: Prophet's letter as written to ALL the then Captives at Babylon, as undoubtedly it was for the text is therein exprefs, (a) viz. Unto ALL that are carried away Captives, whom I have caused to be carried away, &c. In this respect both the Prophet's Letter, and God's faithful promife therein made to his people are rendred ftill of less effect, and the latter is ftill farther off from having been fulfilled according to the express purport of the former, by how much the Captivity of Judah began fooner than did that of feconiah. And that the faid Letter of the Prophet did certainly concern those of the Captivity of Judah in the fourth of Jehoiakim as well as those who were carried away captive with Feconiah, it is alfo evident from the twenty fifth chapter of Jeremiah. In which chapter as the Prophet had in the 4th of Jehoiakim prophefied of the LXX Years Captivity of Judah, which in that year fell out accordingly, equal to, or coincident with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (b) King of Babylon, (but that the first not poffibly of the father, as Mr. L. would have it, but of the fon's two years reign in conjunction with his father, as I fhall fully fhew before I have done with this matter) fo in that Chapter he did alfo prefignifie to the Jews the determined time of their Captivity; As he told them exprefly concerning it (ver. 11.) that their Vaffalage to the King of Babylon fhould be of the continuance but of LXX Years. So that the Prophet's Letter to the Captives of Babylon now in the beginning of Zedekiah's reign was in truth nothing else but a recital of what he had declar'd then as the word of the Lord to them in the fourth of Jehoiakim. And the faid recital was occafion'd merely by the foothing prediction of a false Prophet (c) as before noted. And therefore the Prophet Jeremiah was neceffitated thus to call to the remembrance of thofe Captives his former prediction for the quieting them under God's determined Captivity of Judah for 70 years: Which 70 years had been now going on from the very year of their prediction, viz. the fourth of Jehoiakim, and the first of Nebuchadnezzar (d) the fon. In which only true view of the beginning of the Captivity of Judah, and of the fubfequent Captivity of Feconiah in the first of Zedekiah, God's Promife to his people by the Prophet, as above, was most exactly fulfilled. But it was in no wife fulfilled in Mr. L's Hypothefis of beginning the Captivity of Judah from his rais'd 11th of Zedekiah, to his therefore neceffarily making the Captivity of Feconiah to have preceded that of Judah by ten years, which in fact was not 'till full 8 years after, as the faid Captivity did not begin 'till the true first of Zedekiah: As may be seen in the Table hereunto annexed. Confequently, Thirdly, (b) Ch. xxv. I. (c) See Jer. xxviii. 2, 3, 4, and Ch. xxix. (d) Jer. xxv. I. (a) Jer. xxix. 4. 8,9 Thirdly, Mr. L's Hypothefis in these particulars is in no wife reconcileable with the Prophet Ezekiel's reckoning of the Years of the Captivity of Feconiah, by which that Prophet reckons throughout all his Prophecies, as he was one of that Captivity (a). Mr. L. in truth abounds with mistakes in his feveral Years of that Captivity, which are all neceffary Confequences of his groffly mistaken 11th of Zedekiah in his 20 years unaccountable rise thereof. As it will be very apparent, if we take a fhort view of his Chronology of the years of Feconiah's Captivity. For instance, take we in order those Years, as he hath giv'n them in his book. First, the tenth Year. To this according to Mr. L. is correfponding the year of the 7. P. 4105 (b). From thence to the year 4176 (c) where Mr. L. ends the Captivity of the Jews there are 71 Years, to which add the preceding 9 years as this was the tenth, thus this Captivity alone becomes an eighty Years Captivity, as above. And Farther the preceding 8 Years of the Captivity of Judah being added, as in the truth it did fo many years precede the Captivity of Feconiah, here is neceffarily an 88 Years Captivity of Judah also, as above. Which is directly contrary not only to the very letter of the Scripture elsewhere (d), but alfo to the Prophet Ezekiel here in his 10th of this Era of the Captivity of Jeconiah. For in this 10th year now of his own Captivity he prophefied against Pharao King of Egypt. But this Pharao was doubtless not Pharao Necho, but Pharao Hophra, against whom the Prophet was now to fet his face (e): For according both to Scripture (f) and Jofephus (g) Pharao Necho was cotemporary with the Kings Jofiah, and Jehoiakim. But as we are now in the 10th of Jeconiah's Captivity, we are evidently alfo in the 10th of Zedekiah. And Pharao Necho could not be now living. For we are now at 21 years distance even from the death of Jofiah; and Ph. Necho had probably reign'd fome years before the death of that Prince; but he reign'd at moft according to Herodotus (h) but 16 years; and also after him reigned Pfammis (i) fix years, and next King Apries, or the Pharao Hopbra of the Scripture (k). Against him therefore undoubtedly Ezekiel must here have prophefied in the tenth year of the Captivity of Jeconiah, which was also the tenth year of the reign of Żede kiah. But to these in the Scripture Account of these times is evidently correfponding the year of the 7. P. 4125 () not Mr. L's year thereof 4105 (m): for to that is certainly correfponding Ezekiel's firft year of Jehoiakim, and consequently fome year of Pharao Ne cho, (a) Ezek. xl. 1. (b) Or the Year before A. D. 609. (c) Or the Year before A. D. 538. (d) Fer. xxv. xxix. (e) Ch. xxix. 1, 3, &c. (f) 2 Kings xxiii. 