Exercitation 14

Daniels Weeks, Chap. 9:24, 25, 26, 27. proposed to consideration. Attempt of a Learned man to prove the coming and suffering of the Messiah not to be intended; examined. First Reason from the difficulties of the Computation, and differences about it, removed. Whether this place be used in the New Testament. Objection from the time of the Beginning of this computation, answered. Distribution of the LXX Weeks into VII, LXII. and one. Reason of it. Objection from there answered. The cutting of the Messiah, and the destruction of the City, not joined in one Week. Things mentioned, v. 24. peculiar to the Messiah. The Prophecy owned by all Christians to respect the Messiah. The Events mentioned in it, not to be accommodated to any other. No Types in the words, but a naked prediction. The Prophecies of Daniel not principally intending the Churches of the latter days. Straits of time intimated when they fell out. Coincidence of Phrases in this and other Predictions considered. Removal of the daily Offering, and causing the Sacrifice and Offering to cease, how they differ. The Desolation foretold. Distribution of the LXX. Weeks accommodated to the Material Jerusalem. Objections removed. Distribution of things contained in this Prophecy. Argument from the computation of time warranted. First neglected by the Jews, then cursed; yet used by them vainly. Concurrent Expectation and Fame of the coming of the Messiah upon the Expiration of Daniels Weeks. Mixture of things good and penal. Abarbinels Figment rejected. Four hundred and ninety years the time limited. Fancy of Origen, and Apollinaris. The true Messiah intended. Proved from the Context. The Names and Titles given to him. The work assigned to him. That work particularly explained; the expressions vindicated. To make an end of Transgression what. To seal up sins: To reconcile iniquity: To bring in everlasting Righteousness. To seal Vision and Prophet. Messiah how cut off. The Covenant strengthened. Ceasing of the daily Sacrifice. Perplexity of the Jews about these things. Opinion of Abarbinel and Manasse Ben Israel. Cyrus not intended. Not Herod Agrippa. Not Magistracy. Africanus, Clemens, and Eusebius noted. Messiah came before the ceasing of the daily Sacrifice. Chronological Computation, not necessary.

§ 1 There remains yet one place more giving clear and evident Testimony to the Truth under Demonstration, to be considered and vindicated. And this is the illustrious Prediction and Calculation of time, granted to Daniel by the Angel Gabriel (Chap. 9:24, 25, 26, 27). Seventy weeks are determined upon your people, and upon your 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, to 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 destroy the City and the Sanctuary; and the End thereof shall be with a flood, and to 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 the Oblations 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 to the Original, we shall consider and examine particularly in our progress.

§ 2 Of what importance this Testimony is in our present Cause and Context, as Christians generally acknowledge, so the Jews themselves are in a great measure sensible; as we shall see in the consideration of those manifold evasions which they have invented to avoid the efficacy and conviction of it. But before we engage into its management and improvement, an attempt against our Apprehension, the whole design, intendment, and subject matter of the Prophecy itself, must be removed out of our way. A Reverend and Learned Person in a late Exposition of the Visions and Prophecies of Daniel, endeavouring to refer them all to the state of the Churches of Christ in these later days of the world, with their sufferings under, and deliverance from the power of Antichrist, among the rest contends expressly, that this Prophecy, Prediction, and Computation does not relate to the coming and suffering of the Messiah, but only to the state of the Churches before mentioned. Hence he who published those Discourses, declares in the Title of the Book, that a New way is propounded in it, for the finding out of the determinate time signified to Daniel in his seventy 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 to the Catholick 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 and trial of it, but also dangerous to the Christian Faith if received. Yet because the Author of it, (if he be yet alive) is a Person Holy, Modest and Learned, and proposes his conjectures with submission to the Judgement of others, not peremptorily determining what he says, pag. 51. His discourse deserves our Consideration, and a Return to it, with a sobriety answerable to that wherewith it is proposed. And herein we shall attend to the Method chosen by himself, which is first to give Reasons and Arguments to prove, that this Prophecy cannot be applied to the coming of the Messiah, and then those which countenance, as he supposes, the application of it, to these latter days, both which shall be examined in their Order.

That which in general he first insists on as a Reason to abjudicate this Prediction § 3 from the times of the Messiah, is the difference that is among Learned men about the Chronological Computation of the time here limited and determined. The variety of opinions in this matter he terms monstrous, and the difficulties that attend the several Calculations inextricable. But whether this Reason be cogent or no to his purpose, is easy to determine; yes, 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 no. 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 that, this is indeed no tolerable argument, namely, that learned men cannot agree in the exact computation of any time appointed to such an end, to prove that it was not designed to that end, is evident from other instances in the Scripture to the same purpose. Thus God tells Abraham, that his seed should sojourn in a strange land four hundred years (Genesis 15:13), which Stephen repeats (Acts 7:6). After this, Moses with some difference in the years themselves, affirms, that their sojourning in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years (Exodus 12:40), which Saint Paul repeats (Galatians 3:17). 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 judgements in the stating of these weeks in Daniel. For as in this place of Daniel, the Angel fixing the beginning of the time limited to the going forth of the decree to build Jerusalem, there being several 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 to Abraham, it having been several times, and at several seasons solemnly given to him, there is great question from which of them the computation is to take its date and beginning. And yet as notwithstanding this difficulty never any man doubted, but that the years mentioned contained the time of Abraham's and his posterity's being in Egypt; no more notwithstanding the difficulties and difference pleaded about the computation of these weeks of Daniel, did ever any doubt but that the time limited in them, was that allotted to the Judaical church and state, until the coming of the Messiah. The like difference there is among learned men about the beginning and ending of the seventy years in Jeremiah, allotted to 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 judgement concerning some particulars in this divine account, which, as we shall afterwards manifest, is of no great importance as to the principal, yes 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 to 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 intention, which we shall examine in their order. And the first is as followeth.

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

Answ. Might this reason be allowed as cogent, it would disarm the Christian church of the principal testimonies which in the Old Testament it has always rested in, to prove that the Messiah is long since come, and that Jesus of Nazareth is he. For as any of that nature are sparingly recorded in the writings of the Gospel, so of the most evident and illustrious to that purpose, there is no mention at all therein. And it is most evident, that as well in dealing with the Jews, as in his instruction of his own disciples, the Lord Jesus made use of innumerable other testimonies, than what are recorded in the books of the New Testament. So also did his Apostles, and other primitive teachers of the Gospel. Hence are they said to prove Jesus to be the Christ out of Moses and the Prophets, and he 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 labors 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 to it; and that by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. For (Matthew 24:15), speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, which according to this prediction, was immediately to succeed upon his coming and suffering, he says to his disciples, When you shall see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet standing in the Holy Place, (whoever reads, let him understand) then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains. That which here is called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], as the words of the Evangelist are inserted into the version of the LXX. in this place, is, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], the Desolater, or Waster over a wing of abominations; that is, as Luke interprets the words, an army compassing Jerusalem to the desolation thereof (chapter 21:20). Therefore our Savior expressly applying this prophecy of Daniel to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the consequent 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 those 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, v. 25. is of the material Jerusalem after Nebuchadnezzar'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.

