King 24. 25. Ierem. 52. And of Nebuchadnezzars expedition against Cyrus Ezekiel maketh mention c. 26. to c. 30. In the 25. yeare of Nebuchadnezzars raigne he subdued Egypt and remooued all the Iewes that were thither fledde to Babylon Pererius addeth further that in the 25. yeare of his raigne he had that vision of the image c. 2. but that was rather in the 5. yeare of his raigne as is before shewed quest 6. generall After this he set vp the great golden image c. 3. and was translated from the companie of men and liued among bruite beasts for the space of seuen yeares cap. 4. then he was restored to his kingdome which he enioyed peaceably to the ende of his dayes Pere Quest. 7. Of the time of Nebuchadnezzars raigne 1. Iosephus thinketh that Nebuchadnezzar raigned 43. yeares so also Eusebius and Pererius consenteth wherein he doth not much varie from the yeares of his raigne which may be collected out of Scripture 2. Some thinke that all his raigne made vp 45. yeares Bulling rather 44. betweene both for in the 8. yeare of his raigne he tooke Iechonias prisoner in the 37. yeare of whose captiuitie Euilmerodach the sonne of Nebuchadnezzar began to raigne who lift vp the head of Iehoiachin out of prison these two numbers put together 8. and 37. make 45. and one yeare must be deducted because Nebuchadnezzar is supposed to haue died in the 36 yeare of Iechoniahs captiuitie the last yeare of his raigne and so the whole summe of yeares remaineth 44. Quest. 8. Of the citie of Babylon 1. The occasion of the first founding of this citie and of the name therof is declared Gen. 11. so called first Babel of the confusion of tongues and afterwards Babylon the countrie about Babylonia 2. Nimrod who was the first king or tyrant rather after the flood in which sense he is called a mightie hunter is held to haue beene the first founder of Babylon which was afterward enlarged by Semiramis whom Iulius Solinus and Diodorus Siculus whom Hierome followeth thinke to haue beene the first builder of Babylon but she onely enlarged it and raised vp the walls 3. In this citie and the countrie thereabout the Iewes were held in captiuitie 70. yeares which tearme beeing the stinted time of mans life Psal. 90. 10. sheweth that man during the time of his life and aboade in this world is but a captiue and stranger as Iaakob called his life a pilgrimage Gen. 47. 9. Pintus 2. Polanus thinketh there were 3. cities of this name Babylon one in Assyria whereof mention is made 2. king 17. 24. an other in Chaldea which is here called the land of Sennaar and the third in Egypt which is now called Alcayr the seate of the Sultanes of Egypt But I thinke the receiued opinion is more probable that there were onely two Babylons one in Chaldea the other in Egypt or in the confines of Arabia whereof Raphael Volateran treateth lib. 12. now called Cayro Pintus that Babel mentioned 2. King 17. 24. from whence the king of Ashur brought some to inhabite Samaria is Babylon in Chaldea which was then subiect to the king of Ashur 3. Stephanus also is deceiued who thinketh this Babylon to be the same citie which was called Seleucia built by Seleucus Nicanor which was indeede built not farre off from Babylon some 300. stadia or furlongs by which occasion Babylon became desolate and not so much frequented but they were not all one citie Polanus Quest. 9. ver 1. Of the citie Ierusalem 1. Ierusalem it was the cheife citie of Palestina first founded by Melchisedech as Iosephus thinketh who Gen. 14. is called the king of Shalem 2. It had diuers names it was first called Shalem Gen. 14. Psal. 75. 3. then Iebus of Iebusi the sonne of Canaan Iosh. 18. 28. afterward it was named Ierusalem which signifieth the vision of peace and last of all Aelia of Aelius Adrianus the Emperour who built mount Caluarie and diuers other parts of the city Volat. l. 11. 3. It was diuided into two parts the vpper citie where was mount Zion the city of Dauid and the Temple the neather or base citie which was vnder the hill Pol. 4. The citie Ierusalem is sometime taken in Scripture for the Church of God as Hebr. 12. 22. Ye are come to Mount Sinai to the citie of the liuing God to celestiall Ierusalem Pintus Quest. 10. v. 2. What this phrase meaneth To be giuen into ones hand v. 2. And the Lord gaue Iehoiakim c. into his hand c. The hand is diuersly taken in Scripture 1. As first to put the soule or life in the hand signifieth to put the life in danger Iudg. 12. 3. Iepthah saith I put my life in my hands 2. The hand signifieth a league or couenant as the giuing of the hand implieth the plighting of the troth as Esech 17. 18. He hath despised the oath and broken the couenant yet lo he had giuen his hand 3. It signifieth ministerie and seruice as Exod. 38. 21. These are the parts of the Tabernacle c. for the office of the Levites by the hand of Ithamar 4. The hand signifieth helpe and assistance as 1. Sam. 22. 17. Saul commandeth the Priests to be slaine because their hand was with David that is they were aiding and helping vnto him 5. To lift vp the hand against a place is to assault it and threaten against it as Isa. 10. 32. He shall lift vp his hand toward the mount of the daughter of Sion 6. To lift vp the hands is to pray 1. Tim. 2. 9. I will that the men pray euery where lifting vp pure hands 7. To wash the hands is to purge the heart and works from impuritie and vncleannes as Psal. 26. 6. I will wash mine hands in innocencie O Lord and compasse thine altar 8. To put the hand to the mouth signifieth to eate 1. Sam. 14. 27. as Ionathan is said to haue put his hands to his mouth when he did eate of the honie 9. To lay the hand also vpon the mouth is a figne of silence Iob. 29. 9. The Princes staied talke and laid their hand on their mouth 10. By the hands also are vnderstood the works labours of mens vocations as Eph. 4. 28. Let him that stole steale no more but rather labour and worke with his hands 11. To doe a thing with an high hand is to do it presumptuously Numb 15. 30. 12. To touch with the hand is to humble or afflict Psal. 32. 4. Thy hand is heauie vpon me day and night 13. But to giue into the hands of any is to bring vnder their power and subiection as Iudg. 7. 1. The Lord gaue them into the hands of Midian seuen yeares and so it is taken here Pintus Quest. 11. How Iehoiakim was giuen into Nebuchadnezzars hand whether he caried him to Babylon 1. Some thinke that Iehoiakim was bound in chaines and carried to Babylon as the Latine
dead or not of so good parts as the yongest was who might therefore be nominated to the kingdome as Xerxes was made heire apparant to his father Darius his elder brother Artabazanes beeing omitted as M. Lydyat acknowledgeth pag. 67. 2. Though these authors so write yet Aeâ—â—lius Probus preferreth the restimonie of Thucidides as liuing neerest to those times and so best to be credited that Themistocles fledde to Artaxerxes 3. Artabanus might haue opportunitie to kill Xerxes fleeing from the Grecians as Bessus killed Darius Codomannus fleeing away from Alexander and Darius beeing one of the kings sonnes he might kill likewise the occasion so seruing whereas Artaxerxes beeing possessed of the kingdome was better defended against him and afterward was reuenged vpon him for his fathers death 4. But none of these answeres doe take away the former obiection that Artaxerxes raigned 8. yeares at the least before his fathers death aâ—iâ— gathered by the Olympiade reckoning 4. It remaineth then that Xerxes is the latter part of his raigne ioyned his sonne Artaxerxes with him as he raigned together with his father Darius and therefore he is named next after Cyrus Ezra 4. 7. As there Cyrus raigne is named onely for his and Cambyses so Assuerus raigne who is thought to be Darius Hystaspis standeth there for the ioynt raigne of Darius and Xerxes By reason then of this intermingling of yeares the foresaid yeares cannot be particularly assigned to the former kings Quest. 53. Of the particular yearâ—â— of the second part of the Persian Monaâ—â—hi◠〈◊〉 the finishing of the Temple to the ende thereof 1. Iunius in his first edition summeth these yeares to 90. or thereabout giuing vnto Longimanus 37. in whose 6. the Temple was finished to Darius Nothus 18. to Mâ—emon 10. to Ochus 22. to Arsen 3. and Darius the 〈◊〉 raigned 6. yeares wherein he misseth not greatly the generall somme of the Persian yeares but he counteth onely 36. to the finishing of the Temple in Longimanus 6. yeare and 90. afterward whereas so few as 30. yeares cannot be giuen to the fowre former kings Cyrus Cambyses Darius the sonne of Hystaspis and Xerxes which raigâ—ed before Longimanus 2. Oecolampadous counteth an 160. yeares after the reedifying of the Temple to the ende of the Persian Monarâ—hie which he collectâ—â— thâ—s Darius in his account raigned 4. yeares after the temple and citie repaired Xerxes 〈◊〉 Artehanus 7. moneths Aâ—taxerxes Longhand 40. yeares Xerxes the 〈◊〉 moneths Segdiaâ—us 8. moneths Darius Nothus 19. yeares 〈◊〉 40. yeares 〈◊〉 26. Arseo 4. Darius the last 6. But here beside that he counteth three among the Persian kings 〈◊〉 Xgrxes the 2. Segdiâ—â—s whose yeares of raigne are not reckoned but the best historians as is shewed before quest 37. he erreth in referring the reedifying of the Temple to Darius Hystaspis raigne the third king of Persia whereas there are reckoned in Ezra after Cyrus Assâ—â—â—us Artaxerxes and then Darius vnder whom the Temple was builded Ezra 4. 7. and 24. 