Notes on prophetic works

<1r>

This {passag} prophesy I have set down at large because {it}|this| \together and what \& the/ follows|i||ng| to y^e end chapters of Isaiah/ answers fully to y^e prophesy of y^e new Ierusalem. For here by calling this people y^e wife of y^e Lord & describing her as an holy & peaceable city built of pretious stones & inheriting the nations you may know y^t she is y^e new Ierusalem y^e Lambs wife. By her being returned from captivity, \her/ inhabiting y^e desolate cities, her \her/ reigning over \& inheriting/ the nations & \by/ their making war upon her \by weapons formed by the smith/ you may know y^t she is a city of mortals, & {not} a city not litterally formed of jewels but mystically put for y^e whole nation of y^e Iews flourishing in peace & righteousness & \gloriously/ reigning over y^e nations: of w^ch reign the \For/ jewells are a type of {dominion} regal dignity & glory as you may understand by y^e Prophesy of the whore of Baylon {sic} adorned w^th Gold & jewels. {illeg} And by many expressions you may understand that her kingdome re she is to continue & reigh|n| eter for ever. {illeg} The hill mountains & hills shall depart but she shall continue. As god has sworn y^t y^e waters of Noah shall never return to destroy her so he has sworn that he will never destroy destroy her by any other kind of wrath or rebuke. The mountains and hills shall depart but his kindness to her shall have no end nor his covenant of peace with \her/ be removed be ever removed. She is so far from ending with y^e millennium that the time of her captivity w^ch is almost 2000 years being compared with the time of her flourishing reign \w^ch is/ to follow it, is represented as a|s| {sic} moment of {illeg} Gods wrath for a moment to his everlasting king|d|ness. And if she out lives y^e \day of judgment &/ millennium in so vast a disproportion of time & her end is no where described \in y^e Scriptures/ we may well conclude w^th Luke that of this kingd Ieremy that it \this Kingd/ shall last as long as y^e ordinances in|of| y^e sun{illeg} moon & stars, with Daniel & Iohn that it shal stand for ever & ever & with Luke y^t it shall have no end. This was Gods promise to \covenant w^th/ Abraham <1v> The \wⁿ he promised/ that he|i||s| seed should inherit y^e land of Canaan forever & on this promis was founded the religion of y^e Iews as on y^t {illeg} \religion/ is founded y^t|e| of y^e religion of y^e Christians & therefore this promis pr|o|int is of moment {illeg}|&| ought to be understood by all men.

In y^e next place I would observe out of y^e Prophets that in y^e end of y^e present world when Christ shall \come to/ judge y^e quick & dead, {at} the quick to be then judged are the people of this kingdom both Iews & {h}|G|entiles. Daniel tells us y^t at y^e end of y^e great tribulation (w^ch I told you was the final persecution of Antichrist signified in y^e Apocalyps by y^e harvest & w^ch Matthew describes to be immediately before the smiting \darking|ning|/ of the terrestrial sun mooon & starrs {s}|o|f the nations & appearing coming of y^e son of man{illeg} in y^e clouds to judgment) the people of y^e Iews shall be delivered every one that shall be found written in y^e book & y^t at y^e same time many of those that sleep in y^e dust shall a{te}|wa|ke some to everlasting life & others to everlasting contempt.|,| Here is y^e judgm & y^t he among y^e rest shall at y^t time stand in his lot. Here is y^e judgment of both quick & dead. For y^e Book here mentioned is y^e book of life {one} w^ch {y^e both} \{tis} the {gr}/ quick & dead are now opened in y^e judgment of both now opened in judgment as you may understand by comparing this place {illeg} w^th such another in y^e Apocalyps. where tis said that there shall no wise enter into the new Ierusalem any thing that defileth or worketh abomination or a lye but they w^ch are written in y^e Lambs book of life. Apoc 21.27. The|is| book of life was a {illeg} befo opp|e|ned before in y^e general judgment of y^e \& all/ the dead who were not found written in this book were \there/ cast into y^e Lake of fire Apoc 20.15. Here in y^e same day of judgment {none} /the\ <2r> living are also judged out of y^e same book of life & those only admitted into y^e new Ierusalem whose names are written therein. And as at this time there is a salvation of \some of/ y^e dead from y^e lake of fire so also the {sic} is a salvation of some of the living For the na as well Gentiles as Iews. For y^e nations of them w^ch are {save} saved shall walk in the light of y^e new Ierusalem & the Kings of y^e earth do bring their glory & honour into it Apoc 21.24. When Christ comes to judge y^e dead, he comes also to r \w^th his saits {sic} to smite the nations w^th his two edged sword &/ |to| rule y^e|^m| nations w^th a rod of iron Apoc 19 15 & at that time gives his saints power over the nations & as y^e vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers Apoc 19.15 & 2.27. For \And/ At that time he shall rule {th} send \forth/ his Angels & they shall gather \out/ of his kingdom whatsoever all things that offend & them w^ch do iniquity & shall cast them into a lake furnace of fire Matt where shall be wailing & gnashing of teeth & then (as Daniel also expresseth {ex} shall y^e righteous shine forth as y^e sun in y^e Kingdom of their father Matt 14|3|.41. Dan. 12. These are the nations of them w^ch are saved For For the Kingdom of Christ{illeg} where the wicked were & out of w^ch y^e Angels gathered them is dou was doubtles on earth & the rest of who remained in it were the nations of them w^ch are saved, For they are saved \that is/ from y^e lake of fire. {In} In {illeg} First y^e dead \in Christ/ are rai{d}|s|ed the y^e {sic} living as many as are not \found/ written {in} y^e book of life are cast into y^e lake of fire & y^e rest are {either} who {are} saved are \according to their various merits/ partly changed & caught up to meet y^e Lord \at his comig|ng|/ (Matt. 24.31. 1 Thess. 4.16.) \&/ partly left \{illeg}/ in that kingdom \of mortals/ on earth w^ch Christ {ru}|is| to rule w^th a rod of Iron. An {sic} this <2v> I take to be y^e division of y^e great city into three part {sic} (Apoc 16) & y^e judgment of both quick & dead at y^e coming & Kingdom of Christ of {illeg} 2 Tim. 4.1 which being an Article of faith ought to be well considered & understood.

