Christian Biblical Reflections.33. (Incomplete & Tentative)
(Not wishing to delay any further, and still several months from completing the remaining Selections & the writing the Reflections on the whole, I share it with others who might have interest in this Key prophetic Book. The original in PDF of the Selections of Calvin’s & Newton’s & Lowth’s are from very old editions which typefaces that has caused considerable labor to edit. These 4 Selections are of great importance to the later & modern interpreters & commentators of the Book. The Analysis & Digest was done months ago; the Chronology is incomplete, and to be completed when the Reflections are written. The Selections to be added are from the 19th-21st centuries, which all are dependent on these earlier Selections that are herein given. If the Lord permits, the 12 Minor Prophets, being an Appendix to Daniel & the 3 Major Prophets, will follow. As in Ezekiel I’ve had to change my style in reflecting on this Book. mjm.) The PDF is attached. The link to my One Drive files are:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUq0AKV13E9Ek3uNQ?e=AzqhtR
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUolXrUk8DRG-3fXQ?e=VlNwPd
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUukOnf3cpuJoWCJQ?e=DKFFqE (CBR4-5.Daniel)
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUhNUr33cfjhqfqsRETA?e=vx4ZcR (CBR.PublicFolder)
CBR files in PDF & Word:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AgcwUEJ0moRUg_Ua3IHBwOxi9NWARA?e=2b3BsD
Here is the link to my Internet Archive.org library page for those interested:
https://archive.org/details/@mikemjm
CBR.4-5.Dan,12MinProph.Hos-Mal..Dec20.2019.ChristBibReflect.v2.mjmselim.
CHAPTER V
Part V: DANIEL, & TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS: HOSEA-MALACHI.
Part V: DANIEL-MALACHI: Prophetical Books: Daniel &
Twelve: Minor-Smaller-Shorter Prophets.
BOOK OF DANIEL: Prophet-Ruler.
3. Newton
Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel & the Apocalypse of St. John. In Two Parts. By Sir Isaac Newton. Lon. JDTB. 1733. gs. (The original italics & archaic spellings have been retained as much as possible; the archaic ‘s’ that looked like a ‘f’ has been changed whenever found. In the PDF or Word format the original italics are reproduced, but to indicate them in ‘text format’ I have added single quotes.) (The original italics & archaic spellings have been retained as much as possible; the archaic ‘s’ that looked like a ‘f’ has been changed whenever found. In the PDF or Word format the original italics are reproduced, but to indicate them in ‘text format’ I have added single quotes.)
Contents: Part I: Observations upon the Prophecies of ‘Daniel’.
Chapters:
I. Introduction: Compilers of Books of Old Testament.
II. Prophetic Language.
III. Vision of Image Composed of Four (4) Metals.
IV. Vision of Four (4) Beasts.
V. Kingdoms Represented by Feet of Image Composed of Iron & Clay.
VI. Ten (10) Kingdoms Represented by Ten (10) Horns of Fourth (4th) Beast.
VH. Eleventh Horn of ‘Daniel’s’ Fourth (4th) Beast.
VIII. Power of Eleventh (11th) Horn of ‘Daniel’s’ Fourth (4th) Beast, to Change Times & Laws.
IX. Kingdoms Represented in ‘Daniel’ by Ram & He-Goat.
X. Prophecy of Seventy (70) Weeks.
XI. Times of the Birth & Passion of ‘Christ’.
XII. Prophecy of Scripture of Truth.
XIII. “King who did according to his will, & magnified himself above every ‘God’, & honoured ‘Mahuzzims’, & regarded not the desire of women”.
XIV. ”Mahuzzims’, honoured by the King who doth according to his will’.
I. Introduction: Compilers of Books of Old Testament.
{{ “When Manasses set up a carved image in the house of the Lord, and built altars in the two (2) courts of the house, to all the host of Heaven, and us’d inchantments and witchcraft, and familiar spirits, and for his great wickedness was invaded by the army of ‘Asserhadon’ King of ‘Assyria’, and carried captive to ‘Babylon’; the book of the Law was lost till the eighteenth (18th) year of his grandson ‘Josiah’. Then ‘Hilkiah’ the High Priest, upon repairing the Temple, found it there: and the King lamented that their lathers had not done after the words of the book, and commanded that it mould be read to the people, and caused the people to renew the holy covenant with God. This is the book of the Law now extant.
When ‘Shishak’ came out of ‘Egypt’ and spoiled the temple, and brought ‘Judah’ into subjection to the monarchy of ‘Egypt’, (which was in the fifth (5th) year of ‘Rehoboam’) the ‘Jews’ continued under great troubles for about twenty years; being ‘without the true God, and without a teaching Priest, and without Law: and in those times there was no peace to him that went out, nor to him that came in, but great vexations were upon all the inhabitants of the countries, and nation was destroyed of nation, and city of city, for God did vex them with all adversity’. But when ‘Shishak’ was dead, and ‘Egypt’ fell into troubles, ‘Judah’ had quiet ten (10) years; and in that time ‘Asa’ built fenced cities in ‘Judah’, and got up an army of 580,000 (over 1/2 million) men, with which, in the 15th year of his reign, he met and overcame ‘Zerah’ the ‘Ethiopian’, who had conquered ‘Egypt’ and ‘Lybia’, and ‘Troglodytica’, and came out with an army of 1,00,000 (1 million) ‘Lybians’ and ‘Ethiopians’, to recover the countries conquered by ‘Sesac’. And after this victory ‘Asa’ dethroned his mother for idolatry, and he renewed the Altar, and brought new vessels of gold and silver into the Temple; and he and the people entred into a new covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers, upon pain of death to those who worshiped other ‘Gods’; and his son ‘Jehosaphat’ took away the high places, and in the third (3rd) year of his reign sent some of his Princes, and of the Priests and Levites, to teach in the cities of ‘Judah’: and they had the book of the Law with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people. This is that book of the Law which was afterwards lost in the reign of ‘Manasses’, and found again in the reign of ‘Josiah’, and therefore it was written before the third (3rd) year of ‘Jehosaphat’.
The same book of the Law was preserved and handed down to posterity by the ‘Samaritans’, and therefore was received by the ten (10) Tribes before their captivity. For when the ten (10) Tribes were captivated, a Priest of the captivity was sent back to ‘Bethel’, by order of the King of ‘Assyria’, to instruct the new inhabitants of ‘Samaria’, in ‘the manner of the ‘God’ of the land’; and the ‘Samaritans’ had the ‘Pentateuch’ from this Priest, as containing the law or ‘manner of the God of the land’, which he was to teach them. For they persevered in the religion which he taught them, joining with it the worship of their own ‘Gods’; and by persevering in what they had been taught, they preserved this book of their Law in the original character of the ‘Hebrews’, while the two (2) Tribes, after their return from ‘Babylon’ changed the character to that of the ‘Chaldees’, which they had learned at ‘Babylon’.
And since the ‘Pentateuch’ was received as the book of the Law, both by the two (2) Tribes and by the ten (10) Tribes, it follows that they received it before they became divided into two (2) Kingdoms. For after the division, they received not laws from one another, but continued at variance. ‘Judah’ could not reclaim ‘Israel’ from the sin of ‘Jeroboam’, and ‘Israel’ could not bring Judah to it. The ‘Pentateuch’ therefore was the book of the Law in the days of ‘David’ and ‘Solomon’. The affairs of the Tabernacle and Temple were ordered by ‘David’ and ‘Solomon’, according to the Law of this book; and ‘David’ in the 78th ‘Psalm’, admonishing the people to give ear to the Law of God, means the Law of this book. For in describing how their forefathers kept it not, he quotes many historical things out of the books of ‘Exodus’ and ‘Numbers’ [& ‘Deuteronomy’].
The race of the Kings of ‘Edom’, before there reigned any King over ‘Israel’, is set down in the book of ‘Genesis’, and therefore that book was not written entirely in the form now extant, before the reign of ‘Saul’. The writer set down the race of those Kings till his own time, and therefore wrote before ‘David’ conquered ‘Edom’. The ‘Pentateuch’ is composed of the Law and the history of Gods people together, and the history hath been collected from several books, such as were the history of the Creation composed by ‘Moses’, ‘Gen’. 2:4; the book of the generations of ‘Adam’, ‘Gen’. 5:1; and the book of the wars of the Lord, ‘Num’. 21:14. This book of wars contained what was done at the ‘Red-sea’, and in the journeying of ‘Israel’ thro’ the Wilderness, and therefore was begun by ‘Moses’. And ‘Joshua’ might carry it on to the conquest of ‘Canaan’. For ‘Joshua’ wrote some things in the book of the Law of God, ‘Josh’. 24:26; and therefore might write his own wars in the book of wars, thole being the principal wars of God. These were publick books, and therefore not written without the authority of ‘Moses’ and ‘Joshua’. And ‘Samuel’ had leisure in the reign of ‘Saul’, to put them into the form of the books of ‘Moses’ and ‘Joshua’ now extant, inserting into the book of ‘Genesis’, the race of the Kings of ‘Edom’, until there reigned a King in ‘Israel’.
The book of the ‘Judges’ is a continued history of the ‘Judges’ down to the death of ‘Samson’, and therefore was compiled after his death, out of the Acts of the ‘Judges’. Several things in this book are said to be done when there was no King in ‘Israel’, ‘Judg’. 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25; and therefore this book was written after the beginning of the reign of ‘Saul’. When it was written, the ‘Jebusites’ dwelt in ‘Jerusalem’, ‘Jud’. 1:11, and therefore it was written before the eighth (8th) year of ‘David’, 2nd ‘Sam’. 5:8, and 1st ‘Chron’. 11:6. The books of ‘Moses’, ‘Joshua’, and ‘Judges’, contain one continued history, down from the Creation to the death of ‘Samson’. Where the ‘Pentateuch’ ends, the book of ‘Joshua’ begins, and where the book of ‘Joshua’ ends, the book of ‘Judges’ begins. Therefore all these books have been composed out of the writings of ‘Moses’, ‘Joshua’, and other records, by one (1) and the same hand, after the beginning of the reign of ‘Saul’, and before the eighth (8th) year of ‘David’. And ‘Samuel’ was a sacred writer, 1st ‘Sam’. 10:25, acquainted with the history of ‘Moses’ and the ‘Judges’, 1st ‘Sam’. 12:8, 9,10,11,12; and had leisure in the reign of ‘Saul’, and sufficient authority to compose these books. He was a Prophet, and judged ‘Israel’ all the days of his life, and was in the greatest esteem with the people; and the Law by which he was to judge the people was not to be published by less authority than his own, the Law-maker being not inferior to the judge. And the book of ‘Jasher’, which is quoted in the book of ‘Joshua’, ‘Josh’. 10:13, was in being at the death of ‘Saul’, 2nd ‘Sam’. 1:18.
At the dedication of the Temple of ‘Solomon’, when the Ark was brought into the most holy place, there was nothing in it but the two (2) tables, 1st ‘Kings’ 8:9, and therefore when the ‘Philistines’ took the Ark, they took out of it the book of the Law, and the golden pot of Manna, and ‘Aarons’ Rod. And this and other losses in the desolation of ‘Israel’, by the conquering ‘Philistines’, might give occasion to ‘Samuel’, after some respite from those enemies, to recollect the scattered writings of ‘Moses’ and ‘Joshua’, and the records of the Patriarchs and ‘Judges’, and compose them, in the form now extant.
The book of ‘Ruth’ is a history of things done in the days of the ‘Judges’, and may be looked upon as an addition to the book of the ‘Judges’, written by the same author, and at the same time. For it was written after the birth of ‘David’, ‘Ruth’ 4:17, 11, and not long after, because the history of ‘Boaz’ and ‘Ruth’, the great grandfather and great grandmother of ‘David’, and that of their contemporaries, could not well be remembered above two (2) or three (3) generations. And since this book derives the genealogy of ‘David’ from ‘Boaz’ and ‘Ruth’, and omits ‘David’s’ elder brothers and his sons; it was written in honour of ‘David’, after he was anointed King by ‘Samuel’, and before he had children in ‘Hebron’, and by consequence in the reign of ‘Saul’. It proceeds not to the history of ‘David’, and therefore seems to have, been written presently after he was anointed. They judge well therefore who ascribe to ‘Samuel’ the books of ‘Joshua’, ‘Judges’, and ‘Ruth’.
‘Samuel’ is also reputed the author of the first (1st) book of ‘Samuel’, till the time of his death. The two books of ‘Samuel’ cite no authors, and therefore seem to be originals. They begin with his genealogy, birth and education, and might be written partly in his life-time by himself, or his disciples the Prophets at ‘Naioth’ in ‘Ramah’, 1st ‘Sam’. 19:18, 19,20, and partly after his death by the same disciples.
The books of the ‘Kings’ cite other authors, as the book of the Acts of ‘Solomon’, the book of the ‘Chronicles’ of the Kings of ‘Israel’, and the book of the ‘Chronicles’ of the Kings of ‘Judah’. The books of the ‘Chronicles’ cite the book of ‘Samuel’ the Seer, the book of ‘Nathan’ the Prophet, and the book of ‘Gad’ the Seer, for the Acts of ‘David’; the book of ‘Nathan’ the Prophet, the Prophecy of ‘Ahijah’ the ‘Shilonite’, and the visions of ‘Iddo’ the Seer, for the Acts of ‘Solomon’, the book of ‘Shemajah’ the Prophet, and the book of ‘Iddo’ the Seer concerning genealogies, for the Acts of ‘Rehoboam’ and ‘Abijah’; the book of the Kings of ‘Judah’ and ‘Israel’ for the Acts of ‘Asa’, ‘Joash, Amaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah’, ‘Manasseh’, and ‘Josiah’; the bock of ‘Hanani’ the Seer, for the Acts of ‘Jehosaphat’; and the visions of ‘Isaiah’ for the Acts of ‘Uzziah’ and ‘Hezekiah’. These books were therefore collected out of the historical writings of the antient Seers and Prophets. And because the books of the ‘Kings’ and ‘Chronicles’ quote one another, they were written at one (1) and the same time. And this time was after the return from the ‘Babylonian’ captivity, because they bring down the history of ‘Judah’, and the genealogies of the Kings of ‘Judah’, and of the High Priests, to that captivity. The book of ‘Ezra’ was originally a part of the book of the ‘Chronicles’, and has been divided from it. For it begins with the two (2) last verses of the books of ‘Chronicles’, and the first (1st) book of ‘Esdras’ begins with the two (2) last chapters thereof. ‘Ezra’ was therefore the compiler of the books of ‘Kings’ and ‘Chronicles’, and brought down the history to his own time. He was a ready Scribe in the Law of God; and for assisting him in this work ‘Nehemias’ founded a library, and gathered together the Acts of the ‘Kings’ and the ‘Prophets’, and of ‘David’, and the Epistles of the Kings concerning the holy gifts, 2nd ‘Maccab’. 2:15. By the Acts of ‘David’ I understand here the two (2) books of ‘Samuel’, or at least the second (2nd) book. Out of the Acts of the ‘Kings’, written from time to time by the Prophets, he compos’d the books of the Kings of ‘Judah’ and ‘Israel’, the ‘Chronicles’ of the Kings of ‘Judah’, and the ‘Chronicles’ of the Kings of ‘Israel’. And in doing this he joined those Acts together, in due order of time, copying the very words of the authors, as is manifest from hence, that the books of the ‘Kings’ and ‘Chronicles’ frequently agree with one another in words for many sentences together. Where they agree in senses there they agree in words also.
So the Prophecies of ‘Isaiahs’ written at several times, he has collected into one body. And the like he did for those of ‘Jeremiah’, and the rest of the Prophets [i.e. ‘Ezekiel’ & the Minor Prophets], down to the days of the second (2nd) Temple. The book of ‘Jonah’ is the history of ‘Jonah’ written by another hand. The book of ‘Daniel’ is a collection of papers written at several times. The six (6) last chapters contain Prophecies written at several times by ‘Daniel’ himself: the six (6) first are a collection of historical papers written by others. The fourth (4th) chapter is a decree of ‘Nebuchadnezzar’. The first (1st) chapter was written after ‘Daniel’s’ death: for the author saith, that ‘Daniel’ continued to the first (1st) year of ‘Cyrus’; that is, to his first (1st) year over the ‘Persians’ and ‘Medes’, and third (3rd) year over ‘Babylon’. And, for the same reason, the fifth (5th) and sixth (6th) chapters were also written after his death. For they end with these words: “So this ‘Daniel’ prospered in the reign of ‘Darius’, and in the reign of ‘Cyrus’ the ‘Persian'”. Yet these words might be added by the collector of the papers, whom I take to be ‘Ezra’.
The Psalms composed by ‘Moses’, ‘David’, and others, seem to have been also collected by ‘Ezra’ into one (1) volume. I reckon him the collector, because in this collection I meet with Psalms as late as the ‘Babylonian’ captivity, but with none later.
After these things ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’ spoiled the Temple, commanded the ‘Jews’ to forsake the Law upon pain of death, and caused the sacred books to be burnt wherever they could be found: and in these troubles the book of the ‘Chronicles’ of the Kings of ‘Israel’ was entirely lost. But upon recovering from this oppression, ‘Judas Maccabæus’ gathered together all those writings that were to be met with, 2nd Maccab. 2:14. and in reducing them into order, part of the Prophecies of ‘Isaiah’, or some other Prophet, have been added to the end of the Prophecies of ‘Zechariah’; and the book of ‘Ezra’ has been separated from the book of ‘Chronicles’, and set together in two (2) different orders; in one (1) order in the book of ‘Ezra’, received into the Canon, and in another order in the first (1st) book of ‘Esdras’.
After the ‘Roman’ captivity, the ‘Jews’ for preserving their traditions, put them in writing in their ‘Talmud’, and for preserving their scriptures, agreed upon an Edition, and pointed it, and counted the letters of every sort in every book: and by preserving only this Edition, the antienter various lections, except what can be discovered by means of the ‘Septuagint’ Version, are now lost; and such marginal notes, or other corruptions, as by the errors of the transcribers, before this Edition was made, had crept into the text, are now scarce to be corrected.
The ‘Jews’ before the ‘Roman’ captivity, distinguished the sacred books into the Law, the Prophets, and the ‘Hagiographa’, or holy writings; and read only the Law and the Prophets in their Synagogues. And Christ and His Apostles laid the stress of religion upon the Law and the Prophets, ‘Matt’. 7:12; 22:4; ‘Luke’ 16:16, 29, 31; 24:44; ‘Acts’ 24:14; 26:22; ‘Rom’. 3:21. By the ‘Hagiographa’ they meant the historical books called ‘Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah’, and ‘Esther’, the book of ‘Job’, the ‘Psalms’, the books of ‘Solomon’, and the ‘Lamentations’. The ‘Samaritans’ read only the ‘Pentateuch’: and when ‘Jehosaphat’ sent men to teach in the cities, they had with them only the book of the Law; for the Prophecies now extant were not then written. And upon the return from the ‘Babylonian’ captivity, ‘Ezra’ read only the book of the Law to the people, from morning to noon on the first day of the seventh month; and from day to day in the feast of Tabernacles: for he had not yet collected the writings of the Prophets into the volume now extant; but instituted the reading of them after the collection was made. By reading the Law and the Prophets in the Synagogues, those books have been kept freer from corruption than the ‘Hagiographa’.
In the infancy of the nation of ‘Israel’, when God had given them a Law, and made a covenant with them to be their God if they would keep his commandments, he sent Prophets to reclaim them, as often as they revolted to the worship of other Gods: and upon their returning to him, they sometimes renewed the covenant which they had broken. These Prophets he continued to send, till the days of ‘Ezra’: but after their Prophecies were read in the Synagogues, those Prophecies were thought sufficient. For if the people would not hear ‘Moses’ and the old Prophets, they would hear no new ones, no not ‘tho they should rise from the dead’. At length when a new truth was to be preached to the ‘Gentiles’, namely, ‘that Jesus was the Christ’, God sent new Prophets and Teachers: but after their writings were also received and read in the Synagogues of the Christians, Prophecy ceased a second time. We have ‘Moses’, the Prophets, and Apostles, and the words of Christ Himself; and if we will not hear them, we shall be more inexcusable than the ‘Jews’. For the Prophets and Apostles have foretold, that as ‘Israel’ often revolted and brake the covenant, and upon repentance renewed it; so there should be a falling away among the Christians, soon after the days of the Apostles; and that in the latter days God would destroy the impenitent revolters, and make a new covenant with His people. And the giving ear to the Prophets is a fundamental character of the true Church. For God has so ordered the Prophecies, that in the latter days ‘the wise may understand, but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand’, Dan. 12:9,10. The authority of Emperors, Kings, and Princes, is human. The authority of Councils, Synods, Bishops, and Presbyters, is human. The authority of the Prophets is divine, and comprehends the sum of religion, reckoning ‘Moses’ and the Apostles among the Prophets; and ‘if an Angel from Heaven preach any other gospel’, than what they have delivered, ‘let him be accursed’. Their writings contain the covenant between God and His people, with instructions for keeping this covenant; instances of God’s judgments upon them that break it: and predictions of things to come. While the people of God keep the covenant, they continue to be His people: when they break it they cease to be His people or church, and become ‘the Synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not’. And no power on earth is authorized to alter this covenant.
‘The predictions of things to come relate to the state of the Church in all ages: and amongst the old Prophets, ‘Daniel’ is most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood: and therefore in those things which relate to the last times, he must be made the key to the rest’. (Notes to Chap. I: 2nd Chron. 33:5, 6,7; 34; 12:2, 3,4, 8,9; & 15:3, 5,6; 14:1, 6,7, 8,9, 12; 15:3, 12,13, 16, 18. 2nd Kings 17:27,28, 32, 33; 17:34, 41. Gen. 36:31.) }}
II. Prophetic Language.
{{ “For understanding the Prophecies, we are, in the first place, to acquaint our-selves with the figurative language of the Prophets. This language is taken from the analogy between the world natural, and an empire or kingdom considered as a world politic.
Accordingly, the whole world natural consisting of heaven and earth, signifies the whole world politic, consisting of thrones and people, or so much of it as is considered in the Prophecy: and the things in that world signify the analogous things in this. For the heavens, and the things therein, signify thrones and dignities, and those who enjoy them; and the earth, with the things thereon, the inferior people; and the lowest parts of the earth, called ‘Hades’ or Hell, the lowest or most miserable part of them. Whence ascending towards heaven, and descending to the earth, are put for rising and falling in power and honour: rising out of the earth, or waters, and falling into them, for the rising up to any dignity or dominion, out of the inferior state of the people, or falling down from the same into that inferior state; descending into the lower parts of the earth, for descending to a very low and unhappy estate; speaking with a faint voice out of the dust, for being in a weak and low condition; moving from one place to another, for translation from one office, dignity, or dominion, to another; great earthquakes, and the shaking of heaven and earth, for the shaking of kingdoms, so as to distract or overthrow them; the creating a new heaven and earth, and the passing away of an old one, or the beginning and end of the world, for the rise and ruin of the body politic signified thereby. [Compare this doctrine of ‘analogy’ between the ‘world natural’ & the ‘world politic’ with Swedenborg’s ‘correspondence’ between the ‘natural world’ & the ‘spiritual world’ with their Heavens & Hells.]
In the heavens, the Sun and Moon are, by interpreters of dreams, put for the persons of Kings and Queens; but in sacred Prophecy, which regards not single persons, the Sun is put for the whole species and race of Kings, in the kingdom or kingdoms of the world politic, shining with regal power and glory; the Moon for the body of the common people, considered as the King’s wife; the Stars for subordinate Princes and great men, or for Bishops and Rulers of the people of God, when the Sun is Christ; light for the glory, truth, and knowledge, wherewith great and good men shine and illuminate others; darkness for obscurity of condition, and for error, blindness and ignorance; darkning, smiting, or setting of the Sun, Moon, and Stars, for the ceasing of a kingdom, or for the desolation thereof, proportional to the darkness; darkning the Sun, turning the Moon into blood, and falling of the Stars, for the same; new Moons, for the return of a dispersed people into a body politic or ecclesiastic.
Fire and meteors refer to both heaven and earth, and signify as follows; burning any thing with fire, is put for the consuming thereof by war; a conflagration of the earth, or turning a country into a lake of fire, for the consumption of a kingdom by war; the being in a furnace, for the being in slavery under another nation; the ascending up of the smoke of any burning thing for ever and ever, for the continuation of a conquered people under the misery of perpetual subjection and slavery; the scorching heat of the sun, for vexatious wars, persecutions and troubles inflicted by the King; riding on the clouds, for reigning over much people; covering the sun with a cloud, or with smoke, for oppression of the King by the armies of an enemy; tempestuous winds, or the motion of clouds, for wars; thunder, or the voice of a cloud, for the voice of a multitude; a storm of thunder, lightning, hail, and overflowing rain, for a tempest of war descending from the heavens and clouds politic, on the heads of their enemies; rain, if not immoderate, and dew, and living water, for the graces and doctrines of the Spirit; and the defect of rain, for spiritual barrenness.
In the earth, the dry land and congregated waters, as a sea, a river, a flood, are put for the people of several regions, nations, and dominions; embittering of waters, for great affliction of the people by war and persecution; turning things into blood, for the mystical death of bodies politic, that is, for their dissolution; the overflowing of a sea or river, for the invasion of the earth politic, by the people of the waters; drying up of waters, for the conquest of their regions by the earth; fountains of waters for cities, the permanent heads of rivers politic; mountains and islands, for the cities of the earth and sea politic, with the territories and dominions belonging to those cities; dens and rocks of mountains, for the temples of cities; the hiding of men in those dens and rocks, for the shutting up of Idols in their temples; houses and ships, for families, assemblies, and towns, in the earth and sea politic; and a navy of ships of war, for an army of that kingdom that is signified by the sea.
Animals also and vegetables are put for the people of several regions and conditions; and particularly, trees, herbs, and land animals, for the people of the earth politic: flags, reeds, and fishes, for those of the waters politic; birds and insects, for those of the politic heaven and earth; a forest for a kingdom; and a wilderness for a desolate and thin people.
If the world politic, considered in prophecy, consists of many kingdoms, they are represented by as many parts of the world natural; as the noblest by the celestial frame, and then the Moon and Clouds are put for the common people; the less noble, by the earth, sea, and rivers, and by the animals or vegetables, or buildings therein; and then the greater and more powerful animals and taller trees, are put for Kings, Princes, and Nobles. And because the whole kingdom is the body politic of the King, therefore the Sun, or a Tree, or a Beast, or Bird, or a Man, whereby the King is represented, is put in a large signification for the whole kingdom; and several animals, as a Lion, a Bear, a Leopard, a Goat, according to their qualities, are put for several kingdoms and bodies politic; and sacrificing of beasts, for slaughtering and conquering of kingdoms; and friendship between beasts, for peace between kingdoms. Yet sometimes vegetables and animals are, by certain epithets or circumstances, extended to other significations; as a Tree, when called the ‘tree of life or of knowledge’; and a Beast, when called ‘the old serpent’, or worshipped.
When a Beast or Man is put for a kingdom, his parts and qualities are put for the analogous parts and qualities of the kingdom; as the head of a Beast, for the great men who precede and govern; the tail for the inferior people, who follow and are governed; the heads, if more than one, for the number of capital parts, or dynasties, or dominions in the kingdom, whether collateral or successive, with respect to the civil government; the horns on any head, for the number of kingdoms in that head, with respect to military power; seeing for understanding, and the eyes for men of understanding and policy, and in matters of religion for ‘Επισκοποι’ (‘Episkopoi’), Bishops; speaking, for making laws; the mouth, for a law-giver, whether civil or sacred; the loudness of the voice, for might and power; the faintness thereof, for weakness; eating and drinking, for acquiring what is signified by the things eaten and drank; the hairs of a beast, or man, and the feathers of a bird, for people; the wings, for the number of kingdoms represented by the beast; the arm of a man, for his power, or for any people wherein his strength and power consists; his feet, for the lowest of the people, or for the latter end of the kingdom; the feet, nails, and teeth of beasts of prey, for armies and squadrons of armies; the bones, for strength, and for fortified places; the flesh, for riches and possessions; and the days of their acting, for years; and when a tree is put for a kingdom, its branches, leaves and fruit, signify as do the wings, feathers, and food of a bird or beast.
When a man is taken in a mystical sense, his qualities are often signified by his actions, and by the circumstances of things about him. So a Ruler is signified by his riding on a beast; a Warrior and Conqueror, by his having a sword and bow; a potent man, by his gigantic stature; a Judge, by weights and measures; a sentence of absolution, or condemnation, by a white or a black stone; a new dignity, by a new name; moral or civil qualifications, by garments; honour and glory, by splendid apparel; royal dignity, by purple or scarlet, or by a crown; righteousness, by white and clean robes; wickedness, by spotted and filthy garments; affliction, mourning, and humiliation, by clothing in sackcloth; dishonour, shame, and want of good works, by nakedness; error and misery, by drinking a cup of his or her wine that causeth it; propagating any religion for gain, by exercising traffick and merchandize with that people whose religion it is; worshipping or serving the false Gods of any nation, by committing adultery with their princes, or by worshipping them; a Council of a kingdom, by its image; idolatry, by blasphemy; overthrow in war, by a wound of man or beast; a durable plague of war, by a sore and pain; the affliction or persecution which a people suffers in labouring to bring forth a new kingdom, by the pain of a woman in labour to bring forth a man-child; the dissolution of a body politic or ecclesiastic, by the death of a man or beast; and the revival of a dissolved dominion, by the resurrection of the dead.” }}
III. Vision of Image Composed of Four (4) Metals.
{{ “The Prophecies of ‘Daniel’ are all of them related to one another, as if they were but several parts of one general Prophecy, given at several times. The first is the easiest to be understood, and every following Prophecy adds something new to the former. The first was given in a dream to ‘Nebuchadnezzar’, King of ‘Babylon’, in the second (2nd) year of his reign; but the King forgetting his dream, it was given again to ‘Daniel’ in a dream, and by him revealed to the King. And thereby, ‘Daniel’ presently became famous for wisdom, and revealing of secrets: insomuch that ‘Ezekiel’ his contemporary, in the nineteenth year of ‘Nebuchadnezzar’, spake thus of him to the King of ‘Tyre’: ‘Behold’, saith he, ‘thou art wiser than ‘Daniel’, there is no secret that they can hide from thee’, Ezek. xxviii. 28:3. And the same ‘Ezekiel’, in another place, joins ‘Daniel’ with ‘Noah’ and ‘Job’, as most high in the favour of God, Ezek. 14:14, 16, 18, 20. And in the last year of ‘Belshazzar’, the Queen-mother said of him to the King: ‘Behold there is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy ‘gods’; and in the days of thy father, light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the ‘gods’, was found in him; whom the king ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ thy father, the king, I say, thy father made master of the magicians, astrologers, ‘Chaldeans’ and soothsayers: forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same ‘Daniel’, whom the king named ‘Belteshazzar”, Dan. 5:11,12. ‘Daniel’ was in the greatest credit amongst the ‘Jews’, till the reign of the ‘Roman’ Emperor ‘Hadrian’: and ‘to reject his Prophecies, is to reject the Christian religion. For this religion is founded upon his Prophecy concerning the ‘Messiah”.
Now in this vision of the Image composed of four (4) Metals, the foundation of all ‘Daniel’s’ Prophecies is laid. It represents a body of four (4) great nations, which should reign over the earth successively, ‘viz’. the people of ‘Babylonia’, the ‘Persians’, the ‘Greeks’, and the ‘Romans’. And by a stone cut out without hands, which fell upon the feet of the Image, and brake all the four (4) Metals to pieces, and ‘became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth’; it further represents that a new kingdom should arise, after the four (4), and conquer all those nations, and grow very great, and last to the end of all ages.
The head of the Image was of gold, and signifies the nations of ‘Babylonia’, who reigned first, as ‘Daniel’ himself interprets. ‘Thou art this head of gold”, saith he to ‘Nebuchadnezzar’. These nations reigned till ‘Cyrus’ conquered ‘Babylon’, and within a few months after that conquest revolted to the ‘Persians’, and set them up above the ‘Medes’. The breast and arms of the Image were of silver, and represent the ‘Persians’ who reigned next. The belly and thighs of the Image were of brass, and represent the Greeks, who, under the dominion of ‘Alexander’ the great, conquered the ‘Persians’, and reigned next after them. The legs were of iron, and represent the ‘Romans’ who reigned next after the ‘Greeks’, and began to conquer them in the eighth (8th) year of ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’. For in that year they conquered ‘Perseus’ King of ‘Macedon’, the fundamental kingdom of the ‘Greeks’; and from thence forward grew into a mighty empire, and reigned with great power till the days of ‘Theodosius’ the great. Then by the incursion of many northern nations, they brake into many smaller kingdoms, which are represented by the feet and toes of the Image, composed part of iron, and part of clay. For then, saith ‘Daniel, the kingdom shall be divided, and there shall be in it of the strength of iron, but they shall not cleave one (1) to another (1)’. ‘And in the days of these Kings, saith ‘Daniel’, shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; but it shall break in pieces, and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountains without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver and the gold’. (Notes to Chap. III: Chap. 2:41, &c.)” }}
IV: Vision of the Four (4) Beasts.
{{ “In the next vision, which is of the four (4) Beasts, the Prophecy of the four (4) Empires is repeated, with several new additions; such as are the two (2) wings of the Lion, the three (3) ribs in the mouth of the Bear, the four (4) wings and four (4) heads of the Leopard, the eleven (11) horns of the fourth (4) Beast, and the son of man coming in the clouds of Heaven, to the Antient of Days sitting in judgment.
The first (1st) Beast was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings, to denote the kingdoms of ‘Babylonia’ and ‘Media’, which overthrew the ‘Assyrian’ Empire, and divided it between them, and thereby became considerable, and grew into great Empires. In the former Prophecy, the Empire of ‘Babylonia’ was represented by the head of gold; in this both Empires are represented together by the two (2) wings of the lion. ‘And I beheld’, saith ‘Daniel, till the wings thereof were pluckt, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it’; that is, till it was humbled and subdued, and made to know its human state.
The second (2nd) Beast was like a bear, and represents the Empire which reigned next after the ‘Babylonians’, that is, the Empire of the ‘Persians’. ‘Thy kingdom is divided’, or broken, saith ‘Daniel’ to the last King of ‘Babylon’, ‘and given to the Medes and Persians’, ‘Dan’. v. 28. This Beast ‘raised itself up on one side’; the ‘Persians’ being under the ‘Medes’ at the fall of ‘Babylon’, but presently rising up above them. ‘And it had three ribs in the mouth of it, between the teeth of it’, to signify the kingdoms of ‘Sardes’, ‘Babylon’, and ‘Egypt’, which were conquered by it, but did not belong to its proper body. And it devoured much flesh, the riches of those three (3) kingdoms.
The third (3rd) Beast was the kingdom which succeeded the ‘Persian’; and this was the empire of the ‘Greeks’, ‘Dan’. 8:6,7, 20,21. It was ‘like a Leopard’, to signify its fierceness; and had four (4) heads and four (4) wings, to signify that it should become divided into four (4) kingdoms, ‘Dan’. 8:22 for it continued in a monarchical form during the reign of ‘Alexander’ the great, and his brother ‘Aridæus’, and young sons ‘Alexander’ and ‘Hercules’; and then brake into four (4) kingdoms, by the governors of provinces putting crowns on their own heads, and by mutual consent reigning over their provinces. ‘Cassander’ reigned over ‘Macedon’, ‘Greece’, and ‘Epirus’; ‘Lysimachus’ over ‘Thrace’ and ‘Bithynia’; ‘Ptolemy’ over ‘Egypt’, Lybia, Arabia, Cœlosyria’, and ‘Palestine’; and ‘Seleucus’ over ‘Syria’.
The fourth (4th) Beast was the empire which succeeded that of the ‘Greeks’, and this was the ‘Roman’. This beast was exceeding dreadful and terrible, and had great iron teeth, and devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet; and such was the ‘Roman’ empire. It was larger, stronger, and more formidable and lasting than any of the former. It conquered the kingdom of ‘Macedon’, with ‘Illyricum’ and ‘Epirus’, in the eighth (8th) year of ‘Antiochus Epiphanes, Anno Nabonass’.. 580; and inherited that of ‘Pergamus, Anno Nabonass’. 615; and conquered that of ‘Syria, Anno Nabonass’. 679, and that of ‘Egypt, Anno Nabonass’. 718. And by these and other conquests it became greater and more terrible than any of the three (3) former Beasts. This Empire continued in its greatness till the reign of ‘Theodosius’ the great; and then brake into ten (10) kingdoms, represented by the ten (10) horns of this Beast; and continued in a broken form, ’till the Antient of days sat in a throne like fiery flame, and ‘the judgment was set, and the books were opened, and the Beast was slain and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flames; and one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Antient of days’, and received dominion over all nations, and judgment was given to the saints of the most high, and the time came that they possessed the kingdom’.
‘I beheld’, saith ‘Daniel, till the Beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flames. As concerning the rest of the Beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time’. And therefore all the four (4) Beasts are still alive, tho the dominion of the three (3) first (1st) be taken away. The nations of ‘Chaldea’ and ‘Assyria’ are still the first (1st) Beast. Those of ‘Media’ and ‘Persia’ are still the second (2nd) Beast. Those of ‘Macedon, Greece and Thrace, Asia minor, Syria and Egypt’, are still the third (3rd). And those of ‘Europe’, on this side ‘Greece’, are still the fourth (4th). Seeing therefore the body of the third (3rd) Beast is confined to the nations on this side the river ‘Euphrates’, and the body of the fourth (4th) Beast is confined to the nations on this side ‘Greece’; we are to look for all the four (4) heads of the third (3rd) Beast, among the nations on this side of the river ‘Euphrates’; and for all the eleven (11) horns of the fourth (4th) Beast, among the nations on this side of ‘Greece’. And therefore, at the breaking of the ‘Greek’ empire into four (4) kingdoms of the ‘Greeks’, we include no part of the ‘Chaldeans, Medes’ and ‘Persians’ in those kingdoms, because they belonged to the bodies of the two (2) first Beasts. Nor do we reckon the ‘Greek’ empire seated at ‘Constantinople’, among the horns of the fourth (4th) Beast, because it belonged to the body of the third (3rd). (Notes to Chap. IV: Chap. 7:4; 7:5; 7:13; 7:11,12.)” }}
V: Kingdoms Represented by Feet of Image Composed of Iron & Clay.
{{ “‘Dacia’ was a large country bounded on the south by the ‘Danube’, on the east by the ‘Euxine’ sea, on the north by the river ‘Neister’ and the mountain ‘Crapac’, and on the west by the river ‘Tibesis’, or ‘Teys’, which runs southward into the ‘Danube’ a little above ‘Belgrade’. It comprehended the countries now called ‘Transylvania, Moldavia’, and ‘Wallachia’, and the eastern part of the upper ‘Hungary’. Its antient inhabitants were called ‘Getæ’ by the Greeks, ‘Daci’ by the ‘Latins’, and ‘Goths’ by themselves. ‘Alexander’ the great attacked them, and ‘Trajan’ conquered them, and reduced their country into a Province of the ‘Roman’ Empire: and thereby the propagation of the Gospel among them was much promoted. They were composed of several ‘Gothic’ nations, called ‘Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Gepides, Lombards, Burgundians, Alans’, &c. who all agreed in their manners, and spake the same language, as ‘Procopius’ represents. While they lived under the ‘Romans’, the ‘Goths’ or ‘Ostrogoths’ were seated in the eastern parts of ‘Dacia’, the ‘Vandals’ in the western part upon the river ‘Teys’, where the rivers ‘Maresh’ and ‘Keresh’ run into it. The ‘Visigoths’ were between them. The ‘Gepides’, according to ‘Jornandes’, were upon the ‘Vistula’. The ‘Burgundians’, a ‘Vandalic’ nation, were between the ‘Vistula’ and the southern fountain of the ‘Boristhenes’, at some distance from the mountain ‘Crapac’ northwards, where ‘Ptolemy’ places them, by the names of ‘Phrugundiones’ and ‘Burgiones’. The ‘Alans’, another ‘Gothic’ nation, were between the northern fountain of the ‘Boristhenes’ and the mouth of the river ‘Tanais’, where ‘Ptolemy’ placeth the mountain ‘Alanus’, and western side of the ‘Palus Mæotis’.
These nations continued under the dominion of the ‘Romans’ till the second (2nd) year of the Emperor ‘Philip’, and then for want of their military pay began to revolt; the ‘Ostrogoths’ setting up a kingdom, which, under their Kings ‘Ostrogotha, Cniva, Araric, Geperic’, and ‘Hermanaric’, increased till the year of Christ 376; and then by an incursion of the ‘Huns’ from beyond the ‘Tanais’, and the death of ‘Hermanaric’, brake into several smaller kingdoms. ‘Hunnimund’, the son of ‘Hermanaric’, became King over the ‘Ostrogoths; Fridigern’ over the ‘Visigoths; Winithar’, or ‘Vinithar’, over a part of the ‘Goths’ called ‘Gruthungi’ by ‘Ammian, Gothunni’ by ‘Claudian’, and ‘Sarmatæ’ and ‘Scythians’ by others: ‘Athanaric’ reign’d over another part of the ‘Goths’ in ‘Dacia’, called ‘Thervingi; Box’ over the ‘Antes’ in ‘Sarmatia’; and the ‘Gepides’ had also their King. The ‘Vandals’ fled over the ‘Danube’ from ‘Geberic’ in the latter end of the reign of ‘Constantine’ the great, and had seats granted them in ‘Pannonia’ by that Emperor, where they lived quietly forty (40) years, ‘viz’. till the year 377, when several ‘Gothic’ nations flying from the ‘Hunns’ came over the ‘Danube’, and had seats granted them in ‘Mæsia’ and ‘Thrace’ by the ‘Greek’ Emperor ‘Valens’. But the next year they revolted, called in some ‘Goths, Alans and Hunns’, from beyond the ‘Danube’, and routed the ‘Roman’ army, slew the Emperor ‘Valens’, and spread themselves into ‘Greece’ and ‘Pannonia’ as far as the ‘Alps’. In the years 379 and 380 they were checkt by the arms of the Emperors ‘Gratian’ and ‘Theodosius’, and made a submissive peace; the ‘Visigoths’ and ‘Thervingi’ returned to their seats in ‘Mæsia’ and ‘Thrace’, the ‘Hunns’ retired over the ‘Danube’, and the ‘Alans’ and ‘Gruthingi’ obtained seats in ‘Pannonia’.
About the year 373, or 374, the ‘Burgundians’ rose from their seats upon the ‘Vistula’, with an army of eighty thousand (80,000) men to invade ‘Gallia’; and being opposed, seated themselves upon the northern side of the ‘Rhine’ over against ‘Mentz’. In the year 358, a body of the ‘Salian Franks’, with their King, coming from the river ‘Sala’, were received into the Empire by the Emperor ‘Julian’, and seated in ‘Gallia’ between ‘Brabant’ and the ‘Rhine’: and their King ‘Mellobaudes’ was made ‘Comes domesticorum’, by the Emperor ‘Gratian’. ‘Richomer’, another noble ‘Salian Frank’, was made ‘Comes domesticorum’, and ‘Magister utriusque Militiæ’, by ‘Theodosius’; and A.C. 384, was Consul with Clearchus. He was a great favourite of ‘Theodosius’, and accompanied him in his wars against ‘Eugenius’, but died in the expedition, and left a son called ‘Theudomir’, who afterwards became King of the ‘Salian Franks’ in ‘Brabant’. In the time of this war some ‘Franks’ from beyond the ‘Rhine’ invaded ‘Gallia’ under the conduct of ‘Genobald, Marcomir’ and ‘Suno’, but were repulsed by ‘Stilico’; and ‘Marcomir’ being slain, was succeeded in ‘Germany’ by his son ‘Pharamond’.
While these nations remained quiet within the Empire, subject to the ‘Romans’, many others continued so beyond the ‘Danube’ till the death of the Emperor ‘Theodosius’, and then rose up in arms. For ‘Paulus Diaconus’ in his ‘Historia Miscell. lib’. xiv. speaking of the times next after the death of this Emperor, tells us: ‘Eodem tempore erant Gothi & aliæ gentes maximæ trans Danubium habitantes: ex quibus rationabiliores quatuor sunt, Gothi scilicet, Huisogothi, Gepides & Vandali; & nomen tantum & nihil aliud mutantes. Isti sub Arcadia & Honorio Danubium transeuntes, locati sunt in terra Romanorum: & Gepides quidem, ex quibus postea divisi sunt Longobardi & Avares, villas, quæ sunt circa Singidonum & Sirmium, habitavere’: and ‘Procopius’ in the beginning of his ‘Historia Vandalica’ writes to the same purpose. Hitherto the ‘Western Empire’ continued entire, but now brake into many kingdoms.
‘Theodosius’ died A.C. 395; and then the ‘Visigoths’, under the conduct of ‘Alaric’ the successor of ‘Fridigern’, rose from their seats in ‘Thrace’ and wasted ‘Macedon, Thessaly, Achaia, Peloponnesus’, and ‘Epirus’, with fire and sword for five (5) years together; when turning westward, they invaded ‘Dalmatia, Illyricum’ and ‘Pannonia’; and from thence went into ‘Italy’ A.C. 402; and the next year were so beaten at ‘Pollentia’ and ‘Verona’, by ‘Stilico’ the commander of the forces of the ‘Western Empire’, that ‘Claudian’ calls the remainder of the forces of ‘Alaric, tanta ex gente reliquias breves’, and ‘Prudentius, Gentem deletam’. Thereupon ‘Alaric’ made peace with the Emperor, being so far humbled, that ‘Orosius’ saith, he did, ‘pro pace optima & quibuscunque sedibus suppliciter & simpliciter orare’. This peace was ratified by mutual hostages; ‘Ætius’ was sent hostage to ‘Alaric’; and ‘Alaric’ continued a free Prince in the seats now granted to him.
When ‘Alaric’ took up arms, the nations beyond the ‘Danube’ began to be in motion; and the next winter, between A.C. 395 and 396, a great body of ‘Hunns, Alans, Ostrogoths, Gepides’, and other northern nations, came over the frozen ‘Danube’, being invited by ‘Rufinus’: when their brethren, who had obtained seats within the Empire, took up arms also. ‘Jerome’ calls this great multitude, ‘Hunns, Alans, Vandals, Goths, Sarmatians, Quades’, and ‘Marcomans’; and saith, that they invaded all places between ‘Constantinople’ and the ‘Julian Alps’, wasting ‘Scythia, Thrace, Macedon, Dardania, Dacia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Dalmatia’, and all ‘Pannonia’. The ‘Suevians’ also invaded ‘Rhætia’: for when ‘Alaric’ ravaged ‘Pannonia’, the ‘Romans’ were defending ‘Rhætia’; which gave ‘Alaric’ an opportunity of invading ‘Italy’, as ‘Claudian’ thus mentions.
‘Non nisi perfidiâ nacti penetrabile tempus,
Irrupere Getæ, nostras dum Rhætia vires
Occupat, atque alio desudant Marte cohortes’.
And when ‘Alaric’ went from those parts into ‘Italy’, some other barbarous nations invaded ‘Noricum’ and ‘Vindelicia’, as the same Poet ‘Claudian’ thus writes:
‘——Jam fœdera gentes
Exuerant, Latiique auditâ clade feroces
Vendelicos saltus & Norica rura tenebanto’.
This was in the years 402 and 403. And among these nations I reckon the ‘Suevians, Quades’, and ‘Marcomans’; for they were all in arms at this time. The ‘Quades’ and ‘Marcomans’ were ‘Suevian’ nations; and they and the ‘Suevians’ came originally from ‘Bohemia’, and the river ‘Suevus’ or ‘Sprake’ in ‘Lusatia’; and were now united under one common King called ‘Ermeric’, who soon after led them into ‘Gallia’. The ‘Vandals’ and ‘Alans’ might also about this time extend themselves into ‘Noricum’. ‘Uldin’ also with a great body of ‘Hunns’ passed the ‘Danube’ about the time of ‘Chrysostom’s’ banishment, that is, A.C. 404, and wasted ‘Thrace’ and ‘Mæsia’. ‘Radagaisus’, King of the ‘Gruthunni’ and succesor of ‘Winithar’, inviting over more barbarians from beyond the ‘Danube’, invaded ‘Italy’ with an army of above two hundred thousand Goths; and within a year or two, A.C. 405 or 406., was overcome by ‘Stilico’, and perished with his army. In this war ‘Stilico’ was assisted with a great body of ‘Hunns’ and ‘Ostrogoths’, under the conduct of ‘Uldin’ and ‘Sarus’, who were hired by the Emperor ‘Honorius’. In all this confusion it was necessary for the ‘Lombards’ in ‘Pannonia’ to arm themselves in their own defence, and assert their liberty, the ‘Romans’ being no longer able to protect them.
And now ‘Stilico’ purposing to make himself Emperor, procured a military prefecture for; ‘Alaric’, and sent him into the ‘East’ in the service of ‘Honorius’ the ‘Western’ Emperor, committing some ‘Roman’ troops to his conduct to strengthen his army of ‘Goths’, and promising to follow soon after with his own army. His pretence was to recover some regions of ‘Illyricum’, which the ‘Eastern’ Emperor was accused to detain injuriously from the ‘Western’; but his secret design was to make himself Emperor, by the assistance of the ‘Vandals’ and their allies: for he himself was a ‘Vandal’. For facilitating this design, he invited a great body of the barbarous nations to invade the ‘Western Empire’, while he and ‘Alaric’ invaded the ‘Eastern’. And these nations under their several Kings, the ‘Vandals’ under ‘Godegisilus’, the ‘Alans’ in two (2) bodies, the one (1) under ‘Goar’, the other (1) under ‘Resplendial’, and the ‘Suevians, Quades’, and ‘Marcomans’, under ‘Ermeric’, marched thro’ ‘Rhætia’ to the side of the ‘Rhine’, leaving their seats in ‘Pannonia’ to the ‘Hunns’ and ‘Ostrogoths’, and joined the ‘Burgundians’ under ‘Gundicar’, and ruffled the ‘Franks’ in their further march. On the last of ‘December’ A.C. 406, they passed the ‘Rhine’ at ‘Ments’, and spread themselves into ‘Germania prima’ and the adjacent regions; and amongst other actions the ‘Vandals’ took ‘Triers’. Then they advanced into ‘Belgium’, and began to waste that country. Whereupon the ‘Salian Franks’ in ‘Brabant’ took up arms, and under the conduct of ‘Theudomir’, the son of ‘Ricimer’, or ‘Richomer’, abovementioned, made so stout a resistance, that they slew almost twenty thousand (20,000) of the ‘Vandals’, with their King ‘Godegesilus’, in battel; the rest escaping only by a party of ‘Resplendial’s Alans’ which came timely to their assistance.
Then the ‘British’ soldiers, alarm’d by the rumour of these things, revolted, and set up Tyrants there; first ‘Marcus’, whom they slew presently; then ‘Gratian’, whom they slew within four months; and lastly ‘Constantine’, under whom they invaded ‘Gallia’ A.C. 408, being favoured by ‘Goar’ and ‘Gundicar’. And ‘Constantine’ having possessed a good part of ‘Gallia’, created his son ‘Constans Cæsar’, and sent him into ‘Spain’ to order his affairs there, A.C. 409.
