Commentary on Daniel

1. Controv. Prosperity and external felicity is no perpetual note of the Church.

v. 15. Antiochus is permitted for a time to tread down the Sanctuary, and army, that is the Church militant, under feet: whereby it is evident, that the Church is not always discerned by outward prosperity: which Bellarmine maketh one of the notes and marks of the Church. The people of God are more subject to affliction and persecution in this world: they are oftener pressed down with adversity, then lifted up by prosperity: as our blessed Savior saith, In the world ye shall have affliction, but in him we have peace, John. 16. 33. See more hereof, Synops. 2. controv. qu. 3. note 15.

2. Controv. That the abomination of desolation spoken of, v. 13. is not the abolishing of the sacrifice of the Mass.

The Romanists make this a mark of Antichrist, that the daily sacrifice of the Maffe shall be abolished at his coming: and therefore they charge Protestants to be forerunners of Antichrist, because they have banished out from among them the Mass.

Contra. 1. The New Testament acknowledgeth no other external sacrifice, but the sacrifice of atonement made by Christ, of himself upon the cross: the virtue and efficacy whereof being everlasting, it is not to be iterated, or repeated: as the Apostle saith, Hebr. 9. 25. Not that he should offer himself often: and v. 28. Christ was once offered, to take away sins. 2. The sacrifices now offered up by Christians are spiritual: Hebr. 13. 12. Let us by him offer the sacrifice of praise always unto God: And in this sense the Apostle saith, He hath made us Kings and Priests to God his father, Revel. 1. 6. 3. The Papists are they which have abolished the true commemoration of Christ's sacrifice: instead of the Eucharist, having instituted a theatrical and pompous show of the Mass. Papp.

3. Controv. The authority of the Scripture dependeth not upon the testimony of the Church.

v. 27. The vision of the evening and morning is true, &c. The Angel here giveth testimony unto the truth of this vision, yet therefore dependeth it not upon the Angels approbation, but upon the authority of Christ: this then is but a weak argument of the Romanists; the Church giveth testimony to and of the Scriptures, therefore the authority of Scripture dependeth of the Church, Polan. Indeed the consent and general approbation of the Church may induce us, at the first, and may make a way, and as it were prepare us; but we believe the Scriptures for the truths sake therein contained, being thereunto persuaded by the spirit of God. See further of this question, Synops. Centur. 1. err. 5.

4. Controv. The description of Antiochus agreeth to the Pope and Antichrist.

Although historically this vision of the little horn were fulfilled in Antiochus, yet for as much as he was a type of Antichrist, all those properties do fitly agree unto him also, shadowed forth in Antiochus: and so Gregor. in 40. c. Job, and Lyranus do in diverse points make Antiochus a type of Antichrist, though they do not take the Roman Bishop to be he.

1. Before Antiochus raged against the people of God, there was a defection and falling away of many from the faith, to Paganism: and this is touched, v. 23. In the ende of their kingdom, when their rebellions, defections, or falling away shall be perfected: for so Jason, and Menelaus, with diverse other of the Jews forsook their religion, and followed the Gentile customs, 1. Macchab. 14. 15. So before Antichrist come, there shall be a departure or apostasy, 2. Thess. 2. 3. which shall be a falling away from the faith, as Irenaeus interpreteth, lib. 5. adverse. haeres. c. 21. so also Primasius, Chrysostom, Oecumen. Lyranus. upon that place: which we see is come to pass, that the most part of Christian nations had forsaken the purity of the Gospel.

2. Antiochus was of an impudent face: so Antichrist shall be ad omne malum inuerecundus, unshamefast to every evil work, Lyranus. which is fulfilled in the Pope: who without all modesty and shamefastness, challengeth to be the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church, Universal Bishop, and what not.

3. His power was great, but not by his own strength. Antiochus was assisted by the malicious practices of others, as of Menelaus: So the Pope hath increased by the help of others. Phocas that killed Maurice the Emperor, first granted unto Pope Boniface the 3. to be called head of the Church: And of late times the French and Spanish kings have waged battle for the Pope.

4. v. 23. He shall understand dark sentences, whereby is understood his craft and subtlety: so Antichrist, as Lyranus noteth, callidissimus erit auxilio Diaboli, shall be most crafty by the help of the devil: And so the Pope hath bewitched the world with his intoxicate cup of fornications, with deceitful and subtle doctrines of invocation of Saints, prayer for the dead, purgatory, indulgences, and such like: and he hath also deceived the world with lying signs and wonders, as S. Paul prophecieth, 2. Thess. 2. 9.

5. Antiochus should destroy the mighty, and the holy people: So the Pope hath deposed kings, and deprived them of their kingdoms: he hath also more persecuted the people of God, then ever did any of the Pagan Emperors.

6. Antiochus is prophesied to wax great toward the North, toward the south, &c. v. 9. he should raise up tumults and wars everywhere: So the Popes have been the authors of bloody wars in every place almost. Gregory the 3. and Leo 3. set Italy against the Emperor: zacharias suborned Pipinus against Childerick king of France: Adrian 1. set the French and Lombards together by the ears: Julius the 2. stirred up diverse Christian Princes against the Venetians: Nicolaus the 3. caused the Sicilians to put the French to the sword: Paulus the 3. raised the Italians and Spaniards against the Germans: yea, there have been almost no wars between Christian Princes, wherein the Pope hath not put his foul finger.

7. Antiochus should thorough peace destroy many: and so did Gregory the 13. under pretence of peace, in that bloody marriage at Paris, in the year 1572. cause much blood to be shed.

8. Antiochus should stand against the Prince of Princes, God himself: so the Pope advanceth himself against God, in taking unto himself authority to dispense with the word of God: in maintaining doctrines directly opposite to the Scriptures, as idolatry, invocation of Saints, merits, and such like.

9. Antiochus should exalt himself in his heart, v. 25. so the Pope hath been so lifted up in pride, that he hath set his foot in the necks of Emperors, made them kiss his foot, and hold his stirrup, and lead his horse.

10. Antiochus should be destroyed without hand: so the Lord shall consume Antichrist with the spirit of his mouth, 2. Thess. 2. 8.

1. Observ. Religion maketh a city or country famous.

v. 9. Toward the pleasant land. There were many countries more flourishing then Judea in temporal blessings, as Egypt, Babylon, Syria, yet Judea is called the pleasant land, because of the true religion and worship of God: So Italy now is for pleasantness and fruitfulness far beyond other regions; but those countries and cities which profess the Gospel, are the pleasant lands in the sight of God: as the brethren of Berea are called noble in respect of their knowledge, and zeal, Act. 17. 11.

2. Observ. The Church of God is militant and warfaring in earth.

v. 13. To tread, &c. the army under foot. The Church of God doth but sojourn here in earth, and the faithful are but as pilgrims and strangers here, as S. Peter saith, 1. Pet. 2. 11. They do not war after the flesh, 2. Cor. 10. 3. Therefore we are taught, that as God's soldiers, we should strive for the kingdom of God, and hold out this our warfare and pilgrimage with constancy and patience, till we obtain the victory.

3. Observ. Of the care and love of the Angels toward the Church of Christ.

v. 13. As here an Angel is desirous to know how long this desolation of the Church should last: so those blessed spirits of God do grieve to see the affliction of Christ's Church, & desire to have it at an ende: As they rejoice to see the Church increased, and men brought unto repentance, Luk. 15. 7. Joy shall be in heaven for one sinner that converteth.

4. Observ. It is profitable to hear the same things often.

v. 26. As the Angel repeateth only the vision of the evening and morning, but expoundeth it not, because it was plain enough: so it is not amiss for us often to have inculcated and beaten upon the same principles of religion: as S. Paul saith, Philip. 3. 1. It grieveth me not to write of the same things unto you, and for you it is a sure thing. Men must not then have itching ears, still desirous to hear new things: such were the Athenians, who coveted only to tell and hear news, Act. 17. 21.

5. Observ. How we should be affected in hearing God's word.

v. 27. And I Daniel was stricken and sick, &c. Daniel was much moved at the hearing of this vision: so should the servants of God be thoroughly stricken with admiration at the mysteries of religion: their inward bowels should be moved at the hearing of God's word. They then which are dull and heavy, and have no sense not feeling when God's word is denounced, do show that they have but carnal and cold affections, and had need to be often roused up with that saying, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

1. Quest. What Ahasuerus this was, whose son Darius is said to be.

1. What Darius this was, is handled at large, qu. 1. c. 6. he was not that Darius, in whose second year the Temple began to be built, whereof mention is made, Hagg. 1. 1. as Porphyry of purpose doth confound them, to disturb the prophetical history and computation of years in Daniel: neither was this that Darius whom Alexander overcame, but Darius before mentioned, c. 6. who together with Cyrus took the city of Babylon.

2. This Ahasuerus the father of Darius, was not that Ahasuerus the husband of Esther, as Cano thinketh, and Bullinger seemeth to incline to that opinion: for that Ahasuerus is also called Artaxerxes in the book of Esther, which was the name of the Persian kings after Cyrus: And that Ahasuerus had his palace and princely seat at Sushan, which was not appointed to be the chief city or seat of the kingdom until Cyrus, as Strabo thinketh, l. 15. or till Darius Hystaspes, as Plin. lib. 6. c. 21. Perer. But this argument rather overthroweth this opinion, that the captivity of Babylon was ended, and the people returned before the reign of that Ahasuerus: whereas they were at this time in captivity still. And further, that Ahasuerus reigned from India to Ethiopia: but the Chaldean Monarchy yet standing, the Persian Monarchy could not be so large.

3. Josephus, Hieronimus, Theodoret, and Lyranus, Carthusian. following them, take this Ahasuerus to be Astyages whose daughter Mandane was Cyrus mother: but Astyages is not found to have had any sons, but only that daughter, as is shown before, c. 6. qu. 1. 6.

4. Pererius thinketh that Ahasuerus, or Achashuerus, was not the proper name of any one king, but it being derived of Achash, great, and Resh, an head, was a common name, which was given by the Hebrews unto foreign Princes that were of great power: And this title is found given unto three kings, the father of this Darius, the husband of Esther, and to that king, which hindered the building of the Temple, Ezr. 4. who is thought by the most to be Cambyses the son of Cyrus.

Contr. Pererius is here deceived in many points. 1. he taketh Ahasuerus to be an Hebrew name, where it hath a Persian derivation, and is derived of Achash, which signifieth a Prince, Polan. in c. 6. v. 1. 2. it is evident, that it was a peculiar name, for otherwise it should have been common to all the Persian kings. 3. the same Ahasuerus mentioned Ezt. 4. 6. is thought to be the same so much celebrated in the story of Esther: in both places Junius taketh him for Xerxes.

5. Wherefore the more probable opinion is, that this Ahasuerus, called by the Greek historians Cyaxares the first, was father unto Astyages and this Darius, who was called also Cyaxares the second: for there is no great difference in signification between Cyaxares and Achassuerus, the first being derived of chu, and achash, both which words signify a Prince: and put together, a Prince of Princes, that is, a great Prince: and Achassuerus likewise is derived of the same word, Achash, a Prince, Joseph. Scallig. lib. 6. de emendat. Polan. in 6. Dan. This Ahasuerus then was not Astyages, but the father of Astyages and this Darius, who was uncle to Cyrus mother, and great uncle unto Cyrus. Iun. comment.

2. Quest. Of the years of Darius reign, and how this vision is said to be in his first year.

1. Annius, whom Driedo, and Lucidus follow, think that Cyrus and Darius reigned two years together, after the Babylonians were subdued. 2. Lyranus and Vatablus in 9. • . Dan. think that Darius reigned two years before Cyrus reign began. 3. Cyrillus Hierosolymit. seemeth to give unto him eight years, cateches. 12. 4. Severus Sulpitius thinketh that Darius reigned 18. years, at the same time that Astyages reigned in Media: but that cannot be, for this Darius was also the king of the Medes and Persians, as is evident, c. 6. 5. Josephus Scalliger giveth unto Darius 17. years, making him the last king of the Chaldeans, after whom Cyrus succeeded, lib. 6. de emendat. tempor. 6. Junius opinion seemeth to be, commentar, in 5. c. v. 29. that the first year of Darius, was the second of Cyrus. 7. Pererius affirmeth that Darius reigned but one year, and that Cyrus succeeded him in the same year, being the 70. year of the Jews captivity.

8. But the truer opinion is, that Cyrus and Darius reigned jointly together, as thinketh Calvin: and that the first of Darius was the first also of Cyrus: for in the first of Cyrus the word of God spoken by Jeremiah concerning the 70. years captivity was finished, 2. Chro. 36. 22. And so likewise it appeareth in this place, that in the first year of Darius, that time of 70. years was expired: the first then of Cyrus and Darius concurred together: for the rest, it is like that Darius reigned not long, but being 62. year old, when he took the kingdom upon him, he might die the same year, which was also Cyrus first: see more hereof, c. 6. qu. 3.

9. And whereas it is said, in one year of Darius, which Pererius gesseth to be so called, because he reigned but one year: the reason rather is this, that the word a • hath, which signifieth one, is according to the phrase of the Hebrew, taken for the first: as Gen. 1. the morning and evening were one day, that is, the first: and Mark. 16. it is said, that our Lord rose in one of the Sabbaths, that is, in the first day of the week. Polan. Pintus.

3. Quest. Whether in the first year of Darius the Chaldean Monarchy was dissolved and the 70. years captivity ended, against the opinion of Josephus Scalling. lib. 6.

Josephus Scalliger, a man of excellent learning, who for his singular labors in that learned and exquisite work, which he hath written of the emendation of the times hath highly deserved of all men, yet is in diverse points overseen, and especially in this matter concerning the ende of the Chaldean Monarchy, and of the Jewish captivity: for lib. 6. of that work he hath these positions.

1. He affirmeth, that the Chaldean state was not dissolved in the 70. year of the captivity, but rather in the 60. year: for from the 8. year of Ieconias captivity unto the ende of the Chaldean government, are found saith he, by Josephus computation, who therein followeth Berosus, about 60. years: 36. years remained after the 8. year of Nabuchadnezzers reign when the captivity began, who reigned in all 43. years: after Nebuchadnezzar Evil-merodach 2. years, then Niglasar 4. years, Labosardach 9. months, and Nabonidus, whom Cyrus overcame, 17. years.

2. He thinketh that Cyrus did not take Babylon in the first year of his reign, but many years after when he had vanquished Cresus the rich king of Lydia, two years after that, as Herodotus writeth, he overcame the Chaldeans: But Cresus was overcome, as Eusebius doth cast the time, in the 4. year of the 57. Olympiad, whereas Cyrus began to reign in the 1. year of the 53. Olyampiad.

3. The first year of Cyrus he would have concur with the 46. year of the captivity, not with the 70. year: for the beginning of Cyrus reign, as is before shown, was in the 1. year of the 55. Olympiad: And Babylon was taken in the 2. year of the 58. Olympiad, which was the 14. year of Cyrus, and the 60. year of the captivity.

4. A fourth assertion is, that the captivity ended in the last year of Cyrus, about the 2. year of the 62. Olympiad, when as Cyrus had now subdued many countries, which could not be in the beginning of his reign: for thus Cyrus saith in his Edict for the return of the Jews, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given unto me: And whereas it is there called the 1. year of Cyrus, that is not to be understood of his reign, but of the captivity: for so the Jews began their account of years from that time.

Contra. 1. The first position is contrary to that prophesy of Jeremiah, c. 35. 12. When the 70. years are accomplished, I will visit the king of Babel, &c. then the 70. and last year of the captivity, and the dissolution of the Babylonian state, must fall out together: as for that computation of Berosus of the years of the Babylonian kings, it is vncerten: neither doth Josephus always follow it, who else where joineth the last year of the captivity, with the first year of Cyrus.

2. Herodotus is deceived much in his history in the order of time, and in the computation of years, as is evident in this one instance; Nitocris the mother of Balshazar, whom he calleth Labynitus the last king of Babylon, he maketh but five generations or descents from Semiramis: which exceedeth not an 165. years, counting a generation at 33. years, or at the most 500. years, if we give an 100. years to a generation: whereas the most writers are of opinion, as Jerome, Eusebius, Orosius, Augustine, with others, that there were at the least a 1000. years between them.

3. The two last assertions may evidently be convinced by the Scripture, which expressly setteth down, that the return of the Jews, and so the ende of their captivity, was in the first year of Cyrus: which must be understood of his reign over Chaldea, for he had reigned before in Persia, and Darius in Media: he might say all kingdoms were given him, because he had overcome the large Empire of Babylon. The Jews indeed accounted their own years from such notable deliverances, as from their going out of Egypt, from their return out of Chaldea: but there is no reason so to account the years of the reign of foreign kings, neither can any such president be shown in Scripture.

4. Quest. Of the 70. years of captivity in what sense they are called seven generations, Baruch. 6. 2.

Whereas the Prophet Jeremiah defineth and setteth down the term of the Babylonian captivity, to be 70. years, c. 25. v. 11, 12. c. 29. v. 10. it seemeth strange, that Baruch, c. 6. 2. should say, that they should remain in Babylon seven generations: to this objection diverse answers are made by the Romanists, who hold the epistle of Baruch to be Canonical.