Answer. There are sundry learned men who despair not to make good the computation from the first 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 restauration of Jerusalem, v. 25. should be thought to be that made in the first year of Cyrus, that indeed it is impossible that any such Decree should be intended: seeing no such was made by him, but only one about the re-edifying of the Temple, which here is no respect to. Another Decree therefore express to what the Angel here affirms, we shall discover, from where to 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, v. 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, points 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.

Answer. This exception fixes 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 importance: Because it is said, That from the going forth of the Decree to build Jerusalem to 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 LXII, as all of them from the LXX. 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 to. 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, 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 conduct of the context, and design of the place.

First, I fix it here as unquestionable, that the whole space of seventy Weeks does § 7 precisely contain the time, between the going forth of the Decree, and the unction of the Most Holy, with his Passion that ensued, some few years of the last Week remaining, not reckoned on to keep the computation entire by weeks of years. This is so expressly affirmed, v. 24. that the interpretation of all that ensues is to be regulated thereby. And this, as we shall afterwards prove, so here we take it for granted, as the hypothesis on which the present difficulty is to be solved. There is then a distribution of these LXX. Weeks into VII, LXII. and One; upon the account of some remarkable events, happening at the distinct expiration of those several parcels of the whole season, v. 25. We have two portions of this time expressed; namely VII. Weeks, and LXII Weeks, and two events attending them, Messiah the Prince, and the building of the Street and Wall. From the going forth of the Decree to restore and to build Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince shall be seven Weeks, and threescore and two Weeks the Street shall be built again, and the Wall in troublous times. The two events here mentioned did ensue the two distinct parcels of time limited, but not in the order which the words at first view seem to represent, as is evident from the context. For as the Messiah did not come at the expiration of the VII. Weeks, so the LXII. Weeks were not expired before the building of the City; nor is that mentioned as the event designed by the whole space of LXIX. Weeks, but as that which should fall out in some interval of it; for the Prophecy issues not in the restauration, but desolation of the City.

The Angel therefore, expresses the distinct divisions of time, and the principal distinct events of them, but not the order of their accomplishment. For the natural order of these things, is, that in VII. Weeks, the building of the City, Wall and Street, should be finished, and in LXII. Weeks after the Messiah should be cut off. And this is evident from the Text; for as the building of the City can no way be said to be after the LXII. Weeks, but in and after the seven, which was the season wherein the Decree was executed; so the cutting off the Messiah, is expressly said in the next verse, to be after those LXII. Weeks, which succeeded to the VII. Weeks wherein the restauration of the City was finished. And to suppose the Messiah in v. 25. not to be the same with the Messiah v. 26. and the Most Holy, v. 24. is to confound the whole order of the words, and to leave no certain sense in them. For the single remaining Week, the use of it shall be afterwards declared. This distinction therefore of the several portions of the whole time limited, does rather confirm our application of this Prophecy, than any way impeach the truth or evidence of it.

It is added fourthly, that the cutting off the Messiah here spoken of, is expressly joined § 8 with the destruction of the City in one Week, to be accomplished the last seven years; whereas Christ suffered above thirty years before the destruction of the material Jerusalem, v. 26, 27.

Answer. There appears no such thing in the text. The destruction of the city and people is only mentioned as a consequent of the cutting off, and rejection of the Messiah, without any limitation of time wherein it should be performed; and de facto it succeeded immediately in the causes of it, and direct tendency thereunto.

§ 9 In the last place he says, Those phrases, v. 24. to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to purge iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, are manifest characters of the time of the end, as shall be showed.

Answ. But why are not the other ends expressed in the prophecy, namely, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy, here mentioned also? Why is that phrase [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], translated, to purge iniquity; whereas it rather signifies, to make atonement or reconciliation for iniquity? Is it not because it would be very difficult to make any tolerable application of these things to the season, which is called the time of the end? In brief, these things are so proper, so peculiar to the Lord Christ, and the work of his mediation; that in their first, direct and proper sense, they cannot be ascribed to any other things or persons, without some impiety. And there is no reason why we should here wrest them from their native and genuine signification; all which will be fully manifest in our ensuing exposition of the words themselves.

§ 10 I shall not here insist on those reasons and arguments whereby we prove the true and only Messiah to be intended in this prophecy: for as they are needless to Christians, who are universally satisfied with the truth hereof, so we shall from the context and other evidences, immediately confirm them against the modern Jews, and their masters. In the mean time wholly to remove this unexpected objection out of our way, I shall show the invalidity of those pretences which the same learned author makes use of to countenance his application of this whole angelical message to the Christian churches of these latter days, which are these that follow.

§ 11 First, says he, Because the effects characterizing the end of those years, the consuming of transgression, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, are effects to be accomplished in the Christian church at the fall of Antichrist (Isaiah 1:25, 26, 27, 28 and 27:19; Apocalypse 21:27).

Answ. These are but some of the effects mentioned, and one of them not rightly expressed; there are others in the prophecy, as the anointing of the Most Holy, and cutting off the Messiah, that can with no color of probability be applied to that season. (2.) However something analogous to what is here spoken of as an effect and product of it, may be wrought at another time in the conformity of the church to its Head, yet properly and directly as here intended, they are the immediate effects of the anointing, death and sufferings of Jesus Christ. (3.) The places quoted out of Isaiah have no respect to the churches of the latter days, other than all Scripture has which is written for their instruction. (4.) The things mentioned (Apocalypse 21:27) are effects of this work of Christ in and towards his church, not the work itself here expressed, as the first view of the place will manifest.

§ 12 He adds, In the other prophets, the restoration of the Christian church from the Babylon of Antichrist, is in like types proportionably represented (Isaiah 10 & 11 & 13, 14; Jeremiah 50 & 51; Apocalypse 14:6, 7, 8 & 16:19 & 15:7 & 18:2, 10, 21).

Answ. I know not what is understood by, represented in the like types; here are no types in this prophecy, but a naked prediction of the state and continuance of the Judaical church until the coming of the Messiah, and of the work that he should accomplish at his coming, with the effects and consequences thereof. To allow types in these things, is to enervate all the prophecies which we have of him in the Old Testament. (2.) The places directed to in Isaiah and Jeremiah, intend not the deliverance of the Christian churches, unless it be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], and that in expressions no way coincident with, or suited to this prophecy. (3.) Where any thing is represented in a type, there must be an accomplishment of somewhat answerable to it in the type itself; and such was the deliverance of the Israelites from Babylon of old insisted on by those prophets. But here our author allows no such type, but refers the whole prophecy, firstly and only to the Christian churches. (4.) In the Revelation indeed the deliverance of the churches of Christ from Antichristian persecution is foretold, which hinders not but that the coming and suffering of the Messiah, may be immediately intended, as undoubtedly it is, in this place.

He says, Thirdly, In all other prophecies of Daniel the main subject of them is the history § 13 of Antichrist, the Waldensian saints and their successors, restored and reduced out of Antichristian captivity: See Chap. 7 & 2 & 8 & 10, 11, 12.