In the mean time ‘Resplendial’, seeing the aforesaid disaster of the ‘Vandals’, and that ‘Goar’ was gone over to the ‘Romans’, led his army from the ‘Rhine’; and, together with the ‘Suevians’ and residue of the ‘Vandals’, went towards ‘Spain’; the ‘Franks’ in the mean time prosecuting their victory so far as to retake ‘Triers’, which after they had plundered they left to the ‘Romans’. The ‘Barbarians’ were at first stopt by the ‘Pyrenean’ mountains, which made them spread themselves into ‘Aquitain’: but the next year they had the passage betrayed by some soldiers of ‘Constans’; and entering ‘Spain’ 4 Kal. Octob. A.C. 409, they conquered every one what he could; and at length, A.C. 411, divided their conquests by lot; the ‘Vandals’ obtained ‘Bœtica’, and part of ‘Gallæcia’; the ‘Suevians’ the rest of ‘Gallæcia’; and the ‘Alans Lusitania’ and the ‘Carthaginian’ Province: the Emperor for the sake of peace confirming them in those seats by grant A.C. 413.
The ‘Roman Franks’ above mentioned, having made ‘Theudomir’ their King, began strait after their conquest of the ‘Vandals’ to invade their neighbours also. The first they set upon were the ‘Gauls’ of ‘Brabant’: but meeting with notable resistance, they desired their alliance: and so those ‘Gauls’ fell off from the ‘Romans’, and made an intimate league with the ‘Franks’ to be as one people, marrying with one another, and conforming to one another’s manners, till they became one without distinction. Thus by the access of these ‘Gauls’, and of the foreign ‘Franks’ also, who afterwards came over the ‘Rhine’, the ‘Salian’ kingdom soon grew very great and powerful.
‘Stilico’s’ expedition against the ‘Greek’ Emperor was stopt by the order of ‘Honorius’; and then ‘Alaric’ came out of ‘Epirus’ into ‘Noricum’, and requested a sum of money for his service. The Senate were inclined to deny him, but by ‘Stilico’s’ mediation granted it. But after some time ‘Stilico’ being accused of a traiterous conspiracy with ‘Alaric’, and slain 10 Kal. ‘Sept’. A.C. 408; ‘Alaric’ was thereby disappointed of his money, and reputed an enemy to the Empire; he then broke strait into ‘Italy’ with the army he brought out of ‘Epirus’, and sent to his brother ‘Adolphus’ to follow him with what forces he had in ‘Pannonia’, which were not great, but yet not to be despised. Thereupon ‘Honorius’ fearing to be shut up in ‘Rome’, retired to ‘Ravenna’ in October A.C. 408. And from that time ‘Ravenna’ continued to be the seat of the ‘Western’ Emperors. In those days the ‘Hunns’ also invaded ‘Pannonia’; and seizing the deserted seats of the ‘Vandals, Alans’, and ‘Goths’, founded a new kingdom there. ‘Alaric’ advancing to ‘Rome’ besieged it, and 9 Kal. ‘Sept’. A.C. 410 took it: and afterwards attempting to pass into ‘Africa’, was shipwrackt. After which ‘Honorius’ made peace with him, and got up an army to send against the Tyrant ‘Constantine’.
At the same time ‘Gerontius’, one of ‘Constantine’s’ captains, revolted from him, and set up ‘Maximus’ Emperor in ‘Spain’. Whereupon ‘Constantine’ sent ‘Edobec’, another of his captains, to draw to his assistance, the ‘Barbarians’ under ‘Goar’ and ‘Gundicar’ in ‘Gallia’, and supplies of ‘Franks’ and ‘Alemans’ from beyond the ‘Rhine’; and committed the custody of ‘Vienne’ in ‘Gallia Narbonensis’ to his son ‘Constans. Gerontius’ advancing, first slew ‘Constans’ at ‘Vienne’, and then began to besiege ‘Constantine’ at ‘Arles’. But ‘Honorius’ at the same time sending ‘Constantius’ with an army on the same errand, ‘Gerontius’ fled, and ‘Constantius’ continued the siege, strengthned by the access of the greatest part of the soldiers of ‘Gerontius’. After four (4) months siege, ‘Edobec’ having procured succours, the ‘Barbarian’ Kings at ‘Ments, Goar and Gundicar’, constitute ‘Jovinus’ Emperor, and together with him set forward to relieve Arles. At their approach Constantius retired. They pursued, and he beat them by surprize; but not prosecuting his victory, the ‘Barbarians’ soon recovered themselves; yet not so as to hinder the fall of the tyrants ‘Constantine, Jovinus’ and ‘Maximus. Britain’ could not be recovered to the Empire, but remained ever after a distinct kingdom.
The next year, A.C. 412, the ‘Visigoths’ being beaten in ‘Italy’, had ‘Aquitain’ granted them to retire into: and they invaded it with much violence, causing the ‘Alans’ and ‘Burgundians’ to retreat, who were then depopulating of it. At the same time the ‘Burgundians’ were brought to peace; and the Emperor granted them for inheritance a region upon the ‘Rhine’ which they had invaded: and the same, I presume, he did with the ‘Alans’. But the ‘Franks’ not long after retaking and burning ‘Triers, Castinus’, A.C. 415, was sent against them with an army, who routed them and slew ‘Theudomir’ their King This was the second (2nd) taking of ‘Triers’ by the ‘Franks’. It was therefore taken four (4) times, once by the ‘Vandals’ and thrice by the ‘Franks’. ‘Theudomir’ was succeeded by ‘Pharamond’, the Prince or King of the ‘Salian Franks’ in ‘Germany’. From thence he brought new forces, reigned over the whole, and had seats granted to his people within the Empire near the ‘Rhine’.
And now the ‘Barbarians’ were all quieted, and settled in several kingdoms within the Empire, not only by conquest, but also by the grants of the Emperor ‘Honorius’. For ‘Rutilius’ in his ‘Itinerary’, written in Autumn, ‘Anno Urbis’ 1169, that is, according to ‘Varro’s’ computation then in use, A.C. 416, thus laments the wasted fields: ‘Illa quidem longis nimium deformia bellis’; And then adds, ‘Jam tempus laceris post longa incendia fundis Vel pastorales ædificare casas’. And a little after, ‘Æternum tibi Rhenus aret’.
And ‘Orosius’ in the end of his history, which was finished A.C. 417, represents now a general pacification of the barbarous nations by the words ‘comprimere, coangustare, addicere gentes immanissimas’; terming them ‘imperio addictas’, because they had obtained seats in the Empire by league and compact; and ‘coangustatas’, because they did no longer invade all regions at pleasure, but by the same compact remained quiet in the seats then granted them. And these are the kingdoms, of which the feet of the Image were hence forward composed, and which are represented by iron and clay intermixed, which did not stick one to another, and were of different strength. (Notes to Chap. V: Procop. l. 1. de Bello Vandalico. Galli Arborici: ‘whence the region was named’ Arboricbant, ‘and by contraction’ Brabant.)” }}
VI: Ten (10) Kingdoms Represented by Ten Horns of Fourth (4th) Beast.
Now by the wars above described the ‘Western’ Empire of the ‘Romans’, about the time that ‘Rome’ was besieged and taken by the ‘Goths’, became broken into the following ten (10) kingdoms.
1. The kingdom of the ‘Vandals’ and ‘Alans’ in ‘Spain’ and ‘Africa’.
2. The kingdom of the ‘Suevians’ in ‘Spain’.
3. The kingdom of the ‘Visigoths’.
4. The kingdom of the ‘Alans’ in ‘Gallia’.
5. The kingdom of the ‘Burgundians’.
6. The kingdom of the ‘Franks’.
7. The kingdom of the ‘Britains’.
8. The kingdom of the ‘Hunns’.
9. The kingdom of the ‘Lombards’.
10. The kingdom of ‘Ravenna’.
Seven (7) of these kingdoms are thus mentioned by ‘Sigonius. 1Honorio regnante, in Pannoniam 2Hunni, in Hispaniam 3Vandali, 4Alani, 5Suevi & 6Gothi, in Galliam 4Alani 7Burgundiones & 6Gothi, certis sedibus permissis, accepti’. Add the ‘Franks, Britains’, and Lombards’, and you have the ten (10): for these arose about the same time with the seven (7). But let us view them severally.
1. The Kings of the ‘Vandals’ were, A.C. 407 ‘Godegesilus’, 407 ‘Gunderic’, 426 ‘Geiseric’, 477 ‘Hunneric’, 484 ‘Gundemund’, 496 ‘Thrasamund’, 513 ‘Geiseric’, 530 ‘Gelimer’. ‘Godegesilus’ led them into ‘Gallia’ A.C. 406, ‘Gunderic’ into ‘Spain’ A.C. 409, ‘Geiseric’ into ‘Africa’ A.C. 427; and ‘Gelimer’ was conquered by ‘Belisarius’ A.C. 533. Their kingdom lasted in ‘Gallia’, ‘Spain’ and ‘Africa’ together 126 years; and in ‘Africa’ they were very potent. The ‘Alans’ had only two (2) Kings of their own in ‘Spain, Resplendial’, and ‘Ataces, Utacus’ or ‘Othacar’. Under ‘Resplendial’ they went into ‘France’ A.C. 407, and into ‘Spain’ A.C. 409. ‘Ataces’ was slain with almost all his army by ‘Vallia’ King of the ‘Visigoths’ A.C. 419. And then the remainder of these ‘Alans’ subjected themselves to ‘Gunderic’ King of the ‘Vandals’ in ‘Bœtica’, and went afterwards with them into ‘Africa’, as I learn out of ‘Procopius’. Whence the Kings of the ‘Vandals’ styled themselves Kings of the ‘Vandals’ and ‘Alans’; as may be seen in the Edict of ‘Hunneric’ recited by ‘Victor’ in his ‘Vandalic’ persecution. In conjunction with the ‘Chatti’, these ‘Alans’ gave the name of ‘Cathalaunia’, or ‘Catth-Alania’, to the Province which is still so called. These ‘Alans’ had also ‘Gepides’ among them; and therefore the ‘Gepides’ came into ‘Pannonia’ before the ‘Alans’ left it. There they became subject to the ‘Hunns’ till the death of ‘Attila’ A.C. 454, and at length were conquered by the ‘Ostrogoths’.
2. The Kings of the ‘Suevians’ were, A.C. 407 ‘Ermeric’, 458 ‘Rechila’, 448 ‘Rechiarius’, 458 ‘Maldra’, 460 ‘Frumarius’, 463 ‘Regismund’. And after some other Kings who are unknown, reigned A.C. 558 ‘Theudomir’, 568 ‘Miro’, 582 ‘Euboricus’, and 583 ‘Andeca’. This kingdom, after it had been once seated in Spain, remained always in Gallæcia and Lusitania. ‘Ermeric’ after the fall of the ‘Alan’ kingdom, enlarged it into all ‘Gallæcia’, forcing the ‘Vandals’ to retire into ‘Bœtica’ and the ‘Carthaginian’ Province. This kingdom lasted 177 years according to ‘Isidorus;, and then was subdued by ‘Leovigildus’ King of the ‘Visigoths’, and made a Province of his kingdom A.C. 585.
3. The Kings of the ‘Visigoths’ were, A.C. 400 ‘Alaric’, 410 ‘Athaulphus’, 415 ‘Sergeric’ and ‘Vallia’, 419 ‘Theoderic’, 451 ‘Thorismund’, 452 ‘Theoderic’, 465 ‘Euric’, 482 ‘Alaric’, 505 ‘Gensalaric’, 526 ‘Amalaric’, 531 ‘Theudius’, 548 ‘Theudisclus’, &c. I date this kingdom from the time that ‘Alaric’ left ‘Thrace’ and ‘Greece’ to invade the ‘Western Empire’. In the end of the reign of ‘Athaulphus’ the ‘Goths’ were humbled by the ‘Romans’, and attempted to pass out of ‘France’ into ‘Spain’. ‘Sergeric’ reigned but a few days. In the beginning of ‘Vallia’s’ reign they assaulted the ‘Romans’ afresh, but were again repulsed, and then made peace on this condition, that they should on the behalf of the Empire invade the ‘Barbarian’ kingdoms in ‘Spain’: and this they did, together with the ‘Romans’, in the years 417 and 418, overthrowing the ‘Alans’ and part of the ‘Vandals’. Then they received ‘Aquitain’ of the Emperor by a full donation, leaving their conquests in ‘Spain’ to the Emperor: and thereby the seats of the conquered ‘Alans’ came into the hands of the ‘Romans’. In the year 455, ‘Theoderic’, assisted by the ‘Burgundians’, invaded ‘Spain’, which was then almost all subject to the ‘Suevians’, and took a part of it from them. A.C. 506, the ‘Goths’ were driven out of ‘Gallia’ by the ‘Franks’. A.C. 585, they conquered the ‘Suevian’ kingdom, and became Lords of all ‘Spain’. A.C. 713, the ‘Saracens’ invaded them, but in time they recovered their dominions, and have reigned in ‘Spain’ ever since.
4. The Kings of the ‘Alans’ in ‘Gallia’ were ‘Goar, Sambida, Eocharic, Sangibanus, Beurgus’, &c. Under ‘Goar’ they invaded ‘Gallia’ A.C. 407, and had seats given them near the ‘Rhine’, A.C. 412. Under ‘Sambida’, whom ‘Bucher’ makes the successor, if not the son of ‘Goar’, they had the territories of ‘Valence’ given them by ‘Ætius’ the Emperor’s General, A.C. 440. Under ‘Eocharic’ they conquered a region of the rebelling ‘Galli Arborici’, given them also by ‘Ætius’. This region was from them named ‘Alenconium, quasi Alanorum conventus’. Under ‘Sangibanus’ they were invaded, and their regal city ‘Orleans’ was besieged by ‘Attila’ King of the ‘Hunns’, with a vast army of 500,000 (1/2 million) men. ‘Ætius’ and the ‘Barbarian’ Kings of ‘Gallia’ came to raise the siege, and beat the ‘Hunns’ in a very memorable battle, A.C. 451, ‘in campis Catalaunicis’, so called from these ‘Alans’ mixt with the ‘Chatti’. The region is now called ‘Campania’ or Champagne’. In that battle were slain on both sides 162,000 men. A year or two (2) after, ‘Attila’ returned with an immense army to conquer this kingdom, but was again beaten by them and the ‘Visigoths’ together in a battle of three (3) days continuance, with a slaughter almost as great as the former. Under ‘Beurgus’, or ‘Biorgor’, they infested ‘Gallia’ round about, till the reign of ‘Maximus’ the Emperor; and then they passed the ‘Alps’ in winter, and came into ‘Liguria’, but were there beaten, and ‘Beurgus’ slain, by ‘Ricimer’ commander of the Emperor’s forces, A.C. 464. Afterwards they were again beaten, by the joint force of ‘Odoacer’ King of ‘Italy’ and ‘Childeric’ King of the ‘Franks’, about the year 480, and again by ‘Theudobert’ King of the ‘Austrian Franks’ about the year 511.
5. The Kings of the ‘Burgundians’ were, A.C. 407 ‘Gundicar’, 436 ‘Gundioc’, 467 ‘Bilimer’, 473 ‘Gundobaldus’ with his brothers, 510 ‘Sigismund’, 517 ‘Godomarus’. Under ‘Gundicar’ they invaded ‘Gallia’ A.C. 407, and had seats given them by the Emperor near the ‘Rhine’ in ‘Gallia Belgica’, A.C. 412. They had ‘Saxons’ among them, and were now so potent, that ‘Orosius’ A.C. 417 wrote of them: ‘Burgundionum esse prævalidam manum, Galliæ hodieque testes sunt, in quibus præsumpta possessione consistunt’. About the year 435 they received great overthrows by ‘Ætius’, and soon after by the ‘Hunns’: but five years after had ‘Savoy’ granted them to be shared with the inhabitants; and from that time became again a potent kingdom, being bounded by the river ‘Rhodanus’, but afterwards extending much further into the heart of ‘Gallia’. ‘Gundobald’ conquered the regions about the rivers ‘Araris’ and ‘Rhodanus’, with the territories of ‘Marseilles’; and invading ‘Italy’ in the time of the Emperor ‘Glycerius’, conquered all his brethren. ‘Godomarus’ made ‘Orleans’ his royal seat: whence the kingdom was called ‘Regnum Aurelianorum. He was conquered by ‘Clotharius’ and ‘Childebert’, Kings of the ‘Franks’, A.C. 526. From thence forward this kingdom was sometimes united to the kingdom of the ‘Franks’, and sometimes divided from it, till the reign of ‘Charles’ the great, who made his son ‘Carolottus’ King of ‘Burgundy’. From that time, for about 300 years together, it enjoyed its proper Kings; and was then broken into the Dukedom of ‘Burgundy’, County of ‘Burgundy’, and County of ‘Savoy’; and afterwards those were broken into other lesser Counties.
6. The Kings of the ‘Franks’ were, A.C. 407 ‘Theudomir’, 417 ‘Pharamond’, 428 ‘Clodio’, 448 ‘Merovæus’, 456 ‘Childeric’, 482 ‘Clodovæus’, &c. ‘Windeline’ and ‘Bucher’, two (2) of the most diligent searchers into the originals of this kingdom, make it begin the same year with the ‘Barbarian’ invasions of ‘Gallia’, that is, A.C. 407. Of the first Kings there is in ‘Labbe’s Bibliotheca M.S’. this record. ‘Historica quædam excerpta ex veteri stemmate genealogico Regum Franciæ. Genobaldus, Marcomerus, Suno, Theodemeris. Isti duces vel reguli extiterunt à principio gentis Francorum diversis temporibus. Sed incertum relinquunt historici quali sibi procreations lineâ successerunt. Pharamundus: sub hoc rege suo primo Franci legibus se subdunt, quas primores eorum tulerunt Wisogastus, Atrogastus, Salegastus. Chlochilo. Iste, transito Rheno, Romanos in Carbonaria sylva devicit, Camaracum cepit & obtinuit, annis 20 regnavit. Sub hoc rege Franci usque Summam progressi sunt. Merovechus. Sub hoc rege Franci Trevirim destruunt, Metim succendunt, usque Aurelianum perveniunt’.
Now for ‘Genobaldus, Marcomer’ and ‘Suno’, they were captains of the ‘Transrhenane Franks’ in the reign of ‘Theodosius’, and concern us not. We are to begin with ‘Theudomir’ the first King of the rebelling ‘Salii’, called ‘Didio’ by ‘Ivo Carnotensis’, and ‘Thiedo’ and ‘Theudemerus’ by ‘Rhenanus’. His face is extant in a coin of gold found with this inscription, ‘THEUDEMIR REX’, published by ‘Petavius’, and still or lately extant, as ‘Windeline’ testifies: which shews that he was a King, and that in ‘Gallia’; seeing that rude ‘Germany’ understood not then the coining of money, nor used either ‘Latin’ words or letters. He was the son of ‘Ricimer’, or ‘Richomer’, the favourite of the Emperor ‘Theodosius’; and so being a ‘Roman Frank’, and of the ‘Salian’ royal blood, they therefore upon the rebellion made him King. The whole time of his reign you have stated in ‘Excerptis Gregorii Turonensis è Fredigario, cap’. 5,6,7,8, where the making him King, the tyranny of ‘Jovinus’, the slaughter of the associates of ‘Jovinus’, the second taking of ‘Triers’ by the ‘Franks’, and their war with ‘Castinus’, in which this King was slain, are as a series of successive things thus set down in order. ‘Extinctis Ducibus in Francis, denuo Reges creantur ex eadem stirpe qua prius fuerant. Eodem tempore Jovinus ornatus regios assumpsit. Constantinus fugam versus Italiam dirigit; missis a Jovino Principe percussoribus super Mentio flumine, capite truncatur. Multi nobilium jussu Jovini apud Avernis capti, & a ducibus Honorii crudeliter interempti sunt. Trevirorum civitas, factione unius ex senatoribus nomine Lucii, à Francis captà & incensa est.—Castinus Domesticorum Comes expeditionem accipit contra Francos’, &c. Then returning to speak of ‘Theudomir’, he adds: ‘Franci electum à se regem, sicut prius fuerat, crinitum inquirentes diligenter ex genere Priami, Frigi & Francionis, super se crearunt nomine Theudemerum filium Richemeris, qui in hoc prælio quod supra memini, à Romanis interfectus est; that is, in the battle with ‘Castinus’s’ army. Of his death ‘Gregory Turonensis’ makes this further mention: ‘In consularibus legimus Theodemerem regem Francorum filium Ricimeris quondam, & Ascilam matrem ejus, gladio interfectos’.
Upon this victory of the ‘Romans’, the ‘Franks’ and rebelling ‘Gauls’, who in the time of ‘Theudomir were at war with one another, united to strengthen themselves, as ‘Ordericus Vitalis’ thus mentions. ‘Cum Galli prius contra Romanos rebellâssent, Franci iis sociati sunt, & pariter juncti, Ferramundum Sunonis ducis filium, sibi regem præfecerunt’. ‘Prosper’ sets down the time; ‘Anno’ 25 ‘Honorii, Pharamundus regnat in Francia’. This, ‘Bucher’ well observes, refers to the end of the year 416, or the beginning of the next year, dating the years of ‘Honorius’ from the death of ‘Valentinian’; and argues well, that at this time ‘Pharamond’ was not only King by the constitution of the ‘Franks’, but crowned also by the consent of ‘Honorius’, and had a part of ‘Gallia’ assigned him by covenant. And this might be the cause that ‘Roman’ writers reckoned him the first King: which some not understanding, have reputed him the founder of this kingdom by an army of the ‘Transrhenane Franks’. He might come with such an army, but he succeeded ‘Theudomir’ by right of blood and consent of the people. For the above cited passage of ‘Fredigarius, Extinctis Ducibus, in Francis denuo Reges creantur ex eadem stirpe quâ prius fuerant’, implies that the kingdom continued to this new elected family during the reign of more Kings than one (1). If you date the years of ‘Honorius’ from the death of his father, the reign of ‘Pharamond’ might begin two (2) years later than is assigned by ‘Bucher’. The ‘Salique’ laws made in his reign, which are yet extant, shew by their name that it was the kingdom of the ‘Salii’ over which he reigned; and, by the pecuniary mulcts in them, that the place where he reigned abounded much with money, and consequently was within the Empire; rude ‘Germany’ knowing not the use of money, till they mixed with the ‘Romans’. In the Preface also to the ‘Salique’ laws, written and prefixed to them soon after the conversion of the ‘Franks’ to the Christian religion, that is, in the end of the reign of ‘Merovæus’, or soon after, the original of this kingdom is thus described: ‘Hæc enim gens, quæ fortis dum esset & robore valida, Romanorum jugum durissimum de suis cervicibus excussit pugnando’, &c. This kingdom therefore was erected, not by invasion but by rebellion, as was described above. ‘Prosper’ in registering their Kings in order, tells us: ‘Pharamundus regnat in Francia; Clodio regnat in Francia; Merovæus regnat in Francia’: and who can imagine but that in all these places he meant one and the same ‘Francia’? And yet ’tis certain that the ‘Francia’ of ‘Merovæus’ was in ‘Gallia’.
Yet the father of ‘Pharamond’, being king of a body of ‘Franks’ in ‘Germany’ in the reign of the Emperor ‘Theodosius’, as above, ‘Pharamond’ might reign over the same ‘Franks’ in ‘Germany’ before he succeeded ‘Theudomir’ in the kingdom of the ‘Salians’ within the Empire, and even before ‘Theudomir’ began his reign; suppose in the first year of ‘Honorius’, or when those ‘Franks’ being repulsed by ‘Stilico’, lost their Kings ‘Marcomir’ and ‘Suno’, one (1) of which was the father of ‘Pharamond’: and the ‘Roman Franks’, after the death of ‘Theudomir’, might invite Pharamond with his people from beyond the ‘Rhine’. But we are not to regard the reign of ‘Pharamond’ in ‘Germany’: we are to date this kingdom from its rise within the Empire, and to look upon it as strengthened by the access of other ‘Franks’ coming from beyond the ‘Rhine’, whether in the reign of this King or in that of his successor ‘Clodio’. For in the last year of ‘Pharamond’s’ reign, ‘Ætius’ took from him a part of his possession in ‘Gallia’: but his successor ‘Clodio’, whom ‘Fredigarius’ represents as the son of ‘Theudomir’, and some call ‘Clogio, Cloio’, and ‘Claudius’, inviting from beyond the ‘Rhine’ a great body of ‘Franks’, recovered all, and carried on their conquests as far as the river ‘Soame’. Then those ‘Franks’ dividing conquests with him, erected certain new kingdoms at ‘Cologn’ and ‘Cambray’, and some other cities: all which were afterwards conquered by ‘Clodovæus’, who also drove the ‘Goths’ out of ‘Gallia’, and fix’d his seat at ‘Paris’, where it has continued ever since. And this was the original of the present kingdom of ‘France’.
7. The Kings of ‘Britain’ were, A.C. 407 or 408, ‘Marcus, Gratian’, and ‘Constantine’ successively; A.C. 425 ‘Vortigern’, 466 ‘Aurelius Ambrosius’, 498 ‘Uther Pendraco’, 508 ‘Arthur’, 542 ‘Constantinus’, 545 ‘Aurelius Cunanus’, 578 ‘Vortiporeus’, 581 ‘Malgo’, 586 ‘Careticus’, 613 ‘Cadwan’, 635 ‘Cadwalin’, 676 ‘Cadwallader’. The three (3) first (1st) were ‘Roman’ Tyrants, who revolted from the Empire. ‘Orosius, Prosper’ and ‘Zosimus’ connect their revolt with the irruptions of the ‘Barbarians’ into ‘Gallia’, as consequent thereunto. ‘Prosper’, with whom ‘Zosimus’ agrees, puts it in the year which began the day after that irruption. The just time I thus collect: ‘Marcus’ reigned not many days, ‘Gratian’ four (4) months, and ‘Constantine’ three (3) years. He was slain the year after the taking of ‘Rome’, that is A.C. 411, 14 Kal. ‘Octob’. Whence the revolt was in Spring A.C. 408. ‘Sozomen’ joins ‘Constantine’s’ expedition into ‘Gallia’ with ‘Arcadius’s’ death, or the times a little after; and ‘Arcadius’ died A.C. 408 ‘May’ the 1st. Now tho the reign of these Tyrants was but short, yet they gave a beginning to the kingdom of ‘Britain’, and so may be reckoned the three (3) first (1st) Kings, especially since the posterity of ‘Constantine, viz’. his sons ‘Aurelius Ambrosius’, and Uther Pendraco, and his grandson Arthur, reigned afterwards. For from the time of the revolt of these Tyrants ‘Britain’ continued a distinct kingdom absolved from subjection to the Empire, the Emperor not being able to spare soldiers to be sent thither to receive and keep the Island, and therefore neglecting it; as we learn by unquestionable records. For ‘Prosper’ tells us; A.C. 410, ‘Variane Cos. Hac tempestate præ valetudine Romanorum, vires funditùs attenuatæ Britanniæ’. And ‘Sigebert’, conjoining this with the siege of ‘Rome’, saith: ‘Britannorum vires attenuatæ, & substrahunt se à Romanorum dominatione’. And ‘Zosimus lib’. 6. ‘The ‘Transrhenane Barbarians’ invading all places, reduced the inhabitants of the island of ‘Britain’, and also certain ‘Celtic’ nations to that pass, that they fell off from the ‘Roman’ Empire; and being no longer obedient to the ‘Roman’ laws, κατ’ ‛εαυτον βιατευειν (kat’ `heauton biateuein), they lived in separate bodies after their own pleasure. The ‘Britons’ therefore taking up arms, and hazarding themselves for their own safety, freed their cities from the imminent ‘Barbarians’. In like manner all ‘Brabant’ and some other Provinces of the ‘Gauls’ imitating the ‘Britons’, freed themselves also, ejecting the ‘Roman’ Presidents, and forming themselves into a sort of commonwealth according to their own pleasure. This rebellion of ‘Britain’ and the ‘Celtic’ nations happened when ‘Constantine’ usurped the kingdom’. So also ‘Procopius, lib’. 1. ‘Vandal’. speaking of the same ‘Constantine’, saith: Constantine ‘being overcome in battle, was slain with his children: Βρεταννιαν μεν τοι Ρωμαιοι ανασωσασθαι ουκετι εχον· αλλ’ ουσα ‛υπο τυραννους απ’ αυτου εμενε (bretannian men toi Römaioi anasösasthai ouketi echon, all’ ousa `hupo turannous ap’ autou emene). Yet the Romans could not recover Britain any more, but from that time it remained under Tyrants’. And ‘Beda, l’. 1. c. 11. ‘Fracta est Roma à Gothis anno 1164 suæ conditionis; ex quo tempore Romani in Britannia regnare cessaverunt’. And ‘Ethelwaldus: A tempore Romæ à Gothis expugnatæ, cessavit imperium Romanorum à Britannia insula, & ab aliis; quas sub jugo servitutis tenebant, multis terris’. And ‘Theodoret, serm’. 9. ‘de curand. Græc. affect’. about the year 424, reckons the ‘Britons’ among the nations which were not then in subjection to the ‘Roman’ Empire. Thus ‘Sigonius: ad annum 411, Imperium Romanorum post excessum Constantini in Britannia nullum fuit’.
Between the death of ‘Constantine’ and the reign of ‘Vortigern’ was an interregnum of about 14 years, in which the ‘Britons’ had wars with the ‘Picts’ and ‘Scots’, and twice obtained the assistance of a ‘Roman’ Legion, who drove out the enemy, but told them positively at their departure that they would come no more. Of ‘Vortigern’s’ beginning to reign there is this record in an old Chronicle in ‘Nennius’, quoted by ‘Camden’ and others: ‘Guortigernus tenuit imperium in Britannia, Theodosio & Valentiniano Coss’. [‘viz’. A.C. 425.] & ‘in quarto anno regni sui Saxones ad Britanniam venerunt, Felice & Tauro Coss’. [‘viz’. A.C. 428.] This coming of the ‘Saxons, Sigebert’ refers to the 4th year of ‘Valentinian’, which falls in with the year 428 assigned by this Chronicle: and two (2) years after, the ‘Saxons’ together with the ‘Picts’ were beaten by the ‘Britons’. Afterwards in the reign of ‘Martian’ the Emperor, that is, between the years 450 and 456, the ‘Saxons’ under ‘Hengist’ were called in by the ‘Britons’, but six years after revolted from them, made war upon them with various success, and by degrees succeeded them. Yet the ‘Britons’ continued a flourishing kingdom till the reign of ‘Careticus’; and the war between the two (2) nations continued till the pontificate of ‘Sergius’ A.C. 688.
8. The Kings of the ‘Hunns’ were, A.C. 406 ‘Octar’ and ‘Rugila’, 433 ‘Bleda’ and ‘Attila’. ‘Octar’ and ‘Rugila’ were the brothers of ‘Munzuc’ King of the ‘Hunns’ in ‘Gothia’ beyond the ‘Danube’; and ‘Bleda’ and ‘Attila’ were his sons, and ‘Munzuc’ was the son of ‘Balamir’. The two (2) first, as Jornandes tells us, were Kings of the ‘Hunns’, but not of them all; and had the two (2) last for their successors. I date the reign of the ‘Hunns’ in ‘Pannonia’ from the time that the ‘Vandals’ and ‘Alans’ relinquished ‘Pannonia’ to them, A.C. 407. ‘Sigonius’ from the time that the ‘Visigoths’ relinquished ‘Pannonia’ A. C. 408. ‘Constat’, saith he, ‘quod Gothis ex Illyrico profectis, Hunni successerunt, atque imprimis Pannoniam tenuerunt. Neque enim Honorius viribus ad resistendum in tantis difficultatibus destitutus, prorsus eos prohibere potuit, sed meliore consilio, animo ad pacem converso, fœdus cum eis, datis acceptisque obsidibus fecit; ex quibus qui dati sunt, Ætius, qui etiam Alarico tributus fuerat, præcipue memoratur’. How ‘Ætius’ was hostage to the ‘Goths’ and ‘Hunns’ is related by ‘Frigeridus’, who when he had mentioned that ‘Theodosius’ Emperor of the ‘East’ had sent grievous commands to ‘John’, who after the death of ‘Honorius’ had usurped the crown of the ‘Western Empire’, he subjoins: ‘Iis permotus Johannes, Ætium id tempus curam palatii gerentem cum ingenti auri pondere ad Chunnos transmisit, notos sibi obsidiatûs sui tempore & familiari amicitiâ devinctos’—And a little after: ‘Ætius tribus annis Alarici obses, dehinc Chunnorum, postea Carpilionis gener ex Comite domesticorum & Joannis curopalatæ’. Now ‘Bucher’ shews that ‘Ætius’ was hostage to ‘Alaric’ till the year 410, when ‘Alaric’ died, and to the ‘Hunns’ between the years 411 and 415, and son-in-law to ‘Carpilio’ about the year 417 or 418, and ‘Curopalates’ to ‘John’ about the end of the year 423. Whence ’tis probable that he became hostage to the ‘Hunns’ about the year 412 or 413, when ‘Honorius’ made leagues with almost all the barbarous nations, and granted them seats: but I had rather say with ‘Sigonius’, that ‘Ætius’ became hostage to ‘Alaric’ A.C. 403. It is further manifest out of ‘Prosper’, that the ‘Hunns’ were in quiet possession of ‘Pannonia’ in the year 432. For in the first (1st) book of ‘Eusebius’s’ Chronicle ‘Prosper’ writes: ‘Anno decimo post obitum Honorii, cum ad Chunnorum gentem cui tunc Rugila præerat, post prælium cum Bonifacio se Ætius contulisset, impetrato auxilio ad Romanorum solum regreditur’. And in the second (2nd) book: ‘Ætio & Valerio Coss. Ætius depositâ potestate profugus ad Hunnos in Pannonia pervenit, quorum amicitiâ auxilioque usus, pacem principum interpellatæ potestatis obtinuit’. Hereby it appears that at this time ‘Rugila’, or as ‘Maximus’ calls him, ‘Rechilla’, reigned over the ‘Hunns’ in ‘Pannonia’; and that ‘Pannonia’ was not now so much as accounted within the soil of the Empire, being formerly granted away to the ‘Hunns’; and that these were the very same body of Hunns’ with which ‘Ætius’ had, in the time of his being an hostage, contracted friendship: by virtue of which, as he sollicited them before to the aid of ‘John’ the Tyrant A.C. 424, so now he procured their intercession for himself with the Emperor. ‘Octar’ died A.C. 430; for ‘Socrates’ tells us, that about that time the Burgundians having been newly vext by the Hunns, upon intelligence of ‘Octar’s’ death, seeing them without a leader, set upon them suddenly with so much vigour, that 3000 ‘Burgundians’ slew 10,000 ‘Hunns’. Of ‘Rugila’s’ being now King in ‘Pannonia’ you have heard already. He died A.C. 433, and was succeeded by ‘Bleda’, as ‘Prosper’ and ‘Maximus’ inform us. This ‘Bleda’ with his brother ‘Attila’ were before this time Kings of the ‘Hunns’ beyond the ‘Danube’, their father ‘Munzuc’s’ kingdom being divided between them; and now they united the kingdom ‘Pannonia’ to their own. Whence ‘Paulus’Diaconus’ saith, they did ‘regnum intra Pannoniam Daciamque gerere’. In the year 441, they began to invade the Empire afresh, adding to the ‘Pannonian’ forces new and great armies from ‘Scythia’. But this war was presently composed, and then ‘Attila’, seeing ‘Bleda’ inclined to peace, slew him, A.C. 444, inherited his dominions, and invaded the Empire again. At length, after various great wars with the ‘Romans, Attila’ perished A.C. 454; and his sons quarrelling about his dominions, gave occasion to the ‘Gepides, Ostrogoths’ and other nations who were their subjects, to rebel and make war upon them. The same year the ‘Ostrogoths’ had seats granted them in ‘Pannonia’ by the Emperors ‘Marcian’ and ‘Valentinian’; and with the ‘Romans’ ejected the ‘Hunns’ out of ‘Pannonia’, soon after the death of ‘Attila’, as all historians agree. This ejection was in the reign of ‘Avitus’, as is mentioned in the ‘Chronicum Boiorum’, and in ‘Sidonius, Carm. 7 in Avitum’, which speaks thus of that Emperor.
——Cujus solum amissas post sæcula multa
Pannonias revocavit iter, jam credere promptum est.
Quid faciet bellis.
The Poet means, that by the coming of ‘Avitus’ the ‘Hunns’ yielded more easily to the ‘Goths’. This was written by ‘Sidonius’ in the beginning of the reign of ‘Avitus’: and his reign began in the end of the year 455, and lasted not one (1) full year.
‘Jornandes’ tells us: ‘Duodecimo anno regni Valiæ, quando & Hunni post pene quinquaginta annos invasa Pannonia, à Romanis & Gothis expulsi sunt’. And ‘Marcellinus: Hierio & Ardaburio Coss. Pannoniæ, quæ per quinquaginta annos ab Hunnis retinebantur, à Romanis receptæ sunt’: whence it should seem that the ‘Hunns’ invaded and held ‘Pannonia’ from the year 378 or 379 to the year 427, and then were driven out of it. But this is a plain mistake: for it is certain that the Emperor ‘Theodosius’ left the Empire entire; and we have shewed out of ‘Prosper’, that the ‘Hunns’ were in quiet possession of ‘Pannonia’ in the year 432. The ‘Visigoths’ in those days had nothing to do with ‘Pannonia’, and the ‘Ostrogoths’ continued subject to the ‘Hunns’ till the death of ‘Attila’, A.C. 454; and ‘Valia’ King of the ‘Visigoths’ did not reign twelve (12) years. He began his reign in the end of the year 415, reigned three (3) years, and was slain A.C. 419, as ‘Idacius, Isidorus’, and the ‘Spanish’ manuscript Chronicles seen by ‘Grotius’ testify. And ‘Olympiodorus’, who carries his history only to the year 425, sets down therein the death of ‘Valia’ King of the ‘Visigoths’, and conjoins it with that of ‘Constantius’ which happened A.C. 420. Wherefore the ‘Valia’ of ‘Jornandes’, who reigned at the least twelve (12) years, is some other King. And I suspect that this name hath been put by mistake for ‘Valamir’ King of the ‘Ostrogoths’: for the action recorded was of the ‘Romans’ and ‘Ostrogoths’ driving the ‘Hunns’ out of ‘Pannonia’ after the death of ‘Attila’; and it is not likely that the historian would refer the history of the ‘Ostrogoths’ to the years of the ‘Visigothic’ Kings. This action happened in the end of the year 455, which I take to be the twelfth (12th) year of ‘Valamir’ in ‘Pannonia’, and which was almost fifty (50) years after the year 406, in which the ‘Hunns’ succeeded the ‘Vandals’ and ‘Alans’ in ‘Pannonia’. Upon the ceasing of the line of ‘Hunnimund’ the son of ‘Hermaneric’, the ‘Ostrogoths’ lived without Kings of their own nation about forty (40) years together, being subject to the ‘Hunns’. And when ‘Alaric’ began to make war upon the ‘Romans’, which was in the year 444, he made ‘Valamir’, with his brothers ‘Theodomir’ and ‘Videmir’ the grandsons of ‘Vinethar’, captains or kings of these ‘Ostrogoths’ under him. In the twelfth (12th) year of ‘Valamir’s’ reign dated from thence, the ‘Hunns’ were driven out of ‘Pannonia’.
Yet the ‘Hunns’ were not so ejected, but that they had further contests with the ‘Romans’, till the head of ‘Denfix’ the son of ‘Attila’, was carried to ‘Constantinople’, A.C. 469, in the Consulship of ‘Zeno’ and ‘Marcian’, as ‘Marcellinus’ relates. Nor were they yet totally ejected the Empire: for besides their reliques in ‘Pannonia’, ‘Sigonius’ tells us, that when the Emperors ‘Marcian’ and ‘Valentinian’ granted ‘Pannonia’ to the ‘Goths’, which was in the year 454, they granted part of ‘Illyricum’ to some of the ‘Hunns’ and ‘Sarmatians’. And in the year 526, when the ‘Lombards’ removing into ‘Pannonia’ made war there with the ‘Gepides’, the ‘Avares’, a part of the ‘Hunns’, who had taken the name of ‘Avares’ from one of their Kings, assisted the ‘Lombards’ in that war; and the ‘Lombards’ afterwards, when they went into ‘Italy’, left their seats in ‘Pannonia’ to the ‘Avares’ in recompence of their friendship. From that time the ‘Hunns’ grew again very powerful; their Kings, whom they called ‘Chagan’, troubling the Empire much in the reigns of the Emperors ‘Mauritius, Phocas’, and ‘Heraclius’: and this is the original of the present kingdom of ‘Hungary’, which from these ‘Avares’ and other ‘Hunns’ mixed together, took the name of ‘Hun-Avaria’, and by contraction ‘Hungary’.
9. The ‘Lombards’, before they came over the ‘Danube’, were commanded by two (2) captains, ‘Ibor’ and ‘Ayon’: after whose death they had Kings, ‘Agilmund, Lamisso, Lechu, Hildehoc, Gudehoc, Classo, Tato, Wacho, Walter, Audoin, Alboin, Cleophis’, &c. ‘Agilmund’ was the son of ‘Ayon’, who became their King, according to ‘Prosper’, in the Consulship of ‘Honorius’ and ‘Theodosius’ A.C. 389, reigned thirty-three (33) years, according to ‘Paulus Warnefridus’, and was slain in battle by the ‘Bulgarians’. ‘Prosper’ places his death in the Consulship of ‘Marinianus’ and ‘Asclepiodorus’, A.C. 413. ‘Lamisso’ routed the ‘Bulgarians’, and reigned three (3) years, and ‘Lechu’ almost forty (40). ‘Gudehoc’ was contemporary to ‘Odoacer’ King of the ‘Heruli’ in ‘Italy’, and led his people from ‘Pannonia’ into ‘Rugia’, a country on the north side of ‘Noricum’ next beyond the ‘Danube’; from whence ‘Odoacer’ then carried his people into ‘Italy’. ‘Tato’ overthrew the kingdom of the ‘Heruli’ beyond the ‘Danube’. ‘Wacho’ conquered the ‘Suevians’, a kingdom then bounded on the east by ‘Bavaria’, on the west by ‘France’, and on the south by the ‘Burgundians’. ‘Audoin’ returned into ‘Pannonia’ A.C. 526, and there overcame the ‘Gepides’. ‘Alboin’ A.C. 551 overthrew the kingdom of the ‘Gepides’, and slew their King ‘Chunnimund’: A.C. 563 he assisted the ‘Greek’ Emperor against ‘Totila’ King of the ‘Ostrogoths’ in ‘Italy’; and A.C. 568 led his people out of ‘Pannonia’ into Lombardi, where they reigned till the year 774.
According to ‘Paulus Diaconus’, the ‘Lombards’ with many other ‘Gothic’ nations came into the Empire from beyond the ‘Danube’ in the reign of ‘Arcadius’ and ‘Honorius’, that is, between the years 395 and 408. But they might come in a little earlier: for we are told that the ‘Lombards’, under their captains ‘Ibor’ and ‘Ayon’, beat the ‘Vandals’ in battle; and ‘Prosper’ placeth this victory in the Consulship of ‘Ausonius’ and ‘Olybrius’, that is, A.C. 379. Before this war the ‘Vandals’ had remained quiet forty (40) years in the seats granted them in ‘Pannonia’ by ‘Constantine’ the great. And therefore if these were the same ‘Vandals’, this war must have been in ‘Pannonia’; and might be occasioned by the coming of the ‘Lombards’ over the ‘Danube’ into ‘Pannonia’, a (1) year or two (2) before the battle; and so have put an end to that quiet which had lasted forty (40) years. After ‘Gratian’ and ‘Theodosius’ had quieted the ‘Barbarians’, they might either retire over the ‘Danube’, or continue quiet under the ‘Romans’ till the death of ‘Theodosius’; and then either invade the Empire anew, or throw off all subjection to it. By their wars, first with the ‘Vandals’, and then with the ‘Bulgarians’, a ‘Scythian’ nation so called from the river ‘Volga’ whence they came; it appears that even in those days they were a kingdom not contemptible.
10. These nine kingdoms being rent away, we are next to consider the residue of the Western Empire. While this Empire continued entire, it was the Beast itself: but the residue thereof is only a part of it. Now if this part be considered as a horn, the reign of this horn may be dated from the translation of the imperial seat from Rome to Ravenna, which was in October A.C. 408. For then the Emperor Honorius, fearing that Alaric would besiege him in Rome, if he staid there, retired to Millain, and thence to Ravenna: and the ensuing siege and sacking of Rome confirmed his residence there, so that he and his successors ever after made it their home. Accordingly Macchiavel in his Florentine history writes, that Valentinian having left Rome, translated the seat of the Empire to Ravenna.
‘Rhætia’ belonged to the ‘Western’ Emperors, so long as that Empire stood; and then it descended, with ‘Italy’ and the ‘Roman’ Senate, to ‘Odoacer’ King of the ‘Heruli’ in ‘Italy’, and after him to ‘Theoderic’ King of the ‘Ostrogoths’ and his successors, by the grant of the ‘Greek’ Emperors. Upon the death of ‘Valentinian’ the second (2nd), the ‘Alemans’ and ‘Suevians’ invaded ‘Rhætia’ A.C. 455. But I do not find they erected any settled kingdom there: for in the year 457, while they were yet depopulating ‘Rhætia’, they were attacked and beaten by ‘Burto’ Master of the horse to the Emperor ‘Majoranus’; and I hear nothing more of their invading ‘Rhætia’. ‘Clodovæus’ King of ‘France’, in or about the year 496, conquered a kingdom of the ‘Alemans’, and slew their last King ‘Ermeric’. But this kingdom was seated in ‘Germany’, and only bordered upon ‘Rhætia’: for its people fled from ‘Clodovæus’ into the neighbouring kingdom of the ‘Ostrogoths’ under ‘Theoderic’, who received them as friends, and wrote a friendly letter to ‘Clodovæus’ in their behalf: and by this means they became inhabitants of ‘Rhætia’, as subjects under the dominion of the ‘Ostrogoths’.
When the ‘Greek’ Emperor conquered the ‘Ostrogoths’, he succeeded them in the kingdom of ‘Ravenna’, not only by right of conquest but also by right of inheritance, the ‘Roman’ Senate still going along with this kingdom. Therefore we may reckon that this kingdom continued in the Exarchate of ‘Ravenna’ and Senate of ‘Rome’: for the remainder of the ‘Western Empire’ went along with the Senate of ‘Rome’, by reason of the right which this Senate still retained, and at length exerted, of chusing a new ‘Western’ Emperor.
I have now enumerated the ten (10) kingdoms, into which the ‘Western Empire’ became divided at its first breaking, that is, at the time of ‘Rome’s’ being besieged and taken by the ‘Goths’. Some of these kingdoms at length fell, and new ones arose: but whatever was their number afterwards, they are still called the ‘Ten Kings’ from their first (1st) number. (Notes to Chap. VI: Apud Bucherum, l. 14. c. 9. n. 8. Rolevinc’s Antiqua Saxon. l. 1. c. 6.)” }}
VII. Eleventh (11th) Horn of ‘Daniel’s’ Fourth (4th) Beast.
{{ “‘Now Daniel, considered the horns, and behold there came up among them another (1) horn, before whom there were three (3) of the first (1st) horns pluckt up by the roots; and behold in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things’,—and his look was more stout than his fellows,—and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them: and one who stood by, and made Daniel know the interpretation of these things, told him, that the ten (10) horns were ten (10) kings that should arise, and another should arise after them, and be diverse from the first (1st), and he should subdue three (3) kings, and speak great words against the most High, and wear out the saints, and think to change times and laws: and that they should be given into his hands until a time and times and half a time’. Kings are put for kingdoms, as above; and therefore the little horn is a little kingdom. It was a horn of the fourth (4th) Beast, and rooted up three (3) of his first (1st) horns; and therefore we are to look for it among the nations of the ‘Latin’ Empire, after the rise of the ten (10) horns. But it was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten (10) kingdoms, having a life or soul peculiar to itself, with eyes and a mouth. By its eyes it was a Seer; and by its mouth speaking great things and changing times and laws, it was a Prophet as well as a King. And such a Seer, a Prophet and a King, is the Church of ‘Rome’.
A Seer, Επισκοπος [Episkopos = over-seer], is a Bishop in the literal sense of the word; and this Church claims the universal Bishoprick. With his mouth he gives laws to kings and nations as an Oracle; and pretends to Infallibility, and that his dictates are binding to the whole world; which is to be a Prophet in the highest degree. In the eighth (8th) century, by rooting up and subduing the Exarchate of ‘Ravenna’, the kingdom of the ‘Lombards’, and the Senate and Dukedom of ‘Rome’, he acquired ‘Peter’s’ Patrimony out of their dominions; and thereby rose up as a temporal Prince or King, or horn of the fourth (4th) Beast.
In a small book printed at ‘Paris’ A.C. 1689, entitled, ‘An historical dissertation upon some coins of Charles the great’, Ludovicus Pius, Lotharius, ‘and their successors stamped at Rome’, it is recorded, that in the days of Pope ‘Leo’ X, there was remaining in the ‘Vatican’, and till those days exposed to public view, an inscription in honour of ‘Pipin’ the father of ‘Charles’ the great, in these words: ‘Pipinum pium, primum fuisse qui amplificandæ Ecclesiæ Romanæ viam aperuerit, Exarchatu Ravennate, & plurimis aliis oblatis’; “That ‘Pipin’ the pious was the first who opened a way to the grandeur of the Church of ‘Rome’, conferring upon her the Exarchate of ‘Ravenna’ and many other oblations.” In and before the reign of the Emperors ‘Gratian’ and ‘Theodosius’, the Bishop of ‘Rome’ lived splendidly; but this was by the oblations of the ‘Roman’ Ladies, as ‘Ammianus’ describes. After those reigns ‘Italy’ was invaded by foreign nations, and did not get rid of her troubles before the fall of the kingdom of ‘Lombardy’. It was certainly by the victory of the see of ‘Rome’ over the ‘Greek’ Emperor, the King of ‘Lombardy’, and the Senate of ‘Rome’, that she acquired ‘Peter’s’ Patrimony, and rose up to her greatness. The donation of ‘Constantine’ the Great is a fiction, and so is the donation of the ‘Alpes Cottiæ’ to the Pope by ‘Aripert’ King of the ‘Lombards’: for the ‘Alpes Cottiæ’ were a part of the Exarchate, and in the days of ‘Aripert’ belonged to the ‘Greek’ Emperor.
The invocation of the dead, and veneration of their images, being gradually introduced in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th centuries, the ‘Greek’ Emperor ‘Philippicus’ declared against the latter, A.C. 711 or 712. And the Emperor ‘Leo Isaurus’, to put a stop to it, called a meeting of Counsellors and Bishops in his Palace, A.C. 726; and by their advice put out an Edict against that worship, and wrote to Pope ‘Gregory’ II. that a general Council might be called. But the Pope thereupon called a Council at ‘Rome’, confirmed the worship of Images, excommunicated the ‘Greek’ Emperor, absolved the people from their allegiance, and forbad them to pay tribute, or otherwise be obedient to him. Then the people of ‘Rome, Campania, Ravenna’ and ‘Pentapolis’, with the cities under them, revolted and laid violent hands upon their magistrates, killing the Exarch ‘Paul’ at ‘Ravenna’, and laying aside ‘Peter’ Duke of ‘Rome’ who was become blind: and when Exhileratus Duke of Campania incited the people against the Pope, the ‘Romans’ invaded ‘Campania’, and slew him with his son ‘Hadrian’. Then a new Exarch, ‘Eutychius’, coming to ‘Naples’, sent some secretly to take away the lives of the Pope and the Nobles of ‘Rome’: but the plot being discovered, the ‘Romans’ revolted absolutely from the ‘Greek’ Emperor, and took an oath to preserve the life of the Pope, to defend his state, and be obedient to his authority in all things. Thus ‘Rome’ with its Duchy, including part of ‘Tuscany’ and part of ‘Campania’, revolted in the year 726, and became a free state under the government of the Senate of this city. The authority of the Senate in civil affairs was henceforward absolute, the authority of the Pope extending hitherto no farther than to the affairs of the Church only.