1. The word generation, is taken diversely: sometimes for 7. years, as when the Physi • ians prescribe that a child should not be let blood till he hath accomplished two generations, that is, 14. years. Eusebius taketh a generation for 20. years: Herodotus sometime for the space of 2 • . years, sometime for 33. years: Diodorus for 30. years: in which sense H • mer saith Nestor lived three ages, that is 90. years: Dyonisius Halycarnass. by a generation understandeth an 100. years: and so it is taken in Scripture, Gen. 15. 13. 16. four generations are expounded to be four hundred years. Beside these diverse acceptions of the word generation, Carthusianus taketh it for the age of a man apt for generation, which is at 14. years: whereof five do make 70. years: the first and last are reckoned exclusive, exclusiuely: as the like instance he giveth in the Evangelists, where Matthew saith Christ was transfigured after six days, c. 17. Luke saith after eight, exclusiuely: But this is a very forced exposition: for to what ende should seven generations be named, if they were only five: neither can it be shown out of the Scriptures, that a generation is taken for 14. year • .

2. The same Carthusian hath another exposition, that the number of seven is taken for perfection, and so by 7. generations he meaneth the perfect periode of a man's life, which is seventy years: as it is defined, Psal. 90. But this rather should have been named one generation, then seven: for one man's life maketh but one generation.

3. Pererius hath diverse answers, by seven generations he understandeth many: but the captivity lasted not many generations, seeing Daniel saw the beginning and ende thereof.

4. By a generation he understandeth the term of 15. years, because at that age men are apt for generation: then 5. of these generations were complete, and two of them the first and last were but begun only.

5. Or Jeremiah speaketh of the captivity which began with Jeconiah, Baruch of that which took beginning under Zedekiah: or Jeremiah defineth the time of that captivity, which ended in the first year of Cyrus, Baruch of that which held unto the seventh year of Artaxerxes, when diverse of the Jews returned with Zerubbabel: But if they will have Baruch a Prophet, he must not cross Jeremiah's prophesy, to begin the time determined of 70. years captivity sooner, or to ende it later.

6. The only solution is, that this epistle of Baruch is Apochryphall, and this is an evident argument thereof, because he calleth this term of 70. years, 7. generations, which hath no warrant out of Scripture, and therein disagr • eth from the Prophet Jeremiah.

Quest. 5. When the 70. years of captivity mentioned, v. 2. took their beginning.

1. The opinion of some was, which Eusebius remembereth in his chronicle, concealing the authors of that opinion, that the 70. years of captivity began in the 13. year of Josiah: But this cannot be so: 1. Jeremiah began then indeed to foretell them of the evils which should happen unto them, but 23. years after he prophesied of the 70. years captivity, Ierem. 25. 8. 2. And so long as Io • ias lived, the Lord promised him, 2. king. 2 • . that his eyes should not see the evils, which the Lord had threatened to bring upon that place.

2. Whereas there were three several captivities: the first in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, in the third year of the reign of Jehoiachim, when Daniel went into captivity, Dan. 1. 1. the second in the 7. and 8. year of Nebuchadnezzar, when Ieconias with others was carried away captive, 2. king. 24. 12. the third in the 11. year of Zedekiah, and in the 18. year of Nebuchadnezzar, when the city and temple were destroyed. 2. king. 24. Ierem. 51. 29. Some do begin these 70. years from the first captivity, of which opinion are Seuerus Sulpitius, lib. 2. sarc. histor. Lyranus Vatablus, in 9. Daniel: whereunto consenteth also H. B. in his consent: But here cannot begin that famous captivity, because the land could not be captived, seeing the king Jehoiachim himself went not into captivity.

3. The most general opinion is, that the beginning of the captivity of 70. years, must be referred unto the third captivity under Zedekiah: of this opinion are many ancient grave authors, Josephus lib. 11. antiquit. Clemens lib. 1. stromat. Julius Africanus lib. 5. Annal. E • sebius in chron. Lactantius lib. 4. institut. c. 5. Jerome in 4. c. Ezekiel, with diverse others: Pererius adjoineth this reason, because these 70. years are said here to be the years of the desolation of Jerusalem, but the city was not brought to desolation until the captivity of Zedekiah: But this reason concludeth not, for although then there was greater desolation brought upon the city, yet before when as the king and all the principal men, and artificers were carried away, the city began to be desolate: And altogether it was not desolate, no not in the last captivity: for 5. year after in the 23. year of Nebuchadnezzar, there were 745. persons carried away captive by Nebuzaradan, Ierem. 52. 30.

4. Wherefore the more certain opinion is, that the 70. years began with Jeconiah captivity, which may be confirmed by these reasons. 1. Jeremiah, cap. 29. v. 10. writeth unto those which were in captivity with Iechoniah, that after 70. years, the Lord would visit them. 2. direct mention is made of the captivity of Iechoniah, Esther. 2. 6. when Mor • ee as went into captivity. 3. Iechonia and the rest yielded themselves unto the king of • haldes, and obeyed the counsel of Jeremiah, which Zedekiah refused, and therefore the first are compared to a basket of good figs, the other to a basket of rotten figs, they which remained with Zedekiah went into Egypt: the first captivity then rather is to be counted, because the counsel of God therein was followed. 4. Ezekiel in diverse places counteth the years from the captivity of Jeconiah, as the fifth, c. 1. 3. the sixth year, c. 8. 1. the seventh, c. 20. 1. the tenth year, c. 37. 1. the eleventh year, c. 31. 1. All which years are reckoned from the time, when Jeconiah went into captivity. 5. beside, the captivity of Jeconiah was most famous, both in respect of the persons that went into captivity, and their number: for the king himself, his mother, Princes, and servants were carried away: And the captives were to the number of ten thousand, 2. king. 24. 14. But in the captivity under Zedekiah, Jeremiah speaketh but of 832. persons taken captive, cap. 52. 29. therefore from the captivity of Jeconiah, as the most famous, is the account of the years to begin.

Quest. 6. When the 70 years of captivity ended.

1. Some make two reckonings of these 70. years, one of the captivity of the Jews, which began with Jeconiah captivity, and ended in the first year of Cyrus, the other 70. were begun 19. year after with the captivity of Zedekiah, and are extended 19. year after, to the second year of Darius Hystaspes: 3. years of Cyrus reign, 14. of Cambyses, and 2. of Darius make 19. years, Pelican, Oecolampad. following Theodoret.

Contra. 1. But the Scripture in no place maketh mention of twice 70. years, there is but one and the same prophesy of Jeremiah, concerning the 70. years captivity, which can be but once fulfilled: for otherwise we should make these prophetical predictions uncertain. 2. beside, the years of the Persian kings are not certain: some unto the 2. year of Darius Hystaspes, make not so many years: Junius giveth unto Cyrus and Cambyses together but 9. years, to the Magi one year, and then succeeded Darius: these make but 12. years with the second of Darius: Some make account of more years, as Bullinger giveth unto Cyrus 16. years, to Cambyses 8. years: some allot unto Cyrus 30. years, unto Cambyses 9. years: Lively in his Persian Monarchy. Pererius counteth 40. years, from the 1. of Cyrus to the second of Darius: there being then such uncertainty of these years, it is hard to interpret a prophesy upon so weak and uncertain ground.

2. An other opinion is, that these 70. years must ende simply in the second year of Darius Hystaspes. 1. because these 70. years are called the years of the desolation of the Temple: now the Temple remained desolate until the 2. year of Darius Hystaspes. 2. Zechariah beginning his prophesy in the 2. year of Darius, thus saith, c. 1. 12. thou hast been displeased with us, now these threescore and ten years. 3. Mardocheus who lived in the time of king Ahasuerus, who is thought to be Artaxerxes Mnemon, who succeeded an 150. years after the 1. year of Cyrus, should then be above an 130. year old, if the 70. years ended in the first of Cyrus: of this opinion are, Clemens Alexand. lib. 1. stromat. Euseb. in Chroni. Isidor. lib. 5. Etymolog.

Contra. 1. These arguments conclude not. 1. though the temple was not reedified till the reign of Darius: yet because the people had liberty to return, and to repair both the Temple and city in the first of Cyrus, the captivity and desolation ended then: But if they will extend the time of desolation so long till both the Temple and city were fully repaired, then that time must hold out yet longer: for the city was not fully repaired until the 20. year of Artaxerxes, whom Pererius taketh for Artaxerxes Longimanus, Junius for Artaxerxes Mnemon, when Nehemiah's by the kings grauntreturned to repair the city, and build the walls.

2. The Prophet Zechariah affirmeth not the 70. years then first to be expired: but his meaning is, that they had endured the 70. years captivity which were prophesied of, and yet they saw not the full restitution of their city and country.

3. To the third argument Pererius answereth, that whereas the words in the text stand thus, there was in the city of Shushan a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish a man of Iemini, which had been carried away from Jerusalem, with the captivity that was carried away with Iechoniah: these words, which had been carried away, he would have referred not to Mordecai, but to Kish, that he was carried away captive: so also Junius: But Pererius answer is taken away by that text of the Apochryphall Esther, which is canonical Scripture with them, where c. 11. v. 3. it is said, that Mordechai, erat de numero eorum captiuorum, &c. was of the number of those captines, whom Nebuchadnezzar translated with Iechoniah: Junius may be refelled by his own chronicle: for unto the reign of Ahasuerus, whom he taketh to be Xerxes, he numbereth but 46. years, from Cyrus first: Cyrus and Cambyses reigned 9. years, the Magi one year, Darius Hystaspes 36. years: unto this add 70. years, of the captivity: all make not full an 120. years: it is not like that in this term, there were so many descents and generations; namely these sour, of Kish, Shimei, Jair, Mordecai: therefore the best answer here is, that so many years must not be given unto the Persian kings: Mordecai being one of those which were carried into captivity, Ezra. 2. 1, 2. might be then an ancient man, but nothing near of such years as is supposed.

4. But this opinion may be refelled by the former argument, that from the last captivity unto the 2. of Darius when the Temple was reedified must needs be above 70. years, seeing the most do hold at the least 40. years between the 1. of Cyrus, and the second of Darius: and between the last captivity of Zedekiah in the 18. year of Nebuchadnezzar, and the 1. of Cyrus were more then 30. years: for that captivity was in the 18. year of Nebuchadnezzar, Ierem. 52. 29. who reigned in all 45. years, there remained then 27. years of his reign, Balthazar had 3. years, then came between them Evil-merodach, who as Josephus writeth, reigned 18. years, lib. 10. antiquit. c. 12.

3. It remaineth then, that the 70. years of captivity must have their determination in the first year of Cyrus: as is evident, 2. Chron. 36. 22. then was the word and prophesy of Jeremiah finished: And this is agreeable to the prophesy of I say: he saith of Cyrus, &c. he shall perform all my desire: saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built, and to the Temple, thy foundations shall be surcly laid, I say. 44. 28.

Quest. 7. Of Daniel's prayer, v. 4. to v. 20.

Daniel's prayer consisteth 1. of the invocation it self, where God is described by his epithetes and titles, great and fearful: and his effects, the keeping of his covenant toward them that love him. 2. then followeth the prayer it self, which hath two parts as Daniel himself divideth it, a confession to v. 15. and deprecation from thence to v, 20. In the confession 1. Daniel maketh an ample and large confession of his and the people's sins and unrighteousness, to v. 7. 2. of the justice and righteousness of God in punishing their sins yet in mercy, to v. 15. In the confession of their sins are set forth, 1. the manner, which is amplified by four degrees, they have sinned, committed iniquity, done wickedly, yea rebeiled: they have sinned not of ignorance and infirmity, but wittingly and obstinately. 2. the matter, in leaving God's commandments, and not giving care to his Prophets, v. 6. The confession is either general, to v. 10. or particular to v. 15.

In the general. 1. be confesseth God's justice in bringing upon them shame, which is amplified by a threefold enumeration of the people: by their country, the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, yea all Israel: by their place and situation, near and far off thorough all countries: by their degrees and callings, even upon their kings and Princes, v. 8. 2. he confesseth God's mercy, v. 9.

In the particular confession, is set forth God's justice in punishing their sin: where 1. their sin is amplified. 2. the punishment. In the amplification of their sin, namely their disobedience, three circumstances are expressed, whose voice they disobeyed, the Lord's, by whose ministry, by the Prophets, and who were disobedient, even all Israel.

Concerning the punishment three things are declared. 1. the prediction of it, in the commination set forth in Moses law, v. 11. 2. the fulfilling and accomplishment of it, v. 12. 3. the quality and condition of it, the greatest plague under the whole heaven was fallen upon them: And this last part of the greatness of the judgment is amplified, 1. by the certainty of the prediction. 2. by their sin of security, in not being humbled by prayer unto God, 3. by the equity and justice of God, v. 14.

Then followeth the second part of Daniel's prayer, his deprecation and earnest petition: wherein he prayeth: for two things. 1. that the Lord would turn his wrath from them. 2. that he would return and show his gracious favor toward Jerusalem. The first petition is enforced by these arguments. 1. from the example of their deliverance out of Egypt. 2. by the effects thereof, the renown and praise which the Lord had obtained thereby. 3. from the confession of their sin. 4. from God's righteousness, which must be understood in keeping and performing his promise. 5. from the sequel and event, they were become a reproach unto their enemies. 6. from the interest and property, which God had in Jerusalem, he calleth it his city, v. 16. The other petition that the Lord would show his favor, is amplified by these reasons. 1. because it is his Sanctuary. 2. from the misery and desolation thereof, it lieth wast, and therefore was to be pitied. 3. from the cause, for the Lord, the Messiahs sake. 4. from the quality and condition of the people and city, they were the Church of God, his name was called upon among them. 5. from the opposition between their worthiness, which they disclaymed, and the Lord's mercies, which they only relied upon. 6. from the end, he asketh that God's name thereby might be set forth: for thine own sake, O God.

Quest. 8. How Daniel prayeth for the deliverance of the people, seeing it was certainly promised after 70. years.

Daniel doth not pray so earnestly knowing the time prefixed of the 70. years to be expired, as doubting of the fulfilling and accomplishment of the prophesy: for he being not only a faithful man, but a Prophet himself, made no doubt, but that God; being most constant in not changing, and most powerful in performing what he hath decreed, would accordingly remember his people.

These reasons then may be rendered, why Daniel prayeth notwithstanding he was assured of the certainty of this prophesy. 1. Theodoret saith, timens Daniel, ne peccata Iudaeorum diuinis promissis obstarent, preces apud Deum multiplicavit, Daniel fearing least the sins of the Jews might hinder the divine promises, doth multiply his prayers before God, &c. The promises, as likewise the comminations of God are of two sorts: some are absolute, which shall most surely come to pass, such was the promise of the coming of the Messiah: some are conditional: as was the promise that the seed of Abraham should inherit Canaan forever, which was upon condition of their obedience: Such was the commination threatened against Nineveh conditional, unless they did repent: and Daniel, as Theodoret thinketh, might take this promise of deliverance after 70. years to be conditional, and might fear, least the sins of the people should hinder it.

2. Jerome giveth this satisfaction: Daniel prayeth not as incredulous, sed vt quod Deus per suam promiserat clementiam, per ipsius preces impleret, but that what God had promised by his clemency, might be fulfilled through his prayers, &c. his meaning is this: that as God had appointed the deliverance of his people, so also he had ordained the means, that it should be obtained by earnest prayers and supplications of his servants: for both of these do fall under the divine ordination, res, & suus modus, the thing it self, and the manner and means thereof, Lyranus. So although God have certainly preordained the salvation of the elect, yet they must walk in the way which God hath appointed, and use the means to further their salvation.

3. Lyranus addeth further: Daniel also prayeth to this end, vt ostenderet se gratum Deo de promissione prius facta, to show his thankfulness to God, for so gracious a promise of their deliverance already made.

Quest. 9. Of the properties required in the prayers of the faithful, observed here in Daniel's prayer, v. 20.

1. In that Daniel doth prostrate himself before the Lord, humbly confessing his sin, it teacheth us, that our prayers must proceed from humility and contrition of heart: therefore was the prayer of the Publican accepted, but the proud Pharisees rejected, because the one prayed in humility, the other was puffed up in pride. 2. in that he did speak in his prayer, therein is shown, that although God do know our hearts and thoughts, and in that regard needeth not to be informed by any voice, yet he will have us by speech in our prayer to open our minds, quo magis pietas nostra inardescat, that our piety and devotion thereby may be kindled the more, Oecolamp. 3. Daniel persevered in prayer: he continued his prayer from morning to evening, unto the time of the evening sacrifice, Oecolamp. 4. he prayeth in charity, not for himself only, but for all the people of God: So if we will have our prayers to be heard, we must offer them up in love: as our Savior saith, Mark. 11. 25. when ye shall stand, and pray, forgive, if ye have anything against any man: 5. Daniel prayeth in faith, presenting his prayers before God only, before whom, and not before any creatures, we must prostrate our selves, Bulling.

Quest. 10. Of the apparition of the Angel Gabriel, v. 21.

