but it did not determine the events in conformity to its predictions, merely because they had been made the subjects thereof; that is to say, it left the events free to such causes as determine the being or not being of events, whether they have been made the subject of prophecy beforehand or not. Hence, though the separation of seven weeks or forty-nine years from the head of four hundred and eighty-three might be an arbitrary thing; the close of the Jewish war, A. D. 75, was not so, but must be determined by the course of events and the course of events, for any thing that we can comprehend or conceive, might have brought the Jewish war to a close a year sooner than A. D. 75, or a year later. But the course of events, it appears, brought it to a close exactly A. D. 75: and A. D. 75 was exactly forty-nine years later than A. D. 26: as B. C. 409 was exactly forty-nine years later than B. C. 458. And A. D. 26 was the close of the first of the lines of futurity, as bearing date from B. C. 458, and A. D. 75 was the close of the second, as bearing date from B. C. 409. The course of events, then, it seems, brought each of these lines to an end, exactly at the same distance of time asunder, as the beginning of the second had been fixed by the prophecy itself, from the beginning of the first. And though the prophecy might fix the beginning of this line, it could not fix its termination. The separation of forty-nine years from the first of these lines, to constitute the beginning of the second, might be an arbitrary act; but the end of the line, whose beginning had been thus determined, must be left to the course of things. What further argument is necessary to satisfy us, that seven weeks, or forty-nine years, but no more, were purposely detached from the rest of the prophecy, to serve as the point of

departure to the second of its lines of futurity, because it was foreseen, that in the due course of events, this line itself would come to an end exactly at that distance of time from the other? And, consequently, what further argument is necessary to prove, that arbitrary as this separation may appear, it was in reality forecast with the nicest adaptation to the necessity of the case, and to the course of things to come? and the opprobrium of commentators, and confessedly the most difficult and inexplicable of the circumstances of the prophecy, as this division of the first seven of its weeks from the body of the rest has heretofore been; yet when the true reason of it comes to be perceived, it is really one of the most worthy of admiration, and not only as intelligible as any of the rest, but perhaps of all, the most characteristic of the prescience which dictated the whole.

And now having arrived at this conclusion, I am not aware that any thing further is requisite to the full and entire explanation of the prophecy of the seventy weeks, in all and singular of its parts. Yet, long as we have dwelt upon this subject, before we take our leave of it finally, I cannot refrain from observing that the service which this prophecy is calculated to render to sacred and profane chronology, by fixing with chronological precision the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the date of the mission of Ezra, exactly four hundred and eighty-three years before the true date of the commencement of the ministration of the Messiah, A. D. 26-and consequently to B. C. 458, is very important. B. C. 458, the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus being given as a fixed point, it is easy to ascend from thence to the first of Cyrus, B.C. 536: and from the first of Cyrus, B. C. 536, to the date of the Baby

lonian captivity, B. C. 606: which being once determined, we are put in possession of a key-stone to the whole edifice of scripture chronology through the reigns of the kings of Judah, by themselves first, and afterwards of Judah and Israel conjointly; and so on to the date of the Exodus, and to those of still earlier events. Nor can I forbear to observe, (what must, in fact, be my best, and certainly my principal apology, for devoting so much time and attention to this one subject, in the course of a work like the present,) that this same prophecy is of infinite importance in settling the basis of every attempt at an harmonized, chronological arrangement of the facts of the Gospel, or of those of the Apostolical history: for after what has been shewn, it must be the height of scepticism, I think, to question whether the prophecy of the seventy weeks, among its other predictions and determinations of events to come, has not fixed the interval between Messiah the Prince and his cutting off-that is, between the beginning and the conclusion of that ministration which we have called the ministration of the Messiah-to a period of half a week, and neither more nor less than half a week; that is, to neither more nor less than three years and six months' time in which case, every attempt at an harmonized arrangement of the events of the four Gospel histories, from the commencement of the preaching of John, to the death and passion of our Lord-which would not plainly be contradictory to this prophecy, or plainly be contradicted by it must be arranged accordingly. It would be equal scepticism, under the same circumstances, to doubt, whether the same prophecy has fixed the period, during which formal Christianity was to be preached to the Jews, and preached to them exclusively, to an

interval of one week of years, and of one week only; and therefore whether every attempt to settle the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles, between the day of Pentecost, when the Gospel began to be preached, and the time of the martyrdom of Stephen, that is to say, for the first seven chapters of the Acts themselves, that would not contradict this prophecy, or be contradicted by it, must be governed by this knowledge of the event, accordingly: and the first seven chapters of the Acts and of the Apostolical History-being thus to be distributed over the first seven years of the Christian history, from A. D. 30, to A. D. 37, it follows of necessity that the rest must be digested and distributed, also, so as to accord with these. The only true basis of the chronological arrangement of the history of the apostles, and of their labours, as far as it is recorded in the Acts or in the Epistles, and as far as it is to be made up consistently out of the notices supplied by either, or by both-is thus determined beforehand. If that arrangement would not proceed on a false foundation, it must set out with this cardinal principlethat seven years elapsed, and are to be accounted for accordingly, between the first Christian sermon, and the first instance of the conversion of any but Jews.

I am well aware that these are positions, which will meet with an unwelcome reception from the minds of readers prepossessed with contrary persuasions, which they have long been in the habit of considering as true; or from such writers upon these subjects as stand committed to opinions of a very different kind: especially the authors of harmonies of the gospel, which proceed on the principle of a one year's or a two years' ministry of our Saviour, at the utmost. But convinced as I am of the truth of these statements, I

can neither retract nor qualify them. The truth must be spoken-especially where the honour of a prophecy like that of the seventy weeks, the most illustrious monument of prophecy even in the Old Testament itself or the question of the plain simple meaning of its terms, is at stake. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica religio: ἀμφοῖν γὰρ φίλοιν ὄντοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾷν τὴν aλýleιav. We must not allow ourselves to be restrained by any false delicacy, from declaring our opinion plainly, that with the palpable evidence of this prophecy before their eyes, those harmonists who pay no attention to its intimations, in arranging the facts of the gospel history, are either unintentionally guilty of a serious oversight or do a wilful disparagement to the prophecy itself. They are unintentionally guilty of a serious oversight, if they forget to attend to intimations which so closely concern their proper subject: and they wilfully disparage the prophecy, if, knowing of these intimations, they think they may be excused from attending to them, as too indefinite or precarious to lead to any certain conclusion-or too equivocal and ambiguous to be plainly and clearly understood.

As for myself, it has been my object, with God's blessing and assistance upon my humble endeavours, to ascertain a scheme of interpretation of this celebrated prophecy, which should assume no theory, as its basis, independent of the prophecy-should seek for no clue to its investigations, beyond the selffurnished light of the prophecy itself, and desire no confirmation of its truth, but the evidence of the event. And I think, that by the same Divine blessing and assistance, a scheme has been proposed above, which, to the best of my judgment, is complete and perfect from first to last; founded in the principles of