Answ. This is Petitio Principii, and has no foundation, but the arbitrary hypothesis of our author; and it seems strange that there should be so many prophecies of the churches of Christ, and none among them of Christ himself: for this is far from the genius and strain of the Old Testament, all the principal prophecies whereof firstly and directly intend him, and the church only as built on him. (2.) Grant therefore, (for we will not needlessly contend) that some of those prophecies may concern these latter times, it does not at all follow that this also must so do; considering the great variety of Daniel's visions, and there are arguments unanswerable that it does not do so, as will afterwards appear.

It is added fourthly, That the parallel proportion of phrase argues the anointed Prince, § 14 v. 25. to be the Prince of the Covenant, Chap. 11:22. which there does signify the princes of the Waldenses.

Answ. (1.) That expression [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], v. 25. is not well rendered the Annointed Prince. It is Messiah the Prince, King, or Leader; as all Translations whatever agree. And indeed this is, if not the only, yet far the most signal place in the whole Old Testament wherein the promised Redeemer is directly called the MESSIAH, from where his usual Appellation in both Churches, Judaical and Christian is taken. For there is not above one place more where he is immediately and directly so called, and not in his Types; neither is that place without Controversie. To interpret this expression therefore in this place otherwise, is to take away the foundation of that Name of our Redeemer, by which the Holy Ghost in the New Testament does principally propose him to our Faith and Obedience; which certainly would be in prejudicium fidei Christianae. (2.) The Prince of the Covenant, Chap. 11. v. 22. in those wars of Antiochus Epiphanes, or Persecutions of Antichrist, (I determine not whether) may be another from Messiah the Prince here promised.

The streights of times, he says Fifthly, v. 25. and the destruction of the City, v. 26. do fitly agree to the Antichristian Persecution: See Chap. 8:24. 11:23.

Answ. They do more fitly agree to the times of the building of Jerusalem, and last destruction thereof, concerning which they are spoken. All streights and destructions have somewhat alike in them, wherein they may seem to agree; but it does not from there follow, that one is intended in the Prediction of another.

It is further urged, The effects of the last weeks, are parallel with the Antichristian Persecution described (Revelation 11). For as the Christian Church is in both places signified by the Holy City (Revelation 11:2. with Daniel 9:26.) and streights of time said in both places to go before the last afflictions (Revelation 11:5, 3, 7. with Daniel 9:25.) so the last afflictions are also proposed with marvellous agreement; those three years and an half of Tyranny over the conquered Saints in the end of the Persecution; here half a week of years, that is precisely three years and an half cut out for the same end. The War immediately preceding the foresaid Triumph (Revelation 11:7.) here in like manner.

Answ. (1.) The likeness of phrases and expressions in setting out different events agreeing only in some generals, especially in the predictions that concern Christ and his Church, which is predestinated to be conformed to him, is so frequent in the prophecies of the Old Testament, that nothing to the purpose of this learned author, can be concluded from such an observation concerning these places. (2.) The Christian Church is not intended by the Holy City, Dan. 9. v. 26. but expresly that City, which was to be built upon the Decree of the King of Persia, whose condition was revealed to Daniel upon his prayer for it, and about it. (3.) It is no wonder that there should be streights before desolations, at all seasons of them whatever. (4.) The half week cut off from the rest of the weeks, is not to be three years and an half of Persecution, Tyranny and Triumph; but on the contrary, it is designed for the Confirmation of the Covenant, by the Preaching of the Gospel; so that here is nothing of the parallelism pretended in the places compared.

He proceeds; From the beginning of the second half of the last week, or of the three years and an half, a Prince is said to cause the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease; v. 27. a phrase ascribed to Antichrist, Chap. 8:11. & 11:31.

Answ. I have shewed before that the similitude of phrases in different places, is no ground to conclude a coincidence of the same things intended. (2.) The phrases are not the same, nor alike in the places compared. Concerning him who is spoken of Chap. 8:12. it is said, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], and of them, Chap. 11:32. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], they shall take or remove away the continual Offering; that is, hinder the observation of it, and attendance to it, when it ought to be observed. Of the Prince, Chap. 9. v. 27. it is said, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], he shall cause to cease Sacrifice and Offering; so that de jure, they ought no more to be observed.

In the same time, says he, the said Prince is said, v. 27. for the overspreading of abominations to make desolate; a phrase attributed to Antichrist, Chap. 8:12, 13. & 11:31. there said to set up the abominations making desolate.

Answ. Although great desolations and destructions being treated of in all these places, it would not be strange, if the same Author should express the alike events in the same terms; yet those which we are referred to, are not the same in the Original, nor of any considerable correspondency. And the like may be said of another instance, which he adds in the ninth place, between an expression, Chap. 9. v. 27. and Chap. 11. v. 36. wherein is no agreement at all, and the places treat directly of things different, yes contrary.

It is added in the last place, That as in the seventy Weeks, the division of the seven from the sixty, and of both from the one Week, are unapplicable to the material restauration out of real Babylon, so they will exactly and precisely agree to the Restauration out of Antichristian Babylon, as shall be shewed.

Answ. That the distribution of the LXX. Weeks mentioned in the Text, is applicable to the continuance of the Judaical Church and State, with the coming of the Messiah, and the accomplishment of his work, has been in part already shewed, and shall be fully cleared in our ensuing Exposition of the place. (2.) To the exact answering of it to the Restauration of the Church from Antichristianism: I shall only say, that if men may be allowed to fix Epocha's arbitrarily at their pleasure; and make applications of what is spoken in any place of Scripture, to what things and persons they please, there is no doubt, but that they may make their own imaginations to adhere and agree well enough together.

§ 20 This brief view we have taken of the reasons of this reverend author, both those whereby he endeavours to prove that in this prophecy the coming of the Messiah is not intended, and those whereby he would induce a persuasion that the whole of it is not only applicable to, but also does directly intend the state and condition of the Church in these latter days, whereby whether he has evinced his intention, and whether his arguments are sufficient to dispossess us of the catholic faith of the Church in all ages, concerning the sense and importance of this angelical message to Daniel, is left to the judgement of men sober and learned. For my part, I shall take it for granted that they are all of them so far removed out of our way, as that we may proceed with our designed explication and vindication of this prophecy from the exceptions of the Jews, without any disturbance from them.

§ 21 There are three things that in this illustrious prophecy offer themselves to our consideration. First, the general testimony given to the coming of the Messiah, and the limitation of time wherein he should so come.

Secondly, the especial sense of the words in the several passages of it, and the distinct prophecies contained in them.

Thirdly, the chronological computation of the time designed, in an exact account of the space of time limited from the beginning to the end.