1. He is called the man Gabriel, being described by his name, and the form wherein he appeared: some think he is called a man, à virtute, of his strength, gloss interlin. but it is rather to be referred unto the shape, wherein he appeared, Polan. 2. This Angel only in the canonical Scriptures is found expressed by • ame: As for the name Michael, it is given unto Christ, who is the Lord Jehovah, and is not the name of a created Angel, as some learned Hebrews also affirm: H. Br. in Daniel. And this may be the reason hereof, why Gabriel only is named of the Angels, because he was the messenger and minister of the incarnation of that great Angel of the covenant, who should be named and have his conversation among men. 3. This Angel Gabriel was he, that was sent unto Zechariah, and to the Virgin Marie to show the fulfilling and accomplishment of this prophesy, H. Br. 4. And in that he saith, whom I had seen in the vision before, that is the vision set forth in the 8. cap. which was expounded unto Daniel by the Angel Gabriel, c. 8. 16. it maketh much for the confirmation of Daniel, that having experience already of the faithfulness of this holy messenger, he should now be out of doubt, Polan. 5. He is said to come flying, to signify the diligence and readiness of these holy spirits in executing the will of God: and though the Angels are spirits, and neither have bodies or wings of their own, yet it is like, that as the Angel here appeared in an human shape, so also he might seem to come flying with wings, Oecolamp. Hugo.

Quest. 11. How Daniel discerned this to be a good Angel.

1. Some by these five things would have the apparition of good Angels discerned from bad, by their humility, patience, verity, prudence, charity, John. Gerson. As humility appeared in that Angel, which appeared unto John, Reuela • . 22. that would not suffer him to worship him: the good Angels are patient and long suffering toward us, not ready to provoke God, as Satan was, that tempted Job: they are not lying spirits, as Satan was in the mouth of Baals Prophets, 1. king. 22. but always speak and deliver the truth: their heavenly wisdom and prudence appeareth in revealing of secrets, and hid mysteries, as Gabriel, c. 8. did expound the vision to Daniel: they also are zealously affected with love and charity toward the people of God, as our blessed Savior saith, there is joy in heaven over a sinner that converteth, Luk. 15. 2. But beside this ordinary direction, whereby the children of God are taught to distinguish true visions • from false, Daniel being a Prophet understood it, per illuminationem spiritus, by the illumination of the spirit, Pintus. 3. As also Daniel by his former experience in the other visions, c. 8. was able to discern of the appearing of the same Angel here.

Quest. 12. Whether the Angels have 〈◊〉 .

By occasion of these words, that this Angel is called the man Gabriel, this question is briefly to be discussed, whether the Angels have any bodies, or rather are altogether immaterial and without bodies.

1. Of the former opinion seemeth Augustine to be, that, damones sunt a • rea animalia, spirits are a • rie creatures, and because their bodies consist of the air, which is an element more apt to work and do, then to suffer, they are not dissolved by death, lib. 2. de Gen. ad liter. c. 17. And in another place he yieldeth this reason of his assertion, that all Angels good and had are supposed to have a kind of bodies, nihil incorporum credendum est praeter solu •• Deum, nothing is to be held incorporeal beside God only: with Augustine consent Origen • lib. 1. periarch, Philo 〈◊〉 . de opifici, 〈◊〉 , dierum. Lanctanti • s, Hilarius, with others. And in the 2. Nycene Council. action. 4. there was produced a treatise of John Bishop of Thessalonica, to the same purpose, that Angels have either 〈◊〉 or fiery bodies, where that place in the Psalm is alleged, he maketh his Angels spirits, and his messengers flames of fire, Psal. 104. and therefore he concludeth, that they are 〈◊〉 pictura, to be imitated and portraited by picture.

Contra. 1. The Angels being celestial treatures, cannot be supposed to have aerie bodies: the heavens are of a 〈◊〉 pure essence and nature then is the air, the Angels being celestial, and of a more subtle nature the • the heavens, do far exceed the subtlety of the air. 2. God the creator is an infinite spirit far remote from all bodily matter, in comparison of whom the Angels and created spirits may be said to be of a mixed and concret nature: yet they are in themselves of a spiritual and immaterial constitution: otherwise by the same argument, it would follow, that because God is a spirit, therefore the Angels are not spirits. 3. that place in the Psalm describeth not the making and constitution of the Angels, as though they should consist either of aerie or fiery bodies, but it showeth their office only and ministry, that God useth his Angels as the winds and fire, to execute his will: to the which purpose the Apostle allegeth it, Heb. 1. 7. 4. And in that Angels are and may be portraited by picture, it proveth not that they have any bodily constitution, but that they appeared in some visible shape, which is expressed by picture.

2. The sounder opinion then is, that Angeli sunt corporis expertes, Angels are without bodies: which is the judgment of Gregor. Nyssen. in tractat. de oration. of Chrysostom homil. 22. in Genes. of Cyril in c. 12. John. of Theodoret, in c. 12. Daniel. and of Thom. Aquin. And this assertion may further be confirmed by these reasons. 1. because Angels are called spirits in the Scripture: therefore they are of a spiritual nature. 2. the soul of man is of a spiritual substance, not of any corporal constitution, much more the Angels. 3. If Angels had bodies, it would follow, that they are circumscriptable, and occupy a place, as other bodies do: but they cannot be hemmed in by walls, doors, or such like limits and bounds. 4. one body doth not penetrate or pierce another, but giveth way, as the air to the water: but the spirits pass through substances, as through doors, walls, and the like; therefore they have no bodies.

3. Pintus resolveth not of either of these opinions, because the Church hath not defined and determined what is to be held of this matter: and concludeth thus: quid hac in re verum sit, Deus ipse viderit, &c. what cometh near unto the truth herein, God himself knoweth, &c. But it is more consonant and agreeable to Scripture, that Angels are altogether of a spiritual nature, as hath been shown, and therefore we may safely rest in this as a true position, and well grounded conclusion.

Quest. 13. Why the Angel came about the time of the evening sacrifice, v. 21.

1. Some note herereby that Daniel persevered and continued an whole day in prayer from morning to evening, gloss. and if it be objected that the commandment was given unto the Angel in the beginning of Daniel's prayer, and therefore it is not like that the Angel was so long in coming, to deliver the message unto Daniel, it may be answered, that as soon as Daniel began to pray, God in heaven made known his decree for the revealing of this secret to Daniel, Hugo. yet at that instant the Angel came not forth, but as God further directed him.

2. And beside, God by diverse miraculous works did consecrate the time of the morning and evening sacrifice: as about the time of the evening sacrifice at Elias prayer, fire came down from heaven, which consumed the sacrifice, with the water poured upon it, and the very stones of the altar, 1. king. 18. 36. &c. so according to the word of Elisha, in the morning when the meat offering was offered, water came by the way of Edom, 2. king. 3. Thus it pleased God to commend the times of public prayer, that men might have a greater desire unto those public exercises, Polan.

3. Oecolampadius showeth out of Ammonius, that the Angel Gabriel came in the evening, which is the ende of the day, to show, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Christ should come in the latter days of the world.

4. But some observe yet more exactly, that the Angel came about the time of the evening sacrifice, which was the ninth hour of the day, about three of the clock in the afternoon, to show the very hour of the passion of Christ, who about the ninth hour yielded up his spirit, Matth. 27. 46. 50. H. Br.

Quest. 14. Why Daniel is called a man of desires, ver. 23.

1. Some do expound it actively, because Daniel so earnestly desired to understand visions and secret mysteries for his own and others better instruction: so Hugo. 2. Some give this sense, quia in te sunt multa desiderabilia, because there are many excellent things to be desired in thee. 3. or thou art a man of desires, that is, worthy to be beloved, Pintus. 4. But it is better understood passively, he was beloved and accepted with God: and so Symmachus translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a man desired or beloved of God, Oecolampad. and so it answereth to the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , freely beloved, with which word the Angel saluteth Mary Luk. 1. 28. that as here God had chosen Daniel to reveal this mystery unto, concerning the Messiah, so Marie is elected of God to be the mother of Christ for the accomplishment of this vision: So then Daniel is called a man of desires, that is, Deo acceptus, accepted of God, Calvin. Junius. D • o amabilis, beloved of God, Lyranus. Deo ch • rus, deer unto God, Sa. for things which are esteemed, and had in price, are called things of desires, as Esau's best raiment, which Rebekah put about her son Jacob, are called garments of desires, Genes. 27. 15. and pleasant bread Daniel calleth bread of desires, c. 10. 3. Polan.

Quest. 15. v. 24. Seuentie weeks are determined, &c▪ How Daniel's prayer is heard, praying for the people's deliverance.

Seeing Daniel made his request for the deliverance of the people, the 70. years of captivity being expired, and the Angel doth open unto him another vision of 70. weeks of years, the question is, how this is answerable unto Daniel's prayer.

1. One answer is, that because Daniel had some revelation of the Messiah, which should be incarnate, both by the vision of the stone cut out without hands, c. 2. and of the Son of man coming in the clouds, c. 7. he had an earnest desire to be further instructed concerning the coming of the Messiah, and therefore herein the Lord satisfieth Daniel's desire.

2. Lyranu • addeth further, quia Dominus plus dat, quam ab eo petatur, because the Lord giveth and granteth more then is asked of him: he doth not only assure Daniel of the temporal deliverance of the people, now after 70. years captivity; but doth reveal also unto him, the spiritual and everlasting deliverance of the people of God after 70. weeks of years.

3. Father it is answered, that it is usual in Scripture, when anything is spoken of, which is a type and figure of another, that in the handling thereof many things are delivered, which agree unto the thing that is prefigured, not unto the type: as in the Psalms, David and Solomon 〈…〉 as types of Christ: where many things (as Psal. 2. Psal. 7 • .) are declared, which 〈◊〉 in no ways agree unto them, but must be referred unto Christ. And so in this prophesy, the temporal deliverance of the people being a type of their spiritual deliverance by Christ, under the one is signified the other, Perer. so also Rupertus, sic illam captiuitatem solvioptat, vt pro maiori sollicitus • it, he so desireth that captivity to be dissolved, as that yet he is careful for a greater deliverance.

4. But it may forth • be answered, that beside that the Angel satisfieth Daniel's desire concerning the deliverance of the people, he also foretelleth of the spiritual deliverance by Christ: that the people should not rest in that temporal benefit, but be in continual expectation of the coming of the Messiah, by whom they should be redeemed from the bondage of sin, Polan. As also because the people notwithstanding this captivity of 70. years, continued in their sin, the Angel showeth that God would yet give them a longer time ofrepentance, even of seventy weeks of years: after which time, if they repented not, their city should be destroyed, according to the determinate sentence of God, Iun. in commentar.

Quest. 16. v. 24. How the seventy weeks must be understood.

1. These seventy weeks cannot be taken for so many weeks of days, as weeks are properly taken, as Leni • . 23. the feast of Pentecost followed seven weeks after the feast of the Passeo • er: for 70. weeks of days make but one year, 4. months, and 14. days: so that then this prophesy should have been fulfilled in less time, then a year and half, Lyranus. Bulling.

2. Orige • taketh these weeks not for weeks of days, or of single years, but of ten years, that everyone of these prophetical weeks, should comprehend 70. years, and so the whole 〈◊〉 of 70. of these weeks, amounteth to 4900. years: Eusebius in part followeth this interpretation of the weeks, lib. 8. de d • monst. Evangel. for the last week of the 70. he extendeth to 70. years, counting unto the last week seven times ten years: But if this reckoning should stand, this prophesy of Daniel is not yet fulfilled, for from Daniel's time until now, there are not above •• 00. years run, so that their should remain 2700. yerres of the 70. weeks: whereas we see that many years since Jerusalem was destroyed, and their sacrifices and ceremonies abolished.

3. Lyranus▪ reporteth the opinion of some, which understand these to be Jubilee weeks, and some, weeks of hundred years: they which take them for so many Jubilees or 50. years, make in every week 350. years, and the whole sum will rise to 24500. years: but if every day should be counted for an 100. years, the week shall contain 700. years, and 70. weeks, 49000. years. Against this exposition Lyranus allegeth these two reasons. 1. nowhere in Scripture is the name of a week taken in any such sense, either for 50. years, or an 100. years: but either it signifieth weeks of days, or weeks of years. 2. the world shall not continue so many thousand years, neither should this prophesy be yet fulfilled concerning the destruction of the city and Sanctuary: all which things we see came to pass above a 1500. year since.

4. It remaineth then, that we are here precisely to understand 70. weeks of years: every week containing 7. years: for so is a week of years taken, Levite. 25. 8. thou shalt number seven Sabbaths of years unto thee, even seven times seven years: so that 70. weeks of years make 490. years, Iun. Perer. Polan. Pelican. cum caeter.

Quest. 17 Why 70. weeks are said to be cut out or determined.

Whereas the Latin translator readeth, abbreuiatae sunt, 70. weeks are abbreuiated or shortened, this hath given occasion of some question. 1. Augustine epistol. 80. ad Hesychium, maketh mention how some thus interpreted those words of our Savior, Matth. 24. 22. that for the elects • ache those days should be shortened, that the days of persecution should be shorter then the natural day of 24. hours: and thus as well might some suppose the weeks to be said to be shortened▪ like as we read that in Joshua and Hezekiah time, the day was lengthened, and made longer then the natural day: But this cannot be the meaning, for it cannot be shown, that during the space of those 70. week • , which make 490. years, or for almost two thousand year since, any day fell out shorter then the ordinary course of the natural day.

2. Augustine in the former place reporteth another opinion of some, who thought that the time appointed for the coming of the Messiah, which God had purposed to have prolonged, was at the instant prayers of the Prophets, and other of the elect shortened, and sooner accomplished: like as Augustine thinketh, that the time of 120. years set for the repentance of the old world, was cut short by 20. years.

But this interpretation cannot stand. 1. God by this means, if he had shortened the time, which he had appointed, should be mutable and changeable. 2. they must show out of Scripture, that there was a longer time appointed for the coming of the Messiah, which the Lord abridged. 3. the time limited for the repentance of the old world, was not shortened: but whereas first mention is made of Noah's age of 500. years, Gen. 5. 32. and then the time of 120. years is prescribed, c. 6. 3. and yet Noah was but 600. year old, when he entered into the ark, Gen. 7. 6. it must be acknowledged that the limitation of that time is somewhat transposed, and that in order of time it was revealed to Noah before he was 500. year old, but it is deferred to the 6. chapter, least the history of the generation of the fathers should have been interrupted. See more hereof, Hexapl. in Genes. chap. 6. quest. 6.

3. A third opinion there is, which is ascribed to Julius Africanus, Theodoret, Albertus, Beda, Rupertus, Carthusianus, Hug. Card. that here must be understood the years of the moon, which contain but 354. days, eleven days less then the year of the Sun, which consisteth of 365. days: so that 70. weeks of such years of the Moon, that is, 490. years, are but equivalent to 475. years of the Sun, Rupert. every week of the years of the Sun exceeding a week of the years of the Moon by 77. days.

But Lyranus well refuteth this opinion by these two reasons. 1. because the Hebrews used not to count by the years of the Moon, but by the full and just years of the Sun: otherwise where the Scripture setteth down the sums of years, as 430. of the soiourning of Israel in Egypt and Canaan, Exod. 12. 480. from the departure of Israel out of Egypt to the building of the Temple, 1. King. 6. 1. there should be no certainty in these computations; but if the account should be made by the course of the Moon, there should be fewer years in these sums, then they are reckoned for. 2. Again, whereas the Israelites kept their Passover, on the 14. day of the first Moon, if they should have observed the year of the moon, they should every year keep the Passover, an 11. days sooner then other, and so in process of time, they should have observed that feast every month thorough the year.

4. A fourth exposition is, that abbreuia • e hebdomadas, to abbreuiate or shorten the weeks, is all one, as paucas constiture, to appoint but few weeks: this time was but short in respect of other prophesies made concerning the Messiah, as that to Adam, Gen. 3. and to Abraham, Gen. 22. that in his seed all nations should be blessed: these prophesies were to be fulfilled many years after, but now there remained but a few weeks for the accomplishment of this: In this sense the days are said to be shortened for the elects sake, Matth. 24. 22. that is, they should continue but a short time those days of affliction, Pererius. But we refuse this exposition also, because it is grounded upon a corrupt translation of the word chatach, which signifieth not to abbreuiate, but to cut out, and so consequently, to determine.

5. Barbinel a cavilling Rabbi, by the word chatach, which signifieth to cut, would have signified the cutting afflictions, which the people of God should endure all this time: but all this term was not a time of affliction to the people of God: they had many prosperous days, and had some breathing time, after their return out of captivity.

6. The word chatach then, is well interpreted here, determined, or prefixed, certainly appointed and decreed with God, praefinitae, defined, Vatab. decisae, cut out, Pagnin. Mon. Iun. Polan. and this further is well observed by some, that here a verb of the singular number is joined to a word of the plural, 70. weeks is determined, to show, that everyone of these weeks from the first to the last shall be particularly and precisely complete, Lively.

Quest. 18. Why this term of 490. years is expressed by weeks.

