" ’ - , - I THREE LETTERS^ In farther Vindication of the late Biihop Lloyd’s Hypothefis o F Daniel’s Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. One to die' Reverend Mr. Lancaster, Vicar of 5ow^win Cheshire:. In Anfwer to his REMARKS on the faid Hypothefis. Another to । Mr. Whiston, occafion’d by his latter Hypothefis of the faid Weeks, The Third to the Author of the Scheme of Literal Prophecy confider’d; Wherein are examined and refuted the faid Author's Pretences for referring this Prophecy of the Weeks to the Per Jon and Times of Antiochus Epiphanes: And it is proved* that the faid Prophecy* in its Lateral Sente* is applicable wholly, and only to the MESSIAS of the Chrijlians, and the Times of their Mejjias. D By BENJAMIN MARSHALL, M. A, Redor of Naunton in Gloucefierjbire, and lometime Student of Chrifi-Church in Oxford. LONDON: Printed for James and John Knapton, at the Crown jn St. Paul's LhurchrYard. PAGE 31 laft Line but 9 after the Word placed dele p. 34 1. 6 r. IP. p. 37 laft Line but 6 for relit r. roll. p. 40 1. 4 after grounds dele the Comma, p. 42 1. 16 for times x. time. p. 54 1. 4 r. purpofes. ----1. 10 prophecy r. 'ef the prophecy, p. 70 laft Line but 7 of a reign of Xerxes, r. of a twenty eight years reign of Xerxes \ p. 74 1. 12 for your t. our. p. 79 1. 21 r. puniihment. p. 80 !• 1 for W»-ftrous r. Momentous, p. 87 1. 19 for Darnel r. Daniel, p. 102 1. 6 for folemnn r.folcmn. E R R A T A. 3 A LETTER To the Reverend Mr. LANCASTER. Reverend S IR₉ Naunton, Gloucefterlhire, March a/, (*) 1727. N the middle of December laft came to my Hands your printed Letter immediately infcribed to me^ containing your Remarks on the late Bilhop Lloyd’s Hypothefis of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, as by me formerly publifh’d. If thole Remarks came immediately by your Order, in good Manners to you, I ought to confider * This Letter was then Tent up to London for the Prefs: but the Printing thereof was however deferred, in Expectation of your pro-rtiiied Defence of Tour Ljfay on the PTeeks. But that not yet appearing, at leaft as I have heard nothing of it, it is thought expe-dient that this, and the two following Letters, ihpuid now come forth together. A 2 them. A LETTER to the them, as being doubtlefs fent to me for that Eni If otherwife, (for I know not by whole Order they were fent,) as they are of a publick Nature, they call upon me for a farther Vindication of the iBi-fhop’s Hypothefis. And therefore I fhall here consider, and reply to your feveral Remarks in the Order you have given them. / Your FIRST REMARK is,---------- That by tt>e Bifbop^s Hypothelis 'there is no Reafon ajfigned either why in the Prophecy Weeks are mentioned rather than Tears ; orfince Weeks are mentioned rather than Tears, why Seventy was to be the Number of the Weeks determined rather than any other Number. Therefore you conclude, That doExpofitien of the Weeks as ^ytt given, foot any to be hereafter advanced* will ever give Satisfaction* if it doth not rati&ndlty -account for thefe two Par-* ticulars. —— Now as touching this Remark, and your Conclu-fion from it, My Reply is, That in Truth I know of but one Way of rationally accounting for thefe Particulars. I know of but one only good, and Sufficient Reafon affignable in anfwer to your two-fold Demands here, why the Prophecy before us is a Prophecy of 'Weeks, RATHER than Tears, and why a Prophecy of SEVENTT Weeks, RATHER than any other Number of Weeks. --- And that is, that it was the mere, or abfolute Pleafure of the allwife Predi&er to have it thus immediately in both: Even to have the Prophecy given with this Reckoning in it RATHER than any other Reckoning, and by this Number of Reckoning in it RATHER than any other Number. Known unto God, and to him only, are all his Purpofes from the Beginning of the World. He alone can foretel Things to come, and fix rhe Time certain Reverend Mr. Uancaft^r. 5 tain far their Accomplishment. Therefore he alone hatfyfft->P his uncontroulable Power-5 and unfearch-able Plealure to aflign the immediate Reckoning ■and the immediate ^Number of that Reckoning in this, or in any other Prophecy that-he vouchsafes to give for the Manifestation of his Omnifcience, which is one great End of Prophecy. —And what better, or farther Reafon would you have for thefe Particulars ? — This, I fay, is the only certain Way of accounting for the Particulars here infiSted on. ~--- You will not gainfay it. —— But this ₖgeneral Way of accounting for them being always foppos’d, or taken for granted, as well by the Expounder, as by every one that is willing to receive an Exposition of this Prophecy, Any particular, or immediate Notice of it is render’d needlefs. And therefore any Negleft of noting this in the BiShop’s, or in any preceding Hypothefes of the Weeks, I cannot fuppofe to be the immediate Matter of yourCharge here againft them. I muft therefore look out for fome other Meaning in your Charge,; which, if I can learn it from your Remark, I take to be this, viz. ' That you lay it down as a Rule here, that we muft neceflarily look out for fome other Reafon exclufiveof this general one, nowᵣ given in anfwer to your particular Demands, as above, if we would be able to evidence the Completion of this Prophecy of the Weeks. This you object is not done in theRiflipp’s Hypothesis, nor in other preceding Hypothefes. I reply in few Words, Nor is there any manner of need that it Should be done.-----Your Charge is without Foundation, as it is built upon a mistaken Supposition of the Effentiality of your Rule towards the expoundings that is, towards the Shewing the Completion of this Prophecy, or the manifesting of the Accomplishment of the Several predicted Events ? of <5 A LETTER to the of it in Conformity with their predicted Time : —~ for this I take to be the Meaning of your Word Expounding here. Now that ydur Rule, as thus gather’d from your Remark, is by no means efiential to the Purpofes you make it, I prove, Firjt, Becaufe the two-fold Demands which con-ftitute the faid Rule, are entirely exclufive of the Particulars of Enquiry immediately direfted to, in and throughout the Prophecy. Secondly, Your Rule, however full of Importance and Satisfaction it be in your Account, yet it is in it felf uncapable of giving certain Satisfaction, becaufe it is neceflarily conjectural, and confequently ever uncertain. And, Thirdly, When we have no manner of Light to guide us in fuch Enquiry in the Prophecy it felf immediately, nor in any other Part of Scripture ; nor, as I have obferv’d, any thing in the Prophecy directing to fuch Enquiry, as in that before us evidently there is not, in fuch Cafes REGARD had to fuch impofed Rule, ferveth many times to perplex,, and obfcure, not to elucidate this, or any other Prophecy in the intended Expojition of it. Pardon me, Sir, as here it cannot but occur to my Thoughts, fo I call it alfo to your Remembrance, that your own Hypothefis of the Weeks, begun from the Firft of Cyrus, and fquared immediately by this Rule, and thereby becoming an Hypothefis of 571 Years; and yet, as you aflert, remaining ftill an Hypothefis of 70 Weeks of Years, (which I cannot believe, unlefs I deny my Senfes, as 70 Weeks of Years, or 7 times 70 Years, make only 490 Years, even in the Acknowledgment of learned Jews here,) doth, as I have largely fliewn, fully verify the fatal Error, as in this Objection Give me Leave to add yet one ocher,, Fourthly* Reverend Mr. Lancafter. 7 Fourthly, That your Rule is here a Rule needlefs and fuperfluous. The Prophecy may poflibly be clear’d in the feveral Particulars of Accomplifhment, exclufive of the Demands in your Rule. For, ift, If it were not, it had been then given in vain. But the Angel, tho’ he be filent, wholly filent as to your Particulars of Enquiry, yet he calls upon the Prophet to know and underftand; even to know and underftand the Prophecy in the feveral given Contents of it. He bids him to know and underftand thofe Things which are in the Prophecy, not thofe Things which are out of it, as’ are the two-fold Demands which conftitute your Rule. But, idly, The Prophecy in the nature of it fliould be alfo capable of being unfolded, as it naturally leads us in its particular Contents into all Demands ncceffary towards the evidencing the Accomplifli-ment of the feveral predicted Events of it, in Cor-refpondence with their feverally predicted Periods, tho’ it no where anfwers, or fo much as regards the Demands of your Rule, To this end it direfts our immediate Enquiry into the Nature of Reckoning given in it, as it is a Prophecy given in a Reckoning by Weeks, not as you demand WHY, but only what kind of Weeks, even whether Weeks of Days, or Weeks of Tears are here intended. It likewife directs our Regard to the determinate Number of Weeks in it, namely in the GENERAL Number of them, that of SEVENTY:------------ not to enquire, as you infift, why this RATHER than any other Number; but only to note this exprefs Number of Weeks in general, the Number Seventy ; and after that, in a fubfequent exprefs Divifwn of the general Number into leffer, to note alfo thofe particular Numbers of SEVEN Weeks, and SIXTY TWO Weeks, and ONE Week: Which leffer Numbers 8 4 LETTER to the Numbers put together, make the GENERAL Number-of the SEVENTY Weeks of this Prophecy. It farther refers us more particularly to* certain Notes of Time,. immediately pinning us- down a quo, and a Terminus ad quern, in feme of the predicted Periods’ of it: And’in them, and others* Kke^ wife, to exprefs Characters immediately diffinguidling their refpeftive Periods, or caufing thenvferfcly to be difcerned by their falling out in their respectively appointed Fulnefs of Time for their actual Accomplifement. Now thefe being the feveral Matters of Enquiry, to which the feveral given Contents of the Prophecy do direft, and thefe Enquiries, I think, including the whole Contents of it, thefe, and thefe only therefore become eilential Parts of our Enquiry, in or-der to our underftanding of it. And therefore, I prefume, our Rule here may be as follows, viz. Firfi, That we fhould inform- our felves, as: M-bove, in the Nature of thefe- Weeks: Secondly That we fhould hav© efpecial Regard to the expi^efs Numbers of the Prophecy, both the general, and the particular Numbers : And alfo,-¹ - Thirdly, to the given Notes .of Time immediately pinning us down in the Regnning, or Ending of fuch of them, in which fuch Notes'of. Time ar© exprefsly given: Arid Laftly, to the feveral. predicted Events., or-etiprefs Characters, in order to the fquaring them, or to the Ihewing their aftual CompIetion, in-Conformity with their refpedive Periods, to which they are appropriated in. the Prophecy. > And if this may be allow’d to be a good and faf-ficient Rule in the Cafe before us'i I hope I have not been wanting to it, in th© feveral² Particulars of it, in my Treatifs upon the Weeks. As-in the Introduction there, I have particularly fpoken to tbs'Nature, ths Di'vijwn, the Order, or Courfe of Reckoning iri thefe Weeks': And alfo, as I -Save- IheWri, in¹ the Procefs Reverend Mr. Lancafter. • 9 P/ocefs of the faid Treatife, the Completion of the feVertft pFedi&ed Events of them, in their fever al Parts'dr Periods aS diftii¥gui(h*d in the Prophecy. And thefe Particulars being accounted for, and being ail, I take it, that the Prophecy in the feve-ral Contents of it requireth- to be accounted for, in the unfolding of it, I am .not without Hopes that the late Bilhop’s Hypothefis of thefe Weeks may yet find a favourable Reception •, though, as you objeft, it hath not indeed any otherwife than as above, accounted fbt the partictitar Demands in your Rule': Which t)emands as they¹ are in themfelves foreign, fo in faft in ydtir own Hypothefis of the Weeks, they have appeared ufelefs to expounding of this Prophecy And therefore ybu aid not to wonder that the Brlhop, and other preceding Expofitors of the Weeks, againft whom you equally object here, have hot had the leaft Regard to them in their refpeiftive Hypdtnefes; —•But I crave your Patience, while I yet $r$ve againft your conceived Rule, or the Ef -fentiahty of it in order towards the manifefting the A’^dffiplifhment of the feVeral predi&ed Events of this Prophecy, as the" Prophecy is capable of being thus eXpWtnTded'., LaJtlji For the following Reafon alfo-, even be-caufe another Prophecy of the fame Prophet, and of a like nature with this, is fo capable^ therefore why°nbf this alfo?- As for inftance, take we the Prophecy of the'Yimes. It is a Prophecy of the fame Prophet. And I call it a Prophecy of the likenaiurO'with this,- as Reckonings by TIMES is uftd ih it, and not exprefsly by Years \ and as- here a*Reckoning by Weeks- is ufed, and not exprefsly by Years. t But in the Prophecy'of the Times, ᵣ the Word Times do certainly denote Yeafs.-^- You wiff alfow it me. —— And in the Prophecy of the#^ And what I pray of alj tjiis ?-• Why, lay you with the greateft Affurance this Account EVIDENTLY relates to fuch a Deftruflian of Jerufalem, as had LfiTELY hapned\ even, as you aflert alfo upder tfijs Remark, in the Page following, in the 20th of Artaxerxes Lqngimanus. And there you add alfo with like Affurance concerning this Account, that it PLAINLY (hews that in fhp faid Year the third Wall and Gates of Jerufalem had been but very lately demolifh'd.--- And then you conclude, Coyfequently that the faid Wall had been built, and the faid Gqtes bad been fet up fince the Return of the Captivity in the Reign of Cyrus. -- Thefe being plain, and evident Truths with you, forthwith you' rpn away with fhem as fuch. And fo you become full of ypur Confequences and Conclufions: As in pne Place ypu tell us of the foregoing Account, that confequently It can have ho Relation to theDeftruc-tiqn °f Jerufalem Nebuchadnezzar: Foraftnucb, as, between the Time of Nebuchadnezzar’! defraying Jeru-falenj, and thp 2Qtb of Artaxerxes Longimanus, " there Reverend Mr. Lahcafter? r j there were (y ou tell me) according to my own Chronology, ⁿo ^a,ⁱ ¹43 Tears. —----------- And in the next Page, you are careful to give us fuch another Gpnfequence, viz. That Nehemiah confequently was not the firft who rebuilt the Wall, and fet up the Gates of Jerufalem fence the Tune of Jerufaletn’j Deftru&ion by Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon,. And thus you think, as in a CLEAR Cafe, you have made good your heavy Charge againft the late Bifliop in his affign* d Beginning of the 69 Weeks of this Prophecy in the 20th Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. 1 ■—» WHEREAS you have not given us fa much as one Proof here out of the Account referr*d to, for all that according to you* is fo manifeft, fo evident, fo plain in it. Nor is it capable of yielding any. Forafmuch, as after all, the faid Account doth not EVIDENTLY relate, as you fay it doth, to fuch a Deftru&ion of the Wall and Gates of Jerufalem which had lately hapned. Nor indeed can it have any fuch Relation. Firft, I fay it hath not evidently fuch Relation. Becaufe, ift, No fuch late Matters of Faft, as you tell us of, are there Exprefsly fpoken of as fuch. —* You will hot contend for it that they are.--- You are therefore without this kind of Proof from the faid Account. Nor have you any, 2 That the Account before us cannot rationally be underftood in your afcertain’d Senfe, and Relation of it. It cannot upon rational Grounds be referred to inch imagined LATE Deftruftion of Jerusalem* as is that of yours in the 20th of Ar-taxe^es: becaufe it is not fo much as probable that there were, or could be,, as yet any Wall or Gates to be deftroy’d. The Jews had not been impower’d to rebuild the Wall, and fet up the Gates of their difmantled Metropolis, till after Nehemiah had received the News from thence in the Account referr’d to. I had occafion to fhew this at large in my Treatife on the Weeks.* as all preceding Decrees of the Kings of PerJia in favour of the Jews before that granted to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes Longimanus in the 20th Year of hi$ Reign, had immediate refpeft either to their Return, and their rebuilding the Temple, as that of Cyrus j or to the finifhing of the Temple, as that of Darius Hyjtafpis; or to the Endowment of the Temple, as that of the faid Artaxerxes, in a former Part of his Reign. But that latter Decree of nis, which Nehemiah obtain’d of the King immediately upon his having received the ill News from Jerufalem^ as above, that Decree, and that alone, refpefted the rebuilding the Wall and Gates thereof* in expre/s Terms for it. Thefe Things therefore I need not to repeat here. The Ufe that I now make of the Obfervation is* that any Attempt therefore of the Jetvs to have rebuildei x'<5 A LETTER to the rebuilded their Wall, and fet up their Gates before fuch Royal Authority actually obtained from the- Kings of Perjia^ to whom they Were immediately fubjedt from their Return is moft improbable: -—* much more fo is your imagined adtual Fortification df Jerufa-lem before the 20 th of Artaxerxes. The very Attempt of fuch a Work without EXPRESS LEAVE for it? had involv’d tile Jews in a Crime bordering upon Rebellion. And think you that their good Neighbours would have fat (till at the Undertaking, when they knew that as yet there was no RoycA Authority or Per miff on for it?——i. You may be allured they would not have failed to have laid hold of fuch feir Opportunity from thente of juft Accufatioii -of the Jews before the King of PerJia. They rriadfe it a Pretence we fec, even when they caufed a Stop to be put to the building of the Temple under the Magian-: They did it with anⁱ addi* tional Charge of this very nature as it'is expfClsly recorded by Ezra. [iv. 12.] Which Aceuiatiprt if it had been truly grounded tQ the proving that the Jews had really made an Attempt- co have fet up the Wall* and Gates of thei^ City, yet the Sequel of the Hiftory exprefsly proves againft a'ny your imagined Accompli foment of the fame at this time: beCailfe a Stop was immediately put to the Jews building un^ der the Magian; -i-xy . But the Accufation it- feems was not truly grounded ; as it appears-from the Execution of -the King’s Anfwer to the Complaint made againft them ♦ which was to caufe the Jews to cedfobuilding by Force and Power, [v. 2}.] — ■ Building what ? •----- No4 thing after all but the Houfe ofGod: As it appears from v. 2-4, viz. Then ceafedthe Work of [the Houfe of God__________unto the fecond Tear of the Reign of Darius King of Perfia. Thus ’Reverend Mr. Lancaftetr Ty Thus fet againft the Jews were their Enemies of thofe Times, that they fhould not build the REBELLIOUS and the BAD City, as they exprefly noted it to be, nor fit up the WALL, nor join the Foundations of it. Nor doubtlefs was their Envy and their Hatred againft the poor Jews ever after lefien’d to their having any the leaft Good-will towards them; moft unqueftionably therefore not to their fuffering them to have thus provided-for their Security, in cafe that -they had ever attempted it before the coming of Nehemiah among them. Even after the coming of the ttrfhathab to Jeru-falem with the King’s immediate Authority for this great Work of rebuilding the Walls and Gates thereof, and after that he had made confiderable Progrefs in it 9 yet, as we learn from his Hiftory of thofe Times, the many and inveterate Enemies of the Jews, their neighbouring Nations, ftuck not however to hinder him all they could from proceeding in it, and bringing it to Petfeftion? They were very wroth, as the Text fays, at the News of the Wall it’s being now in building, and the Breaches thereof being now flopping ; and > thus exceedingly enraged they confpired all of them together to come and to fight againft Jerufalem, and to hinder it, [Neh. iv. 7, 8.] And no wonder at it, if we confider them prompted thereunto, as by their inherent Hatred and Enmity > efpecially of the Samaritans, to the People of the Jews, fo likewife by their Intereft. Becaufe, as the learned Dr. Pride aux well obferveth from Jofephus, During the Idime that the Jews were in Captivity, their neighbouring Nations having feized their Lands, were forced to reft ore them on their Return. For which Reafoni did they could to oppofe their Refettle-ment; hoping that, if they _ could be kept low, they might find an Opportunity fome time or other of refuming again the Prey they haddoft. I C Now, ■« A LETTER to tie Now one of the fureft Ways the Jews Enemies could poffibly take in this refpcft of keeping the Jews low, was, I believe you will allow ic,mfe Jp do what in them lay to keep Jerufalem their ..chief City ftill a City NAKED and DEFENCELESS, becaufe thereby moreexpofed to their Incurfions. What therefore more immediately in point of Intereft put the Jews Enemies upon Opposition, at Jeaft the Thoughts of it, now upon Nehemiah's immediately afting for her Security, and Defence, had .been doubtlefs ever, and equally a Motive of ftir-ring them up againft the Jewsy even from their very Return in the Reign of Cyrus quite down to the Year, with which we are immediately concerned, viz. the 20th of Artaxerxes. And therefore it is no wonder that by Nehemiah's News from Jerufalem in that Year, we hear of their -great Afflictions and Reproach; as they were at that time, as they had been all along, fipce their Return, _ftill liable to the continued Infults, and Injuries of their oppreffive Neighbours: Even as having been, and ftill being really in want of that Security, and Defence, which as yet they had only by your Imagination : nor could they poffibly have had it other-wife for the Reafons now given. That doth therefore on all Accounts become moft improbable which you have here afferted of the Jews their having Jet up the Wall and Gates of Jerufalem fince their Return in the Reign of Cyrus, before .the /aid 20th of Artaxerxes. And Confequently Nehemiah's Account- now before us upon the moft rational Grounds-remains, as in the Biffiop’s Hypothefis, in immediate Relation to that peftruiftion of the Wall and Gates of Jerufalem which was by Nebuchadnezzar, and to that only.