antio­chus? ver. 8. It is said, That they are Prolomeus Philopater King of Aegypt, Seleucus the Brother of Antiochus, and Demetrius. But was Seleucus rooted out because he dyed by slow and lingring hatred? and how can Demetrius bee one of the three which was not reckoned by the Authors of this opinion among the ten? vers. 8. Lastly, by the fall of the three the little Horn grew greater then the rest, whereas nothing was added to An­tiochus besides the ancient Kingdom of the Se­leucidae. 6. Sixthly, the little Horn rageth a­gainst the Saints until a time, times, and a half. How will this agree unto Antiochus, because (say they) the Temple was prophaned by Antiochus three years and ten days? Ans. But here it is half a time, or half a year, as also appeareth by [Page 111]comparing chap. 12.7. Apoc. 12.14. and ten days makes not half a year. 7. The Beast fal­leth in the destruction of the little Horn, vers. 11. but the Kingdom of the Seleucidae did not fall in Antiochus Epiphanes.

7 Because it is extended untill the coming of Christ in the clouds of heaven, vers. 13, 14. which is his second coming, Apoc. 1.7. Mat. 24.30. & 26.64. for it is not said that hee ascended in the Clouds, but that he came, ver. 13.

8 It is extended to the time when all the King­doms of the earth shall be the Lords, and his Christs, ver. 14. with Apoc. 11.15. And when the King­dom shall be given to the Saints of the most high, all Hostile forces utterly suppressed, ver. 14.26. ch. 2.44. Apoc. 11.17, 18. And how can this bee verified in the Kingdome of the Seleucidae?

Upon these grounds it appears, That the a­foresaid opinion will no way agree to Daniels Prophecy of the four Beasts, and the little Horn.

Thirdly, For Daniels Great Prophecy, ch. 10. chap. 11. chap. 12. this opinion of Antiochus Epi­phanes cannot agree to it.

1 Because the feet and toes of the great Image, chap. 2. The little Horn. chap. 7. and the vile Person in this Prophecy, chap. 11.21. are (as be­fore I have observed) one and the same; but the two first, as hath been already proved, cannot a­gree to Antiochus Epiphanes, therefore not this last.

2 Because this Prophecy brings us to the time of the end, chap. 11.35. some of them of understan­ding shall fall to try them, even to the time of the end, [Page 112]vers. 40. At the time of the end shall the King of the South push at him, chap. 12.4. Seal the Book even to the time of the end, vers. 9. yea to the very end of days, when Daniel was to rise and stand in his lot. But go thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of days. But this can­not agree to Antiochus Epiphanes, whose Kingdom expired many years before Christs first coming; Nor did Daniel arise and stand in his lot at the end of those days, viz. the days of his Persecution, which yet is promised to Daniel at the end of the days here spoken of. Further, this Prophecy is said to be for many days, Chap. 10. ver. 14. I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days; for yet the Vision is for many days. For a long time, chap. 10.1. in the third year of Cyrus a thing was revealed to Daniel, and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long. Now it is not ordinary in Scripture Phrase (a thousand years with God being but as a day) to call so short a time as was the time betwixt Da­niel and Antiochus Epiphanes many days, a long time.

3 Because he who appears to Daniel, Chap. 10.5, 6. Chap. 12.7. being the same who appeared to John, Revel. 10.5, 6. and also the time, times and a half, Dan. 12.7. being a time peculiar to the Gentile Saints, Revel. 12.14. it thence follows, that this Prophecy is to be brought down into the Apocalypticall times, and therefore could not have its fulfilling in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.

To these let me adde some few of the very ma­ny Arguments (all which would be tedious here [Page 113]to repeat) that are laid down by Mr. Parker in his Daniels Visions, and Prophecies expounded, p. 91. to 97. and again, p. 111. to p. 116. in op­position to this opinion.

1 How (saith hee) was Antiochus Epiphanes a vile Person, to whom they gave not the honour of the Kingdom? seeing he was the lawfull Son of Antiochus Magnus, who (to use the words of Graserus) was so great even from his Infancy, that then in the world known unto us, there was scarce another to be compared with him.

2 I require (saith he) a sufficient reason, if this be Antiochus Epiphanes, why as many, or ra­ther more words should be spent upon him, then were spent upon all the Kings of Syria, and Ae­gypt before him, whereof some were farre more notable in exploits then he? If any say that it is so because he was more notable in afflicting the Saints; I still demand, But why are so many words spent upon these Warlike exploits, that concerned not the Church? Besides, others before afflicted the Jewish Church not alittle, and yet their afflictions are not here mentioned. If his persecution did exceed, yet why should the de­scription thereof exceed so much, being but short in duration, and not to be compared with those of Nebuchadnezzar precedent, or those of the Romans in the time following? But if it bee said, The reason is because Antiochus is described as the type of Antichrist; I answer again; That the Type howsoever must be according to truth, and the words of description answerable to the things contained therein; the Holy Ghost would not re­present [Page 114]Antichrist by a type excessively, described above the verity and proportion thereof.

3 He proves at large, that the Warres of this King, and the severall expressions the holy Ghost useth in describing them, vers. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. cannot be applied to Antiochus E­piphanes, p. 93, 94, 95.

4 What should I speak (saith he) of the great afflictions of the Church by sword, flame, capti­vity, and spoyl, and that for many days, ver. 33. at certain gusts succeeding after interruptions? The Church now and then rising, and prevailing, vers. 32, 33, 34. and then at certain fatall revo­lutions, set by God, exposed again to fire and sword, vers. 35. How can these passages bee ex­hausted in the narrow and short persecutions of Antiochus?

5 That Phrase, ver. 36. He shall do what hee lists, is usually applied to irresistable and uncon­troulable Monarchs, vers. 3.16. Chap. 8.4. and cannot be applied to Antiochus, over whom the Romans were so imperious, that at the threatning look and command of the Ambassador Popilius, he was forced to retire out of Aegypt, and leave his prey. Adde to this, That he was inwrapped with many difficulties at home.

Lastly, Our aforesaid Author proveth large­ly, p. 112, 113, &c. that those Characters, ver. 37, 38, 39. as, He shall not regard the God of his Fathers, neither shall he regard the desire of Women; neither shall he regard any God, but shall magnifie himself a­bove all; He shall honour a God whom his Fathers knew not, and a strange God; he shall divide the [Page 115]Land for gain; are not any one of them appliable to Antiochus Epiphanes; which things who de­sires to see I refer him to the Author, as judging what I have already said enough, if it be not of some thought more then enough.

From the whole it appears, That the aforesaid opinion of the little Horn neither doth, nor will agree to Daniels great Prophecy.

Fourthly and lastly, For the Prophecy it self, Chap. 8. This opinion of Antiochus doth no way agree to it.

Take here likewise some of Mr. Parkers Argu­ments in answer to it. Daniels Visions and Pro­phecies expounded, p. 36, 37.

1 This little Horn riseth when the transgressors are come to the full, and in the end of the Graecian Empire, chap. 8.23. whereas Antiochus was in the midst, and far from the time of the great and full degree of transgressors.

2 The Horn here spoken of is in respect of his be­ginnings called a little Horn, whereas Antiochus was not so low at first as to be called a little Horn; for Antiochus in respect of his Parentage, and condi­tion of Fortune which he had thereby, was so great, even from his infancy, that then in the world there was scarce another to bee compared with him, being the undoubted Son of Antiochus the Great, and after Seleucus Philopater his elder Brother, right Heir of the Kingdoms of Asia, Ba­bylon, and Syria.

3 This Horn is said to wax very great in compa­rison of the former Horns, vers. 9. whereas Antio­chus although he was great from his beginning, yet [Page 116]did not attain unto a condition greater then his Fa­thers; Concerning which let the words of Grase­rus be observed: He (saith he) never had full possession of the whole Kingdom of his Father Antiochus the Great, which hee possessed before the Roman War; the sinews of War also failed him not once. And as for that which Junius al­ledgeth concerning his taking of Aegypt, if that were true, yet would it little help his cause, seeing it is manifest that his Father Antiochus did not less exploits against AEgypt. Indeed Antiochus Epi­phanes did the second time invade Aegypt, but with such a successe that he got more dishonour then honour thereby. Neither in other Wars was he so happy and fortunate, that therein he might be so farre preferred above his Ancestors. In sum, Antiochus Epiphanes had little or nothing more then the meaner sort of the Kings of Syria.

4 How did Antiochus Epiphanes so excellently magnifie himself unto the South, and to the East, and to the pleasant land? How unto the East, foras­much as he was ignominiously put to flight, and expelled out of Persia in the East, by the Citizens of Elemais? How against the South, seeing in both his expeditions against Aegypt, he was at last shamefully repulsed; the first time by the Cap­tains of Ptolomeus, the second time by the Am­bassador Popilius? And how unto the pleasant Land, forasmuch as after his intestine cruelty on the Jews, his Princes and Armies were in Judea over-thrown, and put to flight by the Jews, and their Captain Judas Maccabaeus.

5 The Acts of this little Horn are extended to the time of the end, vers. 17. and of the last wrath, vers. 19. whereas Antiochus Epiphanes dyed long be­fore the birth of Christ.

6 In the judgement (saith he) of a learned Au­thor, the two thousand three hundred days are unap­pliable to Antiochus Epiphanes. And Pererius sheweth (saith my Author) out of the first Book of Maccabees, that Antiochus his Persecutions be­gan in the year of the Grecian Kingdom one hun­dred forty three, and ended in the year one hun­dred forty eight, which could not be longer then six full years; and therefore it cannot fill up ex­actly the measure of two thousand three hundred days, which space containeth six years, three months, and twenty days; for the three months, and twenty days, would over-abound; Pererius to salve this difficulty, saith, That the two thou­sand three hundred years may be extended to the death of Antiochus, which was in the next year following; but according to Daniels words, and the drift of the interpretation of the Authors of this opinion, the aforesaid two thousand three hundred years must not end in the death of Antio­chus (although if they should, yet the difficulty of exact accommodation will still remain) but in the cessation of persecution and calamity of the Church, and in the purgation of the Sanctuary, vers. 13, 14. which being referred to the Iews in the time of Antiochus, came to passe exactly in the year of the Greek Empire one hundred forty eight, as hath been said, and cannot be extended to the year following; therefore are not the two [Page 118]thousand three hundred days appliable to this time; yet because I finde some of our own, who confesse Daniels other Prophecies to have a look to the end of the Fourth Monarchy, somewhat doubting of this, which therefore according to the common opinion they would make to termi­nate with Antiochus Epiphanes. Let me therefore adde a reason or two farther to those already laid down by Mr. Parker.

7 The time of the end here mentioned, vers. 17. and the Inst end of indignation, vers. 19. are undoub­tedly of the same interpretation, with the time of the end so oft spoken of, Chap. 11.35, 40. Chap. 12.4, 9, 13. and the accomplishment of indignation, Ch. 11.36. which besides the wonderfull agreements of either King in their description, of which for a taste compare these passages.

I say besides all these agreements, the inculcating that Phrase in either Prophecy, as the bounds and li­mits of the tyranny of either King, at the time ap­pointed shall the end be, chap. 8.19. So ch. 11.27. The end shall be at the time appointed, vers. 35. The time of the end, because it is yet for a time appointed, is to me a clear Argument, that either Prophecy ter­minates at one and the same point. Now the point of time that Daniels Prophecy in the eleventh and [Page 120]twelfth Chapters terminates at, being not the end of Antiochus rage, but of the Fourth Monarchy; therefore not Antiochus rage, but the end of the Fourth Monarchy is also the point of time with which the Prophecy, chap. 8. doth likewise ter­minate.

8 Daniel is commanded to shut up the Vision, be­cause it was to be for many days, vers. 26. But as it is not likely, that the Angel would have com­manded Daniel to shut up the Vision, but rather have given a contrary command, as to Iohn, Rev. 22.10. Seal not the sayings of the Prophecy of this Book, for the time is at hand; in case the fulfilling of it had been so near as the times of Antiochus E­piphanes; so cannot two thousand three hundred Natural days, no nor the whole of the time from the day Daniel had this Vision, to the utmost point of Antiochus rage, be called in the Phrase of the Holy Ghost, who (as I have said before) calls a long time short, many days.

The conclusion from the whole, is, That that opinion which makes application of this Prophecy, chap. 8. to Antiochus Epiphanes, interpreting the two thousand three hundred years of the time of his rage against the Jews, neither doth nor will agree to any one of Daniels four Prophecies.

SECT. 2.

ERe I proceed, I shall here by way of digression lay down my own thoughts concerning the little Horn, chap. 8, 9. upon whom the whole stresse of the Controversie lies.

All those that I have seen, who differ from the common opinion of Antiochus Epiphanes, will have this little Horn to be the very same with that Chap. 7. and accordingly some apply it to the Romish Antichrist, some to Mahomet, some to the Norman Race, &c. The two last opinions of Mahomet, and the Norman Race, I have dispro­ved before, and that throughout all the Prophesies of Daniel. The first which interprets it of the Romish Antichrist is the most colourable, because its clear the little Horn, Chap. 7. is to be under­stood of him, and also a large and full description of Antichrist comes under this little Horn. To this therefore onely I shall here oppose, and that by laying down my own opinion, which is,

That the little Horn, Chap. 8. is not Antichrists Kingdome only, but the whole body of the fourth, or Roman Monarchy, which is clear,

1 Because in each of Daniels other Prophesies we have the Roman Monarchy set forth in its two­fold estate. 1 In its pure Civil state. 2 In its, mixt Antichristian state, as I have before proved, Part. 2. Chap. 4. Sect. 2. But if the little Horn in this Chapter signifie Antichrists Kingdome only, then in this Prophesie we have the Roman Monarchy descri­bed only in its second state, and so this Prophesie is made to differ from the other three; Yea by con­sequence many hundred years.

2 Because the rise of this little Horn in the latter time of the Grecian Monarchy should here be leaped over, which is not in any of the other Prophesies, vers. 23. And in the latter time of their Kingdome, a King of fierce countenance shall [Page 122]stand up. What Kingdome is this? Answ. The Kingdome of the Greeks spoken of vers. 22. which after Alexanders death was broken and divided into four Kingdomes. This no wayes agrees to Antichrist, whose rise was not till ma­ny hundred years after the dissolution of the third or Grecian Monarchy, but it punctually agrees to the Roman Monarchy, which had its rise (according to the very words) in the latter time of the divided Grecian Monarchy.

3 Because the rise of this little Horn is out of one of the four Horns of the Grecian Monarchy, vers. 9. And out of one of them (i. e. of the four Horns, vers. 8.) came forth a little Horn. This cannot be applied to Antichrist who rose out of the Roman Monarchy, not the Grecian. But it agrees well to the Roman Monarchy, which consider it as it was a Mo­narchy in the account of the Holy Ghost here in Daniel; for by the way observe this Rule, That the Holy Ghost accounts none of the Kingdomes succeed­ing one another to be Monarchies, till they had swal­lowed up the whole, or some considerable part of the foregoing Monarchy; therefore though Cyrus be­fore the taking of Babylon had obtained great Conquests, yet his Monarchy in Daniels sense be­gins thence. Alexander likewise had done great exploits before he encountred Darius, yet his Mo­narchy begins from his overthrow of him. In like manner, we are to reckon the beginning of the Roman Monarchy, from that time when it first be­gan to bring under the Grecian Monarchy, which was when it did subdue to it self the Kingdome of Macedon (one of the four Horns, into which the [Page 123] Grecian Kingdome after Alexanders death was divided) when the Macedonian Kingdome (which formerly had been the Seat of the third Monarchy) was turned into a Roman Province, then began the Roman Monarchy, from which time the same did daily increase till in the end by degrees one after another, it swallowed up the other Horns also.

Now observe the Roman Monarchy may well be said to rise out of one of the four Horns of the Grecian Monarchy in regard that that Kingdome, which in the account of the Holy Ghost before was no Monarchy by swallowing up the king­dome of Macedon (the Seat of the former Mo­narchy) now takes place of it, and becomes a Monarchy; and therefore many make observa­tion of that remarkable Ecclipse of the Moon, which was total, and happened the night before that fatal overthrow of Persius by Aemylius the Roman Consul, through which the Macedonian kingdome was lost, as a Prognostication of this wonderful change.

4 Because this Horn in its first rise was a little Horn, which fitly agrees to the Roman Monarchy, consider it either, first as it became a Monarchy (as I said even now) by subduing to it self the Kingdome of Macedon, which (though it had been the ancient Seat of the third Monarchy, yet) comparatively with some other of the four Horns in the Greek Empire (viz. the Kingdomes of Egypt and Syria, which were more potent then that of Macedon) it was but a little Horn.

Or secondly, if we consider the manner of the [Page 124] Romans growth as they were a Monarchy, which was different from the growth of all the former Monarchies; For the former Monarchies had their perfection in a manner the first day they be­came Monarchies; but the Roman Monarchy is a Monarchy whilst yet it is little and more imper­fect, and afterwards by a gradual growth through continuance of time it attains perfection. Cyrus swallows up the Babylonian Monarchy, Alexan­der the Medes and Persians, as it were at a mouth­full, and in so doing, these Monarchies are at the top, arrive to their perfect stature the first day of their birth: But the Roman Monarchy otherwise, it comes creeping on (as 'twere unseen) and by little and little encroacheth upon the Grecian Mo­narchy, till in the end it hath devoured all.

First, it swallows up the little Kingdome of Macedon; by this it becomes a Monarchy; then about a hundred yeers after, it swallows up the Kingdome of Syria, and makes a Province of that; then sometime after the Kingdome of Egypt, then Palestina, and the Countries adjacent, making them Provinces, and so by degrees it swallows up the whole Grecian Monarchy; so that indeed we may say the Roman Monarchy comparatively, with what it grew to through continuance of time, was in its first birth but an Infant, and therefore is well called a little Horn.

This gradual growth of the Roman Monarchy (take it in its first, or second state, for herein one answers to the other, the growth of both is gra­dual) is livelily set forth by the terme Waxing, it waxed great towards the South, &c, and it waxed [Page 125]great, even to the host of Heaven, vers. 10. which word notes a gradual increase, whereas the growth of the other Monarchies was (as I have said) sudden.

Furthermore, whereas this waxing great of this little Horn in its first state is said to be TO­WARDS the South, and TOWARDS the East, and TOWARDS the pleasant Land, it excellently sets forth the exploits of the Romans after they had subdued the Macedonian Kingdome; For hereupon they assault the Kingdomes of Syria and Egypt, whereof one lay towards the East of Macedon, or if you will rather of Rome or Italy, the other the South; and withall they invade Palestina, the Land of Canaan, which is here cal­led the pleasant Land. So that in a word, a more accurate description of the first rise, and growth of the Roman Monarchy (according to what Histories record hereof) cannot be given, then is here in this Vision of Daniel laid down in but a Line or two.

5 Because this Horn though little in its first rise, yet doth it in time wax exceeding great, vers. 9. greater then any of the Kingdomes that had been before it, exceeding them all, which agrees not to Antichrists Kingdome, but exactly to what we have of the fourth Monarchy, Dan. 2.40. Chap. 7.7.

6 Because the twofold waxing great of this little Horn, excellently sets forth the twofold state of the Roman Monarchy. 1 As a Civil state onely, in which state it subdues Nations to it self, and par­ticularly the Land of Canaan; it waxed exceeding [Page 126]great towards the South, and towards the East, and towards the pleasant land. 2 As a Mixt state, or a Civil and Ecclesiastical state both, in which pe­riod the great thing it doth, is, to make war with the Saints, and tread underfoot the Holy City, vers. 10. And it waxed great even to the host of Heaven, and it cast down some of the host, and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. To this twofold waxing great doth most excellently agree that double title given afterwards to this fourth King, vers. 23. 1 A King of fierce countenance, such is the fourth Kingdome, Dan. 2.40. and the fourth Beast, Dan. 7.7. 2 Understanding dark sen­tences, such is the Roman Monarchy, at least pre­tending to abundance of wisdome, learning, and high speculations in its second state under Anti­christ.

This twofold waxing great, and this double title, will agree to no opinion (neither to that of Antiochus, nor that of Mahomet, nor that of the Romish Antichrist, nor that of Charles Stuart, or the Norman Race in general) as it doth to this.

I conclude, therefore that the little Horn here mentioned, is the whole body of the fourth Mo­narchy, and not the same in its second state only.

Now the Roman Monarchy is here called the little Horn, the name before given to Antichrist, Chap. 7. for one, or both these Reasons.

1 Because there is a likelihood in their rise. The Roman Monarchy (as I have said) when it first began to creep up, was but little, and there­fore Daniel, Chap. 7.7. beholds the fourth Beast [Page 127]creeping up in the night visions, i.e. this Beast was obscure, and in a manner unseen at first, none dreamed he would grow so terrible a Beast, such was Antichrist, and for this reason called the little Horn Chap. 7. Or

2 Because Antichrist in the last dayes was to weild the Scepter in this Monarchy, and the sequel of the Prophesie was to go on chiefly upon him: And hence observe, we have in the Vision and ex­plication both, onely a word (as it were to bring on the other) of the Civil state of the fourth Mo­narchy, the main of the Prophesie looking to its Antichristian state. Now as this is (I suppose) the very cause and ground of their mistake who in­terpret all this of Antichrists Kingdome onely; so may it be the reason, why the name proper to Antichrist, should here be given to the whole Monarchy, because his Kingdome being a part of that Monarchy, was the thing chiefly in the fol­lowing Discourse to be insisted on.

What I have said confirms our former opi­nion, that this Prophesie belongs not to Antiochus Epiphanes, but another thing; and consequently the two thousand and three hundred dayes are not to be understood of Natural dayes, but Prophetical.

SECT. 3.

Having already proved that the two thou­sand three hundred dayes cannot be natural dayes, but must be Prophetical; In the next place, a Question will arise, whether by the two thousand three hundred dayes we are to under­stand [Page 128]so many dayes or years compleat?

A very worthy and learned Author, reading, according to the Hebrew, two thousand and three hundred mornings and evenings, which make but half so many compleat dayes, will have but half so many dayes (at most) viz. one thousand, one hundred and fifty, to he here accounted upon.

But to this opinion I must give my dissent.

1 Because this way of computing by morning and evening a part, is no where else found in all the Prophets.

2 Because its the ordinary Scripture-phrase to put morning and evening for one day, Gen. 1.5. the evening and the morning were the first day, vers. 8. the evening and the morning were the second day, vers. 13.19.23.31. And therefore its more con­sonant to Scripture-phrase to conceive that the Holy Ghost by two thousand and three hundred mornings and evenings, doth intend so many compleat dayes, then that he should mean onely so many mornings and evenings, which make but half the number of dayes.

3 Because by this Computation the very Pro­phesie it self becomes useless to us, who cannot from it make up any account; For untill some Head is found out where we are to begin, there can be no supputation of years. Now I ask, (if the two thousand and three hundred years are to be un­derstood of but half so many years, viz. one thou­sand, one hundred and fifty) Where are we to begin them? If we begin from the time Daniel had his Vision, how will one thousand, one hun­dred [Page 129]and fifty years bring us thence to the time of the end, when as two thousand and two hundred years and upwards are passed already since that time, and yet the end is not.

If we shall begin lower (as we must by above a thousand years) let the head of our account be shewed in the Text. Daniel in all his other my­stical Numbers hath still some clear head of ac­count laid down: His seventy weeks have for their Head the going forth of the Commandement to restore and build Jerusalem, Dan. 9.25. His one thousand two hundred and ninety, and his one thousand three hundred thirty and five, have for their Head the taking away of the daily sacrifice, and setting up of the abomination that maketh desolate, Dan. 12.11, 12. Now let a Head of ac­count be shewed in the Text for this. If it be said, It is implied, though not expressed, vers. 13. to be the taking away of the daily sacrifice, trampling the Sanctuary, and Host underfoot. Ans. If this be the Head of account, then must the Head of this account, and the Head of the one thousand three hundred thirty and five dayes, Chap. 12. be one and the same; for that is the taking away of the daily sacrifice. And if so, then let a sufficient reason be given to reconcile these places, why the account there (which begins with this) should have one hundred eighty and five dayes or years more in it, then this here; for who reckons shall find the one thousand three hundred thirty five to have in it so many years more then one thou­sand, one hundred and fifty, especially considering too that the one thousand two hundred and thirty [Page 130]dayes, and the one thousand three hundred thirty five dayes, do both end in the full restauration of the Church, and through-cleansing of the Sanctuary, as is clear from the scope of either Prophesie. If it be said, some other taking away of the daily sacrifice is here to be sought for as Head to this Number, then that which was in Julians dayes. Ans. Grant it, yet must the time when this was done, be so stated as that the one thousand one hundred and fifty years may concur in their end with the one thousand three hundred thirty and five years; For the Prophesie Chap. 8. and that Chap. 12. bring us both to one and the same point, viz. the last, most full, and glorious restitution of the Church, where either number must expire. This taken into consideration, I say no more; Let the time be stated.

4 Because we have a special mark set upon this Number of two thousand and three hundred dayes (which is not upon any other number in all Daniel, or the Revelations) to give us to understand that the time shall be long, v. 26. And the Vision of the evening and morning (i.e. of the two thousand and three hundred dayes, vers. 14. set forth by so many evenings and mornings) which was told, is true; wherefore shut thou up the Vision, for it (i.e. the Vision of the evening and morning, which as it was the last thing in the Vision, so is it here in the Interpretation) shall be for many dayes.

Now observe, the like is not said of any other mystical Number, neither of the two and forty months, nor of the one thousand two hundred [Page 131]and sixty dayes, nor of the one thousand two hundred and ninety, the one thousand three hun­dred thirty and five, that it should be for many dayes. Indeed Daniels last Vision, which con­tains in it his one thousand two hundred and ninety dayes, hath this said of it, It shall be for many dayes Chapt. 10.14. but let it be noted, that these words have not reference to the one thou­sand two hundred and ninety, the one thousand three hundred thirty and five dayes afterwards spoken off, but rather to the time of the Vision it self, which was in the third year of Cyrus King of Persia, Chap. 10.1. and this was neer a thou­sand years higher then the Head of the one thousand two hundred and ninety, the one thou­sand three hundred thirty and five dayes; and therefore well may the Vision it self, which con­tains the one thousand three hundred thirty and five years, and over and above almost a thousand more, (not full forty wanting of the number) be called a Vision for many dayes or years. But now let it be shewed of any other number (be­sides this of the two thousand and three hundred) where we have any such mark set upon the num­ber it self, That it should be for many dayes, as we have expresly here the mark set upon the number it self, The Vision of the evening and and morning (or the two thousand and three hundred mornings and evenings) is true; therefore shut it up, for it shall be for many dayes.

Now certainly we can from hence learn no­thing lesse then that the two thousand and three [Page 132]hundred is a larger Epock then either the one thousand two hundred and sixty, the one thou­sand two hundred and ninety, or the one thousand three hundred thirty and five (which are the lar­gest besides it that we read of) for neither of them doth the Lord himself (with whom a thousand years is as a day) count long, or set a mark upon, that we should account them so; but this the Holy Ghost hath noted down as a long time, and marked it out that we might so look upon it; but now according to the foregoing account which reckons onely one thousand one hundred and fifty years, it should be a hundred and ten yeers shorter then the least, and shortest of these; which how it will agree to this note here left us by the Holy Ghost, to give us special light and di­rection in things, I do not see.

Lastly, I shall say no more; The Labyrinth, the worthy Author of this opinion seems to be in, not knowing whether he may reckon one morning and one evening for a day, and so of two thousand three hundred mornings and evenings, make one thousand one hundred and fifty dayes or years; or whether he should reckon two evenings and two mornings for one day, so numbring the dayes and years (which he also doth, making two divers reckonings) according to the fourth part of the two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings, which makes five hundred seventy five dayes or years; appears to me to be confutation suf­ficient of that opinion; which should we follow it, yet concludes nothing certain.

The Conclusion then is, That by the two thou­sand [Page 133]three hundred dayes, we are to understand two thousand three hundred dayes or years compleat.

SECT. 4.

It being clear that the two thousand three hun­dred dayes are Prophetical dayes, and also to be understood of so many Prophetical dayes com­pleat; Our next Question is, where we are to begin this large Epock?

A late Writer would have the beginning of this number to be fixed with the beginning of the seventy years captivity in Babylon.

But this opinion I cannot receive.

1 Because it is contrary to all the Prophetical numbers of Daniel and the Revelations, to go from the time of the Vision backwards for a begin­ning.

2 Because this beginning neither doth, nor can make the two thousand three hundred dayes to con­cur in their end with the one thousand three hundred thirty and five, unlesse some other Head be found for that number; which Head must be such too, as will bring the one thousand two hundred and ninety dayes, which ariseth from the same Head with the one thousand three hundred thirty and five, to concur also in their end with the one thousand two hundred and sixty, which concurrence of numbers must be upon the grounds laid down in my Key, Thesi 17. and Thesi 34.

3 Because this beginning exceeds the bounds of the Prophesie it self.

Quest. But where then are we to begin?

Answ. With the beginning of the Persian Mo­narchy, viz. in that year the Scripture calls the first of Cyrus; and that for these two Reasons;

1 Because the Prophesie it self, which begins with the beginning of the Persian Monarchy (as compare vers. 3.4. with vers. 20.) warrants this be­fore any other.

2 Because this beginning fitly agrees as to the scope of the Prophesie, so also to the time when Da­niel saw this Vision.

The time of the Vision bears date the third year of the Reign of King Belshazzar, vers. 1.

This year was the last year of the Babylonian Monarchy; and to go strictly to the time of the Vision, it was in the latter part of the year, after Babylon was taken, Belshazzar slain, and the Ba­bylonian Monarchy translated to the Medes and Persians; as the learned and judicious Dr. Light­foot in his Harmony of the Old Testament upon Daniel the eighth hath clearly proved; his words are these; The first and second verses of this Chapter plainly shew that Belshazzar reigned but three years; for it telleth that in the third of Bel­shazzar, Daniel was in Shusan, the Royal City of Persia. It cannot be imagined, he was there in Bel­shazzars life time, for his preferment and residence was in Babylon, till Babylon fell; but his coming thither, was by the transporting of him thither by the Persian Monarch, after he had conquered Ba­bylon, who as it appeareth by vers. 27. had pre­ferred him there, and interessed him in the Kings employment. This (saith he) is called the third year [Page 135]of Belshazzar, purposely that we might learn to give the first year of Cyrus its proper Date, i. e. reckon the first year of Cyrus and Darius, not the year that Babylon fell, but the year after; and partly that we may observe how that in the very year the Medes and Persians destroy Babel, the Lord re­vealeth to Daniel the destruction of the Medes and Persians, and the Monarchies after them. Hitherto Dr. Lightfoot.