1. The seventh number was of great observation among the Jews: the seventh day, the seventh year, the seventh seventh year, which was the Jubilee in the 49. year, were all times of holy rest: therefore to signify the great year of rest, and Jubilee at the coming of the Messiah, when there should be a general remission of the sins of the world, this time is reckoned by weeks, and by seven times ten weeks of years, which make 10. Iubilies: for ten times 49. years, make just 490. years, Polan. 2. An other reason is this, volebat confer septuaginta hebdo •• adas annorum cum septuaginta annis, the Angel would compare the seventy weeks of years, with the 70. years of captivity, showing that for 70. years of captivity, they should enjoy seven times 70. years of deliverance: the Prophet then, confert Dei gratiam cum iudicio, doth compare the grace and mercy of God, with his judgment, Calvin. 3. But in that the Angel speaketh simply of 70. weeks, not adding of days or years, therein is observed the prophetical manner of speech, which is for the most part obscure and dark, as treating of mystical and hid matters: whereas in historical narrations another kind of plain and open speech and phrase is used.

Quest. 19. Why the Angel saith, upon thy people, and upon thine holy city.

1. Jerome, whom the gloss. followeth, and Hugo Card. thus interpret; he calleth them the people of Daniel, not his people, because they were evil, as though God had rejected them: but this cannot be: for it being called an holy city, must needs be God's city. 2. Tertullian. lib. cont. Iudaeos, and Theodoret upon this place, do think that they are called Daniel's, and not the Lord's people, because of that great sin, which they should commit, in putting the Messiah to death: but in this sense neither would Daniel acknowledge them to be his people. 3. Therefore they are rather called Daniel's people, sanguine & affectu, they were his people both in the kindred of flesh and in affection, Pintus. they were his country-men, and beside he was careful for them, Calv. Osiander. 4. Now, whereas it is said, upon thy people, some understand, for the destruction, and final overthrow of the people and city, Iun. annot. so also Hugo. super, notat oppressionem, this word upon noteth their oppression, who finally were destroyed by the Romans: some give this sense, within this time all these things shall come to pass, which belong unto the eternal saluatiō of the people, Osi. But both rather are signified; both the mercy, which should be offered unto this people, in taking away their sins by the coming of the Messiah, and the judgment, which should befall them for their contempt & rejecting of the Messiah: for both these are afterward touched, the benefits, which the Messiah should bring unto them, verse. 24. and the calamiti, ewhich should be sent upon them, verse. 26. And both these Junius in his commentary joineth together.

Quest. 20. The meaning of these words, v. 24. to finish or rather restrain wickedness.

1. R. Solomon, who endeth these 70. weeks at the second destruction of the city and Temple by Titus, thus interpreteth, that then the Jews should endure a longer captivity, then before: and thereby should learn, to leave off their sins, and by their long punishment merit forgiveness of their sin.

Contra. 1. Lyranus thus refelleth the Rabbi: that the Jews are so far off from leaving their sins by this long captivity, that they are rather worse: for their perjuries, usury, profane oaths, are notoriously known. And seeing God punished their idolatry, but with captivity of 70. years, and now they have endured captivity more then twice 7. hundred years, it must needs be a greater sin for the which they sustain so long a time of punishment, which can be none other, then their killing the Lord of life the Blessed Messiah. 2. Paulus Burgen. addeth further, that this finishing of iniquity must be within the 70. weeks, but that ceasing from sin which the Rabbi imagineth, must follow after these 70. weeks expired. 3. add hereunto, that no man by the works of the law is justified, or can do any thing acceptable unto God: how then can the Jews without the Messiah obtain remission of sins? And again, men by their punishment, though it be never so long and great, cannot satisfy for their sins; for then they which are tormented in hell, might at length satisfy for their iniquity. Polan.

2. Some following the Latin text, to consummate or finish sin, do thus interpret it, to make perfect sin: as the Jews were come to the height of sin when they crucified Christ: in this sense our Savior saith, Matth. 23. Fulfillye the measure of your fathers: thus expound Chrysostom, orat. 2. cont. Iudaeos. Theodoret upon this place, and Eusebius, lib. 8. de praeparat. Euang. but the next words following, to seal up 〈◊〉 , and reconcile iniquity, do show, that this phrase signifieth rather the consumption, then consummation of sin.

3. Some reading to finish sin, understand it of the consumption of sin, and taking of it away by the death of Christ: as a candle is said to be ended, when it is consumed, Hugo. so is the word finishing taken, Isa. 40. 2. Speak comfortably to Jerusalem, &c. that her warfare is finished, and her iniquity is pardoned. Perer. so also Calv. Genevens. Vatabl. Pintus: this sense is not to be misliked, saving that the word is not well interpreted, which signifieth not to finish, but rather to restrain or shut up.

4. The word cala, with aleph, (which is here used) signifieth to shut up, but cal • h with he, is to finish and consummate: the meaning then is, to restrain sin: which Junius, and Polanus following him, do interpret of the preserving of the elect from that general defection and falling away of the Jews, which began in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

5. But seeing the words following, to seal up sins, &c. are general, not of any special iniquity, or of some special nation, but of the sins of all; these words are better understood also generally, that by the coming of Christ, and preaching of the Gospel, there should be a general restraint of sin: as many which made no conscience before of adultery, idolatry, covetousness, and such like, should be reclaimed by the Gospel▪ Bullinger. as the Apostle saith, having made mention of idolaters, fornicators, adulterers, and such like, who shall not inherit the kingdom of God, addeth, but such were some of you, but ye are washed, ye are sanctified, &c. 1. Cor. 6. 10.

22. Quest. Of the sealing of sins.

1. The Latin translator readeth, to finish sin: whereupon Pererius taketh occasion to show how diverse ways sin was finished by the death of Christ, in that he paid the ransom for our sin, abolished idolatry, conquered Satan: So M. Lively preferreth this reading, and expoundeth it by that place, John. 1. 29. Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

2. But seeing the word is chatam, which signifieth to seal up, and so the Septuagint read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in sealing, therefore this reading is to be preferred, to seal up sins: that is, to bind up as it were, and to seal and cloase them, as never anymore to be opened, read, or declared against us: for as writings are unfolded and opened to be rehearsed, and read, so they are sealed up to be concealed and buried in oblivion: which S. Paul calleth, the putting out of the hand-writing, &c. which was against us, Coloss. • . 14. Polan.

Quest. 22. What it is to reconcile iniquity.

1. The vulgar Latin readeth, to take away sin: so also Lyranus, Hugo, Pintus, with others: and hereupon Pererius showeth how three ways a thing may be taken away, by washing and wiping, by scraping, as a blot in writing, and by dissipating or dissolving, as when a cloud or mist is dispersed: and so in all these phrases sin is said to be taken away: as David saith, Psal. 51. wash away my sin, and S. Paul, that Christ hath rased out the handwriting of our sin, Colos. 2. And Isaiah 44. 22. the Lord saith, I have put away thy transgression as a cloud: This sense is true, but it is not well grounded: for the word caphar, signifieth to expiate, reconcile, not to take away.

2. Some by this expiation and reconciliation understand the taking away of the guilt of sin, whereby we are made guilty of eternal damnation, Polan. but that seemeth to be signified before in the sealing of sins, that they should not be had in remembrance to ou • condemnation.

3. Hereby then rather is signified that Christ hath made reconciliation for sin, that is, he satisfied in his death upon the cross, pro culpa & poena, &c. for the fault and punishment, Bulling.

4. Thus by these three words here used, peshagh, chataoth, ghaven, which are translated, wickedness, sins, iniquity, all manner of sins whatsoever are implied, (sin only against the holy Ghost excepted) Bulling. which may thus be distinguished, wickedness against God, sin in our selves, and iniquity against our neighbor, Hugo. And here this benefit of taking away sin is set forth in three degrees: in restraining the act, in sealing them up in respect of the guilt unto condemnation, and in making expiation for the fault and offense it self.

Quest. 23. v. 24. How the Messiah brought everlasting righteousness.

1. Some by this everlasting justice understand Christ himself, Vatab. who is said to be our justice five ways. 1. exemplariter, because his justice and righteousness is set before us to imitate and follow. 2. satisfactory, because he hath satisfied the wrath of God by his righteousness for our sins. 3. meritorie, he hath by his righteousness merited for us eternal life. 4. efficienter, he is the efficient cause of our justice and righteousness. 5. finaliter, because this is the ende of our holiness and righteousness, to be made like and conformable to the image of the son, as the Apostle speaketh, Rom. 8. 29. Perer. But here is understood, not that righteousness which Christ hath in himself, but that which is communicated unto us: for here are two benefits rehearsed, which should come by the Messiah, the first is the taking away of sin, which is before expressed: the other the bringing and giving of righteousness.

2. Some by justice understand the preaching of righteousness by the gospel, as Lyranus, as it is taken, Isaiah. 45. 23. the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, Pintus. But the preaching of the gospel shall not be everlasting: for in the next world, there shall be no need of preaching: the Saints shall enjoy the presence and sight of the lamb, who shall be their light.

3. Some by justice interpret the active justice, which God exercised upon the cross in not sparing his son, but giving him for the redemption of the world, Hug. Card. But the very phrase, to bring in everlasting righteousness, showeth, that such a justice is here meant, not which was shown upon Christ, but was communnicated to his members.

4. Wherefore by justice here is understood nothing else but our justification, whereby the justice of Christ is imputed unto us freely, and made ours by faith, Bulling. and in this sense, is the word justice or righteousness taken, James. 2. 23. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for justice, or righteousness, Pintus.

5. But we must take heed here of that Popish conceit of inherent justice: as Pererius here understandeth that justice, quae in homine inest à Deo effecta, which is in •• an wrought by God, &c. for this justice which is wrought in man by faith, is nothing else but our sanctification, which is imperfect, and therefore it is not that everlasting justice, which is the justice of Christ imputed unto us by faith.

Quest. 24. Why it is called everlasting righteousness.

1. The justice or righteousness of faith in Christ is called everlasting, in respect of the justice of the law: non euanescet sicut iustitia legis, it shall not vanish away as the justice of the law, Osiander. which was a temporary justice consisting in the observation of legal rites and ceremonies, which were not to continue, Perer. such was the righteousness of Zechariah and Elizabeth, which are called just, because they walked in all the commandments, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , constitutions and ordinances of the law, Luk. 1. 6. so also the gloss. it is called eternal justice, quae legis iustitiam vincat, which should exceed the justice of the law.

2. This justice of faith is everlasting, because it is omnium temporum, for all times: all that ever lived in the world, were justified by the justice of faith in Christ, Bulling.

3. And is eternal, quia inchoatur in via, in patria perficitur, it is begun here as in the way, and shall be perfected in our country, Pintus.

4. But it is rather so called in respect of the everlasting force and virtue of this justice, which shall never be extinguished, but shall make us accepted of God forever, Polan. as the Prophet Isaiah saith, c. 45. 17. Israel shall be saned in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, ye shall not be ashawed, nor confounded world without ende.

Here follow certain questions of the justice of Christ, in what manner, wherein, and in what measure it is applied.

Quest. 25. Whether as Christ's satisfaction for the punishment of sin is imputed to us by faith, so likewise his innocence.

It must of necessity follow, if that Christ hath obtained and purchased for us a perfect and absolute redemption, that he hath discharged our whole debt, not only in satisfying for the punishment of the law, but in imputing also unto us his innocence and obedience, as may appear by these reasons.

1. Christ is of greater power to communicate unto us his innocence, then Adam was to derive unto us the guilt of his sin and disobedience: then as by Adam, sin was propagated, and death came in by sin, Rom. 5. 12. so it is necessary, that we should receive from Christ not only exemption from death by his death, but be clothed also with his righteousness.

2. We cannot stand in judgment before God, unless we be endued with perfect justice: now perfect justice is that whereby the commandments of God are exactly fulfilled, which was performed not only by that one act of Christ's death, but by the perfect innocence and holiness of his whole life: therefore the whole obedience of Christ must be imputed and communicated unto us.

3. Christ discharged our whole debt: Now we are debtors not only in respect of the punishment of the law, which by our disobedience we have deserved: but the law exacteth also of us perfect obedience, and integrity from sin: in both these respects then we have need of Christ.

4. The Apostle saith directly, Rom. 10. 4. that Christ is the ende of the law for righteousness unto everyone that believeth, that is, by faith the righteousness of Christ in fulfilling the law is imputed unto us in as full and ample manner, as if we had fulfilled the law our selves.

5. If Christ hath not fulfilled the law for us, it would follow, that the law remaineth still to be fulfilled by us, which is impossible.

26. Quest. Whether the justice brought in by Christ, exceed the justice of Adam.

The righteousness of Christ imputed unto us by faith, is far more excellent many ways then the justice which Adam had in the state of his innocence. 1. That was the justice of a mere man, but this is the justice of that person, which is both God and man. 2. for the effects: the justice of Christ is meritorious of eternal life, it overcame death, subdued the devil: none of all which Adams righteousness could do. 3. Christ's justice is eternal and immutable, but Adams justice was but temporary for a time. 4. And we are in Christ restored to a more excellent state, then we lost in Adam, which was but terrene and mutable; but by Christ we receive an heavenly, everlasting, and immutable kingdom.

27. Quest. Whether it standeth with God's justice, to justify us by an others righteousness, and how that may be.

1. It is not agreeable with God's justice, to justify a sinner, by that righteousness, which is not intended unto him, nor wrought for him: but seeing Christ wrought not righteousness for himself, but intended it wholly unto us, and our benefit; it very well standeth with God's justice, that we should be justified thereby. 2. And this justice of Christ, which is external and without us, is more available to save and justify us, then if it were in our selves: for then it were subject to change and alter, as all other gifts in us are mutable and changeable: but now this saving righteousness is in a subject, namely Christ, immutable and unchangeable. 3. And this righteousness is verily made ours by faith: it is not an imiginarie or supposed justification, but verily and in deed; for as we verily are by nature guilty of Adams transgression, so is the obedience of Christ verily made ours by imputation through faith: And as our sins were imputed to Christ, and he verily suffered death the punishment of sin: so we by the imputation of his righteousness are verily made partakers of everlasting salvation.

28. Quest. How the vision and prophesy was to be sealed up.

The Latin interpreter readeth, vt impleatur, &c. that the prophesy and vision may be fulfilled: which is to the same purpose. Three ways hath our blessed Savior fulfilled and sealed up all vision and prophesy. 1. Christ hath accomplished whatsoever was declared and foretold by the Prophets, as he saith, Matth. 5. I came not to dissolve the law, but to fulfill it: and he saith to his Disciples, Luk. 18. 31. Behold we go to Jerusalem, and all things shall be fulfilled to the Son of man, which are written by the Prophets. 2. He hath fulfilled and sealed them up, because he hath performed that, which the law could not do, which was void, weak, and impotent without Christ: so the Apostle saith, Rom. 8. 3. That which was impossible to the law, because it was weak, &c. God sending his own Son, &c. Christ came to perform that which the law intended, but was not able to effect. 3. Christ hath made an ende of vision and prophesy, they are determined in him: Matth. 11. 13. The Law and the Prophets prophesied unto John: upon which words Chrysostom, orat. 2. contr. Iudaeos, sistere oportuit post Christum prophetias, &c. prophesies were to cease after Christ: So also Tertull, lib. adverse. Iudaeos: post aduentum Christi & passionem eius, ia • non visio, neque propheta est, after the coming and suffering of Christ, now there is neither vision nor Prophet. 4. R. Solomon thinketh that this should be performed after the destruction of the second Temple, when after a long captivity of the people, the Messiah at the last should come, and then all prophesies and promises of the Messiah should cease. But Lyranus refelleth this conceit by these two arguments. 1. because the Prophet Hagge, speaking of the coming of the Messiah, saith, Yet a little while, and I will shake the ••• auens and the earth, &c. and the desire of all nations shall come: but if the Messiah were not yet come, there being 2000. years past since Hagges time, from whom unto the coming of Christ there were above 400. years, and a 1600. are run since, how could this be called a little while? 2. the same Prophet there saith, the desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory: it is evident then, that the Messiah should come, the second Temple yet standing, and not so many years after the destruction thereof, as the Rabbin supposeth. 3. Experience showeth, that long since all prophecies and visions among the Jews are ceased: therefore they are hereby evidently convinced, that the Messiah is come.

5. Barbinel, another cavilling Jew, objecteth, non debuisse auferri prophetiae donum, that the gift of prophesy might not be taken away: wherein he showeth his ignorance, in not distinguishing between the time of vision and prophecy, and of the Messiah, who should ende all vision and prophesying. We also grant, that God would not have taken from his Church the gift of prophesying, but that he hath provided a better way for the instruction of his people, in speaking unto us in these last days by his Son, Hebr. 1. 2. Calvin.

29. Quest. Of the anointing of the holy one: who is signified thereby?

1. R. Solomon understandeth this of the Temple and Sanctuary with the Ark, and the vessels thereof, which he thinketh should be reedified and built again by the Messiah: But Lyranus evidently convinceth this Rabbinical conceit, by that place of Jeremiah, 3. 16. When ye be increased and multiplied in those days in the land (saith the Lord) they shall say no more the Ark of the covenant of the Lord, for it shall come no more to mind, neither shall they remember it: it is evident then by this place, that the Messiah shall not restore again the Ark and the Temple. And in this place the Angel prophesying of the anointing of the Messiah, afterward speaketh evidently of the destruction and desolation of the city & Sanctuary, v. 26. so far off shall the Jewish Temple then be from being reedified at the coming of the Messiah, that it shall rather then be destroyed.

