several of the Reasons we have before laid down to disprove the former opinions fall with equal force upon this as might be shewed but I forbear because the reason of the Text lies so directly against this that there needs no more to be rehearsed There is but one Decree more that any can imagine and that is of Artaxerxes in the twentieth year of his Reign and given forth to Nehemiah of which we may read Nehem. 2. Now this as I conceive is the Commandement from the going forth of which we are to begin this Epock of four hundred and ninety years My reasons are 1 Because this Commandement came forth in as solemn a manner as any of the other The first Decree of Cyrus came forth presently upon Daniels praying and mourning so doth this upon Nehemiahs Chap. 1.4 5. The one hath as solemn a rise as the other 2 Reason Because the work that this Decree concerned was a work in its self as famous every whit as the work of the Temple as appears First By the large description we have left us of the thing by the Lord himself a whole Book viz. Nehemiahs being written in a manner upon this subject in which we have the work in the parts and circumstances of it more exactly laid down then is the work of the Temple in the foregoing Book of Ezra Secondly The great opposition it met with by enemies declaring it to be a work wherein Gods cause and glory was greatly concerned Thirdly The calling of this work Gods work Neh. 3.5 and a work in which God did so eminently appear in carrying it on and defending the workmen that the very enemies themselves confesse the work to be wrought of God Nehem. 6.16 which considerations are sufficient to silence some exceptions I have met with undervaluing this work of Nehemiah as a private businesse and a thing too mean to be made the Head of this famous Epock And indeed I have sometimes thought that one reason why so large a story is left us of this work might be because without a knowledge hereof we could never have found the certain time with which we are to begin Daniels seventy weeks which is a thing of so great concernment as the Head of no one number in Scripture like it 3 Because this Decree agrees much better to the Angels words then either the Decree of Cyrus or any of the other two For observe the Commandement spoken of by the Angel is a Commandement to restore and build Jerusalem Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the Decree to restore and to build Jerusalem Yea such a building as should rear up again the street and walls of Jerusalem as the following words shew Now neither of the former Decrees did this for when Nehemiah first thought upon the work the walls of Jerusalem were broken down the Gates burnt with fire Nehem. 1.3 4. after the work of building the walls was finished yet the houses were not builded Nehem. 7.1 4. the City was large and great but the people were few therein and the houses were not builded The meaning surely is That notwithstanding there might be here and there particular houses in which the people did reside yet Jerusalem as a City with houses compacted making a street was not yet built which is the thing the Angel mentions to Daniel to the end we might not look upon the building of some particular houses to be in the intent of the Holy Ghost the building of Jerusalem but rather reckon it from the time when walls and street began to be built But now in Nehemiahs time both these were done he built the walls of Jerusalem and that in so short a time as was even a miracle Nehem. 6.15 and he built the houses also and Artaxerxes Decree did authorize him to do both these Chap. 2.5 8. And this was a larger power then ever was given before by any of the precedent Decrees 4 Because this beginning stands reconciled as our computation of the two thousand three hundred dayes by virtue of it will make appear with those Scripture-principles which require a concurrence in their ends betwixt the two thousand three hundred dayes and the one thousand three hundred thirty five and also the one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes and the one thousand two hundred and ninety which all the other beginnings are at variance and open war with What shall I say more to make the whole of this long Discourse clear and undoubted in one word Consider That the Jews had a twofold Restoration and a double building-work First A spiritual Restoration or a Restoration as they were a Church and a building-work attending that viz. Of the Temple Secondly A Civil Restoration or a Restoration as they were a Commonwealth and a building-work attending that viz. Of the City Jerusalem Both these Daniel in his prayer had been pleading for viz. The Restoration of City and Sanctuary Accordingly in the answer given to him by the Angel we have a double Command First A Command which concerned the first only viz. The Temple-work which was the Command of Cyrus and is that Commandement which is said to come forth at the beginning of Daniels supplication vers 23. i.e. whilst Daniel is praying Cyrus enacts this Law and so part of Daniels prayer had a present answer Secondly A Command respecting the second viz. The work of the City and Common-wealth which is the Commandement to restore and to build Jerusalem vers 25. The coming forth of this was to be for future and I take it this latter Commandement hath therefore this particular notation Of building Jerusalem that Daniel nor we might not mistake and account it the same with the other vers 23. Now observe the Angel fixing the Head of the