order, fourteen years having elapsed, the rebuilding of Jerusalem had by that time gone a great way; for, within two years after, we find the prophet Haggai complaining of the Jews at Jerusalem, "That they dwelt in ceiled houses, while they let the house of God lie waste." From all this it plainly appears, that Jerusalem, after its having been destroyed by the Babylonians, was again rebuilt, by virtue of the decree which Cyrus granted, in the first year of his reign, for the release and restoration of the Jews. And therefore, if these words of the prophecy, To restore and build Jerusalem, are to be understood in a literal sense, they can be understood of no other restoring and building of that city, than that which was accomplished by virtue of that decree; and the computation of the seventy weeks must begin from the granting and going forth thereof. But if the computation be begun so high, the four hundred and ninety years of the said seventy weeks cannot come low enough to reach any of those events which are predicted by this prophecy: for, from the first of Cyrus, to the death of Christ, were five hundred and sixty-eight years; and therefore, if the said four hundred and ninety years be computed from thence, they will be expired a great many years either before the cutting off or the coming of the Messiah, which ought both to fall within the compass of them, according to the express words of this prophecy. It evidently, therefore, follows from hence, that the words of this prophecy, To restore and build Jerusalem, cannot be understood in a literal sense for the sum of the whole argument is thus: If the words are to be understood in a literal sense, they must be understood of that rebuilding of Jerusalem which was accomplished by virtue of Cyrus' decree, and the computation of the seventy weeks, or the four hundred and ninety years thereof, must begin from the going forth or issuing out of that decree. But it cannot begin from thence, for the reason mentioned; and therefore these words cannot be understood in a literal sense, but must be interpreted to mean figuratively the restoring and rebuilding the church and state of the Jews at Jerusax Haggai i, 4.

lem. And this Ezra effected, by virtue of the command or decree which was granted to him, for this purpose, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus: and therefore here the beginning of these weeks must be placed. And this will be farther proved, if we consider,

2dly. That it can be placed no where else, so as to make the ending comport with the intent and purpose of the prophecy, and the accomplishing of the events predicted by it. For there were four commandments or decrees issued out by the kings of Persia in favour of the Jews, from one of which, according to the express words of the prophecy, the computation of these weeks is to be begun; the firsty granted by Cyrus in the first year of his reign, the second by Darius, about the fourth year of his reign, the thirda by Artaxerxes to Ezra, in the seventh year of his reign, and the fourth by the same Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of his reign. But this computation could not begin from that of Cyrus, nor from that of Darius, nor from that of the twentieth of Artaxerxes, and therefore it must begin from this of the seventh of Artaxerxes granted to Ezra. That it could not begin from any of the other three I shall shew in their order.

And, 1st. As to the decree of Cyrus, the four hundred and ninety years of these weeks cannot be computed from thence, for the reason already said, that is, because if they begin from thence, they cannot, by a great many years, reach the events predicted by this prophecy, and therefore none who understand this prophecy to relate either to the cutting off, or the coming of the Messiah, do begin them from hence; for, according to this computation, no chronology can ever reconcile them to either of them.

2dly. Neither can the computation of these weeks be begun from the decree granted by Darius: but there having been three Dariuses that reigned in Persia, Darius Hystaspes, Darius Nothus, and Darius Codomannus, it is to be first inquired, which of these

y Ezra i.

z Ezra vi.

VOL. II.

4

a Ezra vii.
b Nehemiah ii.

three it was that granted this decree, and then, secondly, it shall be shewn, that the computation of these weeks cannot be begun from it. And, first, of these three Dariuses it is certain, it could not be Darius Codomannus: for if the four hundred and ninety years of these weeks be reckoned from any part of his reign, they will overshoot all the events predicted by this prophecy by many more years than they will fall short of them, if reckoned from the first of Cyrus; and therefore no one hath ever said, that he was the Darius that granted this decree. But Scaliger, and many others following his authority, have said it of Darius Nothus. But there are invincible arguments against it, which unanswerably demonstrate, that it could not be Darius Nothus; but it must necessarily be Darius Hystaspes, the first of these three that reigned in Persia, and none other, by whom this decree was issued out: for he, who, according to Ezra, granted this decree, is the same Darius, of whom mention is made in Haggai and Zechariah; but that Darius could not be Darius Nothus, but must necessarily be Darius Hystaspes. For first, from the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, to the reign of Darius Nothus, were one hundred and sixtyfive years: but from the destruction of it, to the time of the second decree, by virtue of which the rebuilding of it was finished, were no more than seventy years, according to the prophet Zechariah. For we find in the book of his prophecies, that, in the fourth year of the same Darius who granted this decree to the Jews (which was also the year in which it was published at Jerusalem,) the fast of the fifth month, e in which they had mourned for the destruction of the temple, and the fast of the seventh month, f in which they had mourned for the utter desolation of the land, which had been brought upon it by the death of Ge

c Ezra v, 1; vi, 14. Hag. i, 1-15. Zech. i, 1-7; vii, 1. d Zech. vii, 5.

