Jews to express the period of seven days by any one word. I believe (he continues) that the inspired writers did not use yaw, ́ nyaw or ylaw, or any other word, to signify a week, but that they expressed the period by nya

seven days.' He likewise supports his arguments by quotations from the Misnic writers, which we shall further notice presently. On these grounds he concludes that an unprepossessed person would most probably understand Daniel to speak of "sevens" of years; and he goes on to insist, that to sustain the argument built on this passage it ought to have been expressly written "weeks of days."P

It is important first to notice the admissions and exceptions made in the course of this argument. First, Mr. Maitland allows, that the Feast of Weeks was indeed fixed by counting seven weeks from a given time," and that it is mentioned eight times, as "the feast of sevens." He admits that the word weeks in Dan.

x, 2, 3, where the Prophet says he was sick three weeks, is also an exception. In Leviticus xii, 5, it is said, a woman shall be unclean after the birth of a female "two weeks, or sevens ̄`yaw. Again, he says,

Wishing to bring forward every thing which others might produce against my statement I ‍add the

seven' (v) translated' week,' Gen. xxix, 27, 28; though com'mentators are not agreed, whether it belongs to the days of Leah's wedding feast or the years of Jacob's servitude." Of all these exceptions he observes, "I do not feel that they have much weight.”q Now to us the circumstance, that the term weeks would appear “somewhat singular," would form no objection against its being in Daniel

p No. 8, p. 5-13.

an enigmatical number: on the contrary, its singularity would of itself rather lead to the suspicion, that it was so intended. In this instance however, we do not believe it to be so unusual an expression as Mr. Maitland supposes. The exceptions he has himself alleged are ponderous enough in our minds to outweigh his objection; more especially the Feast of Weeks, which being an ecclesiastical calculation, renders the term weeks the more suitable for a prophetical date.

But as, on this part of the subject, authority must be opposed to authority, the testimony of Dr. J. Owen, the eminent Puritan writer, may be of some service, he being the contemporary, and (as regards prophetical interpretation) opposed to the views of Mede. In his Treatise on the Sabbath are the following passages: All nations, I say, in

all ages, have from time immemo'rial made the revolution of seven days to be the first stated period of time." So fixed was this computation of time [by weeks] on the minds of the Chaldeans and Egyptians, who retained the deep'est tincture of original traditions, that, though they knew not the reason of it, yet, when they made a disposition of the days of the year into any other period, on ac'counts civil or sacred, they still ' retained this also." Then, after noticing that Noah observed this weekly revolution of days, in sending forth the dove out of the ark, (Gen. viii, 10-12) he adds, And in Gen. xxix, 27, a week is spoken

he tells שבע and שבת between

us, that among the Hebrews it was called sabbath, which in Greek is week. It is also to this purpose observed by Rivet and Selden, (from Salmasius, out of Georgius Syncallus, in his Chronology,) that 'the patriarchs reckoned the times, or distinguished them, by weeks ONLY."+

Mr. Cuninghame, who has in his critical works afforded good evidence that he possesses an adequate knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, declares the whole foundation of Mr. Maitland's reasoning to be "utterly erroneous," in supposing the word ya and its plural

• In Genesis xxix, 27, 28, yaw (the

being supplied by the kibbuts point) is also used to express a week of days, being that of Leah's wedding feast. It is also found in Jer. v, 25, to signify the weeks of the harvest. Indeed it will be apparent, on examining a Hebrew concordance, that wherever the word stands alone in the Scriptures, (the disputed text in Daniel being of course excepted, as the point to be proved,) it signifies a week or 'weeks of days, and in no case whatever a week of years. Mr. Maitland's assertion, that it might have been understood to mean weeks of years in Daniel ix, is therefore not only without support from the Scriptures, but is directly opposed to the whole testimony of the • Scriptures."s

nification of the numeral seven. He refers to any Lexicon or Grammar to evince, that they are pointed differently but that which appears of most import is, "that where more

:

than one, or at least two sevens are intended, as in Lev. xxv, 8, • the number is expressed, not by a plural form of the numeral, as to • the very existence of which in Hebrew grammarians are silent, but

The Morning Watch had previously argued in a similar manner :

authorities we deny Mr. M.'s ''general rule,' and require better authority than Grotius, or any he adduces, before we can receive it. • The word in question is clearly 'masculine--and as clearly

‹ the plural of yaw, which last occurs but twice in Scripture-viz. 'Gen. xxix, 27, 28,—and both 'words always mean a week of ' days, and nothing else. Seven (the numeral) and its derivatives are always feminine; and these do of course require days to be added to designate a week.”t

It may be needful to observe, that we have not noticed in Mr. Maitland's latest pamphlets any reply to this refutation of his statements. Mr. Cuninghame's is indeed the last published work that we have seen on the subject, and there may not have been time for a reply; but since the Review from which the above passages are taken appeared in the Morning Watch, Mr. Digby's attack on Mr. Maitland's statements has appeared, as also Mr. M's reply.