— I add *Iliirdlys In favour of fuch immediate Relation, ind againft your’s, that had the Wall and Gates of Jerufalem tie lejrtw Entries i of heping the allow it me, to their chief EFENCELESS, dr locurfions. riy in point of nOppofition, at n Nehemiah's im-nd Defence, had t Motive of ftir-ifrom their very itc down to the itely concerned, ar by Nehemiah's we hear of their hey were at that kc their Return, and Injuries of as having been, at Security, and y by your Imagi-ive had it other- ants become mod: averted of the I Gates of Jerufa-of Cyrus, before it now before us — remains, as in diate Relation to arcs of Jerufalem :o chat only.— lediate Relation, Vail aoi Gates of Jerufalem, Reverend Mr. Lancaftcr. ip Jerufalem been fee up, and again demolifhed in a Deftrudtion of Jerufalem in the 20th of Artaxerxes ₉ it is next to an Impoflibility that Hiftory could have been filent of fuch remarkable Inftances, or Occurrences. of it. Surely Ezra, or Nehemiah, or Jofe-pbus would have told us fomething exprefsly of fuch LATE Deftruftion of Jerufalem fence the Return of the Jews; efpecially as it was fo late as, by your aflerting, in the 20th of Artaxerxes: Had there really been any fuch NEW Deftrudtion of it; or were it otherwife than in your Imagination. For indeed it doth not appear to have any other Foundation.-------- And therefore upon the whole I conclude there was no other. And confequently Nehemiah's Account remains only to that which had been by Nebuchadnezzar. And confequently alfo the faid Wall had not been built, and the faid Gates had not been fet up fince the Return of the Captivity in the Reign of Cyrus ; And confequently Jerufalem had remained without her Wall and Gates from the Time of her De-ftruftion by Nebuchadnezzar to the 20th of Artaxerxes now truly 143 Years; And Confequently Nehemiah was the firft who rebuilt the Wall, and fet up. the Gates of Jerufalem fince the Time of her Deftru&ion by Nebuchadnezzar King of Baby* Ion: But thefe are the Particulars which make up the Bifhop’s Firft Suppofition^ on which is founded his Beginning of the 69 Weeks of the Prophecy before' us. And thefe Particulars being maintained, the faid Suppofition is alfo maintained, in full and perfect Agreement with the Account of Nehemiah referred to. And therefore your Charge againft it of its MANIFEST FALSITY, and DIRECT CONTRARIETY to the faid Account becometh the? more groundlefs; and confequently the more un-reafonable in it felf, and the more unbecoming alfo in the Reflection upon the late learned. Bilhop. *— C I But io ALETTER to the But to go on, as it feems you objeft alfo againlt ’the Bilhop’s Second Supposition, on which is founded his Begin* ning of the faid Number of Weeks. The faid Suppolition is, that the DECREE men^ tioned in the Prophcy for the rebuilding of Jerufa-lem was iflued out by Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the 20th Year of his Reign. — ,, Your Objection to it is, that whoever will read Nehemiah, or Jofephus, will find it to be without any manner of Support. —— And why fo ? —Even becaufe, as ,is the main of your Objection here, Nehemiah Mi&^ofephus have not dignified, or difiinguijhed the Licence granted.to. Nehemiah by King Artaxerxes, for the rebuilding the, Wall, and Gates of Jerufalem with the Name of a DECREE: nor have they given us a Copy of that Decree .--r- And what after all tho’ they have not ? — . - Nehemiah it feems was not altogether that accurate Hiftorian, as , you here expert- him to have been: therefore neither Jofephus alfo who writ'after him. But will it .therefore follow that this Suppolition is, as you tell us of it, without any manner of Support, tho’ it hath not this immediately from them in the Name, and Copy of the Decree ? — Still this. Objection hinders not but a Decree might npw have been iflued forth. «--- , zy . The King’s Commi flion was now undeniably given to Nehemiah, and the royal Authority was con-fefledly obtained, and exprefly given for the rebuild- °f Jerufalem. Therefore, what I pray, was that Authority, or what could it be in the Nature, inT‘ tents, or'furpofes of it but aDECREfc ROYAL ?-- You indeed would here perfuade us that, Nehemiah had only a VERBAL LEAVE, or LICENCE from the King.----— —— But have either Nehemiah^ or Jofephus thus faid of it, even that ^h? rpyal Authority novy, gi- ven Reverend Mr. Landafter.' at ven was only VERBAL? —--------Or are you, or can you be really fo perfuaded, tho’ you have thus affirm’d? —— However, even a VERBAL LICENCE was now confeffedly gone forth from the King in favour pf the Jews for their now fortifying their naked, and difmantled Metropolis. >-- And why fhould it not have been forthwith put in Writing, immediately expreflive of the King of Per-Jia's Royal Favour now granted to that People, and have been accordingly regiftred among the publick Records of the Kingdom, as other Decrees in favour of the Jews had been ? —— Nothing lefs than the Royal Authority made known, and confequently made publick to that End, could have reftrained the Jews Enemies from actual Oppofition, to the making them to fit ftill, even when they were exceedingly enraged at the Undertaking, as already obferved, >—. The Royal Authority therefore for the rebuilding of Jerufalem now given to Nehemiah^ could not be, as you fay only VERBAL, but it muft neceflarily have been EXPRESS by Writing. Nor i$ it ufual for Kings to fend their Lieutenants abroad by verbal Commandments only, but by formal Commiflions immediately expreflive of their deputed Authority, and royal PJeafure; in Matters of greater Importance more efpecially, and immediately with LETTERS PATENTS moft exprefsly licenfing and protecting them in their fulfilling the Royal Purpofes. -----Which confequently could not but be the very Cafe in Nehemiah's now going to Jerufa-lem* to fulfill the King of PerJia's immediate Pleasure by him of rebuilding the WALLy and fetting up the GALES thereof And accordingly we find that Nehemiah had now the King's LELLERS. - —— The Text is exprefs in it that lie had them. Letters alfo had been before given by {he King to Ezra, upon his going to Jeru- if A LETTER to the falem upon a Commiffion to him immediately dele* gated by the King. And Nehemiah had them'now* upon his going thither.---- - ■— But fay you here, Nehemiah's Letters were only of a private Nature.-- — Alafs, How was it poflible for you to fay fo of the King’s Letters in a publick Affair ? — Surely neither were the Ends» or Purpofes for which thofe Letters were given to Nehemiah of a private Nature; nor were the Perfons to whom thofe Letters were fent private Perfons. Not the Perfons; for they were Perfons not in private Capacities: very far from it. Nor do Kings ufually write to fuch Perfons. They were Perfons of the higheft Authority, and in the moft publick Pofts. And thofe Perfons alfo were many of them, even the King’s Governours on this fide the River Euphrates. Perfons thefe immediately in-vefted with the higheft Authority from the King of Perfia. Not the Ends and Purpofes of thofe Letters immediately expreflive of the royal Will, and Pleafure to thofe Perfons. To the Governors to conduit Nehemiah in Safety to Jerufalem, not furely as a private Perfon, or even now as the King of PerJia's Cupbearer ; but Nehemiah the Tirjhaihab, or the King’s: appointed Governour of Judah, and Jerufalem. To the Keeper of hisForefts in thofe Parts, as by exprefs Command in thofe Letters to further him upon his Arrival at Jerufalem, in the great Work of rebuilding the Wall thereof, on which he was now fent by the King, by the furnifhing him with as much Timber out of them, as fliould be needed for the finifhing of it>-. ------- And yet by your Account thefe Letters were of a private Nature.... ---------They were, it appears, no lefs than the King s Letters Patents fully licenfing, authorizing, impowering. Nehemiah ₂ -as- above i Either to their contain* Reverend Mr. Laricaflerl if containing a DECREE royal in form, as did before thofe Letters which the King gave unto Ezra, or otherwife to their having the full Force thereof by an exprefs Claufe therein inferred, immediately expref-five of the King’s royal Pleafure, and Command for Nehemiah’s fortifying the Metropolis of his now appointed Government. And even in this latter View of Nehemiah's Com-miffion, the late Dr. Prideaux hath exprefsly told us, that now in the 20th of Artaxerxes the ROYAL DECREE was iffiued out for the rebuilding the Wall* and Gates of Jerufalem ; and Nehemiah was fent thither with it as Governour of the Province of Judaea to put it in Execution. The faid learned Author tho’ he difcarded this Decree from being the Prophetical Decree, from which the 69 Weeks of the Prophecy are exprefsly to take their Beginning, becaufe it would by no means fuit with his figurative Hypothefis of the Weeks, yet he hath not fo much as cavilled at the Decree it felf, but hath exprefsly acknowledg’d it, as above, in this View of it. But take we it either way, it could not be other-wife for the Reafons above given, but that the King of Perfia’s Decree was now gone forth for the rebuilding of Jerufalem. In Confirmation whereof, fince you have raifed fo many Queftions in the Negative, tho’ putting of Queftions proves not againft the Decree, I now pray your Leave to put one Queftion to you alfo for thq Affirmative, and mark you the Conclulion. Give me Leave to put the Queftion, Was Nehemiah now made Governor of Jerufalem? I flick not to anfwer for you, that out of doubt he was ? ——— Here I muft therefore put another alfo, How doth this appear ? « It H A LETTER to the It doth not by any thing that Nehemiah, or Jofephus have given us from the King’s Letters. For. there is not one Word in them about it. —— I go on in your Way, — But yet will you fay that Nehemiah had not now the King’s Commiffion appointing him the jout to conclude the Decree* that tlhcr., or that the gave him in ap-f, was not a royal tof me?---------- eply to me, that kmwhmuft now iflion to him in ren him by the &,al Commiffion xers? ily oneway, or ccaufe otherwife being the King's Jovemor of King’s written iot, tho’neither a Commiffion* or to die I the latter, and mdufion in this As Reverend Mr. Lancafter? 25 a As in the end you mutt conclude by the Decree now before us, as I have here concluded by the Commiffion* that as in this,, fo in that alfo Nehemiah (•duld not but have had the King’s Decree either in Dorm exclufive of the King’s Letters, or other-wife in Form included in thofe Letters, or by ex-prefs Claufe inferred, and immediately declarative of fuch determined, or decreed royal Pleafure in favour of the Jews.---------- . Which royal Favour therefore neceflarily remains a Decree* even altho’, as you have here thought fit to object, neither Nehemiah, nor Jo fephus have ftiled jt a Decree* or gjven us the Copy of it,-----I add Confequently, that it remains alfo the Pro-phetick Decree* as immediately by virtue thereof the Jews had now full Power to rebuild the Wall* and fet up the. Gates*, and fill up the void* and wafts Spaces* or Places of their yet naked, and difman-tled Metropolis : And it is Certain that they now executed it.-----And now the Holy City was no longer a Reproach.----------- And if in this refpeft I have deem’d this Decree hot inferior to former Decrees granted in favour of the Jews by the Kings of Perfia* as it feems you have thought it worth your while to note here that I have call’d it the great eft of the Four* yet as in this refpeft I have thus fpoken, I have not faid it altogether, I hope, without Reafon: Forafmuch, as in the immediate Nature, and Advantage of this Decree* or in the immediate Effe&s, and Confe-quences of it, the Security and Welfare of the People of God both in Church and State was more amply provided for, than by any of the former. . The City being now fortify’d, the Temple as I may fay, was now at reft* as in Times of Pro-r iperity was the Ark of God* of old. D The 26 A LEtTER to the The People of God were now no longer expo-fed to the Incuffions of Enemies, and Plunderers. Every Man’s private Affairs were now confequently attended with a much furer Profpecft of defired Succefs. And in few Words, the whole Jewifh Polity was now reftored : and Jerufalem oince more brought into a promifing Probability of advancing it felf yet again, at leaft to feme Degree of its priftin State of Power^ and Grandeur. —-—— And now I have gone through this fecond Part alfo of your Remark immediately before us, and therein of the whole of it. And upon the whole it appearing, that not as you fay, A verbal Leave only was given to Nehe* rniab^ but the royal Decree exprefs for the rebuild* ing the Wall and Gates of Jerufalem, —— and it having but now appeared alfo that the faid Wall* and Gates to be built by virtue of that Decree had not,, as you have told us, been but a little before de-molifhed^--but that they had remained in their Ruins, as left by the Chaldaans till the coming of Nehemiah) to Jerufalem in the 20th of Artaxerxes $ ----and confequently that Nehemiah was the firft who rebuilt the Wall, and fet up the Gates of Jerufalem.) after t!he Jews Return in the Reign of CyruSy however you have afferted the contrary to thefe Particulars; Which are the feveral Sup-pofitions, on which is founded the late Bifliop’s Beginning of the 69 Weeks of this Prophecy in the 20th Year of Artaxerxes Longimanus; the faid Suppofitions being maintained, I conclude that the faid Beginning of the faid Weeks, as in the Bifliop’s Hypothefis, doth thus remain unlhaken to the faid 20th of Artaxerxes. And Reverend Mr. Lancaftcr. 2-7 And fo I go on to Your THIRD REMARK, which refpe&s the Jatd Bilhop’s Ending of the 69 Weeks, and contains an Objection againft the faid Ending, itnme-diately founded upon the former Objection againft their Beginning. But their affign’d Beginning being now maintained, this Objection againft their Ending ceafeth of coiirfe.------ I need therefore here only to return this Remark in this Part of it in the Reverfe, or by giving that in the Affirmative, which you have in the Negative ; That fence the 69 Weeks did begin in the 2Qtb Tear of Artaxerxes Longimanus, it plainly follows, that the Ending of the 69 Weeks is, as well as the Beginning well, and truly fixed in the Bilhop’s Hypothefis. -—— And therefore however you have concluded from your foregoing Objections to the Bilhop’s Beginning and Ending of thefe Weeks, that what I have amaffed together in relation to the Eastern Tear is of no ufe as to the Explication of this Prophecy, I on the other hand from their maintained Beginning, and Ending do infift that what I have advanced on that Occafion ftill remains to have its principal Ute, and even its neceffary Ufe for the particular Reafons given in my Treatife concerning the faid Form of Tear, to Which you have not thought fit in any Particular here to objeCt. — But, it feems in what follows, under this Remark, you have fomewhat more to fay againft the Bilhop’s placing the Ending of the 69 th Week fo near, as within a Tear of our Saviour's Death. For Whereas, the Prophecy declaring that there Should be Unto Mejfiah the Prince 7 Weeks, and 62 Weeks, and that after the 62 Weeks the Mejfiah (hould be cut off, You obferve that I have p 2 fr$m A LETTER to the from thence argued, that our Saviour could not furvive a whole Tear after the Expiration of "the 69th Week,---------Becaufe, as I have infilled, if he had, he would not then have been cut off after feven Weeks, and fix.ty,. and two Weeks, (*9 but after leven Weeks, and fixty and two Weeks (*9 and one Tear alfo of another Week 5 ' And that this, as I have obferved, had been inconfiftent with, at leaft not precifely agreeing with the ex-prefs Character, that after 7 Weeks,and 62 Weeks the Meffiahfhould be cut off-, i. e. as he is here pre* difted to be cut off precifely after 4$% Years, or in the very next Year after the Completion of the 69 th Week of Years, as it is exprefsly noted in ray Treatife, and in the very. Beginning . of this Argument, and therefore you fhould not have omitted a Recital of thofe Words here alfo ; ——- But however that be, You have here objected, J 1 ft, That when theTime of an Event predicted is,, as in this Cafe given, the Event mufi necejfarily be unk derftood to have its Accornplifhmenl in fome Part .of. fuch a Portion of Time, as is of • the fame Denomina^ tion with the Time given in the Prediction. Here you apply a twofold Inftance, One in Days, as you tell us very truly, That if an Event be foretold to happen after 69 Days, the Accomplijhment may be reasonably expected in fome part or other of the jotb Day. Another in Years,' As when a Thing is foretold to happen after 69 Tears, the Prediction is fufficiently verified, if what was foretold be accomplifhed in any.. part of the Tear following. ₜ W......... (*) J note here after this manner, becaufe you have done me a manjreft Piece of Injuftice, by taking away thd very Force'of the Argument here, and indeed by making it unintelligible in yours, or your Printer's Omiflion of thofe nint Wordi between the two Afterjsks.' K ’ V V All Reverend Mr. Lancaftcr. AH which is very true. J readily grant you both the Propofition, and the Inftances. And whereas You go on to add, The fame is the Cafe in relation to the Word After in the Prophecy there being in it but one Denomination of Time, that of Weeks given, fo I fay like-wife. But to come to the Difference between us here, You fay it in one Denomination of Time, I in another. You fay it in a Denomination of Time by Weeks, limply as Weeks •> I fay it in a Denomination of Time by Weeks refolvable into Tears:-and that becaufe Firft, Tho’ the Word Weeks be the Denomination of Time mentioned in the Prophecy, yet Weeks are cpnfefledly Weeks of Tears ; and confe-quently refolvable into Tears: For what are Weeks of Tears, but fo many times f Years ?