Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews also concerning the Messiah wherein the promises concerning him to be a spiritual redeemer of mankind are explained and vindicated, his coming and accomplishment of his work according to the promises is proved and confirmed, the person, or who he is, is declared, the whole oeconomy of the mosaical law, rites, worship, and sacrifice is explained : and in all the doctrine of the person, office, and work of the Messiah is opened, the nature and demerit of the first sin is unfolded, the opinions and traditions of the antient and modern Jews are examined, their objections against the Lord Christ and the Gospel are answered, the time of the coming of the Messiah is stated, and the great fundamental truths of the Gospel vindicated : with an exposition and discourses on the two first chapters of the said epistle to the Hebrews / by J. Owen ...

Exercitatio XV.

Chronological Computation of the Times determined in Daniel's weeks. Difficulty thereof ac∣knowledged. Beginning before the Reign of Cyrus rejected. Double beginning of the Kingdom of Cyrus. That over Persia. That over the Babylonian Monarchy. Forreign Ac∣counts to be suited unto the Scripture. Beginning of the Reign of Cyrus over Persia when. Over the whole Empire when. The space of time from thence to the destruction of Jerusalem, 599 years. Duration of the Persian Empire. Of the Empire of the Seleucidae to the Rule of Jonathan among the Jews. Duration of the Egyptian Kingdom, or Reign of the Ptolomey's Rule of the Hasmonaeans and Herod the Great. From the Birth of Christ, to the destruction of Jerusalem. From the first Decree of Cyrus, to the destruction of Jerusa∣lem 599 years. Precise End of Daniels Weeks, the death of the Messiah. 37 Years taken from the former account. Opinion of Reynolds. Examined, rejected. Meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cut off; limited; not abbreviated. Vulgar Latin, and Mountacue noted. Opinion of the Jews, rejected. Account of Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrand, Willet. The Decree of Cyrus not intended in the Prophecy. Of the Life and Age of Nehemiah. He came not up with Zerubbabel. The Decree of Darius. What Darius that was. Hystaspes. Not the Decree intended. This Darius not Nothus; proved against Scaliger. The Decrees of Ar∣taxerxes to Ezra and Nehemiah examined. Longimanus, not Memor, intended. De∣cree unto Ezra proved to be the Decree mentioned.

THat there is some difficulty in finding out the true and exact computation of [§ 1] the time here limited, all Chronologers and Expositors do confess: Neither is there any thing that belongs unto the account of the times mentioned in the Scri∣pture, that hath been debated of old, or of late, with more difference of opinion, or diligence of indeavour. And the Holy Ghost himself by the Angel seems to intimate this difficulty unto Daniel in the double caution given him about it in the preface of the Revelation made unto him, v. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 declaring that not or∣dinary wisdom, diligence, consideration and understanding, is to be used in the investi∣gation of the time here determined. Nor is it necessary to suppose that Daniel himself exactly understood the beginning and ending of the time or weeks mentioned. The hiding of the precise time intended, was also greatly subservient unto the providence of God, in the work he had to do by the Messiah, and what that people were to do unto him. The general notation of it, sufficed for the direction of the godly, and the con∣viction of unbelievers, as it doth unto this day. And it may be, we shall not find any comp••tation, that will exactly answer in all particulars and fractions to a day, month, or year. And that either because of the great darkness and confusion of some of the times falling under the Account, or else because perhaps it was not the mind of God that ever the time should be so precisely calculated, or that any thing which he reveal∣ed for the strengthening of the faith of his Church, should depend on Chronological nice∣ties. It shall suffice us then to propose and confirm such an Acc••unt of these Weeks, which infallibly comprizing the substance of the Prophecy, contains nothing in it con∣trary to the Scripture, and is not liable unto any just rational exc••ption. And herein I shall not examine all the several Accounts and Computations that by learned men of old, or of late, have been given, (being eleven or twelve in number) but only mention those which carry the fairest probability, and the greatness of whose Authors or Abetters, call for our consideration.

In the first place, we may wholly lay aside the consideration of them, who would [§ 2] date the Weeks from any time whatever before the first year of the Reign, and first De∣cree or Cyrus. Among these are, Lyra, Burgensis, Galatinus, and he from whom he bor∣rowed his Computation Raymandus Martini. These fix the beginning of the Weeks on the fourth year of Zedekiah, as they say, when Jeremiah gave out his Prophecy about the Babylonish Captivity, and the return from it at the end of seventy years; indeed the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and not of Zedekiah, as is apparent, Jer. 25.1, 11.