2. Wherefore, this most holy, or holy of holies is understood to be Christ, who was prefigured and shadowed forth, by the most holy place in the Temple, where the Ark was, which had the Tables of stone within it, and the golden Cherubims stretching their wings over it.

3. Junius in his commentary giveth another sense, by the most holy one understanding the Sanctuary, the anointing, and ordinary use whereof should continue the time here limited and prefixed, to draw the people the better to repentance: and in the same sense he understandeth the sealing of the vision and prophecy, that all this time the Lord would not leave his Church destitute of Prophets: But the former words of bringing in everlasting righteousness, do show, that this is better understood of the office of the Messiah, as Junius himself interpreteth in his annotations upon this place: how Christ shall perform those two great benefits, of taking away sin, and bringing in everlasting righteousness by these two means; his Evangelical teaching and prophesying, which shall make an ende of the visions of the law, and by his everlasting priesthood, whereunto he should be anointed.

30. Quest. Why Christ is called the holy of holies.

1. This title and appellation is given unto Christ, both as God and man: As God in four respects: 1. because he is holy of himself, and hath it not from any other. 2. this holiness is essential in him, not accidental, as it is in man. 3. because he is infinitely and beyond measure holy. 4. and he is the original, cause, and fountain of all holiness: As he is man, he is most holy: 1. because of the union of his human nature with his divine. 2. because of the fullness of all grace and holiness, which he received as man. 3. because he is not holy only in himself, but sanctifieth and maketh holy his Church. 4. because he was not of unholy made holy, as man is, but he was always without sin, and so always holy, Perer. to this purpose also Osiander. he is called most holy, because in respect of his divine nature, he is Deus sanctissimus, the most holy God: and in his humanity he was without sin. 2. This title to be called most holy, or holy of holies, is peculiar unto the Messiah, as to be called the king of kings, and Lord of Lord's. And Eusebius observeth well, that he never read in the Scripture, any of the Priests or Kings to be called holy of holies, lib. 8. de demonstrate. Euangelic. 3. Herein the most holy place in the Tabernacle was a type of Christ, wherein the Ark was kept: As the Tabernacle went before the Israelites, and when it refled, they stayed: so we in all things should follow the direction of this Tabernacle. As the glory of God rested upon Moses Tabernacle, so in Christ this blessed Tabernacle, dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead bodily, Col. 2. 9. As the Priests of the law had a Tabernacle to minister in, so, as the Apostle saith, Christ is the minister of the true Tabernacle, which God pight and not man, Hebr. 8. 2. And in this sense Christ also, John. 2. calleth his body, 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 do not read, that Christ was anointed with any external or material oil or ointment: but his anointing was by the spirit of God, as Isa. 61. 1. The spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore he hath anointed me, &c. 2. For the manner, he was anointed with all graces of the spirit, abundanter, abundantly, above his fellows, Psal. 45. 7. and beyond measure, John. 3. 34. God giveth him not the spirit by measure: and redundanter, his fullness redoundeth and overfloweth to his members, John. 1. 16. Of his fullness have we all received grace for grace: like as the ointment, which was poured upon Aaron's head, ran down upon his beard, and so to the skirts of his clothing, 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 poor, &c. which prophecy our blessed Savior applieth to himself, Luk. 4. 18. of his anointing to be King, speaketh the Prophet, Psal. 45. 8. Because thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore hath God thy God anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows: of his priestly office and anointing likewise the Prophet David maketh mention, Psal. 110. 4. Thou art a Priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek: and of this his priestly anointing, this place is specially to be understood.

32. Quest. When Christ was thus anointed.

1. Lyranus generally understandeth the time of Christ's incarnation and humanity, in humanitate vnctus est, &c. he was anointed in his humanity above his fellows. 2. Pererius referreth it to the first instant of his conception, alleging those words of the Angel to Marie, That holy thing which shall be borne of thee, shall be called the son of God. 3. Hugo Card. indifferently would have it understood either of the time of Christ's incarnation, or of his baptism, when his Father from heaven gave testimony unto him, or of his resurrection, when his spiritual anointing was yet more evidently declared. 4. But the solemn anointing of Christ was in his baptism, when the spirit of God descended upon him in the likeness of a dove: non citra visible •• pompam facta est haec Christi vn • tio, this anointing of Christ was not done without some visible pomp, both in his baptism, and afterward in the mountain, when his father testified of him from heaven, Bulling. for although Christ always had the spirit of God, yet in his baptism, and afterward in the preaching of the Gospel, the graces of the spirit did more manifest themselves in him, Osiander. And this further may be gathered by the words going before: for then, when Christ brought eternal righteousness, 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 himself, which followed immediately after. 5. Their error then appeareth, which would have this prophecy of the Angel fulfilled in the ende of the world: for Christ shall not then be again anointed: his annointing was in his first coming, it shall not be in the second.

Here followeth the explanation of the most difficult and obscure prophesy of Daniel's 70. weeks.

33. Quest. Of the obscurenes and difficulty of this prophesy.

How dark, hid, and obscure this prophesy is, may appear by these three arguments. 1. the opinion and sentence of the ancient learned interpreters thereof. 2. the diversity of interpretations which are given. 3. the difficulties and doubts in the prophesy it self.

1. Jerome upon those words of Daniel, v. 25. Know thou and understand, thus writeth, Si Gabriel suscitat animum Danielis, &c. If Gabriel do ro • ze up the mind of Daniel (that was a Prophet) to understand the prophesy, what should we do, that have not any such prophetical light, &c. Likewise Origen saith, sermonem Danielis de septuaginta hebdomadis, &c. Daniel's speech of the seventy weeks none can make plain, as it would require, but the spirit of God, which taught Daniel this mystery, &c. Hereupon Jerome rehearsing diverse opinions of others about the exposition of these weeks, forbeareth to set down his own: And Augustine, falling into mention of this prophesy, of purpose seemeth to pass it over in diverse places, as epist. 80. ad Hesych. lib. 18. de ci • it. Dei. c. 34. as not satisfying himself in the right understanding thereof.

2. The great variety of interpretations, which are very many, as they follow to be declared in the next question, is an evident demonstration of the obscurity thereof.

3. And beside the uncertainty of foreign stories, which fell out in the change of three Monarchies, the Persian, Grecian, and Roman: (for it being an hard thing to find the true reckoning and computation of years in one kingdom, it must needs be more difficult, to find a true account in laying together the years of diverse Monarchies:) Beside this uncertainty, there are four other principal difficulties in the prophesy it self. 1. when these 70. weeks should begin. 2. when they determine and have an ende. 3. whether the space coming between the beginning and ende, consisting of 490. years, doth precisely contain 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 proceed by God's grace, to make some way for the better understanding of this great mystery: wherein I will gather together the most probable opinions of learned interpreters, approving in my judgment the best.

34. Quest. Of the diverse interpretations of Daniel's weeks, with an answer to the cavil of the Jews concerning the dissention of our interpreters.

The diverse opinions here of writers about the beginning of the seventy weeks, may be sorted into three ranks. 1. Some make them to begin before Cyrus: 2. some pitch their beginning at Cyrus: 3. and some begin the reckoning after Cyrus, under the reign of other Persian kings.

1. They which begin the computation of these years before the times of Cyrus: 1. some count these 70. weeks, by weeks not of seven years, but of ten times seven, for every year taking ten, and begin their reckoning from the beginning of the world: so that 70. weeks shall make 4900. years from the creation of the world unto Christ: thus Origen. hom. 29. in Matth. 2. Some will have these weeks take beginning from the 4. year of Zedekiah, 7. years before the great captivity, which was in the 11. year of Zedekiahs reign, for then the word, they say, came forth by Jeremiah, namely the prophecy and promise of their deliverance after 70. years, which was in the 4. year of Zedekiah: which they thus gather: Ierem. 29. 10. this prophesy of 70. years captivity is declared: which was in the 4. year of Zedekiah, c. 28. 1. of this opinion are Lyranus, Paulus Burgens. upon this place, Vatablus in his annotations, and Petrus Galatinus, lib. 4. de arc anis fidei, c. 15. 3. R. Solomon beginneth to reckon these weeks from the destruction of the Temple, as Lyranus reporteth and confuteth his opinion.

2. Of the second sort are these. 1. Some will have them begin in the first year of Darius, at the time when this word came unto Daniel, so Tertullian lib. adverse. Iudaeos. and Pintus. 2. some from the time that Cyrus set forth his edict for the people's return, as Clemens Alexandrin. 1. lib. stromat. of this opinion are Calvin, Melancthon, lunius in the first edition in his annotations upon this place: H. Br. upon Daniel: And it shall appear of all the rest to be the more probable.

3. Concerning those which set the beginning of these weeks after the reign of Cyrus: whereas there were three other edicts beside that of Cyrus, which gave liberty to build the Temple and city, which are mentioned, Ezra. 6. 1. Ezra. 7. and Nehem. 2. hereupon, some think that these 70. weeks must be reckoned from the 2. year of Darius Hystaspes, the 3. king of Persia, so Eusebius lib. 8. de demonstr. Evang. Cyrillus cateches. 12. Driedo lib. 3. de sacr. Scripture. c. 5. par. 4. Jansen c. 122. concord. Euang. 2. Some take the 20. year of this Darius, Pelican. 3. Some count from Xerxes the 4. king of Persia, whom Josephus thinketh to have sent Ezra in the 7. year of his reign: ex Bulling. 4. Some take the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus the fifth king: which opinion Pererius ascribeth to Theodoret, so also Bullinger holdeth, and Pap. 5. Some appoint the 20. year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when Nehemiah was sent with a new commission, Nehem. 2. so Chrysostom, Beda, Africanus, Hugo, Pererius, Osiander: whereas this was Artaxerxes Mncmon, the seventh king, not Longimanus, the fifth king of Persia, that sent Nehemiah. 6. Some do begin the account, the second year of Darius Nothus, so called because he was a bastard, the sixth king of Persia, so Junius in his commentary upon Daniel. Ios. Scallig. l. 6. de emend. temp. Polan. Edw. Lively in his Persian Monarchy. 7. Lastly, Apollinaris long after these, counteth the beginning of the 70. weeks, from the time of Christ's birth and nativity: So in all there are in effect ten several opinions, about the beginning these weeks.

As touching the ende and determination of these years, there are likewise diverse opinions. 1. Some think that 69. of these weeks expired at such time as Pompey took Jerusalem, and entered into the Temple, slaying such as sacrificed, presuming even to the most holy place, and ende the last week in Trajan the Emperor, until which time the preaching of the Apostles continued, John surviuing even unto the reign of the Emperor Trajan, Eusebius. 2. Some beginning these weeks in the 6. year of Darius Hystaspes, do ende them at such time as Herod usurped the kingdom, Oecolamp. consenting with Eusebius. 3. Some do determine these years in the nativity and birth of Christ, of this opinion Jerome reporteth Origen to have been, lib. 10. stromat. so also Johannes Driedo, Jansen, Melancthon. 4. Many draw these years, in the passion of Christ, as Burgensis, Vatablus, Petrus Galatinus, begin these years, in the fourth year of Zedekiah, and ende them in the passion of Christ: so Beda, Africanus, beginning at the 20. of Artaxerxes, ende at the passion of Christ. 5. Some ende them in the 4. year after the passion of Christ, as Lyranus, who reckoneth them from the 20. year of king Artaxerxes, unto the 4. year, supposing the Messiah to have suffered in the middes of the last prophetical week: so also Johannes Lucidus, Pintus. 6. Some refer the ende of these weeks to the destruction on of Jerusalem by Titus, as Tertullian, Chrsyostome, Clemens Alexandrin. and of the new writers, Junius, Scalliger, Polanus, Lively. 7. Some determine them after the passion of Christ, extending them to the final destruction of the city under Adrian the Emperor, as some of the Hebrews. 8. Some will have these weeks reach unto the ende of the world to the coming of Antichrist: as Apollinaris, who beginneth them at the nativity of Christ, and continueth them to the ende of the world.

Thus are interpreters diversely carried in the interpretation of these prophetical weeks: which afterward shall in their order be examined. Hereupon the Jews, as namely cavilling Barbinel, to annihilate this prophesy, object the difference and dissention of the Christians, about the meaning thereof: But it may be answered, 1. that the diversity of opinions among interpreters, doth not evacuate or extenuate the authority of Scripture, Calvin. 2. Though in the particular account of time, there be some disagreement, yet herein most Christian interpreters agree, that all these years expired, either in the birth or passion of Christ, or in the destruction of Jerusalem. So that which account soever be received, two main points are proved against the Jews: one that the Messiah is come, the other that he came not as a glorious or victorious temporal Prince, as the Jews imagine, but he was slain by them, and put to death, Pappus. 3. This objection may be retorted upon themselves: for even there is great dissention among their own Rabbin's: Ab. Ezra holdeth there were but sour kings of Persia, R. Moses saith there were five, R. Saad • ah three only: So they also differ about their years: Ab. Ezra holdeth the Persian Monarchy to have continued 61. years: Abraham Dauison, but 51. the most of the Hebrews give but 50. years to the Persian Monarchy, Ed. Lively, p. 34. And in many other points are the Rabbin's divided in opinion: so that herein they may forbear to object unto the Christians their dissension. 4. And thus may the objection of the Gentiles be answered, which take exception to the Christians, because of their dissension and difference in this and other points: as Josephus giveth instance of the dissensions of the heathen historians among themselves, In quot locis Hellanicus de genealogijs & temporibus ab Acusilao discrepat, &c. in how many places doth Hellanicus differ from Acusilaus concerning genealogies and times: and in how many doth Acusilaus correct Hesiodus: Ephorus in many things findeth Hellanicus to be deceived: and Timeus, Ephorus: and Timeus, those that followed him: and all Herodotus: thus Joseph. contra Appion.

Quest. 35. What Chronology and computation of time is to be followed in the account of the 70. weeks which make 490. years.

1. First, the computation which the Hebrews follow is very imperfect and uncertain, and worthy of small credit concerning the Persian Monarchy: for they make but four kings of Persia, Cyrus, Cambyses, Ahasuerus, Darius, and generally hold, that the Persian Monarchy continued not above 50. years: whereas beside these there is evident mention made of Artaxerxes or Artashasht, and of the 32. year of his reign, Nehem. 5. 14. But to remove this doubt, Ab. Ezra will have Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes to be all one: yet R. Moses maketh them two sundry kings, and so thinketh that there were five in all: so well the Rabbin's agree together.

2. There is another chronicle, which Annius Viterbiens. hath set forth under the names of the ancient writers, Berosus, Manethon, Metasthones, Philo: who numbereth but 8. kings of the Persians, and giveth unto that whole Empire 191. years: But as in other things that Chronology is found to be false and imperfect, as Pererius hath shown at large in his 11. book upon Daniel: as namely, in this that he maketh Philo, in a certain, book called the Breuiarie, to affirm that the posterity of Solomon ended in Achazia, and that Joash, which succeeded was not the son of Achazia, but descended of Nathan: whereas it is directly set down, 1. Chron. 3. 11. that Joash was the son of Achazia: beside this, and other such slips, this apparent error is committed in the Persian Monarchy, that reckoning but 8. kings, he omitteth three which were most famous among them, namely, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes, whom to deny to have been kings of Persia were all one, as to say, that Augustus and Tiberius were not Emperors of Rome.

3. There is another way to make this account, by setting down the years of the several kings of Persia, and so of the Grecians: but there is also small certainty of this: for that the several years of diverse kings in three Monarchies, cannot certainly be gathered, because of the change and alteration of the state and kingdom, and many times there was an interregnum, or intermission of the government: and some kings reigned only certain months: so that the time of one king ran within the account of an others reign.

4. Beside the Hebrews have another kind of reckoning, by the years of their high Priests, which succeeded one another unto the time of Herod, under whom Christ was borne: which account seemeth Montanus to follow in his apparatus, in the treatise called Daniel: the whole sum there gathered from the first of Cyrus to the birth of Christ is 433. years or thereabout: But this account must needs be more uncertain, then the former by the years of the kings, especially in those tumultuous and troublesome times after the Maccabees, when the high priesthood was bought and sold.

