THERE are some considerable Places in this Prophet which deserve particular Titles.
Upon the seventy Weeks of Daniel.
See the Fathers who have treated of them; such as Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, St. Jerom, and St. Austin, in his 197th, 198th, and 199th Epistles.
Besides the Fathers who have discoursed in particular concerning the seventy Weeks of Daniel, all those who have written of the Chronology of Scripture have endeavoured to explain this Place, which is one of the most difficult and important in it.
Jul. Bartoloccci, Bibl. Rabbin. tom. 2. p. 307. Item, p. 353. Martin Helvicus printed in the Great Criticks; and separately at Giessen, 1677, in 4to.
Joseph Mede has written a Treatise expressly, as Lipenius says, upon this Subject; but he does not mention the Impression of it, and is content with calling him Josephus.
Abraham Calovius, and they who follow, with some others who are commended in the Preface of the first Tome of the Synopsis of the Criticks, namely, Strauchius, whose chronological and historical Dissertation, de computo 70 Hebdomadum Danielis, was printed at Wittemberg, in 1662, in 4to.
Derodon, Matthias Wasmuth, Edward Liveleius, Hugh Broughton, John Reynolds, John Wichman, and the rest mentioned in Lipenius; who are, Christopher Binder, who wrote only upon the ninth Week; printed at Tubinge, in 1614, in 4to. John Boulese, who published a Demonstration of the seventy Weeks at Paris, 1575, in 8vo. George Calixtus, who wrote an Exposition of them; printed at Helmstadt, 1655, in 4to. Gerard Gravius, who has made a Discourse upon the Mystery of the seventy Weeks; printed in 1647, in fol. Christopher Helvicus, who wrote against Angelocrator, seu Epidromus, de 70 Hebdomadibus; printed at Giessen, 1607, in 8vo. Bartholemew Meyer, whose Treatise is of 1628. at Lipsick, in 8vo. Michael Wendeler, who had his printed at Wittemberg, in 1648, and 1650. Amand Zieric, whose Piece is still in manuscript at Louvain, as we are assured by Wadding. Martin Helvic, whose Dissertation is printed in the Great Criticks, tom. 8. p.498.
To these may be added Petavius and Calvisius, in their Chronological Works; F. Hardouin’s Chronology of the Old and New Testament, John Marsham’s Chronological and Egyptian Canon; Nicholas Abram, in his Pharus of the Old Testament, t. 14. p. 15. M. Huet, in Origenianis. Robert Baillius, in his historical and chronological Work; and our Dissertation on the same Subject, printed before our Comment upon Daniel; and in the Collection of our Dissertations, tom. 2. p. 363.
See likewise John Frischmuth, in the Thesaurus Philologicus, p. 902, &c. This is a Disputation written by him on the seventy Weeks, and their Division; printed at Jena, 1671, in 4to.
The Examination of Daniel’s seventy Weeks, in a Collection printed at Amsterdam, in 1707, in 12mo, in French. It is a Dissertation divided into twenty Chapters, wherein the Author undertakes to explain this Prophecy by examining the Text, explaining the Sense, and scanning the Times which are there foretold; the beginning and end whereof he takes upon him to describe accurately.
Alexander Sostman published an Explanation of this Prophecy in Latin; printed at Leyden, 1710, in 4to. with an Addition, to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah, by inquiring into the Causes of the Incredulity of the Jews.
James Mary Ayroli has more particularly treated of them under this Title, Liber 70 Hebdomadum resignatus; wherein he explains this Prophecy by the Vulgate Version, and the Hebrew Text. This was printed at Rome, in 1714, in 4to. We have already spoken of him. See his Title in the Index.
Jerom Van-Alphen made a Comment on the 9th Chapter, where there is mention of the seventy Weeks, with Additions to explain the Difficulties of the Chronology; in Flemish, at Amsterdam, 1706, in 4to. He was of Hanover, born in 1666. and was made Professor at Amsterdam in 1715. See upon the Epistles to the Corinthians.
