yeare in both places is signified it is euident because the fourth yeare of Iehoiakim is said there to be the first yeare of Nebuchadnezzars raigne Ier. 25. 1. And the last yeare of Iehoiakim which was the 11. is elswhere found to be the 7. of Nebuchadnezzar Ierem. 52. 28. and in the 8. yeare of the king of Babels raigne 2. King 24. 12. that is in the end of the one beginning of an other so that if the seuenth or eight yeare of Nebuchadnezzar fall into the 11. yeare of Iehoiakim then the first yeare must concurre with the others third and fourth 2. Calvin thinketh to dissolue this knot by the distinction of Nebuchadnezzer the father and Nebuchadnezzer the sonne that in one place the one is spoken of and the other in the other but the question is not concerning the yeare of Nebuchadnexzars raigne but the yeare of Iehoiakims raigne wherein Ierusalem should be besieged so that the doubt remaineth still 3. Therefore the best solution is that the first yeare of Nebuchadnezzar did concurre with the ende of the third and the beginning of the fourth yeare of Iehoiakim Vatab. Iun. Genevens factum est inter annum tertium â—t quartum it came to passe betweene the third and fourth yeare c. Pintus who thinketh that after the same manner the Euangelists may be reconciled Marke who saith that Christ was crucified about the third houre and Iohn who writeth that he was crucified at the fixt houre because Christ was crucified Intervallo illo in that space which was betweene the third and sixt houre but though this solution be not so fit for that place which otherwise may be reconciled yet it may serue verie conueniently here But Caluin taketh hereunto this exception that Nebuchadnezzars first yeare cannot concurre with Iehoiakims third and fourth because Daniel three yeares after was brought before Nebuchadnezzar in the second yeare of his raigne Dan. 2. 1. Answ. That is not to be referred to the yeare of the kings raigne but rather to the time of Daniels ministrie and employment with the king that in the second yeare of his seruice he expounded the kings dreame Polanus obiecteth thus that this confusion of yeares that the ende of one should be the beginning of another is obserued in the raigne of diuers kings the one succeeding another but here the historie of one king onely is set downe But this comparing of yeares is more vsuall in setting together the raignes of diuers kings at the same time then of diuers kings one suceeding another as is most euident in the comparing of the yeares of the raigne of the kings of Iudah and Israel together throughout the bookes of the kings here then the yeares of one and the same king are not compared together but the years of Nebuchadnezzar and Iehoiakims raigne Quest. 2. How this third yeare of Iehoiakims raigne is to be counted 1. Iosephus thinketh that it was the 8. yeare of his raigne so also the author of the Ecclesiasticall hystorie following Iosephus when Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged Ierusalem and of the same opinion are Lyranus Hugo Cardinal Dyonis Carthusian Bullinger Polanus Pappus that the third yeare must be counted not from the beginning of Iehoiakims raigne but from the time that he was made tributarie to Nebuchadnezzar which was in the 8. yeare of Iehoiakims raigne and from that time he serued Nebuchadnezzar 3. yeares so that the third yeare from the imposition of tribute concurreth with the 11. yeare of Iehoiakims raigne Polanus who thus reasoneth for his opinion 1. The third yeare of Iehoiakim here spoken of was the seuenth yeare of Nebuchadnezzar Ierem. 52. 28. when 3023. Iewes were carried into captiuitie but the third yeare of Iehoiakims raigne was but the first of Nebuchadnezzars 2. If this were the third yeare of Iehoiakims raigne and consequently the first of Nebuchadnezzars then it would follow that Zedekiah was taken in the 21. yeare of Nebuchadnezzar which was in the 18. yeare Ierem. 52. 29. Contra. 1. He is deceiued in thinking that the captiuitie there spoken of Ier. 52. 28. in the seauenth of Nebuchadnezzar was that first captiuitie when Daniel was carried away for there were two assaults and inuasions of the land in the raigne of Iehoiakim one in the third and fourth yeare of Iehoiakim and the first of Nebuchadnezzar an other in the 11. yeare which was the 7. of Nebuchadnezzar whereof Ieremie speaketh 2. The collection and inference of 21. yeares hath no consequence for from Iehoiakims 3. yeare who raigned in all but 11. yeares to the last of Zedekiah who also raigned 11. yeares which make in all but 22. yeares three beeing deducted there are but 19. yeares 2. Wherefore the truer opinion is that this yeare here mentioned must be vnderstood to be the 3. yeare of Iehoiakims raigne and not from the time of the tribute imposed 1. Pererius saith it is violenta dura interpretatio a forced and hard interpretation the third yeare beeing simply named to vnderstand it otherwise then of the third yeare of his raigne 2. Iunius yeeldeth this reason because Ierem. 25. 1. the fourth yeare of Iehoiakims raigne inchoate or begunne concurreth with the first of Nebuchadnezzar then it must of necessitie follow that Nebuchadnezzars seauenth must fall into Iehoiakims eleuenth yeare adde hereunto an eleuen yeares of Zedekiahs raigne and so it will fall out that Zedekiah was taken in the 18. yeare of Nebuchadnezzer as is set downe by the Prophet Ieremie chap. 52. 29. Melancthon herein consenteth that Nebuchadnezzar came against Ierusalem in the third yeare of Iehoiakims raigne and imposed tribute vpon him and carried away some pray and after he had serued him 3. yeares and he then would haue cast off the king of Babels yoke then the seauenth yeare after which was in the 11. yeare of Iehoiakims raigne Nebuchadnezzar came vp and carried away Iehoiakim and his sonne Iechonias raigned in his stead Quest. 3. Of Iehoiakim and Iehoiachin what difference betweene them 1. Iosias had 4. sonnes the first was Iochanan called also Iehoachaz the second Iehoiakim or Eliakim who is here mentioned the third Matthanias called also Zedekiah the fourth Shallum 1. Chron. 3. 15. this Iehoiakim is also called Shallum Ierem. 22. 11. so Epiphanius testifieth tom 1. sect 8. that he was called Sellus 2. Iehoiakim written with koph and mem was the name of the father Iehoiachin written with caph and nun was the name of the sonne Pintus and before him Hierom in 1. Matth. 3. Rupertus then is deceiued who confoundeth these two and maketh but one Ioachim in whose third yeare Nebuchadnezzar came vp and besieged Ierusalem and carried Ioachim captiue whereas it was Iehoiakim the father in whose third yeare Nebuchadnezzar came vp and Iehoiachin or Iechoniah his sonne who was carried captiue to Babylon 4. But whereas Matth. 1. 11. there is mention made onely of Iechoniah Iosias begate Iechoniah and his brethren c. and againe vers
12. Iechonias begate Salathiel Pererius obserueth out of Epiphanius and Beza also is of the same opinion that in the first place Iechonias is taken for Iehoiakim the father in the latter for the sonne for otherwise there are not 42. but onely 41. generations there rehearsed Quest. 4. Why the King of Babel had such an enuie against Iehoiakim 1. First Nebuchadnezzar came against him because he was made king by Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt with whom Nebuchadnezzar had warre and subdued his countrie and thereupon Iehoiakim became tributarie to the king of Babel 2. But Nebuchadnezzars hatred was more increased afterward when as after three yeares Iehoiakim rebelled against him and would haue cast off his yoke then the king of Babel came vp the second time and carried Iehoiakim away captiue who after he was dead was cast out and lay vnburied according to Ieremie his prophesie c. 22. 19. 3. But the greatest cause of all was the purpose of God to punish the wickednesse of the king and his people for he killed the Prophet Viiah Ierem. 26. cut Ieremie his prophesie with a knife and cast it into the fire Ierem. 36. beside there were found in his bodie when he was dead markes of idolatrie as Lyranus following the Hebrewe noteth vpon that place 2. Chron. 36. 8. Concerning the rest of the acts of Iehoiakim and his abhominations which he did and that which was found vpon him c. God therefore for his crueltie impietie idolatrie brought this iudgement vpon him Pere Quest. 5. Of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babel and how many there were of that name 1. Pintus thinketh that Nebuchadnezzar was a generall name to the kings of Babylon as the kings of Egypt were called by the name of Pharaoh and the kings of the Philistins of Abimelek And he further is of opinion that this Nebuchadnezzar had a sonne of the same name and that neither of them are the same with that Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in the storie of Iudith who sent Holofernes against the Iewes for that was after the returne of the Iewes out of captiuitie as appeareth Iudith 5. beside he thinketh that neither Nebuchadnezzar the father nor the sonne was that Nebuchadnezzar which destroyed Tyrus according to the prophesie of Ezechiel 26. 7. which he taketh to be Cyrus or Alexander But Pintus is in many things here deceiued 1. It is not to be shewed out of the sacred historie of Scripture that all the kings of Babylon were called by the name of Nebuchadnezzar but the contrarie rather appeareth for this kings sonnes name was Evilmerodach 2. King 25. 27. and his sonne Balthazar Dan. 5. 2. And this Nebuchadnezzar was the sonne not the father and the second was called great Nebuchadnezzar for his great exploits and many victories for next vnto this succeeded Evilmerodach So throughout the whole prophesie of Daniel we must vnderstand the second Nebuchadnezzar Iun. 3. We easily agree that neither of these could be that Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in the booke of Iudith for who that was it is vncertaine and there is small certaintie of any thing in the booke beside for Pintus will haue that storie referred to the times after the captiuitie Pererius thinketh it was done before the captiuitie in the time of Manasses but neither of these can stand not the first for we reade of no Nebuchadnezzar after the captiuitie when the kingdome was translated from the Chaldeans to the Persians nor the second for that storie of Iudith maketh mention of the casting downe of the Temple cap. 5. 18. which had not yet beene done in the dayes of Manasseh 4. This Nebuchadnezzar was the same which besieged Tyrus which he besieged 13. yeares as witnesseth Iosephus lib. 10. c. 11. he could not be Cyrus or Alexander for he is called the king of Babel Ezek. 26. 7. 2. Pererius acknowledgeth that there were two Nebuchadnezzars the one here spoken of and in the Prophets the other whereof mention is made in the booke of Iudith whom he taketh to haue beene before this and he misliketh their opinion who take this Nebuchadnezzar some for Cyrus some for Cambises some for Artaxerxes or Darius Ochus the last king but one of the Persians for neither was the Temple yet built againe vnder the raigne of Cyrus and Cambises as is mentioned Iudith 5. and Artaxerxes was 200. yeares after the returne of the Iewes from captiuitie whereas the storie of Iudith seemeth to haue fallen out immediately after Iudith 5. 19. Pere Contra. 1. It appeareth what small certaintie there is of the Apocryphall booke of Iudith seeing it cannot be agreed vpon who that king Nebuchadnezzar was 2. He could not be the Elder Nebuchadnezzar for in his time the temple was not destroyed but in his sonnes but before the time of Iudith it had beene destroyed Iudith 5. 18. 3. Wherefore their opinion is to be preferred that make two Nebuchadnezzars the father and the sonne who was called Nebuchadnezzar the great Iun. Caluin Bullinger Polanus so also Iosephus who giueth vnto the raigne of the Elder 23. yeares and to the other 43. This Nebuchadnezzar seemeth to be the same whom Ptolome calleth Nabopolassar in the 19. yeare of whose raigne he saith the captiuitie of Babylon beganne Polan Quest. 6. Of the acts and exploits of Nebuchadnezzar 1. Iosephus out of Berosus who wrote of the Chalde affaires reporteth of Nebuchadnezzar the second that beeing sent by his father the Elder Nebuchadnezzar against the king of Egypt who reuolted from him and in the meane time hearing of his fathers death returned to Babylon and tooke the gouernement vpon him where he did many princely and sumptuous workes he beautified the temple of Belus repaired the edifices of the city enlarged the riuer compassed the citie with a treble wall built a goodly palace in the space of 25. dayes which seemeth incredible and built high rocks and mountaines vpon vaults of stone and vpon them planted orchards as hanging aloft because his wife being brought vp in Medea desired to see some resemblance of her countrie for the like acts he referreth vs to the histories of Megasthenes the Indian historiographer and Diocles who wrote of the Persian histories and Philostratus of the Pheniceans who witnesseth that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyrus 13. yeares which beganne in the 7. yeare of his raigne as Pererius noteth 2. His acts set downe in the Scriptures were these in the third yeare of Iehoiakim he besiedged Ierusalem and carried the spoyle of the citie into Babylon in the 11. yeare he came againe and tooke the citie and carried many into captiuitie and slue Iehoiakim who wanted the honour of buriall then he set in his place his sonne Iehoaichin whom after 3. moneths he remooued and appointed Zedekiah in his place in whose 11. yeare which was the 18. of Nebuchadnezzar he tooke Zedekiah and put out his eies and the 19. yeare he burnt the citie and Temple and carried away the people captiue these things are thus testified 2.
