sons for their conduct as to this prophecy. Nothing so irritated the minds of the Jews in those days, as the declaration that the temple would be destroyed, and its worship terminated, according to the predictions of the crucified Jesus No prophecy so clearly predicted these events, and so connected them with the "Messiah, the Prince "being cut off," as this of Daniel: the apostles could allege and expound prophecies in abundance to prove their point without it: it was their object to convince, not to exasperate: and most of the New Testament was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. This prophecy is however referred to in the gospels; 2 and it must be included in those prophecies which Mr. C. afterwards mentions, as proofs that Jesus was not a prophet, but only repeated the prophecies of the Old Testament. (P. 90.)

P. 19. 1. 15. We read,' &c. Whatever objection a Christian may have to the criticism of this passage, he can have none to the conclusion deduced; 'Messiah, which means the king," shall "be cut off," and not to him, ir; that is, he 'shall have no successor.' For the Messiah, when "cut off out of the land of the living;" when JEHOVAH made his soul an "offering for sin," yea, "because he poured out his soul unto death; saw ❝his seed, and prolonged his days, and the plea"sure of the Lord prospered in his hands."3 Thus Jesus arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, reigns over all worlds, has no suc

'Acts vi. 13, 14. xxi. 28.

'Comp. Dan. ix. 27. with Matt. xxiv. 15. Mark. xiii. 14. 'Is. liii. 8, 10, 12.

Luke xxi. 20.

cessor;' but "must reign till all enemies be put "under his feet."1 I do not think this the meaning of the clause; but, waving this, on Mr. C.'s interpretation, it clearly marks Jesus as the promised Messiah. By which is pointed out, ' that there shall be no more kingly power in the "Jewish nation." "The sceptre was departed from Judah, and a lawgiver from between his feet: "Shiloh was come; and to him," ever since, "the gathering of the peoples has been."

P. 19. 1. 24. This Messiah that was to be cut 'off was king Agrippa.'- Agrippa was of the stock of Abraham, and king over Israel.' (P. 20. 1. 1.)-King Agrippa was a descendent of Herod, who was of the stock of Edom,' but a proselyte to Judaism. At the death of his father Herod, 2 Judea became again a Roman province; but after some years the Emperor Claudius made Agrippa king of Chalcis; and afterwards gave him the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias; namely, Ituræa, Trachonitis, and Abilene: all these regions were without the boundaries of the promised land. But Nero, along with some towns in Peræa, gave him part of Galilee. Agrippa also possessed some authority, as deputy of the Roman emperors, over the treasury of the temple, and the succession of the high priesthood: and he seems to have used this authority in deposing and advancing the high priests, without regard to the law of God. But Felix, and Festus, and other Roman governors, exercised the whole civil authority in Judea all the while. In what sense then was Agrippa,' of

1 1 Cor. XV. 25.

2 Acts xii. 23.

'the stock of Abraham, and king over Israel ?' How could he be called "Messiah the Prince," by way of emphasis and distinction? Or how can the several parts of the prophecy be applied to him?

My scanty library does not give me the means of ascertaining in what manner Agrippa was cut off. It seems from Josephus, that he was connected with the Romans and with their armies, in the beginning of that war which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem; but afterwards we read nothing concerning him. As to his son Monves,' I own I never before read his name. I cannot find it in the Roman historians, or in Josephus. I suspect, from the formation of the word, that it is taken from the Rabbinical writers; and I should be glad to be informed, on what authority this part of the narrative rests. It is clear, however, that both the death of Agrippa, and every thing relative to his son Monves, are almost overlooked by historians. If it had not been for Josephus, and for the writer of the Acts of the apostles, even king Agrippa would scarcely have been known to posterity. And can it be conceived, that such an obscure, petty, dependent prince, ruling by the courtesy of the emperors over a part of Galilee, and some adjacent regions inhabited by gentiles, (while Judea was ruled by Roman governors,) was "Messiah the Prince ;" and that his obscure death, and that of his son, were the events intended by the Holy Spirit, in this prophecy, which is introduced with such solemnity, and concludes with such awful denunciations of judgments on the Jews? It does not even appear that the slaughter

of Agrippa had any political connexion with these judgments: and, being the act of the Romans, could not be the deserving cause of them before God.

Indeed, this (as far as I can learn) new interpretation is a confession of the insuperable difficulties, to which Daniel's prophecy reduces all those who refuse to own Jesus, as "Messiah the "Prince."

P. 20. 1. 3. Thus far,' &c. It is not difficult or uncommon for men to boast of victories which they have not obtained; and with such evident complacency, as shews that they really think they have obtained them.

P. 20. 1. 6. The coming of the Messiah until this day is unknown.' Mr. C. has, however, bestowed considerable pains in the subsequent pages, to ascertain this unknown mystery.' In fact, scarcely any predictions in the scripture are so clearly dated, as those which relate to the coming of the Messiah. This has already been shewn. The reader must judge in what way the two texts, adduced in proof of this assertion, bear at all on the subject. In the first, (1.9.) the Messiah returning from the slaughter of his enemies, represented by Edom, says, "For the day of vengeance "is in my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come." He had had it long at heart to execute vengeance on his enemies, and to rescue his people, and the fixed time was at length arrived. Nothing is said of the coming of the Messiah, but of his victory over his enemies. Whatever God determines, whether revealed or concealed, is "in his "heart" and the time being come implies that it

was no longer concealed.1 In the second, (1. 21,) Daniel was longing to know,' not the coming of the Messiah,' as Mr. C. asserts, (1. 25,) of whom no mention is made; but when God "should “have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people," 2 that is, the time of the gathering of Israel from their dispersions, their conversion to Christ, their restoration, and the final triumphs of the gospel and even of these events the prophet had received such clear revelations, as have been a clew and guide to the expositors of prophecy, in every subsequent age; though they could not fully understand every thing respecting it.

P. 20. 1. 28. The Messiah is not yet come. 'We must look,' &c. This whole passage (p. 20-26,) is a mixture of scriptural truth; of human traditions, which are not entitled to the least credit; and of inaccuracies of little consequence. P. 21. 1. 4. The third,' &c.-The kingdom of the Messiah is afterwards stated to be absolutely earthly,' (p. 53-57,) and is such a kingdom, perfect, and to endure for evermore?' P. 21. 1. 25. Angels could give no names,' &c. Angels did not give names to the animals, for they were not directed to do it: but we have no reason to conclude from any thing revealed in the Old Testament, that man was ever superior to angels, or equal to them: man also was created with a material body, angels are immaterial spirits. Our main argument, however, is no ways affected by the opinion.-Again, we are not informed what Satan was when God created Adam: we only

'Is. lxiii. 1-6.

2 Daniel xii. 7, 8.