At that time the ‘Lombards’ also being zealous for the worship of images, and pretending to favour the cause of the Pope, invaded the cities of the Exarchate: and at length, ‘viz’. A.C. 752, took ‘Ravenna’, and put an end to the Exarchate. And this was the first (1st) of the three (3) kingdoms which fell before the little horn.
In the year 751 Pope ‘Zechary’ deposed ‘Childeric’, a slothful and useless King of ‘France’, and the last of the race of ‘Merovæus’; and absolving his subjects from their oath of allegiance, gave the kingdom to ‘Pipin’ the major of the Palace; and thereby made a new and potent friend. His successor Pope ‘Stephen’ III, knowing better how to deal with the ‘Greek’ Emperor than with the ‘Lombards’, went the next year to the King of the ‘Lombards’, to persuade him to return the Exarchate to the Emperor. But this not succeeding, he went into ‘France’, and persuaded ‘Pipin’ to take the Exarchate and ‘Pentapolis’ from the ‘Lombards’, and give it to St. ‘Peter’. Accordingly ‘Pipin’ A.C. 754 came with an army into ‘Italy’, and made ‘Aistulphus’ King of the ‘Lombards’ promise the surrender: but the next year ‘Aistulphus’, on the contrary, to revenge himself on the Pope, besieged the city of ‘Rome’. Whereupon the Pope sent letters to ‘Pipin’, wherein he told him that if he came not speedily against the ‘Lombards, pro data sibi potentia, alienandum fore à regno Dei & vita æterna’, he should be excommunicated. ‘Pipin’ therefore, fearing a revolt of his subjects, and being indebted to the Church of ‘Rome’, came speedily with an army into ‘Italy’, raised the siege, besieged the ‘Lombards’ in ‘Pavia’, and forced them to surrender the Exarchate and region of ‘Pentapolis’ to the Pope for a perpetual possession. Thus the Pope became Lord of ‘Ravenna’, and the Exarchate, some few cities excepted; and the keys were sent to ‘Rome’, and laid upon the confession of St. ‘Peter’, that is, upon his tomb at the high Altar, ‘in signum veri perpetuique dominii, sed pietate Regis gratuita, as the inscription of a coin of ‘Pipin’ hath it. This was in the year of Christ 755. And henceforward the Popes being temporal Princes, left off in their Epistles and Bulls to note the years of the ‘Greek’ Emperors, as they had hitherto done.
After this the ‘Lombards’ invading the Pope’s countries, Pope ‘Adrian’ sent to ‘Charles’ the great, the son and successor of ‘Pipin’, to come to his assistance. Accordingly ‘Charles’ entered ‘Italy’ with an army, invaded the ‘Lombards’, overthrew their kingdom, became master of their countries, and restored to the Pope, not only what they had taken from him, but also the rest of the Exarchate which they had promised ‘Pipin’ to surrender to him, but had hitherto detained; and also gave him some cities of the ‘Lombards’, and was in return himself made ‘Patricius’ by the ‘Romans’, and had the authority of confirming the elections of the Popes conferred upon him. These things were done in the years 773 and 774. This kingdom of the ‘Lombards’ was the second (2nd) kingdom which fell before the little horn. But Rome, which was to be the seat of his kingdom, was not yet his own.
In the year 796, ‘Leo’ III being made Pope, notified his election to Charles the great by his Legates, sending to him for a present, the golden keys of the Confession of ‘Peter’, and the Banner of the city of ‘Rome’: the first as an acknowledgment of the Pope’s holding the cities of the Exarchate and ‘Lombardy’ by the grant of ‘Charles’; the other as a signification that ‘Charles’ should come and subdue the Senate and people of ‘Rome’, as he had done the Exarchate and the kingdom of the ‘Lombards’. For the Pope at the same time desired ‘Charles’ to send some of his Princes to ‘Rome’, who might subject the ‘Roman’ people to him, and bind them by oath ‘in fide & subjectione’, in fealty and subjection, as his words are recited by ‘Sigonius’. An anonymous Poet, publish’d by ‘Boeclerus’ at ‘Strasburg’, expresseth it thus:
‘Admonuitque piis precibus, qui mittere vellet
Ex propriis aliquos primoribus, ac sibi plebem
Subdere Romanam, servandaque fœdera cogens
Hanc fidei sacramentis promittere magnis’.
[In Bengal’s Gnomon on the Apocalypse on 13:1, prop. 15, observ. 15, we read: “An anonymous poet, edited by Boecler, at Strasburg, describes it in this manner:—“And he admonished him with pious prayers, that he might be pleased to send some of his own chiefs, and to render the people of Rome subject to him, and compelling them to promise the keeping of their compact of fidelity by great oaths.”]
Hence arose a misunderstanding between the Pope and the city: and the ‘Romans’ about two or three years after, by assistance of some of the Clergy, raised such tumults against him, as gave occasion to a new state of things in all the ‘West’. For two (2) of the Clergy accused him of crimes, and the ‘Romans’ with an armed force, seized him, stript him of his sacerdotal habit, and imprisoned him in a monastery. But by assistance of his friends he made his escape, and fled into ‘Germany’ to ‘Charles’ the great, to whom he complained of the ‘Romans’ for acting against him out of a design to throw off all authority of the Church, and to recover their antient freedom. In his absence his accusers with their forces ravaged the possessions of the Church, and sent the accusations to ‘Charles’; who before the end of the year sent the Pope back to ‘Rome’ with a large retinue. The Nobles and Bishops of ‘France’ who accompanied him, examined the chief of his accusers at ‘Rome’, and sent them into ‘France’ in custody. This was in the year 799. The next year ‘Charles’ himself went to ‘Rome’, and upon a day appointed presided in a Council of ‘Italian’ and ‘French’ Bishops to hear both parties. But when the Pope’s adversaries expected to be heard, the Council declared that he who was the supreme judge of all men, was above being judged by any other than himself: whereupon he made a solemn declaration of his innocence before all the people, and by doing so was looked upon as acquitted.
Soon after, upon ‘Christmas’-day, the people of ‘Rome’, who had hitherto elected their Bishop, and reckoned that they and their Senate inherited the rights of the antient Senate and people of ‘Rome’, voted ‘Charles’ their Emperor, and subjected themselves to him in such manner as the old ‘Roman’ Empire and their Senate were subjected to the old ‘Roman’ Emperors. The Pope crowned him, and anointed him with holy oil, and worshipped him on his knees after the manner of adoring the old ‘Roman’ Emperors; as the aforesaid Poet thus relates:
Post laudes igitur dictas & summus eundem
Præsul adoravit, sicut mos debitus olim
Principibus fuit antiquis.
[Bengal’s Gnom., as above: ‘Therefore after the giving of praises, the chief Pontiff also adored the same, as was formerly the custom due to great princes.’]
The Emperor, on the other hand, took the following oath to the Pope: In nomine Christi spondeo atque polliceor, Ego Carolus Imperator coram Deo & beato Petro Apostolo, me protectorem ac defensorem fore hujus sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ in omnibus utilitatibus, quatenùs divino fultus fuero adjutorio, prout sciero poteroque. The Emperor was also made Consul of Rome, and his son Pipin crowned King of Italy: and henceforward the Emperor stiled himself: Carolus serenissimus, Augustus, à Deo coronatus, magnus, pacificus, Romæ gubernans imperium, or Imperator Romanorum; and was prayed for in the Churches of Rome. His image was henceforward put upon the coins of Rome: while the enemies of the Pope, to the number of three hundred Romans and two or three of the Clergy, were sentenced to death. The three hundred Romans were beheaded in one day in the Lateran fields: but the Clergymen at the intercession of the Pope were pardoned, and banished into France. And thus the title of Roman Emperor, which had hitherto been in the Greek Emperors, was by this act transferred in the West to the Kings of France.
After these things Charles gave the City and Duchy of Rome to the Pope, subordinately to himself as Emperor of the Romans; spent the winter in ordering the affairs of Rome, and those of the Apostolic see, and of all Italy, both civil and ecclesiastical, and in making new laws for them; and returned the next summer into France: leaving the city under its Senate, and both under the Pope and himself. But hearing that his new laws were not observed by the judges in dictating the law, nor by the people in hearing it; and that the great men took servants from free men, and from the Churches and Monasteries, to labour in their vineyards, fields, pastures and houses, and continued to exact cattle and wine of them, and to oppress those that served the Churches: he wrote to his son Pipin to remedy these abuses, to take care of the Church, and see his laws executed.
Now the Senate and people and principality of ‘Rome’ I take to be the third (3rd) King the little horn overcame, and even the chief (1st) of the three (3). For this people elected the Pope and the Emperor; and now, by electing the Emperor and making him Consul, was acknowledged to retain the authority of the old ‘Roman’ Senate and people. This city was the Metropolis of the old ‘Roman’ Empire, represented in ‘Daniel’ by the fourth (4th) Beast; and by subduing the Senate and people and Duchy, it became the Metropolis of the little horn of that Beast, and completed ‘Peter’s’ Patrimony, which was the kingdom of that horn. Besides, this victory was attended with greater consequences than those over the other two (2) Kings. For it set up the ‘Western Empire’, which continues to this day. It set up the Pope above the judicature of the ‘Roman’ Senate, and above that of a Council of ‘Italian’ and ‘French’ Bishops, and even above all human judicature; and gave him the supremacy over the ‘Western’ Churches and their Councils in a high degree. It gave him ‘a look more stout than his fellows’; so that when this new religion began to be established in the minds of men, he grappled not only with Kings, but even with the ‘Western’ Emperor himself. It is observable also, that the custom of kissing the Pope’s feet, an honour superior to that of Kings and Emperors, began about this time. There are some instances of it in the ninth (9th) century: ‘Platina’ tells us, that the feet of Pope ‘Leo’ IV were kissed, according to antient custom, by all who came to him: and some say that ‘Leo’ III began this custom, pretending that his hand was infected by the kiss of a woman. The Popes began also about this time to canonize saints, and to grant indulgences and pardons: and some represent that ‘Leo’ III was the first author of all these things. It is further observable, that ‘Charles’ the great, between the years 775 and 796, conquered all ‘Germany’ from the ‘Rhine’ and ‘Danube’ northward to the ‘Baltic’ sea, and eastward to the river ‘Teis’; extending his conquests also into ‘Spain’ as far as the river ‘Ebro’: and by these conquests he laid the foundation of the new Empire; and at the same time propagated the ‘Roman’ Catholic religion into all his conquests, obliging the ‘Saxons’ and ‘Hunns’ who were heathens, to receive the ‘Roman’ faith, and distributing his northern conquests into Bishopricks, granting tithes to the Clergy and ‘Peter-pence’ to the Pope: by all which the Church of ‘Rome’ was highly enlarged, enriched, exalted, and established.
In the forementioned ‘dissertation upon some coins of Charles the great, Ludovicus Pius, Lotharius, and their successors, stamped at Rome, there is a draught of a piece of Mosaic work which Pope Leo’ III caused to be made in his Palace near the Church of ‘John Lateran’, in memory of his sending the standard or banner of the city of ‘Rome’ curiously wrought, to ‘Charles’ the great; and which still remained there at the publishing of the said book. In the ‘Mosaic’ work there appeared ‘Peter’ with three (3) keys in his lap, reaching the ‘Pallium’ to the Pope with his right hand, and the banner of the city to ‘Charles’ the great with his left. By the Pope was this inscription, SCISSIMUS D.N. LEO PP; by the King this, D.N. CARVLO REGI; and under the feet of Peter this, BEATE PETRE, DONA VITAM LEONI PP, ET BICTORIAM CARVLO REGI DONA. This Monument gives the title of King to ‘Charles’, and therefore was erected before he was Emperor. It was erected when ‘Peter’ was reaching the ‘Pallium’ to the Pope, and the Pope was sending the banner of the city to ‘Charles’, that is, A.C. 796. The words above, ‘Sanctissimus Dominus noster Leo Papa Domino nostro Carolo Regi’, relate to the message; and the words below, ‘Beate Petre, dona vitam Leoni Papæ & victoriam Carolo regi dona’, are a prayer that in this undertaking God would preserve the life of the Pope, and give victory to the King over the ‘Romans’. The three (3) keys in the lap of ‘Peter’ signify the keys of the three (3) parts of his Patrimony, that of ‘Rome’ with its Duchy, which the Pope claimed and was conquering, those of ‘Ravenna’ with the Exarchate, and of the territories taken from the ‘Lombards’; both which he had newly conquered. These were the three (3) dominions, whose keys were in the lap of St. ‘Peter’, and whose Crowns are now worn by the ‘Pope’, and by the conquest of which he became the little horn of the fourth Beast. By ‘Peter’s’ giving the ‘Pallium’ to the Pope with his right hand, and the banner of the city to the King with his left, and by naming the Pope before the King in the inscription, may be understood that the Pope was then reckoned superior in dignity to the Kings of the earth.
After the death of ‘Charles’ the great, his son and successor ‘Ludovicus Pius’, at the request of the Pope, confirmed the donations of his grandfather and father to the see of ‘Rome’. And in the confirmation he names first ‘Rome’ with its Duchy extending into ‘Tuscany’ and ‘Campania’; then the Exarchate of ‘Ravenna’, with ‘Pentapolis’; and in the third (3rd) place, the territories taken from the ‘Lombards’. These are his three (3) conquests, and he was to hold them of the Emperor for the use of the Church ‘sub integritate’, entirely, without the Emperor’s medling therewith, or with the jurisdiction or power of the Pope therein, unless called thereto in certain cases. This ratification the Emperor ‘Ludovicus’ made under an oath: and as the King of the ‘Ostrogoths’, for acknowledging that he held his kingdom of ‘Italy’ of the ‘Greek’ Emperor, stamped the effigies of the Emperor on one side of his coins and his own on the reverse; so the Pope made the like acknowledgment to the ‘Western’ Emperor. For the Pope began now to coin money, and the coins of ‘Rome’ are henceforward found with the heads of the Emperors, ‘Charles, Ludovicus Pius, Lotharius’, and their successors, on the one side, and the Pope’s inscription on the reverse, for many years. (Notes to Chap. VII: Chap. 7:8. Ver. 20,21. Ver. 24. Ver. 25. Sigonius de Regno Italiæ, ad Ann. 726. Sigonius ib. ad Ann. 726, 752. Sigon. ib. Ann. 750. Sigon. ib. Ann. 753, 754, 755. Sigon. ib. Ann. 773. Sigon. de Regno Ital. ad Ann. 796. Vide Anastasium. Sigon. de Regno Ital. Confirmationem recitat Sigonius, lib. 4. de Regno Italiæ, ad An. 817.)
VIII: Power of Eleventh (11th) horn of ‘Daniel’s’ Fourth (4th) Beast, to Change Times & Laws.
{{ “In the reign of the ‘Greek’ Emperor ‘Justinian’, and again in the reign of ‘Phocas’, the Bishop of ‘Rome’ obtained some dominion over the ‘Greek’ Churches, but of no long continuance. His standing dominion was only over the nations of the ‘Western Empire’, represented by ‘Daniel’s’ fourth (4th) Beast. And this jurisdiction was set up by the following Edict of the Emperors ‘Gratian’ and ‘Valentinian’. ‘—Volumus ut quicunque judicio Damasi, quod ille cum Concilio quinque vel septem habuerit Episcoporum, vel eorum qui Catholici sunt judicio vel Concilio condemnatus fuerit, si juste voluerit Ecclesiam retentare, ut qui ad sacerdotale judicium per contumeliam non ivisset: ut ab illustribus viris Præfectis Prætorio Galliæ atque Italiæ, authoritate adhibitâ, ad Episcopale judicium remittatur, sive à Consularibus vel Vicariis, ut ad Urbem Romam sub prosecutione perveniat. Aut si in longinquioribus partibus alicujus ferocitas talis emerserit, omnis ejus causæ edictio ad Metropolitæ in eadem Provincia Episcopi deduceretur examen. Vel si ipse Metropolitanus est, Romam necessariò, vel ad eos quos Romanus Episcopus judices dederit, sine delatione contendat.——Quod si vel Metropolitani Episcopi vel cujuscunque sacerdotis iniquitas est suspecta, aut gratia; ad Romanum Episcopum, vel ad Concilium quindecim finitimorum Episcoporum accersitum liceat provocare; modo ne post examen habitum, quod definitum fuerit, integretur’. This Edict wanting the name of both ‘Valens’ and ‘Theodosius’ in the Title, was made in the time between their reigns, that is, in the end of the year 378, or the beginning of 379. It was directed to the ‘Præfecti Prætorio Italiæ & Galliæ’, and therefore was general. For the ‘Præfectus Prætorio Italiæ’ governed ‘Italy, Illyricum occidentale’ and ‘Africa’; and the ‘Præfectus Prætorio Galliæ’ governed ‘Gallia, Spain’, and ‘Britain’.
The granting of this jurisdiction to the Pope gave several Bishops occasion to write to him for his resolutions upon doubtful cases, whereupon he answered by decretal Epistles; and hence forward he gave laws to the ‘Western’ Churches by such Epistles. ‘Himerius’ Bishop of ‘Tarraco’, the head city of a province in ‘Spain’, writing to Pope ‘Damasus’ for his direction about certain Ecclesiastical matters, and the Letter not arriving at ‘Rome’ till after the death of ‘Damasus’, A.C. 384; his successor ‘Siricius’ answered the same with a legislative authority, telling him of one (1) thing: ‘Cum hoc fieri—missa ad Provincias à venerandæ memoriæ prædecessore meo Liberio generalia decreta, prohibeant’. Of another: ‘Noverint se ab omni ecclesiastico honore, quo indignè usi sunt, Apostolicæ Sedis auctoritate, dejectos’. Of another: ‘Scituri posthac omnium Provinciarum summi Antistites, quod si ultrò ad sacros ordines quenquam de talibus esse assumendum, & de suo & de aliorum statu, quos contra Canones & interdicta nostra provexerint, congruam ab Apostolica Sede promendam esse sententiam’. And the Epistle he concludes thus: ‘Explicuimus, ut arbitror, frater charissime, universa quæ digesta sunt in querelam; & ad singulas causas, de quibus ad Romanam Ecclesiam, utpote ad caput tui corporis, retulisti; sufficientia, quantum opinor, responsa reddidimus. Nunc fraternitatis tuæ animum ad servandos canones, & tenenda decretalia constituta, magis ac magis incitamus: ad hæc quæ ad tua consulta rescripsimus in omnium Coepiscoporum perferri facias notionem; & non solum corum, qui in tua sunt diœcesi constituti, sed etiam ad universos Carthaginenses ac Bœticos, Lusitanos atque Gallicos, vel eos qui vicinis tibi collimitant hinc inde Provinciis, hæc quæ a nobis sunt salubri ordinatione disposita, sub literarum tuarum prosecutione mittantur. Et quanquam statuta sedis Apostolicæ vel Canonum venerabilia definita, nulli Sacerdotum Domini ignorare sit liberum: utilius tamen, atque pro antiquitate sacerdotii tui, dilectioni tuæ esse admodùm poterit gloriosum, si ea quæ ad te speciali nomine generaliter scripta sunt, per unanimitatis tuæ sollicitudinem in universorum fratrum nostrorum notitiam perferantur; quatenus & quæ à nobis non inconsultè sed providè sub nimia cautela & deliberatione sunt salubriter constituta, intemerata permaneant, & omnibus in posterum excusationibus aditus, qui jam nulli apud nos patere poterit, obstruatur. Dat. 3 Id. Febr. Arcadio & Bautone viris clarissimis Consulibus’, A.C. 385. Pope ‘Liberius’ in the reign of ‘Jovian’ or ‘Valentinian’ I sent general Decrees to the Provinces, ordering that the ‘Arians’ should not be rebaptized: and this he did in favour of the Council of ‘Alexandria’, that nothing more should be required of them than to renounce their opinions. Pope ‘Damasus’ is said to have decreed in a ‘Roman’ Council, that ‘Tithes’ and ‘Tenths’ should be paid upon pain of an ‘Anathema’; and that ‘Glory be to the Father’, &c. should be said or sung at the end of the ‘Psalms’. But the first decretal Epistle now extant is this of ‘Siricius’ to ‘Himerius’; by which the Pope made ‘Himerius’ his Vicar over all ‘Spain’ for promulging his Decrees, and seeing them observed. The Bishop of ‘Sevill’ was also the Pope’s Vicar sometimes; for ‘Simplicius’ wrote thus to ‘Zeno’ Bishop of that place: ‘Talibus idcirco gloriantes indiciis, congruum duximus vicariâ Sedis nostræ te auctoritate fulciri: cujus vigore munitus, Apostolicæ institutionis Decreta, vel sanctorum terminos Patrum, nullatenus transcendi permittas’. And Pope ‘Hormisda’ made the Bishop of ‘Sevill’ his Vicar over ‘Bœtica’ and ‘Lusitania’, and the Bishop of ‘Tarraco’ his Vicar over all the rest of ‘Spain’, as appears by his Epistles to them.
Pope ‘Innocent’ the first, in his decretal Epistle to ‘Victricius’ Bishop of ‘Rouen’ in ‘France’, A.C. 404, in pursuance of the Edict of ‘Gratian’, made this Decree: ‘Si quæ autem causæ vel contentiones inter Clericos tam superioris ordinis quam etiam inferioris fuerint exortæ; ut secundum Synodum Nicenam congregatis ejusdem Provinciæ Episcopis jurgium terminetur: nec alicui liceat, Romanæ Ecclesiæ, cujus in omnibus causis debet reverentia custodiri, relictis his sacerdotibus, qui in eadem Provincia Dei Ecclesiam nutu Divino gubernant, ad alias convolare Provincias. Quod siquis fortè præsumpserit; & ab officio Clericatûs summotus, & injuriarum reus judicetur. Si autem majores causæ in medium fuerint devolutæ, ad Sedem Apostolicam sicut Synodus statuit, & beata consuetudo exigit, post judicium Episcopale referantur’. By these Letters it seems to me that ‘Gallia’ was now subject to the Pope, and had been so for some time, and that the Bishop of ‘Rouen’ was then his Vicar or one (1) of them: for the Pope directs him to refer the greater causes to the See of ‘Rome’, according to custom. But the Bishop of ‘Arles’ soon after became the Pope’s Vicar over all ‘Gallia’: for Pope ‘Zosimus’, A.C. 417, ordaining that none should have access to him without the credentials of his Vicars, conferred upon ‘Patroclus’ the Bishop of ‘Arles’ this authority over all ‘Gallia’, by the following Decree.
‘Zosimus universis Episcopis per Gallias & septem Provincias constitutis. Placuit Apostolicæ Sedi, ut siquis ex qualibet Galliarum parte sub quolibet ecclesiastico gradu ad nos Romæ venire contendit, vel aliò terrarum ire disponit, non aliter proficiscatur nisi Metropolitani Episcopi Formatas acceperit, quibus sacerdotium suum vel locum ecclesiasticum quem habet, scriptorum ejus adstipulatione perdoceat: quod ex gratia statuimus quia plures episcopi sive presbyteri sive ecclesiastici simulantes, quia nullum documentum Formatarum extat per quod valeant confutari, in nomen venerationis irrepunt, & indebitam reverentiam promerentur. Quisquis igitur, fratres charissimi, prætermissà supradicti Formatâ sive episcopus, sive presbyter, sive diaconus, aut deinceps inferiori gradu sit, ad nos venerit: sciat se omnino suscipi non posse. Quam auctoritatem ubique nos misisse manifestum est, ut cunctis regionibus innotescat id quod statuimus omnimodis esse servandum. Siquis autem hæc salubriter constituta temerare tentaverit sponte suâ, se a nostra noverit communione discretum. Hoc autem privilegium Formatarum sancto Patroclo fratri & coepiscopo nostro, meritorum ejus speciali contemplatione, concessimus’. And that the Bishop of ‘Arles’ was sometimes the Pope’s Vicar over all ‘France’, is affirmed also by all the Bishops of the Diocess of ‘Arles’ in their Letter to Pope ‘Leo’ I. ‘Cui id etiam honoris dignitatisque collatum est, say they, ut non tantum has Provincias potestate propriâ gubernaret; verum etiam omnes Gallias sibi Apostolicæ Sedis vice mandatas, sub omni ecclesiastica regula contineret’. And Pope ‘Pelagius’ I. A.C. 556, in his Epistle to ‘Sapaudus’ Bishop of ‘Arles’: ‘Majorum nostrorum, operante Dei misericordiâ, cupientes inhærere vestigiis & eorum actus divino examine in omnibus imitari: Charitati tuæ per universam Galliam, sanctæ Sedis Apostolicæ, cui divinâ gratiâ præsidemus, vices injungimus’.
By the influence of the same imperial Edict, not only Spain and ‘Gallia’, but also ‘Illyricum’ became subject to the Pope. ‘Damasus’ made ‘Ascholius’, or ‘Acholius’, Bishop of ‘Thessalonica’ the Metropolis of ‘Oriental Illyricum’, his Vicar for hearing of causes; and in the year 382, ‘Acholius’ being summoned by Pope ‘Damasus’, came to a Council at ‘Rome’. Pope ‘Siricius’ the successor of ‘Damasus’, decreed that no Bishop should be ordained in ‘Illyricum’ without the consent of ‘Anysius’ the successor of ‘Acholius’. And the following Popes gave ‘Rufus’ the successor of ‘Anysius’, a power of calling Provincial Councils: for in the Collections of ‘Holstenius’ there is an account of a Council of ‘Rome’ convened under Pope ‘Boniface’ II in which were produced Letters of ‘Damasus, Syricius, Innocent’ I, ‘Boniface’ I, and ‘Cælestine’ Bishops of ‘Rome’, to ‘Ascholius, Anysius’ and ‘Rufus’, Bishops of ‘Thessalonica’: in which Letters they commend to them the hearing of causes in ‘Illyricum’, granted by the Lord and the holy Canons to the Apostolic See thro’out that Province. And Pope ‘Siricius’ saith in his Epistle to ‘Anysius’: ‘Etiam dudum, frater charissime, per Candidianum Episcopum, qui nos præcessit ad Dominum, hujusmodi literas dederamus, ut nulla licentia esset, sine consensu tuo in Illyrico Episcopos ordinare præsumere, quæ utrum ad te pervenerint scire non potui. Multa enim gesta sunt per contentionem ab Episcopis in ordinationibus faciendis, quod tua melius caritas novit’. And a little after: ‘Ad omnem enim hujusmodi audaciam comprimendam vigilare debet instantia tua, Spiritu in te Sancto fervente: ut vel ipse, si potes, vel quos judicaveris Episcopos idoneos, cum literis dirigas, dato consensu qui possit, in ejus locum qui defunctus vel depositus fuerit, Catholicum Episcopum vitâ & moribus probatum, secundum Nicænæ Synodi statuta vel Ecclesiæ Romanæ, Clericum de Clero meritum ordinare’. And Pope ‘Innocent’ I saith in his Epistle to ‘Anysius’: ‘Cui [Anysio] etiam anteriores tanti ac tales viri prædecessores mei Episcopi, id est, sanctæ memoriæ Damasus, Siricius, atque supra memoratus vir ita detulerunt; ut omnia quæ in omnibus illis partibus gererentur, Sanctitati tuæ, quæ plena justitiæ est, traderent cognoscenda’. And in his Epistle to ‘Rufus’ the successor of ‘Anysius: Ita longis intervallis disterminatis à me ecclesiis discat consulendum; ut prudentiæ gravitatique tuæ committendam curam causasque, siquæ exoriantur, per Achaiæ, Thessaliæ, Epiri veteris, Epiri novæ, & Cretæ, Daciæ mediterraneæ, Daciæ ripensis, Mœsiæ, Dardaniæ, & Prævali ecclesias, Christo Domino annuente, censeam. Verè enim ejus sacratissimis monitis lectissimæ sinceritatis tuæ providentiæ & virtuti hanc injungimus sollicitudinem: non primitùs hæc statuentes, sed Præcessores nostros Apostolicos imitati, qui beatissimis Acholio & Anysio injungi pro meritis ista voluerunt’. And Boniface I in his decretal Epistle to ‘Rufus’ and the rest of the Bishops in ‘Illyricum: Nullus, ut frequenter dixi, alicujus ordinationem citra ejus [Episcopi Thessalonicensis] conscientiam celebrare præsumat: cui, ut supra dictum est, vice nostrâ cuncta committimus’. And Pope ‘Cælestine’, in his decretal Epistle to the Bishops thro’out ‘Illyricum’, saith: ‘Vicem nostram per vestram Provinciam noveritis [Rufo] esse commissam, ita ut ad eum, fratres carissimi, quicquid de causis agitur, referatur. Sine ejus consilio nullus ordinetur. Nullus usurpet, eodem inconscio, commissam illi Provinciam; colligere nisi cum ejus voluntate Episcopus non præsumat’. And in the cause of ‘Perigenes’, in the title of his Epistle, he thus enumerates the Provinces under this Bishop: ‘Rufo & cæteris Episcopis per Macedoniam, Achaiam, Thessaliam, Epirum veterem, Epirum novam, Prævalin, & Daciam constitutis’. And Pope ‘Xistus’ in a decretal Epistle to the same Bishops: ‘Illyricanæ omnes Ecclesiæ, ut à decessoribus nostris recepimus, & nos quoque fecimus, ad curam nunc pertinent Thessalonicensis Antistitis, ut suâ sollicitudine, siquæ inter fratres nascantur, ut assolent, actiones distinguat atque definiat; & ad eum, quicquid à singulis sacerdotibus agitur, referatur. Sit Concilium, quotiens causæ fuerint, quotiens ille pro necessitatum emergentium ratione decreverit. And Pope ‘Leo’ I in his decretal Epistle to ‘Anastasius’ Bishop of ‘Thessalonica: Singulis autem Metropolitanis sicut potestas ista committitur, ut in suis Provinciis jus habeant ordinandi; ita eos Metropolitanos à te volumus ordinari; maturo tamen & decocto judicio’.
‘Occidental Illyricum’ comprehended ‘Pannonia prima’ and ‘secunda, Savia, Dalmatia, Noricum mediterraneum’, and ‘Noricum ripense’; and its Metropolis was ‘Sirmium’, till ‘Attila’ destroyed this city. Afterwards ‘Laureacum’ became the Metropolis of ‘Noricum’ and both ‘Pannonias’, and ‘Salona’ the Metropolis of ‘Dalmatia’. Now the Bishops of ‘Laureacum’ and ‘Salona’ received the Pallium’ from the Pope: and ‘Zosimus’, in his decretal Epistle to ‘Hesychius’ Bishop of ‘Salona’, directed him to denounce the Apostolic decrees as well to the Bishops of his own, as to those of the neighbouring Provinces. The subjection of these Provinces to the See of ‘Rome’ seems to have begun in ‘Anemius’, who was ordained Bishop of ‘Sirmium’ by ‘Ambrose’ Bishop of ‘Millain’, and who in the Council of ‘Aquileia’ under Pope ‘Damasus’, A.C. 381, declared his sentence in these words: ‘Caput Illyrici non nisi civitas Sirmiensis: Ego igitur illius civitatis Episcopus sum. Eum qui non confitetur filium Dei æternum, & coeternum patri, qui est sempiternus, anathema dico’. The next year ‘Anemius’ and ‘Ambrose’, with ‘Valerian’ Bishop of ‘Aquileia, Acholias’ Bishop of ‘Thessalonica’, and many others, went to the Council of ‘Rome’, which met for overruling the ‘Greek’ Church by majority of votes, and exalting the authority of the Apostolic See, as was attempted before in the Council of ‘Sardica’.
‘Aquileia’ was the second (2nd) city of the ‘Western Empire’, and by some called the second (2nd) ‘Rome’. It was the Metropolis of ‘Istria, Forum Julium’, and ‘Venetia’; and its subjection to the See of ‘Rome’ is manifest by the decretal Epistle of ‘Leo’ I directed to ‘Nicetas’ Bishop of this city; for the Pope begins his Epistle thus: ‘Regressus ad nos filius meus Adeodatus Diaconus Sedis nostræ, dilectionem tuam poposcisse memorat, ut de his à nobis authoritatem Apostolicæ Sedis acciperes, quæ quidem magnam difficultatem dijudicationis videntur afferre’. Then he sets down an answer to the questions proposed by ‘Nicetas’, and concludes thus: ‘Hanc autem Epistolam nostram, quam ad consultationem tuæ fraternitatis emisimus, ad omnes fratres & comprovinciales tuos Episcopos facies pervenire, ut in omnium observantia, data profit authoritas’. ‘Data 1-2 Kal. Apr. Majorano Aug. Cos’. A.C. 458. ‘Gregory’ the great A.C. 591, cited ‘Severus’ Bishop of ‘Aquileia’ to appear before him in judgment in a Council at ‘Rome’.
The Bishops of ‘Aquileia’ and ‘Millain’ created one another, and therefore were of equal authority, and alike subject to the See of ‘Rome’. Pope ‘Pelagius’ about the year 557, testified this in the following words: ‘Mos antiquus fuit’, saith he, ‘ut quia pro longinquitate vel difficultate itineris, ab Apostolico illis onerosum fuerit ordinari, ipsi se invicem Mediolanensis & Aquileiensis ordinare Episcopos debuissent’. These words imply that the ordination of these two (2) Bishops belonged to the See of ‘Rome’. When ‘Laurentius’ Bishop of ‘Millain’ had excommunicated ‘Magnus’, one of his Presbyters, and was dead, ‘Gregory’ the great absolved ‘Magnus’, and sent the ‘Pallium’ to the new elected Bishop ‘Constantius’; whom the next year he reprehended of partiality in judging ‘Fortunatus’, and commanded him to send ‘Fortunatus’ to ‘Rome’ to be judged there: four (4) years after he appointed the Bishops of ‘Millain’ and ‘Ravenna’ to hear the cause of one (1) ‘Maximus’; and two (2) years after, ‘viz’. A.C. 601, when ‘Constantius’ was dead, and the people of ‘Millain’ had elected ‘Deusdedit’ his successor, and the ‘Lombard’s had elected another, ‘Gregory’ wrote to the Notary, Clergy, and People of ‘Millain’, that by the authority of his Letters ‘Deusdedit should be ordained, and that he whom the ‘Lombards’ had ordained was an unworthy successor of ‘Ambrose’: whence I gather, that the Church of ‘Millain’ had continued in this state of subordination to the See of ‘Rome’ ever since the days of ‘Ambrose’; for ‘Ambrose’ himself acknowledged the authority of that See. ‘Ecclesia Romana’, saith he, ‘hanc consuetudinem non habet, cujus typum in omnibus sequimur, & formam’. And a little after: ‘In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam’. And in his Commentary upon 1st ‘Tim’. 3 ‘Cum totus mundus Dei sit, tamen domus ejus Ecclesia dicitur, cujus hodie rector est Damasus’. In his Oration on the death of his brother ‘Satyrus’, he relates how his brother coming to a certain city of ‘Sardinia, advocavit Episcopum loci, percontatusque est ex eo utrum cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret?’ And in conjunction with the Synod of ‘Aquileia’ A.C. 381, in a synodical Epistle to the Emperor ‘Gratian’, he saith: ‘Totius orbis Romani caput Romanam Ecclesiam, atque illam sacrosanctam Apostolorum fidem, ne turbari sineret, obsecranda fuit clementia vestra; inde enim in omnes venerandæ communionis jura dimanant’. The Churches therefore of ‘Aquileia’ and ‘Millain’ were subject to the See of ‘Rome’ from the days of the Emperor ‘Gratian’. ‘Auxentius’ the predecessor of ‘Ambrose’ was not subject to the see of ‘Rome’, and consequently the subjection of the Church of ‘Millain’ began in ‘Ambrose’. This Diocese of ‘Millain’ contained ‘Liguria’ with ‘Insubria’, the ‘Alpes Cottiæ’ and ‘Rhætia’; and was divided from the Diocese of ‘Aquileia’ by the river ‘Addua’. In the year 844, the Bishop of ‘Millain’ broke off from the See of ‘Rome’, and continued in this separation about 200 years, as is thus related by ‘Sigonius: Eodem anno Angilbertus Mediolanensis Archiepiscopus ab Ecclesia Romana parum comperta de causa descivit, tantumque exemplo in posterum valuit, ut non nisi post ducentos annos Ecclesia Mediolanensis ad Romanæ obedientiam auctoritatemque redierit’.
The Bishop of ‘Ravenna’, the Metropolis of ‘Flaminia’ and ‘Æmilia’, was also subject to the Pope: for ‘Zosimus’, A.C. 417, excommunicated some of the Presbyters of that Church, and wrote a commonitory Epistle about them to the Clergy of that Church as a branch of the ‘Roman’ Church: ‘In sua’, saith he, ‘hoc est, in Ecclesia nostra Romana’. When those of ‘Ravenna’, having elected a new Bishop, gave notice thereof to Pope ‘Sixtus’, the Pope set him aside, and ordained ‘Peter Chrysologus’ in his room. ‘Chrysologus’ in his Epistle to ‘Eutyches’, extant in the Acts of the Council of ‘Chalcedon’, wrote thus: ‘Nos pro studio pacis & fidei, extra consensum Romanæ civitatis Episcopi, causas fidei audire non possumus’. Pope ‘Leo’ I being consulted by ‘Leo’ Bishop of ‘Ravenna’ about some questions, answered him by a decretal Epistle A.C. 451. And Pope ‘Gregory’ the great, reprehending ‘John’ Bishop of ‘Ravenna’ about the use of the ‘Pallium’, tells him of a Precept of one of his Predecessors, Pope ‘John’, commanding that all the Privileges formerly granted to the Bishop and Church of ‘Ravenna’ should be kept: to this ‘John’ returned a submissive answer; and after his death Pope ‘Gregory’ ordered a visitation of the Church of ‘Ravenna’, confirmed the privileges heretofore granted them, and sent his ‘Pallium’, as of antient custom, to their new Bishop ‘Marinian’. Yet this Church revolted sometimes from the Church of ‘Rome’, but returned again to its obedience.
The rest of ‘Italy’, with the Islands adjacent, containing the ‘suburbicarian’ regions, or ten Provinces under the temporal Vicar of ‘Rome, viz. 1Campania, 2Tuscia and Umbria, 3Picenum suburbicarium, 4Sicily, 5Apulia and Calabria, 6Brutii and Lucania, 7Samnium, 8Sardinia, 9Corsica, and 10Valeria’, constituted the proper Province of the Bishop of ‘Rome’. For the Council of ‘Nice’ in their fifth (5th) Canon ordained that Councils should be held every spring and autumn in every Province; and according to this Canon, the Bishops of this Province met at ‘Rome’ every half year. In this sense Pope ‘Leo’ I. applied this Canon to ‘Rome’, in a decretal Epistle to the Bishops of ‘Sicily’, written ‘Alippio & Ardabure Coss’. A.C. 447. ‘Quia saluberrime’, saith he, ‘à sanctis patribus constitutum est, binos in annis singulis Episcoporum debere esse conventus, terni semper ex vobis ad diem tertium Kalendarum Octobrium Romam æterno concilio sociandi occurrant. Et indissimulanter à vobis hæc consuetudo servetur, quoniam adjuvante Dei gratiâ, faciliùs poterit provideri, ut in Ecclesiis Christi nulla scandala, nulli nascantur errores; cum coram Apostolo Petro semper in communione tractatum fuerit, ut omnia Canonum Decreta apud omnes Domini sacerdotes inviolata permaneant’. The Province of ‘Rome’ therefore comprehended ‘Sicily’, with so much of ‘Italy’ and the neighbouring Islands as sent Bishops to the annual Councils of ‘Rome’; but extended not into the Provinces of ‘Ravenna, Aquileia, Millain, Arles’, &c. those Provinces having Councils of their own. The Bishops in every Province of the ‘Roman’ Empire were convened in Council by the Metropolitan or Bishop of the head city of the Province, and this Bishop presided in that Council: but the Bishop of ‘Rome’ did not only preside in his own Council of the Bishops of the ‘suburbicarian’ regions, but also gave Orders to the Metropolitans of all the other Provinces in the ‘Western Empire’, as their universal governor; as may be further perceived by the following instances.
Pope ‘Zosimus’ A.C. 417, cited ‘Proculus’ Bishop of ‘Marseilles’ to appear before a Council at ‘Rome’ for illegitimate Ordinations; and condemned him, as he mentions in several of his Epistles. Pope ‘Boniface’ I A.C. 419, upon a complaint of the Clergy of ‘Valentia’ against ‘Maximus’ a Bishop, summoned the Bishops of all ‘Gallia’ and the seven Provinces to convene in a Council against him; and saith in his Epistle, that his Predecessors had done the like. Pope ‘Leo’ I called a general Council of all the Provinces of ‘Spain’ to meet in ‘Gallæcia’ against the ‘Manichees’ and ‘Priscillianists’, as he says in his decretal Epistle to ‘Turribius a Spanish’ Bishop. And in one of his decretal Epistles to ‘Nicetas’ Bishop of ‘Aquileia’, he commands him to call a Council of the Bishops of that Province against the ‘Pelagians’, which might ratify all the Synodal Decrees which had been already ratified by the See of ‘Rome’ against this heresy. And in his decretal Epistle to ‘Anastasius’ Bishop of ‘Thessalonica’, he ordained that Bishop should hold two Provincial Councils every year, and refer the harder causes to the See of ‘Rome’: and if upon any extraordinary occasion it should be necessary to call a Council, he should not be troublesome to the Bishops under him, but content himself with two Bishops out of every Province, and not detain them above fifteen (15) days. In the same Epistle he describes the form of Church-Government then set up, to consist in a subordination of all the Churches to the See of ‘Rome: De qua forma’, saith he, ‘Episcoporum quoque est orta distinctio, & magna dispositione provisum est ne omnes sibi omnia vindicarent, sed essent in singulis Provinciis singuli quorum inter fratres haberetur prima sententia, & rursus quidam in majoribus urbibus constituti sollicitudinem sumerent ampliorem, per quos ad unam Petri Sedem universalis Ecclesiæ cura conflueret, & nihil usque à suo capite dissideret. Qui ergo scit se quibusdam esse præpositum, non moleste ferat aliquem sibi esse præpositum; sed obedientiam quam exigit etiam ipse dependat; et sicut non vult gravis oneris sarcinam ferre, ita non audeat aliis importabile pondus imponere’. These words sufficiently shew the monarchical form of government then set up in the Churches of the ‘Western Empire’ under the Bishop of ‘Rome’, by means of the imperial Decree of ‘Gratian’, and the appeals and decretal Epistles grounded thereupon.
The same Pope ‘Leo’, having in a Council at ‘Rome’ passed sentence upon ‘Hilary’ Bishop of ‘Arles’, for what he had done by a Provincial Council in ‘Gallia’, took occasion from thence to procure the following Edict from the ‘Western’ Emperor ‘Valentinian’ III for the more absolute establishing the authority of his See over all the Churches of the ‘Western Empire’.
‘Impp. Theodosius & Valentinianus AA. Aetio Viro illustri, Comiti & Magistro utriusque militiæ & Patricio’.
‘Certum est & nobis & imperio nostro unicum esse præsidium in supernæ Divinitatis favore, ad quem promerendum præcipue Christiana fides & veneranda nobis religio suffragatur. Cum igitur Sedis Apostolicæ Primatum sancti Petri meritum, qui princeps est Episcopalis coronæ & Romanæ dignitas civitatis, sacræ etiam Synodi firmavit auctoritas: ne quid præter auctoritatem Sedis istius illicitum præsumptio attemperare nitatur: tunc enim demum Ecclesiarum pax ubique servabitur, si Rectorem suum agnoscat Universitas. Hæc cum hactenus inviolabiliter suerint custodita, Hilarius Arelatensis, sicut venerabilis viri Leonis Romani Papæ fideli relatione comperimus, contumaci ausu illicita quædam præsumenda tentavit, & ideo Transalpinas Ecclesias abominabilis tumultus invasit, quod recens maximè testatur exemplum. Hilarius enim qui Episcopus Arelatensis vocatur, Ecclesiæ Romanæ urbis inconsulto Pontifice indebitas sibi ordinationes Episcoporum solâ temeritate usurpans invasit. Nam alios incompetenter removit; indecenter alios, invitis & repugnantibus civibus, ordinavit. Qui quidem, quoniam non facile ab his qui non elegerant, recipiebantur, manum sibi contrahebat armatam, & claustra murorum in hostilem morem vel obsidione cingebat, vel aggressione reserabat, & ad sedem quietis pacem prædicaturus per bella ducebat: His talibus contra Imperii majestatem, & contra reverentiam Apostolicæ Sedis admissis, per ordinem religiosi viri Urbis Papæ cognitione discussis, certa in eum, ex his quos malè ordinaverat, lata sententia est. Erat quidem ipsa sententia per Gallias etiam sine Imperiali Sanctione valitura: quid enim Pontificis auctoritate non liceret? Sed nostram quoque præceptionem hæc ratio provocavit. Nec ulterius vel Hilario, quem adhuc Episcopum nuncupare sola mansueta Præsulis permittit humanitas, nec cuiquam alteri ecclesiasticis rebus arma miscere, aut præceptis Romani Antistitis liceat obviare: ausibus enim talibus fides & reverentia nostri violatur Imperii. Nec hoc solum, quod est maximi criminis, submovemus: verum ne levis saltem inter Ecclesias turba nascatur, vel in aliquo minui religionis disciplina videatur, hoc perenni sanctione discernimus; nequid tam Episcopis Gallicanis quam aliarum Provinciarum contra consuetudinem veterem liceat, sine viri venerabilis Papæ Urbis æternæ auctoritate, tentare. Sed illis omnibusque pro lege sit, quicquid sanxit vel sanxerit Apostolicæ Sedis auctoritas: ita ut quisquis Episcoporum ad judicium Romani Antistitis evocatus venire neglexerit, per Moderatorem ejusdem Provinciæ adesse cogatur, per omnia servatis quæ Divi parentes nostri Romanæ Ecclesiæ detulerunt, Aetî pater carissime Augusti. Unde illustris & præclara magnificentia tua præsentis Edictalis Legis auctoritate faciet quæ sunt superius statuta servari, decem librarum auri multa protinus exigenda ab unoquoque Judice qui passus fuerit præcepta nostra violari. Divinitas te servet per multos annos, parens carissime’. ‘Dat. viii. Id. Jun. Romæ, Valentiniano A. vi. Consule’, A.C. 445. By this Edict the Emperor ‘Valentinian’ enjoined an absolute obedience to the will of the Bishop of ‘Rome’ thro’out all the Churches of his Empire; and declares, that for the Bishops to attempt any thing without the Pope’s authority is contrary to antient custom, and that the Bishops summoned to appear before his judicature must be carried thither by the Governor of the Province; and he ascribes these privileges of the See of ‘Rome’ to the concessions of his dead Ancestors, that is, to the Edict of ‘Gratian’ and ‘Valentinian’ II as above: by which reckoning this dominion of the Church of ‘Rome’ was now of 66 years standing: and if in all this time it had not been sufficiently established, this new Edict was enough to settle it beyond all question thro’out the ‘Western Empire’.
Hence all the Bishops of the Province of ‘Arles’ in their Letter to Pope ‘Leo’, A.C. 450, petitioning for a restitution of the privileges of their Metropolitan, say: ‘Per beatum Petrum Apostolorum principem, sacrosancta Ecclesia Romana tenebat supra omnes totius mundi Ecclesias principatum’. And ‘Ceratius, Salonius’ and ‘Veranus’, three Bishops of ‘Gallia’, say, in their Epistle to the same Pope: ‘Magna præterea & ineffabili quadam nos peculiares tui gratulatione succrescimus, quod illa specialis doctrinæ vestræ pagina ita per omnium Ecclesiarum conventicula celebratur, ut vere consona omnium sententia declaretur; merito illic principatum Sedis Apostolicæ constitutum, unde adhuc Apostolici spiritus oracula reserentur. And Leo himself, in his Epistle to the metropolitan Bishops thro’out Illyricum: Quia per omnes Ecclesias cura nostra distenditur, exigente hoc à nobis Domino, qui Apostolicæ dignitatis beatissimo Apostolo Petro primatum, fidei sui remuneratione commisit, universalem Ecclesiam in fundamenti ipsius soliditate constituens.
While this Ecclesiastical Dominion was rising up, the northern barbarous nations invaded the ‘Western Empire’, and founded several kingdoms therein, of different religions from the Church of ‘Rome’. But these kingdoms by degrees embraced the ‘Roman’ faith, and at the same time submitted to the Pope’s authority. The ‘Franks’ in ‘Gaul’ submitted in the end of the fifth (5th) Century, the ‘Goths’ in ‘Spain’ in the end of the sixth (6th); and the ‘Lombards’ in ‘Italy’ were conquered by ‘Charles’ the great A.C. 774. Between the years 775 and 794, the same ‘Charles’ extended the Pope’s authority over all ‘Germany’ and ‘Hungary’ as far as the river ‘Theysse’ and the ‘Baltic’ sea; he then set him above all human judicature, and at the same time assisted him in subduing the City and Duchy of ‘Rome’. By the conversion of the ten kingdoms to the ‘Roman’ religion, the Pope only enlarged his spiritual dominion, but did not yet rise up as a horn of the Beast. It was his temporal dominion which made him one of the horns: and this dominion he acquired in the latter half of the eighth century, by subduing three of the former horns as above. And now being arrived at a temporal dominion, and a power above all human judicature, he reigned ‘with a look more stout than his fellows’, and ‘times and laws were’ henceforward ‘given into his hands, for a time times and half a time’, or three (3) times and an half (1/2); that is, for 1260 solar years, reckoning a time for a Calendar year of 360 days, and a day for a solar year. After which ‘the judgment is to sit, and they shall take away his dominion’, not at once, but by degrees, ‘to consume, and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall’, by degrees, ‘be given unto the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him’. (Notes to Chap. VIII. ‘See the Annals of’ Baronius, Anno 381. Sect. 6. Populos Galliciæ. Hormisd. Epist. 24. 26. ‘The words’, sine auctoritate, ‘seem wanting’. Vide Caroli a S. Paulo Geographiamsacram, p. 72, 73. Greg. M. lib. 1. Indic. 9. Epist. 16. Apud Gratianum de Mediolanensi & Aquileiensi Episcopis. Greg. M. lib. 3. Epist. 26. & lib. 4. Epist. 1. Greg. lib. 5. Epist. 4. Greg. lib. 9. Epist. 10 & 67. Greg. lib. 11. Epist. 3, 4. Ambros l. 3. de sacramentis, c. 1. Sigonius de Regno Italiæ, lib. 5. ‘See’ Baronius, Anno 433. Sect. 24. Greg. M. lib. 3. Epist. 56, 57. & lib. 5. Epist. 25, 26, 56. Epist. 25. apud Holstenium. Dan. 7:20. Ver. 25. Ver. 26. Ver. 27.)” }}
IX: Kingdoms Represented in ‘Daniel’ by Ram & He-Goat.
