of magistracy and priesthood, and in them all anointed unto authority, are intended. These, they say, were to be cut off in the destruction of the city. And herein they have the consent of Africanus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius, among the ancients, who are also followed by some later writers. But this evasion also is of the same nature with the former, yea, more vain than they, if any thing may be allowed so to be. The angel twice mentioneth the Messiah in his message;-first, his coming and anointing, Dan. ix. 25; and then his cutting off, verse 26. If the same person or thing be not intended in both places, the whole discourse is equivocal and unintelligible, no circumstance being added to difference between them who are called by the same name in the same place. And to suppose that the Holy Ghost by one and the same name, within a few words, continuing his speech of the same matter without any note of difference or distinction, should signify things diverse from one another, is to leave no place for the understanding of any thing that is spoken by him. The Messiah, therefore, who was to come, and be anointed, and cut off, is one and the same individual person. Now, it is expressly said that there shall be seven weeks, and sixtytwo weeks,—that is, four hundred and eighty-three years,-"from the going forth of the decree unto Messiah the Prince." I desire, therefore, to know whether that space of time was past before they had any such magistrates or priests as they pretend afterwards were cut off. This is so far from truth, that before that time the rule of the Asmonæans, the last supreme magistrates of their own nation, was put to an end. This pretence, therefore, may pass with the former. And this perplexity of the modern Jews, in their attempts to apply this prophecy unto any other thing or person besides the true Messiah, confirms our exposition and application of it. There is no other person that they can imagine unto whom any one thing here mentioned may seem to belong, much less can they think of any in whom they should all centre and agree. It is, then, the promised Messiah, the hope and expectation of the fathers, whose coming and cutting off are here foretold.

41. Secondly, That which remains for the full confirmation of our argument from this place is, that, according unto this prophecy, the promised Messiah was to come whilst the temple was standing and the daily sacrifice continued, before the expiration of the seventy weeks of years limited by the angel. This is put beyond all question in the text itself, nor is it denied by the Jews, all whose exceptions lie against the person spoken of, whom we have proved to be the Messiah. Seventy weeks are assigned by the angel for the accomplishment of the whole prophecy and all things contained in it. After seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, that is, in the beginning or middle of the last week, the Messiah was to be cut off.

When this was past, and the covenant confirmed with many, unto the expiration of the whole time limited, the daily sacrifice was to cease, and an overflowing desolation was to come upon the city and temple. This the Jews themselves acknowledge to be the destruction brought upon them by the Romans, nor do any of them extend the four hundred and ninety years any farther. It remains, therefore, that the Messiah came before that desolation; which is that we undertook to demonstrate from this place.

42. There are yet some arguments that remain, to the same purpose with those foregoing; but before we proceed unto them, it will be necessary to consider the computation of the times, which we are here directed unto by the angel. I have already manifested that our argument from this place is not concerned in the exact chronological computation of the time here limited, as to its precise beginning and ending, with the commensuration of it unto the times, seasons, and accounts of the nations of the world; for whenever the time mentioned began, all men agree that it is long since expired, namely, at or before the desolation of the city and temple. Now, all that we undertook to prove, which also is sufficient unto our present purpose, is, that before that season the Messiah was to come and to be cut off; which we have done, and cleared our argument from all further concernment in this account. But yet, that it may appear that there is no entanglement cast upon this testimony by the chronological difficulties which are pretended in the computation of the time here determined, as also that there are no such difficulties therein but what are fairly reconcilable unto all that is affirmed in the text, before we proceed to the consideration of our remaining arguments, they also shall be considered and stated in the ensuing Exercitation.

EXERCITATION XV.

COMPUTATION OF DANIEL'S WEEKS.

