probability. For neither was that Agrippa properly ever king of the Jews, having only Galilee under his jurisdiction; nor was he ever anointed to be their king, nor designed of God to any work, on the account of which he might be called his anointed; nor was he of the posterity of Israel, nor did he any thing deserving an illustrious mention in this prophecy. Besides, in the last fatal war, he was still of the Roman party, nor was he cut off, or slain by Vespasian; but after the war he lived at Rome in honor; and in the third of Trajan died in peace.* So that there is nothing of truth, no color of probability in this desperate figment.

year

Their last evasion is, that by "Messiah the Prince," the office of magistracy and priesthood, and in them, all anointed to authority are intended. These, they say, were to be "cut off" in the destruction of the city. But this evasion, also, is of the same nature with the former; yea, more vain than they, if any thing may be allowed to be so. The angel twice mentioneth the Messiah in his message; first, his coming and anointing, ver. 25, and then his cutting off, ver. 26. If the same person or thing be not intended in both places, the whole discourse is equivocal, no circumstance being added to distinguish between them, who are called by the same name in the same place. And to suppose that the Holy Ghost, by one and the same name, within a few words, continuing his speech of the same matter without any note of distinction, should signify things so diverse from one another, is to leave no place for understanding any thing that is spoken by him. The Messiah, therefore, who was to come, and to be anointed and cut off, is one and the same individual person. Now, it is expressly said, that there

As Justees, the Tiberian, assures us in his History, whose words are reported by Photius, in his Bibliotheca.

shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; that is, four hundred and eighty-three years from the going forth of the decree to Messiah the prince. I desire, therefore, to know, whether that space of time was passed before they had any magistrates or priests, to be afterwards cut off? This pretence, therefore, may pass with the former. And this perplexity of the modern Jews, in their attempts to apply this prophecy to any other thing or person besides the true Messiah, confirms our exposition and application of it. There is no other that they can imagine, to whom any one thing here mentioned may seem to belong; much less can they think of any, in whom they should all centre and agree. It is then the promised Messiah, the hope and expectation of the fathers, whose coming and cutting off is here foretold.

$16. (II.) More fully to demonstrate our assertion, and to rescue this illustrious prophetic testimony from the withered grasp of prejudice, let us now advert to the computation of Daniel's weeks. That there is some difficulty in finding out the exact computation of time here limited, all chronologers and expositors confess. Nor is it necessary to suppose, that Daniel himself exactly understood the beginning and the end of the weeks mentioned. The hiding of the precise time intended was greatly subservient to the providence of God, in the work he had to do by the Messiah, and what that people were to do to him. The general notation of it sufficed for the direction of the godly, and the conviction of unbelievers, as it doth to this day. And it may be, we shall not find any computation that will answer in all particulars and fractions to a day, month, or even 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 concluded, or that any thing which he revealed for the strengthening of the church's faith, should depend upon chronological niceties. It shall suffice us, then, to propose and confirm such an account of these weeks, which, while it infallibly compriseth the substance of the prophecy, contains nothing in it contrary to the scriptures, and is not liable to any just and rational exception.

§17. In the first place, we may wholly lay aside the consideration of those who would date the weeks from any time whatever before the first year of the reign, and first decree of Cyrus. And of the like nature is the account of Solomon Jarchi, among the Jews, who dates the time limited from the destruction of the temple by the Chaldeans. But both these accounts are expressly contrary to the words of the angel, who fixes the beginning of the time designed to the going forth of a decree for building Jerusalem. To these we may add all that would extend these weeks beyond the destruction of the city and temple by Titus, as some of the Jews would do, with a view that the prophecy should comprise their second fatal destruction by Adrian, which is no way concerned in it.

The seventy weeks mentioned we must then seek for, between the first year of Cyrus, when the first decree was made for rebuilding the temple, and the final destruction of it by the Romans. This space we are confined to by the text; the seventy weeks are "from "the going forth of the word to cause to return, and to "build Jerusalem,” ver. 25.

Now, the kingdom of Cyrus had a double first year; the one absolutely of his reign over Persia, the other of his rule over the Babylonish monarchy, which he had conquered after the death of Darius Medus. Now,

it is the first year of the second date of the kingdom of Cyrus, which may have any relation to the time here limited; for whilst he was king of Persia only, he could have nothing to do with the Jews, nor make any decree for the building of the temple, both the people and place being then under the dominion of another. Besides, it being said, Ezra i, 1; that he made his decree in the first year of his reign, himself plainly declares, that he had obtained the Eastern monarchy by the conquest of Babylon. "The Lord God of "Heaven hath given me the whole kingdoms of the "earth," ver. 2, which words can in no sense, be applied to the kingdom of Persia, supposing the monarchy of Babylon still to continue.

The whole space of time then here limited is seventy weeks, ver. 24. The beginning of these seventy weeks is the going forth of the decree, or word to restore or build Jerusalem, ver. 25. The first decree or command that could have any relation to this matter, was that made by Cyrus, in the first year of his empire. We must then, in the first place, find out the direct space of time between the first year of Cyrus, and the destruction of the temple; and then inquire, whether the whole, or what part of it, is denoted by these seventy weeks.

§18. It is generally agreed by all historians and chronologers, that Cyrus began his reign over Persia in the first year of the fifty-fifth olympiad; probably the same year that Nabonidus, or Darius Medus began his reign over Babylon. And this was the year in which Daniel set himself solemnly to seek the Lord for the delivery of the people out of captivity, he who was so long before prophesied of to be their deliverer, being now come to a kingdom, Dan. ix, 1. In the twentyseventh year of his reign, or the first of the sixty-second

olympiad, having conquered the Babylonian empire, he began the first year of his monarchial reign, from whence Daniel reckons his third, which was his last, Dan. x, 1. And herein he proclaimed to the Jews, to return to Jerusalem, and to build the temple, Ezra i, 1. The city and temple were destroyed by Titus in the third year of the two hundred and eleventh olympiad. Now, from the first year of the sixty-second olympiad, to the third of the two hundred and eleventh olympiad, inclusive, are 599 years; and within that space of time we are to inquire after the 490 years here foretold.

Of this space of time, the Persian empire, from the twenty-seventh of Cyrus, or first of the whole monarchy, and the first of the sixty-second olympiad, continued two hundred and two years, as is generally acknowledged by all ancient historians, ending on the second year, inclusive of the one hundred and twelfth olympiad, which was the last of Darius Codo

manus.*

After his death, Alexander, beginning his reign in the third year of the hundreth and twelfth olympiad, reigned six years. From him there is a double account, by the two most famous branches of the Grecian empire. The first is by the Syrian, or ara of the