3. Tertulliaâ— first setteth downe Darius to haue 〈◊〉 19. yeares then Aâ—taxerxes 41. after him Ochus 24. then Argus one and the last Darius 21. So he seemeth in all to account but an 106. yeares for the persian Monarchie whereof 49. beeing expired at the reedifying of the Temple there will remaine but 57. to the ende of that Monarchie But herein is Teriullian deceiued in making but fiue kings of Persia in all 4. Iunius in his third edition in his annotations vpon this place summeth the yeares from the 2. of Nothus to the ende of the Persian Monarchie to 93. for Nothus he counteth 19. yeares in all and from his second 18. for Mnemon 43. Ochus 23. Arses 3. Darius the last 6. so also Polanus which yeares beeing added to the 106. which he thinketh were expired from Cyrus first at the 2. of Nothus make 200. saue one But the age of Nehemiah who saw the beginning and ende of that Monarchie will not permit that so many yeares be allowed vnto it 5. Pintus giuing vnto the Persian Monarchie 191. yeares and counting 48. vnto the sinishing of the Temple must leaue an 143. yeares or thereabout for the time of that Monarchie after the finishing of the Temple But vpon the former reason of Nehemiahs age this can not be admitted 6. Pererius from the 1. of Cyrus to the 2. of Nothus counteth an 140. yeares and from thence to the ende of that Monarchie some 94. yeares M. Lively also agreeth with him in the same account Pers. Monarch p. 53. they differ but in 2. yeares Pererius allotteth to the Persian Monorchie 232. yeares lib. 13. in Dan. M. Lively 230. But it is sufficiently shewed before that the Persian Monarchie could not continue so long qu. 43. 7. But Montanus counting by the high Priests goeth beyond them in all in his reckoning for the latter part of the Persian Monarchie for he giueth vnto Eliashib 41. yeares in whose 14. yeare he saith Nenemiah returned to the king of Persia after the citie was repaired which was in 32. yeare of Mnemons raigne Nehem. 5. 14. there remaine then of Eliashibs yeares 27. then Ioiada succeeded 25. yeares Iohanan 24. yeares Iaddua to the time of Alexander 27. thus there shall be an 103. yeares from the 32. yeare of Mnemon to the ende of the Persian Monarchie vnto the which adde the 32. yeares of Mnemon and 7. yeares of Darius there will arise an 142. yeares from the finishing of the Temple to the ende of the Persian Monarchie which Nehemiahs age will by no meanes endure 8. This then is the best resolution that although in such great varietie and difference the particular yeares can not well be assigned vnto the seuerall kings of Persia which succeeded after the finishing of the Temple yet the whole summe is must not extende beyond 80. or 81. or thereabout so that thus the whole summe is made vp 49. yeares are counted from Cyrus 1. to the 6. of Darius when the Temple was finished and thence to the ende of the Persian Monarchie if 81. yeares more be added we shall haue the whole summe of an 130. yeares this account followeth Beroaldus Iunius in his annotations edit 1. H. Broughton in his proleg in Dan. who last named doth thus parcell out the yeares from Cyrus to Xerxes 6. when he warred against Grecia he giueth 30. yeares to Artaxerxes with his father and alone 42. to Ochus called also Darius Nothus alone 8. with his father 16. to Mnemon 42. to Ochus 3. to Darius the last 5. or 6. the whole summe is an 130. 54. Quest. Of the iust computation of the yeares of the Grecian Monarchie Hauing the certentie of the yeares of the Persian Monarchie in generall the next part of the 490. yeares decyphered in the 70. weekes consisteth in the due examination of the yeares of the kingdome of the Grecians where there are fiue seuerall accounts 1. by the raigne of the kings of Syria 2. by the yeares
of or held of greater authoritie then the other Our contrarie Arguments against the Canonicall authoritie of these additions are these which follow 1. They are not extant in the Hebrew and Chalde originall 2. They containe some things contradictorie to the Canonicall histories as the Apocryphal storie saith that Daniel was of the tribe of Levi whereas he is said in the true storie to be of the tribe of Iudah c. 1. v. 6. 3. Iosephus making mention of all the other histories recorded in this booke yet omitteth these two as Apocryphal relations 4. Hierome toucheth certaine obiections propounded by a Iew against these Apocryphall additions 1. That it is not like that the three children had so much leisure as to goe through all the elements and creatures in their hymne or song 2. It was no such miraculous thing but a naturall worke to kill the Dragon with gobbets and balls of pitch 3. And it is without example that any Prophet was so transported in bodie as Abacuk was taken vp by the haire of the head to goe and minister vnto Daniel Answ. Here the Romanists doe giue vs this slender satisfaction 1. That this booke might be translated by Theodotian out of the Hebrew or Chalde which is now extant or it might be written in the Greeke tongue originally by some stirred by the spirit of God as the author of Ecclesiasticus was Perer. 2. There might be two Daniels one of Iudah an other of Levi. Bellarm. 3. Iosephus omitteth many things in his historie of the Iewes antiquities Perer. 4. 1. So Ionas prayed in the Whales bellie beeing in great danger as the other were in the fire 2. Salomon though mooued by the spirit of God yet by humane wisdome decided the controuersie betweene the two harlots 3. Henoch and Helias were translated in their bodies Hug. Card. in proleg Hieron in Daniel Contra. 1. It is euident that this booke was not translated either out of Chalde or Hebrew by the Greeke allusion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if one should say alluding to a cutting or pricking tree he will cut thee and in the Greeke tongue originally were none of the Canonicall books of the old Testament written for vnto the Iewes were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. but the bookes set forth in the Greeke could not be committed to the Hebrewes 2. If there were two Daniels why are those additions annexed to the prophesie of Daniâ—l as parts thereof he beeing not the author 3. Iosephus omitteth many matters of circumstance but complete histories and the same memorable he seldome omitteth but this argument is vrged not as necessarie but onely probable 4. 1. It is one thing to pray in distresse as Ionas did an other to giue thanks at large vnto God before riddance from the daunger for that had beene in some sort to tempt God to stay longer in the daunger then there was cause 2. That experiment of Salomons wisdome is set forth as an act of a prudent and wise man directed by the spirit of God but the other is set downe as a propheticall act therefore the instance is not alike 3. Henoch and Helias were translated out of the world but not from place to place as this Abacuk is supposed to haue beene and it cannot be gathered that they reteined their bodies still when they were taken vp but rather that by the power of God they were dissolued which we are to thinke for the honour of Christ who was the first that in his whole humanitie entred the heauens 6. Morall observations 1. In that in this prophesie of Daniel there is a manifest prophesie pointing out the very time of the comming of Christ c. 9. quam clarum firmum est hoc testimonium c. what a cleare and sure testimonie is this which we may oppose against Sathan and all Atheists and other gainsayers that Christ is the true Redeemer that was to come into the world Calvin 2. In that the Lord did such wonderfull things for his people in captiuitie in so much that the glorie of God was propagated more disperso afflicto populo Dei quam regnante agentâ— in pace c. the people of God beeing dispersed and afflicted then while they raigned and liued in peace it sheweth the profit that commeth by the crosse Bulling both in generall to the whole Church and in particular to euery member thereof as the Prophet Dauid saith It is good for me that I haue beene afflicted Psal. 119. 71. 3. Further illustria gloriae divinae documenta sunt iudicia in reges the iudgement of God vpon Kings and vpon their kingdomes are notable demonstrations of Gods glorie Polan as the Prophet Isai saith Topheth is prepared of old it is prepared for the king Isa. 30. 33. 4. In that Daniel after the prophesie of the comming of Christ yet foretelleth many afflictions c. 10. 11 12. which should befall the Church of God in this world vntill the blessed day of the resurrection which is spoken of c. 12. when all teares shall be wiped from our eyes thereby is declared that the Church of God and the faithfull members thereof must looke for no firme and sure state in this world to continue but make account through many afflictions to enter into the kingdome of heauen sic Genev. in the argument of the booke for as the Apostle saith Here we looke for no continuing citie but seeke one that is to come Heb. 13. 14. But now by the grace of God I will proceede to the booke it selfe hauing staied long enough in these generall obseruations CHAP. I. 1. The Argument and method THis Chapter hath three parts 1. The first sheweth how that after the King of Babel had besieged and taken Ierusalem he caried diuers into captiuitie 1. c. 1 2. 2. In the next part the education of Daniel and of his other companions is described from v. 3. to v. 18. where these three things are contained 1. The Kings charge vnto the chiefe of the Eunuches for their education to v. 7. 2. Daniels abstinence and refusall to eate of the Kings meate whereunto was made a way by that fauour which God gaue vnto Daniel in the sight of the chiefe of the Eunuches to v. 14. 3. The successe thereof they were encreased with gifts both of minde and bodie v. 15 16 17. 3. Then the euent followeth their ministerie before the King and their aduancement especially of Daniel v. 18. to v. 21. 2. The diuers readings 1. v. In the third yeare in the yeares of three C. for so shalash signifieth three not the third but when it is ioyned with an other word of a cardinall number it becommeth an ordinal that is a number of order of the raigne of Iehoiakim not Ioachim L. for he was the sonne of Iehoiakim 2. King 24. 6. whom Matthew calleth Ieconias c. 1. and the one is written with kaph the other with caph Iehoiakim signifieth the