Of the like nature is the account of Solomon Jarchi, among the Jews, who dates the time limited from the destruction of the Temple by the Chaldaeans. But both these ac∣counts

are expresly contrary to the words of the Angel, fixing the beginning of the time designed, on the going forth of a Decree for the building Jerusalem. To these we may add all that would extend these Weeks beyond the destruction of the City and Temple by Titus, as some of the Jews would do, to comprize the Prophecy of their second fatal destruction by Hadrian, which is no way concerned in it:

[§ 3] The seventy Weeks then mentioned, we must seek for, between the first year of Cyrus, when the first Decree was made for the re-edification of the Temple, and the final de∣struction of it by the Romans. This space we are confined unto by the Text; the se∣venty Weeks are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the going forth of the word to cause to return and build Jerusalem, vers. 25. Now the Kingdom of Cyrus had a double first year: The one absolutely of his Reign over Persia, the other of his rule over the Babylonish Monarchy which he had conquered after the death of Darius Medus. The first year it is of this second date of the Kingdom of Cyrus, which may have any relation unto the time here limited; for whilst he was King of Persia only, he could have nothing to do with the Jews, nor make any Decree for the building of the Temple, both the people and place being then under the dominion of another. Besides, Ezra 1.11. Where it is said, that he made his Decree in the first year of his Reign, himself plainly declares that he had obtained the Eastern Monarchy by the conquest of Babylon. The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdoms of the Earth; which words can in no sense be applied unto the Kingdom of Persia, supposing, the Monarchy of Babylon still to continue. The whole space of time then here limited is seventy Weeks, vers. 24. Th•• beginning of these seventy Weeks is the going forth of the Decree or Word to restore or build Jerusalem, v. 25. The first Decree or command that could have any relation un∣to this matter, was that made by Cyrus in the first year of his Empire. We must then in the first place, find out the direct space of time between the first year of Cyrus, and the destruction of the Temple, and then enquire whether the whole, or what part of it is denoted by these seventy Weeks.

[§ 4] Some, I confess, there are, who contend that there is no consideration to be had of that computation of time, which we find amongst the Heathen Writers, nor of those stated Epocha's by which they limited and distinguished their computations: For whereas, say they, we have certainly the term of this duration of time, its beginning and ending fixed, namely, the first of Cyrus, and the death of Messiah. It is positively det••rmined, that between them were seventy Weeks, or four hundred ninety years, unto which all other accounts are to be squared and made proportion••ble. Indeed the con∣clusion were unquestionable, if the premises were certain. If the terms be rightly fixed in the first of Cyrus, and the death of the Messiah, there must be but 490 years be∣tween them: for whether we understand the reason of it or no, all forreign Accounts must be suited unto what of infallible truth is stated in the Scripture.

But these things are much questioned; for whereas some do doubt whether the time limited do absolutely expire in the death of the Messiah, and be not rather to be ex••end∣ed unto the destruction of the City and Temple. There be many more, that do pe∣remptorily deny that it is to take date from the first Decree of Cyrus: And so must we also, unless it can be proved that the times mentioned are justly commensurate from thence unto the death of Messiah: For seeing there were other Decrees, as we shall find, to the same purpose, which might be respected as well as that; there is no reason why we should offer violence unto other approved computations, to force them to submit unto the Scripture Account, when we first offer violence unto that, to make it serve our own opinion. I shall therefore proce••d in the way proposed, and first give a just com∣putation of the time from the first year of the Empire of Cyrus, unto the destruction of the City and Temple, and then enquire whether the seventy Weeks, or 490 years here determined, be commensurate unto the whole, or only unto some part of it; and if to some part only, then to what part of it, and how we are directed by the Text to the be∣ginni••g and end of the computation.

And herein I shall not scrupulously bind my self unto daies, or months, or seasons of the year in any single account, but only consider the full and sound number of years, which in such computations, according to the custom of holy Writ, is to be observed. And indeed, what through the silence, what through the disagreement of Anti••nt Hi∣storians, it is utterly impossible to state exactly, as to those lesser fractions, the times that are passed of old. And we seek for no more certainty in these things, than the con∣dition of them will naturally bear.

[§ 5] It is generally agreed by all Hi••torians and Chronologers, that Cyrus began his Reign

over Persia, in the first year of the fifty fifth Olympiad; probably the same year that Nab••nidus, or Darius Medus began his reign over Babylon. And this was the year wherein Daniel set himself solemnly to seek the Lord for the delivery of the people out of Captivity, He being now come to a Kingdom who was so long before prophe∣sied of to be their deliverer, Dan. 9.1. In the twenty seventh year of his reign, or the first of the sixty second, Olympiad, having conquered the Babylonian Empire, he began the first year of his Monarchical reign, from whence Daniel reckons his third, which was his last, Chap. 10.1. And therein he proclaimed liberty unto the people of the Jews, to return to Jerusalem, and to build the Temple, Ezra 1.1. The City and Temple were destroyed by Titus, in the third year of the eleventh Olympiad; now from the first year of the sixty second Olympiad, unto the third of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad inclusive, are five hundred ninety nine years, and within that space of time are we to enquire after, and find the four hundred and ninety years here prophe∣sied of, and foretold.