Give me leave to adde, as a farther explication, That that Kings businesse, which vers. 27. Daniel is said to do, is no way likely to be Belshazzar, who neither knew Daniel, nor had Daniel to do with him, as the words, Chap. 5. vers. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. seem to import; but very likely to be Darius, who upon the taking of Babylon set Presidents over the Kingdome, or Empire, of which Daniel was first, Chap. 6.1, 2. And by reason of the nature of his employment, it was meet his abode should be in the Royal City of the Empire where he might better at­tend it then he could elsewhere. Now this was not Babylon, but Shushan, as appears, Esther 1.2. where therefore Daniel now was, not Visionally (as say some) but really and personally, as is clear from vers. 2. And I saw in a Vision (and it came to passe when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the Palace, which is in the Province of Elam) and I saw in a Vision, and I was by the River of Ulai.

Had Daniel been in the place here mentioned Visionally only, he would never have spoken of two places; for Visionally how could he see him­self at Shushan, in the Palace, and also by the River [Page 136]of Ulai at the same time, beholding the same Vi­sion; the meaning therefore undoubtedly is, Daniel by vertue of his residence at the time he saw this Vision, was at Shushan in the Palace; but locally he was either walking abroad to pray, me­ditate, refresh himself, &c. by the River of Ulai; as when he saw his great Vision, Chap. 10. he was by the River Hiddekel, vers. 4. and this not Vi­sionally, but really, for he had company with him, vers. 7.8. so was Daniel at this time really and personally by a River called Ulai, neer adjoyn­ing (in all probability) to Shushan the Palace, where he saw this Vision. Now what made Daniel there, if at the time of this Vision Babylon were not taken? It must therefore be that Baby­lon was now taken, and the Monarchy translated, although the Vision bears date (for the reasons given by Dr. Lightfoot) the third of Bel­shazzar.

Now it being so that Belshazzars third was the last yeer of the Babylon an Monarchy, and consequently Cyrus first, the very next year, our beginning of the two thousand and three hundred dayes, agrees most fitly to the time of the Vision; for observe the third of Belshazzar being the current year, its necessary therefore that we do not bring that into our account, but let it fall: The very first year therefore that we either may, or can begin our account upon, is Cyrus first, which begun with the beginning of the following year; and therefore to begin the two thousand three hundred dayes, with the first of Cyrus, agrees most excellently both to the matter, and the time of [Page 137]the Vision. This therefore I conclude to be the only true beginning.

SECT. 5.

But ere I can proceed farther, one thing there is somewhat needful to be enquired into, viz. Whe­ther or no is the second Monarchy to take its be­ginning (as I have said) from the first year of Cyrus the Persian; or whether had it not its begin­ning some years before under Darius the Mede? The ground of this Question is because Daniel makes mention of one Darius the Median taking the Babylonian Monarchy from Belshazzer, Dan. 5.30, 31. and also speaks of him as a person distinct from Cyrus, Dan. 6.28.

Some to salve this difficulty, will have this Da­rius the Mede to be King of the Babylonians not by Conquest, but by Election: And their con­jecture upon this businesse runs thus. That King Belshazzar was slain the night after his great Feast, by a conspiracy of those of his friends that he called to his Banquet; amongst these conspira­tors this Darius the Mede was one, who being a man ancient, wise, and of great authority among the Babylonians, they (though he were a Mede and a stranger, yet) to avoid contentions for the King­dome (Nebuchadnezzars Line being ended in Belshazzar) confer it on him. Those of this opi­nion give to this Darius the Mede, some seventeen, some eighteen yeers.

Now although this opinion (as laid down by the Authors of it) hurt not us greatly, because [Page 138]the time they allow to this Darius the Mede, they give to the Babylonian Monarchy, (reckoning the seventeen years of his Reign into the seventy of the Captivity) and not to the Persian, which they with one mouth confesse began with the first of Cyrus, who (say they) took the Babylonian Monarchy not from Belshazzar, but from this Darius the Mede; yet because if once we grant it, that the Reign of this Darius the Mede was distinct in regard of time from the Reign of Cyrus the Persian, there will be then force enough in Daniel to beat us, yea and all Chronologers off their ground, while they account the first year of Cyrus to be the first year of the Persian Monarchy; I shall not therefore let the opinion passe by without an examina­tion.

And although it were enough to destroy the credit of it, to say, That the whole of the story this opinion is founded upon, is but pure conjecture, there being not one tittle in the whole Scripture to bring us to the belief of such a thing; yet shall I not insist upon that, but rather prove how that this opinion doth not onely want Scripture warrant, but manifestly fights with the Scripture. For it is most evident from Daniel, that Darius the Mede there mentioned, did Reign in the beginning of the Persian Monarchy, and not (as saith this Opinion) in the end of the Babylo­nian.

The Reasons of this are:

1 Because Daniel (as I have proved before) was in that very year which is called Belshazzars third, in Shushan, the Royal City of Persia: Now [Page 139]what made Daniel there, if in this very year the Monarchy were not translated? if the Monar­chy were now translated, where shall we find room for the seventeen or eighteen yeers of its continuance afterwards?

It may be said Daniel was in Shushan by the power and authority of Darius the Mede, who (though he were now elected King of Babylon, yet) had still great power at home, and by vertue of that settles and prefers Daniel in Shushan.

Ans. But Shushan did not belong to the Terri­tories of the Medes, but of the Persians; for it was the City Royal of that Country. Now say the Authors of this opinion, Cyrus King of Per­sia was a professed enemy to this Darius the Mede, and did in the end take the Kingdome of Babylon from him. Upon their principle there­fore how can it be imagined that Daniel should reside in Shushan in the time of Darius the Mede, if this Darius the Mede (as they say) did belong to the Babylonian Monarchy, and were an enemy to Cyrus? for may it be supposed that Darius's power could settle and prefer Daniel in his enemies country, yea in the City Royal, and that of such an enemy as was more potent then himself? it can­not be.

2 Because this Darius the Mede did rule by the Laws of the Medes and Persians, as is clear, Dan. 6. vers. 8, 12, 15. he must therefore belong to the times of the Persian Monarchy, and not of the Babylonian; For who can think the Babylonians were so stupid, such Fools and Mad-men, as to suffer a King, a stranger, who came in amongst [Page 140]them not by any Conquest, or power that he had to conquer them, but (as saith this opinion) by their free choice, which was a matter of curtesie towards him? I say, to suffer such a one to rule absolutely by the Laws of his own Country, and not rather by theirs, is a thing that we cannot easily imagine that any other, unlesse very Fools or Mad-men (in such a case) would consent un­to.

3 Because it appears from the faith and fer­vency of Daniel, and his urging present deliverance so much as he doth in that prayer of his Chap. 9. (which prayer was made in the first year of this Darius the Mede as vers. 1. tells us) that Daniel did now look upon the seveny years as run out (which also he seems to intimate vers. 2.) at this time of his praying; which consideration puts life, courage, faith, boldnesse into him. But now according to this opinion there should be seventeen or eighteen years of the seventy yet to expire; which surely in case Daniel had so looked upon it, it would have been a great cooling to his spirit, a quenching to his faith, so as he could never have urged (as he doth, vers. 16, 17.) a present turning away of Gods anger, causing his face to shine upon them; nor would he ever have pleaded (as he doth, vers. 19.) defer not for thine own sake, O my God; For how could he with faith have uttered those words, defer not, if he had looked upon the time of their deliverance to be remote seventeen, or eighteen yeers?

4 Because the Scripture is clear and punctual that the Babylonian Monarchy ended in Belshazzar, [Page 141] therefore may we not look for any Darius to suc­ceed him in that Monarchy. This we have, Dan. 5.26. God hath numbred thy Kingdome and finished it. These words are not to be referred to the Kingdome of Belshazzar in particular, but to the whole Babylonian Monarchy (called Belshazzars Kingdome, because he now swayed the Scepter in it) the continuance whereof was numbred by God, or measured out to be seventy years, Jer. 25.11, 12. Jer. 29.10. which determined time was now expired or finished, as the Text tells us; Therefore no room is left for a Darius to succeed in this Monarchy.

5 Because Belshazzars Kingdome is divided, when he loseth it, betwixt the Medes and the Per­sians, Dan. 5.28. Thy Kingdome is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians; but according to this opinion, if Darius the Mede, as a King elected did first possesse the whole, and after him Cyrus the Persian by Conquest gain the whole, what division were there? True, either have what once was Belshazzars Kingdome; but see­ing they succeed each other in it, and either is a possessor of the whole, here can be no division; where one hath all, is no division.

6 Because the words of the Holy Ghost, Dan. 11.1. import as much as if that this Darius the Mede had been used by God in the doing some emi­nent service for him and his people. Also v. 3. in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I stood up to confirm and strengthen him. Gods standing up to confirm and strengthen Darius in the first year of his Reign is an Argument of some remark­able [Page 142]work that was done for God in this year: Now if we place Darius first year with the be­ginning of the Persian Monarchy, its evident enough what this work was, namely, the giving way to Israels return out of Babylon, the making him willing to that work, which outwardly might seem to his losse and disadvantage; but in case we place Darius first year (as doth this opinion) sixteen or seventeen years before the expiration of the Babylonian Monarchy, let it be shewn from Scripture, what that eminent peece of service was, that was done for God in that year.

From the whole I conclude, That Darius the Mede spoken of by Daniel, did not reign in the end­ing time of the Babylonian Monarchy, but in the beginning of the Persian.

But it may be said, If so, then of necessity must we begin the Persian Monarchy not with the first of Cyrus (as before) but with the first year of Darius; and if so, then is not the beginning of the two thousand three hundred dayes which (I have said) begins with the first of Cyrus, stated aright.

Answ. It doth not follow, For though it is confessed that Darius did reign in the beginning of the Persian Monarchy, yet doth it not there­fore follow that Cyrus did not, unlesse it could be proved that these two did succeed each other, which cannot be from Scripture, but rather the contrary is manifest, viz. that Cyrus and Darius were contemporaries, and indeed Co-partners in the Kingdome of Babylon after the same was [Page 143]taken. For let it be considered, that the taking of Babylon was not an act performed by Cyrus alone, nor by Darius alone, but it was their joynt act; they two (one being King of the Persians, the other of the Medes; and as Histories report, allyed the one to the other) joyn forces, and with their united strength march up against Babylon, be­siege it, take it. And this is clearly the mind of the Scripture, and that opinion only which with Scripture approbation will stand. For,

1 The Scripture attributes the taking of Ba­bylon to either of them, as being their joynt act. It is attributed to Darius, Dan. 5.31. to Cyrus Isa. 45.1, 2, 3. which is a clear Prophesie of Cy­rus his taking Babylon. To say (as some) that Cyrus in the taking of Babylon did act as Gene­ral of the Army under Darius, is not only a thing without Scripture-warrant, but a thing in it self very incredible, viz. that Cyrus who (as all Histories report) had before the taking of Baby­lon reigned some years as King among the Per­sians, and was for his warlike exploits and vi­ctories the most famous man then living, having also hitherto in his way met with no check or frown of Providence, should upon the sudden in the midst of all his Trophies and Victories, come down from being a King, to be General only under another.

2 The Prophesie we are now upon, Dan. 8. Con­cerning the beginning of the second Monarchy, doth plainly hold forth this. For observe it, as the third Monarchy of the Grecian is in the rise of it described by a He-goat having one Horn, vers. 5. [Page 144]which Horn was Alexander the Great; so the rise of the second Monarchy of the Medes and Persians is described by a Ram having two Horns, vers. 3. which two Horns are interpreted, the Kings of Media and Persia, vers. 20. Now as these two horns were both upon the Ram toge­ther, at the time of his pushing against the Baby­lonian Monarchy; for otherwise, why is he descri­bed as pushing with two horns? so must we con­ceive that Cyrus King of the Persians, and Darius the Mede with their united strength did push against the Babylonians, and overthrowing them did accordingly (untill by Darius death, the Monarchy fell to Cyrus alone) Reign toge­ther.

3 Its foretold to Belshazzar, Dan. 5.28. that his Kingdome should be divided betwixt the Medes and the Persians; But in case the same had fallen into the hands of Darius the Mede only, then (as I have observed before) there had been no division of the Kingdome; for where one hath all, is no dividing. Yea farther, if Cyrus had had nothing to do with the Monarchy till after Darius death, how then had Belshazzars Kingdome faln to him? it had been Darius his Kingdome, not Bel­shazzars.

4 The Prophet Isaiah foretelling the ruine of Babylon, Chap. 21. makes mention of two Nations as spoyling of her, which two Nations are the. Medes and Persians, vers. 2. A grievous Vision is declared unto me, The treacherous dealer dealeth treacherously, the spoyler spoyleth; Go up O Elam, besiege O Media. Now observe, Elam was that [Page 145]Province in which Shushan the Royal City of Persia stood, Dan. 8.2. I was at Shushan, which is in the Province of Elam; by Elam therefore the Persians are meant, as by Medea the Medes, both which hand in hand, march up, besiege, spoyl Babylon. And therefore in the following verses of this Chapter, the marchers up against Babylon, are described by a double Chariot, a Chariot of Asses and a Chariot of Camels; noting the Medes and Persians; which double Chariot by vertue of that union and neer conjunction that was now between them, go both under the name of one, and are called but one Chariot because they march up together so unanimously against babylon, as if they had been but one people, and not two; which one Chariot is led on by a couple of Horsemen, excellently pointing out Cyrus and Darius the two Heads or Leaders of this Army, as vers. 6. For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Go set a Watchman, let him declare what he seeth, vers. 7. And he saw a Chariot with a couple of Horse-men, a Chariot of Asses, and a Chariot of Camels, and he hearkned diligently with much heed, vers. 8. And he cryed, A Lion my Lord. I stand continually upon the Watch-tower in the day time, and I am set in my ward whole nights, vers. 9. And behold here cometh a Chariot of men, with a couple of horse­men; and he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and all the graven Images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.

5 The first year of Cyrus the Persian when the Decree went forth for building the Temple, 2 Chron. 36, 22, 23. Ezra 1.1, 2. is the very same [Page 146]year with that called the first of Darius the Mede, Dan. 9.1. Chap. 11.1. For observe, the first year of Cyrus the Persian must be that very year, that im­mediately succeeded the ending of the seventy years of Captivity; for otherwise Israels delive­rance being not till the first of Cyrus, the time of their Captivity should be upwards of seventy years, which is expresly against the Prophesie, Jer. 29.10. Thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word towards you, in causing you to return to this place. Now the first year of Darius the Mede was the same year, as is clear; because with the end of Belshaz­zars reign, from whom Darius the Mede takes the Kingdome, the time allotted to the Babylonian Monarchy, which was seventy years from the time that Israel was first captivated, was now finished, Dan. 5.26. and also, because this seems to be the very thing that sets Daniel upon prayer and fasting, Dan. 9.2, 3. the understanding by Books in this first year of Darins the Mede, that the seventy years were accomplished. Nay, let me say, it must needs be so, that the seventy years did expire with the first year of Darius the Mede, when Babylon was taken, and so consequently Darius first year, and Cyrus first, but one and the same year, because the forequoted Prophesie, Jer. 29. is clear, that after seventy years were expired, Israel should return from Babylon: And Jer. 25.11, 12. speaks it yet more clearly, that Israel should serve the King of Babylon but seventy years, which so soon as accomplished, God would [Page 147]punish the King of Babylon, and deliver them: Whence I conclude, that the seventy years are not to be extended any further then the time that Israel did serve Babylon, and the time that Babylon was punished of God: But Israel served Babylon no longer then the first year of Darius; for with his taking the Kingdome (as our former Reasons prove) the Babylonian Monarchy ended, if we should therefore suppose them in servitude afterwards, it must be to the Medes, not the Ba­bylontans; and also Babylon was sufficiently punished of God, when the Babylonian Monarchy was translated to another people; both which things having their plenary accomplishment in the first year of Darius the Mede, therefore with that year must the seventy years of necessity expire; and if so, then must the first year of Da­rius the Mede be also the first year of Cyrus the Persian, in which Israel was set free; for other­wise they had remained in Captivity above se­venty years. If therefore the first year of Darius the Mede, and the first of Cyrus the Persian, were one and the same year, then of necessity must their Reign be together; and therefore (I take it) that those words, Dan. 6.28. speak of Darius and Cyrus as Co-reigners, and not as Reigning successively one after the other, unlesse we under­stand it only of the time that Cyrus Reigned alone after Darins death; So this Daniel prospered in the Reign of Darius, and in the Reign of Cyrus the Persian.

Now the Reasons why Daniel speaks chiefly of Darius the Mede, as if the ruling power lay [Page 148]in his hands only, seems to me to have been one of these two, or both.

1 Because Darius the Mede, being aged, and of the two the greater Polititian, took up his abode (Babylon being taken) in the Royal City of the Empire, managing the affairs of State, whilst Cyrus (who was the younger and the braver Souldier) was in all likelihood yet in the field, subduing, and bringing into subjection such Countries, Cities, and Towns, as did yet stand in the way of his absolute Monarchy. Hence Daniel whose em­ployment lay in State affairs, having chiefly to do with Darius, makes mention of him as though be alone had been King.

2 Because Darius the Mede being much the elder, and (as some think) Uncle to Cyrus, things might go mostly under his name, by reason whereof the name of Cyrus, (whilst Darius lived) might be somewhat obscured; therefore Daniel mentions him, who of the two was vulgarly looked upon as the leading man in ordering affairs, and doth not take so much notice of the other, though yet he were in power equall with him. And surely there might be a glorious design of Providence in obscuring the name of Cyrus about the time Babylon was taken, through that of Darius; for the name of Cyrus (by rea­son of Isaiahs Prophesie) was grown so famous amongst the Jews, that had they but heard the name of Commander inchief before Babylon to be Cyrus, they had not been so surprised with their mercy, as it is ordinary with God to deal by his people in his more glorious appearances to be up­on [Page 149]them before they are aware; but whilst they little think of a Cyrus, and hear a great noise of a mighty Darius, Babylon is taken, and instantly unlooked for, appears a Cyrus, as a first and leading man amongst the Conquerors; which certainly could not but so soon as discovered (which in all likelihood was presently as Babylon was taken, when now the Jews within Babylon by converse with them, come to have a more true understanding of the people themselves, the state and affairs of the Conquerors) wonderously affect the hearts of Gods people. And whether or no, as the perceiving on the one hand the seventy years to be out, so some such amazing Providence as this concurring on the other, might not be a whet to Daniels spirit the more, to be earnest in striving with God for his People, City, and Temple, I shall not (the Scripture being silent therein) take upon me to determine.

And this consideration of Cyrus being mani­fested and known to Gods people last, doth well solve those words, Chap. 8.3. The Ram had two Horns, and the two Horns were high, but one was higher then the other, and the higher came up last: Which words seem to have in them matter of objection against the thing we are speaking of, and they seem to import, as if that Cyrus (who is the higher Horn of the two) did succeed Darius; and if so, Then how is it true that hath been said, They did both Reign together? Now from what hath been said, the Answer is easie, that Daniel speaks not of the being of the two Horns, but of their appearance; the two Horns, were both [Page 150]in being upon the head of the Ram when he pushed down the Babylonian Monarchy; but now, as to Gods people they did not both appear at once; but Darius the lower Horn appears first, and Cyrus the higher Horn after him; so did they not to Daniel in the Vision; first Daniel beholds the lower Horn, then the higher. But if this suffice not (because there seems weight in the Objecti­on) it may be otherwise answered; that Cyrus's coming up last, is not to be understood in respect of his being a Horn, but in respect of his being a Horn greater and higher then the other Horn: A Horn he was of power and authority equal with Darius, whilst Darius lived; but a Horn of higher and greater authority then ever his fellow Horn had; so he was not till after the death of Darius, when the whole Monarchy, which be­fore was shared between them, fell to him alone; and in this respect Daniel sees him come up last.

If it be asked, how long these two, Darius and Cyrus, did reign together.

I answer, Two years, at the end of which Da­rius (who was sixty two years old when Babylon was taken, Dan. 5.31.) by death (which is most probable) or else by resignation, devolves the whole upon Cyrus. Now that they did reign to­gether two years, and no more, is clear, if we compare Dan. 1.21. with Dan. 10.1. Daniel Chap. 1.21. is said to continue till the first year of King Cyrus, i.e. so long Daniel did survive. In Chap. 10. Daniel sees a Vision in the third year of King Cyrus: How may we reconcile these places? did Daniel behold this Vision two years [Page 151]after he was dead? No, we may not think so; but that which doth, and onely can reconcile the pla­ces, is this, Chap. 1. speaks of Cyrus's sole reign, i.e. reckons from that time he began to reign alone; but Chapter 10. speaks of the whole of the time that he reigned from the taking of Babylon; now that was three years, until the time Daniel saw this Vision, two of which he reigned together with Darius, and the third (which is called Cyrus's first Chap. 1.21.) he reigned alone. Here in our close it may be observed,

1 That the first year of Cyrus, Dan. 1.21. is not the same year with that called the first of Cyrus, 2 Chr. 36.22. Ezra 1.1. The one signifies the first year of his reign after Babylon was taken; the other the first of his sole reign, which was not his first year, but his third from the taking of Babylon.

2 That Daniel dyed in the self-same year, in which he saw his last and great Vision, which was in the third year of the Persian Monarchy; for he continues but till the first of Cyrus, viz. of Cyrus's sole reign, which (I say) is the same year with that called the third of Cyrus, in which he saw his last Vision; for therefore (as I conceive) doth Daniel, who before had all along dated his Visions by the reign of Darius, date that last by the reign of Cyrus, to signifie to us how that in this third year of the Empire, Cyrus did reign alone. Daniel therefore continuing but till the first year of Cyrus his sole Reign, and the year in which Daniel saw his last and great Vision being that year; I therefore conclude, that Daniel dyed in that very year in which he had his last Vision; [Page 152]which neer approach of Daniels death seems to me to be hinted to him twice in the end of the Vision, Chap. 12.9. Go thy way Daniel; And again, in the very last words of all, But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the dayes.

The summe of all our whole discourse in this Section, is, That Darius the Mede did not belong to the Babylonian Monarchy, but the Persian; and that the first year of Darius the Mede, and the first of Cyrus the Persian, are one and the same year.

SECT. 1.

HAving in the fore-going Chapter fixed the Head of our Account, viz. with what time we are to begin the two thousand and three hun­dred years; I shall now through the Lords assi­stance go on, and (as that which necessarily comes next to be handled in order to the making up our Computation) enter upon Daniels seventy weeks, Chap. 9.24, 25, 26, 27.

This seventy weeks is a lesser Epock compre­hended within the greater of two thousand and [Page 153]three hundred years, consisting of four hundred and ninety dayes; for seventy weeks being re­duced into dayes, amount to the aforesaid num­ber, which according to the Prophetical way of speaking is so many years, viz. four hundred and ninety years.

Two great knots we have here to untie:

1 Whether these seventy weeks relate to Old Testament, or New Testament times?

2 In case they relate to the one, or the other, where are we to begin, and where to end them?

As touching the first, it is the opinion of a wor­thy man, that this Prophesie is not to be under­stood of the times between the Babylonian Capti­vity and Christ, but rather points out the Chur­ches Restauration in New Testament times from its bondage and servitude under Anti­christ.

But this I cannot receive.

1 Because this opinion leaves us wholly destitute of Scripture-ground, either for the making up the years of the world, or for a right supputation of Daniels two thousand and three hundred years.

2 Because the determination of the seventy weeks is clearly and evidently upon the Jewish Church, where as this should be upon the Churches of the Gen­tiles; This is evident from the words, vers. 24. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy City. Thy people, and thy holy City, clearly denotes the Jewish Church, and the City Jerusalem, which was Daniels people, and City to be h [...]re intended. Nay it cannot be other­wise; [Page 154]for these words coming in as an answer to Daniels prayer, most surely that people, and that City Daniel had been praying for, is here meant. Now this was not the Church and people of the Gentiles, but of the Jews, with the City Jerusa­lem, as the very expressions of his prayer de­clare.

Object. But the Prophets whilst they speak of the restauration out of Babylon temporal, do mystically imply, and under figures describe the restauration out of Babylon spiritual: Therefore though it is a truth that Daniels praier was directed for restau­ration out of temporal Babylon, yet notwithstanding was he closely under it led by the Spirit to the re­stauration out of Babylon spiritual.

Answ. True, the Prophets whilst they speak of the restauration out of Babylon temporal, do indeed mystically imply, and under figures de­scribe the restauration out of Babylon spiritual; this in the general is a truth; but whilst there is an application made of this general Rule to this particular Prophesie, it fails; for our Author himself confesseth that Daniel in his prayer did cast in his thoughts the restauration out of Ba­bylon temporal; and therefore the seventy weeks from his own principle, must have some relation to that, at least-wise as a type of the other. But a typical relation it could not be; for the Text having expresly said, that seventie weeks should seal up the Vision and Prophesie, we are here by out off from looking after any Antitype, or any other fulfilling of these words then what was be­twixt the coming out of Babylon literal, and the [Page 155]death of Christ; therefore the relation they have to that time must necessarily be the whole in­tendment of the Prophesie.

3 Because the Phrases vers. 24. to finish trans­gression, to make an end of sins, to make reconcilia­tion for iniquity, to bring in everlasting Righteous­nesse, cannot without a manifest forcing be applid to any other time, then that wherein Christ suf­fered.

4 The Messiah the Prince, vers. 25, 26. being called the most Holy, vers. 24. (which is the Attri­bute of God alone) it is not sufferable that the same should be applied (as doth this opinion) to the Wal­densian Princes, Zisca the Bohemian, or any other creature. To interpret the anointing the most Holy to be spoken not of any person but of things, viz. the bringing in of Christs pure wor­ship into his Church (which is the sense of the Author of this opinion) cannot be thought; seeing the only anointed One spoken of in all this Pro­phesie is the Messiah the Prince, who being a per­son, the anointing the most Holy must be of some person, not of things. Nay it seems strange to me, that the word Messiah signifying the anointed One, and this whole Prophesie pointingat the Mes­siah, it should once be thought that the anointing the most Holy can be meant of any other save the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ himselfe. And therefore learned Mede upon the words well saith, There is (saith he) no interpretation of any passage in this Prophesie could seem so harsh, but I would be content to admit it, rather then yeeld that by Messiah, the Prince here named, should be [Page 156]meant any other then Christ our Lord and Redeemer. For (saith he) I am perswaded that the Church of Israel in the Gospel, and from them the Apostles took it, had no other place of Scripture, whence they did, or could ascribe the Name of Christ or Messiah un­to him they looked for, but only from this of Da­niel. These are Mr. Medes words, which carry a convincing demonstration along with them, that the Messiah here spoken of must be Christ personally; but this opinion we oppose, neither doth, nor can so hold.

5 The Messiah the Prince, or the anointed Go­vernor (to use our Authors term) is not to be anoin­ted until the seventieth week. vers. 24. Seventy weeks are determined to anoint the most Holy. But according to the expresse and declared mind of the opinion we oppose, the Messiah is to be anointed after seven weeks of the seventy, i.e. nine and forty years are expired. And indeed so con­siderable is this one Stone, that if removed, the very foundation, yea the whole fabrick of this opinion goes to decay; for neither will there be room found for the Waldensian Princes, nor Zisca, at the end of the seven weeks, or nine and forty years, in case the Messiah, the Prince, be not anoin­ted till the seventieth or last week; and this Stone needs not a hand to be put to it; for the Text it self hath removed it in telling us, that not seven, but seventy weeks are determined to anoint the most Holy.

6 The Messiah, the Prince, is said to be cut off, but not for himself. vers. 26. what could more fitly have been spoken to signifie Christs dy­ing for the sins of his people?

7 And last, To say no more, The perplexednesse of this opinion, which knows not certainly where to begin the seventy weeks, whether with the Waldenses, A.D. 1160. or afterwards in the time of Wickliffe, 1370. argues the same to be no sure interpretation of this Prophesie.

Object. 1. This Prophesie seemeth not to relate to Old Teastment times, because in no place of the New Testament do we find it used against the Jews, to prove the Messiah already come.

Ans. 1. No more do we any where find through­out the New Testament that ever Christ or his Apostles did make improvement of the depar­ture of the Scepter from Judah to convict thereby the obstinate Jews; Is it meet that we say there­fore, there was nothing in that fore-shewing the time of Christs passion? the reason is as good for the one, as the other.

2 All Daniels Prophesies were by strict com­mand given forth to Daniel again and again, to be sealed till the time of the end. That therefore this Prophesie of Daniel (which had Christ or the Apostles unsealed in part, would have set open a door of light to the whole) might remain sealed till the time of the end should draw on; therefore neither Christ nor his Apostles do urge this par­ticular Prophesie to any such end, which indeed they could not have done without unsealing it, by determining the drift of the Prophesie, and also shewing the time to which it did relate; and in determining this, a fair way had been made for the supputation of the two thousand three hun­dred years, Chap. 8. and thereby light also let into that Prophesie.

Object. 2. All Daniels other Prophesies bring us to New Testament times, therefore this also.

Ans. The subject of all Daniels other Pro­phesies is the four Monarchies, but not so this: the consequence therefore is not good.

As for all the other Arguments laid down by the Author (which are not a few) some to prove the Negative part of the Question, some the Af­firmative, the bottome of them all is one of these two things, either,

1 False principles arising from, first, a mis-interpretation of some phrases and passages in this Prophesie: Or secondly, From too great a restraining of some things in Daniels other Pro­phesies (which our Author would have inter­pretative of this) to such and such particular Events: Or thirdly, from a leaning too much to the bare reports of History.

