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 le ts 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
half so many years but signifie so many years compleat p. 127. to 133 Sect. IV. That the two thousand three hundred days are not to be begun with the first year of Cyrus p. 133. to 137 Sect. V. Shewing two things 1 That Darius the Mede of whom Daniel speaks Chap. 5.30 did not belong to the Babylonian Monarchy but the Persian p. 137. to 142 2 That the first year of Darius the Mede and the first of Cyrus the Persian are one and the same year p. 142. to 152 Chap. 2. Wherein in order to a more full clearing up of the fore-going account viz. of two thousand three hundred days are Daniels seventy weeks discussed Sect. I. That the Seventy weeks do not relate to New Testament-times p. 152. to p. 161 Sect. II. That the Seventy weeks are not to be begun with the Decree of Cyrus p. 161. to 183 Sect. III. That they are not to be begun with the Decree of Darius Ezra 6.6 7.8 c. p. 183. to p. 193 Sect. IV. That they are not to be begun with the Decree of Artaxerxes in the seventh year of his reign Ezra 7.11 12 13. p. 193 That they are to be begun with the twentieth year of Artaxerxes when Nehemiah received his Commission to build Jerusalem Nehem. 2. p. 194. to 198 Sect. V. That the Seventy weeks end with the Passion of Christ p. 198 199 Sect. VI. A resolution of sundry knots about Daniels Seven weeks his Sixty two weeks his one week and his half week p. 200. to 217 Sect. VII An Objection against our ending of the Seventy weeks answered p. 217. to 225 Chap. 3. Wherein enquiry is made into the number of the years that passed betwixt the first of Cyrus and the twentieth of Artaxerxes when Nehemiah received his Commission to build Jerusalem Sect. I. Disproving the grounds of that Opinion which cuts this time much shorter than it should bee p. 225. to 251 Sect. II. Proving That that Artaxerxes from whom Nehemiah received his Commission was him whom the Greeks call Mnemon p. 251. to p. 281 In order to the clearing this is shewed That that Darius who advanced the Temple-building could not be Darius Hystaspes p. 253. to 281. nor Darius Nothus p. 259. but was Darius called by the Greeks Longimanus Here Zecharies seventy years are opened p. 260. to p. 274 Sect. III. Proving that the time betwixt Cyrus first and Artaxerxes twentieth was exactly one hundred forty seven years p. 281. to p. 290 An Objection from Dan. 12.1 2. That but four Kings did reign in the Persian Monarchy after Cyrus answered p. 290. to p. 298 Sect. IV. Something discussed about our Christian Epock p. 298. to p. 305. The computation of the whole p. 306 307 308. Added by way of Appendix 1 A general Rule for the right understanding of Prophecies together with a more full opening the great Mysterie of Daniels Little Horn p. 311. to p. 320 2 A particular Clause in our Discourse about the times opened from p. 328. to 331 3 Some Conclusions touching Christs Kingdom c. FINIS Books lately Printed and sold by Livewell Chapman THe Voyce of the Spirit or a Discovery of the Witnessing work of the Spirit by Sam Petto Minister of the Gospel The New Non-conformist witnessing both to small and great some of those glorious things which the Apostles the Prophets and Moses did say should come to passe Written by Mr. Christopher Feak Minister of the Gospel and now a Prisoner for the Truth A Declaration of several of the Churches and godly People in and about the City of London concerning the Kingly interest of Christ and the present sufferings of his Cause and Saints in England A Sermon of the Fifth Monarchy proving that the Saints shall have a Kingdom here on Earth which is yet to come after the Fourth Monarchy is destroyed by the Sword of the Saints the followers of the Lamb. Preached by Master Tho. Goodwin some years since at Crooked Lane London An Image of our Reformed Times or Jehu in his proper Colours displayed in some Exercitations on the second of Kings the ninth and tenth Chapters setting forth The opportunity was given him to do his work in The Cause he had committed to him to manage Also his Policy Zeal Profession Hypocrisie with his Sins and their aggravations reason for all this Concluding with a word to Jehu Jehonadab his Counsellor and the persecuted and despised people of God By Col. Edward Lane of Hampin-nulo This Author hath three other Books being called Generation-Work in Three Parts In the First Part is shewed what Generation Work is and how it differs from other works of a Christian Secondly That Saints in their several Generations have had their proper and peculiar works of their Generations Thirdly That it is of great concernment for a Saint to attend to the work of his Generation Fourthly What the present work is Fifthly How each one may finde out the part of it that is properly his work Sixthly How the Work may be so carried on as God may be served The Second Part is An Exposition of the seven Vials and other Apocalyptical Mysteries The Third Part is An Exposition of the Prophecies of the two Witnesses from the eleventh twelfth and fourteenth Chapters of the Revelations To which is added A Key to unlock the Mystical Numbers in Daniel and the Revelation