----And Secondly, A Year queftionlefs, and not a Week of Years is the here given Portion of Time for the prtAd&eA going forth of the Commandment to rebuild Jerufalem » Which is the expfefsly afllgned Beginning of the firft 69 Weeks of Years in the Prophecy. And Thirdly, In faft it is fo in every Hypothefis of the WeeksAs Regard is had in them, in your own alfo, not to a Week of Tears, i* e. not to any part of 7 Years, or any Year of 7 Years within which the predicted Commandment went forth, but even to the very Tear, and to that Tear only of its actually going forth, A Year therefore thus being the Prophetick Denomination of Time in the Beginning of the given Period for the cutting off of the Mefftah after 69 Weeks of Years, A. Tear alfo neceffarily remains the Denomination of Time in the Ending of them. An4 ₃o A LETTER to tte And Confequently, As this predicted Eventwas thus to fall out after 483 Years, It was for the Reafons now given, and by your own Inftancts alfo neceffarily to be expected, and acGofdihgly accomplilhed within the Year following, or in the 484th Year: — it being thus in this greater Inftance of 7 times 69 Years, as in your leffer In? fiance only of 69 Years. ~ — And Therefore that is without Ground, which by way of Objection to the Biftop’s Explanatioh of the Word dfter, you have here faid of it, that it is extremely fallacious. You have indeed faid it upon your having affert* ed immediately before in the following Words, viz. —_ That this part of the Prediction —r— that after 7 Weeks, and 62 Weeks the Meffiab fhould he cut off *-~ bad been fully verified, if our Sa- viour had been cut off in any f art of a Week of Years immediately following the Expiration of the 6ytb Week, But this Afiertion hath no other Foundation than as it is built upon your conceived Denomind? tion of Time in the Prophecy by Weeks, Amply as Weeks. Therefore for the Reafons above given it gives you no room for the objected Fallacy: Even becaufe as it hath been now fliewn, Not a Week of Years, or any part of a Week of Years^ or 7 Years within which went forth the predicted Com-, mandment, but the very Year of jts going forth is the real Denomination of Time Beginning of thefe Weeks, and Confequently fo remains in tht End? itigof them. Ndr foould that have been remarked by you, as a Fallacy, which juft i fie th it felf both by the Pro-, phecy, and by your own Inftances; As it verifieth the Prediction'in the aCtual Completion -of itsim-mediate. the lifted Evefitwas , It was for tk it own Inftances md acwtdingly swing, or in the in this greater n your Itffir In? uod, which by i’s Explanation e/iidofk, that ir having aflerfr lowihg Words, >rtdiftion — it Mejtab fbonll ifd, if tur Sih t of a Week of iptration of the er Foundation ived Denominte Wb, Gmply as t given it gives £j: Even be> n, Not a Week of Tun, or 7 predicted Corots goingforth is jnning of thefe 1ins in the End* ted by you, a# ith by the Pro-l Airtvrrifieth mon of its immediate Reverend Mr. Lahcaftef. jt mediate Event in the very firft Year after the Expiration of its given Time of Completion ; and Con-fequently, in a lefs than a 7th Part of your allowed Latitude here of a Week of Years, or feven Years after.-------- — Indeed the farther off the Accomplilhment had been, the greater room had there been for the objected Fallacy- But where it now ftands, for the Reafons above given there is none at all. *• ■ —- You yet go on to objedt againft the Bifliop’s Ending thebyth Week, as you have here noted. 2dly, Yhat between the Ending of the 6$tb Week^ and the Excifion of the Mejfiah, there 'was a much longerjTime than (you fay) I am willing to allow.— How I pray is that ?-------- »■ — Truly no other wife than as you have argued, and concluded here merely ex Hypotbefi in all that followeth under this Remark, as you have interpreted thofe Words of the Prophecy,------ Unto Mejfiah the Prince,---as containing a Pre- diction of our Lord’s Coming to be anointed by the Holy-Ghoft, in that immediate Defcent of it upon him at his Baptlfin. And from thofe other Words of it,------vi%. Sixty nine Weeks from the predicted going forth of the Commandment to rebuild Jerufalem------You have placed in the faid Anointing in the very next Year after the Completion of the 69th Week. Whereas, the late Biihop Lloyd faw no fuch Coming of the Meffiab predicted in thefe Words, but took them only as implying that Coming of the Meffiah which after follows in the Words immediately exprejfve of his Cutting off', As if the former Words were only an Inlet to the latter, and the latter Confequently immediately expletive of the former. From b A LETTER to tHe . . From both the former, and the latter the fliop placed the Death of Chrift in the Year ihh mediately following after 6g Weeks of Tears. And for the Reafons above given he could place it no where but in that very Year. And for theReafon now given he took no notice in his Hypothefis of the Event which you fee in the former Words.----— But even were that Event really intended in the Prophecy, it makes not againft the Bifhop’s placing the end of the 69 th Week fo near as within a Tear of our Saviour's Death \ Becaufe that Event of courfe ftands fo many Years higher within the 69th Week: Which the Prophecy well admits of as I ihall ftiew anon. But, whereas You have underftood, the Intent certain of the Prophecy in thofe Words of it, as above, and therefore to the faid interpreted Intent You have referred the Gofpel Hiftory of the Defcent of the Holy-Ghoft upon our Saviour at his Baptifm, and withal have placed that Event in the Year, wherein the Bifhop hath placed his Death, You have therefore concluded in one Part; of your Remark here, as already noted, and again in the very laft Words of it, You have not ftuck to pafs a moft harlh, tho’ indeed a very groundlefs Sentence againft the Bifhop, by telling us, that fuch his placing our Lord's Death is direHly contrary both to the.Intent of the Prophecy, and the Hiftory of the Gofpel. Indeed You fhould have faid of it only that it is contrary to your interpreted Intent of the Prophecy, and to your applied Reference of Gofpel Hiftory, as is the moft after all that this Objection comes to. For in thefe immediate Words of the Prophecy You have nothing in your Favour any more than what the late Bifhop hath alfo, viz. bare Probability Reverend Mr. Lancafter. 3 3 bility for his, as well as your interpreted Intent of them. But it doth not appear from thofe Words to be the Intent certain of the Prophecy, as you have here inlifted, either ift. That the Meffiah is here predicted to come immediately to fuch Anointing Nor 2j/y, That he was to receive fuch Anointing in your afcertained year for it, or in the year after the completion of the 69th Week. Not the Former, Becaufe the Words infifted on, viz. — *— Unto Meffiah the Prince——do not point/out any particular Coming of the Meffiah, and Confequently not your’s in particular, and therefore not your’s for certain. Not the Latter^ For,. However You have expreslly told us of thofe Words that they do plainly direct us to the very Moment of fime, in which the Prince whofe Coming is foretold, ffiould be anointed, Yet they fall ihort of what you thus declare concerning them. Forafmuch as, not to take any Notice of your Moment here, they do not fo much as direct us to the very year for which you here contend, or the year after the completion of the 69 th Week for fuch Anointing. Even becauie they equally leave us to the 69th Week it felf; and Confequently to fo many years within that Week, as the Year immediate of th^t Event preceded the Death of the Meffitah in the next year after the faid 69th Week. For it is certain from the Scripture promifcu-ous ufe of the Hebrew Adverb here, which we not improperly render Unto, that the Words along with it, which you fo much inlift on, may as well E denote 34 A L ETTE R to the denote a Time inclufrue of the 69th Week, as your Time which is exclufive of it. And therefore, However plainly you may have feen the latter here, yet the learned Grotius as plainly faw the former. For fo he hath expresfly told us in the following, Words ■ ...... ♦? IX hic_y alibi non ulthnum terminum fignificat* fed alijuid intra terminos contentum ~— &c. Confequently a Term is here predicted, not a» by your telling, neceffarily beyond the 69th Week, but otherwise* according to Grotius, a Time within the very 6gth Week. For fuch Scripture ufe of the Word he here refers in general However in particular you may fee fuch immediate ufe of the Word in Jonah iv. fe£; and Job i. undeniably. Therefore the Hebrew Adverb, on which all is here depending, being thus of various ufe, and even in the Scripture ufage of it, admitting of a Time inclufrue, as well as exciufive of the 69 th Week, which latter Senfe is your Senfe certain of , the Word; but fuch Senfe thereof being not the Senfe here abfolutely certain of it., it follows that your Time built upon fuch fuppofedly certain Senfe of the Word is not the Time certain of the Prophecy here. Confequently the Prophecy hath not plainly directed us to your Time; And fo upon the whole, both your interpreted Coming of the Mejfiah, and your afcertained Time alfo for fuch Coming remaining uncertain, it appears that your objected Contrariety of the Bifhop’s Hypothefis in this part of it, to the Intent of the Prophecy* is without Foundation. And Confequently fo likewife is Secondly, Your objected Contrariety here alfo to the Hiftory of the Gdfpek ¹ Becaufe the 69th Week, » L Ij you may have arned Groiius as le harh expresfly -------rilSbfc, ficat, fed alijnti irtdifted, not at yond the 69th g to Grotiui^ a For fuch Scrip-rftn in general fee fuch imme-r. 2. and r. ₍ on which all is irious ufe, and admitting of a fw of the 69th r Senfe certain of f being nor the , it follows that ppofedly certain mw certain of the ie Prophet] hath ne h your interpre-your afeertained lining uncertain, otrariety of the r of it, to the out Foundation, iricty here alfo Beeaufe Reverend Mr. Lancafter. 35 Beeaufe plainly the only Foundation of fuch objected Contrariety to the Gofpel is your interpreted Intent of the Prophecy. But your interpreted Intent thereof not appearing to be the Intent certain of it, your referred, or applied Hifto-ry of the Gofpel in the Defcent of the Holy-Ghoft upon our Saviour at the Baptifm of John₉ as the actual completion of fuch your interpreted Intent of the Prophecy is neceffarily uncertain alfo. For what doth not appear certain in the Prophecy, cannot poflibly give Foundation fare for Reference thereunto from the Gofpel. Nor are your Gofpel References in themfelves conclufive to the maintaining your Charge here againft the Bifliop, as applied by you both to your fuppofedly predicted Anointing of the Mef-fiah, and to your appropriated Lime for fuch Anointing. For Firft, To take your Gofpel-Hiftory herein the former View, What though you have told us from the Gof-pel, that Our Saviour in the Defcent of the Holy Ghoft upon him at his Baptifm, did in an eminent manner become the Anointed One, and had the Name given him in a mo(i exalted Senfe ? -------— Was He not likewife demonftrated to be the Anointed One at other times, and in other Defcents of the Holy Spirit upon him ; particularly at his miraculous Conception, As he was full of- the HolyGhoft' even from his Mother's Womb.’, and alfo at his Birth, as H E was now born who was CHRISf the Lord, or the ANOINTED Lord?--------- And before our Lord’s Baptifm by John, which was expresfly not till after all others had been baptiz'd, the Holy-Ghoft a confiderable rime before,- even tfpon the fifft Coming of the Baptift, E 2 had 3 6 A LETTER to the had aftually defended, and remained upon Chrift by John's own immediate Teftimony ; to the fulfilling the token which had been given John, whereby he fhould know him to be the Meffiah: For he knew him not before, as John is therein ex-prefs. And our Lord was now accordingly acknowledged by John, and by fomeof John's Difciples alfo to be the Meffiah expresfly by name, even thus before his Baptifm by John, and Confequent-ly before that other Defcent of the Hqly-Ghoft upon him at that Time. And though it be very true that you have here obferved, viz. That God the Father now bore teftimony to his Son at the Solemnity of this Defcent at his Baptifm by a Voice immediately from Heaven, Yet>fo did God no lefs bear Teftimony to him at the Solemnity of his transfiguration alfo, and a-gairi in his immediate glorifying him a little before his Death. And at his Refurreftion furely in the moft e-minent manner he became, and in the moft exalted Senfe he was declared to be the Son of God with Power, even in his Refur reElion from the dead. In fuch Variety of Gofpel Inftances therefore all equally referable to your interpreted Intent of the Prophecy, or your fuppofedly predicted A~ minting of the Meffiah, How is it poffible to af-fure with certainty, if any one of them more than another, or which of them more than all the reft, your’s in particular is more immediately, to be appropriated thereunto ? Your Gofpel Reference at the beft remains an uncertain Reference of Gofpel-Hiftory to an In-tent uncertain of the Prophecy in this former View of it, or of its foppofed Relation to your fuppofedly predicted Anointing of die Meffiah in the Reverend Mr. Lancaster. 37 the Words before us. Much more uncertain and inconclusive Confequently, muft be your Gofpel Reference. Secondly, In the latter view of it, or of your applied Relation of it to your immediately appropriated Time for fuch interpreted Anointing , as you have from the Gofpel alio argued to the. Tear after the completion of the 69th Week, your Year certain for fuch afccrtained Anointing.; You have here given us a twofold Gofpel Reference. I Shall take, and consider them apart. One is, that our Lord having entered upon his publick Miniftry did expresfly declare----That the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and that by him he had been anointed to preach the Gofpel unto the Poor, &c. ------- ----------’Tis true. *---— Our Lord now upon his Ministry did thus declare. But this Declaration makes not to your purpofe in any refpetft, unlefs it appeared that our Lord fpake the Words with immediate Reference to your interpreted Anointing.^ and even to your appropriated Time for fuch Anointing. But it doth not fo much as appear that our Lord fpake the Words with any Reference at all to the Prophet Daniel.--------- Our Lord’s Reference was of a certainty to the Prophet Ifaiah. He read the Words now in the Synagogue at Nazareth on the Sabbath Day, as there was delivered unto him the Book (or the Roll} of the Prophet Ifaiah : And when he had opened the Book, for unfolded the RollsJ be found the Place, where it was written, as above. And thereupon he declared the accomplishment of fuch Scripture now in himfelf thus preaching, after that he had read thofe Words either from the Prophet, not of Daniel, but expresfly of the Prophet Ifaiah, or from fome Targum of that Prophet. — /— Confequently 38 A LETTER to the quently there is nothing here proving the certain accomplilhment of fuch Prophetick Purpofe* or ^Pime* as is this your referred Accomplilhment of GolpekHiftory to your interpreted Anointing of the Mefliah in the very Year after the completion of the 6t)tb Week. Your other Reference of Gofpel-Hiftory here is, that immediately upon the Baptift’s Imprifon-ment, w find our Saviour openly declaring that the TIME was FULFILLED.----------------You add, that in fuch Declaration he evidently referred to a Time, which had been predetermined* and foretold. — Now I do allow it that our Lord might, and probably he did fo refer. I make no Queftion that our Lord here referred to the Prophet Daniel alfo, in the Kingdom of the Meffiah prophelied of, by that Prophet: As that Kingdom was now fetting up by our Lord. And it fhould feem certain that he did fo refer in the Words ex-preslly following in the Gofpeh —.. Yhe Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. But were that alfo certain which you have here taken for granted to be fo, Even that our Lord in the Words now before us from the Gofpel did refer to the 69 Weeks of this Prophecy, Yet your Cqnfequence here will not follow that in fuch Reference he referred to your time ascertained from thofe 69 Weeks, or in your Words to the Year after the completion of the 69th Week. Becaufe Undoubtedly our Lord could no o-therwife refer to the Prophecy in the Yhne therein intended, than that is of a certainty intended in it. But your interpreted Time thereof, as I have juft now fhewn, is not the Time certainly intended dn the Prophecy : Forafmuch as the Words all along inftfted on, do not neceffarily imply Reverend Mr. Lancafter. 39 imply your Time after the 69th Week, but do equally admit of a Time inclufive of the faid 69th Week. And Confequently our Lord might refer to fuch inclufive Time thereof equally as to your Time exclufive of it, Even if he did here at all re* fer co the 69th Week of this Prophecy. So that though it were certain that our Lord in his now urged Declaration, did refer to the 69 Weeks of this Prophecy", And though as you have here told me, by my own Chronology there were about three Years between rhe Time of our Saviour's faid Declaration* and the Time of his Death*— -Yet the Prophecy not necefiarily pinning us down in this interpreted Coming of the Meffiah to the year after the completion of the Gytb Week* as you have here contended, but equally allowing of a Time included within the 6gth Week for fuch Declaration; And Confequently of fo many years within it as the faid Declaration was made before the Death of Chrift in the year after the 69 th Week ; thus upon the whole it appears that our Lord's Death may be* and Confequently is well* and truly placed in the Bifhop’s Hypothesis fo near the expiration of the 6ytb Week. It thus appears that it may be fo without any manner of your objected Contrariety* or any the leaft Inconfiftency, or Disagreement * I infift it is in full Agreement with the Intent, of the Prophecy* and the Hiftory of the Gofpel :--- However you have been free here to determine againft fuch placing the Death of Chrift expresfly, that it is manifeftly apparent to be dire&ly contrary ta both. ------ The objected Contrariety you fee is manifeftly apparent from nothing but Uncertainties* or upon Ito other Grounds either from the Prophecy* or the Gofpel* but your uncertainly interpreted Intent 40 A LETTER, to the tent of the former, and your uncertainly referred Hiftory of the latter. ---------And was it meet for you, do you think, upon fuch uncertain Grounds* only to have thus concluded againft a late learned Father of the Church ; —— One mighty in the Scriptures, as any of' his time ?