with the 37 laft years of Nebuchadnezzar the fon. And fo the reign of the faid Nebuchadnezzar neceffarily takes in all Historical Events both of the Scripture, and of Jofephus, as are related under the name of Nebuchadnezzar in both. And Confequently the first of his eight years in the Scripture-Account, preceding thofe 37 years, in the account thereof already giv'n from Berofus, could not be otherwife than correfponding alfo with the fourth of Jehoiakim of Jofephus, no less than it is with the fourth thereof according to the Scriptures.

Mr. L. therefore hath highly wrong'd Jofephus in bringing him into his 20 years rife of his 4th of Jehoiakim mounted up to an equality with the first of Nebuchadnezzar the father, in downright contradiction to Jofephus his exprefs teftimony here of the release of Feconiah upon the death of Nebuchadnezzar, and not before, no less than in utter irreconcileableness either with the holy Scriptures, or with Berofus.----We have

Thirdly, another exprefs Character or Date of time in Jofephus to the proving his agreement with the holy Scriptures, and against Mr. L's 20 years rais'd 11th of Zedekiah as it is by him made to be correfponding with the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar the father by Jofephus's teftimony for it: And that is the twenty third year of Nebuchadnezzar. And of this Jofephus hath told us most expreffly (a), that it was the FIFTH Year after the Destruction of Jerufalem.

Of neceffity therefore in Jofephus's Account Ferufalem must have been deftroyed in the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar the fon, the fifth year from the Year inclufive of which deftruction was his twenty third. For this twenty third could not poffibly be fo of the father, as for other undeniable proofs already giv'n, so also because he reign'd but 21 years according to Ptolemy's Canon, and even in Mr. L's note upon it (b) at the most but 21 years, and a half.

This 23d Year of Nebuchadnezzar in Jofephus therefore could not poffibly have been any other than the Scripture twenty third of Nebuchadnezzar the fon, in which his General Nebuzaradan carried away captive of the Jews 745 persons (c).

And therefore that is moft furprizing, as well as contrary to all truth, which we meet with in Mr. L's book (d) of this being the 23d of Nebuchadnezzar the father. Efpecially as the affertion is backt with the teftimony of Scripture, as Mr. L. hath there father'd this his great mistake upon the Writer of the LII Chapter of Jeremiah, in this very paffage of it. But fuch an abfurdity as this of making a man reign 2 years confeffedly after his death, no Human writer could eafily have been guilty of. Mr. L. therefore fhould by no means have fuppos'd it of an inspir'd Writer: Efpecially in his cafe where the fact proves the contrary of the fuppos'd foundation of it. For Nebuchadnezzar the father died

in

(a) Fof. Ant. lib. x. cb. ix. p. 454- (6) p. 35. of Mr. L. (1) Fer. lii. 30. (a) p. 37. of Mr. Lo

in the year of the F. P. 4109 (a) according to Mr. L. himself. And it was impoffible but that by immediate difpatches and expreffes from Babylon the fon now upon his Expedition must have forthwith heard of it, and thereupon have made all the hafte he could home. And that he did fo, we have the exprefs teftimony of Berofus for it (6). Whereas Mr. L. in evident contradiction thereunto brings him not home 'till two years after (c). And therefore forfooth the Writer of the LIId Chapter of Jeremiah called that year the 23d of Nebuchadnezzar the father; Which as I have shewn occafionally by all the Accounts of Jeremiah could not poffibly be any other than the 23d of the fon. Upon all accounts therefore 'tis unpardonable in Mr. L. to have thus perverted Scripture no lefs than Jofephus for the fake of his Hypothefis. I add also especially as Jofephus is directly against Mr L. in this teftimony.

For Jofephus hath here told us exprefly that in his 23d Nebu chadnezzar in his own perfon led his army into Coelefyria, &c. (d). But unless Nebuchadnezzar the Father led his Army now two years after he was confeffedly dead, the 23d year here mention'd could never have been his. Mr. L. muft fetch him out of his grave to prove this. Therefore this 23d year of Nebuchadnezzar fpoken of by JoSephus must neceffarily remain to Nebuchadnezzar the fon (e).

And fo to leave this great Abfurdity, this having been his 23d, and the fifth year alfo from the Year inclufive of the burning of the Temple and the Deftruction of the City, the faid fifth year preceding this 23d of Nebuchadnezzar the fon must have been his 19th alfo, according to Jofephus, no less than it is fo according to the Scriptures.

And though we do not find that year of Nebuchadnezzar, but the 18th in our present Jofephus equal to the 11th of Zedekiah, when according both to the holy Scriptures, and Jofephus the faid Calamity befell Jerufalem, yet 'tis plain by this account it must have been the 19th, for if Jofephus's 23d of Nebuchadnezzar was the fifth, as by his teftimony it was after the deftruction of Jerufalem, then the first inclufive of thofe five years from whence the 23d was the fifth must have been the 19th.