2 An interpretation of the phrases here, which set forth Christ his acts and sufferings by similar phrases in Daniel elsewhere, which point at Anti­christ his acts, and the Churches sufferings under him; whence the conclusion is, That this Pro­phesie must relate to the times of Antichrist, and the captivity of the Church of the New Testa­ment under him. But let it be considered, as Ar­guments of this nature, when they are not secon­ded by some others more solid, do mostly make up but a doubtful conclusion; so in the present case more especially the conclusion is such, yea the way of demonstration very unsafe. For An­tichrist being Christs Ape, acting over those things that Christ himself did, onely with this [Page 159]difference, the acts as performed by Christ were holy and good, as done by Antichrist wicked and abominable. Hence it follows, that the acts of both are set forth by similar phrases and ex­pressions. Christ by his death and sufferings caused virtually the Jewish sacrifice and oblation to cease (this being the time of its abrogation) v. 27. and afterwards by a totall ruining through Thunder, Lightning, and Earthquake, the very place of that sacrifice, he actually destroyed it in Julians time. Antichrist likewise (but in an evill sense) is said to take away the daily sacrifice, Dan. 8.11. Chap. 11.31. because he labours to destroy, and by his power suppreseth Christs true worship to set up his own. As Christ to set up Christian worship, destroyed the Jewish; so he to set up his Antichristian worship, would de­stroy the Christian; therefore are the one and the other said to take away the daily sacrifice. Again, Christ is said for the over-spreading of abo­minations to make it desolate, i.e. make desolate the Jewish worship, their City, Sanctuary, which thing as it was caused by rejecting him, so after his death, was performed in part by Titus, and compleatly in the time of Julian. Antichrist likewise to place the abomination making deso­late, Chap. 11.31. i.e. to desolate the Christian worship, with-drawing people from it, by setting up his own abominable Idolatry, by which the whole world are bewitched, and led aside. Thus other similar phrases, by considering the thing as done by Christ, and done by Antichrist; or as relating to the Jewish Church and worship, [Page 160]and the Christian, will be clear. And indeed this notion both lets a light into Daniel to reconcile seeming contrary places, and also (if duly weighed) turns up by the roots a great part of our Authors Arguments.

Adde hereto, (which takes in those that re­main) that there is in many things an Analogy betwixt Christs sufferings who is Head, and the Chruches who are his body, and also betwixt the effects that follow upon either. Now one or other of these considerations will enervate the force of all the Authors Arguments, which (be­cause many, and an answer to each, will take up much room, and also anticipate some things in my following Discourse) I forbear to give parti­cular Answers unto, leaving the drawing them forth from these more general considerations to the meditations of the understanding judicious Reader.

The Author of this opinion (if any should blame me, or think I may injure truth whilst I conceal his name, and therewith his Arguments) is the godly and learned Mr. Parker in his Da­niels Visions and Prophesies expounded upon Chap. 9.

The Conclusion is, That the seventy weeks are not appliable to New Testament times, but belong to the times of the Old Testament.

SECT. 2.

Having in the fore-going Section proved that the Seventy weeks relate to the times of the Old Testament, The next Enquiry is, Where we are to begin this Epock of Seventy weeks, i.e. four hundred and ninety years, and where to end them? In both these it is most necessary that our way be very clear, or otherwise we shall never carry a streight line downwards; and the way being once cleared, here the difficulty will not be great to find out, where Daniels two thousand three hundred yeers expire, as we have already found where they are to begin. And indeed there is not an Epock of years in all Daniel, and the Revela­tions, that there is more need of being upon sure grounds for the beginning and ending, then this of the Seventy weeks; for a falling here makes a general failing, because no account, whose Head is in the Old Testament, can be brought down­wards to the New, but must descend through these seventy weeks; if therefore we mis-place them, we turn every account out of its proper Chanel, cutting the way either shorter, or by wheeling about making it longer, then indeed it is; so that an error here is a fundamental error in Chronologie. We shal therefore desire in this to go the more warily, taking up nothing upon trust, but bringing even the most common received principles to the Touchstone of Scripture, and right Reason.

Now as for the first, viz. The beginning of the [Page 162]seventy weeks, the Text is clear, vers. 25. That we are to begin them from the going forth of some Commandement, and this Commandement such too, as was not as yet gone forth when Daniel had the Vi­sion, but to go forth afterwards.

Now we read in the Books of Ezra and Ne­hemiah of four Commandements going forth after this time.

1 A Decree, or Commandement of Cyrus, Ezra 1.1, 2, 3. which is more fully repeated, Chap. 6.3, 4, 5.

2 Of Darius, Ezra 6.6 to 12.

3 Of Artaxerxes to Ezra, Ezra 7.11 to the end.

4 Of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, Neh. 2.7, 8, 9. Upon some one of these four must the Head of our account be fixed.

The most general opinion is, that we are to fix on the first, viz. The Edict of Cyrus in the first year of his reign.

But with this cannot I accord. My Reasons are,

1 Because this beginining can never bring the two thousand and three hundred daies, to concur in their end with the one thousand three hundred thirty five, unlesse we find a Head higher for the one, or lower for the other; and in case either of these be found, yet must the Head be such, as shall also produce a concurrency in their ends betwixt the one thousand two hundred and sixty, and the one thousand two hundred and ninety daies, upon the grounds we have more then once referred to already.

2 Because the Angels pointing out to Daniel a [Page 163]certain Head for the beginning of this account, viz. the going forth of the Commandement to restore, and to build Jerusalem, vers. 25. is to me an Argument that the seventy weeks were not to be begun from the time of the Vision, (which in case we begin from the first of Cyrus was, Daniel having this Vision in the first year of Darius the Mede, which year was the same (as I have made appear) with the first of Cyrus the Persian) for the Prophetical manner is, when an account is to be begun some or many years after the time of the Vision, to fix upon some certain Head for the beginning of it, as Chap. 12.11. but now when the account is to take its beginning streight-way from the time of the Vision to fix upon none, for which reason the two thousand and three hundred years, which begin from the time of the Vision, have no parti­cular Head assigned in the Text.

3 Because the determination of the seventy weeks is expresly upon Daniels Holy City, i.e. the City Jerusalem. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy Holy City. But Jerusalem was not the Holy City, nor could it properly be so called until many years after the first of Cyrus (as shall appear in our next Section) therefore are we not from thence, but from another time to begin the Seventy weeks.

4 Because the Head of account laid down in the Text will not allow this beginning; for observe, the Text in plain words hath laid down the Head of our account to be this, the restoring and build­ing Jerusalem, vers. 25. Know therefore and under­stand that from the going forth of the Command to [Page 164]restore and to build Jerusalem. But now there was not the least word in all Cyrus Decree that did concern Jerusalem, but the whole ran upon the building of the Temple, as is clear, Ezra 1.2, 3, 4. where we have the substance of his Decree in these words, Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia, the Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdomes of the Earth, and he hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem. And who­soever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver [...] and with gold, and with goods, and with Beasts, besides the free-will offering for the house of God that is in Je­rusalem. Here is not one word in the whole that doth authorise the Jews to any farther work then what concerned the Temple; but now the building of Jerusalem (which is the Head laid down in the Text) was another, and a farther work.

Object. But though the building Jerusalem be not expressed in Cyrus Decree, yet it is clear such a thing was intended, and the Jews by him au­thorised to such a work, as appears Isaiah 44.28. That saith of Cyrus, He is my Sepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built. And Chap. 45.13. I have rai­sed him up (viz. Cyrus mentioned vers. 1.) in righteousnesse, and I will direct all his wayes; he shall build my City, and he shall let go my Captives, not for price, nor reward, saith the Lord of Hosts: [Page 165]Yea also from the very deportment of the Jews themselves in this businesse, who upon this De­cree of Cyrus, before yet any other Decree was given forth, did assay the building of the City, which surely they would not do without a Commission, Ezra. 4.12, 13. Be it known unto the King, that the Jews which came up from thee to us, are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad City, and have set up the walls thereof, and joyned the foundations. Yea from the very news brought to Nehemiah by Hanani, Neh. 1.2, 3. that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down, the gates burnt with fire, which therefore surely had been built betwixt their coming out of Babylon, and Nehemiahs dayes; for it could have been no news to Nehemiah to have reported to him of the breaking down of the walls of Jerusalem, and burning the Gates by Nebuchadnezzar.

Ans. I must confesse the Objection seems to have great strength in it, and (for truths sake) I have brought it forth in its full and utmost strength. But to come to an answer. In doing whereof, I shall, First, give some particular An­swers to the Texts themselves. Secondly, Lay down some Scripture-considerations, which may be an answer to the whole Objection.

First, for the Texts themselves; And first, that of Isaiah Chap. 44.28. That saith of Cyrus, he is my Shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built. I take it, the latter words (in which lyes the force of the Objection) even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built, may be very fitly, according to the scope [Page 166]of the place, interpreted to be the words of the Lord himself, not of Cyrus; for observe, in the foregoing verses, we have God brought in by the Prophet, assuring his people upon his word of many great things he will do for them, vers. 24. Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the Heavens alone, that spreadeth abroad the Earth by my self. vers. 25. That frustrateth the tokens of the Liars, and ma­keth Diviners mad, that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish. vers. 26. That confirmeth the word of his Servant, and performeth the counsel of his Messengers, That saith to Jeru­salem, Thou shalt be inhabited, and to the Cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will ra [...]se up the de­cayed places thereof, vers. 27. That saith to the deeps be dry, and, I will dry up thy Rivers. vers. 28. That saith of Cyrus, He is my Shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure. Hitherto it is most evident, that the words have relation to God, as speaking: Now observe, God having assured his people of many great things already, he shuts up all with this, as the crowning mercy to all the rest, Even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the Temple, thy foundation shall be laid. As to say, Over and above all I have promised already, I do also give particular assurance, That Jerusalem shall be built, and the foundations of my Temple there shall be laid. And to this our last English Annotations agree, interpreting them to be the words of God himself, by rendring the words, Even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built, thus, and saying to [Page 167]Jerusalem, thou shalt be built; so by the copulation and put for even, making in effect the words to have relation, not to Cyrus, but to God himself, who had said thus and thus before, and now over and above saith, Jerusalem shall be built, and the foundation of the Temple there shall be laid.

Now looking upon the words thus, it doth not necessarily follow, because Cyrus gave Decree for the one, the building of the Temple, that there­fore he did for the other also, viz. the building Jerusalem, but it proves that God would do both, and as he afterwards raised up Cyrus to do the one, so would he also raise up Cyrus, or some other, to do the other, when the time for doing it should be come.

Object. If it be said, But the building of Jeru­salem cannot but be included in that of Jerusalems being inhabited, vers. 26. therefore if these be the words of the Lord also, there seems to be a Tautologie, he should speak the same things twice.

Ans. Not so; for seeing to inhabit is one thing, and to build a place in order to its being in­habited, is another, the things though spoken apart, may both very well be spoken by the Lord himself, and that without any Tautologie; and by how much the Jews had their eye chiefly upon this, the building their City Jerusalem, by so much doth the Lord give them greater assurance of it, by doubling the thing in a manner, yet without Tautologie, because set forth in several and divers expressions.

Object. But Cyrus is said to perform all Gods pleasure, vers. 28. and this he could not do, if he [Page 168]did not as well give command for the building Jeru­salem, as the Temple.

Ans. The Phrase of performing all Gods plea­sure, neither can nor must be stretched farther then this, viz. That whatsoever God hath deter­mined to be done by Cyrus, that he should freely and cheerfully do, and accordingly so he did; First, He destroyed the Babylonian Monarchy, which were the oppressors of Gods people. Secondly, He freely without price or reward gave full liberty to the Jews, who before were captives, to return to their own land. Thirdly, He made a Decree that they, come thither, should set upon the work of building the Temple. Fourthly, He laid a happy foundation (as I am now coming to shew) for the perfecting the whole work of God, both concerning the Temple, and Jerusalem also. More then this (I mean in reference to Gods cause and people) cannot be proved that ever God determined Cyrus should do, and all this he did; and accordingly performed all Gods pleasure.

2 Granting these words, Even saying to Jeru­salem, thou shalt be built, to have relation to Cyrus; yet may the meaning of them be onely this, That God would make Cyrus the principal in­strument, as of laying the foundation of the Temple, which was actually done by his decree, so also of building Jerusalem; but how?

Ans. By removing the great impediment, namely the Babylonian Monarchy (which had ruined Jerusalem, and was a professed enemy to it) out of the way, and setting the Jews (who [Page 169]whilst Captives could never do it) free from their Captivity, which accordingly was done by Cyrus, God making him instrumental to ruine Babylon, by which, as the Jews are thereupon by him set free to build the Temple for present; so also the supreme power came now to be in the hands of a Nation, who were more friendly to the Jews, and inclining to hear their complaints, and redresse their grievances for future. And in this sense it may well be said of Cyrus that he should say to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built, i.e. set open a door, which before was shut, for the building of it after­wards. And to this well agrees that other Text, Chap. 45.13. I have raised him up in righteousnesse, and will direct all his wayes; he shall build my City, and shall let go my Captives, not for price, nor reward. The building Gods City, the Objectors them­selves will never say was done actually by Cyrus Decree; The meaning therefore can be no other then this, That Cyrus should set open a door for the doing of it, by destroying the Babylonian Monarchy that had desolated Gods City, setting the captived Jews at liberty, and laying a founda­tion for such a work afterwards, by putting forth a Decree to build the Temple, which might be, and was an inducement (as appears from Ezra 6.1, 2, 3. compared with verses 6, 7, 8.) to his Suc­cessors after him to follow their noble Leader in kindnesse and respect to this Nation. And indeed it is a thing observable, that (for the general) of all the four Monarchies, the Persians were ever the most friendly to the Jews, and most ready to do them right and favour, following doubtlesse [Page 170]herein the example of their famous Founder Cyrus, to whom therefore, as being the leading man, whose example became a provocation to his Successors, the whole work, in Scripture, and that not amisse, is attributed.

As for the other place in Ezra, Chap. 4.12, 13. it being onely the allegation of Judahs Adversaries, and written to Artaxerxes for this end, to put a stop to the work of God, I rather conceive them to be words of meer accusation, then of truth, by which those crafty enemies endeavour to make the case of the Jews as foul as may be; and to beget in the King the greater dislike of their pro­ceedings, they suggest such things to him on pur­pose which might breed jealousie, and cause a discountenancing of the work; and therefore they set before him how potent a City, bearing rule over Kings, in former times Jerusalem had been, and how that now the Jews were re-edifying of it, had set up the walls, and joyned the foundations. And some colour there was for this; for the Jews had now laid the foundation of the Temple, as appears, Chap. 3.11. and the malicious subtill enemies seeing a work on foot, and being wil­ling to mistake, so they might incense the King, and hinder the work, call this the building of the walls of Jerusalem.

Now the Reasons perswading me that this was onely the enemies false accusation, and that indeed there was no such thing in reality, are,

1 Because in Chap. 3. vers. 8. to the end, where mention is made of the Jews building, and the [Page 171]progresse made in the work, there is not one word spoken of building any thing, but the Temple only.

2 Because the Adversaries of Judah, when first the report of the Jews building was brought to them, had no report of the building Jerusalem, but of the Temple only, Ezra 4.1.

3 Because it was in building the Temple the Adversaries at first offered to joyn and build with the Jews, which Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest would not give way unto, whereupon the Ad­versaries openly oppose; all which is clear, Ezra 4.2, 3, 4, 5. A clear Argument, the work the Jews were about, and that the Adversaries knew well enough, though they will not know it, was not building Jerusalem, but the Temple.

4 Because the work that the Adversaries upon receit of Artaxerxes Letters (in answer to theirs) do cause to cease, is, not the building of Jerusalem, but the building of the Temple, Ezra 4. vers. 23, 24. Now when the copy of King Artaxerxes Letter was read before Rehum and Shimshac the Scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. Then ceased the work of the house of God, which is at Jerusalem, so it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius, King of Persia. Now observe, the work the Jews were about, was the work caused to cease, for so ran the Kings Commission, vers. 21, 22. the work caused to cease, was not building Jerusalem, but the Temple, the Temple-building therefore, and not the building Jerusalem was the work [Page 172]the Jews were now about. Now though we sup­pose Ezra to be chiefly intent to set forth the Temple-work, yet doubtlesse, having so frequent occasion to mention the building, a hint would have been given by him, as well as the Adversa­ries, of building Jerusalem, had such a work been in hand.

5 (Which makes it apparent that the thing was a meer fiction) because, the Adversaries in their Letters to Darius, after Zerubbabel and his party were fallen anew to that very work, which before they were constrained to let fall, have not so much as one word of this, Chap. 5. vers. 6, 7, 8, &c. But now they can tell the King plainly what the Jews were about, viz. building the Temple, and not go in the dark, calling a Temple a City; and all they now propose to him is, only that search may be made whether Cyrus made a Decree for such a thing, or no. A clear Argument their former juglings were by this time discovered at Court; though having juggled, what by their own power, the prevalency of friends above, and that colour they had for an excuse, it was but a mistake, they saw foundati­ons laid, and walls built, they thought it had been for a City, though upon better information they hear it was only a Temple; and they could do no other, but out of that due respect they bare to their Prince, his honour, and welfare, advise him of it; and however though a City it were not, yet the one, if suffered to go on, would make way for the other; By such Arguments (I say) having by juggling at first put a stop to the [Page 173]work, they make a shift to keep their own all the dayes of Artaxerxes; but now when Darius comes to the Crown, knowing themselves to be tardy in their last Letters, and that they of the Court had found out their faultring, they will have no more of it, but rather seem to make a sober Proposition that it might be looked into whether the Jews had any Law (as they pleaded to have) to bear them out in what at present they were about: Whereas, had there been but the least shadow of truth in their former accusation, they would undoubtedly have pleaded that again, as a thing more likely by far to gain the Kings ear to them, and to alienate the King from the Jews, and altogether frustrate their design. Nay these imbittered enemies, whose language was so high against the Jews in their first Addresse (Rebels, Rebels) it is likely would never have been so sober in their expressions, as this their second shews them to be, had they not exceeded their bounds, and come off with disgrace, and some private check for it before.

6 Not to say much more, that which strongly perswades me yet further to be of this mind, is this, There are evidently crafty designs and jugglings in those very Letters which carry the charge;

For first, observe, They speak not one word of building the Temple, but only of building Je­rusalem, the Rebellious City, yet were not they ignorant in that respect what the Jews were about, for they offer to joyn with them in that very work, Chap. 4.2.

Secondly, They speak not a word neither, in these their first Letters, of Cyrus Decree, which yet they could not be ignorant of, for the Jews had informed them of it, Chap. 4.3. yea the very Adversaries had hired Counsellors against the Jews to frustrate their design, as Chap. 4.5. What need of hiring Counsellors against a bu­sinesse that hath no colour of Law for it?

Quest. What may be the reason they are silent in these things?

Ans. Because the discovery of either of these might have brought their juggling to light. Had they hinted a word of buiding the Temple, they above would have enquired, What, are they building a Temple, and building a City too? which would either have driven them to confesse the truth, 'Tis a Temple only, but what it may grow to in time we know not; Or else by averring both, they had cut themselves off their fair excuse for time to come in case of dis­covery, viz. That it was but their mistake, they thought it, by the greatnesse of preparations, and magnificence of foundations, to be a City, but it proved but a Temple. Again, Had they but hinted the Decree of Cyrus, enquiry then would have been made for the Decree, to see what that allowed the Jews to do, and whether they ex­ceeded the bounds of it, before passing any de­finitive sentence. And this Decree brought forth, would discover what the Jews had autho­rity to do, more then which the Adversaries knew well enough, they could not justly, in case strict enquiry should be made into the businesse [Page 175]charge them with, and therefore they hold it policy to conceal altogether that Decree also. Which Decree, yet afterwards (see the wretched­nesse of men) when their juggling is come to light, in their next addresse to Darius, Chap. 5. they make a great noise of, as willing thereby to hide their former malice, by making those above to think that in their former addresse they were not so much enemies to the Jews, as loath to see and countenance any irregular proceedings, and that now having had satisfaction from the Jews that they had a Decree of Cyrus for what they did, they only think good to intimate, that the thing may be looked into, whether such a De­cree there were, or no; not without hopes un­doubtedly, that through continuance of time, and mutation of affairs, the same might be lost, which in case it were, they not only should wipe off the aspersion of malice, which now lying up­on them made all charges ineffectual, but also find a fair opportunity to draw up a new charge. But God who knows the rage of his enemies, and takes care of his people, had provided otherwise, and turns this their crafty rage against the work, even to a promoting of it, as appears from the issue, Chap. 6.

As for the third foot of the Objection taken from Hananies report, My Answer is, That the breaking down of the wall of Jerusalem, and burning the Gates, relates to the ruines of Jeru­salem in the dayes of Nebuchadnezzar.

My Reasons are,

1 Because no Scripture mentions any building [Page 176]of the walls of Jerusalem betwixt the time of Cyrus and Nehemiah (the forementioned Texts, I have proved too weak) therefore we have no ground, for faith, that ever such a thing was.

2 Because its likely, if the walls had been re­built by the Jews that came up in the dayes of Cyrus, and afterwards broken down again by enemies, and gates burnt, they would also as well have broken down the Temple and burnt that, for their malice was as great against the one, as the other; yea if more against any, it was the Temple, which, being the place of the Jews worship, was most abhorred by the Adver­saries, who hated them only for Religion sake; but this was not done, for Nehemiah coming to Jerusalem found a Temple there, Neh. 6.10.

3 Because should I grant (which yet I cannot, there being not one tittle of Scripture for it) that City and Wall was built before, yet must we confesse withall, that this work was an obscure thing, and no way to be compared with the after famous building of Nehemiah, memorized by a whole Book, written particularly upon that sub­ject, and therefore not fit in comparison of the other, to be made head of Daniels Seventy weeks.

As for the ground of this part of the Objecti­on, That it could have been no news to Nehe­miah to have heard of the ancient ruines by Ne­buchadnezzar.

Ans. Neither indeed was it, nor is the busi­nesse between Nehemiah and Hanani a hearing and telling of news (as we commonly under­stand [Page 177]the word) they were more spiritual, and better employed then so. Hanani was a faithful man, one that feared God above many, Neh. 7.2. This holy man coming to Nehemiah, another choice Spirit; two choice spirited men being now met together, having both of them great hearts for the cause of God, they (as 'tis comely for Saints at all times when they have the like op­portunity, to do) presently fall into discourse about things that concern the people of God, and Gods cause, at that day, and all the news that passeth between, is indeed matter of so spiritual a con­cernment that it is too low a term to call it news. Saith Nehemiah to Hanani, brother Ha­nani how fares it with our brethren at Jerusalem? O saith Hanani their condition is sad, they are still in the old posture, a reproach to the Hea­then, and the wall of Jerusalem lyes broken down, the gates burnt with fire. This thing this good man reports, not so much as a matter of news (though in part of it news there was) as indeed a thing which was the present burden, grief and affliction of his own soul, and the souls of the remnant at Jerusalem; how that Jerusalem (the building of which they had long expected) continued still a heap; and withall how that now (as it is Gods ordinary way to affect the hearts of his people, and heighten his enemies against a work, when the time thereof is come) the thing lay more heavy upon the spirits of all the remnant then ever, and also the enemies did more reproach them with their unbuilt City then ever; In this last lay all the news (if we may [Page 178]so call it) Nehemiah, upon hearing this, and through that heart-warming discourse that had passed between them, goes home from this meeting, wondrously affected with the condition of Gods people, and cause, and betakes himself to his Closet, and there spreads the whole before the Lord; the issue whereof is favour, in the sight of the King, and authority from him to go to Jerusalem and build it.

Thus much by way of answer to the Texts in which the force of the Objection lyes.

Secondly, I now come to adde two or three Considerations from Scripture, which may be an answer to the whole of the Objection.

1 Consideration, Whether it be not a very strange thing to suppose, that the Jews having been charged with such a thing as building Jerusalem, and the work they were about stopped upon it, that yet afterwards the original Copy of Cyrus Decree being found out among the Court-Rolls, in the second yer of Darius, and transcribed by Ezra, Chap. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. not one word should be mentioned of that about which had been so much noise and stir by the enemy; but as the Command, Chap. 1. So here the Decree should run altogether upon building the Temple, and not a tittle in it of Jerusalem; which, who can think otherwise? but that had there been but the least clause in Cyrus Decree, empowring the Jews to the building Jerusalem, upon which the Jews had undertook it, Ezra, though it were to vindicate the actings of his Nation (and to shew that what they did, which was so ctyed [Page 179]out against, and they suffered so much, though unjustly, through forged accusations, for, was not without Law and Authority) would not doubtlesse, had the Jews been really guilty of the act, or the Decree allowed them any such thing, in transcribing the Decree, have left it out.

2 Consideration, Whether the very words and manner of expression used by the Angel, do not import an Effective command, such a command as upon the going of it forth did cause a restoring and building Jorusalem? vers. 25. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the Commandement to restore and to build Jerusalem. Observe, the Command is a Command expresly to restore and to build, which it is not proper to call that Command, which by vertue of it self alone doth never produce any such effect; con­sidering too, that Gods Commands (as we are to look upon this, though he use man as an instru­ment) are every of them alwayes effective. Now let it be considered, whether the naked Decree of Cyrus ever had any such effect? nay, is not the contrary evident, viz. That for many years after the going forth of that Decree, even untill the twentieth of Artaxerxes, Jerusalem lay waste as a ruined heap, Neh. 1.3. and when the time of building it came, the work had for its basis, not that Decree, but a new one of Artaxerxes, by which only Nehemiah acts, and not at all by the Decree of Cyras, as is manifest from the whole of his Book.

3 Consideration. Whether the Angels giving Daniel so many serious hints to pry well into [Page 180]this thing, and to take heed of a too hasty conclu­ding any thing, lest he should mistake, vers. 25. Know therefore, and understand. vers. 23. under­stand the matter, and consider the Vision. vers. 22. I am now come forth to give thee skill and under­standing: I say, whether it seem not to import, that it would be a very hard thing to make a right conclusion here, and that Daniel himself, and others, would be exceeding apt to mistake this commandement, upon the going forth of which the seventy weeks were to be begun, and therefore the Angel bids him be very cautious, and mark well every word and tittle that he was to speak, that so he might not through affection, or otherwise, be drawn to make a conclusion too suddenly. Now let it be seriously considered, whether or no could there be any such difficulty in the thing it self, or such aptnesse in Daniel and others to mistake about it, in case the Decree of Cyrus were the thing here aimed at. For con­sider, Cyrus himself being so expresly notified by name, by the Prophet I saiah, many years before, (which Prophesie Daniel undoubtedly was not unacquainted with) and also this Decree being the first, and so the most famous, and also brought forth in such a wonderful remarkable manner by Gods stirring up the heart of Cyrus, a Hea­then, Ezra 1.1. and also coming forth imme­diately upon the prayer of Daniel, for Daniel prayes in the first of Darius, vers. 1. and the De­cree comes forth in the first of Cyrus, Ezra 1.1. both which (I have before shewed) were one and the same year, it cannot be thought that were [Page 181]this the Decree we are to look at, that either Daniel himself, or any other would have been ready to mistake here, but would soon say, our conclusion must be so, here must we begin, and no where else; And therefore (I conceive) that Daniel whose thoughts now run upon the ending of the seventy years Captivity, and had been praying for that, and the Decree of release being just now ready to come forth, that by all these things meeting together, neither he, nor we, might be so overset with affection, as instantly, without any further search, to pitch down our standard here, therefore doth the Angel give so many serious hints to Daniel to look upon this thing as a matter of great weight, a thing very hard to hit the right nail, in making conclusions, and a hundred to one, if he did not conclude salfe; and whith all strongly to give a check to his thoughts, which now were all occupied about the ending of the Captivity, and therefore would be ready to catch up any thing to begin from thence, he points him to another beginning, viz. When a Command should go forth for restoring and building Jerusalem, that so Daniel upon the go­ing forth of that famous Decree of Cyrus, which was to be presently, might not (having the fore­going hints, and this word, laid in before as a Caveat) be deceived, and begin the account of his seventy weeks from thence, but still look up, and wait upon God for another time.

Yea undoubtedly the Angel being so carefull in this to make us know and understand, would, had the Decree of building the Temple been [Page 182]that here mentioned, have given it that name, and not another, of restoring and building Jeru­salem (betwixt which two were many years) hereby opening a wide door of mistake to after-times who should live to see this Decree, as well as the other, and yet must account from the other.

4 Consideration, Which I take from the mouth of the Prophet Zechary, who began to Prophefie in the second year of that Darius who advanced the work of the Temple, as Zech. 1.1.7. Ezra. 4.24. compared with Chap. 5.1. which was many years after the first of Cyrus. Now observe, in his time Gods measuring Line for the building of Jerusalem had not as yet passed upon it, as is clear from Chap. 1.16. and Chap. 2.1, 2.3, 4. In Chap. 1. vers. 16. Zechary hath this by way of promise, Auline shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem. In Chap. 2. Ze­chary Visionally sees the thing done, having withall a promise addud to it, that Jerusalem again should be inhabited, vers. 1. I lifted up mine eyes again, and looked, and behold a man with a measuring line in his hand. vers. 2. Then said I, Whither goest thou? and he said unto me, To measure Jerusalem, to see what is the breadth thereof, and what the length thereof. vers. 3. And behold the Angel that talked with me went forth, and another Angel went out to meet him. vers. 4. And said unto him, Run, speak to the young man, saying, Je­rusalem shall be inhabited: us Towns without walls, for the multitude of men, and cattle therein. Now mind it, Zechary's seeing the thing Visionally, [Page 183]with a promise it should be done is a clear Argu­ment that the real passing the measuring line upon Jerusalem, for the building thereof, was a thing not yet done, but to be some time after. Now consider, can we imagine that God should cause a Decree to come forth by Cyrus for the building of Jerusalem, before yet himself had passed his measuring line upon it? or that the Jews, having such choice guides with them as Zerubbabel and Jeshua, should attempt to lay the foundations, and build up the walls of Jerusalem, and that in a way of fore-stalling Providence, laying their measuring lines before yet God had laid his? surely it cannot be.

My Conclusion therefore from the whole is, That that famous Decree of Cyrus, so generally harped upon, cannot be the Commandement here spoken of, from the going forth of which we are to begin our Epock of four hundred and ninety years.

SECT. 3.

