seventy weeks, according to our author's own computation would be true and all his wonderful predictions concerning the overturning the Persian empire by Alexander the Great, and the division of his empire into four kingdoms, and the wars, alliances, and principal transactions between the kings of Syria and Egypt, which are related with so amazing a particularity; and concerning the profaning the temple, and the miseries brought upon the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes; as well as concerning the vast power of the Roman empire, and the utter destruction of the Jewish state, the city, and the sanctuary, soon after the Messiah's coming. These things show the certainty of prophecy and are instances of an exact and certain knowledge of future events that can only be supposed to proceed from God himself, whose eye penetrateth through all ages, who 'ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.'

From these and many other instances that might be produced, it manifestly appears how vainly this writer would insinuate, that the prophecies were nothing more than general conditional declarations of God's favour to the good, and denunciations of his judgments against the wicked, see pp. 284, 285. And whereas he pretends that to humour the people, they were often obliged to deliver many promises and declarations of good to the nation, in absolute terms, which were plainly intended as conditional; and therefore as often as they pronounced any

tained in the prophecy of the seventy weeks. It is observed, ver. 20, that while Daniel was speaking in prayer, Gabriel being caused to fly swiftly, touched him, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding; at the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision,' that is, at the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came from God to me, ordering me to show thee what is to come to pass, and accordingly, I am come to make thee understand the vision. We have an instance of such a commandment given to Gabriel before in a former vision, chap. viii. 16, where a voice came to Gabriel, Make this man, i. e. Daniel, to understand the vision.' If the author who pretends to urge the express declaration of the text, will be governed by what is there expressly declared; this prayer and supplication of Daniel was made in the first year of Darius the Mede, chap. ix. 1, 2, that is, 141 years before the seventh year of Artaxerxes Mnemon, in which according to him the decree for building and restoring Jerusalem came forth. And this is farther confirmed by the occasion of Daniel's prayer, which is there said to be this, that he understood that the seventy years spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah for the continuance of the desolations of Jerusalem were on the point of being accomplished. But to this our author hath a short answer, viz. that 'the book of Daniel, as we now have it, has been in this case greatly interpolated and corrupted, as he could demonstrate were this a proper time and place for it,' p. 338. But upon his supposition as he puts it, the book of Daniel must not have been merely interpolated. All the historical part of it which wholly relates to things done in the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede, must be one entire forgery. This our author, no doubt, could demonstrate, if this were a proper time and place for it.' And I believe the reader is convinced, that he would have thought any time and place proper to have done it, if it had been in his power. I shall not meddle with his computation of the seventy weeks; because though he gives a very wrong account of it, yet according to his own computation, the prophecy was literally accomplished. I shall only observe, that in order to bring his account the better to bear, he tells us that Daniel fixes the time when the Messiah was to be cut off, to be sixtytwo weeks after the coming forth of the commandment, &c., p. 337, whereas it is plain from the text, that he reckons seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, that is, sixty-nine weeks of years after the coming forth of the commandment.

judgments from God, or impending calamities for the sins of the nation, they always promised a future deliverance,' &c. It is evident from the whole of the prophetical writings, that the pleasing or humouring the people was not what they had in view. They delivered the message they received from God with a noble boldness, whether it pleased the princes and people or not. They often foretold the most dismal calamities, not merely as things which they were afraid might happen, but as what would most certainly befal them. And when they foretold a national deliverance, or a better state of things, it was not because they thought this necessary to humour the people, but because they knew by the spirit of prophecy that such a deliverance would certainly be. Thus it was in the case of the return from the Babylonish captivity, and of Cyrus's letting the captives go free, both which were most clearly and expressly foretold, though they were events which as thus circumstanced no man could foresee. And with regard to other nations as well as the Jews, the prophets sometimes after foretelling the calamities that should befal them, expressly foretel their restoration and deliverance; and surely it cannot be pretended that this also was to humour the Jews. The only reason for it was, that they knew by the spirit of prophecy, that the fact would be so. Thus Jeremiah foretels the captivity and restoration of Elam, Jer. xlix. 34-39, and of Moab. chap. xlviii. 47, as Isaiah doth concerning Cyrus, Isa. xxii. 1–7, 18, and Ezekiel concerning Egypt, Ezek. xxix. 1-13, 14.

