<1r>

This {passag} prophesy I have set down at large because {it}|this| \together and what \& the/ follows|i||ng| to ye end chapters of Isaiah/ answers fully to ye prophesy of ye new Ierusalem. For here by calling this people ye wife of ye Lord & describing her as an holy & peaceable city built of pretious stones & inheriting the nations you may know yt she is ye new Ierusalem ye Lambs wife. By her being returned from captivity, \her/ inhabiting ye desolate cities, her \her/ reigning over \& inheriting/ the nations & \by/ their making war upon her \by weapons formed by the smith/ you may know yt she is a city of mortals, & {not} a city not litterally formed of jewels but mystically put for ye whole nation of ye Iews flourishing in peace & righteousness & \gloriously/ reigning over ye nations: of wch reign the \For/ jewells are a type of {dominion} regal dignity & glory as you may understand by ye Prophesy of the whore of Baylon {sic} adorned wth 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 yt ye 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 ye millennium that the time of her captivity wch is almost 2000 years being compared with the time of her flourishing reign \wch 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 ye \day of judgment &/ millennium in so vast a disproportion of time & her end is no where described \in ye Scriptures/ we may well conclude wth Luke that of this kingd Ieremy that it \this Kingd/ shall last as long as ye ordinances in|of| ye sun{illeg} moon & stars, with Daniel & Iohn that it shal stand for ever & ever & with Luke yt it shall have no end. This was Gods promise to \covenant wth/ Abraham <1v> The \wn he promised/ that he|i||s| seed should inherit ye land of Canaan forever & on this promis was founded the religion of ye Iews as on yt {illeg} \religion/ is founded yt|e| of ye religion of ye Christians & therefore this promis pr|o|int is of moment {illeg}|&| ought to be understood by all men.

In ye next place I would observe out of ye Prophets that in ye end of ye present world when Christ shall \come to/ judge ye quick & dead, {at} the quick to be then judged are the people of this kingdom both Iews & {h}|G|entiles. Daniel tells us yt at ye end of ye great tribulation (wch I told you was the final persecution of Antichrist signified in ye Apocalyps by ye harvest & wch Matthew describes to be immediately before the smiting \darking|ning|/ of the terrestrial sun mooon & starrs {s}|o|f the nations & appearing coming of ye son of man{illeg} in ye clouds to judgment) the people of ye Iews shall be delivered every one that shall be found written in ye book & yt at ye same time many of those that sleep in ye dust shall a{te}|wa|ke some to everlasting life & others to everlasting contempt.|,| Here is ye judgm & yt he among ye rest shall at yt time stand in his lot. Here is ye judgment of both quick & dead. For ye Book here mentioned is ye book of life {one} wch {ye both} \{tis} the {gr}/ quick & dead are now opened in ye judgment of both now opened in judgment as you may understand by comparing this place {illeg} wth such another in ye 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 wch are written in ye Lambs book of life. Apoc 21.27. The|is| book of life was a {illeg} befo opp|e|ned before in ye general judgment of ye \& all/ the dead who were not found written in this book were \there/ cast into ye Lake of fire Apoc 20.15. Here in ye same day of judgment {none} /the\ <2r> living are also judged out of ye same book of life & those only admitted into ye new Ierusalem whose names are written therein. And as at this time there is a salvation of \some of/ ye dead from ye lake of fire so also the {sic} is a salvation of some of the living For the na as well Gentiles as Iews. For ye nations of them wch are {save} saved shall walk in the light of ye new Ierusalem & the Kings of ye earth do bring their glory & honour into it Apoc 21.24. When Christ comes to judge ye dead, he comes also to r \wth his saits {sic} to smite the nations wth his two edged sword &/ |to| rule ye|m| nations wth a rod of iron Apoc 19 15 & at that time gives his saints power over the nations & as ye 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 wch 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 ye righteous shine forth as ye sun in ye Kingdom of their father Matt 14|3|.41. Dan. 12. These are the nations of them wch are saved For For the Kingdom of Christ{illeg} where the wicked were & out of wch ye Angels gathered them is dou was doubtles on earth & the rest of who remained in it were the nations of them wch are saved, For they are saved \that is/ from ye lake of fire. {In} In {illeg} First ye dead \in Christ/ are rai{d}|s|ed the ye {sic} living as many as are not \found/ written {in} ye book of life are cast into ye lake of fire & ye rest are {either} who {are} saved are \according to their various merits/ partly changed & caught up to meet ye Lord \at his comig|ng|/ (Matt. 24.31. 1 Thess. 4.16.) \&/ partly left \{illeg}/ in that kingdom \of mortals/ on earth wch Christ {ru}|is| to rule wth a rod of Iron. An {sic} this <2v> I take to be ye division of ye great city into three part {sic} (Apoc 16) & ye judgment of both quick & dead at ye 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 ye new Ierusalem as a city of mortals only but/ whilst the c|C|hrist rules the{m} nations wth a rod of iron & gives power over the|m| nations to ye sons of ye resurrection ch 2.26 & makes them kings over ye earths ch. 1.6 & 5.10. {illeg}|&| gives them to eat of ye tree of life wch is in ye midst of the Paradise of God & ch \{Ch}/ 2.7 & & to enter in through ye gates into ye city ch. 2.7 & 22.14, & writes upon them the name of the city of God the new Ierusalem wch cometh down out of heaven ch 3: {is} this city must be understood to comprehend as well Christ & the Childrē of ye resurrection as ye race of mortal Iews on earth. {Tis the} It signifies ye body politi of all those who have dominion over the nations whether they be ye saints in heaven or their mortal vicegerents on eath {sic}. And therefore ye Apostle Paul in his epistle to ye Hebrews |chap. 11| understand|s| \it/ of ye Saints in heaven, saying that they all died {of} in faith not having received ye {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 wth out us should not be made perfect. Heb Yet are you not to conceive that Christ & the children of ye resurrection shall reign over mortalls after ye manner of mortal Kings or convers wth mortals as mortals do wth 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 & ye children of ye 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