--- And yet this is now the fecorid Antifcriptural Charge that you have made againft the late Bifliop. ■ I am truly concerned at this your Liberty : to fpeak of it in no worfe Terms. I am concerned for their fakes who are unhappily pleafed with Charges of this Nature, whether they be true, or falfe; and catch at them with the greateft eagernefs : but, Alafs, the more is the pity, they are not careful to have them removed.. For your fake I am alfo concerned, that you fhould have thus determined without that kind of proof, which is ever to be expected in Charges of this Nature, and nothing lefs than which is fuffi-cient to found them upon: I mean that of EVIDENT CERTAINTY in the Foundation of them. Whereas, it hath now appeared that you have nothing like it in all that you have here urged both from the Prophecy, and from the Gofpel: As above it appeared in the former Charge that you had it not from the Hiftory of Nehemiah* I conclude therefore here alfo in favour of the late Bifliop, that for any thing that hath appeared to the contrary under this Remark, the Death of Chrift necejfarily remains where it ftands fixed in his Hypothefis to the year after the completion of the 6^ th Week. —— And Reverend Mr. LancafterJ 41 And fo I go on to Your FOURTH, and Laft Remark. This you introduce by telling me, that According to the Explanation of the Prophecy of the fevedty Weeks* there were between the Ending of the 69 tb Week* and the Beginning of the yoth* thirty one Years* and four Months. •----— Be it fo. ■, -- And what then ? — Why fay you, The Unreafonablenefs* not to fay Abfurdity* of this way of Proceeding may be very eafily demon-ftrated. You go about your Demonftration by telling me as follows, viz. Let it be fuppofed then* that I have rightly fixed the End of the 69th Week a year before our Saviour⁹ s Death, yet from hence you argue* Firft* That Jince feven years dre fas you here tell me, I my felf contend for) a Week of Years* it will follow that asfoOn as the 69 th Week ended, a-notber feven Years'* Or in other Words a Week of YtarS would of Courfe begin* even as neceffarily as One Week of Days fucceeds another Week of Days. This Succeflion of Time You go on immediately to apply to the Bifhop’s Hypothefis, by telling us, That therefore, fence according to Him* Our Saviour dy’d in the year following the expiration of the 69th Week* the death of our Saviour would neceffarily fall out in the beginning of thofe feven Years* or that Week of Years* which immediately commenced upon the Ending of the 69th Week. And fo you conclude that therefore Our Saviour wa r cut off in u feVentietb Week* and Confequently in the feventietb Week of the Prophecy. --------Thus indeed you have here argued, and concluded; Butyour Confequences do not follow, F Firft* 42 J L’ETTRR to the Firft, Becaufe however you have urged that feven Years, do, as I my felf contend, make a Week of Years, Yet, as you cannot be ignorant, I have no otherwife fo contended, than as the word Weeks in the Prophecy doth denote certainly not Weeks of Days, but Weeks of Years.--- But How I pray doth your urged Succeflion of Time by Weeks of Years colleffively as Weeks follow from thence ? —-— It doth not furely, --Becaufe Weeks ofYears confidered in their dbftrafled nature only, as fo many Septenaries of Years, or being only fo many times feven years, and Confequently being no otherwife Weeks of Years than as Weeks refol-vable into Years, and fo centring in a Denominate on of Times by Years, which therefore as formerly infifted in rriy Treatife, and now again for the Reafons aboVe given, becomes the Denomination of Time in this Prophecy, It follows that the Succeflion of Time therein remains a Succeflion of Time by Years alfo. For Undeniably, fuch as is the Denomination of Time in the Prophecy ; fuch alfo mutt be the Succeflion of Time in it. And therefore your arguing here from a Succeflion of Weeks of Days, & Succeflion of Weeks of Years, 'collectively as Weeks, is not conchifive. Becaufe for the fame Reafons that we fhould not have to do here with your Denomination of Time, neither have we to do with your Succeflion of Time. To apply to the late Bifliop’s Hypothefis, our blefled Saviour’s Excifion is there placed in the very next Year after the expiration of the 69th Week, or Septenary of Years, or 483 Years from the given Year of their Beginning. He was cut off therefore in the 484th year, from the very Year, fnot the Week) of the going forth of the Commandment to rebuild Jerufalem. But Reverend Mr. Lancaftcr. 43 But for the Reafons already given, He was cut off ip that Tear, as the Tear in immediate Succeffion upon the Ending of the given Period of Tears, for fuch Event •> Confequently not, as you contend, as a Tear beginning of another Week of Tears, er feven Tears and Confequently alfo not in a yoib Week, and therefore not in the yoth Week of this Prophecy. —. Nor Secondly., Doth the Prophecy admit of your Confequences in the Succeffion of Time, expresfly given in it———Beeaufe the prophetick Succeffion of Time from the Date given of Beginning, reaching thus no farther than to the very year of our Saviour’s Excifion, Confequently, it admits not of your feven years Succeffion immediately beyond it, for which you here contend—As I fhall have occafion to fliew forthwith, in immediate Reply to what you have next gone on to Remark here. In your Second Note, wherein you groundlesfly take an Advantage of the late Bifliop from his difeontinuance of Succeffion of Time, in his Hypothefis between his Ending of the 69 th Week, and his Beginning of the yoth Week of this Prophecy; As there is, as you remark, between the faid Terms thirty one Tears, and four Months : Which otherwife being four Weeks, and three Tears, and four Months, you take occafion to charge the Bi-{hop’s Hypothefis with an Abfurdity of being an Hypothefis of feventy four Weeks and three Tears, and four Months, determined upon Daniel’* People, and City, inftead of feventy Weeks according to the Prophecy. An Abfurdity this indeed! You might well remark, and deem it fo 5 I would freely allow you to call it Antifcripturifm alfo, were there real ground for the Charge, F 4 But 4+ A LETTER to the But fuch conceived and charged Increafe of the number of Weeks of the Prophecy upon the Bifhop’s Hypothefis from the negledted Interval of Time, is merely your own groundlefs Improvement, otherwife void of all Foundation. Becaufe fuch negleded Interval of Time is really not prophetick Time: And Confequently you have no ground from the Prophecy for this Objefti-oi). As it will appear that you have not by con-? fidering Firft, That by the Prophecy it felf we have not to do with immediate Succeffion of Septenaries of Years from the given Date of Beginning beyond the 69th Week of it. The Prophecy is exprefs in it, that/raw the going forth of the Commandment to rebuild Jerufalem, there /hall be /even Weeks, and threefcore and tvoo Weeks, in the whole fixty nine Weeks, or Septenaries of Years, or 483 Years. The Prophetick Succefiion of Time therefore ne-ceffarily remains to thofe fixty nine Weeks., or Septenaries ; but not to another. Thofe fixty nine Septenaries of Years ended in the Year of the V. 7E. of Chrift 32 : for which I refer to my Treatife. Here then the given Period of prophetick Succeffon of Time by Septenaries of Years from the exprefs Date of Beginning being aftually at an end, It follows that therein of courfe the Pro-pbetick Succeffwn of time immediately by Septenaries of Years., from fuch Beginning is alfo at an end. But, Secondly, The Prophecy being a Prophecy of feventy general Weeks, or Septenaries of Years, of fo many expresfly, and no jnore determined upon Daniels People and City, Confequently a Pro-phetipk Week, or one other Septenary of Years is ftill remaining, and without any Succefiion of Time Reverend Mr. Lancaftcr.' 45 ’f ime for it in the Prophecy. However this remaining One Week of the Seventy, come when it would, it can poflibly make no more than feventy Weeks, or Septenaries of Years, or 490 Years. For .69 Weeks and 1 Week put together are but 70 Weeks: Alfo 483 Years and 7 Years are together but 490 Years all the World over. -......... Well then. — A Seventieth Week is yet to come. And we are without a Succeffion of Yime ’tis plain, for a Seventieth Week. _. Where fhall we find it then? Or how fliall this Week be known, when, the Fulnefs of its Yime fhould be come ? We are not at a lofs for it. Look for it in the remaining Single Week of the Prophecy diftinftly fpoken of afterwards : Which moft rationally, and I think unexceptionable approves it felf the Seventieth^eek thereof upon this twofold Account, viz. Firft, Whereas the Angel had given the general Number of the Weeks of this Prophecy in the Introduction of it, as a Prophecy exprefsly of Seventy Weeks, he then prefently after goes into the Particulars of the Septenaries of Years here predicted, as they confifted of feveral Parts, or Periods: And to this end he immediately calls upon the Prophet for his Attention. Accordingly, He gives him the Particulars firft of a Period of Seven Weeks, then of another Period of Sixty and two Weeks: Which diftinctly mentioned Periods of Weeks are beyond all Denial Weeks particular of the Seventy general Weeks, as Particulars of an Univerfal. . When the Angel had done with thofe two Periods of this Prophecy, He afterwards tells the Prophet exprefsly of another of One Week only, diftinguilhing that more immediately in the Half Part thereof. Now 46 A LETTER tathe Now in a rational, and natural Conftruftion of the Prophecy in the Periods thus exprefsly and particularly here given, What can this remaining Week be poffibly other than the Seventieth Week of it ? For if the particulariz’d /even Weeks, and threescore and two Weeks be Weeks undeniably Parts of Seventy Weeks, Confequently, with aU Reafon the jingle Week remains equally a Part, undeniably alfo of Seventy Weeks. Otherwife why fhould they be fo, and not this ? *—— For the fame Reafon that they are Parts of the Whole, fo is this alfo. Nor do they make up the whole without this alfo. But altogether, or /even Weeks and threescore and two Weeks, and one Week put together make up the whole Seventy Weeks of this Pro* phecy. The Prophecy therefore both in the general Number exprefs, and in the particular Numbers alfo exprefs being a Prophecy only of Seventy Weeks, Confequently the faid Single Week necefla-rily remains the Seventieth Week of it. — 4$ it appears to be alfo Secondly, in its exprefs Characters feparating it from any immediate Accompliffiment by the. Meffiab, and evidently relating to the Deftruftion of Jerufalem by the Romans in their plain, and familiar Senfe, and in the natural Conftruftion of the Context directly pointing out them, as the Mefliab’s fqture People, the Party immediately appointed to accomplifh the here predicted De* ftryfiion of Jerufalem, and therein alfo to ac~ GQtnplifli the threefold predicted Events of this Single Week. And accordingly they did actually fulfill thofe feyeral Events, as I have diftinftly* and plainly fh^wn in my Treatife । to which I immediately Reverend Mr. Lancafter. 47 mediately refer for Particulars : to none of which you have thought fit to reply. You have indeed put a few Queftions in what follows under this "Remark. But thofe I leave to their proper Places. Therefore at prefent to go on here, the Single Week of this Prophecy thus evidently approving it felf the Seventieth Week thereof, or the Laft Week of the three Periods of Weeks in it, as being the very Week deftru&ive of Jerufalem^ Confequently the Ending of the faid Week cannot be fought for any where but in the final, and aftual Deftrudtion of Jerufalem. That we know was in the Year of the V. IE. of Chrift 70. ’Tis eafy to look upwards feven Years; and fo weare brought into the Year of the V. IE. of Chrift 63 ; when was the Caufe initial of that Deftrudion: the Romans then making a Covenant^ and even a firm Covenant^ for fo it was, with many of their Enemies in that Year, as it is particularly fhewn in the "Treatife referred to ; whereby they became more at leifure to fulfill the Work of God, which he had now for them to do within this predicted Week, or tenary of Years. Thus therefore in the Year of the V. 2E. of Chrift 63, now and not poflibly before lwe come into prophetick Slime again. We had before the prophetick Succeftion of 69 Weeks, or Septenaries of Years. We have now one other additional Week, or Septenary of Years, thus in the whole the exprefsly given Number of Seventy Weeks in this Prophecy. Confequently Your remarked Interval between the Bifhop*s Ending of the 6cftb Week, and his Beginning of the yoth hath nothing to do in this Prophecy. For the Reafons now given it is not Pro? phetickHme. Your 48 A LETTER to the Your Addition of Weeks therefore to thd Bifhop’s Hypothefis from that Interval is without Foundation. —■ And fo, Upon the whole the faid Hypothefis being thusjuftified by the Prophecy it felf, it is clear’d of your objected Unreafonablenefs* and Ab-fur di ty in this Part of it: And it fell remains an Hypothefis of Seventy Weeks* and of no more poffi-bly than Seventy Weeks* the very Number of Weeks exprefsly determined in this Prophecy both in theg£~ neral* and particular Numbers of it,as above fliewm —....And having faid thus much upon this Oc- cafion, I have in fome meafure prevented thofe Queftions which you have raifed prefently after, upon your having noted from my Treatife, That whereas in Defence of this Difcontinuance of Reckoning in the feventietb Week* I have called it varioufly, A jingle Week; An odd JTingleWeek** A Week feparate from the reft; A Week in Reckoning difcontinued from the reft * and once I think occafi-onally A Detach'd Week* —- — You have thereupon put One Queftion here, introducing it by way of pleafing Admiration — An odd Kind of Week this! — And then you interrogate with immediate refpeft to the word---detach'd--- But* pray Sir* from whence was it detached* or by whom ? -■ — Alas, Sir, You might as well have ask’d me,— From whence was the Prophecy, and by whom ?— -------But I anfwer, the Angel who by God’s immediate Appointment gave the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, he alfo detach'd this Week from the other fixty nine Weeks: Or, if you want the Word to be explained, he feparated it from hav-ing any Succejfwn of Time with them. And however, in a kind of ludicrous Difpofi-tion You admire it —— as an odd Kind of Week.— by Reverend Mr. Lancaften 4$ by your own Addition of the Word Kind here, as you thus exprefs your felf, becaufe I may, and I think, not improperly have call’d it, as above, an oddfingleWeek* Yet when you are ferioufly difpo-fed, as indeed in Things facred we fhould ever be* I pray you to confider that the Angel hath made it fo in the Senfe, in which it is fo fpoken of, for the plain Reafons but now given from the Prophecy it felf. In which Senfe therefore it fo remains. — ■■ ■- ------- You go on to put Another Queftion here, as you ask- How can a Week* according to the late Pifhop* commencing above four Weeks* and three Years after the Ending of the 69th Week.* be the feventieth Week of a Prophecy in which 70 'Weeks only are determined* and together mentioned* as conjointly determined upon the Jews, and Jerufalem ? ----- I anfwer,-------- very eafily, and very rationally. Becaufe, However feventy Weeks be together mentioned^ and conjointly determined in the Intro-*' duftion of the Prophecy, Yet they are there de* termined only at large: they are there conjointly fpoken oj only in general* both as to the Perfons mentioned, and the Purpofes alfo mentioned. But it doth not therefore follow that becaufe feventy Weeks are thus, or in this refpecft only conjointly fpoken of* that therefore the Seventieth Week was to have conjoined Accomplijhment with the 69 Weeks. For out of doubt, Seventy Weeks may very rationally be conceived as fpoken of conjointly in the general Number, and yet poffibly by particular* or dijtinbt Periods they may be feparated from each other. As is the very Cafe in this Prophecy, as it hath been diftin&ly ihewn above- G * " But jo A LETTER to the But, Whereas I have farther infifted in my Treatife.) as I have, and do here alfo, in favour of fuch neceflary Separation, or Diftance of the fe-ventiethffieek from the fixty ninth JFeek* that it is fo feparated by its EXPRESS CHARACTERS, becaufe by thofe Characters it appears immediately determined upon Jerusalem for her Deftruftion, You have here alfo objefted, As, by your own Account it feems, You are to learn where thofe exprefs Characters are to be found. I reply with Concern, that this I cannot help.-— However that furely is no Ground for Objection. You may learn thofe Charafters, if you pleafe, from the Prophecy. I have alfo fully, and diftiftinftly noted them in my Treatife. But for your fake, I will briefly note again the following Particulars. Firft* That there are three Exprefs Characters of this Week, viz. i ft, The making a firm Covenant with many. 2dly, The caufing of facrifice and Oblation to ceafe* and gdly, The Abomination of Deflation to ft and in the holy Place. Secondly., That they are all to be taken in a literal Senfts And Thirdly) That the Party predicted to accom-plilh thefe Events is plainly not the Mefiiah himfelf, but the Meffiah’s future People the Romans* and that sft* Becaufe not He, but they are the next preceding Relative here: and idly* He could not poflibly fulfill them all. For however in a figurative Senfe appropriated to him, he might fulfill the two former, Yet he could, not poflibly fulfill the laft of thofe Events, as that is in no fenfe applicable to him. But all of them sye together predicted for Accomplifhment in One* ' ’ and Reverend Mr. Lancaften ji ’ itid the fame Week* or within one given Period of fiven Tears. And the two laft of them are conjointly mentioned, or immediately fpoken of together in the Text. And fo the Greek Verfion, and the Vulg. Lat. and the Arabick Verfion plainly underftood them. And therefore that is to no manner of purpofe, as you have- faid foon after, that you could offer feme probable Arguments to confirm your figurative Explanation in your EJfay for the Words, * He (hall make a firm Covenant with many in One fffeeky and in Half of that Week beJhalLcaufe facri-crifice, and Oblation to ceafe ■ ■— (which Words you fay, I fo much infift on; and you rightly fay fo, for I do fo infift ;)---but, as it fo feems by your own telling, You referve thofe probable Arguments for the Defence you intend to publijh. And be it fo. - -.- — But give me Leave to tell you, that where-ever you offer thofe probable Arguments, they can be of no manner of Service to you, Unlefs you take the Prophecy in thefe Particulars of it alfo, as elfewhere in a literalfenfe; and withal, as I do farther infift that together with thofe Words —------of caufingfacrifice, and Oblation to ceafe —> You take along with them thofe other Words immediately conjoined with them, viz. . ■the Abomination of Deflation to ftand in the Holy-place: — to which Words our Lord himfelf folemnly, and exprefsly hath referred, as the Token certain of the inevitable Deftruftion of the Jewifh Oeconomy, when I that Event Ihould be actually accompliftied: which Words you have hitherto dropped in this Part of your Hypothefis. ■ — And as you have thus neglefted an effential Part of the Prophecy in the feventieth Week of it, it is no wonder that G 2 you W LETTER to the. you.are at a lofs to learn the exprefs Characters of the faidfeventietb Week; —-—— Nor is that any Argument whichyou have immediately given here, why you fliould not have yet learned thofe exprefs Characters* 'as you have laid¹ down the following Propofition in order to exclude thofe Events from having Relation to the Seventieth Week of this Prophecy, viz. That the Prophecy is exprefs that the 70 Weeks were determined upon the Jews, and Jerufalem for no other than the following Purpofes ; viz. to finifb: ^Cranfgreffion* to make an end of Sin, and the reft, of them, as they are mentioned in the 24th Verfe pf it :------- For the Propofition is not true. —— I deny, that 7'0 Weeks were determined upoii ferufalem for no other than thefe Purpofes. f Becaufe, tho’ the Prophecy be exprefs that feventy Weeks were determined upon the Jews, and¹ Jerufalem, for thofe Purpofes* yet that Number of Weeks is not determined immediately for thofe Purpofes, nor for thofe Purpofes only. Firft* Not immediately for thofe Purpofes. < For how are Seventy Weeks here determined ?