{{ “The second (2nd) and third (3rd) Empires, represented by the Bear and Leopard, are again represented by the Ram and He-Goat; but with this difference, that the Ram represents the kingdoms of the ‘Medes’ and ‘Persians’ from the beginning of the four (4) Empires, and the Goat represents the kingdom of the ‘Greeks’ to the end of them. By this means, under the type of the Ram and He-Goat, the times of all the four (4) Empires are again described: ‘I lifted up mine eyes’, saith ‘Daniel, and saw, and behold there stood before the river [Ulai] a Ram which had two (2) horns, and the two (2) horns were high, but one (1) was higher than the other (1), and the higher came up last’. —’And the Ram having two (2) horns, are the kings of Media and Persia’: not two (2) persons but two (2) kingdoms, the kingdoms of ‘Media’ and ‘Persia’; and the kingdom of ‘Persia’ was the higher horn and came up last. The kingdom of ‘Persia’ rose up, when ‘Cyrus’ having newly conquered ‘Babylon’, revolted from ‘Darius’ King of the ‘Medes’, and beat him at ‘Pasargadæ’, and set up the ‘Persians’ above the ‘Medes’. This was the horn which came up last. And the horn which came up first (1st) was the kingdom of the ‘Medes’, from the time that ‘Cyaxares’ and ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ overthrew ‘Nineveh’, and shared the Empire of the ‘Assyrians’ between them. The Empires of ‘Media’ and ‘Babylon’ were contemporary, and rose up together by the fall of the ‘Assyrian’ Empire; and the Prophecy of the four (4) Beasts begins with one (1) of them, and that of the Ram and He-Goat with the other. As the Ram represents the kingdom of ‘Media’ and ‘Persia’ from the beginning of the four Empires; so the He-Goat represents the Empire of the ‘Greeks’ to the end of those Monarchies. In the reign of his great horn, and of the four (4) horns which succeeded it, he represents this Empire during the reign of the Leopard: and in the reign of his little horn, which stood up in the latter time of the kingdom of the four (4), and after their fall became mighty but not by his own power, he represents it during the reign of the fourth (4th) Beast.
‘The rough Goat’, saith ‘Daniel, is the King of Grecia’, that is, the kingdom; ‘and the great horn between his eyes is the first King’: not the first Monarch, but the first kingdom, that which lasted during the reign of ‘Alexander’ the great, and his brother ‘Aridæus’ and two young sons, ‘Alexander’ and ‘Hercules’. ‘Now that [horn] being broken off, whereas four (4) [horns] stood up for it, four (4) kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation [of the Greeks], but not in his [the first horn’s] power’. The four (4) horns are therefore four (4) kingdoms; and by consequence, the first (1st) great horn which they succeeded is the first (1st) great kingdom of the ‘Greeks’, that which was founded by ‘Alexander’ the great, ‘An. Nabonass’. 414, and lasted till the death of his son ‘Hercules, An. Nabonass’. 441. And the four (4) are those of ‘Cassander, Lysimachus, Antigonus’, and ‘Ptolemy’, as above.
‘And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a King [or new kingdom] of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up: and his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power’. This King was the last horn of the Goat, the little horn which came up out of one (1) of the four (4) horns, and waxed exceeding great. The latter time of their kingdom was when the ‘Romans’ began to conquer them, that is, when they conquered ‘Perseus’ King of ‘Macedonia’, the fundamental kingdom of the ‘Greeks’. And at that time the transgressors came to the full: for then the High-priesthood was exposed to sale, the Vessels of the Temple were sold to pay for the purchase; and the High-priest, with some of the ‘Jews’, procured a licence from ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’ to do after the ordinances of the heathen, and set up a school at ‘Jerusalem’ for teaching those ordinances. Then ‘Antiochus’ took ‘Jerusalem’ with an armed force, slew 4000 ‘Jews’, took as many prisoners and sold them, spoiled the Temple, interdicted the worship, commanded the Law of ‘Moses’ to be burnt, and set up the worship of the heathen Gods in all ‘Judea’. In the very same year, ‘An. Nabonass’. 580, the ‘Romans’ conquered ‘Macedonia’, the chief of the four (4) horns. Hitherto the Goat was mighty by its own power, but henceforward began to be under the ‘Romans’. ‘Daniel’ distinguishes the times, by describing very particularly the actions of the Kings of the north and south, those two (2) of the four (4) horns which bordered upon ‘Judea’, until the ‘Romans’ conquered ‘Macedonia’; and thenceforward only touching upon the main revolutions which happened within the compass of the nations represented by the Goat. In this latter period of time the little horn was to stand up and grow mighty, but not by his own power.
The three first of ‘Daniel’s’ Beasts had their dominions taken away, each of them at the rise of the next Beast; but their lives were prolonged, and they are all of them still alive. The third (3rd) Beast, or Leopard, reigned in his four (4) heads, till the rise of the fourth (4th) Beast, or Empire of the ‘Latins’; and his life was prolonged under their power. This Leopard reigning in his four (4) heads, signifies the same thing with the He-Goat reigning in his four (4) horns: and therefore the He-Goat reigned in his four (4) horns till the rise of ‘Daniel’s’ fourth (4th) Beast, or Empire of the ‘Latins’: then its dominion was taken away by the ‘Latins’, but its life was prolonged under their power. The ‘Latins’ are not comprehended among the nations represented by the He-Goat in this Prophecy: their power over the ‘Greeks’ is only named in it, to distinguish the times in which the He-Goat was mighty by his own power, from the times in which he was mighty but not by his own power. He was mighty by his own power till his dominion was taken away by the ‘Latins’; after that, his life was prolonged under their dominion, and this prolonging of his life was in the days of his last horn: for in the days of this horn the Goat became mighty, but not by his own power.
Now because this horn was a horn of the Goat, we are to look for it among the nations which composed the body of the Goat. Among those nations he was to rise up and grow mighty: he grew mighty ‘towards the south, and towards the east, and towards the pleasant land’; and therefore he was to rise up in the north-west parts of those nations, and extend his dominion towards ‘Egypt, Syria’ and ‘Judea’. In the latter time of the kingdom of the four (4) horns, it was to rise up out of one (1) of them and subdue the rest, but not by its own power. It was to be assisted by a foreign power, a power superior to itself, the power which took away the dominion of the third (3rd) Beast, the power of the fourth (4th) Beast. And such a little horn was the kingdom of ‘Macedonia’, from the time that it became subject to the ‘Romans’. This kingdom, by the victory of the ‘Romans’ over ‘Persius’ King of ‘Macedonia, Anno Nabonass’. 580, ceased to be one (1) of the four (4) horns of the Goat, and became a dominion of a new sort: not a (1) horn of the fourth (4th) Beast, for ‘Macedonia’ belonged to the body of the third (3rd); but a (1) horn of the third (3rd) Beast of a new sort, a horn of the Goat which grew mighty but not by his own power, a horn which rose up and grew potent under a foreign power, the power of the ‘Romans’.
The ‘Romans’, by the legacy of ‘Attalus’ the last King of ‘Pergamus, An. Nabonass’. 615, inherited that kingdom, including all ‘Asia Minor’ on this side mount ‘Taurus. An. Nabonass’. 684 and 685 they conquered ‘Armenia, Syria’ and ‘Judea; An. Nabonass’. 718, they subdued ‘Egypt’. And by these conquests the little horn ‘waxed exceeding great towards the south, and towards the east, and towards the pleasant land. And it waxed great even to the host of heaven; and cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them’, that is, upon the people and great men of the ‘Jews’. ‘Yea, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the Host, the Messiah’, the Prince of the ‘Jews’, whom he put to death, ‘An. Nabonass’. 780. ‘And by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down, viz’. in the wars which the armies of the ‘Eastern’ nations under the conduct of the ‘Romans’ made against ‘Judea’, when ‘Nero’ and ‘Vespasian’ were Emperors, ‘An. Nabonass’. 816, 817, 818. ‘And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground, and it practised and prospered’. This transgression is in the next words called ‘the transgression of desolation’; and in ‘Dan’. 11:31 ‘the abomination which maketh desolate’; and in Matth. 24:15 ‘the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place’. It may relate chiefly to the worship of ‘Jupiter Olympius’ in his Temple built by the Emperor ‘Hadrian’, in the place of the Temple of the ‘Jews’, and to the revolt of the ‘Jews’ under ‘Barchochab’ occasioned thereby, and to the desolation of ‘Judea’ which followed thereupon; all the ‘Jews’, being thence forward banished ‘Judea’ upon pain of death. ‘Then I heard’, saith ‘Daniel, one (1) saint speaking, and another (1) saint said unto that certain (1) saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred (2300) days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed’. ‘Daniel’s’ days are years; and these years may perhaps be reckoned either from the destruction of the Temple by the ‘Romans’ in the reign of ‘Vespasian’, or from the pollution of the Sanctuary by the worship of ‘Jupiter Olympius’, or from the desolation of ‘Judea’ made in the end of the ‘Jewish’ war by the banishment of all the ‘Jews’ out of their own country, or from some other period which time will discover. Henceforward the last horn of the Goat continued mighty under the ‘Romans’, till the reign of ‘Constantine’ the great and his sons: and then by the division of the ‘Roman’ Empire between the ‘Greek’ and ‘Latin’ Emperors, it separated from the ‘Latins’, and became the ‘Greek’ Empire alone, but yet under the dominion of a ‘Roman’ family; and at present it is mighty under the dominion of the ‘Turks’.
This last horn is by some taken for ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’, but not very judiciously. A horn of a Beast is never taken for a single (1) person: it always signifies a new kingdom, and the kingdom of ‘Antiochus’ was an old one (1). Antiochus reigned over one (1) of the four (4) horns, and the little horn was a fifth (5th) under its proper kings. This horn was at first (1st) a little one (1), and waxed exceeding great, but so did not ‘Antiochus’. It is described great above all the former horns, and so was not ‘Antiochus’. His kingdom on the contrary was weak, and tributary to the ‘Romans’, and he did not enlarge it. The horn was a ‘King of fierce countenance, and destroyed wonderfully, and prospered and practised’; that is, he prospered in his practises against the holy people: but ‘Antiochus’ was frighted out of ‘Egypt’ by a mere message of the ‘Romans’, and afterwards routed and baffled by the ‘Jews’. The horn was mighty by another’s power, ‘Antiochus’ acted by his own. The horn stood up against the Prince of the Host of heaven, the Prince of Princes; and this is the character not of ‘Antiochus’ but of ‘Antichrist’. The horn cast down the Sanctuary to the ground, and so did not ‘Antiochus’; he left it standing. The Sanctuary and Host were trampled under foot 2300 days; and in ‘Daniel’s’ Prophecies days are put for years: but the profanation of the Temple in the reign of ‘Antiochus’ did not last so many natural days. These were to last till the time of the end, till the last end of the indignation against the ‘Jews’; and this indignation is not yet at an end. They were to last till the Sanctuary which had been cast down should be cleansed, and the Sanctuary is not yet cleansed.
This Prophecy of the Ram and He-Goat is repeated in the last Prophecy of ‘Daniel’. There the Angel tells ‘Daniel’, that ‘he stood up to strengthen Darius the Mede, and that there should stand up yet three (3) kings in Persia, [Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius Hystaspis] and the fourth (4th) [Xerxes] should be far richer than they all; and by his wealth thro’ his riches he should stir up all against the realm of Grecia’. This relates to the Ram, whose two (2) horns were the kingdoms of ‘Media’ and ‘Persia’. Then he goes on to describe the horns of the Goat by the ‘standing up of a mighty king, which should rule with great dominion, and do according to his will’; and by the breaking of his kingdom into four (4) smaller kingdoms, and not descending to his own posterity. Then he describes the actions of two (2) of those kingdoms which bordered on ‘Judea, viz. Egypt’ and ‘Syria’, calling them the Kings of the ‘South’ and ‘North’, that is, in respect of ‘Judea’; and he carries on the description till the latter end of the kingdoms of the four (4), and till the reign of ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’, when transgressors were come to the full. In the eighth (8th) year of ‘Antiochus’, the year in which he profaned the Temple and set up the heathen ‘Gods’ in all ‘Judea’, and the ‘Romans’ conquered the kingdom of ‘Macedon’; the prophetic Angel leaves off describing the affairs of the kings of the ‘South’ and ‘North’, and begins to describe those of the ‘Greeks’ under the dominion of the ‘Romans’, in these words: ‘And after him Arms [the Romans] shall stand up, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength’. As (ממלך) (mmlk) signifies ‘after the king’, Dan. 11:8; so here (ממנו) (mmnw) may signify ‘after him’: and so (מן־האחת) (myn-h`achth) may signify ‘after one (1) of them’, Dan. 8:9. Arms are every where in these Prophecies of ‘Daniel’ put for the military power of a kingdom, and they stand up when they conquer and grow powerful. The ‘Romans’ conquered ‘Illyricum, Epirus’ and ‘Macedonia’, in the year of ‘Nabonassar’ 580; and thirty five (35) years after, by the last will and testament of ‘Attalus’ the last King of ‘Pergamus’, they inherited that rich and flourishing kingdom, that is, all ‘Asia’ on this side mount ‘Taurus’: and sixty nine (69) years after, they conquered the kingdom of ‘Syria’, and reduced it into a Province: and thirty four (34) years after they did the like to ‘Egypt’. By all these steps the ‘Roman’ arms stood up over the ‘Greeks’. And after 95 years more, by making war upon the ‘Jews’, ‘they polluted the sanctuary of strength, and took away the daily sacrifice, and’, in its room soon after, ‘placed the abomination which made the Land desolate’: for this abomination was placed after the days of Christ, Matth. 24:15. In the 16th year of the Emperor ‘Hadrian’, A. C. 132, they placed this abomination by building a Temple to ‘Jupiter Capitolinus’, where the Temple of God in ‘Jerusalem’ had stood. Thereupon the ‘Jews’ under the conduct of ‘Barchochab’ rose up in arms against the ‘Romans’, and in that war had 50 cities demolished, 985 of their best towns destroyed, and 580,000 (1/2 million plus) men slain by the sword: and in the end of the war, A.C. 136, they were all banished ‘Judea’ upon pain or death; and that time the land hath remained desolate of its old inhabitants.
Now that the prophetic Angel passes in this manner from the four (4) kingdoms of the ‘Greeks’ to the ‘Romans’ reigning over the ‘Greeks’, is confirmed from hence, that in the next place he describes the affairs of the ‘Christians’ unto the time of the end, in these words: ‘And they that understand among the people shall instruct many, yet they shall fall by the sword and by flame, by captivity and by spoil many days. Now when they shall fall they shall be holpen with a little help’, ‘viz’. in the reign of ‘Constantine’ the great; ‘but many shall cleave to them with dissimulation. And some of them of understanding there shall fall to try them, and to purge them from the dissemblers; and to make them white even to the time of the end’. And a little after, the time of the end is said to be a time, times, and half a time: which is the duration of the reign of the last horn of ‘Daniel’s’ fourth (4th) Beast, and of the ‘Woman’ and her ‘Beast’ in the ‘Apocalypse’. (Notes to Chap. IX. Chap. 8:3. Ver. 22. Ver. 23. Chap. 8:9. Chap. 8:9,10. Ver. 11. Ver. 12. Ver. 13,14. Dan. 11:1,2. Ver. 3. Dan 11:31. Chap. xi. 11:33, &c.)” }}
X: Prophecy of Seventy (70) Weeks.
{{ The Vision of the Image composed of four (4) Metals was given first to ‘Nebuchadnezzar’, and then to ‘Daniel’ in a dream: and ‘Daniel’ began then to be celebrated for revealing of secrets, ‘Ezek’. 28:3. The Vision of the four (4) Beasts, and of ‘the Son of man’ coming in the clouds of heaven, was also given to ‘Daniel’ in a dream. That of the Ram and the He-Goat appeared to him in the day time, when he was by the bank of the river ‘Ulay’; and was explained to him by the prophetic Angel ‘Gabriel’. It concerns the ‘Prince of the host’, and the ‘Prince of Princes’: and now in the first year of ‘Darius’ the ‘Mede’ over ‘Babylon’, the same prophetic Angel appears to ‘Daniel’ again, and explains to him what is meant by the ‘Son of man’, by the ‘Prince of the host’, and the ‘Prince of Princes’. The Prophecy of the ‘Son of man’ coming in the clouds of heaven relates to the second (2nd) coming of ‘Christ’; that of the ‘Prince of the host’ relates to his first (1st) coming: and this Prophecy of the ‘Messiah’, in explaining them, relates to both comings, and assigns the times thereof.
This Prophecy, like all the rest of ‘Daniel’s’, consists of two (2) parts, an introductory Prophecy and an explanation thereof; the whole I thus translate and interpret.
‘Seventy weeks are cut out upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, to expiate iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, to consummate the Vision and the Prophet, and to anoint the most Holy. ‘Know also and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to cause to return and to build Jerusalem, unto the Anointed the Prince, shall be seven weeks. ‘Yet threescore and two weeks shall it return, and the street be built and the wall; but in troublesome times: and after the threescore and two weeks, the Anointed shall be cut off, and it shall not be his; but the people of a Prince to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war, desolations are determined. ‘Yet shall he confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in half a week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease: and upon a wing of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that which is determined be poured upon the desolate.’
‘Seventy weeks are cut out upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression’, &c. Here, by putting a week for seven (7) years, are reckoned 490 years from the time that the dispersed ‘Jews’ should be re-incorporated into a people and a holy city, until the death and resurrection of ‘Christ’; whereby ‘transgression should be finished, and sins ended, iniquity be expiated, and everlasting righteousness brought in, and this Vision be accomplished, and the Prophet consummated’, that Prophet whom the ‘Jews’ expected; and whereby ‘the most Holy’ should be ‘anointed’, he who is therefore in the next words called the ‘Anointed’, that is, the ‘Messiah’, or the ‘Christ’. For by joining the accomplishment of the vision with the expiation of sins, the 490 years are ended with the death of ‘Christ’. Now the dispersed ‘Jews’ became a people and city when they first returned into a polity or body politick; and this was in the seventh (7th) year of ‘Artaxerxes Longimanus’, when ‘Ezra’ returned with a body of ‘Jews’ from captivity, and revived the ‘Jewish’ worship; and by the King’s commission created Magistrates in all the land, to judge and govern the people according to the laws of God and the King, ‘Ezra’ 7:25. There were but two (2) [principal] returns from captivity, ‘Zerubbabel’s’ and ‘Ezra’s’; in ‘Zerubbabel’s’ they had only commission to build the Temple, in ‘Ezra’s’ they first (1st) became a polity or city by a government of their own. Now the years of this ‘Artaxerxes’ began about two (2) or three (3) months after the summer solstice, and his seventh (7th) year fell in with the third (3rd) year of the eightieth (80th) ‘Olympiad’; and the latter part thereof, wherein ‘Ezra’ went up to ‘Jerusalem’, was in the year of the ‘Julian Period’ 4257. Count the time from thence to the death of ‘Christ’, and you will find it just 490 years. If you count in ‘Judaic’ years commencing in autumn, and date the reckoning from the first autumn after ‘Ezra’s’ coming to ‘Jerusalem’, when he put the King’s decree in execution; the death of ‘Christ’ will fall on the year of the ‘Julian Period’ 4747, ‘Anno Domini’ 34; and the weeks will be ‘Judaic’ weeks, ending with sabbatical years; and this I take to be the truth: but if you had rather place the death of ‘Christ’ in the year before, as is commonly done, you may take the year of ‘Ezra’s’ journey into the reckoning.
‘Know also and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to cause to return and to build Jerusalem, unto the Anointed the Prince, shall be seven (7) weeks’. The former part of the Prophecy related to the first (1st) coming of ‘Christ’, being dated to his coming as a Prophet; this being dated to his coming to be Prince or King, seems to relate to his second (2nd) coming. There, the Prophet was consummate, and the most holy anointed: here, he that was anointed comes to be Prince and to reign. For ‘Daniel’s’ Prophecies reach to the end of the world; and there is scarce a Prophecy in the Old Testament concerning ‘Christ’, which doth not in something or other relate to his second coming. If divers of the antients, as ‘Irenæus, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus’ the martyr, and ‘Apollinaris Bishop of ‘Laodicea’, applied the half (1/2) week to the times of ‘Antichrist’; why may not we, by the same liberty of interpretation, apply the seven (7) weeks to the time when ‘Antichrist’ shall be destroyed by the brightness of ‘Christ’s’ coming?
The ‘Israelites’ in the days of the antient Prophets, when the ten (10) Tribes were led into captivity, expected a double return; and that at the first the ‘Jews’ should build a new Temple inferior to ‘Solomon’s’, until the time of that age should be fulfilled; and afterwards they should return from all places of their captivity, and build ‘Jerusalem’ and the Temple gloriously, ‘Tobit’ 14:4,5,6: and to express the glory and excellence of this city, it is figuratively said to be built of precious stones, ‘Tobit’ 13:16,17,18; ‘Isa’. 54:11,12. ‘Rev’. 11 and called the ‘New Jerusalem, the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Holy City, the Lamb’s Wife, the City of the Great King, the City into which the Kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour’. Now while such a return from captivity was the expectation of ‘Israel’, even before the times of ‘Daniel’, I know not why ‘Daniel’ should omit it in his Prophecy. This part of the Prophecy being therefore not yet fulfilled, I shall not attempt a particular interpretation of it, but content myself with observing, that as the ‘seventy’ (70) and the ‘sixty two (62) weeks’ were ‘Jewish’ weeks, ending with sabbatical years; so the ‘seven (7) weeks’ are the compass of a ‘Jubilee’ (49 + 1), and begin and end with actions proper for a ‘Jubilee’, and of the highest nature for which a ‘Jubilee’ can be kept: and that since ‘the commandment to return and to build’ Jerusalem, precedes the ‘Messiah the Prince’ 49 years; it may perhaps come forth not from the ‘Jews’ themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them, and precede their return from captivity, and give occasion to it; and lastly, that this rebuilding of ‘Jerusalem’ and the waste places of ‘Judah’ is predicted in ‘Micah’ vii. 11; ‘Amos’ 9:11, 14; ‘Ezek’. 36:33, 35, 36, 38. ‘Isa’. 54:3, 11, 12; 55:12; 61:4; 65:18, 21,22. and ‘Tobit’ 14:5 and that the return from captivity and coming of the ‘Messiah’ and his kingdom are described in ‘Daniel’ 7; ‘Rev’. 19; ‘Acts’ 1; ‘Mat’. 24; Joel’ 3; ‘Ezek’. 36; 37; ‘Isa’. 60; 62; 63; 65; and 66; and many other places of scripture. The manner I know not. Let time be the Interpreter.
‘Yet threescore and two (62) weeks shall it return, and the street be built and the wall, but in troublesome times: and after the threescore and two (62) weeks the Messiah shall be cut off, and it shall not be his; but the people of a Prince to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary’, &c. Having foretold both comings of ‘Christ’, and dated the last from their returning and building ‘Jerusalem’; to prevent the applying that to the building ‘Jerusalem’ by ‘Nehemiah’, he distinguishes this from that, by saying that from this period to the ‘Anointed’ shall be, not seven (7) weeks, but threescore and two (62) weeks, and this not in prosperous but in troublesome times; and at the end of these Weeks the Messiah shall not be the Prince of the ‘Jews’, but be cut off; and ‘Jerusalem’ not be his, but the city and sanctuary be destroyed. Now ‘Nehemiah’ came to ‘Jerusalem’ in the 20th year of this same ‘Artaxerxes’, while ‘Ezra’ still continued there, ‘Nehem’. 12:36, and found the city lying waste, and the houses and wall unbuilt, ‘Nehem’. 2:17; 7:4; and finished the wall the 25th day of the month ‘Elul, Nehem’. 6:15, in the 28th year of the King, that is, in ‘September’ in the year of the ‘Julian Period’ 4278. Count now from this year threescore and two (62) weeks of years, that is 434 years, and the reckoning will end in ‘September’ in the year of the ‘Julian Period’ 4712 which is the year in which ‘Christ’ was born, according to ‘Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenæus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Orosius, Cassiodorus’, and other antients; and this was the general opinion, till ‘Dionysius Exiguus’ invented the vulgar account, in which ‘Christ’s’ birth is placed two (2) years later. If with some you reckon that ‘Christ’ was born three (3) or four (4) years before the vulgar account, yet his birth will fall in the latter part of the last week, which is enough. How after these weeks ‘Christ’ was cut off and the city and sanctuary destroyed by the ‘Romans’, is well known.
‘Yet shall he confirm the covenant with many for one week’. He kept it, notwithstanding his death, till the rejection of the ‘Jews’, and calling of ‘Cornelius’ and the ‘Gentiles’ in the seventh (7th) year after his passion.
‘And in half a week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease’; that is, by the war of the ‘Romans’ upon the ‘Jews’: which war, after some commotions, began in the 13th year of ‘Nero’, A.D. 67, in the spring, when ‘Vespasian’ with an army invaded them; and ended in the second (2nd) year of ‘Vespasian’, A.D. 70, in autumn, ‘Sept’. 7, when ‘Titus’ took the city, having burnt the Temple 27 days before: so that it lasted three (3) years and an half (1/2).
‘And upon a wing of abominations he shall cause desolation, even until the consummation, and that which is determined be poured upon the desolate’. The Prophets, in representing kingdoms by Beasts and Birds, put their wings stretcht out over any country for their armies sent out to invade and rule over that country. Hence a wing of abominations is an army of false ‘Gods’: for an abomination is often put in scripture for a false ‘God’; as where ‘Chemosh’ is called the abomination of ‘Moab’, and ‘Molech’ the abomination of ‘Ammon’. The meaning therefore is, that the people of a Prince to come shall destroy the sanctuary, and abolish the daily worship of the true God, and overspread the land with an army of false ‘gods’; and by setting up their dominion and worship, cause desolation to the ‘Jews’, until the times of the ‘Gentiles’ be fulfilled. For ‘Christ’ tells us, that the abomination of desolation spoken of by ‘Daniel’ was to be set up in the times of the ‘Roman Empire’, ‘Matth’. 24:15.
Thus have we in this short Prophecy, a prediction of all the main periods relating to the coming of the ‘Messiah’; the time of his birth, that of his death, that of the rejection of the ‘Jews’, the duration of the ‘Jewish’ war whereby he caused the city and sanctuary to be destroyed, and the time of his second coming: and so the interpretation here given is more full and complete and adequate to the design, than if we should restrain it to his first coming only, as Interpreters usually do. We avoid also the doing violence to the language of ‘Daniel’, by taking the ‘seven (7) weeks and sixty two (62) weeks’ for one (1) number. Had that been ‘Daniel’s’ meaning, he would have said ‘sixty and nine weeks’, and not ‘seven (7) weeks and sixty two (62) weeks’, a way of numbring used by no nation. In our way the years are ‘Jewish Luni-solar years’, as they ought to be; and the ‘seventy (70) weeks of years are Jewish weeks’ ending with ‘sabbatical years’, which is very remarkable. For they end either with the year of the birth of ‘Christ’, two (2) years before the vulgar account, or with the year of his death, or with the seventh (7th) year after it: all which are ‘sabbatical years’. Others either count by Lunar years, or by weeks not ‘Judaic’: and, which is worst, they ground their interpretations on erroneous Chronology, excepting the opinion of ‘Funccius’ about the ‘seventy (70) weeks’, which is the same with ours. For they place ‘Ezra’ and ‘Nehemiah’ in the reign of ‘Artaxerxes Mnemon’, and the building of the Temple in the reign of ‘Darius Nothus’, and date the weeks of ‘Daniel’ from those two reigns.
‘The grounds of the Chronology here followed, I will now set down as briefly as I can’.
The ‘Peloponnesian’ war began in spring ‘An’. 1 ‘Olymp’. 87, as ‘Diodorus, Eusebius’, and all other authors agree. It began two (2) months before ‘Pythodorus’ ceased to be ‘Archon, Thucyd’. l. 2. that is, in ‘April’, two (2) months before the end of the ‘Olympic’ year. Now the years of this war are most certainly determined by the 50 years distance of its first year from the transit of ‘Xerxes’ inclusively, ‘Thucyd’. l. 2. or 48 years exclusively, ‘Eratosth. apud Clem. Alex’. by the 69 years distance of its end, or 27th year, from the beginning of ‘Alexander’s’ reign in ‘Greece’; by the acting of the ‘Olympic’ games in its 4th and 12th years, ‘Thucyd’. l. 5; and by three (3) eclipses of the sun, and one of the moon, mentioned by ‘Thucydides’ and ‘Xenophon’. Now ‘Thucydides’, an unquestionable witness, tells us, that the news of the death of ‘Artaxerxes Longimanus’ was brought to ‘Ephesus’, and from thence by some ‘Athenians’ to ‘Athens’, in the 7th year of this ‘Peloponnesian’ war, when the winter half (1/2) year was running; and therefore he died ‘An’. 4 ‘Olymp’. 88, in the end of ‘An. J.P.’ 4289, suppose a (1) month or two (2) before midwinter; for so long the news would be in coming. Now ‘Artaxerxes Longimanus’ reigned 40 years, by the consent of ‘Diodorus, Eusebius, Jerome, Sulpitius’; or 41, according to ‘Ptol. in can. Clem. Alexand. l. 1. Strom. Chron. Alexandr. Abulpharagius, Nicephorus’, including therein the reign of his successors ‘Xerxes’ and ‘Sogdian’, as ‘Abulpharagius’ informs us. After ‘Artaxerxes’ reigned his son ‘Xerxes’ two (2) months, and ‘Sogdian’ seven (7) months; but their reign is not reckoned apart in summing up the years of the Kings, but is included in the 40 or 41 years reign of ‘Artaxerxes’: omit these nine (9) months, and the precise reign of ‘Artaxerxes’ will be thirty nine (39) years and three (3) months. And therefore since his reign ended in the beginning of winter ‘An. J.P.’ 4289, it began between midsummer and autumn, ‘An. J.P.’ 4250.
The same thing I gather also thus. ‘Cambyses’ began his reign in spring ‘An. J.P.’ 4185, and reigned eight (8) years, including the five (5) months of ‘Smerdes’; and then ‘Darius Hystaspis’ began in spring ‘An. J.P.’ 4193, and reigned thirty six (36) years, by the unanimous consent of all Chronologers. The reigns of these two (2) Kings are determined by three (3) eclipses of the moon observed at ‘Babylon’, and recorded by ‘Ptolemy’; so that it cannot be disputed. One was in the seventh (7th) year of ‘Cambyses, An. J.P.’ 4191, ‘Jul.’ 16, at 11 at night; another in the 20th year of ‘Darius, An. J.P.’ 4212, ‘Nov.’ 19, at 11h. 45′ at night; a third (3rd) in the 31st year of ‘Darius, An. J.P’. 4223, ‘Apr.’ 25, at 11h. 30 at night. By these eclipses, and the Prophecies of ‘Haggai’ and ‘Zechary’ compared together, it is manifest that his years began after the 24th day of the 11th ‘Jewish’ month, and before the 25th day of ‘April’, and by consequence about ‘March. Xerxes’ therefore began in spring ‘An. J.P.’ 4229: for ‘Darius’ died in the fifth (5th) year after the battle at ‘Marathon’, as ‘Herodotus, lib.’ 7, and ‘Plutarch’ mention; and that battle was in ‘October An. J.P.’ 4224, ten years before the battle at ‘Salamis. Xerxes’ therefore began within less than a (1) year after ‘October An. J.P.’ 4228, suppose in the spring following: for he spent his first five (5) years, and something more, in preparations for his expedition against the ‘Greeks’; and this expedition was in the time of the ‘Olympic’ games, ‘An’. 1 ‘Olymp’. 75, ‘Calliade Athenis Archonte’, 28 years after the ‘Regifuge’, and Consulship of the first Consul ‘Junius Brutus, Anno Urbis conditæ’ 273, ‘Fabio & Furio Coss’. The passage of ‘Xerxes’s’ army over the ‘Hellespont’ began in the end of the fourth (4th) year of the 74th ‘Olympiad’, that is, in ‘June An. J.P’. 4234, and took up one month: and in autumn, three months after, on the full moon, the 16th day of the month ‘Munychion’, was the battle at ‘Salamis’, and a little after that an eclipse of the sun, which by the calculation fell on ‘Octob’. 2. His sixth (6th) year therefore began a little before ‘June’, suppose in spring ‘An. J.P.’ 4234, and his first year consequently in spring ‘An. J.P.’ 4229, as above. Now he reigned almost twenty one (21) years, by the consent of all writers. Add the 7 months of ‘Artabanus’, and the sum will be 21 years and about four (4) or five (5) months, which end between midsummer and autumn ‘An. J.P’. 4250. At this time therefore began the reign of his successor ‘Artaxerxes’, as was to be proved.
The same thing is also confirmed by ‘Julius Africanus’, who informs us out of former writers, that the 20th year of this ‘Artaxerxes’ was the 115th year from the beginning of the reign of ‘Cyrus’ in ‘Persia’, and fell in with ‘An. 4 Olymp.’ 83. It began therefore with the ‘Olympic’ year, soon after the summer Solstice, ‘An. J.P.’ 4269. Subduct nineteen (19) years, and his first (1st) year will begin at the same time of the year ‘An. J.P.’ 4250, as above.
His 7th year therefore began after midsummer ‘An. J.P.’ 4256; and the Journey of ‘Ezra’ to ‘Jerusalem’ in the spring following fell on the beginning of ‘An. J.P.’ 4257, as above. (Notes to Chap. X. Chap. 9:24,25, 26,27. ‘Cut upon’. A phrase in Hebrew, taken from the practise of numbring by cutting notches. Heb. to seal, i.e. to finish or consummate: a metaphor taken from sealing what is finished. So the Jews compute, ad obsignatum [signed, sealed, determined] Misna, ad obsignatum Talmud, that is, ad absolutum [absolutely, finally, authoritatively]. Heb. the Prophet, not the Prophecy. Heb. the Messiah, that is, in Greek, the Christ; in English, the Anointed. I use the English word, that the relation of this clause to the former may appear. Jerusalem. See Isa. 23:13. Iren. l. 5. Hær. c. 25. Apud Hieron. in h. l. 1st Kings 11:7. The antient solar years of the eastern nations consisted of 12 months, and every month of 30 days: and hence came the division of a circle into 360 degrees. This year seems to be used by Moses in his history of the Flood, and by John in the Apocalypse, where a time, times and half a time, 42 months and 1260 days, are put equipollent. But in reckoning by many of these years together, an account is to be kept of the odd days which were added to the end of these years. For the Egyptians added five (5) days to the end of this year; and so did the Chaldeans long before the times of Daniel, as appears by the Æra, of Nabonassar: and the Persian Magi used the same year of 365 days, till the Empire of the Arabians. The antient Greeks also used the same solar year of 12 equal months, or 360 days; but every other year added an intercalary month, consisting of 10 and 11 days alternately. The year of the Jews, even from their coming out of Egypt, was Luni-solar. It was solar, for the harvest always followed the Passover, and the fruits of the land were always gathered before the feast of Tabernacles, Levit. 23. But the months were lunar, for the people were commanded by Moses in the beginning of every month to blow with trumpets, and offer burnt offerings with their drink offerings, Num. 10:10; 28:11, 14, and this solemnity was kept on the new moons, Psal. 81:3,4,5. 1st Chron. 23:31. These months were called by Moses the first (1st), second (2nd), third (3rd), fourth (4th) month, &c. and the first (1st) month was also called Abib, the second (2nd) Zif, the seventh (7th) Ethanim, the eighth (8th) Bull, Exod. 13:4. 1st Kings 6:37,38; 8:2. But in the Babylonian captivity the Jews used the names of the Chaldean months, and by those names understood the months of their own year; so that the Jewish months then lost their old names, and are now called by those of the Chaldeans. The Jews began their civil year from the autumnal Equinox, and their sacred year from the vernal: and the first (1st) day of the first (1st) month was on the visible new moon, which was nearest the Equinox. Whether Daniel used the Chaldaick or Jewish year, is not very material; the difference being but six (6) hours in a year, and 4 months in 480 years. But I take his months to be Jewish: first (1st), because Daniel was a Jew, and the Jews even by the names of the Chaldean months understood the months of their own year: secondly, because this Prophecy is grounded on Jeremiah’s concerning the 70 years captivity, and therefore must be understood of the same sort of years with the seventy (70); and those are Jewish, since that Prophecy was given in Judea before the captivity: and lastly, because Daniel reckons by weeks of years, which is a way of reckoning peculiar to the Jewish years. For as their days ran by sevens (7s), and the last day of every seven (7) was a sabbath; so their years ran by sevens (7), and the last year of every seven (7) was a sabbatical year, and seven (7) such weeks of years made a Jubilee (49th+1). }}
XI: Times of Birth & Passion of Christ.
{{ The times of the Birth and Passion of ‘Christ’, with such like niceties, being not material to religion, were little regarded by the ‘Christians’ of the first age. They who began first to celebrate them, placed them in the cardinal periods of the year; as the annunciation of the Virgin ‘Mary’, on the 25th of ‘March’, which when ‘Julius Cæsar’ corrected the Calendar was the vernal Equinox; the feast of ‘John’ Baptist on the 24th of ‘June’, which was the summer Solstice; the feast of St. ‘Michael’ on ‘Sept’. 29, which was the autumnal Equinox; and the birth of Christ on the winter Solstice, Decemb. 25, with the feasts of St. Stephen, St. John and the ‘Innocents’, as near it as they could place them. And because the Solstice in time removed from the 25th of ‘December’ to the 24th, the 23d, the 22d, and so on backwards, hence some in the following centuries placed the birth of ‘Christ’ on ‘Decemb’. 23, and at length on ‘Decemb’. 20: and for the same reason they seem to have set the feast of St. ‘Thomas’ on ‘Decemb’. 21, and that of St. ‘Matthew’ on ‘Sept’. 21. So also at the entrance of the Sun into all the signs in the ‘Julian’ Calendar, they placed the days of other Saints; as the conversion of ‘Paul’ on ‘Jan.’ 25, when the Sun entred (Image); St. ‘Matthias’ on ‘Feb’. 25, when he entred (Image); St. ‘Mark’ on ‘Apr’. 25, when he entred (Image); ‘Corpus Christ’i on ‘May’ 26, when he entred (Image); St. James on July 25, when he entred (Image); St. Bartholomew on Aug. 24, when he entred (Image); ‘Simon’ and ‘Jude’ on ‘Octob’. 28, when he entred (Image): and if there were any other remarkable days in the ‘Julian’ Calendar, they placed the Saints upon them, as St. ‘Barnabas’ on ‘June’ 11, where ‘Ovid’ seems to place the feast of ‘Vesta’ and ‘Fortuna’, and the ‘goddess’ ‘Matuta’; and St. ‘Philip’ and ‘James’ on the first of ‘May’, a day dedicated both to the ‘Bona Dea’, or ‘Magna Mater’, and to the ‘goddess’ ‘Flora’, and still celebrated with her rites. All which shews that these days were fixed in the first ‘Christian’ Calendars by Mathematicians at pleasure, without any ground in tradition; and that the ‘Christians’ afterwards took up with what they found in the Calendars.
Neither was there any certain tradition about the years of ‘Christ’. For the ‘Christians’ who first began to enquire into these things, as ‘Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Lactantius, Jerome, St. Austin, Sulpicius Severus, Prosper’, and as many as place the death of ‘Christ’ in the 15th or 16th year of ‘Tiberius’, make Christ to have preached but one year, or at most but two. At length ‘Eusebius’ discovered four successive Passovers in the Gospel of ‘John’, and thereupon set on foot an opinion that he preacht three (3) years and an half (1/2); and so died in the 19th year of ‘Tiberius’. Others afterwards, finding the opinion that he died in the Equinox ‘Mar’. 25, more consonant to the times of the ‘Jewish’ Passover, in the 17th and 20th years, have placed his death in one of those two (2) years. Neither is there any greater certainty in the opinions about the time of his birth. The first ‘Christians’ placed his baptism near the beginning of the 15th year of ‘Tiberius’; and thence reckoning thirty (30) years backwards, placed his birth in the 43rd ‘Julian’ year, the 42nd of ‘Augustus’ and 28th of the ‘Actiac’ victory. This was the opinion which obtained in the first (1st) ages, till ‘Dionysius Exiguus’, placing the baptism of ‘Christ’ in the 16th year of ‘Tiberius’, and misinterpreting the text of ‘Luke’, 3:23 as if ‘Jesus’ was only beginning to be 30 years old when he was baptized, invented the vulgar account, in which his birth is placed two (2) years later than before. As therefore relating to these things there is no tradition worth considering; let us lay aside all and examine what prejudices can be gathered from records of good account.
The fifteenth (15th) year of ‘Tiberius’ began Aug. 28, An. J.P. 4727. So soon as the winter was over, and the weather became warm enough, we may reckon that ‘John’ began to baptize; and that before next winter his fame went abroad, and all the people came to his baptism, and ‘Jesus’ among the rest. Whence the first (1st) Passover after his baptism mentioned ‘John’ 2:13. was in the 16th year of ‘Tiberius’. After this feast ‘Jesus’ came into the land of ‘Judea’, and staid there baptizing, whilst ‘John’ was baptizing in ‘Ænon, John’ 3:22,23. But when he heard that ‘John’ was cast into prison, he departed into ‘Galilee’, ‘Mat’. 3:12. being afraid, because the Pharisees had heard that he baptized more disciples than ‘John’, ‘John’ 4:1. and in his journey he passed thro’ ‘Samaria’ four (4) months before the harvest, ‘John’ 4:35 that is, about the time of the winter Solstice. For their harvest was between ‘Easter’ and ‘Whitsunday’, and began about a month after the vernal Equinox. ‘Say not ye’, saith he, ‘there are yet four (4) months, and then cometh harvest? Behold I say unto you, lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, for they are white already to harvest’; meaning, that the people in the fields were ready for the Gospel, as his next words shew. ‘John’ therefore was imprisoned about ‘November’, in the 17th year of ‘Tiberius’; and ‘Christ’ thereupon went from ‘Judea’ to ‘Cana’ of ‘Galilee’ in ‘December’, and was received there of the ‘Galileans’, who had seen all he did at ‘Jerusalem’ at the Passover: and when a Nobleman of ‘Capernaum’ heard he was returned into ‘Galilee’, and went to him and desired him to come and cure his son, he went not thither yet, but only said, ‘Go thy way, thy son liveth; and the Nobleman returned and found it so, and believed, he and his house’, John 4. This is the beginning of his miracles in ‘Galilee’; and thus far ‘John’ is full and distinct in relating the actions of his first (1st) year, omitted by the other Evangelists. The rest of his history is from this time related more fully by the other Evangelists than by ‘John’; for what they relate he omits.
From this time therefore ‘Jesus’ taught in the Synagogues of ‘Galilee’ on the sabbath-days, being glorified of all: and coming to his own city ‘Nazareth’, and preaching in their Synagogue, they were offended, and thrust him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which the city was built to cast him headlong; but he passing thro’ the midst of them, went his way, and came and dwelt at ‘Capernaum’, ‘Luke’ 4. And by this time we may reckon the second (2nd) Passover was either past or at hand.
All this time ‘Matthew’ passeth over in few words, and here begins to relate the preaching and miracles of ‘Christ’. ‘When Jesus’, saith he, ‘had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt at Capernaum, and from that time began to preach and say, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’, ‘Matth’. 4:12. Afterwards he called his disciples ‘Peter, Andrew, James and John; and then went about all Galilee, teaching in the Synagogues,—and healing all manner of sickness:—and his fame went thro’out all Syria; and they brought unto him all sick people,—and there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan’, ‘Matth’, 4:18, 25. All this was done before the sermon in the mount: and therefore we may certainly reckon that the second (2nd) Passover was past before the preaching of that sermon. The multitudes that followed him from ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘Judea’, shew that he had lately been there at the feast. The sermon in the mount was made when great multitudes came to him from all places, and followed him in the open fields; which is an argument of the summer-season: and in this sermon he pointed at the lilies of the field then in the flower before the eyes of his auditors. ‘Consider’, saith he, ‘the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet Solomon in all his glory was not arayed like one of these. Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is and to morrow is cast into the oven’, &c. ‘Matth’. vi. 6:28. So therefore the grass of the field was now in the flower, and by consequence the month of ‘March’ with the Passover was past.
Let us see therefore how the rest of the feasts follow in order in ‘Matthew’s’ Gospel: for he was an eye-witness of what he relates, and so tells all things in due order of time, which ‘Mark’ and ‘Luke’ do not.
Some time after the sermon in the mount, when the time came that he should be received, that is, when the time of a feast came that he should be received by the ‘Jews’, he set his face to go to ‘Jerusalem’: and as he went with his disciples in the way, when the ‘Samaritans’ in his passage thro’ ‘Samaria’ had denied him lodgings, and a certain Scribe said unto him, ‘Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest, Jesus said unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head’, ‘Matth’. 8:19. ‘Luke’ 9:51, 57. The Scribe told ‘Christ’ he would bear him company in his journey, and ‘Christ’ replied that he wanted a lodging. Now this feast I take to be the feast of Tabernacles, because soon after I find ‘Christ’ and his Apostles on the sea of ‘Tiberias’ in a storm so great, that the ship was covered with water and in danger of sinking, till ‘Christ rebuked the winds and the sea’, ‘Matth’. 8:23. For this storm shews that winter was now come on.
After this ‘Christ’ did many miracles, and ‘went about all the cities and villages of Galilee, teaching in their Synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness, and every disease among the people’, ‘Matth’. 9, he then sent forth the twelve (12) to do the like, ‘Matth’. 10, and at length when he had received a message from ‘John’, and answered it, he said to the multitudes, ‘From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence’; and upbraided the cities, ‘Chorazin, Bethsaida’, and ‘Capernaum’, wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not, ‘Matth’. 11. Which several passages shew, that from the imprisonment of ‘John’ till now there had been a considerable length of time: the winter was now past, and the next Passover was at hand; for immediately after this, ‘Matthew’, in chap. 12 subjoins, that ‘Jesus went on the sabbath-day thro’ the corn, and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat,—rubbing them’, saith ‘Luke’, ‘in their hands’: the corn therefore was not only in the ear, but ripe; and consequently the Passover, in which the first-fruits were always offered before the harvest, was now come or past. ‘Luke’ calls this sabbath (δευτεροπρωτον) (deuteropröton), the second (2nd) prime (1st) sabbath, that is, the second (2nd) of the two (2) great feasts of the Passover. As we call ‘Easter’ day high ‘Easter’, and its ‘octave’ (8th) low ‘Easter’ or ‘Lowsunday’: so ‘Luke’ calls the feast on the seventh (7th) day of the unlevened bread, the second (2nd) of the two (2) prime (1st) sabbaths.
In one (1) of the sabbaths following he went into a Synagogue, and healed a man with a withered hand, ‘Matth’. 12:9, ‘Luke’ 6:6. And when the Pharisees took counsel to destroy him, ‘he withdrew himself from thence, and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them all, and charged them that they should not make him known’, ‘Matth’. 12:14. Afterwards being in a ship, and the multitude standing on the shore, he spake to them three (3) parables together, taken from the seeds-men sowing the fields, ‘Matth’. 13 by which we may know that it was now seed-time, and by consequence that the feast of Tabernacles was past. After this he went ‘into his own country, and taught them in their Synagogue, but did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief’. Then the twelve (12) having been abroad a (1) year, returned, and told ‘Jesus’ all that they had done: and at the same time ‘Herod’ beheaded ‘John’ in prison, and his disciples came and told ‘Jesus’; and when ‘Jesus’ heard it, he took the twelve (12) and departed thence privately by ship into a desert place belonging to ‘Bethsaida’: and the people when they knew it, followed him on foot out of the cities, the winter being now past; and he healed their sick, and in the desert fed them to the number of five thousand (5,000) men, besides women and children, with only five (5) loaves and two (2) fishes, ‘Matth’. 14, ‘Luke’ 9, at the doing of which miracle the Passover of the ‘Jews’ was nigh, ‘John’ 6:4. But ‘Jesus’ went not up to this feast; but ‘after these things walked in Galilee, because the Jews’ at the Passover before had taken counsel to destroy him, and still ‘sought to kill him’, ‘John’ 7:1. Henceforward therefore he is found first in the coast of ‘Tyre’ and ‘Sidon’, then by the sea of ‘Galilee’, afterwards in the coast of ‘Cæsarea Philippi’; and lastly at ‘Capernaum’, ‘Matth’. 15:21, 29; 16:13; 17:34.
Afterwards when the feast of Tabernacles was at hand, his brethren upbraided him for walking secretly, and urged him to go up to the feast. But he went not till they were gone, and then went up privately, ‘John’ 7:2. and when the ‘Jews’ sought to stone him, he escaped, ‘John’ 8:59. After this he was at the feast of the Dedication in winter, ‘John’ 10:22. and when they sought again to take him, he fled beyond ‘Jordan, John’ 10:39,40, ‘Matth’. 19:1, where he stayed till the death of ‘Lazarus’, and then came to ‘Bethany’ near ‘Jerusalem’, and raised him, ‘John’ 11:7,18. whereupon the ‘Jews’ took counsel from that time to kill him: and ‘therefore’ he ‘walked no more openly among the Jews, but went thence into a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there continued with his disciples’ till the last Passover, in which the ‘Jews’ put him to death, ‘John’ 11:53,54.
Thus have we, in the Gospels of ‘Matthew’ and ‘John’ compared together, the history of ‘Christ’s’ actions in continual order during five (5) Passovers. ‘John’ is more distinct in the beginning and end; ‘Matthew’ in the middle: what either omits, the other supplies. The first (1st) Passover was between the baptism of ‘Christ’ and the imprisonment of ‘John, John’ 2:13; the second (2nd) within four (4) months after the imprisonment of ‘John’, and ‘Christ’s’ beginning to preach in ‘Galilee’, ‘John’ 4:35; and therefore it was either that feast to which ‘Jesus’ went up, when the Scribe desired to follow him, ‘Matth’. 8:19, ‘Luke’ 9:51, 57, or the feast before it. The third (3rd) was the next feast after it, when the corn was eared and ripe, ‘Matth’. 12:1, ‘Luke’ 6:1. The fourth (4th) was that which was nigh at hand when ‘Christ’ wrought the miracle of the five (5) loaves, ‘Matth’. 14:15, ‘John’ 6:4,5, and the fifth (5th) was that in which ‘Christ’ suffered, ‘Matth’. 20:17, ‘John’ 12:1.
Between the first (1st) and second (2nd) Passover ‘John’ and ‘Christ’ baptized together, till the imprisonment of ‘John’, which was four months before the second. Then ‘Christ’ began to preach, and call his disciples; and after he had instructed them a year, lent them to preach in the cities of the ‘Jews’: at the same time ‘John’ hearing of the fame of ‘Christ’, sent to him to know who he was. At the third (3rd), the chief Priests began to consult about the death of ‘Christ’. A little before the fourth (4th), the twelve (12) after they had preached a (1) year in all the cities, returned to ‘Christ’; and at the same time ‘Herod’ beheaded ‘John’ in prison, after he had been in prison two (2) years and a quarter (1/4): and thereupon ‘Christ’ fled into the desart for fear of ‘Herod’. The fourth ‘Christ’ went not up to ‘Jerusalem’ for fear of the ‘Jews’, who at the Passover before had consulted his death, and because his time was not yet come. Thenceforward therefore till the feast of Tabernacles he walked in ‘Galilee’, and that secretly for fear of ‘Herod’: and after the feast of Tabernacles he returned no more into ‘Galilee’, but sometimes was at ‘Jerusalem’, and sometimes retired beyond ‘Jordan’, or to the city ‘Ephraim’ by the wilderness, till the Passover in which he was betrayed, apprehended, and crucified.