Of this space of time, the Persian Empire from the twenty seventh of Cyrus, or first [§ 6] of the whole Monarchy, and the first of the sixty second Olympiad, continued two hun∣dred and two years, as is generally acknowledged by all antient Historians, ending on, and including in it the second year of the one hundred and twelfth Olympiad which was the last, of Darius Codomanus. For Cyrus reigned after this three years: Cam∣byses and Smerdes Magus eight: Darius Histaspes thirty four: Xerxes with the moneths ensuing of Artabanus twenty one: Artaxerxes Longimanus forty one: Darius Nothus nineteen: Artaxerxes Mnemon forty three: Ochus twenty three: Arses three: Darius Codomanus seven, in all two hundred and two years.

After his death Alexander beginning his Reign in the third year of the 112th Olym∣piad, reigned six years: from him there is a double account, by the two most famous branches of the Graecian Empire. The first is by the Syrian, or Aera of the Seleucidae, which takes its date from the tenth year after the death of Alexander, when after some bloody contests, Seleucus setled his Kingdom in Syria, and reigned thirty years. After him reigned Antiochus Soter twenty one years, Antiochus Theos fifteen, Seleucus Callinicus twenty, Seleucus Ceraunus two, Antiochus Magnus thirty seven, Seleucus Phi∣lopater twelve, Antiochus Epiphanes twelve, Eupator two, Dementrius Soter ten. In the second year of this Demetrius, which was the 153d. of the account of the Seleucidae, was Judas Macchabaeus slain, being the one hundred sixty ninth year after the death of Darius Codomanus, or end of the Persian Empire, allowing six years to the reign of Alexander, and ten more to the beginning of the Kingdom of the Seleucidae. Demetrius Soter in the tenth year of his reign was expelled out of his Kingdom by Alexander Vales; in the second year of whose reign, ten years after the death of Judas, Jona∣than his Brother took upon him the supream Government of the people of the Jews, and began the Rule or Reign of the Hasmonaeans: So that the time of the Graecian Empire in Syria from the death of Darius Codomanus, unto the liberty of the Jews and erection of a supream Government amongst them, was one hundred seventy nine years, which being added unto two hundred and two years of the Persian Empire, makes up three hundred eighty one years.

To the same issue comes also the account by the other branch of the Graecian Em∣pire [§ 7] in Aegypt: For Alexander reigned as we said, after the death of Darius six years, Ptolomaeus Lagi thirty nine: Philadelphus thirty eight: Euergetes twenty four: Philo∣pater nineteen: Epiphanes twenty three: Philometor thirty: in which thirtieth year be∣gan the rule of the Hasmonaeans.

The Rule of the Hasmonaeans, with the reign of Herod the great, who obtained the [§ 8] Kingdom by means of their divisions, continued untill the Birth of Christ, one hundred forty years. For Jonathan began his Rule in the second year of the one hundred fifty seventh Olympiad, as may be seen, by adding the Seleucian Aera to the one hundred and fourteenth Olympiad, wherein Alexander dyed; and our Lord Christ was born in the second year of the one hundred ninety fourth Olympiad, in the last year, or the last save one of Herod the great. This summ of one hundred forty eight years, being added to the fore-mentioned, from the beginning of the Empire of Cyrus, which is three hun∣dred eighty one years, makes up in all five hundred twenty nine years. From the Birth of our Lord Christ in the second year of the one hundred ninety fourth Olympi∣ad, to the destruction of the City and Temple, in the third year of the two hundred and eleventh Olympiad, are seventy years; which makes up the whole summ before mentioned of five hundred ninety nine years, from the first of the Empire of Cyrus,

unto the destruction of Jerusalem. Petavius and our Mountacue reckon from the first of Cyrus, unto the eighteenth of Tiberius, wherein our Lord Christ suffered five hundred ninety four years, which differs very little from the account we have insisted on: For take from them twenty seven years of the reign of Cyrus, before the first of his Empire, and add unto them thirty seven for the continuance of the City and Tem∣ple after the death of Christ, and the summ remaining will exceed our account only four years, or five at the most.

But the computation we have fixed on, being every way consistent with it self, and the stated Aeras of the Nations, and abridging the time to the shortest size that will endure the tryall, we shall abide by it. Now the number of five hundred ninety nine years, exceeds the time limited in this Prophecy of four hundred and ninety, the whole space of one hundred and nine years.

[§ 9] Hence it evidently appears, that the seventy Weeks of Gabriel, or the four hundred and ninety years, are not commensurate to the whole space of time between the first Decree of Cyrus in the first year of his general Empire, and the final desolation of City and Temple by Titus. One hundred and nine years must be taken from it, ei∣ther at the beginning, or at the ending, or partly at the one, partly at the other.