-* no otherwife than in the Introduction of the Prophecy : no otherwife Confequently in that Num* ber pf them? than, as I have above noted; in genera}. Determination. Seventy Weeks were therefore only generally determined for thofe purpofes. And confelfedly thofe Purpofes were accom-plifhable by the Meffiah. But, as it hath appear-cdj only, Sixty nine Weeks, or Septenaries of Years were determined immediately upon him, Confequently Sixty nine only pf Seventy general Weeks, apd not the whole Seventy Weeks were immediately deterppiped for thofe Purpofes.--— Kpp Secondly^ Reverend Mr. Lancaflcn Secondly, Were Seventy Weeks determined in, this Prophecy for no other than thofe Purpofes. Beeaufe ift', The Prophecy is exprefs that Seventy Weeks were determined upon the Jews and Jerufalem, as well as for thofe Purpofes. But thofe Purpofes in their Accomplifement centring only in the Mef-ft ah, confequently Seventy Weeks were determined for other Purpofes alfo immediately relating to the^wj, anA'Jerufalem. And idly, The Prophecy feews it in its Particulars* or in its exprefs t)iftinftion of Periods of Seven Weeks; and tbreefcoire and two Weeks; and one Week. For undoubtedly the Reafon of dividing the general Number of Seventy Weeks into three diftinff Periods of Weeks could be no other than that of their having particular Events, or Purpofes relating immediately to them. Every Period was determined, or appointed by God upon the Parties, and for the Purpofes concerned immediately with their refpeftive Periods, as much as were feventy Weeks in general. And confequently every Period could not but have its particular, and immediate Purpofe of, and for Accomplife-ment. The middle Divifion is here immediately appropriated to the Time, and Purpofes of the Mef-Jiah. The firft* and laft of courfe remain to the Jews, and Jerufalem. The former for her predicted Reftoration in the Purpofes of the rebuilding of the Wall and Streets of Jerufalem ; and alfo of the going forth of a Commandment exprefsly for that Purpofe. The Latter, (as fee feould prove a City which would not fee the Things belonging unto her Peace,) for her final Deft ruction > in the exprefsly predicted Purpofes si rA LETTER to the Purpofes thereof, mediately, or immediately exe* cutive of that Deftruftiori, as above. I fee not therefore how you could exclude thefe from being Pnrpofes of the Seventy Weeks \ as it is plain you have in the Propofition before us. But you might as well affirm that thefe diftinftly mentioned Periods of Seven Weeks,* and One Week were not Parts? or Weeks particular of Seventy general Weeks, as much as the Sixty two Weeks Prophecy are fo. You have indeed affirm’d it of the Latter, or the one Week, that it is not fo. But will you deny it alfo of the feven Weeks ? —...—■ .. Surely You will riot. I conclude therefore that if feven Weeks, and fixty two Weeks are fo, confequently fo is the One Week*alfo. But zzZ/have their refpe&ive Purpofes, as above, which are other Purpofes than thofe only included in your Propofition: ■ — ■ Confequently the faid Propofition is not true, that feventy Weeks were determined for no other Purpofes. < There cannot therefore be any true Conclufion from it. And therefore, However you have gone on to argue from thofe Events, or Purpofes, that Even* by my own * Paraphrafe on ‘them they received their' Completion a considerable Time before my feventieth Week began* Yet, that doth not follow, as you have here concluded, viz. That the DeftruElion of Jerufalem was an Event* or Purpofe* with which the feventieth Week in the Prophecy was no otberwife concerned* than as the Death of the Meffiah in that Week was the Occafion of that Definition , Becaufe, Reverend Mr. Lancaften Jf Becaufe, Tho’ thofe Events did receive their Completion in the Meffiah* yet they received it not ip the feven-tieth Week of the Prophecy, he having not to do with a feventietb Week* or Septenary of Years* as it hath appeared above. And however the Death of the Mejfiah were the Occasion of the Deftruftion of Jerufalem* which I moft readily grant you, Yet the Death of the Meffiah not being in any given feptenary of Years* and therefore not in the feventietb Week* Confequently, the DeftruiHon of Jerufalem ftill remained an Event* or Purpofe immediately to the Seventieth Week of it. And therefore this Event being thus neceffarily concern’d with that Week* it appears to be an Event* or Purpofe* with which the feventietb Week in the Prophecy was otherwife concerned than you would have it to be: Even as the DeftruEtion of Jerufalem, and not the Death of Chrift was the Event immediately concern’d with it. — And therefore that alfo is without Ground, that you have told us afterwards of this Week of the Deftruftion of Jerufalem* viz. Yhat it was a certain Week which was to commence feveral Years after the feventietb Week was expired. Such Alfertion hath no Foundation in the Prophecy ; Forafmuch as both in the general* and alfo in the particular Numbers of it, as we have feen, it is a Prophecy exprefsly of feventy Weeks* and therefore a Prophecy only of feventy Weeks. It hath doubtlefs none at all in the Reafon you fubjoin for it, viz. That Computation of Yime by Weeks of Years was the moft noted among the Jews, and by them* and no other Nation ufed. . For 5$ A LETTER to the .For, though the Jews did thus reckon, Yet that doth not appear to be truly grounded, which you have faid here that they were the only People that did fo reckon. For if fo, How then cometh it to pafs that Ariftotle [in Polit. Lib. Vil. in fine] hath told us of thofe, who antiently diftinguifhed their Ages by Septenaries, or Weeks of .Tears ? ----For which I may refer you alfo to Cenforinus, in his Book De die natali.--- Or How came it to pafs that Varro alfo according to Aulus Gellius [Lib. 3. c. 10.] at the time of his writing his Book infcrib’d Hebdomades, reckoned his Age after the like manner, as by his own Account he was then enter’d into his twelfth Septenary, or Week of Tears ? i. e. He was then enter’d into his 78 th Year. And to that Day, it feems, he had written feventy Septenaries, or Weeks of Books ; i. e. 490 Books. --------But, Even were the Obfervation true in the whole of it, what is it after all to your purpofe here ?---- It proves nothing one way, or t’other to the point in hand. The Jews might be the only Nation in the World that reckoned thus, as you contend, and yet the Week of the Definition of Jerufalem may ftill be the feventieth Week in the Prophecy, not-withftanding any thing that there is in this Obfervation to the contrary. In truth it is to no manner of Purpofe. Upon the whole therefore, In the late Bifhop’s Hypothefis, the feventietb Week of the Prophecy being thus accounted for, in the Week deftruftive of Jerufalem by the Romans, and the other predicted Periods of feveh Weeks,' and Reverend Mr. Lancaflen 57 -and of thrtefcore and two Weeks, being above accounted for, as having their Beginning certain in the loth Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longi-manus, and, in their conjoined Sum of fixty nine Weeks, their Ending in the Death of the Meffiah in the very next Year after the completion of that thegzw^ number of Weeks of Years, or 483 Years for fuch immediate Event, ♦ It follow s, That thus by the faid Hypothefis the Seventy Weeks of this Prophecy are particularly accounted for: and with your leave, they are fo accounted for, I conceive, in a rational manner. And therefore, If I have with Zeal endeavour'd to obtrude, the faid Hypothefis upon the World, as it feems, by your telling, I have, Yet I hope the World will be fo candid as to pardon me that Zeal. Even Becaufe, as it hath now appeared again of the faid Hypothefis, that However zealous have been on the other hand to explode v it in ex prefs Yerms, both as irrational, and antifcrip-lural,----Yet ftill it remains unfhaken, as being built upon the Foundations both of Reafon, and Scripture.--- ------And therefore I faid of it formerly, and therefore I do fay of it ftill, that it is truly deferring that very great Character, as you are pleas’d to call it, which I have given of it in my Pre-, face, viz. That it appears to be on all accounts in* finitely better than any Hypothefis that ever was yet extant of the Seventy Weeks. •—- '------For fo it truly is in the late Bifliop’s View of the Prophecy, as a Prophecy only of fe^ venty Weeks. —» — I do yet add in favour of the Bifliop’s lure Beginning, and Ending of the fixty nine Weeks H of 5* A LETTER to of the Prophecy, that However did we take it with you, as a Prophecy of /event] one Weeks in the whole of it, and alfo in Your Denomination, and Succeflion of Time by Weeks collectively as Weeks, Yet Even thus the Weeks will ftill date their Beginning, as in the Bifhop’s Hypothefis, from the twentieth Year of Artaxerxes Longima-ms: As in this View of the Prophecy, even as a Prophecy in the whole of /event] one Weeks, as you contend, Yet theftxty ninth Week being end₇ ed in the Bifhop’s Hypothefis in the Year of the V. 7E. of Chrift 32, fas it may be particularly feen in the Calculation in my Chronological Trea-tifej and withal the Meffiab being cut off in the Paffover following of the next Year, or the Year of the V. 7E. of Chrift 33, He will thus according to your felf, be cut off in that Year, as the Year beginning of the Seventieth Week. And fo Your additional Week will of courfe remain to the Deftruftion of Jeru/alem in the faid Hypothefis. — — . ■■ — And thus I am come home with you to Your Conclufion: As by way thereof, You tell me -----— that the truth 0/ your Remarks, which you have now offered to my Con/ideration on the late Bi/hop Lloyd’; Hypothefis 0/ the Seven t] Weeks, en-tirel] depends upon the truth 0/ the following particulars. I, That the number 0/ Tears, from the firft 0/ Cyrus to the DeftruElion 0/ Jerufalem by Titus, is rightly afftgn'd in Ptolomy’; Canon. 2. That our Saviour dy’d in that Tear, which, accprding tn the /aid Canon, was the nineteenth 0/ Tiberius'. 3. That the Word in the Prophecy is rightly tranftated”*- determined--- qnd not —— cut out. Thef$ Reverend Mr. LancafteK 59? Thefe, as you add, are Pojitions with me of un* doubted Verity* Now, As to the two former; I very readily acknow* ledge the late Bifhop’s Hypothefis built upon them, as fuch: As to the Latter ; Tranflate the original Word* either way, as you will* I fee not how it afieds the laid Hypothefis. -------But after all, However thefe Particulars be confefledly true, Yet it doth not follow that therefore Your Remarks are of undoubted Verity alfo. How the truth of your Remarksis depending up* on their truth, I fee not, any farther than they are immediately concerned with thofe truths. And fo far, but no farther are thofe immediate Remarks juftified by thofe Truths. But Your Remarks may be either true, or falfe in other refpefts; tho’ the truth of thofe Pojitions be ftill, and always is the fame. As to your Remarks, I have now gone through every Line of them. .As to the Truth of them, that I leave with your felf, and the World. And fo I need not to add any thing farther at the prefent, than that lam, as fat as you can defire me to be with regard to truth, Sir, Your very Humble Servant, Benj. Marshall. h a a ( 60 ) A LETTER T O Mr. WHISTON SIR, H E R E A S fome time fince youC gave the World an Hypothefis of Daniel’s Weeks, with an alteration of their numbers from what* they are in our common Maforete Copies, and by fnaking the HU ftory of Ezra, and the former part of Nehemiah to belong not, as in thofe Copies to Artaxerxes (Longimanus) King of PerJia, but to his Father Xerxes, in your therefore pro-tfafted 28 Years Reign of that King, upon the Authority of our prefent Jofephus, and more-°¥er5 for the fake of thofe that might fill prefer the common A Letter toW. WHISTON. common Copies, You (a) did declare, that of all the Hypothefes of the Weeks You had hitherto fan, that of the late Bifhop Lloyd, n, without controverfy* the beft; Being now brought again, by Mr. Lancaftefs printed Letter to me, to appear in farther Vindication of the faid Hypothecs ; I take this opportunity, as well in favour of that Hypothefis* in its immediate Beginning of the fixty nine Weeks of the Prophecy, in the twentieth Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus; as alfo in favour of our prefent Copies of Ezra', and Nehemiah, who are exprefs in that King’s Reign in thofe times with which they were immediately concerned, to give you the following Reafons, not to enter farther into particulars, why I cannot allow of your departing either from the faid Hypothefis, or from the faid Copies in that King’s Reign, and in that year thereof, for the fake of your new Hypothefis of the Weeks begun from the twenty fifth of your fuppofed twenty eight Years Reign of Xerxes. And they are . Firft, That not One of all your Teftimonies produced on this occafion, yields you any proof of fuch protrafted Reign of Xerxes, befides that of our prefent Jofepbus. And therefore, Secondly, It is moft unreafonable to fet up his fingle Authority againft our prefent Copies of Ezra, and Nehemiah, particularly in your beginning of the Weeks from a fuppofed twenty fifth Year of the Reign of that King. And Thirdly, That However the Weeks are by you faid to take their Beginning from fuch fuppofed twenty fifth Year of the Reign of Xerxes^ Yet in Supplement to lift Atconrp. P« pi. 6i A LETTER to faft they are hot fo begun. There is not pofli* bly any twenty fifth of that King in the faid Hypothefis. To make good thefe particulars in their or-⁴ der ; Firfi* Not One of all your numerous Tefti-monies gives you ground for fuch protradlecf Reign of Xerxes* as by Jofephus* and your account from him is that of a twenty eight years Reign of that King, excepting only our prefent Copies of the faid Jofephus. For to look a little into thofe Tefti monies s Some of the Authors which you quote on this oc^ cation either fay not, How many Years Xerxes reigned ; and therefore they are quoted to no manner of purpofe ; Or otherwife they fay directly, that he reigned twenty one Years, as Ptolemy in Canon i Or elfe they give us fo to underftand, as do Charon of Lampfacus* and Thucydides* and Cornelius Nepos who follows Thucydides* that the coming of Tbemijlocles after his flight out of Greece not to Xerxes* but to Artaxerxes; and that expresfly according to Plutarch from Charon and Thucydides* after the Death of his Father Xerxes. Which is direftly againft you. But, Even were all that true, which you would have us to believe in this matter, viz. (b) That Plutarch, and others mifunderftood Charon, and Thucydides in this particular* and that Artax* erxes was newly made King Regent (c) in the twelfth year of the Reign of his Father Xerxes* and alfo that Xerxes was living, (d) when Themiftocles came to the Perfian Court, Yet, even all this granted, the Teftimonies of thefe Authors in your own underftanding of (c)f. 7 (J)p. 68. themj Mr. W H I S 7 0 N. 63 diem, yield you no manner of Proof, and are .ndeed quite foreign to your twenty eight Years Reign of Xerxes. Becaufe thefe thus interpreted Teftimonies bring us no farther forwards on the Reign of Xerxes* than his thirteenth : In which (e) Year you place the arrival of themiftocles at the Perfian Court. Therefore all this is nothing at all to your pro-trailed twenty eight Years Reign of Xerxes. Indeed you have in effect argued here after this manner, ♦* Artaxerxes upon thefe teftimonies as now in-*« terpreted was made King Regent in the twelfth of his Father Xerxes ; ** Ergo, his Father Xerxes reigned fix teen years ** longer upon the Authority of thefe teftimonies. Had you indeed been here pleading for a longer ■ reckoning of the Reign of Artaxerxes than that which we have in the Aftronomical Canon* you might in that Cafe have urged thefe your thus interpreted Teftimonies with fome Colour of Reafon : but with refpeit to the Reign of Xerxes* to the proving from hence a twenty eight Years Reign of that King, they are urged without any. ’Tis fo likewife in the Teftimony of Diodorus Siculus* as in effefl you have argued alfo from that Author after this manner, « Diodorus Siculus informs us that Xerxes « < reigned fomewhat above twenty Tears* (f) prgo, He reigned twenty eight Tears by the << teftimony of that Author. You have argued yet ftronger here, as you have told (g) us in the following Words concerning that Author, that Xerxes reigned fomewhat (f) ibid. (/)?• 70, (g) ibid. above 64. A LETTER to above twenty Years, in Agreement with the Aftrono* mical Canon. —---- But furely this Teftimony cannot be urged with any manner of Reafon in Agreement with the Canon, than as it agrees with a twenty one Years Reign of Xerxes ; as he is faid to have reigned Tq many Years in the Canon. . It is plain from the exprefs Teftimony of this Author, that his Agreement with the Canon in the .Reign of Xerxes is not with Jofephus, but with Ptolemy, as above. — You had given us but juft before to as much purpofe the Authority of Ctejias 04 this Oc-cafion. • , For, after that you had told us that Artapanus (or Artabanus') the chief Minifter of Xerxes had contriv'd to murder him,--- You have added in the following Words---that, as Ctefias thought * he did really murder him. —> So th&t Ctefias, by your own Acknowledgment thought thus: [I add, fo alfo agree Diodorus Sicu^ lus, and Juftin--— ] But it feems you do not believe a Word of it. --- To what purpofe then is the Teftimony of Ctefias here ? But, it feems you have infifted much upon certain FaCts, and plain Indications, and evident Signs, as you call (h) them, out of Juftin, fo^ your prqtrafted Reign of Xerxes: as if the Murder of Xerxes: or as you call it only the Attempt of it by Artabanus, and his Defign upon Artaxerxes, which moft probably were only fom© Months alunder, did appear from thofe Signs, and Indications to have been feveral Years afu rider : as you would have them to have been for you? purpofe. (b) j>. 11, Mr. IV h I ST O M. 65 But wh eteas Juftin hath not given us any Dates of Time for thofe Fadis, there is no concluding with any Certainty from them. . Nor can they poffibly be of any manner of Service to you, place them where you will; Becaufe by the fure Authority of the Aftronomer's Canon, the Death of Xerxes cannot be placed later than that Year of Nabonaffar in which it there ftands. And for you to place it earlier makes fo much the more againft you. But as to any longer Reign of Xerxes than that in the Canon, your own Computation of the Years of the Reign of t-hat King in your new Hypothefis of the Weeks admits not of it; but, as it will appear anon, is evidently againft you in any longer than that of a one and twenty Years Reign: notwithftanding the Plainnefs, and Evidence of the and Indications here referred to. There is yet aTeftimony, that next to this from Juftin, You have alfo built much upon : As you have (i) told us from Clemens Alexandrinus, that His Reckoning the Years of the Reign of Xerxes to be twenty fix Years well agrees with Jofephus. But fuch good Agreement, Stis plain, is no more than this, viz. That the Latter hath given Xerxes a Reign of twenty eight Years: the Former only of twenty fix Years. Which is far in Stridtnefs from a good Agreement. It is fo far from it, that any farther than a twenty fix Years Reign of Xerxes, it is plainly a Difagreement. Clemens is Indeed againft Jofephus and you in a twenty eight Years Reign of that King. And indeed the Numbers of Clemens, as well in the Reign of Xerxes, as in the preceding Reign of Darius Hyftafpis, in a forty fix Years Reign attributed to that King, and in his colledtive Number (i) Page 72. I M ₆S A LETTER to of the Years of the Perfian Kings are fo confufed, and disagreeing, that in fuch an Uncertainty of Numbers there is in Truth no rational Foundation for arguing from his Authority to that of Jofe* pbus, even for a twenty fix Years Reign of Xerxes. There is none at all for a twenty eight Years Reign of that King. And thus upon the whole Jofephus Hands alone for fuch protrafted Reign of Xerxes. But Secondly, His fingle Authority is furely not Sufficient for fuch extended Reign of that King. Much lefs is it for your altering our prefent Scripture Numbers of Daniel's Weeks, and our prefent both Numbers and Names in Ezra, and Ne-hemiab^ in your referring that Hiftory with our prelent Jofephus to Xerxes J which according to them exprefsly belongs to his Son Artaxerxes. You indeed have pleaded fk) in favour of fuch Alteration that our prefent Maforete Copies of the Scriptures have undergone a Change by the Jews in a concurrent Meeting of theirs at Tiberias in the Beginning of the fecond Century. But, not to enter into that Difpute, which is entirely needlefs here, it is furely full as likely for the Jews alfo to have corrupted Jofephus voluntarily, and by a concurrent Meeting alfo, as for them fo to have corrupted their Scriptures. Where, or when Jofephus hath been corrupted, I will not take upon me to fay. But that in Faft he hath been miferably corrupted, there is nothing more plain. You your felf have allowed (7) that the Jews have corrupted Jofephus. I fee not therefore how you can urge his Teftimony in any thing againft our prefent Copies of (k) Eflay towards the reftoring the true Text of the Old Tcft. Scriptures, />. 