With regard to the prophecies relating to the Messiah, he pretends that the Messiah spoken of by the prophets was to be no more than a temporal prince, and his kingdom of a worldly nature; and that he was only to be a king of the Jews, and. a national Deliverer and Saviour of them only, and not of the Gentiles. And he farther intimates, that this promise of the Messiah was only conditional, and suspended upon the Jews' good behaviour, as the promise of the uninterrupted succession of the crown in David's family was conditional. The proper place for considering this will be when I come more particularly to examine the objections he raises against the New Testament; when I propose to show, that the kingdom attributed to the Messiah by the prophets is not merely like the kingdoms of this world, of a secular nature, but erected for spiritual ends and purposes, and that it is represented by the prophets as an universal benefit, not confined to the Jews, but extending to all nations. From whence it follows, that the promise of the Messiah was not merely conditional, to depend upon the repentance and obedience of the Jews; for why should a benefit designed for mankind in general, be suspended upon the good behaviour of the Jews only? nor is this condition ever once mentioned. On the contrary, it is foretold in the prophecies, that when he actually came, the Jews would reject him, and use him ill; and that soon after his coming and being cut off, their city and sanctuary should be destroyed, though it is intimated, that afterwards they should seek to him in the latter days, and be restored to a happy

state. This future conversion of the Jews, and a more glorious state of the universal church than hath hitherto appeared, many of the prophecies seem to point to: and I doubt not these prophecies will in their due season be accomplished, though I am sensible that by this, I incur the author's heavy censure, who severely inveighs against those that understand the prophecies in this sense, as upholding the Jews in their vanity and presumption.

But to proceed to the farther reflections he makes upon the prophets, he observes, that by pretending too much to the knowledge of future events, the prophets sometimes told lies in the name of the Lord, as four hundred of them did at once in the case of Ahab.' Thus in order to expose the true prophets of God he confounds them with the false ones, as if they were to be accountable for all the falsehoods that were ever uttered by any that took upon them the name of prophet. It will be easily granted, that there were at that time false prophets as well as true ones. Some of these might perhaps have been educated in the prophetic schools under the discipline of the true prophets, and under that pretence took upon them the character of prophets, though they never had any extraordinary inspiration, merely for serving their own ends of ambition or avarice. Or there might be schools of prophets set up under the countenance of the kings in opposition to the true ones, whom they hated for their divine zeal and impartiality in reproving their faults and vices. But these prophets, concerning whom, it is often declared, that God did not send them, and that they prophesied 'a false vision, and the deceit of their own heart,' were of a very different character from the true prophets of the Lord. They were too complaisant to contradict the court religion, or the prevailing fashionable vices and humours of the prince or people. They are represented as very wicked themselves, and encouraging the people in their wickedness, see Jer. xxiii. 11, 14-17; xxviii. 7. Instead of denouncing judgments against them for their crimes, they prophesied of nothing but peace and prosperity, and soothed and flattered them in their vices, Jer. vi. 14; xiv. 13; Ezek. xiii. 10, 16. And they were so far from joining with the true prophets, that they were their greatest enemies and persecutors,* and joined interests with the corrupt part of the priesthood against them, and had the people on their side too, because they pleased and flattered them, Jer. v. 31. These false prophets were ready as occasion served, and as they saw it would please the king or people, to prophesy in the name of the Lord, or in the name of Baal, Jer. ii. 8; xxiii. 13.

Of this kind were the four hundred prophets that prophesied falsely to Ahab in the name of the Lord. Hence Micaiah, the true prophet of God, represents them as Ahab's prophets, and not God's. They were such as he himself chose and approved, because they always took care to prophesy what they knew would be acceptable to him. Whereas he hated Micaiah, because he dealt impartially

See Jer. xx. 2, 6; xxvii. 9, 16; xxviii. 2, 10, 11, 16; xxix. 21, 23, 32; 1 Kings

24.