seventy weeks upon the Command for building Jerusalem it is a clear Argument that we are to begin the seventy weeks with the Jews Civil Restoration not their Spiritual The Conclusion therefore is That the Commandement from the going forth of which we are to begin our four hundred and ninety years is the Commandement of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in the twentieth year of his Reign Thus much as touching our beginning of this famous Epock of Daniels seventy weeks or four hunddred and ninety years SECT 5. Having found out the beginning of Daniels seventy weeks our next Enquiry must be where we shall end them Worthy Mr. Mede with whom we have been contending already about the beginning is of opinion that we are to end the seventy weeks with the destruction of Jerusalem But having before proved his Beginning to be false his End must necessarily be so too And indeed the most of our Reasons but the three first especially laid down to disprove his beginning do lye as strongly against this end take the same as it is asserted by him or any other But that which here I shall farther adde is That this ending of the seventy weeks is altogether repugnant
observe God having assured his people of many great things already he shuts up all with this as the crowning mercy to all the rest Even saying to Jerusalem Thou shalt be built and to the Temple thy foundation shall be laid As to say Over and above all I have promised already I do also give particular assurance That Jerusalem shall be built and the foundations of my Temple there shall be laid And to this our last English Annotations agree interpreting them to be the words of God himself by rendring the words Even saying to Jerusalem thou shalt be built thus and saying to Jerusalem thou shalt be built so by the copulation and put for even making in effect the words to have relation not to Cyrus but to God himself who had said thus and thus before and now over and above saith Jerusalem shall be built and the foundation of the Temple there shall be laid Now looking upon the words thus it doth not necessarily follow because Cyrus gave Decree for the one the building of the Temple that therefore he did for the other also viz. the building Jerusalem but it proves that God would do both and as he afterwards raised up Cyrus to do the one so would he also raise up Cyrus or some other to do the other when the time for doing it should be come Object If it be said But the building of Jerusalem cannot but be included in that of Jerusalems being inhabited vers 26. therefore if these be the words of the Lord also there seems to be a Tautologie he should speak the same things twice Ans Not so for seeing to inhabit is one thing and to build a place in order to its being inhabited is another the things though spoken apart may both very well be spoken by the Lord himself and that without any Tautologie and by how much the Jews had their eye chiefly upon this the building their City Jerusalem by so much doth the Lord give them greater assurance of it by doubling the thing in a manner yet without Tautologie because set forth in several and divers expressions Object But Cyrus is said to perform all Gods pleasure vers 28. and this he could not do if he did not as well give command for the building Jerusalem as the Temple Ans The Phrase of performing all Gods pleasure neither can nor must be stretched farther then this viz. That whatsoever God hath determined to be done by Cyrus that he should freely and cheerfully do and accordingly so he did First He destroyed the Babylonian Monarchy which were the oppressors of Gods people Secondly He freely without price or reward gave full liberty to the Jews who before were captives to return to their own land Thirdly He made a Decree that they come thither should set upon the work of building the Temple Fourthly He laid a happy foundation as I am now coming to shew for the perfecting the whole work of God both concerning the Temple and Jerusalem also More then this I mean in reference to Gods cause and people cannot be proved that ever God determined Cyrus should do and all this he did and accordingly performed all Gods pleasure 2 Granting these words Even saying to Jerusalem thou shalt be built to have relation to Cyrus yet may the meaning of them be onely this That God would make Cyrus the principal instrument as of laying the foundation of the Temple which was actually done by his decree so also of building Jerusalem but how Ans By removing the great impediment namely the Babylonian Monarchy which had ruined Jerusalem and was a professed enemy to it out of the way and setting the Jews who whilst Captives could never do it free from their Captivity which accordingly was done by Cyrus God making him instrumental to ruine Babylon by which as the Jews are thereupon by him set free to build the Temple for present so also the supreme power came now to be in the hands of a Nation who were more friendly to the Jews and inclining to hear their complaints and redresse their grievances for future And in this sense it may well be said of Cyrus that he should say to Jerusalem thou shalt be built i.e. set open a door which before was shut for the building of it afterwards And to this well agrees that other Text Chap. 45.13 I have raised him up in righteousnesse and will direct all his wayes he shall build my City and shall let go my Captives not for price nor reward The building Gods City the Objectors themselves will never say was done actually