5. We come now unto the Roman cōputation, which was accounted these two ways, by the years from the first building of Rome, & afterward by their Consulls: But seeing Rome was of no great reputation, while the Persian and Grecian Monarchy stood, neither of these accounts can give any certain direction concerning the affairs of those kingdoms: And thus much Plutarke confesseth in the life of Camillus, having declared the received opinion, that Rome was taken by the French about the 360. year of the city▪ if it seem credible (saith he) that an exact account of these times, had been so long preserved seeing that even the confusion of that time, hath brought some doubt and controversy to the latter: And he giveth this reason of his doubt, because the common opinion was, that the taking of the city was in the 365. year of Rome, and the first of the 98. Olympiad but whereas the fame of that war was spread abroad in Greece, and came to the hearing of Aristotle, and Heraclides Ponticus, who lived in the time of Philip king of Macedon, who reigned about the 105. Olympiad, this war falleth out 27. years after the usual reckoning: M. Lively to salve the credit of the Latin computation, saith, that there were two battles made by the French, and it was the latter of them, the report whereof came to Aristotle's hearing: But it is like, that Plutarke would not have omitted this matter, to have made sound the Roman Chronology: and it was not a battle with the French, but the taking of the city by them, the fame whereof was bruited abroad: Beside another instance may be given of the uncertainty of the Roman Chronology: Plutarke referreth the beginning of the Peloponne siake war in Greece, to the 300, year of the building of Rome, 3. book. c. 1. whereas Aulus Gellius. l. 71. c. 21. bringeth it to the 329. year: M. Lively here answereth, that vigesimum nonum, twenty nine, by the slip of the writers pen, is put for decimum nonum, ninteene, p. 105. whereas, beside that there is small affinity, between these two words, vigesimum, and decimum, that one lightly by the writer could not be taken for another, yet this being admitted, there remaineth still the odds of 19. or 20. years, which is a great difference in the story of times. As great uncertainty there is in reckoning by the years 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 hears. 51. when Augustus was the 13. time Consul, and Marcus Plautius Sylvanus. So Augustine thinketh that Christ died that year, when C. Rubellius, and C. Fusius were Consuls, lib. 18. de ciuitat. Dei. c. 54. but Onuphryus assigneth the year, when Servius Sulpitius Galba, and Lucius Cornelius Sulla were in office: so also M. Lively, but both are deceived: for the first were Consuls in the 15. year of Tiberius, the other in the 19. years, whereas Christ suffered in the 18. year of Tiberius: And further, there is great uncertainty throughout the Roman Chronology of the Consuls, that in the space of 700. years, there is hardly one year to be found, wherein the historians agree who should be Consuls: Liuius, Cassiodorus, Sulpitius, Dio, Diodorus Siculus, the Capitoline tables, that were digged up out of the ground under Paulus the 3. ann. 46. composed as it is thought by Verrius Flaccus, do all differ one from another, concerning the names of the yearly Consuls; as is extant in the Roman Chronology, collected out of diverse authors by Ioachimus Grellius joined unto Livies history.

6. There remaineth then the Greek reckonings by their Olympiads, which were certain games of running, wrestling, leaping, celebrated every 4. year about July in Greece, in a certain place called Olympia so called, because there Hercules first instituted these solemn games to the honor of Jupiter Olympius: which being discontinued a long time, were after renewed by Iuphitus king of that country, about 705. years before the birth of Christ, and so continued a 1000. years after: This account by the Olympiads is resolved upon 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 years be a certain direction for the understanding of Daniel's weeks.

1. Here are three opinions to be discussed. 1. Some, as the Hebrews, do utterly reject the Greeks Olympiads, making no account of them. 2. Some do make them the only help, and key to unlock the shut up and hid meaning of Daniel's weeks, Lively p. 36. So Bullinger, certissimae sunt omnium supputationes, quae fiunt per Olympiades, the supputations made by the Olympiades are of all other most certain, &c. and Pererius calleth it, chronologiam omnium certissimam, the chronologie of all other most certain. 3. But the mean opinion between these is the best, that there is small certainty in the Olympiades concerning the Persian Monarchy, though for the Greek affairs that computation may safely be received: and this is the judgment of M. Calvin, hoc non potest certo trahi ad imperium Persarum, this computation by the Olympike years (howsoever it may serve for the Grecians) yet it cannot be applied to the Persian Empire, to know thereby at what time the kings of Persia began and ended their reign, &c. So the Olympike reckoning in part is to be received, in part it is so small certainty.

1. Conceruing the first of these opinions, that no respect is at all to be had to the Olympiake years, which is the fancy of the Hebrews, it is utterly to be misliked: for after the ende of the prophetical writings, the Scriptures being altogether silent, what direction will they have especially for foreign histories? Oecolampadius here resolveth well, that after the city Jerusalem was repaired, iam desicientibus Prophetis cum Malachia & Ezra, 〈◊〉 Prophets then ending with Malachi and Ezra, there is no credit to be given unto the Hebrews in the supputation of their years. 2. Neither is the second opinion generally to be received, that the computation of this time is altogether to be directed, and in a manner overruled by the Olympiake reckoning: Here first the arguments shall be examined, which are brought for the certain authority of the Olympiads, and then some contrary reasons shall be produced, to show the inualiditie of them.

1. As touching the names and number of the Persian kings, that the certainty thereof may be gathered from the Greeks, it is thus argued: because many excellent writers, and learned men, Philosophers, and Historiographers lived under the kings of Persia, and knew their affairs; as the seven wisemen of Greece, Thales, Solon, Chilon, Pittacus, Bias, Cleobulus, Periander, lived in the time of Cyrus: Pythagoras, Zenophanes, Anaximander, Heraclitus, with others, flourished under Cambyses, and Darius: Socrates, Thucydides, Euripides, under 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 known to them of Greece: thus M. Lively 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 lived in the time of the Persian kings, and some of them frequented their Courts, that therefore they had a certain knowledge of them all. These kings of Persia, with whom the Grecians had to do, were known unto them: but neither all of them, nor yet to all those forenamed Philosophers and writers were they exactly known. 2. An evident instance hereof may be given in Xenophon, who writeth that Cyrus died in his bed, and made a wise exhortation to his children, whereas it is generally received, that he was slain by Tomyris, as Justin writeth. 3. And though the name and number of the Persian kings had been known to the Grecians, yet the years of their reign they much regarded not, because they being a vain-glorious nation, followed their own Olympike reckoning.

2. Now for the truth and certainty of the Olympiads one demonstration is taken from the time when Cyrus began his reign, which was in the 55. Olympiad, from whence to the 114. Olympiad, when Alexander died, are counted 236. years, whereof 6. years must be allowed to the Empire of Alexander after he overcame Darius, so M. Lively, 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. year of Nebuchadnezzar, in the last year of the 47. Olympiad, lib. 1. stromat. the 55. Olympiad followeth just 30. years after: if then Cyrus began to reign, how shall the 70. years of the Babylonian captivity be made up, which began in the 8. year of Nebuchadnezzar, with the captivity of Iechoniah: or if we begin the captivity in the 4. year, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, in the reign of Jehoiachim, 2. king. 24. 2. there will not arise by this account 50. years in all for the captuitie. 2. Pererius beginneth the first Olympiad in the 8. year of the reign of Ahaz: (and yet some begin the Olympiads in the 2. year of Jotham who reigned 16. years, that is, 23. years before that, Bullinger. ) then cannot Cyrus reign be referred to the 55. Olympiad, for the distance between the 1. and 55. Olympiad, maketh 216. years: but there only were expired, 205. years: as it may be thus gathered: from the 8. year of Ahaz unto the 11. year of Jehoiachim, when Jeconiah captivity began, are an 135. years, and from thence to Cyrus 70. years, which make 205. years, then must the beginning of Cyrus reign be pulled back an 11. years from the 55. Olympiad to the 2. of the 52. Olympiad.

3. An other demonstration is taken from comparing the Olympike years with the building of Rome: M. Lively out of Dyonisius Halycarnasseus his 5. book allegeth that the 31. year of Darius Hystaspes, concurred with the 72. Olympiad, and 262. year of Rome. This account is just if we begin the Olympiads in the second year of Jotham, for Rome is held to have been built in the first of the 7. Olympiad, which was in the tenth year of Achaz: but Pererius bringeth the 7. Olympiad to the sixteenth year of Hezekiah, 23. years after, so that by his reckoning the 31. of Darius shall fall out 23. years later, about the 4. year of the 77. Olympiad. And further, how well the Greek Olympiads and the years 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. year before the first Olympiad. Titus Liuius, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Solinus set the building of Rome in the 4. year of the 6. Olympiad: Pomponius Atticus, Cicero, Pliny, with others, in the 3. year of the same Olympiad: Dyonisius Halycarnass. Eratosthenes, Theophilus, Antiochenus, in the 1. year of the 7. Olympiad. Polybius, Diod. Siculus, in the 2. year of the 7. Olympiad. Q. Fabius an ancient writer of the Roman affairs, in the 1. year of the 8. Olympiad. L. Cincius in the 4. year of the 12. Olympiad: The odds between the first account and the last is above 80. years: for 12. Olympiads make 48. years, and some think that Rome was founded 38. years before the first Olympiad: some not before the 4. year of the 12. Olympiad.

4. But yet a more evident proof is taken from the course of the Sun, which was eclipsed in the 7. year of Cambyses, which was in the second year of the 64. Olympiad: there was another eclipse, which happened an eleven days before Alexanders last battle with Darius, in the sixth year of his reign: between these two eclipses there are found by exact calculation, an 192. years, which with Cyrus 30. and Cambyses 7. years make 229. which was the full time of the Persian Monarchy: And hereupon he concludeth thus, thus the glorious servant of the world the Sun, &c. even this Chronologer I say, of all other without exception most true and sure, witnesseth for Herodotus, Thucydides, &c.

Contra. 1. Indeed, if all these supposalls were true, that these two eclipses happened in those years, to the which they are assigned, and that such distance were found between them, and Cyrus with Cambyses reigned so long, the conclusion for that continuance of the Persian Monarchy were very strong: but all these are uncertain, first that Cambyses and Cyrus reigned so long, 37. years between them: Junius giveth unto them together but 9. years: Bullinger 14. years: secondly, whether such an eclipse fell out in the reign of Cambyses, and not rather afore, may be likewise doubted: thirdly, whether that distance were not rather taken between two other eclipses then these, it likewise may be a question: he speaketh of another eclypse which was an 141. years after that, supposed to be in Cambyses time, which Diodorus Siculus placeth in the 2. of the 99. Olympiad. 2. But although the Sun be most sure in his course, there is a Sun which is more true and steadfast, even the Sun-light of the truth which shineth in the Scriptures, and in this prophesy of Daniel, which calculateth but 490. years from the word going forth, which was the commandment of Cyrus, unto the Messiah, which time cannot be justly gathered, if 200. years or above be given to the Persians: Now on the contrary side this may be objected against the certainty of the Olympiads.

1. Seeing it is confessed, that the Olympike games, were first erected by Hercules, and then discontinued a long time until Iphitus, who renewed them, is it not as likely, that they might be interrupted afterward, as before? and the rather because of the great wars which the Grecians had with the Persians, and the Peloponnesiake civil war, which continued 27. years among themselves: in which troublesome times it may be supposed, they had no great leisure or desire to solemnize their Olympike games, all Grecia being in an uproar.

2. Plutarch in the life of Numa, maketh some doubt of the Olympike reckonings in regard of the beginning thereof being committed to writing very late by Hippias of Eli’s: to this it is answered, that although Hippias should begin the Olympiads somewhat too late: as put the case that he make that the 40. Olympiad, which was but the thirtieth, yet the distances of time between the Olympiads shall not miss one lotte: so Temporanus, and M. Lively, pag. 89. But howsoever the distances and spaces of time may be kept, yet there must needs be a manifest error in the computation, if those things be referred to a later time, which were formerly done: As the question being of the beginning of the Persian Monarchy, if it be set at the 55. Olympiad, when it began much sooner, a great error will fall out in history, and one error admitted in chronicle will breed many.

3. It is uncertain when the Olympiades began: Bullinger holdeth they began in the 2. year of Jotham, and M. Lively seemeth to be of the same opinion, who maketh the 31. year of Darius Hystaspes, and the 72. Olympiad to concur together, which cannot be, unless he begin the Olympiads in the 2. of Jotham, as is evidently scene in Bullingers first and third Chronicle table, Eusebius beginneth the Olympiads in the 49. year of Azaria, Glareanus in the 50. Lucidus in the 46. year, Paulus Phrygio in the 12. of Jotham, Bibliander in the 13. Functius in the 2. of Jotham: so also Africanus, which seemeth the most probable: But Pererius setteth the beginning of the Olympiades 23. years after, in the 8. year of Achaz, as is shown before.

4. If foreign writers be compared together, great difference will be found in the account of years by the Olympiads, as this one instance here may suffice concerning the time wherein Pythagoras lived: Dyonisius saith he taught in Italy about the 50. Olympiad: Diogenes Laertius writeth that he flourished in the 60. Olympiad: here is a distance of 40. years: Solinus bringeth him to the time of the first Consuls, which was about the 68. Olympiad: but Pliny putteth him back an 100. years, from the time assigned by Solinus: the like difference in other matters may appear by diligent search in foreign historians, in the reckoning of the Olympike years: The like difference is found among the Christians in the Olympike reckoning: Cyrillus chateches. 12. placeth Christ's birth in the 186. Olympiad: Joseph. Scallig. and M. Lively, in the 3. year of the 194. Olympiad: Pererius, and the most beside, in the 4. year of the 194. Olympiad.

5. But the chief objection of all is, that the Olympian account agreeth not with the Scripture: for if Nehemiah saw both the beginning of the Persian Monarchy, as is evident, Ezra. 2. 2. he was one of those which returned from the captivity according to the edict of Cyrus: and lived to see the ende of that Monarchy, as he maketh mention of Darius the last king of Persia, under whom Iaddua was high Priest, who met Alexander, who is also named in the same place, Nehem. 12. 22. then could not the Persian Monarchy continue 230. years, as is gathered by the Olympike computation: for then Nehemiah, who may be supposed to have been 20. year old when he returned from Chaldea, should be, 250 year old, which age was not incident into those times: But this shall be shown more at large afterward: This shall suffice concerning the Olympike supputation of years.

3. Now the third opinion remaineth, propounded in the begnning of this question: that the Olympike computation may be admitted concerning the affairs of the Greeks, and the continuance of their Monarchy, as of the Kings of Syria, and Egypt: but they can give no certain direction concerning the kings of Persia, the years of their reign, and continuance of their Empire. To know then the certainty hereof, first, we must have recourse unto the sacred history: foreign historians are so to be followed, as that no contradiction be admitted to the Scriptures: then where the Scripture leaveth us, foreign witnesses are to be received: Now seeing it is collected that the reign of the Grecians from Alexander unto Cleopatra Q. of Egypt, continued about 300. years, and from thence to the death of Christ the Romans ruled 60. years, H. Br. • roleg. in Daniel, there can remain but an 130. years for the Monarchy of the Persians, to make up the sum of Daniel's 70. weeks, that is, 490. years. So then thus far we are directed by the holy story, as is shown before by the age and life of Nehemiah's, who saw the beginning and ende of the Persian Monarchy, that it could not continue 200. years or above, the rest must be supplied out of the Greek and Latin historians.

Here then two erroneous opinions are to be touched, the one of Varro, who until 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 unknown, after the •• ood unto the Olympike years, which time he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , fabulous, and full of tales: the third from the beginning of the Olympiads, which time he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , historical, as certain and true: whereas the contrary is evident: that the history of time from the beginning of the world, until somewhat after the Olympiads, is most certain out of the prophetical writings: but there is no certainty of the times following, because the prophetical writings were ceased.

The other opinion is of Paulus Burgans. who thus adviseth, de quibus non habetur historia sacrae Scripturae, recurratur ad historia • authentica • specialit • r Hebraeorum, whereof there is no history of the sacred Scripture, we must have recourse to the authentical histories, specially of the Hebrews: But Burgens. being a conuerned Jew himself, doth ascribe too much to the historical accounts of his nation: whereas, after their Prophets ceased, there • re no more vncerten, false, and fabulous Chronicles, then those of the Hebrews are: As appeareth by that one instance of the number of the Persian kings, whom they generally h • ld to have been but four.

This then remaineth as the best resolution concerning this matter, what Chronology is to be followed in the computation of Daniel's weeks: that it is safest to take direction of the Scriptures, so far as they proceed in the history of the Persians, and then to use the help of the Olympiads, and other foreign histories, for the rest of the years. And yet further to show what small certainty is to be found in the historical accounts of the Gentiles concerning the Persiah Monarchy, it shall not be amiss, before we come to examine the true reckoning of Daniel's weeks, briefly to show the great diversity of writers, both of the number, and years of the Persian kings.

37. Quest. Of the names and number of the Persian kings.

1. Jerome, whom the Latin historians and interpreters follow, numbereth 14. kings of the Persians, as they are set down in order before, qu. 17. upon 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 being usurpers: and Xerxes the second, who reigned 2. months, and Sogdianus 7. months between Artaxerxes Longimanus, and Darius Nothus. These partly because they were usurpers, partly for their short reign, are not to be counted among the Persian kings, for the history of time.

2. As the Latins exceed in number, so the Hebrews come as far short, Some of them do make only three kings of Persia, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Darius: and whereas mention is made beside, Ez • . 4. 7. of Artaxerxes, and then of another Artashasht, or Artaxerxes, Ez • . 7. 1. they say that the first Artaxerxes was the same with Ahasuerus, and the second with Darius: So R. Saad • a, and R. Davison. Some of them number four kings, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius: Ab. Ezra. Some count five, as R. Moses. But all these are evidently convinced of untruth by the history of Ezra, and Nehemiah, as may thus appear. First, it is clear 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 another: then followed Darius surnamed Nothus, because he was the base son of Longimanus: after him reigned another Artaxerxes, who was surnamed Mnemon, of his singular memory: there is mention made yet further of another Darius, who was the last king of the Persians, Nehem. 12. 22. Thus it is evident that there were more kings of Persia then the Hebrews imagine, as may be gathered out of the Scripture.