The first of these is that wherein principally we have to do with the Jews; namely to prove from hence, that there was a time limited and determined for the coming of the Messiah which is long since expired. And all things herein we shall find clear and evident. Both the space of time limited, and the several coincidencies of its expiration are sufficiently manifest. In the second also we have to deal with them in order to the confirmation of the former. In both these the latter masters have studiously endeavoured to cast difficulties and perplexities on the words, which must be removed, by the consideration of their use and genuine importance, with the scope of the prophecy, and the help to the understanding of it, which is contributed from other places of Scripture. The third is attended with sundry entanglements, which although they are not absolutely inextricable, yet are such in respect of some minute parts of calculation, as will not suffer us to so demonstrative a certainty, as that all men should be compelled to acquiesce therein. This is sufficiently manifested in the different calculations of the most learned of the ancient and later writers who have laboured in this subject. In reference therefore hereunto, I shall do these two things: first, manifest that our argument from this place is not at all concerned in the exact chronological computation of the times, whereunto the accomplishment of this prophecy relates; and secondly, shall demonstrate that this difficulty is conquerable, by giving a clear and satisfactory account of the time specified and limited, such as is not liable to any material objection.

First, it is evident in general that here is given out by the Holy Ghost himself a § 22 computation of the time wherein the Messiah was to come, and to perform the work allotted to him. And this gives warrant to the kind and nature of argument which we now insist upon. No small part this was of the Church's treasure of old, and a blessed guide it would have been to the faith and obedience of them concerned therein, had it been diligently attended to. But having sinfully neglected it in its season, they have ever since wickedly opposed it. To Daniel it was granted as a great favor, relief and privilege, upon his deep humiliation and fervent supplications, as himself records. "While," says he, "I was speaking and praying; (with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes, v. 3.) and confessing my sins, and the sins of my people Israel, and presenting my supplications before the Lord my God, for the holy mountain of my God; yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation: and he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel I am now come forth to give you skill and understanding. At the beginning of your supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show you, for you are greatly beloved; therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision, seventy weeks, &c." (v. 20, 21, 22, 23.) This was the answer that God gave him upon his great and fervent prayer for the Church, and that for his relief, comfort and supportment; from where it is evidently manifest, that the great blessing of the Church was enwrapped in it. And the computation of time mentioned, was granted as a light to guide the Jews, that they might not shipwreck their souls at the appointed season. But when the time of its accomplishment drew nigh, they being generally grown dark and carnal, and filled with prejudices against the proper work of the Messiah, wholly disregarded it. And since the misery that is come upon them for not discerning this time and judgement, most of them do cry out against all computations of time about the coming of the Messiah, although they are plainly called and directed thereunto by God himself. Neither can they conceal the vexation which from hence they receive, by finding the design of the prophecy so directly against them. Hence this place of Daniel, as to the time of the coming of the Messiah, as the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, for his office and work, are justly esteemed the racks and tortures of the Rabbins. It may not therefore be amiss in our way to take a little prospect of their perplexity in this matter.

In the Talmud, Tractat. Sanedrin, they have laid down this general Rule, Male pereant§ 23 qui temporum articulos suppetunt quibus venturus est Messiah. Or as they express it by a solemn curse in the name of Rabbi Jonathan, a great man among them, [in non-Latin alphabet], let their bones rot who compute the times of the end. And in Shebet Jehuda, (wherein they follow Maimonides in Jad. Chazekah, Tractat. de Regib. cap. 12.) they give a particular account of that solemn malediction against the computers of times. It was invented, they say, because upon the mistakes of their reckonings, or failings of their calculations, the people are apt to despond, and begin to suspect that he is already come. So openly do they own it to be an invention to shelter their unbelief against their convictions. Yet this has not hindered some of their chiefest doctors, when they hoped to make some advantage of it, (as when they saw their disciples under any distress enclinable to Christianity) to give out their conjectures without any respect to the Talmudical curse. So the author of Shalscheleth Hakkabala assigns the year for the coming of the Messiah to be the 5335th from the creation; which according to their computation fell out about the year of the Lord by our account 1575. Another would have it to be in the year 5358, that is, twenty three years after, in the year 1598. Abarbinel in his comment on Isaiah comes short of these; assigning it to the year 5263. or 5294. at the farthest; for he had great expectations from the issue of the wars between the Christians and Saracens that were in his days. Their utmost conjecture in Zohar is upon the year 5408. which with their wonted success, fell out in the year of our Lord 1648. or thereabouts. And all these calculations were invented and set on foot to serve some present exigency.

But the Talmudical curse and censure is pointed directly against them that would conclude any thing from the account of Gabriel given to Daniel in this place. This they plainly acknowledge in a disputation which they had with a converted Jew before the Bishop of Rome recorded in their Shebet Jehuda. Only they would except Daniel himself, affirming that he was not [in non-Latin alphabet], a computer of the time, but [in non-Latin alphabet], a seer; as though the question were about the way and means whereby we attain a just computation of the time, and not about the thing itself. Daniel received the knowledge of this time by revelation, as he did the time of the accomplishment of the captivity, though he made use of the computation of time limited in the prophecy of Jeremiah; but in both he gives us a perfect calculation of the time, and so cannot be exempted from the Talmudical malediction. And I mention these things in the entrance of our considerations of this prophecy, to manifest how far the Jews despair of any tolerable defence of their cause, if the things recorded in it be duly weighed. This then we see in general, that the Holy Ghost directed the Church to compute the time of its spiritual deliverance by the coming of the Messiah, no less evidently than he did that of their temporal deliverance from the Babylonian captivity. Neither are there more differences among Christians, about the precise beginning and ending of Daniel's 70 weeks, than were and are about the beginning and ending of the 70 years of Jeremiah among the Jews. This rule was given them by God himself, to direct and guide them, if they would have attended to it, in that darkness, and under those prejudices, which the coming of the Messiah was attended withal.

§ 24 And it is observable, that although it was not the will of God, that they should exactly know the year and day of the accomplishment of this promise, or that they could not attain to it, or had lost the tradition of the sense of it, yet about the end of the time pointed to in this computation, they were all of them raised up to a great expectation of the coming of the Messiah. And this is not only evident from the Gospel, wherein we find that upon the first preaching of John Baptist, they sent to him to know whether he were the Messiah or no, and were all of them in expectation and suspense about it, until he publicly disavowed any such pretence, and directed them to him who was so indeed; but also from sundry other testimonies which themselves can put in no exception to. Their own historian tells us, that what principally moved and instigated them to undertake an unequal war with the Romans, was the ambiguity (as he thought) of the oracle, that about that time one of their nation should obtain the monarchy of the world (Joseph. de Bell. Judaic. lib. 7. cap. 12.); which he, to play his own cards, wrested to Vespasian, who was far enough from being one of their nation. Now the divine oracle about the coming of the Messiah at that season they had none but this of Daniel. And so renowned was this oracle in the world, that it is taken notice of by both the famous Roman historians, who wrote the occurrences of those days. Pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis Sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore ut valesceret Oriens, praesectique Judaea, rerum potirentur; says Tacitus, Histor. lib. 5. Many had a persuasion, that there was a prophecy in the ancient sacred books, that at that time the East should prevail, and that the governors of Judaea should have the empire of the world. And Suetonius, in the life of Vespasian: percrebuerat toto Oriente vetus & constans opinio, ut eo tempore Judaea praesecti rerum potirentur. An ancient and constant persuasion was famous all over the East, that at that time governors of Judaea should have the empire: and this, as he adds, drew the Jews into their rebellion and war against the Romans.