‘John’ therefore baptized two (2) summers, and ‘Christ’ preached three (3). The first summer ‘John’ preached to make himself known, in order to give testimony to ‘Christ’. Then, after ‘Christ’ came to his baptism and was made known to him, he baptized another summer, to make ‘Christ’ known by his testimony; and ‘Christ’ also baptized the same summer, to make himself the more known: and by reason of ‘John’s’ testimony there came more to ‘Christ’s’ baptism than to ‘John’s’. The winter following ‘John’ was imprisoned; and now his course being at an end, ‘Christ’ entered upon his proper office of preaching in the cities. In the beginning of his preaching he completed the number of the twelve (12) Apostles, and instructed them all the first (1st) year in order to send them abroad. Before the end of this year, his fame by his preaching and miracles was so far spread abroad, that the ‘Jews’ at the Passover following consulted how to kill him. In the second (2nd) year of his preaching, it being no longer safe for him to converse openly in ‘Judea’, he sent the twelve (12) to preach in all their cities: and in the end of the year they returned to him, and told him all they had done. All the last year the twelve (12) continued with him to be instructed more perfectly, in order to their preaching to all nations after his death. And upon the news of ‘John’s’ death, being afraid of ‘Herod’ as well as of the ‘Jews’, he walked this year more secretly than before; frequenting deserts, and spending the last half (1/2) of the year in ‘Judea’, without the dominions of ‘Herod’.
Thus have we in the Gospels of ‘Matthew’ and ‘John’ all things told in due order, from the beginning of ‘John’s’ preaching to the death of ‘Christ’, and the years distinguished from one (1) another by such essential characters that they cannot be mistaken. The second (2nd)Passover is distinguished from the first (1st), by the interposition of ‘John’s’ imprisonment. The third (3rd) is distinguished from the second (2nd), by a double (2nd) character: first, by the interposition of the feast to which ‘Christ’ went up, ‘Mat’. 8:19, ‘Luke’ 9:57, and secondly (2nd), by the distance of time from the beginning of ‘Christ’s’ preaching: for the second (2nd) was in the beginning of his preaching, and the third (3rd) so long after, that before it came ‘Christ’ said, ‘from the days of John the Baptist until now’, &c. and upbraided the cities of Galilee for their not repenting at his preaching, and mighty works done in all that time. The fourth (4th) is distinguished from the third (3rd), by the mission of the twelve (12) from ‘Christ’ to preach in the cities of ‘Judea’ in all the interval. The fifth (5th) is distinguished from all the former by the twelve’s (12) being returned from preaching, and continuing with ‘Christ’ during all the interval, between the fourth (4th) and fifth (5th), and by the passion and other infallible characters.
Now since the first summer of ‘John’s’ baptizing fell in the fifteenth (15th) year of the Emperor ‘Tiberius’, and by consequence the first (1st) of these five (5) Passovers in his sixteenth (16th) year; the last of them, in which ‘Jesus’ suffered, will fall on the twentieth (20th) year of the same Emperor; and by consequence in the Consulship of ‘Fabius’ and ‘Vitellius’, in the 79th ‘Julian’ year, and year of ‘Christ’ 34, which was the sabbatical year of the ‘Jews’. And that it did so, I further confirm by these arguments.
I take it for granted that the passion was on friday the 14th day of the month ‘Nisan’, the great feast of the Passover on saturday the 15th day of ‘Nisan’, and the resurrection on the day following. Now the 14th day of ‘Nisan’ always fell on the full moon next after the vernal Equinox; and the month began at the new moon before, not at the true conjunction, but at the first (1st) appearance of the new moon: for the ‘Jews’ referred all the time of the silent moon, as they phrased it, that is, of the moon’s disappearing, to the old moon; and because the first (1st) appearance might usually be about 18 hours after the true conjunction, they therefore began their month from the sixth (6th) hour at evening, that is, at sun set, next after the eighteenth (18th) hour from the conjunction. And this rule they called (יה = יח ) (yh=ych) Jah (yach=10+8) [Yod-He would not be used, being a Divine Name, thus prohibited to used as a common thing; and yod-he = 10+5=15 which is written as teth-zain = 9+7, substituted in its place], designing by the letters (י) (Yod) and (ה=ח) (He=Cheth) the number 18.
I know that ‘Epiphanius’ tells us, if some interpret his words rightly, that the ‘Jews’ used a vicious cycle, and thereby anticipated the legal new moons by two days. But this surely he spake not as a witness, for he neither understood ‘Astronomy’ nor ‘Rabbinical’ learning, but as arguing from his erroneous hypothesis about the time of the passion. For the ‘Jews’ did not anticipate, but postpone their months: they thought it lawful to begin their months a (1) day later than the first (1st) appearance of the new moon, because the new moon continued for more days than one (1); but not a (1) day sooner, lest they should celebrate the new moon before there was any. And the ‘Jews’ still keep a tradition in their books, that the ‘Sanhedrim’ used diligently to define the new moons by sight: sending witnesses into mountainous places, and examining them about the moon’s appearing, and translating the new moon from the day they had agreed on to the day before, as often as witnesses came from distant regions, who had seen it a day sooner than it was seen at ‘Jerusalem’. Accordingly ‘Josephus’, one of the ‘Jewish’ Priests who ministred in the temple, tells us that the Passover was kept ‘on the 14th day of Nisan, (κατα σεληνην) (kata selënën) according to the moon, when the sun was in Aries’. This is confirmed also by two (2) instances, recorded by him, which totally overthrow the hypothesis of the ‘Jews’ using a vicious cycle. For that year in which ‘Jerusalem’ was taken and destroyed, he saith, the Passover was on the 14th day of the month ‘Xanticus’, which according to ‘Josephus’ is our ‘April’; and that five (5) years before, it fell on the 8th day of the same month. Which two (2) instances agree with the course of the moon.
Computing therefore the new moons of the first (1st) month according to the course of the moon and the rule Jah (=Yach), and thence counting 14 days, I find that the 14th day of this month in the year of ‘Christ’ 31, fell on tuesday ‘March’ 27; in the year 32, on sunday ‘Apr’. 13; in the year 33, on friday ‘Apr’. 3; in the year 34, on wednesday ‘March’ 24, or rather, for avoiding the Equinox which fell on the same day, and for having a fitter time for harvest, on thursday ‘Apr’. 22. also in the year 35, on tuesday ‘Apr’. 12. and in the year 36, on saturday ‘March’ 31.
But because the 15th and 21st days of ‘Nisan’, and a (1) day or two (2) of ‘Pentecost’, and the 10th, 15th, and 22d of ‘Tisri’, were always sabbatical days or days of rest, and it was inconvenient on two (2) sabbaths together to be prohibited burying their dead and making ready fresh meat, for in that hot region their meat would be apt in two (2) days to corrupt: to avoid these and such like inconveniences, the ‘Jews’ postponed their months a (1) day, as often as the first (1st) day of the month ‘Tisri’, or, which is all one (1), the third (3rd) of the month ‘Nisan’, was sunday, wednesday or friday: and this rule they called (אדו) (`adu) Adu, by the letters (ו , ד , א) (aleph-daleth-yod) signifying the numbers 1, 4, 6; that is, the 1st, 4th, and 6th days of the week; which days we call sunday, wednesday and friday. Postponing therefore by this rule the months found above; the 14th day of the month ‘Nisan’ will fall in the year of ‘Christ’ 31, on wednesday ‘March’ 28; in the year 32, on monday ‘Apr’. 14; in the year 33, on friday ‘Apr’. 3; in the year 34, on friday ‘Apr’. 23; in the year 35, on wednesday ‘Apr’. 13, and in the year 36, on saturday ‘March’ 31.
By this computation therefore the year 32 is absolutely excluded, because the Passion cannot fall on friday without making it five days after the full moon, or two days before it; whereas it ought to be upon the day of the full moon, or the next day. For the same reason the years 31 and 35 are excluded, because in them the Passion cannot fall on friday, without making it three (3) days after the full moon, or four (4) days before it: errors so enormous, that they would be very conspicuous in the heavens to every vulgar eye. The year 36 is contended for by few or none, and both this and the year 35 may be thus excluded.
‘Tiberius’ in the beginning of his reign made ‘Valerius Gratus’ President of ‘Judea’; and after 11 years, substituted ‘Pontius Pilate’, who governed 10 years. Then ‘Vitellius’, newly made President of ‘Syria’, deprived him of his honour, substituting ‘Marcellus’, and at length sent him to ‘Rome’: but, by reason of delays, ‘Tiberius’ died before ‘Pilate’ got thither. In the mean time ‘Vitellius’, after he had deposed ‘Pilate’, came to ‘Jerusalem’ in the time of the Passover, to visit that Province as well as others in the beginning of his office; and in the place of ‘Caiaphas’, then High Priest, created ‘Jonathas’ the son of ‘Ananus’, or ‘Annas’ as he is called in scripture. Afterwards, when ‘Vitellius’ was returned to ‘Antioch’, he received letters from ‘Tiberius’, to make peace with ‘Artabanus’ king of the ‘Parthians’. At the same time the ‘Alans’, by the sollicitation of ‘Tiberius’, invaded the kingdom of ‘Artabanus’; and his subjects also, by the procurement of ‘Vitellius’, soon after rebelled: for ‘Tiberius’ thought that ‘Artabanus’, thus pressed with difficulties, would more readily accept the conditions of peace. ‘Artabanus’ therefore straightway gathering a greater army, opprest the rebels; and then meeting ‘Vitellius’ at ‘Euphrates’, made a league with the ‘Romans’. After this ‘Tiberius’ commanded ‘Vitellius’ to make war upon ‘Aretas’ King of ‘Arabia’. He therefore leading his army against ‘Aretas’, went together with ‘Herod’ to ‘Jerusalem’, to sacrifice at the publick feast which was then to be celebrated. Where being received honourably, he stayed three (3) days, and in the mean while translated the high Priesthood from ‘Jonathas’ to his brother ‘Theophilus’: and the fourth (4th) day, receiving letters of the death of ‘Tiberius’, made the people swear allegiance to ‘Caius’ the new Emperor; and recalling his army, sent them into quarters. All this is related by ‘Josephus Antiq. lib’. 18. c. 6, 7. Now ‘Tiberius’ reigned 22 years and 7 months, and died ‘March’ 16, in the beginning of the year of ‘Christ’ 37; and the feast of the Passover fell on ‘April’ 20 following, that is, 35 days after the death of ‘Tiberius’: so that there were about 36 or 38 days, for the news of his death to come from ‘Rome’ to ‘Vitellius’ at ‘Jerusalem’; which being a convenient time for that message, confirms that the feast which ‘Vitellius’ and ‘Herod’ now went up to was the Passover. For had it been the Pentecost, as is usually supposed, ‘Vitellius’ would have continued three (3) months ignorant of the Emperor’s death: which is not to be supposed. However, the things done between this feast and the Passover which ‘Vitellius’ was at before, namely, the stirring up a sedition in ‘Parthia’, the quieting that sedition, the making a league after that with the ‘Parthians’, the sending news of that league to ‘Rome’, the receiving new orders from thence to go against the ‘Arabians’, and the putting those orders in execution; required much more time than the fifty (50) days between the Passover and Pentecost of the same year: and therefore the Passover which ‘Vitellius’ first went up to, was in the year before. Therefore ‘Pilate’ was deposed before the Passover A.C. 36, and by consequence the passion of ‘Christ’ was before that Passover: for he suffered not under ‘Vitellius’, nor under ‘Vitellius’ and ‘Pilate’ together, but under ‘Pilate’ alone.
Now it is observable that the high Priesthood was at this time become an annual office, and the Passover was the time of making a new high Priest. For ‘Gratus’ the predecessor of ‘Pilate’, saith ‘Josephus’, made ‘Ismael’ high Priest after ‘Ananus’; and a while after, suppose a (1) year, deposed him, and substituted ‘Eleazar’, and a (1) year after ‘Simon’, and after another year Caiaphas; and then gave way to Pilate. So Vitellius at one Passover made ‘Jonathas’ successor to ‘Caiaphas’, and at the next ‘Theophilus’ to ‘Jonathas’. Hence ‘Luke’ tells us, that in the 15th year of ‘Tiberius, Annas’ and ‘Caiaphas’ were high Priests, that is, ‘Annas’ till the Passover, and ‘Caiaphas’ afterwards. Accordingly ‘John’ speaks of the high Priesthood as an annual office: for he tells us again and again, in the last year of ‘Christ’s’ preaching, that ‘Caiaphas’ was high Priest for that year, ‘John’ 11:49, 51; 18:13. And the next year ‘Luke’ tells you, that ‘Annas’ was high Priest, ‘Acts’ 4:6. ‘Theophilus’ was therefore made high Priest in the first year of ‘Caius, Jonathas’ in the 22d year of ‘Tiberius’, and ‘Caiaphas’ in the 21st year of the same Emperor: and therefore, allotting a year to each, the Passion, when ‘Annas’ succeeded ‘Caiaphas’, could not be later than the 20th year of ‘Tiberius’, A.C. 34.
Thus there remain only the years 33 and 34 to be considered; and the year 33 I exclude by this argument. In the Passover two (2) years before the Passion, when ‘Christ’ went thro’ the corn, and his disciples pluckt the ears, and rubbed them with their hands to eat; this ripeness of the corn shews that the Passover then fell late: and so did the Passover A.C. 32, ‘April’ 14, but the Passover A.C. 31, ‘March’ 28th, fell very early. It was not therefore two (2) years after the year 31, but two years after 32 that ‘Christ’ suffered.
Thus all the characters of the Passion agree to the year 34; and that is the only year to which they all agree.
(Notes to Chap. XI. I observe, that ‘Christ’ and his forerunner ‘John’ in their parabolical discourses were wont to allude to things present. The old Prophets, when they would describe things emphatically, did not only draw parables from things which offered themselves, as from the rent of a garment, 1st ‘Sam’. 15, from the sabbatic year, ‘Isa’. 37, from the vessels of a (1) Potter, ‘Jer’. 18, &c. but also when such fit objects were wanting, they supplied them by their own actions, as by rending a (1) garment, 1st ‘Kings’ 11, by shooting, 2nd ‘Kings’ 13, by making bare their body, ‘Isa’. 20, by imposing significant names to their sons, ‘Isa’. 8, ‘Hos’. 1, by hiding a (1) girdle in the bank of ‘Euphrates’, ‘Jer’. 13, by breaking a (1) potter’s vessel, ‘Jer’. 19, by putting on fetters and yokes, ‘Jer’. 27, by binding a (1) book to a (1) stone, and casting them both into ‘Euphrates’, ‘Jer’. 51, by besieging a (1) painted city, ‘Ezek’. 4, by dividing hair into three (3) parts, ‘Ezek’. 5, by making a (1) chain, ‘Ezek’. 7, by carrying out houshold stuff like a (1) captive and trembling, ‘Ezek’. 12, &c. ‘By such kind of types the Prophets loved to speak. And ‘Christ’ being endued with a nobler prophetic spirit than the rest, excelled also in this kind of speaking, yet so as not to speak by his own actions, that was less grave and decent, but to turn into parables such things as offered themselves’. On occasion of the harvest approaching, he admonishes his disciples once and again of the spiritual harvest, ‘John’ 4:35, ‘Matth’. 9:37, Seeing the lilies of the field, he admonishes his disciples about gay clothing, ‘Matth’. 6:28. In allusion to the present season of fruits, he admonishes his disciples about knowing men by their fruits, ‘Matth’. 7:16. In the time of the Passover, when trees put forth leaves, he bids his disciples ‘learn a (1) parable from the fig tree: when its branch is yet tender and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh’, &c. ‘Matth’. xxiv. 24:32, ‘Luke’ 21:29. The same day, alluding both to the season of the year and to his passion, which was to be two (2) days after, he formed a (1) parable of the time of fruits approaching, and the murdering of the heir, ‘Matth’. 21:33. Alluding at the same time, both to the money-changers whom he had newly driven out of the Temple, and to his passion at hand; he made a parable of a (1) Noble-man going into a (1) far country to receive (1) a kingdom and return, and delivering his goods to his servants, and at his return condemning the slothful servant because he put not his money to the exchangers, ‘Matth’. 25:14, ‘Luke’ 19: 12. Being near the Temple where sheep were kept in folds to be sold for the sacrifices, he spake many things parabolically of sheep, of the shepherd, and of the door of the sheepfold; and discovers that he alluded to the sheepfolds which were to be hired in the market-place, by speaking of such folds as a (1) thief could not enter by the door, nor the shepherd himself open, but a (1) porter opened to the shepherd, ‘John’ 10:1, 3. Being in the mount of ‘Olives’, ‘Matth’. 26:30, ‘John’ 14:31, a (1) place so fertile that it could not want vines, he spake many things mystically of the Husbandman, and of the vine and its branches, ‘John’ 15. Meeting a blind man, he admonished of spiritual blindness, ‘John’ 9:39. At the sight of little children, he described once (1st) and again the innocence of the elect, ‘Matth’. xviii. 18:2; 19:13. Knowing that ‘Lazarus’ was dead and should be raised again, he discoursed of the resurrection and life eternal, ‘John’ 11:25,26. Hearing of the slaughter of some whom ‘Pilate’ had slain, he admonished of eternal death, ‘Luke’ 13:1. To his fishermen he spake of fishers of men, ‘Matth’. 4:10, and composed another parable about fishes, ‘Matth’. 13:47. Being by the Temple, he spake of the Temple of his body, ‘John’ 2:19. At supper he spake a (1) parable about the mystical supper to come in the kingdom of heaven, ‘Luke’ 14. On occasion of temporal food, he admonished his disciples of spiritual food, and of eating his flesh and drinking his blood mystically, ‘John’ 6:27, 53. When his disciples wanted bread, he bad them beware of the leven of the Pharisees, ‘Matth’. 16:6. Being desired to eat, he answered that he had other meat, ‘John’ 6:31. In the great day of the feast of Tabernacles, when the ‘Jews’, as their custom was, brought a (1) great quantity of waters from the river ‘Shiloah’ into the Temple, ‘Christ’ stood and cried, saying, ‘If any (1) man thirst let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth in me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water’, ‘John’ 8:37. The next day, in allusion to the servants who by reason of the sabbatical year were newly set free, he said, ‘If ye continue in my word, the truth shall make you free’. Which the ‘Jews’ understanding literally with respect to the present manumission of servants, answered, ‘We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any (1) man: how sayeth thou, ye shall be made free’? ‘John’ 8. They assert their freedom by a (1) double argument: first (1st), because they were the seed of ‘Abraham’, and therefore newly made free, had they been ever in bondage; and then, because they never were in bondage. In the last Passover, when ‘Herod’ led his army thro’ ‘Judea’ against ‘Aretas’ King of ‘Arabia’, because ‘Aretas’ was aggressor and the stronger in military forces, as appeared by the event; ‘Christ’ alluding to that state of things, composed the parable of a weaker King leading his army against a stronger who made war upon him, ‘Luke’ 14:31. And I doubt not but divers other parables were formed upon other occasions, the history of which we have not. Joseph. Antiq. lib. 3. c. 10.” }}
XII: Prophecy of Scripture of Truth.
{{ The kingdoms represented by the second (2nd) and third (3rd) Beasts, or the Bear and Leopard, are again described by Daniel in his last Prophecy written in the third (3rd) year of ‘Cyrus’ over ‘Babylon’, the year in which he conquered ‘Persia’. For this Prophecy is a commentary upon the Vision of the Ram and He-Goat.
‘Behold’, saith he, ‘there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia, [Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius Hystaspes] and the fourth [Xerxes] shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength thro’ his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king [Alexander the great] shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity [but after their death,] nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be pluckt up, even for others besides those’. ‘Alexander’ the great having conquered all the ‘Persian’ Empire, and some part of ‘India’, died at ‘Babylon’ a month before the summer Solstice, in the year of ‘Nabonassar’ 425: and his captains gave the monarchy to his bastard brother ‘Philip Aridæus’, a man disturbed in his understanding; and made ‘Perdiccas’ administrator of the kingdom. ‘Perdiccas’ with their consent made ‘Meleager’ commander of the army, ‘Seleucus’ master of the horse, ‘Craterus’ treasurer of the kingdom, ‘Antipater’ governor of ‘Macedon’ and ‘Greece’, ‘Ptolemy’ governor of ‘Egypt’; ‘Antigonus’ governor of ‘Pamphylia, Lycia, Lycaonia’, and ‘Phrygia major’; ‘Lysimachus’ governor of ‘Thrace’, and other captains governors of other Provinces; as many as had been so before in the days of ‘Alexander’ the great. The ‘Babylonians’ began now to count by a new ‘Æra’, which they called the ‘Æra’ of ‘Philip’, using the years of ‘Nabonassar’, and reckoning the 425th year of ‘Nabonassar’ to be the first (1st) year of ‘Philip’. ‘Roxana’ the wife of ‘Alexander’ being left big with child, and about three (3) or four (4) months after brought to bed of a son, they called him ‘Alexander’, saluted him King, and joined him with ‘Philip’, whom they had before placed in the throne. ‘Philip’ reigned three (3) years under the administratorship of ‘Perdiccas’, two (2) years more under the administratorship of ‘Antipater’, and above a year more under that of ‘Polyperchon’; in all six (6) years and four (4) months; and then was slain with his Queen ‘Eurydice’ in ‘September’ by the command of ‘Olympias’ the mother of ‘Alexander’ the great. The ‘Greeks’ being disgusted at the cruelties of ‘Olympias’, revolted to ‘Cassander’ the son and successor of ‘Antipater’. ‘Cassander’ affecting the dominion of ‘Greece’, slew ‘Olympias’; and soon after shut up the young king ‘Alexander’, with his mother ‘Roxana’, in the castle of ‘Amphipolis’, under the charge of ‘Glaucias, An. Nabonass’. 432. The next year ‘Ptolemy, Cassander’ and ‘Lysimachus’, by means of ‘Seleucus’, form’d a league against ‘Antigonus’; and after certain wars made peace with him, ‘An. Nabonass’. 438, upon these conditions: that ‘Cassander’ should command the forces of ‘Europe’ till ‘Alexander’ the son of ‘Roxana’ came to age; and that ‘Lysimachus’ should govern ‘Thrace, Ptolemy Egypt’ and ‘Lybia’, and ‘Antigonus’ all ‘Asia’. ‘Seleucus’ had possest himself of ‘Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Sustana’ and ‘Media’, the year before. About three (3) years after ‘Alexander’s’ death he was made governor of ‘Babylon’ by ‘Antipater’; then was expelled by ‘Antigonus’; but now he recovered and enlarged his government over a great part of the ‘East’: which gave occasion to a new ‘Æra’, called ‘Æra Seleucidarum’. Not long after the peace made with ‘Antigonus, Diodorus’ saith the same ‘Olympic’ year; ‘Cassander’, seeing that ‘Alexander’ the son of ‘Roxana’ grew up, and that it was discoursed thro’out ‘Macedonia’ that it was fit he should be set at liberty, and take upon him the government of his father’s kingdom, commanded ‘Glaucias’ the governor of the castle to kill ‘Roxana’ and the young king ‘Alexander’ her son, and conceal their deaths. Then ‘Polyperchon’ set up ‘Hercules’, the son of ‘Alexander’ the great by ‘Barsinè’, to be king; and soon after, at the sollicitation of ‘Cassander’, caused him to be slain. Soon after that, upon a great victory at sea got by ‘Demetrius’ the son of ‘Antigonus over Ptolemy, Antigonus’ took upon himself the title of king, and gave the same title to his son. This was ‘An. Nabonass’. 441. After his example, ‘Seleucus, Cassander, Lysimachus’ and ‘Ptolemy’, took upon themselves the title and dignity of kings, having abstained from this honour while there remained any of ‘Alexander’s’ race to inherit the crown. Thus the monarchy of the ‘Greeks’ for want of an heir was broken into several kingdoms; four (4) of which, seated to the four (4)winds of heaven, were very eminent. For ‘Ptolemy’ reigned over ‘Egypt, Lybia’ and ‘Ethiopia; Antigonus’ over ‘Syria’ and the lesser ‘Asia; Lysimachus’ over ‘Thrace’; and ‘Cassander’ over ‘Macedon, Greece’ and ‘Epirus’, as above.
‘Seleucus’ at this time reigned over the nations which were beyond ‘Euphrates’, and belonged to the bodies of the two (2) first Beasts; but after six (6) years he conquered ‘Antigonus’, and thereby became possest of one (1) of the four (4) kingdoms. For ‘Cassander’ being afraid of the power of ‘Antigonus’, combined with ‘Lysimachus, Ptolemy’ and ‘Seleucus’, against him: and while ‘Lysimachus’ invaded the parts of ‘Asia’ next the ‘Hellespont, Ptolemy’ subdued ‘Phœnicia’ and ‘Cœlosyria’, with the sea-coasts of ‘Asia’.
‘Seleucus’ came down with a powerful army into ‘Cappadocia’, and joining the confederate forces, fought ‘Antigonus’ in ‘Phrygia’ and flew him, and seized his kingdom, ‘An. Nabonass’. 447. After which ‘Seleucus’ built ‘Antioch, Seleucia, Laodicea, Apamea, Berrhæa, Edessa’, and other cities in ‘Syria’ and ‘Asia’; and in them granted the ‘Jews’ equal privileges with the ‘Greeks’.
‘Demetrius’ the son of ‘Antigonus’ retained but a small part of his father’s dominions, and at length lost ‘Cyprus’ to ‘Ptolemy’; but afterwards killing ‘Alexander’, the son and successor of ‘Cassander’ king of ‘Macedon’, he seized his kingdom, ‘An. Nabonass’. 454. Sometime after, preparing a very great army to recover his father’s dominions in ‘Asia; Seleucus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus’ and ‘Pyrrhus’ king of ‘Epirus’, combined against him; and ‘Pyrrhus’ invading ‘Macedon’, corrupted the army of ‘Demetrius’, put him to flight, seized his kingdom, and shared it with ‘Lysimachus’. After seven (7) months, ‘Lysimachus’ beating ‘Pyrrhus’, took ‘Macedon’ from him, and held it five (5) years and a half (1/2), uniting the kingdoms of ‘Macedon’ and ‘Thrace. Lysimachus’ in his wars with ‘Antigonus’ and ‘Demetrius’, had taken from them ‘Caria, Lydia’, and ‘Phrygia’; and had a treasury in ‘Pergamus’, a castle on the top of a conical hill in ‘Phrygia’, by the river ‘Caicus’, the custody of which he had committed to one ‘Philetærus, who was at first faithful to him, but in the last year of his reign revolted. For ‘Lysimachus’, having at the instigation of his wife ‘Arsinoe’, slain first his own son ‘Agathocles’, and then several that lamented him; the wife of ‘Agathocles’ fled with her children and brothers, and some others of their friends, and sollicited ‘Seleucus’ to make war upon ‘Lysimachus’; whereupon ‘Philetærus’ also, who grieved at the death of ‘Agathocles’, and was accused thereof by ‘Arsinoe’, took up arms, and sided with ‘Seleucus’. On this occasion ‘Seleucus’ and ‘Lysimachus’ met and fought in ‘Phrygia’; and ‘Lysimachus’ being slain in the battel, lost his kingdom to ‘Seleucus’, ‘An. Nabonass’. 465. Thus the Empire of the ‘Greeks’, which at first brake into four (4) kingdoms, became now reduced into two (2) notable ones, henceforward called by ‘Daniel’ the kings of the ‘South’ and ‘North’. For ‘Ptolemy’ now reigned over ‘Egypt, Lybia, Ethiopia, Arabia, Phœnicia, Cœlosyria’, and ‘Cyprus’; and ‘Seleucus’, having united three (3) of the four (4) kingdoms, had a dominion scarce inferior to that of the ‘Persian’ Empire, conquered by ‘Alexander’ the great. All which is thus represented by ‘Daniel’: ‘And the king of the South [Ptolemy] shall be strong, and one of his Princes [Seleucus, one of Alexander’s Princes] shall be strong above him, and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion’.
After ‘Seleucus’ had reigned seven months over ‘Macedon, Greece, Thrace, Asia, Syria, Babylonia, Media’, and all the ‘East’ as far as ‘India; Ptolemy Ceraunus’, the younger brother of ‘Ptolemy Philadelphus’ king of ‘Egypt’, slew him treacherously, and seized his dominions in ‘Europe’: while ‘Antiochus Soter’, the son of ‘Seleucus’, succeeded his father in ‘Asia, Syria’, and most of the ‘East’; and after nineteen (19) or (20) twenty years was succeeded by his son ‘Antiochus Theos’; who having a lasting war with ‘Ptolemy Philadelphus’, at length composed the same by marrying ‘Berenice’ the daughter of ‘Philadelphus’: but after a reign of fifteen (15) years, his first (1st) wife ‘Laodice’ poisoned him, and set her son ‘Seleucus Callinicus’ upon the throne. ‘Callinicus’ in the beginning of his reign, by the impulse of his mother ‘Laodice’, besieged ‘Berenice’ in ‘Daphne’ near ‘Antioch’, and slew her with her young son and many of her women. Whereupon ‘Ptolemy Euergetes’, the son and successor of ‘Philadelphus’, made war upon ‘Callinicus’; took from him ‘Phœnicia, Syria, Cilicia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Sustana’, and some other regions; and carried back into ‘Egypt’ 40,000 talents of silver, and 2500 images of the ‘Gods’, amongst which were the ‘Gods of Egypt’ carried away by ‘Cambyses. Antiochus Hierax’ at first assisted his brother ‘Callinicus’, but afterwards contended with him for ‘Asia’. In the meantime ‘Eumenes’ governor of ‘Pergamus’ beat ‘Antiochus’, and took from them both all ‘Asia’ westward of mount ‘Taurus’. This was in the fifth year of ‘Callinicus’, who after an inglorious reign of 20 years was succeeded by his son ‘Seleucus Ceraunus’; and ‘Euergetes’ after four (4) years more, ‘An. Nabonass’. 527, was succeeded by his son ‘Ptolemy Philopator’. All which is thus signified by ‘Daniel’: ‘And in the end of years they [the kings of the South and North] shall join themselves together: for the king’s daughter of the South [Berenice] shall come to the king of the North to make an agreement, but she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall she stand, nor her seed, but she shall be delivered up, and he [Callinicus] that brought her, and he whom she brought forth, and they that strengthned her in [those] times, [or defended her in the siege of Daphne.] But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his seat [her brother Euergetes] who shall come with an army, and shall enter into the fortress [or fenced cities] of the king of the North, and shall act against them and prevail: and shall carry captives into Egypt, their Gods with their Princes and precious vessels of silver and gold; and he shall continue some years after the king of the North’.
‘Seleucus Ceraunus’, inheriting the remains of his father’s kingdom, and thinking to recover the rest, raised a great army against the governor of ‘Pergamus’, now King thereof, but died in the third (3rd) year of his reign. His brother and successor, ‘Antiochus Magnus’, carrying on the war, took from the King of ‘Pergamus’ almost all the lesser ‘Asia’, recovering also the Provinces of ‘Media, Persia’ and ‘Babylonia’, from the governors who had revolted: and in the fifth (5th) year of his reign invading ‘Cœlosyria’, he with little opposition possest himself of a good part thereof; and the next year returning to invade the rest of ‘Cœlosyria’ and ‘Phœnicia’, beat the army of ‘Ptolemy Philopator’ near ‘Berytus’; he then invaded ‘Palestine’ and the neighbouring parts of ‘Arabia’, and the third (3rd) year returned with an army of 78,000: but ‘Ptolemy’ coming out of ‘Egypt’ with an army of 75,000, fought and routed him at ‘Raphia’ near ‘Gaza’, between ‘Palestine’ and ‘Egypt’; and recovered all ‘Phœnicia’ and ‘Cœlosyria, Ann. Nabonass’. 532. Being puffed up with this victory, and living in all manner of luxury, the ‘Egyptians’ revolted, and had wars with him, but were overcome; and in the broils sixty thousand (60,000) ‘Egyptian Jews’ were slain. All which is thus described by ‘Daniel’: ‘But his sons [Seleucus Ceraunus, and Antiochus Magnus, the sons of Callinicus] shall be stirred up, and shall gather a great army; and he [Antiochus Magnus] shall come effectually and overflow, and pass thro’ and return, and [again the next year] be stirred up [marching even] to his fortress, [the frontier towns of Egypt;] and the King of the South shall be moved with choler, and come forth [the third (3rd) year] and fight with him, even with the King of the North; and he [the King of the North] shall lead forth a great multitude, but the multitude shall be given into his hand. And the multitude being taken away, his heart shall be lifted up, and he shall cast down many ten thousands (10,000s); but he shall not be strengthned by it: for the king of the North shall return’, &c.
About twelve (12) years after the battle between ‘Philopator’ and ‘Antiochus, Philopator’ died; and left his kingdom to his young son ‘Ptolemy Epiphanes’, a child of five (5) years old. Thereupon ‘Antiochus Magnus’ confederated with ‘Philip’ king of ‘Macedon’, that they should each invade the dominions of ‘Epiphanes’ which lay next to them. Hence arose a various war between ‘Antiochus’ and ‘Epiphanes’, each of them seizing ‘Phœnicia’ and ‘Cœlosyria’ by turns; whereby those countries were much afflicted by both parties. First ‘Antiochus’ seized them; then one ‘Scopas’ being sent with the army of ‘Egypt’, recovered them from ‘Antiochus’: the next year, ‘An. Nabonass’ 550, ‘Antiochus’ fought and routed ‘Scopas’ near the fountains of ‘Jordan’, besieged him in ‘Sidon’, took the city, and recovered ‘Syria’ and ‘Phœnicia’ from ‘Egypt’, the ‘Jews’ coming over to him voluntarily. But about three (3) years after, preparing for a war against the ‘Romans’, he came to ‘Raphia’ on the borders of ‘Egypt’; made peace with ‘Epiphanes’, and gave him his daughter ‘Cleopatra’: next autumn he passed the ‘Hellespont’ to invade the cities of ‘Greece’ under the ‘Roman’ protection, and took some of them; but was beaten by the ‘Romans’ the summer following, and forced to return back with his army into ‘Asia’. Before the end of the year the fleet of ‘Antiochus’ was beaten by the fleet of the ‘Romans’ near ‘Phocæa’: and at the same time ‘Epiphanes’ and ‘Cleopatra’ sent an embassy to ‘Rome’ to congratulate the ‘Romans’ on their success against their father ‘Antiochus’, and to exhort them to prosecute the war against him into ‘Asia’. The ‘Romans’ beat ‘Antiochus’ again at sea near ‘Ephesus’, past their army over the ‘Hellespont’, and obtain’d a great victory over him by land, took from him all ‘Asia’ westward of mount ‘Taurus’, gave it to the King of ‘Pergamus’ who assisted them in the war; and imposed a large tribute upon ‘Antiochus’. Thus the King of ‘Pergamus’, by the power of the ‘Romans’, recovered what ‘Antiochus’ had taken from him; and ‘Antiochus’ retiring into the remainder of his kingdom, was slain two (2) years after by the ‘Persians’, as he was robbing the Temple of ‘Jupiter Belus’ in ‘Elymais’, to raise money for the ‘Romans’. All which is thus described by ‘Daniel’. ‘For the King of the North [Antiochus] shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; and shall certainly come, after certain years, with a great army and with much riches. And in those times there shall many stand up against the King of the South, [particularly the Macedonians;] also the robbers of thy people [the Samaritans, &c.] shall exalt themselves to establish the vision, but they shall fall. So the King of the North shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities; and the arms of the South shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which shall fail in his hand. He shall also set his face to go with the strength [or army] of all his kingdom, and make an agreement with him [at Raphia;] and he shall give him the daughter of women corrupting her; but she shall not stand his side, neither be for him. After this he shall turn his face unto the Isles, and shall take many: but a Prince for his own behalf [the Romans] shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face towards the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found’.
‘Seleucus Philopator’ succeeded his father ‘Antiochus, Anno Nabonass’. 561, and reigned twelve (12) years, but did nothing memorable, being sluggish, and intent upon raising money for the ‘Romans’ to whom he was tributary. He was slain by ‘Heliodorus’, whom he had sent to rob the Temple of ‘Jerusalem. Daniel’ thus describes his reign. ‘Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom, but within few days be shall be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle’.
A little before the death of ‘Philopator’, his son ‘Demetrius’ was sent hostage to ‘Rome’, in the place of ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’, the brother of ‘Philopator’; and ‘Antiochus’ was at ‘Athens’ in his way home from ‘Rome’, when ‘Philopator’ died: whereupon ‘Heliodorus’ the treasurer of the kingdom, stept into the throne. But ‘Antiochus’ so managed his affairs, that the ‘Romans’ kept ‘Demetrius’ at ‘Rome’; and their ally the King of ‘Pergamus’ expelled ‘Heliodorus’, and placed ‘Antiochus’ in the throne, while ‘Demetrius’ the right heir remained a hostage at ‘Rome’. ‘Antiochus’ being thus made King by the friendship of the King of ‘Pergamus’ reigned powerfully over ‘Syria’ and the neighbouring nations: but carried himself much below his dignity, stealing privately out of his palace, rambling up and down the city in disguise with one (1) or two (2) of his companions; conversing and drinking with people of the lowest rank, foreigners and strangers; frequenting the meetings of dissolute persons to feast and revel; clothing himself like the ‘Roman’ candidates and officers, acting their parts like a mimick, and in publick festivals jesting and dancing with servants and light people, exposing himself by all manner of ridiculous gestures. This conduct made some take him for a madman, and call him ‘Antiochus’ (Επιμενης) (Epimenës). In first (1st) year of his reign he deposed ‘Onias’ the high-Priest, and sold the high-Priesthood to ‘Jason’ the younger brother of ‘Onias’: for ‘Jason’ had promised to give him 440 talents of silver for that office, and 15 more for a licence to erect a place of exercise for the training up of youth in the fashions of the heathen; which licence was granted by the King, and put in execution by ‘Jason’. Then the King sending one ‘Apollonius’ into ‘Egypt’ to the coronation of ‘Ptolemy Philometor’, the young son of ‘Philometor’ and ‘Cleopatra’, and knowing ‘Philometor’ not to be well affected to his affairs in ‘Phœnicia’, provided for his own safety in those parts; and for that end came to ‘Joppa’ and ‘Jerusalem’, where he was honourably received; from thence he went in like manner with his little army to the cities of ‘Phœnicia’, to establish himself against ‘Egypt’, by courting the people, and distributing extraordinary favours amongst them. All which is thus represented by ‘Daniel’. ‘And in his [Philometor’s] estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they [the Syrians who set up Heliodorus] shall not give the honour of the kingdom. Yet he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries [made principally to the King of Pergamus;] and the arms [which in favour of Heliodorus oppose him] shall be overflowed with a food from before him, and be broken; yea also [Onias the high-Priest] the Prince of the covenant. And after the league made with him, [the King of Egypt, by sending Apollonius to his coronation] he shall work deceitfully [against the King of Egypt,] for he shall come up and shall become strong [in Phœnicia ] with a small people. And he shall enter into the quiet and plentiful cities of the Province [of Phœnicia;] and [to ingratiate himself with the Jews of Phœnicia and Egypt, and with their friends] he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers fathers: he shall scatter among them the prey and the spoil, and the riches [exacted from other places;] and shall forecast his devices against the strong holds [of Egypt] even for a time’.
These things were done in the first (1st) year of his reign, ‘An. Nabonass’. 573. And thenceforward he forecast his devices against the strong holds of ‘Egypt’, until the sixth (6th) year. For three (3) years after, that is in the fourth (4th) year of his reign, Menelaus bought the high-Priesthood from ‘Jason’, but not paying the price was sent for by the King; and the King, before he could hear the cause, went into ‘Cilicia’ to appease a sedition there, and left ‘Andronicus’ his deputy at ‘Antioch’; in the mean time the brother of ‘Menelaus’, to make up the money, conveyed several vessels out of the Temple, selling some of them at ‘Tyre’, and sending others to ‘Andronicus’. When ‘Menelaus’ was reproved for this by ‘Onias’, he caused ‘Onias’ to be slain by ‘Andronicus’: for which fact the King at his return from ‘Cilicia’ caused ‘Andronicus’ to be put to death. Then ‘Antiochus’ prepared his second expedition against ‘Egypt’, which he performed in the sixth (6th) year of his reign, ‘An. Nabonass’. 578: for upon the death of ‘Cleopatra’, the governors of her son the young King of ‘Egypt’ claimed ‘Phœnicia’ and ‘Cœlosyria’ from him as her dowry; and to recover those countries raised a great army. ‘Antiochus’ considering that his father had not quitted the possession of those countries, denied they were her dowry; and with another great army met and fought the ‘Egyptians’ on the borders of ‘Egypt’, between ‘Pelusium’ and the mountain ‘Casius’. He there beat them, and might have destroyed their whole army, but that he rode up and down, commanding his soldiers not to kill them, but to take them alive: by which humanity he gained ‘Pelusium’, and soon after all ‘Egypt’; entring it with a vast multitude of foot and chariots, elephants and horsemen, and a great navy. Then seizing the cities of ‘Egypt’ as a friend, he marched to ‘Memphis’, laid the whole blame of the war upon ‘Eulæus’ the King’s governor, entred into outward friendship with the young King, and took upon him to order the affairs of the kingdom. While ‘Antiochus’ was thus employ’d, a report being spread in ‘Phœnicia’ that he was dead, ‘Jason’ to recover the high-Priesthood assaulted ‘Jerusalem’ with above a thousand (1,000) men, and took the city: hereupon the King thinking ‘Judea’ had revolted, came out of ‘Egypt’ in a furious manner, re-took the city, slew forty thousand (40,000) of the people, made as many prisoners, and sold them to raise money; went into the Temple, spoiled it of its treasures, ornaments, utensils, and vessels of gold and silver, amounting to 1800 talents; and carried all away to Antioch. This was done in the year of ‘Nabonassar’ 578, and is thus described by ‘Daniel’. ‘And he shall stir up his power, and his courage against the King of the South with a great army; and the King of the South shall be stirrd up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they, even Antiochus and his friends, shall forecast devices against him, (as is represented above;) yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat, shall betray and destroy him, and his army shall be overthrown, and many shall fall down slain. And both these Kings hearts shall be to do mischief; and they, being now made friends, shall speak lyes at one table, against the Jews and against the holy covenant; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end, (in which the setting up of the abomination of desolation is to prosper,) shall be at the time appointed. Then shall he return into his land with great riches, and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall act, against it (by spoiling the Temple), and return into his own land’.
The ‘Egyptians’ of ‘Alexandria’ seeing ‘Philometor’ first (1st) educated in luxury by the Eunuch ‘Eulæus’, and now in the hands of ‘Antiochus’, gave the kingdom to ‘Euergetes’, the younger brother of ‘Philometor’. Whereupon ‘Antiochus’ pretending to restore ‘Philometor’, made war upon ‘Euergetes’; beat him at sea, and besieged him and his sister ‘Cleopatra’ in ‘Alexandria’: while the besieged Princes sent to ‘Rome’ to implore the assistance of the Senate. ‘Antiochus’ finding himself unable to take the city that year, returned into ‘Syria’, leaving ‘Philometor’ at ‘Memphis’ to govern ‘Egypt’ in his absence. But ‘Philometor’ made friendship with his brother that winter; and ‘Antiochus’, returning the next spring ‘An. Nabonass’. 580, to besiege both the brothers in ‘Alexandria’, was met in the way by the ‘Roman’ Ambassadors, ‘Popilius Læna, C. Decimius’, and ‘C. Hostilius’: he offered them his hand to kiss, but ‘Popilius’ delivering to him the tables wherein the message of the Senate was written, had him read those first. When he had read them, he replied he would consider with his friends what was fit to be done; but ‘Popilius’ drawing a circle about him, had him answer before he went out of it: ‘Antiochus’, astonished at this blunt and unusual imperiousness, made answer he would do what the ‘Romans’ demanded; and then ‘Popilius’ gave the King his hand to kiss, and he returned out of ‘Egypt’. The same year, ‘An. Nabonass’. 580, his captains by his order spoiled and slaughtered the ‘Jews’, profaned the Temple, set up the worship of the heathen ‘Gods’ in all ‘Judea’, and began to persecute and make war upon those who would not worship them: which actions are thus described by ‘Daniel’. ‘At the time appointed he shall come again towards the South, but the latter shall not be as the former. For the ships of Chittim shall come, with an embassy from Rome, against him. Therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant. So shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant’.
In the same year that ‘Antiochus’ by the command of the ‘Romans’ retired out of ‘Egypt’, and set up the worship of the ‘Greeks’ in ‘Judea’; the ‘Romans’ conquered the kingdom of ‘Macedon’, the fundamental kingdom of the Empire of the ‘Greeks’, and reduced it into a ‘Roman’ Province; and thereby began to put an end to the reign of ‘Daniel’s’ third (3rd) Beast. This is thus exprest by ‘Daniel’. ‘And after him Arms, that is the Romans, shall stand up’. As (ממלך) (mmlk) signifies ‘after the King’, Dan. 11:8; so (ממנו) (mmnw) may signify ‘after him’. ‘Arms’ are every where in this Prophecy of ‘Daniel’ put for the military power of a kingdom: and they stand up when they conquer and grow powerful. Hitherto ‘Daniel’ described the actions of the Kings of the ‘North’ and ‘South’; but upon the conquest of ‘Macedon’ by the ‘Romans’, he left off describing the actions of the ‘Greeks’, and began to describe those of the ‘Romans’ in ‘Greece’. They conquered ‘Macedon, Illyricum’ and ‘Epirus’, in the year of ‘Nabonassar’ 580. 35 years after, by the last will and testament of ‘Attalus’ the last King of ‘Pergamus’, they inherited that rich and flourishing kingdom, that is, all ‘Asia’ westward of mount ‘Taurus’; 69 years after they conquered the kingdom of ‘Syria’, and reduced it into a Province, and 34 years after they did the like to ‘Egypt’. By all these steps the ‘Roman’ Arms stood up over the ‘Greeks’: and after 95 years more, by making war upon the ‘Jews’, ‘they polluted the sanctuary of strength, and took away the daily sacrifice, and then placed the abomination of desolation’. For this abomination was placed after the days of ‘Christ’, ‘Math’. 24:15. In the 16th year of the Emperor ‘Adrian’, A.C. 132, they placed this abomination by building a Temple to ‘Jupiter Capitolinus’, where the Temple of God in ‘Jerusalem’ had stood. Thereupon the ‘Jews’ under the conduct of ‘Barchochab’ rose up in arms against the ‘Romans’, and in the war had 50 cities demolished, 985 of their best towns destroyed, and 580,000 (1/2 million plus) men slain by the sword; and in the end of the war, A.C. 136, were banished ‘Judea’ upon pain of death, and thenceforward the land remained desolate of its old inhabitants.
In the beginning of the ‘Jewish’ war in ‘Nero’s’ reign, the Apostles fled out of ‘Judea’ with their flocks; some beyond ‘Jordan’ to ‘Pella’ and other places, some into ‘Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia minor’, and elsewhere. ‘Peter’ and ‘John’ came into ‘Asia’, and ‘Peter’ went thence by ‘Corinth’ to ‘Rome’; but ‘John’ staying in ‘Asia’, was banished by the ‘Romans’ into ‘Patmos’, as the head of a party of the ‘Jews’, whose nation was in war with the ‘Romans’. By this dispersion of the ‘Christian Jews’, the ‘Christian’ religion, which was already propagated westward as far as ‘Rome’, spred fast into all the ‘Roman’ Empire, and suffered many persecutions under it till the days of ‘Constantine’ the great and his sons: all which is thus described by ‘Daniel’. ‘And such as do wickedly against the covenant, shall he, (who places the abomination), cause to dissemble, and worship the heathen ‘Gods’; but the people among them who do know their God, shall be strong and act. And they that understand among the people, shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, and by captivity, and by spoil many days. Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help, (viz. in the reign of Constantine the great;) and (at that time by reason of their prosperity), many shall come over (to them from among the heathen), and cleave to them with dissimulation. But of those of understanding there shall still fall to try (God’s people) by them and to purge (them from the dissemblers), and to make them white even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed’.
Hitherto the ‘Roman’ Empire continued entire; and under this dominion, the little horn of the He-Goat continued ‘mighty, but not by his own power’. But now, by the building of ‘Constantinople’, and endowing it with a Senate and other like privileges with ‘Rome’; and by the division of the ‘Roman’ Empire into the two Empires of the ‘Greeks’ and ‘Latins’, headed by those two cities; a new scene of things commences, in which which ‘a King, the Empire of the Greeks, doth according to his will, and, by setting his own laws above the laws of God, exalts and magnifies himself above every God, and speaks marvellous things against the God of ‘Gods’, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished.—Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the lawful desire of women in matrimony, nor any God, but shall magnify himself above all. And in his seat he shall honour Mahuzzims, (that is, strong guardians, the souls of the dead); even with a God whom his fathers knew not shall he honour them, (in their Temples), with gold and silver, and with precious stones and valuable things’. All which relates to the overspreading of the ‘Greek’ Empire with Monks and Nuns, who placed holiness in abstinence from marriage; and to the invocation of saints and veneration of their reliques, and such like superstitions, which these men introduced in the fourth (4th) and fifth (5th) centuries. ‘And at the time of the end the King of the South, (or the Empire of the Saracens), shall push at him; and the King of the North, (or Empire of the Turks), shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots and with horsemen, and with many ships; and be shall enter into the countries of the Greeks, and shall overflow and pass over. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children Ammon: (that is, those to whom his Caravans pay tribute). He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape; but he shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Lybians and Ethiopians shall be at his steps’. All these nations compose the Empire of the ‘Turks’, and therefore this Empire is here to be understood by the King of the ‘North’. They compose also the body of the He-Goat; and therefore the Goat still reigns in his last horn, but not by his own power. (Notes to Chap. XII. Chap. 11:2,3,4. 11:5. 11:6,7,8. 11:10, &c. 11:13-19. 11:20. 11:21, &c. 2nd Maccab. 3:5, 8. & 4:4. 11:25, &c. 11:29, 30. 11:32, &c. 11:36, &c. 11:40, &c.)” }}
XIII. ‘King who did according to his will, and magnified himself above every ‘God’, and honoured ‘Mahuzzims’, and regarded not the desire of women’.
{{ In the first ages of the Christian religion the Christians of every city were governed by a Council of Presbyters, and the President of the Council was the Bishop of the city. The Bishop and Presbyters of one city meddled not with the affairs of another city, except by admonitory letters or messages. Nor did the Bishops of several cities meet together in Council before the time of the Emperor ‘Commodus’: for they could not meet together without the leave of the ‘Roman’ governors of the Provinces. But in the days of that Emperor they began to meet in Provincial Councils, by the leave of the governors; first in ‘Asia’, in opposition to the ‘Cataphrygian’ (Montanism) Heresy, and soon after in other places and upon other occasions. The Bishop of the chief city, or Metropolis of the ‘Roman’ Province, was usually made President of the Council; and hence came the authority of Metropolitan Bishops above that of other Bishops within the same Province. Hence also it was that the Bishop of ‘Rome’ in ‘Cyprian’s’ days called himself the Bishop of Bishops. As soon as the Empire became Christian, the ‘Roman’ Emperors began to call general Councils out of all the Provinces of the Empire; and by prescribing to them what points they should consider, and influencing them by their interest and power, they set up what party they pleased. Hereby the ‘Greek’ Empire, upon the division of the ‘Roman’ Empire into the ‘Greek’ and ‘Latin’ Empires, became ‘the King who’, in matters of religion, ‘did according to his will; and, in legislature, exalted and magnified himself above every God’: and at length, by the seventh general Council, established the worship of the images and souls of dead men, here called ‘Mahuzzims’ [i.e. idolatry, saint-worship].