156, and 261. (0 p. 28 and 270. the TA KOMA PARK, WASHINGTON, C. Mr. W H I S T O N. 6₇ the Scriptures, wherein, as he now ftands, he varies from them. EVen beeaufe in thofe very Differences Jofephus poffibly, and not they may have been corrupted.. And therefore indeed not they, but He mutt be given up : and that with the greateft Reafon, particularly in the Times we are now immediately concern’d with. And therefore the late learned Dr. Prideaux (m) hath well obferv’d of his Writings, as we now have them, that they have in them many great, and man feft Miftakes; and no part of them more than the eleventh Book of his Antiquities .‘-Wherein he fays of him moft truly according to our prefent Copies of them, that he varies from Scripture, Hiftory, and common Senfe. And he there among other Inftances to this Purpofe gives this in particular of his confounding the Hiftory of the Artaxerxes of Ezra, and Nehemiah with his Father Xerxes: As upon the fire Authority of the Aftrono-mical Canon, he fays, that Xerxes could not have reigned beyond the twenty one Yea^s given him in that Canon. And that this is the very Truth of this Matter, it will appear undeniably, if from no other, however from your own undoubted Teftimony, be* caufe though you have afferted from Jofephus, that Xerxes reigned twenty eight Years, and however you have therefore fet the twenty fifth of his Reign, upon his Authority alfo, for the going forth of the Commandment to rebuild Jerufalem, your Year faid to be the Beginning of your new Hypothefis of the Weeks, Yet Thirdly, In Facft there is no fuch twenty fifth of Xerxes, nor in Truth any. more than a twenty ty) CqjbHift. Vol. 1. Svo Edit. p. sea, See alfo p.211. I % w A LETTER to one Years Reign of that King in the faid Hypo* pothefis. That this is the real Truth of the Matter, it certainly appears from your own Words, as touching your FIRST Year of the Reign of Xerxes: As Ptolemfs₉ and Yours are confefiedly one, and the fame Firft of that King’s Reign. For in one place of your Book (n) you tell us very truly thus, The great Standard of antient Chronology, which we call the Aftronomical Canon of Ptolemy, ajfures us, that Xerxes’j Firft Year correfponded to the Year of Nabpnaflar’s Aira 263 ; which began A. P. L 4228 ante AEr. Chrifti 486, Dec. 23’; and there-fore correfponded in general to the next Year A. P. I. 4229, ante AEr. Chrifti 485. In another (0) place you have told us likewife, with this Addition, viz. That the Decree of Xerxes for the rebuilding of-Jerufalem by Nehepniah going forth by our Copies in the Month Nifan, and by Jofephus, and the Author of Excerpt. Lat. Barbara, about nine Months before the qth Month Cafleu, in the twenty fifth of Xerxes is to be dated about March A. P. I. 4253 ; ante AEr. Chrift, 461 : and can be dated at no other Time whatsoever, Now, Sir, from what you have faid herewith re-fpeft fo the FIRST Year of the Reign of Xerxes, your late Hypothefis of the Weeks faid tp be dated from the going forth of the Commandment to rebuild Jerufalem in a twenty fifth of Xerxes is evidently talfe. Ana however you have fet fuch a Year as the only Time of the going forth of fuch Com-mandipeiH, or Decree, Yet in faff there is np fuch (?) Supplement tQ the lit. Accomplifhment, p. 67. Pajg'e 74. ’ Mr. V H I ST O N. 69 twenty fifth of Xerxes in the faid Hypothefis. In-deed there cannot be. Becaufe in both thefe Quotations from your felf, the firft Year of the Reign of Xerxes in your own adapted Years of the Julian Period, and before the Vulgar xEra of Chrift, and alfo of Nabo-naffar’s JEra is confeffedly the firft of Xerxes his cne and twenty Years Reign in the Aftronomical Canon. . And Confequently your twenty firft of that King is the fame with the twenty firft of his Reign in the faid Canon. But this is impoffible with refpedt to your twenty eight Years Reign of Xerxes; as Ptolemy’s twenty firft of that King was certainly the laft Year of his Reign. (Otherwife beyond all Difpute Xerxes if he had feigned longer would have had more Yhoths of his Reign; and Confequently feven more Yhoths thereof, if as by your Affertion he reigned [feven Years longer. But by the fure Authority of the Canon, Xerxes was now dead after twenty ©ne Yhoths of his Reign; before another Yhoth ♦came about. And Confequently the laft fevenYears of your imaginary twenty eight Years Reign of that King neceffarily run in upon the feven firft Years of his Son Artaxerxes in the faid Canon, after the JDeath of his Father Xerxes. And therefore furely you were not aware of Confequences here. Otherwife you fhould indeed have taken quite another Method in a twenty eight Years Reign of Xerxes; Even by anticipating, or beginning feven Years earlier than Ptolemy’s firft of Xerxes: that fo his Laft and your laft of that King might have, been one and the fame Laft thereof. For this, as I need not to tell you, is, at leaft pught to be always the Cafe in Agreement with Truth, TO THE Author of the Scheme ef Literal Prophecy considered. SIR, HAT which is the main Subject of the foregoing Letters having merited (as you have (a) told us, a very particular examination from you, (and very particular it is, as we fhall fee anon from your own Hypothefis of the Weeks obtruded upon the World, with a Defign to evade this Prophecy of Daniel fo clearly and literally applicable as it is to the Chriftian's MESSIAS JESUS, even the Son of God, our ever blefled Lord, (4) Scheme of Literal fro^hecy confider’d, p. 175. 2nd I A LETTER fl 0/Literal Prophecy confider’d 75 and Saviour,) I cannot but even for your fake, at Jeaft for your Reader’s fake, endeavour to fliew in the following Letter, how vainly you have talkt to him of confuting (b) a literal Prophecy from hence; and to how very little purpofe you have been engag’d in the groundlefs and prefumptuous Undertaking. My Defign therefore in this Letter is to fhew you that your Hypothefis of the Weeks makes not at all againft this Prophecy its having in its obvious, primary, and literal Senfe an immediate relation co that, which in the late learned Bilhop Lloyd’s Hypothefis of the Weeks is the grand purpofe of it, viz. the Death of the Mejfias, our bleffed Redeemer. Forafmuch as upon particular enquiry made into your Hypothefis, this Prophecy in the Meffias therein expresfly predicted will be found to have no manner of relation to your feveral pretended Meffiaffes, nor to any interpreted Meffias under the Perfian, or Grecian, or Syrian Kings, nor particularly in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, to whofe Perfon and Times you would fain accommodate this Prophecy, and ihut it up with them. And Confequently the faid Prophecy muft, and will remain neceffarily to the true Meffias only of the Chriftians, who was born King of the Jews in the Reign of the Roman Emperor Auguftus, and was put to Death under that of Tiberius. —------- The Method that I here propofe to obferve is that of looking into your explication of the Prophecy, in every Verfe thereof in their order, together with your Notes upon it, whereby you pretend to juftify fuch Explication, and allo your Chronology, or Application of time to it j and (*) P< r74* K withal 74- A Letter to the Author of the Scheme withal of noting, and obviating as I go along, fuch Objections as you have occafionally made to the late Bifhop Lloyd's Hypothefis of the Weeks. To begin therefore in the Method propos’d, .The Prophecy opens it felf in the ninth Chapter of Daniel at the twenty fourth Verfe, as in our Tranflation thus, Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People, &c. — ___________. Here you take upon you to correct our Tranflation, and you read, as follows, ⁶⁴ Seventy Weeks are fhortned, or ab-“ breviated with refpeCt to thy Peo-) 2 Mac. iiL r. (q) i Mac. xiii.; 41.- ..—-And it was he, , and his Brethren, find the Houfe of his Bather that eftabli filed Ifraelt-- • and confirmed their Liberty. 1 Mac. xiv. 26. L l^Qth Si A Letter to the Author of the Scheme if at h Year of /^Greeks (r): Which is no lefs than 22 Years, or three Weeks, and one year after the Ending of your Seventieth Week. --------- But, Thirdly No Everlafting Rigbteoufnefs was brought in by Onias^ or even by Simon,, or any" of thofe times.-------The Law however confirm- ed, and eftablifhed during the Seafon of its continuance hath been fince abolilhed; and remains fo to this very Ray : and is moreover fucceeded by Evangelical Rigbteoufnefs, even the only here predicted Rigbteoufnefs of the Gofpel: Which as by this Prophecy it was to be everlafting, fo it hath accordingly continued ; and it will continue to the World’s end : Even notwithftanding your mighty Efforts to exterminate it. Nor muft I omit here to note that Father Har-duin hath faid as much of the Rigbteoufnefs here predicted to be eftablifhed: Which However he doth in a miftaken primary Senfe refer to the times (s) above mentioned, Yet he adds withal, that this was a Type of that Univerfal Righteoufnefc which was to be brought in by the Meffias. You fhould not therefore have been fo unjuft to that Author, and to your Reader alfo, as not to have given this a Place in your Note here.------ —— But to go on.---------- The next predicted Purpofe\sy as in our Tran-flation, to feal up Pifion, and Prophecy: which you render thus, viz. to fulfill Prophecy. —« ------- Be it fo.---------And What, or How was that ?---------------- (r) Viz. In the Year before the V. JE. of Chrift 145. (s) From 2 Mac. iii. 1. Harduin Chron, Vet. Teft. Pari# Edit. 4to. fag, 1^6. It of Literal Prophecy confider'd. 8 3 It was by your Account (/) to fulfill Jeremiah*! Prophecy^ Chapters xxv and xxix; that is, to fulfill a Prophecy, with which we have not any thing to do here, either in Prediction, or Aq-complifhment: As I have already noted in part j and as it will be fliewn more fully under the next Verfe, where it properly comes under Confidera-tion. And fo I pafs on to The laft here predicted Purpofet And that is in our Verfion to anoint the moft Holy ; which Words you explain as follows, viz. to Anoint the Holy of Holies, or fet up a High-Prieft, and temple Worfhip. -------- And thus this Prophetick Purpofe is by you arbitrarily fhifted away from our Meffias, though without any manner of Proof, or Reafon given for your Glofs here put upon it. We are indeed according to Cuftom fent to Authors here, (u) viz. tvSir John Marfham, and Harduin. But as to the former, He hath not given fo much as one Reafon, any more than you your felf have, why the Original Word here which we render the moft Holy, fhould not remain as by us applied immediately, and folely to our Meffias. And As to the Latter, you have bafely wronged both him, and your Reader here, as Harduin un-derftands not the Words with you; neither in Jetting up a Temple-Wo'rfhip, nor otherwife by applying them abfolutely, and wholly, as you do afterwards in Verfe 26 to Onias the High-Prieft. Indeed Harduin afferts the direCt contrary in many places of his Book, as However he doth apply typically and fecondarily to Onias, yet he is (/) In Not. Number 191, p. 176. («) Z»Not. number 192. L .2 exprefs $ 4 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme exprefs in it, that this prophetick Purpofe doth diredly, and principally regard Jefus Chrift the Meffias: as it is plain from the Quotations in the underwritten (w) Note, ■------- -------From the Purpofes of this Prophecy I now pafs on to the main Body, or Subftance of it, which you have equally abufed, and mif* applied. And here we read, as in Verfe 25, In our Verfion thus. , Know therefore and Underftand that from the going forth of the Commandment to reftore* and build Jerufalem unto Meffias the Prince fhall he feven Weeks.) and three-feore and two Weeks : the Street jhall be built again, and the Wall even in troublous times. In your Explication* as follows* Know therefore, “ turn from Captivity, “ and a rebuilding fe-“ rufalem unto a Prince For zdly* However it be afferted by you, that this laft Event was accomplifhed in the Perfon of Onias the High-Prieft, as you make him to be cut off after fixty two Weeks, and fo in this refpeft you make him the Meffias in this Part of the Prophecy, yet that this is without Ground, as the faid Pro-phetick Event was not fulfilled in him, it is certain, Firft, Beeaufe however he was put to Death after fixty two Weeks in your Hypothefis, yet that is no otherwife than by your abbreviated Reckoning of this Period of Weeks immediately from the gai/zg forth of your interpreted Commandment'. But fuch abbreviated Reckoning is merely arbitrary, and (ri) groundlefs. Secondly* (n) You have indeed (in Note 195 of your Book) endeaf-y cur’d to juftify your abbreviated Reckoning of the fecond Period $6 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme Secondly^ Were the faid Reckoning juftifiable, yet it takes its Date from the going for th of a Com-mandment* Period of this Prophecy, as you reckon 61 Weeks by them-felves, or apart from the firft Period of 7 Weeks, both from Father Harduin, and Mr. Mede. —-----But as to the for- mer, he hath argued chiefly ex Hypothefi in all that he hath faid on this Occafionj as he hath argued from his (and your) interpreted Commandment to his (and your) feveral Mef-fiafles. ----- And as to what he hath faid immediately againft a Succeflion of Weeks here, becaufe they are divided into 7 Weeks, and 61 Weeks, as he hath therefore told us, that none when they fpeak of 69 fucceflive Weeks would thus divide them, as none (continues he) when they mean fuch a thing (hall be done in 9 Tears, fay it fhall be done in 2 Years, and 7 Tears, this is very fallacious, and merely begging the Queftion here. Becaufe not one Single Event, but Confef-fedly two Events are meant under the two feveral Periods of 7 Weeks, and 62 Weeks. For fo it follows immediately in that Author’s firft Aflertion, viz. that each Partition of Weeks ought to have its fingular Event.------ It is what is allowed: But it doth not therefore follow according to that Author’s Aflertion in what he hath immediately added, viz. that it ought to have its particular Mefliafles alfo. ■ — This is faid without Ground,.----— And in facft the pre- tended Mejfiaffes of both Periods in that Author’s Hypothefis, and Yours, were not Mefliafles to the Jews at the end of thofe refpedive Periods, (as is particularly fliewn in the foregoing Note, and) as they ought to have been, at leaft in your SENSE of their being fo, in order to approve even their pretended Agreement with the Prophecy in thefe Particulars of it —-— And As to what you have pleaded here alfo from Mr. Mede, as you fay that he hath dejlroyed a Contiuation of Time for 69 Weeks, this is aliening more than he hath done* For how hath he deftrdyed it ? no otherwife than by his reckoning only 62 Weeks from the going forth of his interpreted Commandment, without any reckoning at all of the preceding 7 Weeks-, as he took the original Word which we render 7 Weeks, to denote only fevens of Weeks: and therefore he render’d this part of the Prophecy, as follows, viz. Unto the Medias fhall be fevens of Weeks, even 6% Weeks.------Butthat modeft and judicious Author how- ever of this Opinion, yet he did not take upon himfelf in your Language to deflroy a Continuation of Reckoning of <•9 Weefo in this Prpphecy* but he hath left it to the Ltarne4 of Literal Prophecy consider'd. 97 mandment, with which, as it hath appeared, we have not to do in this Prophecy. And thirdly y Your Meffias Onias was not cut off^ as the Meffias of this Prophecy was to be cut off, in the important {0) Signification of the original Word here; as it denotes a cutting off judicially ₉ or by judicial Sentence,------. But fo Onias was not cut off. He was not brought to his Death by any judicial Sentence patted upon him: but he was taken off in a fudden and clandeftine manner. In plain Terms he was ire acker oujly murdered^ as wc are exprefsly informed (/>) concerning his- Death. He was not therefore the Meffias of this Prophecy, as it is pretended in this refpedt-------------— Nor is this pretended of the two former. And it hath appeared both of him, and them, that not Learned to conlider what he hath offered on this Oc-cafion. --------- Nor after all, hath he given Encou- ragement by his own Hypothefis of the Weeks herein to follow him. The Event doth by no' means anfwer even his way in applying only 61 Weeks to the Meffias of the Chriftians > which you rejedt here: as you have not followed Mr. Mede either in his Beginning, or Ending of 62 Wee^s_______And tho’ you reckon only fo many Weeks together, Yet as it hath been (hewn, neither is your Beginning, nor Ending of them correfponding with the Prophecy. f0) —:—— The original Word here is » Upon which there is the following Note in my Chronological Treaᵣ Ufe on the Weeks; which as you have overlook’d, I therefore tranfcribe hither; viz. that it fignifies to be cut off judicially, either by Mans Judgment, or by the Judgment of God. The learned Jiws may find that the Word ITO-J fignifieth fo in forty places of their Scriptures. And it is never jifed otherwife in fpeaking of a Perfon affirmatively, as it is here in this Prophecy. That- our bleffed Saviour was cut off" judicially both ways, fee it particularly (hewn ib\ •---- I add here of your pretended-Meffias Onias, that he* was not fo cut off in either refpeft.--- (p) i. Mac.xN. 33, &c. —. And tho’as you note (p. from Harduin, and both of you from the Text) that he was taken off by an unjuft Death, yet that is nothing to the purpofe here, as it appears from the foregoing Note, N Anv 9 8 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme Any of them were fo in any other refpedts. Con-. fequently they were none of them the Meffias of this Prophecy.------And Confequently alfo Da- niel's predicted Meffias remains to the Meffias of the Chriftians, who punctually, and exaftly accomplished the feveral Events by him to be accomplished as the Meffias of this Prophecy either in his own Perfon immediately, as the Meffias to be cut off; or otherwife by his People; as in what follows in the latter part of the Verfe now before us; wherein he who in the former Part of it is called the Meffias, and in the Verfe immediately foregoing Meffias the Prince, is again fpoken of as the Prince: which we now come next to consider in your unwarrantable expounding away of this part of the Verfe alfo from him the faid Meffias of it.