<3r>

The four horsmen wch appear at opening the first four seals have been explained by Mr 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, wth \This victory |wch|/ 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 \wch 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 wth 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 wth 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.

<4r>

– 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 ye 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, ye next of those who were hospitable to their neighbours, ye third of those who lived in solitudes wthout seeing men & ye fourth of those who were obedient & subject to ye fathers, And this order he represents ye highest of ye four leaving their own wills & depending upon ye will of ye father who commands them. And this he makes ye highest order \order/ {illeg}|o|f ye four {illeg} & to be rewarded wth {ye} greater glory then ye 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 ye end. And ye Græk \Palladius/ had it from Cronius ye servant |an attendant| of Antony.

<6r>

Let ye argument for Ezra's being in ye latter /Artaxerxes Longimanus hindring\ the temple b{illeg}|u|ilding of ye 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 ye very beginning of his reign {enjoi} decreed an immunity from taxes for 3 years. Were this \a relaxing/ from taxes wch had been before it would be to or purpose as shewing there were no taxing in Smerdes time; but yet, if Herodotus may interpret himself, it was only a continuing ye immunity wch 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye arguments on this subject, & then conclude that the last vers of ye 4th chapter is ye beginning of a new narration & ought to be ye 1st vers of ye 5t 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 ye times past without referring it to A Conceiving the story in the of both ye Temple & City to be brought down into |in the 4th 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.

<7r>
Sect 1. De \{ann}/ Captivitate Babylonica Septi|u|aginta annorum.
Sect 2. De duplici Ezra ac duplici {tr}|N|eeemiah|, de singulorū scriptis|
Sect. 3. De tempore ædificati Templi
Sect. 4. De temporibus Ezræ junioris et Neemiæ junioris.
Sect 5 Expositio 70 Hebdomadū.
Sect 6 Expositio dierum 2300
Sect 7 Expositio dierum 1260, 1290, 1335.
[Editorial Note 2]
<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 wthout 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 ye 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 ye Medes conspiracy.

<8r>

2 That Iosephus

2 That Iosephus compounding his narration out of Daniel & ye writings of Berosus & mistaking them both, has \was ye first yt/ confounded \& perplext/ ye history of those times & gave occasion to ye erroneous opinions wch ye 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 ye mar Apud Brissoniū p 198. i.e A feast i|I|n Babylon ye 16th of ye month Lous (wch is ye 6|M|onth Tamncuz \of ye Chaldaic or Iewish/ or 4h month of ye 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 ye Saturnalia. And the|is| \seems to have been their principal/ feast being ye only feast mentioned by authors. Now this being so fit for Cyrus purpose, the river being {illeg}|lo|west & ye waters slowest, the feast of some days duration & of perfect liberty for revelling & debauchery, what time should Cyrus choose for ye|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/  {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 ye taking of Babylon full seven years & died in ye eighth. Then note how the Canon agrees wth 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 ye first year of his reign. And how he dissagrees frō him in making ye sons of Nebuchadnezar reign 8 years: I mean in ye Canons published by Scaliger & followed by Petavius in his writings For yt at ye end of Petavius {ri}|Ra|tionarium seems corrected by Berosus, & yet wants ye time of Laborosoarchadus reign wch being but of 9 months Ptolomy includes (as his custome is) in ye reign years of ye former king. And then noteing how thi|e|s|e| difference|s| is|are| a nicety not inconsiderable, add the calculation by ye reign of ye kings of Tyre.