The same King placed holiness in abstinence from marriage. ‘Eusebius’ in his Ecclesiastical history tells us, that ‘Musanus’ wrote a tract against those who fell away to the heresy of the ‘Encratites’, which was then newly risen, and had introduced pernicious errors; and that ‘Tatian’, the disciple of ‘Justin’, was the author thereof; and that ‘Irenæus’ in his first book against heresies teaches this, writing of ‘Tatian’ and his heresy in these words: ‘A Saturnino & Marcione profecti qui vocantur Continentes, docuerunt non contrahendum esse matrimonium; reprobantes scilicet primitivum illud opificium Dei, & tacitè accusantes Deum qui masculum & fæminam condidit ad procreationem generis humani. Induxerunt etiam abstinentiam ab esu eorum quæ animalia appellant, ingratos se exhibentes ergo eum qui universa creavit Deum. Negant etiam primi hominis salutem. Atque hoc nuper apud illos excogitatum est, Tatiano quodam omnium primo hujus impietatis auctore: qui Justini auditor, quamdiu cum illo versatus est, nihil ejusmodi protulit. Post martyrium autem illius, ab Ecclesia se abrumpens, doctoris arrogantia elatus ac tumidus, tanquam præstantior cæteris, novam quandam formam doctrinæ conflavit: Æonas invisibiles commentus perinde ac Valentinus: asserens quoque cum Saturnino & Marcione, matrimonium nihil aliud esse quam corruptionem ac stuprum: nova præterea argumenta ad subvertendam Adami salutem excogitans. Hæc Irenæus de Hæresi quæ tunc viguit Encratitarum’. [Philip Schaff’s Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers: Eusebius of Caesarea: Ecclesiastical History – Book IV Chapter 29: The Heresy of Tatian: “He is the one whose words we quoted a little above in regard to that admirable man, Justin, and whom we stated to have been a disciple of the martyr. Irenaeus declares this in the first book of his work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows concerning both him and his heresy: “Those who are called Encratites, and who sprung from Saturninus and Marcion, preached celibacy, setting aside the original arrangement of God and tacitly censuring him who made male and female for the propagation of the human race. They introduced also abstinence from the things called by them animate, thus showing ingratitude to the God who made all things. And they deny the salvation of the first man? But this has been only recently discovered by them, a certain Tatian being the first to introduce this blasphemy. He was a hearer of Jus-tin, and expressed no such opinion while he was with him, but after the martyrdom of the latter he left the Church, and becoming exalted with the thought of being a teacher, and puffed up with the idea that he was superior to others, he established a peculiar type of doctrine of his own, inventing certain invisible aeons like the followers of Valentinus, while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he pronounced marriage to be corruption and fornication. His argument against the salvation of Adam, however, he devised for himself.” Irenaeus at that time wrote thus. But a little later a certain man named Severus put new strength into the aforesaid heresy, and thus brought it about that those who took their origin from it were called, after him, Severians. They, indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret in their own way the utterances of the Sacred Scriptures. And they abuse Paul the apostle and reject his epistles, and do not accept even the Acts of the Apostles. But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title Diatessaron, and which is still in the l hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, in order to improve their style. He has left a great many writings. Of these the one most in use among many persons is his celebrated Address to the Greeks, which also appears to be the best and most useful of all his works. In it he deals with the most ancient times, and shows that Moses and the Hebrew prophets were older than all the celebrated men among the Greeks. So much in regard to these men.”] Thus far ‘Eusebius’. But altho the followers of ‘Tatian’ were at first condemned as hereticks by the name of ‘Encratites’, or ‘Continentes’; their principles could not be yet quite exploded: for ‘Montanus’ refined upon them, and made only second marriages unlawful; he also introduced frequent fastings, and annual, fasting days, the keeping of ‘Lent’, and feeding upon dried meats. The ‘Apostolici’, about the middle of the third (3rd) century, condemned marriage, and were a branch of the disciples of ‘Tatian’. The ‘Hierocitæ’ in ‘Egypt’, in the latter end of the third (3rd) century, also condemned marriage. ‘Paul’ the ‘Eremite’ fled into the wilderness from the persecution of ‘Decius’, and lived there a solitary life till the reign of ‘Constantine’ the great, but made no disciples. ‘Antony’ did the like in the persecution of ‘Dioclesian’, or a little before, and made disciples; and many others soon followed his example.
Hitherto the principles of the ‘Encratites’ had been rejected by the Churches; but now being refined by the Monks, and imposed not upon all men, but only upon those who would voluntarily undertake a monastic life, they began to be admired, and to overflow first the ‘Greek’ Church, and then the ‘Latin’ also, like a torrent. ‘Eusebius’ tells us, that ‘Constantine’ the great had those men in the highest veneration, who dedicated themselves wholly to the divine philosophy; and that he almost venerated the most holy company of Virgins perpetually devoted to God; being certain that the God to whom he had consecrated himself did dwell in their minds. In his time and that of his sons, this profession of a single life was propagated in ‘Egypt’ by ‘Antony’, and in ‘Syria’ by ‘Hilarion’; and spred so fast, that soon after the time of ‘Julian’ the Apostate a third (3rd) part of the ‘Egyptians’ were got into the deserts of ‘Egypt’. They lived first (1st) singly in cells, then associated into ‘cœnobia’ or convents; and at length came into towns, and filled the Churches with Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. ‘Athanasius’ in his younger days poured water upon the hands of his master ‘Antony’; and finding the Monks faithful to him, made many of them Bishops and Presbyters in ‘Egypt’: and these Bishops erected new Monasteries, out of which they chose Presbyters of their own cities, and sent Bishops to others. The like was done in ‘Syria’, the superstition being quickly propagated thither out of ‘Egypt’ by ‘Hilarion’ a disciple of ‘Antony. Spiridion’ and ‘Epiphanius’ of ‘Cyprus, James’ of ‘Nisibis, Cyril’ of ‘Jerusalem, Eustathius’ of ‘Sebastia’ in ‘Armenia, Eusebius of Emisa, Titus of Bostra, Basilius of Ancyra, Acacius of Cæsarea in Palestine, Elpidius of Laodicea, Melitius and Flavian of Antioch, Theodorus of Tyre, Protogenes of Carrhæ, Acacius of Berrhæa, Theodotus of Hierapolis, Eusebius of Chalcedon, Amphilochius of Iconium, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen’, and ‘John Chrysostom of Constantinople’, were both Bishops and Monks in the fourth (4th) century. ‘Eustathius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Basil’, &c. had Monasteries of Clergymen in their cities, out of which Bishops were sent to other cities; who in like manner erected Monasteries there, till the Churches were supplied with Bishops out of these Monasteries. Hence ‘Jerome’, in a Letter written about the year 385, saith of the Clergy: ‘Quasi & ipsi aliud sint quam Monachi, & non quicquid in Monachos dicitur redundet in Clericos qui patres sunt Monachorum. Detrimentum pecoris pastoris ignominia est’. [In Loeb’s edition, letter 54.5 : “just as though they were not monks themselves, and as though every word said against monks did not tell also against their spiritual progenitors the clergy. Harm done to the flock brings discredit on the shepherd.”] And in his book against ‘Vigilantius: Quid facient Orientis Ecclesiæ?[…] Quæ aut Virgines Clericos accipiunt, aut Continentes, aut si uxores habuerint mariti esse desistunt’ [What are the Churches of the East to do?…which accept for the ministry only men who are virgins, or those who practice continency, or, if married, abandon their conjugal rights. See Jer. against Vigil. 2.]. Not long after even the Emperors commanded the Churches to chuse Clergymen out of the Monasteries by this Law: Impp. (Emperors) Arcad & Honor. AA. Cæsario PF. P.: (CTh.16.2. Bishops, Churches, & Clergy of the Religious Life in the Catholic Faith. Also compare the New Canon Law Codes for Eccleasitical Persons of Clergy & Hierarchy: Canon 87-214.) (16.2.32:) Si quos forte Episcopi deesse sibi Clericos arbitrantur, ex monachorum numero rectius ordinabunt: non obnoxios publicis privatisque rationibus cum invidia teneant, sed habeant jam probatos. [Select a Bishop from the Clergy of pre-approved Monks.] Dat. vii. Kal. Aug. Honorio A. iv. & Eutychianio Coss’.(398 [?] iul. 26). A.C. 598. The ‘Greek’ Empire being now in the hands of these ‘Encratites’, and having them in great admiration, ‘Daniel’ makes it a characteristick of the King who doth according to his will, that ‘he should not regard the desire of Women’.
Thus the Sect of the ‘Encratites’, set on foot by the ‘Gnosticks’, and propagated by ‘Tatian’ and ‘Montanus’ near the end of the second (2nd) century; which was condemned by the Churches of that and the third (3rd) century, and refined upon by their followers; overspread the ‘Eastern’ Churches in the fourth (4th) century, and before the end of it began to overspread the ‘Western’. Henceforward the Christian Churches ‘having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof’, came into the hands of the Encratites: and the Heathens, who in the fourth century came over in great numbers to the Christians, embraced more readily this sort of Christianity, as having a greater affinity with their old superstitions, than that of the sincere Christians; who by ‘the lamps of the seven Churches of ‘Asia”, and not by the lamps of the Monasteries, had illuminated the Church Catholic during the three (3) first (1st) centuries.
The ‘Cataphrygians’ brought in also several other superstitions: such as were the doctrine of Ghosts, and of their punishment in Purgatory, with prayers and oblations for mitigating that punishment, as ‘Tertullian’ teaches in his books ‘De Anima’ and ‘De Monogamia’. They used also the sign of the cross as a charm. So ‘Tertullian’ in his book ‘de Corona militis: Ad omnem progressum atque promotum, ad omnem aditum & exitum, ad vestitum, ad calceatum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad lamina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quacunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo terimus (“At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross].”– in ANF,vol 3, part 1st). All these superstitions the Apostle refers to, where he saith: ‘Now the Spirit speaketh expresly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils’, the Dæmons and Ghosts worshipped by the heathens, ‘speaking lyes in hypocrisy’, about their apparitions, the miracles done by them, their reliques, and the sign of the cross, ‘having consciences seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats’, &c. 1 Tim. iv. 1,2,3. From the ‘Cataphrygians’ these principles and practices were propagated down to posterity. ‘For the mystery of iniquity’ did ‘already work’ in the ‘Apostles’ days in the ‘Gnosticks’, continued to work very strongly in their offspring the ‘Tatianists’ and ‘Cataphrygians’, and was to work ’till that man of sin’ should ‘be revealed; whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs, and lying wonders, and all deceivableness of unrighteousness’; coloured over with a form of ‘Christian’ ‘godliness, but without the power thereof’, 2nd Thess. 2:7-10.
For tho some stop was put to the ‘Cataphrygian’ Christianity, by Provincial Councils, till the fourth (4th) century; yet the ‘Roman’ Emperors then turning ‘Christians’, and great multitudes of heathens coming over in outward profession, these found the Cataphrygian Christianity more suitable to their old principles, of placing religion in outward forms and ceremonies, holy-days, and doctrines of Ghosts, than the religion of the sincere ‘Christians’: wherefore they readily sided with the Cataphrygian Christians, and established that Christianity before the end of the fourth (4th) century. By this means those of understanding, after they had been persecuted by the heathen Emperors in the three (3) first (1st) centuries, and ‘were holpen with a little help’, by the conversion of ‘Constantine’ the great and his sons to the ‘Christian’ religion, fell under new persecutions, ‘to purge them’ from the dissemblers, ‘and to make them white, even to the time of the end’. (Notes to Chap. XIII. Lib. 4. c. 28,29. In vita Constantini, l. 4. c. 28. Epist. 10. L. 32. de Episcopis.)” }}
XIV: ”Mahuzzims’, honoured by the King who doth according to his will’.
{{ In scripture we are told of some ‘trusting in God’ and others ‘trusting in idols’, and that ‘God is our refuge, our strength, our defense’. In this sense God is ‘the rock of his people’, and false ‘Gods’ are called ‘the rock of those that trust in them’, ‘Deut’. 32:4, 15, 18, 30,31, 37. In the same sense the ‘Gods’ of ‘the King who shall do according to his will’ are called ‘Mahuzzims’, munitions, fortresses, protectors, guardians, or defenders. ‘In his estate’, saith ‘Daniel, shall he honour Mahuzzims; even with a God whom his fathers knew not, shall he honour them with gold and silver, and with precious stones, and things of value. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds or temples; —and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land among them for a possession’. Now this came to pass by degrees in the following manner.
‘Gregory Nyssen’ tells us, that after the persecution of the Emperor ‘Decius, Gregory Bishop of Neocæsarea in Pontus, instituted among all people, as an addition or corollary of devotion towards God, that festival days and assemblies should be celebrated to them who had contended for the faith’, that is, to the ‘Martyrs’. And he adds this reason for the institution: ‘When he observed’, saith ‘Nyssen, that the simple and unskilful multitude, by reason of corporeal delights, remained in the error of idols; that the principal thing might be corrected among them, namely, that instead of their vain worship they might turn their eyes upon God; he permitted that at the memories of the holy Martyrs they might make merry and delight themselves, and be dissolved into joy’. The heathens were delighted with the festivals of their ‘Gods’, and unwilling to part with those delights; and therefore ‘Gregory’, to facilitate their conversion, instituted annual festivals to the ‘Saints’ and ‘Martyrs’. Hence it came to pass, that for exploding the festivals of the heathens, the principal festivals of the ‘Christians’ succeeded in their room: as the keeping of ‘Christmas’ with ivy and feasting, and playing and sports, in the room of the ‘Bacchanalia’ and ‘Saturnalia’; the celebrating of ‘May-day’ with flowers, in the room of the ‘Floralia’; and the keeping of festivals to the Virgin ‘Mary, John’ the Baptist, and divers of the Apostles, in the room of the solemnities at the entrance of the Sun into the signs of the ‘Zodiac’ in the old ‘Julian’ Calendar. In the same persecution of ‘Decius, Cyprian’ ordered the passions of the Martyrs in ‘Africa’ to be registred, in order to celebrate their memories annually with oblations and sacrifices: and ‘Felix’ Bishop of ‘Rome’, a little after, as ‘Platina’ relates, ‘Martyrum gloria consulens, constituit at quotannis sacrificia eorum nomine celebrarentur’; “consulting the glory of the Martyrs, ordained that sacrifices should be celebrated annually in their name.” By the pleasures of these festivals the ‘Christians’ increased much in number, and decreased as much in virtue, until they were ‘purged and made white’ by the persecution of ‘Dioclesian’. This was the first step made in the ‘Christian’ religion towards the veneration of the Martyrs: and tho it did not yet amount to an unlawful worship; yet it disposed the ‘Christians’ towards such a further veneration of the dead, as in a short time ended in the invocation of Saints.
The next step was the affecting to pray at the sepulchres of the Martyrs: which practice began in ‘Dioclesian’s’ persecution. The Council of ‘Eliberis’ in ‘Spain’, celebrated in the third (3rd) or fourth (4th) year of ‘Dioclesian’s’ persecution, A.C. 305, hath these Canons. Can. 34. ‘Cereos per diem placuit in Cœmeterio non incendi: inquietandi enim spiritus sanctorum non sunt. Qui hæc non observârint, arceantur ab Ecclesiæ communione (The 34th Canon is very obscure: It declares, That Wax Candles are not be lighted in the Coemiteries (Cemeteries): because we must not disturb the Spirits of the Saints. Some understand by the Spirit of the Saints the Souls of the Dead: I think that it is more natural to understand by it, the Repose of the Spirits of the Faithful that are alive and may be troubled with a great multitude of Lights in the daytime.”–Du Pin.). Can. 35. ‘Placuit prohiberi ne fæminæ in Cœmeterio pervigilent, eò quod sæpe sub obtentu orationis latentèr scelera committant’ (The 35th redresses a dangerous Abuse; it is set down in these Words: “We have thought fit to hinder women from spending the Night in the Coemiteries (Cemeteries), because oftentimes under pretence of praying they commit in secret great Crimes.”–Du Pin.). Presently after that persecution, suppose about the year 314, the Council of ‘Laodicea’ in ‘Phrygia’, which then met for restoring the lapsed discipline of the Church, has the following Canons. Can. 9. ‘Those of the Church are not allowed to go into the Cœmeteries or Martyries, as they are called, of hereticks, for the sake of prayer or recovery of health: but such as go, if they be of the faithful, shall be excommunicated for a time’. Can. 34. ‘A Christian must not leave the Martyrs of Christ, and go to false Martyrs, that is, to the Martyrs of the hereticks; for these are alien from God: and therefore let those be anathema who go to them’. Can. 51. ‘The birth-days of the Martyrs shall not be celebrated in Lent, but their commemoration shall be made on the Sabbath-days and Lords days’. The Council of ‘Paphlagonia’, celebrated in the year 324, made this Canon: ‘If any man being arrogant, abominates the congregations of the Martyrs, or the Liturgies performed therein, or the memories of the Martyrs, let him be anathema’. By all which it is manifest that the ‘Christians’ in the time of ‘Dioclesian’s’ persecution used to pray in the ‘Cœmeteries’ or burying-places of the dead; for avoiding the danger of the persecution, and for want of Churches, which were all thrown down: and after the persecution was over, continued that practice in honour of the Martyrs, till new Churches could be built: and by use affected it as advantageous to devotion, and for recovering the health of those that were sick. It also appears that in these burying-places they commemorated the Martyrs yearly upon days dedicated to them, and accounted all these practices pious and religious, and anathematized those men as arrogant who opposed them, or prayed in the ‘Martyries’ of the hereticks. They also lighted torches to the Martyrs in the day-time, as the heathens did to their ‘Gods’; which custom, before the end of the fourth (4th) century, prevailed much in the ‘West’. They sprinkled the worshipers of the Martyrs with holy-water, as the heathens did the worshipers of their ‘Gods’; and went in pilgrimage to see ‘Jerusalem’ and other holy places, as if those places conferred sanctity on the visiters. From the custom of praying in the ‘Cœmeteries’ and ‘Martyries’, came the custom of translating the bodies of the Saints and Martyrs into such Churches as were new built: the Emperor ‘Constantius’ began this practice about the year 359, causing the bodies of ‘Andrew’ the Apostle, ‘Luke’ and ‘Timothy’, to be translated into a new Church at ‘Constantinople’: and before this act of ‘Constantius’, the ‘Egyptians’ kept the bodies of their Martyrs and Saints unburied upon beds in their private houses, and told stories of their souls appearing after death and ascending up to heaven, as ‘Athanasius’ relates in the life of ‘Antony’. All which gave occasion to the Emperor ‘Julian’, as ‘Cyril’ relates, to accuse the ‘Christians’ in this manner: ‘Your adding to that antient dead man, Jesus, many new dead men, who can sufficiently abominate? You have filled all places with sepulchres and monuments, altho you are no where bidden to prostrate yourselves to sepulchres, and to respect them officiously’. And a little after: ‘Since Jesus said that sepulchres are full of filthiness, how do you invoke God upon them’? and in another place he saith, that if ‘Christians’ had adhered to the precepts of the ‘Hebrews, they would have worshiped one God instead of many, and not a man, or rather not many unhappy men’: And that they ‘adored the wood of the cross, making its images on their foreheads, and before their houses’. [Compare Justianian Code: 3. The Emperors Honorius and Theodosius: “Let no one sell or purchase the relics of martyrs.” Given at Constantinople, on the fourth of the Kalends of March, during the Consulate of the Prince Honorius, and Evodius, 386. 26. “The Emperor Leo to Julian, Praetorian Prefect: “We decree that, hereafter, no monk, nor anyone else, no matter what his station or rank, shall unlawfully attempt to carry the Holy Cross, or the relics of the martyrs into any public house or place of any description, which has been set apart for the pleasure of the people; or shall venture to take possession of any building which has been erected for public purposes, or popular amusement. For, as religious houses are not lacking, after the episcopal authorities have been consulted, as is necessary, the relics of the holy martyrs can be placed therein, not by the arbitrary action of anyone, but by the authority of the Most Reverend Bishops. Hence Our laws, public discipline, and the reputation of the monks themselves, demand the exercise of patience and moderation, and each monk, as well as every member of other orders, should zealously attempt always to practice these virtues.”]
After the sepulchres of Saints and Martyrs were thus converted into places of worship like the heathen temples, and the Churches into sepulchres, and a certain sort of sanctity attributed to the dead bodies of the Saints and Martyrs buried in them, and annual festivals were kept to them, with sacrifices offered to God in their name; the next step towards the invocation of Saints, was the attributing to their dead bodies, bones and other reliques, a power of working miracles, by means of the separate souls, who were supposed to know what we do or say, and to be able to do us good or hurt, and to work those miracles. This was the very notion the heathens had of the separate souls of their antient Kings and Heroes, whom they worshiped under the names of ‘Saturn, Rhea, Jupiter, Juno, Mars, Venus, Bacchus, Ceres, Osiris, Isis, Apollo, Diana’, and the rest of their ‘Gods’. For these ‘Gods’ being male and female, husband and wife, son and daughter, brother and sister, are thereby discovered to be antient men and women. Now as the first (1st) step towards the invocation of Saints was set on foot by the persecution of ‘Decius’, and the second (2nd) by the persecution of ‘Dioclesian’; so this third (3rd) seems to have been owing to the proceedings of ‘Constantius’ and ‘Julian’ the Apostate. When ‘Julian’ began to restore the worship of the heathen ‘Gods’, and to vilify the Saints and Martyrs; the ‘Christians’ of ‘Syria’ and ‘Egypt’ seem to have made a great noise about the miracles done by the reliques of the ‘Christian’ Saints and Martyrs, in opposition to the powers attributed by ‘Julian’ and the heathens to their Idols. For ‘Sozomen’ and ‘Ruffinus’ tell us, that when he opened the heathen Temples, and consulted the Oracle of ‘Apollo Daphnæus’ in the suburbs of ‘Antioch’, and pressed by many sacrifices for an answer; the Oracle at length told him that the bones of the Martyr ‘Babylas’ which were buried there hinder’d him from speaking. By which answer we may understand, that some ‘Christian’ was got into the place where the heathen Priests used to speak thro’ a pipe in delivering their Oracles: and before this, ‘Hilary’ in his book against ‘Constantius’, written in the last year of that Emperor, makes the following mention of what was then doing in the ‘East’ where he was. ‘Sine martyrio persequeris. Plus crudelitati vestræ’ Nero, Deci, Maximiane, ‘debemus. Diabolum enim per vos vicimus. Sanctus ubique beatorum martyrum sanguis exceptus est, dum in his Dæmones mugiunt, dum ægritudines depelluntur, dum miraculorum opera cernuntur, elevari sine laqueis corpora, & dispensis pede fæminis vestes non defluere in faciem, uri sine ignibus spiritus, confiteri sine interrogantis incremento fidei’. And ‘Gregory Nazianzen’, in his first Oration against the Emperor ‘Julian’ then reigning, writes thus: ‘Martyres non extimuisti quibus præclari honores & festa constituta, à quibus Dæmones propelluntur & morbi curantur; quorum sunt apparitiones & prædictiones; quorum vel sola corpora idem possunt quod animæ sanctæ, sive manibus contrectentur, sive honorentur: quorum vel solæ sanguinis guttæ atque exigua passionis signa idem possunt quod corpora. Hæc non colis sed contemnis & aspernaris’. These things made the heathens in the reign of the same Emperor demolish the sepulchre of ‘John’ the Baptist in ‘Phœnicia’, and burn his bones; when several ‘Christians’ mixing themselves with the heathens, gathered up some of his remains, which were sent to ‘Athanasius’, who hid them in the wall of a Church; foreseeing by a prophetic spirit, as ‘Ruffinus’ tells us, that they might be profitable to future generations.
The cry of these miracles being once set on foot, continued for many years, and encreased and grew more general. ‘Chrysostom’, in his second Oration on St. ‘Babylas’, twenty years after the silencing of the Oracle of ‘Apollo Daphnæus’ as above, viz. A.C. 382, saith of the miracles done by the Saints and their reliques: ‘Nulla est nostri hujus Orbis seu regio, seu gens, seu urbs, ubi nova & inopinata miracula hæc non decantentur; quæ quidem si figmenta fuissent, prorsus in tantam hominum admirationem non venissent’. And a little after: ‘Abunde orationi nostræ fidem faciunt quæ quotidiana à martyribus miracula eduntur, magna affatim ad illa hominum multitudine affluente’. And in his 66th Homily, describing how the Devils were tormented and cast out by the bones of the Martyrs, he adds: ‘Ob eam causam multi plerumque Reges peregrè profecti sunt, ut hoc spectaculo fruerentur. Siquidem sanctorum martyrum templa futuri judicii vestigia & signa exhibent, dum nimirum Dæmones flagris cæduntur, hominesque torquentur & liberantur. Vide quæ sanctorum vitâ functorum vis sit’? And ‘Jerom’ in his Epitaph on ‘Paula’, thus mentions the same things. ‘Paula vidit Samariam: ibi siti sunt Elisæus & Abdias prophetæ, & Joannes Baptista, ubi multis intremuit consternata miraculis. Nam cernebat variis dæmones rugire cruciatibus, & ante sepulchra sanctorum ululare, homines more luporum vocibus latrare canum, fremere leonum, sibilare serpentum, mugire taurorum, alios rotare caput & post tergum terram vertice tangere, suspensisque pede fæminis vestes non defluere in faciem’. This was about the year 384: and ‘Chrysostom’ in his Oration on the ‘Egyptian’ Martyrs, seems to make ‘Egypt’ the ringleader in these matters, saying: ‘Benedictus Deus quandoquidem ex Ægypto prodeunt martyres, ex Ægypto illa cum Deo pugnante ac insanissima, & unde impia ora, unde linguæ blasphemæ; ex Ægypto martyres habentur; non in Ægypto tantum, nec in finitima vicinaque regione, sed UBIQUE TERRARUM. Et quemadmodum in annonæ summa ubertate, cum viderunt urbium incolæ majorem quam usus habitatorum postulat esse proventum, ad peregrinas etiam urbes transmittunt: cum & suam comitatem & liberalitatem ostendant, tum ut præter horum abundantiam cum facilitate res quibus indigent rursus ab illis sibi comparent: sic & Ægyptii, quod attinet ad religionis athletas, fecerunt. Cum apud se multam eorum Dei benignitate copiam cernerent, nequaquam ingens Dei munus sua civitate concluserunt, sed in OMNES TERRÆ PARTES bonorum thesauros effuderunt: cum ut suum in fratres amorem ostenderent, tum ut communem omnium dominum honore afficerent, ac civitati suæ gloriam apud omnes compararent, totiusque terrarum ORBIS esse METROPOLIN declararent.—Sanctorum enim illorum corpora quovis adamantino & inexpugnabili muro tutiùs nobis urbem communiunt, & tanquam excelsi quidam scopuli undique prominentes, non horum qui sub sensus cadunt & oculis cernuntur hostium impetus propulsant tantùm, sed etiam invisibilium dæmonum insidias, omnesque diaboli fraudes subvertunt ac dissipant.—Neque vero tantùm adversus hominum insidias aut adversus fallacias dæmonum utilis nobis est hæc possessio, sed si nobis communis dominus ob peccatorum multitudinem irascatur, his objectis corporibus continuo poterimus eum propitium reddere civitati’. This Oration was written at ‘Antioch’, while ‘Alexandria’ was yet the Metropolis of the ‘East’, that is, before the year 381, in which ‘Constantinople’ became the Metropolis: and it was a work of some years for the ‘Egyptians’ to have distributed the miracle-working reliques of their Martyrs over all the world, as they had done before that year. ‘Egypt’ abounded most with the reliques of Saints and Martyrs, the ‘Egyptians’ keeping them embalmed upon beds even in their private houses; and ‘Alexandria’ was eminent above all other cities for dispersing them, so as on that account to acquire glory with all men, and manifest herself to be the ‘Metropolis’ of the world. ‘Antioch’ followed the example of ‘Egypt’, in dispersing the reliques of the forty (40) Martyrs: and the examples of ‘Egypt’ and ‘Syria’ were soon followed by the rest of the world. [Compare all this also with Calvin’s Treatise on Relics in 1543, 1854. Also see Council of Trent, (1545-1563), Session 25; & Gibbon’s Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (1786, 1821), vol. 9, chap. 49; also compare Luther’s Wittenberg (Sears’ Luther’s Mental & Spiritual History,1857′) as to its 5,000 Relics in 1508-1517. See also the 1983 Code of canon Law Bk4, pt2, tit4, Veneration of Saints, Sacred Images, & Relics.]
The reliques of the forty (40) Martyrs at ‘Antioch’ were distributed among the Churches before the year 373; for ‘Athanasius’ who died in that year, wrote an Oration upon them. This Oration is not yet published, but ‘Gerard Vossius’ saw it in MS. in the Library of Cardinal ‘Ascanius’ in ‘Italy’, as he says in his commentary upon the Oration of ‘Ephræm Syrus’ on the same forty (40) Martyrs. Now since the Monks of ‘Alexandria’ sent the reliques of the Martyrs of ‘Egypt’ into all parts of the earth, and thereby acquired glory to their city, and declared her in these matters the Metropolis of the whole world, as we have observed out of ‘Chrysostom’; it may be concluded, that before ‘Alexandria’ received the forty (40) Martyrs from ‘Antioch’, she began to send out the reliques of her own Martyrs into all parts, setting the first (1st) example to other cities. This practice therefore began in ‘Egypt’ some years before the death of ‘Athanasius’. It began when the miracle-working bones of ‘John’ the Baptist were carried into ‘Egypt’, and hid in the wall of a Church, ‘that they might be profitable to future generations’. It was restrained in the reign of ‘Julian’ the Apostate: and then it spred from ‘Egypt’ into all the Empire, ‘Alexandria’ being the Metropolis of the whole world, according to ‘Chrysostom’, for propagating this sort of devotion, and ‘Antioch’ and other cities soon following her example.
In propagating these superstitions, the ring-leaders were the Monks, and ‘Antony’ was at the head of them: for in the end of the life of ‘Antony, Athanasius’ relates that these were his dying words to his disciples who then attended him. ‘Do you take care’, said ‘Antony, to adhere to Christ in the first place, and then to the Saints, that after death they may receive you as friends and acquaintance into the everlasting tabernacles, Think upon these things, perceive these things; and if you have any regard to me, remember me as a father’. This being delivered in charge to the Monks by ‘Antony’ at his death, A.C. 356, could not but inflame their whole body with devotion towards the Saints, as the ready way to be received, by them into the eternal Tabernacles after death. Hence came that noise about the miracles, done by the reliques of the Saints in the time of ‘Constantius’: hence came the dispersion of the miracle-working reliques into all the Empire; ‘Alexandria’ setting the example, and being renowned, for it above all other cities. Hence it came to pass in the days of ‘Julian’, A.C. 362, that ‘Athanasius’ by a prophetic spirit, as ‘Ruffinus’ tells us, hid the bones of ‘John’ the Baptist from the Heathens, not in the ground to be forgotten, but in the hollow wall of a Church before proper witnesses, that they might ‘be profitable to future generations’. Hence also came the invocation of the Saints for doing such miracles, and for assisting men in their devotions, and mediating with God. For ‘Athanasius’, even from his youth, looked upon the dead Saints and Martyrs as mediators of our prayers: in his Epistle to ‘Marcellinus’, written in the days of ‘Constantine’ the great, he saith that the words of the ‘Psalms’ are not to be transposed or any wise changed, but to be recited and sung without any artifice, as they are written, ‘that the holy men who delivered them, knowing them to be their own words, may pray with us; or rather, that the Holy Ghost who spake in the holy men, seeing his own words with which he inspired them, may join with them in assisting us’.
Whilst ‘Egypt’ abounded with Monks above any other country, the veneration of the Saints began sooner, and spred faster there than in other places. ‘Palladius’ going into ‘Egypt’ in the year 388 to visit the Monasteries, and the sepulchres of ‘Apollonius’ and other Martyrs of ‘Thebais’ who had suffered under ‘Maximinus’, saith of them: ‘Iis omnibus Christiani fecerunt ædem unam, ubi nunc multæ virtutes peraguntur. Tanta autem fuit viri gratia, ut de iis quæ esset precatus statim exaudiretur, eum sic honorante servatore: quem etiam nos in martyrio precati vidimus, cum iis qui cum ipso fuerunt martyrio affecti; & Deum adorantes, eorum corpora salutavimus’. ‘Eunapius’ also, a heathen, yet a competent witness of what was done in his own times, relating how the soldiers delivered the temples of ‘Egypt’ into the hands of the Monks, which was done in the year 389, rails thus in an impious manner at the Martyrs, as succeeding in the room of the old Gods of ‘Egypt. Illi ipsi, milites, Monachos Canobi quoque collocârunt, ut pro Diis qui animo cernuntur, servos & quidem flagitiosos divinis honoribus percolerent, hominum mentibus ad cultum ceremoniasque obligatis. Ii namque condita & salita eorum capita, qui ob scelerum multitudinem à judicibus extremo judicio fuerant affecti, pro Divis ostentabant; iis genua submittebant, eos in Deorum numerum receptabant, ad illorum sepulchra pulvere sordibusque conspurcati. Martyres igitur vocabantur, & ministri quidem & legati arbitrique precum apud Deos; cum fuerint servilia infida & flagris pessimè subacta, quæ cicatrices scelerum ac nequitiæ vestigia corporibus circumferunt; ejusmodi tamen Deos fert tellus’. By these instances we may understand the invocation of Saints was now of some standing in ‘Egypt’, and that it was already generally received and practised there by the common people.
Thus ‘Basil’ a Monk, who was made Bishop of ‘Cæsarea’ in the year 369, and died in the year 378, in his Oration on the Martyr ‘Mamas’, saith: ‘Be ye mindful of the Martyr; as many of you as have enjoyed him in your dreams, as many as in this place have been assisted by him in prayer, as many of you as upon invoking him by name have had him present in your works, as many as he has reduced into the way from wandering, as many as he has restored to health, as, many as have had their dead children restored by him to life, as many as have had their lives prolonged by him’: and a little after, he thus expresses the universality of this superstition in the regions of ‘Cappadocia’ and ‘Bithynia’: ‘At the memory of the Martyr’, saith he, ‘the whole region is moved; at his festival the whole city is transported with joy. Nor do the kindred of the rich turn aside to the sepulchres of their ancestors, but all go to the place of devotion’. Again, in the end of the Homily he prays, that ‘God would preserve the Church, thus fortified with the great towers of the Martyrs’: and in his Oration on the forty (40) Martyrs; ‘These are they’, saith he, ‘who obtaining our country, like certain towers afford us safety against our enemies. Neither are they shut up in one place only, but being distributed are sent into many regions, and adorn many countries.—You have often endeavoured, you have often laboured to find one who might pray for you: here are forty (40), emitting one (1) voice of prayer.—He that is in affliction flies to these, he that rejoices has recourse to these: the first (1st), that he may be freed from evil, the last that he may continue in happiness. Here a woman praying for her children is heard; she obtains a safe return for her husband from abroad, and health for him in his sickness.—O ye common keepers of mankind, the best companions of our cares, suffragans and coadjutors of our prayers, most powerful embassadors to God’, &c. By all which it is manifest, that before the year 378, the Orations and Sermons upon the Saints went much beyond the bounds of mere oratorical flourishes, and that the common people in the ‘East’ were already generally corrupted by the Monks with Saint-worship.
‘Gregory Nazianzen’ a Monk, in his sixth Oration written A.C. 373, when he was newly made Bishop of ‘Sasima’, saith: ‘Let us purify ourselves to the Martyrs, or rather to the God of the Martyrs’: and a little after he calls the Martyrs ‘mediators of obtaining an ascension or divinity’. The same year, in the end of his Oration upon ‘Athanasius’ then newly dead, he thus invokes him: ‘Do thou look down upon us propitiously, and govern this people, as perfect adorers of the perfect Trinity, which in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is contemplated and worshiped: if there shall be peace, preserve me, and feed my flock with me; but if war, bring me home, place me by thyself, and by those that are like thee; however great my request’. And in the end of the funeral Oration upon ‘Basil’, written A.C. 378, he thus addresses him: ‘But thou, O divine and sacred Head, look down upon us from heaven; and by thy prayers either take away that thorn of the flesh which is given us by God for exercise, or obtain that we may bear it with courage, and direct all our life to that which is most fitting for us. When we depart this life, receive us there in your Tabernacles, that living together and beholding the holy and blessed Trinity more purely and perfectly, whereof we have now but an imperfect view, we may there come to the end of our desires, and receive this reward of the wars which we have waged or suffered’: and in his Oration upon ‘Cyprian’, not the Bishop of ‘Carthage’, but a ‘Greek’, he invokes him after the same manner; and tells us also how a pious Virgin named ‘Justina’, was protected by invoking the Virgin ‘Mary’, and how miracles were done by the ashes of ‘Cyprian’.
‘Gregory Nyssen’, another eminent Monk and Bishop, in the life of ‘Ephræm Syrus’, tells how a certain man returning from a far country, was in great danger, by reason all the ways were intercepted by the armies of barbarous nations; but upon invoking ‘Ephræm’ by name, and saying, ‘Holy’ Ephræm ‘assist me’, he escaped the danger, neglected the fear of death, and beyond his hope got safe home. In the end of this Oration ‘Gregory’ calls upon ‘Ephræm’ after the following manner: ‘But thou, O Ephræm, assisting now at the divine altar, and sacrificing to the Prince of life, and to the most holy Trinity, together with the Angels; remember us all, and obtain for us pardon of our sins, that we may enjoy the eternal happiness of the kingdom of heaven’. The same ‘Gregory’, in his Oration on the Martyr ‘Theodorus’ written A.C. 381, thus describes the power of that Martyr, and the practice of the people. ‘This Martyr’, saith he, ‘the last year quieted the barbarous tempest, and put a stop to the horrid war of the fierce and cruel Scythians.—If anyone is permitted to carry away the dust with which the tomb is covered, wherein the body of the Martyr rests; the dust is accepted as a gift, and gathered to be laid up as a thing of great price. For to touch the reliques themselves, if any such prosperous fortune shall at any time happen; how great a favour that is, and not to be obtained without the most earnest prayers, they know well who have obtained it. For as a living and florid body, they who behold it embrace it, applying to it the eyes, mouth, ears, and all the organs of sense; and then with affection pouring tears upon the Martyr, as if he was whole and appeared to them: they offer prayers with supplication, that he would intercede for them as an advocate, praying to him as an Officer attending upon God, and invoking him as receiving gifts whenever he will’. At length ‘Gregory’ concludes the Oration with this prayer: ‘O Theodorus, we want many blessings; intercede and beseech for thy country before the common King and Lord: for the country of the Martyr is the place of his passion, and they are his citizens, brethren and kindred, who have him, defend, adorn and honour him. We fear afflictions, we expect dangers: the wicked Scythians are not far off, ready to make war against us. As a soldier fight for us, as a Martyr use liberty of speech for thy fellow-servants. Pray for peace, that these publick meetings may not cease, that the furious and wicked barbarian may not rage against the temples and altars, that the profane and impious may not trample upon the holy things. We acknowledge it a benefit received from thee, that we are preserved safe and entire, we pray for freedom from danger in time to come: and if there shall be need of greater intercession and deprecation, call together the choir of thy brethren the Martyrs, and in conjunction with them all intercede for us. Let the prayers of many just ones attone for the sins of the multitudes and the people; exhort Peter, excite Paul, and also John the divine and beloved disciple, that they may be sollicitous for the Churches which they have erected, for which they have been in chains, for which they have undergone dangers and deaths; that the worship of idols may not lift up its head against us, that heresies may not spring up like thorns in the vineyard, that tares grown up may not choak the wheat, that no rock void of the fatness of true dew may be against us, and render the fruitful power of the word void of a root; but by the power of the prayers of thyself and thy companions, O admirable man and eminent among the Martyrs, the commonwealth of Christians may become a field of corn. The same ‘Gregory Nyssen’, in his sermon upon the death of ‘Meletius’ Bishop of ‘Antioch’, preached at ‘Constantinople’ the same year, A.C. 381, before the Bishops of all the ‘East’ assembled in the second general Council, spake thus of ‘Meletius. The Bridegroom’, saith he, ‘is not taken from us: he stands in the midst of us, tho we do not see him: he is a Priest in the most inward places, and face to face intercedes before God for us and the sins of the people’. This was no oratorical flourish, but ‘Gregory’s’ real opinion, as may be understood by what we have cited out of him concerning ‘Ephræm’ and ‘Theodorus’: and as ‘Gregory’ preached this before the Council of ‘Constantinople’, you may thence know, saith ‘Baronius’, that he professed what the whole Council, and there with the whole Church of those parts believed, namely, that the Saints in heaven offer prayers for us before God.
‘Ephræm Syrus’, another eminent Monk, who was contemporary with ‘Basil’, and died the same year; in the end of his Encomium or Oration upon ‘Basil’ then newly dead, invokes him after this manner: ‘Intercede for me, a very miserable man; and recal me by thy intercessions, O father; thou who art strong, pray for me who am weak; thou who art diligent, for me who am negligent; thou who art chearful, for me who am heavy; thou who art wise, for me who am foolish. Thou who hast treasured up a treasure of all virtues, be a guide to me who am empty of every good work’. In the beginning of his Encomium upon the forty (40) Martyrs, written at the same time, he thus invokes them: ‘Help me therefore, O ye Saints, with your intercession; and O ye beloved, with your holy prayers, that Christ by his grace may direct my tongue to speak’, &c. and afterwards mentioning the mother of one (1) of these forty (40) Martyrs, he concludes the Oration with this prayer: ‘I entreat thee, O holy, faithful, and blessed woman, pray for me to the Saints, saying; Intercede ye that triumph in Christ, for the most little and miserable Ephræm, that he may find mercy, and by the grace of Christ may be saved’. Again, in his second Sermon or Oration on the praises of the holy Martyrs of ‘Christ’, he thus addresses them: ‘We entreat you most holy Martyrs, to intercede with the Lord for us miserable sinners, beset with the filthiness of negligence, that he would infuse his divine grace into us’: and afterwards, near the end of the same discourse; ‘Now ye most holy men and glorious Martyrs of God, help me a miserable sinner with your prayers, that in that dreadful hour I may obtain mercy, when the secrets of all hearts shall be made manifest. I am today become to you, most holy Martyrs of Christ, as it were an unprofitable and unskilful cup-bearer: for I have delivered to the sons and brothers of your faith, a cup of the excellent wine of your warfare, with the excellent table of your victory, replenished with all sorts of dainties. I have endeavoured, with the whole affection and desire of my mind, to recreate your fathers and brothers, kindred and relations, who daily frequent the table. For behold they sing, and with exultation and jubilee glorify God, who has crown’d your virtues, by setting on your most sacred heads incorruptible and celestial crowns; they with excessive joy stand about the sacred reliques of your martyrdoms, wishing for a blessing, and desiring to bear away holy medicines both for the body and the mind. As good disciples and faithful ministers of our benign Lord and Saviour, bestow therefore a blessing on them all: and on me also, tho weak and feeble, who having received strength by your merits and intercessions, have with the whole devotion of my mind, sung a hymn to your praise and glory before your holy reliques. Wherefore I beseech you stand before the throne of the divine Majesty for me Ephræm, a vile and miserable sinner, that by your prayers I may deserve to obtain salvation, and with you enjoy eternal felicity by the grace and benignity and mercy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and Holy Ghost be praise, honour and glory for ever and ever’. Amen.
By what has been cited out of ‘Basil’, the two ‘Gregories’ and ‘Ephræm’, we may understand that Saint-worship was established among the Monks and their admirers in ‘Egypt, Phœnicia, Syria and Cappadocia’, before the year 378, this being the year in which ‘Basil’ and ‘Ephræm’ died. ‘Chrysostom’ was not much later; he preached at ‘Antioch’ almost all the time of ‘Theodosius’ the great, and in his Sermons are many exhortations to this sort of superstition, as may be seen in the end of his Orations on S. ‘Julia’, on St. ‘Pelagia’, on the Martyr ‘Ignatius’, on the ‘Egyptian’ Martyrs, on Fate and Providence, on the Martyrs in general, on St. ‘Berenice’ and St. ‘Prosdoce’, on ‘Juventinus’ and ‘Maximus’, on the name of ‘Cœmetery’, &c. Thus in his Sermon on ‘Berenice’ and ‘Prosdoce’: ‘Perhaps’, saith he, ‘you are inflamed with no small love towards these Martyrs; therefore with this ardour let us fall down before their reliques, let us embrace their coffins. For the coffins of the Martyrs have great virtue, even as the bones of the Martyrs have great power. Nor let us only on the day of this festival, but also on other days apply to them, invoke them, and beseech them to be our patrons: for they have great power and efficacy, not only whilst alive, but also after death; and much more after death than before. For now they bear the marks or brands of Christ; and when they shew these marks, they can obtain all things of the King. Seeing therefore they abound with such efficacy, and have so much friendship with him; we also, when by continual attendance and perpetual visitation of them we have insinuated ourselves into their familiarity, may by their assistance obtain the mercy of God’.
‘Constantinople’ was free from these superstitions till ‘Gregory Nazianzen’ came thither A.D. 379; but in a few years it was also inflamed with it. ‘Ruffinus’ tells us, that when the Emperor ‘Theodosius’ was setting out against the tyrant ‘Eugenius’, which was in the year 394, he went about with the Priests and people to all the places of prayer; lay prostrate in haircloth before the shrines of the Martyrs and Apostles, and pray’d for assistance by the intercession of the Saints. ‘Sozomen’ adds, that when the Emperor was marched seven miles from ‘Constantinople’ against ‘Eugenius’, he went into a Church which he had built to ‘John’ the Baptist, ‘and invoked the Baptist for his assistance. Chrysostom says: He that is clothed in purple, approaches to embrace these sepulchres; and laying aside his dignity, stands supplicating the Saints to intercede for him with God: and he who goes crowned with a diadem, offers his prayers to the tent-maker and the fisher-man as his Protestors’. And in another place: ‘The cities run together to the sepulchres of the Martyrs, and the people are inflamed with the love of them’.
This practice of sending reliques from place to place for working miracles, and thereby inflaming the devotion of the nations towards the dead Saints and their reliques, and setting up the religion of invoking their souls, lasted only till the middle of the reign of the Emperor ‘Theodosius’ the great; for he then prohibited it by the following Edict. ‘Humatum corpus, nemo ad alterum locum transferat; nemo Martyrem distrahat, nemo mercetur: Habeant verò in potestate, si quolibet in loco sanctorum est aliquis conditus, pro ejus veneratione, quod Martyrium vocandum sit, addant quod voluerint fabricarum. Dat. iv. Kal. Mart. Constantinopoli, Honorio nob. puero & Euodio Coss. A.C. 386 [CT 9.17.7. Theod Law on Relics: Violation of Sepulchres. “In 385/86, Bishop Ambrose of Milan was thus inspired to dig in front of the chancel screen of the Basilica of Sts. Felix and Nabor outside Milan, where he promptly discovered the intact bodies of the previously unknown martyrs Sts. Gervasius and Protasius.10 Despite long-standing prohibitions against disturbing the dead and the enactment, in February 386, of a law stipulating that “no person shall transfer a buried body to another place . . . sell the relics of a martyr . . . or trafficin them,” (* C.Parr’s tr.) Ambrose moved the remains of the martyrs to the Basilica of Fausta and on the following day transferred them to his new basilica, commonly known as the Basilica Ambrosiana, where he laid them to rest under the altar.(*Ambrose, Let. 22) It was not the last time that local martyrs would call Ambrose to action. Less than ten years later, in 395, Ambrose discovered the bodies of Sts. Nazarius and Celsus in a garden outside Milan and transferred them to the Basilica of the Holy Apostles. (*Paul. of Milan, Life of St. Ambrose)”]. After this they filled the fields and high-ways with altars erected to Martyrs, which they pretended to discover by dreams and revelations: and this occasioned the making the fourteenth (14th) Canon of the fifth (5th=3rd) Council of Carthage, A.C. 398. ‘Item placuit, ut altaria, quæ passim per agros aut vias, tanquam memoriæ Martyrum constituuntur, in quibus nullum corpus aut reliquiæ Martyrum conditæ probantur, ab Episcopis, qui illis locis præsunt, si fieri potest, evertantur. Si autem hoc propter tumultus populares non sinitur, plebes tamen admoneantur, ne illa loca frequentent, ut qui rectè sapiunt, nullâ ibi superstitione devincti teneantur. Et omnino nulla memoria Martyrum probabiliter acceptetur, nisi aut ibi corpus aut aliquæ certæ reliquiæ sint, aut ubi origo alicujus habitationis, vel possessionis, vel passionis fidelissima origine traditur. Nam quæ per somnia, & per inanes quasi revelationes quorumlibet hominum ubique constituuntur altaria, omnimodè reprobentur’. These altars were for invoking the Saints or Martyrs buried or pretended to be buried under them. First they filled the Churches in all places with the reliques or pretended reliques of the Martyrs, for invoking them in the Churches; and then they filled the fields and high-ways with altars, for invoking them everywhere: and this new religion was set up by the Monks in all the ‘Greek’ Empire before the expedition of the Emperor ‘Theodosius’ against ‘Eugenius’, and I think before his above-mentioned Edict, A.C. 386.
The same religion of worshiping ‘Mahuzzims’ quickly spred into the ‘Western Empire’ also: but ‘Daniel’ in this Prophecy describes chiefly the things done among the nations comprehended in the body of his third (3rd) Beast. (Notes to Chap. XIV. Chap. 11:38,39. Orat. de vita Greg. Thaumaturg. T. 3. p. 574. Vide Hom. 47. in. S. Julian. Epist. 27. ad Eustochium. Edit. Frontonis Ducæi, Tom. 1. Ad. an. 381, Sect. 41. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 23. L. 4. c. 24. Hom. 66. ad. populum, circa finem. & Hom. 8, 27. in Matth. Hom. 42, 43. in Gen. Hom. 1. in 1st Thess. Exposit. in Psal. 114. sub finem.) }}
(The end of the first Part.)
4. Lowth:
A Commentary upon the Larger & Lesser Prophets: being a Continuation Bishop Patrick. Isaiah -Malachi. Prophecy of Daniel & the Minor Prophets. William Lowth. 4th Edition. London. 1739. gs. (The original italics & archaic spellings have been retained as much as possible; the archaic ‘s’ that looked like a ‘f’ has been changed whenever found. In the PDF or Word format the original italics are reproduced, but to indicate them in ‘text format’ I have added single quotes.)