{Herto} \We have hitherto considered y^e new Ierusalem as a city of mortals only but/ whilst the c|C|hrist rules the{m} nations w^th a rod of iron & gives power over the|m| nations to y^e sons of y^e resurrection ch 2.26 & makes them kings over y^e earths ch. 1.6 & 5.10. {illeg}|&| gives them to eat of y^e tree of life w^ch is in y^e midst of the Paradise of God & ch \{Ch}/ 2.7 & & to enter in through y^e gates into y^e city ch. 2.7 & 22.14, & writes upon them the name of the city of God the new Ierusalem w^ch cometh down out of heaven ch 3: {is} this city must be understood to comprehend as well Christ & the Childrē of y^e resurrection as y^e race of mortal Iews on earth. {Tis the} It signifies y^e body politi of all those who have dominion over the nations whether they be y^e saints in heaven or their mortal vicegerents on eath {sic}. And therefore y^e Apostle Paul in his epistle to y^e Hebrews \chap. 11/ understand|s| \it/ of y^e Saints in heaven, saying that they all died {of} in faith not having received y^e {h}|p|romisses but having received \seen/ them afar off & that \that they sought a heavenly contry &/ God had prepared for them a city & for us also that they w^th out us should not be made perfect. ✝ Heb Yet are you not to conceive that Christ & the children of y^e resurrection shall reign over mortalls after y^e manner of mortal Kings or convers w^th mortals as mortals do w^th one another. This But rather as Christ aft{t}er his resurrection continued for some time on earth invisible to mortalls unless upon ci{illeg}|er|tain occasions when he thought fit to shew himself \appear to {sic}/ to to {sic} his disciples: so it is to be conceived that at his second coming he & y^e children of y^e resurrection shall reign {invi\si/bly} without appearing to mortals unless upon {extraordinary} occasion |invisibly unless when they think fit to appear. And as Christ after some stay on earth| ascended

The four horsmen w^ch appear at opening the first four seals have been explained by M^r Mead, & I agree w excepting that I had rather continue the third to the{illeg} end of the reign of the three Gordians & Philip the Arabian, & those being \kings/ from the south, & begin the fourth with the reign of Decius & continue it till the reign of Dioclesian. For thitherto the Empire continued undivided \in an undivided monarchical form./ Dioclesian divided \it/ between himself & Maximanus & it continued in that divided state till the victory of Constantine the great over Licinius, w^th \This victory |w^ch|/ put an end to heathen persecutions set on foot by Dioclesian & described at the opening of the fift seal. & \The same Victory/ began the fall of the heathen Empire described at the opening of the sixt. And the visions of this Seal continued till after the reign of Iulian the Apostate ,|(|{he being} \he being/ ( {sic}a heathen Emperor {&} \&/ reigning over the whole Roman Empire.) ,) but not till the rise of the ten horns of Daniels fourth Beast & ended not long after because Iulian was the last heathen Emperor

– & by the Dragons going from the Woman to persecute that remnant & by two Beasts arising the one out of the sea to reprent {sic} the Empire of the Latines, the other out of the earth to represent the Church of the Greeks. And that the Dragon men who latter Beast causeth the earth & them that dwell therein (the people of the Greeke Empire) to worship \[the authority of]/ the first Beast & to set up an Image to him & cause that all men \w^ch could speak & cause both speak & cause/ by excommunication that all that will not worship the Image should be mystically killed. And he causeth excommunicateth men so that no man may buy or sell save he that had the mark \of the Beast,/ or the name, or the number of his name,|.| And hence forward all the twelve tribes of Israel fall away to the worship of the Beast & his Image {so}|&| worship take possession of the outward court of the second Temple, except the 144000 who are sealed w^th the seale of God in their forheads & stand on mount Sion with the Lamb in the new court or measured Court of them the second Temple, & appear to Iohn as standing upon the sea of glass, while the seven Trumpets sound, the seven Trumpets sound thunders utter their voices & the seven Vialls of wrath are poured out at the sacrifices of the seven days of the feast of Tabernacles. In the mean time the Woman acquires a temporal dominion & thereby becomes a horn of the Beast represented in Daniel |by the eleventh horn of his fourth Beast, & with a look more stout then the rest reigns over them, & is therefore represented in Iohn as sitting upon the Beast, that is, reigning over him. And all the time of her | <3v> |reign, the two Witnesses prophesy in sackcloth.|

The thre first Beasts of Daniel had their lives prolonged after their dominions were taken away, & therefore the two first Beasts still signify the nations of Chaldea Media & Persia, his third Beast signif still signifies the nations of \Greece/ Egypt, Syria & Asia on this side Euphrates, & his fourth Beast res still signifies the nations of Europe on this side Greece. But in Iohns Prophesy the nations beyond Euphrates are not considered, unless in mentioning the third part of the Earth or Sea or rivers or {Sun} stars {sic} \or starrs/ or Sun & Moon; for these expressions relate to one of the three parts now described

The third & fourth Beast of Daniel – – – – but w^th this difference that Iohn Daniel {illeg} / And hen

^{[Editorial Note 1]}

In the Prophesy the affairs of the Church begin to be described at the opening of the fift seal, & {here} the Interpretation begins \at the same time/ with the vision of the Church in the form of a Woman in heaven. [There she has tribulation tenn days & here she is pained in travel.] This interpretation proceeds down to the day of judgment represented by an harvest & vintage & then returns back to the times of opening the seventh seal & interprets the sounding \prophesy/ of the seven Trumpets by the pouring out seven Vials of wrath,|.| Then it returns back again to the times of measuring the Temple & Altar & of the Gentiles worshipping in the outward Court & the Beast killing the witnesses \in the streets of the great city/ & interprets those things by the Vision of a Woman sitting on the Beast & proceeds downwards in the Interpretation downwards to the resurrection of the dead. The whole Prophesy \of the Book of the Law/ is therefore \upon eating the Book/ repeated & {end} interpreted & enlarged in thi|e|s|e| Visions /

The writing within was seen at the opening of the seals & that on the backside when all the seals were opened & the book unfolded.

(The) book |this Book| was written within & \on/ the backside, & the writing was seen within at the opening of the seals, & the book being now opened & unfolded the writing became visible \also/ on the backside     /

For the three first Beasts \of Daniel/ had their lives prolonged after their dominions were taken away & therefore belong not to the body of the fourth. He only stamped them with his fo{ne}|o|t. And the Goat grew mighty after the reign of his four horns but not by his own power.    I place the body of the fourth Beast on this side Greece because the three first Beasts /

For the fourth horsman sat upon a plale {sic} hors & his name was Death & h|H|ell &|f|ollowed after \with/ him & power was given then to kill unto the fourth part of the earth with the sword & with hungar | famin & with the plague & with the Beasts of the earth or armies of the invaders \& Rebels/, & such were the time|s| during all this intervall. Hithert{h}o the Roman Empire continued in an undivided Monarchical form, except rebellions. But Dioclesian divided it.