29, 14. (g) As he hath told us [Ant. lib. x. ch. v.] that fofiah was killed fighting against Necho: and alfo [ch. vi. initio] that in the 4th of Jehoiakim Neb. fmote Ph. Necho's Army. (b) For he gives him no more. And Eufebins [Chron.] gives him only fix. (i) According to Herodotus, who after him gives Apries 25. But Enfebius paffing over Pfammis gives Apries 30 years. (k) fer. xliv. 30. (1) Or the Year before A. D. 589. (m) Or the Year before A. D. 609. ebo, at no less than 20 years distance above his tenth of Jeconiah's Captivity, or his tenth of Zedekiah, which neceffarily concurred with it. But if Mr. L's Pharao against whom Ezekiel prophefied be alfo Pha rao Hopbra, and not Pharao Necho, that cannot be any otherwise than as he has by a most unjustifiable lift of twenty years got the true Scripture 11th of Zedekiah into the place of the true first of Jehoiakim, and thereby got Pharao Hophra into the real place of Pharao Necho, whofe reign together with that of Jofiah King of Judah he hath therefore proportionably advanced alfo, and all this ultimately for the fake of a NEW Hypothesis of the LXX weeks of the Prophecy of Daniel. And thus I might difmifs this year, were it not for two other failures under it, which in juftice to the Reader, I cannot pass over without fome notice of them. One is Mr. L's placing the 40 Years Prophecy of Ezekiel (a) against Pharao Hophra in order of time before his army's coming out of Egypt to the affiftance of Zedekiah, who was now shut up in Jerufalem by the army of the Chaldeans (b). Whereas according to Dr. Prideaux (c) much more agreeably to the truth, Ezekiel had not this revelation against Pharao, 'till after the hasty, and perfidious retreat of his army on the coming of the Chaldaeans against them: even for this very reafon, because it was for their perfidy therefore exprefly noted by the Prophet as the just caufe of God's denounced Judgement against them, as they had been a staff of Reed to the House of Ifrael (d). And in what could they have made good the comparison more than they now did in their retiring into their own Country upon the approach of the Chaldean army against them, to the exact fulfilling of God's word herein by his Prophet Jeremiah (e)? And therefore Mr. L. might not take due notice of this place of the Prophet, or elfe he would not probably have run into a SECOND mistake here foon after under this year (f). As he hath made Pharao's army to be now entirely overthrown by Nebuchadnezzar, and as he hath told us with all, that this Overthrow hapned agreeably to Jeremiah's Prophecy: Whereas that Prophet, as in the verfe before quoted (g) is exprefs to the contrary, as his words there are, that it was the Saying of the God of Ifrael to the King of Judah, that Pharao's Army which was come forth to help the Jews fhould RETURN to Egypt into their own land. And therefore to the fulfilling the Prophecy they doubtless did fos without being overthrown, or even fo much as fighting but returning home in a fhameful and hafty retreat upon Nebuchadnezzar's approach (b). : There (a) Ch. xxix. 12. (b) Not in Mr. L's year of the F. P. 4105, or 609 before A. D. but in the year of the J. P. 4125, or 589 before A. D. (c) Con. Hift. pe 78 in fine. (d) Ezek. xxix. 6. (e) Fer. xxxvii. 7. (f) See Mr. L. p. 33. (g) As in note e. (b) See Prid. here (against Mr. L.) Con. Hift. p. 78. Therefore indeed Mr. L. fhould not have urg'd the mistaken teftimony of Jofephus here, who doubtless did not confider this place of Jeremiah, when he abridg'd this part of Jewish History, any more than Mr. L. hath fince. Much lefs fhould He told us that his, and that Hittorian's ENTIRE OVERTHROW of that Army was agreeable to Jeremiah's Prophecy; for in truth it is fo far from it, that as we have feen it is utterly difagreeing with it. And fo pafs we to the next year of Ezekiel's Era, or of the Captivity of Jeconiah which Mr. L. hath noted, and that is the IIth (a). And the Calculation there as in the year preceding is alfo 20 years too high, as the fame is placed under the year of the F. P. 4106 (6); whereas the true Year thereof in that period is the year 4126 (c). And therefore Mr. L. under his rais'd 11th of Jeconiah's Captivity hath placed Ezekiel's Prophecy against Tyre, and Nebuchadnezzar's laying fiege to it full (d) 20 