that thumbe thereof and the fingers were bigger then ordinarie images it broke in peices in the fall and great caues and hoales were opened wherein were couched huge stones to keepe the image vpright Plin. lib. 34. cap. 7. Greater also then this was the colossus of Nero which was an 110. foote long and an another picture made of him in cloth an 120. foote high yet this image because it was of gold in value may seeme to exceede all other the ordinarie cubite is foote and halfe but the Babylonian cubite as Herodotus saith was 3. fingers greater then the common cubite so that by this account this image might be 67. ordinarie cubites high Herodotus writeth that in his time there was a golden image at Babylon which was 12. cubites high which might be that image that euery stranger was required to worship before he was permitted to come into Babylon to see the citie as Philostrat saith de vita Apollin cap. 19. 2. This image was made proportionable to a mans bodie euerie part answerable vnto the other in due forme and measure by which proportion the greatnesse of euerie part of the image may be taken there is the same distance betweene the endes of the fingers the armes spread abroad from one extremitie to the other which is betweene the crowne of the head to the soale of the feete Plin. lib. 7. cap. 17. the face from the chinne to the toppe of the forehead is the tenth part of the length of the bodie And the face is diuided into three equall parts from the chinne to the nose the length of the nose and the breadth of the forehead the length of the eie from one corner to another is the 45. part and so is the distance betweene the eyes the length of the nose is the thirtith part and the widenes of the nostrils the 180 part the compasse of the eare and of the mouth is the 15. part the head from the chinne to the crowne is the 8. part the length and likewise the breadth of the breast the sixt part the nauill is in the middest of the bodie diuiding it into two equall parts the length of the hippes thighes and legges is almost the halfe part the length of the foote is the sixt part and so is the space from the shoulder to the elbowe and from the elbowe to the hand the hand is the 10. part 3. After this proportion the whole image beeing 60. cubites in height the face must be sixe cubites the chinne two cubites the nose and forehead as much the nostrills must containe halfe a foote the compasse of the eare and mouth 4. cubites and so much the necke the breast 10. cubites the length of the thighs and legges 29. cubites the foote tenne and the hand sixe thus Pererius casteth the proportion of euery part 4. But herein is his error he taketh the height of the bodie of the image to be 60. cubites whereas as Lyranus well noteth in this measure is comprehended the foote also or foundation whereupon the image stood for otherwise it should not be proportionable beeing 60 cubites high and but sixe cubites broad for the length of a man is but sixe times to the breadth and tenne times to the thicknes If the bodie be sixe cubites high it is but a cubite broad then 6. cubites broad will haue but 36. cubites in height 5. As this image was huge in the height and stature so it was verie costly beeing all of gold though it be not necessarie with Hierome to thinke that it was made of solid golde but either the outside onely of it was gold or it was made hollowe as Lyranus well coniectureth Quest. 7. Of the mysticall application of this image 1. Chrysostome by this golden image would haue couetousnesse resembled which S. Paul calleth idolatrie Ephes. 5. 5. for the couetous man doth addict all his desire and as it were consecrate his soule to the loue of money 2. Hierome compareth false doctrine vnto this image which heretikes and false teachers doe adorne and set forth with their witte and eloquence as this image is made of gold 3. Irenaeus maketh this image a patterne of the worldly happinesse which the deuill entiseth and seduceth men to embrace and as it were worship setting aside the desire of heauenly things Quest. 8. Of the seuerall names and titles of the kings nobles and officers here rehearsed ver 2. 1. The first are called in the Chalde tongue achashdarpenaija which R. Ioseph Kimhi deriueth of these three words achash which signifieth in the Aramites language great and dar to stay or remaine and panim the face they were such as alwaies remained in the kings presence and were next vnto him Montonus readeth secundâ—s à rege the next to the king Satrapae the great and highest men in the kingdome L. V. Iun. Lyranus saith they are so called taÌ„quam satis rapientes because they doe take and snatch from the people but that is no fit annotation here the Septuag call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chiefe men or of high place 2. The second is signaia which some translate pontifices summons the high priests Pag. for sagan is so sometime taken for the second priest next to the cheife but it seemeth here to be a ciuill office as all the rest are some read duces captaines V. as the Septuag interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chiefe commanders or captaines so also Bulling princes Genevens it rather signifieth here magistrates gouernours L. A. so Polan Antistites men of preheminence Iun. 3. The third are called pachavatha pecah as R. Dauid signifieth a prouinciall one set ouer a prouince Iudices iudges appointed to heare causes in their circuites L. duces dukes I. A. P. Geneuens the Septuag call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they which were set ouer some speciall places and countries praesides prouinciarum the presidents of prouinces V. 4. The fourth are Adargazaraija which signifieth Senators as R. Dauid and R. Saadiah so also Iun. Iudges Geneuens duces dukes L. rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the keepers of the lawes to see that they were executed Pag. Vatab. Bulling 5. The fift are Gedaberaija which signifieth those which are set ouer the treasure questores V. P. the questors or receiuers Geneuens not tyraennos L. which Lyranus expoundeth exactors of tribute but the word tyrant is in this sense improperly vsed 6. The sixt dethaberaija deriued of dath a sentence and bari pure or fatte R. Saadiah they were the lawyers or counsellers I. V. so also Bulling Polan Geneuens the L. readeth optimates the nobles but that is too generall a word 7. The seuenth Tiphtaice which I. translateth exactores the exactors the executioners of iustice V. Bulling officers Geneuens such as had the charge and care to see iustice executed 8. The eight shiltonee medinatha the gouernours of prouinces Gene. Iun. Vatab. of the word shelet to rule it is a generall name
Persian Monarchie for they make but fowre kings of Persia Cyrus Cambyses Assuerus Darius and generally hold that the Persian Monarchie continued not aboue 50. yeares whereas beside these there is euident mention made of Artaxerxes or Artashasht and of the 32. yeare of his raigne Nehem. 5. 14. But to remooue this doubt Ab. Ezra will haue Assuerus and Artaxerxes to be all one yet R. Moses maketh them two sundrie kings and so thinketh that there were fiue in all so well the Rabbines agree together 2. There is an other chronicle which Annius Viterbiens hath set forth vnder the names of the auncient writers Berosus Manethon Metasthones Philo who numbreth but 8. kings of the Persians and giueth vnto that whole Empire 191. yeares But as in other things that Chronologie is found to be false and imperfect as Pererius hath shewed at large in his 11. booke vpon Daniel as namely in this that he maketh Philo in a certaine booke called the Breuiarie to affirme that the posteritie of Salomon ended in Achazia and that Ioas which succeeded was not the sonne of Achazia but descended of Nathan whereas it is directly set downe 1. Chron. 3. 