----The latter part of the faid Verfe is as follows, In our Text. (26.) And the People of the Prince that fhall come fhall dejlroy the City, and the Sanctuary : and the end thereof (hall be ‘with a Flood; and unto the end of the War Def lations are determined. In Explication thus. And the Army of the Prince that fhall come, that is the Army of Antiochus Epiphanes Shall lay wafte the City and Temple,and overwhelm all things by their Numbers, and like an Inundation : and to the end of the War Defolations are determined.----- , -..- Now here we have a Prince exprefsly fpoken of. This Prince we fay was (nor could he be in plain, natural understanding of the Context any other than) the Meffias the Prince before fpoken of j even one and the fame Meffias, one and. of Literal Prophecy confiderd. 99 and the fame Meffias the Prince fpoken of throughout. -----— - — But fay you, No.------------c< The Prince . 188. Year of Literal Prophecy cowjidefd. ioi Year before the V. AL of Chrift 165 : which Year was the fecond of fudas Maccabaus, wherein he cleanfed the Sanftuary* and reftored the daily Wor-fhip. Your Middle of this LaftWeek ff) is the 145th Year of the Grecians, to which is correfponding the Year before the V. AL of Chrift 168. Your Beginning of the Laft Week, or firft Year of it Confequently is the Year of the Greeks 142$ to which is correfponding the Year before the V. AL of Chrift 171. ~_ Put thefe Particulars together;--- And your Hypothefis in this part of it will ftand thus, viz. “ In the LAST WEEK, the firft Tear where-“of was the Tear before the V. of thrift 171, Antiochus Epiphanesfhall allow the “ Jews to keep the Covenant made with their “ Fathers * or to perform their Worjhip; — -“ But in the midft of that Week, viz. in the “ Tear before the V. AL of Chrift 168,, He “ fhall not allow them to do fo: for then he “ fhall caufe their Sacrifices^ and Oblations “ to ceafe.-----That is in plain Terms, “ Antiochus Epiphanes fhall) and he (hall .not “ confirm the Covenant with Many for, or “ in One Week. Now what is this but Contradiction in Terms ?— The Prophecy fpeaketh exprefsly of the Party here, predicted to confirm the Covenant, that he fhould confirm the faid Covenant for, or in One Week, even in the exprefsly mention’d Time of one Week.-------- But your Party here concerned, viz. Antiochus Epiphanes broke the Covenant con-feffedly in the midft thereof. —• How then did he confirm it for, or in the given prophetick Space of Time of one Week ? —. (f) In the laft Note of Page 185. ib. Nof 102 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme Nor have you made it to appear that this pre* tended Accomplilhment of this Part of the Prophecy by Antiochus Epiphanes was matter of faft in it felf; or that the faid Antiochus did allow the Jews to keep the Covenant made with their Fathers by any folemnn Covenant made with them to that end. ——* To fay only that he allowed the Jews to keep the Covenant made with their Fathers comes not up to the Prophetick (t) Phrafe here, which imports the aftual making of a firm Covenant with many for, or in one Week. —- ■ Now take the whole Hiftory of Antiochus Epiphanes, as it relates to the Jews, from the Beginning to the End of it, and fettle a Week of Years if you can, wherein the faid Antiochus confirmed or made a firm Covenant with the Jews, even in your Senfe of the predifted Covenant.------ Sir John Marlham, and you have varioufly af-ferted this of Antiochus his Reign. He of the firft feven Years of it: You of the laft feven Years of it. Neither of you with any Ground for either. Not Sir John Marfham for his. For, to look into the Hiftory of Antiochus Epiphanes, He was no fooner fettled in his Kingdom, [in the Year of the Greeks 138, and in the Year before the V. Ai. of Cbrift 175,] but being follicited by Jafon to deprive the then lawful and rightful High-Prieft of the Jews (v) and to put him into his place, he was prevailed on accordingly. He was alfo wrought upon by a farther (?) Ue (hall make a firm Covenant cometh much nearer to the original Word which is in Hiphil: Which Conjugation denotes Intenfenefs of Aftion, or the doing of a thipg with more than ordinary Vehemence, or Earneflnefs. Of the Cove* nant here predicted fee Chron. Effay oh the Weeksi p. 265. (v) Onias the Thir$. Bribe of Literal Prophecy confidefd. 103 Bribe from the faid Jafon to give Licence to him to fet up at Jerufalem the holy City a Gymnafium, and an Ephebeum : the one a Place of Exercije* the other for the training up of Youth according to the Ufage, and Fafhion of the Greeks (uf Hence Foundation was laid for the Jews their apoftatizing from the Religion, and Ufages of their Forefathers, and for corf owning themfelves to the Manners, Cufioms, and Rights of the Heathens. And fo it hapned (w) accordingly. And thereby in the Words of our late learned Dr. Pride aux (x) it came to pafs that all thofe Privileges, which at the Sollicitation of John the Father of Eupolemus wer* by fpecial Favour obtained of King Seleucus Philopator for the fecuring of the Observance of the Jewifh Law in Judah, and Jerufalem were all overborn, and taken away. Thus what was done in this Year by Antiochus Epiphanes had a direft Tendency in it to deftroy the Religion andWbrfhip of the Jems, not to confirm, or efiablifh it. --------In the next Year the faid Creature of Antiochus Epiphanes, this Apoftate Jafon introduced Heathen Rites into Jerufalem, and alfo fent Offerings to Hercules at Tyre. Here was confirming in Heathenifm: but nothing done towards confirming the Jews Religion, and Worfhip. — In the Year following, which was the third of Antiochus Epiphanes, the faid Antiochus in his Progrefs to Egypt, came to Jerufafem, and was much careffed by the Apoftate Jafon (y), and the Jews. But nothing that we know of, was («) 2Mac.1v. 9. (w) SeePrz/L Con.Hift.Vol. IL p. fute. (x) lb. (y) 2 Mac iv, 22, done 104 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme done in favour of their Religion, or Wor-ihip. —— In the fourth of Antiochus Epiphanes for filthy Lucre, he depofed theApoftateJ^#, and gave the Priefthood to Menelaus Brother of Jafon, and Onias. And the faid Menelaus run as far into the Ways, and Religion of the Greeks, as before had his Brother Jafon. For it feems fz) this7^/o« having a Party in Jerufalem fo ftrong, as that they would not admit Menelaus, thereupon the faid Menelaus with his Friends fled to Antioch: and declaring that they would no longer obferve their Country Laws, and Inftitutions, but would go over to the RELIGION of the KING, and the WORSHIP of the GREEKS, this fo far gained them the Favour of Antiochus that he fent them back affifted with fuch a Power, as Jafon could not refift. And fo Menelaus being poflefled of his Office, he thereupon proceeded to make good all that he, and his Party had declared at Antioch by APOSTATIZING from the Law of Mofes to the Religion of the Greeks^ and all other their Rites, and Ufages: and drawing as many others after him into the faid Impiety, as he was able. So that thus all Encouragement that could be was given to Apoftacy ; but none at all to countenance and confirm the Jews Religion, and Wir-fhip. ---------- In the fifth of Antiochus Epiphanes his Reign we have nothing one way, or other of him, as to our prefent Enquiry. ---- But --------In the fixth Year thereof, after Antiochus his Conqueft of Egypt, while he was there, upon (t) See Prideaux Con. Hift. Vol. IL p. ifo from 5k/. Ant. lib. xii. c. 6. and 2 Mac. iv. a falfe of Literal Prophecy confiderd. 105 a falfe Rumour having been fpread through Palestine of his Death, and upon Jafon his having again attempted the Priefthood, and taken Jerufalem* and drove Menelaus out of the City, An-tiochus hearing of this, and fuppoling that the whole JewiJh Nation had revolted from him, he therefore marched out of Egypt into Ju dee a (a): and. being told by the way that the People of Jerufalem made great Rejoicings at the News which came' to them of his Death, he being much efiraged thereat laid Siege to Jerufalem., and took the City by Force (J), arid flew of the Inhabitants in three Days time forty thoufand Per fons : as many more he took Captives, arid fold them for Slaves. ------------ -------So far was Antiochus from confirming the Covenant of their Fathers with the Jews in this' Week* that thus in Fail in this the fixth Year of it he fent many of them after their Fathers to the Grave: and others he deprived not only of their Religion* but alfo of their common Liberty. •---And not content with what he did of this nature, He impioufly forced himfelf into the Temple* and entered into the inner and moft f acred Recejfes of it, polluting by his Preferice both the Holy Place* and alfo the Holy of Holies: the wicked Traitour Menelaus being his Coriducftor into both. And to offer the greater Indignity to this facred Place* arid to affront in the higheft mariner he was; able the RELIGION whereby God \vas wot (hipped in it, he facrificed a great Sow upon the Altar of Burnt-Offerings* and Broth being by his Command made with fome part of the Flefh, he Caufed it to be fpririkled ail ovef the' Temple for the utmoft (4) Frideaux Con.Hift. Vol H. p. 167 from and the Books of the Maccabees', &c. (b). lb in Note, (zj—* lo6 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme defiling of it. And after this, having facrilegi-oufly plunder’d it, by taking thence the Altar of Incenfe, the Shew-Bread Table, the Candleftick of feven Branches that flood in the Holy-Place, which were all of Gold, and feveral other golden Vef-fels, Utenfils, and Donatives of fornfer Kings to. the Value of eighteen hundred Talents of Gold^ and having made the like Plunder in the City, he returned to Antioch, carrying thither with him the Spoils of Judaea, as well as of Egypt (c). ——- This as before noted is. the fixtb Year of Antiochus: [to which is corresponding the Year before the V. JE. of Chrifi 170]. It is Consequently the fixtb Year of Sir John Mar (hands one Week; As he makes the firft feven Years of Antiochus hjs Reign the Prophetick Week of confirming the Covenant with many therein. —_ But how coujd Sir John Marfham give Us fuch an Hypothefis as this of the Propjietjck One Week? -------— -------It hath now appeared that from the very Beginning of Antiochus his Reign, He was not* only carelefs what became of the Religious Rites of the Jews, bur that indeed he did all that he could by Injuftice, Oppreffion, and invading of the Rights of the Priefthood, by Profanation, and Sacrilege to deftroy them. —.....■ Efpecially this appears in this laft mentioned Year ; to the evident confuting his Hypothefis in this part of it. And hence likewife it appears how ground* lefsly you have made the laft feven Years of Antiochus his Reign the One Week of this Prophecy in your Hypothefis: Even as this very Year which (c) lb. Page 168. of Literal Prophecy confiderd. 107 is the fix th of Sir John Marfham’r One Week, is the .Second Year of your One Week. For Antiochus was fo far from allowing the Jews to keep the Covenant made with their Fathers, or to perform their Worfhip (d) in this your Prophetick One Week, that you fee how notorioufly he did what in him lay to the contrary in this the very fecond Year of it. ---------- So again in yourfourth Year of it 5 as in that (e) Year Apollonius Was fent by Antiochus to execute his fierce Rage upon the Jewifh Church, and Nation who had no way offended him. For upon his returning out of Egypffrom his laft Expedition thither, by reafon of the Baffle which he there met with from the Romans of all his Deligns upon that Country, being full of Wrath and Indignation, he Vented it all upon the poor Jews: and to that end upon his marching back through Pa-teftine, he detatch'ed off from his Army two and twenty thoufarid Men under the’Command of Apollonius, and fent them to Jerufalem to deftroy the Place, and to make to ceafe the Jewifh Worfhip there (f): which for a time they did caufe to ceafe accordingly. — --------But all this was in your one Weekj in Which according to your Explication of the Prophetick Event thereof, Antiochus was -to allow the Jews to keep the Covenant' made with their Far thers, or to perform their Worfhip. Here is therefore in FaCh a fecond glaring Contradiction to your pretended Accomplilhment of As are your very Words in your Explication of Verfez7. (e) In the 145th Year of the Greeks, and in the Year before the V. ^E.of Chrift 168. • (f) See Prideaux Con. Hift. p. 174 from Jofefhusf and the Pooks of the Maccabees, tii© o 2 j o 3 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme ᵣthe Prophecy here in fuch your unwarrantable Explication and Appropriation of it to the Times of the faid Antiochus ; and thofe immediately, as in your Hypothefis.------- And therefore Sir John Marfa am could not run into this Abfurdity, which you have here, in afr fignirig the laft /even Tears of Antiochus his Reign for his Prophetick one Week: but chofe rather fby throwing in an additional Half-Week to the Seventy Weeks, which Half-Week he began from the Profanation of the Temple in this Year,) to fix his one Week to the feven preceding Tears of Antiochus, when as Yet the Sacrifice and Oblation had not ceafed: tho’ this, as I have fhewn, cannot ferve his turn, even in his Senfe of the Covenant here predicted, forafmuch as it doth npt appear that Antiochus in thofe feven Tears of hjs Reign did confirm any fuch Covenant with the Jews, or did any thing in favour of their religious Rites, or Worfliip, but on the contrary, as it hath appeared from undeniable Matters of Faft in thofe firft feven Tears of his Reign no lefs than in the whole thereof, he was more, or lefs, all his Time a moft dreadful Perfecutor, and Oppreffor of the Jewilh Churph, and Nation________ And for thefe Reafons mqft probably Yout Other Advocate Father Harduin, (to fpeak now to himj could not come into any fuch Expofition of this Part of the Prophecy, by referring at all the Completion of the predicted Event of the One Week to Antiochus Epiphanes, as Sir John Marfham, and you have variously done, but went a different Way from both of you: however, you have quoted him here alfo, as if you were altogether in one, and the fame Sentiment. ' -— The faid Harduin makes indeed the laft feyen Years of Antiochus Epiphanes his One Week || of Literal Prophecy conjider'd. 109 of the Prophecy, as you alfo have done. But then he makes not Antiochus to confirm any Covenant with the Jews, but the Jews themfelves to confirm it one among another in thofe feven Years* »— But that this is merely arbitrary, and ground-left, and even in no manner of Agreement with the Prophecy it appears, beeaufe (Even taking the here predifted Covenant in Harduin"s Senfe of it, YetJ the faid Covenant confeffedjy was not made till after the Beginning of his Half-Week, as it is plain from the (g) Places here referred to by that Author.--------- Whereas the Prophecy is exprefs in the immediately predifted Event of confirming the Covenant with many, that it was to be in, or for One Week : not in Half a Week, where Harduin in Faft hath placed it •, and which Half-Week hath exprefsly alfo an Event of its own : which Harduin hath thus incongruoufly placed in aftual Accompli fhment, even before that of the predifted Event of the faid One Week. -------And thus it appears that neither of your favourite Authors here, nor Your felf have made any thing of this part of the Prophecy, by applying it to the Times of Antiochus Epiphanes \ any more than fas above it appeared, that) You have of the foregoing Parts of it, whether in Agreement, or Difagreement with thofe Authors, with both or either of them ; As you have fome-times gone hand in hand with One, or with Both pf them ; or have otherwife left either one, or (g) viz. i Mac. ii. 27, and 2 Mac. viii. 1. - But the Hiftory of both thofe Places was after Apollonius his caufing the Sacrifice, and Oblation to ceafe in the 4th Year of Hardens One Week. And the Hiftory of the latter Place was Dot till two Years after. iio A L etter to the Author of the Scheme the other, or both: In which latter Cafe, as we have lately feen, it hath been for the Worfe. —— ----But be that as it Will:----— The Prophecy before us is, as we have feerr in the feveral Parts of it, with no manner of Conformity, or Agreement applicable to the Times of Antiochus Epiphanes. So far is that from being the Truth here, that you have roundly (b) faid of it, viz. that it is to he extended no farther than the State of the Jews after the Death of the faid Antiochus. —And yet fuch groundlefs Aflertion you have endeavour’d to confirm by much fuch another from Sir John Mar foam, viz. c< thdt theWifion of the Weeks is no other than the Chronology of the “ three other Vifions of Daniel, and thdt all four give Light to one another: ---- But with how little Truth, and even Appearance of ft, that Author made this Obfervation, and you have repeated it from him, it hath now appeared from the Light, which he formerly in his Hypothefis, and you fince in yours have given to this the Vifion of the Weeks.-- — However leaving you here (i) vainglo-rioufly big with your own Hypothefis, and the Reader to judge of the Juftice of your Character (by Scheme of Lit. Proph. p. 1S8. 0 As you tell your Reader With the greateft Aflurance, that you have explained this Prophecy by an Event; which way more reafonably be fuppofed to be intended, and is more naturally conformable tir rh e Words [which, aS you add in a Parenthe-fis, are undoubtedly ambiguous, and obfcure^ than any other p.vent that can be afjignd, 8tc. —— ■— I note here only as to Your Obfervation in the P>-renthefis, that it is no wonder that You have occasion to make it, .as. you have done all that in you lay to darken the Prophecy, but ftill the Mejfias of the Chrifiians is, and will remain clearly difcernable in it: unlefs with you we wilfully, apd rcfolutely (hut him out of it. pf of Literal Prophecy consider’d. i r i of it, I go on with you, as in what follows you immediately argue againft the Prophecy its being applicable to the Event of Jefus Chrift, four bleffed Saviour, as you have been bold to fay,) *€ that •* he cannot be found here without doing the utmofi v Violence to the Text in every part of it.-- This you have attempted to ffiew by divers Arguments: But of what Force they are, it will appear by looking into them. As to your three firft Arguments here, they are merely ex Hypothefh They have been all feverally conftdered, and have been found groundlefs. And Confequently, as they prove not the Prophecy applicable to the Times of Antiochus Epi-phanes^ which is the immediate Ufe you would make of them, fo they make nothing againft its being referred to tbe-Tim.es of Jefus, nor againft the Computation of the Weeks their anfwering to his Times, — ' As to Your Third Argument in particular againft our referring the Prophecy to the faid Times, and in favour of your referring it to the Times of Antiochus, viz. As you affiert, ⁶⁶ that the Matters to be accom-” plifhed within theCompafs of feventy Weeks fas in your Ufe, or Purpofe of them. —— Your Fourth Argument corned next under Con* fideration. And this as it confifts of divers Parts, I fhall confider, and reply to them in their Order. And {Firft) it is here urged with refpeft to that part of the Prophecy, which relates to the Definition of the City* and Sanctuary by the People of the Prince that fhould come, againft its having relation to the Times of our bleffed Saviour, as follows, viz. •c That the City and Sanctuary were hot deJiro yed ** by any Army under Jefus, in whofe Time there was ho War againft Jerufalem. Which is as if you had faid, “ During the Abode of Jefus Chrift upon cc Earthy Jerufalem was hot deftrofd ; Therefore The City, and Sanftuary were not deftroyed “by any Army under Jefus Chrift. To which I reply againft Your Confequerice, That tho’ it be true, as you urge, that J er ufa-lem was not deftroy’d during Cbrift’s A bode on' Earth, Yet it doth not therefore follow, that, as you here infer, the City and Sanctuary were not deftroyed by an Army under Jefus Chrift the Mejfias. Becaufe the only Ground, and Support of fuch Confequences is that of a fuppofed Neceflity here' of of Literal Prophecy confidefd. 