1. Chronological computation of the times determined in Daniel's weeks-Difficulty thereof acknowledged. 2. Beginning before the reign of Cyrus rejected. 3. Double beginning of the kingdom of Cyrus; that over Persia; that over the Babylonian monarchy. 4. Foreign accounts to be suited unto the Scripture. 5. 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 five hundred and ninety-nine years. 6. Duration of the Persian empire; of the empire of the Seleucidæ, to the rule of Jonathan among the Jews. 7. Duration of the Egyptian kingdom, or reign of the Ptolemies. 8. Rule of the Asmonæans and Herod the Great-From the birth of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem. 9. From the first decree of Cyrus to the destruction of Jerusalem, five hundred and ninety-nine years. 10. Precise end of Daniel's weeks, the death of the Messiah. 11. Thirty

seven years taken from the former account-Opinion of Reynolds; 12. Examined and rejected-Meaning of "cut off;" limited, not abbreviatedVulgar Latin and Montague noted. 13. Opinion of the Jews rejected. 14. Account of Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrard, Willet-The decree of Cyrus not intended in the prophecy. 15. Of the life and age of Nehemiah-He came not up with Zerubbabel. 16. Another decree than that of Cyrus must

be sought. 17. The decree of Darius-What Darius that was-Hystaspes— Not the decree intended. 18, 19. This Darius not Nothus; proved against Scaliger. 20. The decrees of Artaxerxes to Ezra and Nehemiah examined. 21. Longimanus, not Memor, intended. 22. Decree unto Ezra proved to be the decree mentioned.

1. THIRDLY, THAT there is some difficulty in finding out the true and exact computation of 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 Scripture that hath been debated of old or of late with more difference of opinion or diligence of endeavour. 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,

declaring that not ordinary ,וְהָבֵן בַּמַּרְאֶה and בִּין בַּדָּבָר ,23 .chap. ix

wisdom, diligence, consideration, and understanding, are to be used in the investigation 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 the people were to do unto him. The general notation of it sufficed for the direction of the godly and the conviction of unbelievers; as it doth unto this day. And it may be we shall not find any computation 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 revealed for the strengthening of the faith of his church should depend on chronological niceties. It shall suffice us, then, to propose and confirm such an account of these weeks, which, infallibly comprising the substance of the prophecy, contains nothing in it contrary to the Scripture, and is not liable unto any just and rational exception. 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 abettors calls for our consideration.

2. In the first place, we may wholly lay aside the consideration of 'See for the division to which this numeral belongs, page 316.-ED.

them who would date the weeks from any time whatever before the first year of the reign and first decree of Cyrus. Among these are Lyra, Brugensis, Galatinus, and he from whom he borrowed his computation, Raymundus 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. xxv. 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 Chaldeans. But both these accounts are expressly contrary to the words of the angel, fixing the beginning of the time designed on the going forth of a decree for the building of 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 comprise the prophecy of their second fatal destruction by Hadrian, which is no way concerned in it.

3. The seventy weeks mentioned, then, we must seek for between the first year of Cyrus, when the first decree was made for the reedification of the temple, and the final destruction of it by the Romans. This space we are confined unto by the text. The seventy

from the going forth of - מִן־מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַם weeks are

the word to cause to return and build Jerusalem," verse 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 i. 1, 2, 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, Dan. ix. 24. The beginning of these seventy weeks is "the going forth of the decree" (or "word") to restore and to build Jerusalem," verse 25. The first decree or command that could have any relation unto 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 inquire 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 epochs 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 the Messiah, -it is positively determined that between them were seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, unto which all other accounts are to be squared and made proportionable. Indeed, the conclusion 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 four hundred and ninety years between them; for, whether we understand the reason of it or no, all foreign 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 extended unto the destruction of the city and temple, there be many more that do peremptorily 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 the 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 proceed in the way proposed, and first give a just computation of the time from the first year of the empire of Cyrus unto the destruction of the city and temple; and then inquire whether the seventy weeks, or four hundred and ninety 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 beginning and end of the computation.

And herein I shall not scrupulously bind myself unto days, or months, or seasons of the year, in any single account, but only consider the full and round 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 ancient historians, it is utterly impossible to state exactly, as to those lesser fractions, the times that are past of old; and we seek for no more certainty in these things than the condition of them will naturally bear.

5. It is generally agreed by all historians and chronologers that Cyrus began his reign over Persia in the first year of the fifty-fifth Olympiad; probably the same year that Nabonidas or Darius Medus.