11. that Ioas was the sonne of Achazia beside this and other such slippes this apparant error is committed in the Persian Monarchie that reckoning but 8. kings he omitteth three which were most famous among them namely Cambyses Darius Hystaspis and Xerxes whom to denie to haue beene kings of Persia were all one as to say that Augustus and Tiberius were not Emperours of Rome 3. There is an other way to make this account by setting downe the yeares of the seuerall kings of Persia and so of the Grecians but there is also small certaintie of this for that the seuerall yeares of diuerse kings in three Monarchies cannot certainely be gathered because of the change and alteration of the state and kingdome and many times there was an interregnum or intermission of the gouernement and some kings raigned onely certaine moneths so that the time of one king ranne within the account of an others raigne 4. Beside the Hebrewes haue an other kind of reckoning by the yeares of their high Priests which succeeded one another vnto the time of Herod vnder whom Christ was borne which account seemeth Montanus to followe in his apparatus in the treatise called Daniel the whole summe there gathered from the first of Cyrus to the birth of Christ is 433. yeares or thereabout But this account must needes be more vncertaine then the former by the yeares of the kings especially in those tumultuous and troublesome times after the Macchabees when the high priesthood was bought and sold. 5. We come now vnto the Romane cōputation which was accounted these two waies by the yeares from the first building of Rome afterward by their Consulls But seeing Rome was of no great reputation while the Persian and Grecian Monarchie stood neither of these accounts can giue any certaine direction concerning the affaires of those kingdomes And thus much Plutarke confesseth in the life of Camillus hauing declared the receiued opinion that Rome was taken by the French about the 360. yeare of the city if it seeme credible saith he that an exact account of these times had beene so long preserued seeing that euen the confusion of that time hath brought some doubt and controuersie to the latter And he giueth this reason of his doubt because the common opinion was that the taking of the citie was in the 365. yeare of Rome and the first of the 98. Olympiad but whereas the fame of that warre was spread abroad in Greece and came to the hearing of Aristotle and Heraclides Ponticus who liued in the time of Philip king of Macedon who raigned about the 105. Olympiad this warre falleth out 27. yeares after the vsuall reckoning M. Liuely to salue the credit of the Latine computation saith that there were two battels made by the French and it was the latter of them the report whereof came to Aristotles hearing But it is like that Plutarke would not haue omitted this matter to haue made sound the Romane Chronologie and it was not a battell with the French but the taking of the citie by them the fame whereof was bruited abroad Beside an other instance may be giuen of the vncertaintie of the Romane Chronologie Plutarke referreth the beginning of the Peloponne siake warre in Greece to the 300 yeare of the building of Rome 3. booke c. 1. whereas Aulus Gellius l. 71. c. 21. bringeth it to the 329. yeare M. Liuely here answeareth that vigesimum nonum twentie nine by the slippe of the writers penne is put for decimum nonum ninteene p. 105. whereas beside that there is small affinitie betweene these two words vigesimum and decimum that one lightly by the writer could not be taken for an other yet this beeing admitted there remaineth still the oddes of 19. or 20. yeares which is a great difference in the storie of times As great vncertaintie there is in reckoning by the yeares of the Consuls as Senerus Sulpitius lib. 2. sacr histor saith that Christ was borne when Sabinus and Ruffinus were Consuls Cassiodorus when Cneus Lentulus and Marcus Messala were colleagues in the Consulshippe Epiphanius heares 51. when Augustus was the 13. time Consul and Marcus Plautius Sylvanus So Augustine thinketh that Christ died that yeare when C. Rubellius and C. Fusius were Consuls lib. 18. de ciuitat Dei c. 54. but Onuphryus assigneth the yeare when Servius Sulpitius Galba and Lucius Cornelius Sulla were in office so also M. Liuely but both are deceiued for the first were Consuls in the 15. yeare of Tiberius the other in the 19. yeares whereas Christ suffred in the 18. yeare of Tiberius And further there is great vncertaintie thoroughout the Romane Chronologie of the Consuls that in the space of 700. yeares there is hardly one yeare to be found wherein the historians agree who should be Consuls Liuius Cassiodorus Sulpitius Dio Diodorus Siculus the Capitoline tables that were digged vp out of the ground vnder Paulus the 3. ann 46. composed as it is thought by Verrius Flaccus doe all differ one from another concerning the names of the yearely Consuls as is extant in the Romane Chronologie collected out of diuers authors by Ioachimus Grellius ioyned vnto Livies historie 6. There remaineth then the Greeke reckonings by their Olympiads which were certen games of running wrestling leaping celebrated euerie 4. yeare about Iuly in Greece in a certaine place called Olympia so called because there Hercules first instituted these solemne games to the honour of Iuppiter Olympius which beeing discontinued a long time were after renewed by Iuphitus king of that countrey about 705. yeares before the birth of Christ and so continued a 1000. yeares after This account by the Olympiads is resolued vpon to be the best by Pererius M. Linely Bullinger and others whereof now followeth more in the next question Quest. 36.
the rest because of the intermission of the worke of the Temple 2. Iunius in his first edition annot in Ezr. 4. 24. was of opinion that this Darius that sent Ezra was Artaxerxes Longimanus sonne of Darius Hystaspis by â—â—sther so also Melancthon And this is most like for if the building of the Temple be driuen further off then vnto this kings daies Daniels 7. weekes set apart for the building of the Temple will no waies agree see more qu. 59. following 3. Iunius in his last edition thinketh otherwise that it was Darius Nothus in whose sixt yeare the house of God was finished which Iosephus Scalliger would prooue by this argument because this Darius hath an Artaxerxes next before him Ezr. 4. 7. and an other next after him Ezr. 7. 1. and so hath no other Darius among the kings of Persia But the first Artashasht was Gambyses who was not the next before Longimanus and the other Artashassht is the same with Darius called also Artaxerxas Longimanus as is further shewed qu. 59. following 46. Quest. What Artaxerxes it was in whose senenth yeare Ezra was sent and in his 20. Nehemiah 1. Iosrphus thinketh lib. 11. Antiquit that this was Xerxes by whome Ezra first and afterward Nehemiah was sent but this can not be for Xerxes is not held to haue raigned aboue 20. or 32. yeares now mention is made of the 32. yeare of this Artaxerxes Ezr. 5. 14. Beside Iosephus manifestly erreth in two other points 1. he saith that Nehemiah was sent in the 25. yeare of this Artaxerxes whereas it is euident that it was the 20. yeare Nehem. 2. 1. 2. he saith the walls were finished in two yeares and 3. moneths whereas they were repaired in the space of 52. daies Ezr. 6. 15. 2. Pererius therein consenting with some auncient writers holdeth this to be Artaxerxes Longimanus the sonne of Xerxes wherein he thinketh right sauing that this can not agree with his former opinion that it was Darius Hystaspis in whose sixt yeare the Temple was built which Darius in truth was Artaxerxes Longimanus as is further declared qu. 58. following M. Lydyat also thinketh well that this was Artaxerxes Longimanus by whome Ezra and Nehemiah were sent in ann 3553. but from hence he doth not well beginne Daniels 70. weekes as is shewed before qu. 42. 3. Some thinke that this was Artaxerxes Muemon which gaue libertie vnto Ezra and Nehemiah to returne to Ierusalem and repaire the citie because no other Artaxerxes but he of the kings of Persia immediatly succee dâ—da Darius Ioseph Scallâ—g Iun. The Artâ—shasht mentioned Ezr. 7. 1. who sent Ezra and afterward Nehemiah succeeded not Darius but was that Darius in whose 6. yeare the Temple was builtâ— See qu. 58. following 47. Quest. That Daniels 70. weekes were determined neither before Christs passionâ— nor at the destruction of the citie 1. Euseb. lib. 8. de demonstr Euangel in his first account beginneth the 70. weekes in the first of Cyrus and endeth 69. of them about Hyrcanus time when Pompey the great tooke Ierusalem and defiled the Temple 2. In an other account he beginneth the 69. weekes in the 6. of Darius when the Temple was reedified and maketh them to ende at Herod the last weeke he beginneth at Christs haptisme 60. yeares after and endeth it 3. yeares and an halfe after his passion Both these accounts of Eusebius Oâ—calâ—mpadius indifferently followeth But neither of these râ—ckonings can stand 1. because Daniel saith that after 7. weekes and 62. weekes the Messiah shall be slaine that is in the 70. weeke next after but in the first account the Messiah was slaine aboue 90. yeares in the second aboue 60. after the expiring of the 69. weekes 2. the 70. and last weeke must immediatly follow the other because they are made one whole number of 70. weekes vers 24. though afterward they be diuided 3. Some ende these 70. weekes at the natiuitie of Christ as Origen beginning them in Darius raigne others beginne at the instautation of the Temple vnder Darius and end the 69. weekes at the birth of Christ counting vntill then 483. yeares Tertullian But both these opinionâ— are contrarie to the text which ende these 69. weekes at the passion and death of Christ not at his birth after 62. weekes the Messiah shall be slaine beside as the first account commeth short aboue 30. yeares of the 490. so the other ouerreacheth aboue 60. yeares as shall be showed in the particular account 4. Some ende these weekes at the baptisme of Christ Melancth but the text will not heare it for before these weekes are expired or togither with the expiration of them shall the Messiah be slaine 5. As these ende Daniels weekes somewhat too soone so some extend them somewhat too farre as to the destruction of Ierusalem by Titus and Vespasian wherein not withstanding they do much differ Tertullian beginneth the account at Darius the Mede and endeth at the subuersion of Ierusalem so also Clem. Alex. beginning at Cyrus Chrysostome there ending beginneth at the 20. yeare of Darius Longimanus Some beginne form the 2. yeare of Darius Nothus and ende at the destruction of the citie by the Romanes Iun. Bulling Polan M. Lively But the first beginning right ouershoote the 70. weekes almost 40. yeares from the passion of Christ to the taking of the citie by the Romanes The other neither beginne right seeing it is prooued before that the beginning of the weeks must be from the first going forth of the word vnder Cyrus qu. 43. neither doe they ende well for immediatly after the 69. weekes the Messiah must be slaine in the last weeke then can it not be extended 40. yeares after Christs death to the destruction of the citie these words after 69. weekes the Messiah shall be slaine are otherwise expounded by Iunius and Polanus which shall be further examimed when we come vnto the handling of that verse Now the reasons that these weekes must be extended to the finall destruction of Ierusalem are these 1. The Angel saith Seuentie weekes are determined ouer the people and ouer the holy citie that is within which time there shall be a destruction of both Iun. anâ—otat 2. Our blessed Sauiour doth apply this prophesie of Daniel vnto the desolation and destruction of Ierusalem Matth. 