upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks, shall Messiah be cut off; but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come, shall de stroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war, desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate." So our translation reads the words, how agreeably unto the original, we shall consider and examine particularly in our pro gress.

§2. As Christians in general are aware of the importance of this testimony in our present argument, so the Jews are also in a great measure sensible of this; as we shall see in considering the manifold evasions which they have invented to avoid the efficacy of it. But before we engage in the consideration of this passage, we must remove out of our way a mistaken ap prehension, which not only opposes our views, but which also is opposed to the whole design, intention, and subject-matter of the prophecy itself. A reverend and learned person in a late exposition of the visions and prophecies of Daniel, endeavours to refer them all to the state of the churches of Christ in these latter days of the world, with their sufferings under, and deliverance from the power of antichrist. And he contends express ly, that this prophecy, prediction, and computation, amongst the rest, doth not relate unto the coming and suffering of the Messiah, but only unto the state of the churches before mentioned. Hence he who published those discourses, declareth in the title of the book, that A new way is propounded in it, for the finding out of the determinate time signified unto Daniel in his se venty weeks, when it did begin, and when we are to expect the end thereof." And a NEW WAY it is indeed, not only diverse from, but upon the matter, contrary unto the catholic faith of the church of God, both Judaical and Christian, ever since the first giving out of the prophecy. And such a way it is, as is not only groundless, as we shall discover in the examination of it, but also dangerous unto the Christian faith if received. Yet because the author of it, (if he be yet alive) is a person holy, VOL. I.

modest and learned, and proposeth his conjectures with submis sion unto the judgment of others, not peremptorily determining what he says, (page 51.) his discourse deserves our consideration, and it ought to be answered with a sobriety suited to that wherewith it is proposed. And herein we shall attend unto the method chosen by himself, which is first to give reasons and arguments to prove, that this prophecy cannot be applied unto the coming of the Messiah, and then those which countenance, as he supposes, the application of it unto these latter days, both which shall be examined in their order.

§ 3. That which in general he first insisteth on, as a reason. why this prediction should be considered as not applicable to the times of the Messiah, is the difference that is among learned men about the chronological computation of the time here li mited. The variety of opinions in this matter he terms monstrous, and the difficulties that attend the several calculations inextricable. But whether this reason suit his purpose, it is easy to determine; yea, it seems to have strength on the other side. For notwithstanding the difficulties of the exact computation pretended, not one of them whom he mentions, nor scarce any other person, ancient or modern before himself, or a very few besides, did ever doubt, or call in question, whether the time designed, did concern the coming of the Messiah or not. And it seems to be a great evidence of the truth thereof, that no difficulty in the computation did ever move them to question the principle itself.

Besides, this is indeed no tolerable argument, namely, that learned men cannot agree in the exact computation of any time appointed unto such an end, to prove that it was not designed unto that end, as is evident from other instances in the Scriptures to the same purpose. Thus God tells Abraham that his seed should sojourn in a strange land four hundred years, Gen. xv. 13. which Stephen repeats, Acts vii. 6. After this, Moses with some difference in the years themselves, affirms, that their sojourning in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years, Exod. xii. 40. which St Paul repeats, Gal. iii. 17. Now learned men greatly differ about the right stating of this account, as from what time precisely the computation is to be dated: and that on the very same reason, which divides their judgments in the stating of these weeks in Daniel. For as in this place of Daniel, the angel fixes the beginning of the time limited unto the going forth of the decree to build Jerusalem, and there being seve ral decrees, at several seasons, made as it should seem to that purpose, they are not agreed from which of them precisely to begin the account. So Paul affirming, that the four hundred and thirty years began with the giving of the promise unto Abraham, it having been several times, and at several seasons so

lemnly given unto him, there is great question from which of them the computation is to take its date and beginning. And yet, as notwithstanding this difficulty, no man ever doubted, but that the years mentioned contained the time during which Abraham and his posterity were in Egypt; so, notwithstanding the difficulties and difference pleaded about the computation of these weeks of Daniel, no man ever doubted but that the time limited in them, was that allotted unto the Judaical church and state, until the coming of the Messiah. The like difference there is amongst learned men about the beginning and ending of the seventy years in Jeremiah, allotted unto the Babylonish captivity; and that because the people were carried captive at three different times by the Babylonians.

There is therefore indeed no weight in this exception, which is taken merely from the weakness and imbecility of the minds of men, not able to make a perfect judgment concerning some particular points in this divine account. And as we shall afterwards manifest, it is of no great importance to the principal, yea only end of the prediction itself, whether we can do so or no. But yet that this difficulty is not so inextricable as is pretended, but as capable of a fair solution, as any computation of time so far past and gone, we shall I hope sufficiently evidence in the account that shall be subjoined unto our exposition and vindication of the prophecy itself.

§4. From this general consideration, the learned author proceeds to give five particular reasons to prove his opinion, which we shall examine in their order. And the first is as followeth.

'Because,' saith he, in no place of the New Testament is this prophecy used against the Jews to prove the Messiah already come."

