For the 70 Years there added were therefore profeffedly added on account of the Jews imagin'd tho' mistaken neglect of 70 fabbatical Years before the Captivity. The 70 Years added here (a) are those immediately following after the Captivity was ended, or the 70 Years from Mr. L's first of Cyrus to his imagin'd 7th of Artaxerxes; from whence follow his other 500 Years.

Now if there were any reason for the prefixing 70 Years in this latter imagin'd period of 570 Years under the 2d Temple to the making the 70 Weeks of the Prophecy of Daniel equal to 570 Years, as formerly in fuch imagin'd period of Weeks as was preceding Mr. L's firft of Cyrus for the annexing thereunto the 70 Years of the Captivity, the fews muft now after their return, and especially from the time of Ezra's coming up to Jerufalem have neglected the Sabbatical Years of 70 Weeks, or of Mr. L's 500 years from His 7th of Artaxerxes. But the fact hereof is not fo much as fuppos'd here, as it was mistakenly fuppos'd there. And Mr. L. himself hath taken away all ground of fuch Suppofition here from his now cited foregoing teftimonies: whereby 'tis agreed that the Obferva tion of fabbatical Years was certainly reviv'd by Ezra upon his coming to Jerufalem. Therefore there being no fuch reafon here for the adding of 70 Years, as it was pretended there, the Addition here is ftill more groundless. And a Period of Seventy Weeks under the fecond Temple confider'd even in this relation as attended with Sabbatical Years, neceffarily remains a Period only of 490 Years.

So that upon the whole Mr. L. is quite befide the mark in all that he hath faid from the beginning to the end on this occafion, as in order to overthrow the abstracted Nature of the Weeks of this Prophecy or of 490 years he hath fent us to the Law, and to the Seventy Tears (mistaken) Defolations of Jerufalem, and to Jubilee Years, and fabbatical Years, as if the weeks of this Prophecy had any relation to them, whereas were there any reason to conclude that they had any fuch relation, yet even that Relation fails him, as we have now feen in a giv'n period of Sabbatical Weeks under the fecond Temple.

But even fuch Relation is only imaginary here, and hath not any the leaft foundation for it, other than that of the word Weeks being us'd here (b).

For wherefore should this predicted period of God's determined time for Grand Events to fall out in them become a fabbatical period of Weeks?

Had any of their predicted Events to do with fabbatical Years?--They had not. Nor hath Mr. L., nor no man else said it that I know of. Where then is the Sabbatical Relation? There must be fome fuch relation firft prov'd, to prove the Sabbatical nature of the Weeks, or Years of this Prophecy. And 'till this be done, Mr. L. must give us leave to look upon the word WEEKS here

(a) p. 69. of Mr. L. (b) Dan. ix. 24. Seventy WEEKS are determined.

to

to denote nothing else but an Eastern way of expreffing fo many Septenaries, and thofe as I have formerly prov'd (a), of Years in this Prophecy.

And therefore to apply the words of the learned Dr. Prideaux (b) here, who hath spoken incomparably well on this occafion, as having fhewn the very great uncertainty of fixing the nature, and certain fucceffion of Years of Jubilee, and of Sabbatical Years, He moft truly, and properly adds in the following words, that they act most out of the way in this matter, who would confine Daniel's Prophe cy of the Seventy Weeks to fo many Shemittah's, as if thefe Seventy Weeks fell in exactly with feventy Shemittahs, that is, that the first week began with the first Year of a Shemittah (c), or Sabbatical Week, and ended with a Sabbatical Year, which was the last of a Shemittah, and fo all the reft down to the last of the whole number. And to this end fome have PERPLEXED themselves in VAIN to find out Sabbatical Years to fuit their Hypothefis's, and fix them to TIMES, to which they did NEVER belong; whereas the Prophecy means no more than by the Seventy Weeks to exprefs SEVENĪY TIMES SEVEN YEARS, that is 490 in the WHOLE, without ANY RELATION had either to Shemittahs, or Sabbatical Years.