in the citie 4. If these vestures had beene any speciall ornaments of the idolatrous priests and Soothsayers as some thinke it is like that Daniel so holy a man would haue vtterly reiected them Polan see before quest 29. Quest. 40. Why Daniel exhorted not Balthazar to repentance as he had done Nebuchadnâ—zzar before 1. One reason hereof may be yeelded to be this the same which Theodâ—râ—t â—lleadgeth why it pleased the Lord to chastice Nebuchadnezzar for a time to humble him and afterward raise him vp againe but Balthazar is cut off altogether because Balthazar was more indurate and hardened in his sinne seeing he had Nebuchadnezzâ—â— example before him and yet would not be warned And so the Prophet obiâ—cting here vnto Balthazar his fathers example which he made no vse of saw that there was small hope of his repentance 2. And further Daniel did see by the spirit of prophesie hanc sententiam non fuisse comâ—natoriam sed plane absolutam that this sentence pronounced against Balthazar was not by way of commination which vseth to be conditionall vpon mens repentance as was the threatning of Ionas against Ninive but it was peremptorie and absolute and as Bal. hazat was confirmed and setled in his sinne so this sentence was irreuocable Perer. 41. Quest. v. 30. Whether Balthazar were slaine at this time 1. It is the opinion of some that Balthazar was not slaine at all when the citie was taken but that Balthazar called in forren histories Nabonidus when the citie was besieged by Cyrus did yeeld himselfe and so he not onely obtained his life but had a place of habitation assigned him in Carmania where he died thus seeme to write Alexander Polyhistor Megasthenes Alpheus as they are cited by Ioseph l. 1. cont Appion But it is vntrue that Balthazar 's life was spared for the Scripture here euidently saith that he was slaine this fauour indeede Cyrus shewed to his grandfather Astyages whome he deposed from his gouernment beeing a tyrant as Herodotus and Iustinus write it is not like that he would vse such clemencie toward his mortall enemie at the least if there had beene any such thing which would haue tended much to the praise and honour of Cyrus Xenophon who is very large and lauish in setting forth the praise of Cyrus in all likelihood would not haue omitted it 2. Wherefore the truth is according to the Scripture here that Balthazar was at this time slaine and thereunto agreeth Xenophon that the king of Babylon himselfe was put to the sword when the citie was taken lib. 7. de Cyri institut 42. Quest. Whether Balthazar were slaine the same night and the citie taken 1. Some seeme to be of opinion that this murther was committed vpon Balthazar a long time before the taking of the citie by the Medes and Persians about 17. yeare before whom they say was slaine by the Babylonians and one of the conspirators called Darius the Median was chosen king in his place and that this was done many yeares before Cyrus inuaded Babylon This conceit they would ground vpon the report of Berosus and Megasthenes But they doe greatly mistake one thing for an other for he which was so deposed by the Babylonians was Labosordach the sonne of Niglasar or Neege-lasar who had before expelled Euilmerodach called Labinitus by Herodotus together with his sonne Balthazar called also Labinitus the second which name signifieth a Prince expulsed and because he fled vnto the Medes he was called Medus a Median this was not Darius then of the Medes which was set vp by the Babylonians but Balthazar called Labinitus of the Medes because he liued an exile there Iun. in commentar see before qu. 21. 9. 2. Iosephus saith non multum abijt temporis much time passed not after Daniel had expounded this vision when both the King and the citie was taken by Cyrus If Iosephus vnderstand not many houres after he agreeth with the Scripture but if he meane many daies or moneths he is deceiued 3. Zonâ—ras affirmeth this to haue beene the opinion of diuers that Balthazar was slaine the same night but he seemeth not to be of that opinion which seemeth strange that he beeing a Christian writer should speake so doubtfully of a thing so euident in the sacred storie 4. All these things are euident out of Scripture 1. that Babylon after 70. yeares of the Iewes captiuitie should be surprised and taken Ierem. 25. 12. 2. that the king himselfe should be slaine at the taking of the citie as Isa. 14. 4. The oppressor shall cease v. 22. I will cut off in Babel the name and the remnant the sonne and the â—ephew for Balthazar was nephew to Nabuchadnezer 3. It should be done on a sudden Isa. 47. 11. Destruction shall come vpon thee suddenly or thou beware 4. and in the night Isa. 21. 4. The night of my pleasures hath he turned into feare 5. and in the time of their feast therefore he is called the king of Sheshach of the feast of their goddesse Shacah Ier. 25. 26. Quest. 43. Whether Balthazar was taken in Babylon 1. The Authors before rehearsed which thinke that Balthazar was not slaine but yeelded himselfe to Cyrus and so was sauâ—d aliue doe adde further that when the King heard that Cyrus was comming with a great armie to besiege Babylon he fled to a citie called Borsippa and thither Cyrus pursued him and besieged him there who seeing that he could not hold out yeelded himselfe vnto Cyrus clemencie 2. But Xenophons opinion lib. 7. is more probable that the king was taken at Babylon which is also most consonant to Scripture for though it be not directly expressed that he was slaine in Babylon yet it followeth by necessary collection that that was the place where Balthazar was both depriued of his life and kingdome 1. There was the kings palace c. 4. 27. where the Chaldean kings vsually did reside 2. there was the temple of Bel where the vessels of Gods house were laid vp c. 1. 2. from whence they were brought vnto this riotous feast but they could not haue beene fetch from Babylon to an other place seeing the citie was now besieged by Cyrus 3. and for the same reason so many nobles could not haue beene gathered together 4. nor yet the wise men of Babel assembled 5. neither is it like that Balthazar beeing in such feare would in that obscure place haue made such a feast whereas in Babylon he trusted to the defence of the citie 44. Quest. By what meanes Babylon was taken 1. Some thinke that Cyrus and Darius did homage vnto king Balthazar and he thereupon made this feast whereat they were present who when they heard the prophesie of Daniel and seeing the king and his nobles drunke with wine tooke their opportunitie and so set vpon them and killed them ex Hugon But it is not like that the king would haue beene so secure if his enemies had beene in his hand but that he would haue made
leaueth vs forren witnesses are to be receiued Now seeing it is collected that the raigne of the Grecians from Alexander vnto Cleopatra Q. of Egypt continued about 300. yeares and from thence to the death of Christ the Romanes ruled 60. yeares H. Br. â—roleg in Daniel there can remaine but an 130. yeares for the Monarchie of the Persians to make vp the summe of Daniels 70. weekes that is 490. yeares So then thus farre we are directed by the holy storie as is shewed before by the age and life of Nehemias who sawe the beginning and ende of the Persian Monarchie that it could not continue 200. yeares or aboue the rest must be supplied out of the Greeke and Latine historians Here then two erroneous opinions are to be touched the one of Varro who vntill the beginning of the Olympiads holdeth no certainty of time to be gathered for he distinguisheth the age of the world into these 3. times before the flood which he saith is altogether vnknowne after the â—â—ood vnto the Olympike yeares which time he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fabulous and full of tales the third from the beginning of the Olympiads which time he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 historicall as certaine and true whereas the contrarie is euident that the historie of time from the beginning of the world vntill somewhat after the Olympiads is most certaine out of the propheticall writings but there is no certaintie of the times following because the propheticall writings were ceased The other opinion is of Paulus Burgans who thus aduiseth de quibus non habetur historia sacrae Scripturae recurratur ad historiaâ— authenticaâ— specialitâ—r Hebraeorum whereof there is no historie of the sacred Scripture we must haue recourse to the authenticall histories specially of the Hebrewes But Burgens beeing a conuerned Iew himselfe doth ascribe too much to the historicall accounts of his nation whereas after their Prophets ceased there â—re no more vncerten false and fabulous Chronicles then those of the Hebrewes are As appeareth by that one instance of the number of the Persian kings whome they generally hâ—ld to haue beene but foure This then remaineth as the best resolution concerning this matter what Chronologie is to be followed in the computation of Daniels weekes that it is safest to take direction of the Scriptures so farre as they proceede in the historie of the Persians and then to vse the helpe of the Olympiads and other forren histories for the rest of the yeares And yet further to shew what small certentie is to be found in the historicall accounts of the Gentiles concerning the Persiah Monarchie it shall not be amisse before we come to examine the true reckoning of Daniels weekes briefly to shew the great diuersitie of writers both of the number and yeares of the Persian kings 37. Quest. Of the names and number of the Persian kings 1. Hierome whome the Latine historians and interpreters follow numbreth 14. kings of the Persians as they are set downe in order before qu. 17. vpon the 7. chap. so also Pererius followeth the same account and Oecolampad in which number are comprehended Smerdes that succeeded Cambyses and Artabanus who killed Xerxes both beeing vsurpers and Xerxes the second who raigned 2. moneths and Sogdianus 7. moneths betweene Artaxerxes Longimanus and Darius Nothus These partly because they were vsurpers partly for their short raigne are not to be counted among the Persian kings for the historie of time 2. As the Latines exceede in number so the Hebrewes come as farre short Some of them doe make onely three kings of Persia Cyrus Assuerus Darius and whereas mention is made beside Ezâ— 4. 7. of Artaxerxes and then of an other Artashasht or Artaxerxes Ezâ— 7. 1. they say that the first Artaxerxes was the same with Assuerus and the second with Darius So R. Saadâ—a and R. Davison Some of them number foure kings Cyrus Assuerus Artaxerxes Darius Ab. Ezra Some count fiue as R. Moses But all these are euidently conuinced of vntruth by the historie of Ezra and Nehemia as may thus appeare First it is cleare that Xerxes was the fourth king of Persia mentioned Dan. 11. 2. who should be richer then the rest Then after this Xerxes the fourth king succeeded Artaxerxes surnamed Longimanus because he had one hand longer then an other then followed Darius surnamed Nothus because he was the base sonne of Longimanus after him raigned an other Artaxerxes who was surnamed Mnemon of his singular memorie there is mention made yet further of an other Darius who was the last king of the Persians Nehem. 12. 