by Cyrus Decree The meaning therefore can be no other then this That Cyrus should set open a door for the doing of it by destroying the Babylonian Monarchy that had desolated Gods City setting the captived Jews at liberty and laying a foundation for such a work afterwards by putting forth a Decree to build the Temple which might be and was an inducement as appears from Ezra 6.1 2 3. compared with verses 6 7 8. to his Successors after him to follow their noble Leader in kindnesse and respect to this Nation And indeed it is a thing observable that for the general of all the four Monarchies the Persians were ever the most friendly to the Jews and most ready to do them right and favour following doubtlesse herein the example of their famous Founder Cyrus to whom therefore as being the leading man whose example became a provocation to his Successors the whole work in Scripture and that not amisse is attributed As for the other place in Ezra Chap. 4.12 13. it being onely the allegation of Judahs Adversaries and written to Artaxerxes for this end to put a stop to the work of God I rather conceive them to be words of meer accusation then of truth by which those crafty enemies endeavour to make the case of the Jews as foul as may be and to beget in the King the greater dislike of their proceedings they suggest such things to him on purpose which might breed jealousie and cause a discountenancing of the work and therefore they set before him how potent a City bearing rule over Kings in former times Jerusalem had been and how that now the Jews were re-edifying of it had set up the walls and joyned the foundations And some colour there was for this for the Jews had now laid the foundation of the Temple as appears Chap. 3.11 and the malicious subtill enemies seeing a work on foot and being willing to mistake so they might incense the King and hinder the work call this the building of the walls of Jerusalem Now the Reasons perswading me that this was onely the enemies false accusation and that indeed there was no such thing in reality are 1 Because in Chap. 3. vers 8. to the end where mention is made of the Jews building and the progresse made in the work there is not one word spoken of building any thing but the Temple only 2 Because the
malice which now lying upon them made all charges ineffectual but also find a fair opportunity to draw up a new charge But God who knows the rage of his enemies and takes care of his people had provided otherwise and turns this their crafty rage against the work even to a promoting of it as appears from the issue Chap. 6. As for the third foot of the Objection taken from Hananies report My Answer is That the breaking down of the wall of Jerusalem and burning the Gates relates to the ruines of Jerusalem in the dayes of Nebuchadnezzar My Reasons are 1 Because no Scripture mentions any building of the walls of Jerusalem betwixt the time of Cyrus and Nehemiah the forementioned Texts I have proved too weak therefore we have no ground for faith that ever such a thing was 2 Because its likely if the walls had been rebuilt by the Jews that came up in the dayes of Cyrus and afterwards broken down again by enemies and gates burnt they would also as well have broken down the Temple and burnt that for their malice was as great against the one as the other yea if more against any it was the Temple which being the place of the Jews worship was most abhorred by the Adversaries who hated them only for Religion sake but this was not done for Nehemiah coming to Jerusalem found a Temple there Neh. 6.10 3 Because should I grant which yet I cannot there being not one tittle of Scripture for it that City and Wall was built before yet must we confesse withall that this work was an obscure thing and no way to be compared with the after famous building of Nehemiah memorized by a whole Book written particularly upon that subject and therefore not fit in comparison of the other to be made head of Daniels Seventy weeks As for the ground of this part of the Objection That it could have been no news to Nehemiah to have heard of the ancient ruines by Nebuchadnezzar Ans Neither indeed was it nor is the businesse between Nehemiah and Hanani a hearing and telling of news as we commonly understand the word they were more spiritual and better employed then so Hanani was a faithful man one that feared God above many Neh. 7.2 This holy man coming to Nehemiah another choice Spirit two choice spirited men being now met together having both of them great hearts for the cause of God they as 't is comely for Saints at all times when they have the like opportunity to do presently fall into discourse about things that concern the people of God and Gods cause at that day and all the news that passeth between is indeed matter of so spiritual a concernment that it is too low a term to call it news Saith Nehemiah to Hanani brother Hanani how fares it with our brethren at Jerusalem O saith Hanani their condition is sad they are still in the old posture a reproach to the Heathen and the wall of Jerusalem lyes broken down the gates burnt with fire This thing this good man reports not so much as a matter of news though in part of it news there was as indeed a thing which was the present burden grief and affliction of his own soul and the souls of the remnant at Jerusalem how that Jerusalem the building of which they had long expected continued still a heap and withall how that now as it is Gods ordinary way to affect the hearts of his people