difference, the acts as performed by Chrift were holy and good, as done by Antichrift wicked and abominable. Hence it follows, that the acts of both are fet forth by fimilar phrafes and expreffions. Chrift by his death and fufferings caufed virtually the Jewish facrifice and oblation to ceafe (this being the time of its abrogation) v.27. and afterwards by a totall ruining through Thunder, Lightning, and Earthquake, the very place of that facrifice, he actually deftroyed it in Julians time. Antichrift likewife (but in an evill fenfe) is faid to take away the daily facrifice, Dan.8.11. Chap. 11. 31. becaufe he labours to destroy, and by his power fupprefleth Chrifts true worship to fet up his own. As Chrift to fet up Chriftian worship, deftroyed the Jewish, fohe to fet up his Antichriftian worship, would deftroy the Christian; therefore are the one and the other faid to take away the daily facrifice. Again,Chrift is faid for the over-fpreading of abominations to make it defolate, i... make defolate the Jewish worship, their City, Sanctuary, which thing as it was caused by rejecting him, fo after his death, was performed in part by Titus, and compleatly in the time of Julian. Antichrift likewife to place the abomination making defolate, Chap. 11. 31. i.e. to defolate the Chriftian worship, with-drawing people from it, by fetting up his own abominable Idolatry, by which the whole world are bewitched, and led afide. Thus other fimilar phrafes, by confidering the thing as done by Chrift, and done by Antichrift; or as relating to the Jewish Church and worship,

and

and the Christian, will be clear. And indeed this notion both lets a light into Daniel to reconcile feeming contrary places, and alfo (if duly weighed) turns up by the roots a great part of our Authors Arguments.

Adde hereto, (which takes in thofe that remain) that there is in many things an Analogy betwixt Christs fufferings who is Head, and the Churches who are his body, and also betwixt the effects that follow upon either. Now one or other of thefe confiderations will enervate the force of all the Authors Arguments, which (because many, and an anfwer to each, will take up much room, and alfo anticipate fome things in my following Difcourfe) I forbear to give particular Anfwers unto, leaving the drawing them forth from these more general confiderations to the meditations of the understanding judicious Reader.

The Author of this opinion (if any fhould blame me, or think I may injure truth whilft I conceal his name, and therewith his Arguments) is the godly and learned Mr. Parker in his Daniels Vifions and Prophefies expounded upon Chap.9.

The Conclufionis, That the feventy weeks are not appliable to New Testament times, but belong to the times of the Old Testament,

SECT.

SECT. 2.

Having in the fore-going Section proved that the Seventy weeks relate to the times of the Old Teftament, The next Enquiry is, Where we are to begin this Epock of Seventy weeks, i.e.four hundred and ninety years, and where to end them? In both thefe it is moft neceffary that our way be very clear, or otherwife we thall never carry a ftreight line downwards; and the way being once cleared, here the difficulty will not be great to find out, where Daniels two thousand three hundred yeers expire, as we have already found where they are to begin. And indeed there is not an Epock of years in all Daniel, and the Revelatons, that there is more need of being upon fure grounds for the beginning and ending, then this of the Seventy weeks; for a failing here makes a general failing, because no account, whofe Head is in the Old Teftament, can be brought downwards to the New, but mult defcend through thele feventy weeks; if therefore we mif-place them, we turn every account out of its proper Chanel, cutting the way either fhorter, or by wheeling about making it longer, then indeed it is; fo that an error here is a fundamental error in Chronologie. We fhal therefore defire in this to go the more warily, taking up nothing upon truft, but bringing even the most common received principles to the Touchitone of Scripture, and Fight Reafon.

Now as for the firft, viz. The beginning of the

M

Seventy

feventy weeks, the Text is clear, verf.25. That ́ we are to begin them from the going forth of fome Commandement, and this Commandement fuch too, as was not as yet gone forth when Daniel had the Vifion, but to go forth afterwards.

Now we read in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah of four Commandements going forth after this time.

1 A Decree, or Cominandement of Cyrus, Ezra 1. 1, 2, 3. which is more fully repeated, Chap.6.3,4,5.

2 Of Darius, Ezra 6,6 to 1 2¿

end.

Of Artaxerxes tỏ Ezra, Ezra 7,11 to the

4 Of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, Neh.2.7,8,9. Upon fome one of thefe four muft the Head of our account be fixed.

The moft general opinion is, that we are to fix on the firft, viz. The Edict of Cyrus in the firft year of his reign.

But with this cannot I accord. My Reasons are, 1 Because this beginining can never bring the two thousand and three hundred dales, to concur in their end with the one thousand three hundred thirty five, unleffe we find a Head higher for the one, or lower for the other; and in cate either of thefe be found, yet mult the Head be fuch, as fhall alfo produce a concurrency in their ends betwixt the One thou and two hundred and fixty, and the one thomand two hundred and ninety daies, upon the grounds we have more then once referred to already.

2 Because the Angels pointing out to Daniel a

certain

certain Head for the beginning of this account, viz. the going forth of the Commandement to restore, and to build Jerufalem, verf.25. is to me an Argument that the feventy weeks were not to be begun from the time of the Vision, (which in cafe we begin from the firit of Cyrus was, Daniel having this Vifion in the first year of Darius the Medes which year was the fame (as I have made appear) with the first of Cyrus the Perfian) for the Prophetical manner is, when an account is to be begun fome or many years after the time of the Vifion, to fix upon fome certain Head for the beginning of it, as Chap.12.11, but now when the account is to take its beginning freight-way from the time of the Vision to fix upon non:, for which reason the two thousand and three hundred years, which begin from the time of the Vilion, haye no particular Head affigned in the Text.

3 Because the determination of the fevents weeks is exprefly upon Daniels, Holy City, ie, the City Jerufalem. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy Holy City. But Jerufalem was not the Holy City, nor could it properly be fo called until many years after the firft of Cyrus (as fhall appear in our next Section) therefore are we not from thence,but from another time to begin the Seventy

weeks.

4 Becaufe the Head of account laid down in the Text will not allow this beginning; for observe, the Text in plain words hath laid down the Head of our account to be this, the restoring and building Jerufalem, verf.25. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the Command to restore

M