22. Thus it is euident that there were more kings of Persia then the Hebrewes imagine as may be gathered out of the Scripture 3. Some name but 8. kings of Persia in all As 1. Cyrus 2. Artaxerxes Assuerus 3. Darius with the long hand 4. Darius Nothus 5. Artaxerxes Mnemon 6. Artaxerxes Ochus 7. Arses 8. Darius so Annius Viteâ—biens But in this account are omitted two famous kings of the Persians Darius Hystaspis and Xerxes his sonne 4. Some make but nine which they thus number Cyrus Cambyses Darius Hystaspis Xerxes Artaxerxes Longimaâ—â—us Darius Nothus Artaxerxes Mnemon Ochus Darius Codomannus Ioseph Scalliger But here is omitted Arses the last king but one who succeeded Ochus 5. Some doe set downe tenne kings of the Persians namely all these before rehearsed so Bulling but the leaueth out Sâ—erdes the vsurper who succeeded Cambyses and raigned not one yeare but onely certaine moneths 6. Beroaldus whom H. Br. followeth reckoneth 11. kings of Persia agreeing in the number but he misseth in the order for thus he placeth them Cyrus Assuerus Artaxerxes Darius Assyrius Artaxerxes pins then Xerxes the fift then the other sixe in order But in this account he maketh Xerxes the rich king of Persia the fift king who in Daniel is the fourth c. 11. 2. and he supposeth him to haue beene the sonne of Artaxerxes pins who was indeede the sonne of Darius 7. Iuniâ—s setteth downe the Persian kings in this order 1. Cyrus 2. Cambyses his son 3. Smerdes who vsurped the kingdome a yeare 4. Darius Hystaspis 5. Xerxes 6. Artaxerxes Longhand 7. Darius the bastard 8. Artaxerxes Mnemon 9. Darius Ochus 10. Arses 11. Dariiâ—s Codomannus whome Alexander ouercame Iun. But if Smerdes be counted for one then Xerxes should be the fift not the fourth king as Dan. 11. 2. Thus much for the vncertentie of the names and number of the Persian Kings 38. Quest. Of the vncertentie of the yeares of the Persian Monarchie and of the Persian kings 1. Concerning the continuance of the Persian Monarchie the Hebrewes generally giue vnto it not aboue 50. yeares Tertullian an 107. yeares Isidor lib. 5. etymolog an 180. Annius Lucidus Driedo an 190. Dyonisius Halycar lib. de Rom. Antiquit. 200. yeares and somewhat aboue Clemens Alex. lib. 1. stromat 215. Severus Sulpit. lib. 2. sacr histor 250. Lyranus 230. so also M. Lively Pererius 232.
make but 70. persons to descend into Egypt with Iaakob to answer vnto the 70. languages which they thinke to haue beene spread ouer the earth Gen. 10. Hierome thinketh that the speciall principles of our faith they either omitted in their translation or interpreted after an other manner to the intent to conceale the secrets of their faith 2. Ireneus Iustinus Chrysostome Hilarie Augustine doe ascribe verie much vnto this translation and thinke that the interpreters were put into so many seuerall celles and yet agreed together except only in some certaine places But Hierome praefat in pentateâ—â— thinketh that to be a fable of their 70. celles at Alexandria 3. But there is great vncertaintie beside 1. Hierome writeth that it is the generall opinion of the Iewes that the Septuag onely translated the 5. bookes of Moses in 5. cap. Ezech. 2. And there were diuerse copies of the Septuagint Alexandria and all Egypt followed Hesychius copie Constantinople and all vnto Antioch vsed Lucianus edition And the middle Prouinces betweene them preferred the translation amended by Origen and set forth by Pamphilus Hierome praefat in Paralip 4. And beside the translation of the Septuag whereof there were so many editions there were other translations of the Scriptures into the Greeke tongue as by Aquila Symmachus Theodotian wherefore in so great varietie and vncertaintie of translations the most sure way is to haue recourse vnto the originall as Hierome and Augustine doe well aduise ex Bulling Quest. 23. Who was the bud of her rootes v. 7. and of his exploits 1. Theodoret giueth this interpretation here these warres here prophecied of he vnderstandeth of the warres betweene Ptolomeus Philopator and Antiochus the great by one of his captaines before spoken of v. 6. he would haue vnderstood Scopas generall of Philopators armie who wunne diuerse places out of Antiochus iurisdiction and ioyned them to his kingdome After this Ptolome gaue his daughter in mariage vnto Antiochus but she was returned home againe yet there came a bud of her she had a sonne that became an enemie vnto her father Contra. This exposition cannot stand 1. the warres betweene Antiochus the great and Philopator are afterward spoken of in this chapter 2. It is vnlike that one of his captaines should be said to be greater then the king himselfe seeing all his endeauour was to aduance the honour and dominion of the king 3. neither did the king of Egypt giue his daughter to Antiochus the great but he gaue his daughter Cleopatra in mariage to Ptolome Epiphanes 4. beside this bud here spoken of inuadeth the kingdome of the North whereas Theodoret vnderstandeth this bud to rise vp an enemie to the king of the South 2. This then is the true interpretation 1. This bud of her that is Berenices rootes was Ptolome surnamed Euergetes her naturall and Germane brother who rose vp to reuenge his sisters death 2. He came with an armie and invaded Syria and wunne the strong holds many cities abhorring the cruell fact and parricide of Callinicus reuolted and submitted themselues to Ptolome who tooke possession of the countrey and caused himselfe to be crowned king 3. but hearing of some commotion in Egypt he returned and carried away with him many nobles captiues and a verie great spoile beside 40. thousand talents of gold and many pretious vessels and 2500. images of their gods and among them those which Cambyses before had carried out of Egypt whereupon the superstitious Egyptians called him Euergetes benefactor Hierome 3. After Ptolome was returned Seleucus prepared a great nauie which was ouerwhelmed in the Sea and he himselfe hardly escaped with a fewe of his companie hauing nothing left of all that great preparation in so much that his case was pitied of those which before had reuolted from him Then he craued aid of Antiochus Hierax his brother which Ptolome perceiuing made peace with Seleucus for 10. yeares Oecol Melanct. ex Iustin. 4. Hierax seeing this then turneth his force against his brother Seleucus which warre tended to the ruine and destruction of them both for Hierax was slaine of certaine robbers and theeues and Seleucus died of a fall from his horse 5. All this beeing thus reported by forren writers Iustin. lib. 27. Polybius lib. 5. agreeth with this prophesie of Daniel both of the preparation and expedition of Ptolome Euergetes against Callinicus v. 7. his successe in carrying away much spoile and captiues v. 8. and his returne into his countrey v. 9. 6. But where it is said v. 8. he shall continue more yeares then the king of the North some referre it to the time of their raigne Calvin saith whom the Genevens followe that Euergetes raigned 46. yeares Oecolamp 26. whereas Callinicus raigned but 20. yeares but it is better vnderstood that Euergetes continued diuerse yeares in this victorious estate hauing the chiefe dominion in Syria Iun. Polan for this best agreeth with the former words wherein his victorie and prosperous successe is described And Polybius writeth that Euergegetes and Callinicus died much about the same time lib. 5. 7. Iâ— his returne which is mentioned v. 9. Iosephus writeth that Euergetes comming to Ierusalem did offer sacrifices vnto God for his great victorie and bestowed great gifts vpon the Temple lib. post aduers. Appion yet afterward he demaunded the ordinarie tribute 20. talents of siluer which was detained by the couetousnesse of Onias the high Priest Euergetes sent vnto him threatening that if the tribute were not paid he would diuide their countrey among his souldiers Then Iosephus Onias sisters sonne went in the name of the Iewes in embassage vnto Ptolome and pacified him and grewe in great fauour with him Ioseph lib. 12. antiquit c. 3. Quest. 24. Of the third battell betweene the king of the South and the king of the North v. 10. 11. 12. This battell is described in three parts 1. the preparation made by the king of the North and their diuerse attempts v. 10. 2. the resistance made by the king of the South with his good successe v. 11. 3. the euents that followed vpon this victorie v. 12. 1. The attempts made are either ioyntly by the two sonnes of Seleucus Callinicus namely Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus surnamed Megas the great in these words his sonnes shall be stirred vp and shall assemble a mightie great armie or seuerally by Antiochus Megas onely in the latter part of the verse First Ceraunus and Megas ioyning together partly to reuenge their father Callinicus and their grandmother Laodices death partly in hope to recouer Syria out of Ptolome Philopators hand who succeeded Euergetes whom some thinke he killed and therefore was called Philopator that is a louer of his father by the contrarie they first set vpon Ptolomies captaines which held Syria for Philopator But Cerannus passing ouer the mount Taurus to goe against Attalus who possessed the countrey beyond Taurus was slaine by the treason of Apaturius and Nicanor in the 2. or 3. yeare of
Methodius Eusebius and the falshood thereof is conuinced by this that the Septuagint who liued almost an 100. yeares before that Antiochus did translate this booke into Greeke and Iosephus in his 11. booke Antiquitat Iuda reporteth how Iaddus the high Priest shewed vnto Alexander the great this prophesie of Daniel which foretold of a king that should destroy the Persian Monarchie in confidence whereof Alexander proceeded to that battell and this was 60. yeares before Antiochus 2. The Hebrewes thinke with whom Isidore consenteth that this booke of Daniel of Ezekiel and of the 12. Prophets were written by the wise men of the great Synagogue who were in the time of Ezra 3. But that this booke was written by the Prophet Daniel who was so famous among the Kings of Chaldea and of Persia beside the title of the booke which is called in the Hebrewe sepher Daniel the booke of Daniel our blessed Sauiour doth witnesse the same in the Gospell When yee shall see the abhomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet c. Matth. 24. 15. Perer. Osiand Quest. 2. Of the signification of the name Daniel 1. The name Daniel signifieth the iudgements of God or God is my iudge which name was giuen him by the singular prouidence of God for both per eum annntiata sunt iudicia Dei by him the iudgements of God were denounced and declared and God was present with him as his defender and iudge against his aduersaries Bullin 2. Lyranus then is deceiued who thinketh that in this name there is relation to that iudgement which Daniel awarded against the two adulterous Elders which wrongfully accused Susanna for that storie was not of Dauiels writing neither is found in the originall as afterward shall more fully be declared 3. There was another Daniel Dauids second sonne by Abigail who also is called Chileah but he was long before those times 2. Sam. 3. 3. 1. Chron. 3. 1. Quest. 