[§ 10] We shall first consider the End of them, which being clear in the Prophecy will regulate, fix, and state the beginning. Two things in general are insisted on in this Prophecy. (1.) The coming of Messiah the Prince, his annointing unto the work which he had to do, and his cutting off, as we before declared. (2.) The Ceasing of the daily Sacrifice, with the destruction of the City and Temple by War and a flood of desolations. Now these things happened not at the same time; for the City and Sanctuary were destroyed thirty seven years after the cutting off, or death of the Messiah. We are to enquire therefore, which of these it was that the time menti∣oned was determined for, and was to expire withall. Now it is the coming, an∣nointing and cutting off of the Messiah, that is the thing chiefly intended in this Pro∣phecy. This we have proved undeniably before; manifesting that the Vision was granted unto Daniel, and given out by him for the consolation of himself and the Church, as was the way of the Holy Ghost in all his dealings with the Fathers of old: Hereunto the desolation and destruction of the City and Temple was only a consequent, a thing that should follow and ensue on what was principally foretold and promised. And it is doubtless unreasonable to extend the duration of the time, beyond the principal subject matter treated of, and on the account whereof alone the computation is granted, unto that which is only occasionally mentioned as the con∣sequent of the accomplishment of the Prophecy it self. Besides the computation it self is pointed directly by the Angel unto the Messiah, and his cutting off. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, Know therefore, that from the going forth of the Command∣ment, unto Messiah the Prince shall be, &c. And after sixty two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. But there is no guidance or direction of the time limited unto the desolati∣on of the City and Sanctuary, which is only said to ensue thereon.

Thirdly, It is expresly said, that the time limited extends it self only unto the death of the Messiah, or a very few years farther. For he was to come after seven weeks and sixty two weeks, which are the whole time limited within one week or seven of years. Now his coming here intended, is not his Incarnation, but the time of his Ʋnction in his Baptism, which fell out at the end of sixty nine weeks. After these sixty nine weeks, or seven, and sixty two, he is to be cut off; that is in the middle or towards the end of the last week; when he had confirmed the Covenant by preach∣ing three years and an half of that seven years which remained. And if we shall say that his Unction being to be after the seven weeks, and sixty two, we must grant it to be in the first or second year of the last week, whereunto add the three years and an half of his Preaching, and the remnant Fraction of one year or two can no way disturb the account, there being nothing more frequent, then the casting in of such parcels of time to compleat and fill up an entire and round number. Here then must we fix the end of four hundred and ninety years, in the death of the Messiah, and so wholly lay aside the account of them, who would extend the time de∣termined unto the desolation of the City and Temple.

[§ 11] We must therefore in the first place; abate from the whole account of five hundred ninety nine years before stated, the summ of thirty seven years, which ensued after the death of our Saviour, untill the destruction of Jerusalem; and the remnant is five

hundred sixty two years. Now five hundred sixty two years exceeds the number of four hundred ninety stated in Daniels Vision, seventy two years. It appears then, that the beginning and ending of the seventy Weeks, cannot be the Decree of Cyrus, and the death of our Saviour; there being seventy two years between them, more then the Weeks contain, or can be extended unto. The end we have already fixed from the Text, and therefore it doth not appear that their date and rise can be taken from the Decree of Cyrus. Sundry things are offered to disintangle us from this diffi∣culty.

The most learned Reynolds in his Praelaections on the Apocryphal Books, allowing our account above-mentioned, as to the substance of it, especially that which concerneth the Persian Empire, about which alone there is any considerable difference, resolves yet at length, that the number of seventy Weeks, which is a round compleat number, is put for an uncertain number, thereabouts, more or less, over or under, not much vary∣ing from it. And on this supposition, he dates the beginning of the Weeks in the De∣cree of Cyrus. To confirm his opinion, he giveth sundry instances of this kind of com∣putation in the Scripture, and contends that the particular reason of limiting the whole time unto seventy Weeks, was to make it answer unto the seventy years captivity that immediately preceded it. The time to follow being declared to be just seven times as much.

This Interpretation of words, might it be admitted, would, I confess, solve all diffi∣culties, [§ 12] and entirely preserve the sacred and prophane accounts from all appearance of enterfering. But there are two reasons, upon the account whereof I cannot assent un∣to it. The first is, because indeed there is no other instance in the Scripture to give countenance unto it; namely, wherein a number of years coming so far short of the true and exact account, as this doth, is yet put for the whole; especially considering this number is given out for this very purpose, that men might aright compute it, and so come to know the time of its expiration. But to name 490, for 562, seems rather to be a conjecture, then a Prophecy. This may then be the condition of some few odd years, that may be cast in unto a full round number, but of so considerable a part of the whole as 72 is, there is no reason to suppose it so disposed of.

Secondly, The word used by the Angel to express the limitation of this time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 plainly proves that a precise duration of time, and number of years is signified. The Vulgar Latine renders that word abbreviate, shortned, or cut short. And a learned man of our own approves of that interpretation of it, in opposition unto our own Transla∣tion, and that of Junius. De annis (saith he) porro loquitur signanter Propheta quod sint, non decisi, (as Junius) non determinati (as ours) apud Deum statuti, (quod tamen verum erat) sed quod erant abbreviati quemadmodum transtulit doctissimus interpres vetus. Mon. App. ad Orig. Eccl. And thereon disputes at large, how the years are said to be shortned; and yet concludes, dicuntur autem abbreviatae hebdomadae, ••o quod erant decisae & determi∣natae; as though shortned or abbreviated was the proper sense of the word, only it might be interpreted determined; or that the daies are said to be shortned, because they were determined.