24. 15. Polan 3. Daniel first maketh mention of the destruction of the citie and Sanctuarie and then speaketh of the confirming of the couenant in one weeke and of the ceasing of the sacrifices in the middes of the weeke which if it be vnderstood of Christs death it were a preposterous order that after the destruction of the citie which happened 40. yeares after he should returne to speake of the Messiahs death M. Lively Persian Monarch p. 225. 4. To what purpose should mention be made here of the destruction of Ierusalem if it be not within the compasse of these weekes Ans. 1. The Angel expoundeth himselfe afterward how these words are to
to the course of the Sunne otherwise by this reason the 70. yeares of the captiuitie must likewise be cutt short see before quest 17. 2. in great numbers sometime odde yeaes are omitted but so it is not here because these seuentie weekes are said to be cut our that is precisely they shall fall out to be so many weekes of yeares 3. That distinction hath no place here for seeing the account is made by weekes if any part thereof should be reckoned inclusiuely or exclusiuely it must be done by weekes of yeares not by single yeares as M. Liuely well obserueth pag. 187. 2. It remaineth then that these yeares must take their ende precisely at the time of the death and passion of Christ as Iulius Africanus Beda Ruperius Bullinger H. Br. doe determine them and then whereas it is said in the middes or halfe weeke the sacrifice shall cease the sense is that Christ by the sacrifice of himselfe in the latter halfe of the weeke shall abolish all other sacrifices in right and whereas it is said he shall confirme the couenant in one weeke the meaning is not that all the last weeke this couenant should be in confirming but the couenant shall be confirmed first by the preaching and then by the death of Christ in the last weeke which was done in the last middle or halfe part thereof Bulling Now for this precise determining of these weekes in the verie passion of the Messiah the reasons are these 1. The last weeke endeth at the confirmation of the couenant or Testament as the Prophet saith he shall confirme the couenant with many in one weeke the weeke then must end with that confirmation for not the beginning but the ende is counted for the weeke But the Testament was ratified by the death of Christ Hebr. 9. 17. the Testament is confirmed when men be dead therefore this last weeke endeth in Christs death Bulling 2. The death of Christ was to fall out in a yeare of Iubile that the bodie may answer vnto the figure therefore it is called the acceptable yeare of the Lord Isay. 6102. the great yeare of remission of sinnes and of the redemption of prisoners and captiues And so the yeare wherein Christ died was a Iubile yeare beeing the 28. Iubile by iust computation from the 8. yeare of Iosuah when the first Iubile was kept for so many Iubilies fall but in 1400. yeares It is most probable then that Daniels 70. weekes should ende with the last Iubile H. Br. in 9. Daniel 3. M. Liuely though he ende not the 70. weekes in the passion of the Messiah yet he holdeth so many weekes preeisely gathering so much by the Hobrewe phrase Sexentie weekes is cut out where a verbe of the singular number beeing put to a word of the plurall sheweth that euerie one of the weekes particularly from the first to the last shall be precisely and absolutely complete Persian Mon. pag. 159. 4. If any of these weekes should be extended beyond Christs death it is more like they should reach to the destruction and desolation of the diâ—ie which is by name expressed for there is no other cause to extend them further the preaching of the Gospell continued longer then three yeare and a halfe after Christ therefore in that regard the halfe weeke is not to be extended beyond Christs death 5. Burgens alleadgeth this reason to shewe that the last ende of these weekes must concurre with the passion of Christ nam deletie iniquitatis consummatio praevaricationis c. the taking away of iniquitie and the finishing of transgression which are propounded by the Angel in his first speach are the proper effects of Christs passion c. vpon this reason Burgens is so confident that he concludeth the ende then of these weekes est nobis notus de fide is knowne vnto vs as of faith that is certainely Thus then the argument may be framed the finishing of iniquitie and taking away of sinne were accomplished in the passion of Christ but seuentie weekes are determined for the finishing of iniquitie therefore 70. weekes are determined at the passion of Christ. 6. Melâ—ncthon addeth further that the 70. weekes must not extend beyond Christs passion because the Iewes reiecting of him were no longer his people neither tooke he protection of them Thus hauing the beginning of these 70. weekes at Cyrus and the ende at the passion of Christ it remaineth then to be shewed how by a iust computation these 70. weekes may be brought from Cyrus vnto Christ. Quest. 50. Of the iust and exact computation of yeares from Cyrus first vnto the passion of Christ. 1. Tertullian beginning in the first of Darius counteth but 490. yeares to the destruction of Ierusalem the 62. weekes and an halfe he would haue ended at Christs natiuitie which make 437. yeares and from thence to the destruction of Ierusalem he reckoneth 7. weekes and an halfe more that is 53. yeares But Tertullian committeth diuerse errors in this account 1. he maketh but 5. kings of Persia. 2. he giueth but an 106. yeares to the whole Monarchie of the Persians 31 he fayleth in the particular account of the yeares of the kings of Persia he alloweth vnto Darius the Mede 19. yeares whereas he raigned but one and to the last Darius 22. yeares who raigned but sixe in all and to Alexander be giueth 12. yeares after who liued but sixe yeares after Darius ouerthowe 4. he counteth but 53. yeares from Christs natiuitie to the destruction of Ierusalem which in true account were 70. yeares at the least for Christ was borne in the 4. yeare of the 194. Olympiad and the citie was taken by Titus in the 4. yeare of the 212. Olympiad 2. Lyranus beginning his account the 5. yeare of Zedekiah when as Ieremiah promised deliuerance after 70. yeares reckoneth from that yeare to the destruction of Ierusalem 6. yeares from thence the Hebrewes to the first of Cyrus count 52. yeares then to Cyrus and Cambyses he giueth 9. yeares to Assuerus and Darius in whole 6. yeare the Temple was built 45. yeares betweene them all these yeares make beeing put together 112. yeares then the second Temple is held by the Hebrewes to haue stood vnto the second destruction by Titus 420. yeares all make 532. from whence 42. yeares beeing diducted which come betweene the blessed passion of our Lord and the destruction of Ierusalem there will remaine iust 490. yeares Paulus Burgens agreeing with Raimundus beginning and ending as Lyranus doth yet proceedeth an other way from the 4. of Zedekiah which was in the 12. yeare of Nebuchadnezzar who raigned in all 45. yeares there remained of his raigne 34. yeares and of Evilmerodachs 32. and 3. yeares of Balthazar 's raigne all these make 60. yeares then Darius raigned two Cyrus 30. Assuerus 14. Darius his sonne had raigned 6. when the Temple was finished these yeares make 52. and the second Temple stood 420. yeares as is the generall opinion of the Hebrewes