e 2 Kings xxv, 8. Jer. lii, 12. of Ab, which is their fifth month, f 2 Kings xxv, 25. Jer. xli, 1. The Jews observe this fast on the third day of Tisri, which is their seventh month, even to this day; and both these fast days, that of the third of Tisri, and the other of the ninth of Ab, are marked on those days in all their calendars.

The Jews observe this fast on the ninth even to this day.

daliah, had been observed just seventy years; and no one can doubt, who thoroughly considers that text, but that their mourning for these calamities had been from the very time that they had suffered them; and that therefore it could not be Darius Nothus, but it must be some other Darius then reigning in Persia, within the reach of the said seventy years, who granted this decree; and that since the fourth year of Darius Hystaspes was just seventy years from the time in which the city and temple of Jerusalem were destroyed by the Chaldeans (as hath been before observed,) this other Darius must necessarily be Darius Hystaspes. It must be acknowledged, that the same prophet speaks also in another place of the like number of seventy years in the second of Darius two years before. But these were not the seventy years of mourning for the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, but the seventy years in which God had expressed his indignation against Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; which are to be computed from the time thath Nebuchadnezzar came up against Judah, and besieged Jerusalem, for which the Jews fasted in the tenth month; and this was two years before that city was taken and destroyed by him. For the taking and destroying of Jerusalem was in the eleventh year of Zedekiah; but the first besieged of it, was in the h ninth year of Zedekiah, and in the tenth month of that year. Buti Scaliger, instead of being convinced by this argument, turns it to speak for him; and his reasonings upon it for this purpose are, that these fasts, which are spoken of in Zechariah to have been observed on the fourth and fifth month, and on the seventh month, and the tenth month, could not be appointed, but by the church of the Jews, by which I suppose he meaneth the Sanhedrim, or some other convention of priests and elders representing that church. But neither the Sanhedrim, nor any other

g Zech. i, 12.

ĥ 2 Kings xxv, 1. Jer. xxxix, 1; lii, 4. The Jews observe this fast on the tenth day of Tebeth (which is their tenth month even to this day, and call it the fast for the first siege of Jerusalem in all their calendars. i De Emendatione Temporum, lib. 6, p. 602.

k Zech. vii, 5; viii, 19.

convention representing that church, could come together, or make any such constitution after the calamities which these fasts commemorated, till the Jews were returned from their captivity, and again settled in Judah and Jerusalem; and therefore these fasts could not begin to be observed, nor the seventy years observing of them, which Zechariah speaks of, commence till after that time. But seventy years from any time after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity will carry us much beyond the reign of Darius Hystaspes; and therefore it could not be the fourth year of Darius Hystaspes, but it must be the fourth year of the Darius, the next of that name who reigned after him in Persia, (and that was Darius Nothus,) in which these fasts were spoken of by that prophet. But the answer to all this is, that there was no need of any such formal constitution of the whole Jewish church for the observing of these fasts. The calamities which they commemorated, while fresh in memory, might be reason enough to introduce the use of them by common consent; and if not, yet what should hinder, but that the priests and elders might meet together in Babylon, while there in captivity, and, in that place, as well as if they had been at Jerusalem, hold conventions for the making of such a constitution? If the book of Baruch be to be credited in any thing, that tells us of such a convention in Babylon, held there in the time of the captivity, and of a fast appointed by it. And we find in the book of Ezekiel, which is of undoubted, because of divine authority, that the elders of Israel in Babylon met more than once to ask counsel of God from the mouth of the prophet. And when" Shere zer and Regem-Melech came to Jerusalem to ask counsel of the prophets and priests there, in the name and behalf of the Jews of Babylon, about these fasts,

1 Baruch i. Although perchance this book be no more than a religious romance, yet such romances do usually so accommodate their fables to the usages and customs of the people. and times of which they treat, as not to ascribe any other to them than such as have been of known use and practice in them; and therefore these books may be of some authority for usages and customs, although not for history.

m Ezek. vii, 1; xiv, 1.

n Zech. vii, 1-3.