– vite potuit obtineri ut Heron senior {illeg} non inter biothanatos reputatus etiam memoria & oblatione pausantium judicaretur indignus. Cassian Collat 2. Cap. 5 boithati sunt qui se violenter occidūt, pausantes qui mortui.

|Cur| Impensius jejunantibus {illeg} vehementiores pugnat corporis excitentur. Cassian Collat. 21 cap. 35. & Collat 22. cap. 2

Monachus convertat mentem et oculos in alterum venerabiliorum & meliorem, studeat facere quod de beato Antonio legitur. Qui cum plurimos fratres adiret visendi gratia & hunc at illum viderent boni aliquid agentem id statim tanquam flosculum colligebat & in pectore recondebat, ab hoc quidem mansuetudinem ab illo humilitatem ab alio quietem accipiens et ita semetipsum quasi virtutum omnium exemplar constituebat. Dorotheus Abbas De Istitut {sic}. Fratr. Doctr 16. |in Bibl. S. Patr.|

Dorotheus obedientiam cæcam et alijs præscribit ib. Doctr 17 et ipse juvenis magistro suo præstiti ib. Doctr 5.

Ruffin relates how one of y^e fathers saw \in a vision/ four orders of men stand before God, the first or lowest of those who \{gave}/ praised God for his blessings, y^e next of those who were hospitable to their neighbours, y^e third of those who lived in solitudes w^thout seeing men & y^e fourth of those who were obedient & subject to y^e fathers, And this order he represents y^e highest of y^e four leaving their own wills & depending upon y^e will of y^e father who commands them. And this he makes y^e highest order \order/ {illeg}|o|f y^e four {illeg} & to be rewarded w^th {y^e} greater glory then y^e rest. Ruffin \vit. patr./ l 2 c 140.

Bli Absolute obedience commended Ruffin. \v. patr./ l 2. c 145, 149, 150

The souls of several dying Monks seen carried up to heave {sic} Vita Pachomij apud Rosweydum &c.

Dixit Abbas Antonius: Sicut pisces si tardaverint {in} <4v> {sudo} moriuntur: ita et monachi tardantes extra cellam aut cum viris sæcularibus immorantes a quietis proponis revolvuntur. Oportet ergo sicut piscis in mari ita et nos ad cellam recurrere ne forte foris tardantes obliviscamur interioris custodiæ. \Pallad. c 27./ Auct. Græc. Lib. 2. C. 1 This is taken out of Antony's life neare y^e end. And y^e Græk \Palladius/ had it from Cronius y^e servant \an attendant/ of Antony.

Let y^e argument for Ezra's being in y^e latter /Artaxerxes Longimanus hindring\ the temple b{illeg}|u|ilding of y^e walls be managed thus.

First shew out of Ctesias that Cyrus \to his sons/ enjoned {sic} immunity from taxes. Then out of Herodotus lib 3 that Smerdes in y^e very beginning of his reign {enjoi} decreed an immunity from taxes for 3 years. Were this \a relaxing/ from taxes w^ch had been before it would be to o^r purpose as shewing there were no taxing in Smerdes time; but yet, if Herodotus may interpret himself, it was only a continuing y^e immunity w^ch had been in Cyrus & Cambyses time. Then shew out of Herodotus lib 3 how Darius Histaspis was the first imposer of taxes & how for this end he divided the kingdome into Satrapies & instituted officers & How they from hence y^e Persia{illeg}|n|s calld Cyrus patrem Cambyses Dominū & Darius κάπηλον institorem a huckster. And shew how Suidas also interprets thus this a|A|dagy. Then shew how y^e Satrapas of Sardes (by Herodotus relation) \first/ laid in this Darius time taxes on the Iones. Then how Strabo \lib 15 p 735/ out of Polycritus {lib} relates the same thing of Darius. Lastly out of Plutarch how moderate Darius was in y^e first taxing. And then conclude how impossible it is for Artaxerxes Ezra 4 in whose days there were such \various/ high \& high/ taxing to be either Smerdes or any other person before Darius. Let this be the last of y^e arguments on this subject, & then conclude that the last vers of y^e 4^th chapter is y^e beginning of a new narration & ought to be y^e 1^st vers of y^e 5^t chapter, & to be thus translated.

Illis diebus cessaverat opus domus Dei in Ierusalē et cessans fuserat ad us secundum annū regni Darij regis Persarum. For the Hebrew word באדיז tunc, is of such a generall signification that it sometimes signifies eternity, & may therefore may be here naturally enough interpreted generally of y^e times past without referring it to A Conceiving the story in the of both y^e Temple & City to be brought down into \in the 4^th chapter through/ the reign of \Cyrus Darius Assuerus &/ Artaxerxes the last hinderer of them & then after the history of their hindring is finished, the history of their the {sic} author retur{ns} back to tell the history of their success & finishing.

<6v>

NB. Nebuchadnezzar et Ahasuerus Assuerus conjunctim \expugnant &/ evertunt Nineven (Tobit 14. 15) Illū Assuerum {et} Græci nominant Cyax Expugnatā vero Babyloneam a Cy-axere Rege Medorum seribunt omnes. Scilicet Cy-Axeres idem sonat ac Princeps Axeres \Assuerus nam Cy Persice Princeps est/ et Ax{s}{ce}|er|es vel Achsweres vel Assuerus idem est nomen. Porrò Vxorem Nebuchanezzaris in Media educata{tem} fuit{ta docet} (Beros. apud Ioseph con. Ap.) adeo probabiliter aut sororr {sic} erat aut filia Assueri. Et hinc Meorum bis in Babylonia.

<8v>

The Analogy between sacred & profane history

1 Babylon taken by stratagem Ier 50.24 & 51.12, 41. By draining Euphrates. Herodot l. 1. Xenophon.

2. The walls demolished by Cyrus Ier 50.15 & 51.44, 58. Berosus apud Iosephū l 1 cont. App   &          & \forte/ apud Euseb præp. Evang. l 9.

3. Overthrown in Battel they reture to strong holds & leave the enemy in \full possesion of/ the field w^thout daring to make further head against him, Ier 51.30    Berosus or Megasthenes                      Item Xenophon qui inter fabulas suas quædam habet lineamenta veritatis.

4. The King of Babylon did not retreat to Babylō but to another hold distant from it Ier 51.31, 32. namely to Borsippa, Berosus

5. It was a year after this victory before Babylon was taken Ier. 5{2}|1|.46. A long time, Herodot. A year or more Xenophon.

6. It was taken in sommer Ier 51.39. when Euphrates was capable of being drained Herod Xenophō.

7 At a time when the Babylonians were in drink Ier 51.39, 57. In a feast day when the inhabitants were dissolute Herodot     & forte Xenophon.

