fome time BETWEEN the reign of Herod, and the deftruction of Jerufalem by Titus.

But, notwithstanding the apparent evidence of this deduction, and the feeming proof, that I might therefore claim this writer's authority, in fome measure, in fupport of my interpretation; yet, I muft have the mortification of telling you, that, if it operates at all in this cafe, it militates against me. I have, however the confolation of thinking, that it does fo only, when the great Mede is inconfiftent with himself, and ftands forth in array, in oppofition to the truth.

For,

For, he afterwards alters the conftruction of the latter clause of the prophecy, in the English tranflation, by uniting it to the former, and renders it thus :-" The fceptre fhall "not depart from Judah, &c. 'till "Shiloh come and the gathering of "the people be to him." And then makes the following obfervation.

"And now methinks, your thoughts might almost prevent me, in defigning the time when this predic"tion was fulfilled. Namely, neither "when the Jews came firft under "the Roman fubjection, for then "Shiloh was not yet come : nor "under Herod, or, (as fome will) I i "feven

"seven years after him, when HIS << SON ARCHELAUS BEING BA

INTO A

PROVINCE; for, though "CHRIST WAS THEN BORN, to wit, IN THE END OF HEROD'S

་་

་་

REIGN, yet, were not the nations "C or Gentiles YET GATHERED UNΤΟ HIM. But, at the deftruction "of the Jewifh ftate by Titus, when

68 BOTH THOSE THINGS WERE

<< COME TO PASS, (Chrift being come, and the Gentiles converted unto his obedience) then did the fceptre depart from Judah, and they ceafe from being any more a common-wealth."

The

The time here affigned for the completion of the prophecy, is, certainly the proper one, according to Mede's manner of rendering the latter claufe. But, to fay nothing of the force, put upon the words, to form this conftruction, which, Le Clerc and others have observed, it is evident, that his reafon for fixing upon the time of Titus, as the æra, of the departure of the fceptre from Judah, and his rejecting that of Archelaus, is folely founded upon THAT Conftruction. For it evidently was not, because he could NOT fix the departure of the fceptre to any other time. But, because, that when confidered as infeparably connected

in point of time, with the gathering of the people to Shiloh, he thought it could be only, at the deftruction of Jerufalem.

Notwithstanding therefore, the very fincere and profound refpect, I feel for this writer's memory, of which, I have already given fome proof, in the warmth with which I have fpoken of him; yet having, very early in life, adopted two maxims, from which, I think I may fay, I never knowingly deviated ;-the one, Nullius addictus jurare in verba magiftri, the other,-Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, fed magis amica veritas ;-I must take the liberty of

differing