Besides the Decree of Cyrus, which Decree was the first, we read in Ezra of a second Decree that concerned the Jews, and their welfare, which forth came from Darius, whereof mention is made Chap. 6. vers. 6, 7, 8, &c.

But this cannot be the Commandement here spoken of, which by the Angel is made Head of our ac­count, for the same reason disproving the for­mer, because this Decree concerned the Temple only, not Jerusalem, whereof we have not one [Page 184]tittle in the whole Decree; and also it concerned not so much the building of the Temple, as the removal of that which was an impediment in the way to the going on of the work, which work had still for its basis the old Decree of Cyrus, only the impediment is removed by ver­tue of a new; but now the Decree which is to be Head of our account is a Decree expresly to build, therefore cannot be this Decree.

Yet the learned Mede in his Treatise upon Daniels Weeks (whom I am necessitated here to mention by name, because I can neither state his opinion, nor answer it, without referring often­times to the Author) is of the mind our fixation must be here.

That by which he would evade the reason of the words, viz. That we are to begin from the build­ing of Jerusalem, is, He would distinguish the be­ginning of the Holy City, from the beginning of Jerusalem; For (saith he) the Holy City is so cal­led of the Temple the principal part, and therefore the time of the restitution thereof is to be reckoned from the time that the Temple was builded; but by Jerusa­lem is understood the external buildings and walls of the City, which were not restored till some time after the Temple & Sanctuary was finished, Daniels Weeks p. 3. (as the Treatise is printed by it self, as it is prin­ted with his whole Works, the Page is different.

To speak more plainly to the Readers capa­city, Mr. Medes opinion is this; That the seventy weeks are one Epock, and the sixty two weeks ano­ther, being a lesser period of time comprehended within the Seventy, whose beginning (as he saith [Page 185]page 10.) was to be after the Seventy were be­gun, and the end before they should be ended.

And as he makes the Seventy weeks to begin from the perfecting the work of the Temple in the sixth year of Darius Nothus, as is his opinion, and to end with the destruction of Jerusalem; so doth he the sixty two weeks to be­gin from the seventh year of Artaxerxes, when Ezra had Commission to cause to return, and carry with him as many of the Jews as he would to Jerusalem, Ezra 7.7.13. and also from the twentieth year of the same Artaxerxes, when Nehemiah obtained leave to build Jerusalem, Nehem. 2. and to end with the death of Christ. Onely he makes a difference betwixt Solar years, and Lunar, reckoning sixty two Solar years from the time of Ezraes going up, to the Death of Christ, but sixty two Lunar from Nehemiah's: sixty two weeks, or four hundred thirty four Lunar years, being (as he saith) so many lesse, then so many Solar, as there are years betwixt the seventh and twentieth of Artaxerxes, p. 21. and to this latter beginning he makes the Command to build Jerusalem to refer, and not to the former.

This is the full of Mr. Medes opinion, which with what clearnesse I am able, I have set forth; and now must say, though I highly honour the Author, and his indgement in many things, yet in this particular cannot I close with him.

My Reasons are,

1 Because the concurrence of the two thousand three hundred dayes in their end, with the one thou­sand three hundred thirty five, the one thousand [Page 186]two hundred and sixty dayes, with the one thousand two hundred and ninety (both which stand upon firm Scripture-ground) is absolutely destroyed by this opinion of the Seventy weeks.

2 Because Mr. Medes great and only Reason inducing him to this Computation, is weak, uncer­tain, without Scripture-ground, yea destructive to Scripture-principles.

His Reason is, to reconcile humane Histories, and Daniels Seventy weeks. Now supposing it to be done, yet in matters of faith the reason is weak, and as good as nothing, because the foun­dation is humane History, which is no ground of my faith.

2 It is uncertain, because humane Computa­tions are different, and in things different a choice cannot be made, without some other rule to guide the choice.

3 It is without Scripture-ground, because First, Scripture hath no where told us that we should make bare humane reports the ground of our faith, but manifestly the contrary. Secondly, No other grosse summe in the whole Scripture doth inforce the beginning and ending of the Seventy weeks to be as Mr. Mede hath stated it, which could that be made out, it must then be granted that Mr. Mede hath reason suf­ficient to adhere to the reports of those he fol­lows, rather then of others, who in computing the same time differ in their accounts, and con­sequently he should have, though not a par­ticular, yet a general Scripture-ground; but his opinion having neither the one, nor the [Page 187]other, hath no Scripture-ground at all.

4 It is destructive to other Scripture-principlos, viz. those principles which are the foundation of our first Reason.

3 Because Mr. Medes Distinction (which is the foundation of his whole Opinion) is unsound; yea, if the ground of it be throughly weighed, there is enough in the thing it self, to overthrow the whole building. For whereas Mr. Mede would put a difference betwixt the Holy City and Jerusalem, making the beginning of the Holy City to be from the time the Temple was finished, but the beginning of Jerusalem not to be till afterwards; Let it (in answer thereunto) be considered, That although the Temple, when spoken of alone, is called the Holy place, yet is it never called the Holy City, but with a reference still to Jerusalem. As the City Jerusalem is no otherwise said to be Holy, but as it hath reference to the Temple, the onely place of Gods worship being there fixed; so cannot the Temple, the place of Gods Ho­linesse, be called a Holy City, any otherwise then as it hath reference to the City Jerusalem joyned to it; Both compacted together make up the Holy City, either claiming a share in the name. That it is Holy, is from the Temple; that a City, from Jerusalem; that a Holy City, from both. And therefore it is observable, as Jerusalem is never in any other Scripture called (unlesse in a Prophetical way of what should be for future) the Holy City, but still with reference to the Temple fixed in it, so do we not find in all Ezra (which Book relates to the time we are [Page 188]upon) so much as once mention made of the Holy City, till afterwards in the dayes of Nehe­miah, Chap. 11.1.18. which was after Jerusalem was built, and City, and Temple, now again standing together. Yea whereas the Angel saith to Daniel, Seventy weeks are determined upon thy Holy City, what City doth he mean, but that City Daniel had been praying for, which was not the Temple onely, but Jerusalem with its Temple both together? Now seeing that Seventy weeks are determined upon the Holy City, and the Holy City cannot be so called from the Temple onely, but Temple and City together, it there­fore follows that there can be no other beginning of the Seventy weeks, but what is fetched from the time when Temple and City were again joyned together, so making up the Holy City, Daniels Holy City; nor can the duration of the Seventy weeks be any longer then Jerusalem stands with its Temple in it, owned by God for the place of his worship; which as it cuts off both Mr. Medes beginning and ending of his Seventy weeks, who begins before the City was built, and ends many years after God had rejected the Temple as the place of his worship; So is it a strong Argument against any beginning what­soever that shall begin the Seventy weeks any time before City and Temple stood together, or ending, that shall end them any time after God had rejected the Temple as the place of his worship.

4 Because Mr. Medes beginning of the Seventy weeks (take the same nakedly in it self, and out [Page 189]foregoing Arguments set aside) appears improbable; For he begins with the sixth of Darius Nothus, the King under whom (as he supposeth) the Temple-work was advanced in his second year, and finished in his sixth. But how improbable is this that Darius Nothus should be the Darius here meant, even from Mr. Medes own Con­cession, who upon the matter grants us one hun­dred and thirteen years betwixt the first of Cyrus, and the sixth of Darius Nothus; for, saith he, p. 9. the sixth year of Darius Nothus is concur­rent with the three hundred and thirtieth Nabonas­sarean year; but now the first year of Cyrus was An. Nabon. two hundred and seventeen, as af­firms Helvicus (Sir Walter Rauleigh and some others go seven or eight years higher) which is one hundred and thirteen years, walking by Mr. Medes own rule, and keeping to the lowest recko­ning. Now though the Temple-work was after Cyrus first at a stand for divers years, yet not for one hundred and thirteen; for consider, Zerub­babel, who leading Israel out of Babylon in the first of Cyrus did lay the foundation stone, hath a promise made to him that he should lay the Top-stone, Zech. 4.7, 8, 9. Nay not Zerubbabel onely, but also some who were so antient at the coming out of Babylon, that they had seen, and could remember the statelinesse of the first Temple, which was destroyed fifty years be­fore Cyrus first, by Nebuchadnezzar, were alive in Darius's second year, as is clear, Hag. 2.2, 3. now allowing for the time (which we must) of their age when the first Temple was destroyed (for [Page 190]were they not then of some age and judgement too, they could not so remember as to judge be­twixt the one and the other, viz. the first Temple and Second) and adding hereto, the fifty years betwixt the destruction of that Temple, and Cy­rus first, and one hundred and nine, betwixt Cyrus first, and Darius Nothus his second year, and the whole upon account cannot amount to lesse then one hundred and seventy years, which age is very improbable.

5 Because Mr. Medes ending of the Seventy weeks not till the time of Jerusalems destruction, is expresly against the several Characters of the Text, vers. 24. (which point us to the time where the Seventy weeks are to end, as the words, vers. 25. point us to the time where they are to begin) as shall be made appear in due place. Now be­ginning and ending both being mis-placed, the whole must needs be weak, yea, altogether false.

6 And lastly, Because Mr. Mede, to confirm and make good this opinion, is constrained to lay down (and that in his very foundation) two strange Asser­tions, for either of which the Text it self affords no solid bottome, nor any other Scripture sufficient warrant; and they are,

1 Mr. Mede interprets the Angels words, vers. 25. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the Command to restore and to build Jerusalem, to have relation not to the beginning of the Seventy weeks, but of the sixty two weeks, whereas it is most evident that the period or time the Angel had spoken of in the foregoing [Page 191]verse (with a determination there of the end) the beginning of which Daniel now seeks after, and the Angel declares to him, was the Seventy weeks, not the Sixty two weeks, which is not spoken of till afterwards; and therefore its more agreeable to the scope of the words, to make the going forth of the Commandement to restore and to build Jerusalem the beginning of the Se­venty weeks, then of the Sixty two weeks; to which if they are to be referred, the Angel should point out a period for beginning, before he had told Daniel any thing of the time. Nay, if this Command to build Jerusalem be not the begin­ning of the Seventy weeks, then is there not in all the words any expresse Head of account for them, for there is no other Head, but this onely, in the words, unlesse we say the Seventy are to be be­gun from the time of the Vision, which is as wide from, and as inconsistent with Mr. Medes whole Discourse, as any thing can be said. Yea farther observe, the Angel layes down this Head of ac­count with great care, that Daniel might not mistake, Know therefore, and understand. Now it is not a thing likely that the Angel should take so much care to make us understand aright the beginning of the lesser Period (as Mr. Mede calls it) of the sixty two weeks, and take no care to point us a beginning for the greater Period of the Seventy weeks, which (as Mr. Mede also saith) compre­hends the other; and therefore by consequence, if we know not where to begin and end that, the bare knowledge of the other will adde but little to us.

2 Mr. Mede is driven to assert the seven weeks and the sixty two weeks, vers. 25. to be one and the same, he reading the words thus, There shall be sevens of weeks, and threescore and two weeks; that is (saith he) many sevens of weeks, so many as amount to sixty two weeks of years, there being in sixty two week, nine times seven wan­ting one, which little want (saith he) makes no matter, there being eight whole Sevens besides in the number, p. 12. So he makes the sixty two weeks explicatory of the seven weeks, and the fame number to be in both, only set forth under di­verse expressions. But this as it seems to be over­curious; so Mr. Mede himself saw so many in­tricacies in asserting it, that he confesseth p. 14. that could the seven weeks be well bestowed the chiefest difficulty were taken off this Prophesie. Nay let me say, this cannot be, but only with that supposition that the seventy weeks are one period, and the sixty two another, which hath been disproved already. To all the rest I might adde, that Mr. Medes distinction betwixt Solar and Lunar years, which must come in to help, or else all said will not do, is over-curious, yea groundlesse, having no firm footing, to war­rant such a way of computing either in the Text, or any other Scripture.

The Conclusion is, That Mr. Medes opinion, which begins the seventy weeks with the sixth year of Darius Nothus, is not that which we are to im­brace and cleave to as truth, and the mind of God in this place.

SECT. 4.

A third Decree, or Commandement, we have in Ezra Chap. 7. viz. of Artaxerxes in the se­venth year of his Reign; But this cannot be the Com­mandement we are to look at; For neither did it concern the building of the Temple, which work, as to the building, was finished before in the sixth year of Darius, Ezra. 6.15. nor the building Jerusalem, whereof not one word is spoken. But it was only a Licence given to Ezra, and some Jews with him, to go up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice, and if need were to repair the Temple, in case of any decay there might be since the time the building-work was finished, or otherwise to adde something to the work by way of beauty or ornament, which seems to be inti­mated, Ezra 7.27. with a Command moreover to the Treasurers beyond the River, to furnish Ezra with monies and other necessaries for the expedi­ting hereof; which looks in nothing like the Com­mandement we are now enquiring after. I might adde, that several of the Reasons we have before laid down to disprove the former opinions, fall with equal force upon this, as might be shewed; but I forbear, because the reason of the Text lies so directly against this, that there needs no more to be rehearsed.

There is but one Decree more that any can imagine, and that is of Artaxerxes, in the twen­tieth year of his Reign, and given forth to Nehe­miah; of which we may read Nehem. 2.

Now this (as I conceive) is the Commandement, from the going forth of which, we are to begin this Epock of four hundred and ninety years.

My reasons are,

1 Because this Commandement came forth in as solemn a manner as any of the other. The first De­cree of Cyrus came forth presently upon Daniels praying and mourning, so doth this upon Nehe­miahs, Chap. 1.4, 5. The one hath as solemn a rise, as the other.

2 Reason, Because the work that this Decree concerned, was a work in its self as famous every whit as the work of the Temple, as appears, First, By the large description we have left us of the thing, by the Lord himself; a whole Book (viz. Nehe­miahs) being written in a manner upon this sub­ject, in which we have the work, in the parts and circumstances of it, more exactly laid down then is the work of the Temple in the foregoing Book of Ezra. Secondly, The great opposition it met with by enemies, declaring it to be a work where­in Gods cause and glory was greatly concerned. Thirdly, The calling of this work, Gods work, Neh. 3.5. and a work in which God did so emi­nently appear in carrying it on, and defending the workmen, that the very enemies themselves confesse the work to be wrought of God, Nehem. 6.16. which considerations are sufficient to si­lence some exceptions I have met with, under­valuing this work of Nehemiah, as a private businesse, and a thing too mean to be made the Head of this famous Epock. And indeed I have sometimes thought, that one reason why so [Page 195]large a story is left us of this work, might be, be­cause without a knowledge hereof, we could ne­ver have found the certain time with which we are to begin Daniels seventy weeks, which is a thing of so great concernment, as the Head of no one number in Scripture like it.

3 Because this Decree agrees much better to the Angels words, then either the Decree of Cyrus, or any of the other two: For observe, the Commandement spoken of by the Angel, is a Commandement to restore and build Jerusalem, Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the Decree to restore, and to build Jerusalem. Yea such a building as should rear up again the street and walls of Jerusalem, as the following words shew. Now neither of the former Decrees did this, for when Nehemiah first thought upon the work, the walls of Jerusalem were broken down, the Gates burnt with fire, Nehem. 1.3, 4. after the work of building the walls was finished, yet the houses were not builded, Nehem. 7.1, 4.—the City was large and great, but the people were few therein, and the houses were not builded. The meaning surely is, That notwithstanding there might be here and there particular houses in which the people did reside, yet Jerusalem as a City with houses compacted making a street, was not yet built (which is the thing the Angel mentions to Daniel, to the end we might not look upon the building of some particular houses, to be, in the intent of the Holy Ghost, the building of Jeru­salem, but rather reckon it from the time when walls and street began to be built.) But now [Page 196]in Nehemiahs time both these were done, he built the walls of Jerusalem, and that in so short a time as was even a miracle, Nehem. 6.15. and he built the houses also, and Artaxerxes Decree did authorize him to do both these, Chap. 2.5, 8. And this was a larger power then ever was given before by any of the precedent De­crees.

4 Because this beginning stands reconciled (as our computation of the two thousand three hun­dred dayes by virtue of it will make appear) with those Scripture-principles, which require a concur­rence in their ends betwixt the two thousand three hundred dayes, and the one thousand three hundred thirty five, and also the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, and the one thousand two hundred and ninety; which all the other beginnings are at variance, and open war with.

What shall I say more? to make the whole of this long Discourse clear and undoubted, in one word, Consider, That the Jews had a two­fold Restoration, and a double building-work; First, A spiritual Restoration, or a Restoration as they were a Church, and a building-work at­tending that, viz. Of the Temple; Secondly, A Civil Restoration, or a Restoration as they were a Commonwealth, and a building-work attending that, viz. Of the City Jerusalem. Both these Da­niel in his prayer had been pleading for, viz. The Restoration of City and Sanctuary. Accordingly, in the answer given to him by the Angel, we have a double Command; First, A Command which concerned the first only, viz. The Temple-work, [Page 197]which was the Command of Cyrus, and is that Commandement which is said to come forth at the beginning of Daniels supplication, vers. 23. i.e. whilst Daniel is praying Cyrus enacts this Law, and so part of Daniels prayer had a present an­swer; Secondly, A Command respecting the second, viz. The work of the City and Common­wealth, which is the Commandement to restore, and to build Jerusalem, vers. 25.—The coming forth of this was to be for future; and (I take it) this latter Commandement hath therefore this particular notation, Of building Jerusalem, that Daniel, nor we, might not mistake, and account it the same with the other, vers. 23. Now observe, the Angel fixing the Head of the seventy weeks upon the Command for building Jerusalem, it is a clear Argument that we are to begin the seventy weeks with the Jews Civil Restoration, not their Spiri­tual.

The Conclusion therefore is, That the Comman­dement from the going forth, of which we are to begin our four hundred and ninety years, is the Commande­ment of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of his Reign.

Thus much as touching our beginning of this famous Epock of Daniels seventy weeks, or four hunddred and ninety years.

SECT. 5.

Having found out the beginning of Daniels seventy weeks; our next Enquiry must be where we shall end them.

Worthy Mr. Mede (with whom we have been contending already about the beginning) is of opinion that we are to end the seventy weeks with the destruction of Jerusalem; But having before proved his Beginning to be false, his End must necessarily be so too. And indeed, the most of our Reasons, but the three first especial­ly, laid down to disprove his beginning, do lye as strongly against this end, take the same, as it is asserted by him, or any other.

But that which here I shall farther adde, is, That this ending of the seventy weeks is altogether re­pugnant to the Text, which points us to another ending point, viz. the death of the Messiah; as the evident Characters in the Text declare.

1 CHARACTER. The seventy weeks are determined upon Daniels Holy City. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy Holy City; therefore to be extended no farther then the time that Jerusa­lem remained the Holy City. But now Jerusalem (as I have observed before) remained the Holy City no longer then God did own the Temple in it as the only place of his worship; and this was onely till the Death of Christ, the Messiah; after which the veil of the Temple is rent in twain, the Jewish Sacrifice and Oblation ceaseth, Neither in this Mountain, nor in Jerusalem shall men now any longer (i. e. excluding other places, as it was all the time of the Law) worship the Father.

2 CHARACTER. The seventy weeks are there to end where the Jews transgressions are finished, or come to the full. Seventy weeks are [Page 199]determined upon thy people, and upon thy Holy City, to finish the transgression. But this was done in the crucifying the Lord of life, for then did the Jews fill up the measure of their Fathers, as is evident from that Parable Matth. 21.33. to the end; first the servants of the Lord of the Vineyard are killed, vers. 35.36. Thus were the Prophets one after another by their Fore-fathers. But last of all (saith Christ) The Lord of the Vineyard sends his Son, saying, They will reverence my Son, vers. 37. But these wicked Husbandmen kill him likewise, vers. 38. hereupon transgressions are come to the full, the Lord of the Vineyard miserably destroyes these wicked men, and lets out his Vineyard to other Husbandmen, vers. 40.41. And what can better evidence transgressions being now come to the full, then this? the chief Heads of the Jews, and the popularity, with one mouth crying out, when the sentence of condemnation was passing upon Christ, His blood be upon us, and our children, invoking hereby Heaven for judgement and de­struction upon themselves and their posterity; yea it is yet more evident that transgressions at this day were come to the full, because, though some particular persons, upon the wonderfull miracles of Christs Resurrection, sending down the Spirit, and the preaching of the word of the Gospel hereupon sent forth among them, did afterwards come in and imbrace this Christ; yet never had the body of the Nation, nor their Rulers from that day forwards hearts so much as to acknowledge their most wicked fact, much lesse repent them of it.

A third, fourth, and fifth CHARACTERS. The seventy weeks are then to expire when an end was made of sin, reconciliation made for iniquity, everlasting righteousnesse brought in.

Seventy weeks are determined to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for ini­quity, and to bring in everlasting Righteousnesse: But all this was eminently done in the day of Christs sufferings when he gave up the Ghost, saying, It is finished.

The Conclusion is, That we are to end Daniels seventy weeks with the Passion of Christ.

SECT. 6.

Unto the fore-going Opinion, which ends the seventy weeks with the Passion of Christ, doth excellently accord the seven weeks, and the sixty two weeks in the following verse (which Mr. Mede confesseth to be the greatest knot in this Prophesie) the difficulty hereby being wholly ta­ken off, and thereby our opinion as touching the ending of the seventy weeks confirmed.

But ere this can be made appear, it will be ne­cessary that the knot concerning the seven weeks be untied.

Four opinions (besides that of Mr. Medes, whereof mention was made before) there are of these seven weeks, neither of which can I re­ceive.

1 The first is, that which would have the seven weeks to be weeks of dayes, and the sixty two weeks, weeks of yeers; the meaning of the opinion is, [Page 201]That the dayes of the seven weeks should be un­derstood of Natural dayes, a day consisting of four and twenty hours, but in the sixty two, of Prophetical dayes, a day for a year, and accord­ingly it would have these seven weeks to bee meant of the two and fifty dayes, wherein the Wall of Jerusalem was finished, Neh. 6.15. which (saith the Author) though they are in­deed somewhat more then seven weeks, yet short of seven and a half, and so not to be regarded in account of weeks.

But this cannot be,

1 Because It is against all Scripture accounts, yea reason it self, to conceive that in one and the same Epock of seventy weeks, we should (without any compelling reason from the Text so to do) interpret some of the weeks of dayes Natural, some of dayes Prophetical.

2 Because The Angel assigns no proper work to the seven weeks, as distinct from the sixty two, no reason therefore wee should. Nay, in case we so do, its more consonant to the Angels words to attribute the building of Jerusalem, with its Wall, to the sixty two weeks, then to the seven weeks; For saith the Angel, Sixty two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in trouble some times.

2 A second opinion (and the most common) is, That which makes the seven weeks the Period of time the second Temple was building, and the sixty two weeks the time thence to Christ, in which time Jerusalem was again built, and inhabited.

Ans. This cannot I subscribe,

1 Because it supposeth seven weeks of the se­venty to be expired before Jerusalem began to be built, whereas I have already proved at large the seventy weeks are to take beginning thence. The very foundation therefore of this opinion is a mistake as to the beginning of the seventy weeks.

2 Because it is a thing that cannot be proved from the testimony of any clear undeniable Scrip­ture, that the second Temple was in building seven weeks, i.e. nine and forty years. As for that, John 2.20. Forty and six years was this Temple in building, which place some make interpretative of Daniels seven weeks, supposing the Temple to be perfected in the seventh week, towards the end, or about the middle of it, which will agree well to six and forty yeers; Not to say, In case the thing were so, that the words can have no relation to Daniels seventy weeks, the seventy weeks not beginning (as I have proved) till after the Temple-work was finished;

My Answer is, That it is a thing doubted among good men, whether these words have any relation at all to Zerubbabels Temple, or not; for some conceive they relate to Solomons Temple, which computing from the time David made preparation for the building there­of, till the same by Solomon was finished, a­mounts to about six and forty years; But others, with more reason, and likelihood of truth, re­fer them to the Temple Herod built, who (to [Page 203]ingratiate himself with the Jews) pulled down the former Temple Zerubbabel had built, build­ing, instead thereof, another more large, rich and sumptuous Temple (as is testified by Josephus, Antiq. lib. 15. Cap. 14.) which Temple was the Temple then standing; And this work (as Dr. Lightfoot in his Harmony of the four Evangelists upon the Text, proveth) had been in hand ex­actly six and forty years before the time Christ and the Jews had this Discourse, the probability of which opinion (considering the Jews spake of a Temple that was, not that had been) weighs down, in my opinion, all others. But if yet any do adhere to the opinion of Zerubbabels Temple, and accordingly set this Scripture against my Argument, let them (which they must) produce some Scripture speaking the thing that Zerub­babels Temple is here meant; till that is done, we are in uncertainties, and an uncertain ground is too weak to prove a thing, or disprove the con­trary.

And indeed learned men generally seem not in the present case to lay much weight up­on this Text; for those, on the one hand, who conceive the second Temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes, reckon not half six and forty years, betwixt Cyrus his first, and Hystaspes sixth year: And those, on the other, who judge the work was not finished untill the sixth of Darius Nothus, reckon between the first of Cyrus, and the sixth of Nothus, above twice six and forty years: Yet is not this Text [Page 204]judged by either to have that weight in it, as to make them alter their opinions.

Alsted (in Chronologia Monarchiae Persarum) would find out a way to uphold this opinion, viz. That Zerubbabels Temple was six and forty years in building, and yet will not have the compleat finishing of the work to be till the sixth year of Darius No­thus, which (according to his account) reckoning from the second year of Cyrus, when the foundation was laid, was one hundred and eleven years. But to do this he reckons only the time they were build­ing, leaving out the time the work was at a stay. But as it is a most unlikely thing, that the Jews, be­ing so considerable a company, as was that com­pany that came up from Babylon, and attending wholly to this work, should spend six and forty years inthe meer building-work, who afterwards in Nehemiahs time did in two and fifty dayes build the whole walls of Jerusalem, Neh. 6.15. So is it as unlikely (which yet Alsted to make good his opinion supposeth) that those enemies of Judah should sit still, and suffer the work quietly to go on, without intermedling in the least to their pre­judice, six and thirty years together, viz. all the time of Darius Hystaspes, who at other times were ready and active, whensoever they saw the work on foot, to hinder it.

To say no more, the whole of the opinion is made up of meer suppositions; As first, That the Darius, Ezra 4.5. is Hystaspes. Secondly, That the Jews did build all the time of his Reign. Thirdly, That Ahasuerus, Ezra 4.6. and Artax­erxes, [Page 205]vers. 7. were two divers persons. Fourthly That Ahasuerus was Xerxes the Great. Fifthly, That in the beginning of his Reign the Temple­work was stopped, which yet went on again in the six last years of his Reign. Sixthly, That the Artaxerxes, Ezra 4.7. was Longimanus, who throughout his Reign, forty years together, hin­dered the work. Seventhly, That Darius, who in his second year set the work on foot, bringing it to perfection in his sixth, was Darius Nothus; never an one of all which can be proved by any clear Scripture, yet not one of them but is and must be supposed, to make good this opinion.

Let the Reader therefore judge what proba­bility is in it; And also by the way take notice, to learn hence never to take up things upon trust; what a do is made, by not a sew, to prove a thing that is not, or at least that cannot be made appear to be? to prove Zerubbabels Temple was six and forty years in building, because it is said, Six and forty years was this Temple in building; whereas indeed, if we follow the opinion to the heels, it cannot be proved that Zerubbabels Temple is there spoken of. Could any demonstrative Text be brought to prove that, it would then be worth while to look after the six and forty years, but to spend time about it, while the main Question is begged, is but lost labour.

3 A third opinion there is of these seven weeks, which makes them to be the term of time Jerusalems Wall and City was building, which was nine and forty years (saith the Author of it) [Page 206]reckoning from the first of Cyrus to the two and thirtieth of Artaxerxes, when Nehemiah having finished the whole work returneth again to the King, Neh. 13.6.

But this cannot be,

1 Because what I have already said in my second Reason, in answer to the first opinion, lies with the same weight against this.

2 Because the building of Jerusalem was no part of Cyrus Decree (as formerly I have proved) which yet this opinion supposeth; yea the whole stresse of it lyes upon the neck of this supposition.

3 Because in beginning the seven so high, it doth also begin the seventy weeks as high as Cyrus, which is an error.

4 Because the Author fails greatly in point of Chronologie, whilst he accounts but nine and forty years betwixt Cyrus first, and Nehemiah's Artaxerxes two and thirtieth year, which upon a due examination (when we shall come to it) will appear to be many more.

4 There is yet another opinion also of these seven weeks (not much differing from that I na­med last) viz. That these seven weeks are the time Jerusalem, with the rest of the Cities of Judah were building and repairing.

But this cannot stand, because of our second Reason, laid down in answer to the first opinion, which batters this also; and also because, the very foundation of it is neither Scripture, nor Story, but pure and meer conjecture, as Master Mede proveth, who opposeth himself to this [Page 207]opinion. Daniels Weeks, page 15.

What hath been hitherto said by way of An­swer to each, is sufficient to shew the inconsistency of all those opinions, with the words, which make the seven weeks one time, the sixty two another, assigning several works to the several times.

Seeing therefore none of these can stand, nor the fore-mentioned conjecture of Mr. Mede, I shall now lay down what I conceive of the Text, reading the word thus, with an alteration of the stops onely, Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the Commandement to re­store, and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and sixty two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. The meaning is, That from the time the command to build Jerusalem should go forth, untill the appearance of the Messiah, should be sixty nine weeks; all which time, not­withstanding the great troubles and overturnings that within it should be in the world, through the translation of the Monarchy from the Medes and Persians to the Grecians, and from them to the Romans (all which fell out within this time) and the distractions of particular Kingdomes, and the great opposition that should be made against the Jews; yet such should Gods care of, and his providence over his people be, in this so mighty a hurly burly, and commotion of Nations, and particular oppositions made against them, as that in despight of all, Jerusa­lem [Page 208]throughout this troublous time should con­tinue building and built. And so observe, the words, as they set forth the length of the time from the day Jerusalem should begin to be built, untill the Messiahs appearance, so do they in­clude within them a sweet and gracious promise of the care God would have of his people, through and amiust all these tossings, untill the Messiah should appear, they should still be preserved one way or other, who ever went to wrack; and this notably answers to Daniels prayer, being a blessed quieting of his spirit, and to the event also. And indeed, one principal thing that makes this place so knotty, is in a manner but a trifle, viz. making a half point betwixt the seven weeks, and the sixty two weeks, where none should be made, and neglecting a Coma at the end of the sixty two weeks, where for the more easie understanding of the words its re­quisite one should be.

Now, as for the Reason why the seventy weeks, which first are mentioned whole, vers. 24. are afterwards broken into parts, I conceive it to be this onely, That hereby the mystery of this Prophesie might be the greater, and the time the harder to compute, which otherwise (the Head of the seventy once found) would have had no difficulty in it; therefore, that the mystery might be so much the greater, we have the seventy weeks, which are first mentioned whole, broken into three parts, two smaller, and one greater, which are expressed severally; first, seven weeks, then sixty two weeks, then one week, vers. 27. [Page 209]and that too in such a manner, as if the seven weeks had relation to one thing, the sixty two to another, the one, to another; whereas it is not so, but all put together make up but that seventy we had before, and serve to point us to the time of our Saviours Passion, which is said, vers. 26. to be after sixty two weeks, that is, sixty two ad­ded to the other seven, making sixty nine; then, viz. at the end of sixty nine weeks, in the begin­ning of the seventieth, is our Redeemer anointed to his work: Hence that Character of the seventy weeks, vers. 24. Seventy weeks are de­termined to anoint the most Holy. This day of his anointing, is the day of his appearance to Israel; being anointed, he goes forth the rest of that seventieth week, till the time of his Death, preaching the Gospel, doing good, healing those that were sick, casting out Devils, &c. And this I conceive to be the thing meant by his confirm­ing the Covenant with many for one week, vers. 27. And indeed this agrees excellently well to that of Paul, Rom. 15.8. Now I say, that Jesus Christ was a Minister of the Circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the Fa­thers. Christ himself by his own preaching must confirm the Covenant made with the Fathers, which (saith the Apostle) is the reason why he was made a Minister of the Circumcision, i.e. a Minister under the Law. Now this he did in the beginning of the seventieth week, going about preaching the space of three years, and but three, as is clear, Luke 13.32, 33. And this was [Page 210]till towards the middle of the week (i.e. till four years before the four hundred and ninety were fully expired) at which time he was cut off, which I take to be the meaning of those words, In the midst of one week shall he cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, vers. 27. i.e. Christs Death which fell out, not in the end, but in the middle of the last and seventieth week, did put an end to all the Jewish Sacrifices and Worship; the Great Passcover being slain, all other Sacrifices termi­nate in him.

And indeed that Christs Passion must ne­cessarily fall out about the middle of the seven­tieth week, is clear, because the Text speaks po­sitively that it should be but seven weeks, and sixty two weeks, i.e. sixty nine weeks, untill the Messiah shall appear; So soon therefore as ever the sixty nine weeks were at an end, and the seventieth but begun, we must of necessity conclude the Mes­siah did appear, for otherwise it should be up­wards of sixty nine weeks to his appearance. Now the thing which will make all clear is, what we are to understand by his Appearance. We may not understand his Birth; for if so, then he not being put to death till he was four and thirty years old, which space of time contains almost five of Daniels weeks, it should be seventy three, or seventy four weeks to the cutting off of the Messiah, whereas the Text tells us he is cut off after sixty nine weeks, or after seven weeks, and sixty two weeks, which make sixty nine.

I have in my Key, Thes. 57. pitched upon the [Page 211]time of his Baptisme, but not so considerately, for though his Appearance then was to John Baptist, and some few Disciples whom he chose, yet did he not till afterwards appear publickly.

This Appearance of his, I do therefore con­ceive (following herein the learned Mede) is to be reckoned from that time in which he begun to preach publickly to the Nation of the Jews, decla­ring himself to be the Messiah, which was (as Mr. Mede hath well noted) after his Harbinger John had now finished his message, and was cast into prison, which circumstance of time is precisely noted in the Evangelical story, and the place also where he began his preaching, Mark. 1.14. After John was put in prison Jesus came into Galilee, preach­ing the Gospel of the Kingdome of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, i.e. (saith Mr. Mede) the last week of the sixty two weeks is now come, Matth. 4.12. compared with 17. This is the very time and place whence Peter reckoned the beginning of Christ's Prophecie in his Sermon to Cornelius, Act. 10.37. That word which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the Baptism which John preached. And which is an evidence that this was the time of his anointing by his Father, Luke tells us Chap. 4.18, 19, 20, 21. That when he first opened the Book to teach the people in Nazareth of Galilee, he opened upon that place, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; Upon which Text our Saviour himself Comments, vers. 21. This day is this [Page 212]Scripture fulfilled in your ears; as if hee should say, This day is Daniels seventieth week begun, now is the Messiah anointed; from this time (which according to Mr. Mede was a full year after Christs Baptism) we are to reckon those three dayes or years, Luke 13.32, 33. To this opinion the several Passeovers betwixt Christs Baptism and Death, do best accord, which in case the Principle were as demonstrable, as it is received and owned by good men, that of the Passeovers alone doth necessarily infer that four years must passe betwixt his Baptism and Death.

This opinion, though it differs from what I have laid down in my Key, yet is it so far from destroying my Harmony, that it suits it better then that doth; for by the addition of this year, the two thousand three hundred dayes, and the one thousand three hundred thirty five, do both fall at the end of the year one thousand seven hundred and one; but according to the Compu­tation there laid down, one falls at the beginning of the aforesaid year, the other at the end. This being so, let it be considered how long it was be­twixt Christs beginning to preach, and his Passion, none will say it was seven years, the forequoted Text, Luke 13. shews it to be but three. And this no way repugns to Daniels half week; for the Scripture is not so curious in dividing as to go to the exactnesse of a half week, it is suffici­ent that there is the half of the years contained in the week, though some few months be want­ing: [Page 212]And therefore well and considerately did, our Translators render the half of the week, by the midst of the week, which phrase mollifie the rigor of Division, and helps to remove the scruple that might otherwise arise through the want that there is, in this division, of some few months. Now I say, Christ from the day of his anointing, which was at the very end of the sixty ninth week, and in the beginning of the seventieth, preaching but three years, and then being cruci­fied, it necessarily follows, that his Passion must bee, not at the end, but in the midst of the week, which week too can be no other then the seven­tieth and last. And therefore (as I have observed in my Key) it is said, vers. 26. after threescore and two weeks (i.e. sixty two added to the seventy, making sixty nine) shall the Messiah be cut off, and not after seventy weeks, because Christs sufferings came upon him before the seventieth week was fully and compleatly expired.

And upon these reasons I have concluded in my Key, Thes. 57. that we are not to account upon so many years fully as there are dayes in seventy weeks, but to deduct four out of the seventieth and last week, because Christs sufferings (which are the point where the seventy weeks expire) fell out to be in the very close of the third day or year of the seventieth and last week.

And indeed it is an Argument of Gods spe­cial care, that he should leave in this Prophesie, such clear hints, to prove that we are to cut off four years of the 70^th week, without which wee should [Page 214]have run on to the end of it, and so computed four years more then we ought; which, besides the breach that hereby would be made in Chro­nology, would have made this Prophecie irre­concileable with the reports of the several Evangelists as touching the time that passed be­twixt Christs Anointing and Passion.

Object. But it is said, vers. 27. He shall confirm the Covenant with many for one Week; Which one week can bee no other but the se­ventieth and last; for it is spoken of as a week distinct from the seven weeks, and the sixty two weeks; If therefore after sixty nine weeks are passed, one week is spent in confirming the Covenant, then must we needs place the Death of Christ, which was his last and sealing act, not in the midst, but in the end of the seventieth week.

Answ. Not so, for under the Phrase, One week, is not comprehended the whole week, but the half onely; and this is clear from the next words, in the midst of the week shall he cause the Sacrifice, and Oblation to cease. In the midst of what week? Ans. Of the one week, there­fore Christ's Death must fall in the midst or half (though not the exact half) of the one week; and if so, must not be brought down to the end of that week. If it be said, The half week is to be understood of the latter half, and that it is the error of the Translators, which ren­ders the half of the week, by the middest of the week, for it may as well bee taken for the [Page 215]latter half, as the former. To that I answer; If so, then doubtlesse the Angel would have said in the end of the week, and not in the half of the week; for the one is a proper phrase, the other improper; the one leaves the thing without scruple, the other leaves a knot where none would look for any; for who would ever imagine, that the Angel, whilst hee speaks of a half of the week, should mean the end. Nay, it can­not be otherwise, but that that which is here called one week, must bee the former half only, and no more, for this reason, because the work to bee done in the one week, is con­firming the Covenant.

Now this confirming the Covenant, being the highest act of Christ, as hee was a Minister of the Circumcision, it necessarily follows, that Christ could do this no longer then within that time that he was laying out himself in his Ministerial Function.

This confirming the Covenant cannot there­fore be a work of seven years durance (which must bee, if wee take the one week for a full week) but of three only, which agrees well to half of a week, and (for what I have said be­fore) the former half.

If any be curious to know the reason why it should bee called, One week, and yet but half a week only meant thereby?

Answ. It is with respect to the seventy weeks, sixty nine of which hee had already reckoned in two parts, first seven weeks, then sixty two; [Page 216]now because the seventieth week, which in the grosse summe was reckoned, had not yet in the parts been mentioned, hee therefore now brings that in, calling it one week, yet with lay­ing down such Cautions and Considerations, as that wee may well perceive, this one week, though called a week (with a respect to the other weeks of the seventy, that it is in the grosse sum conjoyned with) is not indeed to bee under­stood of a whole week, but the first half only.

Object. But if the cutting off of the Messiah bee in the middle of the week, how then are there seventy weeks determined on the Holy City?

For answer. Mr. Mede hath a Notion con­cerning this, worthy to be written in Letters of gold; Onely he applies it to his opinion, viz. That the seventy weeks are to end with the destructi­on of Jerusalem. So much as concerns that I shall alter in reciting it. The Notion speaks thus; It should be observed (though it useth not so to be) that the Angel reckons not by single years, but by weeks; If he had said there should be four hundred and ninety years to the Passion of Christ, then indeed to make good the prediction, Christ must have suffered in the last year: But when he sayes it shall bee seventy weeks, it is enough if so be Christ suffer in the seventieth week. For if those who reckon by years, if the year designed answers the event, will not stand upon the compleatnesse of months and dayes; nor [Page 217]those who reckon by dayes, upon the compleat­nesse of hours and minutes; no more in the Angels reckoning here by weeks, if so be the number of the weeks be compleat, are the parts of a week to be exacted. Seeing therefore the Text is clear, that the Messiah is to bee cut off in the seventieth week, it matters not as to the making up of seventy weeks, though the thing were done in the middle of the week; for sufficient it is, that the same is done in the seventieth week.

Thus the sundry great knots, as touching the seven weeks, the sixty two weeks, the one week, and the half week, are all untied by this opinion, which ends the seventy weeks with the Passion of Christ, which no other opinion in a way agreeable to the Text, other Scrip­tures, yea reason it self, either hath done, or can do.

By this therefore we are yet farther confirmed in our foregoing Position, viz. That we are, with the Passion of our dear Lord and Saviour, to end Daniels Seventy Weeks.

SECT. 7.

Object. But against this our ending of the seventy weeks, it may be objected, viz. That the seventy weeks cannot end with the Passion of Christ, because it is manifest from sundry ex­pressions in the Text, that the very Prophesie [Page 218]looks farther, and treats of things that relate to another time; For vers. 26. mention is made of the destruction of Jerusalem, both City and Sanctuary, which was performed many years after Christs death by Titus Vespasian, The people of the Prince that shall come shall destroy the City and Sanctuary, and the end thereof shall bee with a Flood. Yea the following words in the very same verse, Unto the end of the War desolations are determined, relate to a time much lower, according to the Exposition I my self have gi­ven of them, Key, Thes. 17. Yea likewise those words verse 27. For the overspreading of abominations bee shall make it desolate, even untill the consummation, and that determined shall bee powred upon the desolate, must needs re­late to the very last times, in which the Jews, who for crucifying and rejecting the Lord of Glory, were given up of God to remain a desolate, forsaken people, untill the Consummation, or the time of the end, shall bee again received into favour, and restored under Christ to greater Liberty and Glory then ever. Therefore must not the seventy weeks end as before, but bee extended to some farther time.

Answ. The foregoing Expressions, though they come within the compasse of the Vision, yet not within the compasse of the seventy weeks; or thus, Though they are a part of the words of the Prophecie, yet are they no part of the seventy weeks; that is, They [Page 219]do not relate to things done within this time, but things to bee done afterwards, when the seventy weeks should bee expired. For ob­serve, The Angel having informed Daniel, that after seven weeks, and sixty two weeks (i. e. sixty nine) to bee reckoned from the go­ing forth of the Command to restore and to build Jerusalem, the Messiah should appear, who having confirmed the Covenant part of the seventieth week, should in the middest of that week bee cut off, by which Death of his, hee should put an end to the Mosaical worship, &c. Hee now goes on relating farther, what should befall the Jewes hereupon, even untill their last Restoration, not any longer speak­ing of things as referring to the seventy weeks (to the end of which hee was come already) but as suiting the former Discourse, and also answering Daniels desire, which was, to know the final issue of things concerning his own people; and therefore the Angel tells him, that the Messiah being cut off, the Jews City and Sanctuary should thereupon be destroyed, the body of their Nation bee made desolate, in which desolate, forlorn, unchurched condition, they should remain even unto the time of the end, when Christ notwithstanding all their unkind­nesse to him, would yet make himself known unto them, taking that poor desolate people into his arms and favour again; and this last of their Restoration seems to mee to bee the thing hinted in the very last words of the Prophecie, [Page 220]and that determined shall bee poured upon the desolate, i.e. (as I conceive, otherwise nothing at all is here spoken of their Restoration) That de­termined One, viz. the Christ, the Mesiah, the determined time of whose first coming was seventy weeks, and who accordingly at the end of that time did come, was cut off by the Jews, Jeru­sälem for this destroyed, they made desolate, un­churched, untill the consummation, shall in the consummation, or in the time of the end, bee poured upon the desolate, that is, reveal himself unto, pour out his Spirit upon, this desolate Na­tion, who now shall see and confesse, that that act of their Fore-fathers in crucifying Christ, was indeed the cutting off of their Messiah, or that determined One promised to them at the end of seventy weeks.

Thus though the Prophesie it self brings us as low as Christs second coming, yet are not the seventy weeks to be brought down thither; but we are to end them, as before, with the Passion of Christ; and whatsoever expressions have a farther look, we are to interpret them not as having a re­spect to the seventy weeks (which are compleat without them) but as spoken to this end, to give Daniel information how the case should stand with his people, between the time of their re­jection for the cutting off of the Messiah (where ends the seventy weeks) and their Restoration.

SECT. 1.

HAving in the fore-going Chapter found out the true beginning and ending of Daniels seventy weeks, it now remains, That we enquire into the number of the years that passed from Cyrus first, unto the twentieth of that Artaxerxes when Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem with Commission to build it.

And the more is this peece of our way to be heeded, because Chronologers themselves differ no lesse then above a hundred years, some from others, in computing this time; and a hundred years lost or gained is no little matter.

I shall therefore, as hitherto I have done, so in this also, make Scripture-Text compared and laid together my chief rule; shewing what proba­bilities I have from the Scripture it self for the thing which I assert; and by those examining others opinions, chusing or refusing upon no other account.

To come therefore to the Question.

Quest. What number of years are we to account [Page 226]upon betwixt the first of Cyrus, and the twentieth of Artaxerxes?

Ans. It is the opinion of Dr. Lightfoot in his Harmony of the Old Testament (whom I am necessitated for truths sake here to mention by name (as Mr. Mede before) because I can neither bring forth his strength, nor my own, without references to the Author) that we are to reckon upon seven and thirty years onely, which by him are laid down thus, viz. Cyrus three, Artaxer­xes Ahasuerus fourteen, Artaxerxes Darius twenty, the whole is seven and thirty.

But though I much value the learning and judgement of the Author; yet cannot I con­clude with him in this.

1 Because the allowance of so few years to this Period, can never (unlesse new Heads, agreeable to Scripture and Reason, be found out for each several number) cause a concurrence in ends betwixt the two thousand three hundred dayes, and the one thousand three hundred thirty five; the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, and the one thousand two hundred and ninety, which upon the account of the Reasons laid down in my Key, Thes. 17. and Thes. 34. must be.

2 Because the several suppositions upon which this opinion is built, are not onely in themselves un­certain, but even inconsistent with other parts of the Scripture History, and Right-reason. And there­fore of necessity the foundation being sandy, must the opinion fall.

Now the things by Dr. Lightfoot supposed, which are bottome for this opinion, are these.

1 That Artaxerxes Ahasuerus, mentioned Ezra 4.6, 7. was Son and next Successor in the Per­sian Monarchy to Cyrus. Asserted in his Chronicle upon the Book of Hesther.

2 That this Artaxerxes Ahasuerus reigned but fourteen yeers in all. Asserted upon Hesther 10.

3 That Darius, in the sixth of whose Reign the Temple-work was finished Ezra 6.15. and Artaxerxes, in the seventh of whose Reign Ezra went up to Jerusalem, Ezra 7.1, 7. and Nehe­miah afterwards in the twentieth, Nehem. 2. was one and the same person under two names. In the Chronicle upon Ezra, Chap. 6. Chap. 7. Chap. 9, 10.

4 That it was the compleat number of seventy years from the time that Nebuch [...]nezzar de­stroyed the first Temple, untill Darius second year, in which the building of the second was advanced. In the Chronicle upon Hesther. 10.

5 That Ezra was Son to that Serajah the High Priest, whom Nebuchadnezzar slew at the time the first Temple was destroyed, 2 King. 25.18, 22. and therefore must necessarily be born be­fore the destruction of Solomons Temple; which being fifty years before Cyrus first, and Ezra be­ing so active now in the dayes of Artaxerxes, it cannot agree to his age and activity, that the time betwixt Cyrus first, and Artaxerxes twenty, should be long. Upon Ezra 7.

6 That the design of the Holy Ghost in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah is to give us a Chronicle of the Porsian Kings. Upon Nohemiah p. 204.

These Six Particulars, which I finde here and there scattered in Doctor Light-foot, and have for the better discussing of the thing put them into this order, will upon a due examination be all of them found too light.

1 Particular, That Artaxerxes Ahasuerus was next successor to Cyrus.

Ans. This is a thing very unlikely; 1. Be­cause Cyrus Son being so deadly an enemy to the Iews, as that he by his power did put a stop to the work of the Temple, his Father yet living (as is by Doctor Light-foot himself, p. 190. and others assirmed) we cannot conceive the Iews would at­tempt to build whilst he was alive; or put case they should, there would be no need of writing Letters to this wicked wretch, and in them coy­ning false accusations to cause the work to cease, (as the Adversaries do to Artaxerxes) for he of himself was, and would have been ready enough to hinder the work.

2 The very Circumstances of the Text ar­gue this Artaxerxes to have been at a further di­stance from Cyrus then his immediate Successor; for, 1. He seems to have been a very stranger to the state of the Iewish affairs, and therefore receiving Letters about them, causeth the Chronicles to be searched, Ezra 4.19. to finde what manner of people the Iews had been: now it is not likely that Cyrus Son should be such a stranger to this People, their State, and Affairs, whom his Father knew so well, and he succeeding his Father (according to Doctor Light-foot) after his Father had reign­ed three years. 2. He seems likewise to have [Page 229]been altogether unacquainted with Cyrus decree, which Cyrus Son was not; for how could he, and yet hinder it whilst his Father was alive? But this Artaxerxes was, which the Adversaries knew well enough, or undoubtedly durst not otherwise have charged the Iews with building a City, when themselves knew it was but a Temple, lest here­by they should give the King occasion to reply, What now, are they building a City? I am sure my Father Cyrus never decreed that; and so by this, their craft and malice should come out.

All the colour that I finde in Doctor Light-foot for this opinion, is, That Cyrus Son was a hinde­rer, and so was this Artaxerxes, p. 190. But doth it therefore follow he must needs be Cyrus Son? might not Cyrus Son be one hinderer, and this Artaxerxes another after him? which is the more likely opinion for the Reasons before gi­ven.

Now in case this Link prove weak, the Chain is easily broken: for if between Cyrus and Artax­erxes did reign any other King, then will the years betwixt Cyrus first, and the twentieth of the other Artaxerxes be more then thirty seven.

2 Particular, That Artaxerxes Ahasuerus reigned but fourteen years in all.

Ans. It is the grant of Doctor Light-foot, that Artaxerxes Ahasuerus, Ezra 4. is the same with that Ahasuerus we read of in Esther, upon which grant (as sufficient for us) we shall at present go, leaving the proof of the thing to another place; now let us by this rule examine the Position. We read in Esther that full thirteen years of Ahasue­rus [Page 230]reign were run out in that very Month where­in the Iews cut off their enemies in Shushan, and elsewhere, as is evident. Compare Chap. 3.7. with Chap. 9.1. He hath then from this day (ac­cording to Doctor Light-foots account) but one year more to reign.

Now let it bee observed what after this was done, and see whether or no the thing were likely to be compassed in a year.

First, Mordecai sends Letters to all the Iews that were in all the Provinces of King Ahasuerus, farre and near to establish the fourteenth, and fifteenth days of the Month Adar, as days of Thanksgi­ving to be kept perpetually every year, Chap. 9.20, 21.

Secondly, The Iews of the severall Provinces receive these Letters, and upon receipt assemble together, Ordain, and Institute for themselves and posterity, that these days should be observed as Mordecai had written, ver. 23.26, 27, 28.

Thirdly, The report of this is carried back a­gain to Shushan from all quarters, and thereupon Esther the Queen, and Mordecai the Iew, write Letters the second time, and send to all the Iews, in the one hundred and twenty seven Provin­ces, to confirm what upon receipt of Mordecai's first Letters they had decreed for themselves and their [...]eed, ver. 29, 30, 31.

Now observe, the Dominions of Ahasuerus, o­ver which the Iews were scattered, were so vast and large, that when upon Esthers Petition a Counter-decree was to be sent forth to put stop to the Decree of Haman, although the sending of [Page 231]it fotth was seven or eight Months before the time Hamans Decree was to have been put in exe­cution, as will appear by comparing Chap. 8.9. with Chap. 9.1. yet lest through the length of the way it should come too late, Mordecai sends Posts on Hors-back every way, and that upon swift Beasts, Chap. 8.10. and withall they go forth hastned and pressed on, vers. 14. Now if in seven Months time by swift running Posts there could hardly be a conveyance of a Message into all parts of Ahasuerus Dominions, how can we imagine that afterwards, when Letters were sent forth not thus hastned, but more leasurely, they should be conveyed all over Ahasuerus King­dom, and the Iews thereupon from several parts meet together, hold a Council, institute a Day to be kept by themselves and posterity, and the report of this when done returned again to the Court from all parts, and upon this, new Letters by way of ratification of their proceedings sent a­gain from the Court to the Iews thorow-out all the one hundred twenty seven Provinces, and all this within the space of one year.

Adde hereto, That the greatness of Mordecai under this Ahasuerus, Chap. 10. his being accep­ted of the multitude of his Brethren, his seeking and endeavouring, as before their deliverance, so now the wealth of his People, his speaking peace to all his Seed, seems clearly to argue that these things were not of one years continuance, but of a longer time. Such choyce mercies given of God to his people, especially after such bitter storms, are not usually so short lived.

This stone removed, the building goes to de­cay, for in case Artaxerxes Ahasuerus reigned but one year more then fourteen, then will there bee found upwards of thirty seven years be­twixt the first of Cyrus, and the twentieth of Ar­taxerxes.

3 Particular, That Darius, Ezra 6. and Ar­taxerxes, Chap. 7. are one and the same, only a change of the name, and so consequently the se­venth of Artaxerxes when Ezra went up to Ieru­salem, Ezra 7.7. was the year following that in which the Temple was finished, which is called the sixth of Darius, chap. 6.15.

Answ. This I can by no means give assent to.

1 Because I finde Artaxerxes mentioned as a person distinct from Darius, Chap. 6.14. And the Elders of the Iews builded — and finished it, accor­ding to the Commandement of the God of Israel, and according to the commandement of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes King of Persia: now by the same reason that Cyrus is a distinct Person from Darius, by the same must Artaxerxes likewise. Now the Artaxerxes here named cannot be that Artaxerxes we read of, Chapter four, 1. Because he was be­fore Darius time, but this seems by the order of placing to have been afterwards. 2. He was a hinderer of Gods Work among the Iews, yea put such a stop thereto, that upon the very stop hee put, it is said, Ezra 4.24. The work ceased until the second year of Darius; but this Artaxerxes is a furtherer, and such a one as did further Gods [Page 233]work effectually, as did Cyrus and Darius; he must therefore be that Artaxerxes Ezra speaks of afterwards.

Obj. If it be said, But how did he give com­mand for building the Temple, which work the text saith expresly was finished in the sixth of Darius, which was before his time?

I answer; 1. We may very well understand these words of something done by Artaxerxes, with the vast sums of Money he gave himself, and commanded his Treasurers, Chap. 7.15, 16, 20, 21, 22. to give forth to Ezra, either by way of reparation of the Temple, which through many years time since the same was built was gone to decay; or else by way of Ornament, adding to the beauty of the building, which is manifestly hinted, vers. 27. Blessed be the Lord God of our Fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the Kings heart, to beautifie the House of the Lord which is in Jerusalem; and also the very words of the Decree, vers. 20.23. import as much as one of these: Or,

2. I may answer, That those words, The El­ders of the Jews builded and finished it according to the Commandement of Cyrus—are not to be under­stood in so strict a sense as to limit each command to the Temple-work only; but in a more large sense, as having reference to those severall Com­mands given forth by the Persian Kings, which concerned the Jews welfare, and the carrying on Gods Work among them, whereof one was gi­ven forth by Cyrus in the first of his reign, another [Page 234]afterwards by Darius, and two more after that by Artaxerxes; and because Artaxerxes had in a more especial manner been Benefactor to Ezra, and the Jews in his time, therefore Ezra, upon occasion of relating the story of the finishing of the House, having made mention of the other two, Cyrus and Darius, will not passe over Artaxerxes, but by anticipation names him before, though his Story come not in till afterward; not so much minding the curiosity of that particular Questi­on, whether all three had been forwarders of that particular work of building Gods House, as be­ing intent to expresse the truth of the matter in generall, viz. That all three, Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes had been friends to the Jews, and fur­therers of Gods work among them.

2 Because Ezra, coming up to Jerusalem in the 7th of Artaxerxes, findes a High Priest, who was Grand-child to him that was High Priest in the 6th of Darius, when the Temple-work was finished; Je­shua being then High Priest, but one Eliashib is now High Priest; compare Ezra 10.6. with Neh. 3.20, 21 True, Ezra cals not Eliashib High Priest at this time, as doth Nehemiah afterwards; yet no other High Priest being mentioned, and withall Eliashib be­ing so aged that he had then a Son, a Priest, viz. Johanan, Ezra. 10.6. it is very probable he was at this time High Priest. Now observe, this Elia­shib was Grand-childe to Jeshua who acted with Zerubbabel, as Nehem. 12.10. And Jeshua begat Jojakim, Jojakim also begat Eliashib — All laid together, can we imagine that in the space of one year (for by Doctor Light-foots reckoning it [Page 235]is no more) the Grand-father should be dead, and the Father after him, and the Grand-childe High Priest in the room of Grand-father and Father? or suppose he were not High Priest till afterwards, yet so aged as to have a Son grown up to be a Priest, who can beleeve it?

3 Because Nehemiah, Chap. 5.15. makes mention of Governours to have been in Jerusalem before his time, that had oppressed the people, and that did not fear God; for in this he oppo­seth himself to them, he feared God, therefore did not so as those former Governours. Now a­mongst these we may not reckon Zerubbabel, who was a righteous Prince, one that feared God, and also Governour from the first coming out of Ba­bylon untill the second Temple was finished; nor may we take in any Governours who did bear rule afterwards from the time that Ezra went up to Jerusalem untill the days of Nehemiah, be­cause in all this time Ezra was authorized by King Artaxerxes to set Governours and Magi­strates over the people, Chap. 7.25. And thou Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God that is in thy hand, set Magistrates and Iudges—; now it is not likely that Ezra, a man inspired by God, would set up such Governours, or if through mistake he should the first time so do, yet having seen the evil of it, he would be more wary in his next choyce. These unjust oppressing Governours must there­fore be supposed to bear rule betwixt Zerubba­bels time and Ezraes; and if so, then cannot we think with Doctor Light-foot the time should be so little as one year; if more, then of necessity must Darius and Artaxerxes be two distinct per­sons

Now this which is the main Foundation­stone not being firm, the building must needs be weak: for if Darius were one person, and Ar­taxerxes another, then put case Darius dyed that very year the Temple was finished, which is a thing very unlikely, considering he craved the prayers of Gods people, unto whom he had been such a friend, that he might live long, Ezra 6.11. And also suppose Artaxerxes his next Successor, yet because Ezraes going up is not till Artax­erxes seventh year, there will be upon the result six years more then Doctor Light-foot hath ac­counted for, which makes such a breach in his building as cannot be made up again.

4 Particular, That it was seventy years com­pleat, and no more, from the time the first Tem­ple was destroyed, untill the second of Darius, when the building of the second was advanced.

Ans. This opinion standing upon the two first Suppositions, viz. 1. That Artaxerxes Ahasue­rus was Cyrus next Successor. 2. That this Ar­taxerxes Ahasuerus reigned but fourteen years in all, both which we have before disproved, it falls of it self; for in case we conceive any other King to have reigned betwixt Cyrus and Artaxerxes A­hasuerus, or conceive Artaxerxes Ahasuerus to have reigned more years then fourteen, the num­ber of years amounts to above seventy, and if so, then Doctor Light-foots computation must needs be amisse.

5 Particular, That Ezra was Son to that Se­rajah the High Priest, whom Nebuchadnezzar slew at the time the first Temple was destroyed, [Page 237]which Doctor Light-foot proves from Ezraes Ge­nealogie, Chap. 7.1.