to have its beginning either some time before the rise of the Beast or some time after and that as a distinct two and forty months from the other then considering that the Beast must rage and tyrannize two and forty months in all which time the Holy City is trampled underfoot the time though ever so little that we adde either before or after will make the time of treading underfoot the Holy City to amount to more then two and forty months which is the very time and no longer that the Holy City is to be trodden underfoot The one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes we have likewise twice spoken of First one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Womans flight into the Wildernesse Chap. 12.6 Secondly one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Witnesses prophesying in Sackcloth Chap. 11.3 These two as the other are likewise one and the same both for beginning and ending the one making mention of the state of the Church more in general setteth forth the place where the Church of God all the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes should abide viz. in some obscure corners of the world as in a Wildernesse the other pointing at the state of the Witnesses in particular which are not the whole Church but a part onely and this I take to be the main difference betwixt the eleven and twelve Chapters of the Revelations tells us the work Christs Witnesses should be employed in notwithstanding this their retirement together with the Church into blind and obscure holes and corners in this time of the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes which is they Prophesie though in Sackcloth i. e. in a poor oppressed sorrowfull condition through grief to see all this time the Holy City trampled underfoot by the Beast And indeed that these two also must be one and the same both for beginning and ending is evident for the very same reason as the former because if the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Womans flight into the Wildernesse were to begin sooner or later then the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes of the Witnesses prophesying in Sackcloth then as I said of the other seeing the Witnesses wear their sackcloth all the time the Church abides in the wildernesse the added time whether before or after would make the time of the Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth to surmount the number of one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes Now in the next place it would be farther enquired into First whether the two and forty months and the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes are a different time or whether both make up but one and the same number of yeers Secondly whether in case the same number of yeers be found in both are we to conceive of either as beginning and ending together or whether is any one to begin before the other To the first I answer That we are to conceive the time to be one and the same in both the two and forty mouths the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes making both up but one and the same number of years Not to insist upon what Expositors generally say that two and forty months reckoning thirty dayes to a month which is the Grecian account make up the just summe of one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes to me it appears that the thing I am speaking of must be so and cannot be otherwise and that upon the former account still because were the two and forty months a time longer then the other then the Beasts reign and treading underfoot the Holy City being to continue two and forty months which two things are the main cause why the Woman betakes her self to the Wildernesse and the Witnesses continue there with here in a mournful posture prophesying in sackcloath the Womans continuance in the wildernesse and the Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth should the cause still remaining be above one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes Or were the two and forty months a shorter time then should the flight of the Woman into the wildernesse and the Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth which continues no longer then the time of the Beasts rage and trampling the Holy City that being as I have said the cause of the other which taken away the effect ceaseth not be so long as one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes Seeing therefore it cannot be either a longer time or a shorter we must conclude one and the same number of years to be included in both To the second I answer That we are without doubt to conceive of it that the two and forty months the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes making up but one and the same number of years are to begin and end together My reason is still what I have urged because should we suppose the two and forty months to begin either sooner or later then the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes as a time distinct and to be considered by it self it will then necessarily follow seeing all the time of the Beasts tyranny and treading underfoot the Holy City the Woman is to be in the wildernesse and the Witnesses to prophesie in sackcloth that by reason of the time which must be addedeither before or after to make up the two and forty months compleat the Womans continuance in the wildernesse and the Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth should be above one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes The conclusion is That the two and forty months and the one thousand two hundered and sixty daies are one and the same and also begin and end together CHAP. II. Disproving the sundry false beginnings 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