{{ Dedication: To the Most Reverend Father in GOD, William, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; Primate of all England, & Metropolitan; & One of his Majesty’s most Honourable Privy-Council.: ….”The Obscurity which is found in some Passages of these Prophecies, particularly in those of Daniel, hath exercised the Thoughts of inquisitive Men in the foregoing Ages of the Church. But we, ‘upon whom the Ends of the World are come’, seem to have an Advantage above those that went before us: Forasmuch as it may be reasonably supposed, that the nearer the Events foretold are to their Accomplishment, the greater Light several Providential Occurrences may afford to the Predictions themselves. The Prophecy of Daniel is an undeniable Proof of an Over-ruling Providence, that ‘changes Times and Seasons’, that ‘removeth’ one Government, and ‘setteth up’ another. For what Foresight was able so exactly to describe the orderly Succession of the Four Great Monarchies, but that of the ‘Eternal Mind’, whose ‘Wisdom reacheth from one End to another mightily, and sweetly orders all Things? Who declares the End from the Beginning, and from ancient Times Things which are not yet come to pass; saying, My Counsel shall stand, and I will do all My Pleasure’.” ….’I am, May it please Your Grace , Your Grace’s most Dutiful & Obedient Servant’, W. Lowth. }}
{{ ‘Concerning the Author and Subject of the ensuing Prophecy’.: “The Prophet Daniel was descended of the Royal Family of the Kings of Judah; so that in the Captivity of himself and his Companions, was fulfilled that Prophecy of Isaiah, that the King’s Issue should be Eunuchs [or Officers] to the King of Babylon: Isa. 39:7. The later Jews do not reckon Daniel among the Prophets; but herein they contradict the Sense of the more antient ones, and particularly of Josephus, who calls him ‘one of the Greatest of the Prophets’, and saith, ‘that he did not only foretel future Things, which was common to him with other Prophets, but also prefixed a Time for “their coming to pass’: Antiq. lib. x. cap. 12. Our Saviour’s Authority is decisive in this Matter, who expresly calls Daniel a Prophet, Matt. 24:15 wherein he likewise spoke the Sense of the Jews of that Time. And if we consider the important Subject of some of his Prophecies, wherein he plainly points out the Time of Christ’s Coming and Sufferings; and the large Extent of others of them, giving an Account of the Succession of the Four Monarchies unto the End of the World; he may justly be reckoned among the first of that Order. Daniel and St. John had both of them the Honour of being Persons greatly beloved by God and Christ, (comp. Dan. 10:11 with John 13:23) so the latter, in his Revelation, doth more distinctly unfold those Events which the former foretels in general Terms, as Mr. Mede has observed. See his Works, p. 787. This Prophecy is writ partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee: for which this Reason may be assigned; that those Parts of it, in which the Babylonian Empire was concerned, were writ in their Language, viz. from Chap. 1:4. to the End of the seventh Chapter: a great Part of which was probably enter’d into their publick Registers. See a like Instance Esther 2:23. St. Jerome tells us in the Preface to his Commentary upon Daniel, that Porphyry had the Boldness to affirm, that the Prophecies of Daniel relating to the Kings of Syria and Egypt, Chap. 11 were written after the Times of Antiochus Epiphanes: This was plainly granting the Truth of the Matters of Fact therein contained, as St. Jerome observes; and the Falsity of his Assertion clearly appears from hence, that this Prophecy was translated into Greek an hundred (100) Years before Antiochus’s Time, and that Translation was in the Hands of the Egyptians, who had no Kindness either for the Jews or their Religion. Nay farther, the Prophecies of Daniel foretelling the great Succeses of Alexander, Chap. 8:5; 9:3, were shewed to Alexander himself by the Jews, who thereupon obtained several Privileges from him, as Josephus informs us, Antiq. Lib. xi. cap. 8. Daniel lived in great Favour under Nebuchadnezzar and his Successors in the Babylonian Monarchy; his extraordinary Merits continued him in the same Degree of Favour under Darius and Cyrus, the two (2) first (1st) Persian Monarchs: and as Josephus observes, (ubi supra) “ he was the only Prophet that enjoyed a great Share of worldly Prosperity.” He must needs have lived to a great Age, it being near seventy (70) Years from the Date of his first (1st) Prophecy, Chap. 2:1. to that of his last, Chap. 10:1. Our learned Chronologer, Bishop Lloyd, supposes him to have been carried into Captivity when he was about twenty (20) Years old: about ten (10) Years after, we find him famed for his Piety and Wisdom, as appears from Ezek. 14:14; 28:3. His last Vision was in the third (3rd) Year of Cyrus, Dan. 10:1, at which time he was about ninety-four (94) Years of Age, and it is not likely he lived much longer. There need not any Thing be said concerning the three Additions to Daniel, viz. The Son of the Three Children, the History of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon: since they manifestly appear to have been the Productions of Hellenists of later Times, and accordingly are rejected as Apocryphal, by St. Jerome in the Prefaces to his Translation, and to his Commentary on Daniel, and by other antient Writers. }}
{{ 1:1: ‘In the third (3rd) Year of the Reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon to Jerusalem’.] The Prophet Jeremiah makes the first Year of Nebuchadnezzar coincident with the fourth (4th) Year of Jehoiakim, and from thence begins the Date of the seventy (70) Years Captivity. See Jer. 25:1; 50:11. But here Daniel speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as King of Babylon in the third (3rd) Year of Jehoiakim. To this Objection Dr. Prideaux gives an easy Answer, (Script. Connect. Par.1.p.6o. Edit.8vo.) That Daniel begins his Computation from the Time that Nebuchadnezzar was sent by his Father on the Expedition against Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt, which was toward the latter End of the third (3rd) Year of Jehoiakim. In the Beginning of the following Year he conquered the Egyptians, which was the fourth (4th) Year of Jehoiakim, See Jerem. 46:2. And in the latter End of the same Year he came and besieged Jerusalem in the ninth (9th) Month, according to the Jews Account, who to this Day keep a Fast on the 18th Day of that Month, in Memory of this Taking of Jerusalem. At which Time Jehoiakim became tributary to the King of Babylon, and consequently the seventy (70) Years of Captivity and Vassalage to Babylon began. It has been observed in the Notes upon Jer. 25:1. that the Scripture Account of the Beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s Reign anticipates the Computation of Ptolemy’s Canon two (2) Years, which two (2) Years Nebuchadnezzar reigned with his Father, as Josephus informs us from Berosus, Antiq. lib.x.c. 11. }}
{{ 2:40: “‘And the Fourth (4th) Kingdom shall be strong as Iron’] So it is represented as having great Iron Teeth, Chap. 7:7, 19. This Fourth (4th) Kingdom can be no other than the Roman Empire. Some Commentators indeed have reckoned the Empire continued in Alexander’s Successors, as a distinct Kingdom from that which was set up by himself. But no Writer of the History of those Times speaks of it as such: And this Notion plainly contradicts the Description which Daniel gives of that Kingdom, Chap. 8. There the Prophet represents the Third (3rd) Kingdom as it were set up by Alexander, and continued under his Successors, under the Figure of a Goat having one (1) great Horn, and afterward, Four (4) others which stood up in its Stead, ver. 8, and afterwards expresly calls Alexander the first (1st) King, ver. 21, and farther tells us, Chap. 11:4, that his Kingdom shall be broken and divided toward the Four (4) Winds of Heaven. They that want farther Satisfaction, may see more Proofs of this Point, in Mr. Mede’s Dissertation upon this Subject, p. 712 of his Works. The Reason why the Spirit of God takes Notice of these Monarchies rather than any others, is because God’s People were Subjects to these Monarchies as they succeeded one another: and in their Succession, a Line of Time is carried on to the Coming of Christ, who was to appear in the Times of the Fourth (4th) Monarchy, and the Countries belonging to it were to be the chief Seat of Christ’s Kingdom: as Mr. Mede observes in the same Dissertation upon this Subject, p. 712. of his Works. }}
{{ 5:1: ‘Belshazzar the King’.] This was the last King of the Babylonish Race, and therefore must be the same who is called Nabonnedus by Berosus, and Naboandelus by Josephus, Antiq. lib. x. c. 11. See this clearly proved by Dr. Prideaux, Script. Connect. par.1.p. 114.” 5:2: “‘Belshazzar commanded to bring the Gold and Silver Vessels which his Father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the Temple which was in Jerusalem’.] These Vessels were carried by Nebuchadnezzar into the Temple of his own ‘God’, Chap. 1:2, and set apart, as it seems, for Religious Uses. So this farther Profanation of them was contrary to the Rules of their own Religion, and may be supposed to have been done out of a drunken Frolick by Belshazzar. Without question the Vessels and other Furniture, with which Solomon adorned the Temple, were extraordinary magnificent: Since Nebuchadnezzar thought them worth carrying to Babylon, to furnish the Temple he had built there for his ‘God’ Belus, a Structure that might be esteemed one of the Wonders of the World: fee Dr. Prideaux ubi supra, p. 98. Some of these Vessels were afterwards carried in Triumph to Rome by Titus, after he had conquered Jerusalem, as Josephus an Eye-witness asserts, Bell. Jud. lib. 7. p. 1306. Edit. Oxon. Afterward, when Gisericus sacked Rome, he carried these away with the rest of his Booty; but when Justinian conquered Africk, he recovered them again, and sent them for a Present to the Church of Jerusalem. See Evagrius, lib. 4. c. 17. 5:2: Ibid. ‘Which his Father Nebuchadnezzar had taken’.] Nebuchadnezzar was in truth his Grandfather; for he was the Son of Evil-Merodach by Nitocris his Queen: So he was Grandson to Nebuchadnezzar: And thus the Prophecy of Jeremy was fulfilled, ‘That all Nations should serve Nebuchadnezzar and his Son, and his Son’s Son’, Jer. 27:7. It is usual in Scripture to call the Grandfather by the Name of Father; see 2nd Sam. 9:7; 2nd Kings 8:26 compared with ver. 18; 2nd Chron. 15:16 compared with Chap. 11:20; Zech. 1:1 with Ezra 6:14. 5:30: ‘In that night was Belshazzar, King of the Chaldeans slain’.] He and all his Nobles were slain together in the midst of their Feasting and Revelling, as Herodotus, lib.1. and Xenophon inform us: The latter relates the Story thus, Cyripad. lib.7. “That two (2) Deserters, Gadata and Gobryas, having assisted some of the Persian Army to kill the Guards, and seize upon the Palace, they entered into the Room where the King was, whom they found standing up in a Posture of Defence; but they soon dispatched him, and those that were with him.” Thus the Prophecy of Jeremy was accomplished, that Babylon should be taken at the Time of a Publick Feast, while her Princes and Great Men, her Captains, her Rulers, and mighty Men should be drunken, and should sleep a perpetual Sleep, and not awaken: Chap. 51. 5:31. ‘And Darius the Median took the Kingdom.] This Darius is said to be of the Seed of the Medes: Chap. 9:1. and is supposed by the most judicious Chronologers to be the fame with Cyaxares, the Son of Astyages : Him Cyrus made King of the Chaldeans, as being his Uncle by the Mother’s Side, and his Partner in carrying on the War against the Babylonians, and left him the Palace of the King of Babylon to live there whenever he pleased, as Xenophon relates, Cyripad. lib.8. Darius succeeding in the Empire, being Cyrus’s Gift, Ptolemy’s Canon supposes Cyrus to be the immediate Successor of Nabonnedus, or Belshazzar, and allots nine (9) Years to his Reign: whereas Xenophon reckons two (2) of these Years to Darius, and seven (7) to Cyrus: ubi supra. The Chaldee Phrase rendered here, ‘Took the Kingdom’, is translated Possessed the Kingdom, Chap. 7:18. and means the same with succeeding in the Kingdom. }}
{{ 7:5: ‘And behold another Beast, a second like to a Bear, and it raised up itself on one side’.] This Beast denotes the Persian Empire, and its first beginning to advance itself, and arrive at Dominion. The Margin reads, ‘And it raised up one Dominion’ ; i.e. it made up one Empire out of the joint Powers of Media and Persia.” 7:5: Ibid. ‘And it had three Ribs in the Mouth of it’.] The Learned Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, in the Vindication of his Defence of Chrisiianity, Vol. 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. explains these three (3) Ribs, to be Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt. It is certain that Lydia was conquered by Cyrus, from the famous Story of Craefus the King thereof, whom he condemned to the Fire: and as Egypt had been conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, see Ezek. 29:19 so it still continued tributary to Cyrus under the Government of Amasis. See the Additional Notes upon Ezekiel 29:13. and Xenophon. Cyripæd. lib. 7, and 8.” 7:7: Ibid. ‘And it was diverse from all the Beasts that were before it, and it had ten Horns’.] In this it was different from all the Beasts or Empires before it; that its Dominion was to be divided into ten (10) Kingdoms or Principalities, signified here by ten (10) Horns, and by the ten (10) Toes of the Image, Chap. 2:41. See ver. 23,24 of this Chapter, and the Notes there.” 7:12: ‘As concerning the rest of the Beasts, they had their Dominion taken away, yet their Lives were prolonged for a Season and Time’.] As to the three (3) first (1st) Monarchies, tho’ the succeeding Monarchy took away the Dominion of that which went before, yet it was not done all at once, but by degrees: and the Nations where those Monarchies were seated, still had a Being, though they changed their Masters. Whereas the Destruction of the last Monarchy implied the putting an End to that Empire, and to all other earthly Governments: the Kingdom of Christ being then immediately to take Place. See ver. 13,14. Chap. 2:34.” 7:24: ‘And the ten (10) Horns out of this Kingdom are ten Kings that shall arise’.] A Horn is an Emblem of Strength, so it comes to signify Power and Authority: See Deut. 33:17; Psal. 89:17 and from thence it is applied to denote Sovereignty or Dominion. See Chap: 8:21, 22; Rev. 17:12. These ten (10) Horns or Kingdoms arise out of the Dissolution of the Roman Empire, which came to pass about the Year of Christ 476. And it was divided into the following Principalities or Kingdoms, according to Mr. Mede. See his Works, p.661. 1. Britons. 2. Saxons. 3. Franks. 4. Burgundians. 5. Wiſigoths. 6. Suevians and Alans. 7. Vandals. 8. Almons. 9. Ostrogoths; succeeded by the Longobards, firſt (1st) in Pannonia, and then in Italy. 10. Greeks. The late learned Bishop Lloyd hath given the following List of the ten (10) Kingdoms which arose out of the Dissolution of the Roman Empire, and the Time of their Rise.
I. Hunns, erected their Kingdom in that part of Pannonia and Dacia, which from them was called Hungary, about A.D. 356.
II. Ostrogoths settled themselves in the Countries that reach from Rbetia to Mafia, even to Thrace, about 377, and afterward carne into Italy under Alaricus in 410.
III. Visigoths settled in the South Parts of France, and in Catalonia, about 378.
IV. Franks seized upon Part of Germany and Gaul, A. D. 410.
V. Vandals settled in Spain, afterward set up their Kingdom in Africa, A. D. 407. Their King Gensericus sackt Rome, 455.
VI. Suevians and Alans seized the Weſtern Parts of Spain A. D. 4ο7. and invaded Italy 457.
VII. Burgundians came out of Germany into that Part of Gaul, called from them Burgundy, 407.
VIII. Herules, Rugians, and Thoringians settled in Italy under Doacer, about A. D. 476.
IX. Saxons made themselves Masters of Great Britain about the same time, 476.
X. Longobards, called likewise Gopidæ, settled in Germany about Magd. burg. A. D. 383. and afterward succeeded the Heruli and Thuriigi in Hungary, about the Year 826.
7:24: Ibid. ‘And another shall arise after them’.] The Papacy took its Rise from the same Cause, but did not arrive at direct Supremacy, till the Year 606, when Pope Boniface usurped the Title of Universal Bishop. Mr. Mede translates the Words, ‘Another shall arise behind them’; i.e. in an unperceived Manner, so as the other Kings were not aware of his growing Greatness, till he overtopped them. 7:24: Ibid. ‘And he shall be diverse from the rest’.] His Authority will be Ecclesiastical, yet so as to lay claim to Temporal Power too, and to assert a Right of disposing of secular Affairs. 7:24: Ibid. ‘And he shall subdue three (3) Kings’.] Or, Kingdoms, see ver. 17. Mr. Mede, p. 778, 779, explains these three (3) Kingdoms to be, 1.The Exarchate of Ravenna, which Charles the Great recovered from the Lombards, and gave to the Pope. 2. The Kingdoms of the Greeks in Italy, of which the Emperor Leo Isaurus was deprived by the Popes Gregory the 2d and the 3rd: And, 3rdly, The Kingdom of the Franks, or German Emperors: From whom the Popes wrested the Election and Investiture of themselves and other Bishops, and by degrees took from them all the Jurisdiction they had in Italy; which was the Occasion of grievous Wars for several Ages, between the Popes and the Emperor Henry IV and his Successors. See a brief Account of those Encroachments of the Popes, and the Disturbances which followed upon them, in Bishop Stillingfleet’s Disc. of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, &c. Chap. v.:” 7:25: Ibid. ‘And they were given into his Hand (or Power, see Revel. 13:7.) until a Time, and Times, and the dividing of Time’.] Or, ‘Half a Time’, as the Hebrew expresseth it, Chap. 12:7, from whence the Expressions are taken by Saint John, Revel. 12:14. i.e. for three (3) Years and a half (1/2) of Prophetical Time. See the Note upon Chap. 4:16. The same Space of Time is expressed in other Places of the Revelation by two and forty (42) Months, and by twelve hundred and threefcore (1260) Days, Chap. xi. 11:2,3. These Times of Antichrist some Learned Men think to be typically represented in the Persecution which Antiochus Epiphanes raised against the Jewish Church, and his Interdict of the publick Worship in the Temple, which Josephus reckons to have lasted three years and a half (3 1/2 yrs): Bell. Jud. lib. I. c. 1. n. 3. Altho’ computing from the Time that the Idol-Altar was set up, that Desolation continued but three (3) Years precisely: As appears from 1st Maccab. 1:54. compared with Chap. 4:52. See Archbishop Usher’s Annals, Part 2. p. 23. and Dr. Prideaux Script. Connect. Part 2. ad ann. Christ. 168. & 165.” }}
{{ 8:3: “Ibid. ‘But one (1) was higher than the other, and the higher came up last’.] To denote that the Persian Kingdom, tho’ it was of a later Date, should over-top that of the Medes, and make a greater Figure in the World, as it did from the Times of Cyrus. See the Note upon Jer. 51:11. 8:4: “‘I saw the Ram pusting Westward’.] Persia lay Eastward of Babylon: so all the Conquests of Cyrus over Syria and the adjacent Countries enlarged his Dominions Westward. But we may probably include under this Head Cyrus’s Conquests in the Lesser Asia, particularly over Crasus, whereby he carried his Victories as far as the Ægean Sea. And his Successors were for some time Masters of a great Part of Greece, called the West in the following Verse. 8:4: “Ibid. ‘And Northward.] In the Conquests over the Iberians, Albanians, those of Colchos and Armenia, and the adjacent Countries. 8:4: ‘Ibid. ‘And Southward’.] This chiefly relates to Cambyes’s Conquests over Egypt and Ethiopia, together with those of Darius Hystaspes over India, whence Ahasuerus King of Persia is said to have reigned from India to Ethiopia, Esth. 1:1. 8:5: ‘And as I was considering, beheld a He-Goat came from the West on the Face of the whole Earth.] An He-Goat was antiently the Emblem of Princes or great Commanders: See Prov. 30:31; Zech. 10:3; Isai. 10:9. where the Word translated ‘Chief ones’, signifies in the Hebrew, ‘Great Goats’. The Goat is described here as coming from the West, that is, from Greece, on the Face of the whole Earth, i.e. carrying all before him as he went : denoting thereby the uninterrupted Success of Alexander the Great. A Goat was the Emblem, or Arms of Macedon, as we now a-days express it, ever since their King Caranus : See Justin’s Hist. lib. 8. 8:7. ‘And I saw him come close unto the Ram, and he was moved with Choler against him, and smote the Ram, and brake his two Horns’.] He made a quick and furious Onset upon the Medo-Persian Empire, and utterly broke it in two (2) Engagements, the first (1st) at Issus, the second (2nd) at Arbela. 8:7: Ibid. ‘He cast him down to the Ground, and stamped upon him’.] See Chap. 7:7. This Prophecy of Alexander’s Success, Jaddus the High-Priest shewed to him when he came to Jerusalem, and thereby encouraged him to go on in his Expedition. See Josephus Antiq. lib. xi. c. 8. 8:8: ‘Therefore the He-Goat waxed very great; and when he was strong the great Horn was broken’.] Alexander died in the Height of his Triumphs and Prosperity: See ver. 2I,22. 8:8: Ibid. ‘And for it came up four (4) notable ones toward the four (4) Winds of Heaven.] This the Angel explains by four (4) Kingdoms standing up instead of it, ver. 22. See likewise Chap. 11:4. Dr. Prideaux, ubi supra, p. 557 shews, that this Prophecy had its exact Completion upon the Partition of the Grecian Empire after the Battle of Ipsus, where Antigonus was killed. There were indeed Partitions of it into Provinces under the Brother and Son of Alexander; but this was a Partition of it into Kingdoms, among fo many Kings or independent Governors, represented here by Horns, and by Heads, Chap. 7:6. And these four (4) Kings were, 1. Ptolemy King of Egypt, Libya, Palestin, Arabia, and Celo-Syria, which may be called the Southern Part of the Empire. 2. Cassinder of Macedonia and Greece, which was the Western Part of it. 3. Lysimachus of Thrace and Asia, which was the Northern Part; and, 4. Seleucus of Syria and the Eastern Countries. From the Description here given of the Empire of Alexander, and his four (4) Successors, it is plain that the Prophet represents it as one (1) and the fame Empire; and as the Third (3rd) in order of Four (4) great Monarchies. For it is represented under the Emblem of one (1) and the same He-goat, having first (1st) one (1) notable Horn in its Forehead, which is expresly called the First (1st) King, ver. 21. and afterwards four (4) growing up in the room of it. This is a Confirmation of what is observed before upon Chap. 2:40 that the Fourth (4th) Kingdom must be the Roman Empire. Ver. 8:9: ‘And out of one (1) of them came forth a little Horn’.] From one (1) of these four (4) Successors of Alexander came forth Antiochus, afterwards called Epiphanes, or Illustrious, by his Flatterers, but was indeed a vile Person, to whom the Honour of the Kingdom did not belong, as the Angel gives his Character, Chap. 11:21. Demetrius his elder Brother’s Son being the rightful Heir. This little Horn belonging to the Third (3rd) Head, or Monarchy, must not be confounded with the little Horn belonging to the Fourth (4th), mentioned Chap. 7:8, 20. altho’ this here spoken of may be allowed to be a Type or Figure of the latter. 8:9: Ibid. ‘Which waxed exceeding great towards the South’.] He took Advantage of the Youth of Ptolemy Philometor: See 1st Maccab. 1:16, 19. and made himself Master of Egypt, called the South in several Places of the eleventh (11th) Chapter of this Prophecy. 8:9: Ibid. ‘And towards the East’.] Towards Armenia and Persia: See the Note upon Chap. 11:44. 8:9: Ibid. ‘And toward the pleasant Land’.] Judea is so called by the Holy Writers, as being made choice of by God to place His People there, and to make it the Seat of His peculiar Residence. See Ezek. 20:6; Psal. 48:2, and Comp. Chap. 11:16, 41, 45. It is often described as a Land flowing with Milk and Honey. The Cruelties which Antiochus Epiphanes exercised in Judea are the Subject of the following , Verses: Comp. Chap. 11:31, &c. }}
{{ Chapter 9: The Argument: Daniel having thoroughly considered the Prophecies of Jeremy relating to the LXX (70) Years Captivity, and being satisfied that that Term of Years was near expiring, humbles himself in Prayer for the Sins of his People, and earnestly begs of God the Restoration of Jerusalem. In answer to his Prayers, the Angel Gabriel informs him, that the City should be rebuilt, and peopled as in former Times, and should so continue for LXX Weeks of Years, i.e. for 490 Years; and then should be utterly destroyed for putting the MESSIAS to Death. 9:1: ‘In the first Year of Darius, the Son of Ahasuerus, of the Seed of the Medes’.] See Chap. 5:31. This is the same Person who is called Cyaxares, the Son of Astyages, by the Heathen Historians, with whom Josephus agrees. His Father Astyages had the Name of Ahasuerus among the Jews, as appears by a Passage in Tobit, Chap. 14:15 where the taking of Nineveh is ascribed to Nebuchodonosor and Assuerus, who were the same with Nabupolassar, Nebuchadnezzar’s Father, and Astyages: Nebuchadnezzar being a Name common to all the Babylonian Kings, as Pharaoh was to the Kings of Egypt. See Dr. Prideaux Script. Connect. ad A.C. 612. We need not wonder to find the same Persons called by such different Names, especially in different Countries: The Scripture affords several Instances of this Kind: So Daniel was called Belteshazzar by Nebuchadnezzar, who changed the Names of his three (3) Companions, Dan. 1:7, Zerubbabel was called Shezbazzar, Ezr. 1:8. Esther, Hadassa, Esth. 2:7. 9:2: ‘I Daniel understood by Books’.] The several Prophecies of Jeremiah are called so many Books: See Jer. 25:13; 29:1. We may observe from hence, that the Prophets studied the Writings of those Prophets who were before them, for the more perfect understanding of the Times when their Prophecies were to be fulfilled. The same they did by several of their own Prophecies. See 1st Pet. 1:11,12. 9:2: Ibid. ‘That he would accomplish Seventy (70) Years in the Desolations of Jerusalem’.] See Jer. 25:11,12; 29:10. The Seventy (70) Years mentioned both here and in Jeremy are to be dated from the End of the Third (3rd), or Beginning of the Fourth (4th) Year of Jehoiakim: Comp. Jer. 25:1 with Dan. 1:1. from which Time to the first (1st) Year of Cyrus, according to the Scripture-Account, are just Seventy Years. These Desolations began from the fourth (4th) Year of Jehoiakim, when the City was taken by Nebuchadnezzar. See Chap. 1:1. at which Time the King of Judah became tributary to the King of Babylon: and they were from time to time increasing, till the eleventh (11th) Year of Zedekiah, when they were fully accomplished in the burning of the City and Temple; after which Time it continued desolate till the End of the Captivity, 2nd Chron. XXXVI. 36:21. 9:21: Ibid. ‘Touched me [See Chap. viii. 8:18; 10:10.] about the time of the Evening Oblation’.] There were three (3) Hours of Prayer: See Chap. 6:10. but the two (2) most solemn Seasons of it were at the Time of the Morning and Evening Oblation, that solemn Service which was offered daily in the Temple in the Name of the whole Nation: See Chap, 8:11. This Service was performed at the Third (3rd) and Ninth (9th) Hours of the Day, answering to our Nine (9) of the Clock in the Morning and Three (3) in the Afternoon. Devout Persons that could not attend the Temple Service, set apart those Hours for their private Devotions: and we find Elijah made that solemn Prayer and Sacrifice recorded 1st Kings 8:36. at the time of the offering of the Evening Sacrifice. But upon their solemn Days of Fasting and Humiliation, they continued their Devotions from the Time of the Morning Sacrifice till that of the Evening was finished. Such was this of Daniel, and that of Cornelius, mentioned Acts 10:30. This Custom was continued among the Primitive Christians, who did not conclude their Prayers or Fasts on their Stationary Days, till three (3) in the Afternoon. See Mr. Bingham, Ecceſ. Antiq. Book 21. Chap. 3. 9:24: “Seventy (70) Weeks are determined upon thy People and upon thy Holy City.] To recite all the different Methods Chronologers have taken of computing these lXX (70) Weeks, would be too large a Work for a Commentary. I shall only take Notice of three (3) Opinions, which seem most agreeable to the Text. The first (1st) is, that of Petavius Rationar. Tem. par. 2. p. 154. and Archbishop Usher, Annal. V.T. ad. An. P. J. 4260. These two (2) learned Authors date the Beginning of this Prophecy from the 20th Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when he gave his Commission to Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem, Nehem. 2:1. –from which Time they reckon half (1/2) of the Week here specified, ver. 27. to be completed at the Death of Christ. But then these Authors suppose Artaxerxes to have begun his Reign nine (9) Years sooner than the Historians commonly date it. The second Opinion is that of Dr. Prideaux, Connect. of Scrip, par. 1. ad an. ante C. 458. who fixes the Date of this Prophecy to the seventh (7th) Year of Artaxerxes, when he gave a Commission to Ezra, to settle the State of the Jews at Jerusalem, to which Sense he understands the Commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem: from which Time he computes 490 Years to the Death of Christ. The Third (3rd) Opinion is that of the late Right Reverend and Learned Bishop Lloyd, which may be seen in the Chronological Tables published by his Direction Numb. 3d and 4th. He supposes the Years here specified to consist of 360 Days: Such Years he affirms the Scripture always makes use of in the Computation of Time: as appears in the History of Noah’s Flood, Gen. 7:11 compared with ver. 24 and Chap. 8:4 and from Rev. 12:6. compared with ver. 14 and Chap. 13:5. where 1260 Days are reckoned equivalent to three (3) Years and an half (1/2), and to Forty (40) and two (2) Months. The same Computation of Years was generally made use of in antient Times by all Nations, particularly by the Chaldeans, where Daniel now lived. The Reasons of this Opinion are at large set forth by Mr. Marshall, in his Treatise upon the lXX (70) Weeks, Part 2d, Chap. 4. The Bishop proceeding upon this Hypothesis, computes the Date of this Prophecy from the 20th Year of Artaxerxes, and reckons 69 Weeks of Years, or 483 Chaldean Years, from thence to the Year before Christ’s Death. But then the last or single Week that remains to make up the Number of Seventy (70), he separates from the rest, and begins it from the Year of Christ 63, in the latter Half of which the Sacrifice and Oblation were to cease, and the City and Sanctuary to be destroyed by the Romans: all which was fulfilled in the lXXth (70th) Year after Christ. The Difference of these Three (3) Opinions, as to the main Point, the Completion of this Prophecy, is not very great; for as the learned Bishop Chandler hath judiciously observed, (Answer to Grounds and Reasons, p. 139.) “The Commencement of the Weeks must be either from the seventh (7th) of Artaxerxes, which falls upon the 457th Year before An. Domini, or from the 2oth of Artaxerxes. Add to 457 Years before Christ, 26 Years after Christ, (which is the Number that 483 Years, or sixty nine (69) Weeks exceeds 457 Years) and you are brought to the Beginning of John the Baptist’s preaching up the advent of Messias: add seven (7) Years, or one (1) Week to the former, and you come to the 33d Year of An. Domini, which was the Year of Jesus Christ’s“ Death. Or else compute 490 Years, the whole lXX (70) Weeks, from the seventh (7th) of Artaxerxes; by subtracting 457 Years (the Space of Time between that Year and the Beginning of An. Domini,) from 49o, and there remains 33, the Year of our Lord’s Death. Let the 20th of Artaxerxes be the Date of the lXX (70) Weeks, which is the 445 Year before A. D. and reckon 69 Weeks of Chaldean Years; to Chaldee Years being equal to 69 Julian; and so 478 Julian Years making 483 Chaldee Years, and the end in the 33rd Year after Christ, or the Passover following. Any of these Reckonings, adds this learned Author, are sufficient for our Purpose. It is rather to be wondred, how, at this Distance of Time, learned Men have been able to come “to any Exactness in these Matters. 9:24 Ibid. ‘Seventy (70) Weeks are determined’.] By Seventy (70) Weeks are to be understood Seventy (70) Weeks of Years, or Seventy (70) times seven (7) Years, i.e. 490 Years: each Day being accounted for a Year, according to the Prophetical way of reckoning: See Numb. 14:34, Ezek. 4:6. Daniel distinguished between these Weeks and the Weeks after the common reckoning, by calling the latter Weeks of Days, Chap. 10:2. according to the Sense of the Hebrew, expressed in the Margin. And Isaiah distinguished a Natural Year from a Prophetical One, by calling it ‘the Year of a hireling’, Isa. 16:14; 21:16. The Jews numbered their Time by sevens (7s) of Years: every seventh (7th) Year was a Year of Release, and after seven (7) times seven (7) Years, i.e. 49 Years, came the Year of Jubilee. So the Computation of Time here made use of alludes to Levit. 25:8. ‘Thou shalt number seven Sabbaths [or rather Weeks] of Years, seven (7) times seven (7) Years’. The Hebrew Word Sabbath signifying the Number Seven (7), as it is rendered (‘Ebdomas), by the LXX (70), in the latter Part of the Verse: and so the Greek Word (Sabbalon) is used Luke 8:12; 24:1. Daniel, by examining the Prophecy of Jeremiah, had discovered how the Seventy (70) Years of the Captivity were near expiring: and here the Angel discovers to him another Line of Time, importing, that after the Restoration of Jerusalem it should continue for a Period of Time consisting of seventy (70) times seven (7) Years, which being expired, it should be finally destroyed. Seventy (70) Weeks contain ten (10) Jubilees, and Ten (10) being the Number of Perfection, these seventy (70) Weeks denote the bringing in the most complete Jubilee, or Remission, as the LXX (70) render that Word: when all former Trespasses should be cancelled, and Men should be restored to that Heavenly Inheritance they had forfeited, by the Death of the Messias. 9:24: Ibid. ‘Upon thy People and thy holy City’.] Daniel in his Prayer to God, speaking of the Jews and Jerusalem, had used these Expressions, Thy People, and thy holy City, ver. 18,19. as if their Title to God’s Favour were indefeasible. To correct this Mistake, the Angel directing his Discourse to Daniel, returns him his own Expressions, as if the People and the City were rather His than God’s. In the same Phrase God speaks to Moses, after the Sin of the Israelites in making the Golden Calf: Exod. 32:7. At the 26th Verse of this Prophecy, the Angel tells Daniel how they ceased to be God’s People. 9:24: Ibid. ‘To finish the Transgression, and to make an End of Sin, and to make Reconciliation for Iniquity, and to bring in everlasting Righteousness’.] This the Messiah did by making an Atonement for Sin, and absolving Men from the Guilt of it: by giving Men the best Rules and Assistances for the promoting true and inward Righteousness: called here everlasting Righteousnes, in Opposition to the Righteousness of the Law, a great Part of which consisted in external Ordinances, imposed on them for a Season, till the Time of Reformation: Heb. 9:10. Where the English Text reads, ‘to make an End of Sin’, the Margin translates it, ‘to seal up Sin’, following a various Reading in the Hebrew : but the Sense comes all to one (1), for the Verb which signifies to seal up, denotes likewise the accomplishing of anything, and is applied to Sin, or the Punishment of it, Lament. 4:22. See likewise the following Note. 9:24: Ibid. ‘To seal up the Vision and Prophecy’.] To fulfil the Prophecies of foregoing Ages concerning the Messias, and to confirm them, by making the Event to answer the Prediction, as the setting of a Seal confirms the Authenticalness of any Writing. Thus the Rabbins upon the Text interpret the Words, All the Prophecies, say they, shall be fulfilled at the Coming of the Messias. Bishop Lloyd explains the Sentence of the finishing and completing the Prophetical Writings of the Old Testament, which he supposes to have been done 49 Years after the Commencement of this Prophecy. See the Note upon the following Verse. 9:24: Ibid. ‘And to anoint the most Holy’.] The Word Anoint plainly alludes to the Name of Messiah, expressed in the following Verse, which signifies in Hebrew the Anointed, and is translated Christ in Greek : See John 1:41. To anoint is the same here as to consecrate the Messiah to be a Priest, Prophet, and King, all which Offices were conveyed by the Ceremony of Anointing. The Messiah is styled here the most Holy, upon the Account of his unspotted Original, as well as his unblameable Life. See Luke 1:35; Acts 3:14; Heb. 7:26; Rev. 3:7. The Words may be literally translated, ‘to anoint the Holy of Holies’: an Expression which usually signifies the inner Sanctuary, called ‘the Holiest of all’, Heb. 9:3, and it is very properly applied to the Messias, who was greater than the Temple, Matth. 12:6. because ‘in him dwelt the Fulness of the Godhead’, Coloss. 2:9. whereupon he calls his Body the Temple, John 2:21. 9:25: ‘Know therefore and understand’.] See ver. 23. 9:25: Ibid. ‘From the going forth of the Commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem’.] Or, ‘to build again Jerusalem’, as the Margin reads; and so the Verb ‘Shub’ is translated in the latter Part of the Verse, and see Chap. 11:10. Daniel had besought God to behold their Desolations, and the Ruins of the City which is called by his Name, ver:18. In answer to this his Supplication, the Angel acquaints him, that the City, both the Streets and the Wall thereof, should be rebuilt. These Expressions do very much confirm their Interpretation, who date this Prophecy from the 20th Year of Artaxerxes, when he gave a Commission to Nehemiah to rebuild the City and its Walls, Nehem. 2:11. –Whereas Dr. Prideaux, who dates this Prophecy from the seventh (7th) Year of Artaxerxes, is forced to understand these Expressions in a metaphorical Sense, for restoring and establishing the Church and State of the Jews. Now it is a received Rule, that a literal Sense is always to be preferred, if it be consistent with the main Scope of the Text. 9:25: Ibid. ‘Unto Messiah the Prince’.] Anointing being the ancient Ceremony of investing Persons in the highest Offices and Dignities, the Name of Messias, or Anointed, was in an eminent Manner appropriated to him that was sanctified, or set apart, and sent into the World under the highest Character of being the Redeemer of it. By that Name he was commonly known unto the Jews, John 1:41; 4:25, and that Title was chiefly given to him from the Authority of this Prophecy. He is called here the Prince or Ruler, a Title often given to David: See 1st Sam. 9:16; 2nd Sam. 5:2; 8:8, and applied to the Messiah himself, spoken of under the Name of David, Isa. 55:4. The Author of the first (1st) Book of Chronicles probably alludes to this Place of Daniel, Chap. 5:2 Judah prevailed over his Brethren, and of him was the Chief Ruler (the Nagid here in the Text) to come: as the Words may best be translated. The Messiah was commonly known under the Title of King of Israel, or King of the Jews: See Matt. 2:2; Luke 23:2,3; John 1:49; 19:19. 9:25: Ibid. ‘Shall be seven (7) Weeks, and threescore (60) and two (2) Weeks’.] A Colon should be placed at the end of this Sentence, which is wrong placed in the Middle of it in our English Bibles. ‘Seven (7) Weeks and threefcore (60) and two (2) Weeks’ put together make sixty nine (69) Weeks of Years, or 583 Years. As the cutting off the Messiah is appropriated to the Period of threescore (60) and two (2) Weeks in the following Verse, so the seven (7) Weeks or 49 Years here mentioned must in all Probability be assigned to the Building of the Street and the Wall, whether we understand it literally, or metaphorically with Dr. Prideaux, for the restoring and settling the Jewish Church and State. See Dr. Prideaux ubi supra, & ad Ann. ante C. 409. Bishop Lloyd, who reckons the Date of this Prophecy from the twentieth (20th) of Artaxerxes, concludes the seven (7) Weeks, or 49 Years, in the eighth (8th) Year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, at which Time he suppoſes Malachi to have writ his Prophecy, and thereby finished the Old Testament Canon, or ‘sealed up the Vision and Prophecy’, after whom the Jews were to look for no other Prophet till John Baptist : See Malach. 4:4,5. compared with Matt. 11:13,14. 9:25: Ibid. ‘The Street shall be built again, and the Wall, even in troublous Times’.] When the Jews were sorely assaulted by their Adversaries, who did all they could to hinder them from rebuilding the City, and fortifying it with a new Wall. See Nehem. 4:7, &c. 6:15. These Words, taken in their obvious Sense, plainly fix the Date of this Prophecy to the 20th Year of Artaxerxes, who then gave Nehemiah a Commission to repair the City, and raise up the Walls and Ramparts of it: See Nehem, 2,3,4 compared with Ecclus. 49:13. Before which Time the Jews that returned from Captivity lived in the Cities where their Inheritance lay: See Ezra 2:70, Nehem. 8:4. “The Word ‘Haruts’, translated ‘Wall’, properly signifies the Circuit bounding out the Limits of the City, where on the Wall was built, and antiently used to be marked out with a Plough making a Furrow round about,” as Mr. Mede observes, Works, p. 700. And by ‘Rechob’, the ‘Street’, or broad Place, he understands the Area, or Plat of Ground, whereon the City was to be built. Or else we may suppose the Singular put for the Plural, an Enallage very common in Scripture. 9:26: ‘And after threescore (60) and two (2) Weeks shall Messiah be cut off’.] Or, ‘after those threescore (60) and two (2) Weeks’ –for the ‘He’ prefixed to the Word ‘Shebunim’ is Emphatical, as the Grammarians express it. The common Interpretation of the Word is, that in the seventieth (70th) or last Week the Messiah should be put to Death. The Hebrew Verb here translated cut off, is by the Jewish Rabbins interpreted of a Death inflicted by the Sentence of a Judge, which Sense they confirm by the use of it in a parallel Place, Levit. 17:14 to which we may add 1st Sam. 27:9. Our Saviour plainly refers to this Text, among others, Luke 24:26, 46. Bishop Lloyd, who makes a Break between the sixty-nine (69) Weeks and the seventieth (70th), supposes the sixty-nine (69) to expire in May, A.D. 32, which was the Year before our Saviour’s Passion. In Correspondency with this Prophecy, our Lord could not survive a whole Year after the sixty-nine (69) Weeks were expired: nor did he: but since he was to be CUT OFF at the Passover, himself being the true Paschal Lamb, he died in the following Year in the Month Nisan, answering to our April, the very same Day and Hour that the Paschal Lamb was wont to be killed. See the Chronological Tables above mentioned. 9:26: Ibid. ‘But not for himself’.] ‘The Just suffering for the Unjust’, 1st Pet. 3:18. The Vulgar Latin renders the Words to this Sense, ‘And the People that deny him shall be no longer his’. The Hebrew Phrase is used in the same Sense, Chap. 11:17; Job 39:16. To confirm this Interpretation, we are to suppose the Word People, which follows, to be understood here, and may with Bishop Lloyd tranſlate this and the following Sentence thus: ‘And the People that deny him shall be no longer his’, but the Prince’s (i.e. the Messiah’s, ver. 25.) ‘future People shall destroy’, &c. And then the Jews will properly be called ‘Lo-ammi, not my People’, Hos. 1:9. 9:26: Ibid. ‘But the People of the Prince that shall come’.] The Romans, under the Conduct of Vespasian and his Son Titus, who were the Generals in that War, and both of them dignified with the Title of Prince or Cæsar. Bishop Lloyd corrects the common Translation thus, ‘The Prince’s (i.e. the Messiah’s) future People’: The Hebrew Word ‘Haba’, as the Greek (erchomenos), which answers it, often signifying the future, or that which is to come: See Isa. 27:6, 44:7, Mark 10:30, Rev. 1:4. This People that learned Prelate understands to be the Romans and their Empire, which was the Seat of the Christian Church. So when our Saviour tells us, that before the End of the Jewish Nation come, ‘the Gospel shall be preached in all the World’, Matt. 24:14 and St. Paul speaks to the same Purpose, Rom. 10:16, Coloss. 1:6, 23, we are there to understand the World of the Extent of the Roman Empire. And our Lord speaking of the final Destruction of the Jewish Nation by the Romans, expresseth it by sending forth ‘HIS ARMIES to destroy those Murderers, and burn up their City’, Mat. 22:7 which exactly agrees with the Words here following. 9:26: Ibid. ‘Shall destroy the City and the Sanctuary’.] After that the Romans had burnt both City and Sanctuary, they so entirely destroyed them, that it could scarce be perceived the Place had ever been inhabited, as Josephus relates, de Bello, lib. vii. c. 1. Edit. Hudson. And the Jews relate, that a Plough was drawn over the Ground where they both stood: See Dr. Lightfoot upon Matt. 24:2 which were evident Accomplishments of our Saviour’s Prediction, that one (1) Stone should not stand upon another, with respect either to the City, Luk. 19:44, or to the Sanctuary, Matt. 24:2 and Chap. 33:38. 9:26: Ibid. ‘And the End thereof shall be with a Flood’.] The Desolations made by an Army are often compared to the Inundations of a Flood, whose Violence nothing is able to withstand. Comp. Chap. 11:10, Isa. 8:7,8. 9:26: Ibid. ‘And unto the End of the War Desolations are determined’.] Or, Decreed. That War shall make an utter Destruction both of the City and the Nation. 9:27: ‘And he shall confirm the Covenant with many for one Week’.] The former Part of the Verse may be literally translated thus: ‘One Week shall confirm the Covenant with many; and the midst of, or the half part of the Week, shall cause the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease’. Most Interpreters suppose the seventy (70) Weeks to be completed at the Death of Christ, or at least one half of the seventieth (70th) and last of them: accordingly they understand the Confirming the Covenant of the new Covenant, and the Terms of Salvation therein proposed, first by John Baptist, as the Forerunner of Christ, and then by Christ himself. Comp. Isa. 42:6; 45:3, Jer. 31:31, Ezek. xvi. 16:60, 61,62. They that confine the Promulgation of the new Covenant to the first (1st) half (1/2) of the lXXth (70th) Week, understand it of Christ’s Preaching for three (3) Years and a half (1/2), and then suffering in the midst of that Week. They that understand the Confirming the Covenant to be of the same Extent with the Seventieth (70th) Week, suppoſe John Baptist’s Preaching to have taken up three (3) Years and a half (1/2), before Christ entered on his Prophetical Office, and translate the following Words, ‘In the half (1/2) Part of the Week’. See the next Note but one (1).