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

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

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

10 All ye 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 & ye/ Genethlic of s|S|caliger has 17 years added to ye reign of Nabonnedus & the Ecclesiastic 17 to \as many taken from/ ye years of Nabonassar & Nadius together, both by {n}|s|ome Ecclesiastic to make out 70 years from ye ye burning of Ieruslaem to ye {illeg} first year of Cyrus. Take away those from both those 17 spurious years /rectify these years & {from ye Re}\ & ye 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 ye truth with in a year I take to be ye genuine canon of Ptol.

In ye 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 ye Persian kings where Smerdes, Atabanus {&}|X|erxes 2dus & Sogdian are omitted & their years added to ye 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 wch difference might be that he {d}|r|eignd about 2 12 . But this is not worth disputing about. I shal rather note out of Ier 51.46 that whereas Berosus makes the 17th year of Nabonnedus and wth his overthrow in ye field by Cyrus & Ptolomy ends his reign then th{er} it was still another year before Babylon was taken. &c And so ye taking of ye City will fall in Iuly ann Nabonass 244 {Iul} 69 12 years after ye servitutde of Iehojakim. Then confirm this by the testimony of Xenophon who reccons 7 full years or better from ye taking of Babylon to ye death of Cyrus.     Lastly confirm it out of ye Tyrrine rec Phœnician record in Iosephus, cont. App. l 1.

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

<9r>

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

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

4 That ye

4thly that ye captivity of Iehojakin fell in Autumn An. I. P 4114.

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

6 This opinion has no other Foundation but Ezekiels using ye Epocha of of Iehojakins captivity, wch yet he does becaus he himself was then made captive

7 But Ieremiah is more to be regarded who {gav} at ye same time he gave ye prophesy of ye 70 years subjection of his nation to ye king of Babylon, sayd This is ye f{o}|i|rst year of Nebuchadnezzar. \Ier 25.1, 11, 12./ For that was not ye first year of Nebuchadnezzars reign over Babylon but his first year over Iudah. And therefore this way of reconning ye years of Nebuchadnezzar being unusual, Ieremy \never uses it alone but – – – –/ as often as he uses it adds ye years of ye 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 ye vulgar reconning he puts only the years of Nebuchadnezzar.

<9v>

{8}|9| Ptolomy in his canon \according to all editions of it but ye depraved Ecclesiastic one/ puts Cyrus to have reigned 9 years in Babylon {&} according to wch recconing he took Babylon Anno Iul. Per. 4176. |And \accordingly/ in all editions of his canon even in ye ecclesiastic one {puts} ye first year of Cyrus in Babylonia is anno Nabonass 410 wch 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 & ye 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 & ye 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) wth Ann I. P. 4089 as is determined by an eclips made by the babylonians \Chaldeans/ in his 5t 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 ye 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 & ye 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

From Iehojakims servitude \in autumn/ anno 3o \ejus/ finiente to Iehojakins \mense quinto finiente/ 8y. {illeg}m 0m
[1] From thence to ye beginning of Ewil{illeg}|m|erodach (in spring \mense 12mo fin./ 36y. {illeg} 7m
From thence to ye begning {sic} of Nabonnedus (Ptol in Can.) 8y. o|{0}|m
T{illeg} The reign of Nabonnedus (Pto{illeg}|l| in Can. Berosus.) 17y{illeg} {illeg}m
That of Cyrus More like \after {the} {on midsummer}/ {midsummer} \{0y} {illeg}/ {69y {illeg} 9m}
That of Cyrus {0. 3m}
More till autumn \August or September/ 0. {10m}
0. 5m
70.y 0.

9. But to give you a more ex

Suppose then ye dec{e}|r|ee came out in Autumn & ye 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 wth 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 ye 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 ye story of Ezra & Nehemiah, shew

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

2. That there are two Ezras & two Nehemiahs.

3. That ye elder Nehem is meant in Ezra 2.2, 63.

4. That ye elder is meant in |2| Maccab. ca|h|ap 1 & 2.

5. |A| Note yt this Nehemiah lived frō an 1 Cyri to an 6 Darij.

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

7. A note to cleare ye book of Ezra 2.

8. a note concerning ye cannon of scripture.

