the fpirit of Cyrus King of Perfia, that he made "proclamation throughout all his kingdom," &c. And the very fame words, does the book of Ezra contain, as the foundation of the building and restoration of Jerufalem. Ezra i. 1. All which is a demonftration, that the building and restoration of Jerufalem, was founded on the word of the LORD by the prophet Jeremiah, and from whence, it is clear that, that was alfo the meaning of the angel in this place, as already fhewn.

t

of the captivity commenced. And therefore, those writers had no occafion to advance any thing to prove the going forth of the word to be coincident with the demolition of Jerufalem, because they never meant any fuch thing by it; but that the going forth of the word meant the time of the captivity of Zedekiah. This I fpeak of R. Ifaac. But, as to Jarchi, muft tell you plainly, that he does not apply 27 to denote the word of the Lord by Jeremiah, for he fays,

מתו מוצא דבר זה שיצא בתחילת תחנוניך, תדע ותשכיל, וגוון

From whence it is clear, that Jarchi understands 37 mentioned in the 25th verse, to be the fame with that mentioned in the 23d. So that the real meaning of Jarchi is, that the going forth of the word, denotes that mentioned in verse 23. At the beginning of thy fupplication the word came forth, &c. thou shalt know and understand that from the destruction of the temple, &c. But not a word does he fay about its denoting the declaration of the divine will by Jeremiah; but only the going forth of the word to the angel to come and make him' understand the vifion. I therefore would advise you, that' before you attempt again to comment on the opinions of Rabbinical writers, to read them in the original, if you can, and not trust to translations, or tranflators; for they are no better than blind leaders of the blind; and often expofe the ignorance of those that truft to them.

You obferve page 47, "The feventy weeks "Mr. Levi fays, page 41, are without doubt, "four hundred and ninety years, the time from "the destruction of the first temple to the de"ftruction of the fecond. But," fay you, " if "there be any truth in hiflory, the interval beσε tween those two events was about fix hundred "and fifty years; and it is by history that prophecy must be interpreted." But, why not produce thofe proofs of history, in order to harmonife the events in fupport of your hypothefis? Surely, you ought not to have left the subject (and that of fuch importance) in fo vague and indeterminate a ftate; but have proved your pofition, by substantial and undeniable arguments. I mean, by fixing a period for the beginning of the feventy weeks, and then have proceeded to fhew the accomplishment of every period, as I have done*. We should then have been able to have judged.

* At prefent, Chriftians have no certain fixed period, from whence to begin the feventy weeks: for although they all agree in explaining the prophecy, that from the going forth of the commandment (as they tranflate it) to restore and build Jerufalem unto Meffiah (or anointed) prince, shall be seven weeks; and fixty-two weeks, (not at all confidering, that, the fixty-two weeks, reads forward with the remaining part of the verse) yet, are they so far from being unanimous concerning the time from which they commenced, that there are almost as many different opinions about it, as there are writers upon the fubject: but which is no more than the inevitable confequence of explaining Scripture fo contrary to its true meaning; and plainly fhews the difficulties they labour under, in the maintainance of fuch abfurd pofitions.

on

on which fide truth exifted. But this, I am confident, you are confcious was not in your power to do: on the contrary, you would only have bewildered yourself, in being liable to encounter all the difficulties which every Chriftian commentator, who has written upon the subject, has involved himself in, by attempting it. Of the truth of this, every candid and dispassionate perfon will be fully convinced, that chufes to take the pains to read with attention, what Dr. Prideaux hath written upon the fubject, in his Connect. Vol. II. page 17, &c. &c. For me to follow the doctor through all his turnings and windings, would answer no other purpose, than to perplex the reader, and fwell this pamphlet to a volume. One thing, however, I muft obferve, which is, that by adopting the chimerical opinion of profane hiftorians, in contradiction to Scripture, in order to explain the prophecy fo as to make it applicable to Christ, he has not been able (notwithstanding the utmost stretch of human industry) to fix any clear and certain period from whence to begin the feventy weeks. For as he observes, if begun from the first of Cyrus, who granted the first decree,(which may be called a commandment) they will not come low enough to reach any of the events* which are predicted by the prophecy. Neither, as he obferves, (ibid. page 18,) could they begin from the decree granted by Darius;

that is, not from Darius Cadomanus, becaufe, then the 490 years would overshoot the events by many more years than the other would fall fhort of them, Nor from Darius Nothus as fome have thought, Nor from Darius Hyftafpes. Neither could they begin from Artaxerxes, who granted the decree to Nehemiah; that is, neither from Artaxerxes Longimanus, Artaxerxes Mnemnon, nor Artaxerxes Ochus, from which fome have begun them*. He then proceeds to fhew, how some have reckoned by lunar years, &c. But, after the doctor has employed twenty octavo pages of fmall letter prefs on the fubject, having found out, according to profane hiftory, that, from the death of Chrift to the feventh year of Artaxerxes upwards, was 490 years, he has very wifely begun them from thence, This, may be cutting the Gordion knot, but I am fure, it is not untying it.

As to what you obferve page 35, concerning л, fcarcely deferves notice, were it not to expofe its futility: for I obferved that, alfo de

For it must be obferved, that the doctor had not only undertaken to establish his own hypothefis, but to overturn those which other commentators have adopted, on account of their not coinciding with the events relating to Chrift; in doing of which, however, he has been obliged to discard the literal fenfe of the text: which plainly fhews, what expedients he was obliged to make use of, in order to extricate himself from the difficulties which he laboured under in the maintainance of that abfurd hypothefis, equally as inconfiftent as any of the others he was endeavouring to demolish.

noted

noted "that there fhould be a cutting off, or fe"paration of seventy weeks." Which plainly fhews, that it was to be the period of time that was to be cut off. Of this, every unprejudiced perfon will be convinced, that does but read the page you have quoted,

You fay, page 36, " I would farther obferve, ❝ that Mr. Levi's account of your present suffer"ings is neither agreeable to reason, nor to the

fcripture. It is no where faid, either before the "captivity, or afterwards, that it was intended as "a punishment for not obferving the fabbath in "particular, but for fin in general. It is only faid

that, during that captivity, the land would keep "its fabbaths, which it had not been allowed to "do before, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. To fulfil the word "of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land "bad enjoyed her fabbaths. For as long as he lay de"folate, fhe kept the fabbath, to fulfil threefcore and ten

years. But this is far from amounting to a proof "that this captivity was for no other purpose." But, as in the verfes preceding the words you quote, we find it recorded, that the people were flain; Jerufalem and the house of God destroyed; and the remainder carried away captive. And all this, that the land might enjoy her fabbaths, threeScore and ten years, the time they were in that captivity in Babylon. I think, that all this taken together, amounts to a prefumptive proof, that in that captivity they were punished for that fin only. But this will appear in a much stronger light,

when