3. Of the kindred of Daniel 1. Hierome in his preface to Daniel writeth that the Septuagint in the beginning of the historie of Susanna which they make the 14. chapter of this booke doe affirme that Daniel was of the tribe of Leui whereupon Bellarmine thinketh that there were two Daniels one of the tribe of Iudah who writ the prophesie the other of the tribe of Leui. But herein Perfrius of his owne sect and societie contradicteth him shewing that neither the Synagogue of the Iewes then nor the Church of Christ now euer acknowledged any more then one Daniel to be a writer of Scripture 2. Dionysius Carthusianus thus remooueth the doubt that Daniel was by his fathers side of Leui by his mothers of Iudah so also Isidore thinketh that Daniel was both of the kindred of the Priests and the kings because it was vsuall for those tribes to match together in Mariage Pererius also reiecteth this as an humane coniecture without any ground of the Scripture Praefat. in Daniel 3. His opinion then is that Daniel was of the kings stocke and that in him and the rest was fulfilled the prophesie of Isaiah to Hezekiah that his sonnes that is his posteritie should be carried captiue into Babylon Of the same opinion that he was ex genere regio of the kings stocke are Bullinger Osiander with others Iosephus also saith that he was of the kinsmen of Zedekiah king of Iudah But this is no necessarie argument for that prophesie might be accomplished in either of the kings stocke as well as in Daniel And Iosephus may be deceiued in this as in the like conceit that Daniel was a gelded man and made an Eunuch so thinketh also Origen their coniecture is because Asâ—penaez to whose care and charge Daniel was committed is said to be the chiefe Sarisim of the Eunuchs but this is no sure argument for Pharaoh Genes 37. is called by that name who had both wife and children Caluin 4. Wherefore concerning Daniels kindred somewhat is certaine that he was of the tribe of Iudah which is euidently expressed c. 1. v. 6. Polan some things are vncertaine as 1. Whether he were of the kings seede for they were of the kings seede and of the Princes v. 3. therefore not all of the kings seede Iun. 2. It is vncertaine likewise that Daniels fathers name should be Zabaa as Epiphanius 3. Or that Bethoron the vpper which first belonged to Ephraim and afterward to the Leuites was the countrie of Daniel as Dorotheus and Epiphanius Quest. 4. Why Daniels kindred is not particularly expressed in the text 1. Some thinke the reason is because this is an historicall rather then a Propheticall booke but this is no good answer for so the booke also of Nehemiah is historicall and yet his kindred is expressed the words of Nehemiah the sonne of Hachaliah 2. Some make this the cause Daniel his kindred was well knowne and therefore it needed not to be expressed So was Isaiahs and Ieremiahs and their kindred well knowne and yet it is set downe in the beginning of their prophesie 3. Neither was this the reason why Daniel inserteth not his name because among the Chaldes he was called by another name Belthazar for c. 10. 2. he saith I Daniel was in heauinesse 4. Pererius saith causam satis idoneam probabilem c. I can finde no meete or probable cause hereof why Daniels genealogie is not expressed 5. Vnlesse this reason may be yeelded that those Prophets haue their kindred expressed which were specially sent from the Lord vpon some message and embassage to his people as Isaiah Ieremiah with the rest not they which onely had visions without any such speciall commission which obseruation notwithstanding doth not alwaies hold for Salomon had no such propheticall commission and yet he is described by his parentage Prov. 1. 1. Salomon the sonne of Dauid Quest. 5. When Daniel beganne to prophesie and at what age 1. Pererius thinketh that Daniel was some 10. yeare old when he went into captiuitie in the third yeare of king Iehoiakim beeing borne as he supposeth about the 25. yeare of Iosias raigne but this cannot be so that Daniel was then so young for 5. yeares after this he expounded Nebuchadnezzars dreame which was the 2. yeare after they stood before the king c. 2. 1. their three yeeres of education beeing expired c. 1. 5. And vpon that occasion Daniel began to be famous for his wisedome celebrated by the Prophet Ezekiel c. 28. 3. thou art wiser then Daniel And before that the same Prophet maketh mention of Daniel for his pietie ioyning him with Noah and Iob of whom the Lord saith that they should onely saue their owne soules they shall neither deliuer sonne nor daughter c. 14. 20. it seemeth then that Daniel was of yeares to haue sonnes and daughters Daniel then within fiue yeares of his captiuitie growing into such fame for his wisedome could not be so very a child as Epiphanius maketh him and
gift were especially called and sent to that ende to prophesie and in this sense onely the Iewes hold neither Dauid nor Daniel to be Prophets 2. Theoderet doth simply reprehend the Iewes for denying Daniel to be a Prophet and this booke to be any of the propheticall writings so also Iunius affirmeth that the Iewes denie this booke to be counted among the Hagiographa or holy writings 3. But the truth is as Polanus setteth it downe that the Elder Iewes did acknowledge this booke to be authenticall and canonicall and equall in authoritie to the booke of the Psalmes the Prouerbs of Salomon the Lamentations of Ieremie and diuerse of them haue written commentaries vpon this booke as R. Salomon R. Leui Ben Gerson R. Abraham Aben Ezra R. Saadia with others but the later Rabbines doe denie the booke of Daniel to be authenticall and therefore seldome reade it as he speaketh of his owne experience how diuerse Rabbines in Moravia whose helpe he vsed did confesse that they seldome did reade the prophesie of Daniel the occasion whereof he thinketh to be this because Daniel doth so euidently point out the time of the Messiah his comming 4. But this errour of the Iewes in reiecting this prophesie of Daniel may thus further be refuted 1. The bookes which are called Hagiographa holy writings were of three sorts either they are taken for those bookes which were laid vp by the Arke and had the miraculous extraordinary approbation by the Vrim and Thummim other visible demonstrations or for such canonicall books which though they had not that allowance being written after the captiuitie when those visible monuments of the Arke the Vrim and Thummim ceased yet were written by the spirit of God and commended to his Church and thirdly those bookes were called holy writings which were not made of Canonicall authoritie but onely preferred before other humane writings and receiued of the Church into some higher order though not made equall to the the Scriptures Now though the prophesie of Daniel be not of the first sort yet that it is authenticall and canonicall of the second it thus may appeare The authoritie then of this booke is set forth by testimony both internall and externall the externall is either diuine or humane the diuine essentiall or accidentall the humane is either Ecclesiasticall and domesticall or forraine or prophane these further shall thus be declared in their order 1. The internall testimonie est spiritus testificatio the inward witnesse of the spirit which cleareth our vnderstanding that by the same spirit we acknowledge the Diuine prophesie of Daniel by the which he wrote it 2. The Diuine externall testimonie which is called essentiall is consensio cum diuino canone the agreement which this prophesie hath with the rest of the Scriptures and the warrant which Daniel hath from the testimonie of Christ Matth. 24. 15. 3. The Accidentall is à signis euentis from the signes which God ioyned with the prophesie as Daniels interpretation of dreames and his preseruation from the lyons c. 6. The euents were the true and sensible accomplishment of the predictions and prophesies conteined in this booke as all histories which doe write of these Kingdomes doe beare record and where these two doe concurre with the truth of doctrine namely the signes and euents they are diligently to be regarded Deut. 17. 4. The Ecclesiasticall testimonie is the consent of Gods Church and generall approbation of the seruants and worshippers of God which though it be not so forcible to perswade vs as the former yet it is a good motion and inducement ioyned with the rest hereunto may be added that testimonie of Iosephus that all the bookes which were written vnto the time of Artaxerxes were of diuine authoritie 5. The forraine testimonie is the authoritie and allowance which this booke found euen among the Heathen as is euident in that a great part of this prophesie is written in the Chalde tongue which sheweth that the truth thereof was euen euident to the Chaldeans Iunius And here may be remembred how laddus the high Priest shewed Daniels prophesie vnto Alexander the great and by name that vision c. 8. how the goate which signified the Grecians ouercame the ramme which betokened the Persian Monarchie as Iosephus reporteth whereupon this booke was had in great admiration of Alexander Quest. 12. Of the difficultie and obscuritie of this prophesie Pererius giueth these foure reasons and causes thereof 1. Because diuerse things are otherwise reported of forraine historiographers then they are remembred in this booke as in the 2. chap. Nebuchadonazer is made the mightiest King vpon the earth whereas Herodotus much more extolleth the power of Cyaxares who raigned about that time among the Medes c. 5. Balthazar is said to be depriued both of life and kingdom by Darius king of the Medes whereas other writers ascribe it to Cyrus c. 11. the Angel foretelleth but of three kings after Cyrus vnto Alexanders time whereas there were many more 2. The transposing of the storie which is often vsed in this booke is an other cause of the darkenesse and obscuritie as the prophesies conteined in the 7. and 8. chap. which were shewed vnto Daniel vnder the raigne of Balthazar in order should be set before the 6. c. Pererius addeth that the historie of Susanna which happened when Daniel was yet a child and the storie of Bell and the dragon which was done the Empire of the Chaldes yet standing should be placed tâ—e one before the second the other before the 5. chap. But concerning these two pretended histories there is no certaintie of the truth of them at the least when and at what time they were done and therefore this instance might be spared 3. The prophesies and visions themselues are darke and obscure as that c. 9. of the 70. weekes which terme when it should take beginning and how it proceeded and was continued is a matter of deepe vnderstanding 4. The varietie of histories which must be vsed as helpes for the vnderstanding of this prophesie and the change and alteration of so many states and kingdomes in this booke decyphered doe make this prophesie intricate specially because many of those historicall writers whose workes are necessarie for the opening and vnfolding of this mysticall prophesie are now lost and perished As Hierome sendeth vs to the histories of Sâ—etâ—nius Callinicus Possidonius Thean Andronicus Polybius Diodorus Titus Linius Trâ—gus Pompeius whose histories concerning these matters here prophesied of by Daniel are now either in part or in whole wanting 5. And thus much was signified by the Angel that this historie should seeme obsure vntill the things therein contained were accomplished as he saith to Daniel Goe thy way Daniel for the words are closed vp and sealed till the ende of the time vntill then they should be obscure to all but euen afterward also when the fulnesse of time is come none of the wicked shall haue vnderstanding and