Now this Oracle was no other but this Prophecy of Daniel, whose accomplishment at that time the Jews all over the East expected. And they acknowledge in their Talmud, that they were made prodigiously obstinate in the War they had undertaken against the Romans, by their continual expectation every day and moment, that their Messiah who was to come about that time, would appear for their relief: For because of some expressions in this Prophecy, they always looked for his coming in some time of great distress. But this through their lusts and blindness was hid from them, that their distress indeed arose from their rejection of him, who was come, and had actually called them to that Repentance, which alone would have prevented it. And this persuasion that the Messiah was to come at, or about the end of Daniel's Weeks, and that those weeks were now come to an end, was so fixed in their minds, that when they found, that he came not, as they thought, according to their expectation, they attempted to make a Messiah themselves, even the famous Barcoshi, which proved the means and cause of their utter extirpation out of the Land of Canaan, as has been declared. Thus was it with them of old, whose posterity through obstinacy in their unbelief, do now curse all that compute the time of his coming, and confounding it with his second appearance at the end of the world, cast it off to the last day, or a small proportion of time immediately preceding it.

The Prophecy its self, (that we may return to its consideration) contains a mixture §25 of things good and desirable with those that are terrible and dreadful. That there is a prediction of things terrible and penal in destructions and desolations upon or after the close of the LXX weeks, is both plain in the Text, and acknowledged by the Jews. That there is any thing of mercy, love and grace contained in the words, some of them deny. This course takes Abarbinel in his [in non-Latin alphabet], Springs or Fountains of Salvation.

But this figment is directly contrary to the whole Prophecy, the context, and express words of the Text. The Vision its self was granted to Daniel in answer to his prayer. That the design of his solemn supplication, was to obtain mercy and grace for Israel is also plainly set down. The Answer is given him in a way of mercy and love, and for his Consolation in his great distress: And is it not strange that the Spirit of God should direct him to pray solemnly for grace and mercy, and give him a blessed Answer for his comfort and supportment, which should contain nothing at all of the mercy prayed for, but only terrify him with Wars, Desolations and Destructions? As such an Apprehension has nothing in the Scripture to warrant it; so it is altogether dissonant from Reason. Besides the things mentioned and summed up (v. 24) contain the very extract of all the good things that ever were promised to the Church from the foundation of the world; and which it had for many Ages been nourished with the expectation of. But these things will be more particularly evinced in our ensuing Discourse.

For the Computation its self, the Jews universally acknowledge, that the Sevens §26 here denote sevens of years; So that the whole duration of the LXX sevens comprises four hundred and ninety years. This is granted by R. Saadias Hagaon, Jarchi, and Kimchi on the place. Here we have no difference with them, nor others. For it were lost labor to divert to the consideration of the fancy of Origen, who (Homily 29 in Matthew) would have every seven to contain LXX years, ten years to each day, and the account to begin at the creation of the world, making the whole sum of years to be 4900, which expired as he thought at the coming of Christ. Apollinaris also indulged to a more vain imagination, supposing the Prophecy to give an account of the whole space of time, from the death of our Savior to the end of the world.

But these fancies are exploded by all; both Jews and Christians are generally agreed, that the precise duration of the time determined, is four hundred and ninety years; and not to extend farther than the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; whether it reach so far or no, shall afterwards be discussed. That which we have to prove and establish from this Prophecy against the Jews, is, First, That the true and only Messiah promised to the Fathers, is here spoken of; and the time of his coming limited. Secondly, That he was to come, and to discharge his work before the expiration of the LXX weeks, or four hundred and ninety years from their proper date, that is, before the Sacrifice and Oblation were caused to cease, in the destruction of the City and Temple. These things, if we clearly evince from the Text, we have satisfied our Argument, and confirmed that the Messiah is long since come. Neither are we as to the importance of the Testimony its self, concerned in that Chronological computation of the time limited, which we shall afterwards enquire into. The first thing incumbent on us, is to prove, that it is the true and only Messiah, and his coming that is here spoken of. And this we shall do, (1.) From the Context and scope of the Prophecy. (2.) The Name whereby he is called. (3.) The Work assigned to him. (4.) The general confession of the Jews of old. (5.) The follies and open mistakes of the latter Jews, in substituting any other thing or Person in his stead.

First, the context and scope of the place, evidence him to be intended. This in § 27 general was before declared. It was about the greatest concernm[•]nt of that people, that Daniel had newly made his supplications. The answer given him is as the Angel declar[•]s, suited to his desires and requests; and it contained an account of their state and condition, until the consummation of all things that concerned them. The end of that people, or that for whose sake they were a Church and people, was as we have demonstrated, the bringing forth of him, in whom all the nations of the earth should blessed, until this was accomplished, it was impossible from the decree and promise of God, that they should fall under an utter rejection, or final desolation. But this is plainly foretold, as that which should come to pass at the end of the time here determined, or instantly upon it. [in non-Latin alphabet], He shall cause the oblation and sacrifice to cease: that is utterly and everlastingly, putting thereby a period and final end to their Church state and worship. But what th[•]n shall become of the people? By a wing of abominations he shall make them desolate; or cause them to be wasted and laid desolate, by overspreading armies, either in themselves abominable, or abhorred by them. And in both these senses were the Roman armies, [in non-Latin alphabet], a wing of abominations. Neither was this to endure for a season only, but to a consummation of the whole, v. 27. Now it was inconsistent with all the promises of God, and the sole end of his wisdom, in all that he had to do with that people, that this desolation should happen before the production of the Messiah. It being therefore expressly said in the text, that the Messiah should come before all this were accomplished, who can be intended thereby, but he who was promised to the Fathers from the foundation of the world.

Secondly, this whole revelation was granted to Daniel for his relief in the prospect that he had of the ensuing calamities of the Church; and recorded by him for the supportment thereof in those distresses, as were also those prophecies of Haggai and Malachi before insisted on. Now the only general promise, which God for the consolation of his Church of old renewed to them in all ages, was this concerning the Messiah, wherein all their blessedness was enwrapped. This we have already manifested from Moses and all the Prophets, who ensued in their several generations. And he is therefore here no less intended.

Thirdly, whatever benefit, privilege or advantage the Church had any ground or reason to expect from the promises of God at the coming of the Messiah, they are all here expressed, as we shall immediately declare. And we may truly say, that if the things mentioned, v. 24. were to be wrought by any other than the Messiah, the Church had much more reason to desire him, than the Messiah himself, as for any other work which remained for him to do.

Fourthly, unless the Messiah and his blessed work be here intended, there is not one word of comfort or relief to the Church in this whole prophecy. For those who deny his coming here to be foretold, are forced violently to wrest the expressions in v. 24. to things utterly alien and foreign from the plain and only signification of the words. And how inconsistent this is with the design of this angelical message, we have before manifested. The context therefore evidently bespeaks the true Messiah to be here intended.