But the truth is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signifie to abbreviate or make short; and all the reason given to shew why the times here are said to be shortned, are perfectly cast away. It is in this place only used in the Scripture, and that in the singular number joyned with a Noun of the plural, to intimate that every week of the whole number was limited and determined, and cut out, as is usual in the Hebrews. Among the Rabbins, it is to cut off; and from it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a piece cut off, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a piece of fles•• cut off, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a cutting, or incision. So that the word in its precise signification, is cut out, or cut off, that is set apart, limited, or determined. A portion of time cut out, limited and apportioned unto the end, for the accomplishment of the work fore∣told. Now there is nothing more contrary unto a precise determination of time, then that a certain number of years should be named to signifie an uncertain, and that so ex∣ceeding distant from the exact account, as 490 years are from 562. So that here is no place for the conjecture of that most learned and renowned person.

The Jews take another course to solve this difficulty, as also to give some coun∣tenance [§ 13] unto their computation, in dating the weeks from the destruction of the Temple by the Chaldaeans, and ending them in the desolation of the second house, by the Romans; for they will allow no more Kings of Persia, then are mentioned in the Scripture, nor that they reigned any longer then they find mention therein of the years of their Reign: As though whether they did good or evil towards Jerusalem, it was

fatal unto them; so that they must needs die immediately upon it. Thus they allow not above four or five Kings of Persia at most, and thereby take in the duration of that Empire from two hundred years and upwards, unto fifty years at the most. But this supposition stands in open contradiction to all generally allowed computation of time in the world: And not only so, but it excludes all considerations of things done, as notorious to mankind, as that ever there was such a thing as the Persian Empire. Of this nature are the transactions and wars with other Nations, especially the Grae∣cians, which fell not out in the daies of any of the Kings mentioned in the Scripture; especially that famous expedition of Xerxes, which the whole world looked on, and waited for its event. And yet I acknowledge that this imagination might deserve con∣sideration, could it pretend that the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah did intentionally give us an account and History of the Persian Empire, and the Reign of the Kings thereof, as some Books do of the Kings of Israel and Judah. But whereas it is evident, that their design being quite otherwise, and that they only occasionally mention some of the Kings of Persia, and some years of their Reign, as they related unto the state and actions of the people of the Jews: It is no less madness and folly to contend from thence, that there were no more Kings of Persia, then are mentioned in them, and that they reign∣ed no longer then is in them expressed, then it would be to say that there were never above three or four Kings of the Assyrian Empire, because there are no more mentioned in the Scripture, and so many of them are spoken of: This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is beneath all consideration.

[§ 14] Others there are, men learned and pious, who resolving to date these Weeks from the first of Cyrus, and to make 490 years the exact measure of the time from thence unto the death of Messiah, and not being able to disprove the computation from Alex∣ander unto that time, fall also upon the Persian Empire, and cut it short above fifty years of the true account of its duration, to fit it unto the place and measure provided for it. To this end, they reject the accounts of the Chaldaeans, Graecians and Romans, con∣cerning the time of its continuance, as fabulous, and give us a new arbitrary account of the Reign of these Kings whom they will allow.

This course steers Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrard, and Willet, with sundry others. And the truth is, were the supposition once cleared, that the Decree or Commandment mentioned by Gabriel, must needs be given out by Cyrus, there were some colour for offering of this violence, unto all consent of time, with account of things done, written by men prudent and sober in their own daies. But this is so far from being a basis or foundation sufficient to warrant such a procedure, that take it nakedly of it self without the burden upon it, and it is destitute of all probability. The word, De∣cree, or Commandment mentioned unto Daniel, is that for the building of Je∣rusalem; that is the restoring of it into a condition of rule and government; that is the building of a City, and not only the setting up of houses. Consequent unto this, there building of the walls also for the defence of the people is mentioned. Of this it is said, that it should fall out in a troublesome time, or a time of streights, as accordingly it did fall out in the daies of Nehemiah. In the whole there is not the least mention of building the Temple, which had it been intended, could not I suppose have been omit∣ted. But in the Decree of Cyrus, the principal thing mentioned and aimed at, is the re-edification of the Temple, the Citie and the Walls thereof being not spoken of in it, as may be seen in the first of Ezra at large.

It seems then evident, that the Decree mentioned by Daniel for the building of the Citie and Walls, not the Temple, and that given out by Cyrus, for the building of the Temple, and not the Citie and Walls, were divers. Besides this Decree of Cyrus, al∣though foretold long before, and made famous because it was the entrance into the peoples return and settlement, yet it took effect for so short a space of time, being ob∣structed within less then three years, and utterly frustrated within four or five, that it is not likely to be the date of this Prophecy, which seems to take place from some good settlement of the people. That alone which is pleaded with any colour for this Decree of Cyrus is the praediction recorded, Isa. 44.28. It is prophesied of him, that he should say to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built, and to the Temple, thy foundations shall be laid: But yet neither is it here foretold that Cyrus should make any Decree for the building of Jerusalem; or that it should be done in his daies, as indeed it was not until an hundred years after, as it is evident from the story in Nehemiah. The whole intention of this Prophecy, is only that he should cause the people to be set at liberty from their captivity, and give them leave to return to Jerusalem, which he did accordingly,

and thereupon both the building of the City and Temple ensued, though not without the intervention of other Decrees; of which afterwards.

