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 Sy's account of it, and of the Saltant naked spirit of prophecy, considered.

LET us now proceed to what our author offers against the moral character of the prophets, and particularly the attempt he makes to show, that they were the great incendiaries and disturbers of their country for above three hundred years, and at length proved its ruin. This is the substance of his long invective for above thirty pages together from p. 291 to p. 323. It is evident he intends all this merely against those that are represented in Scripture as the true prophets of the Lord. For the false ones, who always took care for their own interest to be of the king's religion, and never reproved them or the people for their vices and idolatries, do not come under his accusation. And he speaks of Baal's prophets with great complacency, as men of benevolent dispositions, and friends to toleration, and liberty of conscience.

But before I enter on a distinct consideration of this writer's invective, I cannot but make this one general remark upon it; how inconsistent he is with himself in the account he gives of the prophets and their conduct. He represents them as persons that by their original institution were to live in a low abstemious way, retired from the world without ambition or avarice, and wholly devoted to contemplation and study. That they were never to involve themselves in secular affairs, to push at fortune, or to make any great figure or splendid appearance in the world.' And again he talks of their absolute retirement and recess from the business and pleasures of the world.' And yet the same author that gives this account of them, represents them as continually engaged in all the disturbances and revolutions of the state, raising numberless rebellions and commotions, able to turn out one royal family, and place another upon the throne at pleasure. And what makes this still more extraordinary is, that by his own account, these prophets must have had very little interest. He represents the kings as engaged in a perpetual struggle and contest with them; and that the priests generally hated them, for declaiming against them, and endeavouring to keep the people to the moral law, and take them off from their superstitious dependence upon sacrifices and absolutions;' and that herein the people were generally in the interests of the priests,' p. 304. And to this it may be added, that the false prophets who were countenanced by the kings, and who joined interests with the priests, and flattered and pleased the people, opposed and hated the true prophets of the Lord. Now this being the case; that a few men bred up in colleges and places of retirement, without ambition or avarice, retired from the noise of the world, and devoted to study and contemplation, and who had the kings, the priests, the pretended prophets and body of the people against them, should yet have it in their power to overturn kingdoms, to raise perpetual insurrections and commotions, and to transfer the crown, when they pleased from one royal family to another, without money, without interest, without force, yea all these engaged in an opposition to them, is a supposition so wild and extravagant, that one would think scarce any man in his senses was capable of admitting it. But there is nothing that has a wider

swallow than infidelity, which though it makes the slightest difficulty on the side of revelation an insuperable objection, can admit the most absurd and unaccountable suppositions in the world in favour of a darling scheme.

The general charge he advances against the prophets, and which he supposes to lie at the foundation of all the commotions and insurrections, the religious wars and massacres of which he accuses them, is their zeal against idolatry, which he represents as if they were utter enemies to all toleration and religious liberty. And on the other hand he commends the kings that are branded in Scripture for their wickedness and idolatry, as only maintaining indulgence, toleration, and liberty of conscience.

That by the law of Moses there was to be no toleration of idolatry in the commonwealth of Israel, is very true, and has been already accounted for. They were not, indeed, brought under an obligation to endeavour to extirpate idolatry in all other countries by fire and sword, as this writer represents it, but they were not to suffer it in their own. Idolatry was the most express breach of the original contract or covenant between God and them, by which they held the land of Canaan, and all their privileges as a peculiar people, and was a subverting the whole constitution. The kings, therefore, whom this author honours with the glorious title of friends of toleration and liberty of conscience (though I shall show they were far from proceeding upon this principle, except by toleration be meant a liberty for idolatry, but not for the true worship of God) were really guilty of subverting the fundamental laws, and were the greatest enemies to their country, and took the readiest way to expose it to the greatest miseries and calamities, which had in that case been expressly threatened in the original covenant. And those that at the hazard of all that was dear to them stood up for the ancient constitution, established by the express command and authority of God himself, and bore testimony against that prevailing idolatry and wickedness which they knew tended to dissolve and ruin the state, and bring captivity and desolation upon princes and people, showed themselves the truest patriots, and discovered a noble zeal for the welfare, the glory, and prosperity of their country. But when we farther consider them as extraordinarily sent and commissioned by God himself for that purpose, this surely doth fully justify them. When with a noble and impartial zeal they reproved kings, and the greatest men, for their idolatry and other vices, and foretold the dreadful judgments and calamities that would be inflicted on them without reformation and repentance, in all this they only executed the commission which God intrusted them with, and delivered the messages which he sent them upon. And if this author will undertake to prove, that it was unjust in God to inflict those judgments on wicked and idolatrous kings, and on a sinful and rebellious people, he will do something; but if it was not wrong in God to inflict them, it was not wrong in the prophets to denounce them, when he sent them to do it in his

name.