33. complete which make vp the 60. yeares And so riseth the iust summe of 490. yeares contained in Daniels 70. weekes Thus by Gods gracious assistance haue I waded through this bottomlesse depth of Daniels 70. weekes which I hold to be simply the most difficult and inextricable question in the olde Testament Now it is time that I proceede to discusse the words of the text but first I will lay together in one view the sundrie interpretations of these 70. weekes which haue beene dispersedly handled before 55. Quest. The seuerall interpretations of Daniels 70. weekes dispersedly handled before summed together The sundrie opinions and diuers interpretations of the numbring of Daniels weekes may be sorted out in this manner into these 6. orders or ranks 1. Some beginne the account too soone and ende too soone 2. Some beginne too late and ende too late 3. Some beginne too soone and ende too late 4. Some beginne too late and ende too soone 5. Some beginne well and ende not right and they either ende too soone or too late 6. Some ende well their account but beginne not right and that either too soone or too late the first foure doe erre both in the beginning and ende the other two faile but in the one either in the beginning or ende 1. Of the first sort is Origeâ— who beginneth from Adam and endeth 69. weekes of the account at the natiuitie of Christ the 70. weekes he extendeth thence to the destruction of the citie see this opinion confuted before qu. 40. 2. Of the second sort are diuers 1. all they which beginne the acount after the raigne of Cyrus as Chrysostome who beginneth at the 20. yeare of Darius Longimanus and endeth at the subuersion of Ierusalem so Eusebius beginneth at Darius Hystaspis and endeth at Traian the Emperour and Iunius Iosephus Scalliger M. Liuely beginne at the 2. yeare of Darius Nothus and ende with the ruine of the citie see their opinions more at large quest 47. Likewise Apollinaris beginneth at Christs natiuitie and endeth at the comming of Antichrist toward the ende of the world see qu. 34. and 48. 3. Some beginne too soone and ende too late as Hyppolitus beginning 50. yeares before Cyrus and ending toward the dissolution and ende of the world and R. Salomon who beginneth at the destruction of the first Temple and endeth at the destruction of the second see qu. 40. and 48. 4. Some beginne too late and ende too soone as Melancthon that beginneth his second reckoning from Longimanus and endeth at the baptisme of Christ see before qu. 47. 5. Some beginne well and ende too soone as Origen who in one account beginneth aâ— Darius the Mede and endeth at the natiuitie qu. 47. before so also Melancthon in one accounâ— Eusebius also in one account beginneth at Cyrus and endeth in Hyrcanus time Some beginning right ende too late as Tertullian beginning at Darius and Clemens Alexandrinus at Cyrus ende at the subuersion of Ierusalem qu. 47. before And some Hebrewes beginne at Darius the Mede but extend the yeares to the raigne of Adrian the Emperour see quest 48. 6. Some ende right namely at the passion of Christ but beginne too soone as Lyranus and Burgensis who beginne in the 4. or 5. yeare of Zedekiah see qu. 41. some ending there also beginne too late as they which beginne at the 20. yeare of Longimanus and end at the passion of Christ of which opinion are Theodoret Zonaras Ioannes Luâ—idus Pererius Bullinger with others see before qu. 49. Then the best account of these weekes is to pitch the beginning and ende both right and that is to beginne them at Cyrus at the first going forth of the word for the returne of the people as is prooued before at large quest 43. and to determine and conclude them at the most holy passion of our blessed Sauiour as is likewise before prooued at large qu. 49. of this chapter Now I will returne to examine the words as they lie in the text 56. Quest. Why the 7. weekes are seuered from the 62. v. 25. Vnto the Messiah shall be 7. weekes and 62. weekes 1. Some thinke that no other reason is to be giuen hereof but that the Angel of purpose thus speaketh that the prophecie should be vttered in darke and obsture tearmes as Hierom to this purpose saith vpon the 45. of Ezekiel Scriptura difficultatem habet in numeris vt intentum faciat animum auditoris the Scripture vseth some difficultie in numbers to make the minde of the hearer more intent But it is euident by the diuiding of the last weeke from the rest wherein some speciall matters are deliuered concerning the death of the Messiah and the confirming of the couenant and ceasing of the sacrifices that there is some speciall intendment in the setting apart also of the 7. weekes from the rest 2. Some doe thinke that it is onely an Hebrew phrase who vse to set the lesse number before the greater as we would say speaking of Abraham he liued an 175. yeares but the Scripture saith he liued 5. and 70. and an 100. yeares so Hierome But to this Calvin answereth non continuat seriem annorum c. he continueth not here the course of yeares as in setting downe the age of man c. for the reason in setting downe of numbers in that manner is because they are of diuers kinds when the yeares are numbred by hundreds tennes and vnions but here the number is all of the same kind 70. in all And if the Hebrew phrase should be here obserued he should haue said nine and sixtie or 7. 2. and 60. two should not be put after 60. And why is the 70. weeke put last of all it should after that manner of speaking be put first as to say thus 1. and 7. and 62. There is then more here to be conâ—idered then the phrase onely 3. Some make no matter at all of this diuision but put the 7. weekes and 62. weekes together that after 69. weekes the Messiah shall be slaine Melancth Vatab. Osiand but then this diuision made of purpose by the Angel should seeme to be idle 4. Pererius therefore giueth this reason of this diuision because in these seuen weekes which make 49. yeares there were two notable accidents the repairing of the citie by Nehemiah and in the ende of this tearme fell out that notable historie of Mordecat and Esther vnder Artaxerxes Mnemon But Pererius is here deceiued for as it shall afterward appeare the repairing of the citie by Nehemiah was without the compasse of these 7. weekes and the other storie fell out in the space of this tearme but not vnder Mnemon that Assuerus is most like to be Darius Hystaspis as is before shewed qu. 44. 5. Some giue a mysticall reason of it as Burgens addit 4. Antiqua lex dicitur septenana nova octonaria the olde law is signified by seuen the new law by eight to shew hereby that the Messiah should bring
for after it beganne to be reedified in the 2. yeare of Darius it was finished in foure yeare Hug. Cardinal but it is shewed before that it was from the first to the last 46. yeare in building and therefore the 7. weekes are fingled from the rest to note the streightnesse and troubles of those times 3. Some hauing speciall reference vnto the 7. weekes doe vnderstand onely the troublesome building of the citie because they hold the Temple to haue beene built before the 7. weekes beganne so Bullinger Iosephus Scalliger Osian as mention is made Nehem. 4. how they built with one hand and held their swords in the other But seeing the building of the Temple was the principall worke and was intermitted 46. yeares it is not like that it should be omitted in this prophesie 4. Wherefore by building here in a trouble some time is vnderstood the building of the Temple and the citie as Iunius in his commentarie vnderstandeth the building of Ierusalem that both of them should be in a troublesome time So that as afterward the Angel sheweth what should happen after the 7. and 62. weekes so here specially is intended what memorable thing should befall within the compasse of these 7. weekes in the building of the Temple and after in the building of the citie H. Br. Concent as also thereby is signified that their whole state should remaine troublesome still as the booke of the Macchabees sheweth Lyran. that they should not looke for any perfect outward estate but be stirred vp to looke for their spirituall redemption by the Messiah Quest. 62. Of the 62. weekes how they are to be vnderstood 1. Pererius obserueth vpon this place that in some copies of the Complutense edition for 62. weekes there are put 64. weekes which he noteth to be a manifest error seeing that in the originall and the best translated copies there is mention made onely of 62. weekes which make 434. yeares 2. Iosephus Scalliger doth not beginne these 62. weekes where the first 7. ende but doth giue a diuerse beginning vnto them the 7. weekes he would haue beginne in the 2. of Darius Nothus and ende in the 32. of Artaxerxes Mnemon the 62. weekes he thinketh to beginne in the 5. yeare of Mnemon and to ende at the passion of Christ. But 1. in that the Angel putteth all these weekes together in one whole summe of 70. it is euident that the 62. weekes must followe immediately after the 7. weekes and the 70. and last weeke after the 62. 2. seeing that Ezra was sent in the 7. yeare of Artaxerxes Ezra 7. 1. Scalliger thinketh that the decree was made for his returne in the 5. yeare but he spent one yeare in his preparation But M. Liuely answereth that one yeare will not serue his turne for from the last yere of the 202. Olympiad counting 434. backward we come to the second yeare of the 94. Olympiad which falleth into the 3. yeare of Artaxerxes raigne by Scalligers owne confession but by Bullingers tables the 2. yeare of the 94. Olympiad bringeth vs to the 15. yeare of Darius Nâ—thus 5. yeares before Artaxerxes beganne to raigne so that Scalliger misseth of his reckoning 3. or 4. yeares after his owne account thus M. Liuely p. 231. 