{6} 8. Describitur etiam occupāndi modus סקצה וחמעברוח νחפשו Vrbs capta |curret nuncius et annunciet regi quod capta est civitas ejus| de extremo (id est de \extremo/ mœni{illeg}|{bus}| seu de {aditu per mœnia}) \ubi terminiabantur ad fluvium/) & והסעברוח גחפשו & transitus seu vada ejus occupanta{illeg} \sunt/ & arundines incensæ \sunt/ ign{e}|i|, & viri bellatores conturbati sunt. Ier 51.31, 32.

Notes

1. That \Nebuchadnezzar helped Assuerus i.e Cy-Axeres y^e King of the Medes in destroying Nineve (Tobit. 14.15./ Nebuchadnezzars wife was a {illeg}|Med|e, for whose sake he built the Hartæ pensules, she delighting in prospects such as were in her own countrey. |And| That Nebuchadnezzar had a great strength of Medes in his Army (See Berosus & Abydenus ex Megasthene in Euseb. Præp. l 9 & Ioseph. cont App & Hist l          And this gave occasion to Darius y^e Medes conspiracy.

<8r>

2 That Iosephus

2 That Iosephus compounding his narration out of Daniel & y^e writings of Berosus & mistaking them both, has \was y^e first y^t/ confounded \& perplext/ y^e history of those times & gave occasion to y^e erroneous opinions w^ch y^e generality of divines have from him taken up: & therefore to free our selves from his ignis fatuus we are |to| have recours to Daniel ,|&| Berosus, &|th|emselves.

3. The Athenæus lib. 12 ex Beroso narrat Βήρωσοι δ᾽ἐν πρώτῳ Βαβυλωνικῶν, τῷ Λώῳ, φηνὶ, ἑκκαιδεκάτῃ, ἀγεσθαι ἑορτὴν &c In y^e mar Apud Brissoniū p 198. i.e A feast i|I|n Babylon y^e 16^th of y^e month Lous (w^ch is y^e 6|M|onth Tamncuz \of y^e Chaldaic or Iewish/ or 4^h month of y^e Iewish year counted from Nisan & agrees nearly to our Iuly) a feast was held for five days together, wherein the servants ruled over their masters as in y^e Saturnalia. And the|is| \seems to have been their principal/ feast being y^e only feast mentioned by authors. Now this being so fit for Cyrus purpose, the river being {illeg}|lo|west & y^e waters slowest, the feast of some days duration & of perfect liberty for revelling & debauchery, what time should Cyrus choose for y^e|h|is stratagem but this. To this no do{w}|u|bt Ieremy \God/ alludes \in Ieremy 51.39, 57/ when he says, In their heate I will give them drink, & will make them drunken, that then ut sp{o}|i|antur & dormiant somnum sempiternū et non consurgant.

4 Strabo lib 16 Geogr. p 740 scribit Euphratem sub initio æstatia|s| ob nives in Armenia liquefactas inundare, ita ut arva necesse sit arva inundare nisi aqua canalibus \& fossis/ diverteretur et cohiberetur Dein \quod per/ ꝑ {sic} æstatem fossæ arefactæ flumen quo siccant: Quod subsidens derivationib{illeg}|u|s non potest tempestivis sufficere, quibus regio perusta & siccitate squallens per æstatem plurimum eget. Hac igitur tempestate c|C|yrus urbē occupavit.

5 Cyrus|m| a Tomyride & Massagetis cæsū historia suspecte fidei est siquidem Cyri in Perside honorificè sepulti extabat tumulus {in Prios} tempore Alexandri. Sed ne de morte Cyri consentiunt inter se Herodotus Ctesias et Xenophon. Quare ex more more mortis argumentum de tempore ejus nullum est.

6 Quod Canon juxta {tres} \{omnes a}/ editiones Scaligeri dat 8 annos filijs Nebuchanezari {sic}. Et ita legit Petavius in libris \dissertationibus/ suis, quamvis in fi calce Rationarij correuctū ad ad numeros Berosi \correctū/ edidit \juxta cod. Angl Theonis. et Edit/. Iuxt{ur}|a| illū canonem igitur <7v> victor expugnatio Babylonis in annū 70 incidet. But here first shew the 70 years by Berosus compute, adding a years \interregnum/ thereto out of Ier 51.46. Then shew it out of Xenophon who makes Cyrus to reigned {sic} after y^e taking of Babylon full seven years & died in y^e eighth. Then note how the Canon agrees w^th Berosus in assigning 17 years to D Nabonelus & accordingly terminating his reign anno Nabonassaris 2 making the year of Nabonassar 4|2|10 to be y^e first year of his reign. And how he dissagrees frō him in making y^e sons of Nebuchadnezar reign 8 years: I mean in y^e Canons published by Scaliger & followed by Petavius in his writings For y^t at y^e end of Petavius {ri}|Ra|tionarium seems corrected by Berosus, & yet wants y^e time of Laborosoarchadus reign w^ch being but of 9 months Ptolomy includes (as his custome is) in y^e reign years of y^e former king. And then noteing how thi|e|s|e| difference|s| is|are| a nicety not inconsiderable, add the calculation by y^e reign of y^e kings of Tyre.

7 Out of Ezek 29|.1, 6, 7| shew that Pharaoh's expedition to help y^e besieged Iews, & consequently y^e sabbatic year was y^e 9^th year of Zedekiah.

8 out of \y^e Iews tradion {sic} in/ Ierom shew that \during/ Nebuchadnezars madness Ewilmerodach administred the kingdom & was afterw^d put into prison w^th Iehojakim for it & upon his fathers death brought out Iehojakim & therefore begai|n| to reign w^th his release. See Marshams chronology.

9 As {illeg} Nabonnedus is called a Mede by Megasthenes so {in} y^e title of y^e Canon is of y^e kings of y^e Medes & Persians Assyrians & Medes & then at Cyrus \y^e title is changed &/ begins y^e catalogue of y^e Kings of Persia.

10 All y^e Canons have been tampered with. That of Petavius has too much was co is to conformable to Petavius \his/ sentiments \{was}|seemes| corrected by {him}|sombody|/, nor does he use it in his writings. The \Ecclesiastic Canon has 31 for 9 in the reign of Cyrus & y^e/ Genethlic of s|S|caliger has 17 years added to y^e reign of Nabonnedus & the Ecclesiastic 17 to \as many taken from/ y^e years of Nabonassar & Nadius together, both by {n}|s|ome Ecclesiastic to make out 70 years from y^e y^e burning of Ieruslaem to y^e {illeg} first year of Cyrus. Take away those from both those 17 spurious years /rectify these years & {from y^e Re}\ & y^e 2 canons will <7r> agree & run thus, Nabonassar 14|25| 24 25 Na{r}|d|ius 8 16 33 Chinzerus & P. 5 21 38 Dilulæus 5 26 43       &c Nabopolasser 21 124 141 Nabuchadnezar 43 167 184 Iloaradamus 3 170 189 Nerigasolorus 5 175 192 Nabonadius 17 209 209 Cyrus 9 218 218 at least it Which differs from And this agreeing every where to y^e truth with in a year I take to be y^e genuine canon of Ptol.

