Computation.of Daniel's YI7ee(s. á9i and thereupon both the buildingof the City and Temple enfued, though not without the intervention of other Decrees ; ofwhich afterwards. The onlyArgument wherewith this opinion of the duration of the PerftanEmpire not above one hundred and fitly years at the moft, maintains it felt, is taken from the ]ire and age ofNehemiah. In Ezra 2. 0. 2. he is reckoned among them that came up with Zerubbabel unto Jerufalem in the firft year ofCyrur. Then he may rationally be fuppofed tohave been at leali twenty or twenty fiveyears ofage. And it feems from the lati Chapter ofNehemiah, that he lived.unto the reign of DariusCodomamts : for Sanballat the armoire allìftcd Alexander in his Wars. And Jaddua whom h2 mentions Chap. I z I I. wasHigh Prieft, when Alexander came to f erssfalem, as appears from Jofephus. Now if the Perfian Empire continued for the fpace of two hundred years, -which we have allotted unto it, then he who went e&7erufakm in the fi&II year of Cyrus, and continued unto the reign of Codomanus, mull needs live two hundred and twenty years at the leaft, which is not credible , that any one fhould do in thofe dayes. And therefore the (pace of time mull needs be !hotter then is pretended, at loft fifty or fixty years. But indeed there is no force in this exception. For Firff, There is noneceffity why we fhould conclude that Nehemiah wrote that Genea- logy, Chap. I z. where mention is made of Jaddua, who was afterwards High Prieu, v. Li. for he ends his Crory in the High Priefthood of Eliafhib, Chap. 13. a8. who was Great Grand-father unto Jaddua, as appears, Chap. II. ró, 1s. Or however ifhe did, Jadduamight then be aChild, and it may be not crane unto theHi h-Prieffbooduntill fifty or fixty years after ; after the death of Eliajhib, Joiada , and Jonathan his Great Grand -Father, Grand -Father, and Father. So that no evidence can be taken from hence for the continuance of his life unto the end of the Perftan Monarchy. And for thatSanballat mentioned by ofiphur in the time of Alexander, it is not impro- bable, but that he might name him asthe head of the Samaritans, therebeing no name ofanyother after him left upon record. ( 2. ) There is no reafon to think thatthe Nehemiah, mentioned Ezra a. L. ti. who came up with Zerubbabel, was that Nehemiah who was afterwards Governour of lit- dab, and whole actions we havewritten probably the moft part by himfelf, no more then there is to think thatthe Seraish there mentioned, was the erairth that was Hain at the taking of Jerufalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The Daniel mentioned, Ezra8. 2. was not Daniel the Prophet, nor Baruch, Nehem. I o. 5. that Baruch who was the Scribe ofJeremiah: nor that Jeremiah mentioned, Neb. tar v. ìI. Jeremiah the Prophet. Be- fides Ezra is faid to come up withZerubbabel, Nehem. I 2. I. which either mull not be that Ezrathe great Scribe; or he mull be laid tocome up withZerubbabel , becaufe lie followed him on the fameerrand and account.lt cannot be denyed,but that there were fimdry men at the fametime ofthe fame name ; as the fame perfon had futidry names; much more might feveral men have the famename in fucceflive generations. Thusafter yenta wasHigh Prieft,there was another Jofhsea chiefof the Levites, Neb.12.7,8. And thatabout this time there were twoZerubbabels one of the hhufe ofNathan, the other of thepollerity ofSolomon,we ¡hall make it appear in the confederationof the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.(3.)That this was not the Nehemiah that went up with Zerubbabel,the facred story it felfgives us fuflicient evidence. For (i.) He was 'ignorant ofthe Rate and condition ofJeruf elem when he lived in the Court ofPerfia, Chap. r. hadhebeen there before; andken their condition, and but newly returned unto Sbuihan, he couldnot have been Co. furprized as he was ver. q.. upon the account then given him thereof: ( a.) Chap.', v. 5,6. He fpeaks of it as a great matter, that he fhould find a Roll or Reefer of them that came firft up to JeruJidem withZerubbabel in thedayes of Cyrus, amongit whom that Nehemiah was one. Now if this had been himfelf, what reafon' had he to mention it as a great difcovery, which he could not but by his own knowledge be full well acquaintedwithal!. Unto whattime foever then the period of his life was extended, there is no colour to furmife, that hewas amongfi them who returned from captivity in the dayes of Cyrus. The account therefore before laid down being effablithed, it certain enough,that f, 16. the Decree mentioned byGabriel, from the going forth whereof, 'the feventy weeks are to be dated, was not*that of the tide of Cyrus, for the return of the Captivity and building of the Temple., Forfrom thence,, the period would enfue long before the juft time allotted unto it, yea, before thebeginning of the reign' of Herod the great, where Eufebius would have them to expire. We mutt therefóre enquire for lone 'other Word, Decree or Commandment, fromwhence to date the four hundred and ninety years enquired after. The c. 15.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=