3. Some beginne these 7. weekes and 62. weekes in the 65. Olympiad which was in the beginning of Darius Hystaspis raigne and bring them to the 186. Olympiad which make 483. yeares at such time as Hyrcanus was killed in whom the line of the anointed Priests ceased and then Herod a stranger vsurped the kingdome Euseb. in Chronicis but in this account we want aboue 60. yeares to the death of the Messiah who after these 62. weekes was to be slaine 4. Theodâ—ret beginneth the 62. weekes at the building of the citie in the 20. of Artaxerxes Longimanus and endeth with Eusebius at Hyrcanus death and thence to Christs baptisrne he counteth the other 7. weekes But this account cannot stand for as Pererius casteth the time from the 20. of Longimanus which was in the 4. yeare of the 83. Olympiad to Hyrcanus death which was as Iosephus reckoneth lib. 15. antiquit in the 187. Olympiad are not 62. weekes or 434. yeares but onely 59. weekes which make 414. yeares And from Hyrcanus death in the 187. Olympiad to the baptisme of Christ in the beginning of the 202. Olympiad are not onely 7. weekes that is 49. yeares but almost 9. weeks euen 60. yeares 5. Bullinger beginneth these 62. weekes in the 11. yeare of Darius Nothus and endeth them in the passion of Christ whereas the 62. weekes must beginne after the 7. weekes which as is shewed before beginne at Cyrus first and ende in the 6. of Darius Longimanus 6. Pererius beginning the 7. weekes at the 20. of Longimanus and ending them by his owne account about the 10. yeare of Artaxerxes Mnemon there beginneth the 62. weekes and endeth them at the baptisme of Christ but the 7. weekes were ended in the 6. yeare of Longimanus as is prooued before quest 58. then can they not beginne at the 20. yeare of Longimanus 7. But Osiander is further wide who beginning the 7. weekes at the 20. of Longimanus and putting vnto them 62. weekes more which make 483. yeares bringeth them to the verie time of Christs passion and there beginneth the 70. and last weeke he varieth 3. yeares and an halfe from all the rest who beginning as he doth yet determine the 69. weeks at Christs baptisme How further these 62. weekes are yet diuersely interpreted by some other both for their beginning and ende see before quest 57. 8. Then it remaineth that these 62. weekes must beginne where the 7. weekes ende in the 6. of Darius and they ende at the last seuentie weeke which beganne three yeares and an halfe before the baptisme of Christ and the other halfe is set apart for the holy preaching and Blessed passion of Christ. Bulling H. Br. who both agree for the ende of these 62. weekes but they differ in the beginning M. Bullinger reckoneth the 62. weekes from the 11. of Darius Nothus and the 7. weekes from the 20. of Longimanus 9. Melancthon beginneth the 7. and 62. weekes which make 69. in all in the 2. of Longimanus when the Temple beganne to be reedified and endeth them at Christs baptisme But as is shewed before quest 58. the 7. weekes must ende in the sixt of Darius Longimanus wherefore the meaning is this that after 62. weekes ioyned with the former 7. the Messiah shall be slaine not immediately after those 69. weekes but in the 70. and last weeke following after the 69. Bullinger Vatabl. Lyran. Quest. 63. Shall Messiah be slaine v. 26. who this Messiah was that should be slaine 1. R. Selomo taketh this Messiah to be king Agrippa that should be slaine by the Romanes a little before the destruction of Ierusalem But this is a fabulous conceit 1. for Agrippa was not slaine but as Cornelius Tacitus
7. Wherefore the plaine and proper meaning of these words is that after these weekes the Messiah out Blessed Sauiour should be put to death for our sinnes And this is an euident proofe of this sense because it is said v. 27. He shall confirme the conenant which euen in M. Liuelies iudgement is vnderstood of the Messiah p. 218. Then the Messiah to whom this word he hath reference vnto must be expressed and spoken of before Quest. 64. Of the meaning of these words and he shall haue nothing or rather not for himselfe 1. There are diuerse expositions of these words 1. Oecolampad referreth them to the people of Ierusalem nothing to him that is the people shall haue neither king nor Priest nothing shall be left vnto them but the Messiah beeing spoken of immediately before these words veenâ—o and not to him must haue reference to the Messiah 2. Iunius in his first edition thus interpreteth nihil ad illum nothing to him that is death shall haue no power vpon him neither for all this shall his iudgements be staied which he purposed to bring vpon the citie 3. In his last edition in his annotations and in his commentarie he thus expoundeth that all shall depart from him he shall not haue in Ierusalem any disciple for a little before the besieging of the citie they of the Church were admonished by reuelation to goe out of Ierusalem vnto a towne in Petrea called Pella Euseb. l. 3. hist. Eccl. c. 5. 4. Not much differing here-from is the interpretation of Lyranus Hugo Pintus with others following the Latine translation non erit ei populus qui eum negaturus est they shall not be his people which denied him for the Iewes said they had no king but Cesar Ioh 19. 15. and as for this man say they we know not whence he is Ioh. 9. 29. 5. M. Calvin thus interpreteth nihil ei erit he shall haue nothing so also Genevens that is he shall haue a contemptible death and be counted as nothing as the Prophet Isai saith c. 53. 3. He hath neither forme not beautie 6. Vatablus thus expoundeth there shall be none to helpe him or deliuer him 7. But the fittest and best sense is this the Messias shall be slaine but not for himselfe Bulling B. translation H. Br. vpon Daniel And this sense best agreeth to the prophesie of Christ Isa. 53. 4. We did iudge him as plagued and smitten of God but he was wounded for our transgressions c. And to the Apostles doctrine 2. Cor. 5. 25. He hath made him sinne for vs that knew no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him But seeing here mention is made of the death of Christ before we goe any further it shall not be amisse briefly to handle the questions of the time both of the birth baptisme and passion of our blessed Sauiour 65. Quest. Of the yeare of the natiuitie of our blessed Sauiour There are three accounts to finde out the birth of Christ 1. by the Romane Chronologie 2. by the Greeke Olympiads 3. by the Hebrewes computation 1. The Romane account of yeares is either by the yeares of the building of Rome by the Consuls or by the yeares of the Emperours for the yeares of the citie Pererius casteth the time of Christs birth into the 752. yeare which he prooueth out of Dions Chronologie who placeth the 15. yeare of Tiberius when Christ at 30. yeares was baptized in the 782. yeare But therein he is somewhat deceiued for setting the 1. yeare of Christ in the 752. of the citie in the 782. beginneth the 31. yeare of Christ as M. Bullinger casteth it and the 15. yeare of Tiberius was in the 781. yeare M. Lively in his table setteth downe the birth of Christ in the 751. yeare but the receiued opinion is that it was in the 752. yeare which was the 42. of Augustus raigne Concerning the computation by the yeares of the Consuls it is vncertaine Sulpitius thinketh that Sabinus and Ruffinus were then Consuls lib. 2. sacr histor Cassiodorus nameth C. Lentulus and M. Mâ—ssalinus but these are placed by others in the 749. yeare not the 752. of the citie Onuphrius in chronie and Epiphanius in hares 51. and Eusebius in chronic doe hold that Augustus was the 13. time Consul and Syllanus when Christ was borne which Carolus Sigonius in his commentaries agreeth vnto as the most probable yet M. Liuely setteth them in the yeare of the citie 750. the yeare before he supposeth Christ to haue beene borne This account then by Consuls we leaue as vncertaine The surer way then by the Romane computation is to count by the yeares of the raigne of the Emperours Augustus Cesar is held to haue liued 75. yeares and 10. moneths and 20. daies beeing borne as Dio doth cast his natiuitie in the yeare of the citie 691. and ending his life in the yeare 767. But others doe place his birth in the yeare of the citie 689. as Eutropius lib. 6. and Orosius lib. 6. when Cicero and Antonie were Consuls together which was in the yeare 689. Bulling M. Lively by this latter account Augustus should be two yeare elder and so liued in all 77. yeares and odde moneths But Plinie is wide who placeth the Consulship of Cicero and Antonie in the 700. yeare which should be aboue tenne yeares after lib. 9. c. 39. Now for the time of his gouernment he raigned alone after he had ouercome Antonie at Actium 44. yeares 12. he had the ioynt gouernment with Antonie so that from the beginning of his first Consulship and regiment he gouerned 56. yeares some say 58. yeares Tacit. dialog de clar oratorib some 57. as Iosephus counteth l. 18. c. 3. but the most Chronologers agree that he raigned in all 56. yeares 6. moneths so Epiphan in Anchorat and Beda lib. de 6. atâ—tib Fererius thinketh he raigned not full out 56. the difference is not great The yeare then of Christs birth compared with Augustus raigne beeing in the 752. yeare of the citie falleth out to be in the 42. yeare of Augustus sole gouernment the 62. of his age and the 30. yeare after the conquest of Antonie Beda thinketh it was the 27. yeare so also Ioseph Scalig. Clemens the 28. lib. 1. stromat Onuphrius the 29. but it was the 30. yeare iust from the victorie of Antonie which was the 42. yeare from the beginning of Augustus first Consulship as it may be thus gathered Christ in the 15. yeare of Tiberius Cesar was 30. yeare old Luk. 3. 1. 23. then put vnto that number 15. more of Augustus 56. and we shal come iust to the 42. yeare of Augustus Thus much of the Latine computation 2. By the computation of the Greeke Olympiads Christs birth fell out in the 3. yeare of the 194. Olympiad as Eusebius in chronic and Beda lib de 6. aetat and Iosep. Scalig. so also M. Lively but other cast it to be in the 4. yeare of the 194.