3. Some name but 8. kings of Persia in all: As 1. Cyrus. 2. Artaxerxes Ahasuerus. 3. Darius with the long hand. 4. Darius Nothus. 5. Artaxerxes Mnemon. 6. Artaxerxes Ochus. 7. Arses. 8. Darius▪ so Annius Vite • biens. But in this account are omitted two famous kings of the Persians: Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes his son.

4. Some make but nine, which they thus number, Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius Hystaspes, Xerxes, Artaxerxes Longima •• us, Darius Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Ochus, Darius Codomannus: Joseph. Scalliger: But here is omitted Arses, the last king but one, who succeeded Ochus.

5. Some do set down ten kings of the Persians: namely, all these before rehearsed: so Bulling. but the leaveth out S • erdes the usurper, who succeeded Cambyses, and reigned not one year, but only certain months.

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, Ahasuerus Artaxerxes, Darius Assyrius, Artaxerxes pins, then Xerxes, the fifth, then the other six in order: But in this account he maketh Xerxes the rich king of Persia the fifth king, who in Daniel is the fourth, c. 11. 2. and he supposeth him to have been the son of Artaxerxes pins, who was indeed the son of Darius.

7. Iuni • s setteth down the Persian kings in this order. 1. Cyrus. 2. Cambyses his son. 3. Smerdes, who usurped the kingdom a year. 4. Darius Hystaspes. 5. Xerxes. 6. Artaxerxes Longhand. 7. Darius the bastard. 8. Artaxerxes Mnemon. 9. Darius Ochus. 10. Arses. 11. Darii • s Codomannus, whom Alexander overcame. Iun. But if Smerdes be counted for one, then Xerxes should be the fifth, not the fourth king, as Dan. 11. 2. Thus much for the uncertainty of the names and number of the Persian Kings.

38. Quest. Of the uncertainty of the years of the Persian Monarchy, and of the Persian kings.

1. Concerning the continuance of the Persian Monarchy▪ the Hebrews generally give unto it not above 50. years: Tertullian an 107. years: Isidor. lib. 5. etymolog. an 180. Annius, Lucidus, Driedo, an 190. Dyonisius Halycar. lib. de Rom. Antiquit. 200. years, and somewhat above: Clemens Alex. lib. 1. stromat. 215. Severus Sulpit. lib. 2. sacr. histor. 250. Lyranus 230. so also M. Lively: Pererius 232. Junius in his last edition, 201. but in the first he reckoneth for the whole time of the Persian Monarchy but an 129. years: Beroaldus whom H. Br. followeth, an 130. which seemeth to be the best computation for the reason before alleged, namely, Nehemiah's age.

2. Now there is as great diversity in the several reigns of the kings, Cyrus some think to have reigned 30. years, as Cicero lib. 1. de diuinatio. Clemens lib. 1. stromat. Justin, Eusebius: Sulpitius giveth unto him 31. Herodotus 29. Annius, Driedo, and Lucidus, 22. years, after Darius the Mede: Xenophon yieldeth him but 7. years: Bullinger 16. the Hebrews generally but three, namely in the Persian Monarchy; he might reign before divers years in the kingdom of Persia: M. Lydyat alloweth to Cyrus 30. year over Persia, and 7. over the whole Monarchy: Cambyses reigned 8. years as some think, Herodotus, Eusebius, Bullinger: as some but 6. years, Josephus lib. 11. antiquit: as some 9. years, Sulpitius: as others 19. years, Clemens Alexandrin, Junius giveth unto Cyrus and Cambyses together but 9. years in his annotations, both in his first and last edition: M. Lydyat 17. years: Smerdes who usurped the kingdom, feigning himself to be the brother of Cambyses, reigned but 7. months, as Herodotus, so also Lydyat 10 months as Theodoret: a whole year as Josephus, Junius. Darius the son of Hystaspes reigned 19. years, as Tertullian: 30. years as Orosius: 31. M. Lydyat: 46. years as Clemens Alexandrin. 36. years as Herodotus lib. 2. Sulpitius lib. 2. Eusebius: 12. years according to Ab. Ezra. Junius in his first edition giveth him twenty years, 36. in his last: Xerxes is supposed to have reigned 20. years, as Oecolampad. Lydyat. 21. as Diodorus, Sulpitius. Orosius: 26. as Clemens Alexandrin. lib. 1. stromat. 22. years, Iun. edition. 3. Artaxerxes Longimanus reigned 37. Melancthon ex Metasthene. Iun. edition. 1. 40. Pererius agreeing with the most historians, 44. as Bullinger: 46. as M. Lydyat. 40. years, Iun. edition. 3 • Darius Nothus reigned 8. years, as Clemens Alexand. and H. Br. proleg. in Da • iel. 60. years, as Phylostratus, lib. 1. de vit. Apollon. 19. years according to Eusebius, Beda, Bullinger, M. Lydyat, with others. 18. years, Iun. edit. 1. 19. years Iun. edit. 3. Artaxerxes Mnemon reigned 40. Perer. Oecolampad. 43. as M. Lively, M. Lydyat, out of Diodorus Siculus. 62. years as Plutarke. 36. as Bullinger. 35. as Melancthon out of Metasth. 10. years, Iun. edit. 1. 3. years, edit. 3. Ochus reigned 3. years, as H. Br. in proleg. in Dan. 23. years according to Tertullian, and Diodorus Siculus, and Iun. edit. 3. 22. edit. 1. and M. Lydyat. 24. years as Sulpit. 26. years, as Eusebius, Beda, Melancthon, Bulling. Arses, or Arsanes the son of Ochus, reigned 1. year, according to Tertullian. 3. years, as Sulpit. Diodorus. so also Iun. edit, 1. and 3. and M. Lydyat. 4. years, as Euseb. Beda. Darius the last, reigned 3. years, as Clemens. 4. years, as Sulpit. 5. years, as Iun. edit. 3. 6. years, as Euseb. Beda. 21. years, as Tertullian.

Now then if we lay the years of these Persian kings together, first the smallest numbers of their reign, & then the greatest, it will appear what great odds there is in the account.

According to some	According to others
Cyrus	reigned years	3	Cyrus	reigned years	30
Cambyses	6	Cambyses	8
Darius Hystaspes	30	Darius Hystaspes	46
Xerxes	20	Xerxes	26
Artaxerxes Longhand	37	Artaxerxes Longhand	46
Darius Nothus	8	Darius Nothus	60
Artaxerxes Mnemon	36	Artaxerxes Mnemon	62
Ochus	3	Ochus	26
Arses	1	Arses	4
Darius Codoman	3	Darius Codoman	21
the sum is 147. years.	the sum is 329. years.

So then the difference between these two accounts is of an 182. years. By this it is evident, that there is small certainty to be had from foreign stories concerning the Persian Monarchy, either for the names, number, or years of their kings: whereupon Burgensis thus concludeth, Historiae illorum temporum, praecip • e regum Persarum, & Medorum, sunt plenae diversitatibus & contradictionibus, &c. The histories of those times, specially of the Medes and Persians, are full of diversities and contradictions, in so much that they only do not vary in the continuance of some kings; but some histories also name some kings, that other histories make no mention of. To this purpose Paul. Burgens. addit. 3. in 9. Daniel. Now will we proceed to examine the several opinions, before set down, qu. 34.

39. Quest. That Daniel's weeks do signify a certain definite number of years.

This may be proved by sundry reasons, against their opinion, who do think, that in this number of Daniel's weeks, there is not signified a precise term of years, but generally all that time, which should follow unto the coming of the Messiah. But that a certain and definite number of years is signified and intended by these 70. weeks, it may thus be shown.

1. That number of years whose beginning and ende is expressed, must needs be a definite and certain number, being so bounded and limited: but the beginning and ende of this term is described: they take beginning at the going forth of the word, and they ende at the Messiah.

2. The manner of phrase declareth as much, 70. weeks are cut out, or determined: the Lord had as it were cut out, severed, and appointed this time for the coming of the Messiah, to perform these things here prophesied.

3. That number is definite and certain, which is divided into parts: but so is this whole number of 70. weeks: it is divided into three parts, into 7. weeks, 62. weeks, and one week.

4. This number of 70. weeks answereth unto the term of 70. years, being that number multiplied 7. times: therefore as the one is certain, so is the other.

5. Further that time, which we are bid to observe and mark, and to attend such things as fall out therein, must be a certain and definite time; for how else should it be observed and marked: but such was this time here designed by Daniel, and the events which followed it, as our Savior saith, Mar. 24. 15. When ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, standing in the holy place, let him which readeth, consider it: But how could the event of this prophesy be observed and considered, if some certain direction were not given by the time to find it out?

40. Quest. That Origen's account cannot stand, beginning the 70. weeks at Adam, and ending them in the destruction of Jerusalem.

1. Origen to make this account good, taketh every week for 70. years, to every day of the prophe • icall week allowing ten years: but nowhere in the Scripture is a week so taken, but either for a week of days, or for a week of years. 2. This whole sum according to his account, taking every week for 70. years, will amount to 4900. years: but the whole time from the first to the second Adam, is not much above 4000. years, not yet so much in some account: so that this time, according to Origen's supputation, will exceed the time of the Messiah almost 900. years. 3. It is evident that these 70. weeks must begin at such time, as the word went forth to build again Jerusalem and the Temple; they must not then take beginning so long before. 4. Neither are they to be extended unto the destriction of Jerusalem, as shall be shown, when we come to examine the several opinions, for the ende of these 70. weeks.

41. Quest. That the 70. weeks must not begin before the people's return out of captivity.

1. Hippolytus, as Jerome setteth down his opinion in his Commentary upon this place, beginneth the 70. weeks fifty years before the dissolving of the captivity, and endeth them in Christ's nativity: but this opinion cannot stand: for 1. the Angel showeth, that these weeks must then begin, when the people returned out of captivity. 2. from thence unto the Messiah are 490. years: but if we should begin fifty years before, the number will arise to 540. years. By the same reason may be confuted the opinion of Lyranus, Burgens. Galatinus, who begin the 70. weeks at the 4. of Zedekiah, because then they say the promise was made from the Lord by Jeremiah for the return of the people: as is shown before, quest. 34. for 1. by this reckoning there will be 70. years within four, all the time of the captivity, added to Daniel's prophetical weeks. 2. if they will fetch the beginning from that word and promise, why may they not as well begin an eleven years before, when Jeremiah in the 4. year of Jehoiakim shown them of the captivity of 70. years, Ierem. 25. 1. 11? or yet they may begin further off from that promise made concerning Cyrus, Isa. 45. that he should cause Jerusalem to be built again: from which time to the ende of Daniel's weeks are above 700. years.

Likewise R. Salamons opinion is confuted by the same reasons: who beginneth the 70. weeks from the first destruction of the Temple in the 19. year of Nebuchadnezzar, and endeth them at the destruction of the city: for 1. so there will be found above 50. years more then the 70. weeks from the destruction of the Temple unto the going forth of the commandment, to build again Jerusalem. 2. seeing the Angel pitcheth the beginning at the going forth of the word to bring again the people, and to build again Jerusalem, it is absurd to set the beginning, when the people were carried into captivity, and the city and Temple destroyed.

42. Quest. That the 70. weeks do not begin in the reigns of the other kings of Persia after Cyrus.

1. From the second, or 20. year of Darius Hystaspes the 70. weeks cannot begin. 1. for we do not read of any decree made by that Darius for the reedifying of the Temple and city: it is Darius Longimanus in whose 2. year the work of the house of God went forward, who is mentioned Ezr. 4. 24. As it may be thus gathered: there are named in that chapter, v. 6, 7. two kings of the Persians after Cyrus, Ahasuerus and Artashasht: then after them followed Darius: But Darius the son of Hystaspes, was the third king of Persia. 2. In Darius decree, mentioned Ezr. 6. there is no speech of building the city, but of the Temple only: here the Angel speaketh of the going forth of the word to build Jerusalem. Perer.

2. Neither can the computation begin from Xerxes the 4. king of Persia, by whom Josephus thinketh first Ezra to have been sent, and afterward Nehemiah, who is called Artaxerxes, Ezra. 7. and Nehem. 2. for Xerxes is held by the most to have reigned but 20. years, only Clemens affordeth him 26. years: but mention is made of the 32. year of this Artaxerxes, Nehem. 5. 14.

3. Neither can their computation stand, which begin at the 7. year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when Ezra was sent with the kings letters to Jerusalem: for, Sulpitius well observeth, Ezram nihil super reficienda vrbe fecisse comperio, &c. I do not find, that Ezra did anything in repairing of the city, his greatest care seemeth to have been to reform the corrupt manners of the people, &c. And whereas the king doth furnish him with silver and gold, that was rather employed for the sacrifices, and service of the Temple, then for the building thereof. Bullinger setteth down diverse reasons to confirm his opinion, as 1. he proveth that Ezra was sent to Jerusalem by Artaxerxes. 2. that Nehemiah living unto Alexanders time, as appeareth by the names of Iaddua and Samballat, who lived in Alexanders reign, was sent by this Artaxerxes, not by Darius Hystaspes, for then he should exceed an 194. years. 3. the commission given unto Ezra, c. 7. 23. thou Ezra, &c. set judges and arbiters which may judge the people, &c. agreeth with the Angels speech here: the going out of the word, &c. 4. the time agreeth, from the 7. of Artaxeres to the death of Christ, are found just 490. years.

Contra. 1. The first is granted, being evident out of the Scripture, but that is nothing to the purpose. 2. It is also confessed that this was Artaxerxes Longimanus, not Darius Hystaspes: that reason then is impertinent. 3. Ezra his commission showeth, that he was to reform the manners of the people, and to set them in order, not to build the city or Temple, and therefore it was not the going forth of the word, here spoken of, which was to build Jerusalem. 4. It cannot be shown, that this agreeth with the just computation of the 490. years: for therein lieth the question.

4. Pererius with others, as namely M. Lydyat. lib. de emendat. temp. ann. mund. 3553. would have the 70. weeks begin from the 20. year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, by whom Nehemiah was sent to repair the city, Nehem. 2. 8. which agreeth to the going forth of the word (here spoken of) to build Jerusalem: And for the which enterprise Nehemiah is commended, Ecclus. 49.

Contra. 1. Nehemiah did not first build the city, and lay the foundations of the walls, which was done long before in the reign of another Artaxerxes, Ezr. 4. 12. which is held to be Cambyses: he only viewed and repaired the breaches of the city, Nehem. 2. 15. there is mention made both of gates and walls before his coming. 2. The Temple was built and finished before the 20. year of Longimaniu, namely in the sixth year of his raig •• : but it is not like that the building of the Temple, being the most special thing which the people of God longed after, should be excluded out of the compass of the 70. weeks.

5. Their opinion also may be refelled, who count the beginning of these 70. weeks from the 2. year of Darius Nothus, when by the commandment of the king the building of the house went forward, and was finished in the sixth year, Ezr. 6. 15. from thence to the destruction of Jerusalem, are found just 490. years: the particulars whereof Polanus thus gathereth: from the 2. of Darius Nothus to the death of Alexander, are years 99. from thence to the destruction of Jerusalem, 391. which make 490. years.

Contra. 1. In the place given in instance, Ezr. 6. 14. it is said, they built and finished the house, by the appointment of God, and by the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artashasht king of Persia: seeing then, that all these gave commandment for the building of the Temple, from which of them rather must the account begin, then from the first? for they only finished the work of the Temple now: it could not be begun and made an ende of in four years. 2. Neither is his computation of years certain and agreed upon: for some begin to account from the 3. year of Darius Nothus, M. Lively, p. 216. Junius reckoneth but 98. years from the 2. of Nothus to the death of Alexander: further in this reckoning, counting 70. years from the birth of Christ, to the destruction of the city, 33. and an half to his passion, and 36. with an half afterward, he leaveth in the sum of 391. from Alexanders death 321. years for the kingdom of the Greeks and Maccabees, unto the 30. year of Herod: but others allow not so much: Melancthon not much above 300. years, counting them thus: from Alexanders death to the beginning of the Maccabees 146. years, from thence to Herod 127. years, then in the 30. year of Herod was Christ borne: Oecolampadius thus maketh up the reckoning, an 160. years from Alexanders death to the Maccabees, thence to Herod an 127. and 30. years of Herod to Christ: the whole sum is 317. Others reckon 300. years from the beginning of Alexanders reign unto the reign of the Roman Empire after Cleopatra her 22. years, and from thence to the death of Christ 60. years: so Africanus, as Lyranus citeth him, and H. Br. in his proleg. in Dan. Therefore the computation of Polanus is not so certain to be built upon.

6. Concerning the last opinion of Apollinaris, who beginneth to count the 70. weeks at the birth of Christ, it need no long refutation: for then there went forth no word for the building of the city: and there must be 7. weeks and 62. weeks before the Messiah; so that he beginneth Daniel's weeks, where they almost ende.

43. Quest. That Daniel's 70. weeks must take beginning from the proclamation made by Cyrus for the return of the people.

There remain then only to be examined the opinions of the third sort of those, which begin the account of the 70. weeks from Darius and Cyrus, who reigned together. Tertullian beginneth them from Darius, and endeth them in the overthrow of Jerusalem. Origen taketh the same beginning, but goeth no further then the nativity of Christ's so also Melancthon in his first account. The Hebrews, making the same beginning, do extend the time to the last subversion of Jerusalem by Adrian the Emperor. Clemens Alexander. beginneth from Cyrus, and endeth in the subversion of Jerusalem, lib. 1. stromat. Origen doth ende them too soon, and the rest extend them too far: but touching the ende of these weeks more shall be said in the next question: but that all these do take the beginning right of these weeks, from the edict of Cyrus, who reigned together with Darius the Mede, it may thus evidently be proved.

