CHAP. V.

THE TRIAL OF THE PROPHETICAL DOCTRINE.

I. Rules of trying prophets established in the law of Moses. II. The punishment of pretenders. The several sorts of false prophets. The case of the prophet at Bethel discussed. III. The trial of false prophets belonging to the great sanhedrin. IV. The particular rules whereby the doctrine of prophets was judged. The proper notion of a prophet not foretelling future contingencies, but having immediate Divine revelation. V. Several principles laid down for clearing the doctrine of the prophets. 1. That immediate dictates of natural light are not to be the measure of Divine revelation. Several grounds for Divine revelation from natural light. VI. 2. Whatever is directly repugnant to the dictates of nature cannot be of Divine revelation. VII. 3. No Divine revelation doth contradict a Divine positive law, without sufficient evidence of God's intention to repeal that law. VIII. 4. Divine revelation in the prophets was not to be measured by the words of the law, but by the intention and reason of it. The prophetical office a kind of chancery to the law of Moses.

THE second reason why those prophets, whose main office was instruction of the people, or merely foretelling future events, needed not to confirm their doctrine by miracles, is, because they had certain rules of trial by their law, whereby to discern the false prophets from the true; so that if they were deceived by them, it was their own oscitancy and inadvertency which was the cause of it. God, in that law which was confirmed by miracles undoubtedly divine, had established a court of trial for prophetic spirits, and given such certain rules of procedure in it, that no men needed to be deceived unless they would themselves. And there was a greater necessity of such a certain way of trial among them, because it could not otherwise be expected, but in a nation where a prophetic spirit was so common, there would be very many pretenders to it,

V.

who might much endanger the faith of the people, CHAP. unless there were some certain way to find them out. And the more effectually to deter men either from counterfeiting a prophetic spirit, or from hearkening to such as did, God appointed a severe punishment for every such pretender, viz. upon legal conviction that he be punished with death: Deut. xviii. 20. But the prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, shall surely die. The Jews generally understand this of strangling, as they do always in the law, when the particular manner of death is not expressed. And therein a false prophet and a seducer were distinguished each from other, that a mere seducer was to be stoned to death under sufficient testimony, Deut. xiii. 6, 10, but the false prophet is there said in general only to be put to death, Deut. xiii. 1, 5. The V.Maimon. main difference between the seducer and false prophet was, that the seducer sought by cunning persuasions and plausible arguments to draw them off from the worship of the true God; but the false prophet always pretended Divine revelation, for what he persuaded them to, whether he gave out that he had that revelation from the true God, or from idols and false gods. So that the mere pretence to Divine revelation, was that which God would have punished with so great severity.

de Idol. c. 5.

s. 1. et ibi

Vossium.

II.

The Jews tell us of three sorts of prophets who were to be punished with death by men, and three other sorts who were reserved to Divine punishment. Of the first rank were these: 1. He that prophesied that v. Except. which he had not heard; and for this they instance in hedr. c. 10. Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, who made him horns §. 3. of iron, and said, Thus saith the Lord: this was the xxii. 11.

Gem. San

1 Kings

II.

BOOK lying prophet. 2. He that speaks that which was reII. vealed not unto him, but to another: and for this they Jer. xxviii. instance in Hananiah, the son of Azur, (but how truly I shall not determine :) this was the plagiary prophet. 3. He that prophesied in the name of an idol, as the prophets of Baal did: this was the idol prophet. These three, when once fully convicted, were to be put to death. The other rank of those which were left to God's hand consisted of these: 1. He that stifles and smothers his own prophecy, as Jonas did; by which it may seem, that when the Divine Spirit did overshadow the understanding of the prophets, yet it offered no violence to their faculties, but left them to the free determination of their own wills in the execution of their office but this must be understood of a lower degree of prophecy; for at some times their prophecies Jer. xx. 9. were as fire in their bones, that they were never at any rest till they had discharged their office. But withal by the example of Jonas we see, that though the spirit of prophecy, like the fire on the altar, could only be kindled from heaven, yet it might be destroyed when it was not maintained with something to feed upon; or when it met not with suitable entertainment from the spirits of those it fell upon, it might retreat back again to heaven, or at least lie hid in the embers, till a new blast from the Spirit of God doth ἀναζωπυρεῖν, retrieve it into its former heat and activity. Thus it was with Jonas. 2. The other was, he that despised the words of a true prophet. Of such God saith, Deut. xviii. 19, And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken to my words which he shall speak in Maim. de my name, I will require it of him. Which Maimoni