Upon Nebuchadnezzar, and King Belshazzar.
Joan. Georg. Bucheim Dissert. de Metamorph. Regis Nebuchad. This Dissertation is in the first Tome of the Philological Dissertations. He was a German Lutheran.
See our Dissertation on the same Subject, before our Comment upon Daniel; and in the Collection of our Dissertations, tom. 2. p. 379.
John William Hilliger published a Pilogema upon the Metamorphosis of Nebuchadnezzar, at Wittemberg, 1703, in 4to. We have spoken of him upon Judges, and elsewhere.
John Kirchmaier, a German Lutheran, has likewise treated of it; ibid. 1654, in 4to.
There are others who have treated of Nebuchadnezzar’s Statue and Dream. They may be seen in Lipenius, and elsewhere.
Christian Hoffman has treated of the fiery Furnace at Babylon, which did not consume the three young Men; printed at Jena, 1668, in 4to. He was a German Lutheran; and we shall speak of him again upon St. Matthew.
Jacob de Clerice Dissert. de epulo Belthazar, Dan. 5. This was printed at Wittemberg, in 4to. and in the Philological Dissertations, tom. 1. With it we may join that of Michael Liebentantz, upon what was written by the miraculous Hand during the Feast; printed ibid. in 4to. We shall speak of them both elsewhere. See their Title in the Index. Upon the Story of the innocent Susannah.
Upon the good Authority of the Story of Susannah, see Origen’s Letter to Julius Africanus, published by John Rodolphus Westenius, with Julius Africanus’s Letter to Origen in Greek and Latin, at Basil, 1691, in 4to. in which he has added Notes, and a Dissertation on the same Story; which is printed likewise ibid, 1679, in 4to. with a Dialogue against the Marcionites. Both are inserted in Greek only in the Great Criticks, tom. 8. p. 46. Genebrard, in his Edition of Origen, published them in Latin.
S. Hippolyti, de historia Susannæ, t. 27. p. 9. Bibl. PP. & in t. 2. Operum Hippolyti, Edit. à Joan. Alb. Fabricio, ann. 1716. p. 273. This Saint explains all the Circumstances of this Story, and adds something to it relating to the Years of the Babylonish Captivity.
See likewise St. Jerom’s Preface to Daniel. We have before spoken of Hippolytus in another Place. See his Title.
With these we may join St. Chrysostom, if what Dom. Bernard de Montfaucon has published in the sixth Tome of his new Edition be this Father’s: but we know not who is the Author of it; and it is no more than a mere Explanation of this Story, with some moral Reflections.
Of the four Monarchies, and four Beasts.
Several have taken a great deal of pains to discover the four Monarchies in Daniel, and we cannot yet tell who has cut this Gordian Knot with most success.
Salom. Deylingii in Dan. 11. ver. 2. de 4 Regibus Persiæ, in his Observat. Sacr. c. 19. Nicol. Abram Darius Medus, in his Pharus of the Old Testament, l. 12. and John Dieteric has treated of the State of the four Monarchies, in his Sacred Antiquities.
Gabriel Barliet published Conjectures on Daniel’s four Monarchies and Antichrist; printed at Hanover, in 1607, in 8vo. and in Goldast’s Imperial Policy, at Frankfort, 1614, in fol. This is a fictitious Name for Bartholemew Guerick, a German Lutheran of Magdeburg, and a Lawyer about 1607.
Herman Vonder Hardt has treated on the same Subject, at Helmstadt, 1708, in 8vo. See his Title in the Index. Philip Beroald has treated of the Persian Monarchy in particular; printed at London, in 1590, in 4to.
Maurice Heling put out the Chronology of the four Monarchies, continued by John Paul Fellwinger, and printed at Altorf, 1667, in fol. Christopher Helvic has likewise treated of it; printed at Giessen, in 1609, in 4to. as well as several others, mentioned in the second Tome of Lipenius’s Bibliotheca Theologica.
The most considerable Pieces that we have upon this Subject are two Disserta-