The only Argument wherewith this opinion of the duration of the Persian Empire [§ 15] not above one hundred and fifty years at the most, maintains it self, is taken from the life and age of Nehemiah. In Ezra 2. v. 2. he is reckoned among them that came up with Zerubbabel unto Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus. Then he may rationally be supposed to have been at least twenty or twenty five years of age. And it seems from the last Chapter of Nehemiah, that he lived unto the reign of Darius Codomanus: for Sanballat the Hornoite assisted Alexander in his Wars. And Jaddua whom he mentions Chap. 12.11. was High Priest, when Alexander came to Jerusalem, as appears from Josephus. Now if the Persian Empire continued for the space of two hundred years, which we have allotted unto it, then he who went to Jerusalem in the first year of Cyrus, and continued unto the reign of Codomanus, must needs live two hundred and twenty years at the least, which is not credible, that any one should do in those dayes. And therefore the space of time must needs be shorter then is pretended, at least fifty or sixty years. But indeed there is no force in this exception. For First, There is no necessity why we should conclude that Nehemiah wrote that Genea∣logy, Chap. 12. where mention is made of Jaddua, who was afterwards High Priest, v. 11. for he ends his story in the High Priesthood of Eliashib, Chap. 13.28. who was Great Grand-father unto Jaddua, as appears, Chap. 12.10, 11. Or however if he did, Jaddua might then be a Child, and it may be not come unto the High-Priesthood untill fifty or sixty years after; after the death of Eliashib, Joiada, and Jonathan his Great Grand-Father, Grand-Father, and Father. So that no evidence can be taken from hence for the continuance of his life unto the end of the Persian Monarchy. A•••• for that Sanballat mentioned by Josephus in the time of Alexander, it is not impro∣bable, but that he might name him as the head of the Samaritans, there being no name of any other after him left upon record.

(2.) There is no reason to think that the Nehemiah, mentioned Ezra 2. v. 2. who came up with Zerubbabel, was that Nehemiah who was afterwards Governour of Ju∣dah, and whose actions we have written probably the most part by himself, no more then there is to think that the Seraiah there mentioned, was the Seraiah that was slain at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The Daniel mentioned, Ezra 8.2. was not Daniel the Prophet, nor Baruch, Nehem. 10.6. that Baruch who was the Scribe of Jeremiah: nor that Jeremiah mentioned, Neh. 12. v. 11. Jeremiah the Prophet. Be∣sides Ezra is said to come up with Zerubbabel, Nehem. 12.1. which either must not be that Ezra the great Scribe, or he must be said to come up with Zerubbabel, because he followed him on the same errand and account. It cannot be denyed, but that there were sundry men at the same time of the same name; as the same person had sundry names, much more might several men have the same name in successive generations. Thus after Joshua was High Priest, there was another Joshua chief of the Levites, Neh. 12.7, 8. And that about this time there were two Zerubbabels one of the house of Nathan, the other of the posterity of Solomon, we shall make it appear in the consideration of the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke. (3.) That this was not the Nehemiah that went up with Zerubbabel, the sacred story it self gives us sufficient evidence. For (1.) He was ignorant of the state and condition of Jerusalem when he lived in the Court of Persia, Chap. 1. had he been there before, and seen their condition, and but newly returned unto Shushan, he could not have been so surprized as he was ver. 4. upon the account then given him thereof. (2.) Chap. 7. v. 5, 6. He speaks of it as a great matter, that he should find a Roll or Register of them that came first up to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel in the dayes of Cyrus, amongst whom that Nehemiah was one. Now if this had been himself, what reason had he to mention it as a great discovery, which he could not but by his own knowledge be full well acquainted withall. Unto what time soever then the period of his life was extended, there is no colour to surmise, that he was amongst them who returned from captivity in the dayes of Cyrus.

The account therefore before laid down being established, it is certain enough, that [§ 16] the Decree mentioned by Gabriel, from the going forth whereof, the seventy weeks are to be dated, was not that of the first of Cyrus, for the return of the Captivity and building of the Temple. For from thence, the period would ensue long before the just time allotted unto it, yea, before the beginning of the reign of Herod the great, where Eusebius would have them to expire. We must therefore enquire for some other Word, Decree or Commandment, from whence to date the four hundred and ninety years enquired after.