and heighten his enemies against a work when the time thereof is come the thing lay more heavy upon the spirits of all the remnant then ever and also the enemies did more reproach them with their unbuilt City then ever In this last lay all the news if we may so call it Nehemiah upon hearing this and through that heart-warming discourse that had passed between them goes home from this meeting wondrously affected with the condition of Gods people and cause and betakes himself to his Closet and there spreads the whole before the Lord the issue whereof is favour in the sight of the King and authority from him to go to Jerusalem and build it Thus much by way of answer to the Texts in which the force of the Objection lyes Secondly I now come to adde two or three Considerations from Scripture which may be an answer to the whole of the Objection 1 Consideration Whether it be not a very strange thing to suppose that the Jews having been charged with such a thing as building Jerusalem and the work they were about stopped upon it that yet afterwards the original Copy of Cyrus Decree being found out among the Court-Rolls in the second yer of Darius and transcribed by Ezra Chap. 6.1 2 3 4 5. not one word should be mentioned of that about which had been so much noise and stir by the enemy but as the Command Chap. 1. So here the Decree should run altogether upon building the Temple and not a tittle in it of Jerusalem which who can think otherwise but that had there been but the least clause in Cyrus Decree empowring the Jews to the building Jerusalem upon which the Jews had undertook it Ezra though it were to vindicate the actings of his Nation and to shew that what they did which was so ctyed out against and they suffered so much though unjustly through forged accusations for was not without Law and Authority would not doubtlesse had the Jews been really guilty of the act or the Decree allowed them any such thing in transcribing the Decree have left it out 2 Consideration Whether the very words and manner of expression used by the Angel do not import an Effective command such a command as upon the going of it forth did cause a restoring and building Jorusalem vers 25. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the Commandement to restore and to build Jerusalem Observe the Command is a Command expresly to restore and to build which it is not proper to call that Command which by vertue of it self alone doth never produce any such effect considering too that Gods Commands as we are to look upon this though he use man as an instrument are every of them alwayes effective Now let it be considered whether the naked Decree of Cyrus ever had any such effect nay is not the contrary evident viz. That for many years after the going forth of that Decree even untill the twentieth of Artaxerxes Jerusalem lay waste as a ruined heap Neh. 1.3 and when the time of building it came the work had for its basis not that Decree but a new one of Artaxerxes by which only Nehemiah acts and not at all by the Decree of Cyras as is manifest from the whole of his Book 3 Consideration Whether the Angels giving Daniel so many serious hints to pry well into this thing and to take heed of a too hasty concluding any thing lest he should mistake vers 25. Know therefore and understand vers 23.
Lightfoot in his Harmony of the four Evangelists upon the Text proveth had been in hand exactly six and forty years before the time Christ and the Jews had this Discourse the probability of which opinion considering the Jews spake of a Temple that was not that had been weighs down in my opinion all others But if yet any do adhere to the opinion of Zerubbabels Temple and accordingly set this Scripture against my Argument let them which they must produce some Scripture speaking the thing that Zerubbabels Temple is here meant till that is done we are in uncertainties and an uncertain ground is too weak to prove a thing or disprove the contrary And indeed learned men generally seem not in the present case to lay much weight upon this Text for those on the one hand who conceive the second Temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes reckon not half six and forty years betwixt Cyrus his first and Hystaspes sixth year And those on the other who judge the work was not finished untill the sixth of Darius Nothus reckon between the first of Cyrus and the sixth of Nothus above twice six and forty years Yet is not this Text judged by either to have that weight in it as to make them alter their opinions Alsted in Chronologia Monarchiae Persarum would find out a way to uphold this opinion viz. That Zerubbabels Temple was six and forty years in building and yet will not have the compleat finishing of the work to be till the sixth year of Darius Nothus which according to his account reckoning from the second year of Cyrus when the foundation was laid was one hundred and eleven years But to do this he reckons only the time they were building leaving out the time the work was at a stay But as it is a most unlikely thing that the Jews being so considerable a company as was that company that came up from Babylon and attending wholly to this work should spend six and forty years inthe meer building-building-work who afterwards in Nehemiahs time did in two and fifty dayes build the whole walls of Jerusalem Neh. 6.15 So is it as unlikely which yet Alsted to make good his opinion supposeth that those enemies of Judah should sit still and suffer the work quietly to go on without