In y^e 5 years of Nerigassolorus are included the 9 months of Laborosordachus, for so Ptolomy \for brevity sake/ does all along where the any king reigned not a yeare as you may see in y^e Persian kings where Smerdes, Atabanus {&}|X|erxes 2^dus & Sogdian are omitted & their years added to y^e former kings. So then the compute {illeg}|o|f Berosus & Ptolomy differs only in this that Be Ptolomy {illeg}|g|ives 3 years to Iloaradæmus, Berosus only 2 the occasion of w^ch difference might be that he {d}|r|eignd about 2 $\frac{1}{2}$ . But this is not worth disputing about. I shal rather note out of Ier 51.46 that whereas Berosus makes the 17^th year of Nabonnedus and w^th his overthrow in y^e field by Cyrus & Ptolomy ends his reign then th{er} it was still another year before Babylon was taken. &c And so y^e taking of y^e City will fall in Iuly ann Nabonass 244 {Iul} 69 $\frac{1}{2}$ years after y^e servitutde of Iehojakim. Then confirm this by the testimony of Xenophon who reccons 7 full years or better from y^e taking of Babylon to y^e death of Cyrus.     Lastly confirm it out of y^e Tyrrine rec Phœnician record in Iosephus, cont. App. l 1.

11 Note that y^e records about these times are transcribed entirely in Marsham's Chronology.

<9r>

For y^e 70 years, & chronology of y^e Temple, determin only 1^st the reign of Cyrus Cambyses & Darius. 2^dly That by the eclipses & Haggai 1.1 & 2.1, 10. Zech 1.1, 7 Darius began between y^e 24^th day of y^e 11^th month & Apr 25. Smerdes was slain currente mense regni octavo (Herod) l 1) & l|C|ambyses reigned 7^y 5^mens (Herod) therefore Cyrus was slain in spring before y^e end of April An. Iul. Per. 4185. Which is agreeable to \confirmed by/ w^t Herodotus relates viz^t y^t he was slain in y^e begining of a northern expeditiō /in y^e Scythian territory\ as soon as he had past y^e river

3 That y^e |years of Zedekiah began {in y^e}|between| y^e 5^t & 10^hi month y^t is in Autumn & y^e| 10th year of Zedekiah was sabbatical & consequently began in Autumn An. I. P 4123. proved by

4 That y^e

4^thly that y^e captivity of Iehojakin fell in Autumn An. I. P 4114.

5 Count from thence 70 years to y^e solution & \the time of their journey/ one year more \after they were at Ierusalem/ & as much as to y^e 2^d month of y^e second year (Ezra 3.8) & you will fall on {sprin} spring An. Iul. Per 1486. a year after Cyrus death for y^e time of laying y^e foundatiō And if you strain & detract a year from y^e seventy yet y|w|ill yo not y^e foundation be laid before Cyrus death. How then could y^e nations after this combine & hinder y^e building all y^e days of Cyrus. Ezra {9}|4|.5.

6 This opinion has no other Foundation but Ezekiels using y^e Epocha of of Iehojakins captivity, w^ch yet he does becaus he himself was then made captive

7 But Ieremiah is more to be regarded who {gav} at y^e same time he gave y^e prophesy of y^e 70 years subjection of his nation to y^e king of Babylon, sayd This is y^e f{o}|i|rst year of Nebuchadnezzar. \Ier 25.1, 11, 12./ For that was not y^e first year of Nebuchadnezzars reign over Babylon but his first year over Iudah. And therefore this way of reconning y^e years of Nebuchadnezzar being unusual, Ieremy \never uses it alone but – – – –/ as often as he uses it adds y^e years of y^e King of Iudah to teach how he woud have the people his way of reconning. Ier. 25.1 & 32.1 & 52 5, 12. For in chap 52.28, 29, 30 where he uses y^e vulgar reconning he puts only the years of Nebuchadnezzar.

<9v>

{8}|9| Ptolomy in his canon \according to all editions of it but y^e depraved Ecclesiastic one/ puts Cyrus to have reigned 9 years in Babylon {&} according to w^ch recconing he took Babylon Anno Iul. Per. 4176. |And \accordingly/ in all editions of his canon even in y^e ecclesiastic one {puts} y^e first year of Cyrus in Babylonia is anno Nabonass 410 w^ch agrees to anno Iul. Per 4176. The same is confirmed by Berosus, who reccons|

{9} Again Both {Ptolomy &} Berosus & Ptolomy record|s| that Nabopolassar \& Nebuchadnezar together reigned 64 y./ reigned 64 years, {sic} Nebuchanezar 43 years \Ewilmerodach & y^e sun {sic} in law & grandson of Nebuchadnezar 6 y. 9 m/ & Nabo{n}nedus 17 years, & between Nebuchadnezzar & Nabonedus          gives 6 years & 9 months to Ewilmerodach & y^e sons of Nebuchadnezar & Ptolomy \being here corrupted gives/ in some editions 8 in others 6 years & leaves out Ptolomy is here corrupted in some editions having more in others less but yet differs not above a year & {2}|3| months from

|To which recconning Ptolomy is consentaneous enough this only excepted that Ptolomy in scaligers editions of him adds a year more to the reign of Nebuchadnezzars children.| The whole summ is 87 years & 9 months. Now the first year of Nabopolasser fell in (some part of it at least) w^th Ann I. P. 4089 as is determined by an eclips made by the babylonians \Chaldeans/ in his 5^t year anno Nabonassari 127 Athyr 27 sequante 28 hora 5 50′ a media nocte Babylone as Ptolomy records. For this eclips agrees to an. Per. Iul. 4093 Apr. 22. Count from this first year 86 years 8|9| months & you will end in Ann. I. P. 4176 as above for y^e end of Nabonnedus &c

10 Now Babylon being taken by draining Euphrates \as Herodotus relates/ it was most probably done in the dryest y|w|eather when waters use to be lowest, suppose about August. August anno 4176 is just 70 years after August 4106 when Nebuchadnezzar first subjected Ne Iehojakin in & y^e Iews Dan. 1.1. 2 Chron 36.6, 7. 2 King. 24.5.

|1.8| Which Which | The 70 years you may also \also/ reccon thus

9. But to give you a more ex

Suppose then y^e dec{e}|r|ee came out in Autumn & y^e Iews journey the spring following.

Note. E|A|bydenus (or Megasthenes) apud Euseb. Præp. l 9 relates how Nebuchadnezzar had a great force of Medes in his army & his wife was a Mede. Did not this give occasion to Nabonnedus conspiracy.