Fundam.

Legis,

V.

death by the hands of מיתה בידי שמים des explains by

Abar God, which he thus distinguisheth from the Cereth, that he makes the death, per manus Coeli, to be less

binel de Cereth.

apud Bux

V.

Spons. et

p. 182.

xiii. 9.

than the Cereth; because this latter continued in the CHAP. soul after death, but the other was expiated by death: but generally they interpret it of a sudden death which torf. de falls upon the person. 3. The last is he who hearkens Divort. not to the words of his own prophecy; of which we have a most remarkable instance in Scripture, concerning the prophet whom God sent to Bethel, (whom Tertullian calls Sameas, the Jews Hedua,) whom God destroyed in an unusual manner for not observing the command which God had given him, not to eat bread Kings nor drink water at Bethel, nor turn again by the way he came. Neither was it any excuse to this prophet, that the old prophet at Bethel told him that an angel Ver. 18. spake unto him by the word of the Lord, that he should turn back. For, 1. Those whom God reveals his will unto, he gives them full assurance of it, in that they have a clear and distinct perception of God upon their own minds; and so they have no doubt but it is the word of the Lord which comes unto them: but this prophet could have no such certainty of the Divine revelation which was made to another, especially when it came immediately to contradict that which was so specially enjoined him. 2. Where God commands a prophet to do any thing in the pursuit of his message, there he can have no ground to question whether God should countermand it or no by another prophet; because that was in effect to thwart the whole design of his message. So it was in this action of the prophet; for God intended his not eating and drinking in Bethel to testify how much he loathed and abominated that place since its being polluted with idolatry. 3. He might have just cause to question the integrity of the old prophet, both because of his living in Bethel, and not openly, according to his office, reproving their idolatry: and that God should send him out of Judæa

II.

de Jejuniis,

cap. 16.

BOOK upon that very errand, which would not have seemed so probable, if there had been true prophets resident upon the place. 4. The thing he desired him to do was not an act of that weight and importance, on which God used to send his word to any prophets, much less by one prophet to contradict what he had said by anTertullian, other; and therefore Tertullian saith of him, pœnam deserti jejunii luit, God punished him for breaking his fast at Bethel; and therefore that message of this prophet seemed to gratify more man's carnal appetite than usually the actions of prophets did, which were most times matters of hardship and uneasiness to the flesh. 5. However all these were, yet he yielded too soon, especially having so much reason on his side as he had; being well assured that God had commanded him, he had reason to see some clear evidence of a countermand before he altered his mind: if he had seen any thing upon trial which might have staggered his faith, he ought to have made his immediate recourse to God by prayer for the settlement of his mind, and removal of this great temptation. But so easily to hearken to the words of a lying prophet, which contradicted his own message, argued either great unbelief as to his own commission, or too great easiness and inadvertency in being drawn aside by the old prophet. And therefore God made that old prophet himself, in the midst of his entertainment, as with a hand-writing against the wall, to tell him he was weighed in the balance, and found too light; and therefore his life should be taken from him. Thus we see how dangerous a thing it was either to counterfeit a spirit of prophecy, or to hearken to those who did.

UI.

It is the generally received opinion among the Jewish doctors, that the cognizance and trial of false prophets did peculiarly belong to the great sanhedrin ;