But did Sir F. M. formerly, and the Quoter fince imagin that this will go down with Men of Learning upon the pretended Proof that Sir J. M. hath given for his Af fertion?

Is it fufficient for Sir J. M. to have faid this upon no better Proof than only by telling (9) us there are Inftances in St. Matthew's way of writing elsewhere of Citations out of the Prophets by him applied to Chrift, or otherwife, which had literally in other refpects a primary Accomplishment before, and therefore in fuch Application they had only in a fecundary Sense any relation to him, or them to whom they are applied? -There may be fome fuch Inftances in St. Matthew's Gospel, and what then? Is this any thing to the purpose here?

Plainly 'tis not. For it is our Saviour Chrift's own immediate Reference, and Citation that we are here concern'd with, not St. Matthew's, who hath no other part here in the Citation, but only as a Reciter, or Recorder of our Lord's Difcourfe with his Difciples, which gave occafion to it.

The Fallacy, and Abfurdity therefore of Sir John MarSham's Argument here is too apparent to be infifted on any longer, in this refpect.

The Groundlefnefs of the Affertion is also apparent from the whole fcope, and tenor of our Lord's Difcourfe with his Difciples, which gave occafion to this Reference. The fubject of that Difcourfe (r) was the approaching Destruction of Jerufalem, which our Lord gave them to underftand was not now far off. They were importunate with him to know (s) the exact time of it, and therefore defir'd of him a Sign whereby they fhould infallibly know when that time was certainly come. Our Lord gave them one accordingly.

He fent them immediately to the folemn Prediction concerning it by the Prophet Daniel, telling them that the Temple

b

(9) Sic ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ρηθὲν ὑπὸ τὰ Κυρίου 21α του Προφήτου, Illud (Evocavi filium) ad fefum puerum transfertur, Mat, ii. 15, quod dictum de egreflu populi Ifraelisici ex Agypto, Hof. xi. 1.---- Sic τότε επληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Ιερεμίου τοῦ gourou Infanticidio quadrat in Mat. ii. 17, Vox in Ramah, quod dictum est a Feremia xxxi. 15. De Captivitate Samaritana. Marfham in Hebd. Dan. fub fine, &c As to thefe Texts, fee Bishop Chandler's Defence of Chriftianity, p. 285, &c.] (†) Mat. xxiv. 1, 2, Ø6

(4) ver. 3,

Temple, and the Jewish Oeconomy fhould be then finally, and irrecoverably deftroyed, when (t) they should fee the Abomination of Defolation Spoken of by Daniel the Propher... ftand in the Holy Place. What was this but fending them to the Prophecy (u), wherein this Sign had been before giv'n to the Prophet as a fure Sign concomitant of that final De ftruction of Jerufalem therein determined?

2A

How then could Sir F. M. tell us that the ò enter &c. of our Lord was fpoken by him in a fenfe merely Typical, or by way of Allufion only to a like Accomplishment that had been before? Could Sir J. M. think formerly. or will the Quoter now offer to fay it, that the fubject Matter of our Lord's Difcourfe forefhewing the razing. of the Temple, the Deftruction of the Jewish Church, ཀ།། and State, and fubfequent leading into Captivity of the Remains of that miferable People, of all which the rò en of Daniel was now the Sign, was ever accomplished before. to the giving that on a previous Accomplishment ?---He muft have the confidence to fay any thing that will fay this. He muft fay it in the utmost Ignorance, or Op pofition to the Truth, or both, as it hath appear'd from what hath been faid of the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the utter inaccomplishment of the feveral predicted Events of the Seventy Weeks in thofe times.

'Therefore to return Sir J. Marfham's Words here, Chrift could not urge this Citation from Daniel in a typical Senfe, but in a Prophetical, and Hiftorical Senfe; as fpeaking of, and referring to a Prophecy of a predicted Event yet to be accomplished: His rog from Daniel the Prom phet, implying his Reference to that Prophet, as prophecying immediately and primarily of that Deftruction of. Jerufalem which was by the Romans. And.

Confequently, with the Quoter's leave, the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, which is a Prophecy of the Old Teftament Scriptures is a Prophecy which in its plain, or obvious, litteral, and primary Senfe is truly faid to have been fulfilled in the New.

(t ver, 15:

And

(*) Efpecially when it be confider'd also that it is there added, Whofo readeth let him understand: Which words are alfo from this Prophecy, vix. Dan, ix. 25,*~Know therefore, and understand. [Grotius in Mat xxiv, 15.]

And fo I might difmifs this Point, were it not that I fhould then overlook the Teftimonies of the antient Jews and their Hiftorian Jofephus, who with us alfo referred this Prophecy of the Weeks to the Times of the Ro

mans:

As to the former, I have already occafionally noted this from Grotius.

I add here the Authority of Bishop Chandler, who hath fufficiently made it to appear (w).

As to the latter, viz. the Teftimony of Jofephus, He hath fpoken fo clearly, and fully in this Matter, that it is not a little furprifing that Sir 7. M. either could not, or would not fee it. And in his Teftimony, faith our learned Bishop (x), We have the Teftimony of the whole

c

Nation.

