acquit himself of his duty to his God, his friends and his country.

A LETTER FROM THE BISHOP OF WORCESTER, TO THE BISHOP OF NORWICH.

Dr. William Lloyd,* the most worthy and learned lord bishop of Worcester, having, through the hands of Dr. Trimnell, bishop of Norwich, communicated to Dr. Prideaux, dean of Norwich, his scheme of the seventy weeks of Daniel, and his solution of them; Dr. Prideaux, in a letter writ thereon to the bishop of Norwich, objected against it, that there were many things in the book of Nehemiah, which the said scheme of Daniel's weeks is inconsistent with; which being communicated to the said bishop of Worcester, his lordship writ thereon to the said bishop of Norwich this following letter.

Hartlebury, June 21, 1710. My very good Lord, In that part which you gave me of my most learned friend, Dr. Prideaux' letter to your lordship, he speaks of many things in the book of Nehemiah, with which my account of Daniel's weeks is inconsistent in his opinion. But he mentions not many things, only two or three in his letter; and these are such, as, I conceive, I need not trouble my head with; for they signify nothing to my business, which is only to shew, that, from the going forth of the commandment to build Jerusalem again, to the death of Christ, the cutting off the Messiah, there should be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; seven weeks, that is 49 years, to the end of the vision and prophecy (Dan. ix, 24.) that is, till the book of Malachi was written; and the other sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, till the anointing of the most holy (ib.) that is, till Christ's being anointed high-priest, with the blood of his own sacrifice, as he was at the time of his death, when the Messias was cut off (v. 26.) upon which the Jews came to be i. e. non ei, as it followeth.

The Jews, whom Daniel every where in his prayer calls, thy people, God's people, &c. here the angel,

* See the General Diction. vol. vi, &c. p. 132-141. Art. W. Lloyd.-Dr. Prideaux' 4to Pamphlets, No. 13.

speaking from God, throws back upon Daniel, and calls them, thy people, that is, Daniel's people (v. 23, 24.) and in these words (v. 26.) the angel shews how they would cease to be God's people: it was upon the Messias' being cut off, which was done even by themselves; and, after that, they were therefore not his people. But who were to be his people, after this? Even the Romans. They are here called Principis populus futurus. Even they, that were to burn the city and temple, i. e. the Romans.

I am gone beyond what I needed to have written on this occasion. My business was only to shew, from the going forth of the commandment for the building of the city of Jerusalem, till the cutting off the Messias; and thereupon, the Jews being no more his people, was to be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks; in the whole sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years.

I do here take it for granted, that Daniel's years were just 360 days in a year, such as those king Crasus reckoned by, as it appears in Herodotus (I. 28.) Of this, I believe, Mr. Dean needs no proof; but if he pleases, I will send him so much, as, I am sure, will be sufficient.

Now, 483 times 360 days makes the sum of 173,880 days, which number of days, beginning in the month of Nisan, in the 20th of Artaxerxes Longimanus, (Neh. ii, 1, 6.) that is, in the year 445, before Christ, about the end of April, will certainly end about May, A. D. 32. But that time was after the passover, for thatyear; and therefore Christ could not die in that year, for he could not die but at the time of the passover: on that day, and at that hour, in which the passover-lamb was to be killed, then was Christ our passover to be sacrificed for us. But that must have been A. D. 33. Then that passover happened on Friday, April 3; then at three in the afternoon Christ must die: it should be neither later nor sooner. That Christ did die, at that very time, it may be easily proved, by demonstration; and I have shewed it, where there is occasion: but, at this time, I am only to give account, how this, that hath been said, can consist with those things of Jaddus and of Sanballat, in Mr. Dean's letter.

First, of Sanballat; Mr. Dean seems to think, that he of that name, who gave disturbance to the building of the wall (Neh. ii, 6.) was the same with him, that is spoken of, Neh. xiii, 28, on the occasion of one of the sons of Joiada, the high-priest, having married his daughter: for that these are two Sanballats, is certain; for the former Sanballat, Neh. ii, 10, was governour of one of the small provinces in or about Palestine, in the year 445, before Christ, which was the time of that building of the wall of Jerusalem, Neh. vi, 15. It must have been another Sanballat, that was father-inlaw of Manasseh, whom all take to have been him, that is spoken of in the last chapter of Nehemiah; for this Sanballat came to Alexander the Great, first at the siege of Tyre, in the year 332, before Christ, which was 113 years after the building of the wall; and he died in October following, that is, after the taking of Gaza, and just before Alexander's coming to Jerusalem. Joseph. Antiq. xi, 8.