And this great Chronologer and Hiftorian having thus giv❜n us the truth of this matter, I need not to fay any more to the farther proving that these Weeks are purely of an abstracted nature. For therein they neceffarily do, and must remain for any thing that Mr. L. hath advanced for their different nature in his New Hypothefis of these Weeks. Of which Hypothefis even all the ground-works, or foundations, as we have seen, are abfolutely mistaken, and utterly inconfiftent not only with his other pretended teftimonies, but alfo with the holy Scriptures.

And thus much may fuffice ro have been said of the nature of thefe 70 Weaks, or to the fhewing that they contain in respect of Years 7 times 70 Years, and as a period of years they are a Period abfolutely of 490 Years.

I am yet to fpeak a few words to Mr. L's Divifion of these. Weeks, before I put an end to this Chapter.

I formerly obferv'd (d) that Mr. L's deduced Divifion of them is truly made up of nothing but Inconsistency, and Mistake. I need therefore to do no more here than to make good that charge. And,

First, as to the Inconfiftency, that is evident from Mr. L's twofold different fenfe of Ezekiel's (e) bearing the punishment of the iniquity of the Heufe of Ifrael, and of the Houfe of Judah.

(a) See above, p. 10, and 81. (b) Pref. to Con. Hift p. xv. (c) And this is the very thing that Mr. L. moft groundleffly hath done here, as in p. 72. of his book] he hath made the year of Ezra's return, the firft Year of a fecond Era of Weeks among the Jews, in his mistaken 7th of Artaxerxes differing no less than fix years from the true 7th there of in Ptolemy's Canon, (d) See above, p. 11. note b. (c) Ch.iv. 4, 5, 6.

For in one place (4) we are told, and that very truly, that by that Prophet's bearing the Punishment, &c. is meant God's forbearance, &c. But afterwards (b) for the fake of deducing the Divifion of these Weeks from thefe Years of Ezekiel, we are told that this bearing of Ezekiel is a representative bearing of that 390 Years Punishment [not which as in the other place God had forborn, but] which Ifrael Jhould bear for their having neglected the fabbatical Years of 390 preceding years, and in like manner of the 40 Years punishment [not which as in the other (c) place God was yet forbearing (d) but] which the Houfe of Judah fhould bear for their having neglected the fabbatical Tears belonging to 40 Years. And this may fuffice as to the Inconsistency.

Secondly, As to the mistake, that is also evident from the falfity of Calculation here as in Ifrael's 390 Years Iniquity they are faid by Mr. L. to have neglected 63 fabbatical Years. Whereas if they had neglected to keep fabbatical Years that whole time, viz. 390 years, they could have neglected but 55 fabbatical Years during that time: forafmuch as in the number 390 there are found but 7 times 55, and 5 years over. And as to the Calculation in the House of Judah, there is also a mistake, as in their 40 Years they are faid to have neglected 6 fabbatical Years. But viewing this neglect only in this number, they could have neglected only 5 fabbatical years completely in that time, as only 5 times 7 is to be found in 40; and 5 over.

But in another view of the House of Judah's having neglected fabbatical Years, it is evident from Mr. L. himself that they must neceffarily have neglected a great many more fabbatical Years, and thofe also separate from the Houfe of Ifrael (for that is what Mr. L. here (e) alfo infifts upon) forafmuch as between the carrying away of the one House and the other, there is an interval of 130 Years in Mr. L's chronology hereof. And to that we may go in the cafe before us, tho' he hath mistaken the true year of Salmanefer's carrying away the 10 Tribes, as he hath made (f) that fact to have hapned in A.P.J.3976 (g) which in the truth thereof fell out in A.P.J. 3993 (b); but to ftick to that at prefent, and to go alfo to his mistaken 11th of Zedekiah, in A. P. J. 4106 () as we are at prefent concern'd immediately with Mr. E.'s Calculation, the Interval for Judah's having feparately neglected fabbatical Years after Ifrael's carrying away, is as I laid before 130 Years.

Now did the Houfe of Judah neglect all, or only fome of the fabbatical Years of that period, because Mr. L. tells us of fix only for the 40 years of Ezekiel ?-----Why truly, this notwithstanding, they must have neglected all the fabbatical years of that Interval by Mr. L's own telling elsewhere (i). For he hath there expreffly faid that the

Land

(4) p. 30 of Mr. E.'s book. (b) p.133, &c. of Mr. L.'s book. (c) P. 3° (4) That God did yet forbear their utter Extirpation, is evident from their poffibility of till abiding in the Land even after the 11 th of Zedekiah, [Jer. xlii. 1---12], But 4 years after the Defolations of the WHOLE Land being ftrictly compleated, no more of its former Inhabitants being then left therein, God's forbearance was then utterly at an end.