intermedling in the least to their prejudice six and thirty years together viz. all the time of Darius Hystaspes who at other times were ready and active whensoever they saw the work on foot to hinder it To say no more the whole of the opinion is made up of meer suppositions As first That the Darius Ezra 4.5 is Hystaspes Secondly That the Jews did build all the time of his Reign Thirdly That Ahasuerus Ezra 4.6 and Artaxerxes vers 7. were two divers persons Fourthly That Ahasuerus was Xerxes the Great Fifthly That in the beginning of his Reign the Temple-work was stopped which yet went on again in the six last years of his Reign Sixthly That the Artaxerxes Ezra 4.7 was Longimanus who throughout his Reign forty years together hindered the work Seventhly That Darius who in his second year set the work on foot bringing it to perfection in his sixth was Darius Nothus never an one of all which can be proved by any clear Scripture yet not one of them but is and must be supposed to make good this opinion Let the Reader therefore judge what probability is in it And also by the way take notice to learn hence never to take up things upon trust what a do is made by not a sew to prove a thing that is not or at least that cannot be made appear to be to prove Zerubbabels Temple was six and forty years in building because it is said Six and forty years was this Temple in building whereas indeed if we follow the opinion to the heels it cannot be proved that Zerubbabels Temple is there spoken of Could any demonstrative Text be brought to prove that it would then be worth while to look after the six and forty years but to spend time about it while the main Question is begged is but lost labour 3 A third opinion there is of these seven weeks which makes them to be the term of time Jerusalems Wall and City was building which was nine and forty years saith the Author of it reckoning from the first of Cyrus to the two and thirtieth of Artaxerxes when Nehemiah having finished the whole work returneth again to the King Neh. 13.6 But this cannot be 1 Because what I have already said in my second Reason in answer to the first opinion lies with the same weight against this 2 Because the building of Jerusalem was no part of Cyrus Decree as formerly I have proved which yet this opinion supposeth yea the whole stresse of it lyes upon the neck of this supposition 3 Because in beginning the seven so high it doth also begin the seventy weeks as high as Cyrus which is an error 4 Because the Author fails greatly in point of Chronologie whilst he accounts but nine and forty years betwixt Cyrus first and Nehemiah's Artaxerxes two and thirtieth year which upon a due examination when we shall come to it will appear to be many more 4 There is yet another opinion also of these seven weeks not much differing from that I named last viz. That these seven weeks are the time Jerusalem with the rest of the Cities of Judah were building and repairing But this cannot stand because of our second Reason laid down in answer to the first opinion which batters this also and also because the very foundation of it is neither Scripture nor Story but pure and meer conjecture as Master Mede proveth who opposeth himself to this opinion Daniels Weeks page 15. What hath been hitherto said by way of Answer to each is sufficient to shew the inconsistency of all those opinions with the words which make the seven weeks one time the sixty two another assigning several works to the several times Seeing therefore none of these can stand nor the fore-mentioned conjecture of Mr. Mede I shall now lay down what I conceive of the Text reading the word thus with an alteration of the stops onely Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the Commandement to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and sixty two weeks the street shall be built again and the wall even in troublous times The meaning is That from the time the command to build Jerusalem should go forth untill the appearance of the Messiah should be sixty nine weeks all which time notwithstanding the great troubles and overturnings that within it should be in the world through the translation of the Monarchy from the Medes and Persians to the Grecians and from them to the Romans all which fell out within this time and the distractions of particular Kingdomes and the great opposition that should be made against
very thing which puts stop to the work of the Temple for it seems the Jews upon the change that now was in the Empire through the death of the Monarch that was had by vertue of their old Commission from Cyrus set upon anew of themselves the temple-Temple-work as hoping the new Prince would favour their enterprize now the enemies seeing this dispatch away Letters in haste to Artaxerxes containing a charge against the Jews who in answer returns them Letters with a strict command to go up to Jerusalem and cause the work to cease which upon receipt of and reading the Kings Letter they straightway did and thereupon the Work of God ceased untill the second year of Darius Ezra 4.23 24. it is therefore a Question without question that Darius was Successor to this Artaxerxes as he was Predecessor to the other Some others therefore perceiving that the former opinion will not agree with the Text will have this Artaxerxes to be Cyrus Son and next Successor commonly called by Historians Cambyses but this opinion is as unlikely as the other is untrue as I have proved already in answer to Doctor Lightfoot There