<10r>

De Prophetijs Danielis
Liber

Cap 1

Chronologia Regum Babyloniæ, & Captivitatis 70 annnorū.

Cap 2

Chronologia Librorum Ezræ & Nehemiæ.

Cap 3

Expositio visionis Hebdomadum septuaginta.

Cap 4

Expositio Visionis quatuor Bestiarum.

Cap 5

Espositio visionis Arietis & Hirci.

Cap 6

Expositio visionis de sc{r}|ri|ptura veritatis.

The la{rs}|s|t argument for Artaxerxes bein Ezra 4.7 being Artaxerxes Longimanus is made strong by Ctesias writing that Cyrus commanded his son Tanyoxortes to lay no taxes on his subjects, &|f|or there is the same reason of both his sons. {by}|{al}|so by Strabo's relating (p 735 lib 15) out of Polycritus that Darius Longimanus ({w}|h|e should {say} Histaspis τον δὲ διατάξαντα τοὺς φόρους ε{illeg} Δαρειον εἱναι, τὸν μα{illeg}|χ|ρόχειρα. he means he Darius macrocheir (he means H{i}|y|staspis) first instituted tribute. Herodotus more at large lib 3 tells us how he instituted tribute & divided the empire into Provinces & that what till his ti{ne}|m|e \there were/ nothing but gifts & confirms his relation w^th this notable character that they Persia{illeg}|n|s Called Cyrus a Father, Cambyses a master, Darius \κάπηλον a Huckster/ a Chapman: the first for his affectionate \moderate/ government, the second for his lordlines & tyranny the third for his instituting taxes. \as you may see explaind by Suidas in Cyrus./ And yet in the|is| first institution of taxes Darius was so moderate that Plutarch in Apopth|h|thegm. scribit τοὺς φορους τοῖς ὑπσηκόσις ταξας &c See Brissonius p 123. Also Herodotus in his sixt book relates how that y^e Iones rebelling \again {sic} Darius/ & being reduced again to obedience by \Darius/ Artaphernes Sardium Præses per Parasangas (ita enim Persæ tricena stadia appellabant) conferre jussit tributa, quæ uti ab Artapherne imposita fuerant &c. see Brissonius ib. So then the Artaxerxes who exacted tribute so much Ezra 4 must be after this Darius. And for what Herodotus says that Smydes grant{es}|ed| <10v> |an immunity from taxes for 3 years \that is/ (if you will let Herodotus interpret himself) the meaning must only be that he continued the favour of Cyrus & Cambyses for so long|

In adjusting y^e story of Ezra & Nehemiah, shew

1. That Nehem 8, 9, 10, 11 chap. belong to y^e times of Zrubbabel {sic}

2. That there are two Ezras & two Nehemiahs.

3. That y^e elder Nehem is meant in Ezra 2.2, 63.

4. That y^e elder is meant in |2| Maccab. ca|h|ap 1 & 2.

5. |A| Note y^t this Nehemiah lived frō an 1 Cyri to an 6 Darij.

6 That y^e elder Ezra is meant in 2 Ez|s|dras from chap 3 to the end.

7. A note to cleare y^e book of Ezra 2.

8. a note concerning y^e cannon of scripture.

\8 B. The solution of y^e captivity anno 22^mo Cyri./

9. The building of y^e Temple finished Anno 6^to Darij Hystaspis

|Arg. 1.| {10} Quia decreto Cyri tantum deferebatur.

|Arg 2| Quia Holanes (ut ait Herod.) \id est {Tatanai} Thatanai/ tunc dux erat cis fluvicum.

|Arg 3|4|.| Quia septuagesimus annus a Templo comf|b|usto tunc {ne}|m|odo fluxerat Zech

Arg. 4|3| Quia tunc in vivis erant qui Templum prius viderant.

Arg 5 Quia Zerubbabel, {Z}|I|eshua & Nehemiah Tirshatha ad primo anno Cyri ad sextum Darij simul regebant populū id est per 120 annos si Darius Nothus is fuerit: Quod absurdissiumum {C}|E|st.

Arg. 6 Quia filij omnium fere sacerdotum qui florebant una cum Zorobabele redibant de captivitate, florebant tempore Eias Iojakim successoris Ieshua. Ezra Nehem 12.12.

10 The return \coming/ of Ezra & Nehemiah to Ierusalem was in y^e reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon. 1 Quia Artax <11r> erxes Longimanus progressus Iudæorum Iudæis adversus & progr ædif ædificium urbis & mœniorū impedivit. 2|1| q|Q|uia genealogiæ Mattaniæ Nehem 12.8, 35 & 11.17 & Ioanan Ezra 10.6 & {illeg} Nehem 12.11, 22, 23 Id videntur exigere. 3|2| Quia secus Iohanan senem centum et triginta annorum \senex/ fratrē etiam senem secum de summo sacerdotio{n} litigantem occiderit, & diutius vixerit. 4|3| Quia Sanballetes una cum filia ac genere in vivis erant tempore Alexandri magni Ioseph illi ipsi quos Nehemiah a se depulerat (Ioseph l.    ) Nehemias etiam tempore Iaduæ et Darij Codomanni historiam scripsit. (Nehem 12.11, {illeg}, {sic} 22, 23 & 13.15, 23.) |4. Quia prior Artaxerxes inhibuit ædificium.| 10

< insertion from f 10v >

10 The building of y^e city hindred in y^e reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon Longimanus. Arg 1 a serie nominum Cyri Darij Assueri & Artaxerxis: quorum Assuerus & Artaxerx{i}|e|s aliter applicari nequeunt 2 Quia urbis et mœniorum ædificatio posterior erat ædificatione Templi. 3 {This} argumen |Because in this Artaxerxes time taxes were high Ezra 4.13, And yet in Smedes {sic} time there were no taxes. Nor were there any in Cyrus or Darius time besides what free will offerings made by y^e nations to ingratiate themselves. Darius was y^e first that instituted taxes as Herodotus relates. lib 3. v. de locum p 83 & 87.| Quo munus hæc argumenta valeant nil obstat præter Ezra 4.27: cujus explicatio ad finem dissertationis rejiciatur < text from f 11r resumes > Here

{Here} {Explain} \Translate/ {illeg}|E|zra 4.27 T|t| thus. Tunc cessaverat opus domus Dei quæ est in Ierusalem et cessans fuerat ad us annum secundum regni Darij. And explain y^e place by taking tunc in a large sence & making y^e place a beginning of a new {part} narration, & compare {illeg} it w^th Nehem 13.1 where in illo die is of y^e like \difficult/ interpretation, {but}|and| more difficult|. And shew that this traslation {sic} is less absurd then to put Assuerus & Artaxerxes to be Cambyses & Smerdes. & y^e building the City & walls before the Temple was neare done.|