years too early for both Of which more hereafter. In the 12th year of Feconiah's Captivity in Mr. L's Calculation of it (e) and in all thofe years thereof mention'd after (f) it, 'is all One. The fame 20 years clafhing with Scripture runs throughout in all the particulars mentioned under it. And here I cannot pass over a very great mistake of Mr. L's, as it is a direct contradiction to Ezekiel, as touching the 40 years Defolation of Egypt. Mr. L. hath fixed the beginning of that period (g) in the year of the 7. P. 4122 (b) as being equal to the 27th year of Feconiah's Captivity. But furely he did not confider the Prophet Ezekiel here, who hath told us exprefly (i) that it was in the tenth year of that Captivity that the forty Years (k) Defolation of Egypt was revealed to him; and not in the 27th, of which we have no mention till after (1), with a new revelation at 17 years diftance. It was therefore not from the 27th, but from the 10th of Jeconiah's Captivity that the 40 Years Judgements of God to be executed both upon King and People (m) of Egypt in war, Confufion, and Defolation were to take their date. But to the true Ezekiel's tenth of Jeconiah is correfponding the year of the 7. P. 4125 (n). And 40 Years reckon'd from thence will end in the year of the 7. P. 4165 (0). But it was not 'till the next year after that Cyrus took Sardes (p). And thus there is room for fuch Egyptians as by being taken Prifoners during those 40 years D (a) Asin Mr. L. p. 33. (b) Or in the Year before A. D. 608. (c) or in the year before A. D. 588. (d) Indeed a year or two over here. (f) viz. in p. 38. (g) ib. in fine. (i) Ch. xxix. 1. (k) ver. 11. in the Year before A. D. 589. the Table hereunto anexed. (e) p. 35. (n). Or (p) See years had been scatter'd among the nations, and difperfed through the Countries (a) to return into their own land, agreeably to the enfuing Prophecy thereof (b), and also according to Xenophon (c), for many of the Egyptians to come to the affiftance of Crafus in the year following when Sardes was taken by And therefore truly Mr. L. might here have omitted his remark upon fuch as would have thefe 40 Years denounced against Egypt to begin in the year of the 7. P. 4142 (d); because though that be not a truly affign'd beginning of these 40 Years, yet his is not the true beginning of them, as I have fhewn that it is not, from his evident misunderstanding, and departure from the Prophet here (e). Efpecially Mr. L. might have omitted his arguing from hence (f) for his mistaken Equality of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar the father with the 4th of Jehoiakim, because as he hath here evidently mistaken the year of the prediction, so he hath therein miftaken his foundation: Which therefore moft certainly can be of no other use here by way of Confirmation, which he there (g) fpeaks of on this occafion, than that, and that truly of confirming in mistakes; and chiefly in this which is no inconfiderable one among the many which we meet with in his Hypothefis, viz. his every where confounding Nebuchadnezzar the father with the fon, and mistaking the first year of the latter for the first of the former: and all for the fake of his 20 years rais'd 11th of Zedekiah. And therefore the 13 Years Siege of Tyre is accordingly fixed by Mr. L. afterwards (b) in the like grand mistake. And that alfo is built upon another, as he hath fuppos'd (i) from Jofephus, that that fiege was begun by Nebuchadnezzar in the 7th year of his reign in conjunction with his father, in at least a full 20 years mistaken rise of that fiege on that account; for which there is no manner of ground, as Nebuchadnezzar could not poffibly have reign'd above two Years in conjunction with his father, as we shall fhew hereafter from Berofus; and alfo as it is much more likely than not, with refpect to the alledg'd teftimony of Jofephus, that the 7th year spoken of by him in his account of this fiege, was not the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar, (either the father or the fon) but really the 7th of Ithobal King of Tyre (k); as I fhall fhew hereafter when I come to look into the teftimonies of Jofephus urged by Mr. L. in his favour, after that I have done with the Scripture account of these times, with which I am at prefent immediately concern'd. And with the Chronology of the holy Scripture Mr. L's faid rife of the fiege and taking of Tyre is utterly inconfiftent: as he hath (a) Ezek. xxix. 12. (b) ver. 15. (c) As quoted by Mr. L. in p. 39. of his book. (d) Or in the yeat before A. D. 572. (e) See the true beginning of thefe 40 years under the year before A. D. 589. in the Table annexed, or in the Year of the J.P. 4125. So Dr. Prideaux allo. (f) As he hath in p. 39. (g) ib. lin. 16. His words are, this fully confirms, &c-----in miftakes indeed, but in nothing else. (b) (i) ib. fub fine. (k) Who was moft probably flain in the end of the war ac cord ing to Exekiel, ch. xxviii. 8---10. ib. |