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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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.

CHAP. 8. CHAP. 11. Verſ. 12. An Hoſt was given him againſt the daily Saerifice. Verſ. 31. And Armies ſhall stand on his part. Verſ. 11. By him the daily Sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his Sanctuary caſt down. Verſ. 31. And they ſhall pollute the Sanctuary of ſtrength, and ſhall take away the daily Sacrifice. Verſ. 25. Through policy ſhall he cauſe craft to proſper in his hand, and by peace ſhall deſtroy many. Verſ. 23. After the League made with him, he ſhall work deceitfully.   Verſ. 24. He ſhall enter peaceably into the fatteſt places of the Province. Verſ. 12, It caſt down the truth to the ground, and it practiſed and proſpered. Verſ. 36. Hee ſhall ſpeak marvellous things againſt the God of gods, and ſhall proſper. Verſ. 24. Hee ſhall deſtroy the mighty, and the holy people. Verſ. 32, 33. The people that know their God ſhall be ſtrong, and do exploits, yet they ſhall fall by the ſword, and by flame; by captivity, and by ſpoyl many days. Verſ. 25. Hee ſhall magnifie himſelf in his heart. Verſ. 37. Hee ſhall magnify himſelf above all. Verſ. 25. Hee ſhall alſo ſtand up againſt the Prince of Princes, but he ſhall be broken without hand. Verſ. 45. compared with chap. 12.7. He ſhall come to his end and none shall help him; and at that time shall Michael ſtand up.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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.