§ 28 Secondly, the names and titles given to the person spoken of, declare who he is that is designed. He is called [in non-Latin alphabet], Messiah, and that [in non-Latin alphabet], by way of eminency, and absolutely. Indeed the very name of the Messiah as appropriated to the promised seed, is taken from this place alone; for it is no where else used of him absolutely. His Messiah, or the Messiah of the Lord, that is his anointed is often used; but absolutely THE MESSIAH, here only. And it is not probable, that the name being used but once absolutely in the Scripture, any other should be intended but he alone whose name absolutely alone it is. The name therefore sufficiently denotes the person.

The addition of [in non-Latin alphabet], v. 25. [in non-Latin alphabet], Messiah the Prince, makes it yet more evident. For as this word is often used to denote a supreme ruler, one that goes in and out before the people, in rule and government, as (2 Samuel 7:8; 1 Kings 1:35; 1 Kings 14:7) and in sundry other places, so it is peculiarly assigned to the Messiah (Isaiah 55:4), [in non-Latin alphabet]; Behold, I have given him a witness to the people, a leader, (or prince) and commander to the people. And those words are thus paraphrased by Jonathan; [in non-Latin alphabet]; Behold, I have appointed him a prince to the people; a king, and ruler over all kingdoms. This is [in non-Latin alphabet], Messiah, the prince, leader, or ruler over all. And [in non-Latin alphabet] is the same with [in non-Latin alphabet] (Micah 5:1), the ruler; and [in non-Latin alphabet] (Ezekiel 34:23), the shepherd; and [in non-Latin alphabet], the prince, or [in non-Latin alphabet] (Malachi 3:1), the Lord. And to ascribe this name of [in non-Latin alphabet], Messiah the Prince absolutely to any but the promised seed, is contrary to the whole tenor of the Old Testament.

Moreover, he is called, v. 24. [in non-Latin alphabet], the Holiest of Holies; the Most Holy; Sanctitas Sanctitatum in the abstract, the holiness of holinesses. The Most Holy Place in the Tabernacle and Temple was so called; but that cannot be here intended. The time is limited, [in non-Latin alphabet], to anoint, (or to make a Messiah of) the Most Holy. But by the Jews' confession the Holy Place in the second Temple was never anointed, because it was not lawful for them to make the holy oil. But suppose it was anointed, it must be so long before the expiration of these weeks, which ended, as they suppose in its final destruction; and in truth not long before. It must therefore be the person typified by the Holy Place, in whom the fullness of the Godhead was to dwell, that is here said to be anointed. Had there been any Targum on the Hebrew chapters of Daniel, we should have better known the sense of the ancient Jews in this matter than now we do. Some of them in after ages agree with us. Nachmanides tells us, [in non-Latin alphabet]; this Holy of Holies is the Messiah; [in non-Latin alphabet], who is sanctified from among the sons of David. So he on the place.

Thirdly, the work assigned to be done in the days of this Messiah, here spoken of § 29 and consequently by him, declares who it is that is intended. Sundry things there are in the text belonging to this head: as (1.) finishing of transgression, (2.) the making an end of sin, (3.) making reconciliation for iniquity, (4.) the bringing in of everlasting righteousness, (5.) the sealing up of vision and prophecy, (6.) his being cut off, and not for himself, (7.) confirming the covenant with many, (8.) causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease. All these, especially as coincident, demonstrate the person of the Messiah. He that shall call to mind what has been evinced concerning the nature of the first promise, the faith of the ancient Judaical Church, the person, office, and work of the Messiah, will upon the first consideration of these things, conclude that this is he. For we have in these things a summary of the Old Testament, the substance of all temple institutions, the center of all promises, a brief delineation of the whole work of the promised seed. Therefore although it be not an exposition of the place that we have undertaken, but merely a demonstration of the concernment of the Messiah therein; yet because the consideration of the particular expressions above mentioned, will give light into the strength of the present argument, I shall in our passage briefly unfold them.

The first thing designed is, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. The time determined for the coming of § 30 the Messiah, is also limited, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], ad cohibendam praevaricationem; to restrain, forbid, coerce, make an end of transgression. [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] is to shut, to shut up, to forbid, to coerce, to refrain, or restrain, Psalm 119:101. [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], I have refrained, or kept my feet from every evil way (Psalm 40:12). You Lord [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] wilt not with-hold, or restrain your mercy from me. So also to shut up, or put a stop to; as Jeremiah 52:3, Haggai 1:10, 1 Samuel 25:33, Psalm 88:9. From there is [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] Carcer, a prison wherein men are put under restraint. From the similitude of letters and sound in pronunciation, some suppose it to have an affinity in signification with [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] to consummate, to end, to finish. But there is no pregnant instance of this coincidence. For although [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] do sometimes signify to restrain or shut up, as Psalm 74:11, yet [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] no where signifies to consummate, finish, or complete. The first thing therefore promised with the Messiah, which he was to do at his coming, was to coerce and restrain transgression, to shut it up from overflowing the world so universally as it had done formerly. Transgression from the day of its first entrance into the world, had passed over the whole lower creation like a flood. God would now set bounds to it, coerce and restrain it, that it should not for the future overflow mankind as it had done. This was the work of the Messiah. By his doctrine, by his Spirit, by his grace, and the power of his Gospel, he set bounds to the rage of wickedness, rooted out the old idolatry of the world, and turned millions of the sons of Adam to righteousness. And the Jews who deny his coming, can give no instance of any other restraint laid upon the prevalency of transgression within the time limited by the Angel, and so directly deny the truth of the prophecy, because they will not apply it to him to whom alone it does belong.

The second thing to be done at the season determined, is [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], to seal § 31 up sins, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]; to seal, or to seal up. The expression is metaphorical. To seal, is either to keep safe, or to hide, cover and conceal. The former can have no place here, though the word seem once to be used in that sense, with reference to sin (Job 14:14). But this sense has a perfect inconsistency with what is spoken immediately before, and what follows directly after in the text. And the most proper sense of the word is to cover or conceal, and from there to seal, because thereby a thing is hidden (Canticles 4:12). Now to hide sin, or transgression in the Old Testament is to pardon it, to forgive it. As then the former expression respecteth the stop that was put to the power and progress of sin by the grace of the Gospel, as Titus 2:11, 12, so does this the pardon and removal of the guilt of it by the mercy proclaimed and tendered in the Gospel. And in this way of expression, is God said to cast our sins behind his back, to cover them, and to cast them into the bottom of the sea. That this was no way to be done but by the Messiah we have before evinced. Neither can the Jews assign any other way of the accomplishment of this part of the prediction, within the time limited. For setting aside this only consideration of the pardon of sin procured by the mediation of the Messiah, and there was never any age wherein God did more severely bring forth sin to judgment, as themselves had large experience.

§ 32 Thirdly, this season is designed, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], to make reconciliation for iniquity. To reconcile iniquity; so our Apostle [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] renders this expression (Hebrews 2:17): [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]; to reconcile iniquities. That is, [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], to make reconciliation with God for iniquity; to make atonement. The sense of the word [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] when applied to sin, is known and granted. If it be spoken of God, it is to hide, to cover, to pardon sin, to be gracious to sinners; if of men in the use of any of his institutions, it is to propitiate, appease, atone, make atonement, or reconciliation, as I have elsewhere at large declared. How this was to be done by the Messiah has been already evinced. This was that work for which he was promised to our first parents from the foundation of the world. That he was to do it, we are taught in the Old Testament, how he did it in the Gospel. To expect this work of making atonement for sin, from any other, or to be wrought by any other ways or means, is fully to renounce the first promise, and the faith of the fathers from the foundation of the world.