rocke was Christ that is signified Christ. 3. There is a metaphor in the word head which signifieth the antiquitie and prioritie of that kingdome and the knowledge and wisdome of that nation 4. An other figure there is in that he is likened to gold which betokeneth their riches prosperitie and flourishing estate 41. Quest. Of the largenesse of the Empire and dominion of Nabuchadnezzer v. 38. In all places where the children of men dwell the beasts of the field and the foules of heauen c. hath he giuen into thine hand 1. The Scripture doth euidently testifie what large dominions the king of Babel had Ierem. 27. 6. I haue giuen all these lands into the hand of Nabuchadnezzer king of Babel my seruant and the beasts of the field haue I also giuen him to serue him and all nations shall serue him c. And the Prophet Abacuck saith of the Chaldeans They shall gather the captiuitie as the sand and they shall mocke the kings and the Princes shall be a scorne vnto them c. c. 1. 9 10. 2. Forren writers also haue ginen the like testimonie of the greatnes of the Babylonian Empire Berosus who wrote of the Chaldean affaires preferreth him before all kings that were before him Megasthenes lib. 4. de reb Indicis witnesseth that Nabuchadnezzer beside the Prouinces of the East subdued Egypt Africa Spaine and maketh him in courage and magnanimitie superiour to Hercules so likewise Strabo lib. 15. Geograph writeth that this Nabuchadnezzer was the mightiest of all other kings and held of the Chaldeans to haue exceeded Hercules Tertullian saith that his dominion extended from India to Ethiopia 3. But whereas it is said that God had made him ruler in all places this is not so to be taken strictly according to the letter for neither Nabuchadnezzer or any other Monarch euer had the dominion and rule of the whole world as witnesseth the altar of Alexander the pillars of Hercules and Ctesiphon the boundes of the Romane Empire toward the East 1. Some therefore thinke that this is spoken in respect of the opinion of the Chaldeans who held him to be an absolute Monarch ouer all the world 2. or that all according to the Scripture is taken for the most or many as Gen. 22. 18. the Lord saith that all nations should be blessed in Abraham that is many as c. 17. 5. the Lord saith A father of many nations haue I made thee Perer. But this example is vnfitly alleadged for in the one place the Lord speaketh of Abrahams carnall generation in the other of the spirituall benediction which in Christ should come indeede vpon all nations 3. some take it therefore for an hyperbolicall speech Pintus 4. Hugo thus expoundeth it he is said to rule ouer all quia nihil ei resistebat because no countrey resisted him 5. Lyranus taketh all places for all kind of places as the cities where men dwelt the fields where beasts ranged and the woods where the foules made their aboad and therefore both men beasts and foules are said to be giuen into his hand 6. Some admit here a synecdoche that part is taken for the whole all for a great part Lyranus also 7. But this vniuersall particle all must be restrained vnto all the regions next adioyning as it is taken Gen. 41. 57. All countries came to Egypt to buiâ— corne of Ioseph that is all the countries neare vnto them And so here all the regions in those East parts were subdued vnder the kingdome of Nabuchadnezzer 42. Quest. Whether Nabuchadnezzers dominion were at that time the greatest in the world It will be here obiected that the Empire of the Medes was at this time very mightie as Herodotus lib. 1. maketh mention of the greatnes of Cyaxares king of the Medes who ruled ouer all Asia and subdued the Assyrians the Babylonians onely excepted And it is euident by Herodotus Chronologie that Cyaxares raigned about this time for from the beginning of his raigne vnto the first of Cyrus he counteth 75. yeares 40. yeares vnder the raigne of Cyaxares and 35. vnder Astyages so if the Babylonian captiuitie tooke beginning from the 19. yeare of Nabuchadnezzer as Pererius reckoneth Cyaxares began his raigne in the 14. yeare of Nabuchadnezzer but if the 70. yeares captiuitie be counted from the carrying away of Iechonias captiue which is the more probable which was in the 8. yeare of Nabuchadnezzer 2. king 24. 12. then Cyaxares beganne his raigne 5. yeares before about the 3. yeare of Nabuchadnezzers raigne they raigned then much about the same time Nabuchadnezzer in Babylon and Cyaxares among the Medes 2. Pererius giueth this solution that the kingdome of the Medes was much wasted by the other Nabuchadnezzer father vnto this king who warred against Arphaxad king of the Medes and tooke the chiefe citie thereof Ecbatane as is set forth in the storie of Iudith and beside by the incursion and inuasion of the Scythians those parts of Asia were kept vnder the space of 28. yeares so that all that time Cyaxares was of no great power which was during the raigne of Nabuchadnezzer then after his death the Scythians beeing destroied and expelled Cyaxares kingdome flourished for the space of 12. yeares 3. Contra. 1. The historie of Iudith could not fall out in the raigne of the Elder Nabuchadnezzar for at that time the Apocryphal storie saith that the Temple had not beene cast downe Iudith 5. 18. but the Temple was not destroied till the 19. yeare of this Nabuchadnezzer which was about 12. yeares after he had this dreame which was in the 5. yeare of his raigne as is before shewed Qu. 1. 2. Cyaxares could not suruiue Nabuchadnezzer so long but it seemeth rather that Nabuchadnezzer suruiued him for Nabuchadnezzer raigned 45. yeares 8. yeares before Iecouias captiuitie 2. king 24. 12. and 37. yeares after 2. king 25. 27. Cyaxares raigned 40. yeares and beganne in the 3. yeare of Nabuchadnezzer as is prooued before then his raigne must determine in the 43. yeare of Nabuchadnezzer therefore neither of these answers are sufficient 4. The best solution then is this 1. that Cyaxares might be a king of power in the remote parts of Asia beyond the Medes toward the Indians Eastward and yet Nabuchadnezzer about Babylon and those countries extending North and South as in Egypt Tyrus and in the regions of Asia minor might be of the greatest command 2. If otherwise Herodotus affirme more credit is to be giuen to the sacred storie then to his vncertaine report 43. Quest. v. 39. Of the second Monarchie described by the armes and breast of siluer what it was 1. The Rabbins because they would auoid this so manifest a prophesie of the comming of Christ doe ioyne two Monarchies together of the Persians and Grecians Calvin so confounding the histories whereas they were two kingdomes one succeeding an other but here Daniel pointeth out but one kingdome After thee shall rise an other kingdome c. 2.
Iupiter I haue taken the earth to my selfe take thou heauen c. with which picture Alexander was so delighted that he proclaimed none should take his picture but Lysippus 6. Such was his celeritie also that in the space of 13. yeares he conquered more nations then one would haue thought he could haue trauelled ouer in so short a time Apelles therefore pictured Alexander with a thunderbolt signifying his great swiftnes and agilitie in his exploits 7. Alexanders great â—ame also may be counted among other parts of his greatnes by the which he subdued more nations then by warre for the very terrour of his name made many Kingdomes submit themselues vnto him and at the same time when he died he expected Embassadours from all the Nations of Europe from France Spaine Italie Sicilie and from Africa for if he had not then died he had taken order to prouide him a great navie to haue compassed Arabia and Africa and so to haue surprised Spaine and Italie 8. The acts and monuments of Alexander are to be counted among other memorable things as first the Cities which he built which Plutarke nameth to haue beene 70. then he brought the barbarous nations to ciuilitie he taught the people Hyrcani the vse of mariage the Arachosians tillage and husbandrie the Sogdians that they should nourish and not kill their parents the Persians to honour their mothers and not to vse them for their wiues the Scythians that they should not eate the dead but burie them 9. Adde hereunto his singular vertues his constancie and patience in induring of labour his clemencie toward those whome he conquered the same day he tooke and restored againe to the king of India his kingdome Darius mother he honourably entertained as a Queene his continencie was singular Darius wife and his most beautifull daughters he touched not but preserued their chastitie neither would he see them But his liberalitie and magnificence exceeded his other vertues he gaue 23. thousand talents among his souldiers to pay their debts he bid to one feast 9. thousand ghests and gaue vnto euery one a cuppe of gold to one that asked a reward of him he gaue a citie which he refusing as too great a gift for him Alexander said Non quaero quid to decet accipere sed quid me decet dare I stand not vpon it what it is meete for thee to take but what it is fit I should giue And to conclude this point Plutarke saith that those vertues for the which seuerally certaine worthie men haue beene commended did all concurre in him as the valour of Achilles the chastitie of Agamemnon the pietie of Diomedes the courage of Cyrus the policie of Themistocles the boldnes of Brassida the wisdome of Philip his father 10. This was also part of his terrene happines that as he counted Achilles happie because he had Homer to set forth his praise so he had diuers excellent writers to register his acts as Ptolome King of Egypt Hecataeus Aristobulus Callisthenes Onesicratus Diodorus Siculus Trogus Pompeius Iustinus Q. Curtius with others Quest. 49. vers 40. Whether this fourth kingdome must be vnderstoode to be the Romane Empire There are here two opinions some take the Romane Empire to be vnderstood by this fourth kingdome which is compared to yron and the same to continue after the comming of Christ to the ende of the world as Lyranus interpreteth the two legges of the diuision of the Romane Empire into the Occidentall and Orientall at Constantinople of the same opinion are Rupertius Hugo Cardinal Pintus and of our writers Bullinger Pellican Geneuens Caluin Melancthon Osiand Some doe here comprehend the Romane Empire but vntill the comming of Christ as Pererius in vers 32. We will examine their reasons 1. Vers. 28. Daniel saith that the Lord shewed the king what should come to passe in the latter dayes therefore all the Monarchies to the ende of the world are here signified Contra. The word acharith as is before shewed doth not onely signifie the latter or extreme dayes but the time following as it is taken Gen. 49. 1. and the Prophet expoundeth himselfe vers 29. what is meant by the latter dayes that which should come to passe hereafter 2. It is not like that the Lord would conceale this thing from his Prophet and that Daniel speaking of three of the Monarchies should omit the fourth which was the greatest of all neither would the Lord leaue his Church without comfort herein Contra. 1. As God reuealed not his whole minde vnto the rest of the Prophets so neither had Daniel a cleare vision of all which should happen in the world 2. he toucheth all these foure kingdomes and gouernments which should be the chiefe oppressors and afflictors of his people vntill the rising of Christs kingdome vntill which time they had not endured much at the Romanes hands but by their owne procurement Daniel therefore speaketh of those kingdomes onely which medled most with the people of God then it much belonged not to their present comfort to heare of those kingdomes which should come afterward 3. Daniel prophesieth of the kingdome of Christ which should still encrease vnto the ende of the world vers 44. And cap. 12. 2. he euidently speaketh of euerlasting life and of the resurrection Contra. 1. The Prophet doth but touch that by occasion in a word to shewe the perfection and consummation of Christs kingdome it followeth not that therefore he should describe all the Monarchies to the ende of the world 4. But the euent of things answering to this prophesie sheweth that it is most fitly applyed to the Romane Empire 1. Because as yron the Romane Empire subdued all other kingdomes for whereas Alexanders kingdome was diuided into foure Prolome had Egypt Seleucus Syria Antigonus Asia the lesse and Antipater Macedonia who also obtained Antigonus regiment all these foure dominions were dissolued and dissipated by the Romanes Paulus Aemilius ouercame Perseus king of Macedonia and led him with his two sonnes Philippui and Alexander in triumph Lucullus and Pompeius subdued Mithridates and Tygranes and brought vnder the Syrian kingdome and Augustus Caesar ouercame Antonie with Cleopatra his wife and made a Prouince of Egypt And all the East countries Pompey the great subdued and ioyned to the Romane Empire as Asia Pontus Armenia Paphlagonia Cappadocia Cilicia Syria with others waging battell with them 30. yeares together hauing slaine put to flight or taken an 121. thousand and 83. thousand and taken 846. shippes and a 1538. cities and castles Plin. lib. 7. cap. 26. Bulling Pap. and Lyranus sheweth 3. wayes whereby they became such conquerours sapientia exercitio armorum bonâ— regimine by their wisedome exercise of warlike feates and good discipline and gouernement 2. The two legges doe signifie the diuersitie of gouernement which was euidently seene in the Romane common wealth first they were gouerned by Kings then by Consuls afterward by Tribunes they had their decemviri their Dictators for a
