II. The date of the first decree, enacted in the first year of Cyrus, is A. P. J. 4178 and A. A. C. 536, p. 82.

III. It has been questioned, whether the second decree was enacted by Darius Hystaspis or Darius Nothus. The latter opinion may be proved to be erroneous by four arguments. p. 83.

1. The first argument. p. 83,

2. The second argument. p. 84,

3. The third argument. p. 87.

4. The fourth argument. The second decree therefore was enacted in the third year of Darius Hystaspis, A. P. J. 4195 and A. A. C. 519. p. 91,

IV. There is a dispute respecting the true commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. p. 94.

1. The opinion of Petavius considered. p. 97.

2. The opinion of Usher considered. p. 101,

3. The opinion of Ptolemy and Prideaux adopted; whence the edict of the seventh year of Artaxerxes is fixed to A. P. J. 4256 and A. A. C. 458. p. 106.

V. A table shewing the dates of the three edicts and the verbal permission of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, according to the years of the era of Nabonassar, the years of the Julian period, and the years before the Christian era. p. 106.

VĮ. The result from the preceding discussion is, that no interpretation of the prophecy can be admitted, unless it

computes the seventy weeks from some one of the es tablished dates of the Persian edicts. p. 107.

CHAP, III.

Concerning the various interpretations which have been given of the prophecy of the seventy weeks.

I. Interpretations, which reckon the period of the seventy weeks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longi

manus. p. 109.

1. Inter

1. Interpretation of Africanus. Objections to it. p. 109. 2. Interpretations of Petavius and Usher. Objections to them. p. 112.

3. Interpretations of Lloyd, Marshall, Butt, and Wintle. p. 118.

(1.) First objection. p. 120.
(2.) Second objection. p. 120.
(3.) Third objection. p. 123.

(4.) Fourth objection. p. 128.

II. Interpretations, which reckon the period from the third or the sixth year of Darius, erroneously supposed to be Darius Nothus. Those of Scaliger and Mede. jections to them. p. 136.

Ob

III. Interpretations, which reckon the period from the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. p. 137.

1. Interpretation of Sir Isaac Newton. Objections to it. p. 138.

2. Interpretation of Prideaux. Objections to it. p. 144. Lapide. Objections to it.

3. Interpretation of Cornelius a Lapide.

p. 157.

IV. Interpretations, which reckon the period from the first year of Cyrus. p. 158.

1. Interpretation of Blayney. p. 158.

(1.) Objections to the proposed new readings. p. 168.
(2.) Objections to the interpretation founded on them.
p. 177.

2. Interpretation of Lancaster. p. 202.

(1.) First objection. p. 208.
(2.) Second objection. p. 211.
(3.) Third objection. p. 218.
(4.) Fourth objection. p. 221.
(5.) Fifth objection. p. 224.

Concerning the proper translation of the prophecy.

TIIE supposed genuine original text exhibited and translated.

p. 228.

1. A defence of four various readings. p. 230.

1. The first reading. p. 230.

2. The second reading. p. 230. 3. The third reading. p. 230.

4. The fourth reading. p. 231.

II. A defence of certain variations from the common English

version. p. 232.

1. The first variation. p. 232.
2. The second variation. p. 233.
3. The third variation. p. 234.
4. The fourth variation. p. 235.
5. The fifth variation. p. 235.
6. The sixth variation. p. 235.
7. The seventh variation. p. 237.
8. The eighth variation. p. 238.
9. The ninth variation. p. 242.
10. The tenth variation. p. 242.
11. The eleventh variation. p. 245.
12. The twelfth variation. p. 245.
13. The thirteenth variation. p. 253.
14. The fourteenth variation. p. 254.
15. The fifteenth variation. p. 254.

CHAP. V.

Concerning the mutual relation of the different clauses of the prophecy considered in the abstract.

THE importance and utility of establishing certain abstract positions, deduced from an examination of the prophecy itself without reference to any system of interpretation. p. 256.

An inquiry into the proper interpretation of the prophecy.

Į A DISCUSSION of the first clause of the prophecy, cone

1. An inquiry into the import of the six particulars con-

tained in this clause. p. 281,

(1.) The first particular. p. 282.

(2.) The second particular. p. 286.

(3.) The third particular. p. 290.

(4.) The fourth particular, p. 292.

(5.) The fifth particular. p. 293,

(6.) The sixth particular. p. 297.

2. With three of these particulars, which are synchronical

and chronologically later than the other three parti-

culars, the seventy weeks must terminate: and, since

these three later particulars synchronize with the

crucifixion, the seventy weeks must terminate with

the crucifixion. Therefore they must commence se-

venty weeks or 490 years before the crucifixion. And

this epoch of their commencement precisely coincides,

with the date of the going forth of the decree in the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Therefore that decree must be the decree mentioned in the pro. phecy. p. 299.

3. The question discussed, how this arrangement agrees with the seventy weeks being the times of the holy city. p.

302.

(1.) In order to reconcile them, we are necessarily led to

conclude, that the holy city is not the literal Jerusa¬ lem, but a figurative holy city, namely the Levitical church and polity. p. 302.

(2.) This point is established by comparing the prophecy with the edict of the seventh year of Artaxerxes. p.

303.

(3.) It is likewise established by the context of the prophecy itself. p. 310.

(4.) Such an interpretation accords with the acknowledged exposition of other parallel passages. p. 312.

II. A discussion of the second clause, contained in Ver, 25. p.

315.

1. Arrangement of the smaller periods comprehended within the seventy weeks. p. 316.

(1.) The sixty nine weeks reach unto the Messiah, by which must be understood into the commencement of the Gospel dispensation. Accordingly, if reckoned from the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, they terminate in A. P. J. 4739; which is the fifteenth year of Tiberius calculated from his admission to a copartnership of the empire, and in which the ministry of John the Baptist (declared by our Lord to be the beginning of the Gospel dispensation) commenced. p. 316.

(2.) A reply to Mr. Marshall's objections against this arrangement of St. Luke's fifteenth year of Tiberius. p.

321.