part and therefore the time of the restitution thereof is to be reckoned from the time that the Temple was builded but by Jerusalem is understood the external buildings and walls of the City which were not restored till some time after the Temple Sanctuary was finished Daniels Weeks p. 3. as the Treatise is printed by it self as it is printed with his whole Works the Page is different To speak more plainly to the Readers capacity Mr. Medes opinion is this That the seventy weeks are one Epock and the sixty two weeks another being a lesser period of time comprehended within the Seventy whose beginning as he saith page 10. was to be after the Seventy were begun and the end before they should be ended And as he makes the Seventy weeks to begin from the perfecting the work of the Temple in the sixth year of Darius Nothus as is his opinion and to end with the destruction of Jerusalem so doth he the sixty two weeks to begin from the seventh year of Artaxerxes when Ezra had Commission to cause to return and carry with him as many of the Jews as he would to Jerusalem Ezra 7.7.13 and also from the twentieth year of the same Artaxerxes when Nehemiah obtained leave to build Jerusalem Nehem. 2. and to end with the death of Christ Onely he makes a difference betwixt Solar years and Lunar reckoning sixty two Solar years from the time of Ezraes going up to the Death of Christ but sixty two Lunar from Nehemiah's sixty two weeks or four hundred thirty four Lunar years being as he saith so many lesse then so many Solar as there are years betwixt the seventh and twentieth of Artaxerxes p. 21. and to this latter beginning he makes the Command to build Jerusalem to refer and not to the former This is the full of Mr. Medes opinion which with what clearnesse I am able I have set forth and now must say though I highly honour the Author and his indgement in many things yet in this particular cannot I close with him My Reasons are 1 Because the concurrence of the two thousand three hundred dayes in their end with the one thousand three hundred thirty five the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes with the one thousand two hundred and ninety both which stand upon firm Scripture-ground is absolutely destroyed by this opinion of the Seventy weeks 2 Because Mr. Medes great and only Reason inducing him to this Computation is weak uncertain without Scripture-ground yea destructive to Scripture-principles His Reason is to reconcile humane Histories and Daniels Seventy weeks Now supposing it to be done yet in matters of faith the reason is weak and as good as nothing because the foundation is humane History which is no ground of my faith 2 It is uncertain because humane Computations are different and in things different a choice cannot be made without some other rule to guide the choice 3 It is without Scripture-ground because First Scripture hath no where told us that we should make bare humane reports the ground of our faith but manifestly the contrary Secondly No other grosse summe in the whole Scripture doth inforce the beginning and ending of the Seventy weeks to be as Mr. Mede hath stated it which could that be made out it must then be granted that Mr. Mede hath reason sufficient to adhere to the reports of those he follows rather then of others who in computing the same time differ in their accounts and consequently he should have though not a particular yet a general Scripture-ground but his opinion having neither the one nor the other hath no Scripture-ground at all 4 It is destructive to other Scripture-principlos viz. those principles which are the foundation of our first Reason 3 Because Mr. Medes Distinction which is the foundation of his whole Opinion is unsound yea if the ground of it be throughly weighed there is enough in the thing it self to overthrow the whole building For whereas Mr. Mede would put a difference betwixt the Holy City and Jerusalem making the beginning of the Holy City to be from the time the Temple was finished but the beginning of Jerusalem not to be till afterwards Let it in answer thereunto be considered That although the Temple when spoken of alone is called the Holy place yet is it never called the Holy City but with a reference still to Jerusalem As the City Jerusalem is no otherwise said to be Holy but as it hath reference to the Temple the onely place of Gods worship being there fixed so cannot the Temple the place of Gods Holinesse be called a Holy City any otherwise then as it hath reference to the City Jerusalem joyned to it Both compacted together make up the Holy City either claiming a share in the name That it is Holy is from the Temple that a City from Jerusalem that a Holy City from both And therefore it is observable as Jerusalem is never in any other Scripture called unlesse in a Prophetical way of what should be for future the Holy City but still with reference to the Temple fixed in it so do we not find in all Ezra which Book relates to the time we are upon so much as once mention made of the Holy City till afterwards in the dayes of Nehemiah Chap. 11.1.18 which was after Jerusalem was built and City and Temple now again standing together Yea whereas the Angel saith to Daniel Seventy weeks are determined upon thy Holy City what City doth he mean but that City Daniel had been praying for which was not the Temple onely but Jerusalem with its Temple both together Now seeing that Seventy weeks are determined upon the Holy City and the Holy City cannot be so called from the Temple onely but Temple and City together it therefore follows that there can be no other beginning of the Seventy weeks but what is fetched from the time when Temple and City were again joyned together so making up the Holy City Daniels Holy City nor can the duration of the Seventy weeks be any longer then Jerusalem stands with its Temple in it owned by God for the place of his worship which as it cuts off both Mr. Medes beginning and ending of his Seventy weeks who begins before the City was built and ends many years after God had rejected the Temple as the place of his worship So is it a strong Argument against any beginning whatsoever that shall begin the Seventy weeks any time before City and Temple stood together or ending that shall end them any time after God had rejected the Temple as the place of his worship 4 Because Mr. Medes beginning of the Seventy weeks take the same nakedly in it self and out foregoing Arguments set aside appears improbable For he begins with the sixth of Darius Nothus the King under whom as he supposeth the Temple-work was advanced in his second year and finished in his sixth But how improbable is this that Darius Nothus should be the
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
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