(e) p. 134 of his book. (f) p. 145 of Mr. L. (g) Or in the year before A. D.

7.38. (b) Or in the year before, A. D. 721. See Dr. Prid. Con. Hift. p. 18 (i) Or in the year before, A D. 609. (k) p. 68 of MIL

Land had no more Sabbaths in 570 years preceding his firft of Cyrus where he ends the Captivity of Judah, even for that very reason, than it fhould have had in 500 Years preceding the Captivity. Therefore the Houfe of Judah in this Mr. Z's own view of neglected fabbatical Years, inftead of fix only, according to himself in one place must neceffarily have neglected no less than 18 fabbatical years, according to himself also in another place, after that Ifrael was carried away by Salmanefer. For in the number 130 there is evidently 7 times 18, and 4 remaining.

Alafs therefore what palpable Inconfiftencies, and Mistakes here are ?----And all of them are foreign to the purpose.

For what can these Years of Ezekiel have to do with the Divifion of these Weeks of Daniel?--Where is any ground for the imagin'd Allufion in numbers ?---Where is the conformity of them?

Here are from the Prophet Ezekiel's Years, deduced by Mr. L. the numbers of Weeks 63, and 6, (All mistaken numbers) giv'n us by Mr. L. upon Ifrael, and Judah's foremention'd Account, and one Week more arbitrarily thrust in after to the making the faid number 6 become number 7. And fo from Ezekiel we have at length 63 Weeks, and 7 Weeks: And whereas 7 Weeks, and 63 Weeks make 70 Weeks, therefore Mr. Z. thinks that he hath thus accounted for the divifion of the seventy weeks of the Prophecy of Daniel.

But alafs, what are these Mr. L's numbers of Weeks, viz. of 63 Weeks, and 7 Weeks to the most folemn, most distinct, and orderly, or regularly proceeding numbers of Weeks of the faid Prophecy, viz. to the numbers first of 7 Weeks (a), then of 62 weeks (b), and after that of (c) feparate, or fingle week attended also with its more diftinguished one Half thereof?

And therefore after all, where is the least occafion for fuch groundleffly deduced Division of these Weeks, which in the exprefs letter of the Prophecy have their own fure divifion in the several, and distinctly applied grand Events to the feveral, and distinct periods of it?

I have above (d) curforily noted thofe diftinct periods. I muft neceffarily fpeak more fully to them hereafter in their respective order.

But this may fuffice to have been faid here at prefent, as well in general concerning the Divifion of these weeks, as in particular to this foreign Divifion of them.

And having before fully fpoken to the nature of thefe Weeks, and now having occafionally faid thus much as to the Division of them, I may put an end to this Chapter.

(~) Dan. ix. 25. (b) ib. and v. 26. (c) v. 27. (d) In the Introduction, p.10,&c.

TRUE CHRONOLOGY

Of Events mentioned in the foregoing Chapter, for 90 (t) Tears preceding the Scripture first of CYRUS: according to the holy Scriptures; the Phoenician Annals ; Berofus, and Jofephus; and PTOLEMY's Canon.

16

17

183 623
622

19

20

21

5621

6 620

227 619

Nabopollafar, or Nebuchadnezzar the first, or the father.

238 618

24

56

22

25

26

10 616

11 615

(a) Hence are to be reckon'd the Forty Years of God's Forbearance of the Iniquity of the HOUSE of Judah. Ezek. iv. 6.

(b) Died Pfammitichus King of Egypt; next his Son Necus reigned, or the Pharao Necho of the Scriptures. [Prid. Con. Hift. p. 47 from Herodotus lib. 1.]

(t) Viz. from the 15th of King Jofiah, as Mr. L. hath brought us up fo high by his 20 years rais'd 11th of Zedekiah, and thereby made the fourth of Jehoiakim equal to the firft of Nebuchadnezzar the father; and fo hath got the fourth of Jehoiakim really into the place of the 15th of King Jofiah.