13 Put this dilemma. Either y^e Reader beleives y^e books of Ezra & Nehemiah are come safe to o^r hand or not if y^e former, then y^e places Nehem 12.11, 22, 23 are of Nehemiah's writing & so Nehemiah lived with Dari & {sic} wrote in Darius Codomannus time & consequently came to Ierusalem in y^e {sic} latter At|r|taxerxes Me|n|emon's time: or els w^ch is y^t I contend for. Or els if y^e latter then let him grant y^e liberty he takes & Ile argue thus. In y^e time of Iudas Maccabeus y^e sacred books were burnt much destroyed & dispersed \& recollected by Iudas/ 2 Macc. 2.14. And in this recollection there were some miscarriages. |The prophesies of Ieremy put together not in the order of time they were writ| A part of y^e prophesies of Ieremy clapt to y^e end of Zacchary's vizt from Zach 9 to y^e end as is plain by y^e stile & S^t Matthew's quotation Matt 27.9, 10. \in the middle of the prophesies of Isa & Ier. historical fragments inserted/ A part of 1 Chron \ch/ 8 from vers 29 to vers 38 clapt to y^e end of y^e geneaologies in chap 9 from vers 39 to y^e end. \And a part of the book of Ezra annexed to y^e end of y^e Chronicles./ And from hence perhaps y^e repeated genealogies in 1 Chron 5 & a part of y^e book of Iudges Ioshua ch 21.{illeg} inserted from vers 10 to vers 39 clapt to y^e to y^e end of 1 Chron {5} Hence to y^e end of y^e continued History of y^e book of <11v> Iudges might be added y^e Storys of Michah & Benjamin out of scattered | dissipated papers. For y^e story of Mich|a|h belongs rather to y^e book of Ioshuah being a|t|he history at length of the Danits taking Laish or Leshem & calling it Dan, there described in short Ios. 19.47. Iud 18.29. Hence might be y^e composure of y^e Apocryphal books of Ezdras For they are plainly {illeg}|n|othing but y^e scattered papers of y^e two Ezra's put together by somebody that took 'em all for papers of y^e same Ezra. Hence y^e book of chronicles of y^e Kings of Israel so often quoted in y^e book of Kings, entirely lost; as also y^e books of \y^e Prophets/ Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Iddo, Shemajah, Iehu mentioned in y^e Chronicles. Hence y^e Genealogies written in y^e book of Kings of w^ch mention is made in 1 Chron 9.1, are perished, & those \also/ in ^[2] y^e book of y^e Chronicles mentioned in Nehem 12.23. Hence to y^e 2 registers of those who returned from cap y^e people under Zerubbabel & David in 1 Chron 9 are confounded together the 2^d beginning{illeg} at vers 18 as if a continuation of y^e 1^st, [compare vers 19 & 21 with 1 Chron 26.1, 2, 14 & ch 6.37.] Hence {illeg}|M|ight part of y^e {illeg}|book| of Nehemiah between y^e 12^th & 13^th chapters be lost conteining y^e history of y^e 12 \or 13/ years between the dedication of y^e wall & Nehemiahs return to Ierusalem be lost:|.| And lastly Hence might the Register Nehem 11 w^ch should come in in Ezra 2 between vers 69 & 70 (the words dwelt in their cities y^e {illeg}|7|0^th vers relating to it) be lost out of that book & inserted into y^e y^e book of Nehemiah together w^th y^e last vers of chap 7 & y^e 8^th 9^th & 10^th chapters as if they were a part of y^e history of y^t Nehemiah though y^e 8^th 9^th & 10^th chapters are little to y^e design of it. Lastly hence might a part of Ezra 4 from vers 6 to vers 24 be a loos record inserted {th} in that place to w^ch he y^t put y^e collected papers together knew not where better to insert.. {For}|And| this is y^e more likely because it is inserted in another place of y^e history in {1} Esdras 2. & y^e History omitted {there} \there/ {taking} in that part of y^e history {Ezra. 5} & {illeg} \in that place there/ in w^ch in Ezra it is inserted. T{he}|h||o| y^e book of Esdras be not authentick because made manifestly put together in a wrong order yet y^e records w^ch were put together to compose it were doubles {sic} authentick unless y^e story of y^e 3 young men speaking sentences be excepted For y^e rest are nothing els but fragments of y^e books of Ezra & Nehemiah wrong pu otherwise put together. Now this putting them wrong together shews y^t y^e papers of Ezrah & Nehemiah were once dispersed & scattered. Let y^e reader therefore consider whither it be more likely <12r> that y^e contextor of y^e book of Esdras, whose design was only to put scattered papers together should take out y^e story of Ahashuerus & Artaxerxes from |y^e| amidst of y^e record he found it in to put it in a wrong place or that y^e some other person finding this story in a loos record & not knowing should put it in where we find it in Ezra not knowing where better to dispose of it place it. For y^e story of Darius as it is in Esdras \chap. 5 & 6/ is natural & proper but as it is in Ezra its {broke} interrupted by y^e interposition of things of anther nature done in the reigns of other kings, w^ch has hitherto so far perplext commentators & Chronologers that they \can find/ no more com̄omodious explic have been fain to put to most miserable shifts to make out y^e place

Make out this 4^th argum^t thus. First from y^e names Assuerus & Artaxerxes shew that they are Xeres & \Art./ Longimanus & consequently y^e f{at{illeg}}|orm|er Artaxerxes being a hinderer {illeg} {illeg}|the| latter must be y^e furtherer &c. 2 Answer y^e objection frō Ezra 4.24 by a new version of y^e place & by y^e aforesaid dilemma. 3^dly confirm y^e dilemma by these argum^ts. 1^st Because Darius was y^e first institutor of Taxes ({&}|H|erod l 3) & Taxes were high in y^e reign of Artaxerxes y^e hinderer Ezra {illeg}|4|.13. 2^dly Because y^e 7 months reign of Smerdes is too short for y^e Iews news of Cambyses death to go to Babylon Susa, of Smerdes reigning to Syria, the Iews |{y}| to set themselves to y^e work anew, their enemies to {g}|c|ombine & their letters to go to Susa, search to be made there & the Kings decre to be sent back. Nay more, the Iews w^ch built now came were got into favour with this king & came from him (as Ezra & Nehemiah did afterw^d fm y^e other Artax.) & thereupon {illeg} built Ezra 4.12 {The Iew} For thus they describe to y^e King y^e persons they accuse. The Iews w^ch came from thee to us are [now] come to Ierusalem Ezra 4.12. The very journey from Babylon thither was a business of 4 months (Ezra 7.9. Ezek 32.21) & from Susa more. \Besides Smerdes never was at Babylon from whence the Iews went up/ {illeg} To say nothing of y^e expression In y^e days of Art. 3^dly Because y^e business was now about y^e Cy|i|ty & walls w^ch was after y^e building of y^e Temple. 4 Because y^e Iews adversaries, {Samar} in Samaria were changed. {n}|N|ot one name y^e same. And yet there was but 1$\frac{1}{2}$ year between smerdes & y^e 2^d year of Dar. to change y^m. 5 Because they in Darius reign write {illeg}{sidly ag} simply ag^t y^e Iews referring all to Cyrus decree, \taking no notice of any contrary decre/ not accusing them so much as accusing them of sedition: w^ch things would have been otherwis had there been then decrees {counter} to Cyrus's & had they newly found the success of accusing them of sedition.