Answ. If this reason should be allowed to be cogent, it would disarm the Christian church of the principal testimonies from the Old Testament on which it hath always rested, as proofs that the Messiah is long since come, and that Jesus of Nazareth is he. For as evidences of that nature are sparingly recorded in the writings of the gospel, so of the most evident and illustrious unto that purpose, there is no mention at all therein. And it is most evident, that both in dealing with the Jews, and in the instruction of his own disciples, the Lord Jesus made use of innumerable other testimonies, besides those which are recorded in the books of the New Testament. So also did his apostles, and other primitive teachers of the gospel. Hence they are said to prove Jesus to be the Christ out of Moses and the prophets, and he is said to have instructed his disciples out of Moses and all the prophets in the things concerning himself;

and yet the particular places, whereby the one and other was performed, are not recorded.

Besides, this reason laboureth under another unhappiness, which is, that it is grounded upon a mistake. For indeed this prophecy is expressly made use of in the New Testament, to denote the time by us allotted unto it; and that by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. For Mat. xxiv. 15. speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, which according unto this prediction was immediately to succeed upon his coming and suffering, he says unto his disciples, "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, (whoso readeth let him understand) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains. That which here is called βδέλυγμα της ερημωσέως, Οι των ερημώσεων, (as the words of the evangelist are inserted into the version of the LXX. in this place,)

the desolater or raster over a ring,על כנף שקוצים משמם,is

of abominations; that is, as Luke interpreteth the words, an army compassing Jerusalem unto the desolation thereof, Chap. xxi. 20. Wherefore our Saviour expressly applying this prophecy of Daniel to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the consequence of his passion, he plainly declares, that in his suffering, and the desolation that ensued on the Jews, this whole prediction and limitation of time is fulfilled, and ought not to be sought after in any other season of the church. And this is abundantly sufficient, not only to render the foregoing reason utterly useless, but also to supersede all the following considerations and arguments, as being arguments which contend directly against the interpretation of this prophecy, given us by the Lord Christ himself. But yet having made this entrance, we' shall examine also the ensuing reasons in their order.

§ 5. It is added therefore, Secondly, If the restoration of the city, ver. 25. is of the material Jerusalem after Nebuchad nezzar's captivity, it must begin in the first year of Cyrus, from which time seventy weeks of years, will fully expire long before

the birth of Christ.'

Answ. There are sundry learned men who despair not of making good the computation from the first year of Cyrus, whose arguments it will not be so easy to overthrow, as to make their failure in chronology, to be the foundation of so great an inference, as that here proposed, namely, that the coming of the Messiah is not intended in this prophecy. But we shall afterwards prove, that there is not only no necessity, that the decree mentioned for the restoration of Jerusalem, ver. 25. should be thought to be that made in the first year of Cyrus, but also that it is indeed impossible that any such decree should be intended, seeing no such was made by him, but only one about the re-building of the temple, to which there is here no

respect.

Another decree therefore express to what the angel here affirmeth, we shall discover, from which unto the sufferings of Christ, the seventy weeks are an exact measure of time.

§ 6. He adds, Thirdly, the first division of the seventy weeks, is seven weeks of years, ver. 25. The end whereof is expressly characterized by the setting up of a Messiah governor, which cannot be verified in the setting up of the first governor of the Jews after the captivity, much less of Christ. For Zerubbabel was set up in the beginning, and Christ long after the end of all. No other governor can be meant after the first; because the setting up of one, pointeth at the first. Therefore if the seven weeks end not in the setting up of Zerubbabel, or Christ, as they cannot, then they cannot be verified in the material state of Jerusalem after the captivity of Babylon.'

Answ. This exception fixeth on one of the greatest difficulties in the text, which yet is not such as to bear the weight of the inference that is here made from it. For the argument from the division of the time in the text, is of this import; be cause it is said, "that from the going forth of the decree to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks the street shall be built again, and the wall in troublous times;" therefore if the seven weeks end not in the setting up of Zerubbabel, or Christ, they cannot be verified in the material state of Jerusalem after the captivity. Now I see not the force of this argument. For the words may have another interpretation, and the separating of the seven weeks from the sixty-two, as all of them from the seventy, before mentioned, excluding one out of the distribution, may be to another end, than to denote, either the setting up of Zerubbabel, which assuredly they did not, or the coming of Christ, which they extend not unto. In brief, they do not precisely assert, that at the end of the seven weeks Messiah the Prince should be; for although they are distinguished from the other for some certain purpose not expressed, yet as to the determination of the time of the coming of the Messiah, they are to be joined with the sixty-two weeks, as is expressly affirmed in the following words. Now not to prevent myself in what is more largely afterwards to be insisted on, in the exposition of the several passages of this prophecy, after a full consideration of what sundry learned men have offered for the solving of this difficulty, I shall here briefly propose my apprehensions concerning it, which I hope the candid and judicious reader will find to answer the scope of the context, and the design of the place.

§ 7. First, I fix it here as unquestionable, that the whole space of seventy weeks doth precisely contain the time between the going forth of the decree, and the unction of the Most