113 of the Prince pr edified, his per final Appearance with that Army :------Whereas the faid Suppo- fition is without Foundation. As Firfa It doth not appear from the Prophecy. For that is expre ffive of the predified Deftrufti-on, that it fhould be by the People of the Prince that fhould come; But not expreffive of that Prince his coming immediately himfelf, or in Perfon to that Deftruftion. Nor is there any thing in the Prophecy in any refpefi neceflarily implying fuch perfinal Appearance. Secondly, Antiochus Epiphanes your Prince Meffias here (as it hath been (k) fhewn negatively) being not that Prince, and Confequently the faid Antiochus his People being not the here predified People,, and the Meffias of the Chriftians being the faid Prince, and the Roman People being the faid Prince’s People^ (as it hath been alfo (Z) fhewn in the affirmative) it follows'that the perfinal Ap-pearance of the here predified Prince fhould not have been intended in the Prophecy.-----------And therefore Thirdly, The Army here predified as the Army °f Prince which was to come fhould.be no otherwife predified as His Army, than as in antient times Armies immediately executive of the divine Vengeance are faid in (m) Scripture to be P the (Pref, to Chron. Treat, on Daniel's Weeks, p. xiii. &c. and now again fupra. ■ (I) lb. p. 5. 257, & 265.—See alfo Mr. Mede, p. 708. E-dit. 1672 : Alfo Mr. Lancaster s Effay on the Weeks, p. 7. (m) So the Armies of Ifrael under King Saul are exprefsly called by David: 1 Sam. xvii. 26, 36. viz. the Armies of the living God. So in this refped immediately King Nebuchanez* zar is called by God himfelf, My Servant, Jer. xxv. 9. xxvii. 6. & xliii. 10. And his Service againft Tyre (Ezek. xxix. 18.) His Service for God, as they wrought for me, faith, (he Lord God, 114 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme the Armies of God, they fighting in effeft under God. Thus in the like Scripture Senfe the Roman Army in the Deftruftion of Jerufalem deftroying the Jews, the Enemies of the Meffias the Son of God («) being His Army, It follows that the City, and Sanbtuary were deftroyed by an Army under Jefus : -------- Or, fif you will,) take it in the Words of the Jews againft St. Steven, {Afis vi. 14.) thus Jefus of Nazareth deftroyed that place.--- You needed not therefore to have excepted, as you have in no lefs than two {0) Places of your Book againft this Expolition, and Completion of the Prophecy in this Part of it, that it is unaccountable. — ---------But to go on with you, as it is here objected, . {idly) That the predifted Deftrudlion can-M not relate to the Deftru&ion of the City, and fc Sandhu ary by the Romans feven and thirty years after Jefus his Death : Becaufe the Seventy Weeks “ muft have been expired four Weeks, or eight and “ twenty Years before that time : &c. —— ---------Now whereas this is an Objection which hath been immediately conlidered, and replied to in One {00} of the foregoing Letters, It is therefore become needlefs for me to enter into particulars of Anfwer to it here. And I may only refer Ged, v. 20.----And therefore well might our learned Mr. Mede fay, as he dorh upon this very occafion (p. 708. Ediu 1672.) that the Roman Army under Titus was the Army of the Meffias. (») Even the King’s Son, who fent forth His Armies and de* ft toyed thofe Murderers, and burnt up their City. Mat. xxii. 7# (o) Viz. p. 185 & 198 (00) Viz. in that to Mr. Lane aft er. of Literal Prophecy confide?d. 11 f fcr you to what hath been there faid at large in order to obviate it. ——• I go on therefore to your next Objeftion, as you add (Thirdly) in the following Words, Befides, this Defkru&ion in the Prophecy can-•• not be that Deftru&ion of the Romans ; becaufe ii 6 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme — Nor is that any more to the Purpofe which you have yet objected againft the Deftrufition of the City and Sanctuary by the Romans its being the predifted DeftruEliori, as you have told us under this Head. (Laftly) That it cannot be fo for the following Reafon alfo, viz. “ Beeaufe the Romans levelled the temple to the And therefore in that Hypothefis not the Meffias, but his People, as in the concomitant (u) Event of the Half Week of the Prophecy are the Party neceffarily accomplifhing this Event alfo of it, of caufingSacrifice, and Oblation to ceafe: And which they did accordingly. —— I go on therefore to your Seventh Argument which in the main of it immediately concerns the Beginning of the Weeks: As you object againft the feventh, and alfo againft the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus,. and infift upon the firft year of Cyrus for their Beginning. . -------Now the late Bifhop Lloyd in his Hypothefis of the Weeks, having not to do with any other Beginning of them than that from the twentieth of Artaxerxes, this is all that I am here immediately concerned with. And this hath been formerly (w) prov’d at large, and now occafi-onally, in this, and the foregoing Letters. Nor is there any thing in this Argument of yours of any Weight to the .contrary : As it will appear by looking into the feveral Parts of it. And here we are told by way of inlet < c Firft,'“ ^hat though a literal Interpretation < € of this Prophecy be pretended, yet thofe who be- * c gin the Weeks from the twentieth (as well as cⁱ thofe who begin from the feventh) of Artaxerxes f “ Longimanus, are obliged to underftand the re-ftoring, and building Jerufalem in a figurative Senfe.---------- — Now («) Viz. of caufing the Abomination of Defolation to finnd upon the Holy Place. (w) In Chron. Treat, on the Weeks, Part I. Ch. III. p, 115, of Literal Prophecy confidefd. 113 ——* Now that you fhould have thu$ affirmed of thofe who begin the Weeks from the twentieth of Artaxerxes* this is really moft fur prizing. Forafmuch as you cannot but know the direft contrary of this Aftertion to be the truth here, as you have read my Treatife on the Weeks: As it appears that you have from your Obfervations upon it. But there is one whole Chapter in the faid Treatife (x) on this very occafion (hewing immediately that the Words of the predifted Commandment are necejfarily to be taken in a literal Senfe. — - That is not a little ftrange therefore that you fhould have aflerted, as above. --------And whereas you have gone on here to objeft, that, But according to what you infill upon from Pagnin in the former Place, the Words fhould be render’d in this, the Street fhall return again from Captivity, and be rebuilt. There is as much ex-preffed of the Captivity in one Place, as in the other ; that is, none at all in either. The Verfion therefore in the latter Place being undeniably the true Verfion, it is moft rationally, and almoft upon a certainty to be concluded that the very fame Phrafe in a former Part of the fame Verfe fhould have been intended only in the very fame Senfe; and Confequently ought to have the very fame Verfion. Nor Secondly, Is it pleaded to any more purpofe in favour of Cyrus⁹s Decree, “ That it was firft in “ Point of Time, and the Foundation of all the fub-“ fequent Royal Decrees, or Commandments in fa-“ vour of the Jews, ■---------Becaufe However thefe Aflertions be true in themfelves, yet they yield (a) See here Cbron. Treat, on the Weeks, p. loo. (b) See particularly, ib. of Literal Prophecy conjidefd. ns yield no manner of Proof of that which you ground upon them, viz. as you tell us, c< That “ therefore Cyrus’j Commandment merits only the “ Name of the Commandment in Queftion. --------- They cannot ijt. Beeaufe Cyrus’s Commandment to the Jews imported only their return from Captivity with exprefs Licence to rebuild their Temple, but not to rebuild their Wall, and Street, as in the predifted Commandment: As it hath been (c) Ihewn at large in the Treatife referred to. idly. The Computation of Time from the fir (I of Cyrus to the Times of the Meffias, however you have cited divers Authors here in favour of Cyrus’s Decree, admits not of it for the Decree beginning of the Weeks, as it is evident from your own immediate Authority under your fecond Ob-fervation in the very next Page, where you tell us, as follows, viz. “ That a Computation of the H feventy Weeks, or 490 Tears cannot begin from ** the Date of Cyrus’j Decree: Beeaufe from the ♦⁶ Date of Cyrus’5 Decree to the Death of Chrift is 568 Tears j Whereby the Seventy Weeks, or 490 “ Tears will be expired a great many years before the cutting off, or even the Coming of Jefus, &c.— -----------Now this being very true, and granted on all Sides, your Verfion of the Words of the predifted Commandment is fo far from being juftified by your numerous Authorities, that both it, and they are overthrown even by your felf in this Obfervation. Nor do I fee to what purpofe is this, and the other two Obfervations with it in the fame (d) Page. - Not this, ’tis plain, beeaufe ’tis granted equally on all Sides. — (c) Chapter IB. Part I. Page 115. (d) Scheme of Lit- I'raph. confidered, p. 193. * **------ Npt 116 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme -------Not the firft of the three; Becaufe the contrary hath appeared under the confideration of your foregoing Arguments (- The after ted Reality here hath there appeared to have no other Foundation than the Imagination of him who hath faid it; and who either did not, or would not know any thing truly of thefe times : As other-wife he might have known better from the Chro-nologer's fureft (Z) Guide in thefe times the Aftro^ nomer's Canon. In vain therefore have you here gone on to cppofe Father Harduin⁹s twentieth Year of his pretended King of Babylon in the times of Ezra^ and Nehemiah to the twentieth year of Artaxerxes^ Longimanus^ above particularly proved to be the true twentieth year of that King, and Confequent- M viz In Chron. Treat on the Weeks, Part II. Chap, IV. p. 233. (fj) Scheme of Lit. Proph. p. 196. (i) lb. p. 179. (k) In Note £ above, under the confederation of your interpreted Commandment. (/) Prid Con. Hift. p. 286, & Chron. Treat, on the Weeks, p. 186. of Literal Prophecy confidefd, 119 ly as fuch remaining the Year beginning of the Weeks.------ And fo I might difmifs this Argument, were it not for a remarkable Parenthefis here, as you have told us with refpeft to the King in queftion cc that Mr. Whifton fays it fhould be Xerxes. -__ ----A weighty Note this truly !------- But I pray, Do you your felf credit Mr. Whifton herein ?-----If you do, then it is plain you difcard Father Harduin.------If otherwife you do not give credit to Mr. Whifton here, to what purpofe is it that you have quoted (m) Him ?________ Efpecially as you have notorioufly given up Mr. Whiftorfs Authority.------ However you might with equal Reafon credit him, as Father Harduin in what you have been thus careful to tell us from them. --- -------But not to dwell upon trifles, I pafs on to Your Eleventh Argument. And this contains nothing more than a repetition of former Charges immediately againft the Separation of the Seventieth Week, of the Prophecy from the fixty ninth Week of it ; as fuch Separation feems to you unreasonable, and unaccountable, and to Mr. Whifton, weak and abfurd, as you (#») As you have alfo elfewhere; (viz. in Note 196, of Scheme of. Lit. Proph.) where you moft unreafbnably argue a-gainft the Authority of the Prophecy, and the poffibility of a ₓ true Explication of it from Mr. Whifton'* unwarrantable Alteration of the Number of Weeks in it; crc.----------But where is the Force, or even the Ground of fuch Reafoning? — —~ Or How doth it follow, either that this Word of Prophecy is ever the lefs Sure, becaufe Mr. Whifton hath been thus ground-lefily bold with our Scriptures; Or that becaufe He ismifta-ken in his Explication of the Weeks, that therefore every Man elfe however differing from him muft neceffarily be mtftaken like-wife ? — If fo, to what Purpofe is it that you have attempted an Explication of the Weeks ? ■ ---------But it is highly probable that you mean to except your own here. — think 120 A Letter to the Author of the Scheme think this Obfervation from him alfo worthy of your Reader’s notice. —- ■ - To which I reply, that not one reafon is here given either by your felf, or from Mr. Wbifton to fupport the Charges. And if to infift upon Authority only were fuffi-cient in the cafe, as it fliould feem to you to be, by your infilling much upon your own, and Mr. Whifton's here, you muft give me leave freely to declare that the late Bifhop Lloyd's Authority may very well ftand againft Mr. Whifton, and your felf, as to the objected Separation ; forafmuch as However the fame hath appeared to your felf, and to him as above, yet it did not fo to that learned Bifttop. — ■ But this Objection being only a repetition of what you had faid before under your fourth Argument^ and it having been made one likewife by the Reverend Mr. Lancafter againft the faid Bi-fhop’s Hypothefis, to which I have already replied, and alfo taken liberty to refer you by way of anfwer to it, there needeth not any thing more to be faid under this Argument. ------ ---- I go on therefore to your Twelfth Argument: Which you have raifed in your favour from the Conckifion of the Prophecy in Bifhop Chandler's rendring of it; As you would thence infer not a total DeflruEtion of the Temple, which was by the Romans, but only a Cef fation of the Wbrfhip there, as in the times of Antiochus, to which times you apply, and confine the Prophecy. For whereas the Bifhop’s Verfion of the Words of the Prophecy referred to, is as follows, Cfc viz. “ Upon the Battlement fhall be the Idols of the De-⁶⁶ folator, until the Confummation, (viz. of God’S “ Wrath,J and that determined fhall be poured up- on of Literal Prophecy confider'd. 12 f f<€ on the Defoliator, ” ■ ■— You have put an in- terpretation upon the faid Verfion as importing an actualContinuation* or remaining of the Idols un* to the Punifliment of the Defolator* and the Re-jioration of Jewifh Worfhip. ----------But to fuch mifapplication, and inference from the Bifliop’s Verfion, I beg leave of that learned Bifliop to reply to you, that he could not poftibly intend the meaning which you wreft here .From thefe laft Words of the Prophecy: As it is (n) plain that he could not from what he hath s expresfly faid as to the predifted DeftruElion of the Temple* that it was to be tot al* and final: >As the faid Deftruftion was to. be, as'it appears from the (0) Prophecy.' Coiifequently, as to the Idols fet up upon the Batdement of the Temple during its Deftruftion, even while it .was in (p) Flames, there could not poflibly be any longer (landing, or remaining of the Idols upon it after it’s Deftruc* tion. -----— And Confequently alfo there could be no more Sacrifice* and Oblation in the Tern* pie. Which is the very Reverfe of what you would prove from the Blfliop’s Verfion before us. In which Verfion therefore, thefe particulars being noted, which you could not but know, the Bifliop could not intend, nor have you caufe to interpret more than as follows, *• viz. that the. <* Sanftuary thus profaned* and thus deftroyed fhould Let me therefore advife that You meddle not any more with Jewifh Au* thorities in the Negative, till they become unanimous alfo in the Affirmative, by agreeing among theqafelves who He was that is here predicted. —— But for you thus to have i$fulted over us for our Chrifiianity ivtjewijh unanimous Language, which in truth is returnable only upon them, and our Anti-Chrijlian Adverfaries, who attempt to explain away this Prophecy from the true, and only Mejfias of the Cbrijlians, fuch Treatment is indeed as unbecoming, as it is trifling, and infig-nificant. It is afting a Part not unlike that of SOLOMON'S (u) Madman, who cajletb Firebrands* Arrows, and Death: for fo is the Man that deceiv-etb his Neighbour, and faith* Am I not in Sport ?— And as to your Chrijtian Authors, Sir John Marfham in particular, and others (w) whom you («) Prov. xxvi. 18, 19. (w) Eftius among others is One you name here* And yet your Friend Harduin hath immediately animadverted upon him for having confined the Prophecy to the Times of Antio* thus Epiphanes, and Judas Maceab&us: [Hard. Chron. Vet.Teft. 4toEdit. p. 203.]—the very Attempt which you have now alfo made. of Literal Prophecy consider'd. 127 rite las referring this Prophecy to the Times of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Number of which you alfo have now increafed, they all ftand confuted with your felf: forafmuch as the Reverfe of what you have very* roundly, but moft groundlefsly aflerted, hath appeared to be the Truth here, viz^ That the whole Application of tbit Prophecy to Antiochus Epiphanes, (and not. as you affirm, the Application thereof to Jefus the Meffias of the Chri-ftiansj is grounded on moft palpable Miftakes of the Intent thereof which relates (not as you fay, wholly but indeed/ nof at all to Jewifh Matters in Antiochus bis Times. —----- — And Confequently, Your Charge (x) in Sir John Marjh arris Words upon us as wreft-jng* and perverting Chronology* and Times in our applying it to the Mefiias* and his limes* is truly and only chargeable upon your felf, and upon thofe who with you have vainly attempted to explain it away from our Meffias* and his Times, by your fcrewing it into thofe of Antiochus: with which it is plain from your own Hypothefis of the Weeks* it hath not poffibly to do. ---- Upon the whole therefore give me leave to exhort you to confider the Rafhnefs, the Unprofita-blenefs, the Shamefulnefs, the Sinfulnefs of the Attempt.-------- Strange! that you fhould have had no more Regard to your Chriftian Country, than to be found writing againft the Religion of it! Strange indeed ! that you fhould have thus bellowed your Time and Learning, both the Gifts of Almighty God, and Talents one Day furely to be accounted for, in fighting againft God* and; his Chrift! —. that you fhould have thus daringly gone about to fet at nought that Revelation (a) Scheme of Lit. Prophecy confider’d, f, 499. whfc& S 2 f A Letter to the Authorpfthe Scheme which hath approved it felf by; many infallible Proofs to be from Heaven. ——— *' Give me Leave therefore yet to exhort, and intreat you to beg Pardon of Almighty God in the firft place, and then of all good Chriftiansfor the many Prevarications, and Falfehoods, Indecencies, and Blafphemies againft our blefled Lord, and his holy Religion that have appeared in your Writings: by a fincere, and publick Retractation of your ma* ny groundlefs, unreafonable, and Anti-Cbriftian Sentiments; which is the only Reparation alfo that you can make to your Cbrijtian Country ; and, I add alfo, a rieceffary Method for you to take, for the plucking out of the Fire that Soul, and Body of yours, which you will afluredly find to be immortal; even according to that Revelation, which by your treating of it, it fliould feem as if you defpifed, and rejected. — Otherwife mark the end, if it can be Peace voitb you at the laji. -------That the God, and Father of our Lord Jefus Chriji of his great Mercy in and through him, may open your Eyes to the Acknowledgment of the 'Truth as it is in Him* and to his For-givenefs, and Acceptance of you in, and through him the faid Jefus Chriji, our ever blefled Saviour, and Redeemer, are the fincere Prayers of Kaunton Gloucefter-flure,March 25.1728. Tour unknownServant, Ben. Marshall FINIS.