with him, and told him the plain truth. This author indeed would have it thought, that these four hundred prophets bade him go up to Ramoth-Gilead, with a design that he should be killed by the Syrians in revenge for the prophets of the Lord whom he had caused to be slain before. Whereas the truth is, they only said so, because they knew it would please the king, which was all these court prophets had in view, who were always for prophesying smooth and acceptable things. Besides they probably flattered themselves that the king would prove victorious, which seemed far more likely than the contrary, as he had defeated the Syrians in the two last battles he had fought with them, and now had the king of Judah to assist him. But Micaiah, who was a true prophet of the Lord, conducted himself after a quite different manner. He discovers his own character, and that of all the true prophets of God, in the answer he made to the king's messenger, who was for persuading him to speak that which was good unto the king, as the other prophets had done; as the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak,' 1 Kings xxii. 13, 14. And accordingly he plainly told Ahab, that if he went up to Ramoth-Gilead he should die. It was impossible for him in a human way to foresee that a Syrian drawing his bow at a venture, should smite the king of Israel between the joints of the harness.' No event could be seemingly more contingent. And Ahab took all the precautions in his power to prevent it by disguising himself, and getting Jehoshaphat to put on his robes. And yet Micaiah speaks of his death with an absolute assurance, and pawns his liberty and life upon it, ver. 27, 28, he was sure of it, because he was supernaturally inspired with the knowledge of it by God himself. No consequence, therefore, can be drawn from the false prophets to the true ones; that because there were some that falsely pretended to divine inspiration, therefore there were none that were really thus inspired. Since in the instance produced by this writer, though there was a number of persons that falsely pretended to the name of prophets, yet there was a true prophet of the Lord, who had the knowledge of a future contingency revealed to him in an extraordinary manner by God himself. The characters of the false prophets and the true were tirely different, and it was no hard matter to distinguish them; not i only because of the different tendency of their doctrines and predictions, which in the one was to flatter the kings and people for their own interest, and to encourage them in their vices; in the other to reprove them impartially even at the hazard of their own lives for their sins, and to turn them from their evil ways to real repentance, and the practice of righteousness. But especially because the one were enabled clearly and certainly to foretel future events which no human knowledge could foresee, and which were exactly accomplished; but the other either spoke only in general ambiguous terms, or if they undertook to foretel things future clearly and expressly, were confuted by the event, as Ahab's prophets were. And whenever they pretended to come in competition with the true pro

en

phets to God, and to contradict their predictions, God gave his own prophets a visible superiority, sufficient to convince all that observed of the great difference between them. This appears in the instance now mentioned, and in the remarkable contest between Hananiah and Jeremiah, of which we have an account in chap. xxviii. of Jeremiah; where Jeremiah not only tells him, that the Lord had not sent him; but expressly declares, 'Thus saith the Lord, This year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the Lord.' And accordingly he died that year in the seventh month, see ver. 16, 17. So in the case of Ahab and Zedekiah, who prophesied lies in the name of the Lord, Jeremiah foretold the dreadful punishment that should be inflicted on them, and even the particular death they should die; that the king of Babylon should cause them to be roasted in the fire.' Jer. xxix. 21-23.

Thus I have considered the attempts this writer makes against the prophets with respect to their foretelling things to come. There is no accounting for their many clear, express, and circumstantial predictions of future events in any of those ways which he mentions, or indeed in any other way than by supposing them to have the knowledge of those things communicated to them in an extraordinary way by God himself; for it is the peculiar prerogative of the Supreme Being, the most wise Governor of the world and of mankind, to know the things which shall be hereafter. And this is what he challenges to himself, as that whereby he is eminently distinguished above all other beings, Isa. xli. 22, 23; xlvi. 9, 10.

CHAPTER IX.

Some general reflections on the attempt the author makes to show, that the prophets were the great disturbers of their country, and that they were of persecuting principles, enemies to toleration and liberty of conscience. It is shown that they were the truest friends to their country, and that if their counsels had been hearkened to, its ruin would have been prevented. His invective against the prophet Samuel, whom he represents as the founder of the prophetic order. His pretence that he kept Saul twenty years out of the exercise of the royal power, after he was chosen king. The account he gives of Samuel's quarrel against Saul for deposing him from the high-priesthood, and of the several plots laid by him for the destruction of that prince, especially in the affair of the Amalekites, considered. In what sense it is said that it repented God that he had made Saul king. That this was not a pretence of Samuel to cast his own follies and want of foresight upon the Almighty. David's character considered and vindicated. His behaviour towards Saul shown to be noble and generous. Notwithstanding the faults he was guilty of, in his general conduct he was an excellent person. Concerning his dancing before the ark. The author's base representation of it. Lord S- -y's account of it, and of the Saltant naked spirit of prophecy, considered.