\8 B. The solution of ye captivity anno 22mo Cyri./

9. The building of ye Temple finished Anno 6to 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 ye 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 ye city hindred in ye 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 ye nations to ingratiate themselves. Darius was ye 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 ye place by taking tunc in a large sence & making ye place a beginning of a new {part} narration, & compare {illeg} it wth Nehem 13.1 where in illo die is of ye 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. & ye building the City & walls before the Temple was neare done.|

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

Make out this 4th argumt thus. First from ye names Assuerus & Artaxerxes shew that they are Xeres & \Art./ Longimanus & consequently ye f{at{illeg}}|orm|er Artaxerxes being a hinderer {illeg} {illeg}|the| latter must be ye furtherer &c. 2 Answer ye objection frō Ezra 4.24 by a new version of ye place & by ye aforesaid dilemma. 3dly confirm ye dilemma by these argumts. 1st Because Darius was ye first institutor of Taxes ({&}|H|erod l 3) & Taxes were high in ye reign of Artaxerxes ye hinderer Ezra {illeg}|4|.13. 2dly Because ye 7 months reign of Smerdes is too short for ye Iews news of Cambyses death to go to Babylon Susa, of Smerdes reigning to Syria, the Iews |{y}| to set themselves to ye 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 wch built now came were got into favour with this king & came from him (as Ezra & Nehemiah did afterwd fm ye other Artax.) & thereupon {illeg} built Ezra 4.12 {The Iew} For thus they describe to ye King ye persons they accuse. The Iews wch 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 ye expression In ye days of Art. 3dly Because ye business was now about ye Cy|i|ty & walls wch was after ye building of ye Temple. 4 Because ye Iews adversaries, {Samar} in Samaria were changed. {n}|N|ot one name ye same. And yet there was but 112 year between smerdes & ye 2d year of Dar. to change ym. 5 Because they in Darius reign write {illeg}{sidly ag} simply agt ye Iews referring all to Cyrus decree, \taking no notice of any contrary decre/ not accusing them so much as accusing them of sedition: wch 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.

<12v>

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 49no {sic}, & festū Hebdomadarum septimana septima Levit 23.16.

<13v>

Note yt Ptolomy's Canon, yt 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 or Saviours death many things are disputed. |Some in the {illeg} Apostolick age regarded not these kind of niceties. Those in ye next began to take up several opinions| One of ye ancientest opions {sic} was yt or Saviours preaching lasted but \about/ one year \of wch mind was Clemens Alexandrinus \Origen/ & Tertullian, Africanus & others/. Afterward finding three successive passovers in St 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 & ye former opinion went down. And these authors of these opinions framing several \recconings &/ computations thereupon (as yt from or Saviours death to ye Martyrdom of St Paul was so many years, to ye destruction of Ierusalem so many \that he died of {sic} this or that day of the month/ &c) some now who take up wth their opinions {illeg} make the argue \mainly/ from ye authority \& recconing/ of these authors, wch is Lesbiam admovere regulā. Laying a waving therefore these

<14r>

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

Nicolaitan i.e. a conqueror of ye people.

To him was given ye key of ye bottomless pit, that is to ye angel, not to ye starr Apoc 7. Twas this Angel & not the star wch opened ye bottomless pit.

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

All that have read ye history of ye Crusadoes, know, that ye Christians in ye end of ye 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 ye year 1300 by Ottoman the founder of the Empire. Before that their chief strength was in Cavalry.

The fals character of Antichrist is yt he is to be one single man of ye Tribe of Dan, a great conqueror by arms, to reign in Ierusalem 312 yea natural years, rebuild ye Temple there & reestablish ye Mosaical service; to abolish ye sacrifice of ye Mass, compell Christians to renew their baptism overcome 3 kings Libya Egypt & Ethiopia, hat{illeg}e idols, be a Magitian, call himself God & ye only God, kill ye two witnesses Enoch & Elias <14v> deny ye coming of Christ in ye flesh, do nothing in ye name of Christ, stile himself ye Messiah, conquer ye whole world by arms, possess all sorts of treasure come in ye end of ye Roman Empire after ye \destruction thereof &/ universal preaching of ye 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 ye Lombards, that of ye Goths & before these that of ye Greeks, in I He hath overthrown the king of Naples, the king of {Sycil} Sicily & ye king of Germany to make them his vassals.

Vpon ye whore's forehead Mystery i.e. Religion.

The Greek Church did not separate from ye Latin Church before ye 10th century.

The name of ye Beast in ye two sacred languages Hebrew & Greek is Romiyth & Lateinos.

The name Mystery was \formerly/ writ in the forepart of ye 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 ye great City is one of ye ten Kings.

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

[Editorial Note 1] The remainder of the text on this page is written upside down.

[Editorial Note 2] The following text is written upside down and runs backwards from f. 8v to the lower half of f. 7r.

[1] Ier 52.31

[2] H.

[Editorial Note 3] The remainder of the text on this page is written upside down.

© 2017 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC