As to who the "annointed ones" were, the first I think entirely refers to Cyrus, and the last who was to be "cut off" and have no successor, may either mean the pious and good Onias mentioned in the book of Maccabees, who was the last I think of the legitimate Jewish High Priests, [for after his time History testifies that several, who had not the right of primogeniture as descendants of Aaron, obtained the priesthood by force, by intrigue, and by bribery;] or the last Jewish High Priest, Joshua [fn74] who perished during the siege of Jerusalem, according to Josephus. At any rate the anointed one who was to be cut off, cannot mean Jesus of Nazareth; because this anointed one was to be cut off in that same week of seven years, in which the city was destroyed, whereas Jesus was crucified forty years before that event; a circumstance I insist which excludes any application of this prophecy to Jesus. The claims set up for Jesus of Nazareth are moreover evidently rejected by Daniel's prophecy, even according to Mr. Everett's interpretation, forasmuch as he did not appear at the expiration of sixty-nine weeks, but of EIGHTY-FOUR. And to conclude this discussion, I would observe that Daniel, ch. iii, in his account of the image [seen in a vision by Nebuchadnezzar] whose head was of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly of brass, legs of iron, and feet and toes of iron and clay, is predicting the empires which have most influenced the fate of the Hebrew nation; i. e. the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, the last represented by "the iron legs," which did indeed bestride the world; these "iron legs" are represented as terminating in feet and toes part of iron and part of clay, which have no natural coherence; i. e. the Roman empire shall be divided into several kingdoms, partly strong and partly weak: a prophecy remarkably fulfilled in the history and condition of the kingdoms of Europe. The prophet goes on to say in ch. ii, that in the latter days of those kings or kingdoms, [which are yet subsisting] "the God of Heaven, would set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed," that of the Messiah. Of course the kingdom of the Messiah was not to be--not only not till after the destruction of the Roman empire--but not till the latter days of the kingdoms which grew up out of the ruins; whereas Jesus Christ was born in the time of Augustus, i. e. when the Roman empire itself was in the height of its splendour and vigour. Mr. Everett in p. 201, endeavours to escape the strong gripe of the prophet Daniel, by maintaining that these strong and weak parts, into which the Roman empire was to be divided, meant that it should be divided into "strong and weak institutions." Now to turn this sensible interpretation head over heels, [fn75] it appears to me to be only necessary to observe, that these strong and weak parts into which the Roman empire was to be divided, were, according to the prophet, ch. ii. 4.3. of Daniel, to "mingle themselves with the