41. Secondly, That which remains for the full confirmation of our argument from this place is, that, according unto this prophecy, the promised Messiah was to come whilst the temple was standing and the daily sacrifice continued, before the expiration of the seventy weeks of years limited by the angel. This is put beyond all question in the text itself, nor is it denied by the Jews, all whose exceptions lie against the person spoken of, whom we have proved to be the Messiah. Seventy weeks are assigned by the angel for the accom- plishment of the whole prophecy and all things contained in it. After seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks,—that is, in the begin- ning or middle of the last week,—the Messiah was to be cut off.
332 COMPUTATION OF DANIEL’S WEEKS. [EXERC. XV.
When this was past, and the covenant confirmed with many, unto the expiration of the whole time limited, the daily sacrifice was to cease, and an overflowing desolation was to come upon the city and temple. This the Jews themselves acknowledge to be the destruc- tion brought upon them by the Romans, nor do any of them ex- tend the four hundred and ninety years any farther. It remains, therefore, that the Messiah came before that desolation; which is that we undertook to demonstrate from this place.
42. There are yet some arguments that remain, to the same purpose with those foregoing; but before we proceed unto them, it will be necessary to consider the computation of the times, which we are here directed unto by the angel. I have already manifested that our argument from this place is not concerned in the exact chrono- logical computation of the time here limited, as to its precise be- ginning and ending, with the commensuration of it unto the times, seasons, and accounts of the nations of the world; for whenever the time mentioned began, all men agree that it is long since expired, namely, at or before the desolation of the city and temple. Now, all that we undertook to prove, which also is sufficient unto our pre- sent purpose, is, that before that season the Messiah was to come and to be cut off; which we have done, and cleared our argument from all further concernment in this account. But yet, that it may appear that there is no entanglement cast upon this testimony by the chronological difficulties which are pretended in the computa- tion of the time here determined, as also that there are no such difficulties therein but what are fairly reconcilable unto all that is affirmed in the text, before we procéed to the consideration of our remaining arguments, they also shall be considered and stated in the ensuing Exercitation.
EXERCITATION XV. COMPUTATION OF DANIEL’S WEEKS.
1. Chronological computation of the times determined in Daniel’s weeks—Diffi- culty thereof acknowledged. 2. Beginning before the reign of Cyrus re- jected. 3. Double beginning of the kingdom of Cyrus; that over Persia; that over the Babylonian monarchy. 4. Foreign accounts to be suited unto the Scripture. 5. Beginning of the reign of Cyrus over Persia, when; over the whole empire, when—The space of time from thence to the destruc- tion of Jerusalem five hundred and ninety-nine years. 6. Duration of the Persian empire; of the empire of the Seleucide, to the rule of Jonathan among the Jews. 7. Duration of the Egyptian kingdom, or reign of the Ptolemies. 8. Rule of the Asmonwans and Herod the Great—From the birth of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem. 9. From the first decree of Cyrus to the destruction of Jerusalem, five hundred and ninety-nine years. 10. Precise end of Daniel’s weeks, the death of the Messiah. 11. Thirty-
SECT.1;/2.] COMPUTATION OF DANIEL’S WEEKS. 333
seven years taken from the former account—Opinion of Reynolds; 12. Ex- amined and rejected—Meaning of J573, “ cut off;” limited, not abbreviated— Vulgar Latin and Montague noted. 13. Opinion of the Jews rejected. 14. Account of Beroaldus, Broughton, Genebrard, Willet—The decree of Cyrus not intended in the prophecy. 15. Of the life and age of Nehemiah—He came not up with Zerubbabel. 16, Another decree than that of Cyrus must be sought. 17. The decree of Darius—What Darius that was—Hystaspes— Not the decree intended. 18, 19. This Darius not Nothus; proved against Scaliger. 20. The decrees of Artaxerxes to Ezra and Nehemiah examined. 21. Longimanus, not Memor, intended. 22. Decree unto Ezra proved to be the decree mentioned.
1. TutRDLy,’ THAT there is some difficulty in finding out the true and exact computation of the time here limited all chronologers and expositors do confess; neither is there any thing that belongs unto the account of the times mentioned in the Scripture that hath been debated of old or of late with more difference of opinion or dili- gence of endeavour. And the Holy Ghost himself by the angel seems to intimate this difficulty unto Daniel in the double caution given him about it in the preface of the revelation made unto him, chap. ix. 23, 7272 P3, and 18123 /37), declaring that not ordinary wisdom, diligence, consideration, and understanding, are to be used in the investigation of the time here determined; nor is it necessary to suppose that Daniel himself exactly understood the beginning and ending of the time or weeks mentioned. The hiding of the precise time intended was also greatly subservient unto the providence of God, in the work he had to do by the Messiah, and what the people -were to do unto him. The general notation of it sufficed for the direction of the godly and the conviction of unbelievers; as it doth unto this day. And it may be we shall not find any computation that will exactly answer in all particulars and fractions to a day, month, or year; and that either because of the great darkness and confusion of some of the times falling under the account, or else because perhaps it was not the mind of God that ever the time should be so precisely calculated, or that any thing which he re- vealed for the strengthening of the faith of his church should depend on chronological niceties. It shall suffice us, then, to propose and confirm such an account of these weeks, which, infallibly comprising the substance of the prophecy, contains nothing in it contrary to the Scripture, and is not liable unto any just and rational exception. And herein I shall not examine all the several accounts and computations that by learned men of old or of late have been given (being eleven or twelve in number), but only mention those which carry the fairest probability, and the greatness of whose authors or abettors calls for our consideration.