9:27: Ibid. ‘With many’.] The same Expression is elsewhere used of the universal Redemption, or general Promulgation of Pardon by the Gospel Covenant: See Isai. 53:11, Matt. 20:28, Rom. 5:15, 19, Heb. 9:28. 9:27: Ibid. ‘And in the Midst of the Week’.] Our Translation of the Words follows their Opinion, who place the Death of Christ in the middle of the last Week: See Archbishop Usher’s Annals, Par. 2. p. 569. whereas they that suppose the whole seventy (70) Weeks completed at our Saviour’s Passion, translate the Sentence thus, ‘In the half (1/2) part of the Week he shall cause the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease’; understanding it of the latter half (1/2). See Dr. Prideaux, ubi supra. The Hebrew Word (Chatsi) signifies properly the half (1/2) Part, and is commonly translated by (Emisu) in the Septuagint (70). [In this Sense it is to be understood by our Translation, Chap. 12:7 of this Prophecy.] 9:27: Ibid. ‘He shall cause the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease’.] Christ, by his ‘one Oblation of himself once offered’, shall put an End to all the Sacrifices and Oblations made in the Jewish Temple, Comp. Heb. 10:5,6, &c. Thus the Words are expounded by those that suppose the Seventy (70) Weeks to have been finished at our Saviour’s Death. To confirm this Exposition, we may observe, that the putting an End to the Temple Service by Violence, such as was that threatned under Antiochus Epiphanes, is expressed in a different Manner, viz. ‘By taking away the daily Sacrifice’, Chap. 8:11,12; 11:31. Others understand these Words of the final Destruction of the Jewish Temple and Worship by the Romans; and it may be observed, that the Word (Mincha), Oblation, is sometimes used for the daily Sacrifice: See 1st Kings 18:29, 36. Bishop Lloyd explains the Words to this Sense: he separates this single (1), or odd Week, (so he translates (Sbabua Echad), one Week) from the other sixty-nine (69): and makes it commence in the 63rd Year after Christ, and to end in the final Destruction of the City and Temple of Jerusalem, which came to pass A.C. 70. It must be granted, that this Interpretation agrees better with the Letter of the Text than the former: and the Abomination of Desolation immediately following it, they may both be reasonably thought the express Characters of one (1) and the same Week, viz. the Seventieth (70th), determined upon Daniel’s People and City. The same learned Prelate understands the Words, ‘He shall confirm the Covenant with many of the Prince’s future People’, mentioned in the foregoing Verse, viz. the Romans: who by their General Corbulo made a Peace with the Parthians, Medes, and Armenians, that they might be better at Leisure to make an entire Conquest of Judea; of which Tacitus speaking, saith, ‘There never was so firm a Peace as now’: Annal. lib. xv. There is one Difficulty which attends this Explication: viz. That instead of setting forth one (1) continued Line of Time, from the ‘Going forth of the Commandment to rebuild Jerusalem’, to the Conclusion of the Events here foretold, it makes a considerable Break, or Interval of Time, between the fulfilling one (1) Part of the Prophecy and the other. Whereas the other Interpretations suppose the Destruction of the City and Temple to run beyond the Computation of the Seventy (70) Weeks, and to be immediately subjoined to the Death of Christ, as we see they are, ver. 26. to shew what shall be the Catastrophe, or final Punishment which shall attend so great a Wickedness. Ibid. ‘And for the overspreading of Abominations, he shall make it desolate’.] Mr. Mede translates the Words thus, And being a Desolator, he shall command over a Wing of Abominations: Works, p. 4o7. Biſhop Lloyd, with some little Variation, renders them, ‘And upon the Battlements shall be the Idols of the Desolator’. They both understand by the Phrase the Roman Army, which is the Interpretation Christ himself gives of it, Luke 21:20 compared with Matt. 24:15. The Word (Kenapb), translated in the English Overspreading, properly signifies a Wing, and may either signify an Army, as it is used Isaiah 8:8. or else stand for the Battlements of the Temple, as the Greek (Pterugion), which answers to it, plainly does, Matt. 4:5. Here the Romans, after they had set the Temple on fire, placed the idolatrous Ensigns of their Army over-against the Eastern Gate of the Temple, and offered Sacrifice to them, as Josephus expressly tells us, Bell. Jud lib. vi. cap. 6. Edit. Hudson. The Word (Shikutsim), Abominations, is commonly used for Idols: See 1st Kings 11:5, 7, 2nd Kings 23:13. And the Abomination of Desolation set upon the Altar by Antiochus, 1st Maccab. 1:54 is explained by the Idol-Altar, ibid. ver. 59. So the Abominations here spoken of do very properly signify the Ensigns, or Standards of the Roman Legions; each Standard having stampt upon it the Image of the Tutelar ‘God’ of that Legion, to whom they offered Sacrifice. Tacitus calls the Eagle and the other Ensigns, ‘Propria Legionum Numina’, The ‘Deities which were peculiar to their Legions’: Annal. lib. 2. Tertullian’s Words are to the same purpose: ‘Religio tota castrenſis ſigna veneraîur, figna jurat, & Diis omnibus præponit : All the Religion of the Army consists in paying divine Worship to their Standards, in swearing by them, and preferring them before all other Deities’. Apol, c.16 9:27: Ibid. ‘Even until the Consummation’.] Till God’s Indignation be accomplished, as the same Sense is expressed, Chap. 11:36. 9:27: Ibid. ‘And that determined [or which is decreed] shall be poured upon the Desolate’.] Comp. ver. 11 of this Chapter. Mr. Mede translates it, ‘shall continue upon the Desolate’: p. 709. The Words briefly declare those terrible Calamities which made an entire Destruction of that City and People, and were executed upon them in the most dreadful Manner that any Nation ever suffered, and with the most evident Tokens of a divine Vengeance upon them, according to the Relation of their own Historian Josephus, who was an Eye-witness of these Desolations. And ever since their Posterity have been dispersed all the World over, living only upon Sufferance in their several Dispersions, and very often exposed to grievous Oppressions and Persecutions, enough to have extinguished their Race, unless they had been preserved by Providence, on purpose to verify the Truth of those Prophecies which foretold these Calamities: and particularly those Words of Christ, which have a plain Aspect upon the Text before us, Luke 21:22, 23,24. ‘These be the Days of Vengeance: that all Things that are written may be fulfilled for there shall be great distress in the Land, and Wrath upon this People: And they shall fall by the Edge of the Sword, and be led away captive unto all Nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, untill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled’! i.e. till the Times of the Fourth (4th) Monarchy, spoken of Chap. 2, and 7 are expired. See the Note upon Chap. 12:7. Bishop Lloyd renders the last Word (Shomem), ‘Desolate’, in an active Sense, The Desolator, or him that makes Desolate: in which Sense the Word is plainly taken, Chap. 8:13; 12:11. The Sense he gives of the Sentence is much the same with the former: viz. that the divine Vengeance shall continue upon the Jews, till it be returned upon under the Seventh (7th) Head: See Rev. xvii. I 1. Having given a particular Account of the Author of their Desolations, which he interprets of the Roman Government, as it was exercised the most probable Expositions of this famous Prophecy, I need not take any Notice of Sir John Marsham’s Explication of it in his Chronicus Canon, p. 568. since a learned Writer, Mr. Marshal, in his Treatise upon the lXX (70) Weeks, lately published, hath shewed it to be inconsistent with itself, as well as with the undoubted Monuments both of Sacred and Prophane History. The late Author of Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, hath thought fit to mention Sir J. M.’s Hypothesis with Aprobation : but it is to be presumed that this took it upon Trust, without ever examining it, and was glad to find an Opinion prejudicial to Christianity countenanced by so great a Name. }}
{{ Chapter 10: ‘The Argument: The three (3) following Chapters contain the last Vision of Daniel’s Prophecy, wherein the several Successions, both of the Persian and, Grecian Monarchies are represented, together with the Wars that should be raised between the Kings of Syria and Egypt under the latter Monarchy, as far as the Times of Antiochus Epiphanes: who being the Type and Forerunner of Antichrist, (as bath been observed upon Chap. 8) the latter Part of the Vision from Chap. 11:36. seems chiefly to relate to the Persecutions of the Church in the Times of Antichrist, till it’s being finally cleansed from all those Profanations, as the Temple of Jerusalem was purified from the Pollutions of Antiochus: after which will follow that Kingdom of the Saints mentioned Chap, 7:18, 27 of this Prophecy’. 10:1: ‘In the Third (3rd) Year of Cyrus King of Persia’. ] Daniel must now have been above 90 Years of Age; he could not be less than twenty (20) when he was carried Captive: (See the Preface to this Commentary) and that was seventy-three (73) Years before the Date of this Vision; which was the last Daniel saw, and it is likely he himself survived it long. }}
{{ Chapter 11: (See Chapter 10 Argument): 11:2. ‘And now I will shew thee the Truth’.] What is contained in the Scripture, or Writing of Truth, Chapter 10:21. Or I will shew thee the Succession of the Persian and Grecian Empire in plain and naked Truth, not in symbolical or figurative Representations, as it was shewed before, Chap. 8. 11:2: Ibid. ‘There shall stand up yet three (3) Kings in Persia’.] After Cyrus shall succeed Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes. So Ezra mentions two (2) Kings, whom he calls Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes (Names which were common to most of the Persian Kings in the Jewish History) who reigned between Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes, Ezra 4:6, 7. 11:2: Ibid. ‘And the fourth (4th) shall be far richer than they all’, &c.] This plainly means Xerxes, who brought together an Army of above four (4) Millions, according to Herodotus’s Account: of eight (8) Millions, as others say, to over-run the whole Country of Greece. These Wars, carried on by Xerxes’s Successors, ended at last in the Conquest of the Persian Monarchy by Alexander the Great. Upon this account the Angel passes over the rest of the Persian Kings, and proceeds immediately to relate the Successes of Alexander: it being the chief Design of the former Part of this Vision to foretel the Translation of the Empire from the Persians to the Greeks: See Chap. 10:20. St. Jerome rightly observes upon the 5th Verse of this Chapter, “That it was not the Design of the Scripture to give us an Historical Narrative of the Actions of Heathen Princes, any farther than the Affairs of the Jewish Nation were concerned in them.” In like manner at the 36th Verse, the Angel breaks off the Succession of the Syrian Kings after Antioachus to describe Antichrift, of whom the former was the Type and Fore-runner. [So Chap. 8:9. The Prophet passes over all the Successors of Alexander to Antiochus Epiphanes, whose Reign had a particular Influence upon the Jewish Affairs.] 11:3. ‘And a mighty King shall stand up, and do according to his Will’.] Compare ver. 16. This denotes Alexander the Great, whose Success was so uninterrupted, that nobody was able to put a Stop to the Progress of his Victories: See Chap. 8:5. 11:4. ‘And when he shall stand up’.] When he shall be in the Height of his Prosperity. 11:4: Ibid. ‘His Kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four (4) Winds of Heaven’.] See the Notes upon Chap. 8:8. 11:4: Ibid. ‘And not to his Posterity’.] Alexander had a Brother, Aridaeus, and two Sons, Alexander and Hercules: these were all cut off in a few Years after his Death, to make way for his Generals, who divided his Empire among themselves. 11:4: Ibid. ‘Nor according to his Dominion which he ruled’.] They did not immediately take upon them the Title of Kings: See Dr. Prideaux, ad ann. A. C. 301, and his Dominion being divided, lost much of that Strength and Power which the Empire had when it was united in the Person of Alexander: See Chap. 8:22. 11:4: Ibid. ‘For his Kingdom shall be plucked up for others beside those’.] Alexander’s four (4) Great Successors were Ptolemy, Cassander, Lysimachus, and Seleucus: See the Note upon Chap. 8:8, but others beside them came in for a Share of his Dominions, such as Eumenes, Philotas, and others. The Word translated ‘plucked up’ is the same as ‘rooted up’, or destroyed, and is opposed to ‘planting’, or making to thrive, Jer. 1:10; 24:6; 31:28, or the Phrase may allude to the Feathers of a Bird being plucked and scattered abroad. Compare Chap. 7:4. 11:5: ‘And the King of the South shall be strong’.] By the ‘King of the South’, in this and the following Verses, is meant the King of Egypt: and by the ‘King of the North’, the King of Syria. These two Kings came at length to have the principal Share of Alexander’s Dominions, and make the greatest Figure among his Successors. But the Reason why they only are mentioned here, is, because they only were concerned in the Affairs of the Jews: Judea bordering upon each of their Dominions, and sometimes belonging to one, and sometimes to the other of those Princes. The King of the South mentioned in this Verse, denotes Ptolemy the first (1st), the Son of Lagus, called by way of Distinction, Ptolemy Soter. The Text saith of him, that he should be ‘strong’: for he had all Egypt and the adjacent Parts of Libya under his Dominion, besides Palestine, Cæle-Syria, and most of the Maritime Provinces of the Lesser Asia. 11:5: Ibid. ‘And one of his Princes, and [or even] be shall be strong above him, and have dominion’.] Another of the Successors of Alexander, who took upon them the Style of Kings or Princes: (See the Note on ver. 4.) This was Seleucus Nicator, the first King of the North, or of Syria: who by the Conquest of Lysimachus King of Thrace, and Demetrius King of Macedon, obtained the Name of Nicator, i.e. Conqueror. 11:5: Ibid. ‘His dominion shall be a great dominion’.] He had under his Dominion all the Countries of the East, from Mount Taurus, to the River Indus: and from thence Westward to the Egean-Sea: whereupon Appianus the Historian reckons him the most Potent of all Alexander’s Successors. 11:6: ‘And in the end of Years, they shall join themselves together’.] In process of Time the Successors of these two Kings, viz. Ptolemy Philadelphus, the Son of the former Ptolemy, and Antiochus Theus, the Grandson of Seleucus Nicator, shall enter into a League or Confederacy with each other. 11:6: Ibid. ‘For the King’s Daughter of the South /ball come to the King of the North to make an agreement’.] This League shall be concluded by the Marriage of Berenice, Daughter to Ptolemy Philadelphus, with Antiochus Theus King of Syria, altho’ he had another Wife Laodice, and two Children by her, Seleucus Callinicus, and Antiochus. 11:6: Ibid. ‘But he shall not retain the power of the arm’.] She shall not be able to keep her Power or Interest with Antiochus: for as soon as her Father Ptolemy was dead, Antiochus divorced her, and recalled his former Wife Laodice and her Children. 11:6: Ibid. ‘Neither shall he stand, nor his arm’.] Nor shall Antiochus himself long survive, for Laodice being jealous of his fickle Temper, procured him to be poisoned, and concealed is Death till her Son Seleucus had secured the Succession. 11:6: Ibid. ‘But he shall be given up, and they that brought her’.] Berenice, after she had shut herself up in the Asylum, or Place of Sanctuary at Daphne, was betrayed into her Enemies Hands, and basely murdered with all those that attended her out of Egypt. 11:6: Ibid. ‘And he that begat her’.] If we follow this Translation, see the Explication of it in the next Note: But the Marginal Reading gives the better Sense, ‘He whom she brought forth’; her Son who was slain with her: The Hebrew, (Yoled), is in the Form of the Participle Active: but the same Form is sometimes used in a Passive Sense: of which we may produce an Instance from Chap. 9:27 of this Prophecy, where the Word (Shomem) is rendered in a Passive Sense, ‘Desolate’, by most Interpreters. 11:6: Ibid. ‘And he that strengthened her in thesetimes’.] Her Father who should have supported her with his Interest under these Difficulties, but died himſelf a little before. All these Particulars, and what are mentioned in the following Notes, are fully related in the Historical Accounts of those Times, as may be seen by those who will consult the Authors referred to by St. Jerom, in his Commentaries upon Daniel, and Dr. Prideaux in the second Part of his Script. Connection. 11:7: ‘But out of a Branch of her Root shall stand up one in his Estate, and shall enter into the Fortress of the King of the North’.] One of the same Stock or Original with Berenice, viz. her Brother Ptolemy Euergetes, shall succeed his Father in the Government of Egypt, and shall revenge his Sister’s Quarrel, by invading the Frontiers or Territories (see ver. 10.) of Seleucus, and prevail against him. 11:8: ‘And he shall also carry Captives into Egypt their ‘Gods’, with their Princes’, &c.] St. Jerom tells us out of Writers extant in his Time, that Ptolemy made himself Master of all Syria and Cilicia, and pasting the Euphrates, conquered as far as Babylon: and carried back into Egypt vast Plunder from all the conquered Provinces, together with two thousand five hundred (2500) Egyptian Idols, which Cambyfes upon his Conquering Egypt had carried into Persia. This Action of his so highly obliged the Egyptians, that they gave him the Title of Euergetes, or, the Benefactor. 11:8: Ibid. ‘And be shall continue more Years than the King of the North’.] Ptolemy out-lived Seleucus the Space of four (4) Years. 11:9: ‘So the King of the South shall come into his Kingdom’, &c.] Ptolemy shall return home without Molestation, and quietly enjoy what he had gotten by his Victories. 11:10: ‘But his Sons shall be stirred up, and assemble a multitude of great Forces’.] The Sons of Seleucus, Seleucus Ceraunus, and Antiochus, called afterwards the Great, shall assemble a mighty Army, in order to recover all that their Father had lost. 11:10: Ibid. ‘And one shall certainly come, and overflow and past over’.] Antiochus shall certainly overrun Judea and Cæle-Syria, with other Provinces belonging to the King of Egypt; taking the Advantage of Ptolemy Euergetes’s Death, and the Succession of his Son Ptolemy Philopator, a weak and profligate Prince: under whose Reign he attempted the Recovery of Syria. We may observe the Text here speaks only of a single Person, viz. Antiochus, for his Brother Seleucus died in the Beginning of this Enterprise, having scarce reigned three (3) Years. The Devastations of an Army are fitly compared to Innundations: See ver. 22, 40 and Chap. 9:26. 11:10: Ibid. ‘Then shall he return, and be stirred up even to his Fortress’.] Or, ‘He shall again be stirred up’, &c. See the Note upon Chap. 9:25. At the Spring of the next Year he shall take the Field again, and encamp at Raphia, a Frontier Town upon the Borders of Egypt. See the History of this Engagement in Polybius, lib. 5. p. 573. Edit. 8vo. 11:11: ‘And the King of the South shall be moved with Choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the King of the North’.] Ptolemy Philopator, the young King of Egypt, being enraged at the Attempts of Antiochus, shall come with a great Army to encounter him. 11:11: Ibid. ‘And he shall set forth a great Multitude’.] If we understand the Words of Ptolemy’s Army, that consisted of seventy thousand (70,000) Foot, five thousand (5,000) Horse, and seventy three (73) Elephants. Antiochus’s was little inferiour to his, for he had sixty-two thousand (62,000) Foot, six thousand (6,000) Horse, and sixty-two (62) Elephants. 11:11: Ibid. ‘But the Multitude shall be delivered into his Hand’.] The Army of Antiochus was discomfited by Ptolemy, ten thousand (10,000) being slain, and four thousand (4,000) taken Prisoners. The Author of the third (3rd) Book of Maccabees ascribes this Victory to the passionate Importunity of Arsinoe, Ptolemy’s Sister, who ran about the Army with her Hair about her Shoulders, and by Promises and Entreaties engaged the Soldiers to fight with more than ordinary Resolution. 11:12: ‘His Heart shall be lifted up’.] So far as to offer to force his Passage into the Holiest Part of the Jewish Temple, when he came to Jerusalem to offer Sacrifices there, after his Victory: the Story is related at large in the fore mentioned third (3rd) Book of the Maccabees, Chap. 1. 11:12: Ibid. ‘And he shall cast down many ten thoufands (10,000s), but he shall not be strengthened by it’.] Or, ‘Tho’ he shall cast down he shall not be strengthened by it. He shall content himself with recovering the Provinces of Cæle-Syria and Palestine, and make no farther Advantages of his Victory; being willing to agree to a Peace, that he might securely follow his Pleasures. See Dr. Prideaux, par. 2. ad ann. A.C. 217. 11:13: ‘For the King of the North shall return, and shall set forth a Multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come (after certain Years) with a great Army’, &c.] Fourteen (14) Years after the ending of the former War, upon the Death of Philopator, and the succeeding of his Infant Son Ptolemy Epiphanes, Antiochus the King of the North shall return into Cæle-Syria and Palestine, for the Recovery of those Provinces, and shall bring with him a greater Army than he had in the former War, the same which he brought out of the East, at his late Return from thence. 11:13: Ibid. ‘After certain Years’.] The Hebrew reads, ‘At the end of Times, even Years’: which Expression confirms the Interpretation given before of the Word Times in this Prophecy: See the Note upon Chap. 4:16. 11:13: Ibid. ‘And with much Riches’.] With abundant Supply of all necessary Provisions for an Army: and especially with Beasts of Burden for removing their Baggage: for that is the proper Sense of the Word ‘Recush’. 11:14: ‘And in those times many shall stand up against the King of the South’.] Antiochus King of Syria and Philip King of Macedon entered into a League, to divide the Dominions of Ptolemy Epiphanes King of Egypt, being then an Infant of six (6)Years of Age. Agathoclea his Father’s Concubine, and her Brother Agaibocles, who managed everything under Ptolemy Philopator, were framing Projects to keep the Regency in their own Hands during the Minority of this Prince. And Scopas, one of his Generals, sometime afterwards formed a Design of usurping the Sovereignty over Egypt. 11:14: Ibid. ‘Also the Robbers of thy People shall exalt themselves to establish the Vision, but they shall fall’.] The Apostates from the Jewish Law shall exalt themselves under the Favour of the King of Egypt and his Ministers, to accomplish what is said in the Writings of the Prophets concerning the Persecutions that should befal God’s People, and the Punishments that should at length overtake those that forsake the Truth. These Apostates accordingly did fall, and were cut off by Antiochus; for in the ninth (9th) Year of Epiphanes’s Reign, Antiochus made himself Master of Jerusalem, and cut off or drave from thence all those Jews that were of Ptolemy’s Party, and bestowed particular Favours upon those that persevered in the Observance of the Law. Josephus Antiq lib. xii. cap. 3. gives us a Copy of Antiochus’s Decree in favour of their Temple, and the Service therein performed, and to secure it from being profaned. 11:15: ‘So the King of the North shall come, and take the most fenced Cities’.] Antiochus having vanquished the King of Egypt’s Army under Scopa; at Paneas, near the Fountainhead of the River Jordan, he besieged and took first Sidon and Gaza, then all the other Cities of that District, viz. Abila, Samaria, and Gadara: and afterwards became Master of the whole Country. The Word (Sollelab) tranflated a ‘Mount’, does likewise signify Battering Engines for the throwing Stones, and such like offenfive Artillery. See 2nd Kings 19:32, Jer. 32:24; 33:4. 11:15: Ibid. ‘And the Arms of the South shall not withstand, neither his chosen People’.] Neither the King of Egypt’s best Generals, such as Scopas, and others that came to relieve him, nor his choicest Troops, shall prevail or be able this own Will’, &c.] No body being able to oppose him in Cæle-Syria or Palestine: Comp. Chap. 8:4, 7 and ver. 36. of this Chapter. 11:16: Ibid. ‘And be shall stand in the glorious Land, which by bis Hand shall be consumed’.] He shall make himself Master of Judea: See the Note upon Chap. 8:9, which shall be consumed by the foraging and plundering of his Soldiers. Jerusalem itself receiving great Damages during the Siege of the Garrison which Scopas left there; as appears by Antiochus’s Decree for repairing the Ruins of the City, in Josephus, ubi supra. In the Contests between the Kings of Syria and Egypt, Judea lying in the middle between o withstand Antiochus. 11:16: ‘But he that cometh against him shall do according to them, whoever were Conquerors, that Country was sure to suffer: Josephus compares its Condition to that of a Ship in a Storm, which is beaten by the Waves on both Sides: Antiq. lib. xii. c. 3. init. The Greek Interpreter renders the former Part of the Sentence, ‘And he shall stand in the Land of Sabi’: which Dr. More in his Notes upon the Place, supposes to be a Name of the God of Israel: and I have offered some Arguments to support that Conjecture, in the Notes upon Jer. 3:19. 11:17: ‘He shall also set his Face to enter with the Strength of his whole Kingdom’.] Antiochus will likewise design to invade Egypt with all his Forces, and make an entire Conquest of it. 11:17: Ibid. ‘And upright ones with him’.] Or rather, ‘And he shall make Agreements with him’: ‘Yesharim’ here probably signifying the same as ‘Mesharim’ does ver. 6th: i.e. he shall make Proposals of concluding a Marriage between his own Daughter Cleopatra and King Ptolemy, to be consummated when they come of Age: which Offer made by Eucles of Rhodes was accepted, and a Contract fully agreed between them. 11:17: Ibid. ‘Thus shall be do’.] Or, ‘He shall succeed’, as the Word is taken, ver. 28, 32. He shall succeed in this his Proposal. 11:17: Ibid. ‘Giving him the Daughter of Women, corrupting her’.] In making this Proposal of Marriage, his Intent was that she should betray her Husband to him, and by that means become Master of Egypt. She is called the ‘Daughter of Women’, (kai exochën), by way of Excellence, either upon the Account of her Quality, or else because of her great Beauty. 11:17: Ibid. ‘But she shall not stand on his Ride, neither be for him’.] When she was married to Ptolemy, she forsook the Interest of her Father, and embraced that of her Husband: and we find her joining with him in an Enbassy to the Romans, to congratulate the Victory they had obtained over her own Father, as Dr. Prideaux observes out of Livy, lib. 37. See Script. Connect. part. 2. ad ann. C. 187. 11:18: ‘After this he shall turn is Face unto the Isles, and shall take many’.] Antiochus shall set out a great Fleet for reducing the lesser Asia, which failing along the Coasts of Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia, and Caria, took a great many of the Maritime Cities of those Provinces, and the Islands adjoining All Countries lying upon the Sea-Coasts are called Islands, in the Hebrew Dialect, as has been observed in the Notes upon Isa. 11:I 1. 11:18: Ibid. ‘But a Prince for his own Behalf shall cause the Reproach offered by him to cease: without his own Reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him’.] Or, ‘But a Prince shall cause to cease his [i. e. Antiochus’s] Reproach against him: moreover be shall cause his Reproach to return upon him’. Compare Hos. 12:14. The particle ‘Bilti’, translated without, signifies likewise moreover: See Noldius, p. 202. Lucius Scipio the Roman Consul made the Reproach, which Antiochus had offered to the Romans by that Invasion, to return upon his own Head, by overthrowing him in Battle at Mount Sipylus, and forcing him to quit all the Conquests he had made in the Lesser Asia. From this great Victory, whereby Asia was delivered out of the Hands of Antiochus, this Scipio had the Sir-name of Asiaticus: This Action is at large related by Livy, in the 37th Book of his History. 11:19: ‘Then he shall turn his Face toward the Fort of his own Land, but he shall stumble and fall’.] After this great Defeat, Antiochus returned back to Antioch, the chief Seat and Fortress of his Kingdom. From whence going into the Eastern Provinces, to raise the Money he was by Agreement to pay to the Romans, and attempting to rob the Temple at Elymais, for that Purpose, he was slain there, and never returned again into Syria. 11:19: Ibid. ‘And not be found’.] An Expression, denoting utter Destruction: See Job 20:8, Psal. 37:36, Ezek. 26:21. 11:20: ‘Then shall stand up in his Estate, a raiser of Taxes, in the Glory of the Kingdom’.] Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus, shall succeed in the Kingdom of Syria: Comp. ver. 7. His Father by the Treaty of Peace was obliged to pay a thousand (1,000) Talents for twelve (12) Years together to the Romans: and it was the main Business of his Son’s Reign to raise this Money upon his Subjects. His Necessities put him upon offering to seize the Treasures which were laid up in the Temple at Jerusalem; for which attempt his Treasurer Heliodorus was miraculously punished, as the Story is told at large, 2nd Macc. 3:4, &c. 11:20: Ibid. ‘But within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in Anger nor in Battle’.] Dr. Prideaux, Part. 2d of Script. Connect. at the End of the 2nd Book, translates this Sentence, ‘Within few Years he shall be destroyed’: The Word ‘Yamim, Days’, often signifying Years: which Sense suits better with the Event here foretold. For Seleucus reigned but eleven (11) Years, which may properly be called a few, in comparison of the thirty-seven (37) Years of his Father’s Reign: and he came to his End neither by War abroad, nor by a Sedition at home, but was poisoned by Heliodorus his Treasurer, who designed to usurp the Kingdom to himself, as Appian relates it. 11:21: ‘And in his Estate [or place] shall stand up a vile Person’.] This is a Description of Antiochus Epiphanes, the great Persecutor of the Jewish Nation and Religion: He is called here a vile Person, not for any want of Wit or Parts, but for the Extravagance of his Life and Aćtions, which made many doubt whether he had more of the Fool or the Mad-man in him: so instead of Epiphanes, the Illustrious, they called him Epimanes, the Mad-man. See the Fragments of the 26th Book of Polybius, p. 1492 of the Leyden Edition. 11:21: Ibid. ‘To whom they shall not give the Honour of the Kingdom, but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the Kingdom, by Flatteries’.] The Right of Succession did belong to Demetrius, the Son of Seleucus Philopator, and Nephew to Antiochus: but he being sent an Hostage to Rome by his Father, Antiochus took advantage of his Absence, and by courting Eumenes King of Pergamus, and Attalus his Brother, with flattering Speeches and great Promises of Friendship and Assistance against the Romans, prevailed with them to stand by him against the Usurper Heliodorus, and so came peaceably into the Possestion of the Kingdom. 11:22: ‘And with the Arms of a Flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken’.] Compare ver. 19. Antiochus by the Assistance of Eumenes and Attalus, shall vanquish all the Forces that opposed his Pretensions, both those raised by the Usurper Heliodorus, and those which Cleopatra, Mother to Ptolemy Philometor, had got together to assist her Son’s Right, as being Nephew to the deceased King Seleucus. 11:22: Ibid. ‘Yea also the Prince of the Covenant’.] Onias the High-Priest, as several interpret it, whom they supposed to be meant by the Prince of the Host, Chap. 8:11, where the Prophet speaks of the Persecution of the Jews, of which the same Antiochus was the Author. This Onias was deposed and banished by him, and afterwards murdered by one of his Lieutenants, 2nd Macc. 4:10, 34. But the following Verse inclines me to think that Ptolemy Philometor is meant here, for he it is with whom the League there mentioned is made; and he was the principal Person that opposed Antiochus chiefly in his Pretension to Coele Syria and Palestine: in whose Name a War was carried on against Antiochus, the Success of which is foretold in the following Verses. 11:23: ‘And after the League made with him, he shall work deceitfully’, &c.] This League was made between Ptolemy Philometor and Antiochus in the Life-time of Cleopatra his Sister, and Mother of Ptolemy. But when the King of Egypt’s Ministers demanded the Restitution of Cale-Syria, and Palestine, as belonging to the King of Egypt by Virtue of the Marriage-Articles between Ptolemy Epiphanes and Cleopatra, Antiochus, without any regard to the League he had made with Philometor his Nephew, marched his Army toward the Frontiers of Egypt, and having obtained a Victory over the Egyptian Army in a Battle fought between Mount Casius and Pelusium, he the next Year made himself Master of the greatest Part of Egypt, Philometor himself falling into his Hands: whom he pretended to take care of as his Nephew, and to manage his Affairs as his Tutor and Guardian. But this belongs to his second Expedition mentioned ver. 25. 11:23: Ibid. ‘And shall become strong with a small People’.] His Forces then were but small, as St. Jerom observes out of Sutorius, an Historian extant in his Time: at least in comparison of those he brought with him in his second Expedition: See the Note upon ver. 25. 11:24: ‘He shall enter peaceably into the fattest places of the province, and be shall do that which his Fathers have not done, nor his Fathers Fathers; he sall scatter among them the Prey, and Spoil, and Riches’.] ‘By his Clemency toward the Egyptians, and civil Treatment of Philometor, he shall succeed in his Attempts upon Egypt, beyond all his Predecessors, the former Kings of Syria : viz. Antiochus Theus, Seleucus and the Attempts upon it, as Epiphanes: who milerably plundered the whole Country, and divided the Riches of it among his Followers: See 1st Macc. 1:19 St. Jerom in his Notes upon the place, and Athenæus, Deipnosophist. lib. v. and x. Epiphanes was in himself of a profuse and prodigal Temper, as the Author of the first Book of Maccabees, Chap. 3:30, and several other Historians agree in giving his Character, from whence he gained the Name of Munificent and Liberal, as Josephus informs us, Antiq. lib. xii. c. 11. 11:24: Ibid. ‘And be shall forecast his Devices against the strongholds’.] He shall not only seize upon the richest Parts of Egypt, but shall likewise make himself Master of the chief Places of Strength in that Country, keeping Pelusium in his Hands, which was the Key of Egypt, and laying Siege unto Alexandria. 11:24: Ibid. ‘Even for a time’.] . See ver. 27. 11:26: ‘And be shall stir up his Power and his Courage against the King of the South with a great Army, &c. ] The Preparations here described belong to Antiochus’s second Expedition into Egypt, as the Author of the second (2nd) Book of Maccabees rightly calls it, Chap. 5:1 when he invaded that Country with great Forces both by Sea and Land, as that Expedition is described, 1st Mac. 1:17,18. where the Historian adds, that Ptolemy fled from him, and many of his Army were wounded to Death: thus they got the strong Cities in the Land of Egypt, and he took the Spoils thereof. After which Victory Ptolemy Philometor surrendred himself, into Antiochus’s Hands; as was observed before: whereupon the Alexandrians set up his Brother upon the Throne, whom they sirnamed Euergetes. 11:26: Ibid. and Ver. 26 [25]. ‘But be shall not stand, for they shall forecast Devices against him: yea they that feed of the Portion of his Meat, shall destroy him’.] The ill success of Philometor’s Expedition was chiefly owing to the Male-administration of Lenæus, Eulaeus, and other Ministers and Officers employed under him, and to the Treachery of Ptolemy Macron, who fosook Philometor’s Interest, and went over to Antiochus. 11:26: Ibid. ‘And his Army shall overflow’.] The Arms of Antiochus shall overrun the whole Kingdom of Egypt, like a sudden Inundation: See ver. 10, 22. 11:27: ‘And both these (2) Kings Hearts shall be to do mischief: and they shall speak Lies at one (1) Table, but it shall not prosper’.] These two (2) Kings shall meet at Memphis, and frequently eat at the same Table as Friends. Antiochus pretending to take Care of the Interests, of his Nephew Philometor, especially after the Alexandrians had proclaimed his Brother Euergetes King: and Philometor seemingly confiding in his Uncle’s Protection. But herein they both design’d to impose upon each other; Antiochus’s Design being to seize the Kingdom of Egypt to himself, and Philometor’s, to disappoint those Designs of his, by coming to an Agreement with Euergetes and the Alexandrians. So this pretended Friendship broke out into open War, wherein Antiochus subdued all the Country as far as Memphis, and march’d to Alexandria to besiege that City. 11:27: Ibid. ‘For yet the End shall be at the time appointed’.] These Wars and Calamities are not yet come to an End, but shall be determin’d at the Time of God’s Appointment. See ver. 29, 35, 36. Chap. 8:19. 11:28. ‘Then shall he return into his Land with great Riches’.] Having taken the Spoils of Egypt, 1st Mac. 1:19. See the Note upon ver. 24. This Return of Antiochus into his own Dominions, is the same which is again mentioned at the End of the Verse: So the Sense might be more clearly expressed thus: Then shall he return into his Land with great Riches, having had his Heart stirred up against the Holy Covenant, and having finished his Designs, he shall even return into his own Land. 11: 28: Ibid. ‘And his Heart shall be against the Holy Covenant’. ] While Antiochus was in Egypt, a false Report was spread over Judea that he was dead, where upon Jason with his Party made himself Master of Jerusalem, in order to regain the Office of High-Priest, from which he had been turned out by the Fraud of his Brother Menelaus. Upon this, Antiochus supposing the whole Nation had revolted from him, marched with all haste out of Egypt into Judea, to quell this Rebellion: and taking Jerusalem by force of Arms, he slew forty thousand (40,000) of the Inhabitants in three (3) Days time, profaned the Temple, and took away all its Ornaments and Treasures. See 1st Mac. 1:20, ––28, 2nd Macc. 4:23, 24, 5:11–20. 11:28: Ibid. ‘And he shall do Exploits, and return into his own Land’.] Or, ‘having finished his Designs, he shall return’, &c. See the last Note but one (1), and Comp. ver. 30, 32. Chap. 8:12. After having satisfied his Revenge upon the Jews, he shall return to Antioch, the chief Seat of his Empire, with the Spoils of the Temple at Jerusalem; (beside those of Egypt) amounting to eighteen hundred (1800) Talents: 2nd Mac. 5:21. 11:29. ‘At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the South, but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter’.] Antiochus shall make a third (3rd) Expedition into Egypt, in order to reduce Alexandria: but this Attempt shall not be attended with the same Success as the two former, for the Reason mentioned in the next Verse. 11:30: ‘For Ships of Chittim shall come against him, therefore he shall be grieved and return’.] The Ambassadors Popillius Lænas and his Companions coming in Ships from the Coasts of Macedonia and Greece, shall come to him, bringing peremptory Demands from the Romans, that he should desist from making War against Egypt, otherwise they would denounce War against him. This Message will make him, to his great Grief, return out of Egypt, and quit his Designs upon that Country. The Isles of Chittim, Jer. 2:10, Ezek. 27:6. signify the Coasts of the Meditterranean Sea, so as to comprehend both Italy and Greece. 11:30: Ibid. ‘And have Indignation against the Holy Covenant’.] Being enraged at this Disappointment, he shall vent his Fury and Indignation against the Jewish Church and Nation: and send Apollonius with an Army of seventy-two thousand (72,000) Men to lay Jerusalem waste, and cause the Temple-Worship to cease there: this happened two (2) Years after the first taking of Jerusalem by Antiochus. Comp. 1st Maccab. 1:29-40 with 2nd Maccab. 5:24, 25, 26. 11:30: Ibid. ‘So shall he do, [or, he shall prosper in his Undertakings: See ver. 28. ] and shall return and have Intelligence with them that forsake the Holy Covenant’.]. At his Return from Egypt, he shall practise with the Deserters of the Jewish Religion, such as Menelaus and the like Apostates, and make use of them as Instruments in making Converts to Heathenism. See 1st Macc. 1:43, 52, 2nd Macc. 5:15. 11:31: ‘And Arms shall stand on his part, and they shall prophane the Sanctuary of Strength, and shall take away the daily Sacrifice’.] His Arms shall so prevail, as to make an entire Conquest over the Jews, to prophane the Temple, and cause the Service daily performed there to cease: Comp. Chap. 8:11. and 1st Maccab. 1:39, &c. 2nd Maccab. 5:2–5. The Temple is called the Sanctuary of Strength, because it was a Token of the divine Protection, being the Place of God’s especial Residence. See Psal. 88:61; 96:6, Ezek. 24:21, 25. 11:31: Ibid. ‘And they shall place the Abomination that maketh Desolate’.] Idols are commonly called Abominations in Scripture, as hath been observed upon Chap. 9:27. In agreement with that Usage of the Word, The Abomination of Desolation must signify the Idol which was placed upon the Altar of Burnt-Offerings: See 1st Maccab. 1:54, 59. As the Temple itself was dedicated by the Heathen to Jupiter Olympius, 2nd Maccab. 6:2. so the Idol was probably the Image of Jupiter. This Idol is said to make Desolate, because it banished the true Worship of God, and his Worshippers from the Place: See 1st Macc. 4:38. 11:32: ‘And such as do wickedly against the Covenant, shall be corrupt by Flatteries’.] Such as Jason and Menelaus, who had bought the High-Priesthood of him, and became his Instruments in spoiling and prophaning the Temple. See 2nd Macc. 4:13,14; 5:15 and such other Apostates whom the King by fair Words and Promises brought over to comply with his Designs. See 1st Macc. 1:52, 2nd Macc. 6:21. 11:32: Ibid. ‘But the People that do know their God, shall be strong, and do Exploits’.] Or, ‘shall prosper’: See ver. 28, 3o. They that have a Sense of their Duty shall couragiously resist these Attempts, and behave themselves valiantly. See 1st Maccab. 1:62; 2:41, 42,43; 3:43, 44, &c. 2nd Maccab. 5:27. 11:33: ‘They that understand among the People, shall instruct many’.] They that know their Duty, and are zealous in doing it, will arm others against the Temptations whereby the Wicked would persuade them to forsake the true Religion. Such were Mattathias and his Family, 1st Macc. 2:1, &c. Eleazar, 2nd Maccab. 6:18,19 and the Mother and her seven (7) Children, 2nd Macc. 7. 11:33: Ibid. ‘Yet they shall fall by the Sword’.] It was Death for any Person to observe the Law, and disobey the King’s Command: and accordingly many suffer’d for their constancy in adhering to their Religion. See 1st Macc. 1:50, 63, 2nd Macc. 6:6, 9,10,11, 19, 30; 7:1, &c. Ibid. ‘And by Flame’.] This was remarkably verified in the Torments inflicted upon the seven Brethren, recorded 2nd Macc. 7:3, 5. Burning alive was a Punishment usual in those Countries: See Chap. 3:6. 11:33: Ibid. ‘By Captivity and by Spoil’.] By Banishment and Loss of Goods.” 11:33: Ibid. ‘Many Days’.] For three (3) Years and a half (1/2), as the time is computed by Josephus, reckoning from the first Beginning of the Persecution till the Sanctuary was cleansed: See the Note upon Chap. 7:25. The Persecution may be enlarged to a longer time, if we date it from the Beginning of this Apostacy. See the Note upon Chap. 8:14. 11:34: ‘Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help’.] That of Judas Maccabeus and his Followers : See 1st Macc. 3:10, &c. 4:14, 2nd Macc. 8:1. 11:34: Ibid. ‘But many shall cleave to them with Flatteries’.] Not sincerely: Such were Joseph and Azarias, who engaged in the common Cause out of Ambition, and a desire of Fame: 1st Macc. 5:56, 62. Such were they who after their Death were found with Idols consecrated under their Cloaths, 2nd Macc. 12:40. Such was Rhodocus, who disclosed their Secrets to the Enemy, ibid. Chap. 13:21. 11:35: ‘And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge them, and to make them white’.] Some of the principal Men for Piety and Knowledge, shall fall under this Persecution: See ver. 33 for the Trial of their Faith and Patience, and to purge them from lesser Corruptions, which are the usual Effects of Prosperity. Comp. 1st Pet. 1:7. The Persecutions which shall befal the Church under Antichrist, are designed for the same Purpose, as appears by comparing Chap. 12:10 with the Words here: Antiochus’s Persecution being a Type and Figure of that under Antichrist. See the Note upon Chap. 8:14, 23,24 and the 31st Verse here, with Chap. 12:11: 11:35: Ibid. ‘Even to the time of the End, for it is yet for a time appointed’.] Till the Time appointed by God for an End of those Calamities shall come. Comp. ver. 27. Chap. 8:19. Mr. Mede refers the latter Part of the Sentence tò the following Verse, and so connects the following Prophecy with what went before, to this Sense: “This Persecution shall last to the time of the End: for as yet for a time appointed a King shall do according to his Will.” See his Works, p. 903. [To the same Sense the vulgar Latin translate it, ‘Quia adhuc aliud tempus erit’ [‘because it’s still for another time’].] 11:36: ‘And the King shall do according to his Will’.] Antiochus was a Type and Forerunner of Antichrist, as hath been observed: So the Angel makes a sudden Transition from the Type of Antichrist himself: the Words in the four (4) following Verses being not at all applicable to Antiochus. And several Passages in the twelfth (12th) Chapter shew that some Parts of this Prophecy belong to the latter times, or Ages of the World. See Dr. Prideaux, Part 2d, B. 3d toward the End. We may observe such a sudden Transition in our Saviour’s Discourse, Mat. 24 from a Prediction of the Destruction of Jerusalem, to a Description of the General Judgment. 11:36: Ibid. ‘The [or, a] Kings shall do according to his Will, [see ver. 16.] and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every God, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of ‘gods”.] Comp. Chap. 7:25; 8:11, 25. St. Paul describes Antichrist almost in the same Words, 2nd Thess. 2:4 ‘who exalteth himself above all that is called God’. Comp. Rev. 13:5, 6. 11:36: Ibid. ‘And shall prosper till the Indignation be accomplished’, &c.] He shall succeed in his Attempts of aggrandizing himself, and asserting his own Supremacy, till the Time of God’s Indignation be accomplished, Comp. ver. 27, 35. i.e. for a Time, Times, and a Half, as it is expressed, Chap. 7:25; 12:7. 11:37: ‘Neither shall he regard the God of his Fathers’.] Antichrist is described as the Seventh (7th) Head of the Roman Empire, Rev. 17:11 and as the Sixth (6th) Head revived, ibid. & Chap. 13:3, 14. But before he arrived at his Dominion, the Worship of the Heathen ‘Gods’, which had prevailed under the sixth (6th) Head, was destroyed by the Christian Emperors. 11:37: Ibid. ‘Nor the Desire of Women’.] Mr. Mede hath observed in his Works, p. 668., that the Expression properly signifies a Desire of Hives, i.e. of a married State, which should be discountenanced by the King here described. In like Manner Forbidding to marry is a Character of some Anti-Christian Teachers, 1st Tim. 4:3. The Word Desire signifies that Affection which married Persons have for each other. See Gen. 3:16, Cant. 7:10, Ezek. 24:16. 11:37: Ibid. ‘Nor regard any God, for he stall magnify himself above all’.] He will dispense with the Laws of God, and make Religion subservient to his own Greatness and Interest. 11:38: ‘But in his Estate shall he honour the ‘God’ of Forces’.] I prefer Mr. Mede’s Translation of this and the following Verse, as giving a clearer Sense and more agreeable to the Original: This Verse he thus interprets: ‘But, (or for) together with God in his Seat shall he honour Mauzzims’. This last Word, both the Greek, the Vulgar Latin, and several other Translations retain without interpreting it. The Word imports Protection, or a Protector, the Abstract being often used for the Concrete: See Psal. 27:1; 28:8; 31:3, 5 and is often render’d (`huperaspistës [lit.= over-shield, shield covering, protection, champion, etc.]) [compare Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Luther’s Anti-Traditional Elements], by the LXX (70). The same learned Person supposes the Word here to denote Saints and Angels, in whom the Votaries of the Church of Rome place a great Trust and Confidence, and fly to their Protection in their Distress, and assign to some of them the Patronage of whole Countries, as is more fully expressed in the following Verse. To these, saith this Interpretation of the Text, shall the King here described give Honour and Worship in the Places dedicated to the Service of that ‘God’ whom his Fathers knew not; as it follows, Ibid. ‘And a ‘God’ whom his Fathers knew not shall he honour with Gold and Silver’, &c.] Mr. Mede translates the Sentence thus: ‘Even together with the God whom his Fathers knew not (see ver. 37.) shall he honour [them] with Gold and Silver’, &c. i.e. with the most costly Ornaments. 11:38: Ibid. ‘And pleasant Things’.] The Hebrew Word ‘Hamudoth’, is used by the Prophet Isaiah, Chap 44:9 to signify the costly Ornaments wherewith the Heathens decked their Images. Grotius and some others explain this Verse of Antiochus’s setting up the Statue of Jupiter Olympius within the Precincts of the Temple, 1st Macc. 1:54, 2nd Macc. 6:1. But I do not apprehend how he can be called a ‘God’ whom Antiochus’s Father knew not, since he was worshipped under the Name of Baal by the Phænicians many Ages before. 11:39: ‘Thus shall he do in the most strongholds with a strange ‘God”.] According to Mr. Mede, the Words should be thus translated: ‘And he shall make the strongholds [or For tresses] of the Mauzzims jointly with [or to] the strange [or foreign] ‘God”: i.e. He shall consecrate his Temples and religious Places jointly to the Honour of God and of his Saints. Temples may fitly be called ‘strong Holds’, or Places of Defence, as being in the Opinion of those that pay their Devotions there, the Earnests of that Protection which they expect in answer to their Prayers. So the Jewish Temple is called the Sanctuary of Strength, ver. 31. of this Chapter, the Word ‘Mauz’ being used in both Places, Comp. Psal. 27:5. A strange ‘God’ in the Old Testament, usually signifies a false God: but the Phrase being here used in opposition to the ‘Gods’ who were worshipped by the Gentile Ancestors of the Romans, it may properly denote the true God, whom the Athenians called by the Name of a strange ‘God’, Acts 17:23. For the entire Inscription of that Altar St. Paul takes Notice of here, is supposed to be, ‘To the unknown and strange ‘God”: whom St. Paul tells them, they ignorantly worshipped, as not knowing him to be the one supreme God. 11:39: Ibid. ‘And he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the Land for Gain’.] Or, ‘distribute the Earth for a Reward’: i.e. he shall assign whole Provinces and Kingdoms to the Protection of several Saints and Angels, to whom they may have Recourse as their Patrons: and shall give them suitable Titles and Honours, as a Reward of their Care and Protection. 11:40: ‘And at the Time of the End’.] At God’s appointed Time: See ver. 35. or, in the latter Days: See Chap. 12:8. 11:40: Ibid. ‘Shall the King of the South push at him, and the King of the North shall come against him’.] They that understand this and the following Verses of Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolomy Philometor, suppose that the Angel recapitulates what he said before at large, from ver. 23. ’Tis certain these and the following Words can’t be explained of any farther Wars between the Kings of Egypt and Syria: for Antiochus never made any farther Attempt upon Egypt, after that peremptory Demand of the Roman Ambassador, requiring him to desist from that Enterprize, mentioned ver. 30. Whereupon venting all his Indignation against the Jews upon that Disappointment, he afterwards took a Journey into Persia, where he died: 1st Macc. 6:1–6. 2nd Macc. 9:1–28. These Difficulties attending the common Interpretation, Mr. Mede, p. 674, and 816, by the ‘King of the South’ understands the Saracens, and by the ‘King of the North’, the Turks, who should both at different Times afflict the Western Parts of the World, where he supposes the Seat of Antichrist to be: the being denoted by the Locusts, Rev. 9:3 and the latter by the Euphratean Horsemen described in the same Chapter, ver. 15,16, &c. as two (2) Woes or Plagues sent to chastise the corrupt Part of Christendom, ver. 12. The Saracen is called the ‘King of the South’, because that People were Inhabitants of Arabia Felix, which lay Southward of Palestine, whereas the Turks were originally Tartars or Scythians. 11:40: Ibid. ‘Shall come against him as a Whirlwind’.] Comp. Isa. 21:1, Zech. 9:14. 11:40: Ibid. ‘With Chariots and Horsemen’.] This answers the Description given of them in the fore-mentioned Place, Rev. 9:16. And the Army of Gog and Magog, which may probably mean the Turks, is described as consisting principally of Horsemen: Ezek. 38:4, 15. The Strength of the Turkish Armies consists chiefly in the Number of their Cavalry: which makes them carry an Horse-Tail before their chief Officers, as an Ensign of Honour. 11:40: Ibid. ‘And shall overflow and past over’.] See Ver. 10, 22. 11:41: ‘He shall also enter into the glorious Land’.] The Land of Judea: See ver. 16. and Chap. 8:9. If we understand this of Antiochus Epiphanes, his Invasion of Judea hath been described at large, ver. 31, &c. If we expound it of the Turk, with Mr. Mede, he hath had Possession of the Holy Land for several Ages. 11:41: Ibid. ‘But these shall escape out of his Hand, even Edom and Moab, and the chief of the Children of Ammon’.] Grotius expounds the Words to this Sense: that Antiochus did not make War upon these People, because they readily complied with his Commands, and joined with him against the Jews: for which Cause Judas Maccabeus made War upon them, 1st Mac. v. 3,4. Mr. Mede understands the Words of Arabia Petraca, whose Inhabitants were never subdued by the Turks. 11: 42, 43: ‘And the Land of Egypt shall not escape, but he shall have Power over the Treasures of Gold and Silver, and over all the precious Things of Egypt’.] If we understand this of Antiochus, the Notes upon ver. 24. shew how it has been compleated. Mr. Mede expounds the Words of the final Conquest of Egypt by the Turks, A.C. 1517 after it had held out against them for a great while under the Mamulukes. 11:43: ‘And the Libyans and Ethiopians shall be at his Steps’.] Shall readily obey him, and follow his Commands, Comp. Exod. 11:8, Judg. 4:10, 1st Kings 20:10. Cushim is here rightly translated Ethiopians, being joined with Libyans or Africans, as they are in some other Places: See 2nd Chron. 12:3; 16:8 and the Note upon Jer. 13:23. St. Jerom observes upon the Place, that it is not recorded of Antiochus Epiphanes, that he ever marched so far as into these Countries, or had any footing there. So Mr. Mede more probably expounds the Place of the Turks, who have extended their Dominions into these Parts of the World. 11:44: ‘But tidings out of the East, and out of the North shall trouble him’.] This Dr. Prideaux explains of Antiochus thus: That in the East, i.e. in Persia, his Taxes were not duly paid, which engaged him to take a Journey into Persia, to gather up the Arrears due to him there. And in the North, Artaxias King of Armenia, had revolted from him. They that understand the Words of later Times, suppose them not yet fulfilled, and so not capable of a certain Interpretation. 11:45: ‘And he shall plant the Tabernacles of his Palace between the Seas, in the glorious holy Mountain’.] If we apply the Words to Antiochus, the Sense will be, that he shall place the Ensigns of his Sovereignty as a Conqueror at Jerusalem: (Com. ver. 41, Psal. 48:2.) which City was placed upon a Mountainous Situation, between the Mediterranean Sea, and the Sea of Sodom, near the middle of Judea, which had those two Seas for its Boundaries: See Joel 2:20, Zech. 14:8. To plant the Tabernacle of his Palace or Pavilion at Jerusalem, is an Expression denoting an entire Conquest, and is applied to Nebuchadnezzar in that Sense, Jer. 43:10, where the Hebrew Word ‘Shaphrir’, translated ‘Pavilion’, is expounded in the Chaldee Paraphrase by ‘Apadan’, the Word used in the Text here. The ‘holy Mountain’ oftentimes denotes the ‘Christian Church’ in the prophetical Writings: See the Note upon Isa. 2:2 and if we apply this Text to Antichrist, we may compare it with the Boasts of that proud Prince, who is supposed to be the Figure of Antichrist, Isa. 14:13 where he saith, ‘I will sit in the midst of the Congregation, in the Sides of the North’: and we may explain both these Texts by those Words of St. Paul, who describes ‘Antichrist as sitting in the Temple of God’, 2nd Thess. 2:4 meaning the Christian Church, as that Phrase commonly signifies in St. Paul’s Writings: See 1st Cor. 3:16, 2nd Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20. 1st Tim. 3:15. 11:45: Ibid. ‘Yet he shall come to his End, and none shall help him’.] He shall be broken without Hand, i.e. by a Judgment immediately inflicted by God, as is said of Antiochus, Chap. 8:25. The like Judgment is denounced against Antichrist. 2nd Thess. 2:8. }}
{{ Chapter 12: (See Chapter 10 Argument): 12:4. ‘But thou, O Daniel, shut up the Words, and seal the Book, even to the time of the End’. ] To shut up a Book, and to seal it, is the fame with concealing the Sense of it, and hiding its Meaning from common Understandings; as hath been observed upon Chap. 8:26. And the same Reason is assigned in both Places for this Command, viz. because there would be a long Interval of Time between the Date of the Prophecy, and the final Accomplishment of it. Comp. Chap. 10:1. with both these Texts. But the nearer that Time approached, the more Light should Men have for understanding the Prophecy itself; as is implied in the following Words: 12:4: Ibid. ‘Many shall run to and fro, and Knowledge shall be increased.] Many shall be inquisitive after Truth, and keep correspondence with others for their better Information: and the gradual Completion of this, and other Prophecies, shall direct observing Readers to form a Judgment concerning those Particulars which are yet to be fulfilled. From hence we may learn the Reason of the Obscurity of several Prophecies in Scripture: and it may be observed, that generally those Prophecies are most obscure, the Time of whose Completion is furthest off. For the same Reason, in interpreting the Prophecies relating to the latter Times of the World, the Judgment of the latter Writers is to be preferr’d before that of the Antients; because the Moderns living nearer the Times when the Events were to be fulfilled, had surer Marks to guide them in their Expositions. Bishop Andrews hath a remarkable Passage to this purpose, in his Tortura Torti, p. 186. in the following Words: ‘Neque vero mirum, fi ista quædixi, [de Roma fede Antichrifti] tam vel claram, vel certam interpretationem in scriptis Patrum non habeant. Signatus adhuc erat liher Prophetiae: verisimum autem verbum est, anigma esse Prophetiam omnem cum nondum completa est: ut quamvis Prisci illi omni genere charismatum, vitæ vero sansimonia longonos intervallo superarint, mirari tamen non de beat quis, si non illis tum adeo explicita omnia suerint, quam nobis per Dei gratiam jam sunt, qui consummatam jam Prophetiam illam quctidie oculis usurpamus’. “It is no wonder, that what I have said concerning Rome’s being the Seat of Antichrist described by St. John, is not clearly asserted in the Commentaries of the antient Fathers upon the Revelation; that Book of Prophecy was then sealed: and it is a certain Rule, that every Prophecy is a Riddle before its Completion: so that tho’ we grant those ancient Worthies to have far exceeded us, both in Gifts, and in Holiness; yet it is not to be wondred, if they had not such clear Apprehensions concerning this Matter, as we of later Times have, by the Grace of God, attained, who see this Prophecy every Day “fulfilled in our Sight.”” 12:11: ‘And from the time that the daily Sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate shall be set up’.] The same Expressions made use of to describe Antiochus’s Persecution, Chap. 11:31 are here applied to the Desolations made by Antichrist, of which the former was a Figure. See the Note upon Chap. 8:14, 23,24 and Chap. 11:26. 12:11: Ibid. and Ver. 12. ‘There shall be a thousand, two hundred and ninety (1290) Days : Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty five (1335) Days.’] Here the Time allotted for the Persecutions of Antichrist, till the Church be entirely cleansed and purified, is enlarged from 1260 Days, denoted by time, times, and a half, ver. 7 to 1290 Days; and then to 1335 Days. Mr. Mede wisely forbears giving an Interpretation of these Particulars, telling us, that Time would make them manifest: See his Works, p. 674. However, we may venture to say in general, that there may be a considerable Space of Time between the Fall of Antichrist, and the last Judgments which shall be inflicted upon him. Some learned Men, who have compared the Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation together, suppose the Interval of Time between the 1260 Days, and the 1335 Days, to be included within the Times of the seventh Trumpet, during which, the seven last Plagues will be fulfilled. See Rev. 11:15, 18 and Chap. 15:1, 7,8. }}
REFLECTIONS 