Mr. Maitland is as unhappy in his appeal to the Misnic writers. He brings quotations from the Baba Metzia, Sheviith, Nedarim, &c. in

t No. 13, p. 455.

שבעת or שבת commonly use

"u To this Mr. Cuninghame replies." The quotations of the learned writer from the Misnic writers seem to be no more to the purpose than his arguments from the Scriptures. He has indeed brought from the Baba Metzia, a 'passage, which distinguishes a ' workman of a sabbath (or week of days,) of a month, of a year, and of a week (of years), from each other; and he thereby proves that, in that book, the expression MTUM means a workman of a week, (viz.

-a work שכיר שבוע of days) and

man of a week, viz. of years. It therefore seems indisputable that, in these Rabbinical writings haw denotes, exclusively, a week of days, (usually, though not exclusively, as I learn from Mr. M.) a week of years. But then, unhappily for Mr. Maitland's argument, the former word is employed in the Scriptures in no such 'exclusive sense, being used in Lev. xxv, 8, for sabbaths or sevens of years, (in which passage it merits particular attention that the word years, , is added,) as it is in · Lev. xxiii, 15, for sabbaths, or 'weeks of days. On the other hand,

the second word, which by the • rabbies is used for a week of years, has, in the Scriptures, the exclusive sense of a week of days.

u No. 8, p. 10.

It

<

thus appears, that the rabbinical use of both words is directly the reverse of the Scriptural use; and it follows, that Mr. Maitland's argument from the rabbinical writings in support of his sense of the word is good for nothing.'

We have yet to refer to another passage of importance in this controversy: viz. Dan. xiii, 13, in which the vision therein described is said to be "unto two thousand and three hundred days." We have before noticed, that the time in this instance is part of the vision itself; it is not written however in the original 2300 days, but 2300 eveningsmornings, as given in the margin. From this circumstance the Morning Watch seems to think, that at verse 26 it is called the vision of the evening and the morning which was told;" told (as the Morning Watch justly observes) though a vision”w—which clearly indentifies the time, as a part of that vision.* Mr. Maitland says: "Most modern writers, I believe, are prepared to follow Sir Isaac and Bishop New'ton in this matter, and to say ' with the latter, "these 2300 days can by no computation be accommodated to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, even though the days be taken for natural 'days.'" Mr. M. further considers the period to mean natural days, "because he knows of no reason for supposing otherwise :" but why the expression "mornings and evenings" should be used instead of days, he does not feel bound to give

a reason.x

v No. 16, p. 6. w No. 13, p. 458.

In regard to the application of this prophecy the Morning Watch observes, that the most cursory

examination will convince us that days will not answer to any of the circumstances of the vision; for it 'clearly begins with Alexander, and runs beyond the latter time" (v. 23) of the four successors of Alexander; whereas 2300 days are little more than six years. Our Lord also refers to this vision when speaking of the abomination ' of desolation preceding Jerusalem's destruction (Matt. xxiv, 15) which, taken in any possible sense, compels us to understand years: for · 2300 days cannot by any ingenuity 'be extended down to the time of our Lord; and if, on the other hand, the time is connected with the last antichrist, 2300 days can'not be extended back to the time of Jerusalem's destruction."y Again they observe: "The vision is for "many days ;”† (v. 25 ;) and in the midst of the events of the 'vision (v. 13) stands the transgression of desolation," to which our Lord refers in Matt. xxiv, 15; ' Mark xiii, 4; and which we know from Luke xxi, 20 was the time • when Jerusalem was compassed 'with armies and the desolation thereof nigh." The number 2300 therefore of very necessity joins on to or includes this event, because it is asked How long shall 'be the vision to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot ;" which tread ́ing under foot certainly began A. D. 70. It must also of very