[§ 17] The second Decree of the Kings of Persia in reference unto the Jews was that of Darius made in his second year, when the work of the building of the Temple was carried on through the Prophecy of Haggai and Zechariah. This is the Decree or Com∣mandment mentioned in Ezra 6. granted by Darius, upon appeal made unto him from his neighbouring Governours; and it was a meer revival of the Decree of Cyrus, the Roll whereof was found in Achmetha in the Province of the Medes, v. 2. And this is that which Haggai and Zechariah relate unto, dating their Prophecies, from the second year of Darius, Hag. 1.2, 10. Zech. 1.1. Upon the Roll of the Kings of Persia, we find three called by the name of Darius, or Darianes, as the Jews term him. (1.) Darius Hystaspes who succeeded Camhyses, by the election of the Princes of Persia, upon the killing of Smordes Magus the Usurper. (2.) Darius Nothus who succeeded Artax∣erxes Longimanus. (3.) Darius Codomanus in whom the Persian Empire had its period by Alexander the great. That the last of these can be no way concerned in the De∣cree, is notorious. The two others are disputed. Most learned men grant that it was Darius Hystaspes which was the Author of this Decree; and indeed that it was so, at least, that it can be ascribed unto no other Darius, we shall afterwards unde∣niably prove. And it is not unlikely that he was enclined unto this favour and mode∣ration towards the Jews by his general design to relieve men from under the op∣pressions that were upon them during the reign of Cambyses, and to renue the Acts of Cyrus their first Emperour, who was renowned amongst them, to ingratiate himself unto Mankind, and confirm himself in that Kingdom whereunto he came not by succession. And it is not improbable, but that this was he; who was the H••sband of Hester, though if so, it was not untill after this Decree made in the second year of his reign, the putting away of Vashti happening in his third, Hest. 1.3. Now Cyrus reigned after his first Decree three years; Cambyses with S••erdes eight, whom suc∣ceeded this Darius, who issued out this Decree in the second year of his reign; that is at most thirteen years after the death of Cyrus; or if with some we should grant Cyrus to have reigned twenty years over the whole Empire, it was but nineteen or twenty years at the most. Now the whole summ of years from the first of Cyrus, to the cutting off the Messiah we have manifested to have been five hundred sixty two: de∣duct thirteen years from five hundred sixty two, and there yet remains five hundred forty nine years, which exceeds the number of years enquired after fifty nine years, neither doth the addition of seven years to the reign of Cyrus, make any alteration in this general account. For on that supposition, his first year must be taken seven years backwards, and the space of time from thence unto the end of the weeks will be five hundred sixty nine years, and the remnant from Darius, as we declared before, five hundred forty nine years. So that neither can this be the Commandment intend∣ed, there being from the going forth of it, unto the cutting off of the Messiah not four hundred and ninety years, but as is declared five hundred forty nine. Besides indeed this Decree of Darius was no new command, nor had any respect unto the restauration of Jerusalem, but was a meer renovation, or a new acknowledgement of the Decree of Cyrus about the re-edifying of the Temple, and so doubtless was not designed as the signal Epocha of the time here limited and determined.

[§ 18] The great Scaliger who would date the weeks from this Decree of Darius, knowing that the time would not suit with the reign of Darius Hystaspes contends that it was Nothus who succeeded Longimanus that was the Author of it, and extends the whole time or space of four hundred and ninety years, to the destruction of the City and Temple, that space of time, according to his computation, being elapsed from the second year of Darius.

But the truth is, as may be seen from our former account, from the second year of Darius Nothus to the destruction of the City was but four hundred and eighty years short of the whole summ. Besides we have before proved from the Text, that the time determined, was to expire in the death of the Messiah. And there are sundry other circumstances which plainly evince the inconsistency of this computation: for from the first of Cyrus, when the first command went forth for the building of the Temple, whereupon the work of it was begun, unto the second year of Nothus are fully an hundred and eight years. And it is not credible that the work of building of the Temple should so long be hindered, and then come to perfection by them who first began it. For on this supposition Zerubba•••••• and Joshua must live at Jerusalem after their return, above an hundred years, and then take in hand again the work which they had so long deserted. And this is yet more incredible upon his own

opinion that Xerxes was the Husband of Hester, about fifty years before the Reign of Nothus. When it is not likely but the Jews would have attempted, and not have been denied their liberty of going on with their work.

Neither is it consistent with the Prophecy of Jeremiah, that the Temple should lye waste so long a space, that is about a hundred and seventy years. Again, Haggai doth plainly declare, that when the work of the Temple was carrying on in the se∣cond year of Darius, that many were yet alive, who had seen the first Temple, cap. 2.3. As multitudes were upon the laying of its foundation in the dayes of Cyrus, Ezra 3.12. And this was impossible, had it been in the dayes of Nothus, an hundred and sixty, or an hundred and seventy years after it was destroyed. And Scaliger doth plainly wrest the words of the Text, when he would have them pronounced by way of sup∣position; if any were then alive who saw the first house in its glory: for Haggai doth plainly relate unto the distemper of the people upon the laying of the foundation of the house mentioned in the forenamed place of Ezra; and the words themselves will bear no other sense; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Who is among you that is left, that saw this house in her glory. He speaks of them who were yet left, and remain∣ing; and spake to them, to remove and take away their complaint and repinings. Moreover that Artaxerxes, in whose daies Ezra and Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem, was Longimanus, who reigned before Nothus, and not Memor, who succeeded him, as will afterwards appear: Now this Artaxerxes was long after that Darius, upon whose warranty the building of the Temple was finished, Ezra 7.1. Which certainly could not be Nothus who was his successor.

