wise the list is defective, and they are in reality the appointed period to effect something more than the prophet teaches us they should effect. On the other hand, if they do not expire with some one of the specified particulars, but terminate before all those particulars are accomplished, then a larger portion of time ought to have been marked out: because it is manifest, that seventy weeks cannot be said to have been appointed to effect all the particulars in question, if some of the particulars in question be not effected until long after the expiration of the seventy weeks. But, if the secenty weeks can neither extend beyond the last particular, nor fall short of it; then they must terminate exactly with its accomplishment.

3. Though the seventy weeks must terminate with some one or more of the particulars specified, we are not bound to suppose that all the particulars are precisely synchronical.

This point seems to require no proof: for, since it is only said that the seventy weeks are the precise period within which all the particulars should be effected, it is plain, that, though they must expire with some one or more of the particulars, the others may be effected either earlier or later in the course of the seventy weeks.

4. Since the seventy weeks are the appointed period upon the holy city, and since they commence

with the edict for the rebuilding of it, they must. be the times of the holy city, and must therefore synchronize with its duration.

This position is Mr. Mede's*; and he adduces it for the purpose of confuting those, who with Funccius compute the seventy weeks from the seventh year of Artaxerxes and make them expire with the passion of Christ f. But it equally confutes his own hypothesis, even if we allow his chronological arrangement to be better established than it is. For, if the seventy weeks be the times of the holy city, and if by the holy city the literal holy city be understood, then its times amount not merely to 490 years as Mr. Mede endeavours to shew, but to 605 years because Jerusalem began to be rebuilt in pursuance of the edict of Cyrus in the year A. C. 536, and was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 of the Christian era

* ، These serenty weeks are the times allotted for the conti"nuance of the Holy city, and therefore must they last as long (6 as it lasted, and end with the end thereof." Works. B. iii. p. 697.

"Funccius his computation of the seventy weeks from the "seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus (whence to Christ's "passion he finds just 490 years)". is untenable, "because it "ends the seventy weeks (which by the text were allotted for "the Holy city) long before the times of the Holy city were "fulfilled." Works. B. iii. p. 710.

‡ I have already shewn, that the literal Jerusalem did most undoubtedly begin to be rebuilt from the first year of Cyrus.

5. The seven weeks, the sixty and two weeks, and the one week, must be estimated as component parts of the seventy weeks.

This appears from the general context of the prophecy since the seventy weeks look prospectively and are evidently mentioned as the leading number in the introduction to the prophecy, and since the smaller periods of weeks also look prospectively and are no less evidently mentioned as subordinate numbers in the prophecy itself, the natural presumption is, that the smaller prospective numbers are included in the larger prospective number. It further appears from the circumstance of there being no date assigned to the commencement of the seventy weeks, except that which is assigned to the commencement of the seven weeks that precede the sixty and two weeks; whence we must conclude, that the seventy weeks and the seven weeks begin synchronically. It lastly appears from the exact accordance of the smaller numbers with the larger number; seven weeks, sixty two weeks, and one week, making up the precise sum of seventy weeks.

6. The seventy weeks must be continuous; that is to say, the seven weeks, the sixty two weeks, and the one week, into which the seventy weeks are subdivided, must succeed each other in regular chronological order, the two latter of these smalier periods commencing

commencing exactly where their respective predecessors terminated.

This position is one that must naturally and obviously occur to any person, whose judgment is not warped by a predilection for some favourite system which requires a different arrangement. If we concede the liberty of chronologically separating the smaller periods from each other, we must at once give up every systematic interpretation of the prophecy; and, instead of feeling ourselves to tread upon sure ground, we must resign ourselves to the arbitrary humour of the commentator. One person may wish to separate the seven weeks from the sixty two weeks; another, to separate the sixty two weeks from the one week; and a third, to separate them all three from each other, and to consider them as wholly distinct and unconnected periods. Every one of these various opinions has had its advocates but who has a right to command assent to his own particular mode of separation in preference to any other? other? If the three small periods be not continuously successive, it appears to me, that by the aid of a tolerable share of ingenuity we may make pretty much what we please of the prophecy. We may, with Sir Isaac Newton, calculate the seven weeks from the yet future rebuilding of Jerusalem to the second advent of the Messiah; and, separating both this period and that of the sixty two

weeks

weeks from the one week, make the one week immediately succeed the crucifixion. We may, with Hippolytus and Apollinarius*, fix the one week to the age of the supposed personal Elias and Antichrist, place it at the end of the world, and make the half week the same as the three times and a half or the 1260 days. We may, with Bp. Lloyd, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Butt, suppose the seven weeks and the sixty two weeks to be continuous, but deny the continuity of the sixty two weeks and the one week. We may, in short, ring as many changes upon the three numbers as we think proper; but what solid conviction shall we be able to work in the mind of any unprejudiced person? Nor is this the whole that may be said: the analogy both of the present prophecy and of other numerical prophecies requires that they should be estimated as continuous. Few doubt the continuity of the seven weeks and the sixty two weeks: indeed the complete reading in the 26th verse as preserved by Aquila and the Arabic, respecting the integrity of which I have no doubt, compels us to acknowledge their continuity. If then two of the periods be continuous, by what authority shall we pronounce, in defiance of analogy, that the third is not continuous ? So again; in all the prophecies relative to the three

Hieron, Comment, in Dan, in loc.