1. First, when the seventy years of captivity were expired, the 70. weeks of liberty immediately began, as M. Calvin showeth upon the 24. verse, Certum est quinquaginta annos & quinquaginta hebdomadas simul coniungi, the 70. years and 70. weeks are joined together. And this proposition is confirmed, Ier. 29. 10. Thus saith the Lord, After seventy years be accomplished at Babel, I will visit you, and perform my good promise toward you, and cause you to return to this place: But the 70. years were expired in the first year of Cyrus, 2. Chron. 36. 22. therefore then the 70. weeks began.

2. The 70. weeks began from the going forth of the word to cause the people to return, v. 25. but in the first year of Cyrus the Edict came forth for the return of the people, Ezr. 1. 1. then was the general deliverance of the people from captivity. Ergo.

3. Paulus Burgensis urgeth this reason, that if the beginning of these weeks were suspended an hundred years to the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, or after, then it would follow, that Daniel was ignorant when these weeks should begin, and so consequently did not know the time of the coming of the Messiah: but it is not like, that so great a Prophet, having revealed unto him the time of the coming of the Messiah, should be ignorant of it.

Pererius to this maketh a double answer. 1. that though Daniel have a vision in general of the Messiahs coming, yet he might be ignorant of the very time: as it was revealed to Daniel, that one should rise up to afflict the people of God most grievously 2300. days, chap. 8. yet he knew not the particular time. 2. It is like that it was revealed to Daniel, when these 70. weeks should begin, though it is not expressed in Scripture.

Contra. 1. There is not the like reason to know the particular time of Christ's coming, and of Antichrist: there was more necessity for the comfort of God's people of the one, then of the other: neither was the time foretold of Antiochus coming, as here of Christ's, but only how long his tyranny should continue, when he was come. 2. Such unwritten directions not expressed in Scripture, it is dangerous to imagine: it is true that Daniel knew the beginning of these weeks, and had thereto direction, and that here expressed in Scripture: other direction he had none, and not having other direction then here, he should have continued ignorant of his own prophesy, if he had not seen the accomplishment of it himself.

4. An other argument may be taken from the continuance of the Persian Monarchy: the most agree, that the kingdom of the Macedonians continued 300. years from the beginning of Alexanders reign, and that thence to the passion of Christ the Romans governed 60. years, so African. Lyr. Junius counteth but 362. years in all: there remaineth then to make up the sum of 490. an 130. years for the Persian Monarchy, and not above: the reason is this, because Nehemiah saw both the beginning and the ende of the Persian Monarchy: that he saw the ende, Josephus Scalliger thus proveth. 1. because Nehemiah in his story maketh mention of the last Darius, whom Alexander overcame, c. 12. 22. And that it was the last Darius is evident, because Iaddua the high Priest is there mentioned, who met Alexander. 2. Nehemiah was hindered in repairing the walls of the city by one Samballat, c. 4. this Samballat afterward aided Alexander, at the siege of Gaza with a band of soldiers, and died before Alexander had taken Gaza: so that Nehemiah and Samballat were both of the same time. 3. Nehemiah maketh mention, c. 13. 28. of one of the sons of Ioiada the high Priest, who was the son in law of Samballat the Horonite, whom Nehemiah chased away: this, as Josephus showeth, lib. 11. was Manasseh the brother of Iaddua the high Priest, who married Nicaso the daughter of Samballat. 4. Nehemiah also maketh mention of the last Darius called Codomannus, Nehem. 12. Now that Nehemiah also saw the beginning, is evident, Ezr. 2. 2. where Nehemiah is named among those, which returned out of captivity, according to the edict of Cyrus.

Two answers are here made. 1. that it might be another Nehemiah beside him, who was sent to repair Jerusalem in the 20. year of king Artaxerxes. 2. the history may be transposed: for Nehemiah went not up then, but 64. years after, Genevens. annotat. Ezra, 2. 2. 3. And it is further answered, that the Samballat mentioned by Nehemiah, c. 12. might be another of that name: or Josephus might mistake the time wherein Samballat lived: and whereas Nehemiah speaketh of Iaddua, he only showeth that at that time, when he writ that book, Iaddua was borne heir to the Priesthood: to this purpose M. Lydyat in his book de emendat. tempor. ann. 3485. set forth this year, 609.

Contra. 1. To imagine two Nehemiah's (as they likewise say that Mordecai there named was another beside Mordecai in the days of Esther) unless some Scripture might be shown for it, is all one, as if they should make two of Moses, David's, Solomon's, or Zerubbabel's name. 2. whereas the words stand thus, these are they, &c. which came with Zerubbabel, Ieshuaeh, Nehemiah, Ezr. 2. 2. what a disorder were this in the story, these being named together, to put off Nehemiah's coming so many years after. And beside, this doubt is removed, Nehem. 7. 5. where Nehemiah saith, I found a book of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found it written there, &c. they which came up with Zerubbabel, Ieshuah, Nehemiah: all these were captains and chief men, with whom the people returned at the first: Nehemiah then was one of the captains, that went up first out of the captivity. 3. To the other answers it may be also thus replied: that Samballat mentioned by Nehemiah, is the same that assisted Alexander: for he is said to have had one of Ioiada his sons (which was Manasseh the brother of Iaddua) to his son in law, Nehem. 13. 28. And Josephus is not deceived in casting Samballat into this time, for Nehemiah doth the same: neither was Iaddua at this time only borne, for he is counted among the high Priests: and if Manasseh his younger brother at this time were married, then Iaddua could not be so young, as only to be then borne.

Thus then Nehemiah being found to have lived from the beginning of the Persian Monarchy to the ende, may be supposed to have been about an 150. years of age, or somewhat more: he may be thought to have been 20. or 25. at the return out of captivity, and lived after an 130. the whole time of the Persian Monarchy, which Nehemiah's age will not suffer to be extended much further.

And it need not seem strange, that Nehemiah might be an 150. year old: for many years after this, in the time of Claudius Caesar, one T. Fullonius of Bononia, was found to be an 150. year old: and many other are recorded by Pliny in his 7. book, c. 48, 49, 50. which in diverse countries lived between an 100. and 150. years.

5. This also is another manifest proof, that the Persian Monarchy could not exceed much an 130. years, because in the 6. year of Darius, when the house of God was finished, there were some then alive which had seen the former house: as the Prophet Hagge saith, Who is he among you, that saw this house in her first glory, and how do you see it now? is it not in your eyes, in comparison of it, as nothing? If now there were an 106. years run since Cyrus first, as Junius in his annotations upon that place in the last edition observeth, they must have been above an 180. years old, which then living had seen the first Temple. Josephus Scalliger taketh these words spoken by way of wishing in this sense; O that any were alive which had seen the former Temple, he would take this as nothing to that: But the Prophet speaketh unto them in the second person, is it not in your eyes? that is, yours which did know the other Temple: and so Lyranus well expoundeth. Therefore from Cyrus unto this second of Darius, might be some 40. years and odd: and so some at the age of an 130. or thereabout, might have known the first Temple standing: and after this there might remain some 80. years of the Persian Monarchy.

6. And this further may be another evident argument, that the Persian Monarchy continued not above an 130. years or thereabout: because Nehem. 12. 26. there are nine several men expressed by name, which lived in the days of Ioiakim son of Ieshuah, who was high Priest in the • return from Babylon, and continued unto the end of Nehemiah: now Ioiakim succeeded his father Ieshuah in the Priesthood, in the 45. year after their return, as Bullinger noteth in his tables: 2. tabul. 2. These were the chief of the Levites all this while: they could not be under 25. years old in Ioiakims time, for before the Levites ministered not: now if the Persian Monarchy continued 200. years, or above, they must be supposed to be very near 200. years old.

Thus it hath been sufficiently proved I trust, that it is most agreeable to Scripture, to begin Daniel 〈…〉 from the edict of Cyrus: wherein we have the consent of Tertullian, Origen, Clem. Alexand. among the ancient writers; and of Melancth. Calv. Beroald. Pint. H. T •• . of the new •• the difference only between them is, in that some begin from Darius, some from Cyrus Pi •• us from the time of the revealing of this vision, which he understandeth to be the going forth of the word: But the odds is not great, only in a year or two in the most, in their opinion, which make the reign of Darius the Mede, and Cyrus diverse. But if it 〈…〉 that they reigned jointly together, as is proved before, 2. qu. upon this chapter 〈◊〉 there is no 〈◊〉 .

But against this computation of the 70. weeks from the first of Cyrus, it will be objected thus. 1. that edict, because it was void and took no place (for the work was hindered all the days of Cyrus Ezr: 4. 3. notwithstanding his former edict) is not to be accounted for the beginning of these weeks. 2. Cyrus edict was only to build the Lord an house, Ezr. 1. 2. but this word, the going out whereof the Angel speaketh of, was to build Jerusalem: thus objecteth Pererius against the opinion of Clemens Alexander, so also M. Lydyat reasoneth in ann. 3553. 3. Lyranus allegeth this reason against it out of Africanus, that if the account begin from Cyrus, there will be found an 100. years more then the 70. weeks to the passion of Christ: which he counteth thus: The Persian Monarchy continued 230. years, the kingdom of the Macodonians or Grecians 300. th • nce to the death of Christ, the Romans ruled 60. years: all make 590. years.

Contra. 1. Though Cyrus decree did not at the first take place altogether, yet because they by virtue of that decree laid the foundation of the Temple in the 2. year, Ezr. 2. 10. though the work were interrupted, from thence the reckoning must begin: and the rather, for that this decree of Cyrus was the ground of Darius edict renewed afterward, Ezr. 6. yea the Angel foreshoweth here as much, in dividing 7. weeks from the rest, that the building of the city and Temple should be interrupted 49. years, and should be finished in a troublesome time, v. 25.

2. Though Cyrus edict specially intended the building of the Lord's house, yet they had liberty given them there withal to re-edify the walls and city, as is evident, Ezr. 4. 12. for otherwise the prophesy of Isai concerning Cyrus, had not been fulfilled, c. 54. 28. He saith to Cyrus, thou art my shepherd, and he shall perform all my desire, saying also to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built, and to the Temple, thy foundations shall be surely laid.

3. That the Persian Monarchy continued not 230. years, is proved before: so that this objection is soon answered. And if Lyranus thinketh that from Cyrus to Christ's passion 590. years expired, how then can he make his own account afterward good, counting from the 4. of Zedekiah, 52. years before Cyrus, as he casteth it, to the passion of Christ, but 490. years in all?

Thus the beginning of Daniel's 70. weeks being known, it remaineth that we come to examine the diverse opinions for the ende, and determining of them: as they are before propounded, qu. 34. But first, because we will at once make an ende of the questions & doubts of the Persian Monarchy, three other matters shall here be briefly touched. 1. under which of the Persian kings Mordecai lived. 2. what king it was by whom the Edict was renewed to build the Temple. 3. which Artaxerxes it was, by whom in the 20. of his year Nehemiah was sent.

44. Quest. Under which of the Persian kings Mordecai lived and of his age.

1. Some take the great king Ahasuerus, who married Esther, to be Cambyses the son of Cyrus: as Paul. Burgens. calleth this Ahasuerus, & filium Cyri, & maritum Esther, both the son of Cyrus, and the husband of Ester, addit. 3. in 9. c. Dan. But this cannot be: for Cambyses is held by most Chronologer • , to have reigned but 7. years, the Hebrews give unto him but 6. years: but this Ahasuerus married not Esther till the 7. year of his reign toward the ende thereof in the 10. month, Estb. 2. 17. and c. 3. 12. mention is made of his 12. year.

2. Some take this Ahasuerus the husband of Esther, to be Darius Hystaspic the 3. king of Persia: so Iun. in his annotat. Esth. 1. 1. in the first edition; and Esther called Adassa, he thinketh to be A • ossa Darius wife, mentioned by Herodot. lib. 3. Of the same opinion seemeth Lyranus to be, that the next king unto Cam • yses, was this Ahasuerus: But Darius Hystaspicis succeeded C •• byses: so also Genevens.

3. Joseph. lib. 11. thinketh that this Ahasuerus was Artaxerxes Longimanus, surnamed the long-hand, the 5. king of Persia: But Eusebius in his Chronicle •• felleth him by this argument, that, seeing Ezra lived in the days of this Artaxerxes, it is like he would have made some honorable mention of Esther and Mordecai. Herein though Eusebius do truly contradict Josephus, yet his reason is not so forcible: for seeing there is a special history written of Esther and Mordecai their acts, which book is like to have been made by Ezra, or some other of the Prophets then living, it was not needful in the other books of Ezra and Nehemiah, to make mention of them; seeing in those books they meddle not with the Persian affairs, but with such things as happened about the building of the city and Temple at Jerusalem. But this reason rather may be urged, that Artaxerxes 〈◊〉 , who is that Darius called also Artashasht, who gave license to build the Temple, which was finished in his 6. year, and in his 7. sent Ezra, and in his 20. Nehemiah, with new commissions to repair the city: it is not like, that he would be so moved and incensed against the Jews, to root them out, as Ahasuerus was.

4. A fourth opinion there is, that this Ahasuerus was Artaxerxes Mnemon, which succeeded Darius Nothus, the 7. king of Persia: which is the opinion of Exsebius, Isidore, Beda, Sulpitius, to whom subscribeth Pererius: But these two objections may be made against this opinion. 1. that if Esther had been the Queen in Nehemiah's time, it is like he would have used her mediation to the king, or Mordecai's, and not have pressed himself upon the king. 2. whereas Mordecai is said to have been one of those which was carried away in the captivity of Iechoniah, Esth. 2. 6. from which captivity unto the reign of Artaxerxes Muemon are accounted by the most Chronologers 250. years, as Pererius confesseth, then could it not be that Artaxerxes under whom Esther and Mordecai lived. Hereunto Pererius answereth, that whereas the words stand thus, Mordecai, which was the son of Jair, the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a man of Iemini, which had been carried away, &c. with the captivity of Iechoniah. &c. he would have the relative (which) referred to the nearest antecedent, Iemini, whom he supposeth to have been then carried into captivity: But herein Pererius is greatly overseen, for Iemini is here taken for the tribe Benjamin: as Kish the father of Saul is said to be of Iemini, 1. Sam. 9. 1. and Shimei is called the son of Iemini, 2. Sam. 16. 11. Then this Iemini could not possibly go into captivity with Iechoniah. Therefore other answer better, that it is referred to Kish, that he went into captivity: so Burgens. and Junius in his last edition: Joseph. Scal. l. 6. de emendat. tempor.

But hereunto Thoring maketh a double answer. 1. They must show us another Kish out of Scripture, beside the father of Saul, which if they cannot do, eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur, it may as easily be rejected, as it is proved: yet this may be admitted, that this was another Kish beside that ancient Kish the father of Saul, as this Shimei was diverse from him that railed upon David. 2. He hath then a better answer; that if they will count so many generations, namely these four, of Mordecai, Jair, Shimei, Kish, from the captivity of Iechonia • , they will make Mordecai, either scarce yet borne, or a very young man, who was now ancient, and nourished Esther as his daughter, he was as a father unto her: for in true account there were not above an 150. years run since the captivity of Iechoniah to the reign of this Artaxerxes: and if four generations of men were then worn out, Mordecai must be held a very young man, or not so grave a personage, as the story maketh him.

5. An other opinion is, that Mordecai lived under Xerxes the fourth king of Persia, who is also called Ahasuerus, which is the opinion of Josephus Scalliger, lib. 6. de emendat, tempor. likewise Thom. Lydiat. lib. de emendat. tempor. in ann. 3514. and of Junius edition 3. the reasons thereof are these. 1. The name Achashverosh, which Scalliger pronounceth Oxyares, cometh near the name Xerxes, which is after the Greek pronunciation, the other is the Hebrew name. 2. the name of Queen Esther hath great affinity with Amestris, as Herodotus, or Amystris, as Ctesias, the wife of Xerxes. 3. Ahasuerus is set forth by the largeness of his kingdom, and the greatness of his riches, Esth. 1. and Xerxes was the rich king of Persia, the fourth from Cyrus inclusively, that is, including Cyrus, Dan. 11. 2. 4. Ahasuerus was the next king before the first Artaxerxes whom Darius Nothus succeeded, Ezr. c. 4. v. 7. and 24. But Xerxes was the next predecessor to Artashasht, or Artaxerxes, who was called Longimanus, who was Xerxes son.

But against this last assertion, that this Ahasuerus was Xerxes, it will be thus objected. 1. that Xerxes is held of the most, not to have reigned above 20. or 22. years at the most, and he was married to Esther but in the 7. year, and in the 8. might Darius his son be borne, who was not above 13. years old when his father died: yet in the second year of his reign he had children, Ezr. 6. 10. where the Jews are bid to pray for the kings life and his sons.

Burgensis here answereth, that it is spoken by way of supposition, si filios habuisset, if he had had sons: But