but the destruction by Adrianus was well nigh an 100. yeares after Christ spake those words 60. yeares after the first ruine of the citie by Titus it was therefore without the compasse of that generation Quest. 75. How long after the Messiah was slaine this destruction happened by Titus 1. Barbinel that ignorant and rayling Rabbine as M. Calvin reporteth his opinion saith there passed 200. yeares betweene the death of Christ and the destruction of Ierusalem by the Romanes But herein he sheweth his blind folly for vnto the second destruction by Adrian there were not from Christs death aboue an 104. yeares which happened in the 18. yeare of the raigne of the Emperour Adrian the first destruction was according to the saying of our Sauiour within the memorie of that generation then liuing 2. Lyranus and Paulus Burgens thinke that the citie was taken by the Romanes about 42. yeares after the death of Christ but it cannot be so much as shall afterward be shewed by the computation of the yeares of the Emperours Pintus also concurreth with Lyranus counting 38. yeares and an halfe from the ende of the halfe of the 70. weeke that is 3. yeares and an halfe which he reckoneth after Christs passion to the destruction of Ierusalem 3. But Iunius commeth more yeares too short then these doe ouershoote he maketh it but 36. yeares from the passion of Christ to the destruction of the citie annotat in 9. Dan. 4. Iosephus Scaliger holding that Christ suffered in the 35. yeare of his age whereas he commonly is held to haue suffered in the 33. yeare bringeth Christs passion nearer by two yeares to the destruction of the citie then the ordinarie account is and so he must make the time 38. yeares or thereabout from the death of Christ to the ruine of the citie 5. M. Lydyat bringeth Christs passion within 34. yeares of the finall ouerthrow and destruction of the citie by the Romanes for he setteth Christs passion in the yeare of the world 4040. or in the 22. yeare of Tiberius and the destruction of the citie in the 4074. yeare the reason of which alteration is for that he maketh the passion of Christ to haue beene 4. yeares later then vsuall namely in the 22. yeare of Tiberius whereas our blessed Sauiour is commonly held to haue suffered in the 18. yeare of Tiberius see this opinion examined before qu. 69. 6. But the iust time was 40. yeares as may be shewed by a threefold computation 1. by the distance of the Olympiads 2. by the yeares of the Emperours 3. by the yeares of the kings of Iudea the Herodians 1. Christ is held to haue suffered in the 4. yeare of the 202. Olympiad and the destruction of the citie fell into the 4. yeare of the 212. Olympiad which distance maketh iust 40. yeares Perer. Bulling 2. The yeares of the Emperours are thus counted Tiberius raigned in all 23. Christ then suffering in his 18. yeare there remained 5. yeares more then Caligula raigned 4. Claudius 14. Nero 14. Galba Otho Vitellius 1. Vespasian 2. these summes make 40. years Bulling But the precise and exact reckoning is this as Eusebius in his Chronicle setteth them downe All these yeares with the moneths and daies beeing summed together 18. years beeing diducted of Tiberius raigne will make 40. yeares and summe odde daies  yeares moneths daies Tiberius raigned 22 11 14 Caligula 3 10 18 Claudius 13 8 20 Nero 14   Galba  7 2 Otho  3 2 Vitellius  8 5 Vespasian 2   3. The third reckoning is by the yeares of the Herodians whose whole time from the beginning of the raigne of Herod the great to the ende of their gouernment at the destruction of Ierusalem was 103. yeares which is summed thus Herod the great raigned 37. yeares Archelaus 9. Herod the Tetrarch 24. Herod Agrippa 7. Agrippa the sonne of Agrippa 26. Oecolampad Now of this account 63. yeares must be cut off for the raigne of Herod in whose 30. complete and 31. begunne Christ was borne as is shewed before qu. 67. and for the yeares of our blessed Sauiours life who died in his 33. yeare and the remainder is 40. 7. Iulius Africanus exceedeth the rest in counting 43. yeares from the death of Christ which he placeth in the 15. yeare of Tiberius to the ruine of the citie but herein was his error he held that Christ died in his 30. or 31. yeare 76. Quest. Why mention is made of the destruction of Ierusalem here seeing it is without the compasse of the 70. weekes 1. One reason hereof is because Daniel was desirous to vnderstand what should befall his citie in time to come the Angel doth satisfie his full desire and as he had told him of the reedifying of the Temple and citie so he also foretelleth of the finall ende and dissolution of both 2. An other cause is that after the Angel had shewed him that the Messiah should be slaine then further that it might appeare what an hainous sinne this was the destruction of the citie is sore shewed to follow as a iust punishment for so great a wickednes Perer. so also Lyranus quia hoc factum fuit in poenam mortis Christi because this was done for a punishment because of the death of Christ it is immediatly mentioned though it fell not out within the 70. weekes Here then are two reasons shewed of the destruction of the citie the slaying of the Messiah and the vtter reiecting of him Polan 3. A third reason why mention is here made of this desolation is to make the Iewes inexcusable that seeing they haue found all this to be true by their wofull experience here foreshewed by the Angel that their citie is destroied vnto this day because of their treacherie against the Messiah their obstinate blindnes therein might appeare that yet continue enemies vnto the blessed Messiah and his holy Gospel Perer. 77. Quest. Of the meaning of those words v. 26. the ende thereof shall be with a flood and vnto the ende of the battell it shall be destroied c. 1. By this similitude of inundation three things are signified that it shall be casus repentinus ineluctabilis vniuersalis a sudden casualtie ineuitable and generall Iun. in comment like as a flood sweepeth all away before it and spareth nothing so none should be spared in this destruction 2. Thereby also is signified the perfect desolâ—tion that should be brought vpon the citie like as the ouerflowing of waters pulleth vp trees by the rootes and ouerthroweth the very foundations of houses so in this desolation the citie should be made euen with the ground and one stone should not be left vpon an other as our Sauiour foretold them Luk. 19. 44. Bullinger 3. Further like as in inundations and ouerflowings the waters still encrease and swell more and more so hereby is signified that calamitates magis magis increscebant their calamities should more and more encrease for