Ans. This I must confesse, look upon it one way, it seems to have in it much strength, yet look upon it another, and it seems altogether im­probable; for, according to this reckoning, sup­pose Ezra to be born but the year before Jerusa­lems destruction, when his Father was slain, yet must we (as saith Doctor Light-foot himself) sup­pose him fifty years old at least in that very year which the Scripture calls Cyrus first; Now laying hereunto Doctor Light-foots own words upon Nehem. 13. which are these, Ezra (saith he) lived near the times of Jaddua, who met Alexan­der the Great coming to Jerusalem, for he wrote the Book of Chronicles in the time of Iohanan Iad­duaes Father, Nehem. 12.23. and so he lived well towards the expiration of the Persian Monarchy. Now let us lay all together and weigh the whole; Ezra was fifty years old in Cyrus first year, after that he must out-live four generations, and in the fifth generation write the Book of the Chronicles; that four generations (though Doctor Light-foot doth not observe it) did passe betwixt the first of Cyrus and the days of Iohanan Iadduaes father, is evident, Nehem. 12.10, 11. And Jeshua begat Jo­jakim, Jojakim also begat Eliashib, and Eliashib begat Jojada, and Jojada begat Jonathan, and Jo­nathan begat Jaddua Now observe, Ieshua was High Priest in the first year of Cyrus, at the com­ming out of Babylon, Ezra 3.2. Ezra out-lives him, there is one generation; Jojakim succeeded him, there is a second; Eliashib him, there was a [Page 238]third; Jojada him, there was a fourth. All these Ezra out-lived, and in the fifth generation, name­ly of Johanan or Jonathan Jadduaes Father, hee wrote the Book of the Chronicles; he must there­fore certainly be very aged, that after fifty years of age should out-live four generations, and live to see the fifth; yet this did Ezra in case hee were Son to that Serajah.

It is therefore (Iconceive) much better to say, that that Serajah, the Son of Azariah, the Son of Hil­kiah — mentioned Ezra 7.1. was not immediate Father to Ezra, but rather Grand-father, or Great Grand-father; now Ezra coming out of his Loyns is called his Son, though he were not the immediate Son, or next Issue, for one of these Reasons.

Either first, because that Serajah was more fa­moussy known, being High Priest, and killed at the sacking of Ierusalem, then possibly Ezraes next Father was, and therefore Ezra passeth over him in silence, and begins his Descent from the other, who was more famously known.

Or secondly, because that Serajah was the first in the Line of Ezra upwards that was High Priest: for though others did come betwixt Ezra and him, yet were none of them High Priests; for the Priest-hood from Serajah went on in another Line, not that of Ezraes Father, but that of Ie­hosadaz (or Iosedech) father of Ieshua, 1 Chron. 6.14, 15. Ezraes Father therefore, though he came of the House of Aaron, yet because he was not of Aarons Line he passeth him over, beginning his Genealogie from the first of his Ancestors [Page 239]that was of that Line, namely Serajah.

Or Thirdly (which I rather incline to) be­cause it is very probable Ezraes immediate Fa­ther was also named Serajah, and because the name of Father, and Grand-father, or Great Grand-father was the same, he therefore in counting his Pedigree passeth over his Father, and such other (if any did come between) as passed betwixt him and Serajah, and begins (as I have said) from him. Now a like example to this we have in the very text, Ezra 7. if we compare it with 1 Chron. 6.4. to 15. for in the Genealogie, as we have it in Ezra, we finde betwixt Shallum and Merarioth but four generations, viz. of Za­dok, of Ahitub, of Amariah, of Azariah; but in the very same Genealogie as it is laid down in the Chronicles, we have betwixt these two no lesse then ten Generations; And what is the reason hereof? Why this; we have in the Chronicles between Shallum and Merarioth two Zadoks, two Ahitubs, two Amariahs, two Azariahs; now Ezra in his Genealogie to shun repetitions, contents himself with naming each one, and then leaps over the rest of the same name. Now as I said, Ezraes Father being in all likelihood na­med Serajah, that Ezra might not come over with the same name twice, he therefore omits him, and begins with that Serajah, who yet was more remote, carrying on his Pedigree from him. And that the thing I have said, viz. That Ezraes Fa­ther was named Serajah, yet not Serajah the High Priest, hath in it a probability, is clear, be­cause Nichem. 11.11. we read of one Serajah, [Page 240]which could not be Serajah the High Priest, who was slain long before, but this Serajah was then living, and dwelling in Jerusalem, and yet not­withstanding his Line is the very same with Ez­raes, for he is Son of Hilkiah, Son of Meshullam, (or Shallum) Son of Zadok, &c. and therefore in all likelihood no other but Ezraes Father.

And here again observe as a further confirmation of the thing before noted, viz. That because the same name should not be brought over twice, ther­fore is Serajah the High Priest here passed over, and all betwixt him and Nehemiahs Serajah; and the Pedigree of this Serajah begins with Hilkiah, the Son of Shallum, the Son of Zadok, though yet Hilkiah was not immediate Father to this Serajah, but at a great distance separated from him two or three generations at least; two we read of, Ezra 7.1. viz. Serajah the High Priest, and Azariah, which both come betwixt Nehemiahs Serajah and Hilkiah. I say therefore, that it is a thing very likely, that Ezraes immediate Father was named Serajah, and for the reason he would not come twice over with the same name, and the former reasons put together, he therefore passeth him o­ver, and begins more upwards in his Line, viz. with Serajah the High Priest, which is a thing more probable by farre, then to imagine that Ezra who was fifty years old in the first of Cyrits, should afterwards out-live four Generations, and in the Fifth be a Writer of Chronicles, as doth ne­cessarily follow upon Doctor Light-foots opinion; yea that he who was fifty years old when the Per­sian Monarchy began, should live (as saith Doctor [Page 241] Lightfoot) till towards the expiration of it; which considering that the Persian Monarchy lasted two hundred years, it beginning (saith Helvicus) in the sixty second Olympiad, and ending in the one hundred and twelfth, now to each Olympiad four years being allowed (which is the rule of compu­tation by Olympiads) the fiftie Olympiads of the Per­sian Monarchy make up the even sum of two hun­dred years, which is a term so long, that not­withstanding with God nothing is impossible, yet to me it seems very improbable, That Ezra, a man fifty years old at the beginning of this time, should live towards or near the end of it. This very number of years I confesse is not mentio­ned in Scripture; yet however the fore-going Text assuring us this Monarchy lasted no lesse then five generations, we may well conclude the time could not be much lesse:

6 Particular, That the design of the Holy Chost, in Ezra and Nehemiah, is to give us a Chronicle of the Persian Kings.

Ans. This cannot I conceive, but judge the contrary, viz. That the design of the Holy Ghost is another thing, namely, to record the state of the Jewish affairs, not in the least intending a Chronicle of the Kings of Persia; and my reason is, because the Scripture hath not ascertained us that Artaxerxes Ahasuerus was next Successor to Cyrus, nor Darius to him, nor hath it told us how long any one of the Persian Kings did reign, and therefore it seems very unlikely that the in­tendment of the Holy Ghost should be to give us a Chronicle of the times, and yet leave us alto­gether [Page 242]in the dark, as to the persons that reigned, and the time how long.

Nay, what need was there of continuing the ordinary Scripture Chronicle any further then the end of the seventy years Captivity? seeing with the first of Cyrus, where the seventy years expire, we have a Divine Chronologie left us of the whole of the time from that very year, until the second coming of Christ; if therefore we have but sufficient left us in the Scripture to make out upon sure grounds this account, viz. of the two thousand three hundred years, we need not after once they are begun, carry on the Scripture Chronicle upon any other foot but this only, of the two thousand three hundred years. By the help of which number, being ordered by a won­derful hand of Providence, there to begin where the seventy years of the Captivity ended, (after which we are altogether in the dark, as to the questions, Who reigned, or how long? having nothing (were this number thrown aside) to build our saith upon but Human reports) we have a certain Scripture Chronologie from the very day of the Creation untill the day of Christs second coming. Those know not what they lose, nor indeed what inconvenience in this respect they draw upon themselves, who would have these two thousand three hundred days to be Natural days; nor that Author nei­ther, who would have but half so many years understood as there are days, so fixing the head of this number downwards very low in the times of the New Testament; for seeing Daniels [Page 243]four hundred and ninety years cannot be begun with the first of Cyrus (as I have proved before) but do begin with the twentieth of Artaxerxes, let it be shewn from any other Scripture (this Num­ber, and the Argument lying in it, being set a­side) the certain number of years betwixt Cyrus first, and the twentieth of Artaxerxes; if this can be done, I am wonderously mistaken, and I think I may be bold to say it cannot; If it be not done, I am sure then the very grounds of Chro­nologie will be fallible; and if so, what may we expect the Conclusions will be? Well there­fore (if all be considered) may this number go under the title of the account of the Wonderful Numberer, as Daniel calls it.

By this I am further confirmed in my begin­ning of the two thousand three hundred years, that I have begun them aright, in beginning them with the first of Cyrus; and that they may not be be­gun either higher or lower for what need have we of beginning them with the beginning of Nebuchad­nezzars Tyranny over Israel, seeing the duration of that is set forth by another number of Seventy years, to the end of which Seventy years the grounds of Chronologers are perfect, without a supply from this? to carry this therefore up into that time is superfluous.

Again, should we begin them lower then the first of Cyrus, then because we have no other Scripture-ground to go upon but this only, for many years that followed, a defect will be (as I have said) in the very foundation of Chrono­logie. Seeing therefore we may not begin them [Page 244]either higher or lowet, the beginning we have stated, and that only is the truth.

From all that hath been said, it appears, that Dr. Lightfoot's Suppositions, are but Suppositions, not having in them the force of Arguments to uphold the thing they would countenance; Nay, the very things themselvs, look upon them in our Answers, do clearly argue the time betwixt Cyrus first, and Artaxerxes twentieth, to be much more then seven and thirty years.

Besides, Dr. Lightfoots suppository grounds, something farther of a like nature may be urged, which seems to argue that the time betwixt Cy­rus first, and Artaxerxes twentieth year, could not be long. As

First, the names of those who sealed the Covenant with Nehemiah, Chap. 10. are many of them the very same with the names found in the Register of those who came up with Zerubba­bel, Ezra. 2. it seems therefore that those persons were now living, if so, then cannot the time be esteemed long.

Ans. The names, Ezra 2. and again Nehem. 10. are not names of men, as particular persons, but as Heads of Families, for which cause the per­sons mentioned by name, are called the chief of the People, the Princes, Nobles, Neh. 9.38. Chap. 10.14.29. Hence the Head of the Family of Parosh, goes under the name of Parosh (as he was a publick person, and Head of a Family so called) in the generation Zerubbabel lived in, and also afterwards in Nehemiahs generation. Not that Parosh (and so of all the rest) signifies in [Page 245]both one and the same particular person, but indeed the Head or common person of one and the same Family, which (that the distinction of Families hereby might be the more conspicuous, and the better preserved) is called Parosh in Ze­rubbabels time, and Nehemiahs likewise, though these two were separated at least a generation from each other, as I have already observed. And that it is a thing ordinary to give to a publick person, whether Prince, or Noble-man, as Mar­quesse, Earl, &c. besides his own proper name (which is peculiar to him) a name common to him, and all that do, or shall succeed him in his place, as such, is a thing we cannot be ignorant of. And also (which is the thing to be minded) as such a one who is a publick person in all his publick actions, layes by his private name, and acts by vertue of his name as such; so the Heads of each Family acting as publick persons; First, In leading their Families forth out of Babylon in Zerubbabels time; Secondly, In sealing the Covenant for themselves, and the whole Fa­mily they were Heads of, in Nehemiahs time, they lose their names as they were private men, and retain only that common name, which was given to them as publick persons; and hence it comes to passe, that there is still the use of the same names, though yet persons and generations were different.

Secondly, The Register mentioned Nehem. 7. doth somewhat vary, in respect of the number of persons in sundry of the Families, from that we read of Ezra 2. Now what may be the [Page 246]reason hereof? Why, (saith Dr. Lightfoot in his Harmony upon Nehem ah, page 204.) Nehemiahs Register is a Register of the persons as they were then living in his time; but Ezraes of the per­sons as they were at their first coming up with Ze­rubbabel in the first year of Cyrus. And if so, then considering that the variation betwixt one Re­gister and the other, is but small, it will strongly argue, that the time betwixt Zerubbabel and Ne­hemiah could not be long.

Ans. The Reason given by Dr. Lightfoot is a mistake, and against the Text, and will not reconcile each place; For observe, It is expresly said of Nehemiahs Register Chap. 7. that the same was found by Nehemiah, yea and found so writ­ten as he delivers it in the following verses, vers. 5. And my God put it into my heart to gather together the Nobles, and the Rulers, and the People, that they might be reckoned by Genealogre. And I found a Register of the Genealogic of them which came up at the first, and found written therein, These are the Children of the Province, &c. The Register therefore was not a Register made up partly of the persons then living, and partly of those men­tioned in the old Register, because then the Re­gister should be of Nehemiahs making; but the Register he speaks of, was a Register he sound written to his hand. Nay, how can we think it should be so, seeing it was upwards of seven and thirty years (in case we follow Dr. Lightfoots own reckoning) from the time Zerubbabel went up (when the first Register was made) unto this time, which was after Nehemiah was come to [Page 247] Jerusalem, and had built the walls of the City? Now observe, as there is in most families mentio­ned in either Register the very same number of persons; so likewise is there in both Registers one and the same number of Horses, Mules, Camels, Asses, as compare, Ezra 2.66, 67. with Nehem. 7.68, 69. Now who can beleeve it, that in seven and thirty years there should not be diminished, nor increased not one person in many Families, which Families too consisted some of divers hun­dreds of persons, some of thousands? Nor in so great a multitude, not one Horse, nor a Mule? It is therefore more consonant to truth, and will better reconcile each place, to say, That as Zerub­babel at his first coming up drew that Register, Ezra 2. So suddenly after, when by coming and going, some change and alteration was made of persons, he drew a second; which second List or Catalogue, Nehemiah in searching lights upon, but misseth the first. And as this doth much bet­ter reconcile each place, so doth it no way injure us; Nay, that Nehemiah is fain to go to search old Registers to find the Genealogie of the per­sons then living, is an Argumeat rather that the former generation who came up with Zerubbabel was extinct, yea had been so some time (the persons now living having in a manner for­gotten their descent) then that they should be alive.

Thirdly, Ezra is particularized by name, as being one of those that came up at the first with Zerubbabel, Nehem. 12.1. it cannot therefore be, considering how active this Ezra was even in Ne­hemiahs [Page 248]dayes, that the distance of time betwixt Zerubbabel and Nehemiah should be very great.

Ans. No Argument at all is, or can be fetched out of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah from the agreement or likelihood of names, unlesse only in such places, where besides the bare name we have something else laid down that carries proof with it, that we are by the same name alwayes to un­derstand the same particular person, and no other. And the reason is, because it is a thing of most common use in these two Books, to give the same names to diverse and sundry persons, as who consults either book diligently shall find no lesse then three or four different Jeshuaes, and about some eight or nine distinct Zechariahs; four several Eliashibs, viz. Eliashib the High Priest, and three other of that name, we have in the tenth Chapter of Ezra only; Seven or eight distinct Shemiahs, and as many Meshullams are recorded in these two books. Divers other like instances its most easie to produce. Whence it follows, that the use of the same name proves no­thing at all as to this or that particular person, in case there be not in the Text some other notation, which devolves the name upon this or that per­son, as considered distinct from all others; As for example, When Jeshua is called, either Jeshua the High Priest, or Jeshua the son of Jozadak, this is a manifest notation of the person, distin­guishing him from all others of that name; when Nehemiah is called Nehemiah the Tirshatha, or the Governor, or Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah, this denotes the particular person, and distin­guisheth [Page 249]him from that Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, Chap. 3.16. But now in the Text ob­jected, we have only a bare name, without any other notation, and therefore it proves nothing. Nay, it is manifest from the Text, that that Ezra who is recorded as one of them that came up with Zerubbabel, cannot be the Ezra so much spoken of in this Book; For observe, vers. 12, 13, &c. and we shall find, that in the dayes of Jojakim, who was Father to that Eliashib that was High Priest in the dayes of Nehemiah (as vers. 10.) the Ezra who came up with Zerubba­bel, and also the Serajah, the Jeremiah, Ama­riah, &c. mentioned with him, vers. 1, 2. were gone, and another generation were come up in their rooms, in the place of Serajah, we have now Merajah; of Jeremiah, Hananiah; of Ezra, Meshullam; of Amariah, Jehohanan, and so of all the rest; so that not only this Ezra is gone, but there is a change even of a whole generation in the dayes of Joiakim. And this Jojakim being fa­ther to Eliashib must needs be of the generation before Nehemiah, for in Nehemiahs dayes, Eliashib the son is High Priest, by consequence therefore Jojakim was now dead. Now consider, the Ezra who wrote the book of Ezra, lived and acted with Nehemiah, but the Ezra who came up with Zerubbabel was removed, and another in his place a generation before Nehemiahs dayes; therefore though the name is one, yet have we not one, but two persons signified by it; the Ezra who came up with Zerubbabel was one, the Ezra who acted with Nehemiah another; [Page 250]and for this reason is this latter (as seems to me) called Ezra the Priest, the Scribe, vers. 26. and Ezra the Scribe, vers. 36. to distinguish him from the foregoing Ezra, vers. 1.

From the whole it appears, that as Dr. Light­foots Allegations singly are too weak, so these added to them (which (if I mistake not) is the utmost that with colour of reason can be urged from Scripture-Text) will not help his opinion, to narrow the time betwixt Cyrus first, and Ar­taxerxes twentieth into so little a compass as thirty seven years; nor will they maintain any other opinion whatsoever, that either is, or may be sta­ted, that doth or shall so shorten this time, as that the whole put together will not amount to more then one full age.

Yet with all let me say, when I consider the whole, and how great a shew of reason there is (if things laid down in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah be taken up upon the first look) to cut this time short, I do not at all wonder, that the Jewish Writers (whose aversnesse to take up re­ports from Heathens, though ever so true, and aptnesse to look upon these Books as a Chro­nicle (a thing never intended by the Holy Ghost) and mis-understanding the Story by taking up things too hastily, might cause in them this error) should adhere to this opinion of the shortnesse of the time betwixt the first coming up from the Captivity, and Nehemiahs dayes, and that Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Broughton, and others, should fol­low them; for truly there seems at first blush, to be much more reason for such an opinion, then [Page 251]any other; but when things are once throughly weighed, and well digested, the contrary is ma­nifest, and an unprejudiced eye will easily see that this Thred must be drawn out somewhat more at length, then the Jewish Writers, or Chronologers that adhere to them will allow of.

The Conclusion is, That the Opinion of Dr. Lightfoot, and others, who following the steps of the Jewish Writers do bring this time into a little scantling, is a mistake, and not that certain rule by which we are to measure this Period.

SECT. 2.

Seeing we may not steere our course by the fore-going opinion, it is necessary that some fur­ther enquiry be made into this business, viz. What number of years passed betwixt the first of Cyrus, and the twentieth of Nehemiahs Artaxerxes.

Now because Artaxerxes (as also Darius) was a name common to more then one or two of the Persian Monarchs, we must therefore in order to the Principal Question in the first place discusse a­nother, viz.

Quest. What Artaxerxes was that from whom Nehemiah received Commission to build Jeru­salem?

Ans. That we may the better find out this, I shall first enquire, What Darius that was by whose order the Temple work was revived; for that Darius was Predecessor to this Artaxerxes, as is evi­dent.

1 From his place in the Story, we read of Da­rius, Ezra 5. but not of this Artaxerxes till after­wards.

2 The Holy Ghost making a clear distinction betwxit Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, placeth Artaxerxes after Darius, as being his Succes­sor, as he doth Darius after Cyrus as his, Ezra 6.14.

3 Ezra coming up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of that very same Artaxerxes, in whose twentieth Nehemiah received his Commission, findes a Temple there, and did sacrifise, Ezra 8.34, 35. therefore must this Artaxerxes be Suc­cessor to Darius, for untill the sixth of Darius no Temple was built.

Nay, he was not only Successor to him, but Successor at such a distance, as appears to me he was not his next Successor, but rather next to his next, which is clear from that great change and alteration that there was in the Jewish Church and State both, betwixt the sixth year of the one, and the seventh of the other.

1 In the Church, in the sixth year of Darius, Jeshua in all probability was alive, and High Priest, as lay these Scriptures together, Hag. 1.14, 15. Chap. 2.2, 3, 4. Zech. 3.6, 7. Chap. 6.11, 12. but in the seventh of Artaxerxes (as I have before observed) Eliashib who was Grand­childe to Jeshua, stands in place of his Grand­father.

2 In the State, there had been Governours that oppressed the people, and did not fear God, betwixt Zerubbabels time, who was Governour [Page 253]in the sixth of Darius (and how long after is not known to us) and Ezraes, who came up to Je­rusalem in the seventh of Artaxerxes, which is an Argument of some good distance of time betwixt these two.

The question here then will be,

What Darius was that who by his Decree did the se­cond time set the Temple-work on foot?

Ans. Some (and not a few) will have this Darius to be Darius Hystasper, who succeeded Cambyses the Son of Cyrus in the Kingdom: But this cannot be, because betwixt Cyrus and that Darius who set the Temple-work on foot, did reign one Artaxerxe, Ch. 4.7. by whom the work was hindred; but none such reigned betwixt Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes.

To say (as do some) this Artaxerxes, though recorded before, yet reigned after Darius, is so expresly against the Text, that I cannot admit such a thought, for the Copy of the Letters of Artax­erxes is the very thing which puts stop to the work of the Temple; for it seems the Jews upon the change that now was in the Empire, through the death of the Monarch that was, had by vertue of their old Commission from Cyrus, set upon, anew of themselves, the Temple-work, as hoping the new Prince would favour their enterprize; now the enemies seeing this, dispatch away Letters in haste to Artaxerxes, containing a charge against the Jews, who in answer returns them Letters, with a strict command to go up to Jerusalem, and cause the work to cease, which upon receipt of, and reading the Kings Letter, they straight­way [Page 254]did, and thereupon the Work of God cea­sed untill the second year of Darius, Ezra 4.23, 24. it is therefore a Question without question that Darius was Successor to this Artaxerxes, as he was Predecessor to the other.

Some others therefore perceiving that the for­mer opinion will not agree with the Text, will have this Artaxerxes to be Cyrus Son, and next Successor (commonly called by Historians Cam­byses) but this opinion is as unlikely as the other is untrue, as I have proved already in answer to Doctor Lightfoot.

There is yet another opinion, which affirms this Artaxerxes to be Smerdis Magus, the Counter­feit, who reigned seven Months betwixt Cambyses and Darius Hystaspes. But certainly had the cessa­tion of the Work of the House of God been for no longer time then is given to it by this opinion, wch cannot be much above a year, if we consider that Smerdis (as themselves say) reigned but seven Months, out of which seven Months we must allow some time for the news of Cambyses death, being brought to Judahs Adversaries; some time more for their sending their Letters, (which being subscribed by so many sundry people, li­ving in sundry places, as verse ninth intimates, it is likely could not be much less time in prepa­ring) some more time for that search of the Chronicles upon this Letter, vers. 19. and some more yet for the Kings answer to them again; and considering withall that Darius Hystaspes who suc­ceeded Smordis, did (according to their Princi­ple) in the second year of his reign set the work [Page 255]on foot again; the whole compared together it will appear, that the work could not cease very little more then one year; which time being so short, it can hardly be thought that the Scripture would take notice of it, much lesse with such an Emphasis, setting such a mark upon this busi­nesse, as verse last; Then ceased the Work of the House of God, so it ceased untill the second year of Darius. None that reads the words can think the cessation here spoken of was only a Twelve-months businesse. I say not that the very story of Smerdis (which though unto meer stories I give little credit, yet being the Adversaries Wea­pons I may use them) the which reports him all his time in a manner to have been shut up in his Chamber, neither daring to shew himself a­broad, nor admitting any to come to him, gives just ground of suspition he could nor be this Ar­taxerxes, who seems by what is recorded of him in this Chapter, Ezra 4. to have been no such re­tired person, but of a more publick life.

But to put an end to this variety of opinions, I take it the Text it self hath decieed the Contro­versie, telling us plainly that this Artaxerxes was no other then Ahasuerus; he who is called Artaxerxes vers. 7. being called Ahasuerus verse 6. the person in both being one and the same; only the Holy Ghost having first made mention of the accusati­on of Judahs Adversaries in the general, with a declaration of the time when they wrote it, viz. in the beginning of Ahasuerus reign, verse six, proceeds to mention the same more particular­ly, with the names of the Persons that wrote it, [Page 256]and a Copy of the Accusation it self, and what ef­fect it had; in which following discourse there is only a change of the name, he being now cal­led Artaxerxes (a name common to many of the Persian Kings, as Pharaoh was to the Aegyptians) who had before been called Ahasuerus. If you ask what Ahasuerus this was, I answer, The same in all likelihood that we read of throughout the Book of Hester; for, setting aside Hesters story, we do not read of the name Ahasuerus but twice in all the Bible, Dan. 9.1. and here in Ezra. That Ahasuerus Daniel mentions cannot be Hesters Aha­suerus, for that Ahasuerus Daniel tells us was King of the Medes only, Hesters is King of Media and Persia both; Hester 1.3. 2. Daniels Ahasue­rus being Father to that Darius who together with Cyrus took Babylon, could not (because the Babylo­nian Monarchy was standing in his days, and pos­sessing a great part of those Countries) have his Monarchy extended from India even to Aethiopia, over one hundred twenty seven Provinces, which Ahasuerus who married Hester had, Ch. 1.1. In all likelihood therefore (we reading of no other of that name) this Ahasuerns Artaxerxes, Ezra mentions, is the very same with him we read of in Hester. And indeed the Apccryphal Book of Hester (which although I credit not as Scripture, yet may the same credit be given to it as to other Histories) calls him by no other name then Artaxerxes, who in Hester is called Ahasuerus; so that it seems either name was given to him, and because of that (he being known to some by the one, to some by the other) doth Ezra give him [Page 257]both, first calling him Ahasuerus, then Artax­erxes.

If it be said, But if this Artaxerxes were Aha­suerus in Hester, one would think Hester having such influence upon him, and Mordecai such power under him, it should have caused that the work of the Temple should have gone on again?

Ans. Not so, for the Decree to hinder the Work of the Temple was made, as the Text saith, in the beginning of his reign, which was before that Hester was married to him. Now a Decree once made, Hester (as appears in the businesse of Haman) was not forward to move the King to alter his Decree; yea, put case she had, yet was it a custom amongst the Medes and Persians, not to repeal any Law, whilst the King that made it li­ved; and therefore Ahasuerus, though Hester beg­ged it on her knees, could not repeal the Decree a­gainst the Jews, only by another Decree gives them liberty to stand up in their own defence, and make resistance against those that should seek their lives. So that I say the Law once made, it was not an easie thing, though Hester was greatly in the Kings favour, and Mordecai in great power, to repeal it, whilst Ahasuerus lived, but for his life the work is, and must be at a stand, though Da­rius after him (which is an argument that this custom of making irrepealable Laws was binding only to that King that made them, the term of his own life, but not to his Successor or Succes­sors) did repeal this Statute, and by a contrary Decree set the work on foot again.

Now it being so, that in all likelihood that [Page 258] Ahasuerus Husband to Hester is the same here meant that hindered the work of the Temple, then, as both the former opinions (which carry not half the probability this doth) concerning Cambyses and Smerdis are disproved; who both put together (and allowing them whatsoever is in any History given to them for the time of their reign) did not reign so many years as we have in Scripture recorded touching this Artaxerxes: so it is evident that Darius Hystaspes could not bee that Darius that gave life again to the Temple-work; for he succeeded in the Monarchy (as all affirm) within one year after the death of Cam­byses, Cyrus Son, and next Successor; but now, betwixt Cyrus and that Darius, did reign, and that for many years, one Ahasuerus, or Artaxerxes, by whom the work was obstructed.

If any yet further curiously enquire, which of those Kings named by the Greeks this Ahasuerus should be, seeing they give to none of the Persian Monarchs that name;

I answer; I suppose him to be Darius Hystas­pes himself, and amongst other Reasons might be named, this is one, The activeness of Mordecai in his Court; now Mordecai being one of those carried Captive in the days of Jeconiah, Hester 2.5, 6. which was at the beginning of the seventy years, the age of Mordecai, in case we fix upon any of the Persian Monarchs on this side Hystas­pes, will be such as will hardly agree with the story of him and his activity; and this being so, the supposed helper of the Temple-work, is the seal hinderer of it.

The Conclusion is, That that Darius who after Cyrus set the Temple-work on foot, cannot be Darius Hystaspes.

Another opinion there is, which will have this Darius to be Darius Nothus; but to this cannot I subscribe, partly for what I have already said in answer to Master Medes beginning of the seventy weeks, who there maintains this opinion; and further, for what I said but even now, in my answer to Doctor Lightfoot, That Ezra upon his com­ming to Ierusalem found that generation who had been builders of the Temple, and the next gene­ration to these, extinct, and in their Graves, and a third generation surviving. Now Darius No­thus reigning but nineteen years, we can hardly think (Artaxerxes being next Successor to him) that by the seventh of Artaxerxes when Ezra went up to Ierusalem, which accounting from the sixth of Darius, when the work of the Temple was fi­nished (at which time Zerubbabel and the rest were alive) amounts but to one and twenty years; that I say in one and twenty years space (though it is granted many might) yet that a whole gene­ration should be gone, and the generation after them, and a third generation come in place, seems very strange.

Darius Nothus therefore was not that Darius which did advance the building of the Temple.

Quest. But what Darius are we then to fix upon?

Ans. Darius Longimanus, called most common­ly, Artaxerxes Longimanus, who was Son to Xerxes the Great, and Father to Darius Nothus.

Now the reason why I fix here, is, because this fixation agrees well to the story of things on both sides, in respect of time more especially.