§ 33 That which in the fourth place is mentioned answers the former. To make reconciliation for iniquities, and [in non-Latin alphabet], to bring in everlasting righteousness. There was a legal righteousness among the people before, consisting partly in their blameless observation of the institutions of the Law, and partly in their ritual atonements for sin, made annually and occasionally. Neither of these could constitute their righteousness everlasting. Not the former; for by the deeds of the Law can no flesh be justified; that is, not absolutely, whatever they might be as to the possession of the promised Land. Not the latter; for as our Apostle observes, the annual repetition of legal sacrifices did sufficiently manifest that they could not make perfect them that came to God by them.

In opposition to these, an everlasting righteousness, such as is absolute, perfect, and enduring for ever, is promised to be brought in by the Messiah; the righteousness which he wrought in his life and death, doing and suffering the whole will of God, being imputed to them that believe. And this [in non-Latin alphabet], everlasting righteousness, procureth and endeth in the [in non-Latin alphabet], everlasting salvation mentioned (Isaiah 45:17), both opposed to the ritual righteousness, and temporal deliverance of the Law. To declare the nature, and the way of bringing in this righteousness is the design of the Gospel (Romans 1:16, 17). And I desire to know of the Jews, how it was brought in within the time limited. According to their principles, the time here determined, was so far from being a season of bringing in everlasting righteousness, that by their own confession it brought in nothing but a deluge of wickedness in the sins of their nation, and oppressions of the Gentiles. This therefore is the proper work of the Messiah, foretold by the Prophets, expected by all the Fathers, and not denied by the Jews themselves at this day, though they would shamefully avoid the application of it to him in this place. But he, whoever he be, that brings in everlasting righteousness, he and no other is the promised Seed, the true and only Messiah.

§ 34 The fifth thing here foretold, is in those words; [in non-Latin alphabet]; to seal vision and prophet. [in non-Latin alphabet] for [in non-Latin alphabet]; prophet, for prophecy; the concrete for the abstract. The expression being metaphorical, is capable of a triple interpretation or application, every one of them proper to the Messiah, his work, and the times wherein he came, and to no other. (1.) To seal, is to consummate, to establish, and confirm. Things are perfected, completed, established and confirmed by sealing (Jeremiah 34:44; Isaiah 8:16; John 3:34; Romans 4:11). In this sense, vision and prophecy were sealed in the Messiah. They had all of them respect to the coming of the Just One, the promised Seed. God had spoken of him by the mouths of his holy Prophets from the foundation of the world. In the bringing of him forth, he sealed the truth of their predictions by their actual accomplishment. The Law and the Prophets were until John, and then they were to be fulfilled. This was the season wherein all vision and prophecy centred; this the person who was the principal subject and end of them; he therefore and his coming is here foretold. (2.) To seal, is to finish, conclude, and put an end to any thing (Isaiah 29:11). Thus also were vision and prophecy then sealed among the Jews. They were shut up and finished. The privilege, use, and benefit of them, were no more to be continued in their church. And this also fell out accordingly. By their own confession, from that day to this, they have not enjoyed either vision or prophet. That work, as to them came wholly to an end in the coming of the Messiah. (3.) By sealing, the confirmation of the doctrine concerning the Messiah, his person, and office by vision and prophecy may be intended. The visions and prophecies that went before by reason of their darkness and obscurity, left the people in sundry particulars at great uncertainty. Now all things were cleared and confirmed. The Spirit of Prophecy accompanying the Messiah, and by him given to his disciples foretold by Joel (chapter 2:28, 29), was in his revelations express, clear and evident, directing to and confirming every thing belonging to his person and doctrine. Neither had these words any other accomplishment but what is contained in these things.

Sixthly, it is affirmed, that [in non-Latin alphabet], Messiah shall be cut off: not, occidetur shall § 35 be slain, as the Vulgar Latin renders the word, but excidetur, shall be cut off, that is, poenally, as one punished for sin. For the word [in non-Latin alphabet], when it includes death, constantly denotes a poenal excision, or cutting off for sin. See Genesis 17:14; Exodus 12:15; Numbers 15:30. This the Jews themselves acknowledge to be the meaning of the word. So Rab. Suadias Gaeon in Haemunath, cap. 8. [in non-Latin alphabet]. It is not used for slaying, unless it be of him, who is slain by the sentence of the Judge, (or is judicially cut off) as it said, every one that eats of it shall be cut off (Leviticus 17:14). It is then foretold, that the Messiah shall be cut off poenally for sin; which he was when he was made a curse for sin, all our iniquities meeting upon him.

And this also is intimated in the ensuing particles, [in non-Latin alphabet], and not to him. For an objection is prevented that might arise about the poenal excision of the Messiah, for how could it be, seeing he was every way just and righteous. To this it is answered by way of concession, that it was not on his own account, not for himself, but for us; as is at large declared, Isaiah 51. Or [in non-Latin alphabet], not to him, may be a farther declaration of his state and condition; namely, that notwithstanding those carnal apprehensions which the Jews would have of his outward splendor, glory, wealth and riches, yet in truth he should have nothing in or of this world, none to stand up for him, not where to lay his head. And this is that part of the prophecy, for the sake whereof the Jews do so pertinaciously contend, that the true Messiah is not here intended. For, say they, he shall not be poenally cut off. But who told them so? Shall we believe the Angel or them? Will they not suffer God to send his Messiah in his own way, but they must tell him, that it must not be so? To cast off prophecies, when and because they suit not men's carnal lusts, is to reject all authority of God and his Word. This is that which has proved their ruine temporal and eternal: they will not receive a Messiah that shall suffer, and be cut off for sin, though God foretold them expresly that it must be so.

It is added seventhly, concerning the person here spoken of, and whose coming is foretold; [in non-Latin alphabet]; he shall confirm or strengthen the Covenant to many. The Covenant spoken of absolutely, can be none but that everlasting Covenant which God made with his Elect, in the promised seed. The great promise whereof was the foundation of the Covenant with Abraham. And hence God says, that he will give him for a Covenant to the people (Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:8). And the salvation which they looked for through him, God promises through the blood of the Covenant (Zechariah 9:11). This Covenant he strengthened to many in the week wherein he suffered, even to all that believed in him. This everlasting Covenant was ratified in his blood (Hebrews 9:15), and after he had declared it in his own ministry, he caused it to be proclaimed in and by his Gospel. At the time here determined, the especial Covenant with Israel and Judah was broken (Zechariah 11:10), and they were thereon cast off from being a church or people. Nor was there at that season any other ratification of the Covenant, but only what was made in the death of the Messiah.