It appears then that Darius Nothus was not the Author of the Decree mentioned, as [§ 19] also that the times of the Weeks cannot be dated from the second year of Darius Hy∣staspes, who was the Author of it.

After this, there is mention made of two other Commands or Decrees relating to the [§ 20] Temple and People, both granted by the same Artaxerxes, one in the seventh year of his Reign unto Ezra, chap. 7.7. The other in the twentieth year of his Reign, unto Nehemiah, chap. 2.1. And from one of these must the account enquired after be dated. Now, supposing that one of these Decrees must be intended, it is evident that it was Longimanus, and not Memor, who was the Author of them: For from the seventh year of Memor, which was the second of the ninety fifth Olympiad, unto the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, wherein our Saviour suffered, being the third year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, are only four hundred twenty eight years, sixty two years short of the whole, or four hundred and ninety. Now these sixty two years added to the be∣ginning of the account, from the seventh of Memor, fall in exactly on the seventh of Longimanus; from the seventh of Longimanus then to the seventh of Memor are sixty two years, and from the seventh of Memor to the eighteenth of Tiberius are four hun∣dred twenty eight years, in the whole, four hundred and ninety. The whole number enquired after.

It was then this Decree of Longimanus, that was intended by the Angel Gabriel: for [§ 21] from the seventh year, wherein he sent Ezra unto Jerusalem, and unto that work which he afterwards commissionated Nehemiah to carry on and perfect, unto the cutting off of the Messiah, are exactly seventy Weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, as may appear from the accounts formerly insisted on and declared: From the first of Cyrus, supposing him to reign but three years over the whole Empire, unto the death of Christ, there was, as we have proved, five hundred sixty two years: From the first of the same Cyrus, un∣to the seventh of Longimanus, were seventy two years, which being deducted from the whole of five hundred sixty two years, the remainder is four hundred and ninety; which space of time, how it was apportioned between the Persian, Graecian, Hasmonaean, He∣rodian, and Roman Rule, we have before declared.

And there wants not reason to induce us to fix on this Decree, rather than any other, [§ 22] being indeed the most famous, and most useful to the people of all the rest. By what means it was obtained, is not recorded. Evident it is that Ezra had great favour with the King, and that he had convinced him of the greatness and power of that God whom he served, chap. 8.22. Besides, it was not a meer proclamation of liberty, like that of Cyrus, which was renewed by Darius; but a Decree, a Law made by the King and his seven Counsellors, chap. 7.14. The highest and most irrefragable Legislative Power amongst the Medes and Persians. Moreover, with the Decree he had a formal Commission, where he is said not only to have leave to go, but to be sent by the King and his Council. Be∣sides, the former Decrees barely respected the Temple; and it seems that in the execu∣tion

of them, the people had done little more then built the bare fabrick, all things as to the true order of the Worship of God remaining in great confusion, and the civil state utterly neglected. But now in this Commission of Ezra, he is not only directed to set the whole Worship of God in order, at the charge of the King, chap. 7.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. But also that he should appoint and erect a Civil Government and Magistracy with supreme power over the lives, liberties, and estate of men, to be exercised as occasion required, v. 25, 26. Which alone, and no other, was the building of the City mentioned by Gabriel; for it is not walls and houses, but Policy, Rule and Government, that makes and constitutes a City.

[§ 23] And it is very considerable what a conviction of the necessity of this work, was then put upon the spirits of the Governours of the Persian Empire; for the King himself he calls Ezra the Scribe of the Law of the God of Heaven, owning him therein for the true God; for he who is the God of Heaven, is God alone, all others are but the dunghill gods of the Earth, v. 12. Again, he declares that he was perswaded, that if this work was not done, there would be wrath from Heaven upon himself, his Kingdom, and his Son, v. 23, The seven Counsellors they joyn in that Law, v. 14. And the mighty Princes of the King∣dom assisted Ezra in his work, v. 28. So that no command that concerned that people before or after, was accompanied with that solemnity, or gave such glory unto God as this did. Besides, the whole work of the Reformation of the Church, the restitu∣tion of the Worship of God, the recollection and recognition of the sacred Oracles was begun, carried on and finished by this Ezra, as we elsewhere at large have declared. All which considerations falling in with the account before insisted on, makes it ma∣nifest that it was this, and no other Decree that was intended by the Angel Gabriel; and from thence unto the death of the Messiah, was seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, the just and true limitation of which time we have been ••nquiring after.

[§ 24] I declared at the entrance of this discourse, that th•• force of our Argument from this place of Daniel against the Jews, doth not depen•• on t••••s Chronological Computation of the time determined. All then that I aime•• at it, was to vindicate it in general from such perplexities, as whereby they pretend to render the whole place inargumentative: And this we have not only done, but also ••o st••••ed the account, as that they are not able from any records of times past, to lay any one considerable objection against it, or which may not be easily solved: Return we now to what remains of our former de∣signed discourse.