Sect 1. De duplici Ezra ac duplici Nehemiah: de singulorum scriptis

Sect. 2. De Tempore solutæ captivitatis imperante Cyro

Sect. 3 De tempore ædificati Templi

Sect 4 De temporibus Ezræ junioris et Neemiæ junioris.

Sect 5 Expositio septuaginta Hebdomadum

Sect 6 Expositio dierum 2300

Sect 7 Expositio dierum 1260, 1290, 1335.

|Nota.| Ab \ingressa/ in terram c|C|anaan, ad jacta fundamenta Templi Solomonis sunt 9 {× 7} Hebdomades \Hebdomadum/ annorum. Inde ad captivitatem decem Tribuum 6 × 7 × Hebd.

A divisione Terræ ad encœnia Templi Solomonis 9 × 7 × Hebd. Inde ad captivitatem duorum Tribuum sub Romanis {1}|2|2, 7 × Hebd.

A reditu ultimo ad Messiam 7 |×| Hebd. Dan 8.

Super urbem sacram decisæ 10, 7 × Hebd Dan 8

A vocatione Gentium ac|a|d perditionem 38, 7 × Hebd.

Ab initio mundi ad finem 1000 Hebdomas millenorū annorū. Horum significativa Sabbatum die seu cessatio die septimo, anno septimo, anno 49^no {sic}, & festū Hebdomadarum septimana septima Levit 23.16.

Note y^t Ptolomy's Canon, y^t reputed most correct was found in a manuscript of Theon in England & printed first by          & afterwards by Petavius in the end of his Rationarium.

^{[Editorial Note 3]}

Note that Nehemias |About| B|T|he time of o^r Saviours death many things are disputed. |Some in the {illeg} Apostolick age regarded not these kind of niceties. Those in y^e next began to take up several opinions| One of y^e ancientest opions {sic} was y^t o^r Saviours preaching lasted but \about/ one year \of w^ch mind was Clemens Alexandrinus \Origen/ & Tertullian, Africanus & others/. Afterward finding three successive passovers in S^t Iohns gospel, they divers began to be an \& some fansying four/ divers took up an opinion|s| of \{betw}/ 2 \or 3/ or th|years| & somes {sic} months & (as & y^e former opinion went down. And these authors of these opinions framing several \recconings &/ computations thereupon (as y^t from o^r Saviours death to y^e Martyrdom of S^t Paul was so many years, to y^e destruction of Ierusalem so many \that he died of {sic} this or that day of the month/ &c) some now who take up w^th their opinions {illeg} make the argue \mainly/ from y^e authority \& recconing/ of these authors, w^ch is Lesbiam admovere regulā. Laying a waving therefore these

See the Prophesies of Cotterus Christina & Drabitius published by Comenius.

Nicolaitan i.e. a conqueror of y^e people.

To him was given y^e key of y^e bottomless pit, that is to y^e angel, not to y^e starr Apoc 7. Twas this Angel & not the star w^ch opened y^e bottomless pit.

The Arabians cannot be better represented then by Locusts 1^st because of their innumerable multitude: whence they are in y^e book of Iudges cop|m|pared to Locusts. And y^e Midianites & y^e Amalekites & all y^e children of y^e east were in y^e valley as Locusts for number. 2^dly because from Arabia came those \swarms of/ Locusts w^ch often covered both Egypt & Ethiopia 3^dly because of y^e swiftnesse \& {illeg}/ of y^e conquests & greatness of y^e desolations made by y^e Saracens.

All that have read y^e history of y^e Crusadoes, know, that y^e Christians in y^e end of y^e eleventh age found them \Turks/ establisht in those four principall seats Nice, Damascus, Antioch & Aleppo &c

The Turks are originally Scythians Tartars & Nomades people that had nothing but horsmen in their armies. The formidable infantry of the Turks was not instituted till about y^e year 1300 by Ottoman the founder of the Empire. Before that their chief strength was in Cavalry.

The fals character of Antichrist is y^t he is to be one single man of y^e Tribe of Dan, a great conqueror by arms, to reign in Ierusalem 3$\frac{1}{2}$ yea natural years, rebuild y^e Temple there & reestablish y^e Mosaical service; to abolish y^e sacrifice of y^e Mass, compell Christians to renew their baptism overcome 3 kings Libya Egypt & Ethiopia, hat{illeg}e idols, be a Magitian, call himself God & y^e only God, kill y^e two witnesses Enoch & Elias <14v> deny y^e coming of Christ in y^e flesh, do nothing in y^e name of Christ, stile himself y^e Messiah, conquer y^e whole world by arms, possess all sorts of treasure come in y^e end of y^e Roman Empire after y^e \destruction thereof &/ universal preaching of y^e Gospel, bring fire from heaven & feign himself dead in order to counterfeit a ressurection.

The court of Rome hath destroyed three kingdoms in Italy, that of y^e Lombards, that of y^e Goths & before these that of y^e Greeks, in I He hath overthrown the king of Naples, the king of {Sycil} Sicily & y^e king of Germany to make them his vassals.

Vpon y^e whore's forehead Mystery i.e. Religion.

The Greek Church did not separate from y^e Latin Church before y^e 10^th century.

The name of y^e Beast in y^e two sacred languages Hebrew & Greek is Romiyth & Lateinos.

The name Mystery was \formerly/ writ in the forepart of y^e Popes Miter. A Venetian author assures us of it & Ioseph Scaliger saith that he had seen them so marked.

The Edict of Nantes was abrogated in Octob. 1685.

A tenth part of y^e great City is one of y^e ten Kings.

Now the spirit speaks \saith/ expresly that in y^e latter times some shall depart from y^e faith, giving themselves up to deceiving spirits & Doctrines of Dæmons: & this through y^e fictions of lyars men whose consciences are seared w^th a hot iron, [& through] forbidding to marry & commanding to abstain from meats &c 1 Tim. 4. This is y^e mystery of iniquity opposite to y^e mystery of godliness spoken of in y^e words <15r> next preceding.