borne of a noble mother the daughter of Astyages king of the Medes but of a meane father one Cambises should come and bring them into seruitude and then he suddenly vanished away the Chaldeans in Abydenus fragments record that he was blasted by some god and spake of Babels fall by the Persians H. B. consent 2. But that this was a true historie and not done in figure type or vision it may thus appeare 1. if this be no historie no more should the rest be written in this booke and so we should haue no certentie of any thing 2. Daniel himselfe rehearseth this as a matter of fact before Balthazar how Nebuchadnezzer was deposed c. 5. 20. 3. there are many things in this chapter which can in no wise agree vnto the deuill as how Nebuchadnezzer dreamed and asked counsell of the wise men and Daniel wisheth him to breake off his sinnes by repentance none of these things can be said of the deuill ex Perer. 8. Quest. Why Daniel was called by the name of Belteshazzar 1. Dorotheus in synops and Epiphan lib. de vit interit prophet doe thinke that Daniel was so called after the name of Balthazar the kings sonne because he purposed to make him heire with him of the kingdome And this opinion may seeme somewhat to be fauoured by the vulgar Latin translation which readeth v. 5. till Daniel collega my collegue or companion in the kingdome came in which Pererius vnderstandeth so to be saide because Nebuchadnezzer had ioyned Daniel with him as his fellow in the kingdome Contra. 1. There is no word of that sense to signifie a collegue or fellow in the originall and therefore we will not insist vpon this reason 2. But the name of Belteshazzar and Belshazar are diuers in the the originall the one consisteth of 7. letters Beltheshaatzer the other onely of sixe Belshazzer And Daniel was so called before this time when as Balthazar the king was not yet borne nor named in storie 2. Suidas and Iosephus thinke that Daniel was so called because of the interpretation of hid and secret things but that is not so for he was thus called before he had yet expounded any of the kings dreames c. 1. 7. 3. The most thinke that this was the name of the god of the Chaldees and giuen vnto Daniel because of his diuine wisdome Lyran. Hugo Vatab. but the name of the Chalde god was Bel Isa. 46. 1. not Belteshazzar 4. Therefore Daniel had not the very name of his god but the king saith he was called after or according to my God the first syllable onely is borrowed from the name of his god Bel the whole name consisteth of three Babylonian words signifying keeping or laying vp the treasure of Bel Iun. as is shewed before qu. 28. c. 1. 9. Quest. In what sense Nebuchadnezzer saith that Daniel had the spirit of the holy gods v. 5. 1. The Sâ—ptuag read in the singular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy spirit of God thinking to excuse the king and free him from idolatrie but the word in the originall is in the plural elohim gods 2. Some thinke that by gods are here vnderstood the Angels who are sometime called gods in Scripture Pint. but the knowledge of secrets the Angels haue not because they know not things to come and the magicians who had conference and familiaritie with spirits not beeing able to tell the king his dreame which he had forgotten excuse themselues because none but the gods could declare such things c. 2. 11. 3. His meaning then is that the gods aboue onely knew secrets whose diuine spirit Daniel was indued with loquitur more gentilium he speaketh after the manner of the Gentiles who held that there were many gods Lyran. And it was a receiued opinion among them that it was a diuine thing to interpret dreames as Socrates answered the Athenians that he was ignorant of that diuine science Lyran. ex Albert. mag 10. Quest. Of Nebuchadnezzers dreame and the summe thereof There are two parts of his dreame the first containeth a description of a goodly faire tree v. 7. to v. 10. the second the ouerthrow and cutting downe of this tree thence to v. 15. 1. The tree is described 1. by the situation of it in the middes of the earth 2. by the height which reached vnto heauen which Theodoret expoundeth of his pride so also gloss ordin Lyranus of his high aduancement to such a great Monarchie 3. by the spreading of it to the endes of the earth is vnderstood the largenes of his dominion which extended very farre Megasthenes as Iosephus citeth him thinketh that he subdued part of Spaine 4. by the vtilitie thereof which was double it gaue meate and shadow vnto all both foules and beasts that is all kind of people both of ciuill and vnciuill life both had nourishment and peace vnder the raigne of Nabuchadnezzer 2. Then the destruction of this tree followeth 1. by whome by a watchman which is interpreted to be an angel 2. the manner is described how this tree should be serued the tree is broken downe that is the king is cast out of his kingdome the branches are broken off his nobles and princes are remooued from him his leaues are shaken off his glorie and renowne is taken from him the fruit are scattered the riches of the kingdome euery one snatcheth and diuideth the birds and beasts flie away many taking occasion by the fall of the king withdraw themselues from his yoake 3. Then followeth the limitation and qualifying of the punishment of this tree a stumpe of it shall be left that is his kingdome shall be reserued for him still gloss interlin with the condition thereof set forth first metaphorically it shall be bound with chaines of brasse whereby is signified his phrensie and madnesse because mad men are bound with chaines Bulling then literally or historically his state is described both outward that he should liue with the beasts of the field and inward his heart should be changed which is amplified by the circumstance of time till 7. times that is yeares be passed ouer him v. 13. So this dreame was propounded in allegorie in such maner vt tamen Deus aliquid permiscuerit vnde colligeret aliud notari that yet God mingled withall some thing whereout he might gather that some other thing was signified Calvin for a tree from whence he borrowed this allegorie needed not to be bound with chaines neither hath any heart 5. Lastly the certentie of this decree is set downe by a generall consent of God and his Angels v. 14. 11. Quest. Why this tree is said to be in the middes of the earth 1. Hugo Card. thinketh it to be so said because Nebuchadnezzer had Iudea subiect vnto him which is thought to be in the middes of the earth 2. Some of the Rabbins thinke that Babylon is signified because it is in the same line or parallel with Ierusalem which is in the middes of the
as famous as Semiramis so also Polanus 3. But Iosephus opinion which Hierome followeth and Lyranus thinke that this Queene was grandmother to Balthazar and wife sometime to Nabuchadnezzer whereof these two reasons may be yeilded 1. one which Theodoret alleadgeth verisimile est eam seniâ— confectam c. it is like that shee beeing stricken in yeares did not giue her selfe to drinking and dauncing and such other sports c. this coniecture sheweth it to be more probable that shee was his grandmother then mother for his mother could not be so old he hauing raigned but 3. yeares beeing the eldest sonne and heire to the kingdome 2. the other reason Lyranus vrgeth which Pintus also approoueth because shee speaketh of things done in Nabuchadnezzers daies which sheweth mulierem fuisse iam vetulam that shee was now a very old woman Calvin 21. Quest. In what sense Nabuchadnezzer is called Balthazar 's father 1. Some thinke that Nabuchadnezzer was his great grandfather and that Balthazar was not the third but the fourth from him so Iosephus whome Hierome and Beda follow see before qu. 2. But this can not be so because Ierem. 27. v. 5 6. the Lord promiseth the kingdome to Nabuchadnezzer and to his sonne and to his sonnes sonne and staieth there 2. An other opinion was of Alexander Polyhistor and Alpheus with others whome Iosephus mentioneth lib. 1. cont Appion that foure raigned after Nabuchadnezzer 1. Euilmerodach 2. Niglasar his sisters husband who killed him 3. Labosardach his sonne who was deposed for his misgouernment and slaine and then Balthazar was chosen by common consent But by this account Balthazar should not be at all of Nabuchadnezzers stocke and line contrarie to the Scripture which calleth him his sonne 3. The author of the Scholasticall historie saith that there were two Nabuchadnezzers the father and the sonne and that Euilmerodach was brother to the second and raigned after him who had three sonnes which succeeded one an other in the kingdome after him Niglazar Labosardach and Balthazar so he maketh Nabuchadnezzer the great grandfather of this Balthazar and Balthazar to raigne in the fift place But it is euident in storie that Euilmerodach succeeded next to Nabuchadnezzer his father not to his brother of that name for Nabuchadnezzer is held to haue raigned 43. yeares at the least as Iosephus but he raigned rather 45. in the 8. yeare of his raigne Iechonias was carried captiue in the 37. yeare of whose captiuitie which was the 45. yeare of Nabuchadnezzer Euilmerodach began to raigne 2. king 25. 27. Pererius misliketh this opinion because he maketh two Nabuchadnezzers whereas sacrd profana historia vnum tantum agnoscit both the sacred and prophane histories saith he acknowledgeth but one Nabuchadnezzer king of Chaldea c. wherein I wonder at his forgetfulnes beeing otherwise a most diligent writer seeing Iosephus euidently maketh two Nabuchadnezzers the father to whome he ascribeth 21. yeares and his sonne to whome he giueth 43. yeares lib. 10. antiq c. 11. 4. The fourth opinion is of Theodoret in this chapter and Severus Sulpitius lib. 2. sacr histor that Nabuchadnezzer had two sonnes Euilmerodach the elder and Balthazar the younger who raigned successiuely one after an other and so they thinke that Balthazar was in deede the sonne of Nabuchadnezzer But this can not be so for seeing this Balthazar was the last of the Chaldean kings and Ieremie prophesied that the kingdome should be giuen to Nabuchadnezzer and to his sonne and to his sonnes sonne now this prophesie should not be fulfilled if the kingdome did onely remaine to him and to his sonnes 5. Not farre differing from this opinion is that which is found in the booke of Baruch c. 1. 11. Pray for Nabuchadnezzar and for the life of Balthazar his sonne where the author of that booke seemeth to make Balthazar the eldest sonne of Nabuchadnezzer as next heire to the kingdome Pererius would thus helpe the matter that either Nabuchadnezzer had an other sonne called Balthazar who should haue beene king if he had liued or that Euilmerodach was also so called thus also Emmanuel Sa. But neither of these assertions can be proued out of the Canonicall Scriptures which euidently testifie that Euilmerodach was the sonne of Nabuchadnezzer and not Balthazar 2. king 25. 