1 For the succeeding part of the story, that which follows betwixt the finishing the Temple-work, and the building Ierusalem, it will well suit with it; for this Darius reigning forty years, (which long reign above other his Predecessors I conceive was the fruit of Gods Peoples prayers, which Darius makes one reason of his Decree for carrying on the work of the Temple, that the Iews might offer Sacrifice, and pray for his life, Ezra 6.11.) I say, he reigning forty years; if we begin from the sixth year of his reign when the Temple-work was finished, and adding to the thirty four years, the remainder of his reign after the Temple was built, the nineteen years of Da­rius Nothus his Successor, and the seven years of Artaxerxes who succeeded him, at which time Ezra went up to Ierusalem, the whole amounts to sixty years; and if we also take in the thirteen years after, when Nehemiah went up, it advance­eth the number to seventy three: now that in the space of about seventy years there should be such a change of Governours and People, the old dead and gone, new come in their room, is no strange thing to conceive. This opinion therefore well suits the succeeding part of the story.

2 For the fore-going part, it suits it much bet­ter then any of the other opinions. For, those that fix upon Darius Hystaspes, cannot (as I have pro­ved) finde an Artaxerxes between him and Cyrus, that was a hinderer to the work, which yet that [Page 261]such a one was, is evident from the story. Those that fix upon Nothus make the time so wide be­twixt the laying the foundation of the Temple, and the finishing the work, as can hardly be ima­gined; neither of these opinions therefore will suit with that part of the Divine Story, which precedes the building of the Temple. But ours, which fixeth upon Longimanus, wil suit it very wel; for first, The block that lies in the way of the first of the two former opinions, is by it removed, we having already found an Artaxerxes that was a hinderer, and also a Predecessor to this Longima­nus. Secondly, The block that lies in the way of the second, in regard of the length of the time, is hereby well removed, our opinion cutting the time betwixt the laying the Temples foundation, and the finishing the work, shorter by full forty years then that opinion doth.

Obj. But yet it may be said, That even accord­ing to our opinion, the time betwixt Cyrus first, and Darius second year will seem too long, for walking by our own rule laid down in our Key, Thes. 45.48. the time amounts to seventy years, thus;

• Cyrus, three years.
• Cambyses with the Magi, eight.
• Darius Hystaspes, thirty six.
• Xerxes, twenty one.
• Darius Longimanus, two.

The current year, viz. the second of Longima­nus, I take into the number, because it is very proba­ble it was not till towards the end of that year that Darius Decree came forth, for the Jews fall not to the work till the latter end of the sixth month, Hag. 1.14, [Page 262]14, 15. and it was some time after that (as Ezraes Story makes appear) that the Decree came forth; which may therefore possibly, and most likely, if we throughly weigh the whole of Zecharies Vision, be in that eleventh Month he mentions, Zec. 1.7. and being so, but a month and a few days are wanting of a compleat year, which little want, where the account is by years, is never reckoned.) Now hence the Objection riseth; If seventy years be alotted to this time (which our opinion grants) then must the age of some persons, viz. those who had seen Solomons Temple, and were a­live at this day, as Hag. 2.2, 3. be no lesse then one hundred and thirty years; for suppose them to be sixty years old in Cyrus first; to which sixty, adding these seventy, we have the aforesaid number; which age seems to be too great for the generations since Moses his time.

Ans. Not so; for we finde Jehosada the High Priest (who was not long before the Babylonian Captivity) to have lived as long, 2 Chron. 24.15. and also (as is testified in the first Book of Macca­bees) Mattathias the Priest, Father to Judas Mac­cabeus lived one hundred forty six years, Chap. 2. verse last. Indeed the age might seem too great, should we (as do some) six upon Darius Nothus, so taking in forty years more; but here it is other­wise, forty years is cut off, which in a mans age is no little matter.

Again, Observe, that this age was not the age of Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and that generation that came out of Babylon, but the age of those who were carried into Babylon by Nebucadnezzar, and so indeed were of the generation before Zerubba­bel, [Page 263]and the multitude that came up with him, though yet some of them were living at this day.

Obj. 2. I have met with it objected, That the time from Cyrus first, to the end of Darius second, could not be very long, because no Priest was by the Law to officiate above twenty years; from thirty years old to fifty was their limited time, Numb. 4. vers. 2, 3, 22, 23, 30, 35, 30, &c. now Jeshua was High Priest in Cyrus first, and so likewise in Darius se­cond, the distance therefore could not be great, no not twenty years.

Ans. This Law was not a Law for the High Priest, but only for the inferiour Priests, the Le­vites, as is clear;

1 Because wheresoever it is spoken of, Levites only are mentioned, as being subject to it.

2 Because the work it self, that at fifty years of age they were exempted from, was servile work, work that was a burden, as the bearing about of the Tabernacle, vers. 24, 25, 26. which work too they were to be appointed unto by the High Priest, as their Master and Lord, as vers. 19, 27. therefore did not this work, and so not this Law, belong to him.

3 I finde particular instances of High Priests that did officiate when they were above fifty years old; what shall we say to Eli? was not Eli High Priest when upwards of fifty, considering he was ninety eight years old when he died, 1 Sam. 4.15. and yet Samuel (who it is evident was born in the time of Elies Priesthood) but a childe even then when Eli was very old, and his eyes dim, as is [Page 264]clear, chap. 2. compare vers. 18, 19. with ver. 22. and chap. 3. vers. 2. compare with vers. 8.

But the instance of Iehojada is undeniable; for observe, he creates Ioash King, 2 Chron. 23. Ioash reigns forty years, chap. 24.1. Iehosada dies be­fore Ioash, ver. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Iehosada is one hundred and thirty years old when he dieth, ver. 15. if therefore Iehojada died in Ioash his fortieth year, yet considering that he crowned Ioash King, and that in the time of his Priesthood, and died not till he was aged one hundred and thirty years, it will necessarily follow that he was High Priest at ninety years old. This Law therefore was not a Law for the High Priest, but only for the Levites; they ceased to officiate at fifty years of age, but the High Priest was such during life; and indeed he could not otherwise have been a fit Type of Christ, who ever liveth to make intercession for us.

This Objection, because I have met with it, I thought good to answer, though otherwise I should never have objected it to my self.

I know nothing else can be said for a shorter time, unlesse we should here again bring up those forty six years, Iohn 2.20. with Daniels seven weeks, chap. 9.25. both which I have answered before in traversing the seventy weeks.

The time therefore from the beginning of Cyrus first, unto the end of Darius second, may well bee reckoned seventy years, notwithstanding the weight of any objection against it.

But to come nearer; what if we may finde in Scripture this time to be meted and measured se­venty [Page 265]years? If the Scripture measure agree to the measure of the ancient Greeks, it will adde credit to their reports in more things then this one.

Let us here take into consideration Zecharies seventy years, Chap. 1.12. chap. 7.5. this seem­ing to me to be their proper place.

That these seventy years should be understood of the seventy years of the Captivity, cannot be, because (as Doctor Lightfoot hath well observed in his Chronicle upon Hester ten) the seventy years of the Captivity, beginning with the fourth of Jehojakim, did end long before this time, viz. with the third of Belshazzar, or the last year of the Babylonian Monarchy; but the seventy years Ze­chary speaks of, bring us to the second of Darius, which is many years upwards in the Persian Mo­narchy.

Doctor Lightfoots own account will not neither help the business; for as he hath nothing but those former suppositions (which having been put into the ballance were found too light) to maintain that conception, viz. That that Darius who ad­vanced the work of the Temple, did reign at such a distance from Cyrus; so if these two things bee throughly scanned,

1 What Darius it was who set this work on foot.

2 At what distance from Cyrus (I speak now of time in the general only) the compelling cir­cumstances of the story, each duly weighed and laid together, will necessarily infer him to have lived, (both which my former discourse will [Page 266]give some light into) it will then appear, That Doctor Lightfoot himself hath exceeded the bounds of seventy years, as many years as hee chargeth upon the fore-going reckoning, account­ing it worthy, for that reason only, to be cast out; by his own rule therefore, his own must go out with it.

What will those Opinions make of these seven­ty years, that will have the finishing of the Tem­ple-work to stand at forty six years distance from Cyrus, as some; or else at one hundred and ele­ven, or one hundred and thirteen years, as o­thers; seeing it is most evident that the complaint the Angel makes of seventy years sufferings was in the second of Darius, Zech. 1.7. compared with ver. 12. which was but four years before the work was finished, as appears from Ezra 6.15. May these allow the seventy years to be the years of the Captivity? if so, there had need be some good reason shewn for it, why the Holy Ghost, after the seventy years of the Captivity were ended, and forty and odde years more run out (as it fol­lows upon the one opinion) or upwards of an hundred years more, (as it follows upon the o­ther) should speak still of seventy years.

For my own part, I think these seventy years are to be reckoned from the first of Cyrus, from the be­ginning of which year untill the end of Darius second, (at which time the Angel makes this complaint, and therefore the time of the complaint is ex­presly noted to be in the eleventh Month, upon the twenty fourth day of the Month, in the second year of Darius, which was the very close of the [Page 267]year, only one Month and a few days wanting) are reckoned by the Greek Historians exactly seventy years, as I have before observed, and so indeed these seventy years are not the seventy years of the Capti­vity, but another seventy, taking beginning where they end?

Obj. But if so, why doth the Angel plead Gods having had indignation against his people threescore and ten years? he might have pleaded twice threescore and ten years.

Ans. We must consider the Angel here spoken of (which is Jesus Christ) now speaks by way of complaint, How long, Lord wilt thou not have mer­cy — and therefore he purposely lets fall the first seventy years, taking no notice of them, because as to that time he had no cause to complain, they had deserved it highly, provoked his Father, for which cause Jerusalem was justly made a rui­nous heap: It was the penalty of that Law, or outward Covenant made with this people at the coming out of Aegypt, that in case they did rebel they should be carried captive into other Coun­tries out of their own Land, Levit. 26. verse. 27, 28. to the end; and observe, this was the highest punishment of all, inflicted for highest breach of the Law, therefore mentioned in the last place. Now all the seventy years of the Cap­tivity they were under this very punishment, therefore the thing being most righteous, and in­deed a thing unavoydable, if God would be just, considering the terms of the Covenant this people stood under, Christ (who pleadeth righteously) will not complain of it, lest he should complain of [Page 268]his Father for doing that which was most righte­ous, and which he could not without breach of Justice have omitted. But now as to the time that passed afterwards, he had cause to complain, be­cause all this time was over and above the prefix­ed time of their punishment, and therefore hee complains, Lord how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the Cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years? as to say, These seventy years of thy indignation are more then should be; and that Christ speaks by way of complaint is clear, be­cause God is fain to give him good words to still him, and tell him the work should be deferred no longer, vers. 13, 14, 16, 17. an Argument that he had some cause to complain, and that upon this account, the work had been deferred, and that for so long a time as seventy years. So that this Text, rightly considered, is an Argument for us, and holds forth thus much, That we are not to begin these seventy years till the seventy of the Captivity were ended; for Christ complains of the wrath of his Father to his people all these se­venty years; but as to the seventy years of the Captivity, which was only satisfaction to that outward Covenant they had broken, Christ had no cause to complain of one day of that, nor would he, the punishment being most just, and the Covenant broken, and no punishment in­flicted had been unjust.

Obj. 2. But if this opinion be true, why also are the Fasts of the fourth, and the fifth, and the seventh, and the tenth Month said to be of seventy years conti­nuance, [Page 269]Zach. 7.5. with Chap. 8.19. seeing from the time Jerusalem was taken, the Temple destroyed, &c. which things are the grounds of their fasting, it was now to this time (as we account it) one hundred and twenty years, viz. fifty in Babylon after Jerusa­lem and the Temple were destroyed, and seventy after the coming thence?

Ans. The only foot that this Objection stands upon, is a supposition that the aforesaid Fasts were kept in Babylon; Now as to that I an­swer.

1 That there is no Scripture proving such a thing. That, Psal. 137.1, 2. will not do it, for it is one thing to weep occasionally, (which is the weeping there mentioned, Gods people sit down by the Rivers of Babylon, one while they call Sion to remembrance, another while they are scoffed at by the Babylonians, these things draw forth oc­casional tears) but it is another to weep in the so­lemn Assembly, and as a solemn Ordinance, which calls upon me to weep and mourn, and that at such a time. Now such was the weeping of the fourth, and fifth, and seventh, and tenth Months, which were times of weeping and mour­ning, instituted and ordained by the publick au­thority of the Jewish Church, to be celebrated year­ly, though by the way remember, that their pra­ctice in this is not a binding rule to us in Gospel days; National institutions in Spiritual matters ceasing with their National Church.

2 As there is no Scripture for it, that these so­lemn Fasts were kept in Babylon; so look upon the thing in reason, and it seems no way likely or [Page 270]probable; for consider, the Fasts were Publique and National, kept not by some particular per­sons, but by the whole Body of the Congregati­on of Israel, as appears, Chap. 7. ver. 5, 6. Now it may with good reason be queried, Whether it be a thing at all probable, that the Babylonians would admit of such exercises under their very Noses?

Obj. If it be said, Though the thing were pub­lique, as to the Jews, that is, the whole Body of that Nation in Babylon did Fast, yet might they so ap­point their meetings, as that the thing might well be kept from the knowledge of the Babylonians?

I answer; Consider, that as these Fasts were Publique, so also they were set Fasts, appointed to several times, and these celebrated annually, year after year, and that for a long time, seventy years; all which things laid together, we cannot imagine that the celebration of so many days, for so many years together, should, or could be a thing so private as to be hid from the Babylonians; if it were known, then I say must they be kept with their allowance. Now considering Babylon the place, Satans busie rage to stir up his Instru­ments against any Spiritual work, the Babylonians themselves being Idolaters, and Worshippers of a false god, withall the occasions of these solemn meetings, whereof that of the fourth Month was in memorial of Nebuchadnezzars taking Jerusa­lem, which fell out in this Month, 2 King. 25.3, 4. Jer. 39.2, 3. That of the fifth, for the burning of the Temple, which was done the tenth day of this Month, 2 King. 25.8, 9. Jer. 52.12, 13. [Page 271]That of the seventh Month for the death of Geda­liah, which hapned in this Month, and was the cause of the total dispersing of the remnant left in Judea, Ier. 41.1, &c. That of the tenth, for Ne­buchadnezzars siege which was laid against Jeru­salem in the tenth day of this Month, 2 King. 25.1. Jer. 52.4. All which occasions of these solemn Assemblies (that of the seventh Month excepted) was such as might suggest to the Babylonians, that this people assembled together yearly to lament their good successe and prosperity. Let us lay all together, and where we want a determinate rule, conjecture, whether (the premises considered) it be a thing likely that the Babylonians would per­mit such constant yearly Exercises in Babylon or no?

I am therefore inclined to think, That the ap­pointment and celebration of these Publique so­lemn Fasts, was not in Babylon, but upon their coming thence; after the people of Israel had li­berty given them by Cyrus to return from Baby­lon, and were come up to Jerusalem, with their hearts greatly raised through the present sense of their deliverance, and also with expectations of something more then ordinary, that God would now do for them; and having no sooner set hand to the work, but are stopped, contrary to expecta­tion, they are now put upon looking backwards, to see what might be the cause God should deal thus with them. And to this, their hearts being now melted, and affected under the present sense of their deliverance, they are in a frame and po­sture much better then while they remained in Ba­bylon [Page 272]under a Cloud, and a sense of wrath, which we know ever unfits, and makes a Soul uncapa­ble of looking back upon former ways and walk­ings. Now looking backwards they finde, That they had received such and such heavy stroaks from God formerly, which stroaks fell upon the whole Body of the Nation, yet had they never as yet in any solemn way humbled themselves before God for those their sins and provocations, which brought these stroaks upon them: Hereupon they appoint several days of Humiliation to bee kept yearly, till the anger of the Lord should be re­moved; and the better to stir up their hearts, (through a putting them in remembrance by the stroak) they appoint their days upon such and such times as the stroaks, which did prove most fatal to them, fel upon them, which is all the rea­son can be given of the appointment of the Fasts in such and such Months, as is before specified.

And therefore observe, in the fourth of Darius, in the ninth Month, when now the people of God perceiving the storm to be well blown over, the Temple-work being now on foot again, and brought to some perfection, do send men, as Sherezer, Regemmelech, &c. to enquire whether they should any longer (it seeming that God was now pacified) go on with that fasting which they had continued for seventy years; the answer is gi­ven by the Prophet to the Congregation there pre­sent, and the People that were in the Land, ver. 4.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. and not to those in Babylon, of whom not one syllable is spoken. A clear Argu­ment that Sherezer, Regemmelech, &c. were not [Page 273]sent by the people in Babylon, (as saith the gene­rall opinion) but were indeed employed, being two Honourable persons, by the whole Body of the People now in the Land, to go up to the House of the Lord, and enquire for them, con­cerning this practice they had so long continued a­mong them; Whether Gods wrath seeming now to be pacified, they should continue it any longer. Answer hereupon by the Prophet is given to the people of the Land, proving clearly, that this Fast was not a Fast in Babylon, but a Fast that had been kept up and continued by the people of the Land, which (as I have said) began upon their coming thither, and the cause till this day remai­ning, had been continued by them ever since; through which long continuance of time it was even now grown into a form, therefore God by the Prophet seems at first to disown it, Chap. 7.5, 6. and yet afterwards (as being a thing lawfull and good in its first institution, though through continuance of time abused by them) he ownes it, Chap. 8.19. So that this text rightly under­stood, is so farre from hurting us, that contrari­wise it brings with it a second testimony to prove the truth of our Assertion, that it was seventy years betwixt Cyrus, and the Darius that forwar­ded the Temple-work.

If any should yet think our measure to be mis­applied, and that surely it could not be so long as seventy years from the return of the Captivity to the end of Darius second, I shall adde one consi­deration more, viz. That Iddo, who was Grand­father to the Prophet Zechary, as appears Zech. [Page 274]1.1. was one of them that came up with Zerub­babel, as we shall finde, Nehem. 12.4. which Iddo Nehemiah speaks of, that it was the same person, and not another of the same name appears, in that we finde Zechariah, (and that in the daies of Jojakim sonne of Jeshua, which well agrees to the latter times of Zechariahs Prophecy) mentioned by name, as succeeding in the line of Iddo, ver. 16. and though Zechariah is there recorded amongst the chief of the Priests, yet doth not that hinder but it should be this very Zechariah, seeing most ordinarily Prophets were taken from amongst the Priests; Jeremiah was of the Priests of Anathoth, and yet a Prophet, Jer. 1.1. Ezekiel was a Priest, Ezek. 1.3. and yet a Prophet. All therefore that can be gathered thence is, That Zechariah as hee was a Prophet, so also he was one of the chief of the Priests.

Now Zechariah who mentions these seventy years, being Grand-childe to one that came up with Zerubbabel, it may very well bee thought, that betwixt these two, as much time as seventy years may be allowed, and yet no monstrous Conclusion.

From the whole it appears, That to fix the ad­vance of the Temple-work upon the second year of Darius Longimanus, doth not at all jarre, but rather hath an admirable concurrency, so as no opinion be­sides it, with what seems to be most clear in Scripture, as touching the time betwixt Cyrus first year, and Darius second.

Withall (though I would not be over-curi­ous, for I hate over-much niceness and curio­sity [Page 275]in Notions, as well as in Words, yet let mee say) hereby we gain this, to run the time betwixt the beginning of the Babylonish Captivity, and Christs Passion, all along upon seventies; (the Number so famous for setting forth this time.)

First, We have Seventy years Captivity in Babylon.

Secondly, Seventy years of mourning in the Land after their return thence, before the Work of the Temple can go on.

Thirdly, After that we have Seventy years, and seven odde, (observe, though we have some odde, yet they run still upon the Number seven) before the Jews can have liberty to build their Ci­ty, and form themselves into a Common-wealth; for so many years passed betwixt Darius second, and the time of Nehemiahs Commission.

Lastly, We have Seventy Weeks, which makes seven seventies, from the building Jerusalem, to the Passion of Christ.

In a word, from the beginning of the Captivi­ty, untill Christs Passion, we have ten Seventies, and three odde years; for though I mentioned even now seven odde years, yet it must bee re­membred, that four years out of that seven are to be deducted, to supply the want of those four years, which I have before proved are to be cut off from the seventeeth and last of Daniels weeks; these deducted, there then remains three odde only. Now allowing these three to the time Christ Preached, which was three years, we may then say, That from the beginning of the Babylonish Captivity, when Israel lost their Kingdome, to [Page 276]the annoynting of the Messiah, or the first visible appearance of Christ their King, was exactly ten times seventy years, which maketh seven hun­dred, running still upon the Number seven, both in the tens and hundreds. Within which time Matthew makes mention of fourteen Generati­ons to have lived, Matth. 1.17. Note, That they must make short Generations, that begin the se­venty weeks with the first of Cyrus.

Seeing therefore that to pitch upon Darius Lon­gimanus, as he that in his second year set on foot the work of the Temple, doth better then any o­ther opinion agree to the Divine Story, and other Scriptures, as to the time and things fore-going and succeeding the Temple-building, I do there­fore conclude, That that Darius, whom the Greeks call Longimanus, was the Darius under whom the Temple-work was finished.

Another Question now will arise, (which an­swered, we come to our main Conclusion driven at throughout this Section) viz. What Artaxerxes was that which succeeded Darius Longimanus? for (as I said at first) the Artaxerxes we are now en­quiring after must needs be, by the clear circumstances of the text, such a one as did succeed that Darius, which gave life to the building of the Temple.

Now this is confessed on all hands to be that Artaxerxes whom the Greeks call Mnemon, who was next Successor to Longimanus his next, Darius Nothus succeeding Longimanus, and Artaxerxes Mnemon, Darius Nothus.

This Artaxerxes was he that first gave Com­mission to Ezra, in the seventh year of his reign, to [Page 277]go up to Ierusalem, furnishing him largely with Monies, and afterwards to Nehemiah, in the twentieth of his reign, to build Jerusalem; which friendliness of his to Gods Cause and people went not unrewarded, for he reigned forty three years.

And which I cannot but mention to set it before Rulers, of all the Persian Monarchs, Longimanus and Mnemon, who had been of the most forward in favouring the People of God, and promoting his Cause, were blessed of God with length of days beyond any their Predecessors, or Successors in the Empire.

And which is another thing most observable, that by looking over these Histories mine eye hath been cast upon, viz. That so long as any of the Race of Cyrus (who first appeared to own the Cause of God) did continue, so long did the Persian Mo­narchy stand; but under the very first King that was of another Race, viz. Darius Codomannus, or Da­rius the last, who was (as is affirmed) a stranger to the bloud of Cyrus, the whole Monarchy is lost, and translated from the Medes and Persians to the Gre­cians; So mindful was God of what Cyrus did for his people, that whilst any of his Seed remained, he would not give the Kingdom to another.

Now, besides what hath been said already from the scope of our Discourse since I entred this Secti­on, it is a thing most evident, that that Artaxerxes from whom Nehemiah received his Commission, was, yea can be no other than, Artaxerxes Mnemon, be­cause two things are clear in Scripture concerning this Artaxerxes, which can be applied to no other but Mnemon; as,

1 That he reigned many years, two and thirty Nehemiah mentions, Chap. 13.6.

2 That the time of his reign was towards the lat­ter end of the Persian Monarchy, which is clear hence, because Nehemiah, who lived all the time of this Artaxerxes, did afterwards live to see that Generation in which the Monarchy was transla­ted: for he makes particular mention of Iaddus the High Priest, who met Alexander the Great at his coming to Ierusalem, and of that Darius un­der whom the Monarchy was lost, Nehem. 12.11.22. which clearly proves this Artaxerxes must be Mnemen, none of the Monarchs after him reign­ing so long, as the Scripture it self records him to have done.

Ere I can yet reach our Conclusion, there is one knob in the way to be even'd.

Obj. If Artaxerxes Mnemon be the Artaxerxes we are to six upon, from the twentieth of whose reign Daniels seventy weeks are to be begun, then conside­ring they end with Christs Passion, Daniels account will superabound the account of all Historians, who finde not so many years as four hundred and ninety betwixt the one time and the other.

Ans. 1. There are not so many over and a­bove in this account, but there are full as many wanting in their account, who begin Daniels se­venty weeks with the Decree of Cyrus; and whe­ther we reckon more or less, the matter is one and the same; yet is the bone there swallowed without pricking, by not a few godly and able men.

2 I answer; In case what I have said as touch­ing the beginning and ending of Daniels seventy [Page 279]weeks be truth, and it will not accord with Da­niels Prophecy of the seventy weeks, nor with o­ther Scriptures, to state any other beginning or ending; then of necessity must we either condemn the Holy Ghost for mentioning more years with­in that time then indeed there are, or Historians of neglect, in not having accounted for so many years as they should; and who shall we? Let God be true, but every man a Lyar.

If it be said, But why will I depart from the re­ports of Human Writers here, when as I made use of them before to measure another time?

Ans. 1. I did not make use of them before, as building any faith upon them, but because I finde the account they have kept of the time to be a­greeable to the Scripture account; and so farre I am bound to beleeve they have kept ac­counts aright, not because they say so, but be­cause the Scripture saith so; and this I verily think, that there is sufficient in Scripture to make out this our account, though they (I mean the Heathen Writers) were not; yet withall I am of the minde, that the considering what they say, and laying it to those things that are left us in the Word, may (through the Spirits guidance) be a help to us in things wherein they are in the right, as to the more speedy finding them, and the more casie making them out; yet we holding this as a most constant and infallible rule, That all their re­ports must be bowed to the Scripture, and not one tittle of Scripture made to bow to them; Upon this Prin­ciple therefore, supposing the Heathen Writers to have computed sixty or eighty years from Cyrus [Page 280]first to Longimanus second, yet would I reckon seventy, and not regard their reports; and also upon this Principle, because the Scripture hath so clearly determined the beginning and ending of the seventy weeks, I judge I am bound to ac­count as many years betwixt time and time as Da­niel doth, though Human Writers will not al­low it. This Scripture rule once found determines all the different accounts of times that are left us by Human Writers, and declares whether or no any of them be in the truth; and in case any are, who they are.

But secondly, Should we go to the bare Au­thority of Man, yet in common reason more cre­dit is to be given to what is recorded by the Greeks as touching the times of the Persian Monarchy, then to what Writers in after times did record, as touching the continuance of the Graecian, and the succeeding years of the Roman until Christ. The reason is, because the Monarchy of the Persians was more stable, and not subject to those strange mutations, (tossing the Ball of the Kingdome from one to another, and back again) which or­dinarily cause mistakes in Historians. But who knows any thing of the Graecian Monarchy, knows that it was after Alexanders death a very heap of confusion, through the scuffle that arose betwixt Alexanders Captains, as was the whole World afterwards, when that terrible Beast, the Roman Monarchy, was rising; so that within this time the best of Historians might mistake, and lose many years. If I had not therefore Scrip­ture to back me, yet this would a little help the [Page 281]cause, why I follow the reports of some, and re­ject others, because more credit upon a meer ra­tional account is to be given to those I follow, then to the other from whom I dissent.

From the whole of my Discourse in this Secti­on my Conclusion is, That that Artaxerxes, in the twentieth of whose reign Nehemiah went up to Jeru­salem, was Artaxerxes Mnemon.

SECT. 3.

It being clear from what we have said in the fore-going Section, That Artaxerxes Mnemon was the Artaxerxes that gave Commission to Nehe­miah, in the twentieth year of his reign, to go up to Je­rusalem and build it; The way now lies open for us to compute the years appertaining to this pe­riod, which is the first upon account, though in order of handling I have placed it in the cloze of our Discourse, as seeming to me to be in that re­spect its proper place.

The Question is, What number of years are we to account from Cyrus first, where begins the two thousand three hundred days, till Artaxerxes Mnemons twentieth (or to speak more properly his one and twentieth) where begins Daniels seventy weeks?

If the Scripture will help us here, then need wee not much regard what Chronologers say; but we may without, and though it bee against them, conclude the full and certain number of years even from Cyrus first till Christs Passion, for as for the time betwixt Mnemons twentieth and Christs Passi­on, [Page 282] Daniels seventy weeks are an infallible rule to measure that by; now, if a like Scripture-rule, or a rule equivalent thereunto, whose very matter whereof it is made is the Word, may be found to measure the time betwixt Cyrus first, and Mnemons twentieth, then have we the measure of the San­ctuary to mete the time from Cyrus first till our Lords Passion; this being the only approved and sealed measure, all other measures must be squa­red by it, not it by them.

The Account the Greeks give us of this time, (which almost all Chronologers adhere unto) I have laid down in my Key, Thes. 45, 46, 47. by which reckoning (but three years being allowed to Cyrus after his taking Babylon) the years are one hundred forty seven.

The reason why I give to Cyrus but three years, when the Greeks allow him thirty, I have also there declared, Thes. 48.

Some more persons then I have there specified did reign in the Persian Monarchy betwixt Cyrus and Artaxerxes Mnemon, as betwixt Cambyses and Darius Hystaspes, the Magi reigned seven Months; betwixt Xerxes and Artaxerxes Longimanus, Arta­banus reigned seven Months; betwixt Artaxerxes Longimanus, and Darius Nothus, reigned first Xerxes the second two Months, after him Sogdia­nus seven Months. But the time of the reign of these, as laid down by Chronologers, doth not at all break squares, as to the fore-going number of one hundred forty seven years, for the seven Months of the Magi are reckoned into the last year of Cambyses, to whom, together with the [Page 283] Magi, eight years is given, but he alone reigned but seven years and five months, to which Chro­nologers adde the seven months of the Magi, so giving eight years to Cambyses. So for the rest, Artabanus seven months are included in the last year of Xerxes, whose reign with these seven months added made up but twenty one years. The two months of Xerxes the second, and the seven of Sogdianus are all included in the fortieth and last year of Longimanus, who with these nine months added, reigned forty years.

And for this reason, because these reigned so short a time, no one of them filling up a year, and the time of the reign of each being alwaies included in the reign of his Predecessor, are the Names of these by many left out, and not put into the ordinary Catalogue of the Persian Kings.

But should I lay the bottome of my demon­stration here, I should depart from my own rule; I am therefore to enquire what Scripture saith to our Question, and whether that will allow this number of years, yea or no.

As to the Question therefore, first in the gene­rall, let us see whether there bee any footing in Scripture for so long a time, leaving the set num­ber of years.