Then also, eighthly, did he cause to cease the sacrifice, and gift, or offering. First, he caused it to cease, as to force and efficacy, or any use in the worship of God, by his own accomplishment of all that was prefigured by it, or intended in it. Hereby it became as a dead thing, useless, unprofitable, and made ready to disappear (Hebrews 8:13). And then shortly after he caused it utterly to be taken away, by a perpetual desolation brought upon the place where alone sacrifices and offerings were acceptable to God according to the Law of Moses. And this is the third evidence that this prophecy affords to our assertion; namely, that it is the true promised Messiah and none other, whose coming and cutting off is here foretold. The great things here mentioned were fulfilled in him alone; nor had they ever the least respect to any other. And the Jews do not in any thing more evidently manifest the desperateness of their cause, than when they endeavour to wrest these words to any other sense or purpose.

Moreover, besides the confession of the ancient Jews, consenting to the truth contended for, we have for our confirmation therein, the woeful perplexities of their later masters in their attempts to evade the force of this testimony. For some ages they have abhorred nothing more, than that the true Messiah should be thought to be here intended. For if that be once granted, they know that it brings an instant ruine to the pretences of their infidelity; and that not meerly upon the account of his coming, which they have invented a sorry relief against, but on that of his being poenally cut off, which can no way be reconciled to their presumptions and expectations. But if he be not here intended, it is incumbent on them to declare who is. For the utmost extent of the time limited in the prediction being long since expired, the prophecy has certainly had accomplishment in some one or other; and it is known or may be known who; or otherwise the whole angelical message, never was, nor ever will be of any use to the Church of God.

But here our masters are by no means agreed among themselves; nor do they know what to answer to this enquiry. And if they do guess at any one; it is not because they think it possible he should be designed, but because they think it impossible for them to keep life in their cause, and not to speak when the sword of truth lyes at the heart of it. Some of them therefore affirm the Messiah spoken of to be Cyrus, whom God calls [in non-Latin alphabet] his Anointed (Isaiah 45:1). But what the cutting off, or death of Cyrus should make in this prediction they know not. Nor do they endeavour to shew that any thing here mentioned to fall out with the cutting off the Messiah, has the least relation to Cyrus or his death. And if because Cyrus is once called the Anointed of the Lord, he must be supposed to be intended in that place, where no one word or circumstance is applicable to him, they may as well say, that it is Saul the first King of Israel who is spoken of, seeing he also is called [in non-Latin alphabet], the Anointed of the Lord (1 Samuel 24:6), as was Zedekiah also (Lamentations 4:20). But it must needs be altogether incredible to any, unless they are Jews who can believe what they please that serves their ends, that because the Lord calls Cyrus his Anointed, in reference to the especial work of destroying the Babylonian Empire, in which sense the term of anointing, namely for a designation to any employment, is obvious and familiar in the Old Testament, should therefore be esteemed the promised Messiah of the people of God, who is here evidently described. But that which casts this fancy beneath all consideration is the time allotted to the cutting off of the Messiah.

Those among the Jews themselves who begin the account of the Weeks from the most early date imaginable, fix their Epocha in the giving of the Promise to Jeremiah concerning their return from captivity, which was in the days of Jehojakim. Now from there to the death of Cyrus, no computation will allow above 80 years; which comes short somewhat above four hundred years of the season here allotted for the cutting off the Messiah. And the same is the case with Joshua, Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, whom some of them would have to be designed. For neither were any of them poenally cut off, nor did they cause in any sense the sacrifices to cease, but endeavoured to continue them in a due manner, nor did they live within some hundreds of years of the time determined, nor was any thing besides here foretold, wrought, or accomplished in their days.

§ 39 Abarbinel, and after him Manasse Ben Israel with some others of them fix on Agrippa the last King of the Jews, who, as they say with his son Monabasius was cut off or slain at Rome by Vespasian. A learned man in his Apparatus ad Origines Ecclesiasticas, mistakes this Agrippa for Herod Agrippa, who was [in non-Latin alphabet] (Acts 12). But he who died long before the destruction of the City is not intended by them, but the younger Agrippa the Brother and Husband of Berenice. Neither is there any color of probability in this fancy. 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 whereof he might be called his Anointed, nor was he of the posterity of Israel, nor did by any thing deserve an illustrious mention in this Prophecy. Besides in the last fatal war, he was still of the Roman side and party, nor was he cut off or slain by Vespasian, but after the war lived at Rome in honor, and died in peace. Yes, he did not only outlive Vespasian, but Titus and Domitian his sons also, and continued to the third year of Trajan, as Justus the Tiberian assures us in his History, whose words are reported by Photius in his Bibliotheca. So that [in non-Latin alphabet], there is nothing of truth, no color of probability in this desperate figment.

Their last evasion is, that by Messiah the Prince, the office of magistracy and priesthood, § 40 and in them all anointed to authority are intended. These they say were to be cut off in the destruction of the City. And herein they have the consent of Africanus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius among the ancients, who are also followed by some later writers. But this evasion also is of the same nature with the former, yes, more vain than they, if any thing may be allowed so to be. The Angel twice mentions the Messiah in his message: first, his coming and anointing (v. 25), and then his cutting off (v. 26). If the same person or thing be not intended in both places, the whole discourse is equivocal and unintelligible, no circumstance being added to difference 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 difference or distinction, should signify things diverse from one another, is to leave no place for the understanding of any thing that is spoken by him. The Messiah therefore who was to come, and be anointed and cut off, is one and the same individual person. Now it is expressly said, that there shall be seven Weeks, and sixty two Weeks, that is four hundred 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 such magistrates or priests, as they pretend afterwards were cut off: this is so far from truth, that before that time, the rule of the Hasmonaeans, the last supreme magistrates of their own nation, was put to an end. 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 person 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 center and agree. It is then the promised Messiah, the hope and expectation of the Fathers, whose coming and cutting off, is here foretold.

That which remains for the full confirmation of our argument from this place, § 41 is, that according to this Prophecy, the promised Messiah was to come while the Temple was standing, and the daily sacrifice continued, before the expiration of the 70 Weeks of years limited by the Angel. This is put beyond all question in the text its self, nor is it denied by the Jews, all whose exceptions lie against the person spoken of, whom we have proved to be the Messiah. 70 Weeks are assigned by the Angel for the accomplishment of the whole Prophecy, and all things contained in it. After 7 Weeks, and 62 Weeks, that is, in the beginning or middle of the last Week, the Messiah was to be cut off. When this was past, and the Covenant confirmed with many, to 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 destruction brought upon them by the Romans; nor do any of them extend 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.

There are yet some Arguments to the same purpose with those foregoing that § 42 remain. But before we proceed to them, it will be necessary to consider the Computation of the times, which we are here directed to by the Angel. I have already manifested that our Argument from this place is not concerned in the exact chronological computation of the time here limited, as to its precise beginning and ending, with the commensuration of it, to the times, seasons, and accounts of the nations of the world. For when ever 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 to our present 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 computation of the time here determined, as also that there are no such difficulties therein, but what are fairly reconcileable to all that is affirmed in the Text, before we proceed to the consideration of our remaining Arguments, they also shall be considered and stated in the ensuing Exercitation.