27. and Ierem. 52. 31. 6. Pintus hath an other conceit that Euilmerodach might be called Nabuchadnezzer which was a generall name to all the Chaldean kings as the Emperours were called Caesars of the first Emperour and thus he saith Balthazar was Nabuchadnezzers that is Euilmerodachs sonne but no where in Scripture doth it appeare that Nabuchadnezzer was a generall name to the kings of Chaldea neither that Euilmerodach or Balthazar are so called 3. Pererius opinion is that Balthazar was the nephew not properly the sonne of Nabuchadnezzer yet he raigned not in the third place but in the fift there came betweene two other named by forren writers Niglasar and Labosardach the first was Euilmerodachs sisters husband who slue Euilmerodach and so raigned and Labosardach his sonne after him who was deposed and slaine for his crueltie and then Balthazar who fled vnto the Medes was restored vnto the kingdome so Ioseph lib. 1. cont Appion Now Pererius reason is this why some other raigned betweene because otherwise the tearme of 70. yeares captiuitie can not be made vp for the captiuitie began in the 19. yeare of Nabuchadnezzer when Ierusalem was taken there remained 25. yeares of his raigne who raigned in all 43. Euilmerodach 18. yeares and Balthazar 17. all these yeares make but 60. there wanted yet 10. yeares which must be made vp by the raigne of others comming betweene Contra. 1. Though Pererius opinion be admitted as probable that some vsurpers came betweene Euilmerodach and Balthazar yet the reason which he vrgeth is not sufficient for the 70. yeares captiuitie doe take beginning rather from the 8. yeare of Nabuchadnezzer when Iechonias went into captiuitie 2. king 24. 12. for from that time the Prophets doe begin the account of the 70. yeares Ezek. 1. 1. and c. 24. 1. and in other places of that Prophesie And Nabuchadnezzer raigned 45. yeares 8. yeares before the captiuitie began 2. king 24. 12. and 37. yeares of the captiuitie 2. king 25. 27. so that the ten yeares which are wanting may thus be filled vp 8. Pererius thinketh that the strange names of Niglazar and Labosardach mentioned by Iosephus were the same with Euilmerodach and Balthazar called by other names in 2. cap. Daniel But Iosephus and other writers whome he followeth as Berosus Alexander Polyhistor with others make these diuers kings from the rest for Iosephus nameth Abilomarodach beside who in Scripture is called Euilmerodach 9. The truth then is this that Euilmerodach as Pererius reporteth out of some writers was slaine by Niglazar or Neegal-etzer his sisters husband or as Iunius out of others he was expulsed out of his kingdome and he with Balthazar his sonne liued in exile
is thought to haue raigned but a short time after not aboue a yeare or two but Cyrus was neither so old held not then to be aboue 40. and he raigned diuers yeares after 3. And c. 6. 28. Darius and Cyrus are named as two diuers persons 5. It was the opinion of some as Hierome writeth vpon the 5. chap. of Daniel that this Darius was the same who in Herodotus is called Astyages of which opinion Eusebius seemeth to be who maketh Astyages the last king of the Medes And this seemeth to be fauoured by the Apocryphal storie of Susanna v. 65. that when Astyages was put or laid vnto his auncestors Cyrus of Persia tooke his kingdome But this opinion may thus be refelled 1. because none of the forren writers doe make any mention that Astyages had any warre with the Chaldeans or that he tooke Babylon 2. And this Apocryphal storie may be doubted of for according to Xenophon Cyaxares raigned after Astyages and as Herodotus writeth Cyrus expelled Astyages out of his kingdome and sent him to Carmania and so tooke vpon him the kingdome while he liued the storie of Susanna agreeth with neither of these reports 6. The most generall receiued opinion is that this Darius called Cyaxares was as Xenophon writeth the sonne of Astyages and vncle by the mothers side to Cyrus which Cyaxares was king of the Medes after Astyages this opinion followeth Iosephus Hierome Lyranus Pintus Oecolampad Osiander with others But this is obiected against this opinion that Astyages had no sonne but a daughter Mandane the mother of Cyrus whome Astyages commanded to be slaine because the Astrologers told him that he should haue dominion ouer all Asia And this is affirmed by diuers authors that Astyages had no sonne as Valerius Maxim lib. 1. cap. de somnijs Herodot lib. 1. Severus Sulpitius lib. 2. sacr histor And therefore Iunius vnderstandeth Xenophon to speake not of Astyages naturall but of his adopted sonne 7. Iosephus Scaliger in the 8. booke of that exquisite worke which he hath written de emendat tempor is of this opinion that be which is called Balthazar is the same who is named of other writers Labosardach the sonne of Niâ—octis Nabuchadnezzers daughter who was slaine by the Babylonians and then this Darius the Mede the same who is called Nabonidus was by a common consent chosen king in his place who when he had raigned 17. yeares in Babylon was ouercome by Cyrus and the citie taken Iunius also in his annotation vpon this verse saith that this Darius the Mede is the same who is called by the historians Labonidus or Labynitus Contra. 1. If Labosardach and Balthazar were the same beeing the sonne of Nabuchadnezzers daughter then was not the prophecie fulfilled that the kingdome should be giuen to Nabuchadnezzers sonne and his sonnes sonne for it was to his daughters sonne 2. when Balthazar was slaine Darius tooke the kingdom by force it is not like they would haue chosen him beeing a stranger vnto it 3. after Balthazar was slain the kingdom was deuided betweene the Medes and Persians it did not then quietly descend vnto the Medes 4. The Prophet Isai saith c. 13. 17. Behold I will stirre vp the Medes against thee the Medes then assaulted Babylon and tooke it by violence a Mede came not vnto it by election 5. This Darius was king of the Medes and Persians as it appeareth in the 6. chapter how could that be if he raigned in Babylon and was ouercome by the power of the Medes and Persians 6. Concerning Iunius opinion I preferre his iudgement in his commentarie vpon v. 11. 12. c. 5. that Balthazar is the same whome Herodotus called Labunitus or Nebonidus which signifieth a Prince expulsed because he with his father were both expelled by Niglazar Then Darius the Mede could not be that Nabonidus or Labynitus as he hath in his annotation 8. This then is the most probable opinion that this Darius called also Cyaxares was not the sonne but the brother of Astyages and great vncle to Cyrus the sonne of Cambyses and Mandane Astyages daughter this then was their genealogie Assuerus or Cyaxares the Elder had two sonnes Astyages and Cyaxares the younger the same is this Darius who is said to be sonne of Assuerus c. 9. 1. not of Astyages Xenophon calleth Cyaxares Astyages sonne because he adopted him to succeede in the kingdome to preuent Cyrus Iun. Polan The author of the scholasticall historie much disagreeth not who saith that Cyaxares was not the sonne but the kinsman of Astyages whome he adopted to be his heire This Darius was also father in law to Cyrus to whome together with his daughter he resigned the kingdome of Media Iun. 2. Quest. Of the diuers names which Darius had 1. Pererius obserueth that he was called by 4. names by Daniel he is named Darius by the Septuag as Hierome saith he was called Artaxerxes by Xenophon Cyaxares and in the storie of Susanna he is the same there called Astyages the three first names may be acknowledged to be giuen vnto him but Astyages he is not called either by Herodotus or Xenophon it is rather an error in that Apocryphal storie 2. The names Cyaxares and Assuerus are in effect all one for Chu in the Persian language signifieth a Prince and so doth achash whence is deriued the word achashverosh or Assuerus which the Greekes pronounce Axares or Oxuares Cyaxares then signifieth a prince of princes or a chiefe prince 3. He is called Darius the Mede by way of distinction from Darius the Persian Ezr. c. 4. 5. who was the third that raigned after Cyrus 3. Quest. How Darius tooke vpon him the kingdome of Babylon 1. Xenophon writeth that Darius was the chiefe author of the warre against Babylon and therein vsed the helpe of Cyrus who beeing sent with the greatest part of the armie to the siege Darius himselfe staied in Media to whome Cyrus came afterward when he had setled the Babylonian affaires to whome Darius offered the kingdome of Media together with his daughter and Cyrus againe gaue vnto Darius the gouernment of Babylon with the goodly palace and other edifices there this report followeth Iunius in his commentarie But it is not like that Darius was now absent seeing it is saide that immediately after Balthazar was slaine Darius tooke vpon him the kingdome 2. R. Levi thinketh that Darius was present and that he afterward continued in Babylon and raigned not a full yeare there and then Cyrus succeeded him 3. But Iosephus whose opinion is more probable thinketh that Darius certaine moneths after the taking of Babylon returned into Media and caried Daniel with him where in Eâ—batane Daniel builded a goodly tower for the sepulture of the kings which remained vnto Iosephus time and then seemed as if it had beene newly built And he left Cyrus behind him to set the Babylonian affaires in order this Bullinger thinketh more probable and Oecolampadius seemeth to encline to the same opinion
is the minister of the true Tabernacle which God pight and not man Hebr. 8. 2. And in this sense Christ also Ioh. 2. calleth his bodie the Temple Polan 31. Quest. How Christ was anointed Three things briefly are to be touched concerning the anointing of Christ wherewith he was anointed in what manner and whereunto 1. We doe not read that Christ was annointed with any externall or materiall oyle or oyntment but his anointing was by the spirit of God as Isa. 61. 1. The spirit of the Lord is vpon me therefore he hath anointed me c. 2. For the manner he was anointed with all graces of the spirit abundanter aboundantly aboue his fellowes Psal. 45. 7. and beyond measure Ioh. 3. 34. God giueth him not the spirit by measure and redundanter his fulnesse redoundeth and ouerfloweth to his members Ioh. 1. 16. Of his fulnesse haue we all receiued grace for grace like as the oyntment which was powred vpon Aarons head ranne downe vpon his beard and so to the skirts of his cloathing Psal. 133. 2. so the graces of the spirit in our head Christ are imparted to his members 3. He was anointed to be our Prophet King and Priest of the first speaketh the Prophet Isa. 61. 1. Therefore hath the Lord anointed me he hath sent me to preach good tidings to the poore c. which prophecie our blessed Sauiour applyeth to himselfe Luk. 4. 18. of his anointing to be King speaketh the Prophet Psal. 45. 8. Because thou hast loued righteousnes and hated iniquitie therefore hath God thy God annointed thee with the oyle of gladnes aboue thy fellowes of his priestly office and anointing likewise the Prophet Dauid maketh mention Psal. 110. 4. Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech and of this his priestly anointing this place is specially to be vnderstood 32. Quest. When Christ was thus anointed 1. Lyranus generally vnderstandeth the time of Christs incarnation and humanitie in humanitate vnctus est c. he was anointed in his humanitie aboue his fellowes 2. Pererius referreth it to the first instant of his conception alledging those words of the Angel to Marie That holy thing which shall be borne of thee shall be called the sonne of God 3. Hugo Card. indifferently would haue it vnderstood either of the time of Christs incarnation or of his baptisme when his Father from heauen gaue testimonie vnto him or of his resurrection when his spirituall anointing was yet more euidently declared 4. But the solemne anointing of Christ was in his baptisme when the spirit of God descended vpon him in the likenes of a doue non citra visibileâ—â— pompam facta est haec Christi vnâ—tio this anointing of Christ was not done without some visible pompe both in his baptisme and afterward in the mountaine when his father testified of him from heauen Bulling for although Christ alwaies had the spirit of God yet in his baptisme and afterward in the preaching of the Gospel the graces of the spirit did more manifest themselues in him Osiand And this further may be gathered by the words going before for then when Christ brought eternall righteousnes the fruit and effect of his annointing appeared which was by his most holy life and obedience and by his most holy passion and oblation of himselfe which followed immediatly after 5. Their error then appeareth which would haue this prophecie of the Angel fulfilled in the ende of the world for Christ shall not then be againe annointed his annointing was in his first comming it shall not be in the second Here followeth the explanation of the most difficult and obscure prophesie of Daniels 70. weekes 33. Quest. Of the obscurenes and difficultie of this prophesie How darke hidde and obscure this prophesie is may appeare by these three arguments 1. the opinion and sentence of the auncient learned interpreters thereof 2. the diuersitie of interpretations which are giuen 3. the difficulties and doubts in the prophesie it selfe 1. Hierome vpon those words of Daniel v. 25. Know thou and vnderstand thus writeth Si Gabriel suscitat animum Danielis c. If Gabriel doe roâ—ze vp the minde of Daniel that was a Prophet to vnderstand the prophesie what should we doe that haue not any such propheticall light c. Likewise Origen saith sermonem Danielis de septuaginta hebdomadis c. Daniels speech of the seuentie weekes none can make plaine as it would require but the spirit of God which taught Daniel this mysterie c. Hereupon Hierome rehearsing diuers opinions of others about the exposition of these weekes forbeareth to set downe his owne And Augustine falling into mention of this prophesie of purpose seemeth to passe it ouer in diuers places as epist. 80. ad Hesych lib. 18. de ciâ—it Dei c. 34. as not satisfying himselfe in the right vnderstanding thereof 2. The great varietie of interpretations which are very many as they follow to be declared in the next question is an euident demonstration of the obscuritie thereof 3. And beside the vncertentie of forren stories which fell out in the change of three Monarchies the Persian Grecian and Romane for it beeing an hard thing to finde the true reckoning and computation of yeares in one kingdome it must needes be more difficult to finde a true account in laying together the yeares of diuers Monarchies Beside this vncertentie there are foure other principall difficulties in the prophesie it selfe 1. when these 70. weekes should beginne 2. when they determine and haue an ende 3. whether the space comming betweene the beginning and ende consisting of 490. yeares doth precisely containe so many neither more nor fewer 4. how all these things prophesied here of the Messiah were fulfilled and accomplished in this limited time Now notwithstanding these difficulties I will proceede by Gods grace to make some way for the better vnderstanding of this great mysterie wherein I will gather together the most probable opinions of learned interpreters approouing in my iudgement the best 34. Quest. Of the diuers interpretations of Daniels weekes with an answer to the cauill of the Iewes concerning the dissention of our interpreters The diuers opinions here of writers about the beginning of the seuentie weekes may be sorted into three ranks 1. Some make them to beginne before Cyrus 2. some pitch their beginning at Cyrus 3. and some beginne the reckoning after Cyrus vnder the raigne of other Persian kings 1. They which beginne the computation of these yeares before the times of Cyrus 1. some count these 70. weekes by weekes not of seuen yeares but of tenne times seuen for euery yeare taking tenne and beginne their reckoning from the beginning of the world so that 70. weekes shall make 4900. yeares from the creation of the world vnto Christ thus Origen hom 29. in Matth. 2. Some will haue these weekes take beginning from the 4. yeare of Zedekiah 7. yeares before the great captiuitie which was in the 11. yeare
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.
Whether the account of the Olympiake yeares be a certaine direction for the vnderstanding of Daniels weekes 1. Here are three opinions to be discussed 1. Some as the Hebrewes doe vtterly reiect the Greekes Olympiads making no account of them 2. Some doe make them the onely helpe and key to vnlocke the shut vp and hid meaning of Daniels weekes Liuely p. 36. So Bullinger certissimae sunt omnium supputationes quae fiunt per Olympiades the supputations made by the Olympiades are of all other most certaine c. and Pererius calleth it chronologiam omnium certissimam the chronologie of all other most certaine 3. But the meane opinion betweene these is the best that there is small certaintie in the Olympiades concerning the Persian Monarchie though for the Greeke affaires that computation may safely be receiued and this is the iudgement of M. Calvin hoc non potest certo trahi ad imperium Persarum this computation by the Olympike yeares howsoeuer it may serue for the Grecians yet it cannot be applyed to the Persian Empire to know therby at what time the kings of Persia beganne and ended their raigne c. So the Olympike reckoning in part is to be receiued in part it is so small certaintie 1. Conceruing the first of these opinions that no respect is at all to be had to the Olympiake yeares which is the fansie of the Hebrewes it is vtterly to be misliked for after the ende of the propheticall writings the Scriptures beeing altogether silent what direction will they haue especially for forren histories Oecolampadius here resolueth well that after the citie Ierusalem was repaired iam desicientibus Prophetis cum Malachia Ezra 〈◊〉 Prophets then ending with Malachie and Ezra there is no credit to be giuen vnto the Hebrewes in the supputation of their yeares 2. Neither is the second opinion generally to be receiued that the computation of this time is altogether to be directed and in a manner ouerruled by the Olympiake reckoning Here first the arguments shall be examined which are brought for the certaine authoritie of the Olympiads and then some contrarie reasons shall be produced to shewe the inualiditie of them 1. As touching the names and number of the Persian kings that the certaintie thereof may be gathered from the Greeks it is thus argued because many excellent writers and learned men Philosophers and Historiographers liued vnder the kings of Persia and knew their affaires as the seuen wisemen of Greece Thales Solon Chilon Pittacus Bias Cleobulus Periander liued in the time of Cyrus Pythagoras Zenophanes Anaximander Heraclitus with others flourished vnder Cambyses and Darius Socrates Thucidides Euripides vnder Artaxerxes Beside the courts of the Persian kings were frequented by many noble Grecians as by Hippias Demaratus Miltiades and therefore the names and number of the Persian kings was well knowne to them of Greece thus M. Liuely from pag. 43. to pag. 46. But this is no sufficient argument for the matter in question 1. It followeth not though these learned Philosophers and historians liued in the time of the Persian kings and some of them frequented their Courts that therefore they had a certaine knowledge of them all These kings of Persia with whom the Grecians had to doe were knowne vnto them but neither all of them nor yet to all those forenamed Philosophers and writers were they exactly knowne 2. An euident instance hereof may be giuen in Xenophon who writeth that Cyrus died in his bed and made a wise exhortation to his children whereas it is generally receiued that he was slaine by Tomyris as Iustine writeth 3. And though the name and number of the Persian kings had beene knowne to the Grecians yet the yeares of their raigne they much regarded not because they beeing a vaine-glorious nation followed their owne Olympike reckoning 2. Now for the truth and certaintie of the Olympiads one demonstration is taken from the time when Cyrus beganne his raigne which was in the 55. Olympiad from whence to the 114. Olympiad when Alexander died are counted 236. yeares whereof 6. yeares must be allowed to the Empire of Alexander after he ouercame Darius so M. Liuely pag. 48. and Pererius lib. 11. quest 2. But this demonstration may be thus excepted against 1. Clemens Alexand. placeth the destruction of the temple which was in the 19. yeare of Nebuchadnezzar in the last yeare of the 47. Olympiad lib. 1. stromat the 55. Olympiad followeth iust 30. yeares after if then Cyrus beganne to raigne how shall the 70. yeares of the Babylonian captiuitie be made vp which beganne in the 8. yeare of Nebuchadnezzar with the captiuitie of Iechoniah or if we beginne the captiuitie in the 4. yeare when Nebuchadnezzar tooke Ierusalem in the raigne of Iehoiachim 2. king 24. 2. there will not arise by this account 50. yeares in all for the captuitie 2. Pererius beginneth the first Olympiad in the 8. yeare of the raigne of Ahaz and yet some beginne the Olympiads in the 2. yeare of Iotham who raigned 16. yeares that is 23. yeares before that Bullinger then cannot Cyrus raigne be referred to the 55. Olympiad for the distance betwene the 1. and 55. Olympiad maketh 216. yeares but there onely were expired 205. yeares as it may be thus gathered from the 8. yeare of Ahaz vnto the 11. yeare of Iehoiachim when Iechonias captiuitie began are an 135. yeares and from thence to Cyrus 70. yeares which make 205. yeares then must the beginning of Cyrus raigne be pulled backe an 11. yeares from the 55. Olympiad to the 2. of the 52. Olympiad 3. An other demonstration is taken from comparing the Olympike yeares with the building of Rome M. Liuely out of Dyonisius Halycarnasseus his 5. booke alleadgeth that the 31. yeare of Darius Hystaspis concurred with the 72. Olympiad and 262. yeare of Rome This account is iust if we begin the Olympiads in the second yeare of Iotham for Rome is held to haue beene builded in the first of the 7. Olympiad which was in the tenth yeare of Achaz but Pererius bringeth the 7. Olympiad to the sixteenth yeare of Hezekiah 23. years after so that by his reckoning the 31. of Darius shall fall out 23. yeares later about the 4. yeare of the 77. Olympiad And further how well the Greeke Olympiads and the yeares of the bonding of Rome agree together appeareth by the dissension of writers in what Olympiad Rome should first be founded Timeus Siculus thinketh that Rome was built at the same time that Carthage was in Africa by the Tyrians which was 38. yeare before the first Olympiad Titus Liuius Clemens Alexandrinus and Solinus set the building of Rome in the 4. yeare of the 6. Olympiad Pomponius Atticus Cicero Plinie with others in the 3. yeare of the same Olympiad Dyonisius Halycarnass Eratosthenes Theophilus Antiochenus in the 1. yeare of the 7. Olympiad Polybius Diod. Siculus in the 2. yeare of the 7. Olympiad Q. Fabius an ancient writer of the Romane