is yet another opinion which affirms this Artaxerxes to be Smerdis Magus the Counterfeit who reigned seven Months betwixt Cambyses and Darius Hystaspes But certainly had the cessation of the Work of the House of God been for no longer time then is given to it by this opinion wch cannot be much above a year if we consider that Smerdis as themselves say reigned but seven Months out of which seven Months we must allow some time for the news of Cambyses death being brought to Judahs Adversaries some time more for their sending their Letters which being subscribed by so many sundry people living in sundry places as verse ninth intimates it is likely could not be much less time in preparing some more time for that search of the Chronicles upon this Letter vers 19. and some more yet for the Kings answer to them again and considering withall that Darius Hystaspes who succeeded Smordis did according to their Principle in the second year of his reign set the work on foot again the whole compared together it will appear that the work could not cease very little more then one year which time being so short it can hardly be thought that the Scripture would take notice of it much lesse with such an Emphasis setting such a mark upon this businesse as verse last Then ceased the Work of the House of God so it ceased untill the second year of Darius None that reads the words can think the cessation here spoken of was only a Twelve-months businesse I say not that the very story of Smerdis which though unto meer stories I give little credit yet being the Adversaries Weapons I may use them the which reports him all his time in a manner to have been shut up in his Chamber neither daring to shew himself abroad nor admitting any to come to him gives just ground of suspition he could nor be this Artaxerxes who seems by what is recorded of him in this Chapter Ezra 4. to have been no such retired person but of a more publick life But to put an end to this variety of opinions I take it the Text it self hath decieed the Controversie telling us plainly that this Artaxerxes was no other then Ahasuerus he who is called Artaxerxes vers 7. being called Ahasuerus verse 6. the person in both being one and the same only the Holy Ghost having first made mention of the accusation of Judahs Adversaries in the general with a declaration of the time when they wrote it viz. in the beginning of Ahasuerus reign verse six proceeds to mention the same more particularly with the names of the Persons that wrote it and a Copy of the Accusation it self and what effect it had in which following discourse there is only a change of the name he being now called Artaxerxes a name common to many of the Persian Kings as Pharaoh was to the Aegyptians who had before been called Ahasuerus If you ask what Ahasuerus this was I answer The same in all likelihood that we read of throughout the Book of Hester for setting aside Hesters story we do not read of the name Ahasuerus but twice in all the Bible Dan. 9.1 and here in Ezra That Ahasuerus Daniel mentions cannot be Hesters Ahasuerus for that Ahasuerus Daniel tells us was King of the Medes only Hesters is King of Media and Persia both Hester 1.3 2. Daniels Ahasuerus being Father to that Darius who together with Cyrus took Babylon could not because the Babylonian Monarchy was standing in his days and possessing a great part of those Countries have his Monarchy extended from India even to Aethiopia over one hundred twenty seven Provinces which Ahasuerus who married Hester had Ch. 1.1 In all likelihood therefore we reading of no other of that name this Ahasuerns Artaxerxes Ezra mentions is the very same with him we read of in Hester And indeed the Apccryphal Book of Hester which although I credit not as Scripture yet may the same credit be given to it as to other Histories calls him by no other name then Artaxerxes who in Hester is called Ahasuerus so that it seems either name was given to him and because of that he being known to some by the one to some by the other doth Ezra give him both first calling him Ahasuerus then Artaxerxes If it be said But if this Artaxerxes were Ahasuerus in Hester one would think Hester having such influence upon him and Mordecai such power under him it should have caused that the work of the Temple should have gone on again Ans Not so for the Decree to hinder the Work of the Temple was made as the Text saith in the beginning of his reign which was before that Hester was married to him Now a Decree once made Hester as appears in the businesse of Haman was not forward to move the King to alter his Decree yea put case she had yet was it a custom amongst the Medes and Persians not to repeal any Law whilst the King that made it lived and therefore Ahasuerus though Hester begged it on her knees could not repeal the Decree against the Jews only by another Decree gives them liberty to stand up in their own defence and make resistance against those that should seek their lives So that I say the Law once made it was not an easie thing though Hester was greatly in the Kings favour and Mordecai in great power to repeal it whilst Ahasuerus lived but for his life the work is and must be at a stand though Darius after him which is an argument that this custom of making irrepealable Laws was binding only to that King that made them the term of his own life but not to his Successor or Successors did repeal this Statute and by a contrary Decree set the work on foot again Now it being so that in all likelihood that