Now as to this let it only bee minded again which hath been proved already, viz. That it was Seventy years from the first of Cyrus, till the time that the Work of the second Temple was again set on foot by Darius; here wee have (the odde seven years set aside) the half of the time, now for the other seventy seven wee have this to say (the [Page 284]ground of which hath been also laid down before) that Jeshua was High Priest in Darius second year, Ezra 5.1, 2. but now in Artaxerxes twentieth, E­liashib (Jeshuaes Grand-childe) was High Priest, Nehem. 3.1, 20. who also was so aged at Ezraes coming up to Jerusalem, which was thirteen years before Nehemiahs, that he had a Son a Priest, Ezra 10.6. time must be allowed for this change, and to allow seventy seven years is no absurd conclusi­on. Put the one and the other together, and as many years as one hundred forty seven may well be thought to have passed, betwixt the time of Cyrus Decree, and Nehemiahs Commission.

But it wil be said, Although it may be conceived that this time was as long, yet is not what hath been said ground sufficient for a determined time; But now the time we are seeking after must be a determined time, for a few years more or lesse puts our whole account out of order.

In answer hereto, I grant that we have not a de­termined time of one hundred forty seven years upon any particular sum mentioned in Scripture, but in case wee have it upon general Scripture Principles, or the account of any grosse sum, and no particular text so contradicting, but that the time may be judged as long, the proof is good, and proof of this kind is as firm as any other; for if proof by a grosse sum be not admitted, let any (if they can) cast the time how many years Israel abode in Aegypt, and after that how many years it was from Ioshuaes dividing to the twelve Tribes the Land of Canaan by Lot, untill the time that the Judges began to bear rule; these times can be [Page 285]counted no otherwayes, but only by a grosse summe; if therefore proof by a grosse summe be denied, the very foundation of all Chronology is razed.

Now I say, though we have not any particular Text that doth ascertain us that this time was ex­actly a hundred forty and seven years, neither more nor lesse; yet we have it upon general Scrip­ture principles, and the account of a grosse summe.

My Argument lyes thus, The two thousand three hundred dayes must expire at the same point with the one thousand three hundred thirty five. The truth of this is evident beyond denial, from what hath been already said as touching either Pro­phesie, that Chap. 8. and the other Chap. 11, 12. which determines, First, that the matter and scope of either Prophesie is one and the same. Secondly, that either Prophesie hath one and the same end, both shutting up with the end or final destruction of the fourth Monarchy. This being so, the two thousand three hundred dayes, which bring us to the end of one Prophesie; the one thousand three hundred thirty five, which brings us to the end of the other, must necessarily ex­pire at one and the same point.

Hence I conclude,

That having so much of the two thousand three hundred dayes upon firm and particular ground as will make the two thousand three hundred dayes to end with the one thousand three hundred thirty five, saving only these one hundred forty seven years, that therefore because they [Page 284] [...] [Page 285] [...] [Page 286]must end together, and with this allowance will, but without it cannot, must the remaining years run upon the grosse summe, and so be counted one hundred forty seven, not a year more or lesse. And this consequence is so natural and necessary, that put case the account of the Greeks were thrown out of the doors, and all that we have said before in our two former Sections and this, proving that the time may well be judged as long, were yet unsaid, yet in case no particular Scripture do necessarily prove this time must be either shorter or longer, I say this alone de­termines that the years from Cyrus first, to the time of Nehemiahs Commission, must be one hundred forty seven, not a year more or lesse.

If it be said, But the weight of our Argument lyes upon the beginning of the one thousand three hundred thirty five dayes; which should another beginning then that which I have else­where stated be found for them, our Conclusion is nothing.

I answer, Whosoever is not satisfied with that beginning we have formerly laid down, but seeks another, must mind these two things; 1 That he so six the head of the one thousand three hundred thirty five dayes, as that he make them to expire at the same point with the two thousand three hun­dred. 2 That he also make the one thousand two hundred and ninety, (which ariseth from the same Head with the one thousand three hundred thirty five) to end at the same point with the one thou­sand two hundred and sixty. If either of these be not done, those manifest Scripture-principles, [Page 287]laid down in my Key, Thes. 17. and Thes. 34. are destroyed. Now he that shall undertake this work, I question not but that after he hath well considered all, he will find it a more easie thing to beleeve, then prove.

But secondly, I answer, That the beginning of the one thousand three hundred thirty five dayes with Julian, is the only beginning (setting the Harmony aside) that is consonant to truth. I ar­gue thus, The taking away of the daily sacrifice, and setting up the abomination that maketh de­solate, which is the Head of this number, Dan. 12.11, 12. must be taken either in a litteral sense, as referring to the people of the Jews, or in a spiritual, as referring to the Gentile Saints. That the words should here be understood in a spiritual sense is no way likely to be the mind of Daniel in this place, the reason is clear, because, the promise of a certain time of Deliverance, vers. 1. which was the very thing that put Daniel upon querying, and drew forth these answers about the time, is made expresly to the Jews, which therefore are twice in that first verse called Daniels People. The Prince that standeth for the children of thy people — at that time shall thy people be delivered. — Although the Gentile-Saints in Daniel are called the holy people, the understanding people, the people that know their God, the Saints of the most high, &c. yet are they never called thy people; that is a phrase peculiar to the Jews, as chap. 9.24. chap. 10.14. chap. 11.14. and no where applied to the Gentiles. Now whereas the Holy Ghost when hee gives forth that time of deliverance by way of [Page 288]Promise, which afterwards hee measures, useth this phrase twice together, thy people, thy people, it clearly denotes, that he is speaking of the Jews, and that the time of deliverance first promised, after­wards measured, hath a special relation to that people; so as that no deliverance whatsoever from Captivity and Bondage, unless it bee a delive­rance of Natural Jews, can be a fulfilling of this place. Seeing therefore that the taking away of the daily Sacrifice in this place must bee under­stood literally, we must apply it to the time when this was done in part, or in the beginning, or else to the time when this work was throughly per­fected. The partial performance hereof was in Vespatians time, when the Jews losing their Tem­ple, in respect of the outward building, were put by sacrifising, and could sacrifise no longer, the place in which all their Sacrifices were to be offe­red, being now demolished. This is that Christ points at, Matth. 24.15. and this was, to speak properly, rather a Cessation of the daily Sacrifice, then a taking it away.

The compleat performance hereof was in Juli­ans time, when the Jews lost their Temple, not only in respect of building, but also in respect of the very being of it, the very foundation being now removed, and the Temple-ground it self lost by an Earthquake.

Now the Question is, Whether of the two are we to chuse for our Head to the one thousand three hun­dred thirty five days, whether the demolishing of the Temple-building in Vespasians time, or the utter de­struction of the Temple being, in Julians?

Ans. Not the first, because the deliverance poin­ted at in the end of this time, being (upon our aforesaid ground) a deliverance of the people of the Jews, the event (considering that the time from that beginning is expired long since) doth necessarily prove it false. And this Argument from the event is firm and good, considering the premises, viz. That the Jews are here spoken of, and assurance given to Daniel of their deliverance af­ter such a time. If therefore we see the time run out, and that many years, and yet no such thing in accomplishment as the Jews deliverance, wee may truly say, some other beginning must bee sought; for there can be no error in the Word it self, whatsoever may bee in mens interpretations thereof. It necessarily therefore follows, (because the words being to be understood literally, as pointing to the Iewish people, and the place of their Worship, we have no other beginning) that we should begin with the second, viz. The com­pleating of this work of Temple-desolation, which fell out in the time of Julian. So that to begin the one thousand three hundred thirty five days with Iu­lian, hath more approbation from Scripture (wa­ving our Harmony) than any other opinion.

Now the one thousand three hundred thirty five days being begun there, our former Argu­ment for one hundred forty seven years betwixt the coming out of Babylon, and Nehemiahs time, will appear good upon the gross sum: for, by this allowance, the two thousand three hundred days wil, without it cannot, end (as yet they must) with the one thousand three hundred thirty five.

That the Greeks, and most Chronologers that follow their accounts, do compute the same num­ber of years from the beginning of Cyrus first, un­till the end of Artaxerxes Mnemons twentieth, can­not be looked upon as an Argument against us, but if any thing, it is rather an Argument for us; Let us not, because every man is a Lyar, make the Word of God (which in this case speaks enough for us, though men had said nothing) a Lyar too. If the Devil should speak agreeable to this rule, so farre there is truth in him; but if Angels speak against it, it is because there is no truth in them.

Obj. But Daniel, chap. 11.1, 2. reckons but four Kings, after Cyrus, to have reigned in the whole Per­sian Monarchy, untill the time that the Mo­narchy was translated to the Greeks. And if so, then may not this time, which contains not the whole, but a part of the time of that Monarchy, be counted so long as one hundred forty seven years.

Ans. Should I grant the thing, yet is it not im­possible; for if but four reigned, if we allow to the reign of each fifty years (which is no thing miraculous) the three first alone will exceed our time, and the others reign added will go as farre as any conceive the Persian Monarchy did last. They that urge this, must prove from Scripture, that these did not reign so long, or they do nothing against our former Arguments, which do strongly infer, (till the contrary be proved) that if betwixt Cy­rus and Alexander, but four did reign, they must reign so long.

But secondly, I do not grant the thing, nor see [Page 291]the least shew of reason from the text to recede from the account of the Greeks, but rather to ad­here to them.

The Question is, Whether the fourth King there spoken of be the last King of the Persian Monarchy, yea or no?

Ans. Daniel saith not so, nor will his words rightly interpreted infer so much. The words in Daniel, (which were spoken in the third year of Cyrus, as Daniel 10.1.) are only these, Behold, there shall stand up yet, (i. e. succeeding Cyrus, who was present King when this was spoken) three Kings in Persia, and the fourth (i. e. the King that should succeed these three) shall be farre richer than they all, and by his strength, through his riches, he shall stir up all against the Realm of Graecia.

Here is not a word that the fourth should bee the last, but that the fourth should be richer than all the other, and by his strength, through his ri­ches, stir up all against the Realm of Graecia. Now how exactly doth this answer to what is recorded by the Greek Historians? if we count the Govern­ment of the Magi to be one of the three first Kings that succeeded Cyrus; for though they continued in the Government but a little while, for which cause some (as I have said) confound their reign with the reign of Cambyses; yet they being a Head distinct, the Scripture, which speaks of things di­stinctly, and as they are, account them so, not re­garding their short continuance.

Now I say, the Magi being reckoned one of these three, how patly do Daniels words answer to the reports of the Greeks? for Cyrus they [Page 292]reckon as the first, and the founder of the Persian Monarchy; after him they reckon, 1 Cambyses, 2 The Magi. 3 Darius Hystaspes. Here are the three standing up after Cyrus, the fourth they mention (who succeeded Darius Hystaspes) is Xerxes the Great, who is famously known in the stories of those ancient Writers, for two things.

1 For his Riches, which his Father Darius Hystaspes had hoorded up, and that in so great a­bundance, that he was called the Hoorder of the Kingdom.

2 For his notable expedition against Greece, carrying with him no lesse than a Million of Soul­diers (some reckon them very many more, al­most two Millions) which were transported over the Sea, with upwards of five thousand Gallies, and other Vessels. See Sir Walter Rawleighs Hi­story of the World, Lib. 3. Cap. 6. Sect. 1. These two things which Xerxes (who according to the Greeks was the fourth King after Cyrus) was so famous for, are the very things pointed at by Da­niel, as 1. That the fourth King should be farre richer than they all, i. e. than all his Predecessors. 2. That by his strength, through his riches, hee should stir up all against the Realm of Graecia.

Obj. But though Daniel doth not call the fourth King after Cyrus, the last of the Persian Monar­chy, yet the following words infer little lesse; for the very next that we read of after this fourth King, is A­lexander the Great, vers. 3. And a mighty King shall stand up, that shall rule with great Domini­on, and do according to his will. These words can be understood of none but Alexander the Great, as the [Page 293]following verse makes appear. And when he shall stand up, his Kingdom shall be broken, (so was Alexanders by his sudden death) and shall be divi­ded towards the four Winds of Heaven, and not to his posterity; (thus was Alexanders, who dy­ing without issue, his Kingdom was divided betwixt his four chief Captains) nor according to his Domi­nion which he ruled, i. e. none of Alexanders Cap­tains were so potent as he; which words agree exactly to those, Dan. 8. vers. 8, 21, 22. where we have the very same description of Alexander.

Ans. I grant it, that Alexander is here meant, yet doth it not therefore follow that the fourth King before mentioned must be the last of the Per­sian Monarchy, unlesse it could be proved, that Daniels enumeration of Kings, respects the whole Monarchy of the Persians, so as not one King more reigned in that Monarchy than is there mentioned, which I am sure cannot be done from Scripture. The story of Ezra will not at all help it, till they have proved the same of that also, viz. That it is a perfect Chronicle, and hath given us a perfect enume­ration of the Persian Monarchs; which is a thing (as I have formerly observed) not in the least in­tended in those Books.

But rather to put the matter out of all doubt, the businesse in Daniel lyes thus. The Holy Ghost is treating, not of particular Kings, but of Monar­chies in generall; and therefore it is no part of his scope to tell us how many Kings did reign in this or that Monarchy, (which is not a thing observed in any of the Kingdoms afterwards spoken of in this Chapter, therefore should not be urged as any [Page 294]part of the scope here) but his drift is to shew us;

1 How many Monarchies, from that time un­till the time of the end, should bee in the world.

2 What remarkable changes should be in these Monarchies themselves, not as to the reign of par­ticular Kings, but as to the alteration of Govern­ments.

3 What more noted things should be done in the time of these Monarchies, by either of them, as considered under this or that Government, ei­ther against Gods people that were, the Jews; or Gods people that are, the Gentiles; or against both in the time of the end, or the evening of the Worlds, or worldly Kingdoms day; or what more remarkable rents, occasioning fearfull Civil broyls, Commotions, Divisions, &c. should be­fall this or that Monarchy within the time of its particular continuance.

And lastly, Whence, or upon what occasion, the translation of Monarchies from one people to another (as from the Medes and Persians to the Greeks, from them to the Romans, and from them the translation of the Kingdom and Domi­nion, and greatnesse of the Kingdom under the whole Heaven, into the hands of another people, viz. The Saints of the most High, who till this day had always and ever been crushed, by and under these Monarchies) should arise. In these things lies the main scope of the Holy Ghost, who doth not in the least drive at such a thing, as to tell us what particular Kings succeeded one another in this or that Monarchy, but only names things of this [Page 295]nature so farre as they serve the main scope, but no further.

Now observe, the thing the Holy Ghost would have us learn (as seems to me) from the second and third verses of this Chapter, is this; As to take notice of such a Monarchy as was that of the Persians, so more especially to minde the cause, and the occasion of the translation of this Monarchy from the Persians to the Graecians, and the time when this cause should be given, and the ground of a Quarrel betwixt these two Nations laid. Now to make out this, he tells us, how that after Gyrus three Kings should arise in Persia, and a fourth after them, which fourth should be very rich, and strong, and through the greatness of his strength and riches, should stir up all against the Realm of Graecia. This (as I have before said) was most exactly to a tittle fulfilled in Xerxes the Great, who was the fourth King af­ter Cyrus in the Persian Monarchy; exceeding all his Predecessors in power and riches, and with all his power invades the Realm of Graecia. Here now is the ground of an inveterate hatred and quarrel laid betwixt these two Nations, which af­terwards occasioned the translation of the Mo­narchy; for the Greeks, though at present they maintained their own Cause, and did worst their potent Enemie, yet was this work (as Histories record) chiefly done by Sea, where (though they were but a handful to the other, yet being of the two the more skilful in Sea-affairs, and the more resolute in this kind of fight, having withall the better ships) in the great Battail of Salamis they gained the day; yet when this was done, though [Page 296]hereby they delivered themselves, were they not so potent by Land as to invade their enemie. But many years after, when that valiant Commander, Alexander the Great (who durst attempt any thing) arose in Greece, then the bad bloud begot­ten by this invasion (though it were more than a Generation or two before) began to work, and the old grudge is remembred; and Alexander, in way of revenge of the old Quarrel, invades the Persians, by which invasion the Monarchy is translated from the Persians to the Graecians. So that the Holy Ghost takes notice of the Kings reigning in Persia, only so farre as serves his turn, viz. To point out the time when the ground-work of that irreconcilable quarrel betwixt the Persians and the Graecians should be laid, which would in time prove the overthrow and translation of the Monarchy, as it then was in the hands of the Persians. This was done by Xerxes invasion of Greece, which quarrel afterwards is taken up by Alexander, who to re­venge the injury done to his Country (though long before) by the Persians, invades them, over­throws their Power, wrests the Monarchy out of their hands.

This is the true meaning of the place, without forcing or squeezing the text. Now consider the thing, and what can more punctually agree to the Heathen stories than doth this of Daniel? to which, if we lay what wee have said before, as touching the time betwixt the return from the Captivity, and Nehemiahs days, from both wee may conclude, That these ancient Writers, (though Heathens) have given us a true account [Page 297]of the Persian Monarchy, both as touching the Persons that reigned, and the Time how long.

And notwithstanding the Jewish Writers, as Josephus, Philo, &c. vary from the Greeks, yet are not their reports to be credited so much as the reports of the Greeks; and the reason is, because we have much more ground to suspect them of partiality, than the other; for Josephus, Philo, &c. might out of design mention such Kings only as they finde in Ezra, because, besides the misunder­standing this place of Daniel, they might have such a conceit that Ezraes Book was a perfect Chronicle, and therefore in naming more, should crosse not this only, but that also; and also, being Jews, might scorn to take a relation from the Gen­tiles, whom they esteemed Lyars, and accursed. But now the Greeks had no temptation of this na­ture before them, which might move them out of meer design to be silent as touching any Kings that were, or tell us of Kings that were not. Nay, how can we readily think they should so do, when as they do not only record Persons but their Acts, of which many are things known, and famous? yea further, whereas the History-Writers them­selves living at sundry times of the Persian Mo­narchy, did each mention the King that reigned whilst he lived, as Herodotus mentions Xerxes, Thucydides, Artaxerxes Longimanus; Xenophon, Darius Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, &c. Now is it likely they would tell such lies in the very face of the times they lived in, as to endeavour to make people beleeve such and such Kings reigned over them, when every Childe knew the contra­ry. [Page 298]Let us not Censure even Heathens beyond the rules of Reason, nor, because we are sick of their reports, spew out the truth of the Scripture with them.

This Objection therefore doth not so offend us, but that we may, notwithstanding it, safely and truly conclude, That the number of years from Cy­rus first, to Artaxerxes Mnemons twentieth (taking in each current year) are one hundred forty seven.

SECT. 4.

Having found out the true and certain Num­ber of years from Cyrus first, unto the year of Christs Passion, we are now to run the remaining years of the two thousand three hundred, upon our Christian Epock, or that account which is com­monly called the Year of the Lord.

Here I must nakedly confesse my self to bee short of a clear Scripture-rule, to ascertain us how many years have passed since the time of Christs Passion. And this I may say, it is a thing impos­sible (considering all Scripture Records did cease suddenly after) that such a rule should be produ­ced by any, as yet; though withall I am of the minde, that a little time will furnish us with a clear Scripture-rule (all the accounts of men being set aside) to measure the years of the World by, and that from the day of the Creati­on, untill Christs second coming. And lest this should seem a Paradox, I explain my self thus; That I conceive the Scripture hath determined the whole of this time, either by particular sums, [Page 299]or grosse sums; now concerning every grosse sum this rule is to be observed, That the ending of this or that grosse sum (where the Scripture hath left us no other rule but only the grosse sum) can never be apprehended by a Divine Faith, but only in the accomplishment of that thing the gross sum points at. When the thing is in being, then we may (though there were no account of mans in the World) say, now so many years are past; but before it is in being, though wee know the true beginning of the grosse sum, yet can we have only a Human Faith as concerning its end, i.e. to say, at such or such a time the thing pointed at by the grosse sum will have its accomplishment. Now for so much as concerns the time from the Creation untill the ending of the seventy years of the Cap­tivity, we have it all in Scripture, partly upon particular sums, partly such grosse sums, whose ends being already passed, they are in that respect as clear and demonstrative as any particular sum; but for the time since, it runs wholly upon the grosse sum, which grosse sum is this wonderfull Number of two thousand three hundred years. Now observe, although we have ground (and that from the necessary concurrency of each Num­ber in their end, so farre as the fixation of the Head of the one thousand three hundred thirty five with Julians Act, is Scripture-proof) to con­clude, that at the time when Julian set the Jews to re-edifie their Temple, so many years of the two thousand three hundred were run out, as that the remaining years at that day were only one thousand three hundred thirty five, yet can wee [Page 300]not upon Scripture-ground descend lower, untill we shall see the Jews beginning to stir.

When this thing shall be visible, then may we, because Daniel hath expresly determined this to be forty five years before the ending of the one thou­sand three hundred thirty five, or the two thou­sand three hundred days, upon Scripture-ground also determine, That now so many of the two thousand three hundred years are expired, as that the years which remain are only forty five. This therefore would bring light into the whole, and, did we see their stirring, it would be no difficult thing to measure by an infallible rule the years of the world, from the Creation untill Christs se­cond coming, (which speaks much for the perfe­ction of the Scriptures, viz. That they alone, with­out any help of mans (could we but patiently wait for the times of manifestation) are throughly able to perfect every of their accounts) but, till the set times of manifestation, it cannot infallibly be; for taking it for granted, That we have upon Scrip­ture-account the Heads of Daniels one thousand two hundred and ninety, or Iohns one thousand two hundred and sixty years, i. e. that the one and the other must begin at such and such a year; yet must we (till we see the things in accomplishment, that each Number points at) trust Human Re­cords as to this, viz. That so many years from the beginning of the one or the other Number, untill this day, are run out. This I say, till we see the ac­complishment of things, can never be known but by the accounts of men; but when once we see things in accomplishment, then suppose men had [Page 301]kept no account at all, yet may we determine as well without them as with them; and all Con­clusions then being founded upon pure Scripture, will be infallible.

Obj. But it may be said, Perhaps when these things pointed at by these Numbers shall come to be in accomplishment, it will be so darkly, as that we shall not be able to discern it.

Ans. Not so; for observe it, those actions which have been the concluding-points of grosse sums, God did never in Old Testament-times bring forth in obscurity, but clearly and mani­festly, so that his people could see the action, and the end of the set time together; much lesse therefore should we expect it in New Testament­times, in which all things are more clear. It is therefore sufficient to call into question the Head of any Number whatsoever, in case we see the whole of the time run out, and yet the thing in accomplishment so dark, as that wee cannot tell whether it be fulfilled or no. God never dealt thus by his people in times of Old, when light was lesse, therefore we are not to think he will deal thus by them in Gospel-times, when light is grea­ter. Most surely, when Gods times are run out, his very works will be so manifest, that reason shall finde no room for to object; Divine actions will then silence reasoning.

I do therefore conclude, That although unto the beginning of the one thousand three hundred thirty five days, our rule for the measuring of the two thousand three hundred is clear from Scripture upon the fore-going Principle, [Page 302]that these two Numbers end together, and there­fore wheresoever wee begin the one thousand three hundred thirty five days, must we conclude, that with that time or year, whatsoever it be, must of necessity be run out exactly nine hundred sixty five of Daniels two thousand three hundred years; for otherwise the years remaining of the two thou­sand three hundred will bee more or lesse then one thousand three hundred thirty five; and if so, then cannot the two thousand three hundred, and the one thousand three hundred thirty five, end together; yet as to the time since, till we see the Iews stirring, we cannot by any Scripture-rule de­termine how many years have passed from that time to this.

Here therefore I freely confesse, wee are (and must be till we see things in accomplishment) at a losse, as to our certain and infallible rule.

We may say, That it is a thing very probable, (and my reason for it I shall give by and by) that our Christian Epock (more especially within this time) hath given us a true account, and neither lost nor gained years; but to conclude the thing absolutely, because the testimony, though ever so true, is but Human, we may not.

Though therefore I determine upon a particu­lar year, yet not so absolutely, but that I do con­fesse, That in case men in their accounts of that time, which at present to us is undetermined by Scripture, have lost or gained years; by so much will things in accomplishment fall either sooner or later than the year I have fixed upon.

Now, though I will not here take upon me to [Page 303]determine (as judging the thing upon a pure Scripture-account indeterminable) whether Sca­ligers account of the Year of our Lord, or the vulgar account be the true (only adde, That should the first, which fixeth the day of Christs Birth two years higher than the vulgar account, be the truth, then the one thousand two hundred & sixty days, the one thousand two hundred & nine­ty, do end with the end of the present year, one thousand six hundred fifty four; but if the last, viz. the vulgar have the truth in it, then do they end with the end of the year, one thousand six hundred fifty six, the year I have always hitherto pitch­ed upon for the Witnesses Rise, Iews stirring, &c. though I confess I am in a great doubt, which we are to hold to, but lesse than twelve Months will untie this knot, and unriddle this Mystery;) yet that neither account, though they vary two years as to their beginning, have since upon their reck­oning either lost or gained years, seems to mee a probable truth upon our fore-going Principle, viz. of the concurrence of the two thousand three hundred, and the one thousand three hundred thirty five days, in their end. For supposing some miscarriage may have crept into either of these, or rather both (for setting aside their small diffe­rence as touching the beginning, they both, as to number of years since Christ, speak the very same thing) in all likelihood the miscarriage must bee within the time of the first three hundred years; for since that time Christian Religion hath been the Religion of a principal part of the World, and hath always gone upon a publique date; but [Page 304]now in case any miscarriage were in that time, then seeing we must after once Daniels one thou­sand three hundred thirty five years are begun, al­low the like number of years (viz. one thousand three hundred thirty five) of the two thousand three hundred, to it, that these two by this allow­ance may concur in one end; it will follow, that so many years over or under as the miscarriage hath been, so many years, by that time we have counted the years of the two thousand three hun­dred before Christs Passion, and the years of the two thousand three hundred which follow the be­ginning of the one thousand three hundred thirty five, will be found within this time (viz. betwixt Christs Passion, and the beginning of the one thousand three hundred thirty five years) over or under the general sum of two thousand three hundred; for if the years within this time have been counted more than they should, then will the totall sum of the years be more upon account of the whole time put together, than two thou­sand three hundred; if lesse, then lesse; so that the two thousand three hundred must by this means either be stretched or crooked, neither of which must be; for this, two thousand three hun­dred, is of all, the most exquisite and perfect rule to measure times by, it being the very Date that Heaven hath set upon all worldly King­doms, the account that the wonderfull Numbe­rer of times and seasons hath left us. It there­fore being a thing Divine, determines of all ac­counts that are Human, but suffers it self to be deter­mined by none.

This Harmony therefore of the two thousand three hundred years, and the one thousand three hundred thirty five in their end, as it doth deter­mine the truth of all our account till Julian, viz. That we must of necessity reckon nine hundred sixty five years, of the two thousand three hun­dred, to be expired at the time of Julians Act, not a year more or lesse, for if upwards of nine hun­dred sixty five years were expired before Julian, then would there not be one thousand three hun­dred thirty five remaining; if lesse, then more, either of which destroys the harmony: So like­wise doth it determine, that in all probability our Christian Epock hath neither lost nor gained years from that time to this day, because if any where it had lost or gained years, it is likely it should be within the first three hundred years; but there it did not, therefore much more unlikely that since, (when Christian Religion hath been more fa­mous, and gone upon the publique Date of the greatest Empire in the World) it should have lost or gained any.

Having thus made good the whole of our ac­count, there is nothing now remaining but that we cast it up, to the end we may see where, or with what year Daniels two thousand three hundred years expire.

For the better doing hereof I shall divide the whole into Six Periods.

1. Period, Contains the number of years from the beginning of Cyrus first, unto the end of Ar­taxerxes Mnemons twentieth, (note, That the [Page 306]twentieth year of Mnemon, though Nehemiah re­ceived his Commission within that year, yet be­ing the current year, is to be reckoned into this Pe­riod; the same rule is also to be observed in all the following Periods) the years of this Period are one hundred forty seven.

2 Period, From the end of Artaxerxes Mne­mons twentieth year, unto the end of the thirty fourth year of our Lord; The years of this Period are (the four last of Daniels four hundred and nine­ty being cut off, for our Reasons laid down in o­pening Daniels seventy weeks) four hundred eighty six.

3 Period, From the end of the thirty fourth year of our Lord, untill the end of the year three hundred sixty six; the years of this Period are three hundred thirty two.

These three first Periods contain years, nine hundred sixty five.

4 Period, From the end of the year three hundred sixty six, untill the end of the year three hundred ninety six; the years of this Period are thirty.

5 Period, From the end of the year three hundred ninety six, to the end of the year one thousand six hundred fifty six; the years of this Period are one thousand two hundred and sixty.

6 Period, From the end of the year one thou­sand six hundred fifty six, to the end of the year one thousand seven hundred and one; the years of this Period are forty five.

These three last Periods contain of years, one thousand three hundred thirty five.

The years of the three first, and the three last Periods put together, make up exactly 2300.

The sum of all is, That Christs Personal Ap­pearance,

Israels compleat Redemption,

The final overthrow of Beast, and Great Turk,

The binding of the Dragon,

The total dissolution of the Fourth Mo­narchy,

The beginning of the one thousand years reign of Christ and the Saints, (all which things are concurrent) falls to be, Anno Dom. one thou­sand seven hundred and one, about forty seven, or forty eight years hence.

Yet whether or no Jesus Christ, who tells us, that for the Elects sake those days (that is, the days of the sore trouble which will befall the Jews more especially towards the ending-time of the last forty five years) shall be shortned, may not appear some years sooner, and so cut short this determined time, is a question too hard for mee to decide; but the appearance of our blessed Lord, the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, will put an end to this, and all other Controversies. When we shall see no more (as all our sight now is) through a Glasse darkly, but face to face: Now wee know in part, but then shall we know perfectly, even as we are known.

In faith of which blessed day let us rejoyce, [Page 308]in expectation of it let us always bee found waiting and watching, That whensoever our Lord cometh, whether at even, or at mid­night, or at the Cock-crowing, or in the mor­ning, he may not, coming suddenly, finde us sleeping. And what I say unto you, I say unto all, watch, Mark 13.37. So enable us Lord to do, and come O Lord Jesus, come quickly.

Amen, Amen.