And indeed his raising up a succession of prophets to give

them such solemn warnings, and exhort them to repentance, and enabling them clearly and expressly to foretel the calamities that should befal them and their kings, whereby, when they came to pass, they might know that they were sent upon them in a way of judgment for their sins. This was a signal instance of the divine mercy towards a guilty people, and showed what proper methods he took to prevent that destruction which they were bringing upon themselves. And if the body of the people and their kings still continued incorrigible under all the methods made use of by divine providence to reclaim them, both by the judgments inflicted on them, and the many signal mercies and deliverances he vouchsafed them from time to time, and which were also expressly foretold by the prophets he sent to warn them in his name, this only showed how just it was at length to inflict upon them that utter ruin and captivity which had been so long threatened, and which they had so well deserved. But to lay this their ruin to the charge of the prophets, and to represent them as the cause of all their miseries is the most unjust thing in the world, when the very contrary to this is manifestly true, that if their faithful counsels, their solemn warnings, and earnest exhortations had been hearkened unto, and complied with, the destruction of that people had been prevented. And it was the rejecting their wholesome and excellent admonitions that brought misery and ruin on that ancient and famous nation,' as our author calls them, p. 320, which is the only place in his book where he seems to speak honourably of the Jews, with a view to lay the greater load upon the prophets for causing their ruin.

But let us now proceed to the instance he brings to make good his general charge.

He first falls into a furious invective against the prophet Samuel, whom he represents as the founder of the prophetical order. By his own account, his design in instituting that order was to restore learning and virtue, to keep the people to the moral law, and to restrain the vices both of priests and people:' he represents him as endeavouring to retrieve as much wisdom and knowledge' as he could from its ancient ruins,' and taking care that the prophets should be instructed and educated in it; and tells us that the proper business and design of their institution and order was to preach up moral truth and righteousness.' One would think the author of this most wise and excellent constitution,' as he himself calls it, must have been a wise and excellent person. It is true that after giving this account of the institution of the prophetic order, he pretends, p. 292, to let us into a farther view of Samuel's design in that institution. He tells us, that upon the people's desiring a king, Samuel, who saw the revolution that must soon happen in the state, instituted this academic order of prophets, who by their weight and influence with the people, were to moderate and restrain the power of the kings, and at the same time keep the princes and people too within the boundaries of the moral law.' Thus those prophets who, according to our author, were no more

than moralists and philosophers, or preachers of moral truth and righteousness,' and who by their institution were wholly devoted to contemplation and study,' and never to involve themselves in secular affairs: these men were at the same time instituted and designed to hold the balance in the state, and to govern kings and people as they pleased. One would think by this representation that they were invested with a power like that of the Ephori, among the Lacedemonians. But then he should have supposed them like those Ephori, the first men in the state, at the head of all affairs, and not a mere order of academics, men devoted to study and philosophy, and that were never to concern themselves in state affairs at all. This may give the reader a specimen of our author's profound skill in politics, and how well qualified he is for forming plans for republics, and schemes of government. However one should think that it was an excellent design if it could be effected, and what all the states in the world should wish for, to have an order of persons among them that might keep the princes and people too within the boundaries of the moral law;' still Samuel's design even upon this representation of it was very good. But the author who has hitherto observed some measures with regard to Samuel, soon throws off all disguise, and represents him as engaged in restless attempts to destroy his king, and ruin his country; as carrying on a series of wicked frauds, treasons, and conspiracies for gratifying his own ambition and resentment, and sanctifying all with the pretence of religion, and the holy name of God. It is thus that this spiteful writer abuses and calumniates one of the brightest characters in Scripture, and one of the most excellent governors we > read of in history. As a prophet he was so eminent, that we are told that even while he was yet young, the Lord was yet with him, and did not let one of his words fall to the ground: so that all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba, knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the Lord,' 1 Sam. iii. 19-21. As a governor he not only delivered his country from their most dangerous enemies and oppressors; but after he had governed them many years to his old age, was able to appeal to the whole nation, whether he had in any one single instance defrauded or oppressed any of them, or been guilty of the least corruption or wrong. And nothing could be more glorious than the testimony that was given by the united suffrage of all the people, joined with a solemn appeal to God himself, concerning the untainted integrity, justice, and clemency he had shown, in the whole course of his administration; see 1 Sam. xii. 1-5. And accordingly not only was he respected by the whole nation when alive, and lamented when dead, 1 Sam. xxv. 1, but his memory was always had in great veneration among them. Nor is he ever spoken of by any writer of that nation, but with the highest esteem and admiration for his piety and virtue. And yet our author does his utmost to traduce him as a monster of pride, ambition, falsehood, and revenge. He represents this excellent man, who on all occasions showed such a love to his country and a zeal for his welfare, as having little compassion for his country,'