And, had he not been thus careful one year particularly, and put the spire which is a beautiful edifice, in thorough good repair, it would in all probability have been blown down by a great storm, which happened very soon after he had caused it to be repaired, and must, in falling, have crushed and ruined a great part of the church.

In the seventy-fourth year of his age, finding himself so much weakened by his infirmities growing upon him, that he could no longer use his books as formerly, and being desirous that his collection of oriental books should not be dispersed, but kept altogether in some public library, he permitted his son, who had been educated at that college, to make a present of them to the society of Clare-hall, in Cambridge; and accordingly they were sent thither, and placed in the college library, to the number of three hundred volumes and upwards.

About a year before his death he was taken with an illness, which so far reduced him, as to confine him wholly to his chamber; and at last his infirmities increased to such a degree, as rendered him incapable of helping himself in the common offices of life. All this was the effect of the ill conduct he fell under after his being cut for the stone; for the long confinement he then underwent, and the loss of blood he sustained, weakened him so much in his limbs, that he was never free from paralytical shaking, and rheumatic pains; so that he gave himself up to the thoughts of death, expecting it with that cheerfulness and resignation, which naturally flow from the reflection on a life well spent. He expired on Sunday evening, the 1st of November, A. D. 1724, in the seventy-seventh year of his age, after an illness of about ten days, and was buried, according to his own direction, in the cathedral of Norwich, on the Wednesday following.

Thus much has been said of his life and conversation in general; as the reader may possibly be desirous of a more particular insight into his character and manner of life, the following account is taken from the report of those, who knew him best, and conversed with him most intimately.

Dr. Prideaux was naturally of a very strong, robust constitution, which enabled him to pursue his studies with great assiduity: and notwithstanding his close application, and sedentary manner of life, enjoyed great vigour both of body and mind for many years together, till he was seized with the unhappy distemper of the stone. His parts were very good, rather solid than lively his judgment excellent. As a writer he was clear, strong, and intelligent, without any pomp of language, or ostentation of eloquence. His conversation was a good deal of the same kind, learned and instructive, with a conciseness of expression on many occasions, which to those, who were not well acquainted with him, had sometimes the appearance of rusticity. In his manner of life he was very regular and temperate, being seldom out of his bed after ten at night, and generally rose to his studies before five in the morning. His manners were sincere and candid. He generally spoke his mind with freedom and boldness, and was not easily diverted from pursuing what he thought right. In his friendships he was constant and invariable; to his family he was an affectionate husband, a tender and careful father, and greatly esteemed by his friends and relations, as he was very serviceable to them on all occasions. As a clergyman, he was strict and punctual in the performance of all the duties of his function himself, and carefully exacted the same from the inferiour clergy and canons of his church. In party matters, so far as he was concerned, always shewed himself firmly attached to the interest of the Protestant cause, and principles of the revolution; but without joining in with the violence of parties, or promoting those factions and divisions, which prevailed both in the church and state, during the greater part of his life. His integrity and moderation, which should have recommended him to some of the higher stations in the church, were manifestly the occasion of his being neglected; for busy party-zealots, and men more conversant in the arts of a court, were easily preferred over him, whose highest, and only ambition was, carefully to perform what was incumbent on him in every station in life, and to

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. vii, &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 Cræsus 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