Soon after, viz. in the year 323, before Christ, May 23, was the death of Alexander the Great; and, about the same time, died Jaddus, the high-priest, as Josephus tells us, at the very end of the same chapter, xi, 8.

Of Jaddus, Josephus tells us, that, immediately after his death, his son Onias succeeded him in the highpriesthood. This Onias must then have been at least thirty years old; he might have been a great deal more; and, if he was the high-priest, of whom Hecatæus wrote, that eleven years after Alexander's death, he saw him, being then sixty-six years of age, as Josephus (contra Apionem, lib. I. Edit. Crispini, 1048. D.) tells us, from that history, by this reckoning Onias must have been born in the year 378, before Christ; and then his father Jaddus, likely, was born before the year 400, before Christ; it may very well be, that he was born before the year 404, before Christ, which was the last year of Darius Nothus. This king, as Primate Usher (Annal. I. p. 232.) thinks, was Darius the Persian, to the time of whose reign, all the Levites were reckoned, in the times of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, as we read, Neh. xii, 22. That most learned primate takes it for granted, that the Jaddua, here spoken of, was not

then high-priest, at the time of the reckoning of these Levites; but, being then born, and being heir apparent of the high-priesthood, that holy writer might name him together with those of his progenitors, that were all living together. It is not said there, or any where else, in the book of Nehemiah, that Jaddua was then high-priest; only it is said, chap. xii, 11, that Jonathan begat Jaddua; and, verse 22, that such things happened in their days. But, in the next verse, it is said, that the Levites were written in the books of the Chronicles, even until the days of Johanan, the son of Eliashib; which giveth cause to think, that Joiada was never high-priest, but died before his father Eliashib. And, one might be well confirmed in that opinion, by what he reads in Neh. xiii, 28, that he that married Sanballat's daughter, was of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib, the high-priest. If Joiada himself had lived to be high-priest, the writer would have said in fewer words, that he, that had married so, was the son of Joiada, the high-priest. I know nothing of moment against this, but a word or two, that we read of Joiada's succeeding his father, in Josephus, Antiq. xi, 7. But his word, alone, will be of no great authority with any one, that considers how little he knew of the Jews, in those times, or of the Persian monarchy.

The best of it is, that all that we have in the book of Nehemiah, concerning these times, after the going forth of the commandment to build Jerusalem again, is altogether foreign to the matter now before us: it can neither help us, nor hinder us, in the knowledge of those seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, that we read of in the angel's prophecy.

I desire Mr. Dean to take notice, that I do not reckon the years of any king's reign any otherwise than as I find them in Ptolomy's Canon.

I desire your lordship to thank him for his kind remembrance of me, and to let him know, that I do heartily desire his prayers, as I do also your lordship's ; for I truly am your most affectionate brother and servant, W. WORCESTER.

DR. PRIDEAUX' ANSWER.

Dr. Prideaux, having received from the lord bishop of Norwich a copy of this letter, wrote unto the lord bishop of Worcester this following letter, in answer

thereto :

My Lord, I must acknowledge, it is a very great favour, that your lordship would be pleased to give yourself so much trouble, as to draw up the paper for my satisfaction, which you sent to the lord of Norwich for me, and which his lordship has been pleased to communicate unto me.

Therein, you say, that the objections I made against your scheme of Daniel's weeks, from the book of Nehemiah, were nothing to your business, which is only to shew that, from the going forth of the commandment for the building of the city of Jerusalem, till the cutting off of the Messias, was to be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, that is, in all sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years; and that, computing these years from the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when that commandment went forth, they exactly end, according to Ptolomy's canon, at the time of our Saviour's death. But I humbly conceive, that, unless it be made out, that the beginning of this computation must be from the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, your hypothesis cannot stand; and therefore it must be your lordship's business, in the first place, to clear this matter.

It is said indeed in Nehemiah, that the commandment for the re-building of the city of Jerusalem went out in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. But there were two Artaxerxes, whom this might be attributed to, Artaxerxes Longimanus, and Artaxerxes Mnemon; and the text doth not determine which of these two it was. If it were Artaxerxes Mnemon, all that is said in Nehemiah of Jaddua, Sanballat, and Darius Codomannus, will very well consist therewith; for it is but to suppose, that Nehemiah lived to the time of Darius Codomannus, and then wrote his book (as he might very well do, without exceeding the age of eighty years) and all will be solved and made consistent; and therefore Scaliger, Calvisius, Helvicus, and several other chronologers, come into this opinion.