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 serW. WORCESTER.

vant,

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.

VOL. I.

10

But, if it were Artaxerxes Longimanus, as your lordship says it was, in whose 20th year this commandment went forth; then all the objections occur, which I have mentioned; for,

1st, It seems evident to me, that the text of Nehemiah xii, 22, where the Levites are spoken of, that were in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, cannot be understood to mean any other days, than those wherein they were high-priests. For the high-priest among the Jews was the head of the priests and Levites; and after the captivity, when there was no king in Judah, had the absolute supremacy in all affairs relating to them; and therefore it was as proper for them to reckon all such affairs by times of their high-priests, as it is now with us to reckon of all actions in the state by the times of our kings; and consequently, when any thing is said to have been in such an highpriest's time, it is as improper to understand it of any other time, than that of his priesthood, as it would be, when any thing is said to have been in such a king's time, to understand it of any other time than that of his reign. For this reason I cannot come into this interpretation, which refers what is said here of the days of Jaddua as far back as the days of his childhood; for it seems to be a very forced sense, which the text cannot naturally bear. When such a thing is said to have been in the time of Henry the Eighth, will any one understand it of the time before his reign; or think it any other than an absurdity, so to construe it? And, to me, it looks altogether as bad, as to understand what is here said of the Levites to have been in the days of Jaddua, of any other days, than those wherein he was high-priest. And it is to be taken notice of, that the text joins with the days of Jaddua, the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, who were high-priests before him. For it is said, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, Jaddua, &c. And here I would ask, whether the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, are to be understood of the days of their high-priesthood, or of the days of their life? No doubt, it will be said of the days of their high-priesthood. And why then must not the days of Jaddua be understood so too? I may

add further, What need is there, in this case, to name Jaddua's days at all? Because, if they be understood of those, before he was high-priest, they were coincident with the days of Joiada and Johanan, which were named before. And therefore, if we understand those days of Jaddua of any other days, than those wherein he was high-priest, they must have been named twice in the same text, which would be such a faulty repetition, as it must not be charged with. Nothing seems more plain to me, than that the text speaks of the days of these four men, as in succession, one after the other; and therefore we must not run the days of the one into the days of the other. Besides, the whole design of interpreting the days of Jaddua, of the days before he was high-priest, is to support a notion, that the book of Nehemiah, of which this text is a part, was wrote before he was high-priest, and so far back as the time of his childhood. Your lordship placeth it in the last year of Darius Nothus. But then, to name his days with the days of the other high-priests, so many years before he came to be high-priest, and when it must be, on many respects, uncertain, whether he would ever be so, or no, is what, I believe, all the writings of the world beside cannot give us an instance of. For these reasons, I cannot but be of opinion, that these days of Jaddua can be meant of none other than the days of his high-priesthood; and that therefore he was in that office before this text was written: and it also appears to me, that the Darius here mentioned, can be none other than Darius Codomannus, in whose reign Jaddua was high-priest. For the text, bringing down the reckoning through the succession of several high-priests, terminates the whole in the days of Jaddua, and the reign of Darius, the Persian, which plainly makes them contemporaries; and therefore Darius, the Persian, in that text, could be none other than Darius Codomannus, because no other Darius but he, was king of Persia, while Jaddua was high-priest at Jerusalem. And, if so, it must be in the reign of this Darius, at the soonest, that this was written, and consequently, Nehemiah, the writer of it, must then be living. And this brings home the objection upon your lordship's

hypothesis, because, according to it, he must have then been, at least, one hundred and forty years old, which is very improbable. For, if it were in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus that he came to Jerusalem, with a commission to re-build that city, and be gover nour of it, we cannot suppose him then to have been less than thirty years old; for a lesser age would be too early for such a trust. After this, Artaxerxes reigned 21 years; after him, Darius Nothus 19 years; after him, Artaxerxes Mnemon 46 years; after him, Ochus 21 years; and then, to the first year of Darius Codomannus, were three years more; all which, put together, make 140 years.

2dly, The like objection will also lie from the age of Sanballat, the Horonite; for, when Nehemiah came to execute his commission for the re-building of Jerusalem, he found hir a governour in those parts, under the king of Persia (whether it were of Samaria, or of some other petty province, as your lordship says, is not material to our present purpose) and, to qualify him for such a trust, he must then have been, at least, thirty years old. And therefore, if it were in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus that Nehemiah found him thus entrusted, since he died not (as Josephus tells us) till the last year of Darius Codomannus, he must then have been, at his death, 143 years old, which age in him, is much more improbable than the other in Nehemiah. An extraordinary blessing on that good man might be alleged for such an extraordinary age in him, which cannot be said of the other. Each of these instances, apart, look very im probable, but coming together, are much more so, and therefore must be a very strong argument against that hypothesis that infers them. I know some, to solve this difficulty, make two Sanballats; the one named in Scripture, who is there said to have married his daughter to one of the sons of Joiada, which they will have to be that Jesus, who was slain by his brother Johanan, in the temple. Joseph. Antiq. xi, 7, and the other, the Sanballat named by Josephus, xi, 7, 8, who married his daughter to Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua, and built for him the temple at mount Gerizim. But,