That Hiftorian writes thus, (y)" Daniel did not only foretell things to come, which was common to him, with other Prophets, but also fet a time for their coming to pafs. He did not only foretell the Calamity that " befell our Nation from Antiochus many Tears before it hapned; but he ALSO wrote of the Dominion of the "ROMANS, and of the great Defolation they should here" after bring upon our People, &c.

What can be more directly againft Sir J. M. than this is, as againft his Hypothefis of the Weeks in general, fo also against his imagined typical Allufion only in the Tỏ prèv of our Saviour? This makes it evident that thofe Prophecies and Times of Daniel which the Jews then diftinguished, Sir J. M. hath blended, and confounded. Hence alfo the Unreasonableness, and Abfurdity of the Quoter opens more and more; to the giving Caufe fufficient if it be poffible for the making him afhamed of his flying to groundless Authorities to fupport a groundless, and falfe Affertion.

For its better Effect, I will only give him the following Quotation out of Bishop Chandler, and then I will have done with him as to Sir J. M.

() From the Talmad, and fome Jews of high Antiquity. See Defence of Christi P. 141.

(7) Ant. X, 12.

"No

It is well worthy of his Remembrance; He hath Hitherto much stood in need of it: And 'tis pity but his Memory fhould be often refreshed with it. "where else but in this Prophecy of lxx Weeks doth Daniel Speak of the Devaftation, the Jews were to fuffer from the Romans: No where elfe, is a term fixed for thefe Events; "we may therefore be affured, that Jofephus referred to this "very Prophecy, for what he writes; and that Jefus Chrift "had the Authority of the Jews with him, when he inter- } preted the fame Prophecy of the Destruction of the Temple by the Romans (x).

But Secondly, The Quoter hath referr'd us alfo to the Authority of Mr. Dodwell, as if he had been here a Difciple of Sir J. M. And what if he were ?--We have feen upon what flender, and mistaken Grounds. And after all, Mr. D. published not his mistaken Opinion, however the Quoter thought no better of it than to make ufe of his Authority.

But by this time it may be that he hath had enough of both these favourite Teftimonies, and the Reader, I fear, too much of this Paffage of the Quoter.

And yet, though as to this we may, we cannot however now have wholly done with the Quoter; for we hear more of him elsewhere (a), as touching Daniel's Weeks.

And thither therefore with the Reader's leave we must alfo follow him.

There after a long Sorites of his ufual Bravadoes, and fome kind Conceffions in his way, he concludes peremptorily, and as it were in Defiance, in the following Words,

"Yet cannot the Prophecy be made to fquare to the Event "they would refer it, and it will after all be fubject to "GREAT DIFFICULTIES.

And having faid this, he falls to his ufual Method of quoting certain Paffages (b) in a Senfe, and to a Purpose, which their Authors, alafs, never intended. .

Hence we hear (c) of Difficulties, Extenfions, Difcrepancies of Interpreters, Chronological Niceties, Variety of Computation in this Prophecy, from whence the Quoter would, if he could, make of none Effect the certainty of it.

(R) Defence of Chriftianity. p. 142. Parts P. 251. (b) lb.

But

(a) Grounds and Renfons, fecond (c) Ib.

But hath not the Quoter moft egregiously prevaricated with thofe Authors, by evidently perverting their meaning, and mifapplying their Words? Did they mean, as he doth?

What though Dr. Prideaux spake of Difficulties, and Obfcurities in this Prophecy? Did He conclude with this Writer that they are fuch as do in the leaft affect the great, and certain (d) Truths of it? -The Quoter, however licentious yet will not fay it of him. Wherefore then did he thus abufe him in mifreprefenting, and perverting the end of this Quotation. For the Vindication of that learned Author, and by way of fhewing the Quoter his great Dishonour, Difhonefty, and Abufivenefs here; Let him take that along with it from Dr. Prideaux which immediately follows, as fully explaining the Doctor's meaning in what he had before acknowledged on this ocafion.

"God,

fays he (e), hath giv'n us Prophecies for the magnifying his "Omniscience among us, and though they are most of them de"liver'd in fuch dark and obfcure Terms, as not to be THO* ROUGHLY understood 'till after they are fulfilled, yet "then the EVENTS become SURE COMMENTS upon the Text.

Now is there any thing here giving the Quoter any the leaft Reason to make that fordid, and vile Advantage, which he would of the Citation above?

The other Authors here quoted could all of them, I prefume, mean nothing more than Dr. Prideaux did in what the Quoter hath cited from them.

But the Quoter seems to please himself chiefly with the Words which he hath given us from Dr. Nichol's in his elaborate Work, as he perhaps ironically calls it, against the Deifts, as we are told that in relation to this Prophecy of Daniel, he hath written as follows, viz. "The wife Providence of God "bath fuffer'd thefe matters to lye in fome manner of Confu"fion, that our Faith might be founded on a nobler Principle than that of CHRONOLOGICAL NICETIES.

And what of all this? I ask the Quoter, Had Dr. Nichols any Thoughts hereby of excluding Accomplishments of Scripture-Prophecies from being One among other

6 3

(d) What they are, See Defence of Christianity, p. 134 Ôs. Hift. Vol. 1. p. 306.

Evi

(e) Con.