And as I before noted, Mr. L. hath abandon'd Jofephus as to his 18th, as he hath placed the burning of the Temple truly in the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar. But as he hath made it the 19th of the father, he hath groundlefly drawn in Jofephus into fuch an errand mistake, which is utterly inconfiftent with all his Accounts now giv'n; and which it is therefore not credible that he could have run into it. But

F 4

(a) Or in the year before A. D. 605. (b) In Fof. Ant, lib. x. c. xi. p. 459. and con. Ap. lib. 1. (c) p. 35. of Mr. L. (d) Ant. lib. x. c. ix. p. 454. (e) I add here occafionally that the Scripture 23d of Neb. and fofephus's 23d of him being the fame, the firft of Neb. from whence this is the 23d muft alfo be the fame in fofephus, as in the Scriptures, viz. the firft of Nebuchadnezzar the fon equal to the 4th of Jehoiakim, when the faid Nebuchadnezzar (mote Pharaoh Necho according to Jofephus, as well as the holy Scriptures,

But in cafe that Jofephus had meant, as Mr. L. doth, and as he hath concluded him to do alfo, viz. that Jerufalem was destroyed in the father's life-time, Mr. L. ought then to have kept to Jofephus's 18th of Nebuchadnezzar: becaufe if that were the truth, Jofephus was certainly in the right in placing it in the 18th, and not in the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar. For from the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar the father to the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, there are but 70 years exactly according to Ptolemy's Canon (a). But as to that Jofephus's other certain Dates of time here noted fhew his contrary meaning. And therefore in this, and fome other of his leffer numbers, he hath been corrupted or otherwise he was lefs accurate in his copying of them from the Scriptures.

But ftill here we have Mr. L's authority for the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar being the Year of that King of Babylon fo called, equal to the 11th of Zedekiah when the Temple was burnt. And not for this reafon only as Mr L. hath here corrected the number; (tho' he hath misapplied the King) but also because Jofephus's fifth year from hence was the 23d of Nebuchadnezzar, it remains that his Year of the Destruction of Jerufalem truly was the nineteenth. And for the fure reasons before giv'n, it was the 19th not of the father, but of the fon.

And thus, Finally, according to Jofephus, as well as according to the holy Scriptures the Deftruction of the City, and Temple of Jerufalem was in the 11th of Zedekiah coincident with the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar the Son, in the Jewish reckoning thereof (b), which was the 17th in the Babylonih (c).

But from all these refpective accounts, as it may be seen in the Table annexed, there are no more than fifty years downwards to the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, where Mr. L. hath ended the Jewish Captivity, in his mistaken first of Cyrus. And to come down two years lower according to the truth, viz. to the firft of Cyrus of the Scriptures, and Jofephus's first of Cyrus from the Phenician Annals, which was not 'till after Darius's two years reign, when he died, there are still but 52 Years only from the burning of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar the fon, in his 19th, and in the 11th of Zedeki an; when, and not before the Defolations of Jerufalem were accomplished: Or in the words of Jofephus (d), when Jerufalem, and the Temple lay defolate. But not poffibly could they lye fo 70 years in any confiftency with Jofephus, as Mr. L. hath mifapplied these 70 years to them, which by all Jofephus's reckonings it appears that he could mean only of Judaa firit mention'd there, (as it may be feen more particularly above under Mr. L's first Quotation from him;) As the whole time of the Calamities, and Defolations of that Coun try from their first beginning of them in the fourth of Jehoiakim in all

(a) See the Table annexed. father before his death.

death.

(b) viz. of his reigning 2 years in conjunction with his (c) Where the years of his reign are reckon'd after his father's (d) Ant. lib. x. c. 9. P. 454•

all the feveral paffages, and occurrences related by Jofephus downwards to the firft of Cyrus do evidently contain a History of no more than 70 Years: As I think I have proved beyond all contradiction from Jofephus's grand Characters of time, or certain dates of years of the reigns of Kings in those times both Jewish and Babylonish.

And therefore unless we will wilfully mistake, and confound Jofephus here, we must thus interpret this lefs accurate expreffion of his (a), if it really were his; And we must neceffarily understand by it no more than this, viz. that whereas there was a 70 Years Valjalage of the Jews to the King of Babylon, begun (according to himielf, in confiftency with himself,) in the fourth of Jehoiakim, this was the actual beginning of thofe Defolations of Judea, which as yet only in part befel her, and which 18 years after, viz. in the 11th of Zedekiah were WHOLLY compleated in the deftruction of her Metropolis, and with the burning of the House of God in it: Both which, viz. Jerufalem and the TEMPLE thus and then destroyed, did fo remain, or lye defolate to the end of thefe LXX Years of the Defolations of Judæa begun as above, viz. in the 4th of Jehoiakim, at 18 years diftance before the burning of the Temple, and City in the 11th of Zedekiah, and the LAND's then, and not before, coming to be WHOLLY defolate; and fo remaining 'till the first of Cyrus.

Thus truly and exactly are thefe things determined by the ho ly Scriptures, and by the Accounts agreeably thereunto giv'n by Berofus, and Jofephus in their several preceding teftimonies.

At length therefore to come home to the point, which hath occafion'd our having recourse to these testimonies, Since it is thus fully evident from all of them, that the 70 Years Captivity of the Jews began in the 4th of Jehoiakim, equal (not poffibly to Mr. L's firft of Nebuchadnezzar the father, which is at 90 years diftance from the firft of Cyrus's 9 years reign after his taking of Babylon, but neceffarily equal) to the first of Nebuchadnezzar the son, at 70 years distance from the firft of Cyrus's 7 years reign according to the holy Scriptures, and Xenophon (b) after the death of Darius, when ended the Captivity of the Jews in their release, and return by virtue of Cyrus's Decree; And Since Confequently the (c) earlieft date of the Land's lying WHOLLY defolate was not, could not poffibly be fooner than the Year of the burning of the Temple, and of Ferufalem's utter deftruction 18 years after in the 11th of Zedekiah equal (not poffibly to Mr, L's 19th of Nebuchadnezzar the father, at 70 years diftance, as he hath extravagantly made it from his firft of Cyrus's 9 years reign after his taking of Babylon, but neceffarily equal) to the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar the fon, which was only at 52 years distance from the first of Cyrus's 7 years reign accord

(a) viz, the Paffage which Mr. L. hath taken hold of under his firft Quotation from thefe words of Jofephus-----JUDÆA, Ferufalem, and the Temple lay defolate 70 years. (b) As formerly Thewn. (c) For ftrictly speaking, the Land was not WHOLLY defolate, 'till 4 years after, when was that carrying away by Nebuzaradan. fer. lii. 30. .

according to the Scriptures, and Xenophon, It hence undeniably fol lows upon the fure authority of all these concurring teftimonies, that the Captivity of Judah did actually commence 18 years before the time came when with any truth the Land could be faid to thav lain WHOLLY Defolate, or to have rested from tillage, and herein to have enjoyed her Sabbaths.

For in fact the Jews ftill remaining in their country from the fourth of Jehoiakim (when commenced their 70 years vaffalage to the King of Babylon, their King then becoming tributary, and their Nobles (the fons of the royal family (a) not excepted) and people captivated at pleasure from time to time afterwards) 'till the 11th of Zedekiah, when was their final fubversion in those times, here was thus 18 years neceffarily continued tillage of the Land after the actual commencement of the Jews Vaffalage, or Captivity. Therefore no more poffibly than two and fifty years remained for the Land to have lain WHOLLY defolate therein; and fo to have kept Sabbath.

AND therefore Mr. L. is abfolutely mistaken in what he hath afferted of the Land's having lain WHOLLY defolate during the 70 years of the Captivity; and therein enjoying 70 Sabbaths; as being 70 Sabbatical years of 70 Weeks preceding the Captivity groundleffly fuppos'd to have been neglected to the occafioning 70 years Defolations of the land, equal to the faid Captivity. And therefore

Finally, Mr. L's Hypothefis in this part of it of a period of LXX Weeks fancied to confift of 570 Years by the groundless addition of the 70 years of the Captivity from his mistaken END, OCCASION, and NATURE of thofe 70 years, as if the LAND had WHOLLY lain DESOLATE all that time, whereas as we have seen in fact it did not, droppeth of course; as being void of all foundation in evident failure of the fuppos'd fact.

Nor otherwise hath it any, however by Mr. L's telling (6) it fhould have, even in the nature of Weeks confider'd according to the Law, as attended by their fabbatical Years, and Years of Jubilee. For by the Law Mr. L. would justifie his fuppofed numbers of Years in feventy Weeks, as by his telling us they make according to that in refpect of Jubilees 500 years; and in refpect of fabbatical Years, 570. But as to the latter, that according to the Law is wholly impoffible; and as to the former, that is abfolutely uncertain. For

Firft, as to the nature of feventy Weeks among the Jews, confider'd with their Years of Jubilee, the included number of Years in fuch a giv'n period, and in fuch relation is moft uncertain. For it hath ever been, and still is a disputed point (c), whether the fiftieth

(a) Dan. i. 3. (b) p. 60, 66, 67, 69. (c) See the learned Dr. Prid. p. xiv. of his Preface to Con. Hift. where he most juftly explodes the Reckonings by Years of Jubilee, and Sabbatical Years, as moft uncertain, and therefore moft ufelefs. And in truth however Mr. L. hath magnified thefe Computations [p. 31, 72.] and hath at pleaJure accounted fome Years mention'd in Scripture as having fuch relation, which perhaps had none, [as particularly [p. 31.] in his making his mistaken 10th of Zedekiah a Sab

batical